Trust

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 4 of 29 · 20 per page

• From A History of God (1993)

  By faith, of course, he did not mean adopting the correct theology but cultivating an inner attitude of surrender and openness to God. If his disciples laid themselves open to God without reserve, they would be able to do everything that he could do. Like the Rabbis, Jesus did not believe that the Spirit was just for a privileged elite but for all men of goodwill: some passages even suggest that, again like some of the Rabbis, Jesus believed that even the goyim could receive the Spirit. If his disciples had “faith,” they would be able to do even greater things. Not only would they be able to forgive sins and exorcise demons, but they would be able to hurl a mountain into the sea. 10 They would discover that their frail, mortal lives had been transfigured by the “powers” of God that were present and active in the world of the Messianic Kingdom. After his death, the disciples could not abandon their faith that Jesus had somehow presented an image of God. From a very early date, they had begun to pray to him. St. Paul believed that the powers of God should be made accessible to the goyim and preached the Gospel in what is now Turkey, Macedonia and Greece. He was convinced that non-Jews could become members of the New Israel even though they did not observe the full Law of Moses. This offended the original group of disciples, who wanted to remain a more exclusively Jewish sect, and they broke with Paul after a passionate dispute. Most of Paul’s converts were either diaspora Jews or Godfearers, however, so the New Israel remained deeply Jewish. Paul never called Jesus “God.” He called him “the Son of God” in its Jewish sense: he certainly did not believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself: he had simply possessed God’s “powers” and “Spirit,” which manifested God’s activity on earth and were not to be identified with the inaccessible divine essence. Not surprisingly, in the Gentile world the new Christians did not always retain the sense of these subtle distinctions, so that eventually a man who had stressed his weak, mortal humanity was believed to have been divine. The doctrine of the Incarnation of God in Jesus has always scandalized Jews, and, later, Muslims would also find it blasphemous. It is a difficult doctrine with certain dangers; Christians have often interpreted it crudely. Yet this type of Incarnational devotion has been a fairly constant theme in the history of religion: we shall see that even Jews and Muslims developed some strikingly similar theologies of their own. We can see the religious impulse behind this startling divinization of Jesus by looking briefly at some developments in India at about the same time.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  To start with, their correspondence opened with the elaborate formulae of affection and regard that were the staple of humanist epistolary rhetoric, but increasingly Luther’s letters became less carefully written and dispensed with flattery, coming straight to the point. Spalatin became the sounding board for some of Luther’s most radical ideas; it was Spalatin and then Johannes Lang whom he first told, in 1519, about his growing conviction that the Pope was the Antichrist, ‘or at least his apostle’.* Perhaps he preferred to try out his new theological insights with Spalatin because he was not a theologian; his letters to Lang and Wenzeslaus Linck, his brothers in the order, were often more defensive and less exploratory. He also knew when to circumvent him. As we have seen, at Leipzig he refrained from consulting Spalatin, pretending that he had not known where to find him; and at Augsburg, too, he had avoided asking his advice, even though it was Spalatin who had set up the meeting with Cajetan in the hope of reaching a 176 MARTIN LUTHER compromise. In the months leading up to Worms, however, Luther wrote to Spalatin several times a week, sometimes even daily. By mid-January 1521 Spalatin and the Elector had arrived in Worms, as the Diet began its formal meeting. Luther and Spalatin could there- fore consult only by letter. The Lutheran matter soon took centre stage. On 13 February, Ash Wednesday, the papal nuncio Jerome Aleander gave a three-hour speech in Latin, in which he set out Luther's heresies and insisted that he be condemned.” The choice of date was highly significant, for Ash Wednesday is the day of repentance before Easter, and penance was closely linked with the need to proceed against heretics. Aleander compiled a list, which he sent to Spalatin, setting out the propositions which he demanded Luther recant, most of them taken from On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. There was still room for compromise: the papal emissary Miltitz was hopeful.

• From Action (2014)

  “What? Do you mean herpes? Whatever you’re talking about: Yeah, as long as you keep track of your outbreaks and we always use condoms. And you don’t have anything, but if you do, it would take way more to keep me off of you.” Improbably, I was teetering on the brink of foreplay in the sterile offices of a sexual-malady depot, but I managed to keep it together for decorum’s sake. “Oh! Ahem. [crosses legs tightly in self-discipline] S-same. Even if you have an STI that I’m not into adopting as my very own, I’ll find other ways to make you come, and you could still give me incredible head, like usual.” STIS, BY THE BY [image file=image_600.jpg] Having no personal experience with STIs, I have no advice about their care and keeping. It’s not my job to tell you that stuff. (Well, hold on. Let me pretend I took the Hippocratic oath just this once—“I swear on the game Hungry Hungry Hippos or whatever, thanks for letting me be a doctor now.”) What doctors don’t always have an opinion about, and on which I certainly do: How to tell someone you want to bone that you have a sexual health condition, and how to receive that news respectfully. I know a fleet of people with herpes or other STIs—and some of them are among my most sexually conservative friends and loved ones, because having a communicable bodily medical condition can stem from arbitrary bad luck. How they break the news to partners is usually adapted to each person, but the wide commonality seems to be this: When you’re disclosing what you have, do it prior to your first bone-a-thon, and do it with levity. You can approach your medical status in a roundabout way by relaying an anecdote about a time an alarmist person in your life misunderstood the implications of your STI and saying, “I know this is the first you’re hearing about this, by the way, and we can talk about it whenever you want.” Or you can be direct and frank, like the person who paused and told me he had HPV when we were kissing all up on each other. As long as you say SOMETHING, you are doing the right thing. Go with whatever feels most natural and comfortable.

