J.O.B.Just Over Broke, job-that-pays-the-bills
- noun - a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price
- noun - a post of employment; full-time or part-time position
- verb - to work at jobs or odd pieces of work; work by the piece.
- verb - to do business as a jobber.https://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#j.o.b.
jeremiad❝a prolonged lamentation or mournful complaint❞https://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#jeremiad
Jesus fishoval fish❝The ichthys or ichthus (/ˈɪkθəs/), from the Greek ikhthýs (ἰχθύς 1st cent. AD Koine Greek [ikʰˈtʰys], "fish") is a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish. The symbol was adopted by early Christians as a secret symbol. It is now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish"
ΙΧΘΥΣ (ichthys), or also ΙΧΘΥϹ with a lunate sigma, is an acronym or acrostic for Iēsous Christos, Theou Yios, Sōtēr; contemporary Koine , which translates into English as 'Jesus Christ, Son of God, [Our] Savior'.
The statement "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior" affirmed the belief of early Christians in the twofold nature, of Jesus Christ being both fully human and fully divine. The belief in Jesus Christ being true Man and true God completes the Most Holy Trinity, that is the basic article of the Christian faith.
In the 1970s the "Jesus Fish" started to be used as an icon of modern Christianity. In 1973 the symbol and message was taken to the Aquarius Rock Festival in Nimbin, Australia. Today, it can be seen as a decal or emblem on the rear of automobiles or as pendants or necklaces as a sign that the owner is a Christian. Versions of this include an Ichthys with "Jesus" or "ΙΧΘΥΣ" in the centre, or simply the Ichthys outline by itself.❞Here's where stuff gets complicated and where certain pagans love to make fun of Christians. Almost certainly similar symbols were used for fertility goddesses. Given the shape's resemblence to a vagina and that some vaginas smell fishy, this is perfectly understandable. It doesn't have anything to do with the Greek or with Christian ignorance, it was just a symbol used in a different context. Now, what are the chances 1970s free love Christians knew the other uses? That's a very good question. The point is that the symbol means different things to Christians and certain pagans. Seeing devout Christians who promote abstinance use the symbol might start neopagans giggling.❝There are a few other Pagan goddesses and gods that manifest themselves as dolphin, fish or other sea creature, and most seem to be connected with sexuality. The oval outline of a fish was compared to the shape of the womb, and both 'fish' and 'womb' homophonously shared the ancient Greek word delphos.❞➢ Meaning of the Pagan Fish Symbol from seiyaku.com
✧❝The fish symbol has been used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. It is the outline of her vulva. The fish symbol was often drawn by overlapping two very thin crescent moons. One represented the crescent shortly before the new moon; the other shortly after, when the moon is just visible. The Moon is the heavenly body that has long been associated with the Goddess, just as the sun is a symbol of the God.❞➢ Christian symbols: Fish (Ichthus), cross and crucifix
from ReligiousTolerance.org See also
Journey, theThe Journey is that movement along the way that can't be predicted. It's juicy, it's messy, it's mind blowing and it’s supremely passionate. It's ecstatic in a way that passivity never will approach. The Journey is SUPPOSED to drag you out of your comfort zone and your expectations and your perceptions and understandings. You can't walk between the worlds if you have both feet and nine fingers firmly anchored in one. The Story is told while the Journey is lived. You can only be responsible for your Journey alone because it is YOUR Journey and no one else’s.See also
the Story vs. the Journeyhttps://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#journey
Story- The Story is Not the Journey.An experienced faith differs from a revealed faith. It’s the Journey compared to the Story. The Story is told while the Journey is lived. I am not saying that one is superior. But one is active and the other passive. The Story is not the Journey and the Journey is not the Story.“Christians tend to test what they believe against a sacred text. Pagans simply don’t, and many of the most acute differences stem from this. The result is that, despite our many differences and denominations, Christianity tends to have far less diversity of belief because of the desire to be sure that what is being experienced spiritually has an explanation that has been tried, tested and certified as being genuine. In other words, with the exception of some of the more extreme Pentecostal movements, Christians tend towards being fearful of a new spiritual experience until they are sure it’s not counterfeit. Pagans, on the other hand, relish new spiritual experiences and accept them at face value.”A revealed faith always depends on what someone else says. The marvelous thing is that a Story can become a Journey if you just go a little beyond the nice polished gate and the carefully maintained path. In an experienced faith, you will have to go out and do. That’s why so many pagan books never go deeper than cookbooks or the 101 level. Experience requires taking that first and seventh step into the unknown. At some point in a Journey, it's going to be you and the Divine. No masks and no untruths allowed. Do it right and it's just you and the Divine again. With a revealed faith, the answers could be in the very next book you read. A Story could become a Journey, but it takes hard work and stepping beyond the safe space. How do you explain a Journey without moving into a Story? I am not sure you can.https://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#story-journey
Supposedly the joining of Jewish and Christian values under one label that inspires the world. There is an underlying assumption that Christianity is the successor to Judaism and therefore uniquely qualified to proclaim what is right. Except it doesn't work that way.❝Western Civilization, especially the American version, had it's pagan roots among it's Christian and Jewish roots. One house of Congress is called the Senate, the other has a ceremonial fasces. It also drew from some of the more civilized indigenous tribes the colonists encountered.❞
