#but to invoke the mother’s womb argument???? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

brehaaorgana · 2 years ago

Text

So @susanontherocks, as someone who nearly dedicated my life to studying the history of porcelain, I love this question!

I'd argue that ceramics are so important for humanity that they're often connected directly to creator gods more generally. Even when there aren't Kiln-Gods specifically in some mythologies/cultures, that gap is often filled less directly by having Gods-as-Potters (in place of, or in addition to Kiln Gods).

actually for an example I'm familiar with as a Jew, this is definitely a running theme in the Hebrew bible! It's one of those things that I think a lot of people haven't thought about, or don't realize when they read in translation but it's sort of everywhere and enough that I would say YHWH is - if not specifically a god of pottery, then definitely a God frequently titled as a potter!

The earliest positioning of YHWH as a creator-potter is Genesis 2:7, where YHWH forms the first human from the "dust (clay) of the earth." The verb used is וַיִּיצֶר֩ which...literally is the word for forming/molding something out of clay as a potter! And that is hammered home by the first human being 'adam (the word for ruddy red, like clay) made from ha-adamah (the soil). In psalms, the first time the word "golem" is used is as "golmi" ("my golem,") which is referring to the unfinished human before god's eyes as like, raw material (which is what golem means and why Golems are made of clay!).

Then this continues:

But now, O ETERNAL One, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You are the Potter, We are all the work of Your hands.

Isaiah 64:7

Plus in Jeremiah 18:6 "just like clay in the hands of the potter..." And again in Isaiah 45:9 which compares YHWH to a potter and humans to a potsherd of earth.

Job 10:9 refers to YHWH fashioning him from clay, echoed again in Job 30:19. And in Job 33:6, Job makes an argument for the basic equality of humanity, again comparing God to a ceramicist: "You and I are the same before God; I too was nipped from clay."

Isaiah 41:25 implies that the kinds of power that YHWH can grant those who invoke their name can "trample rulers like mud, like a potter treading clay."

This parallels with your example of Khnum, even with the implication that unborn humans are first formed in clay by the deity before they end up like...in the womb).

Other creator deities as potters would be like:

Enki making humans of blood and clay. Also sumerian mythology is the mother goddess Ninhursag making humans from clay.

Some Prometheus myths involve him making humans from water/earth (or making a statue of Athena from clay that is then given life from a stolen sunbeam)

The mother goddess Nüwa forming humans out of the mud of the Yellow River

Zoroastrian creator deity Ahura Mazda forms the primordial human from clay

The Yoruba Orisha Obatala makes humans from clay and is the god of the earth.

There's a billion more - I think loads of creator gods are potter-Gods, but maybe aren't necessarily the same as Kiln-Gods although arguably a potter might have historically valued a potter-God all the same, since ceramics and pottery are often directly tied to the mythology of the most fundamental creation of humanity. These also sometimes overlap in the domain of fire or lightning gods. The Italian Renaissance artist Picolpasso does describe christian ceramicists praying specifically before lighting the fires of a kiln.

Also related: there ARE demons of pottery in Greek myth! The Daimones Keramikoi: Suntribos (the Shatterer), Smaragos (the Smasher), Asbetos (Charrer), Sabaktes (Destroyer) and Omodamos (Crudebake).

Someone wrote a dissertation on the influence of Chinese Kiln-Gods on American ceramicist rituals: Pathways of Transmission: Investigating the Influence of Chinese Kiln God Worship and Mythology on Kiln God Concepts and Rituals as Observed by American Ceramists by Dr. Martie Geiger-Ho, but I'm not familiar with them or their work, tbh.

I have read William Fairchild's writing before though, and he has an article from the 60's which argues that Japanese myths replaced clay with metal in relation to deities of fire and lightning, which could be related/interesting.

And in Chinese, a pottery/kiln God is called 窑神 (Yaoshen, literally Kiln God). I'm having trouble verifying specifics with simple online searches and it would take me a looonggg time to go through all my book-PDFs but I suspect there's a fair amount of overlap there with Chinese folk religion, and especially daoism since there's a concept of the internal furnace, and alchemical concepts often overlap with ceramics in various ways.

I’m taking pottery lessons right now… and my teacher said “the kiln gods are being kind to me right now.” And that made me stop and think. Is there a god of pottery? I tried to look it up but it’s hazy.

In Ancient Greece, Athena was apparently the goddess of crafts, which is a bit vague. Hephaestus was the god of sculpting, but that’s not right either.

In Ancient Egypt, I found Khnum who made the other gods and humankind on his potter’s wheel.

I found two gods of pottery in Southeast Asian cultures, Lianaotabi and Panthoibi.

But I wasn’t able to find anyone else. Pottery being such an important part of daily life all around the world, it seems like there would be more. Does anyone know of any other gods of pottery?

22K notes · View notes

kinkykawaiian · 5 years ago

Photo

Name: Lilith Hat

Alias: Death Dealer, ,Mistress of Betrayal, The Red Queen, Queen of the damned, Maiden of Desolation, Scarlet woman, Night Hag, Screeching owl,Mistress of deception, Little delicate owl(Pet name given by Black Hat), Goat girl(Again, another 'pet' name given to her by Black Hat), Delicate disaster( Yet another pet name given to her by Black Hat)

Occupation: Weapon's dealer, Leader of the Red Macabre Corporation, Black Hat's Emissary, Also ringleader of an underground circus for villains where she torments her victims.

Age: VERY VERY VERY OLD(First woman to roam Earth old.)

Race: Succubus

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Bisexual but leans towards men more

<b>Biography:</b>

DAWN OF CREATION:

When God first created Earth; he made Adam and Lilith from the same clay. Lilith did not want to lay beneath Adam and demanded to be his equal; to which Adam denied her and tried to have his way with her anyways. She fled from the Garden and found herself naked and lost in the jungle during a stormy night. While wondering through the wilderness, cold and shivering from the rain; she tripped and landed in the mud; only to be met face to face with a dark ominous being who dragged her by the hair to a secluded cave that oversaw the red sea. The tophatted stranger was fascinated by her; examining every inch of her as if he had never seen a human before. Of course he was met with a sharp slap to the face when his hands got to more personal areas of her body. He did not speak in human dialect, but with time she taught him and he protected her from the wilderness when she ventured out to hunt. The land at the time was filled with all different kinds of wildlife; even prehistoric creatures roamed the earth. The being eventually named himself Black Hat and he was very powerful indeed. He could light a fire pit with just a snap of his fingers.

