atheist characters~*~*~~

hey do u ever think about the fact that the 4/5 of the gang was thrown into the brig for various sins (lust, wrath, gluttony) against their will but mac, who’s always been the most aggressively self-flagellating and ardently religious, just walked right in. he strolled in saying ‘well, i’m gay’ for the very first time in his nearly 40 years of living, into a space which arguably exists as a metaphor for hell (given physical location of the brig as well as nature of the ship and recurring themes of the gang goes to hell episodes) and he did it without a care! after so many years of self-hatred and repression the first time he says ‘i’m gay’ out loud is nonchalant and relaxed! he just wanted to hang! and that’s enough to outweigh the years of religious anxiety he’s kept inside himself! and however temporary it is this is SUCH an important character development for mac because while the arguably atheist gang gets thrown into hell against their will, for a brief, blissful moment, mac is so contented with being himself that he willingly walks into hell because he’s not afraid anymore and anyways yeah i think about that a lot

Politeness and Good Manners

The Prophet (pbuh) showed good manners and was courteous to all, even to children. Once when the Prophet was in a gathering, a drink was brought to the Prophet (pbuh) and he drank from it. On his right side there was a young boy and on his left side were elderly men. Feeling obliged by the respect of elders, and not wanting to hurt the feelings of the child, he asked the young boy:

“Do you mind if I give the drink to them?’ The young boy said: ‘O Prophet of God! By God! I would not prefer anyone to drink from the place you drank. This is my fair share.’ The Messenger of God (pbuh) handed the boy the drink." (Bukhari #2319)
Erasure of Jewish Identity and Culture in Marvel

(Not including X-Men films: I’m not up to discussing the tragedy of the X-Men movies and the complete erasure of all Jewish characters besides Magneto, the villain, today.)

Honestly, as a Jewish person in America this ongoing erasure of Jewish identity and culture Marvel is committing doesn’t even surprise me. This sort of subtle anti-Semitism that Marvel is participating in is par for the course. The erasure of Jewish identity and culture is so common most people don’t even pause to consider it, and if they do they don’t consider it anti-Semitic. After all, they don’t hate Jews, they don’t insult Jews, they don’t attack Jews, they don’t think Jews are bad or evil, so OF COURSE it isn’t anti-Semitism if you just pretend that Jews don’t exist and destroy Jewish character’s identities. It’s just a change of backstory, after all!

The erasure of Jewish characters and the destruction of characters created by Jews is not a change of backstory, Marvel, it is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is defined as hostility, prejudice or discrimination against Jews. By erasing Jewish characters you are discriminating, or participating in unjust treatment, against them on account of their religion. By ignoring the huge contributions of Jewish writers and artists who gave life to so many comics characters you are being prejudiced. Your hostility, or unfriendliness and opposition, to the inclusion of Jewish characters and the defamation of characters created as allegories by Jews are anti-Semitism, Marvel.

Ignoring, or ret-conning, the fact that Wanda and Pietro Maximoff are ethnically half Jewish and Roma, and always have been, is anti-Semitic and racist. Their heritage may not have played a significant plot point, but it certainly influenced their decisions and motivations. Turning Jewish-Roma Wanda and Pietro Maximoff into volunteers for the fascist-Hydra organization headed by von Strucker, a Nazi, to conduct illegal medical experiments on, is wrong.

Turning Steve Rogers, who has always stood as an allegorical shield for the Jewish people against the Nazi’s and fascism in general, into a fascist Hydra member, is disgusting. Turning Steve Rogers’ who served as Erskine’s (a Jewish scientist’s) golem, his creation and stand-in, to defeat the Nazi’s into a member of Hydra, is revolting.

Fun fact: Captain America’s iconic shield is an allegory in and of itself. What in English is called the Jewish Star or Star of David, one of the most recognizable Jewish symbols in the world, is in Hebrew called the Magen David (Yiddish the Mogein Dovid) which translates to the Shield of David. Steve’s shield with the star on it, used to protect him as he fought Hitler and the Nazi’s in the early comics, was an allegory to a powerful and well known Jewish symbol that the Nazi’s were corrupting. It was a ‘spit in your eye, fuck you’ to the Nazi’s and Jack Kirby and Joe Simon knew that their Jewish readers, desperate for news that the Nazi’s would be stopped and their families were safe, would recognize it.

