#Rejection of Replacement Theology

[mt1820today]

Dr. Michael Vlach: Has The Church Replaced Israel? Part 5

In the fifth and last lecture, in which Dr. Michael Vlach, Associate Professor of Theology at the Master’s Seminary in Sun Valley/California/USA, deals with the unbiblical “Replacement Theology” (also known as Substitution Theology or Disinheritance Theology), he first deals with the role of the assembly (= congregation/church) in the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Vlach then explains why it is so…

[soup-mother]

I personally am not hugely keen on the "the devil in WKTD is just another side of god" sorta theory because it's ultimately taking "religion and god are used to deny you who you are" and replacing it with "you can be queer and still religious, you just see the other side of god that other people don't :)" which i find a bit insulting to be entirely honest. like them accepting themselves being represented as "going over to the devil but as a freeing thing" works way better as a rejection of the religion telling them to reject who they are (see Satanism as a rejection of Christianity and not just a comparable religion) than it does as like.....god being a dualistic being that gay people are still allowed to worship. idk it's not like it's a massively common theory it just comes across as very focused on reminding you that you don't have to stop being religious in the way that christians love doing.

idk just like.....the game is not so subtly themed around essentially conversion therapy (or at least the attitudes that lead to it) and a focus on in universe theology is a bit like telling someone who suffered through conversion therapy that it's ok and they can still love god and yadda yadda instead of just going "wow that sucks im sorry u went through that"

[fullmetal-scar-simping]

Love the symbolism of hands in fma 03:

they are the vectors by which alchemy is activated; the tension between philosophies, especially that of theologies and the sciences (scientism as its own dogma, theology as oppressor and a life raft, more personal, cultural) -> that clap-alchemy is performed with a momentary meeting of the palms, akin to a prayer; a prayer one can only make after slandering the cycle of life into death, performing metaphysical horrors;

the flesh contrasted to the mechanical, ability and disability, access to prosthetics versus those who have not -> class hierarchies; one who builds hands and arms and feet and legs, her own skilled hands she offers to those who cannot have a home with her or her family, they keep her far beyond arm's length but need her to keep their own hands working, seeking, fighting;

in the background, the tendrils of industrialism and the people trampled to make way for "progress"; on the other side, the inky hands beyond a gate, it's infinite eyes impassionate as it trades in flesh and souls, wrapping around any who knock at its door;

the hand, balled into a fist, held high as the fortitude to press on when drowning in the quagmire of an unrelenting world and systems of oppression; the capacity for fascism and resistance, annihilation vs survival and liberation;

the wounds we inflict with our own two hands against those we share bonds with, even when so much was sacrificed to hold onto another; love is not enough to avoid harm, it can even cause it;

the loss of sensation, fully or partially, what being a body means for one's own humanity; how much of a physical self makes you human?; if you're feared for losing even one limb and replacing it with a functional (but sensorily deprived) mechanical one, what does it mean for the soul sealed into a wholly metal form, who can't feel what he touches? who wonders if he was ever soft -> who swears he feels the warmth in his brother's fresh corpse, stroking his face, leather hand without nerves;

the one who uses alchemy through a singular arm, a defiance against his own religious dictates and cultural ties, born out of raw necessity vs the one who does not pray to anyone but clasps his hands in prayer in order to survive, after sinning within his own scientific principles and rupturing what remained familial of his family; the former had his family violently slaughtered, the other attempting to reform what withered away, with his own blood and losing far more in return -> the bizarre hand the demolishes the other's unique hand, a palm placed atop their head, defeated; an offering for momentary peace to pray, the rejection of prayer (in that moment the young one had his ability to perform the one prayer he cares to do torn away);

[whencyclopedia]

Roger Williams

Roger Williams (l. 1603-1683 CE) was a Puritan separatist minister best known for his conflict with both the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1633-1635 CE, resulting in his banishment and founding of the colony of Providence, Rhode Island. Williams believed that the clergy of both Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay were corrupt in continuing to adhere to the concept of one's deeds as an important aspect of spiritual salvation rather than acknowledging the biblical precept that only God's grace grants salvation (Romans 8:32, Ephesians 2:8). Further, he claimed, these churches were still aligned with the basic policies of the Anglican Church they had supposedly rejected.

Williams is also well-known as an advocate for the separation of church and state (claiming that politics poisoned religious practice and belief), complete religious freedom, the abolition of slavery in the colonies of North America, and respect for Native Americans. One of his criticisms of the colonies of New England was that they felt free to take land from the Native Americans without payment. When he founded Providence, he paid the Narragansett tribe a fair price for the land.

Providence became the first successful liberal colony in New England which was not informed by Puritan ideals and theology. Anyone of any religion or ethnicity was welcome to settle there as long as they recognized the fundamental human right of what Williams called the "liberty of conscience" – the freedom to express one's self - especially in religious matters, without fear of persecution or reprisal. Providence was scorned by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, especially, as populated by riffraff, lunatics, and heretics but became one of the fastest-growing settlements in the region under Williams' vision and guidance. In the modern day, parks, schools, and memorials around Rhode Island are named in his honor.

Early Life & Migration

Roger Williams was born, probably in London, England, in 1603 CE, the son of a merchant, James Williams, and wife Alice. Records of his early life were lost in the Great Fire of London in 1666 CE. As a young man, he was educated first at Charterhouse School and then Cambridge University's Pembroke College where he mastered a number of languages including Dutch, French, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. He was intensely interested in religious matters from a young age and studied to become an Anglican cleric. At Cambridge, however, he was drawn to Puritan theology and practice which would later set him at odds with the Anglican Church.

The Anglican Church, although founded in opposition to Catholicism, still retained a number of Catholic aspects in its organization, worship service, and beliefs. The Puritans were Anglicans who objected to any Catholic influences or observances in the Church and wished to 'purify' it, bringing it in line with the simple practices and beliefs of the first Christian community as depicted in the biblical Book of Acts. The more radical Puritans were known as separatists – those who felt the Anglican Church was wholly corrupted by Catholic influences and separated themselves from it completely – and, in time, Williams aligned himself with this theology and belief.

During his years at Cambridge, Williams was apprenticed to the famous jurist Sir Edward Coke (l. 1552-1634 CE), an independent and courageous thinker whose insistence on the concept of equality before the law brought him into conflict with the monarchy. Coke's unwavering stand for justice, as well as his practice of regularly speaking out against policies or even laws he considered unjust or inequitable, significantly influenced Williams' outlook and later actions.

The Anglican Church had replaced the pope with the English monarch as its head and so any criticism of the Church was considered treason against the crown. Throughout the reign of James I of England (1603-1625 CE), Puritans who voiced dissent were persecuted, fined, and jailed, some even executed, and under Charles I of England (r. 1625-1649 CE), these persecutions continued. Recognizing that England was no longer safe for an outspoken Puritan separatist, Williams left with his wife Mary in 1630 CE.

Continue reading...

[entanglingbriars]

I know Christianity has traditionally been supercessionist, i.e. the idea is that Jesus brought a new covenant that fully replaces the old covenant God made with the Jewish people and makes that one obsolete. But I don't see how that makes any sense. Aren't God's covenant with the Jews and Jesus' New Covenant doing fundamentally different things? Even Christian sources don't seem to think Jews ever believed the law of Moses saved them from Hell or original sin. So how can one replace the other?

I've wrestled with this for a few hours; there are a lot of ways to approach the question and I'm going to list a few. They should be seem as complementary rather than opposed.

In both Christians' and Jews' traditional understandings of God's covenant with Israel, getting a Messiah is a key component of that covenant. And the synoptic Gospels and Paul are very clear that Jesus is that Messiah. In rejecting Jesus, the Jews rejected their covenant with God. The covenant with Christians didn't necessarily supersede God's covenant with Israel, but in practice it did.

