In depth

The Chosen’s Problem with The Bible

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I’ve written about the Chosen before (see The Chosen). I started out liking the show but after season 3 I had problems with it, and now, I’ve had to watch season 4 as part of a Church thing (not because I wanted to).

And I think I now have a better idea of what I think about it than before, and I am more sure that season 3 was not just a fluke. Season 4 was already on shaky ground, but after the death of Raymah, and subsequent alterations they made to match that, it has completely derailed from scripture.

Even where the Word says that Jesus lost none of His followers. [See John 16 and 17:6-12 especially vs. 12.]

I think the Chosen has a real problem with certain parts of the Bible, and the Faith of Christianity and I’m going to detail why in 10 points.

So let’s do this thing:

1. Sometimes it’s more risky to show miracles then it is to show tragedy.

    Actually, it’s always more risky.

    It’s a strange truth about human beings, we find it easier to accept bad things happen, then good things.

    The easiest way to prove this is to ask yourself how your expectations are effected by a positive or negative outcome of any situation.

    When something ends badly, and the same situation repeats itself again, is your first thought to expect it to go wrong? Or do you clear the board and have no expectations?

    And conversely, even if it goes well, do you still think it will go badly the third time? Or, at least, are you just as worried about it?

    How many good experiences does it take to cancel out a negative one?

    And how many negative experiences does it take to ruin something for you?

    The problem is that many people treat God like this.

    When I looked at the controversy around Season 4’s killing off of Raymah, (who was not a biblical character to begin with, so I guess they thought they could get away with it) the most common defense fans made of the decision was that it was a good risk to take in storytelling, and that it was good to depict that God does not always answer prayers.

    Which is a rather presumptuous statement. How do we know that God does not always answer prayers? The answer may simply be one we did not understand.

    It is true that we don’t always get what we want.

    Therefore, according to the writers, it’s okay to change the Word of God, as long as it makes a point that is not found in scripture, but is a common teaching of the modern church.

    The Chosen writers claim they are not changing the Word of God, that they are simply depicting the story.

    What I find interesting about this claim is that it’s like they think as long as they are not writing the words into the physical Bible, they are not changing the Word of God.

    Did they forget that the stories of Jesus were originally passed down through oral tradition, just like every other religion’s stories. The Gospels were not written for a few decades after Jesus died. (Probably they were written because many of the first Disciples had died and so there were less people who could tell eye witness accounts of it, and the writers of the Gospels realized they needed a record of it.)

    But for the first 20-4o years, all we knew about Jesus was by word of mouth. And that was enough.

    So it was crucial that they told it accurately.

    And the writers of the Chosen also seem to ignore that most of Jesus’ teachings were in story form: Parables, and that changing the words Jesus used would change the parable’s meaning.

    Not to mention how often both Jesus, and other prophets used visual teaching aids to make their point. Temples, rocks, trees, dust, etc.

    So yeah, the Bible has always been passed down through oral and visual means, not just the written word, and if you change it in spoken or visual depiction, which a TV show would be, you are still changing the word of God.

    Words are spoken before they are written aren’t they? If you change what God said in what you speak, performance or otherwise, you are changing his Word. Like a false prophet would not give accurate prophecies.

    This is not to say nothing the chosen has done has ever not been good. They do show some things as they happened, and that is going to have power, no matter how mutilated the rest of the show is…

    But that does not excuse it.

    The thing is, even if the imitation has some power, the unfiltered word of God always has more power than a paraphrase. The real thing is always better. And this is true of all things.

    You’ve seen copies of great art, or remakes of movies, even when they are good, do they ever hit you quite the same way the first one did? No…there’s a freshness in originality that moves us more than imitating it does, no matter how well we do it.

    Knock off brands are never as good as name brand food, or clothing, or medicine, or anything.

    Iconic things are iconic for a reason.

    2. The Pride of Assuming we can make God’s point better than He can.

    The disturbing thing about people’s justifying changing the Word of God because it’s more ‘realistic” is that it’s very arrogant to assume we just know what God thinks about things.

    Tragedy is real, I’m not the type to ignore that.

    But the whole story of the Bible is about how God will overcome all evil in the world, including the evil of loss.

    So it was important that Jesus overcome all evilest he was faced with, in His time on Earth.

    The only time Jesus ever failed was when it depended on people’s free will to accept him. Which healing and resurrection do not. That is a different matter.

    But when it came stopping to the things that plague our world, Jesus never failed to do that. You won’t find one story incident of Jesus saying no to someone who asked for healing, or failing to resurrect anyone he wanted to.

    In fact, it’s kind of surprising that Jesus never once said no…almost like it wasn’t about worthiness.

    (BTW, Jesus raised at least 3 people from the dead. The Chosen and most other depictions of the Gospels leave out the widow’s son for some reason.)

    What I find odious about what the the writers of the Chosen are doing is that they are using the Word of God, which God meant for His own purpose when He had it recorded and told tho the world, to instead teach a message of their own.

    It really wouldn’t matter in the least if they are right or not about they way God sees loss. I think it’s not really as simple as they made it out to be.

    People like to act as if there is only one reason anyone ever dies, but the Bible actually teaches clearly that there are many reasons someone can die. Sometimes it’s sin, sometimes it’s just their time, sometimes it’s evil on someone’s part, and sometimes it’s so that God can do a miracle (which is the most rare, but happens.)

    Or some may give up their life willingly as an act of sacrifice.

    God seems to see death as a complex issue, and since, to us, it certainly is complicated to experience loss, I’m glad the Bible does not give a generic answer to the problem. That would be kind of silly. And show it was not a true faith.

    That said, the Chosen has no business trying to simplify it either into something so packaged and vague that you can’t ever say for sure if it’s legitimate or not.

    The reason for not raising Raymah from the dead given is that “it’s not her time.”

    But, God no where in the entire Bible, not just the Gospel, says that it’s not someone’s time to be resurrected. That reason never comes up, there’s not that many cases of resurrection in the Bible, but none of them contain that.

    God also, to my knowledge (and I did look it up to be sure), never even says that there is a set time for people to be raised to life, aside from the final ressurrection, which is of a different kind.

    So they are making this up as way to explain to people why they do not get what they want.

    Because, you know, so many of us ask for resurrections on a regular basis…

    Yeah, I’ve never asked for that.

    Making the lesson about resurrection is suck a presumption because it’s a mystery even in the Bible why and how God does it.

    Now the message bout not all prayer being answered (at least right away) could be addressed, but it should have been around something that the Bible addresses itself, not something that we have no authority to speak on. Because, we really don’t. We don’t know the rules. We shouldn’t presume to know God’s reasons for things when He does not outright give them to us.

    Do you think I’m being a snob? But God says in His word: “My ways are Higher than your ways, and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts.” [Isaiah 55:9]

    I’m showing the respect to God that I think He deserves.

    And I don’t set up my own wisdom to be the authority on God’s ways. I only know that by His own Word, which He gave us to judge by, this does not line up.

    And that should really have won the argument right there. That anyone can even still supports this is telling about how little anyone in our cultural respects the Bible anymore.

    There are a few people who agree with me, but, they seem to be in the minority, even out of the Christian audience.

    3. Our own lack of faith is being used to justify this writing decision.

    Because we find it hard to believe in miracles we don’t see everyday, that makes it okay to say Jesus would not have always done them…because that sounds too good to be true.

    Newsflash: Jesus is supposed to sound too good to be true. That’s how we know He was God in the flesh. If he wants limited the way a man is limited, we’d know he was just a prophet, which is what the Muslims believe.

    But we believe He was God, so you cannot limit Him like a man.

    Case in point: When Jesus cast a demon out of a boy his disciples couldn’t cast out, He was able to do it easily, He had more authority that His disciples who He said would need to have prayed more, and fasted, in some versions, to do it.

    Almost like Jesus, the one who gave them authority, inherently has more authority than them. Who is greater? The one who bestows authority? Or the one it’s bestowed on?

    Heck, even Disney’s Aladdin got this right. “The [genie] gave you your power, he can take it away.”

    4. The Chosen plays it safe.

    While it has no problem putting in things that out right contradict scripture, the Chosen also is omitting everything in the Gospel that would actually be difficult for the moderm audience.

    As I said, it’s astonishingly easy for people to accept tragedy. As evidenced by how many people accepted Raymah’s death, and who are showing disgust with those of us who think it was wrong to write it in.

    But strangely, the topics Jesus taught on that would really be a problem for our modern culture, they have been omitted from the entire show.

    I kept expecting them to start including more stories and sermons, but they haven’t.

    Like Jesus’ teaching on marriage, it would not be popular now, so they omitted it.

    They omitted His teaching on any and all political issues, which He didn’t cover a lot, but did a few times.

    They omitted His teaching on hell entirely, which does not surprise me. Most people do when they cover the Gospels.

    The omitted His teaching on many other things, his parables of the talents, the poor stewards, the last days, the servants, the straight and narrow way to life…anything that might make anyone uncomfortable.

    By contrast, teachings about forgiveness and acceptance of differences never really bother that many people. There are some who think it’s too lenient, but in our culture, for the most part, it’s approved of to preach acceptance and forgiveness.

    And those are important, and undoubtedly the best parts of the Chosen, when they do focus on it. But they waste so much time on things that never happened, and they don’t cover many things that did.

    Jesus did so, so much more than what they’ve shown.

    And you may say: “Well they don’t have the budget to show all of those things.”

    I’m aware they don’t. No one could…but it would take less budget to pay for people to just sit and talk, which most of the preaching would be, or to show parables, when they are very simple stories, than it would to pay for all these action scenes that were never real.

    And to me, it’s disrespectful, it’s like saying Jesus didn’t do enough things worth talking about for them to cover, they have to add all this stuff He never did, to make it more interesting…because the Gospel was not interesting enough already.

    And yes, it may not interest everyone…but if people are watching the show to learn about Jesus…then they need to learn about Jesus.

    But the story is supposed to be about his followers!

    The show says it’s about the lives of the people He called…but what were they learning?

    Peter said Jesus had the words of life?

    If we’re going to show the disciple’s lives, it’s imperative that we show what they were really hearing and experiencing, not making up stuff that never happened to them.

    (FYI, they were never stoned either. The attempt was made on Jesus, alone, but, He escaped, and none of the disciples were injured at any point. That was all a flat out lie.)

    And I don’t object to then the how just covers them having fun with each other, or having asides that do world building. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you can stay within the realm of possibility based on the Gospels, without committing heresy and blasphemy by portraying Jesus incorrectly.

    And it is, whatever they say, incorrect. If you cut out all the hard things Jesus taught, like about divorce, and hell, and judgment…then you cut out part of Jesus…and that cuts out some of the power of His message and life.

    And without the full power of it, what are we basing our lives on?

