#which this scripture also seems very insistent on so we agree on that

[wolfythewitch]

The protoevangelium of James (or at least the synopsis I read) is very funny to me as a premise, purely because they try so hard to extrapolate Mary's perpetual virginity that they manage to come up with this story instead where it's this young girl who's been hidden away all her life like Rapunzel being hand fed by an angel every day and then handed off to a very reluctant and confused old carpenter who wants nothing to do with this, and now they're on the run from the police because of immaculate conception

[sneezemonster15]

Hey, thank you so much for answering my previous ask. I love reading your blog and what you have to say. Also I forgot to mention the person who thinks Sasuke fucked Karin also talked about what you said on your blog with someone else, https://dushman-e-jaan.tumblr.com/post/663748673413464064/i-saw-a-post-where-anyone-who-says-that-sasuke-and I'm pretty sure that's your post bc I read it. They're basically making fun of the whole thing and again slapping the "brothers" label onto practically everything you said 😭 What are your thoughts on this?

Hello.

Woah, yeah, that is my post. I wrote it a long time ago, I had no clue that they got this triggered by it, that they went through it line by line, as a response to me, replying to every statement I made in second person and didn’t even tag me. If it weren’t for your ask, I would never have found out about it. Well, I am going to take it as a compliment, whether they like it or not. Lol. 

I don’t generally write my content to defend my takes, I give all the reasoning and cite evidence within my posts, and if someone has a problem with it, I generally reply to them in the comment box. But since this aforementioned post seems like it has gone some way into the anti SNS fandom, and because I wasn’t even aware of it, I will address some of these issues. 

Okay. Gear up, this is going to be long.

First things first. They are offended because they don’t agree with my statement :

“Well, at least you are being consistent. Because people who think Sasuke and Naruto are brothers are the same people who think Sakura and Hinata are feminist role models.”  

And they want to make it clear that there are other fans who don’t think highly of Sakura and Hinata, but still consider Sasuke and Naruto brothers. Well, I will give them that. I am aware there are additional fans who consider them brothers, CASE IN POINT. My bad. 

Honestly, there’s a lot of stuff here, that just doesn’t require my response. Like my mention of Tarkovsky. It was used as a figure of speech by which I wanted to say that decoding Sasuke and Naruto’s romance wasn’t rocket science, it’s a straight statement, I don’t know why they gotta twist it. I think the mention of Tarkovsky threw them off, because they feel that only they have the authority to talk about more brainy things. Lol. So I am going to sidestep all the fountains of their insecurities and come to the point. 

Okay so, they insist that Sasuke and Naruto are spiritual brothers, mainly because their chakras are reincarnation of Indra and Ashura’s chakras who happen to be biological brothers. And they take great offence to my statement that people who think of them as brothers are heteronormative and homophobic. I will come to that part later, I will address the reincarnation part first. 

I honestly thought we were past this non-sensical and juvenile non-argument of them being brothers for the aforementioned reason. These antis use such big words and cite academic papers and articles and then, flip right over to say something so counterintuitive and irrational, without even considering any alternative understanding, it hardly seems like an argument and more like intellectual masturbation. Which it is. 

Okay. This is their argument to support their stance. 

“However, this story includes chakra, Indra, Ashura and is very much tied to spirituality. Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism deal with that. Kishimoto took his inspiration from there.Hindu scriptures exhort spiritual people to lead exemplary lives, control their sexual desires and abstain from sex, just as they are expected to control all desires and practice renunciation and detachment with their minds absorbed in the contemplation of God or the Self.” 

And it doesn’t stop there, this rambling goes on and on and on…phew. I appreciate the amount of effort they have seemed to put in their arguments. Sadly, it's all as misguided as it can be, lol. 

While I agree that one can see the myriad influences of various philosophical schools of thought and spiritual belief systems in Kishimoto’s work, NONE of it proves their brother argument. Why? Because it’s all out of context. I see this a lot, the pitfalls and trappings of sticking to one’s projection in one’s favourite piece of art/literature and bending text and context to their will, with citations, whether it’s relevant or not. 

Such mental gymnastics, lol. I have seen this kind of response by student film theorists when they analyse Ozu's films. Oh why did he put that vase in the centre of the frame, what did he want to say by showing that vase? Did he mean to depict loneliness or does it indicate the effects of capitalism and consumerism in an insular, collectivist, traditional Japanese society of the times, or is it about the soul that is trapped in the material prison of flesh etc etc etc. Over analyzation. Which they apparently have accused me of, hahaha. 

Unfortunately, that’s not how storytelling works. And it definitely doesn’t work in Naruto’s case. They would do well to remember that writers are not out to con you. Any writer worth his salt uses a combination of narrative tools to tell his story. Sad thing is most fans in this fandom just don’t understand how stories are written, the specific tools that a writer uses and the narrative devices that guide and lend a certain flow and approach to the story. Kishi is just like any other writer, in that context. So when he wants to give a certain narrative or visual information to the audience, he will use these common tools to drive his point home. For example, foreshadowing. What is foreshadowing? 

Sourced from Wikipedia : 

“Foreshadowing is a literary device in which a writer gives an advance hint of what is to come later in the story. Foreshadowing often appears at the beginning of a story, or a chapter, and it helps the reader develop expectations about the upcoming events. A writer may implement foreshadowing in many different ways.”

And do we see this foreshadowing in Kishi’s plot? You bet, :).

And this is Chapter 3. Lol.

If Kishi wanted to depict Naruto and Sasuke as brothers, he would not have made them kiss. Even if accidentally. This scene, right at the start of the manga, indicates the very romantic nature of their relationship. I wonder why these stans don’t find it suspicious that even though this kiss is supposed to be accidental, both Naruto and Sasuke think of this kiss as a precious memory, not as a joke, but something significant, something that contributed to develop their dynamic in the manga. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of films in my life, but I have never seen anywhere where two likely brothers were made to kiss like this, for the sake of developing their dynamic. Only in romantic relationships. 

Let me state it out in as clear words as possible. - In a macro sense, the overarching narrative of this manga includes a clear intention by the author to push the characters of Naruto and Sasuke to give an appropriate name to their relationship, continuously harping on defining and redefining their relationship with plot points strategically appointed to affect their dynamic that further propels the central narrative of the story.

Simply put, Kishi forcefully insists on weaving this story in a way that forces the protagonist to think and rethink the meaning of what he feels for Sasuke, as instigated by Sasuke himself, who every time they meet, insists Naruto answer his question as to why Narutio is so hell bent upon following him, why does he care so much so that he is ready to leave his training and the people he loves behind, just to bring Sasuke back. And everytime Naruto even breathes the word ‘friends’ or ‘brothers’, Sasuke’s either annoyed or surprised or displeased, never satisfied, never convinced. The satisfaction comes at the end of the manga, in chapter 698, when Naruto finally gives some explanation as to what he means by it. Shippuden didn’t end with the war arc, it ended with Sasuke and Naruto’s reconciliation. It didn’t end on the note of an ideological conflict and its eventual resolution, it ended on the note where Sasuke asked Naruto :  But what does being friends mean to you?

And Naruto said with a clear sense that he understands what Sasuke is asking of him and so after thinking for a very pregnant pause, says : Even if you were to ask me that, I don’t think I would have an answer. But when I see you carrying your burden, it hurts me, so much so that I just can’t take it. 

You really don’t need a PhD to see the nuanced significance of this text.

Point is, this going back and forth trying to define their relationship is not an isolated incident, it basically makes the backbone of the story. Which is why the aforementioned dialogues make sense, as they form the conclusion of this story.  If they were brothers, why would this element exist?

Everything in the story serves to contribute to the central narrative and for the sake of character development of its main players. 

That Kishi saw a need to even discuss why they were not friends, and that they were not brothers, but that Naruto feels immense hurt at seeing Sasuke hurt, is indicative enough that Kishi was definitely not trying to portray them as brothers. That these stans consider them brothers, when this art made by Kishimoto himself exists, is proof enough that they are highly indulgent of their self projections.

They are so motivated, for their own projections, to ignore the nuanced characterization of Naruto’s closeted gay self, or Sasuke’s oft pointed disinterest in women, that their understanding comes off as extremely lacking.

Ask yourself, why would Kishi even write these nuances in the way of visual imagery and strategic scenes where Naruto is made to react so strongly to even mild and unintentioned homoerotic moments? Why would Naruto be written to overcompensate to cover these moments up with something distinctly heterosexual? Why would Kishi even put so much effort in writing these characters this way if Kishi only wanted to portray them as brothers? What would even be the point of it?

Every single chapter goes through multilayered scrutiny by editors after it’s written, which means anything that is unnecessary or extraneous to the narrative is taken out. It’s supposed to be concise, and yet have the desired effect on the readers. Why keep those texts or panels that don’t serve the story? Instead, why do these elements serve to develop the characters? They obviously mean something, don't they? They are there for a reason, and anyone who has seen the portrayal of homosexuality in media will instantly recognise it. Those who haven’t can at least wonder why and venture to find out instead of giving their relationship names that are incongruent with their actual dynamic. 

No other brotherly dynamic in the manga itself is even close to Naruto and Sasuke’s. Honestly, I have seen so much Japanese media outside of manga and anime in the last year, and I didn't see two men or boys depicted as brothers who make kissy faces at each other, or stand side by side looking like they are giving each other hand jobs and orgasming, or where one man’s mouth is deliberately drawn over another man’s crotch. To say that this indicates they were depicted as brothers, is not only counterintuitive, but downright ridiculous and plain stupid. It’s some real heavy duty denial. 

If Kishimoto meant for them to be brothers because their chakras were reincarnation of Ashura and Indra, he would have made some character say it out loud in some context. Like I said, writers are not out there to con you. They will make sure that their intent is clearly shown to the audience, through text, subtext and visual language. And everything about Naruto and Sasuke, everything that contributes to their dynamic, whether it be dialogues, orchestrated situations, plot points, visual imagery, some of which exudes sexual tension, in no way indicates a platonic relationship. Those who have the presence of mind to pick it, will pick it, those who don’t would spout non-sense like our antis here. Lol.

Kishimoto knows how to use foreshadowing. Case in point.

He gives us an advance hint of what’s to come, and the narrative takes its twists and turns, being developed with this thread in mind, and then the arc ends with a conclusion of the underlying idea foreshadowed earlier with the hint. NONE of this is accidental. It’s all part of writing, it’s a literary tool, a narrative device. Hell, it isn’t a coincidence that Kishimoto keeps repeating this element over and over and over again, where Naruto goes through a whole range of situations and emotional upheavals in order to understand his feelings for Sasuke. First, he wonders if Sasuke is like a brother, or a friend, or more. Kishi can’t say it explicitly, but honestly, he doesn’t need to. These antis look for all sorts of reasoning and proof OUTSIDE the manga. If they were a little more honest with themselves, they would see that one really doesn’t need to do that, all the pertinent information that one needs to decode the nature of their relationship is inside the manga, in panels, visual imagery, dialogues, narrative development and notes.

Like I always say : First rule of deduction : Work with what you have. Facts, use what’s is available to you in the source material. 

It is absolutely valid to look for outside source if you see a solid and legitimate reason to, which is congruent with the source material, like in the case of Chikamatsu. It’s already established clearly that Kishimoto is his fan, he has put a lot of effort to pay tribute to him in his own manga, he makes sure that this element is clearly present in the context and text, and the editors have talked about it in the notes. And ALL of that makes it a legit link, for one to connect it with Shinjuu. 

The antis talk of irrelevant sources such as Jainism and Hinduism and whatnot, lol, it honestly looks like a super desperate attempt to twist and deform and bend the narrative to their interpretation where they conveniently ignore all the relevant panels where Naruto clearly says that him and Sasuke aren’t really brothers to Hagoromo, where Sasuke makes it a point to say to Sai that he only has one brother, clearly implying that he doesn’t consider Naruto a brother. All these extra interpretations that antis force upon the narrative is a result of their own projection. It's as simple as that.

If Sasuke was satisfied with the explanation that they were brothers, why would he keep asking Naruto the same question again and again? Doesn’t that indicate that he isn’t satisfied with Naruto’s understanding of it? And he is only convinced of it at the very end, when Naruto is bleeding out, about to die, when he finally, with much visible reticence, admits that he doesn’t know how to explain it?

Think about it, if they were just brothers, why would there be this hesitation? Being brothers is not a controversial thing, it’s not a taboo thing, it’s not abnormal, opposite in fact, given how much the characters of this story are shaped by their familial bonds. Instead of thinking of the most obvious things, these antis round up obscure and entirely irrelevant articles to sound smart and intellectual, as if that’s gonna make a difference. How is this extraneous intellectual regurgitation gonna help your case if your basic premise is wrong? That’s not how dialectics work. Lol. 

Then they said this.:  “(Considering Ino to be a closeted queer who only went for Sasuke to gain Sakura’s affections would be another one of these hilarious mishaps.)”

I honestly don’t know who they are referring to, because I have never said or implied anything even close to it. Maybe they are just assuming things. It’s not the only time they assume things. They also think I am some Western Man with my capitalistic and consumerist takes on Naruto. hahahaha. 

Damn, I can't help but notice that whenever someone disagrees with them, they instantly label them as Western. Well, they are wrong on both counts, because neither am I western, nor a man. In fact, my socio-cultural understanding of the world is pretty close to Japan’s. I would also like to mention that my community practises the same religion that happens to be the official religion of Japan. But of course, I have never needed to flex on that, because it’s just not needed. The information that I got from the manga itself, plus my own experience of media is enough for me to make my points. I am able to qualify my content with the evidence found INSIDE the manga, and if I see clearly delineated references to outside material in it, I point them out. Like I have done here. 

Honestly, it’s as simple as that. No need to twist your head at a 180 degrees to prove your point, if you are trying that hard, it becomes clear you have no legit leg to stand on and you are making shit up, just to validate your headcanon.

Don’t act against intuition, don’t act against text and visual language, don’t act against what is both explicitly and implicitly given in the manga because that is the opposite of examining something objectively. But well, people do worse to keep sticking to their denial.

Anyway, this foreshadowing can be seen in the first arc, where the central theme is ‘protecting one’s precious person’ and how one can unlock special hidden strengths when one is motivated to protect the person most dear to them. This element is foreshadowed in the relationship between Zabuza and Haku and through twists and turns, is finally concluded at the end of the arc, where Sasuke almost dies to protect Naruto and both unlock special powers for each other. Not rocket science. Kishi is a generous author that way, he wants this reader to know what he is saying and what he means by it, and so he will supply enough textual and visual information to make sense of the overarching story and themes. To simply ignore that for one’s head canons is a gross injustice to the story and the artist. If you have to ignore what he is saying explicitly or drawing explicitly, why even bother to engage with this manga? lol. What a waste.

It is not a complicated thing at all, in fact, it would have become a lot easier for Kishimoto to write this story if he could just have explicitly written them as brothers, a lot of effort would have been spared, no? And it would have all been believable, because it makes total sense that Naruto would want to save and protect his brother. The story would not change at all. Then why the hammer like insistence on having this whole brother or friend or comrade dialectic? Why? You know why? 

Because they are NOT brothers. 

Next, they said this : The problem with a lot of western readers is that they discard any and all relationships, familial and platonic, in favor of their romantic obsessions and delusions of “freedom” in a capitalistic society,................... ... the widespread consumption of amorous rituals constitutes the core of contemporary romantic love, reinvigorating capitalism and lovers alike.” 

And this goes on and on….I am not going to put the entire thing here, it’s basically unnecessary blathering and intellectual masturbation. 

Snickers, Delusions of freedom in a capitalistic society. Bwahaha. Where is this even coming from? Entirely irrelevant. Reminds me of my younger self when I would deliberately attach esoteric sounding citations to my papers to impress the professor and would still get a B. Lol.

I have written enough on the subject of the importance of familial bonds which shape the characters in this manga, so they are definitely wrong on that count. But well, they think they are the authority on Japanese media, what can I say? Sidestepping what’s actually in the manga and supplementing your argument with entirely disproportionate and irrelevant pointers only indicates that they are floundering. When you have no legit foundation for your argument, this happens. Lmao. I am no stranger to it, thankfully I got over it in my teens.

Then they claimed this : (Remember, Kishimoto comes from a very small village and is from a different generation altogether; so the odds of him penning anything even close to the “sexual categorizations” of the post-modern western sexual-domains are less than the second coming of Christ.)

Hahahahahaaha, I know you can’t tell, but I am literally wheezing here. 

These stans literally talk like Kishimoto is a hundred year old man. Like…the lack of reason and logic in this statement is so apparent, I am surprised that they thought it would be worthwhile to make this comment. Lol. Sexual categorizations of the post-modern western sexual-domains??? What crap!!! Hahahah. Just say you are a straight homophobic woman who wants Sasuke’s dick and go! 

So what if Kishi comes from a small village and a different generation? Does that mean he doesn’t know what homosexuality means? He doesn’t know sexual categorizations of the post-modern western sexual domains? What a bunch of hooey, lol. These stans talk of homosexuality like it’s some kind of western propaganda. Go ahead, tell me it’s not homophobic, heh. PoSt mODerN WEsteRn SexUal DomaiNs. Lololol.

Truth is, pre Meiji era, Japan was perhaps the most progressive of all cultures when it came to sexual categorizations. Here, this post is educational. Funny how these stans call SNS western and then do the same thing that most western fans do, who know absolutely nothing about history of sexuality in Japan. Here, they should maybe learn about it before sounding this ignorant, the video is pretty self-explanatory. 

Edo period Japanese culture accepted homosexuality as the purest form of love that could exist between two samurais. Young men were allowed and even encouraged to have young male lovers, and after a certain age, they were expected to get married to women. A lot of men chose not to. And even though it was frowned upon,  it wasn't a punishable offence.

Hell, one doesn’t even have to go there, check out Edo and Meiji period art, you will find lots of peculiar, very creative art with homosexuality as its subject. I would put those pictures here, but it would make this post x-rated, lol. The sexual imagery is off the charts, like Japan’s imagination is mind-boggling, like woah. They might be a small country but the scope of their imagination is huge. With the advent of Meiji era, that changed, as homosexuality became illegal, but this art was still produced underground.  

Hell, a lot of the most celebrated artists in Modern Japan have created art about homosexuality. Film makers such as Nagisa Oshima, Takashi Miike (Shinjuku Triad’s Society, Big Bang Love, Juvenile A), Toshio Matsumoto (A funeral Parade of Roses), Akira Ogata (Boy’s Choir, a film about two orphaned boys who study at the same institution, and eventually fall in love with each other), have made excellent cinema on the subject matter. And these aren’t your run of the mill commercial yaoi creators, these are serious film makers whose films have done their rounds in national and international film festivals, earning awards and accolades from critics and audience alike. 

The film, ‘Funeral Parade of Roses’ is a story about a young, gay, cross dressing boy who is in love with his father, a modern day adaptation of Oedipus Rex, only flipped. And this film was released in the 60’s. A product of the Japanese new wave cinema, it is considered to have influenced Stanley Kubrick’s ‘A Clockwork Orange’. It was considered quite a controversial film for its time in the west. It took over forty years for ‘Hereditary’ fame film maker Ari Aster to make a film on the subject, ‘The strange thing about the Johnsons’ in 2011, and the audience was shocked to their core with it. Japan was doing this shit in the 60’s. Lol. Oshima belonged to a small region in the southern Okayama prefecture called Tamano, founded in the 40’s. So? Kishi also belongs from the Okayama prefecture. What, people from small villages remain ignorant throughout their lives? They can't learn? They can’t be exposed to stuff? 

Oshima was a pioneer of Japanese New Wave cinema, going forward to become one of the most celebrated film makers in the world, with a beautifully distinct voice. He made films on themes of homosexuality, and his stories were inspired by real life events in Japan. He made Gohatto, a Jidaigeki film (which basically translates to Japanese period drama, usually set in the Edo period) which is about Samurais lusting after a bishonen boy, training at the Shinsengumi, organization of Samurais. People of Japan are more than familiar with the tales of Shinsengumi, they grew up with it. He made ‘Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence’, which also features homosexual themes, starring David Bowie btw.

Kishimoto wasn’t even born or was of legal age when some of these films were released. Japan was experimenting in the fields of cinema and various subject matters, including unsimulated sex in a legit film.

They think he wouldn’t be aware of these films, Kishimoto who happens to be a film buff himself? Honestly, how insular do these stans think the Japanese are? 

These people talk like the Japanese are some dumb, ignorant group of people, who don’t know shit about what’s going on in the world. Honey, that’s you, not them. Kishi is a well read, well exposed, well rounded writer. 

Like yes, Japan was quite insular at some point of time, but after the second world war, they were forced by the allied nations to open up their borders. And the influence of western elements and themes can be seen in their art. In fact, western influence had already taken roots since Meiji era. The men even had to cut their hair for it. Even kabuki wasn't left alone. And it's not like this is some well kept secret. Kishimoto’s manga is definitely very much Japanese, but it has a cross cultural appeal as well. I don’t think one is doing their due diligence when one simply ignores that factor.

Okay. Let’s talk of Kishimoto’s influences. 

These are a few excerpts from Kishimoto’s interviews, the Western influence is pretty clear. Does this look like some dude who doesn’t know what he is talking about? Does this look like someone who is inert and insular and ignorant?

Look how inspired Kishimoto is by Akira and its mangaka, Katsuhiro Otomo.

For those who don’t know, Akira was the anime that opened up the western markets for Japanese animation and manga. The film was made for the express purpose for Japan to open the western markets for her products, show off their goods to the world, that this is what they can do, and as it turned out, it was better than anything western audiences had ever experienced in terms of animation and storytelling at that point of time.

Cartoons were earlier considered to be for kids, the common perception was that animated media was supposed to be infantile, catering to a certain target audience. Akira changed that perception. The legacy of Akira is humongous. It opened up doors for other animes and mangas such as Dragonball Z, Ghost in the shell, Naruto even. This was the time in late 80’s when Japan was experiencing an overall good economy for the first time in 20th century, their financial shares were soaring. This was the time when corporations had opened up in Japan, and anyone who was ready to become a salary man could take advantage of the financial benefits resulting in significant disposable incomes. So people had more to spend on entertainment, and so production companies were chasing talented mangakas left and right to adapt their work into anime. Japan was so committed to this great enterprise of Akira, they formed a committee to finance the very high budget that a commensurate and successful rendering of the manga’s adaptation would require. The committee consisted of Kodansha, Mainichi Broadcasting System, Bandai, Hakuhodo, Toho, LaserDisc Corporation and Sumitomo Corporation (if you can’t tell, these are big, huge corporations) who all forwarded money and promotion towards the film, and appointed the mangaka himself to direct the film, because who else would be able to tell this story better when so much was at stake?

Otomo worked his ass off, drawing hundreds of storyboards to condense the 120 chapter long manga into one film. And he did it, and what a film it is. Like wow, I was blown away. Akira, being a cyberpunk manga, also has that cross cultural appeal, even though its major themes are still very much Japanese, but if you look closely, this film tells a story the entire world can benefit from.

Kishimoto is inspired by American film makers such as Michael Bay, Quentin Tarantino. He talks of Takeshi Kitano, lovingly known in Japan as Beat Takeshi, a very popular figure in the west, who also was a regular in Oshima’s films, having played major roles in his gay films. These stans think Kishimoto, a cinephile himself, isn’t aware of these films? Bullshit. Lol. A lot of mangakas want their work to be recognized by the entire world, especially in the west. It speaks of their global success, why would they want to just keep to their native audience? 

Truth is, otaku culture evolved in a very specific way. The second world war, especially after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, drastically affected the ethical and emotional landscape of the collective Japanese psyche. While the reverberations could be seen in their media, unfortunately, it wasn’t in the mainstream media where these effects were manifested, rather it was in alternative media, in the subcultural genres. You don’t have to take my word for it.

Takashi Murakami, a product of Otaku culture himself, talks about this, someone that Kishimoto himself has paid a significant tribute to in his manga (Deidara’s aesthetic is super flat, which is basically a socio-politico-cultural art movement pioneered by Murakami). And I saw for myself what he was talking about. Japan is a collectivist society, there isn’t much freedom for individual expression. Japanese emperor Hirohito, who is directly held to be responsible for the Japanese contribution to second Sino-Japanese war and the second world war by many historians, was considered to be a God by the Japanese, literally. Like Kim Jong Un style. No one questioned him. But after Japan’s role in the war as the predator and subsequently a victim, it broke the Japanese in a major way. Turned them humble, repentant. This collective grief and shock and widespread devastation brought the people together, they forgot their differences for the moment, to somehow pick up the pieces and go on living their lives, with gratitude for what they had. But yes, it’s not as explicit in their mainstream media as others. I mean the amount and variety of films based on the second world war that I have seen in European and American cinema, like damn. Japanese cinema on the other hand? Pretty tame in that regard.

Takahata made ‘Grave of the Fireflies’ on this subject, a heart rending and deeply disturbing story about two orphaned siblings living during the war, is considered as one of the most effective anti war films ever made in the history of cinema, as said by Roger Ebert, the man himself. Anyone who has seen the film will know it is an anti war film. But when Takahata was interviewed about it, he denied it. He said he didn’t make an anti war film, he wouldn’t even talk about it and later, stopped giving interviews about it altogether. Never underestimate the censorship of the Japanese administration. Oshima, a staunch modernist himself, a huge critic of Akira Kurosawa’s old world values and humanism, equally critical of the right wing and extreme left wing politics of Japan, made heavily political films, broke up with the studio system that launched his career, because of how left leaning, political and individualistic his voice was. His films were often banned or taken off screens, he was subjected to numerous court cases. But he persevered and even a stroke couldn’t stop him. But that’s Oshima. Oshimas are a rare breed. 

So what couldn’t be seen in the mainstream media, you saw them in alternate or subaltern media. Akira is a direct testimonial to this. Akira is a story about a bunch of orphaned kids living in a dystopian world, that has been devastated by a bomb blast, past which Tokyo, now Neo Tokyo, is submerged in corruption and civil wars. The administration uses children as weapons to protect their own borders, but is eventually destroyed by these same children, when they couldn’t handle their powers. The reverberations of the post war atrocities can be viscerally felt in the themes of this manga, prompting a myriad of ethical implications and queries, questioning one’s understanding of a nation, of responsibility towards one’s people, love, hate, revenge borne of that hate, power, megalomania, philosophical implications of technology and the destruction borne of it, conflicts between different ideologies and so on and so forth but it’s resolve is quite familiar.

The resolve is about love, redemption, atonement and peace. That wars happen because there is love and hence there is hate, it's the people that make wars happen and it’s the people that pick up the pieces and go on living. That one can be hopeful even in adversities. No one is singularly condemned, no one is singularly held to blame even though it’s not difficult to see that things could have been handled better. But it’s not as black and white as that. It’s complex. World is complex.

But what we do see is that Tetsuo, an orphan who lives on the streets, who loses himself in the quest for power, fuelled by his need to be acknowledged, finally gives up on destroying everything when his lover Kaori dies protecting him, and at the urges of his best friend Kaneda, Tetsuo finally sees light, for the sake of his love for Kaori and Kaneda, and so he repents before dying. That all his passions come to nought when he loses the one thing he held dear to him, love for his friend and girlfriend, the only people that made him feel like he mattered. 

