#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.

[markrmorrisjr]

I grew up fundy, I’ve had to face it. I’ve tried to put all kinds of spins on it, conservative, mainline traditional, but facts are facts, and although I didn’t see it, and still don’t remember my parents or grandparents as cruel, or hateful in any  way, that’s what it was.

From the time I was born until the age of fourteen, my dad was a Church of Christ preacher. I never experienced any kind of racism, or bigotry, toward anyone who came into the congregations where he preached, or in our home. Everyone was welcome, no matter their heritage,  status, “orientation” or “lifestyle” ( I use these terms in quotes, because this is the language that was used to describe the “others”) they were always treated with love and respect and we tried to help everyone we could.

That being said, there was a fair bit of proselytizing, which only makes sense in the circumstances, but never any condemnation from them toward anyone that I witnessed,. Regardless of their beliefs. Maybe this is why I was able to hide from my own concerns for so long. There was never any doubt that they believed whole-heartedly that without a meaningful conversion experience to Christ, everyone was lost and going to a literal, real hell.

I know what some of you are thinking, what kind of monsters were they? But, you likely have had some beliefs in your life that you were forced to reconsider, and I fully believe, had they lived long enough, this would have been one for them. My dad admitted at the end of his life that I had convinced him that hell definitely wasn’t what he’d thought. But, that’s a story for another time.

About the time I turned fourteen, my dad’s theology changed, but not necessarily for the better. We dived headlong out of the mega conservative, no instrumental music in worship, COC, into the hotbed of the Charismatic Renewal in 1985. Rock bands, and tambourines, if you couldn’t speak in tongues, you might not be saved, kind of places. The Sunday services would run for hours!

From there, I ran through the gamut of “non-denominational” churches, but everywhere I went, a certain arrogant ignorance pervaded the leadership.  Most of them had only a rudimentary knowledge of scripture. Which, for a COC kid was appalling, after all, we basically treated the Bible as a defacto minister of God. It was inerrant, and perfect in every way, after all, it was just up to us to study it hard enough to suss out the answers.

There’s a certain level of death to intellectual curiosity that comes with accepting that the Bible, is, in your mind, inerrant. Although this is a relatively new idea, in the scheme of things, it has been pervasive through most of American Evangelical Christianity for the past century or so. Even in places where it wasn’t considered quite as literal and concrete as I’d been taught as a child (6 literal days of creation, and so on) those ideas were almost never expressed from the pulpit. There was a tacit understanding that the book was the book, and whatever it said, and whoever was in charge agreed to interpret is as meaning, stood.

So, what’s so wrong with that? Well, I don’t know all of the answers to this question, but here are ten things I picked up on later in life that led to a whole bunch of questions that ended up with me thinking there is no hell, and gay people are okay with Jesus and maybe a lot of the other rules we made for ourselves didn’t make a whole lot of sense, and the whole thing was really about being good to people in the first place.

Here they are, the ten things they never told me.

The best description of God in the Bible is a metaphor.

That’s right. We’ve fought wars over these poetic understandings, though. So, they must be able to be understood and taken literally, right? See, the idea is this, God is so big (and if there is a single intelligence behind the universe, it would have to be) that we simply cannot understand, and so, we have to resort to metaphorical language to compare God to things we can know. God is ineffable in essence. But, if this is true, why did I see so much anger for people who insisted on seeing the feminine in the divine, or had another name for God?

God is not a man.

At best, the divine is a blend of genders. It says so right in the first two chapters, but we overlook that and default to father, although he’s also described as animals, a woman, forces of nature, and even inanimate objects. As science begins to unfold what it means for humans to have gender, they are discovering that even on a measurable level, there is very little evidence for the strict binary definitions we’ve applied until very recently. To me, this binary understanding has been used primarily to hold half of the population in check. Yes, women, you’ve been robbed of your rightful place, because some guys decided that some other guys, who wrote all this stuff down, said guys were put in charge by the head guy himself, God, and it’s not true.