Eventually, the three Angels God had sent to search for her had caught up and gave her the choice to come back to Eden or stay with evil incarnate and have the first 100 children born from her womb die when they take in their first breath of life. She refused their offer and stayed with Black Hat. Lilith adopted two orphaned Siberian tiger cubs when their mother was mauled by a T-rex. She named them Anzu and Khaan. Eventually, on one of her hunts she followed a doe into the Garden; where she witnessed Adam with another woman, Eve. This caused Lilith to feel something she had never felt before. Jealousy. She gave up on the hunt and when she got back to the cave she told Black Hat everything. He could sense she was distressed and relished the fact she was feeling a deadly sin. He grinned and saw the opportunity to finally cause the demise of humanity. He himself couldn't enter the Garden; only God's creations could. He granted Lilith immortality, where she went through a grueling and painful transformation; but of course it came with a price. He had her take the form of a serpent to sneak into the Garden and lure Eve into eating the fruit from the tree of Knowledge. She eventually takes refuge in hell with her beloved tigers(who were turned into gruesome hell beasts.) and was separated from Black Hat. 4th century B.C. Egypt: Lilith eventually resurfaced again. She was disguised as a belly dancer for Queen Cleopatra and offered advice on how she could conquer and rule. The temptress always caused death or manipulated others into doing the evil deed for her. She eventually crosses paths with Black Hat again who she spotted front row in one of her performances. She was especially flirty with him, taunting him with her silky scarf and led him away to have her fun with him. Shortly after their romping, Egypt was plagued with a severe drought,locust and famine. The following morning Black Hat offers for her to join him, she of course refused and remained a free spirit. Angered by her rejection he leaves; leaving behind a massive sand storm in his wake. Nine months later she gave birth to a little girl who died seconds after being born. Lilith mourned the loss of her child and even gave her a name; Jezebel. As time went on she had intercourse with several other men, human or other demons; each offspring from those relations did not survive outside the womb. Europe 1347 - 1558: Lilith was disguised as a beautiful human woman who seduced men and drained them dry of their life force. Eventually on one of her hunts, she crosses paths with Black Hat. He was still sore about being rebuffed but made an attempt in conversing with her. They talked about their conquest and what they have been up to for the last couple of centuries. He invites her for a night full of booze and murder that eventually leads into some evil coitus. Soon after, Europe was introduced to the Black Plague. Lilith took on the disguise of a Plague nurse while Black Hat took on the disguise of a Plague doctor and together they helped further spread the deadly disease. After successfully spreading the plague, Lilith parted ways with Black Hat due to her being summoned by Mary the first. The queen sought power and prosperity. Lilith was her right hand and gave her advice that would lead to the queen's ruthless war path and the killings of innocent women just for the sole purpose of bathing in it. At her death bed, Lilith collected her soul and entrapped her into a mirror where she has the mediocre job of scaring children dumb enough to invoke her. The demoness then wandered into the wilderness of Europe, wanting to explore it's wildlife. During her stay in the wild, Lilith ventured into a cave where she encountered an enormous golden serpent with glowing red eyes. She eventually tamed the savage beast and named her "Big Jill". After obtaining her new pet she retreated back into hell. The year 1860-1950: She was summoned on earth by a mortal looking to get his rocks off with the infamous succubus and it backfired on him when she drained his life energy for sustenance; leaving nothing but a hollowed out corpse. Now, free to roam Earth, she disguised herself as a normal woman; killing several men in her wake. She was nomadic; never staying in one place and always traveling state to state; town to town and eventually she happened upon a small town in Mexico. She saw a discrete ad around the town for a masquerade. She attended the ball expecting to find her new victim. She wore a crimson red and black Victorian dress; it's silk straps draping off her shoulder; along with black gloves and a crow mask, her hair tied back in a bun adorned with roses and black feathers. During the festivities; she saw a familiar dark figure. His face was concealed by a mask. He had noticed her and watched her from the corner of his eye until she disappeared in the crowed only to reappear behind him and ask him for a dance. As they waltzed they chatted about the festivities and eventually Lilith dropped the bomb of how he looked like someone she knew many years ago. He grins at her as he already knew who she was. After their brief introduction to one another, Black Hat began to siphon the life force out of the other party goers to sustain them both. They danced through the ballroom long after the rest of the attendies were dead at their feet. After their dinner and dance; they road off on his horse and he laid her down by a lakeside. After their fun, He laid next to her and brought up his offer again. As much as Lilith cared for him, she loved her freedom to much to be chained down to one being. He cursed her name and rode off into the night on horseback. She sighed and went about her night. A week later she attempted to seduce the famous monster hunter Van Helsing; only to be maimed severely and have her wings ripped from her body. He was about to slice her throat with a blessed blade but was interrupted by the leering shadow of a monstrous Black Hat who engulfed the room in darkness. Lilith had loss consciousness from the blood loss at this point and she came to when she felt a sterling silver red hot branding iron between her shoulder blades. It was Black Hat who was marking her with the Hat Pentagram. He looked pleased at the fact she was hindered, distress and dependent. He informed her that he saved her life and tended to her wounds therefore she is in debt to him and that she will forever serve under the Black Hat Organization as payment. This of course this lead to an argument between the two but she receded back to laying on her side in pain. He gently stroked her hair before exiting the room calling her a"Beautiful imbecile". Black Hat enjoyed her wild and wicked nature; trying to contain it would be foolish but he thrived on the conflict that came from him attempting. Her spirit was unbreakable no matter what he through her way, she rose above it stronger each time. Any man she tried to seduce or have relations with faced imminent death due to Black Hat's envious reaction. Eventually, Lilith wanted to own her own company, to which Black Hat was intrigued to hear. He gave her a branch of his Organization to rule and set her up in the catacombs of Paris. There, she let her hellish creatures roam the labyrinth of death. She named the branch The Red Macabre and specialized in torture entertainment, murder for hire, evil marriage consoling and taming monsters. Once a year she would host an underground circus where villains from all over the cosmos can come and bare witness to her and her crew tormenting a hero until his last breath before being fed to Lilith's demonic saber tooth tigers. 1950-Present day: Despite her boss's constant attempt in trying to lock her down, Lilith still attempted to date other supernatural beings casually. One day, Lilith was in her office sharing a drink with her boyfriend at the time Nergal(https://grimadventures.fandom.com/wiki/Nergal ). Black Hat heard about them through the grapevine and interrupted their date by grabbing Nergal by the throat and tossing him into the deepest pit of hell. He then turned his anger at Lilith and demanded for her to only belong to him. She informs him that what they had is casual and if she ever was to be tied down to anyone they had to be equals. Black Hat laughs at this and pulls out a ring to force onto her. She reacted by biting her finger off and spiting it at him; to which he ate it and made her finger regenerate with the ring on it. She said she was not going to acknowledge their matrimonial status unless it was a two-way contract with no catch. He reluctantly agreed. After they signed the binding contract(They both wrote it up together.) they were to only save each other for themselves and no one else. Despite being married, they did not live together, nor does Black Hat speak about her to others unless they ask. Eventually she gives birth to her first healthy child, a baby boy named Damien and two more followed after; one girl named Alice and the other named Melody.

