TLDR: Doran has a different father to Elia and Oberyn. Both fathers were Free City nobles. Doran's father died in the 251 RHPR. Elia and Oberyn's father died in the 260 WOTNK. This would explain why no one has mentioned them yet and the Martell's interest in the Free Cities.
Quick Note: My headcanon name for their mother is Neria. Just saves me typing "Doran's predecessor", "Oberyn's mother", "former princess of Dorne", etc.
The strongest and most sensible assumptions I've made about this subject are:

1. The fathes died before 273, the year Tyrion was born, during which Oberyn went on his betrothal journey with "my mother, her consort, and my sister Elia" (ASOS Tyrion V). It makes no sense for Oberyn to refer to his own father or Elia's as a consort.
2. Doran and Oberyn never mentioning their fathes points to a lack of sentiment in regards to them, which in turn points to them dying before the brothers were old enough to remember them much, and given their ~10-year age gap, they must've had different fathers for this to be true. Conversely, Elia and Oberyn have about a year between them, so they likely shared a father.
3. Both fathers were openly married to Neria, since there is no in-text speculation about the three siblings' legitimacy or paternity, and the likes of Joanna and Aerys II would never have considered marrying their heirs to anyone of questionable birth. You can't be pulling the Mormont "my children were fathered by bears lol" schtick when you're trying to betroth your daughter to the crown prince.
4. Both fathers were from prestigious enough backgrounds to marry the heiruler of Dorne but on individual levels were so unremarkable that even their own sons don't namedrop them from time to time.
5. Excluding the Martells, all the great houses and Dornish houses can be ruled out. Quentyn, Arianne and the Sand Snakes never mention any living cousins besides each other, and if either of their paternal grandfathers had been a non-Martell Dornish nobleman, Arianne would've mentioned his house when thinking of who she could trust to help her while imprisoned. I think it's also safe to write off the houses Elia and Oberyn visited on their betrothal voyage (Daynes, Redwynes, Hightowers, Chesters, Grimms, Hewetts, Serrys and Crakehalls).

With all that in mind, let's move onto some candidates:

Martell Man/Men

Consanguinity is common enough in Westeros: Tywin and Joanna were first cousins, and Cregan, Edric, and Rickard Stark show it's not taboo in the North, so unless the Rhoynar had an aversion to it that was carried pver into Dornish culture, there's no reason to think the Martells would be against it.
From the reign of Daeron II to that of Aerys II (i.e. 99 years), the Martells had close ties to the Targaryens. Though the deaths of Baelor Breakspear and his children put an end to the main Targ line having Martell ancestry, the "several heirs" (TWOIAF - The Targaryen Kings: Daeron II) Daenerys had borne for Maron were half-Targ. Though highly unlikely that they began to practice sibling incest, it's likely that in order to keep their Targ blood (and in turn the possibility of marrying back into the royal line) strong, some of Daenerys' grandchildren and great-grandchildren were married to each other. Neria might have been subject to this tradition, and therefore either her first husband, second husband or both could have been a descendant of Daenerys. This would help explain why the current Martells seem to be so small in number, as well as why Elia was chosen to be Rhaegar's wife over every other noble lady with Targ ancestry (really hard to imagine that all descendants of Saera, Baela, Rhaena, Elaena, Daella and Rhae at the time were either male, married, menopausal or less Targy).
However, Doran and his children point to this not being the case. If this tradition existed, then why was Doran not subject to it? If second-degree incest (is that what you're supposed to call it? I don't know, you get what I mean) was the Martell deal now, then why did Arianne feel so "uneasy" and ashamed when internally recalling her childhood crush on her uncle (AFFC The Queenmaker)? Furthermore, if Quentyn was the product of such intentional inbreeding, not only would it have been really stupid for him to not tell Dany this, he likely wouldn't have been burnt. If my calculations about Ben Plumm are correct, then he could be as little as 1/16th Targ, which is evidently enough dragonlord ancestry for dragons to take to a person (ASOS Danerys V). Rhaegal did not take to Quentyn, which means he must have less Targ ancestry than Ben (or perhaps there's a big difference between a dragon being cool with sitting on your shoulder and a dragon being cool with you screaming at it while cracking a whip). This is also why I don't believe that Doran is Aerys' bastard (along with there only being a four-year age gap between them), but what of Elia and Oberyn?

Aerys II

I don't think Elia and/or Oberyn are Aerys' bastards, though I understand why some might come to that conclusion. "Joanna Lannister was not the first lady to be dismissed abruptly from Her Grace's service, nor was she the last" (TWOIAF - The Targaryen Kings: Aerys II), Neria was one of Rhaella's ladies, and it would explain why Elia, out of all the noble women in Westeros and the Free Cities, was chosen to be Rhaegar's wife. However, Aerys would've had to have been 12-14 when they were conceived, it is unlikely he was interested in a woman old enough to be his mother when he was known to be "exceedingly fond of young women", and given that Aerys lost interest in his lovers quickly and both he and Neria seemed to have fertility issues, it's very improbable that they produced a child together, let alone two. The risk of trying to pass off your unborn child as legitimate only to be forced to admit you had a fling with the teenage crown prince after it pops out Valyrian would be such an insane one to take even once, and it's hard to imagine the mother and mentor of Doran doing such a thing.

Brynden Tully

This theory was mostly just me slamming two big questions together - who was Neria's husband/s and why did Brynden never marry - in hopes of forming an answer to both. For a short time I was gripped by the idea that Elia and Oberyn's father was a veteran of the War of the Ninepenny Kings and IIRC my thought process went something like this:
"Didn't the Blackfish fight during the WOTNK? GASP That's why he never married: he was already married to Neria! That's why he left Riverrun: he felt guilty for fighting for the side that ended up killing his daughter! That's (partially) why Doran refused Hoster's invitation for Arianne to visit Riverrun! Black fish, red viper, "colour" "animal" moniker, THIS MAKES TOTAL SENSE!"
As much as I'd love it to be true because the idea of Catelyn and Oberyn being first cousins is hilarious to me, it can't be. Among many other reasons, we only know him to be near Dorne in 260, 3-4 years after Elia and Oberyn were born. Now I think their father did not survive the war, just as Doran's father was killed in the 251 rebellion of the Rat, the Hawk, and the Pig, which took place when he was around three. Their fathers dying while they were still toddlers would explain why they haven't been mentioned yet.

Free City Noblemen

I think this is the strongest theory. It explains why we haven't heard anything about them; Westerosi nobles don't seem to care much about Free City politics, and the few examples of FC nobles marrying into Westerosi houses don't seem to elicit much intrigue outside of xenophobic villainisation and scapegoating (Larra Rogare and Serala of Myr come to mind).
It is possible that Aliandra Martell's marriage to Drazenko Rogare started a trend of Dornish nobles marrying and/or making paramours of FC people, particularly those of Lys. I believe Ellaria Sand's mother is Lyseni, since she is described as "exotic" (which is never used to describe the Dornish), worships a Lysene goddess and the names of her two youngest daughters, Dorea and Loreza, sound Lyseni (Dorea is one letter off of Doreah, the name of Dany's Lysene handmaid).
I don't think either Doran's or Elia and Oberyn's father were Lyseni, though it is one of the better options. The Free Cities I've written off as options are:

1. Lorath. It's too insignificant to marry into, not to mention far away.
   
2. Norvos. Would've been mentioned by now since Doran married a Norvoshi noble. Also Norvos is probably the poorest Free City after Lorath, so not a great match for a Dornish princess.
   
3. Tyrosh. Could've easily been mentioned when Doran told Arianne about his plan to send her to the Archon of Tyrosh. Also it was the Blackfyre stronghold, so unlikely to be an attractive option to the Martells.
   

That leaves Braavos, Pentos, Qohor, Myr, Lys and Volantis. Myr was close to being the fourth written-off city because having ties to Myr after the Defiance of Duskendale would've likely put the Martells in grave danger of Aerys' paranoia. On top of that, along with Tyrosh and Lys, Myr is a historic rival of Dorne's for dominion over the Stepstones. However, Taena of Myr looks a lot like Arianne, and she could be one of Dorne's "friends at court" (ADWD The Watcher). Perhaps she is a cousin?
Out of the six, my preference is that Doran's father was Qohorik while Elia and Oberyn's father was Volantene.
Qohor is one of the most fascinating Free Cities and yet we know so little about it. We don't even know what type of government they have. It would fit Doran's character to partially hail from such a secretive city.
Elia and Oberyn's father being a Volantene noble would explain why Elia was chosen over every other highborn girl in Westeros and the Free Cities to be Rhaegar's wife (maybe they descend from Saera's son by a Triarch?), as well as how Oberyn got behind the Black Walls so quickly and got away with fathering a bastard by a woman "of the noblest blood of Old Volantis". One might wonder why no one has mentioned this, especially since their nephew Quentyn was in Volantis, but technically he's not related to Elia and Oberyn's father any more than he is Nym's mother, and if Oberyn left Volantis on bad terms, it'd probably have been best for Quentyn to not use his connection to him as leverage.
Together with Doran's marriage to Mellario, that would give the Martells connections to Norvos, Qohor and Volantis, the three Free Cities that are located along the Rhoyne, their ancestral home. Funny, that.

Up until I was nearly 13, my mom would have me "soak in the tub" with her. Not necessarily showering, but literally sit in the tub with her. It was a normal sized tub and due to the fact that there were two people in it, we were always forced to sit with her between my legs and me between hers. I would sleep in her bed more often than any other kid my age did.
Now that I am older, I cannot help but to think about how inappropriate that was for a mother to do with her child. I still feel very uncomfortable about it. Is this cover incest like I think it might be?