I’ve seen comments on the Jewish actors in the MCU not being allowed to play Jewish characters. I feel that if in canon the characters are actively shown not to be Jewish, or it’s heavily implied at least, then it’s appropriate for the Jewish actors to portray that character as Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist, or whatever that character religiously identifies as. However, for a character like Darcy Lewis, who is not a canon character in the comics at all, how hard would it be to have her say a throwaway line about her Bat Mitzvah? Or to have Jane Foster (whose religion is never mentioned in the comics) mention her Bubbe (grandmother) in a ‘my Bubbe always said’ way?

I have to wonder what would happen if Marvel suddenly decided that Sam Wilson wasn’t black? What if they thought Wakanda would be better served as a European nation? What if Kamala Khan was found to support a fascist regime? Why is it okay to erase and ignore Jews as both characters and creators? Why are Marvel’s actions not being called out as the anti-Semitism it is?

It doesn’t matter what reason Marvel gives for their choice to make Steve Rogers’ a fascist, a Nazi. It doesn’t matter if it’s a plot twist, a time-change, a clone, a triple agent or a cry for attention. Marvel has taken a character that has stood for freedom and doing the right thing, a hero and a symbol of hope not only to Jews but to people around the world that there are people who have the courage to fight back against oppression, and they have destroyed him. They can never take this back, there is no ‘oops’ here. Even if they retcon this arc in the future, like they did with William Burnside, they have destroyed the legacy of Captain America.

Wasn’t it enough to erase Wanda and Pietro Maximoff’s past? Why do you have to ruin Captain America too?

Jack Kirby and Joe Simon received death threats for creating Steve Rogers, Captain America, in a time when many Americans were either Nazi sympathizers or content to keep their head in the sand. It was a time when Jewish families checked their mailboxes every day praying for a letter from their parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins still in Europe. It was a time when the US turned away boatloads of Jewish refugees fleeing Europe.  It was a time when the Third Reich steadily gained more and more land and more and more power, and while many European nations fought back against the rise of fascism the US refused to involve itself in Europe’s war despite knowing the threat Hitler posed. Kirby and Simon were surrounded by this environment of fear, because no one knew what was truly happening in Europe, but knew they had to do something about it. It is an insult to the memories of Jack Kirby and Joe Simon.  It is morally repugnant to make Captain America into a Nazi.

Marvel has erased Jewish identities of characters in both the comics and the films. That was bad enough. But now? Marvel has taken a hero I love, and have loved since I was a child, and perverted it. They have taken Captain America and twisted him around into a parody of all that he has ever stood for. They have taken a character that was literally created by two Jews to stand against the Nazi’s and say ‘screw you’ to Hitler for all the Jews who couldn’t, and made him into a Nazi. As a Jew and a fan of comics for most of my life I feel like I have been spat on and kicked while I’m down. 

Dear fellow white Christian writers,

Some of you have followed the discussion on #ownvoices: the focus on having writers who are part of marginalized groups telling the stories of characters from those groups. That the story will be inherently truer if the author has lived that experience. And that supporting marginalized authors is vital.

Some have pushed back against this idea.

“It doesn’t matter who writes a story.”
“Telling me what I can and can’t write is censorship.”
“We’re all part of the human experience.”

I want to offer some context for perhaps thinking about #ownvoices in a new way. Analogies are never perfect and can easily backfire, but hopefully this will be a beneficial exercise.

Despite the fact that 70% of the US identifies as Christian, no where near that percentage of book, TV, or movie characters are explicitly Christian. Of the ones that do call out their Christianity, they often fall into one of three categories:

1. Hypocrites who judge everyone and yet secretly are the worst sinners
2. Brainwashed chumps
3. Hateful bigots

This can make us feel a little sick to our stomachs. We think, is this how non-Christians see us? But this isn’t me. This isn’t my family and friends. We’re way more complicated than these offensive stereotypes.

Since this has been our experience for years, how much confidence do we have in, say, a life-long atheist writing a book from the POV of a Christian character? Maybe they will get it right. Maybe the fact that they personally are and always have been atheist doesn’t affect their ability to explore a Christian character in an open-hearted, respectful way. Odds are they know a lot of Christians personally, and maybe they have studied Christianity and have a favorable view of it even if they don’t believe.

But do we feel confident that they could tell that story right? Have felt what we have felt as a Christian?

