Beholding the Beauty

The Gospel reading for this past Sunday was taken from Matthew 19, regarding the rich young ruler, who had "kept all of these [commandments] from [his] youth up", yet could not bring himself to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. While the Gospel was being read, the Holy Spirit impressed upon me how backward we have so many things.  For example, one of the things I like to do is give to the poor, and I have even considered (prior to being married) doing exactly what the rich young ruler couldn't: selling it all, giving the proceeds to the poor, and entering a monastery. But what hubris!  How can I even begin to approach the righteousness of this young ruler.  This ascetic feat was the final step  for him to be perfect.  He kept the rest of the commandments from his childhood (no easy task, given the vicissitudes of adolescence, particularly). I fancy that I can or should give all to the poor, and yet I have not even kept the first of the commandments that

I recently came across this article , by a non-Orthodox person styling herself as "a rebellious iconographer". [EDIT: I have today (10/18/2023) discovered that the article in question is no longer extant. The author commented here shortly after publication. Given the original's removal, all the links here are now broken.] My response is as follows: If one is going to claim no female saintly presence for an icon, she would do well to choose icons that actually have no female saintly presence. The Pentecostal icon she uses as her first example ( Fig. 1 ) has a HUGE female saintly presence: the Mother of God herself is front and center. In iconography, that position is huge, which even she admits: The Apostles are depicted seated in a semi-circle, with no individual among them taking the central seat of authority. She is correct that none of the Apostles occupies the central s

A Facebook commenter asked me yesterday whether those of us who support "forcing a mother to give birth to an unwanted child" -- that is, protecting the unborn child's right to life -- would be around to adopt or support the child being born, or whether we would just let them fill up the streets and probably die of starvation anyway. The answer is:  Yes, we would!  Most pro-life advocates (not all, but most) are Judeo-Christian in their religious outlook.  Orphanages and foster care have long been the grateful privilege of the Christian Church, "to care for the least of these", even if their own parents don't want to (abortion) or can't (have to give up for adoption). Originally, I had the following conclusion: Unfortunately, however, orphanages are no longer legal in the United States.  That leaves a huge burden on the individual couples who might desire and have the resources to adopt.  Historically, the orphanages were the default place for &q

In debates about abortion, the phrase "it's my body" often pops up. If the debate is able to move past that (rare), the fallback is usually, "Why should we force a woman to have to have a parasite (essentially) feeding off of her body and making her do/feel weird things?" Most counter-arguments focus on the whole "parasite" phrasing, but I grant it . A baby is exactly that, functionally, and an accidental one probably even carries with it (for the mother) all the negative and pejorative connotations of that word, especially if it is the product of rape. Nevertheless, the point must be answered: why should the woman have to support this drain on her resources, potential killer (complications from pregnancy and birth can, on rare occasion, kill the mother), etc.? My answer is this: because it is a Human Being, who enjoys, by virtue of that fact, a Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These three are not equal, but hierarchical -- they ar

In the Old Testament Law, if a man raped a woman, and got her pregnant, he had to pay a fine and marry her, and was forbidden to ever divorce her.  (Deut. 22:28, 29) Unfortunately, this is interpreted almost universally as a dastardly law designed to let men get away with rape in an era of unbounded patriarchal oppression of women. It is anything but that.  Quite the contrary, in fact, especially given the cultural norms and stigmas surrounding marriage and family life at the time. Rather than oppressing the woman and allowing her rapist to get off scot-free, this law gives her a valid method of accusation and remedy against him, in a time when marriage was a) not for love anyway, and b) a  huge  financial boon to women.  Notice the prohibition of future divorce, which locks the fellow (and his whole family!) in, so he cannot get out of providing child support, etc. (and if he neglects her, his family is liable). There is no shame or stigma in these commands.  Quite the opposit

When asked if there are any exceptions to our rule, too many of us "pro-lifers" -- that is, anti-baby-murder activists -- grant the "rape case" exception without hesitation and without thought. This is one of my pet peeves. I do not acknowledge that that situation is justification for murdering a human being.  Is he somehow worth less, simply because he was conceived in tragic circumstances?  Is her life worth nothing, because her mother thinks* she might have to bear the shame? Yes, rape is horrible, and pregnancy from rape is the very definition of an unplanned pregnancy. But the ending of a human life (and yes, the baby is a human, whether it is still in the womb or not) is a serious matter. It is precisely at this point, this black and white, no-shades-of-gray point, that the principle of Life should shine most clearly.  It is precisely here, if anywhere , that we should make our stand. And yet this is the point we most easily surrender!  This is qui

desire and drive to create but get bogged down in the details....distracted. desire not simply to create, but to express . And not just things, but life . Unfortunately, life (and things) are rather details oriented and somewhat chaotic. We want to be able to slay the dragon in the waters to bind the behemoth to put a bit in leviathan's mouth. And we want to do it by expressing ourselves, that is, by command , by pure manifestation of will . We want, in short, to be gods.  Being "regular humans" is such hard work.

functional --logical operators, intermediary steps--> algorithmic can boolean operators be recast in terms of waveform math (interference of given waves?)  If so...standing or travelling? (or both?) Consequences: all algorithms are functional math quantum computing becomes much easier to understand visually (currently cast in statistical math, which is somewhat hard to visualize).

Random, unorganized thoughts on created vs. uncreated grace  (Prompted by meditation on this link:  http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/oecumenical-grace-roman-catholicism-and-created-grace/ ) And of His grace we have received: grace for grace. God's uncreated energies synergize with our created energies, bolstering them, and making them the carriers of true grace, created though they be, through a sort of hypostatic union of His own and our own, exactly parallel to (if not repetitive of) His own hypostatic union. He has as His principle uncreated nature, and so He is "God by nature", although He "took on Himself the form of a servant" -- that is, He took on Himself  created nature, and so became man . We have as our principle that same created nature which He put on.  And we are called, by a similar "putting on" of Him, the Christ, to become " god (s) by grace" -- that is, "partakers of the divine nature". But -