#first of all all of Eastern Orthodoxy exists

[gemsofgreece]

sorry if it is a weird question but what do you thinks of the survey that found out greece was the most sexually active country in the world ? I always found that hard to believe because first Latinos exist lol, and secondly i always had this image of greece as a strongly christian country like armenia or romania. Is the survey bullshit or is hookup culture that prevalent here ?

Oh come on Anon, haven’t you heard of the “Greek lover” and the “Greek kamaki” (Greek-style flirting)? 😉😂😂

Jokes aside, nah most Greeks do like having a lot of sex. Greece does not have as a widespread hookup culture as NW Europe but sex is not dependent only on that. Greeks, like some other Mediterraneans ie Italians, Spaniards, French, are perceived as warm, expressive , touchy feely and very passionate people who often experience their emotions intensely and this perhaps leads to relationships with a lot of physical intimacy that counterbalances the fewer hookups.

Even culturally, a man is viewed as more successful if he has a lot of game or if he’s having a lot of sex in his longterm relationship. It’s not the same with the women oF cOUrsE, however even a woman not having sex or having too little sex starts being viewed as “miserable”, “lonely” or “weird”. (Rule of thumb to help you understand: in Greece everyone gets mocked / judged no matter what they do or don’t do. If you exist or have existed at some point in time, you are getting judged. There’s no getting away from it.)

As for the religion, look, first of all I know you will see Orthodox pages on the internet saying how the Orthodox church opposes to premarital sex but what they don’t tell you is how (Greek / Eastern? Can’t speak on the behalf of the Slavonic) Orthodoxy is one of the least intrusive to your privacy Christian doctrines. So, it may have some strict teachings but you can leave them behind and keep believing in the way you see fit and it does not shun you out of its community - this is against its philosophy to my understanding, neither does it have so much access to your private life that it would put you on the spot for all that, unless you welcome this, like if you make the choice to go to a priest and of all things choose to tell him you have had a lot of premarital sex and ask his opinion, well yeah then he will probably advice you against it but… we don’t do that unless we feel like reevaluating our choices ourselves and we just need further guidance from there. Despite what you may see on the internet, the Greek Orthdox are WAY less likely to not have sex for religious reasons than, say, Catholic Latinos or the Evangelists. And for all reasons that a Greek may choose to not have sex, a religious one is the least common for sure.

Regarding the survey, this was made by Durex. So perhaps it mostly shows that Greeks had the most frequent protected sex (thank goodness). In addition to everything else I said for generally loving sex, Greeks may have more protected sex even in longterm relationships because they want to avoid having kids or more kids due to financial reasons. For all the sex Greece is supposedly having, we are having no kids. I also saw another survey that said Greece was above average in the number of sexual partners and it ranked in the 15th place in the world but higher than some nations like France, which may seem like a surprise. Still, it wasn’t the TOP 1, it was in the top 15. So maybe it’s what I said, more sex inside a relationship. Or maybe it is that you can never be sure with these surveys, let alone that participants may be exaggerating their answers, so I can’t guarantee you that “yeah Greece is definitely the top first most sexually active” but I do think it must be generally high in the rankings.

[orthodoxadventure]

The monastic life first emerged as a definite institution in Egypt at the start of the fourth century, and from there it rapidly spread across Christendom. It is no coincidence that monasticism should have developed immediately after Constantine's conversion, at the very time when the persecutions ceased and Christianity became fashionable. The monks with their austerities were martyrs in an age when martyrdom of blood no longer existed; they formed the counterbalance to an established Christendom. Men in Byzantine society were in danger of forgetting that Byzantium was an icon and symbol, not the reality; they ran the risk of identifying the kingdom of God with an earthly kingdom. The monks by their withdrawal from society into the desert fulfilled a prophetic and eschatological ministry in the life of the Church. They reminded Christians that the kingdom of God is not of this world.

Monasticism has taken three chief forms, all of which had appeared in Egypt by the year 350, and all of which are still to be found in the Orthodox Church today. There are first the hermits, men leading the solitary life in huts or caves, and even in tombs, among the branches of trees, or on the tops of pillars. The great model of the eremitic life is the father of monasticism himself, Saint Antony of Egypt (251-356). Secondly there is the community life, where monks dwell together under a common rule and in a regularly constituted monastery. Here the great pioneer was Saint Pachomius of Egypt (286-346), author of a rule later used by Saint Benedict in the west. Basil the Great, whose ascetic writings have exercised a formative influence on eastern monasticism, was a strong advocate of the community life. Giving a social emphasis to monasticism, he urged that religious houses should care for the sick and poor, maintaining hospitals and orphanages, and working directly for the benefit of society at large. But in general eastern monasticism has been far less concerned than western with active work; in Orthodoxy a monk's primary task is the life of prayer, and it is through this that he serves others. It is not so much what a monk does that matters, as what he is. Finally there is a form of the monastic life intermediate between the first two, the semi-eremitic life, a 'middle way' where instead of a single highly organized community there is a loosely knit group of small settlements, each settlement containing perhaps between two and six brethren living together under the guidance of an elder. The great centres of the semi-eremitic life in Egypt were Nitria and Scetis, which by the end of the fourth century had produced many outstanding monks - Ammon the founder of Nitria, Macarius of Egypt and Macarius of Alexandria, Evagrius of Pontus, and Arsenius the Great.

-- Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church

[adventism-atheism-orthodoxy-me]

Proving God, or Not.

It's somewhat odd to be making this post, given that my starting point was a series of first principles - posits.

My first was that there is more to the universe then what I can see, smell, taste, hear and touch.

The second was that what I can't interact with is just as varied as what I can.

My last was, that for the sake of argument, what I could interact with is a subtotal of the entire universe, arranged in a hierarchy with something at the top.

This brings us to the idea of God.

He is therefore not a proof, but a definition. Much like in geometry - a point must be defined before anything else happens. Based upon that point, a whole host of further postulates and theorems can be generated, ending with the totality of Euclidean Geometry.