Take it further: imagine Christians aren’t the majority in this country. Imagine we grew up as one of the only Christians in school. That there’s never been a Christian president or governor or even mayor of your hometown. That Christian holidays fall on school days and work days with no time off. Imagine your kid is the only Christian most of their friends have ever met. Now imagine that the only books with Christian characters your child’s schoolmates have ever read are ones written by atheists. And some get it right, and some really don’t. Get facts wrong. Basics wrong. Tone wrong. Not only don’t get at all the intricacies of personal faith but fall into hurtful stereotypes, perhaps without even meaning to. That when the schoolmates look at your child, they see the stereotype they read in books.

Imagine that there are Christian writers, but they can’t sell their books. Non-Christian writers are seen as being more marketable, more universal, so more and more atheists write stories about what it means to be Christian, and Christian writers are overlooked.

Further. Imagine that this country has a long and troubled history of hatred toward Christians, of stripping us of our humanity. Of enslaving Christians. Of legal execution based solely on religion. Of putting Christians into institutions or trying to electrocute the religion out of us. Imagine that even today, millions of people in our country and prominent, powerful leaders actively campaign to keep us and other Christians from having the same civil rights as non-Christians. Imagine that important people on television and in government regularly claim that Christians are inherently more violent than non-Christians, that they believe dangerous things and are all potential murderers, terrorists, rapists. Imagine that nearly every day someone murders a Christian in this country not because of what they did but because of what they believe. Imagine that every morning when you send your child to school, you fear for their life.

Would that affect how we feel about trusting non-Christian authors to write books about us? Understand our complexities? Would we in those circumstances be more likely to champion #ownvoices?

But while I hope our personal experiences can help us empathize with marginalized people, we can never truly understand. In the US, Christianity is the vast majority belief system. Christmas is a national holiday. We pledge allegiance to “one nation under God.” In this country, we are the Default. White, Christian (bonus if also cishet able-bodied…), we are the default character in every movie, every book. Even if the story doesn’t specify “active Christian,” because we are the default it is assumed unless the narrative reveals actually Jewish! or atheist! or Buddhist, etc. We don’t have the experience of constantly being the Other. While I have (and odds are, so have you) experienced bigotry based on my religion many times, it’s simply not the same as the systemic racism and bigotry that people from marginalized groups face every day. Of living in a country where you are Other.

Please know that I’m not telling you what to write. No one can. There’s no divinely appointed committee somewhere that can grant or take away permission to write anything.

I personally have created characters from marginalized groups to which I don’t belong because this world is diverse, and even in fiction (especially?) I want to tell the truth. (While I have had diverse characters in my stories, I haven’t actually tried to write a diverse character’s story, if that distinction makes sense.) Writing the Other is more time consuming and harder in every way, but I’ve tried because I felt it was important to the story and just in general. I’ve made mistakes, and getting called out on those mistakes is a gift that helps me get better. What I’ve learned: approach this with love, respect, and empathy. And listen, listen, listen. Read books by #ownvoices authors. And ask myself, am I the right person to tell this character’s story? And am I doing enough to support marginalized writers and lift up their voices?

As Christians, we believe in the first great commandment: love one another, even as Jesus has loved us. Defensiveness is not one of the fruits of the Spirit. We instead try to be teachable, humble, non-judgmental. I’m so imperfect, but that’s where I try to start.

anonymous asked:

Is it bad that I'm not really into those "God Movies" (like Gods Not Dead)? I mean, I agree with the fundamentals of it I guess but i always felt that my beliefs were being marketed to me and it never really appealed to me much. I'm afraid to sound like some heretic for not liking it, and that goes for some Christian music too (i.e the pop rocky kind of stuff I always hear) sorrynits not really LGBT+ related, but I'd yet to hear another opinion of this.

Hey there! Honestly, I have never liked these movies either! The vast majority of them are poorly written and poorly executed with overly simplistic plots and characters. On an artistic level alone I find them to be hollow and made solely so that churches can take buses full of young people to the movies. And yes, many people around me were ardent fans of these films and took my disinterest and ultimately opposition to them as an indication of a ~ spiritual problem ~.

Apart from their quality, I also find them to be theologically flawed as well, often depicting a world in which those who are “saved” are immediately freed from their central problem or struggle, whatever that may be. They dishonestly depict the reality of the real world both theologically and in the characters: all atheists are bad, all Christians are good, and every institution outside of the church is out to destroy Christianity. These movies tend to paint Christians in the USA as a persecuted group when we are very much the privileged religion here, and thus these movies often also perpetuate harmful theologies that lead to prejudice, islamophobia, and oppression. 

