#“b-but the morality of it!” what is this bible study

[p0rk-guts]

[danketsuround]

An Informal Guide to Writing about School in Japan

Sorry for posting this so late! Thank you for your patience.

This post should be used as a general reference for when you're writing something that takes place in a Japanese school. I made this because there have been a few stories (and even real articles!) written by people who seem pretty... uninformed about how Japanese schools actually work, but please use this as a framework for your story rather than a complete Bible.

Note: This post is informed by two things - my experience working at Japanese public schools, and being an American. The things I include in this post will be things that stand out to me as someone from the states. That being said, Japanese and American schools operate very differently, so there will be a lot!

A Year Overview

1st semester begins in April, and ends right before summer break in June. 2nd semester begins in late July or August, and ends before winter break in December. 3rd semester begins in January and ends in late March.

There is a very short spring break between 3rd semester and the entrance ceremony in which teachers/staff are told if they will be moving to a new school or not. This is specific to public schools. Academies/private schools likely don't adhere to this exact rule since they're contracted for a certain amount of time.

Grades and Classes

In large schools, each grade is divided by class. Each class has about 25+ students in it depending on the size of the school. In elementary school, junior high school, and high school, classes are either divided by letter or number.

For example, if you are a JHS 2nd year in the 1st class, you will be in 2-1. If you are an ES 5th grader in the B class, you will be in 5-B.

Kindergartens and daycares divide classes differently, and are called things like "Rabbits" or "Lions" - I don't think there's any real meaning behind what animal they choose, though. The word for "class" in Japanese is 組 ("gumi"). When referring to a certain class, we usually just say - using the same examples as above - ichi-gumi (Class 1), B-gumi (Class B), usagi-gumi (Rabbits)

Ages and Years

Elementary school - 1st grade through 6th grade (Ages 7 to 12)

Junior high school - 1st year through 3rd year (in the states, we would call it 7th through 9th grade. Here, they say JHS 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year) (Ages 12 to 15)

High school - 1st year through 3rd year (same note as above, 10th through 12th grade) (Ages 15 to 18)

Homerooms

As stated above, each grade is split up into sections, called homeroom classes. In JHS and HS, a teacher will be in charge of one homeroom class as well as one main subject. Not all teachers have their own classrooms (depending on the size of the school, sometimes you have more subjects to teach than students!) but most of them do. However, that doesn't mean there is a dedicated "math room" or "English room" - instead, teachers will move to different classes, and students stay in their homeroom. In elementary school, your homeroom teacher will typically teach every subject. Of course, there is a teacher per subject per year. For example, if you're in a mid-sized junior high school, there would be 3 English teachers.

Between classes, students have a 10 minute break or so. This is so students can use the restroom and drink water (they can't do it during class) as well as prepare their materials for the incoming teacher. Class leaders will also go to the teacher's office and will sometimes be tasked with carrying materials to class or preparing something separately (like turning on the projector, the TV, getting white boards, etc.)

School Subjects

Besides the core subjects (English, social studies, math, science, Japanese, P.E.), Japanese schools also have calligraphy and home economics.

Homeroom teachers will also be asked to teach sougo (interdisciplinary studies) and moral education. I believe sougo is a fairly new subject that was added to Japanese curriculum a little over 20 years ago - from my understanding it's kind of like a psychology, economics, and sociology class all wrapped up into one. Moral education, on the other hand, has been described as "very Japanese" by all of my coworkers - it's like a "here's how we follow the rules", "here's how to be polite", "here's why having good behavior is beneficial for everyone" type of class.

Japanese schools also do not offer advanced classes. All students are expected to take the same class unless they have been put in the special needs classes for learning disabilities, mental health problems, or behavioral issues. Special needs classes tend to be taught at a lower level and sometimes a mix of grades as well. Special needs students "belong" to a specific class (like, 1-1 or 2-B...) but they study in separate, smaller classrooms (sometimes just called Special Needs 1, Special Needs 2...) Some students who need special care but are willing/able to join regular classes will have a support teacher with them. One of my students is partially deaf and needs careful instruction but can otherwise sit and participate in class like everyone else.

The Teachers Office

All teachers' desks are in the teachers' office. There, we prepare for class, have meetings, take a short break, drink coffee... etc. - and teachers who do not have a homeroom class also eat lunch there. Typically, all teachers who are in charge of the same grade will sit together.

Students are allowed in the teachers' office, but they have to state their name, their grade, class, and their purpose for coming. An example would be: "Excuse me. I'm Momo Taro from Class 3-2. I've come to see Kaguya-sensei. Excuse me."

Then, when they leave, they have to say: "Pardon me" (失礼いたしました). Some of my students get in trouble if they don't announce themselves properly or make a mistake in front of the wrong teacher!

And, a small bit about teachers' names

There are some Japanese last names that are extremely common. Did anyone see that article that claimed everyone in Japan will have the same last name by 2531? Funny stuff.

That's why a few teachers go by their first name. It's not rude at all when half of your staff is Suzuki and the other half is Sato.

Teachers, of course, follow the same formalities that students do by using [Name]-sensei with each other. It would actually be considered highly HIGHLY inappropriate to refer to another teacher with -san or -chan in school - unless you're extremely close and just joking around...AND you're both female...a male teacher would not survive doing that.

A Typical School Day

It varies, but schools often start around 8:10 or 8:30 in the morning, and students go home around 4. There are typically 6 periods in a day, with an hour break in the middle of the day to account for lunch and recess - yes, junior high school and high school students get recess, too! Though, older students often use it to study or have a meeting with their club. At my school, my students are required to read in the morning.

Students are really busy and have jobs around the school. There are class leaders - who come to the teacher's office to ask what needs to be prepared for class - and there are students who run the morning, lunch, cleaning ("souji"), and end of the day broadcast, and students who are in charge of grabbing and setting up school lunch in the classroom. Of course, there are club leaders and student council as well.

Uniforms (students)

Uniforms are required for both public and private schools in Japan. Some elementary schools do not require uniforms, and others do. It's extremely rare to find a JHS or HS that doesn't require uniforms, but they exist.

Some schools are more strict than others. The main points are: no piercings, no makeup, no unnaturally colored hair (yes, this includes blonde, but not brown, as some Japanese people do have naturally brown/light brown hair!) - skirt length, shoe color (white only), wearing a hat, jewelry, manicures/nail polish color all have rules mandated by the school. Some schools even have certain haircuts they require students to follow! If a student has long hair, they will usually be asked to wear it in a low ponytail. Of course, not every student follows the rules anyways.

They also have outside clothes called "jerseys" that they wear under their uniform. This way, students are able to change freely in the classroom before/after gym or recess.

Uniforms (teachers)

Teachers are not exactly held to the same standard, but it depends on the school. While private schools are apparently waaaaay more strict about what their students and faculty wear, public schools don't really enforce it at all. The typical uniform is a collard shirt and slacks, but teachers who are in charge of a sports club can get away with the occasional jersey/sport shirt and shorts.

Everyone who comes into the school must take their shoes off and change into slippers or indoor shoes (shoes you bought that you have decided are only for wearing inside and have never ever touched the outside ground before...)

We take our shoes on and off.. a lot. That's why most teacher's inside shoes are comfortable slip-on sneakers or loafers. I've never in my life seen a teacher lace up their shoes before. Hell, my inside shoes have zippers. It just takes too much freaking time!

The Thing About Shoes is...

I said some stuff about shoes above, but I wanted to note that the student and teacher entrance is different. Students have rows and rows of lockers to switch out their own shoes, which is (often) conveniently placed near the school grounds where they play sports.

The teachers' entrance is the regular front entrance, and we have our own lockers as well. There are shelves of slippers that belong to the school for any guests who come in, or students who forgot their inside shoes that day, lol.

Yes, yes, yes - we are required to wear inside shoes with no exception. One of my students was injured and in a wheelchair and he still had to change out his shoes, so..

Discipline

It's basically impossible to get expelled, and things like ISS simply don't exist in Japanese schools. Don't be mistaken - that certainly doesn't mean students do not have behavior issues - MY STUDENTS ARE BAD!! But they don't really get punished for it in ways you would see at an American school.

Most discipline is delegated to the homeroom teacher (or whoever else's class you're failing, lol). Some problems are severe enough to be escalated to a meeting with your parents or the vice principal ("kyoutou-sensei"), but I've honestly never seen the principal do any student discipline, and I've never seen a student be suspended or expelled.

Japan is really keen on making sure everyone gets an equal opportunity for education, even for students who have behavioral issues or would do better if they were homeschooled.

Now, corporal punishment is illegal in Japanese schools. Making students stand outside of class holding buckets of water because they forgot their homework (or whatever you might have seen from slice of life comedies..) is a thing of the semi-distant past. That being said, there is still no shortage of verbal harassment from strict teachers onto their students. I think the most common form of strict discipline that is *still* accepted is a teacher laying it on a student in the office, then sending them back to their homeroom in tears.

Yes, while humiliation sometimes hurts even worse than a ruler to the hand, no one says anything about it. That's the older teacher style. To be honest, younger teachers aren't strict enough with their students sometimes. Including me, cause I'm a pushover, lol.

Club Activities

Club activities are my students' entire LIVES. My students really like handball and track, and are sometimes staying after school 5-6 days of the week. It's not uncommon for students to go to school on the weekends or during summer/winter break. It's also not terribly uncommon for students to be part of multiple clubs, so long as they don't intersect with each other too much.

Clubs are typically anything to do with music or sports. It's not unheard of to have debate clubs, English clubs, literature clubs, calligraphy clubs, theater clubs, etc. either - but I would say that's more common in cities where schools have more opportunity to compete or perform with many other local schools.

A note about mandatory Education

Once you graduate junior high school, your period of compulsory education ends. In other words, you can stop going to school and you don't have to go to high school. You also do not have to have a high school diploma or GED to attend college, but you still have to find a college that will accept you.

Other random stuff (and debunking anime-ish myths)

In summer, students go swimming! They are required to learn how to swim from elementary school.

Teachers don't have smoke breaks during class. No one has time for that, and if you're caught by a student or another teacher, you're fucked. We do it by the 7/11 after school like normal people.

Cram school ("juku") is a thing and a LOT of students are in it. One of my students is in a swimming cram school.

Being openly LGBT in Japan is hard, but it's not impossible. There are some openly LGBT students, especially in large cities. For teachers, they don't really talk about their personal life very often (I think it's a bit taboo..) so I wouldn't imagine anyone would feel pressured to out themselves at all.

Bullying is a big problem, but it's also one of the most widely studied and discussed problem regarding Japanese schools. Some people like to say that it's much worse in Japan, but I would argue it's fairly similar to the states. Severe bullying (in which a student is physically tormented or abused) is less common than things like spreading rumors, singling out someone, or cyberbullying.