I see the work of God in the Unified Field Theory, The Grand Unified Theory, and in any study which seeks to understand the world around us as systems, such as the water cycle, and processes such as economics, rather than as discrete objects unrelated to one another. I am especially excited when I see things that were once considered separate, joined together in a larger context. In my mind, That larger context gets us closer to God. (John 12:32, Ephesians 1:10)

Let's talk Schrodinger's cat. Only by cat, I mean God. We've all heard Pascals wager, the one about living ones life as if God existed. Here's the thing, the proof of God will be revealed one way or another, I just don't think it will be during our lives or in this earthly realm. I think we'll have to die ourselves before we are able to open the box. By then, having the proof will be too late. Germs existed long before viruses and bacteria were discovered. The Atomic Bomb started as a postulate before it became a reality. I think of God in the same terms.

I read the Bible. I go to a protestant Church. But most Christians would probably call me a heretic. Even though Christ himself understood the difficulty of belief in things unseen. (John 20:29, Luke 16:27-31) He did give himself as a referent to God the father (John 14:9)

It is clear that I'm writing to people who aren't really interested with what I'm saying in that I've written several years of posts covering this stuff. I've highlighted my disdain for certain Christian tropes that I think are distortions of what we are called to be as Christians.

I take my regular readership to be a handful of hodgepodge Chistians covering a host of denominations, and possibly one political philosopher.

My goal isn't to engage in apologetics, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe in a God they don't want to believe in. Atheists want me to prove God, when all I care about is, assuming God exists, what might he be like, and how would he want me to live my best life in harmony with everyone else's best life (I'm including naked mole rats, rubber boas, and really anything else that has a claim to life here on earth).

I look to native concepts of "the all father" to see how they implemented the concept of God into their praxis and liturgies.

My personal belief is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches by-and-large come the closest to my idea of God within the Christian world.

And while Rationalist Atheists scoff at miracles, The Eastern Churches still have them, though you won't hear them publicized (Per Luke 16, among other verses). I've also been told that Eastern Orthodoxy respects and integrates Native American experience and traditions in a way other Churches don't. I don't know how true that is, but it's the report I've heard.

[kwayarchive]

Last night I asked myself, “What does it mean to be an innovative artist in a collectivist society?”. By collectivist, I guess I mean places that either self-prescribe or are associated with homogeneity, with strong shared communal values and principles — where “sameness” is amplified over individuality and independence.

As a caveat, this is not at all to say that in these spaces individuality or independence doesn’t exist, or that sameness has replaced entirely these concepts manifesting in these spaces. I don’t want to make any strong assertions like that at all.

When I think of places that can be described as above, what first came to mind were parts of Eastern Asia — I.e. Japan, Korea, China, etc. So really, I asked myself, “how do artists in this part of the world cultivate individuality and personal identity within their work?”.

The first artists that come to mind with very clear and conspicuous personal styles — such that they are recognizable within these pieces and can be named very easily — are Japanese artists Takashi Murakami and Yayoi Kusama.

Now some additional caveats. Yes, these are artists from only one country out of the few I listed but, despite their many obvious and may be not so obvious differences, I feel this region of the world shared similar social constructs and structures, which is why I’m allowing myself to even use just these two artists as an example. However, this id not to assert that these countries are entirely the same, not even in this particular aspect, only that there are parallels. Also, I won’t be doing any kind of visual analysis of these artists individual styles, so this won’t be a very in-depth investigation into this phenomenon I want to explore, but it will open the door to a larger conversation that should be given more depth. Finally, none of this is to say that “western” spaces and their preference for “individuality” (which may also be debatable) is ideal for cultivating personal identity. I think the west does a better job of selling the fantasy of individuality, which in turn may make it easier to cultivate personal identity more.

Anyways.

I highlight these two artists because they have cultivated styles of art that one would think is asynchronous with the values and principles regarding art and “good art making” in these spaces.

A friend of mine, an amazing painter with a proclivity for reflective surfaces and geometric shapes, who is originally from China, has similarly cultivated a style that would not be considered “orthodox” in artistic spaces there. In our studio class, we would often get glimpses of their stress, imposter syndrome, and self-imposed pressure to succeed and make “good art” that I’m sure was used in these spaces to diminish the value of their work — because it doesn’t “fit” an orthodox style of painting.

I guess all of this is to say, I’m making a conjecture here. Because although I can’t confirm if this is truly the case, it does come across that in spaces with strong ties to collectivist values/emphasis on tradition and “sameness”, that it’s much harder to cultivate personal identity. And even when there are clearly artists who have been able to do so, there are remnants of the values of tradition/orthodoxy that influence either the work itself, the process of creation, or the way in which the artist themselves view their personal style.

So when the tools for constructing personal identity are essentially discouraged, or at least renounced, in particular social environments, how do the artists in those spaces even come to create their own styles or techniques? What kinds of work must be done to break from the monotony of the rest of the group? To trust in the direction of your art as opposed to what the majority asks of you?

I’m sure with additional research into the aforementioned artists I will come to see how they grew into their practices, and crystallized their personal identity. But I also wonder if I’ll find that within their works are traces of these collectivist values and principles, but repackaged in new form.

Updates to come as I do more reading 🫡

[guiltywisdom]

I’ve been inquiring into Orthodoxy for a few months (coming from protestantism) and I don’t know for certain yet if I will choose to convert, I guess because I have a few hangups. I attended Divine Liturgy at my local parish for the first time last week and intend to continue worshipping with them and talking to the priests there, but I figured I would bring my questions to you as well.

