#a theological definition

[muzzleroars]

a design (and short entry) for uriel! uriel, meaning “god is my flame”, is the archangel who rules over intellect and divine inspiration. additional character info (+ an enraged palette) under the read more!

- uriel is often seen covered in the flames of the holy spirit, but they have dimmed considerably since he entered his meditation

- his wings appear somewhat shabby compared to the other archangels, as he often forgets to preen in-between his reading and contemplation

- he is rather aloof and tends to be blunt, although he doesn’t really mean any harm by it

- tactics: uriel fights exclusively with powerful magic much like virtues, and will attempt to stay at long-range as his defenses and health are lacking. if he’s not given his personal space, he will eventually become enraged - while in this state he will move more erratically, fire off more quickly, and instantly teleport away whenever v1 gets within melee range, making him impossible to heal off of

#ultrakill #ultrakill oc #uriel #at what point am i just making biblical fanart. hm. #it doesn't matter im making the entire set!!! #uriel is first bc i had the clearest idea of him #im doing my best to make them all cohesive with gabriel's design #but also reflect their characters/theological associations #uriel is super bookish; priest-like but retiring #meant to look at once ceremonial but also. comfy. he's sitting inside reading all day lol #he's also definitely not a warrior the way gabriel and michael are #he can fight when necessary and he is powerful as an archangel #but it's not his specialty nor is he made for it #he doesn't even have his shoes on!!!! #doodle tag #rise and fall au

[keshetchai]

As someone who enjoys religion blogging/discussions, I've come to realize that it's a good practice to be aware of the general signs/symptoms of religious-OCD thinking (aka scrupulosity), because if the conversation is taking on all the hallmarks of scrupulosity, it's actually a definitive sign that we cannot meaningfully and compassionately engage in a conversation about religion in a healthy way. I've actually had this play out a significant number of times online, and when I realized what it was, I also began to realize that the intrusive thoughts/obsessive and compulsive thinking are only ever fed by continuing the discussion with that person.

[[ Important edit to clarify why I am saying it's not healthy — made after I went back to look for more concrete facts about OCD or anxiety (I have GAD, not OCD, but many resources overlap since they're both anxiety disorders):

When Reassurance is Harmful — this explains how/why reassurance-seeking specifically about an OCD fear is a compulsive behavior, and engaging with reassurance-seeking interferes with recovery/management/treatment.

This table from the Anxiety Disorders Center lists key differences between Information Seeking and Reassurance Seeking.

This IOCDF page on Scrupulosity info for Faith Leaders identifies "symptom accommodation" as enabling. Two of the examples of doing this by participating in the OCD behavior are: "Engage in excessive conversation focused on if-then scenarios (e.g., "If I did this, then would X or Y happen? And what if Z was involved? How about W?")" And, "Repeatedly answering questions about ‘correct’ religious or faith practices."

That page also goes on to outline more info about reassurance seeking. "Although providing answers to (often simple!) questions may seem harmless, providing reassurance serves to maintain the anxiety disorder cycle." (This BMC psychiatry article cites a lot of related studies establishing this.)

The IOCDF page on What is OCD and Scrupulosity? ]]

Imo, the responsible thing to do is to recognize that (even if the other person hasn't outright stated it/isn't diagnosed)* the conversation is not about religion, it is about needing mental health support from professionals and experts. Talking to me, the layperson who enjoys chatting theology and my religion — is not only not helping, but is actively harmful. I'm not just talking about the person who I replied to today, either. Like I've said, I've seen this happen dozens of times in various online forums.

*[while I am against diagnosing strangers on the internet, it's important to realize A) lots of people don't know what Scrupulosity is, so it's possible they've never considered this is a mental health concern that could be treated, and that B) for the purposes of my concern, it doesn't matter if they actually have diagnosed OCD. The only thing that matters is that their thought-process causes them genuine distress/fear, and every response given to them seems to only incite new/additional distressing questions/thoughts, or further entrenches the original distress.]

Ultimately, any discussion aside from "you might want to speak to a mental health professional about scrupulosity OCD" seemingly puts me in the position of feeling as if I am being used for their self-harm. I hate that feeling. I do not want to be leverage for fear and pain. I have GAD, I despise the idea that I am making things worse.

