#with some other non christian elements too

[short-wooloo]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck off and fuck you leslye headland

According to a collider interview headland believes the Jedi represent straight men oppressing the Sith who represent queer women who just want to be free

The Jedi-a diverse, predominantly East Asian-inspired culture (with elements of Islam, Judaism, and other cultures) who preach tolerance, peace and acceptance-are oppressive straight (christian, she doesn't say it but it's obvious that's what she's implying) men

And the sith-a nazi inspired (the sith code is literally based off of mein kampf) death cult that believes they are the superior life forms of the universe and that they are entitled to kill take or enslave whomever and whatever they want because of their strength-are actually the poor oppressed queer women trying to be free

Y'know I don't know what's more insulting

Is it the intentional likening of the Jedi to homophobic bigots?

Or is it the blundering stupidity of likening queers to the space nazis?

[sheydgarden]

How do you feel about jewish supernatural creatures being portrayed in media? Is it okay if done correctly, since it is a closed religion? I'm really curious, especially since you obviously know so much about them.

I also want to say that I love your art! And I love being able to learn more about these creatures.

thank you for the kind words, i appreciate it!

i have to say i'm confused by the question, or possibly its framing - i'm not sure what Judaism being a "closed religion" has to do with portraying creatures from folklore in media. "closed religion" is a term people generally seem to use when they're talking about not appropriating the actual religious/cultural practices of a (usually contextually marginalized) religion that you don't belong to. recently i've seen some pushback against the term "closed practice/religion" for Judaism, as it's not literally true. yes, Judaism is for Jews, but anyone can convert to Judaism - it's just that it's a whole process that involves a lot of learning & then being accepted by a Jewish community. to my knowledge, "closed practice" as a term grew out of the pagan/neo-pagan community anyway & was used to describe any religion whose symbols, deities & practices weren't socially considered fair game for use in your own personal spiritual practice - i have a lot of thoughts on this odd sort of "restaurant view" of religion & culture, where some things are at a free-for-all buffet so you can just take what you want (who put them there?) while other things are only served at certain tables by reservation (is anyone else ever invited?), but that's a whole other post.

i'm assuming you're asking how i feel about non-Jewish people portraying creatures from Jewish folklore in various kinds of media, & the answer is that it totally depends on the thing & how it's done? i definitely don't subscribe to the idea that creators should never step outside their own experience/culture. i do think portraying (elements of) other cultures is something that should be done carefully & sensitively, ideally with input from members of that culture! unfortunately, it is very, very easy for creators to unintentionally fall into antisemitic tropes & stereotypes, because those ideas are so old & so pervasive, especially when it comes to monsters & other supernatural creatures (Jews having been literally demonized by Christian culture for centuries). i think if you're not Jewish, then making sensitive, educated work about Jewish monsters is probably hard mode, but that isn't to say it can't be done. i can think of plenty of bad examples off the top of my head, but i'm sure i could come up with some good ones too if given the time.

of course, this is all just my opinion, & should not be taken as a ruling on what's "okay"! other Jews will agree & disagree with me, which is fine & good. :)

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/749333039047442432/httpsolderthannetfictumblrcompost74884185043?source=share

Sorry, long rant incoming.

Someone in the replies said it, but I think it needs to be said again where everyone can see it: I think a lot of the attitude that anon is somehow secretly pro-censorship because they think certain preferences are skeevy, and strenuously insisting that bad attitudes can NEVER be media's fault.... idk, maybe take it out of the context of debates about sexually explicit/pornographic media for a moment?

There are works of media that had pretty direct effects on activist and political movements, good and bad. Uncle Tom's Cabin inspired a lot of people to fight against slavery. The movie Birth of a Nation, which showed a history of the U.S. with the KKK as heroic, is considered by most historians to be a major contributor to the revival of the KKK in the 1920s. The Nazis used films, books, music, art, and so on in their propaganda, knowing it would help their ideas go down more easily. The Soviets did too. Every dictatorship did. Even democratic countries have done it as well, usually but not always in more subtle ways.

Do none of those count, because "oh, people who were going to be convinced by Birth of a Nation would be racist anyway"? "Good, non-racist people wouldn't be convinced by it"? I mean, the latter is true: there were plenty of people, especially black Americans but plenty of white allies too, who boycotted the film at the time. The NAACP led a boycott. But do you really think NO ONE was convinced? (What about people who previously didn't feel any way about it one way or the other? Were they just innately more evil, even if it might've just been that they weren't aware? Do supposedly progressive people in fandom realize how much this sounds like Christian original sin rhetoric...) And does it matter purely about media fully changing minds, or also how it galvanizes people who already think one way? If it gives them new talking points, new ways of thinking about it and convincing others? If it helps them believe their cause is more important and worth fighting for?

So why does this all suddenly change when we're talking about sex? Is porn really this special class of media where somehow all the rules about how we can both like things and also be critical of how media (fiction, news media, whatever) influences us - "be critical of the media you love," as a tote bag sold by Feminist Frequency said - just stop applying for some reason? Or maybe if something is bypassing your rational brain entirely and going directly for the pleasure centers, there's all the more reason to think critically about what it's saying? Propaganda is designed to bypass all that, too.

Also, if media really has NOTHING to do with it, that just wouldn't explain why it's disproportionately anime that feature these specific elements that seem to attract more people arguing for why it's wrong to be upset by rape or child exploitation in real life. I don't believe that everyone who watches slavery isekai or lolicon approves of those things irl - I think for the vast majority of people, it IS a fantasy and that's the point - but I have noticed that in places like the Anime News Network or Crunchyroll forums, the comments become a cesspool of creepy people arguing for why ages of consent should be lowered and mean feminists who don't like watching media with rape in it just need to get over themselves, in a way they just don't when you're talking about Attack on Titan or My Hero Academia or Shoujo Romance #4891 or whatever.

As another person in the notes said, abusers ARE opportunistic. They'll use something like Twilight as easily as they'll use the most uwu, soft, "non problematic" ship to argue for why they're allowed to abuse you. But I don't think that means we can't be critical (not calling for censorship, of course! but like, writing op-eds and stuff) of media that makes their arguments a little easier, maybe even directly makes their arguments for them.

You can believe both that everyone has the opportunity to read, watch, listen to, play what they want and make up their own minds about it, and that it's wrong for the government to ever decide what media is and isn't "acceptable," and also believe that media often is saying things that aren't apparent on the surface and that you should be critical of those messages, *especially* with the stuff you like.

The point is just that porn isn't like, fundamentally different from other fictional media in this way. (Or, hell, I would argue that fictional media isn't functionally different from other mass media in this way. If anything, fiction's politics are often more insidious in a way that makes it easier for them to reach people who might not otherwise be open to those messages in the form of, say, blatantly right-wing news media.)