Similar themes can be seen in another manga Kishi is influenced by. Ruruoni Kenshin, basically a romance manga in shounen, written by Nobuhiro Watsuki. Battosai, the political assassin, falls in love with Tomoe, a spy, basically two people from opposing ideologies. Tomoe sacrifices herself for Battosai, even after Battosai has discovered her true identity. The manga  is structured with themes of ideological conflicts of love, revenge, love for one’s nation and adherence to one’s philosophy/belief systems, as it's set in the time period of transition between the Edo and Meiji era, but the resolution is similar. That love trumps all, that true love is greater than all the constructs made by humans. 

Is there any wonder we see similar themes in Naruto? Kishi uses similar effects and themes for his world building in Naruto and Shippuden. A dystopian society where children are barbarically used as weapons, where gross injustices happen, but people go on living. This world imagined by Kishimoto is a reflection of the real world, richly dramatised with similar themes of love and conflicts and ideological differences and war and devastation and revenge and human ethos and peace and atonement. Similar resolve? I would say so.

And I won’t even dismiss that Sasuke’s character is definitely left leaning. Sasuke is partially based on Sasuke by Sanpei Shirato, a popularly known leftist voice in the manga industry. It’s pretty clear for anyone with half a brain to see that Sasuke is anti-establishment, and for good reasons too. The collectivist, utilitarian, highly corrupt system of the shinobi world leads to utter devastation and genocide of his entire clan overnight directly under the noses of the citizens and leaders of Konoha, and whose body parts are then commodified in the name of protection of the same nation that was built around the philosophy of ‘Will of Fire’, which was supposed to protect them but instead who slaughtered them in their sleep.

Sasuke’s interests and need for justice stands in sharp contrast with the ways of the shinobi world, and where no one could understand him, Naruto finally does. He is the only one who tries. He is the only one who is capable, who is made to be capable by the way of the narrative where Kishimoto develops his character accordingly. Naruto is naive and simple minded to start with, but he is written to learn and evolve and understand different points of view. To learn from people’s tragedies and losses and grief and motivations. He is exposed to the way of this world through anti hero archetypes such as Nagato and Obito and Zabuza, where after Naruto, through his own inherent moral and humanistic code, begins to understand a world that is founded on love turned hate, which further paves the way for revenge, but is determined to put a stop to it. By proving his love for Sasuke, and Sasuke accepts his love. Sure, had it not been for Sasuke, he would have let it continue or have simply died with Sasuke before he could witness a better world.  But my point is, similar resolve : Love trumps all, peace, redemption and atonement. 

This is not to say that I approve of the ending, I do not. I hate it. Firstly, if the theme of Naruto and Shippuden was already established and concluded as 'love trumps all else including the socio politico cultural structures and institutions made by humans ', then why the hell were they made to marry women when they are clearly gay? And secondly but equally importantly, Sasuke should have gotten his dues, he deserved it, so did Neji and Naruto. The truth of the Uchiha massacre should have been revealed, and Konoha should have taken accountability and repented, these are after all, some major themes in the manga. Kishi broke all sorts of storytelling rules at the end and I am mad as hell at him for that. But unfortunately, I didn’t write this story and couldn’t have had if I tried. Doesn’t mean I will look for things in it that aren’t there. Kishimoto is not a communist or a right winger. He is Japanese. Both extremist interpretations of manga are misguided. Tobirama was a bigot that plotted against the Uchihas, Hiruzen was a complacent failure of a leader who let things happen in his regime that by no means indicates good leadership, Uchiha clan was discriminated against. But Kishi could not have made Sasuke reach his goals, not if Naruto, the protagonist, was supposed to be of any consequence, which essentially makes Naruto hold a moderate position. I also don’t like the fact that the ending and consequently Boruto, diluted Sasuke’s belief systems and very justified goals, I wish they could have modified it to a conclusive ending where him and Naruto could have worked towards changing the status quo, but I don’t think it would have materialised, Shonen Jump is strict about these things, namely pedagogic values appropriate for a certain target group. 

The conflicting ideologies definitely serve to make this manga drama and intrigue rich, but let’s not go overboard and look for things that aren’t there, which is what these stans seem to do. There’s no use in chasing shadows. 

Then they said this : “He (Miura) actually does talk a little about the sexual tensions between Guts and Griffith! Must’ve been one of the parts I was having a hard time putting into decent English. Basically Miura says that he doesn’t really agree with how people read sexual tensions into the Guts-Griffith relation, because men can have passionate feelings about each other without it being like that……..Yet none of this is meant to be “romantic love”. There’s passion here, intensity, obsession, but it isn’t sexual. ”

Truth is whether it be western or Asian media, the concept of misinterpreting homosexuality as brotherhood is quite well explored in global media. Don’t believe me? Here. All facts, no frills. 

One doesn’t even have to go very far, just look at Clamp, and you would be lucky if you were able to find more than five heterosexual characters in their entire range of mangas, lol. And honestly, their example of Berserk actually works in my favor and not theirs? GriffGuts is a valid gay ship. But of course, if they can reject SNS, it’s likely they would reject GriffGuts. Kishimoto and Miura, no matter what they say in their interviews, why is that more important than the story itself? Not like Kishimoto sounds all that confident in his interviews either, when he talks of them being more brothers than blood brothers.

I have not looked very deeply into Berserk, so I would like to invite veteran blogger @maoam to shed some light, one of the very few bloggers that I find with one of the most balanced and informed takes on Naruto and other relevant mangas.

Going ahead, let’s see what Miura says of boys.

Really Miura? Now what is this 'tingling' feeling?

What does this remind me of?

Lol. Now this isn’t the most accurate translation. This is the accurate translation, I am not sure of the source, I got this screengrab a long time ago, but I know for a fact it is legit.

Btw, the 'kyun' sound effect used here is used in Hentai to denote sexual arousal, lol.

Tell me what kind of brothers feel these feelings for each other? I have seen numerous Japanese films whether it be family dramas, Jidaigeki films, Japanese LGBTQ+ films, and I have never seen brothers behaving with each other like this once. Not once. What spiritual brothers? Lol. Why go against reason, intuition, narrative, visual imagery and cultural context to prove something using irrelevant sources? 

Like I thought we were past this Brother argument, it’s the 21st century, there are more discussions on homosexuality, the subject of homosexuality has gained more exposure and a lot of talented and individualistic creators have explored this subject. So why is Naruto fandom this backward and narrow minded??

I find it hard to believe that despite Kishi’s subtle but not really, and repetitious ministrations on the issues surrounding a stigmatized subject such as homosexuality, is that invisible. All you need is an open minded approach, that is all. You do that and the manga will unfurl itself so you will be able to see things that you so conveniently ignored before to satisfy your headcanons. Is it that unfair of a request?

Do these fans think they know everything about everything? They couldn’t have missed something? Something as glaring and apparent as SNS? Before they claim that they are some omniscient, all-knowing being, maybe watch some LGBTQ+ media, and compare notes? Analyse tropes? Give themselves some credit, that they have done their due diligence before spouting things they obviously do not understand? Or is that too much to ask for?

Maybe they have learnt everything in the world that is to be learnt and there’s just no free space in that highly evolved noggin of theirs. 

Maybe we are all just stupid fans who don’t know what we are talking of, even if we give the most objectively valid reasoning and evidence found inside the manga. Maybe they know best, maybe that’s why they think Sasuke slept with Karin, even when he shows no interest in her apart from maybe once or twice protecting her as his teammate, something he also does with ALL his other teammates? And generally, gets really annoyed and uncomfortable with Karin’s over the top sexual proposals, and then doesn’t think twice about getting rid of her when she is used as a bait to have him captured. Hmmm, I see their logic. They must really be the all knowing omniscient being, the Arahat, the wise one, the one who finally achieved Nirvana, proper enlightenment and all huh? Damn I feel so small. (A tear rolls down my downy cheek as my bosom trembles in humiliation). LOL.

Interestingly, the way Miura talks of boys, that they give them a ‘tingling’ feeling, makes me think. Keep in mind, Miura never married, there is no evidence of him having had a girlfriend. But let’s not speculate, even if it sounds fishy. 

Understanding homosexuality in a conservative society is crucial in order to understand the SNS dynamic. There’s no doubt that Kishi wrote Naruto as a closeted homosexual and Sasuke as a homosexual boy. If one denies this, I can’t even take them seriously. 

But it reminds me of an anecdote my gay friend told me. He is a national award winning filmmaker, an intellectual in his own right, and works a lot with the trans community in my country. A conservative, ultra religious, non-western country. As a young man in his twenties, when he had just come out, he would date men who would simply not identify as gay. He would sleep with them, and do what do people sexually attracted to each other do. But sleeping willingly with a man and accepting the gay identity are two different things. Where my friend understood these nuances even then, as having come from a conservative society himself, he would not force them to come out. These men would never even acknowledge that being attracted to men and not women makes them gay, it was not even a part of their understanding. Rather, they would think of it as something that ‘certain’ men do. Doesn’t mean it’s weird or uncommon, even though they knew straight men did not do this. But they would simply not go there. They would just chalk it up to something temporary, something that they needed to do before they got married to women they didn’t feel anything for, because that’s how it’s done. It’s not like they weren’t aware of the gay dialectic, my friend would talk to them about it, but they would simply not acquiesce, the denial was so strong. Till date, these men don’t admit to it, now they are married and have children. But still look for sexual relationships with men outside of it. 

Which brings me to my next anecdote, told to me by another friend of mine. He is a stylist, absolutely flamboyant and openly, proudly gay. Very adventurous and experiment loving. He told me that in his experience, the best carnal fun he had was with Muslim men. And that most men who approached him for sex were Muslim men. (This is not an attack or criticism of the religion or community, it’s just something my friend told me). He would be approached by these men who would have the most voracious of appetites and tastes, and my friend went with it because he preferred to suck circumcised dicks, lol. Quite a lot of them were married, but my friend didn’t discriminate. He told me the same thing, these men would never identify as gay, not even during intimate moments, nope. Accepting your sexual identity is a more than a matter of sex. People in conservative societies face a lot of challenges and obstructions before even coming to certain realizations about themselves, it’s not that easy. In many ways, my country is even more conservative than Japan. Homosexuality is quite a taboo, hell, I didn’t even know the concept myself till I was well into my teens, and even then, I was only told the most stereotypical of things. I also grew up in a small town. It was later, when I went to the city to study, when I came into contact with people from all walks of life, nationalities, tastes, and sexual orientations, that was when I understood them as people, and not categories and labels. And now I have a friend who works as a dominatrix for a living and I still learn a lot. 

I refuse to judge people on the most basic and stereotypical of preconceived notions. 

The reason why I consider these fans to be homophobic…. Honestly, what gives them so much confidence to consider Sasuke and Naruto as brothers despite everything that is in the manga? Everything, from characterisation to plotting to the overarching themes to visual imagery to cultural context to text indicates their very romantic relationship, not platonic. Naruto admires the way Sasuke looks physically more than once and effectively calls him hot in Gaiden, what kind of guy thinks of his brother in those terms? 

These stans are so pressed to label them brothers without even looking at gay media, or gay narratives, without even paying attention to nuances in the manga, or Japanese historical context or their own gay media, appropriating everything for the sake of their projection, dismissing or ignoring loads and loads of text and panels and characterisation, why? Why can’t they at least entertain the idea for once and reread the manga with that approach? You can’t be so sure of your projection, c’mon, you know it’s counterintuitive, it just simply doesn’t gel with what’s in the manga. So why this extended stubborn denial? Give me proof that reincarnated chakras make two people brothers. Where does it say in the manga? Show me. I can show you everything that I claim, it’s all inside the manga. Where’s yours? So just because it satisfies your ego, it’s a valid take? Why are you this sure of your takes? Given you have gotten multiple things wrong? Like objectively wrong. 

Look, I understand denial is a strong factor, when we don’t want to see things we don’t like, our minds act like blinders. It would restrict your vision and make you see only what you want to see. And what a sad way that is to live, what a waste of time. I don’t believe in living that way, not in my media and not in my real life. But this obstinate refusal to accept SNS as romantic, is nothing but one’s desire to not accept Naruto or Sasuke as homosexual because you think it’s icky? Undesirable? Unattractive? Different from shounen norms? And because you want them to be straight so you can self insert? Whatever the reason, as long as you ignore real evidence and real proof, I will see you not only as heteronormative but also homophobic, you don’t gotta be overt, your underlying beliefs reek of prejudice and bias, especially when you haven’t done your due diligence, something that you mandatorily should have done in order to analyse this story. Doesn’t take a PhD degree to see that. 

Like Denis Diderot said - We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us. But we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter. 

My advice to them? Give yourself a break. Give yourself enough credit that you are open minded enough to entertain an alternative understanding, even if just for the moment if nothing else, and see where that takes you. Watch more media, watch gay media, talk to people, listen to their stories, try and understand their point of views, read more, compare notes, learn more. And ask if you don’t know. There’s no shame in admitting you might not know something. Because you obviously don’t. 

I am always of the mind of learning more and more, and I know I have strong opinions, but give me reason and logic and evidence, and you can bet I will listen, and even acquiesce to you, if I find it satisfactory. Because that’s how things should be, if we can’t grow and learn from what life teaches us, what’s the point? We all have a lot to learn, don’t we? 

Anyway, there’s some more shit that they claim which is essentially written in a similar vein, more or less, albeit in the same condescending tone. Lol. 

But I am done for the day, I am tired. So imma stop, this is me. 

[inhuman-obey-me]

On Simeon and what it means to be an angel

The beautiful, gentle angel who can smile through just about anything. But what's underneath the ever-present smile of his? Is he really just pure, sweet, and kind?

Not at all. Simeon can be very mischievous at some times, and scarily wrathful at others. Some of you may be thinking, just what kind of angel is someone like that? Well, let's talk about that.

(includes spoilers up to lesson 52)

Starting with the idea of what angels are supposed to be like - the common, pop-culture characterization of angels is that they are pure, merciful, peaceful beings who can only do good and are horrified by anything dark or bad.

And admittedly, Simeon doesn't seem to quite perfectly fit that mold.

[Disclaimer: Neither mod of this blog belong to the Abrahamic religions, so this is purely from our own research]

In terms of how angels have been described in various scriptures, however, this isn't actually what they are like. Angels act on behalf of God, and are usually not meant to have any free will of their own. The thing that separates angels from demons is not a tendency towards kindness and purity, but that their actions are aligned with God's desires rather than their own. What this means in effect is that, both in actual scripture and in the game, angels can and will do things that are a lot less pure and peaceful than their modern mainstream depictions would suggest.

For example, there is a part of the Bible (at least in various versions) where it is mentioned that an angel was ordered by God to kill one hundred eighty-five Assyrians, leaving their camp full of dead bodies in the morning.

The poet Rainer Maria Rilke states in his The Duino Elegies - "Every Angel is terror".

Seraphim - which is what OM!'s renditions of Simeon and Lucifer both formerly were - are basically six-winged snakes. Cherubim, as OM!'s Beelzebub formerly was, are actually multi-faced humanoid-lions with wings. "Do not be afraid," is a line angels often say when they meet humans because they are just as scary-looking as demons - just they're, you know, the "good" ones.

Actual descriptions of angels aside, even in-game, we are presented with example after example that angels are not perfect "pure and good" beings either. The game itself emphasizes this point at various times - if you upset Simeon during Surprise Guest interactions, one of his displeased lines is: "Just because I'm an angel doesn't mean I'm all forgiving." In lesson 51, though he initially says he left Satan to be with the Angel versions of his brothers for Satan's benefit, if MC actually agrees that he was just being kind, he is surprised that they really believed him.

It's not just him, either. Similar to Simeon's upset reaction, if you give Luke a present he doesn't like, he says, "I know I'm an all-forgiving angel and everything, but even so, this is a little too much..." When MC briefly lands in the past, the brothers actually describe Simeon as the least intense of the seraphim. Back when the brothers were angels, Lucifer was still known for being strict and arrogant. On the more extreme end, Raphael was known for keeping the angels in line via the pointy end of his spear, as Asmodeus fears will happen to him as punishment for going to a party. And Michael himself, the top-ranking leader, who one might think should be the most angelic of angels, is described as a sadist. In the Angelic Demons event, Michael even gets Simeon to give the demon brothers cursed bracelets that temporarily turn them into angels. It's not a very nice prank to pull on them, as it makes the brothers miserable to be converted back to their old forms, not to mention that the curse goes so far that they are turned into the caricature of overly nice and polite angels - but as it could be considered more in line with pulling them towards "God's will," this would actually be considered a good angel thing to do.

As the game points out, being the least intense doesn't exactly make Simeon easygoing, either. In fact, we have seen at this point quite a few examples of Simeon's rage. As a play director, he berates the brothers so much over any mistakes that they call him a dictator. Not to mention, the reason they are in the play in the first place is because the entire previous cast quit because they couldn't deal with him.

Later, when he and Luke are running the Angel's Halo, he drags the brothers into helping out. Though he is shown still smiling, everyone agrees because they are terrified of his menacing aura. Even Diavolo, when on the home screen, remarks about hiding because he made Lucifer mad again, but it's Simeon who he calls "the one person in this world I don't want to anger."

On a much lighter note, some of his less "angelic" behavior also comes from his playful, mischievous side. As referenced earlier, he is surprised if MC believes he was just being nice, but if the player says they thought he was pranking Satan, it gives intimacy points with him, and he says:

He also joins in on the teasing of Luke, having his name as "Luke (Chihuahua)" in his D.D.D. contacts. Multiple of his home screen lines also show how much he loves messing with Luke in general:

"I'm free right now, so I think I might go and tease Luke."

"Luke is like a Chihuahua who thinks it is a German Shepherd. Cute, huh?"

"I'm back! I was so excited to meet you that I left Luke behind."

"If you don't eat enough breakfast, you'll turn out tiny like Luke."

Plus, in dance battles, one of his chibi poses is him teasingly scaring someone, while Luke has a corresponding scared pose, suggesting that he may be meant to be scaring Luke in particular.

He also gets MC to mess with Belphegor when they are looking for him, instructing them to kick the tree that he knows he's probably asleep in as hard as they possibly can.

However, while none of those things make him any less of an angel, there is evidence to support that he is, in fact, a "bad" angel in a different sense.

As the two Celestial Realm exchange students, Simeon and Luke represent two opposite ends of a spectrum of angel attitudes. Luke, having still been very young when the Great Celestial War happened, has been taught to have very uptight views of the demons, insisting that they are evil and should be avoided at all costs. When he first arrives in the Devildom, he is terrified at the idea that the two of them could get corrupted by the demons and fall. This is the prevailing attitude taught in the Celestial Realm: that demons are wicked, and that angels are inherently better than them.

By contrast, Simeon does not hold this view at all. He is happy to spend time with the demon brothers, and doesn't look down on them for falling. On the home screen, Luke complains, "Simeon is too sweet to demons! He's sweeter than a cake from Madam Scream's!" In the Rain, a Fire and Simeon Devilgram story, Simeon even talks about how he actually prefers the hustle and bustle of the Devildom, feeling that the Celestial Realm feels too quiet now.

This difference between him and Luke is not only expressed in his fondness for the demons, either. Simeon understands the nuances of good vs evil, and he himself seems to operate in shades of grey at times, rather than being perfectly aligned with Michael's (and by extension, it's implied, God's) wishes. More than once, he displays quite a flippant attitude towards following the rules, such as his very hand-wavey dismissal when MC asks about his lying.

Luke also calls him out on his disregard for rules, saying that Simeon is just too loose about following them:

However, this glib attitude should not be taken to mean that Simeon doesn't know exactly what he's doing. When it seems the only solution to restore stability to the three realms is for MC to sever all their pacts with the demon brothers, he quickly realizes that the other option, the Ring of Light that used to belong to Lucifer, must be hidden among Michael's things rather than lost to time as everyone thought. He tells Luke that he needs to go back to the Celestial Realm to take care of something, but he is firm that Luke should not come with him - because he is going to steal the ring from Michael, a risky, rebellious move that he doesn't want Luke to get involved in. He is perfectly aware of what he's doing, and actively chooses to do it anyway, consequences be damned, because he wants to do what he feels is right.

When Michael does confront him about it, he's not the least bit sorry, either. In fact, he sasses him and talks back, unafraid to show disrespect to God's top angel.

We also know that he's been demoted at some point. Luke tells MC that Simeon is an archangel, making him one of the Celestial Realm's warriors, or as Simeon himself has jokingly described it, a "low-level grunt" who is overworked by higher-up angels like Michael. However, during MC's time travel back to the Celestial Realm, we learn that Simeon used to be a seraph right alongside Michael and Lucifer. It is again referenced during the fairy incident, when he makes the low-level grunt joke again but is then reminded that he was a seraph at this point in time. We're not sure yet why he was demoted - there's a lot of speculation on this point, and we can't draw any definitive conclusions yet - but if we take that being a "good" angel means being obedient to Michael and God, we start to get a far less rosy picture of Simeon's good standing as an angel.

What does this mean? Is he a "bad" angel? Kind of, but not for the reasons some may think. His mischievous, devious, and playful side is not what makes him less angelic. It is his more rebellious, nonconformist way of doing things that actually opens up the possibility of him gradually getting further and further away from being an ideal angel, and potentially putting him on the path of falling from grace.

[thesoundofanicefall]

Mikael, Gabriel and Raphael

Alright so time for a new theory!

As Kagami sensei mentioned this before, Generally the ONS story is base on Bible so this theory is also base on Bible too.

In Bible it was mentioned that we have 3 archangels:

Mikael which mean like God

Gabriel which mean power of God

Raphael which means healer or doctor of God

Mikael is actually that leader of heaven's army against Lucifer and Gabriel who mentioned as God's left hand on is God's non stop power that he was also mentioned as <<Angel of death>> in Bible too.

Raphael is actually that <<Seraph of the End>> who will blow in the trumpet and is also the one who fix the broken and creats love between people and so that why he refers as healer or doctor of God.

Ok before start let me to explain something:

In an interview (a & q) on 2015, when it was asjed of Kagami sensei who was the first character/characters he created first, he answered:

Yuu, Mika and Guren.

So let me tell you something very important first:

When a major writer wants to start a major and serious story she/he before start to writing down the idea always knows the BASIC and the general idea of the story and creat those 3 main characters which are not changable in his/her mind.

In ONS story this is also the same and as Kagami sensei said this himself (his a&q interview is still availabe in ONS official website you can take a look there) those basic and unchangable main characters are Yuu, Mika and Guren.

Ok after this let's back to the theory again:

We are mostly sure now Shikama doji is actually that fallen angel, satan, Lucifer and his goal is to creat a dark world and take revenge of God just like it was mentioned at the beginning of Vampire Mikaela's novels volume 2.

In this way we also have a Mikaela who Shikama claims is his son although we mostly are all agree that he lied about that just like when he somehow lied to Noya, Krul and Ashera about that body and the fact they were supposed to be that body but they failed in it.

It seems that Shikama doji's true wish is to subdune all the main 3 archangels, Mikaela, Gabriel and Raphael.

Ok Mikaela is mostly the Mika we all know but who is the 2 remaineded ones?

Who are Raphael and Gabriel?

As I said before it was mentioned before that Gabriel was also refered as <<Angel of Death>> in Bible too and so now here we have this Introduction for World Resurrection at 19 volume 1:

Also its link: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/612752/seraph-of-the-end-guren-ichinose-resurrection-at-nineteen-by-takaya-kagami/9781949980059/

And we saw how Guren described just like Yuu (both in manga and Kagami sensei's interview on 2018)

in this part: the one who doesn't know if he is a human, a demon or savior or <<Angel of Death>>

So now we can actually guess that those 3 main characters Kagami sensei created were actually symbols of the main 3 archangels, Mikaela, Gabriel and Raphael.

And so does it mean that Yuu is also the archangel Raphael?

The answer is yes.

Yuu seems to be the REAL <<Owari No Seraph>> who will blow in the final trumpet and will resurrect the world (which on Bible refered as the final judgement) and so maybe because of that Guren insisted on Yuu's very important and basic role in Resurrection.

Actually we can predict that these 3 angels <<together>> will finally beaten up Lucifer and finally with Resurrection, the world will be saved.

So what do you think about this all?!

For more information about these 3 archangels in Bible you can use this link which I also used for this theory:

Please share your ideas I'll be glad to hear them!!

[katemarley]

fanfiction: fugue in a minor

Fandom: Hetalia Pairing: SpAus (Austria/Spain) Characters: Austria, Spain, Belgium, Augsburg, Swabia, Bavaria, Holy Roman Empire, Saxony Rating: E

Summary: 23 October 1520. Spain and Austria get married. The Imperial Estates and their guests while away the evening with music and courtly dances, celebrating both the union and Charles V’s crowning as “elected Roman emperor” in Aachen Cathedral. But what is expected of the newlyweds? And what is in for them on their wedding night?

This story has been written for Hetabang 2020. It’s a collaboration project with @aph--lietuva who was my Beta and who created wonderful art for this story that you can find on her tumblr. With her permission, I also inserted her art into this tumblr post. It’s been a pleasure working with you! ❤︎

Also available on AO3 (see the link in my profile).

---

This story also is the sequel to “Prelude in A Minor” that you can also find on AO3 and that I have been talking about, but not written, for almost four years, oops... xD Both stories can be read independently from each other.

Preliminary notes: Augusta – Augsburg: brown hair, green eyes, elegant low bun Hilde/Hildegard – Swabia (Reichskreis/Imperial Circle, Reichsritterschaft/Imperial Knighthood): blond locks, green eyes, some resemblance to Switzerland and Liechtenstein Léa – Burgundy: our canon Belgium before she came to be called Belgium

---

“Roderich!”

Austria turned slowly. He was wearing a cumbersome ceremonial robe that was far heavier than his usual formal attire. It had been made especially for today in order to dress him in the latest fashion and he didn’t want to rip any fabric by accident—and definitely not before the wedding.

“I’m sorry to interrupt,” said Burgundy, not sounding sorry at all as she pried him from the clutches of a dozen courtiers. He didn’t mind—courtly talk was stressful because it contained a dozen pitfalls, and Léa was a straightforward woman. Also, in a moment like this, he’d much rather be with someone comforting and familiar rather than navigate the sea of faces and names of humans he had probably only met once but was to remember regardless. Usually, he had no problem with that; he was actually very skilled at the diplomatic game. But right now, his head was too full of other thoughts.

“I need some moments alone with my consort, my partner.” Burgundy gave off an air of sovereignty as she spoke to her court who all accepted without question that this was business for the immortals to tend to. Roderich sighed in relief and let her steal him away into their bedroom.

She was fussing at his outfit, straightening it and picking imaginary lint off the velvet before making him sit down on a chair in front of the dresser. She took a brush and took off his black beret to run it softly through his hair, obviously just to have something to do while they talked.

