#Ark of Covenant is where?

[for-the-writing-artist]

Keeping it in the tags for convenience.

I want to thank @for-the-writing-artist for being willing to have the discussion we did, but I think they're right that we've pretty much reached a point where we've covered all we'll be able to. In their last post on the matter, they indicated that they're not particularly interested in providing reasons to believe what they believe and I'm unable to adopt any belief without sufficient reason.

I still don't have any good reason to believe that lying is necessarily wrong, or that what the Bible says about god or Jesus is true, or that the Bible ever makes an outright statement that slavery is immoral, or that any interpretation of what the Bible says about anything else is more convincing than any other conflicting interpretation, or that any ancient understanding of morality should be preferred over our modern understanding, and it all boils down to evidence.

We're too far apart on these points and a few others to really continue without retreading the same topics over and over, but it seemed like they wanted some response to their last few points (forgive me if I'm wrong, it's not my intention to push on a topic you're finished discussing), so I'll give some brief notes. (Looking over the post before publishing, I should reconsider my use of the word "brief" lol)

> I get that the burden of proof lies on me, and I would be genuinely interested in your reasons for why God isn't real. But a discussion can only go so far in unequal footing.

It's absolutely correct that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, and that's why I avoid claiming that gods aren't real. My position is that I'm unconvinced by any claim I've ever heard that a god or some gods exist, so I really don't need any other reason to reject them. There may be a god or some gods but I lack any good evidence to support the idea that they exist. I will admit that I have a strong bias against these claims - along with claims about angels, demons, ghosts, goblins, spirits, souls, cryptids, alien abductions, a flat earth, etc. - but that's because the reality itself is biased against these claims, yielding no definitive evidence that any of these things are possible or extant. But I still have these conversations because I want to believe true things, and if someone knows some demonstrable truth that I'm not aware of, I'd like to know about it in order to form a more accurate view of reality.

> And, if by some miracle, it is proven without a shadow of doubt that God is real, and all your answers and reasons for disbelief disproved ─ would you acquiesce? Would you believe then?

I've touched on this recently, but maybe it was with one of the other folks who joined this conversation. Briefly, my skepticism requires that I adapt my worldview to new information when it comes to my awareness. So if a god is demonstrated to exist, then I've no reason to still be atheist, but whether I actually worship or respect that deity depends entirely on whether certain claims about its past actions and moral standards are true as well. In the case of Yahweh, I'd need to know for certain that a lot of things in the Bible are complete lies conceived by ancient manipulative leaders before I ever said "god is good."

> Something is. Something exists that is higher than me, or you. It could be this Krishna, it could be God. But I cannot argue in favor of this, if you believe that Nothing exists (really weird, as nothing is the absence of something). I would need to disprove this Nothing to then argue in favor of Something.

Assuming we're not brains in jars dreaming up all of reality, lots of things exist. We presuppose reality, but can't demonstrate our existence and that's an ancient and ongoing problem, so in order to function we have to take this axiom or be paralyzed by doubt. Depending on what you mean by "something higher" I might agree or disagree, but if you mean that it's necessarily something like a god I certainly don't think so. I can almost see what you're saying regarding something/nothing, but I'm not aware of any possibility that "nothing" has ever or could ever exist. Nothing, by existing, would necessarily become something. I only make this note because you began that point by saying "if you believe..." and I just want to make it clear that I don't believe in "nothing," but I reject claims of undetectable "somethings" where we lack any good indication that they should be there.

All in all, it was a good conversation and I appreciate the time and energy it took to give thoughtful responses to what I was saying. And I hope it goes without saying that although I think you're convinced of some bad ideas, I don't have any such evaluation of your character as a human. I hope you keep asking questions and being open to ideas you might disagree with.

