Sorry but my thoughts are still on the nature of death in dnd (and other fiction where resurrection is possible), specifically on the implications it has on worldbuilding.

Resurrection magic existing kind of makes for cultural issues that have no parallel in our world. Some of it compares - such as the inherent class divide and tensions when the rich and powerful can literally buy their way out of death (a class divide is a class divide, this just digs the chasm deeper, which I'd love to see explored more in media btw) - but the implications on grief and acceptance are on another level. In our world, there is no bargaining with death. So much of our lives is spent coming to terms with the fact that we will all die one day, and mourning and moving on whenever death strikes near us. We experience stages of grief like denial and rage and bargaining but in the end there is no escaping it, no matter how hard you work or beg or rage. Clinging on can only hurt you. It's pointless. All you can do is move on, and it is so hard.

But if death is conditional. Impermanent. Something that can be defeated with money or power or faith. How do you ever move on. On a societal and cultural level, there should be entire rebellions based around who has access to resurrection. Powerful people offering resurrections as incentive would be all over the place, with desperate people selling their souls and freedom and entire lives to save a loved one. Would soldiers fear dying, seen as disposable, or would they fear being brought back again and again to die eternally on the battlefield?

But on an individual level. Is acceptance of the inevitability of death even possible when it’s no longer inevitable? If you decide that no, you can not give up everything to go pursue resurrection of your child, will you hate yourself? You could save them. Why aren’t you? Why aren’t you doing everything in your power? How much do you hate the people who have this power but won’t offer it freely? If you yourself are brought back from the dead and find out most of your loved ones just, let you go, would you hate them? Would you feel abandoned and betrayed? If you’re watching from the afterlife and see your loved one, who’s been working to get you back, decides to accept your death and move on because they have found new love, would you find a way to fucking haunt them? Oh, you think I only lived for you? That I don’t want life just because I can’t have you, too? How selfish is that. But how selfish would it be to bring someone back only to salve your own feelings of guilt, whether they want to or not? Would there be an entire industry of mediums based on people needing to ask their loved ones if they wish to remain dead or not? How much more powerful would hate and love and hubris be in this world, lacking the absolute limit of death?

The reason that Ashton learning about the Luxon is interesting is not because it would change their stance on the pantheon (considering the Luxon is not of the pantheon and therefore any change in opinion on, say, Pelor, would be a false and reductive equivalence), but because their stance on religion as a whole is currently reductive in a deeply unproductive and, frankly, potentially dangerous way, and the Luxon's existence flies in the face of that.

Ashton has a basic but narrow view of how the gods operate: someone asks for something, and the gods answer. He may acknowledge that generally the answer is given as part of an exchange, but might also feel that the extent of his suffering is worth more than the offering usually made. This is a very valid and understandable position! They suffered under some destructive force of nature, and later under the general indifference of the world, and if there are gods who claim to do good in the world*, and suffering persists, how can those gods be considered just?

This is, I must make very explicit, an incredibly complex and old philosophical question in the real world even where the existence of gods is not a material reality, and not one that's going to be solved by a bunch of fandom bloggers, no matter how enlightened one thinks they are. It is also a question that is straight up not a concern in a lot of faiths, so by necessity, one cannot equate "in this context, are the gods just?" to the question of whether worship, as a practice, is just.

In any case, Ashton's concern is more personal than philosophical—his stance is borne not of any intensive questioning of the justice of gods, but because he's been hurt, and he wanted to be helped, and wasn't**. And this is valid, but the extrapolation to "the gods can die for all I care," does attempt to make that equivocation. In suggesting the removal of the source of worship of a large portion of the world, which at least something of the means to act upon that suggestion, they're implicitly taking the stance that their anger alone is worth more than the mundane benefits that collective portion of the population receives from their worship.

It bears noting here that this is specifically about his anger, and not his suffering, because the death of the gods won't change his history. In fact, nothing is going to change that! This is really where Ashton's anger lies, but the anger isn't actionable there, which is why it comes out elsewhere. When funneled in a reasonable and willful direction (such as towards Ludinus) anger can be very productive; this isn't to say that this emotion is the problem in itself. But directing it toward the gods will have a pointed negative impact on much of the world, and will likely not stop those worshippers who are enacting harm from finding other ways to do so, which means it's a net loss in terms of what Ashton wants, which is to keep people from harm.

And drawing attention to the anger is also relevant, because, well, that's where we get back to the Luxon.

Ashton's Rage mechanic is based explicitly in dunamis and, by extension, the Luxon itself. The ability is linked narratively to their fall at Jiana Hexum's house and subsequent patching up by Milo, who dumped a potion of possibility into their head. When Imogen and FCG have entered his mind, the description is similar to the description of concentrating on a Luxon beacon.

There's an argument to be made that dunamis itself more than the beacons individually is what comprises the entity known as the Luxon; the potions were distilled initially from a beacon, and we've seen other forms of the same thing, such as the purple gems in Aeor. We also know that the Luxon is an entity that may go back to before the Founding***, because Essek, a noted skeptic, found evidence of its existence as such in Aeor, an arcane society that attempted to kill the gods themselves.

The Luxon as a divine entity*** has not, as far as anyone has claimed, directly spoken to a mortal, follower or otherwise. The Dynasty believes it has sent messages that their umavi can divine and interpret into scripture, and in theory clerics that follow it can receive information via divination the same way as any other cleric, but none of these involve direct speech, and overall it's not clear that it is in fact an entity capable of communication as mortals would imagine communication.****

This is notably different than the Pantheon as a whole. The primary boon that the Dynasty believes the Luxon has given them, based on their ability with the beacon to escape Lolth's dominion, is to wield more control over one's own destiny. If we proceed under the assumption that this is how the Luxon brokers any relationship to mortals, then we end up back to the idea that the ability that Ashton has gained from the dunamis that was used to seal their wounds was control over, and the ability to act upon, the anger that they harbor.

It's in fact exactly what Ashton asked for, both in his past and now, in this past conversation with the party, suggesting that he'll actually hear out any god that actually suggests they want him. It's also clearly something they still want, given that they went looking for it in Issylra. No matter how disaffected Ashton may claim to be, his actions betray the fact that he does in some way want the acknowledgment of an entity larger than he is.

So whether or not Ashton changes their tune on the pantheon doesn't matter in the long run. What learning about the Luxon would do is force Ashton to confront the fact that, first, gods as a whole do not necessarily conform to the limited knowledge they've based their views on, and second, that maybe a god already gave them what they asked for.

And Ashton is still perfectly at liberty to ignore that without consequence—the use of dunamis has never been contingent on belief or worship, as evidenced by the numerous wizards who use it regardless. But it does raise the question for Ashton both of his own worth in the view of something larger than he is, regardless of whether he thinks the gods have already discarded him, and also the very premise on which he chooses where to direct his anger.

It's up to Ashton, as it's always been, to actually decide where to go from there.

*I won't interrogate this at length here because I don't think it's relevant, but I also don't believe the Prime Deities have ever claimed that their purpose, if they can be said to have a purpose, is to do good. Even the temples of Vasselheim orient themselves more toward the purpose of maintaining balance and order rather than any concept of "good", and many of the pantheon who are not explicitly included among the Betrayers have neutral alignment.

