Contempt

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 122 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  3 “Do not go on boasting so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the LORD is a God of knowledge, And by Him actions are weighed (examined). 4 “The bows of the mighty are a broken, But those who have stumbled equip themselves with strength. 5 “Those who were full hire themselves out for bread, But those who were hungry cease [to hunger]. Even the barren [woman] gives birth to seven, But she who has many children withers away. 6 “The LORD puts to death and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol (the grave) and raises up [from the grave]. 7 “The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and He lifts up. 8 “He raises up the poor from the dust, He lifts up the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor and glory; For the pillars of the earth are the LORD ’s, And He set the land on them. 9 “He guards the feet of His godly (faithful) ones, But the wicked ones are silenced and perish in darkness; For a man shall not prevail by might. 10 “The adversaries of the LORD will be broken to pieces; He will thunder against them in the heavens, The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; And He will give strength to His b king, And will exalt the horn (strength) of His anointed.” [Luke 1:46 ] 11 Elkanah [and his wife Hannah] returned to Ramah to his house. But the child [Samuel] served the LORD c under the guidance of Eli the priest. The Sin of Eli’s Sons 12 The sons of Eli [Hophni and Phinehas] were d worthless (dishonorable, unprincipled) men; they did not know [nor respect] the LORD 13 and the custom of the priests with [the sacrifices of] the people. When any man was offering a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged [meat] fork in his hand; 14 then he would thrust it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; everything that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is what they did in Shiloh to all [the sacrifices of] the e Israelites who came there. 15 Also, before they burned (offered) the fat, the priest’s servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give the priest meat to roast, since he will not accept boiled meat from you, only raw.” 16 If the man said to him, “f Certainly they are to burn (offer) the fat first, and then you may take as much as g you want,” then the priest’s servant would say, “No!

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  Saul Publicly Chosen King 17 Then Samuel called the people together to the LORD at Mizpah, 18 and he said to Israel, “Thus says the LORD , the God of Israel, ‘It was I who brought Israel up from Egypt, and I rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and from all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.’ 19 “But today you have rejected your God, who Himself saves you from all your disasters and distresses; yet you have said, ‘No! Set a king over us.’ Now then, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your families (clans).” 20 And when Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, the tribe of Benjamin was chosen by lot. 21 Then he brought the tribe of Benjamin near by their families, and the family of Matri was chosen by lot. And Saul the son of Kish was chosen by lot; but when they looked for him, he could not be found. 22 So they inquired further of the LORD , “Has the man come here yet?” And the LORD answered, “He is there, hiding himself by the c provisions and supplies.” [Ex 28:30 ] 23 So they ran and took him from there, and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward. 24 Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen? For there is no one like him among all the people.” So all the people shouted and said, “Long live the king!” 25 Then Samuel told the people the d requirements of the kingdom, and wrote them in a book and placed it before the LORD . And Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home. 26 Saul also went home to Gibeah; and the e brave men whose hearts God had touched went with him. 27 But some f worthless men said, “How can this man save and rescue us?” And they regarded Saul with contempt and did not bring him a gift. But he ignored the insult and kept silent. 1 Samuel 11 Saul Defeats the Ammonites 1 N ow Nahash the a Ammonite [king] went up and b besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty [of peace] with us and we will serve you.” 2 But Nahash the Ammonite told them, “I will make a treaty with you on this condition, that I will c gouge out the right eye of every one of you, and make it a disgrace upon all Israel.” 3 The elders of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Give us seven days so that we may send messengers throughout the territory of Israel.

• From Vox (1992)

  What am I saying, that’s what it is like.” “Ooh, I love you, you tell me everything.” “I do seem to, don’t I? It’s very unlike me.” “It is?” he said. “God, I’m a compulsive confessor. But it’s rare for me to cast my bread on the waters and have it return tenfold like this.” “Tell me the rest of what happened with your friend Emily.” “Why? No, no, it’ll make me seem like too much of a type.” “You are a type,” she said. “You’re right, I am.” “Don’t feel bad about it—I am too. I just want to know what you’re like when you’re physically holding a woman. As opposed to calling up catalogs and strangers named Klein and that sort of thing, worthwhile pursuits though they may be. What did you and Emily end up doing?” “I never actually held her, that’s the first thing I’ll say. So it’s certainly going to disappoint you. It’s a very common story, really, and I’m starting to want to impress you a little.” “Impress me with your candor—that seems to be your style.” “Well here’s what happened, anyway,” he said. “After I showed her my cock tracing and all that, it marked some kind of conclusion, and we were more reserved with each other. After all, what was there to say? I’d laid it right out on the table and she’d basically rejected me. But then there was a big good-bye party for somebody, and at it Lee flirted with her in his perky cool way. Boy I dislike the way he funnels peanuts into his mouth. He’ll never see forty-eight again, and yet he throws his whole head back after he’s been asked a question, drops in a hopperful of nuts, and then he answers the question while he’s crunching. He tries to be sardonic eating peanuts! This is some TV convention that has gotten people in its clutches. Of course there are times when you are so full of something you want to say that you talk with your mouth full, I have no problem with that. What I find fault with is when you are deliberately using the act of talking with your mouth full to demonstrate just how totally relaxed and spontaneous you really are as a conversationalist. It’s from growing up watching all those salted-snack commercials. Bugles. So I hate him, clearly, and he’s at the party, and midway through, something bad happens between Emily and him, basically it’s just that he makes it clear that he likes flirting with her but forget it, he’s married. She tells me about it in the parking lot, she’s near tears, and then she squats and holds on to the side mirror of my car and looks in it and she says, ‘Well well— I look convincingly haggard.’ That was her best line—in fact it probably makes her seem more vulnerable and lovable than she really is. That’s not fair—she’s very nice.

