#your honor in conclusion: they're meant for one another

[spokenfromtheheartandsoul]

akk and aye are a gold standard example of a relationship where Person A just has absolutely zero filter whatsoever and Person B has a solid impenetrable wall in the place of a filter. because on one hand we've got akk who's on the verge of a breakdown and and 5 different existential crises every time he even thinks about the truth and on the other hand we've got aye. who looked kan straight in the eye and said "akk tastes good 😄" with his whole chest in front of all his friends and god and HIS TEACHER

[albertfinch]

Things Christians Shouldn't Say When Someone Dies

HEAVEN IS A BETTER PLACE NOW THAT THEY'RE IN IT

When we say that Heaven is a better place because our loved one is in it, we have good intentions.

What we mean is that our loved one was extremely special and that any place would be made better by their presence.

While that statement might have been true here on earth, it simply won’t be true in Heaven. When we say this, we’re implying that Heaven isn’t perfect and that even though we’ll be in the presence of our Lord and Savior, it will be even better because of the presence of our loved one.

The implications of this statement not only increase the significance of your loved one, but also decrease the significance of God by implying that being in His presence isn’t enough.

God, in His infinite wisdom, has refrained from sharing specifics about Heaven with us. But what we can be certain of is that Heaven will be perfect. Heaven will be perfect because God is flawless, as is His dwelling place. God has allowed His children to abide in Him and to reside with Him in Heaven. Nothing, not even the presence of our loved ones, could make that better.

There will be no disappointments in Heaven and no room for improvements.

IF MY TEARS COULD BUILD A STAIRWAY, I WOULD CLIMB TO HEAVEN AND BRING YOU HOME

The thought behind this is truly lovely; it implies that you loved someone so much and miss them so tremendously that if you collected all the tears you’ve cried, you could use them to build a stairway to Heaven. That’s a lot of tears!

This statement also implies that you would do anything to see your loved one again. This sounds like the most loving proclamation we could possibly make about someone. But in this statement we’re also proclaiming how extremely selfish and self-serving we are.

If our loved one is in Heaven, in the presence of God, the most unloving thing we could possibly do is remove them from Paradise and bring them back to our broken earth. I guarantee that if using your tears to build a stairway to Heaven was possible, your loved one wouldn’t want to come back with you. That wouldn’t be a reflection of how they feel about you, but rather a reflection of how they feel about God.

THEY'VE EARNED THEIR WINGS

This is another statement meant to communicate how special our loved one was; that they were so spiritual here on earth, they will certainly be honored in Heaven. While this sounds nice, and certainly paints a saintly picture of the deceased, nowhere in scripture does it say that we earn wings. Ephesians 2:8 says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works so that no one can boast.”

Even if we were given wings in Heaven, they would not be something we earned -- they would be a gift. One might argue that saying someone has earned their wings is simply a figure of speech. Even so, we should strive to represent God accurately and think about the conclusions that might be drawn by an unbeliever. Instead of saying our loved one has earned their wings, perhaps we should say our loved one is now laying their treasures at Jesus’ feet.

 WE'VE GAINED A GUARDIAN ANGEL

What do we know about angels? In Hebrews 1:14 the Bible calls angels “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation.” That sounds incredible, doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t want to think about their loved one becoming an angel and being a personal messenger of God? Who wouldn’t want to picture their loved one following them around, guarding them on behalf of the Lord? All of that sounds amazing, and certainly expresses the love and adoration we have for our loved one. Additionally, this thought helps us feel close to our loved one as we live out the rest of our days.

The good news is that the Bible does mention angels helping humans, like when an angel of the Lord helped Peter escape prison in Acts 12. Psalm 34 says the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him. Psalm 91 declares, “God will command His angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways”.

So while there are arguments to be made for guardian angels, the truth is that nowhere in scripture does it claim we become guardian angels after we die. Calling the deceased a guardian angel is a statement we need to put to rest.

