WrasslorMonkey posted:

Xaris posted:

i just remembered this loving travesty of a google masturbation jerkoff propaganda movie with vince vaughn., even back when it came out i was angry over this stupid noogler poo poo https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/

WrasslorMonkey posted:

bedpan posted:

2013? late as hell for a movie like that. seems like it should have come out in 2007.

Flavahbeast posted:

rough year for the brits

https://twitter.com/business/status/1643075684443602948

Justin Tyme posted:

exploitive megachurch pastor-lookin-rear end jesus

jesus needs to look dirty and malnourished for me to know he's serious. missin a tooth with scraggly, fig leaf hangin out hair

Frosted Flake posted:

Again, what's the one thing everybody knows about Holy Thursday? Jesus washed their feet. It's why priests wash the feet of parishioners on Holy Thursday. A rabbi washing the feet of his disciples was a revolutionary act, but somehow the radical edge of that inversion of power, and what it means for us all, has been totally sanded away.

quote:

In about 28 CE, huge crowds had flocked from Judea, Jerusalem, and the surrounding countryside to listen to the fiery preaching of John the Baptist beside the River Jordan. Clad in rough camel’s hair that recalled the garb of the prophet Elijah, John had urged them to undergo baptism as a token of repentance to hasten the coming of the Kingdom that God would establish to displace the wicked rulers of this age. This was no purely spiritual message. When members of the priestly aristocracy and their retainers presented themselves for baptism, John denounced them as a “viper’s brood”; they would not be saved on the Day of Judgment simply because they were descendants of Abraham.9 In Israel, ritual immersion had long signified not only a moral purification but also a social commitment to justice. “Your hands are covered with blood,” the prophet Isaiah had told the ruling class of Jerusalem in the eighth century BCE. “Wash, make yourselves clean. Take your wrongdoing out of my sight. Learn to do good, search for justice, help the oppressed, be just to the orphan, and plead for the widow.”10 The sectarians at Qumran performed frequent ablutions, both as a rite of purification and as a political commitment “to observe justice to men” and “to hate the unjust and fight the battle of the righteous ones.”11 But John offered baptism not merely to an elite group but also to the common people. When these impoverished, indebted folk asked him what they should do, he told them to share what little they had with those who were even worse off—an ethic that would become central to Jesus’s movement: “Whoever has two shirts must share with him who has none, and whoever has food must do the same.”

Jesus was among the people baptized by John; when he emerged from the water, it was said that the Holy Spirit descended upon him and a heavenly voice proclaimed: “You are my beloved Son in whom I delight.”13 After their baptism, all Jesus’s followers would later cry aloud that they too had become children of God and members of a community where everybody lived as equals. The Spirit would be crucial to this early movement; it was not a separate divine being, of course, but a term used by Jews to denote the presence and power of God in human life. When John was arrested by Antipas c. 29 CE, Jesus began his own mission in Galilee, “armed with the power of the Spirit.”14 Crowds thronged around him, just as they had come to John, to hear his startling message: “The Kingdom of God has already arrived.”15 Its coming was not scheduled in a remote future; the Spirit, the active presence of God, was evident now in Jesus’s miracles of healing. Everywhere he looked, he saw people pushed to the limit, abused, and crushed. “He felt sorry for them because they were harassed [eskulemenoi] and dejected [errimmenoi], like sheep without a shepherd.”16 The Greek verbs chosen by the evangelist had political as well as emotional connotations of being “beaten down” by imperial predation.17 They were hungry, physically sick, psychologically disturbed, and probably suffering from the effects of the hard labor, poor sanitation, overcrowding, indebtedness, and acute anxiety endured by the masses in any premodern agrarian economy.18 In Jesus’s parables, we see a society in which rich and poor are separated by an impassable gulf; where people are desperate for loans, heavily indebted, and preyed upon by unscrupulous landlords; and where the dispossessed are forced to hire themselves out as day laborers.19

...

At the heart of this proto-gospel is the Kingdom of God.20 This was not a fiery apocalypse descending from on high but essentially a revolution in community relations. If people set up an alternative society that approximated more closely to the principles of God recorded in Jewish law, they could hasten the moment when God intervened to change the human condition. In the Kingdom, God would be sole ruler, so there would be no Caesar, no procurator, and no Herod. To make the Kingdom a reality in the desperate conditions in which they lived, people must behave as if the Kingdom had already come.21 Unlike the state of affairs in Herodian Galilee, the benefits of God’s Kingdom were not confined to a privileged elite, because the Kingdom was open to everybody, especially the “destitute” and the “beggar” (ptochos) whom the current regime had failed.22 You should not invite only your rich neighbors to a feast, Jesus told his host at a dinner. “No, when you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.” Invitations must be delivered “in the streets and alleys of the town” and “the open roads and hedgerows.”23 It was a politically explosive message: In the Kingdom the first would be last and the last first.24

