Visit Blog
Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.
Fun Fact
40% of users visit Tumblr between 1 and 30 times a month.
#Monotheism
pakistaniweddings21 hours ago
Text
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
This Ramadan/Eid give the perfect gift of this beautiful colored Quran e Pak by @imaanshopofficial to your loved ones馃摽馃晫 It鈥檚 Roman with English transliteration and translation to fully understand鉂わ笍 @imaanshopofficial is the only company in the world that provides Roman Quran e Pak and it鈥檚 a great option for people who struggle reading Arabic fluently and feel guilty of not being able to experience the joy鉂わ笍
5 notesView notes
drmariottini4 days ago
Text
The Just God: The Nature of Deity in Psalm 82
The Just God: The Nature of Deity in Psalm聽82
In the third chapter of his book The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture, R. W. L. Moberly deals with 鈥淭he Just God: The Nature of Deity in Psalm 82.鈥 For the complete review of the book, visit my previous post, Book Review: 鈥淭he God of the Old Testament.鈥 In Chapter 3, Moberly presents a detailed study of Psalm 82, a psalm that J. Clinton McCann Jr. called鈥
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
A History Of God 鈥 The 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
Tumblr media
鈥淚 say that religion isn鈥檛 about believing things. It鈥檚 ethical alchemy. It鈥檚 about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness.鈥 鈥 Karen Armstrong on Powells.com
book by Karen Armstrong (2004)
The idea of a single divine being 鈥 God, Yahweh, Allah 鈥 has existed for over 4,000 years. But the history of God is also the history of human struggle. While Judaism, Islam and Christianity proclaim the goodness of God, organised religion has too often been the catalyst for violence and ineradicable prejudice. In this fascinating, extensive and original account of the evolution of belief, Karen Armstrong examines Western society鈥檚 unerring fidelity to this idea of One God and the many conflicting convictions it engenders. A controversial, extraordinary story of worship and war, A History of God confronts the most fundamental fact 鈥 or fiction 鈥 of our lives.
____________________________________
Review: Armstrong, a British journalist and former nun, guides us along one of the most elusive and fascinating quests of all time 鈥 the search for God. Like all beloved historians, Armstrong entertains us with deft storytelling, astounding research, and makes us feel a greater appreciation for the present because we better understand our past. Be warned: A History of God is not a tidy linear history. Rather, we learn that the definition of God is constantly being repeated, altered, discarded, and resurrected through the ages, responding to its followers鈥 practical concerns rather than to mystical mandates. Armstrong also shows us how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have overlapped and influenced one another, gently challenging the secularist history of each of these religions. 鈥 Gail Hudson
____________________________________
The Introduction to A History of God:
As a child, I had a number of strong religious beliefs but little faith in God. There is a distinction between belief in a set of propositions and a faith which enables us to put our trust in them. I believed implicitly in the existence of God; I also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the efficacy of the sacraments, the prospect of eternal damnation and the objective reality of Purgatory. I cannot say, however, that my belief in these religious opinions about the nature of ultimate reality gave me much confidence that life here on earth was good or beneficent. The Roman Catholicism of my childhood was a rather frightening creed. James Joyce got it right in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: I listened to my share of hell-fire sermons. In fact Hell seemed a more potent reality than God, because it was something that I could grasp imaginatively. God, on the other hand, was a somewhat shadowy figure, defined in intellectual abstractions rather than images. When I was about eight years old, I had to memorise this catechism answer to the question, 鈥榃hat is God?鈥: 鈥楪od is the Supreme Spirit, Who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections.鈥 Not surprisingly, it meant little to me and I am bound to say that it still leaves me cold. It has always seemed a singularly arid, pompous and arrogant definition. Since writing this book, however, I have come to believe that it is also incorrect.