No matter how much I love religious discussion, the answer in these cases is always "please reach out to an OCD specialist/mental health professional. I am not qualified to discuss this." And then to stop there. I have never once seen anyone stuck in this compulsive thought spiral be reassured or feel any better by hearing from someone else's approach to theology handled with things like empathy, compassion, logic, or even atheism. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, or how we relate to our own religion. The urge to engage in this kind of conversation in order to chat about religion is a sign that we are not equipped to help.

You can't have a conversation here, because intentionally or not, ten times out of ten, you are adding fuel to the fire. Just like people can't simply tell me something that would erase/talk me out of my ADHD/depression/anxiety disorder, you also cannot simply argue/reassure/persuade people out of scrupulosity. We should not try. We have a responsibility to consider that it's outright harmful to do so, and to disengage.

#this is a massive pet peeve of mine #im not mad at the people who responded about religion and religious thinking bc it took me time to realize what this was too #like im sure i used to view these kinds of questions in a more...idk flippant light when i was a teenager and maybe even in my 20's #as i became more educated about my own mental health though i started to realize the pattern in these fears #and like many of you i probably originally started replying to people with scrupulosity or similar religious anxieties genuinely #not realizing at first that replying to their fears or questions was inevitable harmful #not realizing that hey actually this is far above my paygrade #ocd/obsessive thinking and anxiety spirals can be crippling life ruining and immensely painful #and unfortunately my love of theological discussions sometimes tripped me RIGHT into what was essentially self-harm #so im not mad at other people for also making that mistake - but i am asking everyone to think about this actively #its too easy to leap in without considering if the discussion is healthy to have for our discussion partner #its definitely too easy to contribute to the pain and fear while only meaning to genuinely help what is misunderstood as a mere “worry” #bc these arent just small fears or worries but thoughts that are causing them immense pain

[palant1r]

will never understand people who are mean to customer service representatives. last night i was exhausted and on the verge of tears stranded in minneapolis at midnight due to a missed connection and the lady at the delta luggage desk told me where my luggage was and how to get to the hotel, even what flight id been scheduled for the next day. and then the shuttle driver squeezed me in despite me arriving last minute and him not having any seats left. and it just occurred to me how much of customer service is. giving relief and ease to people who are completely at the end of their rope. and there are some people who, when tired and exhausted and frustrated, decide that it's the perfect time to take it out on those who are offering them a little relief. would you rebuke the angels of the Lord as they came to lead you out of the desert

#ive been in a Weird Mood since leaving dc lmao #had a theological revelation related to this but thats DEFINITELY too pretentious for this blog

[ribbittrobbit]

been thinking about how i am only ever into canon-compliant things and how maybe it's a lack of imagination or simply laziness or

... the Catholic In Me

#you receive a rigorous theological education #and the word canon has a definite connotation #and my subconscious latched on to it and is loathe to let go #really fun figuring out the ways things make you think hmmm #thoughts various

[obeetlebeetle]

been trying to articulate to multiple ppl why heaven/hell is so boring to me but lrb really gets it. I'm not religious, not much Abt the jewish theology does it for me, yet I love the underlying concept of life on earth being the best it gets and structuring religious beliefs around making it easier and better for everyone to live here. so we don't rly end up with an idea of afterlife that matters much! Everyone who wants to can go on up to heaven. I'll stay. staying here sounds pretty good to me tbh

#posts that are entirely abt theological cosmology and definitely have nothing to do with an underlying ache to return to florida

[lemonduckisnowawake]

What if I theologized hanahaki? What then? Like if hanahaki was a symbol of unrequited love that desperately wants to be requited? Because God so loves us enough to want to be with us but also loves us enough to hold back lest His holiness turn us to ash because the flowers have become so embedded in us. So what if the flowers are a sign of our own rejection of God and the desperate craving we all have deep inside for Him...but also our way of melding with something that needs to go and thus being unable to be saved from it because we made it us in a sense? Like...

...

There’s a new wave of people who claim to be without the Flower Rot, also known as Hanahaki and Hua Bing.

