If there ever were any such micro-ecosystems there, they’re probably thousands of years gone—from a biotic standpoint, there’s not much difference these days between it and any other quasi-urban random valley of tombs you might find in the region.
Yeah, was gonna say that while middens can often be invaluable archeological research sites (as I imagine today’s landfills might be for future archeologists centuries or millennia from now), but “unique microbiome” isn’t really a word most would use to describe them.
Fun fact: lot of places are built on trash. Most of Italy is built on ancient trash. Rome has a whole hill (Testaccio) formed during republican and imperial age by the trashing of amphoras and other pots. It’s 35m high and hosts a very nice public park.
In the Po valley of north Italy the protocol-Etruscan civilization known as “Terramara culture” built their villages on stilts, but the soil grew steadly higher, due to human waste and periodical floods. Once a generation they just raised the huts a little more. These villages formed true mounds of black, fertile soil (due to all the organic waste they basically are gigantic prehistoric compost heaps) that has been used to fertilize all the flood plain.
Ditto for ancient graveyards and battlefield. In Italy there is too much history and too little space, you can’t help but to build on the rests of your ancestors.
Not really? Midden heaps can be found practically everywhere there was at least a semi-permanent settlement. If unique ecosystems were in them, they’d be known about by now.
Of course, Dina’s a scientist, and one data point isn’t very useful. And it’s the science itself that turns her on, so no way she isn’t going to do her due diligence.
She’s gonna have Becky on such a rigorous schedule, she’ll be all libidoed out in no time.
This was indeed a very educational and salubrious experience Doctor!!!
And in the off-chance that this is the only Dina/Becky slipshine we get, hopefully you don’t mind me going back in time every so often to visit my favorite dynamic dinosaur duo doing it!!!
Time travel is not to be used for sexual escapades.
That time the Doctor accidentally became engaged to Marylin Monroe notwithstanding. And the Madame de Pompadour thing. And the Queen Elizabeth I thing. And it’s implied Clara had a thing with Jane Austin.
…Time travel is to be used for sexual escapades sparingly.
Ugh, fucking score inflation. It’s two virgins getting it on for the first time, ain’t no way God’s giving that shit any thing above a 6 just on general principle! Sure, their hearts are all in the right place, but the technique and creativity are all over the place, you don’t give out 10s for that!
Amos, said he had problems with that too, but he just contacted them and had the problem sorted out.
By the way Rose great to see you here! 😁
In fact I have an important inquiry if you get the chance.
Im still in the process of fixing my libido, and I think you once mentioned a kind of exercise that could help? Do you have any other valuable tips for this venue?
Also, you mentioned time and time again the concept of multiple virginities. Just the thought of it sounds beautiful, and was wondering if you could shed some more light on that. What are the names of a few of these virginities?
Sorry I’ve been lurking the past few days – had family over for the kids’ spring break, so I didn’t have time to post.
An exercise I said? Um… may need more details than that. I say a lotta stuff, and I don’t specifically remember what I said previously. ^^;;
As for multiple virginities, sure, but they don’t have like, special names or anything. Just descriptive ones. Roughly in order as per me:
First kiss (chaste but romantic, at least for me).
First masturbation (no orgasm, just sorta felt nice)
First orgasm (solo, accidental)
First orgasm (solo, intentional)
First orgasm while in communication with another person (cyber sex).
First penetration (solo, fingers).
First penetration (solo, foreign object). Make it so.
First anal penetration (solo, foreign object).
First date (female partner)
First french kiss (female partner)
First heavy petting (female partner)
First orgasm with partner (female)
First time being asleep in a bed with a romantic partner (female partner)
First breakup.
First date (male partner)
First kiss (male partner)
First heavy petting (male partner)
First oral sex (male partner, giving and receiving)
First vaginal penetration (male partner, condom)
First actual sex toy purchase
First threeway (male partner and female partner)
First oral sex (female partner)
First anal penetration (male partner)
First 69 (female partner)
First 69 (male partner)
First vaginal penetration (male partner without condom)
First time being someone elses first lover
First date/sex with my future wife/First outdoor sex
First time moving in with a partner
First threeway (all female partners)
First BDSM (lumping it all together cause we first explored all that during this time period)
First parallel sex (us and another couple having sex in the same room)
First fourway (two female partners, one male)
First double penetration
First time with future baby daddy
First nipple-only orgasm
First ‘Mama Mia’ party (fourway, one female two males, unprotected)
First pregnancy
First fiveway (two female partners, two male partners)
First child
First time participating in a lactation fetish (male partner)
First post-pregnancy fourway to prove we still got it
First book published (okay, not technically a sex act, but it was porn-with-plot, so close enough)
First time watching a friend play a video game with a dildo inside them
First time controlling said dildo and gleefully edging them for over 30 minutes.
Those last two are from like a month ago. So yeah, 30+ years of first times, and I’m still finding new firsts to have.
Mm… a couple times? The trouble there is more the fact that I only rarely manage lucid dreaming, and I only rarely have sexy dreams, so the venn diagram is rare squared. As such, not sure how I could intentionally explore that more than random chance allows.
On the other hand, flying dreams are something I have occasionally and are awesome. Yes, I know, those are sex-related. Those are still my favorite dreams to have lucid because they’re fuckin awesome.
(shit, I didn’t read this comments. Always press Crtl + F to look for your nick, before comment)
I got problemns in Slipshine billing page, too. Me and three other people.
My problem were my credit card is from a country outside Europe / USA. I don’t know about the other people.
The support email is not working. But talking by DM to SlipShine owner, she could solve my problem.
Thanks both of you!
I actually had already emailed both Slipshine and the billing place – at the time of posting, neither had gotten back to me, but since then the Slipshine owner fixed everything up.
As an agnostic I definitely can’t say I agree with many of C. S. Lewis’s religious views to say the least, but I’ve always had a rather fondness for the scene in the last Narnia book where Aslan (Jesus-but-a-lion) says, paraphrased somewhat, that if someone honestly tried to do good in their life they get to go to heaven regardless of whether they worshipped him, the books’ equivalent of Satan, or no one at all…but that if they led a life of hurting others, they get kicked out even if all they did they did in Aslan’s name.
I read _Mere Christianity_ some years ago. I thought the first part, trying to prove the existence of God and truth of Christianity, was laughable (disclaimer: I’m an atheist), but the other parts were interesting. One was trying to make sense of the Trinity by analogies, which hey. But the other part I recall was along the lines of trying to live as a good Christian, including his noting that he tried to avoid condemning people for succumbing to temptations that he himself did not feel. If gambling just seems stupid to you, then it’s not evidence of your superior moral fiber that you don’t gamble.
Mere Christianity didn’t do anything for me as an atheist, but the Screwtape Letters gave me the section where the senior devil instructs the junior that one of his previous victims arrived in hell saying “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked.” and that bit stuck with me through the years and comes to mind every once in a while when I’m stuck scrolling mindlessly through listicles or social media.
Be it “all people go to heaven” (there is a parable about this and wheat? I can’t bother to remember religiondetails) or “God/Osiris/Aslan chooses on whatev criteria” I still have the same problem with:
-1 belief in an afterlife is not necessary to religions (as per some kierkegaardian scholars)
-2 belief in any kind of afterlife is pretty much like having a save point in a game: you don’t play the game the same way, especially when afterlife is not impacted by RL conditions (typically climate change and biodiversity decline). So when Marx said the people’s opium is necessary to them to bear life, I’m not sure it wasn’t really a good answer to bakunin’s god and the state.
There’s a hilarious skit in W/Bob and David, where a kid who had a near death experience is on a religious talk show to talk about the time he spent in heaven and push a book called ‘Heaven is totes for Realz’.
The host, his parents, and the audience turns on him when he drops the bomb that Hitler is in heaven, with them trying to get him to change his account or accusing him of lying while he protests “No! There is no hell, God loves everyone equally no matter what!”
“I will not sit here and have you mock god as some all-forgiving monster!”
This is how my boyfriend thinks about god, it’s sweet and i always liked it. Only difference is he believes in reincarnation, but he’s insistent an all loving God wouldn’t punish someone for eternity for things they did over the course of less than a century
Reincarnation is the only thing that makes sense to me if you want the idea of a consciousness that lasts beyond the physical body. Like spiritual composting.
The idea that your consciousness exists for the rest of eternity vs roughly a century of life seems really miserable.
You could even view her attempts at being nemeses with Dorothy as an indirect way to avoid disappointments;
If Dorothy is her friend, Becky can disappoint her when her personal difficulties prevent her from somehow living up to Dorothy’s expectations. (Real or imagined).
If Dorothy is her rival, not living up to her expectations is just a small triumph by countering her nemesis’s plans.
It does that every winter, sometime negative Fahrenheit. Back before climate change it wasn’t unusual to spend weeks on end below zero Fahrenheit, now it’s seldom more than a few days in a row.
It has this couple square miles where there’s something that broadly resembles a New York-style city, with lots of skyscrapers and some metro access and it’s terrible to drive (yes, even for LA).
It fucking sucks. Nothing but evil, conventions and sporting events goes on there.
Along similar lines there are a lot of underground coal fires. Most of which are accidental human caused, but some of which, like Burning Mountain in Australia have been burning for thousands of years.
Environmentally these are all bad. It’s not clear about the gas fire ones though – extinguishing it would still leave the gas leaking out and it’s probably better to burn it off than to leave it leak out. Though somehow capping it and stopping the leak would be best.
A tow near where I grew up is named Bothell. It used to have a sign reading ‘Welcome to Bothell! For a Day or a Lifetime!’ just outside it. High-school kids and other pranksters would regularly paint out the ‘Bot’ in the town name.
That’s probably part of why the sign isn’t there anymore.
I’m really happy about this. I wanted more insight into how Becky relates to her religion and to her beliefs about heaven and hell, and hey, here it is!
I hope she keeps talking about it, but I’ll probably have to wait a while for more.
I find myself envying Becky’s faith here. Her line in Panel 3 was… more or less the official position of the church I grew up in, going by what I was eventually taught in Confirmation. But the individual people who taught Sunday School over the years were more… varied on that point, and I sure as hell feared Hell as a kid. And that fear, and my fear of other people I cared about going there, led me to do some shit I really regret. Confirmation was a major relief in that regard, but I eventually became an atheist anyway sooooo…
(I actually knew one grown-up who didn’t think there was an afterlife at all, though they didn’t confide this to me until I was an adult.)
I’ve always had it taught in my denomination as that it is more about faith than whatever you do (as in you can’t earn your way). My thoughts about it is that everybody sins, and that it’s the faith that God is loving and will forgive you even with your sins, will help you move past them when you die instead of being stuck on them. It is amazing how someone’s acceptance of you, even knowing your worst failures, can be comforting and help you move past them. That being said, I think that it probably is more nuance and maybe other possibilities than just that. I would never wish an eternity of torture on anybody, even the worst person of the world, and I can’t believe that if there is a god and they are loving, that they would too. Even ceasing to exist in any form would be better than that.
So a complete reversal of “you will know them by their fruits,” gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 15? Yes, I can see how that would be very comforting to a great deal of people, not having to walk the walk.
I mean, that is EXACTLY what Kimi said? If it’s all about faith and not about what you do, then you don’t actually have to do anything (or CAN do anything that you feel like it), and therefore give no “fruits”. Toedad indeed goes to heaven, because he believed, and Dina does not, because she doesn’t, and their actual behaviour is meaningless in the equation.
There’s comments elsewhere on this page and yesterday’s about how different passages in the Bible contradict each other, but it’s always a treat when someone takes the literal Son of God’s words and does the exact opposite while they rationalize it away. Don’t make any attempt to live up to Yahweh’s earthly example, just b e l i e v e and you don’t even have to think about not living in sin, you’ve already got your Get Out Of Hell Free card punched.
If only the bible had a bit about where your actions are more important than what you profess to believe. Maybe, to really drive in the point, it could feature somebody who was actually in opposition to the whole christianity thing. They could’ve called it the Metaphor of the Kind Foreigner or something like that. Alas.