The same goes for a lot of contemporary Christian music. From what I have heard, they seem shallow and insincere and contrived, built from a place of “God fixes everything if you just do your due diligence and pray.”

There are some outliers in both movies and music. Woodlawn is by far the best “Christian movie” I have ever seen, in part because it is based on historical events surrounding desegregation and does not shy away from the ugliness in people’s hearts.

A good “Christian” movie or musical group would allow space for doubt, for anger, for humanness rather than being “whitewashed tombs” of generalization, misinformation, and intolerance.

Here is a link that further breaks down why these movies are often just a no-go.

Brandon Sanderson is praised (and rightfully) often enough for his unique magic systems, worldbuilding and unpredictable plot turns but I would like to mark a few other things that I really love about his writing:

  • His way to show evil. The worst person in the Mistborn is not the Lord Ruler, not even Ruin - it’s Straff Venture. The worst characters in SA are not the voidbringers or even Odium - it’s Sadeas and Amaram. Denth and vindictive Bluefingers are the vice in Warbreaker. The most vicious antagonists in Elantris are Dilaf, king Iadon and Fjordell religious extremism, not some grand and mysterious magic forse.  The lesson is - people and their selfish ambitions are an evil enough one doesn’t even have to invent some wanton force of doom to raise the stakes.
  • Respecting young people. Vin and Elend are about two times younger than most of the crue members but noone does ever seriously question their abilities based on their age. Spook is even younger than Vin yet he is trusted with basically delivering a whole city to the emperor (not to even mention what he’s trusted with at the very end of the trilogy). Kaladin and Adolin are both shown to possess high authority among their subordinates, both started leading people into battles at a pretty young age. Shallan is trusted with saving her family (which consists of four her older brothers) based entirely on her intelligence and unque skills. Basically most of the main protagonists of his other books (Raoden, Sarene, Shai, Vivenna, Siri, Marasi) are young, clever and capable, entrusted with leading, fighting and generally saving the day.
  • I’m an atheist, Brandon Sanderson is a mormon and I absolutely love the way he manages matters of faith! He has main characters who are atheists and remain exactly that instead of being used by the author to make a point. He has characters who are overly religious (even fanatical) or misinterpret the religion’s postulates or downright utilize it for their own purposes and it is shown in a strikingly realistic way. He doesn’t shy from showing all sides of a religious movement, doesn’t hesitate to point out flaws in a particular religion or in devoutness in general. And he has ways to show what a truly pious person should be like.
  • Having a lot of main characters who are scholars or researchers of some sorts: Sazed, Tindwyl, Elend, Kaladin, Shallan, Jasnah, Navani, Vasher, Raoden, Sarene. They do all have some good intellectual abilities in various fields of knowledge and skills: political theory, history, religion, surgery, science, etc. They don’t just happen to be ‘chosen‘ - they actually have proper educational background to do the work they do.
  • Humour. Lots and lots of humour: it can be elegant and sharp, naive and adorable, sassy and dark, inappropriate and silly - but it is always really funny.

anonymous asked:

I went through your blog and actually thought it was cool but then I saw the post about the religion thing and just wow? Your a dick and hiding behind a character isn't an excuse to be one like your basically saying it would be ok if you said, for example, the n word but it's ok, right? Because it's not suppose to be taken seriously because the "character" said it? Seriously how hard is it to just put "witness" at the end and not be an asshole who thinks they're entitled to be one?


Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hello, if it's alright, are you familiar with Tenko's backstory? I heard a lot of different sources and I don't know what's canon or not.

I’m not sure if you’ll like the answer because Chabashira’s backstory is kinda dumb, as it’s mostly about her blindly believing what we see as obvious lies because ideas were planted into her head since a very young age. I mean, that parallels the story’s main themes, so I can see clearly why it’s there, but things could be better handled.

Anyways, Chabashira’s backstory. Kid Chabashira was a little bit too hyperactive (volcano level, as her parents put it) and this got to a point where her parents really weren’t able to handle her anymore. Without knowing what else they could, the parents just sent her to live in a Buddhist temple so the religious discipline could make her calm down (ironically, she is the most vocally atheistic character in the game).

The temple was also ineffective in calming kid Chabashira down, so the abbot (an abbot is the chief monk in a Buddhist temple) decided to tell her they would create a new a martial art together in an attempt to keep her under control. That’s how Neo Aikido was born. Unlike regular aikido, Neo Aikido has no formal practice and all of its training consists completely in just actual combat. We can easily deduce that that’s because the abbot has no real aikido experience and is just making stuff up to channel a child’s excessive energy into something constructive, but Chabashira really believes in everything her master taught her no questions asked.