I’ve been watching interviews and talks from Dr. Jeannie Constantinou, who seems absolutely brilliant and I love her. I’ve heard her explain at least 5 different times now this notion of “phronema,” basically the mind of the Church (the mind of the Apostles, as taught by Christ) and how the Eastern phronema is so different from the West because of the West’s emphasis on human reasoning. I appreciate mystery; mysticism and apophatic theology is what attracted me to Orthodoxy in the first place. But while denouncing Western appeals to reason and emphasizing appeals to Tradition and the mysteries therein, two examples she brought up were same-sex marriage and universalism, basically saying that no matter how reasonable an argument one might make, it’s not Tradition and therefore invalid.

While I’m honestly not sure what to believe about homosexuality (I have pro-LGBT leanings personally but am unconvinced either way I guess), I believe in a “Biblical Universalism,” the idea that Hell is temporary and ultimately corrective rather than punitive, like a furnace to purify gold of any dross. It makes the most philosophical sense to me, I see it in the Scriptures, and (most importantly in this context) I see it as historical.

I’ve read a summary of the points brought up in the book “Universalism, The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years” by John Wesley Hanson and found them to be very compelling. It seems to show that universalism ought to have been preserved in Tradition, but for many reasons did not, and instead the idea of eternal torment in Hell has solidified.

Now we’re in a spot where the likes of the brilliant Dr. Constantinou is saying that, no matter how reasonable a stance like this might seem, we cannot rely on our own reasoning, as she appeals to the Apostolic Tradition. Truly, I don’t want to be prideful or arrogant, and I wish to conform my thinking in all ways to Christ. But it seems that such a stance should have been Tradition all along.

Please, how can I reconcile this? I think I want to participate in the Orthodox life. I like your worship, your prayers, your fasting, your asceticism, your mysticism, and (the bulk of) your theology. I think Orthodoxy is likely the closest to ancient Christianity. But must I take your tradition as wholly infallible? Is this an issue I need to humble myself on and conform to, or can I truly be welcomed if this is my view?

Tradition isn't "wholly infallible" because, for the most part, it was created by man. In general Orthodoxy teaches that, although we do have all we need for Salvation, some things we do not know for sure and that sometimes we must rexamine said tradition for new truths. Homosexuality wasn't really explored by the early fathers because homosexuality as we know it didn't exist. I think people see the Bible (and the words of the Church Fathers) as too black and white rather than something nebulous and deep. A common belief in the Orthodoxy of the people is something called "Hopeful Universalism" wherein those who believe it (myself included) argue that because God is infinitely loving and good then he would likely wish to reconcile all sinners to him but that we cannot know for sure and that free choice presupposes that there must be an option for those who might never choose to reconcile. You'll find that Orthodoxy has a lot of variation in belief, just ask about our infinite arguments over if Toll Houses are literal, a metaphor or heresy! I think you're a lot like me my sibling in Christ and I'm still here! Keep at it my friend.

[the-jam-to-the-unicorn]

Christmas address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Fellow Ukrainians!

Millions of Ukrainians today are waiting for the first star to appear in the evening sky, heralding the arrival of Christmas. A holiday of many shades. A great church holiday. An important national holiday. A family holiday. Christmas, which is always loved by children and awaited by adults. Christmas, which fills hearts with light. Christmas, which always gives hope.

For the second year now, we have learned another form of it, another dimension. This is Christmas in times of full-scale war. Christmas with a different mood, context, and flavor. 

And a family dinner at home is not the same as usual. Because not all of us are at home. And not everyone has a home. And it has become much more important not what dishes are on the table, but what people are at the table. And how precious it is to have them around.

How important it is to stay in touch with those who are not around, who are defending Ukraine now. What a relief it is to see a "double tick" on the screen meaning the message was delivered and read. How crucial it is to get a response from them.

How our gifts, values, and traditions have changed. How today it's not so much about how we decorate our homes, but rather how we protect them and clean up the mess, sweeping the enemy out of our home. How we rejoice at seeing the first star in the evening sky and not seeing enemy missiles and "Shaheds" in it.

How joyously and sonorously sound the hundreds of our carols, and just three words: "air raid over."

How our wishes have changed. How children's wishes have changed. From the simple and usual "I wish for dad to come home early from work" to "I wish for dad to come back."

For all fathers, husbands, brothers, grandfathers to come back. Mothers, wives, sisters. To return victorious. All those who are meeting the Christmas Eve in the trenches with weapons in their hands, facing the enemy. All our warriors of light. Guardian angels of Ukraine, who prove to us every day: good will prevail, light will prevail, one must have steadfast spirit, and strong faith. Those who prove that miracles do exist. But we have to create them ourselves, obtain them ourselves, make the impossible possible.

Every day we pray for each of them. We pray for an end to the war. We pray for victory.

We will do so today as well. Wherever we are. Wherever we spend Christmas. Today, all Ukrainians are together. We all meet Christmas together. On the same date, as one big family, as one nation, as one united country. And today our common prayer will be stronger than ever. The people's prayer. Today, it will unite millions of voices - more than ever before. And it will resonate today without a time difference of two weeks. Resonate together with Europe and the world.

And this is a unique prayer. For people, for peace, for justice, a prayer for life. And today it will be heard in different parts of the world, coming from the hearts of different people, in different languages. And even from different denominations. Because this is a prayer for life, and it has no borders.

In troubled times, as we defend our land and our souls, we are making our way to freedom. The way to gaining comprehensive independence, including spiritual one. Freedom of our faith from the ideology of slavery. From a cult that has nothing human or sacred within it. One that brings violence, aggression, hatred. One that takes away security and peace, takes away other people's lands and human lives. Yet one that will be defeated. By the power of faith, the power of truth, the power of law, the power of justice, the power of our Ukraine.

Right now, I am in the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. Majestic. Iconic. Ours.

A thousand-year old symbol of Ukrainian history, our culture, religion, Orthodoxy, and all of Eastern Christianity. A proof of our unyielding fortitude, resilience, tough challenges and ability to overcome them. Invariably reviving and growing.

