#ANE theology

[jeannereames]

WHY YOUR MORALITY IS MY PROBLEM: modern holdovers from ancient theology

James Dobson, founder of the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family organization, reputedly said of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting, “I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think He has allowed judgment to fall upon us.”

As heartless as that sentiment sounds today when addressing the murder of 20 first-graders (and 6 adults) at an elementary school, it reflects a once-common theology that emerged about four thousand years ago in the ancient near east (ANE*), then bled into the Mediterranean basin and developed an astonishingly long half-life. It’s why some Christians (et al.) are so, so concerned with what their neighbors are doing behind closed doors. Or on their front lawns with all those Pride flags.

In some ways, ANE and Mediterranean religion had a lot in common, being traditional and focused largely on sacrifice/action (orthopraxic). Over time, some orthodoxic religions also arose in that area. So, first, let’s do some quick defining.

Orthopraxic religions focus on what one DOES, not what one believes. Performing the sacrifice correctly, honoring the gods/ancestors appropriately…that’s how one shows piety. Infringing against purity laws or other affronts to the gods (impious actions) can result in expulsion from the community. Fights over correct practice can lead to schism in a community.

Orthodoxic religions focus on what one BELIEVES. Thus, they need some form of authoritative text to determine what IS right belief, resulting in the emergence of a canon (e.g., Zoroastrian Avesta, Jewish Tanakh, Christian New Testament, or Muslim Qur’an). In Orthodoxic religions, wrong beliefs (heresy) can result in expulsion from the community. Fights over correct belief can lead to schism in a community.

(There’s yet a third focus, orthopathic, but that largely doesn’t apply here. “Orthopraxic” can also apply to ethics-based religions, but here, it applies to ritual/cultic behavior.)

Most religions have elements of all three, but it matters where the weight falls. Yes, religions can emphasize two sides of the triangle more heavily, less on the third, but even then, one point will be the chief measurement of devoutness among followers. This also helps us understand why two religions might not understand each other very well sometimes. They’re trying to impose one set of “What religion is for” ideas on another, with entirely different assumptions.

The religions of the ANE and Mediterranean had much in common in terms of the purpose of religion: to maintain the health of a community. This depended on the piety of that communities’ members. Their gods weren’t moral in the modern sense, but could be jealous, fickle, and petty.

Why were they gods then?

Because they were immortal and more powerful.

Yet an important difference between (many) ANE and Mediterranean religions were the concepts of sin and “mesharum” (divine justice/equilibrium). If the latter existed (sorta) in Mediterranean society, “sin” really didn’t. Impiety differs as it can include ritual matters too. So, if murder (especially kin murder) created uncleanness anywhere and is a moral/civil matter, menstruation and sex also created uncleanness, but were not moral/civil matters defined as “bad.” So “unclean” ≠ “sin.”

To be unclean is a matter of cultic purity, different from moral purity. Yes, ANE religions also had ritual uncleanness, to be sure. And yes, some things that make one unclean also have intimations of “badness” without being so extreme as murdering someone. Yet I want to underscore the difference because it’s very real and too often ignored/misunderstood/unfairly conflated.

Many Mediterranean religions did not have “sin,” just unclean and impious. MORAL/ETHICAL matters were dictated by civil law and later, philosophic discussion. Not religion. Yet in the ANE, moral infractions were affronts to mesharum (divine order) and were therefore a religious matter. This oversimplifies, but smash-and-grab works for now. We find actions (like iconoclasm) in the ANE that didn’t often apply in the Mediterranean. (Iconoclasm is the deliberate theft, or in extreme cases, destruction of religious icons or structures.)

Yet what both groups shared was a sense that the gods had, well, “bad aim.” If people in a community were impious and/or sinful, that might draw the ire of the gods. Plagues were often seen as divine retribution for the impiety and/or sin of one or more members of that community, but not necessarily all of them. This led to the exile of impious individuals, as well as the ANE “scapegoat” ritual, et al. (If you’re familiar with the plot of the Iliad, Apollo punished the entire Greek army for the impious actions of Agamemnon.)

I could DIE from your impiety/sin committed in my town/community.

That makes your morality my business.

In addition, especially in the ANE, war on earth was believed to reflect war in heaven. Gods had cities and peoples, not the other way around. They chose you, you didn’t god-shop—hence Israel as a “chosen people.” Well, yeah, pretty much every ethnic group was chosen by some god(s). But as a result, if your side lost in a war, then—theoretically—your gods were weaker. Maybe you should go over and start worshiping their gods. Yet that didn’t sit well with most groups, so by the Middle/Late Bronze Age, we see an emerging idea that my god isn’t “weaker” than yours, rather my general “set forth without the gods’ consent,” or my god permitted the other god(s) to win for whatever reason…usually due to sin or a lack of piety among his (or her) people. Of course we find this in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible, but it’s in a lot of other ANE literature too. Nabû or Marduk didn’t lose, they “went to live with” Ashur for however many years—although the winning side will portray the victory as Nabû and Marduk traveling to Nineveh to bow before (e.g., submit to) Assur.

Again, this is simplified, but we don’t see this sort of language used in Greece where Hera would bow to Athena because the city-state of Athens defeated Argos, even if, as promachos (foremost in battle), Athena might be expected to win in any conflict between the two (as in Euripides’ Children of Herakles). Hera is still queen of the gods, and—even more—these are shared deities. We also don’t see it because notions of “sin” don’t apply and only a handful of wars were ever called “sacred”—all of them concerning Delphi and cultic purity. At least one of those is mythical, the second probably didn’t happen, and the third (which certainly did happen) was labeled “sacred” only by one side. Greek gods just weren’t seen to uphold justice in the same way. Roman gods were more concerned with such things, but still not as we find in the ANE.

Ergo, the ANE faced the problem of theodicy: if god/the gods are good/just, why does tragedy happen?

Early explanations for tragedy were simple: those who suffer must have earned their suffering, sometimes referred to as Deuteronomic Theology: “good things happen to good people”/“bad things happen to bad people” (and maybe their neighbors too, by chance).

Pushback against this notion emerged around the same time a more nuanced view of loss in war emerged. People began to ask the corollary: “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

The (c. 1700 BCE) Mesopotamian Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer) attempted an answer. About a thousand years later (600s-500s BCE), the Jewish Book of Job took it on as well. In both, the protagonist asks, “Why does Marduk/Yahweh punish me when I’ve been a faithful servant?” Both protagonists were previously wealthy/powerful, which was seen as divine approval. Losing that wealth/health suggested they had offended their god (and are being punished). Yet each one claims he did not sin—so why?

The answer in both works is similar: there’s not really an answer. Marduk restores Šubši-mašrâ-Šakkan, who ends the poem with a prayer of thanksgiving. Job has a chat with Yahweh, who essentially tells him, “You’re a measly mortal, don’t question me.”

The KEY element in both, however, isn’t the answer, but the assertion that a good person can suffer. They didn’t earn it; it just happened. They remained good and, eventually, their god restored them to their prior station, and then some.

Ergo, if you’re suffering, just be patient. Don’t curse God and die. (As Job is advised to do.)

Today, we may find such an answer wanting but need to recognize it for an advancement on the theology of tragedy.

 Some, however, get stuck in these time-locked answers because they can’t allow their religion to grow. Or rather, they can’t acknowledge that their religion/theology evolves over time, because if it evolves, it wasn’t perfect from the beginning. And that challenges their understanding of their god.

Yet the real fly in the ointment is the notion of a perfect and infallible canon.

This brings me back around to what a canon is. It just means “an authoritative text,” but how that text is understood has nuances. INSPIRED ≠ INFALLIBLE. Most all followers of a canonical text believe it’s inspired by God, but not all (or even most) believe it’s infallible. (Islam is its own category here, note.) That creates some problematic GRAYS.

If it’s only inspired, written by humans with human foibles and history-locked understandings, interpreting it becomes complicated and can lead to disagreements. Taking a literalist view sweeps away the messiness. “God said it; I believe it; that settles it!” Black-and-white.