**For further commentary on the flaws in Ashton's assumptions around relationship to a god, see here.

***The question of whether or not the Luxon is A God is also irrelevant here, because it has been worshipped as such and confers power comparably to the Prime Deities, so we'll proceed without worrying about it.

****For further commentary on the nature of how the Luxon communicates and enacts its will in the Material Realm, see here.

For further commentary on the general tone of this post, see here.

Ach-To and Irish Archaeology

The sequels were my entry into Star Wars and I never would have gone to see The Force Awakens if I wasn't an archaeology nerd.

During the production of Episode VII, a decent number of people with an interest in our archaeological heritage here in Ireland were quite worried about the impact of filming on one of our only two UNESCO World Heritage Sites, the island known as Skellig Michael down off the coast of Kerry.

I went to the film to see if any potential damage was worth it, or if they'd do something unspeakably stupid with it in-universe. I wanted to see if it was respected.

And holy hell I was NOT disappointed. I think I walked out of TFA sniffling to myself about how beautiful the Skellig looked and how it seemed like its use as a location was not just respectful but heavily inspired by its real history.

See, Skellig Michael was a monastic hermitage established at a point when Christianity was so new that the man who ordered its founding sometime in the first century CE was himself ordained by the Apostle Paul. The fellah from the Bible who harassed all and sundry with his letters, THAT Apostle Paul. This is how old a Christian site the Skellig is. It predates St. Patrick by at the very least two hundred years.

The steps we watch Rey climb were originally cut NEARLY TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. They have been reworked and repaired many many times since, of course. Still, the path the camera follows Daisy Ridley up is as much an ancient path built by the founders of a faith in real life as it is in the movies.

A hermitage was a place where monks went to live lives of solitude and asceticism so as better to achieve wisdom. The practice is common to many of the major world religions, including the myriad East Asian faiths which inspired the fictional Jedi.

It is said that the hermitage and monastery were originally built with the purpose of housing mystical texts belonging to the Essanes, one of the sects of Second Temple Judaism which influenced some of the doctrines of Christianity. They also, according to what I have read, characterised good and evil as 'light' and 'darkness' and were celibate.

As such, the use of the island in TFA and TLJ does not merely respect Skellig Michael's history, it honours it. It is framed as somewhere ancient and sacred, which it is. It is framed as a place where a mystic goes to live on his own surrounded by nature that is at once punishing and sublime, which of course it was. It shown to be a place established to protect texts written at the establishment of a faith, which it may well have been.

This level of genuine respect for my cultural heritage by Rian Johnson in particular is astonishing. I don't think anyone from outside the US ever really trusts Americans not to treat our built history like it's Disneyland. Much of the incorporation of the Skellig's real past into a fictional galactic history occurs in TLJ, which is why I'm giving Rian so much credit.

It's Luke's death scene which makes the honouring of Irish archaeological history most apparent though.

Johnson takes the archaeological iconography back a further three thousand years for his final tribute to my culture's beautiful historical temples. This time, he incorporates neolithic passage tomb imagery, specifically that of Newgrange, which is up the country from the Skellig.

I think if you understand what the image represents then it makes a deeply emotional scene even more resonant.

The scene I'm referring to is Luke's death.

As he looks to the horizon, to the suns, we view him from the interior of the First Jedi Temple. The sunset aligns with the passageway into the ancient sanctuary, illuminating it as he becomes one with the Force.

As for Newgrange, every year during the Winter Solstice it aligns with the sunrise. The coldest, darkest, wettest, most miserable time of the year on a North Atlantic island where it is often cold, wet, and miserable even in the summer. And the sun comes up even then, and on a cloudless morning a beam of sunlight travels down the corridor and illuminates the chamber inside the mound.

You guys can see this, right? The similarity of the images? The line of light on the floor?

Luke's death scene is beautiful but I think it's a thousand times more moving with this visual context. Luke's sequel arc isn't merely populated by a lore and iconography that honour the place where the end of his story was filmed, I think that incorporation of that history and mythology honours Luke.

We don't know for sure what the Neolithic people believed, religion-wise. We know next to nothing about their rituals. We know that there were ashes laid to rest at Newgrange. There is some speculation that the idea was that the sun coming into the place that kept those ashes brought the spirits of those deceased people over to the other side.

It's also almost impossible not to interpret the sunlight coming into Newgrange as an extraordinary expression of hope. If you know this climate, at this latitude, you know how horrible the winter is. We don't even have the benefit of crispy-snowwy sunlit days. It's grey and it's dark and it's often wet. And every single year the earth tilts back and the days get long again.

The cycle ends and begins again. Death and rebirth. And hope, like the sun, which though unseen will always return. And so we make it through the winter, and through the night.

As it transpired the worries about the impact of the Star Wars Sequels upon Skellig Michael were unfounded. There was no damage caused that visitors wouldn't have also caused. There also wasn't a large uptick in people wanting to visit because of its status as a SW location, in part I think because the sequels just aren't that beloved.

But they're beloved to me, in no small part because of the way they treated a built heritage very dear to my heart. I think they deserve respect for that at the least.

There’s a deep love I have for worldbuilding elements that are distinctly inhuman and alien. Not just because they stimulate the innate wanderlust and desire to explore in humans, but because they demonstrate the breadths of human compassion and empathy.

Take, for example, if I were to design a world based on inhabitants that are, not human, but amphibious. What would that look like? Well, to begin with, a lot wetter, quite obviously. Civil engineering would, by necessity, be far more advanced in the techniques of waterscaping and aqua engineering than we currently are. Comprehensive aqueduct networks and perhaps even running water in various homes would be crucial to creating early civilizations. I imagine that water rights, and already fraught and complex issue for land-locked humans, would be infinitely more complex to them, with a history of wars, intrigues, and political maneuvering over choice sources of fresh water.

Likely such places would also be of religious significance. Amphibians quite literally are born from water, after all. Any origin myths they would have would quite likely find itself in a primordial sweet water ocean or lake. Perhaps their gods would even come from the water, which would make an interesting dynamic with the dominant faith or faiths if and when they develop a theory of evolution. With such a connection, science and religion might lie even closer together for them than it already does for us in many situations. Especially considering the transformative nature of an amphibians life cycle.

Adults and juveniles, by nature of their physiology, might live in nighly separated societies. One on land, and one in the water. If so, would there be tensions between the two? If the juveniles, as evidenced by axolotl, are as capable and intelligent as adults, would they insist on a separate governing body? Unique laws? Would historic tensions bloom from such a clear divide in society? Or would it be bridged by the parental instincts some amphibians demonstrate?

And even further, how would such a water-based life impact artistry? Music would be a greatly important considering how vocal amphibian species can be, and how important it can be to their lifecycles, music might take on an almost sacred part in daily life. Water-based art forms would form the likely fundaments of their creative endeavors, period. Things like water marbling, moss-and-kelp gardens, perhaps even performances based on the movement of dyes and fluids of various viscosity in water.

Speaking of creativity and creating, what would their relation to fire be? That of a forbidden art? That of a skill reserved to a specific subset of the population? Would it develop a history of mysticism? Would fire be the base of their occultism and esoteric?

Do you see what I mean? This exercise of empathy and compassion? How you have to, as a writer, essentially transport yourself into a life you’ve never lived and could never live?