TW- Mentions of Abuse and Suicide
My biggest difficulty with leaving my family behind is regarding my two little brothers. They both have autism, with one of them also having a bit of cerebral palsy. I love them, and I also hope and wish for the best for them. The problem stems from my family. I will not go into exact detail, but the amount of abuse I had endured from my mother, and an absent father, plus from many others, coupled with certain familial and cultural issues, means that I have one of two options.
Either I kill myself, or eventually, after some years of work and savings, I will have to leave the state I am in. For context, I am in the United States, Maryland to be specific. I have this...guilt. This guilt from wanting to leave. I know that it would be the best thing for me. Finally being...free. Yes, it would be nice. I have had a history of violent and horrific abuse. Physical, Sexual, Emotional, and Psychological. It also does not help that incest was an abuse used against me. There is also some spiritual abuse as well. Namely, that my Mom and other family members engage in a form of witchcraft that is very malicious in intent (even though I don't believe in it).
from
I am a man. My issues aren't taken seriously, and frankly, that's okay. I wish to live in a nice and cold state. I hate the humidity and heat in Maryland. Away from everyone and everything, I could finally be free. I love being in nature. I wish I could have gone camping when I was younger, but my Mom didn't allow it. She believed it wouldn't be "safe" for me (ironic, given what was done to me).
I don't know. I am in therapy, and I have a psychiatrist. I will ask them about this. Still, I am curious to hear from all of you. I hope all of you can heal, and either can be, or hopefully will be in a better and more safe place.

I can't eat anymore
⚠️My problem is linked to an eating disorder but it stems from violent things and abuse happening to another person, I prefer to warn you⚠️ (M23) Hello everybody It's been 2 months since I had to end a relationship with a bipolar person. I am an emotionally dependent person And I let a lot of things go in this relationship, drug abuse, alcohol, going out late at night, meanness and so on... I thought I made the right choice, I still think so in fact But after two weeks it became a roller coaster in my head One day I feel like king of the world One day I don't get out of bed and hate myself But recently the problem is that I no longer feed myself I don't even feel hungry anymore, I couldn't tell you when my last meal was, but to be honest I don't even know how I'm still up. Eating was one of my greatest pleasures which I associate with the love shared a meal for me it is one of the best feelings. But when I am abandoned and everything falls into ruin there are things that I can no longer do, see, or hear In this relationship we had a very strong connection around meals, it was sacred. As a result I can no longer eat The only thing that goes into my stomach is a can of beer or monster every now and then, and sometimes I drink a little water in the shower. I'm broken and I don't know what to do
I don't like this person anymore but their problems have somehow traumatized me Abuse during childhood, incest, mother loss, grooming, drug abuse Now that the feeling and the person are gone I feel like I'm traumatized by everything I heard everything that happened to her through transfer
Has this ever happened to anyone? How to make it stop?

⚠️My problem is linked to an eating disorder but it stems from violent things and abuse happening to another person, I prefer to warn you⚠️ (M23) Hello everybody It's been 2 months since I had to end a relationship with a bipolar person. I am an emotionally dependent person And I let a lot of things go in this relationship, drug abuse, alcohol, going out late at night, meanness and so on... I thought I made the right choice, I still think so in fact But after two weeks it became a roller coaster in my head One day I feel like king of the world One day I don't get out of bed and hate myself But recently the problem is that I no longer feed myself I don't even feel hungry anymore, I couldn't tell you when my last meal was, but to be honest I don't even know how I'm still up. Eating was one of my greatest pleasures which I associate with the love shared a meal for me it is one of the best feelings. But when I am abandoned and everything falls into ruin there are things that I can no longer do, see, or hear In this relationship we had a very strong connection around meals, it was sacred. As a result I can no longer eat The only thing that goes into my stomach is a can of beer or monster every now and then, and sometimes I drink a little water in the shower. I'm broken and I don't know what to do
I don't like this person anymore but their problems have somehow traumatized me Abuse during childhood, incest, mother loss, grooming, drug abuse Now that the feeling and the person are gone I feel like I'm traumatized by everything I heard everything that happened to her through transfer
Has this ever happened to anyone? How to make it stop?

God knows there are so many to choose from. "Here we come walkin' down the street" or "I don't mind other guys dancing with my girl" or "Run through the land of the ice and the snow". And I'm sure yours are in perpetual flux like mine but here are some of my eternals. "Someday I'm gonna smack your face" - Sometimes by the Stranglers "Get up and get your grandma outta here !" - Deuce by Kiss "Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when you're trying to be so quiet" - Visions of Johanna by Bob Dylan "I'm an alligator. I'm a mama-papa coming for you" - Moonage Daydream by David Bowie "So you photographed with Charlie Watts. It doesn't mean to say you're not just a loser" - Trash by Robyn Hitchcock "A son who is cursed with a harridan mother or a weak simpering father at best is doomed to play out the timeless classical motives of filial love and incest. But how does he - how does he talk to the prettiest girl ?" - How Do You Speak To An Angel ? by Lou Reed.

COLPORTED "THE STASI OFFSPRING WHORE (HUSBANDS?`) STASI HVA CRIMINAL IN TRADITION ; FRAUDULENT FALSE IMPERSONIFICATOR OF : HUMANIST : INTELLECTUAL : DEMOCRAT : EVEN PHILOLOGIST (LzfRPh#0 cRETIN:PLAGIAIRSM) ... GROEHLT : HOWLS VULGAR? SEE THIS IS A DAUGHTER OF DR RITE (UNABLE TO SPEAK AND THINK HIGH GERMAN LANGUAGE, CRETIN FAMILY GR. :::: A WHORE BY DEFINTION (ANY SEXUAL CONTACT TO HER GIANT DOGS?! THESE SLEPT IN BED! NEICE OF THE CRETIN HANS SED PARTEISCHULE CRETIN "HANIBAL LECTER" EISENBERG WURST UNION (VISUAL IMPRESSION: PATH CRIMINAL. LOW CATEGORY UGLY VULGAR: NON INTELLECTUAL . DISGUSTING AWARD FOR UGLIEST GERMAN MOB ... .I CAN ATTACH EITHER ) OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHS (WHORE UGLIENESS ///// I CAN CITZE HER CRETIN WRITINGS CRETINISM POURS THROUGH EVER LINE OF.
ASK: HOW CAN THIS STASI HVA MOB KNOW ABOUT THIS AT ALL=
STASI ROMANIAN SOLUTION. I ANNOUNCE THE VIOLENT MISERABLE DEATH OF THIS SATANIC IUNCEST MOB I TESTIFY AGAINST FOR LIFE TIME. IN FOCUS OF CRIMINAL SERVICES FOR DECADES CF EBUNDESANZEIGER BLENDERTHUM FALSE IMPERSONIFICATORS, THEIR INTELLIGENCE DECREASED LIES ARE NOT BELIEVABLE AT ALL., THEIR HUBRIS THAT OF HARD LEARNINGS( PERSONS HAVING SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES E G TO LEARN laNGUAGES.... MOTHER DR RITE ....
I AM SON OF MRS DOCTOR SC PHIL MAGNA LATIN HIGH GERMAN OLD GERMAN A SO
STASI MOB SURVEILLED US FOR LIFE TIME.
AND _: I AM NOT ZOOPHILE. ANY ACCUSATOR PEVERSE SPEAKER WILL DIE MEET FIERCY BEASTS EATING HIM/HETHEM. WARNING.
SAU! IT IS EITHER LIE OF CRETINS THAT I EVER WAS THE OWNER HOLDER OF A MAMMAL PET. PUNISH MOB WHO DECLARED I WAS OWNER OF A RAT ONCE.
PS) GRUNWALD CRETIN LECTER HANS : OWNER OF MOKKI (?) THE FAKE-PREGANT GIANT DOG
ALL THESE WILL MEET THEIR HELL. BURN BURN BURN ALIVE STAKE
I REPORT / THESE ARE NAZI GERMANS ! REMIND ! NOT DEMOCRATS BUT VULGAR HEDONIST NAZI MOB IN FINANCIAL NEEDS DEBTS, aSOO SELF DECLARED SLAVE HOLDERS AND VIGILANTS .... LET SUCH CRETIN CRIMINAL MOB BEVER ATTEND HIGHER PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR FREE. SUPPOS ETHIS MOB COVERED THE OWN 2-GENERATION STASI ORIGIN EVEN IN SCHOOL (CF THE WIKIPEDIDA , LEGISLATIVE DIRECTORY .... REMIND THEM MOCK ABOUT THE FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE EGGERT_HEINZ (DECLARED TO BE AN INSANE. LUNATIC, DISABLED PERSON, STATEMENTS BY STASI HVA MOB NEX%T SUBALTERNATE TO HUMMITSCH.NSDAP194X....
I LOOK UP FOR OWN CONFIRMATION AND WILL SUBMIT TO U.S. ARCHIVE THE UGLY SELF-PORTRAIT OF THIS NAZI SCHIZO WHORE INCEST STASI CRIMINAL TO SURRENDER IN EVERY COURT TRIAL: CRETINISM.
MY PETITION: FORMALLY SUFFICIENT