Those who believe in Biblical literalism/inerrancy (which includes a good chunk of conservative Christian Evangelicals and all Fundamentalists**) will argue ALL the Bible is true. If it’s written by God, it must be perfect from the get-go. Thus, a clash is created between simpler versus more nuanced views: Deuteronomy vs. Job. If an earlier view must be as true as any later one, that reduces everything to the most elementary version. It can’t evolve/grow up, yielding what feels to most like a very archaic (and often harsh) worldview.

In any case, both the traditional orthopraxic and orthodoxic religions of the ANE/Med Basin believed God/gods punished people who offended them. AND these punishments might “spill over” onto family and neighbors.

Ancient divine collateral damage.

Ironically, this is WHY early Christians were prosecuted by the pagan (e.g., traditional) Roman and Greek religious establishments. Christian failure to participate in common civic religious cult could earn divine ire. For their first two/two-and-a-half centuries, Christianity was labeled a religio illicta (illegal religion)—in part for “failure to play well with others.” E.g., make sacrifices to the appropriate Greco-Roman deities. Thus, when disaster struck, a scapegoat was sought. Those antisocial Christians are to blame! They don’t sacrifice to the gods and so, offended XXX god, who is now punishing ALL of us with YYY.

Classic ancient religious thinking, but it’s one reason I find current conservative Christian opposition to Teh Gays, trans folks, etc., enormously ironic. The persecuted have become the persecuting.

I want to emphasize that large sub-groups of Jews, Christians, and Muslims have evolved past such theologies. Yet others have not and stubbornly cling to ancient mindsets. That’s why they argue the mere presence of LGBTQI+ people will bring down the wrath of God on ALL.

Talk of “grooming” and “protecting children” is just an attempt to make palatable a belief they know won’t fly with most people, who they consider deluded by The World (e.g., the devil). Trickery is therefore required. As they’re deeply afraid themselves, they understand fear and use it to motivate others. Many are perfectly happy to make their beds with “unbelievers” long enough to get their agendas passed. God will forgive them.

This, too, is rooted in ancient ideas (discussed above) whereby a people’s own god might employ the enemy to punish them (or others). Thus, a sinful person can be utilized on the way to righteous ends because the victory of God wipes away all else. Using the enemy to effect God’s will just proves that God is in final charge of everything after all. It’s the ultimate PWN.

I hope this helps to explain where these ideas come from, how they originally emerged, and why a subgroup of people still cling to them.

————-

* While Egypt influenced the ANE, as well as Greece and Rome, and is often shoehorned into the ANE, I consider Egypt as NE Africa. It deserves to be treated on its own, or in relation to neighbors such as Kush.

** Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to be equated but are not the same. Also, not all Evangelicals are conservatives (although all Fundamentalists are, by definition). Enormous variation exists between Christian denominations, which range from ultra-conservative to (surprise!) ultra-liberal. There is as much of a hard Christian Left as there is a hard Christian Right. We just tend to hear far less about them.

[widevibratobitch]

when i say i am obsessed with him

[take-note-of-this]

Where God Dwells: Understanding Temple (Part 1)

Where God Dwells: Understanding Temple (Part 1)

Photograph by K. Mitch Hodge. From unsplash.com The concept of a temple is foreign to most people today, even for those who practice religion. One cannot go far in America without spotting a church steeple or a sign for a place of worship, but churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship serve completely different functions and occupy completely different spaces in our culture. To…

[whencyclopedia]

Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a Danish philosopher and is considered to be the first existentialist, influencing such notable philosophers as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). His works are a reflection of alienation, angst, and absurdity, and include Either/Or (1843), Fear and Trembling (1843), and The Concept of Anxiety (1844).

He was embraced by his fellow existentialists for his belief in the importance of the individual against an apathetic, hostile society. However, unlike other existentialists, his body of philosophical works has a strong theological vein. Denise Despeyroux, in her book The Philosophers, wrote that Søren's life was filled with painful experiences, which colored his works – works that displayed "great dramatic and poetic power. They are filled with parables, aphorisms, fictitious letters and diaries as well pseudonymous and fictitious characters" (110). She added that his struggles with religious questions served as a "potent stimulus" for other writers and thinkers of his generation.

Birth & Education

Søren Kierkegaard was born on 5 May 1813 in Copenhagen, Denmark, to an affluent family as the youngest of seven children. His father, Michael Kierkegaard, was a successful businessman, while his mother, Ane Sørensdatter Lund, had been the one-time maid of Michael's first wife. Søren claimed his father was the most influential figure in his life. Unfortunately, he suffered terribly from anxiety and inner turmoil, and this Søren 'inherited' from his father. Michael was deeply religious, a member of a pietistic form of Lutheranism, and was convinced that because of his past sins – he had once cursed God – none of his children would live past the age of 33, the age of Jesus Christ when he was crucified. Coincidentally, five of Søren's brothers and sisters, as well as his mother Ane, would die before Søren turned 21. Only Søren and his brother Peter survived. To Michael, it was a sign of divine retribution. According to Jeremy Stangroom in his The Great Philosophers, Søren maintained that his childhood was "insane" and "he had come into the world as the result of a crime" (100). Regrettably for Søren, his father passed on his "pessimistic and gloomy religious outlook to his son" (ibid).

Despite a chaotic childhood, his education was "surprisingly normal," attending a distinguished private school – the Borgedydskolen – where he was considered an outsider, "lonely, aloof, and intellectually the superior to his classmates" (ibid). Hoping to become a pastor as his father had suggested, at the age of 17, he entered the University of Copenhagen, where he studied theology, philosophy, and literature. In 1838, while he was attending university, his father died, leaving him with a large inheritance. After graduating in 1840, he began the life of an independent thinker and writer, but it would be a life consumed by inner torment and angst, evident throughout his writings.

Shortly after graduating, he made the mistake of getting engaged to Regine Olson, ten years his junior. He regretted the engagement the moment it was made. One year later, in 1841, he broke off the engagement, believing that his melancholic temperament made him unsuitable for marriage and he considered her to be intellectually incompatible. The affair with Regine had a lasting effect on Søren and would appear in both his journals and other works. Free from an unwanted engagement and with a large inheritance, he was free to begin a career as a writer. Oddly, throughout his life, he only left Copenhagen three times, spending most of his free time walking the streets of the city or attending the theater.

Continue reading...

[eesirachs]

what are your thoughts on theology and climate change issues? any book recommendations on that?

ecotheology centers god's creative genesaic movement, and it matters. in my work, this means making visible animacy, sacrificial/levitical bodies, and the bodyscape's extension into and across materiality, in the ancient near east. so i recommend, in particular, neumann's handbook of senses in ane, freud's totem and taboo, adegbite's life under the baobab tree, shellenberg's sounding sensory profiles in the ane, kim's bodies, embodiment and theology of the hb , and hsu's expression of emotions in ancient egypt and mesopotamia.

but it's more likely you want christian ecotheology, or contemporary ecotheology. sally mcfague, ursula goodenough, ibrahim abdul-matin, s. lily mendoza and george zachariah, mary evelyn tucker and john grim, melanie harris

[nicosraf]

hi! im not sure if you answered this question before and i was js thinking about it but what made you write ABM? were there moments in the bible with them in it that led to write it?

