Epiphany: One of us

If you look at the calendar for the coming week you'll see this word written in on Thursday: "Epiphany."

That seems strange. Epiphanies don't seem like the sort of thing one can schedule ahead of time and plan for like that.

"Good meeting, Jim, let's meet again tomorrow to finish up."

"Fine, just let me check my … Oh, no, sorry. Thursday's no good. I've got an epiphany Thursday."

"Hmm, well how about Friday?"

"Depends, Bob. Have to see what this epiphany's all about. If I'm to have some kind of sudden revelatory insight tomorrow I could be tied up all week. Who knows? The epiphany might even be that this whole project is headed in the wrong direction …"

"Either way, we'll have to meet."

"Right. Tell you what, I'll have my secretary call your office after the big break-through and we'll set something up."

That's not exactly the kind of epiphany we Christians celebrate on January 6. The two things are related, the two uses of that word, but the feast day marks a slower, more gradual kind of epiphany. It's a revelation that takes time to unfold.

For an illustration of what we Christians celebrate on Epiphany, think of the movie Freaky Friday. Either one will do — the original with Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris or the remake with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis. Neither is really a great movie, but they're both memorable and entertaining. The story is one we seem to like a lot, since we retell it with slight variations every couple of years in movie after movie. In Freaky Friday, a mother and daughter switch places — switch bodies, actually. How this happens isn't really the point. The story isn't about the dynamics of body-switching, it's about the empathy and understanding that come from inhabiting another person's life. That understanding is a kind of epiphany, but it doesn't come instantaneously. Barbara Harris' first thought is not "Ah, so now at last I understand my teenage daughter," but rather, "Good grief, what am I doing here?"

Gradually, though, that understanding is revealed. It takes time to unfold, just as the Epiphany we Christians celebrate around January 6 took time to fully reveal itself, not just in a single night but over the course of 33 years or so. The incomprehensible was made into something we could grasp, something like us that we could understand.

That's what's going on in the Christmas story, in all those creches and mangers on the mantle. It's a response, a resolution, to the impasse at the end of the book of Job.

If you've ever read Job, you're familiar with the frustrating ending of that story. Not the tacked-on happy ending spelled out by the Greek-chorus narrator in the epilogue, but the actual ending to the story's central argument.

"Life seems pretty unfair and bewildering to us humans," Job says.

"Well," God replies, "you're just going to have to trust me."

"But you don't understand what it's like to be us," Job says. "You don't understand how all this looks from our point of view."

"Yeah, well, you don't understand how it looks from my point of view, either," God says. "One of us loosed the cords of Orion and laid the foundation of the earth and the last time I checked, it wasn't you. So just trust me, OK? I've got this."

And that's the end of the conversation. Nobody wins the argument and nobody loses. It just kind of stops. An impasse.

Epiphany breaks through that impasse. The mutual incomprehension gets resolved through incarnation. In the words of the Hooters, "What if God was one of us?"

God's point back in Job is well-taken. The creator of ostriches and sea monsters and the horsehead nebula is simply beyond us, beyond our ability to grasp or apprehend. But a person — a human being just like us — that we can understand and relate to and comprehend. Maybe we'll never be able to understand everything there is to know about God, but maybe we could be shown everything we need to know.

But also — and here's a wonderful part of the story we too often forget — the epiphany that unfolds from this freaky incarnation works both ways. If the person and the life of Jesus Christ taught us humans everything we need to know about God, that life also taught God what it is like to be one of us.

Some Christians balk at this notion of God learning. An almighty and omniscient being, they say, doesn't need to learn. But this is part of the story. The story tells us this happened too.

"Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house," the messenger tells Job. "And suddenly a great wind came across the desert, struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; I alone have escaped to tell you."

When Job learned that his children had died, he wept. But God did not weep.

Jesus wept.

That's famously the shortest verse in the Bible, but there's an awful lot packed into those two words. Jesus loved to visit his dear friends Mary and Martha in the house of the poor, where he'd play with their kid brother, delighting him by doing something Jesus almost never did. As a rule, Jesus didn't give names to the characters in his stories. His parables told of "a certain shepherd," or "a Samaritan," or "two brothers," but they didn't have names. Yet in one story, Jesus decided to give one character — the hero of the story — a name.

