#the christ story / structure / meaning as christians

[raayllum]

*takes your face in my hands* listen to me. listen. sir sparklepuff was created as a christ figure. listen. he was born to die. made to be sacrificed. aaravos is god. a mostly jewish team of protags are fighting against god and pre-determinism. viren is called to sacrifice his son on a hill and it's their subsequent breaking point. aaravos is willing to sacrifice his son. soren is a judas who made the right choice. viren is literally entombed in a cave. listen to me. *crying* what father makes a son just to kill him? 

[artist-issues]

About Greta Gerwig, Little Women, and Narnia

Greta Gerwig should not be in the Narnia realm at all. As anything.

The Narnia stories are inseparable from Christianity. Greta Gerwig is a Unitarian Universalist. This means she, in her own personal life, doesn’t believe in the saving work of Jesus Christ, which is a core belief of Christianity, and a core theme in Narnia. Everything in the Narnia books hinges on this, from the character motivations to the structure of the fantasy world to the way the magic in Narnia works.

Additionally, the women in Narnia do not adhere to post-modern or even antique feministic values. They are celebrated for their love and tender-heartedness and faith, all of which require self-sacrifice. Aravis of The Horse and His Boy starts out a proud warrior escaping an arranged marriage and ends up a humbled lady of Archenland court marrying the Prince. Susan Pevensie is at her best when she’s tender-hearted and at her worst when she doubts and becomes more concerned about her own identity than others. The school that Eustace and Jill go to in The Silver Chair is derided for it’s feministic views. By contrast, modern feminism is opposed to self-sacrifice, and that is the kind of thing Greta Gerwig demonstrates belief in throughout all of her works.

Am I saying that no person who isn’t a Christian or some type of conservative when it comes to feminism can ever work on Narnia? Absolutely not. I’m not saying that. Lots of people on the Walden Media Narnia movie (the first one), which was great, were not Christians and did not believe in the saving work of Christ. But they stayed faithful to the source material, even if they didn’t believe in the source material themselves. So the story retained it’s autonomy and power.

Greta Gerwig can’t do that. She has already demonstrated that she does not know how to make a story that hangs on to it’s integral source material if she, herself, doesn’t agree with that source material. She can’t be objective, and therefore, she can’t be faithful to what Narnia is.

How do I know that? Little Women.

I don’t care if you liked the Little Women movie by Greta Gerwig. I don’t care if the acting was “amazing” and I don’t care if Timothee Chalamet and Florence Pugh are great in it. I said exactly what I said. Greta Gerwig made a great movie—but she made a terrible adaptation of Little Women.

It was not Little Women. She made changes to Little Women. What changes, you ask? Changes to the specific pieces of the source material that did not reflect Greta Gerwig’s personal views.

That’s the cardinal sin for directors of adaptive stories or remakes—to make changes to the core themes of a classic tale, because you don’t agree with those core themes. That’s called mutilation, not “updates.”

Here’s how she did it in two major ways in Little Women:

She cut out Jo’s humble response to Friedrich’s gentle rebuke of sensation stories, and replaced it with a feministic self-pitying outburst from Joe and s borderline apathetic, cool piece of feminist advice from Friedrich. That takes all the continuity out of it and warps the characters. That scene is so pivotal in the book. It’s Jo, respecting a man who is much older and excellent in character than any other she’s ever known, and feeling immediately humbled by him calling her out. She’d never have responded that way if Laurie called her out. They would have argued. But this scene was supposed to show what Jo needed from a future romantic partner. She needed someone she respected, someone who could be wise and gentle—two things Laurie is not. She needed someone who would help her take her eyes off of worldly success and herself, and onto eternal benefits to mankind, specifically, the effect her stories might have on children. His gentle, respectful, wise love (and the love of characters like Beth) turns Jo from a self-absorbed writer into a selfless mother, like her own Marmee.

But Greta Gerwig never wanted Jo to be a selfless mother. She wanted, and I quote, “Jo’s love to be her work, and her romance with Friedrich secondary.” You know why?

Because that’s what Greta Gerwig believes in. Greta Gerwig’s life is her work. Watch any of her movies, you’ll see the smudge marks of that wholehearted belief all over them. She can’t even be objective when the whole point of a character is to make work secondary, as was certainly the case with the character of Jo March. No. She has to twist up one of the best American heroines ever into an automaton of herself.

The second way she mutilated source material is with Amy and Laurie. In the books, Amy and Laurie grow to love each other out of the character deficiencies that they make up for in one another. At the start of their courtship, Amy is ambitious and Laurie is lazy. Amy wants to marry for advantage, and Laurie wants to make much of his spurned love for Jo by giving up on life. And that’s it.

It’s Amy who first wakes up to feeling something romantic toward Laurie, not Laurie, and Laurie is not the first to make a move on her. Laurie does not know he is in love with Amy until well after she knows she loves him. Then, he does not make the first outward advance on Amy. They both come to the same conclusion together; when they do, she does not resist. In Greta Gerwig’s version, he’s back to falling in love with a girl who’s resisting, because that’s where Timothee Chalamet’s emotional acting shines or whatever.

But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that she adds a feminism speech from Amy, as a reason for her resistance, and she subtracts the scene where Laurie actually proposes. The scene where Laurie proposes, in the book, is so beautiful.

The two characters are in love, they know they’re in love, and neither of them is insecure about it. Amy has learned that she needs a life-partner who knows her and will protect her, like her old home-values did, and not some rich aristocrat or prince. Laurie has learned that he needs a life-partner who can stir him toward change, not through big explosive arguments and hope of conquered affection like Jo, but with gentle love and sheer inspiration, found in Amy.

So, in the most beautiful analogy for courtship that ends in marriage ever, he proposes to her while they’re rowing on a lake. She’s sitting next to him in the middle of the boat, she’s got one oar, he’s got the other, and she says, “How well we pull together, don’t we?” And he says, “so well that I wish we might always be in the same boat. Will you, Amy?” And she says “yes.”

That’s it. No argument. No big, passionate, sentimental explosion like he had with Jo. No wrenched and broken heart-strings. He didn’t have to convince her. She didn’t have to resist. Because entirely without force, and entirely without insecurity, they protected each other’s hearts and came to a conclusion that was based on something so much deeper and more eternal than fleeting passion.

Greta Gerwig cut that out and listened to Meryl Streep and put in another stormy lover’s-quarrel speech from Amy about why she couldn’t be with Laurie because she was in Jo’s shadow, and feminism and marrying for advantage, blah blah blah. It’s terrible. It’s mutilation. It ruins everything the original Little Women had.

it doesn’t matter if she got some of the characters right. It doesn’t matter if she got a lot of the quotes right. It doesn’t matter if all of Act 1 of the movie is mostly-book-accurate. If you change load-bearing themes or character motivations, you show that you can’t be objective and faithful to the source material.

It is fine if Greta Gerwig wants to make a movie about a woman who loves her work more than anything else. It is fine if she wants to make a movie about how women are under-appreciated for their minds and souls, and have characters that go on a journey to prove it. But it is not fine to use someone else’s story to say it. Make your own story, Greta Gerwig.

Oh, you already did? See: Lady Bird? See: Frances Ha? Then come up with something new. Don’t shoehorn your same beliefs into every franchise that is offered to you, like vomiting, then eating the vomit and regurgitating it over and over in new colors. Figure out how to tell someone else’s story in a faithful way, objectively, or else keep your stained hands off until you can clean them up. Especially, keep them off Narnia.

Greta Gerwig makes movies for Greta Gerwig, by Greta Gerwig. She can’t be objective, and for that, she can’t do Narnia. She can’t do it justice, she can’t do it faithfully, because she makes movies for herself, by herself.

[queerprayers]

heya! can u tell me more about liturgy? i want to participate im a nondenominational catholic but i want to be more active in my faith! is it too late to start?

Welcome, beloved!

"Liturgy" comes from Greek and means "public service," and Christians use it generally to mean the order of events/ritual in communal worship, although it can sometimes refer to personal worship, like the liturgy of the hours.. Different denominations range in their formality and structure, but there is a pretty standard order in at least Western churches with traditional liturgies and from what I can tell, Eastern rites have very similar ideas/sections. Encyclopedia Britannica has a pretty good basic history of Christian liturgy, and the Wikipedia page has some good sections/links.

There are liturgies for different times of day and events, but the most common/important Christian one is the service of Holy Communion, practiced every Sunday. This comes from two places I can think of. First, Judaism has the practice of keeping the Sabbath, and the first Christians, being from Jewish communities, already had the ritual of weekly worship, but, partially to differentiate themselves from Jewish law but also as an acknowledgement of the most important event in the Christian faith, the Resurrection, began to meet on Sundays. Second, Jesus at the Last Supper commanded us to "do this in remembrance of me," and Paul tells us that "whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." We eat and drink as Jesus taught us, and can see that even in the first generation of Christianity, the holy meal was central. 

