#< tagging that on this one because it explicitly references the christian bible | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rayonfrozenwings · 6 years

Text

The Interconnection of ACOTAR and TOG and what this means for Kingdom of Ash

Welcome to Renee’s theory on how its all connected!

Masterlist to my official theories here. (aka the ones I spent time writing up)

Preface: Now it’s important to note that over time, as new ideas emerge - older theories may become less relevant. Before I start writing - I go in with the perspective that each new theory is on its own. I don’t require the information from other posts/ideas unless explicitly stated in the new theory.

So for this theory, I may refer to other theories I have already written, I may explain them here in a new context, and change my thoughts on them. I even have different paths available for the direction SJM can go. I’m pretty open to everything being a possibility until it is dis-proven in Canon. I paraphrased a fair bit. But if you know TOG well i’m sure you will remember the parts I’m talking about, and if possible I have put in brackets what book said what. CONTAINS REFERENCES TO BOTH TOG AND ACOTAR BOOKS. Also warning - I don't want to accidentally spoil anyone if I actually end up being right about anything, so maybe don’t read this until after KoA. haha. Well you can. But if I manage to get something right, I feel like I have warned you. :P Please Understand that I am trying to take things back to their simplest form, and there are links to wiki articles if you want to do your own reading for better understanding. Hellenistic philosophy for example makes my brain hurt, but if you want more I have linked it. I refer a bit to ancient Greek myth etc too. Tagging: @miladyaelin @bookofmirth @paperbacktrash @therapeuticrambling @lady-katkat @illyrianbeauty @photofeesh @slytherclaw713 @nephelle-warrior-scribe (I just tagged people who might be interested, I will not be offended if you don’t want to read it. :D)

So to start I’m going to propose that the Worlds of Acotar and Prythian are connected.

That they are linked. How? They are not the “same world” but neither are they different. A year ago I wrote a post called “Erilea” (here). Through discourse and discussion with other people in the fandom on this post, we came up with some cool ideas on why Prythian and Erilea look similar in terms of geography.

Ice age - Change in the Sea Levels. Making Erilea and Prythian the same world at different times. Either Prythian came first or Erilea. Either was an option.

Parallel worlds - multi-world theory, They are the same place with small differences in their history that changed the make up of those worlds (a sliders reference). These worlds can be connected to each other through a Wyrdgate or wormhole.

But now I have a third theory. A theory about Why Prythian looks a lot like Erilea. And it’s a little Fantastical and I love it. I will be happy if this is not the case too - but it’s always nice to try and solve a puzzle. I believe if the worlds are linked we will find out in Kingdom of Ash. So BEWARE : IF MY THEORY IS RIGHT THEN THERE MAY BE KOA SPOILERS. Of course - i’m just a fan of these books who loves theory - so it’s possible I just have an overactive imagination as well. :D

But First I need to take a step back.

I need to look at how the Universe for these books is made. (I have written 4000 words in a separate document and its too complicated with lots of open ends and possibilities so I’m trying to simplify here and provide the details that make the most sense. - warning I failed to make it shorter, but at least its in bullet points).

The origins of the Throne of Glass Universe.

There are gods. (all books reference at least one)

Aelin and co. are in the “third movement” of an unfinished game between these gods. (QOS) The gods guide people to make certain decisions and take certain actions. (EOS)

The Gods do not have physical form but are trapped - At this point in the story anyway. (EOS)

There are mortals in the story - fae, humans, shapeshifters, people who have a vested interest in the material world in which they live. (all books)

There is the idea that the worshiped gods change over time - or who is worshiped changes over time. There are 36 gods in the Southern Continent (TOD) and the Khaganate says that they never eradicate old gods but rather assimilate them into their own religion.

Could this mean that we have three sets of 12? 12 Gods. Perhaps the same 12 gods at each new re-incarnation (since we have three movements in the unfinished game) or a new scion or mortal to speak through for each of these gods.

But we know that there are 9 on the Pantheon at Mistward (HOF) - So what happened to the other three gods?

In the “lock” / “witchmirror” Elena is looked over at the obsidian passes by 12 Gods and Goddesses! I think Maeve has been re-writing some history in Wendyln, or not all 12 are worshiped. Time forgets those that aren't seen as important. Which is true of our own histories. The Greek Olympians changed over time and Dionysus was seen more in later pantheon’s for example.

Creation of the universe

Neoplatonism is the idea that the universe is made from an initial thought - The One. There is void and nothing and then necessity/ fate/ the One comes into being. From this point the universe expands out. Creating more and more. Beings that make up essence and soul - I like to think of them as primordial gods/goddesses, life and death gods. Then there is a creator from this - someone who is used as a tool by necessity to craft creation, a physical artisan. Do not confuse the creator with God. The creator is merely an artisan, with the skills and the tools needed to do the work of the necessity. And then more specific Gods form from this.

It is called the Celestial Hierarchy. - see below and link to more info here.

((Celestial hierarchy[edit]

Later neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings such as gods, angels, demons, and other beings as mediators between the One and humanity. The neoplatonist gods are omni-perfect beings and do not display the usual amoral behaviour associated with their representations in the myths.

The One: God, The Good. Transcendent and ineffable.

The Hypercosmic Gods: those that make Essence, Life, and Soul

The Demiurge: the Creator

The Cosmic Gods: those who make Being, Nature, and Matter—including the gods known to us from classical religion. ))

Source: wiki: neoplatonism

So What does this mean? I think that this means that Erilea was created by a artisan or creator, and since then there has been a war going on between the “cosmic gods” - So the god of Storms, The goddess of Light, the god of Wild things. These gods had a kind of civil war - either with themselves, or with higher beings. I am ever hopeful that when SJM releases the book “The world of throne of glass” that it shall have all the mythology and story behind how this works because it is complicated to decipher. I’ve been pulling my hair out trying to nail down these influences in her books (jewish bible/ christian bible/greek myth/welsh myth/slavic myth - seriously, i’m going crazy here).

Thanks to the Bone Carver (acowar) we know that there are multiple worlds and that his world turned to dust a long time ago and he cannot return (this might be Erilea, it might not). The Celestial Hierarchy idea above can have more than one creator, the cycle can continue over and over again as long as necessity is guiding something to happen. I believe the reason Prythian is so diverse in its populations is because it’s a combination of things to do with its creation. But that's for me to explain a little further along (I was going to come back to this point - but it’s already super long, and I don't want to head down another path - basically, more than one world, feeding into tartarus = lots of different beings from multiple worlds, and all the worlds could now be dust. Like Angels - aka Amren)

(Also if you love this idea of being guided by necessity and doing the ultimate good then check out David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean series, because its got those elements fine tuned).

