#christian anthropology

[tonreihe]

Rowan Williams, “Solidarity, Rights and the Image of God: Ethics and Christian Anthropology,” the fourth of the 2024 Bampton Lectures

[biblebloodhound]

Both Body and Soul (1 John 4:1-6)

Sometimes, it’s not what in someone says, but in what they don’t say.

Dear friends, don’t believe everyone who claims to have the Spirit of God. Test them all to find out if they really do come from God. Many false prophets have already gone out into the world, and you can know which ones come from God. His Spirit says that Jesus Christ had a truly human body. But when someone doesn’t say this about Jesus, you know this person has a spirit that doesn’t come from…

[jesusinstilettos]

Your life gets significantly better the day you stop pretending you’re a robot. You’re a silly little mammal, act like it motherfucker. Your ancestors made tools with rocks and sticks, ran around a lot, had sex, lived in communities, ate when they were hungry, rested, chanted together, felt the sun, breathed outside air, listened to the trees and birds. You have biological needs bitch!!!

[louisegluckpdf]

maaaan i'm not even heated about it because i should've known better but i wish i could post about the bible as a cultural and literary document without weirdos flocking to my blog 😔 i've always loved the storytelling of the bible (even though i left the church!) and there's so much to unpack when you view it as a piece of literature instead of a piece of scripture! but alas........oh well theres other books

[eelhound]

"Rituals are architectures of time, structuring and stabilising life, and they are on the wane. The pandemic has accelerated the disappearance of rituals. Work also has ritual aspects. We go to work at set times. Work takes place in a community. In the home office, the ritual of work is completely lost. The day loses its rhythm and structure. This somehow makes us tired and depressed.

In The Little Prince [1943], by [Antoine de] Saint-Exupéry, the little prince asks the fox to always visit at the exact same time, so that the visit becomes a ritual. The little prince explains to the fox what a ritual is. Rituals are to time as rooms are to an apartment. They make time accessible like a house. They organise time, arrange it. In this way you make time appear meaningful.

Time today lacks a solid structure. It is not a house, but a capricious river. The disappearance of rituals does not simply mean that we have more freedom. The total flexibilisation of life brings loss, too. Rituals may restrict freedom, but they structure and stabilise life. They anchor values and symbolic systems in the body, reinforcing community. In rituals we experience community, communal closeness, physically.

Digitalisation strips away the physicality of the world. Then comes the pandemic. It aggravates the loss of the physical experience of community. You’re asking: can’t we do this by ourselves? Today we reject all rituals as something external, formal and therefore inauthentic. Neoliberalism produces a culture of authenticity, which places the ego at its centre. The culture of authenticity develops a suspicion of ritualised forms of interaction. Only spontaneous emotions, subjective states, are authentic. Modelled behaviour, for example courtesy, is written off as inauthentic or superficial. The narcissistic cult of authenticity is partly responsible for the increasing brutality of society.

In my book I argue the case against the cult of authenticity, for an ethic of beautiful forms. Gestures of courtesy are not just superficial. The French philosopher Alain says that gestures of courtesy hold a great power on our thoughts. That if you mime kindness, goodwill and joy, and go through motions such as bowing, they help against foul moods as well as stomach ache. Often the external has a stronger hold than the internal.

Blaise Pascal once said that instead of despairing over a loss of faith, one should simply go to mass and join in rituals such as prayer and song, in other words mime, since it is precisely this that will bring back faith. The external transforms the internal, brings about new conditions. Therein lies the power of rituals. And our consciousness today is no longer rooted in objects. These external things can be very effective in stabilising consciousness. It is very difficult with information, since it is really volatile and holds a very narrow range of relevance."

- Byung-Chul Han being interviewed by Gesine Borcherdt, from "Byung-Chul Han: 'I Practise Philosophy as Art.'" Art Review, 2 December 2021.

[artifacts-and-arthropods]

Medieval Hermitage atop Katskhi Pillar, in Georgia (South Caucasus), c. 800-900 CE: this church was built during the Middle Ages, and it sits atop an enormous limestone column that has been venerated as a "Pillar of Life" for thousands of years

Known as Katskhi Pillar (or Katskhis Sveti), this giant block of limestone is located in western Georgia (the country, not the state), about 10km from the town of Chiatura.