    5. What this twisting of the story is really doing:

    I hope that all this is not intentional on the writers’ part…

    But unfortunately, I kind of think it is.

    I don’t see how it couldn’t be. They are studying the Bible to write this show, they know what they are doing is not biblical. They know it’s changing the events of the Bible to suit a more ‘dramatic narrative.”

    But they are also changing it so that it matches more their image of God.

    Someone who is patient.

    Someone who confronts people who are judgmental, the pharisees, but only for the reasons we are okay with. Like objecting to healing.

    Never for the reason that we don’t like, like think they know God better than Jesus did…

    Wow…something that might actually make us question the writing of the show.

    I mean, clearly, the writers of the Chosen just understand Jesus better than us. They’re doing all this research…you know, with non-Christian scholars (look it up), to really understand what the founder of our faith was all about.

    And they clearly leave out half of what He taught (if not more) because they just understand what we need to see about Jesus, more than we do.

    And heck, they know most people no longer read the Bible or care what it says, so they’ll get away with it.

    And that’s not exploiting the ignorance of the population, and the gullibility of new Christians who don’t know better yet, in order to make money…Since they run this thing on donations.

    And of course, us all subscribing to it on our streaming platforms….

    I mean, there’s no ulterior motive here at all.

    (I notice they also left out Jesus’ teaching about money for the most part….though they do represent greed as a bad thing…I think. But more sympathetically than other sins.)

    6. What this show represents is False Gospel.

    And people being okay with it because they think it’s a better story show two things:

    a. We have fallen very far off track in the Western church and our love of scripture. We don’t love it anymore, we’re embarrassed by it. Because all of it does not fit pop culture. So, changing it is for the best in our eyes.

    b. People do not really understand the beauty and wisdom of the Gospels.

    I’m a simple woman in one way only: If I say I believe the Bible, I mean I believe all of it. Even the parts I don’t like, the parts that confuse me, and the parts that seem hard.

    Because, I accept that I am not all knowing. That God has always seemed difficult to understand to all poeple, in all times…but that is not unusual in life.

    All the most real and beautiful things in life are hard to understand.

    Love is.

    Great art is.

    Wisdom that really works for life is.

    Life itself, with all its complex functions, is hard to understand.

    So is the biological life we experience, and the natural world, they are hard to understand.

    Even the things that are unpleasant have a purpose, and thousands of years ago we did know what many of them were, but we do now.

    Why should God be any different? How could He be? He made the other things.

    So yes, I don’t understand it all…but I don’t need to.

    I accept God’s real because I have seen Him work in my life and the lives other, and I know He is real and true. so I can accept what I don’t know.

    Not being able to do this, either on in a show,or in real life, seems to show a lack of faith to me.

    Also a lack of sincerity.

    If it it’s so hard to believe that Jesus was as powerful as He was, but that in our lives, we don’t get everything that we want…well…

    Tough.

    7: A response to these issues

    See, our loss does not make it okay to scoff at someone else’s blessing. No more in the modern day than it did 2000+ years ago.

    Just as Peter asked if John would die for his faith, as Jesus warned Peter he would, and Jesus said ” What is that to you? You follow me.”

    See, John did not die for his faith, he was the only one who did not.

    Peter picked the right one, I guess.

    John was exiled,but, he died of old age.

    Would it really have made Peter feel better if he knew John would die also?

    Is someone else sharing our suffering necessary for us to bear it?

    I think not. I think that’s selfish.

    And Jesus told Peter He wouldn’t answer that.

    And that the same for us, I think.

    No, we do not all get the same miracles… We all get our own. However many we get.

    And more than we like realize, since we’re not privy to all things that could be trying to harm us in our lives.

    But, that does not mean we should presume to know why.

    Jesus didn’t explain Himself.

    I think that it did not need to be explained.

    God knows the allotment of suffering we all will get.

    Yeah, it’s disproportionate…but, what in life is ever in equal amounts to all people’?

    Never in nature, only humans ever try to give everyone the same amount, and how often does that backfire as we realize that not everyone can have the same amount.

    Two people can eat two different amounts of the same food.

    Some people can’t even eat some foods.

    We’re not all ready for the same thing. We’re not able to do the same things.

    People who lose people in their lives now and feel the need to project that into the Gospel to feel validated…well, they are playing a dangerous game.

    Both the writers, and often the fans.

    I can’t stress this enough: THE GOSPEL IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEMS AND YOUR ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THEM WITH YOUR CONCEPT OF GOD.

    You learn from the Gospel, you do not use it to promote your own solutions to things that are not officially in the faith. Not as if they are doctrine, anyway.

    Do we really need something so pathetic as needing to think Jesus let people die who were following him, in order to feel better about our suffering?

    As if we’re the same as those people?

    We’re not in the same time and place they were.

    Some times just have more protection then others.

    (Though, in my life, I’ve heard probably hundreds of stories by now of people being held, and even of being resurrected a few times and either I assume every single person was lying, even ones I know personally to be honest people, or, I assume that God still–shock–does miracles.)

    I don’t see this as an issue.

    And I don’t think they needed to waste our time with lies, just to push some half baked doctrine.

    There are some passage in the Bible about prayers not being answered right away, but they are for more than one reason.

    It can be lack of persistence. It can be the prayer is delayed by evil forces in the world (see Daniel). Or it can be God says no…but that’s rarely the reason given (to David and Paul are two of the only examples I can think of, for different reasons). Usually, it’s just not the right time.

    8. Is everything in the show bad?

    I don’t want to go that far. I might make the error of sinning in the opposite way if I do.

    Being too judgmental and eager to quench any good the show may do, is not a good attitude to have.

    But I must point out some things.

    I rarely hear this taught on (only by John Bevere, actually), but not all good things are necessarily God.

    At least, they may seem good, but that doesn’t mean they are good.

    See, often poeple can start with a good message, or good deed, but do it only to do a worse evil.

    Like how a child predator will use affirmation and rewards to lure a child in…but then do unspeakable;e things to them.

    And if you think that’s painting it too strong, the word says that Jesus compared twisting His word and causing people to stumble, to misleading and sinning against children, and said it would be better to be drowned with a heavy stone, then to do something like that.

    So if Jesus takes false teaching that seriously, then I think we probably should not be so flippant about how media is treating it.

    Media like the Chosen takes some good things from the Bible, and dangles it in front of the Christian audience, who are starved of it, because the World tends to mock us and tear us down in entertainment.

    So we’re desperate already.

    And then they mix in their own twist on it, just when we’re not looking, and start threading it with things that really did happen or are really Biblical, we may not even notice.

    The devil loves to use Scripture out of context, He tempted Jesus that way in the wilderness, so why not us?

    [Another thing the Chosen constantly does is take the stories of Jesus out of the context he spoke them in, rendering the meaning utterly different. Just recently they did this with the story of the final judgement of the Sheep and the Goats. They made it seem like he was teaching this to explain the idea of the coming kingdom, but He told that story as a warning to His followers, not to correct misconceptions about him. He did address those at other times, but that’s not where this teaching fits into the Bible. It had nothing to do with Mary and the oil. It took place a few days before that on the mount of Olives, and there were no pharisees present, just him and His Disciples, which Matthew 24:3 makes a point of making clear. They ruined the moment of Mary’s anointing just for more e’em impact…but I thought it took away the emotional impact to mix it up with the politics.]

    9. What is the Chosen even really about?

    I challenge you all to look very carefully at what the message of the Chosen has really become.

    Consistently, it is only a message from the most flimsy parts of Christianity (by which I mean, they are making it unbalanced), and hardly even Christianity anymore.

    It does focus on the healing and kindness of Jesus to a few people, yes, but, it ignores the main thing He taught.

    That His real purpose was to teach us how to follow God the best way, which has not been covered at all by the show.

    Not how to pray, how to worship, how to fast, none of the things Jesus said about serving God.

    Not even his speech about loving the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength”

    None of His new teachings about being closer to the Father. Like “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.

    But Jesus’ whole ministry was to reconcile us to the father.

    His healings were part of that. Since physical and demonic ailments often are a hindrance to being close to God. (Also He was compassionate. It can be more than one thing.)

    Since all that is gone, the show is very superficial.

    It centers around what Jesus did for his disciple, and what He didn’t do…that’s it.

    It’s not about God’s glory. It’s not about Jesus’ heart for His father, or His passion for His name.

    They have no had the Temple Cleansing scene yet, I’ve heard that they will in season 5.

    The issue is that, with the way they wrote this, they are going to make it look as if Jesus did these things just to anger the Pharisees. And the temple cleansing is Him adding to that.

    But that was not why Jesus did it, at least, we’re given no hint that it was. It was Him showing zeal for Gods’ house, not to anger the Pharisees.

    They take away huge parts of Jesus’ character, and by existence, His Disciples.

    It’s not okay to ignore that they were real people.

    Jesus is not just an idea you get to use to show whatever side of Him you are comfortable with.

    He is His own person, and you should show Him in His own words and deeds.

    Who can explain God better than Himself? And who can possibly hope to undrstand Him but Him?

    So how can we think changing Jesus, in any way, is acceptable.

    I don’t think they need to show ever sin thing He did, but what they do who’s should be what He did, and what He was like, not what we think He should be like.

    A if we could ever know that, apreit form Him.

    AS C. Lesis wrote, we shold pray to God “not to WAht I think Thou art, but what what Thou knowest Thyself to be.” IF w’re to be really honest about it.

    10. My conclusion about the show

    Boldly, I think no Christian should support what the Chosen is doing.

    The good they have done, I question how good it really can be.

    How can showing people a fake version of Jesus really help them?

    Yes it may get them to read their bible…

    But the thing is, that doesn’t help them, if in doing it, it has taught them to read it looking for the version of Jesus they’re seeing on the screen.

    To read it with a bias, and filter out what they don’t like.

    And if you think a show could not do that…then you don’t understand psychology. Because media does that all the time to us, and we’re lucky if we’re at least aware of it.

    Movies try to make us feel most things are the way they show them, and it’s convincing.

    Bad enough they corrupt sex, family, dreams, and art, but, you stay away from my Lord and Savior, you liars.

    People will always try to twist Jesus to suit them.

    But I must say, I’ve never seen anyone do it so openly, and gt so little flack for it from even Christians.

    Yes, skeptics often praise watering down Jesus because they don’t like Him the way He is, but I expect that. Though it annoys me.

    But those of us who are supposed to love Him, if we don’t really love Him, as He is…What are we even doing?

    Why call yourself a Christian if you don’t like Christ?

    No one seems interested in answering these questions who supports this show…

    But I still have to keep asking them. I can’t afford to let myself be hypnotized by fancy special effects and decent acting to accept things that are not true.

