#I love you pseudo-christian imagery | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

codyskinner · 3 years

Text

NEON GENESIS EVANGELION

Neon Genesis Evangelion: A Religious and Philosophical deep-dive into humanity.

NGE as I will henceforth call the mid 90s Pseudo-mecha anime, is set after a worldwide cataclysm and following the “ending” of the natural world and the beginning of a world existing in one's subconscious.

The storyline follows 14-year-old Shinji Ikari's work piloting a large mech called an Eva in a fight against the Angels, a collective of colonial aliens . This essay will be divided into 3 parts exploring what I deem to be the core of the show: The Psychology, The Philosophy, and The Religious Imagery.

The Subconscious:

NGE takes a deep-dive into the psychological motivations and subconscious urges behind many of its characters’ behaviours, most importantly, the three teenaged pilots of the supremely powerful mechs, Shinji’s father, and Shinji’s mother. After mentioning the subconscious, Sigmund Freud’s work in psycho-analytics should come to mind. If you aren’t immediately familiar, Freud was neurologist who pioneered psychoanalysis, the study on one’s subconscious urges, most notably in Freud’s view, Sex and Aggression. These two themes hold a presence in the mind’s of each character, as each has a distorted view on reality under the lens of unresolved childhood trauma. Shinji is driven by an Oedipus complex as a result of childhood abandonment, a complex from Freud characterized by a lust towards one’s own mother and desire to kill one’s father. Miss Misato, fills the mother-like role in Shinji’s life and thus, he is compelled in her direction. Misato feels trauma from the second impact and her father’s death, an incident leaving a gap of male presence in her life which she fills with casual hook-ups with a man named Kaji. Misato’s view of herself is impacted because of not only in comparison to who she wants to be but the ideal imposed onto her by the conservative and often authoritarian society she lives in, and so she is crippled with self-doubt and criticism. Asuka is one of Shinji’s teenaged peers and someone substantially more sexually aggressive than all others in EVA, stemming from the suicide of her mother. Asuka develops a resistance to truly confronting this in her subconscious so instead she occupies her thoughts with a race or competitive streak to become the best at all she does. Her competitiveness leads her to suffer from a borderline bipolar disorder characterized by bouts of mania and depressions which eventually lead to self harm. Rei is the final character in Eva I will discuss. She is another teen Eva pilot but with one major difference between her and her peers, she is a clone. Rei is fully aware of the ephemeral and fleeting of her existence and so she views herself from a purely objectivist point of view. If Rei is a clone that will die at some point, she must maximize her time as a tool, and means to get to an ends; in this sense, Rei mirrors the nature of strong high level artificial intelligence. Eventually, through her interactions with Shinji, she develops a love for humanity, and her desire towards objectivity begins to mirror the self-destructive tendencies of those around her as it is her work that puts such immense stress on her body, blurring the lines between objectivism and humanism.

The Philosophy:

After the Eva mechs defeat the last Angel, NGE ends with the success of the Human Instrumentality Project. A forced evolution of humanity in which, connectivity accelerates infinitely. As humanity is united, it becomes a singular collective conscious or “soul”. This project is achieved in benevolence for the purpose of ending all suffering and lonliness and alienation that has plagued mankind, most evident in the trauma in NGE’s main characters. Shinji’s soul or character reaches an epiphany in this collective unconscious and grapples with needing interaction and interpersonal relationships and embraces the others around him. Depending on which ending the viewer believes as cannon, the viewer has the choice of believing that Shinji accepts the project and lives in the collective or the alternative which sees him rejecting the collective, reverting the Instrumentality project, and embracing loneliness. This embrace of the Human Instrumentality project mirrors the beliefs of Carl Jung and his theory on the Collective Unconscious, the idea that one has intrinsic universal heritable elements, common to all, that exist in all people’s unconscious mind. The idea of loneliness mirrors Fredrich Nietzsche’s contributions to Existentialism, the idea that men must accept that there is nothing else beyond life and that a failure to live and take risks is a failure to realize human potential. Jean-Paul Sartre was another philosopher who added to this existentialist philosophy that humanity will live in constant anguish not because life is miserable, but because we are ‘condemned to be free’.

The Religion:

Upon first viewing of NGE, the show’s obsession with religion and religious imagery will become evident quick. Fredrich Nietzsche, the existentialist philosopher in which much of Evangelion’s themes are based from, rejects the Christian god, in reaction giving authority to community-created ethos, and the morals of individuals. As Nietzsche puts it, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” Yet this simple thesis is unsatisfying, NGE revels in the thought of higher power and higher power. The Angels of the show are in reference from characters of the Old Testament who bear the same names; the first angel is named Adam and the second, Lilith. Kaworu, one of the angels, sees humanity as beings of Lilith, and in one of the climaxes of the series, Lilith is crucified. Even the organization working on the Human Instrumentality Project use of Hebrew inscriptions and titles as a way to tie the collective unconscious to some heaven or godly universality. Mick Broderick, Associate Professor of Media Analysis at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, writes, "Anno's project is a postmodernist retelling of the Genesis myth, as his series title implies—Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is a new myth of origin, complete with its own deluge, Armageddon, apocalypse and transcendence." I personally appreciate and agree with this conclusion. I believe NGE to be one of the most important worKS of media and art of all time, in the way it tells the age old tale of religion and Genesis in the lens of contemporality and in the age of higher level AI. Because of this, I deem it as the most important explorations of human nature, and a work of art that should be seen by all.

19 notes · View notes

gascon-en-exil · 4 years

Text

Joining the Game Late: S2E1 “The North Remembers”

Synopsis

Joffrey is still a flat villain and his mother has no control over him, but Sansa is learning how to play him. Tyrion shows up in King’s Landing to rein in his wacky relatives and talk to Shae about long-distance cum smelling. There’s a symbolic comet photoshopped into the sky for location cuts. Dragons do not in fact solve all the problems. The Night’s Watch make friends with a guy who outdoes the Lannisters in incest. In medias res with a cult, and also the middle Baratheon. The direwolves are CGI now. Robb and Jaime get a little bit slashy but not much. Cersei makes a point to Littlefinger. Robb and Catelyn do some mother-son war strategy. Robert had a lot of bastards, but now he’s just got the one.

