#Also the Jewish thing is totally up for interpretation and I totally get that not everyone believes this
Text
He's a martyred christian saint. He's our lady of sorrows. He's jewish. He's gender. He's haunted by the narrative. He's both the greek chorus and the tragic hero. I didn't say his name but he popped into your head didn't he.
#Blorbocore#This post is about Hawkeye Pierce from Mash obv#Other answers welcome too#Also the Jewish thing is totally up for interpretation and I totally get that not everyone believes this#I do though#Blorbos#Mash#Macks Musings#m*a*s*h
316 notes
·
View notes
Note
hey, someone i follow here on tumblr recommended me this blog for questions about abrahamic religions, so one thing i always wondered is why is pork a big no for jews and muslims, but seems to be totally ok for christians, afaik they worship the same God and follow a lot of the same teachings, and i know theyre different in a lot of stuff but this one just stands out to me
(also sorry for getting in your askbox with this demonic themed looking blog i swear i just like creepypasta)
Hey! No worries about the blog theme, I'm always happy to interact with anyone interested in genuine dialogue. :)
So, I'm going to put Islam off to the side for now, because with few exceptions (Ibn Barrajan comes to mind), Muslims did not use the shared Judeo-Christian texts to explain their prohibition against pork. Most Islamic authorities would cite verses like Surah al-An'am, verse 145, which calls "the flesh of swine" either "loathsome" or "unclean," depending on your translation. When the issue is discussed among Jews and Christians, on the other hand, they would both cite Leviticus 11:7-8, which specifies that pigs cannot be eaten because any animal that does not both (a) have cloven-hooves, and (b) chew the cud, is ritually unclean. (Pigs have cloven hooves, but they don't chew their partially digested food a second time like cows do)
There are modern Orthodox Jewish perspectives (and very early Christian perspectives, such as that of the author of The Epistle of Barnabas) that explain this prohibition in allegorical terms. The consumption of animals that have both of the traits above are symbolic of traits that the Jewish community is supposed to emulate. But that doesn't explain why Jews who follow kosher laws follow the literal interpretation of the Leviticus verses while most mainstream Christians do not. So let's talk a little about the context in which early Christianity developed.
Christianity started as a movement that developed in a Jewish cultural context, but it did not remain a primarily Jewish movement for very long. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles depicts both Peter and Philip as integrating non-Jews into the nascent Christian community, but the mission of Paul of Tarsus seems to have been a turning point in Christian history. And as more and more non-Jews became involved in the Jesus movement, there was a question of to what extent they were expected to become Jewish in order to be Christian. Paul's answer was: not at all. But this would be an issue for the Christian community for a while, even with councils like the one held in Jerusalem around the year 50.
That council declared that non-Jewish Christians did not have to follow most of the laws listed in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, but it didn't really give a systematic explanation as to why that was. So from very early on it was understood that large sections of the Old Testament were not applicable to non-Jewish Christians, but it took a few centuries for Christian thinkers to articulate why that was not the case.
In its most mature form, we see the argument as follows: the laws of the Old Covenant (as Christians referred to the Covenant at Sinai) could be broken up into three broad categories.
(1) The Moral Law, which was binding for all people everywhere and for all time, laws that are pretty self-evident like "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt not steal." These are laws that are "written on their hearts," in the words of Saint Paul.
(2) The Ceremonial Law, laws God commanded Israel to follow because they had a symbolic meaning that in some way foreshadowed Christ in an allegorical way. These laws are "fulfilled" rather than "abolished" by Christ, but in common parlance that distinction doesn't seem to matter much, because either way Christ's life is believed to have ended their necessity.
(3) The Judicial Law, which were civil laws to be maintained by the Kingdom of Israel. Since the Kingdom of Israel has been non-existent since either 587 BC or 63 BC (depending on whether you count the Hasmonean dynasty as a legitimate successor state to the Davidic kingdom), these laws are essentially defunct.
Among Christians who believe the Law can be divided into these categories, they believe that the prohibition of pork is part of the Ceremonial Law, which has been fulfilled with the coming of Christ and is thus no longer binding on Christians. As such, Christians can eat pork. That's also why they can eat shellfish, wear clothing made from mixed fabrics, and cook meat and dairy together.
70 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hey Avery, I love this blog and the binary-breakers blog. They’ve both been a great help to me as I reconstruct my faith. But I’m struggling with something: my fiancé and I are scheduled to light an advent candle during the Sunday morning service at his church. Initially I was really looking forward to it, but by chance I was curious about how old Mary was when she bore Jesus, and when I looked it up I learned she could have been anywhere from 13-16. Moreover, some traditions put Joseph as being much, much older. It’s just hard not to think in a very . . . sinister direction when considering that context, especially as far as God’s role in this is concerned. What did you learn about this topic in seminary, if anything? Is there any hope that my “problematic” interpretation is unnecessary/invalid?
Hi there! I think it's lovely y'all are going to light an advent candle tomorrow, and I hope it's a meaningful experience! I also totally get your dismay about Mary's age at Jesus's birth.
To start with the facts: yes, Mary was almost certainly a teenager when betrothed to Joseph. The Bible doesn't give any confirmation of her age, but in both ancient Jewish culture and Roman culture, girls were usually married off not too many years after they started menstruating.
When it comes to Joseph's age, I do have some slightly relieving news — he's unlikely to have been the old man he's often depicted as in medieval art. (I actually had a fascinating conversation on this topic with queer Catholic art historian Amy Neville on my podcast that you can read or listen to here!) He almost certainly would have been older than Mary, but it's uncertain how much older.
In ancient Jewish culture, the "ideal" marriage was actually one between a man and a woman who were both in their teens, with an expectation that a man marry by age 20. Being able to support a wife & kids was a key indicator of manhood, so men were expected to get married as young as they could. But in practice, it was more common for men to marry in their late 20s / by age 30, which does mean that their wives would often be a good ten or fifteen years younger than they were.
The Bible doesn't tell us what age Joseph was when he and Mary were betrothed, but it's unlikely he was older than 30, just as it's unlikely she was older than 18.
So maybe that's not quite as discomfiting as the image of a much older Joseph, but by our modern standards, it's still pedophilia. So what do we make of that? And what did God think of that??
__
I believe it is an act of faith to be troubled by elements of scripture that should be troubling, rather than shrugging them off as being "God's will" just because they're in the Bible. I highly recommend Rachel Held Evans' book Inspired on this topic, which has a whole chapter on grappling with difficult biblical texts (you can read a long passage from it here).
While exploring our emotions and giving them holy space, it is also important to accept that biblical cultures are two thousand or more years old — the ancient world had completely different understandings of morality from us. That doesn't mean we shrug off displays of sexism or xenophobia in scripture — bigotry is bigotry, whether an ancient iteration or what we have today — but learning about biblical cultures enriches our understanding of why certain things, like slavery or women having little say in whom they marry, are present in the Bible (and often completely taken for granted by its human authors). It can help us distinguish between what is truly God-ordained, versus what the humans writing down their experience of God presume is God-ordained.
I appreciate how womanist theologian Wil Gafney explores the complexity of appreciating the Bible as an ancient human text while looking for Divine truth "between the lines":
“There is liberation in the gospel even though it is sometimes obscured by the structures of power that benefit from holding people captive. There is also a story in and between the lines of and behind the text we hold so dear that points to a liberation that not even the authors and editors of scripture were able to see clearly or, see their way to record.
Jesus was a rabbi, he would have never wanted us to cling to the letters and syntax of these texts as though they were his very body and blood but rather, his spirit and the Spirit of God, blow through them, ruffling and disturbing them and permitting us to read new truths in and out of them and, not lose sight of the ancient stories that are also part of our shared heritage."
___
When it comes to Mary's young age when betrothed to Joseph and approached by Gabriel to request her "yes" to carrying God's child, your question of God's "role" in that is a vital one to ask.
In Mary's world, a woman without a kyrios, a man to be her protector, was in a very precarious position. Mary has to be betrothed to someone in her teens. We don't know whether God "approves" of this cultural practice, but we can see how God works within this custom to ensure Mary's security throughout her life:
when Joseph plans to divorce her after she becomes pregnant with Jesus, God sends an angel to persuade him to stick by her;
when Jesus is dying on the cross, he ensures that his beloved will protect Mary after he's gone.
Throughout scripture, God largely seems to operate within a people's cultural expectations (with key exceptions, like how God insists Their people treat foreigners the same as members of the group, or when God warns against giving the people a king just because that's what all the other nations have). That's what I see here. Mary must have a husband to be secure in her culture, and I imagine God ensuring that that husband will be one who will treat her well.
__
Then there's the question of God espousing Mary — of the Holy Spirit "overshadowing" her so that she conceives Jesus. What exactly is this "overshadowing" act? Why is God getting a teen girl pregnant?
Again, Rev. Wil Gafney provides words that wrestle out the good news with this complexity. When reading Luke 1, she urges us to sit with our distress at the image of a powerful "male" figure (Gabriel) approaching a teen girl to tell her what's going to happen to her body:
"Sit with me in this moment, this uncomfortable moment, before rushing to find proof of her consent, or argue that contemporary notions of consent do not apply to ancient texts, or God knew she’d say yes so it was prophetic, or contend that (human) gender does not apply to divine beings, Gabriel or God, and the Holy Spirit is feminine anyway. Hold those thoughts and just sit in the moment with this young woman."
Our distress is holy; it shows our connection to a fellow human being, our thirst for justice. Honor what you feel, don't discard your emotions, even while you join them to sociohistorical understanding.