There’s very little history, outside of the Bible itself, to back up much of what is in it.

Sorry, whatever they told you at Bible college, might need to be reconfirmed, as awful as it sounds a whole lot of lies have been told to prop up doctrine. I don’t know a lot about this. It is true there is as much evidence for the existence of some of the personalities in the Bible as for other historical figures, but much of what is told within its pages cannot be confirmed through other historical records.

Almost NONE of the source texts come from “original” languages.

In many evangelical circles there is this belief that if you get to the "original" language of the Bible you can make more sense of it. In some cases this is true. It's been mistranslated and misinterpreted. In other places, additional words have simply been made up to make it make what the translator thought was good sense. So, what is the truth

The OT was rewritten into other languages, and then translated back into Hebrew. The Greek that the NT scrolls were written in was not the spoken language of the people who wrote it. Many of them spoke Aramaic, it's believed. Linguistically speaking it’s a stew, and that’s before you even get to the oral tradition being handed down for generations before many of the books were written, or the translation challenges of converting mostly dead languages into somewhat modern English equivalents.

There's more than one "canon" of the "Holy Bible

To say that the “canon” (group of books included in the Bible) of scripture is inspired (directly selected by the Holy Spirit) is a confusing, and misleading statement. There have been many. Hell, there are still many groups of books claiming the title of Bible. Right now there is the 66 book canon of the mainline protestant church, the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, which by the way, has the claim of being older than the protestant, just by history and logic. And the Eastern Orthodox canon contains 81 books, and is said to be the oldest canon in church history. So, which one was inspired? Even these canons are disputed.

Not all of the Biblical authors are necessarily who I was taught they were.

For example, Paul seems to have penned the lion’s share of the New Testament. But, some of what has his name on it, most scholars believe, may have been penned by one of his own disciples, using his name to gain authority. As to the ancient texts, some of them have never had an author attributed to them.

Not everything in the Bible is scientifically accurate.

You're probably saying, wow, no kidding? (sarcastically) It is obvious that there are gaps in the understanding of the writers, and some of their observations are plain illogical. But, and here's the thing, we had a 1954 set of World Book encyclopedias as a kid and I wouldn't want to use that as a text book in a modern science class either. So much of the understanding has changed. Honestly, this point only matters if you're expecting the Bible to be completely infallible.

Surprisingly, however, the same pattern claimed as the biological order of ascendance in evolution by Darwin, is the same order used in the Creation Myth in Genesis. I remember a serious debate in our house when my brother found out that whales are not fish and my father attempted to defend the idea that the whale Jonah was “literally” swallowed by, was both a whale and a great fish, as the Bible states. To me, most of these are simply errors in understanding from the author’s point of view. After all, most people still thought of the world as flat, although the Bible describes it as round. But, I don’t need the Bible to be scientifically accurate in every point. Most historical philosophical texts have similar inaccuracies.

The idea that the Bible is perfect is new

Yep, it started less than a hundred years ago, which is funny. You'd think the earliest followers of this book would have been turned onto the fact that it was perfect, unless, maybe, it's not.

I was never told this. I doubt my father ever knew it. Different schools of theological understanding tend to insulate themselves to preserve their way of thinking. You’ll find that two Biblical scholars, both trained to similar levels of education, may have completely different understandings of what the book means on many points and often have never even been confronted with opposing views. The other interesting thing is this, I’ve rarely met a Bible professor who found the Bible to be as black and white as it was nearly always presented from the pulpits I heard it taught from.

There are even problems with the doctrine of "Divine Inspiration"

The idea of the divine inspiration of the Biblical writers doesn’t gel with the idea of free will. Either God creates automatons, even temporarily, to act as mediums ( a practice strictly forbidden in scripture) to transcribe the history and thoughts of God, or men do it willingly. If the former, then what the hell? And was that same possession present when all translation, interpretation, and transcription was done? If not, how would you assume that all of these men (they’re always all considered men) get it all perfectly right, without inserting a single opinion. But, then, we’re given a glimpse into this by Paul, at least once when he tells us straight up this is my opinion, not God speaking.

