#or basically they have a weird complex relationship with their own catholicism i guess

[maraskywalkers]

I don't know why I, a former protestant, have such a soft spot for characters who are ex-catholic but I do.

[keshetchai]

Hi @princessnijireiki THESE WERE MY THOUGHTS IN RESPONSE TO UR AMAZING THOUGHTS

  And I just sort of thought, if God is traditionally in all things, including us in terms of souls, etc., God cannot be separated from pain; God IS us & God IS healing & God is also suffering in and of itself… not that pain is divine or being in pain is a path TO God & understanding (though that is some OLD SCHOOL Christian meditative practices), but that God hurts, too.

 BUT that also reminds me of the explanation of Martin Buber's I-Thou philosophy. i’m putting this under a cut because it’s SUPER LONG but yeah. good stuff to think on imo.

Granted, I haven't read the book, I've only read summaries of his ideas, so I'll just briefly summarize what I understand. Buber proposes there are two types of 'relationships' the "I-It" and the "I-Thou." In the I-It relationship, it's sort of...between the self and another objective entity (so like self-object/objectified entity relationship). Like othering someone, or having an Other is an I-It relationship. But the I-Thou is a different kind of relationship: "By contrast, the word pair I-Thou describes the world of relations. This is the "I" that does not objectify any "It" but rather acknowledges a living relationship. I-Thou relationships are sustained in the spirit and mind of an "I" for however long the feeling or idea of relationship is the dominant mode of perception." So I-Thou is a relationship where a person relates to another entity as whole and complete (subject to subject relating as opposed to subject-object). 

Another website summarized: "In contrast to this the “I-It” relation is driven by categories of “same” and “different” and focuses on universal definition. An “I-It” relation experiences a detached thing, fixed in space and time, while an “I-Thou” relation participates in the dynamic, living process of an “other." Buber calls God the Eternal Thou - an I-Thou relationship being without barriers and in all people and all things. Or basically: "One who truly meets the world goes out also to God." 

 So yeah! It can be a suuuuuuuper Jewish idea to say that God IS us, in ALL things, without being divided or divisible, God just is in everything. God is the Eternal Thou. Buber (from what I understand) believes all I-Thou interactions ultimately brings us into the ultimate I-Thou relationship with God.

 > If we are to accept at face value that we are made in the image of God and act as stewards in a world which we not only interact with, but are not above— we’re still a PART of the world, ecosystem, etc.— God as sort of Itself AND this legion mass of the UNIVERSES, in each individual part & in whole, including us, then God is complicated & probably not always okay. 

 THERE'S ALSO LIKE the idea that not ONLY do we exist in God's image, and therefore we can "see" the image of God in all people - compelling us to (hopefully) treat other people with respect/dignity/compassion/etc -- but ALSO that we were given God's breath/spark/light to carry within us. There's like midrashic stories about God bringing light into each individual (since God is one and in everything), but also the fact that God "-formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul." So God's breath is given to the first human - the existence of God is also many, many things at once. Allll the time. 

 Plus like we (as humans) often try to ascribe morality to things that aren't necessarily going to have human morals anyways. Does the tsunami that murders millions of innocents really operate on a level of being good or evil? It's a force of nature. It doesn't respond in Good or Evil terms, it exists as a natural part of the universe. A volcano isn't good or evil, it just is, and it exists, and it has its own internal code of existence and purpose. God then, presents an interesting issue like -- God (at least in the Torah) outlines a code of ethics for humans and humanity. 

And it's when God proposes A.) going against God's own previous promise after the Flood and B.) suggests something against the principle of the Ethics God has been slowly giving to humanity -- THAT IS WHEN Abraham tells God something is wrong "Far be it from you!" Does God exist beyond human ethics UNTIL God created human ethics, which humans then expected God to also adhere to? (Hypothetically, If you assume God exists exactly as they appear in the Torah) Or did human ethics define the parameters of God's Ethics/Morality? Or is God just a force of nature which exists beyond our limits of morality -- but whose purpose is the creation of the world, the continued existence of the universe, and the formation of humanity and human ethics -- in the same way a volcano exists and is able to erupt or go dormant, but can also create magma and lava, can enrich soil, expand land masses, super heat the local land and make things like obsidian, etc. 

