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 176 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  15 The lazy person buries his hand in the dish [losing opportunity after opportunity]; It wearies him to bring it back to his mouth. [Prov 19:24 ] 16 The lazy person is wiser in his own eyes Than seven [sensible] men who can give a discreet answer. 17 Like one who grabs a dog by the ears [and is likely to be bitten] Is he who, passing by, stops to meddle with a dispute that is none of his business. 18 Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man who deceives his neighbor (acquaintance, friend) And then says, “Was I not joking?” [Eph 5:4 ] 20 For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer [who gossips], contention quiets down. 21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife. [Prov 15:18 ; 29:22 ] 22 The words of a whisperer (gossip) are like dainty morsels [to be greedily eaten]; They go down into the innermost chambers of the body [to be remembered and mused upon]. [Prov 18:8 ] 23 Like a [common] clay vessel covered with the silver dross [making it appear silver when it has no real value] Are burning lips [murmuring manipulative words] and a wicked heart. 24 He who hates, disguises it with his lips, But he stores up deceit in his heart. 25 When he speaks graciously and kindly [to conceal his malice], do not trust him, For seven abominations are in his heart. 26 Though his hatred covers itself with guile and deceit, His malevolence will be revealed openly before the assembly. 27 Whoever digs a pit [for another man’s feet] will fall into it, And he who rolls a stone [up a hill to do mischief], it will come back on him. [Ps 7:15 , 16 ; 9:15 ; 10:2 ; 57:6 ; Prov 28:10 ; Eccl 10:8 ] 28 A lying tongue hates those it wounds and crushes, And a flattering mouth works ruin. Proverbs 27 Warnings and Instructions 1 D O NOT boast about tomorrow, For you do not know what a day may bring. [Luke 12:19 , 20 ; James 4:13 ] 2 Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips. 3 Stone is heavy and the sand weighty, But a fool’s [unreasonable] wrath is heavier and more burdensome than both of them. 4 Wrath is cruel and anger is an overwhelming flood, But who is able to endure and stand before [the sin of] jealousy? 5 Better is an open reprimand [of loving correction] Than love that is hidden. [Prov 28:23 ; Gal 2:14 ] 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend [who corrects out of love and concern], But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful [because they serve his hidden agenda]. 7 He who is satisfied loathes honey, But to the hungry soul any bitter thing is sweet.

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

  Whatever their differences, however, all these three fundamental heresies amount at last to a more or less distinct denial of the central truth of the gospel—the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of the world. They make Christ either a mere man, or a mere superhuman phantom; they allow, at all events, no real and abiding union of the divine and human in the person of the Redeemer. This is just what John gives as the mark of antichrist, which existed even in his day in various forms.864 It plainly undermines the foundation of the church. For if Christ be not God-man, neither is he mediator between God and men; Christianity sinks back into heathenism or Judaism. All turns at last on the answer to that fundamental question: "What think ye of Christ?" The true solution of this question is the radical refutation of every error. Notes. "It has often been remarked that truths and error keep pace with each other. Error is the shadow cast by truth, truth the bright side brought out by error. Such is the relation between the heresies and the apostolical teaching of the first century. The Gospels indeed, as in other respects, so in this, rise almost entirely above the circumstances of the time, but the Epistles are, humanly speaking, the result of the very conflict between the good and the evil elements which existed together in the bosom of the early Christian society. As they exhibit the principles afterward to be unfolded into all truth and goodness, so the heresies which they attack exhibit the principles which were afterward to grow up into all the various forms of error, falsehood and wickedness. The energy, the freshness, nay, even the preternatural power which belonged to the one belonged also to the other. Neither the truths in the writings of the Apostles, nor the errors in the opinions of their opponents, can be said to exhibit the dogmatical form of any subsequent age. It is a higher and more universal good which is aimed at in the former; it is a deeper and more universal principle of evil which is attacked in the latter. Christ Himself, and no subordinate truths or speculations concerning Him, is reflected in the one; Antichrist, and not any of the particular outward manifestations of error which have since appeared, was justly regarded by the Apostles as foreshadowed in the other." — Dean Stanley (Apostolic Age, p. 182).