[mightyostanes]

Why Jews Aren't "Trying to Trick G-d"

(Note only secondary sources are cited in the bibliography)

For my second post I had originally planned on writing something more fun but unfortunately, I feel the need to write this. Lately I’ve seen quite a few people on twitter saying that the way Jews interpret Halakah is that Jews are trying to trick G-d. While this is obviously a bad faith argument designed to be shitty, I still think this subject should be explained in greater detail. Mostly because I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in the way people imagine religions should interact with their deity and how Judaism has historically interacted with G-d. Furthermore, due to the Haskalah and Counter Haskalah I feel that a lot of these ideas have been lost to a lot of Jews in the English-speaking world. Replaced by Platonism that has much more in common with Philo and Maimonides then it does with anything the sages actually wrote or believed. Or to put it in much franker terms the toilet demon Rabba Bar Rav Huna mentioned in Gittin70:A6 probably wasn’t a metaphor. Instead, it seems incredibly likely that both he and Rabbi Tanhum Bar Tanilai believed in a literal Sheyd that lived in literal toilets no matter how embarrassing that sounds. 

    The reason this bizarre tangent is important is because if you actually look at the biblical, rabbinic, medieval, kabbalistic, and hasidic literature it utterly destroys the idea that the relationship of the Jew to G-d is of one sided kowtowing submission. Granted, it’s quite easy to interpret it that way but that’s mostly due to conditioning in terms of what people think a theistic religion should be about rather than any wiggle room in the texts themselves. In fact, I’d wager most arguments against this have more to do with people’s idea of the Tanakh than the Tanakh itself. 

      The biggest reason for this misunderstanding in my opinion is that very few people actually know what a covenant is let alone its context. To illustrate my point, I’d like you to think back on the last time you made a covenant with someone or something. Assuming you aren’t a ceremonial magician the answer to the question just posed is probably never. In the modern world covenant has become almost solely associated with the Bible and has almost no context. Especially because the idea of the ‘New Covenant’ talked about in the works of Paul the Apostle has very little to do with what covenants historically were. Rather than statements of blind faith, covenants in the Ancient Near East were more analogous to contracts and treaties. There are even some scholars who think that the covenantal theology in Deuteronomy may be based on Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. (1)

��   In these treaties a bigger state or kingdom would make a treaty for a smaller kingdom to accept fealty to them. (1) In these treaties, at least in paper, rather than being a slave the ruler of the smaller nation was supposed to be a junior partner. Said vassals would also continue to be junior partners to the larger power if they held up the obligations given to them by the treaty. (1) Similarly, just as the smaller party holds obligations to the larger party the larger party also holds obligations to the smaller party. Including ostensibly having to listen to complaints or suggestions the smaller party made. 

   In the Tanakh or Five Books of Moses, there are exactly three covenants mentioned that occurred between G-d and humans. These three aforementioned covenants are the covenant with Noah and his descendants once the Ark lands, (Gen 8:20-9:13), The covenant for Abraham’s descendants where an unknown light phenomenon signifying G-d passes through Abraham’s sacrifice (Gen: 15), and the famous covenant between G-d and the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-24). Shortly after the establishment of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants G-d or an emissary of G-d appears and holds a banquet with the covenant members (Gen 18:1-10, Exodus 24:9-18). In the Ancient Near Eastern context that these texts were written in, banquets and feasts thrown by a king or senior covenant partner were incredibly important tools for control or consolidation. In both the Neo-Assyrian Empire and in the kingdom of Mari not only eating with the king but being at the table with him showed that you were considered as part of the king’s metaphorical family (2). These constructed family hierarchies would be clearly delineated by how close one sat to the king and how one sat, with the people right next to the king being seen as close immediate family members analogous to sons or younger brothers. In the two previously mentioned covenants the Elders of Israel and Abraham’s family sans Lot were sitting with G-d or his emissary suggesting an incredibly close relationship instead of merely that of master and servant. Especially as the angels or heavenly host were not seated ahead of the human participants at the metaphorical dinner table. 