I understand I have a tendency to accentuate the negative when it comes to religion, but as someone who grew up in only a slightly less full-tilt-cult Christian church than Willis this insistence that your actions on Earth don’t matter, only that you’re really sure God is real and that he specifically loves you no matter what you do, was always confusion because it has no Gospel-specific scriptural backing. Jesus was big on Earthly works, there was a whole thing where he was executed by the state because he was constantly pointing out the hypocrisy of Jewish leadership on them not backing up their talk with action and they wanted to get rid of him.
Remove society from that by an additional 2000 years and we get absolutely insane shit like the major cultural religious establishment of a nation supporting someone who lived against everything Christ lived for but because they said they lived for Christ we can ignore all evidence of our eyes and ears. I know that doublethink is literally an inherent quality of faith (faith is literally belief in the absence of evidence, don’t fucking question me on this point), but do you people EVER actually critically read your own holy book and examine your own values?
Hey, this is a fact that I just learned, so I’m sharing it: Gehenna wasn’t a garbage pit. The reason it gets mentioned in the Bible as a very bad place is that it was, at one point, allegedly the site of some child sacrifice.
“Baal” wasn’t a single deity; it literally translates to “Lord”, and as such was used as a title for a whole bunch of Semetic deities (including, funnily enough, possibly even Yahweh…though probably infrequently if so). Some of the deities with the title very likely did involve human sacrifice as part of their rituals, though this was by no means universal.
Well, kind of. There are some that were refferred as just “Baal”, which could mean that their names were lost to time or that the people just called them lord. This gets complicated further because of the cultural interchange between cultures, which means the local “Baal” could be a local god (Called just Baal or not) or a local ‘translation’ of a god from somewhere (eg. Shamash or Hadad).
As for the Tetragrammaton, while possible that he had the Baal title, there’s another that is more likely: El (Yes, as in Elohim, Michael, Raphael and other angel names, though the word ‘angel’ itself is unrelated to El, the word for those was “malak/malach”). Pretty much the same meaning as Baal, including being both a specific god and a generic term for a god or a title of a god.
Also quick fun aside about “Elohim” since we are on the topic: that word is a plural.
Yep, my own name is a theophoric reference to El (“Daniel” = “El is my judge”), so I’m definitely aware of the whole thing surrounding El as well. I think I’ve even remarked on it in the comments before. xD
There’s an ongoing scholarly debate about both alleged child sacrifice both there and in Carthage, both Phoenician communities who’s enemies accused them of sacrificing children. The evidence is……..mixed, but there’s definitely archeological evidence that seems to support it, even if you discount the Biblical and Roman accusations.
Yeah, “Human sacrifice” was a common charge the romans (and the old testament writers) would throw at anyone they disliked, or hadn’t managed to conquer (as opposed to crucifixion, or being eaten by a lion in a public amphitheatre because that was about JUSTICE not religion). Makes it very hard to judge the truth.
As an aside we’re told the roman punishment for patricide (the killing of ones father), was to be sealed in a sack with a viper, a rooster, and an ape. And then the (by now probably quite irate) sack would be thrown into the river Tiber. It always struck me as being an overly redundant and ridiculously symbolic punishment, but there you go. And it was all about justice, not religion which made it fine…
And check out what happened to the captives paraded through Rome in a triumph, and where it was done. “That’s not a human sacrifice! It’s just a mass execution….”
I mean, the christians ALSO performed human sacrifice all the time, because there’s no other way to classify the inquisition, the crusades, and the witch trials, among others.
Assuming you’re not being facetious in your classifications…
Crusades: a war with religious trappings and partly-germinated against a religious political background. The actual battles no more count as examples of “human sacrifice” than most other contemporary battles. Inquisition/witch trials: not quite as clear-cut as with the crusades, but I’d still count these as being much more examples of (occasionally extra)judicial institutions and verdicts handed down under theocratic or theocracy-adjacent governments than something resembling the definition of human sacrifice.
I mean, if you want to talk about Christianity and human sacrifice, communion’s right there. 😛
A (religious) human sacrifice is just “killing other people to appease a divine force”. That’s what the crusades, the inquisition, and the witch trials were (claimed to be) about.
No, no we didn’t sacrifice them, they just died for my financial gain while I used the name of the dominant religion to sell it to the populace so they’d be fine with it.
I mean…yeah? I’m not disputing that. But it doesn’t fit the literal definition of human sacrifice, which is ritualized killing to appease a spiritual/religious figure such as a god, ancestor, or overlord (see for the latter case examples of retainer sacrifice, where one’s servants or slaves were killed to lie beside their masters in death). There are other words to describe things like the Crusades or the Inquisition, using “human sacrifice” to describe them just dilutes it to the point of meaninglessness.
Seriously? “Ethnic cleansing”, “genocide”, “war of aggression”, “religious persecution” (particularly in the case of the Inquisition, which primarily obsessed over Jews, Muslims, and people who Weren’t Christianing Right), and others are all words that would be better. “Human sacrifice” is not, as literally any anthropologist would tell you. It is a very specific term.
I know we’re approaching this from an etymology sense but I’m kinda more focusing on the end result of “someone getting murdered for the end goal of benefiting religious power base.”
“someone getting murdered for the end goal of benefiting religious power base.”
A lot of things have the same end result, that doesn’t mean that the actions taken to get there are all identical to each other. Steering the conversation away from death for a moment, it’s like saying that since 19th-century clippers and steamships could both circumnavigate the planet in fairly good time, there was no functional difference between them.
Furthermore, not all human sacrifices were devoted to gods (except tangentially-so, insofar as it relates to the more nebulous concept of “powers” or an afterlife in general); I named retainer sacrifices—carried out by the Scythians, Norse, and Egyptians among others—above as one example, in which the murdered people were killed so as to continue serving the person or persons they would then be buried with in the afterlife.
But seriously, try telling an anthropologists’ convention that the Crusades were a sterling example of human sacrifice, and watch as you get laughed out of the room.
Like I said, I know you’re talking about the meaning of the words, I just feel like it’s a weird thing for someone to go “people died in the name of theocratic imperialism” and then to respond to that with “they didn’t do that exact kind of theocratic imperialist murder.”
I stress again that you didn’t write the above to make some kind of moral divide between “human sacrifice for ritualistic purposes” and “a person is called a witch, is murdered to the delightful glee of the majority, and then their property is taken because that’s why they were called a witch in the first place.”
Consdeirng that as soon as we found out that the two skeletons embracing in Pompeii were two dudes a bunch of anthropologists immediately went “look at what good friends they were”, I’m gonna give you two guesses at how much I value their input on this, and the first one doesn’t count.
More to the point, there is, indeed, no functional difference between the instances in the topic at hand.
Christians: “Look, at how barbaric they are, they kill people for their supernatural beliefs”.
Also christians: “Let’s kill all these people for our supernatural beliefs.”
And there were other anthropologists who argued that the “just friends” angle was stupid. But seriously, I dare you to find ONE actual peer-reviewed academician who’ll agree that the Crusades and the Inquisition were examples of human sacrifice. Seriously, try me. I will bet cash money on this.
What I CAN tell you is that there’s no meaningful difference between the Aztecs going “if we don’t rip this dude’s heart out, the eldritch abomination that is the planet will get mad us” and christians going “if we don’t kill these people for not following the exact orthodoxy, god will get mad at us”.
If you truly can’t see a meaningful difference between the Aztecs’ “let’s cut out the hearts of 10,000 warriors atop our temples to stop the ground from eating our feet” and the Crusades’ “let’s enrich ourselves by carving out new kingdoms for ourselves in a faraway land through bloody wars of aggression, and sell it as a Holy War against people who are Not Christian™ (or Not The Right Type of Christian™, in the case of the Fourth Crusade and some of the Northern Crusades)“ or someone being accused of witchcraft so their property could be duly seized and used to the enrichment of the judges and/or accusers—and if you clearly disdain an entire scientific field of study—then maybe next time don’t inject a useless dilution of an academic term intrinsically linked to that field into a discussion about what said term actually covers.
I ain’t dying on a hill, it’s just fucking weird to umm actually terminology being used to make a point about how “dying for a theocratic power base” and then go “no there’s a specific kind of word to use there ”
Like there’s functionally no difference between them in the outcome, is what we’re getting at. The etymology of “human sacrifice” differing from other terms used to describe violence motivated by theocratic power is the point; whatever you call it, someone dies for the gain of the worshipers of a dominant religious power.
The point is that the Venn diagram between “human sacrifice” and “dying for a theocratic power base” is not a circle. There’s some overlap, and they both result in someone or someones dying, but they are not the same thing. And JBento was the “umm actually” person first with their sudden assertion in a conversation on human sacrifice in the Mediterranean that the Crusades et al. were impossible to classify as anything other than examples of it.
Like Rose said, planes, helicopters, hot air balloons, and airships all fly—but it doesn’t mean you can land your balloon on the runway, and naming your Cessna Hindenburg doesn’t mean you’re flying an airship.
Which is kinda funny since a willingness to perform child sacrifice upon divine command was literally the whole point of the Abraham/Isaac story — the one place where a Christian hasn’t really got a choice to dispute it.
Honestly regardless of whether the sacrifices happened, given hell and other ideas like Purgatory and actions like self flagellation or harm being common in the medieval church I sometimes wonder if those came about because of similar mindsets as that can result in human sacrifice. I mean all the suffering seems utterly pointless except as almost an offering either to god himself or to a lesser deity like satan to appease them. I mean seriously what is the point otherwise? Why is there the belief that sin in life results in suffering and punishment for if not eternity but for a long time? They say it’s the wages of sin but why must sin be paid? Why is Jesus supposed to be debt forgiveness? Who benefits from creating the debt in the first place?
(For further clarification, Gethsemane and Gehenna/Hinnom were in the same basic area—Jerusalem and its environs—but one was on a hillside, the other was a valley.)
Having never engaged in a post-coital religious discussion, I can’t relate to Becky’s whole Situation. Dina, on the other hand, just seems happy to be here and is doin’ her very best to be part of the discussion without Making A Fuss about not believing the stuff Becky does. If she were any more perfect, she’d be generating candies instead of normal waste.
Ok yeah, Becky not believing in traditional “hell” makes me feel much more relieved in general. It’s still a shitty feeling, but it doesn’t seem like it would lead into a whole regret arc. I’m happy Becky doesn’t think eternal torture is one of the “important” parts because that would suck to read!
UNFORTUNATELY… Becky is still on a completely different page than Joyce about what Christianity means. This is more clear to us than ever. They super need to talk to each other. Each is trying to push the other towards or away from faith without talking about this. And no, I don’t think the fight counts. I think the fight made the misconceptions worse.
I really like Becky’s viewpoint. It’s not all that different than my own.
Then again I’m very much a love everyone kind of person (with a few people I struggle with because of their OWN horridness.)
This is the most relatable Becky has ever been ever, and I say this as someone who ALSO went through an “everyone in this room must know I’m queer” phase
1) That seemed entirely plausible given her last words to Ross, but good to see it confirmed.
2) But I’m also noting that Becky did in fact do the same thing of checking translations and proving to herself that the word of God does not in fact support what she’s been taught, just like Joyce did immediately after Becky came out to her. (And which Becky didn’t take well at the time, but…) This could have been a thing Becky started researching when she realized she was gay, or an idea she’s always been percolating in the back of her mind. But since we know Becky didn’t have a smartphone pre-IU, and almost certainly didn’t have many ways to check the internet unmonitored, I suspect this is one she looked into more recently. And that means my first impulse is ‘it’s about Bonnie in particular, and then the idea that no matter how much her dad sucked, when he gets to heaven and God tells him to knock all the violent abusive homophobia off and he’s with her mom again, by the time she gets there they can be a happy family for real this time.’ (I… don’t think that’s likely, even if an afterlife did exist in this fictional universe conforming to Becky’s specific beliefs, but I also think Becky’s majorly in denial about just HOW fucked their congregation was, beyond just the homophobia and misogyny, and how that means even ‘good ones’ like Hank and her mom were complicit in some serious foulness. But Becky’s a fictional 18-year-old orphan who was cast out of the community she grew up in, I’m not judging that coping device.)