“Liefsteling, I think we should have a little chat before you and Antonio exchange rings.”

“Didn’t we talk about all I need to know already?” Austria frowned. He was unable to keep in all his pent-up frustration and around her, he wasn’t too scrupulous to show it. “You and Charles want to strengthen the unity of the empire, so I am to marry Spain. I understand that. I don’t like it and you know I don’t like Charles, but I can see your point that marriage is a useful device to strengthen the empire.” He huffed indignantly. Sometimes, it was annoying to be “a sensible lad”, as Charles had once dubbed him, but he knew too well how these things worked to waste his time on rebelling. She let him pour it all out with a patient smile.

Finally, he quieted down and added more demurely: “I just wish it wasn’t me, and I wish I didn’t have to marry another male personification. It seems … indecent.”

“I know, dear. It’s a bit … unorthodox.” Burgundy touched his arm and squeezed it in an attempt to comfort him. A smile played on her lips that already showed her intent to lighten Roderich’s mood. “Well, listen to you complaining! You get to marry Europe’s newcomer, a surprise uncovered from Al Andalus. A shiny, new, mysterious knight, a devout catholic, and dare I say … a fair countenance. I’m sure many of the ladies here envy you. But it seemed more important to strengthen relations between two important parts of the empire that are further away from each other, rather than between him and me.” She sighed wistfully, but a bit theatrically.

“Burgundy, if you talk like that I’d swear you want to wed him!” He feigned indignance. “I wish you were the one to marry him,” he added glumly. “And the ladies can have him, for all I care.”

“Now! To think you’d give me away that easily. I’d want my husband to be jealous and fight for me!” She then stopped the theatrics and, with a soft smile, put her arm around him, just like an older sister would do. “I am a little jealous to give you away … I’m going to miss our library talks.” Roderich’s smile softened and he touched her hand.

“There is another thing I must discuss…” She seemed to hesitate. “Remember our wedding night and what we left unfulfilled?” 

“Ah.” Austria tensed. “So this is what we’re talking about.”

“It is indeed.” Burgundy paused. “We didn’t complete our union that night and while we did later, it did affect us. Charles and I believe it is vital to strengthen the union of Spain and Austria as much as possible, and for that…” Her arm around Austria tensed. He could feel the topic was uncomfortable for her.

“And for that, the marriage needs to be consummated,” Austria said flatly. “That doesn’t exactly come as a surprise, Léa.”

“Yes, but it’s not the only thing we discussed…”

Roderich now felt his cheeks redden “What? The insolence!” He sighed. “That imprudent man was actually discussing the technicalities of a coupling between two men with you? ”

“He only wants to ensure that the strength of the union…”

“Don’t defend him!” Austria snapped. Léa flinched.

“I’m sorry,” he said in a quieter tone. “It’s just that he has no idea how things actually work at my place. I don’t like how little interest he takes, and now he focuses on the anatomy of the personification rather than on the resources of the land…” He sighed. The duality of beings like them further complicated everything.

Spain and him were “mere manifestations of the political body shaping them”, Charles had told him not long ago. Manifestations of the body politic—not men. That meant the laws of the Church regarding marriages between humans didn’t apply to them. Archbishop Hermann of Cologne had agreed and had added that the biblical example for a country was to be the heavenly Jerusalem, which further expands itself to gain as much territory as possible and to help the spread of Christianity all over the world. To strengthen their holy empire like this was to behave exactly as the Bible dedicated. 

“The fact that we’re human personifications really is convenient to the likes of him: Whether they consider us human or not ultimately depends on what’s more convenient to them. Two men couldn’t marry, but the human-shaped, but not human, personifications of Spain and Austria can. It doesn’t matter to him that our anatomy is exactly the same as that of two male human beings.”

“I know. I agree with you, I’ve seen kings and bishops use scripture as a justification rather than as a guide many times. As a woman, I have often felt what it was like to be an exception to the rule”, said Burgundy firmly, reminding him of her own position. “However, there’s another message those cowards have made me the messenger of” She stopped brushing his hair, seemingly looking for the right words.

“Yes?” Austria waited. He had no intention to help her with this.

“The king and bishop believe that because this is already infringing on normal matrimony, everything else should mimic a normal marriage as closely as possible.” She interrupted herself, She looked at Austria as if she was hoping that he would understand it. He did but he was going to have her say it. 

“Well, you know. Have the position of the wife be taken by the—by the—more gallant one of the two.” Even her silver tongue couldn’t phrase this more delicately.

Austria was speechless. Charles—this morally rigid, exceedingly religious person—not only insisted two men marry for political reasons, as an unpleasant but ultimately bearable formality. No, he had also insisted these two men actually consummate their marriage and had elaborate thoughts on the mechanics of it. Austria was seriously tempted to rush off, grab Charles by the ruff and give him a piece of his mind. Including the rhetorical question what he thought their private parts looked like.

Burgundy saw the face he was making and spat out the rest. “And only the accepted position, all else is fornication. So you’re to lay on your back.” She let out a small whimper and looked faint. Austria realized that he shouldn’t direct his anger at her. She had always been his friend.

“Cowards, the both of them. In treating you as a country, they are indeed forgetting you’re a lady. Your nature is far too delicate for such crass messages.” He stood up and took her hands gently. He didn’t want to fight with her.

She embraced him, held him for a moment and then stepped back.

“I have something for you.” She opened a chest with a key from her belt and produced a box. “Open it, I’d like for you to wear it today.” Roderich did so and found an ornate golden chain with the Golden Fleece in it.

“Your order…” Roderich smiled at her. 

“When you united with me, you obtained the right to be a part of the Order of the Golden Fleece. When you’re out there, I’m with you.” Roderich felt a tightness around his chest as he recognised the curls on top of the ram shaping the letter B for Burgundy. 

He wasn’t in this alone.

She placed the chain around his neck with an air of ceremony and made sure it lay evenly over his shoulders. She smiled at him and kissed his forehead, after which she traced the sign of the cross on it with her finger. After the tender gesture, she rather forcefully put the beret back on his head and chuckled. “There, you’re ready!”   

Oh, he wasn’t ready. Far from it, but it was happening now.

---

The procession departed from the house he shared with Burgundy in Aachen. Usually, the bride was led to the house of her new husband, but Spain did not have a house there. Out of convenience, they were using the cathedral, which had already been prepared for the coronation of Charles V, and the city hall for the festivities after that. In the procession, all the nuptial gifts Austria had received were carried along and displayed. Some of them were made of strange, exotic-looking gold brought from the new world that gleamed ostentatiously in the afternoon sun. Roderich could feel the presence of Spain through everything surrounding him. Even the new coat had been paid for by him.

The marriage itself was overwhelming in terms of pompously clad courtiers and country personifications, but rather underwhelming in terms of anything else. Roderich’s feelings were a mixture of nervousness because so many people watched him and carefully veiled anger at being one of the two pawns in Charles’s and Burgundy’s political plans.

The truly annoying thing was that he saw the logic behind their actions. He just didn’t like how they affected him.

They were met by the second procession coming from the opposite direction with Spain at its centre. Roderich sought out his eyes, but he was still mostly obscured by the crowd. Both processions reached the cathedral and filled the front part of the space. The nave and choir were reserved for mass, after all, and weddings were worldly affairs. So, leaving the late Gothic choir unoccupied, everyone gathered in the octagonal Palatine Chapel at the very front of the church, leaving the centre open for the couple and the priest.

Roderich’s eyes had to adjust to the relative darkness of the church in contrast with the bright afternoon outside. Two young boys were made to hold long torches over Spain’s and his head and above them, a plethora of little candles were lit in the giant octagonal candelabra. For a moment, he was captivated by the little lights and a realisation dawned upon him: The small structures on the chandelier represented gates. It was a direct depiction of Heavenly Jerusalem. The architecture mimicked the octagonal shape of the chandelier and thus that of Jerusalem as well. The words of the archbishop about the biblical duties of a country echoed through his head. He realized that his duty was literally hanging over his head.

As his gaze war already turned upwards, he saw that the upper gallery was filling with people as well, all of them waiting while a small shadow was passing in front of them. The figure walking around the upper gallery barely reached over the coiled cast-iron balustrades when he finally halted and stepped into the light. The Holy Roman Empire wore the Imperial Regalia and made a gesture of blessing. He was their witness, as it was his empire they were fortifying. The ancient child climbed onto the bare marble throne that had once belonged to their forefather in order to oversee the wedding. Roderich would have laughed at the image of Karl der Kleine playing at being Karl der Große, had he not felt a chill run down his spine at the image of Karl on his throne. Among everyone here, he was the one that belonged there. His spirit had been there when these walls had been built and through his presence, through his breath, the spirit of history slowly filled the space.

When the priest asked them to say their vows, Austria obliged, speaking flatly and without emotion. Spain’s intonation was much livelier, but from what little he had learned about the other country in the past months, that was the way they were: One who usually remained calm unless you crossed him one too many times; and another who seemed to be ever vigorous.

The priest produced a small dish on which Spain put a piece of gold, a piece of silver and a ring. 

Roderich extended his hand meekly for Antonio to put on the ring, but then noticed something. The ring was of a German type. He wondered if this was Spain being thoughtful or him purchasing one at the last minute. Spain held up the ring and clicked it open to be two separate rings. To Roderich’s surprise, they were gimmel rings …

Spain explained in a hushed voice: “Because we are both men, I felt I couldn’t just put a ring on you. We should both wear one. I liked these because of what they say.” He was referring to the words around the band, which he read out in horribly accented German: was Gott zusammen fueget soll der Mensch nicht schneiden. They were a purplish ruby and an emerald. Antonio carefully put the half with the emerald on Roderich’s left ring finger and then handed him the ruby to do the same. This was thoughtful of Antonio—had he come up with this himself or was this the council of Karl advising him? Austria was very aware of the new weight around his finger and his resolve to remain cold started to waver.

When the priest asked them to kiss, Austria’s first impulse was to do it as unemotionally as he had made his vows. Then his eyes caught the pleading look in Spain’s, and his resolve faltered.

Spain was a pawn as well. He didn’t deserve Austria’s coldness. If anyone, it was Charles who deserved coldness.

They settled for a chaste but tender kiss. There was relief in Spain’s eyes when they separated, and Austria was glad his softer side had got the best of him.

They didn’t deserve to be pawns.

They were in this together.

They were then taken to the altar to kneel and be blessed. Austria stole a glance to Spain halfway who had his eyes shut tightly and was fervently praying. Thoughts were drowning out Roderich’s own prayers as well as the words of the priest. Worries about everything—about whether God could really approve of their union, about how his life was going to change after this, even about the impending consummation. They all seemed to lump together in an all-encompassing buzzing noise in his head.

He barely registered the “Amen”.

Then they were hoisted back on their feet and, with much loud music and cheering, led out of the church for another procession to the city hall that had been readied for further festivities. For a moment, Roderich stood there like a deer facing a hunter. Then, almost as if it was the most natural thing ever, Spain took his hand and pulled him into the cacophony of the crowd, but the act did make Austria’s thoughts quieten down.

Remember, Austria thought to himself.

They were in this together.

---

“Austria.”

Austria turned to the speaker. He had recognised her voice instantly.

Augsburg bowed, albeit not very low. She was an imperial city, much smaller than him in terms of her land and yet so much wealthier.

“Augsburg.” Austria bowed on his part, anxious not to incline his head lower than she had. He could at least keep up appearances, if nothing else.

It was her who took his hand for the basse danse—almost imperceptible, but the transgression was there. She swept her eyes over the people that had gathered inside Aachen’s town hall: Most of them were members of the high nobility and imperial estates who wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to show themselves for Charles’s crowning and the establishment of the Austro-Spanish union alike. There were guests from other kingdoms, too, moving in the slow and elegant sequence of steps so characteristic for this dance. Not all of those people had come to Austria and Spain’s wedding ceremony itself.

It makes them uncomfortable, Austria thought. But who was he to complain? It made him uncomfortable, too.

“Lovely, isn’t it?” Augsburg said with the attitude of a self-satisfied host. “Don’t you think the banquet was quite decent, too?”

Hand movements, steps, hand movements—they all came naturally to Austria. He didn’t need to think with his brain when he danced. His feet had memorised the steps, going through the motions without his conscious thought.

“One could almost think it was your marriage,” Austria replied in the politest tone he could muster.

Stop it, Aunt Augusta, this isn’t your marriage.

Augsburg understood him very well. She pulled them aside before they were to change partners, giving him her piece of mind. Someone like Augusta didn’t even need to raise her eyebrow. One look was enough.

“Oh, I much prefer to be the merchant who pays for all of this,” she said bluntly. “I pay; you do my bidding. That’s how things work these days, dearie. It’s the same for your Charles and my Jakob Fugger.”

He’s not my Charles. Austria bit down on his lips. It would have been unwise to wear his heart on his sleeve in front of her. You never knew what she might do with a delicate piece of information such as this. How she might profit from it. For this seemed to be what the world of merchants was all about: Profit; personal gain.

“You’ve become cold,” he said eventually. The irony wasn’t lost on him: Augsburg seemed cold because she focused on monetary gain; Charles seemed cold because he focused on political gain; and Austria acted cold because he did what needed to be done.

Still, marrying someone he barely knew felt daunting. So did the uncertainty of  how other people thought about his marriage: Did they perceive it the way Charles had presented it to everyone—as a political union only? Were they secretly disgusted because both personifications who had exchanged vows inhabited male human bodies? Did they expect them to consummate their marriage?

“I’m not cold, dearie,” Augsburg interrupted his train of thoughts. Her voice was warmer and darker now; a tone he remembered from his childhood. “I’m only trying to achieve the best for my people, as we all do—or should be doing, at the very least.”

That was undoubtedly true. It was the truth at the very core of all country personifications: You are the land—or, in Augsburg’s case, the city. Do what is best for the land and those who call it their home.

You could go against that, but not for very long. It drove you insane. There had been examples of that, too…

Swabia had told him to be the land, time and time again. When she had vanished, everybody had thought her dead. Then she had returned, telling everyone she would always be there as long as there was one soul who remembered her name and called themselves Swabian. Histrionics, they had thought, and yet…

Perhaps there was some grain of truth in it. Perhaps the key was to believe in it yourself.

“You look far too serious, darling,” Augsburg said into his thoughts. “Cheer up, it’s your wedding day!” She patted his cheek in an almost motherly gesture. “It’s all new to you now, but you’ll get used to being his husband.”

“Will I?” he said flatly. His anger was still there, bubbling under the surface. “Will I ever?”

She ignored his despondent answer and studied Spain from across the room before leaning in with a conspiratory grin. “So, what do you think: Is he or isn’t he?”

Austria was confused. “Is he what?”

She answered as if she was discussing the latest court scandal. “Moorish, of course! He spent so much time under Muslim occupation. Perhaps he obtained some Moorish blood or strange habits! Hmm, his skin is pale, but his curls are dark! If he’d grow a beard, he’d look the part.”

She had achieved her aim. Roderich had been fighting the Ottoman Turks at his eastern border for a while now, and he was thoroughly scandalized.

“I sure hope you’re joking!”

“Oh, well, it doesn’t matter, as long as he has no more Muslim tendencies. Take a piece of advice from someone who’s been around for one and a half millennia,” she told him, glancing meaningfully at Spain’s back once she had spotted him among the dancers. “You could have had it worse. At least he’s handsome.”

“He plays the vihuela.” Austria hadn’t even intended to give her this piece of information; it had simply slipped out.

“Does he?” Now Augsburg did raise an eyebrow. “That’s even better. I may know less than you about arranged marriages between rulers unless we’re only talking about ceremonies, but I believe it’s always useful to have some common ground.” She glanced at Spain again. “And like I said, he’s nicely shaped.” Her hands made curving motions, forming two semicircles.

“What?” Austria looked at her in puzzlement.

It took a few seconds until the penny dropped.

“Augusta!” Austria hissed, blushing furiously. “How very indecent!”

“You’re the one who’s going to see it without all those layers of clothing,” Augsburg deadpanned. “Most likely, in any case.” She shrugged. “Unless Charles told you not to make inquiries in that direction. But if I were you, I’d still try to squeeze it, no matter what Charles says. I feel tempted to do it even now.”

“Please don’t!” Austria felt very hot all of a sudden. Until now, he had pushed thoughts about the technical side of consummating a marriage out of his mind. Trust Augusta not to let me get away with it. Augsburg’s words planted mental images in his head that he really didn’t want to think about just now.

“Hmm...” Augsburg threw a calculating glance in Spain’s general direction. “No, I won’t squeeze it. But tempted I am.”

They joined the basse danse again. At some point, Spain gave a little yelp, looking around himself in puzzlement. Austria was entirely unsurprised to spot Augusta quite close to him, looking just as surprised about the sound as anyone else.

Austria sighed.

She was a good actor, he had to give her that.

---

“Roderich!”

Third time’s the charm, Roderich thought, turning toward the person who had uttered his name in a mixture between a hiss and a rough whisper.

Swabia took him by the arm—not a very comfortable experience from an old warrior with an iron grip. Austria winced.

“Sorry,” Swabia said casually, not sounding sorry at all. Austria inwardly rolled his eyes. Why was half his family like this?

She dragged him in a corner suitably far away from spying eyes and ears. Only then she released her grip. Austria rubbed his protesting upper arm.

“Listen to me, boy,” she said urgently. Her voice was dark, almost masculine. When Austria had been little, he had thought she was a man, and she had done nothing to discourage that notion. Then the Duchy of Swabia had been no more, and for all people knew, she had vanished from the face of the Earth. It was only when she had reappeared a few decades ago, from Heaven knew where, that she had been open about being a woman.

“What is it, Hilde?” He couldn’t help it; he sounded unnerved.

“I do realise that everyone wants you to do or be something for them today,” Swabia said gruffly, “but that is precisely the reason why we need to talk. What do you know about bedding ceremonies?”

“Oh no,” Austria groaned. “They wouldn’t, would they.” His tone was too flat to count as a question. They would, he knew that. Or at least certain people would.

“I discouraged them from actually witnessing the consummation,” Swabia said in the tone of the long-suffering. “But Burgundy will guide Spain and I will guide you to your chamber.”

Austria smacked his head against the nearest wall. He did it with caution, so as not to accidentally hurt himself, but the message was clear. As soon as he leaned back, Swabia patted his back not very gently. He suspected it would take several minutes until it recovered from this onslaught.

“We’re going to leave as soon as we’ve finished escorting you,” she reassured him. “I, for my part, have no intention whatsoever to watch the actual consummation, whether it actually takes place or not.” Her voice sounded affronted at the mere suggestion, one clear indication, Austria thought, that someone had indeed suggested she stay and watch.

“But others might have fewer qualms,” Austria said. Swabia had always appreciated straightforwardness, a no-bullshit attitude and, last but not least, people who thought for themselves. That was one thing that hadn’t changed between before and after.

“Precisely,” she said darkly. “Don’t look at him, but you know who I mean.”

Bavaria, thought Austria. Out loud, he said: “He has always been a bully.”

“He has been a bully towards you from the very moment Redbeard and I decided to make you a duchy independent from him,” Swabia specified. “Which, even though it is all water under the bridge now, it is a major reason why I feel responsible to protect you from him in a moment when you will be vulnerable.”

Austria’s heart softened. Thinking back, she had always had an impressive ability to put herself in other people’s shoes—oh well, nothing special there; think like the enemy was one of the first things Bavaria himself had taught him. But Swabia had always had a motherly streak towards him, Austria—and that made all the difference, even though he hadn’t realised it when he was little.

“In any case,” Swabia swiftly returned to the matters at hand, “Bavaria will probably try to sneak up on you. If you don’t want that—and I’m sure you don’t—I urgently advise you not to start anything until he has made the attempt. I don’t know, sing some merry songs instead. Play a nice board game with your husband, for all I care. But see to it that there will be nothing for Bavaria to see. Alright?”

“Alright,” said Austria, “but how can I be sure that he won’t come back for another attempt?”

“I will see to that,” Swabia said gloomily. Austria had to pull himself together so as not to take an involuntary step back. She could be menacing when she set her mind to it.

An old warrior, they said. Better with the sword than with the head. But that wasn’t true; Austria knew it wasn’t. In order to be as good with the sword as her, you had to be a quick thinker, too. The difference was that she was no schemer at all—nothing like Augusta. But she was no schemer because she had an aversion to scheming, not because she was fundamentally unable to think in such a way.

“Thank you.” He gave her a genuine smile. She smiled back, in her own firm and earnest way, insofar as you could smile earnestly. 

“You will remain in the corridor?” he asked.

“Don’t worry, I will keep my distance.”

“I did not worry. In fact, I’m glad it will be you who stays there.”

---

As the festivities progressed, Swabia came over once again—this time for everyone to be seen—took Austria gently by the hand—the hand, not the arm—and guided him away. He did not see Burgundy approach Spain, but they arrived in front of Spain and his chamber at the same time.

“Have fun, boys!” Burgundy said with a cat-like smile before she left them alone.

Swabia exchanged a meaningful glance with Austria. Then she nodded at them both and went away. Her footsteps echoed in the corridor—still a soldier’s steps despite the elegant dress she was wearing.

“Who is she?” whispered Spain in Italian as soon as the footsteps had died away.

“Swabia.” My guardian angel, he thought. And she is still here.

“The one who—” Spain craned his neck as if he could catch another glimpse of her that way.

“Who what?” Austria pretended not to know what Spain was asking about.

“Who spent her time in that mountain—you know, the same that Emperor Frederick II went to?”

“The Kyffhäuser, you mean,” Austria said.

 “And said she had returned because it was a time of need for her children?” Spain continued, still craning his neck to see what was not to be seen anymore.

Oh dear, my husband is naïve. Roderich sighed.

“For all I know, Frederick II died in Castel Fiorentino in 1250,” he said drily. “For all I know, she has never been gone. Probably kept her head down because her children wanted so many different things. But as soon as aforesaid children think it best to unite, she’s there again, as head of their league. Head of the Swabian Circle now, too.”

“I hear grudging respect,” said Spain.

“At some point when I was little, I used to look up to her,” Austria explained. “She was the leading power of the empire back then. I wanted to be like her. Wanted to earn the empire’s crown.”

“So you did.”

“So I did,” Austria repeated sourly. “And look what good it is doing me. I’m nothing but a pawn in a game too big for me to play. She has never been a pawn.”

“Oh no,” Spain said earnestly. “She has always been a knight.” He paused. “So are you. And so am I.”

There was a small silence before Spain opened the door.

“Shall we go in?”

The room was pleasant and warm. Roderich noticed he’d been gifted a marriage chest. He had no time to look at it, though. Instead, he was looking for the right words to say.   

For the first time after their wedding ceremony, Austria looked directly into his husband’s eyes. Play a nice board game with your husband, for all I care.

Then, to his dismay, Spain stepped closer to him and leaned in, inclining his head for a kiss.

“No! Wait.” Roderich’s voice came out more shrill than he had intended. He stepped back and tried to compose himself.

“May I challenge you to a game of chess?”

Shock and hurt manifested in Spain’s eyes. Austria could read him like an open book.

Oh. So this is important to you, Austria thought. Who would have thought.

“But…” Spain whimpered.

“I do not intend to eschew my marital duties,” Austria reassured him in his most formal tone. “I do, however, intend to postpone them for some more minutes or, as it may be, hours.”

Spain looked at him in confusion.

“You will see why.”

Spain thought about that.

“Chess it is, then,” he decided in the end.

They had barely lit all the candles in the room, taken off their shoes and laid out the chessboard in the middle of their four-poster when a long-haired blonde barged into their chamber.

“Austria!” he barked.

“You know, Saxony, there is such a thing as a door,” Austria said gently, placing his first pawn to e4 on the board. “The concept might seem novel to you, but it is for knocking.”

“Don’t give me that bullshit!” The blond man’s blue eyes bored into Austria’s purple ones. “I’m here to warn you! Your brother wants to be an asshole once again and spy on you…”

“Spy on me playing chess with my husband?” Austria asked sweetly.

Saxony visibly deflated.

“I should have expected you to know.”

“No harm done. But, Saxony—” Austria paused.

“Yes?”

“Next time you intend to warn someone of potential bedding ceremonies, do knock before you barge in. You might, you know … cause the exact thing you aim to prevent.”

“Sorry, Austria.” Saxony hung his head.

“Chin up,” Austria said jovially. “Like I said, no harm done.”

There was silence after Saxony had trudged out of the room.

“So this is why you suggested a game of chess,” Spain said eventually, moving one of his own pawns to e5.

“Exactly.” In a split-second decision, Austria moved a second pawn to f4. Spain whistled.

“Classic! Did you read Francesch Vicent’s book on chess?”

Austria gave him his best enigmatic smile.

---

They hadn’t played for long when the door clicked open one more time, and Augsburg put her head inside.

“Chess?” she asked in disapproval. “How boring!”

“It is a very interesting game!” insisted Spain.

Augsburg pouted.

“Your butt is far more interesting to me, young man. One should have thought seeing it was included in the price I paid for this wedding, but this seems not to be so. Good evening, gentlemen.”

With that, her head vanished, and the door clicked shut. Spain stared after her, open-mouthed.

“What was that?”

“The question is: Who was that, dear Antonio,” said Austria patiently. “The answer is: Meet Aunt Augusta, the moneybag who pays for everything you have seen so far, except for the fixed interior of this building. Then again, you have already met her or, rather, met her thumb and forefinger when she pinched your behind earlier this evening.”

“That was her?” Spain stared at the door.

“I’m afraid so.”

With that, Austria returned his focus to the game.

---

“Do you really think this is appropriate—”

Everyone was surprised when they first heard the child’s voice that sounded so very old. Austria’s first thought now was bafflement.

“Let me down!” the voice clamoured. “Let me down this instant! I don’t want—”

Then their camber door was kicked open with a bang, revealing Bavaria with a struggling Holy Roman Empire in one of his arms.

Something within Austria’s mind clicked. He stalked towards Bavaria in his stockings, putting his hands on his hips.

“What do you even think you’re doing?” he hissed. White-hot anger coursed through his veins.

“Roderich!” Bavaria said in what he had clearly attempted to be a jovial tone. It slipped. “We just…”

“We?” hissed Austria. “We?” His voice rose. “You dragged little Karl here against his will and you have the nerve to suggest he was in any way involved in the idea of seeing his guardian in a compromising situation?” Austria was still growing and only wore socks, but somehow, he managed to tower over Bavaria regardless.

“Erm…” Bavaria did one sensible thing and put Holy Rome to the ground. Austria grabbed him by the collar, still seething with anger.

“Roderich?” the young, old voice said calmly. “Theodor?”

Both countries looked at him.

“I think we should all calm down now, and then Theodor and I will return to the festivities. Is that not a good idea, Theodor?”

“Yes,” Bavaria said glumly. Then Holy Rome took his hand and guided him away.  Austria closed the door after them—with deliberate care. Antagonising Karl was never a good idea. It made you seem childish.

“Alright.” Austria let out a long sigh. “After this, I think they will leave us alone at last.”

