#theological essay

[voidpacifist]

god is an author

DISCLAIMER: this is not to preach at anyone what they should or should not believe! This is purely me divulging into my thoughts about the God I grew up learning about and how I've come to terms with their existence. If that intellectual exercise is totally your thing, please enjoy :)

I've been sitting on this one for some time now, simply because I don't know very many people who study their own theology and pick it to pieces for fun, nor do I know very many people who are interested in theology in the first place. In fact, many people I've met, while not turned off to the idea of an existing and all-encompassing higher Somebody or Something, don't seem to like discussing the topic at all. And as someone who has recently come to confront the fact that their christian values may not even be considered "christian enough" anymore, I have begun to understand the discomfort with the subject matter.

But that brings me to the crux of why I began thinking about "God analogies" in the first place. See, the less I wanted to discuss the semantics about God's existence, the more my brain pushed back with different ways of looking at their existence. Namely, the way we compare them to different human archetypes - God as a father, God as a mother, God as an artist, God as a holy physician, etc. I was having trouble finding one that really and truly encompassed all the facets of their existence while also mirroring pieces of our (human beings) existence. After all, I was taught that we were made in the image of God, so what analogy was best? What analogy would set my mind at ease?

And then, of course, when I discovered the joy found present only in creating, I came a little bit closer to the "right" analogy. For a while, it was easy to think of God as simply a creator, but even that felt too simple. It didn't answer my questions about the problem of evil being allowed to exist, nor did it set my mind at ease about other philosophical and moral quandaries I'd been having. Would I be cast into damnation for allowing myself to feel about women as I did about men? Would I still be a christian if I didn't think of God as a father but rather as a genderless (or all-gendered) being? Would I lose my faith if I allowed myself to question the structure of the religion I'd grown up in? No, calling them merely a creator still left too many gaps in the analogy - a mere creator with no further pretense didn't necessarily account for anything moral, only for creativity itself.

It was a start, because humans are naturally creative creatures, and if we truly are image bearers of a higher power, then that comparison makes sense. But at this point, I was obsessed with narrowing the parallels down to something much more specific to my particular paradigm. Lo and behold, it was right around the time that I arrived at this platform of exploration that I began thinking of them as an author.

Point one: God is an author because they exist outside of the timeline.

When speaking about time as a concept, the first thing that I personally think of is the scene from season three of BBC's Doctor Who where David Tennant's incarnation of the Doctor says, "When you look at it from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly...timey wimey...stuff." And in reference to our human experience, he's incorrect in that regard. We spectate the passage of time from cause to effect to cause to effect. Rinse and repeat. Time is cyclical and linear and a progression.

And, time is entirely out of bounds as well.

Think about it with the fact in mind that the closer to the planet earth that one is, the faster the "clock moves." This is a phenomenon known as time dilation. It's seen in all sorts of scifi films, most prominently depicted in Nolan's Interstellar - time progresses at a far slower rate for the main character, and by the time he makes the return to his family, his daughter is already experiencing the final moments of her life. Decades for her have only translated to maybe two years for him.

Furthermore, if we think about the universe being in constant outward expansion, we can only assume that outside of it, past the edge of matter, there is no time. This brings to mind the concept of eternity, as well as the conundrum of how eternity can simply be. In eternity, everything has already happened and nothing has happened. The same can be said in regards to what is and what will be. How it can be all or nothing all at once is something we are incapable of understanding, because it breaks the rules of our conditions of existence. But for a being such as God? For someone or something that is in charge of all the rules and regulations of everything in the material plane? It doesn't break any rules then, because God is not governed by the rules of our existence - they are exterior to us.

How does that tie back into authorship? I'm so glad you asked.

(And if you've made it this far, thank you for sticking with me through my extremely heady tangent on the rules of time as a concept.)

It ties back into authorship, because every author exists outside of their characters' timeline(s). If time is contained within a story, then eternity is merely outside of that, with the author. James Dashner is not constrained by the events or progressions of The Maze Runner series. J.R.R. Tolkien is not contained by the end or beginning of Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings. In the same way, God did not "begin" when the universe began, because they wrote the universe into existence. If they began with the universe, that would bring up the question, "Who made God?", which would unravel with the knowledge in mind of God being all-powerful.

Points two and three: the problem of evil and the issue of free will.

Firstly, evil. The problem of the existence of good and evil is one that has left many in quite a scramble about how to justify God's existence when abhorrent things are also allowed to occur. And I'm not here to say that I have the definite answer, or that any emotions about the matter are invalid. I simply think this explanation is one that works, so I'll explain it to the best of my ability.

But before I explain, I'll have theological debater Cliffe Knechtle offer some further insight to the age old question, "Why would a loving god allow so much suffering?"

His answer is quite long, so I've condensed it to his first two points for the sake of remaining concise: the extent of God's power, and the concept of free will.

"[But] as a follower of Christ, I have to think, first point: Genesis chapter one records that when God created this, God saw that it was good. When God created that, God saw that it was good. So God did not create evil, suffering, and death. But in Genesis chapter three, we read how human beings rebelled against God, and when we told God to step off, to get lost, to remove his act elsewhere, he partially honored our request. And when God stepped back, chaos, destruction, and death entered.