I do not know where else to put this story, so I will write it on here because I know my family does not use this platform. If I wrote this story on Facebook, I would get negative replies from other family members.
​
I [41F] told my sister [38F] of 6 children that she was a useless parent.
13 years ago, my sister had given birth to my son. I was lesbian and infertile, my ex-partner is the same. My son has 3 older sisters and 2 older brothers. I will name them; Carla (19F), Kaiden (18M), Kevin (17M), Taylor (15F), Layla (14F) and my son (13M). (fake names, real age and gender).
My son, Taylor, Layla and Kevin were inseparable. They grew up together. They were the only siblings that lived with each other to the point where if you saw them on the streets you would say "are you Kevin's sistebrother?" or something like that. Nobody really knew that Carla and Kaiden were siblings with them, they were also not very close to each other. They didn't grow up "sibling close" the way my son, Taylor, Layla and Kevin did.
I think that if my sister had kept all her kids together, they wouldn't need to be told from what's wrong and what's right. Although, Kaiden grew up in a house with a lot of his young aunties and uncles.
When my niece, Taylor was 9, she started acting weird and didn't like going near her brothers and if she did, it wasn't close to them or anything. She didn't like being that close to any male at all, even if they were in a room full of people. This bothered me at first and made me think that Taylor had been sexually assaulted. Why? because that is exactly how I started acting when I was a child that had been sexually assaulted.
My niece also started making weird sex jokes like she knew what sex was, she was only 9 at the time and her parents would not tell her about sex because they thought she was too young to understand it. Turns out my niece is pretty smart and can easily catch onto things.
Fast forward 5 years later when Taylor was 14, she was far away from home when her cousins called home and said that Kaiden had raped her. Taylor said "he didn't rape me, he touched me down there". Those were her exact words. I remember hearing them and I just wanted to break down in tears. Taylor's other aunty (19F) we will call her Lara, she also stated that Kaiden has raped her too when they were living together, this went on for multiple nights in a row until Lara had moved out. I believed her words on this because they use to live across the road from me and I remember Lara's father yelling at Kaidens father for "letting that happen".
When Taylor came home to me, she told me that she wasn't meant to tell anyone because that is what her brother threatened her not to do. Taylor said "I only told one of my cousins because she told me he did that to her, we thought we were cool because we didn't know that it was bad to mess around with your siblings at the time."
Taylor told me that Kaiden didn't do it to her once, he did it to her twice. The first time being when she was 9 and the second time when she was 12. The first time she let it happen because she didn't know it was a bad thing. She went to school and told her friends about it who quickly told her how wrong it was. I'm glad she had those early matured friends, otherwise she would go on to thinking that incest is okay. The second time when she was 12, she told Kaiden no and that he's hurting her and he said "who cares, just let me do it". Now that is when it really was considered Sexual Assault because Taylor DID say no and if Taylor was 12 then Kaiden was 15 and knew all too well. Especially if he made her swear to not say a word, then yes of course he knew what he was doing.
My nephew Kaiden is in denial and so are Kevin and Carla. Only my son and Layla are the siblings that believe Taylor's story. Taylor gave such a detailed story and it has been the same story to everyone even when she was put on the spot, she has been woken up to tell the story so we can see if even a half awake girl like her would give us the same detailed story, and it was the same detailed story.
I told Taylor's mother that I will ask Taylor if she wants to take Kaiden to court. My sister (Taylor and Kaidens mother). My sister said "go on then but Kaiden will win this case because he did not do anything. I don't believe Taylor and I think she is just hopping on trends, also why didn't she say this 6 years ago?" I slapped my sister in the face as tears rolled down my eyes. I said to her "You're a fucking useless mother, I don't know why Taylor still shows affection towards you". and then I kicked her out.
Am I the asshole?

Lumaki ako sa hirap, naging breadwinner for many years, set a good example to my younger siblings, when they have good jobs na, I moved out of our family home and lived comfortably.
Husband is an only child. When his father left, his mother moved out to find jobs. Basically he was raised by his grandparents. He eventually moved out when he started earning on his own. I moved in to his apartment when we got married.
His mother bought a house as a wedding gift. As soon na naturnover sya sa amin, MIL have been acting as the matriarch of the family, like ang dami nyang sariling plans for the house, super clingy kay husband and bumalik ung pambubully nya sakin. She will be moving in with us. I understand naman kasi she's old, wala silang sariling bahay and my husband is her only child. Pero with her recent actions, ayoko na sanang tumira kasama sya kaso we already spent our life savings for the house renovation (majority mine kasi I earn more).
Galit din ung asawa ko pero sabi nya nagiisang parent na lang daw nya and wag na lang daw namin ipagkait ung pangarap ng mother nya na magkaron ng sariling bahay. What baffles me is that she works as a real estate agent for almost two decades, if gusto nya talaga magkabahay she has all the means but she clearly chose not to. Tapos ngayon, makikitira lang daw sya. Pero paano naman ung sarili kong milestone and namin as a married couple.
I know he's a good son, one of the reasons I loved him. We're now married for years and though he's not the provider but he's been a good husband to me. Maasikaso, understanding and we love each other's company. Kaso sa nangyayari now, hinahayaan lang nya kung ano gusto gawin ng mother nya and it's affecting me. Inexplain ko na sa kanya na it's emotional incest yung ginagawa sa kanya ng mother nya kaso hindi nya makita and naweirduhan pa sya sa term ko.

first he has ‘straight jock gets seduced by gay pretty boy’ (i didn't mind patrivan so that was fine tbh),then it's ‘father and son fighting over the same guy’, then the drugged up orgy mess at the end of season six, ‘accidental sibling incest’ with chloe, then more accidental ketamine induced incest with his secret mother. he can't have peace 😭😭

Ever since I was pregnant, my MIL has had a very different perspective or expectation of what her life and role as a grandparent would be like.
To give a bit more context, she has always had a toxic relationship with my FIL. She has two boys and is very emeshed to both. Almost would call it emotional incest with her oldest (my partner) because she very much used him as a replacement husband when he was growing up since her actual husband was working away and they had an unhealthy relationship.
Anyways. The attachment to my son started when I was pregnant. Because she still was extremely emeshed to my partner, and he was kinda still emmeshed to her. He’s since made a lot of effort healthily distancing himself but it took some work. She’s still not completely used to it.
At my baby shower. Almost every single item I opened. She talked to the whole room of guests how ‘that was coming to her place’ or ‘she couldn’t wait to use that at her house’. Literally almost every thing I opened. ‘I can’t wait to dress him in that’
Keep in mind. I’m not close with her at all. I actually don’t have a lot of respect for her because she takes like 20 bong rips a day and she’s just pretty unhinged when she’s going through withdrawal and doesn’t have weed in her system.
She was really upset when we moved 40 minutes away. Making comments all the time that we practically moved out of province and that they never see us anymore. We still went to see them once or twice a month. And my partner would go more than that.
When the baby was born she had a tough time not respecting boundaries we had at the start. She was debating on come to the hospital when she was sick. Shouldn’t have ever been a debate. Then we asked family no visitors at our house for the first four weeks but she came over at two weeks because she was saying all the time she was heartbroken she never met him yet.
We tried to make a point of only visiting them once a month with baby. Because we have other friends and family to see other weekends and almost every weekend we have plans. She’s asked to start a habit of us seeing them every weekend. Every time we are there she makes a comment about how long it’s been since she’s seen him. And she’s asks my partner all the time to make plans with them and he just comes up with excuses or tells her of our other plans. But she never stops asking.
I had really bad postpartum anxiety and had difficulty letting people hold my baby at the start. She was crying and commenting on it so much that my FIL and BIL both messaged my partner that she was heartbroken and it guilted me into her holding him before I was ready.
She has asked multiple times when she can babysit. She mentions often that she will baby proof her house soon. She got a car seat (that’s expired) from another family member to have for him. She’s asked me if she can get a photo shoot done with just her and my FIL and my baby. She even suggested leaving her job to watch him full time instead of going in daycare if I go back to work. My partner was truthful with her and said that I wouldn’t be comfortable with that because she smokes and she said she’ll quit. But her addiction is so bad I doubt she will. Even if she did, she has a lot of mental health issues that would make me uncomfortable about her watching him. She wants to play parent again. I can tell. I don’t want my son’s relationship with his grandmother to be an unhealthy one because she is overly attached to him.
She was emotionally attached to her kids. Then when they got older and were out of the house more, it became her dog. Her dog just recently passed away and now she suggesting or offering to watch him full time. I’m not even close to her. Like I know she’s his grandmother but don’t you think you should have a good relationship with the mother to ask for something like that!? Absolutely delusional in my mind.
Now we are moving back closer to them soon since we bought land. We will be 10 minutes away and I am terrified that she will be trying to insert herself into our life all the time. My FIL is also going to be working away again and she doesn’t have her dog anymore so I’m scared that she just thinks she’ll find a way to fill that emotional void with my son. Don’t know if she’ll take the hint if we politely decline her all the time.

(14) I'm tripping rn. I've known for a long time my mom was abusive, but only in physical, emotion, and verbal senses. But then there's other things she's done that I just can't understand, so I will list them as is:

• Trauma-dumping on me
• Did this weird thing where she told me she wanted to commit suicide together
• Mature conversations (I felt more like her therapist or an adult friend than a little 10-12 year old girl)
• Commented on my body about how slim I was and how sexy my legs are (When I called her out on this she deflected it with "I'm your mother")
• I grew up changing in front of her, and her changing in front of me my whole life (currently do this; sometimes forced)
• Intrudes on my private life with friends and crushes and whatnot

It is possible there is more, and it is important to note she stopped most of these behaviors. However I firmly believe she had no sexual intentions behind this, which makes me question if non-sexual covert incest exists?