LIKES:

-Drinking in general

-The suffering of men who thought they were superior to women

-Musicals

-Old detective shows

-Singing and dancing

-She likes spicy things(perfume,foods,gum,sex)

-Guns; her favorite being her golden Berretta 92; a semi automatic pistol

-animals

-being the center of attention

-cherries

-Most music

-the rare sweet moments between her and Black Hat that happen in private

-Red spider lilies

-living in the lap of luxury

-the color red

-Carnage

-Bathing in virgin blood

-the taste of human flesh

-When Black Hat sings to her or plays an instrument for her.

-Belly dancing(mostly to Heavy metal),waltzing or tango.

DISLIKES:

-Frogs

-Other people's children

-Being referred to as the Night hag

-Being asked what her age is

-Being called a sinner

-Being annoyed

-anything cold

-Glitter

-Being disrespected

-Most men

-Outdated views

-pranks

-when Black Hat melts puppies

-Being told what to wear

FUN FACTS:

-Her legs are furry but she waxes them.

-It took her centuries to get the hang of her powers, even furthering their capabilities with the help of another Lovecraftian deity named Edmund Uvhash.

-After spending so many years in France, Lilith picked up an accent.

-Lilith can speak several different languages; including English,Spanish,French and pig Latin.

- She has an affinity for animals

-Lilith is an excellent cook(She mostly cooks human flesh with herbs and spices)

-Lilith covers her chipped horn with a band at all times

-Black Hat has indulged in her sinful nature a few times and it usually leaves her bitten up,bruised and bleeding. And it is their dirty little secret to keep.

-If Black Hat were to ever disappear Lilith would take his spot and rule ruthlessly and mercilessly and do away with the mortals he hired and summon a legion to take their place.

-Lilith views Black Hat as an equal; despite him viewing her beneath him but he keeps that to himself.

-Black Hat and Lilith have private meetings every so often where he complains about his employees or talks about his new devices he wants to sell or they drink and reminisce about their past

-Lilith does care deeply for Black Hat, she just hates the concept of monogamy.

- Lilith never visits the Manor; Black Hat however has come out to visit her and the children.

-Eventually when the kids are older the end up visiting their father one summer and that is when Black Hat dropped the bomb on his crew that he was a married man. Demencia didn't take the news too well.

-Lilith has an irrational fear of frogs.

-Lilith was the one who pissed off Black Hat enough for him to destroy Pompeii

-Big Jill is Lil Jack's mate and they are both Basilisks.

-Lilith's catacombs are crawling with gigantic demonic Black Widow spiders, hell hounds, her demonic saber tooths and a pit filled with Big Jill and Lil Jack's offspring.

-Big Jill is the most feared creature that lurks in the catacombs who's looks can kill alone.

-Every time Black Hat and her bump uglies a catastrophe happens. It's a bad omen.

-Black Hat doesn't really love her but he feels intense lust and is envious if any other man touched her. He is very possessive over her and feels an enormous sense of pride once he was able to lock her down.

---------------------------------------------

Personality: She is ambiguous and charismatic by nature. However, she is will let it be known if she doesn't like someone and would make it a goal of hers to make them suffer an ill fate. She can act posh but deep down she is a wild and feral spirit. She is very lewd and makes a lot of suggestive jokes. She has a really sick and twisted sense of humor. She is very manipulative. She is highly flirtatious if she finds you remotely attractive.

Fighting Style: she is very flexible, quick and agile so she will use that to her advantage. She fights like an animal,using her horns to ram into her enemy, her clawed nails, fanged teeth and tail. Also may use her hooves to step on her enemies. Or she'll just simply unload led into you.

Powers: intense charisma and seductive power to match her good looks she uses to her advantage to manipulate unsuspecting victims,can disguise herself to look human, Manipulates dreams, Can see in the dark, Pyrotechnic, is able to make items manifest themselves in a snap of a finger, she can also walk up right walls and ceilings. She can teleport(even through dimensions), sucking her victim's life dry to leave behind a hollowed corpse, Immortality. She also can charm her victims(Only works with mortals) to get what she wants. Despite having these supernatural powers she is not as strong as Black Hat. She doesn't even come close to what he is capable of. She can turn into a snake.

Weaknesses: Sterling silver, holy weapons(blessed blades, holy water), frogs.

Quotes:

"Don't mistaken my respect for fear or you will loose it”-Lilith to BH

"If you can sell a lie you can sell anything."-Lilith to BH and Flug after helping them with a sale's pitch.

"Your mind is an insane one,darling."Black Hat to Lilith

"Thank you. I'd like to think it complements your wicked thoughts."Lilith replying to BH

"The further I pull away the worse his actions get, It's like he wants me to pay attention to him in this fucked up game of cat and mouse."Lilith to Nikiri (Her social media manager.)

Voice claim: Chloé Hollings ((

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8TRGaqM9I&t=401s

))

Singing voice claim: Vanessa Paradis ((

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z-NbQvhzKM

))

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lilith's themes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AAOx_6jfek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhy3K94z8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1VqKLgq4bA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa4mD-DRU1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqdYHnulCms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t7SclAXoQw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4cKIxhcTT8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJwwIDCeqoU

Lilith and Black Hat's Playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x83P5LjpWpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5yMcIxdnPk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I6Y9bv7Js4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrQgUfkYhic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kQ-0bBkMIY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbe-lEDCc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwCdShFGjwI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptZQQ1O70A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJwt9qJb6Sw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccY25Cb3im0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olp10zk3h-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arPlIDu5rmo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDboeQfAsww

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcSL5Vdeu6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39V3sOe3-2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkBEnIoRqWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m5SXO8qK78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYuhnVSOzwE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8wP_4vp4Vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teuGzBoN8hE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBi_1efiPwg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B66l1S0E70I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9PF09URHdQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE4bW3SJ6YE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMK0prafzw0

Villainous,Black Hat belong to Alan Ituriel

Art and this interpretation of Lilith belong to me.

#VillainousOC #villainous oc #villainous Lilith #Villainouslilith #villainous #villainous blackhat #Villainous BH #VH Villainous #Villainous fandom #villainous rp #villainos #My art #art #villainous fanart #character sheet

13 notes · View notes

theconstructionofwoman-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

CHORA

Excerpts from Woman, Chora, Dwelling by Elizabeth Grosz (1991) (from Space, Time and Perversion, The Politics of the Body)

I wish to make some indirect and tenuous connections between architecture, deconstruction, and feminist theory, forge some rudimentary links, and point out some of the rather awkward points of dis-ease between these various concerns. My goal here will be to present an initial exploration of the cultural origins of notions of spatiality in the writings of the Classical period, most notably in Plato’sTimaeus, which invokes a mythological bridge between the intelligible and the sensible, mind and body, which he calls chora.