The Bible’s inerrancy is not only unprovable, but it simply doesn’t matter.

Here’s why. After being in church, literally, since the third day of my life, I’ve come to this conclusion, it does not matter one bit if the Bible is perfect or not. Well, of course it does, some will say, otherwise, we might be living a lie. Well, here’s the thing, you might anyway, even if it’s perfect. Why? Imagine this.

There is an atomic bomb in your front yard. Unless you defuse it, at some point in the future, no one knows exactly when, it will take you and everyone you know out. Never fear! Instructions for defusing this bomb have been delivered. But, here’s the thing. They were written by someone who never saw this bomb. Two thousand years ago. With their untechnological minds. In a foreign language they didn’t speak. That’s not all. Then it was translated from these ancient texts, then transcribed many times, and finally, it was made into an “interpretation” of the original text. But, if you are not precise in every single detail of your defusal process, BOOM!

So, you call in the experts. They can help, right? They’ve devoted their entire lives to studying these instructions and teaching these instructions. They arrive and immediately begin to argue. Why? Because they all have a different idea of how the bomb should be defused and all of them show you in the instructions how their way is right. One says you open the bomb first, then pray, then defuse. Another says, no, pray only, God will defuse the bomb. Another says, dunk the bomb in water, pray, then defuse. And they all have followers who espouse their method. Because, if you don’t get this right, they’re all doomed.

Finally, they resort, not to the original texts, but to commentaries based on other’s understanding of the texts, to solve their disagreements, but this just leads to more disagreements. What do you do? The instructions are perfect, you know that. But, now you’ve got three different versions of them, and tons of peripheral information explaining them and the more you try to make it make sense, the less it does.

That’s why it simply does not matter if the Bible is perfect, infallible, or inerrant. Because, even if it were, we cannot come to a common understanding of what it means.

So, what is the Bible? To me, it’s simply a journal. It’s a journal of men and women who dedicated their entire existence to unravelling the God puzzle, understanding who the creator is, and what our relationship to the divine should be. It records their mistakes, their broken ideas, their imperfect observations, and some of the results. It encourages us to good things, and where it does, we should follow it. Then it has some horrible advice, which is proven wrong. Where this is true, we should learn from it.

But, how do you make peace with all of this? Simple. I’ve come to understand that the bomb (hell) does not exist. There is no lake of eternal fire. God doesn’t torture people eternally for deeds committed on a finite time line. In fact, the Bible doesn’t even say that. But, that’s a story for another time.

[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.

[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.

[a-path-beyond84]

Sola Scriptura and Church Fathers

Continuing on, @obasileus​.  I apologize already for all the reading you will be doing on account of this, if you decide to go through it all.  

The existence of multiple interpretations of Scripture does not undermine Sola Scriptura, and this needs to stop being alleged by every other catholic. Yes, people can produce bad readings of Scripture. No, that does not get in the way of a faithful person’s desire to be saved. Most protestant churches (that haven’t explicitly undermined Scripture altogether) agree on the essentials.

I would agree with you that the existence of mere disagreement does not undermine sola scriptura by itself.  People can be idiots, uninformed, or sophists.  However, I think the existence of multiple interpretations of scripture by educated people, professed Christians who take their faith seriously, approaching scripture with good faith, is problematic.

Consider all of the controversies that have arisen over the centuries concerning many doctrines: the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification (sola fide), the real presence, contraception, divorce and remarriage, Sunday worship, infant baptism, pacifism, the consistency of scripture with scientific claims, sola scriptura itself, and a host of other issues.  Can scripture alone settle these controversies?  If it cannot, then sola scriptura has little value as a doctrine, since if it cannot answer such questions it can’t tell you where to be a Lutheran, Calvinist, Mennonite, Arian, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Unitarian, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or some other group aside from these that interpreted scripture correctly and got Christianity right.  

