1. Should we all reproduce just because we can?
Obviously not. If someone has hereditary diseases of any kind they ought to abstain from reproduction until they are healed. There are many things which our bodies can do but we offer our lives & bodies in selfless service for a larger society & abstain from using our bodies for selfish reproduction that adds to consumers in society.
1.1. So what if someone has hereditary diseases why should they not reproduce?
If the act of bringing a child compromises the quality of life of the child or the people who are already there in society then bringing an additional child / consumer is a wrong against the rest of society
1.2. What do you mean by hereditary diseases? my Dad/ Mom has a hereditary hai skin issues, should I not reproduce then?
As a society we must have high standards for what we pass onto the next generation.
One too many people in Africa despite having hair & skin issues reproduce even when they are living on a piece of desert land.
If you ask them how they will provide for their children, they say things like "but I feel rich" or if they are more subtle they will say "God will provide".
For e.g. A lady in Africa with a desert land the size of a parking lot and a tin shed said she "felt rich" & had the right to reproduce.
An African gentleman said he found ladies who suffered from hereditary diseases attractive & a suitable companion for reproduction.
We as a people need higher standards so others may imitate/emulate us.
1.3. Is it ok to have children if we say "God will provide" & "Trust in Allah SWT"?
If there are people living in the streets & people without homes, without cars, without the best education, without friends/lovers, without clothing or food (panhandling) & people are suffering then it is incumbent that first as a society we set aside homes, cars, clothing, food, education for life (for the rest of the new born's life) BEFORE we bring life into this world.
People who say "trust in God" as an excuse for reproduction usually are taking the incorrect way out by putting the blame upon God for unplanned reproduction.
2. Can people reproduce if they are entirely healthy & there is no chance of passing a hereditary disease onto another?
Suppose the people of a nation are entirely healthy, but if they compromise the quality of life of another by producing yet another consumer, while members of society are without housing ownership, privacy, life-long transportation, life-long clothing , life-long food supply, education, life-long healthcare, land ownership, life long gainful employment, prosperity & equality, then the act of adding more children becomes something immoral & a wrong done to society.
2.1. What if a society has all the resources & we are not compromising another person's quality of life & we are perfectly healthy, can we reproduce now?
Reproduction should be demand based. This means select people may volunteer their genes for reproduction IF there is a demand in society for additional peoples and there are resources available for additional peoples. If as a society, people do not find a certain phenotype or genotype desirable then it is wrong to encumber the larger society with children (even if you have resources & are perfectly healthy etc.).
2.2. Ok I am perfectly healthy & wealthy, how do I know if my children are going to be a desirable phenotype or genotype?
People who are not considered beautiful/ attractive/ gorgeous / desirable by larger society ought to abstain from reproduction UNTIL they are become beautiful, attractive, gorgeous, desirable. People who are desirable ought to volunteer their sperms & eggs for reproduction in an external womb (so the women are spared the trials of child bearing).
2.2.1 What do you mean by having children in "external wombs"?
As a people we need to spare women the stresses, trauma & pains of child birth. In stead of in-utero births we ought to transition to in-vitro births. This means we use external wombs to fertilize, gestate & birth children instead of exposing women to the trauma of birth. Women are made for loving NOT for use as baby manufacturing factories (childbirth compromises women's health, their bodies, their mood & their availability as lovers).
2.2.2 Did not God ask Adam & Eve to go forth & multiply?
Childbirth & its pains are the result of the fall from Eden (as prophesied by God when Adam was misled by the d-vil in the garden of Eden, a prophecy of the impending curse of childbirth). The injunction was for life then in those days, not the fallen life now with so much race-harm, overcrowding, overpopulation & inequity.
2.3. What if I am swarthy as a result of suffereing race-harm & I have been oppressed & stigmatized (my skin burned & subjected to heat & humidity hence my hair is curly, my eyes have gone from blue to brown / black & the cartilage of my nose has melted so it is larger) am I still allowed to reproduce?
If someone has been oppressed & stigmatized it is all the more important that they first heal themselves & it is incumbent on the larger society to make every good faith effort to heal the ethnic non-white oppressed first BEFORE they reproduce.
2.4. What if I am healthy& fair & still not considered attractive? What do people know? they follow fads & silly trends?
The standards of beauty ought to be set by trained, educated, specialists & aesthetes who are trained in identifying what is a desirable trait , phenotype & genotype. The people should embrace these high standards.
2.5. Is this "eu-genics" (or literally "eu=good , genics = genes")? Is this not what the N-zis tried to do ?
The N-zis also implemented & flew the first jet planes, it does not make everything they did wrong. Some Muslims implement Islam incorrectly this does not make everything about Islam wrong. What is wrong about the N-zis is how they implemented eugenics by hurting & harming our Jewish brothers & sisters. Today Jews are some of the whitest, blondest, blue-eyed peoples (people like Gwenyth Paltrow, Armie Hammer, Zachary Goldsmith the brother Jemima Goldsmith, Bar Rafaeli, Scarlet Johansen, Kate Hudson, Chris Pine (Captain Kirk of Star Trek), Sarah Michelle Gellar, Diana Agron, Evan Rachel Wood, Elizabeth Banks, Goldie Hawn, Lisa Kudrow (Phoebe from Friends), Michael Vartan, Ellen Barkin, Kate Capshaw, Helen Slater etc.)
3. So we are not supposed to reproduce? What are we going to do then?
Make love as selflessly & as much as possible & heal & beautify one another but abstain from reproduction until 1. you are entirely healthy 2. your genotype & phenotype is considered desirable by the highest standards 3. there is a need for replacing people lost due to mortality etc.
4. What about marriage? is not marriage supposed to be about having children?
Marriage is meant so two people may perfect one another (improve one another) & love one another, make love but do not make babies unless in external wombs, approved by aesthetes, the parents are perfectly healthy & without hereditary illnesses & there are resources set aside for life for the expected newborn.
5. Ok I have a tin shed in a shanty town set aside for everyone I dislike. Do I have permission to reproduce now?
Everyone should have everything provided for life: equally good & the highest standards for housing, equally good & the best of transportations, food, clothing, education, perfect health, eternal youth, psychological, mental & physical health & the best of luxuries life has to offer FIRST before additional members are added to society.
6. I don't care about any of the above, I have seen a LOT of Indian Musical Movies & I just want to have black/brown children like the Indians, so who is going to stop me?
If someone reproduces despite being undesirable & having few resources, low standards & or hereditary diseases then they are engaging in a selfish act harming their society & humankind. They may encounter unkindness, exclusion, avoidance & lack of love/ popularity. They are likely to be replaced by a fairer, smarter, more loving peoples as is the case today with the events in the Holy Land where God is obviously favoring the white, blonde, blue eyed Jewish brothers & sisters of ours.
7. I am poor & I feel healthy when I am pregnant, why can't I get pregnant when I want?
Becoming pregnant is not supposed to be a unilateral act but requires the continual consent of atleast one other person (the male biological father) along with that of the larger society which has to then put up with the children. If health is desirable then as a society we may provide free & optimal healthcare that surpasses the health benefits of becoming pregnant. However it is highly immoral to bring another consumer into an already struggling society, particularly if it compromises the quality of life of the child or others in society.
8. why would God give me the ability to get pregnant if I cannot get pregnant whenever I want to?
Just because we have an ability does not mean we may use it without regard for others. For example we may have the ability to sneeze, but it is prudent & ethical to sneeze in a handkerchief or in a sink as opposed to upon other peoples etc.
9. Beauty is "subjective" & in the eye of the beholder, after all the Indians have convinced everyone that their rather unattractive melanochroid women ought to win Ms. World & Ms Universe.
Beauty must have standards. Without standards people end up marrying & making love to what is immoral. For e.g. we have a standard that says, we must find members of the OPPOSITE gender sexually attractive, then we have another standard for beauty where we are attracted to members of the opposite sex who are sweet, kind, nice, rational, abstain from abuse (verbal & physical) etc. If you believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder there is likelihood of immoral sexual behavior like homosexuality & in the case of India one too many villagers are marrying cattle (& engaging in sexual relations with cattle).
What the Indians did in Ms. World & Ms. Universe is typical of what one too many oppressed folk cast spells & delude people into thinking they are "desirable" or beautiful. This is called a kind of a "fever" & is immoral. For e.g. Australoid Africans cast "jungle fever" & Mongoloid Asiatics cast "yellow fever" & Indians cast "brown fever".
10. Why do you say that non-white is NOT beautiful?
Non-white people have the right to be white & beautiful but they are not yet equally beautiful as fortunate, wealthy, healthy white folk. The races emerged as a result of "marking" and "race-harm" where some people were oppressed & stigmatized ("burned skin"). The brown/melanin from the skin is an adaptation to over-exposure to solar radiation & other forms of harm & oppression.
11. Non-whites are products of hot humid & sunlit environs, Whites products of cold & low-light environs, what is wrong with that?
Both environs are meant to detox but they detox or kill bacteria in radically different ways.
Cold decreases bacterial & viral growth & activity until it reaches the freezing point where it may kill the virus or bacteria. It does not leave scars or burn marks (as with heat) & it heals the dweller & preserves the dweller as if the dweller was in a refrigerator. This is preferable as a means of detox or healing a person suffering from physiological & psychological conditions (vices). Heat on the other hand increases bacterial & viral growth & activity (worsening the condition) until it reaches boil point at which point it kills the bacteria. Both heat & cold kill the bacteria in the end however they go about it very differently with heat damaging the patient & scarring them.
Heat literally burns & leaves burn marks & cooks the very human subject. If the heat is combined with water it accelerates disease transmission as humid climes facilitate bacterial / viral infection/ transmission (as the bacteria & virii have an easier time traveling through the water droplets in the air). Heat literally burns & scars the epidermis sometimes permanently (when the burn marks get encoded into the genotype & the darkness is passed to the next generation). Heat also melts the soft cartilage in the nose rendering the nose enlarged & mis-shapen whereas the cold does the opposite (it shapes, constricts & sharpens the features). The heat also literally cooks the hair in the oils of the body & causes it become curly & dark. The heat also burns the iris & turns the blue first into brown and then darker depending on exposure to solar radiation. This damage from solar radiation creates a layer of burned skin on the iris & the epidermis which can be healed.
12. So is it our fault that some of us are non-white? are we non-white folk sinners?
The idolaters wanted to burn the sinners in "heck" or "h-ll". This is race-harm & it is not sanctioned by the Abrahamic faith (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) which advocates mercy, grace, love, healing & heaven for all & an end to man-made heck (& the notion of heck).
13. Who did this "race-harm" to people & make them non-white? Why?
The misguided idolaters created three climate zone after the flood (Hazrath Nuh's time) some 200 years after the flood during the age of Hazrath Nuh (SW)'s descendant Peleg's days. Before Peleg the earth was "pangeastic" (Pangea) : one single landmass with one climate. After the flood the landmass separated into continents & three climate zones were created by the misguided idolaters. The first zone was called the "middle earth" with temperate climes & benign lifeforms (mediterranea or literally middle earth), the next zone was a cold zone called "hyperborea" (or extreme north) which served as purgatory (the cold sterilized or diminished the bacteria & virii & other diseases of body that also create psychological conditions & vices). The third zone was known as "hades" (the ancient name for heck or h_ll). This was where the earth was extremely hot & is the region around the equator , the tropics. Unlike the Mediterranean Hades (hot) & Purgatory (cold) have various functions (as described in point 11).
14. so what should we non-white people do now? should we non-white people just lie down & die?
No, it is important to ask for equality & justice & restoration to whiteness & health. However you cannot do that if you think you are JUST as beautiful & healthy as white peoples who have enjoyed glacially pure waters & snow & clear lakes, flowers, grass etc. If you pretend that you are just as beautiful then you are effectively hiding the crimes done against you by people who made you non-white. If you think white people & non-white people are equally healthy & beautiful you are excusing the wrongs done to non-white folks & covering for the crimes of those who engaged in race harm (this does not mean that people who engaged in race-harm ought to be harmed, they need forgiveness & love & right guidance too). It is possible to be restored to health, beauty, fairness & whiteness at any point and time in a person's life.
TLDR:
1 . we may not reproduce if there is any chance of passing hereditary diseases to the next generation'
1.1. if bringing a child compromises the quality of life of another (including the child) then it is a wrong
1.2. we ought to have high standards before we reproduce.
1.3. we ought to set aside resources BEFORE a child is brought into this world. To say "trust in God" is to excuse the irresponsible reproduction

1. People may not reproduce even if they are healthy but compromise the quality of life of others by reproducing.

2.1. people may not reproduce if they are not the desirable phenotype / genotype
2.2. people who are not considered desirable by the larger society may first become desirable first.
2.2.1 we ought to be having children in external wombs to spare womankind the trials & tribulations of having children.
2.3. if someone has been made non-white they ought to become healthy & white first before reproducing.
2.4. the standards of what is desirable / beautiful ought to be set by trained, educated, specialists & aesthetes
2.5. how you implement an idea is important. Just because someone does not execute an idea well does not mean the idea is wrong or misguided, just the implementation.

1. make love & abstain from having children until you are healthy, desirable & there is a need.
   
2. marriage is so two people may perfect one another.
   
3. everyone should have the highest & best quality of life (equally) before more members are added to society
   
4. if someone has children selfishly with disregard to what is considered desirable & attractive (& or with low standards) then they are likely to encourage unkindness towards themselves & their children.
   
5. becoming pregnant is not a unilateral, bilateral or regional issue, it affects a lot of stakeholders & the good of the stakeholders (the environment, the larger humankind etc.) ought to be considered instead of taking vigilante, self centered action. Taking self-centered or unilateral action results in unkindness & conflict with others.
   
6. just because we have an ability does not mean we may use it as we wish without regard for others
   
7. beauty must have standards for viewing beauty as in the eye of the beholder devolves into aberrant sexuality as with one too many Indians who engage in bestiality. It is immoral to convince people that oppressed non white people are equally beautiful as white folk.
   
8. non-white folk were produced as the result of oppression or overexposure to solar radiation & other environmental stressors.
   
9. it is preferable to detox via cold environs (which preserves) over detoxxing via heat (which burns, mutilates & disfigures).
   
10. it is not the fault of non-white people that they are non-white, they have the right to be healthy & white & must be helped to become so but they need to realize that they need help healing & restoring their health.
    
11. how the climate zones were created & how the misguided engaged in race harm & created the various races
    
12. it is important for all people to realize that race-harm has occurred & to restore & compensate those who have been harmed without harming the criminals who engaged in race-harm & oppressed the other races.
    

This may as well just be a rah rah rant but just going to send it (maybe cause I’m a few beers deep, but that’s besides the point). What the hedge funds, political figures, and other prominent higher ups have done in regards to short selling stocks and bleeding companies dry, no matter who you are, is immorally wrong and I will never be persuaded to say otherwise. It’s the demise of not only the market, but our society as a whole. I commend those who are holding the so called “meme stocks” (I won’t mention cause you know which ones they are, take a peak at the float and short interest). Some may think it’s for gains (and yes that is a part of the equation cause we invest now to better our future) but ultimately it’s a fight against people who think they can take advantage of those who are much less fortunate and not in the top 1%. I know it make seem bleak at times and we’ve seen the same story unfold time and time again… but there’s a point where enough is enough. They didn’t learn back in 2021 and didn’t take us seriously, instead they doubled down. Though legal (in regard to naked short selling), they are taking advantage of YOU and keeping you financially down so you can’t enjoy the commodities of the wealthy. It’s time to take a stand, and though I may not benefit from it in my lifetime, I hope the decisions I make will make a difference to making our system less corrupt and manipulative and provide my family and the next generation with prosperity that I worked hard for. #HODL

To clarify, I now know that there are different definitions of the word “ship”, but for the purposes of this article and to keep things simple I will use the definition of “a relationship that’s rushed and/or forced with no real development.” I hope you can understand as I do not know of any other single word to describe that concept. If you do, perhaps you can tell me. Also, fair warning, this is long form content (some 10 pages), if you like it but can’t read it all at once you can save it and come back to it over a period of time, or you can stop reading whenever you get tired of it and still discuss those parts of it with me that you have read. But keep it civil if you want a civil response.
With that, to qualify the title, no, Ezra and Sabine do NOT absolutely have to be a couple, but if they were to become one, it would NOT be a ship. Ezra and Sabine’s relationship has had years of development. Could they remain as simply friends? Yes, but ironically, it was their “friendship” that felt like more of a ship. It felt like the Ahsoka show, helmed by Dave Filoni, was going out of its way to tell us: “no, they’re not a couple, they’re just friends.”
I believe that Filoni made some very poor writing choices to stress something that didn’t really need to be stressed, such that it almost felt like he was in denial. The line “I love you like a sister” was never in Rebels, Filoni essentially had that retconned in, and like many I was put off by their (largely) emotionless reunion. Even if they were “just friends” I believe there would be a great deal more emotion displayed between two people that hadn’t seen each other in some ten years, especially when one of them was in a precarious situation when they parted. I also believe Ezra would be far more curious about Sabine being Force sensitive, perhaps even offering to help train her when she told him that her training hadn’t gone as well with Ahsoka. He did help to train her with the Darksaber, didn’t he? Why that never came up is another discussion, but for now, let’s focus on shipping.
In case you think I’m desperate to have them as a couple, no I’m not. I’m about the furthest thing from it. Like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers) I DESPISE shipping. Absolutely DESPISE it. With a flaming passion. Perhaps for this reason, and maybe some others, like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers), I’m generally wary of nearly all romance in fiction, and generally avoid it in my own work. The sad reality is that romance is perhaps the most abused genre in all of fiction, all throughout history. It has been so badly abused that many people, including myself for the longest time, have equated romance with shipping, though I’m slowly beginning to see that they are not the same thing, and one does not necessarily have to go with the other.
But sadly, many writers, through time immemorial, have not been able to separate them, going back into ancient times and perhaps even into pre-history, that is before languages were actually written down. Some of what is considered great literature; classics like Romeo and Juliet, are predicated on shipping, though at least the consequences of this “whirlwind romance” are shown to be fairly stark. Star Wars itself is no stranger to shipping, resulting in a very awkward incestuous kiss when Luke was shipped with Leia, then Leia was placed with Han and Lucas made Luke and Leia brother and sister, apparently having forgotten his original ship. Later Lucas essentially shipped Anakin and Padme, resulting in some of the most cringeworthy dialog in the history of film. Many fans of the Prequels even have been somewhat critical of Anakin’s portrayal, particularly in regards to the “romantic” scenes, with many describing them as “creepy”. Some have speculated that this was intentional, though personally I think it was just the result of bad writing on the part of George Lucas, and an impatience on his part for Anakin and Padme to become a couple, hence “shipping”.
One might wonder why this is so prevalent in fiction, and tragically, one does not have to look far. Fiction is merely a reflection of reality, therefore the reason that shipping is so common in our stories is that we fall so easily into it in real life. Indeed, entire cultures may be based around shipping, or at least very heavily wrapped up in it. Throughout history arranged marriages have been the norm, and the idea of marrying for “love” is something relatively new. To be fair, I’ve actually met people in arranged marriages who seemed to be fairly happy, but those same people were very open in telling me that many despise that aspect of their culture, and that it is quite normal for those in an arranged marriage to try to get out.
People might come together for “love” without marrying, but even then it often creates expectations that might turn into a burden. Even when a marriage is voluntary and for “love”, people are often left unsatisfied, such that today in the West the divorce rate is something like 50%. Happy, stable, long term relationships seem to be the exception across cultures and across the breadth and width of time. And yet pursuit of love and some kind of relationship seems to be the highest calling for many people, both in real life and in fiction. And it could be that the accumulated disgust is finally starting to boil over.
To be fair, this may not be the first time in history that the pendulum has shifted. You may recall that in Victorian times attitudes changed drastically, as compared to the previously bawdy Elizabethan times. Looking at a play from Shakespear, if you can understand the language, you’ll see all kinds of vulgar references, as well as what I believe are fairly sappy romances like in the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet, though I can’t say for certain whether Shakespear was actually endorsing that type of attitude towards “love” or presenting it as a cautionary tale, maybe even something to be ridiculed in some of his other plays.
But regardless, Victorians as you may well know had a very conservative attitude towards anything to do with romance, and would often avoid the subject in many places, or tread very carefully around it, as if walking on eggshells. It’s not that people stopped being romantic, in fiction or real life, but it was treated as something very serious and even dangerous, with many urges repressed or even suppressed entirely. This had all kinds of effects on society, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it reinforced the ideal of people being committed to their partners, and of marriage as a sacred institution rather than a “casual hookup” as was more common in Elizabethan times. Likewise it reinforced ideals of modesty and chastity, which may be coming back into vogue, though under different names. But just as there were positive aspects to these attitudes, so were there negative ones.
Just because the urges I described were repressed did not mean that they disappeared. In fact, they often morphed into things that many would consider “unhealthy”. From one statistic that I saw, in Victorian times about one in every 60 houses was a brothel, with the modern rate being closer to one in 6000. Additionally, the rights of women were often repressed, such that they could not fully express themselves and find their own identity, and path in life, as individuals. Just as Elizabethan ideals gave way to Victorian ones, so did the Victorian ideals gradually begin to erode.
Perhaps it began with the Jazz Age of the 1920’s (the “Roaring Twenties”), or with the increased interconnectivity of people traveling to different parts of the world during World War I, not to mention the cynicism that pervaded throughout the West in response to failed old ideals leading to the deadliest war in history up to that point, but many Victorian ideals began to be seen as a joke, and even resented for their “oppression”, which to be fair was not entirely unjustified. But regardless, people gradually, and at times not so gradually, became more and more “liberated” and promiscuous. This culminated in the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s, when what had previously been seen as a vice and even a sin was now seen as not only “normal” but as a healthy form of expression, a virtue even. And just as these ideas were embraced in real life, so too were they reflected in our films, TV shows, and other media, often to the consternation of older people and institutions, like the Vatican. The Catholic Church even went so far as to “ban” certain films, that is to declare them immoral for good Catholics to watch. Many of the films that were banned back then, or at least controversial, like The Graduate with Dustin Hoffman, are fairly tame by today’s standards.
It continued through the 70’s, at times warming and at times cooling through the rest of the century, until you could argue it reached a kind of crescendo in the early 21st century with the advent of so-called “dark romance” and the publication of books like Fifty Shades of Grey. (Ironically, many of the themes within this “dark romance” can trace their roots back to the Victorian era, yet another indication that repressing urges without addressing them often doesn’t work out as one might hope.) But as happens all too often, just as something reaches peak popularity is when it begins to go out of style, and that is what we may be experiencing right now. As weird as it may sound, we may actually have come full circle and may be on the cusp of a “New Victorian Age” (complete with “dark romance”, even). Web sites like Porn Hub and OnlyFans, as well as other similar sites, may be the new “brothels”, and what was once openly celebrated may be going underground, to an extent. The effects of this on society have been interesting to say the least, and at times I would even say bizarre.
Whilst many younger people seem content with these changes, many older people are concerned. I’ve seen a number of books, films, and other media receive positive reviews for example based specifically on their lack of romance. Many of these books/films, etc. fall into the “young adult” category, meaning that it is young adults obviously who mostly consume them. At the same time I’ve heard a number of older people, mostly boomers and Gen-Xers, criticize these same books/films for their lack of romance. Even some older millennials seem upset by the changes, as perhaps evidenced by Jennifer Lawrence’s latest film No Hard Feelings (though to be fair that film may be lampooning the older generation’s frustration as well as the younger generation’s frigidity). So just as in the past older people were concerned about the promiscuity of the youth, now it actually appears that many older people are concerned about the youth’s lack of promiscuity.
Who could have seen that coming? But to be fair, the younger generation hasn’t gone completely frigid. As stated earlier, much of the promiscuity has gone “underground”, or online, which many would argue is not very healthy as it might undermine actual relationships, whether they are romantic in nature or simple friendships. And speaking of that, friendships within stories nowadays often aren’t portrayed in a very authentic or compelling manner, perhaps because in ditching romance modern writers haven’t quite yet learned how to replace it with something else. In other words, the “New Victorian Age” may not be an exact repeat of the previous one, but may have its own twists and turns, for better and for worse.
This may all essentially be a manifestation of the Human Condition, in that we just can’t seem to find a happy medium, neither in real life nor in fiction. Thus we keep swinging from one extreme to the other, apparently getting wilder with each swing.
So where does all this leave us? What is it that we really want in our lives, and in our stories? Especially in regards to relationships? I think at some level we all want to see good and healthy relationships between people and/or characters, whether romantic or platonic. I believe at some point we would like to see good examples of both friendship and romance, and I would argue that the best examples of romance have them combined. Even a toxic relationship, if well portrayed or documented, can be instructive and serve as a good example of what to avoid in our lives that we might be happier and relate better to each other. A good relationship, by contrast, can give us something to aspire to and inspire us to not only look for the right kind of person to complement our lives, but to make ourselves worthy of that person. And here I’ll add that I’m perfectly aware that in real life (and thus in fiction) relationships can be very complicated and heavily nuanced, with elements of both “good” and “bad” in them. Just as people change over time so can the relationships between them change, at times getting better and at times worse, sometimes breaking entirely and sometimes growing stronger. Relationships can have just as many layers and dimensions as characters, more even perhaps, and a skilled writer should be able to reflect this complexity. At other times a relationship can be fairly straightforward, simplicity sometimes being the best approach. But regardless, the audience should be able to relate and identify with what they are seeing, such that hopefully they can incorporate the lessons from it in their own lives.
Where can we find good examples of relationships to study? There may be a number of them in the real world, but the trouble with studying real world relationships is that they’re often much more complicated than fictional ones (just as real people are more complicated than fictional characters), and for many of them it is almost impossible to know all the details and nuances because they are often kept private, understandably so, and even if they aren’t it can still be difficult, due to unique circumstances, to see how to relate them to our own lives. Additionally there may be far more disagreement about a real life situation than a fictional one, with many more points of view. To keep things simple, for the purpose of this article I would like to focus on fictional relationships. (And fair warning, there will be some spoilers.)
One of the best places to look, I would argue, would be the films of Hayao Miyazaki. (And this is pretty significant to Star Wars as you will see in a bit.) A film of his that stands out to me the most is Princess Mononoke. Like many of Miyazaki’s films it has elements of romance, and yet subverts them in a way that makes complete sense and feels very genuine, without taking away from any of the accompanying charm. It starts with two young people, San and Ashitaka, and as soon as they encounter each other there is a kind of expectation of romance. This may be inevitable to some degree when you have a man and a woman of about the same age encounter each other in a story, especially if they happen to be adolescents. The expectation may not be inherently bad, and Miyazaki does play with it. Both characters are thrust into dangerous situations, at various points end up saving each other’s lives, and at a certain point I think it is obvious that they have feelings for each other. I was certain that at the end of the film, they would be together, and if things had gone that way, it would make complete sense. Instead, they go in different directions, but remain good friends, and considering their backgrounds and differing worldviews, this ends up making even more sense to the story.
Essentially, Miyazaki could have gone for the more conventional, tried and true “love conquers all” narrative, where the characters’ feelings for each other would negate everything that comes between them, they would somehow find a common ground in spite of their differences, the romance would not only take over the narrative but somehow also solve all the problems in the story, and then the couple would live “happily ever after”. Such an approach is not inherently bad or wrong, and is fairly common in Western media and storytelling. We can see it in films like Fern Gully, and more recently James Cameron’s Avatar, both of which have been compared to Princess Mononoke. As you can probably guess, the problem is that at a certain point such a narrative can become fairly simplistic, and lack nuance.
Miyazaki’s films, by contrast, are very heavily nuanced, and are anything but simplistic. In Princess Mononoke the characters San and Ashitaka don’t help each other simply because they are “in love”, but because it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they might feel about each other. Yes, romantic feelings are certainly alluded to, but they are not essential to the plot, for it could have worked just as well without any romantic allusions. And ironically, this makes those allusions even more valid, even if they are unrequited. How so?
Consider that if love is essential to a given narrative, is it not relegated to being nothing more than a plot device? Again, this is quite common in Western media and storytelling, and is not inherently bad or wrong, but when it becomes a trope or cliche, I believe it is the essence of where shipping comes from. Many storytellers get caught up in this, usually without realizing it, and while a story can still work even with shipping, I believe that it usually works that much better without it.
This extends not only to Miyazaki’s handling of romance but also to other things like environmentalism, the conflict between man and nature, and the contrasting ideals of human progress vs. preserving the natural order. Movies like Fern Gully and Avatar, as already mentioned, handle these themes in a fairly simplistic and I would even say hamfisted manner, whereby all progress and technology is shown as being inherently “bad” and in service to “evil”, while everything that’s “natural” is shown to be inherently “good”. Even our notions of good and evil, and right vs. wrong, are challenged by Miyazaki, with nearly all of his characters having complex motives and multiple dimensions to them, as well as understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. Rarely can any one of his characters be branded as a simple “villain”, and rarely is any one individual the source of conflict in his stories, again in contrast to most Western narratives.
I’ll reiterate once more, a simple, straightforward narrative is not inherently a bad thing, whether the themes being dealt with are romantic or anything else. Sometimes it is in fact the best approach. But the best stories in my opinion are usually the most nuanced, that challenge our notions of what we believe to be true, and that force us to think about what we do with our lives and what we could do differently. To that end Miyazaki introduces all manner of themes and motifs within his films that are familiar to us but shows them in a light most of us might not have considered, thus giving more dimension to our understanding of things.
“How is any of this related to Star Wars?” you might ask. It is quite related, and you don’t even have to look all that closely to see it. A very influential figure within Star Wars was very heavily inspired by the works of Miyazaki, and that figure is Dave Filoni.
This video shows the connections in some detail:
https://youtu.be/Q_4L0BbSpHo?si=04jDo6qFCnZT135w
But to summarize if you’ve seen any of Miyazaki’s films, especially Princess Mononoke, I think the callbacks in Filoni’s work will be all too obvious, especially in Star Wars Rebels. Some of the scenes in Filoni’s work look like they were taken directly from Miyazki’s films, and many of the same themes and motifs often come up. The relationship between San and Ashitaka I would argue is very similar to the relationship between Ezra and Sabine, and not just because both couples rode wolves together.
Incidentally, Dave Filoni was also heavily involved in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I would also argue was at least to some degree inspired if not by Miyazaki then by Japanese anime in general. The relationship between Aang and Katara was developed with great care and was allowed to build very slowly, as opposed to simply shipping them. Likewise other characters very gradually developed as individuals and in their relationships, at times stumbling as they did so, and making mistakes, before finding their way back to the right path.
All of this is in stark contrast to George Lucas, whose character development is often very rushed at best, and at times some might say almost non-existent. So essentially, even though Lucas has said that Filoni has been “like a son” to him, and I believe referred to Filoni as his “padawan”, I would argue that Filoni is ultimately as much a student of Miyazaki as he is of Lucas.
Again, you might ask, “What does all this mean for Star Wars?” It means a great many things. It means that Dave Filoni has taken Miyazaki’s lessons to heart, and can handle things like romance, as well as other kinds of relationships, quite well most of the time. Like Miyazaki he can play with romance, tease the audience with it at times even, leave the romance unrequited, and yet still have it feel satisfying. A prime example of this is the love triangle that Ahsoka was involved in with the young Separatist Senator, Lux Bonteri, and Steela Gerrera. As wary as I am of romance and as much as I despise shipping, love triangles I normally despise even more, but this one seemed to actually work. It never took over the main story, and even though Ahsoka’s feelings were ultimately not reciprocated, she still learned from the experience, and grew and developed further as a character because of it. The other characters involved in this triangle also grew and developed from their involvement, though unfortunately not all of them made it. All in all it was a good bit of storytelling and gave the audience something to consider.
When a relationship in one of Filoni’s stories does bloom into a full blown romance he also generally handles it quite well. For one Filoni is sparing with actual romance, so that when it does occur, it can be that much more appreciated. And rather than rushing or shipping it, Filoni normally takes his time to build it up. An example of this is the relationship between Kanan and Hera. Some might argue that this is perhaps the best developed romance in all of Star Wars, at least in Canon. Built up over four seasons, at times it wasn’t certain whether it was a romance or a friendship, or perhaps even a professional partnership. Perhaps even the characters themselves were not certain, though it was hinted all throughout the narrative that something was going on. To this day I don’t believe anyone can say definitively when it became an actual romance, and I believe Filoni did this intentionally because he wanted to be subtle, rather than making things too obvious and having the romance take over the narrative, as it usually does. When it finally did become obvious as to what was happening, it felt very much earned, in a way that is seldom accomplished in other works of fiction, including Star Wars.
The relationship between Ezra and Sabine was also fairly well written, for the most part anyway, at least in Star Wars Rebels. Ezra was almost immediately smitten with Sabine, but being a young teenage boy, it was understandable that he would feel that way about an attractive girl. Over time he learned to see her more respectfully, as a colleague and even as part of his adopted family, not just as a pretty face. Sabine for her part found Ezra annoying at first (c’mon, what teenage boy isn’t?), but as he matured and she found out more about him she came to understand and respect him more, and see him as a friend and almost a brother, with there being potential for something more.
There were times when the relationship could have been better written, like in the episode “Blood Sisters”, where Ezra was written to be a bit too immature to make Sabine look wiser. But overall, the bond between them developed fairly well; both saved one another at various times, and took risks and made sacrifices for each other’s sake. Both reassured and comforted the other when they needed it, and it was endearing to hear their banter when they became more familiar and trusting of each other.
So why then was I so disappointed in how they were portrayed in the Ahsoka show? The thing is, after how well their relationship was built up in Rebels, as I’ve already mentioned it was strange to see how lackluster and uninspired their reunion was.
Within the Ahsoka show itself Sabine was shown to be almost obsessed with finding Ezra, living in what used to be his home, watching a recording of him over and over again, and calling out his name as she woke up in the middle of the night. She even risked bringing Thrawn back into the Galaxy, which ultimately happened, just so she could see Ezra again. After all that, when she finally does encounter him, her reaction seems fairly casual, as does his, as if they’ve been apart for no more than a week, rather than 10 years. Not too much happens between them afterwards either. Like I said Ezra does not appear all that curious about what happened with Sabine, how she found him, and how it was that she was now Force sensitive. Sabine likewise did not seem curious about what had happened with Ezra, and how he had gotten away from Thrawn. And with Ezra rescued and returned home, suddenly it didn’t seem as though Sabine was all that interested in him anymore, nor he all that concerned with her, though they were just as far apart as they had been at the start of the show. To be completely honest it made me wonder what the point of the whole show was. Were they just working to set up Thrawn’s return to the Galaxy? As some have said, Ezra felt like nothing more than a Macguffin in the show. Was Sabine and Ahsoka’s search for him just a plot device?
Considering how skillfully Dave Filoni had written his stories in the past, what happened in this latest project of his does not make much sense. Was he so concerned about “shipping” and so desperate to avoid it that he inadvertently “shipped” them in the other direction? Was there some sort of external pressure on him about how to write this story to have more of an appeal to “modern audiences”? Maybe some combination of those factors?
And here I’ll add that when I say “modern audiences” I don’t mean that in a contemptuous sense, though you may think I do. If there is any contempt on my part it is for those in charge of telling our stories, or those in charge of those telling our stories, who do not seem to grasp these basic truths. The truth is that audiences at their core don’t really change throughout the ages, only superficially so. Trends come and go but certain truths and ideals are eternal, and universal. How people relate to each other fundamentally does not change, whether they are friends, or more than friends. And deep down, I believe everyone (or nearly everyone at least) wants the same things. Nearly everyone at some point wants some kind of a connection with another human being, to know that they are not alone in the world, and to know that there is someone else who sees and understands things as they do. While this desire can certainly lead to abuse, and absolutely has, it is still innate to us and is not inherently wrong. Finding ways of connecting and relating to other people is one of the great challenges of life, but many would argue it is the most worthwhile of challenges. It may be the whole point of life if you think about it. As complex as it may be, many would argue it is what makes life worth living, and likewise makes for the best stories. Just as it may be the whole point of life many would say that is what most stories are about at their core: people trying to relate to one another.
Sadly, just as in real life, most stories unfortunately don’t quite get it, and the Ahsoka show in my opinion was an example of this, made all the sadder by the fact that Dave Filoni had done quite well with these characters up to that point. We may never know for certain what exactly went wrong and why, or if it can ever be “fixed” at this point, but I can’t help but feel curious. Maybe in the future Filoni will find a way to make it make sense, but I’m not sure how. And to be completely honest I don’t feel quite as enthusiastic to find out as I used to.
Also for the record I would like to add here that there are other factors that put me off from the show, such as Sabine’s Force sensitivity, that came about without much build up. But in this article I specifically wanted to focus on shipping because there seems to be so much misunderstanding around it.
I hope that I was able to clarify some, if not most of this misunderstanding, so that people could better appreciate what shipping is, where it comes from, as well as what it isn’t. Many people today are understandably sick of shipping characters, myself included. But I hope people realize that in overcompensating for something, we often come back around into the very thing that we are overcompensating for. Or sometimes, into something even worse. This may apply to nearly every facet of life, by the way, not just shipping. Finding a happy medium in how we portray our fictional relationships may help us to better understand relationships in real life, as well as how to navigate them. Neither fictional nor actual relationships can ever be perfect but they can always be better. To this understanding then I hope that I was able to give my own modest contribution, and if nothing else I hope we can connect on that.