With that, Chabashira’s dream became taking Neo Aikido to its limits and turning it into an official national sport. The abbot used that dream to keep her in line by telling her that her aikido powers would weaken if she did stuff like eating more than 3 sweets a day, touching boys or not cleaning her room, etc. The “touching boys” part was kind of a mistake on the abbot’s part because it caused her to see men as a strong threat to her dream of taking Neo Aikido to its limits, so she started thinking of them only as obstacles to that dream and grew very resentful (yes, that is The Reason ™. I told it was not that good).

Now here’s my favorite part and something I really looking forward to seeing fanart of: another thing the abbot did to kid Chabashira was taking her to the city with both of them dressed as superheroes, mask and everything. And they still do that even at her current age. As superheroes, they do superhero stuff, like helping old ladies carry their grocery bags, helping kids cross the street, cleaning up litter and cheering up heartbroken people. She also casually mentions one time the two heroes actually caught a shoplifter and other time they beat the shit out of a rapist, but she doesn’t go into any further details about any of those cases. That’s basically all about her backstory. 

Character Development Questions #3
  1. How does/would your character react to unwanted sexual advances?
  2. Which does your character value more: loyalty or morality?
  3. Is your character religious? If so, do they follow the (or one of the) major religion(s) of their culture, or a different one? If not, are they more of an atheist, agnostic, or spiritualist (or none of the above)?
  4. Does your character believe in ghosts? (Also, do ghosts actually exist in their world?)
  5. Your character believes something that is at odds with what the rest of their family and/or friends believe. Do they talk about it with them?  If so, how do they approach the subject?
  6. What do you think is your character’s best and worst trait? What do they think is their best and worst trait?
  7. Is your character the type of person to correct someone’s grammar when they’re speaking? Conversely, how would they react to someone correcting their improper grammar?
  8. How does your character feel about the concept of virginity? How does their culture feel about it?
  9. Does your character prefer living alone, or with family, friends/roommates, significant other(s), etc.?
  10. Your character is handed a Rubik’s Cube. Do they try to solve it?  Can they? If so, how quickly?
  11. Just for Fun: Your character just got tickets to their favorite comic/anime/etc. convention! Who do they cosplay?