3) Speaking of which, aww, that last panel. Poor kiddo.
I always forget what the original Bible, in this case I mean Christian Bible, was written in. It was being proselytized to a audience of Romans so it would have been written in a language meant for them to be able to read and comprehend for easier conversions.
But I can never remember if it was Aramaic, Greek, or Latin it was written in by the Apostles and not Apostles.
Koine Greek (aka the form of the language introduced via the conquests of Alexander the “You’re All Speaking Greek Now”) I believe, from memory. It was the lingua franca of the especially-eastern Mediterranean after all.
Yeshua of Nazareth would more likely have spoken Aramaic. It’s not impossible that He would have known Greek, but the son of a Galilean laborer being educated in Greek would probably have been fairly unusual.
The Gospellers depict Jesus having casual conversations with several Romans. Those conversations would likely have been in Greek. And it was a time and culture with a high level of literacy; even the son of a Galilean labourer would have been very highly educated, especially when compared to his equivalent a thousand years later in Mediaeval Northern Europe.
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, but by people who didn’t have Greek as a first language. The Gospel of Mark at least uses very rough vocabulary, with certain grammatical constructions that look more Aramaic that Greek (I’d give you an example, but it’s 31 years now since I wrote my exam essay on this topic and I can’t remember any). Matthew, Luke and John, being written later (and probably in that order) use progressively more ‘proper’ Greek, and Paul was an educated man whose Greek was good enough that we can now identify which of the letters attributed to him were actually written by him. Certain words or phrases in Aramaic are included, which may be as close as we will ever come to the actual authentic words of Yeshua.
I guess this is fully confirmation that Becky’s desires to bring Joyce back into the fold are pretty cleanly selfish. Like it’s not a desire to ‘save’ her from hell or anything.
It’s very human to want one of the few things from her childhood that didn’t suck to remain but remaining Christian would do nothing good for Joyce herself.
Joyce is also flawed in wanting Becky to also leave with her but it could be argued it’s because she doesn’t want her to waste any more time of the one life she has on something hurtful that’s not real. It’s however also showing Joyce as mistaken as Becky never believed the same things as her. Minus some mental hiccups like the sex thing Becky has edited things down to the point that she and past Joyce had completely different interpretations of what being a Christian meant. Being a Christian helped Becky. It’s just a good option and not the equivalent of having a gun held to your head and acting like it’s free will like her dad did. It doesn’t tear Becky apart from the inside or make her afraid. It did for Joyce. Being a Christian is a form of hell for Joyce in her head.
I wonder if this realisation will result in Becky trying to sell her particular brand if she gets this or if she’ll back off entirely. Maybe one will follow the other?
I mean yeah, Joyce thinks Becky is a willful mark for their abusive upbringing, since Joyce never processed God the same way Becky does.
The last word on trying to get Becky to change was when Joyce said Becky didn’t have to get “left behind” when Joyce eventually moved on and stopped being her buffer, but then the both of them went “I am not changing ever” so they became total strangers, and then afterwards we learned Becky’s trying to convert her back.
My guess for the fallout here is that Becky doubles down on trying to convert Joyce back. Actually having sex is the last boundary Becky herself had with who she used to be (when Dina first mentioned the idea, Becky rejected it since she had “already changed so much”), and now the only part of her old life she has is Besty-in-Christ Joyce who believes the exact same things as Becky and was supposed to just ditch the unimportant parts. If she’s still so thoroughly dependent on Joyce’s unconditional love (which, nothing there has changed) then forcing Joyce to change back is the only way she’ll retain even a shred of that stability she wants.
Aye. Becky really, really does need to just let Joyce not be Christian.
I do wonder how much of what Becky’s done there is pure selfishness versus just unexamined instinct, though. Not that Becky isn’t being selfish, but we’re also dealing with a vile sect of the faith where pressuring non-believers and doubters into belief is a central pillar.
If someone asked Becky why she’s trying to pressure Joyce back into Christianity… I honestly don’t think Becky would be able to articulate why.
She said why. Joyce is her buffer, and the only reason playing Rich Mullins to “pull the ol’ God Strings” didn’t work is actually because Joyce hates her so much.
It’s selfishness in its outcome, but it’s instinct in the sense that Becky is so absurdly dependent on Joyce (since Joyce, y’know, saved her from homelessness, protected from every single facet of their old life, actually punched her dad unconscious after a car chase and then later got kidnapped herself by him) that she doesn’t know how to function without Joyce as her Joyce who thinks specific things and eats specific foods and makes specific Joyce Faces if you make fun of her the right way.
Becky’s been running on one big trauma panic response since she joined the cast where she was genuinely in constant danger that was only resolved because of the good will of the people around her (y’know, what we’re supposed to do when the people we love are in danger). She’s in a place of stability now, she’s not literally dependent on Joyce/Leslie/Robin to survive anymore, but he’s still treating Joyce as her guardian/dad-punching attack dog/source of unconditional love and stability even though Joyce has her own bullshit to sort through that, at the moment, Becky is making worse.
“Hell” is from the Norse religion and is literally the name of the owner of the place. The spelling has altered over the years from the original Hel, and in Norse theology Hel (the place and the goddess) was super cold. Unlike Christian Hell being a lake of fire.
All of religion makes absolute sense once you stop treating it like… well, religion. Treat it like history and literature and every single twist and weirdness falls into place.
Well, I definitely wouldn’t be so harsh/blunt about it, buuuut… 😉 If your partner is not pleasing you sexually, it’s vitally important that you let them know so they can adapt and improve. Doing good sex is a SKILL, and just like any other skill you need feedback, constructive criticism, and a willingness to practice and do better, but the process can’t start unless your partner lets you know if you’re doing it right or not.
Of course, it’s equally important to be understanding, patient and encouraging. Mocking or insulting somebody because they’re a terrible lover is not likely to give them incentive to improve. Remember too that everybody is different in terms of tastes, kinks, and erogenous zones, and whatever you learned from your previous partner may not be right for the next one. Be prepared to have to learn everything anew whenever you change partners.
I know most college couples rarely stay together, and more so for a fictional couple, but I kind of hope that these two stay together forever. I feel like they are exactly what the other needs, especially in Becky’s case where it’s the only truly wholesome thing she has left.
I mean, yes there’s Joyce and the others, but having someone who truly understands and doesn’t mock your beliefs is always nice.
Okay so if EVERYONE goes to Heaven, even if they are a kidnapping, gun pointing abuser….
WHY does Joyce need to BE a Christian then? According to Becky’s version of Christianity, God’s just so nice he’d let her in anyways so what’s the deal???
It’s not about Joyce’s soul, Becky needs Joyce to exist as she always has because Becky is emotionally dependent on Joyce existing as her buffer, and she’s only allowed to change in ways that Becky approves of.
That sounds like a really harsh read of Becky, it is, it’s also totally correct, but at least she has fairly understandable reasons for being a huge butt about it as opposed to Joyce’s other closest friends.
I have never got the slightest impression that Becky’s problem with Joyce’s newfound atheism is that she won’t get into Heaven. If she believed that, she’d probably be trying to convert Dina. Or did you think she was fine with the idea of her girlfriend going to Hell?
Becky’s desire for Joyce to be Christian again is partly because Atheist Joyce is actually a bit of a jerk, and partly exactly the same as Joyce’s desire for Becky to join her in realising Christianity is a stupid religion for stupid people — they’re not used to disagreeing about stuff, and they want to go back to when they didn’t.
I mean to be fair “Christian Becky” is also kind of a jerk..and she’s not fine with the idea of Dina going to Hell, BUT she IS perfectly happy with Dina being mad about how WRONG she is, when she dies and ends up in Heaven because Becky was right the whole time hahahaa Dina.
Maybe Atheist Joyce be less of “a bit of a jerk” if:
– She was not outed as one by Becky and Dorothy when they felt entitled to her time and then forced to immediately justify it to Becky in a conversation she was not prepared to have because, if she were, she woulda told those two instead of keeping it for Joe and Sarah.
– If she was not violently traumatized by her death cult, a realization she only had after she was at college long enough for her friends to treat her like a silly weirdo who’ll snap and suck a billion dicks before long.
– If Hillary Clinton could ask “how are you feeling?” instead of “go find a nice deism, you’re only allowed to be angry if you’re angry at the right person, and you’re not considering how sad Becky is that you’re an atheist.”
yeah those are sure things that have been done to Joyce. Mostly in response to her suddenly turning into an evangelical atheist talking in slogans about understanding God is fake means she has reached the ultimate wisdom and everyone else needs to stop believing in invisible sky wizards and afterlives so they can be smart and right or else they, and especially Becky, are not worth her time.
Aside from that, Becky and Joyce both need to stop pushing each other away because they’re afraid of losing the other one because she’s changing. But of the many things that’s making that conversation harder, Joyce’s evangelism as of yet is by far on the top of the list.
I dunno how to tell you this but it’s actually okay to be mean to the thing you started hating because your mom bailed out the guy who tried to shoot you in the face. You’re allowed to be angry about that for a good minute, especially when your good minute being mad about it is the direct follow up to being hunted down to a private conversation because your friends are possessive nutbars, and prior to this happening you were introspective and lacking in stability to the point where you angrily lash out saying that nothing you do matters because God isn’t real and so the person you were doesn’t actually really exist.
Like even if I were capable of believing that “being mean to Christians :(” is actually a real problem with any tangible consequence, it feels kinda wack to make Joyce redeem herself for a thing she only started engaging in after Becky and the Hilldawg skipped over asking why this happened or what brought this about.
I’m not saying it’s unreasonable for Joyce to do those things. I’m saying as long as she’s doing them they’re getting in the way of any meaningful conversation.
Like that meaningful conversation at Galasso’s that started with Becky going “everything you ever were is a lie and you lie to me all the time” had to have Joyce do all the emotional labour in reaching out to her? Then she invited Becky and whaddya know, Becky spent the entire thing acting as she always does and also we found out she deliberately played Rich Mullins music to try and subtly convert her back.
Becky is completely unequipped to deal with why Joyce has been violently traumatized, she was completely unequipped with something as simple as Joyce questioning sexual purity at Dina’s party where she told Joyce that she’s going through a stupid phase and she’s only rebelled against her parents for 30 seconds so it doesn’t count. This is where a helpful, compassion, caring and empathetic person with an understanding of concepts like “my friend matters more than whether she’s angry after constant, visceral traumatic incidents” can take over, but unfortunately all we got is Dorothy whose grand contributions have been telling her to fix it while putting in no emotional labour for her best friend and also inferring that Joyce isn’t capable of making her own decision on her faith.
It has been five months and the most amount of empathy and compassion in Joyce’s direction for something like “I literally thought all this shit was real including the part where dinosaurs on the ark and I don’t know what my life is anymore” has been from fuggin’ Walky. If I am being expected to consider both sides in a scenario like “is Joyce allowed to say ‘God is Stinky’ after being brainwashed her entire life, relentlessly mocked as a fundie moron by her friends, and nearly murdered like three separate times” then it’d be nice if Joyce’s three best friends were capable of asking “how are you feeling?” and “do you want to talk about it?”
And then I still wouldn’t consider both sides because all this shit started with Becky and Dorothy being complete psychos who tracked Joyce down using someone else’s social media accounts instead of just like shooting her a text, for the stated reason of “I’m Joyce’s Christian Friend” and “Joyce skipped a class.”
Like putting aside meaningful conversation, I can’t even believe they’re actually friends.
I believe you all are reading too much religion into this. What Becky wants is to be able to continue having what once were delightful shared experiences for both of them. That these experiences have religious connotations is just because that’s how they were raised. If they had been raised in other type of environment she would be trying to get Joyce back to MAGA rallies, soccer matches or antifascist demonstrations. This is what happens when you have just one really close friend that was also your only crush and your friend outgrows your shared childhood faster than you.
