#and I’m not 100% into the Christian interpretations
Text
The album and the Matty Healy of it all; the Allegory and a literary breakdown for you all :)
As an english girly, I am having the most fun dissecting this album. She wrote her entire story into the album. It’s an allegory, each song has two major interpretations, one is the obvious (matty/joe/travis/PATERNITY TEST) whereas the other is her truth. This is a literary device that has been used in writing throughout history since forever. Everything about this album is so intentional, especially the Matty Healy of it all. This album has been planned so meticulously, every move she’s made with the beards has been to directly tie into the songs and the references. She needed a heavily documented example, she wants people to believe it, so when she burns it all down she can say “look at how easy is was to construct a narrative, hide an allegory within it and watch no one get it, it’s happened my whole life”, this is why this album is so much louder to all of us than the rest of them, because we have always seen the second story but now she’s making it more obvious. But they will get it, the story in this album is so strong, she’s coming out and she’s made this so she can send people to look back at her music (lookin’ backwards/might be the only way to move forward- her entire catalogue is the manuscript) screaming “I told you, I laid it all out. You didn’t believe me!” This is the post mortem, every reason why she’s ‘dead’ (the inauthentic version) is laid out in the album.
For example, i’ll break down ‘Fortnight’ since we have the MV imagery too. On the surface is about her fling with MH. If you get down to the next layer it’s about the failed coming out & Karlie. About how she almost had it all “for a fortnight” (just a metaphor for a short time), how her plans got ruined and how she’s doing it over again. She was supposed to be sent away, she was meant to go stay in the asylum (the closet).
“Now you’re in my backyard, turned into good neighbours”.
She has Karlie so close to her, but hidden in her backyard, no one can see her in her backyard.
“Your wife waters flowers, I want to kill her.” There is something that is in the way of them being together, she wants it to end (her public narrative). Could also be a reference to JK, he gets to to be with Karlie, watering flowers in her garden (betty’s garden anyone) while Taylor watches, she wants to kill the perception of him as Karlie’s husband.
The rest of the song moves into Karlie & Taylor getting closer, they’re plotting a way out.
“Now you’re at the mailbox, turned into good neighbours, my husband is cheating, I want to kill him.” Again, Taylor’s husband is her public persona, she wants to kill it.
When you add in the music video, she’s breaking out of the asylum with her twin, then she was put right back in there and her twin is performing experiments on her. I think Post Malone represents both Taylor and Karlie at different points in the MV, because both of their own choices are also part of the reason they’re still closeted, she’s acknowledging this. But then something happens, one of them can’t do it anymore so they run away. This is the release of the album, specifically 2am 04/19 (fresh out the slammer), Taylor’s on top of the box, she’s out; this the endgame for her now, but Karlie is still stuck in the phone box (the closet). But not for long! 😘
Every single song is like this, there’s a very intricate but obvious second story. They’re not all about Karlie, there’s a lot about her childhood, other muses (thank you aimee is not about Kim, it’s about a hometown love), growing up, her fans, the industry, closeting, christianity, masters heist.
I’ll touch base quickly on ‘The Albatross’.
She’s coming to take down SB, i’m not sure 100% how but I think it has to do with the coming out and exposing everything he’s done to her to keep her in the closet for so long (it’s a lot darker than people think).
She is here to destroy him.
“Now you’re persona non grata” he’s not going to be able to work anymore, he’s going to be exiled from the music industry.
There’s always been the iffiness around the masters situation, people saying she was told prior, her insisting she wasn’t. The below is a confession (and a threat).
“Wise men once read fake news
And they believed it
Jackals raised their hackles
You couldn't conceive it
You were sleeping soundly
When they dragged you from your bed
And I tried to warn you about them”
She lied, she knew about the master situation but she said she didn’t. Her fans believed it though and they crucified him, she tried to warn him how powerful they were. She’s already embedded that image of him in their minds, so when the next thing comes out (lol), they’re going to raise absolute hell, his entire career is going to be over.
“thanK you aIMee”, the entire world right now thinks it’s about Kim Kardashian, because she capitalised ‘KIM’ in the title, there’s that line about her kid singing her song (which coincidentally did happen). It’s so obviously about her right! No, it’s another “blue dress on a boat”, something she has done throughout her whole career is splice monumental images of Taylor Swift ™ into her songs, so she can sing about her real life without being questioned. Except this time, she’s trying to make you question it, that’s why it’s so OBVIOUSLY 🙄 about Kim Kardashian. A red herring if you will 😉. It’s meant to point you towards one thing, when it’s really not about that thing at all.
tldr: everything about the album is intentional, she’s layered two narratives together on purpose. one at surface level, one a bit deeper.
Images are both Taylor’s & Aaron‘s words on the album, about hidden meanings and secrets.
And if you need any further proof, at exactly 4:19 of ‘The Tortured Poets Department’ title track, she says “who’s gonna troll you?”. The entire album is the troll, for the general public, it’s not about the men at all.
98 notes
·
View notes
Text
Cassandra Analysis ☕️
Please bare with me if any of this doesn’t make sense or isn’t accurate. I’m sort of newer to the Kaylor stuff and don’t know everything 100% but I think Cassandra is absolutely about Karlie.
“So they [the public] killed Cassandra first ‘cause she feared the worst [possibly being outed] and tried to tell the town [come out]”
“So they filled my cell with snakes, I regret to say, Do you believe me now?” Her telling Karlie she knew telling people would ruin everything and she didn’t want to at least not right now.
I know some think Taylor wanted to come out and Karlie didn’t but I think it could go either way.
In this song I think Taylor knew that fans (and family) were catching on “They knew, they knew, they knew the whole time” And she didn’t feel safe enough because of her family, “The family, the pure greed, The Christian chorus line” and “Blood’s thick but nothin’ like payroll”
We all know her dad really only cares if she’s making money and he feared if she came out the money would stop.
Feel free to add on anything if you please!
Note worthy I interpreted “I patched up the crack along the wall” as her “fixing” her image by getting more beards and playing the hetero role as perfect as she could
39 notes
·
View notes
Note
Not sure if you’ve already been asked this, but what do you think of that interpretation of Disney’s Snow White where some people say she actually died at the end, and that the prince represents Jesus taking her to heaven? I feel like there is definitely Christian imagery (and subtle values) in the movie, but I’m curious about whether you think this interpretation would either elevate or undermine the point of the film. For that matter, do you think the theory holds any weight?
Theres 100% Christian imagery and sub-values in the movie, you're absolutely right. For sure. Thats all it is. Snow White herself prays, and the Prince brings her back to life and takes her away to a castle that looks suspiciously like it's heaven, and the Queen is blasted to death by a lightning bolt from above, etc. Matthew 6:21 says "for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." That's one of the points of Snow White, if not the MAIN point. More on that in this post.
But do I think the filmmakers intentionally wanted people to subliminally realize that Snow White had died and gone to heaven? No. I have seen the theory, though. They think the skeleton the Queen kicks in the dungeon was actually the Prince because of a deleted scene where she did have him in the dungeon, and he and Snow are both dead, whatever.
But no, if that were the case, it certainly would undermine the whole point of the movie. Snow White is pure, innocent love. She is exactly the same, inside and out.
Meanwhile, Grumpy, who is a softie and emotionally vulnerable, pretends to be tough and hard. Meanwhile the Queen, who is petty, small minded, and wicked on the inside pretends to be beautiful and will only attack Snow White in disguise.
Snow White has no disguises: she's pure. And one of the things she's purest and most open about is her wish for someone to love and be loved by. When she gets that wish, she wholeheartedly believes he will come back for her. It's why she doesn't despair. It's why she maintains a good attitude. It's why she is the sweet and cheery creature the Dwarfs come to love--she has that faith.
It's like she tells the crying baby bluebird before the Huntsman tries to kill her: "your mama and papa can't be far." There's someone out there who loves you and they'll come back for you, so why cry? That's how she responds to her own situation, too.
So then, if the thing she had faith in never came to pass--if she just died and he took her to heaven--it would feel like she was wrong all along; he wasn't going to come in time, or whatever. She might as well have despaired.
Besides, why would the Dwarfs be cheering and excited when the Prince carries her away? Doesn't make sense to draw them all in raw, various stages of grief, then explosively happy when she wakes up. Not if she's not really waking up. What, did they all die too? No, of course not.
I see why people think that, but it's just Biblical imagery, not literal they-died-and-went-to-heaven narrative.
#asked#answered#Snow White#thanks for asking#Snow White and the seven dwarfs#Disney princesses#Disney#classic film#au#theory
40 notes
·
View notes
Note
ooo I love a Heretic lore drop! loving Bastian’s very christian take on the Hours situation, I’m assuming the order of angels the Sun In Rags fucked up became to literal devils from the bible. Question tho! The name Pyre-Hawk has come up before but they’ve never really gotten a lore post or any idea of what their vibe is. It sounds like a metaphysical orgy but what is their deal?
