𝑪𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒓𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝑰𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒖𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒔.
Rating The Major Early Christian Heresies
(Note: I am leaving out gnosticism and Manicheanism. Gnosticism is a bucket term for too many different beliefs to summarize succinctly; I could do a whole post just rating different gnostic beliefs. And the Manicheans were not even really Christian. It was a totally separate religion that blended Christianity, gnosticism, mithraism, neo-Platonism, and even Buddhism. For the record, the gnostics and the Manicheans are both 10/5 fucking chad heroes of weird esoteric Christian-adjacent religious bullshit.
Note 2: “Where are the Cathars!” “Where are the Bogomils!” I said EARLY Christian heresies. I ain’t here to talk about no johnny-come-latelies.)
Docetism: Jesus was a hologram. Because the world of matter is inherently corrupt, it is inconceivable that Christ ever had a physical form. His apparent “”“body”“” was a phantom, or illusion. This inherently denies the death and resurrection, as there was no body to die or resurrect.
5/5 stars, this is the kind of wet and wild shit I like to see.
Montanism: Super into prophesizing, and they believed that anything revealed to them as a prophesy in the grips of religious ecstasy superceded the word of Christ himself.
3/5 stars: you’re on extremely shaky theological ground here, but I like the potential for shenanigans, and I give them an extra half a star for letting women be bishops.
Adoptionism: Jesus was a normal guy, conceived in the regular way, who God adopted upon seeing that he lived a sinless life. They believed that Jesus only attained his divine status after his adoption.
4/5 stars, because imagine you’re Jesus in this scenario. What a weird day that must have been.
Sabellianism: If you can’t wrap your head around the Trinity at all, this is the heresy for you. Adherents of Sabellianism believed that there was no difference between the ‘persons’ of the Godhead: there is just the one God, who manifests himself at different times and for different purposes in different ways.
3/5 stars because it makes a lot more sense than the canonical interpretation, but it doesn’t whip any ass, you know?
Arianism: This one holds that Christ was created by God, but is not the same as God. It demotes Jesus to being kind of like a lesser deity. This one has really stuck around, it’s cropped up over and over again throughout the centuries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe a version of Arianism.
4/5 stars just for being the last man standing.
Pelagianism: Pelagians rejected the doctrine of Original Sin and the belief in humanity’s inherently sinful nature. Official Catholic doctrine holds that man is doomed to sin, and only by God’s grace can he transcend his total depravity. But the Pelagians believed that you don’t actually need God’s grace or intervention (which includes, you know, Christ’s entire existence and ministry) in order to do God’s will and lead a good life: you can just…choose to be good.
5/5 stars, these sound like really nice people.
Donatism: So if I’m a bishop or whatever, and I administer a sacrament to you (baptism, making you a priest, etc), and then I am subsequently excommunicated, the Donatists believed that my excommunication rendered every sacrament I had ever administered null and void. I’m gonna be honest, I don’t think this one holds water at all, and I bet these people were pretty insufferable. Basically what they’re saying is that in order to serve the church you need to be absolutely pure and without sin: which no one is, except for, apparently, the Donatists themselves.
Marcionism: The god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are two different gods. The god of the old testament they called the Demiurge, and should be understood to be the god of the Jews, who were still due a messiah; and the god of the new testament was the Supreme God, who sent Jesus Christ in order to reveal himself.
5/5 stars. This is Judeo-Christian polytheism and I’m fucking here for it. Plus, after Marcion was done editing everything out of the new testament scriptures that contradicted him, all he was left with were like 10 of Paul’s letters and a highly edited version of the Gospel of Luke. The brass balls on this guy for saying that every other apostle could eat his shit gets this one a whole extra star.
Monophysitism: Christ was not human at all but fully divine. Docetism can be viewed as a kind of Monophysite heresy, but the Monophysites did believe that Christ was physically on Earth. They just didn’t think he had a human nature and believed he was incapable of suffering.