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man," Jesus said, beginning another story for another huge crowd. Then he looked over at the kid brother with a twinkle in his eye, "And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus."

How cool would that be for a kid?

But then Lazarus got sick and then, like Job's children, Lazarus died. And when Jesus saw Lazarus' sisters weeping, "he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved." And then God Almighty — God who laid the foundation of the earth, who determined its measurements when the morning stars sang together, God who commands the morning and causes the dawn to know its place, God who bound the chains of the Pleiades and loosed the cords of Orion — wept.

That's an epiphany. That's the Epiphany we celebrate on Thursday.

Anyway, a belated Happy New Year to one and all. May your year be filled with epiphanies large and small, and may all your Fridays be freaky.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Hearts Club Band

    It’s a symbol. But it’s not “just” a symbol. It’s far too real to have a “just” anywhere near it.

    My thoughts exactly.

  • Jenny Islander

    Re cooking with root beer: With a really good old-fashioned root beer, that might be tasty. I made green bean casserole from scratch without any alcohol in the house, so for the white wine in the bechamel sauce I used good ginger ale and for the sherry I used cider vinegar. Green beans like ginger and cider vinegar a lot. Yum.

  • Amaryllis

    Yay to everybody with good news. It’s wonderful to hear.
    I don’t have any myself, although nothing very bad has happened either; looks the the beginning of another “annus tepidus, all right (with nod to hapax).

    Warning: poetry alert.
    For Deird and Sgt Pepper, and hapax, this is Seamus Heaney’s paraphrase of St. John of the Cross:
    ‘Read poems as prayers,’ he said, ‘and for your penance
    translate me something by Juan de la Cruz.’
    How well I know that fountain, filling, running,
    although it is the night.
    That eternal fountain, hidden away,
    I know its haven and its secrecy
    although it is the night.
    But not its source because it does not have one,
    which is all sources’ source and origin
    although it is the night.
    No other thing can be so beautiful,
    Here the earth and heaven drink their fill
    although it is the night.
    So pellucid it can never be muddied,
    and I know that all light radiates from it
    although it is the night.
    I know no sounding line can find its bottom,
    nobody ford or plumb its deepest fathom
    although it is the night
    And its current so in flood it overspills
    to water hell and heaven and all peoples
    although it is the night.
    And the current that is generated there,
    as far as it wills to, it can flow that far
    although it is the night.
    And from these two a third current proceeds
    which neither of these two, I know, precedes
    although it is the night.
    This eternal fountain hides and splashes
    within this living bread that is life to us
    although it is the night.
    Hear it calling out to every creature.
    And they drink these waters, although it is dark here
    because it is the night.
    I am repining for this living fountain.
    Within this bread of life I see it plain
    although it is the night.
    -from “Station Island”

  • Amaryllis

    Oh, and as for horrifying recipes, I just came across the instructions on how to brew scrumpy. Ewww.
    Green beans with vinegar and ginger, though, sound excellent.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p01157019a35f970b Rowen

    Dr. Pepper marinades have become popular enough that someone started marketing their own. My Southern Belle’s primer also swears by Co-Cola gravy (as well as broccli, Velveeta and rice cassarole. . .)

  • Katie

    Karen: I think that what you’re missing is that in Islam, part of God’s perfection is boundless mercy and compassion. Its impossible to say ‘All Muslims believe X’, but in general, the belief is that God understands humans, and loves us with a boundless mercy that is very like the kind of epiphany that Fred talks about in this essay, except that God didn’t *need* to be born has a human to gain it, it is something that God always had. There is a verse in the Qu’ran that says that God is closer to you than your own jungular vein, and in the more mystical strains of Islam, this has been understood to mean that God permeates every part of God’s creation.

