Quetzalcoátl, the Plumed Serpent.

Previously, I discussed Xiuhcoátl, the Turquoise Serpent, which symbolizes time, fire, the dry season, the triumph of wisdom over ignorance, and light over darkness. Here is Quetzalcoátl, the Plumed Serpent, who exists as the opposite pole, the duality in contradistinction to the Turquoise Serpent.

Quetzalcoátl exists in numerous manifestations; He is the creator Teótl, who helped create the earth, who formed the first men, who discovered maize, and who is the generative force behind creation. He is Quetzalcoátl Ehecátl, Teótl of the Wind, who sweeps the road clean before the coming storm. And he was, finally, incarnated as man in Quetzalcoátl Tolpiltzin, the Young Prince of Tollan, who was born in the ancient city of Tulla and ruled as king; as such he is the holy man, the culture here of Mexico. Here, however, he is the Plumed Serpent, the animal spirit of the creator Teótl, the feathered snake who symbolizes the rainy season, the summer, wisdom, and abundance.

Metaphorically, in the Mexican summer, which is the season of rain, the Feathered Serpent descends to the earth and covers the land with his verdant plumage; the green grasses, the crops, flowers, and the corn, are all his precious green feathers, with which the earth is adorned. As such Quetzalcoátl represents life/death, the feminine principle, the chaos of life and birth which generates rot, decay, and death. He is abundance, food, rain, and wisdom, which springs from the female and the fecund. He is the union of the celestial (in the person of the quetzal bird with whose plumage he is adorned) and the terrestrial (the serpent), from which life on earth is born. In the first two paintings, he consumes a man. In the Mexica conception, sacrifice is necessary to life; without death, there can be no re-birth, and without death, the wheel of time cannot continue. For the Teótl sacrifice themselves to sustain us, eternally; in the consumption of corn, in the plowing of the earth, in the deaths of the animals which feed us, Teótl sacrifices Himself for the good of us, His children. Thus it is that we are required to sacrifice ourselves in return, in the reciprocal nature of our covenant with Teótl. The sacrifice required of us is one in which we do not live for our own pleasure, but for the sake of others and of the planet which we inhabit.

In the sculpture, a man - our Lord Quetzalcoátl - emerges from the mouth of the feathered serpent. This is an image of rebirth, and is the necessary opposite of the image of the Feathered Serpent eating the man. For the two are linked and are, indeed, one. However, in the sculpture, from below the chin of the man and emerging from the serpent’s open mouth is a flint knife and the glyph Atl-tlachinolli, Fire and Water, or, Conflict. In the sculpture is represented the idea that only through self-sacrifice (represented in the flint knife and in the Atl-Tlachinolli glyph) is re-birth possible.

My paintings are available on my Etsy store as prints and posters, at this link

anonymous asked:

Why sola scriptura is wrong?

Alright friends gather ‘round cause it is fun to refute sola scriptura.

For the uninformed, Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Christian doctrine which asserts that the single, absolute metric for Christian beliefs/doctrine and practices is The Bible.

A few problems should be immediately apparent.

The first is that, if Sola Scriptura is true, then SS must be clearly found in the Bible. It is not. The only verse Protestants use to support SS 2 Timothy 3:16 - “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. We can see immediately that saying “All Scripture is … useful for teaching” is a far cry from “Only Scripture is … useful for teaching.” But Sola Scriptura asserts the “only” along with the “all”, despite the “only” not being found in Scripture.

The Protestant must subvert Sola Scriptura in order to defend it.

As a side note, one must concede that when Saint Paul talks about “scripture” in 2 Timothy he is referring to the Greek canon of the Old Testament, and not the New Testament, most of which has yet to be written.

A second problem is that the Bible’s table of contents is not itself part of the Bible, rather it is a part of Christian tradition outside of the Bible. Scripture doesn’t tell us what is or is not scripture. We have to look to another authority, outside of the Bible, to tell us what exactly the Bible is.