Commentary

As someone who lives in an infamously smelly city myself, I find myself quite amused by Shae’s estimation of King’s Landing. I get that it’s meant to be symbolic of corruption and treachery, but it’s still funny. With Joffrey on the throne the city has become even more dangerous; the point of his character seems to be what would happen if you gave a spoiled teenage boy with a short temper unlimited power, and...yep, that basically sums up his love of cruel and unusual punishments and refusal to listen to anyone’s advice unless he’s manipulated into it like Sansa is learning to do. I assume from his anger over his supposed father’s infidelities that he’s the one who orders all of Robert’s bastards killed at the end of the episode, in a brutal scene that feels like some sort of twisted biblical reference or something.

And that reminds me of Stannis’s plotline,and what I would say is one of my biggest gripes about the show’s worldbuilding thus far. This episode introduces us to Stannis and his followers by way of a ritual of burning effigies to the “Lord of Light,” a new singular god in opposition to the faith of the Seven that has been said once or twice to be the predominant religion of Westeros. The big problem here, as was also the case whenever the show brought up the North’s old gods last season, is that GoT has put in next to no work in telling us what the faith of the Seven even is before presenting us with these religions that oppose it. From what I can glean from reading wikis it’s the setting’s resident pseudo-Catholic religion - something I gathered vaguely from Jon Arryn’s funeral scene in the first episode - but that’s less to do with any proper development and more with the fact that I’m Catholic and am accustomed to seeing pseudo-Catholic religions in fantasy settings. As it is some of the rhetoric and imagery of Melisandre’s cult seems to evoke Catholicism as well, especially when the one dissident in Stannis’s court is killed by communal wine-drinking. I get that the old gods are meant to be analogous to the various pagan traditions of (northern) Europe that were supplanted by Christianity, but to have one Catholic analogue at war with another feels awkward.

So alright, that one new guy hasn’t really grabbed me yet, but there’s a ton of great exchanges here between members of the returning cast: Robb with Jaime and then with his mother, Tyrion with Cersei, Cersei with Littlefinger, and the tense scene with the Night’s Watch and the man who marries his daughters (though how anyone could look at Jon Snow and call him pretty is beyond me). Even Theon has a good moment with Robb that makes me retroactively value his presence in the last season somewhat, even if most of it was about how horny he is. A lot of this is military and political strategy and dancing around blackmail - kind of hard to keep track of who does and doesn’t know about the Lannister incest at this point - but it works for the kind of story the season is setting up. I particularly enjoy the juxtaposition of Cersei showing off her “power is power” philosophy to Littlefinger and then having her son threaten to execute her in a subsequent scene. She’s being proved right and wrong at the same time.

#Game of Thrones #GoT

4 notes · View notes

lunar-root · 5 years

Text

Mysticism” is to “religion” like loving God is to knowing about God. In his classic book Knowing God, evangelical author J. I. Packer draws the distinction between “knowing about God” and actually “knowing God.” The first is abstract, second-hand knowledge; the second is experiential, embodied, relational knowledge. Packer’s point: to truly be a person of faith, we need that embodied/experiential knowledge of God. I’m taking that same distinction and applying it to mysticism and religion. You can survive in religion by merely knowing about God — but if you truly want to enter into the mystery of God, then it’s time to gaze into the eyes of Love — and to trade in your abstract knowledge for face-to-face love.

Mysticism invites us into a realm of paradox and play: “Become like little children” (Matthew 18:3). Despite what some critics may insist, mysticism is not irrational — some of the greatest mystics were great theologians and/or philosophers. But while mysticism is not irrational, it does point us to a place of trans-rational relationship with God: a relationship that invites us beyond the limitations of human reason, logic, and language-based cognition. It invites us into the trans-rational space primarily through silence, but also through a playful relationship with language. Many of the great mystics were poets, or prose writers who wrote poetically. And some — like Meister Eckhart, for example — used playful or paradoxical imagery and language to try to convey what ultimately cannot be put into words.

Mysticism is commonly equated with experience — but authentic mysticism propels us into a place deeper than mere experience. This is an expansion on the first point: that embodied experience trumps secondary knowledge. But the rabbit-hole goes deeper, for some of the greatest mystics — figures like John of the Cross, Pseudo-Dionysius, Eckhart, and the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing — point out that God ultimately cannot be captured by any human experience, so the true encounter with God takes us to a place beyond experience. After all, experience can be a source of ego-inflation or self-referential awareness: an experience can imply that “I” am the subject and “God” a mere object. But God, the true God, is always subject, never object. So a truly mystical encounter is an objectless experience — which is a mysterious experience indeed.

Mysticism is about practice: it’s not what we think, but what we do. At the same time, mysticism takes the spotlight off of what we do and trains it on what Goddoes. Yes, there is something called “mystical theology” but the heart of mysticism is not how we talk about it, but how we live it. Mysticism is about silence, about embodiment, about relationship, about love — in other words, about how the encounter with God (the ultimate mystery) really can’t be put into words. The Cloud of Unknowing said it best: you can’t think your way to God. God cannot be apprehended by thought, but may be encountered through love. Just remember: it’s all God’s initiative! We do not achievemystical union with God, we receive it.

Mysticism celebrates words, images, thoughts, ideas about God — and then asks us to surrender all our words, images, thoughts and ideas about God before the great silence of the Divine Mystery: the ineffable Presence. This is analogous to the relationship between dreams and deep sleep, or between distracting thoughts and contemplative silence. There are two dimensions to mystical prayer and contemplation: the kataphatic path of encountering God through words, images, and concepts of God; and the apophatic path of surrendering all words/images/concepts in order to meet God in the sheer mystery of darkness and unknowing. Apophatic mysticism is pure gift: once again, not something we achieve but by grace something we receive. It seems that few people are called into a purely apophatic relationship with God: most of us meet God through the beauty of God’s creation, in some form or fashion. Anything, after all, can be an icon of the mystery: we might meet God through other people, through the church (community and/or the building), through art and poetry and music and architecture, through the splendor of nature. All of these “ways of meeting” God are kataphatic: they all usher us into the divine presence through an image, thought, or concept. But sooner or later, even the most exalted kataphatic mystic will be invited to surrender all the ways we meet God through creation: and instead, we are called into silence, into darkness, into mystery, into unknowing. Into a place that cannot be put into words or described or depicted or even thought about. The cloud of unknowing; the dark night of the soul. There, the encounter happens. It is mystery; it is grace.