We worship together because religion is interpersonal, and Jesus did not come simply for us personally, but for us all communally. My response to the missionary's question of "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?" would be "No, I have an interpersonal one." (Unlikely my father, who said, "Yes, I eat him.") Obviously there is great diversity of situation/location, and joining a church is not in the cards for every person. But, nonetheless, we must live out our faith with others, whether that's church, family/friend gatherings, interfaith worship, or any kind of community gathering/serving. And I'll say it more later, but no, it's not too late to begin this or move in a new way.

Here is, very generally, the order/content of the liturgy of Holy Communion I know, which I think is almost identical to the Roman Rite:

Confession/absolution: We a general confession of sin, ask God to help us, and the pastor announces God's forgiveness. Private confession is not the norm in Protestant churches, so this where we bring our confessions to mind before God.

Procession/hymn: In my church, the pastor does the confession from the back of the room, and processes, with the assisting minister, acolyte(s), and crucifer, to the altar, while we sing an entrance song.

Kyrie/litany/hymn of praise: We sing petition and praise—the songs/chants change depending on the season.

Prayer of the day/collect: This prayer changes every week and gives the context for our gathering. It references whatever season we're celebrating and sometimes the Bible readings we'll hear.

Scripture readings/lessons: This is generally one reading from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament non-gospel books (Acts/letters/Revelation). The cycle of readings throughout the year follows the seasons and tells overarching stories/themes.

Psalm: The one book we read (or, sing) from every single week is the book of Psalms. In our church, we perform a call and response chant for that week's psalm in between the OT/NT readings.

Gospel verse/acclamation: As the Bible is being brought to the pastor, we usually sing "Alleluia, Lord, to whom shall we go?" including John 6:68-69, but during Lent we sing "Return to the Lord your God" from Joel 2:13. 

Gospel: A reading from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John relating to the season/other readings.

Sermon/homily: The pastor preaches on the readings or season, usually providing further information about them and giving us a lesson to take with us for the week. 

Hymn of the day: We sing our second hymn here. This is usually the one most thematically relevant. 

Creed: Either the Apostles' or Nicene Creed is recited. This is a weekly affirmation of our shared beliefs, uniting us with every Christian across time and denomination who has said these words.

Prayers of the church: Multiple intercessory prayers are read relating to the season, current events, members of the church, etc. These conclude with a remembrance of the dead, naming those who have recently died and making space for people to call out their own loved ones.

The Peace: Historically, this ritual greeting was the "kiss of peace," but all churches that I've been to have gone for handshakes or hugs instead. I think Catholics do the Peace after Communion, which honestly makes more sense, but this is where it is for us. I have appreciated it recently, as I'm often crying after the remembrance of the dead. 

The Offering: The offering plate is passed around while singing, and people are welcome to make donations. These funds go toward paying the pastor and organist, worship supplies, upkeep of the church building/grounds, members in need of support, and donations to charity. After collection, we pray that we will use the money in service of God and our neighbor. 

Preface/Eucharistic prayer/Great Thanksgiving: The pastor begins holy communion with a recitation of Jesus's words at the Last Supper, and calls the Spirit to be present in our meal. 

The Lord's Prayer: The prayer Jesus himself gave us to pray! Everything we need to say, right there. Maybe we should save time and just do this?

The Communion/Eucharist: We all come forward and receive communion. Churches have varying levels of real bread and wine—we get real wine but little wafers, some places go for grape juice. This is the central act of gathering—we can read the Bible on our own, we can pray on our own, but we cannot share a meal by ourselves. Breaking bread together is the fundamental Christian ritual, however that materially/theologically shows up in our communities. 

Songs of thanksgiving/prayers: We give thanks for the meal, and pray that it will sustain us. 

Closing hymn: Catholics don't stay for all the verses of this, it seems. I've been the last one singing before—as a visitor. This is my main (loving) critique of y'all's liturgy. 

Benediction: (See, we're not allowed to leave because we have to wait for the blessing, however many verses of the hymn there are.) The pastor recites the priestly blessing from Numbers: "The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord look upon you with favor and give you peace." The assisting minister then sends us with these words: "Go in peace, serve the Lord. Thanks be to God."

I find liturgy really valuable for lots of reasons. Just on a base level, I crave rhythm and ritual. I've said the words my whole life, which means I don't have to know what to say or do, I don't have to get anything right or perform. I meet every week with a group of people who want to say the same words while coming from so many different kinds of lives. We want to tell stories and sing songs together, the same as Christians have since the very beginning, the same as humans have since creation. Every week, I am reminded of what this is all for. It's a kind of reset, and I keep needing it. 

It's also a foundation for our community--the church is our gathering space, where we share meals, where we mourn our dead, where we organize, where our children play. The liturgy grounds us in common stories/music, and we take this with us to everything else. Many people who have left the church have said that there's not really an societal equivalent, and I mourn the fact that the church has not been a space for everyone, and that there aren't similar secular spaces. Especially in the sharing of money and time, I've learned really valuable lessons about community from the church.

It is never too late to need this, to join in, to attend a church, to start praying, to get baptized—these things are not age-dependent, and they come to us all differently. The disciples were old and young, the saints have come to God at all different times, and our lives do not all follow the same pattern. There's that joke about how Jesus didn't start his ministry till age 30—but even if you're way past 30, you only need a day in which to live seeking God, and God willing you have many days ahead of you. 

Maybe this has been on your mind for a while, and it feels like you've missed your chance—you haven't. Each day we recommit ourselves to life, which means each day we have the opportunity to change it. I have never been to a church that would look down on someone beginning their church participation at any age—even the most annoying conservative churches I can think of love when people start coming. 

I don't know what the church options are where you live, but I'd encourage you to visit some! Attending is not a promise to join or keep attending, just a participation in a liturgy. There may be restrictions for taking communion depending on your baptism/membership, but there are no restrictions on coming and listening and singing. And even if just once, you'll have participated in the unfolding story of Christian communal worship, and made it better by being yourself and coming with love.

There are churches who have completely different liturgies/practices—Quaker meetings are a great example. As I mentioned, there are personal liturgies that, while not a replacement for community, can introduce ritual into our homes and keep us faithful us as we seek community (I'm currently practicing Phyllis Trible's Divine Hours). Tradition sustains us, and is continuously being created. Wherever you find your home, whatever songs you sing, may God go with you, and may you never feel it is too late to start absolutely anything.

<3 Johanna

[majokko120]

Eucatastrophe

Eucatastrophe has to be something that not only overcomes the story-problem, but also something that overcomes the world; the real world. The reason why this has to be that way is the definition provided by Tolkien how the Eucatastrophe unfolding in the story actually is a light breaking in from outside, from reality, but this light has the power to not only rock the world of the story, but it is also a light that overcomes the life-problem, in reality.

Meaning, that which overcomes the story-problem also overcomes the world. This means that which overcomes the story-problem is based on Christian Truth. To further extrapolate this onto structure: The story-problem has to be a problem that is inherent to the world, (think fallen nature, fallen man and the consequences) and its solution has to be inherently Christian (not from this world).

Just like Christ was hated by, but overcame the world. It is this glorious victory, against all odds, accomplishing the impossible, that defines an Eucatastrophe. Sometimes this 'impossible' can be an act of forgiveness, a change of heart, mercy, recognition and acceptance, courage instead of apathetic defeatism, friendship where hatred dwelled, or heroic self-sacrifice where cowardly egotism reigned.

If we know the character of both, Effect/Solution (the Eucatastrophe) and Cause/Problem (the Story-Problem) we can infer, derive, and abduct (reverse) in order to arrive at a functional pair of problem and solution, in line with Tolkien's description of Eucatastrophe.

Someone lying, someone stealing, someone aiming to kill someone out of jealousy, blind hatred based on hurt pride; that's the fallen world. And the solution has to be something not from this world, but it overcomes this world, even though, according to the logic of this world, it shouldn't be able to do that; that's Eucatastrophe. That's the Light of Christ breaking not only into the world of the story, but by doing so also reminding us of its world-overcoming power in the real world, outside the story. This gives the moment of Eucatastrophe not only a brilliant dramatic force, but the uttermost relevance for reality.

[troybeecham]

Today the Church honors St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226 AD), Deacon and Friar.

Ora pro nobis.

Saint Francis of Assisi was born Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone, informally named as Francesco, meaning “little Frenchman, by his mother who was from France.. He was an Italian Catholic friar, deacon, and preacher. He founded the men's Order of Friars Minor, the women’s Order of Saint Clare, the Third Order of Saint Francis and the Custody of the Holy Land.

Pope Gregory IX canonized Francis on 16 July 1228. Along with Saint Catherine of Sienna, he was designated Patron saint of Italy.

He has become highly sentimentalized and trivialized in the 20th century, including being rebranded as the 'environmentalist saint' with patronage of animals. This should break our hearts. In his life, however, he was completely devoted to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the formation of disciples of Jesus, adoration of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and for the care of the poor, homeless, and outcast lepers. As a Roman Catholic Franciscan friar friend of mine once preached in my parish, "Don't you dare make my Francis into a birdbath or relegate him to a tiny statue in your garden! He was a radical in his love for Jesus, the poor, and for preaching the Gospel!"

