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 149 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (2014)

  Not two cents,” said New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. “The people there have brought on their own troubles. Let them keep on killing one another and the problem will be solved.” 28 To their credit, the Arab-Afghans were the only people to provide military help, but the Bosnian Muslims found them intolerant, were baffled by their global jihadism, and adamantly rejected all their plans for an Islamic state. Unfortunately, the Arab-Afghans’ presence gave the impression abroad that the Bosnian Muslims were also fundamentalists, though in fact many wore their Islam very lightly. Stereotypical views about Islam and fears of an Islamic state on the threshold of Europe may well have contributed to the Western reluctance to intervene; Serbian rhetoric of defensive walls may not have seemed such a bad idea to some Europeans and Americans. Nevertheless, in August 1995, NATO did intervene with a series of air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions, which finally brought this tragic conflict to an end. A peace agreement was signed in Dayton, Ohio, on November 21, 1995. But the world was left with a troubling memory. Once again there had been concentration camps in Europe, this time with Muslims in them. After the Holocaust, the cry had been “Never again,” but this did not seem to apply to Europe’s Muslim population. Other Arab-Afghan veterans found that when they returned home, they were too radical for the local Muslims who had not shared their experience in Afghanistan. The vast majority vehemently rejected their ruthless militancy. In Algeria, Afghan veterans had high hopes of creating an Islamic state, because the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) seemed certain to gain a majority in the national elections in 1992. But at the last moment, the military staged a coup, and the liberal secularist FLN president Benjedid, who had promised democratic reforms, suppressed the FIS and imprisoned its leaders. Had a democratic process been thwarted in such an unconstitutional manner in Iran or Pakistan, there would have been worldwide outrage. Yet because it was an Islamic government that had been blocked by the coup, there was jubilation in some sectors of the Western press, which seemed to suggest that in some mysterious way this undemocratic action had made Algeria safe for democracy. The French government threw its support behind the new hard-line FLN president Liamine Zeroual and strengthened his resolve to hold no further dialogue with the FIS. As we have seen elsewhere, when suppressed, these movements tend almost invariably to become more extreme. The more radical members of the FIS broke away to form a guerrilla organization, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), and were joined by the returning Arab-Afghans. At first the veterans’ military training was welcome, but their unsparing methods soon shocked the Algerians.

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

  1. The Pharisees, the "separate,"55 were, so to speak, the Jewish Stoics. They represented the traditional orthodoxy and stiff formalism, the legal self-righteousness and the fanatical bigotry of Judaism. They had most influence with the people and the women, and controlled the public worship. They confounded piety with theoretical orthodoxy. They overloaded the holy Scriptures with the traditions of the elders so as to make the Scriptures "of none effect." They analyzed the Mosaic law to death, and substituted a labyrinth of casuistry for a living code. "They laid heavy burdens and grievous to be borne on men’s shoulders," and yet they themselves would "not move them with their fingers." In the New Testament they bear particularly the reproach of hypocrisy; with, of course, illustrious exceptions, like Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and his disciple, Paul. 2. The less numerous Sadducees56 were skeptical, rationalistic, and worldly-minded, and held about the same position in Judaism as the Epicureans and the followers of the New Academy in Greek and Roman heathendom. They accepted the written Scriptures (especially the Pentateuch), but rejected the oral traditions, denied the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul, the existence of angels and spirits, and the doctrine of an all-ruling providence. They numbered their followers among the rich, and had for some time possession of the office of the high-priest. Caiaphas belonged to their party. The difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees reappears among modern Jews, who are divided into the orthodox and the liberal or rationalistic parties. 3. The Essenes (whom we know only from Philo and Josephus) were not a party, but a mystic and ascetic order or brotherhood, and lived mostly in monkish seclusion in villages and in the desert Engedi on the Dead Sea.57 They numbered about 4,000 members. With an arbitrary, allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, they combined some foreign theosophic elements, which strongly resemble the tenets of the new Pythagorean and Platonic schools, but were probably derived (like the Gnostic and Manichaean theories) from eastern religions, especially from Parsism. They practised communion of goods, wore white garments, rejected animal food, bloody sacrifices, oaths, slavery, and (with few exceptions) marriage, and lived in the utmost simplicity, hoping thereby to attain a higher degree of holiness. They were the forerunners of Christian monasticism. The sect of the Essenes came seldom or never into contact with Christianity under the Apostles, except in the shape of a heresy at Colossae. But the Pharisees and Sadducees, particularly the former, meet us everywhere in the Gospels as bitter enemies of Jesus, and hostile as they are to each other, unite in condemning him to that death of the cross, which ended in the glorious resurrection, and became the foundation of spiritual life to believing Gentiles as well as Jews. § 10. The Law, and the Prophecy.