Throughout its history, this place has experienced numerous upheavals and hardships. Profanation, desecration, looting. The Horde, the Nazis, the Soviet times. This place was captured, burned, and destroyed. But no one has ever been able to destroy it completely and forever. The Lavra has always withstood to be reborn again. And after each blow, it not only recovered, but grew bigger and stronger. Because it was and remains a place of power for people. A source of hope and spirit for our people. For everyone who believes. In the victory of truth. The victory of Ukraine.

Christmas Eve is the time of the longest nights of the year. But tomorrow the day starts getting longer, the light starts prevailing. The light is getting stronger. And step by step, day by day, the darkness retreats.

And in the end, darkness will lose. Evil will be defeated. Today, this is our common goal, our common dream, and this is what our common prayer is for today. For our freedom. For our victory. For our Ukraine. For the day when we can all come together at home in a peaceful year of peaceful Christmas. And say to each other: "Christ is born!"

Dear Ukrainians! I extend my Christmas congratulations to all of you! May the light of faith reign in your souls, the light of hope fill your hearts, and love and prosperity fill your homes.

As our ancestors used to say and sing: "Let the sky and the earth bear fruit. Let the sky bear stars, and let the earth bear flowers. God grant it!"

And as we will say today: "Let our Ukraine bear victory and peace. God grant it!"

Congratulations, dear people of Ukraine!

Christ is born! Let us praise Him!

[bradiaga]