It's particularly strange to me when people jump all over someone for expressing how something can be insidiously creepy in a more mundane way. The line people are upset about that used the word "unpack" was just making the point that even if we can agree lolicon isn't outright advocating pedophilia, even if we agree the point is that it's a fantasy and they're not like real children at all and that's what people like, it's still working within an idealization/fetishization of helplessness, innocence, and dependence, and that still has a lot that you can critique from a feminist perspective. It's still a thing that plays into some crappy societal ideas about who women are supposed to be, and is selling that to men as a romantic ideal. There's still a lot we can talk about there! And it's still totally fair for women to be wary of men where that seems to be all they're into - because for some (and I believe this was what anon was initially trying to say was their experience), it does impact how they treat real women. It doesn't have to be everyone for it to have an impact.

There's a lot of anime that presents women that way, even way outside of lolicon. A lot of it's anime I like! I'm still critical of that aspect of it. I still wish that particular part of it were different.

I still don't see how this makes me "pro censorship" unless I believe some kind of institution should mandate that that not be included. And whether that's the government, or the industry itself (people do kind of narrowly focus on "the government" in a way that would make a lot of industry-run censorship that was still very harmful, e.g. the Hollywood Hays Code, not "count"), or anyone, I very much disagree with that. Creators should be able to create what they want. A lot of what creators are doing with this is unconscious, is reflecting societal biases they learned but haven't thought deeply about.... which is precisely the point of critiquing how those show up in a work.

People love to talk about "secretly 'anti' attitudes" but at the end of the day, support or opposition to censorship is pretty straightforward. You believe someone should be stopped from making a particular kind of media, or you don't. If you don't, you're not pro-censorship, no matter how much you personally may not like that that media or a particular aspect of it exists. Most people who care about media have some media they wish didn't exist. It's about what they do about it that makes them pro or anti censorship. Talk to people who donate to or even work for the ACLU or other anti censorship groups; most of them don't like racist or sexist stuff, but they also don't believe it should be banned and that's the point.

Bringing it back to the discussion at hand, I think the point was just that you can't be blind to how power dynamics influence this stuff. I wouldn't even say specifically cishet men are at fault here, since some people who read this blog seem to think that anyone saying that is automatically talking about bioessentialism as opposed to like, societal stuff (don't ask me why, this has been explained on here enough times in enough different discourses over the years, I think). I'd just say anyone with power in that particular context. There's a reason why it's specifically mainstream media, aimed at groups in power, that tends to draw in creeps excusing the real thing... in a way that just similarly is not true of people in fanfiction fandom, who are usually a member of one or more oppressed categories, exploring that in their own marginal work. Fans of rape fanfiction just don't act the way that fans of slavery rape isekai do. It's because there is fundamentally a difference both when you're someone whom society tells you are entitled to everything you want in this particular arena, and also when a work is mainstream, broadening its reach, and speaking a particular message from the lens of people with economic and social power (who are making these mainstream works) and given approval by publishers/media studios/etc. in a way that is not the case with amateur work with tiny audiences. And, frankly, there's a difference between something that eroticizes rape from the point of view of the perpetrator vs. the victim.

Not a difference in terms of how legal it should be. Not a difference in whether every single person who watches it or likes it is bad. But a difference in terms of what it's saying, how it's saying that, and often the effects they have as a result. That, too, is true with every topic, not just sex.

I feel like a lot of people getting mad at these do fundamentally agree with this, but just have a weird blind spot when it's put in any sort of terminology that reminds them of certain bad arguments they've seen in fandom, uses any words that can be dismissed as "radfem" or "anti" or whatever, and so just refuse to engage with the actual meat of what is being said.

If you do actually believe though that it's wrong to EVER think media can have a negative effect on what people believe about irl issues, because there was always something "already there" that was going to "come out anyway" if it affects you that way (again, people: this is "original sin" rhetoric), and if you ever privately judge people for the media they like you're secretly pro-censorship. You do have to recognzie that both you personally come up short and also most peopel doing real concrete real world things to fight censorship would also come up short!

I think sometimes of an editorial that said "if you love Return of the Jedi but hated the Ewoks you understand feminist criticism" in terms of how you can be bothered by the sexism of a piece of media in a way you'd be bothered by any one individual element of it, and still overall like the whole. And also, you can be offended by something, even wish it didn't exist (don't we as nerds all have entries in some franchise we like or another that we wish didn't exist for fannish reasons?), without believing that it should be officially made to stop existing or have never existed in the first place. That last part does actaully matter as like, its own thing. It is in fact separable from just being able to have personal judgey feelings about media and about the people who liked it.

And opposing it does not mean in any way that we have to just stop thinking critically about the media we love, or that we have to act like media can never have any influence on people. We on the left tend to talk about sexism, racism, homophoia and so on as being influenced by culture and society. Well, guess what is part of society and culture? Fictional (and other kinds of) media. That's part of that societal programming we get. It's why you'll see some of it even from people whose parents very much tried to resist teaching them certain things, because they get it from media anyway. I was raised by strenuously feminist parents: it was the media that taught me what gender roles were and how I was expected to adhere to them.

--

Look, I realize it's a bit rich of me to say this, but people are not going to engage with your actual points if you cannot be more succinct.

[slimeandsadness]

Handedness in DanAndPhilCrafts - Slime

A documentation and analysis of the hands that Dan and Phil use in the new Crafts video. Obviously some of this stuff is just due to filming and seating angles, but as with so much else about this video, I think some really interesting things can be intuited from it. Sorry if anyone has already done this!

This whole idea came from a post @lesbaurinkos pointing out that Dan - who's left handed - uses his right hand to sacrifice Phil, and comparing it to this exchange from Glitter Faces:

Phil: If you're left handed, ask a friend. Dan: Why am I left handed? Phil: Everybody makes mistakes.

This implies that there is something wrong with Dan's left handedness, and I've seen some suggest that this is what leads him to do rituals with his right. Others still say that perhaps this shows a transition of some sort, so that he is not the same person. While these are valid and interesting readings, I'd like to put forward a different theory.

Traditionally, the left hand has been seen as sinister (literally the Latin word for left, while the right was 'dexter'), so one would think that Dan's left handedness would actually be a boon for a Satanic ritual. It's a mark of otherness, of queerness, that was historically punished by a Christian society who saw it as deviant and wicked.

Indeed, it isn't just Dan who uses a hand different from his dominant one for ritualistic practice. Although we don't see Phil make the cut on Dan's hand, when he holds the knife, he holds it in his left hand.

Likewise, once it cuts to the next shot, the knife is at an angle that suggests it having been put down from his left.

Dan's wound is on his right hand, and he uses this hand for many of the ritualistic elements to come, including - while still in Crafts mode - anointing himself and Phil in slime and holding the knife while telling us that He wants it 'straight from the source'.

This might be because his left hand is out of action due to all that blue slime on it. How did that blue slime get there? First, a word on the slime itself.

The two slimes serve different purposes. Dan's slime is intended to be a vessel and Phil's will be 'fun to touch'. Thus, while the red slime is only for Him, I would argue that the blue slime is for Them. After all, creativity is nothing without friendship.

That homoerotic hand grab with Phil - which squishes together the friendship slime, the same colour as Phil's eyes, as Dan points out - represents 'friendship' as the other force alongside Him. In this hand grab, Dan's dominant hand becomes covered in slime, leaving only his non-dominant hand for ritual purposes.