I highly recommend you read Gafney's whole article, but here's a little more from it that balances ancient culture with modern ethics:
"Yet in a world which did not necessarily recognize her sole ownership of her body and did not understand our notions of consent and rape, this very young woman had the dignity, courage, and temerity to question a messenger of the Living God about what would happen to her body before giving her consent. That is important. That gets lost when we rush to her capitulation. Before Mary said, “yes,” she said, “wait a minute, explain this to me.”
...
Did the Ever-Blessed Virgin Mary say, “me too?” Perhaps not. A close reading shows her presumably powerless in every way but sufficiently empowered to talk back to the emissary of God, determine for herself, and grant what consent she could no matter the power of the One asking. And yet in that moment after being told by someone else what would happen to her body, she became not just the Mother of God, but the holy sister to those of us who do say, “Me too.” "
Because Mary was a teen girl, an impoverished Palestinian Jew living under empire, she can extend solidarity to people across all time who experience similar oppression, whose bodily autonomy is equally precarious. Just as her son, God in human flesh, extends solidarity to all who have ever been arrested or executed under an unjust state through his crucifixion. Divine power is expressed in and through those whom the world denigrates and discards — that's why God chose Mary, and why Mary in turn chose God.
Sorry this got so long and has a lot of complex stuff to wrestle with. I honor your courage to ask the hard questions, and I hope you are able to take time throughout Advent to keep pondering! There are no easy answers, but wrestling can yield a blessing.
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
Aziraphale is Lucifer, Sauntering Back Upward
There's an amazing meta post about Crowley being Lucifer, and it got me thinking about the nature of their own rebellions. I love the idea that Crowley is Lucifer, and I totally think it fits, but he's a a version of the Adversary seen through a very Jewish lens, possibly even placed there deliberately by God herself as a sleeper agent. (I'm not placing Good Omens God as the good guy here; the whole point of the show is that neither side is good or bad, they're just sides to be on.)
In Judaism, Ha-Satan is an Adversary in a way that translates to "The Opposing Advocate" or "The Prosecuting Attorney" (Hebrew is Really Old and only has so many words to convey concepts), and his actual job, as appointed by G-d, is Asking Questions. He's appointed to do that. He's one of the mazikim, an angel who does G-d's dirty work of testing, tempting, judging, and destroying (I know Neil knows what this is, he named a character that!). And why was Crowley placed as the Tempter of Man? Well, he's really good at asking questions. He was turned into a demon because he had a lot of questions.
The assumption is that this is a punishment.
Job also thought he was being punished, but he wasn't. He was being used as a test because he was such a great example. Crucially, the Jewish interpretation of this story is not about trusting G-d and being rewarded or whatever, it's "Being very good doesn't mean that you'll be rewarded on Earth, it means that you'll probably have an even harder time here because G-d is using you to prove something." The double livestock and children are not meant to be a reward, they are due compensation for damages. (The Mishnah says equal cost, but I think Pain and Suffering counts for an awful lot in this case, so it's only right that he gets twice the livestock.)
Whereas Aziraphale, actually? Is not only a Christian angel, but a Christian Lucifer who is sauntering very slowly downward. A Lucifer whose job is not to ask questions, but who actually tests the angels themselves and leads them to rebellion.
(Additionally, I think it's really funny that Aziraphale and Crowley are having the exact same argument as G-d and Satan in the Book of Job, which is that it's very easy to do the right thing if you're rich but hard if you're poor, but they pick a very poor person instead of a rich one and end up taking everything away from her, and she's tempted to suicide. Great job, Aziraphale. Proves my point.)
Let's look Before the Beginning.
The first line in Genesis is about G-d creating the heavens and the Earth. So this is obviously even before "Let there be light," Market Version. The Miltonian War in Heaven takes place before that, so obviously this is before the Earth even happens. So what's Crowley doing, speaking the Divine Command when the Earth isn't around yet?
Well, without God looking over his shoulder, he's setting the stage for things like matter and energy to even be able to exist before the Earth even has the conditions to form. He's disbursing the Divine Light that's contained in the now-shattered vessels of the Sfirot.
Rav Wikipedia sums it up thusly: 'Because the sephirot are pure and unrelated to each other at this stage, each attribute alone is unable to contain the enormity of the Divine light as it descends into them, and the "vessels" (Keilim) of the sephirot undergo a "shattering" (Shevirah), creating the World of "Chaos" (tohu). Their Divine light is released and reascends, while the broken vessel fragments descend, still animated by "sparks" (Nitzotz) of light."
So, Crowley summons that Divine Light, it Big Bangs out and shatters existence into being, and Divine Light shoots out all over the place. Now, in medieval Kabbalah, this separation was considered to be a result of humans sinning, but in Lurianic Kabbalah, which is a reaction to the very beginnings of the Spanish Inquisition (the thing that got Crowley so upset with humanity), it's a necessary part of Creation. Divine Sparks being trapped inside the shards of the vessels it was stored in and forgetting what they were is necessary for consciousness that's not just a part of G-d to exist.
That's Crowley's job. It's necessary. We used to believe this was a mistake, but turns out it's not! This cosmic separation is actually really important, otherwise the Divine Sparks cannot forget their origin and experience individual consciousness and thus free will.
"In the Lurianic scheme, Creation is initiated by a primordial radical Divine "self-withdrawal" (Tzimtzum), forming a figurative "empty space/vacuum" (Khalal) in which only an "imprint" (Reshimu) remains of the withdrawn Ein Sof."
Compare this to Crowley and Gabriel's discussion of their lack of memory feeling like a house where furniture used to be. But also, consider how out of touch Crowley is with the whole Divine Bureaucracy at this point. He's clearly been left alone to do his own thing and hasn't heard what's going on in the scheme of things.
So what's Aziraphale doing there? He's just blithely winging his way across empty space, a little spark of light, when Crowley calls out to him. He doesn't appear to be doing anything more urgent or important. He comes over, asks what's up, and Crowley gives him a task -- holding the blueprint while he activates it into existence by turning a crank. Crucially, Crowley needs somebody to help him bring existence, as imperfect and chaotic as it is, into a place where it can even start to think about being. Trapping the Divine Spark in matter.
This is real fuckin sexual. It suggests Hesiod's placement of Eros as an act of attractive, sexual love as the beginning of existence, but also it's a pretty obvious sexual pun.
(The Gnostics would identify Crowley as the Demiurge for this, but we're not talking about them. I don't think Neil is trying to do anything with Gnostic mythos here; it would be a lot more obvious if he was.)
What is Aziraphale's response to this? He's disappointed that Crowley is praising Creation instead of praising his own personal beauty. It's only a second, but wow, how petty can you be? Someone has just unleashed the full beauty of the first moments of existence before you and you're like, "Wait, I'm pretty, too!" I mean, you did just metaphorically cum existence into being and I guess you're stuck in the wet spot, you could use some aftercare.
That sounds a lot like Milton's Satan. He's the prettiest boy in Heaven, and his whole thing is that he's not impressed by humanity and they should be worshipping him instead of him having to serve them. Aziraphale is a little jelly of Creation from the very start. So jelly, in fact, that he starts talking shit about it. Oh, this? Yeah, it's not that important. It's just a backdrop for humanity. Yeah, some little apes on an unregarded little blue-green planet far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy. That's what this is all about. Yeah, uh-huh, sucks to be you. Well, I wouldn't do anything stupid like raising a fuss about it. Oh, you're gonna? Ooh, don't, it's pretty dangerous. Little old angel like me could never. I don't even know what gravity is.
And yeah, maybe he was sent there to give Crowley the news in the first place, but still.
(@mischief-and-tea-by-the-sea , who suggested I tag @neil-gaiman , also points out that many interpretations suggest that Milton portrays the Fall as a Felix culpa or necessary fault, a planned thing like the shattering of the Divine Vessels in Lurianic Kabbalah -- both are necessary for independent consciousness to exist.)
God could have totally sent him to check up on Crowley, not just inform him of the new developments in the plan. Oh yeah, that one nerdy angel who got all geeked about nebulae. He's gonna flip his shit when he realizes this isn't going to run long enough for any new stars to form. Let's send my insecure little gay gossip over to see how he takes it. Ooh, he came right the fuck up to my office with a serious attitude. I mean, I don't wanna deal with that on a daily basis, but he's making some good points. I need to put him where I can use that attitude and also not have to deal with that attitude...
Not only that, but Aziraphale gives fire and the first weapon of war to Adam. These are traits identified with Prometheus and with Azazel, another name for Satan, in two different traditions.
One common interpretation of Milton is that his sympathetic Satan shares traits with Prometheus, acting as a bringer of enlightenment and a heroic figure to humanity, risking his angelic status for actions that will ultimately free humanity from the yoke of the gods. Prometheus risked the wrath of Zeus to give fire to the humans and was punished endlessly for it, and is prophesied to someday rise and do battle with the forces of Order at the end of time. Prometheus is also associated with the human brain and toolmaking (because of the fire), as well as being ultimately responsible for Pandora, the First Woman, who likewise doomed humanity because of her curiosity and disobedience of the gods.
