corrupt church

hey so i know i dont usually post about romanian things but i need to say this

so last night (yes, in the middle of the fucking night, like the filthy thieves they are) the romanian government passed a law that, basically, makes corruption legal (if its under 45k euros, which is a LOT) AND they’re going to let all the (few) people who (they barely) arrested for this out of prison… 

i know this isnt as important to america as trump, but this is HUGE to us. there were (as far as i know) 90 thousand people protesting last night (the last time there were protests this big was in 1989 when communism fell, just to give you a perspective) and there are going to be even more today

this country has had problems with corruption since the dawn of time but i dont reckon it ever being made LEGAL. i just figured id bring some awareness to this…

here and here are two sources

Love and Faith

pairing: Rollo x Reader

fandom: vikings

@nekodemon73 @kumpmk @is-that-not-something @un-education @bookswillfindyouaway

Love and faith can be fickle things and in both you didn’t believe. Your lack of trust in them however didn’t stop them from finding you in their own time.

 As a princess, even of a small kingdom you had been doomed to marry out of political reason not love. Never that. If you were lucky you’d have a husband who wasn’t a complete fool but over the years even that hope had been crushed repeatedly by the visits of your fathers guests. There wasn’t one who was suitable in any way yet you had no doubt your father would sell you away if he got an advantage out of it. 

As for faith… Corrupt members of the church, violence and money. That was all you had seen from the holy church in a long time. How could anyone have faith in them and their god? 

Keep reading

In Defense of Sam Carne

I originally posted this analysis on Facebook since it’s not Poldark Costuming Project related, but I think it’s something people on Tumblr could like, so here it is. There’s some vague Spoilers but moreso for the books: 

A lot of the people who criticize Sam Carne as a “annoying evangelist” are missing the point in ALL versions of the story. Our modern ideas about religion and atheism really need to be set aside to understand what Winston Graham was doing here. The new season’s changes so far have kept Sam’s character as a man of deep faith. Graham was setting up another one of his parallel plot with Sam Carne. He is to church corruption and inequality is what Ross is to political/economic corruption.

The Anglican Church at this time in history was a dumping ground for the second and third sons of the gentry who couldn’t inherit the estate. You had to have education in order to even be CONSIDERED for a position in the Church. And church vacancies were purchased from politicians. A devout man without the means for paying for training was already out of contention. Remember, there’s no such thing as free education or scholarships for poor students with merit. The result of this system was that it echoed political corruption. These men didn’t have true religious devotion. For every Canon Sidney Chambers (yes this is a Grantchester reference) and Reverend Odgers who took their faith and their jobs at least somewhat seriously, there were 25 Reverend Whitworth’s. The Church gave them prestige, paycheck and free rent. Although Whitworth is an extreme, there were very many hypocrites like him. And the church pews were filled with people like George Warleggan, who is clearly too greedy as hell to be a good “Christian”. These Church leaders treated the poor with contempt and didn’t attempt to build community and faith. Many were committing a wide varsity of sins undercover and yet going to the pulpit every Sunday. 

The Methodist movement rejected Anglican hierarchy and focused on one’s relationship with God. Preachers consisted of ordinary people like Sam Carne who truly tried to live life according to the Bible. The Methodist message of equality of faith regardless of income level was highly appealing to the miners. Yes there was an emphasis on evangelism, but the bigger point is that the Methodists weren’t treating the poor one way and the rich another. No one was getting rich off having a Methodist leadership position. The people in charge were working for their fellow man and not out for worldly profit. The movement had a huge impact on the history of Cornwall, which Sam Carne represents. 

Although the new series has switched the timeline of events, Ross’ transition from being a rebel against the system to to a political figure who wants reform is quite similar to Sam’s situation. The magistrate position he turned down in the last episode was used to abuse the poor. Magistrates often gave the poor very harsh sentences for minor offenses or sentences of transportation of the colonies. Jim Carter all the way back in Season 1 is a great example of this. He was essentially jailed because he stole a food item for people who were going hungry. The justice system essentially blamed the poor for poverty or the results of poverty. Ross on the other hand most likely got off on his charges because he was a man of importance. There were also cases of rich people bribing judges for favorable outcomes. The members of Parliament at the time only represented the rich landlords since the common people couldn’t vote. Many people brought their seats or rigged elections. Think back to Unwin Trevaunance’s election in Season 2. For the book readers, you can also think about what George does to pursue more political power. The French Revolution and the growing abolitionist movement highlighted the massive gap between the haves and the have nots in England. Just as how the Anglican Church treated people unequally based on how much cash they had, the government did the same. 