• From Vox (1992)

  “Exactly, as if it’s a stylized cartoon bubble with a curved window drawn on it, and you’re naked in there, strumming like there’s no tomorrow. But no, actually it isn’t like simple voyeurism, I don’t think—it’s holier or more reverent than that, because when I’m in that mood I don’t want to exist. I don’t mean I want to kill myself, I mean that I’m a man and a man is a watcher and a watcher disturbs the purity of the event, so I don’t want to exist, I want to be faded away to almost nothing. And of course all other men are completely foreign, they aren’t allowed in this at all. When I’m very aroused I almost hate all other men. Sometimes when there’s a kissing scene in a movie, and the camera shows the actor and actress chomping away on each other’s gums, moyong, moyong , and then there’s this sudden folded-up piece of shaven male jaw skin, I feel a wave of disgust—what the fuck is he doing there, get him off the set! That’s not even to mention the bestial idiots in porn movies: this nice woman donating her perfect self to these horrible lascivious dumbfucks, with their suggestive evil laughs, and their intent lustful expressions, and their singlemindedness, and their constant diverting of the conversation around to sex. Get rid of them. One time I was in a store at the dirty-magazine rack and it was a little congested there and I reached sort of over this guy’s shoulder to get a copy of the magazine I wanted to look at— E-Cup or something—didn’t touch him, just reached over him, and the guy half turned his head and said in this psychopathic voice, but very soft, he said, ‘Stay away from me or I’ll cut you up.’ I said, ‘Sorry, sorry, I was just trying to get the magazine!’ And he said, ‘Well just stay the fuck away from me, okay?’ Now I’d never say that or threaten that but that guy’s reaction, when you’re at the magazine rack and you want to be the only one there, among all these lovely kindly wonderful naked women, is a reaction I can at least understand. These groups of buddies who go out and drink beer together at strip clubs—it’s totally mystifying to me that they would want to do that, have male company.” “But women like men from time to time.”

• From The Decameron (1353)

  Emilia, who sat next after Fiammetta,--the courage of the marchioness and the quaint rebuke administered by her to the King of France having been commended of all the ladies,--began, by the queen's pleasure, boldly to speak as follows: "I also, I will not keep silence of a biting reproof given by an honest layman to a covetous monk with a speech no less laughable than commendable. There was, then, dear lasses, no great while agone, in our city, a Minor friar and inquisitor of heretical pravity, who, for all he studied hard to appear a devout and tender lover of the Christian religion, as do they all, was no less diligent in enquiring of who had a well-filled purse than of whom he might find wanting in the things of the Faith. Thanks to this his diligence, he lit by chance upon a good simple man, richer, by far in coin than in wit, who, of no lack of religion, but speaking thoughtlessly and belike overheated with wine or excess of mirth, chanced one day to say to a company of his friends that he had a wine so good that Christ himself might drink thereof. This being reported to the inquisitor and he understanding that the man's means were large and his purse well filled, ran in a violent hurry _cum gladiis et fustibus_[53] to clap up a right grievous suit against him, looking not for an amendment of misbelief in the defendant, but for the filling of his own hand with florins to ensue thereof (as indeed it did,) and causing him to be cited, asked him if that which had been alleged against him were true. [Footnote 53: _i.e._ with sword and whips, a technical term of ecclesiastical procedure, about equivalent to our "with the strong arm of the law."] The good man replied that it was and told him how it chanced; whereupon quoth the most holy inquisitor, who was a devotee of St. John Goldenbeard,[54] 'Then hast thou made Christ a wine-bibber and curious in wines of choice, as if he were Cinciglione[55] or what not other of your drunken sots and tavern-haunters; and now thou speakest lowly and wouldst feign this to be a very light matter! It is not as thou deemest; thou hast merited the fire therefor, an we were minded to deal with thee as we ought.' With these and many other words he bespoke him, with as menacing a countenance as if the poor wretch had been Epicurus denying the immortality of the soul, and in brief so terrified him that the good simple soul, by means of certain intermediaries, let grease his palm with a good dose of St. John Goldenmouth's ointment[56] (the which is a sovereign remedy for the pestilential covetise of the clergy and especially of the Minor Brethren, who dare not touch money), so he should deal mercifully with him. [Footnote 54: _i.e._ a lover of money.] [Footnote 55: A notorious drinker of the time.]