I love the Pyre-Hawk. He/she/it (gender-wise it is truly one of the 'anything goes' great powers; pick whatever pronoun you prefer. It presents itself as a 30-storey high flaming bird that is 100% always having the most fantastic time imaginable) is so not Bastian's vibe so he hasn't fucked with it much, but of all the Hours, it is unquestionably the most fun at parties. (Bastian's birthday party energy is just rotten.)
Orgiastic? Potentially. There is nothing inherently carnal about the Pyre-Hawk's exquisite energies, but you absolutely will see Pyre-Hawk cultists get carried away and fall into wild bacchanalia. But that's because getting carried away is what the Pyre-Hawk is all about! The Pyre-Hawk attracts worshippers who believes that experiencing the divine should be an overwhelming experience of liberation and joy. Dance! Sing! Scream! Speak in tongues! Throw yourself around the room! Make love! Handle snakes! See visions of a great light so radiant and compelling that the purest, truest expression of your soul is to throw yourself into it and become a part of it! Embrace abandon and love, throw aside ego and restraint! To approach the divine is to hurl yourself, ecstatically and with full consent, into self-annihilation! Drink from the cup of fire, drain it down to the dregs, and be free!
Many religions have ecstatic traditions, and Pyre-Hawk veneration can be found in nearly all of them. As 'a great burning winged figure that appears suddenly in the sky and fills everyone who sees it with stunning and forceful joy,' appearances of the Pyre-Hawk in the Christian West are almost always interpreted as visions of the Holy Spirit, or some congratulatory angel.
Bastian believes the Pyre-Hawk is the mantle of the Sun-in-Glory itself; the radiance of Lucifer, separated from Him in the fall. Outside of his little conclave of Emperor-Wolf venerators, no one really knows what the Pyre-Hawk is, or where it came from. It sits the Sixth Throne, on the shore of Candle Lake, which used to belong to the Wakefire, before the Vigilant Hour was slain by the Rending during the War of Intercalation. One day, without any warning whatsoever, the Pyre-Hawk erupted from the lake in all its burning radiance, flew straight to the empty Throne, and began binding it to itself.
Ordinarily some wholly unknown power laying claim to a vacant Throne might meet with some opposition, or at least interrogation; but the Pyre-Hawk was such a completely excellent vibe that pretty much the entire rest of the Calendar decided that this was a best-case scenario, and let it happen uncontested. The one reservation to be had about the Pyre-Hawk's ascension is that this immaculate bird appears to have no interest in maintaining the Wakefire's watch over the Emperor-Wolf's prison (also on Candle Lake). The Pyre-Hawk is not a cop, and has no use for cops, or even the concepts of 'crime' and 'punishment.'
The Pyre-Hawk can be petitioned through Lamp (vision, luck, foresight, knowledge, madness and insight) and Flame (the supremacy of personal will, the refusal to be limited, creative impulse, & the desire to seize the right to reshape the world).
21 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hey. Don’t know if this is overstepping and if it is I apologize, but. Saw your posts about religious stuff. Just want to say that I’ve been in a pretty similar place before, and you aren’t alone. I know this is really hard, and it’s scary. It’s so damned scary. But it gets better. It’s okay to question your religion; I’d even call it healthy. Blind faith is meaningless, you can’t be said to truly believe anything until you look at it closely, and critically, and Decide. This, Too, Shall Pass. You will find your answers, and you will find your peace. You won’t find *all* the answers but hey, no one does.
I don’t have all the answers (no one does; if anyone claims to they’re a liar) hell I don’t have most of them. But with regards to homosexuality: I learned to accept it before I realized I’m bi, so my experience is a bit different from you. But here was a thought that I found helpful: Gay people exist—folks who are exclusively or near exclusively attracted to the same gender. If homosexuality is wrong, then those folks are more tempted than others people; the deck’s stacked against them. And they have to choose between righteousness and love. If God is just, then this just won’t do. Being gay must be fine.
The Bible’s weird, and hard to navigate. I think of it as divine, inspired truth filtered through fallible humans. There’s lessons and truth there, but it ought not be taken too literally. That might be satisfactory, that might not.
Really, what I think is most important is that you believe in a loving God. If god is unjust, if god is cruel, if god is malicious, if god hates… then he ought not be worshipped. Believe in a God worth believing in. Believe in a good that loves you. A God that loves would make no hell. A God that loves would not hate who you are and you you love. A God that loves would not make you ashamed of the joys of life.
You can get through this, I know you can. You are not alone. You are not wicked. You are loved.
Again, sorry if this is an overstep. It’s just that I’ve been through something similar, and wanted to share what helped me.
Thank you so much. No worries, it isn't an overstep at all! Reading this made me feel a lot better about everything. Especially the thing you mentioned about believing in a loving God. That's something I've always wished was more emphasized when people are speaking about Christianity to others, which feels like such a silly want considering the fact that Jesus loving everyone is such a prevalent thing in it. It feels so ironic to know that a religion based around love has such a judgemental community 😭😭 hearing about how I'm loved and accepted by God from other people yet still have the chance of being sent to eternal damnation if I don't abide by everything as I'm supposed to is so like... I don't even know how to put my feelings about it into words anymore but you know what I mean!! So thank you very much for bringing that up.
The idea of interpreting scripture as something divinely inspired and filled with truth yet still affected by the way humans are and how they tend to change things up is also something I agree with and think makes a lot of sense as well. I remember a while ago I was in bible study and the topic of the Bible being God's word was brought up and the teacher's reasoning for why every single thing in it shouldn't be questioned and should be accepted as 100% literal was because the Bible itself says that and I remember being so confused because even if it is a holy text, that doesn't stop people from altering certain things on their own accord. 😭😭
OH!!! OH OH OH oh my gosh and the point you made about how the existence of gay people just existing as they are disproves it being a terrible sin was really nice to hear as well. The way you explained it made a lot of sense and I feel like hearing it put that way lifts a lot of the tension regarding it off my shoulders. I learned queer stuff existed and accepted it pretty quickly before realizing I'm bi (and mostly attracted to women) as well, and I forgot if I wrote this in the intial post but I've been really happy and unashamed with my identity up until I started really getting into religion and engaging with people who share a similar worldview, so that was kind of the turning point that led me to start worrying about it a lot </3 Thinking about it like this makes things fit together in my mind really well, so thank you a lot for mentioning that as well.
Just... thank you for taking the time to write all of this down in general. I keep bouncing back and forth between "I'm okay and don't need to change anything" and "my life is full of sin that I need to get rid of" and whenever I find that I'm starting to feel a lot better about it, I find something else/someone I know says something that makes me question myself again. It feels so comforting to know that I'm not alone in this and just... ahhh thank you thank you thank you!!
15 notes
·
View notes
Note
What are your thoughts on the relationship between Terror's lieutenants? Both in canon (book and show) and whatever ideas you yourself might have.
I'm wanna know what you think their reactions to Jopson's promotion or to John's death were. But I'm especially interested in what was going on before the walk out, just how they interacted in your mind onboard the ship.
I got curious because of the music fragment from the book where Little and Hodgson argue, and because of Kajganich's comments about Hodgson probably being Little's closest friend on board.
Thanks and cheers!
So this got real long real fast! Not even sure I fully answered your question, friendo. I just thought too long about The Lads, got emotional, and produced this deeply-passionate word vomit.
Enjoy!
-
On the one hand, it’s frustrating that we see so little of the relationship between the three of them, either on-screen or in the book. But on the other, it’s fantastic in that it leaves so much room for interpretation!
I think no one will be surprised that I have absolutely made the most of those few scant snippets and references, and interpreted a deep, abiding, loving friendship from them… :')
-
I see their relationship in the book as the more straightforward and positive of the two.
The Hodgson and Little Musical Disagreement is an excellent example and I’m glad you mentioned it. Not only does it show a softer side to Little, who in the book is a much simpler, stoic kinda guy, it also gives us the pleasure of guessing at his reasoning. Does he just like to see Hodgson happy and is willing to compromise to make that happen, or does he know that his garrulous friend just won’t shut the fuck up until he gets his way?
Who knows? Take your pick! Either way, it shows they’re buddies who care enough about one another’s happiness not to sweat small stuff like that.
(My own personal headcanon is that Little secretly quite likes Hodgson's shite music. He’s definitely got a sense of humour in the book, even if quite a sarcastic one, so it's not hard for me to imagine book-Little as the Roy Kent of the Expedition with a lighter side he's at pains to keep hidden.)
We also have, for example, Irving doing Hodgson a solid and pulling a double-watch when the latter is ill which again shows a willingness to be there and make sacrifices for one another.
And one of my favourite little snippets comes early on, during Tuunbaq's attack on Strong and Private Heather. By the time Crozier even makes it out of his cabin to investigate, the three lieutenants are already there, arms full of weapons and 100% ready to rock so not only are they friends in my mind but they’re a tight and efficient unit on a practical level too, a well-oiled machine.
-
There’s definite friendship and a strong working dynamic in the show too, though I do think you have to search even harder for it in many instances. And I definitely see a more complex, bittersweet edge to their relationship in general.