As I grew up, I realised that there was more to religion than fear. I read the lives of the saints, the metaphysical poets, T. S. Eliot and some of the simpler writings of the mystics. I began to be moved by the beauty of the liturgy and, though God remained distant, I felt that it was possible to break through to him and that the vision would transfigure the whole of created reality. To do this I entered a religious order and, as a novice and a young nun, I learned a good deal more about the faith. I applied myself to apologetics, scripture, theology and church history. I delved into the history of the monastic life and embarked on a minute discussion of the Rule of my own order, which we had to learn by heart. Strangely enough, God figured very little in any of this. Attention seemed focused on secondary details and the more peripheral aspects of religion. I wrestled with myself in prayer, trying to force my mind to encounter God but he remained a stern taskmaster, who observed my every infringement of the Rule, or tantalisingly absent. The more I read about the raptures of the saints, the more of a failure I felt. I was unhappily aware that what little religious experience I had, had somehow been manufactured by myself as I worked upon my own feelings and imagination. Sometimes a sense of devotion was an aesthetic response to the beauty of the Gregorian chant and the liturgy. But nothing had actually happened to me from a source beyond myself. I never glimpsed the God described by the prophets and mystics. Jesus Christ, about whom we talked far more than about 鈥楪od鈥, seemed a purely historical figure, inextricably embedded in late antiquity. I also began to have grave doubts about some of the doctrines of the Church. How could anybody possibly know for certain that the man Jesus had been God incarnate and what did such a belief mean? Did the New Testament really teach the elaborate 鈥 and highly contradictory 鈥 doctrine of the Trinity or was this, like so many other articles of the faith, a fabrication by theologians centuries after the death of Christ in Jerusalem?
Eventually, with regret, I left the religious life and once freed of the burden of failure and inadequacy, I felt my belief in God slip quietly away. He had never really impinged upon my life, though I had done my best to enable him to do so. Now that I no longer felt so guilty and anxious about him, he became too remote to be a reality. My interest in religion continued, however, and I made a number of television programmes about the early history of Christianity and the nature of the religious experience. The more I learned about the history of religion, the more my earlier misgivings were justified. The doctrines that I had accepted without question as a child were indeed man-made, constructed over a long period of time. Science seemed to have disposed of the Creator God and biblical scholars had proved that Jesus had never claimed to be divine. As an epileptic, I had flashes of vision that I knew to be a mere neurological defect: had the visions and raptures of the saints also been a mere mental quirk? Increasingly, God seemed an aberration, something that the human race had outgrown.
Despite my years as a nun, I do not believe that my experience of God is unusual. My ideas about God were formed in childhood and did not keep abreast of my growing knowledge in other disciplines. I had revised simplistic childhood views of Father Christmas; I had come to a more mature understanding of the complexities of the human predicament than had been possible in the kindergarten. Yet my early, confused ideas about God had not been modified or developed. People without my peculiarly religious background may also find that their notion of God was formed in infancy. Since those days, we have put away childish things and have discarded the God of our first years.
Yet my study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spiritual animals. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognisably human; they created religions at the same time as they created works of art. This was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces but these early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seems always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world. Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life, despite the suffering that flesh is heir to. Like any other human activity, religion can be abused but it seems to have been something that we have always done. It was not tacked on to a primordially secular nature by manipulative kings and priests but was natural to humanity. Indeed, our current secularism is an entirely new experiment, unprecedented in human history. We have yet to see how it will work. It is also true to say that our Western liberal humanism is not something that comes naturally to us; like an appreciation of art or poetry, it has to be cultivated. Humanism is itself a religion without God 鈥 not all religions, of course, are theistic. Our ethical secular ideal has its own disciplines of mind and heart and gives people the means of finding faith in the ultimate meaning of human life that were once provided by the more conventional religions.
When I began to research this history of the idea and experience of God in the three related monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I expected to find that God had simply been a projection of human needs and desires. I thought that 鈥榟e鈥 would mirror the fears and yearnings of society at each stage of its development. My predictions were not entirely unjustified but I have been extremely surprised by some of my findings and I wish that I had learned all this thirty years ago, when I was starting out in the religious life. It would have saved me a great deal of anxiety to hear 鈥 from eminent monotheists in all three faiths 鈥 that instead of waiting for God to descend from on high, I should deliberately create a sense of him for myself. Other Rabbis, priests and Sufis would have taken me to task for assuming that God was 鈥 in any sense 鈥 a reality 鈥榦ut there鈥; they would have warned me not to expect to experience him as an objective fact that could be discovered by the ordinary rational process. They would have told me that in an important sense God was a product of the creative imagination, like the poetry and music that I found so inspiring. A few highly respected monotheists would have told me quietly and firmly that God did not really exist 鈥 and yet that 鈥榟e鈥 was the most important reality in the world.