These people claim that, without surgery, they have managed to completely remove the Rot. When asked what had caused this, one woman who wished to remain anonymous told the reporters, “It was…God, I guess. But He was also a man. He just…said that because the Rot’s too rooted in us, even if we wanted God we’d just burn with the flowers. But the only way’s to have His love take it away. So He said He’d take Rot and fade because He was a man, then come back because He’s God, and give us love to remove the Rot because He’s both.”

Her explanation aligns with similar ones from other witnesses with the Rot gone. They claim that the risk of fading with the removal of the flowers was taken by a man. But that His Godliness also signified that He could “grant His love” to permanently dispel the Rot.

As a refresher, it is quite unclear why the Rot suddenly began to manifest inside our lungs millennia ago. The most common legend is a tale of how humanity and God once lived in harmony in a garden. However, one day, man rejected God and told Him they could create a garden of their own. Though He offered a chance to repent from their rejection, having told them previously that such an endeavour would bring death upon them, they refused to acknowledge their wrong and were thus severed from His power and acceptance.

The proud declaration of humanity was not a nonsense claim, as they indeed found they could produce beautiful plant life for a garden.

However, that came with the cost of death, for these flowers grew inside them and were expelled through bloody coughs and sneezes.

Such is the duality of this universal Rot—a sign of divine rejection, some say, or a sign of our own ability to create beauty made more glorious through our own sacrifice, as others say. Of course, there are others who say this Rot is more complicated than simply a sign of our glory or a rejection from the divine, but those claims as much less popular.

In recent times, science has discovered that this Rot is simply a natural and inborn function of our body. “In fact, it’s inaccurate to call such a natural part of human experience a rot,” Doctor Kinuyo Yahagi of Hanahaki Research Association said, showing a bloodied purple iris of hers. “Yes, it is unpleasant but it is a fact of life, just like death and hunger and blood.” She then gave an animated explanation how there was a particular genetic wiring within our lungs linked to the brain’s rejection and affection chemicals. If the two are stirred in such a way, a pathway is made from the brain to the lungs triggering the genetic code and causing flowers to bloom.

“It can be removed by surgery,” a surgeon from the local medical center said. “However, studies have shown it is risky as it can affect your ability to love and process rejection, so it’s up to the patient to take the risk or not.”

Activists have cried that a difficulty in loving is not a sign of deteriorating humanity, and that those who choose the surgery are still acceptable.

“Hanahaki or not, we all still die, right?” a video of one academic debate records a professor speaking to one of the new Rot-less people.

The Rot-less person—a professor as well—nods thoughtfully. “Yes, but now, my death becomes a death without the disease signalling our separation from the divine, which is no true death at all.”

The ethics of removing the Flower Rot surgically still are debated, though much support for it has arisen in the past few decades. Research into these new rot-less people has also steadily increased, all done with the utmost legal and ethical restrictions to the volunteer’s rights.

“Hopefully, we’ll get to the bottom of this and find a better way to remove the disease,” Dr. Yahagi’s co-worker who wished to remain anonymous said. “Natural or not, it is still unpleasant. Why continue with something that is now proven to not be inevitable?”

#i wrote this on my phone so excuse the typos #would have posted it on wordpress but it felt too short for that #sorry about the blatant symbolism and theologizing but I'm really not #lemon duck quacks #for the words! #oh and i definitely used the inverted pyramid format for news for this #don't think i succeeded since it's been a while since i practiced that but hey #LOOK. I just firmly believe that anything can be christian if you're brave enough #and an unrequited love that blooms into beautiful flowers that kill you? #like sometimes brokenness isn't exactly ugly is it? #and sometimes sin looks so beautiful and tempting #but they kill you nevertheless because of want for something that you cannot have for being destroyed too #anyway apologies if this is very theologically inaccurate #I'm stil learning about the Bible and i really don't want to misinform anyone about the story of the Bible #so here is my disclaimer for it #anyway I've been obssessed with this trope ever since some discord people wrote fics using it #long post

[dabs-into-oblivion]

i don't know if i know anyone who would be into a dragon age/star trek crossover, but:

inquisitor spock.