Then he saw the look in Spain’s eyes. There was a flicker of reverence in them as well as a distinct spark of—interest? Austria’s stomach did a tiny flip.

“So…” Spain was brushing his hand alongside the nape of his neck; a clear, if somewhat clumsy, sign of nervousness.

“So.” Austria was nervous, too. He tried not to show it; tied to muster the stoic bravery he always associated with Swabia.

“I rather think there will be no more disturbances now, and … I think we both know what is expected of us.” Damn. He was sure Swabia’s voice would not have been quavering.

“Have you ever done this before? I mean, with…” He didn’t know how to continue the sentence. With another man? But were they men? They weren’t human beings; that he was sure of. But their bodies were built like those of two male human beings, and the fact that the church itself had made it official today that human law did not apply to them… To him, it seemed like cheating. It appeared that kings and popes would always decide what they were on the basis of what was most convenient to them.

He looked on the chessboard. Were they pawns in this game of kings?

Spain followed his gaze. He picked up the chessboard from the bed and placed it carefully on the floor.

“You’re thinking too much.” Even Spain’s voice was gentle.

“I always do.” Austria looked away, on the cushions of the large four-poster. So, he thought once more. This was when…

“Will you let me guide you?” Spain said in the same quiet voice he had used before. “Because I actually have done this before.”

“You?” Austria’s head whipped up. He stared at Spain incredulously. “I thought…” He didn’t know how to continue. “Religion…”

For a split second, Spain appeared to be flustered but then answered with an aloofness that seemed almost like he was overcompensating:

“I know what the authorities say on the matter, and in the beginning, I was confused, too. But … it’s not really all that different, you know.” He shrugged. “I’m not a theologian, so I might miss a few points, but if the bishop approves of it, I can’t find fault with it either. Especially when it’s about our kind, who don’t have children the human way anyway.”

“Hm.” Austria thought. “That seems to be the main point, doesn’t it?”

Spain didn’t reply. Austria didn’t know if Spain really thought what he suspected—what he would have thought in Spain’s stead, in any case: Think like that if it makes you feel better about it.

He would try to, anyway.

“What do I need to do?”

“Stop looking like you’re going to face down an enemy, for starters.” Spain smiled as he was inching closer to him.

“I’m trying to.” Austria relaxed his features. Perhaps thinking How would Swabia handle this? wasn’t a good approach in every situation.

“First of all, I’m going to kiss you,” Spain declared. There was an edge to his voice Austria couldn’t quite place. “Then … just follow my lead. And push me away if you want me to stop, okay?”

Austria nodded.

Then a gentle, calloused hand cupped his chin and warm, slightly chapped lips captured his lower lip.

This really was no different to being with a woman, Austria thought involuntarily. At least so far.

He opened his mouth to let Spain in when his tongue demanded it. Spain was a good kisser, at the least; Austria had to give him that. He made an involuntary, small sound at the back of his throat and could feel Spain smile against his lips before he started to kiss Austria’s cheek.

“That is a fine coat you’re wearing but it’s in my way.” Spain deftly pushed the fur-lined  coat down Austria’s shoulders and let it fall to the floor with a heavy thud. He kissed down Austria’s neck where the wide necked undershirt left him ample room for kisses. While kissing he got at the laces and points that held Austria’s doublet closed down his side and carefully started undoing them. 

Austria’s hands were much more clumsy as he tried to open Spain’s belt that held his sayo gathered at the waist. It was an action dangerously close to the codpiece that peeked from between Spain’s skirts. The kissing had made him light-headed; he refused to accept thinking of himself as aroused yet.

Spain was progressing rapidly and now moved to the laces that tied his doublet to his hoses, it wouldn’t be long or he’d be in his shirt. Austria believed it his duty to do the same, but it was hard to think with Spain’s lips and hair touching his skin, and he had to get Spain to remove his coat and say first before he could get at any laces himself…

Spain sat back and laughed.

“We should have changed into our nightshirts before we started this, shouldn’t we?”

“Probably,” Austria said breathlessly. His mouth twitched upwards, too. “I always underestimate the time it takes to change out of ceremonial clothing.”

Spain flashed back a grin.

“Especially when you’re dead tired after some tedious reception, isn’t it?” He chucked off his own heavy coat and then pulled off the sayo over his head, leaving him in just his jubón and very short breeches and stockings, a state of undress that was already quite scandalous. Austria watched him before he realised that now would be a good time to start unfastening what Spain hadn’t unfastened yet. He took off his doublet and was left in just his undershirt and his breeches.

There was just one problem: The moment he untied the codpiece that was closing his breeches, Spain would see that… Well, that the kissing hadn’t quite left Austria unaffected. And wasn’t that too early…

Meanwhile, Spain had loosened his jubón from the shorts and undid just as many laces as needed to hastily pull it off. He accidentally pulled his linen undershirt along and got a bit stuck. With a little determination he had freed himself and stretched, his upper body was now completely bare. Austria stared. Where he was soft and a little skinny, Spain’s body was covered in hard planes of muscle. He suddenly felt self-conscious about his own body.

Then, Spain pulled loose his garter bands and loosened his codpiece and pushed down everything he wore on the lower half of his body. It was tight so he had to work it down a bit before being able to pull it off. The man was stark naked now. Without conscious thought, Austria’s eyes were drawn to his half-hard cock.

“But you didn’t even…” Austria had no idea how he wanted to finish this sentence.

“It’s basically been like this since we entered the bedroom,” Spain admitted frankly. “But it got a little harder when you put your brother in his place.”

“But … why?” That probably ranked pretty high on a list of most stupid questions ever uttered, Austria realised, so he clarified: “I mean … it’s not as if we had much of a choice…”

“Simple,” Spain said. “You look good. You’re graceful when you dance, among other things. I knew kissing you would feel good, too, and it does.”

“You’re the one who looks good.” Austria knew he was simply stating a fact. “I, on the other hand…” He pulled his wide linen shirt, over his head, leaving himself shirtless. He was trying not to think too much about how he looked.

Then he caught Spain’s stare.

He blinked.

“You know the saying,” murmured Spain, walking over to Austria’s side of the bed. “Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.” He raked his eyes over Austria’s, as Austria thought himself, rather scrawny chest. Spain’s broad, warm hands followed, and that did feel good…

Then Spain had managed to untie Austria’s knee breeches. He pulled them down.

“Oh.” Spain stared at Austria’s cock—a rather unbecoming thing, Austria thought; pale with some angry red at the tip.

“And here I was actually worried your body might not react, no matter what I do.”

Was that before or after you kissed me breathless? Austria wanted to quip, but then Spain was on his knees and—alright, that was something he had experienced before too, but Spain had swallowed him whole, and…

He cried out and swore in German, in words he would otherwise have denied he even knew. So much for keeping this to ‘the approved position’ Burgundy had demanded of him this was definitely fornication. He liked that idea, yes there were so many things he had to comply with about this marriage. But there were parts of it that no one could control except for the two of them, no matter how much others might want to.

Spain pushed him on the bed, getting rid of Austria’s breeches and socks while he was at it, never stopping with his mouth…

Rational thought escaped Austria, and that was probably just as fine because he wasn’t keen on evaluating the sounds he made anyway.

Then one of Spain’s hands held down his hips. Cold air hit his cock as Spain sat on his knees, raking his eyes over Austria while he was stroking himself.

Austria stared. He hadn’t felt so aroused in a long time.

“Want to touch me?” Spain asked. Austria nodded. He ran his hands over the muscles on Spain’s chest before he let one hand dip down into Spain’s soft flank. His other hand wrapped around Spain’s cock.

It was a new sensation to hold a cock that wasn’t his own, but Austria knew how he liked to be touched … if he twisted his hand just like this … Spain’s hips bucked under his hands.

“Okay, okay, you’re making me come!” Spain pushed his hand off. “Not yet.”

Oh yes… So far, it had been easy. But that had just been Spain’s way of making the whole thing more bearable, hadn’t it?

Austria rolled on his stomach. Better get it over with…

Broad hands started to knead his … backside, for want of a more becoming term. He felt a puff of air between his cheeks, and then…

He didn’t know if he had bucked or flinched. In any case, he hadn’t been prepared for Spain’s tongue … there.

At first, the sensations were just confusing. Then Spain’s tongue started to work him for real, darting in and out and caressing his inner walls. He started to pant again.

“Hmm…” Spain hummed against his arse. Austria’s hips bucked out of their own volition. “And I didn’t even need to tell you to relax.” The puffs of air against his hole made him buck his hips again. 

“That’s good,” Spain continued. “I’m going to work you open now,” he explained. “That might get a bit uncomfortable. You need to tell me if it gets too much, alright?”

“Yes,” said Austria. It was hard to think through his arousal, but he had understood. On the other hand, he had no intention whatsoever to tell Spain that anything was too much. Grit your teeth…

Spain leaned away from him, taking something from his clothes. Austria looked after him.

“Olive oil,” Spain explained as he opened the jar. “The very best.”

Then Spain started, using his tongue and an oil-coated finger to stretch Austria from the inside… It didn’t feel good, but it was also not the horrible feeling Austria had expected: A mixture of pleasure—yes, it was still there—and the uncomfortable sensation of being stretched in a place that hadn’t been made for stretching all that much. Austria’s hips still bucked when Spain inserted two oily fingers and his tongue, moving them in and out, but his moans were now half pain, half pleasure.

“I think you’re ready,” Spain said eventually.

Am I? thought Austria. He wasn’t ready at all; not mentally, at the least.

Something warm and spongy that had also been coated in oil nudged his arse, and then he had to bite his lips hard not to cry out in pain because that was definitely bigger than…

“Oh, shit,” Spain swore. A number of Spanish expletives followed as he rolled them both to the side, arms flailing. At least it distracted Austria from the unpleasant feeling.

“What…?” he started to ask.

“Damn. Sorry. I almost lost control… Did I hurt you?”

“Not much,” Austria said, more or less truthfully. “Is there something I can do to help?”

“I’d better … hold my legs still. Can you, uh, move against me?”

Austria understood immediately. He tugged one of Spain’s arms across his chest.

“Alright. Hold me.”

Spain did, muscles quivering from the effort not to move while Austria pushed his ass against him again and again, panting in the effort of moving.

“This doesn’t work,” he concluded. “On your back.”

Spain did as he was told. Austria took the jar from Spain’s hand, rubbing more oil on his dick and between his ass cheeks. Then he sat on him, face to his legs because Spain really didn’t need to see the grimace he pulled. He gave himself no time to think about the fact that suddenly it seemed to be him, not Spain, who controlled the situation. Instead, he used his weight to push Spain’s dick inside of him in slow thrusts that strained his leg muscles

When he was almost inside, Spain’s hips jerked upward, knocking the wind out of Austria’s lungs.

“You can turn me around now,” Austria panted as soon as he was sure his voice wouldn’t come out an octave too high. Spain did so, trying to hold his dick inside of Austria as it was. It wasn’t really possible because Austria could feel every little movement, and it wasn’t a pleasant sensation at all.

In the end, they were on their sides again, Spain’s arm once again slung across Austria’s chest.

“You’re so tight,” Spain panted. “Too tight. Can you try to relax?”

Austria did his best. He thought about Spain’s hands on him; the moment he had touched Spain; Spain’s lips around him… That had felt good.

“Better,” Spain grunted. He rocked his hips, keeping Austria in place with his arm.

It actually was better. The stretch was still unpleasant, but the oil did its job quite nicely now, and the pace Spain set suited Austria well: Not too fast, but not too slow either; not too hard and not too soft. He felt his cock that had become softer in the past minutes harden once again.

Then Spain’s hand brushed down Austria’s chest, gripped his cock, and—oh, that was more like it.

Spain’s mouth started to pepper kisses on his neck. Austria understood what he wanted, turning his head until Spain could kiss him. The kiss was open-mouthed and clumsy. Spain moaned into it as his hips moved harder and faster. At last, Austria’s hips started to jerk out of their own volition, torn between the thrusts from behind, the hand around his cock and the tongue in his mouth.

Suddenly, Spain brushed something inside of him that sent a shock of arousal through him. He cried out. Spain’s hand that had only held his cock before twisted up and down. Before Austria had registered what was happening, sticky wetness hit his stomach. Then Spain brushed the same spot as before, and another spurt of come followed the first.

Spain pumped Austria’s cock in a frenzy while his hips jerked up fast and erratically. Spots started to dance before Austria’s eyes. Then Spain’s hips stilled, and Austria felt hot fluid inside of him.

So this was penetrative sex between men, Austria thought with the part of his brain that never seemed to shut off. He pumped air between his lungs in long gasps until the spots in front of his eyes vanished.

The next things he registered were how sensitive the skin on his thighs felt—again, something that was not entirely new—and that he felt unable to move his legs even an inch.

“Austria?” Spain asked in a small voice.

“Hmm?” He couldn’t bring himself to say more.

“Are you … I mean, did I hurt you?” Spain sounded worried.

You mean, when didn’t you hurt me, a malicious part of Austria wanted to quip. He reined it in and settled for the truth.

“It stung when you spread me and it did hurt in the beginning,” he admitted. “But I don’t mind that you were chasing your own release at the end, which is what I think you are referring to.”

“I’m sorry.” Spain sounded sincere. “It gets easier if you do it more often.” There was an unspoken question in that statement, but Austria chose to ignore it for the time being. He had done his duty—the marriage had been consummated—but he didn’t know yet what he wanted for the future.

“Still,” Spain said. Austria felt the bed dip as he stood. He heard him move, but couldn’t bring himself to lift his head. “It was your first time. I should have been gentler.” Spain’s upper body entered Austria’s field of vision, holding a wet piece of cloth. “Allow me to clean you up, too?”

“Please.” Austria realised his own switch back to a formal tone. It seemed to have an effect on Spain: The way he cleaned him up was meticulous and efficient. Austria noted he had warmed the piece of cloth with his body—an act of care he appreciated.

“Tell me,” Austria asked, “if we hadn’t been ordered to consummate our marriage properly, would you have done all you did tonight?”

“No,” Spain answered at once. “I wanted you to enjoy it. I’d probably have stroked us off together, and that’s it. And you can keep caressing each other while you do that…” His voice trailed off. “Look, I think you’re clever and brave and beautiful, and I want to touch you. I’d want it if we weren’t married. But I’m worried I thwarted my own chances before I had any because we were doing what others expected of us.”

“Don’t be cross with me, but I believe I’m unable to think about that just now.” Austria only realised how true this was as he said it: He was exhausted; his legs felt like jelly; and he needed a good night’s sleep anyway after the dances, the chess match and Swabia’s and his own valiant efforts to thwart all spectators.

“Don’t misunderstand me,” he hurried to say as he saw the disappointment on Spain’s face. “If I say I need to think about it, I don’t mean no. I mean that I need to think about it, but I’m about to fall asleep. So … come to bed with me?”

Spain nodded. Then he doused the candles and went to bed, putting the blankets over them both as well as he could. Austria made a point of taking Spain’s hand.

It had been a long day, and he really needed to think. He also needed his legs to work again, but he assumed that problem would have solved itself by tomorrow.

[unclefungusthegoat]

Far Cry 5 Theory: Joseph Knowingly Manipulated His Family To Represent the Four Horsemen... And Knew That They Would Die For It

Hi all! This is LONG- 1977 words plus pictures, but I hope it’s worth the read! This is just my opinion! Also, I would just like to say now that I love Joseph, and I’m sorry.

Watching back the eulogies Joseph delivers after his sibling’s deaths has left me wondering…

How did Joseph know that their deaths were the seals being opened?

Because I can’t get the notion out of my head, that if Joseph indeed engineered the ‘Collapse’, as is one theory, or even if he simply had heard that it was coming, then surely he had an opportunity to orchestrate all of the symbolism that surrounded it?

For example, grooming himself and his siblings to represent the Four Horsemen?

In the Book of Joseph, he writes:

“The Voice did not show me exactly how it would all end.”

And, interestingly:

“I hope the Voice condemned each person to the ending he or she fears most, to know that it would take back what it had given without pity in a final multi-pronged curse. It was inspired by the cruelty of mankind, we who kill, lie, and steal what others hold most sacred. No one is innocent. Each person will experience the end they dread.

Joseph was never told that this event would take the form of the Horsemen from the Book of Revelation, but that is how it comes to pass.

Surely if Joseph believed that God gave him a revelation, then he would turn to the scripture named for such a prophecy to make sense of it? The scripture he would remember his Father ranting about when he was a child?

And he then made a conscious choice for that to be the narrative?

And I believe that he manipulated his siblings into fulfilling the roles of the Horsemen, knowing that it would eventually lead to their deaths, because this was the end he dreaded most.

JOSEPH - CONQUEST

Joseph took the role of Conquest- to conquer those who want to be saved. Conquest is sometimes interpreted as Christ himself, and it’s very likely that Joseph, the ignored middle child, forsaken by the world, would want to be seen as a Christ-like figure- noticed, listened to, worshipped, loved.

He craved what every cult leader desires.

Power over the weak, over people like Jacob, John and Faith.

I do not think he sought Jacob and John with the intention of making them his Horseman, but came to the decision upon the discovery of John’s career and subsequently, Jacob’s military file.

It was a coincidence that John, the lawyer, could be represented by Scales, of Famine or Justice. And Jacob with the Sword of War. But Joseph would see this as proof that his brothers were a vital part of God’s plan- and must then truly be the Horsemen.

It all fit the narrative he chose to believe.

And so he set out to shape his siblings into those roles.

The Herald’s symbols, that correspond with those of the Horsemen, are built  into the Project’s architecture, meaning that they have been part of the cult’s symbolism since long before the game’s events.

Surely Joseph must have asked them to adopt those symbols?

And then he used their assigned Horsemen not only as inspiration for their jobs within the Project, but also for how to manipulate them into performing those roles.

JACOB - WAR

Joseph took advantage of Jacob’s trauma he suffered during WAR, to shape him into the Red Horse.

Jacob knew of Joseph’s role for him and I think he’d known for a very long time- since being reunited with his brothers.

He talks to the Deputy directly in game of how his purpose is to act as Joseph’s sacrifice. He knows exactly how it will end for him, and his words- ‘you did everything he said you would’- just confirms this. Joseph has told him that the Lamb will open the seven seals.

Jacob was a hollow shell of who he once was in the homeless shelter. It was Joseph who nursed him back to health, feeding his broken mind with his propaganda, with the Horseman narrative. It can only be assumed that he convinced Jacob that his death, as well as John’s, would be necessary to wage war on a world of evil, manipulating Jacob’s mindset from the military that sacrifices must be made. Why else would Jacob allow Joseph to manipulate their youngest brother?

The weak ‘have their purpose’. So what if, after everything they went through, the Seeds think of themselves as weak, and their purpose is as Horsemen, as sacrifices to bring about Eden, where the strong will live on?

Jacob is the least religious of the brothers and so whether he truly believes himself a ‘Horseman’ is questionable. He simply views himself as a brother doing his duty, supporting Joseph in this new war against the corrupted world.

And if that means death, so be it.

JOHN - FAMINE

Joseph took advantage of John’s need for love- he starved him of it, created John’s own personal FAMINE, so that John would pursue the path that Joseph laid out for him- becoming the Black Horse.

Joseph directly warns John of his own impending death. There is no indication of when the voicemail was left, but I believe that it’s an old message from before the Reaping, and it was Joseph trying to prevent John from being killed at the incorrect moment. If he antagonised the Fall’s End residents too much, Joseph knows that they would take him out.

He cannot let that happen.

The Lamb must be the one to kill John.

But Joseph warns him of his death again at the river, when he tells John that the Deputy must atone - that the Lamb must stop opening the seals - or the gates will be shut to him. In other words, he must stop the Collapse or he will die. He knows John will not be able to achieve this, but insisting that John continue to interact with the Deputy, promising love and reward if they atone, just ensures that John will die by their hand.

However John, despite his obvious intelligence, seems unaware that he will not live to see Eden. His confident bravado, his triumphant swaggering, his fear of failing Joseph- this is not the behaviour of a man who knows he is doomed.

As he dies, he tells the Deputy that ‘We had a plan’. He says that everyone is ‘already safe’, no doubt including himself in that. Joseph, after all, had already saved him once. Why wouldn’t he save him again?

John is a coward, a man who never gets his hands dirty unless he can fully control the situation. A man so used to speaking empty words, that he probably promised to follow Joseph ‘unto death’ without truly considering what that meant, without believing that he would actually ask that of him. And Joseph could not be sure that John would see it through if he knew the truth. So instead he promises John what he is starved of, love, knowing that he will pursue it to his death.

FAITH - DEATH

Joseph threatened DEATH to Faith if she did not become the Pale Horse- the same fate that had befallen the first Faiths.

Why does the Project need a Faith? In the Book of Joseph, he never actually justifies why the “role” exists. The general feeling is that she is used by Joseph to replace his wife, or his daughter. But, here’s the thing:

Joseph says that the Voice asked him to recruit John and Jacob. But then he goes on to conscientiously seek out a Faith. To me, this reads as Joseph making a definitive decision to begin putting everything in place for his Collapse to be initiated-

By preparing a fourth Horseman.

Rachel presents two versions of her story and she tells them both as the truth.

The Faith who she speaks of first - the ‘saved’ Faith - believes she has been given a ‘purpose’, a new chance at life. She ‘no longer wished to die’. If Rachel knew of her newly found purpose as Horseman and sacrifice from the beginning, then this is contradictory. She would not have willingly agreed to the role if she knew it would end in death.

So I feel both of her stories are true. That she felt ‘saved’ when she joined the cult but was ultimately threatened into becoming Faith.

And I think Rachel only discovered her role as Horseman when it was too late for her to escape. She may have learned from messages left by the previous Faiths, those who had already been killed for refusing to be the Pale Horse. She may have only realised during the game’s events.

But she says to the Deputy ‘It was always going to end this way’. She knew it was an inevitability. And saying those words is a confirmation to herself that Joseph had always intended her to die for his vision.

SO WHY?

I believe that Joseph loves his brothers.

But he believes so fiercely in the Voice that he murdered his own daughter to prove his loyalty. It is not a stretch of the imagination that he would sacrifice his siblings too. They are tools by which God’s word will come to pass. They are his ultimate test of faith.

And yes, he cries over their deaths. But he never truly does anything to prevent them from being harmed. He encourages them to provoke and convert the Deputy, knowing that it is futile, since the dream of reaching Eden relies on those seals being opened.

Including the Fifth seal.

If his Collapse and his new Eden were to come to pass, then the Fifth seal must be broken.

He expected his brothers to swear loyalty unto death to him. He asked the same of Faith, when he made her take the leap.

The Fifth seal is of martyrs before the altar, ‘the souls of them that were slain for the word of God’.

The most faithful.

Who else would he have imagined these martyrs to be?

THE EULOGIES

Joseph may knowingly have sent his siblings to their deaths, but I don’t think he did so without emotion. Just look at the eulogies:

Just like so much of what John says in game, Joseph, in John’s eulogy, could be projecting his own sins onto the Deputy:

‘He was easily preyed upon… those responsible for his death will be punished’- Joseph could be acknowledging his own manipulation of John and pledging his intent to atone for that sin.

Greg Bryk has said that Joseph has empathy:

‘...he was a weapon without a purpose. A warrior without a legacy.... You are his legacy. All of you willing to protect our family from the Collapse… Jacob’s death will not be in vain.’ - Joseph acknowledges Jacob’s purpose to protect (by being a sacrifice), and that he gave him this purpose. Did he believe that an act of mercy, giving Jacob what he truly desired- peace in death?

And for Faith:

‘I put my faith inside her and she became angelic’ - Joseph is admitting to putting his ideology in her head, and that he views her as otherworldly, holy, made that way by his own hand.

SUMMARY

Joseph wanted to see the Day of Judgement incinerate the world that treated him so badly and what better way to enact his revenge than to literally become the Horseman who unleash horrors upon the earth?

But he doesn’t consider himself perfect. The eulogies prove it. He knows he is not innocent and will face judgement from God, along with the rest of mankind.

And so the loss of his brothers? 

They were the price he CHOSE to believe he must pay, the price the Voice demanded of him so that he, always overlooked, ignored, forsaken, may become a God in his new Eden.

Just as he wrote in his sacred book:

“Humanity is incredibly imaginative when it comes to self-destruction”.

And their deaths were, as he had foretold would come to all sinners:

The end that he dreaded most.

[nowhere-herenow]

No, I’m Not a Christian

When I became a believer at the age of 18, I didn’t think there would ever be a day when I would utter the words, “No, I’m not a Christian.” But it seems that day has finally come.

 It’s not that I don’t believe in a Creator God anymore. I do. I believe in a loving and merciful Creator, Great Spirit, and Mother of us all. I believe that this Creator is far too complex to be boxed in by the limitations of human imagination and linguistic ability. This Creator has given us life that we may live in community with one another and all of creation.

 But that’s not Christianity, at least, not based on the modern-day interpretation of what it means to be a Christian.

 Why the change of heart?

 For me to explain why I’m no longer a Christian, I need to take you back to a much earlier time in the history of the church, back to a very diverse city called Antioch during a time when the Apostles still walked the Earth.

 It was in Antioch that the followers of The Way of Jesus Christ first received the nickname, Christian. According to an article in Relevant Magazine:

 “The Church came to Antioch and began breaking down the dividing barriers in a way that upset the society’s existing categories. People from all parts of the city—Jews and Gentiles alike—were suddenly coming together. This group of people was redefining community in a radical and unprecedented way, so much so, that a new word was needed to categorize what in the world was happening.” [Emphasis mine]

 Antioch was known as ‘all the world in one city,’ and it was an immensely diverse city. When these Christians started to do what they did, building community on no other ground but love, people started to take notice, and as the article pointed out, “The term ‘Christian’ comes from the world’s realization that something new and unheard of was happening.”

 Breaking down barriers, bringing people together and redefining community are not things that today’s church, as a whole, is known for. In fact, when you talk to people that have left the church or the faith, you’ll find that they experienced the very opposite. The ‘done’ crowd, meaning those that are now done with the faith, will tell you that most of what they experienced in the church was division, wall building, and basically all the exact same things that you find everywhere else in the world. Today’s church is no different from any other group.

 Imperfect, but not different.

 I’ve heard Christians argue so many times in the past, “the church is imperfect, just like everyone else,” and while I agree with the fact that we’re all imperfect, the Church of the 1st-3rd centuries was, despite all it’s imperfections, different from the rest of the world. The original church was by nature subversive to the norms of the day. The original church stood up for the weak, the sick, the hungry, the slave, the oppressed, and it selflessly served the needs of each other and even those outside of the faith.