Most sola scriptura proponents usually insist on holding specific positions on at least some of the above issues as a requirement of small-o orthodoxy, so presumably you think that sola scriptura can settle those issues.  But the centuries of quarreling over what scripture has to say on those issues are pretty good sign that this position is false, as opposite positions on all of them have been defended on scriptural grounds.  

Some theological views held by Protestants, such as the Trinity, are not in fact based on scripture alone but depend on philosophical considerations as well.  Most people aren’t familiar with that as the ancient Church was able to stamp out the Arian heresy and so most of us accept the Trinity without much question.  Now a you might say that the relevant philosophical considerations (such as the nature of persons, substance, etc.) helps us to make sense of what scripture tells us about the Holy Trinity, but these philosophical considerations, or the need for them, are not themselves found in scripture.  An anti-trinitarian who holds to sola scriptura might as well quote Paul talking about “vain and deceptive” philosophy, quote Jesus as saying “the Father is greater than I” and call it a day.  

I digress.  But disagreement is actually not my most significant criticism of sola scriptura.

1. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible

The closest thing you can find to this claim in scripture is this:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

But that doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura.  It teaches that scripture is inspired by God and useful.

Scripture also teaches this:

To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

So scripture itself asserts its own incompleteness and recommends following both scripture and traditions handed down verbally and in person by the Apostles, what is called Sacred Tradition by Catholics and Orthodox.   

2. The Bible doesn’t define what is to be counted as scripture

There is no list of texts in scripture that authoritatively determine what we should take to be scripture.  Moreover, even if this was present, it would be undermined by a circularity problem: what counts as scripture?  This list of books.  Why should we accept that list?  It’s in scripture!  

As I’m sure you are aware, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants don’t even agree on which books should be considered part of scripture.  

In other words, something outside of scripture is required to even determine what scripture is.  

3. Access to scripture

For most of Christian history, the vast majority of Christians were illiterate and in any case, Bibles were relatively rare as there was no printing press to mass produce them.  It’s probably no accident that the doctrine of sola scriptura isn’t developed until the advent of the printing press.  Prior to that, the idea that every man and woman could and should read the Bible and interpret it on their own would have seemed absurd.  

This is probably the weakest argument against sola scriptura, but a doctrine that was impractical for the majority of the life of the Church counts at least somewhat against it.  

4. Scripture alone cannot tell you how to interpret scripture (the belief that it can concerns a more fundamental error with regards to the nature of written text and meaning)

It is in the very nature of material symbols and systems of symbols - of which written texts are a collection - are inherently indeterminate in their meaning.  There are always in principle various alternative ways to interpret them, alternatives which the symbols alone cannot determine between.  Thus,  written text necessarily underdetermines meaning.  No text is *intrinsically* meaningful.  

Now this doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit didn’t have any particular intention with regards to scripture, or the authors of scripture.  Nor does it mean that we can’t have a pretty good idea, most of time, of what the author of a text intended to convey.  Otherwise, our conversation would be rather pointless.  But there will be multiple interpretations of a text that are mutually inconsistent yet consistent with the text itself.

For example, consider the following sentence:

“The eagle has landed.”

What do I mean?

Am I referring to a large bird of prey, called an Eagle, descending onto its nest? Or perhaps I’m referring to the Apollo landing?  Or some third thing?  The text itself cannot tell us.  Additional context can help us rule various interpretations out, but a set of text cannot with absolute certainty rule out all interpretations but one.  

Here is one example from scripture, to use a topic we both agree on.

Certain parts of scripture make it sound like the Sun orbits the Earth.  

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

And there are plenty of other verses that refer to the rising and setting of the Sun, or the passage in Joshua in which we are told the Sun stood still in the sky.  

