- Do you know enough about the all worlds religions to make a potentially harmful generalization about all of them?
- Are you making assumptions about other religions based off of your experience with one religion?
- Are you making assumptions about other religions and cultures based on your limited experience with a single person or group of people from said religion or culture?
- Are you taking out your valid frustrating, anger, hurt, and pain with one religious group on people who have nothing to do with it by making a generalization?
If you don’t actually mean the every single one of the vast, diverse, multi-faceted religions in the world, don’t make a blanket statement and list the one(s) you mean specifically. This also goes for using ‘grouping’ labels that do not apply, like Abrahamic, etc.
Born in Antioch (or Carthage) to pagan parents, young Cyprian was dedicated to the gods and studied until age 30. Upon returning home, he gained renown for his powerful spells and was venerated as a priest. He converted to a bishop through St. Justina. He is known for occult books in his name. He can be selective in who he works with; can come off as monotone.
Feast Days: September 26 (Catholic); October 2 (Orthodox)
We have been dying to make this post for a long time. What we'll be covering includes the following:
Firstly - mistranslations and out-of-context verses.
Secondly - genderqueerness in the Bible.
Thirdly - Jewish cultural genders.
(Content warning for mentions of sexual assault and genital mutilation.)
1st Corinthians 6:9 - 6:10
1st Corinthians 6:9 - 6:10 is mistranslated.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
"Effeminate" is a mistranslation of malakoi. Malakoi is a man who is weak or cowardly - not a man who is feminine. The mistranslation is based in misogyny, by turning "weak/cowardly" into a feminine trait.
"Homosexual" is a mistranslation of arsenokoitai. Arsenokoitai are men who assault other men - not just a gay man. Its absurd to mistranslate "gay rapist" into just "gay."
Leviticus 22
Leviticus 22 is out of context. Leviticus briefly mentions homosexuality, by stating “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.”
However, the context of the original Hebrew text and the verses before this is very important. Before this verse, there was a discussion of incest and infidelity between men and women.
But none of these texts ever clarified if the laws also applied to male-on-male incest and infidelity. The addition of Leviticus 22 is not to condemn homosexuality, but to clarify that the previously listed laws also apply to gay incest and gay infidelity.
In full context, the verses go as following:
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am the LORD.
The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thine own nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son' wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen; it is lewdness.
And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime.
And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.
And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.”
Eunuchs
The Bible discusses Eunuchs in many different chapters. “Eunuch” was a term used to describe three things:
A man whose penis was removed, due to slavery or a desire for abstinence.
A person who was born with a male-appearance, but no penis; a type of male-appearing intersex person.
Or a person who removed their penis due to not identifying as a male; a transgender or altersex person, or an intersex person whose penis did not align with the rest of their experiences.
Each of these definitions can be seen in Mathew 19, Verse 12.
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Further evidence that some eunuchs are non-binary can be seen in Isaiah 56, Verse 4-5.
“For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.”
Jewish cultural genders
In Jewish culture (which is where Jesus is from), there were eight recognized genders - Zachar, Nekevah, Aylonit Hamah, Aylonit Adam, Saris Hamah, Saris Adam, Androgynos, and Tumtum.
(Zuh-car) Zachar was the term for people who were born with male traits, and lived their life as a man. In modern terms, this is a cisgender man.
(Neck-eh-vuh) Nekevah were people who were born with female traits, and lived their life as a woman. This would be a cisgender woman.
(Eye-low-night Hah-maw) Aylonit Hamah were people who were born with female traits, but naturally developed male traits later in life. This describes people who were intersex, and had hormonal variations that caused male traits to develop.
(Eye-low-night Ah-dom) Aylonit Adam were people who were born with female traits, but developed male traits through human intervention. This describes trans-men or masculine non-binary people.
(Saw-riss Hah-maw) Saris Hamah were people who were born with male traits, but naturally developed female traits later in life. This describes people who were intersex, and had hormonal variations that caused female traits to develop.
(Saw-riss Ah-dom) Saris Adam were people who were born with female traits, but developed female traits through human intervention. This describes trans-women or feminine non-binary people.
(And-draw-joe-naws) Androgynos were people who were born with a mix of female and male traits. This described intersex people who had ambiguous genitals, or otherwise appeared to have a mix of genitals. Modern Jews also use it to include non-binary and altersex people with androgynous identities.
(Pronounced exactly how it's spelled) Tumtum were people who were born lacking sex traits. This described intersex people who were on the agenital spectrum - people whose genitals were small or obscured. Modern Jews also use it to include non-binary and altersex people with neutral identities.
Usually angel number 17 in the Shem HaMephorash listing of the Kabbalistic angels, their name meaning “admirable God” or “the marvelous god”. In Kabbalah, Loviah is a throne often called upon for restful sleep, ideas, invention, art, and insight. The Bible verse attributed to them is “O Lord, our Sovereign, how majestic is your name in all the earth!”