#christianity #mysticism #mystical christianity #christopagan #christian witch

4 notes · View notes

sfaioffical · 7 years

Photo

Younhee Paik (MFA, 1973) and Eric Carson (MFA, 2017)—whose practices draw parallels between natural and human systems—converse on SFAI, art, and the interconnectedness of it all.

Carson is the inaugural recipient for Paik’s annual scholarship exhibition at her Studio for Art and Music, inspired by her time at SFAI in the 1970s and her mentor, professor Bruce McGaw. Eric Carson: The New Cosmograph is on view June 12 through July 10, with an opening reception on June 10.

Younhee Paik (YP): So I graduated a long time ago, in 1973—maybe before you were born.

Eric Carson (EC): I was born in 1983. I love that. I will graduate this year, of course.

YP: I'm that much older and you are twice taller than me.

EC: (Laughs) How was SFAI when you were there?

YP: Wonderful. It was my place of inspiration. I really liked the freedom in the school. It was a long time ago, it was hippie time. I just spent all day there. I couldn't speak English, so all I can do is just paint.

I had a BFA from Korea, but I wanted to take a couple of undergraduate courses at SFAI before I applied to graduate school. Some of my teachers were Bruce McGaw, Arden Knight, and Julius Hatofsky—who later became my advisor in graduate school. He didn't speak much but whenever he make some comment, it was really important to me. He was my mentor for 40 years, along with Bruce [McGaw].

There is a long story before I got into graduate school—the first time I failed. I was so sad, and wanted to go back to home to Korea. I went to my teacher Julius [Hatofsky] to ask for a recommendation, and explained my situation: that I wanted to go to graduate school before I started a family. He listened to me and said, "I consider again." He went back to his friend Alvin Light—who was the dean at the time—at Harrison's Bar, where they were always drinking. When he came back, he said "Younhee, I think you are accepted."

I’d gotten into a MFA program finally, and was so excited. I had been asked to bring up several original works to the interview, and I drove up to San Francisco from San Luis Obispo with five medium-sized painting on top of my Volkswagen. We tied the paintings well on the way to the Art Institute, but not well afterwards; in the middle of the trip, the paintings flew off!

EC: No!

YP: Luckily it didn’t cause any car accidents, and soon after there were eight highway patrol blocking the Bayshore Freeway. So we dashed and collected all five paintings—I was able to save some of them. I still have one painting in Korea.

The second I started graduate school, SFAI was really an inspirational place. I felt like it was a big moment, whispering to me, "For the rest of your life, you cannot live without painting." Ever since then I really didn't think about anything else than painting. Even though I had a baby later on, every day I painted—I only slept five hours for 20 years. So that was the beginning of my San Francisco Art Institute influence. What about you?

EC: Well, I grew up in Washington State, and I got a bachelor's degree at Central Washington University, where I had a couple of really good teachers. I worked for about 10 years after school in an operations department at a museum. That really shaped my practice—I knew what I wanted to paint. It showed me the way that art has to interface with philanthropy and institutional structures to be exhibited. My practice became about making these really dense, symbolic drawings.

During this time, I met my partner, and we got married. She is a social worker—a real artist. I got into SFAI, and we moved to San Francisco two years ago.

What's been really great for me at SFAI is that it’s not limited—like you said. I came in painting and I have done everything since. I came specifically to study with Dewey Crumpler and Tim Berry, but along the way every faculty member has pushed me. I’ve really grown my practice away from pseudo-religious imagery and into visual structures that can include all kinds of things.

YP: Are you religious?

EC: I grew up really Catholic, and that was my spiritual language for a long time until I broke away from that. I bring that kind of critique and ritual into my work.

YP: My paintings have something religious about them too. I'm Christian, but I really believe all religions are all about truth. I think art, philosophy, science, and religion form a pyramid, all reaching towards truth.

EC: I agree. You can track the evolution of right wing Christianity from the Abrahamic tradition; Zen Buddhism all the way back to its Hindu origin; or postmodern discourse to Ancient Greece. They're all approaching this same point. Likewise, our current society’s late stage capitalism is another kind of growth that has to be considered in this larger picture of evolution. I think that’s what art can do.

I keep looking at the cathedral floor plans in your work, and see parallels with my own. I think that the imposition of those Romanesque floor plans onto another natural grid—the stars—also shows a truth.

YP: Yes, I try to combine the universe, Heaven and the Earth. That's why I put the architecture of Earth—the floor plan—with the stars: a bird's eye view.

YP: I'm glad the Art Institute faculty choose you so you can connect my painting.

EC: Me too. Our work fits together really well because you have these star patterns, topographies, and cathedral patterns.

Are you familiar with the idea of a fractal? It's a shape that contains and grows within itself, like a seashell. It's like a spiral, a fractal of quarter circles. That’s one of the patterns that I look at in my work, and tie conceptually to other ideas: like a star’s cycle of explosion and formation, or feudalism becoming capitalism.

YP: Your paintings contain more science, right?

EC: I would say so, but it's all a question of scale. We look at ourselves in church; we look at stars in the galaxy; we look at the galaxy as a super cluster—and it can go out from there.

Also, the way we both push painting with scale is interesting.

YP: Yes, I started pushing my paintings towards installation about 20 years ago, around the time my mother passed away. She was in the hospital for a year and a half, and could only look up at an empty ceiling. This inspired me to think about how else to hang my work, especially since my mother always encouraged me to pursue my work. I was thinking about her all the time, and started painting the sky for her, intended to hang on the ceiling. My first installation of this series was displayed in the TOTAL Museum in Korea (1999); I named it "Invitation for Rest," as I want her to rest well.