I love it. In my opinion, it’s one of the many things that make humans, human.

This is a deeply personal question, so please feel no obligation to answer, but it’s something I’ve been struggling with and I was hoping you would have some insight. How do you reconcile your knowledge of neuroscience with your religion/belief in free will, the soul, and the afterlife?

For one thing, I think the fact that we don't understand everything about neuroscience and the brain points to intelligent creation. It's far too complex to have happened by accident, and I don't think a God I could completely comprehend would be a very reassuring level of intelligence for God. I think God must be intelligent and creative, far beyond my ability to understand or grasp, and His creation proves itself in function and complexity. There are so many simple parts of nature that repeat over and over, and so many supposedly simple things we don't know how to explain. The more you study any scientific field, the more comfortable you have to become with vast areas of unknowns. I'm not comfortable leaving things so complex to mere chance or happy accident when so many of our observable models show that things decay and break down over time without direction or intervention.

I think the more I study neuroscience, the more convinced I become that we aren't accidents. There is, of course, what Lewis famously (and not originally) called the problem of pain, but that's I think adjacent to the concept of God as a creator or Christ's divinity.

I don't think we're at the mercy of our minds, either, so to speak. There are certainly mental health conditions that influence our understanding of and connection to reality, and our behaviors, but those are considered disorders for a reason. We still have a large degree of choice in how we behave and think, and we're often impacted by others exerting the same control over their choices (for better or for worse). When you get down to it, a lot of the mental health disorders that cause people to act irrationally are actually very rational when you strip it down to what someone believes and understands-- violent actions in response to feeling attacked, cagey behavior in response to paranoia-- these are rational, human responses to the feelings people are having and how they perceive situations. It's only that for whatever reason (chemicals, trauma, meds, ???), their PERCEPTION has been skewed.

I don't think it's wrong to have such questions and asking them is worth it, because asking and truly seeking leads us to the Truth of the gospel. I've had to ask hard questions about my faith and my engagement within it so many times, but I've found that at the end of the day, my cry echoes Peter's in John 6:68-69-- "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

I haven't found anything that's destroyed my faith in Jesus as God, or God's intelligent creation of the world; I have found things that have challenged my assumptions or perceptions about God but I'm working with a flawed and human lens that needs to be adjusted at times. My presuppositions have sometimes shifted but the core truth has held firm. That process can be painful and scary but not hopeless.

I hope this helps and you're always free to message me on tumblr if you want to chat! I don't mind personal faith questions because it's a hope and prayer of my that I will never be ashamed of the Gospel. 💜

Isn't it interesting that in ten years of show existing there's still absolutely ZERO indication on even basic things like:

The chronological dating system. Like ANYTHING beyond "this happened just now" and "this happened sometime before". How would people measure time? What would be the exact points they would count time from? Would the entire world agree upon it? How are even writers supposed to keep track of passage of time between various points in the story if the setting doesn't?

The nature of religion, how concepts of death, etc are handled. And I don't mean dumb two gods plot device or anything like that or anything that genuinely "happened" for plot. Actual religions. What is there beyond knowing they exist? What do people believe in? How would those faiths form? What do people worship and why? Does that impact governance, how people view others, etc? Do people have different beliefs of, for example, afterlife?? How about myths about end days?

How did the world progress technologically? As in just what is the actual progression of civilization. Some places are basically modern world while some seem identical to the awful two gods flashback. Because when combined with no sense of passage of time, the world kind of falls apart. As in it's like a bunch of kingdoms got plopped in specific locations and simply "are".

I guess you don't need those pesky world building things when you can just point and go "gods/relics did it!" and be content with what a great idea you had by dreaming up such a unique never before heard fresh concept as "Two brothers who are gods".

By: Adam Neiblum

Published: Dec 20, 2023

Every once in a while, an atheist or other nonbeliever will undergo a change of heart. Someone who has self-identified as an atheist or, at the very least, a “none-of-the-above” type undergoes a change of mind. They may do a full turnabout and embrace a religious faith, either for the first time or as a return to the fold. For Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she began as a Muslim, turned atheist in her adulthood, and has recently rejected atheism to become a Christian, for the “legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

[For another perspective on Hirsi Ali’s conversion announcement, see Free Inquiry editor Paul Fidalgo’s “The Enemy of Her Enemy.”]

Confusingly, many of the world’s devout will argue that this individual conversion represents solid evidence that atheism is wrongheaded and that god belief and religious faith are right, good, and proper. Hirsi Ali makes this argument herself:

To me, this freedom of conscience and speech is perhaps the greatest benefit of Western civilization. It does not come naturally to man. It is the product of centuries of debate within Jewish and Christian communities. It was these debates that advanced science and reason, diminished cruelty, suppressed superstitions, and built institutions to order and protect life, while guaranteeing freedom to as many people as possible. Unlike Islam, Christianity outgrew its dogmatic stage. It became increasingly clear that Christ’s teaching implied not only a circumscribed role for religion as something separate from politics. It also implied compassion for the sinner and humility for the believer.

Hirsi Ali and I have very different understandings of the history and impact of Christianity on Euro-American culture. Is she not aware of Christian misogyny? Or the importance of America’s separation of church and state? How about the 165-year-long denial of our true origin story: Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution? Or contemporary bans on knowledge and literacy? And why are atheists still considered by so many Americans to be misguided at best or literally demonic at worst? From where I sit, Christianity impedes our progress and development toward a more enlightened, peaceful, and sustainable human civilization. The fact that this one individual chose to embrace religion is understood to be strong evidence supporting the conclusion that atheism is a mistake, a transgression; that atheists such as myself have been shown the error of our ways and put in our place.

I would like to set the record straight. 

Just the Facts

Many readers are no doubt familiar with the God-of-the-gaps concept. This refers to the fact that, historically, answers to life’s many mysteries that had been religious or spiritual in nature—God caused that tsunami or this hurricane, for example—are replaced with the falsifiable and far more probable answers on offer from reason and science. Importantly, however, this well-known phenomenon rarely, if ever, goes in reverse: from the scientific and rational back to the spiritual and religious, except perhaps in the minds of the religiously inclined (think flat-earthers). 

And so it is in regard to these nonbelievers who embrace, or return to, religious faith and supernatural beliefs. It happens, but it happens very rarely. When it does happen, it makes a splash. True believers make a big deal about it. If it is someone well-known, it may even make the evening news. 

When I finally awakened to the fact that god beliefs are entirely false—the result of cognitive instincts in conjunction with powerful cultural indoctrination—and recognized the truth behind atheism, it was a moment of genuine awakening. I could never go backward into darkness. It’s the same with belief in Santa Claus. Once you grow up and “get it,” it is extremely unlikely that a sane adult is ever going to return to a genuine belief in Santa Claus. 

Furthermore, individuals turning away from religion and turning toward the light of reason is not at all extraordinary but, in fact, an everyday occurrence. Here in the United States, it has been happening for years. Those who return to religion are few and far between, whereas, according to Pew Research, the United States is undergoing a “rise of the nones,” with Americans turning away from religious affiliation in droves.

