Monthly Archives: June 2022

Jason Aaron has been writing the main Avengers title for longer than I care to look up, but it has not been very highly regarded for some time. So, it was time for it to spin off into Avengers Forever, which seems to be Aarons attempt at a definitive statement on the best superhero team. It isless than that. But also, do I really care?

Avengers Forever is yet another multiversal jaunt, this time following Robbie Reyes after some Avengers nonsense, Im assuming as hebeats up evil guys? Hes certainly doing something. This adventure has him dropped into a universe where The Avengers never formed in *sigh* 1 million BCE, and thus evil took hold. When Robbie appears, it spurs this Earths Avengers to overthrow the Venomized Red Skull, and leads to the formation of a team. Theres also a Doom issue, and some reveals.

Listen to the latest episode of our weekly comics podcast!

Like all comics focused on AUs, theres some fun stuff, but it never really goes beyond that. Maybe the best example of this is Tony Stark Ant-Man. It hits all the notes of a classic Tony story; hes an alcoholic, hes an atheist, hes a problem solver, hes leading the Avengers, its all there. Unfortunately, it all ends up feeling like a series of references to other stories rather than anything definitive or meaningful. Remember Demon in a Bottle? the comic shouts, Remember his competitive streak with Pym in the MCU? it key-jingles.

This version of Tony is enjoyable! I like hope-damned Stark, the archeologist-atheist-Ant-Man, but theres almost a degree of parody to him, especially given Aarons inability to express anything other than atheism in his stories. This Tony feels fine-tuned to everything Aaron wants to write, but Im not sure its tuned to what Aaron is really good at writing. The little guy is fun, hes got a cool costume, and I guess Id like to see more of him? At the same time, Im thinking about thanking God that Aaron hasnt written an Iron Man series.

Most of the series feels the same way, with the characters all just sort of feeling like fun silly ideas with little substance beneath. Infinity Gem Grimm is cool, its fun, but its also just kinda there. Im personally pretty fond of Red Skull having Venom, and I think Schmidt was a great choice to be the villain of the universe where hope is a four letter word, so I guess genuine praise goes there?

Ill also mention the presence of the Thors granddaughters who Aaron co-created with Esad Ribic in their very very good Thor run but mostly, they just serve to remind me that I could be reading better comics, and that Aaron could write better comics, once upon a time.

Now, even while the above is true, I still enjoyed my time with the series, but thats largely to do with Aaron Kuders art, which is incredible across the first three issues. His designs for all of the different heroes are great, but hes also just generally one of my favorite artists working today. His style is round and bouncy, but isnt cartoony in a minimalist sense, every panel is packed with details. That detail makes it easy to live in the story, but more than that, its just fun to look at his art. Kuder was kind of the selling point of the series for me, and he didnt disappoint at all.

I may be disappointed with the story Im general, but this book was still worth reading to me, and Ill continue reading it for the Kuder art (Im especially excited for the Steve Rogers issue coming up!). Heres to hoping it gets better than that!

Avengers Forever Vol. 1: The Lords of Earthly Vengeance is gorgeous, empty hopepunk

Avengers Forever Vol. 1: The Lords of Earthly Vengeance

Aaron Kuder is a cant-miss artist for myself, and this is worth it for his art. Getting a little tired of Jason Aarons atheists though.

Cant say no to Kuder art

Ant-Man Tony and Venom Red Skull are fun enough to jam to

Feels like Im being tricked into salivating by references

Become a patron today to get exclusive perks, like access to our exclusive Discord community and our monthly comic book club, ad-free browsing on aiptcomics.com, a physical trade paperback sent to your house every month, and more!

Read the original here:

Avengers Forever Vol. 1: The Lords of Earthly Vengeance review - AIPT

5 must-read autobiographies of Indian personalities

Jun 20, 2022, 04:54 pm 3 min read

Autobiographies are a source of inspiration for readers. You get to learn about a person's life, their struggles, how they overcame them, and their achievements. An autobiography gives us several life lessons and sometimes, the stories are relatable. You might even end up finding a solution to your own problems through the person's struggles. Here are five autobiographies of Indian personalities you must read.