Extra credit is not a thing, but some teachers are more lenient than others about deadlines.

Yes, students are able to express themselves freely. They often do, very loudly and opinionated...ly. Or, uh, mine do.

On a test or worksheet, circles are good and checkmarks are bad.

Schools have a lot of various events, assembles, festivals, and school trips - all of which are organized by students and homeroom teachers who don't get paid enough to stay as late as they do ;D

We don't use substitute teachers. Usually the schedule will change or another teacher will fill in during their free period.

Annnnnnd that should be it. If you have any specific questions or need clarification, you are welcome to reply to this post or send me a message! I can try and answer them to the best of my ability. Every school is a little bit different, but this is truly a "general" "overview" of school life in Japan.

Thanks for reading!

[brettdoesdiscourse]

I don't see how people can claim to be "acab" but still be pro capital punishment and death penalty

I think there's a lot of different factors at play and the death penalty is one of those things where I understand very easily how people end up supporting it.

A: They view it as being fundamentally different from acab situations.

They see unarmed people of color, primarily black people, being brutalized by police and they can obviously see why that's wrong.

They see an innocent person being tortured or murdered in the street or in their own home and it's very easy to care for that victim.

It's very easy to say acab and blm because it's a more clear cut issue.

When it comes to punishment that they deem necessary, it's not as morally clear cut for them. They have to employ their own critical thinking and try to find out what they personally believe in. What's too far for them?

With acab, it's very easy to see two moral sides. You can ascribe acab and blue lives matter/all lives matter to different political parties, you can see tons of people speaking out about it on either side.

When it comes to the death penalty, that's not really the case.

You'll see tons of democrats and liberals who support the death penalty, you'll see tons of republicans and conservatives who support the death penalty.

Being pro death penalty isn't a primarily left or right belief in the way something like acab may be.

B: They have a disconnect about the judicial process.

I think ignorance is a big motivator for a lot of people to support the death penalty. They don't know exactly how corrupt the court system can be, especially if they've never had a personal situation going through it.

Acab is extremely televised and prominent in media. You can't really turn on the news without knowing about black people being brutalized by police. You can find countless stories of police injustices that are very publicized and talked about by a lot of people.

With court injustices, you don't really see that as often if you're not looking for it or in a specific circle that discusses it.

A lot of people still have the belief that's hammered into them of, "well, the justice system is professional and has at least some moral integrity and/or fairness."

They see a black person being killed in the street and they may say, "that's bad, they deserve a trial and a fair punishment."

Person killed in the street: No trial = no fair justice

Person killed on death row: Trial = fair justice

C: They are having an emotional reaction.

I feel like this is the biggest reason people support the death penalty.

When the death penalty happens, it's almost exclusively as a result of a murder. This is an extremely sensitive topic for many people and gets an emotional reaction to it. You also see this happening when someone wishes death on someone who commits a sexual offense.

I see the argument of, "well, if your loved one was killed, wouldn't you want the death penalty?" and I feel like this is very indicative of how emotional a response pro death penalty arguments can be.

A lot of people have a really hard time looking past the idea of "well, if I was a victim's loved one, I would want the death penalty for the killer" and that leads them to supporting it.

They also tend to cite very clear cut cases of murder where they feel justified in it. They look at cases where there is no real doubt of what happened and they feel good in supporting the death penalty because there's no blurriness there.

Dylann Roof, for example. There is no real doubt that he is guilty of killing nine churchgoers after opening fire against a primarily (or entirely) black Bible study.

People will look at this and be (rightfully) outraged and ask, "well, how can you look at that and not think he deserves to die?"

I don't blame people for having a hard time separating their emotions from the issue, it's definitely not easy. But it is very important.

[steveezekiel]

THE MARRIAGE OF A MINISTER 2

2 SO A CHURCH LEADER MUST BE A MAN WHOSE LIFE IS ABOVE REPROACH. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach. 11 IN THE SAME WAY, THEIR WIVES MUST BE RESPECTED AND MUST NOT SLANDER OTHERS. They must exercise self-control and be faithful in everything they do. 12 A DEACON must be FAITHFUL TO HIS WIFE, And HE MUST MANAGE HIS CHILDREN AND HOUSEHOLD WELL." 1 Timothy 3:2,11,12 (NLT)

6 AN ELDER MUST LIVE A BLAMELESS LIFE. He must be faithful to his wife, and his children must be believers who don’t have a reputation for being wild or rebellious. 7 A CHURCH LEADER IS A MANAGER OF GOD'S HOUSEHOLD, SO HE MUST LIVE A BLAMELESS LIFE. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy drinker, violent, or dishonest with money." Titus 1:6,7 (NLT)

Now, the marriage or the home of a Minister becomes a model for others, especially those who are under his leadership.

What a Minister does, is what he or she transfers or extends to those who are following them.

Both the Minister and his wife had a responsibility to make their marriage work. Remember, marriage union is a responsibility.

You both had the responsibility to train your children, bring them up in the way of the Lord, that their lives might not be a reproach to your Ministry: "[These elders should be] MEN who are of UNQUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY and are IRREPROACHABLE, THE husband of [but] ONE WIFE, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE [well trained and are] BELIEVERS, NOT OPEN TO THE ACCUSATION OF BEING LOOSE IN MORALS AND CONDUCT OR UNRULY AND DISORDERLY" (Titus 1:6 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition).

Your home or marriage should be a standard or model which others who are following you could pattern their homes or marriages.

You are also expected to portray a good image of the church, and that of Jesus Christ, to the people of the world, through your marriage; and not only to those in the church, because those outside are also watching you.

Your marriage or home should be able to attract others to Christ Jesus.

There are some tips we want to share here, that would be of help in shaping your home or marriage union, that It may be what God wanted it to be. (i) Through your close relationship and fellowship with God, you can bring your spouse and children to God in prayer for Him to mould and shape them for Himself. WHEN you do not have time to pray, or consider it not an important thing to do, the devil might take an advantage of that to have an inroad into your marriage or home. (ii) The practice of the Word of God. If you are not a practical Believer, you do not practice what you preach at home, It would influence your spouse and children negatively. They would see you as an hypocrite! a. They would see that you live a dual life. Someone said If he wanted to know whether a person is a genuine Believer, Minister, or Not; he would not go to the church, but the house of the person. b. A number of Ministers, and the Ministers' wives, are not what they portrayed to be, to the people, the outsiders, in their homes—in their marriage Union. They are something else! c. Some Ministers or Minister's wives behave like people who have not heard the gospel at all, in their homes. In fact, they are not the type of Persons Whom anyone would like to emulate at all. d. The reading and the studying and the practice of the Word of God, would have a great impact on those who live with you—your spouse and children—as a Minister. e. When you, as a minister, are willing to do whatever God commanded through the written Word, that would have a long way to go in the lives of your spouse and children. (iii) Another point is, the following of God's order about marriage union that are spelt out in the Scriptures. You do things in your home or marriage according to the principles of the Word of God—the Bible.

Note: in order to balance the message, there are situations where you do or practice the things mentioned in this piece and more, but your partner might still not allow the marriage to work.

We have seen exceptional cases like this. There are situations where It may be the wife that would be cocky or recalcitrant. And in some situations, It might the husband that would be abusive.

And at times, it might be the children, one or more of them would be wayward, and be a bad impression to the ministry and the lives of their father and mother.

Whatever the case, endeavour to live the Word of God, that is, practice the Word and lead a prayerful life as a minister and set a standard for your home or family to follow. Whatever the plague or problem in a Minister's marriage, such would be solved If he or she does not give up.

If a Minister's marriage fails, It tends to have a negative effect or impact on the person of the minister and the ministry. WHATEVER you are doing start from your home.

You will not fail in marriage in Jesus' name.

Your Ministry will not fail as well, and you will fulfil the purpose of your calling in the mighty name of Jesus Christ.

Your married life, your home, would be a positive influence on the lives of others in the mighty name of Jesus Christ.

And If there is any Affliction in your body, I declare you healed now in the mighty name of Jesus Christ. Peace!

[lunarsilkscreen]

Comedy, Prophets, and the Bible

Humor is an important facet of life. Why does it seem like biblical study is devoid of it?

Some of the subject matter in the Bible is not very funny. Slavery, Crucifixion, Being eaten by a whale and surviving.

I don't know if service has changed; but service was always a somber thing to do. You sit and listen to a preacher; and sit quietly in contemplation, instead of anything else you could be doing.

Quietly relearning the same three passages; and zoning out until the community notes.

That's not quite true, because some services have excitement, performance, and sometimes dancing. But those are the "wrong kind of services" to the more snooty religious people.

What point does religious mass serve?

The point of religious mass is serveral-fold. To teach people is one.

"Follow along with me as *we* read our Bibles."

Some chapters teach maths, important concepts such as "Why must we farm/work? Why must we learn new things? What's the dangers of the world? What is our history?"

These days mass religion has been forced into a role that only caters to the spirit.

Depending on how you interpret "Spirit", this includes "Comedy" and the spectacle that some churches are known for these days, despite forcing it into the singular lens of exactly how you should keep your spirits up.

To Stave off depression, as with the case with Covid shutting down the churches and the churches reasonably refusing.

Prophets and ministers also *used to* do a lot more than to cater to the spirit. There are chapters of the Bible dedicated to physical health and wellness of the people, of the farmland. One section is even dedicated to keeping your home free of mold.

These are not directly related to "spirit" but they improve a person's well-being so that they may be better able to interact with their community and be in "good spirits".

Heck, they even serve wine.

Joke; this is probably closer to an early dental hygiene thing--As alcohol could be known to Stave off halitosis, same way we use mouthwash today. (Yes a form of hippie-"new age" health trend.)

But these days?

Like we know of "Eastern medicine"; it works but does it work as well as what we have now?

And so Organized Religion is stuck in-between remembering the "old-ways" and being a conduit for "Spirit". And depending on how zealous your religion is; God and Morality before even that.

And in some cases; God is the *only* thing that matters. Despite these Minister's actual connection to, or lack of connection to their personal Deity, who they claim is the one true "Jehova" or "Yahweh".

"Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for your God."

And so we see these drives to make our Nations an [insert religion here] Nation, that serves no purpose; not even God's.

Religion has a purpose; but religion has lost its way. And it's in the Bible, especially the good Christian Holy Bible; that we often see that Religion has lost its way.

We can read of the prophets and the "Son of God" as they fight against the mainstream religions of their days; why they needed to do so. We can see them fight against their governments, and why they needed to do so.

We can see the separation between church and state represented in the U.S. constitution and the groundwork laid by these texts and reasoning it was necessary.

So what is Religion?