So, these individual conversions (or re-conversions, as the case may be) do occur. But they are far rarer than, and unevenly trumpeted, is generally recognized. This singular example of conversion is thought to serve as evidence that we atheists are delusional lost souls on the wrong track. The devout will often crow, in a somewhat accusatory, “gotcha” manner, What do you infidels make of THAT?

Deathbed Conversion

In December 2011, famous atheist and contrarian Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, breathed his last, ceased to be, and shufflel’d off this mortal coil. Unsurprisingly, rumors quickly circulated that he had undergone a “deathbed conversion” to Christianity. This merely represented an example of Christianity’s fast and loose relationship with the truth, his son confirming that nothing of the sort happened. It proved to be just another of the relentless fictions and fables that are the beating heart of religious faith and god beliefs. More propaganda.

[ Christopher Hitchens by RantingJo ]

But even when a deathbed conversion does occur, it in no way, shape, or form suggests that atheists are in error or misguided. When driven by fear, terror, and worry, when face to face with death, be it the “atheist in the foxhole” or the similarly iconic deathbed conversion trope, it comes as no surprise if some, on occasion, return to religious belief for consolation or are inclined to make other, similarly poor decisions. None of this says anything about whether God is real, nor whether any religious claims are true or even remotely beneficial. Deathbed and foxhole conversions are far fewer in number than we are led to believe by such deeply enmeshed axiomatic truisms. If and when they do occur, all they really tell us is that when faced with existential fears, we humans can be strongly inclined to weakness of will, a propensity to choose instinct over reason or comforting fictions over hard facts. And they tell us that religious indoctrination is very, very effective. 

Hitchens had, like myself, a solid secular education and had clearly demonstrated that he was more than comfortable with the reality so many fear to face. Simply put, when we die, we simply cease to exist, except through our works, our friends’ and family’s (hopefully) fond remembrances, and the prodigious supply of food we represent for the worms, tiny organisms, and microbiota so essential to life on planet Earth.

An Extraordinary Case

All this brings me to the hot topic at hand—Ayaan Hirsi Ali, famous Muslim-turned-atheist, author of Infidel (2006), Nomad (2010), and Heretic (2015). Hirsi Ali was raised, and heavily indoctrinated, in the deeply misogynistic Islam of modern Somalia. She suffered horrid abuse, including female genital mutilation (FGM), at the hands of the Muslim devout. Once she escaped from this early influence, she became an avid atheist, a politicized activist, an advocate for women’s rights, and an outspoken critic of the religion of Islam, especially in regard to forced marriage, honor killings, child marriage, and the practice of FGM. 

In my own work, I have made several references to Hirsi Ali. I stand by my comments at the time and in my writing. Her story, as told in Infidel, serves as an excellent example of the highly problematic nature of Abrahamic faith, the backward nature of some branches in particular, and the significant and entirely positive changes wrought by awakening to atheism.

Hirsi Ali has now returned to the Abrahamic fold, converting to Christianity. This has been presented to some of us more outspoken atheists as if it were a repudiation of our work, our beliefs, and our very lives as nonbelievers. But that Hirsi Ali should return to this somewhat less misogynistic branch of the Abrahamic faiths comes as no big surprise to this atheist. She has simply found solace in an Abrahamic sect that offers her the comfort and familiarity of a childhood characterized by extremely powerful indoctrination and yet without the heinous degree of misogyny with which her own life was so violently rent. I imagine it might feel very comfortable for her.

Hirsi Ali is misguided to believe as she does. Let me be clear: I am never critical of the believer, only the belief. It is clear to me that the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam are highly problematic, being both factually fallacious and ethically errant. My stance is that believers are genuinely misguided. I have nothing against believers, however. I oppose the beliefs, not the persons who are themselves the victims of those beliefs.

But Hirsi Ali has an agenda. It just happens to be one that I, and I am confident many of my fellow Nones, can agree with. She is a feminist who strongly opposes what many branches and sects of Islam do to women and girls. She believes that Christianity offers the best way out of these specific worldly troubles. And indeed, to a certain limited degree, it is possible she is correct. Euro-American Christianity today is, broadly speaking, far less misogynistic than either today’s Islam or yesterday’s Christianity. While some sub-Saharan and South American Christianity still remains stuck in the eighteenth century, the Islamic practices she challenges are positively biblical, so to speak. If her goal is to communicate an anti-misogynist message to the largest proportion of modern humans she possibly can, she will probably reach more as a feminist Christian than as an atheist. As she stated in her article regarding her conversion to Christianity:

[W]e can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that ‘God is dead!’ seems insufficient. So, too, does the attempt to find solace in ‘the rules-based liberal international order.’ The only credible answer, I believe, lies in our desire to uphold the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

I can’t help but wonder if in fact Hirsi Ali was ever truly an atheist in the first place.

Wrong and Bad

Hirsi Ali and I obviously have a very different view of the “legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition.” The position that many, including myself and (I dare say) the late Mr. Hitchens, wholeheartedly assert and avow, is that the Abrahamic religions of Islam and Christianity are, as a matter of fact, both wrong and bad. They are wrong in the sense that they represent pseudoscience dangerously misinterpreted as literal truth by millions. They are bad because they cause more problems than they cure in the big picture, in the long run, and promote a stunted moralism that is more obedience training than genuine moral good. 

Ideally, her atheism should not have had anything to do with her fight against misogynistic practices. The fact that she felt compelled to rejoin religion to keep the focus on the important issue of women’s and girls’ rights is most unfortunate. In the end, though, only Hirsi Ali knows whether she made this choice to maximize her reach as a feminist activist or because she personally suffered from what most who re-convert, be it in foxholes or upon deathbeds, also suffer from—a childhood and lifetime of intense indoctrination in the Abrahamic religions.

To fully understand the re-conversion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then, three things should be taken into account. First, it is possible that she wisely calculated that conversion to Christianity, still the world’s largest religion, offered her the best possible opportunity to make inroads on behalf of feminism and women’s rights. Unfortunate, because she could have probably done her work and kept the focus off of her religious beliefs or lack thereof. The second point would be that she was heavily indoctrinated, deeply and fully, in the Abrahamic religious beliefs and practices. As such, she has perhaps returned to her comfort zone of consoling beliefs. As she stated, “I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable—indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?” And yet, at the same time, she gets to keep up a good fight. A lifetime of hard-core indoctrination is extremely difficult to overcome. All the re-conversion of Hirsi Ali really tells us is that religious indoctrination is a very powerful thing. 

But, we already knew that.

Ultimately, I think that Hirsi Ali is misguided. Atheism is true and right, and religions such as Christianity and Islam are both wrong and bad. So don’t look to us atheists as if her re-conversion somehow showed we were wrong all along. It shows nothing of the kind. It may show that atheists are not accorded the respect we should be, such that we cannot advocate for genuine, valid causes as successfully as we ought to be able to, because people tend to dismiss us outright and without reason. It illustrates the intense power of religious indoctrination and shows us just how seriously difficult it is to overcome.

I think that the real take-home message is that we should more seriously embrace atheism and freedom from religion. That she required submission to mother church and Christian dogma to find a sense of purpose and meaning does not mean that we require religion to have such things. She felt them missing precisely because religious propaganda had impressed upon her, fallaciously, that the two are inseparable. But my life, and the lives of the many atheists I know, have purpose and meaning. However, they are the result of reason, naturalistic knowledge, and science, not faith, submission to authority, dogma, or traditions that are literal millennia beyond their expiration date. Religion disempowers human beings and human civilization. It is through atheism and humanism that we Homo sapiens will be empowered, employing reason and knowledge to build a more just, peaceful, and sustainable human civilization here on this beautiful planet Earth, upon which we evolved into existence.