• From The History of Christian Theology (2008)

  century, it was illegal not to go to church; this legal requirement was instituted to enforce “conformity.” The king or queen was declared by Parliament “the supreme governor” of the Church of England. Anglican theologians who emphasize this government supervision of the church are called “Erastians.” In 1628, the king forbade public debate on the interpretation of the 39 Articles, thus allowing Arminians and others to sign them under their own preferred interpretation. The Puritans were Reformed theologians who wanted to further reform the Church of England according to the word of God, purifying it of residual Roman Catholic or “popish” customs. The Puritans’ argument initially focused on ceremonial practices of the Church of England required by the government. Puritanism began with the Vestiarian controversy in the 1560s, when some of Elizabeth’s clergy objected to the use of traditional Catholic vestments. Other customs to which Puritans objected included making the sign of the cross, kneeling to receive communion, and observing holy days other than the Sabbath. The crucial theological issue was whether the church had the right to make rules and customs that were not required in scripture. Richard Hooker, the most important theologian of the Anglican tradition, wrote The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity defending the church’s right to decide for itself concerning adiaphora, that is, matters not required by faith. Puritan ministers who would not observe the regulations of the Church of England were called non-conformists. Puritans also argued against the worldliness of the clergy. The Puritans, who were among the most learned theologians of England, objected to worldly and ill-educated parish priests. Their concern for church discipline (for example, the duty of a minister to exclude drunkards and adulterers from communion) led to their reputation as kill-joys. The Puritans, who were among the most learned theologians of England, objected to worldly and ill- educated parish priests.

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

  1. The Peter of the Ebionite fiction. The historical basis is Peter’s encounter with Simon Magus in Samaria,300 Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch,301 and the intense distrust and dislike of the Judaizing party to Paul.302 These three undoubted facts, together with a singular confusion of Simon Magus with an old Sabine deity, Semo Sancus, in Rome,303 furnished the material and prompted the motive to religious tendency—novels written about and after the middle of the second century by ingenious semi-Gnostic Ebionites, either anonymously or under the fictitious name of Clement of Rome, the reputed successor of Peter.304 In these productions Simon Peter appears as the great apostle of truth in conflict with Simon Magus, the pseudo-apostle of falsehood, the father of all heresies, the Samaritan possessed by a demon; and Peter follows him step by step from Caesarea Stratonis to Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Antioch, and Rome, and before the tribunal of Nero, disputing with him, and refuting his errors, until at last the impostor, in the daring act of mocking Christ’s ascension to heaven, meets a miserable end. In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies the name of Simon represents among other heresies also the free gospel of Paul, who is assailed as a false apostle and hated rebel against the authority of the Mosaic law. The same charges which the Judaizers brought against Paul, are here brought by Peter against Simon Magus, especially the assertion that one may be saved by grace alone. His boasted vision of Christ by which he professed to have been converted, is traced to a deceptive vision of the devil. The very words of Paul against Peter at Antioch, that he was "self-condemned" (Gal. 2:11), are quoted as an accusation against God. In one word, Simon Magus is, in part at least, a malignant Judaizing caricature of the apostle of the Gentiles.

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

  § 20. Social Reforms. The Institution of Slavery. 4. The institution of slavery193 remained throughout the empire, and is recognized in the laws of Justinian as altogether legitimate.194 The Justinian code rests on the broad distinction of the human race into freemen and slaves. It declares, indeed, the natural equality of men, and so far rises above the theory of Aristotle, who regards certain races and classes of men as irrevocably doomed, by their physical and intellectual inferiority, to perpetual servitude; but it destroys the practical value of this concession by insisting as sternly as ever on the inferior legal and social condition of the slave, by degrading his marriage to the disgrace of concubinage, by refusing him all legal remedy in case of adultery, by depriving him of all power over his children, by making him an article of merchandise like irrational beasts of burden, whose transfer from vender to buyer was a legal transaction as valid and frequent as the sale of any other property. The purchase and sale of slaves for from ten to seventy pieces of gold, according to their age, strength, and training, was a daily occurrence.195 The number was not limited; many a master owning even two or three thousand slaves. The barbarian codes do not essentially differ in this respect from the Roman. They, too, recognize slavery as an ordinary condition of mankind and the slave as a marketable commodity. All captives in war became slaves, and thousands of human lives were thus saved from indiscriminate massacre and extermination. The victory of Stilicho over Rhadagaisus threw 200,000 Goths and other Germans into the market, and lowered the price of a slave from twenty-five pieces of gold to one. The capture and sale of men was part of the piratical system along all the shores of Europe. Anglo-Saxons were freely sold in Rome at the time of Gregory the Great. The barbarian codes prohibited as severely as the Justinian code the debasing alliance of the freeman with the slave, but they seem to excel the latter in acknowledging the legality and religious sanctity of marriages between slaves; that of the Lombards on the authority of the Scripture sentence: "Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

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

  "Nevertheless, the Prophets on this account neither raised themselves new churches, nor built new altars for the oblation of separate sacrifices; but whatever were the characters of the people, yet because they considered that God had deposited his word among that nation, and instituted the ceremonies in which he was there worshipped, they lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the impious. If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from these services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather than have permitted themselves to be dragged to them. There was nothing, therefore, to prevent their departure from them, but the desire of preserving the unity of the Church. "But if the holy Prophets were restrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the Church on account of the numerous and enormous crimes which were practiced, not by a few individuals, but almost by the whole nation, it is extreme arrogance in us, if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church, where the conduct of all the members is not compatible either with our judgment or even with the Christian profession. "Now what kind of an age was that of Christ and his Apostles? Yet the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, and the dissolute lives everywhere led by the people, could not prevent them from using the same sacrifices, and assembling in the same temple with others, for the public exercises of religion. How did this happen, but from a knowledge that the society of the wicked could not contaminate those who, with pure consciences, united with them in the same solemnities. "If any one pay no deference to the Prophets and the Apostles, let him at least acquiesce in the authority of Christ. Cyprian has excellently remarked: ’Although tares, or impure vessels, are found in the Church, yet this is not a reason why we should withdraw from it. It only behooves us to labor that we may be the wheat, and to use our utmost endeavors and exertions that we may be vessels of gold or of silver. But to break in pieces the vessels of earth belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron is also given. Nor let any one arrogate to himself what is the exclusive province of the Son of God, by pretending to fan the floor, clear away the chaff, and separate all the tares by the judgment of man. This is proud obstinacy, and sacrilegious presumption, originating in a corrupt frenzy.’

