#theological distinction

[thats-a-lot-of-cortisol]

Aspect of Order: Primordial & Present-Day

One of the first deities, part of what is known as the Primordial Triad. It created the planes alongside the Aspects of Chaos and the In-Between and held dominion over the Material Plane. It embodied order in the way nature has order: the life cycle, gravity, the tides, the surety that the seasons will change, the patterns that appear in flora and fauna alike, the symmetry of pinecones and butterflies. It was associated with the night as a time of quiet preparation where the world rests, and when one can see the remains of creation in the darkened sky. It is said that the two moons of the Material Plane are its eyes, watching over its creations.

All three members of the Primordial Triad are referred to with "it", so ancient and unfathomable that applying a mortal, transient concept of gender to them seemed almost blasphemous.

Almost.

The modern-day conception of Order is quite different. Though she still reigns over the night and natural laws, her followers have placed her at the forefront of the creation process, reducing the In-Between's role and rejecting Chaos altogether. Though most present-day cultures think of her in this way, many of them do not emphasize her: she is an invisible Over-God, keeping the other deities and forces in line and maintaining cosmic balance from behind the scenes. In places where she is worshipped heavily, however, she is placed at the forefront of the pantheon. In those cases, worship of deities with overlapping domains is either illegal (ex local gods of justice) or considered secondary to her (ex the god of the Wilds). The worship of smaller, local deities is usually discouraged or suppressed over-all in these areas in order to encourage a more structured, uniform religious practice. While both aspects of Order championed paladins, Primordial Order also championed druids and rangers while Modern Order champions clerics.

Ancient theologians debated whether or not Order and Chaos were two aspects of the same being (ironically, there was no question that the In-Between was its own separate force). However, following the iconoclasm that effectively forced Chaos out of the pantheon and created the modern conception of Order, such lines of thought were considered heretical, and then blasphemous.

The iconoclasm did have an unintended consequence, however. Crying motifs appeared in some art of Primordial Order around that time, particularly in the areas that resisted the iconoclasts more intensely. Some scholars believe that it may have been a direct reaction to the event: Order mourning the loss of its counterpart. Others have argued, however, that the lack of such motifs (or equivalents) in depictions of the In-Between prove this wrong. After all, why would it not also be grieving?

#irredeemed project #<- the working tag for this for now #i've been working on this project off & on for a couple years now #and the primordial triad has had a chokehold on me the entire time #i dont have names for any gods but the in-between (i think i'm gonna keep erasmus) #because i'd gotten stuck and wanted a clean slate. if i name a deity i feel like it has to have a solid form of some sort #and not all of them will #i'm not doing these in any sort of order. i have two other pages done #one of them is for a goddess that i've also been turning around in my head this entire time #i dont have many of the actual historical events fleshed out or any plot points for the 'present day' of the world #so stuff is going to be vague for a moment #i fucking. love the idea of writing/drawing about the world from the perspective of the people who are in it #so historical eras/distinct art movements across time & cultures/theological debates that people disagree on #and how that last thing works when the gods are undeniably & obviously real in some way #im sure the 'right' answers came through in this but that's okay b/c it's just to get my thoughts out of my head lol #worldbuilding #my art #character art #brainstorming #fantasy worldbuilding #my post #worldbuilding project #fantasy pantheons #the mortifying ideal of being known (talking about a creative project online) #hopefully this makes sense and isn't too silly lol

[rainbowgod666]

Its funny how the whole "i am god" part of sonic.exe became Lord X. Cause like

I think i eliminated his ass over this.

#welcome to the multiverse #Lore Post #so a fun fact about both me and my OC #we can literally use Entropy as a weapon! #not even “absorption of life force” just... “ash you were and to ash you will return” #anyways most of my recent #mental health #problems had a distinct theological/occultist flavour sooo #yeah #if you needed one more reason to be afraid of either me or my oc: we can make Shigaraki's “decay” look like aggressive peeling of paint

[tabernacleheart]

Properly speaking, faith is a theological virtue. That is, it’s a gift from God, not something that we can cultivate on our own. In speaking of the seven major virtues— prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice, faith, hope, and charity— the first four of these are the “cardinal” virtues, and the last three are “theological virtues.” Cardinal virtues can be acquired through human effort, which is why we can find pagans and even atheists who treat others justly, or indulge in pleasures temperately, or endure hardships with fortitude, or approach problems prudently. But the theological virtues are God-given gifts, infused in us at baptism (although God is free to give these gifts in any way he pleases). In his treatment in the Summa, Saint Thomas Aquinas points out that St. Paul is clear that faith (in the strict sense) is a God-given gift and not something we can attain or acquire on our own. In Ephesians, he writes that “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— not because of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

Joe Heschmeyer

#faith #virtues #this is a vital distinction #cardinal virtues #theological virtues #joe heschmeyer #Ephesians 2:8 #Ephesians 2:9 #saint thomas aquinas

[jedi-starbird]

Time Travel is my favourite trope and I think we need more fics where both Obi-Wan AND Qui-Gon time travel together because no matter when they get sent it's chaos. They're saving the galaxy and being physic flash-bangs to everyone around them.

like before Bandomeer?

The entire council is baffled to watch as Qui-Gon 'never taking a padawan again' Jinn has suddenly cut off his post-Xanatos depression tour to return to the temple and beeline to the creche with a frantic energy. His wild eyes immediately single out a fluffy, red-haired initiate.

"You." he exhales with a pointed finger, slightly ominous as he towers over the child. Said child starts vibrating with delight. "Me." he agrees, launching himself at the man. Qui-Gon drops to his knees with a thud that cannot be healthy. Obi-Wan's attempts to clamber into Qui-Gon's robes and maybe onto his shoulders is thwarted by the fact that Qui-Gon's massive hands are cupping Obi-Wan's tiny squishy cheeks. He stares at the initiate for a few minutes with an intensity that is starting to worry people.

Finally, "You're so small." Qui-Gon sounds like he might cry.

'What the fuck?' Plo Koon projects at Mace.

"I'm 9! That tends to be the case!" the child chirps back.

"You're nine." Oh. Ah. Qui-Gon's eyes are distinctively misty. He squishes the boy in a hug so hard he squeaks. Mace makes a series of gestures that imply the need for a head-scan. Depa obligingly drifts off towards the halls. Qui-Gon scoops the child up onto his hip and claims him as his padawan on the spot. The assorted council members and creche-masters burst into noise. Mace tells Depa to bring some space ibuprofen as well.

after Naboo?

Anakin is a little apprehensive of his place in both the order and Obi-Wan's life, but then one day Obi-Wan wakes up and is suddenly a lot less sad in the force?? In fact, if Anakin didn't know better he'd say he was almost giddy, but he's watched Obi-Wan try to pretend his world hasn't fallen apart for the past few months so it can't be that, right? And um, Miss Bant? He knows grief is a funny thing that affects people differently but he's pretty sure 'massive mood swing' and 'having full conversations with invisible people' is not...great? and you said to tell you if Obi-Wan got really weird in any way.

Anyway after a lot of medical exams, intense consultation with the archives, and a couple exorcisms, Anakin ends up being raised by his 'real' master and his ghost master. He is far more well adjusted emotionally and far less well adjusted for what counts as normal people behavior(not talking to thin air). When questioned on this, all he ever says is that he's talking to Qui-Gon. Isn't he...dead? Well, yes. Wait, he's a ghost? Ghosts are real? ...Well this ghost is real.

This starts a great number of existential crises among non-force sensitives and incredibly heated theological arguments amongst the Jedi. Whenever Obi-Wan is questioned on this, all he ever says is some variation of "the force got to know him for 5 seconds and kicked him back out." Mace backs him up on this even though that reasoning is technically blasphemous. Qui-Gon is having the time of his un-life. He's ascended to his final form, his sheer existence is a heresy, this is truly all he has ever aspired towards.

the Clone Wars?

The minute they get dropped back Qui-Gon immediately goes and haunts the shit out of Dooku. They have a signed terms of surrender and promise of info on the Sith Lord within the year. Only half of it is because Qui-Gon's giving Dooku complexes that are only perceptible to shrimp, the other half is because they now have a ghost spy that is not bound by the laws of physics nor spacetime.

