Archive of articles classified as' "Religion"Back home
“While His penis is on loan you must admit that it is sort of just hanging out there very lonely as if it needed a home, sort of like a man wondering the streets looking for a house to live in. Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.”
“Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home. But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not. And, though women other than your wife may look like a home, to rest there would be breaking into another man’s home. And, if you look at a man it is quite obvious that what a homeless man does not need is another man without a home.”
“Paul tells us that your penis actually belongs to your wife, and once you are married she will trade you it for her home (I Corinthians 7:4), and every man knows this is a very good trade for him to make.”
Whoops! My mistake! This is Mark Driscoll,
former pastor of the former megachurch Mars Hill.
Mark is taking a leave of absence
in order to spend more time with his lawyer.
The previous images were of George Liquor (TM) John Krisfalusi.
“With his penis, the man is supposed to learn to please his wife and learn how to be patient, self-controlled and be educated on how to keep his home happy and joyous (I Corinthians 7:3). The man should be aroused by his new home, and the wife should rejoice at seeing his penis rise to greet her (Song of Songs 5:14b).”
All quotes direct & documented –
you can’t make this stuff up, folks!
Hollywood suffered a major disappointment at the box office this summer, and it looks like we’re seeing a major sea change in the way motion pictures and TV shows are viewed / consumed.
[We’re going full bore
theological after the jump,
but secular readers
are safe until then.]
In a nut shell, fewer and fewer people feel like shelling out $10-20 bucks to eat overpriced popcorn while watching a movie they know little if anything about.
Previously, they had been willing to spend that kinda money for something they knew they would enjoy, either a branded form of entertainment like Walt Pixar Presents Harry Marvel’s War Trek 007: Die With An Expendable Transforming Hard On, or Something Just Like It.
New movies, unfamiliar concepts, non-popcorn crunchers just didn’t warrant a $10+ entry fee.
Wait till it comes on Pay-Per-Vue or HBO or Netflix or (really scraping the bottom of the barrel here) YouTube.
Heaven knows this is how I watch most of my media:
If it ain’t on Netflix / HBO / YouTube or available on DVD, I’ll pass.
As a result movie theaters are slowly starting to spiral the drain. Their biggest hits are aimed at a teen male heterosexual audience that can’t find dates and whose parents monitor their computer so they can’t watch porn.
There’s next to nada for older and/or female audiences.
Movies used to be a shared common public experience:
You went to see something along with a bunch of other people, and then you discussed that experience with other people who hadn’t been there with you.
Now we share the experience online, comparing notes over TV shows and movies we watched in the privacy of our own homes.
We don’t really connect with the rest of an audience in a movie theater.
Now, there is an exception to that, and that’s when people come together to share a specific common interest.
Here in L.A. we have the El Capitan Theatre which shows Disney movies accompanied by elaborate stage shows. People who go there go specifically to see a Disney movie with an elaborate stage show wrapped around it.
Or people go to sing-a-long events where classic musicals like The Sound Of Music are played with follow-the-bouncing-ball accompaniment, turning it into karaoke for the masses.
Or, if they are real film buffs, they go to the rapidly dwindling number of art / revival houses to see a specific film selected for them by the theater in the company of fellow film buffs.
Back in the day these sorts of theaters, while not exactly plentiful, were easy to find. Every major urban area had at least two or three, sometimes many, many more. Often they would show a new double every night ( not counting special kiddee matinees on Saturdays or late night cult films on Fridays and Saturdays). The films would either be selected as complimentary to one another or as an interesting juxtaposition. Once or twice a month there would be an evening of short subjects / cartoons / music videos.
In other words, every night a three to four hour block of interesting, thought provoking movies representing a wide variety of genres and styles.
If I were king of the forest, I’d want a neighborhood revival house where the staff selected an interesting double feature / selection of shorts for each evening. Projection would be a state of the art digital system; it would be set up to scan 70mm / 35mm / 16mm / 9.5mm / Super 8 / 8mm films without having to run them through hellacious loud / hot / cranky projectors, as well as taking digital downloads / Blu-rays / DVDs / VHS / Beta / laserdisc / Fisher-Price PXL2000 sourced material.
There would be a selection of healthy / inexpensive drinks, good popcorn popped fresh daily, and quality snacks; and next door would be a Denny’s-style coffee shop so after the screening either the film makers or the theater manager could take people over to discuss what they had just seen and get to know one another better.
What we have instead, however, is a theatrical film going experience that relies more and more on variants of previous successes. It is the rare theatrical film that makes even a token gesture at a fresh interpretation of old tropes, or presents itself in a style other than that of last year’s block buster.
The long war had ended.
Its miseries had grown faded.
Deaf men became difficult to talk to,
Heroes became bores.
Who had converted blood into gold
Had grown elderly.