• From Action (2014)

  When I notice that a partner and I are in one of those subaltern places, it doesn’t presage the end of us. Even if I’ve been with a person many times, one of us can always opt to remodel how that goes, whether that’s by changing one element of the sex or a top-down renovation. Given the fact that it would probably be quite startling if one of you showed up in a pleather-and-cellophane catsuit one day if that wasn’t already your norm, you don’t have to make a sudden and dramatic overture if it’s forced, or that you feel wouldn’t be well-received without easing in to your ideas more subtly first. While there are plenty of bonuses to updating your wardrobe with complicated sex garments of synthetic origin (and maybe you feel that shocking your person would be just the thing), there are less dramatic ways to surprise the person you relish most. What’s wonderful about extended hangouts with other people that hinge heavily on trust: You’re used to talking about difficult-feeling topics of all stripes (such as openhearted discussions pertaining to your lunatic upbringing and hatred of sauerkraut). What makes you think your person won’t be receptive to hearing out your questions and concerns—in the style of a restaurant comment card, except way more loving—about whether they’re enjoying what you do when you’re spending time together horizontally, as well? That’s how you should frame this conversation at its outset. The feedback here, unlike that on a pink index card at TGI Friday’s, should be reciprocal and symbiotic, like everything else you do together. It is entirely disingenuous-feeling to talk about your own sexual needs by saying, “I think YOU could be happier,” then strapping on your new bodysuit and insisting that they love it, so that’s not what you’re about here. You’re in a relationship, so you know how it feels to consider someone else’s mindset when you’re making decisions that affect both of you. You know that happiness comes from asking them what they need to find a level of mutual satisfaction that at least borders on “Strongly Agree.”

• From Synanon Kid: Book One: A Memoir of Growing Up in the Synanon Cult

  I sat down and cried. Minutes later I felt large hands slide under my arms, giving a quick tug and pulling me up out of the thick cold wet. Joe slung me over his shoulder, wading out of the deep snow as if he were walking through a mild stream of flowing water. “It’s okay,” he said. I rested my cheek on his shoulder, feeling instantly safe. When I left the Home Place to return to Marin, I had only fond memories of both men. I just couldn’t believe that they would try to murder someone. We watched the recorded broadcast of Joe and Lance, surrounded by reporters, on the wall-mounted TV. An anchorman informed us that they were suspects in a conspiracy to murder an attorney named Paul Morantz, under the executive order of Chuck Dederich. We sat for a few hours, looking at other news clips and listening to various members speak their anger at the injustice being committed against us. “We are the victims. We are the ones who are being attacked.” The adults repeated this refrain over and over to us children. The following year Joe and Lance were found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison. Still, I remained unconvinced of their guilt. Chuck escaped conviction, but was forced to step down as director of Synanon for several years. The politics of the commune and its fight against “outsiders” resulted in a shift toward building power through us children. Boys were encouraged to learn how to shoot guns and maintain them. Some of our sports were substituted with karate, which Synanon called Syndo. The white uniforms were purchased and we were each given an outfit for lessons. We learned kicks, rolls and jabs and how to block an opponent. After karate class we stood in formation, enduring endless lectures on the physical excellence expected of us. A black-belt guest teacher came to one of our karate classes to show us what we could achieve. A large beefy man with hair on his head that advertised his outsider status, he performed a demonstration in which he sliced a stack of bricks cleanly in half with the edge of one of his bare hands. A fine powdery residue of dust clouded the air and sifted slowly to settle on the table where the bricks rested. His skills were impressive, yet the mandatory nature of the martial art instruction dampened my interest. Although I’d watched my share of Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris films, I didn’t see myself becoming a master of karate or even accomplishing any level of competence. As if to further highlight the truly quirky nature of the commune, we were also forced to watch the TV miniseries Shogun, all twelve dreary hours of it, while wearing our karate outfits and snacking on revolting, greasy, cinnamon-flavored crisps and apple juice. By the time Shogun ended I had developed a deep dislike for karate and Japan. My dislike would persist for many years.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  And then Rome finally concluded that the Ninety-five Theses were heretical: On August 7, 1518, a summons to Rome reached Luther in Wittenberg. This was the first step toward a trial that might end at the stake. The papal legate Tommaso de Vio, known as Cajetan, had arrived at the Imperial Diet, the meeting of the estates of the empire, in Augsburg in the spring of 1518. Recently made a cardinal, Cajetan was a serious churchman who led a simple, exemplary life. He was also a scholar who for many years had been writing a modern commentary on the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. Yet he was open to humanist ideas, too, and had advised his fellow Dominicans that wars of subjection should not be fought against native peoples in the New World. The mission to Augsburg was his first diplomatic posting and it was a difficult one, for he was trying to secure German support for Pope Leo X’s crusade against the Ottomans. The German estates proved recalcitrant, unwilling to raise the taxes required, and insisting that the Pope and Emperor Maximilian accept their complaints about the exactions of the papacy as a condition of any further subsidy. 25 Luther’s ruler Friedrich the Wise was in a powerful political position at Augsburg. Not only was his support crucial for getting the estates to pay up; Maximilian’s key aim at the Diet was to secure the election of his son Charles to the imperial title. As one of the Electors, Friedrich’s vote mattered, and so Cajetan, disappointed and furious at the shortsightedness and self-interest of the estates, had to tread carefully when the question of the Elector’s professor at Wittenberg was raised. Both Friedrich and Spalatin were impressed by Cajetan’s apparent good faith and open-mindedness: Indeed, the cardinal stated that he was willing to avoid a trial in Rome by meeting with Luther on German soil, at Augsburg. He seemed to be a man with whom they could deal; Spalatin wrote to Luther calming his fears and assuring him that the cardinal was well inclined toward him. By the summer of 1518, however, it was clear that matters were serious. There were further reports of plots against his life, and Count Albrecht of Mansfeld was warning him not to leave Wittenberg. 26 On August 28, Luther wrote to Spalatin in Augsburg, weighing up what to do: “In all this I fear nothing, as you know, my Spalatin. Even if their flattery and power should succeed in making me hated by all people, enough remains of my heart and conscience to know and confess that all for which I stand and which they attack, I have from God, to whom I gladly and of my own accord entrust and offer all of this. If he takes it away, it is taken away; if he preserves it, it is preserved. Hallowed and praised be his name forever. Amen.”

