Fear

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 381 of 529 · 20 per page

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  In fact, about four years ago, I spoke with Dr. Lori Rosenthal, a social psychologist who wrote a chapter on mob violence for the book The Psychology of Good and Evil ,41 about this very question. I was trying to figure out when a group of people goes from being a crowd to a mob. The answer isn’t just that they are angry. You get angry crowds at sporting events. You get them at peaceful protests.* Dr. Rosenthal helped answer this for me. She said: “A mob is a very specific type of crowd. It’s an expressive crowd. The common purpose that they get together around is expressing emotion. Crowds can express emotions in positive ways, but mobs are expressing emotions in negative ways and there’s a connotation of violence… either an intent to commit violence, a likelihood to commit violence, or they are actually committing violence. It’s not a prosocial group.”† Sarah’s patrons didn’t get together that day to express anger and violence. They were there to see a show. But the way they were treating people, the way they were egging each other on, and the fact that violence felt like a real possibility to Sarah and her staff might make that first part moot. Who cares why they were there? What matters is how they felt and acted once they were there. Dr. Rosenthal said something else really interesting that I think is relevant here too. She said: “Generally, in terms of historical research on social behavior, we have defined a crowd as being in physical proximity, but I think in today’s society with our social-media connections, a crowd can actually exist in the virtual world.” I would argue that if a crowd can exist online, a mob can too. Take for example the story of Justine Sacco who in 2013 tweeted out an offensive attempt at a joke about AIDS right before boarding a plane to South Africa. She had fewer than 200 Twitter followers at the time, but in the 11 hours she was on the plane, her tweet was noticed and shared by media outlets and she became the center of a massive Twitterstorm. Since she was on a flight, she was disconnected from Twitter and was unaware of what was happening. She couldn’t apologize or remove the tweet. In that time, an online mob had formed around her offensive and racist tweet. People were hurling cruel insults at her (including a number of slurs), some were calling for her to be fired (which she was), and some writing that they hoped she would get AIDS. One user even acknowledged that a mob had formed and tweeted out a picture of a mob of Simpsons’ characters holding torches. When she landed, she deleted the tweet, along with her Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram accounts.

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  But calling to mind the might of Thy hand and the greatness of Thy compassion, I rose and stood, and my spirit was established in the face of the scourge. The psalmist then continues by saying that he leans on God's grace and that God pardons him. It seems that the lines just quoted describe a crisis in a covenanter's life rather than a confession of God's grace for putting him in the right 'lot'. The covenant was attacked and he was afraid that he was for- saken. If this is true of 4.33-36, the same seems certainly to be true of 4.29f., which is a confession of the sinfulness of a man in the covenant vis a vis God. 99 H. Braun, 'Selbstverstiindnis', Studien, pp. 113, 107. 100 Ibid., pp. 105f. IOI Ibid., p. I 13. 102 Ibid., pp. 109, I 17. 103 Ibid., pp. 110f. We shall return to these last points below. 104 Licht, 'Doctrine', p. 96. The Dead Sea Scrolls [II The 'in' phrases of 4.29( state not so much a plight from which man is saved as a constant truth which is not altered: man, on his own, is iniquitous ('in iniquity') and full of guilty rebellion ('in guilty unfaithfulness') 'until his old age'. He has no righteousness, nor perfection of way, for to God alone belong righteous deeds. Man's way is established only by God (IQH 4.29-31). The closest parallel to this is IQS 11.11f.: 'If I stagger because of the sin of flesh, my justification shall be by the righteousness of God.' 105 In both cases, the point is that man, on his own, is always a sinner. He may at any time 'stumble', which doubtless means to commit an individual transgression, not to relapse into a former sphere. This is a description of the human state from which he is not saved. He never, in this world, moves from the sphere in which, vis a vis God, his actions apart from grace are sins. The 'in iniquity' passage is a statement of human inadequacy and the constant proclivity to sin unless one's steps are established by God. Becker's 'from' passages do not refer to being saved from the basic human conditiun of frailty, in which man is unable to 'stand' or to 'establish his way' or to do any righteous deed; they do not constitute the solutiun to the plight of 4.29[. The 'from' passages refer to being cleansed from transgression and the impurity which is attached to it so that one may join the covenant. The man in 4.29, however, is already in the covenant. Yet he remains 'in iniquity' from the womb to old age.