"So you and I were not born into a fair world. You and I are born into an unfair world. Not because God created it that way, but because the all powerful God chose to partially limit his power by creating me free. If I hall back and slap this man and turn to you and say, 'God made me do it,' I'm a con artist, I'm a liar. God gave me a hand for the purpose of loving and respecting this man. But because I have a free will, I can roll this hand into a fist and send it crashing into this handsome face. If I have the audacity to say God made me do it, I'm a liar. I have a free will. And you and I live in a world where there's a tremendous amount of suffering, evil, and death. That's a direct result of human irresponsibility. Remember - when we human beings rebel against God, God steps back and evil, chaos, suffering and death enter the experience of humankind.

"Now, why? Why did God choose to create us with free will? Ultimately, I do not know. 'Well, come on Cliffe, it would be better if we didn't have free will. We wouldn't have evil and all this suffering and death.' Yeah, we also wouldn't have love. Because in order for it to be real, love has to be free. If it ain't free, it ain't love. If he's been dating somebody for the past two months, and she has said to him, 'I love you,' and tonight his dad calls him up and says, 'Son, I've been paying her one thousand bucks a month to date you,' he'd be royally bummed out. Why? Because you cannot manipulate or force love. And God created us to live in a love relationship with himself. You cannot force love.

"'Oh, but God's all powerful, he can do anything he wants.' No, that's not what the Bible teaches. God cannot make square circles. God cannot make two plus two equal five. And God cannot make himself exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. Impossible. When the Bible says that God is all powerful, it's means he's all powerful over his creation. But obviously, what he's chosen to do is he's chosen to limit his power and give us free will. And that's why you love, and that's why you enjoy it so much when other people love you. Because you know they don't have to love you. You know that they freely choose to love you."

Let's digress and digest.

Oftentimes, when the topic of free will comes up, it turns into a conversation of two extremes - of God as a puppeteer or of God being entirely absent. In order to address the middle ground, we need to explore a new idea: what if our ideas had their own free will? More specifically, what if the people we derive from our imaginations (original characters, imaginary friends, etc.) had a free will of their own?

Fellow authors can attest to knowing a character they've constructed so well that at some point, it becomes less about planning what the character will do, and more about understanding what the character will do. With regards to God as an author, they know us so well that though we have free will, every action we take as people still remains within God's plan, or in this case, "the plot" of our story in this existence. God, existing as they do outside of time, is the constructor of the story we're in and thus, knows us well enough to have both left nothing up to chance and given us the freedom to choose. It is by their will, but it doesn't make us robotic or mere vessels to be filled by command after command.

Which then brings us to the involvement of God when it comes to evil. Personally, I believe Cliffe encompassed this point beautifully: whereas God has limited theirself to allow us our free will, they have also therefore allowed bad things to be present in our timelines. With the further knowledge in mind that nothing is left up to chance (though everything is still up to us as human beings), this also means that evil has a purpose. For whatever reason, whether it be for demonstration or illustration, evil adds depth to the story of our existence in a way we cannot understand. If we understood it, I rather do think we'd have a glimpse into the mind of God theirself.

Point four: God is an author because they know the end.

Now, when it comes to the end, such as where we go when we die or how the world will eventually burn or freeze or result in some other disaster, we have a lot of trouble talking about it. We stress about the little details of what it's like to cease existing. Is there a blinding light before walking through the pearly gates? Is there utter darkness and then nothing, much like falling asleep? Is there a way to even conceptualize it? Do we all get expedited into a lake of fire?

It's admittedly terrifying. And also one of those things that people either preach loudly and proudly about or clam up at the thought of it. In my humble opinion, if we're all just characters with no knowledge of what happens at the end of our story, then we have no reason to be telling others where they're going either. That's up to the author and the character. All I can hope for is that the end will be satisfying, in a way that fully encapsulates the essence of each player and arc.

It brings me to my last point, which isn't a point really, but moreso a question regarding the existence of Jesus: is it God inserting theirself into our story, or have we simply been part of their story the whole time, with Jesus as our glimpse at the one who wrote us into being?

Personally, I think it's both. Because if we are the image of God, as well as created by them, then our story is both perfectly ours and perfectly God's.

[mother-of-houseplants-2]

i don’t wish i was catholic but i wish i knew more about catholicism/christianity for the sole purpose of being slightly more insane about lapsed-catholic gallaghers

[gemstarstarlight]

Two IMPORTANT things I’ve decided in this conference I’ve been going to:

I love it and am going to be processing it for a lot of days. 2 most profound observations so far are submission and obedience are not the same thing and require different attitudes, and our culture is actually moving towards a more biblical understanding, even though we might not see it. Will expound on both of those at some point.

I’ve decided to start a series on this blog I’m vaguely calling Theology Thursdays. I doubt it will be every Thursday, but I want to post about religion, particularly Christianity and even more particularly evangelical Christianity, regularly. Part of it is the season I’m in (I’m training to be a campus missionary), but honestly I’ve been wanting to write about religion, theology, and Christ and the church for a while. I feel like it’s something people aren’t doing on Tumblr, and if they are it’s more in a “processing and venting” sort of way. I want to do research. I want to make essays. I want to make content you can cite and think about.