Multiple planes of existence

Another Idea that has been floating around is the idea of multiple planes of existence. Kind of like a Olympus / Earth / The Underworld / Tartarus type of scenario if I use greek myth as an example. There are these realms or planes of existence that exist independently of each other but you are able to access them via certain avenues - like dying, becoming a god, secret passageways, ascending Olympus. This one is pretty cool. Because it means that creatures who find their way into Erilea (think Wyverns through the ferrian gap, Valg creatures in Morath and that monster/serpent under the lake/Mountain in Heir of fire.) They either accidentally or on purpose find their way into Erilea through the darkest places in the world. Dark Tunnels. Gaps in the fabric of Creation. Similar to how it was thought humans could travel to the underworld if they knew how - and still be living. Like Orpheus (ovid’s metamorphosis) traveling to the underworld through a dark tunnel to get back his wife Eurydice. Or Hercules for his various tasks.

The idea of the underworld being a physical place isn’t uncommon. We also get certain days in TOG where the absence of light means that the spirit world is closer to Erilea. Samhain is one such day, and the day of a solar eclipse also has Mort talking in a voice that is not his own or Elena’s. So who’s is it? with the veil between worlds so thin? There are many possibilities - maybe it is even necessity itself. So it is possible that Prythian is a “Underworld”. In fact with the quote “everything tastes better above the wall”- ACOMAF. I would even say that the seven courts of Prythian could be the Elysian fields. I feel like this idea isn’t new, or at least it has been rattling around in my head for a long time so I feel like I’ve heard it before. The Prison in Acotar has always appeared as Tartarus to me. A place deep deep under the earth, even deeper than the underworld, but the entry is in the underworld. This place is a prison to the worst kind of creatures. The creatures that go against the natural order. Tartarus (wiki link for those wanting more) is believed to be the abyss, the darkest place. I believe Tartarus and “The Prison” are the same. Interestingly enough Tartarus is said to be a god in its own right often dwelling in Tartarus. The third primordial Deity, preceding Eros (love/desire) That is why Feyre and the others are to be scared of those that dwell there. It is even said that “the watchers” - fallen Angels were imprisoned in Tartarus, and with Amren’s “Angel-ness” coming to light in ACOWAR and the fact we know that she escaped the Prison, makes me even more keen to think that the prison is in actuality Tartarus, and therefore Prythian - the underworld. OK So all that is the background I have tried to decipher - for a very very very long time. I have a lot of other theories and ways things might interconnect but I’m just going to leave that for now because - I don't want to get confused. So My next step is Kingdom of Ash and what I think might happen.

What does this mean for KoA?

I suspect that we have an amalgamation of ideas here and that The void and land of cold, ice and Darkness where the Valg come from is actually Prythian (simply known as the Abyss containing Tartarus before Kingdom of Ash’s events.) and Prythian gets a makeover thanks to Aelin. Prythian exists but not as we know it, before the events of Kingdom of Ash. So not only are Prythian and Erilea not the same world but they also do not occur at the same time.

To be honest - we can get a split here as well.

Aelin makes prythian from scratch

Aelin re-forges Prythian, using what is already there and re-shapes it.

More Kingdom of Ash Spoilers ahead - if I’m right.

Forging of the Lock.

So how is Kingdom of Ash going to tell me about the creation of Prythian? Well there is a mural in ACOTAR that Feyre finds and describes for us - Chapter 13 of ACOTAR. Here are some quotes from that:

“It told a story with the way the colours and shapes and light flowed, the way the tone shifted across the mural. The story of… Prythian.”

“It began with a Cauldron.”

“A mighty black Cauldron held by glowing, slender female hands in a starry, endless night.

Those hands tipped it over, golden sparkling liquid poured out over the lip. No - not sparkling, but … effervescent with small symbols, perhaps of some ancient faerie language. Whatever was written there whatever it was, the contents of the cauldron were dumped into the void below, pooling on the earth to form our world …” “The map spanned the entirety of our world - not just the land on which we stood, but also the seas and larger continents beyond. Each territory was marked and coloured, some with intricate, ornate depictions of the beings who had once ruled over lands that now belonged to the humans. All of it, i remembered with a shudder, all of the world had once been theirs - at least as far as they believed, crafted for them by the bearer of the cauldron. There were no mention of humans - no sign of us here. I supposed we’d been as low as pigs to them.”

“In the centre of the land, as if it were the core around which everything else had spread, or perhaps the place where the cauldrons liquid had first touched. Was a small, snowy mountain range. From it arose a mammoth, solitary peak. Bald of snow, bald of life - as if the elements refused to touch it. There was no more clues about what it might be; nothing to indicate its importance, and I supposed that the viewers were already supposed to know. This was not a mural for human eyes” - acotar.

A lot of people (myself included) have thought that this mural was the key to linking the worlds. And I think this is the Key to what is going to happen in Kingdom of Ash. Aelin is the creator - the artisan - the wielder of the cauldron. There are two ways/reasons I can see this happening.

Aelin Erupts and has managed to destroy the “darkness” in Erilea, through the creation of the Lock But Light creates darkness simply by being present. Casting a shadow, and because of this if your remove one then you must also remove the other - like calls to like, made and unmade, a never ending cycle. Rules of balance in the universe etc. She has “unmade” something if she destroys all the Darkness in the world. If this happens, and light is removed then Erilea will cease to exist (think about acowar - near the end with some Cauldron destroying the world type stuff ;) Feyre(light) and Rhys(darkness) work together to save creation). And Aelin either by accident or not - will need to find a solution to this destruction, a solution to “unmaking” something, to the end of the world as they know it. So she creates prythian to evacuate to, to save the people she can. The void exists on the other side of the Wyrd gate and she uses this as a place to “create” prythian.

OR The battle is over and Aelin needs to send back all the monstrosities into the void through the Wyrd Gate. She doesn't try to destroy them - only contain them. But as their land has nothing but Darkness, Ice and wind, Aelin needs to create a place for the creatures to live. Not all who have Valg in them are evil - the witches being the perfect example. A cross-breed of darkness and light (Fae and Valg). To banish ALL Valg - surely the witches would need to be vanished too? That seems like a pretty awful alliance, if you help out the saviour and then they banish you!

Note that this does not mean ERILEA and PRYTHIAN are the same - simply that you might be able to reach one through a Wyrd gate if you wanted to. So with those two worrying thoughts. How does she do it?

We know you cannot UNMAKE something that is MADE. And like calls to like, as is said in ACOTAR. Essentially - you cannot have good without evil or light without Darkness. So Aelin needs to find a way to contain and not destroy, because she doesn't want to destroy the entirety of creation.