Interestingly, Phil is using his left hand here (his ritual hand), perhaps a sign of their differing priorities. I won't go into too much detail here, but I've seen others make interesting posts about Phil doing things for Him, and Dan doing them for Phil. This isn't too important here, as it's Dan's deliberate choices after this about which hand to use that become particularly interesting.

Indeed, after this, Dan draws the sigils on the walls with his right hand, and he also walks into the room to complete the sacrifice holding the knife in his right hand. If his right hand is his ritual hand, this makes sense.

However, and I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, he leaves the room with it in his left hand.

I think this is fascinating, since - as with the cut in Dan's hand - we don't see what happens between these two shots. We hear Phil scream and assume Dan has stabbed him as planned, but we don't get to see which hand he actually wields the knife with. Going with my above thesis, perhaps this is because it is muddy and unknowable to what extent Dan is doing this for Him (the right hand) and to what extent he's doing it for Phil (the left).

We can also view this in contrast with the hand cut from earlier, where the discarded knife indicates that Phil completed the whole thing with his left (ritual) hand.

Dan also has a bloody handprint on his shirt, presumably from Phil in his final moments, and it's a right hand print. This is Phil's 'friendship' hand. Despite Phil's ultimate devotion to Him, during the moment of his greatest sacrifice, it is the deep intimacy of this act between the two of them that is most important.

In the final ritual scene, Dan begins by holding the knife in his right hand (his ritual hand).

However, he then holds it in both hands, just as he holds Phil's heart in both hands a moment later. Both ritual and friendship are working together here, and he continues for the rest of the scene to use both hands to anoint them in Phil's heart's blood.

In the final shot, they are stood in their usual formation (Dan on stage right, Phil on stage left) and they each hold an item of ritualistic significance in their non-dominant, ritual hand. Dan holds Phil's heart in his right hand; Phil holds the knife in his left. What they each hold in their dominant hands is each other.

As a few others have pointed out, the rope of Baphomet behind them also evokes imagery of handfasting. That suggests that this is not just a summoning of Baphomet, but also a marriage ceremony of sorts. They are bound not just to Baphomet, but to each other.

A lot of this is, of course, because of their standard way round of sitting, so that their dominant hands are always between them, but it is fascinating that they made the choice to continue with this motif even once they were roaming free.

This is my final thesis, then, that throughout the video they both use their non-dominant hands for acts of ritualistic significance, while their dominant hands become important for their relationship. This is especially true for Dan, whose devotion often seems split between Him and Phil. Dan's left handedness could additionally act as a metaphor for queerness, so it's especially notable the way that this hand is reserved only for Phil.

Basically:

[waitmyturtles]

Hello,

Some of your Only Friends meta sparked a question for me: You've referred to the impact of purity culture on how the boys (particularly Boston) are viewed both within the show and by fans watching. I was raised evangelical Christian (don't worry, it went poorly), so my associations with purity culture are quite specific to promise rings, abstinence-only education, and that sort of thing. However, you seem to be working from a much more expansive view that includes purity culture's downstream effects such as slut-shaming, heteronormativity, pressure to perform monogamy, etc. (and in at least one case you also linked it to colonialism).

Since your definition of purity culture is so much broader than mine has traditionally been, I'm curious: What exactly do you mean when you use the term, and what are the parameters of purity culture from your perspective?

I've been kind of squinting interestedly at your usage and trying to reverse-engineer your definition from context and it finally occurred to me that I can just ask you lol

(also I know tone can be hard to gauge on the internet so just to be safe: I'm in no way trying to start a weird fight about the meaning of the term; I'm just interested in what you're saying and seeking to understand it better)

Thank you!

Bonebag

HELLO @sorry-bonebag! WHAT A QUESTION! I don't think this is weird at all -- I think it's the fascinating basis of a conversation.

I'm not sure that I'm going to have a central, singular answer for you regarding how I view and/or define "purity culture." I think, as I generalize (massive emphasis on my generalizations in this answer) society's lack of acceptance for open sexual conduct and engagement, that we're dealing with a lot of elements of how power is managed and distributed among humans. For example, if we roll back to, say, the creation of Christianity as a religion, we have to ask: WHY does the religion have what it says about sex? Controlling sex means controlling people -- it means controlling who gets born, and who gets to pair with each other. Controlling sex means controlling behavior, and creating submissiveness to a religion allows a smaller group of people massive power over larger groups. Christianity (as an example) is a modern expression of a primal biological urge that humans have to create groups and gain power for survival. So, first and foremost, to judge someone else for having sex in modern times gives that judge a sense of power over someone else.

In a judgement against sex, and people who have unabashed sex -- let's use Khai from Theory of Love and Boston as examples -- what assumptions/judgements/behaviors are leveraged as we condemn these men (and women, and non-binary individuals) for having lots of sex? From my lens, we have the following prejudices playing into this:

Misogyny Internalized homophobia (on the part of the person being judged) Externalized homophobia (on the part of the people doing the judging) Biases against nontheistic people Jealousy (for the ease in which some people can come into sex) Competition

and so many more. All of these prejudices can and ARE leveraged to judge people for having sex, because judging people for having sex gives the judges power in greater society, as greater society ultimately looks down on the practice of having lots of sex.

I think a fantastic example of this is when Sand was talking about Boston to Ray in this past weekend's episode. Why the hell would Sand even have any business talking about Boston to Ray? Because condemning Boston's "slutty" behavior will give Sand a sense of power for Ray to acknowledge.

By calling another person a "slut" -- a person like Sand gains an upper moralistic and ethical hand. All while Sand is the person that Ray is sleeping with as Ray cheats on Mew. Calling someone ELSE a slut allows Sand (and, let's be honest, Ray, too!) to escape accountability for his own questionable behavior.

And that's what I'm calling out in my posts, especially my Morning After meta from yesterday. If a meta writer is condemning Boston for having sex, or is interpreting that SandRay have only slept together once, to fulfill some kind of shipper fantasy -- I'm going to write about those judgements in my posts, because I don't think those judgements are fair to a show that was very open and honest, at its premiere, about its premise that it would be digging into issues regarding sex and toxicity. I think "purity culture," as we're calling it, is a means by which the fandom wants to control the sexual behavior of Asian queer men. Much of the fandom here on Tumblr is Western, and as an Asian-American, it also gives me the jibbles that a Western audience would want to control with power, the behavior of Asian queer males, a much smaller demographic than a wider Western audience. That's where I bring a colonialist accusation to the table. To me, all of this keeps coming back to power. (I write about this in that post that talks about colonialism. Shipping really worries me. To force two young Asian males into a relationship fantasy -- and then to push that fantasy towards monogamy and a restriction of sex. I mean. Whoa. I very much see colonialism and racism in there, as non-Asians push Asians to behave in prescribed ways.)