Obi-Wan only nominally pays attention to this as he immediately goes and implements his 19 step seduction plan with Cody (he had to focus on something on Tatooine to pass the time). It fails. Spectacularly. Publicly. Ah right. Tatooine was not exactly the height of his sanity. Everyone in the GAR and temple is now riveted by High General and Councilor Obi-Wan Kenobi's attempts to go on a date with his Commander, who bats him away him like a particularly annoying stray and seems one bouquet of cactus away from committing mutiny. Anakin is worrying if it means his master knows about his secret marriage and this is some sort of really weird power play. (It is, but not in the way he thinks)

The next time Dooku goes after Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon spends a good few months appearing tear-stained at the edge of Dooku's perception and only communicating in terrible wails and discordant mutterings of 'padawan. my padawan. my little one.' 24/7.

"Wait, you're annoying Dooku into surrendering?"

"Oh no Anakin, we're crushing his psyche like a bug. :)"

#everyone feel free to use these i crave more time travel fics #the sheer power qui gon would have as a fully communicating force ghost before and during the clone wars is astounding #qui gon with baby obi wan is like inconsolable sobs cause he never saw him this small and then his life was so sad and he couldnt even hug #him on tatooine but now look at his boy!!! so small and huggable!!!! #they absolutely weaponise baby obi against others his wet cat eyes are 1000% stronger now #they drop him in dookus lap like look grandpadawan:) #if you hold the grandpadawan maybe your sith behaviour will calm down :/ #anyway them together is like they throw enough bullshit into the air to blind everyone while they speedrun important changes in the back #after naboo is like everyone offering obi wan condolences and obi responding yeah im going to need them the fucker wont stay down #star wars #obi wan kenobi #qui gon jinn #qui gon and obi wan #fic ideas #time travel shenanigans #codywan #anakin skywalker #disaster lineage #count dooku

[opencommunion]

"The Arab Jews were perceived in two different paradigmatic contexts by the Zionist consciousness. On the one hand, they were seen as Arabs, and hence as an 'other' of Europe and Zionism, and, on the other, as ancient Jews, hence as exalted, holy objects of the Zionist national-religious dis­course. The dichotomy gave rise to a confused and conflicted perception of reality. From the colonial point of view, for instance, the Arab Jews’ religios­ity was seen as superficial; from a national point of view, it was considered an­cient and authentic. ... 'True religiosity' served as a marker of the depth of the Arab Jews’ Zionist commitment and of the erasure of their Arabness. The Solel Boneh emissaries were engaged si­multaneously both in orientalizing the Arab Jews and in marking the differ­ence between them and the Arabs — that is, with establishing themselves as Western Jews. ... The depth of orientalist identification with European colonialism is seen in remarks made by Yitzhak Gruenbaum, a member of the World Zionist Organization executive, at a meeting with representatives of Solel Boneh held at the headquarters of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem. There were two types of populations in Palestine, Gruenbaum said: 'We, the Jews, are twen­tieth-century people of Europe, whereas the Arab population is still at the de­velopmental level of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.' And, as 'people of Europe, we wish to create a European economy here. We believe that the Mandate government must conduct its affairs based on the point of view that Palestine is a European country like England or its dominions.' Yet, at the same time, as noted, the Arab Jews were perceived as Jews and as an integral element in the Zionist paradigm. As such, they were not considered as 'oth­ers' of Europe but as nearby 'outsiders' of European Zionism. The colonialist and nationalist categories are not mutually exclusive. In the Indian context, for example, as Partha Chatterjee explains, orientalist categories were subordinated to the ideology of nationalism in order to en­hance the glorification of the national past and its ancient lineage. Zionism, too, creates ethnicity within colonial na­tionalism. To constitute the Jewish community as a modern nation, Zionism seeks to reconstruct the community’s 'organic roots,' primordial lineage, and foundational theological narrative. The Arab Jews supplied the tribal and an­cient legitimacy for Jewish nationalism. Thus, for example, Zionism identi­fied the Yemenites as part of the ten lost tribes and as an integral part of the continuity of the nation. At the same time, however, it constituted them as in­ferior culturally, religiously, and nationally. ... In the Zionist context, the question of the encounter between European Jews and Arab Jews becomes complicated, because the encounter, which creates the 'otherness,' does not end there, but seeks also to recruit the 'other' into its ranks. It was here that the European emissaries in Abadan po­sitioned themselves vis-a-vis the Arab Jews and tried to define them as 'other' (Arab) yet also 'one of us' (Jewish, proto-Zionist). It is just here, in the inter­stices between the two categories, that the politics of 'difference' lies. The in­teresting thing is that Zionism (like other colonial enterprises) created a pol­itics of belonging and of difference and spoke in a number of voices, yet, at the same time, declined to acknowledge the cultural ambivalence of its own creation and attempted to enfold it within closed binary distinctions. It was a clear case of Jewish orientalism, where one Jewish group orientalized an­other."

Yehouda Shenhav, The Arab Jews: A Postcolonial Reading of Nationalism, Religion, and Ethnicity (2006)

#palestine #zionism #colonialism

[apenitentialprayer]

why do anglicans still exist like their entire church is built on the fact that some guy wanted a male heir. or do anglicans believe that this isn't rly why their church came about

Okay, I do love clowning on my Anglican friends, but there are a few angles (da dum tss) that we can look at in terms of why the Anglican Church is a distinctive tradition.

Theologically, the Anglican Church might have started off as "Catholic without the Pope," so to speak; the Anglican Church was essentially Gallican in nature, meaning that the head of the church wasn't the seniormost bishop, but the head of the state. But even if it started off simply being in schism with the Roman Church, it didn't take very long before Reformed theology started entering the Church through the efforts of Anne Bolelyn, Thomas Cromwell, and especially Edward VI. There were preceding documents, but the Thirty-Nine articles passed by Queen Elizabeth I in 1571 helped to solidify a distinctively Anglican identity.

But it's a little more than that, too, because in addition to this Protestantization of the Anglican Church, there have also been movements within to.... "Latinize" might be the wrong word, but to bring back some traditional Catholic elements. We see this, for example, in the Oxford movement of the 1830s; many of its members would end up converting to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but those who remained behind started the Anglo-Catholic movement which still has a strong presence. (My girlfriend goes to an Anglo-Catholic parish, and our city has at least three other ones).

This kind of dual accommodation of Reformed and Catholic theological ideas has created a unique situation for the Anglican Church; Bishop J. Neil Alexander tries to articulate this by distinguishing the Anglican Church as a "pragmatic church," in contradistinction with "confessional churches" (Catholic & Lutheran, which focus on creeds and councils) and "experiential churches" (Baptist and other groups whose memberships require a born-again moment):

What, then, does it mean to be pragmatic? It means that within the generous capacity of the Episcopal [American Anglican] Church, we do not always agree on matters of biblical interpretation or theological definition. It means that we have all gotten here by way of hundreds of different and often unique experiences of God's presence in our lives. It means that those things which other churches depend to hold themselves together will never be a central feature of our common life. We find our life together driven by our willingness to stand together at the table of God's gracious hospitality. […] That, I believe, is the pragmatism at the heart of what it means to be an Episcopalian. We are a variegated tapestry of theology and experience, and we are all the richer for it. But no level of theological agreement or experiential commonality will ever be the basis on which Episcopalians will live together well. What is possible is that we will be pragmatic —we will keep our differences in perspective— and we will recognize that ultimately nothing will divide those who are willing to stand together before God's altar to sing, to pray, and to receive the gift of God's eternity.

Now, this is a very fascinating situation, because it means that the Anglican Church has a lot of diversity in religious thought and doctrinal opinion. On an official level, that means you will have bishops aligning with different theological orientations working side by side — and, in theory, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury is supposed to alternate between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical holders. On a more personal level, I have found that the Episcopal clergy who I interact with have varying spiritualities and theologies; one priest I know has Catholic sympathies that are so strong that he was referred to as "the Papist" in seminary, while another clergymember I know doesn't think Confession is necessary and is ambivalent about her parish's practice of Eucharistic Adoration. And they work at the same church.

Liturgically, they are also distinctive. The current bedrock of Anglican prayer is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which is clearly inspired by Benedictine spirituality, but with continuing liturgical revision and innovation that kind of fits with the 'pragmatic church' mindset explained above. Some Anglican parishes even preserve pre-Tridentine traditions (remember, they split before the Council of Trent), like the Sarum Use.

