#also the fact that so many people equate Christianity with Going to Church

[frostyreturns]

Now I'm not going to say any of this to pick on anyone or to be mean but it needs to be said.

It's exceptionally weird to me when Christians have this attitude, statism and progressivism are the dual cancers infesting the modern church. Ignoring the years and years of anarchist thought and writings on how a society can be organized...and not even going into the non aggression principle or that fact that there is no one answer and that anarchy means people organize or don't organize as they see fit and how they agree to...as Christians the Bible is the source and literally outlines perfect examples of how to build a stateless society.

It sets out not only moral guidelines but also rules for how to settle disputes. You ask where do you expect values to come from in a stateless society...how about this for starters.

Just as a side note you might want to take note of how many of those commands that every government in the history of the world has violated as a matter of policy on a massive and daily scale. Which God warned us would happen when he advised us not to have government and even added that by demanding government we are rejecting God and equated the government to being another false god.

Samuel 1: "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

So not only does the Bible not endorse government God himself warned his people about the reasons government was bad and they are all the same kinds of things anarchists reject the state for. Don't believe me I'll quote it.

"So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

Now you might be saying he's just talking about the specific king they got at the time not that all kings and all governments are bad. But look at what he's warning them about...is not the current government much much worse? They all do these things to various degrees obviously in modern day it's not donkeys and fields they steal but the principle has remainded the same and practice applies regardless... whether the kings soldiers are horsemen or fighter pilots the concept is the same and earlier he had just finished applying his disapproval of the state in general terms.

So to recap the Bible equates government with slavery, rejection of God and the worshipping of false gods. And yet Christians have the nerve to assert that government is good and ordained and approved of by God.

If we discarded the entirety of the governments laws and just used instead Biblical guidelines for how to organize society you would A.) have an anarchist society where the only authority figure is God and even then following God is your choice if you read the Bible freedom of choice is a major theme. and B.) You would have a much better society than what we have now. A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the guidelines for how to organize a society that the Bible lays out is actually not a theocracy or monarchy it's essentially a stateless society where you look to God (voluntarily) for morals and to settle general disputes amongst yourselves with some basic guidelines for conduct. If you want specific examples there's tons in the old testament most of which would still make for a better society than any current governments laws.

The idea that society decided what murder is...is crazy to me. Murder is murder and it has always been murder since Cain and Abel. It was murder before society, during society and long after society it will still be murder. Society didn't decide what rape is...it's when you have sex with someone against their will. See words have meaning and that meaning comes from our understanding of and the existence of those concepts not from the government. The notion that we can only conceive of what murder and rape is because we have the government is...literally insane and saying those words out loud should be a clue you've been brainwashed at some point. It's not true, it's not Biblical.

The more I think about it the more I research and the more I understand Christianity and the Bible the more I become convinced that not only is it compatible with anarchy, anarchy is the only political system compatible with it.

[wutbju]

Also last semester, BJU's new shiny spokesman Renton Rathbun chose the clickbaitiest headline. It's peak BOJOsploitation.

He called it "Hate More. Kill Better."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know he's talking about the mortification of sin. But it takes a long time for him to get to that point. And he flippantly states that "the Church is losing the skill of hating and killing."

This is the guy who started his sermon about gender binaries talking about sexual assault. And this is the guy who talked the students' neighbors as Sonderkommandos. And this is the guy who said that he's "punching them in the face." And the guy who said that men "pressure women into degrading themselves."

And he's saying it in the same pulpit that Dan Olinger "joked" about "killing" a student.

BJU loves to glorify violence. They love to exploit people from the pulpit. They love BOJOsploitation.

And fundy pastors love it too.

They are all as bad as the Reefer Madness producers.

Mark and avoid.

Here's Rathbun's whole thing. Note that he's equating pastors with holiness, and if you disagree with that, you need to learn more about "killing."

We live in a world where 62% of American pastors have a syncretistic worldview. It was pastors who enabled the success of the Revoice movement, which is responsible for grooming young men and women into embracing a gay identity within Christianity. And currently, there is a dwindling confidence in pastors’ spiritual credibility.

Now more than ever, the American church is in desperate need of pastors who are ready to address a simple fact: the Church has come to despise holiness. Yes, the Church at large seems fond of God’s love and goodness, but holiness leaves a bitter taste in her mouth.

Many fear pursuing holiness will make us unrelatable, robotic, and judgy. Yet, the most sobering statement of 1 John 2:1–6 is that the first and primary exhortation is to stop sinning. Yes, if we do sin, we have an Advocate. But John wrote his epistle principally so that his people “may not sin.”

When we do speak of practical matters of holiness, we often explain our way into retaining at least some sin. When 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women “to exercise authority over a man” in the church, we roll out our feminists to help us see that “authority” is misunderstood by conservatives. When Romans 1:26–27 speaks of the sin of homosexuality and its “vile affections,” we roll out our same-sex-attracted pastors to help us see that only the act of sodomy is a sin, not the attraction part.

The Church is losing the skill of hating and killing. We do not hate sin as God does, so we do not kill it. We might condemn parts of it—but hating and killing it goes too far. Yet, God says He hates the work of those who sin (Ps. 101:3; 119:104). He hates abominations (Prov. 6:16–19; Jer. 44:4). He hates the planning of evil (Zach. 8:17). And God has instructed us to hate evil (Ps. 97:10), even abhor it (Rom. 12:9).

Our worldview is confused, so our compassion has become confused. In attempting to show compassion for those who are tangled up in sin, we have begun showing compassion for sin itself. As my pastor once stated, “When we forget the sinfulness of sin and God’s own hatred for it, we forget the cost of sin for the Son of God.”

How can we kill what we have become accustomed to? How can we assassinate that which we have been pining after? We need a biblical worldview of holiness. The puritan John Owen confronts us, “Do you mortify; do you make it your daily work; be always at it while you live; cease not a day from this work; be killing sin or it will be killing you!”

Pastors, do not give up. Do not give in. Do not go gently into the night. Fight for holiness in your own heart (1 Pet. 3:15) and in the hearts of your congregations (1 Pet. 1:15–16). Fight because you love God. Fight because you love your people. Turn your people into killers of sin, or it will be killing them.

Look around, Renton. There's a lot of hating. There's a lot of killing. And exploitative to say so cavalierly, "The Church is losing the skill of hating and killing."

#Bob Jones University #BOJsploitation #Reefer Madness #Exploitation Genre #Christploitation #Fundyploitation #John R. Rice #Renton Rathbun #BJUChapel #Mark Driscoll #Dan Olinger

[no-terfs-no-swerfs-no-fascists]

I seriously dislike the "if you are anti-religion, that just means you grew up around Christianity and are equating all of religion with Christianity" and the "it's only okay to be anti-religion if you have religious trauma" philosophizing I've been seeing more often on Tumblr these days.

I know atheists get a bad rep (and if you know me, you've heard me criticize the movement atheism plenty of times), but there's one thing we are, in fact, right about - religion IS, by and large, bad.

That doesn't mean a religious person is automatically bad, but what you end up realizing after observing a variety of religious groups is that the concept of religion is, by its very nature, a breeding ground for abuse, bigotry, and anti-intellectualism like no other.

Half my family are Muslims, the other half are Eastern Orthodox Christians, and I've grown up around those groups + Catholics, Jews, and Seventh Day Adventists (and yes, three of those five groups fall under the Christianity umbrella, but trust me, cultural differences between them can be staggering). I've also studied these religions, as well as Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Unitarianism, Mormonism, Scientology, Happy Science, the Unification Church, Wicca, and a variety of neopagan revivals, mostly through books written by authors of those religious groups.

I've read histories of those religious groups and followed them in the news, less so after entering the work force in full capacity, but I really did have an obsession of learning about different religions and what makes them tick for about ten or so years. And I didn't study them from the point of view of an atheist/nonbeliever. Hell, I didn't even subscribe to atheism until about five years ago (I am currently 40yo).

Again - a religious person is not automatically a bad person. Plenty of people I love are religious and almost everyone I know is religious too. Being religious in never going to be the reason why I dislike, don't trust, or won't engage with someone.

But a religious person does automatically support a lot of incredibly unsavoury things by the simple act of actively taking part in a religion, and especially if that includes monetary support. The easiest, most obvious example of this is, of course, Catholicism - you going to church services, giving to the collection plate, taking part in church-organized activities, it all shows tacit support for an organization that not only historically has oceans of blood on their hands, but to this very day actively supports, protects, and finances fascists, rapists, murderers, abusers, paedophiles, the anti-LGBTQIAP+ movement, the anti-abortion movement, and subjugation of women, indigenous people, and pretty much anyone who isn't a rich cishet white Catholic man, not only in their religious capacity but also by influencing lawmakers in every country they have even the tiniest modicum of power.

Whether you like it or not, whether you personally subscribe to those parts of your belief system or not, bigotry, subjugation, exploitation, and abuse are baked into the principles of religion as a concept.

Plenty of religious people simply choose to ignore those parts of their religion. They do not practice them, do not teach them, and consider them a vestigial part of the religion they belong to that is simply no longer applicable to them as they have moved on with the times and do not subscribe to those moral principles.

But they're still there, and plenty of people who belong to your religion still practice them, and use the same texts and teachings you do to justify them as morally just and correct. Where you had the fortune to be taught by progressive religious leaders, many others have not. You may share a religion and have radically different view on what it is while using the same words to describe it, and theirs is just as valid a reading of it as yours.

And then, of course, is the matter of the corrupting influence of power. Even the cursory look at the headlines surrounding any religion will tell you that, while individual religious people and even groups who belong to a certain religion can be the most wonderful, accepting, generous people, their religion is but a stone toss away from using its teachings, principles, and beliefs as an excuse to commit unspeakable atrocities. The most infamous example of this is Buddhism, a religion which has radical anti-violence as a core component of their teachings... which has not stopped Buddhists from committing genocides as recently as the late 2010s. Buddhism sells itself as the most enlightened, accepting, and kindest of belief systems, but in those countries where it has power and influence, it is often a willing tool of oppression of its believers and weaponized othering of outgroup people.

