Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Our cross to bare
morning (well, J.u.s.s.t. turned afternoon here)
when i was in catholic school we said the ‘i’m nailed right in’ thing too.
i heard someone say that he would have had to have been nailed in through his wrists and that would have taken the weight.
also, as bill hicks said…
“A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin’ cross? It’s kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on.”
Posted by michael on from scotland 09/01 at 06:04 AMCrucifictions, French doctor...I heard a report on Radio Netherland last evening about a stir up over the popularity of bull fighting in France...where the language of love is spoken.
While commenting this morning, to the check out clerk, about the 35% increase in the price of Walnuts, I noticed a picture of 3 war criminals on the front page of a newspaper, they were smiling, caption implied their resignation from their jobs. Since when are war criminals allowed to quit their jobs. Why are they not being prosecuted, centuries ago, perhaps crucified?
Why the hell are the price of Walnuts up 35%?
Posted by joe of maine on from 09/01 at 10:11 AMThe weight of the human body is/was distributed over: two hands and the feet. So it is not “dead-weight” that would hang on the nails. Crucifictions were “common”, even in later days.
Not to support anything religious, only to get things in the right perspective.
For more perspective: Just watched the “Zeitgeist” movie, well, see for yourself if you haven’t already.
Posted by john z on from europe 09/01 at 11:09 AMHello Expendables. It’s a beautiful day here in NYC.
John: I appreciate the input...one Z to another.
Hey Joe and Michael. Good to see you both as always.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 09/01 at 11:23 AMHowdy, Expendables. Quite a cheerful one today, MZ. I’m game, though.
It’s true that there are three points of contact in a crucifixion, but the feet wouldn’t give much support. Some illustrations show a wooden block under the feet, but the historical record includes a small seat on the upright, which would give enough support. I think rope is a more convenient adhesive, but doesn’t supply the ‘back-in-your-foxholes’ drama that Christian dogma requires (a few square knots vs. someone hammering railroad spikes into your flesh).
Bill Hicks also said: “Give me the Satan worshippers down the block… the ones with the good albums.”
All this talk about graphic public executions, and no mention of modern candidates? I’ve got a list as long as my arm (rim shot, please).
Captcha is on the ball again and sez ‘seven.’ http://tinyurl.com/3k8pd
Posted by Zen Prole on from Urth 09/01 at 04:30 PMHey Zen. Speaking of cheerful, I was just <a href="http://www.movingimage.us/site/site.php"target="new">here</a> to see <a href="http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=klute"target="new"><i>Klute</i></a>. Underrated 1970s classic.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 09/01 at 04:54 PMGood Evening...I’m listening to slow paced, spacey music for 1 cello.
I have frequently noticed any religious notions or feelings evoked by the subject, might create a questioning, period of introspection…
It also seems like any aspect of life and within a culture will be questioned, challenged with much emotion...except religions. I grew up in an area with Mennonites, of I guess different orders, sects, whatever. There were Lutheran, Episcopal, Catholic and a strange man who had a tiny church about the size of a small 1 car garage. I never found out what this man was about. We thought some strict Mennonite, Amish type?
So it seems when the more traditional religions, ideas of origins, creationist theories are questioned, and the varied approaches to discussing these ideas, the more one learns...also the more, fear or uncertainty diminishes? Perhaps uncertainty, evoking discomfort?
Considering the numerous experiences we have, and at what period of our lives, we question or study popular religious beliefs, our motivation to study or question with intense desire to know...we might discover information, the accumulation of, that enables an understanding and increases the level of comfort we have with discussing religion, the origins, numerous interpretations, myths, myths about myths compounding the unknowing of numerous experiences of many people and not always simultaneously. So is all this even necessary? Why do we question or are hesitant to question and some approach religious ideas as a place you just don’t go...accept the varieties of versions of what is available and most widely known...occasionally discovering another rare religious idea that very well could be consistent with the popular.
There were the discussions about a supreme being male or female, what geographic location of origins. Plants, climbing trees to obtain higher consciousness, seemingly always coming back to idea of one source. Did we neglect to knowtice this source came back to us...You and Me...could not accept for whatever reasons...it always comes back to us, we hand it over somewhere else in our minds...so there is also that division, between us and someone, somewhere else. Divisions between us, between humans. If this is so, do we then develop other divisions, or accept other divisions such as country, ethnic group, language, age, sex, political parties, hierarchical status and so on. I have read any division is the same as violence.
So what is our relationship to each other and other living things that combine to create a wholesome experience for all things?...that transcends, unifies, rather than divides and even creating adversarial relationships...preventing learning together [without the mental fog and anxieties, not enabling clear thought] more passively, comfortably, arousing our curiosity to get to know, each other, ourselves?
Any thoughts???
Posted by joe of maine on from 09/01 at 08:14 PMNietzsche points out that the cross in Roman Times was reserved for the canaille, and the most hardened of criminals; and to make an example. You might remember the film “Spartacus” in which, in response to the rebellion, the Romans crucified thousands and lined them on the road. Nietzsche gives a grudging admiration for Jesus’s live, and the manner of His death, which he says was to prove His teachings; that he was above resentiment. And that His apostles were shaken by it to the cores of their “faith.” Nietzsche also says ultimately it is man himself that is nailed to the cross in surreptitious Christian parlance.
Posted by Tracy McLellan on from Chicago 09/02 at 04:58 AMMy dear “joe of maine”,
Any thoughts? Actually only one: love.
But that would not be enough, would it? The trouble is most of us think we/they know what “love” is, but when you get through several stages of life your perception of what “love” is changes, and you know that love is different from what you thought love was.
Most people don’t even get to stage One (whatever that may be)...
The most radical change in my perception of love was when I became a father myself. The essence of love, I learned, is formed by 3 words, 3 words united, a trinity: respect, freedom, trust. And all 3 in all directions: give and take, towards yourself and towards anything or anyone else.
Isn’t it tremendously simple to see where modern “western” society goes wrong? No respect, no freedom, no trust.
No love.
As Jimmy Hendrix put it:
When the Power of Love overcomes the love of power,
the world will know Peace.Posted by john z on from europe 09/02 at 09:03 AM
Next entry: Summer re-runs, Part VII
Previous entry: "Some people push back"
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