Hello. You may call me Zoia. I am a self-identified "armchair magician" with a passion for occult, mystery, and ancient civilization. I am passionate for all things sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, spirituality, religion, and biology. I am fluent in english and currently a beginner in Romanian and Russian.

~~~~~~~~~~

I believe in shedding light to that which has been hidden in the dark and in showing the darkness of that which has been cast in the light.

I believe in balance, mirrors, exploration of the psyche. I believe in egoism and selflessness, life and death, justice and evil. I know it to be true that the world lives off of these rules:

• Nature knows no kings. All things are connected. No man is above another. The body is nothing and the body is everything. The soul is eternal, singular yet all-encompassing. Everything with a yes is a no, and good and evil live inside all living creatures, and often in the non-living as well.

•Constructs like gender and ethnicity are meaningful as they provide personal identity and connection to true self and ancestry, but the obsession of the criteria needed to meet these roles and the existence of them at all aside from their ability to provide joy or knowledge binds people into egoism, insecurity, + delusion, causing intense division and often violence.

•The body is just as important as the soul as it is a vessel for which we are able to utilize our free will in favor of our needs, wants, desires. It houses our soul and all the souls before us, and should be treated with respect and love, but not narcissism. The body is not something to be escaped, it is a tool to be used to shape the earthly world to your desires. As above, so below. Do not obsess over ascension lest you never come down.

•Science is real, with exceptions for magical circumstances. Magic is real, with limits for scientific circumstances. They are one in the same.

•All things are magic. The ability to speak, to move your body where you wish, cooking, cleaning, sewing, gardening, masturbating, eating, listening to music, the fact that you are who you are exactly where you are and not somewhere else being someone else. Even if accommodations must be made and certain handicaps may limit you, the ability to be alive at all is magic. We are all chosen for something earthly and divinely unique.

•Your ancestry has the answers you seek. So do the ancestors of someone on the other side of the world. Know yourself, and know others as you know yourself. There is wisdom in connection, in difference.

•No one knows the land better than the natives of it. Pay no mind to new age snake oil salesmen who's only connection comes from distant observation. Dive deeply into whatever it is you are researching, speak to those who truly live it, listen to and accept all perspectives, and know your boundaries. Show respect and never get too smart for your own good. You should know well enough of the consequences if you don't.

•There is a counterpart and equal to all things. We are conceived from a spirit, born through the waters of the womb, ignited like a fire with passion to exist, and buried in the dirt. No man is above another.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I am currently studying eastern european and slavic mysticism, paganism, and ancient history. I am inspired most by Grecian + Roman Religion, Jewish Mysticism + Qabalah, Abrahamic Religions + Eastern Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, Native American Religions and Spirituality, Druids, Sorcery, Hermeticism, Thelema, Hinduism, + Zoroastrianism.

I have slavic and Romanian heritage, but reside near the Appalachian mountains in America and grew up in Dakota/Lakota territory, and am very inspired by First Nations beliefs as I know they truly have dominion over this land and know it better than anyone else would.

I am also undergoing a personal journey that seeks for me to get in touch with my ancestors and thus I am creating this blog as a collection of information which I will be using to get back into practical magic and sorcery. I am solitary and have been non-practicing for some time now, so I may not be the most knowledgeable. I am always open to learn and be challenged with new or differing opinions and beliefs.

I have no label and am a wanderer, both in spirit and in earthly life. My story is long and confusing, one of seperation, loss, abuse, isolation, heartbreak, and—ultimately—victory and true peace.

Zoia, Damă Babylon, High Priestess, + Lonely Child—Binecuvântat Să Fie.

[kaurwreck]

totally understand the apparent incongruity between the silly action absurdism in bsd and the recent political commentary, but the political commentary in bsd has been threaded throughout with varying degrees of subtly, some of which I only initially clocked because of my undergrad and graduate education in political science, philosophy, and law; my transpacific legal practice; and my longstanding interest in history, classic lit, political philosophy, strategy, and international statecraft. most of what I now understand only began surfacing after I began deep diving into the source material and historical resources that I started exploring explicitly to better contextualize bsd.

it scarcely breaches the surface of the political commentary in bsd, but below I've listed posts I've written on bsd's metacommentary relating to politics and philosophy:

World Building

bsd exists in an alternate interwar period between WW1 and WW2, and there are wild historical divergences that speak to Asagiri's ruminations on statehood and sovereignty.

the agency office is designed to reflect the east/west tensions specific to 1920s-1930s japan

the contemporary Japanese constitution as we know it does not exist in bsd, and that has implications.

us-japan and uk-japan relations are fundamentally different in bsd than in irl.

yokohama is structured in such a way that indicates the port treaties were never formally abrogated.

the port mafia performs the same function in yokohama as organized crime does in a failed state, relating back to the prior bullet point.

no, seriously, yokohama has a foreign military police presence that the port mafia proactively contains to stabilize the city because the city is a failed state, and we were told this within the first few episodes/chapters.

bsd continuously explores the impact of ww1, the tensions and failures of the interwar period, and how each + other auxiliary conflicts created ww2 — all of which are critical to understanding the modern state, and modern statecraft.

bsd yokohama also frequently harkens back to the chaos of early port treaty city yokohama, and the only thing maintaining its modernity is seemingly the tripartite framework.

Philosophy

fyodor's ability reflects his eastern orthodoxy.

dead apple reveals a lot of fyodor's ideological motivations and philosophical worldview, which in turn reflect his fear that only consequences prevent atrocities. (but he also thinks that there being any chosen among the all reflects a fundamental violence against humanity imparted by a god whose world he seeks to fix.)

aya's skill is a commentary on confucian virtues.

akutagawa is lost in the sauce of his own politics and philosophical anguishes, down to the frilly little jabot he wears.

Political commentary is woven into every aspect of bsd, from setting and set design to costume design to the historical references to the world building to the themes and narrative structure to the characters' motivations and driving forces. You can't have a story set between wars, one of which is explicitly WW1, without there being political commentary.

But there are even subtler details woven throughout, all of which emphasize that this is a story about what it means to exist. Any inquiry into existence requires political commentary, considering politics concerns the total complex of relations between people living in society.

It's also a flexible term, and lest the subtleties not be enough, the existence of ability users and their ongoing threat to civil order that drives Fyodor's consistently vocalized ambitions to eradicate them as a form of salvation more obviously references another definition of politics, i.e. the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of status or resources.

And, lest we forget, the widepread, internationalization of fun, silly action manga is a form of soft cultural power/lever of international influence that serves Japan's interests as a nationstate. Which is pretty inherently political.

tl;dr: we cannot divorce how we choose to cope with the world from the world with which we're coping.

me: wow it's odd that I haven't seen more chatter about the latest chapter

me, reading the chapter: oh, it's because it's all hobbesian discourse and the brothers karamazov references

[insulanox]