A third problem - this is similar to the previous one, but a bit broader - is that the Bible itself, and its place within the thing called Christianity, is not attested to in the Bible. What should a Christian think about the Bible? How should a Christian approach the Bible? Should we even have a Bible? Is it for personal prayer or liturgical prayer, or both, or neither? The Bible comes down to us today as a part of a broader Christian tradition. We do not have The Bible on one hand, and Apostolic Tradition on the other – the Bible is contained within Apostolic Tradition, alongside its canon, the seven sacraments, Eucharistic theology, and so forth.

Although Sola Scriptura demands a rejection of Christian Tradition independent of the Bible, it necessarily accepts one aspect of that Christian Tradition not found in the Bible – namely, the Bible itself. The Bible does not tell us about the Bible. Christian Tradition tells us about the Bible.

Finally, Sola Scriptura actually supplants the very authority of Jesus Christ. The Bible is not the fullness of Revelation, God’s complete Word to man. The person of Jesus Christ is the fullness of Revelation, the totality of God’s Word to man. The Spirit of God which inspired the authors of Scripture is the same Spirit which Christ breathed upon the first leaders of the Church before His Ascension (John 20:22). This Spirit was with the Church then, and it is with her now; this Spirit is what advised the Church when she determined the canon of Scripture.

For a Christian who divorces herself from the Church which the Spirit leads and yet desired a degree of certainty in her faith, Sola Scriptura is the only option and logical conclusion. Yet the doctrine is not in itself logical, as it presupposes the authority of the Church which created and collected scripture.

I hope that does something to answer the question. I find that there are so many ways to refute Sola Scriptura that it’s hard to know where to begin. For more, visit this website. God bless!

witchy/pagan/religious pdf collection

Alright, so tumblr’s not letting me do it, I had to work around some shit… so here’s a link to a link collection to the various .pdf files I’ve found relating to paganism, witchcraft, and folk religion, all uploaded via mediafire for your convenience! The links are monetized with as a way of me being able to make some spare change, so please feel free to reblog.

The list will be updated from time to time, so always check this source post, and notify me if the list URL expires/404s.

Last update: 07/28/2015. Current list URL: Located here.

Also, if you’ve got a .pdf you’d like to contribute to make the list comprehensive, please message me so I can grab it and upload it! Alternatively, if there’s a genre of content you want to see but aren’t seeing, let me know and I’ll scour for it. Thanks!

mommy-told-me-im-beautiful asked:

Can we be feminist AND christian ? Because sometimes when I read what "feminists" post on social networks, I feel like we can't believe in God and believe in social and economical equality of the sexes. [Sorry for my english, I'm from France.]

You can be Christian (or any religion for that matter), but when the Church says/does/teaches something sexist or homophobic, you should speak out against that. 

Religion should be a center of healing and strength, and for many people it is, but others use it to justify very hateful ideas and actions, which is why so many people, myself included, no longer associate or identify with these institutions. 

But there are also plenty of people who find comfort and strength in their religion, and I think that’s a good thing, something I wouldn’t want to deny to anyone. 

Sometimes you have to be strong for yourself. You have to know that you’re a good person and a good friend. What’s meant to be will be and what’s not -won’t. Love is worth fighting for, but sometimes you can’t be the only one fighting. At times people need to fight for you. If they don’t, you just have to move on and realize what you gave them was more than they were willing to give you. Hopefully people realize great things when they come around and not lose something real. Always fight, until you can’t anymore, and then be fought for.
—  Unknown

A new survey from Catholics for Choice on the opinions of Catholic millennials as regards doctrinal issues might make the church’s traditionalists want to brace themselves. But its findings are also somewhat unsurprising to anyone who spends time around younger Catholics, whose political and social leanings mirror the open-minded stances of their increasingly non-religious peers.

Pope Francis is wildly popular among young Catholics, but new research suggests even he can’t keep them in the pews