Now, I COMPLETELY understand if that’s not content you are up for. I will be tagging my content as #christianity and #theology thursdays so you don’t have to follow it. Will not be offended if you unfollow: it’s up to you. But I’ve been feeling a real call (pull from the Holy Spirit) to do it in the last few months. So I’ll be doing it. Partially because I think that’s what God wants me to do, but also because I think I’m going to need to write so I can process what I’m learning.

And again, I just don’t think there’s a voice for people like me. People who are queer but also are Christian, people who are both conservative and liberal, people who really want to see God’s will in the world but are unsure how to do it when our immediate heritage is not working. People who stick out and know they do. People who are anxious when they walk into a room of Christians or queer people because they don’t feel like they fit or agree with either group.

But if nobody speaks up, if nobody chooses to create space, who will?

I’m not claiming to be an expert. I’m not claiming to be perfect. But I love Jesus. I love the people who love him. I want to see reconciliation between queer people and the church. I want to see reconciliation between Gen-Z and the church. I want to create a space where people can learn, where people can grow and ask questions, and where people can feel safe being confused and hopefully find some clarity. And I want to actually do researched takes, rather than only talking based on experiences. I want to be creating a theology by going back to the Bible and what it truly says and means, rather than what culture (Christian and secular) says. Most importantly, I want you guys to know Jesus, my Jesus, not who you may have met through culture or your family or your experiences. You don’t have to love him or accept him, but I hate watching people reject a God that isn’t really him.

So I invite everyone who follows me to go on the journey with me! You’ll probably get something from me soon. I hope we can all grow and think together about such topics. And, most importantly, it can be a place that destigmatizes Christianity and provides information.

[urwendii]

Maiar can get drunk. As a little treat for me.

[walterdecourceys]

time for a beautiful evening of SHAKESPEARE and ANNOTATING THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

[gratisdiamanten]

There's a quote in my native language, translated roughly to : there's no refuge from you except to you. Just wanted to share it because it reminded me of your max and jos stuff maybe even daniel?

Oh my goodness I think I know this quote!! If I’m wrong in recalling, biggest apologies. It does remind me, especially because it’s a religious quote, and while I’m raised Christian and not Muslim I definitely have a lot of religious quotes associated with Max and Jos. I think it’s interesting that despite Max professing to see no God or that he has no idols no one he models “God may be with him but he is not God” etc etc that he still had this unfailing devotion to him and trusted his word as like, the thing to follow. Against logic. Not putting neck pads on in Singapore years back because his dad told him it was a pussy thing to do. His dad is always right about him ultimately even when it hurt… his dad made him… it’s always We and Thank You Dad.

This is true for Daniel also but more in my writing than irl for sure. In my writing I engineer situations where Max can’t escape or Daniel is to Max seemingly the best option. In Apokatastasis, Max is like. 14 and in love with Daniel (who is the only person he can remember being kind to him) who doesn’t return that because. Max is a kid, and he’s known him since he was 8 years old. So they’re alone, and Daniel is this deep source of pain and rejection for Max, but he is the only one there to soothe it at all. Which is an extremely hard balance to strike for Daniel, especially since Max is his only company. His only refuge from the heartbreak of Daniel being. Daniel. You know

[neil-gaiman]

Hi Mr Gaiman! What do you think of Good Omens being rewritten from a Jewish perspective instead of a Christian one? (not for profit or anything just a fun idea to explore the theological differences through a work I adore)

If by "a Jewish Perspective" you mean, not using any material from the New Testament, you'd need to tell a very alternate universe version in your version of the story. Demons (and dybbuks) would exist, although there are different Jewish traditions about what they are -- but the concept of Fallen Angels isn't ever part of the story, so the Crowley and Aziraphale story might be a little harder to pull off. You'd lose the Four Horsemen, of course.

Here's a lovely article on Demonology from a Jewish perspective over the centuries: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/demons-and-demonology

You still have the apocalypse, of course (lots of lovely apocalypses predicted) but they tend to tie in to messianism. So you'd probably have Crowley and Aziraphale working to stop the Messiah from turning up and ending the world.

(Here's a great set of essays on Jewish Apocalypses: https://www.associationforjewishstudies.org/docs/default-source/ajs-perspectives/ajsp12fa.pdf?sfvrsn=17fadb06_2)

It's not really theological differences, though. Both Good Omens and your hypothetically More Jewish version would primarily be leaning into cultural myths and stories and stuff that aren't anywhere in the Bible anyway.

(And the original Good Omens was at least half-written from a Jewish perspective: mine.)

[obaewankenope]

Enoch wasn't the author of the Books of Enoch. They're his words, yes, (and words ascribed to him over time since, as with any oral tradition, some information gets lost, names may be dropped, stories simplified into more direct routes of He Said This And Saw That for expediency) but not written by him (think like Plato and Socrates and what got ascribed to Plato because he never wrote anything down himself). Its generally considered that the Books of Enoch are the works of multiple authors across a period of time. Enoch, in these Abrahamic Religons (specifically Judaism and Christianity here), was also the grandfather of Noah so he was pre-flood, not post-flood.

The Nephilim, also, were not hereoes. Not by the standards of the word meaning today. 'heroes' didn't even exist in English until mid-1300s, before then, the term in the Tanakh was translated to mean "mighty men". That doesn't mean good either. Might can mean/imply a lot of things. In this case, powerful, willful, even domineering.

