and their teeny-tiny toes

[kleenexwoman]

Ended up going to midnight mass at the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak. It's been a while since I was in church on Christmas, or even at any time at all. Mom used to drag us to various churches when we were younger, but that's stopped in the past few years, so I went with josephwaldman after the Christmas festivities had wound down and I was still too full of cookies to sleep.

The Shrine is gorgeous. Mom has dragged me to a lot of churches in the past, and I always find it kind of annoying that the trend in these churches seems to be lots of bare wood and minimalist design. It's dull and makes the place look like a therapist's office. But oh, god, the marble and stained glass and gold and velvet paintings, and all the ornate little symbols worked into the ornate little designs...oh, and they had these alcoves with marble statues of saints and carvings depicting their symbolism and life, and little places to put offerings. The one of Mary was lovely--she had a crown, and people had put roses and little cards on her altar. I can see how it would be really comforting praying to someone like that, or to the saints they had scattered across the room. Lots of options.

The Mass was interesting, too. It started out very pagan--big altar with white and blood-red set up in the middle of the room, lots of greenery, guys in white robes doing cleansing things with a big metal incense ball...lots of ritual and pomp and circumstance and things that I wasn't quite sure of the meaning of, but that I could guess. It really did look like they were about to sacrifice someone or something. I guess they were symbolically, but it was a huge altar. Not even just man-sized. Cow-sized. Elephant-sized.

Then the priest gave a sermon about how Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Muslims all pray to the same god, but the Catholic god was better because they had God in a little piece of bread that they could eat. I kid you not, that was the gist of the whole thing, and he even held up the Host to prove it. Oh, and there was a tangent on anti-abortion that included the phrase "Every embryo is sacred, every embryo is great." josephwaldman can verify all of this. It was very impassioned, and I guess I wouldn't have been surprised at if if I'd just randomly gone to Mass, but it seemed like a weird topic for a Christmas sermon, particularly for a church that's kind of a tourist spot anyway. Even in the other Catholic churches I've been in, the Christmas sermons tend to be very inclusive--less about Catholicism specifically, and more about God's love in general. (My favorite was a guest priest who brought in pictures of nebulae and talked about awe at the beauty of nature. I can get behind that.)

The blessing over the Host seemed like actual magic. The lights went down low, the organ got into some serious subsonic ranges, and the priests and altar boys gathered around the incense-wreathed altar to hear the monsignor chant in Latin...I loved it. I wish there were still big pagan temples like that, huge courtyards and altars of marble and gold and painted wood, where you could go watch and take part in rituals to all sorts of gods. Why don't we have those? Are there any? There are so many neopagans in the U.S., there's got to be at least one somewhere.

I loved the ritual and drama and symbolism, and I love it when I go to Temple. Rituals and symbols are immensely satisfying for me, and I'm half-tempted to become religious just for that. The problem is that most religions with any sense of style seem to require literal belief, or at least the pretense thereof, and I know from experience that that's not going to work for me.

Are there any religions that don't require literal belief? Like, an acknowledgment of narrative and symbol and ritual for its own sake without having to believe literally in what they stand for? ...maybe the Unitarians? I might need to make up my own thing.

We did go out for hamburgers afterward, which was also satisfying and reminded me of an excellent book I'd read the week before which posited that one of the important functions of religion, ritual, and religious law was regulating and ensuring the distribution of food, particularly animal proteins, to the populace. The author concluded that the Aztecs had a reasonably efficient system for this considering their scanty resources.

On that thought, Happy Hogswatch to all and to all a good night.

Comments

[anivad.livejournal.com]

Oh, and there was a tangent on anti-abortion that included the phrase "Every embryo is sacred, every embryo is great."

o_O

...if an embryo is wastid
God gets quite irate...

I <3 nebulae.

Yeah, probably the UU fits that. Making up own things = not good. Especially if you're a sci-fi writer. That's how Scientology emerged.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

...if an embryo is wastid
God gets quite irate...
inorite? I couldn't pay attention to most of it after that.