2/5 stars because Christ’s humanity is obviously what actually makes him interesting and his suffering is what makes his sacrifice meaningful. Doctrinally they’re on pretty firm ground though, the early church easily could have broken their way. Emperor Justinian I wanted this to become orthodoxy, but he died before his plans could go into effect.
Apollinarianism: Jesus had a normal human body and a normal human soul, but he was fucking mind controlled to spread the word of God. He had no conscious mind of his own and was born into this world solely in order to serve as a meat-sleeve for the eternal Logos.
5/5 stars. What the fuck. What the fuck.
Woman in purple, in a high pitched, enthusiastic voice: if you’re not at work today or you’re working from home, you may be wondering, whAt day is it?
Man in suit, emotionless and factual: itsmonday
watching steven universe is the polar opposite of eating pussy
literally every kind of tumbler discourse is happening in the notes of this
Here’s a sampler if you don’t want to spend hours scrolling through:
Part of the reason the discourse around Israel feels different this time is because of Jamaal Bowman. He didn’t just beat any regular Democrat in his 2020 primary- he beat Eliot Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) and one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in the House.
Last year, a pro-Palestinian progressive unseated one of the most powerful pro-Israeli members of congress. That hasn’t gone unnoticed, and the subsequent change in leadership at HFAC has real impacts in how the party handles foreign policy.
more examples of tenderness
- “have you ever been in love?” “once.” “how did it end?” “it hasn’t.” (the get down, 2017)
- “I try to be kind to everything I see, and in everything I see, I see him.” (hanya yanagihara)
- when you kiss me, heaven sighs (la vie en rose / edith piaf)
- “the heart is the toughest part of the body. tenderness is in the hands.” (carolyn forché)
- oh, if only I could nestle in the cradle of your cabin, my arms around your shoulders, the windows wide and open (amoreena / elton john)
- “the curtains stir. there you are on the bed, like a gift. like a touchable dream.” (carol ann duffy)
- I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm, your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm (that’s no way to say goodbye / roberta flack)
- “you’re in a car with a beautiful boy, and he won’t tell you that he loves you, but he loves you.” (richard siken)
- love me always, love me always (oscar wilde in a letter to his lover)
- “with you, intimacy colors my voice. even ‘hello’ sounds like ‘come here’.” (warsan shire)
- if I could fly, I’d be coming right back home to you (if I could fly / one direction)
- “do you want to dance?” “I don’t know how.” “me either. do you want to figure it out?” (stranger things, 2016)
Today, private spying has boomed into a renegade, billion-dollar industry, one that is increasingly invading our privacy, profiting from deception and manipulating the news.
Big law firms in New York and London are clamoring for the services of firms like Black Cube, an Israeli company that worked for Harvey Weinstein. Dictators are using private spies as freelance intelligence agents, and off-the-shelf technology is making it easier for them to monitor cellphones and hack emails. Over the past decade, spies for hire have become more emboldened — just as their power to influence events has become more pervasive.
While I was examining the private intelligence business, it became clear that I needed to look at another profession, the one where my career had been spent — journalism. Reporters and private investigators long have had a symbiotic relationship that is hidden from the public. Hired spies feed journalists story tips or documents and use reporters to plant stories benefiting a client without leaving their fingerprints behind.
The information they peddle is often sensational. It can also be impossible to verify or be untrue….
Mr. Simpson loved holding court with reporters, regaling them with war stories and presenting himself as a journalistic wise man. At a conference of investigative journalists in 2016, he said he and Mr. Fritsch had started Fusion to continue their work as reporters who righted wrongs.
“I like to call it journalism for rent,” he said.
Fusion GPS, like its competitors, belonged to a wider web of enablers — lawyers, public relations executives and “crisis management” consultants — who serve the wealthy, the powerful and the controversial. For their part, private intelligence firms take on jobs that others don’t know how to do or don’t want to get caught doing.