    And no one else should either. You have a responsibility to crack open your bible and find out if this show is right or not.

    And not to just to look for it to confirm what you’re seeing, but really, really look.

    And sorry to the writers , but any real perusal of the Gospel will show clearly that Jesus is not like what they are showing.

    At times, yes, He may be something like it…but never as cut and dried as they want. Never as non-confrontational, or non-controversial.

    It’s His teaching that still offends us to this day that gives us a real taste of what it was like to follow him.

    And they should cover it, or they should shut up about it, because Jesus does not need you to show only part of who He is to the world. The world can do that itself.

    It’s our business to show all of Jesus, as much as we can, since we are entrusted with the spirit and knowledge of Him to do this.

    And throwing that away, frankly, makes me wonder if the chosen writers ever really had it to begin with.

    But that’s not for me to say. I only wonder how much they can love God, if they would not even show God in the most simple way we have, His word is as simple as it gets, every other experience of God is harder to endure than that, so if you can’t even get that right…

    Well, I don’t know. God knows their hearts. Maybe they are sincere.

    But it looks bad.

    And even if they were, it doesn’t make right, only makes them seem more sympethic.

    That said, I urge you all to be careful about this show. Even approving of it partially is still sending a message to the world that we really, honest;y, don’t care that much about our Bible.

    And they may like that…

    That’s exatly why we shouldn’t be doing it.

    Untit next time, stay Honest–Natasha.

    So I called my dad after nearly 3 years…

    / toseealife / Leave a comment

    I keep trying to post and then getting distracted…go figure.

    But I’ve had a lot going on, trying to enter a writing contest, finishing books, working, trying to finish my school courses, and planning a vacation.

    But excuses aside, I do have something a bit more unusual to post about.

    Those of you who’ve read my older posts from the last four years probably recall that I had the experience of ending an abusive situation, in a very unusual way, and have been dealing with the repercussions of that, therapy, and trying to build new relationships.

    I’ve said before that I don’t hate my father, but I do not know where the future will take us.

    This month, I finally decided to do something I’ve been thinking about for probably nearly 3 years, and call him.

    I haven’t talked to him since he tried to use a family memorial to manipulate my sympathy with, and since we talked to him when he had a mild heart attack. I’ve thought about it, but just couldn’t bring myself to yet. I didn’t feel secure in not being dragged back into that cycle.

    Often people do reconcile with their family after splitting, and they mention that it happened, but very few talk about how the process went in detail, I thought maybe my impression after it might be useful to someone.

    My Dad is not the kind of abusive that makes the news and shocks people, though it does surprise some people I’ve spoken to, so talking to him is not really dangerous for me to do, just awkward.

    But my past with him was not all bad memories, though it was certainly very few good ones after a certain age.

    I can’t explain what really went wrong on his end, or what he really thinks, I’m not sure he even knows.

    But for me, I decided it wasn’t something I wanted to deal with or be responsible for anymore.

    But I didn’t want to be that girl who never talks to her father either because of old resentments.

    I’ve met people like that. People have said repeatedly to protect myself and that I don’t owe him anything. My family, aside from his relatives, have mostly not put pressure on me to reconnect.

    So with a clear head, I knew I was making this choice for myself, but I was never against it one day.

    I think at some point you have to choose what you want. Our current culture glorifies cutting people off and not giving them second chances. It glories self love–and we have a loneliness and mental health epidemic.

    It’s not very biblical, but I’ve heard Christians say the same things.

    The Bible does warn us that in the last days (any day after Christ’s ascension), sin will abound and love for many people will grow cold.

    Sins ares so easy to see, with our media, that peopl allow it to kill love before it has time to even really mature.

    I don’t regret making the choice to try to still love my dad even in the years he was making me miserable, deliberately. The fact is, loving him despite that was what gave me any power to not be ruined by his attitude. He didn’t make me into another version of himself, because I chose to forgive and stay open to love, though I was scarred and I have had ot unlearn a lot of habits.

    That said, I was hesitant to call him because I knew from watching and listening to other people in m situation, that contact with the person in the cycle is the most likely thing to pull you back into it. It’s like people have their own relational gravity, that pulls you either up or down the scale of bad to good behavior.

    But I’ve gotten more and more upbeat and somewhat more confident in the last couple years, and I thought it might be time to test how much I had changed.

    I want to be honest with you all reading this. I won’t sugarcoat it and I won’t exaggerate how bad it was either. All I have is my honest thoughts of what happened.

    Perhaps the drama queens reading this will be disappointed to know there was nothing explosive about our conversation.

    He was teary at first, then we spent most of it talking about our lives, and the only really serious thing I wanted to say was that if I was going to keep in touch, I didn’t want to waste any time fighting, or arguing.

    I also told him I’m not looking for apologies. I just want to talk about normal stuff and see how it goes.

    I think most people who have been through this will get it, but to those who haven’t who might wonder why I don’t want to hear the words “I’m sorry”, let me explain:

    My dad is a textbook narcissistic abuser. He’s emotionally manipulative in the way that messes with your head. Who knows if it’s intentional or not at this stage, I think someone as old as him might have been this way so long they can’t tell the truth anymore–I hope so. If he does it knowingly, that’s just worse.

    But what this means is that periodically for me, growing up, and for my mom long before that, he would make a big confession to either her or us all as a family, of how he knew he’d been doing all these things wrong, and he would admit his flaws (usually he’d be on point about them), and say he was going to try to change.

    As a Christian, he would also say God convicted him about it.

    I note now, looking back, that he never said it was by the grace of God that he could change, which is a red flag for a Christian, to think our own effort will be enough.

    The first time he did this where I could hear him, I thought he meant it. I soon learned that he didn’t.

    Fast foward to now, he told me the same things over the phone.

    He did seem older, and more tired than in the past, but then, he could do that before. Most of my big memories of him are him yelling at me, but he could be contrite too. It felt weird to be on the receiving end of it though.

    I told my sisters afterward, who are used to this also, that I knew better than to buy it because if he had me under his power again, I knew it would be the same as before, or worse even. What he would do to me to make me pay for all this, I can only imagine.

    But if I don’t put myself in that position with him, I probably have nothing to fear. As long as I have control of this interaction, he will probably be respectful.

    But the question is, if I don’t believe it’s genuine, and I can’t trust him, what is the point of us talking at all?

    I’m also well aware that his family has a history of not speaking to each other for a long time, and then crawling back and pretending to reconcile, only to fight and argue again

    So I could be part of a repetitive cycle here if I’m not careful. The whole thing is a mine field.

    So why bother then?

    I’m still working on answering that. But I do think one part of it is, just shutting down and cutting off is the kind of thing he would do to me, and I don’t want to be the same.

    At the end of it all, I don’t want to be the one they said didn’t try or didn’t give it her A-game. I believe in love and forgiveness, not spite and grudgeholding. It’s not about my dad deserving that from me, it’s about wanting to be the kind of person who goes above what is deserved.

    I may never get what I want, but I don’t want that to be because I didn’t try.

    I do not think just distance alone will change this relationship, I think you have to build new inroads, and redefine how you do things, if you really want change.

    It’s a two way street, I’m not saying I intend to bend over backwards to get his approval, I don’t think I’m even trying to get his approval much now. I suppose I still wish he was pleased with me, it’s only natural to wish that, but his praise doesn’t mean anything to me. He’s proven too many times that it will evaporate as soon as he gets angry about anything.

    However, what does concern me is the amount of temptations that popped up in my mind in the two weeks after talking to him, three weeks now, to rehash the past. I was willing to leave it alone while I wasn’t talking, but now that I have, I think of all the things I wanted to say to him over the years, and couldn’t.

    And I now know are unwise to say. Don’t cast your pearls before swine. It’s not much good giving someone wisdom that they won’t listen to, or will twist into something else.

    People write about telling off abusers, and that’s cathartic–until you try it. The bible warns us that anger towards an angry or evil person just makes them worse, and that is true. I had moments of standing up for myself in the past, and my dad would seem to listen briefly, but then it would be gone a few days later and he’d double down.

    So what can I say or do that has any meaning? At first, I just wanted to be able to have a civil conversation. Can I get carried away and hope to restore decades of lost relationships?

    No, I’m not God.

    So what is my part here? I don’t know.

    I can’t lie and say this is an easy situation. When you’re dealing with someone who can’t even meet you in the middle, because they have no idea what that middle is, it’s tricky. You don’t want to carry the burden on your own shoulders, but you know that they won’t carry an equal amount. That’s not even how love really works.

    I realize, writing this, that this affects my perception of my life overall. I often ask myself if what I’m doing makes any real difference, because, like with my Dad, I don’t get to see any results. I can try, and try, and never know if a thought even sticks in someone else’s mind.

    And even if I’m told it did, I don’t believe it, because my dad would tell me that, and then contradict it a few days later.

    As you can imagine, I have serious trust issues because of that double sided aspect of him.

    So why open myself up to that again?

    It’s not easy, and it’s not something I would do in large doses, but at a smaller level, is it worth it to try?

    Maybe just for personal satisfaction. My dad will not be around forever. When he passes on, do I want to have a clear conscience that he had every chance I could give him to be a better dad?

    Not that I need his help, now. That’s not what this is about. But someone needs a way to redeem themselves sometimes, or they will never dare to try. And I think people should get a chance to try, if they truly want it.

    I can’t say if he does, but is that my call to make? As a human with limited perception?

    Those are the questions that keep me from calling it quits entirely. Not that I would be open to more abuse. But in a safer zone, I would be open to some redemption or reconciliation of some nature happening.

    Another reason I have is just that, in situation like this, where you have generations of cycles to break, you won’t change a thing by doing nothing. Taking myself out of it is something that protects me, but not anyone else. Trying to change it has the potential to stick with someone, maybe it won’t be my dad. But maybe it’s something someone else in the family could look at, and say “I don’t want ot keep doing this crap either. I’d rather just stop the cycle of abuse. And resentment.

    I’m still learning about this. I can’t tell you all it will work out for sure. And if it doesn’t, I think I will be honest about that.

    But there are things that haven’t been tried yet, that could be tried, before I just assume that it won’t work. And if those don’t work, then I know for sure.

    The Bible says that love endures all things and hopes all things, and it never fails. That doesn’t mean that you will never see someone fail in learning to love. That happens.

    But I believe it means, that when you make love your protection and shield and your way of life, it will never fail to change your life and make it better. You may fail to get through tos oem people who have hard hearts, but you will not become like them. And most of us fear being the bad guy even more than we fear what the bad guy can do to us. We don’t want to be poisoned by our past.

    I am not perfect, but I can tell you all today, that in the last few years, I have vastly changed how I approach people, how I love them, and I’ve learned to let a lot of things go that used to irritate me for a long time. I tripped over a lot of things at first, but I kept pressing towards love, and gradually, I began to be more graceful with it.