(Tanakh/The Holy Scriptures, 1917, Jewish Publication Society)

Whilst I don't personally care for the website itself, this blog discussing nephilim, the word usage in Hebrew for them and what it could mean is, surprisingly, decent for providing root words and breakdowns of the use of Nephilim in the Tanakh and Christian Bible.

A quick summary:

The Hebrew word in the Tanakh גבור h means warriors, might men, powerful men, strong and such. It is neither positive nor negative.

Nephilim aren't mentioned much and each time it is... Neutral or negative.

The root of the word is "to fall" in Hebrew which, I'm sure you can imagine, isn't positive.

The Nephilim themselves aren’t viewed super positively. The term appears three times in the canonical text; here in Genesis, and then twice in Numbers 13:33, where the term is about giants in the land, who are seen by Moses’s scouts. Additionally, the term Nephilim is related to the root n-f-l (נפל), which means “to fall”. That’s not a positive term. [source for this last paragraph is here]

Whatever the reading of Nephilim in the Tanakh and Christian Bible, Nephilim could have been powerful, corrupt sons of human leaders, fallen angels, or giants. None of those things are all that positive and likely contributed to decisions, in the Tanakh, by G*d to wipe the slate clean save for Noah and his family.

In the context of Good Omens and Gabriel likely following The Plan™ and flooding earth, well... There is little surprise in a corporate organisation minimising its losses, maximising its profits (in this case, those profits are the expediency of soul gathering and returning to the Statue Quo), and sweeping problems under the largest rug it can find.

The contents of the Tanakh and Christian Bible were passed down orally for some time before being put to paper, so that means Enoch wrote none of it but much of the contents of them originate from him. Fair enough. Its a big game of Chinese Whispers in universe which, likely, fluffed some stuff up along the way. The gap then between Then and When It Was Written gives a lot of room for fanfic to explore. Especially with Crawley/Crowley's response to Heaven's Planned Flood.

The scene where Crawley/Crowley says "not the kids" is poignantly powerful and, yes, does hint to a shady manner of The Plan™ being followed (by both sides) regardless (or perhaps, because) of the loss of life continuing with The Plan™ causes.

So yeah. Something to keep in mind for anyone who is considering writing something about this scene or Nephilim in Good Omens.

Gabriel after the Nephilim business, yelling at angels who’ve been to earth recently: What, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck were you thinking? Carnal relations? With humans??? Um, Yuck? Take an example in Aziraphale, he never had a single impure thought in his life!

Aziraphale who has been ogling demon butt for at least a couple millennia now: :3c

[s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s]

"Silver & Gold: Songs for Christmas, Vols 6-10" vinyl box set is available now for pre-order, for the first time since its original release in 2012, via Asthmatic Kitty Records.

More info: "Silver & Gold: Songs for Christmas, Vols. 6-10 expands on the tradition of Sufjan Stevens’ first box-set "Songs for Christmas, Vols. 1-5" and features nearly 60-tracks that investigate the canon of devotional hymns and holiday pop songs, as well as 18-original songs from Sufjan.

Two versions of the release are available now for pre-order, and will be released on November 1, 2024. The LP box set features an array of holiday-themed bonus items designed by Sufjan and friends and is available exclusively via the AKR shop. The collection will also be available at record stores as a standalone LP set for the first time, featuring all 5 releases (6 LPs) assembled in a slipcase. This version includes just the albums, with the additional holiday merchandise available only with the AKR vinyl box set. 

Inside The Box Set:

5 EPs on 6 vinyl records

Christmas sticker sheet

Temporary tattoo sheet 

Three paper ornaments (self-assembly with directions)

An apocalyptic pull-out poster

A 44-page songbook with lyrics and chord charts (sing along with your friends and enemies)

A 20-page Christmas coloring book by Stephen Halker

Hallucinogenic photographs and psychedelic graphic design

Extensive liner notes (introductory salutations and an essay on the Christmas tree by Sufjan Stevens, and a few theological words on the End Times by Pastor Vito Aiuto)

In addition to the Silver & Gold LP box set, AKR is excited to offer exclusive merchandise inspired by Silver & Gold. Available for pre-order now, choose from a woven blanket, mock-neck shirt, beanie, mug or the Silver & Gold Songbook (now available separately from the box set)."

[room-surprise]

EXTERNAL INFLUENCES IN DUNGEON MESHI: INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

(SPOILERS FOR DUNGEON MESHI BELOW)

We know that Ryoko Kui spent considerable time at the beginning of working on Dungeon Meshi doing research and planning the series. Kui constantly references real world culture, history and mythology, but she also occasionally references real-world philosophy.

The story of Dungeon Meshi is full of philosophical questions about the joy and privilege of being alive, the inevitability of death and loss, the importance of taking care of yourself and your loved ones, and the purpose and true nature of desire. Kui explores these issues through the plot, the characters, and even the fundamental building blocks that make up her fictional fantasy world. Though it’s impossible to say without Kui making a statement on the issue, I believe Dungeon Meshi reflects many elements of ancient Indian philosophy and religion.

It’s possible that Kui just finds these ideas interesting to write about, but doesn’t have any personal affiliation with either religion, however I would not be at all surprised if I learned that Kui is a Buddhist, or has personal experience with Buddhism, since it’s one of the major religions in Japan.

