Ever wondered why the Church today is so powerless in comparison to what we see in the Book of Acts?
If this question / statement makes you a little uncomfortable, then strap in; it’s time for the Church to get uncomfortable!
Christianity was birthed in conflict. Roman occupation was the reality of the newly birthed Church and there was danger on every side. Yet Jesus, before he was crucified, told his disciples that he had to go back to the Father, and when he did, he would send another helper. When He had risen from the dead, Jesus told them that they were not to leave Jerusalem but that they must wait for what the Father promised. He said that John had baptised in water, but they would soon be baptised in the Holy Spirit.
Christianity today is a far cry from what we see in the early church. Much of the Church is worried about getting slimed by the devil if they get too close to those wicked sinners, and equally, much of the Church is uncomfortable with the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, preferring to be relevant to the world and worried about seeming too weird. So they hide away in the safety of the four walls of the buildings that they mistakenly call ‘the church’ and the power and authority of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is denied.
Sadly, while many in the Church view the sins of the heathen as evil, they fail to judge in themselves the sins of self-righteousness and pride. Sexual sin within the Church is at epidemic levels, but it’s the dirty little secret that no-one talks about. Abortion within the Church is at staggering rates.
The Church is openly mocked by the world-at-large as insipid and powerless, and until it wakes up and decides that this cannot continue to be our default identity, that is exactly what we will continue to be.
But that’s not what we were created to be! We were created to be Light-Bearers, Vessels of Fire and Glory! Mario Murillo unpacks for us what we, as the Body of Christ, need to understand in order to again move in the Power and Authority of the Holy Spirit for which the Church was created.
Recorded just prior to the last American election, this is a timely word to the Church of Jesus Christ, not just in America, but all across the world today.
0 notes
I forgot about this.
The whole reasoning behind the Supervillain Danny AU sketches was that his villain persona was the complete opposite of his normal, sane self and hero persona. Danny plays into the Fenton name really hard, and ramps up the “mad scientist” bit, taking inspiration from both his normal civilian life and his parents, thus using just his last name as a villain.
And then I wanted to add what Sam and Tucker might look like if they joined in on his shenanigans. To keep with the “opposite of their normal life” bit, let’s throw in some ghostly artifacts that help the two keep up with Fenton’s madness.
Sam would get an angel’s halo that helps her form ghostly wings, and she’d play into the good-two shoes angelic look, and then she opens her mouth and verbally assaults you. She pins her bangs back and wears clothes that better fit a celestial aesthetic and uses all the etiquette training her parents taught her. Manson looks like some sort of regal angel and people expect her to be the nicest out of all of them. She’s not. Manson is the sneakiest and most bloodthirsty one, and heroes regularly wonder if she has actually committed murder or not.
Tucker takes inspiration from his time as a pharaoh. He has a metal postiche that enhances his physical ability. (Maybe it gives him dreadlocks too, but I like to think Tucker is just wearing a whole ass wig.) He wears a strange mix of street wear and his pharaoh outfit, and throws his tech-obsessed self out the window. Fenton is the nerdy one here, so now Foley is the muscle. Foley plays up meathead American bully stereotype hard. He delights in throwing hands, and hunts down supers just for the sake of a fun spar. (For him not for the supers.) Foley’s favorite people to fight so far is Killer Croc and Superman. Heroes are concerned about what would happen if Foley fought for real, but then they saw what he did to the Joker “as a joke” and decided not to ask any more questions.
Basically, the trio looked at their civilian lives and picked out what they considered “villainous traits” from the people around them that they then played into as villains themselves. If that makes sense. Sam hates how her parents want a perfect child, so she makes herself look like one. She speaks in backhanded comments and has a snooty attitude, which she learned from other rich people. Tucker is constantly confronted by bullies everyday, and all the rogues that come to Amity are always fighting, so that’s what he decides to mimic. Yeah, he now gets to be the big and strong protector of the group, but all his experience with fighting have been bad ones, and that reflects in his style. And finally, Danny. Why does he take after his parents and play into the family name? Because the Fentons are one of the biggest obstacles and source of anxiety in his life. Danny associates mad scientists to pain and other bad things, so even if all he’s being helpful in a really annoying way as a villain, his parents and the threat of the GIW still influence how he presents himself. Because to Danny, those two things are far more scary than a kid with a pirate ship or a man wearing a bat fursuit.
3K notes
·
View notes
"New (old) perspectives on self-injurious and aggressive biting" published in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis / Nine Inch Nails- The Hand that Feeds
I was troubled to see a trend of claiming that Autistic people who do not support Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) are a group of "low-support-needs" autistics who are monopolizing the conversation and taking resources away from autistics with higher support needs—I think it is misunderstanding.
Individual positive or negative experiences with ABA are irrelevant here—the fundamental core of the therapy is behaviorism, the idea that an autistic person can be "treated" by rewarding "desirable" behaviors and punishing "undesirable" behaviors, and that an increase in desirable behaviors and decrease in undesirable behaviors constitutes successful treatment
In researching I found that ABA practitioners have published statements condemning conversion therapy. They refer to an unfortunate historical association between ABA and conversion therapy, but it is not association—ABA literally is conversion therapy; the creator of it used it to try to "cure" little boys that were too feminine.
ABA is considered "medically necessary" treatment for autism and the only "proven" treatment, in that it is proven to create decrease in "undesirable" behaviors and increase in "desirable" behaviors.