As I did more paintings, I thought I could put them on the floor and on the ceiling, so they can echo each other. I’ve done almost 70 pieces now.

EC: Right on.

YP: I paint on the floor with lots of water and pour paint, like dye, so it can smear and make interesting mistakes. While it’s spreading, I shake the canvas—a very spontaneous and unpredictable technique. I love the use of water—it’s always my inspiration.

EC: Well, there's a lot there. The process of gravity and dye making the imagery creates the same pattern as a star making a nebula in space, just at a different scale.

YC: Right.

EC: I started pushing the scale of my paintings here at SFAI. I was doing work primarily with acrylic and markers at first, and got inspired by the large-scale work of Paul Laffoley, which blurs the line between art and craft. That idea pushed me into making an architectural model: a three-dimensional way to read my paintings. From there I made a deck of playing cards, and then ventured to installation with a floor to ceiling piece in the Diego Rivera Gallery. It was an interactive blind spot test where people could come up to it and move these magnetic tiles, which were loaded with various imagery and logos from the internet, such as iconography from Instagram, the United States’ political parties, and a Navajo sand painting. When the nodes were moved, new connections were formed—both arbitrary and personal. To me it mimics how we look at the internet. Everyday I photographed how people interacted with the piece.

YP: So you let people play with it freely?

EC: Yes, but within a mandala structure—I see it as a similar way someone might navigate my paintings visually.

EC: So tell me why you were inspired to found this scholarship for current students like myself?

YP: I always thought I had so much luck in my life. My parents provided so much to me, my children grew up well, and I was able to paint every day. I feel like God gave me too much, so I like to give to other people too. My father always said that we should give back to society, so when I built this house I knew that this going to be a place for community. I had a thought as I was hanging my paintings in the space, that I could share the space with someone else’s work from the Art Institute. I founded this scholarship from this idea.

Additionally, I’ve been teaching art classes to 14 special needs children for the past three years. Before I started this program, I was volunteering Creative Growth and thought, "Why can't I use one of my rooms?" Sometimes I learn more than I give because their minds are so pure and very genuine.

EC: It's helpful for me to have the opportunity that you're providing because it's going to keep me in the area. It's always great to meet other artists who are practicing and made a career out of it. That's my aspiration as well, so the example is appreciated. I'll be able to carry momentum from the Graduate Exhibition and can just continue to build, like you said, from show to show to show.

YP: When I finished graduate school, I was working in the garage at that time but there was no place to show. So, you know what I did? I started approaching galleries.

EC: You just walked in cold?

YP: I just walked in and said, "Would you like to see my work?" Ever since then I had many shows. I’ve had more than 45 one person exhibitions, and museum shows in Korea, and in the United States at the Triton Museum and San Jose Museum show.

EC: That's amazing, good for you.

YP: I had courage but I didn't have any idea what I was doing.

EC: Yeah, give me some advice.

YP: Be courageous. You just have to show everything. Don't worry what curators or gallerists say, or how they act. You might feel insulted, but next morning just erase it and you go back to painting.

EC: Right on.

Eric Carson: The New Cosmograph is on view June 12‑July 10 by appointment at Younhee Paik’s Studio for Art and Music—opening reception on June 10 from 6-10pm and a special musical performance on June 11 at 3pm. »

New work by Younhee Paik will open September 14 at Mills College—In-Between Places: Korean-American Artists in the Bay Area »

Image credits: 1) Photo by Marco David; 2) Eric Carson, Mandala #31, 2016; Gouache on paper, 24 x 18 inches; 3) Eric Carson, Banner of Heaven, 2016; Acrylic on canvas, 93 x 60 inches; 4-8) Photos by Marco David; 9) Eric Carson, Mandala #33 (blind spot test), 2017; 10) Eric Carson, Detail of Mandala #33 (blind spot test), 2017; 11) Photo by Marco David.

#SFAI #SFAI alumni #SFAIalumni #San Francisco Art Institute #Eric Carson #Younhee Paik #art

2 notes · View notes

theabbott-blog1 · 7 years

Text

Thou Art Christ I

“Thou Art Christ…”

The foundation and the superstructure of the church are built upon the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and the statement that was uttered near Caesarea Philippi. “Thou art Christ…” It was not a statement uttered through systematic analysis of events. Neither was it said after logical deductions nor after necessary inferences. The Author of salvation Himself had this to say: “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah for flesh and blood did not reveal this unto you but My Father who is in heaven.” The emphasis of the identity of the Christ was crucial to the establishment of the church. This is the very reason Jesus called the twelve and clarified His origin, His mission and His identity. In the midst of the unbelieving Jews and the multitude who were looking forward to an earthly king and surely a king who will destroy the Roman Empire and restore the nationalistic pride of the sons of Jacob (Israel). Jesus took His time to make sure the disciples understood Him for who He is. Of note is that He first questions what the populace thought about Him and who they say He was. Most theologians and preachers in trying to create a doctrine foreign to the entire Bible have missed the most interesting part of this discourse which I don’t want you to miss. Let us not assume that Peter is the one who answered this question “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? Let us say that the disciples were unified in this one answer since the second question specifically denotes Peter as the one who answered. The disciples here echoed what the unrepentant Jews proclaimed concerning who they perceived as only the son of the carpenter.

The disciples affirmed that the Jews believed Jesus was one of the prophets, with some even believing that He was the resurrected Jeremiah or Elijah. This shows us that the Jews believed Him to a certain extent, that He was heaven sent. This can be noted by their belief that He was the resurrected John the Baptist. As can be evidenced from the reasoning of Herod after the beheading of John the Baptist, the Jews believed that John was more than a prophet. Those that were baptized by John during His ministry believed that John was the Christ but John himself denied vehemently that he was only a forerunner who was not worthy to be compared to the Lamb of God. It is at this crux of His ministry that Jesus wanted the disciples to understand the divine change of Headship and Kingship. He did not go into detail but left the Holy Spirit to bring to their remembrance all that He had taught them.