I could write many essays trying to explain these extremely complex concepts, and I know that my understanding of them is imperfect, but I’ll do my best to explain them in as simple a way as possible to illustrate how these ideas may have influenced Kui’s work.

HINDUISM

Hinduism is the third-largest religion in the world and originates in India. The term Hinduism is a huge umbrella that encompasses many diverse systems of thought, but they have some shared theological elements, and share many ancient texts and myths.

According to Classical Hindu belief, there are four core goals in human life, and they are the pursuit of dharma, artha, kama, and moksha.

Dharma is the natural order of the universe, and also one’s obligation to carry out their part in it. It is the pursuit and execution of one’s inherent nature and true calling, playing one’s role in the cosmic order.

Artha is the resources needed for an individual’s material well-being. A central premise of Hindu philosophy is that every person should live a joyous, pleasurable and fulfilling life, where every person's needs are acknowledged and fulfilled. A person's needs can only be fulfilled when sufficient means are available.

Kama is sensory, emotional, and aesthetic pleasure. Often misinterpreted to only mean “sexual desire”, kama is any kind of enjoyment derived from one or more of the five senses, including things like having sex, eating, listening to music, or admiring a painting. The pursuit of kama is considered an essential part of healthy human life, as long as it is in balance with the pursuit of the three other goals.

Moksha is peace, release, nirvana, and ultimate enlightenment. Moksha is freedom from ignorance through self-knowledge and true understanding of the universe, and the end of the inevitable suffering caused by the struggle of being alive. When one has reached true enlightenment, has nothing more to learn or understand about the universe, and has let go of all earthly desires, they have attained moksha, and they will not be reborn again. In Hinduism’s ancient texts, moksha is seen as achievable through the same techniques used to practice dharma, for example self-reflection and self-control. Moksha is sometimes described as self-discipline that is so perfect that it becomes unconscious behavior.

The core conflict of Hinduism is the eternal struggle between the material and immaterial world. It is often said that all of the material world is “an illusion,” and what this means is that all good and bad things will inevitably end, because the material world is finite. On the one hand, this is sad, because everything good in life will one day cease to exist, but on the other hand, this is reassuring, because all of the bad things will eventually end as well, and if one can accept this, they will be at peace.

The central debate of Hinduism is, which is more important: Satisfying your needs as a living thing, having a good life as a productive member of society, serving yourself, your family, and the world by participating in it the way nature intended? Or is it rejecting desire and attachment, discovering the true nature of existence, realizing the impermanence of material things, and that one can only escape the suffering that comes from the struggle of life by accepting that death and loss are inevitable?

There is no set answer to this question, and most believers of Hinduism tend to strike a balance between the two extremes simply because that’s what happens when a person leads a normal, average life, however there are also those who believe that pursuing extremes will lead to ultimate enlightenment and final release as well.

BUDDHISM

Buddhism is an Indian religion and philosophical tradition that originated in the 5th century BCE, based on teachings attributed to religious teacher the Buddha. It is the world's fourth-largest religion and though it began in India, it has spread throughout all of Asia and has played a major role in Asian culture and spirituality, eventually spreading to the West beginning in the 20th century.

Buddhism is partially derived from the same worldview and philosophical belief system as Hinduism, and the main difference is that the Buddha taught that there is a “middle way” that all people should strive to attain, and that the excesses of asceticism (total self-denial) or hedonism (total self-indulgence) practiced by some Hindus could not lead a person to moksha/enlightenment/release from suffering.

Buddhism teaches that the primary source of suffering in life is caused by misperception or ignorance of two truths; nothing is permanent, and there is no individual self.

Buddhists believe that dukkha (suffering) is an innate characteristic of life, and it is manifested in trying to “have” or “keep” things, due to fear of loss and suffering. Dukkha is caused by desire. Dukkha can be ended by ceasing to feel desire through achieving enlightenment and understanding that everything is a temporary illusion.

There are many, many other differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, but these elements are the ones that I think are most relevant to Kui’s work.

Extreme hedonism involves seeking sensual pleasure without any limits. This could just be indulging in what people would consider “normal” pleasures, like food, sex, drugs and the arts, but it can also involve doing things which are considered socially repugnant, either literally or by taking part in symbolic rituals that represent these acts. Some examples are holding religious meetings in forbidden places, consuming forbidden substances (including human flesh), using human bones as tools, or engaging in sex with partners who are considered socially unacceptable (unclean, wrong gender, too young, too old, related to the practitioner). Again, these acts may be done literally or symbolically.

Extreme ascetic practices involve anything that torments the physical body, and some examples are meditation without breathing, the total suppression of bodily movement, refusing to lay down, tearing out the hair, going naked, wearing rough and painful clothing, laying on a mat of thorns, or starving oneself.

HOW THIS CONNECTS TO DUNGEON MESHI

Kui’s most emphasized message in Dungeon Meshi is that being alive is a fleeting, temporary experience that once lost, cannot truly be regained, and is therefore precious in its rarity. Kui also tells us that to be alive means to desire things, that one cannot exist without the other, that desire is essential for life. This reflects the four core goals of human life in Hinduism and Buddhism, but also could be a criticism of some aspects of these philosophies.