• From Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (1995)

  “What has happened to you?” Obama asked. “Why do you wear these strange skins?” Onyango said nothing, and Obama decided that Onyango must be wearing trousers to hide the fact that he was circumcised, which was against Luo custom. He thought that Onyango’s shirt must be covering a rash, or sores. Obama turned to his other sons and said, “Don’t go near this brother of yours. He is unclean.” Then he returned to his hut, and the others laughed and shunned Onyango. Because of this, Onyango returned to Kisumu, and would remain estranged from his father for the rest of his life. Nobody realized then that the white man intended to stay in the land. We thought that they had come only to trade their goods. Some of their customs we soon developed a taste for, like the drinking of tea. With tea, we found that we needed sugar, and teakettles, and cups. All these things we bought with skins and meat and vegetables. Later we learned to accept the white man’s coin. But these things did not affect us deeply. Like the Arabs, the white men remained small in number, and we assumed they would eventually return to their own land. In Kisumu, some white men stayed on and built a mission. These men spoke of their god, who they said was all-powerful. But most people ignored them and thought their talk silly. Even when white men appeared with rifles, no one resisted because our lives were not yet touched by the death such weapons could bring. Many of us thought the guns were just fancy ugali stirrers. Things began to change with the first of the white man’s wars. More guns arrived, along with a white man who called himself district commissioner. We called this man Bwana Ogalo, which meant “the Oppressor.” He imposed a hut tax that had to be paid in the white man’s money. This forced many men to work for wages. He conscripted outright many of our men into his army to carry provisions and build a road that would allow automobiles to pass. He surrounded himself with Luos who wore clothes like the white man to serve as his agents and tax collectors. We learned that we now had chiefs, men who were not even in the council of elders. All these things were resisted, and many men began to fight. But those who did so were beaten or shot. Those who failed to pay taxes saw their huts burned to the ground. Some families fled farther into the countryside to start new villages. But most people stayed and learned to live with this new situation, although we now all realized that it had been foolish to ignore the white man’s arrival.

• From The Four Vision Quests of Jesus (2015)

  Hopi villages respected Christianity as the religion of the Spaniards, but vehemently resisted it as an option for them, especially if it meant leaving their sacred work at the controls of life in the kiva . Instead, they called on their partners in this holy mission to stand by them and protect them from Christian conversion. These partners were the Hopi’s celestial reinforcements, the katsinas .3 The katsinas are Spirits, the embodiment of life in all of its forms, the powerful partners of the Hopi in maintaining balance and harmony on the planet. Again, the Hindu parallel is helpful. Just as Hinduism understands a single creator, but a pantheon of gods embodying different aspects of creation, so do the Hopis recognize God as the single source to life, but they honor many different Spirits as manifestations of God’s sacred order. Hopi actively work with them to perform their task of preserving life. There are katsinas for natural wonders like the sun and stars, for other creatures like birds and insects, and for plant life like corn and flowers. Each one is represented with a distinctive form, like the statues of Christian saints, adorned with special clothing and colors to signify their sacred role in God’s creation. Hopi dancers can put on costumes to embody these Spirits, signifying that they are sacramentally present in Hopi worship, an outward and visible sign of the inward, unseen reality of the Spirits coming into the human experience to lend support and spiritual power to the moment. When the Catholic priests demanded that the Hopi burn the images of the katsinas , they were asking for an act of complete sacrilege. To break the relationship with the katsinas would be to sever humanity’s ties to all other forms of life. It would mean that the moon would no longer bring the tides, the bees would no longer pollinate the flowers, and the corn would no longer grow to feed the people. Hopi people existed in a sophisticated vision of the natural cycles of life. They understood a scientific interrelationship between the different agencies and aspects of life. Until well into the nineteenth century the Hopi’s worldview was far more akin to our current image of the Earth as an integrated life system than that of the European colonizers. The katsinas were not idols. They were not the simplistic images of a pagan culture that could not grasp the “higher” theology of the church. Rather, they were symbolic of both a rational and spiritual matrix of enormous complexity and coherence. For the Hopi, what the friars were offering seemed like simplistic superstition. Consequently, the Hopi resisted conversion. They did so peacefully and politely, in keeping with the nonviolent style of life known as the Hopi Way. Actually, they predated their Hindu counterparts in practicing Satyagraha , the word for non-violent “non-cooperation” advocated by Gandhi hundreds of years later with his people’s European colonizers.