THIS GIVES US SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO

Because children of God have the assurance of seeing one another again, we can certainly look forward to the great reunion in Heaven. But we need to be careful not to put our loved ones on the pedestal that only God deserves to be on. If you’re only looking forward to Heaven because you’ll see your loved ones again, you should question your understanding of God and of the home He has prepared for you.

This is another statement that can be quite damaging to non-believers or those young in their faith. On one hand, they hear us speaking of our awe for God the Father and of the glory that awaits us in Heaven. But then, upon the death of a loved one, we take the focus of Heaven away from our Lord and instead turn it to our loved one. We should be so anxious to bow at the foot of the throne that the death and damnation of everyone we love would not diminish our anticipation for Heaven.

 I'VE LOST THE BEST PART OF ME

Most of us have someone in our life that challenges us and pushes us to be better. We love this person for who they are and for who they’ve shaped us to be. When we lose that person, it’s easy to think that we’ve lost the best part of ourselves. This statement is intended to communicate the deep bond we had with this person and that we, as individuals, simply won’t be as good at this life without them. What a testament to the character of your loved one!

While this statement is harmless in and of itself, it wouldn’t hurt us to remember a very important truth found in Psalm 16:2: “I say to the LORD ‘You are my Lord. Apart from you I have no good thing.’” If you are a child of God, it is Christ in you that makes you good. In other words, Christ and Christ alone is the best part of you. Praise God that we can never lose Him!

IF LOVE ALONE COULD HAVE SPARED YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE LIVED FOREVER

When someone we love dies, we desperately want those around us to understand the depth of our love. We want everyone to know, without a doubt, that our love was as strong as humanly possible. What better way to express that love than to say that, if possible, your love would not only have spared their life, but would have kept them alive forever?

The problem with this statement is that we love with a human love, which is no match for the love of our Heavenly Father. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates his love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

This is the quintessence of love, and yet God has still limited our days here on earth. He doesn’t spare us from death. 1 John 3:1 declares, “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” Children of God will live forever in Heaven, and it is because of God’s perfect love, not ours.

THOSE WE LOVE DON'T GO AWAY; THEY WALK BESIDE US EVERY DAY

This is a statement that could really be confusing for an unbeliever, or for a new believer who is still working to understand the Bible. Speaking from experience, I know that when we lose a loved one we want to feel close to them; letting go is painful. We long for one more conversation, one more walk.

We find comfort in statements like, “those we love don’t go away; they walk beside us every day.” The problem is, there is no Biblical reference to back this up.

I think what we mean by this is that our loved one changed us. They helped mold and shape us into who we are. They, in a sense, are a part of us. There are pieces of them embedded in our life, so they walk with us every day; we take those pieces with us everywhere we go.

The danger with this statement is that it implies that the spirits of the dead walk among us. This could bring either fear or false comfort to the unbeliever or new believer, which is why we should choose our words carefully and think about what we’re implying.

GOD'S GARDEN NEEDS FLOWERS

I trust in Almighty God, and because I know His plans are perfect, I would not be put off by the idea of being a flower in God’s garden if that’s what the Bible taught; but it is not. This is a pleasant idea, though. Who wouldn't want to picture God on this throne looking out on a beautiful field of flowers with our loved ones? To an unbeliever, however, this could easily make God out to be a master game designer with us as pawns, waiting to be plucked up and replanted in His garden. This is not how we want to portray our Lord.

Perhaps this statement is meant as a metaphor; that we, as God’s children standing before His throne, are like an endless field of fragrant flowers. This creates a lovely image, but we don’t need a metaphor for an already perfect image. We should picture our loved ones bowing before the throne of God with every tongue, tribe, and nation.

We should picture them in Paradise doing what they were created to do: glorifying God and enjoying Him forever!

ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY

[savagemasculinity]

Ngl blogs like these + getting in more depth about the bible and how it explains gender roles has helped me heal myself a lot.

