Reblogging Because Of The Chinese At The End

Reblogging because of the chinese at the end

Obi Wan is Asian coded because he takes inspiration from Indian and Chinese Buddhists and is based off Jewish people as well, he is very friendly to Muslims as well, that being said as a Black British Jewish Genderfluid person living in London, how dare you of accusing me being a “straight white male” in the last post I made calling obi wan “Asian coded and a ally of lgbtq people” which he is btw, his character is based off Poc people, and you’re taking the piss if you think otherwise.

OK nonny, I'm making an exception for you from my Delete and Block rule this second time.

Of course Obi Wan is a friend to all living things. All Mary Sues are! Its a common trope.

Don't even try pulling the "offensive" card on me, dude. It is you people weaponized the Mary Sue and made it onto an sexist slur to begin with. You have zero right to call it offensive when its applied to your fave. I'm using it in the correct sense to mean a character who has no flaws and is perfect.

George Lucas once said in an interview that he did not want any real world religions in Star Wars. I can understand why George Lucas didn't want real world religions to exist in any recognizable form in his work, he said it was because he didn't want to be seen as biased towards any one religion I think.

That is not to say that he didn't base stuff off real world religions, he did. Inspiration though is different from directly inserting stuff into a story. That's the beauty of fiction. Authors can use lots of different things for inspiration, but the end result can be a mixture of different inspirations and something totally new and unique.

Ergo, Woobie-Wan may be based on a couple of different religions, but those religions do not exist, in the form we know them exactly in the Star Wars universe. To say that he is "friendly to Muslims" is a ludicrous statement, because there are no Muslims and Jews in Star Wars. Nor are there any Hindus, Christians, Mormons or anything else.

This isn't me saying this, its Lucas. And don't give me that "Tuskens are Muslims" crap. That is as racist as fuck because it is tantamount to saying the Middle East is 100% Islamic and always has been. When you say that, you are erasing non-Muslim indigenous minorities such as the Yazidis, Copts, Zoroastrians and others in the Middle East and Africa. You are doing the terrorist's job for them.

Never mind that Woobie's only dealings with Tuskens, in canon, is to scare one away with a Krayt dragon noise. Don't even mention that dreadful comic to me, which makes him a hideous Mary Sue and vilifies Owen Lars.

This is an Owen Lars friendy zone, and no vilification of him will be tolerated here.

Similarly, saying Woobie-Wan is an "ally" to a group who are not represented or do not directly exist in Universe is ludicrous. They were literally banned from including ANY LGBT characters in Star Wars until 2003. and even then they hardly jumped at the change for representation. Woobie-Wan is not an ally, because there were no gay people for him to ally with, in canon. Karen Traviss was the first author to include an openly gay character in any Star Wars material, and she's the most hated SW author today. Says a lot.

Therefore, any "coding" that exists is that which you have read into to the story. You might not be a straight white male, but Obi Wan very much IS. He's been played by two straight white male actors respectively. He as an aristorcratic white girlfriend with Posh British accent.

As far as coding and inspiration goes, you have another problem. It can apply just a much to other characters, and is not exclusive to Woobie-Wan. Anakin's story is based very heavily on Jewish and Christian tradition. Lucas even admitted it. Virgin birth, a slave in a desert, "The Chosen One" narrative. Although there are some pagan religions who have virgin birth stories as well. Shmi Skywalker either has a Hebrew name, or as is more commonly thought, the name of a Hindu goddess Lakshmi. "Ben is a Hebrew name" is the basis of your entire Jewish coded theory for Woobie-Wan isn't it? (Never mind that millions of people who have the name Ben aren't Jewish. I have a Hebrew name, but sadly I'm not Jewish.)

Well, Anakin's mother has a Hebrew/Hindu name, so what does that make him? Oh, what's more his childhood best friend Kitster was played by a boy of South Asian heritage, Dhruv Chanchani.

The marriage of Padme and Anakin draws inspiration from Hindu Mythology @padme-amitabha can tell you more about that, as well as ancient Eygptian Mythology. In real life, Natalie Portman is Jewish, in Universe she has a Japanese name. That's enough to conclude she's "Asian coded" in this fandom.

Ah yes, this is the point where you start crying foul "Anakin isn't Asian coded! He's an evil white dude!"

Ohhhh, I see. So the character is only "Asian and gay coded"when you like them, right? Characters you hate are all white and straight.

This coding thing is subjective, then. A matter of personal interpretation. Always has been. Well then you have no basis for going around, screaming at other people and demanding they accept your subjective viewpoint.

Sounds a lot like you are just using this crap to justify worshipping a character who your brain and reason tells you is straight and white. Listen to your reason. Its all subjective anyway, so I really an not required to accept any of it. If it makes you happy, fine, but subjective things do not require anyone else to accept them.