• From The History of Christian Theology (2008)

  85 to the Book of Common Prayer . Under Elizabeth and for much of the 17 th century, it was illegal not to go to church; this legal requirement was instituted to enforce “conformity.” The king or queen was declared by Parliament “the supreme governor” of the Church of England. Anglican theologians who emphasize this government supervision of the church are called “Erastians.” In 1628, the king forbade public debate on the interpretation of the 39 Articles, thus allowing Arminians and others to sign them under their own preferred interpretation. The Puritans were Reformed theologians who wanted to further reform the Church of England according to the word of God, purifying it of residual Roman Catholic or “popish” customs. The Puritans’ argument initially focused on ceremonial practices of the Church of England required by the government. Puritanism began with the Vestiarian controversy in the 1560s, when some of Elizabeth’s clergy objected to the use of traditional Catholic vestments. Other customs to which Puritans objected included making the sign of the cross, kneeling to receive communion, and observing holy days other than the Sabbath. The crucial theological issue was whether the church had the right to make rules and customs that were not required in scripture. Richard Hooker, the most important theologian of the Anglican tradition, wrote The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity defending the church’s right to decide for itself concerning adiaphora, that is, matters not required by faith. Puritan ministers who would not observe the regulations of the Church of England were called non-conformists. Puritans also argued against the worldliness of the clergy. The Puritans, who were among the most learned theologians of England, objected to worldly and ill-educated parish priests. Their concern for church discipline (for example, the duty of a minister to exclude drunkards and adulterers from communion) led to their reputation as kill-joys. The Puritans, who were among the most learned theologians of England, objected to worldly and ill- educated parish priests.

• From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) (1907)

  peyaduvOnodueba, whence Hup Bae prop. 322 =we display strength), neg. Jos 237 (D; || ולא‎ ,(תשביעו‎ so באלהי ישראל‎ Is 48' (|| v2 Dyas). b. sq. 860. rei: faults Gn 41° (E), the ark 184", land of Judah Ist9”, Rahab (= Egypt) ץצ‎ 874, works of % 77" (Kt, Qr Qal q.v.), his righteousness ¥ 71°, lovingkindness, Is 63’; human loye Ct 1‘; also in technical sense, apparently = accuse before God, alw. sq. }'¥, 1K 3178 Nu 5% (P) Ez 21% v® (sq. M373 DIYWB), 20%. ¢. sq. cl., with כִּי‎ Is 12*; no conjunction Je 4 ל‎ indir. obj.; || .(השמיעו‎ 6 abs. commemorate, praise 1 Ch16* (792, appar. Levitical function, sq. ,(ולהודות ולהלל ליהוה‎ so perh. also לְהוַכִיר‎ in titles y 38. 70'(others sub 5). 4. record, only pt. 312 as subst. (title of public officer)=recorder 288" 20% 1K 48 2K 188% = Ts 36°, 1 Ch 18” 2 Ch 34%. 5. of sacrifice, make a memorial, i.e. offer an 11318 q.v.; sq. myad Is 66%. — JPPeters 221258 yds, TIN ץש‎ 42°(v. Qal I. 1), ‘let me make my azkara, and pour out libation for (עלי)‎ my life.’ eo [n23] n.pr.m. only 73! 1 Ch 8" (G Zaxovp)="131 9” q.v. (cf. Ph. n.pr. 72). זכר ד‎ n.m. Ex 17™, vid. following. remembrance, memorial (cf.‏ ' " . גנד. בב בר Ht 7°" 120) __’p abs. y 111% estr. Dt 25+;‏ Ex 3%, 7731‏ זְכְרִי 34 estr. Ex 17“ vand.H;‏ }12 Is 268+, FID! y 6% N31 Ho 12*+ , D131 Dt‏ remembrance, memory: a. of per-‏ .1 —:4+32° sons or people, blotted out by their destruction,‏ (השבית) 32% Dt‏ ,25% 2%= (מחה .6 Ex17™ (E;‏ (TaN), Jb 18%‏ 97 ,(הכרית (both‏ ”109 347 ץ Is 26" (728); cf. on other hand‏ ,(שם|| ;אבד) 6° ש י'+0 .ל | ‘tas portion of righteous.‏ עולֶם character and‏ 8' י' (||AAN=MM),~ 6. of‏ 102% d. remembrance of par-‏ דד ד "97 730° works‏ ticular days, 1.6. their observance Est 9” ("2%‏ memorial, by which one is re-‏ .2 .(הַבּוּרִים Pr‏ ז' צריק micmbered : a. nearly=DY, msqad‏ י" esp. of‏ ; (נשכח (c.‏ *פ cf. also Ec‏ ,(שם ||) !10 (all |[0%).‏ "135 ץ 268 Ex 3” (E), Ho 12° Is‏ . =renown (of Israel) Ho 14° (cf. VB). n.m. & adj. male (As. zikaru, zikru,‏ זכר oro von coe, Ar. 385; Aram.§8134,‏ J203; Sab. on[3]7 DHM7™6*5; relation to‏ above obscure; male as mentioned, talked of,‏ Lane*™*; fr. assumed orig. sense be sharp (traces of this in Arab.: v. Lane), Bé?” 1 in ChWB”, cf. Ar. 35 male organ; Schwally 271 זכור

• From Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (2014)