The church that stands atop Katskhi Pillar was originally constructed during the 9th-10th centuries CE. It was long used as a hermitage for Stylites, who are sometimes referred to as "Pillar Saints" -- Christian ascetics who lived, prayed, and fasted atop pillars, often in total isolation, in an effort to bring themselves closer to God. The Stylite tradition originated in Syria during the 5th century CE, when a hermit known as Simeon the Elder purportedly climbed up onto a pillar and then stayed there for nearly 40 years, giving rise (no pun intended) to Christian Stylitism.

Stylitism managed to survive for about 1,000 years after its inception, but it began to die out during the late Middle Ages, and by the end of the 16th century, it had essentially gone extinct.

Researchers don't really know how the monks who built this Medieval church originally gained access to the top of Katskhi Pillar, or how they were able to transport their building materials up to the top of the column. Evidence suggests that there were still monks/Stylites living atop Katskhi Pillar up until the 1400s, but the site was abandoned shortly thereafter. Georgia fell under Ottoman rule during the same period, but it's unclear whether or not that may have played a role in the abandonment of the site.

The hermitage at the top of Katskhi Pillar lay abandoned for nearly 500 years after that; no one was able to reach the top of the pillar, and very little was known about the ruins that lay scattered at the top, as knowledge of the site's origin/history was gradually lost over time. There are many local legends that ultimately arose in order to fill in those blanks.

The abandoned hermitage was not visited again until July 29th, 1944, when a mountaineer finally ascended to the top of the column with a small team of researchers, and the group was able to perform the first archaeological survey of the ruins. They found that the structure included three hermit cells, a chapel, a wine cellar, and a small crypt; within the crypt lay a single set of human remains, likely belonging to one of the monks who had inhabited the site during the Middle Ages.

A metal ladder (the "stairway to Heaven") was ultimately installed into the side of the pillar in order to make it easier for both researchers and tourists to gain access to the ruins.

The hermitage at the top of Katskhi Pillar actually became active again in the early 1990's, when a small group of monks attempted to revive the Stylite tradition. A Georgian Orthodox monk named Maxime Qavtaradze then lived alone at the top of Katskhi Pillar for almost 20 years, beginning in 1995 and ending with his death in 2014. He is now buried at the base of the pillar.

The hermitage is no longer accessible to the public, and it's currently uninhabited, but it is still visited by local monks, who regularly climb up to the church at the top of the pillar in order to pray. There is also an active monastery complex at the base of the pillar, where a temple known as the Church of the Simeon Stylites is located.

The Church of the Simeon Stylites: this church is located within an active monastery complex that has been built at the base of the pillar; several frescoes and religious icons decorate the walls of the church, and a small shrine containing a 6th century cross is located in the center

There are many lingering questions about the history of Katskhi Pillar, particularly during the pre-Christian era. There is at least some evidence suggesting that it was once the site of votive offerings to pagan deities, as a series of pre-Christian idols have been found buried in the areas that surround the pillar. According to local tradition, the pillar itself was once venerated by the pagan societies that inhabited the area, but it's difficult to determine whether or not those claims may simply be part of the mythos that surrounds Katskhi Pillar, particularly given its mysterious reputation.

Sources & More Info:

BBC: Georgia's Daring, Death-Defying Pilgrimage

CNN: Katskhi Pillar, the Extraordinary Church where Daring Monks Climb Closer to God

Radio Free Europe: Georgian Monk Renews Tradition, Lives Atop Pillar

Architecture and Asceticism (Ch. 4): Stylitism as a Cultural Trend Between Syria and Georgia

Research Publication from the Georgian National Museum: Katskhi Pillar

Journal of Nomads: Katskhi Pillar, the Most Incredible Cliff Church in the World

Georgian Journal: Georgia's Katskhi Pillar Among World's 20 Wonderfully Serene and Secluded Places

[sophieinwonderland]

sophie, you have got to stop claiming that the christian god is canonically plural. that alone is depleting what little respect we have left for you. you're not christian yourself, or even spiritual. you have no right to speak on this. not to mention that there are several denominations of christianity that don't believe in a trinitarian god (our denomination being one of them). when you make these claims, you come off as a willfully ignorant asshole who treats the spiritual beliefs of others as bargaining chips for syscourse, regardless of what your intentions may be. speculation is fine, but making the claim that your speculation (on a religion you're not even a part of!) is unequivocally true is........ bad.

have a good day /gen. we say these things not out of any hatred or malice, but out of a genuine desire to help you learn and grow.

