All of this that I'm writing should be treated as even less than an opinion, more like a tired collection of thoughts. Any criticism is welcome.
Historical accounts since recorded history suggest that cycles of conflict exist, however collectively we seem to attempt to find two solutions to this: we have to communicate this fact to our successors in a compelling way without dulling it, and to give as much of our care and understanding whenever it becomes inevitable in the present, that is to say, treat it with the highest degree of seriosity or even to sanctify it, to call it sacred, and put it at the center of our story. Why find a solution to cycles of conflict and not simply accept it as a natural part of life? Because, and also note that science is rooted in theology, because we probably discovered at some point that truth is a quantifiable resource that is rare and precious. Truth supersedes our expectations, cares not about our emotions but instead we build our emotional response around it, is brilliant and bright, and the only thing that the universe rewards, moreover, anything short of completely and utterly true is fully ignored, and even in the realm of our feeble minds, a single truth can retroatively annul a full web of half-truths.
In the Byzantine communion (Eucharist):
In the Western, Roman communion (Eucharist) which I roughly translate by hand:
Original I
Original II
Original III
Original IV
And also, Sanctus, the prayer, which reads, in Western (Roman) Catholicism, and is part of the Eucharist:
This is the mystery that (we) know as Transsubstantiation.
(Our) faith reinforces the aspiration to transform that which is a painful ordeal, a tragedy, into the most sacred. In this manner, Jesus who foresaw his crucifiction, called the apostles to the last supper, where we recorded from their testimony this ultimate metaphor. The fact that quite likely many people may have suffered the same faith as Jesus Christ, only makes the mystery greater and the story more humbling. In fact, Judaea was conquered in 63 BC in what was likely a full hostile takeover, it was not only not the first centralized and orchestrated expansion of a people, but a region which for the next millenia would be in perpetual hardship and conflict, suffer eight to nine Crusades, involving people from all of the European continent, including even the nordic countries of Europe.
Whether the people conducting and orchestrating this action of conquest were aware of the nature of their deeds at the time does not change the following: Christianity emerged as a direct result of an imperial ambition, in an attempt to excuse, justify, motivate, perpetuate, incentivize, and fund, repeated incursions into this geography, for reasons that may not be the same to everybody, but collectively form this consensus.
My personal belief is that this is used to "wash away all the blood" of our original sin, which is, materialize the society as we currently experience by commiting a sin so grave that nobody would ever do it again, count all of the things it takes to fix it, and make that event known to everybody, ripple down to every participant of the act, who participated either in full knowledge of the deeds or in ignorance, and their descendants, and do it so dilligently that it makes everybody personally and directly accountable with God. And the argument was I believe so good that the economy it created started having a mind of its own, and become so great and abstract that it could not be controlled, which is where we are now.
In the passages above, I argue how the farther east you go in the Christian world, (and also the routes of the Crusaders) the more we observe references to what seems to me like buffer regions, conflict, doctrine, where the central act of our theology always seems to happen in connection to the ancient Hebrew tradition, and the associated geographies. The Eastern and Orthodox variants have a definite doctrine aspect to them, like "I believe that this is the truth AND openly advocate for it" or "Lord of Heavenly Armies".
So, to close up, this is what (our) faith always makes me think of. God gives his perfect and beloved son, which we do great injustice to, and in perfect knowing God accepts this and allows it as the gifted material form of the forgiveness of our original sin.
The metaphor is shadowing the act of conquest. The conquest enabled a few things historically: access to the silk road trade route, a foothold in the important historic area of Egypt that is closer than Carthage, voting power in the miracle city of many names of Istanbul, and full leverage of wind-powered ships in the mediterranean, which often held more than just signals and messages.
But the sin was so great that a phenomenon of passing the guilt quickly emerged (the spread of Christianity), the main economic institutions were also theologic institutions (the Pope), and people would repeatedly try to do the same thing over and over again, by going against the historic lesson, only less successfully, the money probably serving as the proof of realness of the benefits of conquest, while the theologic argument being an ideological oil of the war machine. Could the blood of Christ be fittingly described by the flow of gold?
If we all agree of the same thing being of value, and if we give it the utmost attention and treat it as if it was sacred, be it gold or blood, a small thing, it has the potential to heal anything... even the things that will inevitably turn out wrong.
If you studied computers you will know this, any system that counts, adds something often enough for long enough, will eventually reveal where the errors are. So when taken to the extreme, I would argue economics is actually the instrument through which we search for the existence of God's presence among us.