According to the Book of Enoch, the angel Azazel, another name for Lucifer or Satan (I think by now it's pretty clear that Satan is just gonna be whichever angel is being an Adversary at the time, but w/e) was the leader of the Grigori, the angels who lusted after humans so much they decided to fuck them. Azazel personally taught them smithing and how to make weapons of war (and makeup; Aziraphale does love disguises and sleight of hand). Very Promethean. Aziraphale didn't Fall then, true, but he's also Human Gay. Possibly because his first individual experience was being attracted to (and, uh, Used for Cranking It until Creation exploded into being by) Crowley. Regardless of how much agency he had in his Gayness, he probably brought humanity the gift of Gay Sex and thus avoided having any Nefil babies that had to be drowned like half-tabby Siamese kittens in the Sandman, so he didn't Fall then either, but gee it was a narrow miss. He must have been worried about what else God could do to angels, which is why he was so terrified about his child-saving lie with Job.
(Of note is that literally the only remotely Biblical book that refers to an archangel rebelling directly against G-d for the Throne of Heaven is the Book of Enoch. Yep! Just there! It's not a Jewish belief at all, along with the idea of Original Sin or the snake being Satan--that is your Animal Urge, and it's necessary to live but you should not let it control your behavior, in Jewish thought.)
And the thing is that he does Fall a little after lying to God. She never speaks to him again, so he's left in constant doubt and has to be forced to make his own decisions, just like a demon. He obviously never tells any of the other angels, just Crowley. But you can see his anxiety about this constantly, and I bet there's a little part of him that wonders if he's actually Fallen and somehow nobody has noticed yet, but worries that the moment they do he'll be officially kicked out of Heaven. That's gotta be so, so bad for you.
But there he sits, acting as an angel, irritating the other angels to the point of extreme measures simply by being himself, the way that Crowley does to humans and other demons with lots of thought and cleverness.
He even offers Crowley the temptation to defy God's decision and take control in Heaven. Yeah, Crowley is horrified by the idea, but he's gotta stop and think about it for at least a moment, right? Crowley just didn't take it because he sees beyond the system. He already knows that the sides are bullshit in the same way I told my Christian classmates that they didn't need to worry about devils because they were really still just all angels and Hell was obviously a lie to keep them under control. (Mazikim!) Crowley wasn't tempted to take power because questioning the System is literally his job right now.
He obviously corrupted Gabriel by being so clearly in love and enjoying himself on Earth. Gabriel has his clothing tailored special and wants to save it, just like Aziraphale, even though he doesn't give a shit before. He wants to stop the Apocalypse and keep things status quo, even though he didn't before -- that's Aziraphale rubbing off on him. He wanted to meet his Hellish counterpart in a place where humans eat and drink, just like Aziraphale. And he decided that he was going to fall in love with his counterpart and even start enjoying music, just like Aziraphale, and face exile with graciousness just like Aziraphale.
Aziraphale literally tempted Gabriel to Fall. He didn't do it by asking questions, just by being himself. Enjoying things. Enjoying clothing and music and love and Earth and peace and the status quo. Indulging himself and his desires above serving God or, frankly, the humans. (Yeah, I know, he tries when he bothers, but he's still a lazy, petty bitch who prefers his personal drama and own sense of comfort to nearly everything else, and he barely tries to hide it. That's why we love him.)
And now?
Baby is Supreme Archangel. And he's gonna defy God about it. This is everything the Miltonian Lucifer ever wanted.
42 notes
·
View notes
Note
I LOVE picking at Christianity (my major is Abrahamic Religions lmao), but in a Good Omens context I always feel the need to point out that Neil and Terry had "no horse in this race" either- the condemning of homosexuality thing is a uniquely Christian interpretation, and Good Omens is a satire of Christianity written by an atheist and a Jewish person. There's another part of the book where Aziraphale criticizes Christianity as a whole for the commercialization of religion. So given the repeated emphasis on Aziraphale's association with queerness, and that GO doesn't shy away from critiquing religion, maybe we are meant to take this one at face Christian value. Especially considering that Sandalphon becomes outright violent with Aziraphale. The scene in the book where Aziraphale brings THIS up as an example of Heaven's cruelty, not Job or the Flood, and they sit in tense, solemn silence for a minute can be reinterpreted in the show as the 1967 scene, where Aziraphale gives Crowley a suicide pill the same year that sodomy became decriminalized in the UK. The constant theme of them being fearful of getting caught and Crowley mentioning having to pretend they're not a couple. You're right about Sodom and Gomorrah- but I think it's intended to be a homophobia thing, here.
Hmm, this is a complicated one because like - I do think that on some level, themes are more important than facts in the way Good Omens approaches Christianity. But also, Neil Gaiman has read the Bible. And I just don't see any way that you can read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and think that a queer person would identify themselves with the rapists who died there.
There are stories where queer people are villainised but in a queer reading remain sympathetic, and it turns their fate into a tragedy. This really isn't one of them. It isn't even about queer people. The sexual acts threatened are all about cruelty and power.
In my opinion, the right wing Christian understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah is damaging to the queer community precisely because it characterises violent gang rape as a reasonable commentary on queer relationships. I don't know if you can take the story at face Christian value and still effectively satirise Christian homophobia. That said, and probably this is what you mean, I do think you can rewrite the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to be about unjust punishment for queer love if you reframe the story that appears in the Bible as outrageous propaganda that's covering up something else.
My favourite version of this is one that totally doubles down on that horror of getting caught that you're talking about. This isn't what I think Neil would do with the story if he ever revisited it in depth, and it's soooo fucking tragic, but it would add so much baggage to Crowley and Aziraphale's dynamic that I can't help spinning it around in my mind like a pinwheel.
Like, ok, I know it's early, so early in their 6000 year situationship, but what if there was something between Crowley and Aziraphale, even then? I mean, what if something happened between them? And what if, that night in Sodom, Sandalphon found out?
It's a nightmare thought. It makes me feel sick to even contemplate. Knowing how the story ends - for Sodom and Gomorrah, for Crowley and Aziraphale - it's impossible not to see the consequences spiralling out from this mistake.
Sandalphon knows. Every interaction with him from then on becomes fraught with the secret he's holding over Aziraphale. Even if Sandalphon likes the prolonged fear and leverage he gets out of keeping this to himself more than the sadistic joy of outing Aziraphale, Aziraphale's fate is still in the hands of someone who despises him. He's never going to feel safe again.
Sodom and Gomorrah are razed to the ground. In the story's telling, the people who died are transformed into monsters, even though their only sin was shielding a demon who dared to know an angel.
(And Crowley tries, for them. He refuses their shelter. He tells them to believe whatever they hear about him. He flees into the night and hopes that when Sandalphon catches up he'll be far enough from the city to make a difference. But they know Crowley, round these parts. They know men like Sandalphon, too. When Sandalphon questions them on where Crowley is, not a single person will talk.
Aziraphale tries, too. Before he ran, Crowley took all the blame onto himself, taunting Sandalphon as though he'd forced himself on Aziraphale, a last desperate bid to protect him. But Aziraphale sees the holy fury in Sandalphon's eyes as he presses the people for answers, and he can't let anyone else suffer for him. He tells Sandalphon the truth. He begs Sandalphon to spare the city. And when Sandalphon looks at him with calm contempt and doesn't say a single word, Aziraphale realises he already knew.
Sodom and Gomorrah are razed to the ground, and Crowley and Aziraphale watch them burn. Crowley is Lot's wife, looking back on the destruction, and to be turned into a pillar of salt would be a kindness. Aziraphale is Lot's son-in-law, unable to get out, unable to believe it's happening until it's raining down around him.
The people of Sodom hold their ground. Sandalphon decides they're beyond saving. If they won't give Crowley up, they can burn for his crimes in his stead.)
It's their transgression but they aren't the ones paying the cost. And the cost is too fucking high. That's the whole story, right there. They are never going to talk about this. There isn't anything to say. For as long as they are an angel and a demon - for as long as they belong to Heaven and Hell - they are never going to touch each other again.
#good omens#good omens meta#good omens fic#ish?? type thing??#fable talks good omens#fable answers#anon ask
31 notes
·
View notes
Note
I'm a conservative conversion student with a mikveh date of 08/07 and I wish I was excited but it just feels hollow. I've been at this for 7 years on my own, and 1 year with a rabbi. He had me take a class (that was far to beginner for me, which I mentioned to him and he said “I don’t want you wasting your time on this class if you’re not getting anything from it… well see you in class”) and we've only met individually like 4 times - we've literally talked for less than an hour total. Our last meeting was 5 minutes and consisted of “so do you want go to the mikveh soon?”. It’s been my call this whole way, he hasn’t expressed any opinion or really guided me anywhere. He hasn’t really gauged where I’m at at all, no “how many times a day are you praying?” or “how did you celebrate shavuos?” etc. It just feels so frustrating. I would convert modox if I could but my fiance is not jewish and I'm not asking him to convert. I just feel like I haven't learned anything and I haven’t been challenged at all through this process. It just rubs me the wrong way because this should be hard, some people should get a no, and we should be pushed. Sorry for venting, I’m just feeling really down about this whole thing.
I know how frustrating this must be for you, and I agree that it should be hard and some people should be told no. At my university's Hillel, the rabbi there has an "introduction to judaism" class that meets for one hour a week for eighteen weeks and at the end of it if you get a good grade they just ask if you want to convert and if you do, you get a mikveh date (This class had no testing, and was based entirely on if you just showed up). I was talking about this with the rabbi and asked if they'd ever turned someone away, or if they had ever had someone go to the beit din and determine the person was not yet ready, and they said no, not in all twenty years they had done this class. I knew someone in this class so I asked for the syllabus and reading list, and it was incredibly lack-luster and didn't explain a lot of core concepts of Jewish observance or history (Obviously, how can you learn 4,000 years of history in 18 hours?), did not require you to read the Torah, or to learn any Hebrew at all. The class didn't teach prayers for different occasions, nor did it touch on bible stories and characters. These were supposedly conservative conversions.