This book will not be a history of the ineffable reality of God itself, which is beyond time and change, but a history of the way men and women have perceived him from Abraham to the present day. The human idea of God has a history, since it has always meant something slightly different to each group of people who have used it at various points of time. The idea of God formed in one generation by one set of human beings could be meaningless in another. Indeed, the statement: 鈥業 believe in God鈥 has no objective meaning, as such, but like any other statement it only means something in context, when proclaimed by a particular community. Consequently there is not one unchanging idea contained in the word 鈥楪od鈥 but the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. Had the notion of God not had this flexibility, it would not have survived to become one of the great human ideas. When one conception of God has ceased to have meaning or relevance, it has been quietly discarded and replaced by a new theology. A fundamentalist would deny this, since fundamentalism is anti-historical: it believes that Abraham, Moses and the later prophets all experienced their God in exactly the same way as people do today. Yet if we look at our three religions, it becomes clear that there is no objective view of 鈥楪od鈥: each generation has to create the image of God that works for them. The same is true of atheism. The statement 鈥業 do not believe in God鈥 has always meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed 鈥榓theists鈥 over the years have always been denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the 鈥楪od鈥 who is rejected by atheists today, the God of the patriarchs, the God of the prophets, the God of the philosophers, the God of the mystics or the God of the eighteenth-century deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the Bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians and Muslims at various points of their history. We shall see that they are very different from one another. Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called 鈥榓theists鈥 by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern atheism a similar denial of a God鈥 which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time?
Despite its other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We hall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed 鈥 sometimes for something radically different. This did not disturb most monotheists before our own day because they were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional. They were man-made 鈥 they could be nothing else 鈥 and quite separate from the indescribable Reality they symbolised. Some developed quite audacious ways of emphasising this essential distinction. One medieval mystic went so far as to say that this ultimate Reality 鈥 mistakenly called 鈥楪od鈥 鈥 was not even mentioned in the Bible. Throughout history, men and women have experienced a dimension of the spirit that seems to transcend the mundane world. Indeed, it is an arresting characteristic of the human mind to be able to conceive concepts that go beyond it in this way. However we choose to interpret it, this human experience of transcendence has been a fact of life. Not everybody would regard it as divine: Buddhists, as we shall see, would deny that their visions and insights are derived from a supernatural source; they see them as natural to humanity. All the major religions, however, would agree that it is impossible to describe this transcendence in normal conceptual language. Monotheists have called this transcendence 鈥楪od鈥 but they have hedged this around with important provisos. Jews, for example, are forbidden to pronounce the sacred Name of God and Muslims must not attempt to depict the divine in visual imagery. The discipline is a reminder that the reality that we call 鈥楪od鈥 exceeds all human expression.
This will not be a history in the usual sense, since the idea of God has not evolved from one point and progressed in a linear fashion to a final conception. Scientific notions work like that but the ideas of art and religion do not. Just as there are only a given number of themes in love poetry, so too people have kept saying the same things about God over and over again. Indeed, we shall find a striking similarity in Jewish, Christian and Muslim ideas of the divine. Even though Jews and Muslims both find the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation almost blasphemous, they have produced their own versions of these controversial theologies. Each expression of these universal themes is slightly different, however, showing the ingenuity and inventiveness of the human imagination as it struggles to express its sense of 鈥楪od鈥.
Because this is such a big subject, I have deliberately confined myself to the One God worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims, though I have occasionally considered pagan, Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of ultimate reality to make a monotheistic point clearer. It seems that the idea of God is remarkably close to ideas in religions that developed quite independently. Whatever conclusions we reach about the reality of God, the history of this idea must tell us something important about the human mind and the nature of our aspiration. Despite the secular tenor of much Western society, the idea of God still affects the lives of millions of people. Recent surveys have shown that ninety-nine per cent of Americans say that they believe in God: the question is which 鈥楪od鈥 of the many on offer do they subscribe to?