You know, I'm not one to toss around "check your privilege" unironically... but let's just say that I find it interesting how you, as a member of one of the most popular religions in the world that permeates every ounce of our culture, is saying we don't have a "right" to speak on your religion.

And all I can think is just... can you imagine if Hellenists reacted as you do every time they encountered somebody talking about the Greek gods?

I made similar statements about the Wiccan moon goddess being plural, and even when it offended a Wiccan sysmed, they didn't have the gall to say I didn't have the right to make those statements.

Sorry, you don't need to have some special "right" to be able to talk about a religion.

Anyway, God is canonically plural, according to most mainstream churches. God is three people in one being.

Yes, there are a few non-Trinitarian churches out there. And in fact, when my host was Christian, he and his family largely had non-trinitarian views, seeing Jesus as a separate being from The Father.

I'm not ignorant of the fact that non-trinitarian beliefs exist. They're just an overwhelming minority of the faith.

(Also, I guess someone should tell all the religious anthropologists to find a new field because apparently nobody has the right to say anything about a religion they aren't a part of. 🙄)

[gregoriaofnyssa]

On the Higher-Critical Method of Hermeneutics

It is exceedingly trendy to devour religious information of all kinds through the lens of secular scholarship, for either the sake of general knowledge, or for the sake of an artistic adventure. For either of those purposes, and certainly for the purpose of actual religious learning, the higher-critical approach fails on every level. The biggest perpetrators of this online are Genetically Modified Skeptic and Religion for Breakfast; the biggest print perpetrators are Bart D. Ehrman and George Harris. This method fails to accurately describe and convey the concept of religious orthodoxy, and therefore fails to accurately convey controversies within religions; it also fails to anthropologically contend with religions in a way that is honest and charitable; it denies not only the very concept of truth, but also the very concept of literary analysis. 

Much of the basis for this argument is rooted in vintage anthropology-- I preface “vintage” because anthropology has changed a great deal in the last 100 (even 50) years, and has come more and more to reflect the higher-critical method of hermeneutics, of course applied to secular cultural artifacts. In the past, anthropologists did not seek to study other cultures as a way to change their own, or as a way to frame their own. They studied it for pure passion. They studied it for themselves. An anthropologist doing similar good work today is Daniel Everett who wrote the sympathetic, raw, and amazing book Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle. A main reason why Everett’s work is so effective is because it takes the word of the Pirahã people (the subject of the book) as true. This makes the book strikingly intimate, especially because it is told from Everett’s own perspective. We thus get a greater understanding of the culture-- a highly mysterious and un-understandable culture at that. He writes, “‘I mean, what are you going to do to him for shooting your dog?’ ‘I will do nothing. I won’t hurt my brother. He acted like a child. He did a bad thing. But he is drunk and his head is not working well. He should not have hurt my dog. It is like my child.’ Even when provoked, as Kaaboogí was now, the Pirahãs were able to respond with patience, love, and understanding, in ways rarely matched in any other culture I have encountered.”

A key problem with the higher-critical method is that it applies a hermeneutics of suspicion, rather than a hermeneutics of trust, as vintage anthropology did. The passage above would read much differently, and be much less revelatory, had Everett followed the encounter with an insistence that the Pirahã must not actually be so compassionate, and must, in fact, be putting on a show to fool outsiders for more canoe money. Just as that is unsatisfying, so too is a hermeneutics of suspicion that insists Jesus said to care for the poor in order to manipulate starving Jeudeans into joining his “movement”. Not only is it unsatisfying, but it makes no sense. The higher-critical scholar must invent new motivations seen nowhere else in the text, or in adjoining texts of the day, to justify what is essentially a headcanon. It assumes too much, and what it assumes is an insult: people do not say they believe what they do because they believe it-- they have ulterior motives. The higher-critical method demands you see all people as charlatans.