At the beginning of this year, I wasn't exactly opposed to the idea itself but more so the fear of I'd end up in the wrong hands, like a deadbeat husband, or an abuser, ect;

I also felt so strongly against it because I felt like the blogs I came across, (which side note, my first introduction to gender roles has was through a step ford wives blog 💀💀💀 worst introduction ever. I think it jump started my fear honestly) was downplaying the fact that I too am human and I have feelings and ambitions just like a man does.

But through more studying of the Bible & finding the right spaces, I finally came to the conclusion that gender roles are not meant to demean me as a woman but it is to ultimately protect me & keep society going as a whole. Not to mention, the bible mostly talks about gender roles inside of the marriage, and not much outside of that. So the false belief that we are banished to our kitchens the second we are of the female sex is silly tbh. I think that if women, without propaganda n such were given honest facts and the choice to stay at home, I think most would. But I also think that its important to give women the choice as to whether or not they wish to.

In conclusion, biblical gender roles are to protect society as a whole and make sure it prospers. I think if we stopped the whole fear mongering thing about "you better be a working woman or else you're just feeding into the patriarchy!" Or "You're selfish because you don't want to have kids" narratives. They're both wholly insulting and completely disregards free will for a woman. There's nothing wrong with being a soft woman, just like there's nothing wrong with being a strong man. The energies compliment each other and there is no shame in what God has created.

Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to thank you for being one of the examples that actually showcase what true masculinity is without the kink and power imbalance filter that other blogs have. Have a nice day 🌷

First of all, whoever you are, I appreciate you taking the time to write out all of this. I'm honored.

I'm glad you have found my content edifying and vindicating for your beliefs. Men and women are inherently complimentary of one another, and any portrayal to the contrary is simply incorrect. We are equal, yet we are, in many ways, vastly different. That doesn't mean that all men are innately given to leadership, strength, honor, and other traditionally masculine virtues, whether by nature of birthright or by the nurture of parents (or lack thereof), nor does it mean that all women are perfectly suited for the complimentary virtues we attribute to traditional femininity. Even without those virtues, though, each man can find a complimentary woman, and vice versa. Being a man does not mean any woman will suit you. And, again, vice versa. I think that perhaps that belief has lead to some poor pairings that has destabilized the traditional dynamic in the eyes of many. Among other, potentially more grievous factors.

[nellie-elizabeth]

Grey's Anatomy: Cowgirls Don't Cry (19x13)

I'm just... I don't know. I'm frustrated.

Cons:

I've been so uncertain on how to come down on the Winston and Maggie debate this whole time, because honestly I thought it was an interesting premise for marital conflict, and I was really willing to see where they took it. But here, we get some things coming to a head, and it turns out we're pinning the majority of the blame on Winston for always running away when things get tough. Yeah, honestly, Maggie is sort of right, but one thing this episode fails to fully address is that while being too conflict-averse can be a bad thing, being too ambitious/ready for a challenge isn't always a good thing either. There's this sort of clumsy metaphor about following one's passion. Maggie sees herself in a patient, a girl who won't stop bull riding even though it might end up killing her. Maggie says it must be so painful for her to be told she's selfish and wrong for wanting to pursue her dream.

But like... Maggie, come on. Pursuing dreams is good, it's a wonderful value to have, but pursuing harmonious married life is also a good goal, and acting like everyone else is unreasonable for having some qualms about your ambition isn't doing anyone any favors! Maggie steamrolls people. She sees what she wants and she goes for it without examining the consequences. She holds to her opinion so tightly that it erodes all the relationships around her. It happened with her ill-fated romance with Jackson, it happened with her ailing mother. I'm completely on board with Maggie's critique of Winston. I think it's right on and should be further explored. But to act like at the end of the day Maggie is the victim here, that she's the one being abandoned? That's a stretch. I wish this was going to get to play out more thoroughly, that we got to explore it in a nuanced way with a reasonably balanced ending. Instead, it seems that Maggie will be leaving us next week, and the only question is whether Winston is going with her. Frankly, I hope not, I liked Winston a lot and would be down to see more of him. But at the same time, what an annoying and lackluster conclusion for Maggie on the show. Really frustrating.