They mean that Becky would be acting like this in any other context were she still raised in the same house with the same dad who brought her up the same way, in that Becky’s need for Joyce to come back to God is because Becky needs Joyce to be her Joyce, and Christianity is just the circumstance of “important thing Becky and Joyce shared that they don’t anymore.”
I mean “crabs in a bucket” as a metaphor tends towards “undoing the success of someone else,” whereas Becky’s possessive to the point of declaring ownership over Joyce, or more accurately; thinking Joyce needs to do and say everything in a specific manner or else she’s not the real Joyce and Becky can’t be friends with her.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the words “God” and “Lord” in English translations of the Bible also a bunch of different Hebrew/Greek words, one of which is an ancient Canaanite word meaning either “gods” or “children of El?”
So the Jewish scripture uses a mixture of El (God), Elohim (Gods, but usually treated as singular, kind of like a Royal we but possibly a pre-monotheistic relic), Adonai (lord, can also refer to mortal authorities), and YHWH (often translated as “The LORD”; the Tetragrammaton, the 4 letter true name of God, Yahweh, Jehovah).
It’s important to note that, for example, the names Jehovah and El/Elohim come from different traditions and texts that were harmonized in the formation of the Torah.
It always surprises me a little when people are surprised by this. Catholic Bibles don’t use the word Hell – it’s doctrine that sola scriptura types liked enough to retcon in.
Oh god thank you for finally saying it. 99% of what Christians think they know about hell comes from Dante’s Inferno, with a little bit of the ironic punishments in Tartarus from Greek Mythology like Tantalus and Sisyphus thrown in so it feels properly ancient, but the bible itself doesn’t say crap about that kind of thing.
Yeah, it’s a part of Christianity that developed after the New Testament texts had been written. It’s a pretty early tradition though. Not something Dante invented, even if he’s a common source these days.
Golly is this some big development here, regardless of how long Becky has thought this, saying it is still a big step. There’s something nice about Becky finally understanding that her religious trauma isn’t about the god part but the whole childhood surrounded by abusers and enablers, or at least what specific feeling she’s been left with.
Though I do agree with others that this also leaves Becky with only one person who represents a connection to the perfect childhood that has been torn away from her piece by piece. It probably means doubling down but also maybe this revelation being so specific might get her to see that she’s holding on to a Joyce that doesn’t exist, and maybe the new Joyce is still her friend(even if she doesn’t fulfil a specific kind of connection)
Nah, she’s probs gonna double down and make things way worse
The way you put it there, Joyce representing “the only connection Becky has left to the perfect childhood that was torn away from her piece by piece”.
It is a concise and perfect description. It all makes sense now. And I must admit, I know exactly how she feels. 😞
At the same time, her dependence on Joyce being frozen in history isn’t so healthy either. Maybe she’ll find some other way to make that connection, to that perfect childhood, to those happy things to look back on, if only to help her function.
Maybe she’ll make new happy memories with this newfound Joyce.
How do you fix a strained friendship? Decide who’s the most wrong and make them feel bad, right?
So self-evident is this logic that when the conversation here comes up about Joyce’s and Becky’s conflict, my comments towards identifying and resolving the conflict seem to be assumed to be arguments for Joyce’s moral failings. It’s happened twice now and I’m worried for the state of personal relationships in the western world.
I mean yeah culpability matters when one side has done all the wrong and is causing all the harm, and the only progress has been from the victim being told her feelings are fraudulent and childish and that she has to fix it.
General relationship tip: If something has gone wrong, it may be more useful to ask “who is in a position to do something about this?” instead of “whose fault was this?”
They’re both important questions so you don’t do things like endlessly expose yourself to being harmed by people who are supposed to give a shit about you.
Like yeah when someone I love hurts me again I’m more than a little resentful that I’m the only one between us who’s capable of seeing it, whereupon they’re so outraged by the insinuation that nothing changes and they do it again later and then it’s my fault because “I’m dredging up the past.”
I don’t know your situation, but it sounds like you’re saying figuring out what to do to solve a problem has worked out a lot better than figuring out who’s the most wrong?
I’m saying that carefully explaining in exact terms how these people in my life who I deeply love and cherish hurt me in exact, specific ways means jack shit in the name of what they’ve decided is happening.
Which is a lot of emotional labour to go through with a problem that starts with “these people say they love and can’t acknowledge for a moment the things I am saying, and only seem to appreciate me as long as I do and say along their desires.”
I did that first part, the “how to solve a problem” for an addict in my life. Years of resentment that I decided to be constructive about, and about a year and a half later where I’ve seen them make rapid progress when they do right by their addiction, they keep stumbling into it because they’ve got a chronic case of “you’re not my real dad” and so it matters more that they have a specific vision of “I want to be a social drinker, don’t tell me what to do” even though they’re incapable of driving without picking up enough booze to last a five day binge.
At some point in time, it’s actually just okay to say that you’re at fault, you’re causing the problem, and that’s all I need to do, because it’s completely outrageous to delude myself into thinking someone who hurts me that badly is deserving of constant emotional support.
And like, at least in this scenario they aren’t drinking and screaming for my own good, they’re just completely out of control with their addiction.
Whatever benefit you’ve got from this line of thinking, well, I’m glad it worked out, but it works if you have people who give a shit about you enough to change. However, maybe we shouldn’t need to put that much emotional labour into people who stupidly, obliviously hurt us until they have basic standards of human decency explained to them. Like maybe they can use their brains for five minutes and figure it out themselves before they keep going at it.
I have basically just one person in my life, my cousin who I grew up with who lives down the street. So it’s not like I have anything to gain from blaming people. Especially doing the work to figure out who to blame the most. But, reading your posts, it doesn’t look like it gains you anything either.
As a coda, I have brought our argument here up to some friends, which, naturally you have to allow for some bias to my side, so, you’ve got to try to see through their version of events and take their judgement for what it’s worth.
I told them that I tried to argue problem solving is a more useful method of solving problems than figuring out who is the most wrong, and that Spencer here spent days and days arguing for the opposite, believing based on their experience that you gotta blame somebody for some reason.
It’s possible I didn’t actually understand Spencer’s argument enough to fairly represent it. I’m not sure that I do.
But ultimately, my friends all thought Spencer’s argument was not worthy of any comment. I mean, I tried. I argued for hours. But nobody cared.
In Hebrew, “Gei ben-Hinnom”, which is literally “Valley of the son of Hinnom.” This became shortened to “Gehinnom” or “Valley of Hinnom” over time, eventually transliterated into Greek as “Gehenna.” It has an association with divine punishment in Rabbinic literature, generally as a temporary space in which one is punished and cleansed before moving on to whatever the afterlife is.
Judaism is honestly pretty vague about the afterlife. It isn’t really a major concern for the religion.
In his modern take on “Dante’s Inferno” (Called simply, “Inferno,”) Larry Niven comes up with an actual reason for a kind and living God to have a Hell. And, if he’s correct, anyone can walk out when they reach an enlightened understanding about themselves. The hero’s guide says he’s led six people out and the hero reaches a conclusion at the end that does make some sense. Also the ending to the series “Lucifer,” has Lucifer changing the operations of Hell. (Nothing more… spoilers!)
Loading ...
I visited that place once briefly
You mean in Israel?
I wonder if any kinds of interesting ecosystems developed there….
If there ever were any such micro-ecosystems there, they’re probably thousands of years gone—from a biotic standpoint, there’s not much difference these days between it and any other quasi-urban random valley of tombs you might find in the region.
What about underneath it? Surely a dedicated mountain of trash has its fair share of unique organisms / symbioses?
Isn’t that, more or less, the definition of a compost heap?
Yeah, was gonna say that while middens can often be invaluable archeological research sites (as I imagine today’s landfills might be for future archeologists centuries or millennia from now), but “unique microbiome” isn’t really a word most would use to describe them.
Hmmm…. I wonder if some species of dinosaurs also had communal dumping grounds like this!
In both cases, middens are a fucking TREASURE TROVE of knowledge!!!
Wow, won’t our ancestors love *us*, then!
Fun fact: lot of places are built on trash. Most of Italy is built on ancient trash. Rome has a whole hill (Testaccio) formed during republican and imperial age by the trashing of amphoras and other pots. It’s 35m high and hosts a very nice public park.
In the Po valley of north Italy the protocol-Etruscan civilization known as “Terramara culture” built their villages on stilts, but the soil grew steadly higher, due to human waste and periodical floods. Once a generation they just raised the huts a little more. These villages formed true mounds of black, fertile soil (due to all the organic waste they basically are gigantic prehistoric compost heaps) that has been used to fertilize all the flood plain.
Ditto for ancient graveyards and battlefield. In Italy there is too much history and too little space, you can’t help but to build on the rests of your ancestors.
Not really? Midden heaps can be found practically everywhere there was at least a semi-permanent settlement. If unique ecosystems were in them, they’d be known about by now.
MF went to Hell, kicked Satan ass and turned back again, to sing everybody this history.
What, Michigan?
God holds up a score sheet: 9.6
Of course, Dina’s a scientist, and one data point isn’t very useful. And it’s the science itself that turns her on, so no way she isn’t going to do her due diligence.
She’s gonna have Becky on such a rigorous schedule, she’ll be all libidoed out in no time.
This was indeed a very educational and salubrious experience Doctor!!!
And in the off-chance that this is the only Dina/Becky slipshine we get, hopefully you don’t mind me going back in time every so often to visit my favorite dynamic dinosaur duo doing it!!!
Time travel is not to be used for sexual escapades.
That time the Doctor accidentally became engaged to Marylin Monroe notwithstanding. And the Madame de Pompadour thing. And the Queen Elizabeth I thing. And it’s implied Clara had a thing with Jane Austin.
…Time travel is to be used for sexual escapades sparingly.
What is it Homo sapiens say some times, “there are as many exceptions as there are rules”?
If my parasite senses are accurate, this Slipshine and even the surrounding time frames are actually a Fixed Point in Time.
This Slipshine happened. As unbelievable as it is, it happened. And it happens / will happen / has happened no matter what.
Or,
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. “I’m My Own Grandpa”.
I get it!
If I ever get access to time travel, I’m using it exclusively for sexual escapades.
Ugh, fucking score inflation. It’s two virgins getting it on for the first time, ain’t no way God’s giving that shit any thing above a 6 just on general principle! Sure, their hearts are all in the right place, but the technique and creativity are all over the place, you don’t give out 10s for that!
They both had a nice time, it deserves a 6.9 at least.
Judging from the censored ads I’ve been sustaining myself with i think they get one. I think. It’s hard to tell.
I just wanna say, Emperor Williis,
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE SLIPSHINE!!!
🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹 😭😭😭😭😭😭
It was a rejuvenating experience for the mind and body, but MUCH more too.
Within me, my passion for science was revived! It was like I was brought back from the dead!!!
*plays “Starlight Festival Music” from Super Mario Galaxy*
“So shines a beacon of hope, in a dreary world…”
Is anyone else having just the worst time getting the billing website for Slipshine to work properly?
Amos, said he had problems with that too, but he just contacted them and had the problem sorted out.
By the way Rose great to see you here! 😁
In fact I have an important inquiry if you get the chance.
Im still in the process of fixing my libido, and I think you once mentioned a kind of exercise that could help? Do you have any other valuable tips for this venue?
Also, you mentioned time and time again the concept of multiple virginities. Just the thought of it sounds beautiful, and was wondering if you could shed some more light on that. What are the names of a few of these virginities?
Sorry I’ve been lurking the past few days – had family over for the kids’ spring break, so I didn’t have time to post.
An exercise I said? Um… may need more details than that. I say a lotta stuff, and I don’t specifically remember what I said previously. ^^;;
As for multiple virginities, sure, but they don’t have like, special names or anything. Just descriptive ones. Roughly in order as per me:
First kiss (chaste but romantic, at least for me).