They still care about and make sacrifices for each other – think of wee Irving, for example, taking one for the team and breaking the bad news to Crozier about all the men abandoning him for the flagship. (He says that Little asked him to but I choose to believe he's a good, caring, Christian boy at heart and did it himself to relieve his friend after a tough night).
There’s definite trust there too. There's a teeny wee fleeting moment I like where the booze-hunting party returns to Terror with Silna and the late Mr Hornby. Little briefs Hodgson, asks him to deal with the former, and specifically expresses trust in him ("She'll be fine with Lieutenant Hodgson") which is well warranted - Hodgson sees that the job is done right away and with minimal fuss.
Another little example that springs to mind from that same episode is a deleted line from the script. After the hatch is smashed, Crozier asks who's on deck and Little answers immediately, painfully aware that Hodgson is up there, painfully aware of all that’s at stake.
I think the biggest factor in the stymieing of their in-show friendship is The Horrors in general, but also Crozier specifically. Not to turn this into one of my patented anti-Crozier rants but I think he affects the men under him in two ways.
Firstly, at his worst, he’s an extra enemy for them to deal with, an extra problem. In many ways I think it brings them closer – Us vs. The World, Us vs. Our Boss’s Bullshit – but it’s almost for the wrong reasons, if that makes sense? If nothing else, it doesn’t leave much room for tenderness or levity or relaxation or any of the other things that make up friendship.
Secondly, I think he infects them with his secretive, insular nature. That’s the most heart-breaking thing of all to me – all three of them are suffering so much in their own ways but we see no real indication that they're getting sufficient chance to confide in one another about it. They just keep it all bottled up inside with no outlet for it.
-
That's another difference, I think, between book and show, and it's what I'll end this absolute diatribe on in specific relation to Irving's death - that fatal lack of catharsis.
I've just reread the chapter that includes Irving's funeral and genuinely had tear in my eyes at the end. Hodgson is distraught, having witnessed the grisly aftermath of Irving's murder and while we don't directly see a reaction from Little, the chapter ends with he, Hodgson, and a variety of other officers dismissing the men so they can take on the responsibility of burying Irving themselves.
They couldn't protect him in life but they find value and seek a practical outlet for their grief by doing what they can to honour their friend in death.
Whereas in the show, they get no such luxury. They don't get a real chance to stop or process anything. They don't really get a chance to do anything productive with their grief. They do try - I think both attacking the Netsilik and arming the men in camp stem from a deep and frustrated need to feel like they're doing something, anything. But it's just not enough - that kind of reciprocal violence isn't a worthy substitute in the first place for the simple act of love that is burying one's friend.
When it comes to the show, I still think the love was there. It didn't change anything. There was nowhere for it to go. There were too many forces against it, bottling it all up.
But when it comes to the show and when it comes to those three, the love was absolutely there.
#The Terror#The Terror AMC#Ask#Ask game#Friendos#Long Post#Very Long Post#You simply will not believe how long and convoluted this post is#Yet here we are#No coherence only vibes#Terror Lieutenants#George Hodgson#John Irving#Edward Little#I should stress that I haven't gotten far enough in my reread to remember what happens when Hodgson joins the mutiny#I may need to revise my thoughts after that#But still
24 notes
·
View notes
Text
A friend sent me this story and it’s a good time for me to ramble on for a sec about how fucked up it is for the exact people who are wreaking abusive control and violence against their LGBTQAI+ children and the community widely are positioning themselves as protectors and the queer community as abusers simply for existing in a way that says, “you can have a happy life exactly as you are.”
Content warning: descriptions of child abuse coming…Most garden variety adult survivors of child abuse like me can tell you that it’s really really often the adults who are screaming “I’m protecting you!!!!!” at kids who are actually the exact person we needed real protecting from. My dad’s version of “protection” quite frequently meant trying to control my every thought and movement while bludgeoning me with an endless onslaught of his interpretation of Christianity as the reason and justification.
His control and violence was excused because it was “for my own good.” He was just “doing his job to protect my soul” or what the fuck ever. I’ll never forget him explaining to my brother and I how we needed “the devil beat out of us” sometimes.
I am certain this is how people like MTG parent.
There’s another post out there floating around right now about how “save the children” has become a wildly effective dog whistle for conservative Christofascists and the like. It’s true and it makes me so fucking mad because what I really really needed growing up (and eventually found, thank god) were queer affirming spaces so I could breathe for a moment and stop hating myself.
I can’t even bring words to do justice to how important 2 particular adults were to me, welcoming me to hang out in homes that became safe havens for me and many other of my friends…places were everything was gay as fuck and I was safe TRULY SAFE. To suggest they were the problem? The groomers? It’s laughable to a degree I can’t do justice.
I wish there was a way we could take the reins of the “think of the children” thing away from Christofascists. It needs to mean “create spaces where kids can be 100% themselves” and YES that will mean lots of queerness because a fucking lot of us are queer. Sure people of all types can be abusers…positioning gay and trans adults as inherent “groomers” is the same old homo and transphobia as ever, repackaged using long debunked stereotypes and outright lies.
My dad was the real groomer in my life. He tried to to groom me to accept violence as a part of love. To become some theoretical man’s good little wife and servant for life. To hate myself so deeply that I’d turn into a broken person like him and have kids I also didn’t want and export my self-hatred to them and so on, forever. Thank god he failed but if people like MTG get their way, they will abuse so many more children who may not be lucky enough to survive it. It’s terrifying and THOSE KIDS deserve and need protecting from her.
#child abuse#christofascism#abuse#violence#queerness#queer spaces#homophobia#transphobia#kids#children’s rights
176 notes
·
View notes
Text
What’s the vibe on Rick being raised Christian and having some sort of trauma with it?
Obviously him being an aggressive atheist is a big thing but then we also see things like him desperately praying in the S2 premiere when he thinks he’s going to die because his collar won’t work/he gave his collar to Morty which is… not a response you would expect from someone who is so insistent he doesn’t believe in god and has no prior relationship with religion. Not to mention moments like in Anatomy Park when he tells the family that ‘Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, was born today’ (which is obviously played for laughs but still).
Also people picked up on the fact that Morty claims he was raised ‘non-denominational Christian’ in Rick: A Mort Well Lived, which seems to be at odds with what we see with the family currently - neither Beth nor Jerry seem overly religious. However, if Rick had a Christian upbringing of his own, this could have been passed on to Beth in some form or another.
I also wonder if Rick did genuinely continue to believe in god/Christianity to some extent until he lost Beth and Diane - since this was an event that caused a lot of change to his character and worldview, it would also make sense that this could shift his religious viewpoints from Christian (whether 100% or just to a smaller extent) to atheist, since he couldn’t believe in a loving god who would allow this to happen. Additionally, Rick being ‘the smartest man in the universe’ is often related to or even used interchangeably with his status as god-like, and this was the first time he saw true evidence of this power from another Rick, which would also challenge any beliefs he may have had in god.
I think it’s also worth pointing out Toxic Rick’s line in Rest and Ricklaxation: ‘You think anyone but me could do it in a million years? You think if god was real he could do it? The answer is no, if god exists it’s fucking me!’ This is a part of himself that ‘regular’ Rick considers toxic, which we can interpret both as (the more obvious and canon-accurate) Rick disliking his own ego and god-complex as well as these concepts and actions in other Ricks, and also as him viewing these ‘blasphemous’ ideas as toxic.
I’m sure other people have pointed all of these things out before and better than me, but I just find it interesting.
#rick and morty#rick and morty spoilers#rnm#rnm spoilers#rick: a mort well lived#rick a mort well lived#rick sanchez#christianity#religion#religious trauma#how do i tag this#also disclaimer since i feel like it’s relevant#i was born and raised in the uk in a non religious family#although i went to a catholic primary school so was a catholic for a few years of my childhood#and now would consider myself an atheist#but not in a way that’s negative towards religious people or anything#i just personally don’t think there’s a god#but obviously my outlook on this is influenced by the culture i grew up in#also since my family is not religious but i was catholic at a young age i’m not always clear what’s catholicism vs christianity#also this post was inspired because i rewatched s2e1 and found it odd how rick was praying so fervently#for a supposed atheist#and i feel like it wasn’t really played for laughs that much compared to other instances?#and i had a lot of thoughts lol#anyway please let me know any thoughts or if i’ve said anything wrong#i wanted to talk about his mexican heritage a bit since i think mexico is a very christian country?#but i’m not informed enough about it so i didn’t say it#also i know the show has a very very strong atheist outlook overall#but i think it’s important to respect people’s religions#(obviously excluding extremism eg cults or forcing your beliefs on other people or using it to justify bigotry)#so nothing is intended to be negative in that way
216 notes
·
View notes
Text
Your Mercury placement shows how you navigate when it comes to communicating with others which includes(but not limited to):
-how you interpret the things that people say/do while interacting and vice versa
I have Mercury in Scorpio in the 9th house
Scorpio is ruled by Mars, the planet that rules soldiers, and I realized that I’m definitely always on the defensive when it comes to my interactions with others. I’m always expecting the other person to offend me consciously or unconsciously— and they usually always do lol. And when I say unconsciously, I mean that I’ll be having a normal conversation with someone and they’ll talk bad or have negative things to say about certain topics and things I’m really interested in or have support for.