I think I've answered this once or twice, and each time, it's kind of difficult to answer. it's a mix of personal reasons. and theology questions mostly. here is a super long explanation, re-stating what i've said before but adding some new things.

sorry this is very long but i am stuck in a car. also cw for f slur use:

personal reasons - ive mentioned this sparingly but i had a conversion therapy experience when i was much younger and was raised in a very christian community (where i still somewhat remain). i struggle horribly with mental issues related to that and other traumatic experiences related to where i was raised and by who. i needed to write about it a little.

theology reasons - after i went crazy in 2021, i read the bible and i got really stuck on this question about what "made" the devil so evil. Paradise Lost pins the blame on god creating humans and asking angels to bow for them with Lucifer refusing (and many christians seem to believe this) but that's borrowed from Islam. (The Dante levels to hell, and most of the concept of hell, too, are borrowed (stolen?) from Islam). I looked for what the Bible really said and I saw that it just... didn't say anything. A lot of the lines about Lucifer are only dubiously about Lucifer, such as the lines in Ezekiel 28 that make up the epigraph for ABM. Most theologians will just say, oh well Lucifer is more of a mythological figure, and i agree. but Revelation makes it clear there was a rebel angel, the devil was an angel, so if we want to treat the bible like it's coherent, we have to take those dubious lines to be about lucifer/satan/the-devil.

but those lines only say, you became proud on account of your beauty. and they also say You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created ; innocent. beautiful and innocent.

Lucifer is beautiful, or handsome, in all his depictions — at least in his depictions as an angel. but it's rarely the focus. and it was the "blameless" part that got me. innocent. in a lot of depictions, lucifer is born wrong, or lucifer's goodness is so delicate that he might never have been good at all. but if the bible says lucifer was a beautiful and innocent angel - what happened? the bible says he became proud on account of his beauty; he was so beautiful that it ruined his innocence, so beautiful it "spoiled" his "wisdom"

but what is the power of beauty in heaven?? angels are not supposed to marry. what do you do with beauty. just admire? and why would god make an angel so much prettier and perfect than the rest. his favorite. the "anointed one" , anointed one for what?

there's only one line Michael says in the bible; he says "the lord rebuke you" to the devil. i started thinking about them; i had seen so many Michael defeating Satan statues all my life. michael never looks happy in them. usually, his face is solemn. i started asking the people around me about michael and lucifer. people told me that they were friends once, they really loved each other once. this isn't in the bible; i dont know why everyone just had this feeling of them

i read through ezekiel again, closer. i reached that part about Jerusalem and saw all the language of beauty and corruption again:

Your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign Lord. But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his. You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. You went to him, and he possessed your beauty (Ezekiel 16)

my confusion about the Ezekiel 28 Lucifer lines was that i just couldn't understand how beauty led to corruption, and here in Ezekiel 16, the answer was sex and unfaithfulness and a jealous, violent god.

i was also having a lot of thoughts about angel gender and sexuality, just because of course i was and because of reading Paradise Lost. christians like to treat angels like these non-sexual things, but the story of Sodom is about wanting to have gay sex with angels, Genesis still holds the remnants of the Book of Enoch and its story about angels having sex on earth, Jesus denies angels marriage (and thereby sex) in the New Testament, and angel Gabriel is the one who tells Mary that she's going to carry god's child through immaculate non-sex conception. there was just... all this weird forbidden sexuality attached to them. they can't have sex with the men in sodom, they can't have sex with the women in enoch, they can't have sex with each other. John Milton says they do, but i think he just wanted to be kind to them.

In paradise lost, raphael says, of course we have sex with each other. of course we love. because "without Love, no happiness"

but moving onto the series as a whole, i just thought how weird all biblical events must feel for angels. everything bad is happening because one of your own was so beautiful that he went crazy, and now you all bow for these weird, human men. and the bible mentions that angels cheered when the earth was made, so surely there was a time of angels before man (if u will) that they must all remember so sadly now

but these are all huge thoughts i had in my head and idk why i wrote them down. i kept hunting for someone who had written an essay about this, or a book, or made a movie. i thought it was weird there were no 1970s homoerotic movies about Lucifer (that i found). he's alway been associated with sexual deviance, gender deviance. (he's always been a fag), so where were the gay books about him? i wondered how lucifer invented sexual deviance at all, what was going through his mind, what he was trying to do.

and Michael - ahhkj he's such an archetype for gay male desire isn't he? just this image of strength and power and masculinity. of course Lucifer falls in love with him, what fag woudn't. and how could michael resist god's most beautiful creation?

before, during, and after ABM, my feelings were/have-been "i wish someone else wrote this." i didn't feel qualified to write it, but i thought that just expressing the idea was what mattered. i needed to get on a podium and shout "lucifer and michael were in love and all angels are genderqueer homos" and see what happened.

[scotianostra]

The Poet and author George MacDonald died on September 18th 1905.

George MacDonald might not be a name you are familiar with, but he was friends and was admired by some of the 19th century’s most famous writers, as seen in the group pic.

After being raised in Huntley, Aberdeenshire, by devout Calvinist parents, he attended King's College in Aberdeen. At Highbury Theological College, he received his divinity degree, and in 1850 he became a pastor of a Congregational church in Arundel. Early the following year, he married Louisa Powell, with whom he enjoyed a long and happy marriage.

McDonald was forced to resign his pulpit in 1853 because he liked to dabble in "German theology," meaning the new higher critical approach to biblical studies emerging from that country. He never took another church but spent the rest of his life lecturing, preaching, and especially writing.

Between 1851 and 1897, he wrote over 50 books in all manner of genre: novels, plays, essays, sermons, poems, and fairy tales. And then there were his two fantasies for adults, Phantastes and Lilith. During these years, Lewis Carroll became a good friend and gave him the first manuscript of Alice in Wonderland to read to his children. Other British literary luminaries—like John Ruskin, Charles Kingsley, Lord Tennyson, and Matthew Arnold—were among his associates and admirers.

When McDonald visited the United States in 1872 for a lecture tour, the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, John Greenleaf Whittier, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Mark Twain paid him homage. After his stay in New York City, one large Fifth Avenue church offered him the almost unheard of salary of $20,000 a year to become its pastor. MacDonald thought the idea preposterous.

His success did not exempt him from more-than-ordinary suffering. Poverty plagued him so much that his family occasionally faced literal starvation. His own lungs were diseased, and tuberculosis killed two brothers and two half-sisters. It also ravaged his children, four of whom died before him. He himself had a stroke at age 74 and lapsed into virtual silence for the last seven years of his life.

C.S. Lewis who wrote that he regarded MacDonald as his "master": "Picking up a copy of Phantastes one day at a train-station bookstall, I began to read. A few hours later," said Lewis, "I knew that I had crossed a great frontier” G K Chesterton cited The Princess and the Goblin as a book that had "made a difference to my whole existence."

Looking through George McDonalds poems I found amongst them two very famous one, Little Boy Blue, and Little Bo Peep. Now am not sure if he first created them, but just to see these was an eye opener. Most of his verse is religious, but I found one I really like in the Scots Tongue.

ANE BY ANE.

Ane by ane they gang awa’,

The Getherer gethers grit an smaa;

Ane by ane maks ane an aa.

Aye whan ane sets doun the cup

Ane ahint maun tak it up:

Yet thegither thy will sup!

Goulden-heidit, ripe an strang,

Shorn will be the hairst or lang:

Syne begins a better sang!

[sag-dab-sar]

Interesting idea that popped up on my dash that quite a lot of [edit: people I follow] seem to agree on: The Gods gain power through worship.

I want to write about it because I simply disagree with the concept since the majority of my Gods would have been rendered powerless by now. I am coming from a dual pantheon perspective which many with the idea may have single pantheon perspectives.

If I was to base my theology solely on a small handful of Mesopotamian myths then yes, the Gods would need us for their own comfort; specifically they'd need us to farm the land and give them food. I don't ascribe to those myths literally, in the same way that I don't ascribe to the literal physical flat earth cosmology of the Mesopotamians.

How can fire incarnate, Girra/Gibil, work all over the world when only a small corner of the globe worshipped him 5000 years ago? How on earth would he be even remotely relevant to me— someone who is far removed from the worshippers he acquired power from, in both time and location.

Or another fire example, Vulcan. Volcanoes exist all over the world, volcanoes have never waned in their power, they remain an ever constant threat. Yet by the year 1000ce his worship had essentially vanished not to be revived again until the 1900s. How much did his power wane in those centuries? And why did volcanoes not become less of a threat?