First masturbation (no orgasm, just sorta felt nice)
First orgasm (solo, accidental)
First orgasm (solo, intentional)
First orgasm while in communication with another person (cyber sex).
First penetration (solo, fingers).
First penetration (solo, foreign object). Make it so.
First anal penetration (solo, foreign object).
First date (female partner)
First french kiss (female partner)
First heavy petting (female partner)
First orgasm with partner (female)
First time being asleep in a bed with a romantic partner (female partner)
First breakup.
First date (male partner)
First kiss (male partner)
First heavy petting (male partner)
First oral sex (male partner, giving and receiving)
First vaginal penetration (male partner, condom)
First actual sex toy purchase
First threeway (male partner and female partner)
First oral sex (female partner)
First anal penetration (male partner)
First 69 (female partner)
First 69 (male partner)
First vaginal penetration (male partner without condom)
First time being someone elses first lover
First date/sex with my future wife/First outdoor sex
First time moving in with a partner
First threeway (all female partners)
First BDSM (lumping it all together cause we first explored all that during this time period)
First parallel sex (us and another couple having sex in the same room)
First fourway (two female partners, one male)
First double penetration
First time with future baby daddy
First nipple-only orgasm
First ‘Mama Mia’ party (fourway, one female two males, unprotected)
First pregnancy
First fiveway (two female partners, two male partners)
First child
First time participating in a lactation fetish (male partner)
First post-pregnancy fourway to prove we still got it
First book published (okay, not technically a sex act, but it was porn-with-plot, so close enough)
First time watching a friend play a video game with a dildo inside them
First time controlling said dildo and gleefully edging them for over 30 minutes.
Those last two are from like a month ago. So yeah, 30+ years of first times, and I’m still finding new firsts to have.
Thank you so much for this Rose!!!
🥹 😭 🥲 🥰
So shines a beacon of hope in a dreary world…
This knowledge is now the most assuring thing in the world to me, and I shall cherish it till the end of time!
Also, if may kindly ask you about a new frontier you may have or may want to explore….
Have you ever tried to have sex in a lucid dream?
Mm… a couple times? The trouble there is more the fact that I only rarely manage lucid dreaming, and I only rarely have sexy dreams, so the venn diagram is rare squared. As such, not sure how I could intentionally explore that more than random chance allows.
On the other hand, flying dreams are something I have occasionally and are awesome. Yes, I know, those are sex-related. Those are still my favorite dreams to have lucid because they’re fuckin awesome.
Yeah, those sound really cool!
I do hope to learn how to lucid dream (and sexy dream) one day.
And when I do, I’ll be sure to share what I learn with you, as any scientist would! 😉
Thank you so much once again for this opportunity to learn from you! It means the world to me! 🥹
*plays “Unforgettable” by Devon Church*
(shit, I didn’t read this comments. Always press Crtl + F to look for your nick, before comment)
I got problemns in Slipshine billing page, too. Me and three other people.
My problem were my credit card is from a country outside Europe / USA. I don’t know about the other people.
The support email is not working. But talking by DM to SlipShine owner, she could solve my problem.
Thanks both of you!
I actually had already emailed both Slipshine and the billing place – at the time of posting, neither had gotten back to me, but since then the Slipshine owner fixed everything up.
I like this. I like this way of thinking about heaven.
“Everyone goes to the good place” and “Everyone gets what they actually wanted” are two of the better afterlife imaginings.
As an agnostic I definitely can’t say I agree with many of C. S. Lewis’s religious views to say the least, but I’ve always had a rather fondness for the scene in the last Narnia book where Aslan (Jesus-but-a-lion) says, paraphrased somewhat, that if someone honestly tried to do good in their life they get to go to heaven regardless of whether they worshipped him, the books’ equivalent of Satan, or no one at all…but that if they led a life of hurting others, they get kicked out even if all they did they did in Aslan’s name.
I read _Mere Christianity_ some years ago. I thought the first part, trying to prove the existence of God and truth of Christianity, was laughable (disclaimer: I’m an atheist), but the other parts were interesting. One was trying to make sense of the Trinity by analogies, which hey. But the other part I recall was along the lines of trying to live as a good Christian, including his noting that he tried to avoid condemning people for succumbing to temptations that he himself did not feel. If gambling just seems stupid to you, then it’s not evidence of your superior moral fiber that you don’t gamble.
Yes, that was one of his better comments.
Mere Christianity didn’t do anything for me as an atheist, but the Screwtape Letters gave me the section where the senior devil instructs the junior that one of his previous victims arrived in hell saying “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked.” and that bit stuck with me through the years and comes to mind every once in a while when I’m stuck scrolling mindlessly through listicles or social media.
Be it “all people go to heaven” (there is a parable about this and wheat? I can’t bother to remember religiondetails) or “God/Osiris/Aslan chooses on whatev criteria” I still have the same problem with:
-1 belief in an afterlife is not necessary to religions (as per some kierkegaardian scholars)
-2 belief in any kind of afterlife is pretty much like having a save point in a game: you don’t play the game the same way, especially when afterlife is not impacted by RL conditions (typically climate change and biodiversity decline). So when Marx said the people’s opium is necessary to them to bear life, I’m not sure it wasn’t really a good answer to bakunin’s god and the state.
too many negations in that last sentence, choose which one to remove.
I’m very fond of that bit too.
There’s a hilarious skit in W/Bob and David, where a kid who had a near death experience is on a religious talk show to talk about the time he spent in heaven and push a book called ‘Heaven is totes for Realz’.
The host, his parents, and the audience turns on him when he drops the bomb that Hitler is in heaven, with them trying to get him to change his account or accusing him of lying while he protests “No! There is no hell, God loves everyone equally no matter what!”
“I will not sit here and have you mock god as some all-forgiving monster!”
This is how my boyfriend thinks about god, it’s sweet and i always liked it. Only difference is he believes in reincarnation, but he’s insistent an all loving God wouldn’t punish someone for eternity for things they did over the course of less than a century
Reincarnation is the only thing that makes sense to me if you want the idea of a consciousness that lasts beyond the physical body. Like spiritual composting.
The idea that your consciousness exists for the rest of eternity vs roughly a century of life seems really miserable.
For someone who doesn’t want to disappoint people, Becky is (was?) very determined to get Dorothy to yell at her.
#ItsComplicated
When has Becky not had someone to rebel against?
Dorothy is a safe place.
(also a ton of unresolved, unprocessed, and probably-IMO-not-fully-recognized passive-aggressive jealousy.)
But not by disappointing her.
You could even view her attempts at being nemeses with Dorothy as an indirect way to avoid disappointments;
If Dorothy is her friend, Becky can disappoint her when her personal difficulties prevent her from somehow living up to Dorothy’s expectations. (Real or imagined).
If Dorothy is her rival, not living up to her expectations is just a small triumph by countering her nemesis’s plans.
Ho ho Nelly
Don’t burden yourself into trying that, even to yourself.
Especially cause you are also in Heaven haaaaaa
Hell is a place on Earth, my friends. It’s in Michigan
I dunno. Naming a town “Hell” feels like it’s got nothing on this: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/turkmenistan-gates-hell-fire-extinguish
Maybe Kelly means Detroit?
Nah, Hell’s an actual town in Michigan. I’m pretty sure this means Detroit’s actually a place worse than Hell.
(Incidentally, as of this comment it is currently minus-three degrees Celsius in Hell. You know what that means…)
It does that every winter, sometime negative Fahrenheit. Back before climate change it wasn’t unusual to spend weeks on end below zero Fahrenheit, now it’s seldom more than a few days in a row.
I remember when Mammothman and Caucasusman had their fight there. Good times!
Eh, California was also considered a literal “hell on earth” centuries ago by the colonists, but I don’t really see it.
If this is hell on earth, then I must be the devil. 🤪 😈
Ah, I see you’ve never been to Downtown Los Angeles.
I love LA. Love it to death.
But fuck Downtown. No one ever wants to go Downtown.
I thought LA didn’t really HAVE a downtown?
It has this couple square miles where there’s something that broadly resembles a New York-style city, with lots of skyscrapers and some metro access and it’s terrible to drive (yes, even for LA).
It fucking sucks. Nothing but evil, conventions and sporting events goes on there.
“Nothing but evil, conventions and sporting events goes on there.”
Did you have to repeat yourself three times? 😛
I see your Michigan and raise you Texas.
(there are good, decent people in texas, but it’s one hell of an uphill battle.)
I should take offense because I love my state but you aren’t wrong and that’s the sad part.
I’ll add Florida to the pot.
Don’t tell Florida Man.
I’ll raise you Turkmenistan, the Darvaza Gas Crater. Idk how to html good so look it up. Literally the gateway to hell
Along similar lines there are a lot of underground coal fires. Most of which are accidental human caused, but some of which, like Burning Mountain in Australia have been burning for thousands of years.
Environmentally these are all bad. It’s not clear about the gas fire ones though – extinguishing it would still leave the gas leaking out and it’s probably better to burn it off than to leave it leak out. Though somehow capping it and stopping the leak would be best.
“If owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas and live in Hell.” – General Philip Henry Sheridan, 1866. (He later retracted the statement.)
For $100 you can be its major for a day. The job comes with a set of devil horns.
And you don’t have to worry about doing anything long-term. You will be impeached by the end of your day.
It’s also possible to BUY your own little piece of Hell… https://www.gotohellmi.com/store/p491/Square_Inch_of_Hell%2C_MI.html
Going by wikipedia, in Finland ‘Helle’ is a day above 25 C (77 F)
So much for “a cold day in hell” being unlikely. 😜
A tow near where I grew up is named Bothell. It used to have a sign reading ‘Welcome to Bothell! For a Day or a Lifetime!’ just outside it. High-school kids and other pranksters would regularly paint out the ‘Bot’ in the town name.
That’s probably part of why the sign isn’t there anymore.
It’s also a town in Norway.
I’m really happy about this. I wanted more insight into how Becky relates to her religion and to her beliefs about heaven and hell, and hey, here it is!
I hope she keeps talking about it, but I’ll probably have to wait a while for more.
I find myself envying Becky’s faith here. Her line in Panel 3 was… more or less the official position of the church I grew up in, going by what I was eventually taught in Confirmation. But the individual people who taught Sunday School over the years were more… varied on that point, and I sure as hell feared Hell as a kid. And that fear, and my fear of other people I cared about going there, led me to do some shit I really regret. Confirmation was a major relief in that regard, but I eventually became an atheist anyway sooooo…
(I actually knew one grown-up who didn’t think there was an afterlife at all, though they didn’t confide this to me until I was an adult.)
I’ve always had it taught in my denomination as that it is more about faith than whatever you do (as in you can’t earn your way). My thoughts about it is that everybody sins, and that it’s the faith that God is loving and will forgive you even with your sins, will help you move past them when you die instead of being stuck on them. It is amazing how someone’s acceptance of you, even knowing your worst failures, can be comforting and help you move past them. That being said, I think that it probably is more nuance and maybe other possibilities than just that. I would never wish an eternity of torture on anybody, even the worst person of the world, and I can’t believe that if there is a god and they are loving, that they would too. Even ceasing to exist in any form would be better than that.
So a complete reversal of “you will know them by their fruits,” gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 15? Yes, I can see how that would be very comforting to a great deal of people, not having to walk the walk.
That’s not remotely what Kimi said.
I mean, that is EXACTLY what Kimi said? If it’s all about faith and not about what you do, then you don’t actually have to do anything (or CAN do anything that you feel like it), and therefore give no “fruits”. Toedad indeed goes to heaven, because he believed, and Dina does not, because she doesn’t, and their actual behaviour is meaningless in the equation.
There’s comments elsewhere on this page and yesterday’s about how different passages in the Bible contradict each other, but it’s always a treat when someone takes the literal Son of God’s words and does the exact opposite while they rationalize it away. Don’t make any attempt to live up to Yahweh’s earthly example, just b e l i e v e and you don’t even have to think about not living in sin, you’ve already got your Get Out Of Hell Free card punched.
