#No one with a basic understanding of Christian doctrine thinks that’s a sound idea

[steeb-stn]

Everybody in the severance tag losing it over burt becoming an innie so he can go to heaven with his husband (only for his innie to fall in love with another man)

meanwhile im just like that’s. That’s a really dumb idea lol, also not how Christian salvation works

[bookmuseum]

[REVIEW] Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe

5/5 stars (★★★★★)

"Come, I think hell's a fable." (II.i.128)

Aside from surface-level knowledge of Faustian contracts and an admittedly fervid appreciation for Yana Toboso's Black Butler manga (:3), I didn't know a lot about the myth of Faust and the history behind its many retellings, -- nor have I read the Thomas Mann version(s) or the Goethe plays -- so I did a lot of preliminary research before I actually dove right into it. The 1604 play ended up being one of the funniest things I've ever read in a long time. For that reason, this review is extremely short, unserious, and mostly just me reviewing the Broadview second edition edited by Michael Keefer that I used as a copy.

Basically, I regret reading Doctor Faustus for the first time with Broadview because, while it was informative and incredibly detailed (I'm a little concerned for Keefer's scholastic sanity), I wish I just read the play on its own with few to little annotations and context. I liked reading about Christopher Marlowe in the introduction. I had zero idea that homeboy was a spy and got murdered for it at only 29 years of age. I wish we knew more about him, I would've loved to read more about what crazy shit he got into as a political dissident in Elizabethan England. That sounds so kickass.

The story of DF itself is really short (shorter than most Shakespeare plays). Keefer's annotations and footnotes took up 70% of the space on the pages, so I'd read about 20ish lines then spend the next 5-10 minutes reading over what he had to say about them in painstaking detail. I read every annotation! Broadview prides itself on being exhaustive for the sake of maximized education, which I commend, but I think I underestimated myself when I thought I needed this much context to "understand" this classic play. If you know the basics of Greek/Roman mythology, post-Lutheran Christian doctrine, and Elizabethan English society + playwrights in general, (so essentially what they teach you about Shakespeare in high school) I'd say you're solid and don't really need the Broadview text (unless you want to really get into it).

For me, I just wanted to read the play casually so I didn't pay too much attention to the footnotes and forced myself not to go too deep down the research rabbit hole. I unfortunately forgot an important rule with literature in that a text's reputation is never as solemnly serious as it ever is in popular culture, so don't let it "scare" you into thinking you don't know anything going into it. I'm not an Elizabethan scholar nor do I really like Early Modern English literature all that much, so I thought I needed to know more than what I already did. I was wrong! I could've read DF when I was just starting to get into classic lit in Grade 9 and I still would've enjoyed it as is. It's not this impregnable, impossible to fathom text. It's so silly!

I get that this play is a tragedy and everything, but it genuinely did make me laugh out loud a handful of times. I was a graduate student too and, while I don't have my PhD in divinity, I kinda get how Faustus ended up summoning the devil in his college dorm/study one day for the fuck of it. Like yeah, what the hell, sure. When the iconic Mephistopheles shows up, Faust basically tells him he looks too ugly for his eyes so he has to change into a more palatable form -- and Mephi does it! That was so funny. I ship Faustus and Mephi, I don't care. I don't wanna go into it too much, but just know I'm not alone in my delusion and have spent a significant amount of time going back and forth between reading what people had to say about #Faustupheles on the internet and actually reading the play. I had a grand old time, I'll have you know.

Anyway, I opted out of reading Appendix C and D because they seemed boring to me so I can't judge them or their merit here. Appendix A and B, I did read though. I really enjoyed Keefer's inclusion of excerpts from The Historie of the damnable life, and deserved death of Doctor John Faustus (1592) (or The English Faust Book AKA TEFB) edited by John Henry Jones in 1994. I read it immediately after finishing the main play and was delighted the second time around looking back on the plot (although there were some changes in the TEFB that didn't hit as well).

[mitigatedchaos]

We can think of the causality of events as having multiple variables. That is why I promoted the idea of layer-based analysis in my really long post, Now, Melt. For a complex phenomenon, there's usually one layer of analysis, like geography, that matters, and also another layer of analysis, like individual leaders, that also matters.

What you're describing is an attempt to factor some of the labor of politics out of the analysis by compressing down one or more of the variables to nothing.

In this view, for example, all religions are Evangelical Christianity. Religiosity is treated as having some explanatory power (i.e. more religion = worse outcomes), but all religions are treated as essentially just different colors of the same thing. An Islamic Jihadist is considered essentially the same as an abortion clinic bomber.

Someone holding this view would then claim that any differences in outcomes by religion, or in religiosity, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious doctrine, and are solely an effect of something like poverty.

If you make this assumption, and also assume that all religions are false, then you can treat all religious disputes as between two groups of irrational people in differently-colored team sports jerseys.

All the religions hate the gays for no reason. You just say "no" to all of them. Simple as.

The left and right are both the same, globally, so it's just left-vs-right in every territory. Complaints from your local purple jerseys about the incoming green jerseys are just the purples selfishly trying to get more power to do purple things. (A softer version would say that religions are different, but not different enough to matter. Basically, it's below the threshold of noise.)

This position sounds an awful lot like outgroup homogeneity bias to me.

Religious rules aren't that different from ideological ones, and in framing the global left-vs-right conflict as relevant, we agreed that ideological rules matter.

Religions have specific rules. These specific rules have effects. These rules can differ from religion to religion, just as with ideologies. Different religions can therefore have different effects. It's not just different-colored jerseys.

Opposition can emerge due to a natural conflict of interest, just as between communists and capitalists. Even if you engage in speech suppression, opposition can just keep re-emerging organically.

The actual work of politics involves making deals and settlements, keeping them, and adjusting to changes in the underlying conditions. When the underlying balance of power changes, members of different factions will push their luck, and that means making new settlements all over again.

That doesn't happen overnight. It takes time, effort, skill, and personal judgment or wisdom. It's work.

Now, regarding the "administrative division" or "implicit global unitary state" model...

It's very tempting to think, "Why don't they just stop killing each other? Why can't we just censor these idiots until they quit resorting to murder?"

When I started my political rebuild in 2015, that was essentially my starting point. I wasn't as pro-censorship as 2020 Democrats, nor was I as anti-border, but I can understand some of that mindset.

With that in mind, let's imagine a region where the population is 99% anti-burger, and yet in line with the administrative division model above, the state does not impose anti-burger policy.

What kind of government...

...doesn't depend on locals for staffing (such as police officers who might decide not to enforce pro-burger laws)?

...is totally non-responsive to local (anti-burger) popular demands (even when this might be economically irrelevant)?

...isn't at risk of falling from power even in the face of large-scale civil disobedience or a general strike, and doesn't have to make bargains with local anti-burger businessmen?

This is a government that is beyond the labor of politics. No one has to form a coalition. No one has to convince men to fight for it. It doesn't make messy compromises. It doesn't even need to charge taxes.

The type of government this most closely describes is a mid-late 20th-century foreign military occupation.

The political debate about the policy of the government occurs somewhere else. The recruitment of staff to police the streets and man the offices occurs somewhere else. Even the funding to deploy all of these people comes from somewhere else.

We didn't escape the politics. We just moved them.

Well, okay. Where is the homeland this occupation force deployed from?

It's missing, isn't it?

I hear "wanting a strong border doesn't make you xenophobic" but honestly it kind of does? it's about keeping foreigners out, that is kind of the definition of xenophobia; a "strong border" that checked for drugs and guns and bombs but let people through would not satisfy the demand to create a disenfranchised underclass that is denied full rights of travel and study and work.

[phemonoi]

Philosophy | What are the Gods?

“What are the Gods?” is a question that, perhaps, has haunted most of us at least sometime. But it haunted the ancients too, and to answer this questions many different people proposed many different and often contradictory ideas. The doctrines that taught the different definitions of a what a God is, begun being called “schools” in ancient Greece. Here, I will try to teach a bit of what the Platonic school taught about Gods, in a very, very, simplifying way.

☀️ Foreword

Why Platonism, you ask? Simple: Plato was, perhaps undoubtedly, the most popular philosopher back then. His ideas reached many, and they became not just polemic, but very important. In Late Antiquity the most prominent school in philosophy *and* theology were the platonic pagans, who had many encounters against monotheistic christians; although we have to be grateful that some of their ideas weren't so contradictory or irreconcilable, because if that were the case, perhaps the doctrine of Plato and his Neoplatonists wouldn't have survive pagan persecution and erasure.

Even if Plato was a polytheist, because of the nature of Socrates’ approach and abstract ideas, recognizing a clear influence of ‘polytheism’ requires observation and objectivity. In medieval times, christian theologists and philosophers learned a lot from both Plato and Neoplatonists, and tried to reconcile their teachings with the newer monotheistic religiosity, sometimes misinterpreting or implying a type of ‘monotheism’ in Plato's words.

Sadly, this tradition hasn't been very disproved in contemporary scholar sources. Many philosophers and scholars still believe that Socrates (and even his ancestors) arrived to the idea of monotheism before the rest of their contemporary “vulgar” and “uncultured” people. Sadly, in philosophical circles today, the belief in many gods is seen as superstitious and not deserving of consideration. Yes, philosophy today is full of arrogance.

However! Some philosophers and scholars survive that defend a polytheistic reading of Plato's doctrine. Some of them are: Thomas Taylor, Richard Bodeus, Patrick Dunn, Peter Kingsley, Algis Uzdavinys, etc. In the eighteenth century paganism started to resurface again, and that’s where we get Thomas Taylor from, who was openly pagan. Even Goethe holded eclectic ideas and wrote many letters stating his devotion to many other gods beside the christian one! So if you ever read Plato through polytheist lens, you'll find him easier to understand with the help of those scholars. 

☀️ Introduction

So, okay, let's get right to it: according to Plato, what are Gods?

Well, in short: they are not.

This is hard to think, but let's try to understand it. For Plato, Gods do not posses “Being”, because they precede it. They come before everything else can “Be”. Gods do being, and assign being to everything that comes after them, but they themselves are not bound to “be”. This is a simple procession of logic: first come Gods, then comes Being. They make being, but being does not make them.

The Neoplatonists use the term “hyparxis” to define the state in which Gods exist. And it simply means existence.

But let's change the question a bit: What is the ground of Being? What can we say is real?

For Plato, what is truly real are the Ideas of things, and not things themselves. This can be reduced to a simple dichotomy: is matter real? or is spirit real? To answer this questions many schools emerged. Defending the ultimate reality of matter against the spirit were the stoics and the epicureans, along with other schools like the cynic. Defending spirit's ultimate reality against matter were the “mystery” schools like the mysteries of Orpheus, Dionysos, and Isis; the Pythagoreans, and ultimately, the Platonists.

So understanding this better, we could say that Plato stated the soul was more “real” than matter (not to say matter is not real enough). This soul lets call an “Idea”. Ideas are what things reflect; like light casted upon a stone. The stone becomes known to us through that light, since is not dark anymore and we can see it. Plato's Ideas can be understood like that.

Now, notice that I'm capitalizing Ideas. “Ideas” with a capital ‘I’ are not things that are bound to someone's head. They are part of a greater, much more powerful consciousness, that of the Universe. Saying that Ideas are more real than things, is not saying that only what I think is real. This would be absurd; it is not the ideas I think, but those of a much greater consciousness that gives the cosmos its shape.

If you've heard about panpsychism, it will be easier for you to understand what Plato and the Neoplatonist were pointing at. This much bigger consciousness whose ideas reflect matter and give shape to the universe, was call the Nous.

☀️ The Divine Ideas

This is much more complex, but basically you can experience the truth of Ideas by thinking about things and asking yourself why is it that you can think about something that is not available to you at the moment. Let's define, then, what the Ideas are.

Matter: What is matter? Matter is something bound to space and time in order to exist. For example, for you to exist, you must have a body (space) and be somewhere, at a given age (time). Our bodies are bound to space-time in the sense that they move, and they decay. And so is every other thing made of matter: it is dependent on change. So what is matter? that which changes, and is depende on space-time.

However, the Ideas we have of things are not dependent on space or time. You can, for example, think of the color “red” without it being impressed on a thing. But the color “red” cannot exist in matter without it being on something. For example, you can have a red shirt; but you cannot only have red. It must be reflected on something. However, you can think of the color red alone.

What does this mean? It means your thoughts are not material: they are not extended in space. So what are Ideas? That which does not depend on space or time to exist.

This is gonna sound more complicated, but I'll take an example from Einstein's space-time equation that is described in Patrick Dunn's book on Theurgy (I'll be quoting this dude quite a lot, by the way, because I find him very easy to understand).

The equation Einstein used to describe the equivalence of mass and energy is E = mc², right? Yet, ironically enough, this equation is not on space-time. How?? Well, you can write it on a board with a marker. But that's not the equation itself, just a representation of it. The equation is the nonmaterial reality those letters on top of the board describe. The equation is presented to our minds through symbols; but yet, symbols are not the equation. Doesn't matter where you write it. The equation is still an Idea, a reality that exist outside of what it describes. How do we know? Because even if Einstein hadn't figure out this equation, the reality it describes would still be true. The equivalence of mass and energy does not depend on our knowledge of it, it thus exist outside of space and time, since it is true everywhere, whenever.

Going back to the color “red”. The fact that we can know it is true because there is light that reflects that color in particular wavelengths that we can call “red”. So the Idea of “red” is also outside of time and space, because those wavelengths would still reflect that color value even if we are not there to see it or name it. Even if no human existed, those wavelengths would still behave according to the laws that give rise to our perception of “color”.

So what is matter? Taking Dunn's definition: matter is that which brings to us the Ideas that describe our knowledge. Matter brings eternal and immaterial ideas down to the realm of space-time. Thus, matter is real, but not as real as those Ideas, since it is only an echo of their existence.

☀️ Trascendent and Immanent Gods

So now that we have answered Plato's question of what is the ground of Being (Ideas = Spirit), we have to answer the question of where does ideas come from. Of course, they come from a grater mind (or minds), but —What are these minds? Are they inside of the universe (immanent) or outside of it (trascendent)?

Lets see: don't we call the Gods “immortal”? What does this mean? It means they can't die. If they can't die, then, they are not subject to matter, which in itself means, they're outside time and space. Nothing in the world of matter is undying: everything decays, everything is “corruptible” as Plato put it; not in the sense that it is evil, but in the sense that it fades, it dies. Dying is not an evil thing, it's a natural thing.

So if the Gods are undying, and thus nonmaterial, are they Ideas? I'd say that's short for them. They are not ideas in the everyday sense of “Oh! I got an idea!” but Ideas in the sense of being eternal, not subject to space-time, far greater than matter. They are part of what gives the universe its shape, to simplify it.

So if they're undying, can they change? Can Ideas change, even if they are eternal and immaterial? No, this means they can't. Since they are immaterial they are not extended in space. Change requires time, and they exist outside of time. So, no, they can't change.

But if they can't change, why bother praying, am I right? Some schools in ancient Greece stated that because the Gods are immortal and live outside space-time, they can't care about us. The Epicureans, for instance, thought of this. But Plato is not one of them; and Neoplatonists were very religious folks. In fact, they even created a whole method of praying called Theurgy. Why would Plato concern himself in prayer if the Gods can't change, thus can't be affected by our concerns? Let's see.

Borrowing another example from Dunn, let's consider the sun. When the sun is shining outside, we say it is brighter. When the sun can be seen in the morning, we say it has risen. But what happens really? In the first example, there's just no clouds covering the sun; the sun itself does not become any darker or brighter. In the latter example, the earth has rotated to face the sun; the sun does not rise or sets, that's just how we percieve so from the Earth's position. So when we say a God favors us, for instance, Helios, then what really is happening is that we have changed. It means you have turned towards Helios, as the earth turns towards the sun, and you have put your mind in harmony with the cosmic Idea of him, becoming aware of his existence.

But this is not enough. This awareness of the Gods is not enough to explain all our experiences with them, or the gifts they have given us, like magic and prophesy. There needs to be contact with them. And there is: the Gods are not so immaterial after all. How could this be? For instance, how would it be that we, material beings, can think of immaterial things? Easy! Because a part of us extends beyond space and time: our souls. Thus, it is logical to think that a part of the Gods is extended into space-time, even if immaterial, at least enough to influence and interact with it. Perhaps not in the same extent as ours, but that part exists.

So the Gods have bodies like us? I'm quoting Dunn: “What is the Sun, if not the body of Helios? But of course, Helios has a lot of bodies. He's in the sun, in gold, in lions, in all sorts of things.”