  • Jenny Islander

    Re the G.B. casserole from scratch: Here is the recipe in paraphrase.
    Use frozen cut green beans. First chop some mushrooms and fry them in butter in a saucepan. Then make a roux in the same pan, leaving in the mushrooms, and finally make a bechamel out of the roux, again, leaving in the mushrooms. Use white wine or ginger ale for part of the liquid in the bechamel and add a pinch or two of nutmeg, which goes well with mushrooms. Cook until the sauce has reduced slightly. Season generously with salt and pepper and add a spoonful of sherry or cider vinegar. The mushroom sauce should be very highly seasoned. If you can’t stand mushrooms, you can probably leave them out.
    Meanwhile, pour the still-frozen beans into a mixing bowl and toss with a little cornstarch. Pour in the sauce and toss again. Pour the casserole mixture into a shallow baking dish and bake until bubbly. Add topping of choice and bake a few minutes more, until nicely browned. I couldn’t use French fried onions because I couldn’t find a soy free version. I wanted to use fried slivered garlic, which my SIL had used for a topping one year–delicious!–but I ran out of time, so I had to use crushed potato chips. They were just fine.

  • Hashmir

    I don’t know how to post images like Raj, so imagine a picture of a cat or dog with a funny look on his face and a caption that says “not sure if want” or something.

    If I may be so bold, might I suggest a personal favorite of mine?

  • http://profile.typepad.com/allandrel Patrick J McGraw

    Yay Lunch Meat!
    It’s not official yet, but it looks pretty certain that the Social Security Board will extend my disability benefits another year because my post-transplant health has impacted my ability to get ability to get a job. So I probably won’t have to take a job that puts me at risk of life-threatening infections, but can hold off until I get one that won’t kill me!
    Okay, that probably sounded less-cheerful than I actually feel about it.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/ministerformagic Pius Thicknesse

    @Patrick J McGraw:
    Still, good news that you will have this reprieve. *thumbs up*

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    while ( GoodNews->Report() == TRUE )
    { echo “Congratulations! and Yay!”; }

  • http://profile.typepad.com/ministerformagic Pius Thicknesse

    @Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little:
    The inner geek in me wishes to give you an Internets. :)

  • ajay

    What happens when the spambot is well enough designed to make clever, on topic remarks?
    And given the average (non-slacktivite) level of posting on the internet, would that even require intelligence?

    What happens then?
    MISSION.
    ACCOMPLISHED.
    http://xkcd.com/810/

  • Wednesday

    Congratulations, Lunch Meat!

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    As I understand it, what Catholics are required to believe is that Christ is “really present” in the communion bread and wine, not simply symbolically present. Transubstantiation, as such, is only one theory about *how* this can be true. AFAIK no one is required to believe that transubstantiation is the correct theory, only that the real presence is true.

    It’s more complicated than that, largely because Catholocism is old enough that the meaning of the word “symbol” has changed. (Summoning up ten-year-old-theology-classes). Our modern parlance tends to use the word “symbol” to mean something more like “sign” — something which indicates the subject, rather than its older usage, as something which stands in the place of the subject. To an ancient, a symbol isn’t “just” a symbol. The symbol becomes the thing it represents in specifically the way relevant to the context in which the symbol is used. The statue of Zeus that you pray to is not the literal physical dude who lives on the top of Olympus and pitches thunderbolts, but it really is Zeus in-the-sense-of “the Zeus who hears your prayers”. When you burn someone in effigy, you’re not just making a threat “this is what we want to do to the real you”, you’re actually carrying out the threat: the effigy becomes the person you want to burn in-the-sense-of the victim of your burning. The goat you send out into the wilderness actually becomes the embodiment of all the sins you want purged.
    This is all part of that thing we’ve brushed on before about how, to a pre-modern, “true” didn’t actually mean “a literal representation of the details of physical reality”
    (Incidentally, this is one of those things you need to “get” if you want to understand why some people get so worked up about flag burning. Though I’m not sure I actually care why they get so worked up about flag burning, but it might be useful to know it)

    It’s a symbol. But it’s not “just” a symbol. It’s far too real to have a “just” anywhere near it.