  Thus the newly stratified society, the hymn claimed, was not a dangerous break with the egalitarian past but was as old as the universe itself. Aryan society was now divided into four social classes—the seed of the elaborate caste system that would develop later. Each class (varna) had its own sacred “duty” (dharma). Nobody could perform the task allotted to another class, any more than a star could leave its path and encroach on a planet’s circuit. Sacrifice was still fundamental; members of each varna had to give up their own preferences for the sake of the whole. It was the dharma of the Brahmins, who came from Purusha’s mouth, to preside over the rituals of society.31 For the first time in Aryan history, the warriors now formed a distinct class called the rajanya, a new term in the Rig Veda; later they would be known as Kshatriya (“the empowered ones”). They came from Purusha’s arms, chest, and heart, the seat of strength, courage, and energy, and their dharma was daily to put their lives at risk. This was a significant development, because it limited violence in the Aryan community. Hitherto all able-bodied men had been fighters and aggression the raison d’être of the entire tribe. The hymn acknowledged that the rajanya was indispensable, because the kingdom could not survive without force and coercion. But henceforth only the rajanya could bear arms. Members of the other three classes—Brahmins, vaishyas, and shudras—now had to relinquish violence and were no longer allowed to take part in raids nor fight in their kingdom’s wars. In the two lower classes we see the systemic violence of this new society. They came from Purusha’s legs and feet, the lower and largest part of the body; their dharma was to serve, to run errands for the nobility, and bear the weight of the entire social frame, performing the productive labor on which the agrarian kingdom depended.32 The dharma of the vaishya, the ordinary clansman, now forbidden to fight, was food production; the Kshatriya aristocracy would now confiscate his surplus. The vaishya was thus associated with fertility and productivity but also, being taken from a place close to Purusha’s genitals, with carnal appetite, which, according to the two upper classes, made him unreliable. But the most significant development was the introduction of the shudra: the dasa at the base of the social body was now defined as a “slave,” one who labors for others, performing the most menial tasks and therefore stigmatized as impure. In Vedic law, the vaishya was to be oppressed; however, the shudra could be removed or slain at will.33

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

  The emperor, who was then besieging the city of Cremona, being appealed to by both parties (though with different feelings), and using a right exercised by Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne, and Otto, summoned a council at Pavia to investigate and decide the case, 1160.136 The rival popes were invited by messengers to appear in person. Octavian, who was always an imperialist, accepted the invitation. Roland distrusted the emperor, and protested against his right to call a council without his permission. He said that he honored him as a special defender of the Church above all other princes, but that God had placed the pope above kings. The partisan council, which consisted chiefly of bishops from Germany and North Italy, after a grave debate, unanimously decided in favor of Octavian, and excommunicated Roland, Feb. 11, 1160. The emperor paid the customary honors to Victor IV., held his stirrup and kissed his toe. Alexander issued from Anagni a counter-excommunication against the anti-pope and the emperor, March 24, 1160. He thereby encouraged revolt in Lombardy and division in Germany. Another schism rent the Church. The rival popes dispatched legates to all the courts of Europe. France, Spain, and England sided with Alexander. He took refuge in France for three years (1162–1165), and was received with enthusiasm. The kings of France and England, Louis VII. and Henry II., walked on either side of his horse, holding the bridle, and conducting him into the town of Courcy on the Loire. Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Norway, and Sweden supported Victor. Italy was divided: Rome and Tuscany were under the power of the emperor; Sicily favored the Gregorian pope; the flourishing commercial and manufacturing cities of Lombardy were discontented with the despotic rule of Barbarossa, who was called the destroyer of cities. He put down the revolt with an iron hand; he razed Milan to the ground after a long and atrocious siege, scattered the population, and sent the venerated relics of the Magi to the cathedral of Cologne, March, 1162. Victor IV. died in April, 1164. Pascal III. was elected his successor without regard to the canonical rules. At the request of the emperor, he canonized Charles the Great (1165). Alexander III. put himself at the head of the Lombard league against the emperor; city after city declared itself for him. In September, 1165, he returned to Italy with the help of Sicily, and French and English gold, and took possession of Rome.

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

  In his ascetic zeal for the moral reform of the clergy, Arnold was in sympathy with the Hildebrandian party, but in his views of the temporal power of the pope, he went to the opposite extreme. Hildebrand aimed at the theocratic supremacy of the Church over the State; Arnold sought the welfare of the Church in her complete separation from the State and of the clerical office from secular entanglements. Pascal II., we may say, had prepared the way for this theory when he was willing to sacrifice the investiture to the emperor. The Hildebrandian reform had nearly passed away, and the old corruptions reappeared. The temporal power of the Church promoted the worldliness of the clergy. The author of the Historia Pontificalis says that Arnold’s doctrine agreed with the Gospel, but stood in crying contrast with the actual condition of things. St. Bernard, his opponent, was as much opposed as he to the splendor and luxury of bishops, the secular cares of the popes, and expressed a wish that he might see the day when "the Church, as in olden times, should cast her net for souls, and not for money."123 All the monastic orders protested against the worldliness of the Church, and realized the principle of apostolic poverty within the wall of convents. But Arnold extended it to the secular clergy as well, and even went so far as to make poverty a condition of salvation for priests and monks.124 Arnold’s sermons gained great popular applause in Lombardy, and caused bitter disputes between the people and the bishop of Brescia. He was charged before the Lateran Synod of 1139 with inciting the laity against the clergy, was deposed as a schismatic (not as a heretic), commanded to be silent, and was expelled from Italy. He went again to France and was entangled in the controversy of Abaelard with Bernard. Pope Innocent condemned both Abaelard and Arnold to silence and seclusion in a convent, 1140. Abaelard, weary of strife and life, submitted and retired to the convent of Cluny, where two years later he died in peace.125 But Arnold began in Paris a course of public lectures against the worldliness and immorality of the clergy. He exposed especially the avarice of the bishops. He also charged St. Bernard with unholy ambition and envy against scholars. Bernard called him a man whose speech was honey, whose doctrine was poison. At his request the king expelled Arnold from France. Arnold fled to Zürich and was kindly received and protected by the papal legate, Cardinal Guido, his former fellow-student in Paris.126 But Bernard pursued him even there and denounced him to the bishop of Constance.