Example: 2 of my older aunts(50+years old) and I were talking and somehow the discussion of meditating came up and one of them started saying how meditation is evil and it opens you up to the devil or some shit lmao. Meanwhile I’m sitting in the corner thinking about how i love to meditate 😭 They’re older Christian ladies so i wasn’t really worried about it but this is just an example of what I mean by people unconsciously offending me.
9th house relates to law, religion, philosophy, etc
And Scorpio relates to all things to “taboo” .. and I put taboo in quotation marks because what’s considered taboo depends on our individual culture, religion, etc.
Going back to my previous example, 99% of my family and the people I meet are Christian. If not Christian they’re Muslim. From what I’ve seen, these are the two dominant religions that black people practice. And not saying that these people are heavy into the church either, they just believe what they believe. I’m more spiritual, but I do have appreciation for all religions. But I also have interests, thoughts, and opinions that people in those religions are against or may frown upon. I’ve also come to realize that black people in general are just very conservative, so it’s not just the religious folk.
Something I also noticed about my interactions with others, is how people are also on the defensive when it comes to me lol. I’m not gonna lie, sometimes I do come off a little harsher than I mean to and I dont realize it until the last minute. But sometimes I also don’t be realizing I’m coming off harsh, rude, irritated, or annoyed, until someone tells me. But when people have to tell me this, i 100% of the time deny it because i truly don’t see it lol. For example, when I was hanging out with my groups of friends and some boys, they would call me the mean one because of how i was talking or something but i genuinely felt like i was being nice lmao.
And there’s also the fact that I can’t be sarcastic with people without them taking me seriously.
I think me being defensive makes me cautious about interacting with others in an insecure way. Like I’m always worried I’ll say the wrong thing and when I do say something I’m always gauging the other person’s reaction. And sometimes if I think or feel like something is off with how they respond to something i say, I will think about it for hours after and sometimes even days. It’s exhausting lmao.
#Mercury in 9th house#Mercury#9th house Mercury#ninth house Mercury#Mercury in ninth house#Mercury in Scorpio#Scorpio mercury
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
okay, i cannot break all the issues down in one message, but to address one. your posts about the hebrew bible in particular demonstrate that you have done nothing to understand the text.
yes, it contradicts itself. this is something that bible scholars have always acknowledged. it is a fundamentalist christian perspective to argue that the bible is supposed to be 100% logically consistent.
it is a conglomeration of many different genres that serve many purposes-for instead, conflicting accounts of the outcomes of battles are preserved because the editors of the text had a dedication to diversity of opinion and an understanding that multiple narratives could achieve different things.
your mindset is reductive and informed by a fundamentalist christian way of viewing religion. if you’re going to levy genuine critiques of religion then have at it. but inciting rage and using name-calling and blasé sarcasm do nothing to prove your point.
i’m not focusing on judaism because i don’t have objections to your treatments of all other religions-to criticize a faith that you actually have no understanding of is extremely logically unsound.
i dont disagree with you that there are major issues in all religions and no one should use religion as a shield to deflect all criticism. however, you need to criticize intelligently, first seeking to understand what you object to which you clearly have not. many of your criticisms of judaism in particular both betray your fundamentalist and incomplete understanding of religion, and serve to further anti semitic tropes.
go on this crusade if you will, but don’t think you’re accomplishing any real intellectual end. you cannot claim to critique a religion while making no effort to understand it. it certainly is not worth perpetuating anti semitism-there are ways to bring up genuine questions and complaints with religion but this isn’t it.
If it cannot decide what is true and what is not, then it's untrustworthy. You cannot claim anything about what the book describes, least of all that Jesus existed.
Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story–there was an accident, there was a resurrection.
I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I’m not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.
-- Dan Barker
These aren't matters of mere detail. The contradictions, inaccuracies and errors within the bible can't just be glossed over with your scoffing and your huffing and puffing and your pretentious handwaving. The bible makes truth claims, upon which Xianity itself precariously sits. It makes these claims to justify Xianity itself into existence. The bible's inability to paint a coherent picture is not just minor quibbles separate from an externally verifiable truth. In a car accident, there are crushed cars, injured people, maybe even a dead body, regardless of the eyewitnesses. The bible is literally the only thing that justifies Xianity, Xian belief, and the Jesus character himself. Xian belief itself is dependent upon it, otherwise it collapses. And it does.
If there is a diversity of opinion, then no opinion is more authoritative than any other. Least of all yours. You don't get to claim that it's all interpretation and opinion and perspective, and then say that mine - or anyone else's - reading of it is invalid.
Having done all that, you then dismiss me as a "fundamentalist" reading. Except, the fundamentalists will tell you that you are not the true Xian, while you're telling them that they're not the true Xian. Neither of you can prove your case. Neither of you can justify your position as being more correct than the other.
“I get many tweets from Christians saying I should keep my beliefs to myself, but I never see them tweeting that to other Christians. Weird.”
-- Ricky Gervais
However, what we do know is that for many hundreds of years the church itself held these beliefs to be true. You're forgetting, I don't believe any of this crap. But Xians do. They have for hundreds and hundreds of years. This is not my reading, this is theirs. Pretending this is an error on my part is disingenuous and dishonest. Your view is the one that is novel and new. Yours is the heretical view. And is only achieved by going to extraordinary effort to ignore most of the bible as little more than poetry and fable.
For hundreds of years, nobody needed "lenses" (seriously, that is one of the most empty, pretentious words of our time). They knew what was true. The introduction of "lenses" puts the reader in charge, not the writer. Which, of course, is deliberate to sustain belief in things that no longer stand up to scrutiny. When you use "lenses," you're looking through a preferred distortion, not at the reality.
For 1300 years, the church knew that the creation story was literally true. The Earth was flat. The flood happened. Humans lived for 900 years and people eating a magic fruit unleashed Pandora's curse on the world. The church punished Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno, because they had the knowledge of the bible. They had the Truth™. They knew the Earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, moon and stars go around it. Not because some atheist on the internet deliberately misread it that way, but because it was divine knowledge. It's only among apologists of the last hundred years of so that this has become "metaphor."
But metaphor doesn't help you. If your book is full of metaphors and allegories, then we are justified in concluding that your god and your savior are metaphors too. Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that it's not literally true, and then claim that the people in it are and really did come back from the dead and fly up into space, and expect me not to metaphorically laugh in your face.
Everyone who used the bible to describe the world got the wrong answer. Everyone who used the bible to describe history got the wrong answer. Everyone who used the bible to justify their morality got wrong answers. And you come along and act like it's just me? Are you even for real? Am I on Candid Camera?
Some part of the bible has to literally be true. Which parts are literally true? Be careful. If Adam isn't literally true, then neither is Original Sin. If Adam didn't literally exist, then the genealogy from Adam to Jesus is false, and Jesus is the direct descenant of a myth, and therefore a myth himself.
Not only that, I'm not a fundamentalist at all, because I don't care what's in the bible. You see, you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting. I'm as okay with it being fable and poetry as I am with it being taken literally. Because if your book is full of musings and legends that are open to interpretation, then it's unreliable and we need not concern ourselves with the metaphorical creatures within any more than we concern ourselves with Aesop's talking hare and tortoise, or Swift's Lilliputians. If, however, it's to be taken literally, then it's flat out wrong. If it's a mixture, then it's clearly the case that the believer themselves gets to manufacture this threshold for themselves, from their own moral intuitions, and therefore makes themselves authoritative over their own god. If you get to decide for yourself which parts of the scripture are true and which aren't, which rules apply and which don't, which descriptions of your god's nature are accurate and which aren't, then you are the author of your own god.
You are using your own moral intuitions to authenticate the wisdom of the Bible—and then, in the next moment, you assert that we human beings cannot possibly rely upon our own intuitions to rightly guide us in this world; rather, we must depend upon the prescriptions of the Bible. You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the appropriate guarantor of your moral intuitions. Your own intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular.
-- Sam Harris
I don't even care which. But the fact even you believers can't figure it out is indicative. The fact you all use "faith" to resolve and defend it is truly an indictment of both the purported truth of the beliefs, as well as "faith" itself.
What's clear is that you've never read much of anything I've ever written, because I can - and do - argue it both ways for exactly this reason. But it's much easier to attack selectively, isn't it? If you pretend that I'm a bible literalist, then you can claim victory by echoing the old weak-ass "it's a metaphor!", "it's interpretation!" canards and enjoy the reward of the endorphin buzz as you defended your god from the heathen.