Making up own things = not good. Especially if you're a sci-fi writer.
ahahaha. But no, really, I wouldn't want to make anyone else follow it. I'm greedy and jealous with my belief systems. There's the possibility that I'd take it too seriously and go all Philip K. Dick, but that's my problem...

[woodburner.livejournal.com]

"Like, an acknowledgment of narrative and symbol and ritual for its own sake without having to believe literally in what they stand for? ...maybe the Unitarians? I might need to make up my own thing."

...Zen Buddhism?

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

ooh. Perhaps :D I should look into that.

[sighing-echo.livejournal.com]

Same quote. ART!!!! duh! you know that! all the ritual is in its process, the process of any art-making action itself is narrative, as well as may revolve about narrative, and it tends to make one much better at withstanding critique than organized religion tends too.

Anyway, where are you going to be for New Year's Eve?

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

YES!!! I knew it.
Ritual is art as art is ritual. <3

I don't think I'm doing anything for New Year's at the moment, partially because I don't have transportation anywhere...I'm currently in Sterling Heights and might have to stay here :(

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Ahem. Not just any hamburgers, remember? The best goddamned hamburgers in the world, and not just because they were the only ones available at 1AM on Xmas morning.

Also, what about our fun fun fun (har har har) jaunt through the twist and turns and roundabouts of northern Macomb County?

Elephantine is a good way to describe that altar. See? Remember what I said about Fat Jesus (like Fat Elvis)? Come on! This is 2008 we're in! That fucking cross would have to be made of reinforced titanium nowadays.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

I happened to have the worst goddamned hamburger in the world today. Never order a burger from Buffalo Wild Wings, that's my advice.

oh god okay I am never getting in a car with you again without a GPS. NEVER.

Remember what I said about Fat Jesus (like Fat Elvis)
Gretchen, stop trying to make Fat Jesus happen! It's not going to happen!

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

And I had a pretty damned good taco at Del Taco. Nice little place, never eaten there before. (Come hell or high water, however, we are gonna pig out at White Castle sometime in the near future, my dear, oh yes, we are . . .)

Hey. 'Twasn't my fault that Van Dyke sucked.

Fat Jesus? He will rise again . . . and then slump back down. Out of breath. Reaches into a bowlful of Christ Mix (it's like Chex Mix, only with communion wafers), stuffs his face, and washes it down with some Boone's Farm and Hawaiian Punch. Mmm . . . secular.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

HOLY FUCK. THERE'S A DEL TACO IN MICHIGAN?!?!?! WHERE?!?!

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Fourteen and Crooks, I think it was.

Somebody's hungry (or menstruating) . . .

Me, I miss Taco Time back in Utah. Excellently huge portions.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Dude, seriously, do I make comments about the fluctuating state of your hormones in relation to the state of your reproductive organs at the slightest provocation? I really don't think there's a precedent set for that sort of thing and it's getting really old.

Anyway. We should get tacos sometime. I think Mom has a coupon.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

No, because my gonads rarely respond to tidal waves or the moon.

Mmm mmm mmm tacos. I am recalling the "taco burger" scene from FLLV for some reason.

BTW, how was your burger nap? Mine was excellent. All manner of weird dreams.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

A) mine don't either, B) that's still no reason for you to make jokes about them. Didn't we have this conversation a few months ago? Didn't I already tell you the period jokes were getting old, like, two nights ago?

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Okay, okay. I will switch to comma jokes. Or perhaps semicolons.

JW, cunning linguist and master debater of the nonsequiter, who does so love willy swordplay

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps semicolons.
So, poop jokes? Sure, we can try that.

But yeah, seriously, I appreciate it. Because I'm deleting comments if you don't stick to it.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Rachel . . . have a sense of humor. Seriously.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

no u

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Actually, I went to OWU.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Are you on your man-period? Is that it? It's okay. Have some beer and think about it.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

So that's why I'm bleeding down there. Hooray! Today I became a man!