• From The History of Christian Theology (2008)

  19 often called rulers or archons; they are evil and try to block the soul’s escape from this world after death. The soul or spirit is divine, belonging to the other world, which is why it wants to escape this world and all bodily things, where it is not really at home. Gnosticism’s disdain for the physical world is linked to a profound rejection of Judaism. The God of the Jews is the creator God, maker and ruler of this physical world, which means he is at best ignorant, and probably evil. He forbids humans to eat from the Tree of Knowledge ( gnosis) because he wants them to stay ignorant and under his power. He is also described as an arrogant archon who boasts of being the only God, ignorant of the divine realm above him. The Gnostics’ view of Christ ¿ ts with their other-worldly view of divinity. The divine world or Pleroma consists of spiritual principles called “aeons.” According to some Gnostics, the physical world originates from a disruption in the Pleroma when the lowest of the aeons, Sophia or Wisdom, gets in a passion. Christ is an aeon sent into this world to bring saving knowledge of the world above, the Pleroma. Because matter is evil, he is never really embodied: Either he dwells in the man Jesus only for a time or his body is an illusion, a mere appearance (which is the view now called Docetism). The God of the Jews is not Jesus’s Father but his enemy. The “lost Gospels” in the news lately are mainly Gnostic. The most important were found in a cache of buried books in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The Nag Hammadi library is very important for our understanding of ancient Gnosticism but, with one possible exception, is not an important source for the life of the historical Jesus. The possible exception, the Gospel of Thomas, is a “sayings Gospel.” The sayings are all attributed to Jesus, though many are actually much later. The later sayings are in a broad sense Gnostic, in that salvation consists of the soul’s awakening to the knowledge that it does not belong to this world. Among the earlier sayings, most are similar to those found in the New Testament, and some may be closer to what Jesus actually said—though Early orthodoxy was characterized by belief in the goodness of the Creator, the God of the Jews.

• From Tipping the Velvet (1998)

  They occasionally obliged a gentleman with a poke or two, when they were feeling friendly; but they never let their own parts be fondled or kissed. They were proud to the point of mania, Sweet Alice said, on that score.My own renter persona was, of necessity, a rather curious mixture of types. Never a very virile boy, I held no appeal for the kind of gentleman who liked a rough hand through the slit of his drawers, or a bit of a slap in the shadows; equally, however, I could never afford to let myself be seen as one of those lily-white lads whom the working-men go for, and make rather free with. Then again, I was choosy. There were many fellows with curious appetites in the streets round Leicester Square; but not all of them were the sort I was after. Most men, to be frank, will step aside with a renter as you or I might call into a public-house, on our way home from the market: they take their pleasure, give a belch, and think no more of it than that. But still there are always some - they are gentlemen, for the most part; I learned to spot them from afar - who are fretful, or wistful, or romantic - who could, like the fellow from the Burlington Arcade, be brought to kiss me, or thank me, or even weep over me, as I was handling them.And, as they did so - as they strained and gasped, and whispered their desires to me in some alley or court or dripping lavatory stall - I would have to turn my face away to hide my smiles. If they favoured Walter, then so much the better. If they did not - well, they were all gents and (whatever their own opinion on the matter) with their trousers unbuttoned they all looked the same.I never felt my own lusts rise, raising theirs. I didn’t even need the coins they gave me. I was like a person who, having once been robbed of all he owns and loves, turns thief himself - not to enjoy his neighbours’ chattels, but to spoil them. My one regret was that, though I was daily giving such marvellous performances, they had no audience.

• From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) (1907)