• From Action (2014)

  I make sure to sensually interrogate all my partners about what’s permissible and what isn’t, because I think many people don’t feel comfortable bringing up their pasts on their own. If where and how people can touch you have their borders, you should let someone know what they are before they test them. If you two are close enough to fuck, you’re close enough to tell each other how to do it, like how I offer up that my neck is a NO TRESPASSING area. It’s unwise to expect everyone you sleep with to abide by your sexual bylaws if they don’t know what those are—and you’ll both end up feeling weird and low when the encounter doesn’t work out as you’d hoped. People, whether they’re aware of trauma or not, will still be receptive to wanting to make you feel good about what’s happening. For most of the boning populace, knowing where to touch someone is a common part of getting down. Hearing different people’s versions of this leaves me more cognizant of future bedmates’ feelings, which is very party for all involved. The mimesis of respect, as it spreads, helps us all improve collectively as serial, rampant pervs and devoted couples and clandestine oral-in-the-closet-after-work friends and those of us in good one-night standing until we all end up finding ourselves in a sexual golden age of consent. A girl can dream, right? In the Act [image file=image_683.jpg] Now that you are set up in terms of how and where to find a hot person and squire them to the nearest available love shack with both your health and inner ethical compass in tow, let’s try not to blush over the specifics of how to establish yourself as a world-class fuck. While each sexual act, as discretely performed by each person, will not look or sound the same even as executed by the same partner later on, there’s one absolute, all-enveloping way for all of us to rule at sex: Never assume when you can ask instead. Following this protocol gives you the intelligence you need to find out what your partner likes most (and basically guarantees consensual seduction, to coin a phrase that I would rather abstain for the rest of my life than use aloud). Let’s say someone neuron-splicingly enticing is going down on you. (Hello? It’s impolite to leave someone hanging when they’re trying to give you daps—hell yeah get it get it.) As this is happening, they look up at you, and ask, “Do you like it like that?” as if there were a mote of a chance you could refocus your eyes right now. But… you also like another kind of head gesture at which you think they’d excel. When you tell them, they’re eager to prove you right.

• From Action (2014)

  The person on the receiving end might not know much about your condition, and will likely have questions for you about it. Answer them, maintaining the cheery “This aspect of my medical history doesn’t spell grim doom for my entire sexual future and is just a part of my life!” tone that you will keep in place throughout this conversation. They have the right to do whatever they feel is best for them—and it’s not a commentary on your sexual fitness either way. I’m inclined to feel that if someone chooses not to find a compromising position (in all ways) that avoids contact with the affected areas, they should be, if anyone, the ones in this encounter worried about being judged. But, again, everyone has the right to call the shots about their own bodies. If you’re ever asked, in this way, to be your own anatomical referee: Don’t be the horse’s ass who bug outs when someone gives you medical news. Be calm and empathetic. (As ever.) CAUTIONARY MEASURES [image file=image_610.jpg] It’s not stodgy or prim to defend/remove your fine ass from sexual goings-on if your emotional or bodily safety is ever at stake. This advice goes for all people, of all genders, about all people, of all genders. I know plenty of hulking straight dudes who have been taken advantage of by women, gay girls who have been preyed on by gay girls, and have heard stories firsthand about assault that took place between so many other permutations of identities out there. This is a concern for all people, not just women and non-binary people. (But it’s particularly relevant to women and non-binary people, whom are not as legally well-protected or granted as much credibility as straight cis dudes.) Acknowledging this does not make you a pearls-clutching alarmist. I really and truly believe that most of the people you “get to know” over the course of a well-executed sexual career will be cool to you. It’s still better to be thoroughly reassured that you’re keeping your wits about you all the way through (especially if you’re a woman, queer, and/or trans). If you do, you can go about your mission(ary position) with even more confidence and ease. There have been times when I didn’t know how to functionally advocate for myself, but even if I had: Situations in which I have been hurt tend to arrange themselves in a sequence that looks preventable only in hindsight. I have no idea what I could have changed about them, but am certain that any sexual disrespect I’ve taken is not mine to feel guilty about.