Being religious also leaves people vulnerable to various trappings of anti-intellectualism. A religious person is, on average, less likely to trust experts, less likely to be intellectually curious and seek out new knowledge, and more prone to adopting bigoted views and conspiracy theories. Religion has historically had moments when it has been at the center of scientific discovery and development of new thought and knowledge. Medieval Islam is a great example of this, having made incredible strides in the exploration and development of medicine, mathematics, and astronomy, as well as the amazing job it did preserving the scientific and philosophical legacy of Ancient Greece. But it is far more common to see religion as the active suppressor of scientific explorations of reality and free thought, and it is such a common occurrence that I genuinely do not think I need to list the myriad examples of this happening, both historically and in the modern day.

Now, there are people who would reply to everything I've written here by, for example, citing studies that contradict my statements, such as the ones that show being a part of a religious community is good for people's physical, emotional, and mental health, or the fact that there are religious groups that put great importance on pursuing science and arts, such as Orthodox Judaism.

To that, I would reply with - yes, but studies also show same health benefits people get from taking active part in a religious community happen if a person is a member of any actively social community (that is, that the benefits come from socializing with people you have things in common with and taking part of community activities with them, not from religion itself), and that, without exception, the religious groups that put an emphasis on study and creativity will just as often actively discourage their female members from being anything but docile submissive broodmares without ever considering themselves hypocritical or wrong for doing so. Trust me, it wouldn't take too much effort to find similar counters for any other argument against what I've written in this post.

I can appreciate that religion plays an important role in your life and that it is a positive influence for you. Life is awful, unfair, and cruel, and you will never hear me begrudge you any ray of sunshine you can catch or any coping mechanism that gets you through life's horrors. I will also not go around telling people that they should abandon their religion - it is neither my place nor my job to tell you how to manage your life.

But don't expect me to indulge the position that religion is a net-positive as a whole or that anyone who isn't blind to the fact that this is demonstrably not true is just a victim of Christianity.

Yes, absolutely, educate yourself on other religions, it will do you a world of good, just like most other honest intellectual pursuits, and you will learn a lot of fascinating and fun things, and broaden your cultural horizons.

But go into it with open eyes, study the history behind those religions too, and try to do so from as objective sources as you can find.

[thebookworm0001]

hey anybody remember how Christians took the Columbine shooting and turned that into a message about how all American Christians will one day face a gun to their head, probably as a child in school, and it’s their duty as a follower of Christ to die instead of denouncing Jesus

#anyway that wasn’t traumatic at all #like. putting aside the fact that people do attack schools and churches #I had a teacher who was in a church when a shooter came in that’s very much a threat #but anyway #I’m thinking that might have a massive impact on how Christians are dealing with covid #they see covid as a singular bullet to their head #as opposed to the actual transmittable virus it is #also the fact that so many people equate Christianity with Going to Church #as opposed to. like. aspiring to be like Jesus. #so you have all these people seeing the request not to gather in large numbers as a specific attack on their faith #instead of the request to protect their communities #because Christians are much more willing to die for Christ than to live for him

[buckttommy]

Hey Jack, I wanted your insight in something if its possible. It’s about the relationship Eddie has with religion. I’m watching the show again trying to catch some clues about it but I feel like there’s something missing. I mean, as someone with the same cultural and social background as Eddie, when I read about his queerness being suppressed because of his religious background, I was excited to see it. Now, what I’m feeling is that Eddie doesn’t have a controversial relationship with Christianity, more like he has faith issues (because of his depression) but not something that would be the main reason to suppress his sexuality. From my POV I feel like his cultural background and his family would be more related to this. The fact he still remembers what his drill sergeant said shows to me that he internalizes hard any criticism over his personality/life. What’s your input about it (aka Eddie and queerness)? On a last note, I think Eddie is very aware of his sexuality. He chooses to not act on it.

Hi anon!

A lot of people have a lot of very personal (and valid) interpretations of Eddie and his relationship with religion, but I agree with you here.

I really don't think religion plays a significant role in Eddie's relationship to his sexuality. For starters, there's no strong indicator that the Diaz family is religious at all. Eddie crosses himself in 4x12, and Abuela crosses him in 2x04, yes, but religion (any religion, depending on the location in which one resides) often interweaves with culture to the point where the two don't necessarily interact, which means that Eddie can cross himself or be crossed as a matter of cultural norm, rather than any sort of explicit and intentional (and intention does matter, when it comes to religious action) expression or ritual. Additionally, not every queer person has religious trauma, and Eddie himself does not appear to have any sort of religious trauma. He doesn't believe in jinxes, the universe, or a higher power, but he also isn't steeped in his own disbelief either. As you said, Eddie's issue is more of a matter of faith (where it comes from and where it should rest), not a matter of belief or disbelief born from any sort of religious scarring or church woundedness.

What we do know and have seen evidence of in canon is that Eddie has been very scarred by the people with the greatest voice and influence in his life, specifically his parents and his drill sergeant, as you mentioned. I've said it before but it bears repeating that Eddie has lived his life honed around what other people (be it his parents, his sergeant, or society at large) expect of him as a man, a father, a husband or boyfriend, etc. Attempting to live up to these standards is what has caused Eddie to lose so much control over himself, thereby damaging his own self-perception, self-worth, and even causing him to violate himself in the process.

So when I consider your other point about Eddie's awareness of his sexuality, I agree. One thing many people in this fandom seem to misunderstand is that repression does not equate to ignorance. One can be aware of something and actively choose to bury it until it is (or appears to be) a non-issue. This is how Eddie operates. Eddie is very self-aware; he knew he was on a downward spiral far before anyone else picked it up (i.e. going to Bobby to get his job back because he knew his thoughts were unraveling beyond his control), but he does not always choose to act on his own awareness. To that end, I firmly believe Eddie knows he is attracted to men, has known since well before Shannon entered the picture, and probably dating back to his youth/adolescence. But in also considering the idea of Eddie's life being cultivated around the desires and expectations of others, of course he would have buried his attraction as deeply as he could as a matter of both aligning himself with the goals and expectations of those around him, and a matter of sustained survival.

Hope this answers your question(s)!

#pre-canon eddie #jack answers mail

[goldenkamuyhunting]

I can't seem to quite grasp the critical thinking of Jack to go from believing women can be pregnant without sex like the Virgin Mary, to demand a child to get impregnated by exposing her ass... I am not christian but I definitely do not think even the most unorthodox nun would raise him that way. Also, wouldn't this "mean" he could technically kill non prostitute women who had sex (to procreate or otherwise) as well?

Honestly...

you aren’t alone in not understanding how Jack’s mind work in this manga.

To put it mildly I’ve been very critic of how Noda created him.

To compare him with Ueji, Ueji is a terrible person but a well written character... while Jack is just a horribly written character who also happens to be a terrible person.

There’s plenty of things I can criticize in the making of Jack, the whole thing is so weak it just doesn’t stand and this includes also how, for him, Jack is Michael Ostrog, a Russian criminal and Jack the Ripper suspect who was proved innocent.

Overall though, I got the impression Noda decided to make him Jack but, while he was writing that arc he didn’t have the time to research on him yet and didn’t have a clear idea on how to make him and that Jack is going to go through many corrections in the volume version.

For example in the magazine version Noda waited till chap 248 to reveal his face. This is something I’ve complained back then because the ‘face reveal’ that usually takes place when we learn something relevant about a character or we met him, took place merely when we were told where he would hit next.

The volume version changed things as we had a face reveal in chap 239, when Kikuta saw his face.

Noda also changed how Kikuta, in the volume doesn’t just say he has seen his dick and stop here, generating the idea Noda wants to have a scene in “Once Upon a Time in America” style, where a character was called to recognize another by checking on a group of men’s dicks, but adds he has noticed a birthmark there, giving sense to Kikuta’s sentence.

Noda in vol 24 also added Jack saying that the prostitute’s sins were forgiven when he killed her, and, looking at the church, he said ‘I’m your child’.

He also removed the fact Jack saw in the letters ‘from hell’ and replaced it with ‘whores are sinners’.

I expect Noda to fix Jack’s backstory so that it will make sense in the volume version because what we got from the magazine, absolutely didn’t.

Now, I don’t really like to talk about faith.

I’m not English so I’m not familiar with the Anglican brand of Christianity and their beliefs which are probably the ones in which Jack should have been raised into, so I can’t really talk about it.

However yes, in the brand of Christian beliefs I’m familiar with, Jack’s reasoning make no sense and I’ve hard time thinking it could make sense in the Anglican ones as, as far as I know, Anglicans too believe Mary is the Theotokos (Mother of God) and that she was a Virgin, because she was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus and so she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit to conceive him.

Jack basically equates the Holy Spirit with the East Wind and all the Ainu children as Jesus, never mention he views himself as God because he decides Asirpa has to get impregnated in such way.

I just can’t see how he made such a leap and it doesn’t even make sense narratively.

Prostitutes don’t have sex to make children, and if his problem is really how women conceive children by having sex he should target mothers, not prostitutes... or believe that married women are also virgins, which would make the whole Ainu thing not really that special.

So... I don’t know. For me it makes no sense.

Now okay, I accept that since Noda is representing insane convicts they can misinterpret religion, I mean, I don’t mind Sekiya and the way he handled his faith because really, people that undergo trauma start questioning it and misinterpreting and whatever if they go mad in their grief... and sometimes you also have insane criminals who interpret religion all in the wrong way, starting to believe the most absurd things but, in theory, especially in a story, there’s always a logic that lead misinterpretations.

The logic behind Jack’s reasoning is lacking and I can’t follow it.

I would have found it better if Noda had kept the whole Ainu belief and Jack’s insanity unrelated.

But, as i said, Noda might be planning to change things in the volume version so let’s hope he’ll take his time to fix Jack because, as of now, he’s really horribly written and Noda never made such a poorly written character.

I mean, sometimes he neglected to develop characters, but when he did develop them they made sense. Jack is just... tossed in as if Noda were merely using the popularity of his name.

That’s definitely no good so really, I hope it’ll get fixed. Thank you for your ask!

#Michael Ostrog #Asirpa #Ask #Ueji Keiji

[hobbitsetal]

“Give all you have and follow Me”

Dear anon,

You asked me, in the course of asking about another of Jesus’s parables, “also when he says that you cannot be a desciple without giving up everything we own.. like are we actually meant to give up everything we physically own?”

Since you asked about a parable in Luke, I’ll quote Luke’s account of this interaction also. Google tells me it’s found in Luke 18:18-30:

“And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” But he said, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” And Peter said, “See, we have left our homes and followed you.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

The question, I think, is “is it wrong for a Christian to own things?”