          This idea of man as junior partner and consultant is also seen in the way that humans can critique, give advice to, or argue with G-d and G-d takes their words into consideration. A famous example of this post covenant is Abraham giving G-d suggestions on what to do with Sodom and Gomorrah and G-d accepting his input (Gen 18). An even more extreme example is in Exodus 32 when Moses actually argues with G-d and seemingly wins the argument thus saving the lives of the Hebrews. Similarly, complaints were by no means unknown by the rulers of vassal states to their overlords. The famous Amarna letters addressed by Egyptian allies and vassals to Pharaoh Akhenaten are filled with complaints and requests, with a few even being acknowledged (3). Considering that Pharaoh’s considered themselves living gods this just adds more background to the precedent of complaining towards, making suggestions to, or arguing with the divine.

    Beyond the kinship of all the community of Israel, and not just a singular son, with G-d there are also many notions that have to be cleared up in regard to humankind’s place in creation. A famous Midrash Tanhuma Tarzia 5 has a Roman Consul asking Rabbi Akiba why Jews circumcise male children when G-d has them born uncircumcised. In response Rabbi Akiba shows the consul grain, created by G-d and bread which is that same grain altered by man. Rabbi Akiba then asks the consul which one is better, before giving the obvious answer that most people prefer bread. This little story besides giving a philosophical explanation for circumcision also gives a good summary of the main ethos of Rabbinic Judaism. That G-d made the world unfinished so that mankind in general and Jews in particular could finish it. To establish the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than merely waiting for it. The translation of ‘Tikkun Olam’ as repairing the world was meant to be understood literally and not just as a metaphor for social justice.

    Lastly and perhaps most shocking to an Abrahamic Gentile reader, the G-d of Judaism was not traditionally portrayed as unchanging or infallible. The idea only gained traction in rabbinic Judaism after Maimonides inserted it into his theology after borrowing it from Aristotelian, Islamic, and Christian ideas in the 12th century. Historically the G-d of Judaism has been shown to change their mind, and according to Moshe Idel is even affected by theurgy (4). As evidenced by many stories in the Torah where G-d explicitly changes their mind on what they want to do. The mutability of G-d’s mind in terms of human prayer and action carries over to the realm of Halakhic interpretation assuming the other party has a good point. The most famous example of this rabbinical overturning G-d’s decree is in Baba Metzia 59B where Three Rabbis tell G-d that G-d and Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation of a ruling regarding an oven is invalid. They achieve this by citing Deuteronomy 30:12, and Exodus 30:2 stating that the Law is not in heaven and is for the majority to decide its correct meaning. Instead of smiting the group of Rabbis G-d simply laughs stating that ‘My children have beaten me’. Indeed, the Great Maggid even goes as far as to say that G-d, like a parent teaching their child Torah, actually prefers a novel interpretation instead of just parroting the interpretation given by the parent (5).

           In Pauline Christianity Deuteronomy 30:12 which states, “The Law is not in Heaven” has been taken to mean that Halakah isn’t binding in the kingdom of heaven. However, the mainstream rabbinic interpretation means that only living humans can truly follow the Torah and perform Mitzvot to their fullest extent. In the Talmud in Shabbat 88B there is one of many Moses vs angels battles found throughout Jewish literature regarding whether humans should receive the Torah. Just like all of the other stories with this mytheme, Moses obviously wins this battle and takes the Torah to Israel. What makes this story different is that rather than using theurgy to bind the angels or just beating the tar out of them, Moses defeats them with a well-reasoned argument. I’ll let the passage I copied from Sefaria speak for itself.

     Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, the Torah that You are giving me, what is written in it? God said to him: “I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of Egypt from the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Moses said to the angels: Did you descend to Egypt? Were you enslaved to Pharaoh? Why should the Torah be yours? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Moses said to the angels: Do you dwell among the nations who worship idols that you require this special warning? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). Moses asked the angels: Do you perform labor that you require rest from it? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), meaning that it is prohibited to swear falsely. Moses asked the angels: Do you conduct business with one another that may lead you to swear falsely? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Moses asked the angels: Do you have a father or a mother that would render the commandment to honor them relevant to you? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13) Moses asked the angels: Is there jealousy among you, or is there an evil inclination within you that would render these commandments relevant?