Speaking of things Francis never said, there’s a beautiful prayer, often called the “Prayer of St. Francis”. It is lovely on its own merits. It was written during WWI in 1912 for a French newspaper as a plea for peace. I love this prayer, and commend it to all for use in your life of prayer, as I do the radical discipleship of blessed Francis, who gave all to Jesus in service to the poor, lepers, and the conversion of all peoples.

"An example of this [sentimentalization and] misrepresentation of Francis is the phrase, "Preach the gospel everywhere; if necessary use words," which is often ascribed to Francis. It's a popular phrase. The problem is, there is no evidence Francis said it. It’s like saying, "Feed the hungry; if necessary use food." To honor St Francis, go to your local homeless shelter and offer a foot clinic, to bathe their feet and tend to their wounds; go volunteer at your local soup kitchen, and sit down with the folks who come and listen to them.

Of course, the wisdom of these particular sayings do not depend upon their source. Many of us have been on the receiving end of words spoken in the name of the gospel by someone whose life or attitude did not "preach" the gospel. Our lives must bear witness to the good news of Jesus before our words about that good news can make any sense. Francis did encourage Christians “to shine as an example to others.” But to suggest that the gospel can be preached without using words is deceptive. We ought to be able to tell the Gospel in a manner that makes the story of our lives make sense. That requires words as well as actions. Francis did in fact write, “Being the servant of all, I am bound to serve all and to administer the balm-bearing words of my Lord.” (Letter to all the Faithful)

In 1219 AD, he went to Egypt in an attempt to convert the Sultan to put an end to the conflict of the Crusades. His attempt failed, but the Sultan was so impressed by his holiness and love that he let him go home to Italy rather than imprisoning him for ransom or executing him as an infidel.

By this point, the Franciscan Order had grown to such an extent that its primitive organizational structure was no longer sufficient. He returned to Italy to organize the Order. Once his community was authorized by the Pope, he withdrew increasingly from external affairs. In 1223, Francis arranged for the first Christmas live nativity scene. According to Christian tradition, in 1224 he received the stigmata during the apparition of Seraphic angels in a religious ecstasy, making him the first recorded person in Christian history to bear the wounds of Christ's Passion.

He died during the evening hours of 3 October 1226, while listening to a reading he had requested of Psalm 142, exhausted and physically broken by his radical devotion, at the age of 45.

Blessed Francis, you challenge me, and even frighten me because you actually actually did what Jesus said, and so render my accomodations to this world and excuses for not giving up all to follow Jesus invalid. Pray for me.

Most high, omnipotent, good Lord, grant your people grace to renounce gladly the vanities of this world; that, following the way of blessed Francis, we may for love of you delight to give ourselves wholly unto the adoration of your blessed Son, our Savior Jesus, and to the preaching of his Gospel for the salvation of the world with perfectness of joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever.

Amen.

[lunar-roses-blog]

Veiling Part 1:

The tradition of veiling:

Traditionally, a veil is a cloth that covers all or part of the head or face. It has routes all throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa, along with being prominant in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. More often than not, veiling is used as a means for people to express their religion and/or culture. It is mainly associated with women and sacred objects, however it can extend to just about anyone and anything.

Where does veiling come from?:

So it really depends what culture or practice you are looking at in terms of where veiling comes from. Some of the earliest incidences of veiling were between the 12th and 14th centuries and it was seen as a way to show one’s status in a society. An example of one the earliest accounts of veiling is an ancient code of law called Middle Assyrian Law dating to roughly between 1450 and 1250 BCE, which was also known for its brutal punishments if the code was broken. One of the codes stated, "If the wives of a man, or the daughters of a man go out into the street, their heads are to be veiled. The prostitute is not to be veiled. Maidservants are not to veil themselves. Veiled harlots and maidservants shall have their garments seized and 50 blows inflicted on them and bitumen poured on their heads." This is a rough translation due to some of the tablets with the code either being untranslatable or unrecoverable. Women in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, and Persia also wore veils and covered up as a sign of status.

Christianity & Veiling:

The implications behind veiling in Christianity are widely varied, as there are different versions of the Sacred Scripture. The most commonly used versions of the Bible are the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV). A more ancient reasoning for head covering was to create publicity for the new religion while being a symbol of modesty and a woman’s submission to her husband. St. Paul made a new order in Corinthians 11:2-16, in which the following is an excerpt, “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man…every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” This verse helps to determine that head coverings were indeed worn in the early Church. As Christianity became more structured, head coverings became more prevalent, with Sisters wearing habits, and veils made specifically to their religious order. Even as countries industrialized, the Christian idea of modesty still remained virtually the same; however as the 20th century approached, life changed dramatically for people, and the Church began modernizing, we see the veil become less prevalent, and really only seen as necessary if one is attending a church service. In the Code of Canon Law, a law associated with the Catholic Church, Catholicism required that women wear a veil. It was seen as a woman covering up their dignity, and a symbol that women are seen as one of God’s most beautiful creations. Of course, as the Catholic Church modernized, they no longer require it, and it isn’t even seen as necessary to wear to mass anymore, but it is still seen today - a woman wearing a sheer lace veil as she worships.

https://blog.hautehijab.com/post/evolution-of-head-covering-in-christianityEvEe

https://mvstconference.ace.fordham.edu/MVSTconf2018/the-paradoxical-story-of-the-veil-in-the-middle-ages/

[thurifer-at-heart]

"Theory" is a poor word to choose when seeking to understand the testimony of the Bible.

The Old and New Testaments do not present theories at any time. Instead, we find stories, images, metaphors, symbols, sagas, sermons, songs, letters, poems. It would be hard to find writing that is less theoretical. Even Paul, perhaps the most intellectually gifted of biblical writers, is highly contextual and unsystematic in his presentation of the Christian gospel. This does not mean that there is no thinking to be done. Rather, what we are seeking here is a creative balance between doctrine and artistry, responding not only to the problems put by the biblical text but also to its narrative structure, poetry, and language. The phrase of Anselm, fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding), still speaks to us today. The work of theology is the process by which the church continually rethinks its message.

—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

Title: The Book of Strange New Things

Author: Michel Faber

Rating: 2/5 stars

I ended up liking this one more than I thought I would. I was expecting it to be more interested in weirdness for its own sake, but this was a lot more psychological and somewhat more serious than I thought it would be. Faber is less interested in weird worlds than in the big messy questions about humanity that I associate with Michael Chabon, Robert Heinlein, and Isaac Asimov -- the familiar questions about what it means to be human and what makes a life meaningful, the old "Who are you? What are you? Why are you? What does your life have in common with my life? Why does it have to be that way?" questions. (Heinlein was actually a big influence on Faber, and this book has a lot of elements in common with, for instance, Stranger in a Strange Land.)

These questions are so familiar and predictable that I usually don't feel the need to read another book with them in. But the thing is, I still don't know the answers. (Yes, even though they're the same questions that many other writers have tackled before.) I still want more answers.

It's just that, the way Faber handles these questions is . . . well, one must proceed carefully here. Faber is good at handling these questions. I don't think he's any sort of genius, but he's much better at it than many writers who take a stab at it, and I enjoy reading what he writes. He's a good writer who knows how to structure his story and how to find and maintain the right narrative "tone," and all that.

But, on the other hand, there's a self-conscious artiness to Faber's responses to these basic questions. Faber is working hard. He has to work to make sure his characters reach the right truth-points, and to incorporate his own beliefs into those characters. This is true even when he's doing what looks like the most natural and spontaneous thing he can: he's an atheist, but he has his atheist character say the words "God" and "Jesus" no more than he can help. (E.g. "'God. . . God. . . Jesus fucking Christ.'" Heh, that's not actually that bad.) On more serious matters, Faber uses the framework of religious belief and Christian doctrine as an analogy to guide a lot of the main characters -- either as an analogy to non-Christian religion, or as a kind of half-fictionalized amalgam of non-Christian religion and Christian doctrine. And when you have a straight-out atheist character in your book, you still can't just have her say "God doesn't exist" and be done with it -- this would be to repeat the atheist cliché, the "giving the answer before anyone had a chance to ask a question." No, you have to find some way to make your character's answer interesting, somewhat unpredictable; you have to show how this answer comes out of the fabric of your fictional world, something that the reader wouldn't have predicted.

And in the end, it's just like with the average atheist preacher: it seems like a good, solid response to the question of whether God exists, but nobody wants to hear it. And if you make it sound too obviously like the right answer (and the preacher wants to say that, because it's the right answer!), you risk coming across as arrogant -- like you're basically assuming you know more than anyone else in the room, and you're delivering your perfect "final answer," almost as if you knew it before the question was even asked. It's just not organic, the preacher has a motive -- unless you're delivering a speech that is itself the point of the story.

The atheist preacher represents the end of a self-conscious process. Faber is an atheist, but he has to use religion as a framework for his characters, because religion is our big unifying framework for talking about these big questions. (This is true of most of his characters -- they're not all atheists.) At the same time, there is no real "atheist experience," because you can't ask these questions honestly unless you're staking your life on them. (And, if you're a professional writer, you can't be staking your life on these questions either -- you can't go off to the jungle to spend the rest of your life cultivating an inner life and learning to see the universe through some kind of "radical transcendental lens," you have to make your money and eat and do normal human things.)