This is an excerpt from a chapter of Embryos, Ethics, and Women's Rights: Exploring the New Reproductive Technologies published in the late 80s when social and ethical questions around reproductive technologies was still openly discussed in the media (link to the full article at the end).
SUMMARY: This paper contrasts the ways in which the physician-scientist developing reproductive technologies ("the king") sees the world and the way women experience it. It challenges the truth of what the king sees: i.e., that women have a desperate will to be mothers that must be fulfilled at all costs; that the way to make infertile women mothers is through the use of new reproductive technologies; that IVF programs are quite successful and that women who enter these programs actually come away with babies.
***
I am interested in unreality. That is, women’s experience. Women’s perceptions. But will talk to you about reality as well. The philosopher Marilyn Frye (1983) has written an essay on the politics of reality in which she states:

Reality is that which is.
The English world ‘‘real’’ stems from a word which meant regal, of or pertaining to the king.
"Real’ in Spanish means royal. Real property is that which is proper to the king. Real estate is the estate of the king.
Reality is that which pertains to the one in power, is that over which he has power, is his domain, his estate, is per to him.
The ideal king reigns over everything as far as the eye can see. His eye. What he cannot see is not royal, not real.
He sees what is proper to him. To be real is to be visible to the king . . .

Reality is that which pertains to the one in power, and in the context in which I am writing today, the one in power is the physician-scientist engaged in reproductive technology, or, collectively, what I call the "pharmacracy"— a power elite of physicians who exercise social control through medicine. The pharmacracy— that is the king.
And what can the king see? It is important to know this because whatever the king can see is real. But for women, it is even more important to know what the king cannot see.
The king can see that women have a desperate will to be mothers. This is a natural desire which must be fulfilled at all costs. The way to make infertile women mothers is through use of the new reproductive technologies. Indeed, these women flock to physicians pleading with them to develop new technologies so they can experience a serene and joyful motherhood. They enter the IVF programs, get their babies (for IVF is quite successful), hold them happily and say, “‘It’s a miracle. I’m so happy and so grateful to my doctors.” This is what the king can see. This is reality as presented by physicians and disseminated to all of us through the media.
Let me name these points again one by one and talk as well about what the king can not see.
Women have a desperate will to be mothers. What the king cannot see here are the social forces constructing a woman’s ‘‘will’’ to be a mother. I am not saying that there is no such thing as a desire for a child unstructured by the society in which we live. And I acknowledge that both men and women share some common motives for wanting children. But there are added forces shaping a woman’s will to be a mother, forces which do not act on men.

1. By fixing a woman’s function as reproductive and sexual. The fixing is done through the apparatuses of civil society. When I say “civil society”’, I’m referring to a distinction made by the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (cited in Graebner 1984). He divided politics into two areas. The first was “‘political society’,' consisting of public institutions like the courts, police, army, the electoral process. The second was “‘civil society,’’ including schools, churches, and the popular press.

Gramsci considered the "civil society" the most important apparatus the ruling class has for controlling the people. It uses this apparatus for securing and maintaining the ‘‘consent’’ of the governed. I want to take some insights William Graebner has concerning "civil society" and apply them to the situation of women ‘‘choosing”’ [assisted reproductive technology] programs or to become surrogate mothers (Graebner 1984). All cultures, totalitarian or democratic, have mechanisms of social engineering that accomplish the task of getting women to perform the sexual and reproductive functions set for them. Various societies do this with more or less force. Our democratic societies do it through a hegemonic process called “freedom of choice.”
There is a very extensive literature documenting the ways in which civil society—schools, churches, media, medicine, language— structure the choices of women and girls.
They repeatedly beep out the message: ‘‘Women are for bearing babies. Bearing babies is woman’s function in life. Women are for sex. Being sexy for men is woman’s function in life.” When a woman’s identity is largely stripped down to the two functions civil society says she has —reproductive and sexual—she tends to internalize that valuation of herself. The work civil society does in stripping woman’s identity down to only two of many possible components helps shape her “‘desperate’’ will to be a mother.

1. By a manipulation of her emotions and motivations. The propaganda that if a woman is infertile, she loses her most basic identity as a woman, has a coercive power. Emotional coercion can be as powerful as physical coercion. Once woman’s prime function has been fixed as reproductive, a “‘barren’” woman who cannot fulfill that function is threatened with abandonment, isolation, loss of love, rejection from the family group, social humiliation. All these are the symbolic equivalents of death. When her husband or her doctor, in discussing her infertility, appeals to her unconscious fears of abandonment, then this manipulation of her emotions helps structure her will to become a mother.

The doctor’s authority stands behind the notion that it is quite reasonable for a woman to go through any torture in order to fulfill her ‘‘natural’’ role and bear a baby. In a submission to the Warnock Commission on reproductive technology in Britain, after describing the considerable social pressure on women to be mothers, the group Women in Medicine stated: “Medical opinion too exerts a pressure on women: the high status of doctors in our society gives them authority and indeed power. If a doctor thinks it reasonable for women to go to any lengths in order to bear a child, women will be confirmed in their suspicion that motherhood is a goal to be pursued at all costs?" (Women in Medicine 1984).

1. By withholding from her vital information about the meaning of motherhood. The socially validated meaning of motherhood is that of rosy feminine fulfillment. Now it is true that many women feel, through motherhood, a deeper love than they have ever known. Some—not all—find motherhood a powerful experience. But they also find it frustrating, boring, exhausting, draining. Some women stagger through motherhood on high doses of tranquilizers. But women’s negative experiences of motherhood are not incorporated into the official version of “‘reality’’ (Spender 1980). They are not what the king can see. They are only what women see, so they are, by definition, not real.
   
2. By the social devaluation of women’s labor and skills, which pressures women into motherhood (Rothman 1985). Women are largely confined to low-paying service jobs and, in the United States, earn 59 cents to a man’s dollar. By limiting women’s job opportunities and pay and structuring society so that marriage is by and large a woman’s livelihood, infertility becomes to a woman, among many other things, a threat to her livelihood. It threatens her survival.
   
3. The social devaluation of women’s creativity and intelligence also pressures a woman into motherhood (Rothman 1985). While a woman who wants to pursue a career in physics or philosophy or deep-sea exploration may be lucky and encounter some individuals who will support her, she will get little encouragement from the apparatuses of civil society.
   
4. The social complacency about male violence and abuse towards women which reinforces women’s lack of self-worth is another force structuring women’s choices. Under that violence, I include rape, incest, woman-battery. Pornography, in eroticizing dominance and submission (that is, in making inequality sexy) also undermines women’s sense of self-worth (Dworkin 1981).
   

As the sociologist Barbara Katz Rothman has written:
‘‘Lacking economic power, physical and emotional safety, women can be coerced into motherhood, which seems to offer a power-base from which to negotiate for some degree of status and protection" (Rothman 1985).
The king is promoting use of the new reproductive technologies for infertile women in the West while, in the Third World, he is promoting contraceptives which provide no protection against fertility-destroying diseases, contraceptives which may indeed contribute to subsequent sterility.
If the “‘wrong’’ women have a will to be mothers, does the king see this? No. And if the king does not see it, it is not real.
As Barbara Rothman points out, women are socially rewarded for certain choices (for example, the choice to bear a child) and punished for others, and the rewards and punishments are handed out along race and class lines. In the United States, black women and poor white women who choose to bear children, who have a will to be mothers, and who at some point receive public assistance, are punished with social contempt, harassment, poverty. But all the organs of civil society go into action generating sympathy for white heterosexual married women who have a will to be mothers.
The king sees, not only that women (some women, white women, married women) have a will to be mothers, but that the way to make infertile women mothers is through the use of such technologies.
What the king chooses not to see is the way in which many of these women became infertile in the first place.
In a magazine for ob/gyns, Dr. William R. Keye, who studied the causes of infertility presented by women at the University of Utah Medical Center, wrote: "We may cause more infertility than we care to believe.’’ The experience at that center, he wrote: “‘suggests that iatrogenic [i.e., doctor-caused] infertility is common’’ (Keye 1982).
**
Such new reproductive technologies damage women in yet another way which the king does not recognize. Jalna Hanmer, the sociologist does. She points out that the implied message of the media and pharmacracy is that technology is best and can do the job of reproduction better than women can on their own. (For example, Prof. Carl Wood, head of an IVF team in Australia, announced last year that a study had found that children produced through IVF were brighter and better adjusted socially than children normally conceived.) The message is that men, through their technology, can perfect embryos and ensure perfect pregnancies, deliveries and babies. Women can not. This message, Hanmer writes, tears at female consciousness and identity. The new reproductive technologies remove the last woman-centered process from us.
After conversations with Hanmer, this is my interpretation of her theory:
Through the use of the new reproductive technologies, women’s reproduction is now being obejectified in the same way woman’s sexuality has been for centuries. Our sexuality has been so removed from ourselves and so male-defined for so long, that we really don’t know what we mean when we say “‘woman-defined sexuality.’” We have no feel for it. We are too deeply divorced from our sexuality to be able to imagine a self-defined form of it. We do not feel, deep down, that our sexuality belongs to us. It belongs to men.
In contrast, this generation of women strongly feels that our reproductive capacity does belong to us. The women born today will not. Certainly the women born in 2050 will not. They will be divorced from their own procreative power as we are divorced from our sexuality. They will feel inadequate to reproduce. They will not believe they have the capacity to do so.
These will be women who, from their earliest days, grew up with the reality of IVF, embryo transfer, surrogate motherhood, artificial wombs, and sex predetermination technology. They will be women who have never known a world without “super-ovulation’’ and “ovum capture.’’ From childhood, these women will have watched television news reports involving the “Storage Authority,’ that is, the board in charge of frozen sperm, eggs and human embryos.
They will be women whose own "mothers’’ may have supplied the egg from which they were generated, or the uterus in which they were gestated, or perhaps neither. These women of 2050 will know that among women, there are egg donors and there are breeders or gestators and there are those who provide various body parts and fluids used in reproduction (for example, urine from which hormones are extracted for use in superovulating the ovaries of younger females). But no one woman procreates a baby all by herself. This will be so because (as I have discussed elsewhere) by 2050, use of the new reproductive technologies will have expanded beyond the original category of women —the infertile—for whom it was first touted.
This, then, might be the reproductive consciousness of our daughters in the 21st century. "Reproduction is a complicated intellectual and technical feat performed by teams of highly skilled men who use, as raw material for their achievements, the body parts of a variety of interchangeable females.”’
The autonomous ability of these women to control their procreative processes is diminished. Another aspect of a woman’s self-definition is undermined which, when added to her loss of political, economic and social power, transforms her consciousness of herself as an inferior being. She feels even more inferior to men than women today believe themselves to be.
Loss of autonomous reproduction is one more fundamental layer leading to a loss of Self.
This loss is not visible to the king. You will never hear him speak of it.
The Reproduction Revolution we are in the midst of brings to us and to all future generations changes more profound than those brought by the Industrial Revolution. We need, each of us, to reflect on these technologies and, as a Brazilian friend of mine wrote to me, not accept them as if they were merely another brand of Coca-Cola in the supermarket.
Link to the article PDF