This conversation circles back in part to the exhortation I made at the start of OF's premiere, that as much of the fandom as possible should watch Gay OK Bangkok. Jojo Tichakorn's and Aof Noppharnach's GOKB depicted Asian queer males in sex, love, pain, and careers. In this show, there were no condemnations for slutty behavior. (I mean, Pom expected Arm to fall in and out of love, but Pom wasn't being judgmental about it -- he ended up being there for his friend in a hilar way. Anyway!) A specter of morality and ethics, the Greek chorus or peanut gallery of chirping about not having sex did NOT permeate the show. It was just -- Asian gay males living their lives.

Only Friends is bringing up sooooo much about how the characters within the show, and the fandom external to the show, think about, talk about, and judge sex. Having these conversations, for me, is lifeblood. As an Asian-American, I WISH I could have had these open conversations about sex when I was a growing teen. Alas. The culture in which I grew up -- one that valued virginity, purity, and one that condemned sexual experimentation -- prevented me from being open in conversation about sex. I'm thankful that I grew up more and more independently as I got older, and that I had the intellectual capacity to understand and process when I was being judged, myself, for having sex. Because we've all been there, those of us who have had and enjoyed sex. We've been condemned for it, judged for it, every single one of us. We've been made to feel guilty about it.

And even as someone like Boston gets JUDGED, in every episode of OF, for HAVING lots of sex -- I SO appreciate his existence as a character and a narrative device, that he exists as a mirror for OTHER characters, like Ray/Atom/Sand/even Mew/even Top -- who do not hold themselves accountable for either similar behaviors, and/or for behaviors that are far more questionable than simple having sex. Top violated Mew's boundaries in episode 8 -- flat out. And Top's not been held accountable for a second. Top still has power, he still has an upper hand.

This was a long answer, @sorry-bonebag, but TL;DR: POWER. Power and accountability are two elements of humanity that I am forever fascinated by, and I love that we have a brilliant showmaker in Jojo to help highlight this in his art.

I very much hope I touched upon a kind of answer for your question, but at least you got to read some of my deeper thoughts on this topic! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS CONVERSATION!

[eternal-echoes]

“The canon law of marriage held that a valid marriage required the free consent of both the man and the woman, and that a marriage could be held invalid if it took place under duress or if one of the parties entered into the marriage on the basis of a mistake regarding either the identity or some important quality of the other person. "Here," writes Berman, "were the foundations not only of the modern law of marriage but also of certain basic elements of modern contract law, namely, the concept of free will and related concepts of mistake, duress, and fraud."1 And by implementing these crucial principles in law, Catholic jurists were at last able to overcome the common practice of infant marriage that owed its origins to barbarian custom.2 Barbarian practice thus gave way to Catholic principle. Through the codification and promulgation of a systematic body of law, the salutary principles of Catholic belief were able to make their way into the daily practices of European peoples who had adopted Catholicism but who had all too often failed to draw out all its implications. These principles remain central to the modern legal orders under which Westerners, and more and more non-Westerners, continue to live.”

- Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D., “The Church and Western Law,” How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

—

1. Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 228.

2. Harold J. Berman, "The Influence of Christianity Upon the Development of Law," Oklahoma Law Review 12 (1959), 93

[slavicafire]

very interesting breakdown regarding rodnovery from Scott Simpson’s Strategies for Constructing Religious Practice in Polish Rodzimowierstwo:

A purely academic reconstruction of a religion from the past is “legitimate” when it is made up of fragments which have been selected solely on the basis of the academic authenticity and reliability of the evidence. When a particular fragment had not been recovered, a scholar may always choose to simply leave that space blank without perverting the intention of the reconstruction (whether it be pottery or religion). Rodzimowiercy, in contrast, need to have a complete and functional religion in order for it to be legitimate. If the participant finds her- or himself in personal need of a Slavic marriage ceremony, then that space must be filled by something in spite of the lack of a conveniently pre-existing Pagan marriage script from, say, the Wiślanie tribe in the early 10th century. It would be a serious perversion of the religious intent of such a reconstruction to give up suddenly at that point.

the strategies Simpson describes below the cut. a very recommended reading, too, so I hope the full text will get some attention as well. 

1. Direct re-enacting: faithully replicating a custom described in sources such as chronicles - which Simpson notices is rarely possible as stand-alone strategy given all the blanks and generally limited sources. the most classic of issues everyone interested in neo-paganism knows and battled. 

2. De-Christianising: removing obvious Christian elements from “sacred” folk practices - think rodnovery Kolęda removing Christian elements from a folk tradition - one that is rooted in customs predating Christianity on slavic lands, and so can be stripped back into its more “original” (and pagan) form.

3. Sacralising folklore: taking elements of “secular” folk tradition and re-framing them in religious practice - for example, elevating folk melodies to sacred songs accompanying rodnovery rituals, or adapting the circular toasting custom of passing a drinking vessel among participants of an event as a religious expression other than just a secular way of toasting common among peasants.

4. Sacralising the archaic: emphasising ancient, archaic, timeless, non-modern aspects, moods and motifs - similar to above, putting religious emphasis on things which in the past were simply common. think archeological finds regarding clothing and adaptation of everyday clothing of the past as sacred or ritual clothing for modern reconstructionist practice. another example: drinking horns and mead being chosen for religious ritual because they are seen as more authentic (incorrectly) than wine or cups which are “too modern”.

5. Sacralising the natural: emphasising that which is organic, untamed, rustic. the clear emphasis on low-tech content, everything is wood or stone or raw wool - celebrations are more likely to be felt as legitimate if they happen in the forest rather than in a bar. 

6. Aesthetising: artistic embellishment of existing practice. think how focused rodnovers are on creating religious visual art, music, craft mead for celebrations, hand embroidered banners and altar cloths, representations of deities and reimaginations of symbols. this helps build a language of religious expression which for rodnovers is much more communal and reliant on members of the religion. not every member of christianity feels responsible for making religious art to be used by the religion - that task is usually fulfilled by the hierarchical structure.

7. Indigenising: localisation of ideas and practices found elsewhere. so some foreign ideas are rejected in order to maintain cohesion (for example Valentine’s Day being seen as a US tradition which does not belong on slavic lands) vs acceptance and adoption of others. the biggest example Simpson gives is the widespread usage of Internet and social media in creation of this religious belonging. or utilising fire poi in kupala celebrations.

8. Direct revelation from sacred beings (ancestors, spirits of nature, gods): If the sacred beings are understood as currently real, and if they have made their presence known to the Slavic tribes in the past, then they may do so now. think shamanic approaches, divination, contacting ancestors as beings with agency and influence, interpreting signs from gods.

[the-lunar-library]

TO THE RAVENS

A stranger – an outcast – a secret plot... Could you fool them without making the whole city want to kill you?

Rejected by her clan, Akantha has few options. In the Roman lunar colonies, where people are winged and there are rumors of barbarians beyond the city walls, she knows to keep her head down and not hope for a great destiny – or anything beyond what the gods, the Romans, or her city allow a mere woman.

But then, a stranger enters her life, Alexandros the Peregrine, a mysterious golden prophet. He claims he can make the city his – and hers – with just their wits. He speaks as if the Romans can't hurt them. And as for the gods? He's about to make a god of his very own.