But they held a meeting,
‘We think perhaps we ought
To put up tombs
Or erect altars
To those brave lads
Who were so willingly burnt,
Who lost all likeness to a living thing,
Or were blown to bleeding patches of flesh
For our sakes.
It would look well.
Or we might even educate the children.’
But the richest of these wizards
And he said:
‘I have always been to the front
-In private enterprise-,
I yield in public spirit
To no man.
I think yours is a very good idea
-A capital idea-
And not too costly . . .
But it seems to me
That the cause for which we fought
Is again endangered.
What more fitting memorial for the fallen
Than that their children
Should fall for the same cause?’
Rushing eagerly into the street,
The kindly old gentlemen cried
To the young:
‘Will you sacrifice
Through your lethargy
What your fathers died to gain ?
The world must be made safe for the young!’
And the children
Went. . . .
So I encountered someone who was Christsplaining “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” on the InterWebs and thot
oh hell NO! it would be a good topic for a blog post.
Their Christplanation was that Jesus wasn’t saying rich people couldn’t go to heaven, because a camel going through the eye of a needle is obviously an impossibility.
Instead, what Jesus was referring to was a special little gate called “The Eye Of The Needle” because it was so narrow, and that for a camel to pass through, it would first need to be unburdened and then get down on its knees and shuffle in.
For some peculiar reason this interpretation is extremely
popular with people who desire s4!tloads of money.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” is a very complex metaphor.
Let me explain it to you:
“A camel” = a great big fracking animal
“the eye of a needle” = that leeeetle tiny hole at the end of the thin thin thin pointy metal thing you use to sew cloth together
“a rich man” = anybody who has two shirts when somebody else has none
“the kingdom of heaven” = to be in communion with God both here & now and the hereafter
Jesus was fond of using ridiculous hyperbole to prove his points. F’r instance, “why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” literally meant people were walking around with six foot long weaver’s beams in their eyes while criticizing their neighbors for having a speck of dust in theirs. Obviously a physical impossibility, but Christ wasn’t interested in telling something literally factual but rather spiritually true
Likewise “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out” meaning literally gouge your eyes out rather than let them lead you into temptation. I don’t think Jesus expected anybody to take that as a serious command, but rather that we should remove from our lives anything that might cause us to harm another person or allow another to come to harm.
So the point he was getting across re camel / needle / rich man was this: If you are more interested in lining your own pocket than in seeing justice is done, you aren’t going to hell…
…you’re already there.
“The Christian life is not about pleasing God the finger-shaker and judge. It is not about believing now or being good now for the sake of heaven later. It is about entering a relationship in the present that begins to change everything now. Spirituality is about this process: the opening of the heart to the God who is already here.” — Marcus J. Borg, The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion To A More Authentic Contemporary Faith
 There is an alternate Christplanation where “camel” is a miscopying of the Aramic word for “rope” and there’s a certain appeal to that insofar as one can see a similarly between a thread and a rope. However, that Christplanation also misses the point that it’s fracking impossible.
 They don’t actually have to possess s4!tloads of money, just desire to possess s4!tloads of money. Check out Matthew 5:27-28.
Had an odd twinge of nostalgia / sadness today. Saw / heard two things that I wished I could have shared with now deceased family members.
The thing that made me feel nostalgic / sad was not that I was missing them for what they had done for me, but because I was missing the chance to do something for them.
Even something as silly and as slight as relaying a cartoon or good news that they might particularly enjoy is a privilege that I’m now doing without.
That, ultimately, is what love is all about:
The desire to do something good for another person, no matter how small, with no thought of reciprocation other than the delight and satisfaction in knowing you helped another human being.
Human beings, being human of course, tend to form their closest bonds to their immediate families / mates. That’s to be expected, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. (Indeed, I feel sorry for those who are the products of dysfunctional families, who never learned to love and trust those physically closest to them; may they find peace and happiness and that missing love with others.)
But beyond our immediate familial / blood / mating ties there should be love that extends to others. First it is those like us in age or interests or community, then it is to those who share our same general values even if they are not immediate neighbors, then our entire country / culture / religion.
But that’s still too narrow a band on love.
Love should extend to everyone everywhere all the time. This most pointedly is NOT saying that all actions are equally benign, or that all behaviors should be tolerated under all circumstances.
But it does say we are to love our enemies, to love those who despitefully use us, to love those who hate us and do no reciprocate our gestures of mercy and forgiveness and tolerance.
Never return evil for evil,
neglect for neglect.
The writer Andrew Vachss summed it up succinctly:
“Children know the truth.
Love is not an emotion.
Love is a behavior.”
“Beautiful view! Is there one for the enlisted men?”
Bill Mauldin, circa WWII [this is how a military leader
expresses love for his troops; he sees that their needs
are taken care of first, and that he enjoys nothing
they can not have as well.]