The Anglican Church has had a developing liturgical patrimony for the past five centuries; one of the reasons why the Catholic Church created the Anglican Ordinariate was because it recognized that fact, and wanted former members of the Anglican Church to be able to preserve their traditions even after re-entering communion with Rome.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, like, the Anglican Church may have started off as a more-or-less Catholic particular church that was in schism with Rome, a schism orchestrated by a king who wanted fuller control over the Church in his country, but the Anglican Church has had five centuries of development. And, as much as I like to clown on my Anglican friends, I can definitely see why the Anglican communion has a deep appeal.

#Christianity #Anglicanism #asks #This Far By Grace #ordinariate #history

[skaldish]

What is Norse Heathenry?

Norse Heathenry is a contemporary pagan spirituality derived from the beliefs, customs, superstitions, and folklore of the pre-Christian Norse people. It is one of a few different kinds of Heathenries, which include Slavic Heathenry and Teutonic (Germanic) Heathenry.

The word "heathen" means "of the heaths." However, it's not a word the Old norse people themselves used. They didn't have a word for their spiritual belief system, as they didn't distinguish this from all other aspects of their lives. Rather, "Heathen" was coined by Christian writers to refer to Scandinavian pagans (this is also why it's sometimes used interchangeably with the word "heretic").

Nowadays, Norse Heathenry is referred to by many names, which reflects different developing iterations of it. Amongst these names are Norse Paganism, Asatru, and Forn Sidr / Forn Sed.

Where does Norse Heathenry come from?

Norse Heathenry comes from the Nordic countries of Europe: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. These places are also known as the homelands of the vikings. But despite their shared origins, Norse Heathenry is not the religion of the vikings. This very large misconception has a very long, complex history behind it, owed to a combination of commercialization and fascist tampering. The Heathenry we see in America is extremely muddied from these influences. Fortunately, we now have the means to disambiguate it, thanks to increasingly accessible cultural exchange.

The following explanation is a product of ongoing anthropological, theological, and cultural research, in combination with what we know about the historical.

Norse Heathen Beliefs

Unlike organized religions, Norse Heathenry is (and has always been) a decentralized belief system. This means it has no universal doctrines, no orthopraxy or orthodoxy, no holy texts, and no religious figurehead governing it. When you hear people say "There's no 'right' way to practice Heathenry," this is generally what they're referring to.

However, Norse Heathenry does have a distinct way of thinking about and viewing the world, and it's very different from what we usually see here in the US. If you're feeling stuck trying to figure out how to "do Heathenry," this would be why.

Animism

A staple of Norse Heathen epistemology is Animism.

Usually, Animism is defined as the belief that all things have a spirit or vital essence to them. But this is only one definition of many, and not the definition that applies here.

The Norse concept of Animism is "the awareness that all things are part of an interdependent ecosystem." This changes how we engage with everything around us. We understand that when we interact with the forces of this world, they will interact back on their own merit. Our relationship with all things is a social one, and we're not spectators in our environment, but active participants at all times.

This stands is stark contrast to the way the USAmericans typically view the world: As a landscape to either test or be tested by, with the forces of the world acting as the means through which this is done.

Additionally, there's no separation between the sacred and the profane.

Immanence

Faiths that focus on spiritual ascension, enlightenment, or attaining a good afterlife are known as transcendent faiths.

While Norse Heathenry has some transcendent elements, it's ultimately an immanent belief system, which means its focus is on living life for the sake of living, as opposed to living life to receive a good afterlife. A good afterlife is already guaranteed.

(Some Heathens may strive for a specific kind of afterlife, however, which do have certain conditions for accessing. But these are elective rather than required, and different as opposed to superior. It's all a matter of preference, at the end of the day.)

The Norse Gods

Many people are already familiar with the Norse gods, such as Thor, Odin, Loki, and Freyja, but not many people are familiar with how they operate as gods.

In Hellenism and Religio Romano, the gods are divine lords who preside over different domains of society. It's a reflection of what the ancient Greeks and Romans highly valued in their civilizations: Law and political/civic involvement.

In Norse Heathenry, however, gods don't operate in a lordship capacity. Instead, they're more like celebrities in that they're celebrated figures everyone knows about.

While they don't rule over one thing or another, the Norse gods often act as allegorical representations of worldly phenomena. Thor is to thunderstorms as Loki is to "random-chance odds." SIf is to wheat-fields as Odin is to the old wandering beggar. Frey and Freyja represent masculine and feminine principles, Skadi the driven snow and foggy winter, and so on. The gods exist as worldly experiences inasmuch as they exist as ideas.

Lastly, but importantly, the Norse gods don't distribute rewards or punishments in accordance with on one's actions or deeds, nor do they tell us how we ought to live our lives. The way they interact with us depends on our individual relationships with them, which can be just as diverse as the ones we have with each other.

Myths & Folklore

What people often refer to as the "Norse Myths" are stories found in two old Icelandic texts called the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda. These texts are special because they're the oldest and largest collection of tales featuring the Norse deities.

However, these texts represent just one region's period-specific interpretation of Norse folklore. They also only represent a fraction of the tales that still circulate within Nordic oral traditions, so not only are they not "canon" in the usual sense of the word, they're also just a sample.

This is all to say that Norse Heathenry doesn't have a hard body of mythology. It certainly has a defined one, but its definition is built from local legends, fairy tale humor, songs, customs, superstitions, and family folklore in addition to what survives on runestones and parchment. The corpus of Heathenry is very much a living, breathing thing.

Spirits

Norse Heathenry recognizes a wide variety of different beings, the likes of which can be found all around us. Some of these beings are like how we typically imagine spirits, in that they're incorporeal or otherwordly, while others are physical but may play tricks on you so you can't see them.

Like many things pertaining to Heathenry, there isn't a universally-shared classification system for Norse beings. But generally-speaking, beings are defined by their natures and the manner in which they relate to the rest of the world, rather than their morphology. For example, Trolls can take the appearance of rocks, trees, and also living people, but they can also be incorporeal spirits. This is all, however, the same kind of Troll, rather than being different types of trolls.

This is also why the lines between "spirit", "god," and "ancestor" can become very blurry at times. In English use, these are all typically labeled under the category "vaetter." Sometimes "wight" is used to refer to spirits of various types, but isn't often used to refer to gods.

Typically, the way people interact with spirits entirely depends on what kind of spirit they're dealing with, as well as their disposition towards human beings. Some spirits may enjoy a personal relationship, while others are best when left unbothered.

Values & Morality

Because Norse Heathenry has no doctrine and is immanent in nature, it has no fixed value system. Just like the stories were decentralized, so were the Norse people's values.

This is a feature as opposed to a flaw, and a fact as opposed to a theory. But it also has a habit of making Americans very uncomfortable.

For this reason, Heathens sometimes choose to construct their own value system to observe as part of their practice. But what those values are is up to each individual, and individual community, if applicable.

Anyone claiming Norse Heathenry has a universal value system is either new to Heathenry, or selling something.

Veneration

Heathen veneration is not just limited to gods, but also includes ancestors and even certain kinds of spirits, such as nisse/tomte.

Like most things in Norse Heathenry, what, who, and how a Heathen chooses to venerate is their choice to make. One popular observance across the globe is to craft altars, shrines, or similar sacred spaces for the entities one venerates. If a Heathen lives in a house that has a nisse (similar to a gnome), they might leave porridge (with butter) by the hearth for him, and he'll in turn bless the house with good luck and fortune.

Oftentimes, relationships with entities are very interpersonal. Heathenry's animistic and immanent nature means entities are rarely cold and distant, including the gods.

Misconceptions!

A list of misconceptions off the top of my head:

The practice known as 'Odinism' is an invention of the Germanic Volkish movement, which was the social precursor to Nazi Germany. This is also, unfortunately, the first kind of "heathenry" to be brought to the US, back in the 1970's. It was spread through the country via one of the fastest-moving networks at the time: The US prison system.

The Black Sun is a Nazi symbol, not a Heathen one.

No, Norse Heathenry is not a closed practice.

No, you don't have to have Scandinavian heritage to practice Norse Heathenry. Blood quantum is not a thing.

The rune alphabets are old, but the method of runecasting is new.

So is the use of magical bindrunes.