Now, Aelin is the first to raise her hand for a wild plan that saves the day - and the gods have said that they will take the dark king with them (EOS) when they are returned home from the eternity stuck in an astral plane. But Aelin has to give up her mortality to do that - she has to give up Rowan - Her life - Her future. Aelin ain't going to do that. She hates being told what to do, if she can find a way out - she will.

Aelin needs to make sure the natural order is restored. So using the Acotar mural as reference - She forges a Cauldron using her powers from Mala Firebringer acting as the forge, using iron from the ironteeth witches as they evolve and change.

The last Crochan queen (Manon) melts the iron inside her as she yields, giving all the iron to the cauldron. Manon is the only being who has inside her - The LIGHT and the DARK. She is an IRONTEETH witch and a CROCHAN witch. She is both good and Evil. She is the Bridge between Aelin (the light) and Dorian (the darkness).

Iron also contains magic in Erilea, it prevents it from working. The iron doors and iron coffin, stifle magic, so the iron of the cauldron would act to ground the magic, to bind it to the mortal world. The raw magic from the realm of darkness (Dorian) combines with that of the realm of light (Aelin). Together the three of them create a cauldron to hold the wyrd keys and fill it full of glittering liquid that is the liquid of creation. And a female with Slender pale arms becomes the Creator of Prythian (I’m assuming it's Aelin because she is the “saviour”, making the sacrifice and is also “nameless in my price” and no-one remembers the creator’s name in Prythian).

Then with the cauldron, Aelin creates Prythian.

She either goes through the gate and pours the liquid (or pours the liquid through the gate) out of the cauldron and into the darkness of the void, landing on the top of a sacred mountain.

Tartarus (underworld) is already there, drifting in the abyss, but she makes the Elysian fields - she makes the underworld, she makes the promised land, Prythian.

From the Darkness Aelin creates a new land in the image of her home land.

In an image or Erilea.

Her thoughts - her words become the essence of creation.

Aelin hasn’t traveled far, but the places she has been to she pours forth from herself into this new place. Using the magic of the cauldron to shape creation - she remakes what has been made before. She pours Xandria and the Desert (Hybern), a place she only reached by sea, now an isolated island. She pours the Omega and her sacred forest (Oakwald), she pours in the mountain ranges, and the coast in s familiar shape, she includes Wendlyn and the sights she saw there. She pours her heart and soul forth as she includes Terrasen, the library of Orynth and the mountain home from which those gods and goddesses once looked over Erilea, the Staghorn mountains in the distance (night court). And the constellation that always guides her home - the Stag of the North, to look over the people and guide them. Always looking over Terrasen and now their new home.

She knows she can’t replicate everything as she hasn't seen the entirety of the world.

But she tries her best.

She makes Prythian as best she can.

A reflection of the World she knows - a reflection of Erilea.

Then she finds ways to trap and bind Maeve and Erawan (Death Gods - Styrga and Koschei) who she must send there too.

Because Aelin won’t make a deal with the gods, she is forging her own path.

Ensuring her own survival.

She binds the primordial gods to a location so they may not harm the inhabitants. So they may not repeat what they did in Erilea.

Here there is a split - Either point 1 or point 2 from above (depending on whether the entire world is turning to ash - or she is just banishing the valg).

(Point 1 - Erilea turned to ash)

She takes a part of the death god’s essence back into the cauldron, diminishing their power.

As many as possible are sent through the gate to save them.

She Banishes Maeve to a forest, to be watched by the little folk who choose to guard her.

She banishes Erawan to a Lake/”silver” on the Continent.

When it is over - she has drained all her magic.

All the godly essence given to her from Mala is gone.

The gods are gone. Released from their eternal torment (if Erilea is destroyed).

Dorian has used all his raw magic and Manon has used all the power her body once contained. Manon no longer has any iron and is a true Crochan witch, no ironteeth remaining.

They open the gate to all who wish to step through, to a new world, made in the image of the first. As their own world turns to dust. They cross over into Prythian on the Sacred Mountain where the Cauldron’s glittering liquid first touched the land.

(Point 2 - Banishing valg)

She takes a part of the death god’s essence back into the cauldron, diminishing their power.

As many as possible are sent through the gate.

She Banishes Maeve to a forest, to be watched by the little folk who choose to guard her.

She banishes Erawan to a Lake/silver on the Continent.

When it is over - she has drained all her magic.

All the godly essence given to her from Mala is gone.

Aelin can choose to trap the gods in Tartarus or the Prison forever - a kind of payback.

Dorian has used all his raw magic and Manon has used all the power her body once contained. Manon no longer has any iron and is a true Crochan witch, no ironteeth remaining.

They go back to their kingdoms and castles and try to live in a world without Valg.

They put the Cauldron back in the Abyss, never to be used again. The wyrd keys hidden inside it’s feet.

Then we have the story of ACOTAR - A story set in this new world. With the gods having vanished or have been “redistributed” throughout creation. Re-emerged into new people, new bloodlines, getting a second chance.

If point 1 comes to pass then we get our happy endings. Fresh starts made by the saviours. The living beings are what matter, not the land itself. And Erilea has long ago turned to dust and the survivors are in Prythian - living their happily ever afters and facing new challenges. Their bloodlines continuing through generations. Feyre Archeron having the blood of that fae warrior who saved all - long ago, imbued with light. Joins with the darkness (Rhysand) to save Prythian (in ACOWAR). A darkness that soothes, and isn’t evil. Creating a perfect balance of light and dark in Prythian. A fresh start.

“There are different kinds of darkness,” Rhys said. I kept my eyes shut. “There is the darkness that frightens, the darkness that soothes, the darkness that is restful.” I pictured each. “There is the darkness of lovers, and the darkness of assassins. It becomes what the bearer wishes it to be, needs it to be. It is not wholly bad or good.” ACOMAF.

The Acheron Line is human I hear your say - Is that because Aelin gave up her immortality to live? Her power transferred to the cauldron and as a gift she was able to live a mortal life? I could speculate on who is descendant from who, but I’m not going to do that here. I’m going to wait and see if this theory has any validity once Kingdom of Ash comes out. If not. That’s fine, I look forward to being surprised. Either way I am going to love this book.

So why would SJM say the worlds aren't linked? Because she doesn't want to give away the ending for Kingdom of Ash. She doesn't want to spoil us! And here I am doing my digging and making my stories. (by the way if I’m wrong - That's cool, I love to be surprised! I think this would make an amazing story though - anyone want to write an AU? :P haha).

