I'm still recovering from the heartbreaking impact of Kim Soo-hyun/Claudia Kim's Helen Cho.

It's been just over a week since I first saw Avengers: Age of Ultron. Oh, you haven't seen it yet? Then leave. Leave! And don't come back here before you've seen it! Or, you know, read on, if you don't mind spoilers. SPOILERS!

I'm going to say this first: I liked it, it was fun. It's true for nearly all of the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise, and it would probably still hold true for a few years more. Sure there were flaws, but I'm not going to write about them here. I don't want to ruin the movie for you, in case you didn't notice them. But, enjoyable as it was, there was one thing in particular that... bugged me.

If you've been watching the end credits of those movies, you might notice the words "[The guy(s) this movie was about] will return." Back then, when it first appeared in Iron Man (I think), it was exciting as heck. Robert Downey Jr. just pretty perfectly played Tony Stark/Iron Man, and they just made GUI awesome again, and we were (okay, I was) just asking for more of that, so the one-line teaser was, honestly, squeal-inducing. But nowadays, lines like that have quite the opposite effect.

Why? Because, while I'm certainly happy with the fact that comic book superheroes get to be in movies, it reminds me of the least enjoyable thing about mainstream American comics, which has been a pretty big barrier for me: they never friggin' end. No. Not even with the death of a major character. Especially not with the death of a major character. And then there are so many reboots and re-imaginings and everything is so confusing. So I was pretty bummed when I realised that, yes, I had been hooked into a movie franchise that might not have a definite end, or even middle.

Fortunately, a solution presented itself almost immediately. A solution which I just realised, one that has been around for quite a while, at least for avid comic book fans (which I'm not, to be honest, at least for the superhero comics), and one that is referred to quite often in the movie itself.

Gods.

Yes. I don't know about you, but I noticed loads of references to gods and religious stuff in AoU. The most obvious one was of course Thor, an actual god from the Norse pantheon. But there are others. Like the beginning of the end credits, which featured a marble sculpture depicting these heroes in battle, just like those classic statues. There was Laura's statement, referring to the enhanced Avengers as "gods." Earlier in the movie, there was the Quinjet's dashboard sticker, saying "Jarvis is my co-pilot," which I think is a reference to Jesus (and the religiousniks who have that kind of stickers). Speaking of Jarvis, there was that one line he said about his being "without form," that reminded me of Genesis. The main villain, Ultron, also had religious undertones: his main base was a church, he called Cap "God's righteous man," albeit mockingly, and he made references to Noah and St. Peter. And lastly, the most significant one for me, when my favorite character in the movie: Vision, said, "I am... I AM."

As I said, this is not new. In comics, there have been many instances where superheroes are called gods (my favorite is DC's Kingdom Come). And even when we talk about the official version of any form of entertainment franchise (say, Star Wars?), what word do we use? Is it not "canon?"

All of these reminded me that these characters are bigger than any one medium. They may have begun in a comic book page, but we can no longer call them comic book characters. So we call them what they are: heroes. But here's the thing: we want our heroes to be gods, and we want our gods to be heroic. That's just natural. Well, so be it. These characters, these heroes, having transcended their starting mediums, also transcend their beginnings, undergoing apotheosis, and are elevated as gods. Thor's just the oldest one in the Avengers. He might even have similar beginnings: a superhero whose stories people tell in order to inspire greatness. Maybe other gods started that way as well, only they had more time to solidify than the more recent gods who, with today's information technology, have shorter and shorter gestation period.

So, with that, I regained my peace of mind. I used to worry that putting Thor with mortals might constitute a religious insult, but I see now that it wasn't the case. They are all gods, new gods from the Avengers pantheon, if you want. Gods are not to be fought over (or for), gods are to be marveled at. Only time will tell which of them shall survive to be in the new pantheons, and I'm not going to worry which version is "true."

Because that's basically religious fundamentalism, right?

Just some observations and speculations.

Yesterday (Sunday, October 19th, 2014 AD) I went to church.

That would by itself be strange enough already, but there's something more. The church was a Catholic one. A cathedral, in fact. (FYI, I was raised in a Protestant environment. Hence, the strangeness.)

In the past I have, at times, been asked by my non-Christian friends about the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant. As with most questions worth answering, I can't answer it satisfactorily in a sentence. Why? Because I myself am still not sure about all the differences, despite having experienced both settings in my life.

Here's the answer most obvious to me: upon beginning and ending a prayer, Catholics tend to cross themselves (that is, they sequentially, with their hand, touch their forehead, then chest (heart?), then shoulders, one at a time), while Protestants do not usually do so. A superficial difference, I know, but then again, if you look deep enough, all differences are superficial, in a way.