It is at this point that many erroneously assume that the emphasis on this passage must be on Peter. Many have erroneously taught and advocated that Peter is the rock upon which the church of Christ is built. Peter may be linked to the kingdom dynamics concerning the establishment of the church (he preached the first gospel sermon) but to say that the church is built upon him does more harm to the scriptures. First of all note that; if the church is established or built upon the person of Peter, then the church automatically becomes a man made and earthly governed institution. Such an institution cannot be the bedrock of our faith. We shy away from the denominational world because we believe that any group of people who have an earthly founder (living or dead) cannot be the church that Jesus promised to build. That this church is founded by so and so is the craze of our times and we will always stick to the blood bought church of Christ. The reason why we have denominations that have earthly headships, founders, popes, archbishops, presidents and a series of titles that are foreign to the scriptures, is because man in his carnal mind have always wanted to be God or like God (Genesis 3:5, 6). During my evangelism outreaches I have always asked two questions that have changed the world view of many “Since God is the one who is going to be your judge, why do put your trust on man? Then after this question I then ask which denomination baptized the founder of your denomination? This may seem an easy question but many have turned from denominations to the authentic church because they realized that their founders were baptized or were members of other denominations. A careful survey I have conducted over the years showed that many founders of these pseudo-churches defaulted from other denominations because of doctrinal differences or because they did not hunger for the word of God but hungered and thirsted for power, position and prestige. They just loved to be seen by men, like the Pharisees of old. Please remember my fellow brother or sister, that any denomination that is founded earthly by earthly men is earthly and therefore cannot meet the standards of the church because it fails on headship and foundation.

The church is a blood bought institution and therefore it is Christ’s by virtue of His sacrificial death on the Roman cross. Peter may have been martyred as some uninspired traditions proclaim but he did not die to purchase a people for God. He died proclaiming the word of God as some faithful Christians who lived before, during or after the tenure of his ministry (Hebrews 11:36-39). Let us reflect all this by going back to the context of (Matthew 16:13-20). A clarification of this context is in order. What tends to confuse many is the wording or should we say the emphasis made by Jesus “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.” Objectively looked at, this may mean either the statement made by Peter “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God” or reference is to Peter himself. The second interpretation is supported albeit erroneously and out of context by several premises, namely; 1) Peter’s name (Petros in Greek) means rock or stone. Pedro, Petra or Cephas are also names that mean rock or stone, the first being Spanish, the second Greek and the third Aramaic. 2) Jesus before addressing the establishment of the church pronounces beatitude to Peter, “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but My Father who is in heaven.” 3) Jesus alludes to Peter and then instantly says “Upon this rock I will build My church.” 4) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and also the authority to bind and loose.

Before we review the above premises let us ponder a few facts: Jesus is the founder of the church and He is also the Head of the church. Anything that pertains to the church must of necessity be linked to Him. He is the Savior of the church and He is the One who paid the purchase price of the church. A careful scrutiny reveals that the church entirely belongs to Jesus Christ. We fall under this umbrella because the term (church of Christ) is not the name of the church but a designation suitably for the church. It simply denotes the owner of the body. We are neither short of words nor names to give to the church; we simply refer to it by the title of its owner. Any other name is earthly and therefore we cannot invent names for the church for we must refer to scriptural things by scriptural designations (1 Peter 4:11). Some call themselves Adventists, some Catholics, some Baptists, some Methodists and still some Pentecostals. This is because men want to have names created through their innovations and distinctify themselves according to their doctrines. Remember that only Adam was given the privilege to name the animal world. Members of the Lord’s church only have the designation from the Bible; church of Christ (Romans 16:16) and are called “Christians” (1 Peter 4:16). We are simply Christians nothing less and nothing more.

The promise to establish the church came from the mouth of Jesus and its establishment was hinged solely upon Him. Please note the following 1) Peter’s name is (Petros) which in Greek is masculine whilst the word (petra) is feminine in nature. Reference here cannot be to Peter. Jesus contrasted these two in order to show distinction. He alluded to Peter in order to strengthen and emphasize metaphorical. Caesarea Philippi was a rocky place and that imagery may also be applied here as well as the character of Peter. Christ’s emphasis is not on the person of Peter nor Peter’s ministry but on the surety and certainty to last until the end of time no matter the conditions or the political environment nor any spiritual forces, “…the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”. Satan after realizing His defeat on the Roman cross decided to unleash his terror on the church, “So the dragon was enraged with the woman. And he went to make war with the rest of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 12:17) The present day existence of the church manifests the truth that was revealed by Jesus Christ that the church would not be overcome by the dark forces of Satan. Roman Empire was the human agent used by the devil to thwart and bring to end the church and it failed for the Roman Empire is no longer a kingdom but the church as prophesied to coexist with the kingdom of the Son still is going from strength to strength.

The second premise of the above reasoning that Jesus pronounces beatitude to Peter is used as proof that the church is founded upon Peter who is the rock. “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). This verse does not give Peter much leverage to have the church built upon him. This verse emphasizes who we are in reference to God’s plan of salvation. Peter is known for his quick to speak attitude and most often than not Peter said things that were contrary to the kingdom dynamics. On the mount of transfiguration the Bible states that he said not knowing what he was saying, (Mark 9:6). Of prime note is what Peter said soon after or should we say minutes after Jesus’ discourse. He rebuked Jesus and declared flatly that Jesus must not die. He did not know that Jesus’ death was for his benefit and the entire world; for all those who will come to Jesus for salvation (Matthew 16:22, 23). God is not one to show partiality and this can be seen from Jesus’ words after His resurrection. The blessing of Peter does not negate other blessings pronounced on the children of God such as the all time faith principle declared to Thomas after the glorious resurrection and appearance, “ Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed” (John 20:29). This very premise cannot stand as solid support for the doctrine of Peter being the rock that was referred to by Jesus Christ.

The third premise that is used by the advocates of Peter as the rock or the first pope was explained clearly by J.W Margavey.

