gojie: history will show us that the profane has always been present in the sacred. it is also true that the sacred has always been present in the profane. and this is especially true in the church. basilicas and cathedrals especially in europe are full of "artistic manifestations" and symbolisms that make direct references especially to the female genitalia and to the sexual act. the symbol of the chalice is a good starting point. even theology speaks of the church as the bride of christ who is the groom. and where is their bedroom where they "consummate" their love? well, it is the eucharist. the altar therefore is the bed where the chalice (remember that it is the symbol of the female genitalia) is laid (remember the expression "get laid?"). and the chalice of course is the receptacle wherein the blood of christ the groom is eventually poured into.
relative to the symbolism of the chalice, do you know that an egyptologist has surmised that the pyramids are actually symbols of the male genitalia and that they were built to announce to the aliens out there that "hey, may mga buto tabi didi!!"
the next time you go to church, try looking for symbols. you'll have fun i'm sure, as creativejet has had real fun in edsa shrine. hehehe.
i am beside myself reading your comment. Nabubuang na kuno ako sabi san mga kaurupod ko sa balay.
I think you should really write a book. It would be a great disservice to mankind if you don't share these highly amusing, deeply irreverent "theological treatises."
kit, i really agree with you "that the profane has always been present in the sacred. it is also true that the sacred has always been present in the profane. and this is especially true in the church"...well, and also very much true with some PRIESTS..hehehehe!
junie: i am sorry for being “irreverent.” i didn’t mean to sound like i despise the church. believe me, i love the church very much and i must say i learned to love her more (notice that because i consider myself man enough, i address the church as “her”) because of these facts.
the church uses a lot of signs and symbols. our faith is explained through them and theology thrives because of them. sacrament for instance is theologically defined as an outward sign. the problem only starts when we begin to understand and trace the history of these symbols.
take for instance another interesting case which is the case of the rite of renewal of water and light during easter. would you believe that this rite is originally a symbol of the sexual act itself? the water symbolizes life or more particularly, the giver of life. the giver of life of course directly alludes to the female genitalia. the candle on the other hand, symbolizes the male organ. notice that during the rite, the candle is dipped into the water. and it is during this rite when new life is born in the church as symbolized by christ’s resurrection. indeed, it is a fact that the church’s teachings on life and new life almost always use the symbolism of the male and female genitalia and the sexual act. very interesting, is it not?
would love to take your challenge, junie. join me in writing a collaborative work. i am sure we can get a lot of fertile ideas from jet. hehehe.
I’ll be the last person to believe that you despise the church.
By irreverent, I didn’t mean, of course, that you despise the church. Just the same, I’m sorry for the unintended connotation.
Allow me to give a little explain, though. Beneath the irreverence, I’m sure, lies a deep respect, love even [as you openly declared], for the church. Irreverence and respect for the same object—the church—would seem to defy logic. But a closer examination would show that these traits can reside in one person without necessarily excluding each other, in much the same way that we can marry the idea of the sacred and that of the profane in religious symbols.
Irreverence aside, I truly get a lot of kick from your theological explanations. And I think I’ll take you up on your offer to do a collaboration if, and only if, we include Dante for the illustrations. Our book-in-the-making will surely need a lot of cave illustrations, given its sacred-profane content. And Dante’s the only one qualified for the job, being the most experienced spelunker in our batch. The only problem is he’s very busy right now, exploring three caves (Is it four, Henri? Or, have we lost count already?) in Albay and Sorsogon.
thanks a lot, junie. you just put into words what many of us could only observe and awfully declare as “nasa durho na san dila ko yan!” sige po, i hope we can start writing soon. dante, i am sure, will provide the best illustrations to those things that have been keeping our “heads” high (shall I say erect?). with his very rich experience in cave explorations, his fresh-from-the-oven fingers will definitely provide masterful strokes in the terrain and every corner of our hitherto unexplored … hmm … subject.
speaking of caves, i must beg to disagree with mr. sigmund freud’s claim that he pioneered sexual projection of phenomena through symbols and/or the sexual interpretation of symbols. the fact is, sexual symbolism has been with us since the beginning of man’s history. remember that the caveman drew symbols in caves. were the symbols he drew never sexual in any way? then why did he draw raging bulls inside the caves? hehe, i am sure dante knows the reason by heart and, well, by his dick (dear dante: my apologies po). the most that mr. freud has introduced therefore is the “freudian approach” in the understanding of our sexuality.