Chora has been the object of considerable philosophical reflection, especially in contemporary French philosophy, having taken on the status of a master term in the writings of Julia Kristeva, in her understanding of the stabilization and destabilization of the speaking subject and, more recently in the writings of Jacques Derrida, particularly in his various theoretical exchanges with architecture, in his commentaries on and contributions to the work of the architects and architectural theorists Bernard Tschumi and Peter Eisenman. Chora, which Derrida insists must be understood without any definite article, has an acknowledged role at the very foundations of the concept of spatiality, place and placing: it signifies, at its most literal level, notions of ‘place,’ ‘location,’ ‘site,’ ‘region,’ ‘locale,’ ‘country’; but it also contains an irreducible, yet often overlooked connection with the function of femininity, being associated with a series of sexually-coded terms—‘mother,’ ‘nurse,’ ‘receptacle,’ and ‘imprint-bearer.’ Derrida is interested in chora in keeping with the larger and more general features of ‘deconstructive reading,’ that always seek out terms that disturb the logic, thelogos, of the text under examination, in order to show that it exceeds and cannot be contained by the logic, explicit framework, and overt intentions of the text. Derrida continually seeks out these terms—impossible to assimilate into the text’s logic—which are nonetheless necessary for it to function. They are thus ineliminable from the text’s operations and exert a disruptive force, an aporetic effect, on the apparent claims and concerns of the text in question. Chora thus follows a long line of deconstructively privileged terms in Derrida’s texts, from ‘writing,’ ‘trace,’ ‘pharmakon,’ ‘dissemination,’ ‘supplement,’ ‘parergon,’ in his earlier writings, to ‘cinders,’ ‘ghost,’ ‘remainder,’ ‘residue’ (among others) in his more recent texts. Each term designates and locates a point of indeterminacy or undecidability, a point at which the text’s own writing exceeds its explicit goals and logic, where the text turns in on itself and ties itself into a strategically positioned knot.

It will be my argument here, reading Plato and Derrida on chora, that the notion of chora serves to produce a founding concept of femininity whose connections with women and female corporeality have been severed, producing a disembodied femininity as the ground for the production of a (conceptual and social) universe. In outlining the unacknowledged and unremitting debt that the very notion of space, and the built environment that relies on its formulation, owes to what Plato characterizes as the ‘femininity’ of the chora (a characterization he both utilizes and refuses to commit himself to), I will develop some of the insights of Luce Irigaray in her critical analysis of the phallocentric foundations of Western philosophy. Irigaray’s reading of the history of philosophy as the erasure or covering over of women’s specificity has served to demonstrate that even where women and femininity are not explicitly mentioned or evoked in philosophical and architectural texts, nonetheless they, and concepts associated with them, serve as the unconscious, repressed or unspoken foundations of and guarantee for philosophical value. This essay may be understood as the confrontation of one strand of contemporary architectural theory, represented by Derrida’s relatively small and admittedly oblique contributions to architecture, and Irigaray’s sweeping analysis of the investment that all modes of knowledge have in perpetuating the secondary and subordinate social positions accorded to women and femininity. Irigaray contra Derrida in the domain of the dwelling: where and how to live, as whom, and with whom?

DWELLING: BETWEEN THE INTELLIGIBLE AND THE SENSIBLE

Timaeus represents Plato’s attempt to produce a basic explanation of the universe as we know it—a modest attempt on the part of a philosopher who believed that only philosophers were fit to rule the well-ordered polis—an explanation of the divine creation of the cosmos and the earth. In an age when myth is not yet definitively separated from science or philosophy, Plato presents an account of the genesis of the universe from divine and rational metaphysical principles. He sets up a series of binary oppositions that will mark the character of Western thought: the distinctions between being and becoming, the intelligible and the sensible, the ideal and the material, the divine and the mortal, which may all be regarded as versions of the distinction between the (perfect) world of reason and the (imperfect) material world.

This opposition between what is intelligible and unchanging, being (the world of Forms or Ideas), and what is sensible (which Plato describes as visible) and subject to change, becoming, seems relatively straightforward; but, it is difficult to use as an explanatory model, a ground of ontology, unless there is the possibility of some mediation, some mode of transition or passage from one to the other. Plato complicates and indeed problematizes and undoes this opposition by devising a third or intermediate category, whose function is to explain the passage from the perfect to the imperfect, from the Form to the reality: chora. This category, it is claimed, shares little in common with either term in the opposition. Plato does suggest at some points that it shares in the properties of both the Forms and material reality; yet at other points, he claims that it has nothing in common with either. Rather enigmatically and impossibly, he suggests that it has both no attributes of its own, and that it shares some of the attributes of the Forms:’...we shall not be wrong if we describe it as invisible and formless, all-embracing, possessed in a most puzzling way of intelligibility, yet very hard to grasp (Plato, 1977:70).

Somehow, in a ‘puzzling way,’ it participates in intelligibility yet is distinct from the intelligible; it is also distinct from the material world insofar as it is ‘invisible and formless,’ beyond the realm of the senses. It dazzles the logic of non-contradiction, it insinuates itself between the oppositional terms, in the impossible no-man’s land of the excluded middle. This is already enough to indicate to Derrida, no less than to Irigaray, that there is something odd at stake here, something that exceeds what Plato is able to legitimately argue using his own criteria.

Plato cannot specify any particular properties or qualities for chora: if one could attribute it any specificity it would immediately cease to have its status as intermediary or receptacle and would instead become an object (or quality or property). It is thus by definition impossible to characterize. It is the mother of all qualities without itself having any—except its capacity to take on, to nurture, to bring into existence any other kind of being. Being a kind of pure permeability, infinitely transformable, inherently open to the specificities of whatever concrete it brings into existence, chora can have no attributes, no features of its own. Steeped in paradox, its quality is to be quality-less, its defining characteristic that it lacks any defining feature. It functions primarily as the receptacle, the storage point, the locus of nurturance in the transition necessary for the emergence of matter, a kind of womb of material existence, the nurse of becoming, an incubator to ensure the transmission or rather the copying of Forms to produce matter that resembles them. Matter bears a likeness to the Forms. This relation (like the paternal bond between father and son) depends on the minimalized contributions of the receptacle/space/ mother in the genesis of becoming. Moreover, it becomes less clear as the text proceeds whether something like chora is necessary for the very genesis of the Forms themselves, i.e. whether chora can be conceived as a product or copy of the Forms, or contrarily, whether the Forms are themselves conditioned on chora:

“It can always be called the same because it never alters its characteristics. For it continues to receive all things, and never itself takes a permanent impress from any of the things that enter it, making it appear different at different times. And the things which pass in and out of it are copies of the eternal realities, whose form they take in a wonderful way that is hard to describe.” (Plato, 1977:69)

Chora can only be designated by its, by her, function: to hold, nurture, bring into the world. Not clearly an it or a she, chora has neither existence nor becoming. Notto procreate or produce—this is the function of the father, the creator, god, the Forms—but to nurse, to support, surround, protect, incubate, to sort, or engender the worldly offspring of the Forms. Its function is a neutral, traceless production that leaves no trace of its contributions, and thus allows the product to speak indirectly of its creator without need for acknowledging its incubator. Plato explicitly compares the Forms to the role of the male, and chora to the role of the female according to Greek collective fantasies: in procreation, the father contributes all the specific characteristics to the nameless, formless incubation provided by the mother:

“We may indeed use the metaphor of birth and compare the receptacle to the mother, the model to the father, and what they produce between them to their offspring; and we may notice that, if an imprint is to present a very complex appearance, the material on which it is to be stamped will not have been properly prepared unless it is devoid of all the characters which it is to receive. For if it were like any of the things that enter it, it would badly distort any impression of a contrary or entirely different nature when it receives it, as its own features would shine through.” (Plato, 1977:69)

Neither something nor yet nothing, chora is the condition for the genesis of the material world, the screen onto which is projected the image of the changeless Forms, the space onto which the Form’s duplicate or copy is cast, providing the point of entry, as it were, into material existence. The material object is not simply produced by the Form(s), but also resembles the original, a copy whose powers of verisimilitude depend upon the neutrality, the blandness, the lack of specific attributes of its ‘nursemaid.’