• From Becoming Myself: A Psychiatrist's Memoir (2017)

  Immediately, Philip, the Schopenhauer clone and acolyte, responds in his usual condescending manner, saying, “Nabokov undoubtedly lifted the idea from Schopenhauer, who said that after death we will be as before our birth and then proceeded to prove the impossibility of there being more than one kind of nothingness.” Pam, furious with Philip, says, “You think Schopenhauer once said something vaguely similar. Big fucking deal.” Philip closes his eyes and begins reciting: “‘A man finds himself, to his great astonishment, suddenly existing after thousands and thousands of years of nonexistence; he lives for a little while: and then, again, comes an equally long period when he must exist no more.’ I quote from Schopenhauer’s essay, ‘Additional Remarks on the Doctrine of the Vanity of Existence.’ Is that vague enough for you, Pam?” I cite this passage because of what it did not include: namely, that Schopenhauer’s and Nabokov’s statements both trace back to Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher who held that the primary source of human misery was our omnipresent fear of death. To ease that fear, Epicurus developed a series of potent secular arguments for the students in his school in Athens and stipulated that they learn them just as they might memorize a catechism. One of these arguments was the renowned “symmetry argument” positing that our state of nonbeing after death is identical to our state before our birth , and yet the thought of our “pre-being” state is never associated with anxiety. Philosophers throughout the ages have attacked this argument, and yet to my mind it is beautiful in its simplicity and still holds considerable power. It has offered comfort to many of my patients, and to me as well. As I read more about Epicurus’s arguments to dispel death terror, a bombshell of an idea for my next book occurred to me and held me enthralled for a great many months. Here’s the idea. A horrific nightmare terrorizes a man: In a forest at nightfall he is pursued by some terrifying beast. He runs until he can run no farther; he stumbles, feels the creature pouncing upon him, and realizes this is his death. He awakens screaming, heart pounding, soaked in sweat. He jumps out of bed, quickly dresses, bolts from his bedroom and from his home, and sets off to find someone—an elder, a thinker, a healer, a priest, a doctor—anyone who can help with this death terror. I imagined a book consisting of eight or nine chapters, each beginning with the same first paragraph: the nightmare, the awakening, and the setting out to seek help for his death terror. Yet each chapter would be set in a different century! The first would take place in the third century BC in Athens, and the dreamer would rush to the Agora, the section of Athens where many of the important schools of philosophy were located.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Sometimes they flat out tell me they can’t disconnect because the angry person is so deeply entrenched in their life or other relationships (a co-worker, a boss, a family member, the parent of their child, and so on). When to Disengage There’s no easy answer to this question of when we should disengage. It’s considerably easier, though, when we’re talking about one-off interactions that happen with strangers than when we’re talking about long-term relationships. In these sorts of single-episode interactions with an angry person, I would suggest disengaging as soon as one of three things happens: (1) you no longer feel safe, (2) interacting with this person is not good for you, or (3) you realize that a resolution is unlikely or impossible. If you are worried about your safety, you should disengage immediately and get to safety. If you don’t think the interaction has a chance of being productive any longer, you should find a way to end it and move on. I think these same three guidelines can be applied to longer-term relationships too. It’s time to disengage when you don’t feel safe, when the relationship is no longer good for you, or when you realize that it will likely never improve. We should acknowledge first, though, that the details here obviously depend on the context of the relationship with the angry person. As I’ve mentioned throughout the book, angry people may be intertwined in our lives in ways that make disengaging exceedingly difficult. How you choose to relate to an angry boss is different from an angry spouse or an angry parent. Decisions about cutting off a friendship with a lifelong friend might be different than those involving a more recent acquaintance. There are many factors to consider here. Unlike most one-off interactions, there may be real consequences of disengaging that you have to factor in. That said, it’s also worth noting that disengaging doesn’t necessarily mean cutting off all contact. It can look a lot of different ways. It can mean disengaging altogether and no longer being part of the person’s life, but it can also mean spending less time together, interacting less often, or even limiting

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Americans, are essentially being blamed for the poor economic conditions). This second article is written by an economist and expert on the American economy, but that expert’s nationality is manipulated to add another variable to the study. They are either American (ingroup) or South Korean (outgroup). What they found was that when there was no threat (when participants hadn’t read the article about how they would likely soon be experiencing a worse quality of life and lower wages), they were more receptive to ingroup feedback than outgroup feedback. In other words, they got more defensive when the criticism came from a South Korean. But, when they felt under threat, that receptiveness to ingroup criticism declined. When participants feared for their own economic wellbeing, there was no difference. They got defensive regardless. This speaks to the idea that at its core, defensiveness is about protection from what we perceive to be a threat to our emotional or general wellbeing. How to Know Whether You’re Being Defensive and What to Do About It Like any emotional experience, it can be difficult to realize in the moment when you are being defensive. By definition, you aren’t necessarily thinking clearly and are not able to adequately assess your own feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. So, how can you catch yourself when defensiveness kicks in? First, you might catch yourself trying to refocus the conversation onto the actions of the other person. This might include focusing on what they did that made you do what you did. It also might include focusing on how they have wronged you or engaged in similar behavior as you in the past. Both of these might reflect an attempt to ignore your role in the offense in favor of the other person’s role. Second, you might find that you aren’t really listening to the person. You may be thinking about what you want to say next instead of listening to what they are saying to you. If it’s an email or a text, you may delay reading it or even stop reading midway through. Finally, you might find yourself using some