The short answer is “no.” The longer answer is you have to use Scripture to interpret Scripture; that is, passages like this one have to be understood within the greater context of Scripture as a whole. What else does the Bible have to say about owning things? and particularly about Christians owning things?

I’ll pull out a few things from the New Testament for you, since one might perhaps make the argument that Old Testament wealth was under the Old Covenant and not the New Covenant.

Joseph of Arimathea comes to mind. He was a wealthy man who gave up his tomb to bury Christ’s body. Nowhere in the text does anything indicate that Jesus had a problem with him being rich. In fact, because he was rich, he could afford a tomb.

Acts 4:34-37 illustrates the Christian attitude toward possessions well, I think:

“...and there was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

But does this mean we must sell what we have and donate it to the church? Well, no.

Further on in Acts, 16:14-15 to be specific, we learn of a woman who took the apostles into her home. “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.”

Nothing is said of Lydia selling her home or her business. Purple, in Biblical/Roman times, was a very expensive dye, so mentioning that she sold purple goods was a way of saying she was rich. And she used the wealth to practice hospitality and to give the apostles a place to stay. She’s never mentioned again in the Bible.

There’s also James 4:13-15, one of my favorite passages:

“Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”“

James doesn’t condemn people for trying to make money; he reminds them that everything we have comes from the Lord.

So. I could go through more passages, but I’m trying to condense a book into a tumblr post, so let’s just summarize how I understand the Bible’s teaching on owning stuff overall and Jesus’s point in this passage.

The rich young ruler came to Jesus asking what he could do to earn salvation. Jesus reminded him that no one is good and reminded him of the Ten Commandments, to which the ruler answered that he’d kept all of them.

That’s a heck of a claim to make. James says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it,” and Paul says something similar in...Romans? Personally, I fail the First Commandment daily: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” 

You wanna know how many times I fail to prioritize God as I should? Enough times to make me grateful that He is a God of grace.

Yet Jesus doesn’t call him out on the height of this claim. He doesn’t even choose now to elevate the Law as He does in the Sermon on the Mount, when He equated hatred to murder. (I’m screwed on that count.) Instead, He tells the ruler that the only thing he needs to do to be righteous, to earn heaven, is to give up his wealth.

Jesus is God. God knows all things, including our thoughts. I’m convinced that Jesus knew already how the ruler would respond to this challenge. He knew that the ruler loved his wealth and what he had more than he loved and desired God.

That’s really it, anon. What do you love most in this world? What are you willing to give up for the sake of the Lord? If obeying God meant breaking up with your s/o, would you? If obeying God meant telling the truth when it would hurt you to do so, would you? If obeying God meant sacrificing some creature comforts?

There’s a pastor named Brad Bigney who preached a sermon series and wrote a book, both titled “Gospel Treason.” Bigney defines idolatry (or having a god before the Lord) as “anything you are willing to sin to get, or you are willing to sin to keep.”

If being rich or owning something is more important to me than anything else in the world, that’s a problem. That is a sin. That is what Jesus condemns in this passage.

Everything we have, from the breath in our lungs to the money in our bank account to the people in our lives, is a gift from God. Everything we have ultimately returns to God. There’s nothing wrong with me having money. In fact, it’s a very good thing that I do because I’m able to use that money for God. This isn’t my money; it’s God’s money. So when I make decisions about what to buy or not buy, I make those decisions to honor God to the best of my ability.

My parents bought a boat and a vacation home. They’ve used that boat and that home to bless other Christians: to take them out on the bay and to give them a beach getaway that would otherwise be too expensive. My parents have used their wealth and their physical possessions to feed souls and bring rest to the weary.

Nice clothes, books, quality furniture: there’s no sin in having these things. Indeed, owning something that will last for many years is usually a wiser use of money than buying something cheap that will need replacing, though it’s not always a feasible choice for people.

It always comes back to the heart: what do you value? What do you trust? Are you secure because you have money in the bank? Or are you secure because you trust Jesus when He says He will provide for what we need?

If you lost everything tomorrow and you were out on the street with the clothes on your back, could you say with the apostle Paul, “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.“?

#give all you have and follow Me #theology #the gospel grace and God's glory

[call-me-aureum]

The Chosen ( Opinion/ Review) 01x01/02

About this post....

Starting a review or opinion on such a sensitive topic is difficult, but what I have found has pushed me to do it. I must also admit that the simple fact of watching the series has come out of curiosity pushed by a certain acquaintance. This humble post is dedicated to that person.

The Chosen. A series of (at the time of writing this post) two seasons. The first season has 8 episodes, so I'll cover two for each review. That is, four reviews for the first season.

To do this I will use a method similar to my previous reviews. It will be done with great respect and always speaking from my humble opinion. If possible, I will try to avoid spoilers. This post is structured in two main blocks: Characters and Society.

As I always say, this is based on my opinion and feelings when watching the series. It is not intended to offend anyone.

Without further do,  let's get started.

.................................................. ............

Characters: Two sides of the same coin.

Religion and the history that surrounds Jesus has always been a topic that has brought debate, more specifically because of that halo of partiality that surrounds his history and and the one of his disciples. Investigating in my past and in television representations about the life of the Savior, I have realized that the disciples and Jesus were always constructed  under the idea of being perfect humans, whose weaknesses were erased, softened or overshadowed by their faith. Here is the first point that The Chosen manages to "turn around." It’s characters (and with this I dare to speak in general lines) are built from their human side. In other words, they are ordinary people, with problems of the average person of the time who were part of a revolution that lasted generations. In my humble opinion, basing the characters in such a simple, and "earthy" way makes it easier for viewers to identify with them, while also sticking to the message of Jesus in the New Testament passages, which show him coming closerto ordinary people, not just the rich. Each of the characters, from the main ones to the secondary ones, can be people from the daily life of any of the viewers.

Now, the other point that has caught my attention is that this story begins with two specific characters: Peter and Mary Magdalene. Perhaps for many it was a random decision, but I think there is more behind this. If we think about the Christian religion and the teachings of biblical dogma, we can find references to Peter, the Pillar of the Church, the fisher of men, and to Magdalena, that woman who managed to redeem herself and was the first to witness the return to life of the Savior.  Both characters have their importance within the Religion and it has been written that they have had rivalries or at least that Peter has expressed some jealousy towards Magdalene. Much has been theorized about both characters and their weight or true role in the history of the Savior. Even more, I consider that, having shown them with the same humble origin shows that both are equal in the eyes of Jesus. Introducing them both in the first chapter, using the gender binary shows that both men and women are of utmost importance to Jesus and his path towards a transformation of religion, one that leaves no one behind and measures the faithful. by the wealth of their faith, not by their origin, social, economic and / or gender. Both characters are the object of transmission of the story of the Savior.

Society: A forshadowing of what’s to come?

Another benefit of writing characters in a "human" light is showing society and its characteristics. Human beings have lived in society for many, many years and throughout those years many things have been modified, but there are others that have remained and are what we see here:

-Economic system:

“ Money makes the World go round.”

It is no secret that money has great power in society. It gives status, lifestyle and the power to do what you want. This has not been the exception in the times narrated in the series, since we have tax collectors, gambling, commerce (even a crisis) and the narrative that money can keep the roof over the heads of the characters. It could also be said that these problems belong to the modern world. Money (and perhaps a certain ambition) is what moves the strings of many of the protagonists, also showing what happens in reality. Money is our puppeteer.

-Power:

Before I have spoken of the power that money gives, but in the series another power is also shown. That of the Priests. Faith, like money, can move masses. In the series, it can be seen in details such as the luxuries or the treatment they were given, which used to touch that of monarchs. This is where influence and rub shoulders with political power begins. An "equation" that works and is maintained, I would dare say,  to this day.

- Disgregation:

Society is not just that which unites us, but also that which disintegrates us. The series has been in charge of showing it explicitly (the red section) and implicitly (hidden so as not to be seen).

The touches that this series gives are subtle that some are in dialogues or in simple actions carried out by the characters.

  ( It should be clarified that I have not made specific mention of minutes of the episode to avoid spoilers.)

To conclude, I think this series is built to be a kind of forshadow of human history in social aspects. There are small and implicit details that help to create a show that not only shows the story of Jesus and his apostles, but also stops to take a look at society. Although I have covered the first chapters of the first season, I am sure there will be many more material to analyze in the future

#opinion #review #series #TV series #the chosen #season 1 #jesus #disciples #the chosen season 1 #episodes #tv

[wisdomrays]

TAFAKKUR: Part 396

ISLAM AND SCIENCE: Part 1

POLARIZATION OF MUSLIM OPINION

The relationship between Islam and Science has been a point of scholarly discussion for a long time. Seven hundred years ago, al-Ghazali expressed fears that some mathematical knowledge may lead to the denial of God. A similar fear was expressed more recently by the American convert to Islam, Maryam Jameelah who wrote:

Modern science is guided by no moral value, but naked materialism and arrogance. The whole branch of knowledge and its applications is contaminated by the same evil. Science and technology are totally dependent upon the set of ideals and values cherished by its members. If the roots of a tree are rotten, then the tree is rotten; therefore all its fruits are rotten (Jameelah, 1983).

Their view does not demonstrate a consensus. Al Afgani wrote that

…those who forbid science and knowledge in the belief that they are safeguarding the Islamic religion are really the enemies of that religion (Keddie, 1983).

Muslims seem to have been historically polarized into those who reject scientific discoveries as ‘dangerous’ and those who look for co-existence with scientific development.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

Most discussions on Islam and science have been limited to the many great achievements of Muslim scientists like al-Biruni, al-Tusi and al-Khwarizmi. Most look beyond the pitiful position the Muslims are in today and remember that:

At its peak, about one thousand years ago, the Muslim world made a remarkable contribution to science, notably mathematics and medicine. Baghdad in its heyday and southern Spain built universities to which thousands flocked. Rulers surrounded themselves with scientists and artists. (Ghiles, 1983).