How should we interpret these passages?  Is it saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, or not?  Many Christians in the past thought that the sun did in fact orbit the Earth, as even the learned people of the day accepted the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System, and thought such scripture passages were consistent with that view.  

And yet, we now know that scripture is speaking metaphorically (or in the case of Joshua, perhaps the Earth stopped rotating, or perhaps the light from the sun and moon were redirected to the site of the battle continuously), having determined through science that the Earth in facts revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around.  But without that bit of scientific knowledge, we couldn’t be sure how to interpret these passages.  Appealing to something outside the text was necessary to interpret scripture in this case.  

Consider one more case, this time outside of scripture.  What were Aristotle’s views on the possibility of the immortality of the soul?  While those who followed him certainly have believed that Aristotle’s philosophy would support the notion that the human soul survives death, the question remains did Aristotle himself believe it?  Apparently, this has been controversial for centuries.  

Appealing to Aristotle’s writings doesn’t work, because there is disagreement on how to read and interpret him.  Reading passage A in light of passage B won’t solve the problem, as which passages should inform the reading of others is effectively what’s in dispute.  Maybe passage B should be read in light of passage A, or perhaps both in light of a passage C.  There is one certain method of figuring it out - you just go and ask Aristotle whether or not he believed in the immortality of the soul.  Unfortunately, he’s long dead.  

I submit that the interpretation of scripture suffers from the same problem, both due to the nature of symbols and their interpretation, and the evidence of centuries of disagreements on important theological topics with opposing views grounded on scripture, even between those communions who assert sola scriptura as doctrine.    

The Catholic position on scripture is effectively like a scenario in which Aristotle is still alive, but perhaps rather than answering directly, he answers through intermediaries.  There is a living voice which can adjudicate disputes that are raised in the time since the creation of the text.  The Pope and bishops in communion with him can settle new disputes - and if there is still controversy, they can further refine their answer so that all doubt is removed.  

The sola scriptura position, by contrast, is where Aristotle is still alive but neither answers your question directly or through intermediaries.  You’re stuck with the text and readers end up debating the issue interminably.  It’s worse, actually, because it would be as if Aristotle allowed this and also believed getting his understanding regarding the immortality of the soul would lead to serious errors from the stand point of a person’s salvation (in scripture terms, this would be like the debate on the doctrine of sola fide).  

Scripture doesn’t make sense to me from a catholic perspective at all. When I see the eucharist, I see the eucharist. No catholicism there. When I see the Apostles being granted authority to forgive sin, then that’s what I see. No catholicism. When I see a Christian losing their faith, then I see that too. No catholicism needed. It’s not hard. The reason you see the RCC in Scripture is because you’re *already* RCC.

And the reason you see Protestant doctrine in scripture is because you’re already Protestant.  I admit our world views do create bias.  

But just as you weren’t always Protestant, I wasn’t always Catholic.  I spent most of my life as an agnostic/atheist, and was a non-denominational Protestant from late 2011 until summer 2012, having read the NIV Bible cover to cover from the start of 2012 through Easter.  Having finished the Bible, I started learning about Church history and the Church fathers, and realized that they sounded much more like Catholics (and Orthodox, a group of Christians I was hitherto unfamiliar with).  

I could no longer believe in sola scriptura, as my own views after reading scripture were quite different from the early Church.  

But I propose that you have the opposite problem. When I look at the Roman Catholic Church, or the (slightly more convincing) Eastern Orthodox Churches in which I was reared, I see organisms that want to exist on their own, and read into the Scriptures whatever they need. We want our priests to have the authority to absolve sins. Invent a doctrine whereby they inherit the Apostles’ abilities! Etc.

I would agree with you if there was no evidence of such teachings until, say, the 12th century when they appeared as a novelty, with evidence of some traditionalists fighting tooth and nail against such novelties.  But the evidence of priests having the power to forgive sins is found in antiquity, without the slightest hint of any doctrinal quarrel.  