    I would also like to tell anyone who is thinking about making this journey a few things:

    1. You will not get a lot of encouragement from the world. People will tell you you’re wasting your energy trying to be loving towards the unlovely. And if you are leaving yourself wide open for pain, that’s not okay–but if you’re just remaining soft, and not bitter or vindictive, that’s your choice. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you to get even or to cut people off who you can safely still be around, but they think you shouldn’t bother with.

    2. The anger does go away. I’ve not only stopped feeling angry at my dad, and many other people, over what happened; but I’ve stopped getting angry as easily in general because of the choice to forgive and try to set a better pattern. You may feel the anger never stops, but it can. And I’m naturally a grudge holder, so trust me, if I can change that, you can.

    3. The pain does get better. I’ve been through it, the depression, anxiety, fear that my life will be ruined, the aching from not being loved or treated well. And it does come back, sometimes, still. But it’s not everyday, and it’s not overpowering. I also have learned to see signs of love where I did not before, and to see people mean well, even when I don’t feel a connection with what they are saying. I’m also more okay with feeling pain now, as long as it’s clean sadness, and not bitterness. I’m okay with crying about a movie where there’s a father who’s more kind and loving than mine has ever been, and letting that make me more aware of what I want and what I seek in God, instead of resenting that I didn’t have it in earth. But that is also a choice and it took a while to feel that way.

    4. You will embarrass yourself. This is a hard one for me. I hate looking like I don’t know something…but, the reality is, I don’t know naturally, that much about healthy love. I have to learn it step by step, and at times, it’s extremely awkward to be around much more open people, and to not be able to be that way with them. People with better families than I, who sometimes think I’m cold, because I have no clue how to respond to them. and sometimes, I say things that I think sound normal, only to find that my toxic family dynamic treated as normal what other people think is rude, harsh, cruel, or inappropriate. But, that also gets better. I have learned a lot. I’m still out of my depth sometimes, but I am learning bit by bit. I pray that one day I will be where I want to be, or at least a lot better than I am now.

    5. It takes time. I’ve said this with the others, but it’s something I have to remind myself a lot. I wish it was a fast process, but relearning love and life, it takes years. I’ve had 4 years. I think I’ve done well in that amount of time, but it takes most people 10 or more years to really see the kind of life they want, I think. Depending on the person. I’ve also had to do a lot alone, though I’ve had help sometimes. It varies from day to day. And I’ve had to learn to be okay with not always having help, but sometimes saying I need it.

    So, now that I’ve admitted all that, do I eel better?

    Not really. Dwelling on this stuff is the best way to psych yourself out, which is why I don’t want to write about it too much till I’ve had more time to get self control. Controlling my mood about this stuff has taken a really long time, and it still goes up and down when I get stressed.

    But I can thank God I’m in a much better frame of mind about all this than I used to be. And I snap out of it much faster when I do get in a funk. Everyone gets in a funk sometimes, but we don’t have to stay there.

    So, yeah, for how it went, I’d say about as well as could be expected, and I’ll see where it goes. But that people should take caution about the kinds of temptations that will pop up when you stir up old memories, just because it starts you thinking about the past again.

    So with encouragement and caution, I think I’ll wrap this post up, until next time, stay honest–Natasha.

    Final Flames–A Million in Vermillion

    What Your College Doesn’t Tell You…

    / toseealife / Leave a comment

    I have an anecdote for you today, as some of you may recall, I work at a college, as well as attend classes (online mostly now) to get ready for certification in ASL Interpreting.

    Which is a whole ‘nother story in of itself, but not my focus today.

    I currently work in the writing center, as many colleges have one, as a student tutor.

    The job can be boring when people just want grammar checks and assignments to be signed off, but every so often I get a real zinger that reminds me why I love my job–or hate it, depending how you look at it.

    Just such an occasion happened last week for me during finals. A student was doing an assignment on the topic of banned books.

    He titled it “the war on books.”

    Banned books are an interest of mine, so I was eager to read his paper.

    Until…

    Turns out the student had haphazardly researched what the leftist news cites had to say about parents’ objections to the many LGBTQ+ and political agenda books that are being presented to students.

    Also the objections against Harry Potter and other books that include topics religious people don’t like.

    I was surprised to see “To Kill a Mockingbird” on the list. Usually conservative, the group this student was rather biasedly targeting in his paper, don’t object to that book. I was skeptical that it was them. Mostly it’s the liberals who don’t like Huck Finn or Uncle Tom’s Cabin, other famous books that include some touchy race words and aspects of life, just because they are realistic about it.

    Some people don’t understand the value of historically accuracy when teaching kids about race issues.

    I asked my student about why he targeted only conservatives, and his basic answer was it was what the articles mentioned.

    Not sruspi, they were form liberal owned papers.

    Which is bad journalism, because all political parties object to certain books, not just conservatives, they’re just trying to make it seem like it’s a political party issue, but it’s a issue parents of all backgrounds have.

    I’m not supposed to lecture students, so I had to be careful how I worded my objections, I causally pointed out that the paper had a clear bias ad that it’s not considered responsible writing in college to target people groups.

    “We target ideas not people,” I explianed.

    (This is true, whatever side you’re on you’re supposed to keep it professional in college classes.)

    I learned this myself, and I think it’s helped me as a blogger to not try to call out specific people, though I do complain about the left, on a blog it’s okay to do that, it’s not considered professional formal writing and people expect you to be biased in a blog. I do refrain from slinging insults though.

    The student took this point pretty well from me, so I dared to, after going over some of his professor’s feedback also, broach the subject of his argument itself.

    I asked him “is your position that parents should not be deciding what their children read.”

    “Yes.” he said.

    I had a silent moment of disbelief.

    But I didn’t show it.

    Instead I said that it was good to make his solution clear then, so I asked him “then who should decide it?”

    I kid you not, he went quiet for at least 1.5 seconds, then he said “I didn’t really think of that.”

    I did not say “I could tell from you paper that you didn’t think about it.”

    I just thought it.

    I patiently explained that if you say one person should not decide something, your implicit argument is that someone else should. In this case it would be the school (or perhaps the child themselves, but we were talking about 5th graders, so that was doubtful).

    This student didn’t know it, but I have a pet peeve with college courses about the vial stories they make students read, and many students I speak to agree with me that the stories are awful and they don’t enjoy them. Some of them are borderline pornographic, and I told my English professor they made me uncomfortalbe to read.

    I think college students should sign some kind of waver saying they’re okay with explicit content, or else be allowed to read a story with a senl theme, but less graphic depictions.

    So I’m with parents about objecting to books I would never read myself being shown to kids not even old enough to drive yet.

    The student agreed with my point, and said he hadn’t thought about it that much and he’d have to fix that later. And that he’d fix the biased part.

    Since he seemed openminded, I decided to risk one more point, once we’d gone over some more technical stuff, and our session was nearly over.

    I mentioned that I’d had one of his classmates with this paper subject in earlier in the semester, and we’d talked about it too. And I had asked them if parents should never be able to decide what their kids read, and their answer was kind of noncommittal.

    For context, one of the books mentioned in the article was one that showed sex positions between two gay men–and it would be horrifying if it was between a man and owman also, being shown to kids under 18, the legal age of consent, there is no reason to be showing a book like this, and it wasn’t even to teach sex education, that I understood.

    The article openly admitted this book was objected to because of that, but insisted that the parents were at fault.

    I wonder what they would have said if the teacher had shown the kids a R-rated movie instead.

    I decided to give the student an illustration.

    “For example,” I said. “Would you object to a child whose parents were atheists being forced to read a religious text in school?”

    [The funny thing about this is that’s not even as overt, because plenty of atheists can acknowledge the lessons of religious texts are beneficial, as long as the content is not too explicit. And not all religious texts are about God only, plenty are about people and have useful life lessons.But on principle the parents can object to it if they want.]

    The student immediately said “Yes.” Just like I thought he would.

    But impressively, he also said “I get it, because that’s the same thing.”

    He might have been bad at doing research for his paper, but he wasn’t stupid.

    I agreed that it’s basically the same thing if religious parents don’t want their child taught stuff that goes against their religion.

    And as a Christian, of course I would prefer everyone to learn about the Bible, but I wouldn’t force a Muslim child to read it against their parent’s will. Because I want the same rights to protect my child as they do, and if an exception can be made for me, it can be made for anyone, that’s the danger of hypocrisy.

    As Portia piontes out in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, once you make an exception for one person, no matter how much you like them, it’s a problem because it becomes a precedent for less scrupulous people to use as a loophole to get out of their punishments.

    So why did I share this story?

    Other than I thought it was funny, I also thought it was a good example.

    I’ve been in college for 5 years (because a certificate program takes a long time) and I’ve noticed how the courses are trying to chip away at students’ integrity.

    I know one class that make its student defend the idea that eating someone is okay if the person agree to it, and was drugged so as not to feel it.

    I hope that shocked you and not that you’ve already had to study that case in your class.

    I almost got physically sick when I went over that assignment.

    But I learned something very important, and kind of diablocial, about psychology.

    If you make someone argue for something, even if they hate it, it forces their mind to become a bit more open to it, just by dint of practice.

    It’s like drinking alcohol, at first it’s really bitter, but then you get used to it, and your tastebuds go numb.

    Now if it’s a harmless subject, that’s fine.

    But what if it’s a subject the person really object to morally at first, but by practicing arguing for it, they become more amenable to it.

    You might say “They probably didn’t really object that much then.”

    But that is not true.

    That is exactly how brainwashing works, you make someone accept part of something that is not true, and then you build off of it, till they don’t even realize you changed their mind.

    The real art of counseling is to help people realize that they really think, deep down under the lies they tell themselves.

    The art of brainwashing it to make people believe that they really agree with what you think, deep down, despite their misgivings initially.

    Also the art of gaslighting works that way. Though in both cases, you may not actually believe what you want them to believe.

    Some amount of manipulation goes into all forms of teaching, but a responsib;e teachers knows where to draw the line, just like a responsible parent knows that tricking your kids into eating more greens is very different than tricking them into a career choice they didn’t want. One of these things will not do lasting damage, and the other will.

    And convincing someone to do what  you want willingly, instead of jamming it down their throat, like my mom used to do with food I didn’t want to eat, is a very different skill.

    However, if you force feed someone poison it will still be poison, and it’s still harmful.

    I think the college classes are a mix of both. They force students to read about topics no one should ever be forced to read about.

    Then they have them argue about it, till the students are willing to look at it more laxly.

    Some professors hate this curriculum as much as the students do, but are required to teach it. Their silent protest is making the assignments as short and worth as little points as they can.

    Others love it, because they’ve drunk the Kool Aid that says this is somehow becoming more progressive.