Religion used to be something to make accessible to humanity the tools kept away from them by Industry and Government. Education, Mental and physical health care, services in which to aid the common man, and their communities, a voice of morality, and the teachings of something outside the physical world that we live in. Something we cannot reach while in the flesh.

But it has since been reduced to only the latter thing. Teachings of a God, only in such a way that the teachers believe; instead of as a being that helps all. The one true God, who knows and loves all. That thing that is unknown to humans as they live and breathe, but claimed to be known by those who teach it, and only them, as long as you pay a fee and are loyal.

[gamer2002]

Troll like Jesus

After my last essay, in which I explained the basics of the Bible, in a probably better way than anyone had for two thousand years, I was wondering which more advanced religious topic I should tackle next. I was torn between the reliability of the Scripture, the nature and purpose of the Holy Trinity, or scientifically proven Christian psychology. Being the type of a person who, when everyone goes left, goes upside-down, I’ve decided to take the course of action I myself wouldn’t take, by elaborating on our Lord and Savior’s trolling game.

To quote Oxford’s dictionary, trolling is to write false or offensive messages on the internet in order to make other people angry. This is not a perfect definition, as Jesus Christ did not live in times with internet access, nor he did write much, and none of that is actually required for trolling. So, let’s modify that definition to spreading false or offensive messages in order to make other people angry.

Now, it goes without saying that the Perfect Lamp did not spread any falsehood, so we are left with the Prince of Peace being offensive in order to make other people angry. There is no doubt that the things that Jesus was saying were offensive to many of His listeners, due to the numerous attempts to take his life, culminating in an angry mob demanding His crucifixion. Moreover, this outcome was intentional on Jesus’ part, as not only Him being numbered with criminals was prophesied (Isaiah 53:12), but also Jesus Himself constantly was telling the Apostles that this was going to happen. Jesus gave His life for our sins, and He did that by trolling people into killing Him, by being offensive.

Now that we have established what Jesus did (troll), let’s focus on whom, how, and why, in this exact order.

The wicked people

Jesus’ main opponents were the Pharisees, who have studied the Law but were hypocrites. The best example of how maliciously twisted they were is in John 8 1-11, where they bring an adulteress in front of Jesus, to ask Him what they should do with her, given that Moses’ Law orders to stone her. The idea here wasn’t just to trick a pacifist Jesus to go against Moses, though that was half of the plan. The other half is more apparent from the historical context of Judea being a Roman province, and that under Roman law it was illegal for non-Romans to decide about the death of anybody. Therefore, has Jesus followed the Moses law and decided for the adulteress to be stoned, the Pharisees would be able to accuse him in front of the Romans. Either break Moses’ law or break the Roman law, that was the choice they have maliciously given to Him. So, Jesus, being a master troll, tells them that the one among them that was without sin should throw the first stone.

That was a passive-aggressive way of communicating to the mob that they were a) a bunch of sinners, and b) also bloodthirsty hypocrites, which was absolutely offensive. Jesus, being God, naturally knew that none of them was without sin. Thought that was rather obvious anyway. He also knew what their reaction was going to be. The Bible divides the mob into two groups – the old ones and the young ones.

The old ones were first to leave because they quickly started to see where this was going. Each one of them knew that they weren’t without sins, and they were also aware that nobody was going to turn out to be any different. They were fully aware enforcers of a bullshit morality system, where some sinners got publicly stoned, for the sake of everybody else pretending to be sinless. The appearance of having values mattered more than having values, and all the blood they spilled was on the altar of their society’s made-up reputation of the pure Chosen People (while Chosen, they were far from pure). They knew it, always knew it, they just didn’t want to be the ones whose blood was going to be spilled. They were, after all, the full-grown and disillusioned version of the young ones.  

As for the young ones, each of them also was aware of not being without sin. But they stayed longer because they hoped that somebody among the mob was different. They could be hypocritical bloodthirsty sinners themselves, but they actually believed that some holy figure was going to enable them. They believed in the reputation of their society, which did not prompt them to live up to it, but was a source of excuses for pursuing their worst impulses. I may not be better than the woman I want to be stoned, I don’t even care about that enough to change myself, but I am of use for my betters. Not that I’m telling them about my sins either, as I prefer to be on the better side of a thrown stone. But fuck that woman.

No thief, murderer, adulterer, or any other outlaw, has ever attempted or plotted to kill Jesus. It was always those wicked people, proudly proclaiming themselves to be the proper and righteous ones, with a right to judge and kill others, while being just a bunch of self-serving and cruel cowards wanting only to keep their positions. They wanted to protect themselves from what they were imposing upon others. And to enjoy any gain that was coming from it.

In short, the most common kind of people that are among all the outspoken ideologists. All those that use ideology for personal gain, even if that gain is nothing more than feeling accepted by the group. Or dopamine hits. Rules for Radicals were written to get the kick out of utilizing shame with shameless hypocrisy, which is older than the Pharisees, who were radicals themselves.

There is a saying “If you aren’t a left-winger at youth, you lack a heart. If you aren’t a right-winger at old, you lack a brain.” The truth is that you can remain old as a left winger and still have a brain. You only never had a heart in the first place, you always were cynical and abusing others’ naivety. But I digress.

It’s not hard to recognize such people. When they accuse you of wrongdoing, they are guilty of it themselves, because they are hypocrites. When they can’t accuse you of any wrongdoing, they will try to shame you for associating with wrong people, or whatever else allows them to claim your impurity.

But how He did it? How did Jesus troll those people?

Our Lord, Savior, and Master Troll

It goes without saying that Jesus, being the Son of God, knew people better than they knew themselves. This advantage allowed Him to handle any social situation, and this is something we cannot actually reproduce. Still, Christ, in His unmistakable divine knowledge, has utilized master troll techniques we can learn ourselves.

The first one is taking them further than they are willing to go. Radicals never do anything without a prepared excuse of serving the Greater Good™. They will often shout it because emotions make it harder for people to notice how full of crap they are anyway. But they also have a strong foundation in a grand and vague idea you don’t want to argue against. Pharisees had the Will of God, Hitler had good of the “wronged” Germany, commies have equity (not even equality anymore), etc. The Greater Good™ isn’t a thing that you are recommended to even downplay, because it has been cynically picked up to justify any amount of theft and murder. This is why Jesus counters it by telling people that they aren’t that great at following the Greater Good™ themselves.

As everyone there knew, the stated in the Scripture purpose of stoning adulterers was to remove the evil that was among the true believers. Purity, not just from sin, but also in the sense of general hygiene, was a big thing in the Old Law, which was all about self-preservation of the nation of Israel. So, Jesus has agreed with the Law being the Greater Good™, and that it does require an actual true and pure believer to be in charge of realizing It. And that, rather an obvious and simple observation, has caused everybody present to feel consternation.  

Of course, this approach is just a single technique for dealing with evil people. You do undermine the fundamental lie they hide behind, by exposing them to not exactly adhering to their own flimsy justifications. However, this does not guarantee they won’t simply say “Fuck it”, drop all pretense, and get rid of you. This is what they have done to Jesus, eventually. But Jesus was smart, and He knew they needed the Romans’ permission to kill Him. And trolling is done in order to make other people angry. And Jesus made Pharisees so angry that Christianity has spread all over the world. Trolling mixed with martyrdom is incredibly powerful.

But if you don’t like the martyrdom part, don’t feel discouraged. As Jesus has dispensed some other techniques.

Turn the other cheek to troll

When Jesus talked about turning the other cheek when getting slapped in the face, He was saying what to do during attempts to insult or humiliate you. It was a demonstration of being above such trivialities, as you are with God. And, as every good troll knows, losing control over your emotions is losing the entire troll game. Jesus instructed us to be in control of ourselves and demonstrate, with defiance, that we aren’t bothered by petty insults.

When Jesus talked about walking two miles when somebody wants to force you to walk two, he was talking about trolling oppressors into breaking their own laws. Back then, a Roman soldier could conscript a non-Roman citizen to carry his stuff, but only for a single mile. This is why being eager to carry things for two miles could cause problems for the soldier, as he was not legally allowed to make you do it.

Do you think nobody would give a damn about the additional mile? It only takes for the soldier to have one comrade who hates his guts. Such a guy would not miss his occasion to report the incident to the soldier’s superior. And the superior would have to act on it, because it only takes one of his peers to hate him, for him to have a good reason to fulfill his duties. And it isn’t even about the hatred among members of an oppressive organization, the entire promotion system is a rat race where you rat out others to make them undeserving of the promotion you aim for yourself. Jesus knew how such groups work, and instructed us how to take advantage of it.  

And what was Jesus’ advice to tax collectors, who were working for the hated Roman regime? Do what you are ordered, nothing more. The only reason why I won’t say it was a devilishly clever subtle troll is that it was holy and divine. Think about it. Let’s assume you are a moral person stuck in an immoral organization. If you leave an oppressive organization, somebody else will take your place anyway. Assuming they are less moral, they will be ambitious and proactive, not to mention also corrupted in their own right. And this will result in them doing far more evil things than you would have done in their place.

But what if you only do what you are being told? Well, your superior now needs to micromanage you. So, not only you are preventing your position from being taken by somebody who would abuse their power, but you are also taking time and energy from somebody above.

Successful organizations aren’t successful because everyone micromanaging everyone. They are successful because of proactive individuals. You don’t believe me and Jesus? The CIA’s manual for sabotaging organizations also advises to be against short-cuts, proactivity, and to force everything to be discussed and decided by the people above. Jesus was two thousand years ahead of the CIA.

Jesus’ teaching was to be harmless like a dove and clever like a serpent. Understand how evil people and their organizations work. Deconstruct their excuses and rules, undermine their self-proclaimed mandate to do heinous things. Demonstrate their petty insults do not bother you. Turn their rules against them, force them to break them, to give an opportunity for in-fighting in their groups. And if you are within their ranks, be a weight that takes a spot of a potentially ambitious individual. Troll the hell out of them.

This is God’s way of doing things.

[shammah8]

RHAPSODY OF REALITIES DAILY DEVOTIONAL

Sunday, 29th January 2023

BE CONSISTENT IN YOUR CONFESSION

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised) (Hebrews 10:23).

PASTOR CHRIS OYAKHILOME

Everything Jesus did—all the miracles He performed—He did with words. Even when He multiplied the five loaves of bread and two fish, it was with words! The Bible says He blessed it (Matthew 14:19) by giving thanks; He activated the power with words.

Words are “things”; they possess creative energy. When you talk, energy is released to cause what you’ve said to materialize, positive or negative. The Bible says, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue...” (Proverbs 18:21). Don't confuse your spirit by saying one thing and obscuring it with another.