• From The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (1984)

  According to these writers, Marcion raised the question of the proper exegesis of statements of Jesus about the new wine and the old wine skins or about the two kinds of trees with their fruit before his excommunication by the church at Rome and before his affiliation with Cerdo. Two of the principal emphases of his theology—the newness of the gospel and the contrast between two sources as an explanation for the antithesis between good and evil in the world—would seem to have been prominent in his thought while he was still in Asia Minor, that is, about 140; they may even have been the occasion for an earlier excommunication, at the hands of the bishop of Sinope, who was his own father. Nevertheless, he does not seem to have systema tized his thought until after 144, when he was excom municated at Rome and went on to found his own church. "Marcion's special and principal work," according to Tertullian, was "the separation of the law and the gospel"; his special and fundamental religious conviction was a single-minded dedication to the gospel. "Oh, won- The Separation of Law and Gospel 73 ap.Harnack (i960) 2:256 Tert.fo.r.2.8 {CCSL 2:923) Tert.i?£\r.2.i2 {CCSL 2:923) Tert.Aforr.5.11.9 {CCSL 1:697) Iren.Haer. 1.27.2 (Harvey 1:217) Tert.Mrffc.5.4.2 (CCSL 1:672) Iren.HdeT.3.11.2 (Harvey 2:41) Tert.AWc.1.14.1 {CCSL i:455) Tert.Carw.4-2 (CCSL 2:878); Tert. Marc. 4.21.10-11 {CCSL 1:599-600) Tert.yVWc.1.17.1 (CCSL 1:458); Tert.Aftffv. 1.24.7 (CCSL 1:468) Or.Pwzf.2.5.4 (GCS 22:137) Tert. M*fc. 1.2.1-2 (CCSL 1:442-43) Tert.-AWc. 2.5.1-2 {CCSL i:479-8o) der beyond all wonder or rapture, beyond all power or astonishment it is that one cannot express anything at all about the gospel, nor even think about it, nor compare it with anything else at all!" This inexpressible and in comparable wonder of salvation was so overwhelming that it obscured all else in the world—not only in the world as the kingdom of the devil, but in the world as the creation of God. The salvation of man was a more urgent cause than any other and "transcends all others in its importance." It was the key to the proper understand ing of other doctrinal issues, such as the resurrection of the body, which had to be interpreted in a manner con sistent with the centrality of deliverance, that is, had to be changed into "the salvation of the soul." For it was the purpose of the coming of Jesus to abolish all the works belonging to "this world" and to its Creator, the "ruler of the universe [Koa^oK/oarw/o]." Sun and moon, constel lations and stars, all were overshadowed by his coming. When he came, "he did not come into that which was his own, but into that which was alien to him." The natural world was made up of "beggarly elements," among which Marcion especially included reptiles -and insects. Particu larly repulsive to him was the "uncleanliness" of sex and of childbirth, none of which could have anything to do with the salvation of man.

• From Unbought and Unbossed: Transgressive Black Women, Sexuality, and Representation (2014)

  Similarly, during the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show featuring Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, a "wardrobe malfunction" accounted for the exposure of Jackson's breast at the precise moment Timberlake sang, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song." Responses to the singers' performance, whether incidental or a calculated choreographed gesture, inevitably diverged. While there are various factors to consider, such as the performers' obvious age difference, most transparent were their racial and gender differences: Jackson, an African American female pop icon (and sister of the global pop sensation-the "King of Pop"-Michael Jackson), and Justin Timberlake, a former "boy band" group member and breakout white male performance artist. The singers' performance and the public's response to it revealed a particular vulnerability of both an intimate and public nature. Jackson experienced castigation and a lack of sympathy not at all commensurate with her sexualized exposure. Conversely, Timberlake was considered, by and large, a relatively innocent "bystander" who was simply unaware or duped. As such, he, though having actively pulled on Jackson's clothing, did not encounter the same degree of criticism or suffer ramifications to the extent that Jackson did.26 These instances are not, however, limited to the interracial realm but also occur in intraracial contexts, as the controversy surrounding Nelly, rapper and music entertainer, reveals. In his highly contentious and controversial video Tip Drill, black women appear partially nude, especially in comparison to the fully clothed male rappers donning athletic jerseys. Nelly's swiping of a credit card in between the "posterior" (a.k.a. buttocks) of a woman caused an uproar of enormous magnitude, as did his obtuse and degrading misogynist lyrics. Not only did students at Spelman College plan a boycott of his charity performance, but he was scathingly excoriated by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In some ways, Nelly's career still suffers from this incident. What his video and its subsequent public condemnation expose is the extent to which perceptions and stereotypes of black women, womanhood, and blackness generally are entrenched in various segments, including the black community, and perpetuated in troublesome ways. Disseminated are constructions of black masculinity and manhood as regulatory-dictating the terms of their sexuality and desires through women, whose bodies and sexualities are governed by and accessible to (multiple) men. Some rappers, in turn, become representative of or conflated with an "authentically" black (male) subject whose masculinity is constituted, if not governed, by his sexuality-virility, sexual domination, and prowess-in relation to the female body, exploitation, and capital, as evidenced by the title ("Tip" Drill) and Nelly's dashing money toward women for sexual exchanges and accommodations.