Wake Up Dead Man - A Review of Collectivism and Faith
‘Break down the walls between us and Christ’ (00:23:40). That’s what Father Jud says. Whilst Christ is obviously kind of important to Christianity, the walls being broken down here are not just between the Christians and Christ, but between individualism and collectivism. The individualism expressed in the film is shown through Monsignor Wicks and his hardened flock. Wicks attacks a new attendee to his church who is wearing a surgeon mask, someone who is focussing on the collective good. The same as the single mother, raising her child in (as the child of a single mother) a good family structure. The same as the presumed-queer couple whose only act was one of love, and flipping off Wicks. We see the horror of Wicks, his cruelty and his self-indulgent sermons. His certainty in the “objective truths” of the church, something he beats Father Jud over. After the initial punch, we hear the tinnitus-like ringing of a church bell. The bell has rung out with the message, and we see the aftermath of the ringing, but not the message itself. However, contrary to what one might think, I will argue that Jud is not Wicks’s foil. Benoit Blanc is. Both have a penchant for objectivity, unemotional rational discourse, of blind faith in something. For Wicks, that is obviously his version of G-d. For Blanc, that is criminal justice. A structure of right and wrong based on knowledge and “truth”. But what separates them? Doubt, emotion, struggle, and goodness.
In one of my other favourite films (I have a thing about Catholic films… yes, I am Jewish…) Conclave (2025), Father Thomas gives a sermon about faith. ‘Certainty is the great enemy of unity.’ Neither Wicks nor Blanc allow themselves to feel anything less than certainty. Blanc withdraws from his repetition of Jud’s question: ‘How does it make me feel?’ (00:40:53). He lists the valid criticisms of Christianity: misogyny, homophobia, the difficulty in accepting the stories. As a Jew, I can understand this. There is no perfect person in the Tanakh, in the world. There is no holy person who doesn’t understand the humour of G-d. That is why, within the film, Blanc is sent not to save Jud, but to challenge him as he too is challenged (00:39:29). Blanc spends this film going through a journey of faith, of reaching out beyond certainty and towards unity. In order to solve this mystery, he has to let Martha confess her wrong doings and come to reveal the reality freely. This means overcoming the faith in ideology that Blanc has. ‘[G-d] is dead, [G-d] remains dead, and we have killed him.’ Blanc repeats his belief in the ideology of certainty: ‘This [mystery] should not exist in our real world’ (00:50:44, my own emphasis). Police Chief Scott has this ideology too, ‘You know this case is solvable,’ (said after the previous quote, my own emphasis). Both seem to seek a comfort in certainty as a way to view the world. Both of their jobs revolve around the concept like the Earth does the Sun. The repetition of the peering eyes suggest the certainty of reality. You believe what you see. The repetition of eyes peering reminds us of this… though, as this is a Knives Out mystery, we know this to be more complicated. The psalm that Blanc references (00:54:35) is psalm 18, about the rock of G-d, about the firing arrows of HaShem (v.14), about the righteousness and certain justice (v. 20), and the ‘violent man [HaShem] rescued me’ from (v. 48). The gift of the death of Wicks provides sanctuary for those harmed by him. Martha, too, pushes this valuing of certainty. She cites ‘original sin’ (00:56:10), that every person is certain to go to Hell unless proven otherwise through faith and deeds. Her idea of faith is certain; her deeds are certain. But, as we come to find out about her murderous ways, her idea of faith is wrong, and her deeds are worse. Yet, she repents, and asks for forgiveness.
Blanc’s certainty begins to break when he has all the pieces of the mystery, yet no answer. After watching the baseball tape recording, and the video of the service, he stares absolutely baffled. This is different to the Blanc we’ve come to know. His certainty provided us, the audience, with a certainty too. “Don’t worry, Blanc will solve it and then the story is over,” we all say. Alas, in this film, Blanc does not solve it. He cannot. This reminded me of A Serious Man (2009). The main character, based on the book of Job, asks a Rabbi ‘Why does HaShem make us feel the questions if he won’t give us the answers?’ This is Blanc’s struggle. He has the questions, and from the answers, he has more questions. Yet there is no certainty. At this point, Jud says to Blanc that he has faith that Blanc would solve this. Jud, too, is not about certainty because he deals with unsolvable mystery for a living. So, what do they do from here? They turn to the story (01:00:30). To the illusion of reality. Or, as Jud said, to a truth that’s so fundamental that we can’t express through any other way than a story. I enjoy thinking that this is Rian Johnson (writer and director) nodding to the audience. But, Blanc is still looking for certainty. As Jud writes his account of the events, we see Blanc drinking and smoking with the Passion of Christ in the background on the wall. The great moment of cosmic justice meted out by the G-d of the New Testament. The AI thumbnails on the YouTube videos of Wicks’s sermons, yet again, another point of non-reality, of dishonesty and injustice.