If we take a soft polytheism approach then essentially the worship of a "fire god" most likely never disappeared and has been continuous to this day. If we take an animism approach, which I'm more keen on, then I suppose volcanoes have spirits and powers of their own— but in this case worship would not = power because not every individual volcano is worshiped.

Regardless, I'm blathering on about my beliefs and I am not a soft polytheist so I'll put that idea off to the side. If the Gods gained power through worship then they would lose it through lack of worship in my mind. Considering we just re-discovered the names of Amorite deities, its safe to say, direct worship of them probably hasn't existed for a minimum of 2000 years. So are these Amorite deities powerless compared to their well documented peers?

I suppose when you come from a theology that posits the existence of thousands of individual distinct deities (but also hundreds of syncretisms who are probably also their own distinct selves... . . . isn't the ANE fun?) its hard to see their power coming from worship. Zeus would be much much more powerful than Enlil, and Nanaya would be practically powerless compared to Aphrodite— I just can't accept that.

Then again I also believe the Gods existed in some form before humans, have lives and duties unrelated to humans, and will probably exist after us; if they relied on worship it wouldn't square with that idea. I tend not to get into the details of the non-human stuff because, well, it's irrelevant to my life.

Anyways thats a brain dump don't take it as an attack on your beliefs. We are all free to have our own ideas. It was just something I saw quite a few people looking at.

-not audio proof read.... frankly not even proof read-

[duxvonzazer]

Transi de Guillaume le Franchois

Pierre de Tournai (Sculpture)

1446

Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Arras

La fin du Moyen Âge est marquée par les terribles ravages de la Guerre de Cent Ans et de la Peste, qui décima près d'un tiers de la population de l'Europe. L'angoisse suscitée par la diffusion de cette maladie a durablement imprégné les arts de cette époque. Ce Transi, d'un réalisme incroyable et effrayant, est un magnifique exemple de cette représentation tardo-médiévale de la mort.

Un transi est un type de monument funéraire qui représente un cadavre de la manière la plus proche de la réalité, en montrant la réalité d'un corps en décomposition. Un phylactère sortant de sa bouche dit les choses suivantes : "J'ai espérance de mon salut en la seule miséricorde de Dieu".

La pierre funéraire est celle de Gilles le Franchois, selon l'épitaphe qui nous renseigne un peu plus sur l'identité du corps : "Chi Gist, Maistre Gilles Le Franchois dit Potier, docteur en médecine, bacelier en théologie, natif et viés canone (chanoine) de Béthune, qui fist plusieurs voyages, dist sa première messe au Sainct-Sépulcre de Jérusalem et trespassa le 6 octobre 1446.

Le Franchois est en effet devenu chanoine de la collégiale Saint-Barthélémy, un édifice gothique qui était, jusqu'à sa destruction au moment de la Révolution, l'épicentre de la vie religieuse dans cette cité d'Artois qui a tant souffert des invasions et de la Peste aux XIVème et XVème siècles. ---------------------------------------------------------

Transi of William Le Franchois

Stone of Tournai (Sculpture)

1446

Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Arras

The end of the Middle Ages was marked by the terrible ravages of the Hundred Years' War and the Plague, which decimated nearly a third of the population of Europe. The anguish caused by the spread of this disease had a lasting effect on the arts of this period. This incredibly modern Transi is a magnificent example of this late medieval representation of death, which is both realistic and God-oriented.

A transi is a type of funerary monument that represents a corpse in the most realistic way possible, showing the reality of a decomposing body. A phylactery coming out of his mouth says the following: "I have hope of my salvation in the mercy of God alone".

The funerary stone is that of Gilles le Franchois, according to the epitaph which tells us a little more about the identity of the body: "Chi Gist, Maistre Gilles Le Franchois dit Potier, doctor in medicine, bacelier in theology, natif et viés canone (canon) de Béthune, who made several trips, dist his first mass at the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem and died on October 6, 1446. Pray to God for his soul and for all the deceased. I have hope of my salvation in the only mercy of God". He became a canon of the collegiate church of Saint-Barthélémy, a Gothic building which was, until its destruction during the Revolution, the epicenter of religious life in this city of Artois which suffered so much from the invasions and the Plague in the 14th and 15th centuries.

[lord-here-i-am]

Josef Freinademetz

gefeiert am 28. Januar

Der heilige Josef Freinademetz Missionar * 15. April 1852 im Weiler Oies bei Pedraces, im südtiroler Gadertal † 28. Januar 1908 in Taikia bei Tsining/Jining in Süd-Shantung, China

Josef stammte von der ladinisch-sprachigen Bevölkerung Südtirols. Seine Eltern waren einfache, tief im Glauben verwurzelte Bergbauern. In Brixen lernte er Deutsch und besuchte das Gymnasium, wo einer der Lehrer, ein missionsbegeisterter Augustiner, in ihm wie in anderen Schülern die Berufung zum Missionar weckte.

Doch zuerst studierte Josef in Brixen Theologie und wurde Priester der Diözese Brixen (1875). Als Kooperator (Kaplan) in St. Martin im heimatlichen Gadertal gewann er schnell die Herzen und die Hochachtung seiner Landsleute, besonders der Kinder. Als er von der Gründung des Missionshauses in Steyl erfuhr, bat er mit Erlaubnis seines Bischofs bei Arnold Janssen um Aufnahme. Nach acht Tagen Fahrt mit Bahn und zu Schiff über Innsbruck, München, Köln, Venlo kam er am 27. August 1878 in Steyl an der Maas an. Für den Sohn des Dolomiten-Tales war das schon eine Erfahrung von weiter Welt. An die andere Mentalität und Religiosität der Menschen im deusch-holländischen Grenzland musste er sich erst gewöhnen.

Anfang 1879 wurde Josef Freinademetz zusammen mit dem Bayer Johann Baptist Anzer in die Mission ausgesandt, die ersten Steyler Missionare. Am Weißen Sonntag, 20. April 1879 kamen sie in Hongkong an. Bischof Raimondi schickte Freinademetz auf die Insel Saikung, um die Sprache zu lernen und Volk, Sitte, Kultur und Mentalität der Menschen und Missionsarbeit kennen zu lernen. Knapp 2 Jahre dauerte diese Lehrzeit, dann erhielten die Steyler Missionare ein eigenes Missionsgebeit, den Süden der Provinz Chantung/Shandon, ein Gebiet etwa so groß wie Bayern mit circa 9 Millionen Einwohnern und einer kleinen katholischen Gemeinde von etwa 173 Gläubigen im äußersten Nordwesten des Gebietes. Anzer wurde der Obere der Mission. Freinademetz wurde Wandermissionar. Anzer schickte ihn immer wieder in andere, sehr unterschiedliche Gegenden seines Gebietes, um dort mit der Missionierung zu beginnen. Durch das enge Zusammenleben mit den einfachen, meist armen Menschen lernte Freinademetz nicht nur die Sprache gut kennen (er musste einen völlig neuen Dialekt lernen), sondern auch die alte Kultur der einfachen Bevölkerung, ihr Denken, ihre Sitten - er lernte die Chinesen lieben. War anfangs sein Urteil über die Chinesen sehr hart gewesen, so schätzte er sie jetzt über alles, obwohl er auch ihre schwachen Seiten sehr scharf sah. Er wurde - soweit das überhaupt möglich ist - einer von ihnen, obwohl er sich gleichzeitig lebenslang mit seiner ladinischen Heimat eng verbunden fühlte.

Freinademetz war zu 100% Missionar und setzte alles, was er war und was er hatte, für die Bekehrung seiner geliebten Chinesen ein. Er arbeitete hart und gebrauchte alles, was die Spiritualität seiner Zeit ihm als Hilfe anbot: intensives und langes Beten, auch nachts, Fasten, Sich-Kasteien und in allem - seine Liebe. Er suchte sich mit größter Gewissenhaftigkeit ans seinem Vorbild, dem Herzen Jesu (sein Name für Jesus Christus), zu schulen; selbst für einen lieblosen Blick bestrafte er sich selbst hart.