• From The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (1984)

  From this premise it appeared to follow that Christian mission aries should affirm whatever could be affirmed of the re ligion prevailing in the nations to which they came and PRAEPARATIO EVANGELICA 66 ap.Bed.H.e.1.50 (PL 95:70-71) Latourette (1937) 2:68 Harnack (1962) 312 Clem. Prot. 3.42.1 (GCS 12:31) Clem.Str.j.6 (GCS 17:22-27) Bas.Spir.30.77 (PG 32:213); Gr.Naz.O.23.8 (PG 35:1160) should represent Christianity as the correction and ful fillment of the expectations at work in those nations. When Gregory I instructed the missionary Augustine to adapt both pagan temples and pagan holy days to Chris tian usage, he was "but following the practice widely current in the days when the Roman Empire was being converted." And while it may be an exaggeration to speak of this approach to the religion of the nations as "the syncretism of a universal religion," it was based on the principle that Jesus Christ was the divinely ordained an swer to the needs and aspirations of the Gentiles as well as the fulfillment of the messianic hopes of Israel. Partly as a consequence of such missionary practice, a similar view of the relation between natural religion and re vealed religion is evident in the development of Christian piety, as the church led the nations through lower to higher forms of devotion and worship. For the development of Christian doctrine, the most significant area where this principle manifested itself was probably the relation between philosophy and the ology. Most of the generous things which the church fathers said about paganism applied to the philosophers. For the religious rituals of Greek and Roman paganism Christian apologists had only contempt. They did not, for example, elaborate on the significance of pagan sac rifices for the sacrificial significance of the death of Christ, as they shared with their pagan opponents a disgust at the crudities of polytheistic practice. But they took the posi tion that while the priests and professional religionists of the nations had been perpetuating idolatrous beliefs and practices, the philosophers had begun the process of emancipation and rationalization which Christ, the eternal Reason of God, had now consummated. Both pagan poly theism and Jewish monotheism had now been transcended by his coming.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  But here, this philosophical and critical sophistry virtually, acknowledges its bankruptcy. The hypothesis of deception is the very last one to offer in explanation of a phenomenon so important as Christianity was even in that day. The greater and more permanent the deception, the more mysterious and unaccountable it must appear to reason. Chrysostom made the truthful remark, that Celsus bears witness to the antiquity of the apostolic writings. This heathen assailant, who lived almost within hailing distance of St. John, incidentally gives us an abridgement of the history of Christ as related by the Gospels, and this furnishes strong weapons against modern infidels, who would represent this history as a later invention. "I know everything" he says; "we have had it all from your own books, and need no other testimony; ye slay yourselves with your own sword." He refers to the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, and makes upon the whole about eighty allusions to, or quotations from, the New Testament. He takes notice of Christ’s birth from a virgin in a small village of Judaea, the adoration of the wise men from the East, the slaughter of the infants by order of Herod, the flight to Egypt, where he supposed Christ learned the charms of magicians, his residence in Nazareth, his baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove and the voice from heaven, the election of disciples, his friendship with publicans and other low people, his supposed cures of the lame and the blind, and raising of the dead, the betrayal of Judas, the denial of Peter, the principal circumstances in the history of the passion and crucifixion, also the resurrection of Christ.79 It is true he perverts or abuses most of these facts; but according to his own showing they were then generally and had always been believed by the Christians. He alludes to some of the principal doctrines of the Christians, to their private assemblies for worship, to the office of presbyters. He omits the grosser charges of immorality, which he probably disowned as absurd and incredible. In view of all these admissions we may here, with Lardner, apply Samson’s riddle: "Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness."80 § 33. Lucian. Edd. of Lucian’s works by Hemsterhuis and Reiz (1743 sqq.), Jacobitz (1836–39), Dindorf (1840 and 1858), Bekker (1853), Franc. Fritzsche (1860–’69). The pseudo-Lucianic dialogue Philopatris (filovpatri", loving one’s country, patriot) in which the Christians are ridiculed and condemned as enemies of the Roman empire, is of a much later date, probably from the reign of Julian the Apostate (363). See Gesner: De aetate et auctore Philopatridis, Jen. 1714. Jacob: Charakteristik Lucians. Hamburg 1822. G. G. Bernays: Lucian und die Cyniker. Berlin. 1879.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  21 Elijah approached all the people and said, “How long will you c hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people [of Israel] did not answer him [so much as] a word. 22 Then Elijah said to the people, “I alone remain a prophet of the LORD , while Baal’s prophets are 450 men. 23 “Now let them give us two oxen, and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, but put no fire under it . I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it . 24 “Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD ; and the god who answers by fire, He is God.” And all the people answered, “It is well spoken.” 25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one bull for yourselves and prepare it first, since there are many of you; and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it .” 26 So they took the bull that was given to them and prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, hear and answer us.” But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they had made. 27 At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied, or he is out [at the moment], or he is on a journey. Perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened!” 28 So they cried out with a loud voice [to get Baal’s attention] and cut themselves with swords and lances in accordance with their custom, until the blood flowed out on them. 29 As midday passed, they played the part of prophets and raved dramatically until the time for offering the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention. 30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” So all the people approached him. And he repaired and rebuilt the [old] altar of the LORD that had been torn down [by Jezebel]. [1 Kin 18:13 ; 19:10 ] 31 Then Elijah took twelve stones in accordance with the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Israel shall be your name.” [Gen 32:28 ] 32 So with the stones Elijah built an altar in the name of the LORD . He made a trench around the altar large enough to hold d two measures of seed. 33 Then he laid out the wood and cut the ox in pieces and laid it on the wood.

