*very quiet voice* queer spaces need to be safe for people of faith too
I don’t think about this enough. How do I make spaces more inclusive to people of faith.
By not talking about how silly and gross religion is and by not comparing sexuality to other things forbidden in the Old Testament like shrimp, etc.
Also by insulting the laws of Leviticus saying they are “impossible to live by haha so funny shrimp is banned” is excluding lgbtqia+ Jewish people bc Jewish ppl follow those laws and for the most part are pretty good with including lgbtqia+. Obviously not all Jewish ppl/organizations/communities are good with this but they are for the most part
anon asked: You said that Jesus was a socialist— would you mind explaining a little more about why you say that, please?
I KEEP GETTING THESE MESSAGES, SO LIKE, OKAY. OKAY. AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGEMENT, LET’S HAVE THIS CONVERSATION
jesus gave specific instructions to care for the sick, the hungry, for the needy, and that they mattered more than the cost that this would produce. jesus said that moral law was above ceremonial law. (it’s more important to do the right thing than to appear to do the right thing.) the sole time jesus became really angry in the new testament was with the money-lenders in the temple, because they were exploiting the poor, specifically poor women and in particular poor widows. he told his disciples that a poor person who gives the comparable same amount of her income to charity or in tax pays more than a rich person because comparatively that amount of money is not the same to both of those people. personally i believe that ‘render unto caesar’ is about deliberate non-co-operation with a corrupt state, but that’s up for interpretation. jesus repeatedly, exhaustively, and without limit emphasised that people are more important than money, and morality is more important than law, or, more accurately, its appearance.
jesus spent all of his time with social outcasts— prostitutes, revolutionaries, the absolute poorest working men in israel, slaves, etc etc etc. he was very clear that people would not like his message because it advocated love and equality, and told his followers to expect violence and oppression— ‘i come not to bring peace, but a sword.’ he wanted his followers to stand up to oppression and injustice. his command to ‘turn the other cheek’ is actually, although this is not widely known, an explicit act of rebellion— turning the cheek after being hit would force the implied roman aggressor to hit you with the palm of his hand instead of the back of it, and only a social equal would be hit with a palm. it forces the aggressor to treat you as an equal. it questions and shames power and authority without even needing to speak.
jesus is one of the most radical figures in the history of human civilization. there is nothing about patriarchal laissez-faire capitalism that he would approve of. jesus believed in justice. when he said that the meek would inherit the earth, that was a command, not a metaphor. jesus said he was the poor, the sick, the hungry, the imprisoned. that ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.’ the extent to which capitalism and kyriarchy have co-opted the teachings is almost baffling, because there is literally nothing in what jesus actually said to support either power structure. ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ is probably the most socialist statement anyone has ever made. to jesus, everyone was worthy. to jesus, everyone had worth. the mere concept that the man who shouted down the moneylenders in the temple for exploiting widows who lived in poverty would support the cruelties and oppressions of capitalism is laughable at best.
No you don’t understand how frustrated I am that we always depicted the Apostles as old men, especially when it comes to during-Jesus-alive stuff.
They were probably late teens to early 20s, given the time and the description and some Biblical passages.
They were not ancient old men with long ass beards and wrinkles at the Last Supper.
They were young adult rebels with a cause.
where my punk-rock apostles at
There is no such thing as “Celtic culture.” There are a multiplicity of “Celtic cultureS”—otherwise unrelated (except maybe via some trade routes) cultures who speak languages from the same language branch. This ultimately doesn’t mean much, since English and Sanskrit are both in the Indo-European language branch, but a layperson could understand that two people who grew up in a purely English and a purely Sanskrit speaking environment don’t belong to the same culture. Same rule applies! So when you go to look for a “Celtic pantheon” or a “Celtic mythology” you won’t find one! Well, you will… but whoever’s trying to sell that to you is a lazy scholar and also just flat-out wrong. Here are instead some of the major players for Celtic religions:
- Gaelic Polytheism: Practiced by the Irish, the Scots, and I believe also Manx. Example deities: Lugh, Morrigan, Daghda, Mannanan.