In this Kingdom, Jesus taught, men and women must love even their enemies, giving them practical and moral support. Instead of taking cruel reprisals for injury, as the Romans did, they must live according to the Golden Rule: “To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Treat others as you would like them to treat you.”25 The Lord’s Prayer is the prayer of the Kingdom, uttered by people who could only hope to have enough food for one day at a time, who were terrified of falling into debt and being hauled to the tribunal that would confiscate their small holdings:

quote:

Father—Holy be Your Name!—may your empire come!
Give us each day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts, for we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into trial.26

There was nothing novel in Jesus’s teaching. The ancient laws of Israel had urged exactly this kind of self-help and mutual aid. According to what may be the earliest strands of the Torah (the Law of Moses), instead of being appropriated by an aristocracy, land should remain in the possession of the extended family; interest-free loans to needy Israelites were obligatory; contract servitude was restricted; and special provision was made for the socially vulnerable—orphans, widows, and foreigners.27 At the end of every seven years, all debts must be remitted and slaves set free. Wealthy Israelites must be openhanded with the poor and give them enough for their needs.28

Jesus dispatched his disciples—fishermen, despised tax collectors, and farmers—to implement this program in the Galilean villages. It was in effect a practical declaration of independence. His followers need not become serfs, laboring for the enrichment of others; they could simply take themselves out of the system and create an alternative economy, surviving by sharing whatever they had.29 The American scholar John Dominic Crossan believes that in Jesus’s instructions to these missionaries, we find the kernel of the early Jesus movement. When they arrived in a village, Jesus told them, they must knock on a door and wish the householder peace; if he was kind enough to admit them, they must stay in that house, working with their hosts and “sharing their food and drink: for the worker deserves his pay . . . When you enter a town and you are made welcome, eat the food provided for you, heal the sick there, and say: ‘The Kingdom of God has come upon you.’”30 The Kingdom became present whenever somebody had the compassion to admit a needy stranger to his home, when that stranger received food from another and then offered something in return. Peasants, Crossan explains, had two overriding anxieties: “Shall I eat today?” and “Shall I become ill and fall into debt?” In Jesus’s system, if one person had food then everybody could eat, and there would always be somebody to care for the sick. This interdependence and mutual sharing was both a Way of Salvation and a Way of Survival.31

forkboy84 posted:

You have to admire how Saul of Tarsus absolutely defanged any potentially Revolutionary angle of early Christianity

forkboy84 posted:

You have to admire how Saul of Tarsus absolutely defanged any potentially Revolutionary angle of early Christianity

quote:

Since the late nineteenth century, a number of scholars have argued that the letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians were written in Paul’s name after his death. They have noted that their style differs markedly from Paul’s own direct and incisive mode of writing and that they reflect a later period. There is no more anguished discussion about the admission of gentiles into the assembly, and instead of the focus on an individual ekklesia, as in Paul’s authentic letters, we find an emphasis on the movement as a whole. What we can now call a “church” has emerged, with a theology of its own. Instead of dealing with the particular problems encountered by a specific community, these letters deal with more general matters. They may have been written toward the end of the first century by followers of Paul, who wrote in his name because they believed that during this difficult period, the authority of an apostolic voice was essential.

Because of Paul’s disappearance, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Parousia was not going to come as quickly as everybody had thought. Where Paul had urged his disciples to hold aloof from the pagan world because “the world as we know it is passing away,” it was now becoming apparent that Jesus’s followers faced the prospect of a long-term period of coexistence with mainstream society. How could they achieve this without losing their distinctive identity? Paul had used the collection as a way of bringing his scattered communities together; now his successors had to capitalize on this, taking Paul’s teaching into a new phase to meet the demands of a changed world. Hence these two letters take Paul’s theology into a new direction.

Both authors have a highly developed consciousness of the church as a whole. In fact, they have invented ecclesiology. They both use Paul’s image of the body of Christ—but with one important difference. Paul had subverted imperial theology, which had seen Caesar as the head of the body politick. Instead, he had developed a more pluralistic ideal of an interdependent community, in which the “inferior” parts of the body received greater honor than the head. The authors of Colossians and Ephesians, however, placed Christ at the head of the body, while still trying to preserve some of Paul’s original insights. “[Christ] is the head of the body, the church; he is its origin, the first to return from the dead, to become in all things supreme,” says the author of Colossians.1 The author of Ephesians urges his readers, as Paul would have done, to grow up fully into Christ: “He is the head, and on him the whole body depends. Bonded and held together by every constituent joint, the whole frame grows through the proper functioning of each part, and builds itself up through love.”2 There is an attempt to preserve Paul’s emphasis on love, on the importance of community building, and on the interdependence of members, but a graded hierarchy was beginning to emerge, with Christ no longer identified with the body as a whole and with everybody in the ekklesia but firmly with the head.