I'm not saying "Oh reform and conservative conversions are always bad because theyre not observant etc etc" because I don't believe that, and if an orthodox rabbi did the same thing I would also think it wasn't good enough. What I AM saying is, regardless of whatever movement the person is converting to, they deserve to have a good and thorough education, enough to be able to determine it fits with their wants, needs, and lifestyle. They deserve to know what they're getting into, and are really (in my opinion) owed time, attention, dedication, and care by their sponsoring rabbi. You deserve to have a rabbi who cares enough to make the course more challenging or complex for your needs, and who is willing to make time to meet with you outside of class. You deserve to know about the mitzvot you're going to be saddled with after you convert, because it's not like you can just de-convert, and you should be educated on the various halachic interpretations to decide which one fits for you. You should be thoroughly educated on Jewish history so you understand the people and culture you are joining, and the burden (and blessing) you are putting on your own shoulders by being a part of the Jewish people. To do any less is a disservice to you.
You have two options, the way I see it. You can either complete this conversion, which will be relatively simple from how it sounds, and you will officially be recognized as a Jew by both conservative and reform movements. This will allow you to go on Birthright and other similar programs (internships, educational trips, job offers to Israel, etc) and opens the door for you to go to a seminary or yeshiva that accepts conservative conversions. If you aren't satisfied still, you can try to do another conversion through modox. Or, you can forego the conservative conversion and seek out a modox rabbi instead.
#im not arguing w people who want to misinterpret my post as 'boo reform/conservative jews bad :(' bc im literally not saying that#and if you think im saying that read it again or something idc move on#and if you respond to this with some braindead nonsense im not going to engage#im not saying 'converts bad! :(' either#convos about movements are askinormative and i dont want to contribute to that#anyway my POINT is that converts deserve to be educated about what theyre getting into#which i think is fair#anyway.#jumblr#judaism#frumblr
49 notes
·
View notes
Note
I've been thinking about converting to Judaism for a long time now and idk where to even start or who to ask about it. Do you have any tips? I could message you, if that's easier. Sorry to bother ❤️
So the single most important piece of advice I can offer you is: find and connect with a local synagogue.
Obviously "local" can mean different things depending on where exactly you live and how many Jews there are in the area, but Judaism is incredibly communal, and converting especially so, and it's important that you integrate yourself with a community as a part of your learning process. You could read up on Judaism for years, but without having a community to learn from, celebrate holidays with, realize you disagree with certain members of and learn how to process those disagreements (yes!! really!! the "two Jews, three opinions" thing is real and has to be lived actively!), and find a sponsoring rabbi through, you'd be totally removed from Judaism The Practice as opposed to, like, Judaism The Concept.
That said I know it can be intimidating to approach a community without at least some knowledge (and it's good to know things about, say, the different movements so you can find a synagogue that practices Jewishness in a way that's going to fit with your own personal minhag, or practice), so if you want some reading recommendations, Choosing a Jewish Life and Living a Jewish Life, both by Anita Diamant are both conversion class classics, and Essential Judiasm by George Robinson is a personal favorite of mine and fairly comprehensive when it comes to the basics.
But I really cannot emphasize enough that converting to Judaism is about joining a people, and a large part of the process is going to be about community, figuring out if it's really for you by living it instead of just reading about it, and talking through your journey with your sponsoring rabbi(s) and fellow students. I think people who come from other religious backgrounds don't always get that, and it's one reason I had to roll this one around in my head a little before answering it because, like, I know approaching a synagogue can be intimidating and sometimes varyingly accessible, but it really is so critical to the process and the only way to know if Jewishness really is for you -- a decision that's going to be left up to you personally, since it's a religion that's open to converts, but not to proselytizing. Also because Judaism is multifaceted and it's as important to interact with people you don't agree with and interpretations that don't resonate with you as it is to figure out what does, because there are as many opinions about Judaism as there are Jews (and then some).
I'd do some research on congregations as close to you as possible (and if there isn't one wildly close, ones with online/streamed services exist too) and reach out to whatever contact person they have on their website about attending as someone exploring the idea of conversion. Usually they'll have information on next steps, too, and may know when their synagogue is next running a class for learning about Judaism. But that's who you're going to want to go to for sure if you're looking at starting the process seriously.
#my messages are open if you have more specific questions#but yeah. synagogue. you want to talk to your local synagogue#who are probably quite nice and get this question somewhat regularly so i have that helps with the intimidation factor#in this day and age converting does involve Sending Emails which i think is worse than wrestling with an angel actually#but if it's the right choice for you it is very worth it
23 notes
·
View notes
Note
i relate to that bottom/top kyman post so much dude lol. everyone's allowed to have their opinions or whatever but wow i am not a fan of most people's depiction of it. like most sub kyle art just screams fetish-y to me instead of actually being in character - there's no way in hell kyle would let cartman do most of the things he makes him do LMAO
Thanks man 🙏 I totally agree, it's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this. I don't mean to "yuck someone's yum" because tbf people can do what they want with their own art (including fetish stuff), and I'm not gonna tell anyone to stop making art that makes them happy just because it's not to my personal taste. But it's just SO pervasive that it's got me second-guessing myself like "have I been wrong about this the whole time??"
Another thing that really bothers me about these depictions of submissive Kyle is that a lot of them come across as inherently antisemitic, though tbf I don't think ppl do on purpose. There's a great masterpost about this by @urspopinionsareshit (who's not a kyman shipper). She's gotten beef from the larger fandom in the past for calling out antisemitic portrayals of Kyle, especially in ships like style or kyman, but imo the hate she gets is completely unwarranted because... she's right!! So often you see Kyle in fanworks depicted as weak, submissive, unathletic, sickly, timid, inexperienced, etc. which just screams "stereotypical Jew", but all of these traits are unequivocally not in his character. Kyle is Jewish, but he is also strong, aggressive, sporty, argumentative, and intelligent. Again, I think most ppl don't do this stereotyping on purpose, but it's a really insidious phenomenon that you see everywhere in this fandom.
Ultimately it's all subjective interpretation and maybe I'm just kind of bitter that my own preferences/interpretations are harder to find in the fandom 🤷♀️🫠 but wcyd. I'm not gonna go around policing the kind of art ppl want to make. However, and this was mentioned in the replies of my prev post, I would still appreciate if more of it was at least tagged, esp anything with specific fetishes, so I could set up filters for it on twitter or AO3 and curate the fandom space to my own preferences better.
37 notes
·
View notes
Note
Oh I have been seeing that! Anti-semitism is for sure increasing in some areas, and I can't say that Jewish people are not justified for that fear given their history of oppression and hatred against them, I'm pretty sure everyone has seen people inside the pro Palestinian movement, making antisemitic comments, disguised as support for the victims of isrl... (calling not the IOF soldiers, but the Jewish people as a whole, descendants of the devil and what not, is unnerving) but that is also not a common stance between the movement.
Those feelings and doubts from Jewish people are obviously valid, although, they are NOT more urgent or important that the suffering and urgency of the Palestinian people (and that goes especially to those who use their fear as an argument in every discussion, as a way of adverting the attention from the genocide in palestine, or to avoid recognizing the lies and crimes of the state or Israel and its allies)
It can and will sound bad, but they are not the victims in this conflict, empathy and understanding can be given for sure, but not as a way of ignoring or minimizing the ongoing tragedy in and out of gaza/the west bank, where people are suffering a genocide and are being stripped off of their identity and culture. An example of that is the 'from the river to the sea' chant, just as you mentioned (and keeping in mind the infinity of claims the media in your country can be saying about it) it has been tainted by politicians and general citizens as an antisemitic chant, an attack against jews, a call for violence, and so much more, but ever since the Palestinian liberation forces created it in the 1960's it hasn't, not even by Israeli people who were well aware of its existence and meaning, been interpreted as a genocidal chant, not until now that they are losing the media credibility and support.