How the Gods can be perfect and unchangeable, yet affected by our prayers and the events of the material world, had struggled many philosophers in antiquity. In the end, praying for good to Gods that can't be affected by us sounds incompetent. Sallustius tried to think of it by writing “to say Gods turn away from evil is like saying the sun hides himself from the blind”. For Sallustius, we do not make the Gods notice us by praying and praising them but by acting in ways that are reflective of their goodness, thus by turning ourselves towards them. The Gods don't change because they don't need to: we change, because we need to. And by changing and turning towards them, we heal, and we please them. Think of it this way: by praying to Aphrodite for a lover you might get one, but by acting according to Her and becoming more aware of Her and her beauty, you become a person who is loved.

But still, this is not enough. How can the Gods help us change and heal when they are outside the world? When they are trascendent? We can say this: because we have an eternal (soul) and a temporal part (body), so do the Gods. The Gods are both in the world (immanent) and outside the world (trascendent). They “have” daimones, spirits, who act upon the world, and are both Them and theirs.

This means the Gods are an underlying reality beneath any phenomenon, what the romans called “numen”, and what we know today to be animas; if you're an animistic person, you can be familiarised with this idea. But they are not just simple Laws that hold the universe's order, they are consciousness. We can't taste, hear, see or smell the Gods, but we can feel the awe of the Gods in the presence of nature. The Gods can be said to animate matter: they are the souls of matter.

In his book, Dunn uses Apollo as an example. The Apollo of the world of Ideas can be said to hold inside his consciousness all the laws of harmony, the behavior of light, beauty, standards of truth, laws of sound, and music, medicine; all things associated with him. He is both, the law that holds the universe and consciousness that thinks of it. This is to say that the Gods are not just mechanic algorithms or equations, but that they think and are conscious of what happens in the Universe in consequences to their thoughts (that are not locked in space and time as our minds are).

When the Gods of the Ideas interact with matter, they are the deities that ensoul the material world. They are the daimones we know; like Harmonia, who is both a Goddess and a part of Aphrodite. These are more personal Gods with names and images, more present in the world of the psyche, and these are the beings we interact with: many of them, of course, go by the name of Aphrodite of Apollo themselves, because they are a clear reflection of the Gods that give rise to the world of Ideas but are more abstract and distant.

Finally, in the world of matter, the Gods are manifest by shaping things. A beautiful melody, or a beam of light, can be said to embody Apollo.

While there are trascendent gods who exist outside the world of time and space, there are also gods —the “same” gods— that reach into our world of matter. Just like us, they have an eternal part and a physical part. To say that the daimones are mortal is to say that they, like the universe, change: when the universe suffers heat-death, they will fade away, but the eternal gods will remain, because in their perspective, the universe has suffered, will suffer, is suffering its end, and its beginning.

Patrick Dunn, The Practical Art of Divine Magic: Contemporary & Ancient Techniques of Theurgy.

☀️ The Demiurge and Our Knowledge of The Gods

Now that we have defined what are Ideas, and what is matter, and what are Gods, we need to defined the type of Gods there are.

As we said earlier, the world of Ideas is known by platonists as Nous. As we have stated, Gods act upon Ideas, but they are not Ideas themselves. For Ideas to exist, someone has to think them. Thus, the Gods are prior to the Nous; but the Nous is a part of Them. Where the Gods could be say to “reside” (although they can't reside in any space because they are not subject to matter) is called the “supra-essential” domain in neoplatonism. In greek, it is read hyperousious. Hard to read for a non-greek, but think of it: hyper means “beyond” or “avobe” and ousious comes from ousia (a word very much used by Aristotle) which can be roughly translated as “essence” or “substance”. This word means, then, beyond-being.

We had asserted st the beginning that Gods are not Beings. Why? Because the things that give Beings their status of being are Ideas themselves. If Gods are then prior to Ideas, then they are prior to being. As said before, Gods make being, but being does not make them.

There are many types of Gods, but let's just analyse those present in Proclus' (a very important successor of Plato) body of doctrine. There are Demiurgic Gods: these are the Gods that give rise to Ideas. The Demiurge is an unspecified God present in Plato's dialogues. Plato didn't name him, which for many christians meant he was pointing to a unique and singular deity; but the truth is that Plato didn't name that God because, really, the Demiurge could be any God. Some later philosophers associated this God with Zeus. I personally associated him with Hephaistos, because he is a creator god, but Proclus thought the Demiurge is actually a very extent class of Gods. Think of it as an office with many Gods working there. Lol, could you imagine?

The Ideas in the Nous are emanations of the Demiurgic Gods. The Gods the live in the hyperousious dimension, the supra-essential realm, are called Henads. Henads means “singularities”, “units”, thus pointing at each God's own oneness.

How do Ideas emanate from them? Plato puts this beautifully in the Timaeus. He presents two types of Gods: a Demiurge, and a Paradigm. The Demiurge, by contemplating the Paradigm, gives order to the motion of the cosmos and creates Ideas. We could say then, that Ideas emanate from the Gods as a consequence of their socialisation in the supra-essential domain.

So the God, by contemplating another God, or even contemplating himself, gives rise to the Ideas, and the universe! We know the Gods because of this; we become aware of their existence through their actions, their socialisation in the supra-essential domain that gives rise to Being.

☀️ Conclusion

This topic is too complex, varied, and deep to be summed up on a Tumblr post. However, I have done my best to introduce at least a bit of the basics. We can conclude the following:

1. The Gods live in the supra-essential domain called hyperousious, which transcends space-time and Being.

2. The Ideas are emanations of the Gods in the domain of the Nous, which also transcends space-time but are the underlying fountations of Being.

3. The Gods have further emanations of themselves that interact with the domains of matter, which are changeable and extended through space-time, and they are called Daimones.

4. These Daimones are manifested in ideal, psychic, and material dimensions. The Ideal dimension is the shape they have, the psychic dimension is their presence through knowledge, and their material dimension is their presence in nature.

5. Our souls are also extended outside of space-time, like the Gods, making us divine beings as well.

6. It is us who change and become aware of the Gods, moving towards them. The daimonic Gods are the ones interacting with and affecting us and the world for good.

☀️ References

Patrick Dunn, The Practical Art of Divine Magic: Contemporary & Ancient Techniques of Theurgy. 

Edward P. Butler, The Gods and Being in Proclus. (I know this author has been problematic in the past, but he’s the only neoplatonic pagan I know that has written extensively about the topic of polytheism in Plato and I can’t give myself the priviledge of not taking that knowledge. There’s not enough sources available to us —this does not mean I support him or his problematic statements at all)

Plotinus, The Enneads

Proclus, The Elements of Theology

Plato, Timaeus

Plato, The Republic

Plato, Phaedrus

[noonymoon]

You Have Been Lied To #4

hello again!

in the first few posts we have talked about

how the public narrative is carefully constructed by a global elite

how our entire perception of our past and how we came to be was shaped throughout history

how the myths and stories about a great flood and giants throughout all the cultures are real

how there are children going missing in massive amounts

and why they are going missing 1 & 2 

while i am not at all hurt on a personal level by the fact that many people start to unfollow me - i really don't care for status, fame, pleasure, distraction, an online-reputation, or ANYTHING at all anymore -, i am really saddened that only a fragment of people care for the Truth. the only thing i can do is keep going and pray that people will wake up in time. many others have begun to wake up (a lot of people woke up because of the Qanon movement but i am not a Qanon).

in this post today, i'm going to shed light on what Nazi-Germany actually was. i personally didn't dig deep into my own research because i am entirely overloaded with all kinds of researches and Hitler is not really my favourite topic in the world. but i've read a great book that pulls from many well-researched sources, plus i am using my common sense. when you can count 2+2 together and it makes sense, you know that ist is the Truth. the 2+2 we are going to look at today is the following:

- we've learned that the mainstream media and the entertainment media serves mainly two agendas: 1. to keep the truth away from us, and 2. to shape our perception of WHAT is possible, what is fantasy, what is truth and what is just too crazy to be real. right?

so, according to this parameter, let me ask you the question: why do you think there are SO MANY movies and works about the Nazis being deep into occult knowledge and into mystical artifacts? Captain America: Civil War, Hellboy, Wolfenstein, the Indiana Jones series, Iron Sky, The Keep, and many others are part of this concealing of Truth. the reason why Hollywood wants us to believe that this thought is too fantastical and too absurd to be real is that the Nazis truly had religious interest in the occult.

here is a brief overview about the topic 

there are quotes by Hitler himself which make one think what the heck did he mean by that...? (looking at it from a public narrative perspective ofc)

according to what i've learned Hitler was a huge follower of the teachings of Madam Helena Blavatsky - who founded Theosophy, basically the doctrine where the New Age movement gets pretty much all its ideas, and on which all the secret societies are founded: the Knights Templar, Golden Dawn, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Ordo Templi Orientis, Illuminati and many more.

this image alone speaks volumes once you realize what’s being communicated.

the Lemurians? the Atlanteans? THE ARYANS? after breaking the veil of deception that is around all of us, it couldn't be more obvious that Hitler was deep in the occult knowledge that was brought forth by Theosophy in 1875. it simply does not make sense at all that Hitlers only goal was to create a race that "has blonde hair and blue eyes" (though it plays a tiny role in this as well). Hitler truly believed with all his rotten heart that there is a race that is superior to regular humans. this religious belief burned in him and his Nazis like an insane fire and they went on a lot of expeditions around the world to find more occult knowledge and also a very specific thing which i am not mentioning yet.

there are a ton of actual real photos of Hitler and his Nazis in Tibet visiting the monks, and also Hitler in the Antarctica (which is a whole rabbit hole for itself but that one is really crazy *lol*) and whatever you've heard in the public why Hitler went to these places, it is not the Truth.

when i was still in this witchy community on here, i often saw posts that basically told Nazis to f*ck off and stop using Runes. back then i had no concept of why any Nazi would use the nordic runes except maybe the superficial thought of "Germans are germanics are nordics" or whatever *lol*, the Truth is, in Hitlers quest to unlock as much as occult knowledge as possible, he also visited Iceland and studied the Nordic Edda. [ Hitlers goddaughter was also named Edda, just throwing this in here ] - Guido von List (an Austrian living in Germany) was apparently the first one to assign mystical meanings to the nordic runes and founding an occult Religion named Wotanism, he died in 1919.

another thing i want to point out is the Swastika. you probably know that the Swastika is pretty much an ancient symbol and appears in ALL kinds of cultures of this world. there is a reason for this that goes deep beyond any regular comprehension, but the public narrative is that Hitler simply stole this symbol and made it a Nazi-Germany symbol, but the truth goes much, much, much deeper than that.

of course we can pretend like all of these connections are just "coincidences" and of course we can cling to the public narrative that is telling us lies, lies, lies. i dearly encourage everyone who wants to know the Truth about this world to start researching. in all of the previous posts i've mentioned and linked really good starting points. you don't have to be a Christian or believe in Jesus in order to find out about the world we live in (though, after discovering all of the pieces and puzzling them together, the most logical thought for me was to literally RUN towards Jesus and i know this is different for everybody but i am praying for you to find Him). i know a lot of this sounds crazy and flat-out foil-hat-kind of way. but always remember that this image of the Truth is on purpose. people who dig into the Truth get out-cast, people who discover the Truth and want to wake other people up are being labelled as wrong and crazy, get silenced, get threatened, get assassinated.

to say it in Hitlers very words: "Truth is not what is; Truth is what people believe it to be" .... sadly, that is very true in our society today. everyone just picks and chooses what they want to believe and there is no concept anymore of ultimate Truth because we are being lied to from each and every side. and i know this sounds radical and Noony how can you say something like this, and so on and so forth, i really GET IT. i understand that it sounds radical, i understand that it isn't what people WANT to hear. you can condemn me all that you want, i really do not care anymore, this is way too important than setting my own comfort above it. Truth is truth, and lies are lies.

one of my favourite scriptures in the Bible is "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." --- John 8:32 ... it could NOT be MORE accurate. it's actually mindblowing how relevant and true these thousand year old words are, especially today. i've never felt so light and free and happy and sane EVER before in my entire life. i've quit my psychopharmacy drugs a while ago (i've been taking prescription drugs for more than 10 years) and my life is looking just bright and wonderful right now, and this even though i almost died in April, still recovering from it. i am more courageous, more filled with love, more motivated, more friendly, more calm, my household is doing just fine, everything is clean and neat, i am doing my chores, my plants are thriving, and even though i am literally ALONE 24/7 (real life AND online) i never ever feel lonely. and i am living with wide open eyes and even though this world is HORRIBLE, i am peaceful now. the Truth really DOES make you free. i've stopped with all kinds of toxic things, from sugar to drugs, you name it. i don't crave neither stimulation nor attention anymore. it's incredible. i can only recommend it. what God and his prophets also foretold over 2000 years ago that it would be EXACTLY like this. "evil will be considered good, and good will be considered evil" - people who speak the truth and do the good deeds will be demonized by the masses.

doing witchcraft and magic and believing in the New Age NEVER felt evil because i was never harming anyone. and i am pretty sure that 99,5% of you people on here feel the exact same way. we are being conditioned by the entertainment media to believe that magic is wonderful, innocent and curious. Disney is doing a GREAT job easing little children into the concepts of magic and fantasy. and i know most of all people never harm anyone with their magic. and God didn't forbid us to do magic because he doesn't want us to have fun or to have a spiritual life, or because he thinks we don't deserve any of the things we can do for ourselves magically. God will HAPPILY provide each and every need of us. the reason why God forbid his people to practice magic, sorcery, divination and witchcraft is to protect us from being deceived. now, a lot of people will rebel mentally, and that's okay, i was the same way. before you haven't discovered the truth and combined all of the puzzle pieces, it really just doesn't make a lot of sense, is really provoking and sounds bad. i was really wrestling with all this myself. now, i am grateful to the Lord that this wrestling process ended up in me being OPEN to what He has to say, and discovering the Truth instead of rebelling and living a lie any further. Praise God for not giving up on me with my stubbornness.

today, i've listened to an interview with the Illuminati Defector that i've mentioned in an earlier post, who was going to be one of the highest ranks in the Illuminati (Queen Mother of Darkness). her name is Jessie Czebotar and she has made it her mission to bring light to this worldwide matter and help survivors being rescued. please listen to some of her interviews, it’s mind-blowing what she has to say.

honestly, when you realize how EVIL these people are and that they ARE witches and druids and that they USE the occult and witchcraft and magic on an EXTREMELY high and incredible level, the LAST thing you WANT is to continue doing the same thing. like. i am not judging anyone here, truly. because we simply do not know what's going on. but when you suddenly realize that EVIL PEOPLE like Hitler, like the Illuminati and the Freemasons and all of these secret occult societies did and ARE doing the same thing of which WE regular people think it's no big deal and it's okay, you simply wanna run, run, run from it as far as you possibly can. at least this is how i feel about it. i am not forcing anyone to believe me, i am simply encouraging you to at least find out why i am saying all these things to you, and then decide for yourself.

Jesus said that we will know them by their fruits. a good tree can only create good fruit and a bad tree can only create bad fruit. a good tree can not create bad fruit and a bad tree can not create good fruit. it's really quite simple.

God bless the ones that read this with an open mind.

[questionsonislam]

Why is Islam the true religion?

“The religion before Allah is Islam (submission to his will): nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But whoever disbelieves the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.” the Qur’an, The Family of Imran (Aal-i Imran); 19 (3: 19)

Religion means “the return in the form of a reward or a punishment” and it expresses the relation between the obedient and the leader who possesses power. As a term, several definitions of religion has been made. There are some basic differences between the definitions of the Western (European) scientists and Muslim scholars. Still, there are serious differences between the opinions of both regions about the source of the religion and its primary way of occurrence.

According to the Islamic opinion, religion means the whole of the rules that guides man so that he will live in accordance with the purpose he was created for and so that he will realize that purpose in a certain discipline. Religion is a foundation regulating the relationship based on the holy commandment and domination of one side and the obedience and adherence of the other side, but it is comprehended from that verse that according to the Qur’an, the value of religion and devoutness is conditioned to be based on a voluntary submission. In other words, according to the Islamic comprehension, religion is a foundation that directs the men of understanding to good (deeds) and happiness with their own desire and will, and a Divine law regulating the acts of men based on their own choice.