In this vision, however, Christ still supplanted Caesar, but after the horror of the Jewish War with Rome, Paul’s preoccupation with “the rulers of this age” had been muted. Christ was now presented as vanquishing cosmic rather than earthly powers. Instead of focusing on the imminent Parousia, when Christ would return to earth to subdue the imperial authorities, the authors insisted that Jesus had already achieved that victory but on a celestial plane. When tackling the problems raised by the Corinthian “spirituals,” Paul had been adamant that the Kingdom had not yet come. But these authors insisted that Christ’s followers were already living the redeemed life. “He has rescued us from the domain of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of his dear Son,” writes the author of Colossians; they were already “in the realm of light.”3 “In Christ indeed we have been given our share in the heritage, as was decreed in the design whose purpose is everywhere at work,” says the author of Ephesians. Christ was now enthroned “far above all government and authority, all power and domination, and any title of sovereignty that commands allegiance, not only in this age but in the age to come.”4 Paul’s strongly political vision had been transposed to another world and another dimension of time.

These letters show the beginning of a Pauline tradition, which was altering Paul’s theology and thus enabling it to speak to different circumstances. This is particularly evident in the authors’ directions about the Christian household. Paul’s utopian egalitarianism had been replaced by a more hierarchical vision, in which wives must obey their husbands, children their fathers, and slaves must “give entire obedience to your earthly masters.”5 Both authors expressed these new ideals in a style and vocabulary that seem stylized; already a tradition of patriarchy that was alien to Paul seems to have been established in the gentile ekklesiai. The baptismal cry—“Neither male nor female”—has been subsumed into the hierarchical body of Christ:

quote:

Wives, be subject to your husbands as though to the Lord; for the man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is, indeed, the savior of that body; but just as the church is subject to Christ, so must women be subject to their husbands in everything.6

These conventional instructions reflect the newly felt need to coexist with Greco-Roman society. Now that the Parousia had been indefinitely delayed, Paul the radical had to be reined in if the movement was to survive. These directions conformed closely to the household codes to which Greco-Roman philosophers, historians, and Hellenistic Jewish writers attached great importance, seeing the well-ordered family as crucial to the proper ordering of society.7 The patriarchal household described here is not, therefore, an invention of either Paul or the Deutero-Paulines but an expression of Greco-Roman norms, which the authors have tried to imbue with the Pauline ideals of love and service; throughout the focal point of loyalty is not the state, as it is in the Hellenistic household codes, but loyalty to Christ.8

gradenko_2000 posted:

Paul was a victim of what we would nowadays refer to as "fake news" and "an op"

gradenko_2000 posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

Paul was a victim of what we would nowadays refer to as "fake news" and "an op"

webcams for christ posted:

this is great

gradenko_2000 posted:

there's more than one Catholic poster in these here parts

my source for these excerpts is "St Paul: The Apostle We Love To Hate", by Karen Armstrong

Frosted Flake posted:

I once had to write a paper on how many of Paul’s letters were actually written by Paul, and tried to wriggle out of it by citing the Vatican doctrine that all of them were written by the Holy Spirit via the process of Illumination. So it doesn’t matter if Saint Paul wrote them because the Holy Spirit who guided his pen also guided the pen of his imitators/forgers.

I got a pissed off note from my professor and a B.

Flavahbeast posted:

rough year for the brits

https://twitter.com/business/status/1643075684443602948

gradenko_2000 posted:

Paul was a victim of what we would nowadays refer to as "fake news" and "an op"

forkboy84 posted:

You have to admire how Sanders of Tarsus absolutely defanged any potentially Revolutionary angle of early Christianity

Mr Hootington posted:

https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/1643253621486759938?t=Km_y_S897KhfPe_Ys8YzHQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/byHeatherLong/status/1643253376044396546?t=KPptWFdD9U-AjudL-IQi8Q&s=19

quote:

While he admitted that the company could have handled its position on the schools legislation better, Iger likened the company’s stance to Civil Rights-era protests.

Radirot posted:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1642968872427954179

Fitzy Fitz posted:

What's the alternative though? The price of food has gone up across the board. Fast food still fills the same niche.

Fitzy Fitz posted:

What's the alternative though? The price of food has gone up across the board. Fast food still fills the same niche.

Turtle Sandbox posted:

I'm surprised we haven't seen a new, low cost, trash tier but cheap food options that fast food used to be. Maybe prices are up so high across the board a hot dog cart slinging the cheapest possible fare still runs to pricey compared to making your own lunch.

euphronius posted:

I can’t believe Iger is back.