This peculiar receptacle that is chora functions to receive, to take in, to possess without in turn leaving any correlative impression. She takes in without holding onto: she is unable to possess for she has no self-possession, no self- identity. She supports all material existence with nothing to support her own. Though she brings being into becoming she has neither being nor the possibilities of becoming; both the mother of all things and yet without ontological status, she designates less a positivity than an abyss, a crease, perhaps a pure difference, between being and becoming, the space which produces their separation and thus enables their co-existence and interchange.

Plato slips into a designation of chora as space itself, the condition for the very existence of material objects. (It is no accident that Descartes takes the ability to occupy space as the singular defining characteristic of material objects.) Space is a third kind of ‘entity’ that is neither apprehended by the senses nor by reason alone, being understood only with difficulty, in terms of a ‘spurious reason,’ ‘in a kind of a dream,’ in a modality that today, following Kant, may be described as apperception. Plato describes a space

“which is eternal and indestructible, which provides a position for everything that comes to be, and which is apprehended without the senses by a sort of spurious reasoning and so is hard to believe in—we look at it indeed in a kind of dream and say that everything that exists must be somewhere and occupy some space, and that what is nowhere in heaven or earth is nothing at all.(Plato, 1977:71–2)

Chora, then, is the space in which place is made possible, the chasm for the passage of spaceless Forms into a spatialized reality, a dimensionless tunnel opening itself to spatialization, obliterating itself to make others possible and actual. It is the space that engenders without possessing, that nurtures without requirements of its own, that receives without giving, and that gives without receiving, a space that evades all characterizations including the disconcerting logic of identity, of hierarchy, of being, the regulation of order. It is no wonder that chora resembles the characteristics the Greeks, and all those who follow them, have long attributed to femininity, or rather, have expelled from their own masculine self-representations and accounts of being and knowing (and have thus de facto attributed to the feminine). Moreover, this femininity is not itself merely an abstract representation of generic features (softness, nurturance, etc.), but is derived from the attributes culturally bestowed on women themselves, and in this case, particularly the biological function of gestation. While chora cannot be directly identified with the womb—to do so would be to naïvely pin it down to something specific, convert it into an object rather than as the condition of existence of objects—nonetheless, it does seem to borrow many of the paradoxical attributes of pregnancy and maternity.

Bild: Die Hure Babylon in der Ottheinrich-Bibel (um 1530–1532)

#MORPHOLOGY

3 notes · View notes

fatherxfear · 6 years ago

Text

Old headcanon

So this has been rattling around in my head for a while now, so it’s not exactly new, but a writer here by the username of SuchColors produced an exquisite paragraph of vivid prose describing Kozmotis's transformation to Pitch and how his role in the Guardians series really is as a progenitor.

I have long thought on this: <strong>on how Kozmotis's fall, which prompted Emily Jane Pitchiner to become Mother Nature, was concordantly necessary in order to give rise to Planet Earth's existence, and possibly that even of the Milky Way.

Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of that word:

/prəˈjenətər/

Noun

A person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is descended or originates; an ancestor or parent.</em></li>

A person who originates an artistic, political, or intellectual movement.

Synonyms

ancestor - forefather - forbear - predecessor - father

It makes perfect sense, folks. All kinds of spiritual and religious tomes, including the Christian Bible, invoke the concept of DARKNESS as the first, primordial, state of NOT destruction, but CREATION refer to the Bible for argument.

Genesis 1:1-31

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

You WILL NOTE THAT DARKNESS IS NOT CALLED BAD or EVIL, we only assume this by a binary paradigm because light is called good. Rather, darkness is merely SEPARATED from light so that light can have distinction and purpose. Darkness exists so that light may flourish. Darkness is NECESSARY and CRUCIAL. And it is the FIRST STEP in CREATING a given world. IT IS THE BLANK SLATE ON WHICH CREATION IS DRAWN.

What if William Joyce means this purposefully? What if Pitch, coming from the noblest character arguably in the entire series (Kozmotis) SELF SACRIFICING for the GREATER GOOD represents the PRIMORDIAL STATE OF CREATION?

What if Pitch represents the MATERNAL WOMB?

What if Pitch, FATHER OF MOTHER NATURE, PROGENITOR? That without which, NO GOOD AND SUBSEQUENT ENTITIES, INCLUDING THE MANY EARTHLINGS WHO ARE PART OF THE GUARDIANS TEAM, COULD HAVE ARISEN TO EXISTENCE?

#headcanons #Pitch Black #Rotg #GoC

2 notes · View notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years ago

Photo

Articles on Catholic Theology and Teachings - Part 4 - What is a Mortal Sin?

"Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death forever." —John 8:51

The Distinction between two types of sin

All sin is an offense against God and a rejection of his perfect love and justice. Yet, Jesus makes a distinction between two types of sins. We call the most serious and grave sins, mortal sins. Mortal sins destroy the grace of God in the heart of the sinner. By their very grave nature, a mortal sin cuts our relationship off from God and turns man away from his creator. St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews tell us that "if we sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26). The second type of sin, venial sin, that of less grave matter, does not cut us off from Christ. However, venial sin does weaken grace in the soul and damages our relationship with God. A person who frequently indulges in venial sin is very likely to collapse into mortal sin if they persist in their evil ways.

So what kind of Sins are Mortal?

In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter

Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner

Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

This means that mortal sins cannot be done "accidentally." A person who commits a mortal sin is one who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway. This means that mortal sins are "premeditated" by the sinner and thus are truly a rejection of God’s law and love.

The first condition, that a mortal sin is of grave matter, means that certain premeditated offenses against God are more severe than others. We know that some sins are graver than others (e.g. it is a graver sin to murder someone than to lie to someone). St. John tells us, "If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." (1 John 5:16-17). Thus St. John distinguishes between mortal and venial sin. Jesus also warns us that "Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned" (John 15:6).

What kinds of offenses against God constitute "grave matter"?