Steyl sandte immer neue Missionare nach China, und viele Missionsstationen erstanden. Nach Anzer wurde Freinademetz Provinzoberer der Steyler Missionare in China und war wohl der einzige, der alle Stationen besucht hat. Anzer war Bischof geworden, und wenn er nach Europa reisen musste, vertrat ihn Freinademetz, sechsmal insgesamt. Freinademetz arbeitete hart, auch als der Typhus sich stark bemerkbar machte, er arbeitete, bis es nicht mehr ging, und dann bereitete er sich auf seinen Tod vor.  Viel wurde von Missionaren und Gläubigen um seine Heilung gebetet. Als sein Tod gemeldet wurde, begannen viele, nicht nur für ihn zu beten, sondern auch zu ihm, um seine Fürsprache bei Gott.

Zusammen mit dem Gründer des Steyler Missionswerkes Arnold Janssen wurde Josef Freinademetz am 19. Oktober 1975 selig gesprochen und am 5. Oktober 2003 heilig gesprochen.

"Mögen nur Kreuze auf uns herabregnen, sie es dem Himmel gefällt, wenn nur Gott nicht aus unseren Herzen schwindet."

"Liebe ist die einzige Sprache, die alle Menschen verstehen."

[nordseehexe]

Mystik

alles Maß hinaus größer werden, bis ich in Dir keine anderen Züge mehr erkenne als die Gestalt einer entflammten Welt.“ „Solange ich in Dir, Jesus, nur den Mann von vor zweitausend Jahren, den erhabenen Sittenlehrer, den Freund, den Bruder zu sehen vermochte und wagte, ist meine Liebe zaghaft und gehemmt geblieben. (…) So bin ich also lange Zeit selbst als Glaubender umhergeirrt, ohne zu wissen, was ich liebte. Heute aber, Meister, da Du mir durch die Offenbarwerdung der suprahumanen [übermenschlichen] Vermögen, die die Auferstehung Dir verliehen hat, durch alle Mächte der Erde hindurch erscheinst, erkenne ich Dich als meinen Herrscher und liefere mich Dir mit Wonne aus.“

– Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Lobgesang des Alls.[65]

„In einem berühmten Abschnitt bezeichnet er [Johannes vom Kreuz] Christus als das letzte Wort des Vaters, in dem gemäß Kol 2,3 ‚alle Schätze von Gottes Weisheit und Wissen verborgen sind‘, weshalb es vermessen sei, von Gott noch ein weiteres Offenbarungswort zu erwarten (2 S[ubida del Monte Carmelo], 22,7.6); vielmehr sollte man sich darum bemühen, die in Christus tief verborgenen Schätze zu entdecken. Die ganze Kirche muss insgesamt lernen, auf den Gekreuzigten zu schauen und auf Christus als das letzte Wort des Vaters zu hören, denn es ist noch viel in ihm zu entdecken: ‚So gibt es viel, was in Christus zu vertiefen ist, denn er ist wie ein überreiches Bergwerk mit vielen Gängen voll von Schätzen; niemals findet man für sie einen Schluss- und Endpunkt, mag man sich noch so sehr in sie vertiefen, im Gegenteil, in jedem Gang kommt man da und dort zum Auffinden von neuen Adern mit neuen Reichtümern.‘ So verborgen sind in Christus die Schätze von Gottes Weisheit und Wissen, ‚dass für die heiligen Gelehrten und heiligen Menschen das Allermeiste noch zu sagen und zu verstehen aussteht, wie viele Geheimnisse und Wunder sie aufgedeckt oder in diesem Leben verstanden haben‘.“

– Mariano Delgado: „Dort Du allein, mein Leben!“ Die Gott-Trunkenheit des Johannes vom Kreuz

Die Vorstellung von der durch Taufe und Eucharistie konstituierten sakramentalen Kirche als mystischem Leib Christi, die Paulus begründet (Röm 12,4f; 1 Kor 10,17; 12,12–27) und die im Mittelalter weiter ausgebaut wird, führt in der Enzyklika Mystici corporis (1943) von Pius XII. zu einer Identifizierung von römisch-katholischer Kirche und mystischem Leib Christi. Diese Identität ist aber nicht so zu verstehen, dass keine Kritik an der Kirche mehr möglich wäre, die immer auch unheilige Kirche der Sünder und auf dem Weg der Pilgerschaft ist: „Der neue, nicht von Menschenhand gemachte Tempel ist da, aber er ist zugleich noch im Bau. Die große Geste der Umarmung, die vom Gekreuzigten ausgeht, ist noch nicht ans Ziel gekommen, sondern erst begonnen. Die christliche Liturgie ist Liturgie auf dem Weg, Liturgie der Pilgerschaft auf die Verwandlung der Welt hin, die dann geschehen sein wird, wenn ‚Gott alles in allem‘ [1 Kor 15,28] ist.“

Diese Notwendigkeit eines beständigen Weiterbauens und inneren Wachstums der Kirche (vgl. 1 Kor 3,5–16) zeigt sich exemplarisch in der Berufungsvision des Franziskus. Als sich der Poverello im Jahr 1207 an einen einsamen Ort zum Gebet in das Kirchlein San Damiano zurückzieht, erfährt er vom Kreuz her den Auftrag, das baufällig gewordene Haus Gottes (Domus Dei) wiederherzustellen: „Er betrat die Kirche und begann innig, vor einem Bild des Gekreuzigten zu beten, das ihn liebevoll und gütig auf folgende Weise ansprach: ‚Franziskus, siehst du nicht, dass mein Haus in Verfall gerät? Geh also hin und stelle es mir wieder her!‘“[51] Diese Vision und dieser Bauauftrag drücken – wie Mariano Delgado und Gotthard Fuchs in der Einleitung zu ihrem dreibändigen Werk zu den christlichen Mystikern sagen – „das eigentliche Anliegen der Kirchenkritik der Mystiker treffend aus.“[52]

Demgegenüber vertritt ein Theologie- und Kirchenkritiker wie Eugen Drewermann eine Mystik des Absoluten als (Selbst-)Aufhebung von Schöpfung, biblischer Offenbarung, Theologie und Kirche. Drewermann will nicht weniger als eine „Neubegründung der «Theologie» jenseits der Domäne des Verstandes, das heißt im Raum der Mystik“. „Die Entdeckung der Mystik lautet, dass der Gott, der dem Menschen als ‚Schöpfer‘ erscheint, streng von der Gottheit selbst unterschieden werden muss.“[53] Drewermann zitiert hier aus der Predigt 26 von Meister Eckhart: „Alles das, was in der Gottheit ist, das ist eins, und davon kann man nicht reden. Gott wirkt, die Gottheit wirkt nicht, sie hat auch nichts zu wirken, in ihr ist kein Werk. Sie hat niemals nach einem Werk ausgelugt. Gott und Gottheit sind unterschieden durch Wirken und Nichtwirken.“[54] „Auch die Idee eines «Schöpfers» stellt … eine «Projektion» dar, die es aufzulösen gilt; doch was danach übrig bleibt, ist nicht einfach nichts, im Gegenteil, es ist die Erfahrung eines unbegründeten, unbegründbaren Seins, das wir selbst sind und das doch zugleich in allem liegt und uns deshalb mit allem verbindet. Das ist «etwas» Geheimnisvolles, Wunderbares, Heiliges, Letztes, Absolutes, das mehr ist als alle «Natur». Und gerade nach diesem «Mehr» und nach diesem «Anderen» sehnen wir uns, obwohl wir es doch nur in uns selbst zu finden vermögen.“ So „hebt die bisherige Form der «Gottesrede», der «Theologie», sich notwendig in Mystik auf, sobald sie beginnt, sich selbst zu begreifen!“[55]