Why I Am An Atheist by Bhagat Singh

Why I Am An Atheist was written in 1930 by Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh in Lahore Central Jail. It was a reply to Sikh leader Bhai Randhir Singh and other religious friends who thought that fame went to his head and pride turned him into an atheist. In the book, he explains how he turned into an atheist despite being a believer in God.

Waiting for a Visa by B.R. Ambedkar

Waiting for a Visa is a 20-page autobiographical book written in 1935-36 by B.R. Ambedkar himself. Columbia University uses this book as its textbook. The book explores the caste-based discrimination and untouchability faced by Ambedkar since his childhood. It is divided into six sections and tells about the torture that the untouchables went through and the experiences of different people with untouchability.

Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda

First published in 1946, Autobiography of a Yogi introduces us to the Indian Hindu monk, yogi, and guru Paramahansa Yogananda who popularized teachings of meditation and Kriya Yoga worldwide. The book takes the reader on a spiritual journey and helps to understand the mindset of the Yogi. It introduces the readers to the methods of attaining God-realization and completely changes their perspective on life.

The Race of My Life by Milkha Singh

The Race of My Life is an autobiography of the famous Indian athlete Milkha Singh. Published in 2013, his daughter Sonia Sanwalka co-authored the book. The Bollywood film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag is based on this book. It explores Singh's journey from escaping partition to becoming a world-class sprinter. The book also tells about his personal life and his take on Indian sports.

Jakhan Choto Chilam by Satyajit Ray

Written by celebrated Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray, Jakhan Choto Chilam was published in 1982. In this autobiographical book, Ray talks about his childhood days in Kolkata and his upbringing surrounded by art and literature. He also mentions his experiences as a filmmaker and how he started shooting for his debut film Pather Panchali, an epic masterpiece. Check out more such book recommendations.

View post:

5 must-read autobiographies of Indian personalities - NewsBytes

Churches have begun to recognize that Mothers Day can be a day of mixed emotions for women. It may be a difficult day for some who never became moms or those grieving a loss. Yet Fathers Day is another day that can be difficult, too. It can highlight tough memories of fathers who werent there or even those who were there but not all they should be.

Since I became a Christian from atheism as an 18-year-old, Fathers Day has been a reminder of the lack of closeness with my dad. My dad, an avid atheist, has never fully accepted my coming to Christ. When your dad cant accept the most important part of you, you feel that loss. Theres a closeness thats missing. As an imperfect father with my own imperfect dad, I can still praise God on Fathers Day.

Let me share 4 reasons to praise God on Fathers Day even when theres mixed emotions.

Psalm 27:10 says, Though my father and mother forsake me, the LORD will receive me. The reality is the best earthly dad will fall short. But the beautiful thing about the gospel is that we receive a perfect dad who will never let us down, leave or forsake us, or disown us! He knows us more fully than any earthly dad could, yet He still loves us with a perfect love! Praise God for His adoption of us!

If God has blessed you with children, you can praise God for the gift of being a father and praise God for your children! Also, praise God for how being a father helps you understand your fathers love. Awareness of my sin can make me feel like God just tolerates me, like I am a C student. Yet, after becoming a father, I learned that is not how fathers think!

When my two kids do something wrong, that never tempts me to stop loving them; my heart does not grow cold toward them. I still love and adore them. That reality helped me see Gods own love for me in a new way. Yes, I still need to confess sin and repent, but God is a much better father than me and still loves me! Becoming a father helped me see the unconditional love of the Lord.

In 1 Timothy 5:1, Paul tells Timothy to treat older men as fathers. Some of the blessings of the church is the new family you have in Christ. Ive been blessed with a man I call Papa Joe. He and his wife, Mama Becca, adopted my family as their Michigan children when I came to serve at my church. I am not handy in any way, but I remember Papa Joe coming over to show me how to patch drywall. He was a gentle and patient teacher as he took me through that process. I remember thinking, Why is he being so nice to me? This is what it must be like to have a Christian dad. When the Lord provides a father figure in your life, be thankful for that blessing, whether hes an older mentor at church or a Christian father-in-law who will always have your back.

Even if your dad was not everything he shouldve been, you can still praise God for common graces in your dad! When I lift my children in the air, put on a goofy voice, or let my kids beat me in play-wrestling, I see my dad in me in how he played with me.