    Or that, yeah.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/mmy mmy_whose ‘to read’ list keeps getting longer

    Really late again in my responses. I am down to one computer right now (which doesn’t sound like a horror, but it is the old slow one I normally use only to record makes surfing the net not something to be done only when one is very, very patient.)
    @Michaelborg (sorry, I am sure the spelling is wrong). Best wishes.
    @Lunch Meat: Whoot! Hope this signals better things to come.
    @MercuryBlue: (Hate sunburns. Hate sunscreen. Have exceedingly pale skin with high tendency to burn in sunlight.)(oh my god I’m a vampire.)
    Sing it long lost sibling. The burns I get from prolonged sun exposure look exactly like the ones one would get from acid. They blister and ooze and medical professionals have been known to disbelieve my statement that they came from simple exposure to the sun and start asking questions about toxic vegetation.
    During the summer when I commuted I would get these burns down the left side of my face and on my left arm. They also get infected really easily, itch like the devil and scab/scar easily.
    My dad is, also, apparently a vampire since the same thing happens to him. Of course he also had flaming red hair and though a passionate golfer never managed to get a tan — his freckles just grew so large it was hard to see the pale white skin between them.

  • patter

    @Amaryllis — lovely! Thank you.
    This one blew me away, too:
    did you wonder why
    you got into this body business
    swapping everywhere in general
    for somewhere in particular
    flesh is limited, cumbersome,
    awkward
    can’t be in more than one place or time
    did you feel trapped in that frame
    resent the restrictions of the corporeal
    when you were incarnate
    could you recall being outcarnate

  • Coleslaw

    During the summer when I commuted I would get these burns down the left side of my face and on my left arm. They also get infected really easily, itch like the devil and scab/scar easily.

    That kind of extreme sun-sensitivity is one of the symptoms of porphyria, but it also has other symptoms that would be hard to miss.

  • MarkBob

    Great post. Two thoughts come to me:
    1) a bit of Greek philosophy, where the Gods experienced human emotions (love, anger, joy) but never death. Christianity brought the story of a God who became man, and in the process understands and relates to our existence much better than the existing gentile deities.
    2) Knowledge (omniscience) is not experience. For example, I can know about red/green color-blindness, but unless I am red/green colorblind, I cannot see/experience the world as a person that is red/green colorblind experiences the world.

  • ajay

    a bit of Greek philosophy, where the Gods experienced human emotions (love, anger, joy) but never death.
    Did the Greek Gods really not experience death? I thought Uranus and Cronos died. Also, Metis (who was a titan and thus a goddess) got turned into a fly and eaten, which I would think would be fatal.

  • Lonespark

    Isn’t Dionysis supposed to die so he can be reborn?
    Ok, now I official miss MadGastronomer. I find it difficult to have a discussion of mythology without her. Also, what happened to Spearmint? And redcrow?

  • Darth Ember

    @MercuryBlue and mmy
    I too tend to joke that vampires are the only creatures with a shorter burn-time than me. I can be lobster-red inside of five minutes if I’m not careful. What I get for being a really pale-skinned redhead…
    (I have really sun-sensitive eyes, too, which sucks. I have to wear sunglasses outside or the sun going in my eyes really hurts, even at times other people seem fine with the level of brightness.)

  • Lonespark

    (I have really sun-sensitive eyes, too, which sucks. I have to wear sunglasses outside or the sun going in my eyes really hurts, even at times other people seem fine with the level of brightness.)
    My family has this. Doctors have told us we are at high risk for macular degeneration and had damn well better wear our sunglasses.

  • ajay

    Ok, now I official miss MadGastronomer. I find it difficult to have a discussion of mythology without her.
    Well, she’d probably just be leaping in about now to tell us we were all WRONG and IDIOTS and our views about her religion were OFFENSIVE. Only with more naughty words. So: not really missing that too much.

  • http://newscum.wordpress.com CaryB

    Well, she’d probably just be leaping in about now to tell us we were all WRONG and IDIOTS and our views about her religion were OFFENSIVE. Only with more naughty words. So: not really missing that too much.
    No she wouldn’t. Don’t be an ass. If there was one thing she was very good at it was explaining her religion.

  • Lonespark

    Fuck you ajay.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/jpc101280 Jason

    @ajay-
    That was uncalled for.

  • Darth Ember

    @Lonespark
    Well, hell, that’s something I hadn’t considered. That’s rather worrying, but thanks, regardless of the worry it causes, because it means I now have impetus to consult a doctor to see if the same holds true in my case.
    I have nightmares of going blind; it’s one of my really big fears, so I’d really rather not take chances.