Oh, wait. It was just hemorrhoids. (Damn that delicious bacon cheeseburger. I plan to get another one ASAP.)

[drworm.livejournal.com]

Hard to have a sense of humor when things aren't funny.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Waldman's Rule of Comedy Number Something-or-Other: Anything that goes into or comes out of the human body is or can be made funny.

[drworm.livejournal.com]

Waldman's Rule is flawed.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Not at all. Think it through.

[drworm.livejournal.com]

I don't need to think it through, because I already know the answer: it may be made funny

but not by you.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

I don't follow.

[drworm.livejournal.com]

That's just my oh-so-subtle way of saying you aren't funny enough to exercise your own rule.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Ooh, you're hilarious . . .

Humor is subjective. To each his own. But jesus, herr doktor, why in such a rotten mood?

[drworm.livejournal.com]

Because you keep bringing up my girlfriend's periods when she's asked you to stop.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Okay, but said girlfriend is also my friend, and I crack wise with her. This is what writers with wit do.

[drworm.livejournal.com]

And she has asked you, repeatedly, to stop. I don't see what's so hard about this.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Joe, remember when I told you that sometimes I just really didn't want to argue about things and I wanted you to shut up and listen instead of cracking jokes? This is one of those times. drworm is being very blunt about it where I wasn't so blunt, and quite frankly he and I are on the same side about this matter.

I understand that you find period humor funny, but I don't any longer, and I don't appreciate it on my journal, particularly not out of nowhere. And I understand that you deal with social tension by trying to argue or crack a joke or say something you think is funny, but it's not always appropriate, and it's not appropriate right now.

If you aren't willing to recognize that, then maybe it's time for you to take a break from commenting in my LJ for a while, okay?

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

Okay . . . but to be blunt (or rather honest, which I am nothing if not) in return, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, it seems to me. Chill out a little bit, okay? You remember the other night how you said I seemed a lot cooler/calmer/happier/whatever? Yeah. That's kind of how one needs to be if one is to remain sane and not get bogged down with minutiae. Took me damn near twenty-eight years to figure this out. Word to the wise (which you are).

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Yes, I have already gathered that you think doing something that offends and upsets me when I've asked you repeatedly to stop is no big deal. I'm not sure why you think this, and I don't expect to understand. And I don't expect you to understand completely why this is a big deal to me, but I do expect you to respect it and not tell me to "chill out," okay?

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

All right, well, as I am, as ever, the eternal diplomat (I sold my soul to Nick Machiavelli, Hank the K., and Model UN a long time ago) I proclaim a whiteflag ceasefire, herewith contained and self-engaged.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Is that an apology or are you just shutting up?

Either way, you are still on warning.

[josephwaldman.livejournal.com]

See above. Q.E.D. (And no warnings, please. Civility must rule the day.)

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

That doesn't answer my question, and at this point I'm upset and paranoid enough that I would like to know whether you honestly understand what's wrong with what's been going on here or whether you're just humoring me.

You can e-mail me with your response.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

Christmas being about the birth of a child does rather make it the single date in the Christian calendar at which abortion would be most relevant, I'd have thought, though perhaps raising the topic nine months earlier would be a good idea? ;)

You say a lot of things here which if sorted into order are very penetrating.

Are there any religions that don't require literal belief? Like, an acknowledgment of narrative and symbol and ritual for its own sake without having to believe literally in what they stand for?

Think about this --- suppose there is a real religion. By adding to that real religion, whatever it is, narrative symbol and ritual for their own sake, the original religion can come to be obliterated from the minds of those present, whilst they worship (attend to devotedly) the things they can touch, feel and see. In my view that is exactly what happens in much of the RC, and many other churches that act the same way but have other names. It may also be the case with other religions, but I am not qualified to say.

The result is that wherever those forms are present, basic Christianity is obliterated.