What you're tacitly trying to say, while pretending that I don't understand it, is that only a Xian analysis is valid. That is, you can't validly criticize it unless you believe it. That if someone doesn't believe it, it can only be because they don't understand it. That there is no valid way to both understand it and not believe it. That there is some special knowledge that only the believer possesses that makes it somehow valid in a way the non-believer can never access. That you must believe it first, then you can understand it, and then criticize it. That if it sounds horrible and immoral, well, it's not that it is horrible and immoral, you just must not have understood it (i.e. unfalsifiable). That belief precedes truth. Which is obviously idiotic and irrational. We never demand that for anything except things that are false.
Words have specific meaning to all who understand the words. This applies to Bible words as to all others. Any literate person can understand what the Bible says and therefore what it means. Understanding the Bible doesn't require a special "anointing" from god.
-- Darwin Chandler, former Xian preacher (40 years)
Muslims tell me the same thing about Islam, by the way. That my criticism of Islam is invalid because I don't really understand it, because if I really did understand it, I would believe it. Needless to say, I don't accept it from you any more than I accept it from them.
Critical Theorists even have a word for it: Authentic. A claim or voice is only "authentic" if it agrees with the presuppositions of Critical Theory. Otherwise, it's False Consciousness or Internalized Something, or "pick me." Again, unfalsifiable, as Critical Theory remains unassailable. There's no valid way to criticize Critical Theory.
D'Angelo's essay doesn't talk about disagreements or debates, but only about those who practice social justice, and those who, “resist it.”
-- Dr. Lyell Asher
I don't care what you think of my criticism. I will not criticize on your terms. You want me to criticize "intelligently" and you have appointed yourself to be the arbiter of that vaguely defined term. That is, for me to criticize in a way that suits you, that you will accept. You want me to dance for you, to perform in a manner that pleases you. I decline. Especially since it seems clear that you won't accept anything I say without me already believing it.
You are making yourself authority over your doctrine, and pretending you are the one I must answer to. I do not recognize that authority, and I reject it entirely. This is fairly typical - as mentioned, believers also judge their own god and decide what its commandments, instructions and actions really mean, in spite of their plain reading.
When you're unhappy, you can call it not-"intelligently" and make it my fault you don't like it, without ever actually having to justify this. This is once again dishonest. I don't care what you think. Especially when I have good reason to suspect I know this doctrine better than you. I don't answer to you.
I unreservedly reject your false authority. The fact that what I'm saying displeases someone who believes in baseless magical nonsense is actually motivation for me to keep doing so. When a superstitionist is concerned about others hearing what I have to say, then it seems like it's something I should keep at. There's a vulnerability, a weak spot that I'm inching towards. (You should probably learn not to tip your hand.)
Here's a little hint for you: much of my own analysis is influenced by bible scholars. Literal bible scholars. Dan Barker, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, John Loftus, David Fitzgerald, Robert Price, David Madison, and others. Many of these people believed it until they understood it. They studied it to become more devout, then figured out through study it was false. This is actually one of the most classic pathways out of religious belief. It's so reliable that it also works for other religions, such as Islam.
"The road to atheism is littered with bibles that have been read cover to cover."
-- Andrew L. Seidel
So while you're busy pretending that this is just me, just some random nut on Tumblr making stuff up for no reason, this is little more than a way for you to go after what you perceive to be a "little fish." Except this one isn't as little as you think. And bites back.
Here's another little hint: you are not my audience. You are the subject matter. I'm not here to convince you. You are beyond the reach of reason, because you have worthless, empty "faith". My audience is the unconvinced, who are doubting and can be persuaded. Or who will awaken at 2am two years from now suddenly remembering something that now puts a crack in their "faith." And those who already don't believe but don't have their voice, haven't found the words or the courage to say so and why. Xianity is already collapsing, that's simply an objective fact. One of the contributing factors is mentalities such as yours, which clearly erode the sacred nature of the beliefs, and reposition the believer as authoritative over the "divine." I've said before, the believer themselves will tell you that their religion is false, all you have to do is listen to them. Amplifying your voice does more for my cause than for yours.
May I remind you, it's not my fault your ideology is incoherent, inconsistent and nonsensical. By your own admission, the authors themselves made it this way. Which is obviously inevitable considering none of them were there. It's trivially and uncontroversially the case that the bible is known to not be eyewitness statements, known to contain forgeries and lies (even the authors admit to it), and known to have been written decades or more after the supposed events. If you're unaware of that, you should look into it.
It's not my fault the bible says what it does. It's not my fault the bible endorses slavery, commands killing people for no reason, and offers a warrant to the believer to commit any immoral deeds while still reserving a place in paradise. These aren't mere "interpretation." These are what the bible says. Divine moral guidance that your god got wrong. Indeed, believers are betting their entire "afterlife" on the last one.
I'm just the one pointing it out. You're having a go at me, but your agitation is misplaced. You need to direct that were it belongs: your ideology. You need to be asking yourself why you believe it, how good the evidence is, and how you can justify putting your "faith" in this one book knowing what's in it and where it came from. To do that you should actually know where it came from.
Here's a good way to begin: complete the Easter challenge. Simple as that.
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.
Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?
If you cannot even say what happened on the most important day underpinning Xianity, then you have no right to make any claims about Xianity at all. Or have a go at me about it. Do this, then come back to me. If you refuse on the basis of "interpretation" or "perspective," then you've already conceded the point to me about its unreliability.
That is, the unreliability of literally the only source of the claims of Xianity and Jesus.
The crusade here is yours. You came to me, remember? I was doing my thing, and you took it upon yourself to insert yourself into my Inbox. You seem determined to have me Tumblr the way you want me to. I have done no such thing to you. I don't care what you do. But you are extremely concerned about what I do on my Tumblr, and I think you should probably consider why. What anxiety, what twinge in the back of your mind has been awakened, and why you're acting out so aggressively to try and silence both it and myself? It's not my job to alleviate you of that. It's not my obligation to protect your beliefs from you figuring out that they're false. You chose to react the way you did to my blog, and you don't get to blame me for your reaction.
So, don't try that crap with me, I'm not that gullible. Least of all the obvious lie that I'm propagating "anti-semitism." It's interesting how you came back again, and despite having the opportunity this time to present your evidence for this assertion, and yet you didn't even bother, you just made that empty, and obviously false, claim again. Y'all aren't particularly good with that whole "evidence" thing, are you?
Hell, despite sending me multiple paragraphs of just.... stuff... not only did you not factually refute anything I've said as incorrect, you didn't even identify anything I've said as being incorrect. Or "anti-semitic." Is everything you do and think so lacking in substance?
You even opened with the classically dishonest "oh, everything is so wrong that I'm not going to bother telling you how any of it is wrong." You couldn't even be bothered justifying one thing, one single thing. You had my undivided attention and you just could not be bothered demonstrating even the most basic of intellectual honesty, even the simplest demonstration of not being an indolent, pernicious time-thief.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
You don't get to whine at me about criticizing "intelligently" when you've spent all your time with me clinging desperately to the Ad Hominem fallacy like the Titanic's doorframe. You've wasted two Asks just whining at me and making empty accusations without justifying any of them. You offered nothing substantive, or even particularly coherent. You never cited or linked to anything I've said, much less showed why it's incorrect or "anti-semitic." You just threw your existential baggage at me and hoped I would carry it for you and feel obliged to pander to your angst. I don't put much stock in the opinions of those who won't - or can't - articulate a valid point or argument. And I sure don't comply with their authoritarian demands.
"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.'"
-- Christopher Hitchens
You don't have the intellectual high ground here.
We're done. I'm not wasting more time on someone as intellectually vacuous as you, who brought literally nothing. You might have an eternity to piss away, but I don't.
#ask#christianity#bible#bible study#religious logic#religious arrogance#christian arrogance#religion#religion is a mental illness
20 notes
·
View notes
Note
im curious, how does being punk affect your feeling of religion? are you still a practicing catholic/go to church?
Hahahahahaha oh boy, buckle in cause this is gonna be a fun ride. I’ll put a cut cause this is gonna be long simply due to the amount of context that is needed to understand how I’ve managed to mash these two things together in my life. I hope this answers your question anon! (And thank you for asking nicely, that usually isn’t the reaction I get).
So, for reference, I am Catholic born and raised. My mom is Catholic, my dad is only recently exploring being religious. My brother has remained a Catholic good boy throughout his life, my sister has denounced religion. I’m somewhere between them. I don’t go to church often, but I still feel at home there when I do (most of the time). So technically, I’m not a ‘Practicing Catholic’ because of that, but I’m following my faith to the best of my ability (explained below).
I 100% believe there is a god, and because of that my faith has had some rough intersections with other parts of my life, such as being punk, the communities Im a part of, and being heavily involved in STEM. And those are things that took me years to figure out for myself. When just looking at being punk though, I think where it really clicked that punk wasn’t against my religion, but actually supports it, was in my freshman year of college. Like I’ve said before, I go to a Protestant school so every class has to somehow have at least one connection to religion (as a chemistry major this can get extremely annoying). But that year, I had a history class as a gen ed, Western Civ to 1450, and an absolutely kick ass professor to go with it.