Greetings to both mortals and non-mortals. This is but a mere blog dedicated to A Vampire known by many names, but is currently known by many as 'Armand.' A Vampire first brought to paper by Anne Rice in a short story either in 1968, or 1969. Then of course, brought to publication finally in 'Interview with the Vampire' in 1976. Mature audiences only please. Take care to view this content at your own discretion. This is meant to be a dedicated collection of the following: ⬥Aesthetics that are either reminiscent of said Vampire, or give reference to a specific chapter of his life. Content will be tagged as various names that correspond to these respective time periods and various settings. ▪️"Armand" - Paris, San Francisco, macabre, theatre, riches, film, 70's-90's, lavish lifestyle, Miami area, satanic iconography, ect. ▪️ "Amedeo" - Venice, Early Renaissance, Astronomy, Paintings, Fencing, ect. ▪️ "Andrei" - Early slavic art, slavic cities, slavic history, Eastern Orthodoxy, Christian Iconography, Painting, ect. ▪️There will be general Vampire aesthetics as well under "dark" ⬥Fanwork made by others both written and visual ⬥My Personal Fanwork written and visual ⬥Quotations and Prose from Anne Rice or other authors ⬥The "Dedication" tag will mostly for my original but on-topic posts Primarily, this blogs focus will be on the version of him that exists in the books. Other versions such as the movies and the show, will still be featured here as well, and tagged accordingly. I also primarily prefer works in which portray Daniel Molloy and Armand, together... but there will be other "ships" here because I do acknowledge what has been written in the books in terms of importance to him. Please keep that in mind... I might be opinionated, but I don't want any discourse about this or to cause trouble for someone else. This blog will be a touch erratic at times but I have no plans to abandon it. feel free to tag this blog in any and all Armand content. I'd be happy to reblog it. Please, enjoy your stay.

[emjee]

On religion, how do you see Mary?

I mean this because I saw your Advent post and the answer about the pink candle, that has a different meaning to Catholic people, as far as I know.

So funny story about the rose candle, when I was growing up I was indeed taught that the third Sunday of Advent is dedicated particularly to Mary (in the Revised Common Lectionary, which American Episcopalians use, the Marian reading sometimes comes on Advent III and sometimes Advent IV; I guess pre-RCL it was always Advent III). However, when I brought this up at my Catholic elementary school my teacher informed me that Rose Sunday/Gaudete Sunday/Advent III was only rose as a “yay we’re more than halfway there” kind of thing, which I found hilarious because I’d never seen Roman Catholics pass on a chance to celebrate Mary before.

As for Mary, personally I am a huge fan! It took me a while to come to a sort of understanding with her because of the narrative I got in Catholic school, where she was a literally unattainable paragon of (suspiciously blonde) womanhood--not only was she both a mother and a virgin, under the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception she was also completely sinless. (I do not hold with that doctrine, neither do I hold with the idea of her perpetual virginity.) So for a long time I was kind of convinced that we didn’t have much in common, and as far as women in the Gospels went I paid more attention to Mary and Martha of Bethany and Mary Magdalene.

And then--this must have been in early high school--I went to Bible study at church, which I usually couldn’t go to because it’s before the service and more often then not I had to acolyte and was busy during that block of time. Bible study then was led by our associate priest, who to this day is one of my favorite members of the clergy, and it was the Feast of the Annunciation, so that was the reading we focused on. And for some reason, despite having heard that lesson at least once a year every year of my life, that was the Sunday it clicked. This was a young woman being asked permission by an angel on behalf of God. She herself did not ask permission of anyone else before giving her answer. She asked the angel questions, and the angel answered those questions. Sure didn’t sound like meek and mild to me. She sounded like someone I wanted to know, someone I wanted to be friends with. Moving beyond the Annunciation to the Visitation, she gives us this beautiful hymn wherein she talks about casting the mighty down from their high places and lifting up the downtrodden and giving them enough to eat. When I started providing childcare for the eighteen-month-old of some church friends, I thought about how Jesus used to be toddler-sized and how Mary bounced him on her hip just like I did with this little boy.

So, yeah, I love her, she’s Theotokos, the Mother of God. I try to remember to say the Angelus every day (I am very bad at remembering to say the Angelus every day) and I’ll say a string of Hail Marys whenever I’m feeling particularly anxious (interestingly enough I prefer to say them in French, still not entirely sure why). But mostly I think of her as a brave woman who asked questions, who was a member of a marginalized community living under imperial occupation, who saw her eldest child die horrifically at the hands of that imperial power. She had the companionship of a righteous man. She had friends. She was a whole beautiful complex person, and I think a lot about what the Gospels never tell us. I love her. 

[orthodoxadventure]

☦︎ What is Orthodox Christianity? ☦︎

"The Orthodox Christian Church, also called the “Eastern Orthodox,” “Greek Orthodox” Church, or simply “the Orthodox Church,” is the oldest Christian Church in the world, founded by Jesus Christ and with its beginnings chronicled in the New Testament. All other Christian churches and groups can be traced historically back to it.  With roughly 250 million members worldwide, Orthodoxy is second in size only to the Roman Catholic Church. However, in spite of its size, relatively few Americans are aware that it exists.  The Orthodox Church has deep and lasting roots in Christian antiquity and is steeped in rich Biblical tradition. It has been the context of Christian living for millions of Christians for almost twenty centuries.  Yet one cannot understand the Orthodox Church merely by reading about it. Just as reading a biography about someone is no substitute for knowing the biography’s subject personally, Orthodox Christianity must be experienced firsthand to be understood. We welcome and invite you to come worship with us, to “come, taste and see” (Psalm 34:8). Even though Orthodox Christianity must be experienced directly to realize the fullness of its life, there are questions that are commonly asked when first visiting an Orthodox Church that can have some light shed upon them with a few brief words.  Orthodox Christianity is not familiar to most Westerners. So, what is Orthodox Christianity? It is the life in faith of the Orthodox Church, inseparable from that concrete, historic community and constituting its whole way of life. The Orthodox Christian faith is that faith “handed once to the saints” (Jude 3), passed on to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and then handed down from one generation to the next within the Church, without adding anything or taking anything away.  The purpose of Orthodox Christianity is the salvation of every human person, uniting us to Christ in the Church, transforming us in holiness, and giving us eternal life. This is the Gospel, the good news, that Jesus is the Messiah, that He rose from the dead, and that we can be saved as a result.  Historically, the Orthodox Church is the oldest of all Christian churches. Ultimately, all Christian communities can trace their own history back to the Orthodox Church. In the pages of the New Testament we read the beginnings of the Orthodox Church, and even today Orthodox Christianity continues to live on in most of the places mentioned in the New Testament where the Apostles first preached the Gospel. This is the Church that wrote, compiled and canonized the Holy Scriptures, that formulated the traditional doctrines of Christianity, and that has believed and lived the same faith for 2,000 years.  Today, Orthodox Christianity’s largest communities exist primarily in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, though there are also sizable communities in North America, Western Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia, primarily through immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, but also through a growing number of converts to the faith. It is the second largest Christian communion in the world, smaller only than the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is sometimes referred to as “Greek Orthodox” or “Eastern Orthodox,” but the best term is simply Orthodox Christian."

(http://orthodoxinfo.com/)

[apilgrimpassingby]

As you may know, Orthodoxy is also One True Church in her theology.