In the traditional reading of Romans (challenged by, among others, Paula Fredericksen), God has grafted gentiles onto the existing covenant with Israel. So it's less that the covenant with Israel has been replaced than that it's been expanded and the Jews have failed to realize this.

Atonement for sins via animal sacrifice is a key component of God's covenant with Israel. In that respect the covenant is about sin and redemption from sin. It also clearly can't apply anymore since the Temple has been destroyed. The destruction of the Temple--a punishment for Jews' rejection of Jesus--ended the possibility of the old covenant being able to redeem people from sin, leaving Jesus as the only option. (Jews have a very different approach to the nature of atonement for sin in the absence of the Temple.)

Supercessionism is overwhelmingly supported by theological tradition and history. If you aren't doing sola scriptura (and in practice, no one is), you can't really reject it on the grounds that a strict reading of the Scriptures doesn't support it unless you want to give serious ground to the antitrinitarians (among others).

While the two covenants confer different responsibilities and obligations on their parties, both firmly establish one group of people as God's Chosen people. Historically neither Christians nor Jews have really thought God could have two different Chosen peoples; it'd be like having two favorite sons: one's gotta be better. (Many modern Jewish theologies of election have moved away from this notion. Choseness to many Jews is not a matter of exclusion or favoritism, but this is not historically how Jews have viewed our election.)

Dual covenant theology is incoherent. By this I don't mean that the notion of two covenants with God is necessarily incoherent, but rather that the specific phenomenon of "dual covenant theology" is incoherent. As you correctly noted, God's covenant with Israel isn't salvation-centric, and dual covenant theology requires that salvation play as central a role in Israel's covenant as it does in Jesus'.

[theexodvs]

Why is your pinned so long, and consists of questions nobody actually asked you except yourself?

"When and why did you reject the men’s rights movement?/Are you a feminist?/Do you promote feminist talking points because you think it will land you in a romantic or sexual relationship?"

Asked by various MRAs because they expect me to be a white knight. Check mid-2019 to mid-2022 for posts where I have been asked this.

"Suicide-baiting is bad, m'kay?"

Brought up by various people in response to a poorly-thought out post I wrote in late 2017. I removed it around mid-2019, but kept getting flack for it.

"Do you really think autistic people are perpetual children or think Autism Speaks is a reputable organization?"

Controversy from posts here and here.

"Do you believe in replacement theology/supersessionism?"

Asked mainly around 2019 and 2020.

"Why did you think Hominishostilis’s girlfriend was fake/he paid her to take pictures?/Are you jealous of Hom because he’s married and you aren’t?"

I expressed skepticism over another user's engagement, and was later proven wrong, a scandal lasting most of 2019.

"Do you live with your mom?"

Brought up when I was still in college.

"Why is a doctrine that teaches there are some people who are hellbound a beautiful, wonderful thing?"

Brought up particularly more recently, but has been a perennial source of controversy since late 2018.

"I’ve found your account on a different website/know your actual name!"

I have been stalked by two men in the past few years with one of them (possibly) baiting me with an ask in the past few weeks with an alternate account.

[feedingtheflockministry]

Christians that Slander Other Christians

Slanderous speech in the Christian faith has become increasingly popular due to social media platforms. Prior to social media we had select church pastors that participated in slandering other pastors or churches, but this was not the standard for most pastors or churches out there.

Many Christians prior to social media read their bibles, and were raised to show respect to those around them, especially in the faith. However, today we have a generation of preachers, as well as other believers, that choose the path of slandering others in order to either produce new content for those that follow them or attend their church week after week, or to simply look like they are righteous themselves by exposing what they deem heresy or false teachings.

None of this should be taking place among the disciples of Christ. None of it! Christianity is perhaps the most divided religion in our world today. It’s divided into various denominations, theologies, and practices. When the world takes one look at Christianity they do not see a religion of peace, love, mercy, grace, understanding, compassion, and kindness but rather a group of people that not only attack their way of life, but also attack one another as well. People calling Jesus their Lord and their God, but acting worse than those in the world in terms of treatment towards others in the faith.

Christian’s publicly attacking other Christians openly before the world is absolutely not biblical behavior nor a righteous standard.

Stop and consider this for a moment. If any owner of a business hired several people to work at it, and the owner left for a little while only to come back and see several of their employees standing around criticizing the ones that are working, what would happen to those that were standing around criticizing? They would be fired immediately and replaced with other workers. The Church / Body of Christ is The Lord’s business. For He uses it to bring about more increase for the Kingdom of Heaven, and it is not anyones place to criticize or insult His workers in His business.

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23. He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

What is the will of the Heavenly Father? It is for us to look to Jesus and believe in Him. To learn from Him, and to listen and obey Him. For the Heavenly Father spoke to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration this, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” What did Jesus say for us to do? He said, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” There is no slander in love. Slander is not a fruit of The Spirit, but rather the fruit of the flesh.

James, the younger brother of Jesus, wrote this himself, “Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?”

Paul the apostle also wrote this, “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious (relating or inclined to dissension) man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.”

Slander leads to arguments, arguments lead to divisions. These divisions lead to more slander and arguments, and even more divisions. It is a vicious cycle that we as believers must stop participating in. It is not profitable for the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather causes a deficit in it because people leave the faith or never come to Christ because of it.

Lastly consider the warning that Jesus gave to us through His apostles, “If anyone causes one of these little ones (those who believe in me) to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” Do not be the reason someone stumbles in their faith. Do not put yourself in the way of His judgement.

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable (if anything is excellent or praiseworthy) think about such things.

[felikatze]

Plusquam Chapter 7 director's commentary because i adore being a blabbermouth

hi hi hello. i am going to talk about my fic and nobody can stop me but i don't want to turn the ao3 author's notes into their own 30k novel so yelling on tumblr it is!!

if you are interested in SOME of the machenations of my enigmatic mind, feel free to read. If not. Well i don't care really it's your life. I'm writing this for MY enjoyment.

First of!! I dunno if I talked about them before!! (I have the memory of a goldfish). The silly codenames!!

As I may or may not have mentioned before, the inspiration for this came from the Project Thabes mod for Awakening. In the ferox duel, the mod replaces the generics with inigo, severa, owain, and gerome. The awakening trio get their fates names (a coward's move, but one i understand), but gerome is named michalis, which i just enjoy soooo much???

so when i initially planned out for all the future kids to band together with lucina, i decided they all had to have codenames! otherwise there's really no point in lucina having one....

merric for laurent was the biggest no brainer of all of them, with caeda for severa being a close second. feel free to interpret why. gerome was obviously taken from the thabes mod, and the rest were... a challenge... to come up with!

owain actually gave me a lot of trouble. what WOULD he name himself? i've not finished shadow dragon myself (I only played the prologue so far... haha...), and most i know of the cast comes from mitosis. and scarf's new mystery lunatic reverse run on youtube. and it was that run that reminded me. that kris's confect is an item in the game. meaning that awakening era people know kris exists. except wasn't kris' deal that they like. did not want to be noted down in history.

hence kris being a "heavily debated historical subject". which of COURSE owain would name himself after an unsung but vitally important hero of the shadows.

others i may discuss as they come up? eh, we'll see. not every future kid is gonna be important (god knows that's way too many characters for me to handle), but they will be There. main focus of course being the fp3 squad, with the addition of two others. it is very obvious who it will be, i think.

next up, pairings!

most pairings werent set, outside the ones that are my obvious favorites (panne/lonqu, henlivia, chrobin (duh)). others were up in the air and just happened as i wrote. as i thought about gerome in this, and chatted about the subject with friends, frederick/cherche came to be for this fic! (and for the shrek au, oddly enough. it may have just been on my mind, and i thought chrom missing freddie's wedding was funny.)

it suited my purposes best if gerome had a stronger emotional tie to the blueberry siblings, and a knightly duty to protect them served just that. hence the dialogue of lucina being his liege. he's so utterly disinterested in getting to know the people of the past that i needed that extra bit to keep him coherent. he won't get close to anyone, but he'll do anything to support lucina's aims as though they were his own.

which brings me to the next subject, lucina's PoV! This is the first perspective switch in all of plusquam (not just because I couldn't meet my 4k benchmark with morgan alone this time). Since Morgan and Lucina act separately and won't encounter often, I needed the extra time to establish her character here. To me, there's a clear dissonance between how Morgan views her and how Lucina is. Both of them are unreliable narrators to varying degrees, yet how they differ is where the meat is.