    To go back to my student with the book banning, it’s really not so surprising the poor chump didn’t question his position till I pointed it out. After all, he’s being taught the exact same way by his professors, and it doesn’t occur to him to question it, because in his highschool days, he just had to do whatever the teachers said.

    This is how I think public school teachers kids to be blind followers. Don’t object to anything or you fail the class.

    At least in college our paper can criticize the material if you’re creative about it, so some vent for these feelings is allowed.

    The thing I’ve noticed that’s key to brainwashing, is to make sure no one ever asks why you think this issue is so important.

    As soon as I asked my student who he thought should be making the decision for what kids read, he hesitated. Because maybe deep down, he know that saying it should be the school and not the parents is a very problematic thing to say, without some parameters. Once I pointed out how he’d object to one situation but not the other, he began to see that he had a double standard, or better yet, the articles he read did.

    Not every student can even admit this, some are very stubborn about not thinking out their position. I’ve had a few end our session as soon as they could because they didn’t like what I was saying.

    I admit I’m not perfect as a tutor, but I do hold up students with views like mine to the same standards. I’ve told them plenty of times to be more careful about how they write their argument.

    Even more so because I know professors with leftist leanings, like some I had, will tear their paper apart if they give any opening to do so by sloppy arguing, and they need to be better than the other students, not worse, at being unbiased.

    What your college doesn’t tell you about these issues, like boko banning, or pride, or equality, is that the very first thing you need to ask before you teach anything about this, is why you think it matters.

    See, the assumption that equality is the most important value of life permeates our culture, and most people don’t actually question if it’s valid.

    As long as they don’t, the argument is always going to be on uneven footing, because you’re automatically forced to concede points to the other side.

    And suggesting that there are higher goals than equality gets you a weird look, like that’s crazy, because it is so assumed.

    I do believe in equal rights, but I don’t share the definition of rights that many people do, and I don’t like to argue on their turf until we’ve established what we really think.

    Often my view surprises them because it’s not taught in school.

    Which is my point, school doesn’t teach this stuff.

    Chesterton said that a boy is only sent to school when it is too late to teach him anything. [Orthodoxy, chapter 9]

    The angle in schools is very narrow. It doesn’t teach you all sides of an issue, or even the underlying assumptions of the side it is teaching.

    The point is to teach yo uto spit out the same rhetoric they use, and not think any deeper, or any longer, about it than absolutely necessary.

    And you wonder why the internet is such an echo champ of inane chatter and trolling.

    I wish I could tell you the Left is the only offender, but I’ve seen just as much of it on the Right, only the Right tends to at least hold up the idea of unbiased thinking more than the left does, but often only in name, not practice. And often their approach to issues is just as surface level. Just because I happen to agree with their side more doesn’t mean I don’t see the flaws in their approach.

    I was talking to my sisters and a friend about this earlier this week, and telling them that as much as we like to appeal to rationality for our side, we forget that people do not usually want to be rational.

    They believe things because they are comfortable believing them, and because it’s what everyone else says, and most people don’t go against the flow. If our view was popular, they’d take it, but it’s not.

    In fact on of my favorite tests of faith is to ask if your faith makes you comfortable.

    Mine doesn’t. Some things about it are comforting, but many are challenging and unpleasant, but I’m firmly convinced of their validity despite that. Which shows I do not believe it just to suit my own fancy.

    Granted, I may be ore afraid to stop believing it than I am to accept the unpleasant things, but that also shows genuine faith.

    What is not genuine is when the only fear you have is to consider a different perspective that makes you uneasy period. Not because it’s one that would shake your entire world. People can be just as stubborn about not trusting new companies as they are about new religions, but either might be better than what they currently use, they’ll never know if they can help it.

    What college does not tell you is that sometimes it’s in losing those beliefs that make us comfortable that we find what’s really right for us.

    Stores stopped carrying a coffee brand I liked, which bothered me for months as I had to use a cheaper, much less tasty variety.

    But this dissatisfaction led me to try a new kind of organic coffee that tasted even better than the brand I first lost.

    The point is, someone losing one good thing, and being dissatisfied with the available replacements, leads you to find a better thing in the end.

    Ideas can be the same. Humans are terrible at knowing what’s best for us, and the wisest of us keep that in mind all our lives and are flexible, the foolish of us try to make everyone else agree with our definition of what’s best at all times.

    And I think any religion that doesn’t challenge your idea of what’s best isn’t really a religion, it’s your preference that you put a religious face on. And Christains do this just as much as other religions.

    But the bible at least is clear that it’s not the purest form of our religion to do this, that the best way is to be teachable.

    Now, even so, even an idiot who’s right by sheer accident is better than a genius who’s wrong by deliberately pursuing the wrong thing.

    So I still think it’s better to be a stupid Christian than a smart atheist, because intelligence is not everything, and anyone who thinks it is is already missing a big chunk of their heart.

    Our intelligence, as we call it, is so very small compared to the complexities of the universe, that to feel proud of it is kind of ludicrous. The smartest person in the world can’t explain the real mysteries of life any easier than a stupid person can. Sometimes they have more trouble because they think they can.

    Our intelligence, as we call it, is so very small compared to the complexities of the universe, that to feel proud of it is kind of ludicrous. The smartest person in the world can’t explain the real mysteries of life any easier than a stupid person can. Sometimes they have more trouble because they think they can.

    Even so, I feel compelled to still get involved in these debates.

    It seems small, but the Bible does say, “casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” [2 Corinthians 10:5]

    Which is why I write about it also.

    I think it’s about time to wrap this post up (and I’m still recovering from a head cold anyway, starting to feel sleepy), and I think that’s a good closing thought.

    I might write more about this in the future, but I think my overall takeaway is that you can’t let school be your only education.

    You have to dig deeper, school plays to the bare minimum, unfortunately, to the lowest common denominator, and that’s encouraged by a lot of educators now, because no one should ever be made to feel inferior. Even if realistically, some people are not as smart or skilled as others.

    Most people who hate learning, hate it because school does it the wrong way, and would enjoy it if they tried a different approach.

    I believe in learning and self improvement if you can improve. And in growing.

    So yeah, that’s it for today on what your college doesn’t teach you, though some professors, bless ‘em, do try, and I love them for it, but it’s just not enough without the student trying too.

    Until next time, stay honest, –Natasha.

    Well, I was young I was young and naïve Cause I was told Cause I was told so I believed I was told there’s only one road that leads you home And the truth was a cave On the mountain side And I’ll seek it out until the day I die…

    The Wrong Approach to Wokeism.

    / toseealife / Leave a comment

    I’m back finally!

    I’ve been so busy with classes and work and other stuff, it always feels like blogging is at the bottom of my to-do list.

    Might be a short post today anyway.

    So…what should we talk about?

    Something controversial?

    You know me.

    Well, since I’ve been working at my college, I’ve had plenty of opportunity to meet people who have views I don’t agree with…which is a constant source of frustration.

    I know that we have to allow other people to have their opinions, but they don’t seem to feel the same way. It’s annoying to be silenced so quickly if I even start to poke the big balloon of hot air that is most of the opinion people spout off.

    I know the truth is never popular, but the alternative is just scary.

    I guess I confuse people. I’m 24 and half and I live in a Blue state. I shouldn’t have the opinions I do. I should prefer traditional teachings to progressive ones and I shouldn’t prefer the opinion of God to the one of Man.

    But the thing is, before I ever cared about fitting in with my peer group, I cared about truth.

    I feel sorry for my generation, and it’s not just because of the mental health crisis, or the total depravity of sex and everything else that can be corrupted.

    It’s also because I can’t imagine being raised without truth being put first and seeking out the right way to live being a priority.

    What shocks me the most often about other people my age is not that they’re wrong, isn’t that to them, it doesn’t matter whether they are good or not. They have some vague sense that there is astandabe, but they prefer not to care about it.

    I know that’s not new, but that it is so prevalent and no one seems to even feel the need to excuse it now, that is what’s scary.

    I remember when I read the Mr. Miracle Comics by Jack Kirby, one thing that stuck out was when the character in it who ends up waking Scott Free (Mr. Miracle) up to his brainwashed existence mentions to him that he doesn’t really think or have any right to be respected because all he does is have a programmed response to be angry when someone says a certain word or phrase to him, and he doesn’t question it.

    It’s interesting to think of what Kirby probably thought was a dystopian view of society becoming almost the reality for many though not all, people.

    It’s not new to the world, but it is new to us to see it happen in our lifetimes, and I think it’s always shocking to those outside it just how deep it goes.

    Here’s the thing, Wokeism, or whatever you want to call it, is not new.

    It’s not even a creative spin on old ideas.

    It’s just slapping a bunch of new labels on things that have been around for thousands of years and have always tried to defend themselves with whatever words or excuses they could.

    People think that being LGBTQ supportive is a new thing, but the Greeks would use it as part of worship to gods, they’d go even further than we do–at least I hope.

    And rejecting religion is nothing new, it is the movement that has happened before every single fall of a country since history began to be recorded.

    Not a popular fact to point out.

    What always frustrates those of us who see this happen and warn people is that no matter what we do, they will act surprised when it happens. We always think we’re so right, till we’re so wrong.

    “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death,”

    But I am learning a few things about how to reach people like this from having to work around them.

    While it’s only small changes for now, it’s good to learn.

    See, I also find the approach that many people on my side of the politics and faith issue take to be unsatisfying.

    We condemn the people who believe these delusions for believing them, but neglect to remember that they’ve been taught only this most of their lives. That media and schools are on the side of it, and that the government itself is in the back pocket of those groups.

    Considering the weight of societal pressure to agree with them, and the inability to get away from it even in our homes often enough, it’s easy to see why so many people are afraid to disagree.

    Even those who have questions are afraid to voice them.

    And those who scream the loudest tend to drown them out anyway.

    Public protests are our right as citizens I suppose, but I don’t think they work. They might get a few people thinking, but most will only scream louder.

    And now for some truth that no one on my side is going to want to hear:

    In the long run, it’s not going to matter how much we protest.

    The vast majority of young people are indoctrinated by the schools and don’t know how to even reason at all about what they think, because they are not taught to do so.

    I live in it. I would know.

    Even the critical thinking and philosophy classes at colleges are always slanted one way, usually to the Left.

    I notice how the examples they gave us to analyze for logical fallacies were always very weak incomplete or even inaccurate examples of right wing thinking that wouldn’t be what was present by the most educated or well thought out speakers for the side. Probably just college level stuff by people who haven’t learned how to argue yet.

    Which is fine, but then on the Left side, there’s only a very small example of fallacious logic provided and if students aren’t that hard on it, the professors often don’t care.

    And if you dared to ask for errors to be found in hot topic issues…oh forget it. You’d get fired.