For different parts of the movement and outside of it, the chant advocates for the libertarian of Palestine, not as an attack against jews, but the apartheid state they suffer in Israel, and it's creation in itself, which caused the massive displacement and murdering of a great part of their population, and for those who could remain in their land, the inability to vote, have basic human rights, the freedom to cross certain parts of the territory, the uncertainty of someone else just evicting them from their homes, and consistent violence against them, having as the primary example the current genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the west bank
I'm sure you already know most of this, but I'm just saying it to assure you that using and standing with the chant 'from the river to the see' does not make you or anyone else antisemitic, not as long as people have the ability to recognize jews and zionism apart
Also sorry if any part of this ask felt rude, or feels confusing, I would love to keep discussing about this if it's something you're up to
no no it's not rude. i'm actually glad we can have a discussion like this rather than misunderstanding and ended up accusing each other of smth
tw : controversial topic
i totally get it though like the original intention and from my side, i hate how the situation became due to extremist or uneducated "supporters" who in support of palestine and palestinian ended up being antisemitic like i saw blue haired libs outrightly telling jews in general that they don't deserve their freedom even jewish americans who had nothing to do with the situation in the middle east
and coming back to the issue of brand boycott, i think it's ridiculous that people can't differentiate between not being able to make a political standing and supporting genocide. "bEiNG SiLEnT = SupPORtiNg gEnOCiDe" is a ridiculous precedent because people who support this idea are not putting things into context. I don't see this backlash towards japanese or chinese idols, only korean idols. why ? because western fans (esp americans) put KOREAN idols in the same category as them. i think kpop should be separated from politics bc it's just gross. if you don't like what they're doing, you're welcome to have an opinion but you're not entitled to demand anything. you can even leave the fandom and stop supporting the artists, it's entirely your decision.(the you is not you, anon, it's just people in general ig) like who are you to control how people act or behave because you don't agree with it ?
the way people act, demanding kq to release a statement and demanding certain photos be taken down is kind of facistic cencorship adjacent. "I don't like the message i assume you're supporting and because of that and because the rest of us agree on an idea, you must adhere to it and do what we want" like it's so gross how entitled these people are
and again, it seem like they're erasing hongjoong's philantropical activities just because he posed with a starbucks cup (it's not even a sponsorship), calling him a sellout and acting as if he's leading charge in an anti palestinian campaign which is so not the case. literally people are using this situation to cancel and boycott idols, they don't really care about what the boycott stands for, they just want to hate and that's more disgusting than posing with a starbucks cup
2 notes
·
View notes
Note
heyhey!! i was wondering if i could get a session analysis? we have a heir of blood (P), knight of space (D), thief of time (D), page of light (D), prince of life (P) and a mage of void (P) !! thank you!!!
Oh, hello! As always, it's a joy and a pleasure to see people asking me for my opinions about things. It really makes me feel something quite nice, maybe a sense of interpretational authority, maybe just the fondness of being able to do something for a community. Thank you for taking the time, and especially thank you for going to the trouble of including these characters' moon sways, they help quite a bit!
You've waited a long time and I don't want to keep you longer, so I'll try not to be too longwinded. Still, let's dive in and see one among the many ways this could go!
Dramatis Personae
PROSPIT
Heir of Blood
Prince of Life
Mage of Void
DERSE
Knight of Space
Thief of Time
Page of Light
The Lay of the Land
This is sort of becoming a habitual heading, isn't this? Thank you for bearing with my search for a good conventional formatting.
First, let's examine our Prospitian heroes - the characters whose relationship to the game itself is accepting and passive, though not strictly always positive.
Insomuch as Blood has an Heir,
Blood in this game is strong but in decline, and for this player it is their natural element. An age is waning, a time is drawing to a close -- an age of unity, of suffering, of bonds, of obligations, of nobility. Among some other things. The Heir has no reason to question or be unhappy with this outlay at first. But will that last?
On a personal level, if you put a gun to my head and said, M, write an Heir of Blood, I would probably literally make them an inheritor of responsibility for some kind of awful crime against humanity in addition to being an heir literally.
No one has to my knowledge ever looked into whether Blood (as suffering, as family, as intimacy, as caste, as bonds) is fundamentally a human or a troll cultural concept -- the derivation of the concept seems human ("the blood of the covenant..."), but the trolls' society is based (not with much fidelity; that would be beside the point) on an American Protestant imagining of the society in which Jesus lived, which also produced the thing it seems like, as seen through the lens of Hussie's own culture. (He isn't Jewish, so it's understandable that he chose this Pharisaic sort of concept to pair with the imagery of modern and forecasted capitalist America for Alternia's vibes, since it is very important textually for Karkat's development and character that Kankri is Troll Christ).
Terezi is vaguely practicing Troll Jewish by joking WoG, but everyone counts if you want them to -- and the reason I bring this up is that as funny as the implication of Rabbi Terezi is, it's worth noting that within the comic's universe the trolls have no idea that they're sort of Animorph Pharisees/Sadducees (insofar as someone not Jewish from Detroit could use them allegorically). They could very well have the concept of elemental Blood in a totally different derivation, in universe, from how the kids think of it, and they may or may not also have the dual concept of blood as store of life, blood as that which is avenged, blood as pollutant and also blood as purificant. Blood could well imply something genetic when seen through a human lens that I don't think it would for trolls.
In fact, if we read Blood and bonds as an elemental force the way we read Rose's Light, in light of there not being any human Blood players, we very quickly encounter the fact that trolls seem to once have been eusocial, and so for them blood may also have a spiritual or ritual element it doesn't for humans -- loyalty to hierarchy and to the inevitable way of things, since in a eusocial species all of a hive is a direct relation of the queen.
Alternia is a terrible place, but it seems their distant ancestors had a properly bee or ant or indeed humanlike concept of community, which they lost, possibly through violent social reform...
But that's speculation, and the Blood your Heir inherits and grows up protected by can, as always, be whatever you'd like -- reinterpreted across contexts or not.
If it were me I think I would take Blood in-game in a Breeze sort of direction; perhaps there's a Final Fantasy-like Lifestream, not necessarily literally made of gore -- gore can be fun, but have you heard of trees' equivalent of blood? Actually, Aerith's thing is pretty explicitly based on a Japanese game dev's reading of Kabbalah. Xylem and phloem, and more intriguingly, the intersection of blood and mycelium...?
This is getting a bit unfocused.
In that there is a Prince of Life,
Life is perhaps in peril, or about to make a turnabout. I haven't written before about the importance to my classpecting of Ursula le Guin's personal cosmology, and especially of her conceptualization in Always Coming Home of cycles or spirals of alternating polarities striving for balance, separated and joined by a hinge.
In that the Prince is a destroyer class who destroys with or destroys their aspect, they can be interpreted as acting at the time of such a hinge, in a way that turns it decisively towards or away from the next phase of life.
Whether they're anathema to the current way of things or fiercely uphold it, this is a vigorous and interesting player to have in this game! But we've established that this game occurs at the end of something - so, what does that mean for the Prince?
Your call as usual -- but let's return to that concept of the Lifestream. A Prince needs something significant to marshal or destroy; I think that on this one's planet, the Something could be a dying spring, which they can choose whether to nourish and restore or to let die. Or it could be the sea -- that's a very timely anxiety, I think, the sick and struggling sea.
I think people neglect the element of the Prince's arc where they have to sort of grow into it, or turn into something worse trying -- in relation to Life in the balance, I think this is probably especially concerning... but surely as a Prospit player this Prince understands that!
In that there is a Mage of Void,
Void is something to be approached with curiosity and understood. That seems to actually fit quite well with our nascent theme of change and reaction to change! A Mage traditionally is read as someone who understands for their own benefit, but I think that "their own benefit" here might be somewhat tempered by their Prospit sway, which means they are not struggling or rebelling, and they're more likely to share their findings with the team, even if the learning mostly benefits them.
There are a lot of Voids in this game, lots of mysteries and unsaid things -- what are the party going to do with their very concept of society, given one of the themes is Blood - bonds, struggle, revolution, mutation, change?
What's the situation with Life, where's that going? What's happening with the Furthest Ring?
A mage may ultimately be able to see these things and choose to act on them. But for the most part, I think, here, they may not do so for a while.
But they can't wait forever. As this is a time of change, our friends the living nightmares of the Furthest Ring are stirring; the hard drive must be wiped and the universe must turn.
Perhaps the Mage is here as a sort of canary in the coal mine. Or is Void a kinder thing here, curious in turn about bright matter and the other side of being?
On, anyway, to Derse.
Given that Space has a Knight,
We're beginning to see some complications in our narrative.
Space, you see, probably shouldn't have a Knight and no one else - the Knight assists in the creation of the frog, by convention. But whom does this Knight assist?
If a Knight has Space, which is to say if the aspect of creation, room to live and physical dimension is assigned to someone who doesn't really create but only encourages and keeps safe, maybe that means another player who should have been there is not. Maybe that means they have to make do with what they have, even if they're not as talented, not as capable, not supposed to be doing all this.
If Space has a Knight, maybe that means it's in need of a champion - but how good at that could the second fiddle be?
The answer is obviously 'good enough', although as a Derse dreamer and a possible victim of the intended Hero of Space haunting the narrative, our knight may struggle with believing or growing into that; their struggles in life may blind them to their own potential.
Of course, old strictures and definitions of potential are easing up here. Things are changing. Times are new. Maybe now it can be different.
I really like this concept, but as always... your story is yours to tell, gentle reader.
Concerning the Thief of Time,
People with free and reasonable access to a resource are generally not possessed to steal. It therefore follows that this session's Time-supply is ... compromised, perhaps declining or already at a serious low. The world these players come from is one void of a sense of life milestones, poor in tradition and rootedness to the past and future, in desperate need of an understanding of cycles. And of course the players have a shortage of actual time -- eldritch forces are in motion.
The Thief of Time understands and fights this situation by stealing Time or from Time for themself -- they might begin by wanting to steal from their Denizen, and being a quite talkative kind of person who likes to waste others' time. They're probably quite an annoying teammate at first -- someone who enjoys wasting time and loafing around, someone unserious and quite blasé.
But all of that is about to change. Oh yes, that's about to change.
Nothing like a few hundred supremely tormentous time loops featuring the terrible fates of all their friends to set a body straight!
And, of course, if you like - but only ever if you like -
He is always already here.
Perhaps our Thief might eventually be induced to do something in response to that. Something quite terribly irresponsible.
And on that cheery note, what the dawg (Page) doin?
Happily (or unhappily) for everyone, they're a Page of Light, so even though they hate they life (they hate they wife) et cetera et cetera, not actually much.
A Page of Light means the session has a low supply of Light that needs to be built up, understood and utilized over time -- there may be a very dim effect overall, visually, but also no one knows anything (thus the Void Mage) and no one seems to be having very much luck or clarity.