Theology often comes across as dull and abstract but the history of God has been passionate and intense. Unlike some other conceptions of the ultimate, it was originally attended by agonising struggle and stress. The prophets of Israel experienced their God as a physical pain that wrenched their every limb and filled them with rage and elation. The reality that they called God was often experienced by monotheists in a state of extremity: we shall read of mountain tops, darkness, desolation, crucifixion and terror. The Western experience of God seemed particularly traumatic. What was the reason for this inherent strain? Other monotheists spoke of light and transfiguration. They used very daring imagery to express the complexity of the reality they experienced, which went far beyond the orthodox theology. There has recently been a revived interest in mythology, which may indicate a widespread desire for a more imaginative expression of religious truth. The work of the late American scholar Joseph Campbell has become extremely popular: he has explored the perennial mythology of mankind, linking ancient myths with those still current in traditional societies, is often assumed that the three God-religions are devoid of mythology and poetic symbolism. Yet, although monotheists originally rejected the myths of their pagan neighbours, these often crept back into the faith at a later date. Mystics have seen God incarnated a woman, for example. Others reverently speak of God鈥檚 sexuality and have introduced a female element into the divine.
This brings me to a difficult point. Because this God began as a specifically male deity, monotheists have usually referred to it as 鈥榟e鈥. In recent years, feminists have understandably objected to this. Since I shall be recording the thoughts and insights of people who called God 鈥榟e鈥, I have used the conventional masculine terminology, except when 鈥榠t鈥 has been more appropriate. Yet it is perhaps worth mentioning that the masculine tenor of God-talk is particularly problematic in English. In Hebrew, Arabic and French, however, grammatical gender gives theological discourse a sort of sexual counterpoint and dialectic, which provides a balance that is often lacking in English. Thus in Arabic al-Lah (the supreme name for God) is grammatically masculine, but the word for the divine and inscrutable essence of God 鈥 al-Dhat 鈥 is feminine.
All talk about God staggers under impossible difficulties. Yet monotheists have all been very positive about language at the same time as they have denied its capacity to express the transcendent reality. The God of Jews, Christians and Muslims is a God who 鈥 in some sense 鈥 speaks. His Word is crucial in all three faiths. The Word of God has shaped the history of our culture. We have to decide whether the word 鈥楪od鈥 has any meaning for us today.
____________________________________
Biography Karen Armstrong is the author of numerous other books on religious affairs 鈥搃ncluding A History of God, The Battle for God, Holy War, Islam, Buddha, and The Great Transformation 鈥 and two memoirs, Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral Staircase. Her work has been translated into forty-five languages. She has addressed members of the U.S. Congress on three occasions; lectured to policy makers at the U.S. State Department; participated in the World Economic Forum in New York, Jordan, and Davos; addressed the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and New York; is increasingly invited to speak in Muslim countries; and is now an ambassador for the UN Alliance of Civilizations. In February 2008 she was awarded the TED Prize and is currently working with TED on a major international project to launch and propagate a Charter for Compassion, created online by the general public and crafted by leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, to be signed in the fall of 2009 by a thousand religious and secular leaders. She lives in London.