That verse is the first place the word Islam was mentioned in the Noble Qur’an. The dictionary meaning of Islam is “to be devoted to, to obey, to submit and to be in soundness and peace”. As a term, Islam means “accepting with all one’s existence all of the things Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) declares in behalf of the religion and being in a submission manifesting it”. The name of the true religion the Prophet set forth is Islam. Still, in Arabic, Islam is an infinitive that expresses submission to that religion. A person attached to the religion of Islam is expressed as Muslim in Arabic.

There is a strong relation between the dictionary meaning and term meaning of the word Islam. According to the Islamic comprehension, religion is a law supplying agreement by preventing disagreements and contentions among the creatures possessing will and intelligence. Religion expresses the agreement not only among the people but also between the people and Allah. In this way, conformity between the will of the Creator and the wills of the creatures is supplied.

Since all heavenly religions are based on the oneness of Allah, the religion of Islam that the Prophet Muhammad notifies and the other religions declared by other prophets are basically the same. Nevertheless, according to some Muslim scholars, the expressions such as the religion of Islam and Islamic community can only be used for the religion the Prophet Muhammad set forth and for its members. Even though Islam agrees with the previous true religions fundamentally, that religion has some specific attributes and some specific decrees peculiar to the community attached to it. According to another group of scholars, it is also possible for the previous heavenly religions to be called as Islam. According to them, in the Noble Qur’an there are several verses supporting that opinion: the declaration of the answer of the apostles of Jesus as “Testify that we are Muslims”, the statement about Abraham as “He was a hanif Muslim” and again giving place to a general qualification such as “He dubbed you the name ‘Muslims’ before and also now” are the examples of that. According to the persons having opposing opinions, those kinds of descriptions are related to the prophets.

In our opinion, in the heavenly books except the Noble Qur’an, a religion name was not mentioned for the followers of those books and if we consider that the names such as Judaism and Christianity arose later and they were the names assigned to their followers afterwards, the meaning of the expression “Verily, the religion before Allah is Islam” can be understood easily. Although the religion declared by Prophet Muhammad has specific rules, insistently mentioning of the Qur’an’s feature of approval of the declaration of the previous prophets shows that what they proclaim is fundamentally within the sphere of Islam; however, in accordance with the Divine wisdom, the most perfect way of those doctrines can only be reached through the sending of Prophet Muhammad.

In that case, the only way to achieve the consent of Almighty Allah is to believe in all things He proclaims. According to that, starting out from the facts, although other religion names can be mentioned in order to express the certain parties, the truth seekers’ agreement within the limits Almighty Allah approves is the ultimate aim and it is unavoidable for the period desired for the Divine declarations to reflect to the mind and the conscience of humanity. The Islamic scholars expressed that comprehension as “the complying community” and “the invited community”; the first one expresses the people who present the will of submission to what Prophet Muhammad declared actually and clearly; and the second expresses the potential group who are not at that level but in the reflection period mentioned above. Therefore, by comparing with the names such as “Jewishness” and “Christianity”, some Western authors’ calling Islam with a restricting name as “Muhammadism” is not appropriate because it is far away from reflecting the fact and it also has a feature of preventing the communication and the coalescing mentioned above.

Comprehending the verse in that way in point of the ultimate aim does not conflict with the idea that everyone who has lived in any time or place and has been able to keep himself away from attributing partners to Allah and has been able to direct his attributes in accordance with that belief can be named as a “Muslim” according to the Qur’an’s comprehension. Indeed, in several verses, it can be seen that that criteria has been taken basically in point of the salvation of people in the hereafter.

With a broad meaning, Islam (being a Muslim) expresses submission with heart, tongue and behaviors. The most important and the most valuable submission among those is the one made with heart. In the Qur’an, it is seen that the word Islam is also used for the submission which has not reached the level of belief.

The expression “The ones who were given books” has been generally comprehended with respect to the content of the expression “People of the Book”. The word knowledge is explained as “revelation and explicit proofs”. In the verse, declaration of the People of the Book’s falling into dissent just after the knowledge had come is for indicating that they were informed of the Divine declaration enough and although they have no excuse from that point, they fell into disagreement and quarreled with each other just because of their own faults and for thinking their benefits and mortal passions. Starting from the reason “Because of injustice among them”, some explanations were made that the persons implied here were the Jewish people or the Christians or the both. In the light of the historical knowledge, here, it can be said that instead of progressing in the way of peace and civilization by using the enlightenment the revelation has provided, the communities, who were addressed by the Divine revelation, excluding the common sense because of their personal desires and especially separating into religious groups based on their complicating of interests were criticized. Despite that warning, repeating the same mistake by the ones believing in the Qur’an has caused an important obstacle in fulfilling the mission of communicating the Divine message to humanity in the most favorable way and taking the place they deserve in the competition of civilization.

[ayearinfaith]

𝗔 𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵, 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟰𝟴: 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗺

“When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.”

-Supreme Court of India, from 1995 ruling on the minority religion status of Ramakrishnaism

Hinduism is an indigenous faith of the Indian subcontinent, currently practiced by over 15% of the global population and the world’s third largest religion. It is one of two surviving modern traditions to evolve directly from the historical Indo-European faith, the other being Zoroastrianism. The internal diversity of Hinduism is very high and has been likened by some to the use of “Abrahamic” as a single term for diverse traditions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The word “Hinduism” was coined in the early 19th century and comes from the ethnic term “Hindu”, itself derived from the name of the Indus River, located in modern day Pakistan.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

Like with Shinto or Old Norse religion, indigenous faiths of Japan and Scandinavia, pre-modern Hindus were unlikely to have perceived themselves as being members of a religion. What would become Hinduism was simply their culture. Developments in self-identification have largely developed alongside the development of and need to distinguish from other traditions in India, most notably Buddhism and Islam. One of the earliest possible identifiers would have been “Vaidika” or “Vaidika Dharma”: the “way of the Vedas”. The Vedas, whose name literally means “knowledge”, are a collection of ancient scripture, some dating back as far as 1500 BCE. Though the beliefs of the Vedas have significant differences with modern Hindu denominations, perception of the Vedas as a source of truth is generally considered to be the defining feature of Hinduism, distinguishing it from other indigenous Indian faiths such as Buddhism or Jainism. Because of this direct and still active connection to 2-3000+ year old texts, Hinduism has often been called the world’s “oldest religion”. That said, the faith of the ancient Vedic people was quite different from the modern traditions. Many of modern Hinduism’s most venerated deities, such as Shiva, Vishnu, or Ganesha, are either absent from the Vedas, exist as alternate names for other gods, or are quite minor deities. Most prominent are gods like the king of the gods, Indra, and the fire god Agni, all of whom are generally easy to relate to the deities of European pagans. Aside from the Vedas the most important and universal Hindu scripture are the Upanishads and the Puranas. The Upanishads are actually a part of the Vedas, albeit the final layer of them, written in the second half of the first millennium BCE, by which time more familiar versions of figures like Vishnu and Shiva had emerged. From these come many core Hindu concepts such as Ātman (eternal soul) and Brahman (universal consciousness). The Puranas are a hug and diverse body of literature from which most of the legends and genealogies of the gods and the universe are derived.

𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝘀

A significant difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is the belief in an eternal soul or Ātman. All living things have an Ātman, and when we die the Ātman is reincarnated in a new body. Escaping the cycle of reincarnation is seen as a type of salvation called Moksha. Though generally considered the ultimate “goal” of Hinduism, Moksha is only one of four concepts knows as Puruṣārtha, literally a “spiritual/human pursuit”. The other three are Dharma (righteous and ethical behavior, literally “path/way”), Artha (wealth, or means, also conceived of as purpose), and Kama (physical pleasures). Artha and Kama are seen as necessary for a fulfilling life, though they should never go against Dharma, and all is done in pursuit of Moksha. Karma, literally “deed” or “act”, is a concept of causality between reincarnations. Doing good deeds will cause someone to be reincarnated into a better life, while bad deeds have the opposite effect. One of the greater Hindu virtues is Ahimsa or non-violence and is applicable not just to humans, but animals and plants. This is the reason behind widespread vegetarianism in India, and also a source of conflict between Hindus and Muslims: the Islamic method of animal slaughter, Dhabīḥah, is seen as a slow and painful death in direct opposition to the Hindu method, Jhatka, which literally means “instantly”. In addition to the cycle of reincarnation, the concepts of illusion and truth are core to Hinduism. Truth in this context is Brahman, the universal consciousness and/or ultimate reality. Brahman is the supreme force in Hinduism, generally seen all pervasive and singular. The reality we perceive is ultimately an illusion, a concept called Maya. Enlightenment in Hinduism is the ability to perceive through Maya and into the true Brahman. The role of the gods in Hinduism is complex; sometimes they are supreme forces and sometimes they are just powerful superhuman entities. Often both is true, with the gods being emanations of each other and ultimately of Brahman itself. The Om, written in Devanagari as “ॐ” is one of Hinduism’s most recognizable symbols, and represents the primordial cosmic sound of the universe.

𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

As has already been stated in this post, Hinduism is incredibly diverse. Academics and philosophers, from within India and without, have made many valiant efforts to categorize the various threads. The most widely used currently differentiate by which god, or gods, have been elevated to supreme status. Though functional, use of these terms should not be thought of in the same vein as Christian denominations, like Methodist or Catholic, which have relatively clear and exclusionary division. A Hindu person may or may not identify with one, or multiple of these divisions, or may consider themselves of an altogether different traditions or prefer a different system of division altogether. The four major denominations are as follows:

𝗩𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗻𝗮𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗺

Vaishnavism is the largest Hindu denomination, and is estimated to cover 2/3rds of the Hindu population, though an exact number is impossible to gather. Vaishnavism is named for and elevates Vishnu, the preserver god, to the status of supreme consciousness. The doctrine of ten avatars is a core belief, and the epics 𝘔𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 and 𝘙𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘢 are important texts.

𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗺

Shaivism is the second most popular denomination and probably originated in Dravidian South India. Shaivism elevates the destroyer god Shiva. Shaivism is best known for its asceticism and Yoga. The aniconic Lingam is one of its most recognizable artifacts.

𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗸𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺

Shaktism is the worship of the supreme feminine energy, Shakti. The varied Hindu goddesses, or Devi, are collectively worshiped as emanations of this supreme force, especially Parvati, Kali, and Durga. The Hindu esoteric and mystic tradition, Tantra, is most common in this denomination.

𝗦𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺

Smartism is named for the Smriti texts, basically any scripture that is not the Vedas (or Upanishads). Smartism holds all gods in equivalents status, though generally portrays a council of five: Ganesha, Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, and Surya. Smartism distinguishes the supreme consciousness, Brahman, into a Saguna Brahman, “Brahman with attributes”, and a Nirguna Brahman, “Brahman without attributes”. Put simply, the chosen deity is a face given to the universal consciousness as a means to understand it. Any deity can serve this function, and the more enlightened the practitioner becomes, the less they need this tutelary Saguna Brahman and can realize the true Nirguna Brahman. Smartism is seen as a syncretic tradition, developed as a means to bring disparate traditions together.

𝗔 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱

This has been one of the most difficult posts I have yet to write. Deciding what to include and what to omit was incredibly difficult. I wrote, deleted, and rewrote this several times. Doing research was difficult and as it turns out the internet is full of Hindu voices with a lot to say. Just to give an example, Wikipedia itself is full with meta-pages with editors striving against each other for what I would describe as the “least incorrect” version. In the end my aim was simply to give what I felt was as brief and general a post as I could write and still give an effective overview of the basic ideas and terminology one can expect to encounter when speaking about Hinduism. Even after all this, I feel like I have failed at that. However, at some point I have to stop writing this and move on for the sake of this series, and that point is now.

Image Credit: I could not determine the source, though I believe this is an Om encircled by the Om Nama Shivaya mantra. If you are able to find or know the source, please let me know.

[elizabethan-memes]

Can you elaborate on Erusamus and the reformation please, or at least point me toward sources? Politics make more sense than philosophy to me, so I see the reformation through the lense of Henry VIII, or the Duke of Prussia who dissolved the teutonic order, or France siding with the protestants during the 30 Years War because Protestants > Hapsburgs

So sorry to take so long!

If you needed this answer for academic reasons, given that summer term is pretty much done I’m probably too late to help, but I hate to leave an ask unanswered.

HELLA LONG ESSAY BENEATH THE CUT SORRY I WROTE SELF-INDULGENTLY WITHOUT EDITING SO THERE IS WAY MORE EXPLANATION THAN YOU PROBABLY NEED

Certainly religion has been politicised, you need look no further than all the medieval kings having squabbles with the pope. Medieval kings were not as devastated by the prospect of excommunication as you’d expect they’d be in a super-devout world, it was kinda more of a nuisance (like, idk, the pope blocking you on tumblr)  than the “I’m damned forever! NOOOOOOO!” thing you’d expect. I’m not saying excommunication wasn’t a big deal, but certainly for Elizabeth I she was less bothered than the pope excommunicating her than the fact that he absolved her Catholic subjects of allegiance to her and promised paradise to her assassin (essentially declaring open season on her).

I think, however, in our secular world we forget that religion was important for its own sake. Historians since Gibbon have kind of looked down on religion as its own force, seeing it as more a catalyst for economic change (Weber) or a tool of the powerful. If all history is the history of class struggle, then religion becomes a weapon in class warfare rather than its own force with its own momentum. For example, historians have puzzled over conversion narratives, and why Protestantism became popular among artisans in particular. Protestantism can’t compete with Catholicism in terms of aesthetics or community rituals, it’s a much more interior kind of spirituality, and it involves complex theological ideas like predestination that can sound rather drastic, so why did certain people find it appealing?

(although OTOH transubstantiation is a more complex theological concept than the Protestant idea of “the bread and wine is just bread and wine, it’s a commemoration of the Last Supper not a re-enactment, it aint that deep fam”).

I’ve just finished an old but interesting article by Terrence M. Reynolds in Concordia Theological Quarterly vol. 41 no. 4 pp.18-35 “Was Erasmus responsible for Luther?” Erasmus in his lifetime was accused of being a closet Protestant, or “laying the egg that Luther hatched”. Erasmus replied to this by saying he might have laid the egg, but Luther hatched a different bird entirely. Erasmus did look rather proto Protestant because he was very interested in reforming the Church. He wanted more people to read the Bible, he had a rather idyllic dream of “ploughmen singing psalms as they ploughed their fields”. He criticised indulgences, the commercialisation of relics and pilgrimages and the fact that the Papacy was a political faction getting involved in wars. He was worried that the rituals of Catholicism meant that people were more mechanical in their religion than spiritual: they were memorising the words, doing the actions, paying the Church, blindly believing anything a poorly educated priest regurgitated to them. They were confessing their sins, doing their penances like chores and then going right back to their sins. They were connecting with the visuals, but not understanding and spiritually connecting with the spirit of Jesus’ message and his ideals of peace and love and charity and connecting with God. Erasmus translated the NT but being a Renaissance humanist, he went ad fontes (‘to the source’) and used Greek manuscripts, printing the Greek side by side with the Latin so that readers could compare and see the translation choices he made. His NT had a lot of self-admitted errors in it, but it was very popular with Prots as well as Caths. Caths like Thomas More were cool with him doing it, but it was also admired by Prots like Thomases and Cromwell and Cranmer and Tyndale himself. When coming across Greek words like presbyteros, Erasmus actually chose to leave it as a Greek word with its own meaning than use a Latin word that didn’t *quite* fit the meaning of the original.

However, he did disagree with Protestants on fundamental issues, especially the question of free will. For Luther, the essence was sole fide: salvation through faith alone. He took this from Paul’s letter to the Romans, where it says that through faith alone are we justified. Ie, humans are so fallen (because of the whole Eve, apple, original sin debacle) and so flawed and tainted by sin, and God is so perfect, that we ourselves will never be good enough. All the good works in the world will never reach God’s level of perfection and therefore we all deserve Hell, but we won’t go to hell because God and Jesus will save us from the Hell we so rightly deserve, by grace and by having faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, who will alone redeem us.  The opposite end of the free will/sola fide spectrum is something called Pelagianism, named after the guy who believed it, Pelagius, who lived centuries and centuries before the Ref, it’s the belief that humans can earn their salvation by themselves, by good works. Both Caths and Prots considered Pelagius a heretic. Caths like Erasmus believed in a half-way house: God reaches out his hand to save you through Jesus’ example and sacrifice, giving you grace, and you receive his grace, which makes you want to be a good person and do good works (good works being things like confession of sins, penances, the eucharist, charity, fasting, pilgrimages) and then doing the good works means you get more grace and you are finally saved, or at least you will go to purgatory after death AND THEN be saved and go to heaven, rather than going straight to Hell, which is what happens if you reject Jesus and do no good works and never repent your sins. If you don’t receive his grace and do good works, you won’t make the grade for ultimate salvation.