Christians Do Not Understand Acts 15:19-20

A critical analysis of the common misinterpretation of Acts 15:19-20 and how it affects the Christian faith and practice.
Jul 30, 2022: "Christians Do NOT Understand Acts 15:19-20!" starts at ~32 minutes in.
Notes taken on Jan 3, 2024
Formatting Key
Bible VerseItalicsArticles Number text in verse. Jesus talking. using KJV unless noted otherwiseNotes on the verse Not necessarily relevant to the current class, but still importantArticle link Quote from article {{quote removed later}}

Christians Do Not Understand Acts 15:19-20

A critical analysis of the common misinterpretation of Acts 15:19-20 and how it affects the Christian faith and practice.
Jul 30, 2022: "Christians Do NOT Understand Acts 15:19-20!" starts at ~32 minutes in.
Notes taken on Jan 3, 2024
Formatting Key
Bible VerseItalicsArticles Number text in verse. Jesus talking. using KJV unless noted otherwiseNotes on the verse Not necessarily relevant to the current class, but still importantArticle link Quote from article {{quote removed later}}
Christians concluded that there are only 4 commandments that they should follow as non-Israelites. Christians will take you here so that they don’t have to keep the entire law of moses. The christians that give it to you don’t understand the context/background. Even though they know that there are more than just these 4 commandments.
These verses don’t even support them either. This can’t be used as a standard for what we should do.
It doesn’t include: don't murder, don’t steal, don’t keep the sabbath, don’t honor your father and mother, etc.
Hypocrisy is doing this. This is a double edged sword.
Belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.
The disciples never said anything about circumcision. There was never a debate about the Law of Moses before Acts 15. The first christians were Jews. They never abandoned the Law of Moses. The disciples encouraged keeping the Law of Moses.
The 4 commandments mentioned were a “beginners package” to get them started.
Act 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

• This is James talking. We don’t trouble the Gentile converts.
• Is this for all time or for just those that have just come to the faith?
• Fornication is a blanket turn regarding any sexual act
  • Adultery, harlot, homosexuality, incest, etc.
• Things strangled
  • Things with blood in them (back to the levitical law)
  • You have to drain the blood out of every animal (don’t eat any blood)
• What happened to honor your father and mother or no killing or stealing or bear false witness or coveting?

Paganism is idolatry.
The crosses everywhere are idolatry.
The Jews and Gentiles didn’t have different sets of rules.
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

• Certain men said this. The apostles didn’t teach this. This was a lie that was taught. People were holding on to their traditional views.
• They didn’t abandon their previous beliefs completely.
• You don’t have to follow the Law of Moses to be saved. You don’t have to be circumcised to be saved.

The apostles only talked about circumcision in response to people that were against christianity.
Act 2:36-41 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

• This is on the day of pentecost.
• Peter is addressing the House of Israel, the Jews, the Israelites
  • This was who christianity was given to first
  • He is rebuking them.
• There were some gentiles here too, but Peter was addressing the Jews first.
• Verse 38 doesn’t say to keep the Law of Moses
• Being saved doesn’t mean keep the Law of Moses or be circumcised
  • This is how you get saved.

The Jews didn’t stop following the Law of Moses. All they added was believing in Jesus.
Their audience was Jews.
Keeping the law never became an issue until “christians”/new-comers started talking about it.
There are two groups of gentiles. Those that knew the law and those that knew nothing (were 100% pagan).
Act 4:10-11 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. (11) This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

• This is Peter and John preaching Jesus
• You have to be saved by and through Jesus
  • Not by the law or circumcision.

The people in Acts 15 were talking to new gentile converts. They had no background on the law of moses or Jesus.
What do you have to do to be saved?

• Believe in Jesus

But what does that entail?...
You show that belief by establishing the law!
Act 11:13-18 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; (14) Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. (16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (17) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? (18) When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

• Your saved through Jesus
• God has granted repentance to the Gentiles
  • This means they too have an opportunity to be saved (through Jesus)
• They were teaching belief in Jesus

The Law of Moses wasn’t an issue. Jesus never said anything against it.
Act 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (2) When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

• Certain men (not Paul, James, etc.)
  • They taught that to be saved you have to follow the Law of Moses
• This became a big argument that Paul and Barnabas were arguing against.
• They went to go have a council meeting

Act 15:5-11 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (6) And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. (7) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (8) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; (9) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

• These certain men were a sect of the pharisees
• Before this, circumcision wasn’t an issue discussed
• This was because Gentiles were brought into the picture that had no Hebrew roots.
  • They were making circumcision a requirement for salvation.
• Peter is recounting how he got the gentiles in.
  • Cornelius had some background of the law and such
  • Others didn’t have background
• Whenever the apostles converted non-Israelites, then people got mad
• Verse 10, christians THINK that peter is rebuking law
  • Tempting God is actually breaking the law (this is clear in the old and new testament)
• The yoke referred to is something that is going against the law or the gospel
  • Yoke talked about in matthew 23
    • Pharisees were putting a heavy burden on the new converts that were grievous to be borne
• Here, they were making the gospel unbearable. Making the gospel hard to do.

Mat 23:1-4 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (4) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

• These burdens were extra
• They added laws to the laws of Moses, making the laws of Moses unbearable.

The only people that described the law in a negative way were sinners.
How can the sabbath be a burden when it literally means rest?
The burden was talking about the man-made traditions that the Pharisees try to add. They did it with the law and with the gospel.
Mat 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

• The difference between Jesus’s yoke and the pharisee’s yoke is that the pharisees made restrictions to make the law of Moses heavy.

The only way you tempt God is by disobeying him.
The apostles didn’t have a decision prepared for Acts 15 which is why they went to the council.
1Jn 5:1-3 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

• We keep his commandments
• That we keep his commandments
  • The commandments aren’t grievous
  • Grievous (G926)
    • βαρύς
    • barus
    • bar-ooce'
    • From the same as G922; weighty, that is, (figuratively) burdensome, grave: - grievous, heavy, weightier.
    • Same word in Matthew 23:4

1Jn 5:3 ERV Loving God means obeying his commands. And God's commands are not too hard for us,
1Jn 5:3 CEV We show our love for God by obeying his commandments, and they are not hard to follow.
1Jn 5:3 DRB For this is the charity of God: That we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not heavy.
The Pharisees' commandments are heavy (they don’t talk about the law of Moses).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~REAL LESSON NOW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Act 15:13-14 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: (14) Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

• Discussing how to talk with the very new convert Gentiles (100% pagan)

Act 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

• The decision is to not make the conversion hard.
• Did James just choose these four (there are actually five) things? Where did James get these?

Lev 19:4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

• James got this one. The first direct way it was said.
• Book of Leviticus was for the priests.
  • They were the teachers of the ancient hebrews.
• James went to the teacher’s edition essentially.

Lev 18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 18:5-6 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. (6) None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

• This is the fornication that James is talking about. It covered all the sexuality stuff.
• It is a blanket statement, which is more than just four precepts in chapter 18.

Lev 17:13-14 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. (14) For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

• They should drain the animals dry.
• You also can’t eat the blood.

James drew from the law of Moses. Was this all that James thought was essential? Why would he give any precepts at all if only belief in Jesus was the goal?
The Holy Spirit guided them what in the beginning that they should do.
Act 15:20-21 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

• First, four precepts from the law of Moses.
• Then he says that the law of Moses is taught in all the synagogues.
• The Gentiles would get the rest from the synagogues from their cities.
  • This is why James didn’t have to give an exhaustive list.

He assumed that the Gentiles would somehow end up in a synagogue on the sabbath. This means James also told them about the sabbath day!
They had to be smart about how they taught them.
Act 13:13-15 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. (14) But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. (15) And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

• Synagogue in Antioch and they went in during the sabbath day.
• After reading of the law and the prophets!
  • This is what James was saying
• Then they opened the study for questions
• This is where they learned the rest of the precepts.

Act 13:42-44 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. (43) Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. (44) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

• There were gentiles in the synagogue keeping the sabbath. They were learning of the laws of Moses.
• proselytes were new converts to the faith.
  • Never was a Jew, but converting to the ways of Israel.

Jews kicked out the christians from the synagogues.
True christianity is torah observance.
1Ti 4:12-13 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (13) Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

• KJV falls short here

1Ti 4:12-13 ISV Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young, but be an example for other believers in your speech, behavior, love, faithfulness, and purity. (13) Until I arrive, give your full concentration to the public reading of Scripture, to exhorting, and to teaching.

• The scriptures in their day was the old testament.
• This public reading was in synagogues on the sabbath.

1Ti 4:12-13 BBE Let no one make little of you because you are young, but be an example to the church in word, in behaviour, in love, in faith, in holy living. (13) Till I come, give attention to the reading of the holy Writings, to comforting the saints, and to teaching.