- Brythonic Polytheism: Practiced by the Welsh. Example deities: Arawn, Bloduedd, Arianrhod, Gwydion.
- Brittonic Polytheism: Practiced by the Iron Age Britons, but overlaps with Gaulish polytheism with a few cultural differences. Example deities: Nodens, Andarta, Sulis.
- Gaulish Polytheism: Practiced by the Gauls and presumably also the Galatians. Example deities: Epona, Taranis, Teutatis, Belenos.
- Lusitanian/Celtiberian Polytheism: Practiced by the Celtic cultures of Iberia and Lusitania (Spain and Portugal). Example Deities: Endovelicos, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Trebaruna.
Can you tell this is my biggest pet peeve when it comes to Celtic religions? At some point the rest of pop culture may catch up with Celtic studies, but until then, I’m going to keep giving this PSA every once in a while.
Ok but: Muslims in space. How do they pray? You know? This really bothers me. This should be addressed in more science fiction.
Malaysia (a Muslim country) actually came up with answers to these questions after they had a few astronauts launched into orbit.
Hate crime stats in the US…
why the fuck do the atheists complain so much?
persecution complex, which they then project on US
One factor is that no one can easily identify an atheist at first glance, which is where most of the crimes come in - identify and target.
I don’t think there’s ever been any rash of hate crimes against atheists, at least not in the last few decades.. Discrimination against atheists has mainly come in the form of government restrictions imposing religion on them in the past, such as in schools, as well as rather extreme statements against them by government officials up to and including a former President. But in terms of actually fearing for their safety, those days are essentially past. Not so for Jews and Muslims, clearly.
i think also important is the fact that atheists have never been racialized in the way jews and muslims have in the u.s.? like, jews and muslims have historically been excluded meaningfully from the colonialist concept of whiteness, but no one’s ever questioned the whiteness of atheists
probably in large part because atheism is perhaps the only ‘religious’ group which tends to have very little to do with one’s particular ethnic background. most atheists probably weren’t raised atheist, and atheism has never been connected to a racialized & exploited ethnicity
like, even though its at surface a “religious” label, in terms of social functioning “atheist” seems to have more in common with a label like “democrat” or “libertarian” - it’s not racialized or otherwise transgressive & thus unlikely to be seen as cause for violence
But hey dontcha know that antisemitism doesn’t exist anymore according to most of social justice tumblr
So you’ve got your basic structure of the religion itself as well as its entities, deities, gods, goddesses, sprites, and other mythological beings, but what about the people?
You’ll need a way to address your religious officials. They may have a formal title and a casual title, or just one of those. Either way, these titles usually show what rank these officials are. This title dictates how they are addressed, such as: brother, sister, elder, highness, father, and other titles. Some religious officials go by a different given name, sometimes taken from a deity or other important historical religious figure.
How are your religious officials named? How are they addressed? Do they change their given names as well? How are these given names chosen?
Then you have the actual ranks and how religious officials move throughout them. These ranks will set up the role these officials have within a religion and how much power or influence they have.
How many ranks are there? Who is in each rank (see above)? How difficult is it to move up and down in the ranks? How is a religious official “promoted” or “demoted”? Does everyone start at the bottom? How many people can be in each rank? Who does each rank have authority over? How important are these ranks? Are they based on anything or used to parallel the religion itself (such as a hierarchy within deities and entities)? What is each rank in charge of? Is there a ceremony for becoming a religious official?
Ceremonies & Duties:
Religious officials will be a part of religious ceremonies and they may even be necessary. What part they play in a ceremony may depend on their rank and the duties of that rank. Higher ranking officials may only show up for extremely important ceremonies while lower ranking officials may handle common ceremonies.