This is my attempt at a re-submission due to some misunderstandings on the first attempt. I now know that there are different definitions of the word “ship”, but for the purposes of this article and to keep things simple I will use the definition of “a relationship that’s rushed and/or forced with no real development.” I hope you can understand as I do not know of any other single word to describe that concept. If you do, perhaps you can tell me. Also, fair warning, this is long form content (some 10 pages), if you like it but can’t read it all at once you can save it and come back to it over a period of time, or you can stop reading whenever you get tired of it and still discuss those parts of it with me that you have read. But keep it civil if you want a civil response.
With that, to qualify the title, no, Ezra and Sabine do NOT absolutely have to be a couple, but if they were to become one, it would NOT be a ship. Ezra and Sabine’s relationship has had years of development. Could they remain as simply friends? Yes, but ironically, it was their “friendship” that felt like more of a ship. It felt like the Ahsoka show, helmed by Dave Filoni, was going out of its way to tell us: “no, they’re not a couple, they’re just friends.”
I believe that Filoni made some very poor writing choices to stress something that didn’t really need to be stressed, such that it almost felt like he was in denial. The line “I love you like a sister” was never in Rebels, Filoni essentially had that retconned in, and like many I was put off by their (largely) emotionless reunion. Even if they were “just friends” I believe there would be a great deal more emotion displayed between two people that hadn’t seen each other in some ten years, especially when one of them was in a precarious situation when they parted. I also believe Ezra would be far more curious about Sabine being Force sensitive, perhaps even offering to help train her when she told him that her training hadn’t gone as well with Ahsoka. He did help to train her with the Darksaber, didn’t he? Why that never came up is another discussion, but for now, let’s focus on shipping.
In case you think I’m desperate to have them as a couple, no I’m not. I’m about the furthest thing from it. Like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers) I DESPISE shipping. Absolutely DESPISE it. With a flaming passion. Perhaps for this reason, and maybe some others, like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers), I’m generally wary of nearly all romance in fiction, and generally avoid it in my own work. The sad reality is that romance is perhaps the most abused genre in all of fiction, all throughout history. It has been so badly abused that many people, including myself for the longest time, have equated romance with shipping, though I’m slowly beginning to see that they are not the same thing, and one does not necessarily have to go with the other.
But sadly, many writers, through time immemorial, have not been able to separate them, going back into ancient times and perhaps even into pre-history, that is before languages were actually written down. Some of what is considered great literature; classics like Romeo and Juliet, are predicated on shipping, though at least the consequences of this “whirlwind romance” are shown to be fairly stark. Star Wars itself is no stranger to shipping, resulting in a very awkward incestuous kiss when Luke was shipped with Leia, then Leia was placed with Han and Lucas made Luke and Leia brother and sister, apparently having forgotten his original ship. Later Lucas essentially shipped Anakin and Padme, resulting in some of the most cringeworthy dialog in the history of film. Many fans of the Prequels even have been somewhat critical of Anakin’s portrayal, particularly in regards to the “romantic” scenes, with many describing them as “creepy”. Some have speculated that this was intentional, though personally I think it was just the result of bad writing on the part of George Lucas, and an impatience on his part for Anakin and Padme to become a couple, hence “shipping”.
One might wonder why this is so prevalent in fiction, and tragically, one does not have to look far. Fiction is merely a reflection of reality, therefore the reason that shipping is so common in our stories is that we fall so easily into it in real life. Indeed, entire cultures may be based around shipping, or at least very heavily wrapped up in it. Throughout history arranged marriages have been the norm, and the idea of marrying for “love” is something relatively new. To be fair, I’ve actually met people in arranged marriages who seemed to be fairly happy, but those same people were very open in telling me that many despise that aspect of their culture, and that it is quite normal for those in an arranged marriage to try to get out.
People might come together for “love” without marrying, but even then it often creates expectations that might turn into a burden. Even when a marriage is voluntary and for “love”, people are often left unsatisfied, such that today in the West the divorce rate is something like 50%. Happy, stable, long term relationships seem to be the exception across cultures and across the breadth and width of time. And yet pursuit of love and some kind of relationship seems to be the highest calling for many people, both in real life and in fiction. And it could be that the accumulated disgust is finally starting to boil over.
To be fair, this may not be the first time in history that the pendulum has shifted. You may recall that in Victorian times attitudes changed drastically, as compared to the previously bawdy Elizabethan times. Looking at a play from Shakespear, if you can understand the language, you’ll see all kinds of vulgar references, as well as what I believe are fairly sappy romances like in the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet, though I can’t say for certain whether Shakespear was actually endorsing that type of attitude towards “love” or presenting it as a cautionary tale, maybe even something to be ridiculed in some of his other plays.
But regardless, Victorians as you may well know had a very conservative attitude towards anything to do with romance, and would often avoid the subject in many places, or tread very carefully around it, as if walking on eggshells. It’s not that people stopped being romantic, in fiction or real life, but it was treated as something very serious and even dangerous, with many urges repressed or even suppressed entirely. This had all kinds of effects on society, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it reinforced the ideal of people being committed to their partners, and of marriage as a sacred institution rather than a “casual hookup” as was more common in Elizabethan times. Likewise it reinforced ideals of modesty and chastity, which may be coming back into vogue, though under different names. But just as there were positive aspects to these attitudes, so were there negative ones.
Just because the urges I described were repressed did not mean that they disappeared. In fact, they often morphed into things that many would consider “unhealthy”. From one statistic that I saw, in Victorian times about one in every 60 houses was a brothel, with the modern rate being closer to one in 6000. Additionally, the rights of women were often repressed, such that they could not fully express themselves and find their own identity, and path in life, as individuals. Just as Elizabethan ideals gave way to Victorian ones, so did the Victorian ideals gradually begin to erode.
Perhaps it began with the Jazz Age of the 1920’s (the “Roaring Twenties”), or with the increased interconnectivity of people traveling to different parts of the world during World War I, not to mention the cynicism that pervaded throughout the West in response to failed old ideals leading to the deadliest war in history up to that point, but many Victorian ideals began to be seen as a joke, and even resented for their “oppression”, which to be fair was not entirely unjustified. But regardless, people gradually, and at times not so gradually, became more and more “liberated” and promiscuous. This culminated in the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s, when what had previously been seen as a vice and even a sin was now seen as not only “normal” but as a healthy form of expression, a virtue even. And just as these ideas were embraced in real life, so too were they reflected in our films, TV shows, and other media, often to the consternation of older people and institutions, like the Vatican. The Catholic Church even went so far as to “ban” certain films, that is to declare them immoral for good Catholics to watch. Many of the films that were banned back then, or at least controversial, like The Graduate with Dustin Hoffman, are fairly tame by today’s standards.
It continued through the 70’s, at times warming and at times cooling through the rest of the century, until you could argue it reached a kind of crescendo in the early 21st century with the advent of so-called “dark romance” and the publication of books like Fifty Shades of Grey. (Ironically, many of the themes within this “dark romance” can trace their roots back to the Victorian era, yet another indication that repressing urges without addressing them often doesn’t work out as one might hope.) But as happens all too often, just as something reaches peak popularity is when it begins to go out of style, and that is what we may be experiencing right now. As weird as it may sound, we may actually have come full circle and may be on the cusp of a “New Victorian Age” (complete with “dark romance”, even). Web sites like Porn Hub and OnlyFans, as well as other similar sites, may be the new “brothels”, and what was once openly celebrated may be going underground, to an extent. The effects of this on society have been interesting to say the least, and at times I would even say bizarre.
Whilst many younger people seem content with these changes, many older people are concerned. I’ve seen a number of books, films, and other media receive positive reviews for example based specifically on their lack of romance. Many of these books/films, etc. fall into the “young adult” category, meaning that it is young adults obviously who mostly consume them. At the same time I’ve heard a number of older people, mostly boomers and Gen-Xers, criticize these same books/films for their lack of romance. Even some older millennials seem upset by the changes, as perhaps evidenced by Jennifer Lawrence’s latest film No Hard Feelings (though to be fair that film may be lampooning the older generation’s frustration as well as the younger generation’s frigidity). So just as in the past older people were concerned about the promiscuity of the youth, now it actually appears that many older people are concerned about the youth’s lack of promiscuity.
Who could have seen that coming? But to be fair, the younger generation hasn’t gone completely frigid. As stated earlier, much of the promiscuity has gone “underground”, or online, which many would argue is not very healthy as it might undermine actual relationships, whether they are romantic in nature or simple friendships. And speaking of that, friendships within stories nowadays often aren’t portrayed in a very authentic or compelling manner, perhaps because in ditching romance modern writers haven’t quite yet learned how to replace it with something else. In other words, the “New Victorian Age” may not be an exact repeat of the previous one, but may have its own twists and turns, for better and for worse.
This may all essentially be a manifestation of the Human Condition, in that we just can’t seem to find a happy medium, neither in real life nor in fiction. Thus we keep swinging from one extreme to the other, apparently getting wilder with each swing.
So where does all this leave us? What is it that we really want in our lives, and in our stories? Especially in regards to relationships? I think at some level we all want to see good and healthy relationships between people and/or characters, whether romantic or platonic. I believe at some point we would like to see good examples of both friendship and romance, and I would argue that the best examples of romance have them combined. Even a toxic relationship, if well portrayed or documented, can be instructive and serve as a good example of what to avoid in our lives that we might be happier and relate better to each other. A good relationship, by contrast, can give us something to aspire to and inspire us to not only look for the right kind of person to complement our lives, but to make ourselves worthy of that person. And here I’ll add that I’m perfectly aware that in real life (and thus in fiction) relationships can be very complicated and heavily nuanced, with elements of both “good” and “bad” in them. Just as people change over time so can the relationships between them change, at times getting better and at times worse, sometimes breaking entirely and sometimes growing stronger. Relationships can have just as many layers and dimensions as characters, more even perhaps, and a skilled writer should be able to reflect this complexity. At other times a relationship can be fairly straightforward, simplicity sometimes being the best approach. But regardless, the audience should be able to relate and identify with what they are seeing, such that hopefully they can incorporate the lessons from it in their own lives.
Where can we find good examples of relationships to study? There may be a number of them in the real world, but the trouble with studying real world relationships is that they’re often much more complicated than fictional ones (just as real people are more complicated than fictional characters), and for many of them it is almost impossible to know all the details and nuances because they are often kept private, understandably so, and even if they aren’t it can still be difficult, due to unique circumstances, to see how to relate them to our own lives. Additionally there may be far more disagreement about a real life situation than a fictional one, with many more points of view. To keep things simple, for the purpose of this article I would like to focus on fictional relationships. (And fair warning, there will be some spoilers.)
One of the best places to look, I would argue, would be the films of Hayao Miyazaki. (And this is pretty significant to Star Wars as you will see in a bit.) A film of his that stands out to me the most is Princess Mononoke. Like many of Miyazaki’s films it has elements of romance, and yet subverts them in a way that makes complete sense and feels very genuine, without taking away from any of the accompanying charm. It starts with two young people, San and Ashitaka, and as soon as they encounter each other there is a kind of expectation of romance. This may be inevitable to some degree when you have a man and a woman of about the same age encounter each other in a story, especially if they happen to be adolescents. The expectation may not be inherently bad, and Miyazaki does play with it. Both characters are thrust into dangerous situations, at various points end up saving each other’s lives, and at a certain point I think it is obvious that they have feelings for each other. I was certain that at the end of the film, they would be together, and if things had gone that way, it would make complete sense. Instead, they go in different directions, but remain good friends, and considering their backgrounds and differing worldviews, this ends up making even more sense to the story.
Essentially, Miyazaki could have gone for the more conventional, tried and true “love conquers all” narrative, where the characters’ feelings for each other would negate everything that comes between them, they would somehow find a common ground in spite of their differences, the romance would not only take over the narrative but somehow also solve all the problems in the story, and then the couple would live “happily ever after”. Such an approach is not inherently bad or wrong, and is fairly common in Western media and storytelling. We can see it in films like Fern Gully, and more recently James Cameron’s Avatar, both of which have been compared to Princess Mononoke. As you can probably guess, the problem is that at a certain point such a narrative can become fairly simplistic, and lack nuance.
Miyazaki’s films, by contrast, are very heavily nuanced, and are anything but simplistic. In Princess Mononoke the characters San and Ashitaka don’t help each other simply because they are “in love”, but because it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they might feel about each other. Yes, romantic feelings are certainly alluded to, but they are not essential to the plot, for it could have worked just as well without any romantic allusions. And ironically, this makes those allusions even more valid, even if they are unrequited. How so?
Consider that if love is essential to a given narrative, is it not relegated to being nothing more than a plot device? Again, this is quite common in Western media and storytelling, and is not inherently bad or wrong, but when it becomes a trope or cliche, I believe it is the essence of where shipping comes from. Many storytellers get caught up in this, usually without realizing it, and while a story can still work even with shipping, I believe that it usually works that much better without it.
This extends not only to Miyazaki’s handling of romance but also to other things like environmentalism, the conflict between man and nature, and the contrasting ideals of human progress vs. preserving the natural order. Movies like Fern Gully and Avatar, as already mentioned, handle these themes in a fairly simplistic and I would even say hamfisted manner, whereby all progress and technology is shown as being inherently “bad” and in service to “evil”, while everything that’s “natural” is shown to be inherently “good”. Even our notions of good and evil, and right vs. wrong, are challenged by Miyazaki, with nearly all of his characters having complex motives and multiple dimensions to them, as well as understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. Rarely can any one of his characters be branded as a simple “villain”, and rarely is any one individual the source of conflict in his stories, again in contrast to most Western narratives.
I’ll reiterate once more, a simple, straightforward narrative is not inherently a bad thing, whether the themes being dealt with are romantic or anything else. Sometimes it is in fact the best approach. But the best stories in my opinion are usually the most nuanced, that challenge our notions of what we believe to be true, and that force us to think about what we do with our lives and what we could do differently. To that end Miyazaki introduces all manner of themes and motifs within his films that are familiar to us but shows them in a light most of us might not have considered, thus giving more dimension to our understanding of things.
“How is any of this related to Star Wars?” you might ask. It is quite related, and you don’t even have to look all that closely to see it. A very influential figure within Star Wars was very heavily inspired by the works of Miyazaki, and that figure is Dave Filoni.
This video shows the connections in some detail:
https://youtu.be/Q_4L0BbSpHo?si=04jDo6qFCnZT135w
But to summarize if you’ve seen any of Miyazaki’s films, especially Princess Mononoke, I think the callbacks in Filoni’s work will be all too obvious, especially in Star Wars Rebels. Some of the scenes in Filoni’s work look like they were taken directly from Miyazki’s films, and many of the same themes and motifs often come up. The relationship between San and Ashitaka I would argue is very similar to the relationship between Ezra and Sabine, and not just because both couples rode wolves together.
Incidentally, Dave Filoni was also heavily involved in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I would also argue was at least to some degree inspired if not by Miyazaki then by Japanese anime in general. The relationship between Aang and Katara was developed with great care and was allowed to build very slowly, as opposed to simply shipping them. Likewise other characters very gradually developed as individuals and in their relationships, at times stumbling as they did so, and making mistakes, before finding their way back to the right path.
All of this is in stark contrast to George Lucas, whose character development is often very rushed at best, and at times some might say almost non-existent. So essentially, even though Lucas has said that Filoni has been “like a son” to him, and I believe referred to Filoni as his “padawan”, I would argue that Filoni is ultimately as much a student of Miyazaki as he is of Lucas.
Again, you might ask, “What does all this mean for Star Wars?” It means a great many things. It means that Dave Filoni has taken Miyazaki’s lessons to heart, and can handle things like romance, as well as other kinds of relationships, quite well most of the time. Like Miyazaki he can play with romance, tease the audience with it at times even, leave the romance unrequited, and yet still have it feel satisfying. A prime example of this is the love triangle that Ahsoka was involved in with the young Separatist Senator, Lux Bonteri, and Steela Gerrera. As wary as I am of romance and as much as I despise shipping, love triangles I normally despise even more, but this one seemed to actually work. It never took over the main story, and even though Ahsoka’s feelings were ultimately not reciprocated, she still learned from the experience, and grew and developed further as a character because of it. The other characters involved in this triangle also grew and developed from their involvement, though unfortunately not all of them made it. All in all it was a good bit of storytelling and gave the audience something to consider.
When a relationship in one of Filoni’s stories does bloom into a full blown romance he also generally handles it quite well. For one Filoni is sparing with actual romance, so that when it does occur, it can be that much more appreciated. And rather than rushing or shipping it, Filoni normally takes his time to build it up. An example of this is the relationship between Kanan and Hera. Some might argue that this is perhaps the best developed romance in all of Star Wars, at least in Canon. Built up over four seasons, at times it wasn’t certain whether it was a romance or a friendship, or perhaps even a professional partnership. Perhaps even the characters themselves were not certain, though it was hinted all throughout the narrative that something was going on. To this day I don’t believe anyone can say definitively when it became an actual romance, and I believe Filoni did this intentionally because he wanted to be subtle, rather than making things too obvious and having the romance take over the narrative, as it usually does. When it finally did become obvious as to what was happening, it felt very much earned, in a way that is seldom accomplished in other works of fiction, including Star Wars.
The relationship between Ezra and Sabine was also fairly well written, for the most part anyway, at least in Star Wars Rebels. Ezra was almost immediately smitten with Sabine, but being a young teenage boy, it was understandable that he would feel that way about an attractive girl. Over time he learned to see her more respectfully, as a colleague and even as part of his adopted family, not just as a pretty face. Sabine for her part found Ezra annoying at first (c’mon, what teenage boy isn’t?), but as he matured and she found out more about him she came to understand and respect him more, and see him as a friend and almost a brother, with there being potential for something more.
There were times when the relationship could have been better written, like in the episode “Blood Sisters”, where Ezra was written to be a bit too immature to make Sabine look wiser. But overall, the bond between them developed fairly well; both saved one another at various times, and took risks and made sacrifices for each other’s sake. Both reassured and comforted the other when they needed it, and it was endearing to hear their banter when they became more familiar and trusting of each other.
So why then was I so disappointed in how they were portrayed in the Ahsoka show? The thing is, after how well their relationship was built up in Rebels, as I’ve already mentioned it was strange to see how lackluster and uninspired their reunion was.
Within the Ahsoka show itself Sabine was shown to be almost obsessed with finding Ezra, living in what used to be his home, watching a recording of him over and over again, and calling out his name as she woke up in the middle of the night. She even risked bringing Thrawn back into the Galaxy, which ultimately happened, just so she could see Ezra again. After all that, when she finally does encounter him, her reaction seems fairly casual, as does his, as if they’ve been apart for no more than a week, rather than 10 years. Not too much happens between them afterwards either. Like I said Ezra does not appear all that curious about what happened with Sabine, how she found him, and how it was that she was now Force sensitive. Sabine likewise did not seem curious about what had happened with Ezra, and how he had gotten away from Thrawn. And with Ezra rescued and returned home, suddenly it didn’t seem as though Sabine was all that interested in him anymore, nor he all that concerned with her, though they were just as far apart as they had been at the start of the show. To be completely honest it made me wonder what the point of the whole show was. Were they just working to set up Thrawn’s return to the Galaxy? As some have said, Ezra felt like nothing more than a Macguffin in the show. Was Sabine and Ahsoka’s search for him just a plot device?
Considering how skillfully Dave Filoni had written his stories in the past, what happened in this latest project of his does not make much sense. Was he so concerned about “shipping” and so desperate to avoid it that he inadvertently “shipped” them in the other direction? Was there some sort of external pressure on him about how to write this story to have more of an appeal to “modern audiences”? Maybe some combination of those factors?
And here I’ll add that when I say “modern audiences” I don’t mean that in a contemptuous sense, though you may think I do. If there is any contempt on my part it is for those in charge of telling our stories, or those in charge of those telling our stories, who do not seem to grasp these basic truths. The truth is that audiences at their core don’t really change throughout the ages, only superficially so. Trends come and go but certain truths and ideals are eternal, and universal. How people relate to each other fundamentally does not change, whether they are friends, or more than friends. And deep down, I believe everyone (or nearly everyone at least) wants the same things. Nearly everyone at some point wants some kind of a connection with another human being, to know that they are not alone in the world, and to know that there is someone else who sees and understands things as they do. While this desire can certainly lead to abuse, and absolutely has, it is still innate to us and is not inherently wrong. Finding ways of connecting and relating to other people is one of the great challenges of life, but many would argue it is the most worthwhile of challenges. It may be the whole point of life if you think about it. As complex as it may be, many would argue it is what makes life worth living, and likewise makes for the best stories. Just as it may be the whole point of life many would say that is what most stories are about at their core: people trying to relate to one another.
Sadly, just as in real life, most stories unfortunately don’t quite get it, and the Ahsoka show in my opinion was an example of this, made all the sadder by the fact that Dave Filoni had done quite well with these characters up to that point. We may never know for certain what exactly went wrong and why, or if it can ever be “fixed” at this point, but I can’t help but feel curious. Maybe in the future Filoni will find a way to make it make sense, but I’m not sure how. And to be completely honest I don’t feel quite as enthusiastic to find out as I used to.
Also for the record I would like to add here that there are other factors that put me off from the show, such as Sabine’s Force sensitivity, that came about without much build up. But in this article I specifically wanted to focus on shipping because there seems to be so much misunderstanding around it.
I hope that I was able to clarify some, if not most of this misunderstanding, so that people could better appreciate what shipping is, where it comes from, as well as what it isn’t. Many people today are understandably sick of shipping characters, myself included. But I hope people realize that in overcompensating for something, we often come back around into the very thing that we are overcompensating for. Or sometimes, into something even worse. This may apply to nearly every facet of life, by the way, not just shipping. Finding a happy medium in how we portray our fictional relationships may help us to better understand relationships in real life, as well as how to navigate them. Neither fictional nor actual relationships can ever be perfect but they can always be better. To this understanding then I hope that I was able to give my own modest contribution, and if nothing else I hope we can connect on that.