“It is objected to this interpretation, that the name of Peter in the original means a stone (John 1:42), and that when Jesus says to him, “Thou art Petros (a stone), and on this rock I will build my church,” the term this identifies rock with the stone just mentioned, or the person of Peter. But here are two insuperable obstacles in the way of this objection: first after saying, “Thou art Petros,’ he changes the phraseology, as if for the very purpose of avoiding this meaning, and says, “on this petra I will build my church.” If he had intended to identify Peter with the rock, he would have repeated the term petros, instead of introducing the new term petra, which means a ledge of rock, while Petros means a stone. Again if he had meant that he would build on Peter, it is inconceivable that he adopted so unnatural a method of expressing the idea, instead of saying, “Thou art Peter, and on thee I will build my church.”

Jesus Christ in this instance used the form of address that was given by Peter. Firstly we must note that Peter in reply had this to say, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Jesus in His reply echoes this unique form of address by making a contrast between Him and Peter. “And I say also to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church. Jesus first of all told Peter that he was Simon the son of Jonah, thus showing that Peter was of earthly origin. Peter had previously affirmed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God thus making Jesus to be of heavenly origin. The form of address hereby applied by these two individuals does not in anyway make Peter the rock upon which the church is built.

The fourth premise may well help us establish the definition of the rock that was referred to. Many commentators have tried at least to a certain extent to support the interpretation of Christ as the Rock. This may seem to be the case for Paul in the book of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10:4) wrote, “…and they all drink from that spiritual rock that followed them and the rock was Christ”. The Psalmist echoes the same words in (Psalms 18: 2) when he states that “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold”. Matthew Henry also supports this interpretation, at least he is right about Peter not being the rock but errs when he supports the idea that Christ was referring to Himself,

“Christ added that He had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated “rock” is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter.”

In the second part of his commentary on the above he errs albeit with strong emphasis on what the passage does not allude to,

“Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him who attempts to lay any other! Peter’s confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own Him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived.”

To say that Christ is the Rock does no damage to the Scriptures but at least in this instance we must see through the meaning of the rock, the stone that was cut out with no human hands (Daniel 2: 34). Emphasis here must be on what Peter said to Christ and what the Christ asked the apostles. Peter affirmed with the rest of the disciples that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. This is the foundation or the bedrock of truth that the church is built upon. The church cannot exist if there are no people who confess Jesus as the Son of the Living God. The Ethiopian eunuch believed and before his baptism had this in confession “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37).Whenever and wherever this statement is made the church of Christ is established.

Peter cannot be the rock because if Jesus meant Peter in reference to the rock then He would have simply said. “Thou art Peter and upon you I will build My church”. We know that the Lord emphasized divine revelation concerning His identity.

1 note · View note

bnrobertson1 · 5 years

Text

Sanitized Satanism

Hoping not to waste the prayers of those fighting for my mortal soul, I attended the Ghost show in Austin this past Tuesday night. While I had heard peers breathlessly praise the scope and spectacle of the Swedish metal band’s shows, I intentionally went in as blind as possible, hoping surprise would heighten the belief-shattering intensity and show to God’s spokespeople literally praying for my spiritual wellbeing* that their well-intentioned attempts were futile. Walking in amongst the pretty interesting cross-section of people that constitute their fanbase, ideas starting flashing through my head. Will there be some sort of sacrifice? An effigy of some sort? The Chainsmokers played in reverse? A ghoul gang bang? A Jose Canseco/Screech fluting duet? Advice on how to get the biggest tax break for your Church of Satan donation? Chik Fil-A Human Centipede? What wretched displays would be so awesome in their alluring evilness that I would willingly give myself over to eternal damnation?

*Thanks, btw.

The answers: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and none, really. Sure, there was plenty of anti-Christian imagery, ranging from a litany of upside down crosses (the band’s symbol), to lead singer Papa Emeritus’* Assassin’s Creed-inspired costume changes which usually were traditional clergy garb but, you know, evvviiilll. But there were no lettings of bloods, no torture devices**, no 1080 degree spinning of heads. In fact, there wasn’t even really any metal music, besides the occasional virtuosic guitar solo, played by a number of masked shredders who all go by, quite effectively, “Ghoul.” They are a fun band whose charisma and stage production more than explain their appeal and helps distort the fact they lack killer songs. And while some of their lyrics may explicitly endorse allegiance to Satan***, in reality their music wasn’t anywhere near as bracingly demonic as their metal contemporaries, much less ferocious enough to make me praise allegiance to the One Mighty Beelzebub.

*Not real name.

**Except a big dump of a way-too-long cliched diatribe by the lead singer at the end of the show about how life is filled with lows and highs, enjoy the ride, etc..

***Like most metal bands, I had 0% idea of what is being sung

But even if there was no blood water fountain or self-blinding station, the evils of unfettered consumerism were most definitely on display. While heavy metal music is no stranger to the selling of merchandise*, the amount of Ghost gear being sold throughout Bass Concert Hall was staggering. Between the marked-up hoodies and the make-up, the posters and the guitar picks, it became obvious Ghost is nothing if not a well-oiled machine producing pseudo-evil knickknacks for the masses**. The music itself seems a product- one of many- of the money making machinery that is Ghost. It’s all well considered and executed with Microsoft Excel-like efficiency. This conciseness leads to a lack of animalism that is present in the best music, particularly metal. It should sound like it came from a beating, out-of-chest heart, not a solar-powered calculator. If the music were an item of clothing, it’d probably be an overpriced long sleeved black t shirt with some sort of demon on it- and conveniently enough about 100 variations of that were on sale. With the exception of a couple songs that actually got closer to an Iron Maiden***-level menace, the majority of the music felt so overly-polished as to be restrained and probably could have been called “Heavy Metal: The Musical!” It’s not that they don’t care or aren’t talented or aren’t suitably aggressive- but it was hard not to notice that metal- a music associated with madness and brutality and freedom and yes at time cursing society and all of its emblems- had somehow created this humming, profitable enterprise.

*I am the proud owner of at least 3 metal Christmas sweaters.

** I found it impossible not to constantly think about this throughout the show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se1b3Vh_VhU

***And while Maiden is rightly adored, they barely move the needle when it comes to sonic heaviness when you think about the heaviness of metal.