Bindrunes are also different from Galdrastafir. The latter is actually a form of Jewish-Christian-Norse syncretism and needs to be taught orally since it's a mystery tradition. You can still slap the Helm of Awe on things and look cool about it though.

Norse Heathenry is not the same as being a viking, and Norse Heathens are not vikings. However, some Heathens partake in viking reenactment as an extension of their practice.

There's no good or bad gods in Norse Heathenry. All the gods are capable of great good and great bad, just like people. They're fallible, and that's what makes them relatable.

Odin and Loki aren't at odds with one another.

You don't need to wait for a god to pick you to start venerating them.

If you're interested in learning more about any of these in-depth, check out the website I've built on Norse Heathenry, located in my pinned post!

#norse heathenry #norse paganism #asatru #heathenism #norse polytheism #heathenry

[cryptotheism]

my high school theology teacher frequently remarked that Lutherans shouldnt be lumped in with other Protestants due to theological differences, claiming that Lutheranism has more in common with Catholicism than, for example, Baptists or Presbyterians. is this at all a reasonable claim to make? and if so, is it more reasonable for Lutherans to make it than any other protestant denomination?

You know, Ive seen people make that distinction before and I'm not entirely sure what the reasoning is behind it.

Iirc Protestantism and Lutheranism are both reform movements, but Lutherans consider themselves distinct from like, Presbyterians, Pentacostals, Baptists, etc, because those were all influenced by the Church of England. Whereas the Lutherans split off more directly from the Catholics.

This could all be entirely bullshit, I have no sources here, but fwiu that's a reasonable line to draw, especially in a theology course.

[ainsi-soit-il]

Idk why I feel like I should say this now, since it's not come up at all in the Christblr world lately, but having been in an interdenominational dating relationship for a little over two years now, this is the best advice I have for other people in or pursuing interdenominational dating relationships:

If you date someone outside your denomination, you're going to find out eventually what your Theological Hills To Die On are. Talk about those hills together and work through them.

Have a sense of humor about your own--and each other's--denominational distinctives. At the same time, be sensitive to each other's beliefs, and recognize that something that seems minor to you may be a treasured belief of your significant other.

Visit each other's churches. Serve together. Get involved in each other's community. Make friends with each other's friends.

Recognize that it's fully possible that your convictions may change, or they may not. That is up to the Lord's will. It's not up to either of you to put that pressure onto each other.

Finding unity in the person of Jesus sounds easy and feels daunting all at once, but it is possible and is deeply beautiful.

#live from the scriptorium #christianity tag #idk if anyone in interfaith relationships follows me #and i personally do not advise pursuing interfaith relationships for religious reasons #that said if you are in an interfaith relationship i imagine all of this also applies

[tanadrin]

The Gish Gallop was a term coined I think on the 2000s internet for a rhetorical maneuver where to buttress an argument you provide a ton of low-quality evidence; that the evidence is bad means it should be easy to refute, but the very large volume means it will take much longer to explain why it's all wrong than it did to copy-paste a bunch of links, and to a certain kind of very naive onlooker, it looks like the galloper is winning--after all, the one interlocutor has presented a ton of evidence! The second interlocutor has to spend so much time bending over backwards to refute it! Surely the first guy is more knowledgeable and authoritative. You aren't going to look at all that evidence yourself, of course--who has the time?

But listening to Dan McClellan talk about the Gospel of John this morning, it occurs to me that I don't think this is disingenuous. Not entirely. I think this is just the style of argumentation a lot of Christians (of a particular religious flavor) are used to. And I'm not just talking about in non- or para-religious matters like evolution. This is how Christianity understands the Bible.

This week's Data over Dogma is about the theology of John, and why it is non-trinitarian (because the Trinity is a much later doctrine developed as a kind of political compromise, maintained only because it had state backing) and does not actually identify Jesus with God (the theological developments are more complicated here; but suffice it to say it was not at all a given that "authorized bearer of the divine name" and "actually God" were the same being in 1st century Hellenistic Judaism, and indeed the distinction between the two had developed in Jewish thought precisely to avoid the awkwardness of anthropomorphic figures proclaiming themselves God in some of the older sections of the Hebrew Bible).

The funny thing is, there are a ton of passages in John that get trotted out as proof texts that Jesus is God. There are very good reasons in the case of each one to doubt that that is actually the correct reading; but of course, if you don't know anything about Greek, all you have are modern translations produced under the assumption of the dogma of the Trinity--mostly for devotional readers of the Bible who would be outraged if the Trinity wasn't in the New Testament--and you have been raised in a cultural and/or educational milieu where it is simply a default assumption about the way the world works that the Trinity is a timeless concept that has been in the Bible from the beginning, it sure looks like one side is spinning up tendentious arguments based on silly semantics that have nothing to do with the religion you learned as a kid.

But this exegetical approach (really, eisegetical) is common to many topics in traditional Christian theology. There are a ton of passages from the Septuagint that the Gospels warp to be about Jesus, even though, in their original context, this doesn't make any sense; sometimes even they're based on obvious mistranslations, like having Jesus ride into Jerusalem on the back of two animals simultaneously because you don't understand appositives. And you can poke holes in any individual bit of this exegesis, but psychologically having a ton of low-quality evidence for a thing is a pretty effective bulwark against thinking critically about that evidence; for every individual argument you knock down, the person you are arguing against is probably thinking, "yeah, but what about all that other stuff," even if they can't actually name all that other stuff in the moment.

And it's not mendacious! This is the stuff of true belief; this is how you get breathless Christian commentators saying the Bible couldn't possibly be written by human hands, because it so perfectly predicted Jesus even in the Old Testament--and the evidence they point to is, to anyone not steeped in traditional Christian exegesis, and especially to Jews who have their own exegetical traditions, absolutely barmy. Like really pants-on-head crazy stuff. But of course even now it is still being processed, in many parts of the world, through a two thousand year old tradition trying to reconcile it all and to normalize it all, and--to bring it back to discussions of evolution on the internet in the 2000s--I can't help but think of all those people who talk about the experience of thinking evolution was so obviously nonsense, because all they were exposed to was the fundamentalist strawman of it. When they finally sat down and began to read about it on their own, from unbiased sources--often with the intent of criticizing it--they realized how distorted their understanding was, and how limited their supposed outside view.

(If there are general lessons to be wrung from this situation, I think it's simply "beware of echo chambers." Social consensus in a bubble can make bad arguments feel much stronger than they really are, especially if you are not exposed to the actual opposing view. Be on guard against mistaking "quantity of evidence" for "quality of argument," especially if you're not gonna evaluate that evidence yourself. Also all religious traditions are fundamentally eisegetical, because in order to keep holy writ relevant to the community its meaning has to be constantly renegotiated. So, uh. If you want high-quality exegesis, ask an academic, not a theologian.)

[morgana-ren]

Gortash and Durge writing you say? 👀

Oh yes, I find their dynamic absolutely fascinating. I hate it, but I love Gortash. I find him captivating. He's completely fascinating. I love his dynamic with Durge, and I've thought about it more than I care to admit. I've known about the stinky Dead Three for a long while since I grew up on DnD, and their followers interest me, but Banites first and foremost, because Bane has a code. He is not like Bhaal who just wants wanton death and murder and blood. He is not like Myrkul who his whims are slightly unknowable but revolve around death and the capture of souls. He has very real aspirations and structure for his followers. He has clawed his way into Godhood and he expects greatness from those who claim to follow him.

Here's the fun thing people forget about Banites: their entire schtick is domination. The strong eat the weak; The strong take as they please, and if you cannot fend them off, or defend yourself, or stop them, you deserve whatever happens to you. It's a strength hierarchy where the smartest, most powerful, and therefore, the most deserving rest at the top, and failure is not an option. Hate, tyranny, all of their portfolio sounds very hacky, but it's actually quite intricate and laid out.

Gortash is, in essence, the Banite prince. He is Bane's chosen. Of all the Banites, of all the power in Toril, it was Gortash that was chosen. His power was not inherited power. It was not swindled. It was clawed and torn and ripped and shredded by nails and strength and bloody teeth. He earned Lord Bane's respect. He worked his way to the top from literal hell through sheer fucking willpower and desperation, and that is a constant you will find in Banite culture.

The weak do not survive. They are fodder for the strong.

