I assumed he was bitching at Jesus McQueen about something.
it's a line for the ages.
but I think it may get the historico-sociological direction of causation backwards.
It's not the Jesus-Mary obsession that led the renaissance to foreground individuals. Rather, the selection of those two in endless pietas/virgin-&-infants etc. was a way of expressing a growing interest in individuals.
i.e., I don't think a bunch of medievals started geeking out over the story of Jesus, *then* started depicting his human figure with intense detail to personality, and *then* got interested in human personality more generally. (And his humanity, given the alleged details, doesn't generalize so well in any case).
Instead, portrayals of J&M were convenient ways to explore the faces of those around you; patrons, yes, but models and family and all sorts of people. And there was an antecedent interest in the exploration of faces.
Contrast byzantine iconography where St. Chrysostom and St. Basil and every other damned saint all look the same: bald top, long beard, intense eyes, etc. The only differentiation comes through little emblems (I forget the word for this) like a wheel for Catherine, upside down cross for Peter, golf-club or stethoscope for Luke, etc.
Those folks were *not* using the portrayal of individuals as a way to explore individuals. Even the Pantocrators look pretty much like the saints, only even more pissed off. (I remember one incredible Pantocrator--maybe at Daphne?--who has this look of supreme contempt and disgust gazing down at the congregation, a sort of "I. Smell. *Feces*!" look, and all I could think of was the picture of Baudelaire from les fleurs du mal.)
Anyhow--Emerson's in good form.
Come off it, Jesus
Impenitent thief, much?
Below the real Jesus explains the correct attitude toward the cricifixion of the false Jesus: laughter. The neo-Platonists were all wet.
". . . it was another. . . who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over . . . their error. . . And I was laughing at their ignorance." (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth 56:6-19).
It's not the Jesus-Mary obsession that led the renaissance to foreground individuals. Rather, the selection of those two in endless pietas/virgin-&-infants etc. was a way of expressing a growing interest in individuals.
I disagree. Let's open our books to Masaccio's Trinity. The array of the Father, Son, & HG in the painting has a direct impact on the perspective of the piece. The architectural realm above God's head is distorted as a way of visually hinting at that which can't be depicted—ecstasy, the noemenal realm, that sort of thing. To my mind this is one of the important moments of art—bending the newly invented perspective to convey narrative meaning—and it's driven by the theology.
Emerson's comment reminds me of that great bit by Eddie Izzard on St. Paul. Something like, "Dear Paul, Fuck off. Where do you get off writing to a whole city? Hugs and kisses, the Corinthians."
If Jews were more open about their belief that Jesus had it coming to him, I might convert -- Israel or no Israel.
Jesus was either the son of God, or else a bowl of potato soup. You couldn't honestly countenance that he was a bowl of soup, could you? Well there you go.
7: John: We'd gladly risk all the subsequent pogroms for the joy of having you join our fold.
Yeah, but they don't say, "Sure we killed him! Wanna make something of it?"
Well, when they go to the trouble of drinking the blood of our babies, you would think that saying "What are you going to make of it?" ccould be taken as read.
OK, I'm done making horrible jokes now. Just jokes, that's all people.
Give that man a Koufax!
11: Or, "So we killed him. You don't like? Go shit in the ocean."
But Smasher, isn't KidB is right to say that what differentiates Renaissance art from the medieval is the growing interest in actual perception, convincing depiction human emotions, and recognizable space? Masaccio's distortions are minimal compared to those of a late medievalist icon painter like Cimabue. It's not fair to claim that because an interest in the transcendental hadn't totally disappeared (and after all the church was still the most important of patrons), it was the driving force in this transition.