I think Kui’s story shows the logical functionality of the four core goals: only characters who properly take care of themselves, and who accept the risk of suffering are able to thrive and experience joy. I think Kui agrees with the Buddhist stance that neither extreme hedonism nor extreme self-denial can lead to enlightenment and ultimate bliss… But I also think that Kui may be saying that ultimate bliss is an illusion, and that the greatest bliss can only be found while a person is still alive, experiencing both loss and desire as a living being.

Kui tells us living things should strive to remain alive, no matter how difficult living may be sometimes, because taking part in life is inherently valuable. All joy and happiness comes from being alive and sharing that precious, limited life with the people around you, and knowing that happiness is finite and must be savored.

Dungeon Meshi tells us souls exist, but never tells us where they go or what happens after death. I think this is very intentional, because Kui doesn’t want readers to think that the characters can just give up and be happy in their next life, or in an afterlife.

There is resurrection in Dungeon Meshi, but thematically there are really no true “second chances.” Although in-universe society views revival as an unambiguous good and moral imperative, Kui repeatedly reminds us of its unnatural and dangerous nature. Although reviving Falin is a central goal of the story, it is only when Laios and Marcille are able to let go of her that the revival finally works… And after the manga’s ending, Kui tells us Falin leaves Laios and Marcille behind to travel the world alone, which essentially makes her dead to them anyway, since she is absent from their lives.

At the same time, Kui tells us that trying to prevent death, or avoid all suffering and loss is a foolish quest that will never end in happiness, because loss and suffering are inevitable and must someday be endured as part of the cycle of life. Happiness cannot exist without suffering, just like the joy of eating requires the existence of hunger, and even starvation.

Kui equates eating with desire itself, using it as a metaphor to describe anything a living creature might want, Kui also views the literal act of eating as the deepest, most fundamental desire of a living thing, the desire that all other desires are built on top of. If a living thing doesn’t eat, it will not have the energy necessary to engage with any other part of life. Toshiro, Mithrun, and Kabru are all examples of this in the story: They don’t take care of themselves and they actively avoid eating, and as a result they suffer from weakness, and struggle to realize their other desires.

Kui suggests that the key difference between being alive or dead is whether or not someone experiences desire. If you are alive, even if you feel empty and cannot identify your desires like Mithrun, you still have desires because you would be dead without them. The living body desires to breathe, to eat, to sleep, even if a person has become numb, or rejected those desires either to punish themselves, or out of a lack of self-love.

Sometimes, we have to do things which are painful and unpleasant, in order to enjoy the good things that make us happy. I believe Kui is telling us that giving up, falling into despair, and refusing to participate in life is not a viable solution either.

The demon only learns to experience desire by entering into and existing in the material, finite world. This experience intoxicates the demon, and it becomes addicted to feeling both the suffering of desire, and the satisfaction of having it fulfilled. This unnatural situation is what endangers the Dungeon Meshi world, and it’s only by purging the demon of this ability to desire that the world can be saved. The demon is like a corrupted Buddha that must give up its desires in order to return to the peaceful existence it had before it was corrupted.

The demon curses Laios to never achieve his greatest desires at the end of the manga, which manifests in several ways, such as losing his monstrous form, Falin choosing to leave after she’s revived, and being unable to get close to monsters because they are afraid of him. In some ways you could compare Laios to a Bodhisattva, a person who tries to aid others in finding nirvana/moksha, even if it prolongs their own suffering and prevents them from finding personal release. Laios gives the demon peace, but Laios himself will never be able to satisfy his desires, and must eventually come to accept his loss and move on with his life.

(This is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of my Real World Cultural and Linguistic influences in Dungeon Meshi essay.)

[opencommunion]

"There is an inherit bias towards 'Israel' that sustains the continual colonization of Palestine. Christian theologians, in few cases consciously but in most cases subconsciously, keep using a 'biblical' language and producing 'theological' concepts whose 'Sitz im Leben' is blunt colonialism. They might do this 'innocently' because their minds are occupied with the Bible on the one hand and with a Western cultural narrative on the other.

For Palestinians, including the Palestinian Christian community, Palestine is a real land with real people; it is our homeland. For Christians in the West, Palestine is an imagined land, a land that they know mainly from the Bible. It has little if anything to do with the real Palestine. When Christian pilgrims visit Palestine, they want to reinvent the Holy Land of the Bible. They are excited about how the Bible comes alive in Palestine. Nineteenth-century archaeologists, while digging in Palestine, were looking for the Bible. This is true also for theologians. When Christian theologians write about Palestine, their minds are occupied with the Bible and a Western dominant narrative. They write about the Land as if it exists in a vacuum; they strip it from its socio-political context, from its real people, and they rarely think about how such a theology has been and is being used to enhance settler colonialism. These occupied minds reinforce the continuing occupation of Palestine. Here, I’m not talking about evangelical theologians or Christian Zionists alone, but I’m concerned about those who are well-regarded, mainline, and accomplished theologians of many denominations. In the last seventy years, many theological concepts were developed and occupied the minds of several generations of theologians worldwide. Many of these concepts might have been well intended at some point, but they mean something totally different in the current context of occupied Palestine. Theologians in their naiveté are still using a language and concepts that support current Israeli settler colonialism. ... It is incomprehensible to me when the occupation of Palestinian land is not seen as part of modern European colonial history, but as part of biblical and thus salvation history. It is very disturbing when theologians ignore the ways in which biblical ideology is used as a political claim with major colonial consequences. ... Christian theologians have been playing, consciously or subconsciously, a major role in aiding the ongoing colonization of Palestinian land and people. The land theology was one of the theological tools used for Palestinian dispossession and oppression. Christian theologians failed to see that the promised land is but the confiscated land."