• From The Well of Loneliness (1928)

  were as white and soft as a woman’s — she would feel a queer little sense of outrage creeping over her when she looked at his hands. For those hands of his went so ill with him somehow; he was tall, broad-shouldered, and of an extreme thinness. His clean-shaven face was slightly sardonic and almost disconcertingly clever; an inquisitive face too — one felt that it pried into everyone’s secrets without shame or mercy. It may have been genuine liking on his part or mere curiosity that had made him persist in thrusting his friendship on Stephen. But whatever it had been it had taken the form of ringing her up almost daily at one time; of worrying her to lunch or dine with him, of inviting himself to her flat in Chelsea, or what was still worse, of dropping in on her whenever the spirit moved him. His work never seemed to worry him at all, and Stephen often wondered when his fine plays got written, for Brockett very seldom if ever discussed them and apparently very seldom wrote them; yet they always appeared at the critical moment when their author had run short of money. Once, for the sake of peace, she had dined with him in a species of glorified cellar. He had just then discovered the queer little place down in Seven Dials, and was very proud of it; indeed, he was making it rather the fashion among certain literary people. He had taken a great deal of trouble that evening to make Stephen feel that she belonged to these people by right of her talent, and had introduced her as ‘ Stephen Gordon, the author of The Furrow. But all the while he had secretly watched her with his sharp and inquisitive grey eyes. She had felt very much at ease with Brockett as they sat at their little dimly lit table, perhaps because her instinct divined that this man would never require of her more than she could give — that the most he would ask for at any time would be friendship. Then one day he had casually disappeared, and she heard that he had gone to Paris for some months, as was often his cus- tom when the climate of London had begun to get on his nerves. He had drifted away like thistledown, without so much as a word of warning. He had not said good-bye nor had he written, so that Stephen felt that she had never known him, so completely did THE WELL OF LONELINESS 259 he go out of her life during his sojourn in Paris. Later on she was to learn, when she knew him better, that these discon. certing lapses of interest, amounting as they did to a breach of good manners, were highly characteristic of the man, and must of necessity be accepted by all who accepted Jonathan Brockett.

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

  But in the meantime his teacher, Dr. Baur, the coryphaeus of the Tübingen school, was preparing his heavy ammunition, and led the second, the boldest, the most vigorous and effective assault upon the Johannean fort (since 1844).1087 He was followed in the main question, though with considerable modifications in detail, by a number of able and acute critics in Germany and other countries. He represented the fourth Gospel as a purely ideal work which grew out of the Gnostic, Montanistic, and paschal controversies after the middle of the second century, and adjusted the various elements of the Catholic faith with consummate skill and art. It was not intended to be a history, but a system of theology in the garb of history. This "tendency" hypothesis was virtually a death-blow to the mythical theory of Strauss, which excludes conscious design. The third great assault inspired by Baur, yet with independent learning and judgment, was made by Dr. Keim (in his Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1867). He went beyond Baur in one point: he denied the whole tradition of John’s sojourn in Ephesus as a mistake of Irenaeus; he thus removed even the foundation for the defence of the Apocalypse as a Johannean production, and neutralized the force of the Tübingen assault derived from that book. On the other hand, he approached the traditional view by tracing the composition back from 170 (Baur) to the reign of Trajan, i.e., to within a few years after the death of the apostle. In his denial of the Ephesus tradition he met with little favor,1088 but strong opposition from the Tübingen critics, who see the fatal bearing of this denial upon the genuineness of the Apocalypse.1089 The effect of Keim’s movement therefore tended rather to divide and demoralize the besieging force. Nevertheless the effect of these persistent attacks was so great that three eminent scholars, Hase of Jena (1876), Reuss of Strassburg, and Sabatier of Paris (1879), deserted from the camp of the defenders to the army of the besiegers. Renan, too, who had in the thirteenth edition of his Vie de Jesus (1867) defended the fourth Gospel at least in part, has now (since 1879, in his L’Église chrétienne) given it up entirely.1090 The Defence of the Fourth Gospel. The incisive criticism of Baur and his school compelled a thorough reinvestigation of the whole problem, and in this way has been of very great service to the cause of truth. We owe to it the ablest defences of the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel and the precious history which it represents. Prominent among these defenders against the latest attacks were Bleek, Lange, Ebrard, Thiersch, Schneider, Tischendorf, Riggenbach, Ewald, Steitz, Aberle, Meyer, Luthardt, Wieseler, Beyschlag, Weiss, among the Germans; Godet, Pressensé, Astié, among the French; Niermeyer, Van Oosterzee, Hofstede de Groot, among the Dutch; Alford, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott, Sanday, Plummer, among the English; Fisher, and Abbot among the Americans.1091

