In 1933, the poet Arnulf Øverland
wrote the essay “Christianity, the Tenth Plague”. The essay was first given as
a speech to the Student’s Association. The full text in English can be found
here.
Here are a couple of cool quotes from
the essay:
About baptism:
“Baptism isn't just regular water, but it is water which is confined by the command of God and united by the word of God. What it means, no living man can comprehend, but the children are bound to understand!”
About the communion:
“Later on we eat the body of God and drinks his blood. This disgusting, cannibalistic magic is practiced till this day. But if one have the stomach to participate in this ritual, then one is saved. Then one can allow oneself almost any disgracefulness, if only one prays to God afterwards. If only one believes and is baptized.”
About sinful feelings:
“Practically all the church fathers have agreed to denote erotic emotions as sinful, beauty and grace as the devil's delusion and the woman as Satan's gateway. This aversion to women and female charm, that is so loudly expressed by the church fathers, is a homosexual characteristic. It is this, which is called moral purity.”
Øverland gave some pretty bold statements for his time. The bishops and scholars were furious, of course. The author was taken to court, accused of blasphemy. He was acquitted.
The decision of the court was a
victory for the freedom of speech. However, there are also things to learn from
the reaction of the Christians. They were offended, but only used words to
express their anger. No one was killed, and Øverland didn’t have to live the
rest of his life with a fatwa thrown at him.
I'm all for free speech, but isn't communion symbolic even from the get-go? When Jesus said "Take this and eat it, for this is my body," he gave disciples a piece of bread, not a finger.
ReplyDeleteInteresting document in any case.
Yes, I have understood that the communion is symbolic, but I didn't find this to be obvious when I was 7 yo and the teacher tried to make me believe in God.
DeleteYou're right. I would have to do more reading to understand this symbolism and this blog has made me curious. I wouldn't expect a young child to even understand symbolism, much less communion.
DeleteOn the same topic, I read Alive, about the rugby team that got stranded in the mountains of South American back in the 1970s after a plane crash and had to resort to cannibalism to survive. They tried to view it in terms of communion because the idea was so repugnant. I don't fault them for what they did or how they had to think about it to survive.
Haven't read the book Alive, but I've seen the movie made from it, so I know the story. I think this kind of situation, the survival instinct takes over, and humans can turn to such un-human behavior. I don't blame them for that either.
DeleteTamara, true!
ReplyDeleteBlasphemy is refusing the salvation of Christ.
The essay was provocative on purpose. The author wanted to test the limits for freedom of speech, which is granted in our constitution
DeleteI too was going to mention that communion isn't done with real flesh and real blood. It's symbolic therefore not cannibalistic. When I was a kid though, I was curious about communion and my parents had to explain that it is done with a crack/bread and grape juice/wine. It took me much longer to understand the meaning.
ReplyDeleteI think the author of the essay also knew that the communion is interpreted as symbolic. The main purpose of the essay was to test the limits of freedom of speech, and some of the statements are exaggerated and unfair on purpose. He just wanted to provoke the bishops and scholars to react, and they did.
DeleteI have never taken part in the communion, and I never will
seems to me that if it was intended to be symbolic then there would be no transubstantiation. "the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining." so yah, cannibalism.
DeleteSorry for being a pain in the tail, but I'm curious what you think about the logic of the third quote (aside from the topic, mind you) about sinful feelings. How does it follow that a distrust or dislike of the female persuasion is a homosexual characteristic? That seems equivalent to saying those who dislike/distrust women are gay, which is false. The next line implies, then, that the church leaders are immoral (like gays). Isn't this gay-bashing? I know the point of the writing was to exercise free speech, but this fellow seemed to be quite good at pushing buttons of all sorts. Do you think this was deliberate?
ReplyDeleteThe way I read it, he doesn’t say that dislike or distrust of women is a homosexual characteristic. He says that lack of attraction to female charm is a homosexual characteristic. I don’t think he was after the gays. This text, like any text, needs to be interpreted relative to the time it was written. For instance the story about Robinson Crusoe and Friday doesn’t necessarily imply that Daniel Defoe was racist. He probably just expressed the common mindset of his time. (When I was a teacher in elementary school in the late 1980s the Robinson Crusoe book was removed from the school library because it was considered racist.)
DeleteHere’s more about the author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_%C3%98verland
Regarding the 2nd question: Yes, I think it was deliberate, but also he has probably adjusted to target the audience when he gave the speech at the Students Association. During the war, Øverland was also able to provoke the Nazis and ended up in concentration camp in Germany.
Deletehe's lucky it was in the 1900s because the church killed and/or imprisoned plenty of people for just that.
ReplyDeleteI guess this was kind of the time when secularism and free speech and started to take over from religious dogmatism. But they were still jailing people for being gay ...
Delete