This class was the game changer for 18 year old me (oh my god that was 5 years ago). We spent a lot of time in this class talking about religions of ancient civilizations, and of course we talked about Christianity. And this man went absolutely feral. He was the man that introduced me to the concept of ‘Jesus was a punk’. And when you ignore all the random bull shit that comes out of people’s mouths at church and just look at the bible... yeah, he was right. Jesus flipped tables, he ate with societal outcasts like prostitutes and the homeless, and god did he hate the Roman government that controlled so much of the world at that time.
And I think that’s when I really felt free to embrace the punk culture. The one thing that was holding me back was gone. I also later learned that professor had a metal band (I’m now going to have to try to find his youtube again lol - its been years).
But yeah, being punk and religious in 2022 is hard. Its hard because the people who claim to be Christians are ignorant, refuse to learn, don’t know the context of the book they call holy, refuse to understand where Christianity stems from and our roots in Judaism, and keep trying to interpret the bible in a modern world (the bible can’t tell you shit about the evils of the internet man). I don’t particularly like going to church because I often find that its a snake pit disguised as a hospital. Though, that’s nothing new, if you ever take the time to read Romans (my favorite part of the bible), its full of Paul just absolutely loosing his ever loving shit because of how corrupt the churches are.
So instead of going to church once every seven days and conforming to the rest of the vipers there, I try to live my life by Jesus’ standards for interacting with others. Be kind and forgiving, try to understand other points of view, don’t discriminate based on job, color, socioeconomic status, gender, how many kids, ect. Moral of the story, in my opinion, to be a good Christian, you need to treat people as people, and welcome them with open arms. You need to give back to your community. You need to fight for a better world. You need to push back against oppressive and authoritarian governments. And those are all punk values as well.
50 notes
·
View notes
Note
I think at this point everyone has collectively lost the plot. The things going on in the f1 tag are insane.
I’d like to ask the people who demand statements from drivers: what do we actually know? what kind of official information do we have?
There was an investigation because of a misconduct.
Do we know for sure of what nature this misconduct was? No.
Do we know if the leaked evidence is real? No.
The Red Bull statement about the situation left way too much room for speculation, causing new rumors and accusations to spread like a wildfire.
At this point journalists ask drivers (who are just as clueless as the rest of us) vague questions to write new baseless articles about the situation. Let’s be honest here, not even half of the talk is about that poor woman. It’s all about power dynamics, drama and how said drama might influence the paddock and driver line ups.
I’m 100% standing behind every person who’s brave enough to take a step forward and address wrongdoings of any kind. We should all take it seriously, no matter if we know what exactly happened or not.
But wanting drivers to issue a clear statement against sexual misconduct based on rumors is actually insane. Could they have handled the situations better? Absolutely. Should their pr teams make them sit down and learn better neutral answers? Without doubt.
But right now everybody should take a step back and a good look at the actual facts we have, and think twice about random quotes that can be out of context or linked as an answer to completely different questions/ topics. I do understand the anger and frustration, but the only one that we could actually call out for handling the situation poorly is Red Bull.
The plot is so gone it went missing during the Jacobite uprising and I ain’t seen it since.
Almost nothing has been confirmed publicly.
And the journalists are taking liberties with their questioning imo. They shouldn’t be allowed to ask anything not racing related to anyone except Max, and maybe checo. I feel bad for Max but he’s kind of fair game because he brought Jos into the picture.
But wtf is Kevin Magnussen, who’s probably seen Christian Horner from 20 three times in the last year, meant to say? Is he meant to confirm he’s read the rumours? Say he’s read the messages on a bootleg Google drive link? Give his personal interpretation of Christian’s selfies?
Can we all just be so real right now.
People call drivers out of touch but they grip on reality really is tenuous for some of these Twitter warriors
5 notes
·
View notes
Note
hey, I’m Hellenistic-polytheistic-curious (not sure if people say that) and I saw a post where you were talking about how the gods aren’t dangerous and you don’t need to be like afraid of praying to them, and I was wondering how you, like, interoperate myths where gods do punish people for stuff like not worshipping them (anymore/enough/etc)?
I’m guessing it’s similar to the Christian Bible (which, not to trying to be disrespectful somehow that’s just something with which I just have experience 🥲) where, since it’s apocryphal, you just kinda accept some things and reject others due to that nature, but I wanted to ask.
Also, does one have to be certain to worship? Sometimes I worry I’ll get into it and fall out and then feel guilty or be afraid. Or that they’ll sense that I’m unsure and then feel as though I’ve been dishonest, or feel betrayed, or just think I’m not worth it because I’m not devout,!something like that.
thank you if you read/reply to this!!!!💖and sorry for the anon ask lol I’m just kinda too nervous to do it publicly
Hey, Nonny! Thank you for the ask, it's absolutely no trouble for me to answer!
Honestly speaking, Hellenic Polytheism differs from person to person. Unlike Christianity, there is no correct way to worship - no "set of rules", if you will. A lot of how worship is today can be seen in ancient times as well; people worshipped pretty much entirely different from each other simply based on which city or region they lived in. Each city and region even had myths that were unique to them! Most myths we have today actually stem from Athens (this is why Ares is often depicted very negatively in most of these myths; he was NOT favored in Athens and was considered anti-Athenian).
When it comes to mythic literalism (accepting myths as 100% real and factual), it's mostly unsustainable in worship to believe each and every myth out there, in my opinion. The reason for this is because myths, as a whole, were not generally seen that way, even in ancient times. They were stories that taught lessons, described why certain unexplainable things happened, and/or told of what a certain god might be like and why (as well as where they came from). It's definitely up to the worshipper how to interpret mythos. You can pick and choose what to believe, you can believe everything, or you can just straight up believe none of it - it's really truly up to you. I would suggest, however, looking into historical context of these myths first. Many myths written about the gods and their wrath were based on why people should respect the gods (or authority figures in general) and what happens when you don't do that. Their purpose served mostly to prevent people from going around yelling "fuck you" to the gods when they didn't get what they wanted - be respectful, and the gods shall respect you in return. Of course, that is just one of many interpretations, and you are more than welcome to believe what you will.
In reality, the gods are very kind. So long as you aren't be openly antagonistic (going out of your way to be disrespectful, cruel, rude, etc.), they aren't going to be upset with you for not knowing certain things, not worshipping 24/7, etc. They are actually very forgiving, despite the reputation some people (ahem, TikTok, ahem) give them.
To use my own experience as an example, I am rarely consistent with my worship. This winter was especially tough for me faith-wise, and for the most part, I basically didn't give any/many offerings at all. When you're having a crisis of faith, I always recommend communicating that with the gods; I think it just helps to be open and honest with them. It's like how you'd tell a friend if you needed space; it's just good to communicate with each other. They completely understood my situation and let me take the time I needed to regain my faith. When I needed to reach out to them, they were happy to communicate with me again, but when I needed some space, they were willing to provide that for me.
The gods do not abandon or scorn you for doubting their existence; they understand that faith is challenging to have, especially in a world where being religious and spiritual are equated with lacking in logic and reason. There is nothing wrong with doubt. It's actually a very healthy and normal thing. If you didn't doubt things in religion at least some of the time, you'd never have the opportunity to grow in your faith and worship. I also ind that once you go through a trying period of faith with the gods, it solidifies your belief in them all the more. ✨
All of this is basically just to say: do what feels right to you. The gods will understand if you need a break from worship or want to look into other religions. They're not ones to hate or reject people solely based on being unsure of their beliefs. You can be as uncertain as you want; they aren't going to judge you for that.
My best advice to you is, if you feel called to it, just dive right in and give worship a try. Don't be afraid to get your feet wet because, in all honesty, you have absolutely nothing to lose from it. No harm will come to you. The gods are not vengeful against their followers for losing faith, not worshipping them 24/7 (in fact, I hardly ever give daily offerings to the gods; I just offer when I have the time and energy to do so, and they don't mind), etc. You have nothing to fear.
I hope this helped and gave you the answers you were looking for! Please don't hesitate to ask me more questions; I am always happy to help. ☺️🧡
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
Some facts and concepts on the type of Hell presented in Hazbin/Helluva
Just sharing some facts and concepts on the type of Hell presented that’s in Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss that I have observed and etc.
First off, sorry ahead if parts of this might sound ranty, mean, and/or disorganized as what prompted me to write this essay were certain particular posts that lets just say invoked certain strong feelings within me.
The type of Hell presented in Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss uses several concepts that are very obviously clear for those who have consumed other works that feature Hell and the afterlife in general as well as other works that aren’t necessarily Hell related but contain certain story elements and such that one could see being presented in this Hellaverse.
These are very immediately clear for most and thus don’t need any explanation.
That being said, not everyone who watches Hazbin and Helluva immediately gets these concepts right away. As such, some of them I have seen expressed their justified confusion on not understanding the type of Hell being presented. Some of the more particularly vocal of these individuals I have also observed however have expressed their concerns in ways that could be at best, facepalming and at worst, unintentionally antagonistic. The best I guess I could say about the later is that I’m guessing that they’re not very familiar with certain ideas and thus to put it nicely, mistakes were said.