Like, for example, Morgan completely rejecting that Lucina is Robin's child as well, and not just Chrom's, because Grima told them Lucina was different. As compared to the actual Lucina still deeply affected by Robin, and even engaging with grimleal theology on an even field because of him and the other plegian influences in her life.

there's also the matter of her narration style. I waffled back and forth on whether to give her second person narration as well, but ultimately decided on third person limited, with a catch - she exclusively refers to everyone, including herself, by their codenames.

in both their perspectives, i want to create separation between their original names and who they act as. With morgan, this succeeds because the viewpoint has no need to mention their name whatsoever, and with lucina, it succeeds because she's the one creating that distance in her own mind. it's fun to play with!

ah, siblings. so different, yet so similar.

as for the pronouns situation on lucina's pov. well. schrödinger's transgender.

minor thing. i hate adapting canon scenes close to script, hence me just freestyling when lucina and co meet chrom and squad. there's also just... no future portal risen roaming about, which would've made the point moot anyway. that's a very interesting consequence to play with.

having an endless army of generic undead is lame. having to draw on the actual dead of the immediate area - now we're getting spicy!

despite everything, i have grown attached to the risen wyvern and its chittering ways, but it sadly has to go. there's a reason morgan never named it. farewell my sweet prince. aurgh. i mean. this thing has been with morgan through the entire past so far. and it just fell apart more and more over time. crashing into a wall and breaking its neck, having half its throat torn out - poor thing. good thing it can't feel pain anymore.

that is, i think, all i wanted to blabber about? if you're a reader of plusquam, hi, i love you, i hope you have a great day, you may summon me for one turn of battle without expending an action and i will appear as a shimmering blue specter to protect you from harm.

that's all!! see you next time!! as usual, if anyone has questions of their own, or wants to yell at me for hurting their feelings, shoot me an ask, a comment, or anything at all! see ya!! ily!!

[nijjhar]

Luke 5v33-39:- In Christ Jesus, you do not need Old Testament as the New... Luke 5v33-39:- In Christ Jesus, you do not need the Old Testament as the New Testament is "Oral Torah", the Taproot of the Scriptures - Marcion. https://youtu.be/AgOD4VClThQ Holy Gospel of our SUPERNATURAL FATHER of our supernatural “souls” Elohim, Allah, ParBrahm, etc., delivered by the first Anointed Christ, which in my native language Punjabi, we call Satguru Jesus of the highest living God Elohim, Allah, Parbrahm, etc. that dwells within His most beautiful living Temple of God created by the greatest artist demiurge Potter, the lord of the visible Nature Yahweh, Brahma, Khudah, etc. and it is called Harmandir or “Emmanuel” if you are not “greedy” according to Saint Luke 5,33-39. The scribes and Pharisees, the moral teachers disciplining the once-born boys of age said to Jesus, "The disciples of John the Baptist fast often and offer prayers, and the disciples of the Pharisees do the same; but yours eat and drink." Jesus answered them, "Can you make the wedding guests in Agape fast of the living Bread, His Word while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, and when the bridegroom, the Christ is taken away from them by the Antichrist Pope and his hireling Dog-Collared stooges, then they will fast in those days. St. Thomas went to South India and His Labourers could think logically and they were addressed as “Christ” and not the Christians of the dead letters.  I am a Christ preaching the Gospel from my heart and not the corruptible Bible." And he also told them a Parable. "No one tears a piece from a new cloak “His Word” Above where your Ego is destroyed and “Eros” is replaced with Agape in which you hate none to patch an old one, Not compatible, in which your “Ego” in the flesh is boosted by the Rabbis. Otherwise, he will tear the new received through logical reasoning and the piece from it will not match the old cloak, Old Testament, the Scriptures. That is why Marcion rejected the Old Testament, the corruptible Scriptures from the New Testament understood through logical reasoning that Brews “Logo” = His Word = Face of God ONLY. Likewise, no one pours new wine Brewed through logical reasoning into old wineskins full of the corruptible dead letters of the Books and Newspapers written by psychic men. Otherwise, the New Wine will burst the skins because it is the Oral Torah, the Taproot of the Scriptures that lacks nothing but the Scriptures lack the Oral Torah = His Word = Light to enlighten your heart and it will be spilled, and the skins will be ruined because they are not compatible. Rather, New Wine must be poured into fresh wineskins as Jesus got it prepared at Cana by rinsing out the Old Wine of dead letters. (And) no one who has been drinking old wine as at the Universities and Colleges do study Scriptures, the dead corrupted letters for their degrees in theology desires New, for he says, 'The old received from teachers of the Law is good for Seminars and debates whilst the New Wine is received by His Grace ONLY.'" Get rid of the old wine of dead letters in which you have to remember where this thing is written and rather get the Fresh New Wine, "His Word" brewed through logical reasoning over your heart. The head is not bothered in the New. So, you do not need to remember that you are Lord of the Sabbath or the Moral Laws. Living Islam of Living Allah is of the “Al-Kitab” that gets written over your own heart through "Logical Reasoning" by the Grace of our Supernatural Father of our supernatural “Soul” Al-Ilah = Allah. No son of your tribal father, Qom, "Ilah" no son of Supernatural Father Allah = INSHALLAH ISLAM. Only “fools” will believe in me and not in Allah. http://www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/JattIslam.htm NANAK HOSI BHI SACH. ASK, SEEK AND KNOCK. REAL SHARIAH-FREE ISLAM OF ALLAH - NOOR IN HONOUR OF ROYAL SHAH SHAMS TABRIZI. HUKUM RAZIAN CHALNA; NANAK LIKHYA NAAL. Sants of the Fourth Panth = Millatt are “Dass”. They are the Apostles residents of the Akal Takht but today, terrorists with Guns and swords are occupying it. Remember that Akal Takht is the Holiest of the Holy Takht for the spiritual rule over the hearts of the people. Next to the Apostles are the Khalsas of the Third Panth and are of the “Singh” surnames, Gotras. And Christ Nanak was the Second Coming of Satguru Jesus, the “Christ = Satguru” and not a Brahmin “Guru” of the world – BRAHMIN HAE “GURU” JAGATT DAA; BHAGTAN KAA NAHI. The greedy Khatris have messed up the devotees so much that they did not know the First and the Second Panths. http://www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/tenlights.htm My ebook by Kindle. ASIN: B01AVLC9WO www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/JAntisem.htm www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/JOHN 8V44.htm Any helper to finish my Books:- ONE GOD ONE FAITH:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/bookfin.pdf and in Punjabi KAKHH OHLAE LAKHH:-  www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/pdbook.pdf EXPOSES the CROOK KHATRIS:- Punjab Siyan. John's baptism:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/johnsig.pdf Trinity:- www.gnosticgospel.co.uk/trinity.pdf

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (February 21)

Saint Robert Southwell, SJ (c. 1561 – 21 February 1595), an English Roman Catholic Jesuit priest, is one of the 40 martyrs of England & Wales murdered during the English anti-Catholic Reformation.