 Read this excerpt from The Faith: A History of Christianity, by Bryan Moynahan:

 Charity was an important part of the belief. Pliny [Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia] mentioned that Christians never refused a loan, and he could have added that they cared for the sick and vulnerable, that they visited their brethren who were imprisoned or sent to mines, and that they helped others in times of catastrophe, plague, famine, and earthquake. Regular collections for the poor were made on Sundays. Acts of individual generosity were recorded very early, like those of the centurion Cornelius who “gave much alms to the people” (Acts 10:2) at Caesarea. “We, who loved… wealth and possession,” the Christian apologist Justin wrote in about A.D. 155, “now put together even what we have and share it with all who are in need.” By 251 the church at Rome was supporting fifteen hundred widows and poor people; the following year, when Carthage was struck by plague, Bishop Cyprian sent his deacons to tend the sick. “Jews do not allow any of their own people to become beggars,” a later pagan emperor, Julian, complained, “and the Christians support not only their own but also our poor.”

 Moynahan also goes on to say that Pliny, who was sent to investigate torture and execute the Christians, reported back that he could find nothing to condemn them with as treasonable and even pointed out that they were politically docile.

 Politics Over Love.

 It would seem that the original Christians were more concerned with showing love to their fellow human beings through very real and practical ways than they were with building some sort of pseudo-theocratic state in which everyone would legally have to abide by their religious laws. It never ceases to amaze me how so many Christians can so easily write off Acts chapter 2, ‘The Fellowship of the Believers,’ as being something that was acceptable then, but today is labeled as socialism; while, at the same time, taking scriptures that relate to the submission of women and condemnation of homosexuality as being literal commands (when they obviously were not).

 Compare those early Christians to the Christians of today (this is just in my own lifetime).

 ·         Christian churches have largely embraced ‘white flight’, fleeing poor neighborhoods as minority groups move in, in favor of much larger and modernized facilities on the ‘better’ side of town.

·         When AIDs ravaged the gay community, Christians said it was God’s wrath and initially did nothing to help.

·         Christians are excessively political, willing to turn blind eyes to all forms of evil and greed in the pursuit of their own pseudo-theocratic state.

·         Rather than breaking down dividing walls, Christians have created their own subculture complete with Radio & T.V. stations, clothing lines, school systems, music genres, books, hospitals, camps, magazines, etc. Essentially making it possible to completely isolate themselves from the world they’re supposed to serve.

·         While insisting that they are persecuted, Christians repeatedly persecute other groups that they do not agree with.

·         Many conservative Christians have even embraced the teachings of people like Ayn Rand whose idea of objectivism directly conflicts with the teachings of Christ.

·         Christians are willing to completely ignore what Jesus taught with regards to strangers and foreigners, choosing instead to embrace the ideas of national sovereignty and security. (I find it ironic that the majority of the migrants at our southern border are Christian, and they’re coming from countries that American Christians have been doing ‘missionary’ work in for decades now.)

·         Christians have largely turned a blind eye to the plight of LGBTQ people in this country, disowning their own children and ignoring the alarming suicide rates that have ravaged their community.

 Obviously, this list is not all-inclusive and obviously there are many Christians out there today that are not these-kind-of-Christians, but these observations do accurately fit the church as a whole. If you don’t believe me, simply ask one of your non-believing friends their opinion.

 I’m Not a Christian.

 So, why would anyone want to be a part of an utterly unexceptional group that seems to be interested in nothing other than practicing religious rite and legalism for the sake of religious rite and legalism?

 Why would anyone want to give financial support to such an organization?

 Why would anyone want to sacrifice their time and energy for such a group?

 Can’t we volunteer our own time with shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, and other non-profits?

 For that matter, can we not give money directly to these organizations instead of the church, which in my personal experience is often either so out of touch with the surrounding community, or burdened with facility costs that most of the financial support they receive doesn’t help anyone but the church itself?

 I Am a Follower of the Way

 The truth is, a long long time ago, the church strayed from its original calling and purpose, and because of that, the word Christian no longer means ‘little Christ’, and I for one do not want to be associated with what that word has come to mean.

 In the third century, when the church ‘left the catacombs for the cathedrals,’ as Richard Rohr puts it, we quickly started to lose our way. Emperors presided over the first seven Vatican council meetings that formed the basis of what is now our religion. In fact, the church and the state became lovers of a sort, propping each other up in a mutually beneficial relationship. It was in this, dare I say, blasphemous union that the Church traded the Way of the Christ, for world dominance, financial security, and cultural superiority. Over the centuries, things have not gotten better.

 It’s painfully tragic that a lot of what is taught in the Church today was never taught in the early church, and a lot of what the early church practiced has been lost on today’s Christians.

 The early church did not have an ‘infallible’ bible, massive facilities, political influence, complicated theology, or private schools yet they flourished. Why? Because they understood the Way of Christ and the implications that came with it:  

 “Listen carefully: Unless a grain of wheat is buried in the ground, dead to the world, it is never any more than a grain of wheat. But if it is buried, it sprouts and reproduces itself many times over. In the same way, anyone who holds on to life just as it is destroys that life. But if you let it go, reckless in your love, you’ll have it forever, real and eternal.” -Jesus, from the Gospel of John 12:24-25 (The Message)

 The modern church is determined to flourish and dominate in this society. It wants nothing of servanthood and poverty, and it wants to avoid sacrifice at all costs, even to the extent that it’s willing to put armed guards at its doors, instead of pushing for gun reform and affordable access to mental health professionals.

 I can go on and on, and I may write more at a later date, but in short, the Church has exchanged the humility of Christ for the riches of this world.

 I am no longer a Christian.

 However, I am a follower of The Way of Christ.

   Article quoted from:

https://relevantmagazine.com/god/where-christian-name-really-came/

 Moynahan, Bryan. The Faith: A History of Christianity. 1st ed., Doubleday, 2002.

pp. 51-54

[confrontingbabble-on]

“These twelve dubious concepts promote conflict, cruelty, suffering and death rather than love and peace.

1. Chosen People –The term “Chosen People” typically refers to the Hebrew Bible and the ugly idea that God has given certain tribes a Promised Land (even though it is already occupied by other people). But in reality many sects endorse some version of this concept. The New Testament identifies Christians as the chosen ones. Calvinists talk about “God’s elect,” believing that they themselves are the special few who were chosen before the beginning of time. Jehovah’s witnesses believe that 144,000 souls will get a special place in the afterlife. In many cultures certain privileged and powerful bloodlines were thought to be descended directly from gods (in contrast to everyone else).

Religious sects are inherently tribal and divisive because they compete by making mutually exclusive truth claims and by promising blessings or afterlife rewards that no competing sect can offer. “Gang symbols” like special haircuts, attire, hand signals and jargon differentiate insiders from outsiders and subtly (or not so subtly) convey to both that insiders are inherently superior.

2. Heretics – Heretics, kafir, or infidels (to use the medieval Catholic term) are not just outsiders, they are morally suspect and often seen as less than fully human. In the Torah, slaves taken from among outsiders don’t merit the same protections as Hebrew slaves. Those who don’t believe in a god are corrupt, doers of abominable deeds. “There is none [among them] who does good,” says the Psalmist. Islam teaches the concept of “dhimmitude” and provides special rules for the subjugation of religious minorities, with monotheists getting better treatment than polytheists. Christianity blurs together the concepts of unbeliever and evildoer. Ultimately, heretics are a threat that needs to be neutralized by conversion, conquest, isolation, domination, or—in worst cases—mass murder.

3. Holy War – If war can be holy, anything goes. The medieval Roman Catholic Church conducted a twenty year campaign of extermination against heretical Cathar Christians in the south of France, promising their land and possessions to real Christians who signed on as crusaders. Sunni and Shia Muslims have slaughtered each other for centuries. The Hebrew scriptures recount battle after battle in which their war God, Yahweh, helps them to not only defeat but also exterminate the shepherding cultures that occupy their “Promised Land.” As in later holy wars, like the modern rise of ISIS, divine sanction let them kill the elderly and children, burn orchards, and take virgin females as sexual slaves—all while retaining a sense of moral superiority.

4. Blasphemy – Blasphemy is the notion that some ideas are inviolable, off limits to criticism, satire, debate, or even question. By definition, criticism of these ideas is an outrage, and it is precisely this emotion–outrage–that the crime of blasphemy evokes in believers. The Bible prescribes death for blasphemers; the Quran does not, but death-to-blasphemers became part of Shariah during medieval times.The idea that blasphemy must be prevented or avenged has caused millions of murders over the centuries and countless other horrors. As I write, blogger Raif Badawi awaits round after round of flogging in Saudi Arabia—1000 lashes in batches of 50—while his wife and children plead from Canada for the international community to do something.

5. Glorified suffering – Picture secret societies of monks flogging their own backs. The image that comes to mind is probably from Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, but the idea isn’t one he made up. A core premise of Christianity is that righteous torture—if it’s just intense and prolonged enough–can somehow fix the damage done by evil, sinful behavior. Millions of crucifixes litter the world as testaments to this belief. Shia Muslims beat themselves with lashes and chains during Aashura, a form of sanctified suffering called Matam that commemorates the death of the martyr Hussein. Self-denial in the form of asceticism and fasting is a part of both Eastern and Western religions, not only because deprivation induces altered states but also because people believe suffering somehow brings us closer to divinity.

Our ancestors lived in a world in which pain came unbidden, and people had very little power to control it. An aspirin or heating pad would have been a miracle to the writers of the Bible, Quran, or Gita. Faced with uncontrollable suffering, the best advice religion could offer was to lean in or make meaning of it. The problem, of course is that glorifying suffering—turning it into a spiritual good—has made people more willing to inflict it on not only themselves and their enemies but also those who are helpless, including the ill or dying (as in the case of Mother Teresa and the American Bishops) and children (as in the child beating Patriarchy movement).

6. Genital mutilation – Primitive people have used scarification and other body modifications to define tribal membership for as long as history records. But genital mutilation allowed our ancestors several additional perks—if you want to call them that. In Judaism, infant circumcision serves as a sign of tribal membership, but circumcision also serves to test the commitment of adult converts. In one Bible story, a chieftain agrees to convert and submit his clan to the procedure as a show of commitment to a peace treaty. (While the men lie incapacitated, the whole town is then slain by the Israelites.)

In Islam, painful male circumcision serves as a rite of passage into manhood, initiation into a powerful club. By contrast, in some Muslim cultures cutting away or burning the female clitoris and labia ritually establishes the submission of women by reducing sexual arousal and agency. An estimated 2 million girls annually are subjected to the procedure, with consequences including hemorrhage, infection, painful urination and death.

7. Blood sacrifice – In the list of religion’s worst ideas, this is the only one that appears to be in its final stages. Only some Hindus (during the Festival of Gadhimai) and some Muslims (during Eid al Adha, Feast of the Sacrifice) continue to ritually slaughter sacrificial animals on a mass scale. Hindu scriptures including the Gita and Puranas forbid ritual killing, and most Hindus now eschew the practice based on the principle of ahimsa, but it persists as a residual of folk religion.

When our ancient ancestors slit the throats on humans and animals or cut out their hearts or sent the smoke of sacrifices heavenward, many believed that they were literally feeding supernatural beings. In time, in most religions, the rationale changed—the gods didn’t need feeding so much as they needed signs of devotion and penance. The residual child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible (yes it is there) typically has this function. Christianity’s persistent focus on blood atonement—the notion of Jesus as the be-all-end-all lamb without blemish, the final “propitiation” for human sin—is hopefully the last iteration of humanity’s long fascination with blood sacrifice.

8. Hell – Whether we are talking about Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, an afterlife filled with demons, monsters, and eternal torture was the worst suffering that Iron Age minds could conceive and medieval minds could elaborate. Invented, perhaps, as a means to satisfy the human desire for justice, the concept of Hell quickly devolved into a tool for coercing behavior and belief.

Most Buddhists see hell as a metaphor, a journey into the evil inside the self, but the descriptions of torturing monsters and levels of hell can be quite explicit. Likewise, many Muslims and Christians hasten to assure that it is a real place, full of fire and the anguish of non-believers. Some Christians have gone so far as to insist that the screams of the damned can be heard from the center of the Earth or that observing their anguish from afar will be one of the pleasures of paradise.

9. Karma – Like hell, the concept of karma offers a selfish incentive for good behavior—it’ll come back at you later—but it has enormous costs. Chief among these is a tremendous weight of cultural passivity in the face of harm and suffering. Secondarily, the idea of karma can sanctify the broad human practice of blaming the victim. If what goes around comes around, then the disabled child or cancer patient or untouchable poor (or the hungry rabbit or mangy dog) must have done something in this or a previous life to bring their position on themselves.

10. Eternal Life – To our weary and unwashed ancestors, the idea of gem encrusted walls, streets of gold, the fountain of youth, or an eternity of angelic chorus (or sex with virgins) may have seemed like sheer bliss. But it doesn’t take much analysis to realize how quickly eternal paradise would become hellish—an endless repetition of never changing groundhog days (because how could they change if they were perfect).

The real reason that the notion of eternal life is such a bad invention, though, is the degree to which it diminishes and degrades existence on this earthly plane. With eyes lifted heavenward, we can’t see the intricate beauty beneath our feet. Devout believers put their spiritual energy into preparing for a world to come rather than cherishing and stewarding the one wild and precious world we have been given.

11. Male Ownership of Female Fertility – The notion of women as brood mares or children as assets likely didn’t originate with religion, but the idea that women were created for this purpose, that if a woman should die of childbearing “she was made to do it,” most certainly did. Traditional religions variously assert that men have a god-ordained right to give women in marriage, take them in war, exclude them from heaven, and kill them if the origins of their offspring can’t be assured. Hence Catholicism’s maniacal obsession with the virginity of Mary and female martyrs. Hence Islam’s maniacal obsession with covering the female body. Hence Evangelical promise rings, and gender segregated sidewalks in Jerusalem and orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs over shaved heads in New York.

As we approach the limits of our planetary life support system and stare dystopia in the face, defining women as breeders and children as assets becomes even more costly. We now know that resource scarcity is a conflict trigger and that demand for water and arable land is growing even as both resources decline. And yet, a pope who claims to care about the desperate poor lectures them against contraception while Muslim leaders ban vasectomies in a drive to outbreed their enemies.

12. Bibliolatry (aka Book Worship) – Preliterate people handed down their best guesses about gods and goodness by way of oral tradition, and they made objects of stone and wood, idols, to channel their devotion. Their notions of what was good and what was Real and how to live in moral community with each other were free to evolve as culture and technology changed. But the advent of the written word changed that. As our Iron Age ancestors recorded and compiled their ideas into sacred texts, these texts allowed their understanding of gods and goodness to become static. The sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam forbid idol worship, but over time the texts themselves became idols, and many modern believers practice—essentially—book worship, also known as bibliolatry.

“Because the faith of Islam is perfect, it does not allow for any innovations to the religion,” says one young Muslim explaining his faith online. His statement betrays a naïve lack of information about the origins and evolution of his own dogmas. But more broadly, it sums up the challenge all religions face moving forward. Imagine if a physicist said, “Because our understanding of physics is perfect, it does not allow for any innovations to the field.” Adherents who think their faith is perfect, are not just naïve or ill informed. They are developmentally arrested, and in the case of the world’s major religions, they are anchored to the Iron Age, a time of violence, slavery, desperation and early death.

Ironically, the mindset that our sacred texts are perfect betrays the very quest that drove our ancestors to write those texts. Each of the men who wrote part of the Bible, Quran, or Gita took his received tradition, revised it, and offered his own best articulation of what is good and real. We can honor the quest of our spiritual ancestors, or we can honor their answers, but we cannot do both.

Religious apologists often try to deny, minimize, or explain away the sins of scripture and the evils of religious history. “It wasn’t really slavery.” “That’s just the Old Testament.” “He didn’t mean it that way.” “You have to understand how bad their enemies were.” “Those people who did harm in the name of God weren’t real [Christians/Jews/Muslims].” Such platitudes may offer comfort, but denying problems doesn’t solve them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Change comes with introspection and insight, a willingness to acknowledge our faults and flaws while still embracing our strengths and potential for growth. In a world that is teeming with humanity, armed with pipe bombs and machine guns and nuclear weapons and drones, we don’t need defenders of religion’s status quo—we need real reformation, as radical as that of the 16th Century and much, much broader. It is only by acknowledging religion’s worst ideas that we have any hope of embracing the best.”

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.

https://valerietarico.com/2015/01/20/religions-dirty-dozen-12-really-bad-religious-ideas-that-have-made-the-world-worse/

[seekfirstme]

The following reflection is courtesy of Don Schwager © 2020. Don's website is located at Dailyscripture.net

http://Dailyscripture.net

Meditation: Do you want to be on fire for God? Jesus shocked his disciples when he declared that he would cast fire and cause division rather than peace upon the earth. What kind of fire did Jesus have in mind here?

The fire of God's purifying love and cleansing word

The image of fire in biblical times was often associated with God and with his action in the world and in the lives of his people. God sometimes manifested his presence by use of fire, such as God's revelation to Moses through the burning bush in the wilderness which was not consumed by the flames (Exodus 3:2). God assured the Hebrew people of his continual presence, guidance, and protection for them through the wilderness for forty years with the pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day (Exodus 13:21-22). The prophet Elijah called down fire from heaven to reveal God's presence and power and to purify the people of false idols (1 Kings 18:36-39). The image of fire was also used as a sign of God's glory (Ezekiel 1:4, 13) and holiness (Deuteronomy 4:24), his protective presence (2 Kings 6:17), and his righteous judgment (Zechariah 13:9) and holy wrath against sin (Isaiah 66:15-16).

Fire is also a sign and symbol of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-17). When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples at Pentecost "tongues of fire" appeared above their heads (Acts 2:3). We can see from both the Old and New Testament Scriptures that God's fire purifies and cleanses to make us clean (sins washed away) and holy (fit to offer him acceptable praise and worship), and it inspires a reverent fear (awe in God's presence) and respect (obeying and giving God his due) for God and for his holy word.

Loyalty unites - division separates

Why did Jesus link fire from heaven with costly division on the earth? Did he expect his followers to take his statement of "father against son and son against father" and "mother against daughter and daughter against mother" literally? Or was he intentionally using a figure of speech to emphasize the choice and cost of following him above all else? Jesus used a typical Hebrew hyperbole (a figure of speech which uses strong language and exaggeration for emphasis) to drive home an important lesson. We often do the same when we want to emphasize something very strongly. Jesus' hyperbole, however, did contain a real warning that the Gospel message does have serious consequences for our lives.

When Jesus spoke about division within families he likely had in mind the prophecy of Micah: a man's enemies are the men of his own household (Micah 7:6). The essence of Christianity is loyalty to Jesus Christ - the Son of God and Savior of the world - a loyalty that takes precedence over every other relationship. The love of God compels us to choose who will be first in our lives. To place any relationship (or anything else) above God is a form of idolatry.

Who do you love first and foremost?

Jesus challenges his disciples to examine who they love first and foremost. A true disciple loves God above all else and is willing to forsake all for Jesus Christ. Jesus insists that his disciples give him the loyalty which is only due to God, a loyalty which is higher than spouse or kin. It is possible that family and friends can become our enemies if the thought of them keeps us from doing what we know God wants us to do. Does the love of Jesus Christ compel you to put God first in all you do (2 Corinthians 5:14)?

The Gospel message is good news for those who seek pardon, peace, and the abundant life which God offers us through his Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus offers true freedom to those who believe in him - freedom from slavery to sin, Satan, and the oppressive forces of hatred and evil that can destroy body, mind, and spirit. Do you listen to the voice of your Savior and trust in his word? Commit your ways to him, obey his word, and you will find true peace, joy, and happiness in the Lord your God.

"Lord Jesus, may the fire of your love consume me and transform my life that I may truly desire nothing more than life with you. Fill me with the power of your Holy Spirit that I may always seek to please you and do your will."

The following reflection is from One Bread, One Body courtesy of Presentation Ministries © 2020.

ALL IN THE FAMILY

“I kneel before the Father from Whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name; and I pray.” —Ephesians 3:14-16

Today’s first reading is possibly the greatest family prayer ever. It teaches us that, when we pray for our family and others, we should first of all pray for “gifts in keeping with the riches of His glory” (Eph 3:16). Family life is humanly impossible. We must admit this and then pray for supernatural gifts from God.

The demands of family life are overwhelming. The only way we will survive is by asking for and receiving inward strength “through the working of His Spirit” (Eph 3:16). We need not only divine gifts and inward strength, but we need God Himself to reside in our family (Eph 3:17). We bring this about by inviting Jesus into our hearts through faith (Eph 3:17). With God actually living in our family, love can now be the root and foundation of our family life (Eph 3:17), for God is Love (1 Jn 4:16). Because “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pt 4:8) and “never fails” (1 Cor 13:8), our families will be holy families, built up in love (Eph 4:16).

This may seem impossible to you, but God’s “power now at work in us can do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine” (Eph 3:20). So start praying the family prayer in Ephesians 3:16-17. Keep praying and obeying. Your family will be so transformed that, when you have a family reunion in heaven soon, not one family member will be missing.

Prayer:  Father, may my family “grasp fully, with all the holy ones, the breadth and length and height and depth of Christ’s love, and experience this love” (Eph 3:18-19).

Promise:  “I have come to light a fire on the earth. How I wish the blaze were ignited!” —Lk 12:49

Praise:  Pope St. John Paul II beatified 1,338 people and canonized 482 saints in his long papacy. He was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years. He is credited with the collapse of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe.

Reference:  

Rescript:  "In accord with the Code of Canon Law, I hereby grant the Nihil Obstat for One Bread, One Body covering the period from October 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020. Most Reverend Joseph R. Binzer, Auxiliary Bishop, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio February 25, 2020"

The Nihil Obstat ("Permission to Publish") is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the contents, opinions, or statements

[mattprivettwrites]

Can I trust my Bible?: Pitting Genesis 10-11 against Luke 3:36

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on August 31, 2015, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

_______________________________________

Have you every heard someone allege there are errors in the Bible, therefore it should not be trusted? And have you ever heard someone state one of those alleged errors and not know how to respond to it?

Well, we can trust the Bible we have. For that matter, we must trust the Bible we have, for it is indeed the inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient word of God. 

However, at the same time, we need to know how to answer the objections of unbelievers and biblical skeptics. The text of Genesis 10 and 11 opens the door to one such objection. This article addresses how believers should deal with it.

This is what Genesis 10:24 says in the New American Standard Bible – 1995 Update (hereafter NASB):

Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber.

And this is what Genesis 11:12-13 says in the NASB:

Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah; and Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Shelah, and he had other sons and daughters.

That seems straightforward enough… until you compare it with Luke 3:36. The third chapter of Luke includes a lengthy genealogy tracing Jesus’ lineage as the Son of David all the way back past Abraham to Adam. This is what Luke 3:35–36 says in the NASB — where we pick up the genealogy in progress:

the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, (bold emphasis added)

Our Luke texts add a name between Arpachshad and Shelah — Cainan — which is missing from Genesis 10 and 11. So why is that? And does it mean there is a mistake in the Bible?

Well, no. Not really. You see, what we believe about the inspiration of Scripture and the inerrancy of Scripture is that God is the author and the Bible is truth, without any mixture of error.

Now, no translation of Scripture is perfect. Almost every professing Christian would agree with that statement (save for some who have an over-exalted view of the King James Version). The translation I’ve quoted from above — the New American Standard Bible — is, in my humble opinion, the most accurate English translation as it relates to the original languages, but it isn’t perfect either. The word of God, however, is. 

The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is the God-inspired word. The Westminster Confession of Faith agrees, stating “the Word of God as written in Hebrew and Greek was immediately inspired by God.” It adds, “This relates to the autographs of the ‘holy men of God’ while under the Divine afflatus or inbreathing. (2 Pet 1:21).”

There are legitimate issues which lead to translation difference — even when the translators are seeking to give the reader the most literal reading possible (many translators do not have that aim). For example, the original parchments the writers of Scripture use do not exist anymore, and if they did we would never know for sure if they really were the originals. Those originals, though, were copied again and again and again. And sometimes when you make copies you make mistakes. Scribal errors, additions, and subtractions have produced what are called textual variants, and you probably see evidence of this in your Bible via footnotes. But this is not cause for doubting whether or not we have the word of God. In fact, additional manuscript discoveries over the centuries — particularly in the last two centuries — have lead scholars (not to a more confusing view of what the Bible says, but) to have more confidence than ever in what the Bible says. We absolutely do have the word of God.

On the issue of Genesis 10 and 11, then, and whether they are missing something we see in Luke 3, this is a great example of one of these conflicts that can be worked out. In this case there seem to be two main possibilities. First, that the name Cainan found in Luke 3 was part of the original Hebrew of Genesis, but scribes mistakenly missed it when copying scrolls. Or second, that Cainan was not original to Luke’s Greek in 3:36, but later added by a scribe as a mistaken addition.

Let me explain why I am firmly in camp number two — that Cainan doesn’t belong in Luke 3:36. There are good reasons why this is the case.

First, the scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures were meticulous in how they went about their job, absolutely minimizing mistakes. There was a much more uniform and careful process of doing this amongst the nation of Israel than later with New Testament manuscripts all over Europe, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Middle East. It is highly unlikely those Hebrew scribes would have mistakenly omitted Cainan from Genesis.

Second, other ancient versions of the Old Testament do not have the name Cainan in it. The Samaritans only believed the first five books of our Bible were Scripture, and their version of Genesis is missing Cainan. The same can be said for the Vulgate, the Latin translation produced by Jerome in AD 405. Significantly, he refused to use the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, because of many errors it had compared with the Hebrew. He insisted on translated his Latin from the original Hebrew, and so the Vulgate omits Cainan.

Third, however, and the most compelling reason in my opinion, is that Cainan’s name isn’t just missing from the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11. It’s also missing from 1 Chronicles 1, and it is that much more unlikely the Hebrew scribes would have missed it in both cases.

So how, then, can the presence of Cainan in our Luke 3:36 be explained? Well, look at Luke 3:36 again in the NASB, with the very next verse, 37, added on:

the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

When I am reading the Scriptures publicly it is not uncommon for me to mistakenly skip a line and then go back and fix it. It is, therefore, not difficult in the least to imagine a scribe copying the text of Luke and, his eyes betraying him, putting two Cainans in Luke 3 — where only one belonged.

Wherever you come down, there is no doctrine at risk of being compromised by this issue. However, if we believe the Scriptures to be God’s word, inspired by His Holy Spirit, who used the pens and personalities of men, then we need to be prepared to answer questions such as these — to make a defense to anyone who asks for the hope that is within us (1 Pet 3:15). So even though the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11 and 1 Chronicles 1 are at odds with our English translations of Luke 3, that isn’t reason for us to doubt the word of God.

Just a little bit of study backs up our confidence in the Scriptures as the inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient word of God. We can trust the Bible.

[blogcwgsu]

Is abortion the only pro-life issue?

Is abortion the only pro-life issue?  This isn't the first time I've written about abortion.  Or about other issues that should be of concern to Christians.  But it hit me during a conversation earlier today.  Why is it that so many Christians make abortion the litmus test - seemingly the only pro-life issue for Christians?  It makes no sense to me.  None at all. Is abortion the only pro-life issue? is article #1 in the series: Abortion vs Pro-life Issues Series. Click button to view titles for entire series Is abortion a pro-life issue?