_______________________________________
From Publishers Weekly This searching, profound comparative history of the three major monotheistic faiths fearlessly illuminates the sociopolitical ground in which religious ideas take root, blossom and mutate. Armstrong, a British broadcaster, commentator on religious affairs.., argues that Judaism, Christianity and Islam each developed the idea of a personal God, which has helped believers to mature as full human beings. Yet Armstrong also acknowledges that the idea of a personal God can be dangerous, encouraging us to judge, condemn and marginalize others. Recognizing this, each of the three monotheisms, in their different ways, developed a mystical tradition grounded in a realization that our human idea of God is merely a symbol of an ineffable reality. To Armstrong, modern, aggressively righteous fundamentalists of all three faiths represent 鈥渁 retreat from God.鈥 She views as inevitable a move away from the idea of a personal God who behaves like a larger version of ourselves, and welcomes the grouping of believers toward a notion of God that 鈥渨orks for us in the empirical age.鈥
_______________________________________
My wish: The Charter for Compassion 鈥 Karen Armstrong
Karen Armstrong TED Talk given in 2008
What God is, or isn鈥檛, will continue to morph indefinitely unless鈥
_______________________________________
Richard Barlow:
鈥楾he whole thing about the messiah is a human construct鈥
The Divine Principle: Questions to consider about Old Testament figures
How 鈥淕od鈥檚 Day鈥 was established on January 1, 1968
_______________________________________
Divine Principle 鈥 Parallels of History
_______________________________________
鈥溾 Many Koreans therefore have difficulty understanding and accepting religions that have only one god and emphasize an uncertain and unknowable afterlife rather than the here and now. In the Korean context of things, such religions are anti-life and do not really make sense鈥︹ 聽LINK
1 noteView note
trinitiesblog8 days ago
Text
Guest post: Questioning Craig鈥檚 鈥淭rinity Monotheism鈥 鈥 Part 2
https://trinities.org/blog/guest-post-questioning-craigs-trinity-monotheism-part-2/
0 notes
himerche9 days ago
Text
It's becoming more and more clear to me that Abrahamic religions are not as cohesive as many religious people believe they are. The Old Testament probably has Zoroastrian influence and the New Testament has Hellenic influence.
The concepts of hell and Satan have evolved over time and the Old Testament seems to contain remnants of a time when the Jewish religion was polytheistic. When I was a Christian, I interpreted that as evidence for the trinity, but within the context of history, it seems more likely that they are remnants or reinterpretations of polytheism.
"Then God[s] [plural] said [singular], 鈥淟et us [plural] make man in our [plural] image, after our [plural] likeness...鈥 鈥 Genesis 1:26
2 notesView notes
trinitiesblog10 days ago
Text
Guest post: Questioning Craig's "Trinity Monotheism" 鈥 Part 1
https://trinities.org/blog/guest-post-questioning-craigs-trinity-monotheism-part-1/
0 notes
32427minden16 days ago
Link
Verwirrte unter sich
0 notes
americanminervan18 days ago
Text
The Construction of Monotheism: Dever, Stavrakopoulou, LePage, Blavatsky and Others
The Construction of Monotheism: Dever, Stavrakopoulou, LePage, Blavatsky and聽Others
Prof. William G. Dever (Archaeologist, Anthropologist,University of Arizona) says the Torah is a聽鈥淢inority Report鈥 鈥淭o understand Paul, we have to realize that in antiquity, all monotheists were polytheists by our modern definition. Everyone (鈥) acknowledged the existence of everybody else鈥檚 gods. Back then, not only were you born into cultic obligations to the gods of your ethnic group, people鈥
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
scarletarosa19 days ago
Some parts mentioned in your post about the Luciferian path brought a question into my mind. Do you think humans will rediscover the truth again and welcome back the many deities worshipped back in the ancient times? it feels like everyone is wearing a veil on their eyes refusing to take it off and shutting down any other possible option or way of learning more about life and the spiritual aspects of it . I don't see myself superior because I managed to see a bit past these limiting beliefs but I have days when I feel robbed of so much information and knowledge.
I was born and raised christian but some things never sat right with me , like the persecution/execution of pagans . When I was younger I asked a teacher why were people killed because they were following other religion aren't they humans too ? We weren't supposed to kill each other, and I believe I got some vague answer .
I believe Jesus Christ existed but just as a prophet and he wanted to do good but his story was manipulated by those who wanted to gain power ( this is just a theory of mine so correct me if I am wrong)
I believe that there will come an era when people largely begin returning to their roots, but it will be a very long time from now and drastic changes would be needed. The monotheistic religions have distorted peoples' minds for thousands of years and have destroyed so much that was sacred, so it will take great effort for everyone to be willing to let go of their fears and obsessions.
But the other problem is that most people don't really care for knowledge or truth anymore, this world has fallen in love with illusions. And many also don't have what it takes to be strong enough to set their egos or fears aside to seek beyond what they were raised to believe. The current humanity has a far different mentality than how the ancients were, which was part of the reason why so many of them were killed. So likewise, we would have to help future generations to become stronger so we can return to how things used to be when the Earth was full of beauty and knowledge.