That is why the bible says such physical representations should not be made - because as soon as you put them into a place of religion and let them get into people's heads, they stop thinking about the basics of their religion, and transfer their attention to the forms. Now if a religion STATES that the forms ARE the religion, that is good, but if it says they are PRECLUDED, then having them there actually creates a false version of the original religion, and acts to prevent the real one, whether true or not, having any effect on the minds of those present.

In fact there is a trail of historical development that shows how this first came about, and remains to this day.


In about the 5th century there was a church council at Laodicea that decided on some very far reaching decisions that have affected most of what has been called Christianity ever since. Now up to that time the faith had been spreading rapidly, and did not previously incorporate those changes; afterwards it ceased spreading in anything like the same way, spreading only by power and compulsion, and the changes are why.

The New Testament does not, to my knowledge, ever refer to any Christian as a priest in a way that makes them different from the rest of their brothers and sisters; what it does talk about is the priesthood of all believers, and in Corinthians we see that worship in the church was originally based on the spiritual gifts and spontaneous worship arising from the body of the church as the Holy Spirit guided each one. This was a process which could be abused, and thus at times it was necessary for someone to make sure that it was not abused (as Paul does at Corinth), but nowhere in the New Testament is anything that we see in mainstream churches today approved of, or called Christian in nature.

That council, at Laodicea, decided that in future the giving of communion would be restricted to priests, and that some would be priests and others not, and a church hierarchy would appoint priests. All that that did was to go away from the bible and the ways of the church of Acts, and to reintroduce a pagan form of priesthood into the church.

Together with the false doctrine that salvation was lost if one did not regularly take communion, this turned the priesthood into a self-selecting tyranny with the power to not only kill the body but curse the soul to hell - or so they taught.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Christmas being about the birth of a child does rather make it the single date in the Christian calendar at which abortion would be most relevant, I'd have thought, though perhaps raising the topic nine months earlier would be a good idea? ;)
That would be in March, wouldn't it? Around Easter time? I can see working in some sort of sacrificial theme around that. Hmmmmmm.

Think about this --- suppose there is a real religion. By adding to that real religion, whatever it is, narrative symbol and ritual for their own sake, the original religion can come to be obliterated from the minds of those present, whilst they worship (attend to devotedly) the things they can touch, feel and see.
Sure, if we're going into hypotheticals. Baudrillard said the same thing about symbols and simulacra--the audience to whom the simulacra or simulations are presented begin to accept those simulacra as the "real" thing.

the Christmas/Abortion thing

[sighing-echo.livejournal.com]

Also, you just have to think. Tourist church. One of the most attended Church nights of the year. Big political issue because of religion influence. Yeah, I can see talking about abortion.

Re: the Christmas/Abortion thing

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

oooooh.

That makes more sense.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

That accounts for a lot of the worst features of European history, but it does NOT, at any point, originate in the bible, or the church of Acts. It originated in reverting to a pagan model of priesthood, and then forcing the true forms and nature of Christianity to be interpreted - wrongly - through it.

Because everyone then believed that they had to have communion regularly to go to heaven, and priests had to give it, it was then necessary to have everyone get communion in church on a Sunday, because otherwise priests would have had to travel from house to house, and would have had no time for anything else.

Because they had to have communion in the church, then that meant that the religious meeting must be based around that act of communion. Because there were priests, worship from the body ceased, and had to originate from the priests, or they would cease to be priests as the term was now understood.

As a result of that, all of the personal knowledge of God was drained from the people as they expected to have the priest impart it to them. It was as though you ceased to go to the movies, and appointed one friend to go for all of your group of friends, and then come back and tell you about the story, a story that you could never go and see for yourself.

And thus real faith and personal knowledge of God were obliterated by the adoption of a model that did not come from Christianity, and was fundamentally inimical to it.

This only began to be changed in a major way when the bible became freely available in the languages that ordinary people spoke. Then they could see for themselves that the bible did not speak of this form of communion, or of priests in this form, at all; so those that looked and wanted to use the bible as the basis for their faith, began rejecting the church that they knew, and as a result countless numbers of them were killed by church or state (sometimes both) for doing so; countless Baptists and Quakers in Europe burned alive for preferring the bible to the monstrosity that had been forced on them.