Well, yes, abortion is a pro-life issue.  But is it the only pro-life issue?  We'll go through the abortion part of what I believe pro-life should be about.  In quite a bit of detail.  Not from the medical side.  Nothing gory.  Also nothing on when a fetus has a so-called moment where it becomes a living person. Instead, this is strictly a Biblical viewpoint of both the woman (or girl) having the abortion.  And also the Christian whose primary goal is to stop the abortion from taking place. If a woman has an abortion, obviously there will be no living baby as a result of the pregnancy.  I leave it to your conscience - something between you and whatever "god" you believe in.  For the Christian reader though - this is between you and Jesus. So, assuming that most Christians consider this to be killing, murder, ending a potential life, whatever you'd like to call it - you most likely do consider abortion to be a sin. But what about that sin?  Will Jesus forgive a woman for having an abortion?  With apologies to some Catholics who think the answer is no - sorry but the Biblical answer is yes.  No, the Bible doesn't say that anywhere.  You won't find the word abortion in the Bible.  However, consider a couple passages. Is abortion murder First of all, if you think abortion is murder, which most Christians probably do, then what about when Jesus said: Is considering abortion the same as murder? Guess what?  Remember this part of what Jesus said?   22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Sure, we remember the murder part.  Most of us have never murdered anyone.  But how many of us can say honestly, to God, that we've never done the other things?  We'd all better hope Jesus forgives every one of those things. Also consider this passage.  For the Catholic readers, I have something following the passage to more clearly define the difference between mortal and venial sins. Can someone who had an abortion be forgiven? There's a lot of good stuff in that passage, but for this topic, notice: Mt 12:31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Every sin will be forgiven, except one - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for blaspheme that Matthew wrote is: 988 βλασφημία n f. From 989; TDNT 1:621; TDNTA 107; GK 1060; 19 occurrences; AV translates as “blasphemy” 16 times, “railing” twice, and “evil speaking” once. 1 slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name. 2 impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty.  Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship. So let's remember that, and also look at something Paul wrote. Living as Children of Light Eph 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. Eph 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Eph 4:25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 “In your anger do not sin” : Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Eph 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Eph 5:1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. ... Are there other sins committed in the abortion / anti-abortion process? Once again, there's a lot in that passage - and I even left off the last portion since it wasn't needed for context.  However, notice this paragraph: Eph 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Paul wrote:  do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God.  In his book The Forgotten God, Francis Chan views this as refusing the promptings of the Holy Spirit too many times.  Not like there's an absolute number, but when it gets to the point where the routine normal thing to do is saying no to God.  I really like the book - and I agree that saying no too often would grieve the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that we are to be disciples of Jesus, followers.  And that the Holy Spirit, as Paul also writes, is the mind of Christ.  Therefore, continuously saying no to the Holy Spirit amounts to essentially refusing to follow Jesus. That leads to a conclusion about the relationship between the two passages we just looked at - one by Jesus and one by Paul.  But let's look at the Greek word that we read as "grieve". 3076 λυπέω v. From 3077; TDNT 4:313; TDNTA 540; GK 3382; 26 occurrences; AV translates as “be sorrowful” six times, “grieve” six times, “make sorry” six times, “be sorry” three times, “sorrow” three times, “cause grief” once, and “be in heaviness” once. 1 to make sorrowful. 2 to affect with sadness, cause grief, to throw into sorrow. 3 to grieve, offend. 4 to make one uneasy, cause him a scruple.  Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship. So - if we compare the two passages, and the two Greek words (not necessarily the current meaning of the English words) - it seems reasonable that grieve the Holy Spirit is at least part of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Frequently saying "no!" to Jesus seems to fit under evil speaking.  Seems like it to me, anyway. Next, for the Catholic readers.  You may think that mortal sins are not forgiven.  The excerpt below is from the second edition of The Catechism of the Catholic Church. IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN 1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience. 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. 1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation: When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.  1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."  1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. 1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. 1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. 1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."  While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession. 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. Now, having said all that, notice #1864, at the end of it all. 1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. What is the real unforgivable sin in Catholicism? The Catholic Catechism uses the same verse as I did, from the passage we looked at, titled Murder in the NIV.  The very same one.  And if you read the intent of the Catechism, rather than getting stuck on what we might think it says, the result is exactly what I pointed out earlier. There is one - repeat one - unforgivable sin.  The mortal sins talked about in the Catholic church are the ones that lead us to a point of saying "no!" to the Holy Spirit.  Saying "no!" to Jesus.  It's not any one, two, or any other absolute limiting number of "mortal" sins that's unforgivable.  Rather, the unforgivable thing is when we start saying "no!" to the Holy Spirit without even a second thought. Finally. I also want to point out what the Catechism says about venial sins. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."  Venial sin, in and of itself, isn't something that will separate us from God.  However, they can have the effect of leading us to think they're pretty much nothing to worry about.  We just commit them, time after time after time ...  Next thing you know, we're on to bigger and worse things.  Then we end up saying "no!" more and more often.  Sound familiar?  It's about the condition of our hearts, not about the actual sin.  Why isn't it about the sin?  Simple, it's because every sin is forgivable, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Period.   What about the deadly sins? I have to say, this has been a good refresher for me.  Having left the Catholic Church many, many years ago, it's hard to remember all the gory details of something I no longer follow.   Anyway, here's the thing on those so-called deadly sins, from Christianity.com. The seven deadly sins, as identified by Pope Gregory 1 in the late sixth century, are considered categories of sin: pride, envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, sloth, and greed. Many think the deadly seven are recorded in the Bible. Surprisingly, even though each of the seven is a sin, this list is not contained in Scripture. The history of the sin categorization began in the year 400. Evargius Ponticus a fourth century monk, described eight evils to resist. Two centuries later Pope Gregory 1, refined the inventory to seven. Almost every sin can be placed in one of these seven categories. Isaiah 14:13-14 tells us pride and selfishness are related to each of the seven and are viewed as the root causes of all sin. The Christianity site also addresses the question of whether these "deadly" sins can be forgiven. Yes, God can forgive all sins. No sin is greater or more deadly than another (Romans 6:23). There are some sins that bear more earthly consequences than others. For instance, murder has larger consequences than sinful anger. No matter the sin, the eternal consequences are the same— a separation from a holy God. But no sin too big or too bad that God cannot forgive (1 John 1:9). Rather than make you look them up, here are the referenced verses, with the entire passage for context. Slaves to Righteousness Ro 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Ro 6:19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Again, the specific verse is the last one: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The wages of sin is death.  Ultimately, my question is going to be about who is / are the sinner(s) in this whole abortion process - whether one actually happens or not. What's the difference between actually having an abortion versus considering one? In that light, let's also not forget what Jesus said about thinking something evil versus actually doing it. So adultery isn't really any different from looking at a woman the wrong way.  In that light, is having an abortion any different from seriously considering having one?  You may think, what's the big deal?  Surely the woman who actually had an abortion is worse than the one who didn't.  However, Jesus says that's not true.  Both have the same impact.  If anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart then it only seems reasonable that anyone who seriously considers having an abortion has already had an abortion in their heart. And if that's the case, what has been accomplished by preventing the abortion?  Some Christians might feel better about themselves for having prevented one, but isn't the "heart" of the problem long before the abortion actually takes place?  Hold that thought as we continue.   Here's the other passage referenced in the excerpt about the deadly sins.  The full passage is even longer, but I've kept enough of it go give context to what John is saying.  Remember - the quoted verse is 1Jn 1:9. Walking in the Light 1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 1Jn 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. 1Jn 2:1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1Jn 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 1Jn 2:7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining. 1Jn 2:9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him. ...  Are there unconfessed sins in the abortion / anti-abortion process? In light of what we've seen, and of what's coming next, pay attention to that verse: 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. My question will be - who has sinned in the process of having an abortion?  And just as importantly, in the ways that Christians often act in the process of trying to prevent an abortion?  And while we're at it - after the abortion?  Or even after an abortion doesn't take place?  Food for thought.  Some of those will be addressed later in this series. I said at the very beginning that we'd look at two things in here.   ... this is strictly a Biblical viewpoint of both the woman (or girl) having the abortion.  And also the Christian whose primary goal is to stop the abortion from taking place. So after all this, what about the Christian whose primary goal is to stop the abortion?  If that's you, I have a question for you.  By now, you know I consider abortion to be a sin.  You also know that I believe the Bible says even considering having an abortion is a sin.  And that the penalties for either one - considering an abortion and actually having one - are the same?  I wrote a little about that in If you stop abortion – so what?  I'll be going into greater detail later in this series.  Just want to get my viewpoint up front right away.  Before I ask that question.  Because the question is - do you think there's any sin involved in preventing an abortion and then walking away?  Depending on the statistics you read, it seems that about half of the pregnancies are done by unwed mothers.  About 3/4ths of the total number of abortions are for poor people.  Based on the numbers, many of those unwed mothers are, therefore, also poor. Conclusion - Is abortion the only pro-life issue? Now, consider something Jesus said. I don't want you to get lost in the weeds here, but there's something about when Jesus said  that you may not be aware of.  It's not obvious in the English translation.   You probably think it only says not to prevent the little children from coming to Jesus.  In the Greek, it actually says we should help them.  If we think about that for a moment - it actually makes more sense that we should help them. Of course, where it gets really messy is when we consider who is the "child".  Of course, in my discussion - it's not the fetus / baby.  It's the mother.  The mother who wants to follow Jesus - but is in a place where she doesn't know what to do.  She's not married.  She's too poor to support a baby.  And she can't work two or three part-time low paying jobs and still take care of her baby.  She doesn't know what to do.  She doesn't really want to have an abortion.  But doesn't know what else to do, because the Christians are screaming at her to not have the abortion.  But then if she has the baby, she also knows those many of those same Christians have, under the name of their political party, made it pretty much impossible for her to support the child.  And, few of them will offer any kind of help. Tell me.  Who all sinned in that scenario? We'll get into the answers to that question in the next part of this series on abortion. Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay   Read the full article

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

I don't know if you guys consider heterosexual aromantics to be LGBT, but I am one. Lust is something that I struggle with tremendously and I've been told by every Christian that I need to save myself for my husband or someone very important to me. However, I'm really put off by the idea of any romantic relationship. I don't know if I'll ever want one. I feel as if I'll forever be trapped with my sexual frustration because of this, and that if I hold it in, it will manifest in unhealthy ways.

CW: discussion about sex, mention of masturbation and brief mentions of purity culture and cheating

Hey there. I’m sorry you’re dealing with this frustration and confusion, friend. I do not have definitive answers for you, I’m afraid – only speculation and various ways you might go with this. In the end, it will be up to you to decide how you do (or don’t) express your sexuality. I pray that God’s Spirit of Wisdom and Right Judgment will be with you as you explore this matter. And know, of course, that you can come to one decision for a while and later decide it isn’t working for your faith life, and try a different path – there’s plenty of time to explore this and discover what is good for you.

Okay, so. I’ll start by throwing some old posts at you that might help. Beginning with masturbation – we’ve had posts in the past that speculate in favor of masturbation, if that’s something you also want to look into for a way of dealing with sexual frustration. See our masturbation tag. 

We’ve also talked about sexual relationships outside of marriage, though as far as I remember we’ve always discussed them in the context of a romantic relationship being in place rather than in terms of hooking up. Thus those posts aren’t quite what you are looking for but still might have some information you find useful. And our sex tag in general has even more stuff.****The part of your ask that these posts probably answer is people’s insistence that you need to “save yourself” for your husband – that’s a notion of purity culture, which is extremely toxic and sexist. We on this blog are strongly opposed to purity culture – if you choose not to have sex before marriage, it is between you and God; you won’t “dirty” yourself or be “damaged goods” for having sex. You’re a person, not an object!! And sex isn’t some dirtying force. So don’t listen to those people! Their notions are gross. 

Okay, so if you look through some of those linked tags you might notice one author I mention a lot, Catholic theologian Margaret Farley. I’ve made posts that describe her seven “norms” for just, or ethical, sex. A lot of them can clearly exist in a relationship that is sexual but not romantic / formed in a strong bond: do no unjust harm; free consent of partners; mutuality; and equality. But what about fruitfulness and social justice? And most obviously, what about commitment? 

First off, it’s not necessary to accept Farley’s seven norms; she is not necessarily “correct,” but I personally do think they’re pretty good standards for sex. In a “hook-up” sexual situation, her social justice norm might be achieved simply by ensuring that your sexual encounter does not harm the wider community – for instance, ensuring that your partner(s) are not in monogamous relationships so that someone is being cheated on. The fruitfulness aspect might be achieved if you consider the release of sexual tension fruitful. (I’m not convinced Farley would agree that that counts as fruitful but hey, she’s a Catholic nun, you can go a little farther than she does!). You seem self-aware in a really healthy way, recognizing that your sexual frustration might manifest itself in unhealthy ways – so I think it’s reasonable to consider a healthy release of some of that tension fruitful for you.

And finally, that commitment norm – I know Farley mentions commitment between two people “hooking up” somewhere in her book but I just can’t find it. If I remember correctly, her suggestion is a little flimsy – that you commit to one another in that you are both (or all, if multiple partners) clear on where your relationship starts and where it ends; no one is misled about the nature of the relationship. So in your case, it would probably be a matter of everyone involved understanding it was a purely sexual encounter without romantic strings attached – no leading someone on with hopes of dating in the future.

Time to switch gears and go in a different direction to offer a different view, just to give you all the information I can think of so you can ponder it all on your own.

1 Corinthians 7 is a portion of Paul’s writings that I like to use to argue the guy was asexual and/or aromantic. I by no means personally think this passage should be used to mandate all Christians’ sex lives, but you might still like to see what Paul thought about sex. 

Because Paul thought the second coming was imminent, he saw sex and marriage as a waste of time and to be avoided. However, he recognized that many people were not like him and were too “aflame with passion” to go without sex. For them he prescribed marriage as a solution. You might interpret this as either “for” or “against” your hopes – he’s not advocating non-romantic sexual relationships by any means, but he is showing that being “aflame with passion” is a genuine concern that needs to be addressed. Your worry about sexual frustration is a genuine one legitimized by scripture; but if you balk at a romantic relationship then marriage is not your vocation. So for you, non-romantic sex may be the solution. 

We’re almost wrapped up; I’ve just got one last thing to emphasize.

If you do decide to try some casual sex, or masturbation, please go into it slowly and ready to analyze how it affects your faith life. Afterwards, consider: are you too ridden with guilt to have enjoyed the sex? do you feel farther from God? or do you think you might learn to use sex/masturbation to feel closer to God by appreciating the gifts of physicality and pleasure God has given you? In our society that’s pretty awkward about sex, it might feel weird to invite God into your sex life – but do your best to converse with God about it! God gave you your sexuality and can help you figure it out. 

And finally, if you decide to try some sex – be safe!! Use protection both to avoid pregnancy if that’s a concern for you and to keep safe from STIs. Do your research, and make sure your partner is respectful of you and your concerns. If they act annoyed when you ask if they have a history of STIs, or when you want to use a condom, find someone else. (Remember there are other ways to have sex too – you don’t have to jump right into the penetrative stuff; going slow might be smart.)

If anyone has more thoughts, please share! I always sort of laugh when y’all send asks about sex because I am ace and I feel like me delving into this matter is as funny as Margaret Farley as a nun writing a whole book on sex. But I do my best and I hope it’s somewhat helpful! 

[trinitarianmission]

The Benedict Option: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Introduction

I don’t make a habit of reading NYT best sellers, but its not that often books on globalization, faith, politics, and church history make the list. So when The Benedict Option by Rod Dreher was published, I took note. The book as a whole is worth reading and there were times I agreed whole heartedly and there were more times I wanted to throw the book in disgust. It is that type of book; one that elicits a response. Thus, I have broken my review into three categories in honor of Clint Eastwood: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Before I dive into that, though, a few important bits of information about the background of the author: he is a self-proclaimed conservative journalist and a first-generation Eastern Orthodox convert. Both those realities give great insight into his guiding narratives which influenced his prescription for Western society and the USA. With that, I give you my review of The Benedict Option:

The Good

There was a lot that was good in The Benedict Option, but none more so than his call for strong discipleship. For the last 30 years or so, many in mainstream Evangelicalism have bought into the concept that worship and churches need to distill the faith message down to its most bear necessities to help remove any barriers people may have to accepting the message of Jesus. Though laudable in theory, the result has left our churches with very little to bind us together save an existential experience with a God we choose to call Jesus. It has made churches a product to be consumed and the moment that product no longer satisfies, we move move onto the next product, or in the case of the next generation, we leave it all together. The Benedict Option directly confronts this notion and reminds the church that if she is going to continue being the church into the 21st century, then her symbols and theology must be strong. By strong symbols and theology, Dreher notes that we must not be afraid of being a sacramental church or holding to theologies that may seem contradictory to the modern thinking. This includes a deeper understanding of prayer and personal scripture reading.

He also posits that the church must have strong community. Christians need to learn to move away from the isolated nuclear family structure and into a true community of faith. Like the Benedictine Monks, Dreher posits that the church must learn to create sustainable community within itself. This includes education, skilled services, and business. Church must move away from being something you give 2-3 hours a week (if you are the best of the best Christian), to be that which you build your life around. He spoke of moving from NYC to Louisiana to be around a community that helped foster faith in their family as a prime example of that looks like.

Faith being the anchor to which you build your life around is the answer in 21st century America. Having transformed lives as the chief means of evangelism rather than a slick sermon series or fantastic programming is the direction the church need to move towards and that will include strong symbols and theology. This community will be disciplined and will include a rule of life. It will be self-sustaining because the Gospel is self-sustaining. The Benedict Option calls the church to a serious life of faith and that is the answer for declining church attendance and stumbling morality in North America. The church must begin to make disciples who own their faith both on Sunday and Monday. It is with that, though, that I shift from high praise of The Benedict Option to a cutting critique.

The Bad

The bad in The Benedict Option is his at times subtle and at other times not so subtle idea that for the Christian faith in North America to survive the 21st century it must separate itself from the larger society and become an island unto itself. He uses St. Benedict’s model of faith as an example and aside from a misunderstanding of Benedictine spirituality, I would argue that separation and exclusion are the antithesis of Gospel message and would serve as the death blow to Western Christianity. Battering down the hatches and “surviving” the onslaught of secularism will create a Christianity that lasts, but it will also create a Christianity that has lost its very purpose for existence. Christianity exists to co-labor with the Son in the redemption of the Father’s world, empowered by the Holy Spirit. We are not called to adapt to secularism, but set the stage and model for the world what the Kingdom of God is to look like. We are not called to separate ourselves from society, but rather act as yeast in the dough and transform it. I am not against Christian schooling, but I am much more for parenting that sends faith-filled students into their high schools and universities to shine the light of Jesus both in word and deed.

Ministering in the United Kingdom not less than 100 years before Benedict was St. Patrick and his Celtic way of Christianity. Rather than secluding themselves, the Celts would set their monastery up right in the middle of the town and everyone was welcome to belong in their community before they became a Christian. They were not afraid to confront that which was evil, but were also not afraid to adapt that which dovetailed with the Christian faith. They didn’t fear popular culture; they understood it and through the power of the Holy Spirit transformed it. The result was a United Kingdom strong in faith for over 1500 years. To use H. Richard Niebuhr phrase, the New Testament (and Wesleyan Christianity, for my Wesleyan readers) posits a “Christ transforming culture” not a “Christ against culture” that Dreher proposes. As Leonard Ravenhill used to say, “the church must be a battleship at the gates of hell, not a love ship on the way to heaven.”

The Ugly

My final thought on The Benedict Option is my harshest thought and one that I hope my reader doesn't miss: the ugliest aspect of the book was Dreher’s insistence on saving Western culture. He wrote completely ambivalent to the fact that Christianity is flourishing in contexts much harsher than the USA and he wrote as if Western culture was something that must be saved at all cost. The Western way of life has brought much good to the world, but it has also brought equal (if not more than equal) amounts of pain. The church is not beholden to any way of culture over and above others and the death of the Western way should be of little consequence to her. She understands that the church is made up of those from the North, South, East, and West and each brings invaluable insight to the way she does theology and practice. The church is global and if the Western church is going to thrive into the 21st century, it will not be through guarding Western culture, but rather through embracing the practices of the Majority world church. Dreher completely misses this point and it is by far the greatest weakness of the book.

Conclusion

I would also like to note in conclusion that there is cause for great optimism regarding faith in the West. When culture has fully left its Christendom past, the church can once again rise to its prophetic role in both word and deed. There has never been a greater opportunity for the church to be the church than 2017 North America; will we continue to rail against a culture that as moved away from loose Christian affiliation or will we focus on making disciples who make disciples? In times of great darkness, the light can shine that much brighter. The church has its greatest opportunity right now. Will we live into it?

Even with the bad and the ugly, The Benedict Option is worth reading. It is not a manual on saving Western Christianity, though. It has some profound thoughts on Strong symbols and theology, and for that I commend it to both church leader and worshipper alike. It will challenge you, but I do believe ultimately fall short of an anecdote for the demise of faith in North America. For that, I recommend looking into Celtic Christianity and the Majority world church; that is our path forward and o what a path it is.

[madewithonerib]

Did God Change the Sabbath?

In honor of Good Friday, & to demonstrate that things aren't always what they seem, I thought it apropos to entertain the question, "Did God change the Sabbath?"

Question of whether the Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday or Sunday has been hotly debated for years, & in many cases, it's been debated in vain.

Seventh Day Adventists will fight tooth & nail for the belief that God never changed the Sabbath. Well, they are wrong.

God did change the Sabbath, & for this reason, we are not to celebrate our rest on Saturday. Now, before you "Sunday Sabbath" fans start to high-five each other, let me also make it clear - God did indeed change the Sabbath. But He did not change it to Sunday. For this reason, we are not to celebrate our rest on Sunday either!

No more do we need to bicker about what day the Sabbath is, because it isn't a day at all! Dear Reader, isn't that exciting?! How can this be?

We often only consider this question in terms of two choices: Sat or Sunday.

But I believe there is a third option, one that we almost never even consider, because we are too busy focusing on the wrong thing.

You see, I believe God changed the Sabbath from a day to a Person.

That's right: God changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Jesus Christ. Consider this:

Colossians 2:16-17 | Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body that casts it belongs to Christ.  

All of the Old Testament rituals & laws were a shadow of things to come!

In this manner, the calendar sabbath was just a sign which points to the real Sabbath - Christ. He is our rest, not from our 9-5 jobs & our household chores, but from our toil to release the burden of sin.

Now, if we go with the idea that God did change the Sabbath, not from Saturday to Sunday, but from Saturday to Jesus, then is it still possible to break the Commandment which says we must honor the Sabbath and keep it holy?

Absolutely! It's not that the 4th Commandment goes away, rather, it has merely been fulfilled. Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

In this sense, we break the Sabbath whenever we dishonor Christ. Anyone who fails to keep the Sabbath holy is violating a command to honor Jesus:

Matthew 11:28-29 | Come to Me, all you who are weary & burdened, & I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you & learn from Me; for I am gentle & humble in heart, & you will find rest for your souls.  

Jesus is inviting us to take rest in Him.

People who do not honor the new Sabbath - people who insist on working, working their way into heaven instead of entering into His rest - will find on Judgment Day the wrath of God kindled against them, no matter what day of the week they choose to "rest" or go to church.

No more do we need to bicker about what day the Sabbath is, because it isn't a day at all! It's not about a day of the week. It's all about the Lord!!

So why then do we meet on Sunday as a church?

We meet on the first day of the week to celebrate His resurrection.

It's not really a Sabbath at all, but a celebration!

Sunday is a weekly reminder of the glorious day that He rose from the grave & conquered death.

Our sins have been washed away. No more will we have to toil in an effort to keep the law, an impossible task! No, because He is risen, we can rest in Him.

This is why Sunday is referred to as "The Lord's Day" in Scripture.

Good news for all who put their faith & trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin.

It's also good news as we honor God by keeping the Commandments, not in an effort to earn salvation, but as a means of repentance & an expression of gratitude to God for what He has done for us.

We don't have to worry that we are displeasing God if we are called into work on a Sunday, because we are not breaking the Sabbath. But if we should attempt to work our way to heaven, we are breaking the Sabbath:

And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:23)

As stated above, in God's kingdom, things aren't always what they seem! May you find your rest in Him this Holiest of Lord's Days: Resurrection Sunday.                     _____________________________________________________

Mt 24:20 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath?

I would say in reference to Matthew 24:20 that having to flee on a sabbath would simply mean that an added hardship would be present. I would imagine if I worked hard all week, and then flee on my day of rest, I would be lose that resting period, which would mean added hardship for my body. It would make things harder on me, just as if I had to flee during winter as opposed to a time when it was not so cold.

When Jesus said the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, I believe he was referring to the calendar sabbath, because we were all made for the glory of the Sabbath called Christ. But it is probably a good idea to have a calendar sabbath anyway, because it is to our benefit to rest our physical bodies.                    _____________________________________________________ 

The Lord has been putting it on my heart lately that I'm not "resting" in Him. Oh sure, I trust Him rather than my works to save me, but if you could see into my soul, you would see very little rest there. I still worry and get upset far too easily.  I want to know this rest much more deeply.

Betsy, your comment reminded me of another side to this -- that we frequently forget to "rest" in Him when we are too busy to spend time with Him! (I am guilty of this for certain.) Jesus provided another example of how we might consider Him the real Sabbath when we look at the story of Mary and Martha. We don't want to be so busy that we forget to rest and delight in Him. I wish I had thought of that when I wrote this! Thanks for the reminder!                   _____________________________________________________

My dear friend we are on the same page...Hebrews says it all..and in fact we have one more sabbath left and that is when we enter into our eternal rest in heaven. (Hebrews 4)                  _____________________________________________________

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, & thou be found a liar. Where has God said that the Sabbath day is not a day? Please note that the passage you've quoted (Colossians 2) specifically says that these things "ARE a shadow of THINGS TO COME." Paul wrote after Calvary and yet declared that these things ARE (present tense) a shadow of things to come (i.e. future). The greek agrees perfectly with this translation. The apostle never said they WERE a shadow of things to come.

>> This sufficiently exposes your error of interpretation here. QUOTE: "So why then do we meet on Sunday as a church? We meet on the first day of the week to celebrate His resurrection. Sunday is a weekly reminder of the glorious day that He rose from the grave & conquered death." There is no Scriptural support for your position here. Please give Bible chapter & verse to show that Sunday commemorates Christ's resurrection.

Observing Sunday in honour of His raising from the dead is simply a tradition of man that is contrary to the commandment of God. The truth is baptism, is how we identify with the death, burial, & resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The exact phrase, 'The Lord's Day' is only mentioned once in Scripture. It is mentioned by John. Now, please consider the following. John calls the seventh day of the week the “Sabbath” in John 5:9-10, 16, 18; 7:22-23; 9:14, 16; 19:31. John calls Sunday the “first day of the week” in John 20:1, 19. Why would John then suddenly call Sunday "The Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10?

I'd like to offer the scriptures that s/he (?) asked for.