And you are right about Jesus as well; he hadn't been a prophet but he was a rebel and activist for spirituality and wisdom. He ended up getting killed because the Judeans didn't like that he was advising them not to go to war, because he knew they would die. Eventually, Paul utilized some of Jesus' popular preachings and twisted them, in order to appeal to those who did agree with him but also to make others develop weak mindsets of passivity (which was a distortion of Jesus' wisdom). There is a lot one can research on this, but so far the best side I've found is the site called jesusneverexisted, written by a historian who did an incredible amount of research on Biblical "history".
28 notesView notes
Text
One must care about truth prior to god, because if there is a god, well, there are also false gods and false versions of god, and it matters which one is the true god. And god would know this. He wouldnt wwnt you to take the wrong one in faith and reject him on a dice roll.
The naturalist and the supernaturalist, by all reason, ultimately are subject to the same common objective concept and force prior to supernatural claims. The concept and force of truth itself. In fact, most qualities of good which people ascribe to god exist in the medium of truth itself, if they are truths. For example, people ascribe morality to the ten commandments, and say we know murder and theft are wrong because of god. Yet, by truth alone, and by reason thereof, one could only rightly conclude people literally own whatever they have the most justified claim to. You own your body, you own your sheild, you are the earthly master of these things, rightfully, by truth, regardless of the existence of the supernatural, and so it is no right of anyone to go bashing you or your shieild, or to put chains on them. This is a fact of truth/nature, whether truth/nature is contingent upon god or not. Because god made it that way? Doesnt matter to my point.
In fact, it is almost as if nature, in a sense, truth is as god. Perhaps truth is what god is, anthropomorphized. If it were not exactly the case, and god were real and above truth, it would still be indistinguishable from my proposition. No matter if god exists, our fidelity to the truth -which he may or may not have created- is what morality and justice is. The fidelity god demands of you is either a fidelity to truth, or subversive to the very reality any true god would have made for you to abide by.
0 notes
poem-today26 days ago
Text
A poem by Jericho Brown
Tumblr media
Monotheism
Some people need religion. Me? I鈥檝e got my long black hair. I twist The roots and braid it tight. You鈥檙e
My villain. You鈥檙e a hard father, from Behind, it whines, tied and tucked, Untouchable. Then comes
The night鈥 Before I carry my Mane to bed with me, I sit us In front of the vanity. Undo. Un-
Wind. Finally your fingers, it says Near my ear, Your fingers. Your Whole hands. No one鈥檚 but yours.
Tumblr media
Jericho Brown
1 noteView note
casual-kiliana month ago
Text
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
Mit der kognitiven Revolution vor 70.000 Jahren soll der Mensch laut dem israelischen Historiker Yuval Noah Harari (鈥濫ine kurze Geschichte der Menschheit鈥) durch die Erfindung einer abstrakten Sprache das erste Mal in der Lage gewesen sein, komplexere Gedanken zu fassen als nur 眉ber das zu reden was man sieht und anfassen kann. Zum Beispiel, um theoretisch dar眉ber reden und uns vorstellen zu k枚nnen, wie wir eine Tierherde lenken und in eine Falle locken k枚nnen um einfacher an Nahrung zu kommen und dann auch noch eine Aufgabenteilung vorzunehmen. Mit dieser Art komplexerem Verst盲ndnis und hypothetischer Konversation konnten im Laufe der Zeit Theorien entstehen, die es uns m枚glich machen, dass wir in riesigen Gesellschaften leben, die alle ihre eigenen Theorien 眉ber das Leben und Zusammenleben haben, auch wenn diese Theorien von Kultur zu Kultur absolut unterschiedlich sind, sich im Laufe der Zeit ver盲ndern und sogar absolut gegens盲tzlich sein k枚nnen. Sei das der Fakt, dass die alten R枚mer und Griechen Polytheismus (Vielg枚tterei) lebten, w盲hrend heutzutage 3 der 5 Weltreligionen Monotheismus bevorzugen.
0 notes
stitch18302 days ago
Hello there! I hear you want to dig yourself a deeper hole, so I thought I鈥檇 help with some asks. General, 43, for either Taang or tokka.
Can always count on you for asks, su lol. Thanks bud!
......
