also there is kabbalah, which is mos def fantastic, and jewish gnosticism

This movie appears to need more Yspaddaden.

Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his half course yronne,
And…

Delirritate!

Thanks for the reference. True, not going to read 1700pp right now, but glad to be made aware of it. I'll read about it at least. There is some continuity of course between Paul and Jesus, but that continuity is limited to Paul's extremely reductive view of Jesus. Jesus' vision is so much larger and more exciting…

Tripped up by eternal life, doh. Good point. Not sure that passage in particular refers to it, though.

That's what I get for trusting the King James

It's really annoying to me that Paul had his way with the NT (thanks church fathers, great job). Dude is such a mortal. Just keep Jesus' words and axe the rest and it would have been a ten-times-better testament. There is the one weird part where Jesus withers a fig tree because it ticks him off. Most everything…

Is that before or after the part where the Sons of God and daughters of men get it on and create a race of giants?

"Whosoever that lieth with a beast shall surely die" is a cop out because, well yeah, we all surely will, but when?

Living by Ex 22:18 would be challenging: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The horse story floated my boat. Funny schtuff.

My jaw literally dropped out of my skin when I saw that one.

Deserve: some untalented cardboard that slept or bought its way to the role
Would like: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Based on resemblance: some actor who resembles El Juli

I dub this Gorplee's Paradox

"Hi mom, can you hear me? Yeah. Listen, I just found out I'm a douche bag who loves burning man — this explains so much!"

"Whose line is it anyway?"

Yeah after looking up his history with the paparazzi, that's not so good. Fair enough. Still think the good outweighs the bad as far as the public record goes.

No, that's the great straw man you just set up. I'm saying it's not fair to call him an abuser, at least not in terms of domestic violence, which to me is far more serious than anything else he's accused of being. I guess the extra thing is legit (though I don't know the story of how it went down and what the…

99% don't try to do as much good with the celebrity platform as he does, either