James 3:11 says sweet and bitter water don’t emanate from the same fountain. Be consistent in your confessions—in your declaration of God’s truths. Truth is consistent. Don't change your confession on the basis of transient situations or circumstances. Irrespective of how you feel, what you see or hear; hold fast to what you’ve believed and received.

Hold fast to your confession of God’s Word. Don’t give Satan a chance. It makes no difference the contrary evidences and adversities he may stir against you; you say, “I’m a victor in Christ Jesus! Greater is He that’s in me than he that’s in the world.” Once you’ve said that, no matter what happens thereafter, refuse to waver. Your faith will prevail.

That’s how you deal with circumstances and situations in life: you stagger not at the promise of God through unbelief. Rather, you’re strong in faith, giving glory to the Lord (Romans 4:20). Keep the word of faith in your mouth always and you’ll forever be victorious: “For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith” (Mark 11:23).

CONFESSION

I refuse to allow circumstances dictate the outcome of my life. I don’t stagger at the Word of God through unbelief; I’m ever strong in faith, giving glory to God! No sickness, disease or infirmity can thrive in my body because I’m joined to the Lord and I’m one spirit with Him. Divine life and unfailing health and strength are at work in every fibre of my being, in every cell of my blood, and in every bone of my body. Glory to God!

FURTHER STUDY:

Hebrews 13:5-6 AMPC Let your [a]character or moral disposition be free from love of money [including greed, avarice, lust, and craving for earthly possessions] and be satisfied with your present [circumstances and with what you have]; for He [God] [b]Himself has said, I will not in any way fail you nor [c]give you up nor leave you without support. [I will] not, [d][I will] not, [I will] not in any degree leave you helpless nor forsake nor [e]let [you] down ([f]relax My hold on you)! [[g]Assuredly not!] 6 So we take comfort and are encouraged and confidently and boldly say, The Lord is my Helper; I will not be seized with alarm [I will not fear or dread or be terrified]. What can man do to me?

2 Corinthians 4:17-18 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal

[bills-bible-basics]

Politics and Voting Graphic 37 Graphic created by #BillKochman for #BillsBibleBasics. Visit the BBB Graphics Library at https://www.billkochman.com/Graphics-Library/ to see all my graphics with related Bible studies. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice." -- George Washington, 1st US President, 1789 to 1797, Founding Father "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." -- John Adams, 2nd US President, 1797-1801 "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God, [and] that they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President, 1801-1805, author of the Declaration of Independence "The only true basis of all government [are] the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of Heaven, designed by the all-benevolent Creator" -- Samuel Adams, Statesman, political philosopher, Founding Father "The birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." -- John Quincy Adams, 6th US President, 1825 to 1829 "In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it, we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President, 1861 to 1865 "Now, the best religion the world has ever had is the religion of Christ. A man or a community adopting it is virtuous, prosperous, and happy. … What a great mistake is made by him who does not support the religion of the Bible!" -- Rutherford B. Hayes, 19th US President, 1877-1881 "I assume the arduous and responsible duties of president of the United States, relying upon the support of my countrymen and invoking the guidance of Almighty God. Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial and who will not forsake us so long as we obey his commandments and walk humbly in his footsteps." -- William McKinley, 25th US President, 1897 to 1901 "The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally -- I do not mean figuratively, I mean literally -- impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards toward which we, with more or less of resolution, strive to raise ourselves." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President, 1901 to 1909 "The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy, 35th US President, 1961 to 1963 https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/politics-and-voting-graphic-37/?feed_id=105271&_unique_id=655c9b5bc324b&Politics%20and%20Voting%20Graphic%2037

[nijjhar]

Luke 16v16:- Law and Prophets in the Promised Land were till John, the B... Luke 16v16:- Law and Prophets in the Promised Land were till John, the Baptist. After this God teaches you through intuition. https://youtu.be/QoYYtIZJR-4 Luke 16v16; Law and Prophets were till John. No Scripture, the Bible in Christ Jesus but the holy spirit, common sense, that was possessed by the illiterate Shepherds and farmers as in Cana. So, no holy spirit, no common sense called Surti, no covenant with Christ Jesus and no Gospel but the dead letters to become a super donkey carrying the holy books or the University Professors of Theology. Could anyone tell me why Jesus was given the name "Yahshua" or what Yahshua is made up of? This applies to the Promised Land whilst there are many Prophets in the other lands. Why Allah is called Allah? Or what is the root of the word Disciple? If Allah is One, then His Islam should be One. So, what are these Sunni and Shia? These are Islams of Mullahs full of Sharia whilst Allah being NOOR, he is free of Shariah as demonstrated by my Elder Brother Royal Shah Shams Tabrizi and Mullahs killed him. In Allah and Christ Jesus, we do not pray or fast as our Allah lives in His Temple to be worshipped in Truth and Spirit. I know the names of the Five Husbands of the Samaritan Woman, also called St. Photina. Watch my 8420 Youtube Videos; channel One God One Faith for the answers, No Bible in Christ Jesus but the holy spirit, which is common sense as possessed by the Shepherds tending their sheep. The Jerusalem University Professors, the Husbandmen of the Winepress that coined the moral laws but corrupted them and put a heavy Yoke of rituals on the illiterate Shepherds and the Cana Farmers, This covenant of Law and Prophets finished with John, the Baptist, the Cornerstone of the Temple but ousted out by the hypocrite Husbandmen ho had already killed a Cohen Zakria inside the Temple. Say, up to the age of 20, you study the dead letters of the Scriptures as taught in the Universities and Colleges today to qualify a person for a Dog-Collar and fleecing people in the name of Christ Jesus. Then, you start thinking about the Root of the Scriptures, the Oral Torah, which is His Word called Logo, the extract of logical reasoning that Christ Jesus came to deliver in which your Covenant with God, our Supernatural Father of our souls is of the holy spirit, which is common sense called "Surti" in Punjabi. When you start speaking logically and brewing Logo, then you are a "Christ", the Primary Source of His Word, the very Son of our supernatural Father of our souls Elohim, Allah, Parbrahm, etc., represented by the Middle Fat Candle of the 7 Candled menorah, the Seventh Husband of the Woman in which you enjoy Storge Divine Love neither giving nor taking but at Par With Father, the Omnipotent and Omniscient Ambassador Son of our Father. The Christians being incapable of logical reasoning, are super blind people of the Book still believe that our Father Elohim is in heaven as the Yahweh of the old testament, the Lord of creation called “SARISHHTTI”, the visible Nature. No wonder they call the Samaritan Woman at well, who had overpowered all her Five spiritual Husbands and is Saint Photina, a Prostitute. Such people of the holy books are spiritually dead people and they glorify their Mammon God by killing and looting people whereas the people of the holy spirit Salvation Army say, their soldiers died serving the wounded for King and country. Now, if the Salvation Army Soldiers of the Gospel Truth understand it, then they should proclaim the Church of England headed by King now, a Church of Satan glorifying the dead soldiers for the sake of Mammon otherwise they are putting the Light under Bushel and blowing empty drums that make a hell of a noise. DO NOT PUT THE LIGHT UNDER THE BUSHEL, IT WILL KILL YOU, A HYPOCRITE. I am a retired University Senior Lecturer in Metallurgy and I have learnt the subject of religion from my late father who too was a retired School Science master with a keen interest in religion. During the partition of India, we were in Pakistan Punjab and 2000 Mohammedan Arian came to attack our village. Fortunately, the head of the attacking party was a friend of my uncle and he sent a messenger to bring him over. My father accompanied him and he explained to him the mischief that Sikhs and Muslims are spiritual selves that are never born or die but we tribal people will fight and kill each other. The headman told my father that we are friends and so he told 2000 that we are their guests to be looked after, which they did. He also urged my father that let us go to L My ebook by Kindle. ASIN: B01AVLC9WO Full description:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/Rest.htm Any helper to finish my Books:- ONE GOD ONE FAITH:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/bookfin.pdf and in Punjabi KAKHH OHLAE LAKHH:-  www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/pdbook.pdf Very informative Channel:- Punjab Siyan. John's baptism:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/johnsig.pdf Trinity:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/trinity.pdf

[endtimesbeacon]

How to Cure a Disease in 7 Easy Steps

How to Cure a Disease in 7 Easy Steps

There Are All Sorts of Different Dis-Eases Out There Such as:  Physical Body, Soul (Mental, Emotional), Social, Society, Business, Government and So On...  We Need a Method of Cure.  Okay:  So Here it Is: 