Mitri Raheb, "The Occupation of Theological Minds: The End of Innocence," in Resisting Occupation: A Global Struggle for Liberation (2022)

The main terms Raheb critiques in this essay are "the Temple Mount" and "the Promised Land" (or simply "the Land"). He also touches on the conflation of the biblical Israel and theological concepts of Israel with the state of Israel, the ethnonationalist notion of “God's chosen people," and the narrative that Joshua's conquest of Canaan was divinely ordained and salvatory. He identifies in these concepts an overarching "theology of conquest" that also informs other European settler colonial projects.

[centrally-unplanned]

Time for a pet peeve take response - let me capture our target below:

[Unpopular Fantasy Opinion Take:] The fantasy genre by-and-large took the wrong takeaway from Tolkien, and has been generally spiraling since as a result. They took his surface-level aesthetics and fantastical elements, and left his engagement with real, historical texts, his philology & his moral seriosity. In a different timeline, subsequent authors would have adopted Tolkien's erudite love of language and mythology and applied it to other cultures & mythologies - not just superficially, but by engaging with the great Chinese novels or the Shahnameh like he did with Beowulf. Even when you *do* see more recent novels "inspired by" other cultures, they are very blatantly just taking the (degraded distillate of the) Western, Tolkien-esque tradition and coating it in a thin veneer of Chinese or Mesoamerican lore.

This is not the first time I have seen this specific take, and it is part of a "fallen literature" genre that is always confusing supply & demand, with a hefty bout of selection bias for good measure.

To get the obvious out of the way, the "lessons" people took from Tolkien are entirely what audiences want to read, and were never going to be any other way. Most people don't wanna read hard, heavy books! Even if they want that sometimes, for every one Gravity's Rainbow they are gonna read a dozen Gone Girl's as a palette-cleansing snack, which means by-the-numbers the latter will dominate. Fantasy did not invent the genre of adventure stories and swashbuckling heroes and hot maidens to woo and mystical mumbo-jumbo; people stapling tried-and-true genre tropes onto elves and orcs once they took off was a given. The "shallow" part was the only part that could have changed; a world where the median fantasy novel is dealing with theological issues could never have been.

And to top this all off, no disrespect to Tolkien at all, but like...he isn't that deep? The "moral seriousness" of the Lord of the Rings is very simple - characters are often cartoonishly evil or blatantly good, the conflicts they face are often black and white, and in particular the moral dilemmas faced by characters boil down to tests of courage more than half the time. What Tolkien does have is his own unique interests? Like in Middle Earth the "act of creation", from art to life, is itself a moral undertaking with metaphysical implications. This is super cool - but it is also again very simple, it is barely even discussed in the novels and his ideas can be summarized in a paragraph. This is all good btw! The novels would not benefit from more complicated morality. But modern books are just as complex, and often more so.

Actually just a little aside here - a lot of people do this thing with Tolkien where they mention his letters and drafts like that is canonical story text? Yeah he wrote like an essay about the theological implications of the various orc origin stories, but he didn't publish that, it is nowhere in the Lord of the Rings and is barely in the Silmarillion. Other authors have notes like those; you just don't read them.

And the "other cultures" stuff is particularly egregious - I'm sorry, are we just not reading many modern stories? You think Spinning Silver isn't pulling great threads from Slavic folklore? You think the Chinese Gays in Mo Dao Zu Shi/The Untamed aren't dropping refs to Daoism and the four classics in between their will-they-won't-they necromancy shenanigans? In response this author would, of course, pivot from their bailey of "no one references other traditions" to the motte of "and if they do it is shallow" with no definition of what qualifies as such, nor again any admittance that audiences care way more about getting the gays than the deep cut cultural refs. The fact that the median person in the west prefers their Dungeons & Dragons campaigns in a default Tolkien-esque setting because the point is to have a comfortable backdrop for ease of play of a combat dice game will just not factor into their analysis.

The elephant in the room for all of this is that foundational texts differ, structurally, from modern texts, because they were made in different environments. The Lord of the Rings probably wouldn't sell well today! The prose is wooden, the characters are flat, it throws random lore it never explains at you, Tom Bombadil is just there as a walking momentum-destroying plot hole, etc. People read it because it was a first in a world that didn't have books committing to this level of world-building & detail in a fantasy environment. And as a new genre, things like his crazy level of language building are appealing, it's all so new and different, something cool to dig into.

But imagine picking up your 185th elves-and-orcs sword & sorcery book in 1998 and reading "ah yes Quenya is just one of two alphabets for the Elven tongue and it is inspired by Finnish-Germanic and I write entire poems in it even though I never finished a cohesive dictionary or grammar system but I do have 15 pages of pronunciation notes"?? You would throw at it at a fucking wall, absolutely insufferable. It was cool the first time, and that is why you learn Elvish, just like you learn Klingon. That was never gonna keep as a zeitgeist - instead just popping up here or there as this or that series takes off.