We should notice that this is an anti-historical method as well. Historians do not make a habit of assuming primary sources are lying unless there is extremely good reason. I’ve studied the writings of Ibn Fadlan on the rituals of the Vikings, and not once did a professor or a critic write that he must’ve been making up the horse-killing for the sake of making barbarians appear worse than Muhammadeans. 

The method is also unliterary. It is possible for an atheist to read the Bible (or any scripture, for that matter) and encounter it as a complete work of fiction, whilst still applying the usual rules of textual analysis and letters. It is possible, even in the context of “fiction” for interpretations to be baseless and wrong. We hear in school there is no such thing as a wrong answer in literature, but be assured, there is. There are analysis, conclusions, and summaries that are disconnected from the text so to have nothing backing it up for any kind of merit. For example, if someone were to say, “The theme of Hamlet is that love conquers all,” that would be a conclusion so wrong you’d probably assume the speaker was pretending to have read it. The same is true with the Bible, and with all other scripture. The theme of Maccabees is not that the oppressed should take their torture lying down and there is nothing in the epistles to suggest the Apostle Paul was gay. The latter is fanfiction and the former is active subversion-- look out for that. 

You may believe I want only the Bible to be interpreted in such a way. But this would be wrong. I am frequently disgusted by the mistreatment of other sacred texts; in the HCM, this is particularly suffered upon the Quran. My insistence against the HCM is not only religious, but born of an anthropological conviction. I love people; the whole world is my people. I love to study them, to learn about their experiences, and to read what they have written. It breaks something in my heart when even documents I disagree with are encountered as if they are intentionally lying. The Quran was written by a man, and I believe that man believed what he wrote to be true, and I believe that those who believed him really did. I do not like to be taken for a liar, and I assume the feeling is the same through all people. 

It weakens the position of the opponents of any text, because in order to argue against something, you must actually know it. You must understand it, and you will never understand something you don’t trust to be the words someone once believed.

[just-xtian-thoughts]

"The knowledge of good and evil" has come to mean for me that the implications are that our use of tools led us to thinking abstractly about everying, which turned into a desire to consider everything as just a utility, something to be retooled for our personal benefit, inconsiderate of all else.

The reason Adam & Eve covering themselves out of shame was because suddenly, they realised that they too could be seen as a "utility" to someone else. Being naked now meant being vulnerable; more easily exploited, and easy to break. It's telling, that the very next chapter shows Cain utilizing a rock for murder.

Not that I'm against human ingenuity or engineering (unless it's stuff like weaponry or Ai), since it doesn't seem like God was ever against us having it. It's perhaps the only way in which we resemble him in any way. But I do wonder sometimes, about how our brains and hormones would've been wired with the extra space there'd be from not having to be thinking about the potential harm(s) that any and every man-made object, be it physical, social, societal, or whatever, could cause...

[itsybitsy-arthistory]

Pisa, 24/07/23

[boygirlctommy]

hate having a genuine interest in christianity bcus there is No One in my life i can discuss it with. i sound too atheist to talk w religious people and too religious for the athiests lol

[ceo-draiochta]

A review of:

The Origins of Ireland's Holy Wells by Celeste Ray

Celeste Ray, a professor of anthropology for the University of the South, USA wrote this book after extensive research, both desk and foot into Irelands Holy Wells. I would honestly recommend anyone with any interest in Irish religious practices, culture, paganism, or mythology to pick it up. An amazing book. I'll be giving my thoughts and what I liked and didn't like about it here.

What I liked:

A very well researched book that shows the authors dedication not just to anthropology but to the living practices she is documenting

The passion of the author is clear and they Mince no words when discussing other researchers and their work, pointing out the flaws, misconceptions and biases (some of which were wild I can't believe some of these people are taken as authorities on the subject when their conclusion was that wells are a toilet metaphor?)

Uses a wider pre roman European context for the evidence. As we are so often reminded, to treat Ireland as some how separate from Western Europe is ridiculous and is a disservice to the interconnection of the people of old.

The reframing of this idea, which is normally used as a strong force against nativist views into a supportive one was quite interesting.