That is why Durge and Gortash would have worked in the beginning. Gortash respects strength. He respects intelligence. He respects control. When Banites look at Bhaalists, they see a cult of undisciplined, violent little edgelords who worship the edgelord supreme who stole full Godhood from their Lord. Gortash looks at Orin and sees an unhinged, obnoxious, desperate little thrall of Bhaal with daddy issues and a distinct lack of control or principles or any redeeming qualities. She isn't clever, or patient, or calculated. She wants death death death now now now red red blood sweet blood red and sticky and sweet impulse impulse, death death--

And he finds it lacking, to say the least. He will work with her because Lord Bane commands it. But in truth? He doesn't respect her at all. He openly shows dislike for her, and distaste at her proclivities. She actively defies his beliefs in a strong mind, a strong will, and a strong sense of control.

But Durge?

He expresses admiration for Durge. He expresses genuine kindness as far as he is able and a very real desire to be around them, work with them, and that is the highest compliment a Banite can give. They see everyone else as simple-minded, foolish, and weak. But Durge? He liked them. He respected them. He welcomes them back after they were bested (a huge sign of weakness by Banite standards) by their shitty little sister and have foiled his plans and thrown a wrench in his whole work.

He found an equal. He puts heavy emphasis on equal. Again, for Banites, no one is their equal. It goes against their entire theological belief structure. Strength, strength, earn, earn, power, strength, blood. The scale is a triangle and there is only room for one at the top. Only one can be the best. Only one takes that power and deserves it.

Gortash will not betray you if you work with him. He will hold fast to his word. He will share power. He will be wary of you, as all Banites are (because they are in a religion where you must be smarter and stronger and constantly ready for backstabbing especially when it comes to the parallel Gods of the Dead Three) but he will trust you and work with you. He will test you and test your mettle and ensure that you are as sharp and respectable as ever, but that is the nature of Banites. Earning their respect is a constant.

(It bugs me how easily they killed him off, but to be honest, I understand that from a story perspective, there is no other way. They couldn't have him sticking around. He was an antagonist. They couldn't flesh out an entirely different story and ending if you decided to be with him. He had to die, one way or another. But choosing to keep him around until the sticky end if you keep your word? That was a deliberate choice. It was showing his respect for Durge-- and respect is earned with fire and blood, and it was earned between them.)

Banites actually do have tenants. They have a code they live by. They have a very strict code, actually. You can see glimpses of it with Gortash and his holy books. You earn power by right of might. Not by swindling and cheating and lying and stealing. Gortash has nothing to gain from pretending to like Durge. It would be seen as a weakness and a form of submission to them to play so so nice. Dominance is required.

Gortash breaks this code. He breaks it with the lonely nobles he 'seduces.' Using sexual prowess is, in a way, weak, because it means you are not strong or capable enough to take what is yours. You are 'playing nice.' You are using wiles rather than asserting your raw fucking power. False kindness and compassion is actually looked down upon, if I recall correctly. Your strength lies in yourself. Not your cock. Not your body. It's you.

I'm sure Gortash had to pay penance for this, but he probably deemed it necessary for a plan of such an ambitious scale. Sacrifices had to be made.

What I'm saying is that I highly, highly doubt he would play nicely with Durge simply to smooth the path. It goes against everything he believes. Swindling money from some lonely rich housewife? Well, he can pay for that. But do you think Bane would have sat by and watched him play submissive to his enemy's literal blood-child?

No. Durge earned that. And so too did Gortash.

Gortash showed ferocity and prowess. He showed a willingness to work together, which is exclusive to Banites almost specifically. He never ever kneeled before Bhaal in any regard, but he did earn Durge's respect with their raw capacity for murder and blood. He showed initiative. There was genuine conflict in Durge's mind over their admiration for Gortash and knowing that they would, inevitably, be forced to betray him to end the world in blood.

They admired each other. They liked each other, which it seems like Gortash is more willing to openly admit because it doesn't go against his beliefs. They have proved themselves strong and smart. They have, in a way, earned Lord Bane's respect as well, and working with them is no weakness. It is no ploy because Durge is a 'threat' and must be placated. He likes them. He admires them.

Durge has a lot of guilt for liking Gortash. They try to rationalize and justify it at every turn, seeking penance from their father, writing scrambled notes on why why why. But Gortash? Gortash accepts it. Durge has earned their respect. It is no weakness to accept this.

I have no doubt that Bane had his own whims in mind. In the end, I'm sure he wanted all that power for himself. That's his entire gimmick. He's pissed off at Bhaal and Myrkul because he feels like they took power that was rightfully his. Gortash even outright says that their alliance can never be truly repaired; it is not in their nature. I'm sure it would have deeply conflicted Gortash when Bane finally put forth his Black Hand and Command and told him what must be done.

The child of Bhaal must die. The power must go unto the righteous and the deserving.

And I'm sure Gortash was already thinking of ways to circumvent this. He knows his Lord and his designs and peculiarities.

He praises Durge's ability to resist Bhaal's influence. He commends your control. He commends when you show restraint and condemns when your sibling does not. Perhaps he had fully intended to make them his Banite other. Perhaps he thought they could be swayed and brought unto Bane. Durge showed resentment at being controlled and forced and maneuvered about-- and Gortash never had that issue. Bane allowed him the space to conquer, and trusted his will and intellect. Perhaps Gortash thought that eventually, Bane might appeal to Durge-- and could free them.

I have found that the arrogance of Banites is their downfall. They earn their power and their right, but they forget: never underestimate your opponent. The folly of a clever man is to think the world around him a fool. And Banites commit this cardinal sin, and it plummets them every time.

After all, the Netherbrain was using the arrogance of Bane to puppet him and his followers into freedom and the Grand Design. Hell, they did most of the work for it. It was using the destructive and murderous need of Bhaal. The deathly urges of Myrkul. In a way, they're sort of one of a kind. That arrogance. That conceit. That raw need for ultimate control. It was a Banite and a Bhaalist that hand in unlovable hand almost ended all of existence.

But Gortash was not solely Banite. He was mortal, as was Durge. He had other wants and needs and desires, however much his religion took up of himself. He could see real value in Durge. He saw something in them: An equal. By nature, again, Banites do not have equals.

But Gortash spent his life alone. He spend it miserable and clawing, with no one anywhere caring for him. He was never given anything. He was forced to take; the very thing that drove him into the arms of Bane in the first place. A God that justified his will and recognized his ambition and power and the repulsive things it takes and justifies them inherently. The kind and compassionate and loved do not turn to Bane. The desperate and traumatized and hateful turn to Bane. He went from a captive in hell sold to a warlock by his parents, and then to a devil, and then used his sheer fucking intellect and will to escape. He went from a lowly no one loved by not even his parents to the most acclaimed, beloved man in the entire fucking city that once raised him in the gutters. He did not only take that throne where it did not exist-- he created one to sit upon.

And he was going to sit upon it alone forever.

But he looked at Durge and saw someone of similar struggle. Someone who has never been loved. Never coddled. Never cared for. Someone who was born to be a tool (feed his family's debts/serve thy Father's will) and had no will of their own (obey the devil to whom you belong and accept your place at his feet/you are an extension of your Father's clawed and bloody hand with no mind of your own) and had been seemingly created only to suffer (You are not loved, you are used and you will obey/ You are not loved, you are used, and you will obey) and he took them into himself.

Hand in unlovable fucking hand, they could have had everything.

They could have been good for each other.

#morgana and friends #gortash x durge #gortash #durge #me and my banite rambling #forgive me i know you probably wanted like WRITING but I had to get this out #don't worry I'll actually write something less whiny and faux-philosophical and get around to the interesting smut later tonight hopefully

[foone]

The City of Towers is the most holy city for the followers of Our Silent Mother, with many of the religion's nunneries and monasteries* located there. The whole area has long considered holy ground, so since the third century onward it's been forbidden for there to be men within the city.

This was actually law since the founding of the city shortly before the passing of Our Silent Mother, but it's only been enforced since the late third century. The spell was cast in 257 AM, and the four centuries of worship since has reinforced it to the point where it's as strong as laws of nature (or stronger, as any decent magic user can find ways to bend or break those.)

But those who have never visited The City of Towers often misunderstand the nature of the edict. It's not "men may not enter the city", like there's a border guard checking your passport at the city wall**.

No, the specific wording and meaning of the rule is that "no one within the city may be a man". So if you enter the city as a man, you'll stop being one for the duration of your visit.