There is, however, another thing which has been on my mind since I was in elementary school: the significance of Mary, Jesus' mom. The Catholic Church seems to put her in a very high place. I was reminded yesterday that in the Catholic world, Baby Jesus, not yet walking and therefore held by Mary, is portrayed in statues and images nearly as often as Beardy Jesus. Not so in the Protestant setting, as far as I observe.

Same goes with the saints. The word 'saint' in everyday Protestantism is nearly meaningless. We just call them by their names. Peter, Paul, Mary, John, and so on. Just ordinary people. Good and great people maybe, sure, but still simply human, just like us. Different with the Catholics, where the saints seem to hold some sort of offices or roles (which I'm not really sure) in the heavenly hierarchy.

Hmm.

I guess, for me, the general feeling I get from these observations is that the Catholics are more earthy, while the Protestants are more God-oriented. This does not mean that Catholicism is more atheistic than Protestantism, no. I mean that Protestantism seems more democratic, while Catholicism more monarchical. That might seem to contradict the first sentence of this paragraph, but bear with me for a while longer.

A monarchy is complex. It is not a state of affairs spontaneously generated. It is a product of civilization. A lot of people seem to view it as a simple top-down arrangement of power from one person to many. Top-down? Maybe. One to many? Sure. Simple? NO. In a monarchy, there is not only the king and the peasants, there are advisors, guards, knights, ministers, even fools and minstrels. A monarchy depends on the specialization of work. The people in a monarchy realize - and perhaps accept - that they have limited power individually, and they have to delegate - meaning trust - some work to other, more able people.

So, when I say that Catholicism is both earthy and monarchical, I do not mean that Catholics don't believe in a heavenly Father. It's just that the Catholics seem to have retained the rich cultural and traditional mindset of humbleness that feels quite pagan in nature. I like to imagine that it is this mindset that gave rise to the mythical gods and spirits in stories. Still monotheistic, but the Supreme God is just that, supreme, and lesser humans sometimes need greater intermediaries such as saints to commune with Him. Hence the emphasized role of Mary, as an example of the ultimate human surrender to God.

A democracy, on the other hand, is based on the belief that authority should be held by the populace, the masses; that the people should be allowed to decide their own goal and pursue it. Because it came later in history (at least in a formalized appearance), this might seem advanced, but the core ideas are very simple: I want, I am allowed to want, and I am allowed to do and/or have. The formalization process only consists of applying the simple principles already present in every brained animal (at least, as far as we know) to the plural setting, creating (almost as an afterthought) the clause, "as long as I do not impose on others." The rest are just logical consequences.

Thus the Protestants, being in nature more democratic, and for the first time in history empowered enough to exercise their belief (maybe because of the scientific advances that led to, among other things, the printing press and the industrial revolution), boldly did away with the complex bureaucracy of the Catholics and viewed themselves as able to righteously stand before God with no need for middlemen. Which is why the focus in their church is on Jesus, and Jesus alone, making the other characters, including Mary, simply secondary.

Well, maybe. Speculations, you know.

- Inspired by The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong and Miracles by C.S. Lewis-

Why I Am Not *Really* Religious

Because I fucking hate being made to get up in the morning. On Sundays, no less.





Just in case someone's wondering.

Ogres Have Layers. Like Onions and Cakes.

Allegiance is a strange thing.

Nowadays, in this cynical reality we live in, it is perhaps more common to think that allegiance, or loyalty, is a frail, fragile, and fickle thing. Switching sides as we deem profitable. Changing our opinions as soon as we find a problem with it. Betraying those we once cared deeply about, be they people or principles, at the merest whisper of a whim. That is, possibly, the facts of the world we inhabit.

But some things suggest to me otherwise.

Once, I attended Sunday service with my family. I cannot currently remember exactly what got me into willingly go to church then, but it does not really matter right now. What matters is what the pastor said during the sermon. This I also cannot completely recall (it was quite a while ago, this incident I am relating here), but he made a joke about people really not needing to bathe very often. Then I looked to my mother and flashed a triumphant grin that clearly said, "Aha!"

See, as a younger child, I used to try to avoid washing myself whenever I can. During the school holidays, once, I managed to not have a shower for 5 days. (That got me into quite a mess. And trouble in the form of the wrath of the father.) Now, I shower daily. Honest. Really. At least once a day. So I think it is safe to say that I am no longer that somewhat hydrophobic child who measures success by the thickness of the protective layer of grunge that accumulates on his skin.

However, despite being no longer able to justifiably call myself as a Lost Boy who has no use for soap, I found myself nearly automatically cheering as the pastor suggested that, maybe, showering is really not that important after all.