If Point 2 comes to pass, then there is a lot of rebuilding. Prythian can still be created by Aelin, but what happens to our Favorites is still up in the air. And some things - like Feyre’s ancestry don’t appear to make much sense, when it is implied that she came from the “ancient fae warrior[s]” blood line. Maybe some people get stuck in Prythian but not all, and Erilea doesn't turn to ash. That’s cool. Not sure how the book will finish happily ever after though. (not that it needs to). Will we get split perspective of the two sides of the Wyrd gate or just loose contact with those not in Erilea anymore?

The problem with me is this - I get more questions than answers... it happens when I think up a theory.

Great - This is cool. But what about this and this? questions come unasked to the forefront and I pull out my hair.

For example - What about what the Stygian spiders and Brannon said in Tower of Dawn and Empire of Storms? Both are secondary sources of information. Stories. And while I think each has an element of truth, they are flawed as they come from a person/creature that is mortal. It is important to note that in neoplatonism there are different tiers of beings. Brannon, The stygian spider, Aelin and co. are all on the same tier. They are all mortals stuck trying to so the best with the reality they are given - with the information that they are given at the time. The only direct contact we have with a Goddesses is Deanna losing her cool and possessing Aelin in empire of storms and telling Aelin to find the lock and therefore - see the truth. And then those memories from the Witch mirror.

And then SJM does a fade to black! What the HELL! So the reader doesn't get the FULL truth from a source that would have all the information - these beings that are not limited by time or space!! (Renee gives SJM the side eyes and takes a deep breath).

So here are some Questions my digging has thrown up for Me:

Question 1: Why did Brannon not like Gavin?

Is is because Gavin has an association with the Sin Eater (Who I think is Erawan’s brother that later gets banished by Maeve (maybe leaves himself? I’m still re-reading so I might be missing something here) - and also possibly the Bone Carver by another name).

If it is because of this association then what does this mean for Gavin and Gavin’s bloodline? Did he trade something to become king? A no-name human, was it for a sword to defeat Erawan? but he couldn’t wield it against Erawan as he destroyed his hand at the obsidian passes? The reason I ask this is because the description of Damaris in COM is strangely familiar. “Damaris. The legendary sword of Gavin. Its hilt was silvery gold and had little ornamentation, save for a pommel in the shape of an eye. No Jewel lay in its socket; it was only an empty ring of gold. Some legends claimed that when Gavin wielded Damaris, He would only see the truth, and that was why he had been crowned king. Or some nonsense like that..” The Scabbard is also decorated with Wyrd marks. Yes eye imagery is common in SJM’s books and it could mean nothing. But we Know Gavin was at the Sin Eater’s temple because of Queen of Shadows scene. Does the bone Carver and the prison have some sort of link to the night court? The night court heir’s blood is keyed to the lock. Feyre has an eye tattoo on her hand that allows Rhys to connect with her. On the cover of ACOWAR Feyre has an eye on her belt - meaning that the eye has a lot of symbolism for the ACOTAR universe. Is that because certain characters are linked to this eye, or is the eye something more?

I could jump to a conclusion about bloodlines and that The Night Court is descended from Manon and Dorian. Raw magic and Fae (a witch without her iron). Later splitting into fragments - Their heirs - like The Morrigan, being connected to “truth” just as Dorian is. The eye- being a symbol of the night court and also of Gavin’s sword. Dorians powers of darkness, ice, cold - Just like Rhysand’s. The crowns in ACOWAR - one being a crown of stars and the moon, similar to how the blueblood heir wore a crown of stars herself. I’m not sure of this as they would be presiding over the land that was once Terrasen - but maybe this happens when the saviour of the world fades from memory? And if there is a link between the Night court and the Bone Carver, then there would also be a link to Stryga (the bone carvers sister).

Which Leads into this Question 2: Why is Dorian as important as Aelin?

(I touched on it above but I feel like I need to justify him as having more than just the power he wields).

In Queen of Shadows, when Aelin and Co are in the Shadow Market - it talks about how Brannon is Blessed By Mala- he and his sword, Goldryn. Then there is this quote “What if there was a god of truth—a Sin-Eater? What if he blessed Gavin, and this sword?” -QOS.

So If Gavin was Blessed by the Sin Eater just as Brannon was blessed by Mala, then it would make sense that some of his descendants (Just like Brannon’s) are also Blessed. So Dorian’s power is that of the Sin Eater - The God of Truth.

Truth is often associated with the first thought in some mythologies as well. Aelin is the bringer of light - the heir of Mala light bringer / Mala Fire bringer. She embodies the first light in the universe. So we have two beings - blessed by Light and Dark, between Darkness of the Void - and initial thought and the Fire from Creation.

When Aelin is Holding Damaris in the Sin Eater’s temple, she has to drop it as it turns cold. Damaris is not her weapon (Which we know since the events following Queen of shadows). Damaris is for Dorian - heir of Truth and the Sin Eater, Just as Aelin is heir of fire and light. And Aelin wields Goldryn the sword blessed my Mala for her heir.

Dorian and Aelin Fusing their power

The power displayed in Queen of Shadows when Aelin rescues Dorian is amazing but destructive. These two have the ability to create the world.

“there was fire and light and darkness and ice” is how Dorian describes the ring destroying the Valg inside him -QOS.

And then in chapter 77 I think we have a pretty big piece of foreshadowing for Kingdom of Ash

“They joined hands. So the world ended. And the next one began.” QOS.

“They were infinite. They were the beginning and the ending; they were eternity.” - QOS.

They are one with creation. They are one with all of the realms.

This next quote helps solidify my idea of at least three realms being present at this time.

“But they held tighter to each other, past and present and future; flickering between an ancient hall in a mountain castle perched above Orynth, a bridge suspended between glass towers, and another place, perfect and strange, where they had been crafted from stardust and light. A wall of night knocked them back. But they could not be contained. The darkness paused for breath. They erupted.”

Past - The realm of the gods, the Past. Like Olympus or a sacred mountain, the gods/goddesses watching over their people.

Present - The Glass Castle - This moment.

Future - Stardust and light. This could mean Erilea turns to dust and all that remains is stardust and light. Or it could mean their future is in this third place, created from stardust and light. Or it could even be Dorian and Aelin ascending to the stars like those spirits the Night court watch on Starfall. It really depends on whether Fate is predetermined. At this point in time, the future could still be written? Or is the only answer to have a world that turns to dust? Or is it nothing and again I am looking too closely at something.

Their power - while amazing is also fairly contained. Yes Aelin wasn’t at full strength and neither was Dorian when they destroyed the Glass Castle. So will they erupt - and have it be felt across worlds - just like Amren said of Nesta. Or will they use their power to find a way to create something new.