If only the bible had a bit about where your actions are more important than what you profess to believe. Maybe, to really drive in the point, it could feature somebody who was actually in opposition to the whole christianity thing. They could’ve called it the Metaphor of the Kind Foreigner or something like that. Alas.
Also a scripturally-backed argument against nationalism, jingoism, xenophobia, and racism.
“What did he say to make them so mad at him?”
“Be kind to one another.”
“Ah, yeah, that’ll do it.”
I understand I have a tendency to accentuate the negative when it comes to religion, but as someone who grew up in only a slightly less full-tilt-cult Christian church than Willis this insistence that your actions on Earth don’t matter, only that you’re really sure God is real and that he specifically loves you no matter what you do, was always confusion because it has no Gospel-specific scriptural backing. Jesus was big on Earthly works, there was a whole thing where he was executed by the state because he was constantly pointing out the hypocrisy of Jewish leadership on them not backing up their talk with action and they wanted to get rid of him.
Remove society from that by an additional 2000 years and we get absolutely insane shit like the major cultural religious establishment of a nation supporting someone who lived against everything Christ lived for but because they said they lived for Christ we can ignore all evidence of our eyes and ears. I know that doublethink is literally an inherent quality of faith (faith is literally belief in the absence of evidence, don’t fucking question me on this point), but do you people EVER actually critically read your own holy book and examine your own values?
Excuse me, gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verse 15.
Hey, this is a fact that I just learned, so I’m sharing it: Gehenna wasn’t a garbage pit. The reason it gets mentioned in the Bible as a very bad place is that it was, at one point, allegedly the site of some child sacrifice.
Wasn’t that alleged “site of child sacrifice” just fake news that was a part of the ancient Israelites’ propaganda campaign to demonize Baal?
More importantly, did Gehenna have any interesting fossils worthy of mention?
I’m looking all this below me, and I’m like…
Uh, oops.
“Baal” wasn’t a single deity; it literally translates to “Lord”, and as such was used as a title for a whole bunch of Semetic deities (including, funnily enough, possibly even Yahweh…though probably infrequently if so). Some of the deities with the title very likely did involve human sacrifice as part of their rituals, though this was by no means universal.
Well, kind of. There are some that were refferred as just “Baal”, which could mean that their names were lost to time or that the people just called them lord. This gets complicated further because of the cultural interchange between cultures, which means the local “Baal” could be a local god (Called just Baal or not) or a local ‘translation’ of a god from somewhere (eg. Shamash or Hadad).
As for the Tetragrammaton, while possible that he had the Baal title, there’s another that is more likely: El (Yes, as in Elohim, Michael, Raphael and other angel names, though the word ‘angel’ itself is unrelated to El, the word for those was “malak/malach”). Pretty much the same meaning as Baal, including being both a specific god and a generic term for a god or a title of a god.
Also quick fun aside about “Elohim” since we are on the topic: that word is a plural.
Yep, my own name is a theophoric reference to El (“Daniel” = “El is my judge”), so I’m definitely aware of the whole thing surrounding El as well. I think I’ve even remarked on it in the comments before. xD
There’s an ongoing scholarly debate about both alleged child sacrifice both there and in Carthage, both Phoenician communities who’s enemies accused them of sacrificing children. The evidence is……..mixed, but there’s definitely archeological evidence that seems to support it, even if you discount the Biblical and Roman accusations.
… Well, there’s a rabbit hole I see myself diving into.
Glad I could help you dive into something interesting, Regalli. 🧠🥲
The Slipshine helped me recover some of my most precious spoons as well, and to Emperor Willis I am eternally grateful.
Yeah, “Human sacrifice” was a common charge the romans (and the old testament writers) would throw at anyone they disliked, or hadn’t managed to conquer (as opposed to crucifixion, or being eaten by a lion in a public amphitheatre because that was about JUSTICE not religion). Makes it very hard to judge the truth.
As an aside we’re told the roman punishment for patricide (the killing of ones father), was to be sealed in a sack with a viper, a rooster, and an ape. And then the (by now probably quite irate) sack would be thrown into the river Tiber. It always struck me as being an overly redundant and ridiculously symbolic punishment, but there you go. And it was all about justice, not religion which made it fine…
Even the Romans performed religious human sacrifice, though VERY rarely. Just look at what they did after learning of their defeat at Cannae.
And check out what happened to the captives paraded through Rome in a triumph, and where it was done. “That’s not a human sacrifice! It’s just a mass execution….”
I mean, the christians ALSO performed human sacrifice all the time, because there’s no other way to classify the inquisition, the crusades, and the witch trials, among others.
Assuming you’re not being facetious in your classifications…
Crusades: a war with religious trappings and partly-germinated against a religious political background. The actual battles no more count as examples of “human sacrifice” than most other contemporary battles.
Inquisition/witch trials: not quite as clear-cut as with the crusades, but I’d still count these as being much more examples of (occasionally extra)judicial institutions and verdicts handed down under theocratic or theocracy-adjacent governments than something resembling the definition of human sacrifice.
I mean, if you want to talk about Christianity and human sacrifice, communion’s right there. 😛
A (religious) human sacrifice is just “killing other people to appease a divine force”. That’s what the crusades, the inquisition, and the witch trials were (claimed to be) about.
Don’t be obtuse.
No, no we didn’t sacrifice them, they just died for my financial gain while I used the name of the dominant religion to sell it to the populace so they’d be fine with it.
I mean…yeah? I’m not disputing that. But it doesn’t fit the literal definition of human sacrifice, which is ritualized killing to appease a spiritual/religious figure such as a god, ancestor, or overlord (see for the latter case examples of retainer sacrifice, where one’s servants or slaves were killed to lie beside their masters in death). There are other words to describe things like the Crusades or the Inquisition, using “human sacrifice” to describe them just dilutes it to the point of meaninglessness.
‘Human Sacrifice’ feels like a pretty apt term to describe the death of a person or people in the name of reinforcing a theocratic majority power.
Seriously? “Ethnic cleansing”, “genocide”, “war of aggression”, “religious persecution” (particularly in the case of the Inquisition, which primarily obsessed over Jews, Muslims, and people who Weren’t Christianing Right), and others are all words that would be better. “Human sacrifice” is not, as literally any anthropologist would tell you. It is a very specific term.
I mean yeah I can use all those too.
I know we’re approaching this from an etymology sense but I’m kinda more focusing on the end result of “someone getting murdered for the end goal of benefiting religious power base.”
“someone getting murdered for the end goal of benefiting religious power base.”
A lot of things have the same end result, that doesn’t mean that the actions taken to get there are all identical to each other. Steering the conversation away from death for a moment, it’s like saying that since 19th-century clippers and steamships could both circumnavigate the planet in fairly good time, there was no functional difference between them.
Furthermore, not all human sacrifices were devoted to gods (except tangentially-so, insofar as it relates to the more nebulous concept of “powers” or an afterlife in general); I named retainer sacrifices—carried out by the Scythians, Norse, and Egyptians among others—above as one example, in which the murdered people were killed so as to continue serving the person or persons they would then be buried with in the afterlife.
But seriously, try telling an anthropologists’ convention that the Crusades were a sterling example of human sacrifice, and watch as you get laughed out of the room.
Like I said, I know you’re talking about the meaning of the words, I just feel like it’s a weird thing for someone to go “people died in the name of theocratic imperialism” and then to respond to that with “they didn’t do that exact kind of theocratic imperialist murder.”
I stress again that you didn’t write the above to make some kind of moral divide between “human sacrifice for ritualistic purposes” and “a person is called a witch, is murdered to the delightful glee of the majority, and then their property is taken because that’s why they were called a witch in the first place.”
Consdeirng that as soon as we found out that the two skeletons embracing in Pompeii were two dudes a bunch of anthropologists immediately went “look at what good friends they were”, I’m gonna give you two guesses at how much I value their input on this, and the first one doesn’t count.
More to the point, there is, indeed, no functional difference between the instances in the topic at hand.
Christians: “Look, at how barbaric they are, they kill people for their supernatural beliefs”.
Also christians: “Let’s kill all these people for our supernatural beliefs.”
And there were other anthropologists who argued that the “just friends” angle was stupid. But seriously, I dare you to find ONE actual peer-reviewed academician who’ll agree that the Crusades and the Inquisition were examples of human sacrifice. Seriously, try me. I will bet cash money on this.
As I’ve previously established, I don’t care.
What I CAN tell you is that there’s no meaningful difference between the Aztecs going “if we don’t rip this dude’s heart out, the eldritch abomination that is the planet will get mad us” and christians going “if we don’t kill these people for not following the exact orthodoxy, god will get mad at us”.
If you truly can’t see a meaningful difference between the Aztecs’ “let’s cut out the hearts of 10,000 warriors atop our temples to stop the ground from eating our feet” and the Crusades’ “let’s enrich ourselves by carving out new kingdoms for ourselves in a faraway land through bloody wars of aggression, and sell it as a Holy War against people who are Not Christian™ (or Not The Right Type of Christian™, in the case of the Fourth Crusade and some of the Northern Crusades)“ or someone being accused of witchcraft so their property could be duly seized and used to the enrichment of the judges and/or accusers—and if you clearly disdain an entire scientific field of study—then maybe next time don’t inject a useless dilution of an academic term intrinsically linked to that field into a discussion about what said term actually covers.
Wow. JBento and Spencer really want to die on this hill, don’t they.
Yeah, gotta go with King Daniel here. Words have meaning. Don’t misuse them.
Or, to put it another way, Airplanes, Helicopters, and Hot Air Balloons all fly. Doesn’t mean you can land your hot air balloon on an airport runway.
I ain’t dying on a hill, it’s just fucking weird to umm actually terminology being used to make a point about how “dying for a theocratic power base” and then go “no there’s a specific kind of word to use there ”
Like there’s functionally no difference between them in the outcome, is what we’re getting at. The etymology of “human sacrifice” differing from other terms used to describe violence motivated by theocratic power is the point; whatever you call it, someone dies for the gain of the worshipers of a dominant religious power.
The point is that the Venn diagram between “human sacrifice” and “dying for a theocratic power base” is not a circle. There’s some overlap, and they both result in someone or someones dying, but they are not the same thing. And JBento was the “umm actually” person first with their sudden assertion in a conversation on human sacrifice in the Mediterranean that the Crusades et al. were impossible to classify as anything other than examples of it.
Like Rose said, planes, helicopters, hot air balloons, and airships all fly—but it doesn’t mean you can land your balloon on the runway, and naming your Cessna Hindenburg doesn’t mean you’re flying an airship.
They had pizza restaurants back then?
Which is kinda funny since a willingness to perform child sacrifice upon divine command was literally the whole point of the Abraham/Isaac story — the one place where a Christian hasn’t really got a choice to dispute it.
Huh. I thought Gehenna was just the name of a weapon in New Vegas.
Or a planet. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Thousand_in_Gehenna)
Honestly regardless of whether the sacrifices happened, given hell and other ideas like Purgatory and actions like self flagellation or harm being common in the medieval church I sometimes wonder if those came about because of similar mindsets as that can result in human sacrifice. I mean all the suffering seems utterly pointless except as almost an offering either to god himself or to a lesser deity like satan to appease them. I mean seriously what is the point otherwise? Why is there the belief that sin in life results in suffering and punishment for if not eternity but for a long time? They say it’s the wages of sin but why must sin be paid? Why is Jesus supposed to be debt forgiveness? Who benefits from creating the debt in the first place?
I thought it was a field/garden area
– ex-Catholic
You’re probably thinking of Gethsemane, not Gehenna.
(For further clarification, Gethsemane and Gehenna/Hinnom were in the same basic area—Jerusalem and its environs—but one was on a hillside, the other was a valley.)