The first thing I'd say in its defence is that a lot of critics are coming at the idea with the Evangelical idea of "the Church" as "the sum total of all believers", but from an Orthodox perspective the Church is the community for the rightful preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments, with apostolic succession as an earthly token of her authenticity and divine protection of her faithfulness. Hence, our statements about Orthodoxy as "the One True Church" are not blanket denials that faith in Christ exists elsewhere.

Which leads into my next point: the statement the Orthodox Church is the True Church is that the Orthodox Church is the True Church, not that other churches are false churches. About that one, I don't know.

I'd also add that denominations are bad. If two denominations split over a minor issue, they shouldn't be splitting over that. If they split over a major issue, they are not practicing equally legitimate forms of Christianity.

Finally, the thing that persuaded me of the One True Church was that most of the arguments against it would, if logically followed, be arguments against Christianity being the One True Religion.

"Isn't it so mean and exclusive to say that only one church is the true church?" = "Isn't it so mean and exclusive to say that only one religion is the true religion?"

"The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox seem almost identical to outsiders, so it's ridiculous to have to pick between them and for that to have eternal consequences." = "Nicene Christians and Arians seem almost identical to outsiders, so it's ridiculous to have to pick between them and for that to have eternal consequences."

"If you believe in One True Church, you can't admit that your church has flaws or other churches have virtues." = "If you believe in One True Religion, you can't admit that your religion has flaws or other religions have virtues."

What are your top five choices of denominations if you weren't part of the one you're in? Reply with that and the one you're currently in. Tagging @rebelnurse, @roses-red-and-pink, @miss-rogers-all-american, @cactusflowerfemme, @luvchristxx, @idylls-of-the-divine-romance and @sapphosremains, though of course anyone is welcome to reply.

My choices (I'm Eastern Orthodox) are:

Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox)

Anglo-Catholic

Eastern Catholic

Roman Catholic

Methodist

[mapsontheweb]

Hidden Rome: Degree of Roman Influence on Modern States.

by u/MattSouth

After significant toil and substantial critique the third instalment in the Hidden Roman series is here! My previous attempts include the first map which proved too subjective and logically inconsistent and my second map second map which proved unreadable. My third map attempts to visualise to what degree modern states are Roman.

Now, when I chose metrics I did not imagine the end product would hilariously imply the DRC is more Roman than Greece is. I do apologise for the Hellenes for that one. The descriptors for Romaness I chose is a result of that which my research showed as the greatest easily visualised impacts of Roman Civilisation. Frankly I chose what was best from the Legacy of the Roman Empire Wikipedia article, so take that as you may. Some of the other legacies include the very common 12 hour half day cycle, massive influence on Science and Philosophy, cuisine, and some other things very hard to put on a map. If you expected your country to have been more Roman, consider that your country probably has other civilisations influencing it (Greek civilisation existed before Rome was a village, Islamic Civilisation is influential in its own right).

Legend:

Shade just shows how many attributes are applicable, not which attributes. I represent specific attributes via letters that refer to the following:

(*An asterisk usually implies mixed implementation/us, ~ a tilde next to a letter implies that letter is NOT applicable, usually used in cases of limited space.)

A: Roman calendar (Gregorian calendar)

The Gregorian calendar is merely a successor to the Julian calendar, named for Julius Caesar. He merely adapted an already standing calendar in his capacity as Pontifex Maximus. Some countries use other calendars along with the Gregorian calendars or modified versions thereof, these states get an asterisk (A*)

B: The Latin alphabet.

Influenced by the Etruscan and Greek alphabets, was popularised by the Romans. Some states use other scripts along with the Latin alphabet, these get a “B*”.

C: Religion (Western and Orthodox Christianity)

Including all Western Christianity (including Protestantism) and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These churches have their origin in Nicene Christianity which was the state church of the Romans. Christianity is not inherently Roman, but the above mentioned churches were based in the Roman Empire and closely worked with the Roman State. I purposefully exclude Oriental Orthodoxy, to the detriment of Armenia and Ethiopia, because it seems as if it was most popular outside of the empire and, along with the Church of the East, broke of communion with the romans relatively early (451 AD). When the majority of a state’s population belongs to a ‘roman’ church, they are included. NB Nigeria is not included despite mixed claims.

D: Legal System (Civil Law)

Although Civil Law mostly became popular in the 17th century, it took inspiration from Roman law. Today most countries use some form of civil law, and many also use mixed systems. I include them too. Common Law arose independently in England during the middle ages so I do not include it, although common law has come to use many Latin phrases (I know this from the pain of being a law student in a mixed common law country). D* means the country uses a mixed system.

E: Romance Language.

For a country to be included here, a Romance language must merely be an official language of the country. Romance languages are directly descendant from Latin so seem an obvious inclusion. It seems that the US states with the most Spanish speakers do not consider it an official language, even if it can be used in limited official capacity. I exclude Greek because it already was a prominent language before Rome existed and therefore is not inherently Roman.

F: Roman governance (Republic)

The republic was not invented by the Romans but modern republics have their origin in the Roman form. The word “republic” is even a version of the Latin term “Res Publica”. Islamic republics are included, albeit sometimes with an asterisk. (F*)

G: Roman borders

To give the Italians a little edge over the Bolivians, I included the Roman Border around the year 100. Note that my research of the borders gave mixed results, but generally these are the borders right before Trajan annexed Dacia and Mesopotamia. I chose the borders here because they were the borders for a large part of the empire’s history.

[guiltywisdom]

hey! I was wondering if you had any reading recommendations for someone who’s new to Orthodoxy? thank you 💛

The Bible? I’m joking, kind of; some people have said that reading the Bible is what made them an atheist, weirdly enough I credit an atheist reading the Bible with renewing my faith but I digress. I think it really depends on how new you are to religion, Christianity or Orthodoxy but here are some of my favorites, most if not all exist in physical form but links provided to eBooks/online when I can find them!

A forewarning, my definition of “beginner” might be a bit broad so I’ll BOLD the ones I think are very easy and the rest are...probably not for beginners but I still would recommend to everyone.  

The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware (this one is praised a lot on Orthodox Reddit for bringing beginners into the fold; it’s a great starting point)

Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology by Andrew Louth

Orthodox Prayer Book (just good to know prayers!)

The Orthodox Study Bible (a book not written fully by Orthodox, more written for people trying to get into Orthodoxy. Not bolded because it IS the Bible; it’s got lots of little notes and essays but it’s only really good for beginners, I grew past it pretty fast, so it has to go here!)

Pearl of Great Price by Sergei Hackel (NOT the book by the LDS church, this is a different one)

The Writings of Mother Maria Skobtsova

Everyday Saints and Other Stories by Archimandrite Tikhon

On Acquisition of the Holy Spirit by St. Seraphim of Sarov

The Philokalia (very difficult but foundational)

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

The Art of Salvation by Elder Ephraim

The Triads by Gregory Palamas (We learned a little about Palamas today in catechism, he’s a very important thinker)

The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian (I very much adore the writings of St. Isaac of Syria so if you can, check him out). 

I wish I had some “modern” books, with theology I tend to look towards the Church Father’s first meaning I end up reading a lot of theology written by monks in the 1300s. 