(This is why it’s important to look at the Ref as a theological as well as a political movement because if you only look at the political debates, Erasmus looks more Protestant than he actually was.)

There are several debates happening in the Reformation: the role of the priest (which is easily politicised) free will vs predestination, transubstantiation or no transubstantiation (is or isn’t the bread and wine transformed into the body and blood of Jesus by God acting through the priest serving communion) and the role of scripture. A key doctrine of Protestantism is sola scriptura. Basically: if it’s in the Bible, it’s the rules. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not in the rules. No pope in the bible? No pope! No rosaries in the bible? No using rosaries! (prayer beads)

However, both Caths and Prots considered scripture v.v. important. Still, given that the Bible contains internal contradictions (being a collection of different books written in different languages at different times by different people) there was a hierarchy of authority when it came to scripture. As a general rule of thumb, both put the New T above the Old T in terms of authority. (This is partly why Jews and Muslims have customs like circumcision and no-eating-pig-derived-meats that Christians don’t have, even though the order of ‘birth’ as it were goes Judaism-Christianity-Islam. All 3 Abrahammic faiths use the OT, but only Christians use the NT.)

1.       The words of Jesus. Jesus said you gotta do it, you gotta do it. Jesus said monogamy, you gotta do monogamy. Jesus said no divorce, you gotta do no divorcing (annulment =/= divorce). Jesus said no moneylending with interest (usury), you gotta do no moneylending with interest (which is partly why European Jews did a lot of the banking. Unfortunately, disputes over money+religious hatred is a volatile combination, resulting in accusations of conspiracy and sedition, leading to hate-fuelled violence and oppression.) The trouble with the words of Jesus is that you can debate or retranslate what Jesus meant, especially  easily as Jesus often spoke in parables and with metaphors. When Jesus said “this is my body…this is my blood” at the Last Supper, is that or is that not support for transubstantiation? When Jesus called Peter the rock on which he would build the church, was that or was that not support for the apostolic succession that means Popes are the successor to St Peter, with Peter being first Pope? When the gospel writers said Jesus ‘did more things and said more things than are contained in this book’, does that or does that not invalidate the idea of sola scriptura?

2.       The other New Testament writers, especially St. Paul and the Relevation of St John the Divine. (Divine meaning like seer, divination, not a god or divinity). These are particularly relevant when it comes to discussing the role of priests and priesthood, only-male ordination, and whether women can preach and teach religion.

3.       The Old Testament, especially Genesis.

4.       The apocryphal or deuterocanonical works. These books are considered holy, but there’s question marks about their validity, so they’re not as authoritative as the testaments. I include this because the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees was used as scriptural justification for the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but 2 Maccabees is the closest scipture really gets to mentioning any kind of purgatory. Protestants did not consider 2 Maccabees to be strong enough evidence to validate purgatory.

5.       The Church Fathers, eg. Origen, Augustine of Hippo. Arguably their authority often comes above apocryphal scripture. It’s from the Church Fathers that the concept of the Trinity (one god in 3 equal persons, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) is developed because it’s not actually spelled out explicitly in the NT. Early modern Catholics and Protestants both adhered to the Trinity and considered Arianism’s interpretation of the NT (no trinity, God the Father is superior to Jesus as God the Son) to be heresy. Church Fathers were important to both Catholics and Protestants: Catholics because Catholics did not see scripture as the sole source of religious truth, so additions made by holy people are okay so long as they don’t *contradict* scripture, and so long as they are stamped with the church council seal of approval, Protestants because they believed that the recent medieval theologians and the papacy had corrupted and altered the original purity of Christianity. If they could show that Church Fathers from late antiquity like Augustine agreed with them, that therefore proved their point about Christianity being corrupted from its holy early days.

Eamon Duffy’s book Stripping of the Altars is useful because it questions the assumptions that the Reformation and Break with Rome was inevitable, or that the Roman Catholic Church was a corrupt relic of the past that had to be swept aside for Progress, or that most people even wanted the Ref in England to happen. Good history essays need to discuss different historians’ opinions and Duffy can be relied upon to have a different opinion than Protestant historians. Diarmaid MacCulloch’s works are good at explaining theological concepts, he is a big authority on church history and he’s won a whole bunch of prizes. He was actually ordained a deacon in the Church of England in the 1980s but stopped being a minister because he was angry with the institution for not tolerating the fact he had a boyfriend. The ODNB is a good source to access through your university if you want to read a quick biography on a particular theologian or philosopher, but it only covers British individuals. Except Erasmus, who has a page on ODNB despite being not British because he’s just that awesome and because his influence on English scholarship and culture was colossal. Peter Marshall also v good, esp on conversion. Euan Cameron wrote a mahoosive book called the European Reformation.“More versus Tyndale: a study of controversial technique” by Rainer Pineas is good for the key differences in translation of essential concepts between catholic and protestant thinkers. The Sixteenth Century Journal is a good source of essays as well.

[hamliet]

hi hamliet! as i read more and more, the trope of having some character die (1) becomes more and more evidently seen. Is there some checklist you go through before you accept that death as "good writing"? Like, "the death is not purely for shock, the death is important for the plot, adds something to the world, develops/affects character development, etc."? Could you give me a runthrough of this checklist and explain what each means? a lot of blogs i follow talk about how they're unsatisfied

(2) with a death, and I’d like to be able to understand better where this dissatisfaction may come from, as well as be able to make arguments for myself whether or not a death is sound on a more literary level–whether the death is tragic and not just sad.

Ooooh. So, this is a great ask, and I’m gonna ramble and not cover nearly all of it. Apologies in advance and I hope this suffices.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have works dealing with death. Death is a part of life and it’s something we all experience and have to learn to cope through. In my experience the past year, you don’t move on from grief. Everyone says “move on” but that’s not what happens. You just learn to live with it. Fiction that deals with grief (for example, Harry Potter) is a really powerful tool for helping people who grieve feel less alone–because if I had to compare grief to another feeling, it’d be loneliness, and/or fear. To quote CS Lewis after losing his wife:

“No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear. I am not afraid, but the sensation is like being afraid. The same fluttering in the stomach, the same restlessness, the yawning. I keep on swallowing.At other times it feels like being mildly drunk, or concussed. There is a sort of invisible blanket between the world and me. I find it hard to take in what anyone says. Or perhaps, hard to want to take it in. It is so uninteresting. Yet I want the others to be about me. I dread the moments when the house is empty. If only they would talk to one another and not to me.”

So yeah. I think death should be in fiction. 

But, to answer your question: I don’t have a checklist, because it really depends on the story being told, its genre, its themes, its characters. There isn’t a rule book for fiction; tropes and genres and the like are guidelines, to be sure, but there isn’t one right one to write a death. 

What I would like, though, is that death, like other kinds of trauma–because losing someone is traumatic–be treated like it matters for the story (of course, in like, a black comedy that’s not gonna be the case, but it’s also the point that that’s not the case), rather than just a quick way to get rid of a character an author doesn’t want to deal with anymore. So, especially after dealing with death as a recurrent theme the past honestly two years of my life, I try to examine these questions:

1) Does it work for the dying character’s arc? 

For example, Shakespearean tragedies are driven by character’s decisions coming back to haunt them. We see how they got there. 

Anakin Skywalker is another example as he dies saving his son, which satisfies the audience, but he also dies because he really would have no future in a world without the Empire after having done so much evil (we can debate whether this is a fair idea another time, but keep in mind Vader has canonically done things like set up concentration camps). He at least gets to die as himself and in his very best moment, when he had a reason to live. That quote about killing a character in “their best moment when they have a reason to live” is from @linkspooky, and it’s one I agree with. 

For example, Ned Stark in Game of Thrones/ASOIAF. When he dies, it’s shocking because he seems like he’s a central protagonist. And he still is after his death. See, Ned’s arc is always about doing the right thing and taking responsibility. When he chooses to confess to a crime he didn’t commit (well, he did, but it’s not treason but truth) it’s to take responsibility for his daughter and save her life. His execution, however, is the catalyst not just for his son who will also later die because of his own flaws, but specifically for the North to remember. The North rises up to save what remains of Ned’s family (Arya). They’re still loyal. Ned lives on after death because everyone remembers his goodness. His arc still resonates, and he’s still influencing the story despite dying back in book 1 as the protagonist. 

2) Does it work for the themes of the story?

For example, in Tokyo Ghoul, where the main theme is “live, even if it’s not stylish,” having characters turn on characters who needed to be saved from themselves (Kaneki, Mutsuki) wouldn’t work. 

In Guardians of the Galaxy 2, when Yondu dies saving Quill, it works because the story is asking what it means to be a family, and specifically for this moment, a father. Yondu wasn’t a great dad in a lot of ways, but he truly loved Quill, and in those last moments, he proved he was Quill’s daddy with his last words being “that man might be your father, but it wasn’t your daddy.” It ties into the greater themes that blood doesn’t make a family–love does. 

3) How does the death serve the other characters’ arcs? 

I’ve already talked about “The North Remembers” for ASOIAF. But another example is Erwin Smith’s death as a turning point in SnK, but it leads to important decisions for Levi’s character, puts weight on Hange and Armin, etc. My issue with Ymir’s death in SnK, currently, is that we haven’t seen it serving other characters’ arcs just yet (even though I think we will). 

4) How does it work for messaging? 

Fiction isn’t reality and you can write but you want, but if you want to write a story to reach a certain group of people (for example, child sexual abuse survivors in Banana Fish), maybe make sure every single CSA survivor doesn’t die in-universe because that’s exactly what happens. This is just a way larger issue around representation on the whole; if all characters who have been through something always end up the same way, it’s yikes. 

Like a cultural trope is redemption=dying, especially in western literature. Even if the death meets all the above three, I’m likely to still be dissatisfied because can’t we tell stories where bad guys turn good and get to live on too? I don’t believe anyone is evil enough to be written off, and I don’t believe the worst actions of someone’s life has to define them especially when a lot of perpetrators become victims, so when I see this kind of story, I roll my eyes because it’s tired and it’s just… not my preference even if technically well done? I also think that there’s an aspect of punitive justice reflected in western stories passed down through the cultural influence of Christian doctrines about eternal suffering and hell (funny how the grace/mercy parts didn’t get passed down, sigh). I’d rather have more messages that you can realize how wrong you are and live.

Basically, what I’m trying to say through all of this rambling is: if a character’s life mattered, their death needs to matter too. Especially if you want the character’s life and death (redemptive, tragic, or otherwise) to matter to your readers. 

[irandrura]

I don’t know what FFXII is saying with the Kiltias.

Well, on one level, I think it’s perfectly clear what it’s saying with the Kiltias. The Kiltias are, like the Viera you meet just before them, a group of people who seclude themselves from the world and abjure politics. They have clean hands and are extremely moral, at the cost of renouncing power to affect the world directly. They both appear at a point in the game where the heroes are seeking power to change the world, to defend kingdoms and cast down empires, and they serve firstly to condemn blind ambition or power-lust (Mjrn: “Power-needy humes!”), but secondly to illustrate the perils of refusing power entirely, when the Kiltias are slaughtered.

So they’re here to illustrate a tension. You need power to achieve anything; but power is also morally corrupting. The Archadians who attack Bur-Omisace are powerful but immoral; the Kiltias who defend it are powerless but moral. Is there a trade-off? Where do you find the balance?

Ashe: [after defeating Mjrn] There is a place for all things, even danger such as this.

Ashe: [with the Gran Kiltias] Should I become queen of Dalmasca now, powerless as I am, I can protect nothing. With a greater power at my disposal, perhaps then.

Anastasis: To wield power against power. Truly the words of a hume-child.

Thus also the significance of Raithwall entrusting the Sword of Kings to the Kiltias: the only people who can be trusted with a tool of such power are the people who make a principled refusal to ever wield it. The Kiltias have attained a level of moral purity that makes them trustworthy, but at the price of giving up the power to act.

The Viera illustrate something similar. Mjrn or Jote have the power to hear the wood, this spiritual oneness with the land; but they can’t leave and so can never change anything. Fran has lost that higher connection, but she alone is in a position to act.

So the thematic effect of this part of the game is to illustrate the dangers of power (cf. Bergan’s madness, Vayne’s ambition), but also why the heroes need to seek it out, corrupting as it is (for without the power the Kiltias cannot improve the world, only palliate its effects, and ultimately will be slaughtered by the ruthless).

But all that said –

I don’t know what FFXII is saying about religion with the Kiltias.

I should preface this with an admission. I hate the ‘corrupt church’ trope in fantasy. I hate it with a passion. I think it’s cheap, lazy, and predictable. I understand that Final Fantasy Tactics relies on it very heavily and this is one of the reasons why I have no interest in that franchise, even though I’m a fan of FFXII and Revenant Wings. I got the impression that Fire Emblem: Three Houses uses that trope as well, and it was also one of the factors that really killed any desire I had to play it. I realise that this judgement on my part is very subjective – since I’m a person of faith and indeed currently in formation for ministry (like seminary, basically), I can take it a little personally – but it does bias everything I’m about to say.

For the most part I think FFXII is not very interested in religion. It’s a very worldly game, and it’s primarily interested in politics and patriotism. The clash of great powers and the direction of secular history are this game’s concerns. Consequently the Kiltias, the only organised religion we see, are sequestered on a mountain and have little effect on history. When we eventually meet the Occuria, the closest thing to interventionist gods in the world, their concerns are profoundly unspiritual. Even these ‘divine’ beings are primarily concerned with those invisible forces of history, of empire and conquest and power. In that light the Kiltias are almost irrelevant. Spiritual concerns must give way to secular-historical ones.

But even accepting that, it’s striking that the Kiltias are portrayed incredibly positively. All the Kiltias we meet are saintly and generous. They are the most morally uncompromised, most purely ‘good’ group we ever encounter. In a world dancing to the strings of arrogant hidden deities, why is it the religion that’s shown so positively?

I’d ask what the relationship between the Occuria and the Light of Kiltias is, but as far as I can tell there isn’t one. It’s actually quite hard to figure out what it is the Kiltias believe. The clan primer claims that they’re polytheists with a dualist system of morality, but they only ever name a single god. Their role as a secluded spiritual order atop a mountain, renouncing worldly power, might make one think of stereotypes of Buddhism, but their care for the refugee seems more Christian, and their leader has a conspicuously Christian name. (‘Anastasis’ meaning ‘Resurrection’.) Their aesthetic at times might be more Islamic, fitting the Middle Eastern or Turkish feel of much of Dalmasca. What exactly do the Kiltias believe, beyond a sort of generic compassionate spiritual-ness? They occasionally mention the gods, but I have no idea if those have anything to do with the espers, the espers’ light counterparts, or the Occuria, especially since the one god they name, Faram, does not seem to resemble anything else. Another clan primer entry namedrops Ajora, the evil-demonic-Jesus figure from Final Fantasy Tactics, but – even though FFXII is supposedly a far-distant prequel to FFT – the primer’s description of Ajora doesn’t sound much like FFT’s Ajora.

On top of that, we see very few signs of religion elsewhere in the game. The Dalmascans seem to follow the Kiltia faith, with the wedding and funeral in the introduction performed in Faram’s name, but there are no churches or shrines in Rabanastre, and no one else has mentioned any faith. Is there any religion at all in Archades? Anywhere else? It’s hard to say.

You would think that, given the Occuria, the espers, and the FFT connection, FFXII would be an excellent choice for a story with a corrupt church. The dominant faith could worship the Occuria, and they’d then be exposed and cast down over the course of the story. But the Occuria seem to have no interest in worship.

So we’re left in this odd situation. The history of the world is controlled by hidden gods, but they play no role in any apparent religion. Most of the world has no visible religion, save one sect in the south. This sect is portrayed very positively and seems to be respected by all, but it has almost no visible teachings or doctrine.

I have no idea what this game is trying to say on the subject, if anything at all.

[liesonthefloordramatically]

Annotations for “What the hell is a bodhisattva?”

Wow, can’t believe I’ve written more about Buddhism for this frickin’ JJBA fic than I have in seven years of graduate school in Japanese religion. Sometimes you want to make a joke that’s simultaneously so funny and so obscure that you have to write like 20k in order for people to understand it.