With humor, romance, and biting emotion, Akantha's story unfolds. Alexandros will change her life forever. Is he a savior who will bring her freedom, or is he a force far too dangerous for her to fall in love with?

Briefly:

historical fantasy

standalone (155K words), not part of a series

an adult novel, though older teens could also read it

Imperial Rome (160s CE), but set on the Moon

a young twentysomething heroine who's very much an outcast

a handsome, reckless stranger

a cult!

Warnings: Violence; non-explicit sex; issues surrounding forced, arranged, abusive, and underage marriage/sexual contact; child and infant abuse, including death; pervasive cultural misogyny; the strongest warning is that this is a book about a cult, and while sometimes I play up the humor and absurdity of their practices, there are times when I go into the various forms of abuse inherent to such a situation.

All of these warnings make the book sound very gritty and grimdark, but I don't believe it to be. None of the sexual or violent stuff is explicit, and overall I feel the message is hopeful. I consider the ending a happy one.

Is it similar to your earlier books, The Price and Prey of Magic and The Escape of Lady Aigle?

Yes: We have a female protagonist and a lot of female support characters. There's some romance, but it's not strictly a romance novel. There's a lot of questioning of characters' motives, how trustworthy they are, and how the heroine's decisions affect those around her. The characters are sometimes taken to dark and dangerous places, but emerge with hope. There are fantasy elements, but it's not a novel about quests or wizards.

No: It's set in the real world – sort of. The action is all on the Moon, but a lot of the world-building is based on historical research. It's saucier than Papom or Eola, discussing sex more overtly. I would say the tone is also funnier, though there are some heavy, more emotional moments. There's a focus on religion, both positive and negative elements.

I see bat wings, is the main character a demon?

No, not at all. She's a human with wings.

Do you have to be an expert in Greek and Roman culture to read this?

Definitely not. Anything that's vital for the reader to understand is explained within the story. Other things, like some brief references to Greek mythology, are thrown in to make it feel more immersive, but they aren't necessary to understand what's going on. There's also a glossary in the back, but you should be able to read through without needing it.

Do you agree with everything your characters say?

Absolutely not, and that includes the characters I like very much, like Akantha. The book is set in second-century Rome, so I did my best to reflect the attitudes of the times, even ugly ones. I don't want the reader to feel like they're in the twenty-first century with some Roman window-dressing. This isn't to suggest all my characters are awful people, but they're coming at some subjects from a very different cultural context than we do. Their perspectives are different and, sometimes, wrong.

Is this book pro- or anti-religion?

Because it's about a cult, and because it's set in the Roman empire, religion is examined quite a lot. In the cast, we have Greco-Roman pagans, Christians, and Jews. Characters voice a variety of opinions, but I didn't write the book to proclaim you should or shouldn't belong to any of these religions. The only religion the book says you shouldn't be part of is, well, the cult.

How much is this based on real events?

It was inspired by a real cult that existed in the second century CE as documented by the writer Lucian of Samosata. I took direct inspiration from that account as well as a number of Lucian's other essays. However, in my telling, things are much more fiction than fact; this is not a faithful attempt at historical fiction. Anyone doing a school report on this cult should not cite me as a source, as hilarious as that would be.

Is there a snake in this?

Yeah, it always seems like there's a snake somewhere in my books.

[etoilesombre]

Never have I ever game-- you're known for playing with the source material in ways that don't change canon's outcome, but would you ever do a non-canon Black Sails take? An AU that is entirely different setting from pirates, mod au, fairytale au, space au, cowboy au, etc?

Oh that is a great question. I don't generally do AU, and especially not modern AU, because for me personally it is hard to put them into a high enough stakes environment to explore the elements of the show I'm interested in. HOWEVER. There is one that I started to consider a while ago and have pretty thoroughly fleshed out, and have a serious plan to start once other projects are finished, and that is: Russian Revolution AU! Ok. Stick with me here. [Or don't. I'm going to put this under a cut, it is a lot, and may not make very much sense if you don't already know something about the historical period.]

So, I love the idea of using the Russian revolution as a way to explore some of the same dynamics as the show because it is a period in which there was a lot of righteous idealism, and then it all went very wrong, which naturally brings up questions of ideological commitment vs survival, what are you willing to sacrifice, how do your ideals hold up in the real world, etc. It is also a time when how queerness was treated was very in flux, fitting well with 'we care if its politically convenient to care.'

Basically, we start in the early 1920s right after Lenin dies. Flint is a general, old guard party member, was a commander in the civil war. He is known for doing Really Heinous Flinty Shit during that period. He is sort of revered but also feared, and very ideologically motivated, and so of course he is about to get his ass purged when Stalin starts to consolidate and bring everybody into line.

Silver (10ish years younger) grew up during the upheaval of the 1905, WWI, 1917. He's his survivalist trauma bundle self, and ends up working as a low level NKVD (early Soviet intelligence) guy. He gets sent to keep tabs on/gather evidence against Flint - there is immediately a Frenemies attraction spark there. For Plot Reasons they have to do something together and become Reluctant Allies. I have some of the actual plot worked out but I'm not going to get much into it here, but there is absolutely a parallel conflict in values to the show, and choice that has to be made at the end.

IN THE MEAN TIME interspersed through all of this, in flashbacks: back sometime in the years right after the 1905 revolution, Flint is a promising young military guy who came up from nothing, and has a Hennessey parallel benefactor who sends him to school to be educated. He falls in with Thomas, who is the son of a minor prince, very queer and getting away with it, and is a radical in the Christian anarchist Tolstoy model. Flint gets radicalized through him and his friends, they spend happy years abroad in exile with Thomas writing and Flint being a tactician and doing direct action stuff. They come back in 1917, the civil war starts, Thomas is basically murdered by his family because he sided against them, and he is still set to inherit. SO, that is why Flint goes all Darkness and gets especially nasty during the civil war.

There is a Miranda proxy as well. I believe she disappears and her disappearance is what sets off Plot Events.

It's also set in St. Petersburg, if anybody is wondering. Moscow, with the level I have Flint at, would involve too much interaction with Actual Historical Figures, and while I know a fair amount about this era and am totally committed to research, but still, that gets to be Much.

So, there you have it, Russia AU! My delusional long-term goal is for this to be different enough from canon that it could be published. Thanks for the ask, it's helping me get excited about that project again!

[tothepointofinsanity]

the new pmmm movie trailer has brought back my Brainrot for the show so ive been re-exploring the pmmm corner of tumblr and

oh my god???? oh my fucking god???? oh holy shit???? oh my goodness gracious your art is so pretty??????? hello???????????

the way you draw sayaka is just fhfhfhfhhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhfhhfhf. yk? the english language does not have the words to articulate how much i love you art and the style of your art. i am going insane. i am losing my mind. every piece you've made featuring sayaka just captures her essence so well and it makes me feral.

sayaka's not my main favorite of the show (sorry sayaka, you rock but kyoko is just too cool with her Christian Guilt) she's a very close second and it makes me so happy to see an artist who just understands her character so well. she's a foolish girl blind to her own fate, desperate to do something special and be someone worthwhile but she's ultimately just a footnote in the grand plan of the universe, she wants to be just and righteous and kind so badly but she's too wrapped up in her own despair to truly be selfless, she can be selfish and callous but that's just because she's human, a human who realized her existence is ultimately an exercise in futility and that fact burns and it hurts so she does whatever she can to make the pain go away but it never does because she's just A Normal, Flawed Girl and that hurts so goddamn much-

i have so many Thoughts about sayaka. she makes me insane on a daily basis and your art just feels like it captures all the screeching in my brain and puts it in the form of some beautiful images. they're so great. you're doing great.