A LOT of the WHOLE IDEA of a covenant with God implies that with God's giving us commandments and moral laws....God must also uphold themselves/their end of the bargain which is....fascinating. IDK IDK God vs. Ethics vs. Humanity is FASCINATING and how it can even be approached is so wildly different for everyone's understanding of God and how God should or shouldn't "act."

 > And between that and then also different ideas on like— if that DOES matter, and why (in terms of a “design” or “fate” to everything, or bad things happening MUST serve a greater purpose, or even just “this will be tallied up to determine my afterlife” vs. the idea of divine judgement as sth possibly more complex or less “just” than that, or the afterlife as it’s commonly thought of as nonexistent), it indicates more of that same hierarchical view of theology & faith that non-Christian & non-diasporan/non-syncretic religions handle very differently? 

 YUP. It's like....well no, we don't NEED to suffer to achieve something better after death or to become "better" people. But in reverse we can become better people if we better the world, and the world is bettered when there is less suffering. (Aka Fuck off Mother Theresa).

Or like the idea that God or gods are static, vs. a force that evolves even with atrocities & pain… like there are New World exclusive orixas & loa in contrast with Yoruban sourceland practices, specifically created & responded to as a force in reaction to both fusion with/forced containment masquerading as Catholicism, and to the Middle Passage itself… or on a lighter note, how Hopi Sacred Clowns literally change to reflect the times, not in “spirit,” but in execution & appearance, in the same way as those comparison photos of people reading newspapers on a train and people on their smartphones. Which are admittedly examples from faith practices where “God” or a Godhead or spiritual holy entities are not necessarily or inherently all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing by design; nor is that demonized. But New World vodou & santerx practices ARE often specifically linked with Catholicism, even when they seem at odds with each other. 

 BUT THAT ALSO HAPPENS IN TORAH!!!! Someone a little bit back made a post about decolonizing our Judaism and our relationships to Judaism and it's like....well, shit, yeah. Colonialism and Christianity go hand in hand in the modern world, and Judaism is often obscured by Colonialism's misuse and abuse of the "Old Testament." 

 ....But well, it's an indigenous religion of a tribal people who've always lived in/related to a specific land, used a specific language, and shared a base culture/customs with regional variations. (I love visiting the Ancient Israel/Canaan wing of the museum I work in for this reason it's so....awesome to see the objects that came out of this time period TBH). So you've got this religion which frankly really truly reflects the needs of its people and the existence of its people. It's why so much of Torah seems weird or outdated or what have you to people today! Like of COURSE we may not relate to the lives of a bunch of people living in Israel 3,000 years ago as a nomadic people. Of COURSE some of the laws seem bizarre - the first five books talk about the lives of people living outside of the very first cities, practicing a type of religion (monotheism) which really, didn't exist elsewhere.

 Judaism gave Israelites an ancestral God, but one that was shared amongst ALL the tribes. It was a God that existed before the nation (so not a national pantheon) and yet the tribes became the nation-kingdom of Ancient Israel, so the religion preceded the state. AND yet, ancient Jews could (and did) live in other states and maintained their ancestral religion. And despite the fact that so many of the holidays are tied to life in Eretz Yisrael, they were maintained in diaspora!!! (RELATED: It's Tu B'shevat next week i think, so happy Birthday to the Trees. It will be a time to plant trees in Israel. Or like, anywhere, you want, I guess.) Like we still celebrate the harvest season in Israel across the world - so parts of the religion are so directly tied to life in Israel, especially an agricultural life which has been on-going forEVER, and yet is has evolved so so so much to grow and expand and exist beyond that. 