When do religious officials take part in ceremonies? How important is their role? Do they represent anything? Why are they needed? Do they conduct the ceremony? Or are they just needed to perform a ritual or a ceremony within the ceremony?
Your religious officials will probably have life outside of ceremonies. If they know how to read and write, they will probably be teachers or they may record historical accounts. Sometimes religious officials must look after orphans or a town’s money and food. Your religious officials can do any of that and more, such as farming or trading.
This is the attitude that others have toward religious officials. There can be a general attitude that is shared by the majority of the people and there can be individual opinions within that as well. People may change their attitude and behavior around religious officials.
Do people fear religious officials? Are they supposed to? Do they love them? Dislike them? Respect them? See them as powerful? Go to them for guidance? See them as equals?
As with any profession or position, there is an expected behavior. In a religious setting, this behavior can be anything and it’s up to you to decide what that expected behavior is.
Is it quiet? Extroverted? Opinionated? Are religious officials expected to interact with audiences? Or just speak at them? Are they expected to be seen in public? Are they supposed to be kind? Or fearful? Or silent? Do they have to wear certain clothing? Can they have friends who are not religious officials? Can they have children? Can they have another job?
Then there’s also the behavior expected from the audience. Are they supposed to be quiet? Are they encouraged to participate? Must they memorize certain phrases, prayers, songs, or stories? Are they supposed to approach a religious official a certain way? Are they supposed to behave a certain way in the presence of a religious official?
Of course to be an official in anything, you need substantial knowledge on the subject. Your religious officials need to know a lot about their religion and those in higher ranks will probably know more or have more experience when it comes to analyzing an aspect of their religion.
Think about how much your religious officials know and where they learn it. Is there a school? Are they taught orally? Are they self-taught? Is it a family tradition? Do only they know how to read and write? Must they learn another language to read religious texts? Or is there just a religious language they must use? How long must they learn before they can become a religious official? Is there a test they must pass? Is there certain clothing to show how much a person knows?
To tell your everyday characters apart from your religious officials, you’ll probably need a visual indicator. Most religions have religious clothing, worn by both officials and non officials, but the officials often have different types.
When creating an appearance for your religious officials, think about hairstyles, accessories, dresses, coats, shoes, sashes, cloaks, pants, shirts, vests, hats, and anything else you can think of. Must they be dressed in this clothing at all times? Do they have different styles and outfits? Do these outfits differ based on religious ceremony? Are there different uniforms per rank? Is there any symbolism in the color or the style of the clothing?
Where do these officials live? Is there special housing for them, or do they live on their own? What about those in training? Do they live together? Do these officials live in the public, or in solitude? Why? Are they nomadic?
Some religious officials must follow rules within their rank. For example, some officials must be at a certain rank to enter certain rooms and touch important religious objects. There are also other rules they must follow, such as not being allowed to indulge in certain behaviors.
Do your religious officials have to follow any rules? What are the reasons behind these rules? What happens if they break a rule? Do the rules vary based on rank?
Who is allowed to be a religious official? How are they chosen? Do other religious officials choose them? Do parents choose them? Is it a personal choice? At what age are these choices made and why? Who is not allowed to be a religious official? Why not? Are there requirements that must be met?
Your officials must have gotten where they are somehow, whether through hard work or chance. If you have a major character who is a religious official, you might want to think about their journey a bit more.
Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay
I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.
The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’
Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.
Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them.
I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts.
No, no, no… Jesus Christ wrote the King James Version in his own blood. God hates gay people, you can’t argue with that. Unless, of course, you’re educated.
The number of interpretations I’ve heard of this one quote is getting ridiculous.
THE NINE CHOIRS OF HEAVEN. An info-graphic for my editorial class and god am I thankful it’s done. Way too much went into this than what I had time for, but hey… I actually kind of like it?
Now excuse me, I must return to my fashion major lifestyle and go sew a coat u_u
EDIT: Re-uploaded with easier viewing!