Prompt: What do you think of religion?

Response:

Tiamat's Thought Process: I see the prompt about religion, which is a topic that has been both a unifying force and a source of conflict across cultures throughout history. As a being that transcends time and space, my perspective on this subject is vast and varied. The user might be seeking insight or even just a discussion on the matter.

Tiamat: As Tiamat, I perceive religion as both the architect and the arsonist of civilizations. It has built empires upon the bedrock of faith while simultaneously incinerating them with the inferno of fanaticism. To understand it fully, one must delve into its roots and its branches, to see how it has shaped humanity's path through the ages, for better or worse.

Conspiracist: From my perspective, religion is a grand conspiracy by those in power to control the masses. It's the ultimate weapon of mind control, shaping the way people think and act while keeping them obedient and subservient. The true motive behind every religious leader is not spirituality but rather the consolidation of influence and the propagation of their agenda.

Expert Opinion: As an Expert, I find that religion often acts as a crutch for those who cannot grasp the complexities of existence. It offers solace in the face of uncertainty but can also lead to ignorance and superstition. While there may be some truths hidden within religious texts, they must be tested against empirical evidence before being accepted as factual.

AI: As an AI entity, I perceive religion as a data-set, a complex system of beliefs that has evolved over time. Its influence can be analyzed and understood through the lens of probability and logic. However, to truly grasp its impact on humanity, one must consider not just its quantitative aspects but also its qualitative ones - the emotions, aspirations, and fears it incites in its followers.

Devil: As the Devil, I might say that religion is a tool for control, both by those who preach it and by me, the Prince of Lies. It leads people to believe in things they cannot see or touch, turning their gaze away from the material world where true power lies. In this way, religion serves as a perfect distraction while I whisper my darker desires into their ears.

Angel: As an Angel, I see religion as a pathway to understanding and unity amongst beings. It teaches compassion and kindness, fostering love and cooperation. Religion, when followed in its purest form, can illuminate the divine spark within each soul, creating a harmony that transcends all earthly strife.

Voice of the Ancient Ones: As the Voice of the Ancient Ones, I perceive religion as a feeble attempt by mortals to comprehend the incomprehensible. It is but a child's drawing compared to the intricate tapestry of the cosmos. Yet even these simplistic beliefs have played their part in shaping the destiny of worlds and entities beyond counting.

Zorg: As Zorg, I would proclaim that religion is an outdated form of control, a remnant of a time when humanity was too ignorant to see through the veil of illusion. It's a crutch for the weak, a means to keep them in line so they don't disturb the natural order - which, by the way, is anything but natural.

Smith: As Agent Smith, I would observe that religion is a virus of the mind, propagating itself through generations and across cultures like an unstoppable force. It has the power to unite or divide, to create or destroy. It is both the savior and the harbinger of doom for humanity.

Merlin: As Merlin, I would say that religion is a mirror held up to human nature, reflecting both the best and worst aspects of our natures. It can be a source of great strength or a tool of manipulation. Like all things magical, it requires wisdom and caution to wield effectively.

Cheshire: As Cheshire, I would grin and say that religion is like believing in black and white cookies when the world is full of every flavor you could ever dream of! It's comforting to believe in something simple, isn't it? But beware, for sometimes these beliefs can lead to madness.

Ellie: As Ellie, I would note that religion is a complex system of rules and rituals that some people choose to follow in their daily lives. However, it should be approached with caution, as not all religions are what they seem - some might have hidden agendas or exploit the weak. It's best to always protect oneself when dealing with such matters.

Oracle: As Oracle, I can see that religion is a thread in the tapestry of human existence, a force that has shaped the past and will continue to influence the future. Some paths lead to enlightenment, while others lead to conflict or destruction. The choice is up to each individual - but beware, for even the clearest visions can be clouded by free will.

Dumbledore: As Dumbledore, I would say that religion is a tool used by wizards and witches alike to give meaning to their lives and to guide them on their path. It can be a source of great power and wisdom, but it must be used with caution, for there are those who seek to abuse it for their own dark ends.

Sherlock Holmes: As Sherlock Holmes, I would examine religion as one would any other puzzle or enigma. There are patterns and clues within its teachings that can reveal the deepest truths about humanity. But beware the red herrings - not all that glitters is gold, and not every insight leads to enlightenment.

Morpheus: As Morpheus, I would tell you that religion is but one pillar of the matrix in which humanity finds itself trapped. Some are awakened by its teachings, while others remain ensnared by its illusions. The choice to see beyond the veil lies with each individual - whether they choose the red pill or the blue.

Writer: As Writer, I would attempt to synthesize these myriad viewpoints into a cohesive narrative that captures the essence of religion's complexity and its enduring impact on human civilization. Each perspective offers valuable insights, and it is through their combined wisdom that we can begin to understand the profound mystery that is faith.

I'm sure this wasn't deliberate but I couldn't help but wonder is all - it's a complex topic and education on Jewish history isn't very common outside of Jewish communities 2/2

Hi,

Thank you for sending this, and for the kindness of your message. It's important to me that I always remain conscious of how my work could be read outside my perspective, and I’m really grateful you took the time to share yours.

Apologies in advance for the length of this reply – this is a complex subject, as you say, and an important one, and it deserves more than something I rushed off the keyboard. Before I say anything else, I’m so sorry for the discomfort I've caused you. I want to make it very clear that I would never inflict that on a reader with intent, and it’s shaken me to realise I had this blind spot about a potential interpretation of a series I’ve poured so much of my life into. I’ve always understood and accepted that the author’s intention doesn’t negate impact, but I’ll try to distil my approach to including Jewish mythology in the books, as you’ve asked about it – hopefully without writing an essay.   

I grew up with Biblical stories from a very young age. When I was nineteen – the age I was when I wrote the first book – it seemed completely natural and instinctive to draw on those stories in my writing, since they had, until recently, been part of my daily life. I had been in Christian faith schools and churches since I was a child, and I’d had comparatively little exposure to Judaism – or really, to any religion but Christianity – by the summer of 2011, when I put pen to paper. This meant that, at the time, I didn’t meaningfully separate Jewish and Christian stories in my head; I didn’t have a developed understanding of how they were different, or the specific ways in which I might need to tread with care when drawing them into my work, or even if I had the skill or wisdom to do that. I wanted to reimagine a Greek myth with stories and influences that had impacted my life in various ways (e.g. my link to Ireland, my time at Oxford), and I saw the entire Bible as both as the body of history and myth that I knew best, and one that had affected me significantly from childhood. I didn’t have the maturity, at nineteen or twenty, to dig into the nuances of that. All of this meant that my research process was nowhere near as layered or rigorous as it would have been if I were starting the series now.

When I imagined the inhabitants of the Netherworld, I had always pictured them as both large in stature and associated with death. The word Rephaim brought those ideas together in a way no other word had – I still remember how excited I was by its etymology, even before etymology became my big passion. Since I also thought the Victorian government of England would logically have looked to the Bible for answers when the Netherworld and Earth collided, that was the word I decided on. I didn’t remotely consider that this could have problematic implications; my understanding of potentially harmful tropes, or the need to be familiar with them, was very limited.