Ah, thank you for the kind words [♡] I appreciate the time you had taken out to write and send this long scroll of a compliment.

I have been told by others that the way I depict Sayaka is "so real" and that it captures her essence most of the time, even though I am not sure what particular elements about her that people in the audience like unless specified. I suppose, personally, whenever I am drawing her, I have to enter her shoes of not just "the frustration of a lovesick teenage girl", "my perceived sense of justice was flawed", but also to accept that resignation is a highlight of her character. A young girl who believes she is unloved despite her desire to do everything Right. A mermaid who cannot swim - futility and uselessness contribute to why Sayaka is a realistic and compelling person to a lot of people watching the show. Whenever I draw her, my brain paints a sketch of her sadness before anything else. The despair of "no matter what I do, this is the outcome" is true to the canon of Sayaka turning into a Witch in every timeline she tries to accomplish this Goodness by being a magical girl, reflecting the reality at large the helplessness girls in general experience on a daily basis.

It is why I find people who hate Sayaka to be...strange, since their prescribed reasons for dislike are mainly how "foolish" her wish and outlook in life was, and how she became irritating to those around her as though Sayaka isn't literally a paragon of not just deteriorating mental health, but to me, people with personality disorders as well, given that there is always a "sense" that the inevitable ending involves everyone actively avoiding you and you will eventually just...fade away into non-existence; a bad memory that no one wants to speak about. It makes me sad. Sayaka is sick, and everyone can smell the rot of magic off her.

Everytime I draw her, I want to capture, perhaps, this exact feeling of resigning to this disease. I don't want to always make the drawings beautiful since her struggles are ugly and difficult and tiresome, and shouldn't be trivialised as a result. She's always trying her best to regain control of her own life, thus being so unmatched in terms of how relatable she is to a lot of people.

I am glad that someone appreciates my works, even if they aren't always consistently quality. •́ ‿ ,•̀

[yurucamp]

Hello io!

I just wanted to ask about another detail in fbc: the religious attributes.

The thing is that they seem to be catholic (?I suppose), which is a bit weird for the fact that the game takes place in Russia, since the Christianity here is mainly orthodox.

(Which doesn't mean there are no people here who practice other forms of it, they are just way more of an exception)

So what I wanted to ask, was this detail intentional or not really? Does this mean Lera's family were non-orthodox Christians? Or was it just some mistake?

Thank you for your answer in advance!

hi! thank you for playing and taking the time to think about my game :-)

someone mentioned this to me before too- while it's entirely possible that one of lera's grandmothers is from a catholic family and elements of that got 'regurgitated' into the complex, it's more the result of me basing my portrayal of religion on what's familiar to me, and thus not an intended element of the game!

[gladstones-corner]

Commentary on the Star Ruby

For those of you familiar with this blog, you'll likely know that I am a huge proponent of the Lesser Rituals of the Pentagram and their myriad of non-appropriative variants.

Today I want to talk about one of these variants, written by none other than Aleister Crowley himself. Though Star Ruby isn't strictly a variant so much as it is a replacement, I still think there's a lot to be said for the structure and components of the ritual in comparison to the LRP.

I don't want to take up too much space talking about the technical performance of the ritual. Instead, I highly recommend reading through this annotated version by Sabazius and having it open while reading this post.

In addition, if you aren't versed in the LRP I suggest this abridged version on Thelemapedia. It's very short, but it's the only online source I found with mostly accurate information and no excess fluff. If you want a detailed version, please consult Donald Kraig's Modern Magick or the Ciceros' Essential Golden Dawn.

Alright. Let's set aside Crowley's writings on the subject for a moment. As amazing as they are, they're often too dense to effectively parse in a short blog post. Instead, I want to compare the material, somatic, and verbal components of these rituals.

Let's start with the material components. In the LRP, you traditionally use either your hand, a dagger, or a wand. In the Thelemic tradition, there is evidence for a rose-headed wand, but I'm not familiar enough to make a comment. So in either case, you can perform the ritual with no material components save for your bare hands.

Okay, with the material components out of the way let's move to the somatic ones. These movements are largely the same as the LRP in some respects, and not even close in others. Let's first take a look at the structure of Star Ruby:

The First Cross

The Pentagrams

The Call

The Final Cross

It looks exactly the same as the LRP. And the actual movements of the First and Final Crosses are exactly the same. The movements are also nearly identical during the Call. It's the Pentagrams that differ the most from the LRP.

Let's take a look at how they differ exactly:

The LRP uses blue pentagrams; Star Ruby uses red.

The LRP moves clockwise around the space; Star Ruby moves counterclockwise.

The LRP has the magician physically draw the pentagrams; Star Ruby has the magician imagine them on the forehead before pushing outward into its position.

The LRP does not have any bridging movements between the Pentagrams and the Call; Star Ruby uses the N.O.X. signs.

Okay, neat. The only things left to cover are the verbal components. So how do they stack up?

In fact, the verbal components are by far the greatest divergence from the LRP. In the LRP, Judeo-Christian names for God are used while drawing the pentagrams. In addition, Hebrew archangels are invoked at the elemental quarters.

This is very different from Star Ruby. Instead of using Judeo-Christian terminology, Crowley opted for Graeco-Egyptian, Neoplatonic, and Thelemic invocations instead. For example, Star Ruby invokes spirits from the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster in its elemental quarters.

Okay, great. So we've compared the two rituals. Now what? So what?

Setting aside the Kabbalistic symbolism that Crowley worked into Star Ruby (which I purposely did not cover), it's still a very solid ritual that appeals to non-Judeo-Christian magicians that wish to try out a daily magical ritual besides the LRP.

It's also a great basis to compare against other rituals, like the AODA's Sphere of Protection. As you compare the rituals yourself, you'll find common structures and themes that will help you develop your own daily practice. And really that's the goal--to create something uniquely yours.

As always, stay safe. Blessed be~

[on-softs]

Hiiii

I just read clothing of delight

I reallyyy did love it except I did not exactly get the ending

Was it a dream or it happened and why did max retire??

I'm not complaining I really did like it just engs not my first Lang so I was a bit a confused

And I really liked the story so I just need closure 🥺

Hello anon! No worries at all, happy to answer. So, it was not a dream, though it does definitely feel like that to Danny at times (or a nightmare lol!!).