So as partly as a sort of an informal guide, partly as a defense, and partly to blow off some steam, I present some facts and concepts about the type of Hell that’s being presented that’s in Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss that I have observed and etc.
To reiterate, these are very obvious per what I’ve said above however the fact that certain particular statements apparently from what I’ve seen keep popping up means these need to be stated aloud.
The Hazbin Hell is a new take that isn’t meant to be Biblical accurate
This is something from what I’ve observed keeps being repeatedly not understood again and again. As such, it feel like needs to be repeated first and foremost.
From what has been shown from the very start of the Hazbin Hotel pilot, it is extremely clearly established that this is meant to be a new take and it’s own interpretation of Hell and not meant to be 100% accurate to what has been described in Christian scripture nor is the show advertising this to be what Hell actually is. It definitely uses elements found in Christian lore and such as springboards for certain ideas but they clearly are meant to be just that and nothing more thus the amount of artistic liberties is obviously gonna be extremely high.
In essence, it is very similar to other depictions of Hell found in other works of fiction such as The Bad Place from the show The Good Place and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That’s very much the fantasy being presented here.
Demanding and/or criticizing that the Hazbin Hell and certain other elements in it should be more Biblical accurate however, especially constantly and in a way that might be interpreted as needlessly aggressive, is very much guaranteed to be going to end up being a meaningless act of futility. I guess it would be akin to not recognizing Rick and Morty isn’t supposed to be hard science from the very start, complaining nonstop why the Doc Brown expy doesn’t use more realistic science, and then getting the appropriate responses from people who can’t believe that such a complaint was made.
That being said, if anyone wants to experience/learn about a more Biblical accurate version of Hell and stuff then nothing is stopping them from simply seeking them out elsewhere like watching the various Youtube videos which discuss such topics like those by Overly Sarcastic Productions for example.
Other than that, it’s really best to not to make it a big deal why the Hazbin Hell and certain other stuff aren’t Biblical accurate, accepting it for what it is, especially when it comes to this particular issue, rather than constantly complaining for what it isn’t.
The Hazbin Hell is one of those interpretations of an afterlife that use a more mundane aesthetic
When it comes to certain afterlife settings, they are commonly portrayed in a way that’s really fantastical. With Hell settings in particular especially those that are based on Christianity, they are typically depicted as an underground fiery cavern of sorts with varying degrees of medieval aesthetics and other fantasy elements. A good example of this would be the Hell depicted in Disenchantment which is more than appropriate given that the series is medieval fantasy one.
That being said there do exist afterlife settings that are more mundane in aesthetic. There are many religions and mythologies that simply depict an afterlife as being simply mundane. One of the best example to cite would the heavily bureaucratic depiction found in Chinese mythology which is just a court of judges, clerks, and prosecutors that tediously judge the souls of the dead one after the other in a way that could be considered boring. This type of afterlife setting also has some more modern examples. There’s the various locations in the Good Place which include the neighborhood of the titular setting and the office building that serves as the Bad Place HQ. Probably the best example to cite though since it clearly most likely can’t be a coincidence would be the Hell as depicted in Jean-Paul Sartre‘s play No Exit which is simply a single mundane hotel room wherein its three main characters are shoved in.
Now obviously, afterlife settings such as the latter would be considered really boring and not at all interesting places to visit however it’s best to consider what is actually going on with such settings especially in relation to the rest of the story being actually told. For example, the Bad Place HQ in the Good Place pretty much highlights how cold and corporate focused the demons who work there are especially when they devise projects to torture certain damned individuals.
Now with the Hazbin Hell, it pretty much follows in the vein of more mundane depictions of Hell and afterlife settings though with a more modern flair with the presence of cellphones and such. While some might argue the Hazbin Hell with its look is not at all fantastical, I would argue that it serves a purpose of tying with the central focus of show, that being humanizing its sinner and demonic characters via placing them in familiar surroundings so that the show’s audience can relate to them more easily. I would also argue that the Hazbin Hell’s aesthetic isn’t that too mundane and still fantastical since elements like demonic magic are still very much present. They’re just not the primary focus of the show but rather support what actually is.
This ultimately ties in with certain things that I say in the section directly below so I guess it’s best to continue there. However just to add something as a bit of a closer for this section, I will say this. Shows like American Dragon: Jake Long, Gargoyles, and Batman (R.I.P.) the Animated Series may have fantastical elements and the characters do visit more fantastical places however for the most part, they take place in relatively mundane settings and yet that didn’t stop them from being fantastical.
The Hazbin Hell uses the afterlife city concept which it seemingly employs in an apparent number of ways
One of the most prominent concepts the Hazbin Hell has going for it is that it’s presented as a sprawling city landscape.
Hell depicted as a city one way or another isn’t really a new concept with one of the most famous being the city of Dis as mentioned in the Inferno part of the Divine Comedy. Going further, a general afterlife setting being depicted as a city isn’t that new either. Examples include the Land of the Dead as depicted in The Corpse Bride, Coco, and The Book of Life.
What sets the Hazbin Hell apart though is that it takes another city concept and really ramps it to eleven. This being the concept of a sin city which is the idea of a city that’s rampant with lots of crime, sex, the occasional over capitalist undertone and etc. The Hazbin Hell takes this very literal and from what could be assumed, pretty much producing one of those thriving dystopias found in other works of fiction. Granted it’s not exactly extreme like say Mega-City One from Judge Dredd or Night City from Cyber Punk as it’s probably more closer to Frank Miller’s Sin City or just L.A., however that doesn’t stop it from being it’s own form of extreme since it doesn’t make it a secret that it is a literal “sin city”.
Now from what has been seen so far, there hasn’t been anything beyond mainly regular urban environments with just Hell themed decor however I would make the defense that this being so has it’s own charm since it both not only puts the life in the afterlife but also provides a certain level form of discomfort which I sort of described above.
If anything else, this is a logical utilitarian consequence of what would happen to a place that is beset by an overpopulation issue. That being multiple buildings having been made to accommodate a huge ever-growing population to the point what natural environment there was originally is completely covered up and suffocated by all the concrete. It is also a quick easy way to visually illustrate the issue without drawing several million characters that could overcrowd the screen.
From what I’ve observed, clearly not everyone wants an urban setting for Hell, sometimes almost insinuating they would rather have a more generic fantasy version of Hell like those found in DnD and such than what’s been presented. To each their own, I guess. However, I would argue that any setting can be an adventure regardless whether the background is to one’s taste or not provided the characters in the foreground actually captivates the audience. Considering that there’s lots of character fanart, discussion, cosplay, and etc. involving Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss, I’m gonna take a wild guess that a good chunk of the audience is attracted more to the people who inhabit and make this city rather than the background that some would consider lazy.
The Hazbin Hell is other people
The other prominent concept the Hazbin Hell is going for and, one that some people also repeatedly seemingly not get as far as I can tell, is the whole “Hell is other people” idea.
On first glance, it seems like this Hell has no torturers and everyone is free to do what they want. Considering one of the interpretations of Lucifer is him being all about absolute freedom actually ties well with the Pride Ring ruler.
However upon closer inspection, everyone being free to do what they want means that everyone is free to hurt each other in one way or another and effectively be each others’ torturers.
To use a list of some examples to illustrate this point:
Valentino is Angel Dust and Vox’s torturer due to all the abuse he inflicts on them.
Angel Dust is Vaggie’s torturer due to constantly annoying her by being a smart ass. Conversely, Vaggie is Angel Dust’s torturer in a way as she won’t stop nagging.
Katie Killjoy is Tom Trench’s torturer due to constantly physically abusing and etc. Tom at work.
Alastor is also Vaggie’s torturer due to also annoying her.
That one guy who stole Angel’s drugs is the latter’s torturer due to stealing Angel’s drugs.
Sir Pentious is the torturer to that one guy who stole Angel’s drugs due to causing an explosion which created rubble that crushed him.
Vox is apparently Alastor’s torturer as he seemingly irritates Al.
Sir Pentious according to the Instagram posts prior to being taken down is the torturer of the Vee’s as he won’t stop annoying them in his attempts to be cool.
Essentially, every one is effectively someone’s else torturer depending on how one looks at it. This is the very basic idea behind “Hell is other people” which comes from Jean-Paul Sartre‘s play No Exit and is also the main primary idea that’s used in The Good Place.
Simply put, if you dump certain difficult individuals with certain particular personalities together, then eventually they would torture each other either psychologically or more directly with their mere interactions with one another to the point that them simply co-existing with each other becomes completely unbearable in of itself. It’s what makes this Hell, Hell.
Incidentally, the other part of the “Hell is other people” idea is also seemingly being used in this particular interpretation of Hell. The other part being that despite having the seeming freedom to leave a intolerable difficult situation, certain people just won’t leave due to being prideful and such.