How did this happen?  The obvious answer is that the priestly power to absolve sins was passed down from the Apostles and is part of Sacred Tradition.  It wasn’t invented.  It was handed down.  

The Church may be its own organism, but that doesn’t mean it was without a divine founder.  Jesus teaches us to submit to the authority of the Church.  Paul likewise instructs Christians to excommunicate those who are blatantly committing immoral deeds (and thus confirms the authority of the Church over individual Christians).   

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

But what is the Church?  Did Luther violate this teaching by breaking with Rome?  If not, then what about someone who left Luther’s church to found a new Protestant group?  How do we determine if someone is guilty of refusing to hear the Church?  It can’t be an invisible collection of believers, else such teachings cannot really be followed.  

First of all, you insult the fathers by claiming that they relied primarily on apostolic authority to prove doctrines. They relied on the Scriptures.

They didn’t fail to use scripture in support of their point of view, of course.  However, to settle many disputes, the early Church relied on ecumenical councils, with the judgment of the Apostles (Jerusalem) and bishops (Niceae and after) settling the manner.  Appeals to known centers of Apostolic authority, particularly Rome, were made against heretics, which would be in vain if they accepted the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Arianism was good readings of Scriptures vs bad readings of Scriptures. 

It was good reading of scripture was informed by philosophical considerations outside of scripture (hence all the talk about persons and substance which is utterly alien to it).  Moreover, the Church did not only appeal to scripture, but it held ecumenical councils which proclaimed the orthodox view which was to be definitely held by all the faithful.  This is not the action of a church that believes in sola scriptura, but in which the bishops have some authority over doctrine.  

Likewise with Chalcedonianism. Further, the ecclesiology of the RCC is different from what they understood. 

Read Tertullian and find evidence that the bishop of Rome was not understood to be the head of the church. 

What did he say?  Is it corroborated elsewhere?  Was it ambiguous?  Was it during his catholic period or heretical period?

Ireneaus asserted in his discussions against the heretics that all churches were to agree with Rome on account of its preeminent authority.

While his actions were resisted, Victor felt he could legitimately assert the authority of Rome over the liturgical calendar of eastern Churches, nullifying the timing of the celebration of Easter that these churches claimed was handed down from the Apostle John, and going as far to excommunicate those who disagreed.  

Read Clement of Rome and find evidence that Rome was not led by a monarchial bishop at the time, but by a council of elders.

What evidence is that?  Why is there nothing in the historical record about a monarchical bishop seizing power?  And why do those far closer to his time than us refer to lists of individual successor to the Apostles?

Clement of Rome also instructs the Corinthians that their counsel came through  the Lord and that it would not be a small matter for them to disobey.  So in the first century, we have direct evidence that the church at Corinth was subordinate to Rome.  Note that this letter was likely written while the Apostle John was still alive.  Under a Protestant ecclesiology, why would the Corinthians not settle the manner locally, or failing that, appeal to Rome rather than an Apostle?  

Accept this our advice, and it will not be repented of by you. For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observeth in humility with earnest obedience, and repining not, the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ, through whom is there to him glory, world without end. Amen.  But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him [i.e. the Lord] through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger.

Read Clement of Alexandria and see by what lengths he proves the Trinity from Scripture.  Did they hold to Sola Scriptura? Were they Protestants? Of course not. But they understood that the Church’s authority had to conform itself with the Scriptures which they so revered, and they understood that the source of doctrines were to be found in the writings that were God-breathed.

Again, I wouldn’t be surprised if he used scripture at length and convincingly.  Obviously, I think Trinitarianism is true and that the Bible is infallible.  And Christians hold scripture in high regard and cite it in our disputes.  But also see how poorly arguments solely from scripture fared initially.  The whole world, almost, turned Arian in the 4th century.  The Church was compelled to have not one but two ecumenical councils denounce Arianism.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Our Universal Mother - Part 24

Our Lady of All Nations - Amsterdam

" Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, send now Your Spirit over the earth. Let the Holy Spirit live in the hearts of all nations, that they may be preserved from degeneration, disaster and war. May the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary, be our Advocate". Amen.