that is all

#az talks #posts into oblivion #dragon age #star trek #s'chn t'gai spock #my preference is tos spock but i think any version of him would be genuinely interesting #imagining him showing up and people going “...is that an elf?” #meanwhile solas like. that is definitely not an elf idk what y'all are on #and spock like “what is an elf?” #if i wrote this i would need to do research on vulcan culture and beliefs to figure out the angle of the inevitable theological debates #spock makes a book club and it's him and cassandra and iron bull and a dalish elf

[snzical]

nobody im dating could ever ask me if they think we’re in love in every universe im a stem major AND a pedant im going to say no and it will turn into a fight

#.txt #like no we definitely aren’t #that’s not how probability or multiverse theory works you and i are not universal constants #we probably broke up in a ton of them and in even more we probably never met and if we did we probably weren’t attracted to each other. #SORRY! but in a bunch of those universes we hate each others guts #and that’s assuming both of us even exist in all these universes and also that these parallel universes would have literally ANY relation #‘are we in love in every universe’ buddy we probably don’t exist in a lot of em #i don’t know how you think this works but its not like every parallel universe would have a ledger of every soul that exists in it #or whatever you believe is happening there theologically or spiritually or scientifically speaking #i don’t know. that trend is so dumb. i’ve always thought so #why do we need to be the same in every universe for our bond here to matter #why can this life and this love not be a miracle simply for existing as it does. in infinite probabilities we found each other

[xtruss]

Islamophobia: Taking A Page From The French Anti-Islam Playbook, UK Redefines ‘Extremism’

The British Government’s New Definition of Extremism is Another Attempt at Thought Policing Muslims and Should Be Resisted.

— 19 March 2024 | Imam Omar Suleiman

A Pro-Palestinian Protester holds a placard on a march through the British capital during a demonstration for the Palestinian people, in London, Britain, 21 October 2023. EPA-EFE/Andy Rain

As the genocide in Gaza continues to be streamed live to our screens, many Western governments are not only refusing to end their complicity in the slaughter, but also trying to silence and demonise the Muslim movements and organisations resisting the Israeli occupation within their countries’ borders.

In January of this year, the British government proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a “terrorist” organisation, making it a criminal offence to belong to or invite support for the decades-old movement. No matter your view on the movement itself, this proscription is clearly a convenient political play.

In the post-9/11 era, Hizb ut-Tahrir has repeatedly been threatened with proscription and aggressively surveilled under the country’s inherently Islamophobic counter-radicalisation programme, Prevent. Former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to outright ban the group, in 2005 and 2010 respectively, but both times Home Office lawyers concluded that the group did not engage with or glorify any form of violence and advised that it should be allowed to continue its activities.

There is no suggestion that the group has since changed its approach to violence, or committed any crime under British law, so its official banning appears to be nothing but a French-style attempt at framing any Muslim movement, ideology or political expression that appears to challenge Western norms as violent and a threat to national security.

This week, the British government took yet another page from the French anti-Muslim playbook, and redefined “extremism” in a blatant attempt to subjugate and marginalise British Muslims who are taking a stance against the genocide of Palestinians.

In a clear attempt to curtail weekly pro-Palestine demonstrations attended by hundreds of thousands, and amid wider attempts to conflate all pro-Palestine activism with extremism, Communities Secretary Michael Gove announced that the state has expanded the official definition of extremism.

The new definition, Gove revealed, would include “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or attempts to “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”. It would also classify those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” these aims as extremists.

While the former definition focused on actual acts of violence, this new one is broader and much less precise. It appears to have been purposefully crafted to open the door to loaded, ideologically driven interpretations that could lead to the branding of all Muslim thought and political action not explicitly approved by the government as “extremism”. The inclusion into this definition of those supposedly creating “a permissive environment” for extremist behaviour is especially dangerous, as it could result in the arbitrary criminalisation of large segments of Muslim civil society in Britain.

For years, France has used a loose, ideologically-driven definition and understanding of secularism to marginalise, criminalise and subjugate its citizens originating from its former colonies, who are overwhelmingly Muslim.

Today, with this new, loose and ideologically-driven definition of extremism, Britain is attempting to do the same to British Muslims, who are standing up in support of Palestinians facing genocide and doing so with ever-increasing support from other Britons of conscience.