• From Action (2014)

  The benefits of hearing how your person thinks independently about the sex life you’re cohabiting are prodigious. Chief among these: You can adjust how you care for and account for them in both physical and love-based ways upon hearing them out. Also crucial: Listening to their characterization of the sex you two have before interjecting with your own analysis means that you are getting their true opinion on the matter—not one tempered by yours. You could make the case that YOU, then, are the one who won’t be proffering the truth of your heart, but that’s fake. You will go into this conversation knowing what you’re looking to express to your person—the inner honesty of what you’re looking for won’t change based on the one announced across the table from you. If you don’t fit the conversation into the framework of what YOU want, both parts of your duo have the opportunity to express their real feelings, but if you do, they might want to adjust their feelings to cater to your happiness, because they love you and want you to have nice things, whether those are accented by condoms or condiments. Well, TOO BAD, sweet and kind partner of yours!! You want the same thing for their caring ass, which means making sure they are heard in full. Here’s how to go about talking openly about this, even if you’re skittish: Don’t feel any pressure to make this particular conversation SULTRILY SIMMER with passionate Don Juan–style suaveness. If it ends up turning you both on, that’s very fortunate, and you should get thee atop of the other person with haste, but trying to engineer that outcome is unfair to both of you: Setting this talk up as a sensuous tête-à-tête puts pressure on both of you to live up to what the other person wants when you’re trying to figure out what that is in the first place. But it’s not quite a staid State of the Union, either; talking about sex with someone in super-dry terminology can make me feel like I am being strangled by a pair of sensible khakis. What you’re hoping for is a tone that lands somewhere between the two, which it most likely will if you like and are willing to be upfront with each other. Some factors to assess before you start chattering away about your junk: Do you have guaranteed privacy for at least an hour? Rather than being mad stressed out about the Stevenson account or an upcoming deadline or what have you, is your person’s face relaxed in an unburdened configuration of calmness (that you are about to fuck up)? Have you, moments ago, been told that now is not a good time to have sex, and you’re seeking justice and retribution by springing a conversation about how to bone properly on them? (I have been this guy and regret it a lot—don’t do this.)

• From The Art of Seduction (2001)

  We often recognize Charmers as such; we sense their cleverness. (Surely Harriman must have realized that his meeting with Pamela Churchill in 1971 was no coincidence.) Nevertheless, we fall under their spell. The reason is simple: the feeling that Charmers provide is so rare as to be worth the price we pay. The world is full of self-absorbed people. In their presence, we know that everything in our relationship with them is directed toward themselves— their insecurities, their neediness, their hunger for attention. That reinforces our own egocentric tendencies; we protectively close ourselves up. It is a syndrome that only makes us the more helpless with Charmers. First, they don't talk much about themselves, which heightens their mystery and disguises their limitations. Second, they seem to be interested in us, and their interest is so delightfully focused that we relax and open up to them. Finally, Charmers are pleasant to be around. They have none of most people's ugly qualities—nagging, complaining, self-assertion. They seem to know what pleases. Theirs is a diffused warmth; union without sex. (You may think a geisha is sexual as well as charming; her power, however, lies not in the sexual favors she provides but in her rare self-effacing attentiveness.) Inevitably, we become addicted, and dependent. And dependence is the source of the Charmer's power. People who are physically beautiful, and who play on their beauty to create a sexually charged presence, have little power in the end; the bloom of youth fades, there is always someone younger and more beautiful, and in any case people tire of beauty without social grace. But they never tire of feeling their self-worth validated. Learn the power you can wield by making the other person feel like the star. The key is to diffuse your sexual presence: create a vaguer, more beguiling sense of excitement through a generalized flirtation, a socialized sexuality that is constant, addictive, and never totally satisfied. 88 • The Art of Seduction 3. In December of 1936, Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Chinese Nationalists, was captured by a group of his own soldiers who were angry with his policies: instead of fighting the Japanese, who had just invaded China, he was continuing his civil war against the Communist armies of Mao Zedong. The soldiers saw no threat in Mao—Chiang had almost annhilated the Communists. In fact, they believed he should join forces with Mao against the common enemy—it was the only patriotic thing to do. The soldiers thought by capturing him they could compel Chiang to change his mind, but he was a stubborn man. Since Chiang was the main impediment to a unified war against the Japanese, the soldiers contemplated having him executed, or turned over to the Communists.