I’ve tried to write annotations only for things that aren’t explained sufficiently within the fic, otherwise we’d all be here for the rest of our lives.  Feel free to ask about anything that isn’t annotated or if you have further questions about things that are!  

(Link to the fic if you’ve somehow managed to accidentally stumble on this post.)

OVERALL:

The Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha - the Three Jewels, in which Buddhist practitioners are supposed to take refuge.  They refer to the Buddha (probably self-explanatory), the teachings of the Buddha, and the community of Buddhist practitioners respectively.  You may notice some parallels in chapter content.

CHAPTER ONE:

Jizō - a bodhisattva who is commonly depicted as the guardian of travelers and also the dead, especially dead children.  There are a lot of statues of him on roadsides in Japan, as well as on temple grounds.  Recurring motif in my SDC-related fics for hopefully obvious reasons.

Sōka Gakkai - a Buddhist new religious movement, (in)famous in the postwar period for their aggressive proselytization and conversion tactics.

Daikokuten - one of the seven gods of good fortune.  Frequently enshrined as a household deity.

Inari - a Shinto deity commonly associated with foxes.  It’s not uncommon for businesses (including family businesses) to have their own small Inari shrines.

sects of Buddhism - Buddhism in Japan is divided into sects (denominations of Christianity aren’t a bad comparison point)--the basic tenets are the same from sect to sect, but specific teachings, practices, or emphases may vary.  Most families in Japan are affiliated (due to complex historical factors that aren’t worth getting into here) with a particular temple (which in turn belongs to a sect), so they rely on the temple priests for any rites they may need and may have a plot for the family grave in the temple graveyard.  It is not uncommon for people to not know which sect they are affiliated with until a family member dies and they suddenly have to interact with the temple (see “funeral Buddhism”).  Kakyoin’s family is Shingon, which is an esoteric sect known for their complicated cosmology and rituals.  Jotaro’s family is Sōtō (he guessed wrong! Sorry, Jotaro!), a Zen sect that’s much more focused on gaining enlightenment through physical practices like meditation.  (“Zen” isn’t a sect in Japan--it actually refers to a group of sects that have some major teachings in common.  Buddhism: it’s complicated!)  Sōtō is a much later import to Japan than Shingon, and was also scoffed at a bit by established sects for being more populist and accessible.  Hopefully you see the joke here.

Senkōji - this sounds like a real temple name (there are temples called Senkōji), but is also a play on the fact that senkō is the Japanese word for incense and -ji is one of the endings for temples.  Kakyoin: Oh, so your family belongs to Incense Temple?  Jotaro: That sounds like it could be correct.

kōan - a story, dialogue, or question used to provoke doubt in Zen practitioners and test their progress toward enlightenment.  You could think of them as Buddhist riddles if you want to be really reductive.  (Yes, Kakyoin tests Jotaro’s knowledge of Buddhism by bringing up a thing used to test practitioners.  I warned you that these jokes were niche.)  Kōan are most commonly associated with the Rinzai sect in Japan, although other sects use them as well.  One of the most famous kōan, which Kakyoin references here, involves a student asking a master if the dog has a buddha-nature (more commonly referred to as the mu kōan).

“funeral Buddhism” - in Japan, the main thing people go to Buddhist temples for these days is funeral services or other rites of remembrance (grave visits, rites marking the anniversaries of the deaths of family members, etc.), which has led to Buddhism being identified pretty closely with death and mourning.  Thus, Buddhism in Japan is sometimes referred to as “funeral Buddhism,” although there’s a lot of debate among scholars about how helpful that term actually is.  Jotaro only associating Buddhism with funerals and death and knowing nothing about doctrine or cosmology is not unusual.

honji suijaku - a complicated medieval Buddhist theory identifying native/non-Buddhist Japanese deities with Buddhist deities by arguing that the non-Buddhist deities were actually Buddhist deities that had taken alternate forms as expedient means (see explanation of that below).  All of the combinations Kakyoin names are real combinations from the medieval period.  Enma is the king of hell and the judge of the dead, so Kakyoin thinks it’s a little strange for Jizō to be identified with him, since Jizō is supposed to save the dead from hell.  Jotaro was right--Amaterasu is a Shinto deity (the sun goddess, to be specific).  Dainichi is a celestial buddha who plays an important role in Shingon.  Honji suijaku is absolutely not common knowledge for most contemporary practitioners of Japanese Buddhism, so this is the point where Kakyoin starts really trolling Jotaro with his questions and showing off his weirdly specialized knowledge (not that Jotaro can tell).

Amida - a buddha known for his vow to save anyone who sincerely calls out to him for help (usually through the phrase “namu Amida butsu” which means “hail Amida buddha”).  The True Pure Land sect, which Jotaro’s neighbor, Mrs. Watanabe, belongs to, emphasizes the concept of “other power,” i.e. relying on something outside of yourself (Amida, in this case) for salvation.  Kakyoin’s scorn for Amida worship is hilarious and pretentious, since his opinions parallel those of established Buddhist groups (including Shingon) in the medieval period, who trash talked Pure Land Buddhism (focused on Amida worship) for being too populist and accessible.  Are you sensing a theme here?  Kakyoin is a Buddhist elitist with a lot of knowledge of medieval esoteric Buddhism specifically.

buddhas are(n’t) ghosts - Jotaro’s confusion comes from the fact that one way to refer to the spirits of the dead in Japanese is “buddhas” (仏; hotoke).  Additionally, although the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni) is the most famous, different sects of Buddhism imagine different numbers of buddhas--ranging from one (the historical buddha and no one else) to incalculable numbers of buddhas who have existed, do exist, and are yet to come.

Kannon - all Kannon facts offered by Kakyoin and Avdol are true!  Kannon really is the bodhisattva of compassion.  Avalokitesvara (Kannon’s name in Sanskrit) is male (as all bodhisattvas are), but bodhisattvas are frequently depicted as androgynous.  In China, Guanyin (Avalokitesvara’s name in Chinese) started being depicted not as androgynously feminine but as female, which has led to Guanyin being primarily depicted as female and Kannon as almost always depicted as female.  Kakyoin’s interpretation of Kannon makes sense/is supportable, but is definitely uncommon (people tend to focus on the compassion bit rather than the historical/social circumstances), thus Avdol’s reaction.  This is a common theme in Kakyoin’s Buddhism Opinions--he tends to latch on to historical/intellectual details rather than emotive/experiential ones.

expedient means - another complicated one, but basically the idea of using methods or techniques that fit the situation (rather than ones that are 100% “true” or “correct”) to gain enlightenment or guide others to enlightenment.  You could think of it as interim measures to get people farther along the path, or maybe an “ends justify the means” mentality.  Kakyoin is interpreting it as a sort of social flexibility, which is not an unheard of interpretation but definitely not the most common one.  Kakyoin’s interpretation comes from a number of stories in which bodhisattvas transform into/disguise themselves as different people in order to guide humans farther along the path--by becoming an old woman in need of assistance, for example, who teaches someone Buddhist values, or by manifesting as a known, geographically-specific deity who can better spread the teachings of the Buddha to suspicious locals (see honji suijaku).  In this fic, expedient means is leveraged in three ways: A. Kakyoin thinks of the way he engages with people as expedient means (becoming whatever he needs to be for the situation), B. you could technically count Kakyoin’s infodumping about Buddhism at Jotaro as expedient means (in the traditional sense of getting someone farther along the path) as he does manage to get him interested in learning more about Buddhism by doing it, and C. both Jotaro and Kakyoin are using Buddhism as expedient means (an interim measure) to get closer to each other.  Wow, Queenie, glad to see that you’re using your graduate education for good and not evil.

CHAPTER TWO:

Wisdom Kings - a type of guardian of the dharma (see explanation below).  Please imagine a post-credits scene in which Jotaro decides that Fudō Myōō is the best Wisdom King and Kakyoin is once more disappointed by how stereotypical his boyfriend is.

combinatory worship - practices that mix together what we now call “Shinto” practices and “Buddhist” practices.  The two religious strains were less distinct pre-1871.  See honji suijaku.  Again, this is not common knowledge for contemporary practitioners of Japanese Buddhism; Kakyoin has very clearly done a lot of reading on pre-modern Buddhism.

Kasuga Shrine - a famous shrine complex in Nara known for combinatory worship in the ancient and medieval periods.  It’s now a “pure” Shinto site, but did not used to be.  Here’s one of the famous Kasuga mandala, in which Buddhist deities are depicted floating in the sky over the shrine grounds (see honji suijaku).  Now mainly famous as a tourist destination in a park that is populated by wild deer (who are messengers of the god of Kasuga and thus are not allowed to be harmed).  The deer are a giant pain, since they’re not scared of people and will eat anything.

Four Noble Truths - extremely simplified: 1. Existence is suffering. 2. Suffering is caused by attachment. 3. However, you can escape by severing attachment.  4. You do that via Buddhist practice.  On one hand, it absolutely does not make sense to have a favorite of the Four Noble Truths (Kakyoin is trolling Jotaro real hard)--on the other hand, Kakyoin would absolutely have a favorite of the Four Noble Truths.  His favorite is the third, if you need a refresher.  (If you haven’t already figured it out, isolation and hope are the two big themes for Kakyoin’s Buddhism Opinions.)

a biography of the Buddha cannot save you - Buddhism has transformed so much in its spread throughout Asia that different traditions may look completely different--one of the most important sacred texts in East Asian Buddhism (The Lotus Sutra) is an apocryphal text that was probably written in China, for example, so it straight up doesn’t exist in Southeast Asian Buddhism.  Trying to understand Japanese Buddhism by reading a biography of the Buddha would be like trying to understand American megachurches by reading a biography of Jesus.

the six realms of existence - all facts offered by both Jotaro and Kakyoin are true!  The six realms are pretty self-explanatory, I think, other than the difference between the asuras (sometimes translated “demigods”) and the gods.  Jotaro isn’t wrong that the main difference between them is often summarized as the asura fighting all the time and being really mad while the gods just chill out and have a great time.  Being reborn as a human is often considered the best, because it’s the easiest realm to achieve enlightenment from, since you’re not being distracted by extreme suffering or what an orgiastically pleasant time you’re having.  All of the realms are still ultimately part of samsara (the cycle of death and rebirth), though, so you want to get out of them altogether, since even if you wind up being born as a god, eventually you’ll die and be reborn in another realm.  And, yes, knowing things about both Buddhism and the JJBA canon should make you feel fear in your heart.  (JJBA feels intensely cyclical to me in general, and samsara is a cycle by definition.)

CHAPTER THREE:

Kakyoin - Kakyoin really was the name of a Shugendō temple (located in Sendai) that was destroyed during the religious reforms in the 1870s.  Kakyoin the character is named after the neighborhood of Sendai, which is in turn named after the temple.  I assume that, due to geographical proximity, Kakyoin’s family is affiliated with (and Kakyoin’s great-grandfather went to work at) Jōzenji, which in real life was also destroyed in the 1870s but still exists as of 1999 in the JJBA canon.  Jōzenji, by the way, was a Shingon temple.  Please imagine me writing this fic with a massive conspiracy board, because that’s absolutely what happened.

Shugendō - a syncretic ascetic tradition that grew out of a combination of Buddhism, Shinto, and beliefs surrounding mountains as sacred sites.  It was suppressed by the Japanese government in the 1870s, as it “inappropriately” mixed Buddhism and Shinto and was seen as superstitious and backward.  Many of its temples were either destroyed (as in the case of Kakyoin) or repurposed into “pure” Shinto or Buddhist sites.  Kakyoin is correct that many Shugendō priests were given the option to become either Shinto or Buddhist priests or become lay people.  Shugendō has been revived in the post-war period as a religion separate from both Buddhism and Shinto (although it shares beliefs and practices with both of them).

How could Kakyoin’s great-grandfather be a Buddhist priest but also have a family? - starting in the 1870s, Buddhist clergy were officially allowed to eat meat and consume alcohol, grow their hair out, and get married.  (Some secretly--or not so secretly--had families before then, but it was technically illegal in all but one sect, although inconsistently persecuted.)  As a result, the majority of Buddhist clergy in contemporary Japan are not celibate (although some are), and many temples are operated by priests from the same familial lineage.  Shugendō has never had a celibacy requirement for its clergy.

guardian of the dharma (dharmapala) - a type of wrathful god that defends Buddhism from dangers.  They’re highly venerated in both Shingon and Shugendō, thus Kakyoin’s familiarity with them growing up.  Honestly?  This wasn’t a great guess on Kakyoin’s part, since the most famous of the dharmapala in Japan looks like this.  He was six at the time, though, so let’s not be too mean about it.

Kūkai (also known as Kōbō Daishi) - the founder of the Shingon sect of Buddhism in Japan.  Naming in Buddhism is too complicated to get into here, but the second name is a posthumous honorific name.  He’s associated with a variety of sacred sites, including one of the most popular pilgrimage routes in Japan--the eighty-eight temple pilgrimage in Shikoku.  May or may not be pretty strong.

Buddhist robes - for your reference, here’s a portrait of Kūkai and here’s what a contemporary Shingon monk looks like.  Jotaro is picturing a Sōtō monk, who looks more like this.  Also here is a recent series of memes about Buddhist robes; this has nothing to do with the fic but they did make me laugh a lot.

Tenmei - this fic brought to you by me seeing Kakyoin Tenmei and shouting, “THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE NAME OF A BUDDHIST MONK; ARAKI, WHAT THE FRICK.”  Most names in Japanese are read with the kun’yomi (the “Japanese” reading) whereas Buddhist names are read with the on’yomi (the “Chinese” reading, used for compound words)--“Noriaki” is the kun’yomi of 典明 whereas “Tenmei” is the on’yomi.

shichi-go-san - a coming-of-age ritual (performed at Shinto shrines) for children age three, boys age five, and girls age seven.  The name is literally “seven-five-three.”

Maitreya - all facts offered by Kakyoin are true!  Maitreya (called Miroku in Japanese, but Kakyoin is being pretentious and using the Sanskrit) is the buddha to come.  We are currently in the last of the three ages, with each age being worse and more degenerate than the one before as the teachings of the Buddha become harder and harder to access, achieving enlightenment becomes increasingly impossible, and the world is visited by natural disasters.  By the Japanese count, the last age started in 1052 CE!  But the last age is supposed to go on for 10,000 years, so we’ve still got a while to go.  Maitreya is thus a figure of both great fear (his coming will be heralded by the end of the world) and great hope (he’ll bring an end to the last age and usher in a new age of prosperity), so he felt like a fitting choice for Kakyoin (and a fitting way to close out the fic).

Agyō and Ungyō - guardians of Buddhism who appear in sets of two (together they’re called the Niō), usually protecting temple gates.  Their names (literally “a-form” and “un-form”) come from the shapes of their mouths, one open (a) and one closed (un).  Image here.  Hopefully you see the joke here.

[markrmorrisjr]

I grew up fundy, I’ve had to face it. I’ve tried to put all kinds of spins on it, conservative, mainline traditional, but facts are facts, and although I didn’t see it, and still don’t remember my parents or grandparents as cruel, or hateful in any  way, that’s what it was.

From the time I was born until the age of fourteen, my dad was a Church of Christ preacher. I never experienced any kind of racism, or bigotry, toward anyone who came into the congregations where he preached, or in our home. Everyone was welcome, no matter their heritage,  status, “orientation” or “lifestyle” ( I use these terms in quotes, because this is the language that was used to describe the “others”) they were always treated with love and respect and we tried to help everyone we could.

That being said, there was a fair bit of proselytizing, which only makes sense in the circumstances, but never any condemnation from them toward anyone that I witnessed,. Regardless of their beliefs. Maybe this is why I was able to hide from my own concerns for so long. There was never any doubt that they believed whole-heartedly that without a meaningful conversion experience to Christ, everyone was lost and going to a literal, real hell.

I know what some of you are thinking, what kind of monsters were they? But, you likely have had some beliefs in your life that you were forced to reconsider, and I fully believe, had they lived long enough, this would have been one for them. My dad admitted at the end of his life that I had convinced him that hell definitely wasn’t what he’d thought. But, that’s a story for another time.

About the time I turned fourteen, my dad’s theology changed, but not necessarily for the better. We dived headlong out of the mega conservative, no instrumental music in worship, COC, into the hotbed of the Charismatic Renewal in 1985. Rock bands, and tambourines, if you couldn’t speak in tongues, you might not be saved, kind of places. The Sunday services would run for hours!