We must remember that Arabic was the language of science from the 8th to 11th centuries. This period marked the birth of European algebra with the translation of a treatise by al-Khwarizmi ’s-a fact that prompted Ghandz to recognize that ‘Al-Khwarizmi is more entitled to he called “the father of algebra’ than Diaphantus because Al-Khwarizmi was the first to teach algebra in an elementary form and for its own sake (Ghandz, 1936). The Muslim tradition did not reject those who came before them. The studied the works of Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonious and the like. Respect for the predecessors and a desire to develop this early work lead to the great discoveries of Islam. Knowledge is the property of God. It is always being revitalized. Cultures are interdependent in this respect. Hoodbhoy (1991), critical of the notion of Islamic Science, admits that ‘today we remember Nassir al-Din al-Tusi for his trigonometry, Omar Khayyam for his solution of cubic equations, Jabir Ibn Hayyan for the ingenuity of his chemical apparatus and al-Jazari for his intricate machines. Among the great scholars of Islam are the following:

The mathematician, Thabit lbn Qurrah (826-901ce)

The astronomer, Abul Qasim al-Majiriti (d. 1007ce)

The astronomer, Qutb-al-Din al-Shirazi (12336-1311CE)

The scientists, the Banu Musa brothers

The physician, Ibn Sina (980-925ce)

The physician, Muhammad al-Razi (865-925ce)

The writer on optics, Ibn al-Haitham (965-1039ce)

The philosopher and scientist, Abu Yusuf al-Kindi (SO l-873ce)

The commentator on Aristotle, lbn Rushd (1126-I 198cc) The geologist, Baha al-Din al-Amili (1546-1621ce).

The list is endless. Many of these scholars had memorised the whole Qur’an and excelled in their religion. Europe borrowed from the Muslims but rarely acknowledged the fact.

IS THERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ISLAM?

Islam promotes the material and spiritual well-being of Man. It enjoins its followers to seek and utilise knowledge for the betterment of their life on earth and in the Hereafter. The Messenger used the most up-to-date weapons in battle, laying down the principle that we must never fall technologically behind. This was not true of other religions. On the authority of St. Augustine, it was forbidden for a Christian to believe that there were people living on the other side of the earth. The world was believed to be flat, and, if there were people on the other side, they would be standing upside down-and this was unacceptable to the Church. Similarly, on the authority of St. Paul, Christians were required to believe that disease, famine, pestilence, and air pollution were caused by demons. Vaccination was therefore forbidden in Christianity. This took place while al-Razi was already making advances in the field of inoculation.

Muslims were not exempt from persecution by their own authorities. Al Kindi, popular in the court of Caliph Maimun had to flee when al-Mutawakil took over. Al Razi lost his eyesight when, on the instructions of the amir, he was hit with his own book.

IS THERE SCIENCE IN THE QUR’AN?

The Quran is a book of guidance. It was the motivation and driving force behind many of these scientists. The Quran offers hints that could lead to major discoveries if followed up diligently. Modern day scholars have studied at length Qur’anic references to science subjects, and produced texts in areas of astronomy, embryonic biology, the movement of bees, the mountains, the composition of the earth, the plants and a variety of other subjects. Even those that wish to deny the assertion that the Qur’an contains scientific hints have to concede defeat when they examine verses like those found in the chapters of Yasin, 36-7, 40; al-Shams1-4; al-Anbiya, 30; al-Rahman, 7; al-Naziat, 28 and many others.

The Qur’an gives vital hints which include important insights and encouragement to undertake new forms of scientific research.

Although, scientific knowledge is only part of the general guidance to be found in the Qur’an, there are some modern scholars who have made research into science found in the Qur’an a full-time preoccupation.

Some of the work done by these scholars has been very useful. It has reawakened Muslims to the value of their inheritance and rekindled the desire for further research and given it sanction from their own Holy Book. However, some scholars, in my view, have overstepped the boundaries and exposed Islam to Western ridicule and nourished the inferiority complexes of those Muslims that still need proof that the Qur’an is revelation from God.

When in 1961, an Egyptian scientist, Muhammad Jamaluddin El-Fandy published a pamphlet entitled On Cosmic Verses in the Qur’an, he was cheered in the Muslim world: but in the West, scientists smiled patronizingly, satisfied that if the Muslims were going to rely on them to prove the accuracy of their Divine Book, then they could not have much to offer. The trend had only just started. Azizul Hassan Abbasi, a Pakistani neuropsychiatrist asserted that he had managed to find in the Qur’an modern cures for diabetes, tuberculosis, stomach ulcers, rheumatism, arthritis, high blood pressure, asthma, dysentery and paralysis. In the end, the claims turned out to be more intellectual amusement.

In 1976, Maurice Bucaille, a French surgeon, published The Bible, The Qur’an and Science and with it sparked off a wave of excitement in the Muslim world. Bucaille subjected both the Bible and the Qur’an to rigorous tests against the findings of modern science in the fields of astronomy, geology, animal and vegetable sciences, and human reproduction. He concludes:

The Qur’an most definitely did not contain a single proposition at variance with the most firmly established modern knowledge. Modern Man’s findings concerning the absence of scientific error are therefore in complete agreement with the Muslim exegetes’ conception of the Qur’an as a book of Revelation (Bucaille, 1978).

The Muslims were excited. Their book had been ‘proven’ correct. Bucaille’s sweeping suggestion that modern Man’s findings concerning ‘the absence of error’ were endorsed by the Qur’an was missed by an excited Muslim community. The marriage between the Qur’an and modern Man’s ‘scientific’ findings was a completely happy one. His conclusion that it is impossible not to admit the existence of scientific errors in the Bible’ was also swallowed wholesale by the Muslims.

Muslims had always taken on faith the belief that the Qur’an, being the Word of Allah, did not contain any errors; and that the Bible, in its present form, is not a true revelation from God. But now they had ‘scientific proof’. The rules of the game had changed. Modern science had been accepted by a cross-section of Muslims as the umpire between the scriptures. Bucaille became a hero among Muslims. At those conferences where he was not invited, he was generously quoted by a variety of people including highly learned Muslim scholars. The time-bomb that Bucaille had set could be detonated by the emergence of a scientific ‘Salman Rushdie’ with a formula that finds scientific error in the Qur’an or proves the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

In April 1985, Keith Moore, Chairman of the Anatomy Department of the University of Toronto’s School of Medicine, ‘discovered’ the agreement between Islam and contemporary knowledge on the subject of embryology. He joined Bucaille on the conference circuit presumably further confirming that the Qur’an was scientifically correct.

Much of their work has undoubtedly benefited the Muslim community, but where, the likes of Bashirudin Mahmud, a Pakistani nuclear engineer, suggests that Jinn, whom God made out of fire, should be used as a source of energy to combat the energy crisis, the trend they have set leads us into total absurdity. Sayyid Qutb described the whole exercise as ‘a methodological error’, and has insisted that while the Qur’an contains guidance on scientific subjects, it is not a scientific textbook.

#allah #god #prophet #Muhammad #quran #ayah #sunnah #hadith #islam #muslim #muslimah #hijab #help #revert #convert #reminder #religion #dua #salah #pray #prayer #welcome to islam #how to convert to islam #new muslim #new convert #new revert #revert help #convert help #islam help #muslim help

[boughtwithaprice]

I Kissed His Books Goodbye

Kae Salonzo Perez- Dilla

April 30, 2021

It was in 2019 when one of my favorite Christian authors shocked the Christian world by announcing his separation from his wife. It was Joshua Harris, the famous author and pastor who wrote, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "Boy Meets Girl" which sold millions of copies since their publication in the 90s and made him like a Christian celebrity. I was totally heartbroken when this news popped on my IG feed. A year before this devastating news, I came across Joshua Harris on Facebook and YouTube where I learned about his recent project at that time which is also the reasn why he resurfaced. He was on some documentary film of some sort where he reevaluated his very own books mentioned earlier. I have also watched his TED Ed segment where he apologized for the lives destroyed by his book. He said that he was too young when he wrote his famous books. I was puzzled at that time which led me to do more research a.k.a stalking. I am a good stalker, you know. Kidding aside! So, from there, I started stalking the Harris couple on their social media accounts. I will not forget feeling that something was already off from their relationship since they are both absent from each other's daily activities. I do not know if that is just normal with other people but to me, it isn’t. Also, it struck me that Shannon and the Harris daughters "appear" to be highly modern and very much "in the trend" kind of way when it comes to their clothes, music, and social media posts. Given that they are in the limelight of conservative believers, this is a diversion. I was not a diehard fan of Joshua Harris and so I do not really know what happened to him after writing his books, after getting married to the girl of his prayers, and after pastoring a mega church for 17 years. However, I suddenly recalled an information he disclosed in one of his books. It was about Shannon whose inches close to starting her music career but then converted to her newfound faith and so this dream career of hers was aborted. This, I strongly recalled when I found lots of her IG post informing the world that she is about to release her music albums -which her songs don’t have the slightest expression of her love for God. For a preacher’s wife, for a Christian woman, so to speak, her recent project gave me another major what-in-the-world-is-happening moment. These findings surprised me! That's why I'm not really taken aback when Joshua Harris announced that he and his wife, Shannon, are eventually divorcing. Perhaps something bigger is afoot since then.

 I know I am very late to make a fuss about Joshua Harris and his chosen path today, but I just want to express my thoughts since I kept seeing him lately. I was instantly reminded that I followed him on IG! And now I think about unfollowing him so I would be free from another stress. So, following his separation from his wife in 2019, more of his announcements on the social media just got more terrible as time pass by. He then denounced his Christian faith and joined an LGBTQ parade publicly. What worst could happen now? He has been posting his personal criticism on “Christianity" and against people "in the faith" with the notion of man's freedom being suppressed by God's will.  He makes obedience to God appear so vexing and that it’s the very thing that stifle man from enjoying earthly pleasures. He just twisted the truth about ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’. God is angry at the wicked every day and so we were all once hated by God until he shows us His grace (Psalms 7: 11). But tolerating a sinner could never equate to any form of love. Unless man sees himself as a sinner, he will never repent and seek God. Harris has numerous posts about this particular topic! As I see it, one could assume that it is his way of answering back to the spiteful comments he keeps on receiving from the Christian group. He’s making the believers look like a group of unbelievable people for hurting him with God’s truths. The truth will surely hurt him.

 There is no denying of the fact that Joshua Harris is still a hot issue among Christians today.  Every time Christians talk about relationships, Joshua and his books are brought into place. Before the declaration of his newfound path away from Christ, his books were said to be the "Bible" of Christian romance. Decades ago, Joshua and his books were often referred to when Christians tend to look for godly relationships to pattern theirs. I personally and seriously took note of the contents of his books since I was in a relationship when I read them back then. Just like the other Harris loyalists, I would always mention his name and the things I have learned from his books when giving advice to my friends both in and out of the church during girl talks. It's such a shame that I have to evaluate my old self and admit that I have passed onto others the words of Harris more than God's.  This, I humbly ask forgiveness from the Lord. And so, fast forward to the present time, look at how events have turned now. No one knows what really happened between Joshua and Shannon, but I'm pretty sure that whatever hit their relationship is a reflection of their individual relationship with God which have finally come in fruition in time. The book of Jeremiah says in chapter 7 verse 24, But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Whilst spending years and years of their life in the ministry, I could not help but wonder, was God really there "in" them? Frankly, although no man is in the position, it’s hard not to question their salvation thinking about what happened to them.