Examines roman writings in a very balanced way that acknowledges the inherent propaganda but does not dismiss it outright.

There's a whole section of people including academics who seems desperate for a roman invasion of ireland, despite there being basically no evidence of it. Like people are fully making things up to try and force one, the author gives these people a sound dismissal in their restating of the evidence of raiding and trade over large-scale roman conquest. (Genuine question can someone explain why people are so mad for Romans in ireland?)

I thus learned more about pre roman Western European practices and archeology than I ever really had the desire to. I am now much more educated on the subject.

The framing of sites as important locations adopted and readopted based on shifting circumstances of the time rather than a "secret unbroken line" which is much more realistic.

The explanation of Holy Wells as archaeologically challenging sites was well explained.

Using etymology in the connection of wells to supernatural beings. Love etymology so this was amazing

The use of early irish literature to support existing claims. Which I know claiming that there are pagan elements in the literature basically gets you spat and jeered at but nevertheless is really compelling.

While this blog has been thoroughly against the lumping together of celtic cultures, this book makes a great case as to when it is appropriate to use the term celtic and that the rush to replace this term has very much resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water.

Actually engages with living culture and treats folklore and living sources/practices as evidence to be considered rather than "silly little irish peasants" but also does not take every tale as completely accurate literal history.

Plenty of examples and pictures of well in practice today.

Supports a general pre Christian, pre roman use of wells and springs as sacred sites but also acknowledges the influence of both (especially Christian) on the practice.

Acknowledges the diverse origins of holy wells, from one's that have have votive offerings since the bronze age to ones that were made sacred in the modern age.

Does not buy into any sort of "Christians are thieves" narrative.

Honestly this seems like the definitive book on irish holy wells.

What I didn't like:

While I loved the book there was definitely things I took issue with.

The assertive nature of the tone was entertaining, it did sort of feel like the author was this close to calling other researchers "fucking idiots", though humanities papers seem to have a much more aggressive tone than I am used to from my field of study.

The author makes many an interesting and compelling hypothesis in the book, but they are just that. These theories are then presented as the fact of the matter when really they are no more or less substantiated than the other theories.

Could have done without some of the "identity politics" on the celtic question section. Like I get that's a huge part of this authors work but I didn't feel it was all necessary to include.

Some of the mythological comparisons seem like a little bit of a stretch Low-key.

Either way this is a fantastic work and I urge everyone even remotely interested to buy it, it's a little pricey but well worth it. It can be purchased online on Google books(link). Now obviously this is all from my lay perspective, if anyone with actual qualifications wants to correct or argue feel free. This is just my perspective.

[useless-catalanfacts]

One of the most iconic moments in the Corpus Christi festivities in València is the processions, first the "Cavalcada del Convit" and a few hours later the Custodia. Each of them consists of a specific set of traditional Valencian dances and representations of Biblical characters.

One of the most anticipated moment for children comes at the end of the Convit procession, with the friendly representation of the Massacre of the Innocents. According to Christian belief, Herod, King of Judea, attempted to eliminate the Messiah by ordering his soldiers to kill all the children aged 2 or under who were around Bethlehem (Jesus's birthplace). The Convit procession represents various Biblical scenes and their characters: the Mystery of Adam and Eve with people dressed as God, Adam, Eve, two angels, the snake, and Death; the Mystery of Saint Christopher and the Pilgrims with Saint Christopher, Jesus, a hermit, a pilgrim man, a pilgrim woman, and the pilgrims' father; and the Mystery of King Herod with Mary on a donkey carrying Baby Jesus, Saint Joseph, an angel, the Three Wise Men, three page boys, two other wise men, a knight, four wet nurses, a gleaner, three harvesters/reapers, King Herod, three sergeants, a trumpet player, a judge, and the Degolla.

The Degolla is a large group of men who represent the soldiers who executed King Herod's order. They wear caricature-like war paint, grape leaf crowns, and clothes made of a sack. They carry big sticks and a bag full of sweets, and walk the streets shouting asking for water. When they reach Cabillers and Avellanes streets, people throw water at them from the balconies, and the Degolla men jokingly get everyone around them wet as well. Ironically, the representation of child-killers is the most popular Corpus event among children.