You have to accept that audiences are in the driver's seat on this one - they have infinite stories to choose from, they are absolutely not being dragged along by willful writers. Which means genres will evolve and change over time - and that is fine.

[bloomingskyward]

THERE’S A WAY TO BREAK DEMISE’S CURSE

HEY, so if you’ve been invested in the Legend of Zelda games for forever (like I’ve been), I need you to watch this video essay about Demise’s curse by Hylian Dan. Whether you loved or hated Skyward Sword, Hylian Dan did an incredible job analyzing the story from multiple literary perspectives (while actually citing his sources in a bibliography!), and he makes a powerful argument about how Skyward Sword has quietly revealed an escape from Demise’s curse, and how the answer might have been foreshadowed throughout the entire game. 👀

Authorship credit for the video cause I’m just resharing it: Hylian Dan is a former staff writer for Zelda Universe, and also wrote a viral essay on the deeper meaning behind Majora’s Mask years ago. He also has a bachelor’s degree in game design (and worked for Disney as a writer!) along with a master’s degree in theological studies. He’s also made a wonderful video essay analyzing the literary themes in Link’s Awakening, which have carried over into Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. I really recommend following this guy because he’s not just talking out of his ass–he’s educated, doing his research, and actually cites his sources consistently (something I wish all video essayists did more often). 

I've been following his work for a little while now and his videos deserve WAY more attention for the sheer level of quality he puts into these videos--so please give it a watch!

[hairtusk]

do you have any other reading recommendations? feminist and/or philosophy in general? don't know much about these topics and would love to learn

absolutely, thank you so much for asking! i decided to interpret this as feminist texts, philosophy/political texts by female authors, and a sprinkling of feminist fiction, for ease. in honesty, i am more interested in political and theological philsophy than anything else, so there'll be a lot of that. each text is linked with the appropriate goodreads entry (i don't use the site, but i know lots of people track their reading lists there)

[necessary disclaimer! i do not necessarily agree with all of the ideas posited in these texts! i can't believe i have to reiterate this!]

Feminist Texts:

• Andrea Dworkin: Pornography: Men Possessing Women; Intercourse; Right-Wing Women; Woman Hating

• Simone de Beauvoir: The Second Sex; Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter (autobiography)

• Adrienne Rich: Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution; Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence; Essential Essays: Culture, Politics, and the Art of Poetry

• Audre Lorde: Sister Outsider; The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House

• Germaine Greer: The Female Eunuch; The Whole Woman; The Change: Women, Ageing, and Menopause

• Angela Davis: Women, Race & Class • Naomi Wolf: The Beauty Myth

• Betty Freidan: The Feminine Mystique

• bell hooks: Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism

• Susan Brownmiller: Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape; Femininity

• Shulasmith Firestone: The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution

• Marilyn French: The War Against Women; A History of Women in the World (series); Beyond Power: On Women, Men & Morals

Philosophy Focused Texts / Criticism / Other Politics:

• Hannah Arendt: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil; The Origins of Totalitarianism; The Human Condition

• Simone Weil: Gravity and Grace; Waiting for God; The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind

• Susan Sontag: Illness as Metaphor & AIDS and Its Metaphors; Regarding The Pain of Others

[valtsv]

If you were given a month to state an opinion and write an essay about it, what would you choose and why? It can be about anything but every 5 years you'd have to write an additional paper on the subject alternating between sides

angelology from a theological and sociological perspective, particularly the rise in popularity of 'biblically accurate angels' in memes

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: August

August, eighth month of the Gregorian calendar.

It was named for the first Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar, in 8 bce.

Recorded from Old English, the name comes from Latin augustus ‘consecrated, venerable’.

Its original name was Sextilus, Latin for “sixth month,” indicating its position in the early Roman calendar.

One of the earliest evidence for august is from 1594, in a translation by Robert Ashley, translator and book collector.

August is of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a borrowing from Latin.

As an adjective

1. [1594-] Inspiring or worthy of respect (originally on account of birth or position in society); impressively eminent or respected; imposing, reverend, worshipful. Sometimes as an honorific epithet.

"To mingle with a body so august." —Lord Byron, Two Foscari iv. i, in Sardanapalus 259

"We have a human sufferer in Him—the augustest indeed that ever shared our flesh and blood." —R. C. Trench, Sermons in Westminster Abbey xiv. 152

"I would happily relax my hold if you honorably promise to accompany me to my august superior whom I unworthily serve." —H. H. Skinner, Jiu-jitsu 40

2. [1602-] Inspiring reverence and admiration; impressing the emotions or imagination as magnificent; solemnly grand, stately, majestic.

"The funeral was long remembered as the saddest and most august that Westminster had ever seen." —T. B. Macaulay, History of England vol. IV. 534

"[It] renews its ancient glance with an auguster beauty." —J. Martineau, Essays Philosophical & Theological 2nd Series 149

"Little open emotion was evident in the august halls of the Court." —B. Doherty, Gun Control on Trial vi. 110

3. Having great importance and respect in society 4. Marked by majestic dignity or grandeur

Synonyms & related words

baronial, colossus, cosmical, dignified, distingué, exalted, formidable, Homeric, magisterial, opulent, palatine, pantheon, personage, redoubtable, resplendent, splendiferous, titan, uncrowned

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 ⚜ Writing Notes & References