- Identify the Weakened, Sickened, Dis-Eased Area, Issue, Thing, Zone, Social Problem or System - Identify What's Causing The Problem.  Finding root cause problems may require a good amount of research and testing but is hugely worth the effort.  Once you find the problem, problems, causes the dis-ease, then a cure is much easier to quickly obtain.  But if you can't find the causes of dis-ease then you're going to have a hard time fixing the problem.  And no, chopping off, or burning out, or obliterating anything assumed related to the problem may stop one issue but usually creates multiple other new problems, new dis-eases.  - Stop the Bad Things Causing The Problem.  Hippocrates knew this and taught this to his students.  - Remove the Bad Thing(s) Causing the Problem (Remove from One's Environment).  And turn the removal, the avoidance of the bad thing into a habit.  This may require making significant effort and change but it's certainly worth it.  - Identify the Good Thing that Boosts the Health and Strength of the Area, the Issue, the Zone, the Thing, The System. - Turn the Good Thing that Boosts the Health, Strength of the Area, the Issue, the Zone, the Thing, The System into a Habit, a Strong, Temporary Habit to Obtain the Curative Goal. - Once Health is Restored:  a. maintain the habit of avoiding the things that caused the problem.   b. reduce the Good Thing curative habit down into a maintenance habit, giving mild boosts from time to time, or a small amount daily.  What is this processed also called?    It's Called REPENTING!  This same process can be used for actual, factual repentance.  Repentance, since no one can seem to identify it, although John the Baptist and James gave us some better clues, is REPROGRAMMING YOUR  HABITS!   At first, the Dis-EASED State of sin, sinning and the damaged it has caused must be healed. But factual repentance only happens when there is a complete habit change: stopping of the bad AND the starting of the good, turning both into habits.  And guess what needs to ultimately happen in order to change your habit?  Your BELIEF must change in what is good an bad.  This is good to know.  It would be a good thing to start to study habit formation.   Without knowing how habit formation works, it will be very difficult to achieve factual repentance.  And no, saying sorry is not repentance.  It's just apologizing.  If you say your sorry and really "mean it", meaning you actually realize thing bad thing you did was bad or that not doing the good thing you should have done is bad, then you make progress, but usually, only a little.  You have to completely, in your mind and heart's mind, believe a bad thing is bad without any exception whatsoever.  Repentance requires you not only stopping the bad but turning the good thing into a habit, where you fully believe that good thing is the only way to think or do something.  And if you haven't picked up on this theme:  we are here in 3D Earth to learn the difference between good and evil.  You have to experience both to get clarity on what is good and what is evil.  Who defines what is good vs bad?  God.  And good vs bad is actually logical as you learn more and more about how the universe works and how things work in general.  Your actual, real, bottom line, non-lying to yourself beliefs are WHAT YOU WILL DO HABITUALLY.  If you belief that something is good, you'll do it.  If you believe that something is okay, not bad or something that you can get away with, that is questionable morally or a sin as listed in the Bible (see the list of 666 Sins of the Bible - download free), you'll do that to when the situation arises or the emotional pressure of things is amplified. The problem with modern thinking (and maybe historical thinking) is that a lot of people think they can keep on doing the bad thing and not worry about it. They think that a good thing can make up for a bad thing.  When the average person is sick, they do very little to change the bad, problem causing things while "treating" themselves with slightly good things, usually a small twinkling of weak good things, doing so sporadically, so they suffer on with their sickness, often making it worse. And this approach is common in regards too many types of sickness, from colds and flus, to bigger "disease" named conditions, to business problems, to social problems, to behavioral problems, to society problems, government problems and so on... In society, if we, or as commanded to the Elohim, Sons of God spirits hidden in Adamic bodies, in Psalms 82 (see the Interlinear "Hebrew" version - Biblehub.com)  have any toleration for the wicked, then the world starts falling apart.  One can not have toleration for the wicked thing or things fall apart in health, society, government etc.  Your job is to learn to identify what is evil and destroy it, remove it, remove yourself and your society from it.  Although a few books can be written on this topic, for brevity and in summary:  Identify what is bad.  Stop it.  Identify what is good.  Replace the bad with the good.  Stop obeying the 666 sins of the Bible.  Instead, obey, turn into your habits, put Jesus' sayings into practice while building your house upon a Rock, the Commands of Jesus of the New Testament - Here are the lists for FREE below:  - Commands of Jesus – Matthew - Commands of Jesus – Mark - Commands of Jesus – Luke - Commands of Jesus – John - Commands of Jesus – Acts - Commands of Jesus – Romans - Commands of Jesus – 1 Corinthians - Commands of Jesus – 2 Corinthians - Commands of Jesus – Galatians - Commands of Jesus – Ephesians - Commands of Jesus – Philippians - Commands of Jesus – Colossians - Commands of Jesus – 1 Thessalonians - Commands of Jesus – 2 Thessalonians - Commands of Jesus – 1 Timothy - Commands of Jesus – 2 Timothy - Commands of Jesus – Titus - Commands of Jesus – Philemon - Commands of Jesus – Hebrews - Commands of Jesus – James - Commands of Jesus – 1 Peter - Commands of Jesus – 2 Peter - Commands of Jesus – 1 John - Commands of Jesus – 2 John - Commands of Jesus – 3 John - Commands of Jesus – Jude - Commands of Jesus – Revelation Read the full article

[itsnotmyfaultsomepeoplecantread]

Ok I wouldn’t normally respond to this, but this person seems to be transphobic and that pisses me off.

Read this with the knowledge that I have several degrees in both biology and gender studies, and am currently pursuing a PhD in animal behavior that is literally focused on sexually dimorphic behaviors.

1) No fish are not mammals. But they are far from the only species where this happens. The diversity of what sex and reproduction mean in the life sciences is incredibly complicated, and much of it boils down to finding ways for the genes to continue to exist (hence why a lot of it is called “instinct.”) To your point, humans have tended to separate themselves from this idea of instinct, which also means that defining ourselves by our underlying natures is very complex anyway. So saying that a trans person is invalid because it’s “not natural” is a) wrong because nature does not care what you think is natural which is why biologists are constantly discovering new and weird stuff all the time and b) absurd when you also look at all the other things we do (do any other mammals have guns? No? Then shut up about what’s natural.)

2) No, I’d imagine that animals don’t have genders to begin with. Which perhaps makes humans being so insane about following gender norms a little odd, don’t you think? Unless you want to come at me with “what’s natural” again. There have, however, been many, many documented cases of animals going against their sexually dimorphic behaviors. And the variation of what these behaviors consist of is so extreme between closely related species anyway, that the evolutionary implications of how dimorphism even exists has become a very interesting field of study.

3) What is recorded in mammals is very limited. There are incredibly detailed laws regarding what you can and cannot do regarding mammal (and other large animal) research, and the majority of it can’t be done in a lab. When you are mostly studying camera traps, it’s pretty hard to study animal behaviors. So to that point, there is in fact so much we don’t know, that trying to say transgender or transsexual mammals don’t exist because we haven’t observed them is just a ridiculous concept. Because in reality, we haven’t observed much of anything.

4) And finally, as I mentioned before, gender truly is a construct. Because the behaviors of nature very so wildly from species to species and even within species. So if they have no understanding of gender, then our focus on gender is reasonably insane. However, from a physiological standpoint, there is also much that goes into regulating our bodies and our brains, that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to how we understand our bodies and our place inside of our bodies. So saying that a trans person is bad because they don’t feel that a) a gender represents them accurately OR b) that they feel they weren’t born into the right body is just transphobic. There’s not a single scientific argument you can use to justify it (aside from perhaps studying why you yourself think that to begin with). If that’s what you believe, then you do not understand science or morality. And if it’s because of religion then I’m sorry to say that Jesus, in his dress-wearing, accepting-of-everyone glory (and this is coming from an atheist but I have, in fact, read the Bible) would be incredibly disappointed in you as a person. Oh, and the next time you feel uncomfortable in your body for having more fat than you’d like, or not looking a certain way compared to someone else, then maybe you can remember that other people feel this way too, and it doesn’t give you the right to take away their fundamental human rights.

So in conclusion, don’t ever fucking come at me with “what’s natural,” because that’s what I study. And I can say that every time you think something is natural, we discover something new and even cooler than what we knew before. So I therefore have the authority to say to all the bigots in the world, go fuck yourself.

And maybe learn that your pathetic groupthink behaviors are what is preventing us from evolving. So go learn some damn empathy because the only unnatural one is you.

It’s so wild to me how people pick and choose facts to fit their opinions. The only people who say that being trans is “against nature” haven’t actually studied nature.

Anyway, here are some fish for your enjoyment.

[parvulous-writings]

Patrick  McKenna // SFW alphabet

​Summary: A sfw A-Z for Camerlengo Patrick McKenna

Warnings: Breaking of church vows (kinda, if you think about it)

Notes: Please be aware that this is purely off of the movie where McKenna features, this is in no way related to how he is portrayed in the book (mostly because I haven’t read it yet). Also I don’t know how the Roman Catholic church entirely operates- as although I do study it, I have never experienced any of it first hand, so there may be inaccuracies, for which I apologise.  My requests are currently open! My pinned post (found here) contains both a list of characters I write for, and a masterlist!

Not my gif

A - Affection (How affectionate are they? How do they show affection?) 

Publicly, Patrick can’t be affectionate. He’ll give you a look every so often, just so you still know he cares for you, even though he can’t exactly show it.  He makes up for it in private though- making food once a week, some beverages, and lots of time curled up together on the sofa. Sometimes, if you’re lucky, he’ll even read to you.

B - Best Friend (What would they be like as a best friend? Where does the friendship start?)

As a friend, he would be the voice of reason, a moral compass for those who had little or none (whether they listened to him or not though, he couldn’t control). 

C - Cuddles (Do they like to cuddle? How would they cuddle?)

Patrick does quite like cuddles. Curling up to cuddle wherever is probably his favourite way to cuddle- having you both embrace one another as close as you can fills him with such a sense of joy that nothing else can replicate. 

D - Domestic (Do they want to settle down? How are they at cooking, cleaning, ect?)

Despite his vows to the Roman Catholic church, and the Vatican, he would love to settle down with you. Hands down, he’d probably do it in a heartbeat. He’s a pretty good cook, and often does some cleaning around the home. 

E - Ending (If they had to break up with their partner, how would they do it?)

He would be very sympathetic about it- he understands it hurts, but if he’s leaving you there is most likely a good reason for it; most likely linking to his profession and position in the Vatican. 

F - Fiance(e) (How do they feel about commitment? Do they wanna get married?)

Despite his vows of celibacy and chastity, this man is still a follower of Roman Catholicism. His commitment to a person would be unwavering, everlasting. But it would have to come after his devotion to the Vatican itself. 

G - Gentle (How gentle are they both physically and emotionally?)

He’s very gentle. He may be firm when implementing his beliefs and his opinions, but he is still gentle when he needs to be. He can be a little extreme, but for the most part, he knows how to take care of you, physically and emotionally. 

H - Hugs (Do they like hugs? How often do they do it, and what are they like?)

Similar to cuddles, Patrick really likes hugs as well. A quick form of affection, that works well when out in public. He’ll often hug you from the side, as it’s the easiest one to have whilst on the move or staying mostly out of sight. 

I - I Love You (How fast do they say the “love” word?)

It may take him a little while. He wants to be absolutely sure that love is what he’s feeling before he admits it to anyone but himself, even you.

J - Jealousy (How jealous do they get? What are they like when jealous?)

Jealousy is a trait that McKenna both has and despises. He can become incredibly jealous sometimes, but has become very good at hiding it. Sometimes even you don’t realise that that is what he’s feeling. When it gets really bad though, he’ll come to stand beside you- usually unable to touch you, since this usually happens whilst he is working- and speaks with the offender who made him jealous until they get scared off. 

K - Kisses (What are their kisses like? Where do they like to kiss you? Where do they like to be kissed?)

Patrick likes to kiss you on your cheek or ear when just out of sight in public. Kisses on the lips are usually fairly chaste, getting heated very rarely- and these were always in private, and always would be unless you get married. He likes to be kissed on the jaw and the crook of his neck- though you found this out through trial and error, rather than him telling you.

L - Little Ones (How are they around kids?)

Patrick is actually pretty good around kids- he is often a good influence for them. Sometimes he can get a little too preachy, but you usually let him know of that and he’ll eventually reel himself back in a little bit.

M - Morning (What are mornings like with them?)

Oftentimes McKenna is long gone by the time you wake up- though occasionally he’ll wake you to give you a forehead kiss before he leaves. 

N - Nights (How are nights spent with them?)

There’s a routine for the evenings with Patrick- Grace and dinner, reading/watching a film, evening prayer, bed. There’s not overly much wiggle room in that, he likes routines. 

O - Open (When do they open up about themselves?)

If you’re having a quiet conversation during a film, he’ll occasionally slip in a piece of information about him, but you already know a lot from what he told you when he first met you- besides his extreme beliefs, he doesn’t keep many secrets. 

P - Patience (How easily angered are they?)