My dad never pointed me to Jesus, but he still left a mark! And I can praise God for common grace blessings even from a father that does not know God. If you have a Christian dad, praise God for the blessing many dont have! Either way, pray for your dad on Fathers Day!

These are 4 ways we, as imperfect dads with imperfect dads, can give thanks to the perfect dad on Fathers Day!

EDITORS NOTE This story was written by John Babri and originally published by the Baptist Beacon, news service of the Baptist State Convention of Michigan. John is the pastor of Fellowship Baptist Church in Saline, Michigan.

Continued here:

4 reasons to praise God on Father's Day despite mixed emotions - The Baptist Paper

Image credit:Gerd Altmann viaPixabay.

On a new episode ofID the Future, radio host Michael Medved sits down with bestselling scienceauthorStephen Meyer to discuss the Marvel movieDr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.Medved isnt wild about the film, but he uses it as a springboard for a discussion of what he calls the madness of the multiverse namely, the proposals in physics and cosmology for the idea that our universe is just one of many universes. Meyer explains some of the early motivations among 20th-century physicists and cosmologists for proposing a multiverse. Then he turns to what he says is the main driver for interest in the multiverse in our day a desire to explain away something that is deeply puzzling on the grounds of atheism, namely that the laws and constants of physics and chemistry are exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

For the atheist, fine-tuning smells too much like intelligent design, and on a cosmic scale. The solution from the atheists: there are countless universes, they suggest, maybe even an infinity of them, and our universe is just one of the lucky ones with the right laws and constants to allow for life. In essence, we won a multiverse cosmic lottery. Meyers recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, lists multiple problems with this explanation. One problem is that these postulated universes are unobservable and that even indirect evidence for them is weak to nonexistent.

But Meyer cites a more fundamental problem: a multiverse, its broadly agreed, would require a multiverse-generating device, and its now clear that it would have to be exquisitely fine-tuned to generate even one habitable universe. So the multiverse theory doesnt remove the need for a fine-tuner. It merely moves the need back a step. Meyer says the fine-tuning of the cosmos is better explained by reference to the one type of cause that in our experience is able to look ahead and fine-tune multiple components to achieve a goal intelligent agency. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

See original here:

Listen: Dr. Meyer in the Multiverse of Madness - Discovery Institute

[originally from 10 June 2007]

***

Reformed Baptist John Knights words will be in blue.

See these articles that are referred to in the exchange:

Critique of Van Tils Presuppositionalism[10-23-04]

Critique of Presuppositionalism & Greg Bahnsen[4-14-07]

*****

I would describe myself as a Reformed Baptist, following broadly within the Van Tillian tradition, especially as developed by Greg Bahnsen on the one hand & John Frame on the other. (Both were students of Van Til.) By common consent, Dr. Van Til was a poor writer, one whose sparkling analogies sometimes appeared in the oddest places. And, no doubt, there are additional issues, clarifications, & corrections to be addressed by Christian thinkers to day & in the future. However, it is worth noting that Van Tils writings anticipated many of the important developments in 20th Century philosophy. The challenges posed by Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Quine, Sellars, Polanyi, & Plantinga to modern philosophy support Van Tils general critique of unbelief.

Thanks for your cordial remarks in the Open Forum.

. . . Assuming, of course, that you really want to get into some of the more interesting questions in the debate.

Absolutely! Good dialogue is an increasingly rare commodity these days. How refreshing to find someone who seems to enjoy it as much as I do, and a nice guy to boot!

As to Mr. Armstrongs comments on Dr. Bahnsens article, Mr. Armstrong returns repeatedly to the claim that Bahnsen is presenting a Straw Man of evidential apologetics by accusing evidential apologists of neutrality. This criticism appears to be Mr. Armstrongs core complaint, which he repeats throughout the article.

I dont claim to be an expert on Bahnsen. I was simply responding to the best of my ability, to what I understood his arguments to be. Sometimes one can make further assumptions about opponents underlying premises that are mistaken. Wed have to go through my replies and see where our differences lie.

And please call me Dave!

To that extent, Idothink that I have interacted with the substance of his comments.