Explanation of the Image

“This image is the interpretation and the illustration of the new dogma. This is why I myself have given this image to the peoples.” (December 8, 1952)

This image is one of the things that makes the apparitions of Amsterdam unique in the history of Marian apparitions. Our Lady herself came in six different apparitions to describe her image in detail to the visionary. She insisted again and again that the visionary look carefully and notice all the details. On several occasions Our Lady even corrected the way in which the image had been painted.

Our Lady then explained the significance of the entire image to the visionary:

Our Lady showed herself in Amsterdam as the co-redeeming mother standing firmly on the globe before the cross of her Son and surrounded by the flock of Christ made up of white and black sheep representing all nations. She appears as the Apocalyptic Woman; clothed with the light of the resurrection, in that light which comes the Cross of the Redeemer. She stands on the globe because she is the Lady and Mother of All Nations. Her face, hands, and feet are human, the rest of her is ‘as of the Spirit’ who has overshadowed her. As she once stood beneath the cross of Christ, so now in these times, in union with Him, she appeared standing before His Cross.

In the hands of Our Lady, the visionary saw mystical wounds. Through these, Mary illustrates the physical and spiritual suffering that she bore in union with her divine Son for the redemption of humanity. From the wound in each hand come forth three rays and shine upon the sheep below. “These are three rays, the rays of Grace, Redemption, and Peace.” (May 31, 1951) Grace from the Father, Redemption from the Son, and Peace from the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the sheep at the bottom of the globe, Our Lady said, “This image of the flock of sheep represents the nations of the whole world, who will not find rest until they lie down and in tranquility look up at the Cross, the center of this world.” (May 31, 1951)

“Abandon all of your egoism and vanity, and try to bring to the center, the Cross, all children and those who are still wandering around grazing.” (May 31, 1951) “I have firmly placed my feet upon the globe, for in this time the Father and the Son want to bring me into this world as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.” (May 31, 1951)

“Take the Cross and plant it in the centre! Only then will there be peace.” (Oct. 1, 1949)

It is also interesting to note that while the serpent was still visible on the Miraculous Medal, it is no longer visible in the image of the Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. This has a deep meaning: when Mary triumphs through the threefold dogma, and when all people understand the deep value and meaning of their suffering when it is offered up, Satan will finally be conquered.

THE PRAYER

In order to preserve us from disaster and threatening war, Our Lady gave a powerful prayer in Amsterdam which she called “her prayer” (May 31, 1955). Our Lady tells us something very important in relation to this, “From degeneration comes disaster. From degeneration comes war. Through my prayer you shall ask that this be staved off from the world.” (May 31, 1955)

During the first message, given on March 25, 1945, Our Lady already referred to her prayer, but it was not for another six years that Our Lady actually dictated the prayer to the visionary on February 11, 1951. During that vision Our Lady joined her hands, directed her gaze upward, and solemnly began to pray:

(Prayer on cover)

Alone the fact that Mary dictated her prayer during the vision of the Second Vatican Council is a clear allusion to the significance of the prayer for the Church and the world. The Lady of All Nations came to give us this prayer as an aid for all mankind.

WHO ONCE WAS MARY

Almost all who have come to know this prayer have difficulty with the formula “who once was Mary”. This should not be surprising since the first person to have problems understanding the sense of these words was the visionary herself, then her spiritual director, and finally her bishop who was supposed to give the imprimatur to the prayer. Therefore when the prayer was first printed, the bishop, despite liking the prayer, left out the formula in question so that the prayer simply said “May the Lady of All Nations be our advocate.”