He is incredibly patient. Almost eerily so at times. It takes a lot, and I mean a lot, to get him visibly angered. Such as a lot of pressure over time, or a heavy interrogation.

Q - Quizzes (How much do they remember about you?)

A  lot. Occasionally he’ll forget something though- in which case he’ll profusely apologise and promise to remember it again in future. 

R - Remember (Favorite memory with you?)

There’s no one particular memory. There’s many- going to cafes together, walking along the canals hand in hand, hell even showing you around the Vatican. Anything that makes you smile, really. 

S - Security (How protective are they?)

Quite protective, even if he doesn’t often outwardly show it. The Roman Catholic church is a big organisation, one full of corruption even if they deny it. He knows that if any of them knew of your relationship, it could put you in danger, so he makes sure to inform you of how to keep safe, no matter the situation. 

T - Try (How much effort do they put in?)

He puts about as much effort in as any normal man does. He tries, but it’s not always particularly special. 

U - Ugly (What are their bad habits?)

He preaches a lot. This man has to quote something from scripture every day, for whatever reason. It can get rather frustrating at times. 

V - Vanity (How concerned are they with their looks?)

He has to look presentable, but since vanity goes against the virtues he’s been raised to follow, he does his best not to be as vain as some people can be. 

W - Whole (Would they feel incomplete without you?)

He would miss you a lot- you’ve become so ingrained into his daily life that it’s hard to imagine a day without you now.

X - Xtra (Random HC)

He’ll sometimes read you a bible story or two to get you to sleep if you’ve had a bad day- he has a very smooth and calming reading voice.

Y - Yuck (Things they don’t like either in general or a partner?)

He doesn’t like it when people try to disprove his beliefs, or argue against them. It gets him very agitated, and will deter him from said person. 

Z - Zzz (Sleep habits)

Literally just a normal sleep pattern, there’s nothing else or unusual to say about it. 

[atheostic]

Sh!t Christians Say

"Without God your morals are subjective!"

=-=-=-=-=-=

1. God's morals are subjective too.

a) They're still like, just his opinion, man.

b) They vary depending on the situation. (e.g. whether it's alright to kill a thief who broke into your home depends on whether it was nighttime or during the day according to God in the Bible).

2. Not necessarily.

If we agree on a subjective foundation for what constitutes as moral then we can objectively determine whether an action qualifies as moral, immoral, or amoral.

For example, if we agree that morals are based on what promotes well-being and reduces unwellness/pain/suffering then we can objectively determine what is moral.

3. So?

The world is complicated and fluid. It would make sense that our moral system needs to be situational in nature to account for said complexity.

4. So you think that dogs believe in a god?

Because studies have shown that dogs have a sense of morality too. It's slightly different from ours in some of the details, but it's definitely real.

[claudinei-de-jesus]

The nature of sin

What is sin? The Bible uses a variety of terms to express moral evil, which explain something of its nature. A study of these terms, in the Hebrew and Greek originals, will provide the biblical definition of sin.

1. The teaching of the Old Testament.

The Sin Considered - The different Hebrew words describe sin operating in the following spheres:

(a) In the moral sphere. The words used to express sin in this sphere are as follows:

1) The most commonly used word for sin means "to miss the mark". It brings together the following ideas: (1) Missing the target, like an archer who shoots but misses, in the same way, the sinner misses the ultimate goal of life. (2) To err the way, like a traveler who goes out of the right way. (3) To be found wanting when weighed in the balance of God. In Gen. 4: 7, where the word is mentioned for the first time, sin is personified as a ferocious beast ready to launch itself on whoever gives it occasion.

2) Another word literally means "tortuosity", and is often translated as "wickedness". It is, therefore, the opposite of righteousness, which literally means what is straight or according to a straight ideal.

3) Another common expression that translates to "evil", expresses the thought of violence or infraction, and describes the man who violates or violates the law of God.

(b) In the sphere of fraternal conduct. The word used to determine sin in this sphere, means violence or hurtful conduct. (Gen. 6:11; Ezeq. 7:23; Prov. 16:29.) By excluding the restriction from the law, man mistreats and oppresses his fellow men.

(c) In the sphere of holiness. The words used to describe sin in this sphere imply that the offender has enjoyed the relationship with God. The entire Israelite nation was constituted in "a kingdom of priests", each member considered to be in contact with God and his holy tabernacle. Therefore, each Israelite was holy, that is, set apart for God, and all his activity and sphere of life were regulated by the Law of Holiness.

Things outside of that law were "profane" (as opposed to saints), and what participated in them became "unclean" or contaminated. (Lev. 11:24, 27, 31, 33, 39.) If he persisted in desecration, he was considered an irreligious or profane person. (Lev. 21:14; Heb. 12:16.) If he rebelled and deliberately repudiated the jurisdiction of the law of holiness, he was considered a "transgressor." (Ps. 37:38; 51:13; Isa. 53:12.) If he continued in this latter way, he was judged as a criminal, and such were the tax collectors, in the opinion of the contemporaries of our Lord Jesus.

(d) In the realm of truth. The words that describe sin in this sphere emphasize the useless and fraudulent element of sin. Sinners speak and treat falsely (Ps. 58: 3; Isa. 28:15), falsely represent and bear false witness (Ex. 20:16; Ps. 119: 128; Prov. 19: 5, 9). Such activity is "vanity" (Ps. 12: 2; 24: 4; 41: 6), that is, empty and worthless. The first sinner was a liar (John 8:44); the first sin started with a lie (Gen. 3: 4); and every sin contains the element of deception (Heb. 3:13).

(e) In the sphere of wisdom. Men behave impiously because they do not think or do not want to think correctly; they do not run their lives according to the will of God, whether through carelessness or through deliberate ignorance.

1) Many exhortations are addressed to the "simple" (Prov. 1: 4, 22; 8: 5). This word describes the natural man, who has not developed, either in the direction of good or evil; without fixed principles, but with a natural inclination towards evil, which can be used to seduce you. It lacks firmness and a moral foundation; he hears but forgets; therefore, it is easily led to sin. (See Mat. 7:26.)

2) We often read about these "misunderstandings" (Prov. 7: 7; 9: 4), that is, those who, due to lack of understanding, rather than sinful propensity, are victims of sin. Lack of wisdom, they are led to express rash judgments about divine providence and things beyond their understanding. In this way, they precipitate impiety. Both this class and the "simple" ones are inexcusable because the Scriptures present the Lord freely offering - yes, pleading with them to accept (Prov. 8: 1-10) - what will make them wise for salvation.

3) The word often translated "foolish" (Prov. 15:20), describes a person capable of doing good, yet he is bound by the things of the flesh and is easily led to sin by his carnal inclinations. Do not discipline yourself or guide your tendencies according to divine laws.

4) The "scorner" (Ps. 1: 1; Prov. 14: 6) is the wicked man who justifies his wickedness with rational arguments against the existence or reality of God, and against spiritual things in general. Thus, "scorner" is the Old Testament word equivalent to our modern word "infidel", and the expression "scorner wheel" probably refers to the local society of the infidels.

2. The teaching of the New Testament.

The New Testament describes sin as:

(a) Missing the mark, which expresses the same idea as the well-known Old Testament word.

(b) Debt. (Matt. 6:12.) Man owes (the word "must" comes from debt) to God for keeping his commandments; every sin committed is a debt. Unable to pay it, man's only hope is to be forgiven, or to obtain debt relief.

(c) Disorder. "Sin is iniquity" (literally "disorder", 1 John 3: 4). The sinner is a rebel and an idolater because he deliberately breaks a commandment by choosing his own will instead of choosing the will of God; even worse, it is becoming a law for itself and thus making the self a deity. Sin began in the heart of that exalted angel who said, "I will do", as opposed to the will of God. (Isa. 14:13, 14). The antichrist is prominently "the lawless" (literal translation of "wicked"), because he exalts himself over everything that is worshiped or that is called God. (2 Thess. 2: 4-9.) Sin is essentially obstinacy and obstinacy is essentially sin. Sin would dethrone God; sin would murder God. On the Cross of the Son of God, these words could have been written: "Sin did this!"

(d) Disobedience, literally, "listening badly"; listening with a lack of attention. (Heb. 2: 2.) "See then how you hear" (Luke 8:18.)

(e) Transgression, literally, "going over the limit" (Rom. 4:15). God's commandments are fences, so to speak, that prevent man from entering dangerous territory and thereby suffering damage to his soul.

(f) Fall, or lack, or fall to one side (Eph. 1: 7) in Greek, hence the familiar expression, fall into sin. To sin is to fall from a pattern of conduct.

(g) Defeat is the literal meaning of the word "fall" in Rom. 11:12. In rejecting Christ, the Jewish nation suffered defeat and lost God's purpose.

(h) Wickedness, from a word that means "without worship, or reverence". (Rom. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:16.) The wicked man is the one who gives little or no importance to God and sacred things. These do not produce any feeling of awe and reverence in him. He is without God because he doesn't want to know about God.

(i) Error (Heb. 9: 7) Describes those sins committed as the result of ignorance, and in this way they differ from those sins committed presumptuously, despite the illuminating light. The man who defiantly decides to do evil, incurs a greater degree of guilt than the one who is caught short, which was taken away by his weakness. ..A natureza do pecado

Que é pecado? A Bíblia usa uma variedade de termos para expressar o mal de ordem moral, os quais nos explicam algo de sua natureza. Um estudo esses termos, nos originais hebraico e grego, proporcionará uma definição bíblica do pecado.

1. O ensino do Antigo Testamento.

O pecado considerado - As diferentes palavras hebraicas descrição o pecado operando nas seguintes esferas:

(a) Moral da esfera. As palavras usadas para expressar o pecado nesta esfera são as seguintes:

1) A palavra mais usada para o pecado significa "errar o alvo". Reúne as seguintes idéias: (1) Errar o alvo, como um arqueiro que atira mas erra, do mesmo modo, o pecador erra o alvo final da vida. (2) Errar o caminho, como um viajante que sai do caminho certo. (3) Ser achado em falta ao ser pesado na balança de Deus. Em Gên. 4: 7, onde a palavra é mencionada pela primeira vez, o pecado é personificado como uma besta feroz pronta para lançar-se sobre quem lhe der ocasião.

2) Outra palavra significa literalmente "tortuosidade", e é muitas vezes traduzida por "perversidade". É, pois, o contrário de retidão, que significa literalmente, o que é reto ou conforme um ideal reto.

3) Outra expressão comum que se traduz por "mal", exprime o pensamento de violência ou infração, e ensaio o homem que infringe ou viola a lei de Deus.