To use another list of some examples to illustrate this other point:
Angel Dust is exploited by Valentino however he refuses to leave Valentino because he’s addicted to the fame from being a celebrity despite all the pain and no other rewards.
Vox and Valentino according to the Instagram posts prior to being taken down are in a toxic relationship wherein they keep breaking up and getting back together no matter how much of vicious cycle this is. Both just simply refuse to leave each other.
A case also could be made for the much controversial Stella in this regards and in fact, she could be seen as the embodiment of this idea based on what little we know of her as of this writing. Stella hates Stolas however despite having the apparent freedom to agree to the divorce between them, she refuses to just do so in a way that isn’t difficult. Her full reasons aren’t known yet other than apparently staying because she likes torturing Stolas by reminding him that he cheated on her a.k.a. playing the victim though it could be theorized that it might involve pride to some degree. Thus rather just simply leaving for her own good benefit, she apparently just makes the whole issue as extremely difficult for everyone.
Overall, this is the type of torture the Hazbin Hell is clearly going for based on what has been shown and what is also known about Satre’s play which Hazbin Hotel most definitely must have taken some inspiration from given the play’s setting.
While this may confuse those who are only familiar with the whole direct physical torture found in most common interpretations of Hell such as the Hell in general from the Divine Comedy or certain regions in the Greek underworld reserved to punish the damned, in all honesty, there’s really more than one way a person could be interpreted as being tortured in Hell. To briefly cite the Twilight Zone episode “A Nice Place To Visit” to use as an example, the torture there is giving a thief everything he wants to the point he no longer feels any satisfaction at winning.
Really, there’s more than one method of how torture dispensed by Hell can be depicted especially when it depicted affecting those being tortured in a far more personal way.
With all that being said, considering the whole “Hell is other people” idea is something of a high philosophical concept in a way, I guess I can understand why not everyone would get it right away. However, it can get annoying whenever someone immediately complains without any apparent second thought how the Hazbin Hell could be considered as Hell, especially in a way that feels unnecessarily confrontational or at least too passive aggressive, rather than simply discuss it calmly with others like an adult.
It’s not a requirement for a person to be super well versed in Hell, demonology, Christianity, and other things to watch Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss or any other series for that matter, that’s a bonus. But calmly approaching questions one has on anything is always a better option than screaming out loud that you don’t understand things on a particular show and since you don’t understand, the writing is therefore crap. I mean more people in general will be more willing to answer one’s questions if you don’t insult them and/or what they enjoy.
#long post#hazbin hotel#Helluva Boss#random thoughts#random musing#The Divine Comedy#Dante's Inferno#dante's divine comedy#Hell
8 notes
·
View notes
Note
You are right, my memory failed me. Homosexuality is for Paul the "uncleanness" and the "vile passion" to which God gave up the Gentiles as punishment because of their idolatry. As the text of the Epistle to the Romans presents idolatry and its consequences: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them." Personally I find Paul's mentality and positions as expressed in passages like this one problematic for several reasons, but this is not the place to become more specific about my objections to his views and legacy. Anyway, I think that you underestimate somehow the homophobia in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Moreover, our disagreement about henotheism remains, but it is essentially just a disagreement about terminology, that's why there is no reason to discuss it further.
Oh no, I don’t underestimate the presence of homophobia at all. It is absolutely there, believe me I am personally aware. Especially in the denominations and groups that make it into the news the most often. But there are also many devout believers who are actively pushing back against that hate.
I’m merely stating that since the original topic was the sin of Sodom, a) the theology of Paul is too late to be a factor in determining the nature of Sodom’s sin from a historical perspective (as a general rule I do not use New Testament texts to explain the meaning of the Hebrew Bible texts); b) homosexuality in the ancient world is not socially the same as it is today and that is an important factor. With a bit of “scholars aren’t 100% sure what definition of homosexuality Paul is working with so both translation and application of interpretation can get complicated.” My personal interest tends to be on archaeological and historical scholarship rather than on current theology most of the time. As I said, this is a controversial issue and there is no one answer. Mine is just that I think people make it into more of an issue than the Biblical authors intended it to be and that often they do so from faulty premises because they ignore historical context. An argument being common doesn't necessarily make it correct.
I also find Paul problematic in many instances and think his writings have been badly abused over the centuries. Also the pseudopigraphic writings in his name which are worse. In Romans he is writing to a church he has never visited and is trying to prove his theology so they will accept him. So he comes right out swinging. But is it really any different than how Christians have been explaining things ever since? The narrative always starts with humans rejecting god followed by a list of all the things that go wrong and all the sins that it causes, because it there's a salvation then the first step is to establish what people need to be saved from. I've read a few salvation tracts in my life and there's always a List right after the introduction of sin. That's pretty much what he's doing - setting the stage for him to explain his theology and why it's right. That doesn't mean anyone is obligated to agree with him though.
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Wait I’m screaming I’m looking through the comments on that post and someone said: “it’s not Jewish because angels don’t have free will in Judaism” as if it’s not a pretty big point in the show that angels don’t have free will and the one angel who does develop it is viewed as a weirdo by the other angels. Also a lot of people who are speaking on Islam despite clearly knowing nothing about it?
The fact that people are getting mad at you is insane to me I’m not sure if they ever called Chuck the Abrahamic god and I don’t think Islam is ever mentioned but he is canonically the god of both the Jewish and Christian faiths in the show it’s not your fault it’s that way you didn’t write the show
“Based on some second hand impressions from tumblr and maybe a cursory google search I can say definitively that this fantasy show is 100% Protestant you upset me, a Catholic, by implicating my faith under the term abrahamic so I’m going to get all up on your post about it and most importantly what I personally dislike about the show’s writing that you could have no affect on instead of making my own post even though I’m severely derailing your post with my religious discourse. Christmas is a more important holiday to me than Easter and I’ve never so much as read the Bible. I’m just going off of my own interpretation of my faith which [though very valid in reality] is SO MUCH more valid than anyone else’s interpretation or experience, especially the Catholics on the spn writing team, who I doubt are real Catholics”
everyone on your post sounds Quite A Bit Like That; it’s absolutely absurd. (Going so far as to minimize real people’s faith bc you didn’t like their fantasy show is particularly cruel imo and people are doing that to the Jewish creator of the show)
Making any flavor of post about religion when it wasn’t initially about that is wrong; supernatural’s incooperation of highly fictionalized and (yes, anyone can admit, often bastardized) religious elements doesn’t make supernatural posts inherently religious debates like if you want to accuse Eric kripke of being a secret Christian because he made up some nonsense about demons for a plot point in his monster hunting show where no monster adheres to its traditional qualities very well at least don’t do it on a joak post about homophobia against destiel
the religious lore in spn is definitely something worth having Discussions and Conversations about but I always wanna push back when people are like “this is a CHRISTIAN show” like i get that to you spn is something you don’t want to be associated with because it has So Many Problems but it’s actually kind of a huge pop culture phenomenon so… maybe I don’t want to cede it entirely to a christian lens? especially when many of the creators are in fact not christian?? lmao people actually did used to post and meta about jewishnatural so this thing where we take it for granted that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything non-christian is recent…
my interpretation of spn is that it started out as mostly a pure Cool Monster Show and then eventually the writers started playing in the space of “vaguely modern Christian mythology” (modern being a very key word here—many of the most quintessentially christian lore elements we are used to were developed rather late in the history of the religion and have scant or ambiguous support in the original texts). but what does the show actually SAY with that mythology?? well, a lot of conflicting and frequently offensive things… but occasionally very interesting things as well.
also funny you mention catholic vs protestant discourse because I feel like I remember there being Drama at one point bc people were saying “spn is catholic” and some people were like “no it’s actually protestant” 🙈
I wish I could find any word from eric kripke where he talks about how his jewish identity did or didn’t inform his writing. I think it could be really interesting, even if the answer is “no, I wasn’t thinking about judaism whatsoever.” like that in and of itself would be interesting. it doesn’t seem like it’s something he talks about much—all I could find was an interview about the boys where he talked about how he uses superheroes as a way to write about eugenics and fascism, because times have changed since they were created (by jewish comic book writers).
anyways I find it interesting that tumblr media analysts consider the cultural identity (or gender identity or sexual identity) of creators to be Very Important in basically all cases except when they’re jewish. I’m not necessarily saying it’s good that we rely so much on identity politics in this space (we could stand to move away from that!!) but the absence of consideration for jewishness is quite striking to me. people will go off writing meta about how xyz media is “promoting christian ideology” or whatever and thinking they’re really saying something and not even be aware that the creator/writer was, in fact, jewish, and considering how THAT might affect their analysis (I’m talking about the Star Wars sequels lmao). I think it really speaks to the uncertainty people have about how to even conceptualize jewish people as part of their social justice framework
5 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
marets-trends
Untitled
ganseys-yellow-sweater
rin is reading the raven king
refundharbor7
The Life of Brown 646
mothspore
no affiliation with mother spore (yet)
all-that-things
All-that-things