• From Rocket Men: The Daring Odyssey of Apollo 8 and the Astronauts Who Made Man’s First Journey to the Moon (2018)

  Earth orbit—if some anomaly was found after launch that spooked NASA into canceling the lunar part of the journey. He did not want to leave Susan a widow and his boys fatherless, but on this account, he didn’t worry too much; he believed in the rocket and spacecraft the crew would be flying, and especially in the people who’d built and designed them. As Borman saw it, he would be flying with thousands of the world’s best minds aboard. Around midnight, ground crews began to pump each of the three stages of the Saturn V with liquid oxygen, an oxidizer necessary for combustion. Ribbons of white vapor danced as the warm Florida air boiled away drops of the liquid oxygen from vents in the tanks. Fuel was next. Three weeks earlier, the Saturn V’s first stage had been filled with 209,000 gallons of highly refined kerosene. Now liquid hydrogen was added to the second-stage (260,000 gallons) and to the third-stage (69,500 gallons). Added to the 437,000 gallons of liquid oxygen in the stages, the fully fueled rocket would hold nearly a million gallons of propellant and would weigh 6.2 million pounds, all with the explosive potential of a small nuclear bomb. — At 2:36 A.M. on Saturday December 21, 1968, Deke Slayton knocked on the bedroom doors of the astronauts and told them it was time. The men took hot showers, then walked down the hall for a cursory physical exam. After being pronounced fit by a team of doctors, they made their way to the breakfast room, where they were joined by Slayton, George Low, Alan Shepard, astronaut Harrison Schmitt, and two of their three backup crew, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (the third member, Fred Haise, was working inside the spacecraft setting dials and switches). In heaping quantities, the astronauts’ personal chef served filet mignon and scrambled eggs (steak and eggs was the traditional send-off meal for astronauts), toast, coffee, and tea—a deliberately low-residue meal, and the last real, hot food that the astronauts would consume for the next six days. After breakfast, the crew of Apollo 8 made their way to the suiting room. If astronauts could have flown in thirteenth-century chain mail,

• From The Art of Seduction (2001)

  filtrate their circle and you are no longer a stranger. Before the seventeenth-century seducer Count de Grammont made a move, he would befriend his target's chambermaid, her valet, a friend, even a lover. In this way he could I had rather hear my dog gather information, finding a way to approach her in an unthreatening bark at a crow than a man manner. He could also plant ideas, saying things the third party was likely swear he loves me. to repeat, things that would intrigue the lady, particularly when they came —BEATRICE, IN WILLIAM from someone she knew. SHAKESPEARE, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING Ninon de l'Enclos, the seventeenth-century courtesan and strategist of seduction, believed that disguising one's intentions was not only a necessity, it added to the pleasure of the game. A man should never declare his feel- I know of a man whose ings, she felt, particularly early on. It is irritating and provokes mistrust. "A beloved was completely woman is much better persuaded that she is loved by what she guesses than friendly and at ease with by what she is told," Ninon once remarked. Often a person's haste in de- him; but if he had disclosed by the least claring his or her feelings comes from a false desire to please, thinking this gesture that he was in love, will flatter the other. But the desire to please can annoy and offend. Chil- the beloved would have dren, cats, and coquettes draw us to them by apparently not trying, even by become as remote from him as the Pleiades, whose seeming uninterested. Learn to disguise your feelings and let people figure stars hang so high in out what is happening for themselves. heaven. It is a sort of In all arenas of life, you should never give the impression that you are statesmanship that is required in such cases; the angling for something—that will raise a resistance that you will never lower. party concerned was Learn to approach people from the side. Mute your colors, blend in, seem enjoying the pleasure of his unthreatening, and you will have more room to maneuver later on. The loved one's company same holds true in politics, where overt ambition often frightens people. intensely and to the last degree, but if he had so Vladimir Ilyich Lenin at first glance looked like an everyday Russian; he much as hinted at his inner dressed like a worker, spoke with a peasant accent, had no air of greatness. feelings he would have This made the public feel comfortable and identify with him. Yet beneath attained but a miserable fraction of the beloved's this apparently bland appearance, of course, was a deeply clever man who favor, and endured into the was always maneuvering. By the time people realized this it was too late. bargain all the arrogance 184 • The Art of Seduction and caprice of which love is Symbol: The Spider's Web. The spider finds an innocuous corner in capable.