The effect is usually temporary, though the longer you stay in the city, the longer it takes to wear off. Many sisters of the assorted orders in the city have taken trips away from it for many months without any gender reversion effects.

Also, it's a common misunderstanding that the city will always turn men into women: not actually true! There are many non-binary residents of the city, and the similarly any non-binary visitors will not be affected by the city's rule. Whether the city turns any given male visitor into a woman or an enby for the duration of their stay is up to the individual and while it's not necessarily predictable, it's never truly surprising.

Also, the rule has no effect on members of monogendered races like Dragons and (ironically) lizardmen. Even though they, as a race, all use he/him pronouns and reproductive anatomy similar to AMAB humans, they won't be turned into "lizard women", as such a thing doesn't exist. (and obviously monogendered races that are "female", like mermaids and skydoves***, will have no issues)

In any case, male visitors to the city need not worry about their longterm gender. Short visits wear off within hours, and the city is very welcoming to visitors unexperienced with being a woman. It is considered somewhat gauche**** to walk around in public in "male" clothing, but there are several charities in the city who will provide appropriate clothing to any visitors for a small donation.

For those who have strict religious, dietary, or personal gender history reasons to need to avoid the effects of the towns Gender Edict, the small settlement of Forever's Landing is located a short distance outside the city (and spell's) limits, and has many inns and pubs for male members of your group to hang out while the rest visit the holy city*****.

But enjoy your stay at the City of Towers. May Our Silent Mother watch over and protect you.

* the distinction between monasteries and nunneries in a city where there are no men is a complex one that has caused endless theological argument. After seven centuries of debate, the most certain answer anyone has been able to come up with is "nunnery is easier to spell"

** naturally, as the City of Towers has no walls. The loving embrace of Our Silent Mother is open to all. And no enemy has been foolish enough to lay siege to the city since the One Day War of 317 AM.

*** you may think this name is redundant, but earthdoves would disagree, if any had survived the Wing Wars. The skydoves maintain their name in recognition of their history of triumph over their distant cousins.

**** There's no law against male clothing, of course, but it's considered somewhat rude and antisocial. You may not be allowed into a temple to pray, or a tavern may not serve you. And you can forget about being admitted into any of the cities nightclubs****** or polite society mixers.

***** for reasons understood only to them, Forever's Landing is very popular with lizardmen. Even though the city's law has no effect on them, they prefer to stay outside of it when possible. Although the city was founded by humans, there has always been a small lizardmen population within the city, even during both of the wars (as The City of Towers and nearby environs were declared neutral and this was accepted and respected by all three sides*******)

****** yes, even drag nightclubs. The City naturally has a thriving drag scene. It's long been known in The Union that The City of Towers is the ultimate destination for all top-class drag kings.

******* those three sides being: humans (and allied races), lizardmen (and allied races), and the moon********.

******** this isn't a footnote about the moon*********, just a realization that these footnotes are getting very hard to manage. Perhaps I should have used superscript numbers instead of asterisks? It's entirely possible I have mixed up the footnotes. I'm doing this on mobile so it's hard to check.

********* the moon lost the first great war, and won the second, which helped lead to the lasting human-lizardman peace.

#101 magical pistols #my writing

[nicklloydnow]

““Dorothy reminds me in so many ways of Toni Morrison,” West said. “You know Toni Morrison is Catholic. Many people do not realize that she is one of the great Catholic writers. Like Flannery O’Connor, she has an incarnational conception of human existence. We Protestants are too individualistic. I think we need to learn from Catholics who are always centered on community.”

(…)

She viewed belief in God as “an intellectual experience that intensifies our perceptions and distances us from an egocentric and predatory life, from ignorance and from the limits of personal satisfactions”—and affirmed her Catholic identity. “I had a moment of crisis on the occasion of Vatican II,” she said. “At the time I had the impression that it was a superficial change, and I suffered greatly from the abolition of Latin, which I saw as the unifying and universal language of the Church.”

Morrison saw a problematic absence of authentic religion in modern art: “It’s not serious—it’s supermarket religion, a spiritual Disneyland of false fear and pleasure.” She lamented that religion is often parodied or simplified, as in “those pretentious bad films in which angels appear as dei ex machina, or of figurative artists who use religious iconography with the sole purpose of creating a scandal.” She admired the work of James Joyce, especially his earlier works, and had a particular affinity for Flannery O’Connor, “a great artist who hasn’t received the attention she deserves.”

What emerges from Morrison’s public discussions of faith is paradoxical Catholicism. Her conception of God is malleable, progressive, and esoteric. She retained a distinct nostalgia for Catholic ritual, and feels the “greatest respect” for those who practice the faith, even if she herself wavered. In a 2015 interview with NPR, Morrison said there was not a “structured” sense of religion in her life at the moment, but “I might be easily seduced to go back to church because I like the controversy as well as the beauty of this particular Pope Francis. He’s very interesting to me.”

Morrison’s Catholic faith—individual and communal, traditional and idiosyncratic—offers a theological structure for her worldview. Her Catholicism illuminates her fiction; in particular, her views of bodies, and the narrative power of stories. An artist, Morrison affirmed, “bears witness.” Her father’s ghost stories, her mother’s spiritual musicality, and her own youthful sense of attraction to Christianity’s “scriptures and its vagueness” led her to conclude it is “a theatrical religion. It says something particularly interesting to black people, and I think it’s part of why they were so available to it. It was the love things that were psychically very important. Nobody could have endured that life in constant rage.” Morrison said it is a sense of “transcending love” that makes “the New Testament . . . so pertinent to black literature—the lamb, the victim, the vulnerable one who does die but nevertheless lives.”

(…)

Morrison is describing a Catholic style of storytelling here, reflected in the various emotional notes of Mass. The religion calls for extremes: solemnity, joy, silence, and exhortation. Such a literary approach is audacious, confident, and necessary, considering Morrison’s broader goals. She rejected the term experimental, clarifying “I am simply trying to recreate something out of an old art form in my books—the something that defines what makes a book ‘black.’”

(…)

Morrison was both storyteller and archivist. Her commitment to history and tradition itself feels Catholic in orientation. She sought to “merge vernacular with the lyric, with the standard, and with the biblical, because it was part of the linguistic heritage of my family, moving up and down the scale, across it, in between it.” When a serious subject came up in family conversation, “it was highly sermonic, highly formalized, biblical in a sense, and easily so. They could move easily into the language of the King James Bible and then back to standard English, and then segue into language that we would call street.”

Language was play and performance; the pivots and turns were “an enhancement for me, not a restriction,” and showed her that “there was an enormous power” in such shifts. Morrison’s attention toward language is inherently religious; by talking about the change from Latin to English Mass as a regrettable shift, she invokes the sense that faith is both content and language; both story and medium.

From her first novel on forward, Morrison appeared intent on forcing us to look at embodied black pain with the full power of language. As a Catholic writer, she wanted us to see the body on the cross; to see its blood, its cuts, its sweat. That corporal sense defines her novel Beloved (1988), perhaps Morrison’s most ambitious, stirring work. “Black people never annihilate evil,” Morrison has said. “They don’t run it out of their neighborhoods, chop it up, or burn it up. They don’t have witch hangings. They accept it. It’s almost like a fourth dimension in their lives.”

(…)

Morrison has said that all of her writing is “about love or its absence.” There must always be one or the other—her characters do not live without ebullience or suffering. “Black women,” Morrison explained, “have held, have been given, you know, the cross. They don’t walk near it. They’re often on it. And they’ve borne that, I think, extremely well.” No character in Morrison’s canon lives the cross as much as Sethe, who even “got a tree on my back” from whipping. Scarred inside and out, she is the living embodiment of bearing witness.

(…)

Morrison’s Catholicism was one of the Passion: of scarred bodies, public execution, and private penance. When Morrison thought of “the infiniteness of time, I get lost in a mixture of dismay and excitement. I sense the order and harmony that suggest an intelligence, and I discover, with a slight shiver, that my own language becomes evangelical.” The more Morrison contemplates the grandness and complexity of life, the more her writing reverts to the Catholic storytelling methods that enthralled her as a child and cultivated her faith. This creates a powerful juxtaposition: a skilled novelist compelled to both abstraction and physicality in her stories. Catholicism, for Morrison, offers a language to connect these differences.