Hier wird das Ziel, das Einssein mit dem einen Gott, gegen den Weg, das Einswerden als Werk der Gnade Gottes im Heilswerk Christi, ausgespielt. Christliche Mystiker haben aber immer daran festgehalten, dass es eine Scala paradisi, eine ‚Leiter‘ (s. Jakobsleiter) oder einen Stufenweg des Aufstiegs im Abstieg gibt, und dass deshalb auch Geistliche Übungen ihren Sinn und Ort haben wie die Lectio divina: ein Gott gewidmetes ‚Lesen‘ der Heiligen Schrift mit den Stufen lectio (‚Lesung‘), meditatio (‚Meditation‘), oratio (‚Gebet‘), operatio (‚Handeln‘) und contemplatio (‚Beschauung‘). „Ziel der Lectio divina ist die Kontemplation, die Einung mit Gott. (…) Die Erlangung der Kontemplation ist ein göttliches Gnadengeschenk und nicht, was der Beter bewusst herbeiführen, sondern nur mit sich geschehen lassen kann. Gebet ist dann nicht mehr etwas, das der Beter tut, sondern etwas, was er ist, ein bleibender Zustand. Die Mystik nennt diesen Zustand ‚Gebet des Herzens‘. Der Beter ist in diesem Zustand gleichsam als Ganzes lebendiges Gebet.“[56]

In eine andere Richtung geht Hubertus Mynarek in seinem Werk: Mystik und Vernunft, 2. Aufl., Münster 2001. Er beschreibt in diesem Werk Mystik generell und ihr Verhältnis zur Vernunft. Er gelangt zum Schluss, dass Mystik und Vernunft divergieren, dass aber der Mensch nur durch eine Synthese von Mystik und Vernunft die Realität transzendieren kann.

Mystik und Emanzipation

In der katholischen Kirche steht die verbindliche Schriftauslegung ausschließlich dem Klerus zu.[57]

Mystiker dagegen betrachten sich oft durch ihre Visionen „zum göttlich autorisierten Exegeten der Schrift berufen“.[58] Hildegard von Bingen z. B. schildert im Vorwort zu ihrem Werk Scivias eine Vision und fährt fort: „Und augenblicklich begriff ich die Bedeutung der heiligen Bücher – des Psalters, der Evangelien und der katholischen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments.“[59] Dieser Verzicht auf die vermittelnde Stellung des Klerus zwischen Gott und dem Menschen lässt sich auch an Buchillustrationen erkennen. Wenn die „Berufung auf einen göttlichen Befehl“ zum Ungehorsam führte, berief sich Hildegard gegenüber den kirchlichen Autoritäten auf die „unanfechtbare Autorität ihrer Vision“.[60] Als Folge dieser bei Mystikern weit verbreiteten Relativierung des Vorrangs des Klerus bei der Heilsvermittlung[61] gerieten viele in den Verdacht der Häresie und wurden zu einem Fall für die Inquisition.

alles Maß hinaus größer werden, bis ich in Dir keine anderen Züge mehr erkenne als die Gestalt einer entflammten Welt.“ „Solange ich in Dir, Jesus, nur den Mann von vor zweitausend Jahren, den erhabenen Sittenlehrer, den Freund, den Bruder zu sehen vermochte und wagte, ist meine Liebe zaghaft und gehemmt geblieben. (…) So bin ich also lange Zeit selbst als Glaubender umhergeirrt, ohne zu wissen, was ich liebte. Heute aber, Meister, da Du mir durch die Offenbarwerdung der suprahumanen [übermenschlichen] Vermögen, die die Auferstehung Dir verliehen hat, durch alle Mächte der Erde hindurch erscheinst, erkenne ich Dich als meinen Herrscher und liefere mich Dir mit Wonne aus.“

– Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: Lobgesang des Alls.[65]

„In einem berühmten Abschnitt bezeichnet er [Johannes vom Kreuz] Christus als das letzte Wort des Vaters, in dem gemäß Kol 2,3 ‚alle Schätze von Gottes Weisheit und Wissen verborgen sind‘, weshalb es vermessen sei, von Gott noch ein weiteres Offenbarungswort zu erwarten (2 S[ubida del Monte Carmelo], 22,7.6); vielmehr sollte man sich darum bemühen, die in Christus tief verborgenen Schätze zu entdecken. Die ganze Kirche muss insgesamt lernen, auf den Gekreuzigten zu schauen und auf Christus als das letzte Wort des Vaters zu hören, denn es ist noch viel in ihm zu entdecken: ‚So gibt es viel, was in Christus zu vertiefen ist, denn er ist wie ein überreiches Bergwerk mit vielen Gängen voll von Schätzen; niemals findet man für sie einen Schluss- und Endpunkt, mag man sich noch so sehr in sie vertiefen, im Gegenteil, in jedem Gang kommt man da und dort zum Auffinden von neuen Adern mit neuen Reichtümern.‘ So verborgen sind in Christus die Schätze von Gottes Weisheit und Wissen, ‚dass für die heiligen Gelehrten und heiligen Menschen das Allermeiste noch zu sagen und zu verstehen aussteht, wie viele Geheimnisse und Wunder sie aufgedeckt oder in diesem Leben verstanden haben‘.“

– Mariano Delgado: „Dort Du allein, mein Leben!“ Die Gott-Trunkenheit des Johannes vom Kreuz

[lepartidelamort]

Homo judaicus : la théologie politique de la politique étrangère américaine

Voici une courte compilation d’extraits de mon livre, publié pour la première fois il y a près de vingt ans, et réédité par Arktos media en 2017. À la lumière des nouveaux réalignements géopolitiques et des secousses politiques persistantes au Moyen-Orient, il peut être utile de réexaminer certains aspects sous-jacents de la politique étrangère des États-Unis.

Le soutien inconditionnel de l’Amérique à Israël ressemble à une forme tardive de névrose médiévale inspirée par les chrétiens de la Maison Blanche. La peur d’être traité d’antisémite empêche les politiciens et un grand nombre d’universitaires américains de critiquer ouvertement Israël. Lorsque quelques rares voix critiques se font entendre, elles laissent généralement de côté les mythes fondateurs du récit biblique et se concentrent plutôt sur des faits arides relatifs à l’influence des lobbies juifs en Amérique. A la manière typique de « l’expertise » américaine, les universitaires américains qui se trouvent être critiques à l’égard d’Israël utilisent un ensemble d’arguments tout en négligeant d’autres approches savantes. Dans leur analyse de la sainte alliance entre l’Israël postmoderne et l’Amérique, les universitaires américains ont tendance à oublier que les liens de l’Ancien Testament (Torah) entre ces deux pays prédestinaient déjà l’Amérique à entretenir des relations spéciales et privilégiées avec l’État d’Israël.

Il est clair que l’Amérique ne tire que peu d’avantages géopolitiques, voire aucun, de son soutien à Israël. Israël est plus un handicap qu’un atout pour l’Amérique. D’un point de vue géopolitique, Israël est même une nuisance pour l’Amérique, étant donné qu’en tant que petit pays de la taille approximative du New Jersey, il est entouré d’une foule de cultures, de religions et de voisins hostiles, tant à l’extérieur qu’à l’intérieur de ses frontières. Bien que l’Amérique, en raison de sa position insulaire unique, ait pu éviter les voisins gênants et leurs problèmes tribaux, elle a volontairement accepté sur son propre sol la question du Moyen-Orient balkanisé. L’ami spécial de l’Amérique, Israël, agit de la même manière que l’ancienne Prusse : il doit se développer aux dépens de ses voisins – ou il doit périr[i]. Mais les liens filiaux et paternels particuliers qui unissent l’Amérique à Israël doivent également empêcher que cela ne se produise.