-Shabbat 88B (Babylonian Talmud)

       The Mitzvot, something occasionally seen as higher and holier than the immanent aspect of G-d (6) were meant to be performed solely by humans. Because just like the angels, G-d lacks many of these physical imperfections that give many of the Mitzvot any real weight. Therefore, as the ones who do the most mitzvot, how we interpret and follow them is fundamentally up to us.

    Admittedly I could go on and on about the theoretical frameworks behind the ideas. Such as the status of the Torah vis a vis the status of G-d, or the tradition of prayer as legal battle with the divine realm but that’d be a whole other bag of cats. One that’d probably take 20 pages to accurately give my thoughts, thoughts that would be at best heretical to at least a fair number of Jews. So instead let us end this here, there is no way for Jews to cheat Halakhah because it fundamentally belongs to the Jews. It is our burden that we have to bear and our most cherished treasure. Even if it did indeed come from G-d, like any gift the receiver usually is the actual owner and the one who decides what to do with it.

Citation List for non primary sources

Koller, Aaron. “Deuteronomy and Hittite Treaties.” Bible Interpretations , September 2014. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/09/kol388003. 

Milano, Lucio. “Naptan Ḫudûtu Aškun". Practice and Ideology of Neo-Assyrian Banquets.” Thesis, Storia Antica e Arceologico Ciclo , 2013.Section 3. Eating With The King: The Earthly Banquet. PG 60-80

Nutter, Nick. “How the Great Kings Managed Their Vassal States during the Bronze Age.” nuttersworld.com, August 15, 2024. https://nuttersworld.com/civilisations-that-collapsed/managing-vassal-states/. 

 Idel, Moshe. Middot: On the emergence of Kabbalistic Theosophies. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 2021. 

Idel, Moshe. “The Son of God as a Righteous in Hasidism .” Chapter. In Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, 531–85. New York, NY: Continuum , n.d. 

6. Idel, Moshe. “The World Absorbing Text.” Chapter. In Absorbing Perfections Kabbalah and Interpretation, 26–45. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2002

[vaspider]

Agatha All Along Thoughts:

The thing that I've been thinking about that hasn't been touched on yet: the Witch's Road gives "what is missing."

Billy is CERTAIN that this means his brother, or that he gets to choose what it means. However, the MCU has been pretty clear up to this point that this is often not at all how magic works.

Also, if you look at the way the Witch's Road is laid out, like, look at the way the trees look and how stylized they are, look at the decorations in a few places... the same lights that are in Billy's room show up in Agatha's trial, those triangular string lights, and the trees on the Witch's Road are extremely stylized. Some look like the tree on the cover of the Torah Ark, and some look like the tabletoppers/centerpieces from William's bar mitzvah, and some have items hanging from them which look like the items hanging on the centerpieces. Additionally, the door didn't show up until Billy came downstairs. This may just be because the coven wasn't complete until Billy was in the room, but it may also be because he's the driving force behind getting everyone on the Road at all. The Road responds to the coven, right? It forms itself to the coven? And if each of the witches gets a trial, then the only place where William's influence might leak out, the only space that might be 'his,' where he's trying to, maybe, get Billy's attention would be in these liminal spaces. (His ability to reach out only happening in those most liminal of spaces would make a lot of sense if he's sort of been hovering for years in a sort of limbo.)

Oh fuck, I just realized that we got Randall/Ralph Bohner telling Billy "it's like watching yourself on TV." FUCK. FUCK. FUCK. That's not an accident. Ahhhhh fuck. Poor William.

I think what episode 6 has telegraphed to us -- one of the things it has, anyway -- is that what he is "missing" is William Kaplan, and he's going to have to integrate these two personalities/two lives into one thing.