This presents itself as Ghost’s window for true commentary and an opportunity to make an artistic dent. While they are projected as these stereotypical demonic chanters of doom, in reality the evil they’re actually projecting is the pervasiveness of money, and how it can make anything pure- even the feeling of anger, say- and warp it into a close-to-Disney-friendly-version of itself, generating revenue all the while. Planting this insidious idea into minds is far more evil than any depiction of gargoyle blow jobs, bombs, or fire. If I were their manager*, I would advise them to lean 100% into the Capitalistic Pig angle as its always relevant, you’re halfway there already, and it’s one of the few artistic angles where you’re allowed to act as depraved and shallow as possible in the name of expression. In other words, considering that Satanism is more a love of earthly possession than actually praising some red buff dude with horns, the show was quite evil indeed.

*I’m not

Competitive Unfiltered Evil payment plans available

0 notes

zeroviraluniverse-blog · 6 years

Text

Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence

Visit Now - http://zeroviral.com/todays-atheists-are-bullies-and-they-are-doing-their-best-to-intimidate-the-rest-of-us-into-silence/

Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence

Brochures at godless congregation Sunday Assembly founded by British comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans.

(AP)

There’s no polite way to say it. Atheists today are the most arrogant, ignorant and dangerous people on earth.

We’ve all seen how these pompous prigs get offended by the slightest bit of religious imagery in public and mortified if even a whisper of “Merry Christmas” escapes the lips of some well-meaning but naïve department store clerk during the “holiday season.”

To cite a few recent examples: Last December, the group “American Atheists” launched its annual billboard campaign with the slogan: “Stay Away from Church—it’s All Fake News.” In February, the “American Humanist Association” became furious when President Trump had the gall to mention Christianity and Jesus Christ without also mentioning atheists—at the National Prayer Breakfast! (How dare he!) And just this month, the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” raised holy hell because the Reverend Billy Graham was laid out in state in the Capitol Rotunda before his burial.

Yes, these atheists are loud, nasty, unapologetic and in-your-face.

But while their arrogance is annoying, it’s nothing compared to their ignorance. Atheists believe that the vast majority of human beings from all periods of time and all places on the Earth have been wrong about the thing most important to them. They basically dismiss this vast majority as being either moronic or profoundly naïve. What they don’t seem to know – or won’t admit – is that the greatest contributions to civilization have been made, not by atheists, but by believers.

Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Isaac Newton all believed in God. Nobel-prize winner Wilhelm Rontgen, the discoverer of X-rays; Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry; William Keen, the pioneer of brain surgery; rocket scientist Wernher von Braun; and Ernest Walton, the first person to artificially split the atom—all believed in God.

And speaking of pioneers of science, who do you think coined the term “scientist” in the first place? William Whewell, an Anglican priest and theologian! He also came up with words “physicist,” “cathode”, “anode” and many other commonly used scientific terms. Essentially, the very language used by scientists today comes from the brain of a believer.

Even the Big Bang Theory itself – which atheists mistakenly think bolsters their arguments against God – was proposed by Fr. George Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer and Roman Catholic priest! And the father of genetics—which provides the basis for the whole theory of evolution—was Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk!

Yes, the new atheists have an ignorance of history bordering on madness.

But are they really dangerous, too?

You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.

Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts. According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental “Encyclopedia of Wars,” only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes. That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.

Indeed, in the last 100 years alone, upwards of 360 million people were killed by governments—and close to half of those people were killed by atheist governments!

Yes, there is a profound and frightening connection between atheism and death. Atheist leaders like Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hideki To ̄jo ̄, Pol Pot and many others bear the blame for the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by war and mass murder in history. And while many atheists make the preposterous claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, his private diaries, first published in 1953 by Farrar, Straus and Young, reveal clearly that the Fuhrer was a rabid atheist: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity,” Hitler stated, “was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew… Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of  Christianity.”  

The facts are incontrovertible. Between the years 1900 and 2017, approximately 150 million people were killed by atheistic political regimes. 150 million!

And it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Atheists don’t believe in God, so they don’t believe in any transcendent, objective moral law. Nor do they believe that human beings are made in the image of God, and so they don’t believe humans possess infinite value and dignity. When you put these two beliefs together, you have a deadly recipe that makes killing “problematic” human beings quite easy and defensible.

One has only to look at the growing numbers of abortions, suicides, homicides, and cases of state-sponsored euthanasia, and infanticide, to see the atheist-death connection. As a thoroughly secular and functionally atheistic culture, we are fast becoming accustomed to “killing” our problems rather than dealing with them in a compassionate, loving, and sacrificial way.

So yes, the modern breed of atheist is arrogant, ignorant and dangerous. Too many books written in response to these pseudo-intellectual hatemongers have been altogether too nice. Too many Christian authors have tried to be kind and amiable in an effort to demonstrate that believers don’t have to sink into the mud in order to defend the faith. That tact is very charitable, but unfortunately, it just doesn’t work with bullies.

And that’s exactly what modern-day atheists are—bullies; bullies who are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence.

Well, we can’t allow that to happen. As I say in my book, “Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There is No God,” there is only one way to deal with bullies, even in this politically correct world—and that is to stand up to them and fight them; to fight them in a bold, aggressive, and fearless way, and to fight them now.

This article was adapted, in part, from the book “Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There is No God”

#atheists #bullies #intimidate #rest #silence #todays #News #Trending News

0 notes

whimsyqueen · 2 years

Note

Foreigner's God

@antique-symbolism HELLO! I got this, promptly forgot I reblogged these questions, and then forgot to answer it, so here it is!!

Foreigner’s God — Does religion play a role in your narrative? If so, how?

Oh man. Oh boy. Oh goodness. Yes without question, in almost all of them????? I didn’t even intend for that to happen but it did?????? I’ll break it down by WIP, based on the ones that include it in a major way!