So your atheist is staging an existence that is sort of in-between these two things, an existence that is in some sense fictional and realistic, but not real life. (I'm reminded here of the old atheist/theist dichotomy, but from the opposite side: the atheist realistically fakes his real life by staging his own version of a spiritual experience, with all its attendant emotions, and if he's a successful enough actor you won't be able to tell who's staged what.) This is basically what happens with Faber's characters, in one way or another. I've left out a lot to avoid getting into specifics, but basically everything is about making the characters' experiences "spiritual" -- using the spiritual-like side of humanity, while somehow remaining separate from that spiritualness, insisting on its realness, maintaining its separateness while sort of enveloping it. (The whole thing about the giant sea creature that resembles a monster in Stranger in a Strange Land, but isn't.) It's like a weird kind of fictionality, a replication of some sort of spiritual experience that is not quite "real" because you have to keep reminding yourself it's there.

(I guess this seems less creepy when you have multiple characters staging their own experiences -- and I didn't dislike Faber's overall handling of all this, but I wish he had given his characters different and distinct experiences. The Book of Strange New Things has a lot of characters -- more than most other books I've read in the past few years -- and no two are ever quite the same. They're all more or less in the same place, the same world, but they're in different mental states. They experience different things, they have different relationships with each other, they do different things.

Some are more solitary, some form close relationships, some form relationships just to get sex, some have a variety of relationships. Some have strong feelings about their work, some are more "professional," some have different goals. And Faber basically represents all of these kinds of people as being equally valid, legitimate, natural, "real," whatever. In fact, you could say that this is a central theme of the book -- realness, and what it really means. (Unfortunately, this theme gets kind of lost in the process of handling it, but I suppose that's only to be expected.) This is all fine, except that I wish more of these characters had gone off in their own directions a little more. They all have good, real, interesting character arcs that are basically unrelated to what anyone else in the book is doing. [Spoilers for an ending that I consider well-foreshadowed] Even the one character who dies sort of does so in her own way, in the end. If only Faber had been more willing to bring this out -- he's too caught up in creating a sense of unity, of togetherness, that he loses sight of individuality. (Of course, one could ask, is "individuality" a real thing, in the second place, and whether it can stand apart from some sort of togetherness?))

Anyway, even though I'm complaining about the process by which Faber handles these questions, I'm glad he asks them in the first place. This sort of thing is rare in fiction -- it's fiction that just lets you live as a human being, instead of getting a life from being a human being. And when you're dealing with these kinds of questions, I think it's really important that the questions be asked.

[animechristi]

Tower of God: Symptoms of Loneliness

I place this at the service of Christ by the hands of His mother.

“It is not good that the man should be alone” - Genesis 2:18

First, disclaimers:

1.)    As of 2022, Tower of God is an unfinished webcomic written by S.I.U., so I cannot comment on the series as a finished whole.

2.)    That said, I really like ToG. I think the MC is a great example of someone growing in virtue and the author does a great job at creating a diverse cast of characters. If the art style turns you away, I suggest you hold out since it gets way better over time. Alternatively, you can watch the anime which is a good adaptation with a great OST by Kevin Penkin.

3.)    I want to talk about loneliness, but that is a wide category, so this will have to be limited to a specific type as I’ll clarify later on.

Second, here’s the plot:

            The premise of ToG is simple. There’s a tower. Climb it. Get to the top, and your dreams will come true. Simple, right? Yes and no. The issue is this: you climb each level - known as a “floor” of the tower - by passing a test, a test where there is always a winner and loser. Thus, it very quickly becomes every man for himself.

Our story begins with Bam a young boy who lives in an underground cave. One day a girl named Rachel stumbles across this cave, and the two becomes friends. But Rachel wants to climb The Tower and tells Bam to forget about her. Our infatuated boy is not to be put down and so quickly chases her up the tower.

Third, what I want to talk about:

          My focus this article is a conversation between Bam and Endorsi a girl who is living only for herself. Endorsi has no problem stepping over people to get what she wants. She grew up in a family that encouraged the strong and neglected the weak. Bam on the other hand, had no one with him in the cave and so treasures anyone he meets.

            At one point, the climbers need to get 10 signatures of “friends” they’ve made. Endorsi has set herself up as an independent climber and so she has no one to reach out to for such a task. At the same time, she finds herself out of money and so Bam buys her lunch each day in order to get her signature. Later she asks Bam why he wasted the money just to get her signature. His answer? “I hate being lonely, so I don’t want others to be lonely either.”

            Endorsi, however, doesn’t immediately say “thank you”. Instead, she tries to defend her isolation. “I like being alone,” she says, “It feels worse to be with someone. They bother you… and make you nervous, so it’s better to be alone.” But Bam turns this argument upside-down. “But doesn’t that also mean… you’re lonely?”

            His point is this: for some of us, the dislike of people is not a cause but a symptom of loneliness. And Bam proves this by his next question: “Is that how you feel with me?” To which Endorsi replies: “No.” The point is that, by realizing there are people she enjoys being with, Endorsi now understands loneliness isn’t being with people we dislike but being away from people we do like. If you’ve ever sought refuge in a friend at an event where you don’t know anyone else, I think you’ll know what I mean.

Okay, so what’s the point Mr. “Christian Commentator”

            Recall the verse at the top of this page. “It is not good that the man should be alone.” As Christians, we believe that from the beginning of our existence we are called to live in a community. This is why family is not just a social but a natural structure. Despite whatever you may read from Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, we never find man simply alone in a state of nature.

            We are not meant to be alone – no matter how much we convince ourselves that it’s good for us. Even the early monastic movement was aware of this with solitary hermits being the exception not the norm. You don’t take on the solitary life to be independent but to realize just how dependent you are on God. It makes us grow in humility by knowing we don’t have everything under control.

So now here’s the point.

        To move away is also to move towards. In recognizing that it is not good to be alone, we know what it is we should be looking for: building community with others. Big surprise, a recurring theme in Tower of God is whether it’s better to dominate others or work together with others to obtain your goal.

            As I mentioned at the beginning, loneliness is a broad category, so I’d like to look at a specific type of loneliness, one that makes us dislike people. Just like Endorsi – when there’s no one around us that we’re comfortable with – we can easily turn to ourselves to accomplish everything. Afterall, wouldn’t asking for help be a sign of weakness? And here pay attention to the lies of the devil: wouldn’t they think I’m stupid? Do they only help me to feel good about themselves?  Wouldn’t I be in their debt or be putting myself under them?

            All of these are ways the devil gets us to close ourselves off to others and put us in a state that is not good for us to be in. To borrow words from Classroom of the Elite, we mistake isolation for independence. We forget that God has said “Behold how good and pleasing it is when brothers dwell together” (Ps 133:1).

So what are we to do?

Talk is nice, but this is pointless if I don’t offer practical advice. I’d like to preface this by saying these aren’t magical cures, but simply things that I’ve reaped much benefit from.

Frequently invoke the name of Jesus. E.g. “Jesus Christ have mercy on me” or whatever form you find helpful and can be prayed repeatedly while you’re working. This reminds us that we can’t do anything without Him.

If you don’t have a devotion to a particular saint or your guardian angel, get one. Doesn’t matter who; start making friends with those we look forward to spending eternal life with. Just like with Jesus, talk to them about anything that’s happening.

(And this is the one I struggle with most) Put in effort to know more about people, it will help you love them. Spend time learning about their likes, dislikes, and family, and most importantly don’t be afraid to share your own life with them. (Endorsi wouldn’t have realized her scenario if she hadn’t talked with Bam about it)

As I said, this is not a cure-all. But it is a place to start. When we find ourselves hating the company of others, let’s stop and ask ourselves why. If it’s because we think we don’t need anyone, then that’s the first sign we’ve gone too far.

 

I could go on but will stop for now. Perhaps this topic can be revisited from a different perspective.

St Justin Martyr, pray for us.

[errantabbot]

Riffing on Resurrection

And so we’ve arrived at Easter, the ultimate event in the life of the Christian church, commemorating the resurrection of Jesus after his death and burial.

This day is marked by acclamations that “Christ is risen,” which has been Christianity’s foundational lynchpin for over 2,000 years. And while visions and hopes of a return of Christ (following his resurrection and ascension) have waxed and waned from literal and imminent to metaphorical and even remote in present day, the resurrection is an event that most Christians cling to as both historical and physical, even at the expense of cognitive dissonance.

While the bodily resurrection of Christ is certainly accessible to the realm of the imaginal, an important domain of human experience wherein those truths that may only be conveyed symbolically can be explored and experienced, the fact remains that resurrection does not happen in the natural world otherwise.

Resurrection as a religious motif (death literally becoming life) is one that existed in ancient cultures before Jesus and one that has persisted in religious thinking beyond the confines of Christianity. It’s a high hope, and not infrequently, an unrequited dream with no physiological correlate. What then are we to make of it?