I can show you Lucas quotes showing Anakin isn';t the most evil being in the universe, and is the victim, but you won't find any saying Woobie Wan is Asian, LGBT coded, nor a tragic hero. Just let it go.

Oof.

Oof!

OOOFFF!

for modern day gatsby, the little 'active' green dot next to daisy's pfp would be his green dock light, in this essay i-

Men are taught how to be good husbands from boyhood.

We are pushed into sports to build strength.

We are taught never to cry or show emotion to learn how to be dependable.

We are driven toward the trades to learn a financially secure skill.

We are exposed to war and conflict because we have to protect our families from those who would harm them.

Men are never allowed to forget their responsibilities so that women could forget theirs.

like “how to be a good wife” posts are great but why does no one ever tell men how to be good husbands

Yeah Naw, Tyrian is a straight up pycho who wanted to kill everyone there, most ruby did was "damage cause I have no mental concept of killing another thing that ain't a Grimm" it's akin to stabbing someone to get them off of you or someone else, sure it could kill them but it's mainly done to stop them from doing the thing, kinda smart storywise

Hell, only reason why the hero's got the dub was because qrow showed up and he got poisoned and gashed

But Adam? Adam has killed, so much so that the act doesn't even phase him, fucker enjoys it

Exactly, Ruby isn't an abuser because of the context of her actions.

Similarly, the context of Adam's actions is hardly that of an abuser.

We see in the comics that Adam never was abusive to Blake. Adam was honest with Blake.

In the black trailer, Adam was never abusive to Blake and treated her with respect.

From the Black Trailer, Adam was set up to be a Villain, so it was a matter of how Adam was going to act as a villain when he reappeared.

RT made Adam weird. Fair. But once again, Adam was already a villain, and he acted accordingly as a villain to Blake, and Yang.

From the context, Adam has never abused Blake before v3. After v3, Adam's acted like any enemy would and Blake responded accordingly.

Blake and Adam were close friends turned enemies. There was no abuse before, and no abuse after.

Adam isn't abusive.

What would you say are the essential doctrines one must believe to be saved? Contrasty would you say that there are any heresies that if believes would exclude one from salvation?

I'm sorry it took me a very long time to get to this. I asked this question myself, in the past, and tried to boil it down but wasn't able. There are whole creeds written on this by virtually every denomination. If you want me to write an exhaustive manifesto; I'd say that's not something I'm prepared to undertake.

But, also, there's something presumed in this question. The question seems to presume that the essence of salvation is holding a set of doctrines.

The question "what must I do to be saved?" is answered several times in single-sentence formulas in the Bible, phrased in several different ways.

Mark 6:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Romans 10:9 Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John 3:15-16 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now... the Bible exhorts us here to believe in Jesus. Not "to believe specific doctrines". However. I do not intend to dismiss the importance of doctrine. I only mean 2 things.

You can have all doctrines correct and not be saved.

If you are saved by God, correct doctrines will result.

Correct doctrine is the gift of God. For me to say anything else would be to promote salvation by works. Because I would then be saying that man is saved by his intelligence, by doing the intellectual work of piecing together correct doctrine.

So this goes hand in hand with what the Bible says about faith and works.

See up there how Mark says, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

He does not say, Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.

That is because only people who believe by faith are expected to be baptized, and baptism is a work that is a result of believing by faith. People who do not believe are condemned because they do not believe, not because they are not baptized.

People who do not believe are condemned because they do not believe, not because they do not have correct doctrine. This "belief" is a belief in Christ. Repent and believe that He is the only one who is able to save you from your sin, and glorify him as Lord. Jesus is willing to save anyone who comes to him.

Faith in Christ brings forth a willingness and a desire to accept correct doctrine, which grows continually with the believer's maturity in Christ. A person may be born again knowing very little doctrine whatsoever. They are like a little fetus not yet having any arms or legs, but all of that stuff is still a part of their being, they just haven't manifested it yet.

It would also be strange for me to place a minimum on correct doctrine; since rejecting any part of God's word and God's law is always a sin. I can't say a person who rejects even the smallest jot or tittle of God's word is living consistently with the Christian faith. Any bit of willful resistance to God's Word is enough to give the lie to a litmus test of correct doctrines. And God's Word is the entire Bible- everything in it.

Again it is hard to place a reductive explanation on this since salvation is the work of God, upon man. Therefore the answer to "what must I do to be saved" is phrased in a paradoxical way. "Recieving" the gift, "Being born" and "believing" are all passivities. We are saved by grace alone. Today, if you hear His voice calling to you, don't harden your heart but call upon Him.

S'Alright.

Hmm. Sad, really. She even stabbed him in the heart, metaphorically and then literally. Damn.