But in the 500 years since that epoch, those who got out of the 'Laodicean' church and were not burned have carried on in many if not all of the traditions that were first imposed in Laodicea for the express purpose of controlling them, because they do not know how to do otherwise.

Today the forms of Christianity that are spreading are the ones that were known in Acts, based on a personal knowledge of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. Those churches that believe in formalism are dying, very rapidly.

If you want to worship in a religion without a reality, then there is nothing to stop you doing so, but it is only sensible to recognise that that is what you are doing, and that any real religion must fall outside of that.

If you want a real religion with a real God, the very fact that you CAN worship in a religion with no reality through symbols, and that the bible SAYS that the symbols are unacceptable to Christianity, shows that the use of those symbols is the biggest barrier you could ever have to a real religion, that is, one where you personally meet with a real God.

Many do not yet know that real God, or may doubt that he exists, but in that case think about the above; if you ever want to meet a real God, those forms are the very fastest way to avoid doing so. If you want to know the truth, you will never, ever find it out by entering into a form of religion in which the symbols are the only reality. The truth may be that there is no God or that there is one, but symbols that are worshipped in their own right will merely divert you from finding out the truth.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

This only began to be changed in a major way when the bible became freely available in the languages that ordinary people spoke.
Ahh, the Protestant Reformation! \o/

If you want a real religion with a real God, the very fact that you CAN worship in a religion with no reality through symbols, and that the bible SAYS that the symbols are unacceptable to Christianity, shows that the use of those symbols is the biggest barrier you could ever have to a real religion, that is, one where you personally meet with a real God.
But that's the point--at this point, I don't want one with the idea of a transcendental signifier at all. Symbols aren't real, no, but neither is language--they're things the brain is wired for and finds satisfying. Once you start thinking in language, you start thinking in symbols.

If you want to worship in a religion without a reality, then there is nothing to stop you doing so, but it is only sensible to recognise that that is what you are doing, and that any real religion must fall outside of that.
From my point of view, there isn't any such thing as a "real" religion anyway--I dig that people believe theirs is, and that's cool, but I wouldn't feel comfortable taking part in one that thinks it is. Maybe later when I'm more centered about spirituality, or maybe not, but not now. Even taking symbols seriously would be a step up for me.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

I am in no doubt about the reality of God, because I seek only that and refuse the symbols, and have thus not had to waste time on things that can never tell you if he is there or not. I looked at the things that would tell you if he was there or not, and I am satisfied with the answer. I am convinced that anyone else that does the same will get the same answer. Those that disagree are welcome to repeat what I did and then say they do not find the same thing, but if they do not repeat the "experiment", they cannot say if I am right or not; that is how truth is established in Physics, for instance.

But if instead you go after the forms, you have rightly pointed out that that can be done for its own sake, and the truth is that wherever those symbols are used in defiance of the principles of any religion, then you will never find out the truth of that religion by using forms and symbols that it forbids.

That's why most of the people in churches don't know God at all, despite often wishing they did; they are stuck in a system that derives from an attempt to force a pagan form of priesthood on Christianity. Prior to that council, Christianity thrived, and wherever Christians renounce what that council taught, they thrive, but wherever churches act as specified at Laodicea, they are dead, dead, dead, and the knowledge of God can only get into the congregation by accident or by leaving.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

Those that disagree are welcome to repeat what I did and then say they do not find the same thing, but if they do not repeat the "experiment", they cannot say if I am right or not; that is how truth is established in Physics, for instance.
I did; to be honest, I'm getting impatient with the whole thing, and in the meantime some perfectly good alternative answers have presented themselves to me (which may, in fact, be the answers I was looking for in the first place). The problem I see you describing with the priesthood is less the existence of the symbols in themselves than it is the authority which determines their use for the rest of the population, and symbols do become meaningless, negative, or both if they're forced and manipulated that way.