This is my attempt at a re-submission due to some misunderstandings on the first attempt. I now know that there are different definitions of the word “ship”, but for the purposes of this article and to keep things simple I will use the definition of “a relationship that’s rushed and/or forced with no real development.” I hope you can understand as I do not know of any other single word to describe that concept. If you do, perhaps you can tell me. Also, fair warning, this is long form content (some 10 pages), if you like it but can’t read it all at once you can save it and come back to it over a period of time, or you can stop reading whenever you get tired of it and still discuss those parts of it with me that you have read. But keep it civil if you want a civil response.
With that, to qualify the title, no, Ezra and Sabine do NOT absolutely have to be a couple, but if they were to become one, it would NOT be a ship. Ezra and Sabine’s relationship has had years of development. Could they remain as simply friends? Yes, but ironically, it was their “friendship” that felt like more of a ship. It felt like the Ahsoka show, helmed by Dave Filoni, was going out of its way to tell us: “no, they’re not a couple, they’re just friends.”
I believe that Filoni made some very poor writing choices to stress something that didn’t really need to be stressed, such that it almost felt like he was in denial. The line “I love you like a sister” was never in Rebels, Filoni essentially had that retconned in, and like many I was put off by their (largely) emotionless reunion. Even if they were “just friends” I believe there would be a great deal more emotion displayed between two people that hadn’t seen each other in some ten years, especially when one of them was in a precarious situation when they parted. I also believe Ezra would be far more curious about Sabine being Force sensitive, perhaps even offering to help train her when she told him that her training hadn’t gone as well with Ahsoka. He did help to train her with the Darksaber, didn’t he? Why that never came up is another discussion, but for now, let’s focus on shipping.
In case you think I’m desperate to have them as a couple, no I’m not. I’m about the furthest thing from it. Like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers) I DESPISE shipping. Absolutely DESPISE it. With a flaming passion. Perhaps for this reason, and maybe some others, like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers), I’m generally wary of nearly all romance in fiction, and generally avoid it in my own work. The sad reality is that romance is perhaps the most abused genre in all of fiction, all throughout history. It has been so badly abused that many people, including myself for the longest time, have equated romance with shipping, though I’m slowly beginning to see that they are not the same thing, and one does not necessarily have to go with the other.
But sadly, many writers, through time immemorial, have not been able to separate them, going back into ancient times and perhaps even into pre-history, that is before languages were actually written down. Some of what is considered great literature; classics like Romeo and Juliet, are predicated on shipping, though at least the consequences of this “whirlwind romance” are shown to be fairly stark. Star Wars itself is no stranger to shipping, resulting in a very awkward incestuous kiss when Luke was shipped with Leia, then Leia was placed with Han and Lucas made Luke and Leia brother and sister, apparently having forgotten his original ship. Later Lucas essentially shipped Anakin and Padme, resulting in some of the most cringeworthy dialog in the history of film. Many fans of the Prequels even have been somewhat critical of Anakin’s portrayal, particularly in regards to the “romantic” scenes, with many describing them as “creepy”. Some have speculated that this was intentional, though personally I think it was just the result of bad writing on the part of George Lucas, and an impatience on his part for Anakin and Padme to become a couple, hence “shipping”.
One might wonder why this is so prevalent in fiction, and tragically, one does not have to look far. Fiction is merely a reflection of reality, therefore the reason that shipping is so common in our stories is that we fall so easily into it in real life. Indeed, entire cultures may be based around shipping, or at least very heavily wrapped up in it. Throughout history arranged marriages have been the norm, and the idea of marrying for “love” is something relatively new. To be fair, I’ve actually met people in arranged marriages who seemed to be fairly happy, but those same people were very open in telling me that many despise that aspect of their culture, and that it is quite normal for those in an arranged marriage to try to get out.
People might come together for “love” without marrying, but even then it often creates expectations that might turn into a burden. Even when a marriage is voluntary and for “love”, people are often left unsatisfied, such that today in the West the divorce rate is something like 50%. Happy, stable, long term relationships seem to be the exception across cultures and across the breadth and width of time. And yet pursuit of love and some kind of relationship seems to be the highest calling for many people, both in real life and in fiction. And it could be that the accumulated disgust is finally starting to boil over.
To be fair, this may not be the first time in history that the pendulum has shifted. You may recall that in Victorian times attitudes changed drastically, as compared to the previously bawdy Elizabethan times. Looking at a play from Shakespear, if you can understand the language, you’ll see all kinds of vulgar references, as well as what I believe are fairly sappy romances like in the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet, though I can’t say for certain whether Shakespear was actually endorsing that type of attitude towards “love” or presenting it as a cautionary tale, maybe even something to be ridiculed in some of his other plays.
But regardless, Victorians as you may well know had a very conservative attitude towards anything to do with romance, and would often avoid the subject in many places, or tread very carefully around it, as if walking on eggshells. It’s not that people stopped being romantic, in fiction or real life, but it was treated as something very serious and even dangerous, with many urges repressed or even suppressed entirely. This had all kinds of effects on society, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it reinforced the ideal of people being committed to their partners, and of marriage as a sacred institution rather than a “casual hookup” as was more common in Elizabethan times. Likewise it reinforced ideals of modesty and chastity, which may be coming back into vogue, though under different names. But just as there were positive aspects to these attitudes, so were there negative ones.
Just because the urges I described were repressed did not mean that they disappeared. In fact, they often morphed into things that many would consider “unhealthy”. From one statistic that I saw, in Victorian times about one in every 60 houses was a brothel, with the modern rate being closer to one in 6000. Additionally, the rights of women were often repressed, such that they could not fully express themselves and find their own identity, and path in life, as individuals. Just as Elizabethan ideals gave way to Victorian ones, so did the Victorian ideals gradually begin to erode.
Perhaps it began with the Jazz Age of the 1920’s (the “Roaring Twenties”), or with the increased interconnectivity of people traveling to different parts of the world during World War I, not to mention the cynicism that pervaded throughout the West in response to failed old ideals leading to the deadliest war in history up to that point, but many Victorian ideals began to be seen as a joke, and even resented for their “oppression”, which to be fair was not entirely unjustified. But regardless, people gradually, and at times not so gradually, became more and more “liberated” and promiscuous. This culminated in the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s, when what had previously been seen as a vice and even a sin was now seen as not only “normal” but as a healthy form of expression, a virtue even. And just as these ideas were embraced in real life, so too were they reflected in our films, TV shows, and other media, often to the consternation of older people and institutions, like the Vatican. The Catholic Church even went so far as to “ban” certain films, that is to declare them immoral for good Catholics to watch. Many of the films that were banned back then, or at least controversial, like The Graduate with Dustin Hoffman, are fairly tame by today’s standards.
It continued through the 70’s, at times warming and at times cooling through the rest of the century, until you could argue it reached a kind of crescendo in the early 21st century with the advent of so-called “dark romance” and the publication of books like Fifty Shades of Grey. (Ironically, many of the themes within this “dark romance” can trace their roots back to the Victorian era, yet another indication that repressing urges without addressing them often doesn’t work out as one might hope.) But as happens all too often, just as something reaches peak popularity is when it begins to go out of style, and that is what we may be experiencing right now. As weird as it may sound, we may actually have come full circle and may be on the cusp of a “New Victorian Age” (complete with “dark romance”, even). Web sites like Porn Hub and OnlyFans, as well as other similar sites, may be the new “brothels”, and what was once openly celebrated may be going underground, to an extent. The effects of this on society have been interesting to say the least, and at times I would even say bizarre.
Whilst many younger people seem content with these changes, many older people are concerned. I’ve seen a number of books, films, and other media receive positive reviews for example based specifically on their lack of romance. Many of these books/films, etc. fall into the “young adult” category, meaning that it is young adults obviously who mostly consume them. At the same time I’ve heard a number of older people, mostly boomers and Gen-Xers, criticize these same books/films for their lack of romance. Even some older millennials seem upset by the changes, as perhaps evidenced by Jennifer Lawrence’s latest film No Hard Feelings (though to be fair that film may be lampooning the older generation’s frustration as well as the younger generation’s frigidity). So just as in the past older people were concerned about the promiscuity of the youth, now it actually appears that many older people are concerned about the youth’s lack of promiscuity.
Who could have seen that coming? But to be fair, the younger generation hasn’t gone completely frigid. As stated earlier, much of the promiscuity has gone “underground”, or online, which many would argue is not very healthy as it might undermine actual relationships, whether they are romantic in nature or simple friendships. And speaking of that, friendships within stories nowadays often aren’t portrayed in a very authentic or compelling manner, perhaps because in ditching romance modern writers haven’t quite yet learned how to replace it with something else. In other words, the “New Victorian Age” may not be an exact repeat of the previous one, but may have its own twists and turns, for better and for worse.
This may all essentially be a manifestation of the Human Condition, in that we just can’t seem to find a happy medium, neither in real life nor in fiction. Thus we keep swinging from one extreme to the other, apparently getting wilder with each swing.
So where does all this leave us? What is it that we really want in our lives, and in our stories? Especially in regards to relationships? I think at some level we all want to see good and healthy relationships between people and/or characters, whether romantic or platonic. I believe at some point we would like to see good examples of both friendship and romance, and I would argue that the best examples of romance have them combined. Even a toxic relationship, if well portrayed or documented, can be instructive and serve as a good example of what to avoid in our lives that we might be happier and relate better to each other. A good relationship, by contrast, can give us something to aspire to and inspire us to not only look for the right kind of person to complement our lives, but to make ourselves worthy of that person. And here I’ll add that I’m perfectly aware that in real life (and thus in fiction) relationships can be very complicated and heavily nuanced, with elements of both “good” and “bad” in them. Just as people change over time so can the relationships between them change, at times getting better and at times worse, sometimes breaking entirely and sometimes growing stronger. Relationships can have just as many layers and dimensions as characters, more even perhaps, and a skilled writer should be able to reflect this complexity. At other times a relationship can be fairly straightforward, simplicity sometimes being the best approach. But regardless, the audience should be able to relate and identify with what they are seeing, such that hopefully they can incorporate the lessons from it in their own lives.
Where can we find good examples of relationships to study? There may be a number of them in the real world, but the trouble with studying real world relationships is that they’re often much more complicated than fictional ones (just as real people are more complicated than fictional characters), and for many of them it is almost impossible to know all the details and nuances because they are often kept private, understandably so, and even if they aren’t it can still be difficult, due to unique circumstances, to see how to relate them to our own lives. Additionally there may be far more disagreement about a real life situation than a fictional one, with many more points of view. To keep things simple, for the purpose of this article I would like to focus on fictional relationships. (And fair warning, there will be some spoilers.)
One of the best places to look, I would argue, would be the films of Hayao Miyazaki. (And this is pretty significant to Star Wars as you will see in a bit.) A film of his that stands out to me the most is Princess Mononoke. Like many of Miyazaki’s films it has elements of romance, and yet subverts them in a way that makes complete sense and feels very genuine, without taking away from any of the accompanying charm. It starts with two young people, San and Ashitaka, and as soon as they encounter each other there is a kind of expectation of romance. This may be inevitable to some degree when you have a man and a woman of about the same age encounter each other in a story, especially if they happen to be adolescents. The expectation may not be inherently bad, and Miyazaki does play with it. Both characters are thrust into dangerous situations, at various points end up saving each other’s lives, and at a certain point I think it is obvious that they have feelings for each other. I was certain that at the end of the film, they would be together, and if things had gone that way, it would make complete sense. Instead, they go in different directions, but remain good friends, and considering their backgrounds and differing worldviews, this ends up making even more sense to the story.
Essentially, Miyazaki could have gone for the more conventional, tried and true “love conquers all” narrative, where the characters’ feelings for each other would negate everything that comes between them, they would somehow find a common ground in spite of their differences, the romance would not only take over the narrative but somehow also solve all the problems in the story, and then the couple would live “happily ever after”. Such an approach is not inherently bad or wrong, and is fairly common in Western media and storytelling. We can see it in films like Fern Gully, and more recently James Cameron’s Avatar, both of which have been compared to Princess Mononoke. As you can probably guess, the problem is that at a certain point such a narrative can become fairly simplistic, and lack nuance.
Miyazaki’s films, by contrast, are very heavily nuanced, and are anything but simplistic. In Princess Mononoke the characters San and Ashitaka don’t help each other simply because they are “in love”, but because it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they might feel about each other. Yes, romantic feelings are certainly alluded to, but they are not essential to the plot, for it could have worked just as well without any romantic allusions. And ironically, this makes those allusions even more valid, even if they are unrequited. How so?
Consider that if love is essential to a given narrative, is it not relegated to being nothing more than a plot device? Again, this is quite common in Western media and storytelling, and is not inherently bad or wrong, but when it becomes a trope or cliche, I believe it is the essence of where shipping comes from. Many storytellers get caught up in this, usually without realizing it, and while a story can still work even with shipping, I believe that it usually works that much better without it.
This extends not only to Miyazaki’s handling of romance but also to other things like environmentalism, the conflict between man and nature, and the contrasting ideals of human progress vs. preserving the natural order. Movies like Fern Gully and Avatar, as already mentioned, handle these themes in a fairly simplistic and I would even say hamfisted manner, whereby all progress and technology is shown as being inherently “bad” and in service to “evil”, while everything that’s “natural” is shown to be inherently “good”. Even our notions of good and evil, and right vs. wrong, are challenged by Miyazaki, with nearly all of his characters having complex motives and multiple dimensions to them, as well as understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. Rarely can any one of his characters be branded as a simple “villain”, and rarely is any one individual the source of conflict in his stories, again in contrast to most Western narratives.
I’ll reiterate once more, a simple, straightforward narrative is not inherently a bad thing, whether the themes being dealt with are romantic or anything else. Sometimes it is in fact the best approach. But the best stories in my opinion are usually the most nuanced, that challenge our notions of what we believe to be true, and that force us to think about what we do with our lives and what we could do differently. To that end Miyazaki introduces all manner of themes and motifs within his films that are familiar to us but shows them in a light most of us might not have considered, thus giving more dimension to our understanding of things.
“How is any of this related to Star Wars?” you might ask. It is quite related, and you don’t even have to look all that closely to see it. A very influential figure within Star Wars was very heavily inspired by the works of Miyazaki, and that figure is Dave Filoni.
This video shows the connections in some detail:
https://youtu.be/Q_4L0BbSpHo?si=04jDo6qFCnZT135w
But to summarize if you’ve seen any of Miyazaki’s films, especially Princess Mononoke, I think the callbacks in Filoni’s work will be all too obvious, especially in Star Wars Rebels. Some of the scenes in Filoni’s work look like they were taken directly from Miyazki’s films, and many of the same themes and motifs often come up. The relationship between San and Ashitaka I would argue is very similar to the relationship between Ezra and Sabine, and not just because both couples rode wolves together.
Incidentally, Dave Filoni was also heavily involved in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I would also argue was at least to some degree inspired if not by Miyazaki then by Japanese anime in general. The relationship between Aang and Katara was developed with great care and was allowed to build very slowly, as opposed to simply shipping them. Likewise other characters very gradually developed as individuals and in their relationships, at times stumbling as they did so, and making mistakes, before finding their way back to the right path.
All of this is in stark contrast to George Lucas, whose character development is often very rushed at best, and at times some might say almost non-existent. So essentially, even though Lucas has said that Filoni has been “like a son” to him, and I believe referred to Filoni as his “padawan”, I would argue that Filoni is ultimately as much a student of Miyazaki as he is of Lucas.
Again, you might ask, “What does all this mean for Star Wars?” It means a great many things. It means that Dave Filoni has taken Miyazaki’s lessons to heart, and can handle things like romance, as well as other kinds of relationships, quite well most of the time. Like Miyazaki he can play with romance, tease the audience with it at times even, leave the romance unrequited, and yet still have it feel satisfying. A prime example of this is the love triangle that Ahsoka was involved in with the young Separatist Senator, Lux Bonteri, and Steela Gerrera. As wary as I am of romance and as much as I despise shipping, love triangles I normally despise even more, but this one seemed to actually work. It never took over the main story, and even though Ahsoka’s feelings were ultimately not reciprocated, she still learned from the experience, and grew and developed further as a character because of it. The other characters involved in this triangle also grew and developed from their involvement, though unfortunately not all of them made it. All in all it was a good bit of storytelling and gave the audience something to consider.
When a relationship in one of Filoni’s stories does bloom into a full blown romance he also generally handles it quite well. For one Filoni is sparing with actual romance, so that when it does occur, it can be that much more appreciated. And rather than rushing or shipping it, Filoni normally takes his time to build it up. An example of this is the relationship between Kanan and Hera. Some might argue that this is perhaps the best developed romance in all of Star Wars, at least in Canon. Built up over four seasons, at times it wasn’t certain whether it was a romance or a friendship, or perhaps even a professional partnership. Perhaps even the characters themselves were not certain, though it was hinted all throughout the narrative that something was going on. To this day I don’t believe anyone can say definitively when it became an actual romance, and I believe Filoni did this intentionally because he wanted to be subtle, rather than making things too obvious and having the romance take over the narrative, as it usually does. When it finally did become obvious as to what was happening, it felt very much earned, in a way that is seldom accomplished in other works of fiction, including Star Wars.
The relationship between Ezra and Sabine was also fairly well written, for the most part anyway, at least in Star Wars Rebels. Ezra was almost immediately smitten with Sabine, but being a young teenage boy, it was understandable that he would feel that way about an attractive girl. Over time he learned to see her more respectfully, as a colleague and even as part of his adopted family, not just as a pretty face. Sabine for her part found Ezra annoying at first (c’mon, what teenage boy isn’t?), but as he matured and she found out more about him she came to understand and respect him more, and see him as a friend and almost a brother, with there being potential for something more.
There were times when the relationship could have been better written, like in the episode “Blood Sisters”, where Ezra was written to be a bit too immature to make Sabine look wiser. But overall, the bond between them developed fairly well; both saved one another at various times, and took risks and made sacrifices for each other’s sake. Both reassured and comforted the other when they needed it, and it was endearing to hear their banter when they became more familiar and trusting of each other.
So why then was I so disappointed in how they were portrayed in the Ahsoka show? The thing is, after how well their relationship was built up in Rebels, as I’ve already mentioned it was strange to see how lackluster and uninspired their reunion was.
Within the Ahsoka show itself Sabine was shown to be almost obsessed with finding Ezra, living in what used to be his home, watching a recording of him over and over again, and calling out his name as she woke up in the middle of the night. She even risked bringing Thrawn back into the Galaxy, which ultimately happened, just so she could see Ezra again. After all that, when she finally does encounter him, her reaction seems fairly casual, as does his, as if they’ve been apart for no more than a week, rather than 10 years. Not too much happens between them afterwards either. Like I said Ezra does not appear all that curious about what happened with Sabine, how she found him, and how it was that she was now Force sensitive. Sabine likewise did not seem curious about what had happened with Ezra, and how he had gotten away from Thrawn. And with Ezra rescued and returned home, suddenly it didn’t seem as though Sabine was all that interested in him anymore, nor he all that concerned with her, though they were just as far apart as they had been at the start of the show. To be completely honest it made me wonder what the point of the whole show was. Were they just working to set up Thrawn’s return to the Galaxy? As some have said, Ezra felt like nothing more than a Macguffin in the show. Was Sabine and Ahsoka’s search for him just a plot device?
Considering how skillfully Dave Filoni had written his stories in the past, what happened in this latest project of his does not make much sense. Was he so concerned about “shipping” and so desperate to avoid it that he inadvertently “shipped” them in the other direction? Was there some sort of external pressure on him about how to write this story to have more of an appeal to “modern audiences”? Maybe some combination of those factors?
And here I’ll add that when I say “modern audiences” I don’t mean that in a contemptuous sense, though you may think I do. If there is any contempt on my part it is for those in charge of telling our stories, or those in charge of those telling our stories, who do not seem to grasp these basic truths. The truth is that audiences at their core don’t really change throughout the ages, only superficially so. Trends come and go but certain truths and ideals are eternal, and universal. How people relate to each other fundamentally does not change, whether they are friends, or more than friends. And deep down, I believe everyone (or nearly everyone at least) wants the same things. Nearly everyone at some point wants some kind of a connection with another human being, to know that they are not alone in the world, and to know that there is someone else who sees and understands things as they do. While this desire can certainly lead to abuse, and absolutely has, it is still innate to us and is not inherently wrong. Finding ways of connecting and relating to other people is one of the great challenges of life, but many would argue it is the most worthwhile of challenges. It may be the whole point of life if you think about it. As complex as it may be, many would argue it is what makes life worth living, and likewise makes for the best stories. Just as it may be the whole point of life many would say that is what most stories are about at their core: people trying to relate to one another.
Sadly, just as in real life, most stories unfortunately don’t quite get it, and the Ahsoka show in my opinion was an example of this, made all the sadder by the fact that Dave Filoni had done quite well with these characters up to that point. We may never know for certain what exactly went wrong and why, or if it can ever be “fixed” at this point, but I can’t help but feel curious. Maybe in the future Filoni will find a way to make it make sense, but I’m not sure how. And to be completely honest I don’t feel quite as enthusiastic to find out as I used to.
Also for the record I would like to add here that there are other factors that put me off from the show, such as Sabine’s Force sensitivity, that came about without much build up. But in this article I specifically wanted to focus on shipping because there seems to be so much misunderstanding around it.
I hope that I was able to clarify some, if not most of this misunderstanding, so that people could better appreciate what shipping is, where it comes from, as well as what it isn’t. Many people today are understandably sick of shipping characters, myself included. But I hope people realize that in overcompensating for something, we often come back around into the very thing that we are overcompensating for. Or sometimes, into something even worse. This may apply to nearly every facet of life, by the way, not just shipping. Finding a happy medium in how we portray our fictional relationships may help us to better understand relationships in real life, as well as how to navigate them. Neither fictional nor actual relationships can ever be perfect but they can always be better. To this understanding then I hope that I was able to give my own modest contribution, and if nothing else I hope we can connect on that.

This is my attempt at a re-submission due to some misunderstandings on the first attempt. I now know that there are different definitions of the word “ship”, but for the purposes of this article and to keep things simple I will use the definition of “a relationship that’s rushed and/or forced with no real development.” I hope you can understand as I do not know of any other single word to describe that concept. If you do, perhaps you can tell me. Also, fair warning, this is long form content (some 10 pages), if you like it but can’t read it all at once you can save it and come back to it over a period of time, or you can stop reading whenever you get tired of it and still discuss those parts of it with me that you have read. But keep it civil if you want a civil response.
With that, to qualify the title, no, Ezra and Sabine do NOT absolutely have to be a couple, but if they were to become one, it would NOT be a ship. Ezra and Sabine’s relationship has had years of development. Could they remain as simply friends? Yes, but ironically, it was their “friendship” that felt like more of a ship. It felt like the Ahsoka show, helmed by Dave Filoni, was going out of its way to tell us: “no, they’re not a couple, they’re just friends.”
I believe that Filoni made some very poor writing choices to stress something that didn’t really need to be stressed, such that it almost felt like he was in denial. The line “I love you like a sister” was never in Rebels, Filoni essentially had that retconned in, and like many I was put off by their (largely) emotionless reunion. Even if they were “just friends” I believe there would be a great deal more emotion displayed between two people that hadn’t seen each other in some ten years, especially when one of them was in a precarious situation when they parted. I also believe Ezra would be far more curious about Sabine being Force sensitive, perhaps even offering to help train her when she told him that her training hadn’t gone as well with Ahsoka. He did help to train her with the Darksaber, didn’t he? Why that never came up is another discussion, but for now, let’s focus on shipping.
In case you think I’m desperate to have them as a couple, no I’m not. I’m about the furthest thing from it. Like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers) I DESPISE shipping. Absolutely DESPISE it. With a flaming passion. Perhaps for this reason, and maybe some others, like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers), I’m generally wary of nearly all romance in fiction, and generally avoid it in my own work. The sad reality is that romance is perhaps the most abused genre in all of fiction, all throughout history. It has been so badly abused that many people, including myself for the longest time, have equated romance with shipping, though I’m slowly beginning to see that they are not the same thing, and one does not necessarily have to go with the other.
But sadly, many writers, through time immemorial, have not been able to separate them, going back into ancient times and perhaps even into pre-history, that is before languages were actually written down. Some of what is considered great literature; classics like Romeo and Juliet, are predicated on shipping, though at least the consequences of this “whirlwind romance” are shown to be fairly stark. Star Wars itself is no stranger to shipping, resulting in a very awkward incestuous kiss when Luke was shipped with Leia, then Leia was placed with Han and Lucas made Luke and Leia brother and sister, apparently having forgotten his original ship. Later Lucas essentially shipped Anakin and Padme, resulting in some of the most cringeworthy dialog in the history of film. Many fans of the Prequels even have been somewhat critical of Anakin’s portrayal, particularly in regards to the “romantic” scenes, with many describing them as “creepy”. Some have speculated that this was intentional, though personally I think it was just the result of bad writing on the part of George Lucas, and an impatience on his part for Anakin and Padme to become a couple, hence “shipping”.
One might wonder why this is so prevalent in fiction, and tragically, one does not have to look far. Fiction is merely a reflection of reality, therefore the reason that shipping is so common in our stories is that we fall so easily into it in real life. Indeed, entire cultures may be based around shipping, or at least very heavily wrapped up in it. Throughout history arranged marriages have been the norm, and the idea of marrying for “love” is something relatively new. To be fair, I’ve actually met people in arranged marriages who seemed to be fairly happy, but those same people were very open in telling me that many despise that aspect of their culture, and that it is quite normal for those in an arranged marriage to try to get out.
People might come together for “love” without marrying, but even then it often creates expectations that might turn into a burden. Even when a marriage is voluntary and for “love”, people are often left unsatisfied, such that today in the West the divorce rate is something like 50%. Happy, stable, long term relationships seem to be the exception across cultures and across the breadth and width of time. And yet pursuit of love and some kind of relationship seems to be the highest calling for many people, both in real life and in fiction. And it could be that the accumulated disgust is finally starting to boil over.
To be fair, this may not be the first time in history that the pendulum has shifted. You may recall that in Victorian times attitudes changed drastically, as compared to the previously bawdy Elizabethan times. Looking at a play from Shakespear, if you can understand the language, you’ll see all kinds of vulgar references, as well as what I believe are fairly sappy romances like in the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet, though I can’t say for certain whether Shakespear was actually endorsing that type of attitude towards “love” or presenting it as a cautionary tale, maybe even something to be ridiculed in some of his other plays.
But regardless, Victorians as you may well know had a very conservative attitude towards anything to do with romance, and would often avoid the subject in many places, or tread very carefully around it, as if walking on eggshells. It’s not that people stopped being romantic, in fiction or real life, but it was treated as something very serious and even dangerous, with many urges repressed or even suppressed entirely. This had all kinds of effects on society, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it reinforced the ideal of people being committed to their partners, and of marriage as a sacred institution rather than a “casual hookup” as was more common in Elizabethan times. Likewise it reinforced ideals of modesty and chastity, which may be coming back into vogue, though under different names. But just as there were positive aspects to these attitudes, so were there negative ones.
Just because the urges I described were repressed did not mean that they disappeared. In fact, they often morphed into things that many would consider “unhealthy”. From one statistic that I saw, in Victorian times about one in every 60 houses was a brothel, with the modern rate being closer to one in 6000. Additionally, the rights of women were often repressed, such that they could not fully express themselves and find their own identity, and path in life, as individuals. Just as Elizabethan ideals gave way to Victorian ones, so did the Victorian ideals gradually begin to erode.
Perhaps it began with the Jazz Age of the 1920’s (the “Roaring Twenties”), or with the increased interconnectivity of people traveling to different parts of the world during World War I, not to mention the cynicism that pervaded throughout the West in response to failed old ideals leading to the deadliest war in history up to that point, but many Victorian ideals began to be seen as a joke, and even resented for their “oppression”, which to be fair was not entirely unjustified. But regardless, people gradually, and at times not so gradually, became more and more “liberated” and promiscuous. This culminated in the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s, when what had previously been seen as a vice and even a sin was now seen as not only “normal” but as a healthy form of expression, a virtue even. And just as these ideas were embraced in real life, so too were they reflected in our films, TV shows, and other media, often to the consternation of older people and institutions, like the Vatican. The Catholic Church even went so far as to “ban” certain films, that is to declare them immoral for good Catholics to watch. Many of the films that were banned back then, or at least controversial, like The Graduate with Dustin Hoffman, are fairly tame by today’s standards.
It continued through the 70’s, at times warming and at times cooling through the rest of the century, until you could argue it reached a kind of crescendo in the early 21st century with the advent of so-called “dark romance” and the publication of books like Fifty Shades of Grey. (Ironically, many of the themes within this “dark romance” can trace their roots back to the Victorian era, yet another indication that repressing urges without addressing them often doesn’t work out as one might hope.) But as happens all too often, just as something reaches peak popularity is when it begins to go out of style, and that is what we may be experiencing right now. As weird as it may sound, we may actually have come full circle and may be on the cusp of a “New Victorian Age” (complete with “dark romance”, even). Web sites like Porn Hub and OnlyFans, as well as other similar sites, may be the new “brothels”, and what was once openly celebrated may be going underground, to an extent. The effects of this on society have been interesting to say the least, and at times I would even say bizarre.
Whilst many younger people seem content with these changes, many older people are concerned. I’ve seen a number of books, films, and other media receive positive reviews for example based specifically on their lack of romance. Many of these books/films, etc. fall into the “young adult” category, meaning that it is young adults obviously who mostly consume them. At the same time I’ve heard a number of older people, mostly boomers and Gen-Xers, criticize these same books/films for their lack of romance. Even some older millennials seem upset by the changes, as perhaps evidenced by Jennifer Lawrence’s latest film No Hard Feelings (though to be fair that film may be lampooning the older generation’s frustration as well as the younger generation’s frigidity). So just as in the past older people were concerned about the promiscuity of the youth, now it actually appears that many older people are concerned about the youth’s lack of promiscuity.
Who could have seen that coming? But to be fair, the younger generation hasn’t gone completely frigid. As stated earlier, much of the promiscuity has gone “underground”, or online, which many would argue is not very healthy as it might undermine actual relationships, whether they are romantic in nature or simple friendships. And speaking of that, friendships within stories nowadays often aren’t portrayed in a very authentic or compelling manner, perhaps because in ditching romance modern writers haven’t quite yet learned how to replace it with something else. In other words, the “New Victorian Age” may not be an exact repeat of the previous one, but may have its own twists and turns, for better and for worse.
This may all essentially be a manifestation of the Human Condition, in that we just can’t seem to find a happy medium, neither in real life nor in fiction. Thus we keep swinging from one extreme to the other, apparently getting wilder with each swing.
So where does all this leave us? What is it that we really want in our lives, and in our stories? Especially in regards to relationships? I think at some level we all want to see good and healthy relationships between people and/or characters, whether romantic or platonic. I believe at some point we would like to see good examples of both friendship and romance, and I would argue that the best examples of romance have them combined. Even a toxic relationship, if well portrayed or documented, can be instructive and serve as a good example of what to avoid in our lives that we might be happier and relate better to each other. A good relationship, by contrast, can give us something to aspire to and inspire us to not only look for the right kind of person to complement our lives, but to make ourselves worthy of that person. And here I’ll add that I’m perfectly aware that in real life (and thus in fiction) relationships can be very complicated and heavily nuanced, with elements of both “good” and “bad” in them. Just as people change over time so can the relationships between them change, at times getting better and at times worse, sometimes breaking entirely and sometimes growing stronger. Relationships can have just as many layers and dimensions as characters, more even perhaps, and a skilled writer should be able to reflect this complexity. At other times a relationship can be fairly straightforward, simplicity sometimes being the best approach. But regardless, the audience should be able to relate and identify with what they are seeing, such that hopefully they can incorporate the lessons from it in their own lives.
Where can we find good examples of relationships to study? There may be a number of them in the real world, but the trouble with studying real world relationships is that they’re often much more complicated than fictional ones (just as real people are more complicated than fictional characters), and for many of them it is almost impossible to know all the details and nuances because they are often kept private, understandably so, and even if they aren’t it can still be difficult, due to unique circumstances, to see how to relate them to our own lives. Additionally there may be far more disagreement about a real life situation than a fictional one, with many more points of view. To keep things simple, for the purpose of this article I would like to focus on fictional relationships. (And fair warning, there will be some spoilers.)
One of the best places to look, I would argue, would be the films of Hayao Miyazaki. (And this is pretty significant to Star Wars as you will see in a bit.) A film of his that stands out to me the most is Princess Mononoke. Like many of Miyazaki’s films it has elements of romance, and yet subverts them in a way that makes complete sense and feels very genuine, without taking away from any of the accompanying charm. It starts with two young people, San and Ashitaka, and as soon as they encounter each other there is a kind of expectation of romance. This may be inevitable to some degree when you have a man and a woman of about the same age encounter each other in a story, especially if they happen to be adolescents. The expectation may not be inherently bad, and Miyazaki does play with it. Both characters are thrust into dangerous situations, at various points end up saving each other’s lives, and at a certain point I think it is obvious that they have feelings for each other. I was certain that at the end of the film, they would be together, and if things had gone that way, it would make complete sense. Instead, they go in different directions, but remain good friends, and considering their backgrounds and differing worldviews, this ends up making even more sense to the story.
Essentially, Miyazaki could have gone for the more conventional, tried and true “love conquers all” narrative, where the characters’ feelings for each other would negate everything that comes between them, they would somehow find a common ground in spite of their differences, the romance would not only take over the narrative but somehow also solve all the problems in the story, and then the couple would live “happily ever after”. Such an approach is not inherently bad or wrong, and is fairly common in Western media and storytelling. We can see it in films like Fern Gully, and more recently James Cameron’s Avatar, both of which have been compared to Princess Mononoke. As you can probably guess, the problem is that at a certain point such a narrative can become fairly simplistic, and lack nuance.
Miyazaki’s films, by contrast, are very heavily nuanced, and are anything but simplistic. In Princess Mononoke the characters San and Ashitaka don’t help each other simply because they are “in love”, but because it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they might feel about each other. Yes, romantic feelings are certainly alluded to, but they are not essential to the plot, for it could have worked just as well without any romantic allusions. And ironically, this makes those allusions even more valid, even if they are unrequited. How so?
Consider that if love is essential to a given narrative, is it not relegated to being nothing more than a plot device? Again, this is quite common in Western media and storytelling, and is not inherently bad or wrong, but when it becomes a trope or cliche, I believe it is the essence of where shipping comes from. Many storytellers get caught up in this, usually without realizing it, and while a story can still work even with shipping, I believe that it usually works that much better without it.
This extends not only to Miyazaki’s handling of romance but also to other things like environmentalism, the conflict between man and nature, and the contrasting ideals of human progress vs. preserving the natural order. Movies like Fern Gully and Avatar, as already mentioned, handle these themes in a fairly simplistic and I would even say hamfisted manner, whereby all progress and technology is shown as being inherently “bad” and in service to “evil”, while everything that’s “natural” is shown to be inherently “good”. Even our notions of good and evil, and right vs. wrong, are challenged by Miyazaki, with nearly all of his characters having complex motives and multiple dimensions to them, as well as understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. Rarely can any one of his characters be branded as a simple “villain”, and rarely is any one individual the source of conflict in his stories, again in contrast to most Western narratives.
I’ll reiterate once more, a simple, straightforward narrative is not inherently a bad thing, whether the themes being dealt with are romantic or anything else. Sometimes it is in fact the best approach. But the best stories in my opinion are usually the most nuanced, that challenge our notions of what we believe to be true, and that force us to think about what we do with our lives and what we could do differently. To that end Miyazaki introduces all manner of themes and motifs within his films that are familiar to us but shows them in a light most of us might not have considered, thus giving more dimension to our understanding of things.
“How is any of this related to Star Wars?” you might ask. It is quite related, and you don’t even have to look all that closely to see it. A very influential figure within Star Wars was very heavily inspired by the works of Miyazaki, and that figure is Dave Filoni.
This video shows the connections in some detail:
https://youtu.be/Q_4L0BbSpHo?si=04jDo6qFCnZT135w
But to summarize if you’ve seen any of Miyazaki’s films, especially Princess Mononoke, I think the callbacks in Filoni’s work will be all too obvious, especially in Star Wars Rebels. Some of the scenes in Filoni’s work look like they were taken directly from Miyazki’s films, and many of the same themes and motifs often come up. The relationship between San and Ashitaka I would argue is very similar to the relationship between Ezra and Sabine, and not just because both couples rode wolves together.
Incidentally, Dave Filoni was also heavily involved in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I would also argue was at least to some degree inspired if not by Miyazaki then by Japanese anime in general. The relationship between Aang and Katara was developed with great care and was allowed to build very slowly, as opposed to simply shipping them. Likewise other characters very gradually developed as individuals and in their relationships, at times stumbling as they did so, and making mistakes, before finding their way back to the right path.
All of this is in stark contrast to George Lucas, whose character development is often very rushed at best, and at times some might say almost non-existent. So essentially, even though Lucas has said that Filoni has been “like a son” to him, and I believe referred to Filoni as his “padawan”, I would argue that Filoni is ultimately as much a student of Miyazaki as he is of Lucas.
Again, you might ask, “What does all this mean for Star Wars?” It means a great many things. It means that Dave Filoni has taken Miyazaki’s lessons to heart, and can handle things like romance, as well as other kinds of relationships, quite well most of the time. Like Miyazaki he can play with romance, tease the audience with it at times even, leave the romance unrequited, and yet still have it feel satisfying. A prime example of this is the love triangle that Ahsoka was involved in with the young Separatist Senator, Lux Bonteri, and Steela Gerrera. As wary as I am of romance and as much as I despise shipping, love triangles I normally despise even more, but this one seemed to actually work. It never took over the main story, and even though Ahsoka’s feelings were ultimately not reciprocated, she still learned from the experience, and grew and developed further as a character because of it. The other characters involved in this triangle also grew and developed from their involvement, though unfortunately not all of them made it. All in all it was a good bit of storytelling and gave the audience something to consider.
When a relationship in one of Filoni’s stories does bloom into a full blown romance he also generally handles it quite well. For one Filoni is sparing with actual romance, so that when it does occur, it can be that much more appreciated. And rather than rushing or shipping it, Filoni normally takes his time to build it up. An example of this is the relationship between Kanan and Hera. Some might argue that this is perhaps the best developed romance in all of Star Wars, at least in Canon. Built up over four seasons, at times it wasn’t certain whether it was a romance or a friendship, or perhaps even a professional partnership. Perhaps even the characters themselves were not certain, though it was hinted all throughout the narrative that something was going on. To this day I don’t believe anyone can say definitively when it became an actual romance, and I believe Filoni did this intentionally because he wanted to be subtle, rather than making things too obvious and having the romance take over the narrative, as it usually does. When it finally did become obvious as to what was happening, it felt very much earned, in a way that is seldom accomplished in other works of fiction, including Star Wars.
The relationship between Ezra and Sabine was also fairly well written, for the most part anyway, at least in Star Wars Rebels. Ezra was almost immediately smitten with Sabine, but being a young teenage boy, it was understandable that he would feel that way about an attractive girl. Over time he learned to see her more respectfully, as a colleague and even as part of his adopted family, not just as a pretty face. Sabine for her part found Ezra annoying at first (c’mon, what teenage boy isn’t?), but as he matured and she found out more about him she came to understand and respect him more, and see him as a friend and almost a brother, with there being potential for something more.
There were times when the relationship could have been better written, like in the episode “Blood Sisters”, where Ezra was written to be a bit too immature to make Sabine look wiser. But overall, the bond between them developed fairly well; both saved one another at various times, and took risks and made sacrifices for each other’s sake. Both reassured and comforted the other when they needed it, and it was endearing to hear their banter when they became more familiar and trusting of each other.
So why then was I so disappointed in how they were portrayed in the Ahsoka show? The thing is, after how well their relationship was built up in Rebels, as I’ve already mentioned it was strange to see how lackluster and uninspired their reunion was.
Within the Ahsoka show itself Sabine was shown to be almost obsessed with finding Ezra, living in what used to be his home, watching a recording of him over and over again, and calling out his name as she woke up in the middle of the night. She even risked bringing Thrawn back into the Galaxy, which ultimately happened, just so she could see Ezra again. After all that, when she finally does encounter him, her reaction seems fairly casual, as does his, as if they’ve been apart for no more than a week, rather than 10 years. Not too much happens between them afterwards either. Like I said Ezra does not appear all that curious about what happened with Sabine, how she found him, and how it was that she was now Force sensitive. Sabine likewise did not seem curious about what had happened with Ezra, and how he had gotten away from Thrawn. And with Ezra rescued and returned home, suddenly it didn’t seem as though Sabine was all that interested in him anymore, nor he all that concerned with her, though they were just as far apart as they had been at the start of the show. To be completely honest it made me wonder what the point of the whole show was. Were they just working to set up Thrawn’s return to the Galaxy? As some have said, Ezra felt like nothing more than a Macguffin in the show. Was Sabine and Ahsoka’s search for him just a plot device?
Considering how skillfully Dave Filoni had written his stories in the past, what happened in this latest project of his does not make much sense. Was he so concerned about “shipping” and so desperate to avoid it that he inadvertently “shipped” them in the other direction? Was there some sort of external pressure on him about how to write this story to have more of an appeal to “modern audiences”? Maybe some combination of those factors?
And here I’ll add that when I say “modern audiences” I don’t mean that in a contemptuous sense, though you may think I do. If there is any contempt on my part it is for those in charge of telling our stories, or those in charge of those telling our stories, who do not seem to grasp these basic truths. The truth is that audiences at their core don’t really change throughout the ages, only superficially so. Trends come and go but certain truths and ideals are eternal, and universal. How people relate to each other fundamentally does not change, whether they are friends, or more than friends. And deep down, I believe everyone (or nearly everyone at least) wants the same things. Nearly everyone at some point wants some kind of a connection with another human being, to know that they are not alone in the world, and to know that there is someone else who sees and understands things as they do. While this desire can certainly lead to abuse, and absolutely has, it is still innate to us and is not inherently wrong. Finding ways of connecting and relating to other people is one of the great challenges of life, but many would argue it is the most worthwhile of challenges. It may be the whole point of life if you think about it. As complex as it may be, many would argue it is what makes life worth living, and likewise makes for the best stories. Just as it may be the whole point of life many would say that is what most stories are about at their core: people trying to relate to one another.
Sadly, just as in real life, most stories unfortunately don’t quite get it, and the Ahsoka show in my opinion was an example of this, made all the sadder by the fact that Dave Filoni had done quite well with these characters up to that point. We may never know for certain what exactly went wrong and why, or if it can ever be “fixed” at this point, but I can’t help but feel curious. Maybe in the future Filoni will find a way to make it make sense, but I’m not sure how. And to be completely honest I don’t feel quite as enthusiastic to find out as I used to.
Also for the record I would like to add here that there are other factors that put me off from the show, such as Sabine’s Force sensitivity, that came about without much build up. But in this article I specifically wanted to focus on shipping because there seems to be so much misunderstanding around it.
I hope that I was able to clarify some, if not most of this misunderstanding, so that people could better appreciate what shipping is, where it comes from, as well as what it isn’t. Many people today are understandably sick of shipping characters, myself included. But I hope people realize that in overcompensating for something, we often come back around into the very thing that we are overcompensating for. Or sometimes, into something even worse. This may apply to nearly every facet of life, by the way, not just shipping. Finding a happy medium in how we portray our fictional relationships may help us to better understand relationships in real life, as well as how to navigate them. Neither fictional nor actual relationships can ever be perfect but they can always be better. To this understanding then I hope that I was able to give my own modest contribution, and if nothing else I hope we can connect on that.