Question 3: If Prythian is formed from Erilea and Aelin, then how come Iron has no power in Prythian when it does in Erilea?

I think because the cauldron is made of iron and contains the essence of Prythian’s creation, it has become a part of creation. It has merged with magic. So it no longer holds any power over it.

And I’m going to stop there- because this slightly organised mess is as far as I have gotten. I tried to group Ideas together, but for the sake of Flow, I have put some ideas at the end under those questions.

Basically in summary - multiple planes of existence. Step through a Wyrd Gate. Dorian, Manon and Aelin Forge the Cauldron. Aelin makes Prythian. (My belief next) Aelin turns Erilea to Ash, they escape into Prythian. Aelin is made mortal.

50 notes · View notes

raj-here · 5 years

Text

This Is the reason You Get the chance to Observe Your Birthday Consistently

Have you at any point contemplated why we significantly try to celebrate birthday celebrations? When you consider it, they're extremely only an open door for your loved ones to meet up and salute you for enduring one more year. However, for reasons unknown it's turned out to be definitely more than that.

In spite of the fact that exploration on the precise source of birthday events and birthday cakes stays uncertain, there is a sufficient agreement to sort out an estimated history. Maybe some time or another a Birthdayologist will tag along to set the record totally straight, however up to that point, we've accumulated this short rundown of history specialists' best theories on the development of birthday festivities and the tasty cakes that so frequently go with them.

Here are seven of the real improvements since forever that have prompted you having the option to do this once every year.

1. Egyptians began the gathering.

At the point when pharaohs were delegated in old Egypt they were considered to have changed into divine beings. This celestial advancement made their crowning ritual date considerably more significant than their introduction to the world into the world. Researchers have indicated the Bible’s reference of a Pharaoh's birthday as the most punctual known notice of a birthday festivity (around 3,000 B.C.E.), yet Egyptologist Dr. James Hoffmeier accepts this is referencing the subject's crowning ceremony date, since that would have been the Pharaoh's "introduction to the world" as a divine being.

2. Greeks added candles to cakes.

The Greeks offered moon-melded cakes to Artemis as a type of tribute to the lunar goddess. To reproduce the brilliance of the moon and her apparent beauty, Greeks lit candles and put them on cakes for a sparkling impact. The Greeks undoubtedly took the possibility of birthday festivity from the Egyptians, since simply like the festival of the pharaohs as "divine beings," the Greeks were commending their divine beings and goddesses.

3. Old Romans were the first to celebrate birthday celebrations for the basic man (yet simply the men).

The overarching sentiment is by all accounts that the Romans were the principal human advancement to celebrate birthday events for non-religious figures. Romans would celebrate birthday celebrations for loved ones, while the legislature made open occasions to watch the birthday events of progressively popular natives. Those commending a 50th birthday celebration gathering would get an exceptional cake made of wheat flour, olive oil, and nectar and ground cheddar. The majority of this stated, female birthday events still weren't praised until around the twelfth century.

4. Christians at first considered birthday celebrations to be an agnostic ceremony.

Because of its conviction that people are brought into the world with "unique sin" and the way that early birthday events were attached to "agnostic" divine beings, the Christian Church considered birthday festivities abhorrent for the initial couple of hundred years of its reality. Around the fourth century, Christians altered their perspectives and started to commend the birthday of Jesus as the occasion of Christmas. This new festival was acknowledged into the congregation halfway in order to recruit those previously commending the Roman occasion of Saturnalia.

5. Contemporary birthday cakes were concocted by German pastry specialists.

In spite of the fact that the general thought of praising birthday events had just begun taking off the world over - like in China, where a youngster's first birthday celebration was explicitly regarded - Kinderfeste, which left late eighteenth century Germany, is the nearest essential to the contemporary birthday party. This festival was held for German kids, or "kinder," and included both birthday cake and candles. Children got one light for every year they'd been alive, in addition to another to symbolize the expectation of living for in any event one more year. Extinguishing the candles and making a desire was likewise a piece of these festivals.

6. The Modern Insurgency carried scrumptious cakes to the majority.

For a long while, birthday festivities including sugary cakes were just accessible to the well off, as the vital fixings were viewed as an extravagance. Be that as it may, the mechanical insurgency permitted festivities like kinder fest and the ensuing reciprocals in different societies to multiply. Not exclusively did the required fixings become increasingly rich, however pastry shops additionally began offering pre-made cakes at lower costs because of advances in large scale manufacturing, for example, the scene above catching specialists of one of the numerous Cadby Corridor bread shops of the late nineteenth century.

7. "The Birthday Tune" was a remix, sort of.

In 1893, Patty Slope and Mildred J. Slope composed a tune they called, "Great Morning To All," which was planned to be sung by understudies before classes started. The tune in the end got on crosswise over America, offering ascend to various varieties. Robert Coleman in the long run distributed a songbook in 1924, including a couple of additional verses that would rapidly come to eclipse the first lines. The new interpretation turned into the adaptation we now all know, "Upbeat Birthday to You."

#birthday #celebration #ideas #birthday ideas

0 notes

avanneman · 6 years

Text

First Things First: Uncle Reno’s Just So Stories

What do you get when you click on an article in First Things, that heady brew of theological harrumphing first set in motion by frenzied spiritual striver Richard John Neuhaus, about whom I (mostly) snickered here? Well, judging from this piece by the site’s editor, R.R. (Richard Russell) Reno, “End Times Anxiety”, you’ll learn a little, you’ll laugh a little, and you’ll conclude with a piece of sustained derision.

Surprisingly (or not), the Catholic Dr. Reno and I have a similar reaction to “Modern Times”, at least in part:

“Our present cultural moment is one of suspicion, anxiety, and worries about vulnerability. Many, perhaps most, fear that they are being discriminated against and marginalized. And those who don’t? They often live in the fear that they will be accused of white privilege or some other sin. Perhaps this is to be expected. Patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity—they are said to infect everything. One area of public discourse immune from the postmodern hermeneutics of suspicion is wonkish policy debate. But this is dominated by economistic thinking, which takes as its first premise rational self-interest. Here, too, we’re pictured as eyeing each other with competitive suspicion.

“The anxiety baffles me. Our society works pretty well. In many cities, crime is down dramatically, reaching historically low levels. The economy grows, both here at home and globally. American war-making has settled into a pattern of limited engagement that leaves most of us undisturbed. Meanwhile, public culture rings with warnings that things are heading toward disaster—global warming, resurgent racism, populism. Every week our office receives review copies of another book that promises to show us how to “save liberal democracy.”