You see? Despite having no outward appearance of it, I still view myself, subconsciously perhaps, as that Lost Boy. I swore allegiance to them, once, long ago, before I even knew what the word 'allegiance' meant. And that loyalty was not easily scrubbed away. Even after joining society in the habit of washing myself daily, deep down I was, and still am, a Lost Boy.

And I think this allegiance thing is also present in other aspects of my - maybe our- existence.

I may have started going to church regularly lately - and it was good, in every sense of the word - but I still grin mischievously as I discover or decide, the way I did this morning, that I am not going to church this day. Underneath the coat of Christianity that I show to the world (at times), I still wear the shirt of agnosticism and apathy of religion that induces me to smile whenever I get the chance to criticize the religious folk.

But maybe, just maybe, beneath that shirt of irreligion still breathes a person who once, in his early days, swore allegiance to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Happy Sunday.

Not explicitly about anal sex.

Alright, I'd like to raise a subject that is rather explosive. Of course, I like to think that a lot of my writing are, but sadly that is not the case. But this one is, I think. So what I'm going to do is put some asterisks down, and you can decide not to read the bits after them if you think you are easily offended. And if you do, please read it all the way. You'd be better of not reading this at all than half-ass it. Alright? Alright.

*******

That's seven asterisks. Strange, I don't think that's enough. Here's more.

**********

That's ten. Ah heck, I'l put them down vertically. More efficient that way. Scroll down if you still want to read.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Here goes. Just one more and I'll start.

*

Islam! And anal sex!

No, just kidding. I don't have much experience about it, so I'll lay off the anal sex part.

Granted, I'm not well-versed about Islam, either. I'm not a Muslim, I was not raised in an Islamic household, I have not read the Quran (I tried, though, but the translation was terribly convoluted for me), nor have I had Islamic education. Most of my friends are Muslim, but I'm still not entirely sure what Islam is all about. All I know is that the word itself means 'surrender' or 'submission,' I think, the way the word samurai actually means 'to serve,' but in relation to God (Allah) instead of man.

So of course I have questions. And opinions. And rants. Mostly rants.

First off, I read that Islam is not a new religion. Some say that Muhammad was not an innovator in that sense, he only brought back the original primordial natural religion of Allah's. They say that there is only one true religion (Islam), and the other religions (the other Abrahamic religions, that is) are all aberrations and distortions from the one true religion which has existed since Adam's time. Really? I mean, let's examine that a bit closer. Let's have a look at the five pillars of Islam that every Muslim is required to live by.

Number one. The syahadat or the Creed. Basically it's about admitting that Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is His prophet. Now, obviously this comes into existence only after Muhammad's establishment as a prophet, right? Imagine if it was revealed before people know of Muhammad's existence. Maybe another Muhammad, a boy from the next village, got really excited and thought "Hey, I'm Allah's prophet!" but got disappointed after people decided that he's not the Muhammad, he's just another Muhammad like a lot of dudes out there now. To me, this is clearly an innovation and not one of the original values of the original religion.

Second. The five daily prayers, or the shalat. I know about the concept of prayers. You try to talk to God, come to Him with your problems, and your gratitude, and He almost never even says "Hi" back straight to your face. I get that. It's not implausible that prayers existed thousands of years ago. Even if it consists of bending over and kneeling while facing in the direction of a certain Cube in a special city in a particular desert. The ancient people were probably way more savvy about navigation and orienteering than common people nowadays. No problem.

Three. Alms-giving, or zakat. This too I have no problem with. Selfless redistribution of wealth probably was the norm in the past, and the emphasis on the obligation to do so was only made important after the rise of capitalism and individualism. Maybe. Whatever. Again, it's not implausible.

Number four. Fasting during the month of Ramadan. I'm curious about whether Abraham and Moses and Jesus fasted during Ramadan. Not least because most Christians and Jews seem to think that they were Jewish and had different names for the months. Maybe they happened to know Ramadan with a different name. I don't know. And I don't know whether they fast during that month. But fasting was nothing new, I think, there's mention of it in the Bible and the Torah.

Five. The pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca. Muslims claim this tradition was established by Abraham, I think? I don't know much about it. It involves walking around the Kaaba, sure. I don't know much else. And I don't know how old the Kaaba is, either. And some accounts say that Abraham lived in Canaan, not Mecca. The point is, I'm not sure what to think about this one. But I'm pretty convinced that this rule was designed for people living around the Arabian peninsula at the time, instead of the people living in, say, England or Philippines or Japan or Greenland. So if it was an old tradition, it kind of makes sense. Maybe it used to be more significant, more like a quest or an adventure with pilgrims living up to their name by virtue of facing risks of death while crossing the desert, whether by thirst or starvation or being eaten by a Krayt Dragon.