Robert was born in Norfolk, the youngest of eight children in a well-to-do family with Catholic sympathies in the midst of the anti-Catholic sentiment started by the Anglican reformation.

In 1576, he was sent to France to study with the Jesuits at the English college at Douai.

After completing his education, he requested to join the Society of Jesus but was rejected because he was too young.

Moreover, the Jesuit seminary was temporarily closed because of the growing confrontations between French and Spanish forces.

But in a show of his conviction, he set off on foot to Rome to make his case for becoming a Jesuit in 1578.

After being admitted to the probation house of Sant' Andrea on 17 October 1578, and after the completion of the novitiate, Southwell began studies in philosophy and theology at the Jesuit College in Rome.

He was then ordained in 1584.

That same year, Queen Elizabeth I had passed an edict establishing the death penalty for any British Catholic priest or religious who joined a religious order abroad to remain in England longer than forty days.

Two years later, Southwell requested to be sent back to England as a clandestine Jesuit missionary with Henry Garnet.

Southwell preached and ministered successfully for six years, publishing Catholic catechism and writing spiritual poetry that would make him one of the most important Baroque English poets.

But the Queen's chief priest-hunter, Richard Topcliffe, pressured a young Catholic woman he had raped to betray Southwell.

Once captured, he was initially jailed in Topcliffe's personal prison and tortured 13 different times, trying to get him to name Catholic families involved in the clandestine Catholic mission.

Fr. Robert did not betray a single name.

Transferred to the infamous Tower of London, Southwell endured cold and solitude for two and a half years, reading the Bible, the works of St. Bernard, and praying the Breviary.

During that time, he also wrote the most important portion of his poetry.

In 1595, Southwell was finally put on trial accused of treason.

During the trial, he admitted being a Jesuit to minister to Catholics but strongly denied ever being involved in “designs or plots against the queen or kingdom."

After the predictable guilty verdict, he was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

On 21 February 1595, in Tyburn, the Jesuit was allowed to address the crowd about his mission as a Catholic priest.

He pronounced the words of Psalm 30 prayed in Complines: in manus tuas commendabo spiritum meum (Into your hands i commend my spirit) and made the sign of the cross.

After he was hanged and his severed head presented to the crowd, the traditional shout of “traitor” was replaced by utter silence.

Soon after his martyrdom, his body of poetry started to circulate in manuscripts among Catholics.

In 1595, his “St. Peter's Complaint” and other poems were printed.

By 1636, 14 editions had been printed and other collections of poems, including “Mary Magdalen's Funeral Tears” and "Maeoniae."

He was beatified by Pope Pius XI on 15 December 1929. He was canonized by Pope Paul VI on 25 October 1970, as one of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales.

Many critics believe that the poem that expresses the best of his dramatic message to his fellow persecuted Catholics in England is “Life is But Losse,” which he wrote in prison:

By force I live, in will I wish to dye;

In playnte I passe the length of lingring dayes;

Free would my soule from mortall body flye,

And tredd the track of death's desyred waies:

Life is but losse where death is deemed gaine,

And loathed pleasures breed displeasinge payne.

.....

Come, cruell death, why lingrest thou so longe?

What doth withould thy dynte from fatall stroke?

Nowe prest I am, alas! thou dost me wronge,

To lett me live, more anger to provoke:

Thy right is had when thou hast stopt my breathe,

Why shouldst thoue stay to worke my dooble deathe?

.....

Avaunt, O viper! I thy spite defye:

There is a God that overrules thy force,

Who can thy weapons to His will applie,

And shorten or prolonge our brittle course.

I on His mercy, not thy might, relye;

To Him I live, for Him I hope to die.

—

Full version

[rw7771]

Deism

Deism is a form of Monotheism in which it is believed that one God exists, but that this God does not intervene in the world, or interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. It posits a non-interventionist creator who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws.

Deism derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience, rather than relying on revelation in sacred scriptures (which deists see as interpretations made by other humans and not as an authoritative source) or on the testimony of others. This is in direct contrast to Fideism (the view that religious belief depends on faith or revelation, rather than reason). It can maybe best be described as a basic belief rather than as a religion in itself, and there are currently no established deistic religions.

Deists typically reject supernatural events (e.g. prophecy, miracles, the divinity of Jesus, the Christian concept of the Trinity), and they regard their faith as a natural religion as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They do not view God as an entity in human form; they believe that one cannot access God through any organized religion or set of rituals, sacraments or other practices; they do not believe that God has selected a chosen people (e.g. Jews or Christians) to be the recipients of any special revelation or gifts; and, given that they view God as having left his creation behind, prayer makes no sense to them, except perhaps to express their appreciation to God for his works.

History of Deism

The roots of Deism lie with Heraclitus and Plato, but it gained popularity with the natural theologists of 17th Century England and France, who rejected any special or supposedly supernatural revelation of God. Isaac Newton's discovery of universal gravitation explained the behavior both of objects here on earth and of objects in the heavens and promoted a world view in which the natural universe is controlled by laws of nature. This, in turn, suggested a theology in which God created the universe, set it in motion controlled by natural laws, and then retired from the scene.

The first use of the term "deism" in English dates back to the early 17th Century (earlier in France). Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583 - 1648) is generally considered the "father of English deism" and his book "De Veritate" (1624) the first major statement of deism. Deism flourished in England between 1690 and 1740, and then spread to France, notably via the work of Voltaire, to Germany and to America. Although not himself a deist, John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" (1690) marks a major turning point in the history of deism, and a theory of knowledge based on experience replaced the earlier one of innate ideas, culminating in Matthew Tindal's "Deist Bible" (1730).

During the 18th Century, Deism's converts included Voltaire, Michel de Montaigne (1533 - 1592), Rousseau and Maximilien Robespierre (1758 - 1794) in France, and several of the founding fathers of the United States of America. With the critical the writings of David Hume and Immanuel Kant though, Deism's influence started to wane as the 18th Century progressed.

Variants of Deism

Pandeism is the belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent to it - a composite of Deism and Pantheism. Pandeism holds that God was a conscious and sentient force or entity that designed and created the universe, which operates by mechanisms set forth as part of the creation. God thus became an unconscious and non-responsive being by becoming the universe.

Panendeism is a composite of Deism and Panentheism. It holds that the universe is part of God, but not all of God, and that it operates according to natural mechanisms without the need for the intervention of a traditional God, somewhat similar to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit.

Polydeism is the belief that multiple gods exist, but do not intervene with the universe - a composite of Deism and Polytheism.

[barbaramoorersm]

October 8, 2023

October 8, 2023

Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

 Isaiah 5: 1-7

The Prophet describes Israel as a vineyard cared for by God.

Psalm 80

The psalmist continues the theme of the Lord’s vineyard.

Philippians 4: 6-9

Paul invites this church not have anxiety and to live a life that is honorable and just.

Matthew 21: 33-43

Matthew shares a parable about a landowners’ vineyard which is leased to tenants.

The ancient prophet Isaiah, describes Israel as a beloved vineyard and shares the many ways in which God cared for it, but was disappointed in the yield it produced.  Isaiah was sharing what can be called an ancient parable and he hopes that his images change the hearts of the Israelites and draws them closer to God.  The psalmist is doing the same thing by applying the image of a vineyard to the people being transplanted from slavery in Egypt to freedom in their new land.   Paul seems to be following the same theme when he advises the Christians in Philippi to tend to their new community like a vineyard.  Such behavior will bring the “peace of God” to them.  Matthew continues the same message with another of Jesus’ parables.  He describes a vineyard cared for and leased out to tenants.  There is a beautiful unity among the readings.