There will be more developments this season with Sam Carne, but I do expect that we will see him as more than a “bible thumper”. He’s staging a rebellion against classism in religion and hypocrisy. 

in The White Princess, the only characters for whom religion is a significant part of their characterization are bad people.

The Cardinal is a bad advisor and refuses to help the poor and sick. Every time he gives advice to someone he ends it with “Give all your money to the Church,” Trust me, Catholics also advise prayer and other stuff (fasting for example) for the sake of your soul. But even the money thing is completely out of touch with the reality of 15th century England. Yes, there were abuses, but most of the time, money that went to religious institutions was put to use in the community in positive ways. Yet, when Margaret goes on pilgrimage with Prince Henry, we’re meant to see the money she gives to monasteries as a bad thing! This is absurd. Among other things, monasteries took care of poor people, copied books, preserved knowledge, and helped to develop economic communities!

How can you present a portrayal of a religion, a still existing religion I might add, in such a caricatural, negative, and anachronistic way!? Catholicism is not the worst thing that happened to medieval Europe. Someone can be a hypocrite without being Catholic. Someone can be a good person and be a Catholic. Religious devotion does not make one a terrible person.

Put simply, the Borgias, a show about a pope the current Catholic Church is ashamed of, has more Catholic positivity than The White Princess.

Of course, the religious caricature makes Margaret Beaufort look worse. Not only is she bad, but she justifies every terrible thing she does with “God’s will” so she doesn’t feel responsible. I’ll leave aside that this is an anachronistic idiom (the modern concept of “God’s will” didn’t exist back then). In terms of the historical Margaret, the fact that the Catholic faith might have helped her after she birthed her sons at 14 (meaning her husband bedded her when she was 13) is not addressed at all. Something good coming from the Catholics? Not on this show!

The White Princess is Faux-Feminism at it’s Finest-The Fandomentals 

This is such a good discussion to have, in my opinion. I mean there is the tendency anyway in British produced period dramas to demonize Catholics as backwards and oppressed, so this is not a unique problem. In so many dramas from The White Princess to The Tudors they highlight the corruption in the church without showing all the good work it did through out the country. In reality Margaret Beaufort was probably not that more devout than anyone else in her day, perhaps her faith grew stronger as she got older but that was very common and to turn Margaret into this repressed, scheming, zealot is highly offensive I think, to a woman who was very admired and respected during her day and enjoyed a unique position within the court. 

anonymous asked:

Was the Church corrupted back then bc of the indulgences that it was selling to ppl or was there anything else beside this? Thx.

Like with many institutions the church had systemic problems with corruption, there was of course the question whether priests should have personal wealth and property when they were supposed to take a vow of poverty and live humbly.

Then of course there was the custom that you could pay for your loved ones soul to leave Purgatory and get into heaven, and the general rule that questioning the church on any matter was heresy, all of this created an environment that was ripe for criticism and it was only a matter of time before some one would call for a reform. 

Not to say this problem affected every religious house or every religious person in Europe, there were of course many who lived humbly, took vows of poverty and dedicated their lives to helping the poor, but there was enough people who craved more answers about God and the felt the church was corrupt and hypocritical with no moral authority on the divine.

So there were a lot of reasons for wanting reform and they were a long time coming.