Having never engaged in a post-coital religious discussion, I can’t relate to Becky’s whole Situation. Dina, on the other hand, just seems happy to be here and is doin’ her very best to be part of the discussion without Making A Fuss about not believing the stuff Becky does. If she were any more perfect, she’d be generating candies instead of normal waste.
if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, every day would be halloween
if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, every day would be
halloweenChristmas (ftfy)Ok yeah, Becky not believing in traditional “hell” makes me feel much more relieved in general. It’s still a shitty feeling, but it doesn’t seem like it would lead into a whole regret arc. I’m happy Becky doesn’t think eternal torture is one of the “important” parts because that would suck to read!
UNFORTUNATELY… Becky is still on a completely different page than Joyce about what Christianity means. This is more clear to us than ever. They super need to talk to each other. Each is trying to push the other towards or away from faith without talking about this. And no, I don’t think the fight counts. I think the fight made the misconceptions worse.
[Michael Scott Thank You dot gif]
10/10. Would conduct scientific experimentation upon again.
Reproducing results is an important part of the scientific method.
And results reproducing is an important part of continuing to maintain sufficient test subjects!
What were we talking about again?
I don’t think that’s possible here, at least without a conveniently magic-science Super Soaker.
I really like Becky’s viewpoint. It’s not all that different than my own.
Then again I’m very much a love everyone kind of person (with a few people I struggle with because of their OWN horridness.)
This is the most relatable Becky has ever been ever, and I say this as someone who ALSO went through an “everyone in this room must know I’m queer” phase
1) That seemed entirely plausible given her last words to Ross, but good to see it confirmed.
2) But I’m also noting that Becky did in fact do the same thing of checking translations and proving to herself that the word of God does not in fact support what she’s been taught, just like Joyce did immediately after Becky came out to her. (And which Becky didn’t take well at the time, but…) This could have been a thing Becky started researching when she realized she was gay, or an idea she’s always been percolating in the back of her mind. But since we know Becky didn’t have a smartphone pre-IU, and almost certainly didn’t have many ways to check the internet unmonitored, I suspect this is one she looked into more recently. And that means my first impulse is ‘it’s about Bonnie in particular, and then the idea that no matter how much her dad sucked, when he gets to heaven and God tells him to knock all the violent abusive homophobia off and he’s with her mom again, by the time she gets there they can be a happy family for real this time.’ (I… don’t think that’s likely, even if an afterlife did exist in this fictional universe conforming to Becky’s specific beliefs, but I also think Becky’s majorly in denial about just HOW fucked their congregation was, beyond just the homophobia and misogyny, and how that means even ‘good ones’ like Hank and her mom were complicit in some serious foulness. But Becky’s a fictional 18-year-old orphan who was cast out of the community she grew up in, I’m not judging that coping device.)
3) Speaking of which, aww, that last panel. Poor kiddo.
#2 is a good detail, nice eye.
Much to the contrary, Becky.
Dina is very much pointed!
I always forget what the original Bible, in this case I mean Christian Bible, was written in. It was being proselytized to a audience of Romans so it would have been written in a language meant for them to be able to read and comprehend for easier conversions.
But I can never remember if it was Aramaic, Greek, or Latin it was written in by the Apostles and not Apostles.
Looks like it was originally written in Greek, being the language of scholars at the time.
Koine Greek (aka the form of the language introduced via the conquests of Alexander the “You’re All Speaking Greek Now”) I believe, from memory. It was the lingua franca of the especially-eastern Mediterranean after all.
Greek, as said.
Yeshua of Nazareth would more likely have spoken Aramaic. It’s not impossible that He would have known Greek, but the son of a Galilean laborer being educated in Greek would probably have been fairly unusual.
I dunno if knowing Koine in the eastern Med was something you needed education in vs. just picking up from the community.
The Gospellers depict Jesus having casual conversations with several Romans. Those conversations would likely have been in Greek. And it was a time and culture with a high level of literacy; even the son of a Galilean labourer would have been very highly educated, especially when compared to his equivalent a thousand years later in Mediaeval Northern Europe.
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, but by people who didn’t have Greek as a first language. The Gospel of Mark at least uses very rough vocabulary, with certain grammatical constructions that look more Aramaic that Greek (I’d give you an example, but it’s 31 years now since I wrote my exam essay on this topic and I can’t remember any). Matthew, Luke and John, being written later (and probably in that order) use progressively more ‘proper’ Greek, and Paul was an educated man whose Greek was good enough that we can now identify which of the letters attributed to him were actually written by him. Certain words or phrases in Aramaic are included, which may be as close as we will ever come to the actual authentic words of Yeshua.
The dinosaur is not disappointed either.
Neither is Bagge.
Or so Our sources tell Us.
I guess this is fully confirmation that Becky’s desires to bring Joyce back into the fold are pretty cleanly selfish. Like it’s not a desire to ‘save’ her from hell or anything.
It’s very human to want one of the few things from her childhood that didn’t suck to remain but remaining Christian would do nothing good for Joyce herself.
Joyce is also flawed in wanting Becky to also leave with her but it could be argued it’s because she doesn’t want her to waste any more time of the one life she has on something hurtful that’s not real. It’s however also showing Joyce as mistaken as Becky never believed the same things as her. Minus some mental hiccups like the sex thing Becky has edited things down to the point that she and past Joyce had completely different interpretations of what being a Christian meant. Being a Christian helped Becky. It’s just a good option and not the equivalent of having a gun held to your head and acting like it’s free will like her dad did. It doesn’t tear Becky apart from the inside or make her afraid. It did for Joyce. Being a Christian is a form of hell for Joyce in her head.
I wonder if this realisation will result in Becky trying to sell her particular brand if she gets this or if she’ll back off entirely. Maybe one will follow the other?
I mean yeah, Joyce thinks Becky is a willful mark for their abusive upbringing, since Joyce never processed God the same way Becky does.
The last word on trying to get Becky to change was when Joyce said Becky didn’t have to get “left behind” when Joyce eventually moved on and stopped being her buffer, but then the both of them went “I am not changing ever” so they became total strangers, and then afterwards we learned Becky’s trying to convert her back.
My guess for the fallout here is that Becky doubles down on trying to convert Joyce back. Actually having sex is the last boundary Becky herself had with who she used to be (when Dina first mentioned the idea, Becky rejected it since she had “already changed so much”), and now the only part of her old life she has is Besty-in-Christ Joyce who believes the exact same things as Becky and was supposed to just ditch the unimportant parts. If she’s still so thoroughly dependent on Joyce’s unconditional love (which, nothing there has changed) then forcing Joyce to change back is the only way she’ll retain even a shred of that stability she wants.
Aye. Becky really, really does need to just let Joyce not be Christian.
I do wonder how much of what Becky’s done there is pure selfishness versus just unexamined instinct, though. Not that Becky isn’t being selfish, but we’re also dealing with a vile sect of the faith where pressuring non-believers and doubters into belief is a central pillar.
If someone asked Becky why she’s trying to pressure Joyce back into Christianity… I honestly don’t think Becky would be able to articulate why.
Also true. I feel Dina could very easily raise that question for insight. Perhaps even Dorothy could too if she found out.
She said why. Joyce is her buffer, and the only reason playing Rich Mullins to “pull the ol’ God Strings” didn’t work is actually because Joyce hates her so much.
It’s selfishness in its outcome, but it’s instinct in the sense that Becky is so absurdly dependent on Joyce (since Joyce, y’know, saved her from homelessness, protected from every single facet of their old life, actually punched her dad unconscious after a car chase and then later got kidnapped herself by him) that she doesn’t know how to function without Joyce as her Joyce who thinks specific things and eats specific foods and makes specific Joyce Faces if you make fun of her the right way.
Becky’s been running on one big trauma panic response since she joined the cast where she was genuinely in constant danger that was only resolved because of the good will of the people around her (y’know, what we’re supposed to do when the people we love are in danger). She’s in a place of stability now, she’s not literally dependent on Joyce/Leslie/Robin to survive anymore, but he’s still treating Joyce as her guardian/dad-punching attack dog/source of unconditional love and stability even though Joyce has her own bullshit to sort through that, at the moment, Becky is making worse.
“Hell” is from the Norse religion and is literally the name of the owner of the place. The spelling has altered over the years from the original Hel, and in Norse theology Hel (the place and the goddess) was super cold. Unlike Christian Hell being a lake of fire.
Scriptures are like laws. At the best it is interesting, if you have the stomach for it, to know how they are made.
Maybe the hot interpretation comes from the Phlegethon river from Greek mythology? It was a river of flames in the underworld after all
Huh. I thought Phlegethon was just a raid boss from Final Fantasy 14.
All of religion makes absolute sense once you stop treating it like… well, religion. Treat it like history and literature and every single twist and weirdness falls into place.
Alt : … why would you do that
Some men just want to watch the world burn
Well, I definitely wouldn’t be so harsh/blunt about it, buuuut… 😉 If your partner is not pleasing you sexually, it’s vitally important that you let them know so they can adapt and improve. Doing good sex is a SKILL, and just like any other skill you need feedback, constructive criticism, and a willingness to practice and do better, but the process can’t start unless your partner lets you know if you’re doing it right or not.
Of course, it’s equally important to be understanding, patient and encouraging. Mocking or insulting somebody because they’re a terrible lover is not likely to give them incentive to improve. Remember too that everybody is different in terms of tastes, kinks, and erogenous zones, and whatever you learned from your previous partner may not be right for the next one. Be prepared to have to learn everything anew whenever you change partners.
That is so important ♡. Dina is just amazing.
I hope “down stairs fancy place” gets quoted in the main line comics.
This is the example of a healthy (interracial, interfaith, homosexual) relationship that the world needs.
“Even if they’re butts…”
or in this case, toes.
I know most college couples rarely stay together, and more so for a fictional couple, but I kind of hope that these two stay together forever. I feel like they are exactly what the other needs, especially in Becky’s case where it’s the only truly wholesome thing she has left.
I mean, yes there’s Joyce and the others, but having someone who truly understands and doesn’t mock your beliefs is always nice.
Okay so if EVERYONE goes to Heaven, even if they are a kidnapping, gun pointing abuser….
WHY does Joyce need to BE a Christian then? According to Becky’s version of Christianity, God’s just so nice he’d let her in anyways so what’s the deal???
It’s not about Joyce’s soul, Becky needs Joyce to exist as she always has because Becky is emotionally dependent on Joyce existing as her buffer, and she’s only allowed to change in ways that Becky approves of.
That sounds like a really harsh read of Becky, it is, it’s also totally correct, but at least she has fairly understandable reasons for being a huge butt about it as opposed to Joyce’s other closest friends.
I have never got the slightest impression that Becky’s problem with Joyce’s newfound atheism is that she won’t get into Heaven. If she believed that, she’d probably be trying to convert Dina. Or did you think she was fine with the idea of her girlfriend going to Hell?
Becky’s desire for Joyce to be Christian again is partly because Atheist Joyce is actually a bit of a jerk, and partly exactly the same as Joyce’s desire for Becky to join her in realising Christianity is a stupid religion for stupid people — they’re not used to disagreeing about stuff, and they want to go back to when they didn’t.
I mean to be fair “Christian Becky” is also kind of a jerk..and she’s not fine with the idea of Dina going to Hell, BUT she IS perfectly happy with Dina being mad about how WRONG she is, when she dies and ends up in Heaven because Becky was right the whole time hahahaa Dina.
Maybe Atheist Joyce be less of “a bit of a jerk” if:
– She was not outed as one by Becky and Dorothy when they felt entitled to her time and then forced to immediately justify it to Becky in a conversation she was not prepared to have because, if she were, she woulda told those two instead of keeping it for Joe and Sarah.
– If she was not violently traumatized by her death cult, a realization she only had after she was at college long enough for her friends to treat her like a silly weirdo who’ll snap and suck a billion dicks before long.
– If Hillary Clinton could ask “how are you feeling?” instead of “go find a nice deism, you’re only allowed to be angry if you’re angry at the right person, and you’re not considering how sad Becky is that you’re an atheist.”
yeah those are sure things that have been done to Joyce. Mostly in response to her suddenly turning into an evangelical atheist talking in slogans about understanding God is fake means she has reached the ultimate wisdom and everyone else needs to stop believing in invisible sky wizards and afterlives so they can be smart and right or else they, and especially Becky, are not worth her time.