The Page themself is comically unlucky at first, but hopeful and curious, which is also a fine and lovely thing to be in a session where the most immediately dangerous thing is the dumbass Thief of Time and the Horrorterrors will probably wait their turn if and when the Mage asks nicely.
But watch out, the Page and Thief share their ill luck, and the Page begins naive, weak and vulnerable, just as the Light begins dim and tightfisted. All it takes to lure this person - and Luck and Light with them - into a misguided grimdark spiral that might take everyone else with them.
This too, however, is SBURB.
Where do you think new Horrorterrors come from?
Oh, but it's probably not going to get quite so dire. They'll all probably manage to talk the Thief round.
Probably.
Might have to fight an army of alternates of them, but probably, indeed.
Unless...?
A Vision: Possibility
Six friends play a game. Let's pretend they're human, although they could easily not be.
One of them, an eager but dim young sort, entices the others -- a trust fund baby, a paladin player, a lorehound, a struggling and not very talented artist, and the friend group 4channer -- into playing this sick new game that's totally not a virus, yes they got it off of the world's seediest website but come on you guys !
Unbeknownst to them, it's much worse than a virus, but at first everybody takes it all in stride. Big deal, isekai forever no miss no dodge! They've read all about it.
At first they stick to their delegations -- Mage researches the game itself and the consorts, Prince tries to make some friends and get some material basebuilding done, Knight wikicrawls a dubious ingame wiki to try to grasp how frogs work, and Page attempts to be useful.
Thief does nothing. At first. But then an experience they have in a dream sets them down a dark path, and several progressively odder loops in, they begin to look at the situation somewhat unlike the rest of their friends... and their Denizen, and perhaps a patron Horrorterror with unusual plans as to how to stop the unspeakable and inevitable, the inexorable, the irresistible, is all too happy to help.
#tagging this unreality because some phrasing is scary for effect#especially the bit about Caliborn#session analysis#homestuck fansession#illudens
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
I posted 2,276 times in 2022
That's 715 more posts than 2021!
97 posts created (4%)
2,179 posts reblogged (96%)
Blogs I reblogged the most:
@croissants-andcoffee
@plugnuts
@jmax523
@whatdoessunshinetastelike
@fishtish
I tagged 1,260 of my posts in 2022
Only 45% of my posts had no tags
#south park - 57 posts
#ask - 43 posts
#fave - 27 posts
#ask game - 17 posts
#birthfay 🎂 - 14 posts
#sp kyle - 12 posts
#sp k2 - 11 posts
#writing - 10 posts
#headcanons - 10 posts
#south park fic - 10 posts
Longest Tag: 139 characters
#also just realised the blurb i pasted here was from an old draft where the soulmate tag was on their arm not their chest 😳how embarrassing
My Top Posts in 2022:
#5
man, it kind of bums me out how the majority of the time that kyle's jewishness is a focal point in fan content, it's for a negative reason. if kyle's contemplating the fact that he's jewish, it's because he's being bullied or harassed, because he's feeling insecure about his appearance or self worth, because he's feeling lonely and isolated, because he's having a crisis of faith, etc etc. these are all totally valid themes and character arcs to explore, of course! i think many jews like myself may be able to relate to these themes, thanks to living in a society where antisemitism and other shitty behaviour runs rampant. but i think we're really missing a golden opportunity to explore the complex and compelling positives of being jewish. where's his love for his community? where's his excitement for an upcoming holiday? where's the comfort he might take from prayers? where's his curiosity or knowledge about his family history? where's his passion for debating interpretations of the torah? these are also valid, relatable and in-character directions you could take things!
i know that this trend is probably heavily influenced by the presence of this pattern in the show itself, but it's still a bit sad. or maybe gentiles (non-jews) shy away from celebrating his jewishness because they don't feel confident in commenting on a religious experience that they've never had. to those people, I would ask, why is it you feel comfortable speculating on the hardships of being jewish, but not the joys?
that isn't to say that you're not allowed to write about the former if you're not jewish, of course! regardless of religious background, anyone can empathise with his struggles because, at the end of the day, we're all human, and it's our humanity that unites us. but i'd encourage you to push yourself out of your comfort zone, do a little research and have some fun celebrating and supporting his jewishness once and awhile :)
109 notes - Posted October 30, 2022
#4
today I am thinking about... fat tweek! and fat butters! and fat wendy and heidi! maybe throw a lil fat kyle in there too! I'm sick and tired of fatness being equated with immorality when it comes to south park (and the world in general tbh) and it makes me sad that so many people seem afraid of portraying any of the non-cartman characters as plus-sized. 'fat' is a neutral descriptor and not a dirty word, and displaying body diversity amongst the cast is not only realistic, but a wonderful and beautiful thing! so anyway reblog this and put in the tags which character(s) you've always headcanoned to be fat or not skinny :)
113 notes - Posted August 21, 2022
#3
STOP RIGHT THERE 🔫 THIS IS A STICK-UP 🔫 NOBODY SCROLLS ON UNTIL THEYVE WATCHED @roostertuftart 'S GLORIOUS VIDEO THEN REBLOGGED IT 🔫
youtube
142 notes - Posted August 29, 2022
#2
I'M ABSOLUTELY BLOODY LOSING IT OVER THESE VINTAGE SOUTH PARK MUGS I FOUND ONLINE
THE CAPTIONS. THEIR EXPRESSIONS. THE FACT THAT STAN IS KNOWN AS "THE CUTE ONE"?? LIKE?? IS HE?? WACK :D ANYWAY SHOULD I BUY THESE YES/NO
256 notes - Posted November 16, 2022
My #1 post of 2022
fucking obsessed with this meme that came up on my pinterest feed
what IS up with gay eople liking south park???
1,222 notes - Posted November 15, 2022
Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →
#year in review#don't know if this will be interesting to anyone else but me#but I enjoyed looking through it!!#can't believe my top post was that stupid fucking sp meme though sdjfhsdfjhsd#anyway. thanks to those who accompanyed me on my tumblr clownery this year#can't wait to be even more goofy and silly next year#Youtube
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
im sorry i couldn't let this go, i've seen this come across my dashboard THREE TIMES NOW and you all need to grow some critical thinking skills, please, i am begging you...anyway i just screenshotted this cause i really don't wanna get into it with anyone but this is the stupidest most ignorant thing i've read regarding religion in a long ass time.
placing this under a cut to be polite and save everyone's dashboards - I'm a Jew who converted to Christianity, so i guess my Jewish desire to be polite and considerate managed to override my christian religious mandate to be an asshole on this day...you're welcome everyone
first of all, judaism is a culture and faith that is six thousand years old, and christianity is two thousand years old, and both have spanned entire continents, so it is impossible for any quick rambly tumblr post to be able to remotely capture the reality and nuances of either one.
for example! claiming that in "judaism," divorce is totally accepted and acknowledged and women are free to just up and leave their man and it's some kind of feminist utopia is laughably bullshit! structures of patriarchal oppression use Jewish divorce law to control women - there's even a word, agunah, which means "chained woman." there are currently, as you read this, Jewish women in America who are trapped in this system, and it often leads to all sorts of violence and other nonsense!
also...the story of Leah and Rachel and Jacob is part of Jewish scripture and it isn't exactly a "rah rah women aren't men's property" moment, is it? it's almost like this is a complex subject with lots of nuance!
what about christianity? this brilliant theological scholar claims that divorce is a sin in christianity, just, flat out, period, end of sentence. it's good and allowed in judaism but bad and forbidden in christianity. is that true? of course not!!! most contemporary branches of christianity currently recognize divorce and accept divorced members in their congregation. Jesus is cited multiple times in the Gospels making statements about marriage and divorce that are, let's say...open to interpretation (see Matthew 5, Matthew 19, John 4). hell, we have an entire branch of christianity that partly started because some dude really, really wanted to divorce his wife.
so it makes no sense to say that judaism is totes cool with divorce but christianity is super mean about it. in reality, both religions have believers who use their laws/traditions to oppress women and uphold patriarchal structures, and followers of both religions have found their way to more progressive understandings of marriage and divorce.
also, love the citation of "puritans" as an example of what "christianity" is. puritanism was a small, radical offshoot of christianity - they were run out of entire countries, as you may remember, for being weird and extra about stuff. plus puritanism only appeared in the 1500s, so christianity had been bopping around developing some other theology for a while until then. and while much of american christianity can be traced back to puritan roots, you won't exactly find many practicing "puritans" running around in the 21st century.
so using "puritans" as the platonic example of What Christianity Is just makes no historical sense. if you want to talk about puritan ideas, go ahead. if you want to compare puritan thought to a specific era or sect of Jewish thought, that would be interesting! but you can't just say "some dudes in the 1600s did stuff, and that's what all christians do and believe"
it is also absurd to claim that christian faith makes no room for questioning. again, this person seems to be either citing very specific contemporary evangelical attitudes, or ahistorical caricatures, as a broad strokes representation of a 2000 year old, global religion. in fact, there's been a LOT of excellent christian thought and writing about wrestling with God, struggling with doubt, and asking questions. don't believe me? check out this overview in a popular contemporary christian publication.
also, it's silly to say that asking questions or challenging one's faith is 100% encouraged and accepted at all times "in judaism." google "off the derech" or check out some of these sources. Neither christianity or judaism, as a whole, is a pure perfect innocent cinnamon roll uwu of a religion.
