Jump to content

Fred K

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Business Development Sales
  • Favorite movies
    In America, The Road Home, Charade, Spirited Away, Willy Wonka, Young Frankenstein, The Highlander, Pirates of Silicon Valley
  • Favorite music
    Mr Johnson's Lawn, Tom Petty, Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus,
  • Favorite creative writing
    Charles Peguy, Dante, Edmund Spenser, GM Hopkins, Walker Percy, James Weldon Johnson, Confederacy of Dunces, Invisible Man, The Color Wheel by Timothy Steele, My Antonia,
  • Favorite visual art
    Rodin, Paul Manship, Henry Moore, William Congdon,

Fred K's Achievements


Member (5/5)

  1. Rich - the Gospels as well as historical accounts of crucifixion indicate that the condemned was naked: the humiliation was total. I believe that the earliest depictions of Jesus were as the good shepherd. It is apt that Christians cover the nakedness of Christ (unlike Lot's daughters) as well as understanding the crown of thorns and INRI in a non-ironic manner. I see that wikipedia has a useful summary of the history of the depiction of the crucifixion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_arts It's interesting that the earliest crucifixes showed a living Christ with little emphasis on suffering. The San Damiano also shows a living Christ, not visibly suffering. Most crucifixes I've seen today depict a dead Christ, which to me is a helpful sign which points beyond the depiction: He is not here - he has risen as he said... the distended belly never fails to move me, having a distended belly of the obverse kind
  2. As a Catholic, I'm so accustomed to crucifixes that this reaction of horror and shame helps me to to recover the original scandal of the cross.
  3. Wow! and thanks for the link to the other thread on the place of genitals! Something to ponder, to be sure.
  4. The photo of the icon appears to be a traditional Franciscan icon of the crucified Christ. The crucifix icon of San Damiano. Below is another version of this icon: http://www.classic-c.../pics/m5001.jpg I'm struck by two things: 1. I see why folks may interpret it as a bathroom sketch of the male organ - however, I've seen many similar icons with very similar outlines contained in them but never once thought to interpret it in that way. 2. the denial of the sexuality of Christ (in infant paintings of Jesus, the nudity is a sign that Jesus is fully human...) 3. the monsignor quoted in the article says that the distended stomach signifies the pain of Christ but I've long regarded it as evidence of a desire greater than hunger. What do you think?
  5. Wow, that's a great article... Christianity as the discovery of a presence rather than an idea... God, after all, is greater than that which can be conceived (Anselm).
  6. James Allison ... I looked at a couple of his articles online which looked pretty good. I see that he draws on Girard, whom I'm familiar with at secondhand: i.e. through Balthasar and Gil Bailie. Is there something that gets at the core of Allison's approach?
  7. Stu - This talk of peace and hospitality seems a bit abstract to me. The encounter between Paul and Stephen is concrete (Saul, why are you persecuting ME?), but another encounter is also interesting: that of Monica and Augustine. Monica, the mother, urging her son toward the stability of success, marriage, and the Catholic faith; Augustine trying somewhat to pacify his mother while torturously trying to grow in understanding of the truth. Monica wrestled not just with her son, but also with God (and even his priests) - desiring her son's ultimate good but also trying to dictate the form it would take. What mother would provide only for her son's needs without considering his ultimate good? As a father I can't dictate the road that my children will take, but I would hardly be a father if I did not urge my children to seek out the greatest satisfaction in life. Paul was reconciled with the Christians, and Monica was reconciled with Augustine - only in the relationship with a third person who is victorious over both parties. Nobody gets what they want, to be sure, but the conclusion is not brought about through settlement between the parties on terms of their own understanding.
  8. after watching the AI video essays above, I saw this ad for Advair... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfdT7le7A-E (not embeddable)
  9. Having reviewed Wikipedia: "Sociology of Religion", I see that Max Weber did propose a human need for theodicy and for soteriology, and that these needs become especially acute in Calvinism insofar as God is seen as utterly beyond human understanding. Instead, The need I'm referring to is more fundamental, a wonder in the face of what is and a sadness which Thomas Aquinas characterized as 'the desire for an absent good.'
  10. But that is pure Weber, and I am not sure how far to go with that. I never read Weber, so please explain how you're reading me. Would you say that religion has nothing to do with human needs?
  11. Some excellent points have been brought out in this discussion... so here's a bit more for the mix. The basis of any dialogue is our common human need. Religion, politics, human sciences, etc, may all propose solutions to these human needs, and I can certainly accept that adherents are sincere in their beliefs, but if different religions claim to solve the same human need, then it makes sense that some would do this better than others. Last week, for example, I switched away from the 'uber-violent' tv show Human Target to watch a little bit of the PBS show on The Buddha. I caught the part where the Buddha sees his wife nursing his infant son and realizes that if he holds his son he will feel pain upon letting him go. At that point, Sid. turns around and leaves his wife and son forever. Upon leaving, he's met by the goddess of Desire who promises him that if he goes back, he'll have great power. He rejects desire utterly. Instead of fulfilling human needs (that for love, community, accomplishments, paternity), this story suggests a way of evading or deleting these needs. Similarly, this 8-fold law of progressivism treats religious needs as sentimental: since God is unknowable, one image is equivalent to any other. Whereas, if religion is rooted in a human need, then it is not plausible to claim that two ways are equal any more than it would make sense to claim that high fructose corn syrup is equally nutritious as spinach (#2). In addition, I am competent to testify only to what I have received, and I do not have the competence to reassure others that their way is just as valid, and will make them as happy as I am. #6 specifically affirms that the need of religion is impossible to satisfy - as if hunger were its own end instead of food. I saw Milbank mentioned (haven't read him, alas). I would also mention some other approaches to pluralism and dialogue. Hans Urs von Balthasar has a little book which discusses these matters - Truth is Symphonic: Aspects of Christian Pluralism. Dialogue is also at the heart of the book - The Journey to Truth is an Experience by Luigi Giussani.
  12. with apologies to Flannery O'Connor, I might be a 'saintly protagonist' too if I had Cancer to kill me every day of my life...
  13. Peter: I saw this in the history of this thread also. I found the vehemence of the article linked in the whosoever desires blog to be a bit excessive and one-sided. I always think it's ironic to see the theologically liberal making appeals to authority to resolve problems. There's also a certain sola scriptura approach that seems out of place. It's especially interesting to see a document on the performance of passion plays for parish or diocesan use being invoked to criticize a movie produced by an individual - although the document would be applicable insofar as parishes have organized showings and trips to the theater, etc... that is, the document applies to public devotionals sponsored by parishes or dioceses.
  14. yes, David. In Kansas we do about 4 stations, so I also noticed that all scripture readings were from the Gospel of Luke. Just as the passion readings of Palm Sunday and Good Friday use a single Gospel (John on Good Friday; and Luke on Palm Sunday this year). I think about this because I recently became aware of the impact of combining Gospels when presenting the passion. http://whosoeverdesires.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/some-cautions-while-watching-the-passion/ I notice that this links to a 2004 article - which has probably already been linked and discussed in this thread exhaustively... http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/reviews/gibson_cunningham.htm
  • Create New...