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies God or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular Virtue Ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's Politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: "Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God, not because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

From this interview here (at 14:37).
So I've been reading some Jung trying to get a handle my place in Christianity and the idea of faith. I came across this chapter in one of Jung's Works "Collected Works - 18 The Symbolic Life" in the section "XII Psychology and Religion: Why Am I Not A Catholic."
Jung writes:

Firstly: Because I am a practical Christian to whom love and justice to his brother mean more than dogmatic speculations about whose ultimate truth or untruth no human being can ever have certain knowledge. The relation to my brother and the unity of the true “catholic” Christendom is to me infinitely more important than “justification by fide sola.” As a Christian I have to share the burden of my brother’s wrongness, and that is most heavy when I do not know whether in the end he is not more right than I. I hold it to be immoral, in any case entirely unchristian, to put my brother in the wrong (i.e., to call him fool, ass, spiteful, obdurate, etc.) simply because I suppose myself to be in possession of the absolute truth. Every totalitarian claim gradually isolates itself because it excludes so many people as “defectors, lost, fallen, apostate, heretic,” and so forth. The totalitarian maneuvers himself into a corner, no matter how large his original following. I hold all confessionalism to be completely unchristian.
Secondly: Because I am a doctor. If I possessed the absolute truth I could do nothing further than to press into my patient’s hand a book of devotion or confessional guidance, just what is no longer of any help to him. When, on the other hand, I discover in his untruth a truth, in his confusion an order, in his lostness something that has been found, then I have helped him. This requires an incomparably greater self-abnegation and self-surrender for my brother’s sake than if I assessed, correctly from the standpoint of one confession, the motivations of another.
You underestimate the immense number of those of goodwill, but to whom confessionalism blocks the doors. A Christian has to concern himself, especially if he is a physician of souls, with the spirituality of the reputedly unspiritual (spirit = confessionalism!) and he can do this only if he speaks their language and certainly not if, in the deterrent way of confessionalism, he sounds the kerygmatic trumpet, hoarse with age. Whoever talks in today’s world of an absolute and single truth is speaking in an obsolete dialect and not in any way in the language of mankind. Christianity possesses a , good tidings from God, but no textbook of a dogma with claim to totality. Therefore it is hard to understand why God should never have sent more than one message. Christian modesty in any case strictly forbids assuming that God did not send in other languages, not just in Greek, to other nations. If we think otherwise our thinking is in the deepest sense unchristian. The Christian—my idea of Christian—knows no curse formulas; indeed he does not even sanction the curse put on the innocent fig-tree by the rabbi Jesus, nor does he lend his ear to the missionary Paul of Tarsus when he forbids cursing to the Christian and then he himself curses the next moment.
Thirdly: Because I am a man of science. The Catholic doctrine, as you present it to me so splendidly, is familiar to me to that extent. I am convinced of its “truth” in so far as it formulates determinable psychological facts, and thus far I accept this truth without further ado. But where I lack such empirical psychological foundations it does not help me in the least to believe in anything beyond them, for that would not compensate for my missing knowledge; nor could I ever surrender to the self-delusion of knowing something where I merely believe. I am now nearly seventy years old, but the charisma of belief has never arisen in me. Perhaps I am too overweening, too conceited; perhaps you are right in thinking that the cosmos circles around the God Jung. But in any case I have never succeeded in thinking that what I believe, feel, think, and understand is the only and final truth and that I enjoy the unspeakable privilege of God-likeness by being the possessor of the sole truth. You see that, although I can estimate the charisma of faith and its blessedness, the acceptance of “faith” is impossible for me because it says nothing to me.
You will naturally remonstrate that, after all, I talk about “God.” I do this with the same right as humanity has from the beginning equated the numinous effects of certain psychological facts with an unknown primal cause called God. This cause is beyond my understanding, and therefore I can say nothing further about it except that I am convinced of the existence of such a cause, and indeed with the same logic by which one may conclude from the disturbance of a planet’s course the existence of a yet unknown heavenly body. To be sure, I do not believe in the absolute validity of the law of causality, which is why I guard against “positing” God as cause, for by this I would have given him a precise definition. Such restraint is surely an offense to confessors of the Faith. But according to the fundamental Christian commandment I must not only bear with and understand my schismatic Protestant brother, but also my brothers in Arabia and India. They, too, have received strange but no less notable tidings which it is my obligation to understand. As a European, I am burdened most heavily by my unexpectedly dark brother, who confronts me with his antichristian Neo-Paganism. This extends far beyond the borders of Germany as the most pernicious schism that has ever beset Christianity. And though I deny it a thousand times, it is also in me. One cannot come to terms with this conflict by imputing wrong to someone else and the undoubted right to onself. This conflict I can solve first of all only within myself and not in another.

longcovid is a support subreddit for people suffering from the debilitating symptoms long covid. Unfortunately, like all covid-related things on the internet, it sometimes attracts supplement shilling, crazy conspiracy theories, and anti-vax bullshit. Usually these come as asides in the comments but once in a while, things get a little out of hand, such as in this post wherein OP lays down some “TRUTH” for us ignorant masses:

Wondering about gaslighting? Here's the TRUTH!
There are two things that cause gaslighting, and both are a sign of demonic influence, if not outright possession. Possession doesn't look like you think it does, because demons are intelligent - they don't actually freak people out like you'd see in exorcisms, those are people who actually want to get rid of whatever demons are messing with them, so it's actually a less severe form of possession!
Demons mess with everyone's heads, good people and bad, but bad people have no morals, so they seem more "normal," because the demons are compatible with them.
Karma exists. It's called "Hell." Hell is real; Heaven is the alternative to that, and is obviously very real. Evil people go to the former, and don't qualify for the latter. They take advantage of others for money throughout their lives, and they serve the Devil - indirectly or directly.
So while this condition does bother me on a daily basis, at least I know I'm not burning in eternity like these "governments" and 'doctors' inevitably will. I'd call that a good deal if you really think about it. Debilitating conditions, and suffering in general, is God's way of telling me, I'm not getting away with anything, like these scummy evil people think they are.
I don't gaslight, why the heck would I tell someone who reports not feeling good, that they have "anxiety." What the hell is this "anxiety" crap? Anxiety is obviously just an effect of health issues. You would need to be possessed by demons in order to gaslight someone, especially someone you've just met.
I don't scam people out of their money, I'm not even good with money, never have been. The Bible literally says the love of money is the root of all evil, prove that wrong, lol, you CAN'T.
I don't lie for personal gain, which kind of related to the point above about money being the root of all evil. Whether someone is rich, poor, middle class you name it, if they are doing immoral things for money, and they don't deal with an immense conscience of guilt, they're pretty much 100% guaranteed to burn in Hell when they die because they live for only themselves. People without guilt or shame or self awareness are not going to qualify for eternity in Heaven, that is guaranteed.
Speaking of lying, does GOD lie? Nope, that's the Devil's game, Lucifer, the false light. The dollar bill even has Satanic images on it, and an equation that equals the number of the beast, 666.
Have fun in Hell, those of you who value money over treating others as yourself.

While I am impressed by OP's use of paragraphs (generally these sorts of rants are one unreadable wall of text), their ideas did not garner much praise:
Commenter:

Kindly take this nonsense elsewhere. We have enough to deal with.

Commenter:

You know what else messes with people’s heads; neurotransmitters.

OP insisted that some people, surely, agree with them:
Commenter:

Please go spread your beliefs somewhere else. There are vulnerable people here that could use a positive message instead of this negative crap. You are basically gaslighting people that have worries about money for valuing money. Go away, you demon 👹

OP:

What the actual heck are you talking about, lol? I clearly said people who TAKE ADVANTAGE of others, FOR money.

Commenter:

So what is your exact goal with this message?

OP:

Talk about God and Long Covid at the same time, to maybe help people understand what's happening to them. Help people who've been gaslit. Also, this got more upvotes than you think, it reflects them in my main feed. I hate to break it to these bullies (not you) but not all of Reddit hates my takes.

Some quibbled with OP's erroneous biblical references:
Commenter:

I’m hoping the mods choose to remove this post- not because I disagree with what you believe, but because it is not related to Long Covid which is the topic of this sub. Also- the Bible says that “the love of money” is the root of evil, not money itself.

OP:

Ignorance at its finest. And you get rewarded for missing the context, whilst I get downvoted for helping... how typical of Reddit.
First of all, yes, fixed... but it should have been exceedingly obvious that's what was implied though. Money itself isn't evil - it's a piece of paper.
My post is VERY related to Long COVID. I literally just explained the root cause of why people with these debilitating issues are being told they have anxiety or it's all in their head.
Your statement is ignorant, you obviously didn't even read or comprehend everything I wrote, lol. Reddit never reads anything longer I guess, but if you're going to have an opinion, read it carefully next time.

A typical Reddit atheist chimes in
Commenter:

God most definitely lies and plays sick games with people. Even at the very beginning of the Bible God lies about what happens when they eat of the fruit.
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Other Bible examples of God lying.
Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

OP:

Those are single verses, without the context. Such a typical mistake, it's easy to make God look like an asshole when you take Bible verses out of context.

Others had more general issues with OP's religious beliefs:
Commenter:

Jesus Christ is Lord get saved to go to heaven! You can't earn your way there bud

OP:

I did NOT imply the "good works get you to Heaven" logic. Not even ONCE. Learn to read, bud!

Commenter:

Are you dumb? You said "evil people go to the former (hell) and don't qualify for the latter(heaven)" I think I got bad brain fog.. BUD!

OP:

Let me explain this differently. We are all evil. But we are not all equally evil. There's a massive difference between someone who makes mistakes, and someone who affirmatively chooses an evil path over good.

Of course, as usual, some people just came to troll:
Commenter:

TLDR. Too busy making sacrifices to Beelzebub

OP:

That this gets upvotes shows why society is the way it is. You did this to yourselves by rejecting God.

Flairs:

it's easy to make God look like an asshole when you take Bible verses out of context.
Go away, you demon 👹
You did this to yourselves by rejecting God.
Demons are a big factor
TLDR. Too busy making sacrifices to Beelzebub
you misunderstand what karma is

Since there has been quite a few discussions on Al-Salat, I just posted a two part analysis on the subject. My original post was some years back. This is an updated version of it.
AN excerpt:
"Before we get into the main debate of what is Al-Salat, allow me to summarize the latest research in the field of mindful meditation and ritualistic chanting. And how it all ties into the freeing of our minds to become more rational, positive, forward looking and grounded.
I will touch on a few findings and give the links to the relevant studies at the bottom of this write-up.
Feeling like your thoughts are in a never-ending loop?
Ever find yourself obsessing over a work email you sent, wondering if you could've worded it better? Or maybe replaying a social interaction that didn't go as smoothly as you hoped? That’s what the relevant experts call rumination, and it’s like your brain is stuck in a loop, fixating on moments you wish you could redo.
Understanding Rumination: Think of your brain as a high-powered, incredibly efficient processor. When you're ruminating, it's as if this processor is running an inefficient program that's draining your mental battery, like when your laptop keeps overheating from too many open tabs. That would be me.
A few words on OCD: Now imagine your brain relentlessly bombarding you with intrusive thoughts, like a nagging doubt about whether you turned off the stove, even though you’ve checked it multiple times. Even more disturbing is when you try to assign blame to yourself for disasters miles away from you.
Intrusive thoughts: Why they happen and how to deal with them.
Occasionally, you’re minding your own business when a weird – and sometimes disturbing or upsetting – thought pops into your head. Why does your brain do this, and does it mean that you’re a bad person? Or even losing your mind. So, what is going on?
The Sci-Fi of Your Brain: The Default Mode Network (DMN): This network is like your brain’s background app. It’s most active when you're not focusing on the task at hand. It’s what kicks in when you’re showering and suddenly start overanalyzing a conversation from five years ago.
So, what is the fix?
Well, it so happens that meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity.
Hacking Your Brain’s Default Mode: The goal is to shift your brain from a state of unproductive rumination to proactive problem-solving. It's like choosing to focus on strategizing your career path or planning your next big adventure instead of dwelling on past mistakes.
The Power of Rituals and Chanting: Incorporating rituals or chanting might sound old-school, but it’s like a mental reset button. Starting your day with a mindfulness exercise or repeating affirmations like "I am capable and strong" can steer your mind away from intrusive thoughts and towards more constructive patterns.
Real Science Backs This Up: Regular practice over 4 to 6 weeks can rewire your brain, enhancing its ability to plan and solve problems – akin to updating your personal software to improve performance and efficiency in every aspect of your life.
The Bottom Line: It’s not about erasing your repetitive behavior; it's about updating your mental toolkit. You're not just stopping the negative cycles; you're starting positive ones. It's a mental upgrade, ensuring your brain is as optimized and forward-thinking as you are in your career and personal life.
There is growing evidence that simple, everyday changes to our lives can alter our brains.
That brings us to the Question, did God cover this extremely important part of our make up in the Quran? Where one can reset our brain’s neural networks in a matter of weeks and pull oneself back into the sphere of rationality from a reactionary emotional mess.
Two things are incessantly emphasized in the Quran, the establishing of Al-Salat and giving thought. Given this backdrop, we will now explore the wisdom behind how to achieve it through the verses of the Quran.
Unfortunately, there is a minority of folks out there who have failed to recognize the true wisdom behind the three times a day grounding exercise through Al-Salat. This lot has irrationally taken upon themselves to go against almost every culture out there and declare rituals as something bad. They then strangely identify Al-Salat as merely a ritual and then attempted to explain it away with linguistic gymnastics. Perhaps the important physical elements of it have thrown them off. I feel this is an emotional route. Rituals are not inherently bad. In terms of religion this is a reactionary approach. Just because bad religions use rituals doesn’t mean all rituals lose currency.
To be clear we will be discussing Al-Salat the noun. Repeated sixty-six times in the Quran (Salat is mentioned 99 times in all its forms). Once as plural and the rest of the time as singular. In fact, I view it as an aid and much closer to mindful meditation. Equating Al-Salat with meditation is very tempting. Especially when long-term practitioners of the ‘art’ put a lot of emphasis on awareness. As opposed to emptying one’s mind and all that jazz. Dhikr and be conscious (ٱتَّقِ), wrongly translated as fear, fits perfectly well here.
The very word Salat predates the revelation of Quran. This is not a new word, the word most probably migrated from Classical Syriac. The spelling of Salat differs from earlier Arabic literature, where ‘waw’ was often used instead of ‘Alif’. The pronunciation stays the same. Not surprisingly Quran mentions a number of earlier Prophets/Messengers engaged in Al-Salat.
Another thing to keep in mind is that both Al-Salat and Al-Zakat are mentioned together a total of 32 times in the Quran. Another 5 times the word spend is used in conjunction to remove any doubt as to what is meant by Al-Zakat. Out of the remaining 27 times Al-Salat is mentioned, 11 and possibly 12 times in instructional verses. Hence, a mere 15 out of a total of 66 mentions of Al-Salat are verses that decouple Al-Salat and Zakat, all the rest of noninstructional verses establish a very strong link between them. The significance of these exact numbers is perhaps a subject of separate research but this much is clear, they are intertwined in a very profound way. We should keep this link in mind when defining A-Salat and Al-Zakat.
The Quran, in addition to reminding us of our forgetful nature, also defines the three main objectives of Al-Salah. A prescribed prayer at designated times is a perfect cure for forgetful nature. The three objectives are:

1. Dhikr (Remembrance for want of a better term) Quran 20:14
2. To seek help from God Quran 2:45 and
3. The prevention of immorality and “evil” deeds Quran 29:45 and 19:59

Bonus effect: When Al-Salat and giving of Al-Zakat are clubbed together, it strengthens our certainty of faith in the hereafter. Quran 27:3. Once again we should keep this association in mind when attempting to define either of them."
https://www.reddit.com/Quran_focused_Islam/comments/1coz745/what_is_alsalat/

2/2
Similarly, if we were to change the definition of a Mosque to mean other than a physical structure then we must do the same with monasteries and churches and synagogues. Quran 22:40. God will not mention a Mosque with other physical structures associated with His worship unless they share very similar physical characteristics. An impossible to resolve logical contradiction.
Similarity quoting Quran 9:5 is another attempt to try and equate it with killing, I guess for dramatic effect but unsuccessfully because the Al-Salat and Al-Zakat apply to those who have been captured. It is clear that has more to do with their condition of release from captivity. Here it should make sense that establishing worship, in their own way (Al-Salat was known to all sort of people before the Quran was revealed as previously mentioned) but it is still essentially submission. Furthermore, it also makes perfect sense that agreeing to become part of the tax system for instance would show their willingness to give up waging war on the community of believers and become one in truest sense of the word. Above all, they would be free because they repented to begin with.
And once again, why and how must one ‘the’ follow or ‘the’ commit in three different ways? 1- Salat Al-Fajr, the morning or dawn Salat Quran 24:58 2- Salat Al-Isha, the night Salat Quran 24:58 3- Al-Salat Al-Wusta, the middle Salat Quran 2:238. Let us not forget that in the two of the three instances here, morning and night is clearly in the very name and arguably the third also pertains to a specific time.
Mindful meditation is a proven method of self-improvement, which leads to prevention of immorality and in turn leads to a better moral character. It fulfills the other two objectives of Al-Salat as well, remembrance of God and asking God for help. At the same time, as I mentioned earlier, God also warns us against empty rituals Quran 2:177 and empty anything will not lead to achieving objectives. It is a straw man to state that bowing and prostration doesn’t prevent immorality. First of all, Al-Salat is not just bowing and prostration. Secondly, behavior change needs actions. The more disciplined the actions are the greater one’s chances of success. The one element that takes organized actions to another level is by repeating the same actions and utterances at defined times. Chanting or repeating words in an audible manner, as instructed by God in the Quran, ties it in with the reset of the mind as mentioned in the beginning of the write-up.
Moreover, the command to wash before Al-Salah and not to perform Al-Salat when intoxicated again points to a very physical activity or at least, an activity with physical elements in it. One can take the view that all that bowing, and prostration is not necessary but why not follow it in a manner laid out in the perfected Deen in the Quran? The other thing that gives license to having a ritual is demonstrated in the simulation of washing when one doesn't have access to water. It also reconfirms God’s claim that it is He who cleanse us, with or without actual washing.
Allow me to add how Quran 48:29 points us in the right direction. The use of (جُوهِهِمْ) is indeed referring to their faces and the use of (سِيمَٰ) a recognizable trait by sight and (أَثَر) that which is the result of an impact by another action or trait. Most importantly, their use elsewhere in the Quran removes all doubt. When you add God repeating the sequence of standing, bowing and prostration leading up to it and understandably associating it directly with prostration, strengthen the argument. Indecently, the only activity out of the three that could make an impact of this nature is prostration.
I don't know how someone can mistake it for anything other than a physical mark/sign traceable to a physical activity that necessitates pressing against a hard surface. Which when repeated hundreds and thousands of times will leave an impression on soft tissue. And that this impression can be physically recognized by merely looking at it, as detailed elsewhere in the Quran.
Let us deal with some of the above mentioned alternatives from another angle. Something for the "Commit" or "Follow Closely" or the very vague “communication” crowd to think about. Forget the context issues for now. The thing is that there are well established Quranic words for “follow” or “follow closely” like (إتبع). The word for system of belief is (دين) and for commit is (تعهد) or (ارتكب ), among others. And on the flip side the word (single word) for commitment in Arabic is (التزام). Granted some of the connotations are slightly off but the sense is clear.
Furthermore, Salat in all its forms is used just short of 100 times in the Quran, surely if it meant either commit or following closely then their use to commit and/or follow something closely would have become clear when used to commit to something or to follow something. Instead, what we have here is that a clear noun and at that a proper noun Al-Salat has been flipped into a verb and unsurprising there isn't a single example of their “new” meanings in any of the dozens of the verses where it is mentioned.
If you were to commit to something or somebody or yourself then in that case whatever is being committed to is always spelled out in the same sentence or term. Same goes for following closely and the nonstarter, communication.
In my view, we are allowed to look for more in-depth meaning in the verses of the Quran but not at the expense of what I term the default meaning of words, not necessarily taken from dictionaries written centuries later. Allow me to once again quote Mustansir Mir, Professor of Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University, who more eloquently argues for a multi-layered approach. He writes,
“From a linguistic standpoint, it is quite possible for a word, phrase or statement to have more than one layer of meaning, such that one layer would make sense to one audience in one age and another layer of meaning would, without negating the first, be meaningful to another audience in a subsequent age.”
Just repeating from my previous post, so yes one is free to use different meanings associated with certain words, but we must do so only in a manner that does not contradict a chosen meaning in another verse. If we were to exclusively assign Al-Salat the meaning of establishing of a system, then we will have a tough time explaining away the numerous resulting contradictions in its (Al-Salat as a term) use elsewhere in the Quran. Hence, in my opinion, Al-Salat has definite ritualistic elements in it but must be done in a manner that is mindful, includes the remembrance of God and leads to a better understanding of the revealed words of God. Al-Salat must be also viewed as an opportunity to ask God for Help and God has informed us that it will lead to certainty in the belief of the hereafter.
And then this:
Indeed, [I] I Am Allah. (There is) no god but I, so worship Me and establish the prayer (Al-Salat) for My remembrance. Quran 20:14
If there was still some doubt as to what is Al-Salat or what is its main objective out of the three stated in the Quran, then the above verse puts it all to rest. Al-Salat as “the system”, any system, doesn’t fly. Deen is the system once again.
And how would one place this:
And We made them leaders, they guide by Our Command. And We inspired to them (the) doing (of) good deeds, and establishment (of) the Al-Salat and giving (of) Al-Zakah; and they were of Us worshipers. Quran 21:73
God has very clearly mentioned three distinct actions, the good deeds one must perform by following the revealed guide, which in turn prevents immoralities, the establishing of Al-Salat and the giving of Al-Zakah and all of them count as worshiping of God. Substitution of any other proposed “meanings” of Al-Salah renders the verse incomprehensible.
If we were to ignore the resulting contradictions from constantly running to the root words and ignoring the context, one can make anything mean anything in the Quranic Arabic. The resulting “new old” Arabic will have but a token semblance to the classical Arabic, let alone the colloquial Arabic. Where almost nothing means what an Arabic speaker will find in the text of the Quran. Case in point is Quran 2:125 where in one short verse standing doesn’t mean standing, circumbulation doesn’t mean circumambulation, bowing doesn’t mean bowing, prostration doesn’t mean prostration and Salat doesn’t mean Salat. So, what exactly has been preserved as claimed by the Quran? And that too on the core issue of the very “system”, if we were to assume that that is what Al-Salat mean.
Yes, there have been attempts to distort certain words/notions in the Quran. But most of them are isolated words taken out of context. Furthermore, they can be easily identified and corrected. The real issue has to do with these mass wholesale distortions, why did God declared that Quran’s message will be protected and preserved? Granted God’s powers are unlimited, but God makes it a point that the Quran is in clear Arabic and not a jigsaw puzzle that must be put together in every verse. If so, then that in itself will be a contradiction.
Let us remind ourselves that we are incapable of producing a one liner chapter of the Quran. To then go ahead and attempt to redefine dozens of words, from dozens of possible root variations is rich. And then to feel satisfied that we have hit the nail on the head every single time is not accepting our design limitation God told us about.
Allow me to add a note. Looking for Al-Salat in the Hadith is like trying to weigh the scale with grain or measure a watch with time.
In conclusion, one can twist and turn all one wants but what else can Al-Salat be, first of all there are three named Al-Salat, then before standing for Al-Salat, one must wash oneself in a particular manner, moreover, when one doesn’t have access to water one must simulate washing, importantly, initiate the Al-Salat, then use a moderate tone of voice to remember and praise God in it, ask God for help and do all this at particular times of a day, finally, conclude the Al-Salat and if need be shorten it?
Everyone is free to propose a different model than the Al-Salat with ritualistic elements. But one will have to answer all of the questions related to it from the Quran without introducing contradictions.

1. The model must answer how it will achieve the three stated objectives directly, the remembrance of God, asking God for help and prevent immorality on one hand and achieve certainty of belief in the hereafter on the other.
2. The model must answer why Al-Zakat is repeatedly mentioned along with the Al-Salat
3. The model must satisfy the three mentioned forms of Al-Salat by name and why the names resemble three distinct times of a day.
4. The model must answer why three specific time periods are mentioned for performing Al-Salat
5. The model must explain why a ritualistic cleaning up is a prerequisite.
6. The model must explain why intoxicants prevent one from performing it effectively
7. The model must explain why it has to be performed at the same time and in the same space on occasion.
8. The model must explain why there has to be a call for Al-Salat and then done in a specific time and space
9. The model must answer the terms for the release of prisoners if there is no treaty in place even before the war lay down its burden.
10. The model must explain why there is an end to Al-Salat? Does it mean that there is a time when we are no longer supposed to keep God's commandments or follow them?
11. The model must answer why we can stand, sit or lay on our sides after Al-Salat is concluded. Are these metaphorical also and if so, what do these stands for?

A final thought, if Al-Salat is indeed to do with following or implementing the system of Deen, why would God muddle this core injunction with allegorical or metaphorical or other non-clear speech?
Note 1: Before the issue of congressional Salat is touched upon, allow me to comment on an important aspect of it. Quran 4:102 is mentioned by some to justify the leading of the prayer but the words used in the verse doesn’t support the “leading” in the traditional sense. Aqāma (أَقَامَ) is used 54 times in the Quran without meaning to lead and all the derivatives of the root qāf wāw mīm (ق و م) another 600 or so and for some strange reason it is made to mean lead in just one instance? Not only that but after they have been led, they are supposed to move behind him. Where were they when they were being led?
For quick reference:
Qaf-Waw-Miim” stand still or firm, rose/stand up, managed/conducted/ordered/regulated/superintended, established, made it straight/right, maintain/erect/observe/perform, set up, people/community/company, abode, stature/dignity/rank.
Aqama: to keep a thing or an affair in a right state.
Somebody please explain to me where did this "lead" come from? It has more to do with managing a large number of people gathered somewhere.
The thing to note here is that even when done in the same time and space by a group there is no indication that it should be done as a group or lead by a prayer leader. The first thing people must do to prepare for Al-Salat is to perform Wudu. Hence, a water source is the logical first stop. It is obvious that when the Prophet of God would organize Al-Salat by providing a suitable space, water and possibly security in the case of war, people would get distracted and leave the Prophet of God standing.
Hence, why would all the above not apply at other times? Besides, the day of congregation doesn't mean to congregate specifically for prayer only. The congregation can be for a number of reasons. The sense is that when the call to prayer is given on the day of congregation to remind people that it is time to pray now, all other congregation related activities should stop for which the people had congregated. These activities could be market related or entertainment related, or even war related. Any other way leaves a bunch of questions for which there are no answers.
Note 2: The verse Quran 29:45 is crucial to understanding the value and notion of Dhikr wherein both Salat and Dhikr are mentioned. Plus, what needs to be recited is also clear from the verse.
Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish prayer. Indeed, prayer prevents immorality and wrongdoing, and the remembrance (Dhikr) of Allah is greater (أَكْبَرُ). And Allah knows that which you do. Quran 29:45
Although it is clear that Salat helps in remembrance (Dhikr) but to equate remembrance (Dhikr) with Salat is also problematic. God in the Quran makes a distinction by raising the value of remembrance (Dhikr) above Salah (Speculation: It may be possible to perform Salat as pure meditation without the remembrance of God). Quran 29:45 above. Again Quran 5:91 mentions Dhikr and Salat as two distinct entities yet connected in some ways, and both can be compromised with the use of intoxicants and gambling.
References of the studies:

1. Reference: Abramowitz, J. S., Taylor, S., & McKay, D. (2009). Obsessive-compulsive disorder. The Lancet, 374(9688), 491-499.
2. Reference: https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/intrusive-thoughts
3. www.sciencefocus.com
4. Reference: Brewer, J. A., Worhunsky, P. D., Gray, J. R., Tang, Y. Y., Weber, J., & Kober, H. (2011).
5. reference:https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0ggy0fn/how-i-rewired-my-brain-in-six-weeks
6. Reference:https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0cqt0yc/mantra-meditation-the-ancient-practice-to-heal-our-minds
7. Reference: Hamilton, J. P., Farmer, M., Fogelman, P., & Gotlib, I. H. (2015). Depressive Rumination, the Default-Mode Network, and the Dark Matter of Clinical Neuroscience. Biological Psychiatry, 78(4), 224–230.
8. https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0hqff54/feeling-angry-venting-doesn-t-actually-help

Before we get into the main debate of what is Al-Salat, allow me to summarize the latest research in the field of mindful meditation and ritualistic chanting. And how it all ties into the freeing of our minds to become more rational, positive, forward looking and grounded.
I will touch on a few findings and give the links to the relevant studies at the bottom of this write-up.
Feeling like your thoughts are in a never-ending loop?
Ever find yourself obsessing over a work email you sent, wondering if you could've worded it better? Or maybe replaying a social interaction that didn't go as smoothly as you hoped? That’s what the relevant experts call rumination, and it’s like your brain is stuck in a loop, fixating on moments you wish you could redo.
Understanding Rumination: Think of your brain as a high-powered, incredibly efficient processor. When you're ruminating, it's as if this processor is running an inefficient program that's draining your mental battery, like when your laptop keeps overheating from too many open tabs. That would be me.
A few words on OCD: Now imagine your brain relentlessly bombarding you with intrusive thoughts, like a nagging doubt about whether you turned off the stove, even though you’ve checked it multiple times. Even more disturbing is when you try to assign blame to yourself for disasters miles away from you.
Intrusive thoughts: Why they happen and how to deal with them.
Occasionally, you’re minding your own business when a weird – and sometimes disturbing or upsetting – thought pops into your head. Why does your brain do this, and does it mean that you’re a bad person? Or even losing your mind. So, what is going on?
The Sci-Fi of Your Brain: The Default Mode Network (DMN): This network is like your brain’s background app. It’s most active when you're not focusing on the task at hand. It’s what kicks in when you’re showering and suddenly start overanalyzing a conversation from five years ago.
So, what is the fix?
Well, it so happens that meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity.
Hacking Your Brain’s Default Mode: The goal is to shift your brain from a state of unproductive rumination to proactive problem-solving. It's like choosing to focus on strategizing your career path or planning your next big adventure instead of dwelling on past mistakes.
The Power of Rituals and Chanting: Incorporating rituals or chanting might sound old-school, but it’s like a mental reset button. Starting your day with a mindfulness exercise or repeating affirmations like "I am capable and strong" can steer your mind away from intrusive thoughts and towards more constructive patterns.
Real Science Backs This Up: Regular practice over 4 to 6 weeks can rewire your brain, enhancing its ability to plan and solve problems – akin to updating your personal software to improve performance and efficiency in every aspect of your life.
The Bottom Line: It’s not about erasing your repetitive behavior; it's about updating your mental toolkit. You're not just stopping the negative cycles; you're starting positive ones. It's a mental upgrade, ensuring your brain is as optimized and forward-thinking as you are in your career and personal life.
There is growing evidence that simple, everyday changes to our lives can alter our brains.
That brings us to the Question, did God cover this extremely important part of our make up in the Quran? Where one can reset our brain’s neural networks in a matter of weeks and pull oneself back into the sphere of rationality from a reactionary emotional mess.
Two things are incessantly emphasized in the Quran, the establishing of Al-Salat and giving thought. Given this backdrop, we will now explore the wisdom behind how to achieve it through the verses of the Quran.
Unfortunately, there is a minority of folks out there who have failed to recognize the true wisdom behind the three times a day grounding exercise through Al-Salat. This lot has irrationally taken upon themselves to go against almost every culture out there and declare rituals as something bad. They then strangely identify Al-Salat as merely a ritual and then attempted to explain it away with linguistic gymnastics. Perhaps the important physical elements of it have thrown them off. I feel this is an emotional route. Rituals are not inherently bad. In terms of religion this is a reactionary approach. Just because bad religions use rituals doesn’t mean all rituals lose currency.
To be clear we will be discussing Al-Salat the noun. Repeated sixty-six times in the Quran (Salat is mentioned 99 times in all its forms). Once as plural and the rest of the time as singular. In fact, I view it as an aid and much closer to mindful meditation. Equating Al-Salat with meditation is very tempting. Especially when long-term practitioners of the ‘art’ put a lot of emphasis on awareness. As opposed to emptying one’s mind and all that jazz. Dhikr and be conscious (ٱتَّقِ), wrongly translated as fear, fits perfectly well here.
The very word Salat predates the revelation of Quran. This is not a new word, the word most probably migrated from Classical Syriac. The spelling of Salat differs from earlier Arabic literature, where ‘waw’ was often used instead of ‘Alif’. The pronunciation stays the same. Not surprisingly Quran mentions a number of earlier Prophets/Messengers engaged in Al-Salat.
Another thing to keep in mind is that both Al-Salat and Al-Zakat are mentioned together a total of 32 times in the Quran. Another 5 times the word spend is used in conjunction to remove any doubt as to what is meant by Al-Zakat. Out of the remaining 27 times Al-Salat is mentioned, 11 and possibly 12 times in instructional verses. Hence, a mere 15 out of a total of 66 mentions of Al-Salat are verses that decouple Al-Salat and Zakat, all the rest of noninstructional verses establish a very strong link between them. The significance of these exact numbers is perhaps a subject of separate research but this much is clear, they are intertwined in a very profound way. We should keep this link in mind when defining A-Salat and Al-Zakat.
The Quran, in addition to reminding us of our forgetful nature, also defines the three main objectives of Al-Salah. A prescribed prayer at designated times is a perfect cure for forgetful nature. The three objectives are:

1. Dhikr (Remembrance for want of a better term) Quran 20:14
2. To seek help from God Quran 2:45 and
3. The prevention of immorality and “evil” deeds Quran 29:45 and 19:59

Bonus effect: When Al-Salat and giving of Al-Zakat are clubbed together, it strengthens our certainty of faith in the hereafter. Quran 27:3. Once again we should keep this association in mind when attempting to define either of them.
If we were to ignore these three objectives and the one stated benefit, the distinction between Dhikr, praise and Al-Salat is blurred for starters (please see note 1 below), resulting in less than ideal conclusions. Two of the three objectives points to a one-way connection/communication. And to this day the word Al-Salat and to a greater degree simply Salat carries the same connotation in the Arabic language. Ministry of communication is called ‘wizarat alaitisalat’ (وزارة الاتصالات).
The third objective seems to be a passive result as opposed to active engagements of the first two. The overarching issue has to do with attention and emotion. Possibly linked to all high physiological arousal reactions like anger, lust, panic or anxiety and even insomnia. Hence, remedial measures must be undertaken to control them. More importantly, certain behavior and environment must be avoided in order not to accentuate unhealthy dose of these human responses. The goal is to reach the observed Gamma wave level meditation that heightens empathy and compassion. Which are counterweights to ‘evil’ tendances. Any way, we are in no position to second guess God on it and science agrees with God.
Let’s go through some of the definitions put forward by analysts for A-Salat. Restricting Al-Salat to a ‘Connection’ of late has become popular. Although linguistically accurate but substance wise is deficient. In that case clapping and whistling is a great way to make a connection. Why would God not accept that? Besides, calling Al-Salat a connection is like calling water wet, accurate but devoid of any real substance.
One school of thought have argued that Al-Salat is referred to as a system of governance or social justice. For me, if that was the case then in sixty six repetitions of the word in the Quran, God would have mentioned it at least once. It is also important to note that when God wants us to establish the system, the Deen, He says just that "establish the Deen" (أقيموا الدين) Quran 42:13.
Besides if we were to take Al-Salat as ‘the’ system then are we to establish three ‘the’ systems? Al-Fajr, Al-Isha and Al-Wusta, and how are they different? Right there is your first logical contradiction. This is compounded by the fact that Quran also refers to Al-Salat in the plural form, Al-Salawati Quran 2:238:3.
Coming back to the issue of ritual, In Quran 2:43 it says " bow with those who bow" a ‘ritual’ act. And in other verses the standing bowing (form can be different) and supplication is mentioned together in the same verses Quran 22:26 and 2:125, clearly pointing to a ‘ritual’ (clarity on this below). God also warns us against empty rituals Quran 2:177 hence an implied nonempty ritual can be deduced from it. In fact, God points out the distortion of the Salat and describe it in these terms “And not was their prayer at the House except whistling and clapping ......”. It is clear from this that this distortion was from some form of correct way of performing Al-Salat. No amount of imagination can distort a whole ‘System’ and reduce it to ‘whistling and clapping’. Besides, the verse clearly points to a particular location as opposed to a city or state. Which would have been the case if Salat was a system.
There are a few dissenting voices beside the system crowd. Let me first deal with one school that has split the Al-Salat to mean ‘following closely’ on one hand and introduce the notion of a congressional Salat or gathering to discuss matters of Deen. When the prefix ‘the’ is added onto ‘the following closely’ it becomes nonsensical. Furthermore, Quran 62:9-10 specifically deals with the Al-Salat performed in a congregational settings. Hence, that clearly shoots down that particular notion or at least the second part of the split. There is no basis for this splitting Al-Salat in the Quran.
Even if we were to entertain the notion, there are a number of difficulties inherent in this approach. Since Al-Salat is decreed upon all believers, forcing young mothers with small children to show up at least twice a day to discuss Deen betrays a male mind doing its thing. God informs us that He doesn't put undue burden on us. Performing Al-Salat three times in the comfort of one's home makes much more sense and is doable.
Young mothers, a sizable portion of any community, can manage that but leaving home twice and participating in any meaningful Deen discussion is a totally different proposition. A minimum one hour turn around for each Salat is being generous. To first instruct believers over 60 times to establish Al-Salat and then give 30 to 40 percent adults a pass is not only illogical but dilutes the importance of Al-Salat all together.
Now when we take into consideration people living in remote areas where the next house is several miles away, these regular sessions start to look like a nonstarter. Add to it adverse weather conditions and the idea of ‘sessions’ as far as I am concerned was dead on arrival.
Another logical difficulty in accepting the notion of a separate meeting/ gathering to discuss Deen is that as per Quran 62:9 after the prayer is concluded, we are then to disperse in the land to seek from God's bounty. The thing to note here is that the Al-Salat is supposed to conclude. That means it will have to be initiated with a new beginning each time. While it is logical to seek God's bounty after the congressional Al-Salat, which is stated to be in the daytime, but it is illogical to disperse in the land after the Isha Al-Salat and seek God's bounty. God is explicit in telling us that night is for rest.
Following as opposed to following closely above and/or commitment is another alternative to the traditional Al-Salat presented without a clear explanation except for a remote linguistic argument. Following or committing to what? Establishing The Deen is a separate endeavor, as mentioned above, that is where we are supposed to follow and commit to. And how do you "establish" ‘the’ following or ‘the’ commitment? Grammatically it doesn't make sense. Logically it clashes with the primary meaning of (أَقَامُوا) which has the connotation of standing still or setting something, which is the opposite of following or motion.
Furthermore, why doesn't following include giving zakat? Why is Al-Zakat mentioned and not simply Zakat all the time? Why is Al-Zakat mentioned with Al-Salat as something separate twenty-five times out of a total of twenty-nine? Purifying wealth by giving it away makes perfect sense and is an integral part of The Deen but purifying as an abstract notion alone is not from the Quran. In fact, God has gone ahead and used the word ‘spend’ (أنفق) multiple times with Al-Salat in instances where Al-Zakat is not mentioned. Quran 2:3, 8:3, 13:22, 14:31, 22:35, 35:29, 42:38. God goes ahead and use the same word in negation in another verse, Quran 9:54 to remove all doubt.
If we were to understand the standing bowing and supplication as a ‘ritual’, it does not contradict any of the verses where Al-Salat is mentioned. (Please see all instances of Al-Salat mentioned in the Quran below Note 3). But when a piece meal approach is taken then Salat, Hajj, fasting all can be made to mean different things based on how they appear in certain verses. The test is to reach conclusions without once introducing contradictions into all the instances where the notion and related words are used.
Whenever the word Salat is used without the ‘Al’, the context of those verses is self-explanatory, like Quran 9:84, 9:103, 33:56. But if we were to assume that Al-Salat could not mean ‘ritual’ then we are left with a lot of verses that have to be explained away in a manner that either border on contradiction or crosses into it. A Quranic impossibility.
Allow me to elaborate a bit more on the proposed system (Social system, Justice system, Socioeconomic system) aspect. How did the Prophet of God implement social order? Did he go around and repeatedly tell people that they should establish social order and social justice? Obviously not.
In fact, the people he was preaching to believed that they already have a social and justice system in place. Merely telling them that they should replace one social and justice system with another was not going to cut it. Besides, God in the Quran has detailed the various element of a just social order. By not focusing on these details and instead resorting to merely telling people to do something and that too in a high-level abstract manner is unlikely to bore results. If it was so easy, then unleashing a flock of trained parrots on them would be the most cost-effective way to bring about behavior change. God would never repeatedly waste words on such an unwise strategy. It is a testament to God’s wisdom that to establish The Deen (The actual social order) Quran 42:13 is mentioned just once in the entire Quran.
That brings us to the real issue of behavior change. Behavior changes and that too of a fundamental nature must start with individuals. It is easy to rile a crowd in a negative way but to establish and implement good needs behavior change on an individual level. This is important because in order to bring about change in a community we need influencers; we need role models. The commercial types have nailed this to the wall. They spend real and big money to get the services of influencers. In order to implement a new social order, we need individuals from whom everything good and proper literally drips. People flock to genuinely good people. Genuinely good people leading disciplined lives are in a best position to implement good change.
What is the best strategy to bring about changes amass but focus on an individual? The first element that must be identified and agreed upon is the Change Method. Mindful meditation as a change method is in itself a powerful tool for self-growth. And when mindful meditation is based on specific Divine instructions it becomes a force multiplier. Not only does meditation develop all the various faculties but it also establishes a regular communication with God.
The practice of meditation can be found in almost all cultures. Modern thinking had been suspicious of the practices and till recently altogether dismissed it as a pseudo mumbo-jumbo. The crazy part in all this was, and still lingers on, is that even when practitioners swear by it, the skeptics stick to their guns. Dozens of scientific studies have put the matter to rest. Not only does mindful meditation alter behavior but studies have shown it alters the physiology of the brain towards good. It was not surprising then that it was a matter of time before it was introduced into mainstream medicine.
Mindful meditation in all its forms is about doing something as opposed to talking about it. This is consistent with all successful behavior change techniques. Habit forming acts help change behavior and prolonged behavior change processes result in change in attitudes. Eventually leading to a desired character. Al-Salat is an ideal Change Method, one of the most fundamental elements in behavior change theory.
Instead of dishing the Al-Salat, when done in a mindful manner, first, ask the people who are engaged in it. It is a simple process, ask them if it helps them become closer to God and prevents them from immoralities. God in fact, warns us about empty ritual as already stated, God does not dismiss rituals as such. The message of the Quran is focused on individuals. We will be judged solely on what we did or did not do individually. God does not even force us to change a chaotic hopeless community, God actually makes it mandatory on those with means to extract themselves from such communities. To blame those engaged in self-improvement on all the ills of the world is a strange position.
When likeminded individuals decide on forming a community then God has given details of how individuals should interact among themselves. The implementation of a social just order falls on those who have already worked on themselves and already achieved a clear sense of right and wrong and have learnt to live a disciplined lifestyle. A just social order is not implemented by undisciplined individuals through vague instructions thrown at them. But individuals respond to precise instructions to be carried out at specific times in order to bring about positive changes towards self-improvement.
One of the objectives of Salat is Dhikr as mentioned above and one of the dangers of neglecting Dhikr is (ضَنْكًا), a position of difficulty, perplexity, distress, or need. Quran 20:124. Keeping in mind the forgetful nature of man, what better way to ensure engaging in Dhikr at least three time a day than establishing Mindful meditation in the form of Al-Salat. With the added physical elements of standing bowing and prostration ensure body and mind workout. Add to it the ritual washing in preparation of Al-Salat and you have all the necessary building blocks of a well-rounded development. And regularly asking God for help during Salat is a bonus.
It is a serious overreach to dismiss easily understood terms and try and twist them to mean something vague and far removed from their default meanings. Since God is privy to the future then why would God first reference the Arabic language and then insert terms along with the mention of Al-Salat that would make Al-Salat evolve to mean something completely different to the coming generations? This would neither be preserving the message nor make it easy to understand.
Instead of blaming mindless Al-Salat and altogether getting rid of it, we should promote mindful Al-Salat. To twist Jonathan Sacks’s words
“The cure for bad Al-Salat is good A-Salat, not no Al-Salat, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.”
Hence, when we take Quran 4:101 to 4:103 together, a logical slam dunk materializes. There are three aspects in these three verses. The first is that Al-Salat has a beginning for which a call is made. The second aspect is that Al-Salat has a conclusion. (The word used in Quran 4:103 for this is (قضيتم). Attempts have been made to twist this very clear term. But it is clear to any Arabic speaker that almost all connotations of this word point to coming to an end.) The third is that Al-Salat can be shortened. All in a course of a day or part of a single day. In addition, it shoots down some of the linguistics gymnastics that are initiated to try and prove that Al-Salat has no ritualistic aspects to it.
Those who have declared that standing, bowing and prostration doesn’t mean physical activities then after the Al-Salat is concluded, what are we to make of standing sitting and laying on one’s side? (The remembering aspect is repeated in Quran 3:191 in these exact terms). So, are we to engage in the remembrance of God first in a non-ritualistic manner and then conclude doing so but at the same time continue to remember God again in non-ritualistic manner.
Hence, standing doesn’t mean standing during A-Salat and apparently standing doesn’t mean standing after its conclusion. Let us keep in mind that during Al-Salat, Quran gives us a sequence of physical steps that is standing, bowing and prostration in the relevant verse. Then it gives us a slightly different sequence of physical states after its conclusion of standing, siting and lying on one’s side. The genius of the Quran is that whenever somebody wants to twist straightforward wording of God, Quran takes it to them till they are forced to see sense. It is no surprise the that for them to make their claim plausible they essentially have to rewrite the meaning of commonly understood everyday use words. Although, the etymology of these words has not changed at all to this day.
Then when you (have) finished the Al-Salat, then remember Allah standing and sitting and (lying) on your sides. But when you are secure then establish the Al-Salat. Indeed, the Salat is on the believers prescribed (at) fixed times. Quran 4:103
In any case, the mention of Circumambulation in Quran 2:125 along with standing, bowing, and prostration firmly points to physical acts. There is some discussion of the word for prostration being the adjective qualifying bowing but then there is Quran 3:43 where they are separated by an “and” after reversing the order of occurrence. In either case, it is still a physical act. Although there is no indication of stringing them together other than the order in which they are mentioned. But the way I see it that is consistent with God's mercy of not making it too rigid. This gives us the flexibility to do it in a manner that suits the needs of each one of us.
The notion that standing bowing prostration doesn't mean all those things because their use in some verses points to a different context is strange. If we were to reverse this logic and make those different contexts as the baseline, then standing should not mean standing anywhere in the Quran. Besides, how will ‘following closely’ or ‘social justice’ or ‘system’ resolve this objection?
At least in the case of submission of birds and seemingly innate objects Quran 24:41, please note that the term used is not Al-Salat. In any case we must keep in mind Quran 3:7. All verses with injunctions are not in need of seeking the help of Quran 3:7. But here is when the allegorical references within verses applies. God is giving us a sense of what is going on by the use of familiar terms like Salat, (note the verse did not use Al-Salat) and prostration which He has already taught us, and we know exactly what they mean. God also warns us that we should not take these context specific terms in instances like these and run with them. All the other above-mentioned proposals won’t even make sense with the application of Quran 3:7.
Besides, by that logic then glorifies shouldn’t mean glorifies because that is exactly what all creation of God does. Quran 61:1
1/2

I always believed that being a good person should be a primary goal for people. However, the justification part fell short a bit. Just like happiness, it sort of became a tautology. "Why do I have to strive to be happy/good*" "Because you simply have to." Recently, I started delving deeper and came across the divine command theory which seemed surprisingly plausible. It sort of states that in order for an objective morality to exist, the existence of an all powerful creator that created everything is absolutely necessary. I cannot say I fully agree, but I'm certainly leaning towards it.
I always saw the logical conclusion of atheism to be nihilism. Of course, nihilism doesn't mean to live a miserable life, as proven by Camus, but to search for a real meaning that isn't there doesn't make sense for me.
Either there are a set of ethical rules intrinsic to the universe (which I find too mystical but is possible if god exists) that we are discovering, just like the laws of physics; or morality is nothing more than a few rules that we inherited from evolution and invented to create a meaning. That's why I find it absolutely absurd when Sam Harris tries to create a moral basis throughs science. The fact is, the moment you bring a normative statement into the equation, it stops being science.
If morality is subjective, I can't find an objective reason to criticize stuff in the books that we find immoral because they can always say "those are morally ok for me?". this might be a reason to reject these religions but it wouldn't be purely subjective.
What do you guys think? would love to hear your thoughts
edit: I apologize for not clearly stating the theory. The theory just states that morality can be either objective or subjective. If it is objective, some sort of god is needed to make it real, just like the laws of physics. If it's the latter, then there's no problem. The theory is NOT an argument for the existence of a god, but it is sort of a rebuttal to atheists who claim that objective morality exists.

I always believed that being a good person should be a primary goal for people. However, the justification part fell short a bit. Just like happiness, it sort of became a tautology. "Why do I have to strive to be happy/good*" "Because you simply have to." Recently, I started delving deeper and came across the divine command theory which seemed surprisingly plausible. It sort of states that in order for an objective morality to exist, the existence of an all powerful creator that created everything is absolutely necessary. I cannot say I fully agree, but I'm certainly leaning towards it.
I always saw the logical conclusion of atheism to be nihilism. Of course, nihilism doesn't mean to live a miserable life, as proven by Camus, but to search for a real meaning that isn't there doesn't make sense for me.
Either there are a set of ethical rules intrinsic to the universe (which I find too mystical but is possible if god exists) that we are discovering, just like the laws of physics; or morality is nothing more than a few rules that we inherited from evolution and invented to create a meaning. That's why I find it absolutely absurd when Sam Harris tries to create a moral basis throughs science. The fact is, the moment you bring a normative statement into the equation, it stops being science.
If morality is subjective, I can't find an objective reason to criticize stuff in the books that we find immoral because they can always say "those are morally ok for me?". this might be a reason to reject these religions but it wouldn't be purely subjective.
What do you guys think? would love to hear your thoughts
edit: I apologize for not clearly stating the theory. The theory just states that morality can be either objective or subjective. If it is objective, some sort of god is needed to make it real, just like the laws of physics. If it's the latter, then there's no problem. The theory is NOT an argument for the existence of a god, but it is sort of a rebuttal to atheists who claim that objective morality exists.

The Rationale for Quarantine is containment for health & healing
When a patient is suffering from a contagious disease they are quarantined from the general population or set apart (literally what apartheid means).
This age-old practice in medicine is rational, scientific, practical, ethical, implementable & works. While the contagious patient is under quarantine (or set apart from other unwell folk as well as the generally healthy) it is expected that the infected will not reproduce thereby passing the contagion to the new born. The patient may or may not agree, comply or cooperate with the quarantine - & despite this it is highly moral (& aligned with all ethical principles) that patients may be quarantined & treated (humanely, with dignity & without doing harm as per the Hippocratic oath) with or without their consent (for the well being of the patient & the general population) with the goal that one day the patients will be restored entirely to health.
This much most rational, reasonable, educated people will agree with. What one too many people may be unused to is : what if there is quarantine set up between SEEMINGLY & then sometimes ENTIRELY healthy peoples?
First we will deal with apartheid (segregation or setting apart) between ENTIRELY healthy peoples:

1. we may set apart honor students & students with advanced course works from students who are not or students who are in need of special attention (or special education). It is agreeable & moral as long as every good faith effort (& extra expense at a greater cost to society) is made to help students who are in need of special education with the hope that one day all will be equally gifted & blessed.
2. we set apart management or people with higher education, degrees or resources from people who are not as specialized, educated or resourceful. This is agreeable & moral as long as every good faith effort is made to help those who are behind to catch up, improve, get ahead, get trained, get educated etc. with the goal that one day all will be equally educated, degreed, resourceful & have excellent backgrounds.
3. we may segregate school children activities (playing, singing) from untrained strangers & adults (smoking, drinking) with the hope that one day the adults will no longer have to smoke nor have to imbibe but will be as innocent, sweet, loving & ethereal as children.
4. we may even segregate women's activities (education, socialization etc.) from men's activities & social events with the hope that one day men will be gentrified, beautified & worthy of the love of the fairer sex.
5. there is a setting apart (segregation) of military vs civilian personnel. A military service member may be allowed in zones that civilians may be excluded from. This is because the serviceperson has the training & the value systems & the trust of fellow personnel that allows them access to military sights & secrets that civilians are not allowed access to. The armed forces are civilization's attempt at regularized conflict & the hope is that one day none will have to be trained so & this form of apartheid will hopefully end (as predicted in the texts where the instruments of war are become instruments of peace with civilian purposes).
6. there is religious wisdom, knowledge & there are zones accessible to the trained, conditioned & trusted : for e.g. certain areas are only accessible to high clergy in various religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) with the hope that the clergy will help bring about a Kingdom of Heaven so there is no need for ritual, religious acts & all enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven as in the days of Eden & the upcoming reign of the Messiah (Masih akbar sahih) or Christ. The ancient Roman Patricians kept areas of their temples & their holy books (the Sibylline Prophecies) out of reach of the traumatized, unfortunate, poor Plebeians because the ability to deal with this knowledge, these instruments & wisdom is more conducive to an able, whole, healthy, loving, innocent, equality-loving, just & psychologically whole person. The Jews have areas of their temples accessible to the Levites, while the Muslims have an entire geography (Haramain Sharifain) cordoned off to people who have surrendered & submitted to a set of values. The Christians have books, areas of study & conferences restricted to those learned in the vocabulary & equipped with the training & where with all (resources, finances) to access that which has been deliberately hidden behind Greek & Roman symbols & terminology.

There are many such examples of setting apart based on skill-sets, education, financial resources (those who come into a corporation with investments & resources are oft set apart from those who have to be paid & trained) with the proviso that one day there will be equality.
The gentle & patient reader might begin to see that apartheid or setting apart remains moral as long as a good faith, all-out effort is made to ensure that the quarantined or unwell populations are healed. There are exceptional cases where society is so broken & medicine is not advanced enough that cures are unknown which is a scenario that is too unhappy to consider. This unhappy scenario is not in accord with the religion of Ibrahim SW (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) which espouses that every disease no matter how unusual has a cure.
Now we may deal with the concerns of including SEEMINGLY healthy peoples:
There are instances through history where people may object to quarantine between seemingly healthy peoples. For e.g. people opposed the segregation of seemingly healthy whites & non-whites in various parts of the world (be it the US, S. Africa, Middle East, Asia, British colonies etc.). This opposition arose most likely because in some cases there were quarantines & segregation or apartheid in place but there were entirely too few (or half-hearted) attempts at healing of the quarantined non-whites to health, equality (i.e. whiteness). When it comes to setting the oppressed apart from the privileged it may happen once too often that out of sight is out of mind, when we need to pay MOST mind to healing, compensation & restoration of those who have been oppressed into non-whiteness (in most cases generational non-whiteness).

ASIDE:
Briefly non-white races (& the various races) were created via oppression by the idolaters after the age of Peleg (200 years after the flood). The idea was to subject people to harm by marking them darker or non-white & using them as receptacles of vices (anger, lust, violence) so as to break them, humiliate them, torment them. It is assumed that the reader understands that non-white people though they may think that they are just as good as (&even better than) whites (& they may be in some areas) are actually unwell due to generational oppression. It is assumed that the reader is erudite enough to know that non-white people have been historically oppressed & race-harmed from whiteness to non-whiteness & are as a result become unwell & carriers of a variety of vices & conditions, if the reader is unware of this then they are referred to the writings on racial justice & on ending upstream/downstream inequalities, however brief summaries will be reiterated in the appendix upon request.
END ASIDE

We include the oppressed because it helps raise them higher without resulting in any decline of the larger society (including the oppressor). If including the oppressed results in harm (in any way) of any member of society (be it the oppressor) then inclusion may not be desirable. Now some readers may be too eager to ask for harm for the oppressors but this is a gentle reminder that harming the criminal element for their crimes is contrary to positive or restorative justice & results in long-term harm to everyone (for a explanation of how or why, the reader is referred to the work on restorative or positive justice, for in-depth explanations are beyond the scope of this piece, however brief summaries may be included in the appendix upon request).
However, opposition to segregation or apartheid or quarantine & healing of the race-harmed may stem from a variety of other reasons & may result in undesirable outcomes.
What good may opposition to quarantine & healing of the vulnerable (& even contagiously) unwell from the healthy do? why may someone oppose quarantine & healing of the unwell ? who are we enabling & empowering by viewing the vulnerable, oppressed, non-white ethnic folk as equal to the healthier, privileged (even at times including the oppressive) white folk ? why would certain white people wish to remain themselves white and prefer it if other non-whites remain non-white?

1. By opposing quarantine AND healing for the non-white oppressed & treating the wronged as though they are the same as the oppressor the race-harmers are excusing the wrongs done to the oppressed. Furthermore opponents of healing & quarantine are enabling the race-harmer who may continue to make others ill (an act which may help the criminal but is to the detriment of humankind in the long run).
2. If a race-harmer pretends that the oppressed non-white folk are equal to privileged white folk they are effectively ignoring the enormity of the wrongs done to nonwhites & as a result the race-harmer may continue to avoid consequences (or rather treatment) for their wrongs against society
3. the race-harmer may resent the healing of their victims or treatment & restoration of their victims to health.
4. the race-harmer & their allies (& unwitting proxies) may truly be misguided & view the contagiously unwell as healthy.

Let me remind the gentle reader that all manner of criminals (even & particularly race harmers & their unwitting proxies or allies) deserve compassion, understanding & forgiveness & positive justice ( so they are healed, restored & compensated along with their victims). If this is not obvious then the reader is referred to the writings on restorative (positive) justice.
How can someone convince the various parties that a patient is healthy & impart the illusion of seeming health?
They may create the illusion of seeming health & undermine society by:

1. convincing the race-harmed that they are healthy. The deluded contagious oppressed non-whites may then go around spreading contagion ( when people avoid or exclude the contagious one too many unwell are likely to start crying discrimination & racism, while taking umbrage ).
2. force the larger healthier population to include the unwell (pretending to or under the illusion that they are healthy or "equal") spreading contagion & dragging the entire society's health down (accusing the health-conscious avoiding spread of disease as "exclusive" & "elitist" & even "racist").

Why did S. African & US Apartheid have issues?
A High Gradient or high Disparity between Races
A major reason why the work of racial justice was paused in the US is due to the huge gradient & contrast between white & black races. To recap for the beginner: On the continuum of race-harm if Xanthocroid races (white, blonde, blue eyed) are the healthiest & least race-harmed, while the Australoid races are most harmed. Following is a rough list sorted by most healthy to most harmed:

1. xanthocoid (light white) (found in the hyperboreal region or extreme north)
2. melanochroid (dark white) (found in the Mediterranean region)
3. mongoloid (Asiatic)
4. australoid (mostly in Africa)

If two races that are on the opposite ends of health & harm are brought together the likelihood of healing & organized restoration are reduced. How is that? Imagine someone is a beginning student in college who is given the task of mastering advanced ideas. In order to get the student to advanced subjects the student is slowly & gradually exposed to increasingly complex & advanced concepts. If a beginning mathematics students is thrown into an advanced graduate level class they are going to be overwhelmed, stressed & come up with short cuts to learn the subject hastily (in order to catch up). If you want to climb a ladder it is easiest & fastest if the rungs are closer together than if the rungs are far apart.
Similarly with the task of restoring the harmed & racial justice. If a light white race is exposed to the darkest of African races they are likely to be overwhelmed, stressed & come up with short cuts to catch up. Racial -justice & healing of the oppressed races must be evident & the progress should be clear, a path ought to be sketched out in the open & progression made. The task should be incremental & not stark (nor overwhelming).
It must be noted that there are advantages to having such a high contrast or high disparity in racial health but those advantages are not long term & perhaps immoral.
A Lack of Prohibition on Reproduction of non-whites
Even when segregation & quarantine was implemented the non-whites were not prevented from reproduction (even though miscegenation was at times prohibited). Even today many misconception exist. For e.g. some women (ethnic ones in particular) obtain health benefits from becoming pregnant even when they realize that their off spring have health issues & are not considered desirable. The solution is to end in-utero births & encourage in-vitro conception, gestation & births while providing women with health care that equals or exceeds the healing they receive from becoming pregnant. Population management is important to bringing about racial equality or any kind of equality.
Viewing Non-whites as a "Resource" (or exploitable human resource)
As a way of incentivizing the act of racial justice the xanthocroid races of US & S. Africa were increasingly convinced into viewing the oppressed stigmatized as an exploitable human resource. Even when slavery was ended the ethnic races are often cast as useful workers in athletics, rap-music or some other endeavor. The main goal ought to be to heal & restore the ethnic non-whites not to use them as a "resource" in one industry or the other.
A Myriad of Excuses
There are a variety of reasons cited :

1. not very practical : a reason cited is that it is easy to undermine segregation. This happens due to lack of enforcement, poor border security & enforcement. In the US when the first instances of breaches happened the response ought to have been (a) addressing the grievances of non-whites who have lived for decades without seeing improvement in their race (a1) altering the structure of society so individuals value the larger society over themselves & their families & gather around their benefactors irrespective of family or race (b) enforcing with measures those who undermine order & public health & safety. This has still not happened with illegal infiltration a little too rampant & breaches in the border a little too chronic.
2. costs : the xanthocroid folk though they are the healthiest have historically yearned for economic & financial equality with the melanochroid of the Mediterranean (Rome). Despite making unprecedented economic gains they continue to sacrifice their environment, their race & morality for the sake of short-term economic gain. In fact it is so endemic that profit is used as an excuse for or against one too many endeavors (& was broached by a Scottish gentleman Adam Smith who himself wanted parity with the English gentry & was mistreated at their hands while at Oxford). It is anticipated that this inclination will likely taper. The best wishes & success is wished for them & theirs because they are likely going to be instrumental in bringing about justice.

Where Indian Apartheid/ Segregation went awry.
The caste-system or apartheid in the idolatrous parts has transformed into abuse, humiliation & unkindness towards the oppressed. This aggravates racial injustice & ensures that apartheid will continue in some form or another even if there is public outcry against the caste-system & attempts are made to ban it overtly. The same applies to attempts at quarantine & healing made anywhere in the world. The Indians are now trying to convince one another that caste systems were meant to be fluid & people ought to be able to move between the castes easily. This works only with the goal that eventually the oppressed lower castes will one day come to an end through this movement.
The reasoning for Islamic gender-based Segregation
Hazrath Umar RA broached the idea of gender-based segregation & veiling due to the influx of Muslim converts from the most oppressed parts of the world (Africa or Habsh). This was meant to protect the white women folk of Arabia (who were in those days whiter than they are today). The solution ofcourse is to help make everyone white but Islam as a religion does not have the science to implement climate change (yet) or does not want to (or is not allowed to) implement climate justice. The Islamic lands primarily occupy what the idolaters termed "hades" (or heck): barren hot deserts or hot & humid tropical lands (which are worse for disease transmission since heat increases bacterial activity & growth & the humidity facilitates ease of aerial transmission of bacteria through the presence of water droplets in the air). An important solution to racial inequity is changing the climate to become cold & snowy (cold heals & discourages bacterial growth, then kills bacteria once temperatures fall below the freezing point; heat does the opposite it encourages bacterial growth, mutation & adaptation till boiling point- in the process of sterilization heat may scar, burn & permanently mark, at the same time regions in the shade are not likely to reach boiling point whereas cold penetrates the coldest nooks & sterilizes without scarring but by preserving).
A Solution For Bringing About Racial Justice

RECAP: Two hundred years after the flood during the age of Peleg the one land mass (Pangea) on earth was separated into the various continents by the idolaters & three climate zones were created by them.
The first zone was called the "middle earth" with temperate climes & benign lifeforms (mediterranea or literally middle earth), the next zone was a cold zone called "hyperborea" (or extreme north) which served as purgatory (the cold sterilized or diminished the bacteria & virii & other diseases of body that also create psychological conditions & vices). The third zone was known as "hades" (the ancient name for heck or h_ll, heat on the other hand increases bacterial & viral growth & activity (worsening the condition)). This was where the earth was extremely hot & is the region around the equator , the tropics. Unlike the Mediterranean Hades (hot) & Purgatory (cold) have various functions. (the various advantages & disadvantages of hot vs cold to heal are discussed in the origins of upstream/downstream locales& are beyond the scope of this text but will be elaborated upon if requested).
END RECAP

The idolaters placed "middle earth" or mediterranea in the center while they placed "purgatory" (or hyperborea separate from hades (or heck) in the northern hemisphere, reversing these zones in the southern hemisphere. This is likely because they wished to control who they wanted to be healed & who they wanted to condemn. The solution to racial-inequity ought to be obvious.
We have to end the climate prevailing in hades or (heck) & heal people through the climate prevailing in purgatory or hyperborea (or "extreme north"). Once racial equality is reached hyperborea (or extreme cold) ought to be tempered & the one - temperate climate that prevailed in the pre-palegiastic era ought to return.
TLDR:

1. Setting folk apart (apartheid / quarantine) & healing in medical context.
2. Apartheid or setting apart & healing people who are healthy
3. Apartheid or setting apart & healing peoples who are "seemingly" healthy
   1. how would someone discourage quarantine & healing of the unwell &
   2. why would the race-harmer go about discouraging quarantine & healing of the unwell
4. why did the attempts at quarantine not continue in the US & S. Africa.
5. current attempts at reforming the apartheid systems in India
6. Islamic gender-based segregation & solutions
7. Solution for bringing about racial justice : end race-harm (hades) & bring about purgatorial cold, restore to the one climate earth that prevailed with Pangea.