When harvest time comes as was the custom, the owner sent servants to obtain his produce.  The parable goes on to relate the behavior of the tenants. They kill the servants and then                                                                                                                                       even the son of the owner.  They reflect great greed.  Those who are guilty are punished and the vineyard changes hands.

Because we are residents of New York State and live close to the Finger Lakes’ wineries this parable takes on an extra meaning.  We can picture what Jesus is describing as well as the damage the droughts, and excessive water can do to vineyards across the country.  There are many insights and questions we might ask.  Did the landowner in the Gospel story do his homework when he leased the vineyard?  Why would he send his son and heir after he knew about the tenants’ previous behavior? 

Some interpreters see in this parable the Jewish rejection of Christ and the death of the heir as the foretelling of the death of Jesus.  Since Matthew’s community was Jewish some may have seen it as a renunciation of Judaism and it being replaced by Christianity.  But Jesus remained a faithful Jew until the end.  The quote about the stone rejected becoming the corner stone also gives credence to a replacement theory called a “supersessionist” theology.”  A Theory that Christianity replaces Judaism.  But that theory has been rejected. 

The verses after this Gospel state that, “When The Chief Priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized he was speaking about them.”   Was Jesus just referring to the immediate rejection that he is experiencing.  The Gospel also says the threatened leaders looked for a way to arrest him but the crowds see him as a prophet.  He is being accepted by the average folks. The parable decries the use of violence and at the same time the patience of the owner hoping to bring the tenants to their senses. 

One can also conclude that the vineyards of our lives need tending and care.  And contrary to the today’s tenants we have a responsibility to God for the gifts we have received.  We are as Jesus also said, the branches and he is the true vine.  When we stay attached to the vine and are committed to the message of love and service that we can bare much fruit.

The parables of both the Old and New Testaments invite us to ask them many questions.  What was it like for ancient Israel to be called God’s vineyard and yet they produced “wild grapes”? What was it like for the vineyard owner in the New Testament to realize he made a mistake with the tenants and that he lost servants and his own son?  How did I react to the warning of Jesus that the vineyard might to taken from some and given to others?  What questions do you have about this Gospel parable?

[ramrodd]

'How to beat fascism': Author Naomi Klein on Steve Bannon, Joe Biden & C...

COMMENTARY:

The right wing mirror world is a result of the fallacy of Objectivism it shares with Marxism a false choice  between the moral and the material. If you are woke, the point of paradox between the moral and the material is your pucker factor: it is why you voted for Biden If you are not woke, your pucker factor determines how you think you think.

Ayn rand rejected the classic metaphysics of western philosophy of Mind and Matter and replaced it with her metaphysics of the Metaphysical and the Man Made Everybody in the Mirror Word of the Right Wing employ an epistemology based on this fallacy. It's a forced choice of Fascism and libertarian logic.

Here's the thing from a process theology perspective, when you create a synthesis of classic metaphics and Rands metaphysics, you create a superior metaphysics composed of 4 elements. This is the metaphysics you employed to vote for Biden and is characteristic of being woke, The metaphysical is a product of Mind and the Made is the syntesis of the Metaphysical and the Material, This is exactly how Hegel works and it was the Christian Free Will that preserved Ayn Rand's atheism that produced this superior 4 element metaphysics of Mind-Metaphysics-Material-Man Made. Free Will is the foundation of the scientific method and the connection between The Book of Job and the Cross" the sanctity of Free Will in the faithfulness of The One, in an N.T. Wright kind of way.

The way forward for both coalitions is to drop the 14th Amendment into the laps of the January 6 majority in the House and drag them by their collective balls into the national mobilization for Biden's Build Back Better $7 trillion capital budget. Ask yourself: how would you use $3 million to improve your community for the nest 100 years if you got a Community Development Action Grant from the Build back better capital budget in 18 month? The people in the right wing Mirror World are plenty smart: they just prefer to be led around by their genitals like an Elvis groupie as a political agenda.

The Metaphysics of Plato-Aristotle-Rand is the leading edge of the woke future.

[kammartinez]

Each time I return to Mexico I find myself marveling at how many elements of daily life there could, in some way, be described as Baroque: our sunsets, our cuisine, our pollution, our corruption. Century after century, the country has exhibited a great tendency towards exuberance, and a natural bent for the strange and the marvelous. There’s a constant play between veiling and unveiling (even in our newscasts, one senses indirect meaning in everything), as well as a fluidity of form, in which excess triumphs, every time, over restraint.

Three hundred years of colonial rule produced an intense syncretism of indigenous and European cultures, a bold new aesthetic accompanied by many new paradoxes, and these can be glimpsed today in both lighter and darker manifestations, some playful and others barbaric.

Mexican Baroque emerged from the conquest of the New World, from the long, fraught process of negotiation and subjugation that began to unfold once the Spaniards established their rule in 1521. The European monarchs wanted as much gold as their conquistadores could plunder, while their missionaries sought to convert the pagan savages to Catholicism. The Aztecs of course had their own gods, a monumental pantheon that included the fierce and formidable Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli, yet these ancient powers proved no match for colonial rapacity.

There was one pivotal overlap between the two religions, however, a fortuitous convergence which helped ease the transition from the Aztec cosmology to the Catholic faith. And this was the “theater of death” present in both religions. Accustomed to their own culture of human sacrifice, the Indians identified with the Crucifixion and with other violent chapters in the new theology, and were thus gradually lured by its passions and taste for the macabre. In artistic portrayals of certain scenes from the New Testament, the blood and the drama were laid on thick.

The Churrigueresque style brought over from Spain, a highly florid and heavily laden version of Rococo, found its most triumphant expression, one could argue, in Mexico. The church architects were Spanish, yet the artisans and laborers were Indigenous and mestizo, and they asserted their autonomy from the metropolis by adding local materials such as tezontle, a porous red volcanic stone, and local motifs, with quetzals and hummingbirds and faces with native features finding their way into the chiseled landscapes. In all their magnificence, the gilt altars and church facades also betrayed a horror of silence and empty space, every inch of wood, stucco, and stone teeming with detail, as if replicating the delirious splendor of the natural world beyond.

Despite the number of masterly creations that resulted, Mexican Baroque mostly emerged from a clash of cultures, from antagonism rather than harmony, and this is largely what grants it its dynamic force. Its art rejected straight lines and predictable paths, reveling in a liberated geometry that mirrored the new unstable and multicaste society that had risen from the embers. The monolithic sculptures of the Aztecs and earlier pre-Hispanic civilizations—signs of a certain stability—were replaced by a more fluid and volatile art, one which favored movement over form, agility over monumentality.

Like most art of the Baroque, it too thrived off a play of contrasts and opposites, and this was most poignantly articulated in the historical counterpoint between the Aztec emperor Moctezuma and the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés, the dialectic between victor and vanquished spilling over into one between old gods and new, the awe of the conquistadores upon discovering this marvel of a land versus the increasing disenchantment of its natives, their gods toppled, their beliefs exploited. To a large extent, the soul of modern Mexico was born from this collision.

***

One arena in present-day Mexico in which a conflict of archetypes can be witnessed literally is in the spectacle of lucha libre, or freestyle wrestling, another European import to which was added local color and verve. Different theories exist regarding its origins: some say an early variant was brought over in 1863 during the French intervention, or in 1910 by a Spanish boxing promoter; a more accepted notion is that the sport came to Mexico in the early twenties courtesy of two dueling Italian theatre troupes.

