Idle Ruminations

Hermit, Hopeful Misanthrope, Pagan Panentheist Dystheist Theologian, Deconstructive Linguist, Archivist of Modern Mythology, Keeper of Rats ------- Devotee of the Titan Prometheus Client of the Goddess Fortuna Antagonist of Yahweh the Deceiver ------- Agender Vampire: it/its

[vampiretheology]

Fanfiction as an Inalienable Spiritual Right

The thing about mythology is that the idea of a universal canon is pretty recent, and largely a product of monotheistic theocracy.

Traditionally, pantheons built over time, shifted, borrowed from each other. Gods were adopted or dropped. Each local cult had its own accepted canon, and that canon would get adjusted as bards and poets travelled and added their own new stories. The parts that were useful or instructive were adopted over time.

If this sounds a bit like fandom, that's because it is exactly fandom. Those stories that mean the most to us instruct our worldview, and as a group we then grow the established canon to address those parts of life that are most important to us. Over time, some of it gets turned to canon, sometimes conflicting canon between different sects. Our culture does not, typically, consider these characters gods - but from a psycho-spiritual perspective they are indistinguishable. They are archetypes by which we illustrate our beliefs, desires, and lives. They are how we organize our thoughts and values.

Copyright/Ownership of a character is a relatively new concept, and corporate ownership in particular is an abomination. Once a story is released to from the author's mind, once it's in the public consciousness, it is natural for us to mythologize it. And it is unnatural to say that any shared mythology is invalid, or even unlawful because some organization thinks it owns the rights. IT DOES NOT.

[vampiretheology]

Letting the boys loose on a chunk of watermelon rind.

[apenitentialprayer]

The people who get angry and tell you not to pray for them are probably the ones who need your prayer most. But… if they’re obviously uncomfortable with the idea, why do you insist on telling them that you’re praying for them? If you feel a compulsion to tell someone who is hostile to you that you’re praying for them, are you doing it for them, or are you perhaps actually doing it for yourself?

[vampiretheology]

I have an open prayer to my gods to curse anyone who prays for me to theirs. With a little luck it'll more than even out in the end.

Just a little something to consider before you go throwing your prayers around all willy-nilly - If someone asks you not to pray for them, just don't pray for them. Is respecting someone's spiritual autonomy really that hard?

[vampiretheology]

On the Nature of God

TL;DR: People read the made in God's image thing to mean humanity is good. The far more reasonable interpretation is that God isn't.

Gen 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

This differentiation of image and likeness conveys the idea that mankind is made deliberately similar to God, not just in physical body, but in action and function (and yes, the difference exists in the Hebrew as well). Where God claims dominion over the world, mankind claims dominion over all animal life. In so paralleling, scripture informs us that we can get a glimpse of the nature of God simply by looking at ourselves.

Mankind has great capacity for many things, but not all are good. Sure, we may have great capacity for love, but if God were only love we certainly couldn't be called his likeness. We have spectacular capacity for becoming overly controlling, manipulative, jealous, abusive, and deceptive. Many of which are traits we see God openly exhibit in scripture.

I find it odd how little capacity those who claim to follow the Bible have when it comes to accepting that their god might not always be truthful with them. He might not always have their best interest at heart. Even from the first chapter of the first book we see the subtle warning that all the evil man might do, God might just do as well. And one of those evils, in fact arguably the first one man displays, is deception.

My best and only response to a biblical literalist is simply this: "Yes, but he could very well have been lying." Do I know that he was - no, but neither can you be certain he wasn't. If the question itself is God's honesty, no scriptural refutation is possible, only blind faith. I do not doubt that your god exists - I doubt that he is good, that he is truthful, and that he is alone. He could have literally said everything you quote - but who's to say he's being honest? You've experienced his voice, even his miracles - great, I never refuted his existence, I never doubted his ability to grant miracles, but I also have no reason that his motives are noble, or even to believe he is alone in the capacity to grant miracles. The only evidence is that of his own hollow words, and I do not accept them.

You wish to dedicate your life and your soul to him - more power to you, I certainly won't get in the way. Just don't try to force me along for the ride.