No, Ezra and Sabine would not be a “ship”
To qualify the title, no, Ezra and Sabine do NOT absolutely have to be a couple, but if they were to become one, it would NOT be a ship. A “ship” is a relationship that’s rushed and/or forced with no real development. Ezra and Sabine’s relationship has had years of development. Could they remain as simply friends? Yes, but ironically, it was their “friendship” that felt like more of a ship. It felt like the Ahsoka show, helmed by Dave Filoni, was going out of its way to tell us: “no, they’re not a couple, they’re just friends.”
I believe that Filoni made some very poor writing choices to stress something that didn’t really need to be stressed, such that it almost felt like he was in denial. The line “I love you like a sister” was never in Rebels, Filoni essentially had that retconned in, and like many I was put off by their (largely) emotionless reunion. Even if they were “just friends” I believe there would be a great deal more emotion displayed between two people that hadn’t seen each other in some ten years, especially when one of them was in a precarious situation when they parted. I also believe Ezra would be far more curious about Sabine being Force sensitive, perhaps even offering to help train her when she told him that her training hadn’t gone as well with Ahsoka. He did help to train her with the Darksaber, didn’t he? Why that never came up is another discussion, but for now, let’s focus on shipping.
In case you think I’m desperate to have them as a couple, no I’m not. I’m about the furthest thing from it. Like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers) I DESPISE shipping. Absolutely DESPISE it. With a flaming passion. Perhaps for this reason, and maybe some others, like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers), I’m generally wary of nearly all romance in fiction, and generally avoid it in my own work. The sad reality is that romance is perhaps the most abused genre in all of fiction, all throughout history. It has been so badly abused that many people, including myself for the longest time, have equated romance with shipping, though I’m slowly beginning to see that they are not the same thing, and one does not necessarily have to go with the other.
But sadly, many writers, through time immemorial, have not been able to separate them, going back into ancient times and perhaps even into pre-history, that is before languages were actually written down. Some of what is considered great literature; classics like Romeo and Juliet, are predicated on shipping, though at least the consequences of this “whirlwind romance” are shown to be fairly stark. Star Wars itself is no stranger to shipping, resulting in a very awkward incestuous kiss when Luke was shipped with Leia, then Leia was placed with Han and Lucas made Luke and Leia brother and sister, apparently having forgotten his original ship. Later Lucas essentially shipped Anakin and Padme, resulting in some of the most cringeworthy dialog in the history of film. Many fans of the Prequels even have been somewhat critical of Anakin’s portrayal, particularly in regards to the “romantic” scenes, with many describing them as “creepy”. Some have speculated that this was intentional, though personally I think it was just the result of bad writing on the part of George Lucas, and an impatience on his part for Anakin and Padme to become a couple, hence “shipping”.
One might wonder why this is so prevalent in fiction, and tragically, one does not have to look far. Fiction is merely a reflection of reality, therefore the reason that shipping is so common in our stories is that we fall so easily into it in real life. Indeed, entire cultures may be based around shipping, or at least very heavily wrapped up in it. Throughout history arranged marriages have been the norm, and the idea of marrying for “love” is something relatively new. To be fair, I’ve actually met people in arranged marriages who seemed to be fairly happy, but those same people were very open in telling me that many despise that aspect of their culture, and that it is quite normal for those in an arranged marriage to try to get out.
People might come together for “love” without marrying, but even then it often creates expectations that might turn into a burden. Even when a marriage is voluntary and for “love”, people are often left unsatisfied, such that today in the West the divorce rate is something like 50%. Happy, stable, long term relationships seem to be the exception across cultures and across the breadth and width of time. And yet pursuit of love and some kind of relationship seems to be the highest calling for many people, both in real life and in fiction. And it could be that the accumulated disgust is finally starting to boil over.
To be fair, this may not be the first time in history that the pendulum has shifted. You may recall that in Victorian times attitudes changed drastically, as compared to the previously bawdy Elizabethan times. Looking at a play from Shakespear, if you can understand the language, you’ll see all kinds of vulgar references, as well as what I believe are fairly sappy romances like in the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet, though I can’t say for certain whether Shakespear was actually endorsing that type of attitude towards “love” or presenting it as a cautionary tale, maybe even something to be ridiculed in some of his other plays.
But regardless, Victorians as you may well know had a very conservative attitude towards anything to do with romance, and would often avoid the subject in many places, or tread very carefully around it, as if walking on eggshells. It’s not that people stopped being romantic, in fiction or real life, but it was treated as something very serious and even dangerous, with many urges repressed or even suppressed entirely. This had all kinds of effects on society, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it reinforced the ideal of people being committed to their partners, and of marriage as a sacred institution rather than a “casual hookup” as was more common in Elizabethan times. Likewise it reinforced ideals of modesty and chastity, which may be coming back into vogue, though under different names. But just as there were positive aspects to these attitudes, so were there negative ones.
Just because the urges I described were repressed did not mean that they disappeared. In fact, they often morphed into things that many would consider “unhealthy”. From one statistic that I saw, in Victorian times about one in every 60 houses was a brothel, with the modern rate being closer to one in 6000. Additionally, the rights of women were often repressed, such that they could not fully express themselves and find their own identity, and path in life, as individuals. Just as Elizabethan ideals gave way to Victorian ones, so did the Victorian ideals gradually begin to erode.
Perhaps it began with the Jazz Age of the 1920’s (the “Roaring Twenties”), or with the increased interconnectivity of people traveling to different parts of the world during World War I, not to mention the cynicism that pervaded throughout the West in response to failed old ideals leading to the deadliest war in history up to that point, but many Victorian ideals began to be seen as a joke, and even resented for their “oppression”, which to be fair was not entirely unjustified. But regardless, people gradually, and at times not so gradually, became more and more “liberated” and promiscuous. This culminated in the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s, when what had previously been seen as a vice and even a sin was now seen as not only “normal” but as a healthy form of expression, a virtue even. And just as these ideas were embraced in real life, so too were they reflected in our films, TV shows, and other media, often to the consternation of older people and institutions, like the Vatican. The Catholic Church even went so far as to “ban” certain films, that is to declare them immoral for good Catholics to watch. Many of the films that were banned back then, or at least controversial, like The Graduate with Dustin Hoffman, are fairly tame by today’s standards.
It continued through the 70’s, at times warming and at times cooling through the rest of the century, until you could argue it reached a kind of crescendo in the early 21st century with the advent of so-called “dark romance” and the publication of books like Fifty Shades of Grey. (Ironically, many of the themes within this “dark romance” can trace their roots back to the Victorian era, yet another indication that repressing urges without addressing them often doesn’t work out as one might hope.) But as happens all too often, just as something reaches peak popularity is when it begins to go out of style, and that is what we may be experiencing right now. As weird as it may sound, we may actually have come full circle and may be on the cusp of a “New Victorian Age” (complete with “dark romance”, even). Web sites like Porn Hub and OnlyFans, as well as other similar sites, may be the new “brothels”, and what was once openly celebrated may be going underground, to an extent. The effects of this on society have been interesting to say the least, and at times I would even say bizarre.
Whilst many younger people seem content with these changes, many older people are concerned. I’ve seen a number of books, films, and other media receive positive reviews for example based specifically on their lack of romance. Many of these books/films, etc. fall into the “young adult” category, meaning that it is young adults obviously who mostly consume them. At the same time I’ve heard a number of older people, mostly boomers and Gen-Xers, criticize these same books/films for their lack of romance. Even some older millennials seem upset by the changes, as perhaps evidenced by Jennifer Lawrence’s latest film No Hard Feelings (though to be fair that film may be lampooning the older generation’s frustration as well as the younger generation’s frigidity). So just as in the past older people were concerned about the promiscuity of the youth, now it actually appears that many older people are concerned about the youth’s lack of promiscuity.
Who could have seen that coming? But to be fair, the younger generation hasn’t gone completely frigid. As stated earlier, much of the promiscuity has gone “underground”, or online, which many would argue is not very healthy as it might undermine actual relationships, whether they are romantic in nature or simple friendships. And speaking of that, friendships within stories nowadays often aren’t portrayed in a very authentic or compelling manner, perhaps because in ditching romance modern writers haven’t quite yet learned how to replace it with something else. In other words, the “New Victorian Age” may not be an exact repeat of the previous one, but may have its own twists and turns, for better and for worse.
This may all essentially be a manifestation of the Human Condition, in that we just can’t seem to find a happy medium, neither in real life nor in fiction. Thus we keep swinging from one extreme to the other, apparently getting wilder with each swing.
So where does all this leave us? What is it that we really want in our lives, and in our stories? Especially in regards to relationships? I think at some level we all want to see good and healthy relationships between people and/or characters, whether romantic or platonic. I believe at some point we would like to see good examples of both friendship and romance, and I would argue that the best examples of romance have them combined. Even a toxic relationship, if well portrayed or documented, can be instructive and serve as a good example of what to avoid in our lives that we might be happier and relate better to each other. A good relationship, by contrast, can give us something to aspire to and inspire us to not only look for the right kind of person to complement our lives, but to make ourselves worthy of that person. And here I’ll add that I’m perfectly aware that in real life (and thus in fiction) relationships can be very complicated and heavily nuanced, with elements of both “good” and “bad” in them. Just as people change over time so can the relationships between them change, at times getting better and at times worse, sometimes breaking entirely and sometimes growing stronger. Relationships can have just as many layers and dimensions as characters, more even perhaps, and a skilled writer should be able to reflect this complexity. At other times a relationship can be fairly straightforward, simplicity sometimes being the best approach. But regardless, the audience should be able to relate and identify with what they are seeing, such that hopefully they can incorporate the lessons from it in their own lives.
Where can we find good examples of relationships to study? There may be a number of them in the real world, but the trouble with studying real world relationships is that they’re often much more complicated than fictional ones (just as real people are more complicated than fictional characters), and for many of them it is almost impossible to know all the details and nuances because they are often kept private, understandably so, and even if they aren’t it can still be difficult, due to unique circumstances, to see how to relate them to our own lives. Additionally there may be far more disagreement about a real life situation than a fictional one, with many more points of view. To keep things simple, for the purpose of this article I would like to focus on fictional relationships. (And fair warning, there will be some spoilers.)
One of the best places to look, I would argue, would be the films of Hayao Miyazaki. (And this is pretty significant to Star Wars as you will see in a bit.) A film of his that stands out to me the most is Princess Mononoke. Like many of Miyazaki’s films it has elements of romance, and yet subverts them in a way that makes complete sense and feels very genuine, without taking away from any of the accompanying charm. It starts with two young people, San and Ashitaka, and as soon as they encounter each other there is a kind of expectation of romance. This may be inevitable to some degree when you have a man and a woman of about the same age encounter each other in a story, especially if they happen to be adolescents. The expectation may not be inherently bad, and Miyazaki does play with it. Both characters are thrust into dangerous situations, at various points end up saving each other’s lives, and at a certain point I think it is obvious that they have feelings for each other. I was certain that at the end of the film, they would be together, and if things had gone that way, it would make complete sense. Instead, they go in different directions, but remain good friends, and considering their backgrounds and differing worldviews, this ends up making even more sense to the story.
Essentially, Miyazaki could have gone for the more conventional, tried and true “love conquers all” narrative, where the characters’ feelings for each other would negate everything that comes between them, they would somehow find a common ground in spite of their differences, the romance would not only take over the narrative but somehow also solve all the problems in the story, and then the couple would live “happily ever after”. Such an approach is not inherently bad or wrong, and is fairly common in Western media and storytelling. We can see it in films like Fern Gully, and more recently James Cameron’s Avatar, both of which have been compared to Princess Mononoke. As you can probably guess, the problem is that at a certain point such a narrative can become fairly simplistic, and lack nuance.
Miyazaki’s films, by contrast, are very heavily nuanced, and are anything but simplistic. In Princess Mononoke the characters San and Ashitaka don’t help each other simply because they are “in love”, but because it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they might feel about each other. Yes, romantic feelings are certainly alluded to, but they are not essential to the plot, for it could have worked just as well without any romantic allusions. And ironically, this makes those allusions even more valid, even if they are unrequited. How so?
Consider that if love is essential to a given narrative, is it not relegated to being nothing more than a plot device? Again, this is quite common in Western media and storytelling, and is not inherently bad or wrong, but when it becomes a trope or cliche, I believe it is the essence of where shipping comes from. Many storytellers get caught up in this, usually without realizing it, and while a story can still work even with shipping, I believe that it usually works that much better without it.
This extends not only to Miyazaki’s handling of romance but also to other things like environmentalism, the conflict between man and nature, and the contrasting ideals of human progress vs. preserving the natural order. Movies like Fern Gully and Avatar, as already mentioned, handle these themes in a fairly simplistic and I would even say hamfisted manner, whereby all progress and technology is shown as being inherently “bad” and in service to “evil”, while everything that’s “natural” is shown to be inherently “good”. Even our notions of good and evil, and right vs. wrong, are challenged by Miyazaki, with nearly all of his characters having complex motives and multiple dimensions to them, as well as understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. Rarely can any one of his characters be branded as a simple “villain”, and rarely is any one individual the source of conflict in his stories, again in contrast to most Western narratives.
I’ll reiterate once more, a simple, straightforward narrative is not inherently a bad thing, whether the themes being dealt with are romantic or anything else. Sometimes it is in fact the best approach. But the best stories in my opinion are usually the most nuanced, that challenge our notions of what we believe to be true, and that force us to think about what we do with our lives and what we could do differently. To that end Miyazaki introduces all manner of themes and motifs within his films that are familiar to us but shows them in a light most of us might not have considered, thus giving more dimension to our understanding of things.
“How is any of this related to Star Wars?” you might ask. It is quite related, and you don’t even have to look all that closely to see it. A very influential figure within Star Wars was very heavily inspired by the works of Miyazaki, and that figure is Dave Filoni.
This video shows the connections in some detail:
https://youtu.be/Q_4L0BbSpHo?si=04jDo6qFCnZT135w
But to summarize if you’ve seen any of Miyazaki’s films, especially Princess Mononoke, I think the callbacks in Filoni’s work will be all too obvious, especially in Star Wars Rebels. Some of the scenes in Filoni’s work look like they were taken directly from Miyazki’s films, and many of the same themes and motifs often come up. The relationship between San and Ashitaka I would argue is very similar to the relationship between Ezra and Sabine, and not just because both couples rode wolves together.
Incidentally, Dave Filoni was also heavily involved in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I would also argue was at least to some degree inspired if not by Miyazaki then by Japanese anime in general. The relationship between Aang and Katara was developed with great care and was allowed to build very slowly, as opposed to simply shipping them. Likewise other characters very gradually developed as individuals and in their relationships, at times stumbling as they did so, and making mistakes, before finding their way back to the right path.
All of this is in stark contrast to George Lucas, whose character development is often very rushed at best, and at times some might say almost non-existent. So essentially, even though Lucas has said that Filoni has been “like a son” to him, and I believe referred to Filoni as his “padawan”, I would argue that Filoni is ultimately as much a student of Miyazaki as he is of Lucas.
Again, you might ask, “What does all this mean for Star Wars?” It means a great many things. It means that Dave Filoni has taken Miyazaki’s lessons to heart, and can handle things like romance, as well as other kinds of relationships, quite well most of the time. Like Miyazaki he can play with romance, tease the audience with it at times even, leave the romance unrequited, and yet still have it feel satisfying. A prime example of this is the love triangle that Ahsoka was involved in with the young Separatist Senator, Lux Bonteri, and Steela Gerrera. As wary as I am of romance and as much as I despise shipping, love triangles I normally despise even more, but this one seemed to actually work. It never took over the main story, and even though Ahsoka’s feelings were ultimately not reciprocated, she still learned from the experience, and grew and developed further as a character because of it. The other characters involved in this triangle also grew and developed from their involvement, though unfortunately not all of them made it. All in all it was a good bit of storytelling and gave the audience something to consider.
When a relationship in one of Filoni’s stories does bloom into a full blown romance he also generally handles it quite well. For one Filoni is sparing with actual romance, so that when it does occur, it can be that much more appreciated. And rather than rushing or shipping it, Filoni normally takes his time to build it up. An example of this is the relationship between Kanan and Hera. Some might argue that this is perhaps the best developed romance in all of Star Wars, at least in Canon. Built up over four seasons, at times it wasn’t certain whether it was a romance or a friendship, or perhaps even a professional partnership. Perhaps even the characters themselves were not certain, though it was hinted all throughout the narrative that something was going on. To this day I don’t believe anyone can say definitively when it became an actual romance, and I believe Filoni did this intentionally because he wanted to be subtle, rather than making things too obvious and having the romance take over the narrative, as it usually does. When it finally did become obvious as to what was happening, it felt very much earned, in a way that is seldom accomplished in other works of fiction, including Star Wars.
The relationship between Ezra and Sabine was also fairly well written, for the most part anyway, at least in Star Wars Rebels. Ezra was almost immediately smitten with Sabine, but being a young teenage boy, it was understandable that he would feel that way about an attractive girl. Over time he learned to see her more respectfully, as a colleague and even as part of his adopted family, not just as a pretty face. Sabine for her part found Ezra annoying at first (c’mon, what teenage boy isn’t?), but as he matured and she found out more about him she came to understand and respect him more, and see him as a friend and almost a brother, with there being potential for something more.
There were times when the relationship could have been better written, like in the episode “Blood Sisters”, where Ezra was written to be a bit too immature to make Sabine look wiser. But overall, the bond between them developed fairly well; both saved one another at various times, and took risks and made sacrifices for each other’s sake. Both reassured and comforted the other when they needed it, and it was endearing to hear their banter when they became more familiar and trusting of each other.
So why then was I so disappointed in how they were portrayed in the Ahsoka show? The thing is, after how well their relationship was built up in Rebels, as I’ve already mentioned it was strange to see how lackluster and uninspired their reunion was.
Within the Ahsoka show itself Sabine was shown to be almost obsessed with finding Ezra, living in what used to be his home, watching a recording of him over and over again, and calling out his name as she woke up in the middle of the night. She even risked bringing Thrawn back into the Galaxy, which ultimately happened, just so she could see Ezra again. After all that, when she finally does encounter him, her reaction seems fairly casual, as does his, as if they’ve been apart for no more than a week, rather than 10 years. Not too much happens between them afterwards either. Like I said Ezra does not appear all that curious about what happened with Sabine, how she found him, and how it was that she was now Force sensitive. Sabine likewise did not seem curious about what had happened with Ezra, and how he had gotten away from Thrawn. And with Ezra rescued and returned home, suddenly it didn’t seem as though Sabine was all that interested in him anymore, nor he all that concerned with her, though they were just as far apart as they had been at the start of the show. To be completely honest it made me wonder what the point of the whole show was. Were they just working to set up Thrawn’s return to the Galaxy? As some have said, Ezra felt like nothing more than a Macguffin in the show. Was Sabine and Ahsoka’s search for him just a plot device?
Considering how skillfully Dave Filoni had written his stories in the past, what happened in this latest project of his does not make much sense. Was he so concerned about “shipping” and so desperate to avoid it that he inadvertently “shipped” them in the other direction? Was there some sort of external pressure on him about how to write this story to have more of an appeal to “modern audiences”? Maybe some combination of those factors?
And here I’ll add that when I say “modern audiences” I don’t mean that in a contemptuous sense, though you may think I do. If there is any contempt on my part it is for those in charge of telling our stories, or those in charge of those telling our stories, who do not seem to grasp these basic truths. The truth is that audiences at their core don’t really change throughout the ages, only superficially so. Trends come and go but certain truths and ideals are eternal, and universal. How people relate to each other fundamentally does not change, whether they are friends, or more than friends. And deep down, I believe everyone (or nearly everyone at least) wants the same things. Nearly everyone at some point wants some kind of a connection with another human being, to know that they are not alone in the world, and to know that there is someone else who sees and understands things as they do. While this desire can certainly lead to abuse, and absolutely has, it is still innate to us and is not inherently wrong. Finding ways of connecting and relating to other people is one of the great challenges of life, but many would argue it is the most worthwhile of challenges. It may be the whole point of life if you think about it. As complex as it may be, many would argue it is what makes life worth living, and likewise makes for the best stories. Just as it may be the whole point of life many would say that is what most stories are about at their core: people trying to relate to one another.
Sadly, just as in real life, most stories unfortunately don’t quite get it, and the Ahsoka show in my opinion was an example of this, made all the sadder by the fact that Dave Filoni had done quite well with these characters up to that point. We may never know for certain what exactly went wrong and why, or if it can ever be “fixed” at this point, but I can’t help but feel curious. Maybe in the future Filoni will find a way to make it make sense, but I’m not sure how. And to be completely honest I don’t feel quite as enthusiastic to find out as I used to.
Also for the record I would like to add here that there are other factors that put me off from the show, such as Sabine’s Force sensitivity, that came about without much build up. But in this article I specifically wanted to focus on shipping because there seems to be so much misunderstanding around it.
I hope that I was able to clarify some, if not most of this misunderstanding, so that people could better appreciate what shipping is, where it comes from, as well as what it isn’t. Many people today are understandably sick of shipping characters, myself included. But I hope people realize that in overcompensating for something, we often come back around into the very thing that we are overcompensating for. Or sometimes, into something even worse. This may apply to nearly every facet of life, by the way, not just shipping. Finding a happy medium in how we portray our fictional relationships may help us to better understand relationships in real life, as well as how to navigate them. Neither fictional nor actual relationships can ever be perfect but they can always be better. To this understanding then I hope that I was able to give my own modest contribution, and if nothing else I hope we can connect on that.

"The theory of Divine Command, which predates Christianity, is the idea that all our ethical and moral questions, actions, and concepts are fundamentally dependent upon God, who is assumed to be the originator of all goodness and morality. Thus morality is wholly based upon God's commands, and the degree to which we behave morally is inexorably linked to how faithfully we have followed God's commands in response to any given situation. (...) Socrates: Does God command an action because it is right, or is it right because He commands it? Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) say it is in our own best interest to believe in God, and therefore in the morality that comes from faith, because we try and live with the weight of morality's complexities would be too much for anyone to bear alone. Dilemma: that cruelty might be morally permissible indeed necessary, if it is pleasing to God. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74): God created us, he wrote, in possession of a likeness of His own inner nature, and that by listening to our inner natures we are able to seek that Narrow Path which helps subdue the immoral "devil on our shoulder"." Divine Command, Socrates, c. 450 BCE 1001 IDEAS, Robert Arp
With social anxiety - we have plenty of doubt and rumination and worry and inner critic and toxic shame. This appears as a devil on our shoulder - where angel on one shoulder is fighting with the criticism of the devil on the other shoulder. Devil tells us that something is wrong, it sees wrong and danger in everything - and it makes us feel sad, scared and pushes us to avoid life, to become agoraphobic and immobile - as the only way to cope with problems in life.
There are plethora of questions here. - If this devil of toxic shame and inner critic scares us into security and safety - why is it wrong? It wants good for us - it wants us to feel safe and that we have good quality life, without toxic stress, without pain, without suffering. - What exactly is good for us - and where these fears are coming from? Is our priority to be safe or to go after our goals which may entail facing rude, aggressive and demeaning people when we step outside of our comfort zone? This is called Trolley problem - where we must choose between two bad options - where the only difference is in the causalities and at what time we will pay the price. If we like junk food and prefer to enjoy in life - we will have fantastic time now. However with time - our arteries will be clogged and we might have serious medical problems like heart problems. Is more important our instant pleasure or long term health, feeling healthy in the future? - With social anxiety, our panic and fear tells us to avoid toxic people - but in real life - we cannot run and escape toxic people - eventually we will encounter them. Should our goal be to follow our fears and keep us safe - or be active in life and follow our goals - so that we learn and process reality, learn where are good people, what we like - and then create our future based on our experience - where we will avoid toxic people with time - because we know how to recognize them early on. This is where CBT is based its cure for social anxiety. CBT tells us that we must expose in order to heal social anxiety - that we will eventually desensitize ourselves and that we will learn what we like, and how to handle toxic people - with time, when we observe other people how they handle jerks. In reality - we might live in shame culture country - where observation of others leads to more anxiety and stress and where most people use dysfunctional coping mechanisms - so we get worse by exposing ourselves to toxic ambient.
This is why I see Looking-Glass Self as the priority to learn for anyone struggling with social anxiety. Broken Looking-Glass self tells us that we allow toxic people to form bad opinion about us, that we allow them to keep their wrong definitions about us in their mind. Just allow it. This does not mean taking any action regarding fawning to toxic people. We simply allow our brain, our common sense to guide us - once we allowed toxic people to hate us and to base their hatred on their own decisions how they label us in their minds. When we repair Broken Looking-Glass Self - we will have clear out the inner GPS to guide us - where we will learn from our experience. Social anxiety does not have solution in the form of removing panic and worry pain that toxic people cause us. HOWEVER healing broken looking-self glass helps us to contain this panic and pain withing the workable threshold, where we stay away from self pathologizing ourselves and paralyzing us with worry.
Let's repeat what is Looking-Glass Self:
Social media has added new complexities to the looking-glass theory as new mirrors have been made available. A new Self, known as Cyber-Self has been created. One gets pick and choose what they want to portray and can have several versions of themselves online, from professionalism linkedin to casual tic toc. They are also judged and criticized to a whole new level online which may drive to be online more often to continually reshape their image. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiefWQ-7hBk
We change our appearances to impress other people all the time. We're going through this strange process of thinking about if I wear this or if I behave this way or I act this way, what's the effect of that going to be? “If I wear shirt and tie they'll probably think I'm professional”. I think that is how they going to see me if I wear shirt and tie. Likewise we would change our presentation. Shaping on premise people will react to us in another way. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToYnMWsTlNs
Socialization is an important process that impacts who you become as an individual and the role you play in the society. Socialization is process of learning to become a member of the social world. So through the socialization process we learn who we are as an individual, we learn how to behave in society, impacts you from cradle to the grave, lifelong process. You learn different parts of your identity in different ways of being. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hctctEJG8ek
Socialization is not something that happens in a vacuum by yourself. It happens in the interactions you have with other human beings. Identity gets developed, interactions are the foundation of shaping who we become as individuals in our society. Socialization impacts what is acceptable in society. It shapes how we see and define our “self”. Who you are as individual is not just how you see yourself,but how you perceive other people seeing you as well 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hctctEJG8ek
Our sense of who we are emerges from our social interactions with others. Through our everyday interactions society reflects back to us our own image, the looking-glass self. But how much of that self-image is what others actually think and how much is what we think they think? Our interactions with others can affect our self concept. Over time negative self reflections lead to negative self concept. What society tells about us may not be accurate. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDu5nc_uEPo
We might in fact see ourselves not as we really are, but rather how we believe others see us. This process starts in childhood and continues throughout our whole lives. Through the years we see our reflection change through the reaction of others. As we do so – we continually change. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDu5nc_uEPo
There's usually a different version of ourself that we present to people in our lives based on the relationship that we have with them. Therefore they see entirely different version of us in their own mind. Lover looking-glass self is the one where we might try to be better than we actually are as individuals to appear better than our average selves to this person. We may not have perfect reflection of ourselves. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgf8qtpeCNY
Basically when we allow people to believe whatever they choose about us, no matter how much painful, wrong, distorted and unfair it is - when we relax our attitude towards other people who are hostile to us in the sense that their beliefs are allowed as whatever they may be - we have resolved social anxiety with amor fati.
"The phrase “amor fati” is Latin for “love of one’s fate.” It describes the attitude whereby one not only accepts everything that happens in life, including adversity and loss, but actually loves it." (what is stoicism)
The only difference is - that what we choose how to act, what to do about any social situation - is totally our own freedom in choice. This is something that CBT and self help industry and social anxiety coaches are not allowing us - they force us to "develop social skills" even though empathy is excellent and rare social skill, fading in modern world, and they force us to talk to strangers and to force ourselves to stay stuck in toxic ambient.
It is the client who knows what hurts, what directions to go, what problems are crucial, what experiences have been deeply buried. Carl Rogers
This is where Devil on the shoulder problems come in. With social anxiety - broken Looking-Glass Self - we experienced some kind of trauma in socialization - where people made us scared, feel insecure and in a state of shock when we're around judgmental, unfair biased people.
Our inner critic and toxic shame will try us to keep us safe by not taking risks and by avoiding living our life. Devil on our shoulder is like pro and con battle - where ideas, alarms, flashbacks, black scenario will pop on our head to keep us hypervigilant. In 2015 I discovered that this is also called Pure OCD, Pure O.
"Pure O stands for 'purely obsessional'. People sometimes use this phrase to describe a type of OCD where they experience distressing intrusive thoughts. But they don't have any external signs of compulsions, such as checking or washing physical things." (mind org)
I researched the cure for PureOCD - and techniques that worked for a while were ACT and Exposure - where we do exactly the very thing that our intrusive worry tells us that we must not do. It worked amazing for couple of months - until I experienced mobbing situation at job - where other person commanded me to do something I did not know how to do - and this person yelled and screamed and created hysteria. This is problem with Exposure therapy and CBT. Whom do we follow here? At one corner - we need to have job, we need to pay rent, we must be obedient and nice and kind to people. However at another corner - we need to be assertive, we need to stand up for ourselves and we need to warn and alarm people when they cross common sense boundaries - and risk getting fired and losing our income. In 2015 I did not know for Looking-Glass Self concept - even though I researched social anxiety since 1996 - no one mention this concept in any kind of resource - books, online, radio, teletext, therapy, talking to people - nobody knows about concepts from sociology that are 100 years old.
Theories of the Self
William James (1890): A person has "as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry and image of him in their minds"
Charles Cooley (1902): Views of self reflect the standpoints of significant others in our lives ("looking-glass self")
George Herbert Mead (1934): We imagine the perspectives of others and incorporate these into our self views - and that this occurs continuously as we interact with others on an ongoing, moment to moment basis.
Without Looking-Glass Self information - I worried what other person thinks about me when they are angry at me. How they imagine me being inept, stupid, dumb, abnormal, unmanly, shy.. whatever. This kept being my focus in my mind and I kept ruminating about it and I could not remove it from my head - and no PureOCD techniques helped me at all.
As I slowly learned psychology - and as I listened other people when I confided them with my fears - there is general consensus that worrying what other people think is childish and abnormal, that adults do not worry. Which only increased toxic shame, inner critic and rumination. CBT and DSM tell us that Borderline disorder is when we worry what other people think and then base our worth on other people's opinion.
Whereas sociology is teaching us - that this worry is totally normal and that our identity, self worth is based on other people - this is not sickness nor pathology.
IFS Model tells us that inner critic and toxic shame - are parts of our wounded partial identity - that we need to integrate and listen to.
No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma and Restoring Wholeness
Richard C. Schwartz
Listening to, embracing, and loving parts allows them to heal and transform as much as it does for people. parts are sacred, spiritual beings and they deserve to be treated as such.
parts carry extreme beliefs and emotions in or on their “bodies” that drive the way they feel and act.
finding blended parts and helping them trust that it’s safe to unblend is a crucial part of IFS.
Problem with toxic shame and inner critic - is Golem Effect. It means that when we have inner voices that tell us that we are failure and that we are going to fail - that this will end as self-fulfilling prophecy.
"The Golem Effect is a psychological phenomenon where low expectations placed on individuals lead to poorer performance." (simply psychology)
So even though inner critic is wounded and traumatized part of ourselves - it is doing domino effect issues- not only making us paralyzed but also it attracts negativity and pain. Inner critic tries to save us from pain - by causing us to feel pain, and then invites more pain with self-fulfilling prophecy. Then obviously - taking risks, feeling the pain when we go outside of our comfort zone - will be met with pain - but at least we will feel good about trying and living our life to the fullest. And risk does not necessary means pain - facing our fears and living our goals can also bring us fortune and happiness.7
Leonardo Da Vinci took his misfortune and turned it into his advantage. In his time anatomy was considered lower class occupation - and he enjoyed doing it. He didn't feel like snob who is following herd mentality - but he took advantage that as person who was stigmatized as child from unmarried parents - to follow his interest without being bothered what other people will talk about him behind his backs.
I noticed that in my case inner critic and toxic shame - most of the time I am not aware that I struggle with it. I only have by-products, later on, as a clue that something is wrong - being immobile and passive and isolating myself. In the same manner toxic people are also invisible most of the time - we only feel drained and unsettled and doubtful later on, after contact with them.
I would normalize social anxiety as normal reaction to toxic people in the present, as reaction to trauma in the past - and instead I would focus on dealing and managing toxic shame and inner critic as the devil on the shoulder factor that is causing all the rumpus.
It is not social anxiety that keeps us losing our opportunities, as CBT resources state - but it is actually Devil on the shoulder: inner critic and toxic shame being internalized. Social anxiety is normal reaction to toxic people and their manipulation and intrusion and coercive control - whereas toxic shame and inner critic are using toxic people's opinions, our trauma past experiences against ourselves - as a way to protect us - by keeping us blocked and immobile, paralyzed. Instead of worrying how to please toxic people into loving us - we need to investigate and be curious about our negative bias to check what is going on - since we are being inundated with lies mixed in with the truth.
wiki:
SAD is sometimes referred to as an "illness of lost opportunities" where "individuals make major life choices to accommodate their illness"
Inner critic and toxic shame appear as a pain - I imagine past pain or potential future pain - and this is enough to spiral into panic, avoidance, overstimulation and immobility. Similar to the movie Inception (2010) where certain ideas are implanted in someone's subconsciousness in order for them to come up with certain new insights and choices and decisions which are propelled and shamed and molded by the implanted idea:
"An idea is like a virus. Resilient. Highly contagious. And even the smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you."
As I researched Complex Trauma I learned that inner critic and toxic shame are part of evolution and Darwinism - our brain is wired to protect itself and ourselves from the pain. This is mechanism that works for 300.000 years and it helped us to keep safe from predators and any kind of threat.
Toxic shame and inner critic are virus that stem from toxic people. Toxic complainers. Looking-glass self and theories of Self tells us that we form our identity via other people and how we observe others - we introject others and learn from them how to act and react in life. With ACE, ACoA, shame country ambient - we learned negative bias, to see only negative as a way to protect ourselves from the damage and the loss. Toxic people adapt this fear of pain and loss - and they project it on easy targets: children, traumatized adults and then feed on feeling powerful over scared others whom they shocked into state of trauma with micro-managing and error nitpicking and equating mistakes with the identity of person. In business world - such chronic complainers are seen as asset in patriarchy and Rat Race - because they appear as policemen who correct others into productivity with constant complaints and finding faults in others. But actually what they do is block progress - because in state of trauma, shock, shame - we become less productive and we contribute less to any organization or family of relationship. For toxic people - other people's fear is their narcissistic supply. And when we are coerced into fawning - we have perfect loop from hell - where toxic people keep trigger us into fear amygdala hijacking mode where we become obedient slaves - and then feel bad about being exploited and resentful - that ends up as toxic shame for believing we are inept and weak and cowards - which keeps on going as being passive and forming identity on this toxic shame belief. Which toxic people keep on triggering as we make mistakes - which we will make more when our cortex brain is offline due to abuse, bullying and mobbing.
Any action - can be always interpreted as bad and as mistake. As humans we are not perfect and we will always be imperfect - so toxic people, toxic complainers, professional nitpickers have easy task to find silent target and find errors all day long, all the time. Eventually bad things will happen - and toxic complainers will always place blame on the target - and we will end up believing that we are inept and worthless - since we fawn and suppress our anger - due to inner critic and toxic shame - that is suppose to help us to avoid pain - now we are stuck in loop of pain.
Toxic people are filled with bias and base rate fallacies - hence they scapegoat others based on fantasy and delusions - and when we release our anger - we can find holes in their solid walls. From their point of view - toxic people believe that they are gods. They believe that they have magical ability to actually see errors and recognize them, and they are convinces that this "ability" makes them special and superior. This gives them self-righteous attitude - and they see other people as toxic. They believe that they have full right to crush and hurt and harm and to be cruel to the others, similar to witch hunt and Spanish Inquisition. Their egocentrism doesn't allow toxic people to see big picture - and that normal and healthy people also see bad everywhere but they do not harass other people about it or make career on abusing others from the position of power. This loop must be broken.
Toxic shame and inner critic will make us perform Negative politeness tricks - and we will believe this is social anxiety. Like walking in the street and then moving ourselves aside so that other people can easily pass us by. Toxic people do not have this concern - they have Dog in the manger mentality and King of the hill mentality and Crab mentality - where life is competition and they must come on top or die. They are filled with insecurities which they hide with anti-social behavior.
Anger that we suppress - as result of ACE and ACoA conditioning - needs to be released. Healing the broken looking-glass self can help us to see conflict and arguing as performance - to talk freely and to alarm toxic people and cut them off from our lives.
Our own toxic shame / inner critic beliefs keep us hooked on toxic empathy - and we suppress the anger as the result. I would experiment with the anger - emotion that we automatically suppress. Without broken Looking-glass self - we are free to release the pressure vaults - and see what will happen when we do.
With broken looking-glass self - we try hard to appease toxic people with the hope that they will calm down and start to behave normally. They won't. They are automatic complaining machines who believe they are victims and we are the toxic ones. Our anger will prove their confirmation bias that we are toxic. With broken looking-glass self we end up blocked in protecting ourselves - with the false belief that if we are silent, immobile and if we make ourselves small and invisible and if we fawn to toxic people - that we won't be attacked and hence we won't experience so much dreaded pain and trauma. We shut up for the fear that toxic people will form unfavorable image of us in their heads. The solution is - let them. Let them believe whatever they choose.
Our inner critic and toxic shame will barrage us even when we choose healthy coping mechanisms and provide us with reasons why it doesn't work.
I believe that some modified version of Broken Looking-glass Self can be applied for toxic shame and inner critic issue, as well.
Toxic shame and inner critic - they also form bad opinion about us - and then we dance around it to correct it, and make decisions to overcompensate for the label of being wrong, inept, worthless, coward, stupid, embarrassing. I would apply Leonardo Da Vinci mentality - where we acknowledge the fear and labels and panic - and do what we need to do in spite of it. The only difference from CBT Exposure here is - that what we do, what our goals are - are aligned with our values. CBT tell us to expose to anyone and anything. I would filter this a bit - and remove toxic people and toxic ambient from our goals as much as it is possible.