Everything about the performance favors emotion over form. The movements are exaggerated, as are the wrestlers themselves, massive hulks of men in tights who wear capes like those of superheroes and shiny carnivalesque masks that hide their faces. There’s a certain splendor to them, but once the match begins, that splendor is undercut by an atmosphere of buffoonery. At rest, the wrestlers appear regal and imposing. In motion, the elegance is quickly undermined by their comical leaps and bounds. It is as if they start off by embodying the first period of Baroque in Mexico, in the late seventeenth century, characterized by solemn church facades, rich and refined, and then they go on to embody its second period, from the mid-eighteenth century, which was more opulent and chaotic, an architecture of Solomonic columns that twist, spiral, and writhe.

The wrestlers’ masks often evoke their powers and persona: El Santo, Blue Demon, Fray Tormenta, Huracán Ramírez, Rey Mysterio. They are costumed heroes and villains engaged in a jocular battle between good and evil. The Baroque fondness for extremes is felt in every match, which is fought between a técnico—one who follows the rules and plays cleanly and gracefully—and a rudo: one who transgresses, breaking codes with relish. In this play of adversaries, there is no guarantee that good will win. In fact, the rudos are often expected to triumph, hinting at a cultural acceptance that righteousness, in Mexico at least, isn’t necessarily rewarded.

In a sense, the showdown between Moctezuma and Cortés could similarly be envisioned as a battle between a técnico and a rudo; the Aztec emperor, honest and honorable and deferential to his guests, played by the rules, while the conquistador lied and cheated and, thanks in part to his deviousness, succeeded in bringing down an entire civilization.

***

The wild gestures that fuel the lucha libre spectacle elicit a frantic emotional intensity. Audiences work themselves into a lather, subjecting the wrestlers to a loud repertoire of insults, mostly bawdy and vulgar, as if they were taking sides in some kind of moral contest rather than a sporting tournament.

In Baroque art movement tends to be centrifugal, a restlessness away from the center, as opposed to the classical impulse of restraint. Although the wrestlers lunge at one another, they are constantly being cast outward, either by their opponent’s thrust or by the elastic ring, their main instrument for propulsion. Performers often take flying leaps outside the ring and land in the audience. Similar to what Caravaggio did in his paintings, these “suicides,” as the moves are called, break down the boundary, and remove the safety barrier, between viewer and spectacle; one can smell the sweat, feel the flesh, hear the grunts, almost grasp the energy, of the wrestler as he comes crashing into us.

Even the geometry of the ring is defied, its quadrangle stretched and deformed again and again. The rapid shifting of planes—between floor and air, the ring and beyond—is forged by grand aerial maneuvers and gestures of torsion and contortion. Every effort is answered with a countereffort, every movement turned into its opposite, a great elasticity between up and down as each man tries to bring his opponent to the ground. In this endless curling and coiling, transcendence is, at least corporeally, denied. Something deeply Dionysian haunts the spectacle, chaotic and unpolished. And yet it is often marked by pathos—sometimes in the mere sight of a massive lump of a man unable to haul himself up or even more so when a wrestler is defeated and his mask removed. The moment his identity is revealed, his strength and his aura dissolve.

 ***

A more recent and dismaying phenomenon of Baroque excess and hyperbole, wherein the human body again becomes the site of transformation and yet the spectacle of bloodshed is real, not staged, is within the violence wrought by the warring drug cartels.

Since 2006, Mexico has been in the grip of a disastrous war on drugs, initiated by our then president Felipe Calderón. Over sixty thousand individuals have lost their lives as the cartels battle among themselves for territory while a weakened military and often corrupt police force try desperately to control them. Nearly every day the news offers reports of beheadings and dismemberment, of a violence and brutality so extreme that even the depiction of severed body parts in Goya’s Disasters of War seems restrained. It goes without saying that narco-violence is not an art, yet the graphic mise-en-scènes could similarly be read as allegories of great sociopolitical disintegration, and the headless bodies as metaphors for a country without any real leadership.

Mexicans are accustomed to severed body parts; they have been an element in our landscape since pre-Hispanic times. Skulls, in particular, feature prominently in every one of our civilizations, the hollow eye sockets and bared teeth a presence from ancient eras through to the modern. Yet they have become so detached from their cadavers that they seem to exist entirely on their own, devoid of humanity. And it is one thing to see images in stone at the Museum of Anthropology and quite another to witness heads with their hair and flesh still on them, faces one could have glimpsed on the metro yesterday. The ancient skulls formed part of a metaphysics, whereas the decapitated heads of today signal chaos and collapse.

In Uruapán, a city in my father’s northwestern state of Michoacán, masked men once stormed into a discotheque called Sol y Sombra (Sun and Shadow) and tossed five severed heads onto the dance floor. This incident, which took place over ten years ago, was one of the first outings of La Familia, a drug cartel composed of right-wing vigilantes who quickly established their bloody reign over the region. The photographic image of these decapitated heads, each with its trail of blood where it has rolled out from the black plastic bag, is hard to erase from memory. Their eyes are closed, their faces a shiny olive color; the gangrene of death has yet to set in. In their midst is a large scroll emblazoned with a warning for rival cartels, a handwritten message that ends with the words “Divine Justice.”

Other cartels, like Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel, and the Sinaloa Cartel, are similarly fond of leaving behind gruesome memento mori. Bodies, often headless, are dangled from bridges or left in segments by the side of the road. Here Baroque is taken to an extreme, deformed into excess and true monstrosity. The tremendous striving for effect, a desire to make the most startling impact on the senses, has mutated into an unabashed theatricality of the utmost violence.

There are, these days, few signs of redemption. In a regrettable twist of the Baroque, its original vitality has been contorted, redirected towards death rather than life. One finds similar aesthetic criteria, a similar dynamism and instinct for theatricality, yet the early religious impulses have morphed into their opposite. And for some the only religion left, it seems, is death itself.

Perhaps the most literal manifestation of contemporary Baroque—a true syncretism of Spanish Catholicism and pre-Hispanic beliefs—is to be found in the cult of Santa Muerte, or Holy Death, the patron saint of the Mexican underworld, who is a sanctified personification of death herself. Though her cult incorporates dozens of Catholic rituals, she remains vehemently unrecognized by the church.

The millions who worship La Santa Muerte tend to belong to the more marginal or endangered strata of society: criminals, transvestites, drug dealers, prostitutes, taxi drivers, police officers. They are individuals who live by violence or are threatened by it, those who exist in a perpetual twilight and, professionally, mostly by night. And they come to her for protection.

I first encountered La Santa Muerte at her main altar in Tepito, Mexico City’s shadowy sanctum of drugs and contraband. There she stood behind a glass pane, a tall skeleton in a long black wig, a jeweled crown, a sparkling gold dress, and a diaphanous cape. She was heavily adorned, an embodiment of Baroque’s dual pull towards death and sensuality, and I couldn’t help feeling like I was seeing a pre-Hispanic skull in Spanish robes. In one hand she held a globe of the world, in the other the scales of justice. Spread out at her feet was a semicircle of figurines, smaller versions of herself, and a flickering landscape of ephemeral offerings: candles, apples, flowers, incense, beer, bottles of tequila, lit cigarettes. I watched as the devotees queued up to press their hands against the pane and murmur their prayers, then quietly deposit a gift.

 ***

When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, Moctezuma, believing they were gods, had his emissaries bring Cortés tortillas smeared with human blood as an offering. The emperor himself was a sybaritic gourmet, presented with around three hundred dishes a day made from ingredients brought in from all over the country. Human sacrifice also formed part of the cuisine, and his priests would cook up the remains of sacrificial victims in squash flower soup. The most Baroque dish to emerge from the Conquest is mole poblano, a thick sauce like dark blood concocted from chocolate, almonds, spices, and three types of chili, originally put together by nuns in a convent in Puebla. In Mexico there’s a saying that the spicier a food—and the more it makes you cry—the tastier it is. True culinary enjoyment should be accompanied by a bit of agony, and so it is that to this day mole remains our most beloved dish, a reminder of the turbulent forces from which modern Mexico was born.