For Morrison, the traits of black language include the “rhythm of a familiar, hand-me-down dignity [that] is pulled along by an accretion of detail displayed in a meandering unremarkableness.” Syntax that is “highly aural” and “parabolic.” The language of Latin Mass—its grandeur, silences, communal participation, coupled with the congregation’s performative resurrection of an ancient tongue—offers a foundation for Morrison’s meticulous appreciation of language.

Her representations of faith—believers, doubters, preachers, heretics, and miracles—are powerful because of her evocative language, and also because she presents them without irony. She took religion seriously. She tended to be self-effacing when describing her own belief, and it feels like an action of humility. In a 2014 interview, she affirmed “I am a Catholic” while explaining her willingness to write with a certain, frank moral clarity in her fiction. Morrison was not being contradictory; she was speaking with nuance. She might have been lapsed in practice, but she was culturally—and therefore socially, morally—Catholic.

The same aesthetics that originally attracted Morrison to Catholicism are revealed in her fiction, despite her wavering of institutional adherence. Her radical approach to the body also makes her the greatest American Catholic writer about race. That one of the finest, most heralded American writers is Catholic—and yet not spoken about as such—demonstrates why the status of lapsed Catholic writers is so essential to understanding American fiction.

A faith charged with sensory detail, performance, and story, Catholicism seeps into these writers’ lives—making it impossible to gauge their moral senses without appreciating how they refract their Catholic pasts. The fiction of lapsed Catholic writers suggests a longing for spiritual meaning and a continued fascination with the language and feeling of faith, absent God or not: a profound struggle that illuminates their stories, and that speaks to their readers.”

#morrison #toni morrison #catholic #catholicism #religion #literature #art #nobel prize

[utilitycaster]

You mentioned previously that Bell's Hells going to Yios earlier in the story or starting from there (I don't remember which) would've fixed most of early campaign issues. Could you elaborate on that? Which issues would it have fixed and how?

Hi anon, sure! It was going to Yios before Bassuras, but I actually have two separate pitches after talking through this with some people: Either have them go to Yios, or, alternately, get rid of Yu (either to show up later or, frankly, Erika can and has played far better characters).

The issues to be addressed:

general lack of party interactions. I've covered this before but basically...bonding is a subjective and nebulous term so I'm deliberately not using it, but there is, objectively, a culture in this campaign of doing far fewer check-ins, group conversations that aren't "what do we do next" or rehashing the same theological discussion, taking watch together/having conversations before bed, or just...little moments, honestly, than compared to the past two. I think this is because the foundation was not laid earlier, and, indeed, may have been disrupted.

pacing. the Bassuras arc is an overstuffed slog with no real wins and two entirely externally driven missions, both of which go rather badly. I say this as a person who advises people to still watch the first 27 episodes of Campaign 1 and who refuses to give C1 and C2 abridged versions: I would happily put together a "what to watch and what to skip" for C3.

related to the above, infodumping. It is somewhat unavoidable in this campaign, but chunks of the Bassuras arc and then, much of the Yios arc, are just Grim Verity Wizard or Fey Says Things About The Apogee Solstice At Bells Hells.

The fact that Otohan Thull holds the dubious distinction of being the most deadly villain CR has had, while having said about 10 lines total of which zero were remotely interesting. Everything that is intriguing about her is, well, infodumping that has ultimately been entirely irrelevant to the plot.

Letting the party choose where to go next rather than sending them directly to Bassuras after the Heartmoor would likely have sent them either to Yios or to where the Gorgynei are, on their way to Yios; those were the two main hooks. (A third is the caravan for which Cyrus Wyvernwind was blamed for the robbery, and if the party followed that hook, one could very easily have the trail lead to Yios.) This would not have been on business for Eshteross, so it would have likely been slow travel. The party had already shown some promise in the Heartmoor and on their journey there so this would have kept up that momentum of taking watch together, sharing information with each other, and making decisions on their own steam, without a guiding patron. I think it would have laid that stronger foundation of a culture of, well, talking to each other, by giving that nascent 20s and 30s episode period far more time to breathe. Upon arriving in Yios, they already knew to seek out the Grim Verity and Kadija Sumal; the same exact outcome could have occurred. The one major wrinkle is Ludinus, but that could be set in Bassuras, with him coming to talk to Otohan (thus introducing him and giving a much richer insight into the Vanguard generals' dynamic). The party wandering around a city themselves and learning of Liliana and the Vanguard and perhaps getting hints of the Grey Assassins would set the groundwork of the core apogee solstice plot. You could even, and this is very much a hindsight is 20-20 situation, have Planerider Ryn give them some sort of favor a la J'mon Sa'Ord - use this sending stone and I'll come get you out of a sticky situation, with a price (the price being destroying the Feywild Malleus Key). You could also achieve the lore drops from Ira here; either move him here or have someone else show them a telescope that has been enchanted to see the city. And, of course, you could have Otohan in Imogen's dreams.

While in Yios, having had some time to get their bearings as a party and to more slowly lay out the moon plot, you could then have Eshteross have someone message them or send word via the airship that Treshi has escaped prison and fled to Bassuras, etc etc, please infiltrate the Paragon's Call. From there you could run it roughly as before, with the party having more information about the Vanguard and the Paragon's Call as a front for it and thus acting with more subtlety and caution and giving the party more time to interact with Otohan so that she possessed literally any interesting features that weren't just told to us out of character. Honestly I think saving Yu for later in the campaign would still be wise (or playing a different character but honestly, introducing Yu on the moon as a disgruntled Zathuda underling? could have been great) but I think the party and the plot would have been better able to accomodate them. It's worth keeping in mind that by the time Yu left (episode 29), there had been a guest in over half the campaign's episodes. No shade to Dorian, who I think was great, but the party needed some time to readjust and figure out who they were.

In Bassuras, the party could then have Ryn as their Otohan Fight Hail Mary should that come up, which would send them to the Feywild, and things would proceed from there roughly as they did before;

Which brings me to option 2, which is that actually, I think just not having Yu there would have done wonders. Think about how much time the party spent talking to them and their story instead of like...to each other. There were some good early conversations on the ship over and their first night in the city! And then they spent most of their time in Taste of Tal'Dorei talking about someone who, ultimately, served to introduce Fearne's parents and nothing else. Imagine if they'd just...talked with each other.

In this scenario, I'd have the party focus on FCG and Ashton's connections. I think you could have introduced the Calloways later, in the Feywild (in this scenario the Yios arc still unfolds roughly as it did, so just...have them there at Morri's the way they were there in episode 78), but if you did want to include that, you could have just had Imahara Joe notice that Fearne looked a lot like Birdie and say something, since going to Joe's would be easy to guide the party into doing. You also, by focusing more on FCG and Ashton, could explore the culture of Bassuras and the Stratos Throne and therefore actually get a sense of what "Legend of the Peaks" actually means.

As before, I really think having Yu show up either as the party made their way to the Feywild Malleus Key, or on the moon, would be a much better showcase for the character and would fit the story better. As is, we learned nothing about Zathuda from them other than that he exists; the Moontide Crown was yet another MacGuffin in The MacGuffin Slog and as discussed Ira's role could have been achieved in Yios (he also could have shown up causing problems at the Material Plane Malleus Key to establish the enemy of my enemy is my friend so that he could be in the same position as the moon mission); and the Calloways could easily have been introduced by Joe or when the party went to the Feywild.

I also really think you could just save all the infodumping for Yios; I think one giant lore drop would have been stronger than two decently sized ones. Naturally I still think going to Yios first would be more graceful, but truly, just a little more breathing room in Bassuras would have done so much.

As an aside: I think one thing that would have mitigated the pacing of Bassuras/Whitestone is, well, not going to Whitestone. In the Yios-first model, theoretically they would go to the Feywild (perhaps Morri could bring people back had that been necessary, which would have been fun as hell to explore) but in the Bassuras w/o Yu scenario, Whitestone would still be an option. Now, what's done is done. However, I do want to point out, if any Crown Keepers fans are in the audience, I strongly suspect that the Jiana Hexum connection not being leveraged in favor of going to Whitestone is a major factor in the Crown Keepers not coming into the story, because the hook for them was via Cyrus being sought after by Jiana and they went with Keyleth.