• From Unbought and Unbossed: Transgressive Black Women, Sexuality, and Representation (2014)

  Renay, dismissing Jerome's plea for her to return home, refuses to reunite with him and chooses freely and deliberately to remain with Terry instead. Renay's conscious decision to maintain her interracial same-gender loving union with Terry defamiliarizes black nationalist and American societal fixations on intraracial bonding, racial "purity," and heterosexuality. Of equal if not greater import, it subverts nationalists' and the larger black community's essentialist characterizations of homosexuality or same-sex desire as nonblack or a "white thing": as a site of contamination and disrepair-similar to, yet "worse" than, "incest" or "an incurable disease"-and, equally problematic, as a sign of white "decadence."46 What such sentiments, as inscribed in the novel, do mark is the complicated and vexed relationship between race and sexuality in black lesbian (and gay) experiences. They also contest the black community's sensibilities regarding homosexuality and same-sex desire, as well as destabilize heteronormative history and nationalist polemics that construct black lesbian and gay bodies as having been essentially and "purely" heterosexual until contaminated by encounters with white supremacy.47 The novel also strikingly animates American scientific sentiments regarding homosexuality as a mental disease, a national "dis-ease" that was listed as a mental sickness by the American Psychiatric Association until as late as the mid-1970s; and it was removed from the list around the time of novel's publication in 1974. Loving Her thus intervenes, entering into the sociosexual and psychosexual landscape, by desensitizing and destigmatizing homosexuality and the diversity of sexual expression. Shockley even decriminalizes it, locating criminality and decadence not in the same-sex love act but, rather, in the violent public responses to it. When Renay, despite her reservations, goes on a double date with her best friend, Fran, and Fran's friend Lazarius, a black nationalist, they encounter a "slim twig of a young black man, wearing a blonde Beatle wig and dressed in tight red pants and [a] matching shirt" with "light powder and eyes shadowed with purple mascara" (153). When he bumps into their table and apologizes "in a high effeminate voice," both Fran and Lazarius respond in highly disparaging heterosexist, homophobic manners: Fran, for example, mutters a (sexually) derogatory term, while Lazarius asserts contemptuously that, "Somebody ought to take him out in the alley and beat the shit out of him" (153). Both remarks not only expose deep-seated homophobia and intolerance for sexual difference, but also excoriate those individuals, like Lazarius, who view violence as a "corrective" for so-called black sexual deviancy.

• From The Decameron (1353)

  Now this said Ciappelletto was of this manner life, that, being a scrivener, he thought very great shame whenas any of his instrument was found (and indeed he drew few such) other than false; whilst of the latter[36] he would have drawn as many as might be required of him and these with a better will by way of gift than any other for a great wage. False witness he bore with especial delight, required or not required, and the greatest regard being in those times paid to oaths in France, as he recked nothing of forswearing himself, he knavishly gained all the suits concerning which he was called upon to tell the truth upon his faith. He took inordinate pleasure and was mighty diligent in stirring up troubles and enmities and scandals between friends and kinsfolk and whomsoever else, and the greater the mischiefs he saw ensue thereof, the more he rejoiced. If bidden to manslaughter or whatsoever other naughty deed, he went about it with a will, without ever saying nay thereto; and many a time of his proper choice he had been known to wound men and do them to death with his own hand. He was a terrible blasphemer of God and the saints, and that for every trifle, being the most choleric man alive. To church he went never and all the sacraments thereof he flouted in abominable terms, as things of no account; whilst, on the other hand, he was still fain to haunt and use taverns and other lewd places. Of women he was as fond as dogs of the stick; but in the contrary he delighted more than any filthy fellow alive. He robbed and pillaged with as much conscience as a godly man would make oblation to God; he was a very glutton and a great wine bibber, insomuch that bytimes it wrought him shameful mischief, and to boot, he was a notorious gamester and a caster of cogged dice. But why should I enlarge in so many words? He was belike the worst man that ever was born.[37] His wickedness had long been upheld by the power and interest of Messer Musciatto, who had many a time safeguarded him as well from private persons, to whom he often did a mischief, as from the law, against which he was a perpetual offender. [Footnote 36: _i.e._ false instruments.] [Footnote 37: A "twopence-coloured" sketch of an impossible villain, drawn with a crudeness unusual in Boccaccio.]