Functionally, the resurrection’s mythos has served to substantiate the life, message, and significance of Jesus in the wake of the violent death that brought about an end to his relatively brief ministry. For his early followers, who were expecting so much outward change in their world by means of his existence (true circumstantial salvation), the resurrection served as a symbol of enduring relevance, metaphysical conquest, and hope.

To the band of disciples who heeded Jesus’ call to worldly renunciation, giving up vocations, possessions, and relationships to literally follow him, who quickly turned to mourning, confusion, and even hiding in the wake of his arrest and execution, resurrection was a culturally primed, convenient resolution to their new quandary of identity in the immediate wake of Jesus’ natural life. And in this, it became reality as an operative commitment.

In many ways the death of Jesus was a literal “dark night of the soul” for his followers. Pushing through the doubt, disbelief, and dissonance that they no doubt must have faced, and choosing to live in the light of the Gospel anyway, which is to say to take up Jesus’ mantle and continue his work, well, as far as I can tell, that’s resurrection. That’s finding new life from listlessness’ depths and it’s intrinsically meaningful.

The human power to reinterpret our experience, to adopt narratives that reframe our motivations, and further, to regard those narratives with unique realism in defiance of those structures that would otherwise limit us and keep us in fear and isolation, while allowing us to carry on in love, constancy, and peace, according with a set of declarative values, is a superpower. As such, this power (and tendency) is one that deserves conscious and intentional wielding, and in this, mindful critique lest it take on a life of its own, independent of the agency (and responsibility) of its wielders.

Jesus’ dying on the cross and rising in our hearts, in our motivations, and in our resolves isn’t a small thing. But its implications are also not implicitly clear. One might ask, what is Jesus’ message if not an utter inversion of the temporal world’s power structures? What is the place of a Messiah whose life was prematurely stamped out? Or of a resurrection whose unqualified literality has been dismantled?

The story of Christianity is essentially one of paradox, or to put it another way, of the non-dual harmonization of seemingly unreconcilable dichotomies. This alone places the tradition in a wider stream of the world’s wisdom traditions, which are born of a collective effort of long term grappling with the finitude of our individual lives and the infinitude intuited at reality’s heart.

In the realm of paradox, it’s no problem for unjust and oppressive structures to exist atop a substrate of utter transcendence in one’s direct experience (alas, the “Kingdom of God” is like this). In the stream of infinity, there’s no difference between one moment or one lifetime, and eternity. In the purview of metaphor, historicity doesn’t limit truth.

More could be said, much more even. But at their core, the non-dual traditions always speak toward the inability of language (and beliefs) to encapsulate truth. These traditions always enjoin us to practice, which is to say to experience and realization born of doing and being. But what is one to do? How does one practice and be in the light of resurrection?

Mark’s Gospel, the earliest account of Christ’s life, which I invoked in my Good Friday reflection, ends (16:8) with three of Jesus’ female disciples encountering his tomb empty, and in response, “trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”

That’s it. Sometimes our praxis of faith is bewilderment and quietude. Sometimes it’s trembling and fleeing. In many cases it’s haunting, in so much as it takes us up and carries us to unexpected places as we seek to digest our experience. A life of faith isn’t all made up of reassurance and comfort, of certainty and creed, indeed such curated sterility isn’t really life-giving so much as it is infantilizing. Mature faith takes on, of necessity, a much wider and fuller breadth.

Recently I’ve been struck by the use of the peacock as one of the early symbols of Christianity. It seems that in the ancient world it was regarded as an animal whose flesh did not decay, and was thus understood as an analog for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Of course today we know that this is an utterly fictional notion, and while it has thus been rendered an inept analog, the imaginal motif has proved enduring (one can even spend tens of thousands of dollars on vestments so embroidered). This is not unlike the resurrection of Christ itself, which while proving inaccessible to the realm of historicity, has gained enduring life as a dream, a hope, a metaphor, a commitment, and yes, at times a quandary.

Today the tomb is empty. Things are not as simple as we have thought them to be, and the implications are unsettling.

It’s okay. There’s life and purpose ahead, there’s integration and even resolution. It’s from this very ground that the whole world-spanning tradition of Christianity has arisen, both in the vein of perennial wisdom, contemplation, and beauty, and in the perversion of those things. Where we end up has all to do, I think, with how we approach the unsettling appendant to the perception of the empty tomb. Either with reverence and hesitancy, or with nuance-less confidence and words born of the pathological need to know.

~Sunyananda

[drew-mga2022mi6021]

World Building | Spirituality

Sara Alfa

An important aspect of any world are the beliefs of the people that live in it. This is an exploration of those ideas.

What are the religions of Sri Lanka?

There are four main religions in Sri Lanka;

Buddhism

Hinduism

Islam

Christianity

Of these, the most prominent is Buddhism, occupying 70% of the population of the country, followed by Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Theravada Buddhism is the main form of Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, and these people tend to be Sinhalese. Similarly, people who are Hindu are likely to be born ethnic Tamil, those who are Islamic are majorly Sri Lankan Moors, and Christians are typically Burghers. That being said, identifying with a particular religion is not necessarily connected to one’s ethnicity. For example, there are some Sri Lankans who identify as Christian that are Tamil or Sinhalese. Moreover, it is quite common to find the various religions coexisting. Buddhists may visit Hindu temples to pay homage to the Buddha, and vice versa. There are several areas of Sri Lanka that are condensed with various places of worship in close proximity to one another, a prime example being Bambalapitiya.

Additionally, Islam and Christianity are split into several denominations (Sunni, Shia, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi, Sufi and Deobandi for Islam; Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Baptism, Pentecostalism and The Salvation Army for Christianity). There are other pagan religions in Sri Lanka as well, which detail the worship of nature and the like, however they are not very prominent in modern times.

What are the doctrines of each religion?

Each religion in Sri Lanka revolves around a separate, distinct belief system. They are as listed below.

Buddhism : The core doctrine (‘dhamma’) of Buddhism is the ‘Four Noble Truths’, which put forth the notion that underpinning all existence is suffering that one can be liberated from through practising the ‘Eightfold Path’, which eventually leads to attaining a state of Nirvana; to exist beyond the mortal plane. In recent years, the Sri Lankan Buddhist laity have generally accepted a large body of other beliefs and practices that have since been integrated into the Sinhalese interpretation of Theravada Buddhism.

Hinduism : Whereas Buddhism claims a historical founder, a basic doctrine, and a formal monastic structure, Hinduism embraces a vast and varied body of religious belief, practice, and organization. In its widest sense, Hinduism encompasses all the religious and cultural systems originating in South Asia, and many Hindus actually accept the Buddha as an important sectarian teacher or as a rebel against or reformer of ancient Hindu culture. As such, Hinduism defies easy definition because it embraces such a large variety of practices and beliefs.

Islam : Islam in Sri Lanka is practiced as a monotheistic religion, which means it is a religion that focuses on the worship of one God (Allah), which centres around a system called the Five Pillars of Islam; faith, prayer, alms, fasting and pilgrimage, differing very little from its Arabic origins. Additionally, there exist six other core beliefs in Islam; belief in the oneness of God, belief in God's angels, belief in the Quran (the Islamic sacred texts), belief in the prophets of God, belief in the day of judgement and belief in the Qadr (predestination).

Christianity : Similar to Islam, Christianity is also a monotheistic religion, however beliefs vary drastically from denomination to denomination. For example, Roman Catholicism focuses on the worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, while Anglicanism worships the triumvirate (the father, son and holy spirit, one god in three forms) and focuses on the belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of man so that they may be redeemed.

Which Gods exist?

The people of Sri Lanka believe in different Gods in accordance with their religion. The Gods have very little influence on the story, however as atheism exists within this world, the question of whether religion or Gods are real is still debated.

Buddhism : In Theravada Buddhism, the Buddha is not considered a ‘God’ as understood in the Abrahamic sense of the term. Rather, devotion towards the Buddha is akin to the respect a student has for a teacher. Veneration and reverence towards the Buddha is an important principle for followers of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. 

Hinduism : There are several Gods that exist within Hinduism. Those of note are the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva - creator, preserver and destroyer respectively. Brahma is the creator of life and the entire universe. Vishnu is the preserver who guides the cycle of birth and rebirth. He is also supposed to have taken many incarnations to save the world from evil forces. Both Rama and Krishna are believed to have been incarnations of Vishnu. Shiva, usually seen with a coiled cobra around his neck, destroys all evil and also has many incarnations, not all of which are terrifying.

Worship of the gods is known as puja. Worship can occur mentally or in front of the most rudimentary representations, such as stones or trees. Most people assemble pictures or small statues of their favorite deities and create small shrines in their homes for daily services, and they make trips to local shrines to worship before larger and more ornate statues.

Islam : As mentioned earlier, Islam is monotheistic and believes that the one true God is Allah. They are an undefinable and incomprehensible God to mortals, and their will is considered divine. Another prominent figure in Islam is Prophet Muhammed, however while prominent, he is not a figure of worship but merely a messenger of Allah's will.