• Public reading of the scriptures. They were reading the old testament and teaching it.

1Ti 4:12-13 CEV Don't let anyone make fun of you, just because you are young. Set an example for other followers by what you say and do, as well as by your love, faith, and purity. (13) Until I arrive, be sure to keep on reading the Scriptures in worship, and don't stop preaching and teaching.

• They say keep on reading.
• The reading of the scriptures was a part of the worship.

The four things that James said was not the exhaustive list of do’s and don’ts. It was just an introduction to the law of moses.
(Antwan)
Josephus - Antiquities Of The Jews
03.20.02. Book 20, Chapter 02
CHAPTER 2
HOW HELENA THE QUEEN OF ADIABENE AND HER SON IZATES, EMBRACED THE JEWISH RELIGION; AND HOW HELENA SUPPLIED THE POOR WITH CORN, WHEN THERE WAS A GREAT FAMINE AT JERUSALEM.

1. ABOUT this time it was that Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand upon his wife’s belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off his wife’s belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God’s providence, would be safely born, and have a happy end. This voice put him into disorder; so he awaked immediately, and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates. He had indeed Monobazus, his elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten (2) son Izates, which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, by the same father, bore to him; while on this account they hated him more and more, and were all under great affliction that their father should prefer Izates before them. Now although their father was very sensible of these their passions, yet did he forgive them, as not indulging those passions out of an ill disposition, but out of a desire each of them had to be beloved by their father. However, he sent Izates, with many presents, to Abennerig, the king of Charax-Spasini, and that out of the great dread he was in about him, lest he should come to some misfortune by the hatred his brethren bore him; and he committed his son’s preservation to him. Upon which Abennerig gladly received the young man, and had a great affection for him, and married him to his own daughter, whose name was Samacha: he also bestowed a country upon him, from which he received large revenues.
   
2. But when Monobazus was grown old, and saw that he had but a little time to live, he had a mind to come to the sight of his son before he died. So he sent for him, and embraced him after the most affectionate manner, and bestowed on him the country called Carra; it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also in it the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them. (3) Accordingly, Izates abode in that country until his father’s death. But the very day that Monobazus died, queen Helena sent for all the grandees, and governors of the kingdom, and for those that had the armies committed to their command; and when they were come, she made the following speech to them: "I believe you are not unacquainted that my husband was desirous Izates should succeed him in the government, and thought him worthy so to do. However, I wait your determination; for happy is he who receives a kingdom, not from a single person only, but from the willing suffrages of a great many." This she said, in order to try those that were invited, and to discover their sentiments. Upon the hearing of which, they first of all paid their homage to the queen, as their custom was, and then they said that they confirmed the king’s determination, and would submit to it; and they rejoiced that Izates’s father had preferred him before the rest of his brethren, as being agreeable to all their wishes: but that they were desirous first of all to slay his brethren and kinsmen, that so the government might come securely to Izates; because if they were once destroyed, all that fear would be over which might arise from their hatred and envy to him. Helena replied to this, that she returned them her thanks for their kindness to herself and to Izates; but desired that they would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates’s brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. So since these men had not prevailed with her, when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come, and that for their own security; they also gave her counsel to set up some one whom she could put the greatest trust in, as a governor of the kingdom in the mean time. So queen Helena complied with this counsel of theirs, and set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king, and put the diadem upon his head, and gave him his father’s ring, with its signet; as also the ornament which they call Sampser, and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother Monobazus, who resigned up the government to him.
   
3. Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them. But when Izates had taken the kingdom, and was come to Adiabene, and there saw his brethren and other kinsmen in bonds, he was displeased at it; and as he thought it an instance of impiety either to slay or imprison them, but still thought it a hazardous thing for to let them have their liberty, with the remembrance of the injuries that had been offered them, he sent some of them and their children for hostages to Rome, to Claudius Caesar, and sent the others to Artabanus, the king of Parthia, with the like intentions.
   
4. And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. This it was that she said to him, and for the present persuaded him to forbear. And when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him, and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king’s instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, "Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? But if thou hast not yet read the law about circumcision, and dost not know how great impiety thou art guilty of by neglecting it, read it now." When the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what he was commanded to do. He then sent for his mother, and Ananias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing; upon which they were presently struck with astonishment and fear, and that to a great degree, lest the thing should be openly discovered and censured, and the king should hazard the loss of his kingdom, while his subjects would not bear to be governed by a man who was so zealous in another religion; and lest they should themselves run some hazard, because they would be supposed the occasion of his so doing. But it was God himself who hindered what they feared from taking effect; for he preserved both Izates himself and his sons when they fell into many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed to be impossible, and demonstrated thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish as to those that have regard to him, and fix their faith upon him only. (4) But these events we shall relate hereafter.
   
5. But as to Helena, the king’s mother, when she saw that the affairs of Izates’s kingdom were in peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God’s providence over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there. So she desired her son to give her leave to go thither; upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on her journey a great way. Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent memorial behind her of this benefaction, which she bestowed on our whole nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine,
   

(5) he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem. However, what favors this queen and king conferred upon our city Jerusalem shall be further related hereafter.
ENDNOTES
(2): Josephus here uses the word monogene, an only begotten son, for no other than one best beloved, as does both the Old and New Testament, I mean where there were one or more sons besides, Gen_22:2; Heb_11:17. See the note on B. I. ch. 13. sect. 1.
(3): It is here very remarkable, that the remains of Noah’s ark were believed to he still in being in the days of Josephus. See the note on B. I. ch. 3. sect. 5.
(4): Josephus is very full and express in these three chapters, 3., 4., and 5., in observing how carefully Divine Providence preserved this Izates, king of Adiabene, and his sons, while he did what he thought was his bounden duty, notwithstanding the strongest political motives to the contrary.
(5): This further account of the benefactions of Izates and Helena to the Jerusalem Jews which Josephus here promises is, I think, no where performed by him in his present works. But of this terrible famine itself in Judea, take Dr. Hudson’s note here: - "This ( says he ) is that famine foretold by Agabus, Act_11:28, which happened when Claudius was consul the fourth time; and not that other which happened when Claudius was consul the second time, and Cesina was his colleague, as Scaliger says upon Eusebius, p. 174." Now when Josephus had said a little afterward, ch. 5. sect. 2, that "Tiberius Alexander succeeded Cuspius Fadus as procurator," he immediately subjoins, that" under these procurators there happened a great famine in Judea." Whence it is plain that this famine continued for many years, on account of its duration under these two procurators. Now Fadus was not sent into Judea till after the death of king Agrippa, i.e. towards the latter end of the 4th year of Claudius; so that this famine foretold by Agabus happened upon the 5th, 6th, and 7th years of Claudius, as says Valesius on Euseb. II. 12. Of this famine also, and queen Helena’s supplies, and her monument, see Moses Churenensis, p. 144, 145, where it is observed in the notes that Pausanias mentions that her monument also.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

• The pharisees make them twice as likely to go to hell.

Mat 23:15 ERV "It will be bad for you teachers of the law and you Pharisees! You are hypocrites. You travel across the seas and across different countries to find one person who will follow your ways. When you find that person, you make him worse than you are. And you are so bad that you belong in hell!

• These people would go to great lengths to make this one convert even worse than them.

The new testament didn’t create a new set of rules. Jesus showed us how to really live the law of Moses in spirit, but this doesn’t mean abandoning the letter of the law.
Christ saves. To maintain your salvation, you must keep the law of Moses.
The sabbath, the new moons, the dietary laws, etc. they weren’t ever a controversy. If something is established and there is silence going forward regarding it, then it never goes away.
You have to keep the law through christ to be saved. There are steps to salvation.
When the apostles went to the Jews, they knew what they were repenting from; the only difference was to also believe in Jesus.
Christianity today teaches repentance from sin without actually turning from sin.
Believe in Christ & Repent from sin -> Have fruits of repentance and keep the law in Christ
Connect Acts 15:1 with Matthew 1:21. This describes what Jesus came to save people from.
Belief in Jesus blots/cancels out PAST sins.
Now that they have been converted, Acts 21 - after the intro.
Peter says:

1. Saved by Christ
2. Save yourselves

3:28:17
James gave the Gentiles four precepts to start them off with. And he said they would learn the rest.
Christians today say that nothing that you do can affect your salvation. Even though in Acts 2, Peter told them to save yourselves from this untoward generation.
So, first Peter tells you that you have to be saved by Christ. Then he turns around saying save yourselves. That means you gotta do something.
This is the analogy: Christians see Jesus as this lifeguard that keeps jumping in the pool while you're drowning and keeps pulling you out even though he was the one who told you to not get in the pool in the first place. The Bible describes Jesus as you drowning and he shows you what to do to save yourself, by giving you the life preserver. So if someone asks you, you would be right to say that Jesus saved me because he was the one that threw you the life preserver, but he made me participate in my own salvation. I had to play a role in it. That is the part that Christians miss.
Christians Do Not Understand Acts 15:19-20
A critical analysis of the common misinterpretation of Acts 15:19-20 and how it affects the Christian faith and practice.
Jul 30, 2022: "Christians Do NOT Understand Acts 15:19-20!" starts at ~32 minutes in.
Notes taken on Jan 3, 2024
Formatting Key
Bible VerseItalicsArticles Number text in verse. Jesus talking. using KJV unless noted otherwiseNotes on the verse Not necessarily relevant to the current class, but still importantArticle link Quote from article {{quote removed later}}