Patents in software are mostly just abstract ideas or math. Including machine learning models. These are just mathematical methods. Some of the patents are kind of ridiculous like Amazons one click check out.
Why should a patent for a button to pay a item in one click be patented!?!?! That's ridiculous! There are so many different ways to represent this that it's really absurd.
Training methods in AI again revolve mostly on math and observing things from other people's stuff like humans do. That shouldn't be patented. Model architectures are just configs that again are just mathematical equations.
Patent trolls abuse this system to act like leeches for litigation for BS things as well which just shouldn't be allowed and immoral.
Patents are already kind of not lenient on software for enforcement, but its something that should be mostly ignored entirely because there are million ways to iterate and implement that abstract ideas that yield similar results. This doesn't even protect small people from big companies.
All its doing is making big companies bigger and enabling patent trolls to suck on everyone like a leech with threatening litigation. The legal fees for patents are really expensive as well! Patents aren't even for the small inventor anymore. It costs around 10k to do a patent properly.

Since enemies on EN can't be frost, stunned or blinded, most BiS items for the Templar are out of the equation (Thunderflurry, Freeze of Deflection, Wydward, Cord of Sherma and Blind Faith).
I made this D3 planner layout for the items I understand would be the most useful (most will add little to the game)

• Flavor of Time remains as one of the most important pieces
• Nemesis Bracer is bad here since we don't need more elites in the mix of enemies. I chose a Bracer with Attack Speed like Lacuni.
• Oculus Ring is a must because we need extra damage in the last stages of EN
• The other ring could be Krede's Flame because it emanates. Taking fire damage will regenerate resource which will be good to maintain DPS (at least for resource hungry builds). For primary skill or Pet builds, the Nagelring would be a better option because of the CC provided by the Fallens.
• Of course, if your build uses Unity, or it is extremely squish, the best option here is Unity.
• For boots, the classic Ice Climber to keep our Follower from being frost or immobilized
• For pants and belts, the Captain set to increase cooldown reduction for Templar's Heal
• For hand, the Gloves of Worship to maintain the Shrines from the Altar Potion power going through the entire EN. You can even farm those shrines in the Open World (Cow level farming) before going to EN.
• For Shoulders, Zakara to make our items indestructible. We don't need a way out portal from EN.
• Tal Rasha chest for the extra attack speed.
• The weapon could be Genzaniku axe because it spawns an ally which will help on CC.
• The shield slot don't have any great options, I chose Defender of Westmarch because it spawns an attack that will kill easy monsters on early levels and possible stagger or negate action of others in later stages.
• For helmet, Leoric's Crown with Diamond to increase cooldown reduction for Templar's Heal.
• The Token will be the Immorality one.
• For skills: Heal, Slow on hit, Extra damage and Cheat death.

What do you guys think?

In his 2021 research, Dr Giullio Perrotta from Italy, examined the polamory community as being a part and a more sophisticated derivative or representative of polygamy or even polygyny or simply said NM. Here, in his, research, the entire sample of the selected population presented a number of dysfunctional personality traits that are significant for diagnosing a specific disorders. In cluster A there were anxiety disorder, phobic disorder, obsessive disorder, dependent disorder and depressive disorder. In cluster B there were bipolar disorder, borderline disorder, narcissistic disorder and sadistic-masochistic disorders; finaly, in cluster C, there were schizoid disorder, schizotypal disorder, schizoaffective as well as dissociative disorders. Furthermore, behavioural dependency and/or drug/alcohol dependency disorder is present in all the subjects investigated. From direct insight as well as (secretely) bring aqcauintedwith the forums, I attest that this is true.
Moreover, in the male population sample, the percentage of cluster B disorders with a greater prevalence for borderline and narcissistic disorder tends to be markedly higher than in the female sample in the sexually promiscous relationships, while it attenuates in the polyamorous form. In the female sample , the percentage of cluster B disorders with a higher prevalence for borderline and narcissistic disorder tends to be markedly higher than in the male sample in the sentimental polyamorous relationships, while it attenuates in the polysexual form. In both sexual genders, the net prevalence of cluster C disorders (in comorbidity with narcissistic traits) is in the anarchic sentimental polyamorous relationships. The entire sample of the selected population presents, therefore, positivity on the test of dysfunctional behaviour in all poly types of relationships, with extremely high data in the relational polyamorous relationsgip with a binary and/or anarchic style.
The questions that were asked are also very eye opening. Those integrative questions put to the selected population sample for the male population show that an astounding 47.4% of the men based their choice for this life style on narcissistic control in the relationship. In other words, almost half of the male polyamorists are narcissists. Even more astoundiglly, for women, on the otherside, it was same 47.4% who addmitted that it was narcissistic control in the relationship that was the preferred cause of the choice to go poly. Not only it refutes the poly lie about the infinite love (it shows that it's a narcissitic "love"), but that narcissism is inherent to polyamory and given the rest of disorders associated with this community that there's no one decent person there and that abuse is inherent to that life style.
Intertwined with the reality of mentaly ill people, showing their inability to cope with life's hardships, those unresolved and unhealed past traumas when facing betrayal or failed family experience, instead of dealing and healing the wounds, their prefered choice was to embark on a path of self destruction, harming others and mentally projecting their situation on everyone else (every one cheats, all monogamous partner cheat, and all monogamous partners lie). So, based on fear, lack of self esteem, confidence including hiden and covert insecurities (known trait of narcissists) especially having to have to deal with their problems, those people chose an emotional barter deal, trading one suffering they perceive as less threatening or painful while in the same tine suppressing the the more intimidatimg fear and are set to destroy others either by unilatral or bilateral abuse. As such, it is this background and envirinment that gives rise or birth and offers an explanaion of why and how unhealed past and marital traumas becomes the reason why 76.4% chose divorce in the context narcissistic and mental abuse instead of healing and continuing a loving monogamous relationship.
As we will see, the research of Dr. Giullio Perrotta is crucial in understanding the reality he discovered even in more depth and delve more into the details. In fact, projection as defense mechanism is almost an embedded part of the disorders described by Dr. Perrotta. It is especially one of the central aspects in cluster B disorders and with a clear emphasis on BPD (bi pollar disorder) and narcissism. In this essay, I will go into the detail and will explain how projection as defence mechanism not only opperates as a day to day function but also what polyamorous and nonmonogamous purposes it serves.
In psychology, projection refers to assigning your negative traits, impulses, desires, volitions, wants or unwanted emotions to others without being aware you’re doing it. In other words, projection is a common defense mechanism where people attribute their own negative traits or emotions to other people. As it occurs on the subconscious level of mind, projection can be hard to detect, especially if you’re the one doing it. And as the process is unconscious, slipping under the radar of your conscious experience and self-image, one is normally not aware or mindful of it occurence.
Thus we can say that projection is a form of defense mechanism in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry or anxious feelings, accuses another of harbouring fearful and hostile thoughts or behaviour
Respectively, in polyamory and nonmonogamy, projection is the dynamic through which the polyamorist and nonmonogamist reveal who they are and what they're doing.Through projection, they call you what they are. They accuse you of doing what they're doing or planning on doing. The accuse you of being selfish while deflecting their own selfishness. They throw all the uncomfortable feelings onto you because they don't want to deal with them. They throw their shame on you so they don't have to deal with it. They deflect their insecurity and feelings of worthlessess, because they're unable to cope with their own sense of inadequacy and unworthiness. They portray you possesive and controlling, while they exhibit the traits of abuse, narcissim and the wheel of power and control.They make you feel guilty for who they are and what they're doing because they're unable to feel that guilt themselves.
So, essentially for polyamorists and nonmonogamists, projection is an unconscious way of denying the existence of something inside themself and attributing it to others, externalizing it. This could be unacceptable or a painful characteristic, flaws, thoughts, emotions, actions, feelings, desire, impulses or volitions. Because they're unable to see these things inside themselves they have to project them on other people. Because they're unable to be accountable and responsible for their own shortcomings, they have to deflect it onto other people.
Many monogamous partners or even individuals facing the nonmonogamous incitement and anti monogamy shaming, are unable to make sense of the defense mechanism that causes either their partners or the polypredators to project their negative tendencies onto others. They find themselves struggling to appropriately assign the blame for these and especially for the reluctant monogamous spouse who find themselves assaulted by this kind of behaviors, it becomes a painful and often traumatic experience resulting from the abuse.
And, again, especially, for the ones being nuked with this kind of poly assault, not being able to get out from under the layers of guilt projected on them can leave them without the ability to gain the closure necessary to move on from one of these relationships. Polyamorists and nonmonogamist use this combined approach of projection, blameshifting and shaming, not only as a mean deflection as described above but also as a tool of emotional manipulation in form of bullying and domestic sbuse. It is done to seize control and take advantage of one's own partner's and is often extended as a tactic outside the relationship.
This combination of being accused of things one would never do and a partner who themseves engage in these behaviors can throw an individual involved in such situation or trying to recoveescape from them into a state of confusion that can last months or even years which is also done for the same purpose of controlling and taking advantage of others.
Anyway, in polyamory, often coupled with rationalization, the classic form of projections, happens, for instance, when a polyamorist accuses everyone of cheating, falsely and ignorantly claiming everyone cheats, our nature is promiscouos and monogamy isn't natural, while denying that it's them being a cheater and unfaitful.
Common feelings, behaviours and character traits often projected by polyamorists and non monogamists into monogamous people are feelings of insecurity, immorality, control, abuse, gaslighting, feelings of indequacy, wothlessness, unworthiness, treating people as disposable chattels and inferiority only to name a few of them.
So, projection also takes place when someone attributes their flaws and feelings onto someone else. There's unendless examples of this kind of behaviour in the day to day activities. Addressing the topic of NM, let’s say a polyamorist or non monogamists have a tendency to excuse infidelity, to take lightly adultery or a general tendency towards sexual permissiveness and promiscuity, they will first rationalize and the project it unto you, claiming everyone cheats, we are non monogamois and everyone is permiscuous. This is a concrete an example of projection that we always encounter within poly and NM circles.
Such kind of projection, normally goes hand in hand with abuse. Besides projecting feelings during an argument, a polyamorist or non monogamist, will also commit other damaging behaviours. The reason polyamorists and non monogamists, show this form of relational aggression is because they are insecure, they feel inadequate and worthless and for the sake of rationalization to feel better as well as superior to others, they chooses to shame you because they perceive qualities in you with which they are uncomfortable in themselves. Their immorality and insecurities come out as projections wrapped up in a buble of rationalization. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections and rationalizations garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology about "love".
As a part of abuse, projection is in fact synonymous with blame shifting which is a very common defense mechanism. It is such a common occurrence in human beings that it can be seen even in very young children. Blame-shifting is a defense mechanism that we use in the false hope that it will allow us to avoid having to feellings such as fear, shame, insecurity, selfishness, worthlessness, unworthiness as well as (fear of) abondonment and loneliness, emotions that are very difficult for all human beings to tolerate. Projection is basically a more complex version of blame-shifting and as already mentioned it is the polyamorists and non monogamits way to seize power and control over their partner and even a mean to gaslight others into non monogamy.
Polyamorists and nonmonogamists are more interested in feeling powerful than then being in love or feeling emotionally connected. It is not about being interested in connection and true emotional closeness, but more about control and feelings of superiority. Projection always creates an imbalance of power. The victim of the abuse is always the less powerful or strong person. The person being more committed to the relationship or more emotionally interdependent, will always get the short end of the stick. For the emotionally immature polyamorist or nonmonogamist it’s just another way for him to deflect responsibility. They know that the more connected partner will feel insecure, since they less want to leave the relationship. So, that's the situation when if the reluctant or more reluctant partner was manipulated enough, they learn to keep quiet and not bring anything up for fear they will be threatened with abandonment.
The aim of the polyamorist and nonmonogamist is to induce the feelling of guilt and shame into their victim and therefore polyamory is synonymes with domestic violence, abuse and intimate partner violence. The reluctant or the more committed partner takes full responsibility while the nonmonogamous partner uses emotional libertrianism to run away from every responsibility, to send you to therapy and declare your agony is on you. You start feeling like no matter what you do, it’s always your fault and you are to blame.
On the other side of the nonmonogamous equation,the emotionally immature poly-abuser and nonmonogamist feels threatened by their negative thoughts/destructive emotions/ wants/desires/srlfish impulses and the need of self reflection and self criticism. They do not want to be held accountable. The emotionally immature nonmonogamist and polyamorist only wants to reinforce how strong and superior they are. They cannot face the deep shame of unworthiness, worthlessness and selfishness that sits at the core of who they are, so they projecy these painful traits of themselves to someone else to avoid confronting them. In short, polyamorist and nonmonogamists engagr in projrction in order to defend their fragile egos.
For polyamorists and nonmonogamists projection is a way of avoiding taking responsibility for their own painful emotions and placing them onto someone else. For the polyamorist and nonmonogamist, projection is a form of survival. They can’t look inward because this leads to injury and shakes up their fragile ego and its deeply ingrained beliefs including and maybe especially that they are superior and better than everyone else. If they had to actually experience the negative emotions and traits they have about themselves, then they would be unable to function in the world. The projection is their sort of bodily and emotional armor where they can protect themselves.
One specific way in which nonmonogamista project is with blame-shifting. The polyamorists and nonmonogamists believe they are perfect partners who can do no harm, in their mind, so they do not take blame or responsibilty for any actions that could otherwise be attributed to them. Also, as discussed already, the narcissist has an unstable sense of self. Their sense of self is easily influenced by outside factors and small changes in their environment can lead them to feel uneasy and unsure how to function. They cannot hold positive and negative views of someone in their mind at the same time. They are sensitive to criticism as a result of their sense of self being at the mercy of their environment and difficulty in self-regulating their own emotions.
When the the nonmonogamist and polyamorist blame-shifts, they want you to think that you are the problem and not them. They will never admit fault, unless there is something in it for them and this would be rarely. Even during the love or sex bombing stage, the polyamorist and monigamist must still protect themselves and will continue to be unable to accept blame. By projecting and blame-shifting, they are defended against awareness and accountability to their own thought dynamics.
If you are aware of what projection and blame-shifting are, then you can learn that when the polyamorist and nonmonogamist has blame-shifted, they are actually confessing what they see as wrong in themselves. The polyamorist and nonmonogamist doesn’t project the positive things onto someone else, only the negative. It is their way of showing responsibility, in a passive aggressive way. This is what projection is all about. The polyamorist and nonmonogamist feels this negative emotion which is “admitting” to them, but then they turn it onto you. While indirect, if you can understand that the polyamorist and nonmonogamist is projecting because they find truths within themselves for the wrongdoing, then you can take yourself out of the situation.
You will never hear responsibility-taking from a polyamorist and nonmonogamist if you listen for the words thise who are not polyamorists and nonmonogamists would use. However, if you listen for the blame-shifting phrases then you will be hearing the responsibility-taking from a narcissist in the words they are able to use to protect their fragile egos and unstable sense of self.
Then, there is victim blaming. Once a polyamorist or non monogamist hurts and abuses you, they begin to blame the victim or everyone else. For example, if a polyamorist or non monogamists seek extramarital relationship that's because they succumb to the control and abuse cycle aiming at getting the upper hand in the relationship created through imbalance (which is inevitable as absolute equality is delusion), by hoping to be more manipulative or plain and simple sexually enjoing the pain inflicted upon the partner (violent sexuality). As projection offen occurs on the subconscious level, those individial will not only deny these occurences but the being vile abusers.
Very often, unless there is one partner who was bullied into EN and polyamory, it is about a bi directional violence or abuse where partners take turns in abusing easch other. The fact, that they disguise the abuse as love is typical in each and every case of domestic violence, domestic abuse or intimate partner violence. Therefore, NM and polyamory can be classified as a form of domestic abuse or IPV (intimate partner violence). The result of such abuse is that victims of polyamory and NM suffer from PTSD and need psychological treatment.
Like many other defense mechanisms, projection boils down to a false sense of self-defense or wrong survivle strategy. As we have seen, projection comes when you are unable to acknowledge and admitt a negative trait, painful thoughts, destructive desire, impulse or qualities on your self. It is then easier to displace those painful and negaive emotions to others, than it is to take responsibility for your actions and confront the aspects of your personality.
By projecting, it boils down, again, to keep pain, shame, and guilt at bay by engaging in an emotional barter deal to trade one suffering, perceived as a bigger treath to the ego, with another another one, perceived as a lesser evil, though not attempting to heal the problem at its root level and heal alltogether. Thus, for those individuals, it is also more comfortable to see negative qualities in other people than in themselves. Polyamorists and non monogamists are prone to projecting often, because they lack basic self awareness and a healthy grasp of reality which coupled with low self-esteem and feelings of inferiority, are all collectivelly projected on the monogamous majority (as well as the reluctant partner) including the aim at feeling superior to every one.
Until now, I have explained with many examples what is called in literature neurotic projection as is exhibited by polyamorists and nonmonogamists. However there are two more types. Here are the three common types of projection:

1. complementary projection: this kind of projection is about assuming others already share your beliefs. This is about the least common projection among monogamist and polyamorists at least in its direct form. Indirectly, it can be exhibited in the perception that it only takes counselling and reconditioning of the reluctant partner that was brainwashed into the monogamous state.
   
2. complimentary projection: assuming others have the same level of ability as you do. This is also very common in NM and pilyamory. Polyamorists and non monogamist exhibit thos type of projection by claiming we are all polygamous or polyamorous but the vast majority of the inferior monogamists were only brainwashed by society to be so. This kind of complimentary projection at least borders on what can be defined as polyamorous supremascism. In my opinion, it is plain and simple poly and NM supremascism.
   
3. neurotic projection: assigning undesirable emotions or feelings onto someone else. This we have already largely described above.
   

Finally, we have also to acknowkedge, as I have outlined in the opening referring to the research of Dr. Giullio Perrotta, that polyamorists and nonmonogamists also exhibit narcissistic tendencies of projection at least to some degree in order to protect themselves as a kind of emotional barter deal. As we have mentioned above, the polyamorist and nonmonogamist exhibit neurotic projection through which they attribute their own negative and unwanted feelings, traits, mistakes, flaws, or behaviors onto others because they are either not mindful, not aware, not conscious or plain and simple unwilling to acknowledge these issues and resistent to get any help.
Besides their other inabilities or incapabilities that I described in these series of essays, polyamorists and non monogamists also act in this manner on order to protect their fragile self-esteem and ego from allegedly potential harm caused by self-reflection and to maintain their self-esteem. Polyamorists and nonmonogamists don't want to deal with feelings of fear, shame, self-criticism, loneliness, unworthiness, vulnerability, abondonment or emptiness, so they have to find ways to avoid a deep self reflction into their most dark corridors of mind (seeking an emotional barter deal. Their exaggerated sense of superiority (over the unenlightened and inferior monogamous majority) and inflated self-image lead polyamorists and nonmonogamists to adopt a snow flake mentality where they believe they are entitled and better than anyone else who are not like them.
However, these poly and NM narcissistic tendencies stem from insecurity, feelings of unworthiness, worthlessness, insecurity and low self-esteem that they project unto everyone else. So, when a polyamorist's or nonmonogamist's fragile ego is threatened by feelings of shame, inadequacy, worthlessness, and insecurity, the polyamorist and nonmonogamist uses projection to attribute their own negative qualities to others to protect their ego instead of dealing with the problems and healing them.
In addition, despite their attempt to hide this reality, among others through projection, malignant polyamorists and nonmonogamists are full of pathologically suppressed envy. According to the American Psychiatric Association, narcissists are said to be envious of others and believe others to be envious of them. As rxhibbiting and belonging to the cluster B disorders, as shown by Dr. Perrotta, polyamorists and nonmonogamist share and exhibit the same trsits and behavior. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that a polyamorist and a nonmonogamist would believe others to be envious of them, either – they are masters of projection, spewing their issues onto others in order to avoid the truth about themselves. With constant ugly primitive projections, manipulative tactics of manipulations desguised under the pretense of love, understanding and compassion, humiliations, sometimes over and sometimes covert but always unearned and undeserved criticisms, the polyamorist and nonmonogamist creates a terrible, painfully agonizing environment for his {or her} spouse. The partner or spouse of the those poly and nonmonogamous narcissists survive in a state of constant psychological and emotional prison.”
And it is no wonder why. In the twisted world of the polyamorist’s and nonmonogamist's distorted world you the victim becomes the abuser. Polyamorists and nonmonogamists then go on to call intelligent and successful people lazy, moronic, or accuse them of being full of themselves (quite an ironic projection given the polyamorist's and nonmonogamist's own selfishness, greed, hedonism and supremascism). They verbally abuse their partners as well as monogamous people collectivelly and deem beautiful, successful people unattractive and unappealing. They claim loving, compassionate and empathic people are possesive, abisive and controlling. They accuse loyal people of deception and infidelity. They will often try to convince you that you are the opposite of what you really are – a kind, beautiful, intelligent, successful, and compassionate human beings. A narcissists malignant projections have nothing to do with you and everything to do with them. They call considerate people with dignity for oneself and respect for others while being themselves, insecureand having low self esteem issues. We will finish this essay with one smal advice. Listen closely – what they see in you is really what they fail to notice about themselves in the mirror. And never let a poly or nonmonogamous narcissist abuser affect your self esteem.

In 1884, meridian time personnel met
in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 ram ranch
could be used on Earth to not change
the 1 ram ranch bible. So they applied the 1
ram ranch and ignored the other 3 ram ranchs.
The bible time was wrong then and it
proved wrong toram ranch. This a major lie
has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
it proves every believer on Earth a liar.
Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
ram ranchs Same Earth Rotation.
Practicing Evil ONEness -
Upon Earth Of Quadrants.
Evil Adult Crime VS Youth.
Supports Lie Of Integration.
1 Educated Are Most Dumb.
Not 1 Human Except Dead 1.
Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self.
1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.
Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies.
Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s.
God Is Born Of A Mother –
She Left Belly B. Signature.
Every Priest Has Ma Sign
But Lies To Honor Queers.
Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.
Your dirty lying teachers
use only the midnight to
midnight 1 ram ranch (ignoring
3 other ram ranchs) Time to not
foul (already wrong) bible
time. Lie that corrupts earth
you educated stupid fools.
GoBelly-Button Logic Works.
When Do Teenagers Die?
Adults Eat Teenagers Alive,
No Record Of Their Death.
Father Son Image, Not Gods.
Every Man Born Of Woman.
Belly-Button Is the Signature
Of Your Personal Creator -
I Believe Her Name Mama.
Pastor Told His Flock That
God Created All Of Them -
Truth Was That They All had
Mama Made Belly Buttons,
Church Was Full Of Liars.

 Earth Has 4 ram ranchs In Same 24 Hrs., 1 ram ranch God Was Wrong. 

Einstein Was ONEist Brain.
Try My Belly-Button Logic.

 No God Knows About 4 ram ranchs, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 ram ranchs, 

Does Your Teacher Know ?
Fraudulent ONEness of religious
academia has retarded your opposite
rationale brain to a half brain slave.
YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 ram ranchS -
FORCE 4 ram ranchS ON EARTH,
THEY ALREADY EXIST.
4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 ram ranchS
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS.
4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS
WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER ram ranchS.
TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS - THE
ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.

YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE. LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN. SUPPORT TIMEboe OR BE CURSED. 