Actually I think John is completely wrong about the Jesus/Mary thing being the root of modern narcissism. On the contrary, the Jesus/Mary thing is the lingering salvation of the church, inasmuch as it celebrates a very human *relationship* and makes Catholicism pretty much the only major religion that still retains faint ideas of the divinity of women. The narcissism comes from shoving aside the idea of the mother as life giver and pretending that every man is self-made.
it celebrates a very human *relationship*
Virgin birth? Not so human. Jesus/Mary Magdalene fits better.
the only major religion that still retains faint ideas of the divinity of women
Hinduism, yes?
Not the virgin birth part, that comes later. Anyway, the virgin issue is more about her relationship with Joseph. If you look at Renaissance depictions of Mary and Jesus together, what's so marvellous about them is the way that they depict her as a doting mother, and the infant as a chubby baby.
She meant religion for people, not brown people and dogs, Apo.
But yes re. Hinduism, I think. The rest of 'em--Buddhism, Judaism, Protestantism, Islam--suck.
Compared to Kali Durga and her necklace of human skulls, the Virgin seems wimpy.
Yeah, but they don't say, "Sure we killed him! Wanna make something of it?"
Well, you see, the problem is... Some people did.
It's still a touchy subject. They had to take that line out of all the literature.
Lenny Bruce said that his cousin confessed that it was him> "Sure I did it, Lenny. What else could I do?"
One of the innovations of mahayana Buddhism in particular is the docrine that women are just as close to enlightenment as men. Earlier versions of Buddhism tended to hold that a woman would have to be reincarnated as a man before attaining enlightenment.
This strain of Buddhism strikes me as coming as close as you can to recognizing the divinity of women for a religion that is, strictly speaking, still atheistic.
If you look at Renaissance depictions of Mary and Jesus together, what's so marvellous about them is the way that they depict her as a doting mother, and the infant as a chubby baby.
"Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ, and then the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I'm one of the few people that believe it was the blacks." -Sarah Silverman
Parmigianino's Jesus grew up to play center for the Bethlehem Kings.
That tall baby in Apo's link is also laid out in the posture of Christ taken from the cross.
Of course not always. That pic linked in 28 is hilarious.
Anyway, the virgin issue is more about her relationship with Joseph.
Exactly. Poor man was cuckolded by the Holy Spirit.
a very human *relationship*
Though sometimes a little bizarre.
1: Yeah, I get myself confused with that other guy once in a while.
As usual, IA swoops in with the winning comment.
While we're on the topic of religion, I can't vouch for the credibility of the accuser (having never heard of him before), but if his story turns out to be true, then maybe we can get Ted Haggard to be the Mineshaft chaplain. Oh, pleasepleaseplease let it be true.
33 is the basis of a Joe Frank episode. As I've mentioned before.
having never heard of him before....
No need to pretend, Apo, you're among friends. Is he good?
That Ted Haggard story is amazing. He's really, really powerful in the Christian fundamentalist movement.
How much evidence does the public need to conclude that the folks who've built their houses on anti-gay platforms are the gayest of all the gays in gaytown?
It's undeniable that the devil works hardest to tempt the most righteous among us, is another way of looking at it.
Though sometimes a little bizarre.
Did they have breast implants back then? Put a different head on her, and that Madonna could be Victoria Beckham.
Dude, there has to be an H. Rider Haggard joke in here. The best I can come up with is mentioning Queen of the Dawn.
People forget that nice Christian kids aren't supposed to be heterosexual either. In conservative environments, gay boys are the least tempted, so they might seem to be good boys.
Handholding, very restrained hugging and an occasional kiss were all that was considered proper even for engaged couples. No second or third base, much less a home run. So the only nice boy in the school might be the faggot.
Didn't work. In mys sister's 1967 HS graduating class (no more than 40 girls) at least 6 got pregnant. At least 3 were nice churchgoing girls. (It could have been one more except for me. My sister's cute best friend had a crush on me, but I didn't pick up on it.)
People nowadays have forgotten that you're supposed to live your life under intense temptation to do things that are sinful, but not ever actually gratify yourself until you get to heaven. Men may be tempted by extramarital ladies or by men, but they are only TEH FAYG if they give in to the unholy urges that all of us have.