    So let’s be realistic people, we’re not going to be able to out yell them.

    The older generation is going to die out and there’s only a minority in the younger one who has different opinions, and a lot of them are too neutered by the culture to even stand up for anything, they’re afraid.

    (Which is so deeply unattractive in the dating pool I might add.)

    But I also don’t think being angry is going to help anything in the long run.

    I’d be the first to say we all have reason to be angry. There’s never any lack of reason to be angry.

    But my question is will it help?

    I think that often, Left or Right, we’d really rather just be able to point at someone else and say they’re stupid and it’s all their fault, then ever try to help them.

    I don’t think we need to apologize for being right, either policitally or literally, and I hate it when people do that.

    But we don’t need to be arrogant about it either.

    Unfortunately, I find just as many poor thinkers on my side of the issue as I do on the other side. Many very smart people buy into the Left because they have never heard the Right presented in an intelligent or compelling way.

    And then you have people who are too smart to really buy it, but too well aware of the consequences of disagreeing to dare to voice that thought to anyone who does support the Left Wing agenda.

    All this together means I think that we really need to reconsider our approach.

    Really on either side, what good is rage doing us?

    The difference is that the Left outnumbers the Right now in America at least, so they don’t need to worry about getting the power, only about keeping it and that’s why they hold us in such contempt. They know we can’t beat them by sheer force. Though they are terrified of going anywhere where we might outnumber them and then they might need a therapy session to deal with the emotional stress of being talked down to.

    (If I needed therapy after every time someone disparaged my worldviews, I’d never be able to work in this country.)

    Anger is justified, but it is not helpful. Foolish people know all about anger, and if you stoop to their level, they’ll drag you down with them.

    I think we should be striking where these young people are actually vulnerable.

    Their opinions may be strong, though ill informed, but that’s about all that is.

    Once you turn someone into nothing more than a mouth for your ideology that you’re pushing them to have no choice but to believe, you take out any kind of self reliance or self respect or courage.

    Anger is a poor replacement for happiness.

    What’s going to get to them is not our reason or logic, because they can’t understand that, they’ve never been taught to.

    But what might get through is if we’re happier and more confident people.

    I’ve stood out among my peers as the person who’s sure of herself, and while some of them have openly despised me for it, they know it’s not like them.

    While I never set out to really be this person on purpose, once I realized I am that person for better or worse, I had to ask why.

    I consider the way I live to be normal. Trying to come to the right conclusions about things and to live in a way that promotes the most happiness in myself and the least regrets about my actions.

    In other words to do as I think God has said we should do, and hope for the best, while preparing for the worst when necessary.

    I never thought that was novel till I heard other people talk about their lives.

    I never realized that what I believe made me happier just because I really believe it, and conviction gives you a sense of purpose that other people don’t have.

    And I think I’d like to ask this generation some questions now that I feel are going unasked.

    1. Why do you believe what you do?

    And I mean why do you really believe it?

    Most of us who call ourselves born again Christians had a conversion experience where we had a realization that it was true and that we needed it or we wouldn’t be able to live freely, or live at all in some cases. So many of us are pulled back from the brink of suicide or self destructive lifestyle.

    I would like to know where this is in the secular side of things. Why do you feel so strongly that it’s true.

    If you had to pick a reason other than it’s what everyone teaches and supports and assumes it’s true what would you pick?

    1. How does your belief make you a better person?

    Do your beliefs prompt you to think about who you are? Do you make people’s lives better? Would you say you’re a more gracious or forgiving person? Do you do more nice things for others? Do you defend people who are being picked on, no matter who they are or what their beliefs are?

    Do you try to be fair, do you try to be honest, do you have any ideals that are about personal excellence and ot public approval?

    Because it is so easy to get by in the world if you just give it lip service. It doesn’t care about your heart. The world will not be there for you if you are miserable and downcast and in financial trouble.

    There’s not one jot of charity in the LGBT movement to anyone but themselves, unless it’s just as a bonus because some people in it who care about other things too (and I won’t say it’s not good when there is, it’s just rare.)

    The Pride movement doesn’t promote better grades or better understanding of hard subjects. They promote acceptance, but often can’t even define what it is.

    It’s more like a void is trying to be filled with morals and ethics, but when you look at it, the actual guidance for ethical living is pretty small.

    3. What in your worldview tells you how to be a good person?

      I mean a really good one. Not just accepting and supportive.

      • What comforts you when you go through something hard? And what meaning is there in pain or suffering?
      • What is the best reason to believe what you believe in?
      • What should people care most about in life?
      • What world would you want to grow up in, if you could?

      All of these questions are the ones that we really need answered.

      My conclusion is that only by teaching people love and truth together can we really teach them at all.

      Truth is precious but very little valued by people unless they think it benefits them.

      And my generation is practical.

      They know that deviating from the norm gets you insults, ostracized, and more and more often fired and failed, if people have enough power over you.

      They know also you will be publicly flogged by the media who does not care about justice or fairness or spreading kindness.

      Until they want something other than the security of the world’s favor, they will never want God or even man’s wisdom.

      So our best defense is, as it’s always been, living to the best of our ability to embody the principles of God’s ways and our freedom in them.

      Or, if we really think we are smarter, we must try to use that to benefit other people.

      As a tutor/teacher I look at students a lot who seem like idiots to me, but my job is to make them as smart as possible. Sometimes it works. Sometimes I want to cry for this generation.

      But it’s for the few who we can save that we have to try.

      And at least, in my faith, I have the assurance that my fate does not depend on them anyway, and the longer I live, the more glad I am of that. The world is too fickle to rely on.

      People will attack me for that, but I really care very little because I know that in the long run, the world will betray them, as it always does and always has, but God will never betray me, because He is what He is.

      And no that does not mean I’m never discouraged, but thank God, all my hope is not in other people.

      I can’t promise you that it will get better, things usually get worse before they get better.

      But I can promise you that trying to live by the world or the culture is a useless exercise, and no one can keep up with it.

      Find hope in something else, and cling to it.

      Until next time, stay honest–Natasha.

      The Oh Hellos–The Truth is a Cave.

      Paragon of Virtue

      / toseealife / Leave a comment
      “For it is in passing that we achieve immortality. Through this, we become a paragon of virtue and glory to rise above all. Infinite in distance and unbound by death, I release your soul, and by my shoulder, protect thee.“
      Pyrrha Nkos

      It’s no secret if you’ve followed me for a while that I was originally a big fan of RWBY.

      And that I’m still a fan of the first 3 volumes, at least. Possibly the 4-5 ones also.

      I’m also a fan of the Justice League Animated show (and recently I watched the Snyder cut of the live action movie, and holy cow was it like watching a different film! One I actually lied. I think we should burn the theatrical cut and pretend it never happened.)

      So I was talking to my sister about both these things and comparing the characters, and she specifically requested I blog about this topic.

      So here we go:

      What is a Paragon?

      Let’s look at the web’s definition, though most weebs already know what it is, sort of:

      “A paragon means someone or something that is the very best. The English noun paragon comes from the Italian word paragone, which is a touchstone, a black stone that is used to tell the quality of gold. You rub the gold on the touchstone and you can find out how good the gold is.” (vocabulary.com)

      Most people acknowledge that the main character of any given kids show or movie is supposed to be the paragon. And if I name names, you’ll see a pattern.

      Anime has a paragon almost as a requirement, with a few exceptions, like the Shield Hero.

      Midoriya (My Hero Academia)

      Naruto (Naruto)

      Tohru (Fruits Basket)

      Natsu (Fairy Tale, Erza would also be one)

      Hiro (Darling in the Franx)

      Not all of these are perfect examples, the first two are the closest. But you know the characters who stand above the rest, who everyone wants to be like, who they trust to lead them, who they think has some moral insight that they don’t.

      Outside of anime, the paragon is less worshiped, but still present.

      Captain America (Avengers)

      Xavier (X-men, often Logan also fulfills this role)

      Mickey Mouse (any Micky Mouse media)

      Aang (Avatar the Last Airbender)

      So you see paragons are everywhere. That’s why it’s considered a trope.

      For a better explanation of how it is used in a story and the pros and cons, I refer you to Overly Sarcastic Productions excellent video:

      Love Red’s videos about tropes

      So, of course, the two paragons I wanted to talk about are Ruby, from the show RWBY, and Superman, from the DC Universe. Particularly his recent shows and movie renditions.

      I’m going to argue that neither of these characters are good paragons, though they are treated like paragons by their writers and fellow characters, and the fans, by and large.

      But my unpopular opinion is that they both suck at fulfilling this role, and that is because people lack understanding of what makes a paragon really work.

      I think it goes back to our culture’s lack of understanding of what makes a righteous person to begin with.

      (I’ve argued that Gaara should be the protagonist of Naruto also, and a protagonist and paragon do not have to be the same thing but they usually are in anime, however I think Gaara fulfills both roles better.)

      It’s easy to see why Superman would be considered the best of the best, who can be better than Superman?

      Yet, it’s interesting that in every version of the Justice League that’s written where they turn to the dark side, Superman is the first to fall.

      I now the premise is that he is the only one holding the league together, so if he falls, they all fall.

      I’m going to argue now that that is actually one of the signs of a bad paragon.

      1. Instead of people being inspired by the paragon, they instead rely on them, both intellectually and physically.

      Ruby is the bigger offender here, but so is Superman.

      Lazy thinking is the bane of every group in real life, but it’s also one of the main things that kills fictional teams.

      The whole team relies on thsi one person to know what’s right and to know what to do.

      Sample:

      Yang from RWBY: “She (Ruby) always knows what to do, so I’m going to follow her.”

      Flash from JL animated series: We don’t do that to our enemies.

      Diana: Speak for yourself.

      Flash: I was trying to speak for Superman.”

      This is just one of many examples from the shows where the other characters rely on the example of the paragon…to a point where it seems they may not actually agree with them.

      I’m against murder, of course, but Diana stopping herself only because Superman would say to, and not out of any mercy of her own, seems like a red flag.

      And it’s made more poignant when we consider that both in the Justice Lords episode of this show, and in the video game and movie versions of the Dark Justice League, Diana goes dark once Superman has led the way. Implying she never had any root in herself and her own ideals to resist the pull of power.

      Diana’s weakness is not thinking for herself. Flash, who we learn died before the League went full on power mad in the alternate world, would have been the only person to resist the corruption, and he is the only one to stop Diana in the regular timeline.

      J’onn, the Maritian, also expresses how he wonders if they can still be a league, how many battles did they win just because Superman was there, he asks.

      [I actually think he’s less necessary than they think based on the show at least, but not in the movies.]

      On RWBY, Ruby is followed by her sister, Yang, but also by Ozpin, who insists that victory is in the simpler things. Even the theme song says ‘victory is in a simple soul.’