D’un point de vue métaphysique, Israël est l’origine spirituelle de la mission divine de l’Amérique dans le monde et l’incarnation de l’idéologie américaine elle-même. Ce n’est que dans le contexte d’une étrange relation filiale avec la judéité et Israël que l’on peut comprendre pourquoi l’Amérique accepte avec sérénité son propre déclin délibéré dans un marasme mondial en ce début du 21e siècle – d’autant plus que les actions de politique étrangère de l’Amérique contrastent fortement avec les objectifs proclamés à l’origine par les pères fondateurs de l’Amérique.

Malheureusement, la peur d’être traité d’antisémite empêche les Américains intelligents de discuter ouvertement de la question explosive de l’imbroglio américano-israélien. Contrairement aux évaluations géopolitiques précédentes qui étaient fondées sur une base solide dans la prise de décision de la politique étrangère américaine, le rôle d’Israël et du lobby juif en Amérique sont les deux principaux éléments qui formulent la politique étrangère américaine dans son ensemble. L’image d’Israël et du « peuple choisi par Dieu » représente le cadre des engagements de l’Amérique, non seulement à l’égard du Moyen-Orient, mais aussi en ce qui concerne d’autres questions de politique étrangère. Entre-temps, « tout aspirant décideur est encouragé à devenir un partisan déclaré d’Israël, ce qui explique pourquoi les critiques publiques de la politique israélienne sont devenues une espèce en voie de disparition au sein de l’establishment de la politique étrangère »[ii].

Ces mots ont été écrits en 2005 par deux éminents universitaires américains dont l’essai a été relayé par les grands médias américains et européens, poussant les lobbies juifs américains à crier à l’injustice et à brandir le proverbial spectre de « l’antisémitisme ».

Pourtant, ce qu’écrivent John Mearsheimer et Stephen Walt n’est pas nouveau pour les personnes bien informées. De nombreux auteurs américains ont déjà exprimé des points de vue critiques similaires à l’égard d’Israël, et ces points de vue reflètent également, tant en privé qu’officiellement, ceux de nombreux universitaires et hommes politiques européens. Mais lorsque de telles observations sont faites par des universitaires issus d’institutions académiques respectables, elles ont un effet différent sur la scène politique américaine dans son ensemble. C’est ce qui explique l’inquiétude des Juifs américains et des Israéliens.

En Yahvé nous croyons

Les mythes fondateurs américains s’inspirent de la pensée hébraïque. La notion de « ville située sur une colline » (Saint Matthieu, 5:14) et de « pays de Dieu » a été empruntée à l’Ancien Testament (Torah) et au peuple juif. L’idée biblique de prédestination a servi aux premiers pères fondateurs américains de rampe de lancement pour leur propre concept de bien-pensance démocratique. De toutes les confessions chrétiennes, le calvinisme était la plus proche de la religion juive et, comme l’ont noté certains auteurs, les États-Unis doivent leur existence même aux Juifs. « Car ce que nous appelons l’américanisme, écrit Werner Sombart, n’est rien d’autre que l’esprit juif distillé« [iii]. [iii]

L’auteur, disciple de Max Weber, avait de la sympathie pour les Juifs et, par conséquent, lorsqu’il décrit l’influence écrasante de l’esprit juif dans la vie américaine, on ne peut pas l’accuser de manifester un parti pris contre les Juifs. Des remarques similaires se retrouveront plus tard chez des légions d’auteurs européens, dont la plupart sont tombés dans l’oubli ou la disgrâce en raison de leurs liens avec des écoles de pensée antidémocratiques et racialistes. Sombart écrit également que « les États-Unis sont remplis à ras bord de l’esprit juif« [iv] De nombreuses coutumes largement répandues en Amérique, comme le fait de donner des noms juifs aux nouveau-nés ou d’administrer la circoncision aux jeunes hommes nouveau-nés, proviennent de l’héritage juif[v].

Très tôt, les pères fondateurs, les pionniers et les hommes politiques de l’Amérique se sont identifiés comme des Juifs venus de l’Europe pestilentielle pour s’installer dans le nouveau Canaan américain. Dans une tournure freudienne postmoderne, ces pèlerins et ces nouveaux pionniers américains ont été obligés de tuer leurs pères européens afin de faciliter la diffusion de la démocratie américaine dans le monde entier. « Le ciel a placé notre pays dans cette situation pour nous mettre à l’épreuve, pour voir si nous utiliserions fidèlement le pouvoir incalculable que nous avons entre les mains pour accélérer la régénération du monde »[vi]. [vi]

Même les antisémites chrétiens américains sont inconsciemment épris de l’idée juive de prédestination, qu’ils hébergent parallèlement à leurs sentiments antisémites. En fait, l’antisémitisme américain peut être décrit comme une forme déformée et cachée de philo-sémitisme qui, bien qu’incapable de se matérialiser par son propre choix américain, projette sa suprématie potentielle à travers sa haine des Juifs. Il n’est pas exagéré d’affirmer, comme le font certains auteurs, que le rêve américain est un modèle de judéité universelle, qui ne doit pas se limiter à une race ou à une tribu spécifique en Amérique, comme c’est le cas pour les Juifs ethnocentriques qui sont bien conscients des sentiments raciaux de leur groupe d’appartenance. L’américanisme est conçu pour tous les peuples, races et nations de la Terre. L’Amérique est, par définition, une forme étendue d’Israël mondialisé et n’est pas réservée à une tribu spécifique. Cela signifie-t-il que notre proverbial homo americanus est une copie conforme universelle de l’homo judaicus ?

Le mot « antisémitisme », contrairement aux mots « anticommunisme » ou « antifascisme », ne reflète pas des convictions politiques ou des opinions critiques à l’égard des Juifs. Ce terme est exclusivement utilisé comme étiquette lexicale pour décrire la maladie mentale grave d’une personne. En tant que maladie médicale ou judiciaire, l’antisémitisme ne doit jamais être débattu ; un patient antisémite ne doit pas être un partenaire dans les duels académiques ; ses opinions malades ne doivent pas faire l’objet d’une enquête et d’une contre-enquête académique. En tant qu’élément de pathologie médicale, l’antisémitisme ne doit être traité que par des médecins, de préférence par un psychanalyste juif, ou légalement, par un procureur de gauche devant un tribunal.

[i] Jordis von Lohausen, Les Empires et la puissance, (Paris : Le Labyrinthe) p. 266.

[ii] John Mearsheimer et Stephen Walt, « The Israel Lobby », London Review of Books, vol. 28 n° 6, 23 mars 2006. Également publié dans une version étendue par l’Université de Harvard, « The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy », par John Mearsheimer et Stephen Walt ; Working Paper Number : RWP06-011 ; soumis : 13/03/2006.

[iii] Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, traduit avec des notes par M. Epstein, (New York : Burt Franklin, 1969 ; publié à l’origine à Londres en 1913), pp. 43-44.

[iv] Ibid, p. 38.[v] Ibid, p. 249.

[vi] George B. Cheever, God’s Hand (New York : M.W. Dodd Brick Church Chapel, 1941 ; Londres : Wiley & Putnam, 1941) ; dans Carl Bode (ed.), American Life in the 1840s (New York : Doubleday & Company, 1967), 315.

[ramrodd]

Understanding the Apostle Paul: A Two Hour Conversation

COMMENTARY:

Jesus is central to Christianity.

Paul is a Jewish apologist for Jesus to people who aren't Jewish. He was promoting the euangelion of the Gospel of Peter and the establishment of the New Coveneant between God and Cornelius, as the Archetypical representative of the Italian Cohort of the Praetorian Guard.

James Tabor's agenda, as part of the Jesus Seminar is to de de-harmonize the Gospels from Jesus and artificially harmonize them with Paul's theology revealed in his Epistles. , This is part of the business model of the Pro-Life/anti-Theist axis of profitable apostasy.

Dr. Tabor knows that the Gospel of John was written by John Mark to be entwined into the narrative of the Gospel of Mark. His Ten Events in Mark 11 and 12  connect directly to John 11:35.