the thing is that people use religion and religious institutions for their own purposes. power, wealth, control, etc. they will use the one most convenient and relevant to their purposes. it is not a feature unique to christianity.
and i can't even TOUCH that last bit. the notion that everything we find yucky about various historical iterations of christianity were nowhere until a bunch of jesus freaks just thought them up? what??? the idea that the entirety of christian thought and belief came about because some Very Nasty People just woke up one day and decided to be cruel and destructive? are you for real???
that's not...how things work. that's not how anything works. you are not "stating the obvious" because you are making such an absurdly false statement that it just...have you ever read, like, a book?
the history of western christianity is thousands of years long, and it includes hundreds of different influences, from plague epidemics to corrupt rulers, and there have always been a ton of people writing, thinking, talking, and arguing about what it means to follow Jesus.
there is a LOT of christian thought and history that does exactly what this person claims never happens in christianity - celebrates the body, honors the dignity of every person, upholds joy and pleasure as sacred, etc. OP i think is referring to the ideas of thomas aquinas who was JUST ONE DUDE in the 1200s and does not represent everything that every christian has ever believed, done, or taught. check out the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, Gerard Manley Hopkins, or Julian of Norwich.
there are some christian practices and beliefs that arose from people's good faith efforts to follow a loving God. there are some that arose from people in power trying to cling to their own privilege. and most of them come from a combination of both! guess what - this is also true of judaism! turns out, both christianity AND judaism have really messy, complicated, nuanced backgrounds! one is not just a bunch of people saying Let's All Be Cool And Make The World Nice And Good vs. a competing bunch of people going Let's All Be Dicks And Ruin Everything. that makes no sense! think about the things that you are saying!!!
if you're curious about this, or if you want to be able to have a more nuanced opinion about whatever you think "christianity" is, i'd recommend a book called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It's a great place to start for an in depth, heavily sourced study of exactly how christian thought about a specific issue changed, developed, and solidified. there, you'll see that there is no way to summarize what "christianity" does, believes, or says, because it's wide ranging and ever changing. you'll also see that certain problematic attitudes or beliefs don't just spring up because Christians Are Assholes, but because of competing pressures and influences from inside and outside the church.
if you want a free copy of that book, PM me and I will send you one. seriously. even if you hate christianity, had terrible personal experiences with a contemporary church, etc. it's a great read. there are sexy love letters between gay monks. im serious.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
I’ve never been that much into shipping like literally I’m one of the most boring and logical people ever and when I watch most shows I just care about the plot and don’t rlly give a fuck when it’s soiled with a bunch of corny romances (except if it’s actually interesting and the two people have an entertaining dynamic that adds to the story and gives conflict and shit). This is exactly how the last few seasons of Regular Show were ruined bc it was all about relationships (even tho I love Rigby & Eileen together ngl LOL), as well as iCarly like the whole fucking Creddie vs Seddie war ruined the show, I doubt Freddie was supposed to end up with anyone but it’s like the writers felt pressured to put in that dumbass Seddie storyline bc shippers were obsessed. So I understand why people don’t care for Kyman or any South Park ship and just wanna watch the show, I mean I was like this too I used to not give a fuck and found the South Park shippers annoying. I only liked Stendy bc it was canon, and then Kyman grew on me over time, and I started to like Creek when it became canon too, but every other ship in the fandom is mostly trash imo LOL. But srsly ya’ll are dumb as hell for not seeing that there’s clearly something going on between Cartman & Kyle at this point, especially after Kyle went ballistic after seeing Cartman with someone else TWICE….I’m like bruh how can anyone interpret this as anything other than jealousy. DHSJJS I’m sure you could totally make a case to argue how Kyman isn’t gonna actually happen, bc I agree on some level like South Park is just a comedy, so I feel like a lot of it is all just Matt & Trey trolling everyone and putting in these subliminal messages that don’t amount to anything. And yeah one can also argue that Kyman will never happen bc Cartman & Kyle are both too stubborn to ever admit they care for one another. But I mean I feel like there’s NO WAY at this point that these Kyman moments we keep getting are just fans reading too much into things, I’m sure Matt & Trey know damn well what they’re doing and they’re putting this shit in on purpose as fan service to imply that Cartman & Kyle like each other bc they know so many people ship Kyman. So yeah will Kyman ever actually become canon or happen? Honestly I don’t know, it’s so hard to tell. But I mean Creek happened so it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility and Matt & Trey are always doing unpredictable things and trolling people. I really don’t wanna say that Kyman is for sure gonna happen, but I feel like I can’t completely say it’s not possible either bc I may be wrong either way LOL. But I know for a fact there is tension and subliminal messaging going on and these annoying ass anti-kymans are just gaslighting everyone for pointing out what we can clearly see. If we’re anti-semitic for seeing what’s going on between Cartman & Kyle then I guess Matt & Trey must be anti-semites too bc they’re the ones doing this shit and putting it in the show, not us. (And I’m Jewish btw LOL)
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
Thoughts about the Iceman mini series a few weeks on:
I'm surprised by how positive I still feel about it. I was expecting my enthusiasm to be at least 70% "new content finally omg" and fade a lot over time, but actually I still feel really good about it.
Thinking about what other people have said:
A lot of the backlash I've seen is from people who just really don't vibe with the art style which is a) completely valid but b) not really a complaint I care about. Like, for instance, I can't watch Rick and Morty - the animation makes me feel physically ill idk it's so off-putting - but I couldn't use that as an argument for or against the overall quality of the show. It's not bad necessarily - it's just a style I don't like. It's just one of those things.
I've seen some people complain about the Romeo thing, and tbh I really don't care. Some people have made it out to be problematic, but I don't buy into that, which I've talked about elsewhere. And I've also seen some people complain that Romeo isn't really an independent character and it's bad for that reason. This is funny to me because Bobby's last love interest was Christian and that was the biggest non-event let's be real.
It's fine if Bobby goes on dates with a side character. Like, I cannot stress enough how much it is not a problem that he has a random love interest that isn't a pre-existing major character. And it's weird to see people suggesting "fixes" to this that are just ludicrous ideas narrative-wise? Maybe people need to stop viewing characters' relationships as their assigned endgame ship, and instead see this storylines as what they are. i.e. stories.
Some negatives:
I think my biggest worry about this in general has nothing to do with the mini-series itself, and has more to do with Duggan, and Bobby's writing outside of his solo appearences.
I can't imagine anything from this series being revisited or continued by Duggan in a way that isn't just plain awful. I think Vecchio's done a good job of filling in the void left by Marauders, but what good does that do if he spends another few years in limbo? I can appreciate the series as its own, standalone thing. But still - I have very low expectations going forward.
The global warming thing is a funny thing to bring up, but idk maybe it would be funnier as a tweet. I do like the ever present implication that 616 earth just has way worse pollution and eco damage than the real world, and that's why the Storm and Bobby can't fix everything. Maybe whatever Tony Stark is up to is just environmental poison. Maybe the human torch's carbon footprint really is that bad.
Another thing I've thought of is that there are aspects of Bobby's character that didn't get explored here and maybe could have been. Bobby's dad is Catholic, and his mum is Jewish. This didn't get brought up in this comic at all, and it's not like it had to be, but like. Ok, so the way I interpret it is that the mixed nature of Bobby's heritage is less about his own beliefs and lifestyle (you never get the impression he's particularly religious in the first place, or that he has any angst about fusing the two different cultural traditions), but more about the way he feels inadequate and out-of-place. Like, he's got all these insecurities and imposter syndrome, and his childhood experience of "I don't belong anywhere" is a part of that. I bring it up because THIS IS TOTALLY RELEVANT to the themes of this series and could have fit in seamlessly.
Some positives:
Related to the last thing, I did really appreciate how the series directly confronts the "living up to your potential" thing and calls it out as a false and harmful way of understanding his life. Yes, this was the original unsubtle theme of the 90s storyline, but seeing as Duggan seems to not understand it, it's worth repeating it. Bobby does belong, he's not an imposter. I really appreciate this.
I also think Vecchio is good at handling the omega mutant thing. Like, ok so if you're writing Storm or Magneto or whoever, you know that it's never a question of whether or not they can do The Impressive Thing with their powers. It's a matter of when and how, and what their internal journey is like. This is not super complicated by hey, Duggan struggles with it so I guess it's worth spelling out. It's not inherently impressive or interesting for Bobby to get really big, or survive an injury, or freeze a lot of stuff. And it's weird for him to brag about it when he does. It's about putting something creative on the page, and about feeling feelings.
I loved the bit about being distant from humanity. That was on point for the character.
He should get to keep the facial hair.
He's being drawn too blue in other comics. Vecchio goes for mostly white with blue accents and that's fine, but not the only way of doing things. There are tons of good blue Icemen out there. But he shouldn't be looking like Dr. Manhattan. Just move that cursor up a little bit on the old colour diamond. Please. For me.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Book of Mosiah Chapter 8. "The Seer."
Ammon teaches the people of Limhi—He learns of the twenty-four Jaredite plates—Ancient records can be translated by seers—No gift is greater than seership. About 121 B.C.
Jared= "the descendant."
Limhi= "To be as a stream".
The Gematria for "24 Plates" is "How to wake a man up from a total nightmare."
1 And it came to pass that after king Limhi had made an end of aspeaking to his people, for he spake many things unto them and only a few of them have I written in this book, he told his people all the things concerning their brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla.