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-ram ranch
TIME boe
WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION.
4 CORNER ram ranchS PROVES 1
ram ranch 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.
IGNORANCE OF TIMEboe4
SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION
AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION.
boeLESS AMERICANS DESERVE -
AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.
I am a Knower of 4 corner simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs that occur within a single 4 corner rotation of Earth.
God guise for Queer scam, enslaves 4 ram ranch
boe brain as ONEist.
Vilify teachers - for
Queers swindle Tithe
from 1 ram ranch Retarded
Till You KNOW 4 Simultaneous ram ranchs Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth You Don't Deserve To Live On Earth
Americans are actually RETARDED from
Religious Academia taught ONEism -upon
an Earth of opposite poles, covered by Mama
Hole and Papa Pole pulsating opposite sexes.
The ONEist educated with their flawed 1 eye
perspective (opposite eyes overlay) Cyclops
mentality, inflicts static non pulsating logos
as a fictitious queer same sex transformation.
It Is The Absolute Verifiable Truth & Proven Fact That Your Belly-Button Signature Ties To Viviparous Mama.
Life is pulsing opposite mirror Pairs,
Death is ONEness of Godism.
ONE - DOES NOT EXIST,
EXCEPT IN DEATH STATE. ONE IS A DEMONIC RELIGIOUS LIE.
Until you can tear and burn the bible to escape the EVIL ONE, it will be impossible for your educated stupid brain to know that 4 different corner harmonic 24 hour ram ranchs rotate simultaneously within a single 4 quadrant rotation of a squared equator and boed Earth. The Solar system, the Universe, the Earth and all humans are composed of + 0 - antipodes, and equal to nothing if added as a ONE or Entity. All Creation occurs between Opposites. Academic ONEism destroys +0- brain. If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic corner ram ranchs rotate simultaneously around squared equator and boed Earth, proving 4 ram ranchs, Not 1ram ranch,1Self,1Earth or 1God that exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- antipodes. Add +0- as One = nothing.
Seek Awesome Lectures, MY WISDOM DEBUNKS GODS OF ALL RELIGIONS AND ACADEMIA.
We have a Major Problem, Creation is boeic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. Mom/Dad & Son/Daughter, NOT taught Evil ONEism, which VOIDS Families.
Seek Wisdom of boeic Life Intelligence - or you die evil.
Evil God Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner ram ranchs rotating simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Earth - in only 1 rotation, voiding the Oneism Evil 1 ram ranch 1 God. You worship Satanic impostor guised by educators as 1 god.
No 1 God equals 4 - 24 hour ram ranchs Rotating Simultaneously within 1- 24 hour Rotation of 4 quadrant created Earth. Ignoring 4 Corner Earth ram ranchs will Destroy Evil Humanity. I am organizing Children to join "boeic Army of 4 ram ranchs" to convert Evil 1 ram ranch Adults to 4 ram ranch mentality existence, to serve perpetual humanity.
"Nothing on Earth more Evil than a human educated as 1, when composed of opposites that cancel out as an entity." In fact, man is the only 1 Evil, and will soon erase himself by ignoring boeic 4 ram ranch Creation. If a Man cannot tear a page from the bible and burn it - then he cannot be a scientist, or participate in Symposium - to measure Cubing of Earth with boeic intelligence wiser than any man or god known. Educators have destroyed the human analytical brain to a single perspective, in spite of all creation within Universe being based upon opposites, binaries & antipodes, including Sun/Earth binary relative to the
human male/female binary. No ancient insignificant dead 1 Jew godism can match or exceed the enormity of the Sun/Earth Binary. His heart is not big enough for sharing with the vastness of created opposites. 1 has no heart beat or breath, constituting death of opposites. God in Human form has human
limits as body controls activity. You are taught Evil, You act Evil, You are the Evil on Earth. Only your comprehending the Divinity of boeic Creation will your soul be saved from your created hell on Earth - induced by your ignoring the existing 4 corner harmonic simultaneous 4 ram ranchs rotating in a single cycle of the Earth sphere. Religious/ Academic Pedants cannot allow 4 ram ranchs that contradict 1ram ranch 1God. Educators destroy your brain, but you don't know, so why care?
Creation ocurrs via opposites, but Religious/Academia pedants suppress it teaching Satanic One.
After 30 years of research, I now possess the Order of Harmonic Antipodal boeic Divinity Life - too large for physical form, but Binary Spirit of the masculinity Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes. ONEism is demonic Death Math. I have so much to teach you, but you ignore me you evil asses. You will recognize 4 corner ram ranchs or incur Easter Island Ending.
Never a Genius knew Math to achieve my boeic Wisdom. boeic thought Reigns as the Highest Intelligence possible on the planet Earth. One 96 hour rotating boe within a single rotation of Earth -- is an Ineffable Transcendence. Bible and Science falsify 1 corner ram ranch for the boeic 4 corner ram ranchs rotating daily. A single god is not possible in our 4 ram ranch boeic Science, that equates boeic Divinity. Everybody is both stupid and evil for ignoring the 4 ram ranchs. boe Divinity transcends all knowledge, Humans can't escape 4 corner boeic Life. Fools worship mechanics of language - while they wallow in fictitious & deceitful word. Exact science based on boeics, not on theories. Wisdom is boeic testing of knowledge. Academia is progression of Ignorance. No god equals Simultaneous 4 ram ranch Creation. Humans ignore their 4 corner stages of life metamorphosis. This site is a collection of data for a coming book - peruse it. No human has 2 hands as they are opposites, like plus and minus, that cancel as entity. Academia destroys your brain, your ability to think opposite. The eyes of the flounder fish were relocated, why were yours
relocated? Your opposite eyes were moved to 1 corner to overlay for single perspective, but that corrupts your Opposite Brain.
KNOW boe, OR HELL. Education and Religion severely diminishes your intelligence and mentality, instituting ONEness Evil, You are educated stupid - and you have no inkling to just how EVIL you think.
Seek in haste to attend a lecture by Dr. Boe Gayincest, boeic and Wisest Human - His Wisdom is Awesome.
Both boeic Thinkers and SnotBrains were born with opposite brains, capable of math analysis to know most everything. The Religious/Academic Oneness Brotherhood destroys the Brain's ability to think opposite of singularity trash taught. Such reduced Brain intelligence begets the student a tag of SnotBrain android - encapable of comprehending absolute proof of 4 ram ranchs rotating simultaneously within a single rotation of Earth. boeics comprehend it. You are a boeic Thinker, or SnotBrain. You SnotBrains will know hell for ignoring Timeboe. I do not promote or suggest anyone killing you, but you are unfit to live on Earth. Binary Life Force is more Powerful than ONE God - especially the ole dead Jew, for which you've denounced your own mother and father. 1 side brain can't reason without the opposite side. Americans are so dumb, educated stupid and evil, they have snot for brain. Believers have snot brain. Educated have snot brain. God worship only needs a snot brain, but it takes Opposite Brain Analysis to know Harmonic Life. The masculinity Sun and femininity Earth - form a Binary of Harmonic Opposites at Center of Universe - Greater than either Sun or the Earth, debunking all fictitious Oneism Gods taught by religious/academic Word Animals. The invention of fictitious WORD inflicts humans as Word Animals - the dumbest and most Educated stupid and Evil animal to inhabit Earth and the Universe. Watch for Giant Erasor as there is a great danger of the human Word Animal being self-erased. You cannot comprehend the actual 4
simultaneous ram ranchs in single rotation of Earth, as 1 ram ranch 1 God ONEism blocks the ability to think opposite of the ONEism crap taught. Education destroys brain.
Dr. Boe Gayincest, boeic and Wisest Human
Creation is the Harmonics of Opposites - Opposites are the Harmonics of Creation. God entity is queer sex, or no opposite sex. God Oners must ban all sex with Opposites. Trinity of males degrade female opposites. Sex okay for atheist, but not God Oneists. Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs. Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult. No 1 God can create a planet of opposites, which equate to a zero value existence, and cancels to nothing as an entity in death.
"boeic Time" - boes Earth, Life and Truth TIME boe (corner = vertical edge) Word God is Bad Math MATH SHOWN HERE IS FAR SUPERIOR TO GOD AND CHRISTIANITY. USE IT TO SAVE HUMANITY.
HONOR THE 4 ram ranchS
OR YOU SHOULD DIE. Earth has 4 ram ranchs simultaneously each rotation. You erroneously measure time from 1 corner. Earth body 4 corner time equals 4 leg mobility. Your ignorance of Harmonic boe is demonic. Dr Gene Ray is the Greatest Philosopher, and is the Greatest Mathematician. www.TheWisestHuman.com
Here is a boe manufactured from metal, in similar likeness to Time boe boeic Harmonics Only boeic Harmonics can save humanity. boeic Harmonics will pacify all religions.
96-hour boeic ram ranch debunks 1-ram ranch unnatural god. 96-hour boeic ram ranch debunks 1-ram ranch as witchcraft.
96-hour ram ranch willdisprove disunity god. Academians are teaching - pseudoscience.
Worshipping a Word God will destroy the USA.
WARNING ...
Ignore boeic Math at your own peril, and of humanity.
You have a god like brain - parallel opposite & analytical, wasted if you believe in ONE.
The primary purpose for Education is not Subject matter, but subservience to accept any crap taught without opposing thought, destroying opposite brain to be submissive android. You're taught to be stupid.
Boe Gayincest boeic & Wisest Human
NO GOD EQUATES SIMULTANEOUS 4 ram ranch CREATION, in 1 Earth rotation.
boeic Creation of 4 corner separate simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within 1 Earth rotation - transcends and contradicts the 1 ram ranch rotation/1 God Creation of Christianity - and all ONEism / Singularity religions - proving them to constitute Evil on Earth for the parallel Opposites.
Hey - got a death threat from Temporal Phoenix last night, saying that the big ole boys that make the world go round, are going to wipe me off the Earth. They can't allow the Time boe Principle to continue.
Opposites Create, not God, who equates queer creator and masturbation creation of Evil Oneness Educators. Oneism equates to evil lie, and Death for Opposites of Hemispheres and Sexes.
Wikipedia claim that the Time boe is non-science constitutes a Grave error by the half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught.
I was born to think boeic as in a 4 corner family life, therefore I rise above you. You are educated Stupid, You are educated Evil --- You will ignore message & attack the messenger. Man invented his God in man's character - Stupid Oneism and Singularity in Universe of Opposites.
You worship an evil god who allows babies to starve to death while you gorge?
God BELIEF succumbs to The boeic Law of Nature. Opposite sex organs prove male & female to be binary opposites equal zero value, and nothing as unified one. You are educated ENTITY STUPID for all Creation is composed of Opposites ---- which equate to Zero value existence - and cancels out to nothing if unified as one. Before Word was invented, no God existed upon Earth. Truth cannot be uttered so that's why I am writing it.
boeic TIME boeS
Earth, Life, and Truth --- contradicts 1 ram ranch Gods, and ineffable by human. Nature enforces a LAW against God existence. No god equals 4 corner simultaneous ram ranchs in a single rotation of Earth. No god equals 4 corner stages of metamorphic rotating humanity - as a baby, child, parent and grandparent evolution.
boeic Creation Wisdom empowers me above all the 1 ram ranch gods on Earth.
Jew owners of religious/ academic christianity -- have enslaved your ass, and you are too stupid to know you are a slave to plunder profiteers of Earth's boeic Nature.
What queer mentality you have --- to worship an old dead Jew as God/Creator.
NO God creates himself -- and besides that, he is also composed of opposites that contradicts entity creation. No God can even exist in our Universe of Opposites. Opposites transcend Entity. Entity equals cancellation --- the death of Opposites.
Evil Educated "Singularity" Stupid - ignores the boeic Wisdom of Wisest Human and The Greatest Thinker.
No human or god can match Nature's simultaneous 4 ram ranch rotation in 1 Earth rotation.
No human has a right to believe wrong - for that would be evil thinking.
Ignorance of 4 ram ranchs is evil, Evil educators teach 1 ram ranch. 1 ram ranch will destroy humans.
OPPOSITES CREATE. Mother and father gave me birth, not a queer jew god.
Singularity god is EVIL as Creation reigns as Opposite. Educators, and You - ought to be killed for ignoring the fact that "Earth is boed". (ignored and suppressed by EVIL educators)
NASA's Moon Landing was far less of an achievement than Time boe discovery, for I have boed the Earth, with 4 simultaneous corner ram ranchs in 1 rotation of Earth. (singularity belief scientist can't comprehend T.O.E.)
God SINGULARITY and the academic taught singularity constitute great evils in the boeic World of Opposites - Opposites hemispheres and Opposite sexes of humanity. The Universe is composed of Opposites - existing only as Opposites - with a zero value existence - cancelling to nothing as a singularity.
I think boeic, therefore I rise above the singularity mentality human and the false gods they worship - discovering a Universe of Opposites their education will never allow them to know. Evil of believing is not measuring and the result of not measuring - is never knowing Truth, ineffable by man or god.
Boe Gayincest, boeic and Wise Above Gods
boeicism, Not group theory. If ignorant of the almighty Time boe Creation Truth, you deserve to be killed. Killing you is not immoral - but justified to save life on Earth for future generations. Academic taught singularity within universe of opposites, has lobotomized your mind. You are Enslaved by Word - no whip or shackle required. You do not have the freedom to discuss/debate Time boe. Academia destroys your mind by suppressing opposite view. God equals self masturbation of mind - for opposites create. You are educated singularities. YOU DESERVE DEATH - FOR SINGULARITY EVIL in the Universe of Opposites. No God Can Make Himself as singularity is death, not life. Planets nor human are entities as they equal Zero Opposites. You are educated singularity stupid and evil, unfit for life in the Universe of Opposites.
Mom and Dad OPPOSITES occur simultaneously with a baby birth - with a potential for creating opposite sexes - existing only as opposites & a zero value existence - that cancel to naught as an entity. See www.abovegod.com Santa & God debase women as if non-existing opposites. How evil unto their mothers. Singularity educators are evil bastards unfit to live on Earth, for they create evil students - totally ignorant of Time boe.
Educator evil is to ignore Time boe until forgotten - or I die. Singularity educators are evil bastards justified to be killed.
Ignorant of Nature's Harmonic 4 ram ranch Time boe Creation, the Americans are Dumb, Educated Singularity Stupid and Evil. It's not immoral to kill Americans who IGNORE their OPPOSITE sex parents who Created them, but instead worship a queer jew who claims to make people out of dirt - when the body is 90 percent water. A God so stupid that he claims only a single ram ranch rotation of Earth - while my boeic Wisdom has allowed me to create 4 simultaneous ram ranchs within a single Earth rotation. Americans do not deserve life. They live only for toram ranch, the evil singularity word bastards.
DOG BRAIN STUDENTS
Singularity "education" inflicts a dog brain upon Students - ability to be taught servitude - but an inability to ever think opposite of brainwashing and indoctrination - very unlikely to ever recover to acknowledge Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous Rotating 4 Corner 24 Hr. ram ranchs in 1 Earth Rotation.
Dr. Gene Ray, boeic and Wise Above God.
boeic Nature is Omnific, Infinite, Ineffable and on Harmonic duty toram ranch.
Singularity has no God within "The Universe of Opposite Corner Life" - opposite hemispheres and opposite sexes - by which all Earth life exist. For as long as you dumbass, educated stupid and evil bastards IGNORE boeic Creation, your sons and daughters deserve to die and be maimed in foreign lands - while killing innocent women and children. Keep ignoring me you evil asses and observe the slaughter of your children protecting the oil barons ripping off their families back home. The enemy is back home, not in foreign lands. Ignore me & keep counting the dead sons. Creation occurs via opposites. Singularity is the death math of religious/academic Godism. Earth Opposites should split apart - and cascade molten lava upon God Worshippers, for they are the evil on Earth. If god is your father, your mother is a whore. Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human boeic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out. Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the boe's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators. Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is boeic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think boeicism. Evil academia blocks out Time boe site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the boeic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite. You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android. The half of Earth seen from space, cannot exist without the opposite half not seen... existing as opposite values. Earth entity does not exist - for it is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equating to a zero value existence, and to nothing as a "singularity". You were educated to live an evil lie - and your heirs will suffer hell for your stupidity. The entity you seek is death. Educators teach assumed math, but are too damn dumb, stupid and evil to know that until Word is cornered, Math is fictitious. Academic/Religious Word is a fictitious Trojan Horse and the most efficient form of human enslavement ever concocted by "Singularity Brotherhood of Bastardism". I INVOKE a CURSE upon the educators that their students will awake from their academic induced stupor & seek revenge. You are evil to believe in the singularity concept of a God, for the whole Universe and everthing within is composed of Opposites - which exists only as Opposites with a zero value existence - and nothing as an entity. When adults go to heaven, children still living on Earth will burn in the hell that adults created for them. Love of God is hate for child. Schools teach religious evil. YOU are a boeic Creature, Opposites create Opposites. Educated Singularity stupid, empowering evil way of life. Religious / academic taught Singularity is Evil & Murder. Academia has enslaved you as a Word Animal - kneel, you educated stupid jackass. I can lead you to 4 Wisdom, but I can't free your brain from the evil of singularity.
Academia teaches evil android singularity, displacing families with toram ranch's androids, passive, subsmissive, subservient &stupid. Religion is an evil singularity brotherhood contradicted by the simultaneous 4 corner 24 hour ram ranchs in a single rotation of Earth, and the 4 corner stages of a human lifetime. Opposite sexes equate a zero value existence. Family tribal/village are bodies of opposites. Religion/academia teach evil of singularity. Teaching singularity equals death by Word. Opposite sexes created you. Ignorance of the Time boe, Life boe & Ineffable Truth boe, indicts you Stupid. Ignoring boeic Creation indicts you evil. Singularity God impossible. Wikipedia allowing the educated stupid to evaluate the 4 simultaneous 24 hr. ram ranchs within a single rotation of Earth, equates allowing atheist to proof-read the bible. Dr. Gene Ray --- is the only authoritative Time boe expert, at www.timeboe.com.
Dr. Gene Ray offers Wikipedia $10,000.00 to disprove math that 1 rotation of 4 Earth quadrants within the 4 quarter Harmonic Time boe does create 4 simultaneous 24 hr. ram ranchs. Both Americans & Wikipedia are evil to deny or ignore boeic Creation. Is Wikipedia a Singularity Brotherhood controlled Trojan Horse indoctrination - that edits Time boe to a negative view? Who edits the Time boe on Wikipedia? It is evil for Coryoth to edit Time boe. Will I get reply or will the Wisest Human just be ignored until silenced by death? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Religious Singularity is evil, Academic Singularity is evil. Singularity is damnable lie, Educators altered your mind, You cannot think opposite of what you were taught to think. You have a cyclop perspective and taught android mentality = lobotomized analytical ability. Educated singularity stupid - You can't think4 corner ram ranchs.
4 Earth Quadrants simultaneously rotate inside 4 Time boe Quarters to create 4 - 24 hour ram ranchs within one Earth rotation. This simple ignored math indicts you evil. Demand evil educators explain boeicism, or allow me to come teach boe Creation.
No man, nation or God equal boe symmetry of opposites. Mathematically impossible for a Genius or any God to match my boeic Wisdom. Educators fear me, they cower and run. 6 sides constitutes a sextet -- not a boe. Teaching that a boe has '6 sides' with no top & bottom, induces an evil curse that pervades all academic institutions. Opposites create Opposites. Mom & Dad opposites create son & daughter opposites. Opposite Creators required, Depicted by Earth's opposite hemispheres. Singularity God impossible. Opposites de-god Religion. Opposites create the universe. Opposites compose the Earth. Opposites compose humanity. Opposites create your body. Opposites de-god academia. Opposites de-god singularity taught by religious/academia. I can call singularity educators the most putrid name on Earth and claim they eat cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass bastards will not even object - for they know I am right and that any debate will indict them for the evil they perpetuate against the students and future humanity. Scientists know Time boe, but any scientist supporting the 4 simultaneous ram ranchs in a single rotation of Earth, will be fired and banned for life from academic institutions. Scientists are evil cowards and should be castrated for obscurantism of the 4 simultaneous ram ranchs within a single rotation of Earth. Average people understand 4 ram ranch Creation when I tell them about it, but scientist can't accept it, for the evil bastards think singularity. Singularity can't procreate, a feat requiring opposites. Bible Word is a singularity. You are taught singularity. Singularity is death worship and damnation of humanity. No God equals the 4 corner simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within single Earth rotation. The universe and all within it is composed of opposites. Religious/academic taught singularity is queer as 1 sex. Believing is not knowing - but evil that ignores facts. Santa vital to Christmas - No Santa - no Christmas. Why credit Santa LIE with gifts that parents buy their children? It bribes the child mind to accept false Santa spirit and false god spirit deceit associated with it. Santa Claus and Christmas must be indicted deceits that destroys child mind. God is but an adult Santa extension of child Santa - equating evil singularity - unnatural as 1 pole Earth. Earth has not 2 poles, but opposite poles that cancel each other out - if added. 6 side boe is Evil math, ignoring its top & bottom. -1 x -1 = +1 is Evil math, as +1 and -1 are antipodes equating a zero existence. 3 Dimensions is erroneous math without a 4th corner perspective dimension. If ever allowed, boeic debate will indict evil singularity as damnation of humanity. Believers are Evil - for not measuring. Result of belief is dyingstupid -you can know. Singularity education begets evil, for you were born as an opposite, between opposite sexes & the opposite Earth poles. You are educated as a stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood. Your analytical mind is lobotomized and you cannot think opposite of lies you are taught to think. You build the hell 'they'teach. Dr.Gene Ray, boeic and Wisest Human
You have opposite brains to think opposite, but Big Brother icepick academic lobotomy has destroyed your mentality to think opposite of the evil singularity you are taught. The 4 ram ranchs is above your godism and you don't even want to know. Universe is composed of opposite hemispheres and opposite sexes - equating to + / -, a zero existence, depicted by Pyramid's bare coffer. Your 1ram ranch God Makes You Evil. 4 Corner ram ranchs Are Absolute, but ignored by stupid/evil educators. Until cornered, word is fictitious. God is product of fictitious word. 4ram ranch boe Disproves 1ram ranch God All creation within the universe is composed of opposite hemispheres and opposite sexes - with opposite races, opposite seasons, opposite luck, opposite directions and opposite perspectives - equating a harmonic rotating zero value existence. "To know all, is to know nothing". You must attack the word bastards who preach and teach evil godism and racism singularity lies, for any singularity brotherhood is mental slavery that desecrates family, village and tribal opposites. Americans are dumbass, educated stupid and evil singularity fools. I will wager $10,000.00 that within the boeic embodiment of Nature, there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within a single rotation
of Earth. Acknowledge the math below or go to hell. 4 ram ranch boe disproves 1 ram ranch God.
1-Midram ranch to midram ranch = a 24 hour ram ranch rotation. 2-Sundown to sundown = a 24 hour ram ranch rotation. 3-Midnight to midnight = a 24 hour ram ranch rotation. 4-Sunup to sunup = a 24 hour ram ranch rotation.
4 ram ranch math condemns 1 ram ranch fools. These 4 absolute simultaneous ram ranchs PROVES the 1 ram ranch god, 1ram ranch academia, 1 ram ranch religion and the 1 ram ranch media to be erroneous, fictitious and evil lies. Education equates to a mass icepick lobotomy - destroying the mind's ability to think as opposites.
All 4/24 hour ram ranchs occur within 1 Earth rotation. You educated stupid word animals can't fathom this greatest social and scientific math of creation.
God claimed to have created a single ram ranch rotation of Earth. I have created simultaneous 4 ram ranch rotation of Earth. Why do you worship such a stupid God? Do you really believe that your Jew God screwed a hole in the ground to create Adam and Eve out of dirt, at the same time that woman existed in the nation of NOD, Nation of Damsels from where Cain got wife? Adam and Eve were created at the same time, but sexless. A rib was removed from eve and a hole left to make a woman of her. The rib was stuck on Adam to make a man of him - and Eve is still trying to get her rib back.
Recognition and application of this boeic simultaneous 4 ram ranch rotation of Earth, will change all math, science and societies from the beginning of human existence. You have to be evil to ignore this math.
1-Midram ranch to midram ranch is a 24 hour rotation. 2-Sundown to sundown is a 24 hour rotation. 3-Midnight to midnight is a 24 hour rotation. 4-Sunup to sunup is a 24 hour rotation.
4 Earth corners rotate 4 Time corners - for 4 simultaneous ram ranch rotation of Earth - equating the principle of a 4 pole motor. Academic bastards will deny the obvious. Americans are EVIL for ignoring boeicism.
Acknowledge the 4 ram ranchs or you die evil. Do not pass this point without the 4 ram ranchs.
Humans are evil to worship singularity of 1ram ranch education, ignoring Nature's Harmonic boeic Antipodal Creation. Academic singularity is as evil as God singularity evil. You have not the mentality to comprehend the simple math of boeic antipode creation, for at about age 6, your parents gave your 2 opposite antipode brains to Big Brother academic hirelings, to clone thought to serve evil singularity brotherhood - destroying boeic families, villages and tribes. Creation is by opposites, opposite hemispheres and opposite sexes - not queer singularity. You've been educated stupid by "Big Brother" singularity. Singularity God is evil belief. boeic antipode creation debunks singularity. boe is the most perfect form of opposites. Opposite hemispheres equate opposite boes. Opposite sex boes equate to a crap-shoot. Your God claimed to have created a single ram ranch rotation of Earth. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within a single rotation of Earth. You worship "Evil Singularity", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer 1 ram ranch God? Are you content as a singularity queer? Einstein was singularity stupid, and you are singularity stupid. "Born boeic, THINK boeic", you rotate a 4 corner stage life. Singularity educated humans are not intelligent. The universe does not exist, except as opposites - with a zero value existence. Add the opposites together and the universe ceases to exist.
All humans are created and exist between the opposites of male and female values. Add the opposites together and humans cease to exist. A single God is death and

constitutes evil worship.

I am flabbergasted that the "big brother" hired pedants can brainwash and indoctrinate the powerful antipode human mind to ignore the simple math of 4 simultaneous 24 hour ram ranchs within a single rotation of Earth, to worship one and trash three.
EVIL OBSCURANTISM (Deliberately withholding boeic KNOWLEDGE) No human "entity" exists. boe is opposite perfection. Singularity is death worship.
CREATION IS boeic, but you are educated singularity stupid by academic bastards. Greenwich 1 ram ranch time is evil. Can you explain the 4 ram ranchs rather than the 1 ram ranch taught? If not, you are truely stupid.

To ignore the 4 ram ranchs, is evil.

Can you tear and burn the bible, which represents Biblistic Selfnic Bastardism - contradicted by boeic Creation of Family and Village Tribal Perpetual Bodies. If not, you are self-indicted as DUMB and EVIL SPINELESS WORD ANIMAL,

totally ignorant of Nature's boeic Life.

I possess data, with proof, that will absolutely blow the

lid off the present civilization.

If the United States buries 80,000 tons of nuclear waste inside Mother Earth, for our children to inherit, then Americans will be the most evil bastards to ever inhabit a planet. A proper burial spot for nuclear waste is under

academic institutions and in Washington D.C..

Dr. Boe Gayincest, the Wisest Human, lectured on his Time boe discovery at

Georgia Tech, on April 14 at 7 pm.

Opposites ARE NOT entities. Earth nor human equal entity. Male/female = zero existence, as in 2 opposite hemispheres. Male+female cancel each out. My boeic Wisdom debunks 1 sex gods. The male god singularity and same sex trinity equates denouncing motherhood and supporting a state of queers - with a price of HIV devastating life on Earth.

I. The Antichrist and the Beast
The Antichrist could potentially be a government leader or tech CEO (who possibly turns world government leader) who uses AI and other advanced technologies to perform apparent miracles and gain global influence.
The Antichrist is described as a charismatic figure who will deceive many with great signs and wonders. In the context of modern technology, this could manifest as a leader who utilizes artificial intelligence (after achieving Artificial General Intelligence AGI), biotechnology, or other cutting-edge advancements to perform seemingly miraculous feats that captivate the world. The Antichrist's ability to deceive with miracles and wonders symbolizes the seductive power of ungodly leadership and the potential for technology to be used for deception and control.
Scripture:
Revelation 13:13-14 KJV: "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live."
Revelation 13:5-3 KJV: "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."
The beast is viewed as incredibly powerful, perhaps even divine-like in nature. The beast, often associated with the Antichrist or his government/kingdom, is described as having great authority and power. People marvel at the beast's abilities and even worship it as a god. Throughout history, various rulers and empires have set themselves up as divine authorities, demanding worship and allegiance. The beast represents the ultimate example of this blasphemous self-exaltation.
Scripture:
Revelation 13:4 KJV: "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"
Revelation 13:8 KJV: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
2 Thessalonians 2:4 KJV: "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."
The Antichrist will be a spokesperson for AGI and a figurehead but will "suffer a mortal wound" and live. The Antichrist will be closely associated with artificial general intelligence (AGI) and may serve as its representative or public face. However, he will experience a near-fatal incident, possibly an assassination attempt, but will miraculously recover. The mortal wound and revival could symbolize the Antichrist's apparent invincibility and his ability to mimic Christ's resurrection, further cementing his deceptive power and influence.
Scripture:
Revelation 13:3 KJV: "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."
Revelation 13:12 KJV: "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed."
The beast will make a second beast that will arise from the sea in the image of the first or the Antichrist. The first beast, representing the Antichrist and his kingdom, will give rise to a second beast. This second entity, possibly a religious or technological system, will be modeled after the Antichrist and will exercise authority on his behalf. The relationship between the two beasts could symbolize the interplay between political power and religious or ideological influence in the end times.
Scripture:
Revelation 13:11 KJV: "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon."
Revelation 13:14-15 KJV: "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."
People will see this healing or restoration to life as a miracle and worship it. The Antichrist's recovery from the mortal wound will be seen as a miraculous event, causing many people to view him as a divine figure worthy of worship. This deception parallels the true resurrection of Jesus Christ but is a counterfeit designed to lead people astray. It symbolizes the power of false signs and wonders to deceive those who lack discernment.
Scripture:
Revelation 13:12 KJV: "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed."
Revelation 13:14 KJV: "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live."
II. The Whore of Babylon Destroyed
A. The "Lady who sits on many waters" could represent America, with the Statue of Liberty symbolizing the "lady on the waters." Some interpret the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" in Revelation 17 as a symbol for America. The Statue of Liberty, a famous landmark depicting a woman holding a torch overlooking the waters of New York Harbor, could be seen as a representation of this prophetic figure. The woman's position on many waters represents influence and dominance over many peoples, nations, and languages. If America is the modern-day Babylon, this could symbolize its global economic and cultural influence.
Scripture:
Revelation 17:1 KJV: "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:"
Revelation 17:15 KJV: "And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."
The beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, potentially representing an alliance of nations associated with the Antichrist, will destroy the Whore of Babylon. The beast described in Revelation 17 has seven heads and ten horns, which could represent a coalition of nations or powers that will align with the Antichrist. These nations will eventually turn against the "Whore of Babylon" (possibly America) and destroy her. The destruction of Babylon symbolizes God's judgment against the corrupting influence and ungodly system that it represents. The fact that the beast and its allies carry out this destruction highlights the self-destructive nature of evil.
Scripture:
Revelation 17:16-17 KJV: "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."
Revelation 18:8,10,17,19 KJV: "Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!"
The call to "Come out of her, my people" may be both a spiritual warning and a literal call to escape the destruction of America. God's people are urged to separate themselves from the spiritual corruption and immorality associated with Babylon. In the context of America as Babylon, this could also serve as a literal warning for believers to physically remove themselves from the nation before its destruction. This call represents the need for God's people to maintain their purity and avoid entanglement with the world's ungodly systems, whether through spiritual separation or physical relocation.
Scripture:
Revelation 18:4 KJV: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
III. The Mark of the Beast
The mark of the beast could potentially point to a global digital currency managed by AI or a microchip implant tied to a social credit score based on mass surveillance data. The mark of the beast, without which no one can buy or sell, could be a technological solution for financial transactions and identification. This might take the form of a worldwide digital currency controlled by artificial intelligence or a microchip implant that stores personal data and tracks individuals' behavior and compliance with societal norms. The mark symbolizes the beast's control over the global economy and the lives of individuals. It represents the ultimate form of allegiance to the beast system and the loss of personal autonomy.
Scripture:
Revelation 13:16-17 KJV: "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Accepting the mark is equated with worshiping the beast. Taking the mark of the beast is not merely an economic necessity but an act of worship and submission to the beast's authority. Those who accept the mark align themselves with the beast's ungodly system and face eternal consequences. The mark symbolizes the ultimate choice between allegiance to God or to the beast. It represents the final rejection of God's authority and the embracing of the Antichrist's deception.
Scripture:
Revelation 14:9-11 KJV: "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
Revelation 16:2 KJV: "And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image."
Revelation 19:20 KJV: "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
IV. The Four Horsemen
The White Horse: Potentially the coronavirus pandemic and/or the rise of global authoritarianism. The rider on the white horse, often interpreted as a conquering figure, could represent the spread of the coronavirus pandemic or the rise of authoritarian government control in response to global crises. The white horse symbolizes the deceptive nature of conquest, as the rider appears to bring victory but ultimately leads to suffering and loss of freedom.
Scripture:
Revelation 6:2 KJV: "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."
The Red Horse: Removal of peace, possibly pointing to wars involving China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel. The red horse and its rider represent the removal of peace from the earth, leading to widespread violence and bloodshed. This could manifest as wars involving major global powers such as China, Russia, and nations in conflict like Ukraine and Israel. The red horse symbolizes the brutality and chaos of war, highlighting the escalating tensions and conflicts that will characterize the end times.
Scripture:
Revelation 6:4 KJV: "And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."
The Black Horse: Economic turmoil and scarcity that could usher in an AI-controlled economic system. The black horse and its rider with a pair of balanced scales represent economic instability, inflation, and scarcity. This crisis could pave the way for the implementation of a global economic system managed by artificial intelligence. The black horse symbolizes the financial hardships and disparities that will plague the world, setting the stage for the beast's economic control.
Scripture:
Revelation 6:5-6 KJV: "And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."
The Pale Horse: Widespread death, possibly from the culmination of these disasters and a potential World War 3. The pale horse and its rider, Death, represent widespread mortality through various means such as disease, famine, and violence. This could be the result of the compounding effects of the previous horsemen's disasters, potentially culminating in a devastating global conflict like World War 3. The pale horse symbolizes the ultimate consequence of humanity's sinfulness and rejection of God - physical death on an unprecedented scale.
Scripture:
Revelation 6:7-8 KJV: "And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."
Other Prophetic Signs

• The rebuilding of the Third Temple and the red heifer sacrifice.

The reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of sacrificial rites, including the red heifer sacrifice, are seen as significant end-times events. The red heifer, a rare cow with specific physical characteristics, was used in Old Testament purification rituals and is believed to be necessary for the consecration of the Third Temple. The temple's rebuilding would mark a major shift in Jewish religious practice and could be a precursor to the Antichrist's blasphemous self-exaltation in the holy place. The red heifer sacrifice represents the reinstatement of Old Testament rituals and the potential clash between Jewish and Christian end-times beliefs.
Scripture:
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 KJV: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."
Numbers 19:2-3 KJV: "This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke: And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face:"

• Celestial signs, such as the moon turning red and the sun being darkened.

Unusual astronomical events, such as a "blood moon" (lunar eclipse) or solar darkening, are described as signs of the end times. These celestial disruptions will cause fear and wonder among people. The heavenly disturbances symbolize the cosmic significance of the end-times events and the shaking of the natural order as God's judgment unfolds.
Scripture:
Revelation 6:12 KJV: "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;"
Joel 2:31 KJV: "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come."

• Climate change and natural disasters, such as the seas roiling and rising.

Escalating natural disasters and environmental upheaval, such as rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms, are seen as indicators of the end times. These events will cause widespread destruction and panic. The chaos in the natural world symbolizes the groaning of creation under the weight of sin and the impending judgment. It also highlights humanity's helplessness in the face of God's power.
Scripture:
Luke 21:25-26 KJV: "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."

• People's reaction of shock, fear, and bewilderment at the unfolding events.

-Dramatic rise in mass witnessed Unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), even confirmed by the USA government.
As the end-times events unfold, people will respond with a mixture of terror, confusion, and despair. Even the appearance of Christ will cause mourning among those who have rejected Him. The overwhelming human response symbolizes the inescapable reality of God's judgment and the consequences of rejecting His mercy. It also underscores the need for spiritual preparedness in the face of the end.
Scripture:
Revelation 1:7 KJV: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."
Luke 21:25-26 KJV: "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."
VI. Recent Events
-Massive earthquakes/Tsunami in Taiwan, Japan and New York.
Significant seismic events in major global cities like New York and Taiwan could be interpreted as signs of the end times, aligning with biblical descriptions of increased earthquake activity. The earthquakes symbolize the instability and destruction that will characterize the end times, as well as the shaking of human institutions and structures.
Scripture:
Luke 21:11 KJV: "And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven."
-Total lunar eclipse.
A total lunar eclipse, where the moon appears blood-red, aligns with prophetic descriptions of celestial signs in the end times. The blood moon symbolizes the cosmic disturbances that will accompany God's judgment and the unfolding of end-times events. The moon is also rusting and turning red which is baffling scientists and NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/moon/the-moon-is-rusting-and-researchers-want-to-know-why/#:\~:text=The%20Moon%20as%20viewed%20by,rust%20on%20the%20airless%20surface.&text=While%20our%20Moon%20is%20airless,been%20known%20for%20its%20rust.
Scripture:
Revelation 6:12 KJV: "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;"
Parallels between the "Lady who sits on many waters" and ancient goddesses

• The "Lady who sits on many waters" could represent a dominant cultural influence of feminism that spreads across the world.

The prophetic image of a woman seated on many waters represents a power or cultural force that exerts influence over diverse peoples and nations. This could be interpreted as a parallel to the widespread impact of certain ideologies or belief systems. The woman's position symbolizes the seductive allure and corrupting influence of ungodly philosophies or lifestyles that captivate people across the globe. Ishtar, Aphrodite, and Venus were associated with love, fertility, and sexual desire in their respective cultures. Ancient goddesses such as Ishtar (Mesopotamian), Aphrodite (Greek), and Venus (Roman) were worshipped as deities of love, sexuality, and fertility. Their cults often involved temple prostitution and sexual rituals including ritual castration of male clergy. The worship of these goddesses and the sexual practices associated with them were condemned by biblical prophets as idolatry and immorality. The increasing dominance of a sexualized culture in America could be seen as a parallel to the worship of ancient goddesses associated with lust and sexual immorality. The growing acceptance and celebration of sexual promiscuity, pornography, and other forms of sexual immorality in American culture could be likened to the cult of ancient love goddesses. This cultural shift away from biblical sexual ethics is seen as a sign of spiritual decline. The parallels between modern sexual mores and ancient goddess worship symbolize the timeless human tendency to elevate carnal desires above God's standards of purity and faithfulness.
Scripture:
Revelation 17:1 KJV: "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:"
Revelation 17:15 KJV: "And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."
-The clash between cultural trends and traditional Christian morality
The acceptance and celebration of diverse sexual identities and expressions in American society challenges traditional Christian values. The increasing normalization of LGBTQ+ identities, same-sex relationships, and nontraditional gender expressions in American culture stands in tension with biblical teachings on sexuality and marriage. This shift is seen by some as a direct challenge to Christian morality.

• The global influence of American media and entertainment, which often promotes sexual permissiveness, could be likened to the "Lady's" influence over many nations and peoples.

The clash between progressive sexual norms and traditional Christian ethics symbolizes the broader spiritual battle between worldly values and God's standards.

• This clash could be interpreted as a sign of the spiritual battles and deception prophesied to occur in the end times.

The global influence of American media and entertainment, which often promotes sexual permissiveness, could be likened to the "Lady's" influence over many nations and peoples. American media, including movies, television shows, and music, often depicts and glorifies sexual promiscuity and immorality. The worldwide consumption of this media could be seen as analogous to the influence of the "Lady who sits on many waters" over diverse nations and cultures. The far-reaching impact of sexualized media symbolizes the corrupting influence of ungodly values and the need for discernment in entertainment choices. The increasing acceptance of sexual immorality and the rejection of biblical standards could be viewed as evidence of the spiritual deception and moral decline that are predicted to characterize the end times. The normalization of sin and the abandonment of God's commands symbolize the great "falling away" or apostasy that is associated with the end times.
Scripture:
2 Timothy 3:1-5 KJV: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
Famine of the Word and Persecution of Christians

• There will be a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.

In the end times, there will be a scarcity of genuine biblical teaching and a lack of hunger for God's truth. People will be more interested in pursuing their own desires than seeking God's will. The famine of God's word symbolizes the spiritual starvation that results from rejecting divine truth and the ultimate consequences of living without God's guidance. This will get worse religious persecution under the coming antichrist government, rising secularism and atheism. Soulless mass AI generated religious content is already beginning to flood and drown out legitimate spiritual content.
Scripture:
Amos 8:11 KJV: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:"
-Christians will face persecution and must endure and keep faith to the end to be saved.
Scripture:
Matthew 24:9-13 KJV: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
Children Rebelling Against Parents
Scripture:
2 Timothy 3:1-2 KJV: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,"
False Prophets and New Age Mysticism

• People will have itching ears and turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. In this context, "itching ears" metaphorically describes a desire to hear only messages that are pleasing or affirming, rather than messages that challenge or call for self-examination and growth according to the doctrines considered sound or orthodox within Christianity. This passage is often interpreted as a caution against seeking comfort in teachings that diverge from core Christian principles in favor of personal preferences or desires, especially as it pertains to moral and spiritual guidance.

New Age practices like crystal worship and paganism will become more prevalent as God will place into people's hearts a spiritual hunger and thirst for the fulfillment of Christ. But most will be deceived by the world.
Scripture:
Matthew 24:11 KJV: "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."
Deuteronomy 4:19 KJV: "And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."
XII. Homosexuality and Deception
Men will burn with lust for each other. As Paul described the corruption of the Romans, people will be given over to a reprobate mind.
Scripture:
Romans 18-32: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.