• From The Decameron (1353)

  [Footnote 155: Boccaccio calls her _Teudelinga_; but I know of no authority for this form of the name of the famous Longobardian queen.] [Footnote 156: Referring apparently to the adventure related in the present story.] [Footnote 157: Lit. with high (_i.e._ worthy) cause (_con alta cagione_).] THE THIRD STORY [Day the Third] UNDER COLOUR OF CONFESSION AND OF EXCEEDING NICENESS OF CONSCIENCE, A LADY, BEING ENAMOURED OF A YOUNG MAN, BRINGETH A GRAVE FRIAR, WITHOUT HIS MISDOUBTING HIM THEREOF, TO AFFORD A MEANS OF GIVING ENTIRE EFFECT TO HER PLEASURE Pampinea being now silent and the daring and subtlety of the horsekeeper having been extolled by several of the company, as also the king's good sense, the queen, turning to Filomena, charged her follow on; whereupon she blithely began to speak thus, "I purpose to recount to you a cheat which was in very deed put by a fair lady upon a grave friar and which should be so much the more pleasing to every layman as these [--friars, to wit--], albeit for the most part very dull fools and men of strange manners and usances, hold themselves to be in everything both better worth and wiser than others, whereas they are of far less account than the rest of mankind, being men who, lacking, of the meanness of their spirit, the ability to provide themselves, take refuge, like swine, whereas they may have what to eat. And this story, charming ladies, I shall tell you, not only for the ensuing of the order imposed, but to give you to know withal that even the clergy, to whom we women, beyond measure credulous as we are, yield overmuch faith, can be and are whiles adroitly befooled, and that not by men only, but even by certain of our own sex.

• From Vox (1992)

  97 "I never actually held her, that's the first thing 1*11 say. So it's certainly going to disappoint you. It's a very com mon story, really, and I'm starting to want to impress you a little." "Impress me with your candor—that seems to be your style." "Well here's what happened, anyway," he said. "After I showed her my cock tracing and all that, it marked some kind of conclusion, and we were more reserved with each other. After all, what was there to say? I'd laid it right out on the table and she'd basically rejected me. But then there was a big good-bye party for somebody, and at it Lee flirted with her in his perky cool way. Boy I dislike the way he funnels peanuts into his mouth. He'll never see forty-eight again, and yet he throws his whole head back after he's been asked a question, drops in a hopperful of nuts, and then he answers the question while he's crunching. He tries to be sardonic eating pea nuts! This is some TV convention that has gotten people in its clutches. Of course there are times when you are so full of something you want to say that you talk with your mouth full, I have no problem with that. What I find fault with is when you are deliberately using the act of talking with your mouth full to demonstrate just how totally relaxed and spontaneous you really are as a con versationalist. It's from growing up watching all those salted-snack commercials. Bugles. So I hate him, clearly, and he's at the party, and midway through, something

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  Ezra 4 Adversaries Hinder the Work 1 N OW WHEN [the Samaritans] the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles from the captivity were building a temple to the LORD God of Israel, 2 they came to Zerubbabel [who was now governor] and to the heads of the fathers’ households and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we seek your God [and worship] just as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here.” [2 Kin 17:24–29 ] 3 But Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of fathers’ households of Israel said to them, “You have nothing in common with us in building a house to our God; but we ourselves will together build to the LORD God of Israel, just as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, has commanded us.” 4 Then [the Samaritans and others of] the people of the land a discouraged the people of Judah, and frightened them [to deter them] from building, 5 and hired advisers [to work] against them to frustrate their plans during the entire time that Cyrus king of Persia reigned, [and this lasted] even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. 6 Now in the reign of b Ahasuerus (Xerxes), in the beginning of his reign, the Samaritans wrote [to him] an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem [who had returned from exile]. 7 Later, in the days of [King] Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of their associates wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the text of the letter was written in Aramaic and translated from Aramaic. The Letter to King Artaxerxes 8 Rehum the [Persian] commander [of the Samaritans] and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows— 9 then wrote Rehum the [Persian] commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates, the judges, the lesser governors, the officials, the secretaries, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is, the Elamites, 10 and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble c Osnappar deported and settled in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the region d west of the [Euphrates] River. Now 11 this is a copy of the letter which they sent to him: “T o King Artaxerxes from your servants, the men in the region west of the [Euphrates] River; and now: 12 Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us at Jerusalem. They are rebuilding this rebellious and evil city and are finishing its walls and repairing the foundations. 13 “Now let it be known to the king, that if that city is rebuilt and the walls are finished, then they will not pay tax, custom, or toll, and the revenue of the kings will be diminished.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  16 Then, as the ark of the LORD came into the City of David, f Michal, Saul’s daughter [David’s wife], looked down from the window above and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD ; and she felt contempt for him in her heart [because she thought him undignified]. 17 They brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place inside the tent which David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD . 18 When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts (armies), 19 and distributed to all the people, the entire multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to each a [ring-shaped] loaf of bread, a cake of dates, and a cake of raisins. Then all the people departed, each to his house. 20 Then David returned to bless his household. But [his wife] Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “How glorious and distinguished was the king of Israel today, g who uncovered himself and stripped [off his kingly robes] in the eyes of his servants’ maids like one of the riffraff who shamelessly uncovers himself!” 21 So David said to Michal, “It was before the LORD [that I did this], who chose me above your father and all his house, to appoint me as ruler over Israel, the people of the LORD . Therefore I will celebrate [in pure enjoyment] before the LORD . 22 “Yet I will demean myself even more than this, and will be humbled (abased) in my own sight [and yours, as I please], but by the maids whom you mentioned, by them I shall be held in honor.” 23 Michal the daughter of Saul had no h child to the day of her death. 2 Samuel 7 David Plans to Build a Temple 1 W HEN KING David lived in his house (palace) and the LORD had given him rest from all his surrounding enemies, 2 the king said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains.” 3 And Nathan said to the king, “Go, do everything that is in your heart, for the LORD is with you.” 4 But it happened that night that the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, 5 “Go and tell My servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD , “Should you be the one to build Me a house in which to dwell? 6 “For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought the sons (descendants) of Israel up from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle.

