"It is safe to say that while the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted." - Flannery O'Connor

From Judas and Jesus by Jean-Yves Leloup:

biblicalle:

It was with great emotion that one Friday evening, shortly before the onset of the Shabbat, Judas received, from the hands of Judas the Galilean himself, his own dagger, the sica. This made him a Sicarius, a formal member of the Zealot group known as the Sicarii. He was struck by the curious resemblance between his own nickname, Judas of Keirot (his native town), and the new name that now applied to him: Judas Iscariot, or Judas the Sicarius. The “man from Keirot” was now the “man of the dagger”.
He promised himself, however, that he would not use this weapon in the way so frequently resorted to by the Sicarii: One of them would infiltrate a noisy and bustling crowd in which an enemy of God, a Roman collaborator, or a teacher of heresy had been detected, sneak up behind him and stab him mortally. Then the Sicarius would cry “Murderer!” and slash the throat of another whom he had chosen as a scapegoat, creating a tumult and confusion from which he could flee at the first opportunity.

Judas did not approve of this practice. Stabbing someone in the back and murdering a scapegoat seemed unworthy of a pious man. He would have selected a nobler tactic: to approach the enemy, look him squarely in the eyes, and, instead of greeting him with a conventional embrace, stab him in the heart.

image

I feel like this is just another illustration of our great desire to modernize the ancient world in such a way that we are able to find the issues more palatable.

Why ever would Judas, as a political terrorist, not find certain methods of murder to be ‘honorable’ enough? This action was not meant just to kill a powerful leader, but also to invoke fear in the hearts of those who benefited from the Roman occupation. ‘Terror’ is the root word of ‘terrorist,’ after all.

The sicarii murdered their own people at times, in order to create a sense of ‘ramification’ for the betrayal of the Jewish people. If you were to gain from your own people’s suffering, was that not a crime worthy of punishment? Yet, in order to maintain their numbers, they could not risk a crowd who could easily identify the killer who had brought justice on the traitor. 

'Honor' was in the action of maintaining your people's freedom, not in meeting the eyes of the man you were assassinating. Those are thoughts of someone distantly removed from such thoughts.

These writings are not the thoughts of a man who has lost his country to occupation, but the fantasy material of a man who has never found himself in a circumstance created by true desperation.

thebiophone:

I’m sorry, I’m just so upset right now.

St. Jeanne d’Arc is not a character archetype.

She is an incredibly important religious and historical character. It pains me when people don’t take her seriously.

And don’t tell me misogyny and anti-Catholicism don’t have anything to do with it. I’m pretty sure they do.

There is nothing which will make me despise you faster than pretending that St. Jeanne d’Arc is a plot device for some fictional dribble.

bobbygio:

Alessandro Varotari, also called Il Padovanino (Italian, 1588-1648), St. Sebastian is Bound to the Tree
high resolution →
Anonymous sent: This is probably going to sound stupid, because I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Satan, but is the Satan you worship under a Christian-sense, or do you view all of the "satans" mentioned in Abrahamic stuff as one? I'm just. I'm so confused. I have no idea where to start with anything.

I don’t know how to nicely answer this question, which is why it has been sitting in my inbox for such a very long time.

Whatever do you mean by ‘under a Christian sense?’ 

I worship an Abrahamic Satan; the Shaytan of Islam, the Ha-Satan of Judaism and the Satan of Christianity as well. He is not the only Abrahamic entity to ever be associated with the title ‘satan,’ but He is the only one whom I worship.

Quite frankly, it is very easy to understand whom I am speaking of if you were to take a little bit of time to read through my writings.

My only ‘hint’ is that He is not Lucifer, though I do honor Him as well. 

tthatbetrays said: sometimes life calls for the 60 year old bottle of merlot. sadly that one ain’t returning my calls.

I really have no room to judge; I started the morning with vodka. 

I’m not Russian or in college.

The shame is great. But I was out of gin and Mommy needed a drink.

tchy said: suck on my free healthcare, american!

I can’t hear you over my bloody and rebellious history.

FUQ U it’s really good!

So is the delicious taste of freedom and liberty, Canadian!

britten-witch:

pieandhotdogs:

finntheluciferian:

whoreofabaddon:

Who has been drinking since she woke up?

That’s right.

Whore of Abaddon has been drinking since she woke up.

And they weren’t even proper ‘before noon’ drinks.

If my present joblessness and resulting lack of funds didn’t prevent me from following suit, I’d join you.

If I wasn’t starting my RCIA class in an hour, I’d join you too.

What constitutes a “proper ‘before noon’ drink”?

Gin Fizz, Mimosa, Bloody Mary…

I’m honestly shocked that I’ve been asked this question more than once.

Has no one ever been to a brunch?

a cocktail that I recently discovered EXISTS ONLY IN CANADA which BLOWS MY MIND because they’re fantastic. they’re similar to bloody marys but with less extra ingredients added and made with clamato instead of tomato juice.

I don’t even have to answer this because pieandhotdogs answered it for me.

I’m imagining vodka mixed with Caesar dressing, which is ridiculous, but not any more ridiculous than the other stuff Canadians do.

Clamato juice?! Good Lord that is horrifying…