Information gathered by private investigators is often laundered through public relations firms, which then shop the material to journalists. Jules Kroll, who created the modern-day private intelligence industry in the 1970s, broke that mold by leaking information directly to reporters. Mr. Simpson took it a step further. He sold Fusion GPS to clients by emphasizing his connections at major media outlets and assured journalists that he was really still one of them.
“People who have never been a reporter don’t understand the challenges of printing what you know, right, because you can’t just say what you know — you have to say how you know, and you have to prove it,” Mr. Simpson remarked at the 2016 conference. “When you’re a spy, you really don’t have to get into a lot of that stuff.”
reading the right book is like seeing a chiropractor
“I learned absolutely nothing, but some minor adjustment was made within me, some imperceptible shift that occurs only when I encounter wonder and awe, the best art.” – Yaa Gyasi
So have you ever been reminded of the sheer possibility of music as an art form to convey the breadth of the human experience by discovering a video of a seven year old Letterman performance because that’s been the mood for this weekend
There’s something so wonderful about that feeling - and it can come from music, visual arts, theater, writing, sports, crafts, cooking, almost anything really - when you realize that you’re witnessing something truly special, that you’re seeing someone’s whole life expressed through a trained and carefully honed practice to create an expression that resonates with something inside you while also being totally and completely unique to that exact person in that exact moment.
And I love how the audience gets it too, not just cheering but yelling, and how Letterman, who’s had almost every major act in American music in the last 30 years on his show, just cannot contain himself, beaming ear to earn and shouting, “I’ll take all of that you got!” And same, honestly.
by Yehuda Amichai
I walked past a house where I lived once:
a man and a woman are still together in the whispers there.
Many years have passed with the quiet hum
of the staircase bulb going on
and off and on again.
The keyholes are like little wounds
where all the blood seeped out. And inside,
people pale as death.
I want to stand once again as I did
holding my first love all night long in the doorway.
When we left at dawn, the house
began to fall apart and since then the city and since then
the whole world.
I want to be filled with longing again
till dark burn marks show on my skin.
I want to be written again
in the Book of Life, to be written every single day
till the writing hand hurts.
“Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife—a sign of interest or support—hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.
The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.
People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t—those who turned away—would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”
These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.”
“Kindness… glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved. “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.
There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.
“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”
no one doing any farming on this commune huh
on my commune if anyone asks what kind of work you want to do and you say “project coordination” you are expelled from the commune
the guy who wanted to farm on the commune got called a larper
I was talking to one of my Very Online lefty friends the other day, who I think doesn’t quite realize how Very Online I am, because he was talking about the whole Leftist Commune discussion and asked me what my job would be. And my response was: “I’ll be the person in charge of accusing people of being liberals and expelling them from the commune. Because from everything I’ve heard, we’re going to be doing a lot of that anyway, so it just makes sense to have one person take the lead on that to make the process as efficient as possible. And if I’m given that responsibility, I promise that after I expel every single other person on the commune for being a liberal, I will expel myself for being a liberal, so that we can wrap up the whole project up.”
Still think that’s one of the better answers that I’ve seen tbh!
It was the face of a spy branded by his own deception. […] We smile, but our withholding makes our smile false. When we are exhilarated, or drunk – or even, as I am told, make love – the reserve does not dissolve, the gyroscope stays vertical, the monitory voice reminds us of our calling. Until gradually our very withholding becomes so strident it is almost a security risk by itself. So that today – if I go to a reunion, say, or we have a Sarratt old-boys’ night – I can actually look round the room and see how the secret stain has come out in every one of us. I see the overbright face or the underlit one, but inside each I see the remnants of a life withheld. I hear the hoot of supposedly abandoned laughter and I don’t have to mark down the source of it to know that nothing has been abandoned – not its owner, nor its interior restrictions, nothing.
The Secret Pilgrim, John le Carré