❝…a term that groups Judaism and Christianity, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism, both religions' common use of the Torah, or due to perceived parallels or commonalities shared values between those two religions, which has contained as part of Western culture. The term became prevalent towards the middle of the 20th century in the United States to link broader principles of Judeo-Christian ethics such as the dignity of human life, adherence to the Abrahamic covenant, common decency, and support of traditional family values. The concept of "Judeo-Christian values" in an ethical (rather than theological or liturgical) sense was used by George Orwell in 1939, with the phrase "the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals." It has become part of the American civil religion since the 1940s.❞
✧❝First, Judeo-Christian America has differed from Christian countries in Europe in at least two important ways. One is that the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, as much as to theirs. And even more importantly, they strongly identified with the Jews.
The second meaning of Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical G-d of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America must answer morally to this G-d, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world.
That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values believe that war, while always tragic, is on more than a few occasions a moral duty. Nothing "Judeo" ever sanctioned pacifism. Of course, the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah yearned for the day that nations will beat their swords into plowshares. But another Hebrew Prophet, Joel, who is never cited by those who wish to read the secular value of pacifism into the Bible, said precisely the opposite: "Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, 'I am strong!'" And that is why those who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear from American public life affirm multiculturalism, seek to remove mention of G-d from all public life, and make Christmas a private, not a national, holiday. ❞➢ What does 'Judeo-Christian' mean? from Jewish World Review
✧❝Is there then any truth in this term, "Judeo-Christian"? Is Christianity derived from Judaism? Does Christianity have anything in common with Judaism? Reviewing the last two thousand years of Western Christian history there is really no evidence of a Judeo-Christian tradition and this has not escaped the attention of honest Christian and Jewish commentators. The Jewish scholar Dr. Joseph Klausner in his book Jesus of Nazareth expressed the Judaic viewpoint that "there was something contrary to the world outlook of Israel" in Christ's teachings, "a new teaching so irreconcilable with the spirit of Judaism, " containing "within it the germs from which there could and must develop in course of time a non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish teaching." Dr. Klausner quotes the outstanding Christian theologian, Adolf Harnack, who in his last work rejected the hypothesis of the Jewish origin of Christ's doctrine: "Virtually every word He taught is made to be of permanent and universal humanitarian interest. The Messianic features are abolished entirely, and virtually no importance is attached to Judaism in its capacity of Jesus' environment." Gershon Mamlak, an award-winning Jewish Zionist intellectual, recently claimed that the "Jesus tradition" is essentially the ultimate extension of ancient Greek Hellenism and is in direct conflict to Judaism's "role as the Chosen people". Dr. Mamlak, writing in the Theodor Herzl Foundation's magazine of Jewish thought, Midstream, maintains that the prevailing theory that Christianity originated in the spiritual realm of Judaism "is anchored in a twofold misconception: 1) the uniqueness of Judaism is confined to its monotheistic God-concept; 2) the 'parting of the ways' between the Jesus coterie and Judaism is seen as the result of the former's adaptation of the doctrines of Christology." The first misconception means: "When the affinity of the Jesus coterie with Judaism is evaluated by common faith in the One, severed from the believer's duty to execute the Law of the One and to acknowledge the Chosen Nation of Israel as His instrument-faith in the One becomes anti-Judaism par excellence!" In Gershon Mamlak's view, "The conflict between Judaism and the Jesus tradition goes beyond the confines of theology. [The Jesus tradition] was the cosmopolitan renunciation of the national phenomenon in general and extreme hostility to Israel's idea of a Chosen Nation as the divine instrument for the perfection of the world." Evidently the concept of a common Judeo-Christian tradition has more to do with post 1945 politics and a certain amount of 'public relations' than it does with historical and Biblical reality. Never the less a number of modern Christian polemicists have managed to rest certain New Testament verses in the drive to give a Scriptural basis to their argument.❞➢ The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition
originally from New Dawn Magazine No.23 Feb-March 1994
I'm pretty sure that "Judeo-Christian values" steal legitimacy and authenticity from Judaism for Christianity. Christianity doesn't need it. Judaism can't afford to lose it. The origin date (1821? 1847?) of the phrase is uncertain. Widespread American use started during the mid 20th Century, probably around the same time that the national motto was changed. The phrase is intimately tied up with the idea of American exceptionalism. For our purposes here, there are three significant differences between Christianity and Judaism. First are the textual differences. The Christian Old Testament alters meaning by changing the arrangement and emphasis of the Tanach. The entire New Testament (any version) is not found in Jewish law. Second is the Christian assertion of Jesus as the Messiah (leaving aside the question of if he existed). Finally the Christian belief in a new covenant that replaces Jews as G*D's chosen people. Suddenly they are just one of many peoples. This is a major alteration of the original convenant that G*D made with the Hebrews. Taken together, these differences reduce Judaism from a living faith to a curious relic that exists only because Christians sometimes find it interesting. Why in the World would devout Jews be part of that? Of course there are many more differences than those I listed. But the underlying assumption of "Judeo-Christian" thought is that men and women have moved on from Judaism because it is less important than Christianity. "Judeo-Christianity" claims to honor Judaism all while diminishing it's contributions. "Judeo-Christianity" is a one-sided exchange that treats Judaism as a second class source, occasionally tolerated but seldom valued on it's own merits.