Aside from that, Becky and Joyce both need to stop pushing each other away because they’re afraid of losing the other one because she’s changing. But of the many things that’s making that conversation harder, Joyce’s evangelism as of yet is by far on the top of the list.
I dunno how to tell you this but it’s actually okay to be mean to the thing you started hating because your mom bailed out the guy who tried to shoot you in the face. You’re allowed to be angry about that for a good minute, especially when your good minute being mad about it is the direct follow up to being hunted down to a private conversation because your friends are possessive nutbars, and prior to this happening you were introspective and lacking in stability to the point where you angrily lash out saying that nothing you do matters because God isn’t real and so the person you were doesn’t actually really exist.
Like even if I were capable of believing that “being mean to Christians :(” is actually a real problem with any tangible consequence, it feels kinda wack to make Joyce redeem herself for a thing she only started engaging in after Becky and the Hilldawg skipped over asking why this happened or what brought this about.
I’m not saying it’s unreasonable for Joyce to do those things. I’m saying as long as she’s doing them they’re getting in the way of any meaningful conversation.
Like that meaningful conversation at Galasso’s that started with Becky going “everything you ever were is a lie and you lie to me all the time” had to have Joyce do all the emotional labour in reaching out to her? Then she invited Becky and whaddya know, Becky spent the entire thing acting as she always does and also we found out she deliberately played Rich Mullins music to try and subtly convert her back.
Becky is completely unequipped to deal with why Joyce has been violently traumatized, she was completely unequipped with something as simple as Joyce questioning sexual purity at Dina’s party where she told Joyce that she’s going through a stupid phase and she’s only rebelled against her parents for 30 seconds so it doesn’t count. This is where a helpful, compassion, caring and empathetic person with an understanding of concepts like “my friend matters more than whether she’s angry after constant, visceral traumatic incidents” can take over, but unfortunately all we got is Dorothy whose grand contributions have been telling her to fix it while putting in no emotional labour for her best friend and also inferring that Joyce isn’t capable of making her own decision on her faith.
It has been five months and the most amount of empathy and compassion in Joyce’s direction for something like “I literally thought all this shit was real including the part where dinosaurs on the ark and I don’t know what my life is anymore” has been from fuggin’ Walky. If I am being expected to consider both sides in a scenario like “is Joyce allowed to say ‘God is Stinky’ after being brainwashed her entire life, relentlessly mocked as a fundie moron by her friends, and nearly murdered like three separate times” then it’d be nice if Joyce’s three best friends were capable of asking “how are you feeling?” and “do you want to talk about it?”
And then I still wouldn’t consider both sides because all this shit started with Becky and Dorothy being complete psychos who tracked Joyce down using someone else’s social media accounts instead of just like shooting her a text, for the stated reason of “I’m Joyce’s Christian Friend” and “Joyce skipped a class.”
Like putting aside meaningful conversation, I can’t even believe they’re actually friends.
I feel the need to remind people that 80% of that was venting in a space she felt was safe to vent these feelings in
It didn’t become about Becky until Becky showed up and made it about her
I believe you all are reading too much religion into this. What Becky wants is to be able to continue having what once were delightful shared experiences for both of them. That these experiences have religious connotations is just because that’s how they were raised. If they had been raised in other type of environment she would be trying to get Joyce back to MAGA rallies, soccer matches or antifascist demonstrations. This is what happens when you have just one really close friend that was also your only crush and your friend outgrows your shared childhood faster than you.
“I believe you all are reading too much religion into this”
*glances at comic literally discussing Heaven, Hell,Atheism, cults ect*
Really don’t think we are…. and even so, her Crabs in a Bucket mentality wouldn’t be any better.
They mean that Becky would be acting like this in any other context were she still raised in the same house with the same dad who brought her up the same way, in that Becky’s need for Joyce to come back to God is because Becky needs Joyce to be her Joyce, and Christianity is just the circumstance of “important thing Becky and Joyce shared that they don’t anymore.”
Yeah as said, wouldn’t make her “crabs in a bucket” mentality any better.
If one crab tries to climb out of a bucket, the other crabs will latch onto it to keep it from leaving.
Becky is being a crab in a bucket, trying to keep crab Joyce from leaving the bucket.
I mean “crabs in a bucket” as a metaphor tends towards “undoing the success of someone else,” whereas Becky’s possessive to the point of declaring ownership over Joyce, or more accurately; thinking Joyce needs to do and say everything in a specific manner or else she’s not the real Joyce and Becky can’t be friends with her.
I’m talking about how literal crabs in buckets act but your version is waaaay worse.
Ah.
Why the heck we putting all these crabs in buckets anyway. What did they do to deserve this.
The crabs know what they did
I blame the crabs for carcinization rates in the ocean
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the words “God” and “Lord” in English translations of the Bible also a bunch of different Hebrew/Greek words, one of which is an ancient Canaanite word meaning either “gods” or “children of El?”
So the Jewish scripture uses a mixture of El (God), Elohim (Gods, but usually treated as singular, kind of like a Royal we but possibly a pre-monotheistic relic), Adonai (lord, can also refer to mortal authorities), and YHWH (often translated as “The LORD”; the Tetragrammaton, the 4 letter true name of God, Yahweh, Jehovah).
It’s important to note that, for example, the names Jehovah and El/Elohim come from different traditions and texts that were harmonized in the formation of the Torah.
It always surprises me a little when people are surprised by this. Catholic Bibles don’t use the word Hell – it’s doctrine that sola scriptura types liked enough to retcon in.
THIS. All of THIS. I LOVE this. THANK you for this. It puts into words a lot of thoughts I’ve had for a LONG time.
Oh god thank you for finally saying it. 99% of what Christians think they know about hell comes from Dante’s Inferno, with a little bit of the ironic punishments in Tartarus from Greek Mythology like Tantalus and Sisyphus thrown in so it feels properly ancient, but the bible itself doesn’t say crap about that kind of thing.
…With some help from Auguste Rodin and Hieronymus Bosch.
Yeah, it’s a part of Christianity that developed after the New Testament texts had been written. It’s a pretty early tradition though. Not something Dante invented, even if he’s a common source these days.
*whispering* “religious trauma”
Golly is this some big development here, regardless of how long Becky has thought this, saying it is still a big step. There’s something nice about Becky finally understanding that her religious trauma isn’t about the god part but the whole childhood surrounded by abusers and enablers, or at least what specific feeling she’s been left with.
Though I do agree with others that this also leaves Becky with only one person who represents a connection to the perfect childhood that has been torn away from her piece by piece. It probably means doubling down but also maybe this revelation being so specific might get her to see that she’s holding on to a Joyce that doesn’t exist, and maybe the new Joyce is still her friend(even if she doesn’t fulfil a specific kind of connection)
Nah, she’s probs gonna double down and make things way worse
The way you put it there, Joyce representing “the only connection Becky has left to the perfect childhood that was torn away from her piece by piece”.
It is a concise and perfect description. It all makes sense now. And I must admit, I know exactly how she feels. 😞
At the same time, her dependence on Joyce being frozen in history isn’t so healthy either. Maybe she’ll find some other way to make that connection, to that perfect childhood, to those happy things to look back on, if only to help her function.
Maybe she’ll make new happy memories with this newfound Joyce.
Only time will tell.
How do you fix a strained friendship? Decide who’s the most wrong and make them feel bad, right?
So self-evident is this logic that when the conversation here comes up about Joyce’s and Becky’s conflict, my comments towards identifying and resolving the conflict seem to be assumed to be arguments for Joyce’s moral failings. It’s happened twice now and I’m worried for the state of personal relationships in the western world.
I mean yeah culpability matters when one side has done all the wrong and is causing all the harm, and the only progress has been from the victim being told her feelings are fraudulent and childish and that she has to fix it.
General relationship tip: If something has gone wrong, it may be more useful to ask “who is in a position to do something about this?” instead of “whose fault was this?”
They’re both important questions so you don’t do things like endlessly expose yourself to being harmed by people who are supposed to give a shit about you.
Like yeah when someone I love hurts me again I’m more than a little resentful that I’m the only one between us who’s capable of seeing it, whereupon they’re so outraged by the insinuation that nothing changes and they do it again later and then it’s my fault because “I’m dredging up the past.”
I don’t know your situation, but it sounds like you’re saying figuring out what to do to solve a problem has worked out a lot better than figuring out who’s the most wrong?
I’m saying that carefully explaining in exact terms how these people in my life who I deeply love and cherish hurt me in exact, specific ways means jack shit in the name of what they’ve decided is happening.
Which is a lot of emotional labour to go through with a problem that starts with “these people say they love and can’t acknowledge for a moment the things I am saying, and only seem to appreciate me as long as I do and say along their desires.”
I did that first part, the “how to solve a problem” for an addict in my life. Years of resentment that I decided to be constructive about, and about a year and a half later where I’ve seen them make rapid progress when they do right by their addiction, they keep stumbling into it because they’ve got a chronic case of “you’re not my real dad” and so it matters more that they have a specific vision of “I want to be a social drinker, don’t tell me what to do” even though they’re incapable of driving without picking up enough booze to last a five day binge.
At some point in time, it’s actually just okay to say that you’re at fault, you’re causing the problem, and that’s all I need to do, because it’s completely outrageous to delude myself into thinking someone who hurts me that badly is deserving of constant emotional support.
And like, at least in this scenario they aren’t drinking and screaming for my own good, they’re just completely out of control with their addiction.
Whatever benefit you’ve got from this line of thinking, well, I’m glad it worked out, but it works if you have people who give a shit about you enough to change. However, maybe we shouldn’t need to put that much emotional labour into people who stupidly, obliviously hurt us until they have basic standards of human decency explained to them. Like maybe they can use their brains for five minutes and figure it out themselves before they keep going at it.
I have basically just one person in my life, my cousin who I grew up with who lives down the street. So it’s not like I have anything to gain from blaming people. Especially doing the work to figure out who to blame the most. But, reading your posts, it doesn’t look like it gains you anything either.
Fuck you.
Okay have fun with that, Spencer.
Or I’m sorry that happened to you.
Whichever resolution to your misplaced aggression works better for you and the people in your life.
As a coda, I have brought our argument here up to some friends, which, naturally you have to allow for some bias to my side, so, you’ve got to try to see through their version of events and take their judgement for what it’s worth.
I told them that I tried to argue problem solving is a more useful method of solving problems than figuring out who is the most wrong, and that Spencer here spent days and days arguing for the opposite, believing based on their experience that you gotta blame somebody for some reason.
It’s possible I didn’t actually understand Spencer’s argument enough to fairly represent it. I’m not sure that I do.
But ultimately, my friends all thought Spencer’s argument was not worthy of any comment. I mean, I tried. I argued for hours. But nobody cared.
So Hell is a literal trash heap?? Huh… learn something new everyday.
In Hebrew, “Gei ben-Hinnom”, which is literally “Valley of the son of Hinnom.” This became shortened to “Gehinnom” or “Valley of Hinnom” over time, eventually transliterated into Greek as “Gehenna.” It has an association with divine punishment in Rabbinic literature, generally as a temporary space in which one is punished and cleansed before moving on to whatever the afterlife is.
Judaism is honestly pretty vague about the afterlife. It isn’t really a major concern for the religion.
I could see Dina saying the Alt Text, and then saying “a joke is when you have chosen the appropriate like” or whatever the line from ages ago was
*lie not like
You mean this one?
Yes! Thank you for finding it <3
In his modern take on “Dante’s Inferno” (Called simply, “Inferno,”) Larry Niven comes up with an actual reason for a kind and living God to have a Hell. And, if he’s correct, anyone can walk out when they reach an enlightened understanding about themselves. The hero’s guide says he’s led six people out and the hero reaches a conclusion at the end that does make some sense. Also the ending to the series “Lucifer,” has Lucifer changing the operations of Hell. (Nothing more… spoilers!)
God loves butts. Got it.