February 7th 1497: Bonfire of the Vanities

On this day in 1497 in Florence, thousands of objects including cosmetics, art, carnival masks, and books were burned in a so-called ‘bonfire of the vanities’. The bonfire was orchestrated by the supporters of Dominican priest Girolamo Savonarola, who spoke out against corruption in the Catholic Church and called for Christian renewal. The puritanical Savonarola became a prominent moral and political leader in Florence during the Medici exile, thundering against human wickedness and hedonism, which he framed in apocalyptic terms. Under his direction, street festivals and general frivolities were banned in Florence, and the famous bonfire destroyed objects seen as promoting the sin of vanity in the hope of cleansing the soul. Among Savanarola’s enemies was Pope Alexander VI, and in early 1498 he was arrested by Florentine authorities. The priest and his core supporters were tortured and condemned as heretics; Savanarola was executed on May 23rd 1498 in the Piazza della Signoria.

anonymous asked:

What would you say to christians who claim lgbt christians or people of faith are just "justifying their sin" when it comes to researching the topic of being gay within the bible or Christianity? Something that's kind of been in the back of my mind is, if God is actually affirming of being gay, and it was most definitely intended as much as being straight is, then why do we have to go through so many arguments and research just to prove that, if it's just as okay as being straight??

Hi there. You ask excellent questions – ones I imagine many of us have asked; I know I have. I will divide this post into two – first, I’ll talk about how to avoid using the Bible to justify our own viewpoints (good for people on any side of the LGBT debate); second, I’ll address your question about why we seem to need to do so much research to prove God affirms us as LGBT people. 

1. Justifying sin or justifying oppression: how do we read the Bible without misusing it for our own ends?

A rather old post I once wrote discusses the claim many anti-affirming Christians make that we are just “reading into” the Bible what we want to see, so check that out.

I would add to that older post that technically, we all are in danger of bringing our own biases and ideas of how things should be into our biblical interpretation. People on all sides of this debate (or any debate) can easily go to the Bible seeking not God’s truth but merely confirmation of their own side – see how Shirley Guthrie puts it here.

The chapter “Who Is a Theologian?” of Shirley Guthrie’s Christian Doctrine lays out advice for how to read the Bible “rightly” rather than using it just as confirmation of our own biases. The following bullet points regarding how to minimize our biases and make a faithful interpretation are based largely on what Guthrie says in that chapter.

  • Patient and prayerful reflection, as well as research, are necessary to reading the Bible “rightly”. We should not isolate ourselves when studying scripture, as if we are the first person to ask a certain question of it; rather, we should pray for the Spirit’s guidance and study the interpretations of faithful Christians (note that it is all right to question any Christian’s interpretations, but do not immediately discount them without giving them thought first).
  • Recognize that scripture should be interpreted in the light of its own purpose – that purpose being to teach us who God is and how we may live faithfully. The Bible is not meant to be read like a science or history textbook.
  • Take things like the humanity of the biblical writers and context into account while reading. “Context” includes the literary, historical, and cultural context of the peoples who wrote the Bible as well as our own cultural context and what we bring from it into our reading.
  • Recognize that single verses or passages on an issue are rarely the Bible’s only message about that issue (it is a big book, after all, and written by multiple people). When looking at one passage that seems to speak for or against your viewpoint, make sure to consider other passages related to the issue that offer a fuller understanding of the broader biblical message as well.
  • View all aspects of scripture through the lens of Jesus’s ministry as recorded in the Gospels – seeing Jesus as the clearest revelation of who God is and what God wills is termed the “christological principle.” When there are biblical passages that seem to conflict with each other, the “final say” should go to what Jesus’s words and actions seem to point to.
  • Follow the “rule of love” – an interpretation should agree with the fact that “the fundamental expression of God’s will is the twofold commandment to love God and neighbor. Any interpretation of scripture is wrong that shows indifference or contempt for any individual or group inside or outside the church. All right interpretations reflect the love of God and the love of God’s people for all kinds of people everywhere, everyone included and no one excluded.”

I hope all that helps you prepare to read the Bible in regards to LGBT issues (and any issue) in a prayerful manner that seeks not to confirm your own views but God’s truth – something we all should seek to do, even while recognizing that the perspective we bring based on our own experiences and cultural context will be the lens through which we view scripture, and that’s okay. Finding a balance is what is key. 

2. If being gay is as natural and God-affirmed as being straight, why do we need to work so hard to prove it?

The simple answer to this question: because for millennia, a relationship between a (cis) man and a (cis) woman has been held up as the norm by the human cultures that have propagated scripture. Because they are the norm, they do not need to prove themselves “right” – meanwhile, because same-sex relationships are not viewed as the norm, but rather are viewed as “other,” we are compelled to prove ourselves in order to justify our identities and relationships. 