23: No idea of the divine feminine in Buddhism? You're joking.
and an occasional kiss
I once read a treatise on a fundy Xian website that declared kissing - even closed-mouth pecks - to be off limits before marriage: What if you and the girl/boy didn't end up married? Then you would have kissed someone else's spouse.
You speak as though that sort of thing is in the past, Emerson.
47.--I remember being told at Mormon girls camp that french kissing was sinful because it was analogous to sex. Having never kissed anyone at that point, I found that idea very exciting.
I asked an older, engaged girl who didn't seem crazy how she and her fiancé managed not to french kiss, and she replied that it wasn't so hard, if they concentrated; she sometimes entertained herself with pecking his face in patterns. :-)
she sometimes entertained herself with pecking his face in patterns
For some reason this clause is bringing violent imagery to mind.
For me personally it's in the distant past, thank God, and for most of urban America, but yeah, it still hangs on in many places.
Though the Mormons are among the least anti-sexual, in my opinion. They're anti-feminist, for sure, but their message to horny 16-year-olds seems to be "get married right now and then you can screw".
And a lot of the revivalist prosperity-gospel New Churches seem to have made allowances for the good stuff, as long as its heterosexual.
revivalist prosperity-gospel New Churches seem to have made allowances for the good stuff
Really? Can you point to an example? I grew up in that, and I've never seen or heard of such allowances.
Yes, and single women shouldn't be allowed to recork wine bottles either. Or put plugs in light sockets, or join plumbing parts together. It might give them the idea.
My ex-landlord cruised churches because the women there were cleaner, tighter, and more appreciative than the ones he met in bars. My brother also dated a young Christian lady who felt terrible guilt but was very enthusiastic and quite forward. Others have told me that they cruised Christian groups in college.
Perhaps they were all on the point of falling away, but I got the idea that the churches had a tacit "don't ask, don't tell", "we're all sinners", "the flesh is weak" serial-repentance approach.
Note to religious leaders: We figure it out anyway sans pipes.
I have too many high school classmates, who went off to Christian colleges, who have too many stories of friends being convinced that 'that girl must be the one God chose for me because of what I feel when I see her!' ('no, man, she's just hot.'), and to avoid sin, get married at age 19 or 20, and then divorce by 25 or 26. And you have to wonder: wouldn't they have been better off just french kissing, groping, and breaking up like everyone else?
55- could be remedied by strict laws against divorce.
their message to horny 16-year-olds seems to be "get married right now and then you can screw"
This, absolutely.
(Well, it's a bit more tailored than that. Boy: wait until your mission at 18, then wait until you come home at 20, THEN get married and screw. Girls: find yourselves a returned missionary and nab him quick! Then screw. I have a male cousin who got married to an eighteen-year woman he barely knew within six months after returning from his mission; the less devout members of my family refer to her as his "child-bride," although the baby seems to have aged her a bit.)
56 -- also, by eradication of the human race.
My sister's cute best friend had a crush on me, but I didn't pick up on it.
John Emerson, letting the side down. For shame.
I know a couple who got married right out of college because of sexual frustration, and it was pretty obvious that they were ill-suited for marriage & would have discovered their incompatibilities but for the blocked sex drive. It's a small thing, but sad.
The thing that kills me is that my cousin and his child bride seem to have as decent a shot of making it work as anyone I know. It doesn't seem right.
Eh, people got married pretty randomly throughout human history, and it worked out fine a reasonable amount of the time. Not that that makes marrying the next person you meet a good idea, but the historical track record demonstrates that it's not doomed.
56: then you've got people thinking the purpose of marriage is so they can get sex and make each other miserable. Nothing wrong with deciding to abstain, but holding up marital sex as this alternative to self-control really seems to degrade the institution. (Yes, I know what Paul said. Hugs and kisses, the Thessalonians.) Don't get married because you love someone and want to have a future and children together, get married because otherwise you'll poink half the town. Seems like bad advice as opposed to 'calm down, it won't fall off if you're not married by 19.'