• From What Are Biblical Values? (2019)

  Whatever Jesus might have intended to signify by this action, the Romans would surely have seen it as an act of rebellion, an attempt to restore a native Judean monarchy. That action, however, raises the question of messianic expectation, which goes beyond the range of our discussion.38 Messianism surely entailed the hope for a just society and a rejection of foreign imperial rule, but these concerns were interwoven with a complex web of religious and political traditions. WHAT GOOD NEWS ? What, then, is the good news that is preached to the poor? Is it that “God loves the poor and hates the rich?”39 Surely not. Jesus is said to have loved the rich young man who could not bring himself to sell all he had and give to the poor.40 Even though it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is not impossible with God. But wealth is thought to be more of a hindrance than a help in attaining the kingdom. Jesus did not preach any form of a prosperity gospel, even one with deferred eschatological payout. The promise of “a hundredfold now in this age” is an outlier in this respect. What we find consistently in the Gospels is an ethic of detachment, which depreciates the value of worldly goods. Luke 12:16–21 tells the story of the rich man who built new barns so that he had ample goods stored up for many years, but that very night God took his life. The rich man was no different from anyone who worries over a retirement account. He was only exercising the basic human instinct for self-preservation. The evangelist draws the lesson: “Be on guard against all kinds of greed, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15). The point is elaborated a few verses later: Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? . . . Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! (12:22–28; cf. Matthew 6:25–34) Faith here is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of trust in the providence of the creator.

• From The Art of Seduction (2001)

  He seemed to be going through a second youth. In Washington, politicians and their wives viewed Pamela with suspi- cion. They saw through her, and were immune to her charm, or so they thought. Yet they always came to the frequent parties she hosted, justify- ing themselves with the thought that powerful people would be there. Everything at these parties was calibrated to create a relaxed, intimate atmosphere. No one felt ignored: the least important people would find themselves talking to Pamela, opening up to that attentive look of hers. She made them feel powerful and respected. Afterward she would send them a The Charmer • 87 personal note or gift, often referring to something they had mentioned in conversation. The wives who had called her a courtesan and worse slowly changed their minds. The men found her not only beguiling but useful— her worldwide contacts were invaluable. She could put them in touch with exactly the right person without them even having to ask. The Harrimans' parties soon evolved into fundraising events for the Democratic Party. Put at their ease, feeling elevated by the aristocratic atmosphere Pamela created and the sense of importance she gave them, visitors would empty their wal- lets without realizing quite why. This, of course, was exactly what all the men in her life had done. In 1986, Averell Harriman died. By then Pamela was powerful and wealthy enough that she no longer needed a man. In 1993, she was named the U.S. ambassador to France, and easily transferred her personal and social charm into the world of political diplomacy. She was still working when she died, in 1997. We often recognize Charmers as such; we sense their cleverness. (Surely Harriman must have realized that his meeting with Pamela Churchill in 1971 was no coincidence.) Nevertheless, we fall under their spell. The rea- son is simple: the feeling that Charmers provide is so rare as to be worth the price we pay. The world is full of self-absorbed people. In their presence, we know that everything in our relationship with them is directed toward themselves— their insecurities, their neediness, their hunger for attention. That rein- forces our own egocentric tendencies; we protectively close ourselves up. It is a syndrome that only makes us the more helpless with Charmers. First, they don't talk much about themselves, which heightens their mystery and disguises their limitations. Second, they seem to be interested in us, and their interest is so delightfully focused that we relax and open up to them. Finally, Charmers are pleasant to be around. They have none of most peo- ple's ugly qualities—nagging, complaining, self-assertion. They seem to know what pleases. Theirs is a diffused warmth; union without sex. (You may think a geisha is sexual as well as charming; her power, however, lies not in the sexual favors she provides but in her rare self-effacing attentive- ness.) Inevitably, we become addicted, and dependent.

• From What Are Biblical Values? (2019)

  In that case, remarriage rather than divorce was the issue.46 It is the prohibition of remarriage that evokes the protest of the disciples in Matthew 19: “If such is the case of a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.” This statement prompts the comment about eunuchs who make themselves such for the sake of the kingdom. Jesus’ stand on divorce shows that he upheld marriage understood monogamously on the basis of Genesis, although he apparently dispensed his followers from the command to increase and multiply. He was not much of a family man, however, whether because of eschatological expectation or because of his ethic of radical detachment. Leaving family was the price to be paid for membership in the new community of the kingdom. The cost is acknowledged in Mark 10, where Peter says to Jesus, “Look, we have left everything and followed you,” and Jesus responds that those who have left “house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news,” will receive family a hundredfold in this life (in the new community of disciples) and eternal life in the age to come. Jesus’ disciples included women as well as men. Some feminist scholars have entertained a romantic view of a “discipleship of equals” freed from the constraints of the patriarchal family because the disciples called no one father in this world (Matthew 23:9).47 This is surely an overstatement. There was never any doubt as to who was the leader in the Jesus movement and who were the followers. The people singled out as twelve apostles are all male.48 Their being male is not a valid argument against the ordination of women, however; the apostles were not “ordained” in the sense that modern clergy are. But it shows that the community of Jesus’ followers was not quite a discipleship of equals. It is true that the female followers of Jesus were freed from the constraints of family life just as much as the men were. It is also true that that freedom came at a cost, for the women as well as the men. PAUL ON MARRIAGE AND WOMEN In the case of Paul, the role played by apocalyptic expectation is indisputable. He lays out his views on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.49 He begins by declaring that “it is well for a man not to touch a woman,” but he realizes that this is an unrealistic ideal. So, to avoid sexual immorality, each man and each woman should have a spouse, and they should not deny one another.50 But his preference is that each one remain in the state in which he or she was called to join the movement of the followers of Christ.