i must agree, however, with tato’s observation about the symbiotic relation between the sacred and the profance as observed among the members of our clergy. not all priests are completely aware of the symbolisms of the rites they perform or they may not always be conscious of the significance of these symbolisms. but imagine a priest who is really aware of the sexual undertones in the rites. hehe, the people may perhaps start to wonder why their minister seems to be singing handel’s messiah seven octaves higher.
makagigirabo man po an insasabi mo. i have two heads po and i must confess that since i left the seminary, i have always been amazed at the things my "other head" can do. but "genius" would be the last word i would use to describe it. believe me, it is more "makulog an ulo" and "may litik."
totep: sorry for the delayed reply po. was out of town for a couple of weeks. niyan lang uli nakabalik sa civilization.
you raised a number of issues that cover wide-ranging topics. i therefore tried to search the net for possible answers and/or hints. after several attempts, i got one very interesting site. please try to visit this site: www.erniebaron.com.
this may also come late but please know that i am very proud of you for qualifying in the ford scholarship programme. you're one in a million. congrats po! galing-galing!
18 comments:
bagan puyit!heheheh
jet,
now i know the reason for the name creativejet.
chapel na chapel inmalisyahan pa niyo.manggirabo man kamo!!!!mangisog c lord! hehehe.
but hey, it rili reminds me of last night. hahahahaha.
gojie: history will show us that the profane has always been present in the sacred. it is also true that the sacred has always been present in the profane. and this is especially true in the church. basilicas and cathedrals especially in europe are full of "artistic manifestations" and symbolisms that make direct references especially to the female genitalia and to the sexual act. the symbol of the chalice is a good starting point. even theology speaks of the church as the bride of christ who is the groom. and where is their bedroom where they "consummate" their love? well, it is the eucharist. the altar therefore is the bed where the chalice (remember that it is the symbol of the female genitalia) is laid (remember the expression "get laid?"). and the chalice of course is the receptacle wherein the blood of christ the groom is eventually poured into.
relative to the symbolism of the chalice, do you know that an egyptologist has surmised that the pyramids are actually symbols of the male genitalia and that they were built to announce to the aliens out there that "hey, may mga buto tabi didi!!"
the next time you go to church, try looking for symbols. you'll have fun i'm sure, as creativejet has had real fun in edsa shrine. hehehe.
kit,
i am beside myself reading your comment. Nabubuang na kuno ako sabi san mga kaurupod ko sa balay.
I think you should really write a book. It would be a great disservice to mankind if you don't share these highly amusing, deeply irreverent "theological treatises."
Thanks, Kit. You made my day!
kit, bilibonon ako san paliwanag mo. hehehe
kit, i really agree with you "that the profane has always been present in the sacred. it is also true that the sacred has always been present in the profane. and this is especially true in the church"...well, and also very much true with some PRIESTS..hehehehe!
jet, you're really creative. you saw something that i didn't.
kit, take heed of junie's suggestion
junie: i am sorry for being “irreverent.” i didn’t mean to sound like i despise the church. believe me, i love the church very much and i must say i learned to love her more (notice that because i consider myself man enough, i address the church as “her”) because of these facts.
the church uses a lot of signs and symbols. our faith is explained through them and theology thrives because of them. sacrament for instance is theologically defined as an outward sign. the problem only starts when we begin to understand and trace the history of these symbols.
take for instance another interesting case which is the case of the rite of renewal of water and light during easter. would you believe that this rite is originally a symbol of the sexual act itself? the water symbolizes life or more particularly, the giver of life. the giver of life of course directly alludes to the female genitalia. the candle on the other hand, symbolizes the male organ. notice that during the rite, the candle is dipped into the water. and it is during this rite when new life is born in the church as symbolized by christ’s resurrection. indeed, it is a fact that the church’s teachings on life and new life almost always use the symbolism of the male and female genitalia and the sexual act. very interesting, is it not?
would love to take your challenge, junie. join me in writing a collaborative work. i am sure we can get a lot of fertile ideas from jet. hehehe.
mhaleeboogeen kau lahhaten batch eighty - SEX !
you beter read my thoeries first. mga manyakeen, when i was born, i brought sexual symbolisms into this world. Heende kau ang original koondee akoo.