“Reasons why Lucifer is a victim” WARNINGS: this must be read in a philosophical way, not religious one. As I’m an atheist, I’m treating this as literature. I love Lucifer’s character as I love Hamlet or Faustus. So don’t call me Satanist or whatever =___= This is purely for intellectual delight. The dualistic battle between “good” and “evil” does not start with monotheistic religions. We can see that evil figures can be found in the Ancient Mesopotamian religion (Nergal), in the Egyptian mythology (Apophis, Set), in the Greco-Roman paganism (Chaos, Erebus, Tartarus, Discordia, Nemesis, Invidia), in the Norse mythology (Hel). The said dichotomy is very common in philosophy, religion, ethics and it was felt in the same way by different people worldwide. While they tried to explain, offer their point of view, or show evil/good in a religious way, everyone would destroy the evil and make the good shine. In a philosophical contest, evil was explained as absence of good, that was its opposite; but some philosopher would argue that both factors (good and evil) were essential to the universe’s unity (like the Taoist Yin, that can’t exist without the Yang and the Yang that can’t be without the Yin). The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus stated that a war comes from opposites, but that this duality is necessary for harmony. He called this “logos” or universal law of the Nature. Later, Spinoza would say that “By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us. By evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good” But what’s “good”? What’s “evil”? From a non-theological point of view, good can be explained as everything we do that does not harm others or ourselves, helping other people or living beings in the ways we can, respecting others, promoting peace and justice; while evil is basically the opposite: harming others (physically or psychologically), disrespect, injustice, inequality, in short, doing something we know it’s bad. Of course, every person has in itself its own way to explain them, following their own ethics, but, in big lines, this is it. Religions included the good/evil discourse and made it its ethical base, but also changing their connotations. To guide people, they would say to believe in Gods/God and be good, because, only in that way, Heaven would have been reached for sure. As we know, religious power had always been strong, along with the imperial one; what I’m trying to say is that their only power was in the people who believed. If there were no believer, every religious system would have fallen, and so their privileges, and they couldn’t let it to happen. So, often, they would brutally kill or force into conversion or to leave the country who didn’t conform. How did the king make his people follow the rules? By laws. How did institutionalized religions make people follow them and so maintain their power? By a God’s laws. Funnly enough, in the past, State and Religion were so much linked (though often in hostility too) that the King, the Emperor or the Pharaoh was considered chosen by God itself, and so, like a God on Earth. It was a vantage both for the ruler and the religious power. Things got harder and stricter when the institutionalised religion forced conversion on the countries they conquered: just think about the pagans (though they were in their own land), the Saxons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or the Native Americans. (By Catholics). Examples of forced conversions can be found in religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Atheism too (though this one is not a religion, of course). It would be too long (I would say, impossible) to talk about how every institutionalized religion had always tried to keep control and power from their birth till now, so I’m going to leave it and reach the main point of my discourse. You will understand why I had to talk about all this before going to the crucial subject. The title was “Reasons why Lucifer is a victim” So now let’s see who Lucifer is and how his figure is portrayed in different religions. “Lucifer” means “the morning star”, “the shining one” (from Latin Lux + Ferre) and we find him first in ancient mythologies (in one of these he attempted to take the Ba'al’s throne, but, since he couldn’t do it, he descended and ruled the underworld.) As the name itself suggests, Lucifer is not a dark, obscure entity; he is something that shines like a star. In ancient and modern connotations, light has always been seen as something positive, something good; while dark as something evil. So Lucifer’s name itself says that he is no evil. - Christianity: in this religion, Lucifer is an angel, I may say, God’s favourite, and becomes “Satan” only after his fall. Why did he rebel? On what? Can an angel rebel? Let’s go with order. After the Creation, God asked the angels to bow to Adam; Lucifer did not, as he was an angel and Adam a human being. For this, he was eternally punished. (Though God is said to be compassionate, merciful, etc) Now, we know that angels have been created with NO free will, unlike human beings; so how did Lucifer “decide” to defy God’s order? The only explanation is that God simply PLANNED it. After the Creation he needed a Hell too (as people have free will and so a possibility to sin) and someone to “inaugurate” it. God created Lucifer in that specific way. After all, God is Omniscient and so he knows the future too. Lucifer was only a valuable, needed piece in his plan. And a victim because of it. Plus, in the Bible (and the Quran too), God explicitly says to bow to him only; bowing to Adam would have been too much for Lucifer, who could only bow to God. When the war started, some angels (always with God previously knowing) fought side by side with their brother Lucifer, but in the end, they were defeated and thrown down from the Heaven. Lucifer, must have felt so betrayed and wronged. He was the way he was and reacted that way ONLY because God created him that way. Also if he didn’t know that. Anyway, he found his newly discover (free will) appealing. Imagine of being a so old angel with no autonomous thoughts and then, suddenly, being awake. Being yourself. Taking decisions. Once he discovered this, he OFFERED (not tempted, but offered), the possibility to decide to Eve. She wanted to grab it too. Who wouldn’t have? (I would have lol). Plus, notice the name of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Ring something? Look at the name carefully. Basically God said it’s a sin to distinguish good from evil and so having a free will. ANYWAY God already knew it would have happened and he wanted it too. But Lucifer is displayed as the bad one and God as the victim and restorer of order and peace. - Islam: in Islam, Lucifer is called Iblīs (there is no consensus for the root the name: it can mean “devil” or “despair”) and is a Jinn (and so created from fire) elevated at an angel state by Allah. This version explains how he could have a free will, unlike the Christian one, as he wasn’t a true angel to begin with. His figure is already much darker than the Christian one. When Allah orders the angels to bow in front of Adam, Iblis says  "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay" and refuses to do so, just like Lucifer. And just like him, he respects God so much, that he does not prostrate before anyone else, than his creator, even if ordered. Iblis then asks to have mercy till the Judgment Day, which Allah grants him. In the meanwhile he would offer people “another way”. A REAL free will. (Because, where is free will in “if you don’t believe in me you’ll suffer for eternity”?) Also here we can notice how Allah already foreseen everything; he also brought a Jinn among angels to do so (as angels do not have free will). - Judaism: here there is “Satan” (which means “the adversary”) and we find references of his previous life as an angel with his brothers Uriel, Raphael, Gabriel and Michael. He is also presented as the being who brought death into the world, but that can’t be as God is the only one who can give life and decide for deaths. It’s simple to observe how it was NECESSARY a negative and opposite figure to God’s one. Lucifer was created with the only intent to make the Hell a place where people like him could follow. And, just as in a political campaign, God portrayed Lucifer in a negative light (when the one who created him this way was only him!). In the end, Lucifer was necessary, as in every religion or mythology there is the famous dichotomy good/evil, so I don’t understand why we should demonize him. A character who bravely decided, started a war to defend his right to think and act the way he wanted to and to not be a puppet. He is both a hero and a victim of a God’s absolutism and tyranny. As Milton wrote in his Paradise Lost (though this is REALLY taken out from context, as Milton was a Puritan): “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven”’