• From Looking for Alaska (2005)

  The Colonel takes all this honor and loyalty shit pretty seriously, if you haven’t noticed.” “I’ve noticed.” Takumi shook his head, his hands pushing aside leaves to dig into the still-wet dirt beneath. “I just don’t get why she’d be so afraid of getting expelled. I’d hate to get expelled, but you have to take your lumps. I don’t get it.” “Well, she obviously doesn’t like home.” “True. She only goes home over Christmas and the summer, when Jake is there. But whatever. I don’t like home, either. But I’d never give the Eagle the satisfaction.” Takumi picked up a twig and dug it into the soft red dirt. “Listen, Pudge. I don’t know what kind of prank Alaska and the Colonel are going to come up with to end this, but I’m sure we’ll both be involved. I’m telling you all this so you can know what you’re getting into, because if you get caught, you had better take it.” I thought of Florida, of my “school friends,” and realized for the first time how much I would miss the Creek if I ever had to leave it. I stared down at Takumi’s twig sticking erect out of the mud and said, “I swear to God I won’t rat.” I finally understood that day at the Jury: Alaska wanted to show us that we could trust her. Survival at Culver Creek meant loyalty, and she had ignored that. But then she’d shown me the way. She and the Colonel had taken the fall for me to show me how it was done, so I would know what to do when the time came. fifty-eight days before ABOUT A WEEK LATER I woke up at 6:30—6:30 on a Saturday!—to the sweet melody of Decapitation: automatic gunfire blasted out above the menacing, bass-heavy background music of the video game. I rolled over and saw Alaska pulling the controller up and to the right, as if that would help her escape certain death. I had the same bad habit. “Can you at least mute it?” “Pudge,” she said, faux-condescending, “the sound is an integral part of the artistic experience of this video game. Muting Decapitation would be like reading only every other word of Jane Eyre . The Colonel woke up about half an hour ago. He seemed a little annoyed, so I told him to go sleep in my room.” “Maybe I’ll join him,” I said groggily. Rather than answering my question, she remarked, “So I heard Takumi told you. Yeah, I ratted out Marya, and I’m sorry, and I’ll never do it again. In other news, are you staying here for Thanksgiving? Because I am.” I rolled back toward the wall and pulled the comforter over my head. I didn’t know whether to trust Alaska, and I’d certainly had enough of her unpredictability—cold one day, sweet the next; irresistibly flirty one moment, resistibly obnoxious the next.

• From Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)

  effects, and what can be done about it. There is a direct link from more precise gossip at the watercooler to better decisions. Decision makers are sometimes better able to imagine the voices of present gossipers and future critics than to hear the hesitant voice of their own doubts. They will make better choices when they trust their critics to be sophisticated and fair, and when they expect their decision to be judged by how it was made, not only by how it turned out. Appendix A: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases * Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. These beliefs are usually expressed in statements such as “I think that...,” “chances are...,” “it is unlikely that...,” and so forth. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. What determines such beliefs? How do people assess the probability of an uncertain event or the value of an uncertain quantity? This article shows that people rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations. In general, these heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. For example, the apparent distance of an object is determined in part by its clarity. The more sharply the object is seen, the closer it appears to be. This rule has some validity, because in any given scene the more distant objects are seen less sharply than nearer objects. However, the reliance on this rule leads to systematic errors in the estimation of distance. Specifically, distances are often overestimated when visibility is poor because the contours of objects are blurred. On the other hand, distances are often underestimated when visibility is good because the objects are seen sharply. Thus, the reliance on clarity as an indication of distance leads to common biases. Such biases are also found in the intuitive judgment of probability. This article describes three heuristics that are employed to assess probabilities and to predict values. Biases to which these heuristics lead are enumerated, and the applied and theoretical implications of these observations are discussed.

• From Detransition, Baby (2021)