Obviously this is D&D! As mentioned above, hindsight is 20-20, Monday morning quarterbacks are a day too late, and so forth. I still think that a session zero would have also been very helpful (not the typical CR main campaign "play out a scenario with your pre-existing companions," but one like they showed for Daggerheart and for the various Candela seasons; I have separate thoughts about how the screen test strategy vs. a more traditional session zero has twice now had less than impressive results). But either of these changes would, I think, have made it a much stronger campaign.

#answered #Anonymous #cr tag #long post

[toskarin]

before I start on this ramble about sca-ji, I'm boilerplating it with "this isn't an original thought, this is an amalgamation of thoughts I've digested from other people, regurgitated as a positive review of a writer's approach to the unfamiliar"

which, after writing that out, seems oddly fitting for praising sca-ji's writing lol

one thing about sca-ji's writing that makes a lot of people bounce off of it is that it's got an omnipresent confrontational tone, which means you can read unintended hostility into it

the thing is, that's an enormous disservice to how he writes, which is something you can see reflected more clearly in how he talks about philosophy in interviews (and on his twitter)

you can interpret SubaHibi as "anti-christian" or, overcompensating, read it as an aesthetically christian story that doesn't necessarily expect you to interpret the symbols with their traditional meaning. that's also pretty ungenerous

fundamentally, sca-ji is someone deeply fascinated by trying to understand things, in particular by writing stories about people trying to understand each other, and he comes to understand things by wrestling with their core ideas in his head until he eventually finds himself standing in the same position as the person who wrote the work he's studying

the christian themes in SubaHibi are less about trying to understand christianity than they are about trying to understand christian philosophy that developed to try and understand christianity. the symbols aren't necessarily to be understood scripturally, but they absolutely have to be understood theologically

sca-ji's way of understanding something is to find the arguments it's making and then force himself into those same arguments, from the same direction, until he feels he's gotten a grip on the (unwritten) emotions that led to the writing. then, because these emotions are derived from western philosophy, he creates a sort of "international dialogue" by attaching these emotions to characters who are navigating (more familiar) japanese cultural events that emotionally resonated with him

characters like to sit across the room from each other and rattle off citations that seem extraneous, but are actually (two degrees removed) attempts to figure out where they're going to disagree before they actually reach the point of disagreement. if it's not connecting, it will either feel superfluous (in the case you aren't following the conversation) or overly confrontational (in the event you are, but can only see it for the disagreement)

this is present in all of his writing. even when he's just rambling about other people, he's flailing at the air in what seems like anger, trying to force his body into the shape of their opinion and loudly announcing every difficulty he discovers in doing so as it emerges

which is really cool! it's a pretty distinct style of almost-vulgar writing, the gonzo journalism of existentialism, that's admittedly a bit underrepresented outside of like... the mid-20th century nihilist-orientalist wave that seemed to have an epicentre in france

and mind you, that entire trend was much much much more annoying and cruel towards things they weren't willing to understand

[saintmachina]

One million dollar question: is it true that the Bible condems homosexuality? I had a discussion with two conservatives who sent me some verses that seem to confirm that but i don't know much about the context although i know this is important too

Let’s start here: why is this the million dollar question? Why does it matter what the Bible has to say about sex, or love, or human relationships? At the end of the day, it’s just a book, right?

Oceans of ink (and blood) have been spilled over not only what the Bible says, but what it does, how it functions. The course of empires, nations, and families have been shaped by the contents of this book, and from a historical and cultural perspective, it holds a lot of weight. But you didn’t ask about the sociological, you asked about the theological, so let’s explore. 

Different Christian traditions vary in their approach to scripture. For example: some Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. In this paradigm, God is the ultimate author of scripture working through human hands, and the resulting text is both without error and in no way deceptive or mistaken. Similarly, The Second Vatican Council decreed that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” When a member of the clergy is ordained into the Episcopal Church they swear that they “do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

Can you see how many of these points of doctrine overlap yet seek to distinguish themselves from one another? Theologians have spent lifetimes arguing over definitions, and even when they manage to settle on solid teachings, the way that the teaching is interpreted by the clergy and incorporated into the lives of the laity varies WIDELY. As much as systematic theology may try, humans aren’t systematic beings. We’re highly contextual: we only exist in relation to others, to history, to circumstance, and to the divine. We simply cannot call up God to confirm church teaching, and I think a lot of people cling excessively to the Bible as a result of the ache (dare I even say trauma) of being separated from God via space and time in the way we currently are.

God is here, but God is not here. God is within us, God is within the beloved, God is within the sea and sky and land, and yet we cannot grasp God to our bodies in the way we long to. In this earthly lifetime, we are forever enmeshed in God, yet forever distinct, and that is our great joy and our great tragedy.

So barring a direct spiritual experience or the actual second coming, we're left to sort through these things ourselves. And because humans are flawed, our interpretations will always be flawed. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives guiding us.

When engaging with any sort of Biblical debate, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of what the Bible means to you, an an embodied individual living a brief little awful and wonderful life on Earth. Otherwise it's easy to get pushed around by other people’s convincing-sounding arguments and sound bites.

Here’s where I show my hand. As a confirmed Episcopalian I believe that reason, tradition, and scripture form the “three-legged stool” upon which the church stands, interdependent and interrelational to each other, but I’ve also like, lived a life outside of books. I’ve met God in grimy alleyways and frigid ocean waters and in bed with my lovers. So my stool is actually four-legged, because I think it’s essential to incorporate one’s personal experience of God into the mix as well. (I did not invent this: it’s called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but the official Wesleyan quadrilateral insists that scripture must trump all other legs of the table in the case of a conflict which...*cynical noises*)

Please do not interpret this answer as me doing a hand-wavey "it's all vibes, man, we're all equally right and equally wrong", but I do absolutely think we have a responsibility as creatures to weigh the suffering and/or flourishing of our fellow creatures against teachings handed down through oral tradition, schisms, imperial takeover of faith, and translation and mistranslation. Do I believe the Bible is sacred, supernatural even, and that it contains all things necessary to find one's way to God, if that is the way God chooses to manifest to an individual in a given lifetime? Absolutely. Do I believe it is a priceless work of art and human achievement that captures ancient truths and the hopes of a people (as well as a record of their atrocities) through symbols, stories, and signs? Unto my death, I do.

However, I am wary of making an object of human creation, God-breathed though it may be, into an idol, and trapping God in its pages like God is some sort of exotic bug we can pin down with a sewing needle.

Finally, we have reached the homosexuality debate. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is Matthew 5: 15-17: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." In other words: look at what religious teachings have wrought in the world. When I look at homophobic interpretations of the Bible, I see destruction, abuse, suffering, neglect, alienation, spiritual decay, and death. When I look at theology that affirms the holiness of LGBTQ+ relationships, I see joy, laughter, community building, thoughtful care, blooming families, creativity, resilience, and compassion. I see the love of Christ at work in the world. I see the hands of a God who chose under no duress to take up residence in a human body, to drink wine with tax collectors and break bread with sex workers and carry urchin children around on his shoulders. That's my limited little pet interpretation, but hey, that's all any of us really have, at the end of the day.

So, I am absolutely happy to do a play-by-play breakdown of why those passages you were given (we queer Christians often call them "clobber passages" or "texts of terror") don't hold water in a theological, historical, and cultural context. We can talk about Jesus blessing the eunuch and the institution of Greek pederasty and Levitical purity laws and Paul because I've done that reading. I've spent my nights crying in self-hatred and leafing through doctrine books and arguing with my pastors and writing long grad school essays on the subjects. Send me the verses, if you can remember them, and I'll take a look. But it's worth noting that out of the entire Bible, I believe there are only six that explicitly condemn homosexuality AND I'm being generous and including Sodom and Gommorah here, which is a willful and ignorant misreading if I've ever seen one.

In the meantime, I recommend books by people smarter than me! Try Outside The Lines: How Embracing Queerness Will Transform Your Faith by Mihee Kim-Kort, or Does Jesus Really Love Me by Jeff Chu, or Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke!

And take a breath, dear one. Breathe in God, in the droplets of water in the air and in the wind from the south. Breathe in the gift of life, and know that you are loved, now and unto the end of the age and even beyond then.

#I'm sorry this answer is the length of a Victor Hugo novel but I've been mulling on it for days and it unlocked the theology gremlin #who lives in my brain #theology #christianty #queer christianity #progressive christianity #religionposting #catholicism #episcopalian #lgbtq community