Tuesday, 6 July 2021
I Will Do The Killing.
Sunday, 4 July 2021
I’m Afraid I’m Not That Afraid.
Yeah. The Enhanced. Strucker's prize pupils.
[picks up a dish of candies from his desk]
Want A Candy?
Oh, sorry to hear about Strucker.
But then, he knew what kind of World he was helping create.
Human Life, not a growth market.
[The Twins look at each other]
You...you didn't know?
Is this your first time intimidating someone?
I'm afraid that I'm not that afraid.
Wanda Maximoff:
Everybody's afraid of something.
Ulysses Klaue:
(Immediately)
Cuttlefish.
Deep sea fish.
They make Lights. Disco Lights.
Whoom, whoom, whoom!
To hypnotize their prey, then whoom!
I saw A Documentary, it was terrifying.
[Pietro speeds over to pick up a candy from Klaue's desk, and Klaue jerks at the sudden movement]
So if you're going to fiddle with My Brain,
and make me see a giant cuttlefish,
then I know you don't do Business,
and I know you're not in charge,
and I only deal with The Man in Charge.
What’s Wrong with Violet?
One detail that the Lucan gospel has but the other gospel writers lack is a reference to both the demoniac’s nakedness and his subsequent clothing.
At Luke 8:27, the gospel writer notes that the demoniac wore no clothes. Then he notes that he “was clothed and in his own mind” (Luke 8:35).
Clothing is an important prop in the Lucan narrative (see Biblical clothing), which in this scene portrays the demoniac’s development from his animal-like state to his restoration as a human being.
Initially the possessed man has been expelled from the human race — that is, he is no better off than an animal without clothing
—
but, after his exorcism, his humanity is fully restored and he rejoins the human race,
“clothed and in his right mind” (Luke 8:35).
Classical theological commentary cited this story to argue that animals have no moral importance in Christianity.11 Saint Augustine of Hippo concluded from the story that Christians have no duties towards animals, writing:
Christ himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition, for judging that there are no common rights between us and the beasts and trees, he sent the devils into a herd of swine and with a curse withered the tree on which he found no fruit.
Similarly, Thomas Aquinas argued that Jesus allowed the demons to destroy the pigs in order to make the point that his purpose was primarily for the good of men’s souls, not their bodies or property (including their animals).
This interpretation has been shared by a long line of commentators up to the present day, including I. Howard Marshall and Mark Driscoll.
However, other commentators have attempted to make the story consistent with a Jesus who shows “care and concern for animals,” as John Austin Baker wrote.123 Such alternative readings include arguments that the swine were meant to represent the Roman army or “unclean and unfaithful” people; that pigs were considered “unclean”, so destroying them might be consistent with care for other animals; and that Jesus did not actually “send” the devils into the pigs. He merely allowed the demons to go where they themselves chose to go.
René Girard’s Scapegoat Theory
This episode plays a key role in the literary critic René Girard’s theory of the Scapegoat.
In his analysis, the opposition of the entire city to the one man possessed by demons is the typical template for a scapegoat.
Girard notes that, in the demoniac’s self-mutilation, he seems to imitate the stoning that the local villagers would likely have attempted to use against him to cast him out of their society, while the villagers themselves show by their reaction to Jesus that they are not primarily concerned with the good of the man possessed by demons:
Notice the mimetic character of this behavior. As if he is trying to avoid being expelled and stoned in reality, the possessed brings about his own expulsion and stoning; he provides a spectacular mime of all the stages of punishment that Middle Eastern societies inflict on criminals whom they consider completely defiled and irredeemable.
First, the man is hunted, then stoned, and finally he is killed; this is why the possessed lived among the tombs.
The Gerasenes must have had some understanding of why they are reproached or they would not respond as they do.
Their mitigated violence is an ineffective protest. Their answer is: ‘No, we do not want to stone you because we want to keep you near us. No ostracism hangs over you.’
Unfortunately, like anyone who feels wrongfully yet feasibly accused, the Gerasenes protest violently, they protest their good faith with violence, thereby reinforcing the terror of the possessed.
Proof of their awareness of their own contradiction lies in the fact that the chains are never strong enough to convince their victim of their good intentions toward him.”
On Girard’s account, then, the uneasy truce that the Gaderenes and the demonic had worked out was that the evil power in him was contained and thereby neutralized. Jesus’ arrival on the scene introduced a spiritual power stronger than Legion, which upset the societal balance by removing the scapegoat. This reversal of the scapegoat mechanism by Jesus is central to Girard’s entire reading of Christianity, and this reversal is on display in this story as well.
Contrasting the self-destruction of the herd of pigs with the typical motif of an individual evildoer being pushed over a cliff by an undifferentiated mob (cf. Luke 4:29), Girard comments:
But in these cases it is not the scapegoat who goes over the cliff, neither is it a single victim nor a small number of victims, but a whole crowd of demons, two thousand swine possessed by demons. Normal relationships are reversed. The crowd should remain on top of the cliff and the victim fall over; instead, in this case, the crowd plunges and the victim is saved. The miracle of Gerasa reverses the universal schema of violence fundamental to all societies of the world.
Proverbial use
The story is the origin of the English proverbial adjective Gadarene, meaning “involving or engaged in a headlong or potentially disastrous rush to do something”.