Koolang lang kamu sa salsaleen !
Hail Hitler !
SIGMUND FREUD
kit,
I’ll be the last person to believe that you despise the church.
By irreverent, I didn’t mean, of course, that you despise the church. Just the same, I’m sorry for the unintended connotation.
Allow me to give a little explain, though. Beneath the irreverence, I’m sure, lies a deep respect, love even [as you openly declared], for the church. Irreverence and respect for the same object—the church—would seem to defy logic. But a closer examination would show that these traits can reside in one person without necessarily excluding each other, in much the same way that we can marry the idea of the sacred and that of the profane in religious symbols.
Irreverence aside, I truly get a lot of kick from your theological explanations. And I think I’ll take you up on your offer to do a collaboration if, and only if, we include Dante for the illustrations. Our book-in-the-making will surely need a lot of cave illustrations, given its sacred-profane content. And Dante’s the only one qualified for the job, being the most experienced spelunker in our batch. The only problem is he’s very busy right now, exploring three caves (Is it four, Henri? Or, have we lost count already?) in Albay and Sorsogon.
thanks a lot, junie. you just put into words what many of us could only observe and awfully declare as “nasa durho na san dila ko yan!” sige po, i hope we can start writing soon. dante, i am sure, will provide the best illustrations to those things that have been keeping our “heads” high (shall I say erect?). with his very rich experience in cave explorations, his fresh-from-the-oven fingers will definitely provide masterful strokes in the terrain and every corner of our hitherto unexplored … hmm … subject.
speaking of caves, i must beg to disagree with mr. sigmund freud’s claim that he pioneered sexual projection of phenomena through symbols and/or the sexual interpretation of symbols. the fact is, sexual symbolism has been with us since the beginning of man’s history. remember that the caveman drew symbols in caves. were the symbols he drew never sexual in any way? then why did he draw raging bulls inside the caves? hehe, i am sure dante knows the reason by heart and, well, by his dick (dear dante: my apologies po). the most that mr. freud has introduced therefore is the “freudian approach” in the understanding of our sexuality.
i must agree, however, with tato’s observation about the symbiotic relation between the sacred and the profance as observed among the members of our clergy. not all priests are completely aware of the symbolisms of the rites they perform or they may not always be conscious of the significance of these symbolisms. but imagine a priest who is really aware of the sexual undertones in the rites. hehe, the people may perhaps start to wonder why their minister seems to be singing handel’s messiah seven octaves higher.
kit,
you're a genius.
that book must be out of the press at the soonest time possible before someone gets to steal your brilliant ideas.
Mabuhay ka!
junie:
makagigirabo man po an insasabi mo. i have two heads po and i must confess that since i left the seminary, i have always been amazed at the things my "other head" can do. but "genius" would be the last word i would use to describe it. believe me, it is more "makulog an ulo" and "may litik."
Kit, i'm just wondering..are you a clone of Dan Brown?..hehehe...pwede man ako mag tinda if ever your book will be published soon?
kit, please enlighten me on these :
1. GOD d Papa's very first creation is light, isnt it ? But why do most humans prefer to procreate in darkness ?
2. What's the sexual symbolism of light and darkness ?
3. Why did GOD created Eve from Adam's rib ? Any interaction of the sacred and the profane here ?
4. Why males have two balls, women with two breasts ? Any dichotomy of the sacred and the profane here ?
Sorry for my curiousity and ignorance, professor...
totep: sorry for the delayed reply po. was out of town for a couple of weeks. niyan lang uli nakabalik sa civilization.
you raised a number of issues that cover wide-ranging topics. i therefore tried to search the net for possible answers and/or hints. after several attempts, i got one very interesting site. please try to visit this site: www.erniebaron.com.
this may also come late but please know that i am very proud of you for qualifying in the ford scholarship programme. you're one in a million. congrats po! galing-galing!
Post a Comment