While I liked the story of Lucas and Simone figuring out their patient's pain and not dismissing him as an addict, I felt like there were some aspects of the story that were too on the nose, even for Grey's Anatomy. Having the patient literally say: "you screw up once, you're a screw-up forever" was like... yeah, okay, thank you. We get it. Also, Simone asking Lucas to be her man of honor at the wedding is such an awkward idea. Super unforced error there for Simone. Force Mika or Jules or even Blue to do it, I'm serious. This is weird.

And finally, Jo and Link. They're really laying on the sweetness, showing how well Link knows Jo, how good he is to her. I feel like someone's trying to pitch me on a product I'm never going to want to buy. If they hand this romance to me on a silver platter, I'll take it, I guess. I feel sort of defeated, because it's clear that's the direction they're heading. I don't want it, and yet there it is. I like Link, I like Jo. I want them both to have something good and comfortable and peaceful. The concept of them having a little blended family with their two babies and all that is honestly very sweet on paper. But the energy I get from these two is so familial. Even still, I just see them like a brother and sister, and nothing has been able to change that so far!

Pros:

But I did like that Richard had to be reminded to give people another chance, and that Lucas decided to trust his gut, even though it meant disobeying Richard and Schmitt. He needed that victory to boost his confidence, and I'm glad he got it!

The part I liked best about the whole bull riding story was Blue talking about how cruel it is to the animals. Because like... yeah, he's right. What their patient is doing is her "dream" or whatever, and her parents talk about how taking her away from it would kill her more surely than allowing her to do something that dangerous. But she's not the only factor here. Sometimes you don't get to just chase your bliss without thinking about the other factors. And it frustrated me that everyone else in the hospital seemed to nod their head sadly when told "it's her dream" as if that was the end of it. Maggie's speech about slowing down wasn't actually designed to discourage her in the long-run either. So I really liked that Blue was pointing out how fucked up the whole thing is, from a different angle. I don't blame Jules for being into it!

I liked Schmitt having to learn a lesson about what kind of leader he wants to be. Over the course of this season, he's had to learn to stop conceptualizing himself as the victim, the sad-sack, always at the back of the pack. But he's got a position of actual authority now, and he needs to figure out how he's going to handle that. Bailey talks about how they used to call her "the Nazi", and Schmitt is horrified by how inappropriate that is. I appreciate them bringing that up, it's a sign of how long this show has been on the air that back when it started, that was the kind of thing you could say as an exaggeration of someone being a hard-ass. Instead of like... an actual indication that said person is a literal present-day fascist. Which is what it would mean now. Oof.

And Schmitt takes Bailey's words to heart, complimenting the interns and taking them out for free drinks, trying to engage with them on a more personal level. I love Helm as the wise bartender offering advice; I think it's so cool that they had her quit being a doctor and then actually had her stay on the show. I'm waiting for the romance with her and Yasuda to heat up, that should be fun.

And speaking of Yasuda - I like that Mika was able to connect with her patient and encourage her to go into debt to get the x-ray and treatment she required. I mean, I don't like it, that the system is set up in such a way that people have to risk serious financial strife just to avoid death, but I like the way we're tackling this here. This is an issue that doesn't just affect one type of person in one type of way, but that can seep into so many areas of the world. Mika was able to get through to someone who needed help, and the fact that her personal experience leads her to be an advocate for others is quite heartwarming!