(b) Na esfera da conduta fraterna. A palavra usada para determinar o pecado nesta esfera, significa violência ou conduta injuriosa. (Gên. 6:11; Eze. 7:23; Prov. 16:29.) Ao excluir a restrição da lei, o homem maltrata e oprime seus semelhantes.

(c) Na esfera da santidade. As palavras usadas para descrever o pecado nesta esfera implicam que o ofensor usufruiu da relação com Deus. Toda a nação israelita foi avaliada em "um reino de sacerdotes", cada membro considerado como considerado em contato com Deus e seu santo tabernáculo. Portanto, cada israelita era santo, isto é, separado para Deus, e toda a atividade e esfera de sua vida estavam reguladas pela Lei da Santidade.

As coisas fora dessa lei eram "profanas", e o que participava delas se tornava "imundo" ou contaminado. (Lev. 11:24, 27, 31, 33, 39.) Se persistisse na profanação, era considerada uma pessoa irreligiosa ou profana. (Lev. 21:14; Heb. 12:16.) Se acaso se rebelasse e deliberadamente repudiasse a jurisdição da lei da santidade, era considerado "transgressor". (Sal. 37:38; 51:13; Isa. 53:12.) Se prosseguia neste último caminho, era julgado como criminoso, e tais eram os publicanos, na opinião dos contemporâneos do nosso Senhor Jesus.

(d) Na esfera da verdade. As palavras que descrevem o pecado nesta esfera ênfase ao inútil e fraudulento elemento do pecado. Os pecadores falam e tratam falsamente (Sal. 58: 3; Is 28:15), representam falsamente e dão falso testemunho (Êxo. 20:16; Sal. 119: 128; Prov. 19: 5, 9). Tal atividade é "vaidade" (Sal. 12: 2; 24: 4; 41: 6), isto é, vazia e sem valor. O primeiro pecador foi um mentiroso (João 8:44); o primeiro pecado começou com uma mentira (Gên. 3: 4); e todo pecado contém o elemento do engano (Hb 3:13).

(e) Na esfera da sabedoria. Os homens se portam impiamente porque não pensam ou não querem pensar corretamente; não dirigem suas vidas de acordo com a vontade de Deus, seja por descuido ou por deliberada ignorância.

1) Muitas exortações são dirigidas aos "simples" (Prov. 1: 4, 22; 8: 5). Essa palavra conhecimentos o homem natural, que não se desenvolve, quer na direção do bem, quer do mal; sem princípios fixos, mas com uma grande inclinação natural para o mal, a qual pode ser usada a fim de seduzi-lo. Falta-lhe firmeza e fundamento moral; ele ouve mas esquece; portanto, é facilmente conduzido ao pecado. (Vídeo Mat. 7:26.)

2) Muitas vezes lemos acerca desses "faltos de entendimento" (Prov. 7: 7; 9: 4), isto é, aqueles que por falta de entendimento, mais do que por propensão pecaminosa, são vitimas do pecado. Faltos de sabedoria, são conduzidos a expressar precipitados juízos acerca da providência divina e das coisas além da compreensão. Desse modo precipitam-se na impiedade. Tanto essa classe, como os "simples", são indesculpáveis ​​porque as Escrituras apresentam o Senhor oferecendo gratuitamente - sim, rogando- lhes que aceitem (Prov. 8: 1-10) - aquilo que os faz sábios para a salvação.

3) A palavra correta traduzida "insensato" (Prov. 15:20), qualificado uma pessoa capaz de fazer o bem, contudo está presa às coisas da carne e facilmente é conduzida ao pecado pelas suas inclinações carnais. Não se disciplina a mesma mesma nem guia como suas tendências de acordo com as leis divinas.

4) O "escarnecedor" (Sal. 1: 1; Prov. 14: 6) é o homem ímpio que justifica sua impiedade com argumentos racionais contra a existência ou realidade de Deus, e contra as coisas espirituais em geral. Assim, "escarnecedor" é a palavra do Antigo Testamento equivalente à nossa moderna palavra "infiel", e uma expressão "roda dos escarnecedores" provavelmente se faz referência à sociedade local dos infiéis.

2. O ensino do Novo Testamento.

O Novo Testamento lições o pecado como:

(a) Erro do alvo, que expressa a mesma idéia que a conhecida palavra do Antigo Testamento.

(b) Dívida. (Mat. 6:12.) O homem deve (a palavra "deve" vem de dívida) a Deus a guarda dos seus mandamentos; todo pecado cometido é contração de uma dívida. Incapaz de pagá-la, a única esperança do homem é ser perdoado, ou obter remissão da dívida.

(c) Desordem. “O pecado é iniqüidade” (literalmente “desordem”, 1 João 3: 4). O pecador é um rebelde e um idólatra porque deliberadamente quebra um mandamento, ao escolher sua própria vontade em vez de escolher a vontade de Deus; pior ainda, ta se convertendo em lei para si mesmo e, dessa maneira, fazendo eu uma divindade. O pecado começou no coração daquele exaltado anjo que disse: "Eu farei", em escolha à vontade de Deus. (Isa. 14:13, 14). O anticristo é proeminentemente "o sem-lei" (tradução literal de "iníquo"), porque se exalta a si mesmo sobre tudo que é adorado ou que é chamado Deus. (2 Tess. 2: 4-9.) O pecado é essencialmente obstinação e obstinação é essencialmente pecado. O pecado destronaria a Deus; o pecado assassinaria Deus. Na Cruz do Filho de Deus, poderia ter sido escritas estas palavras: "O pecado fez isto!"

(d) Desobediência, literalmente, "ouvir mal"; ouvir com falta de atenção. (Heb. 2: 2.) "Vede pois como ouvis" (Luc. 8:18.)

(e) Transgressão, literalmente, "ir além do limite" (Rom. 4:15). Os mandamentos de Deus são cercas, por assim dizer, que impedem ao homem entrar em território perigoso e dessa maneira prejuízo para sua alma.

(f) Queda, ou falta, ou cair para um lado (Efés. 1: 7) no grego, donde uma expressão conhecida, cair no pecado. Pecar é cair de um padrão de conduta.

(g) Derrota é o significado literal da palavra "queda" em Rom. 11h12. Ao rejeitar a Cristo, uma nação judaica sofreu uma derrota e perdida a propósito de Deus.

(h) Impiedade, de uma palavra que significa "sem adoração, ou reverência". (Rom. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:16.) O homem ímpio é o que dá pouca ou nenhuma importância a Deus e às coisas sagradas. Estas não contém nele nenhum sentimento de temor e reverência. Ele está sem Deus porque não quer saber de Deus.

(i) O erro (Heb. 9: 7) Descreve aqueles pecados cometidos como fruto da ignorância, e dessa maneira se diferenciam aqueles pecados cometidos presunçosamente, apesar da luz esclarecedora. O homem que desafiadoramente decide fazer o mal, incorre em maior grau de culpa do que aquele que é apanhado em falta, a que foi levado por sua debilidade.

[manshibansal-blog]

How did Literary Theory came to shape?

Comprehension of literary theory many a times begets a question that what was the body of theory about literature that has existed from centuries as an underpinning for the study of literature?  The answer to this question can be traced from 4th century BC when Aristotle had set the ball rolling to study literature through his Poetics. In this piece of work, Aristotle renders a defining word for the genre ‘tragedy’ while maintaining that literature is about character and the curtain that hides ‘what a character is’ is removed through his actions.    Tragedy, as he puts it, should stimulate the emotions of pity and fear, which can be put as sympathy for and empathy with the scrape of the protagonist, which cause a resultant factor by dint of amalgamation of these emotions, namely ‘catharsis’ whereby these emotions are exercised as the audience identify themselves with the predicament of the central character.

Now, the second milestone in the track so instigated was embedded by Sir Philip Sydney. He belonged to a religious age which was chary of accepting any kind of fiction and poetry, and it had so framed its beliefs that it would identify these practices of writing as evil, the work of the devil. In such an age he took a valorous step by letting his work Apology for Poetry (1580) see the light of the day. He was bent to stretch the horizons of the definition of literature that was first rendered by the Latin poet Ovid (43 BC- AD 17), which is docere delictendo – to teach by delighting. Sydney also quotes Horace (65 – 8 BC) to the effect that a poem is ‘a speaking picture, with this end, to teach and delight’. The study of literature, here, renders a central position to receiving of pleasure unlike philosophy which is uplifting but do not allow space for fun. Sydney’s aim was trailblazing; he wanted to distinguish literature from other forms of writing on the rationale that literature’s primary purport is rendering pleasure to the reader, and any moral or didactic element is either subordinate to it or at least unlikely to succeed without it.

Now, here comes the time for the third milestone to be cognised. This step towards the evolution of theory had been taken by Samuel Johnson way down in time, in the eighteenth century. He marks the commencement of the tradition of practical criticism in English, since he is the first one to offer a detailed commentary on the work of a single author. His Lives of the Poets and Prefaces to Shakespeare can be viewed as majorly contributing to his idea stated above. Prior to Johnson it was only the Bible and equivalent books of other religions that were subjected to such an intense scrutiny.

The fourth milestone on this road was embedded by the major thriving of critical theory in the works of the romantic poets, namely William Wordsworth, S. T. Coleridge, John Keats and P. B. Shelley. One of the indispensible contributions in this regard is Wordsworth’s Preface to Lyrical Ballads which blends high literature and popular literature, as it encapsulates literary ballads constructed on the model of the popular oral ballads of ordinary country people. It renders space for the new idea that poetic language should be much like the language of prose avoiding the conventions of diction and verbal structure that had held dominion for so long. It also drags attention to the issue of the relationship between ‘literature’ and other kinds of writing.

The other essential work from the Romantic era was Coleridge’s “Biographia Literaria”. Much of the space that it occupies explicitly addresses the idea contained in Wordsworth’s Preface. He gainsaid the notion that the language of poetry must strive to become like the language of prose, and the major way to entertain the readers, according to Coleridge, is through the language in which the text is written; it entertains via its fictive qualities which become the source of aesthetic effect.  

P. B. Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry (1821) reckons that poetry is essentially engaged with ‘defamiliarisation’, since, according to him, poetry purges from within us the view of familiarity and compels us to feel what we perceive and imagine what we already know. This phenomenal critical document foretells T. S. Eliot’s notion of impersonality put forward in his essay, ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ (1919). It also gives a hint of Freud’s idea of mind as made up of conscious and unconscious.

The concept of unconscious is very often found in Romanticism and is implicit in everything written about poetry by another key figure, John Keats. He did not formally write about literary theory but reflects on poetry in his letters, for instance in a letter to Bailey of 22 November, 1817, he writes that the simple imaginative mind may have its awards in the repetition of its own silent working coming continually on the spirit with a fine suddenness. Here, the silent working of the mind is the unconscious and the spirit into which it erupts is the conscious. Keats’ notion of negative capability also records unconscious as paramount.  

