Tuesday 19th of March 2024

killing jesus...

lies

This toon which in its full size may not seem to have any relation with the title of the piece is for sale for the bargain sum of XX,000 dollars ONO. As the cricket world cup finished last night to the detriment of New Zealand, but with one of the lengthiest session of backslapping, nearly as long as the second inning, the good people of this country of the long white cloud can reassure themselves that the people of OrstralyA have been slipping into madness from which there is no cure but a big broom. Of course, as we're prisoners of Big Brother, we can hope you can help us create a new transfer of secret information.... like flag lingo from across the Tasman sea... Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone.

But the bejesus is upon us. There is a new movie in the "killing something" series and the later instalment is "Killing Jesus"... As you can imagine, the legend lives on... Historically and theologically, the "story" and the true story are not even poles apart... They do not exist in the same universe. Ah yes may be... But they are only connected by lies and more lies...

Like our political kingdom of now... Madness rules. Backslapping is de rigour...

not history...

"Killing Jesus" - the adaptation of Bill O’Reilly’s book premiering on 29 March - is not history. This might seem like an obvious statement, but it bears repeating, given how the three-hour “television event” is being pitched to viewers: as a restrained Biblical history, suitable for believers and non-believers alike.

We rarely think and talk about “Bible movies” as products of artistic interpretation - instead, we often treat them as “historical” or “religious” films. But Exodus is a Ridley Scott movie; Noah is a Darren Aronofsky movie. If we’re to go by the same guidelines here, let’s call Killing Jesus not some generic “history,” but a “Bill O’Reilly movie.”

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/29/killing-jesus-bill-oreillys-film-is-touted-as-history-but-facts-arent-sacred-to-him

your life has a price: not much...

Most people think it is hard to put a dollar value on a human life, but they’re wrong. It’s easy. Economists do it all the time.

Most people think that all human lives are equally valuable. And most think economic modelling is boring, irrelevant to their busy lives, and unrelated to how our democracy is functioning. They’re wrong about those, too.

About ten years ago, a lawyer rang to ask if I would do some (economic) modelling. “It depends,” I said. “What’s the job?”

“We want you to put a dollar value on the life of a dead mother,” said the lawyer. “We are suing a doctor for medical negligence, and the insurance company wants to value her life at zero because she wasn’t working. She had no future earning potential. Can you estimate the value of the housework she would have performed?”

I still feel sad when I think about it: for the family, for myself, and for a society in which asking such a question is not only acceptable but also necessary. The dilemma for the widower and the lawyer, and for me, was that if someone didn’t put a dollar value on the love and care that a mother gives her children, the father would wind up with even less money to care for the kids he would be bringing up by himself.

Of course, economists have no real way to value love and affection, so I valued ironing, laundry and child care instead. I got my hands on data about how mothers with three kids use their time. I found data on the price of buying individual household services like ironing, and the price of live-in maids and nannies. I forecast the age at which the kids would leave home. My forecast was based on a meaningless average of kids who do go to uni and kids who don’t. 

 

read more: http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/april/1427806800/richard-denniss/spreadsheets-power

a she-jesus with beefy muscles... on april first...

 

The bleak but beautiful Russian film Leviathan has been reviled by religious leaders as "an odious slander of the Russian church". It tells of an innocent, Kolya, methodically destroyed by an Orthodox priest who covets his land for a church. But Leviathan is more interesting even than that. For the victim, fly-trapped in a web of power, is himself a Jesus figure, refusing to do what it takes to save himself from priestly evil. Leviathan is a parable of the church's war on Christ.

This is what we should remember at Easter. Not just the bouncy rites of spring, the bunnies and chickens, the rebirth. Not just the despair that necessarily precedes it, nor even the deliberate mangling of good by evil; the Easter chiaroscuro. The real story, like Leviathan's, is yet more complex. It's an attack by the masculine virtues embodied in the hierarchy – certainty, strength, power, reason – on the feminine ones embodied in Christ – love, compassion, self-sacrifice and unreasoning trust.

These attacks are driven by fear that the apparently weaker virtues are, paradoxically, stronger. The fear is well based. It is a common mistake of those in power – be they squarehead politicians or bratty children – to see love as weakness, and to exploit it. But in the only slightly longer term, might cannot win.

Kolya's story was unusual in being played by a man. Cast him as a woman, and you see immediately that women are the Jesuses of history. Indeed, Jesus' role and resonance are so intensely female it makes me wonder. Was Jesus actually a woman?

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/could-jesus-have-actually-been-a-woman-20150401-1mcjqw.html

 

 

OUARZAZATE, MOROCCO — The director of National Geographic Channel's upcoming "Killing Jesus" movie says audiences will not be getting the standard issue "wimpy" Jesus, but instead a "muscular" messiah who is every bit as human as the people who made him famous.

read more: http://www.christianpost.com/news/killing-jesus-director-talks-muscular-messiah-and-ethnic-look-of-national-geographic-channel-movie-136559/

 

 

But on the FIRST OF APRIL 2015:

 

Grape juice companies are concerned about their profit margin after the nation's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, announced it would stop using grape juice and begin using wine for communion on April 1 this year.

Southern Baptists use communion grape juice for a ceremony known as the "Lord's Supper." In the ceremony, the grape juice is called "the blood of Christ," or "the blood of Christ but not the actual blood of Christ," when speaking to Catholics.

U.B. Duped, a spokesperson for Jester's, the largest supplier of communion grape juice, announced Wednesday it would cut back on production and may cut its work force "thanks to those stinkin Baptists."

Former SBC President Frank Page told The Christian Post he was outraged that Jester's would consider "profitcy more important than prophecy," then quickly added that he knows "profitcy" is not a real word, but as a Southern Baptist preacher he is required to make it rhyme

read more: http://www.christianpost.com/news/grape-juice-companies-concerned-about-profits-after-southern-baptists-announce-switch-to-wine-for-communion-136404/

 

And I believe this is where they shot "THE LIFE OF BRIAN" :

 

"Killing Jesus," a National Geographic channel miniseries based on the life and death of Jesus Christ that will debut on Sunday, chose to do most of its filming in Morocco rather than the expected location shoot in Israel.

 

"We wanted to create a believable Palestine of 2000 years ago," said director Chris Menaul to The Christian Post at a New York City special premiere event on March 23 . "What Morocco gave us was these amazing locations and faces. We used one village which had been a Jewish village up until 1974 when all the Jews got out at the time Yom Kippur was because they thought Africa wasn't the place to be anymore."

"It's still there and it was built hundreds of years ago exactly in the style of the villages that Christ lived in with mud bricks and courtyards, and very few people have moved into it."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/killing-jesus-creators-on-why-they-chose-not-to-film-in-israel-136428/

 

Historically, there is little point denying that a character called Jesus existed. Religiously, 99 per cent of the Jesus fable(s) was (were) written from at least 100 years after, by fibbing raconteurs, a legend full of contradicted bits to which more bits were added by various "popes" who eventually simplified it by combining 27 "books" under the works of four blokes though there is another book (the fifth) possibly used by the Copts. Apparently the hoax was collected from various manuscript written by various fibbers called Paul, Peters and Johns... in Greek... But then I only study theology for fun... Some historians do it to debunk the con-trick.

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAhw2cVRVsA