Taang - General - #43 - 鈥淚s the weight of your sins too heavy?鈥
鈥淲hat are you wallowing about now, Twinkletoes?鈥澛
Aang threw a glare back at Toph, even though it went unnoticed by her. 鈥淣ot now, Toph. I鈥檓 not in the mood.鈥
She sauntered over next to Aang, ignoring his wishes and sitting down next to him on the grass.聽
It was a brisk night in the city, but something was bothering the Avatar. He鈥檇 been acting weird since they stayed at this particular town for more than a month. And with every added task or request or demand, Aang seemed to spiral further into a mood.
At first, Toph really did try to be nice and understanding of Aang鈥檚 feelings. After all, he did the same for her all the time and she wanted to be considerate of the stress and emotions that he was processing.
But he was literally being a broody brat and she had to result in using her tougher tactics. The airhead was slowing progress down with their projects and he was taking his frustration out on others and that was not okay.
So as she sat there next to Aang, she waited for him to break the silence first. Because even though she taught Aang really well, he couldn鈥檛 compete with her. Not really.
She knew he鈥檇 break soon when she felt him fidget next to her.
鈥淛ust don鈥檛.鈥
Toph feigned innocence. 鈥淒on鈥檛 what?鈥澛
鈥淵ou wouldn鈥檛 understand, so don鈥檛 ask.鈥
鈥淗ow do you know I wouldn鈥檛?鈥
鈥淏ecause this is something only I have to deal with. Being the Avatar鈥攖here鈥檚 so much responsibility. So much I have to do for the world, and I don鈥檛 know if I can do it! No one else in the world understands.鈥
鈥淣ow tell me how you really feel.鈥
鈥淵ou know what, Toph? Fuck off. Don鈥檛 make fun of my feelings.鈥
鈥淐an you please get off your pedestal for a second, Aang?鈥 she huffed, annoyed. 鈥淏ecause I鈥檓 trying to help you.鈥
鈥淚 just told you! You can鈥檛鈥斺
鈥溾擸eah yeah, the weight of your responsibilities and misdeeds are too heavy for a mere mortal like me to understand,鈥 she snapped. 鈥淏ut did you ever consider you don鈥檛 need to do all of this alone?鈥澛
鈥淗ow on earth could you even鈥斺
鈥溾擜ang,鈥 she interrupted. 鈥淵ou have a group of friends, people who are your family that will help you through the toughest of times, and you鈥檙e choosing to do this alone. Why?聽
鈥淲e may not know all the Avatar, spirity mumbo jumbo, but if you needed help with making decisions or completing missions or anything, we鈥檝e got your back. And I鈥檓 literally right here, helping you turn this dump of a town into a city. We鈥檇 do anything for you. I鈥檇 do anything for you, you should know that.
鈥淪o tell me why you鈥檙e pushing your family away.鈥
Aang wilted and sighed. 鈥淪ometimes it feels easier to do things alone. The stress of work worries me, and I don鈥檛 think my heart couldn鈥檛 take any more loss.鈥
鈥淟oss?鈥
鈥淚 can鈥檛 lose you guys,鈥 he whispered. 鈥淎nd鈥攁nd if I can manage my Avatar duties on my own, no one has to risk their life for me.鈥
鈥淭winkletoes,鈥 Toph began, a hint of a smirk on her face. She grabbed Aang鈥檚 hand and squeezed it. 鈥淲e鈥檝e already risked our lives for you. On multiple occasions. And we were kids!聽
鈥淲e鈥檙e in too deep for you to use that card and have it work.鈥
Aang chuckled and shook his head. 鈥淵ou鈥檙e never wrong, are you, Sifu Toph?鈥
Toph smiled. 鈥淣ever.鈥 She shifted in her seated position to get up, but Aang held onto her hand. He asked, 鈥淒o you mind if we stay out here for a bit? It鈥檚 a nice evening.鈥
鈥淪ure. Whatever you need, Aang.鈥 Toph repositioned herself close to Aang, and the two sat there, hand in hand, enjoying the evening breeze.
......聽
Send me a prompt to write about. Let me know type (Fluff, Angst, General), and ship (ATLA).
9 notesView notes