Christianity : While Christianity is monotheistic, the lines are blurrier than that of Islam. The one true God of Christianity is Jehovah (more commonly referred to as God or The Lord), who is similarly undefinable and incomprehensible. The apostle John attempts to describe him in the Bible, but that description is a more abstract form that is an interpretation of the Lord's true form. God often manifested Himself as similarly abstract things in the mortal realm in order to deliver his messages (eg;- as a burning bush to Moses). God is also believed to exist in three forms (the triumvirate) through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. However, some individuals are particularly exonerated in different denominations of Christianity, such as Mother Mary in Roman Catholicism.

How do religious rituals and customs manifest themselves?

Most religious practices are carried out in religious temples of places of worship. In Sri Lanka, there exist a number of intricately designed chapels, temples, kovil and mosques.

Is there conflict between religious groups?

In this version of Sri Lanka, not necessarily. There have not been any major religious conflicts in this world, however racism and the like still exist in a small capacity due to people still recovering from the impacts of the 30 year civil war.

Do they wear specific attire?

In general settings, only devout believers would wear religious attire often. Most religious attire is saved for places of worship. In Buddhism, monks would wear an orange robe (Kasaya). Generally, Buddhist worshippers wear white when going to the temple and wear more modest clothing. It is believed that this is the closest to what the original Buddha and his disciples wore. Orange was chosen mainly because of the dye available at the time. Muslim outfits differ between genders; men wear wear a fez along with the trousers and shirt, and women most commonly wear an abaya with a hijab. Christians and Hindus do not necessarily have a specific outfit that they would wear to religious places, the most common practice is to dress modestly and to remove shoes. Certain places of worship will have more specific dress codes, depending on the denomination of the religion.

How do families, marriages and other relationships operate?

Most Sri Lankan religions follow the philosophy of a monogamous relationship, although due to the more liberal nature of the country in modern times, polygamy while uncommon is not necessarily frowned upon. In the case of Islam and certain sects of Christianity, marriages are arranged for daughters and sons who have attained a certain, although this too has become less strict over the years.

How do inhabitants respond to love and loss?

Depending on religious beliefs and customs, Sri Lankans would typically follow a standardised system to conduct a wedding or a funeral based on their religion of birth, although some who are atheistic or agnostic may deviate from this norm.

Weddings

A traditional Sinhala-Buddhist marriage ceremony is known as the poruwa siritha or poruwa ceremony. The poruwa itself is a decorated wooden platform that represents the house that the couple will share and is symbolic of their marriage and the start of a new life. The Nekath, or the auspicious time, is a very important part of Buddhist wedding ceremonies.  The date and the nekatha that the wedding ceremony should begin are decided by an astrologer after consulting the horoscopes of the bride and the groom. Even the nekatha at which each tradition or ritual should be performed at the ceremony is decided by an astrologer, based on the horoscopes of the couple.

The ceremony also involves many people: the shilpadhipathi (master of ceremonies or officiant), the ashtaka, or narrator, who recites religious chants (known as ashtaka) and the Jayamangala Gatha, a group of four young girls who bless the marriage with a traditional  Buddhist chant, are some of the actors who play notable roles in the ceremony. Sometimes, Kandyan dancers and drummers perform during or in between the rituals. Today, the poruwa siritha as well as the legal registration of marriage both take place at a traditional Buddhist wedding.

Sri Lankan Hindu Weddings hold significant similarities with Asian Hindu weddings. The colorful yet rooted in religious traditions set the perfect beginning for the new lives of the couple. The wedding-related ceremonies kick-off days before the marriage day. The main Sri Lankan Hindu wedding ceremonies start with Shiv-Parvathi pooja, followed by the Navagraha pooja, wherein the nine planets are worshipped. These poojas are held around the sacred Agni, considered the spiritual witness for marriage.

The Islamic equivalent of marriage is called the Nikkah. The concept of a "wedding" is a non-traditional thing that is practiced by Muslims through the influence of Hindu weddings, and can go on for similarly lengthy periods of time.

In Sri Lanka, a Christian wedding ceremony can be Catholic, Anglican or Protestant in nature. A Sri Lankan Christian wedding ceremony is usually performed within a church with the blessings of the church leader; however couples can also host the Christian ceremony in the hotel for added ambience. This is one of the more sustaining Western traditions in this version of Sri Lanka.

A unique characteristic of Sri Lankan weddings is that some traditions from local culture as a result of the decolonial movement post the independence of the country in 1948.

Deaths

In Buddhism, people prepare for death. A monk is called to the death bed, the dying person takes the precepts and the family joins in.  Then, once the person has died, they are embalmed and returned to the house in a coffin. On the third or fourth day after the death the funeral takes place. A number of monks are invited to the house of the deceased and offered a new, white piece of cloth. There is a short sermon and more chanting. The merit of the offering is given to the deceased. After the burial or cremation people return to the house where a feast is held for family, friends and neighbours. 

On the sixth day after the death a monk is invited. Again a big crowd is expected. The ‘spirit’ is invited to come and listen. The monk preaches for exactly one hour. Merit is offered to the spirit. The monk leaves and the crowd is treated to a feast. The next day a number of monks are invited for the midday meal. Someone takes food to the temple to offer to the Buddha. The monks enter in single file, with a layperson in front carrying a relic receptacle on his head. After the laypeople have taken the precepts and listened to a short sermon by a monk, the meal is served to the monks. Scraps of food are taken to the garden for the hungry ghosts. Utensils wrapped in brown paper are offered to the monks. And again the merit is offered to the deceased. After the monks have left everyone present is invited to a meal.

After three months, after one year, and sometimes annually, this is repeated. The order of the events is always the same: monks are invited for a meal; small scraps of food are left in the garden; utensils are donated; merit is offered to the deceased. This sequence of events forms the main core of the Buddhist funeral rites and practice in Sri Lanka. It should be mentioned that funerals and post-funerary ceremonies in Sri Lanka are very public affairs. It is not unusual that invited guests at the funeral never actually met the deceased and even outsiders from Germany or the UK are included into the events.

Cremation is also practiced by Hindu people, however, only Hindu males are allowed to attend the cremation, where the body is laid on top of a wooden pyre that is lit by the most senior member of the family. The women, meanwhile, remain at home, chanting mantras and singing hymns in reminiscence of life after death.

A Muslim funeral is known as a “Janazah” and is typically conducted within 24 hours of the deceased's passing. If the death occurs unexpectedly, exceptions may be given. Due to the necessity of a quick burial, the lead up to a Muslim funeral is short. The ceremony itself will last from half an hour to an hour, consisting of prayers, chants and Muslim funeral rituals.

What happens at a Muslim funeral service is usually ruled by traditions of the Islamic faith. Family and friends of the deceased will gather in the prayer room, study room or courtyard of the mosque to perform Salat al-Janazah (funeral prayers). Every male must participate in the Salat-al-Janazah, but women may only participate if they are willing to do so. The final prayer is offered from the family and community to ask for forgiveness of the deceased. The funeral service is led by an Imam (Islamic leader) and includes readings from the Quran. If you are of a different faith, you are encouraged to quietly listen to the readings and prayers.

Following on from a Muslim funeral service, the deceased is taken to the cemetery for burial. Traditionally, only men are allowed to attend the burial, though some Muslim communities may allow women to attend. The grave should be at right angles to the direction of Mecca, with the deceased placed on their right side facing the Islamic holy city. Wood and stones should be placed on top of the body to prevent direct contact between the person and the soil. All mourners will pour handfuls of earth on top of the grave, before it is filled in. Due to religious beliefs, cremation is prohibited for Muslims.

For Christians, The service is usually carried out at a church, crematorium or cemetery and will include prayers, a sermon, readings, hymns and sometimes music or poems. Additionally, a friend or family member may choose to deliver a eulogy as a tribute to the deceased. Interestingly, Protestant funeral rites are simpler and less extravagant than Catholic funeral rites. Catholic funerals place greater focus on rituals, whereas Protestant funerals are more focussed on remembering the deceased. The overall purpose of a Christian funeral is to help the deceased’s soul enter into Heaven, while offering comfort and support for mourners.

Interestingly, elements of traditional Sri Lankan funeral rites may integrate themselves with those that are dictated by religion, similar to weddings.

What behaviors are forbidden?

Religious taboos in society are closely linked with one's own moral code. General behaviours such as lying, stealing, adultery, discrimination, etc. are widely frowned upon. Then more specific behaviour like the consumption of certain foods depends on religious beliefs (Islamic people do not eat pork, Hindus do not eat beef, etc.)

How are gender roles defined?

In this version of Sri Lanka, gender is regarded as more of a social construct as opposed to adhering to traditional gender roles. This differs from identifying by one's own biological sex.

What defines their success and failure?

Success and failure are predominantly rooted in the ethics of hard work and community that is stressed by this post colonial society, and may have certain influences depending on the ethnicity and religion of the individual, however the core practice of hard work remains constant throughout.

What and how do they celebrate?

In addition to traditional religious holidays, the people of this world celebrate the rise of the full moon every month, known as Poya days. On days such as these, a common practice is to refrain from eating meat. This "celebration" is much more small scale in comparison to other celebrations of culture and is more akin to the Lent period in Christianity. Despite this, it is still an important part of the identity of Sri Lankans.