[kamreadsandrecs]

Each time I return to Mexico I find myself marveling at how many elements of daily life there could, in some way, be described as Baroque: our sunsets, our cuisine, our pollution, our corruption. Century after century, the country has exhibited a great tendency towards exuberance, and a natural bent for the strange and the marvelous. There’s a constant play between veiling and unveiling (even in our newscasts, one senses indirect meaning in everything), as well as a fluidity of form, in which excess triumphs, every time, over restraint.

Three hundred years of colonial rule produced an intense syncretism of indigenous and European cultures, a bold new aesthetic accompanied by many new paradoxes, and these can be glimpsed today in both lighter and darker manifestations, some playful and others barbaric.

Mexican Baroque emerged from the conquest of the New World, from the long, fraught process of negotiation and subjugation that began to unfold once the Spaniards established their rule in 1521. The European monarchs wanted as much gold as their conquistadores could plunder, while their missionaries sought to convert the pagan savages to Catholicism. The Aztecs of course had their own gods, a monumental pantheon that included the fierce and formidable Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli, yet these ancient powers proved no match for colonial rapacity.

There was one pivotal overlap between the two religions, however, a fortuitous convergence which helped ease the transition from the Aztec cosmology to the Catholic faith. And this was the “theater of death” present in both religions. Accustomed to their own culture of human sacrifice, the Indians identified with the Crucifixion and with other violent chapters in the new theology, and were thus gradually lured by its passions and taste for the macabre. In artistic portrayals of certain scenes from the New Testament, the blood and the drama were laid on thick.

The Churrigueresque style brought over from Spain, a highly florid and heavily laden version of Rococo, found its most triumphant expression, one could argue, in Mexico. The church architects were Spanish, yet the artisans and laborers were Indigenous and mestizo, and they asserted their autonomy from the metropolis by adding local materials such as tezontle, a porous red volcanic stone, and local motifs, with quetzals and hummingbirds and faces with native features finding their way into the chiseled landscapes. In all their magnificence, the gilt altars and church facades also betrayed a horror of silence and empty space, every inch of wood, stucco, and stone teeming with detail, as if replicating the delirious splendor of the natural world beyond.

Despite the number of masterly creations that resulted, Mexican Baroque mostly emerged from a clash of cultures, from antagonism rather than harmony, and this is largely what grants it its dynamic force. Its art rejected straight lines and predictable paths, reveling in a liberated geometry that mirrored the new unstable and multicaste society that had risen from the embers. The monolithic sculptures of the Aztecs and earlier pre-Hispanic civilizations—signs of a certain stability—were replaced by a more fluid and volatile art, one which favored movement over form, agility over monumentality.

Like most art of the Baroque, it too thrived off a play of contrasts and opposites, and this was most poignantly articulated in the historical counterpoint between the Aztec emperor Moctezuma and the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés, the dialectic between victor and vanquished spilling over into one between old gods and new, the awe of the conquistadores upon discovering this marvel of a land versus the increasing disenchantment of its natives, their gods toppled, their beliefs exploited. To a large extent, the soul of modern Mexico was born from this collision.

***

One arena in present-day Mexico in which a conflict of archetypes can be witnessed literally is in the spectacle of lucha libre, or freestyle wrestling, another European import to which was added local color and verve. Different theories exist regarding its origins: some say an early variant was brought over in 1863 during the French intervention, or in 1910 by a Spanish boxing promoter; a more accepted notion is that the sport came to Mexico in the early twenties courtesy of two dueling Italian theatre troupes.

Everything about the performance favors emotion over form. The movements are exaggerated, as are the wrestlers themselves, massive hulks of men in tights who wear capes like those of superheroes and shiny carnivalesque masks that hide their faces. There’s a certain splendor to them, but once the match begins, that splendor is undercut by an atmosphere of buffoonery. At rest, the wrestlers appear regal and imposing. In motion, the elegance is quickly undermined by their comical leaps and bounds. It is as if they start off by embodying the first period of Baroque in Mexico, in the late seventeenth century, characterized by solemn church facades, rich and refined, and then they go on to embody its second period, from the mid-eighteenth century, which was more opulent and chaotic, an architecture of Solomonic columns that twist, spiral, and writhe.

The wrestlers’ masks often evoke their powers and persona: El Santo, Blue Demon, Fray Tormenta, Huracán Ramírez, Rey Mysterio. They are costumed heroes and villains engaged in a jocular battle between good and evil. The Baroque fondness for extremes is felt in every match, which is fought between a técnico—one who follows the rules and plays cleanly and gracefully—and a rudo: one who transgresses, breaking codes with relish. In this play of adversaries, there is no guarantee that good will win. In fact, the rudos are often expected to triumph, hinting at a cultural acceptance that righteousness, in Mexico at least, isn’t necessarily rewarded.

In a sense, the showdown between Moctezuma and Cortés could similarly be envisioned as a battle between a técnico and a rudo; the Aztec emperor, honest and honorable and deferential to his guests, played by the rules, while the conquistador lied and cheated and, thanks in part to his deviousness, succeeded in bringing down an entire civilization.

***

The wild gestures that fuel the lucha libre spectacle elicit a frantic emotional intensity. Audiences work themselves into a lather, subjecting the wrestlers to a loud repertoire of insults, mostly bawdy and vulgar, as if they were taking sides in some kind of moral contest rather than a sporting tournament.

In Baroque art movement tends to be centrifugal, a restlessness away from the center, as opposed to the classical impulse of restraint. Although the wrestlers lunge at one another, they are constantly being cast outward, either by their opponent’s thrust or by the elastic ring, their main instrument for propulsion. Performers often take flying leaps outside the ring and land in the audience. Similar to what Caravaggio did in his paintings, these “suicides,” as the moves are called, break down the boundary, and remove the safety barrier, between viewer and spectacle; one can smell the sweat, feel the flesh, hear the grunts, almost grasp the energy, of the wrestler as he comes crashing into us.

Even the geometry of the ring is defied, its quadrangle stretched and deformed again and again. The rapid shifting of planes—between floor and air, the ring and beyond—is forged by grand aerial maneuvers and gestures of torsion and contortion. Every effort is answered with a countereffort, every movement turned into its opposite, a great elasticity between up and down as each man tries to bring his opponent to the ground. In this endless curling and coiling, transcendence is, at least corporeally, denied. Something deeply Dionysian haunts the spectacle, chaotic and unpolished. And yet it is often marked by pathos—sometimes in the mere sight of a massive lump of a man unable to haul himself up or even more so when a wrestler is defeated and his mask removed. The moment his identity is revealed, his strength and his aura dissolve.

 ***

A more recent and dismaying phenomenon of Baroque excess and hyperbole, wherein the human body again becomes the site of transformation and yet the spectacle of bloodshed is real, not staged, is within the violence wrought by the warring drug cartels.

Since 2006, Mexico has been in the grip of a disastrous war on drugs, initiated by our then president Felipe Calderón. Over sixty thousand individuals have lost their lives as the cartels battle among themselves for territory while a weakened military and often corrupt police force try desperately to control them. Nearly every day the news offers reports of beheadings and dismemberment, of a violence and brutality so extreme that even the depiction of severed body parts in Goya’s Disasters of War seems restrained. It goes without saying that narco-violence is not an art, yet the graphic mise-en-scènes could similarly be read as allegories of great sociopolitical disintegration, and the headless bodies as metaphors for a country without any real leadership.

