Okay.
First thing first, I detect certain resemblances between the Adorant and the narrator of
In Love with a Jedi. Both seem to be exceedingly passive males who just sit there, twiddle their thumbs, and worship the women who step into their lives. For the Adorant, it is the Goddess; for that narrator, it is Shaak Ti. I have no objections to average characters, but come on, they have to at least
try and do something.
The whole story hinges on the dialogue between two people -- essentially, rather dull dialogue bogged down by repetitive descriptions, most of which serve no purpose. Nothing happens. Nothing is particularly exciting. It's great if the reader shares your view of things, but for me -- am agnostic, can't give a fig about religion or spirituality -- it is extremely prosaic. Now, this kind of things can certainly be communicated
well even if the reader isn't religiously inclined. However, it is hard to do, and quite frankly, your story ends up being preachy, vague, and seems to get nowhere. The characters, to me, are no breathing, living things on their own. They're just there to convey a tedious sermon that's riddled with padding and contains little substance.
Please try and get a beta-reader who can speak and write English fluently. Employ dictionary often; some words don't mean what you think they mean. (And definition of vocabulary is simply not a place to take a stab at "artistic license." Hint: look up "friendly," among others. Just because a word ends with a "-ly" doesn't make it an adverb.) Your sentence structure is often quite screwy, as well, and you sometimes toss in an adjective instead of an adverb.
You have a tendency to describe things redundantly. "Omit needless word" is one of the most useful writing tips I've ever heard. Another thing is that you heavily depend on a single sense: visuals. One way to spice up your narrative is to engage all five senses if possible: the reader should see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. The chapel may smell of some incense; the stone structure may keep the place cool; the character may feel the texture of the ground upon which he’s kneeling. And so on, and so forth.
He was a poor believer, not a rich one, but he was content with what he had.
He was poor; we get it. There's no need to pad the sentence with "not a rich one." Being poor, by definition, makes him not rich.
There were people who were worse off than he was, and there were people who were better off than him. In general, he was a normal citizen.
Of course he didn’t earn as much as many others; to put with other words : He was located at the lower end of the scale. But he didn’t have as much needs as the decadent rich ones, so he was doing well.
You know, these sentences are basically just repeating each other. Move on; go onto the next thing. There's no need to beat the reader over the head.
He stepped into the small, stone-made chapel. The walls were made of grey, non-plastered blocks of stone...
<snip>
Above some small windows were opened in the stone-made dome, which was showed as much scantiness as the rest of the chapel.
Stone-made. Made of blocks of stone. Stone-made dome. Tell me again why the reader has to be told
thrice.
And this book was well protected : Protected by the Goddess herself.
Oh, peanuts. How about just "This book was protected by the goddess herself"? Wouldn't that, by definition, imply good protection? Why is there a need to repeat?
He went to the candlestick with the many arms...
That "candlestick with the many arms" is called a candelabrum.
He didn’t go simplemindedly into the dark, murky chapel, no, he was with all of his heart here.
<snip>
She felt being touched by this prayer of this man , who was praying there with all of his heart and devotion.
He is praying with all his heart. Great. Most people would get it the first time, believe me.
...this was truthfully the chapel of a truthful Goddess...
She was veracious, too...
She was truthful...
Okay. That's three times you've said that the goddess is truthful. Flat out unnecessary. As I implied, once is usually enough, especially in a short story.
After a few minutes there stood the shape of a woman, looking like consisting fully of water, like consisting of glass, but as smooth and soft as water (or soft and wobbly like jam , the goddess thought).
Pick one thing and stay with it. Water, or glass. They have vastly different viscocities.
...no matter how lively it might look like...
Try "no matter how lifelike it was." Take it from me: "lively" is not the same as "lifelike." It just ain't. “Lively” isn’t correctly used in this context, anyway. To say that something looks like something else requires a simile, and a noun to go with it, not an adjective.
He had to turn the head to one side (still kneeling)
Since you didn't indicate that he's stood, readers are likely to assume that he's still kneeling. Is there really a need to belabor the obvious?
“What was that ?” the man asked irritated, and touched his forehead. “You have touched my forehead ... ?!? Was that all ? Whenever the King makes someone a Knight, then everything is different ... more like a consecration, with all the pomposity, trumpets, church bells ringing and all this stuff ...” “Well, now you are comparing apples with pears !” she replied, a bit irritated and angry. She leaned back, pouting.
Uhm. So the man's being touched by his goddess -- something that should be seen as a great honour -- and he's whining that there's no fanfare? Okay. Is he suicidal, hopelessly materialistic, or both? I thought was just a humble believer? Pick one personality and stay with it?