In the Bible, St. Paul gives us a list of grave sins. He states that anyone who commits these sins shall not enter the kingdom of God. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-20). Paul also tells the Corinthians, "know you no that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). These sins constitute grave matter, and if they are committed willingly and with full consent, constitute mortal sin.

The Church also tells us that the sins of anger, blasphemy, envy, hatred, malice, murder, neglect of Sunday obligation, sins against faith (incredulity against God or heresy), sins against hope (obstinate despair in the hope for salvation and/or presumption that oneself can live without God or be saved by one’s own power) and sins against love (indifference towards charity, ingratitude, and/or hatred of God) also constitute grave matter. This list of grave sins, is based on Jesus Christ’s interpretation of the gravity of the Ten Commandments. Grave sins can be classed as sins against God, neighbor and self, and can further be divided into carnal and spiritual sins (CCC 1853).

Four other sins are considered grave also. These sins not only offend God, but men as well. Thus these four sins are called "the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance" and are likewise mortal sins. These grave sins are:

The voluntary murder (Genesis 4:10)

The sin of impurity against nature –Sodomy and homosexual relations (Genesis 18:20)

Taking advantage of the poor (Exodus 2:23)

Defrauding the workingman of his wages (James 5:4)

Finally, the capital sins are also considered grave matter. These sins are vices and are defined as contrary to the Christian virtues of holiness. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth (acedia).

Note from the author: For those of you who do not understand why these particular sins are of grave matter, I would suggest that you refer to the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. He does an excellent job of explaining why these sins are of grave matter, and also explores the counter-arguments and objections that some people have regarding these grave sins.

A thorough listing and description of grave sins:

The First Commandment, "You shall Worship the Lord Your God and him only Shall You Serve"

Idolatry—Idolatry is the worship, veneration or belief in false gods. Because it is a direct rejection of God, it is a grave sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Idolatry includes worship of images (This does not mean that we cannot venerate religious images. Veneration of images such as a crucifix is veneration of the person depicted, and not the actual image in and of itself.)

Divination, magic and sorcery—This is a grave sin which includes attempting to command the powers of the occult, control or speak to demons or spirits (especially Satan), attempting to divine the future, and the use of magic charms (CCC 2116). Deuteronomy 18:10-11 speaks against this grave sin.

Sacrilege—The sin of sacrilege is a grave sin that consists of profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and liturgical actions of the Church as well as things consecrated to God (CCC 2120).

Atheism—Because atheistic humanism falsely seeks man and human glory and rejects God, atheism is a grave sin (CCC 2125). It is a sin against the virtue of religion. St. Paul tells us, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unholiness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice" (Romans 1:18).

The Second Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain"

Blasphemy—This grave sin is the uttering of hatred, reproach, defiance or speaking ill of God. Blasphemy against the Church, the saints and sacred things is also a grave sin (CCC 2148). It fails to give love and respect to our Creator. St. James speaks against sinners who "blaspheme the good name that is invoked upon you" (James 2:7).

Perjury and False Oaths—Those who take an oath in the name of the Lord and fail to keep it, or break the oath at a later date, show a grave lack of respect for the Lord of all speech (CCC 2152). Pledging oneself to commit an evil deed is also sinful. During his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks against sinners who give false oaths (Matthew 5:33-34).

The Third Commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"

Deliberate failure of the Sunday obligation—The Christian Sunday (the Lord’s Day) celebrates the new life of the world born in Christ’s Resurrection. All humans have a duty, to praise God and give him thanks. Thus all Christians are bound to participate in the Mass, and must partake of the Eucharist at least on holy days of obligation. Deliberate failure to do this constitutes a grave sin (CCC 2181).

The Fifth Commandment, "You shall not kill"

Murder (intentional homicide)—Direct and intentional killing is gravely sinful (CCC 2268). It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, much like the murder of Abel at the hands of Cain. Indirect homicide can also be of grave nature (such as refusing to help a person in danger). However, the Church teaches that self-defense is permissible for the preservation of a one’s life. If the attacker is mortally wounded or killed, then the death of the attacker is not a sin. Those who use unnecessary aggression in self-defense can sin mortally, if the attacker is killed or gravely injured.

Abortion—Human life begins at conception in the mother’s womb. For God tells us, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew thee, and before you were born I consecrated you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Abortion is therefore murder. The oldest Christian book (besides parts of the Bible) is the Didache, a book composed by the twelve apostles or their disciples. The Didache proclaims the ancient teaching of the Catholic Church, "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish" (Didache 2,2). All Catholics who procure a completed abortion or participate in execution of an abortion are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church (CCC 2272 and CIC Canon 1314).

Euthanasia—The direct killing of the sick, handicapped, or dying, regardless of motive, is a grave sin. The will and action taken to cause a person’s death is an act of murder (CCC 2277). Those who are suffering and are nearing death must be allowed to die (or recover, which is sometimes a possibility) naturally. Administration of painkillers is permissible, provided the drugs are not willed as an end or a means to precipitate death. "Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘overzealous treatment" (CCC 2278). In this case death is not willed, but is merely accepted as inevitable and cannot be impeded.

Suicide—Suicide is murder of the self. It is contrary to the love of God, self, family, friends and neighbors (CCC 2281). It is of especially grave nature, if it is intended to set an example for others to follow. Voluntary cooperation in a suicide is also contrary to the moral law. However, the responsibility of and gravity of suicide can be diminished in the cases of grave psychological disturbances, anguish, grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture. But this does not make it morally permissible, and it is the judgement of God that will measure the gravity or responsibility of the sin.

Scandal—Scandal is an attitude or behavior that leads another to do evil. If someone is deliberately lead into a grave offense, that person’s tempter commits a grave sin (CCC 2284 and 2285). Jesus said, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

Drug abuse—Drug abuse does grave damage to health and life and is a grave offense. Only legitimate therapeutic use is acceptable (CCC 2290).

Gluttony—Gluttony is an excessive love for food, and is a disordered passion for wordly appetites. Because it is contrary to the virtue of temperance, it can constitute a grave sin. Gluttony is also a capital sin (CCC 1866, 2290)

Alcohol Abuse—Alcohol abuse can also be excessively dangerous and harmful to the body, and sometimes to neighbors (CCC 2290).. Because it is also contrary to temperance and is a disordered passion, it is a grave sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Terrorism—Terrorism that threatens, wounds and kills indiscriminately is of grave matter (CCC 2297). Other forms of bodily violence (kidnapping, hostage taking, non-medical amputations, mutilations and sterilization) are also contrary to the moral law.

Extreme Anger—"Anger is a desire for revenge. If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin (CCC 2302). Christ speaks against anger saying, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement (Matthew 5:22)."

Hatred—Hatred of a neighbor is to deliberately wish him evil, and is thus a grave sin (CCC 2303 and Galatians 5:19-20).