Photos by Eva Máñez published in Guía Repsol, and Amics del Corpus València.

[gingerswagfreckles]

the way everyone on this site just assumes all atheists r ex-christians is really fucking gross lol. and frankly just goes to show how christian-centric 99% of you still are.

[apesoformythoughts]

"For me, a particularly delightful feature of this brief text ['The Christian Image of Man'] by our late pontiff was witnessing his renewed engagement with a 1391 A.D. debate between Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a learned Persian concerning the truth claims of Christianity and Islam. As many readers will recall, Benedict famously (and, in some circles, infamously) referenced this dispute in his landmark 2006 Regensburg Address [...]

This time around, Benedict foregrounds a different topic within this same exchange, the 7th in a series of 26 such conversations between the emperor and the anonymous Muslim mudarris (teacher). Having debated a variety of matters where they stood in firm opposition with one another, both interlocutors ultimately concurred that the crux of their divergence centers on which religion offers the correct image of man. Rehearsing a trope that one often encounters in an Islamic context, the Persian claims that Christianity’s image of man is unrealistic—“heavy, excessive, and impracticable”—imposing unattainable moral demands that are bound to result in failure (§5.c). After all, the thinking goes, what man is “made of iron or diamond” so as to be capable of loving his enemies, turning the other cheek when wronged, or honoring a lifelong commitment made in the idealism of youth? (§5.e). In particular, the mudarris considers the Christian discipline of vowed virginity a “totally unbearable” and “violent” burden that suffers from the “obvious” problem of being “outside the realm of reason” insofar as it asks an incarnate creature to ��imitate the nature of bodiless beings” (§5.f).

According to this line of thinking, we might as well openly permit divorce and certain forms of violence while seeking ways to regulate them, given that we will never be able to completely prevent people from partaking in such behaviors. In this regard, the Muslim contends, “The law of Muhamad is the middle way,” as it proclaims “moderate” precepts that are “much more bearable and humane…For it fills in by its own precepts what was lacking in the old law, but trims the excesses of the law of Christ” (§5.b). In this way, he argues that Islamic morality aligns more closely with the wisdom of ancient philosophers like Aristotle, being “better than all laws” because it “avoids both extremes, honoring the mean in everything” (§5.c–d).

In response to this viewpoint, the emperor contends that Islam’s seeming realism demands too little of man, effectively preventing him from rising to his full greatness. Contrary to Islam, the Christian believes that with God all things are indeed possible because “the hand of God invisibly assists them in carrying them out” (§9.b). Manuel thus explains that we can indeed live the Beatitudes and attain spiritual perfection thanks to the grace of Christ, who “does not recommend impossible things” (19.f).

Taking into account the gap between the Christian vision of human perfection and the various views present in other religious and secular contexts, Benedict draws the following lesson from this conversation: “[T]he question concerning the correct image of man emerges as the fundamental practical question in the clash between Christianity and the antichrist.” From here, the pontiff sharpens his focus and puts forward a thesis that he revisited often throughout his career: “In my view, the central point of this confrontation will be the question of freedom.”"

-- Matthew Ramage: "The Christian Image of Man"

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

Do people's souls have gender, do you think?

Yes, I do. Our souls are not intended to exist separately from our bodies.

It's not a perfect comparison, but consider a circle. The abstract or mathematical Form "circle" is real, but it is always expressed in Matter. One cannot encounter or possess a circle in the abstract, but one does encounter and possess a real wooden dowel, a rubber tire, or a porcelain plate.

Souls are much the same. They are spiritually real, but intended to always be expressed in bodies. If a body is male, that says something about the soul it is expressing. If a body is female, that says something about the soul it is expressing.

And much like a plate that is shattered ceases to be a complete circle, a soul severed from its body ceases to be a complete human being. This is why we all know and feel that death is a tragedy. After death, we are still ourselves, but only our Formal selves until Christ returns and resurrects + glorifies our bodies (yes, the same bodies we have today). If our souls were so separate from our bodies as to render sex irrelevant, there would be no reason for God to do this, rather than create for us totally new bodies perhaps with opposite sexes from our earthly ones.