 Joshua Harris have said in an interview that he excommunicated himself from his church because he failed to follow the standards required by the scriptures. In his words, he sounded like he was the victim more than the traitor. To add, one of his videos on YouTube showed live reactions from the offended readers of his books. I personally think that was a clear picture answering the question of why he ended up retracting his beliefs in public. He responded to those people in oppose to what Christians should be doing when being persecuted. He wanted to please them so bad to the point where he just decided to abandon his post, leave his God or god and follow them as if that was the best decision to reach out to them. His mindset is just so disappointing. At some point, did he blame God for earning his haters? Is that why he went after people he doesn’t personally know and has no relationship with God? Was he supposed to reevaluate through the Bible or through people’s lenses? How many were Christians in that pool of readers? It was just necessary to apologize for the wrong points that resulted to misguided readers, but why leave the faith? It’s true that it takes lots of courage to face the music but I don’t see the part where leaving your faith is a new definition of bravery.

 When a Christian is found to be challenged, he ought to thrive. What happened to standing fast in the faith written in 1 Corinthians 16:13? But instead, Joshua Harris allowed the enemy to overpower him. He heard the wrong side. Well, to start with, he's probably not a genuine Christian. We don't want to judge him but again, we have been warned in Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  A Youtuber also commented that a Christian should never find his life in the Lord burdensome. Sadly, Harris has put down his cross, got tired and stopped following the Savior. A believer's walk with Christ was never promised to go through an easy road but we will always find ourselves consistently rejoicing in His grace despite the way.  Otherwise, those who are just pretending to understand the gospel will soon be revealed and will simply walk away because they were not meant to be in the fold of Christ in the first place.

 Just recently, not only Harris have denounced his faith in Christ. There were others. Although this is not new anymore because there were others even before Harris’s time, but in this age of social media, issues like this have great impact in the Christian society perceived in various wavelength. And this case has left Christiandom a question-- what do we do with the learnings gained from such persons? It is fitting to know where the line should be drawn when reading Christian books. The Lord has commanded us to daily seek Him in prayer and in the scriptures. Even the prophets enquired and searched diligently (1 Peter 1: 10). Hence, to check if the materials we read carry God’s truth in them, they must be aligned to what the Bible says. God’s words should affirm the ideas being offered to us by other books whether they appear new or not. I believe that the things I learned from Joshua’s books really helped me assess my former relationship and double check if it indeed glorifies the Lord. But I do not give credit to the author because most of the concepts of the godly dating he presented were extracted from the Bible and were inspired by the people around him that were ‘in Christ’, and Lord willing, still walking with Him until now. Joshua Harris have miserably left his once professed faith and no wonder when ‘his followers’ do the same too. The Lord only revealed the impending danger of following leaders and prominent individuals with such devotion that should only belong to God. We should be vigilant and be fully aware of where and with whom do we pour our faith into. 2 Peter 3:17, KJV: "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

 The books written by Joshua Harris have heavily influenced his Christian readers. However, more than those pages that illuminated his beliefs before, what would really speak for himself is the life he chose to live today. I have kissed dating goodbye long time ago, not because of his books, but because God has been gracious to me and provided me a godly man to marry. I won’t recommend Joshua’s books but I will be keeping them. If people see them on my shelf one day, I know significant lessons could be drawn from them --more than courtship and dating, but particularly about a Christian’s walk with Christ.  

  We are in the end times and we are witnessing the falling away of man as said in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. But by God’s grace, His true children will persevere until His glorious return. The sad story of Joshua Harris just proved that our God is a perfect God who is solely worthy of receiving man’s adoration and trust. Not that He needs any of it, but it’s just crystal clear that no one else does. And that no earthly relationship should we model ours after except that of Christ and His love for the church which we could learn nowhere else but from the scriptures.

 Isaiah 40:25-31 

To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 

Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 

Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 

He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. 

Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: 

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. 

#joshuaharris #ikisseddatingggoodbye #joshuaharrisbooks #boymeetsgirl #kaperanggot #dating #courtship #christian #christianity #christianromance #godlydating #romance #christianlove

[masterheartsxiii]

Notes from mass 9/20/20

A note before I start. This was my first time at mass by myself, as a non-catholic. It was also my first time taking notes. I am looking to be challenged and hold discussion on my thoughts.

I grew up non-denominational, I didn’t know much about Catholicism other than that they worshiped Mary and stuff (things I found out were wrong later). Eventually I started spending time with my dear friend, who was catholic. She and I went back and forth as she brought forward points about catholic faith, and I would pose counter arguments. There was a point where she seemed close to snapping away towards a different denomination, closer to mine. But then, she suddenly snapped back. Her connection to her Catholic faith became like steel, forged in the heat of questioning. This fire fascinated me. I now know that she had an advisor who helped temper that steel into its current shape on this site, but that doesn’t change that she found something about Catholicism that resonated, or else no amount of advice would have caused it. So I had to know. I have to know. What about Catholicism draws one closer to God even when fought against with more Protestant views. For that reason, I have begun going to Catholic Mass, starting now due to covid, and long to have my answers about God and the universe answered.

Now the notes proper:

I arrived late due to traffic and going to a new church. Will have to prepare for that earlier. Due to this I had to sit in the back outside of the church proper.

Gospel was on the parable of the men who were hired at different times yet paid the same amount.

>An interesting parable. One that would easily reflect on any time period, and all have surely felt similar.

Homily begins:

Talking about vacation?

>Not really sure how this all connects

The priest went to Maine

>I get he’s trying to relate this, but talking about vacation as your connection seems odd during times where quarantine is supposed to be in place.

Got distracted on how to take notes

>I was trying to figure out how best to take notes by looking at the examples my dear friend has posted in the past. I resolved then to get a notebook and have since done so so that my notes can be taken and translated later.

The priest gets back to the parable

>Finally. I guess the connection was between lobster farmers and field workers, but that seems thin.

The fairness is what we focus on, but the point of the parable is gods love.

>Well that seems obvious. But it has an important point to make, and right as I thought that he continued

Christianity, like field work, can be back breaking.

>Living with an atheist, can agree.

We need to save all people no matter when in their life. (But what rewards are there besides the end?)

>So the parenthesis are the thoughts I had at the time that I felt needed to be jotted down. These carrots are post church reflections. But it is a common thought. How often have I gone to God and said “I’ve done all this for you. I’ve been here since I was a child? Why am I not getting benefits. Why don’t my wishes carry more weight? My god, my god, why have you forsaken me.”

We might harbor feelings that we’ve been unfairly treated (no rewards to be in early)

>precisely. We feel that just because someone “got on board late” they shouldn’t be given equal treatment. But that’s not right. We should want the best for everyone. To hold someone to a standard of when they became a follower, why do we assume that makes them lesser? Isn’t that judgement? There is only one Judge, and it isn’t any of us on Earth.

Why do we think that? Why do we feel it’s “better” that we wish we could have joined later.

>That brings up an interesting conundrum. Often times we think the best way, even as Christians is to fall into this trap. We say “well it’s alright if I break this rule as long as I ask forgiveness” but that could devolve into a whole tangent of what is right vs what feels good. I’d be happy to discuss that more in the comments or a dm.

Better to rejoice that we added more people to the kingdom of heaven.

>On this we can easily agree. It is a victory to add someone, but where does it end? Do we check in and make sure they’re actually living it out? Surely just getting them to confess isn’t the end. That gets into circle of control vs circle of influence. Something my therapist and I have been working through. But while my circle of control is small with a larger circle of influence, an interesting irony is that God’s circle of control is massive, but he chooses to only use his influence, less we become puppets. Idk. This is where my mind wanders to.

Started talking about donations? That felt out of place.

>Yeah I guess just because it’s nearing the end of the fiscal year, it’s time to bring in money. It was an unfortunate time for me to first visit as I’m sure it sounded more greedy than intended, but it did feel weird that they ended the homily with it. Is that normal. I have no comparative reference.

I left before communion as I don’t feel I can go to it yet as a non catholic (why so isolating?)

>Something I’ve always wrestled with. The requirement to be catholic before receiving communion. Jesus said “let the little children come into me”. He didn’t require them to vow to him first. Jesus dined with beggars, crooks, and tax collectors. He never required them to be a part of his church before then. And then of course there’s the fact that is in spirit the body and blood of Christ. I grew up with communion being symbolic, not a true transformation. For a long time I viewed that as a weird interpretation. But I’ve seen it. The times I went to mass with my dear friend in the past I saw the power that the reverence and respect the priest placed on it. The Meal is more than a symbol, but I believe that is only to those that believe it so. My literal brain has trouble seeing past the veil, but I did for one fleeting moment and it’s stuck with me.

I felt so alone. How does one connect to god at these things? He is held so far above. How can one reach.

>I’ve never gone to mass by myself. I’ve always had at least my dear friends long side me. Ins one ways that was a detriment. After all, if ones focus is torn between two places, can one truly grasp Heaven’s message for you? But on the other side, without anyone beside me at church, how am I to parse these feelings. I am a Stranger in a Strange Land, and without a spiritual guide, how am I to reach it. I fear my journey will be impossible alone. I will pray on this.

One final note: the priest says it feels like the devil has really had his way with this year. It has been a hard year for sure, but how much is this the work of devils and how much is the work of man. The age old question does the devil really exist: or is it just the Bible’s embodiment of man’s free will, given personification. May pursue this more.

>A thought I’ve had many times. One I’d love to discuss. The Bible has many allegories. Might the devil be one as well. After all humans with free will don’t need something bad influencing them. That’s actually the problem with some other denominations. The ones that make “Hell Houses” the prescribe everything to “demons” and that takes humanity’s free will out of the equation. The devil may not exist. There may instead just be humanity’s desire to turn away from blinding light. Thoughts?