Hmm. I'm more confused now than when I started. I had wanted to compare what the various scriptures say about these pillars, but I keep reading about how a lot of Muslims believe that the scriptures before the Quran had been corrupted, creating the aforementioned aberrations, hence the need for a new scripture, which Muslims have kept pure and pristine by using only human memory and word of mouth which are so reliable instead of written words which are easily edited and manipulated. Makes a lot of my thinking moot. Bollocks.

Well, that's all I know about the pillars of Islam. Oh, or maybe it's not really the core issues of Islam? Perhaps these are just the outwardly manifestations of the correct attitude and belief according to Islam? Maybe. I don't know. Fuck.

***

Another thing. Recently I read a lot of articles and pieces of writing and, yes, Tweets (shut up) about how secularism is a great enemy of Islam, how Islam is a complete way of life which is perfect in every way. I've even heard a song, clearly aimed at children, stating that "Islam is a way of life, a complete way."

That sort of thinking apparently made some people think that they are allowed to act like douchebags. "It's not just a religion, it's a way of life that should permeate our every action, our every thought. Not bringing Islam into politics, or indeed any part of our life, is a mistake." Bugger that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the integration of the spiritual and the pragmatical sides of life. I love how a lot of kung fu masters are depicted as great spiritual people who kick ass constantly. I like reading de Mello. Yay holism.

What I don't like is the holier-than-thou attitude. Thinking that your way of life is right all the time.

Here's an example. It seems that currently there are groups that want to make this country (Indonesia) an Islamic nation. They justify it by the claim above, about the perfect, holistic nature of Islam. It's stupid. Instead of explaining what they want, what their ideas are about how to run a country, instead of having rational discussions about what are going to be allowed or not if this country becomes Islamic, they went to "Our way is best. It's perfect." Some of them even badmouth other religions. No wonder there is resistance.

I'm not saying that this country is fine in its current state. It's clearly not. But the point is, I'm not sure that the Islamic way is any better. From what I can gather, it is absolutist. It claims to be God's will. It claims that if we only stick to this particular set of rules, everything will be fine and dandy. I seriously doubt that. Sure, Islam might, let me repeat that, MIGHT be perfect. But Muslims aren't. And if we base our society on something that is claimed to be perfect, while having said society run by imperfections, it's just a matter of time before it becomes distorted and corrupted.

***

That's it. Thanks for sticking with me right up until now. I really appreciate it. I'll confess something. Nearly all my opinions on Islam are based on recent knowledge. And I think a lot of said knowledge comes from bad Muslims. But somehow, I believe that there is good in Islam. I think that the distortion and corruption of Islam has already happened. I'm not sure that the people who are talking about it fully understand it. Just like me. It's very probable that I have been wrong all this time. So, here's the thing. I don't want to have negative opinions about something simply because I only hear about it from bad sources. So please, if you have something good to tell me about Islam, I'd be very happy to know about it. Please. Leave a comment. Tweet me. Text me. Call me. Any way you can reach me.

I don't like hating things, and I'm really close to hating Islam. Please don't let me.

Thank you.

Holiday Observation

Yes! Today happens to be a celebration (?) for Muslims the world over. Well if not a celebration, at least a holiday. A religious one. One in which we commemorate and emulate (?) the actions of Abraham and his son, either Isaac or Ishmael, whichever one you prefer. It's called Eid ul-Adha? Eid al-Adha? Idul Adha? Again, you choose.

It's very interesting, you know, we turn slaughter and bloodshed into a religious festival that survives to this day and age. Not only Muslims, mind, Jews do it too, I think. Or at least they used to do it. Christians do it too, at Easter, only they substitute a man in place of the multitude of animals. And they don't kill a man every Good Friday, they only remember the event. But the point still stands, blood is still the currency for salvation.

But it hasn't always been like that, right? It could have been otherwise. I mean, imagine a world where once or twice a year we gather at mosques or churches or synagogues or any other type of shrine, and instead of purchasing (at not so cheap a price) and subsequently killing thousands of innocent and kosher/halal animals and shedding all their blood in one bloody day, we just have an enormous ORGY? Sumerian-style, maybe?

I mean, it doesn't even have to be communal adultery or fornication, just... A LOT of married couples having sex side by side, right?

Fun!

Oh, and a happy birthday to my cousin, age 14, who won't (and shouldn't) be reading this anyway.

* If you are religious and you feel offended by this, or are nonreligious but feel offended anyway, well, it was not my intention to insult you. So I suppose it is excusable. But for good measure, I'll apologize as well. Sorry.