• From The Decameron (1353)

  Discoursing thus of various matters and faring on their way, on the look out the while for time and place apt unto their knavish purpose, they came, late in the day, to a place a little beyond Castel Guglielmo, where, at the fording of a river, the three rogues, seeing the hour advanced and the spot solitary and close shut in, fell upon Rinaldo and robbed him of money, clothes and horse. Then, leaving him afoot and in his shirt, they departed, saying, 'Go see if thy St. Julian will give thee a good lodging this night, even as ours[84] will assuredly do for us.' And passing the stream, they went their ways. Rinaldo's servant, seeing him attacked, like a cowardly knave as he was, did nought to help him, but turning his horse's head, never drew bridle till he came to Castel Guglielmo and entering the town, took up his lodging there, without giving himself farther concern. [Footnote 84: _i.e._ our patron saint.] Rinaldo, left in his shirt and barefoot, it being very cold and snowing hard, knew not what to do and seeing the night already at hand, looked about him, trembling and chattering the while with his teeth, if there were any shelter to be seen therenigh, where he might pass the night, so he should not perish of cold; but, seeing none, for that a little before there had been war in those parts and everything had been burnt, set off at a run, spurred by the cold, towards Castel Guglielmo, knowing not withal if his servant were fled thither or otherwise and thinking that, so he might but avail to enter therein, God would send him some relief. But darkness overtook him near a mile from the town, wherefore he arrived there so late that, the gates being shut and the draw-bridges raised, he could get no admission. Thereupon, despairing and disconsolate, he looked about, weeping, for a place where he might shelter, so at the least it should not snow upon him, and chancing to espy a house that projected somewhat beyond the walls of the town, he determined to go bide thereunder till day. Accordingly, betaking himself thither, he found there a door, albeit it was shut, and gathering at foot thereof somewhat of straw that was therenigh, he laid himself down there, tristful and woebegone, complaining sore to St. Julian and saying that this was not of the faith he had in him.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  77 The Apocalypse of Peter Lecture 18 The apocalypse genre originally emerged in Jewish circles, and is closely connected with the Jewish world view known as apocalypticism. T o this point in the course, we have considered early Christian pseudonymous gospels, acts, and epistles. These are three of the four genres that are also represented in the New Testament. The fourth is the apocalypse genre, represented in the New Testament by only one book, the Revelation of John. There are non-canonical apocalypses, as well, the earliest of which is an apocalypse allegedly written by Jesus’ closest disciple, Simon Peter. This is the ¿ rst surviving Christian account of a guided tour of heaven and hell, a precursor of Dante’s Divine Comedy. To understand the text, we need to set it in a broader literary and historical context. The apocalypse genre originally emerged in Jewish circles and is closely connected with a Jewish worldview ( apocalypticism) that arose about 200 years before the ministry of Jesus. Many Jews had long held to a theology that indicated that God blessed here on earth those who did his will but punished those who did evil. According to this older view (found throughout much of the Hebrew Bible), people suffer when they oppose God. But incidents arose in which foreign powers oppressed Jews precisely for trying to be Jewish. It was dif ¿ cult to believe that God caused cruel suffering on Jews for trying to keep his law. Some Jews began to believe, then, that this suffering came not from God but from God’s cosmic enemies (especially the Devil), who had been temporarily granted charge of this world and were determined to harm anyone who sided with God. Apocalypse of Saint Peter, verses 28–32. Das Evangelium und die Apokalypse des Petrus by Oscar von Gebhardt, 1893.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  32 “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, this generation [those living at that definite period of time preceding the second coming] will not pass away until d everything takes place. 33 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 34 “But be on guard, so that your hearts are not weighed down and depressed with the giddiness of debauchery and the nausea of self-indulgence and the worldly worries of life, and then that day [when the Messiah returns] will not come on you suddenly like a trap; 35 for it will come upon all those who live on the face of all the earth. 36 “But keep alert at all times [be attentive and ready], praying that you may have the strength and ability [to be found worthy and] to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man [at His coming].” 37 Now in the daytime Jesus was teaching in [the porches and courts of] the temple, but at night He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet. 38 And early in the morning all the people would come to Him in the temple to listen to Him. Luke 22 Preparing the Passover 1 N OW THE Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. [Lev 23:4 , 5 ; Ezek 45:21 ; Matt 26:2–5 ; Mark 14:1 , 2 ] 2 The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people [who listened devotedly to His teaching, and who respected His spiritual wisdom]. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve [disciples]. 4 And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him and hand Him over to them. 5 They were delighted and agreed with him to give him money. 6 So he consented, and began looking for a good opportunity to betray Jesus to them [at a time when He was] separated from the crowd [because the people might riot or stop them from seizing Him]. 7 Then came the preparation day of a Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. [Ex 12:18–20 ; Deut 16:5–8 ; Matt 26:17–19 ; Mark 14:12–16 ] 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover meal for us, so that we may eat it.” 9 They asked Him, “Where do You want us to prepare it?” 10 He replied, “When you have entered the city, a b man carrying an earthen jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house that he enters.