#catholicism #mass thoughts #my dear friend #discussion #conversation

[ayounglutheran]

The Lutheran Church’s Obsession with Grace

I wrote this article for a blog that some friends of mine run, but I thought I’d put it on here as well. Here we are:

The Lutheran Church is obsessed with grace.

I’ve always known that, of course, from Sunday School and sermons and chats with my pastor, but I never really thought about it. It didn’t have any particular impact on my life.

Grace is the cornerstone of Lutheran theology. It’s also the bit most commonly left out by anyone else when discussing the contributions Lutheranism made to Protestant Christianity. I am blessed to have many, very theologically and historically literate Protestant friends from various denominations. They all know about Martin Luther, they know sole fide and sola scriptura. But they uniformly leave out the third part of the equation: sola gratias. Only grace. We are saved by grace alone.

This is part of what makes Lutheranism radical. And it is radical, or it should be, and many brilliant people are working very hard to make it radical again, instead of the dying denomination of wealthy white people from Northern Europe. God asks for our faith and our devotion to scripture. And we, whether we know it or not, ask for grace. Grace is the all-consuming acceptance, the love and forgiveness, the come-as-you-are, part-of-the-family gift that God has for all of humanity. You don’t have to do anything to earn it, in fact, you can’t earn it.

Luther’s confessors became concerned about him when he began confessing compulsively, constantly, convinced that no matter how hard he tried, he would miss out on a sin. Something would go unrepented for, unreprimanded. (To me, this speaks strongly of a man with a powerful anxiety disorder, not unlike my own, who was convinced that he was one step away from eternal damnation at all times.) He was consumed by guilt, it ate away at all his waking and sleeping hours.

Eventually, something had to give. And so this man became convinced that the only way he, that anyone, could be saved, was through grace. Human perfection is impossible. No matter how hard we try, there is always something we will miss, through misunderstanding or malice or microaggression, through bad days or busy schedules, you will make a mistake. You will hurt people, have hurt people. Some of them are people you will never meet, and some are just people whose names you will not remember. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, of course it doesn’t. But it means that no matter how hard you try, you will never be perfect. And that is where grace comes in. Grace is forgiveness for things you have not yet done, for lies you didn’t realize you were telling, for systems of oppression you didn’t realize you help to propagate.

While discussing the most recent round of Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, my pastor and I wandered onto the topic of guilt. So many white people, including me, were (and still are) consumed with guilt for their positions as people of privilege whose actions knowingly or unknowingly have contributed to the oppression of black people in this country and around the world. Pastor Marissa told me something that I think will stick with me for the rest of my life. She said, “So many people want to know, want to be told, that they are good people. But Lutherans don’t believe in good people and bad people.” Then she smiled and said, “Well, we do, but we only believe in bad people.”

And if you truly embrace the truth that no matter how good you think you are, you are no better than anyone else, that you just as much in need of grace as the person next to you, and that both of you have a role to play in bringing about the kingdom of God, you can take your place fully as a member of the Church of Christ.

We are all dependent on God’s grace. God doesn’t keep a rap sheet. There is only the promise of grace. Grace not just for you, but for everyone in this world. Including people you don’t like. Including parts of yourself you don’t like. You can’t dress yourself up for God; an all-knowing deity is impossible to fool.

What you can do is throw yourself on God’s mercy, and ask for the grace that has already been granted to you.

And then you can get to work.

There are no slackers in the kingdom of God. At least, not if you want Christianity to stay alive as a religion that actually does the things it preaches about.

We pray for the brokenness in the world, we pray for guidance and change. But prayer isn’t enough. We have to take action to address brokenness in our communities and our nations. We have to ask our community leaders, our mayors and councils and organizers, what we can do as individuals and church communities to address inequality and injustice in our communities.

And tied to this is the need to accept the idea that success does not look like money. That it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. That those of us with more have to give it to those of us with less, even though we “earned” that money and they didn’t. Because what they did earn was a fundamental right to safety, and housing, and food, and healthcare, and education, and until we can get a government to provide those things fully and equally to all Americans, we are going to have to fund them ourselves. (Think of it as paying taxes for programs the government hasn’t realized they need yet. If you think of the money as having never belonged to you in the first place, you are more likely to feel able to give it up.)

We all have to step up, to redefine our ideas of who is good and who is successful and who deserves what. We have to be willing to extend and receive grace. We will never be good enough. We will never do enough.

But all God asks is that we try. Grace will cover the rest.

#lutheranism #lutheranism in america #elca #grace #Christianity #martin luther

[napoleoninrags]

President Barabbas

The mob chose a mobster. Elections have consequences.

by Greg Olear

"Easter is a very special day for me ... Easter Sunday, and you'll have packed churches all over our country.” —Donald John Trump, 24 March 2020

I WAS RAISED Catholic, which meant that every Sunday, come hell or high water, we went to church. The Catholic Mass is extremely rote. There’s a lot of call-and-response, a lot of standing up and sitting down, a lot of the same material, repeated over and over and over again. The Apostles’ Creed, for example, has been recited at Mass, in much the same way, since it was codified at the Council of Nicaea during the reign of Constantine the Great, a mere 17 centuries ago.

The best day of the liturgical year, in my recollection, was Palm Sunday. The priest always shared the same story: Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect, appeared before his subjects in Jerusalem on the occasion of Passover, and agreed to free a single Jewish prisoner. The mob had to choose: should Pilate free Jesus, the alleged “King of the Jews,” or Barabbas, a notorious criminal? Whereupon we, role-playing in the pews, would cry, WE WANT BARABBAS! My brother and I shouted with gusto, to my mother’s extreme annoyance: WE WANT BARABBAS! And so the killer was set free, and Christ condemned to die.

I didn’t know at the time that this passage, perpetuating as it does the “Jews killed Jesus” myth, was used for centuries by anti-Semites to justify their despicable deeds. I never interpreted it that way. To me, the story is about how mobs, led as they are by riled-up morons, can easily be fooled and manipulated into voting against their best interests.

The 2016 election is a recent example of how the angry masses, presented with a clear choice of good guy versus bad guy, chose unwisely. It’s not fair to either party to compare Hillary Clinton with Jesus Christ, and Pontius Pilate did not use the Electoral College system in determining whom to pardon, but notorious criminal Donald John Trump is absolutely President Barabbas. The mob went with the mobster.

Three years into the Trump Administration, and a shocking number of the president’s associates are either in prison, about to head to prison, under indictment, or under investigation. There is Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chair, currently incarcerated. There is Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal attorney, fixer, and bagman: ditto. There is the treacherous Michael Flynn, awaiting his sentence (or, perhaps, his pardon). There is Trump’s longtime buddy and shadow campaign advisor Roger Stone, soon to toddle off to the hoosegow. There’s also those who have not yet been indicted because of the nefarious machinations of the corrupt Attorney General, William Barr: Rudy Giuliani, Jared Kushner, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, Erik Prince, and Trump’s lousy kids Ivanka, Eric, and Don Junior.

What is remarkable here, aside from the obvious fact that Trump cavorts with an uncanny number of crooks, is that none of these people has flipped. Manafort pretended to, only to ratfuck the FBI. Flynn, too, lied to investigators. Only Cohen gave up some dirt—but how much did he really surrender? The thing is, the rest of these people aren’t nearly as hard. Trump wants to pardon Roger Stone because he knows him well enough to know that he will sing to stay out of the Big House. Jared Kushner, aka Boy Plunder, has done so many illicit things that he will keep FBI agents busy for years; is Mr. Ivanka really not going to flip to avoid prison? And I can’t imagine Don Junior exhibiting the same trollish swagger around Cellblock D.

Trump’s partners in crime are all selfish assholes. They have no real loyalty. Giuliani, for example, loathes Trump with every fiber of his noxious being. He’s only protecting him out of his own self-interest. At some point, to preserve themselves, these fuckers will all turn on each other, and it will be the end of Reservoir Dogs all up in here: a bunch of petty crooks threatening to take each other down.

So why haven’t they?

A big queen sits in the middle of the stalemated chessboard, preventing all movement. The queen’s name is William Barr. He is the titular Attorney General of the United States, but his actual function is to slow-roll the Department of Justice from its takedown of Trump and his co-conspirators. To that end, he holds up witnesses. He stymies evidence from being sent to prosecutors. He cock-blocks US Attorneys, sure as he cock-blocked Mueller. He kicks the can and kicks it again and again and again, hoping to run out the clock. Barr has been so successful that the GOP is not even remotely worried about the bad stuff coming out. He’s gummed up the works so badly that we couldn’t even get witnesses at the fucking impeachment trial.

With a big, fat cork in the bottle of evidence, Trump and his fellow criminals do not have to fear retribution from law enforcement for as long as he stays in office. The only danger now is if they turn on each other. If they respect omertà, they are golden. Thus it is in all of their interests—Trump’s, but also Pence’s, McConnell’s, Pompeo’s, Kushner’s, and so on—to stay the course. These people will do anything, including exacerbate a global health crisis, to not get caught. They don’t care if we die. Repeat: they don’t care if we die. As Mr. White says in Reservoir Dogs: “The choice between doing ten years and taking out some stupid motherfucker, ain’t no choice at all.”

What are they hiding?

In Trump’s case, generations of criminal involvement with the mob—first La Cosa Nostra, later the Russian mafiya. His grandfather was a minor pimp at the dawn of the organized crime era, but Donald’s father, Fred Trump, was, as Lincoln’s Bible tells us, “a businessman front for the Genovese crime family.”

To best understand Fred, just track his rise from single-family home construction to big residential developments. From Shore Haven (1947) to Beach Haven to Trump Village, all were done with known mafia partners, in Genovese-controlled territory, and eventually with a fully Genovese-owned construction company (HRH Construction).

When the Russian mafiya began rolling in, they landed in Fred’s properties and partnered with the Genovese on some big ticket scams. This was also during the time that Fred and his attorney Roy Cohn set up S&A concrete (via Nick Auletta)—a joint venture between Tony Salerno (Genovese boss) and Paul Castellano (Gambino boss), so that donald could build in Manhattan. Remember donald’s quote, “Even my father, he said, you don’t want to go to Manhattan. That’s not our territory?” That’s because Manhattan, for construction, was Gambino territory. They controlled the concrete and unions. And Fred was a very loyal, shrewd front for the Genovese. To get his idiot, greedy kid into Manhattan, Fred and Roy Cohn had to get those two mob bosses to agree on a joint venture.