Okay, I could do without the snicker about “postmodern hermeneutics” and the cutesy putdown of “rational self-interest”, but, hey, the guy’s Catholic. RR rumbles on a bit—well, more than a bit, actually—and then quotes to good effect someone I usually don’t care for much at all, Peggy Noonan, to wit:

“When at least half the country no longer trusts its political leaders, when people see the detached, cynical and uncaring refusal to handle such problems as illegal immigration, when those leaders commit a great nation to wars they blithely assume will be quickly won because we’re good and they’re bad and we’re the Jetsons and they’re the Flintstones, and while they were doing that they neglected to notice there was something hinky going on with the financial sector, something to do with mortgages, and then the courts decide to direct the culture, and the IRS abuses its power, and a bunch of nuns have to file a lawsuit because the government orders them to violate their conscience. . . .”

Well, again, I don’t think the IRS is abusing its power, and I don’t think the Little Sisters of the Poor should complain about being required to offer health care plans to their employees that provide free birth control pills,1 but the fact that Wall Street was rewarded for blowing up the economy,2 and that neither the Bush nor the Obama Administration had the nerve to walk away from a series of disastrous and counterproductive wars,3 not to mention occasional bloody acts of terrorism in the U.S. by isolated individuals (and not al Qaeda or ISIS or any other international terrorist group), are fundamental contributors to our national malaise.

I could go on in this vein for some time, but I already have, well, almost constantly for the past ten years, but my most recent “big picture” outburst, “Paging Dr. Yeats! Paging Dr. Yeats!, appeared only a couple of weeks ago, so I won’t belabor the point, except (and, okay, this is a pretty big “except”) it would be nice if Peggy, and maybe R.R. would admit that 1) the Republican Party started all these goddamn useless foreign wars and keeps looking for new ones (e.g., Ukraine, Syria, Iran, China) and 2) did their level best to not only prevent President Obama from countering the effects of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but actually sought to wreck the U.S. economy in the hopes of driving Obama from power.4

Well, enough of that. Suffice to say that the failure of the center has strengthened the extremes, and encouraged the notion that “truth” resides there. The more “passionate” you are, regardless of substance, the more valid. You can read either R.R. or myself on the fine points.

R.R. has something more satisfying to say, about which I’ll also carp, mourning the death of “the most significant influence on my intellectual life,” George Lindbeck (this article is my introduction to both men). Lindbeck was a Lutheran, who taught at Yale Divinity School and, according to Wikipedia, is one of the founders of “postliberal theology”, whatever that is. Wikipedia’s writeup highlights Lindbeck’s involvement in the movement and “explains” that many second-gen postliberal types, including R.R. himself, left the Protestant faith and joined the Catholic Church, quite in the manner (as Wikipedia also notes) of the Oxford “Tractarian Movement” in Victorian England.

R.R. tells us that “[Limbeck] was and remained a Lutheran, and he had only a small degree of sympathy for my conservative political leanings. But I can’t imagine thinking about theology the way I do without his example”:

“Lindbeck taught me this lesson [something about theology, obviously] when lecturing on an early medieval controversy between two monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus. Their dispute concerned whether or not the consecrated bread and wine is Christ’s physical body or his spiritual body. His patient unpacking of this controversy allowed me to understand his metaphor of “grammar.” Both monks wanted to affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the consensus affirmation for almost all Christians, not just in the twelfth century, but in our time as well. However, there is no consensus about what makes things real—a metaphysical question. As a consequence, it’s possible for someone to treat spiritual presence as more real than physical presence. Platonism encourages this way of thinking. The Pythagorean theorem is more “real” than any particular right-angle triangle. Others find this dissatisfying and emphasize the thatness of things, which is to say, their physical presence. This, moreover, is not just a matter of differing philosophical intuitions. The Bible suggests divergent metaphysical affirmations. The opening chapters of Genesis encourage a focus on physical presence, but Jesus’s statement that his kingdom is not of this world points toward the view that the spiritual is more real than things we can see and touch.”

Well, if you’re still with me, I just want to chuckle, amidst all this learnedness, about the line “Both monks wanted to affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the consensus affirmation for almost all Christians, not just in the twelfth century, but in our time as well.” That is so not true. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, is rejected by the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation (both bread and body and wine and blood), the Eastern Orthodox notion of “mystery”, which explicitly and unsurprisingly rejects the Catholic doctrine (in his “twelfth century” reference, R.R. forgets, as so many Catholics do, the very existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church), the Anglican Church’s “whatever”, and the Calvinist rejection of any “magic” at all, part of the basic Protestant thrust to strip the priests of divine authority.5 And today, among the majority of American Protestants—the Evangelicals—the Eucharist plays no role in their faith whatsoever.

Furthermore, R.R. could have chosen, but of course did not, a topic that would prove more obviously divisive, such as the existence of Purgatory, which is rejected by all Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox, or, most divisive of all for Catholics and Lutherans—even more so the infallibility of the Pope when speaking on matters of faith—the question of free will versus predestination. What R.R.’s affection for Lindbeck signifies is the flocking together of all those who fancy metaphysical reveries, which, like the brook, can go on forever.

According to Wikipedia, Lindbeck and his fellow postliberal pals went back to Karl Barth, among others, for inspiration, which makes sense because Barth was one of the early twentieth-century enemies of “Whiggery”, ridiculing the idea that Christ was the first socialist (as Leopold Bloom called him). By my wildly casual reading, Barth took Kant’s categories, designed to secularize Protestant values, and reworked them to justify the metaphysical theology that Kant felt he had disassembled, naturally making it even more rigorous, and “postliberal/antiliberal” as he did so. Progress? Bah! Enlightenment? Nonsense!

Wikipedia informs me that the seminal event in Lindbeck’s career was serving as a guest observer at the famous/infamous “Vatican II” council,6 running from 1962 to 1965, which opened up for Lindbeck, one can be sure, whole new worlds (an infinite number, in fact) of metaphysical speculation. “Why can’t we have this?” he must have exclaimed.

Wikipedia further informs me that Lindbeck and his followers were heavily influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, published posthumously in 1953 and written largely to reject the ideas expressed in the only work that Wittgenstein published in his lifetime, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.7 The notion that one has to master Wittgenstein to get into heaven strikes me as a little strict and just a bit off point. Wittgenstein, though heavily influenced by Christianity personally, certainly never belonged to a church, and moreover always encouraged his students not to pursue a career in philosophy but rather to serve humanity via medicine. The point of philosophy, Wittgenstein thought, was to prove that the study of philosophy led nowhere—though of course that was all he ever thought about.