• From The Decameron (1353)

  It chanced one day that the lady, whose name was Madam Isabella, being gone, as is our custom in summer-time, to abide at a very goodly estate she had in the country and her husband having ridden somewhither to pass some days abroad, she sent for Leonetto to come and be with her, whereat he was mightily rejoiced and betook himself thither incontinent. Meanwhile Messer Lambertuccio, hearing that her husband was gone abroad, took horse and repairing, all alone, to her house, knocked at the door. The lady's waiting-woman, seeing him, came straight to her mistress, who was closeted with Leonetto, and called to her, saying, 'Madam, Messer Lambertuccio is below, all alone.' The lady, hearing this, was the woefullest woman in the world, but, as she stood in great fear of Messer Lambertuccio, she besought Leonetto not to take it ill to hide himself awhile behind the curtains of her bed till such time as the other should be gone. Accordingly, Leonetto, who feared him no less than did the lady, hid himself there and she bade the maid go open to Messer Lambertuccio, which being done, he lighted down in the courtyard and making his palfrey fast to a staple there, went up into the house. The lady put on a cheerful countenance and coming to the head of the stair, received him with as good a grace as she might and asked him what brought him thither; whereupon he caught her in his arms and clipped her and kissed her, saying, 'My soul, I understood that your husband was abroad and am come accordingly to be with you awhile.' After these words, they entered a bedchamber, where they locked themselves in, and Messer Lambertuccio fell to taking delight of her.

• From Girls & Sex (2016)

  “No, it’s not ‘too hard,’” Maddie replied, “I just don’t want to do anything with you.” To spare his feelings, she said it was out of respect for her friend, the one he’d called “crazy.” “She doesn’t have to know,” Josh said. Maddie shook her head. “No. I just don’t want to.” At that, she said, Josh began to pout, acting injured and rejected. Just then, Anthony began honking his car horn. They scrambled into the backseat and Josh brandished a bottle of rum. “I don’t know where the top is,” he said, “and we can’t drive with an open bottle in the car.” He thrust it toward Maddie, adding, “So you have to drink it.” Maddie shook her head. She did not want to drink any more. “Oh, it’s okay,” Anthony explained. “Rum makes your blood alcohol go up, but you won’t feel drunk.” Maybe she was just trying to get through a dicey evening, trying to avoid antagonizing two large, older boys; besides, Anthony wouldn’t start the car until that bottle was empty. “Be cool,” she told herself as they passed it around. “Just get yourself home, get to bed.” She tried faking a few sips, but in the end, she guesses she downed about six shots. After that, her memory fragmented. She recalled crying more over Kyle’s betrayal. She remembered going to a fast-food drive-thru. She remembered Josh pulling her onto his lap. And then she blacked out. Don’t Tell Girls Not to Drink; Tell Rapists Not to Rape

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  11 Indeed, it magnified itself to be equal with the e Commander of the host [of heaven]; and it took away from Him the daily sacrifice (burnt offering), and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down (profaned). 12 Because of the transgression [of God’s people—their irreverence and ungodliness] the host will be given over to the wicked horn, along with the regular sacrifice; and righteousness and truth will be flung to the ground, and the horn will do as it pleases [by divine permission] and prosper. 13 Then I heard a holy one (angel) speaking, and another holy one said to the one who was speaking, “How much time will be required to complete the vision regarding the regular sacrifice, the transgression that brings horror, and the trampling underfoot of both the sanctuary and the host [of the people]?” [Luke 21:24 ] 14 He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; f then the sanctuary will be cleansed and properly restored.” Interpretation of the Vision 15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; then behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of the Ulai, which called out and said, “Gabriel, give this man (Daniel) an understanding of the vision.” [Dan 9:21 ; Luke 1:19 , 26 ] 17 So he came near where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell face downward; but he said to me, “Understand, son of man, that the [fulfillment of the] vision pertains to [events that will occur in] the time of the end.” 18 Now as he (Gabriel) was speaking with me, I drifted into a deep sleep (unconsciousness) with my face to the ground; but he touched me and made me stand [where I had stood before]. 19 He said, “Behold, I am going to let you know what will happen during the final time of the indignation and wrath [of God upon the ungodly], for it concerns the appointed time of the end. The Ram’s Identity 20 “The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The Goat 21 “The shaggy (rough-coated) male goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the great horn between his eyes is the g first king. 22 “Regarding the shattered horn and the h four others that arose in its place, four kingdoms will rise from his (Alexander’s) nation, although not with his power and heritage. 23 “At the latter period of their reign, When the transgressors have finished, A i king will arise Insolent and skilled in intrigue and cunning. 24 “His power will be mighty, but not by his own power; And he will corrupt and destroy in an astonishing manner And [he will] prosper and do exactly as he wills; He shall corrupt and destroy mighty men and the holy people.