When the Russian mafiya pushed out the Italian mob after the fall of the Soviet Union, Donald Trump began laundering money for unseemly Vor associates of Semion Mogilevich. The Russians extended him credit when no US bank would touch him, and he remains in their debt—a fact the Mazars and Deutsche Bank documents will reveal, which is why Trump has moved heaven and earth to keep said documents secret.

Because the Russian mafiya works hand in glove with the Russian government, Trump is also, as Hillary Clinton correctly told us four years ago, Putin’s puppet. His ties to Russian intelligence (Putin, remember, is ex-KGB) go back decades. Recruitment of Trump by the KGB began in the Reagan Administration; for all we know, his succession of ex-Soviet-bloc wives better reflect his allegiance to the Soviets than his taste in women. He is also connected to the Russian organized crime via his friend Jeffrey Epstein, a collector of kompromat and money launderer for arms dealers; Epstein’s longtime partner was Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell, the spy and former business partner of, yes, Semion Mogilevich.

Trump’s underworld ties were all there in 2016, barely below the surface, for all the world to see. Wayne Barrett wrote about them for the Village Voice. Robert Friedman alluded to them in Red Mafiya. Craig Unger covers them closely in House of Trump, House of Putin. The mainstream media knew damned well what the guy really was, but chose to equate Trump’s years of actual mobbed-up crimes with HRC’s email server. The result? Every half-wit Fox News watcher proclaims, with a straight face, that Hillary, not Donald, is the crook!

Truth: Trump is a notorious criminal, a serial rapist and sexual assailant, wholly owned by the mob, controlled by the underworld and the Kremlin. He is a latter-day Barabbas—and because of the whims of a riled-up mob, he’s now, somehow, the President of the United States. Make no mistake: If he thinks it will help him avoid prosecution, he will order the churches open for Easter without qualm or hesitation. In his calculus, Jesus gave up His life for us, so we should give up our lives for Trump. He will happily pervert the holiest of Christian holy days to get what he wants. To this monster, nothing is sacred..

[grimnoire87]

I feel like people need to understand U.S. history to get why American minorities are very stressed about the possibility of a draft or a war with Iran. It is extremely frustrating to see how few people actually put effort into learning this even though they regularly make general criticisms about the US. Even a basic comprehension of U.S. current events would prepare someone to understand this. White Americans might be victimizing themselves but the rest of us are worried for a different reason and it needs to be recognized. And if you recognize it you probably can also understand why we bristle at the implication that we only benefit from a system that was built around enslaving or killing us or people who look like us, or why its so wrong to equate Soleimani to a black victim of police brutality.

People are able to have generalized discussions of US white supremacy and Imperialism but only in a way that reflects the last 50 years and only in a manner that treats it as just an external problem that never effects us here. Which is why folks sound so tone deaf when they talk about "Americans".

U.S. white supremacy was not built around fascism or the desire to police the rest of the world. Nor is Imperialism a US creation. Both takes are neo liberal ways to avoid responsibility and completely ahistorical.

Some context (warning, this will be a long post and might get redundant at times but I promise that there is a reason for it.):

Edited because I finally figured out how to install a break

The U.S. was, at one point, and English colony. It was "The New World" aka a just another colony in a long line European Imperialism. French, Spanish, and Dutch "explorers" also were making a mark on the continent. They were using and killing indigenous people and importing enslaved black people. Black and Native people have always been the first and most longstanding victims of U.S. agression. After the Revolutionary War, the new U.S. continued to expand, engaging in genocide against Black and Native peoples for hundreds if years. While the U.S. would eventually seek to expand its borders on the continent, in the beginning it was rather isolationist in regards to world affairs. Like Australia, their white supremacy was almost entirely "local" due to the nature of its origin, it wasn't powerful enough to take over entire countries on the other side of the world but it was powerful enough to murder and enslave people here .

White supremacy was central to that white American identity. American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny (and US Imperialism in general) sprung from this new identity as a "White Christian Nation". Its similar to how the "White Man's Burden" was used to justify British Imperialism in Africa and Asia.

That was a tangent but...anyways. U.S. identity has always been fostered by the idea of the "other". For whiteness to function it needs an other or a scapegoat. And how does this relate to the fear if another war? Well all you have to look at the Civil War.

Black people were made into scapegoats on both sides. The Draft Riots were race riots where Irish draftees went out and burned a black orphanage and killed men, women and children. It got worse after that war ended. Black people in the North were scapegoated for the war, draft, and taking lower paying jobs. In the South, they were scapegoated for the loss of the economic and political power that came from slavery. Thus white resentment led to black people being tortured and terrorized by their white neighbors. They hunted us. This would be a common pattern, and would happen anytime white people felt anxiety over a war, economic problems, loss of political power, etc. They would ride out and sooner or later a black person, family, or entire town would be lynched. We were surrounded by a majority who could do what they wanted to us.

It was the same thing after WWI. Black vets would come home and wind up being the sole defense against white mobs numbering in the hundreds. The Red Summer consisted of massacre after massacre. There were no consequences for the perpetrators. Survivors were put in camps or prison, none would be compensated. And yes, by this point U.S. imperialism had allowed white Americans to continue to slaughter Natives and steal Mexico, and go beyond its shores to start wars to see which Imperialist nation could colonize where.

The U.S. has loved scapegoating "others" to justify limiting rights, expanding its borders, taking resources and supporting white supremacy. It was as American as apple pie. Look at the Japanese Internment. When Timothy McVeigh committed the Oklahoma City bombing, no one blamed white fundamentalists. He was seen as an individual.

That's not what happened in 2001. On Sept. 11, 2001, after a cowardly attack that killed close to 3,000, white anxiety would lead to the scapegoating of another community in a manner similar to how black people were scapegoated for the Civil War. It didn't matter that this mass murder was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, "9/11 was committed by Muslims", therefore it was open season. Regardless of the fact that Muslims died in the attack and were the primary victims of these terrorist groups in the Middle East. They were at fault simply because they appeared to be "Muslim". And the US already had an issue with Islam because of its role in black civil rights. So that attack just made it worse and shifted the vitriol away from black Muslims and towards all Muslims. Folks would go out and hunt for Muslims and people would justify it. Mosques were being targeted in a manner similar to black churches in the South. They were criminalized into terrorists. And the Iraq War would only make this worse and create refugees that would come here and be scapegoated all over again. After the Pulse shooting white people railed against Muslims and Black Lives Matter, but Dylann Roof was just one person.

We have had laws passed that scrapped civil liberties, Trump had a Muslim travel ban list, ICE is actively detaining and deporting brown and black people, and modern weaponry and lax gun laws allow people to commit mass murder on a scale never seen before. White supremacists and Islamophobes have already killed people for "looking like Muslims". Black people are being killed by the thousands every year and we have to convince people we don't deserve to be murdered. People going out and assaulting/killing Jewish people. There is a lot to be anxious about over because white American aggression is not purely an external problem.

White anxiety and scapegoating gets people killed. Daily. And white Americans (just like Europeans) LOVE to take their frustrations out on a scapegoats and always have. Because U.S. white supremacy is built around the idea that whiteness entitles you to privilege and if you lack it than its someone else's fault and you have the right to hurt them for it.

And that is a very stressful reality when you are a minority surrounded by people with the privilege and power to harm you whenever they feel a little anxious. Especially when you have someone like Trump in power (unlike Obama he surrounded himself with white supremacists, courts them, and sics them on people). It doesn't matter whether there is a war or just an escalation of tensions. No matter whether there is a draft or not, you always be vulnerable to a white supremacist with an assault rifle who can walk into a Mosque and murder you by the dozen. U.S. history has set a precedent.

And imagine the horror of a draft! Imagine everyone between the ages of 18-35 being told they are in a lottery and if picked have to go to war (and potentially commit war crimes) or go to jail in a country that loves for profit prisons, locks up minorities, kills black and Native detainees and pardons people who murder prisoners of war. Use common sense. It is perfectly reasonable to be nervous about a draft here and you can't call people immoral for joining the military and then turn around and call kids selfish for being scared of being forced to do so. And a draft would only fan the flames of white resentment here just like what happened during the earlier drafts. There would be war crimes against Iranians, for sure. A draft would be awful. No one should be joking about it. It would be horrifying.

I was vague about it before because I figured that asking for empathy would be enough but it isn't. A lot of people talking about the Suleiman strike are far removed from U.S. white supremacy and don't necessarily understand our anxieties and it shows in how they talk about the situation and who "benefits". The fact that they think American minorities (especially Muslims) won't face *any* backlash or consequences for Trump's actions here is evidence enough.

This isn't an attempt to paint Americans into the victim of this situation with Iran. To do so would be despicable. And joking about it is in poor taste and can come off as cruel even if US minorities do it to cope with our reality here.

But acknowledging that U.S. minorities (including Iranian and Iraqi immigrants and refugees) will be at risk isn't taking away from Iranians or Iraqis in the Middle East. American minorities are here because of U.S. and European Imperialism. And it is a fact that Imperialism will lead to more deaths in an already traumatized region and it is a fact that white supremacy will put people in a precarious position here where they are more vulnerable to white aggression all year round. Both are true. Its not a competition and seeing US minorities talk about it shouldn't be bothering you because both are symptoms of the same problem.

Kind of a tl;dr: American minorities aren't being selfish (or US centric) by talking about their fears of war with Iran and a draft because many will be more vulnerable than they already are and U.S. history has demonstrated why these fears are valid. Learn it. It explains a lot of why we do what we do. Also a draft would terrible for Americans and devastating for Iranians (i.e. look at Vietnam). There us a difference between white Americans victimizing themselves and American PoC being worried about what this situation means for them. Learn the difference; those disclaimers are necessary for a reason. You dont show someone empathy by denying it to others, I wish more progressives figured this out. Its not a competition or ideological chess. People could and probably will die and its scary to be surrounded by angry white people just looking for an excuse (like a war).

#U.s. imperialism #long post #very long post #white supremacy #us history #antiblackness #islamophobia #racism #current events

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

For the past four decades, the notion that religious beliefs should guide voters’ decision-making has been largely monopolized by the Republican Party. But the partisan “God gap” hasn’t gone unnoticed by some religious Democrats, who have urged candidate after candidate to make appeals to religious values and beliefs in the hope of turning the “religious left” into a politically relevant force. And as the 2020 Democratic primary ramps up, there’s already speculation that the right candidate could tap a long-dormant reserve of religious energy among Democratic voters.