Hebrews 4:1-11 | The Believer’s Rest For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, ..., “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

Hebrews 8:13 | When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete & growing old is ready to disappear.

The passage in Hebrews 4:11 especially appears to support what Ms. MFC has contributed to the conversation.

Now these scriptures do not directly state that God changed the Sabbath from a day to a Person, however we can infer this based on scriptures like this & the ones I provided in the original post.

Just as there are no scriptures deliberately making mention of the Trinity, we can infer the Trinity exists by juxtaposing several scriptures side by side.                 _____________________________________________________

Ms. Modest Fashion Cents said...

A hint to the "pray that your flight be not (in the winter or) on the Sabbath..." could have to do with what happened Friday. Just before Jesus died He said "It is finished." Because He had completed the atonement - He could rest on the sabbath.

Now if Jesus would have had to break the sabbath because His work wasn't completed - all His people would still be "in flight" (running from the wrath of God) on the sabbath (when they were suppose to have found their rest). Now the theological implications of this on salvation are huge. If Jesus hadn't finished his work before the sabbath set in - that would mean that all the redeemed would have been eternally lost. Jesus himself would have returned to the Father - simply on the basis of his own righteousness because the justice of God prevents Him from condemning a righteous man. Jesus would have returned empty handed though. So the admonition to pray that your flight be not on the sabbath was really a pleading for your redeption. Now the flight be not in winter thing. Earlier in the gospels Jesus had said look up for the feilds are ripe for harvest. The harvest comes just before the winter. Jesus was in the temple preaching until the Tuesday before the crucifixian. Here's where it gets interesting. Late that afternoon Jesus is sitting on the Mt. of Olives and says something to the effect that now is the time Satan is cast to the earth. (It's in the book of John - can't remember the verse off hand) In the book of Revelation - when Satan is cast down - he's bound for 1000 years in the bottomless pit. That night Jesus goes to someone's house for dinner (think it's Simon the leper?) and some un-named woman pours oil over his head. He states that she's done this for his burial. This is Teusday night, most likely right after sundown. Exactly 3 24 hour periods later (Teusday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night - Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) Jesus is dead! There's your 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Notice Jesus is not in public anywhere. He's not preaching to anyone - the harvest of that covenant was over - this was "the winter". They weren't "fleeing in the winter" because Jesus was still physically there. He was still alive. Now the apostles fled when Jesus was arrested. Now my assumption is that those who had died - including John the Baptist and all to be redeemed that had died before him (Old Testament) who were awaiting enterance into heaven had "fled" too. They'd fled the wrath of God. This is what I think was the "great tribulation". They fled for fear that the atonement would not be completed and that they'd be eturnally lost. Now you get to the book of Revelation and immediatly after the lamb appears before the throne - to open the scrolls - so do all these people. And the passage states that these are those who've come out of (the) great tribulation. So now resurrection comes and you have a totally new covenant. The enacting of the new covenant actually happened at the point Jesus died - the proof of his victory being the resurrection. (that's another theological topic though). So anyways - the old has passed and Christ is the new testament sabbath. Remeber - if you wish to keep a portion of the old covenant than you are a debter to the whole law! Hows this jive with "new covanent law". What coudn't be fulfilled in the flesh because of the sin nature of men is now completed in the believer through the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. So intrinsic in the new covanant is the "moral law" of the old since the Holy Spirit as God can't break His own laws. This is why Paul admonishes the churches saying that if you are truely born again - one evidence should be that you are living a moral life. So, can you pick a day to rest - physically speaking - sure - it's a good idea. Is it mandatory like it was in the Old Testament - no. Again, all things are lawful for me but not all things are profitable. This is what grace is about - it truely brings you choices and a will that's freed enough from the bondage of sin to make those kinds of choices. Of course no one is perfectly freed from their fallen estate - but a believers relationship to sin is profoundly different after redemption.                 _____________________________________________________

Jennifer - I'm glad you "re-opened" this post for more comments. Because I got a couple of great Greek "monkey wrenches" to throw in here! LOL Before I pull out my "monkey wrenches" though, I want to comment on the question Elessar posed concerning Adam - What the Sabbath meant for Adam? Adam and the Sabbath: There are two opposing "schools" of theological thought that would address this question in different ways. For those who may be on more of an "Arminian" bent - they may approach this question with the assumption that God knew nothing about the fall at the point of creation. Of course (on the other hand) if one believes in the omniscience (sp?) of God - He'd have to know what was "coming down the pike". So, with God knowing the inevitibility of the fall; the question of Adam and the Sabbath becomes quite easy to answer. Even if Adam didn't understand what a "day of rest" was all about; it'd soon be painfully clear to him that he'd need rest. He'd need it in a way he'd never known before! He'd need redemption! I'd stated in my first post that the phrase "God rested on the seventh day" is actually in the future tense in the Hebrew. Couple that with the incidence of the Pharisees dismay at the disciples picking ears of corn on the Sabbath. Jesus's answer to them is that his Father has continued to work even unto this day; and so does he himself (Jesus). Now from a practical stand point we know that plants and animals still grow on Saturdays, the sun still shines, the rain still falls. Every living thing where within the "breath of life" is found does not cease to "labor" in that life just because it's Saturday. It's very obvious that God is "working" in the maintaining of this creation because if He wasn't - we would't be here writing in this blog. So there's the "simple" answer as to the question of Adam. Now for the "complicated" answer.               _____________________________________________________

Before Adam transgressed would he have needed a redeemer? Now, on the surface that question seems like it'd have a real simple "no brainer" answer. Does it really though? I'll post here some things from Genesis and the book of John, give you my own assesment and let ya'all make up your own minds on that question. In the very first verses of Genesis we have the earth being without form and void and darkness being upon the face of the deep. Now the phrase "darkness upon the face of the deep" is interesting because the "darkness" is "the with-holding of light" that's upon the face of "the abyss". When we take this over to the opening of John, we get a "definition" of what it means. At the commencement of creation "the Word" already existed. Here's where it gets interesting because the Greek actually says: "... and the Word continously existed superceeding god." The Watch Tower Society seriously butcher the meaning of this in their translation; but the King James doesn't really do it justice either. King Jimmy translates it "and the Word was God". King James translates an accurate meaning, although misses an important neuance. The Word was "the God" that superceeded a power that was already present. God had imposed His creation into this "darkness" that was upon the face of the deep. This power (or god) resisted "the light" and attempted to supress the light. This darkness is a perpetually destructive force that God proved His supiority over by creating life. In simple terms God labled it as "evil" (This is why Adam and Eve were confronted with the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Evil already exited - creation was just ignorant of it before the fall.) Science calles this perpetualy destructive force enthropy. This is why the conception of life is so puzzling to science. The creation of new organizisms is completly contradictory to the law of enthropy! So, having Adam, Eve and the rest of creation suspended by God's sovereign power into this perpetually destructive force called evil - we can see why and how the fall was so very diabolical!               _____________________________________________________

Did Adam need a Redeemer before the fall?

From the judicial stand point - no. From the practical stand point - absolutely. Because Adam lacked all the "omni(s)" that God possesses; his requirement of a sacrifice was inevitable. The first "weak link" that rocked the whole created order was Eve. ("Satan" - what ever Satan constitues; I personally don't have an answer for, that I'm satisfied with. Traditionally, people have believed that he was a fallen angel; yet nothing in God's created order had "fallen" until Adam ate the fruit. So, what was Satan? I don't know. I'm not inclined to think he was a fallen angel - but that's a different topic altogether.) If we look real carefully at the text we see that Eve ate the fruit because she wanted the knowledge of good and evil. It never says that Eve wanted to be like God in the totality of who He was! No, it says she ate the fruit because it was "desireable to make one wise". Her intention was not evil. The way she went about trying to satisfy the hunger (pardon the pun) for that knowledge is what brought her into direct conflict with God. Adam on the other hand jumped into this mess with both feet. If he'd refused to eat the fruit and instead just went to God ("Houston, we got a problem!") God's answer would have still been - "You need a Sacrifice." (ie you need a Redeemer!) Adam and Eve were not created with a nature that could withstand the knowledge of good and evil without being corrupted by that knowledge. (They were not eternal.) In order to conquar this perpetually destructive darkness; God himself had to enter into it and overcome it's final outcome (death) with life. This is why Jesus had to physically rise from the dead! So here is what I believe was the reason for making mention of a day of rest back in Genisis. Again, we have a "day" really ending up being a Person! Now, the "Greek Monkey Wrenches" I mentioned earlier I'm going to put in another post. This one is already pretty long and my 'ol flesh is weak. (My eyes are blurring out looking at the computer screen and I'm falling asleep!) So, "I'll be back!" (Jennifer, I'm glad you re-opened the posting for this thread. It's a good topic. Made my brain work for it's supper tonight!)              _____________________________________________________

Brandon

said...

Jennifer, I appreciate that you consider the Sabbath a topic worth discussing. However, I would encourage you to continue studying the issue because your reasoning does not sufficiently justify your conclusion. As Elessar pointed out, the Sabbath was instituted before the Fall so it cannot foreshadow Redemption. Also, please note that Heb 4 makes it clear that we have not yet entered that rest. The entire passage in Hebrews is an exhortation to persevere. Thus it is not possible to say the weekly Sabbath is done away with because Christ is our rest, because the author of Hebrews is very emphatic that we have not entered the rest he is speaking of! God made a covenant of works with Adam, the reward of which was life everlasting. Adam had the hope that he would one day enter God's rest once he had fulfilled his probationary period of testing. The Sabbath was a weekly reminder of that rest, just as it is for us today. The difference is that Adam saw it as something he had to work for, we see it as something accomplished for us, thus the change in day because of the change in motivation. 1) It is a red herring to point to how "orthodox" Jews practice the Sabbath today. We do not look to them to interpret Scripture. Jesus corrected the Pharisees distortion of the Sabbath laws and we should learn from Him. is your pastor or minister a paid employee of your church? What do you think the Lord will say when every pastor or minister on earth has to give an account for what they’ve done? You need to calm your zeal a little. Have you read Matthew 12? Jesus explains that those who serve the Lord on the Sabbath by doing His work do not profane the Sabbath (priests/disciples). I do not take issue with your perspective on this. I just disagree because it is not congruent with the freedom and liberty we now have in Christ. The freedom we have in Christ is freedom to sin. Ms. MFC, I'm afraid your solution to what Elessar mentioned is insufficient. The shadows that Paul refers to in Col 2 were understood by true believers to be shadows pointing to something greater. From their inauguration they pointed to Christ and believers knew that. The weekly Sabbath could not point Adam to a redeemer that he did not know he needed. To say that God knew it would one day point to a Redeemer is to avoid the issue. Furthermore, it is clear that Paul is referring to the Sabbaths mentioned in Lev 23 that were added in addition to the weekly Sabbath. Any festival that God required Israelites to rest on was called a Sabbath.

June 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Brandon

said...

I'd stated in my first post that the phrase "God rested on the seventh day" is actually in the future tense in the Hebrew. Couple that with the incidence of the Pharisees dismay at the disciples picking ears of corn on the Sabbath. Jesus's answer to them is that his Father has continued to work even unto this day; and so does he himself (Jesus). Now from a practical stand point we know that plants and animals still grow on Saturdays, the sun still shines, the rain still falls. Every living thing where within the "breath of life" is found does not cease to "labor" in that life just because it's Saturday. It's very obvious that God is "working" in the maintaining of this creation because if He wasn't - we would't be here writing in this blog. Ms. MFC, I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I'm guessing you're not either. Can you please reference where you read that the Hebrew in Gen 2:2 is future tense? Why doesn't any translation reflect this? Why do they all say that He rested on the seventh day? Why don't they say He was going to rest on the seventh day? Furthermore, why does Ex 20 point Israelites back to God's rest as a motivation for their rest? As far as God continuing to work... again, you are simply ignoring what Gen 2:2 says. It says God rested. However, we need to understand what He rested from. Did He rest from all work? No, He rested from the work he had done (note the NET and NASB translation). He rested from the work of creation. This is important to remember as we rest from our work. We are not to rest from all work, but from the work we do the rest of the week. Your reference to Jesus saying the Father and He are working is in reference to Redemption. And Jesus does not offer that as an excuse for what He is doing (He was healing in John 10, not the wheat) because He did not need an excuse. Healing is lawful on the Sabbath. His comment was to hint towards His work of Redemption, just like when He says something greater than the temple is here. God rested from His work of Creation. Adam fell and then God began his work of Redemption. God completed His work of Redemption and so now we honor Him by resting on the day He rested from His work of Redemption.

June 15, 2009 at 6:24 PM

oops The freedom we have in Christ is [NOT] freedom to sin. June 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM

                    _____________________________________________________

Jennifer said...

Brandon, thank you so much for sharing your identity. I do consider it a courtesy to the rest of us participating in this conversation. (I want to ensure that we are discussing these issues with actual Christians and not being distracted by those who would just perpetuate discussions for the sake of creating discord.) And so I truly thank you. I appreciate your argument, and Elessar’s. However, I believe entirely that the creation process itself, and everything that was instituted before the fall is, in fact, indicative of Christ. Consider the fact that the earth was in a sense “buried” under water, but was brought forth on the third day. Is that a mere coincidence, or is that indicative of the work of Christ? Consider the fact that God created marriage before the fall. Was marriage created for the sake of marriage, or was it a foreshadowing of Christ? Consider Ephesians 5:27-28. Paul is discussing Christ’s model, then says we are to emulate our marriages after His example. God did not get the idea to betroth Himself to the church from the institution of marriage. On the contrary, He instituted marriage as a symbol of what was to come. Is it not equally possible that the day of rest is to signify our rest in Christ? I also appreciate your arguments concerning Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2. Yes, the work of God is not finished yet. There will come a day when we will rest from all we know here. However, I do believe that there is sufficient evidence that the rest has already come and is still yet to come. Using the marital example again, when two people are married, they often look forward to their future together. But this does not negate the fact that their future exists in a sense now, in the present. Corresponding to this, Jesus defined eternal life in John 17:3 as “knowing God.” I have eternal life now, in the present. I will also enjoy eternal life in the future, when I stand in glory with God. So I don’t see my view as being inconsistent with the future tense of Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2. Again, I appreciate your comments, however I am not sure exactly what your goal is in participating in this discussion. My goal was not to inspire debate, but simply to encourage and inspire people to place an emphasis on Christ, rather than the symbols used in the Bible to foreshadow Him. I do not believe I’m in sin, or that I have embraced a false teaching. At the most, I believe I hold a different view than you. Is your intention to simply state an alternate view, or is it something more? I ask because you seem very passionate about this. I do not judge you for your view. However, I am inspired by my view because it truly has given me a deeper appreciation for all Christ has done, and the perfection of His plan, down to the smallest detail. To bring my sense of understanding of the Sabbath back to a mere day just seems to reduce my faith to a series of rules. Again, I observe my “Sabbath” on Sunday because I love God, and He says if we love Him, we will obey His commandments. This is why I personally continue to observe a Sabbath "day". However, I do not embrace any of those commandments as a vehicle by which I can achieve God’s favor. June 15, 2009 at 7:11 PM                     _____________________________________________________

Brandon said...

Jennifer, it may be your opinion that everything in creation was indicative of Christ, but you do not have Biblical warrant for such an assertion. Paul certainly has no such thing in mind. Every use of the term shadow in relation to Christ refers to the Mosaic Covenant. Furthermore, to suggest that everything in creation prior to the Fall was indicative of Christ robs the meaning of the shadows that God instituted in the Mosaic Covenant. Marriage is nowhere described as a shadow of Christ, including Eph 5. If it is your opinion that marriage is a shadow of Christ, then we should no longer marry because marriage is fulfilled in Christ, the substance of what marriage foreshadowed. A day of rest has always been meant to signify the rest we find in God. Saturday signifies our effort to work towards that rest. Sunday signifies Christ's accomplishment of that rest. However, I do believe that there is sufficient evidence that the rest has already come and is still yet to come. In the context of Hebrews, the entire point of the passage is an exhortation to persevere because we have not entered that rest. The author of Hebrews does not say we have rest now and we will also have rest later. He says we have not entered God's rest and we must persevere in our faith lest we fail to enter. To claim otherwise is to ignore what the passage says. Again, I appreciate your comments, however I am not sure exactly what your goal is in participating in this discussion. My goal was not to inspire debate, but simply to encourage and inspire people to place an emphasis on Christ, rather than the symbols used in the Bible to foreshadow Him. You inspired debate the moment you chose to say in public that my view of the Sabbath is incorrect. You are encouraging men and women to sin by teaching them to ignore the 4th commandment. I understand you believe you still observe it, but you are wrong. By failing to observe Sunday as a Sabbath to God by resting from our labor, we sin. If you do not wish to be challenged on this point, then you should consider not making posts that others will disagree with. I do not believe I’m in sin, or that I have embraced a false teaching. Which is why I took the time to show you the problems with your reasoning. I am exhorting you to change your mind on this matter. I apologize if I sound "gruff." It's just due to lack of time to more fully expand my thoughts. Please consider the sermon Elessar linked to above. However, I do not embrace any of those commandments as a vehicle by which I can achieve God’s favor. Jennifer, that's a red herring. Nobody is claiming to be justified by works. June 15, 2009 at 7:26 PM                    _____________________________________________________

Jennifer said...

Brandon, again I appreciate your willingness to care enough to bring these issues to my attention. I do not think you sound gruff. I did listen to the sermon Elessar posted (I would not have posted something I did not listen to. I want to know what my readers are being encouraged to listen to.) In spite of this, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It is not that I do not wish to be challenged. If that were the case, I would not be publishing your comments. I just do not really feel the need to go any deeper into this. Both sides of the issue have been raised. Rest assured your concerns have not only been heard, but will remain here for posterity for all who choose to visit this article in the future. Blessings!

June 15, 2009 at 8:34 PM                    _____________________________________________________ 

Ms. Modest Fashion Cents said...

Referance material I use: Word Study Series - THE COMPLETE WORD STUDY OLD & NEW TESTAMENT(seperate volumes) Printed by Zodhaiates AMG Publishers. I also use a King James Bible & a Strong's Concordance. Occasioally I check linguistic references on-line to see if the gramatical notations match the reference material I use. Note about gramatical notations - the Mood, Voice, & context of any given verse is often subject to the interpretation of the person translating. Their interpretation is ususally colored by what aspect of any given verse they may be focusing on. For example: in Greek - actions performed by God as related to man. If a translater is focusing on the human role in the interaction they will translate the verb as "passive voice". If they are focusing on God's role in the interaction than they will translate that same verb as "active voice". The outcome is the same though. Rule of thumb that I use is - if the translation of any difficult verse jives with the overall redemptive message of the Scriptures; than that is still a good translation - even taking into account the variance of the translaters and what they deem of the gramatical "bent" of particular words or phrases. We always have to keep in mind that translation of language is always subject to human interpretation; regardless of how highly schooled those humans may or may not be. We must keep in mind that Christ and the redemptive message are the centeral theme of all the Scripture. Any periphial (sp?) issues (cerimonial laws & commandments, historical events, prophecy, songs, proverbial statements ect) are some how a testimony of / related to that redemption. If we focus on that truth - it makes translation hard to mess up. This is where the Holy Spirit becomes an essential element in dealing with Scriptural translation. Humanity is incuriably religious in it's attempts to "make right" with God. Fallen humanity wants to think they bear the capacity to make themselves right with God; therefore they invent all sorts of religious schemes based on works. In response to this, God presented fallen humainity with His standards. This was the Old Testament. Within those standards was imbedded the message of redemption. The focus was never meant to be the standared - the focus was always meant to be redemption. The reason being, is that it's impossible to live up to God's standards - because we are not God. The very missing of the redemptive message is evidence that the translater was not working under the power of the Holy Spirit. Consequentally, a good translator doesn't necessiarly have to be highly schooled. This is what baffled the religious leaders conserning Jesus and the disciples. They probalby only had the equivalant of a sixth grade education.

June 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Ms. Modest Fashion Cents said...

Now as to the question of the translation "Rested on the seveth day..." being future tense. Hebrew is different than Greek. The language is constructed differently thus lending less ambiguity to the tense, mood and voice of the Hebrew words themselves. Hebrew has little characters that have specific meanings attached to them. This isn't necessiarly true with Greek. The reason is that Hebrew is a language of description that protrays an idea. Greek is a language of idea that protrays a description. English is also a language of idea that protrays a description. Example: when we say "He was angry" - we get a picture in our heads of what this angry person "looked like". Hebrew on the other hand - that same phrase "He was angry"; literally translated is "He had snorting nostrils". There is no actual gramatical character in Hebrew that denotes "future tense". What Hebrew does have is an "imperfect" tense. The "imperfect" tense is a countinous action that has a definate end in the context of an entire scheme of events. When that action becomes completed it becomes "perfect" tense. So where you have imperfect and perfect tense notation in the same phrase of a text this can be confusing to translation. Genesis 2:2 ....God ended his work....and rested .... - both of those words(ended and rested) are imperfect tense. What that means is that as a part of God's whole work that He would (come to) "rest" upon; there was an aspect of it that wasn't completed yet. "...ended His work which He had made.." Now the word "made" is perfect tense. He's completed the creation. That aspect of His work was finished, yet that doesn't imply that God's working was totaly "ended". Consequentlly if you tried to interpret that "rest" being in the imperfect tense as a continous event that never comes to an end (ie. the notion of having to continously observe a sabbath) - than you have a major theological problem. God would have never picked up His work again if He stayed in a state of continous rest. Now the next verse: "....blessed the seventh day.... because that in it He had rested from all his work which God created and made." Here is where attention to a little detail is imperitive or you'll miss the point God was trying to make about "resting". Notice the phrase "created and made." Two different Hebrew words - God didn't just put them there because He was being linguistically redundent. The word "created" is primarily translated chosen. It's a word that's in the absolute and it's also in the perfect tense. This particular word "Made" on the other hand is not in the perfect tense. It's a verbal noun that depicts a simple one time completed act. I.E. creation of the heavens and earth. So in essence what these two words are telling us is that there is more to God's "creation" than the physical universe. Here is where God links the act of redemption to the sabbath! The primary purpose of creating a sabbath day of rest was for Christ. He could "rest" on the day after the crucifixian because God had completed the entirity of His work. This is reflected in the portion of verse 3 "....because... had rested from...." Now that word "rested" is perfect tense, meaning that once he'd come to the end of that "rest" He was not going to rest any longer. There was no need to rest from His labor because there was no more labor to be labored upon. Now, my translation of this "rested on the sabbath" as future is because of the tense being both perfect and imperfect in the context of this single idea. It's very clear in these two verses that God is making a distiction between a tempoary rest and a permanant rest. If He wasn't the two verses would consistantly be either perfect or imperfect tense; not one of each.

June 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Ms. Modest Fashion Cents said...

Ok, now for my "monkey wrenches" that I promised earlier!!!! Did God change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? People claim there is no Scriptural evidence for the changing of the day - when actually there is! Matt 28:1, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1 "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week..." (Matt) "Sabbath" and "first day of the week" are the same Greek word and in this passage, it is actually plural. The word is "sabbaton". So the literal rendering is actually: "At the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths....." Another accurate rendering would also be "At the end of the weeks, as it began to dawn toward the first of the weeks..." Yes it is true that in Scripture there is no other Greek word for "week"; but there is also no other Greek word for Sabbath. (I'm sure though that the Greek language did have a seperate word for "week". We just don't see it rendered in the Scripture. Either way, you can't get away from the fact that there is a distinction made in the text as to a transition from one set of weeks to another set of weeks. Now the other "monkey wrench" - I'm warning ya - it's a big one!!! Mark 16:1 "and when the sabbath was passed...." This word "Sabbath" is singular and has a definate article. A definate article identifies a particular thing apart from others of it's kind. So this is "the Sabbath" or "this Sabbath". The word "passed" (this Sabbath being past..) is composed of two Greek words that mean "through the vehicle of" and "to declair". So we have: "And when the (this) Sabbath had been declaired through the vehicle of; Mary....brought sweet spices..." What or who had this Sabbath been declaired through the vehicle of? Jesus's rest from his work was a complete rest. You don't get anymore "doing no work" than being dead! He didn't even decompose - that's how "rested" he was! Ironically, the fact that Jesus's body didn't decompose; tells us something about what the real "no work" injunction of the Sabbath was. This is why it's impossible for any of us to keep Old Testament sabbath. You may think this analogy is a stretch; but the picture is profound. All "labor" that was contained in the "body" of the "sabbath" rested. Man and beast. The cells of his flesh labored not, nor did the bacteria or any other organism that may have been on or inside his body. To me that's very profound as to the message that redemption brings. It really and truely does bring a total rest to ALL of our labor!

June 17, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Puritan said...

Ms Modest wrote: "Another accurate rendering would also be "At the end of the weeks, as it began to dawn toward the first of the weeks..." No that would not be an accurate rendering. Greek (nor any other language) does not work like that. You can't just pick up a concordance, and pick which meaning you like best. The context determines the meaning. The example I use is, if I said "I took something back to the shop, but I was in the wrong queue, so I had to go back to the back of the queue, but then my back was hurting, so I went back home, I forgot my front door key, so I went in the back way, I put coat on the back of the chair and sat back down." Now I used several different meanings for the word back there. But each time you instantly knew which meaning of the word back I meant. You didn't have to think each time "I wonder which version of the word back he's using this time?" Because the context determines the meaning. It's the same in both Hebrew and Greek. So not a single person will have read that text how you would like it to read. Also yes I do think you are stretching it with Mark 16:1, it is simply saying, after the Sabbath day was over. Blessings.

June 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Ms. Modest Fashion Cents said...

Puritan If you have an interliniar bible - I suggest you go look this up. Here is the literal English rendering in the order of the Greek words: "After, But the sabbaths, at the dawning into the first of the sabbaths came Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary...." Now what do you think that means? The word is "Sabbaton" - it's translated "sabbath" in one phrase and "first day of the week" in the other - yet it's the same word and it's plural! As you can see by the verse it's-self. I didn't "do anything" to the language. You can even check it out on line if you want. God could have had whom ever penned the verse render it differently, if He so chose to. I'm sure in Konia Greek - they had a word for "week", and one for "day", and one for "first". In other passages they simply use the phrase "the next day" (which does not contain the word "sabbath": - but that's not how this was written. God must have had it written the way that it is for a reason! Your "back" / "back" argument works well for English because English is constructed that way - Greek is not. Modern English is composed of several different languages and the more you "throw in the pot" so to speak - the more you end up havig mulitiple words that have very similar meanings. New Testament Greek does not have as many words of neuance as Modern English does. New Testament Greek has a tendency to use the same words over and over again, or only a few variance of a meaning; (as compared to classic Greek or other more complex languages). I think the reason for this is because it would have to be translated over and over again and God already knew that. New Testament Greek is considered inferior to Classical Greek because it's so rudimentary. Now to answer your question about "weeks" as opposed to "end of the sabbath". The anchient Hebrew world measured weeks by the passing of Sabbaths. The fact that they did this makes "At the end of weeks as it dawned toward the first of weeks..." also an adiquate translation. "The end of sabbaths toward the beginning of sabbaths.." is still a better translation though. The New Testament language picks up on this idea by tacking on "sabbaths" as a new set of sabbaths starting on the first day of the week. If you were trying to stretch this verse to mean "toward the 7th day sabbath..." You'd have Jesus being resurrected a week following the crucifixian, since the dawning of the next 7th day sabbath would have been Friday at sundown.