Historical accounts since recorded history suggest that cycles of conflict exist, however collectively we seem to attempt to find two solutions to this: we have to communicate this fact to our successors in a compelling way without dulling it, and to give as much of our care and understanding whenever it becomes inevitable in the present, that is to say, treat it with the highest degree of seriosity or even to sanctify it, to call it sacred, and put it at the center of our story. Why find a solution to cycles of conflict and not simply accept it as a natural part of life? Because, and also note that science is rooted in theology, because we probably discovered at some point that truth is a quantifiable resource that is rare and precious. Truth supersedes our expectations, cares not about our emotions but instead we build our emotional response around it, is brilliant and bright, and the only thing that the universe rewards, moreover, anything short of completely and utterly true is fully ignored, and even in the realm of our feeble minds, a single truth can retroatively annul a full web of half-truths.
In the Byzantine communion (Eucharist):
which is English translation from:
In the Western, Roman communion (Eucharist) which I roughly translate by hand:
Original I
Truly holy you are, o Father, source of all holiness. We pray to you, sanctify these offerings with the dew of your Spirit, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Original II
Sanctify, o God, this offering with the power of your blessing, and deign yourself to accept it towards our favor, in perfect and spiritual sacrifice, so that it may become for us the body and blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Original III
We pray humbly, sanctify and consecrate with your Spirit the gifts that we have presented to you, so that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Original IV
Now we pray to you, Father, that the Holy Spirit sanctify these gifts so that they may become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in celebration of this great mystery, which has been left to us in sign of eternal alliance.
And also, Sanctus, the prayer, which reads, in Western (Roman) Catholicism, and is part of the Eucharist:
Whereas, often in Eastern and Orthodox Christianity:
(we) observe an increase in the mentions of Sabaoth, a reference to God as the "Lord of Hosts", which are often understood as literal heavenly armies.
This is the mystery that (we) know as Transsubstantiation.
(Our) faith reinforces the aspiration to transform that which is a painful ordeal, a tragedy, into the most sacred. In this manner, Jesus who foresaw his crucifiction, called the apostles to the last supper, where we recorded from their testimony this ultimate metaphor. The fact that quite likely many people may have suffered the same faith as Jesus Christ, only makes the mystery greater and the story more humbling. In fact, Judaea was conquered in 63 BC in what was likely a full hostile takeover, it was not only not the first centralized and orchestrated expansion of a people, but a region which for the next millenia would be in perpetual hardship and conflict, suffer eight to nine Crusades, involving people from all of the European continent, including even the nordic countries of Europe.
Whether the people conducting and orchestrating this action of conquest were aware of the nature of their deeds at the time does not change the following: Christianity emerged as a direct result of an imperial ambition, in an attempt to excuse, justify, motivate, perpetuate, incentivize, and fund, repeated incursions into this geography, for reasons that may not be the same to everybody, but collectively form this consensus.
My personal belief is that this is used to "wash away all the blood" of our original sin, which is, materialize the society as we currently experience by commiting a sin so grave that nobody would ever do it again, count all of the things it takes to fix it, and make that event known to everybody, ripple down to every participant of the act, who participated either in full knowledge of the deeds or in ignorance, and their descendants, and do it so dilligently that it makes everybody personally and directly accountable with God. And the argument was I believe so good that the economy it created started having a mind of its own, and become so great and abstract that it could not be controlled, which is where we are now.
In the passages above, I argue how the farther east you go in the Christian world, (and also the routes of the Crusaders) the more we observe references to what seems to me like buffer regions, conflict, doctrine, where the central act of our theology always seems to happen in connection to the ancient Hebrew tradition, and the associated geographies. The Eastern and Orthodox variants have a definite doctrine aspect to them, like "I believe that this is the truth AND openly advocate for it" or "Lord of Heavenly Armies".
So, to close up, this is what (our) faith always makes me think of. God gives his perfect and beloved son, which we do great injustice to, and in perfect knowing God accepts this and allows it as the gifted material form of the forgiveness of our original sin.
The metaphor is shadowing the act of conquest. The conquest enabled a few things historically: access to the silk road trade route, a foothold in the important historic area of Egypt that is closer than Carthage, voting power in the miracle city of many names of Istanbul, and full leverage of wind-powered ships in the mediterranean, which often held more than just signals and messages.
But the sin was so great that a phenomenon of passing the guilt quickly emerged (the spread of Christianity), the main economic institutions were also theologic institutions (the Pope), and people would repeatedly try to do the same thing over and over again, by going against the historic lesson, only less successfully, the money probably serving as the proof of realness of the benefits of conquest, while the theologic argument being an ideological oil of the war machine. Could the blood of Christ be fittingly described by the flow of gold?
If we all agree of the same thing being of value, and if we give it the utmost attention and treat it as if it was sacred, be it gold or blood, a small thing, it has the potential to heal anything... even the things that will inevitably turn out wrong.
If you studied computers you will know this, any system that counts, adds something often enough for long enough, will eventually reveal where the errors are. So when taken to the extreme, I would argue economics is actually the instrument through which we search for the existence of God's presence among us.