I'll stop there. Still vibing for the most part with the intern stuff, still pretty frustrated by some major developments for our more long-standing leads. Let's see how long we can keep this streak up of Teddy and Owen barely being in the episodes and thus not having a chance to annoy me! :)

6.5/10

[hellsbellschime]

Why Jaime Lannister's GoT Ending Was Actually Bad

Nearly every aspect of the end of Game of Thrones earned ire from the majority of the show and book fandom, but one aspect of the show's conclusion that seems to have frustrated fans across the board was the ending for Jaime Lannister. More specifically, that after a seemingly solid and nearly complete redemption arc, he returned to Cersei and King's Landing to die in a manner that somewhat works as a metaphor but didn't resonate well with the audience at all. And, while Jaime's ending was a flop, it didn't fail for the reasons that many viewers seem to think that it did.

The Lannisters are obviously some of the most complex and important characters in A Song of Ice and Fire, but one of the most interesting aspects of their family dynamic is that it was established far before the contemporary storyline actually began. And, while Game of Thrones seemed to paint it as if Cersei was a source of toxicity that Tyrion and Jaime couldn't get out from under the thumb of, the truth is that the bad apple that spoiled the bunch was never Cersei, it was always Tywin.

One of the most meaningful and important themes of George RR Martin's work is the long-term effects that abuse has on children, and there isn't really any example that is more present and potent than the horrific effects that Tywin's abuse had on all of his children, and how it affected them in different ways.

Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion all have some of the most intriguing points of view in the entire story. And one aspect that all of their POVs seem to share in common is that while nearly everyone in their world perceives them as a villain, they all see themselves as victims. And the truth is, both sides of this coin are correct.

Yes, the Lannister children have done many horrific, irredeemable things in their lives, but they have also been the victims of extremely traumatic abuse that understandably altered their outlook on the world and on themselves in general. There is a balance between victim and perpetrator that needs to be struck with their characters, but one of Game of Thrones' bigger flaws was its inability to do that.

Unsurprisingly, nearly every character's book point of view grants themselves more sympathy than they should. Almost everyone sees themselves as a better person than they are or is capable of rationalizing away their bad deeds and focusing on their more positive decisions and personality traits. But this is of course one of the many ways in which George RR Martin utilizes his POV traps.

Translating a story that is told through the eyes of the characters themselves and filming it from a more objective third-person perspective means that plenty of important information is going to be lost in that translation. But one of the fatal flaws when it comes to the Lannisters is that, while Game of Thrones does still present Cersei as pretty forthrightly villainous, the narrative pretty drastically whitewashes Tyrion and Jaime. Essentially, it seems to take Tyrion and Jaime at their point-of-view word and treats them like they're much better people than they truly are. Thus, Jaime's ignominious end with the supposed biggest baddie of them all feels like a betrayal of his character development when it really shouldn't be.

Every character needs to be held responsible for their own choices, but the downfall of House Lannister really does rest in the hands of Tywin, and Game of Thrones ignoring that fact did a disservice to every one of the Lannister children in one way or another.

Yes, out of all of the Lannisters, Jaime was as close as Tywin could get to the golden child of his dreams, but it's easy to overlook that while Jaime may have been the favorite on the surface, every single one of Tywin's children was disgustingly mistreated, and the effects of his abuse all showed themselves in different malignant ways.

While Jaime may have gotten preferential treatment over his siblings, Tywin was never anything other than a terrible parent, and more importantly, Jaime's superior treatment only told him exactly how he could expect to be treated if he ever failed to live up to his father's high ideals. And of course, in many big and small ways, he did ultimately fail to live up to Tywin Lannister's exacting standards.

Tywin was a terrible parent because he was an abuser, but he also raised his children with his own values of pride, entitlement, and superiority. Obviously, the notion that they were simultaneously failures who had earned their own mistreatment but were also Lannisters who deserved to be above everyone else is opposing perspectives that are in constant conflict with one another, but it also seems to be how Cersei, Jaime, and Tyrion see themselves as constant victims while still perennially victimizing others.