After the Romantics the next milestone was embedded by the work of mid and late Victorians: George Eliot, Matthew Arnold and Henry James.

The focus on the concept of ‘close-reading’ in the 1920s had partly popped up from the works of Matthew Arnold. He remained a crucial figure in the history of English criticism.  

He feared that the atrophy of religion would leave a cleaved society with no common system of beliefs and values, and this would be a potentially disastrous consequence. Thus, he came up with a solution that literature can be a possible replacement for religion in this regard and also weened that the middle classes on whom the responsibility of democracy majorly fell, had been debased by materialism and philistinism. So this became the apt timing for the critic to jump in and help people in cognising the best that has been known and thought in the world and therefore, it enlarged their capacities to identify and approbate the canon of great works that had been carved out of the wisdom of the ages.     Arnold seems to be bringing to sunshine the advocacy that he had for the amateur. According to him, if one has not read everything but have read the best and is able to pen down its qualities, then he can have the confidence to write and reach a true judgement on it. This veering change announced a direct relationship between the reader and the great literary works/writers.      

His momentous thoughts are found in the essay titled The Function of Criticism at the Present Time and The Study of Poetry. He has brought to prominence the conviction that literature must remain disinterested that is, politically detached and uncommitted to any specific action, and the motive behind literary criticism is to attain pure and disinterested knowledge which in his terms is to see the object as in itself it really is.

His key literary-critical device is the idea of ‘touchstone’ where he advocates that there must always be in mind the lines and expressions of the great masters and they must be applied as a touchstone in framing critical appreciations of other literary works in order to render a ‘real’ rather than a ‘historic’ or a ‘personal’ stance.  

The next salient contribution in the canon of critical ideas has been made by T. S. Eliot, and his prime formulations are:

1. Dissociation of Sensibility – Eliot coined this term in his review article on Herbert Grierson’s edition of The Metaphysical Poets in the seventeenth century where he backed the idea that thought and feeling must be separate.

2. Poetic Impersonality – Eliot developed this term in his two-part essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent.  This term can be viewed as his way of deflecting the contemporary thinking about poetry from the ideas of originality and self-expression which were raised to prominence by Romanticism.  More than perceiving poetry as a mere outflow of emotions and personal experience, he saw it as transcending of the individual by a sense of tradition which spoke through, and is transmitted by, the individual poet. Hence, there is a fine line of distinction between the mind of the individual, the experiencing human being and the voice which speaks to the readers.

3. Objective Correlative – This is a notion developed in the essay On Hamlet, which is the encapsulation of English empiricist attitudes. According to objective correlative, the best way to show emotions the doors in art is through gesture, action or concrete symbolism rather than approaching it implicitly. This runs, perhaps, parallel with the ancient distinction made by Plato between mimesis and diegesis.

Finally comes in the last name on the list which is F. R. Leavis, the most influential British critic prior to the theory movement. He also, like Arnold, saw that the study and appreciation of literature is a pre-condition to the health of society. For him, the abstract thoughts were insignificant and he wanted to look for a system which would by-pass fixed criteria. Like Arnold, he turned down attempts to politicise either literature or criticism implicitly. But, he differed from Arnold too as he took the past great writers more or less for granted. He composed essays, radiating the essence of his method, which hit the reputation of some major established figures.    

Leavis began as an admirer of T. S. Eliot’s critical works but he steered clear of shaping out critical vocabulary and deployed terms and phrases which already had set meanings. For him, what makes a work worthy is its conduciveness to life and vitality.    In 1932 he founded an important journal called Scrutiny along with his wife, Q. D. Leavis, which they produced together for twenty-one years. As the title itself suggests, it extended the ‘close-reading’ method beyond poetry to novels and other materials. He can be reckoned as a combination of Samuel Johnson and Matthew Arnold because he offered former’s moralism and the latter’s thoughts concerning society.    

[blackkudos]

Nannie Helen Burroughs

Nannie Helen Burroughs (May 2, 1879 – May 20, 1961) was an African-American educator, orator, religious leader, civil rights activist, feminist and businesswoman in the United States. Her speech "How the Sisters Are Hindered from Helping," at the 1900 National Baptist Convention in Virginia, instantly won her fame and recognition. In 1909, she founded the National Training School for Women and Girls in Washington, DC. Burroughs' objective was at the point of intersection between race and gender. She fought both for equal rights in races as well as furthered opportunities for women beyond the simple duties of domestic housework. She continued to work there until her death in 1961. In 1964, it was renamed the Nannie Helen Burroughs School in her honor and began operating as a co-ed elementary school. Constructed in 1927–1928, its Trades Hall has a National Historic Landmark designation.

Early life and education

Nannie H. Burroughs born on May 2, 1879, in Orange, Virginia. She is considered to be the eldest of the daughters of John and Jennie Burroughs. Around the time she was five years old, Nannie's youngest sisters died in utero and her father, who was a farmer and Baptist preacher, died a few years later. John and Jennie Burroughs were both former slaves. Nannie's parents had skills and capacities that enabled them to start toward prosperity by the time the war ended and freed them. She had a grandfather known as Lija the carpenter, during the slave era, who was capable of buying his way out to freedom.

By 1883, Burroughs and her mother relocated to D.C. and stayed with Cordelia Mercer, Nannie Burroughs' aunt and older sister of Jennie Burroughs. In D.C., there were better opportunities for employment and education. Burroughs attended M Street High School. It was here she organized the Harriet Beecher Stowe Literary Society, and studied business and domestic science. There she met her role models Anna J. Cooper and Mary Church Terrell, who were active in the suffrage movement and civil rights.

Upon graduating from M Street High School with honors in 1896, Burroughs sought work as a domestic-science teacher in the District of Columbia Public Schools, but was unable to find a position. Though it is not documented that she was explicitly told, Burroughs was refused the position with the implication that her skin was too dark — they preferred lighter-complexioned black teachers. Her skin color and social status had thwarted her for the appointment she was chosen for. Burroughs said that "the die was cast [to] beat and ignore both until death." This zeal opened a door to the profession for low-income and social status black women. This is what led Burroughs to establish a training school for women and girls.

Career

From 1898 to 1909, Burroughs was employed in Louisville, Kentucky, as an editorial secretary and bookkeeper of the Foreign Mission Board of the National Baptist Convention. In her time in Louisville, the Women's Industrial Club had formed. Here they held domestic science and management courses. One of the founders of the Women's Convention was Nannie Burroughs, providing additional help to the National Baptist Convention and serving from 1900 to 1947: nearly half a century. She was president for 13 years in the Women's Convention. This convention had the largest form [attendance?] of African Americans ever seen, and help from this convention was highly important for black religious groups, thanks to the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) which formed in 1896, the largest of three and including more than 100 local women's clubs. Because of her contribution to the NACW, the National Association of Wage Earners was founded to draw the public's attention to the dilemma of African-American women. Burroughs was president, with other well-known club women such as vice president Mary McLeod Bethune and treasurer Maggie Lena Walker. These women placed more emphasis on public interest educational forums than trade-union activities. Burroughs' other memberships included Ladies' Union Band, Saint Lukes, Saturday Evening, and Daughters of the Round Table Clubs. Burroughs' also actively participated in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

By 1928 Burroughs was working in the system. She was appointed to committee chairwoman by the administration of Herbert Hoover, which was associated with Negro housing, for the White House Conference of 1931 Home Building and Ownership, straight from the stock market crash of 1929 just as the Great Depression began. Burroughs spoke at the Virginia Women's Missionary Union at Richmond with the address "How White and Colored Women Can Cooperate in Building a Christian Civilization." in 1933

Burroughs was also a published playwright. In the 1920s, she wrote The Slabtown District Convention and Where is My Wandering Boy Tonight?, both one-act plays for amateur church theatrical groups. The popularity of the comedic, satiric Slabtown necessitated multiple printings through the succeeding century, although sometimes the wording is updated as needed by successive productions.

Training school and racial uplift

Burroughs opened the National Training School in 1908. In the first few years of being open, the school provided evening classes for women who had no other means for education. The classes were taught by Burroughs herself. There were 31 students who regularly attended her classes, however, after time, and due to the high level of teaching, the school began attracting more students. The school was founded in a small farmhouse that eventually attracted women from all over the nation. During the first 40 years of the 20th century, young African-American women were being prepared by the National Training School to "uplift the race" and obtain a livelihood. The emphasis of the school was "the three B's: the Bible, the bath, and the broom". Burroughs created her own history course that was dedicated to informing women about society influencing Negroes in history. Since this was not a topic that was discussed in regular historical curriculum, Burroughs found it necessary to teach African American women to be proud of their race. With the incorporation of industrial education into training in morality, religion, and cleanliness, Nannie Helen Burroughs and her staff needed to resolve a conflict central to many African-American women. "Wage laborer" was their main role of the service occupations of the ghetto, as well as their biggest role model as guardians for "the race" of the community. The dominant culture of African Americans' immoral image had to be challenged by the National Training School, training African-American women from a young age to become efficient wage workers as well as community activists, reinforcing the ideal of respectability, as extremely important to "racial uplift." Racial pride, respectability, and work ethic were all key factors in training being offered by the National Training School and racial uplift ideology. These qualities were seen as extremely important for African-American women's success as fund-raisers, wage workers, and "race women". All these gathered from the school would bring African-American women into the labor of public sphere including politics, uplifting racial aid, and the domestic sphere expanded. By understanding the uplift ideology of its grassroots nature, Burroughs had used it to promote her school. Many disagreed with Burroughs teaching women skills that did not directly apply to domestic housework. None the less, students continued coming and the school carried on.

Death and legacy

On May 20, 1961, she was found dead in Washington D.C. of natural causes. She had died alone; she never married because she had dedicated her life to the National Trade and Professional School. She was buried at the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church where she was a member.

Three years after her death the institution was renamed the Nannie Burroughs School and has remained that way since. Even though more than 50 years has passed since her death, her history and legacy continue to motivate modern African-American women. The Manuscript Division in The Library of Congress holds 110,000 items in her papers.

1907, she received an honorary M.A. from Eckstein Norton University, a historically black college in Cane Spring, Bullitt County, Kentucky. (It merged with Simpson University in 1912.)

In 1964, the school that Burroughs had founded in 1909 as the National Training School for Women and Girls in Washington, DC, was renamed the Nannie Helen Burroughs School in her honor. Its Trades Hall has been designated as a National Historic Landmark.

1975, Mayor Walter E. Washington declares May 10 Nannie Helen Burroughs Day.

Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue NE, a street in the Deanwood neighborhood of Washington, DC, is named for her.

In 1997 the National Women's History Project honored Burroughs during Women's History Month.