To Make a Fool of Death- HHHHHHHH Verity was raised Puritan, but mostly rejects the idea of God now. She hates what Christianity has become, and hates that she had to watch it destroy so many parts of her life. Benevolence, however, was never able to let the idea of God go, and so deeply embraced the fact that she was going to hell (in her mind) after she was changed that it was part of what caused her to lose her mind. She clung desperately to religion because she was desperate to make sense of the world, but she was never truly able to. Aside from them, none of the other girls are super religious, I think. Matilda grew up going to church and sort of accepts Christianity as the expected, but doesn’t necessarily agree with it, and prefers to study philosophy outside of the idea of “god” or “religion”

The Unkind Current- EDYTHE IS A SWAMP PRIESTESS. She worships the swamp, there’s big religious imagery all up in this one, she’s frequently referred to by the forest as “The Worshipper” or “The Saint” and she would dedicate her whole damn life and soul to it, if she could. Angharad isn’t exactly not religious, because she’s the voice of the swamp, like a pseudo-prophet, but she sees the swamp as much more fallible and real as opposed to a sort of religious figure like everyone else does. She fucks with it, it fucks with her. It’s a healthy relationship and she doesn’t take it TOO seriously, but she knows her job’s importance.

Someone Else’s Blood, Someone Else’s Love- UH, YEAH, I SURE HOPE IT DOES. I dug deep into my Year of the Witching by Alexis Henderson with this one. (I highly recommend that book btw.) This story takes place somewhere with the energy of Tennessee, and has a whole lot of Big Baptist Energy, if you ask me. I designed it to be like that though, to explore the idea of “corruption” and what true “purity” is worth, and the idea of goodness and how someone could possibly be “bad” when all you’ve seen them through is the eyes of one specific community. I’m very excited to explore this and evolve it as the story gets written!!

What’s funny to me is that like…. I don’t even really have any sort of notable Religious Trauma of any sort. I was just raised in the South so it’s always been prevalent in my life, whether I’m actually religious myself or not (I’m not lol)

Send Me A Hozier Themed Ask!

#antique-symbolism-main #about the author #ask the author #writeblr #my writing #my wips #fool of death #the unkind current #SEBSEL #ask games

2 notes · View notes

wordzeck · 7 years

Text

A sex addict’s relationship with God.

I watched the movie Thanks for Sharing last night. It got pretty crap reviews, but let me say it did a phenomenal job at describing the life of a sex addict. I loved how the film showed the different mind states an addict can experience. Mike was the wise leader, who’s dark past seemed eons behind him. Adam was the up-and-comer, who was finding proven strength in his new clean lifestyle. And Neil was the newly discovered addict, who was still lying to himself and everyone else. What really struck me about this movie was the way it showed how close those three different statuses really were. By the end of the film Mike almost purchased a bottle of liquor while staring down a woman, Adam delved back into prostitution and an incredibly unhealthy relationship with a much younger girl (Adam was 5 years sober from prostitution/porn/hookups at the beginning of the film), and Neil was able to ride the subway without groping a single woman.

The film introduced me to this idea that I hadn’t really given much thought to-- maybe addicts will always be addicts. I’ve pressed into ideas about healing and renewal from the Gospel, but I’ve also seen themes of accepting one’s brokenness time and time again. I’m saying all of this because I had a pretty bad relapse on Thursday. On my way home I had a discussion with a prostitute on the road (one that I started), I said inappropriate things, I turned to porn again, and I hooked up with a girl from my past. I felt for Adam’s character when he slipped from his five year sobriety.

I am an absolute addict, and the form of a woman has been my drug for a long time. I won’t ever declare that I truthfully know the plight of an alcoholic or drug addict, but I bet we could compare very similar notes. I was sober for over two months, and it felt great. I’ll admit I took a lot of pride in my status, but there was also this purity that felt like taking a bite out of a fruit after a month of meals from Jack in the Box.

In the midst of my hookup there was this familiar emptiness that set in early in the encounter. My drug is different than those that can be injected, but I’m certain our mornings after feel very similar. I also got a look at a mind state I haven’t seen for a while. There is this state of pseudo-consciousness that an addict enters when he is en route to get his fix after a period of sobriety. He needs his mind to be active just enough to get his drug, but it needs to be asleep enough to not come to grips with what is about to happen. I’ve spoken before of how I felt that I could just simply see more. I could take in more imagery because my mind was not in the aforementioned state. You need to shut off your surroundings in order to hone in on your drug. This state of “turning the outside world off” is half the appeal to sex addiction. If your life becomes just a system of itches and scratches, then you don’t have to worry about anything else but your current itch. Future aspirations, relationships, and daily tasks can all go away as long as I am in a stranger’s bed.

Now how does a sex addict come to Christ? It’s kind of weird, but I think I can turn to him now more willingly than I was able to before my addictions took root. I discovered at the age of 21 that this world can be a horrible place, and people (especially myself) are incredibly broken. Many are given this lesson from poverty, abusive parents, and addictions. But there are so many of us that cannot come to grips with such a reality. Saying “I'm a sinner” and “the world is cursed by sin” is an easy feat, but believing it can only come from real work experience. In my culture it is so easy to press further and further into places of oblivious comfort-- I'm guilty of that to this day. But a taste of hell is a wake up call. The face-to-face encounter with one’s own depravity, and the world’s brokeness, is like the trust fund baby who rides public transportation for the first time. How could I have ever really clung to Christ if my world was still so shiny? How could I have declared I needed God if no need was apparent? I’m not saying that there isn’t beauty and daily gifts from our Creator. I’m saying that I think we need to start really taking a look at the bad parts of town. This is a simplistic Christian cliche, and it is one that I am terrible at sticking to. But I’ve experienced a desire to know the sick, the broken, and the depraved when I too realized that I was all of those things as well.

I’ll probably take a break from writing on this for a bit. When I get into a mind state of speaking my opinion, I turn from searching restlessly for God. I really don’t have things as figured out as I’d like. I forget many times that I’m only 22. I just hope in this next year I am able to press further and further into my brokenness. I hope through addressing my sickness, I’m given a heart to help other’s with similar ailments. I want the brokenness of the world to spawn a deep excitement to share and emulate the love of the King of it all.

0 notes