      The problem is, Ruby is not a simple soul.

      Actually she is full of insecurities, questions, and later on, she resorts to deception and misleading her allies, just because she’s not sure what they will do with the truth, even though she was angry at Ozpin for doing the same thing.

      Whereas Oscar, a much better character, is against ding this, but gets ignored because no one respects him.

      And Superman, despite Flash’s well meaning optimism, is not the paragon of mercy Flash thinks he is.

      Flash didn’t witness the two times Superman tried to kill Darkseid, a villain who humiliated him more than even Lex Luthor, who he just barely holds himself back from killing as it is. But Superman actually had zero hesitation to try to kill Darkseid, and was only stopped, one by Supergirl using reason, and once by Batman, who used brute force (sort of, he got lucky with a boom tube.)

      The issue I have with both Supes and Ruby isn’t that they make these mistakes, while being the leaders, but it’s actually my second point:

      2. The paragon lacks humility.

      A good paragon has flaws, that’s not the problem. The problem is when they pretend that they don’t.

      Ruby makes a crap ton of mistakes, but notably, she never once admits it.

      As far back as volume 1, Weiss goes off on Ruby for being reckless and a show-off, but then admits that she herself can be a little ‘demanding’ and offers to compromise.

      I might be missing something, but I don’t recall Ruby ever owning up to Weiss having a point. She’s just blindly confident that she’ll impress everyone with her skills. Which she does, but that doesn’t make her a good leader.

      Weiss also complains that Ruby is the leader of their team, and offers some valid reasons, which in my mind were proven entirely right by Ruby herself several times, and then some, and while Weiss is hardly perfect, Ruby never tries to amend her actions to give Weiss more confidence in her, or acknowledge Weiss might have a point.

      “I’m not perfect! Not yet, but I’m still a hundred times better than you.” Weiss, volume one. (I may have paraphrased slightly)

      All the way up to Volumes 6-8, which were all horrible train wrecks, including the actual train wreck that happened in volume 6, where Ruby actually says she never needed her uncle’s help, after he saved her butt like 3 times just since his reintroduction in vol 4, and the other times people bailed her out.

      Ruby, much like Naruto and Deku on their shows, doesn’t one off win nay fights on her own after volume 2, and that was a draw. Yet she has the idea that she’s independent somehow…why?

      Let’s look at Superman for a moment.

      In one of the worst episodes of the first JL show (but still far better than the last season of the Unlimited follow up show) Secret Society, Superman pisses off Flash and Hawk Girl by saying:

      “At the end of the day, I’m the invulnerable one. Every hit I take is one someone else doesn’t have to.”

      While they get mad at this, no one makes the pretty obvious come back: “Sure, until someone has Kryptonite or Red Sun Radiation.”

      Something multiple people have had access to, in the show alone, and on his own show.

      Superman may be tough, but everyone knows his weaknesses! He’s not invulnerable or invincible. Plus, even Lois Lane has had to save him, not once, but at least 2 or 3 times on his show, and the others saved him many times on the Justice League show.

      So where does he get off suggesting that he’s somehow less subject to peril than they are? If he was less reckless about his own safety, they’d actually win their fights faster because they might employ this thing called strategy.

      And this leads into point number 3

      3. A paragon that never learns

      Because of people worshiping them, and their big head, often bad paragons never learn anything from their mistakes.

      The entire show of RWBY is proof of that for Ruby, but Superman is a little less obvious.

      However, if we consider what happens in the Justice League show, it’s kind of unnerving.

      One episode, Patriot Act, points out that after the League got called into question for having a weapon that was worse than a bomb would have been in their watchtower, and Cadmus has issues with them, instead of losing power, the League gains a second base on the earth, but doesn’t’ dismantle their watchtower.

      And the only group that was capable of competing with them has been so publicly shamed that they are no longer a threat. Meaning the League is freer from criticism than ever.

      Yet the League is still caught off guard by the villains unifying, and almost loses yet again to Darkseid. Superman, rather than show more caution, seems to be overly confident, and has to be saved, ultimately, by Lex Luthor, the most humiliating choice yet.

      I can’t blame Superman entirely for that, but he didn’t really back off after the Cadmus incident. I don’t see how getting more power is learning his lesson about hubris and controlling things too much.

      What really stands in the way of the League becoming the Justice Lords by the end of the show? Only Flash, anything could still happen to him. How have they learned and become stronger?

      This is a problem with the show overall, but especially with Superman. Everyone else changes and evolves over time at least a little, but he stays the same. The same pride and anger under the surface, and willingness to compromise what he claims he upholds.

      And finally, one last point

      4. A paragon who is only an example when everyone is looking or they have something to prove.

      What I detest about both Ruby and Superman, not because I’d hate them as people if it was true, but because they are hailed as such paragons of virtue, is their lack of consideration for anyone else.

      If no one is looking, Ruby never gives a crap about helping anyboyd but herself, if shes’ not playint he hor.

      Ruby herself is helped both by Blake and Jaune just on her first day at Beacon Academy, but we see her help no one else, nor try to.

      While others stand up to the racism against Faunus, Ruby does nothing.

      And when Oscar gets beat on for unfair reasons later in the show, Ruby only steps in one time, and that’s when it’s someone who she’d not get much flack for calling out, but not when her uncle or sister also abuse Oscar.

      Ruby is nice to Oscar, because she has a crush on him, and once or twice she is nice to Jaune. So she’s not the worst, but she never goes out of her way to help anybody. Nor is she ever more open-minded than anyone else in the team.

      But Superman has to be even worse.

      I was reading someone else’s post about Wonder Woman the other day, and they brought up a scene where Diana teaches a little girl how to fight to help her have confidence about playing with the boys. The author commented that she couldn’t see Superman or Batman doing this.

      I think Batman actually does demonstrate compassion more often, in his own way, when he helps Ace, one of the villains Cadmus created, as well as Baby Doll, one of his sadder villains, and many others. Actually it’s why he and Diana are good together.

      But I agree, I can’t see Superman doing it.

      Superman is the type of guy who’d say he has to focus on the big problems, fly around and help people, and the little things aren’t ones he can afford to spend time on.

      Yet those things are what make us the most human and help us to stay grounded. If you’d take time to help a kid, even if it’s just over something small, then you will remember what’s really important.

      He keeps Lois, the closest relationship he has, at arm’s length. At the end of the show, she still doesn’t know his real identity, that we know of. She knows freaking Batman’s, but not his!

      I’ve never seen Superman help a kid, outside of his old comics, and then it was to prove a point, that he was Superman…he still helped either way, and I’m not saying he wouldn’t have anyhow, but he got invested primarily for that reason.

      Contrast it with Flash, who is a great guy on and off the job, based on how his coworkers treat him. And is a great guy even to the other League members.

      Can you see Superman getting Hawk Girl a coffee and blanket? Or giving an old coot an actual fair chance to explain his magic crystal and have a job later? Or painting someone’s fence?

      Me neither. The fact that I wouldn’t even imagine it says a lot.

      Oh and RWBY has an example of this too. Pyrrha freaking Nikos!

      And that’s the perfect cue for me to launch into why Pyrrha is a way better paragon than Ruby, and why many people would be a better one than Superman.

      Ironically, almost any member of the 7 would be better than Superman, but most of them lack the leadership drive to be so.

      Good Paragon traits

      Basically just turn all the bad ones on thier head.

      Let’s star twith the last one and work backwards.

      Instead of only dong good when it’s beneficial for them also, good Paragons do good when no one thanks them for it.

      On Naruto, Gaara sticks up for the rights of people to have life, and for the ideals of mercy, long before he gets made the leader of the army. He works for years to reform Sand Village, to the point where assassination attempt on him by the elders who think he’s crazy or wrong happen so often that his siblings no longer even react to having to save him and each other’s lives at any given moment.

      On RWBY, Pyrrha sticks up for Faunus though it gets her little thanks from her classmates. She also helps Jaune with his problems, even when it would get her the opposite of what she wants, or when he gets mad at her.

      But what I love is that she’s got bit of a temper too. When Jaune forsakes his team because Cardin blackmails him, instead of coming to them for help, she makes her sentiment clear until he finally apologizes, but she still bails him out of a tight spot.

      Pyrrha helps Jaune for his own sake, even when she’s not getting anyth out of it.

      She also is nice to team RWBY, paying for their meal and is generally kind and caring to everyone.

      Jaune also is a decent paragon, he has more of the traits of pursuing excellence that they have in anime, but he also sticks up for his team and helps people even when he doesn’t have to, as I mentioned above.

      Turning back to Justice League, Wonder Woman is far more compassionate than Superman, and Batman is less arrogant. Flash however is the best example, since he combines both those traits at the same time.

      Often the traits of a good paragon would be better if they rested on two or three character’s instead of just one, since few people are that virtuous, but if we want to find who’d be a better starting point, those are our choices.

      Hawk Girl has the most integrity of everyone in the League, but lacks the confidence to lead, or she might make the better choice.

      Point number 2, all of these other characters learn more than the actual paragon characters do.

      Granted, not that much, in Batman’s case.

      But Batman has a healthy respect for people with different qualities than himself, whereas Superman doesn’t.

      Pyrrha is not given the chance to learn much since she (SPOILER ALERT) dies before she really can. But based on her overall humility, it seems like she would have.

      Jaune we see does learn from his mistakes and improve, becoming more of a peacemaker in the group and a protector.

      And of course, that includes having humility.

      One of my favorite things about Pyrrha’s character, as I got more mature about looking at her, was that she isn’t above improving. She has a power that makes it easy for her to win fights by hardly doing anything, but only uses it to give her a bit of an edge, she still trains like crazy to hone her skills. She still thinks she needs to practice. Shes’ willing to team up with less skilled people like Jaune just because she likes his attitude, and to take orders from him despite his lack of experience, unlike Weiss’s attitude towards Ruby.

      Pyrrha could roll her eyes😒at Jaune, but instead she builds him up. And he becomes the kind of leader she believed in, as he even acknowledges in vole 5 when he said she told him something once, and he believed her.

      Pyrrha and Jaune

      Pyrrha could win more on a different team, or if she asserted herself over Juane, but she doesn’t. Instead she embraces being treated like a normal person by him, and doesn’t see herself as the invincible, untouchable warrior.

      And last bu not least, back to point 1.

      A good paragon is not worshiped, they are imitated and respected.

      Perhaps this is where Pyrrha, Flash, and the others I mentioned shine most clearly beyond their competition of the canon paragons.

      While people talk about imitating Ruby, or Superman, no one actually does it. Or when they do, it’s usually the worst parts of them. Because people always copy your underlying attitude more than your professed one.