This has been the case for various marginalized peoples: groups that are considered “other” have to prove they are not unnatural or “wrong”; groups that have been traditionally oppressed are compelled to prove they have a right not to be oppressed. For instance:

  • When slaveholding was the norm, verses that seem to support the institution of slavery (such as x, x, x) were held up without question, while those that are not so supportive of slavery (such as x, x, x, x) were ignored.
  • Because so many verses (such as x, x, x, x) promote the submission of women, the Bible has been used to justify women’s oppression and inequality in our societies. (And again, verses and stories that show how women are uplifted and empowered by God, such as x and x, tend to be ignored by those who benefit from the patriarchal structure.) See this post for more on how the Bible empowers women despite anti-woman verses. 

The way the above examples are usually explained involves context – slavery and sexism are upheld by some verses of the Bible because they were written by human beings seeing the world from the lens of a specific culture. Yet when the argument of cultural/historical context is brought up regarding anti-gay verses, many Christians dismiss it.

In our current era, I would dare say that most Christians accept looking at pro-slavery verses in their cultural context rather than insisting that we should think God is “okay” with slavery. Many Christians are also coming to accept that women are equal to men and deserve the same opportunities in the church. Yet a couple centuries ago, most Christians probably agreed with slavery and the submission of women – did the words of the Bible change? Did God’s truth or God’s will change? No: social norms are what have shifted. And I have a lot of hope that as this century unfolds, the normalizing of LGBT+ people and relationships will help our stance in the eyes of the church, making Christians more ready to accept arguments of context for LGBT+ issues just as they do with slavery and sexism.

Ideally, the prejudices of outside culture would not influence mindsets within the church – but as things are, too often the church does conform to the world, and logically so. Just because our society – and, by its influence, the church – is heteronormative does not mean that God affirms that structure or condemns those who do not fit into that norm. After all, racism and sexism, systematic oppression and poverty, are also parts of our social structure – and too often our church structures too – even though most of us today would agree that these things are not God affirmed at all. The church can promote or support an idea or a value without it meaning that God supports it too. As a human institution, the church faces corruption – largely when it allows influences from the broader culture to affect its values and structures.

I know this is a lot of information to take in, and that it is not as well articulated as I would like, but I hope that it is at least a good start. If people would like to engage this post in respectful dialogue, feel free to do so! Adding more on to my response would be much appreciated. 

May the Holy Spirit’s transformative power work always within our society and within our churches, shaping us to God’s will. Amen. 


Warrior Culture : Priest

Elite Warriors of the Church, the Priests were an order of Sacred Warriors that specialized in Vampire hunting. The Priest order recruits both males and females into their ranks, and mark them with a distinctive Cross Tattoo on their face. Priests are deeply spiritual and believe that their gifts are granted to them by God, they use this piety and focus, along with various weaponized holy symbols, to defeat their faster, stronger Vampire opponents.

Humanity eventually won the war against the Vampires largely due to Priest involvement, but the war devastated the surface and allowed for the now corrupted Church to establish a theocracy. Utilizing religious dogma the Church kept the populace in line using slogans like “faith, work, security,” and “to go against the church is to go against God,” forever reminding the world of their indebtedness to the Church for their salvation. With the war now over the Church had no real need for the near super-soldier vampire hunter’s services and disbanded the order; separating them to prevent them from becoming agitators against the church.

The Priests were further degraded inspite their War Hero Status, by being stripped of all church authority and relegated to generally menial tasks.

anonymous asked:

"Just a tip: do yourself a favour and don’t read the comments. You don’t deserve a massive headache and multiple facepalms" Or how about this? Instead of ignoring the glaring vividly open fascism and brainwashed bullshit spurred from your compatriots, you address it, challenge them, debate, fight and criticise them? This fascism didn't come from nowhere the seeds have been long rooted in your society; in your propagandist far right media & newspapers, TV, corrupt priests, church, schools etc.

Maybe I do.
You know, in real life, not on the Internet. I try at least have a discussion with them and persuade them that you cannot be a fascist asshole to entire religion/nation/etc. because of some morons of said religion/nation/etc.
Should I document them for you believe me? Or should I just “try harder”?