• From Girls & Sex (2016)

  Then came the backlash. In her 1993 polemic, The Morning After, Katie Roiphe, a telegenic graduate student in English literature at Princeton, dismissed the campus “rape crisis” as overblown. “If twenty-five percent of my women friends were really being raped, wouldn’t I know it?” she reasoned. Perhaps not, considering her main beef: the inclusion in Koss’s rape tally of those who answered yes to the question “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” To Roiphe, “real” rape involved brute force. Silence alone did not indicate nonconsent; neither did incapacitation. It was a classic conservative argument, and one that endures to this day, but Roiphe gave it a contrarian, “feminist” spin: scolding campus activists for undermining the very agency with which the movement provided them. “A man may give [a woman] drugs,” she wrote, “but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naïve, then they should be held responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs.” “Rape crisis” feminists, in other words, needed to pull up their Big Girl pants and deal with a few embarrassing nights. Roiphe rejected what she considered their attempt to expand rape’s definition as being “a way of interpreting,” “a way of seeing” rather than a “physical fact.” As if reinterpretation—of citizenship, of suffrage, of who may hold property, even of who are, themselves, property—is not at the core of women’s rights: it was just two months before Roiphe’s book was published, for instance, that all fifty states finally recognized marital rape as a crime. Roiphe’s book grew out of an editorial in the New York Times, which also excerpted it on the cover of its Sunday Magazine. Other media outlets (Newsweek, The Atlantic, ABC, NBC, PBS) soon began churning out stories and programming on what was suddenly demoted to “the date rape controversy.” Few mentioned that even when Koss’s data were recalculated without the alcohol question, one in six women had still been legally raped. (To be fair, the statistic was often misstated by activists as the number of girls who would be raped while on campus, rather than since age fourteen, which is certainly horrifying enough.) When Roiphe lost her novelty, reporters turned to Camille Paglia, who proclaimed, “date rape is bullshit,” and Christina Hoff Sommers, currently a resident scholar at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, whose book Who Stole Feminism accused Koss of “[opening] the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night.” (Of course, by excluding alcohol-facilitated rape, Sommers herself would slam shut the door on “regarding as a rape victim” anyone who was penetrated while passed out drunk.)