Not if you havent gone through my reasoning point-by-point, as I am doing presently. You dont know if you have misunderstood some of my arguments or misconceived the premises lying behind them. Were all prone to that mistake (and usually unintentionally) . Its always good to look at the actual particulars of someone elses argument rather than make broad, grand assumptions which may be mistaken in part or wholly.

I hope I have done so politely & amiably.

Yes; I greatly appreciate that, as I am sick to death of completely unnecessary hostilities simply because people have some honest disagreements. Ive never fully understood that, and I dont think I ever will.

[I]t is possible that our disagreements can sorted out through a simple clarification of terms & issues.

I think that is a distinct possibility, once you fully understand my overall outlook on apologetics and philosophy. Several indications of common ground have already appeared, as I responded (below). I can tell by the people you cite (Plantinga and Polanyi, whom I love and have been highly influenced by, Kuhn, etc.; Cardinal Newman: a profound influence on my thought, has been compared to Polanyi in several ways) that we are on the same page quite often. That doesnt surprise me. It may not surprise you, either, but surely it shocks many who think that the divide in these areas is much bigger than it should be (i.e., we have much more in common than people think).

As a Reformed Baptist & recovering evidentialist, I find Mr. Armstrongs reply to Dr. Bahnsen unsatisfying. He seems to misunderstand Bahnsens critique of attempted epistemological neutrality as an attack on the sincerity of evidentialists & classicists.

Okay; well see!

Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.

This, of course, hinges on what one means by prove. I think there are relatively few things that one can absolutely prove. On the other hand, I believe in natural theology, which means that I think there are certain things that all men know intuitively or instinctively or with a properly formed intellect by virtue of logic, that Christians can then build upon in their apologetic.

What would be the basis of your argument?

My argument against Bahnsen is in my paper. I dont recall all particulars without revisiting it (as I have written many hundreds of papers). As we get deeper into this, Id like to see you examine particular arguments of mine.

Historical evidence of the Resurrection?Apart for Christian presuppositions, one can never prove that Christ rose from the dead.

I agree. Ive never claimed that onecouldprove such a thing. I think Reginald stated it well in the same combox:

In the first place, the Catholic wouldnt try to prove that Christ rose from the dead, if by prove you mean provide incontrovertible evidence. Some things must be accepted by faith. We can only remove the obstacles to that acceptance by demonstrating that the the faith is a reasonable thing and that there are good reasons for being Christian (and Catholic).

Even if you succeed in convincing the unbeliever, he doesnt have to conclude that, therefore, Christ is God. There are other options.

Thats right, though I do think most such people would agree that if the resurrection were proven, that this would constitute significant evidence towards the proposition that Jesus might, in fact, be God. They use the supposed implausibility of the Resurrection, precisely as a means to discount Jesus claims.

More generally, the facts do not speak for themselves. Facts only make sense within an interpretive framework, a point made by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, and Wilfrid Sellars, among others.

I couldnt agree more.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument?Its based on a fundamental misinterpretation of set theory. And even if the math made sense, it wouldnt prove the Christian God or even a personal god as the first cause.

I agree. What I have said is that it shows that theism is at least as reasonable as atheism. I think it is a very strong argument, though.

Even worse, the argument presupposes a linear view of time. What about the unbeliever who has a cyclical view of time, like many pagan religions?

Ones view of time doesnt eliminate their burden of dealing with causation. I think the argument can be made, at least, that time is linear back to the big Bang. Before that, we cant say (and the Christian can simply posit by faith that this was eternity past before divine creation. But in any event, unless one is anti-science, they cannot escape the fact that present-day cosmology and physics require a belief that the present universe began in that instant of the Big Bang.

The Argument from Design?While I respect the work done by William Dembski & Michael Behe, they are the first to admit that, even if their argument is correct, it only proves design. It does not identify the designer: Terrestrial life could have been designed by non-carboniferous aliens.

I agree again.

More generally, do you propose to argue from the facts to prove the existence of Our Lord?

No, because I dont think proof of such things is possible. It is only possible to create what I would call a plausibility structure whereby, as a result of cumulative evidences of various sorts brought to the table, the Christian view, or at least theism, is shown to be far more worthy of allegiance and reasonable than any alternative. In the end, faith will always be required. We cant connect the dots of faith with reason, because that would undermine the very basis and necessity of biblical faith. They are simply two different things.