Extortion—Extortion is to obtain something from another by coercion or intimidation. It is an act of violence and theft, and is condemned by 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

The Sixth Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery"

Adultery—Adultery is marital infidelity. A married person who has sexual relations with anyone but their lawful spouse, even transient sexual relations, commits adultery (CCC 2380).

Divorce—The grave sin of divorce condemns those who divorce and remarry (Matthew 5:32) and those who divorce in the civil sense (except by grave dispensation). Hence divorce between two baptized Christians is a mortal sin (CCC 2384).

Fornication—Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman and is a grave sin (CCC 2353). St. Paul condemns fornication in his epistle 1 Corinthians 6:18. All aspects of intimate contact associated with the marriage act also constitute fornication for Jesus said, "I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 9:28). If lustful looks are adulterous, how much worse is lustful physical contact?

Pornography—Pornography is the display of intimate real or simulated sexual acts to a third party. Because it removes the marriage act from within the sacramental sanctity of marriage, and perverts sex, it is gravely contrary to charity (CCC 2354). The display of pornography to children and other parties is especially gravely sinful because it is gravely scandalous.

Prostitution—Prostitution reduces a person to an instrument of sexual pleasure and lust. It is gravely contrary to charity and chastity and defiles the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. However, destitution, blackmail or social pressure can reduce the gravity of the sin. Still, prostitution is always a sin (CCC 2355).

Rape—A person who commits rape violates the respect, freedom, physical and moral integrity of the victim. It is a brutal crime of violence that can physically and psychologically scar a person for life. It is thus a grave sin (CCC 2356).

Homosexual acts—Although it remains to be determined if homosexuality is a genetic, social or personal stigma, homosexual acts are condemned by God and can NEVER be approved by the Church (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:24-27 and CCC 2357). If homosexuals are born with the condition, then they are called to live a life of Christian purity and chastity for the greater love of Christ. Such people can experience a life of trial, which all others must treat with compassion and sensitivity.

Incest—"Incest is intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them" (CCC 2388). St. Paul condemns incest in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:1,4-5).

Masturbation—"Masturbation is the deliberate stimulation of the sexual organs in order to derive sexual pleasure" (CCC 2352). The Church teaches that sex has two main purposes that must be sought in the marriage act: sex is for reproduction of children within a valid marriage, and it is a loving, unifying act between husband and wife. Masturbation violates both aspects of the natural law and is thus a grave sin.

The Seventh Commandment—"You shall not steal"

Theft—All persons have a right to lawful private property obtained by legitimate work, inheritance or gift. To violate a person’s right to property by theft is a grave sin, especially if the loss of the property will severely hurt the victim (CCC 2408). The gravity of theft is determined by the harm it does to the victim. A poor beggar who steals a loaf of bread commits a less grave sin than a rich man who steals the savings of a destitute person. St. Paul tells us that thieves shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Cheating –A cheater defrauds his victim of their property. It is morally of grave matter unless the damage to the victim is unusually light (CCC 2413).

Defrauding a worker of his wages—This is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a worker of his wages withholds and impedes his ability to sustain basic needs for himself and his family. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).

Unfair wagers—Unfair wagers in games of chance are of grave matter if they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others (CCC 2413).

Taking advantage of the poor—The economic or social exploitation of the poor for profit harms the dignity and natural rights of the victim. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).

The Eighth Commandment—"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbors"

False witness and perjury—False witness is a public statement in court contrary to the truth. Perjury is false witness under oath. Both acts are gravely sinful when they condemn the innocent, exonerate the guilty or increase punishment of the accused. They are of grave matter because they contradict justice (CCC 2476).

Adulation—Adulation is verbal speech or an attitude that encourages or confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. It is a grave sin if it makes one an accomplice in another’s vices or grave sins (CCC 2480).

Lying—Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is "the father of all lies" (John 8:44).

The Ninth Commandment—"You shall not covet…your neighbor’s wife"

Lust—Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. It is disordered because sexual pleasure must not be isolated from its true, natural place: within the Sacrament of Matrimony that is ordered to procreation of children and a unifying love between husband and wife (CCC 2351). Lust, a sin and vice of the flesh, is often a difficult vice to overcome. Human weakness of will and lack of conformity to God is a result of the fall of mankind that causes a disorder between soul and body (called concupiscence) which is often manifested in lust. Yet, lust is a sin that can be overcome through prayer and grace through the Christian sacraments. Christ wills that we overcome lust and replace it with Christian love and purity of heart (Matthew 9:28). "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

The Tenth Commandment—"You shall not covet…anything that is your neighbors"

Avarice—Avarice is greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It is a passion for riches and luxury. Those who seek temporal happiness at the expense of spiritual duties, risk the grave sin of avarice. Avarice is one of the deadly vices (CCC 2536).

Envy—Envy, another capital sin, is sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself. Envy can lead to grave consequences and can harm neighbors. If envy leads to grave harm to a neighbor, it is surely a grave sin.

Offenses Against Faith

Voluntary doubt of faith—Voluntary doubt of faith is disregarding the revealed truth of God and his Church (CCC 2088). Those who do this risk spiritual blindness and loss of faith.

Incredulity, heresy, apostasy, schism—Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church (CCC 2089). These sins strain or break the bonds of unity with the offender and the Catholic Church.

Offenses Against Hope

Despair in hope—Those who despair in hope, cease to hope in salvation from God or help in attaining forgiveness of sin (CCC 2090). Christian hope sustains a believer’s faith and dependence on God, and should not be neglected or rejected.

Presumption—The Church teaches of two types of sinful presumption: the presumption that man can save himself without help from God and the presumption that God’s power or his mercy will merit him forgiveness without repentance and conversion (CCC 2092).

Offenses Against Charity

Indifference—This grave sin entails neglect or refusal on divine charity (a.k.a. divine love). Those who sin in indifference fail to consider the goodness of charity, and deny its power (CCC 2094).

Ingratitude—An ungrateful sinner fails or refuses to acknowledge and return the love and charity of God (CCC 2094).

Lukewarmness—Lukewarmness is negligence in response to God’s charity. It can also mean the refusal to give oneself to the prompting of charity (CCC 2094).

Acedia (spiritual sloth)—Spiritual sloth, a capital sin, is the refusal of joy that comes from God. An sinner who indulges in acedia may even be repelled by divine goodness (CCC 2094).

Hatred of God—This grave sin is born of pride and is contrary to the love of God. A sinner who hates God willfully rejects him. Hatred of God refuses to acknowledge and praise God’s goodness and obedience (CCC 2094).

Of course we must realize that this is certainly not a complete list of sins. The sins that are listed above are those of grave matter that can become mortal sins if they are done willfully and with full knowledge of their nature. Other sins are of venial nature, and are less grave than the ones listed above.

What is venial sin?

As stated before, venial sin is a sin of lesser matter than grave sin. It can also be a sin of grave matter in which the sinner did not fully consent to the sin or did not have knowledge that his actions where sinful. Venial sins will not destroy grace in the soul, and will not directly cause a person who dies in the state of venial sin to lose the promise of heaven. Yet, venial sin weakens a person’s will to avoid evil and thus may indirectly lead to mortal sin. Regardless, all sin is an offense against God and should be avoided.