[tarragonblack123581321345589]

THEOLOGY

THEOLOGY is the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

AREAS OF THEOLOGY

■Paterology

The study of GOD, the father, is the focus of this area.

The etiology of the word "PATEROLOGY" is Greek:

□πατήρ (patḗr, father)

□λογος (logos, study)

■Bibliology

The study of the theological doctrine of the Bible is examined in this area.

The etiology of the word "BIBLIOLOGY" is Greek:

□βίβλος (biblos, book)

□λογος (logos, study)

■Christology

The study of the person, nature, and role of Christ is revealed in this area.

The etiology of the word "CHRISTOLOGY" is HEBREW:

□χριστός (chrīstós, "anointed one") □מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah); this word will originally mean someone who is anointed.

□λογος (logos, study)

■Anthropology

The study of the meaning of the human story as it is lived out before, with, and by God.

□λογος (logos, study)

■Soteriology

The study of salvation is considered and reviewed through our perspective.

□λογος (logos, study)

■Pneumatology

The study of the Holy Spirit is witnessed and evaluated.

□λογος (logos, study)

■Angelology

The study of the theological doctrine of angels is examined.

□λογος (logos, study)

■Ecclesiology

The study of the nature and structure of the Christian Church is revealed.

□λογος (logos, study)

■Eschatology

The study of the death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.

□λογος (logos, study)

[longlistshort]

“Painter as Saint Luke”, 2023

“Annunciation”, 2023

“Presentation”, 2023

Above are paintings by MJ Torrecampo for the 2023 Florida Prize in Contemporary Art at Orlando Museum of Art.

You can see the art history references throughout MJ Torrecampo’s work in this exhibition. The different perspectives she uses create a unique way to tell stories within each canvas.

The museum’s information on the artist and her work-

Born in the Philippines, MJ Torrecampo immigrated to the United States with her family when she was nine. Eventually the family settled in Orlando, and Torrecampo attended the University of Central Florida with the goal of earning a degree in mechanical engineering. An elective class in art history sparked her interest, and in time she changed her academic direction to earn a BFA in painting in 2014. This was followed by an MFA from the New York Academy of Art in 2020. Having returned to Central Florida, Torrecampo is currently an artist in residence at the Art & History Museums Maitland. Her recent paintings are complex narratives that examine the storyline of her life and of her extended family as immigrants negotiating their past, present, and future while they establish themselves in a new homeland. Although the subjects of her paintings are people, places, and events, it is her exploration of social relationships, psychological insights, and cultural adjustments that provide depth.

The paintings presented here are a new series completed for the Florida Prize exhibition. In these works, Torrecampo investigates her conflicted relationship with religion and spirituality, reimagining familiar biblical stories in the setting and context of the contemporary world. Specifically, she has chosen a series of moments in the life of Mary and the birth of Christ. Without being didactic, paintings like Annunciation ask the viewer to consider the volition and agency of Mary as she undertakes the profound responsibility of giving birth to Christ. In the central panel Mary is preoccupied watering her house plants. Out of the corner of her eye she notices the Angel Gabriel letting himself in, apparently uninvited. The painting’s left panel depicts children squirming in their seats at church during communion. The right panel shows a group of anti-abortion protesters blocking access to a women’s health clinic.

A distinctive feature of Torrecampo’s paintings is her use of overhead perspective which provides a God’s eye view of all that is going on. She adopted this device when she decided to work from her imagination and began to visualize scenes from this viewpoint. With roofs off, we see what is happening in multiple rooms at once, and the architectural geometry of walls in homes and apartments becomes a means to move through each narrative event. People gather here and there, sometimes in separate places and sometimes flowing from one space to the next. It is not always obvious whether the events we are looking at are simultaneous or sequential.

Torrecampo’s unusual perspective and architectural structures reflect her inventive interpretations of devices used by painters of the early Renaissance. References abound in this group of works that explicitly address this artistic period and related Christian theology. A look at Torrecampo’s Annunciation and the same subject by Fra Angelico reveals many wonderful comparisons. The Renaissance master’s painting is set in a loggia, an open walled or “transparent” room through which the viewer sees multiple spaces inside and out. The architecture of the room is defined by a dramatic perspective which encloses the two figures. Mary sits modestly on a stool and seems apprehensive about the approaching angel. Both paintings imply there are truths within the story that go beyond the text.

[arh2023kr]

The Progression of Spirituality through Art  

During the Renaissance period in Europe, artists spoke their ideas with religious intensity that attracted many viewers. Early Renaissance values were focused on ideals of wealth, intellectualism, and Catholicism. At this time, a large portion of the art made was commissioned for churches. Specifically in Italy during the High Renaissance era from 1490-1530, Roman Catholicism was prominent in churches. This gave the churches a lot of power which enabled the growth of large art pieces being commissioned. Art produced had many forms such as painting, sculpture, literature, and architecture.  

Many artists flourished during this time but few that spoke true to the values of the Renaissance Era and the underlining humanism philosophy were Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Titian. An example of the inclusion of narrative portraits to tell a story into artistic style is Madonna of the Carnation by Leonardo da Vinci. 

Madonna of the Carnation, Leonardo da Vinci, 1478, oil on panel 

The “Madonna” was often used in reference to The Virgin Mary as the essence of motherhood. This artwork depicts the Madonna with Christ who seems to be reaching for a red carnation which symbolizes fascination and love. The shared look between child and mother signifies the love between the two. Often artists will use colors and shapes to signify underlying meaning. The bright colors of the fabric worn by the Madonna contrast against the dark background drawing the viewers' attention to the detail of the implication of wealth. This was popular in religious art as wealth typically represented freedom at this time. 

 Another artist that used biblical narratives in their art was Michelangelo. 

The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo, 1511, paint and plaster on ceiling 

The artist Michelangelo embraced a philosophy from the early philosopher Plato that believed human happiness and satisfaction was obtainable without waiting for the afterlife. Michelangelo used this belief and took inspiration from the ideal of “God created man in his own image” to construct the narrative in the finger of God and Adam touching. The background of this image is bare as to draw the viewers' attention to the image in the forefront representing the creation of man. Michelangelo captured the disparity between the spiritual ideals and physical matter surrounding man and God.  

Another depiction of religion and spirituality in art is through God(s) or deities. An example of this is Titian’s Danae and the Shower of Gold.  

Danae and the Shower of Gold, Titian, 1554, oil on canvas 

Titian created many variations of this artwork based upon Danae who was a mythical princess. This artwork tells the story of how Danae was imprisoned and seduced by Zeus. Danae sits on a bed naked representing youthful beauty and is sat next to an old woman who is clothed and reaching out to collect the coins raining from the sky. Danae was thought of as a figure of corruption during the Renaissance era. These artists accomplished the need for spirituality to be reflected in art through values of life that people want to live.  

Through the continuing development of art, new structural ideals came into mind. Artists began to use orthogonals or parallel lines, the horizon line, and a vanishing point to create what we refer to as linear perspective. This gave the viewer the sense of the painting appearing farther away which added to the complexity of the art itself. An example of this being used in a popular artwork is Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. (Ch 13.1.1 pp.4) “Leonardo arranged disciples in four groups of three, two on each side, pyramidal form of Jesus.”  

In the early 1500’s a religious reform movement referred to as the protestant reformation took place. A new branch of Christianity emerged known as protestant. These beliefs differed from Roman Catholics in that religious figures should not be idolized in art. Paintings being displayed in churches was no longer allowed. Artists began to focus on painting portraits and illustrating books. As the transition from Church based commissions to protestant art continued, artists began to realize how art gave viewers a chance to reflect and bring intellectual nourishment into their lives without religion.  

There were many cultures that had common values of respect and peace. Culture represents the people's various abilities of spirit and body. Traditional African beliefs are rooted in the belief in spirits and ancestors or deities. Different cultures use Gods/Goddesses to represent elements of natural world and spiritual realm. Buddhist art that originated in India emphasizes spiritual ideals rather than physical attributes. Buddhism spread through southeast Asia, China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, Europe, Australia, and America. Cultural beliefs were prosperous in wisdom and compassion. It was believed that bringing together humans, animals, and spirits into an artwork resembled the balance of life.   

Towards the late 1500’s a new style of art arose that emphasized complexity and proficiency over naturalism. This period is known as mannerism. Artists in this time used unusual scale, vibrant color, and distortion of the figure to convey the emphasis of their cleverness in skill. Some prominent artists of this time are Diego Velazquez, Francisco de Zurbaran, and Bartolome Esteban Murilo. 

Still Life with Lemons, Oranges, and a Rose, Francisco de Zubaran, 1633, oil on canvas 

Zuburan’s artwork Still Life with Lemons, Oranges, and a Rose had a significant meaning to spanish Catholics. The plate of lemons, basket of oranges, and rose sat on a plate with a cup signify the holy trinity. The artist painted the objects atop a table that is sat in front of a dark background. The viewers' attention is drawn to the images so as to understand the hidden message.  