Eh, people got married pretty randomly throughout human history, and it worked out fine a reasonable amount of the time.
Did it really? Most of the time the goal of marriage was something like to secure alliances and pop out children, and it succeeded in doing that. But is there any reason to believe that most marriages in history were happy, especially from the woman's perspective?
Another way of putting it: for most of human history, marriage has been intensely patriarchal. People were probably able to hook up at random because women couldn’t complain and men were happy to be getting the long end of the stick.
Several of the shotgun marriages I remember from the 60s are still seemingly healthy. A lot of the hooplah about teen marriage is based on the need for education, but there are always are going to be people driving truck without an advanced degree, and they're usually going to get married.
Cala assumes that marriage might possibly not be a degraded institution under some conditions. Hence her confusion and error.
More on the Haggard story: the escort says he has voicemails and a letter from Haggard and will take a polygraph test.
It's like Christmas! Please oh please oh please santa post some voicemails on the web! Go ahead and scan the letter too, I've been extra good this year!
Well, he'd better give over the evidence sooner rather than later. This is coming almost too late in the season to be effective.
re: Haggard - I hate being reminded that Mr. Garrison is based off of real people.
I just clicked through to Apo's and realized who Haggard is. This is great.
I don't believe it. I worry that this is going to turn out to be a hoax, and that it will be lumped in, with Dan Rather, as evidence of the "liberal media's" attempt to get conservatives. I worry that the escort is going to fail the test on Friday, that he knows he's going to fail the test on Friday, and that so does the Republican Party. Just another Guckert-Gannon, servicing the Party.
I'm with SCMT. My Spidey-sense is tingling.
Another art thread
I like van der Weyden myself.
Memling was a martian.
This is coming almost too late in the season to be effective.
This wouldn't have had any effect on the election anyhow. He isn't running for anything, and his minions will vote Republican regardless. My pleasure is purely of the petard-hoisting variety.
It woulda topped off Cocktober nicely, though.
Just another Guckert-Gannon, servicing the Party.
I know we're less than a week away, but this story isn't about the election, yo.
I think it is about the election, Apo. He's not running, but he's giving marching orders, even if only indirectly. Major disillusionment on the evangelical right translates into losses at the polls. They view their representatives as in league with the goals of their religious leaders (and their reps hold themselves out that way, far too often), and this--especially on the back of Mark Foley--has the potential to ampify their disgust with the whole lot.
I almost said "especially coming on the back of Mark Foley", but edited it for family-friendliness, but I'm not sure I ended up much cleaner.
I love it for the opportunity to needle my evangelical homophobic acquaintance. Muahaha.
61: LB, are you nuts? It worked out fine if you overlook things like domestic abuse, marital rape, and contracting syphillis from your husband. I mean, it was better than the alternatives for the most part, so "fine" by comparison, I suppose, but ick.
I didn't mean to say it worked out well for everyone, or even for close enough to everyone that it was a good idea. Just that there have, historically, been enough happy marriages (for whatever value of happy is possible given the oppressive state of marriage at that time, but I'd argue that happy is still a possible description of a marriage even in a legal environment where women can't own property, etc.) that running into a marriage that looks pretty good despite the fact that the partners chose each other kind of randomly isn't all that unlikely.
Oh, well, sure. I don't think that the whole romantic companionship thing is the ne plus ultra.
But no-fault divorce is.
Someone please march down to LB's office and rip down the feminist credentials she has hanging on her wall.
No fault divorce is the ne plus ultra?
I was fully in agreement with #72...but wow, look at the top of Talking Points Memo right now:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
You don't step down from certain positions before spending even one day stonewalling with the media if you're innocent. And you certainly don't do it if the whole thing is part of a ratfuck scheme to make your opponents look like liars.