Do you begin with sense perceptions & experience as you ultimate foundation of knowledge & try build, brick by brick, a tower to the heavens, finally proving the existence of God? This philosophical approach is called empiricism, and it is self-refuting. It cannot prove the existence of God because it cannot prove anything.

It requires prior belief in the validity of sensory perception. Ive written for 25 years that science requires faith to even begin. So this is nothing new to me. I accept Polanyis critique of empiricism. But in any event, I dont think you can absolutely prove that God exists. This has been my position for as long as I can remember. One can have a very strong assurance of faith that He exists, and is benevolent. But faith is not reason. It ought to be not contrary to reason, but it ultimately transcends it, as another category.

Armstrong also seems to misunderstand Bahnsens approach as mere proclamation of the Word. A quick review of the Bahnsen-Stein debate will end that illusion forever. In that debate, Bahnsen tears down the atheist world-view of Dr. Stein. Stein had built his argument on a house of sand (his atheist world-view). When Hurricane Greg tore through the auditorium that night, Stein was left without any basis to criticize or even doubt the Christian world-view, and most of the audience saw it.

I understand that presuppositionalism is about questioning the premises of opponents. I highly relate to that because my usual methodology is socratic. I do the same thing all the time (and become veryunpopularin some circles for doing so, believe me!). So what I did to presuppositionalism (in myfirst major paperon it) was to subject it to the same treatment that it gives to others, by examiningitspresuppositions. And, of course, it turns out to be radically circular, which is unacceptable.

Bahnsen, by the way, recorded a sermon or lecture on the Pauls Mars Hill presentation. He makes a good case that Paul was a presuppositionalist.

perhaps you can outline that argument as we proceed. Id be interested in seeing it. I think all Christians should have much in common, epistemologically, and we often do far more than we imagine. Note above, for example, how many times I agreed with your own premises and major aspects of your approach to questions of proof and apologetics.

[sometimes below I will be replying to points John made in response toothers]

I have two sets of questions

1.) Are [you] claiming that there is no definitive proof for Christian theism?

If by that one means airtight rationalistic proofs that no sane man could possibly doubt, yes. Thats how I interpret the word proof: within the framework of rationalism and/or empiricism. But then I believe in the assurance of faith and the reasonableness of accepting Gods revelation in faith, based on a number of other supporting factors.

Are you claiming that your apologetic provides only probable proof for Christian theism? Or even some lower standard?

I think one can achieve a very high degree of certitude (Cardinal Newmans word, I believe, in hisGrammar of Assent) by revelation and reason together, as well as other things. I think there are many beliefs that are (in Plantingas terms) properly basic and perfectly plausible and permissible for rational people to believe. So, in sum, I think my evidentialist apologetic could provide an exceedingly probable basis for belief: as much as is humanly possible through reason alone (reason that men of all kinds can agree upon, based on the universality of logic, scientific method, etc.).

2.) Is this position the consensus at this website?

Its my website, and my position, is as just described, so that is the position here! Commenters may show a spectrum on these matters. Catholics can have differing apologetics. I tend to combine aspects of different schools.

Please keep in mind that I never claimed that Catholics would use the historical argument. (I skimmed the index, and I didnt see it presented on this site.)

Ive written an entire book,Mere Christian Apologetics, that uses such arguments, in an attempt at a general Christian apologetic (not distinctively Catholic at all in that book). A second similar book,Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism, tries the same approach, but geared towards atheists and agnostics.

I asked how a non-presuppositionalist proposes to vindicate the claims of Christianity, and summarized the inadequacies of three popular approaches, two of which do appear on this site, IIRC.

I have given a thumbnail sketch of how I do so.

Mr. Armstrong seemed to suggest that the presuppositional approach abandons argumentation for proclamation.

Sometimes it does do so, I think, either directly, or in effect or strong implication. In fact, one might argue that it must do this, insofar as it holds that believer and non-believer hold so little in common that they can scarcely communicate with each other (and incorporating the effect of Total Depravity or the unregenerate state).

That debate provides a clear counter-example to this misapprehension.

Perhaps. Id rather stick to dialoguing with you at the moment.

***

Presuppositions are inevitable. One cannot even ask questions without relying on presuppositions.