The global Muslim community, which stood with French Muslims as their government tried to crack down on their basic rights under the guise of secularism, will also be firm in its support for British Muslims as their government attempts to curtail their rights under the guise of “fighting extremism”.

In a speech last week at the House of Commons, Gove suggested that a number of mainstream Muslim organisations, such as the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), may fall foul of this new definition of extremism and as a result be banned from access to public money, ministers and civil servants.

In response, the MAB, known for the extensive role it played in anti-Iraq war protests and movement in Britain, condemned the government’s redefinition of extremism as “a cynical move to appease the hard-right, targeting mainstream British Muslim organisations” and challenged Gove to repeat the allegations without parliamentary privilege so they can sue.

Other Muslim media organisations like 5Pillars were under threat of being included in the government’s list of extremist groups, only to be eventually excluded. Dilly Hussain, the editor of 5Pillars, responded to the initial suggestion that the media platform would be on the extremist list by saying, “it’s not the job of Rishi Sunak, Michael Gove, or [the UK Prime Minister’s office] to be labelling and targeting members of the free press [with] whom they ideologically disagree with while claiming to be champions and upholders of “freedom of expression”.

Other British Muslim civil society organisations such as Friends of Al-Aqsa, which had a prominent presence in protests against the genocide in Gaza, and CAGE, which led the efforts to challenge France’s crackdown on Muslim civil liberties, are also facing the risk of being classified as “extremist” under the new definition. Even a mainstream mosque like the Lewisham Islamic Centre is under threat due to the initial inclusion of its Imam, Shakeel Beg.

The British government’s redefinition of extremism requires deep scrutiny because it amounts to a feigned reinvention of what “extremism” actually means. Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), a well-established NGO, referred to this in its response to Gove’s slander. “Victory for resistance to Gove’s extremism, he has NOT placed MEND on an extremism list because the facts don’t allow it. Instead, he uses parliamentary privilege to slander.”

As Muslims, we must be proactive in condemning the thought policing of the British Muslim community. We must speak loudly against the British government’s efforts to silence and criminalise Muslim civil society for thought crimes, especially at a time when the same government is complicit in a genocide against Muslims in Gaza. And when we speak up, we must speak up for all groups and organisations facing such baseless and discriminatory attacks. This includes groups that may have ideas or approaches that aren’t representative of the majority of Muslims. At a time when Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bigotry is on the rise, we cannot allow the British government to pick and choose which Muslims have a right to cultivate ideas, campaign or protest – we should stand firmly in defence of all our Muslim brothers and sisters in the UK and everywhere else. We should also encourage members of the British civil society of all ethnic and religious backgrounds to speak up in defence of Muslims in their country who are currently under a multi-pronged attack. Only if we bravely speak up, and do so together, can we prevent Britain from transforming into an Orwellian dystopia, like France already did.

— Imam Dr. Omar Suleiman is an American Muslim Scholar and Theologically Driven Activist for Human Rights. He is the Founder and President of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, and a Professor of Islamic Studies at Southern Methodist University.

#Opinion #Islamophobia #Imam Dr. Omar Suleiman | American Muslim Scholar | Theologically Driven Activist | Human Rights #Bloody British 🇬🇧 Bastards | War Criminal | Genocidal | Terrorist | Fascist | Government #Anti-Islam Playbook #New Definition of Extremism #Policing Muslims #Hypocrite | Complicit in Genocide in Gaza | Western Terrorist Governments #War Crimes of the Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐗 | Illegal Regime of Isra-hell

[fortes-fortuna-iogurtum]

sooooo……. there’s some ConversationTM* going around the theology (and adjacent) girlies tonight and it’s got me very intrigued—are there really more options than just Calvinist/Arminian?? bc I’ve always been raised with this idea that those are The Two Options regarding salvation theology and how exactly it all plays out. but apparently that’s…. not the case??

Iwill add that yes, Molinism is a thing that exists, and I know of exactly one guy who’s a theologian and philosopher and who believes in that lol. it’s not exactly a super common alternative to the others. and then I do believe Catholics have a slightly separate view as well, but I’m mainly just talking about soteriology within Protestant theology here anyway.