Wittgenstein’s thought strongly echoes the ideas expressed in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, which “explains” why all traditional metaphysics are false—because it applies concepts that effectively describe the finite world to “infinite” realms, where they are out of place. Unfortunately, finite concepts are the only ones we have. Wittgenstein’s favorite philosopher was Artur Schopenhauer, who saw himself as Kant’s disciple. Kant’s Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, a substantially simpler work than the “thorny” Critique, effectively explains, to my mind, why the theological hairsplitting that so engages both Lindbeck and Reno never ends. And why would they want it to, since they enjoy it so much? Of course, the larger doctrinal divisions between “confessions” are very largely the result of power struggles between entrenched groups, not spontaneous musings, which is why such groups always find ways to disagree with, not to mention burn, one another.

Yeah, this is a long post. Well, you’re here, aren’t you? After bidding farewell to his Lutheran mentor, R.R. throws a few random punches, at modernizing Catholics and free-market know nothings, before coming up with the riff that set me off in the first place, “explaining” how Ronald Reagan engineered morality by cutting taxes, thus encouraging hard work instead of dissipation:

“This was brought home to me decades ago when I was watching John Updike being interviewed on Book TV. He was asked what he thought of his early novels. The celebrated author adopted an amused look and allowed that they were to some degree dated. He recounted a recent trip to an elite university. The students told him that his stories, many of which revolve around afternoon martinis and sexual escapades, ring false. It was not as though life in upscale America had become more buttoned up in the interval between the publication of Rabbit, Run (1960) and their adolescent years in the 1990s. Rather, they told Updike, no adults were home in the early evenings, and their parents were too tired to throw the sorts of cocktail parties that provide the occasions for the alcohol-fueled transgressions that figure prominently in Updike’s fiction. As Updike told the interviewer, he had to inform these hard-charging, high-achieving kids that upper-middle-class grown-ups didn’t work so hard in the 1950s. People had more time on their hands.”

I could point out—and I will—that Rabbit, Run was not about upper-middle-class grown-ups. “Rabbit”, saddled with the ludicrously “loaded” last name of “Angstrom”,8 is a former high-school jock who sells a kitchen “gadget” called the “MagiPeeler” for a living. Updike wrote quite consciously, and conscientiously, about the middle class. Couples, his raunchy blockbuster, which came out in 1968, had more of a mixed group—everyone from a “contractor” to a nuclear physicist, but I think we’re hardly in Don Draper territory.9

More importantly, if we look at the actual data, instead of a novelist’s musings, we find, well, a mixed bag. According to *Measuring Leisure: The Allocation of Time Over Decades, published in 2006 by Mark Aguiar and Eric Hurst for the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, hours worked by individuals with more than a high school degree declined from 1965 to 2003, from 52 to 43 hours per week. Another study, The Expanding Workweek? Understanding Trends in Long Work Hours Among U.S. Men, 1979-2004, by Peter Kuhn and Fernando Lozano for the National Bureau Of Economic Research, did find an increase, but dated the origin from 1970, 12 long years before Ronnie’s big cuts took effect.

Most importantly of all, wasn’t there a fair amount of hanky-panky going on in the eighties and nineties, alcohol-fueled or no? How about Donald Trump, hangin’ in Studio 54, aka “Cocaine Alley”, watching supermodels bangin’ n’ snortin’ in public? And what about soon to be chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors Larry Kudlow, who blew up his Wall Street career and his marriage via the White Lady back in 1995? And how about Wall Street “Wolf” Jordan Belfort, whose lifestyle was even more obscene than the hours he worked? Seems like this postliberal theology stuff might not be all it’s cracked to be. In fact, I wonder what either Barth or Wittgenstein might think of R.R.’s “logic”.

Afterwords R.R.’s affectionate tribute to his mentor Lindberg suggests that genial companionship is more highly valued than mere “ideas”. Although both men surely took all their high-flying metaphysics seriously—believed they were necessary for salvation, which is pretty important after all—one can bet that neither ever tried to “convert” the other. How gauche can you be? If he could have done so, would Ross have journeyed to Lindberg’s deathbed, priest in tow, to save his friend’s soul? I think not. But wasn’t it his Christian duty to do so? Just sayin’.

Yeah, the gals don’t want to spend their money on birth control. But health care is “compensation”. Could the Little Sisters forbid their employees from using their wages to buy birth control pills? Then why should the employees be denied the opportunity to select a health care plan that offered them for “free”? ↩︎

The federal bailout was necessary, but in the past when the International Monetary Fund bailed out “bad” nations like South Korea they were required to “reform”. Far from requiring Wall Street to “reform”, the Obama Administration, led by Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, rewarded them. Furthermore, while Wall Street bankers drank their own Kool-Aid during the Boom (making the same investments they advised their clients to make), when things were falling apart there was a great deal of criminal deceit, as might be expected. The Obama Administration swept this under the rug. “Do you want us to put everyone in jail?” ↩︎

The Bush Administration, of course, could hardly abandon its “Mission Accomplished” swagger without looking like losers. The possibility that the Obama Administration would pursue a policy of military withdrawal was destroyed by the rise of ISIS and Putin’s seizure of the Crimea. It is “arguable” (I know it is, because I’ve done it a lot) that Hillary Clinton’s aggressively anti-Russian policy in Eastern Europe, and her general contempt for Russian “interests”, led directly to the Ukrainian crisis that precipitated Putin’s decision to invade land that had been part of Russia for several centuries. ↩︎

After 9/11, the Democrats accepted the need for national unity and led President Bush set the national agenda, which he did with a clear eye towards partisan advantage. Under Obama, the Republicans furiously resisted every presidential proposal and were determined to undermine every possibility of economic recovery, because Obama. ↩︎

Voltaire, that shallow, shallow fellow, put it more succinctly: “The Catholics say they eat God, and no bread. The Lutherans say they eat God and bread. And the Calvinists say they eat bread and no God.” Luther invented the “theory” of consubstantiation because he had to be different from the Catholic Church, yet, having one foot still in the Catholic Church, couldn’t go “full Calvin”. Luther’s affection for the “traditional” Eucharist is “interesting” because he stripped away all other elements of priestly “magic” (holy relics, extreme unction, etc.). ↩︎

As Ross Douthat shrewdly observed, Vatican II was largely intended to make the Catholic faith palatable to the American establishment, which, the Vatican shrewdly reckoned, was the only force that could save them from communism. Among other things, Vatican II abolished the Index  Librorum Prohibitorum, the “Index of Prohibited Books”, which had been updated as recently as 1948 and embarrassingly included such classics as Galileo (of course), Montesquieu (the “celebrated Montesquieu”, as the Founding Fathers always called him), and “even” Blaise Pascal (I guess for making fun of the Jesuits and for not renouncing the evil Cornelius Jansen). ↩︎