The Book of Mormon is, as we have discovered a kind of Jewish religious analysis called a Midrash. It says we are learning how the people of Zarahemla, "The Place of Enlightenment" behave.
In the last chapter we learned of the existence of a man named Zeniff, "the balancer":
2 And he caused that Ammon should stand up before the multitude, and rehearse unto them all that had happened unto their brethren from the time that Zeniff went up out of the land even until the time that he himself came up out of the land.
3 And he also rehearsed unto them the last words which king Benjamin "the Right Hand", "The most realized" had taught them, and explained them to the people of king Limhi "the Voice of God", so that they might understand all the words which he spake.
4 And it came to pass that after he had done all this, that king Limhi dismissed the multitude, and caused that they should return every one unto his own house.
5 And it came to pass that he caused that the plates which contained the record of his people from the time that they left the land of Zarahemla, should be brought before Ammon, that he might read them.
Ammon= the multittudes, the nation.
עמם
The verb עמם ('mm) probably expressed to be inclusive or comprehensive. Its rare uses in the Bible relate to making secrets or making info available to an in-crowd. Preposition עם ('im) means 'with', מעם (me'im) means 'from', and עמה ('umma) means 'beside'. Noun עם ('am) means a people, ranging from all of mankind to the in-crowd of a small village. Noun עם ('am) refers to one's (paternal) kinsman.
6 Now, as soon as Ammon had read the record, the king inquired of him to know if he could interpret languages, and Ammon told him that he could not.
7 And the king said unto him: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage.
Why can't the people understand what is written in the language of the Voice of God by the most learned? What is up with that?
The dispersal of 43 lifetimes into the wildernness means there must be maximum comphrehension of the Torah and related documents plus three lifetimes spent in an era of non-violence to demonstrate complete enlightenment after the immersion. This is also what is meant by the term Zeniff:
If we look in the Torah, we find many other things that are associated specifically with the number 40:
In the episode of Noah and the Flood, we learn that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.
A mikvah needs to have 40 se’ah (a measurement) of water in order to be able to purify someone. In fact, this is one of the explanations as to why, during the Flood, it rained for 40 days, corresponding to the 40 se’ah of a mikvah.
Regarding the maximum amount of lashes one could get, the Torah describes the amount as 40 (albeit in practice, one could get a maximum of 39).
According to the Talmud, it took “40 minus one”5 types of creative work to build the Mishkan (Tabernacle).
What is the common thread here? What is the symbolism of the number 40?
The mystics explain that any preparation for a transformative change is associated with the number 40. Thus, whether it is the flood water of Noah, which cleansed and purified the world, going to the mikvah, which purifies the person, lashes, which atone for one’s sins, or receiving the Torah, each is essentially a catalyst for transformation6 and is therefore associated with the number 40.7
Why is that?
10 x 4
Kabbalah explains that all of reality can be divided into four worlds: Atzilut (Emanation), Beriah (Creation), Yetzirah (Formation), and Asiyah (Action.) These four worlds, in turn, emanate from and are rooted in the four letters of the holiest name of G‑d.
8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel.
9 And for a testimony that the things that they had said are true they have brought twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold.
10 And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.
=the Ephod.
11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?
12 And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.
13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.
18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.
19 And now, when Ammon had made an end of speaking these words the king rejoiced exceedingly, and gave thanks to God, saying: Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men.
20 O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she should rule over them!
21 Yea, they are as a wild flock which fleeth from the shepherd, and scattereth, and are driven, and are devoured by the beasts of the forest.
We should not need swords. A seer that knows how things have gone, has a grasp of what is going on should know what is going to happen next.
All of you pay attention to me- this behavior we have, the one that demonstrates we think we are helpless and that nothing can be done is ridiculous. Everyone needs to grow up and take charge, act like adults and do what has to be done. One does not need a prophet, a king, or a seer to be present, awake, and live competently.
Without the apparence of propriety in everything we do as members of this civilization, there is no proof the Instructions and the Gospels are valid. To provie they are correct is the bottom line of the Ark of the Covenant all baptized persons and Mitzvahs have made with God.
Just as we will see after Year Zero, God materialized and was made man to prove He is not of a devolved character. It has always been our turn to prove the same in return.
When the differences in the Testimony between the two are reduced to nil, then the Seer is made.
0 notes
Note
totally not trying to be rude i promise i'm just curious and nosy. you identify as pagan but i see you talk a lot about god and the bible, you post some religious imagery aesthetics, can i ask why that. like do you still believe in god or is it a religious trauma reclaiming thing?
Oh now here's an interesting question. No worries, I don't find it rude! Hope you enjoy my inability to give a short answer.
TLDR: Yes, I have religious trauma that affects my engagement with media and no, I don't believe in God and I *definitely* have no desire to worship him. Hypothetically, if he does exist, I intend to bite him. The majority of my deities are from the Greek pantheon and that's where my rather eclectic faith lies. I have an appreciation for the bible as a work of fiction and enjoy certain kinds of biblical themes/imagery in visual, literary, and narrative media. I don't generally think of that as "reclaiming," rather, it's my unique way of engaging with it in a form that benefits my mental health and sense of self. I'm mindful of engaging with Abrahamic religion in a culturally respectful manner (i.e., I'm pro-Jewish) and I have zero ill intent towards Christians that respect other people's rights and don't wield their religion as a political weapon. I also have a great deal of compassion for people who are victims of religious abuse/manipulation/exploitation, such as individual Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now, let's get into the long version under the cut! Naturally, I'm gonna bring up Hannibal Lecter, but did you really expect any different?
First, context. Something I talk about a lot is being an ex-Jehovah's Witness. Now, an important detail is that I was born into the religion. As soon as I could speak, my parents taught me to say "Jehovah," because that was God's name. As soon as I could read, they gave me a picture book with bible stories in it. By the time I hit 14, I was baptized. It's a dedication thing for JWs, so you have to have some level of maturity for baptism, (take that with a grain of salt since I've seen a lot of little kids get baptized and *I* certainly wasn't ready to make that kind of commitment and would 100% go back and change it if I could) and be able to explain the doctrine in detail. In their words, it's like marrying your faith. I got involved in full-time door to door ministry after that. De-indoctrination wasn't an easy process--perhaps I'll tell that story in another post sometime--and concepts of God and the bible are imprinted deep into my mind as a result of religion ruling the first 17 years of my life. I've had more time as a JW than I've had outside of it and it'll be a happy day when I've aged enough for that to stop being true. So, as you can imagine, that knowledge and attachment doesn't just disappear. Some people distance themselves far enough that it ceases to matter but that hasn't really worked for me personally.
So, where does that leave me? Well... Really, really weird about God. See, I put my faith largely into the Greek pantheon and worship my deities through witchcraft and cooking. Capital-G God has become more of a loose concept for me. Objectively, no, I don't believe he exists. On a more abstract level, on the tiny off chance I'm wrong, I am pissed at that guy. I'll raise hell at the pearly gates cuz I got words for the big man. If he's real, I find him unworthy of worship. Which is why Hannibal Lecter's concept of God as a killer intrigues me. It makes the whole notion easier to digest. (hah, see what I did there?) Hannibal doesn't worship God, doesn't pray, but does believe on some level--the depth of which depends on interpretation and the specific adaption--and is interested in God. Even though my feelings aren't exactly the same, oh man I get that. If God is not love, but power and wrath, then my whole story makes more sense to me. I find it quite poetic and oddly comforting, actually.
The point is, examining the bible as a work of fiction has made my religious trauma easier to confront. Seeing the bible not as something to live by, not the inspired word, just a book of stories. In that perspective, the bible offers some really fascinating themes and imagery. It's been woven into so many creative works since. We've all seen the jokes about The Inferno being a self-insert fic or Supernatural being bible fanfiction (though, another grain of salt and some awareness there as Eric Kripke is Jewish) and those are just two examples of the myriad body of art that's drawn inspiration from it. Regardless of your feelings on Abrahamic religion, its cultural impact has been enormous, even if it is important to acknowledge the measurable societal harm it's caused. These two truths can coexist.
I've yet to take any religious studies classes, so what I know about these texts is based in my childhood religion and subsequent independent study/discussion. My personal frame of reference is largely exclusive to Christianity but I'm always seeking to learn new things. I welcome diverse perspectives in any matter. When discussing antifascism and its history, I often repeat the sentiment that it's not enough to be anti-Nazi, you also need to be pro-Jewish. When fighting against something, you must also fight for something. I fully support religious freedom as a fundamental right. My beliefs and opinions are my own. It's not my place to disrespect someone's faith, so long as that faith doesn't result in objectively harmful actions or negatively affect larger-scale politics. It's simply not my business. Fundamentalist Christians that raise children with severe trauma and use it as an excuse to restrict reproductive care or oppress minorities? That is my business and fair game for criticism.
In conclusion, I don't think of my engagement with Christian religious text and concepts as "reclaiming" anything other than my own spiritual agency. Doing so has been good for my sense of identity and it's benefited my mental health. Hence one reason I'm pro-ship: I know fiction and art can soothe the tough process of addressing trauma. Just because my choice of content isn't Dead Dove-related doesn't undermine the overall idea that fiction is a vessel for people to take their power back. So yeah, my relationship with the concept of God is complicated. I love biblical themes and I almost always pull that thread when it's presented to me. Food for thought :)
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
djmfnyc
Mitchell Frederick
urlhasmoved-blog
t'hy'la.
drretros-taxidermy
Silliest Doctor and Evilest Alien
soursweetjelly
Untitled
grannyplayer
old lover