  24°, should be avoided y 1'; smitten and punished for the benefit of the simple Pr 19* 217 and banished for the removal of conten- tion 22°; judgment is prepared for him 19”; || עָרִייץ‎ Is 29%; wine is a scorner Pr 205-- . Hiph. Pf. 3 mpl. sf. 297 119%; Pt. מליץ‎ Gn 42° Jb 33™; pl. מָלִיצִי. פס‎ 2Ch 32%; sf. S20 Jb 16°; PY Is 437;—1. deride 116% W119". 2. Pt. interpreter Gn 42° (E); fig. of interme- diaries between God and man, Jb 33” Is 437; ambassador 2Ch32". Po‘lel Pt. pl. לצצִים‎ (2 dropped Kié***) scorners 110 -ך‎ Hithp. Tmpf. תתלוצצר‎ act as a scorner, shew oneself « mocker, Is 28™, n.{m.] seorning, Pr 1; לצון‎ WIN men of scorning, scorners = O"¥) 298 Is 28™. ).גג מליצהז‎ 5. [ satire, mocking-poem Hb 2% also Pr 1° (al. here figure, enigma). perhaps=be‏ ; לוש (Vof foll., Thes‏ ליש strong (Thes) cf. Ar. 23}, GcJ, strength; SY‏ (med. +) m1. v. be strong, etc., appar. denom.‏ =be lion-like).‏ fr לרש‎ nam*™ tion (Ar. ES, 3 NN); As. ne&u, lion is comp. by Hal (cf. Hpt**7*>) BaZA til 1588, at) :—lion Jb 4" Is 30° (|| nz), Tis לי‎ בַּבְּהָמָה‎ Pr 30”. yu. לש‎ n.pr.loc. (on meaning lion, cf. יל בוד‎ 1-15 (om.2nded)) ;__former name of Dan, in extreme north of Canaan, Ju 1879 (y, 73 p-192b); G Aaa; =DY) q.v. ; ef. Buhle 8", n.pr.m. father of Michal’s second‏ לוש .צנ ך Apes,‏ 69 (לוש husband, 15 25%+ 2 5 3° Qr (Kt‏ Sedrys, A Aa(e)es, GL Iwas, SeAreep.‏ trend n.pr.loc. N. of Jerus. 18 10" (perh. akin to mr. ,ליש‎ v. Di); site unknown; v. Kasteren”***™ conj. ‘Jsawiye, village two miles NE. fr. Jerus. (PEF 8? + ¥em t- 27 RopP i 47 ef. Buh]S* = 6( ev Sa, Aaca. J? = m3) TImv. of Epa q-v- 72? ל‎ vb. capture, seize, take (by lot) (Ph. לבר.‎ take out, choose )1( ; ₪ 29 as BH; Ar. SN is strike, push, with the hand, ete., 35. 45 cipline 97 reproof 9° 15": or rebuke 13', | pestle, ef. mod.’ [5ג.‎ attack Wetzst 26 לכר

• From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB) (1907)

  rag בל‎ vb. be senseless, foolish (NI nb33, moa of immodesty; Ar. 03 = pe contra) be noble, distinguished, Ae; also. gracious (Frey); Aram. 233 Pa. reject, despise, v. XY Ne 3° 06149; im deriv. as NH)};- Qal Pf. 2 ms. 1P23 Pr 30" éf thou hast been foolish in lifting up thyself (opp. Di). Pf. ד‎ s. sf. consec. DN Na 3°; Impf. 31 2am) Dt 325" 2 aaame pba Je 14”; בל‎ Mi 7°;—regard or treat as a 532 (q.¥-); with contumely, c. acc.: AS 23D "ץ 11 בָּן‎ 8 treateth father as a fool (with contumely); ’ צגר‎ Dt 32” and he treated with contumely Rock ot his salvation (i.e.%; || (נטש‎ ; " su Na 3° 7 will treat thee (Nineveh) with contum (|| שַפָצִים‎ OY DOWN) ; Je 147 do not with contumely the throne of thy glory (|| 8 Te ba adj. foolish, senseless, esp. of t man who has no perception of ethical a religious claims, and with collat. idea 01 0 disgraceful ; —abs.“1 28 3°%+14 t.; mpl.B 13" Ez 13° (G Co (ְמַלְבּם‎ ; fpl. i922 Th 2" senseless, esp. of religious and moral insen bility: ג"‎ DY Dt 32° (of Isr., unappreciative 0 J.’s benefits ; opp. 037), so of heathen natior ש‎ 74" (blaspheming name of ”), “2 גי‎ Dt 32” )|| הַכּבְאִים 3“ ; (לא עֶם‎ Ez 13° (si vera 1-, v. supr elsewh. as subst. (impious and presumptuous fool, Is 32° (opp. 272 noble-minded), characte ized 88 at once irreligious and churlish, Vv’, denying God ש‎ 1 4= 53%: insulting God 74" and God’s servant 39°; Pr 177 arrogant spee becometh not the (imp.ous and presumptuous fool (whose faults it only makes the more 0 spicuous), much less do lying lips him that noble (3°93), v2! (|| 2°D3), 302 ond ל כי ישבע‎ (one of the things under which the ear trembles), P23 ‘22 Jb 30° 1.0. ignoble met 6% nya ‘22); as one who might be expectet bay to have a contumelious end, 1338 הַכָּמות 73 ימות‎ 283° was Abner (destined) to die, as a ‘3 dieth ? of the man who amasses riches unjustly ובאחריתו יהיה נבל‎ Je 17" 1.6. will prove him- self to be 3 כ'‎ ; as acting immorally (with collat. idea of disgracefully) 2 ₪ 13 5 7083 ואתה תהיה‎ הַגּבָלִים בישראל‎ (cf. 923); +. only in NNN 7272 nidaan Jb 2” (of Job’s wife). Cf Dr? 92,6.15.21; ; 457 I. ba n.pr.m. (on popular etymol. see 1$ 25” infr.); a churlish man of Carmel, whose widow David married 1 § 2 5 9779701995 (joy Adar שמו‎ Daz (כּשְמו כְִּהוּא‎ צ*+‎ 10 6 1 8 + 2 5 2? 45 G NaBar.

