skyline-sunset-in-my-veins
Lyrics from Bad Moon Rising by Creedence Clearwater Revival x
and inspired by the line: “…let’s go take a howl at that moon.” Crowley to Dean 9x23
i-gotta-go-good-day-bitch
the-page-mistress
spiders-ciders
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also
Matt 5:39
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
(via thefullnessofthefaith)
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
(via guardianrock)
I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.
For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”
All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.
Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?
Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.
(via central-avenue)
unconcernedhuman-blog
the-page-mistress
tentakrule
Gordon Ramsay doesn’t care about your gender, race, or creed. All he cares about is that you can cook.
The contestant, Christine, is blind, and he lets her know exactly what he thinks of her dish.
OMG I was preparing myself to be enraged by him making some horrible comment but now I’m crying in Starbucks GOD DAMMIT
Christ I am not okay with these fEELINGS
IM BAWLING
That’s so cute I wanna cry
Is there a Gordon Ramsay fan base on this site??? And where can i join???
Spoilers, she won. Her cookbook is on sale now.
Also, this is the very first apple pie she ever made.
Also, can we please take notice OF HOW HE DESCRIBES IT FOR HER? Ramsay was extremely conscious during the entire season that she would require different tactics than the other contestants; this was not the only time he became her eyes, nor the only time he did things like that scrape of the knife so she could actually have a sense of her work.
And if you really want to bawl like a baby? During final four or final three, I forget which, the remaining contestants got photos from home. Christine’s husband sent their wedding photo—which she had never seen. Ramsay paused before starting the challenge to describe to her not only her husband—the look of love and joy on his face—but also herself as a bride, so she could see in her mind how the two of them looked together on their wedding day.
It was extremely obvious nobody had ever thought to do that before.
This man should be a fucking icon not just for his cooking, but for how he treats those who are different. During the same season he asked a handsome young man, making conversation during auditions, if he had a girlfriend. The man responded that he was gay. Ramsay, without missing a beat: “I’m sorry. Have you got a boyfriend, then?” No drama, no “oh my GOSH! You’re GAY? TOKEN CHARACTER :DDDD” just a very quick, simple whoops-my-mistake and the corrected inquiry. And then he never brought it up again! It was just a thing he learned, getting to know a contestant.
Yes, he can be harsh on MasterChef and downright cruel on Hell’s Kitchen (although if you were a sous chef and you served me raw pork that was not pork tartare, I’d scream too). But he’s not an ogre; he’s a polite man with a gigantic heart who simply happens to take no shit from those who should know better.
This is why Gordon Ramsay is an idol
the-page-mistress
arcane-summer-eyes
i love sir patrick stewart more with each passing day.
See, guys. This is how you do it. Notice the words “Not all men are like that” are never spoken.
He knows men are like that
his father was like that to his mother
he has experienced the pain firsthand, of what it’s like when men are like that
and he never wants men to be like that again and he fights tooth and nail against the men who are still like that
And moreover, he acknowledges his privilege [as an older white male who is famous/well known] and uses it to speak up. He knows what he is, and he never has to say he’s not like those men he fights against—he never says it, his actions speak loud enough for everyone else to see it.
what-alchemy
avengersobsession
seplus
sabellart