Rokeby Venus, Diego Velazquez, 1647, oil on canvas 

This artwork depicts Venus the goddess of Love laying on a bed looking at her reflection in a mirror held by her son cupid. The artist blurred the reflection in a way to comment on the ideals of beauty that society holds. Parts of the painting seem to be loosely finished to draw attention to the detail of Venus.  

The Young Beggar, Bartolome Esteban Murilo, 1650, oil on canvas 

Drawing away from the traditional depiction of religion in art, Murilo’s artwork depicts a young child who is a victim of poverty and lives on the streets. This was the reality of 17th century Spain. The depiction of these characters was popular in Spanish literature. The boy is said to be picking at lice on his clothes and body. This subject of “delousing” was popular in genre scenes as it represented purity and the cleansing of sin. The artist sets the tone with the use of light and shadow around the boy. The reflection of the light through the window through the room speaks to Murilo’s sophisticated style. 

The depiction of religion in art continues to change through history. Moving into the post-modern era, spirituality is removed from the foundation of traditional religion. Different elements of belief systems are deconstructed by artists and rearranged into stylized fragments of what art should be. At this time artists refused to recognize the authority of a single style and institution. This led to the development of individualism, experimentation, and irrationality. Many different movements emerged through this time. Fauvism, cubism, futurism, dadaism, and surrealism all make up modern art. A common theme of these styles of artworks is progressive transformation. One way that artists communicated this is with items known as ready mades, or objects that were preassembled, which became popular subjects of art. An example is Marcel Duchamp’s Bottle Rack. 

Bottle Rack, Marcel Duchamp, 1914, metal rack 

The introduction of readymade’s into art challenged previous definitions of what constitutes art as art. Duchamp found this bottle rack at a store and deemed it art as he photographed it and displayed it. This brought about the question of who gives the artist's work meaning? Is it the artist or the viewer? These ideas built up into what we now refer to as post modernism. Post modernism focuses on self-referentiality and eclecticism. Artists Grant Wood, Alexander Calder, and Dorothea Lange represent this era of art well through references to more secular themes. The term secular is defined in reference to a time before the temple. This style of art may include action paintings that use abstraction to guide viewers gaze across the canvas or color field paintings that can be used to portray emotion in simplistic terms. Artists of this time valued line, color, shape, and texture over subject content. These artworks were meant to be deconstructed and viewed as a whole rather than interpreted as one. 

The Birthplace of Herbert Hoover, Grant Wood, 1931, oil on canvas 

This artwork was commissioned for President Hoover as a representation of his origins. The artist uses the repetition of patterns and forms in the land and trees to draw attention to the harmony of country life. Landscapes and self-portraits were common themes in artwork at this time.  

A Universe, Alexander Calder, 1934, painted iron pipe 

Another variation of post-modernist art was abstraction. This artwork represents the artist's abstract vision of the cosmos and even uses a motor to move the spheres in a circular motion around the center. Artworks like this were considered to be oblivious to organized religion. The progressiveness of the post-modern era speaks to the ongoing change in today's society through the 21st century. 

Destitute Pea Pickers, California, Dorothea Lange, 1936, 1 negative 

The artworks created by Dorothea at this time were in reference to the ongoing Great Depression. This artwork depicts a mother and her children dressed in raggedy clothes in what seems to be some outside shelter. This was a reference to the migrant workers who were uneducated and therefore worked for poor wages under harsh conditions. These artworks hold little physical reference to religion but give room for viewers to construct their own meanings from it. The definition of art today is loosely defined as the creation of inspiration and emotion in viewers. The ways of achieving this may vary but the purpose remains the same throughout all of art history.  

[ithisatanytime]

BLUE CRUSH ANGEL

  martin luther was to the catholics what jesus was to the so called jews, its the same story, exactly the same played out again, and all the good christians became protestant thats why if any christianity gets any kind of mainstream play its catholicism, because its a captured church. satan captured  israel, he subverted it with his own flesh and blood, christ came and pointed out their lies and hypocrasy, martin luther did the same to the catholic church, and he wrote a treatise titled on the jews and their lies, a new reform is needed because Protestantism was captured by the jews in the early nineteen hundreds, but its had less time to ferment than their hold of the catholic church, if you have the time, just google any pope who was pope since there was photography and study pictures of their faces, these “italians” arent good men, they are cartoon caricatures of demons. 

 the appeal of catholicism is in its tradition and dogma, because these things are appealing to the simple minded, the pageantry and the pomp. that is exactly what the synagogue of satan was doing in the time of jesus, beguiling men with complex rules and lavish rituals of marriage and so on. they were impressive to mens sight. jesus was not impressive to look at, people take this to mean he was ugly i dont think thats whats meant and i believe he looked more or less exactly how hes been portrayed throughout most of history. whats meant by that is he wasnt strolling around in a purlple dress with a three foot tall mitre hat, but was dressed modestly, the truth doesnt need all that, and the people followed him on the power of the truth alone. but it is appealing to the hearts of men, Protestantism is basically any denomination thats not catholic or greek orthodox, so its an umbrella term that unfortunately includes literally homosexual pastors, butch lesbians teaching the rules of modern politeness based on select quotes, theres nothing edifying in that it is a path to the destruction of souls, but again its an umbrella term. and thats good! because the devil loves rigid social hierarchies because they are easiest to corrupt, he just needs to get his kids in the top slots and bingo you can change the religion however you see fit because you have authority. christ said let NO MAN be called teacher, none, that they were to be servants to each other equal under god, and bishops and ministers this just mean servant, so imagine the same scenario but in the united states we started calling our presidents servant, so it would be servant joe biden, thats what the catholic church has done with their royal servants who have thrones in private cities, they are kings calling themselves servants. god wanted us equal under him because like i said its hard to corrupt a decentralized church without a rigid power structure, and when you think about it thats how all the best criminal organizations are run because the police function how the devil does and they infiltrate with informants and flip people trying to get to the top guy, its as much practical advice as it is spiritual, and when you understand the world well enough there is little if any distinction between the two. another way to think of it is like a terrorist organization or a freedom fighting group whatever, the corrupt government wants a top down hierarchy so they can work their way up the chain and get the boss or better yet BECOME the boss thereby eradicating the group or making it wholly ineffective, what if the “group” was comprised of loosely associated lone wolves who shared little more than a common goal? well in that case they are fucked. so while i dislike some members of the protestant church there right now is no better alternative, its best to just read the bible yourself, understand it, and practice it while being loosely associated with other believers. the instant you tried to form an organized church that preached the true gospel the enemy would attempt to subvert it.

[gingermcl]

Resurrection means "the rising again of Christ after his death and burial," directly from resurrectionem "a rising again from the dead," from Latin resurgere "rise again, appear again: lift oneself, be restored” (see resurgent).

Resurgent means “rises again, revivification of animals," also from Latin resurgere (see surge).

Surge means "fountain, stream," of uncertain origin, probably from Latin surgere. This etymology akes me think about (watt-er) water being conscious and potentially “god” I also think of a power surge and it’s our eternal life force or soul that’s the power source.

Reincarnation is the same soul being put into a new body. Resurrection is where the original body is returned to a living state after death. You are in the same body as the same person. Reincarnation assumes that the body is just a container for the soul or the “real” you. Resurrection assumes that the body AND soul together make up one being - together they are ‘the real you’. Which I find interesting. Like demigods.. part demiurge or technology and part God or soul essence. We could reincarnate into a very similar looking body every time. We may have similar features and physical structure. We could literally look the exact same. The etymology doesn’t say anything about the body.

Reincarnation means "embodiment of God in the person of Christ," from Latin incarnationem "act of being made flesh" from in- "in" + caro "flesh" To me reincarnation and resurrection sound as if they mean basically the same thing when looking at the etymology.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun,
in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.”
-Thomas Paine

The message of Christ is what matters. It is ancient higher wisdom we all once possessed before we were devolved. If you live by the message of Christ you can get out of this prism or prison but you must actually read the whole message yourself and follow it. I’m not talking about going to a church and having someone else teach you lies. Biblical loyalty without literacy of the text is rampant in Christianity. Following someone else instead of finding out what’s going on for yourself isn’t wise when talking about the immortal soul.

The resurrection is actually talking about the annual procession of the Sun. It stands still for three days each year. Jesus Christ is the Sun of God. The Gospel of Matthew is regarded as the primary Solar Gospel for it tells the sun’s annual story and is most complete. The Christ as in frequency of truth and love is inside you. In the dna.

We are definitely reincarnated. I have a few memories and experiences with the dead. if you follow the light and end up meeting the “source” (that lovebombs you to the point you cannot think straight) you will give over your consent easily & end up in another human incarnation. In order to leave this realm a soul must know and exercise its sovereign authority. You avoid the light and go into the void. Your inner light will come out from there. The way out is within. Blindly following others will keep you cycling in the false gods reincarnation trap. Your power is put in another cell and surged again. I choose to follow the voice inside myself that was given to me by the creator. I am certain the light tunnel is NOT the way and I’m hoping to try something new this time. Even if we are tied to the body, earth may not be the only realm we could live in.