First Cory Booker — who was literally anointed by his pastor ahead of his presidential announcement — was touted as a possible candidate of the “religious left.” Then Pete Buttigieg stepped in to claim that mantle, telling reporters that the left “need to not be afraid to invoke arguments that are convincing on why Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction.” Meanwhile, several other presidential hopefuls, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, are all talking openly about their religion on the campaign trail, even making arguments for why their policy positions — whether it’s abortion rights or income inequality — are linked to their faith.

And to some extent, forging connections between faith and politics makes sense for Democratic candidates — a majority of Democratic primary voters are religious. But there are several big hurdles facing any Democrat looking to use the language of faith to marshal voters in the primary. For one thing, the Democratic coalition isn’t dominated by a single religious group. And Democrats don’t prioritize religion the way Republicans do — in fact, the Democratic Party has been growing steadily less religious over the past 20 years. Certain groups of religious voters — in particular, black Protestants — will likely play an important role in the primary, and there may be some room for candidates to appeal to religious moderates. But in a diverse and increasingly secular party, religious rhetoric alone may not get the candidates very far.

Democrats are religious, but religiously diverse

Religious Democrats may not get as much attention as their counterparts on the right, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. About 65 percent of Democratic primary voters in 2016 reported having some kind of religious affiliation, compared to 84 percent of Republican primary voters. But as the chart below shows, religious voters in each party may not have much else in common. Republicans are fairly racially and religiously homogeneous: In 2016, the vast majority (70 percent) of Republican primary voters were white Christians, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.1 Religious Democrats, by contrast, are much more diverse — 31 percent are white Christians, 22 percent are nonwhite Christians, and 12 percent belong to a non-Christian religious group (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) or say that their religious affiliation is “something else.”

The result is that Democratic candidates are trying to reach a smaller and more splintered religious audience than Republican candidates are targeting in their own primary. “Talking about religion is a much more complicated task when you’re trying to simultaneously address white Catholics and black Protestants and Muslim and Jewish Americans,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI, a research organization that studies religion and politics. “They may not have all that much in common, other than the fact that they identify as religious, which makes them harder to appeal to and organize.”

And while talking about religion can be a good strategy for gaining media attention, there’s little evidence that it’s translating into actual gains among religious voters — at least, not yet. A Morning Consult tracking poll conducted May 20-26 among Democratic primary voters found that Joe Biden, a Catholic, has a commanding lead among all major religious groups, followed in all but one case by Bernie Sanders,2 who may be the only candidate in the race to say he doesn’t participate in organized religion.

“It’s hard to go up against Biden because he appeals to moderate Catholics and Protestants — he’s from their world,” said Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University who studies religion and politics. And according to the 2016 CCES survey, moderate Democratic primary voters are more likely to be religious than their liberal counterparts, so if Biden is also appealing to moderates, that could compound the challenge for his opponents. “If Biden is capturing most of the moderates, there just aren’t that many religious voters left to scoop up,” Burge said.

Democrats have gotten a lot less religious

And even though a substantial number of Democrats are religious, they have come to make up a smaller and smaller subset of the party. Over the past two decades, the share of people in the Democratic coalition who don’t identify with any religion doubled, from 14 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2018, according to the General Social Survey.3 The result is that today’s Democratic Party is increasingly secular, which complicates and limits traditional forms of faith outreach. “This emerging group of secular Democrats coexists a little uneasily with the more religious wing of the party,” said David Campbell, a political science professor at Notre Dame and the coauthor of “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.” “It’s a sizeable portion of the electorate to ignore, but I think the party has yet to figure out how to appeal to these people.”

Now to be clear, most of the religiously unaffiliated don’t reject religion outright, so candidates who focus on faith may not run any serious risk of alienating these voters. In fact, according to the 2016 CCES data, only 9 percent of Democratic primary voters said they were atheists, while 8 percent said they were agnostics and 18 percent identified as “nothing in particular.” And notably, voters who fell into this last category were still surprisingly connected to organized religion. About half of these Democrats said they still attend church occasionally, and 37 percent said that religion is at least somewhat important in their lives.

However, the fact that Democrats are becoming less religious does mean that religiously-based appeals might not take candidates very far in the primary, or at least not as far as they once might have. Plus, like so many other aspects of our personal identities, there is evidence that Americans’ religious selves are increasingly shaped by our partisan allegiances, with Republicans becoming more religious and Democrats less so. Michele Margolis, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “From Politics to Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity,” found that white Democrats are drifting away from religion because of their politics, which means religion may not be as influential politically as it was in the past. “Religion hasn’t evolved to be a cue for religious voters on the left the way it has for religious voters on the right,” Margolis said. “If you live in a world where being a Democrat is equated with being less religious, and religion also isn’t central to your life, why should someone using religious rhetoric appeal to you?”

Religion may not rule Democrats’ vote choice

If there remains an obvious opportunity for some version of the religious left to emerge, it would be among black and Hispanic4 Democratic primary voters, who were significantly more likely than white Democrats to say that religion is somewhat or very important in their lives in the 2016 CCES survey.

And black Protestants are already quite powerful in the party. As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote earlier this year, black voters (who are overwhelmingly likely to be Christian) constitute about one-fifth of the Democratic electorate and have a long and deep alliance with the Democratic establishment, making them a key constituency in the primary. According to the CCES, the vast majority of black Protestants and nearly three-quarters of Hispanic Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And while it’s possible to imagine some kind of religious coalition emerging among Democrats of color, there aren’t any obvious issues that could unify black and Hispanic voters who are driven by their religious convictions, the way that abortion and same-sex marriage united white Protestants and Catholics on the right. Campbell also pointed out that many white Christian conservatives are motivated by a shared sense of religious embattlement or alienation — or the idea that their Christian values are being shoved to the margins or stamped out entirely by a rising tide of secularism. “They’re driven to get involved in politics because they see their Christian identity and Christianity’s place in American life as being under attack,” he said. “On the political left, certainly there’s a lot of talk of values being under attack, but it’s not framed in terms of an existential threat to your religious identity.”

But Democrats still ignore their party’s most religious voters at their peril, said Michael Wear, who directed faith outreach for Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. He and other Democratic faith advisers have criticized Hillary Clinton’s campaign for failing to engage seriously with religious communities like white Midwestern Catholics or black Protestants. But he added that he’s waiting to see whether the 2020 candidates start building up an infrastructure for reaching religious leaders and groups. “Rhetoric can be powerful, but you also need relationships and outreach,” he said. “You can’t just talk about your religious identity on TV.” This outreach, Wear said, has to be careful and sincere. As even for highly religious Democrats, religion is still just one factor among many they’ll use to choose a candidate.

As the campaign continues, we’ll learn more about the candidates’ approach to faith — especially whether they prioritize outreach to religious voters in states like Iowa and South Carolina, where religion is likely to be a more important issue than in a relatively secular state like New Hampshire. But while mobilizing specific subgroups of religious Democrats will still be important, the dream of building a cohesive religious voting bloc on the left looks more distant by the year. Democrats may not have much to lose by talking about faith and values — but it may not offer them much of a reward among primary voters either.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Laura Bronner

[heartofbarbelo]

Hi, I've been following you for a few days, I hope I'm not bothering you, but I wanted to ask you a question.Just answer if you want and if you feel comfortable.I find your approach to the divine feminine very interesting, if I can understand your conception of Sophia as a Goddess completely independent of other male deities, with the virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene I struggle a little. How do you preserve their individuality, taking into account that traditionally, they are both very attached

Rayati.

I think some of my blog might be confusing as I have entries going back from the past few years where my religion has changed and while I don’t believe quite the same as I did as a Gnostic Christian, I continue to reblog artwork and posts from mystic Christianity and Gnosticism that I find interesting.

Sophia is simply the form of Déa - the Goddess - which calls to me most. I believe that She is a form of the Great Goddess who was relegated to being lesser than the Father and Son forms of God, when in the beginning She was the Mother of All. Yes, Sophia is present in various schools of Gnosticism, Eastern Orthodox and Kabbalah where She might be equated with the Shekinah - but just as all those religions have their own version of Her, so do I in my path as a Filianist. Here’s an article which goes deeper into the idea of the pre-patriarchal Sophia here: https://deanic.com/sophian-pages-our-thealogy/primordial-pre-patriarchal-sophia-and-creatrix-eurynome/

As for Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary, I don’t see them as ‘goddesses’ in the same I do Sophia.

Truthfully I’ve never been able to connect well with the Virgin Mary. This might be due to being raised Anglican where she’s not given that much focus outside of being Jesus’ mother. She doesn’t receive quite the same elevation as in Catholicism. The ‘image’ of Mary however is connected to Filianism, or its roots in Madrianism, as the foremothers of my faith - a group of Oxford women in the 70′s - had an interpretation of the Virgin Mary apparitions which was obviously heretical to the Catholic church, in particular Our Lady of Lourdes. It is not so much Mary, mother of Jesus, who the Madrians believed appeared, but rather The Goddess taking on a familiar form to appear as, or even one which just happened to be believed after the fact as Mary due to the culture she appeared in. So when Filianists and Déanists reblog images of Mary it’s more the symbolism of her rather than the person herself. However there are Collyridian Déanists who do connect the two.

The Magdalene, however, while not a goddess for me is my Hera. A Hera in Filianism is a person from religion or mythology who is held up like a Saint, exemplifying the image of the Holy Daughter. Even before I was a Déanist, I saw the Magdalene as an image of the Daughter Sophia living on Earth. While I don’t believe She is the Daughter incarnate, I do believe Her image and Her many legends have a powerful connection to that of the God-the-Daughter. Not all Déanists or Filianists look to the Magdalene as a Hera, in fact I find I’m rather in the minority of looking to Her image more so than the Virgin Mary, or even Jesus despite him being a man. I also find it easier to divorce the image of the Magdalene from the divine masculine. I believe She was a holy woman in her own right with her own relationship to Déa Sophia. Yes she was Yeshua’s disciple but I also believe she aided him as well, whether financially or spiritually. I believe they were an equal partnership and loved each other; whether romantically or platonic, it doesn’t matter. If she had children as well, whether Yeshua’s or not, it is more commonly believed she had a daughter rather than a son. It annoys me when people single out her possibly being Yeshua’s lover or mother of his bloodline for the only reason she might be important.

Hope that helps a little. Déa bless you.

#ask a sophian #filianism #déanism #mother god #holy daughter #divine sophia #mary magdalene