I laughed a lot while watching “300” in the cinema, as I thought it was supposed to be read as a satire; like Starship Troopers. Imagine my massive disappointment when I discovered that Zach Snyder bought in to Miller’s homophobic and xenophobic bollocks.
The fall of Sparta to the Thebans is especially ironic; what with the Theban Sacred Band, one of the toughest units in the ancient world, was organized on explicitly pederastic lines.
Edited for added pederasty.
I think you accidentally a word.
This!! Quite a number of “Christian” sects actually forbid reading the Bible on your own, but only in the presence of clergy who can “interpret” troublesome passages that otherwise would lead you to the conclusion the Jesus was a socialist, working class supporter, friendly to immigrants and the poor and not the “Rambo Jesus” they would have you believe.
It’s not. Frank Miller’s work has (or had, I think he’s backed off a lot of that) a strong authoritarian streak.
I am not.
And the thing is that’s one of the driving forces of the reformation… that people with access to books should be reading and thinking about the bible, not being told about it (or that’s the protestant mythology(?) about it).
Ped, ped, pederastic was the word!
Bollocks.
He was a hateful, violent psychopath who:
Was all for turning family against each other if any of them refused socialist, working class supporter, friendly to immigrants and the poor to looooovvvve him (Matt.10);
Treated his own family like dirt and even declared them not his family (Matt. 12);
Got violent with people over a non-violent offense (money changera);
Hated those who weren’t children of Israel—even called them dogs to their faces (Matt 15);
Advocated for murdering disobedient children (also Matt. 15);
Hated all the Jews who disagreed with him (“brood of vipers,” Matt 23 and far too much of the Book of John, where he’s even more vindictive);
Provided a near-perfect guide for how to mold masses of idiots into the ultimate psychopath fantasy of self-loathing, masochistic flying monkeys who will not only accept but also actively seek out opportunities to be abused (Sermon on the Mount);
And—oh yeah—repeatedly fantasized about his blood lust for permanently torturing all those who didn’t buy his BS.
What the hate cult manual describes of him is a sick, disgusting scumbag.
Sounds like the perfect conservatrash deity to me.
This isn’t therapy, dude, you don’t have to share so hard on your first go.
Sometimes, you just got to toss those money changers…
It also strikes me that you’re missing a hell of a lot of historical context there on what was happening during that time period… Reza Aslan has a pretty interesting take on the topic of the historical Jesus (as opposed to Jesus Christ).
http://rezaaslan.com/book/zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth/
Those poor innocent money changers… just trying to make a living by violating the laws of the Temple. /s
No, it really was a major driving force behind Reformation. Unsurprisingly, the new Protestant churches that emerged immediately established religious authorities and taught approved ways to read and interpret the Bible, because that’s how human societies (fortunately or unfortunately) work.
It’s fairly clear that the profusion of American churches, and especially of the more socially and theologically divergent ones, is to large extent due to the American protestantism emphasizing the whole “everyone can read the Bible, be the priest, and start their own church” thing. There’s a reason why Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are all American developments, not to mention such heresies as Young-Earth Creationism or Prosperity Gospel.
And he drove demons into and drowned those innocent pigs! #jerkjesus
That does explain a great deal. I assume they share?
Yet, churches kept splitting off, because of the same problem. Look what happened in England after Henry broke off from the Catholic church. And some of those did have a stronger emphasis on independent interpretation.
It’s kind of a chicken and egg thing. Did the proliferation of translations of the Bible in vernacular languages lead to the Protestant Reformation or did the Protestant Reformation lead to the proliferation of translations of the Bible in vernacular languages?
That would depend on whether you see the Waldensians, Hussites and Lollards as part of the Protestant Reformation, or as forerunners to it.
I believe that’s the kind of a question people have been building academic careers around for at least a couple of centuries now. 
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