Originally posted by strange-life-strange-world

anonymous asked:

So I have a character who's an atheist and gay but has trouble accepting himself as gay because of left over Catholic guilt. How would someone go about convincing him that being gay is not wrong?

Are you past me, writing about myself?

The easiest, clearest way is to meet other gay people who are clearly not evil. Maybe even to love other gay people. Talking it out may help, but experience trumps words. 

I remember the exact moment I finally said “fuck it” to my self-loathing and guilt. It wasn’t particularly romantic or beautiful: it was the moment I finally met another person as into me as I was into them, moments before we hooked up. Sort of, “This is so obviously a good thing. If the rules say otherwise, the rules are wrong, and I refuse to try to follow them.”

In your story, a lot is going to depend on what sort of social safety net they have, how long they’ve been suffering, whether they are also in denial, and whether the darktime includes any maladaptive behaviours, like chemical addictions, risky behaviors, etc.

~~Mod Scix

Christians have been putting words into the mouth of bible Jesus…ever since they first made up written stories about a bible Jesus…and put written words in his mouth…

Nothing ever written or spoken about bible Jesus…has ever been independently verified…by non-religious-cultists…

…because fictitious characters just cannot speak for themselves…

Character Development Questions Masterpost #1

As promised, here’s a list of all 110 of the character questions so far!  This is a pretty massive post so it’s going in a read-more.

For anyone who hasn’t seen the individual posts: these may not be the best starting point for making a new character from scratch, but they might be helpful for more fully fleshing out an existing character you have! Each set consists of 10 (generally) serious questions followed by a more fun, silly one.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

can you explain a little more the Luthor as Satan thing you mentione sometimes?

narratively, if you look at bvs, clark, bruce, and lex can slip into the roles of god, man, and the devil quite well. lex operates and acts in accordance to this role. 

the devil creates conflict between man and God - causing man to question the very divinity, the goodness, and the judgment OF God. which is… literally what lex does in bvs.

the devil provides man with the tools for his destruction and disobedience of god; lex luthor spreads discord where there once was acceptance. lex literally provides bruce, the embittered man who has lost his way, the tools for his destruction through kryptonite.

his goal is to create doubt and uncertainty in the almighty, to exacerbate the suspicion and distrust in the hearts of men. lex orchestrates the africa scheme and the bombing, creating doubt and uncertainty. lex manipulates o’keefe and bruce, exacerbates their hostility towards superman.

he makes himself so important by being the one casting down superman and yet ironically, holding superman up as God.

in this context, Man was only ever an ephemeral pawn in the game played between God and Satan.

it’s obvious that in lex’s perspective he feels like he’s doing mankind a great service. he’s not LITERALLY Satan lmao, he’s a very flawed, very fascinating human character. it’s in the allegorical prometheus speech. he believes himself prometheus (who is still! not human!), saving man from a haughty, vengeful god. but in doing so, he is punished.

he even says it to clark’s face, that he’s doing all this to show humankind how superman is a fraud. lex as a general character is supposed to be the pinnacle of human progress — self-made through hard work and human intellect. next to superman, he’s minimized. his achievement is minimized, all of human progress is meaningless.

so he wants to be the HUMAN hero destroying this threat to humanity. but the narrative role he continues to don in bvs is the tempter, the trickster, the vengeful, jealous Lucifer who orchestrates conflict between man and god, tears down his one almighty enemy, and reaps the reward.

he even raises his hand in acknowledgement when he mentions “the problem of evil in the world” — it’s really interesting how he seems to shift every so often, from this delusional heroism to self-aware fury and malevolence.

So is there any other type of Atheist characters in movies besides the villains of Christian Dramas and the guy in every supernatural horror movie that says “there’s no such thing as ghosts” before he gets ripped in half?