(Our) Reality is made up of conscious mind and unconscious body (THERE IS NOTHING BUT THIS). When the unconscious rules the conscious, this is slavery and tyranny. When the conscious (mind) rules the unconscious (body), this is freedom and sovereignity. I was listening to "The Origins and History of Consciousness" by Eric Neumann when this really hit me. This is what all spiritual teachings, all fairytales, all of the bible stories, and mythologies is about.
The Origins and history of Consciousness: In the beginning was the primordial Ouruboros, the womb of The Great Mother, where nothing is seperated from anything else. All is mashed together in an incoherent incestual orgy. Heaven and Earth are so close that there is no space to live, and no light to see. Out of this chaos a Great Man is born, who seperates heaven from earth and creates space to live in. Out of The Son we infer The Father. After The Son creates space (and civilization) people begin to worship The Son and The Father (consciousness/the hero/ego and its source), as the creator of the world, of habitable space.
The Language of Creation by Maththieu Pageau + The Bible: In the beginning God created the Heaven (mind) and the Earth (body). And the Earth (unsconscious) was without form, and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God (consciousness) moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness (creating space).
Heaven = mind, abstract principle, seed, light, masculine, left hemisphere, consicous response, intent, the center, etc.
Earth = body, concrete reality, food/potential, darkness, feminine, right hemisphere, unconsicous reaction, the margins, etc.
Space = Heaven and Earth agrees, the garden of Eden, the mind rules the body, the inner world matches with the outer world, the abstract plan is made reality. Symbolized by the world tree, the cross, squareness, tablets of the ten commandments..
Time = Heaven and Earth disagrees, the fall, the body rules the mind, the inner and the outer world don't match (dissociation), you fail to carry out your plan. Symbolized by the ouroboros, and the circle. Symbolized in the bible as incest, forgetting God's name, the fall, marrying a whore, and all of the sins essentially.. In essence it's about FALLING from your identity and authority and letting the unconscious control you through fear and desire.
(This is my take->) Jesus said: no one comes to the Father exept through me = no one comes to the source of consciousness exept through consciousness. Take control, take charge, face your fear, be determined, notice when you are reacting instead of responding within yourself. When you discover that authority within yourself you will experience it as remembering who you truly are.
Inner Engineering by Sadhguru: Sadhguru is an Indian yogi teacher, and a quote from his book which I don't remember verbatum but the point of it stuck with me. He said something like: the point of spirituality is for you to be in a state of response, as opposed to a reactionary state. And he said that responsibility is nothing but your ability to respond. So spirituality is essentially about learning responsibility.
I have also heard spiritual techers say that through meditation one creates spaciousness in the mind. Again creating space through conscious response and attention.
So this is it. This is the lens which I have begun to view the world through. Through conscious and unconscious, masculine and feminine. I am convinced it is the most appropriate way to understand reality. This is the pattern you see in christian iconography and art, often this duality is symbolized by the left and the right hand or side. Take Christ as Salvator Mundi by Andrea Previtali for example: Jesus makes a sign of authority with his right hand which is the fatherly principle, and in his left hand he holds a globus crusiger, which is a symbol of the round chaos, the primordial womb, the earth, or the universe itself. It means He holds authority over the universe, as He is the king of the universe. But this is the secret: your unconscious is the Universe, and your ability to respond consciously is God. Because the pattern scales, it is in every individual. Following The Way means to live consciously, awake and praying.

Why even lore? You might wonder, what's the point of talking about a trailer for a DLC or Expansion to a two year old game. To that I say, I see your point, but then again, this is Elden Ring, possibly my favourite game of all time, and one that has completely changed my life, but maybe that's a follow up.
The other reason why I don't mind spending this much effort on a DLC trailer is that, the lore of Elden ring has quickly become my favourite Fantasy story, again, ever. But only if you don't mind putting some of it together yourself. That's because, there's proper world class pedigree here, with game of thrones' george RR Martin hailing from the West, lending his gravitas, his penchant for incest, family conflict, huge drama that spans eons, plus a fondness for hair colour and the implications thereof. He lends all of this to FromSoftware's Hidetaka Miyazaki in the East, creator of some of gaming's finest fantasy realms, including the prolific Dark Souls Trilogy and others. Full disclosure, the base Elden Ring game was my first Soulslike experience - but before you judge me too harshly, know that since then, so just over two years later, I've lived in and beaten, i think all of those worlds. Next was Demons Souls, then Bloodborne, dark souls 1, 2 and 3, Sekiro before moving onto those they inspired such as Nioh 1 and 2, and look. You know the rest. It even provoked me to give Breath of the Wild another go, so i did, managing to beat it just before Tears of the Kingdom released, then beat that too. But not because I was a fan of the Zelda games, but because Elden Ring had rewired my brain from casual 45 year old gamer to a serious campaigner, the kind that needed to swing a greatsword at least a hundred times a week or so. Even now, I'm logged into a save file on my PS5, one of four, 470hrs deep, but have managed another chunk of my life on my pc handheld, itself home to another few profiles. You've seen all the 'how dark souls saved me' videos, so I won't elaborate just now on what it did for me, perhaps that too deserves it's own video, but in short, I recently faced a very real health threat that could easily have seen the end of me - I literally thought i might expire before this damnDLC came out, which is a week before my next birthday, Thankfully I was armed with the resilience that these games will provide you with. If You face the challenge long enough, you'll be ready for the day the challenge needs to face you. And then you hand it, its ass on a platter. Put another way, fuck you cancer, I've beaten Malenia, the blade of Miquella.
So, back to why exploring lore in an expansion story is still incredibly rewarding, well that has to do with the partnership between the aforementioned writing team. While Hidetaka made the world you play in, Martin made the history, the rules, the governing order. And Shadow of the Erdtree explores more of both, the past and more locations than previously revealed. It's like the first time you read Ready Player one, it plays out like a mystery novel, you're not just reading, you're participating. You're a sleuth, a detective. It's fun. You're not even trying to be right with your theory crafting. You're just having fun trying to put the puzzle together. Sometimes the pieces fit real good, and other times, it feels like you're mashing random bits into place and hoping nobody notices how contrived they are. So with these disclaimers and caveats in place, let's watch this trailer together and allow me to ramble on like a mad man as we do.
At the end, I'll do my best to piece together one, ridiculous, patchy but entertaining theory. Wish me luck. Ok, so, here's my Theory Part 1: WHAT if, Marika was a deathbed companion in the Shadowrealm. This deathbed companion. And The old man beside her in the painting was the noble she needed to lay with, in order for him to be reborn, or given a new life somehow. Either way, its from her affair with this noble that as the narrator suggests, "gold arose, in the form of those strands. Mind you, there is another form of reincarnation to consider, perhaps, by being swaddled in a Godskin cloth? Woah. That's not what a deathbed companion does, rather - thats how the Gloam Eyed Queen famously gives new life, but that's to make a Godskin Apostle, which, let's be honest, Mesmer kinda looks like. But That is exactly what this scene resembles here, don't you think, those stitches certainly imply a swaddling cloth ? So, Two very different ways to achieve the same thing, reincarnation, performed by, let's call them rivals in regards to who will control the Lands Between? The Golden Order or the Crucible it intends to replace. This obviously depends on whether you believe Radagon existed all along, or if he only came into being after Godfrey was shunned from the lands between.
But, what if they're not rivals? What if they're yet again, two identities, but one person. Marika is the Gloam Eyed Queen? Even I think thats going too far since she's already also Radagon. So counterpoint what if they're in fact lovers? Kind of the modus oprandi for Marika, just ask poor Renala. Something interesting happens if we ship Marika or Radagon with the Gloam Eyed Queen, Like, for one one - Mesmer could be their son, I mean, it could explain his red hair, and his Apostle-like apprarance. but that's almost not crazy enough - so now we're gonna get really nutty, you ready?
Theory 2 So, what if the scene where the old man, seemingly be impaled by a great golden rune, which also resembles a rib cage, and arguably a tree sapling, it is in fact the elden ring after it arrived in the Lands between. And the seduction and betrayal involves this man being resurrected via deathbed companion and or swaddling cloth or a combination of the two. The gold thread that Marika later pulls out of the swaddling bag cloth, being the resurrected or reformed golden rune now in a malleable form, while the blood and viscera being all that remains of the man himself. He wasn't made aware of the fact that he was being sacrificed, just so that this golden thread would be rendered from his corpse. And it's the thread we see Marika holding as she becomes a God, subsequently weaving it around the great tree, to transform it into the Golden Erdtree of the Lands Between. The old mans' remains is the Shadow, the thread is the Gold. What thread? The same thread (that emits from her hammer in the original trailer when forming the ring.) But what other evidence could we have to suggest Marika could be a deathbed companion? Well, the only other on such person we encounter we offee was Fia who offered the Balduchin blessing, where Marika had her Mimic veil. Not quite the same, but perhaps similar enough. The one that goes too far?
Ok that was a lot. I've theorised that the Gloam Eyed Queen and Marika were lovers, Mesmer potentially their Godskin Baby Boy or that the old man with his golden rune ribcage were swaddled out of existence and shit. Look. I did warn you that this would get completely unhinged, and look there are more holes in these theories than there are in stormveil castle, but sure as shit, that was fun. The biggest problem I've created for myself is that I've tried to combine two fairly ok theories into one sketchy one. There's just so much to farm here, such as how this version of Marika looks a bit more masculine than the one we met in the base game, but without red hair, isn't quite the fully realised Radagon either. But you could resolve this by saying its a pre Radagon male form that seduced (and betrayed) the Gloam Eyed Queen. And that this, as they say in the trailer, is the affair that kicked off a war. Then again, we've been theorizing that Mesmer got his red hair from Radagon. But what if we got it the wrong way around and Radagon in fact got his red hair from his father, Mesmer? What if Mesmer and the Gloam Eyed Queen were in fact lovers, and the parents of Radagon and Marika. And if you're thinking but hey, Mesmer says, "mother would you truly lordship sanction" we don't actually see his lips move, it could be anyone saying that line. Hell, It could even be miquella. I think it's incredibly foolish to assume that Miquella is good, but I suppose we'll find out in a month.
and another thing Ok, one last one for fun. Doesn’t that shape on the stairways kinda look like Guranq? You know, Maliketh? The shadow of Marika sent to kill the Gloam Eyed Queen. Impaled by their son, Mesmer? Impaled but maybe not killed. Ok, no. I've definitely been let out of my cell for far too long.
Long time lore theory consumer, first-time lore theory contributor, responding to the call for unhinged, shizo, wacky Shadow of the Erdtree theories. I've decided to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Here be swaddling cloths, a Marika Gloam Eyed Queen affair, Rune reincarnation and more. And with it all, a new-found appreciation and respect for the great lore channels that have inspired me to put this together. Your time is valuable so I've added a trailer reaction and just a small introspective on what these games mean to me. Enjoy! https://youtu.be/AVGs8J-7z2M