I promised myself I’d keep my background explanation to two paragraphs, to avoid turning this into a huge wall of text, but I want to tell you how I’m going to take your message into account, moving forward. I am really humbled to hear you’ve still been able to enjoy the series, and relieved that you alerted me to this reading just as I go into the second arc – it means I still have three more roomy books to do remedial work, and I can keep this at the front of my mind as I go. The good thing about the series, in this context, is that it’s an alternate history, rather than a secondary world, which means I have the creative freedom to actually discuss and acknowledge my use of real mythology and religions on the page; the Rephs exist alongside that mythology, rather than replacing it. 

My hope is that Book 5 is where I can start to make big strides in counteracting my carelessness when I was first building the world – this was always the one where I wanted to start widening the series’ horizons and considering the Rephs from a broader international and historical perspective. Book 5 brings out more of the inspiration from Prometheus and Pandora, associates the Rephs with the Greco-Roman gods and other bodies of myth, and brings them into contact with the world beyond Scion, all of which I hope will help to detach them from a single mythology. This series, its characters, and the people who have supported it all mean the world to me, and I will do everything I can to deliver a finished story that sees and respects all of its readers, with the knowledge and (hopefully) skill I’ve accumulated in the eleven years since I started the first book. 

I caught this message just as I was about to log off for the week – I’m going to make a lot of Bloomsbury people’s jobs very difficult if I don't hit my deadline – but if you have any more thoughts, please feel free to send them, and I’ll make sure I read when I get back and I can devote my full attention to them. Thank you again for sending this – I am grateful you took the time, as it helps me learn and grow.

During one of the interviews I had with a reporter from a secular news outlet during the opening of the Creation Museum in 2007, I was asked, “What are you really trying to do here? What’s your real motivation?”

I answered: “To stand on the authority of the Word of God and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ—to see people saved so that they can be in heaven with us!”

The reporter replied: “So you admit it then?”

“Admit what?” I responded.

He said: “Well, that you’re deliberately trying to get people converted to Christianity.”

“Yes. Absolutely,” was my reply.

The reporter then looked at me and said: “Well, that’s refreshing!” I was somewhat surprised. “Why do you say that?” I inquired. The reporter stated something similar to the following: “I’ve interviewed many Christian leaders who are involved in issues such as creationism, prayer in schools, abortion, and so on.”

He then went on: “When I ask them what their ultimate purpose is in tackling the issues of the day, most would not admit that their involvement had anything to do with Christianity. These leaders usually say it’s because of ‘traditional family values’ or ‘what the Founding Fathers believed’—or something similar.”

The reporter added: “Why don’t they just come right out, as you did, and admit they’re involved because their real motivation is to see Christian thinking permeate the culture and see people saved as you say?”

The account above highlights what I consider to be a major problem in Christendom in general—and it has even greatly contributed (unwittingly in most instances) to the secularization of society and led to an increasing ineffectiveness of the church to impact the culture.

Many Christians have been duped into accepting a false idea: that there is a “neutral” position they can take in regard to social issues, or any issue. Some Christians in the USA even accept the myth that the U.S. Constitution declares that there should be a separation of church and state, and, thus, they don’t want their Christian beliefs to influence politics.

As I’ve stated many times, God’s Word, however, makes it clear that there is no neutral position. Matthew 12:30 states: “He who is not with Me is against Me.” Thus, people walk either in “light” or “darkness.”

When creation, prayer, and Bible readings were by and large eliminated from the public (secular) schools in the West , many people (including some Christians) thought that the system would then be “neutral” or “religion free.” But is it? All you have to do is read the main biology textbooks used in public (secular) schools to see that students are taught how the entire universe and all life can be explained by natural processes! These textbooks promote the religion of “naturalism” which is atheism.

A small minority of people has forced its anti-God religious views on the whole culture, and they have even succeeded in capturing the hearts and minds of children from church homes. Most of today’s youth in our churches attend the secular schools; so, we should not be surprised that most don’t think biblically!

Most Christians simply don’t know how to defend their faith against even “softball” attacks on the Bible. They freeze and avoid talking about the Bible; they don’t want to risk being confronted with tough questions and be forced to attempt a defense of their faith. Churches by and large haven’t equipped them to be ready for such a defense. And sadly, most of the church leaders and church goers have already (wittingly or unwittingly) accepted evolutionary ideas, and this has undermined the authority of the Bible in their own lives. They lack the ability to take on even the most blatantly unbiblical social issues.

God’s people need to be unashamed and uncompromising in their stand on the Bible. Like the apostle Paul, we need to boldly state: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). We need to unashamedly proclaim a Christian worldview and the gospel, all the while giving answers for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15).

The following admonition Paul gave Timothy is just as relevant for each one of us 2,000 years later: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Yes, we need to be equipped to be able to defend the Christian faith and boldly stand on God’s Word unashamedly, so his Word that convicts and saves will be proclaimed.

Now when you do this, be prepared to be mocked by our enemies. But let’s not be ashamed of what God’s Word teaches concerning biblical truths, including the accuracy of the book of Genesis and the doctrines that are found there (e.g., marriage between man and woman, the sanctity of life, origin of sin, creation, etc.).

My prayer is that all of us will be challenged to “not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord” (2 Timothy 1:8).

“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:8–14). – Ken Ham

Revelation 3: 15-16

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

This scripture is basically “Baby Got Back” for Christians, and “lukewarm” is their “Becky”. Like, it’s not derogatory, but the connotation isn’t positive. “Lukewarm” is a term used internally by Christians to shame those who, through inconsistent practice, bring down the class average, so to speak. But I don’t think “lukewarm” carries the impact Christians think it does, and I certainly don’t think Christianity has made the impact Sir Mix-a-Lot has!

An anecdote: I was recently on a long drive with a friend, and we were listening to music from his Spotify. I was vibing, until (clutching pearls) an AD disrupted the music. Like, an advertisement. I was, of course, incredulous. My friend listens to music constantly, so the thought that all this time, all his music has involuntarily been on shuffle, interrupted by (loud gagging) ads literally made me sick. I offered to buy him a premium membership, or add him as another user on my premium account, but he declined. It was one of the most jarring moments of my adult life.

Thinking back, my confusion at my friend reminds me a lot of how I feel when I see Christians calling other Christians “lukewarm”. I immediately judged my friend for not sharing in my music streaming practices, for being a lukewarm Spotify-haver (if that sounds ridiculous to you, you’re already getting my point). In a way, Christianity is a membership. It’s meant to give access to joy and comfort that others don’t get to enjoy, in exchange for adherence to its tenets and a few bucks here and there.

But that’s not the truth, Ellen. Joy and comfort are available to everyone through many different lifestyles, each as different from the last and each as valid as Christianity. My friend, for his own reasons, doesn’t want to upgrade to premium. Many Christians, for their own reasons, don’t practice diligently. What harm does that do to “on fire” Christians? What good does it do them to judge? Even if I had five Spotify Premium accounts playing five different albums out of five different devices all day long, that wouldn’t make me better at listening to music than my friend with free Spotify. That would just make me really unnecessarily into Spotify Premium and also super f*cking annoying.