The concepts of God grew and changed with Israel (both the people "Israel" and the land by the same name) just as much as religion itself did. And that's even seen in the growth/change/manifestations of God in the Torah - like God starts out in the garden and makes Adam and Chava (Eve) clothing before they leave the garden. God/Angels later visit Abraham as travelers to be met outside his tent. God wrestles Isaac. But then God shows up as a burning bush. God shows up as a voice. God becomes a pillar of WHIRLING FLAMES. God is a guiding pillar of light and then a huge cloud of shade for the wandering Israelites in the desert - which is very different from the God that, in Eden, made Adam and Chava clothing to wear. God evolves not only for the situation and context, but for human needs (light, shade, water, protection, as a friendly stranger, etc.) God was never static even in Torah, even in the Tanakh as a whole. I mean God literally for a long time becomes an entity which "rests" in the Ark amongst a nomadic people. It's a God box that goes with them in a literal, physical way. But then the Temple is built, and God's throne is there - but also God remains with the people still, simultaneously. 

It again, feels like God exists everywhere, but appears/materializes in ways that humans want and feel comfortable with and/or however they most need. Adam and Chava needed the God who would make them clothes before sending them out of Eden. When God needs to be a supernatural force of miracles and wonder - then God is a bush on fire speaking to Moses - THAT is a God that is not being anthropomorphic but instead otherworldly - a God that can and will bring about a massive change in the social order and make possible the "impossible" - liberation from slavery. Then again, the Israelites need something that will lead them through the desert - a pillar of light, a cloud for shade and resting that quite literally leads the way - a God that guides them but also is portable and goes with them places -- until they settle into a kingdom, where God can also "settle" on the Temple Mount. 

 But anyways yeah it's....definitely a God which can relate to humanity in many different contextual ways and isn't some huge authoritarian UNCHANGING being. God, for better or worse, also seems to be learning how to be God to humans (Justice requiring mercy, requiring empathy, and understanding, learning....patience, lmao...) as much as humans are defining what they need from God. And like, that, I feel is part of the issue of "well Jewish God is an indigenous concept/God figure to Israel (the people/land)" versus "Christian God, which layers on the lens of the 'Old Testament' vs 'New Testament' is a God that is explicitly, and (I would argue foundationally) a part of Western Colonialism." Christian God was utilized as an authoritarian figure in colonialism to create it, to perpetuate/sustain it, and to legitimize it. 

The Colonial Christian God exists with all these problems that really can't (in my mind) ever be fully or completely solved with a definitive answer. On the other hand, post-colonial, syncretic, and indigenous religions either create answers or ways to "mend" over them, or don't see it as a binary either/or issue. In Judaism, the way to "solve' the problem of All-perfect/all-good/all-knowing is usually "Let's keep asking these questions. It's okay to ask them, and we may have many possible answers. If God is not these things, then what do we demand of or expect from God?" BUT a religion which is being appropriated for Colonialism cannot really allow so much questioning to be asked or consideration of alternative routes or answers because then the Colonial power [here, the Church] loses its authority and control over the people it is subjugating.

 Like you said, "that structure is the “universal” norm which has survived & outlasted other “versions” of Christianity because those other interpretations were discouraged, removed from holy texts (the history of the Christian Bible & its translations through history is WILD), or persecuted (sometimes violently), on purpose." It NEEDED to remain as a structure in Christianity. Where Christianity survived and spread through this framework of a particular version of God, particular morals, "saving" or "damnation," etc -- Judaism survived (in many ways) on the exact opposite - to maintain itself it simultaneously became regimented/structured, and "set" in very specific rules, but ALSO it was fluid, adaptable, and changing. The legalistic mindset of Jewish law means that what is said to be "clear cut" in one place is actually debated over millennia, with rulings that can affect local communities differently, or with authorities being decentralized, and that questioning, debate, argument, AND tradition go hand in hand in a way that keeps it sustainable.