Others might wonder, "what's the point of talking about a trailer for a DLC or Expansion to a two-year old game?" To them I say, "I see your point", but then again, this is Elden Ring, possibly my favourite game of all time, and one that has completely changed my life, and it's impact has been felt by pretty much everyone else on this Reddit community.
The other reason why I don't mind spending this much effort on a DLC trailer is that, the lore of Elden ring has quickly become my favourite Fantasy story, again, ever. But only if you don't mind putting some of it together yourself. That's because, there's proper world class pedigree here, with game of thrones' george RR Martin hailing from the West, lending his gravitas, his penchant for incest, family conflict, huge drama that spans eons, plus a fondness for hair colour and the implications thereof. He lends all of this to FromSoftware's Hidetaka Miyazaki in the East, creator of some of gaming's finest fantasy realms, including the prolific Dark Souls Trilogy and others. Full disclosure, the base Elden Ring game was my first Soulslike experience - but before you judge me too harshly, know that since then, so just over two years later, I've lived in and beaten, i think all of those worlds. Next was Demons Souls, then Bloodborne, dark souls 1, 2 and 3, Sekiro before moving onto those they inspired such as Nioh 1 and 2, and look. You know the rest. It even provoked me to give Breath of the Wild another go, so i did, managing to beat it just before Tears of the Kingdom released, then beat that too. But not because I was a fan of the Zelda games, but because Elden Ring had rewired my brain from casual 45 year old gamer to a serious campaigner, the kind that needed to swing a greatsword at least a hundred times a week or so. Even now, I'm logged into a save file on my PS5, one of four, 470hrs deep, but have managed another chunk of my life on my pc handheld, itself home to another few profiles. You've seen all the 'how dark souls saved me' videos, so I won't elaborate just now on what it did for me, perhaps that too deserves it's own video, but in short, I recently faced a very real health threat that could easily have seen the end of me - I literally thought i might expire before this damnDLC came out, which is a week before my next birthday, Thankfully I was armed with the resilience that these games will provide you with. If You face the challenge long enough, you'll be ready for the day the challenge needs to face you. And then you hand it, its ass on a platter. Put another way, fuck you cancer, I've beaten Malenia, the blade of Miquella.
So, back to why exploring lore in an expansion story is still incredibly rewarding, well that has to do with the partnership between the aforementioned writing team. While Hidetaka made the world you play in, Martin made the history, the rules, the governing order. And Shadow of the Erdtree explores more of both, the past and more locations than previously revealed. It's like the first time you read Ready Player one, it plays out like a mystery novel, you're not just reading, you're participating. You're a sleuth, a detective. It's fun. You're not even trying to be right with your theory crafting. You're just having fun trying to put the puzzle together. Sometimes the pieces fit real good, and other times, it feels like you're mashing random bits into place and hoping nobody notices how contrived they are. So with these disclaimers and caveats in place, let's watch this trailer together and allow me to ramble on like a mad man as we do.
At the end, I'll do my best to piece together one, ridiculous, patchy but entertaining theory. Wish me luck. Ok, so, here's my Theory Part 1: WHAT if, Marika was a deathbed companion in the Shadowrealm. This deathbed companion. And The old man beside her in the painting was the noble she needed to lay with, in order for him to be reborn, or given a new life somehow. Either way, its from her affair with this noble that as the narrator suggests, "gold arose, in the form of those strands. Mind you, there is another form of reincarnation to consider, perhaps, by being swaddled in a Godskin cloth? Woah. That's not what a deathbed companion does, rather - thats how the Gloam Eyed Queen famously gives new life, but that's to make a Godskin Apostle, which, let's be honest, Mesmer kinda looks like. But That is exactly what this scene resembles here, don't you think, those stitches certainly imply a swaddling cloth ? So, Two very different ways to achieve the same thing, reincarnation, performed by, let's call them rivals in regards to who will control the Lands Between? The Golden Order or the Crucible it intends to replace. This obviously depends on whether you believe Radagon existed all along, or if he only came into being after Godfrey was shunned from the lands between.
But, what if they're not rivals? What if they're yet again, two identities, but one person. Marika is the Gloam Eyed Queen? Even I think thats going too far since she's already also Radagon. So counterpoint what if they're in fact lovers? Kind of the modus oprandi for Marika, just ask poor Renala. Something interesting happens if we ship Marika or Radagon with the Gloam Eyed Queen, Like, for one one - Mesmer could be their son, I mean, it could explain his red hair, and his Apostle-like apprarance. but that's almost not crazy enough - so now we're gonna get really nutty, you ready?
Theory 2 So, what if the scene where the old man, seemingly be impaled by a great golden rune, which also resembles a rib cage, and arguably a tree sapling, it is in fact the elden ring after it arrived in the Lands between. And the seduction and betrayal involves this man being resurrected via deathbed companion and or swaddling cloth or a combination of the two. The gold thread that Marika later pulls out of the swaddling bag cloth, being the resurrected or reformed golden rune now in a malleable form, while the blood and viscera being all that remains of the man himself. He wasn't made aware of the fact that he was being sacrificed, just so that this golden thread would be rendered from his corpse. And it's the thread we see Marika holding as she becomes a God, subsequently weaving it around the great tree, to transform it into the Golden Erdtree of the Lands Between. The old mans' remains is the Shadow, the thread is the Gold. What thread? The same thread (that emits from her hammer in the original trailer when forming the ring.) But what other evidence could we have to suggest Marika could be a deathbed companion? Well, the only other on such person we encounter we offee was Fia who offered the Balduchin blessing, where Marika had her Mimic veil. Not quite the same, but perhaps similar enough. The one that goes too far?
Ok that was a lot. I've theorised that the Gloam Eyed Queen and Marika were lovers, Mesmer potentially their Godskin Baby Boy or that the old man with his golden rune ribcage were swaddled out of existence and shit. Look. I did warn you that this would get completely unhinged, and look there are more holes in these theories than there are in stormveil castle, but sure as shit, that was fun. The biggest problem I've created for myself is that I've tried to combine two fairly ok theories into one sketchy one. There's just so much to farm here, such as how this version of Marika looks a bit more masculine than the one we met in the base game, but without red hair, isn't quite the fully realised Radagon either. But you could resolve this by saying its a pre Radagon male form that seduced (and betrayed) the Gloam Eyed Queen. And that this, as they say in the trailer, is the affair that kicked off a war. Then again, we've been theorizing that Mesmer got his red hair from Radagon. But what if we got it the wrong way around and Radagon in fact got his red hair from his father, Mesmer? What if Mesmer and the Gloam Eyed Queen were in fact lovers, and the parents of Radagon and Marika. And if you're thinking but hey, Mesmer says, "mother would you truly lordship sanction" we don't actually see his lips move, it could be anyone saying that line. Hell, It could even be miquella. I think it's incredibly foolish to assume that Miquella is good, but I suppose we'll find out in a month.
and another thing Ok, one last one for fun. Doesn’t that shape on the stairways kinda look like Guranq? You know, Maliketh? The shadow of Marika sent to kill the Gloam Eyed Queen. Impaled by their son, Mesmer? Impaled but maybe not killed. Ok, no. I've definitely been let out of my cell for far too long.

We have seen his uncle beat on him while people stand around amused and do nothing. If it happens while he is king, imagine how much it happened BEFORE he was king? We saw it. Tyrion was a bully who reveled in beating his helpless nephew. Robert was obtuse and oblivious and did not care. Cersei the Narcissist was always laughing or running off doing creepy incest sex with her equally narcissist brother. His pervy parents didn't care. Even when his uncle makes jokes about kings dying his mother just laughs it off. His evil and mean old grandfather with dead eyes mocks him and sends him to bed early and to get some drugs in his system to put him to sleep. Drugs! Give the boy drugs! Tells him he is no true king to his FACE. Humiliates the poor boy.
No one respects the Joff. Think about how as a young boy he was left stewing all the time, left alone to his own devices. They bullied him, and so he became the bully. And even then he barely messed with his family. Even then he was loyal. One time, one time he fucks with his uncle in public. So sick of all the shit his uncle put him through, he toys with his uncle and makes him pour him some wine. And people are left feeling sorry for his cruel uncle! Imagine THAT! The Joff was like WTF!
But he never hurt any of his family. He took out his anger as a bully on everyone BUT his family. The Joff was hurting inside. Hurt people hurt people. And his siblings NEVER bore the hell that he did. They were coddled. The Joff was tormented. Abused from such an early age for no reason.
King Joffrey the Misunderstood. That is what I call him.