  • ajay

    If there was one thing she was very good at it was explaining her religion.
    Yes, that’s true. She was also very aggressive – incredibly, unpleasantly so – whenever she thought (generally wrongly) that anyone was deliberately describing it wrongly and/or belittling it. The quiet explanation of where the other person might be going wrong? Not usually. She was, generally, hypersensitive to perceived insult on a lot of topics, and highly aggressive. I didn’t much enjoy reading most of her comments, even when I agreed with her general position (which was most of the time).

  • http://redsixwing.dreamwidth.org Sixwing

    ajay: STOP. We don’t need another flamewar, and throwing stones behind someone’s back is petty, obnoxious behavior.
    Re: Dionysus, Wikipedia has some fun stuff, though I can’t speak as to how that works with modern worshippers.

  • http://fiadhiglas.wordpress.com Laima

    Did something happen to MadGastronomer while I was gone?

  • http://redsixwing.dreamwidth.org Sixwing

    Laima, there was a flamewar, and MG is taking a break, maybe permanently.

  • Andrew Glasgow

    Shorter Ajay: Dude, it’s awesome that that doofus MG isn’t here. Isn’t she a dork? [Response: "Uh, cut it out, stop talking about her behind her back, and she's not a doofus."] But she’s suuuuch a dork! Why can’t I talk about that? It’s the truth!!!11one
    @Alex Scott

    Funny, sometimes I wish I could be Orthodox.

    What a boring aspiration! I’d much rather be Paradox.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/ministerformagic Pius Thicknesse

    @Andrew Glasgow: And what about Metadox? ;)

  • Amaryllis

    @patter: a belated thanks to you too!
    I particularly liked the ending lines:
    here’s to the body God
    for ordinary miracle in skin and blood
    putting flesh on the bones of our skeletal lives
    embodying a dream of how life might be lived
    flesh is all we have
    but now you know
    that
    flesh is not all we are

  • Leum

    It’s more complicated than that, largely because Catholocism is old enough that the meaning of the word “symbol” has changed. (Summoning up ten-year-old-theology-classes). Our modern parlance tends to use the word “symbol” to mean something more like “sign” — something which indicates the subject, rather than its older usage, as something which stands in the place of the subject. To an ancient, a symbol isn’t “just” a symbol. The symbol becomes the thing it represents in specifically the way relevant to the context in which the symbol is used. The statue of Zeus that you pray to is not the literal physical dude who lives on the top of Olympus and pitches thunderbolts, but it really is Zeus in-the-sense-of “the Zeus who hears your prayers”. When you burn someone in effigy, you’re not just making a threat “this is what we want to do to the real you”, you’re actually carrying out the threat: the effigy becomes the person you want to burn in-the-sense-of the victim of your burning. The goat you send out into the wilderness actually becomes the embodiment of all the sins you want purged.

    Can anyone recommend resources on this topic? Because this makes no sense to me. At all.

  • The Right Hon’ Mouse

    Nnh. As someone who thinks about incarnation a lot– the specifics of this body I’m held in, its limitations, its beauties, where it fits right and where it fits all wrong– I loved that poem. “Flesh is all we have, but now you know that flesh is not all we are”, indeed. Brought tears to my eyes. It’s a dichotomy I feel, achingly, both parts of it. I can’t transcend this flesh, right now, and at the same time I’m intimately familiar with the parts of me that are not it. I am bigger than my skin. It’s an odd, yearning sort of feeling.
    @Pius Thicknesse: Why is it not equally applicable to have this bit-missing-in-a-human be filled if they find fulfillment in life itself? Or in loving Eris? Or, for that matter, being an Otherkin?
    Welp, as otherkin myself, I’d like to chip in that I completely get what hapax was on about. (As I often do. hapax’s way of looking at the world is very similar to mine, I think.) In that if God is Love, creating people to need love might not be a deliberate act of assholishness as something simply unavoidable. Suppose, for example, that any given being, inseparable as it is from the rest of creation, needs all the components of creation to be present in order to be optimally fulfilled. That includes a connection to God, just as it includes a connection to water, and Vitamin D, and all that other stuff. That’s not so much a deliberate choice of God, then, as a necessity of making an interconnected universe in which every part has something to contribute to every other part else.
    Put another way: if you are God, and there is something valuable to be gained by loving you, then a person who does not love you necessarily lacking something is just one of those facts of life. And I’m not sure God could have made it un-valuable not to love Them without diminishing love.
    Put yet another way: if you are the ultimate source of everything, it’s a simple fact of life that people will become more fulfilled by seeking you. That’s an aspect of your nature, not a deliberate desire to encode into people, “I’ll make them so they’re suboptimal if they don’t love me! Uwahaha!”
    It’s more that God is inherently Lovable, as a quality of Godness, and thus there is something deep and rich to be gained from loving God, and thus people benefit from it.
    …hapax could probably have said all of that better than I did.
    But anyway, as otherkin, I believe that delighting in/striving for God and delighting in/striving for expression of nonhuman nature are, at their core, the same thing: or rather, they’re both phenomena that arise due to the same root cause, whatever that cause may be.