In politics, this phrase supposedly signifies something almost holy, something beyond question, something beyond mere man’s law. In other words, it’s another “sit down and shut the fuck up!”❝There's no doubt that Christians have contributed heavily, but they are at their best when they aren't the only game around. What Roy Moore and those like him want is to put their version of Christianity above all other faiths and beyond question from mere mortal men and women. It's about control of what is and what is not allowed, despite what the courts and voters might say. It's politics in one of it's worst permutations. On private property it would have been fine. But on public property, specifically where the law was interpeted to apply to all people, it was a war cry that in that time, in that place, Christianity must reign supreme.❞The people who use the phrase have appointed themselves cultural gatekeepers and arbiters. They believe that they are the ones who decide what does and does not fit in our society. And since it’s a matter of faith and not law, it can’t be challenged on legal or moral grounds. After all, who are you to deny the Judeo-Christian heritage? You’re merely human, after all. You don’t have the inspired wisdom of the Almighty on your side.https://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#judeo-christian-heritage
Julian factorJulian, the last pagan emperor of Rome was a remarkable man by any definition. And yes, he's a personal hero and one of my Befores. Julian tried to re-establish paganism and reduce Chrisitianiy to one faith among many in the empire. If Julian had been Christian and working to establish Christianity, by today's standarads he'd be a martyr and saint. Think about it. Raised Christian under threat, Julian chose another path. He tried to make that path possible for others when he could. Yet today he's dismissed as apostate. That's what I call the Julian factor. If he had contributed to today's prevalent politics he'd be celebrated for his efforts. Instead he's degenerated for standing against “inevitable” history. The very qualities that make him worthy are reason to attack because he does not have the right political affiliation.https://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#julian
❝The practice of jus primae noctis (“right of the first night”) is, in simplest terms, the right of the local noble to deflower local peasant brides on their wedding night before their newlywed husbands. Precedence for this practice supposedly goes back for many thousands of years, with the first reference of something like it going all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh from over four thousand years ago. This practiced (apparently) reached its crescendo during the Middle Ages in Europe, and today is popularly depicted in Hollywood in such films as Braveheart. But did it really ever happen? Numerous historians have studied the subject and the result is that it turns out there is no solid evidence of this practice happening in reality at all. Not a single well documented incident recorded, nor a single victim’s name passed down. It could be argued that women in these periods, in general, would not be considered noteworthy, especially peasant women, but with a practice spanning (supposedly) thousands of years, and the presumable rage it would induce in the peasant populace, not to mention occasional bastard offspring and perhaps a boatload of secret weddings to avoid the issue, odds are at least a few documented cases would manage to make it down through posterity. Or even just a record of the law in some court case, as there are such records of numerous other laws. But any such evidence simply doesn’t exist outside of fictional works or, for instance, cases where people were trying to rally the peasant class against their lords using the supposedly former practice of jus primae noctis to whip the mob up.❞➣ Jus Primae Noctis: Fact Or Fiction? from Today I Found OutHistorians dispute if it actually was ever a law. It might (and I stress might) have existed as a custom in some areas. Some modern spectulation draws from certain discredited works from Margaret Murray dealing with the idea of a sacred king wedded to the land. There are older and independent sources that deal with the custom, not the phrase.https://lexicon.neowayland.com/jj/#jus-primae-noctis