It’s a little shocking that Word can’t spell “tractatus”. I’ll bet that Bill Gates has read Wittgenstein. ↩︎

You can learn all about Angstroms here. It’s possible, I guess, that Updike met someone named “Angstrom” (it’s a Scandinavian surname as well as a unit of measurement equal to one ten-billionth of a meter) and therefore felt entitled to use it. ↩︎

I wrote an “homage” of sorts to Updike in my little book Author! Author! Auden, Oates, and Updike, though I doubt if he would appreciate “The Apotheosis of John Updike: A Modern Triptych”, which “he” narrates in the first person. ↩︎

#R. R. Reno #First Things #Peggy Noonan #Michael Lindbeck #postliberal theology

0 notes

blessedarethebinarybreakers · 7 years

Note

Before I ask my question, know that I don't mean anything disrespectful. I'm genuinely trying to wrap my head around this and don't really know where to start. Regarding God's gender, I agree that using solely male/masculine terms to discuss God is a bit silly. But did Jesus not give us the "Our Father" and refer to God explicitly as His Father in the Gospel? I'd love to pursue a possible answer, but have no idea where I'd even begin. Thank you! =)

Hi there! You’re not being disrespectful at all, and you’re asking great questions. I hope you don’t mind me posting this, because I think you bring up important points for anyone looking to expand their language for God.

Indeed, the Gospels never record Jesus calling God his mother – but they do record him calling himself a mother! Matthew 23:37 says, “how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” And Jesus is God, so that’s one instance of God as mother. Here is a post with some more musings on Jesus’s gender.

Beyond that, one might wonder whether Jesus would have used a gender neutral term for God had one been available to him. The Aramaic word Jesus used for God as Father, Abba, does not have a neutral option. In many languages, however, that have only masculine and feminine nouns, the masculine doubles as neutral. I certainly don’t think it goes beyond what Jesus wanted if we call God our Mother and Parent as well as our Father.

And Jesus’ language for God is not the only language for God that we find in Scripture. From the very beginning, in Genesis 1, we find the image of God as a brooding mother bird – Genesis 1:2 uses a rare word to describe the breath/wind/Spirit of God hovering/moving/brooding over the face of the waters.The Lumina Bible offers this footnote for the word: “The Hebrew verb has been translated “hovering” or “moving” (as a bird over her young, see Deut 32:11). The Syriac cognate term means “to brood over; to incubate.” How much of that sense might be attached here is hard to say, but the verb does depict the presence of the Spirit of God moving about mysteriously over the waters, presumably preparing for the acts of creation to follow….”

Woman Wisdom of the wisdom literature is a feminine figure attributed to God – while our Jewish siblings seem to hold the reading of this figure as wisdom personified, many Christians see her either as the Holy Spirit or as Jesus. And so Woman Wisdom is Divine.

If you wander through my God beyond Gender tag, you will find more posts – such as this one – with more biblical imagery for God that is not masculine.

Finally, I would argue that not only is sticking solely to masculine language for God silly, it is downright harmful to all of us made in the Image of God, especially those of us who are not men. Lynn Japinga makes this argument well in chapter three of Feminism and Christianity – you can read the full chapter in Google Drive here. Some highlights:

“If we see God as a man or more like a man or more properly named in male language, we tend to think of men as more like God, and women as less like God. Mary Daly captured the essence of this problem with her pithy phrase, ‘If God is male, then the male is God.’”

“Certainly God is like a father in some ways; but God is far more than that, and language for God ought to reflect a sense of mystery and awe as well as of relationship. Human beings ultimately cannot name the God who is always several steps ahead of them and who refuses to be confined by the names they choose.”

“Johanna Bos [my now-retired Hebrew professor!] suggested the formula ‘yes, no, and more so’ as a way to understand language for God. Many metaphors or names for God, such as Father, Mother, Rock, or Light, say something true about God – the ‘yes.’ Yet every metaphor falls short, and no title names God accurately or adequately – the ‘no.’ God always transcends human attempts to name and describe God – the ‘more so.’God is love, we often say, and it is true. But human understanding of love is limited, and God may be quite different from some of our notions of love. And yet God is more like love than we will ever know. God is love in a way that far exceeds our present knowledge of either God or love.”

“When a human term [such as Father] ceases to be one way of understanding God and becomes God’s real name, it has become an idol.”

“Feminist theologians recognize that simply using feminine imagery for God does not resolve all the problems of God language. The Bible speaks of God as King, Judge, Creator, and many other traditionally male roles that are not linked to fathering. Much of the feminine imagery is maternal, which then suggests that women are most like God when they are mothers, while men are like God in most of their activities. Maternal language about God can also become stereotypical. God the Mother is safe, warm, and gentle. God the Father is tough and demanding, but very strong and protective. God the Father is still clearly the boss. If the divine feminine is always linked with love and nurture, while the divine masculine is strong and rational, our stereotypes about male and female will be perpetuated rather than challenged.”“The book of Hosea offers a useful antidote to this stereotypical feminine imagery by portraying God as a female figure who is both maternal and furious. God faithfully fed and cared for the Israelites; but instead of being grateful, they forgot God. That made God say angrily, ‘I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, / and will tear open the coverings of their heart’ (Hos 13:8). This maternal image evokes no romanticized piety, softness, or sentimentality. Mothers, and the mother bear in Hosea, are fiercely protective. Elizabeth Johnson wrote of the paradox of angry love, ‘The wrath of God is a symbol of holy mystery that we can ill afford to use. For the wrath of God in the sense of righteous anger against injustice is not an opposite of mercy but its correlative. It is a mode of caring response in the face of evil.’”

“Another nonmaternal feminine image is of God as midwife, which occurs in Psalms 22 and 71. The psalmist described his feeling that God had abandoned him. ..In the midst of despair he said to God, ‘Yet it was you who took me from the womb; / you who kept me safe on my mother’s breast. …’ (Ps 22:9-10). …Comparing God to the one who helped deliver babies meant comparing God to a woman. It is an intriguing image because midwifes are active throughout a birth. They offer encouragement, they teach the mother how to work with the pains of labor; but they cannot do the laboring themselves, and they cannot take the pain away. The metaphor suggests that God encourages and supports human beings even when God cannot take their pain away.”

Another good article is by Ruth Caroline Duck and Patricia Wilson-Kastner in their book Praising God: The Trinity in Christian Worship. In their discussion on the Trinity, they bring up the naming of God as Father or Mother along with other interesting thoughts on language for God.

I hope this helps as you pursue this topic!

#captainiriswright #queerly christian asks #quote tag #God beyond gender #images for God #the nature of god

115 notes · View notes