Honestly if anyone else has some recommendations for anon or me I’d love to hear them!

Also sorry for the late reply. When I started typing this it was asked seven hours ago but then I had to stop to cook dinner, then eat and etc. so it has been a all day thing apparently. I hope that helps!

[imperial--orthodoxy]

While I'm thinking about this, maybe I ought to expand upon what I mean. To preface this, while I have much less to say about the bad faith Orthodox in those discussions, it's not because they are a lesser problem, but rather, a simpler one. Speaking of, my experience with a lot of Orthodox in those groups are very much a group that believes the only path for unity is for the Catholics to accept Orthodoxy in it's entirety and as uniform dogma. This is not necessarily a position I disagree with (or more accurately, I do agree) but the way they go about it tends to be in the most unhelpful way possible to the point that they will feed into both subgroups of Catholics I notice in these groups. There's a secret third faction, but we'll address them in both of the groups I listed since they more or less also fall into one of these categories for different reasons. In short, I agree overall with the sentiment in these groups but I do wish they'd just...find a better way to present their side. As it is they tend to be very crass at best, or will outright use bad arguments courtesy of some Jay Dyer video at worst.

The first group of Catholics are well meaning but ignorant (and I do not mean this as an insult) in that they will claim Orthodoxy and Catholicism just have the exact same beliefs and we are just two prideful to reconcile with the West. I cannot stress how wrong this is and how unintentionally insulting this is. We absolutely do not share theology with the Catholics word for word, and the thousand years of separation and differing environments have led to very different mindsets regarding the Faith. A lot of these aren't necessarily obvious until you go into the details, but if you want unity, they must absolutely be addressed. Eastern Catholics are the secret third faction here, and they are...well...confused. They genuinely believe they are allowed to keep Eastern theology, but that is also simply not true. Rome simply..."respects" the traditions of the East by allowing them to exist within their Divine Liturgy. In terms of actual theology, the Latin Rite remains supreme, and the Latin Liturgy also remains supreme, to the point that I feel that whenever they finally settle the dust on the whole TLM and Novus Ordo civil war, they'll turn to.... assimilating...the rest of the rites in line. Best case scenario, the rest of the rights get ignored entirely, because all of the rest of the rites combined only make up 5 percent or so of the entire Roman Catholic Church.

The second group, are the quote miners, the ones that will do nothing but post Catholic Answers links or out of context sources (or worse, post schism sources exclusively from Catholics) to push their claims of stuff like Papal Infallibility (which, if we're being honest, is the absolute biggest hurdle, as it's an expansion on the already controversial status of Papal Supremacy pushed by the Reformers during and after the Schism) and then act like the case is closed and there is no possible debate or interpretation of the texts in question, and if you disagree, then you are either stupid ("you just don't understand Catholic Theology!!") or too prideful to see the truth. These tend to be quite successful in the context of internet debates, because be they Catholic or Protestant, they tend to believe a very western centric view of Christianity and thus will tend to accept Western sources as absolute gospel. Don't get me wrong, I used to do this, so I get it, but if these three groups are the ones talking about unity? It will never happen.

I'm convinced that groups dedicated to finding unity between East and West is actually a cause of greater division at this point.

[church-history]

The History of The Dogma of The Immaculate Conception

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is one of the most prominent Marian feasts in the Catholic Church, but also a tricky one when it comes to relationships with other Churches. Even the other traditions that venerate the Mother of God are hesitant to refer to her conception as “immaculate,” although there is a long history of this teaching within western Catholicism. The origins of this teaching, and the solemn feast associated with it, are complicated. Different traditions have varying interpretations about Our Lady and her relationship to sin, but they all share the view that the woman chosen to be the Mother of God was exceptionally pure and holy.

In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the teaching about Our Lady’s immaculate conception to be dogma, giving it the highest level of authority by making it an infallible teaching. This seems rather late in the course of Church history, but the Assumption of Our Lady wouldn’t become dogma until 1950, nearly a century later. Important theological teachings are sometimes present in the Church for a long time before they become official doctrine. The idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin has existed for centuries, but it was not necessarily present from the earliest days of Christianity. It developed over time in relation to other theological teachings, in particular, the teaching of original sin.

A feast day celebrating the conception of the Mother of God is thought to have begun in the East from around the 7th or 8th centuries. It was not specified at this point that Our Lady’s conception was “immaculate,” meaning that she was without original sin from the moment she was conceived in her mother’s womb. St. Augustine of Hippo and his understanding of original sin is not nearly as prominent in Eastern Christianity as it is in the West, so it wasn’t until the feast day made its way into the Western Church that the notion of the Immaculate Conception began to develop.

According to the 1962 St. Joseph Daily Missal, the Feast of the Conception of Our Lady entered the Western Church around the 11th century, when it first appeared in England. From there, it spread to France, Germany, and throughout Europe. By the 14th century, it was on the calendar of the Universal Church. I don’t know exactly when Our Lady’s conception began to be thought of as “immaculate” in the West, but it’s safe to assume it developed out of the influence of St. Augustine and the idea that the Mother of God was exempt from the hereditary sin originating from Adam’s disobedience.

Since the Eastern Church doesn’t share the same view of original sin as being a stain on the soul that is biologically transmitted, they don’t refer to the Virgin Mary’s conception as “immaculate.” As Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware explains in his book, The Orthodox Church, the Mother of God is called All-Holy, Immaculate, and Spotless in Eastern Orthodoxy, which seems to come close to Catholic Marian dogma. The Orthodox Church rejects the official Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception only because it seems to separate the Virgin Mary from the rest of humanity and the other righteous men and women from the scriptures in the way God preserved her from sin. In the Eastern view, identifying Our Lady’s conception as “immaculate” isn’t heretical, just unnecessary.

One of the most influential events that affirmed the teaching of the Immaculate Conception in the Catholic Church was the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes to Bernadette Soubirous in 1858. In one of her appearances, Our Lady declared, “I am the Immaculate Conception,” a statement Bernadette did not really understand, but it seemed to confirm the validity of her visions, considering she was thought to be a simple-minded girl without much knowledge of Church teaching. Since the Immaculate Conception had become a recognized dogmatic teaching only a few years before the Lourdes apparitions, it is possible that Bernadette had had some awareness of it and subconsciously internalized it somehow. Or perhaps, as most Catholics believe, Our Lady really did speak to St. Bernadette.

The Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary breaks with the penitential simplicity of the Advent season to give us a chance to celebrate the Mother of God, through whom the incarnation of the Word of God was made possible. It celebrates her nature as a holy and sinless woman from the time of her conception, and Our Lady gives us a model of a life without sin in conformity with God’s will. As she is such an important figure in the Advent and Christmas seasons, the feast of her conception allows us to honour her as we prepare for the coming of her Son.

Source: https://slmedia.org/blog/full-of-grace-the-feast-of-the-immaculate-conception