*(I won’t say ‘DiscourseTM’ bc that seems more antagonistic than what I’m seeing around here rn; everything seems to be in good faith and just for the sake of pointing out minor discrepancies atm)

#I will add that I’ve largely been raised in Baptist churches but my family is… not really that #we’re definitely a bit more wesleyanish in our theology #and that’s what I’ve always been taught at home from my own parents #but I definitely was also always under the impression (and I think my parents may be as well) that Calvinism/Arminianism is like. a binary. #you are one or the other. and there are levels within each. but there aren’t really any third options. all denominations trace back there. #(tbh this is a huge reason why I desperately wish I had been given better theological training when I was younger #because suddenly I’m an adult and quite set in my views and opinions theology and also have a long-standing Fite Me sort of mentality #towards Bible teachers in general due to some very unethical ones we encountered a Lot throughout my childhood #and a tendency to want to die on the smallest and most arbitrary theological hills imaginable #AND an extremely strong adherence to a set of theological tenets that… I am recently discovering possibly aren’t at all what the people who #taught them to me thought they were… #so like. now in a lot of ways it feels like I’m basically having to unlearn and relearn a bunch of extremely basic stuff about all this #while also dealing with the constant fear of ‘giving up’ and either leaving the faith entirely or embracing a completely foreign brand #that’s not at all what I was raised with and still do hold to be true and accurate and good) #gurt says stuff #theology #religon #christianity #faith #knitting circle

[asinglesock]

I am going to craft a translation of 1 John 5:1 that includes just a little bit of mpreg

#a sock speaks #sacrilegious cw #just in case. I'm definitely not trying to be sacrilegious here but idk #the verb in question means to bear; bring forth; produce; give birth to #and I used birth for the rest of the verse! it's smoother wording and more consistent than the other option. #so I called God a birthgiver. which I'm willing to stand by theologically. #grad school tag

[justicode]

I should sleep, I want to sleep, but I am stuck thinking about Samara and the potential dynamics with the other squadmates we didn’t get to see

#OOC / HOLLY. #MOBILE. #the silent solidarity with Thane. the respect for Miranda for who she is. the philosophical and theological discussions with Legion. #the way Kasumi could get her to lighten up and laugh #the way she and Grunt would enjoy testing themselves against one another #they’ve definitely wrecked the hangar sparring before I know it in my heart #and that’s just part of the squad

[sadsongsandwaltzes]

What was the best part of your Christmas?

I actually really didn’t do much for Christmas this year because of the weather. Christmas Eve we had a small gathering of those who could make it, but most couldn’t because the roads were bad. Christmas Day, weather hit bad AGAIN so we didn’t do ANYTHING. And I was dog sitting for a friend this weekend while they were gone visiting family, and since it was snowing and I knew there was a decent chance I wouldn’t be able to get back there in the evenings because of the roads, I just stayed at their house. So I spent Christmas Day at my friends house alone with her pets lol. But I watched a Christmas Eve and Christmas Day service on Facebook from one of my Twitter mutuals church — and having people like that in my life, even if only online, who will help me with my faith and pray for me is another thing I’m so incredibly thankful for!

And then Monday another few of us had supper at grandmas.

But this weekend both my brothers are coming home so we’ll have our small little Christmas gathering at my parents this weekend! Hopefully the weather holds out.

But thank you for asking, and I hope you had a very merry christmas!

#I’ve been in a really weird place theologically the past couple months #and watching that friends church every week to supplement my own church #has been such a blessing. so that really was a breath of fresh air on Christmas. #i didn’t realize how much I missed that liturgy and long for it. #i haven’t been to a strictly liturgical church like that since I was about 10 and I can still roll the corporate confession off my tongue. #hopefully this time next year I will be in a church like rhat. #so yeah that honestly was a highlight watching those Christmas services. #oh and also. besides that. #i took out the front of my car on my friends garage Christmas morning #their garage is fine but my car took total impact #and the cost to fix is more than the car is worth #so now I gotta buy a new vehicle. merry Christmas to me 🥳 #but yeah this Christmas was probably the weirdest and worst one of my life. #but like… it still honestly wasn’t bad? if that makes sense? i don’t feel miserable about it lol #there’s still definitely plenty of cheer and much to look forward to :)

[songsofbloodandwater]

So I've known for a long time that even though breaking - mending is often seen as a pair of dual working, equal forces of magic, they're not. They're more than opposing forces, they're separate processes. They need each other in theory. Act independient of each other in practice. They're less like dual elemental building blocks of creation and more like two possible pathways that said creation can take, regardless of what elemental blocks make them up. One of those pathways leads towards more creative, additive, orderly forms, the other towards more destructive, reductive and chaotic forms.