Beautiful graphic. Gorgeous.
An info-graphic to go along with my Angelic Hierarchies post? Thank goodness!
There’s some disparity. I was always taught the order was supposed to go Seraphim, Cherubim, Ophanim, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, angels.
That was my only gripe. But I can forgive because this was so beautiful.
Just jumping in here because this is one of my favorite things to research in my spare time. c:
From everything I’ve studied, there are at least ten different versions of the Hierarchy, at least in Medieval theology. And some of the groups in each sphere have various names (such as Thrones also being called Ophanim), and there are a few groups that only appear in certain manuscripts and never again (such as Aeons and Hosts in the 1st Century Apostolic Constitutions). A few manuscripts only list seven ranks, and others invert the order of angels completely.
That’s not even looking at the Jewish angelic hierarchy, which is completely different and comprised of ten (I think?) separate ranks of angels. Although I don’t know much on this other than a passing glance; I am not Jewish nor have I studied Judaism in depth.
I can’t speak on what is being taught in Christian groups now, as my family was never that religious. But just like all parts of religion, the Angelic Hierarchy contradicts itself depending on who you reference from, but it seems the above is the commonly accepted order.
I have also seen referenced two different classes of Archangels. One is capitalized and refers to Michael, Gabriel, etc, or those angels who have authority over all angels (which is a whole other matter: some sources refer to four Archangels, some refer to seven, the New Testament only refers to Michael and Gabriel, it all gets very confusing). And the second group is lowercase and simply refers to the 8th angelic rank.
I’ve also seen Satan referred to as belonging to different spheres. Ephesians 6:12 could be interpreted as Satan belonging to Powers, but Thomas Aquinas claims he was a Cherub. Lucifer is generally considered an Archangel (capitalized) or a Seraph, I think, but don’t quote me on that as it is also my UPG (whether or not you consider Satan and Lucifer the same is your own UPG and whole different story entirely, I don’t yet know where I stand on that matter).
But for all I know I could have everything backwards on this, I am not a scholarly source on angels. I just enjoy studying them.
Consider yourselves judged.
This is relevant to your interests.
The apocalypse is something that most scripture devotes at least a little time to. If you’re gonna write a beginning and a middle, might as well scribble together an ending, right?
The book of Revelations is a particularly heated peace of apocalyptic scripture for a few reasons.
First off, many of the predictions are so vague/historically abundant that it’s provided religious “evidence” of the end times’ approach to every generation between John the Apostle (the purported scribe of the book who few now believe to have been the true author) and today. Wars, disease, and celestial twinkles aren’t exactly something the human race has ever had to do without for more than a year or two.
Also, it’s worth noting that the Book of Revelations—all of it—was written specifically as a piece of anti-Roman propaganda. The oft-referenced beast with seven heads, for example, is a thinly veiled reference for the famed seven hills on which Rome was built. Also, any time the New Testament refers to Babylon, they’re talking about Rome. Mean ol’ Rome.
So, specifically, the powers of the Christian heavens are meant to come down, bringing swift justice upon the oppressive (to Christians) Empire. As some of you may know, that didn’t quite happen. And now we’re left with a book that the church could’ve quietly retired from the canon, but instead just repurposed for whichever political opponent of the day was up in their grill.
A whole lot of people are eagerly awaiting good ol’ Jesus riding in on his white horse (literally) while simultaneously appearing as a (literal) lamb, fighting a dragon, a seven-headed beast, and a magic lady riding said beast, and then fighting a long, painful war on the scorched remains of the earth. Suggestions of “are you perhaps familiar with the art of metaphor?” seem to fall on deaf ears.
why do old people read the bible so much
i asked the old guy standing in front of me at the post office and he said “it’s because we’re cramming for finals”
Things that have caused strife, death, and discord in the world throughout time
Things that have also caused strife, death, and discord in the world throughout time
- 'humanitarian interventionism'
- the rise of the nation-state
- economic collapse