• From Another Country (1962)

  “Well, one thing, Leona, they ain’t going to call the law.” He kissed her. “They ain’t going to think nothing, honey.” “You coming in with me?” “Sure, I’m coming in with you.” He held her away from him. “All you got to do is sort of straighten your clothes”—he stroked her body, looking into her eyes—“and sort of run your hand through your hair, like this”—and he brushed her hair back from her forehead. She watched him. He heard himself ask, “Do you like me?” She swallowed. He watched the vein in her neck throb. She seemed very fragile. “Yes,” she said. She looked down. “Rufus,” she said, “I really do like you. Please don’t hurt me.” “Why should I want to hurt you, Leona?” He stroked her neck with one hand, looking at her gravely. “What makes you think I want to hurt you?” “People do,” she said, finally, “hurt each other.” “Is somebody been hurting you, Leona?” She was silent, her face leaning into his palm. “My husband,” she said, faintly. “I thought he loved me, but he didn’t—oh, I knew he was rough but I didn’t think he was mean. And he couldn’t of loved me because he took away my kid, he’s off someplace where I can’t never see him.” She looked up at Rufus with her eyes full of tears. “He said I wasn’t a fit mother because—I—drank too much. I did drink too much, it was the only way I could stand living with him. But I would of died for my kid, I wouldn’t never of let anything happen to him.” He was silent. Her tears fell on his dark fist. “He’s still down there,” she said, “my husband, I mean. Him and my mother and my brother is as thick as thieves. They think I ain’t never been no good. Well, hell, if people keep telling you you ain’t no good”—she tried to laugh—“you bound to turn out pretty bad.” He pushed out of his mind all of the questions he wanted to ask her. It was beginning to be chilly on the balcony; he was hungry and he wanted a drink and he wanted to get home to bed. “Well,” he said, at last, “I ain’t going to hurt you,” and he rose, walking to the edge of the balcony. His shorts were like a rope between his legs, he pulled them up, and felt that he was glued inside them. He zipped up his fly, holding his legs wide apart. The sky had faded down to purple. The stars were gone and the lights on the Jersey shore were out. A coal barge traveled slowly down the river. “How do I look?” she asked him. “Fine,” he said, and she did. She looked like a tired child. “You want to come down to my place?” “If you want me to,” she said. “Well, yes, that’s what I want.” But he wondered why he was holding on to her.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  79 Christians began to emphasize, instead, the salvation of the soul in the world beyond. Heaven and hell then became centrally important categories. This transformation of emphases can be seen in the Apocalypse of Peter. The book was unknown until it was discovered in a monk’s tomb in 1886. But it was mentioned by authors of the late second century; thus, it was written possibly within ¿ fty years of the Revelation of John. The account begins with Jesus teaching his disciples on the Mount of Olives, and the disciples asking when the end will come. Jesus then describes the future—his return as judge of the earth and the torments and ecstasies awaiting people at his judgment—in such a way that gives one the sense that he is actually taking his followers on a tour of the places of the damned and blessed. The torments are particularly lurid and show that the punishments of the damned match their crimes (blasphemers are hanged by their tongues over eternal ¿ re; adulterers, by other bodily parts; and so on). The blessings are less graphic but are clearly meant to convey the sense of eternal bliss for those who experience them. The author of this ¿ rsthand narrative (allegedly Peter himself) had several major points to make with his account. Anyone who sides with God will reap a reward; anyone who opposes God will pay an eternal and horri ¿ c price. Ultimately—appearances notwithstanding—God is in control of all that happens in this world. In other words, this account, like other early Christian apocalypses, is not meant merely to scare people into avoiding certain kinds of behavior—lying, committing adultery, blaspheming, relying on wealth, and so on—but also to explain that the evil and suffering of this age will be resolved in the next; that what happens here will be overturned there; that those who succeed by being wicked now will pay an eternal price later. In contrast, those who suffer for doing what is right now will be vindicated forever, as God shows once and for all that he and he alone is sovereign over this world. Ŷ The Apocalypse of Peter … was unknown until it was discovered in a monk’s tomb in 1886. 80 Lecture 18: The Apocalypse of Peter J. K. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, pp.593–612. Martha Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocryphal Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, pp. 620–638. 1. What other kinds of theodicies (explanations of how there can be evil in a world controlled by an all-powerful and all-loving God) have been put forth to make sense of suffering? How does the apocalyptic mode of theodicy compare and contrast with other kinds? 2. Why do you suppose apocalyptic thinking survives in some Christian circles still today but appears, for the most part, to be absent from the “mainstream” churches? Questions to Consider Essential Reading Supplementary Reading