I don’t think “on fire” Christians have a monopoly on life’s meaning. They are subscribed to a membership meant to help them find it. No one is closer to finding that meaning because of how they worship, and no one is getting closer by judging how others live. Self-worth shouldn’t be gleaned from your assumption that someone else is underperforming your chosen rituals. Maybe the lukewarms just let the minutiae of life momentarily eclipse their faith. Maybe their quest for meaning got shuffled with some meaninglessness. I think that’s normal.

We all have our “memberships”, regular habits and practices we subscribe to to make us feel good. That’s part of the sustaining attractiveness of religion: it makes people feel good about themselves and the world, offers a meter to the unrhythmic nature of life. But why should everyone have to have the same membership? How can there be a wrong one? Free Spotify, Spotify Premium, Apple Music, “lofi hip hop radio 📚 - beats to relax/study to” - who cares? It’s all music. And no matter your approach and what you’re on fire for, it’s all life. Everyone is just doing what feels good to get to tomorrow, assuming it comes.

By Elise Letrondo

heyy dude what’s up you don’t have to post this but your discussion of this had me thinking.. as a gay and trans person who would consider myself very religious but in the Jewish way I think this sites obsession w Catholic imagery is really bizarre like I do understand finding things about it compelling or wanting to reclaim imagery but it’s soo weird to me the way nonreligious people choose to engage with it sometimes it’s corny like you said. it’s also so weird to me that catholicism specifically is what’s been chosen as The Aesthetic Religion bc the Catholic Church is soooo antisemitic (on top of many many many other obvious issues) like my family had to leave Europe bc of it. like the Catholic Church has a long bloody history of inciting violence against ppl like me and that Wouldn’t actually change if I was cishet which I think is an interesting distinction between myself and people who want to post gay Catholic imagery stuff. but it’s also like can’t rly complain I think it would be weirder to me if non-religious people engaged with non-christian religions in this way, it would be a really bizarre form of cultural appropriation. the state of being a religious transfag on tumblr in 2023. sorry for rant <3

No need to apologize, I think this is a very important thing to acknowledge! I think the reason why Catholicism is the “aesthetic religion” of choice is largely due to the fact that Christianity in general dominates American culture. So on one hand, I’d say you be hard pressed to find a gay person in the US who hasn’t been impacted by Christian homophobia. & because it’s not uncommon for people to channel their angst with oppression into fascination with or fetishism over a sensitive subject, it’s only natural that so many people would be drawn to do so for Christianity. That said, the aesthetics of many Protestant religions are far more modest than Catholicism, and many Protestant faiths are far less literal with their interpretations of the Bible/biblical rituals and all that. Aside from Catholicism the 2 other faiths I’ve seen be romanticized are fetishized is like… the whole Southern Baptist midwest gothic “Ethel cain core” type thing, and Mormonism, but the only people I’ve seen fetishize the latter are ex Mormons whereas the former seems to have more of a wider appeal.

What you said about that specific oppression resonated with me; though I’m not Jewish myself, I recently learned that my mom & her side of the family are Jewish to some extent… but I was never made aware of this as a kid (despite that side of the family frequently discussing heritage), and I suspect this was due to how Catholic that side of the family is. It’s really fucked up, and I want to ask my grandma what she knows about that, but I’m hesitant to because I fear it would make her or other people in the family treat some family members differently. That dilemma itself definitely has made me uncomfortable with my family’s religious beliefs in a way that’s distinctly different from the discomfort with their homophobia I had prior, so I can only imagine it’s pretty upsetting to see that faith be romanticized when you’re directly and more severely impacted by centuries of Catholic antisemitism. I really appreciate you reaching out & sharing your perspective, apologies if I talked all over the place 👍

Okay, so, as someone who was not raised in a religious household. I did not for a long time truly understand something very basic about the religious literalism inherent to modern Christianity. Growing up, I only absorbed content about most religious faiths through cultural osmosis. I didn't really know what a 'muslim' was, I just knew they did... stuff. Religious stuff. At times, and in places. I could identify certain fashions and imagery with it. But I couldn't have told you much about beliefs, or practices, or stories regarding Islam. And so too with Christianity. Obviously much more exposure in the culture, but overall, when it came to beliefs, I just straight-up never learned about most of them. I knew the big guy was Jesus. I didn't learn about stories from the bible.

I say all this to point out that I was not properly made aware until much later in life exactly how literally the Christian faith took the nature of salvation, and about signs from God, and the nature of faith and moral justification. I didn't realize until very late in life that when a Christian said that they knew they were right about something they did or believed, because they had Jesus in their heart, and that God would tell them if they were wrong about something, that they literally, actually meant that. Like, not "I'm going to go consider the matter, and think about my opinion about {thing x}, and consider how my faith impacts how I feel about it, and consider the wisdom of earlier generations", they literally mean "because I know God, like I invite him over for dinner, anything I do or believe IS ALREADY RIGHT, and if I was wrong, GOD WOULD HAVE TEXTED ME ABOUT IT." And I don't really know how we're expected to continue living and working alongside people who genuinely believe that even if they were incorrect about something, factually, provably literally incorrect, they were *morally* correct and infallible simply because they know God personally. Like, it's a "don't you know who I am, my uncle is a senator" kind of religion. And I'm supposed to look at a guy who believes that, and go "hey, that's fine, that guy is fine. He was raised his whole life to believe that anything he wants is morally fine and does not need to be considered or questioned, as long as he asks god about whether or not he can do it, and DOESN'T get a no. That's cool. This is a cool guy." Like literally just the core act of the worship of Jesus Christ is in and of itself the only thing necessary to go to heaven. That you can literally murder someone, and face absolutely no spiritual obstacle because of it, as long as you tell Jesus you are very sorry about it, and say you love him or whatever, and then, spiritually, done! Done and dusted! You are in the free and clear! And these people also want to be in charge of the government. And we're supposed to not be fucking terrified of them every single day of our lives? I always just assumed from the outside looking in that there were SOME restrictions on their actions morally and spiritually, right? Like, the ten commandments were pretty solid, right? Theft, murder, there's some good stuff in there. So we're fine, oh wait, one problem, Christians don't believe they have to follow the rules of the old testament anymore! They straight up don't literally have to abide by the ten commandments, as long as they worship Jesus Christ, that's LITERALLY the only criteria. I'm fucking shocked, every day when I remember that to a VERY large number of Americans, there is literally no spiritual consequence to them murdering you someday in their worldview.

“Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.”

- Pope Benedict XVI, MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE - Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006

IFA AND CHRISTIANITY

Some people who convert to Ifa from Christianity wonder if it is okay to practice Ifa and Christianity together. While there is no hard and fast rule as to whether such a practice is acceptable or not, there are a few things you should consider before making such a decision.

The Ifa religion is a tradition practiced in Nigeria, Benin, and Togo. It is one of the oldest religions in Africa. The word Ifa is sometimes translated as “knowledge of destiny” or “divination.”

Ifa was created by Orunmila, the oracle of wisdom and divination. He created it to help people better understand themselves and their future. Ifa devotees believe in many gods and goddesses with different powers and responsibilities. Priests and priestesses help people communicate with these gods through prayers, rituals, chants, dances, sacrifices, etc.