Our Lady, however, stressed in the following message that she did not agree with the change in the prayer saying, “Tell the theologians that I am not satisfied with the alteration of the prayer. ‘May the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary, be our Advocate’-that is to remain as it is.” (April 6, 1952)

After having this express wish of Our Lady presented to him, the bishop again allowed the phrase to be included.

Our Lady herself explained what this phrase means: “ ‘Who once was Mary’ means: many people have known Mary as Mary. Now, however, in this new era which is about to begin, I wish to be the Lady of All Nations.” (July 2, 1951) So, “who once was Mary” does not in any way mean that Our Lady can no longer be called Mary; after all, when we pray the Rosary, we do so often. Rather this means that our relationship to her she becomes more that of a child to its mother.

THE TITLE

“They will call me ‘The Lady’, ‘Mother’.” (March 25, 1945)

When Our Lady appeared in Amsterdam, she came under the new title ‘The Lady and Mother of All Nations’. On May 3, 1996, the two bishops of HaaremAmsterdam, Bishop Henrik Bomers and his Auxiliary bishop, Joseph Maria Punt, published a decree in which they officially allowed public veneration of Mary under the biblical title ‘The Lady of all Nations’.

By attentively reading the messages, one can see that this new title is actually the summation of a new three fold dogma that Our Lady asked for : the Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. To see this, one need only open the Holy Scriptures.

In the Bible, Mary is spoken of as “woman” four times, each time in a context which concerns her universal vocation of motherhood. (Please note that in the original Dutch, the word Vrouwe means both woman and lady. In translating the messages, the word lady was chosen, however woman appears in the Bible texts.) This woman is the Lady of All Nations who, united with the Redeemer, suffered as Coredemptrix for all nations. As Mediatrix, she mediates the life of grace to all nations, and as Advocate, she intercedes for all nations before God and defends us from Satan.

OUR LADY SAID THE FOLLOWING ABOUT THIS TITLE

“The Lady of All Nations will be allowed to bring peace to the world. Yet she must be asked for it under this title.” (Oct. 11, 1953)

“Under this title she will save the world.” (March 20, 1953)

"Under this title she may deliver the world from a great world castastrophe.”(May 10, 1953)

“The Lady of All Nations wishes to be brought among everyone, no matter who or what they are. This is why she received this title from her Lord and Master.” (Dec. 31, 1951)

“The Lady of All Nations stands in the middle of the world before the cross. She comes under this name as the Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, in this time. She will be taken up into Marian history under this title.” (Dec. 31, 1951)

“...the Lady of All Nations is here, everywhere, to help you. For she is the Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. This will be the final dogma. Work on it promptly and quickly. The Lady of All Nations promises to help the world if it acknowledges this title, if it invokes her under this title.” (Dec. 8, 1952)

The title ‘Lady and Mother of All Nations’ expresses then in a unique way the world-encompassing vocation of Mary for all nations, for all continents, for all races and religious faiths-for she is truly the Mother of All Nations. She loves all her children, whether they want her to or not. She loves all her children, whether they know it or not.

These apparitions began on March 25, 1945 in Amsterdam on the Feast of the Annunciation. A woman, Ida Peerdman, and her three sisters were at home, seated around a pot-bellied stove. A priest, a friend of the family, stopped by for a visit. While they were engaged in lively conversation, something extraordinary happened. Ida, the youngest of the four sisters, noticed something in the adjoining room. She got up and saw an immense light appearing, and her surroundings seemed to fade away. From the light she saw a female figure come forth, dressed in white, who began to speak to her.

This was the first of a series of fifty-six apparitions which have become known as ‘The Messages of the Lady of All Nations’. The last message, a majestic farewell vision, would be received fourteen years later, on May 31, 1959.

Apparitions reported between 1945-1959 by Ida Peerdeman. In May 2002 Bishop Jozef Marianus Punt of Haarlem-Amsterdam issued a letter that declared this apparition as having supernatural origin. However, this apparition has not been officially approved by the Holy See, and has approval only at the local bishop level.