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  23 “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea!’ and f does not doubt in his heart [in God’s unlimited power], but believes that what he says is going to take place, it will be done for him [in accordance with God’s will]. [Matt 17:20 ; Luke 17:6 ; 1 John 5:14 ] 24 “For this reason I am telling you, whatever things you ask for in prayer [in accordance with God’s will], believe [with confident trust] that you have received them, and they will be given to you. 25 “Whenever you g stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him [drop the issue, let it go], so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions and wrongdoings [against Him and others]. 26 h [ “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your transgressions.” ] Jesus’ Authority Questioned 27 They came again to Jerusalem. And as Jesus was walking in the [courts and porches of the] temple, the i chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to Him, [Matt 21:23–27 ; Luke 20:1–8 ] 28 and began saying to Him, “By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?” 29 Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question, and you answer Me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 “Was the baptism of John [the Baptist] from heaven [that is, ordained by God] or from men? Answer Me.” 31 They began discussing it with each other, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 32 “But j shall we say, ‘From men?’ ” —they were afraid [to answer because] of the crowd, for everyone considered John to have been a real prophet. 33 So they replied to Jesus, “We do not know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” Mark 12 Parable of the Vineyard Owner 1 J ESUS BEGAN to speak to them [the chief priests, scribes and elders who were questioning Him] in parables: “A man PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A a WALL AROUND IT , AND DUG A PIT FOR THE WINE PRESS AND BUILT A TOWER ; and he rented it out to tenant farmers and left the country. [Is 5:1 , 2 ; Matt 21:33–46 ; Luke 20:9–19 ] 2 “When the harvest season came he sent a b servant to the tenants, in order to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 “They took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 “Again he sent them another servant, and they [threw stones and] wounded him in the head, and treated him disgracefully.

• From The Well of Loneliness (1928)

  sudden and almost fierce rebellion: ‘I would rather not go, I’ve made my choice, Stephen.’ “ But I ask this for my sake, I’m wor- ried about her — even if I weren’t going away, I couldn’t go back now and live at Morton — our living together would make us remember.’ ‘I remember too, Stephen, and what I remember is hard to forgive. It’s hard to forgive an injury done to some one one loves. . . . Puddle’s face, very white, very stern — strange to hear such words as these on the kind lips of Puddle. ‘I know, I know, but she’s terribly alone, and I can’t forget that my father loved her.’ A long silence, and then: ‘I've never yet failed you — and you're right — I must go to Morton.’ Stephen’s thoughts stopped abruptly. Some one had come in and was stumping down the room in squeaky trench boots. It was Blakeney holding the time-sheet in her hand — funny old monosyllabic Blakeney, with her curly white hair cropped as close as an Uhlan’s, and her face that suggested a sensitive monkey. ‘Service, Gordon; wake the kid! Howard — Thurloe — ready?’ They got up and hustled into their trench coats, found their gas masks and finally put on their helmets. Then Stephen shook Mary Llewellyn very gently: ‘It’s time.’ Mary opened her clear, grey eyes: ‘Who? What?’ she stammered. ‘It’s time. Get up, Mary.’ The girl staggered to her feet, still stupid with fatigue. Through the cracks in the shutters the dawn showed faintly. 2 Tue crey of a bitter, starved-looking morning. The town like a mortally wounded creature, torn by shells, gashed open by bombs. Dead streets — streets of death — death in streets and their houses; yet people still able to sleep and still sleeping. * Stephen.’ THE WELL OF LONELINESS 321 “Yes, Mary?’ ‘ How far is the Poste? ’ ‘ I think about thirty kilometres; why? ’ ‘Oh, nothing —I only wondered.’ The long stretch of an open country road. On either side of the road wire netting hung with pieces of crudely painted rag — a camouflage this to represent leaves. A road bordered by rag leaves on tall wire hedges. Every few yards or so a deep shell- hole. ‘ Are they following, Mary? Is Howard all right?’ The girl glanced back: ‘ Yes, it’s all right, she’s coming.’ They drove on in silence for a couple of miles. The morning was terribly cold; Mary shivered. ‘ What’s that? ’ It was rather a foolish question for she knew what it was, knew only too well! ‘They’re at it again,’ Stephen muttered. A shell burst in a paddock, uprooting some trees. ‘ All right, Mary?’ ‘ Yes — look out! We’re coming to a crater!’ They skimmed it by less than an inch and dashed on, Mary suddenly moving nearer to Stephen. ‘Don’t joggle my arm, for the Lord’s sake, child! ’

