Now Playing Tracks

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)

 yo i like thisi would like to know more about thiswhere does one learn more about this seconded like whoa

(via wanderingoff)

yup. so many Sunday School things are presented as Jesus advocating complete submission to “God’s Will”, but when you consider cultural context of the time, it’s really a v diff story. (via snarkbender)

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)

 yo i like thisi would like to know more about thiswhere does one learn more about this seconded like whoa

(via wanderingoff)

yup. so many Sunday School things are presented as Jesus advocating complete submission to “God’s Will”, but when you consider cultural context of the time, it’s really a v diff story. (via snarkbender)

sapphirefiber:

lovingyouisredforyou:

palaceofposey:

thecheshireone:

spoonfulofspace:

thepumpkinspice:

semehammer:

The first promotional material.

FUCK ARE YOU SERIOUS I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS SINCE SIXTH GRADE LEE ARE YOU SEEING THIS HOLY SHIT GET THE CAMERA WE WERE LITERALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS HOLY POOP

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS*BREAKS THROUGH THE CEILING*

I AM READY TO CRY HEEWEELLLL YEEEWEEAAAAH

Didn’t see this coming.

ok but why is Taylor Swift in this??? 

because she’s fucking amazing bye

What.

I forgot this was a thing.

I don’t know what my feels are doing right now. I don’t know if that’s really a story that can translate to the screen.

But holy crap. This is a thing that’s happening.

(Source: youbelongwithsme)

Seriously, if we believe a 14 year old is too immature to know how to take a pill, do we really think she’s adult enough to handle an unwanted pregnancy?

The truth is that the age restriction is completely arbitrary, tied only to our puritanical comfort levels. And listen, I get it; I think it’s fair to say that most people are uncomfortable with the idea of a 14 year old having sex. But here’s the thing - access to Plan B isn’t about keeping a 14 year old from having sex - by the time she gets to the pharmacy, that ship has sailed - it’s about keeping a 14 year old who has already had sex from getting pregnant. And despite what urban legend (or past embarrassing FDA memos) may tell you, making emergency contraception more available is not more likely to make young teens have sex - it will just make them less likely to end up pregnant.

We can’t let our discomfort with teen sex trump young people’s right to sexual and reproductive health and we can’t continue to let politics trump science. If we care about young women’s health and bodily autonomy and integrity, we’ll drop all age restrictions from emergency contraception. Anything less isn’t just illogical - it’s immoral.

"Hey, FDA: Drop the Plan B Age Restriction," my latest at The Nation (via jessicavalenti)

ani-u:

maycontainfeminists:

batchix:

thescarletwoman:

astallascliffss:

panda-face-mew:

Always see “real women” posts so here’s one for the dudes.

this says so much. I wish there were more posts like this. please.

body positivity and realistic body standards are important for guys too!

Men are constantly reassured that it’s okay to oogle women and harrass them about their looks.  Women rarely see sexualized images of men that are made for women.

Guys get eye candy everywhere they go.  Their sexual gaze is constantly catered to.  Women, at least hetero women, are rarely given the opportunity to have their sexual interest entertained.  We’re told that we should be okay with having nothing to look at.  That our fantasies don’t matter.  That we shouldn’t ever even remotely expect to be able to eyeball a svelte man in public, only behind closed doors and heaven forbid that the man look vulnerable.  So we finally get to see images that turn us on and people are like, “Hey, you can’t put that in magazines!  that might hurt some little boy’s feelings!”

Men are given alternative physical images to aspire to. Women are not. 

While yes, guys should be treated to body positivity too… they already are.  Just watch TV or any comedy and count the number of pudgy, out of shape, male leads vs pudgy, out of shape female leads.  Or the number of hairy, overweight, older men making block buster movies vs the number of hairy, overweight, older women.  Now count how many times that male character has some incredibly smart, sexy wife who does everything for him.  And then how many times she’s the butt of the joke when he gets hot for some woman who’s younger and thinner than she is.

Fuck, just look at the responses to women not shaving their legs vs the responses to guys not shaving off their stubble.

Name six movies about a woman above the age of forty who’s love interest is a man that’s younger than she is where the plot doesn’t revolve around her being the butt of a cougar or mom joke.  Now name me six where a man over the age of forty’s love interest is a woman who’s significantly younger than he is.  Bonus points for action movies where anyone in the movie makes a mention of the age difference.

How many times are male politician or CEO’s body or style of dress put into question?  How many times are female’s?  Or has everyone forgotten how we flip out when the president’s wife gets a new hair cut?  Or how Hillary Clinton had to have a FUCKING MAKE OVER before the news agencies took her seriously?  How many times was her daughter raked over the coals for looking like an average teenager?

What’s more, I’ve never heard any of my female friends or my mother and her female friends saying, “Why can’t my 50 year old husband get a six pack like that?”  What I USUALLY here is “I wish my husband would get a nice hair cut.” or “I wish he’d wear some nicer clothes that actually fit him.” 

But what i hear overhear men saying all time is, “No fat chicks!” or “I wish my wife had bigger boobs.” 

I know a woman who’s husband threatened to leave her if she didn’t get a face lift and a boob job- she was so upset that she did it.  She felt disgusting every day because she wasn’t a size six and he expected her to be a size six after bearing him four kids.  My own uncle said if his wife got overweight that he’d drag her behind a car until she lost weight.  These aren’t even “bad guys”!  They seem like perfectly nice men when you meet them!  But they’re taught from the moment they’re kids that all women need to be a certain body type to be worthy of any attention. 

Men are told through our culture’s stories and media that a woman will still love them unconditionally and throw themselves at them if they’re fat, old, balding, or an asshole, while women are told that if they’re pushy, fat, old or wearing out of style clothes that they aren’t even worth mentioning.

^

I was just going to bold the good parts , so I bolded the whole thing lol.

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union