And that's evident in how, for some reason, mending takes way more effort than breaking. If they were a perfect mirror of each other, they'd take the same effort, would have the same chance of happening naturally, that is, without conscious intervention, and they simply don't. To destroy something is surprisingly easy, can even be accidental and require 0 thought whatsoever, and is way more likely to succeeded than mending. To create order necessarily takes conscious effort. To stitch anything back together requires way more skill than it took to break that same thing.

At least 99% of the times. There's this 1 (one) exception that's very interesting to analyze but we'll chat about that at a different time.

I HATE that I found a GREAT analogy for this in physics and now I have a reason to study physics more in detail. To use these particular laws and theories as similes to figure out the details of my own theory, and it's a great thing and all, BUT I HATE IT HERE.

Little disclaimer: I am not saying the laws of physics will explain why this is true or why this happens, I'm not even saying it's true. it's just the system that I work with, my understanding on my own cosmology, and the fact that I like to compare similar processes (while taking into account their differences and keeping in mind they don't have to correspond at all) to come to my own conclusions, then go about testing it in practice.

#I'm not a big fan of reading about physics #Not a fan at all #blood and water #the Third Thing is getting more evident too lol #also #the Theological implications are EXCITING #Order and Heavens #Chaos and the Underworld #If you think about it #Creation has an expiration date and once the time it's done you have to let it die to recycle that matter #so to keep things moving we do need both pathways working together #but they're definitely not The Same Thing #my notes #andddd #theologically #dual faith???? #God and the Devil??????? #checks out #''but there is order in nature!!!'' AHA! how? #why? #bc it doesn't just fall into place y'know on the contrary Nature is CONSTANTLY fighting entropy #what does that tell you #if well #God is Nature #Folk witch #Traditional witchcraft #Traditional Witch #Folk Witchcraft

[eosiadusk]

My aunts and uncles at family gatherings:

Me, my siblings, and my cousins:

#ed rambles #yes this is a vauge post about the tea i learned today #my aunt yelled at my other aunt who is leaving my uncle and everyone is mad at her for it #my dad is emailing my cousins telling them theological bull #theyre a riot and will tear each others legs off #the youngens are more interested in the effect social media has on our society‚ the nuances of film‚ and the Catholic definition of heaven #ive been with my cousin for 3 hours and already have a definition for the human soul and a understanding of why we created cancel culture

[gideonisms]

my controversial opinion about the memes is that you don't have to understand them at all. They are like easter eggs or shakespeare references. It's fun if you do because you can put together little theories based on them (ie like ppl have mentioned, john uses them differently because he remembers them whereas they're just sayings to the rest of the characters) but it doesn't ruin the humor or whatever if u don't get them. Most of them are just sayings to me because I grew up under a rock. Like I don't think you have to be immersed in millennial humor to like tlt and I don't think it is as rooted in one time period as people think. I think it will actually be better in 20 years when we've all forgotten what none pizza was

#also? i don't think 'cringey' is a valid critique #if you're cringing that seems like a you problem I wasn't online until i was like 17 & i'm having a wonderful time #i mean tbf i probably wouldn't have figured out i was queer had i not been extremely online since so #in a way i definitely wouldn't have liked this book if i hadn't been extremely online because i wouldn't have read it #i would have been in my 30s still going wow my relationships with men feel kinda strange and boring and i don't relate to straight people #wonder why that is! #huh oh well back to my 45th theological debate with myself. btw i have no idea how to relate to others! #like i would have had bigger problems than meme usage in modern science fiction i would have been a jenga tower of problems #but anyway