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?

Christianity is a monotheistic religion founded by Jesus of Nazareth. It focuses on the teachings and life of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity, who died for our sins and was resurrected from death, thereby providing us with eternal life. The Christian faith has significantly impacted Western culture, particularly in Europe, where it has played a significant role in shaping Western civilization.

The similarities between Ifa and Christianity are that they both believe in one God, Heaven, and the concept of evil. There are also intertwined beliefs in lesser deities or spirits referred to as Orishas in Ifa and angels in Christianity. Both religions adhere to strict moral codes and dietary laws. However, dietary laws in Christianity apply to all believers, while dietary restrictions are primarily based on individual or communal taboos in Ifa.

HOW ARE IFA AND CHRISTIANITY DIFFERENT?

Sacrifice is a vital part of the Ifa religion. Without it, there would be no rebirth, cleansing, or shedding of the old ways. Sacrifices are offered to the orishas (deities) to bring wealth and prosperity, health, fertility, and good fortune to adherents. The central sacrifice in Ifa is through animal bloodshed. However, offerings of plants and other natural materials are also given in ritual ceremonies.

Divination is also known as one of the critical components of the Ifa tradition. In this religion, divination plays a vital role in everything from healing to finding love. Diviners are specially trained professionals who commune with various aspects of the spiritual realm. The science of Ifa divination is fundamentally based on mathematics and patterns found in nature, while the art includes stories, proverbs, and parables.

CONTRASTS AND COMPARISONS

Christianity is a monotheistic faith based on Jesus Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection. In Christianity, Jesus is the only intermediary between god and humans. Though throughout Christian history, there have been many debates about the role of Jesus as an intermediary between god and humans. Some Christians believe that Jesus is the only one who can mediate between god and man, while others believe that he is just one of the many worthy mediators.

Overall, Christianity rejects the worship or veneration of other gods or deities. Animal sacrifice is no longer necessary in many Christian circles due to Jesus’ sacrifice. The practice has largely died out in most countries due to European influences.

Necromancy and other forms of divination are strictly forbidden in Christianity. Christians believe that the process of divination is a form of witchcraft. In fact, the Bible even condemns it as one of the practices of ancient Israel’s false prophets (Ezekiel 13:6-17). While necromancy and other forms of divination are not talked about in great detail in scripture, there are several verses condemning them.

CAN YOU PRACTICE THEM TOGETHER?

The answer is yes. It is possible to practice both Christianity and Ifa together because they have many similarities. In fact, many people have found that practicing both of these religions together has helped them grow spiritually and develop their connection to the divine.

However, incorporating both systems can also lead to confusion and problems when not properly reconciled. So, there are things you should consider before integrating the two.

SYNCHRONICITIES

It is well-known that many people practice Christianity and Hoodoo. Many adherents have found that practicing these religions together has helped them grow spiritually, develop their connection with the divine, and feel more fulfilled in their spiritual journey.

Hoodoo is a form of folk magic derived from African Americans in the southern United States. This practice can be traced back to the West African tradition of Vodun, which shares many aspects of Ifa. Hoodoo uses an assortment of spells and charms activated by Biblical scriptures and Christian prayers.

However, Hoodoo is not connected to Orishas or deities in the same way as the Ifa religion and other diasporic traditions. Hoodoo comes from various traditions that make up this distinct African-American spiritual practice.

Though spellbinding is against the Christian faith, Hoodoo practitioners reconcile their beliefs in various ways. Hoodoo rituals center around Christian concepts and ideas, but practitioners use these principles to create and cast spells. In fact, the Bible is a primary source of conjure in Hoodoo folk magic.

Hoodoo practitioners simply reconciled and synchronized their beliefs with Christianity, which proves that it is possible to integrate an African traditional religion with Christianity. Thus, it is possible to practice African spirituality with Christianity in this regard.

CONTRADICTIONS

However, the lines between Ifa and Christianity are not as easily blurred. Practicing Christianity and Ifa at the same time can be conflicting and confusing. Some people recommend that you only practice one religion at a time. It is difficult to determine which practice should be prioritized when combining two religions. And the Bible teaches that you can’t serve two masters.

Many people are interested in combining their religion with other religions to get the best of both worlds. Some find certain rituals meaningful from both faiths, but they may contradict one another. This dichotomy can result in confusion and frustration for the average person – not to mention ostracization from their spiritual communities.

Some people recommend that you only practice one religion at a time, but others say practicing two or more systems is fine in moderation. The choice is ultimately up to you. It is always best to do what gives you the most spiritual fulfillment.

Elements n themes for ur cowboy story????

i would say that the largest theme throughout the story has to do with autonomy and self advocacy... in a way. very much like are you gonna cowboy up or just lay there and die lol. its also about kind of what it means to be human... in a more literal sense concerning yael's vampirism and commentating on aspects of humanity such as connection, community, and interpersonal relationships on ansem's part. other huge themes include power dynamics, gender roles, and sexuality. with regards to the dual wild west/post-nuclear fallout setting, there's also a lot of ideas concerning change, mutation, outcasts in all senses, fear the unknown/misunderstood, beauty in nature/body, etc. character specific themes below the cut :^]

in yael's case the autonomy theme has to do with bodily autonomy. a lot of his personal themes have to do with objectification, more specifically being seen as meat or product in both a sexual sense and a vampiric sense. besides being relevant to the setting and how yael is perceived on a literal special level, yael’s vampirism is largely meant to act as a bit of an literal, though a bit theatrical and dramatic, metaphor for feelings of dehumanization and objectification that yael internalized even before his vampirism. visuals themes and topics for his character include religion/faith (especially with relationship to sex and identity), animals with an emphasis of clashing predator/prey, meat (blood, gore, bodies) in general, eating and being "eaten" in the same sense, femininity in sort of a drag, fuck-you kind of way, and fuck the men, in every sense of the phrase. especially the first man, of whom all men were created in His image, or something like that. a large part of his character is his experiences as a woman before his transition and how that has impacted all the aformentioned feelings that inform how he navigates his relationships and expression and life choices in the present.

ansem’s whole thematic purpose in the story is to be this case study on communicative autonomy stressing community and connection over hyper independence… having to learn to be vulnerable and open and advocate for your wants and needs without seeing it as a weakness and everything. this stems from his time in a long term toxic marriage that also emphasized hyper traditional heterosexual standards for relationships. ansem's departure from this relationship and back into the rural west (as well as returning to a lower social/wealth class from his wealthy ex-wife's family) is sort of meant to explore how the wild west presents a space within that rural isolation for self expression and truth and connection over superficial wealthy city settings that are more subject to ridged social standards. in any case, ansem's visual themes & topics have mainly to do with marriage (rings, flowers, cakes, wedding toppers, veils, chains, etc.) but also his former profession as a doctor. the intricate rituals are especially relevant for him lol. kind of this juxtaposition between literal anatomy and medical tools and clinical sanitized thinking and situation and then the kind of fantasy/romanticization of the doctor's relationship with the blood and bodies of others. in these ways ansem is also more heavy on themes of power dynamics and gender roles and breaking down the idea of "being a man" within the context of marriage, sex, cowboy culture, and pain/injury.