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  46 Lecture 10: Infancy Gospels Herod to kill the child and Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist, both of whom are supernaturally protected from danger, unlike John’s father, Zacharias, who is slain in the Temple. This account claims to have been written by James, Jesus’ half-brother (Joseph’s son from his previous marriage). Most scholars suppose, though, that it was written pseudonymously some time near the end of the second century. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was possibly written a bit earlier. The account claims to be written by “Thomas, the Israelite”—possibly, like the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus’ twin brother. It is a narrative of Jesus’ miraculous young life, starting at the time he was ¿ ve years old. The opening stories set the pattern for the narrative, showing the child Jesus to be ¿ lled with divine power but a tad mischievous. He can perform miracles over nature and harm anyone who opposes (or irritates) him (chs. 2–4). He constantly opposes Jews who claim he has de¿ led the Sabbath and arrogant teachers who assume they have something to teach him (ch. 14). Eventually, though, he begins to use his powers for the good, raising from the dead those he has slain and healing those he has withered. The account ends with Jesus in the temple as a twelve-year-old, discussing matters of the law with the teachers of Israel. It is dif ¿ cult to know whether this gospel is meant to be taken seriously as an account of what Jesus really was like as a young child, or if it was meant as somewhat humorous entertainment, by Christians imagining what Jesus would have been capable of before he had to shoulder the responsibilities of adulthood. These then are our earliest Infancy Gospels, accounts of Jesus’ life before his baptism as an adult by John the Baptist. They are not only signi ¿ cant in themselves as interesting narratives from the early church. They also became enormously inÀ uential in later times, as other authors took these narratives and added stories of their own. These Infancy Gospel accounts, written and read widely in later times, in À uenced Christian imagination about Jesus’ birth and childhood, as is evident in numerous layers of Western culture, especially in the pictorial art of the Middle Ages. Ŷ

• From Confessions of the Flesh (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 4) (2021)

  In the progression toward perfection, one can understand the place that Cassian assigns to humility, understood as a permanent state of obedience, an acceptance of every submission, a determination not to will, and a renunciation of all of one’s wishes. This progression has a negative feeling as its point of departure: the “fear of God,” the fear of punishments, the fear that by offending him they will provoke his wrath. The point of arrival is “charity”—that is, the possibility of acting “from love of goodness itself, and delighting in virtue.”62 Now, the transition from fear to charity is accomplished through humility inasmuch as humility—by requiring one to renounce all of one’s own wishes (including the wish to avoid punishment)—leads one to accept the will of the other as a principle of all action (and in charity, it is God’s will that is the principle of action).63 Shedding fear through charity presupposes, as a preparation and an intermediate step, the exercise of obedience and the practice of the virtue of humility. Of course, there is more to the asceticism demanded of the monk than the mere fact of obeying: the fasts, the vigils, the prayers, the labor, the works of charity are required as well. But if it is to lead to a humility in which the individual will has disappeared, all asceticism must be practiced in the general form of obedience. One can thus measure the distance separating Christian direction from the kind practiced, for example, among the Stoics. The aim of Stoic direction was essentially to establish the conditions for a sovereign exercise of the will upon oneself. It involved leading the directee to the turning point where he became master of himself. Which implied that he learn to distinguish what pertained to his will from what was outside its domain; and it armed that will with a reason that had the triple role of establishing this division, defining one’s congruity with the world’s order, and clearing away the errors of opinion that produce the disorder of the passions or the excess of desires.64 Christian direction, on the other hand, is aimed at a renunciation of the will. It rests on the paradox of a determination not to will. Submission to the master, which is its necessary instrument, never leads one to the point where one can establish sovereignty over oneself, but to the point where, forbidden any mastery, the ascetic can no longer will anything but what God wills. And tranquility of the soul, which in Cassian’s vocabulary is the equivalent of the Greek apatheia, doesn’t consist in having established a rule over involuntary impulses so complete that nothing can shake it against one’s will. It consists in the state where, having abjured willing autonomously, one owes one’s strength only to that of God, one is in its presence. The contemplative life can then begin.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  They were to be educated and nourished this way for three years so that at the end of that time they were [prepared] to enter the king’s service. 6 Among them from the sons of Judah were: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. 7 The commander of the officials gave them [Babylonian] names: Daniel he named Belteshazzar, Hananiah he named Shadrach, Mishael he named Meshach, and Azariah he named Abed-nego. Daniel’s Resolve 8 But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile (taint, dishonor) himself with the f king’s finest food or with the wine which the king drank; so he asked the commander of the officials that he might [be excused so that he would] not defile himself. [Num 6:1–4 ; 1 Cor 10:21 ] 9 Now God granted Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the commander of the officials, 10 and the commander of the officials said to Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has prearranged your food and your drink; for why should he see your faces looking more haggard than the young men who are your own age? Then you would make me forfeit my head to the king.” 11 But Daniel said to the overseer whom the commander of the officials had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 “Please, test your servants for ten days, and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 “Then let our appearance and the appearance of the young men who eat the king’s finest food be observed and compared by you, and deal with your servants in accordance with what you see.” 14 So the man listened to them in this matter and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it seemed that they were looking better and g healthier than all the young men who ate the king’s finest food. 16 So the overseer continued to withhold their fine food and the wine they were to drink, and kept giving them vegetables. 17 As for these four young men, God gave them knowledge and skill in all kinds of literature and wisdom; Daniel also understood all kinds of visions and dreams. [Luke 21:15 ; James 1:5–7 ] 18 At the end of the time set by the king to bring all the young men in [before him], the commander of the officials presented them to Nebuchadnezzar. 19 The king spoke with them, and among them all not one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; so they were [selected and] assigned to stand before the king and enter his personal service. 20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the [learned] magicians and enchanters (Magi) in his whole realm.