My idea with this fic was less tied up in the technical ‘why did this happen or stop happening to max’— definitely hand waving the sci fi elements. I was mainly interested in taking a crack premise and exploring the horror of it taken seriously, basically, and then also how that might change their relationship permanently. Got really chatty about it under the cut:

With the ending, I wanted to show how cracks are starting to appear, in light of what’s happened: how Red Bull treats Danny with suspicion, the non existent relationship between Danny and Jos, the breakdown of Jos and Max’s relationship when it’s stripped down to its core (ie, kid Max choosing to stay with Danny and not Jos), the general vibe that maybe the dynasty of Red Bull is ending by this point in ~2030. And of course, Danny’s utter anxiety and sense of being aged out of the world of F1 that’s going throughout the whole thing.

So with the final article, I wanted to imply the this whole event was the catalyst for Max finally leaving this whole mess, and choosing Danny over everything. In my head, Max doesn’t remember what happened when he was in kid-mode. But he looks around him and sees the crater the event has left on the people around him, most of all on Danny, who honestly probably doesn’t have it in him to ask Max to stop racing but really really would like it if he did. So they can spend the rest of their lives playing tennis and handball and cooking in the kitchen together :) fuck Jos who will never forgive Danny for making his son love him more than he loves his father, fuck Christian, fuck the rest :)

And Max, who has talked in interviews n stuff about how he’s not some record-seeking championship collector (somebody help me on this citation I’m too tired haha), who has also had a full career by this stage, says: okay :)

TLDR yes it’s all real lol and it’s because they love each other. Glad you enjoyed the fic anon hope that answered your question!

[marabarl-and-marlbara]

Hello Mara,

I wanted to know what your opinions are on Buddhism, judaism, islam, or any other belief systems. Not long ago I’ve found your account and you write a lot on Christianity however you did mention in one of your posts that you would not consider yourself a “Christian” per se (I might be wrong). You are also interest in Scientology and was wondering if you are interested in other beliefs?

Hope you have a wonderful day!

hey anonymous; (drawing from a letter i wrote to a ko-fi supporter today, thank you ko-fi supporter!)

i write about christianity often because i am Haunted by the Specter of Christianity -- it:s baked into me! as is leesburg, as is florida, as is a family fascination with getting suckered into fancy alien books like URANTIA;

but, for other beliefs, outside of Scientology and Christian-Science i:m not very interested in "actively pursuing," with an asterisk for Judaism*, being that i feel like unless you:re outright born into it then there is little point in having an interest in it (but i:d be lying if i said i wasn:t influenced by Zohar and Chabad); Zoroastrianism is really neat to me from the clean/unclean element divisions; i think Palo is one of the pure in-illusion representations of chiral idol worship and really like it for that; i studied islamic art history for a bit and it really left an impression on me via iconoclasm and anti-idolatry belief and depicting god non-representationally; Shinto is pretty neat but sort-of so blurred into Buddhism that it:s hard to figure out what it is -- but reading a bit about the Old Shamanistic traditions of it are neat to me; Buddhism i:d get these morning lessons from Iris (my ex! she studied/studies it), and have a lot of her little Buddhist knowledge-points drilled into my head (but otherwise i don:t really care for it; this is super dismissive of me: sometimes Buddhism seems like the thing people turn towards because Christianity is too lame and typical -- BUT, i was forced to read Siddhartha in highschool and i:d be lying if it didn:t leave a big impression on me growing up, and Iris sort-of reinforced the lessons of it -- my dismissiveness aside it:s neat but it:s so broad it:s hard for me to have thought on it); generally "i like religion and think they are all interesting," but i mostly don:t "care" (defined specifically here as: wanting to involve myself with) for them outside of finding context maps related to chirality;

it:s one of my favorite things to read about; picked up a bunch of mormon texts from a thriftstore lately and want to read some of Joseph Smith writings and prophecies (i have a soft spot for prophets); take care; happy sabbath (it:s orsday sabbath).

[ddarker-dreams]

You’re writing never ceases from fascinating me and I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while now, but could you perhaps give us some book recommendations? There’s no fixed criteria, nor any fiction or non fiction preference, I really just would like to know what sort of books you enjoy and how they’ve impacted you!

Sorry if there’s any grammatical errors, I don’t use English quite often and my apologies if you’ve answered this question before and I simply did not notice :’)

your english is excellent, don't worry!!! thank you so much for your encouraging words, i really appreciate it 🥺💖💖💖

as for books i'd recommend, you can check out the definitive list here, but i can expand on the impact my favorites have had on me!! i don't think i've done that yet, at least. i'm always down for an excuse to gush about my favorite books.

“I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.” The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky

ah, my favorite author, who i mention on this blog frequently. TBK takes the crown of being my absolute favorite book. it deals with themes that resonated with me personally, since i grew up in the christian faith and have experienced no small share of skepticism with what was essentially my childhood foundation. while there are plenty of intriguing themes explored throughout this work, dostoevsky's take on the age old question "if there is a god, why does he allow such terrible things to happen, and if such a god exists, can he really be called 'good'?" is a sight to behold. he takes the question very seriously and doesn't settle for simple platitudes to explain it away. at its heart, TBK is deeply human, delving into our flaws and triumphs.

“I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too.” Notes From Underground, by Fyodor Dostoevsky

the novella's protagonist, the underground man, embodies some of our more unsightly thoughts and beliefs. he's openly bitter, resenting the 'common man', while secretly pining for the simple joy they're able to live life with, unburdened by being overly self-aware. it's a fascinating look into how self-contradictory people often are. one of the themes this story tackles was a philosophy gaining traction at the time, determinism. through the underground man, dostoevsky posits that humans are not so simple as to always take the best course of action for themselves, as rational egoism would claim. trying to understand people by thinking they'll always act in their best interest, while a nice sentiment, just doesn't match with what we see in reality. people are weird and do weird things, sometimes just for the sake of it. dostoevsky has such a solid grasp on human nature and how confounding it is.

“You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.” The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

there's nothing like a good ol' fashioned fall from grace. here we get to see the slow yet steady degradation of innocence into depravity, the highs and lows that come from it. the conversations between dorian and lord henry are some of my favorite dialogue exchanges in fiction. there's this wry social commentary, sharp wit, and undeniable charisma. it's almost as if we the reader are being seduced by lord henry's libertine inclinations in the same way dorian is. oscar wilde is another author who has some of my favorite prose. he knows how to paint a scene with words. it's always such a delight to read his work.

“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.” Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

gothic elements and references to alchemy? i'm running at top speeds. i loved watching this tragedy unfold. frankenstein's monster was always my favorite perspective to read from. his handling of the curse of being created, his initial naïve desire to belong to humanity, then the burning rage upon his unfair rejection... it's so eloquently written. even as he devolves into committing cruel acts, i still felt sympathetic toward him, and similarly lamented 'what could've been' had people been kinder. it's a classic for a reason.