From there, I ran through the gamut of “non-denominational” churches, but everywhere I went, a certain arrogant ignorance pervaded the leadership.  Most of them had only a rudimentary knowledge of scripture. Which, for a COC kid was appalling, after all, we basically treated the Bible as a defacto minister of God. It was inerrant, and perfect in every way, after all, it was just up to us to study it hard enough to suss out the answers.

There’s a certain level of death to intellectual curiosity that comes with accepting that the Bible, is, in your mind, inerrant. Although this is a relatively new idea, in the scheme of things, it has been pervasive through most of American Evangelical Christianity for the past century or so. Even in places where it wasn’t considered quite as literal and concrete as I’d been taught as a child (6 literal days of creation, and so on) those ideas were almost never expressed from the pulpit. There was a tacit understanding that the book was the book, and whatever it said, and whoever was in charge agreed to interpret is as meaning, stood.

So, what’s so wrong with that? Well, I don’t know all of the answers to this question, but here are ten things I picked up on later in life that led to a whole bunch of questions that ended up with me thinking there is no hell, and gay people are okay with Jesus and maybe a lot of the other rules we made for ourselves didn’t make a whole lot of sense, and the whole thing was really about being good to people in the first place.

Here they are, the ten things they never told me.

The best description of God in the Bible is a metaphor.

That’s right. We’ve fought wars over these poetic understandings, though. So, they must be able to be understood and taken literally, right? See, the idea is this, God is so big (and if there is a single intelligence behind the universe, it would have to be) that we simply cannot understand, and so, we have to resort to metaphorical language to compare God to things we can know. God is ineffable in essence. But, if this is true, why did I see so much anger for people who insisted on seeing the feminine in the divine, or had another name for God?

God is not a man.

At best, the divine is a blend of genders. It says so right in the first two chapters, but we overlook that and default to father, although he’s also described as animals, a woman, forces of nature, and even inanimate objects. As science begins to unfold what it means for humans to have gender, they are discovering that even on a measurable level, there is very little evidence for the strict binary definitions we’ve applied until very recently. To me, this binary understanding has been used primarily to hold half of the population in check. Yes, women, you’ve been robbed of your rightful place, because some guys decided that some other guys, who wrote all this stuff down, said guys were put in charge by the head guy himself, God, and it’s not true.

There’s very little history, outside of the Bible itself, to back up much of what is in it.

Sorry, whatever they told you at Bible college, might need to be reconfirmed, as awful as it sounds a whole lot of lies have been told to prop up doctrine. I don’t know a lot about this. It is true there is as much evidence for the existence of some of the personalities in the Bible as for other historical figures, but much of what is told within its pages cannot be confirmed through other historical records.

Almost NONE of the source texts come from “original” languages.

In many evangelical circles there is this belief that if you get to the "original" language of the Bible you can make more sense of it. In some cases this is true. It's been mistranslated and misinterpreted. In other places, additional words have simply been made up to make it make what the translator thought was good sense. So, what is the truth

The OT was rewritten into other languages, and then translated back into Hebrew. The Greek that the NT scrolls were written in was not the spoken language of the people who wrote it. Many of them spoke Aramaic, it's believed. Linguistically speaking it’s a stew, and that’s before you even get to the oral tradition being handed down for generations before many of the books were written, or the translation challenges of converting mostly dead languages into somewhat modern English equivalents.

There's more than one "canon" of the "Holy Bible

To say that the “canon” (group of books included in the Bible) of scripture is inspired (directly selected by the Holy Spirit) is a confusing, and misleading statement. There have been many. Hell, there are still many groups of books claiming the title of Bible. Right now there is the 66 book canon of the mainline protestant church, the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, which by the way, has the claim of being older than the protestant, just by history and logic. And the Eastern Orthodox canon contains 81 books, and is said to be the oldest canon in church history. So, which one was inspired? Even these canons are disputed.

Not all of the Biblical authors are necessarily who I was taught they were.

For example, Paul seems to have penned the lion’s share of the New Testament. But, some of what has his name on it, most scholars believe, may have been penned by one of his own disciples, using his name to gain authority. As to the ancient texts, some of them have never had an author attributed to them.

Not everything in the Bible is scientifically accurate.

You're probably saying, wow, no kidding? (sarcastically) It is obvious that there are gaps in the understanding of the writers, and some of their observations are plain illogical. But, and here's the thing, we had a 1954 set of World Book encyclopedias as a kid and I wouldn't want to use that as a text book in a modern science class either. So much of the understanding has changed. Honestly, this point only matters if you're expecting the Bible to be completely infallible.

Surprisingly, however, the same pattern claimed as the biological order of ascendance in evolution by Darwin, is the same order used in the Creation Myth in Genesis. I remember a serious debate in our house when my brother found out that whales are not fish and my father attempted to defend the idea that the whale Jonah was “literally” swallowed by, was both a whale and a great fish, as the Bible states. To me, most of these are simply errors in understanding from the author’s point of view. After all, most people still thought of the world as flat, although the Bible describes it as round. But, I don’t need the Bible to be scientifically accurate in every point. Most historical philosophical texts have similar inaccuracies.

The idea that the Bible is perfect is new

Yep, it started less than a hundred years ago, which is funny. You'd think the earliest followers of this book would have been turned onto the fact that it was perfect, unless, maybe, it's not.

I was never told this. I doubt my father ever knew it. Different schools of theological understanding tend to insulate themselves to preserve their way of thinking. You’ll find that two Biblical scholars, both trained to similar levels of education, may have completely different understandings of what the book means on many points and often have never even been confronted with opposing views. The other interesting thing is this, I’ve rarely met a Bible professor who found the Bible to be as black and white as it was nearly always presented from the pulpits I heard it taught from.

There are even problems with the doctrine of "Divine Inspiration"

The idea of the divine inspiration of the Biblical writers doesn’t gel with the idea of free will. Either God creates automatons, even temporarily, to act as mediums ( a practice strictly forbidden in scripture) to transcribe the history and thoughts of God, or men do it willingly. If the former, then what the hell? And was that same possession present when all translation, interpretation, and transcription was done? If not, how would you assume that all of these men (they’re always all considered men) get it all perfectly right, without inserting a single opinion. But, then, we’re given a glimpse into this by Paul, at least once when he tells us straight up this is my opinion, not God speaking.

The Bible’s inerrancy is not only unprovable, but it simply doesn’t matter.

Here’s why. After being in church, literally, since the third day of my life, I’ve come to this conclusion, it does not matter one bit if the Bible is perfect or not. Well, of course it does, some will say, otherwise, we might be living a lie. Well, here’s the thing, you might anyway, even if it’s perfect. Why? Imagine this.

There is an atomic bomb in your front yard. Unless you defuse it, at some point in the future, no one knows exactly when, it will take you and everyone you know out. Never fear! Instructions for defusing this bomb have been delivered. But, here’s the thing. They were written by someone who never saw this bomb. Two thousand years ago. With their untechnological minds. In a foreign language they didn’t speak. That’s not all. Then it was translated from these ancient texts, then transcribed many times, and finally, it was made into an “interpretation” of the original text. But, if you are not precise in every single detail of your defusal process, BOOM!

So, you call in the experts. They can help, right? They’ve devoted their entire lives to studying these instructions and teaching these instructions. They arrive and immediately begin to argue. Why? Because they all have a different idea of how the bomb should be defused and all of them show you in the instructions how their way is right. One says you open the bomb first, then pray, then defuse. Another says, no, pray only, God will defuse the bomb. Another says, dunk the bomb in water, pray, then defuse. And they all have followers who espouse their method. Because, if you don’t get this right, they’re all doomed.

Finally, they resort, not to the original texts, but to commentaries based on other’s understanding of the texts, to solve their disagreements, but this just leads to more disagreements. What do you do? The instructions are perfect, you know that. But, now you’ve got three different versions of them, and tons of peripheral information explaining them and the more you try to make it make sense, the less it does.

That’s why it simply does not matter if the Bible is perfect, infallible, or inerrant. Because, even if it were, we cannot come to a common understanding of what it means.

So, what is the Bible? To me, it’s simply a journal. It’s a journal of men and women who dedicated their entire existence to unravelling the God puzzle, understanding who the creator is, and what our relationship to the divine should be. It records their mistakes, their broken ideas, their imperfect observations, and some of the results. It encourages us to good things, and where it does, we should follow it. Then it has some horrible advice, which is proven wrong. Where this is true, we should learn from it.

But, how do you make peace with all of this? Simple. I’ve come to understand that the bomb (hell) does not exist. There is no lake of eternal fire. God doesn’t torture people eternally for deeds committed on a finite time line. In fact, the Bible doesn’t even say that. But, that’s a story for another time.

[pamphletstoinspire]

CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INFORMATION - Part 1

Introduction

"Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged . . . Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them." - Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, August 25, 1910.

*

O Lord, who art called the Branch, the Orient, the Splendour of the eternal light, and the Sun of Justice, who art that Tree, of whom Thy beloved disciple speaks as the Tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, and its leaves for the healing of the nations, give Thy grace and blessing on all those various states and conditions in Thy Holy Church, which have sprung from Thee and live in Thy Life.

Give to all Bishops the gifts of knowledge, discernment, prudence, and love.

Give to all priests to be humble, tender, and pure;

Give to all pastors of Thy flock to be zealous, vigilant, and unworldly;

Give to all religious bodies to act up to their rule, to be simple and without guile, and to set their hearts upon invisible things and them only.

Grant to fathers of families to recollect that they will have hereafter to give account of the souls of their children; grant to all husbands to be tender and true; to all wives to be obedient and patient; grant to all children to be docile; to all young people to be chaste; to all the aged to be fervent in spirit; to all who are engaged in business, to be honest and unselfish;

And to all of us the necessary graces of faith, hope, charity, and contrition.

Bl. John Henry Newman

Twelve Meditations and Intercessions for Good Friday __________

CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INFORMATION - Part 2

Be A Catholic Apologist Without Apology

By: Carl Olson

"I’m sorry. I’m really very sorry. I wish I could convey to you how deeply sorry I truly am."

The speaker was a poker-faced Karl Keating, founder and president of Catholic Answers, an apostolate dedicated to the defense of the Catholic Faith. Addressing a crowd of several hundred in central California, he stepped back and paused for a few moments, letting his introductory words settle in.

"There you have it," he said, moving to the microphone, "a demonstration of what so many people think a Catholic apologist does."

The well-received joke played on the fact that "apologetics" is not a common word in the vocabulary of many Catholics. When introduced to the term, more than a few people wonder if it means apologizing for something. As Keating noted, "Some people think that an apologist is someone who travels the country apologizing for being a Catholic."

The Meaning of Apologetics

"Apologetics" is derived from the Greek root word apologia. In ancient Greece it referred to a formal defense of a belief, an explanation or argument for one’s philosophy or religion. The word occurs several times in the New Testament, including sections of the Gospels, seeking to persuade unbelievers of the truth claims of the Church, especially the unique nature of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Standing before a tribunal in Jerusalem, the imprisoned Paul states, "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense [apologia] which I now offer to you" (Acts 22:1). In his epistle to the Philippians the Apostle to the Gentiles states that one of his tasks was to make a "defense of the Gospel." Perhaps the best-known appearance of the word in the Bible is in Peter’s first epistle: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).

Catholic apologetics is the defense and explanation of the teachings, beliefs, and practices of the Catholic Church. Its goal is to remove objections, shed light on difficult or misunderstood matters, and ultimately help win minds and souls for Jesus Christ. Apologetics is the activity of helping people answer the question: "Why should I be Catholic?" It does so by engaging the mind to reach the heart.

Unfortunately, apologetics has a negative connotation for some Christians, including more than a few Catholics. For these people, Avery Cardinal Dulles notes in A History of Apologetics, "the apologist is regarded as an aggressive, opportunistic person who tries, by fair means or by foul, to argue people into joining the Church." As Cardinal Dulles notes, there have undoubtedly been some bad apologists for the Catholic Faith. Apologists can be unduly argumentative, contentious, mean-spirited, triumphalistic, and arrogant. They can offend unbelievers just as easily as they defend Christian beliefs.

The Dos and Don’ts of Apologetics

However, apologetics should not be dismissed because of misuse or misunderstandings. The value and place of apologetics is best judged by looking to the finest defenders of Catholicism: Paul and Peter, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Augustine, Aquinas, de Sales, Pascal, Newman, Chesterton, and even Pope John Paul II. These men dealt with pagans, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, agnostics, and atheists, adapting their methods and styles according to their audience while never deviating from the truth.

Most importantly, they are saints first, apologists second. They are men of holiness and prayer. A consistent and vital life of prayer is imperative for the apologist, especially since he is often under attack, verbally, spiritually, and, on occasion, physically. Prayer leads to a deeper knowledge of God and truth. "The closer the apologists grows to God in prayer," writes apologist (and president of Ignatius Press) Mark Brumley in How Not To Share Your Faith, "the more intense his hatred of error and his desire that all men know the truth; the more intense his desire to use apologetics to help bring people to the truth."

Knowledge of the Faith is necessary, of course, since the Church’s teaching about Jesus Christ, or the Eucharist, or the communion of saints cannot be defended without knowing something of substance about them. There is much to comprehend about the Catholic Church and her teachings, but the most basic study materials should include the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, augmented by solid works of biblical and theological scholarship. The good news is that publishers such as Ignatius Press, Sophia Institute Press, Our Sunday Visitor and others have been publishing quality works of popular and scholarly apologetics for several decades. Classic texts by John Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, Frank Sheed, and other leading apologists of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century are in print and readily available. Contemporary authors Thomas Howard, Karl Keating, Peter Kreeft, Patrick Madrid, Mark Shea, Rev. Peter Stravinskas, and many others have produced an impressive array of books addressing modern challenges to the Catholic Faith, including fundamentalist Protestantism, secularism, feminism, and relativism.

All Catholics should have some basic knowledge of apologetics since they will all undoubtedly encounter questions and challenges about what they believe. When challenged to explain why and what they believe, Catholics should keep in mind what apologetics can and cannot do.

Apologetics should remove objections or false ideas about Catholicism. For example, when asked why Catholics worship Mary, the apologist should be able to explain that Catholics do not, in fact, worship Mary, but worship God alone, clarifying the nature of "worship" and the role of Mary in the life of her Son and in the Church. Much good can come of simply breaking down stereotypical ideas and misunderstandings that are far more prevalent in American culture than some Catholics appreciate.

Apologetics presents reasoned evidence for Catholic doctrine. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Real Presence of the Eucharist cannot be proven through logic or scientific method, but good arguments can be made that they are reasonable and not contrary to logic, even though they transcend the limits of human understanding. A good example of this are the evidences offered by Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God: they logically show that it is more reasonable to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator and Designer than to believe that the universe is the result of blind chance.

Apologetics should prepare the heart for conversion through an appeal to the intellect. Peter Kreeft writes in Fundamentals of the Faith, "Remember that the purpose of apologetics is not just to win the head but to win the heart through the head." The goal of apologetics is never to demonstrate the intelligence and wit of the apologist, but to invite others into a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. In the case of apologists who deal with anti-Catholic Protestants, the goal is an invitation into the fullness of Christ’s Church. Even in the midst of conflict, focus on conversion; while addressing the head, aim for the heart.

Apologetics cannot demonstrate the truth of the Catholic Faith. There are limits to apologetics arguments, no matter how sound and good they are. The hypostatic union and transubstantiation cannot be proven in the way that the existence of gravity or the chemical makeup of water can be proven. Put another way, the apologist has to respect both the reach and the limits of argument and reason while bearing in mind the nature of faith, which is a gift from God.

Likewise, the apologist cannot force, by sheer reason, people to believe. Humans are not calculating machines who crisply process information and then make perfect, understandable decisions. Good apologetics respects the dignity and free will of each person, even when challenging persons to consider serious reasons to believe the claims made by the Catholic Church. Defending the Faith should not be about winning arguments, but presenting truth. As the old saying goes, "Win an argument, lose a convert."

The apologist does not win souls–that is the work of the Holy Spirit. The knowledge of an accomplished apologist can potentially tempt him to lose the humility necessary to clearly understand his work. That work is always dependent on God’s grace. Which is yet another reason that constant prayer and reflection are keys to healthy apologetic activities.

Telling Your Story

One of best apologetic methods is personal testimony. In a recent article in First Things magazine titled "The Rebirth of Apologetics" (May 2004), Cardinal Dulles writes, "The apologetics of personal testimony is particularly suited to the genius of Catholicism. In the act of Catholic faith, reliance on testimony goes out indivisibly to Christ and to the Church through which he continues his mission in the world. Such testimony invites us not only to individual conversion but to communion with the whole body of believers." This thought echoes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which explains that the sacrament of confirmation gives Catholics "the special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross" (CCC 1303).