  • renniejoy

    Does it make sense if I say that I don’t think that God is Love, I think that Love is God?

  • http://newscum.wordpress.com CaryB

    Can anyone recommend resources on this topic? Because this makes no sense to me. At all.
    I cannot, but it sounds very similar to transubstantiation where the host is at the same time a cracker and, in a VERY real way, the body of Christ. Not just the way most protestant churches view it, as a representation of the body, but the actual, literal body of Christ. I think that may be an area where you can find a lot of philosophical arguments that would translate well to understanding the way the Greeks would have understood praying to Zeus.

  • Lonespark

    Me too, renniejoy. I mean, I don’t, particularly, except for certain values of Love. But it’s a lot closer to what makes sense.

  • noyatin

    Fred: Thanks for the beautiful post. I usually shudder at synoptic/Johannine mash-ups, but yours is the rare instance that works. Congrats also on the shout-out from Andrew Sullivan!

  • Scott P.

    “Heart, God didn’t make a bet with Satan an fucked up Job’s life. If God doesn’t exist, as you believe, then he couldn’t, because he doesn’t exist. If God exists, it doesn’t matter, because a person wrote the book of Job, not God. A person that all evidence says was trying to create a treatise of philosophy. The book of Job is not about things that actually happened, and it wasn’t meant to be.”
    Fictional characters can have histories, emotions and motivations, even if they don’t really exist. The tradition in literary criticism is to talk about the characters as if they were real people: “Boromir is a man wracked with a crushing sense of responsibility.” In the book of Job, God behaves like an asshole. You can say that whether you believe the story is fiction or not.

  • Will Wildman

    In Alan Alda’s autobiography, he notes how the doctrine of transsubstantiation helped him get out of the Catholic Church. He was having a hard time deciding whether he wanted to stay with the church or not – or rather, wanted out, but couldn’t make the push to reject it all. And then, one day, he thought (paraphrased) ‘I don’t believe that the communion wafer literally turns into Jesus’ body. This is dogma that the official church insists I have to believe. I don’t, which means I’m excommunicated. Okay. I don’t have to reject them. They’ve kicked me out. I’m free.’
    Now, from the sound of other people here, Catholicism Does Not Work That Way (or at least, not all of it, and not always), but it was a moment that stuck with me in an interesting way.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/femgeek1 Melle

    Lonespark: My family has this. Doctors have told us we are at high risk for macular degeneration and had damn well better wear our sunglasses.
    Do you happen to know if this is the sort of thing that’d be caught by a routine eye test? Because I’m sun-sensitive enough to have to wear sunglasses year-round, though not every day, and my hypochondria is wanting to kick up.

  • Amaryllis

    @Melle: I was going to say, my ophthalmologist checks for it religiously. But then he– and she– his daughter has joined the practice– are in fact ophthalmologists doing a full medical eye exam, because I have very weird eyes that need to watched closely before they get any worse.
    I don’t know about the more routine optometry checks. Is there an optometrist in the house?
    Which reminds me: is this the thread where eye veils were mentioned?
    @Coleslaw: It’s just that I have enough of a problem with “floaters” that the idea of choosing to see spots/veil mesh gives me the shivers. But I’m sure you look very fetching in it!

  • denelian

    wow.
    in the sense of “I am so awed by this i can’t think of anything other than “wow”"
    in a way, it reminds me of certain other God-tales, of other God/ess/es that have to learn “humility and humanity”. doesn’t it make it less “wow” – makes it MORE wow, in fact.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X