• From Girls & Sex (2016)

  Most young men do, of course, take no for an answer. Yet nearly every girl I spoke with had at least one experience with a boy who had tried, despite her clear refusal, to coerce or force her into oral sex: verbally, via repeated texts, or by physically planting his hands on her shoulders and pushing downward. A sophomore at a midwestern public university, for instance, told me she felt lucky that she’d never been sexually assaulted. A few minutes later she described going back to a boy’s room after a party during her freshman year. They kissed for a while, and then he attempted the shoulder push. She said no, and he backed off, only to try again a few minutes later, and then once more shortly after that. When she refused for the third time, he blew up. “Fuck you, then. I’ll find someone else,” he said and shoved her out of his room. It was the middle of the night in February and her dorm was two miles away. She cried the whole way home. Another young woman, a freshman at a New England college, told me that she performed oral sex for the first time shortly after her sixteenth birthday. It was not by choice. “It was the summer after sophomore year in high school,” she recalled. “I’d been talking to this guy for a while; he seemed nice. We were in the back of his car kissing. He just . . . I don’t know how it happened. I was high, and that was confusing. He was very aggressive. He wanted to have sex, and I was like, ‘I don’t think this is a good idea.’ He was not accepting. He kept trying for sex. And I was like no. So he sort of forced oral sex. He pushed my shoulders. And I didn’t know how to get out of it. I was mostly just shocked. It wasn’t a good feeling. And it’s lasted. I never liked the idea of oral sex again after that. I still don’t.” Girls have long been made the gatekeepers of male desire, charged with containing it, diverting it, controlling it. Providing reliable release from it had now become their responsibility as well. Oral sex had become their compromise, a loophole, a strategy for carrying out that expectation with the minimum of physical, social, or emotional fuss. “It’s almost like . . . clean, you know what I mean?” a junior at a New York City public high school told me. I didn’t know what she meant, not really. “It’s like . . .” she said, “it’s like . . . it’s what’s expected of you.”

• From Confessions of the Flesh (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 4) (2021)

  Considering these elements, one understands Tertullian’s construal, new in part, of the preparation for baptism. He couples the catechesis, and the teaching of truths and rules, with a labor of moral purification. And conversely, he tends to organize the movement of metanoia in a regulated form from the start of the preparation. This period should be thought of as a time when one learns not only the truths that must be believed, but the penance that must be practiced. “A sinner must weep for his faults before the moment of pardon, because the time of penitence is also a time of danger and dread. I do not deny to those who will enter the water the assurance of divine benediction; but to get there, one must do the work.” Elaborandum est.30 A labor that has its form, its rules, its tools, its ratio.31 This is what Tertullian calls the discipline of penitence, to which the candidate for baptism must submit before plunging into the water: “Grant, Lord Christ, that thy servants may know or learn from my words the discipline of penitence, in that it is forbidden for the Auditors themselves to sin.”32 Tertullian finds the model for this discipline—its necessary, regulated, but merely anticipatory nature—in the Johannic baptism. There have been countless discussions, of course, concerning the extremely difficult problems raised by the existence of this baptism prior to the Savior (which consequently could not ensure salvation), but to which the Savior himself submitted. A purely human baptism, since it doesn’t cause the Holy Spirit to descend into the soul of those receiving it, a baptism given by a Precursor whose role is to herald the One who is coming as promised, it must be understood as the “baptism of penance.”33 And if Christ receives it, it’s not that he himself has to practice penance; it’s to show that henceforth, in the new age, baptism will mark the coming of the Holy Spirit, hence the light and salvation; but it’s also to show that the baptism of the Spirit must be preceded by the baptism of penance, as the sacrament of Christians was preceded by the mission of John. The Precursor “preached repentance as a prerequisite for the cleansing of souls, so that whatever the filth resulting from ancient error, whatever the defilement of the human heart resulting from ignorance, repentance might sweep it up and scrape it away and throw it out of the house, making ready the heart as a clean dwelling place for the coming visitation of the Holy Spirit, in order that He might gladly there take up his abode.”34 Thus, what John’s baptism teaches us in a word is that, as De baptismo says, “repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent.”35