The new evangelization promoted and articulated by Pope John Paul II emphasizes the importance of ordinary Catholics sharing their testimonies of faith with others. Dry facts and logical arguments may leave many people cold, but few cannot resist the story of a soul transformed and made anew by God’s grace. In this way the exhortation of the first pope can be realized in the life of every Catholic: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." No apologies necessary.

A Short History of Apologetics

The first apologists were the apostles, who defended the faith while evangelizing, preaching, and establishing the Church in Palestine and throughout the Roman Empire. The two most famous apologists of the second century were Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), a former pagan philosopher, and Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200), bishop of Lyons. Justin wrote defenses of Christianity for Roman readers, relying on his background and skill in philosophy and rhetoric. Irenaeus was one of the first great theologians of the Church and he used his skills to combat the various strains of gnosticism that threatened the Church in the late second century. His major work, Against Heresies, is a significant apologetic landmark.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is a Doctor of the Church and is, along with Thomas Aquinas, one of the most brilliant theologians and apologists of the Western Church. A convert from Manichaeism, the African bishop wrote apologetic works aimed at the Manichees, pagans, and the Donatists. His masterpiece, The City of God, is heavily apologetic in nature, defending the Church against attacks from pagans prior to the fall of Rome. Augustine’s Confessions is one of the most famous works of early medieval literature and an example of the power of personal testimony as it continues to touch lives many centuries after it was written.

The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), produced timeless works of scholastic apologetics, including the Summa Contra Gentiles, written to answer objections raised by Muslim theologians. Aquinas wrote that he set about the task "of making known, as far as my limited power will allow, the truth that the Catholic faith possesses, and of setting aside the errors that are opposed to it." Aquinas’s greatest work, the Summa Theologiae, carefully and thoroughly answered objections to the Faith, often articulating opposing arguments more cogently and persuasively than those who held them. Aquinas’s general approach to apologetics was to use the Old Testament in addressing Jews, the New Testament for Christian heretics, and natural reason for pagans and Muslims.

The sixteenth-century witnessed the dramatic upheaval of the Protestant Reformation, creating the need for apologetics oriented towards a host of different non-Catholic Christian communities and perspectives. In addition to many Jesuit apologists, the theologian and bishop Francis de Sales (1567-1622) stands out for his tireless efforts in France to win back Catholics who had embraced the teachings of John Calvin. As a young priest de Sales was responsible to winning back tens of thousands of such Catholics through writing pamphlets and handing them out door to door. Those pamphlets were subsequently published under the title The Catholic Controversy.

One of the most unique Catholic apologists was the French scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62). A child prodigy, Pascal underwent a dramatic conversion in his early thirties and dedicated the rest of his short life to defending the Catholic Faith against Enlightenment-era secularism and liberalism. He planned to write a thorough work of apologetics but died before completing it. The fragments and notes for that book were collected and published as Pensées. Full of insight into human nature and psychology, Pascal’s apologetic method was markedly different from the scholastic approach of Aquinas. "I can think of no Christian writer," T. S. Eliot wrote, "more to be commended than Pascal to those who doubt . . ." Essential to Pascal’s perspective was his conclusion that there exist three basic types of people: Those who seek God and find him, those who are seeking God but have not yet found him, and those who neither seek nor find.

The best-known Catholic apologist of the nineteenth-century was John Henry Newman (1801-90), an Anglican priest and scholar who eventually entered the Catholic Church after much study and personal anguish. Newman was a patristic scholar and a brilliant stylist; his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is still considered to be a monumental work on early Church history, as is The Arians of the Fourth Century. But his greatest work of apologetics was his autobiographical Apologia pro vita sua, written in response to accusations that his conversion to Catholicism was a cynical and self-serving sham.

A blossoming of popular apologetics occurred in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries, led by English lay men Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Arnold Lunn and priests Ronald Knox and Martin D’Arcy. Chesterton (1874-1936), a former agnostic, is notable for his prodigious output, continued popularity, and recognizable style. Frank Sheed (1897-1982), a former lawyer, founded both the Catholic Evidence Guild and the publishing house Sheed & Ward and wrote numerous apologetics works, including the classic Theology and Sanity.

Fr. John Francis Noll (1875-1956) founded Our Sunday Visitor in 1912 in an effort to fight the socialist, anti-Catholic periodical The Menace. He soon published a number of popular apologetics and catechetical texts, including the famous Father Smith Instructs Jackson, and established OSV as a leading Catholic publisher in the United States. For several decades in the mid-1900s Bishop Fulton Sheen very effectively used television and printed media to defend and explain Catholicism, reaching numerous non-Catholics.

Apologetics were popular in the decades leading up to the Second Vatican Council, but the 1970s were a low point for both popular and scholarly defenses of the Faith. The 1980s saw a resurgence of popular apologetics, often called the "New Apologetics," led by priests Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Joseph Fessio,, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, and Fr. William Most, and lay men Karl Keating, Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, and others. Publishers including Our Sunday Visitor, Ignatius Press, Emmaus Road, Sophia Institute Press, and Ascension Press have produced dozens of apologetics texts in recent years, some of them classic works from previous eras and others the works of contemporary writers.

In a recent interview with IgnatiusInsight.com, Karl Keating reflected on his twenty-plus years in apologetics: "For many years Catholic Answers was a one-man operation. Today there are dozens of apologetics groups, some regional and some national. So apologetics is much more widely done than a quarter century ago, and the stigma that used to be attached to apologetics has largely been overcome." No need to say, "I'm sorry"—apologetics are alive and well.

From:  www.pamphletstoinspire.com

[cassatine]

About saying Star Wars is Buddhist or Taoist -- I don't believe SW has been created by practicing Buddhists, and the appropriation has absolutely been problematic (there can be white and non-Asian Buddhists because it *is* a proselytized religion, but I don't know of many on the creative team). However, a twitter thread I saw about the subject was written by a South Asian Buddhist who *wanted* more recognition of Buddhist themes. I've also seen Buddhist websites write about TLJ.

Also, lj-writes insisting that SW is about moral dualism while being one of the strongest condemners of TLJ for rejecting moral dualism, doesn’t really add up. IDK their faith but their post ends with “Christianity is good enough!”. TLJ has surface symbols of Buddhism and Taoism AND themes of anti-classism, non-dualism, action returning to the actor, the Middle Way, skillful means, etc. And they see it as a deeply wrong entry in the saga. So it feels like this is lowkey “keep SW Christian”?

Long, long, disgressive answer under cut

About saying Star Wars is Buddhist or Taoist – I don’t believe SW has been created by practicing Buddhists, and the appropriation has absolutely been problematic (there can be white and non-Asian Buddhists because it *is* a proselytized religion, but I don’t know of many on the creative team).

As you said Buddhism is open to all as a religion – and I think it’s also important to note that someone can be interested in the ideas and philosophy without active religious practice, and that’s there nothing wrong with that. I’d actually say it’s good to be interested in other cultures and religions, that it helps to confront the fact that one’s values are not universal (and not ~better or ~superior)

But I also think there is a difference to be drawn between Buddhism, the real thing, and the watered down (for Westerners) new age version of Buddhism

With this established – Star Wars wasn’t created by Buddhists, though among the creatives involved some had a certain appreciation for it: I don’t know about current members of LF and its creatives, but Irvin Kershner studied Zen Buddhism and had an appreciation for the philosophy; Gary Kurtz, who was more involved than most in helping Lucas with the firsts SW drafts, was interested in comparative religion, and Buddhism especially – I think he actually converted. According to himself, Gary Kurtz helped Lucas defining the Force (among other things); but they had a, hum, falling out and it seems Lucas dropped much of what Kurtz had been pushing for afterward (for example, according to Kurtz, he convinced Lucas to drop the Chosen One element in the ANH drafts, but as we know it would be reintroduced).

But then there’s Lucas himself, and we’re gonna enter actually problematic territory. First, Lucas does call himself a Buddhist – well, he calls himself a ~Buddhist Methodist (Methodism being the religion he was brought up in), with such justifications as "that’s what my daughter said when the school asked" (paraphrased) and “I was raised Methodist. Now let’s say I’m spiritual. It’s Marin County. We’re all Buddhists up here” (quoted verbatim). Honestly the Marin County thing I find… The Bay Area and Marin County being a place where so-called “alternative religions” flourish and where new age spiritualism established itself strongly starting in the 60s really doesn’t make everyone there “Buddhist”, thank you very much, and pretending so at the very least betrays a lack of understanding of what Buddhism actually is.

Still, I must note being flippant about the reasons behind one’s religious beliefs is nothing bad in itself! Lucas is under no obligation to disclose these reasons if he doesn’t want to, no more than anyone else. 

But looking at Lucas’ understanding of Buddhism, or lack thereof – well, to do that we need to look at Lucas’ views on religions in general, views deeply influenced by Campbell, who was a shitty scholar of comparative religion, and pretty explicit about both having an agenda (the salvation of a modern, Western man alienated by his own modernity), and the fact that he was an adept of the “pick and choose what fits my ideas and ignore the rest”. In fact, as early as his first book, he was anticipating and deflecting methodological criticism in the introduction: 

“Perhaps it will be objected that in bringing out the correspondences I have overlooked the differences between the various Oriental and Occidental, modem, ancient, and primitive traditions. The same objection might be brought, however, against any textbook or chart of anatomy, where the physiological variations of race are disregarded in the interest of a basic general understanding of the human physique. There are of course differences between the numerous mythologies and religions of mankind, but this is a book about the similarities; and once these are understood the differences will be found to be much less great than is popularly (and politically) supposed. (Introduction to The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell)

There’d be a lot to say about this passage – it’s not how you answer criticism or justify your methodology. Campbell shows here he’s perfectly aware that his focus on “correspondences” is in itself grounds for criticism. The thing is, in itself focusing on similarities is not “wrong, don’t do that ever” – but in conjunction with the overlooking of differences, it’s a choice that should be explained and justified as an approach for the concerned study. Campbell’s preference for exploring similarities is not inherently bad; it’s the fact (and this is the Cliff notes version) that it’s done in conjunction with a complete disregard for differences, as well as by relying on an ethnocentric framework of interpretation, among other things. Like not justifying his approach – “Once these [similarities] are understood the differences will be found to be much less great blah blah blah” is not a justification, it’s a polite way of saying everyone who doesn’t agree just doesn’t get it.

(And I disgress but like. This book was published in 1949. So when he’s comparing his lack of focus on differences to the lack of focus on “physiological variations of race” in anatomy texts, there is no fucking way he didn’t know what he was referencing, ie the terribad, rooted-in-prejudice physical anthropology of the 19th and early 20th century, and he wrote that after fucking WWII. “There’s no scientific racism in textbooks” is the way he defends giving the flying bird to methodology. I don’t even know what to do with that. Did Campbell thought textbooks should get into “physiological variations of race”? He’s not exactly framing that absence as a good thing, and he’s decontextualizing it, making it sound like an oversight rather than “we tried to take the racism out of the textbooks.” Is he, along with the “it’s political” hint subtly accusing his anticipated detractors of racism, equating the rooted-in-prejudice focus on “physiological variations of race” that was already considered non-scientific when he was writing, to saying differences in myths should be taken into account? In any case it’s a false equivalency. A stunningly bad one.)

Thing is, whether comparative should emphasize similarities or differences is something about which there’s been discourse for years. Nowadays we lean more towards particularism, ie. emphasizing differences. Of course, both approaches have their own pitfalls – the same main pitfall, in truth, which is that focusing exclusively on similarities or on differences erases the true complexity of a phenomenon. But it should be said the current leaning towards particularism has much to do with the uncomfortable admission that much of the thinking behind the emphasizing of similarities was rooted in prejudice:

The problem of the same and the different has become a crucial issue within the field of comparative mythology and for the self-definitions of postmodernism. […] we must acknowledge that the emphasis on likeness, often epitomized by its critics in the same metaphor that James Tate uses to defend it (the metaphor of not seeing in the dark), has done great harm in the history of the study of other peoples’ cultures. Occasionally the metaphor is used to make a positive statement about sameness; thus Francis Bacon, in his essay “The Unity of Religions,” argued positively for the mutual resemblance of religions: “All colors agree in the dark.” Almost always, however, it is pejorative. […] Even without the metaphor of cats or cows in the dark, the assumption that all members of a class are alike has been used in many cultures to demean the sexual or racial Other. (I capitalize Other in the anthropological rather than theological sense, designating people regarded as nonhuman because of their ethnic difference, rather than the deity that is other because of its metaphysical difference.) After all, the essence of prejudice has been defined as the assumption that an unknown individual has all the characteristics of the group to which he or she belongs. “People like you,” or “They’re all alike” is always an offensive phrase. Racism and sexism are alike in their practice of clouding the judgment so that the Other is beneath contempt, or at least beneath recognition; they dehumanize, deindividualize, the racially and sexually Other. […] We speak of racial discrimination, but the myths teach us that the real problem is racial indiscrimination—the unwillingness to discriminate between two different members of another race, the tendency to regard them all as doubles of one another. […] It is this perverse use of the doctrine of sameness, applied to both texts and people, that the comparatist must overcome in order to argue for the very different humanistic uses of the same doctrine. (The Implied Spider, Wendy Doniger)

I may sound harsh on Campbell, but the methodology issue does matter, especially because it comes with an agenda, and because of Campbell’s own influences (and personal politics, however much he liked to pretend being apolitical):

For there is no doubt that the three mythologists [Jung, Eliade, and Campbell] here under consideration have intellectual roots in the same spiritual climate as that in which early fascism and sometimes antiSemitism flourished: Nietzsche, Sorel, Ortega y Gasset, Spengler, Frobenius, Heidegger, the lesser Romanian nationalists and German “volkish” writers and, before his courageous rejection of Nazism and exile, Thomas Mann. Most of these just named were not fullblown partisans of their respective national fascist parties; some, such as Nietzsche, would have condemned political fascism as utterly contrary to the heroic individualism for which they stood. So also, by their own later testimony, did the three mythologists. Yet there is in that climate and the three mythologists an unmistakable common intellectual tone: antimodernism and antirationalism tinged with romanticism and existentialism. This subset of modern thought is deeply suspicious of the larger modern world, as that world was created fundamentally by the Enlightenment (despite, as we shall see, their embracing of some themes, like nationalism and the purifying revolution idea, carried over from the Age of Reason’s turbulent finale). Above all, the romantic antimoderns decried modernity’s exaltation of reason, “materialistic” science, “decadent” democracy dependent on the rootless “mass man” its leveling fosters.

In contrast, they lauded traditional “rooted” peasant culture, including its articulation in myths that came not from writers but from “the people,” and they no less praised the charismatic heroes ancient and modern who allegedly personified that culture’s supreme values. Above all, one felt in these writers a distinctive mood of worldweariness, a sense that all has gone gray—and, just beneath the surface, surging, impatient eagerness for change: for some tremendous spasm, emotional far more than intellectual, based far more on existential choice than on reason, that would recharge the world with color and the blood with vitality. Perhaps a new elite, or a new leader capable of making “great decisions” in the heroic mold of old, would be at the helm. (Ellwood))

(It’s no surprise Campbell loved Star Wars when he finally got to watch it – hero’s journey or not, the resonance with his own ideas is much deeper: the yearning for a lost golden age (the remembered pseudo-democratic Republic) full of culture heroes (the Jedi) now replaced by technological oppression (the Empire); even the ~primitive had their role to play in overcoming that oppressive system, if literally rather than through myths, etc, etc.)

I’ve said before the influence of Campbell’s Hero Journey on SW, especially ANH, has been much overblown, and it has – in part because early on, the early history of SW(/ANH) was itself heavily mythologized as a way to legitimize it as a product of an intellectual approach, a product of high culture rather than low (popular, see Bourdieu) culture. It didn’t come from Lucas at first, but rather from critics trying to explain the success of a movie so deeply steeped in popular tropes and themes – hence the idea that the resonance of the movies, their popular appeal, have been carefully engineered, mapping a pseudo-universal narrative pattern. 