This is correct.

The difference is between non-Christian presuppositions that lead to irrationality & contradictions

I agree.

& Christian presuppositions which provide solid foundations for knowledge, for reason, for induction, for math, science, moral obligations, language and so on.

Our worldview is coherent and consistent in all aspects of life. It doesnt follow, however, that overtly Christian presuppositions are required for things like math and language.

***

If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.~Ludwig Wittgenstein

*

True.

*

I cherish reason, logic, science, mathematics, & history. I wish to give them a firm foundation. How can I do that apart from Christian presuppositions?

*

Take courses on those subjects in some school. One doesnt have to start with Christian presuppositions to learn any of those things. But being a Christian helps one to become a relatively better historian or scientist because secularist and rationalist baggage brought to those tasks obscure the best science that could be done.

I agree that the presuppositionalist can & should use evidentialist arguments. For example, he can present the historical evidence for the Resurrection, based on number & date of manuscripts, internal consistency, external consistency & so forth. Of course, the hard-core unbeliever will deny that this evidence proves the Resurrection. [Or maybe not. An existentialist might acknowledge thefactof the Resurrection without attaching any significance to it. Os Guinness recounts one such incident.] The apologist is then in a position to force the unbeliever to defend his theory of historical knowledge.

I agree. Thats exactly what I would do. Ive done similar things many times in my numerous debates with atheists.

Or, as the proverb says, Argue with a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes.

*

Indeed.

On the other hand, any argument that takes man as the ultimate source of knowledge is a rejection of divine authority. It is also dangerous to use bad arguments to defend the faith. It discredits the faith & leads to intellectual confusion.

Or, as the proverb has it, Do not argue with a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him.

[Proverbs 26:4-5]. I love this couplet of passages, with the one counseling the opposite of the other, so that the varied application depends on situation and prudence.

It is a pleasure to be welcomed into friendly disagreement.

Likewise; especially in light of certain criticisms from certain quarters that were not shall we say particularlygracious, to put it mildly . . .

As I pointed out in response to your analysis of an old article by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.

That would have to be unpacked as to exactly what it means. I suspect that I could agree with it entirely or in large part, once it was elaborated upon in greater specificity.

Whatever other mistakes we may make, I hope we can all avoid attacking the good intentions of our brothers in Christ.

I dont attack anyones good intentions or sincerity (and that applies to even my severest critics). It must be noted, however, that since Bahnsen was an anti-Catholic, he would not consider a fully observant, orthodox Catholic (such as myself) as his brother in Christ in the first place. And when that is done, it is very difficult for human beings to avoid being condescending, with such a huge category mistake in place.

I look forward to better understanding your apologetic outlook while helping you better understand my perspective & the outlook of my fellow presuppositionalists.

Yes; same here. How refreshing.

I think that the difference between us is, in some ways, probably much smaller than conventionally thought. In other ways, it is very large, but perhaps we can begin to bridge that gap.

I think so.

In my understanding, the key difference between the archetypal Presuppositionalist & the Evidentialist counterpart is not any particular argument. Evidentialists often use arguments that attack the presuppositions of the unbeliever.

I certainly do all the time, because that is what socratics do.

As noted above, C.S. Lewis used an Argument from Moral Law of that type inMere Christianity& an Argument from Reason of that type inMiracles.(Whether or not Lewis deserves to be called an evidentialist, most evidentialists claim him as one of their own.) Likewise, I personally use a version of the Argument from the Resurrection, usually considered thesine qua nonof evidentialist apologetics. Presuppositionalist Thom Notaro has even written a short book on the use of evidence in Van Tillian apologetics.

Read more here:

Dialogue on Presuppositionalism with a Baptist | Dave Armstrong - Patheos

Theres a lot south Louisianans who grew up in the church will understand about Slow Rosarys Free WiFi in the Vatican.

The album has the trappings of a Catholic worship record theres the hymn Lord, When You Came to the Seashore and a track based around Matthew 13:44-55 (complete with red lettering on the albums lyrics page). But listeners will immediately realize this isnt a religious work: Free WiFi in the Vatican is secular, complex and contradictory. It grapples with Catholicism in its beauty and brutality.