All sins can be forgiven

A person who repents of their sin, intends to live a new life of grace, and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation will be forgiven of all their sins (mortal sins in particular must be confessed in the Sacrament). Our sins can be forgiven, because Jesus Christ paid for the price of human sin by dying on the cross for the redemption of humanity. Jesus Christ, true man and true God, was the perfect sacrifice for human sin and as a result saved those who are baptized, repent and believe in him.

Because a baptized Christian can still sin, Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation for the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus gave the power to forgive sins in his name to the Church. He told his apostles, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:22–23). This means that the apostles and their successors, the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church, can forgive sins in Jesus’ name.

It is vitally important that Catholics confess sins on a regular basis, especially if we are in the state of mortal sin. A person who dies in mortal sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and is doomed to eternal suffering in hell. Even when we have not committed mortal sin, we are still obliged to confess our sins at least once a year. Christ, in perfect love, laid down his life so that we may be forgiven of our sins. The sacrifice of the cross should not be neglected or taken for granted. Jesus died for the life of the world and is thus the light of the world. "He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12)

#catholic theology

4 notes · View notes

friend-clarity · 6 years ago

Text

David Horowitz Unveils The Left's Dark Agenda

In the video and transcript below, David Horowitz discusses his new book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America. The talk was given at the Freedom Center's Wednesday Morning Club on March 8, 2019.

Selections from the Transcript:

Readers of my new book “Dark Agenda” might wonder how an agnostic Jew and ex-radical came to write about the war to destroy Christian America. Once I recognized the destructive character of the radical movement I had been part of forty years ago, I began a re-examination of everything I and my comrades had thought about the system we had set out to destroy.

When I was on the left, and in the process of leaving it, I discovered that the Left did not care at all about the Vietnamese people it claimed to defend. When the Communists took over in Vietnam, and preceded to slaughter to two and a half million people, peasants, the Left made no protests at all ...

In the course of this inquiry, I had a kind of epiphany. Thinking about the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which even radicals cherished, I realized that these rights were only unalienable because they were given by a Divinity - by God. If they were granted by government, then government could take them away. ….

The title of my book is Dark Agenda: The Left’s War to Destroy Christian America. In the last sixty years, the anti-religious, anti-American left has conducted a relentless assault on believers and their beliefs, suppressing religious liberty, stripping the public square of religious expression and memory, and in the process removing the underpinnings of our democratic order. What inspired me to write this book was the realization that the left’s hatred of Christianity is also its hatred for America itself.

The year 2008 marked the opening of a new $621 million Visitor’s Center adjacent to the U.S. Capitol [which is part of U.S. Congress, the seat of the House of Representatives and the Senate]. It was designed to serve as an informational museum about our republic. When it was opened, however, all references to God and the religious faith of the founders had been systematically edited out of its photos and historical displays. The lengths to which the designers went in their zeal to expunge religion were both extreme and petty:

• The nation’s official motto was alleged to be E Pluribus Unum, when in fact it is, “In God We Trust.”

• Even a replica of the Speaker’s rostrum in the House of Representatives omitted the gold-lettered inscription of the nation’s actual motto, because of its reference to a divinity.

It is not just visitors to the nation’s capital who have had God and religion airbrushed out of our nation’s founding. Thanks to a series of corrupt Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1962, children in the nation’s public schools are denied knowledge of the religious origins and foundations of our nation and its freedoms. Outrageously, because of the Court’s decisions this knowledge is now denied to our school children by the Constitution itself.

In 1986, a study of 60 textbooks used by 87% of public school children noted that, “the Pilgrims are described entirely without any reference to religion. Thus, the textbooks describe how at the end of their first year they ‘wanted to give thanks for all they had,’ which was the first Thanksgiving. But no mention is made of the fact it was God they were thanking…. The Pueblo Indians can pray to Mother Earth – but the Pilgrims can’t be described as praying to God. ...

The study sums up its findings in these words, “There is not one story or article in all these books, in approximately 9-10 thousand pages, in which the central motivation or major content derives from Christianity or Judaism.”

If you don’t know where you come from, how do you know where you are going?

This is why the assault on religion has created a national crisis in our country, dividing us into warring camps whose fundamental views are not only in conflict, but irreconcilable.

The first Supreme Court decision banishing religion from the schools and eventually the public square occurred in 1962 and is known as Engel v. Vitale. Engel was a founding member of the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, a radical organization hostile to America and its religious foundations. The ACLU suit objected to a 23-word non-denominational prayer devised by the New York Board of Regents which said, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.”

For 170 years, prayers had been regular features of public schools, without a single constitutional challenge. Now Engel and his team claimed that this innocuous prayer violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which banned the state from establishing an official religion. At the Supreme Court, seven unelected, appointed-for-life lawyers decided by a 6-1 vote in favor of the radicals. In his lone dissent, Justice Potter Stewart pointed out the hypocrisy of his colleagues whose sessions still began with the invocation, “God Save the United States and this Honorable Court.” The idea that a 23-word non-denominational prayer established a religion was transparently absurd, but 6 unelected justices decided it wasn’t.

…

The next two Supreme Court decisions engineered by the radicals were even more fraudulent. They led directly to the profound chasm in our society today. The fraudulent legal argument was common to both cases, but it was the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that led to the nation-breaking political divisions that confront us today.

The suit was the work of the lawyers at Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, whose support had been enlisted by a chapter of the radical Sixties organization, Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Texas. Once again, the radicals chose to by-pass the democratic-legislative process to invoke the tyranny of 9 unelected, life-appointed lawyers, who voted to make the right to kill children in the womb the fundamental law of the land.

The “legal” basis for Roe was an imaginary constitutional “right to privacy,” invented by Planned Parenthood lawyers to justify their radical agendas. Even if the Constitution contained a right to privacy – and it does not – the decision made no sense. As Justice Rehnquist said in dissent, there is nothing private about an abortion.

Nor are restrictions on abortions attacks on a woman’s right to choose. Unless she is a victim of rape, a woman makes a series of choices before arriving at the decision to kill a child – first to have sex, then with whom to have sex, then to have unprotected sex or to not use the day after pill. All these take place before a woman reaches the point where she makes a final choice: whether to go through with the birth and find her child an adoptive mother or kill it. Roe v. Wade represented a fundamental break from the existing fabric of American life. It was imposed overnight, in every community in the country, and without the consent of the inhabitants of those communities who - according to the Constitution – were supposed to be sovereign. This tyrannical, fraudulent Supreme Court decision split the nation in two. Its assault on traditional communities led directly to the creation of the religious right. Until Roe, the evangelical community had been wary of political involvements, but this unconstitutional assault on its communities thrust it into politics out of sheer concern for its self-defense.

vimeo

0 notes