The official story is that there's a formal procedure which is followed in any case of such an accusation. It seems a bit unlikely, and actually wrong, for a man to step down merely upon accusation. But those people are crazy.
Someone stop me. I'm having way too much fun reading this Free Republic thread.
God, it's amazing. They just love to assume guilt. Nobody seems to be saying he's being framed, at least in the first few messages. They're meaner than us.
The cancelled press conference of support must be the clincher for them.
Oh man, the Free Republic thread is something else.
"This smells like a Foley-esque smear."
Foley wasn't smeared, he was caught.
And this from cccp_hater (psst, that thing you hate hasn't existed for 15 years):
IF, IF, this is true it will impact th election here in CO.
He OWES those of us he has hurt (IF IF it's true) and he needs to pay ANY PRICE to minimize the impact on this election.
ANY PRICE
What do you figure he has in mind?
can't LB's point from 61 be rephrased to incorporate B's reality-check from 81 as follows:
throughout history, there have been a lot of marriages where the partners were selected at random (or as good as random; e.g. for dynastic convenience).
These marriages led to a lot of domestic abuse, marital rape, and other horrendous outcomes.
But--so do marriages in which partners are selected (or believe they are selecting each other) by other means, e.g. love at first sight, cute meets, both like Bee-Gees, had the same mantra, the whole realm of what we're inclined to think of as "getting married for the right reasons".
Plenty of domestic abuse, marital rape, STDs, etc., in marriages like those, too.
So my amendment of LB's point: outcomes weren't much worse under the historical, random system than they are now under the system in which we strive for companionate marriage based on reciprocally-perceived temperamental affinities. Bad then, bad now, not clear when worse.
LB--any of that useful to you?
94
cccp-hater has quite a good Gollum-imitation going there. Yikes, Red State seems to be the first stop after they crawl out from under rocks. No wonder I make sure never to click on links that threaten to take me there.
I think you mean Free Republic. Red State is the second stop.
97--
sorry; was hobbit-hater at Freep? That's another no-go destination for my browser.
I have google set to "Sane Search", so it blocks sites below a minimum threshold of sanity.
Assuming the quote is from the link in 91, which I haven't folloed, yes.
"which I haven't followed"
yeah, I leave that to braver people, like apostropher, paul, et al.
You don't know what you're missin'.
Is this the last minute Dean orchestrated pre election surprise...hitting Christians right where it hurts the most?
Satan is at loose in the world.
150 posted on 11/02/2006 8:54:33 PM PST by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
And
Not to compare Pastor Ted to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but maybe his actions are similiar. When you are under direct fire from the evil one, I do believe God gives you a peace that transcends understanding. I don't know the man very well personally, but I think these accusations are lies from the pit of hell. I understand the doubts, but here on this website, let's practice Ronald Magnus Reagan's great precept 'Thou shall not speak ill of another conservative' until the person is proved guilty.
139 posted on 11/02/2006 8:10:53 PM PST by fatez (Euthanasia - GenX's retirement plan for the boomers)
Magnus?
"Not to compare Pastor Ted to Dietrich Bonhoeffer"
no, no--wouldn't want to do that.
what is that, some kind of evangelical version of Godwin's law?
Okay, really: what is up with Ronald Magnus Reagan?
If you run it without quotes, you discover that it's what fucking Rush Limbaugh calls him.
and rush calls him that because...?
He drank too much brain tonic.
94: I was imagining something like this:
Barney: Is it okay to come out now, Mr. Gay Man? Sir?
Moe: I'll do anything you say! Anything!
94 -- sounds like a call for hara-kiri.
How much evidence does the public need to conclude that the folks who've built their houses on anti-gay platforms are the gayest of all the gays in gaytown?
Can someone help me out with a list of such people? I'd like some rhetorical ammunition.