“Thus each of us had to be content to live only for the day, alone under the vast indifference of the sky.” The Plague, by Albert Camus

albert camus is a very fascinating author to me. i'm especially interested in his absurdist philosophy, there are a lot of beats to it that i find appealing. maybe it's due in part to recently experiencing the covid 19 pandemic, but man did this book hit close to home. beyond the metaphysical themes of just living in a world that doesn't care about you and how to handle that realization without falling into despair, it also mirrors a lot of what we saw these past few years. an initial reluctance from positions in power to acknowledge a plague outbreak, the wide range of people's responses (trying to live on as normal, turning to religion, turning away from religion, looking for a way to make profit, looking for a way to help others...), the steady numbness to seeing numbers that represent those taken from the plague every week. camus just nails it. at the same time, the book isn't overly pessimistic or optimistic. there aren't any gallant heroes or nefarious villains. there are just... people, doing what they can, in spite of overwhelming circumstances.

“I was pretending that I did not speak their language; on the moon we spoke a soft, liquid tongue, and sang in the starlight, looking down on the dead dried world.” We Have Always Lived In The Castle, by Shirley Jackson

shirley jackson's prose... i can only describe it as magical. it tickles the brain. right from the beginning, we have a tale of intrigue told from an unreliable protagonist who, throughout the story, you slowly get the sense is somewhat off. there story feels dreamlike in a sense. it's rooted enough in reality where your suspension of disbelief isn't shaken, yet there's also this uncanniness to it that makes for a unique experience.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

A common argument against Christianity by many atheists is the idea that Christians don't follow the dietary laws of the Old Testament. I recently heard one ask, "Why are you not firebombing Red Lobster restaurants for serving shellfish?" and "Why are you not calling for the dissolution of clothing companies that produce garments of mixed fabrics?"

The question being asked is a good one, but it shows a common misunderstanding about the role and purpose of Jesus, known as the Messiah.

Before we specifically address the question of shellfish, I would ask as easier question: why do you think Christians no longer participate in the Old Testament sacrifice of animals in the Temple?

The transition from the sacrificial system of the Old Testament to its fulfillment in Jesus Christ provides a solid foundation for understanding why Christians no longer adhere to certain Old Testament practices.

The Old Testament Levitical sacrifices were a significant aspect of God's law for the Israelites. These sacrifices were given by God as a means for His people to atone for their sins and maintain their covenant relationship with Him. However, these sacrifices were insufficient and always intended to point towards something—or rather, Someone—greater.

In the book of Hebrews, the author spends significant time exploring this shift. In Hebrews 10:1, we read, "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near." The repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament were, in a way, a reminder of sin and an anticipation of the coming redemption.

That redemption arrived in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is described as the ultimate high priest and the perfect sacrifice in one. Hebrews 10:10 says, "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Christ's death on the cross was the fulfillment of the sacrificial system. His sacrifice was sufficient to atone for all the sins of those united to Him, rendering the repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament no longer necessary.

This critical shift extends beyond the sacrifices and encapsulates other elements of the law, including dietary regulations and rules about clothing. Like the sacrifices, these laws were also pointers, ways of setting the Israelites apart from other nations and reminding them of their unique relationship with God. With the coming of Christ, these laws found their fulfillment as the Gentiles are now ingrafted into the covenant community. God's people are now defined not by external observance of the law, but by faith in Christ. Therefore, just as we understand that the Old Testament sacrifices are no longer necessary due to their fulfillment in Christ, so too can we understand that the laws regarding diet and clothing have found their completion in Him. They served their purpose under the old covenant, but under the new covenant, we are no longer bound by their specific requirements.

The apparent critique of Christians' non-adherence to certain Old Testament laws, such as dietary restrictions or textile regulations, is one to be further addressed with careful consideration of some Biblical texts.

Let's take a look at Acts 10, wherein we find the apostle Peter's vision from God after the resurrection of Jesus. In this vision, a sheet descends from heaven containing all manner of creatures - many of which are explicitly labelled "unclean" in the Mosaic law. Yet, the voice of God commands Peter to rise, kill, and eat these creatures. Peter, an observant Jew, objects, noting that he has never consumed anything unclean. In response, God declares, "What God has made clean, do not call common."

The declaration signifies not just a change in dietary rules, but a profound theological shift. It anticipates the meeting between Peter and Cornelius, a Gentile - the inclusion of Gentiles among God's chosen people is a theme that reverberates throughout the New Testament, and is in fact symbolized in the dismissal of the dietary laws.

God clearly and vividly illustrated that the legal distinction between what is clean and unclean has been done away with, suggesting that the barrier that once separated Jews and Gentiles has been demolished. This metaphorical barrier is symbolically represented by the dietary laws among other Old Testament laws.

The Apostle Paul echoed this sentiment by declaring a once hidden mystery: Gentiles, who were once considered outside the covenant, can now partake in the same salvation offered to the Jewish people. They are no longer excluded or separate, but are now grafted into the same body of believers, a unified church that transcends ethnic and cultural divisions.

These biblical truths are reflected in his letters to the Ephesians (2:16; 3:6), where he writes of how both Jews and Gentiles are reconciled into one body through the cross, abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. And in the mystery of Christ, the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, the shift from Old Testament dietary and fabric laws to the teachings of the New Testament isn't a contradiction, but rather a manifestation of a greater plan. A plan in which the gospel is for all people, regardless of their ethnicity or cultural heritage, unified in Christ. So, the New Testament believers' practices, including the consumption of shellfish and wearing of mixed fabrics, are a testament to this newfound liberty and unity in Christ. They are visible signs of a heart transformed by the grace of the gospel and a life marked by the Spirit's work, rather than the outward adherence to the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament.

Romans 7:1-6 provides a vivid metaphor to illustrate the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ. The Apostle Paul compares the Old Testament law to a marriage covenant, where we were bound to our spouse (the law) as long as we lived. However, when that spouse dies, we are released from the law of the marriage. In the same vein, through Christ's death and resurrection, we have metaphorically 'died' to the law. This death has released us from the binding demands and penalties of the law, akin to a widow being released from her marriage obligations. But the analogy doesn't stop there. Paul goes on to say that we now 'belong to another'. This is a reference to our new union with Christ. We're not left as widows, but remarried—to Him who was raised from the dead. Our relationship to the law has fundamentally changed; we are no longer under its condemnation but live under the grace and liberty of our new 'marriage' to Christ.

Moreover, Jesus Himself in Mark 7:18-19 declared all foods clean. He challenges the Pharisees' preoccupation with external cleanliness, implying that what defiles a person comes from the heart, not from what they eat.

In regards to wearing garments of mixed fabric, it's essential to understand the historical and symbolic significance of this command. The law found in Leviticus 19:19 was given to the Israelites to set them apart from surrounding nations, as a physical reminder of their unique covenant relationship with God. However, under the New Covenant in Christ, this external symbol of separation is no longer necessary. As Galatians 3:28 states, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Thus, the Christian is not bound by these Old Testament restrictions because they have been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ. His work has not dismissed the law, but rather fulfilled it, rendering the literal observance of these laws obsolete while preserving their spiritual essence. In Christ, we are all made clean, and the external symbols that once set God's people apart are no longer needed. It is a heart turned toward God, not diet or dress, that now signifies belonging to His covenant people.