• From The History of Christian Theology (2008)

  81 by Menno Simons, are the origin of the Mennonites, the largest contemporary Anabaptist group, as well as their offshoot, the Amish. The German branch of the Anabaptists came to be known as Moravian Anabaptists. Rejecting infant baptism has radical implications for one’s view of church, society, and Christian identity. Baptism is an initiation rite which marks the social boundaries of the church, the difference between those who belong inside the Body of Christ and those who do not. To reject the baptism of another church is to say it is not really Christian or a church. Anabaptist teaching, in the 16 th-century context, implied that no one outside their group was really Christian. The Swiss Anabaptists thus regarded all groups and institutions outside their community as “the world.” They regarded not only the Catholic church but the Zwinglian churches and the Swiss town governments as un-Christian. Other churches regarded this as heresy, and governments treated it as sedition, that is, a crime worthy of death. Anabaptists were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants through most of the 16 th century. Anabaptists were hated in large measure because they were a threat to Christendom. “Christendom,” characteristic of the medieval and early modern period, means a society in which the body politic is understood to be a Christian body. Christendom requires Christian rulers, known as “the sword” of Christendom, who are concerned for the welfare of the church and are willing to enforce this concern. Anabaptist paci ¿ sm implies that the responsibilities of the ruler, including warfare and enforcement of religion, are not really Christian. The Anabaptists took a different route from the magisterial Reformation, that is, the Lutheran and Reformed, who were eager to enlist the support of Christian rulers or magistrates. Unlike the Lutherans and the Reformed, the Anabaptists never enlisted the support of the state or tried to become a state church. Instead, they began a series of private meetings in Zurich, The Anabaptists can be thought of as taking a step further away from Catholicism, beyond the Reformed.

• From Get Out of Your Head: Stopping the Cycle of Anxious Thoughts (2020)

  When we’re tempted to think cynical thoughts—that life is worthless, that our efforts are pointless, that nothing matters in the end, that no one can be trusted—we can choose instead to open ourselves up to the world around us, taking delight in God Himself and all He has done for us. These are all choices that we can make to reconfigure our thinking patterns and help ourselves become whom we long to be. This brings us to our fifth weapon for shifting out of harmful patterns of thinking: humility. One of the enemies of our minds especially rampant in this generation is the inflated view of self being handed to us all over social media, in the shows and movies we watch, even in the self-help books we read. We’re fed a continuous message of how much we matter, how very important we are—and we believe every word of the deceiver. We can make a different choice. When the enemy invites us to taste the fruit of self-importance and “be like God,”4 we can choose instead to take up our cross and follow Jesus, knowing that our identity is anchored in Him alone. But everything in our human nature will fight against it. LIE : The more self-esteem I have, the better life will go for me. TRUTH : The more I choose God and others over myself, the more joyful I will be. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!5 I CHOOSE TO SERVE GOD AND OTHERS OVER SERVING MYSELF. [image file=Image00044.jpg] I recently posted on Instagram this quote often attributed to Andrew Murray: Humility is perfect quietness of heart…. It is to expect nothing, to wonder at nothing that is done to me, to feel nothing done against me. It is to be at rest when nobody praises me and when I am blamed or despised. It is to have a blessed home in the Lord, where I can go in and shut the door, and kneel to my Father in secret, and am at peace, as in a deep sea of calmness, when all around and above is trouble. The comments in response to that post were priceless: “Wow. This is difficult.” “How rare.” “Whoa. That hurts.” Humility is impossibly opposite of the ways of this world. Our spinning thoughts can hardly comprehend being at rest instead of jockeying for approval.

• From The Great Transformation (2006)

  Legalism first developed in the kingdoms of Wei, Han, and Zhao, which had broken away from the old state of Jin in the early fifth century. These were rogue states, and their rulers were, therefore, less wedded to tradition and more open to radical theories of government. In about 370, an ambitious young man called Shang Yang (c. 390–338) had settled in Wei and joined the discussions of the local political scientists, who had no grand spiritual program but simply wanted to reform the military, increase agricultural production, bolster the power of the ruler by weakening the local nobility, and develop a clear and effective legal code. Shang failed to gain the favor of the king of Wei, but in 361 managed to become chief adviser to the prince of Qin. This was a great opportunity. Qin had a large barbarian population, which knew next to nothing about Zhou traditions, and the nobility was too weak and impoverished to put up any effective opposition to Shang’s revolutionary program. His reform, which flouted many of the major principles of the Axial Age, made the backward, isolated kingdom of Qin the most powerful and advanced state in China. At the end of the third century, as a result of Shang’s far-reaching measures, Qin would conquer all the other states, and in 221 its ruler would become the first historical emperor of China. Lord Shang felt no loyalty to past tradition. “When the guiding principles of the people become unsuited to their circumstances,” he argued, “their standard [fa] of value must change. As conditions in the world change, different principles are practised.”4 It was no use dreaming of a golden age of compassionate sage kings. If people were more generous in the past, this was not because they had practiced ren, but because the population was smaller and there was enough food to go round. Similarly, the corruption and conflict of the Warring States period was not the result of dishonesty, but occurred simply because resources were scarce.5 Instead of promoting nonviolence, Lord Shang wanted the people of Qin to be as eager for war and bloodshed as a hungry wolf. He had only one objective: “the enrichment of the state and the strengthening of its military capacity.”6 To meet its targets, governments had to exploit the fear and greed of the population. Very few people wanted to expose themselves to the perils of modern warfare, but Shang devised such dire punishments for deserters that death on the battlefield seemed preferable. He also rewarded the outstanding military service of peasants and noblemen alike with a grant of agricultural land.