Putting it very simply, its an expression of all of my thoughts about the faith and my relationship with it, says Rene Duplantier, the singer-songwriter at the core of Slow Rosary. That includes a song where I criticize Christian presidents and it includes criticizing the Pope, but it also includes a licensed cover of a church song.

Duplantier was born in New Orleans and grew up in a Catholic family confirmed as Saint Francis Xavier, since unconfirmed, still curious, reads the about page on the Slow Rosary website. As he reached his 20s, Duplantier found himself in a long process of leaving Catholicism, he says.

It wasnt some contentious process or anything, it was mostly that I realized that I didnt believe a lot of the things they believed, he adds.

Duplantier went to college in Arizona, and when he moved back to New Orleans, he began playing a monthly show at the Neutral Ground Coffee House. His past songwriting had been more influenced by alt and indie rock musicians like Alex G and Tigers Jaw, but around that time mixed in with the religious decoupling as well he found he was writing more folk-esque songs. He decided to call the project for those tunes Slow Rosary.

Free WiFi in the Vatican, which is out Friday, is the second Slow Rosary full-length, following up Refinery, released last August, mere days before Hurricane Ida hit. Duplantier wrote the songs on the two albums over the last four years, and they work together in a way.

I think of Refinery as kind of the narrative, the what happened, and then Free WiFi is the thought process of the main character. Its more fluid, Duplantier says.

Refinery more explicitly touches on the events of my childhood, young adulthood, a few breakups, a few moves, trips, Duplantier adds later in the conversation. Whereas this record is never things I would have said out loud. Refinery is quite literally what was happening for three or four years, whereas Free WiFi is just what I was thinking about.

Freeman tapped more than 20 friends for the new record.

The songs on Free WiFi are lush and captivating, with a bed of sounds lifting up Duplantiers folk-like lyricism. The albums lo-fi, home-recorded quality gives it the impression of stepping into a small, pretty church during the music portion of Sunday service as the band plays songs about so-called Christian presidents calling for waterboarding.

Duplantier who sings and plays guitar, bass, piano and keys on Free WiFi is at the center of Slow Rosary, and he often collaborates with drummer Blake Robicheaux along with a rotating cast of musicians. The album includes musicians Kate Gauthreaux, Zach Lannes and Dreux Gerard LeBourgeois, and Nick Rosato II also plays with the band live.

On the Bandcamp page, I tagged it as both Christian and Atheist, Duplantier says with a laugh. A lot of people who arent religious make music with religious imagery. Especially in New Orleans, for locals anyway, a lot of people grew up with [the church]. Everyone can have some easy connection to it.

More about Slow Rosary and Free WiFi in the Vatican can be found at slowrosary.com.

Music, dance, theater and more to check out this week.

Read more here:

On new album 'Free WiFi in the Vatican,' Slow Rosary reflects on the church in its beauty and brutality - NOLA.com

Good heavens, this show!Fleabagmade our hearts quiver and brains wander by casting Andrew Scott as an unnamed 'hot priest' in season 2 who successfully did two things- a. Preach the word of God and b. Make our ovaries explode.

The excruciatingly charming priest is witty and intuitive and if we say we were simply gushing over him, it would perhaps be an understatement.

After binge-watching the orgasm-inducing moments of the hot priest, we bring to you the tantalizing moments that prove he's the 'father' women truly crave.

Just a question and we screamed THEY ARE MEANT TO BE.

Two seconds ago she'd admitted that she was an atheist but the priest was all she'd been praying for since the time they met. Cue Fleabag realising, 'Oh God, I fancy a priest.'

'oooh'- That's it. That's literally it.

Can't lie I could watch him all day as his eyes gleamed while talking about God or... the fox.

We knew he was here to f-king stay.

That neck, though.

I'd be lying if I said we didn't knowthe mere thought of the hot priest thinking about her tits made Fleabag orgasm.

When they winded up in a steamy make-out in themidst of the church, I literally gasped.

There, he said it.

He says this before the inevitable sex happens, of course.

I am not crying, you are.

My heart didn't soar but twinge in pain.

Out of all the unavailable men we've ever been fascinated with, this one ranks first.

See original here:

12 Hot Priest Moments From 'Fleabag' That Prove He's The Father Women Truly Need - ScoopWhoop