We see the meeting Wicks had with his cystic flock. We hear, for the first time, ‘that poor girl’ (01:10:45), about the ‘harlot whore’. The derogatory nickname given to Grace reminded me of Nabakov’s Lolita, Humbert Humbert. Harlot and whore mean the same thing. But, you know, “so nice I had to name it twice”. ‘Poor girl’ is an interesting way to put it. On the one hand, it makes us sympathise with a girl who was subject to the misogyny of the Church. We can see it through all the female characters in the film, and it is referenced to by Blanc at his first appearance. But, on the other hand, it is quite patronising. Grace wasn’t a ‘poor girl’, she was an abused and grown woman. This diminutising of Christian women is a strength and a weakness. For Grace, she was only defined by her struggle. That’s all we know of her. For Martha, she nearly got away with murder after hiding the great sins of the priests (we all know what other sins that could refer too, I’m sure). After finding out that Cy is the son of Wicks, everyone goes back to supporting Wicks except two women: Martha and Vera. Simone is still waiting on a miracle, she still ‘wants to believe’ (01:05:55). All those who believe in Wicks still do not understand Christ, nor the Bible (see: Cy and the Prodigal son vs Vera and the psalms). Perhaps, due to the contradictory nature of the Bible, the uncertainty of faith, they believe in a warrior. They believe in the certainty of Wicks. Love is never certain. Individualism is certain because the self, to some, feels certain. Collectivism isn’t certain because it involves others.
What is certain in the film? The next scene is this whole point. Jud accepts the breaking of the Jesus statue. He strays from his collectivism towards solving the individual mystery. But what brings him back. Helping another through prayer. Being a priest. He prays for Louise (Louise meaning famous warrior, very good Rian Johnson). Louise’s mother has a brain tumour that makes her say horrible things. Louise blew up at her Mum, and insulted her. Louise is saved by reaching out to a good priest. The good saves her. That is what is certain. Good. When Jud is talking to Blanc about the road to Damascus, in the background a man with a warm-light lamp appears between them (01:28:19). Warm light throughout the film represents good faith, hope and humanity. Jud says that Blanc is ‘making it about [him], not Jesus.’ The self is uncertain for Jud. He says, ‘I don’t know.’ Blanc fails to understand the point Jud makes here. He doesn’t get it until later in the film, his own road to Damascus moment where he lets Martha confess. His failing is, to an extent, Wicks failing. A lack of empathy, emotion and trust.
Samson is murdered. Samson, another biblical name. In the Tanakh, Samson is a Nazirite. Someone who doesn’t partake in alcohol, doesn’t cut or really groom their hair. They do this to focus on the spirituality and studying of Judaism. When, in the Tanakh, Samson’s hair is cut, he vow is broken and he loses his power. Samson in the film is a recovering alcoholic with long hair who focusses on love and goodness, as such, he remains untouched by Wicks. Instead, he focuses on carpentry, the nature world and groundskeeping. Simone (the feminine of Simeon, the faithful man who would not die until he saw Christ) is surrounded by plants when we see her home, she is trying to get in touch with the goodness but has to pot it and control it. Martha works in the church. The church is an unnatural structure, 19th century neo-gothic mimicking medieval churches. Martha, in the Christian bible, is witness to Jesus resurrecting her brother Lazarus. Nathan (Nat Sharp, the doctor) is, in the Tanakh, the moral guide for David who rebukes him for the sexual violence he commits. I had to talk about at least a few of the names. Cy is the Simon-Peter to Wicks, Vera meaning faith or piety, she has faith in her Father, in Wicks (the Father) and then faith in her feminine-self. I appreciate a good name.
Blanc, dropped into this world of faith, lack of faith, certainty, uncertainty, a world he cannot swallow without choking, finally gets it. When the warm light of Grace floods in (01:54:18, also, another good name) Blanc becomes like Jud. In fact, Jud asks ‘are you okay?’ Blanc answers that he can’t solve the case. This is not because he doesn’t know. It is because he now understands. This mimics the beginning of the film, ‘How do you feel?’ Blanc still gets uncomfortable from a hug, but he allows it still. He says that the ‘scales fell from [his] eyes’ (01:56:49). Police Chief Scott questions Blanc on his new-found understanding, ‘facts, shmacts?’ But Blanc has become a warrior of understanding. Martha’s costume is priest-like here, old-school priest. She has been the poor girl, a religious old lady who polishes silver and organises the book-club. This was an effective cover for a murderer. It reminds us that those behind the mashugana (crazy-person), whether it’s Martha or Cy, are often the most dangerous. Especially when they abuse religion (cough, cough, J.D. Vance, cough, Erika Kirk, cough). The fall of Martha was one of Christian faith. She expected Nat to be like Christ (02:07:23-47). This is part of the flaw of Christianity. Expecting perfection and sense in a world that is non-sensical and imperfect is an issue. Accepting the mystery, accepting life simply, as Rashi advised, might be the best move. Instead, Martha exploits the misogyny of the church to get away with it all. Yet, goodness brings her back.
So, how does the Church respond to the Wickses of the world? We see the answer: ‘All are welcome’ (02:16:46). The real jewel is the metaphorical heart of Christ. Jud doesn’t force Blanc into coming to mass, but lets him going, trusting the change, trusting G-d to guide him, and trusting Blanc to be good. He is accepted for everything that he is. The Church of England has been faced with this issue recently. With Tommy Robinson being Wicks about Christianity, the Church has to respond. They responded with goodness. With the collective fact that we are all creatures of G-d. That we all need some sort of faith, some sort of doubt, and some sort of good. We can only hope that’s enough. Frankly, I want to see Jesus drop kick the Robinson.