      Flash copies Superman’s reckless actions more than his selfless ones, the Flash is selfless on his own, that’s why he can take that out of Superman’s example, but Superman never really has any interaction with Flash about this, nor do we see any one moment where Flash is inspired by him to be selfless when he’s actually there.

      In contrast, Batman is moved by Flash’es compassion towards his foe the Trickster, in the episode about Flash. And tells Orion that he does not understand him.

      Batman actually never talks Flash down, notably, and hes’ shown to be a closet fan of the Flash even in other renditions of the League.

      So Flash inspires respect from people it’s worthwhile to earn the respect of, and he is looked up to by kids and regular citizens also just for being so good hearted.

      Even if not everyone imitates Flash, they respect his heart.

      Pyrrha on the other hand has admiration from her peers and superiors alike, but it’s interesting that in her closet ring of friends, she doesn’t inspire the hero worship that Ruby does.

      People don’t look up to Pyrrha to lead them, they want to be like her, because she follows the right thing not just in her words, but in her actions.

      Ruby and Superman tell people what the right thing is, Pyrrha and Flash show them what it is.

      This doesn’t even mean that I’m arguing for Pyrrha and Flash to be the leader of their teams, I don’t think either of them are suited to that, in fact I thin paragons often don’t make good leaders because of their lack of putting themselves first. A leader ha to have some self confidence.

      But like Jaune, and like Batman, the best leaders are the ones who are following the example of a paragon who isn’t the leader, but isn’t a blind follower either, who makes their own choices, but i willing to work with others also.

      Pyrrha never turns down help, and Flash is the first to ask for it again after the League breaks up.

      Every leader I know of who is also a paragon is the most boring and frustrating kind of protagonist, the most engaging leaders are the ones who learn from paragons as they go.

      Like the show My Little Pony’s MC Twilight, who has to learn from all her friends in order to become the Princess of Friendship.

      Pyrrha’s influence is felt in volume 4 and 6 especially when we see that Juane, as well as her other teammates, all want to be more like her, they do not say that about Ruby.

      Ruby can lead, but she can not exemplify. That’s the problem.

      Like Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, Luke might be the leader, but he’s following Obi Wan’s example.

      Once in a great while, a paragon may make a good protagonist, Twilight Sparkle sort of grows into being a paragon by the end of MLP, usually it’s done best when it’s like that, one character growing into being one over time.

      Which is where Pyrrha having struggles and an arc in volume 3 made her much more like a protagonist than Ruby has ever been, fight me.

      A paragon can also become a protagonist over time, it’s usually very satisfying to see that actually.

      But the starting point has to be them working together, or it just doesn’t feel right, at least to me, it feels fake.

      We are all protagonists in our own lives, but we all should want to be paragons, and if we find people looking up to us like ones, we should never forget to be protagonists also, always able to learn from others.

      But when you divorce these two characters from helping each other, your story falls apart, because that’s not real life.

      And with that, I think I’ll end this post, until next time–Natasha.

      My Own Devices

      / toseealife / Leave a comment

      I’d like to start this post with a song:

      I was left to my own devices.

      Many days fell away with nothing to show.

      … But if you close your eyes Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all? And if you close your eyes Does it almost feel like you’ve been here before? How am I gonna be an optimist about this? How am I gonna be an optimist about this?

      We were caught up and lost in all of our vices In your pose as the dust settled around us

      Eh-oh, eh-oh Eh-eh-oh, eh-oh Eh-eh-oh, eh-oh Eh-eh-oh, eh-oh

      Oh, where do we begin? The rubble or our sins?

      The rough draft of this post got erased somehow…I guess I shouldn’t leave things on this site…

      So starting over from scratch, what would be a good thing to write about?

      I know that my original point was how well this song describes us now. I mean us in the Western World.

      You know it’s funny how much depression runs rampant in our cultures, considering we have more benefits than we ever have.

      But that’s actually something we have in common with animals.

      A study was done on rats, where they were given everything they needed, all the time, never had to work for it.

      The rats developed depression, as well as other unhealthy habits, for rats…and for humans.

      But you might see the same thing with dogs. They’re bred for work, and when they’re kept as pets but not exercised properly or given any tasks to do, they will also get depressed.

      And so do humans.

      This life of staring at screens and working from home, and not getting outside and having to really work to solve problems that many of us have is making us depressed. We feel like we have no meaning, because there is no effort.

      We don’t have to be fighting for survival, to feel accomplished, any creative goal can help, but most especially if it’s necessary.

      I know each generation has its issues with how the younger one has it easier and isn’t disciplined.

      I do think there’s some truth in that, though. Even I feel less invested in homework assignments since I had to do them digitally, and it’s just a little too easy now. I know it doesn’t prove I’m smart now, if I succeed, it just proves I knew what the teacher wanted. Many times I could have done way more if left to my own devices.

      But the education system encourages me not to be creative, because my grade will suffer if I don’t meet the exact requirements of the assignment. Ever get in trouble for going over the page limit? Yeah…

      But anyway, my point is, we don’t have to really work. There are people who do, but the ones who are the face and voice of our culture don’t.

      And that is every race, gender, and whatever else.

      i think that’s part of the reason we spend so much time fighting each other, really. While history shows people would fight each other no matter what, it doesn’t help that we really have all the time in the world to do it now, instead of having to set aside time to go to war.

      All this has got me to thinking.

      About how few people under 30 even know history now, they really don’t know that much period. Not science, or religion, or how people work.

      You have your outliers, like my cousin, who like to do their own research, but they’re not the majority.

      Not that this is unusual, in pampered societies, it’s pretty normal, actually…and then they crumble.

      That’s what the song Pompeii is about, really. How when we’re left to ourselves, to follow our own whims, we get buried in our sins, until disaster strikes, and freezes us that way forever.

      And how can you be an optimist about this? When there is only one outcome ever to societies in moral decay like that.

       “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25, 17:6)

      Both those instance talk about someone doing something pretty stupid and wrong. And also it says:

      “Be not wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.” (Proverbs 3:7)

      We are wise in our own eyes now aren’t we?

      Like all this prattle about not getting married and staying single that I wrote about before. What is that but being wise in our own eyes.

      And we don’t seem to care what generations of humans before us said or thought. We’ve got it figued out now.

      I mean because with zero experience, zero study, and only the corrupt examples of current culture to go by, clearly we’re well informed on these issues.

      But the depression of this age has gone so far now, that a lot of kids don’t even care anymore if they’re right.

      Case in point, just yesterday, I was in YT comment thread with someone who said that truth doesn’t matter tot ehm.

      I was asking them why they bothered to watch the whole video of a debate if they didn’t care about the truth or what was right.

      I got no answer to that so far. I probably never will.

      At this point, admitting you hunger for a definitive truth is like a weakness to our relativistic young people–and some older people also.

      Of course the dismissive attitude of older people isn’t helping.

      I mean, who let the kids watch PBS and Disney Channel and Cartoon network? I noticed the bad messages of those channels when I was a kid. I’m not surprised the people who never questioned it have now swallowed it hook line and sinker.

      I mean, you take a whole show like Dora the Explorer, and you go on a quest through a fake map, looking fora fake item, learn a few Spanish words…and you call that exploring?

      Nothing against Dora personally, it’s an okay show for entertainment–but it’s not really educational. And it’s not even the worst one.

      It’s hard to blame the young, they’re just doing what they were taught to do, and by the time they realize it wasn’t right, they’ll have a lot of regrets.

      Still we have our own responsibility. And they do choose not to think, not to try, not to explore for real. And that’s on them.

      I bring all this up, but do I have a solution?

      I think the solution is the same as it’s always been.

      Person by person, the only thing to do is try to get people to understand the condition they’er in.

      Debate isn’t always the best way to do that, I admit. Though it works for some.

      I’ve had most people just duck out of arguments when they realized I was going to win because I was better informed than them, or just straight up insult me.

      But people can’t always be so quick to dismiss if you touch them on a personal level.

      We need both.

      But it’s hard, there’s so few people fighting these battles compared to the people who are casualties in them.

      But that’s how it usually goes. We preserve a remnant of the people. The majority of them don’t want to be helped.

      Some will literally say so, I have grandparents who would say that.

      We love our sin so much.

      We love being able to do what we wnat.

      And now it’s not a secret, you’d even hear it hailed from the streets and the theaters and political campaigns that we’d rather die doing what we’d prefer to do, right or wrong, then live submitting to God’s will.

      I saw this comment today, it was like this: I don’t believe in God because there’s nothing about same sex relationship in the bible and He’s not okay with them.

      First: There’s actually plenty about homosexuality in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, the books of the Law, and Romans 1 all talk about it. (It’s called Sodomy in the old Testament)

      Second: I find that these types of objections completely misunderstand the nature of God’s existence.

      You see, if God exists does not depend on our personal preferences. He either does, or He doesn’t.

      If He does exist, He is the final say on what is right and wrong. You, as His creation, don’t get an opinion.

      Sure, against other humans, you do. But not against God. If God was in front of you and He told you, that would be the last word. And if you saw God, in His Glory, the last thing you would dream of doing is arguing with Him.

      See, the point of contention is not if God supports what we feel is right.

      If God is the Reality, then that is the reality we have to deal with. Even if He was the bloodthirsty God of many religions, cruel and spiteful, which would be bad for us. But it would be Reality, there’d be nothing we can do about it.

      Thankfully, God is not like that. But He’s still unchangeable. Your preferences donesn’t come into it.

      You may not like it….and God has never said we have to like doing what He says…but He does say we need to do it.

      As a Christian, I do find that the rewards of serving God is that if you do it long enough, you will start to like it, and then eventually, you won’t be able to do without it. But that’s sort of an insider bonus. The bible promises that one day everyone will have to submit to God’s will, whether they like it or not.

      It’s a bit like Gravity. Many of us wish we could fly, and though we can sort of, using machines, we have to borrow that from things God made that can defy gravity, we ourselves can’t defy gravity more than a few feet in the air before it yanks us back down.

      In the same way, we can’t defy God’s design for very far in our moral lives. Maybe if we had the “help” from the devil, we can go farther…gross.

      But that’s short lived, and on our own, the consequences of our actions will always pull us back down to the ground eventually.

      Christians believe that one day God will set us free form the law of Gravity, just as one day, we don’t need the Law of morality anymore…because we’ll become things that don’t need gravity, and things that don’t need law. We’ll have a new nature.

      Like a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.

      But until then, this is what we’ve got. We have to work with it.

      I’m not an optimist about Mans’ ability to fix this world. I think we’re as doomed as Pompeii.

      But I always knew that.

      But I still have hope. I hope in God’s ability to always save some people, as He promises to do. And in that hope, we keep trying to be a part of that.

      I think that’s about all for now.

      Until next time, stay honest–Natasha.