  He puts out a hand. “I don’t know. I am desperate too. What can I do?” “Nothing.” He shakes his head. “Let’s start small. What if I promise to tell you everything you’d ever want to know?” She looks at his open palm. A moment passes. The shadows rotate like a second hand with every streetlight that passes. The whir of tires hiccup regularly over the tarred repairs of the Chicago streets. Tentatively, she presses her forefinger into the center of his palm, and his hand curls around it. “I’d tell you that you're still probably lying, but that I want to hear it.” “Come here,” he says, pulling on her hand. “Come here, please. Sit in the middle seat and lean on me instead of the window.” She hesitates, then fumbles with her free hand to unlatch her seatbelt, slides into the middle seat, where he circles his arm around her shoulders, pulls her in. He wakes up in her bed, his nose inches from a lock of glossy hair that had trailed off her pillow to violate the imaginary DMZ he’d unilaterally marked down the center of the bed. Four empty plastic water bottles, the complimentary contents of which she’d chugged to stave off the hangover, lay scattered on her nightstand and she’s snoring cutely. Quietly, he slips back the sheets, walks down the hall to his own room, and collects the four water bottles the hotel had allotted for his room. She’s peering at him groggily when he returns to set them down beside the empties. “More water for you,” he says. “Fuck.” She sits up and puts a hand to the back of her neck, then fumbles through the empty bottles to check the time on her phone. “Oh fuck. Oh fuck-fuck. Last night was a mess. I’m so sorry, Ames.” “Yeah, it was.” “We've got a meeting with them Thursday. Think we can fix it before then?” “T don’t know. You outed me to them. What’s there to fix?” Katrina scrunches her nose. “Yeah, but those guys were on your side.” He sits on the bed next to her. Quietly he says, “Abby is the project manager for them. And Josh is dealing with the contract. If they tell either of those two what you said. Well”’—he pauses—“you effectively told the whole company last night that I used to be a transsexual.” Katrina’s face goes slack. “Oh god. Oh fuck. Those guys probably won't tell, right? I mean, why would they?” Ames shrugs. “Who knows what they'll do?” He wants to add that she really fucked him over, but she seems to know. Katrina groans. “We can deal with this, Ames. I’m sure we can.” “Maybe. Maybe not. But maybe it’s okay in the long run. Maybe we re even now.”

• From Memoirs of Hadrian (1951)

  This clever man so well named Tranquillus was hardly to be imagined outside a library; he, too, stayed behind in Rome, where he became one of my wife's intimates, a member of that small circle of discontented conservatives who gathered around her to find fault with the ways of the world. This group was little to my liking; I had Tranquillus pensioned off, and he retired to his cottage in the Sabine Hills there to mull undisturbed over the vices of Tiberius. A Greek secretariat was held for some time by Favorinus of Arles. That dwarf with the high treble voice was not devoid of subtlety but his mind was the most given to false deductions of any that I have encountered. We were always disputing, but his erudition charmed me. I was amused at his hypochondria; he dwelt upon his health like a lover attending a cherished mistress. His Hindu servant prepared his rice, imported from the Orient at great expense; unfortunately, this exotic cook spoke Greek badly, and said but little in any language, so he taught me nothing about the marvels of his native land. Favorinus flattered himself on having accomplished three rather rare things in his life: though a Gaul, he had Hellenized himself better than anyone else; though of humble origin, he was constantly quarrelling with the emperor and coming off none the worse for it, a remarkable fact which was, however, entirely to my credit; though impotent, he was continually paying fines for seduction of married women. And it is true that his lady admirers in provincial literary circles caused him difficulties from which I had more than once to extricate him. I wearied of that, and Eudemo took his place. But on the whole I have been unaccountably well served. The respect of that little group of friends and employees has survived, the gods only know how, through the rough intimacies of travel; their discretion has been still more astonishing, if possible, than their fidelity. The Suetoniuses of the future will have few anecdotes to harvest concerning me. What the public knows of my life I have revealed. My friends have kept my secrets, political and otherwise; it is fair to say that I often did the same for them. To build is to collaborate with earth, to put a human mark upon a landscape, modifying it forever thereby; the process also contributes to that slow change which makes up the history of cities.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  An early portrait of 1509 shows Spalatin with delec- table curls, dressed in a simple grey gown with a black lining which combines academic reserve with courtly display. A woodcut from 1515 depicts a serious young man in sober garb, meditating on the Cross. But Spalatin was not a courtier by birth. His father was a tanner, and he came from Spalt near Nuremberg. One of the ‘new men’, he had risen through education. He joined the court but knew that, as a - commoner, he was not an aristocrat’s equal; there was also specula- tion that he may have been illegitimate. While he was a trusted servant and important advisor — and on occasion intimate enough to be present when the Elector did his toilette before dinner — he was not invited to join the table afterwards.* Spalatin seems to have had a sure touch for negotiation and manoeuvre, a grasp of the possible and a sense of realism which Luther lacked. Like Luther he was educated in Greek as well as Latin, and he became part of the humanist circles around Conrad Mutian and Nikolaus Marschalk at the University of Erfurt. He did not possess Luther’s abrasive self-confidence, and was a poor speaker. But the two men formed a hugely creative partnership. Spalatin bought books for the university library and supported university reforms that brought in biblical studies and those of the Church Fathers. Together they made a series of brilliant appointments, of whom Melanchthon was the star. Repeatedly Luther would recommend people to Spalatin, asking for small favours, pensions from Friedrich or seeking posts for them. Spalatin worked tirelessly in the service of the Elector, often late into the night; he nevertheless found time to translate Luther’s Latin works into German, and did so with a fine musical sense.? We have just Luther’s side of the friendship, because it is only his letters that have survived — carefully catalogued and reverentially THE DIET OF WORMS 175 34. Lucas Cranach the Elder, Georg Spalatin Honouring the Cross, 1515. annotated, often in Greek, by Spalatin.° As the sheer number of Luther’s letter indicates — over 400 — this was perhaps the central rela- tionship in his life in between 1518 and 1525: he wrote more letters to Spalatin than to anyone else, even though they saw each other regularly.