Mexicans are accustomed to severed body parts; they have been an element in our landscape since pre-Hispanic times. Skulls, in particular, feature prominently in every one of our civilizations, the hollow eye sockets and bared teeth a presence from ancient eras through to the modern. Yet they have become so detached from their cadavers that they seem to exist entirely on their own, devoid of humanity. And it is one thing to see images in stone at the Museum of Anthropology and quite another to witness heads with their hair and flesh still on them, faces one could have glimpsed on the metro yesterday. The ancient skulls formed part of a metaphysics, whereas the decapitated heads of today signal chaos and collapse.

In Uruapán, a city in my father’s northwestern state of Michoacán, masked men once stormed into a discotheque called Sol y Sombra (Sun and Shadow) and tossed five severed heads onto the dance floor. This incident, which took place over ten years ago, was one of the first outings of La Familia, a drug cartel composed of right-wing vigilantes who quickly established their bloody reign over the region. The photographic image of these decapitated heads, each with its trail of blood where it has rolled out from the black plastic bag, is hard to erase from memory. Their eyes are closed, their faces a shiny olive color; the gangrene of death has yet to set in. In their midst is a large scroll emblazoned with a warning for rival cartels, a handwritten message that ends with the words “Divine Justice.”

Other cartels, like Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel, and the Sinaloa Cartel, are similarly fond of leaving behind gruesome memento mori. Bodies, often headless, are dangled from bridges or left in segments by the side of the road. Here Baroque is taken to an extreme, deformed into excess and true monstrosity. The tremendous striving for effect, a desire to make the most startling impact on the senses, has mutated into an unabashed theatricality of the utmost violence.

There are, these days, few signs of redemption. In a regrettable twist of the Baroque, its original vitality has been contorted, redirected towards death rather than life. One finds similar aesthetic criteria, a similar dynamism and instinct for theatricality, yet the early religious impulses have morphed into their opposite. And for some the only religion left, it seems, is death itself.

Perhaps the most literal manifestation of contemporary Baroque—a true syncretism of Spanish Catholicism and pre-Hispanic beliefs—is to be found in the cult of Santa Muerte, or Holy Death, the patron saint of the Mexican underworld, who is a sanctified personification of death herself. Though her cult incorporates dozens of Catholic rituals, she remains vehemently unrecognized by the church.

The millions who worship La Santa Muerte tend to belong to the more marginal or endangered strata of society: criminals, transvestites, drug dealers, prostitutes, taxi drivers, police officers. They are individuals who live by violence or are threatened by it, those who exist in a perpetual twilight and, professionally, mostly by night. And they come to her for protection.

I first encountered La Santa Muerte at her main altar in Tepito, Mexico City’s shadowy sanctum of drugs and contraband. There she stood behind a glass pane, a tall skeleton in a long black wig, a jeweled crown, a sparkling gold dress, and a diaphanous cape. She was heavily adorned, an embodiment of Baroque’s dual pull towards death and sensuality, and I couldn’t help feeling like I was seeing a pre-Hispanic skull in Spanish robes. In one hand she held a globe of the world, in the other the scales of justice. Spread out at her feet was a semicircle of figurines, smaller versions of herself, and a flickering landscape of ephemeral offerings: candles, apples, flowers, incense, beer, bottles of tequila, lit cigarettes. I watched as the devotees queued up to press their hands against the pane and murmur their prayers, then quietly deposit a gift.

 ***

When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, Moctezuma, believing they were gods, had his emissaries bring Cortés tortillas smeared with human blood as an offering. The emperor himself was a sybaritic gourmet, presented with around three hundred dishes a day made from ingredients brought in from all over the country. Human sacrifice also formed part of the cuisine, and his priests would cook up the remains of sacrificial victims in squash flower soup. The most Baroque dish to emerge from the Conquest is mole poblano, a thick sauce like dark blood concocted from chocolate, almonds, spices, and three types of chili, originally put together by nuns in a convent in Puebla. In Mexico there’s a saying that the spicier a food—and the more it makes you cry—the tastier it is. True culinary enjoyment should be accompanied by a bit of agony, and so it is that to this day mole remains our most beloved dish, a reminder of the turbulent forces from which modern Mexico was born.

[theexodvs]

The Handy-Dandy Exo Intro and FAQ!

27. Married. PCA deacon. My pronouns are uses/bathroom/standing. I am the intersection of BLM Tumblr, Christblr, and the part of Tumblr that criticizes MRAs.

Limited atonement and human sexual dimorphism are beautiful wonderful things.

Scrupulosity, touch starvation, and adolescence are figments of the psychoanalytical imagination.

I block all porn accounts I come across and unabashedly kink-shame.

My anons have anger issues.

When and why did you reject the men’s rights movement? The explanation can be found here.

Suicide-baiting is bad, m'kay? Yes, I know that now. I have apologized for the post you’re talking about, and have removed it.

Do you really think autistic people are perpetual children or think Autism Speaks is a reputable organization? Not anymore, and I haven’t in some time. I have redacted these statements publicly. However, most of my disagreements with other statements made by Temple Grandin and John Elder Robison still stand.

Are you a feminist? Depends largely on the definition. I don’t go about self-identifying as a feminist, but the fact I recognize women are vulnerable, even in rich, western countries, causes other people to see me as one. I stopped caring what people called me a while ago.

Doesn’t your refusal to call yourself a feminist make you as bad as Mpov or SirYouAreBeingMocked refusing to call themselves MRAs? It doesn’t make them “bad,” it makes them look ridiculous. The MRM is a much newer, smaller, and ideologically homogenous movement than feminism, and thus there are still major, definitive tenets it adheres to, all of which Mpov and SirYouAreBeingMocked agree with. The tenets of feminism vary widely by school of thought. I’m not even sure any feminist school of thought would want me in their ranks, while MRAs of all stripes will reblog posts from Mpov and SirYouAreBeingMocked like they’re God-breathed. They should just admit that they’re MRAs, and get on with their lives. It’s not like non-MRAs believe them when they deny being in the movement, anyway.

Why do you police other men’s masculinity? They have a very twisted view of what it means to be a man. They think that leaving scathing reposts towards angry lesbians with stupid haircuts is a good use of their time.

What’s with you and criticizing Israel/Zionism? I find myself under a religious umbrella term that includes those people who consider even the slightest questioning of modern Israel’s place in Biblical prophecy to be an unforgivable sin. Thanks, Jerry Falwell Sr!

Do you believe in replacement theology/supersessionism? These terms are meaningless neologisms invented by Christian apocalypticists in recent centuries to describe anyone who holds a different viewpoint regarding Biblical covenants. The only thing either of these terms has ever meant is “not dispensationalism.”

Which version of the Bible do you generally read? In English, I tend to use the NASB or ESV, depending on the context, as they are both devoted to accuracy in translation. Since I was able to find a bilingual Chinese-English Bible with ESV, that’s the one I use in print, while the NASB is what I use on my phone. For Chinese, I use either the CUV or RCUV (the latter I use in print).

What is your political philosophy? I'm a theonomist.

Are you an advocate for purity culture? The main issue I have with purity culture as it is currently practiced in American evangelicalism is that it expects more from women than from men. If we shamed men who slept around (regardless of their political affiliation) and stigmatized men in revealing clothing, I believe that purity culture can be viable.

Why do you generally refuse to engage SirYouAreBeingMocked? He is not actually interested in truth. He is interested in having a debate.

Why is a doctrine that teaches there are some people who are hellbound a beautiful, wonderful thing? Because the important part of Malachi 1:2-3 is not, “Esau I have hated,” but, “I have loved Jacob.”

I’ve found your account on a different website/know your actual name! And?