George RR Martin has repeatedly discussed that one of the strongest themes of his work is the idea of the human heart in conflict with itself. Game of Thrones lost the plot with this in nearly every character adaptation, but Jaime's was one of the worst, largely because he is a character who has done some of the most monstrous and most heroic things in the story. He is both the man who doesn't hesitate to murder a child and the man who stopped a king from slaughtering thousands, and therefore his inner conflict is extremely vital.

Jaime's character arc in Game of Thrones follows a classic redemption arc almost perfectly, but that clearly doesn't seem to be the intent behind the character in the books. Yes, there is a part of Jaime that wants to be redeemed, but he does often revert back to his more brutal and nihilistic side, and his desire for so-called redemption seems to be driven more by how he wants the world to see him rather than how he wants to be.

And in that sense, the show did him a great disservice. Because there are many ways in which Jaime hasn't healed from Tywin's abuse, but the fact that he still seeks the approval of others in a rather superficial manner rather than developing a deeper understanding of true honor and justice is one of the clearest indications that, while Jaime does want to get out of the path that his father laid out for him, he is still crippled by what Tywin told him being a Lannister meant. And ironically, Tywin's belief about what being a Lannister means has essentially trapped all of his children into trying and failing to live up to that example simply because they can't survive unless they do.

Because ultimately, it's not necessarily just about what Jaime, or Cersei, or Tyrion wants. At some point, every single one of them has made obvious indications that they don't want to be a part of the legacy that Tywin Lannister laid out for them. But, when Game of Thrones presented Tywin as a super-intelligent master strategist instead of a completely unnecessarily violent and aggressive asshole, it made all of the Lannister children's choices harder to understand.

Both in the A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones fandoms, Tywin is typically put up on a pedestal, and that's completely baffling. Many viewers and readers perceive him to be brilliant and badass, but everything that Tywin is famous for actually makes him seem like a complete moron upon further contemplation. Winning battles by absolutely obliterating your enemies is a terrible precedent to set for many reasons, but one of the biggest is that it essentially requires all of the Lannister children to maintain this scorched earth policy because Tywin's hyper-aggressive superiority complex has put them in a position where they almost always have to choose to kill or be killed.

And, his cruel and dishonorable behavior as well as Jaime's reputation as the Kingslayer essentially guarantees that even if Jaime completely changes as a person and becomes the hero he wants to be, he really can't ever become that in the society that he lives in simply because the stigma around the Lannisters is something he can't escape.

That is one of the great tragedies that Game of Thrones failed to articulate, and that is one of the biggest reasons why Jaime's character conclusion was so off-putting to the audience. Because the audience saw the result of where this character arc would naturally go, but the story never actually took the steps to get there. In fact, the show went out of its way to erase a lot of the obvious building blocks that are leading up to both Cersei and Jaime's demise that makes it clear that, while they're obviously responsible for their own choices and actions, the groundwork that Tywin's abuse and cruelty laid and set in stone was something that they couldn't control, prevent, or undo.

Game of Thrones largely presented Jaime's characterization with the implication that if he could only escape Cersei, he would be a good man. But the reality was, if only Tywin hadn't been his father, then all of his siblings would have been better people. They may not have been good, but they almost certainly wouldn't be the kingdom-destroying villains that they became.

I also think the TV series likely bungled his character in that his story is meant to be a subversion of the classic redemption arc rather than the straightforward bad guy to good guy story that Game of Thrones told. George RR Martin obviously doesn't like flawless characters, and nearly every person in A Song of Ice and Fire does good things and bad things all the time, they never go in a straight line from point A to point B. So, of course it was going to be incredibly jarring when the show did move Jaime in a straight line from point A to point B and then abruptly gave him an ending that is probably somewhat similar to his end in the books.

But with that in mind, for all of the faults in Game of Thrones and the way they handled Jaime's character arc, I don't really understand the idea that his character was ruined by his ending either. These characters are clearly designed to never be just one thing, and if Jaime killing King Aerys or trying to kill Bran doesn't singularly define his character, then going back to Cersei in the very end shouldn't either.