June 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Ms. Modest Fashion Cents said...

Mark 16:1 "And passing the Sabbath, Mary the Magdelene...." The word "passing" is composed of two other Greek words. "Passing" - Strong's #1230 #1230 composed of #1223 - which is a prime preposition denoting the channel by which an act is committed. #1096 - a prolonged and middle form of a prime verb "to be" The middle voice is an action of someone who is acting upon their own will on behalf of their own self interest. "And through the channel of he who is caused to pass away the Sabbath, Mary the Magdelene..." If you break down this phrase - that's what you get. Yes, in the simplest form it's saying the sabbath is over; but it's saying a lot more than that as conserning how it came to be over and who caused that. This word sabbath is singular, the reason for that is that "the sabbath" was made specifically for Christ. So the sabbath that was created to "pass" at some point - passed when he rose from the dead. That's how it passed though the channel of him!

June 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Jennifer said...

Someone shared this article with me and it is absolutely amazing: http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index076.htm Or Click here to visit. Very detailed, very humbly written, very exciting to read!!

September 9, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Brandon

said...

Jennifer, if you agree with John Reisinger and are going to promote his views on your blog, you need to remove "Reformed" from your blog's title.

September 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM

ADieL said...

God bless you brethren. I also have been studying what the Bible has to say about the Sabbath recently. I must say that it has been a very thrilling and joyful experience. I just have a question for Brandon. Do you believe that those of us who do not hold to a first day Sabbath but rather believe that the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come but the substance is of Christ... are lost? Are habitual impenitent first day Sabbath breakers (or who teach others so)... people like John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Don Carson, Tim Conway etc... must repent or they will perish? Would you call such people to repentance and discipline them out of the church and not even eat with them if necessary? This would be my reaction to anyone who professes to be a Christian but is in direct violation of commandments 1 through 3 and 5 through 10. Is this your reaction to violators of the first day Sabbath doctrine? How do see this?

September 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Brandon said...

No I would not say they are lost. Their disobedience is not necessarily done in rebellion. But yes, I believe discipline is a legitimate step - though certainly taking into consideration the climate we live in, much grace should be extended in the learning process.

September 10, 2009 at 9:45 PM

ADieL said...

Hi brother, I agree that church discipline should be done biblically (lovingly, humbly, patiently, firmly, graciously)! Let me see if I understand what you are saying... You don't believe we are necessarily lost. However if we Christians who believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath and that the first day Sabbath doctrine is unscriptural don't respond to church discipline with repentance, we can ultimately be excommunicated and regarded as a tax collector (a lost person who needs to be evangelized). Correct? Thanks.

September 11, 2009 at 8:08 AM

David said...

The verse you used of "Let no man judge you" was referring the laws contained in ordinances which was written by Moses in a book, that was against us and placed outside the ark. That is the Law that was nailed to the cross. God's Ten Commandment Laws as stated by David, "Will stand fast for ever and ever and are done in TRUTH and uprightness" We must worship Him in TRUTH! King David says again in Psalms 119 that "Thy Law IS THE TRUTH" The law contained in ordinances was the laws concerning meats and drinks and holy days such as Day of Pentacost, Feast of Tabernacles and so on. Those laws were "against us" and a "witness against us" until the seed should come who did fulfill them, which is why we don't have to sacrifice sheep in the back yard for forgiveness! There were 2 laws, Moses law (contained in ordinance) and the law of GOD (Royal law). Moses law was nailed to the cross, God's perfect law will stand fast forever! Rev 12:17 tells you who the true end time saints are, those who KEEP the commandment of God AND have the testimony of Jesus! Rev. 14 says "And this is the patience of the saints, here are they who KEEP the commandments of God AND the testimony of Jesus Christ." And lastly, Jesus Himself testified to who has the right to the tree of life in Rev 22:14-18 "BLESSED are they who KEEP the commandments that THEY may have right to the tree of life,....I JESUS have sent my angel to testify these things!!!!!" Salvation is more than a 30 sec prayer for forgiveness, Jesus said it Himself! We must accept the sacrifice of Jesus which allows us to recommit to the covenant of God and "Work out our own salvation with fear and trembling" because "Faith without works is DEAD!" Why is it that you confirm that I should not murder, commit adultery and so on, but "Jesus" did away with the Sabbath commandment? God saw that His perfect law could not be attained so He has to send Jesus? Heb "We have not a high priest who cannot be sympathetic to our infirmities as HE HIMSELF was tempted in every area YET WITHOUT SIN!!!!" Jesus was our example that it can be done! You say, well He was God so that is why He could keep the laws? Would that verse make sense if that was the case? Would it have made any sense to tempt Him if it were impossible for Him to break the commandments of God? I suggest you stop teaching in direct defiance to God's word! I think it is funny that the Antichrist is call the "LAWLESS ONE" and the entire "christian" world claims that their "christ" did away with the law! Isaiah 8 "To the law AND to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM!

September 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Jennifer said...

Nobody in this discussion is claiming that Jesus did away with the sabbath. Rather, the position held here is that Jesus IS the sabbath. Those of us who bow in allegiance to Christ are honoring the sabbath, because He is the sabbath. My goal is not to convince people of the joy of knowing Christ as our sabbath rest. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. I think we've said about all we can say on this topic, and for this reason, I am closing this discussion to further comments. It is not fruitful.

September 26, 2009 at 3:29 PM

[romancatholicreflections]

25th August >> Daily Reflection on Today's First Reading (Ruth 1:1, 3-6, 14-16, 22) for Roman Catholics on Friday of the Twentieth Week in Ordinary Time

Commentary on Ruth 1:1, 3-6, 14-16, 22 We move on today to a very different piece of Scripture, the short book of Ruth, which consists of just four chapters. (The only other biblical book bearing the name of a woman is Esther.) We will just have two readings from this lovely work which follows immediately on Judges. Introducing the book the Jerusalem Bible says in part: Although its action is placed in the period of the Judges (Ruth 1:1) the book does not form part of the deuteronomic corpus which runs from Joshua to the end of Kings… The main purpose of the book is to show (2:12), how trust in God is rewarded and how God’s goodness is not restricted by frontiers. That a woman of Moab should be privileged to become the great-grandmother of David gives a particular value to this narrative; nor is there any reason to doubt its historical foundation. – Jerusalem Bible The New International Version Study Bible makes this comment: The story is set in the time of the Judges, a time characterised in the book of Judges as a period of religious and moral degeneracy, national disunity and general foreign oppression. The book of Ruth reflects a temporary time of peace between Israel and Moab (contrast Judges 3:12-30). Like 1 Sam 1-2, it gives a series of intimate glimpses in the private lives of the members of an Israelite family. It also presents a delightful account of the remnant of true faith and piety in the period of the Judges, relieving an otherwise wholly dark picture of that era The book – and our reading today – tells the sad story of Elimelech, a man from Bethlehem in Judah. It was the days of the Judges and the area was hit by a famine. Because of this, he had to move to Moab with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. There they settled. Bethlehem lies south of Jerusalem while Moab was a tribal region on the east side of the Dead Sea and hence Gentile territory. The time of the Judges was probably from around 1380 BC to about 1050 BC. By setting such an edifying story in this period, the author calls to mind a time in Israel’s history noted for its apostasy, moral degradation and oppression. The famine mentioned here is not recorded in Judges. Bethlehem in Judah will be David’s hometown and, as descendants of David, Joseph and Mary will go to Bethlehem to be registered (cf. Luke 2:4). Bethlehem means the ‘house of bread’ but right now there is no bread there. The names are not those of real people and have been chosen mainly for their meaning. Emilech means ‘my God is king’, while Naomi is ‘my fair one’. The two sons, who die relatively young, are called Mahlon (‘sickness’) and Chilion (‘pining away’). Their two wives are called Orpah (‘she who turns away’) and Ruth (‘the beloved’). Naomi and Ruth are the two ‘lovely’ people in the story. It reminds one of the names given to the characters in John Bunyah’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Ruth, too, is one of the four women listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. The others are Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba (Matt 1:3,5-6). After they moved to Moab, Elimelech died, leaving Naomi a widow with her two sons. This is the first blow. Each of her sons married local Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth, and the prospect of continuing the family line remained. The Moabites were descended from Moab, who was the son of a liaison between Lot and one of his daughters (Gen 19:36-37). (Both his daughters slept with him while he was too drunk to know what was happening.) Marriage with Moabite women was not forbidden to Hebrews, though no Moabite – or his sons to the 10th generation – was allowed to “enter the assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:3). Then, after about 10 years, both the sons died. Naomi, a widow, was now left without her husband or her sons. Nor did her daughters-in-law have any sons to support them. Namoi’s emptiness is complete. She has neither husband nor sons. She has only two young daughters-in-law, both of them foreigners and both childless. It was a complete ‘kenosis’ or ‘emptying’. In those times, the lot of the widow could be a very sad one with no means of support and little chance of remarriage. All three women had become outsiders and rejects: of no more interest to their husband’s family and a disappointment to their own. Naomi then decided to leave the Plains of Moab and return to Bethlehem with her two daughters-in-law, having heard that God had visited his people and the famine was over. The ‘visit’ here is a way of expressing God’s blessing and favour on the place. It is just one point in the story where God’s control of events is recognised. Bethlehem, the house of bread, now has bread once more. There seems to be a mutual echoing between the famine in Bethlehem and the emptiness of Naomi and her daughters-in-law. The end of the famine foreshadows the end of the emptiness. So, together they all left the place and set out for Judah, Naomi’s homeland. However, on the way, she urged the two daughters-in-law to go back to their homeland. They had a better chance of finding husbands there than in Judah but they were reluctant to leave her. Then, with many tears, Orpah agreed to go back to her native place but Ruth insisted on staying with Naomi, one outsider offering to take care of another. While Orpah left reluctantly and only after the urging of Naomi, her departure highlights the loyalty and selfless devotion of Ruth to her desolate mother-in-law. Naomi still urged Ruth to go back with her sister to her own people and her gods. (The chief god of the Moabites was Chemosh.) But Ruth asked Naomi not to force her to leave or to prevent her staying with Naomi. She will accompany her mother-in-law into a future that shows no promise for either of them. She expresses her feelings beautifully, in poetic form: Wherever you go, I shall go, wherever you live, I shall live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Whereas Orpah returns to Moab and its god Chemosh, Ruth chooses Yahweh’s territory and his people; in doing so she will have no other God but him. Ruth is now doubly an outsider: she does not belong to the family of Naomi’s husband and she is a Gentile Moabite who has left her native land. It is this loyalty to her husband’s mother, a loyalty that was not expected and which transcended tribal and religious boundaries, which is one of the qualities for which Ruth is admired as a specially good woman. Indeed, very much a person for our time. She also anticipates the Gospel teaching that, before God, there are no outsiders. And so, the author tells us, that was how Naomi returned home to Bethlehem with her daughter-in-law Ruth the Moabitess from the Plains of Moab. The author keeps reminding the reader that Ruth is a foreigner from a despised people. “They arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest.” Naomi and Ruth arrive in Bethlehem just as the renewed fullness of the land is beginning to be harvested – an early hint that Naomi’s emptiness will be ended and she will be filled with joy again. Reference to the barley harvest also prepares the reader for the next major scene in the harvest fields. Harvesting grain in ancient Canaan took place in April and May (barley first, wheat a few weeks later). It involved the following steps: 1, cutting the ripened standing grain with hand sickles – usually done by men; 2, binding the grain into sheaves – usually done by women; 3, gleaning, i.e. gathering stalks of grain left behind; 4, transporting the sheaves to the threshing floor – often by donkey, sometimes by cart; 5, threshing, i.e. loosening the grain from the straw – usually done by the treading of cattle, but sometimes by toothed threshing sledges or the wheels of carts; 6, winnowing – done by tossing the grain into the air with winnowing forks so that the wind, which usually came up for a few hours in the afternoon, blew away the straw and chaff, leaving the grain at the winnower’s feet; 7, sifting the grain to remove any residual foreign matter; 8, bagging for transportation and storage. Threshing floors, where both threshing and winnowing occurred, were hard, smooth, open places, prepared on either rock or clay and carefully chosen for favourable exposure to the prevailing winds. They were usually on the east side – i.e., downwind – of the village. (NIV, edited) As mentioned, one of the special significances of this story for us is that Ruth is the great-grandmother of King David, who was from Bethlehem, and hence also an ancestor of Jesus and one of the four women mentioned by Matthew in the family tree of Jesus.

[scripturehomosexuality]

Editorial: The Role Education Plays In The Same-Sex Debate

This blog is based in the United States. As such, this post remarks on events transpiring within the United States, which may not be happening in other countries. However, even if you don’t live in this country, feel free to read on. You might find the following very enlightening.

As I’ve been writing on modern U.S. sexual philosophy, it has become evident that such thinking is entirely flimsy. That’s not entirely unexpected, because nothing based on falsehood can stand up on its own. This is particularly so with the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, which is founded on a boatload of misconceptions and outright lies about human sexuality.

It’s led me to wonder how such an inherently flawed system can exert so much power. At this point, I can say there is one major factor that sustains it: wholesale lack of education about history, and ignorance throughout the U.S. populace about what came before them. This is especially so in Millennials and younger generations, who have lived their entire lives under this modern sexual philosophy.

It’s well known that modern U.S. education is abysmal, and only seems to be getting worse with time. However, at this point, I believe that is by design, and is not an accident. This is because so much of modern U.S. society - not only in the sexual realm, but in the political, economic, and other realms - owes its existence to the ignorance of U.S. citizens, and is sustained by that ignorance. As such, it’s especially dependent on ignorance of history, which quite tellingly, is the subject U.S. students perform worst in.

For example, a few months ago, this blog posted an article on the Ancient Greek gymnasium. In that article, it discussed the inherent bisexuality of Ancient Greek society, and how the gymnasiums supported that bisexuality. It mentioned that the gymnasiums were male-only establishments that had strictly enforced nudity, and how that made those places extremely homoerotic environments by design.

These are all facts that the majority of U.S. citizens know nothing about. This is because modern history courses leave all of that out. While they might mention that the gymnasium started in Ancient Greece, they leave out anything about their operation. I myself never knew these facts until I started writing this blog.

I guarantee that if those facts became general knowledge, the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy (and the modern sexual philosophy it supports) would wither and die. This is because it exposes this philosophy as a historical anomaly. Given that Ancient Greece is a direct ancestor of the United States, the current revulsion toward general same-sex activity would make no historical sense. Furthermore, homoerotic elements still exist in the modern gymnasium, though somewhat suppressed. If the above facts were known, that homoeroticism would be unchained, and would become integral to the modern gym experience.

As it turns out, both the Religious Right and the LGBT leadership would strongly resist a deeper study of Ancient Greek sexuality, even though it was what made its culture tick. This is because of the following:

The Religious Right would scream that the education system is inculcating “immorality” into its students, even though a few decades ago, Christendom was quite lax on general same-sex activity.

If history classes openly say that the Ancient Greeks abhorred male-male anal sex, the LGBT movement would scream that such classes are “homophobic”. If that seems confusing, you might not realize how much the LGBT leadership venerates anal play, and how ballistic they will get if one dares to question its supremacy.  At this point, I’m entirely convinced that if laws banning all same-sex activity except anal play were passed, the LGBT leadership would be completely fine with it.

Similar dynamics exist with the contents of this blog’s Basic Conclusion on the Scriptures, that the Bible only condemns anal sex. At this point, I think that both the Religious Right and the LGBT movement are fully aware of this interpretation’s existence, and have been for years. However, both sides have effectively agreed to not even acknowledge its existence. This is because such an interpretation affects them both: it undermines the sweeping condemnation of modern Christianity, and threatens the supremacy of the anal play venerated by the LGBT movement. Thus, the circular debate on Christianity and homosexuality goes on, because it allows them to remain entrenched in their own ideologies.

As such, if a person were to know even snippets of this interpretation - for example, “unnatural sex” was an ancient synonym for anal sex, or that only anal sex was “sex” between men - the modern Christian doctrine on homosexuality would already be destabilized. Thus, even those facts are left unmentioned by the education system and other parties.

This relates to an associated trend that depends on ignorance of history: instilling false stability into modern sexual philosophy and the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy. This means giving the false impression that our modern ideas of sex have always existed in some form, and have only gotten more sophisticated with time. This involves giving messages like

Male-male anal sex has always been common, and has always been considered the highest fulfillment of same-sex love

Same-sex activity has always been the domain of a minority, and has always been considered a gender-atypical condition

The “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy has always existed, even if older people didn’t use those terms, and is based on hard facts of human nature

However, there are many parts of history that deflate those perceptions, and show that past times were very different. This is why U.S. education entirely omits or severely limits discussion on the following:

That up until three decades ago, and in a Christian nation, same-sex nudity was a huge part of life, and often fostered homoerotic environments.

That as a consequence of the first bullet point, it seems swimsuits have only been in heavy use for the past thirty or forty years.

That by far, the U.S. is currently unmatched in its prudery about nudity.

That briefs, a perceivably homoerotic clothing item, were once an increasingly popular underwear choice,

That until recently, same-sex activity wasn’t an exclusively “gay” phenomenon, though it also often wasn’t anal.

As it turns out, giving this system false stability also requires selectively listening to figures in academia. For years, a significant number of academic figures have proclaimed that the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy is socially constructed, including LGBT-identified ones. These figures include Ned Katz, Michael Foucault, Eric Anderson, and Joan Roughgarden. Yet, while other statements by them are given attention, these particular statements are all out ignored, including in education. That’s because they are (as Al Gore would put it) “inconvenient truths”, truths that jeopardize an important but fraudulent system.

Indeed, if any of this became general knowledge, what once seemed set in stone suddenly appears wobbly. If education on such caused people to ask more questions, that wobbly structure would then completely collapse.

If you’re beginning to think that our modern sexual thinking needs a lot of support, you’re absolutely right. As much as that philosophy rules people’s lives, it’s also a very high-maintenance system that needs constant and forceful reinforcement. Without that maintenance, it would collapse under its own weight.

South African writer Siya Khumalo has realized that, in his analysis of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. armed forces. Please note that for him, the words “gay”, “straight” and other terms are only useless labels, which is why he doesn’t identify as “gay”. That will explain why this author adds certain notes in the following excerpt (taken from this essay):

“I’d always assumed that the cat being ‘out of the bag’ regarding straight-identified men’s homoerotic tendencies was something that would only occur at the climatic exposure of The System [his “Matrix”-derived term for the modern sexual culture] within which we live.  It was my ultimate Apocalypse fantasy.  I’d been writing towards this end, hoping to contribute.  Imagine the shock of realizing that the gay [as in “gay”-identified] people you’d subtly elevated yourself above were actually cut of the same cloth that you were, right down to suppressed homoerotic desires.  Oh, what I wouldn’t give to see that day!

Then this anticlimax: people have always known.  The cat was out of the bag from the word go; even with the formulation of the Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy in the US military, Congress knew – the bastards KNEW – that heterosexuality is a high-maintenance state of being that society must work overtime to keep just so; they knew that gay [as in “gay”-identified] people weren’t freaks but they were willing to make them out to be freaks in order to push their imperialistic agenda forward; they were willing to feed the consciences of people to a System that would eventually be internalized by gay men and cause them immense shame.  They were willing to let some be consumed by guilt.  Contrary to Jesus’ prayer of forgiveness at crucifixion, they knew what they were doing and they deliberately did it anyway.  They were preserving a system that worked for their own benefit, at a high ethical cost.

‘Well, why do gays insist on letting the world know about their sexuality?’ some people demand.  Because the world insists on telling them a contrary, idealized and unrealistic version of what sexuality ought to be – a version that benefits only those that can live comfortably within in it, a version that is so delicate it has to be treated with kid gloves lest it collapse.  Don’t ask don’t tell was implemented because of the ‘special needs’ of straight [as in “straight”-identified] men – namely, the need for great help in just remaining straight in the midst of homoerotic temptation that is more than just situational homosexuality as is pointed out in grero.com.  The bastards knew.  ‘One Nation, Under God’ more accurately reads as, ‘One Nation, Playing God’ where the dignities, consciences and souls of men and women are concerned.”

There is one note I will make: while his analysis is brilliant, Mr. Khumalo may not fully realize that the LGBT leadership is entirely complicit in sustaining “The System”. This is not meant to take anything away from his commentary. To the contrary, such a realization makes his statements more urgent and important, since it allows us to say the following about modern Christianity, modern U.S. society, and the LGBT leadership:

They KNOW that the modern sexual culture (both “gay” and “straight”) is fragile, and needs constant reinforcement.

They KNOW that our modern sexual philosophy is a historical anomaly, and isn’t based on any hard facts of human nature.

They KNOW that its continued existence largely depends on the ignorance of those who submit to it.

They KNOW that if people learned the abovementioned history - even a taste of it - it would immediately put this philosophy and the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy at risk.

As it turns out, these are systems and philosophies that entire salaries and careers depend on. Thus, I don’t believe the dumbing down of U.S. education happened by accident. It is by design, since its manipulation sustains the existence of “The System”. It deprives people of the tools they need to dismantle it.

Of course, such ignorance allows the existence of other systems, such as the continued dominance of the two-party system in U.S. politics, or the economic philosophies that fueled the financial collapse of 2007-2008. Indeed, our modern sexual philosophy is very much intertwined with those in U.S. politics and economics, since all are informed by the same dominant paradigm of neoliberalism. As such, all these systems complement each other, and thus support and sustain each other.

However, such a connection is obscured, because same-sex activity is thought to only concern a minority. If same-sex activity was treated like phenomena in politics and economics - as things that affect the entire populace - that’s another way modern sexual philosophies could be demolished.

Yet despite all this, you still might be skeptical that an entire education system can be influenced to protect lies. To the contrary, that has happened several times, and over less controversial topics. For example, in 2016, a New York City teacher was fired for teaching her students about the “Central Park Five”, an explosive case of racial profiling that inflamed tensions in 1990’s New York. This case exposed the ugly racial dynamics acting within the city and the larger United States, and those same dynamics exist today. Despite growing calls from administrators to sanitize her material, she refused to do so, which led to her firing.

So what great sin did this teacher commit in conveying unvarnished fact about U.S. society? The administrators were afraid that such material would unnecessarily “rile up” minority students, especially those who were black. Yet, as writer Jake Offenhartz explains, “the messy and upsetting facts of this case and how they relate to broader social failure are precisely what students ought to be learning.”

Let’s review what we’ve just covered. In teaching an extremely relevant case, without trying to sanitize the inherently filthy and thus compromise the truth of her material, this unselfish teacher was sacked for doing her job. This took place in the largest school system in the United States, and in a city that wields international influence. Yet, this isn’t isolated to one teacher in one city. There are probably many more interactions like this behind closed doors, which results in entire “inconvenient” subjects being left out entirely.

At the surface, it shows that certain parties are totally invested in maintaining a “grande illusion”, even if that means compromising the integrity of its education system. No person, city, or country can begin solving a problem without first acknowledging a problem exists. That includes openly acknowledging history, completely and honestly. By trying to censor the past, even in the education of children, it allows certain people to control the present. It allows harmful systems and mindsets continued existence. While certain parties benefit from this, they do so at the expense of many others.

On an even deeper level, this shows that in maintaining this illusion, these parties don’t care who or what they hurt in the process. No institution, no individual, no career is sacred. All of these must be sacrificed to maintain false pretenses, because the benefits of these pretenses are more precious than truth itself.

However, let’s go even deeper. You’ve just seen how powerful interests can be so driven to maintain a “grande illusion” on race and ethnicity. What makes you think that they wouldn’t do much more concerning sex, which is a much more controversial topic? What makes you think that, when so much more depends on how people perceive sex, even more effort wouldn’t be expended on maintaining systems of falsehood? Does this not suggest that the omission of entire topics in education, no matter how relevant they might be, results from some level of conscious thought?

With all that considered, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that in sexual matters, U.S. society will use even education to ensure that people view sex through a certain prism? Indeed, this society will devote every resource to convince people that the sky is purple with polka dots. It will use all tools necessary to make people think that up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and most of all, ignorance is strength.

Thus, while we can see just the fragility of our modern sexual ideas, we can also see why rebellion against them can appear so challenging. Rebellion against those ideas would really mean rebellion against an entire infrastructure meant to support them. It would mean rebelling against the entire thrust of U.S. society, which is aimed at keeping sexual, political, economic and other matters within certain bounds.

Yet, for their own sake, people must rebel. These sexual philosophies are based on falsehood, and is wreaking all sorts of havoc. These would kill society faster than any weapon can.

Thus, you have a responsibility here. As much as our modern sexual culture needs general ignorance to exist, it also needs your silence. The silence of people who know better allows ignorance and falsehoods to flourish, and indicates complacency with the status quo. This is why journalism is so valuable: it calls people and institutions to account, and makes it harder for misconduct to happen. Hampered journalism is a mischief maker’s best friend, since they can do their shenanigans under cover of darkness.

The question is, are you willing to give these ideas the benefit of your silence?

Don’t keep silent. If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy (and all it represents) is total nonsense. Your silence will give support for its existence, while your outspokenness will require these ideas to prove themselves (which they cannot). Therefore, it is your responsibility to educate your peers on the above topics, because they never learned them in school or most other places.

This includes any older generations who might read this blog, and who experienced the aforementioned happenings firsthand. By your silence, you are effectively allowing certain parties to whitewash history to their advantage. You know that older times were much different from how they are presented today. Your age and firsthand experience of those topics - same-sex activity wasn’t exclusively “gay”, nude swimming was once common, etc - would make you a valuable primary source.

Even the Bible acknowledges the value of speaking about what one knows. When talking about God’s Kingdom, Romans 10:14 says the following: “But how can they [common people] call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? [emphasis mine]” (New Living Translation).

When speaking about the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said the following: “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” In context, he was speaking about a specific 1960s movement on race and ethnicity, but the principle therein applies here. That is, the silence of people who know better - in this case, about the modern sexual philosophies that dominate - only helps those who want to deceive. A price will be paid by all for that silence.

In saying all this, I’m not trying to guilt trip or castigate anyone, and I commend any who are speaking out. I’m merely trying to impress how important it is to bear witness to what one knows, and how urgently that must happen. In these first few months of 2017, I’m seeing a country that is steadily spiraling out of control, and is holding ever tighter to sexual philosophies that are false. No good can come of that.

To disturb our current trajectory, those who know better must speak, and do so loudly and forcefully. American historian Henry Steele Commager once said the following: “Education is essential for change, for education creates both new wants and the ability to satisfy them”. As you educate your peers on things they won’t know otherwise, the rewards will be much greater than continuing to hide within silence.