One of the effects of the Pauline agenda in the Pri-Life business model is that it creates male Christians like Gym Jordan,, who is dealing with some very serious sex issues. Like Paul, Gym Jordan has a thron in his flesh with the homoerotic compusions he tries to subdue with violent physical conditioning It's clear that he was getting regular blow jobs from Dr> Strass White Charismatic Christian worship is characterized by collective sexual arousal as a mistaken sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit when, if fact, it is a sprit of God that has been appropriated by the business plan of the anti-Christ. Gym Jordan is a seriously twisted personality.

And that's the moral confusion Dr. Tabor is contributing to primarily because he has build this academic career on being scared shitless of going to Vietnam. As an Air FOrce brat, he's felt guildity about  avoiding military service his entire life, and he's afraid to stop.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is another example of the distortions of the Pauline theology of Pro-Life Fascism, He believes that he was serving his oath to Romans 13:1 - 7 ans an architect of the treason of the Stop the Steal attempt to blow up the US Constitution.

N.T. Wright is a reliable guide to Paul's harmonization to the LOGOS of Jesus.

[african-international-magazine]

In the following brief but thought-provoking interview, this pubication's Social Media Manager, Ryan Obed Martins, speaks to one of Zambia's emerging fashion designer entreprenuer, Given Mwimanenwa. Mr Mwimanenwa's face stands out on the fashion designing tapestry in Zambia for his odd-defying background and just his singular ability to simultenouly pursue two completely diferent goals. Please do enjoy the interview!

Question: Can you please tell us, "Who is Given Mwimanenwa?

Ans: I am a young man... born and bred as a Zambian... a Westerner, despite being born and brought up in the Southern Province. I did my primary and secondary education in Southern Province, I completed secondary education in 2009 at Namalundu High School; currently persuing bachelor of arts in Theology at Rusangu University.

Question: We heard you are into fashion designing. Can you please tell us what inspired you to embark on this despite your current pastoral pursuit?

Ans: Yes.. from childhood, I have been an artist; inspired by my elder brother, David Mwimanenwa, and in the process, my late elder sister Royce who was a tailor. And as such, the influence got to me. She used to refuse us from using her machine, that it may get destroyed. But whenever she left, while there was no one home, I would get on the machine and try to work on something without her knowledge. Later on in grade 8, I chose one of my subjects, Home Economics; there I was introduced to some basic principles of fashion and designing. This is my background of fashion and designing. In 2020, somewhere around November, I attended a short course for fashion and designing. And I was introduced to some detailed principals on fashion and designing. Though short, I got something from it..

Question: What was your parent's take when they saw you take up such talent while you were in school?

Ans: Remember my late sister was into fashion and designing. She passed away in 2014.. so her machine was laying home; no one was using it. After I was done doing the short course, I went and inherited the machine. Since then, it's the one have been using.I dediced to do this short course because my late father, who was then my main sponsor could not manage to give me money for school, so I decided to use that period for my fashion and designing program. So, one day, I didn't have a bag for carrying my domestic printer. So I decided to design a bag for it. Using the available material and I managed to make one, and it could fit well. When I got to Livingstone, my Elder brother was astonished as to how I managed to design that bag.From there, he began to say, you can make a lot of money if you can just work on these bags.

Question: How long have you been in the fashion industry?

Ans: I can say almost clocking two years now .. I fully started in 2020 December..

Question: What are you into? Is it bags,men's wear or others?

Ans: So from that time, I went into bag making. I have designed more bags than clothes. So my plan is to come up with a bag making company in future. Since many are into clothes, I want to venture into something different from them. So far I am starting to attend a short course for tailoring just to advance into male suit making.

Question: How do you see yourself in the nearest future?

Ans: I see myself owning my own brand for bags..

Question: Have you ever set out plans to come up with brands for school kids?

Ans: I haven't done so...It's really a good idea..Have taken Note.

Question: How do you balance your studies with your business?

Ans: It's not been easy, but I am making progress. Soon I am likely to switch from full time [studying] to block release [distance]; this will be quite easier.

Question: What would be your advise to someone embarking on the fashion and designing business?

Ansa: All I can say to such a one is that, It's not everything people will teach us. A vast ocean of knowledge is waiting for us to expand ourselves. Personally, bag making is something I taught myself. I use what I already know to do what I want. So what one needs is using whatever is available. Nothing good comes else and if it were so, everyone would have the good they want. Lastly, God gives ideas when you ask Him earnestly in prayer. He does inspire.

Gathered by Ryan Obed Martins, assembled and proofread by Ollus Ndomu

[eesirachs]

Do you have any reading recommends about eating God/intimacy/eroticism of eating, that kind of stuff? Thank you in advance!

of course:

corpus (nancy), the wedding feast of the lamb (falque), somatic desire (ed. horton), indecent theology (reid), devouring god (irwin), the animal that therefore i am (derrida), routledge handbook of senses in the ane (ed. neumann), are we not men: unstable masculinity in the hebrew bible (graybill), carnal hermeneutics (ed. kearney), any catholic sacramental theologian (especially schillebeeckx)

[nako-doodles]

I’m very curious about your opinion here: pick a song (may be more than one ofc) for each member that you associate with them - be it because of their singing/rapping part in it or maybe characteristic choreography or just general vibe? I’m just curious if other people link some songs with particular members like I do (like Autumn Leaves is totally Jin’s song for me 🤷‍♀️) IF you want I would love to know your reasons too

this is really interesting ask ill try my best to limit it to 3 aisojfiaga:

Seokjin

epiphany (this song is everything i love about him tbh)

go go (esp that heart stage like bts really said lets all make armys a heart event for this stage)

autumn leaves (one of the very few songs that jin opens and it makes all of the difference PLUS yoongi's unique compositional style really shows here)

so far away (jinkook vers.) (i fall asleep to this song purely to hear jin sing so far away)

Yoongi

the last (this song is what rearranged all of my atoms)

intro: never mind (this is the song that made me a die hard army and kept me afloat for most of my college career)

people (just something about the lyrics just reminds me about what it means to be human. and also his mm mm mm)

seesaw (esp the demo vers. god. what a fucking song. what a fucking king. also him looping jins lines for his i need u x seesaw remix)

Hoseok

mic drop (just the way hobi wrote this song in no time flat knowing its a gem and embodied it every single stage!!! also yes this applies to airplane too)

just dance (this song these vibes those outfits just embodies everything that makes hobi a fucking beast of a performer)

dis-ease (nothing but his lil easter egg noises on my mind!!!!!)

Namjoon

ddaeng (a giant smooch for his stutter verse and wordplay)

dimple (bc joon wrote it so his members would sing him a serenade)

moonchild (and really just the entire mono. mixtape)

honestly most bts music reminds me of him bc he literally wrote or contributed to all of them like this band was LITERALLY built around him w him as the center piece!!!! listening to him talk about the album every comeback is SUCH a treat but ill say Fake Love purely for his demo version.

Jimin

serendipity (i fall asleep to this song too like???? like.....)

lie (this song ngl was what elevated wings from a good album to a fucking legend album. this and awake and mama)

tony montana (pspsps yoongi write the boy a song man!!!)

Taehyung

blue and grey (tae has an excellent way to make me feel seen and loved)

sweet night (sthing about we're just ships in the night that just guts me)

spring day (i will keep asking for tae's demo chorus remix until i d*e)

4 o clock (i also fall asleep to this song and i just love it so much)

(honorary mention goes to tae's verse in jump and woh)

Jungkook

euphoria (specifically the dj swivel forever mix mv where the hyungs surprised jk w the softest content)

a typical trainee's christmas (honestly this cover makes my heart so soft for these 7 boys so far from home and a dream so far away but this cover is jk's bc of his line 'my name is jeon jungkook also known as maknae...if i cant play i will kneel in front of the company' almost as iconic as 'my name is jeon jungkook im 18....yes im a bad boy so i like bad girls')

tbh i consider all the jb songs he covered to be his now. whos jb? i only know jk!!! oh and while we're at it, if you is now jk's too. bb whomst?? i only know bts.