Undesirable behaviors for an autistic person might include things like stimming and talking about their interests, desirable behaviors might include eye contact, using verbal speech, playing with toys in the "right" way.
The BCBA behavior analyst code of ethics does not prohibit "aversive" methods (e.g. electric shock) to punish undesirable behaviors
The code of ethics only discusses the consent of the "client," not the person receiving the treatment
Many people will say "my child's ABA therapist would never make them repress harmless stims, give up their interests, use electric shocks...They understand the value of neurodiversity and emphasize the consent of the child..."
But consider...if nothing binds or requires an ABA therapist to treat stimming as important, nor restrains them from using abusive techniques, nor requires them to consider the consent of a person being treated, what protects vulnerable people other than luck? The ABA therapist still has an innately unethical level of power over a child being "treated."
Furthermore, consider: can a therapy built on the goal of controlling the behavior of a person who cannot meaningfully consent to it, especially without hard limits or protections on the kinds of behavior that can be coerced or controlled, ever be ethical?
I found many articles that discuss teaching "compliance" in autistic children, treating "compliance" as a reasonable goal to strive for without qualification...
The abstract of the above article struck me with a spark of inspiration. Biting is an undesirable behavior to be controlled, understandably so, since most would feel that violence should not be allowed. But I was suddenly reminded of the song "The Hand that Feeds" by Nine Inch Nails, which is a play on the saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you," meaning don't lash out against someone that is kind to you.
But doesn't "the hand that feeds you" implicitly have power over you through being able to give or withhold food? In this case, kindness can be a form of coercion. Thus "biting the hand that feeds" is used in the song as a metaphor for autonomy and resisting coercive power. The speaker asks the audience if they have the courage to test the benevolence of their oppressors, or if they will remain compliant and unquestioning even though they know deep down that it isn't right.
Likewise the article blunders into something unintentionally poetic when it recognizes that biting is an innately possible behavior in response to "aversive" stimuli or the "removal of reinforcers." Reinforcers and aversives in ABA are discussed as tools used by the therapist—the presentation of a preferred food would be a reinforcer, for instance (and is often used as such in ABA).
The journal article considers biting as a behavioral problem, even though the possibility that someone may bite can never be eliminated. Contrastingly, "The Hand that Feeds" highlights the coercive power behind the ability to control your behavior, even when that control appears benevolent and positive, and argues that "biting the hand that feeds you" is not only a possibility but a moral imperative.
Consider: In what circumstances would you bite someone? To defend your own body? To defend your life? Are there circumstances in which biting would be the reasonable and the right action to take?
What authority decides which behaviors are desirable or undesirable, and rewards or punishes compliance or resistance? Who is an authority—your therapist? Your teacher? Your caregiver? Any adult? Any person with the power to reward or punish?
In what circumstances might compliance be demanded of you? In what circumstances would it be justifiable not to comply? What authority decides which circumstances are justifiable?
Can you imagine a circumstance where it might be important for a child to not comply with the demands of an adult? For a citizen to not comply with the demands of a government? Which authorities demand compliance in a right and just manner, and which demand compliance to things that are evil and wrong? Which authority has the power to differentiate the two? Should you trust them? Will you bite the hand that feeds you?/Will you stay down on your knees?
1K notes
·
View notes
Prompt 241
Wing au? Wing Au. With perhaps a bit of a twist. Also a hint of eldritchness perhaps. For fun!
Ghosts have wings. Sure, they aren’t normally seen, not in the visible spectrum, but they do. Scanners pick them up, and sometimes a ghost might even reveal them, which was hypothesized to be some sort of animalistic intimidation attempt. (Something more than one Amity Parker rolled their eyes at)
Everyone had seen them at least once- the motorcycle-driving ghost’s mass of shadowy feathers, the green-haired girls matching shaggy ones, the rocker’s ones that looked like pages of music before bursting into flame. Even the box ghost’s had been spotted- feathers looking more like sheets of cardboard than anything else.
It wasn’t until the whole kidnapped to the ghost zone that anyone saw Phantom’s, but that was another tale unto itself really. Honestly the arrival of the GIW would have maybe been seen as positive before, but the fact that many of them had looked in the mirror or gone to the doctors only to find feathers beginning to sprout on their back soured it.
Especially as the GIW continues to prattle on and on about how all ecto-contaminated scum are less than human, less than bacteria. And well, what does that make them? Them, who have been to the realms of the dead and gods and back, touched by the swirling green energy in ways incomprehensible? Changed by that energy?
So the people silently brush hidden feathers together, quietly rebuff the white-wearing lunatics from the city as best they can, and hope to anything listening that they can stop anyone else from disappearing. That maybe they can find the few no one noticed had been taken before it’s too late, even if they have to tear down the entire government to do it.
265 notes
·
View notes
Ok I just realised how funny the Stellaron hunters are as a group.
You have destiny’s slave, a prophetic script writer who has foreseen how every event will ever play out, a daring manipulator incapable of feeling fear, a crazed immortal who’s only purpose is to be a weapon, a master hacker and reality manipulator, and a fearsome mech pilot who has no mercy for her victims.
But they’re also a cat (???), woman who wears contacts even though they barely alter her eyes, man who really really really wants to die, gamer girl, and girl with the actual lifespan of a firefly.
172 notes
·
View notes