Loki is shown as short sighted and focused on his own personal gain above all else. His positive contributions almost always come in form of apology or repayment for fucking something else up. I've dealt with people like this in real life, and I'm sure as hell going to stay away from a deity like this and anyone who worships him. Does this mean he's evil? No. Do I have to respect him or his followers? No. Not everyone wants that kind of energy in their lives; accept it and move on.
I mean, yes. Reading the academic stuff and the primary sources and straight-up-history books is a pain. Sometimes they’re super dry, which makes the content seem boring even if it’s exciting stuff, because they haven’t written in an engaging way. Sometimes they’re writing for other academics and…
If you are thinking to yourself “hmm, I notice GLE tends to reblog about antisemitism a lot”
You would be correct
People should be paying attention to that stuff anyways, and it’s horrifying that people brush it off, but I feel… extra obligated, as a Heathen, to spread awareness about it and fight against it. For really obvious reasons.
Hey how are you? Quick question: what sort of person would the archangel gabriel pick as his vessel, if he ever needed one. Like personality and traits and stuff
Hey! I’m great how are you!? I’m sorry this is so late! This is an awesome question to ponder though…Hmm
I imagine Gabriel would be drawn to vessels that are somewhat familiar…echos of Mary and of Muhammad. Someone with their eyes ever upward, but still allows themselves to be awed by the here and now. Serious, but prone to softness. Slow to speak. Every word deliberate. They’d be one of those people who opens their mouth and it’s like warm salted caramel and you’re lost in it.
One who is at peace, but fully understands that peace may escape others. Unshakable resolve in the face of judgment and persecution. Gentle teachers who take joy in explaining complex thoughts, and they always leave the listener feeling enlightened, never judged. I think they’d have an affinity for teaching children, treating them as intellectual equals, never dumbing down their words.
Above all things, obedient to God. A strong faith in humanity that seems to get stronger as the situation gets more dire. Full of hope. Unceasingly hopeful. And not blind hope, the kind of hope that is fully aware of the cost. Diplomatic and composed, but scathingly sarcastic when need be. Gentle, but averse to sugar-coating. Someone with terrible comedic timing, but with a deep, syrupy laugh. The super-infectious kind.
I think the ‘trumpeter’ theme intrigues him. He feels obligated to learn, but it doesn’t come naturally. Angelic music making is akin to breathing, but this mortal stuff requires rhythm, soul. So he stumbles a bit, but eventually get’s the hang of it. I don’t think he’d every play in public, so he sticks to tiny apartments, aiming praise hymns to the heavens, and is content feeling his father smile.
A pernicious, but very unpretentious sweet tooth. Like dipping oreos in a tub of frosting bad.
That was ridiculously fun. I hope it’s okay if I publish this? I’d love to hear your thoughts! I’d love to hear your thoughts on Michael’s too!
forever side eyeing white catholics who want to suck up to Saint Kateri Tekakwitha but don’t want to talk about the horrifying role our church played in the colonization of the americas and the genocide of its inhabitants
… “You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could’ve called Fawkes to you.” That’s the very first thing Dumbledore thanks and praises Harry for. Not for rescuing Ginny, or saving the school from the basilisk, or for keeping Voldemort from coming back, but for loyalty.
Dumbledore judges the people he works with based first and foremost on how loyal they are to him. Not because he thinks he’s all that, but because, as I said, he views people as game pieces, and you can’t have your game pieces acting up, can you? He values his pieces. He wants to advance and protect them. But he doesn’t want them running off beyond his sphere of influence and doing their own thing. I think there’s something very ambiguous about Dumbledore’s habit of seeking out desperate, socially outcast people and doing them one or two huge favors that leave them bound to him for life. Remus, Hagrid and Snape all fit that pattern, and Trelawney and Firenze appear to join the ranks in OOP. It kind of makes me wonder what Dumbledore has done for Fletcher, Moody and Shacklebolt.
…The problem with Sirius is, he’s not loyal to Dumbledore at all; he’s loyal to Harry. From Dumbledore’s point of view, it’s as if he’s playing wizard chess, and one of the knights suddenly decides that he doesn’t care what happens to the king, he’s just going to take care of that little pawn on the left. So Dumbledore does the only thing he thinks he can do — he sticks his recalcitrant knight into a safe, isolated corner of the board and keeps him from making any moves. Perfectly sensible and strategically sound, as long as you don’t expect your game pieces to have any pesky emotions or psychological issue that need to be taken into account.
…Dumbledore’s actions at Hogwarts are another symptom of his general approach. He doesn’t treat it just as a school, but also as an instrument in his strategy. People like Snape, Hagrid and Trelawny — all lousy teachers, in very different ways — are given their jobs as perks, because of their past of future usefulness to the Order, and because it strengthens their bonds of loyalty to Dumbledore.
OTOH, look at Lupin, who is a talented teacher. Why wasn’t he hired before Harry’s third year, especially given the difficulty of finding qualified DADA professors? My theory is that Dumbledore didn’t consider it necessary. As far as he knew, Lupin was already totally loyal simply because Dumbledore had allowed him to attend Hogwarts. There was no need to bribe him with a job. He was hired only when his familiarity with Sirius became an important factor. Once Sirius proved not to be a threat, Lupin was allowed to resign…