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Ewald (1850) independently carried out a similar view in fierce opposition to the "beastly wildness" of the Tübingen school. He informs us with his usual oracular self-assurance that Philip, the evangelist (Acts 8), first wrote a historical sketch in Hebrew, and then Matthew a collection of discourses (the lovgia of Papias), also in Hebrew, of which several Greek translations were made; that Mark was the third, Matthew the fifth, and Luke the ninth in this series of Gospels, representing the "Höhebilder, die himmlische Fortbewegung der Geschichte," which at last assumed their most perfect shape in John. Köstlin, Wittichen, and Scholten likewise assume a number of precanonical Gospels which exist only in their critical fancy. Renan (Les Evang., Introd., p. vi.) distinguishes three sets of Gospels: (1) original Gospels of the first hand, taken from the oral tradition without a previous written text: the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek proto-Mark; (2) Gospels partly original and partly second-handed: our canonical Gospels falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; (3) Gospels of the second and third hand: Marcion’s and the Apocryphal Gospels. V. The theory of a common Oral Tradition (Traditionshypothese). Herder (1796), Gieseler (who first fully developed it, 1818), Schulz (1829), Credner, Lange, Ebrard (1868), Thiersch (1845, 1852), Norton, Alford, Westcott (1860, 6th ed., 1881), Godet (1873), Keil (1877), and others. The Gospel story by constant repetition assumed or rather had from the beginning a uniform shape, even in minute particulars, especially in the words of Christ. True, as far as it goes, but must be supplemented, at least in the case of Luke, by pre-canonical, fragmentary documents or memoranda (dihghvsei"). See the text.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Similar views in favor of religious liberty were expressed by Justin Martyr,16 and at the close of our period by Lactantius, who says: "Religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Torture and piety are widely different; nor is it possible for truth to be united with violence, or justice with cruelty. Nothing is so much a matter of free will as religion."17 The Church, after its triumph over paganism, forgot this lesson, and for many centuries treated all Christian heretics, as well as Jews and Gentiles, just as the old Romans had treated the Christians, without distinction of creed or sect. Every state-church from the times of the Christian emperors of Constantinople to the times of the Russian Czars and the South American Republics, has more or less persecuted the dissenters, in direct violation of the principles and practice of Christ and the apostles, and in carnal misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the kingdom of heaven. § 14. Jewish Persecution. Sources. I. Dio Cassius: Hist. Rom. LXVIII. 32; LXIX. 12–14; Justin M.: Apol. I. 31, 47; Eusebius: H. Eccl. IV. 2. and 6. Rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’à Adrien (Paris 1867), pp. 402–438. II. Fr. Münter.: Der Judische Krieg unter Trajan u. Hadrian. Altona and Leipz. 1821. Deyling: Aeliae Capitol. origines et historiae. Lips. 1743. Ewald: Gesch. des Volkes Israel, VII. 373–432. Milman: History of the Jews, Books 18 and 20. Grätz: Gesch. der Juden. Vol. IV. (Leipz. 1866). Schürer: Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte (1874), pp. 350–367. The Jews had displayed their obstinate unbelief and bitter hatred of the gospel in the crucifixion of Christ, the stoning of Stephen, the execution of James the Elder, the repeated incarceration as of Peter and John, the wild rage against Paul, and the murder of James the Just. No wonder that the fearful judgment of God at last visited this ingratitude upon them in the destruction of the holy city and the temple, from which the Christians found refuge in Pella. But this tragical fate could break only the national power of the Jews, not their hatred of Christianity. They caused the death of Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem (107); they were particularly active in the burning of Polycarp of Smyrna; and they inflamed the violence of the Gentiles by eliminating the sect of the Nazarenes. The Rebellion under Bar-Cochba. Jerusalem again Destroyed.

• From Girls & Sex (2016)

  On most of the campuses I visited, Greek life (or houses where athletes lived) was the center of the hookup scene. The twenty-six sororities in the National Panhellenic Conference are voluntarily dry. So it is the frats that host, control entry to, and provide alcohol for most parties. Fraternity pledges typically chauffeur groups of girls from freshman dorms or sorority houses to events (though not necessarily home again) that can offer endless variations on a single concept: young women as prostitutes. Themes include “CEOs and business hos,” “workout bros and yoga hos,” “lifeguard bros and surfer hos,” “GI Joes and army hos.” Girls who liked to party shrugged off those slights (similar to the way they ignored degrading lyrics in a favorite song) as a form of “boys will be boys,” unconnected to how most guys acted “in person.” Frats got in trouble only when their sexism became even more egregious or was mixed with racism: the Phi Sigma Kappa chapter at California Polytechnic was investigated in 2013 by the school’s administration for its “Colonial Bros and Nava-Hos” party. (No violations of university policies were found.) The Sigma Chi chapter at Harvard raised hackles with a similar bash, called “Conquistabros and Navajos.” Meanwhile, the Duke chapter of Kappa Sigma was suspended in 2013 after news broke of its racist “Asia Prime” party, whose invitation began, “Herro Nice Duke Peopre!!” (Duke frats have made headlines repeatedly in the past few years for such antics as inviting “all potential slam pieces” to a “Plan-B Pregame” party and sending an e-mail to female classmates requesting they arrive at a Halloween party dressed “like a slutty nurse, a slutty doctor, a slutty school girl, or just total sluts.”) The Delta Kappa Epsilon chapter at Yale was banned from campus in 2010 after brothers gathered near the freshmen dorms and chanted, “No means yes, yes means anal!” and “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women and fill them with my semen.” Students protested in 2012 after the same frat’s Amherst chapter had a T-shirt printed up for its annual pig-roasting party depicting a woman clad in a bra and thong tied up and roasting on a spit, an apple jammed in her mouth, her sides bruised, and a pig standing beside her. Its caption read, “Roasting Fat Ones Since 1847.” In 2014 the Texas Tech chapter of Phi Delta Theta had its charter revoked for displaying a banner that read, “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal!” at a party, along with a “vagina sprinkler” that shot water at guests. The members of all those houses, as in most of the Greek system, were primarily white and affluent; somehow they believed that racism and misogyny marked them as rebels rather than merely the latest recruits to an entrenched old guard.