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

  Lorde's explication of the nexus of eroticism and the pornographic illuminates the textual/sexual dynamics governing John and Marie's sexual exchanges, as well as his language, in which resonates a rhetoric situated within a pornographic lexicon that denies feeling for the sake of sensation, titillation, and sexual fantasy. John's actions, contextualized as such, renders his exchange pornographic, as sensation (without feeling): the ripping of clothes degrades the body in the same fashion that his words-"act like a whore"-diminish and reduce Marie not to a particular humanity or essence but to an empty sexual (and even objectified and pathologized) state. Marie, in turn, is the recipient, quiet and willing to "take it how he gives it," enabling his sensation and sexual domination in his attempts to recover his threatened masculinity. John, through sexuality, virility, and sexual domination, attempts to display masculine strength, or a semblance of it, that is vexed and problematic at best.

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

  Renay's (re)formation of family (Renay/Terry/Denise), read in dialogue with her former family (Jerome/Renay/Denise), calls attention to the contradictions undergirding nationalist constructions of the black family. For, if within black nationalist discourse, the foundation and survival of "the black nation" is contingent upon the formation of "strong black families with strong (and responsible) black patriarchs," Jerome-who engages nationalism only so far as its tenets regarding female circumscriptions and male-dominance are concerned-utterly fails to perform his designated role within his family unit. He neglects his responsibilities as a husband and father-not supporting his family financially and functioning as more of a violator than a "protector" of his wife-and, therefore, does not meet the "requisites" for manhood within the nationalist project. Jerome's negligent behavior, I would argue, threatens the survival of his family and accounts for its eventual demise. Whereas Renay's behavior, her deliberate engagement in an interracial samegender loving union, is perceived almost automatically as the "real" threat to their family, it is Jerome, ironically, who is responsible for its destruction. What Shockley does, then, is twofold: first, she exposes the contradictory nature of nationalists who, like Jerome, embrace ideologies regarding womanhood, manhood, family, and the nation that rarely, if ever, translate-at least in any progressive way-into praxis. Second, she reveals the potentially precarious and destructive, rather than generative, nature of black nationalist constructions of gender roles and family particularly and of nationalism generally. Shockley, to this end, lambastes nationalist tendencies to relegate women to unprogressive gender politics that commodify or render them objects to be acquired, possessed, and/or disposed at men's will, while women are expected to exercise no agency. This she does most conspicuously via Jerome's reaction to his discovery that Renay has abandoned him, as the narratorial voice delineates: His male vanity had once again risen to the surface. He just knew she was coming back. She had to come back. It would have been all right if he had left her, but he could not believe that she had left him. That she would not be with him anymore and, above all, that she could go the way of the world without him, was inconceivable to him. She was a commodity to him, something he had bought with a wedding license and, like all possessions, was a part of his many belongings. To him, losing her was a loss of property. (42, original emphasis)

• 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