So why do Campbell’s views even matter? Because Campbell is a major influence: Lucas rarely mentions anyone that’s not Campbell when he’s talking about his views of religion or mythology. I’ve found Jung here and there (and of course much “[X social science] says…”), and it’s very possible I missed names – there’s a lot of interviews and talks and what-have-you out there. Nonetheless, Campbell is clearly Lucas’ main reference; more than that, he’s a mentor figure. Lucas’ Yoda, as he himself says, and in a sense the man who initiated him. He’s also a ‘precursor’ – the mythicized forefather, the man of erudition whose invocation automatically lends legitimacy to Lucas’ own words on mythology and religion. 

For Lucas, all religions relay the same moral values, the same understanding of good and evil. If they don’t seem to (and really they don’t; “good” and “evil” are not universal concepts. They don’t have a one-size-fits-all definition. Different cultures conceptualize and define those terms differently, and not only do those concepts and definitions change with time, but “a culture” is not a monolithic entity in which all members agree on everything either. For terms as loaded as “good” and “evil” -or “bad”, because arguably, not all cultures have a concept of “evil”-, there are a lot of competing definitions with more or less in common), it’s because the observers stop at surface details, missing the underlying truth – meaning anyone who disagrees on this view of religion just doesn’t get it, which is the kind of mindset that leads you to explain to people they don’t understand their own religion. But you, the educated, liberal Westerner (I mean Lucas, who has a high opinion of himself as being, well, an educated liberal dude frequently misunderstood by people less intelligent and less talented than him, and absolutely presents himself an authority on religion, myth, and anthropology, which he is not), you do. It’s a somewhat circular reasoning:

I believe in (x) god/values and that this belief is universal (people may say differently but really, they believe the same things I do, how could they not? They’re good things. The best things!)

Studying other beliefs (by focusing only on similarities and presuming it’s all about my beliefs under the surface) reveals, amazingly enough, that my beliefs are universal. What a surprise amirite. 

I have the beliefs I have because they are universal, and since they are universal, they cannot be questioned.

To go back to the specific Buddhism issue, that’s how Lucas approaches it. He doesn’t give a whit about what Buddhism actually is, its values and its philosophy. He doesn’t need to: he already knows that, like every other religion, those values, that philosophy, correspond to his own beliefs. Opinions not needed, because that verisimilarity is only seen by the enlightened. 

(Which comes down to erasing people’s actual beliefs across time and space to defend the notion that, conveniently enough, everyone the world over shares Lucas’ christian moral values (or is getting there because it’s the natural end of the processus – which would deserve a few paragraphs in itself because that’s related to the concept of linear cultural progress, another thing rooted in prejudice and shitty, outdated anthropological notions.))

All that to say that Lucas is just about as Buddhist as me (I am not), and that fuck yes we’re in problematic territory, way more problematic than is usually acknowledged. I probably didn’t need to write so much about it (well there’d be more to say, in fact, but that’s quite a bit already); it’s not quite what you asked for but there it is nonetheless. 

However, a twitter thread I saw about the subject was written by a South Asian Buddhist who *wanted* more recognition of Buddhist themes. I’ve also seen Buddhist websites write about TLJ.

I think the discussion over Buddhist/Taoist themes in the OT and PT is a different one than the one about these same themes in the ST, simply because it’s not a Lucas product. I absolutely understand wanting more recognition of these themes when they are present, and I think Buddhist themes introduced in the current trilogy can bring about a new interpretation of the… spiritual elements in the story and the universe (arguably already happened), changing how we receive the full saga (I’d even argue that it’s part of what makes SW a modern myth: myths do not care for their author; they spread and grow and change through both social and individual forces. Myths change through their tellers and their audience; it’s how they endure and remain relevant and meaningful. A myth is never just one story – it’s literal and symbolic and full of shadowy spaces that leave room for new, unprecedented readings.)

But that doesn’t change how much Buddhism did or didn’t influence Lucas when he was making his own movies, conceptualizing the universe and its spiritual tenets. 

I’d also argue (and that’s something I feel strongly about) that it’s very much possible to apply a Buddhist lens to the text in any case, because doing so doesn’t require for the text to intentionally feature those themes. The author is after all, mostly dead. But I do think there is a difference between “this text can be read through a Buddhist lens, and here’s how” and “this text is Buddhist”. 

Also, lj-writes insisting that SW is about moral dualism while being one of the strongest condemners of TLJ for rejecting moral dualism, doesn’t really add up. IDK their faith but their post ends with “Christianity is good enough!”. TLJ has surface symbols of Buddhism and Taoism AND themes of anti-classism, non-dualism, action returning to the actor, the Middle Way, skillful means, etc. And they see it as a deeply wrong entry in the saga. So it feels like this is lowkey “keep SW Christian”?

I found the post I reblogged while doing research for a meta/essay (which I will probably never post) and I only gave a cursory look to the blog, so I don’t quite know OP’s position on TLJ – nor can I speak for them on the way they articulate it all. I understand that you wouldn’t want to ask them directly, but I can’t talk for them either

The way I personally read “Christianity is good enough” (which, for the record, has nothing to do with my own religious beliefs because I’m hardcore atheist) was more of a “there’s no need to pretend SW is stepped in Buddhist/Taoist thought rather than Christian – because there’s really nothing wrong with that in itself”. And really there isn’t. A Christian inspired mythos is just as fine.

(The thing is that often enough, the idea that SW is better for being steeped in Buddhist or Taoist rather than Christian values is not fully unrelated to what I’d call the “Magical Oriental Religion” trope, and I find any attempt to hierarchize religious beliefs deeply dubious and reductive, and also, you know, kind of offensive.)

To conclude – SW is about moral dualism, and it’s not like Lucas never literally said so, have an example: 

“The Force evolved out of various developments of character and plot. I wanted a concept of religion based on the premise that there is a God and there is good and evil. I began to distill the essence of all religions into what I thought was a basic idea common to all religions and common to primitive thinking. I wanted to develop something that was nondenominational but still had a kind of religious reality. I believe in God and I believe in right and wrong.” (Lucas, quoted in The Phantom Menace Scrapbook, Ryder Windham, emphasis mine.)

But! We don’t have to read SW as dualist, and most importantly it doesn’t have to keep being written this way (see: TLJ), but that’s not gonna change that it *is* how Lucas conceived it, and that it can hardly be retconned without rejecting Lucas’ definition of the ever-famous balance:

The core of the Force–I mean, you got the dark side, the light side, one is selfless, one is selfish, and you wanna keep them in balance. What happens when you go to the dark side is it goes out of balance and you get really selfish and you forget about everybody…(Clone Wars Writers’ Meeting, 2010, transcription from here (x), emphasis mine)

(This is way too long already, but send me another ask and I’ll get into early ANH drafts and Force Jesus and his apostles, selflessness as sacrifice and the recompense thereof in the afterlife, the rejection of bodily things and pleasure and a bunch of things that make it hard to not see SW (or I guess Lucas’ SW) as deeply steeped in Christian thought)

[strawberry-milktea]

9-18-17 pt1: Hi. I'm feeling really empty right now. I came to my faith at 11 and I grew up in church rather than in a relationship with God. I remember just jumping into this whole life style of trying to do "the basics" (church, bible, praying,) without realizing I didn't even know the "basics" about the basics if that makes sense. I definitely didn't know what I didn't know and struggled for so long as a result of thinking I knew everything I needed to. I thought faith was like superpowers...

9-18-17 pt: I thought a relationship was instant when you do in fact have to pursue that with God. I thought all the spiritual maturity, depth, strength and intimacy was instant too. I didn’t realize it’s the *opportunity* to start and build a relationship that’s instant. It’s the *potential* to grow and become spiritually mature that’s instant. I have struggled so much to take my faith into my own hands and learn for myself what my parents or church didn’t teach me. I’m grateful but this is…            9-18-17 pt3: this is the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my entire life. The holy spirit still kinda scares me. I grew up seeing people fall out involuntarily because of Him. When I got saved and baptized, both times I was terrified because I thought I was gonna fall out too. I STILL don’t really understand what God sounds like and it kills me. Because I hate doubt and long to be obedient and recognize His voice. No joke, I always want to think he sounds like Mufasa from the Lion king. LOL But..      9-18-17 pt4: I honestly am so confused about the spiritual nature of God. I was prophesied to awhile back and was told to lie prostrate. God told me to visualize laying before Him and he would take me to his throne room where I would taste & see that he was real. Everything in my mind was so hazy and I worried I was making it all up, recalling what others said God/His throne rm looked like. I never really saw much of anything & I’m so scared. I have no idea what went wrong that it didn’t work…     9-18-17 pt5: I honestly came on here to talk abt something totally different but ended up pouring out something else entirely. What I wanted to ask about was how to feel when believers are either living their lives unshaken by fear over the world nearly ending, or they’re so aware that they’re frantic that others aren’t frantic too. I’ve seen too many rapture debates & endtime prophesies. I just turned 23 on 9/15 & feel like I don’t even have time to get my godly life together before time is out     9-18-17 pt6: I honestly feel really nervous.  Between the sept 21st stuff with the feast of trumpets for united nations, the predictions for sept 23 with the constellations, Christians debating if the rapture is even biblical, if the mark of the beast is here or not, if its an rfid chip or not…I don’t know how to sleep at night. I took down my little collage of how I thought my life would go, trying to literally surrender to the fact that I don’t know God’s plan for me and I’m cool with that.      9-18-17 pt7: I’m still learning how to do this. I’ve been planning to go back into college in January and I’m applying to Christian colleges and looking at faith focused majors so I can be sure that I’ll  learn how to be more active for God. I’m doing everything on my own now and I’m still struggling fighting distractions and relying on discipline because I am really shy and feel like I’ve done nothing for God’s kingdom, which is embarrassing considering I have been a believer since I was a kid.    9-18-17 pt8/8: I know this was a lot, please forgive me but i am seriously freaking out. I’ve been crying & feeling hopeless over this. I’m just trying to do the right things. Get right with God. I want Him all over my life. I deleted all of my kpop & worldly music today. My flesh was screaming. I don’t know what to want anymore. God just blessed me w/ a new job & turning another year older. I still want things like marriage & a family. Still pure til marriage. Yet I’m so paranoid abt my future?  —Hi there,I want to apologize for such a late response, since you sent this so long ago.. I hope that you still follow/check back and happen to see this response.It’s definitely not uncommon to experience what you are describing about being raised in Christianity but coming to realize there is more to having a relationship with Him than simply being raised a Christian. Speaking personally, I was raised a Catholic from infancy - I made all the sacraments, went to Sunday school, and attended mass with my mom frequently. But in reality, I was just going with the motions. Once I was born again, I realized I had been spiritually dead as a Catholic. As a Catholic, I didn’t read the Bible and sinned in various ways without a second thought. I blindly followed Catholic doctrine that isn’t in agreement with Biblical scripture and I didn’t know any better because I didn’t read the Bible. Once I was born again and truly started my relationship with Christ, I left Catholicism, started studying the Word, and found a church that accurately follows what the Bible teaches. Our circumstances aren’t identical, but they are similar in the sense that we both came to a point of realizing our faith in Him is more than being raised a Christian and that the vital basics of faith/a relationship with Christ are overlooked when one mistakenly thinks being raised with the Christian label is what it means to be a Christian. But this realization isn’t something to fear. Rather, it is something to be thankful for! What I’m seeing here is you realizing that having a relationship with Christ and developing spiritual maturity is something that of course requires His intervention/drawing of us, but also requires our dedication and refusing to give up, even when we find ourselves in rough patches in life. The reason you are able to realize this is because He is helping you to realize and has opened your eyes. And this is great news!You are going to heap a substantial amount of stress on yourself if you believe that you are solely responsible for your spiritual growth. It’s great that you are taking responsibility and trying to learn things that your parents/your church didn’t teach you. And like I mentioned above, it’s definitely true that we won’t grow if we sit stagnant and don’t make effort to know Him better (e.g.: we won’t be able to learn the Word and therefore learn about Who He is if we don’t make the active effort to read it). But at the same time, please always realize you aren’t alone in this. The Lord is with you and He is responsible for our sanctification and our learning/understanding of the Word: “However, as it is written: ‘What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived’—the things God has prepared for those who love him—these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” - 1 Corinthians 2:9-14“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” - John 14:26When you realize that you aren’t in this alone and trust that He will guide/teach/strengthen your faith if you rely on Him, it takes a lot of the burden off of yourself.There is absolutely no reason to fear the Holy Spirit! I have heard of people saying they fall down/collapse in the presence of the Holy Spirit like you have described. However, not everyone experiences the Holy Spirit in this way. Personally speaking, that hasn’t happened to me but I do know what it is to experience His presence. And I think the best way to describe it is how the Word puts it - a peace that surpasses all understanding. The first time I experienced the Holy Spirit was during an extremely painful and frightening time in my life. It was also when I was being drawn to a true faith in and relationship with Christ/when I was newly born again. In the midst of that turmoil, I experienced an overwhelming sense of peace that made no “logical” sense. I had no reason to feel peace given the circumstances. I just felt at peace and had a general sense of “everything is going to be okay”. I didn’t understand what it was until I talked to a more mature Christian who pointed me to scripture that explained this. The point I want to drive home is, the Holy Spirit is not Someone to be fearful of. He is our Helper (also referred to as Comforter or Advocate, depending on the translation) Who brings us peace and provides us with the conviction we need to correct our behavior when we sin. Don’t allow the thought of collapsing in His presence cause you to fear or shy away from Him. That may not even be how you experience Him and say if it were, it wouldn’t be a frightening experience if it’s His presence you are experiencing.Regarding hearing God’s voice, it’s not always experienced as hearing a literal voice. I explained my experience with this in bit more detail in these asks if you want to take a look.Regarding what you mentioned about visions of the throne room, I have heard accounts of this and while I am wary/don’t automatically believe every claim of this, I don’t dismiss the idea that the Lord could allow visits to heaven/the throne room if it is His will and He has a purpose for it. But you don’t need to have one of these experiences to taste and see that He is real. I’m kind of getting the impression from your words that you feel something is wrong if you didn’t have this experience. Faith in Him and developing a relationship with Him allows us to taste and see He is real. We should never base our belief in Him on having a vision to prove it to us.. so please don’t let yourself fall into that incorrect mindset. You don’t need a vision of the throne room to have deep faith in Christ. When it comes to the end times stuff, my advice is to not allow yourself to get wrapped up in it - meaning don’t become obsessed or fixated on it. Many Christians have an unhealthy fixation on end times to the point that they ignore what scripture tells us about it (e.g.: setting dates when scripture tells we will not know the day or hour) and living in a state of panic. Instead of focusing on the amount of time left and what day it could be, what we should do is be aware of the signs taking place in this world that point to His return and be spiritually ready as if His return could be at any given moment (like Jesus instructed us to do using The Parable of the Ten Virgins). I have an end times tag that you may be interested in looking at. I also highly recommend listening to Pastor J.D. Farag if you want accurate, Bible based commentary on end times (he does weekly prophecy updates).When we fix our eyes on Christ, focus on strengthening our relationship with Him, and have our goal be for Him to sanctify us so that we become more and more like Him, there will be no reason to fear His return. Whether it’s His return or the moment of our last breath, we have no way of knowing precisely when either of those will be or which one will come first for any of us. There is no good that comes from living in a state of panic about either. If the panic comes from fearing you aren’t right with Him, then that’s when you use the time you have in the present to make yourself right with Him.. and from what you are saying, it sounds like you are taking these steps. So keep doing that! Keep desiring Him to be all over your life and to convict/guide you to remove things that don’t belong in your life. Don’t feel embarrassed over wishing you had done more work for Him at this point. I was far from a kid when I was born again. Rather, I was an adult woman. And before that point, I wasn’t doing work for His kingdom because I didn’t know Him.. has that stopped Him from using me once my eyes were opened? No! He made a way for me to do work in various ways, including this blog. I’m a shy/reserved type of person, too. But when He is guiding you to do the work, He will allow you to do work in ways that suit your personality (for me, He has allowed me to work through social media) and He will bring you into situations that force you to break out of your comfort zone and simultaneously grow spiritually while helping others (which He has also done for me). When He gives you the words and guidance, He fills you with courage to accomplish things you normally would feel are impossible for your personality type. It will happen, just trust Him and don’t give up!Regarding the future, I understand all too well the desire to want to control the way your future unfolds or to at least have some idea of what it will be like. But part of faith includes laying our future in His hands and trusting Him to unfold it according to His will, according to His timing. It’s much easier not to be paranoid and frightened when we do this. And this is something I am still learning to get stronger at myself.I hope you found this helpful and once again I apologize for taking so long to respond to this.. I hope you see this and if you have any other questions or want to continue discussing this, please let me know!