(My theory re: Tommy is that the "quest" in VisionQuest, the third part of this trilogy, will be finding Tommy. I also think that Eddie is Hulkling -- his immediate explanation for the Hex was 'aliens,' Hulkling is often sleeveless, lots of little things. That might be a red herring, but I think they may be giving us Hulkling there.)

I really, really appreciate the level to which these choices have clearly been thought out. I'll be pulling apart the implications of this show for magic in the MCU for a while.

(If you're here to tell me that the MCU is dumb or you hate it, please go away. I'm not interested in that conversation.)

[teecupangel]

Why not just Desmond being an angel.

And it freaks everybody out and everybody thinks he's holy or something and he's just like "all right okay why not"

It had happened by accident.

It had to be an accident, right?

Altaïr had been thrown out of the room and the Templars had unsheathed their weapons. Malik had been focused on protecting his brother, shouting at him to run as he tried to keep all of the Templars busy.

Robert de Sablé didn’t even look back when he walked away after ordering their death.

Malik didn’t know what happened.

He saw Kadar freeze when he neared the scaffolding that would lead to the treasure and Malik swore his eyes glowed gold for the briefest of moments.

Before one of the Templars charged at him.

Kadar snapped out of it and tried to block, his stance unstable enough that he slipped backwards.

Into the scaffolding…

Taking the Templar with him.

The Templar’s sword struck one of the wooden pillars keeping the scaffolding stable and…

Malik didn’t have any explanation for it.

It shouldn’t have happened.

The scaffolding started to crumble, making Kadar and the Templar run away from it as fast as they could.

And then…

The wall next to the scaffolding began to break apart, golden light coming from the cracks before the entire thing fell down.

Together with the treasure and the ark where it had been resting.

The ark broke in half, splitting in the middle to reveal an egg shaped thing made of stone that was around the height of perhaps Malik when he was sitting on the floor.

The treasure fell on top of it, shattering like it was made of glass.

Where the shards fell on the stone, the stone changed and spread.

Until…

What had been stone had changed to seemingly three pairs of wings with white feathers that seemed to shine gold all curled together.

The wings twitched…

Before slowly opening, stretching to its full size.

Revealing a young man seemingly sleeping, the three pairs of wings attached to his back. His head was resting on his propped up knees.

No one could speak.

No one could move.

Until…

“Altaïr?” Kadar whispered hesitantly and Malik could see why he would call out that fool’s name.

The man looked too much like Altaïr for it to be a coincidence.

Almost as if hearing the name, the man…

No.

The divine being in front of them opened his eyes.

Instead of Altaïr’s golden eyes, his eyes were light brown with specks of gold in them.

And Malik wondered how he could see them from where he was standing, a few meters away from the winged being.

The divine being looked around and blinked.

His eyes met Malik and his lips parted.

“It’s an angel!”

Before he could speak, the Templars all knelt and began to pray.

The Templar who had attacked Kadar took off his helmet and…

It was a woman.

A woman who was praying fervently at the divine being who…

… looked at Malik with wide confused eyes.

Unorganized Notes… I mean… sorta notes?:

Desmond is surprised for a few seconds then he goes “Be not afraid” and tried to sound super impressive “Ye are in the presence of…………… the will of God.” and he’s just bullshiting his way to uuhhh. He has no plans.

He glanced at Malik and Kadar and oh yeah, alright.

“Ye shall not harm these… men of justice for they are… under my protection…?”

At that point, Desmond knows he is ffuuuccckkeedd. Malik is obviously onto him. Kadar is super confused and just keeps staring at his face. Then…

Maria, of all people, agree and even goes as pledge her sword to him which is super weird and Desmond’s just “???”

In the end, Desmond accidentally takes the Templars about to kill Malik and Kadar with him as he leaves the temple with Malik and Kadar. It’s a very awkward journey and Desmond has no idea what else to do other than…

Oh wait… there were other Templars stationed nearby and they all saw him leave with his ‘entourage’.

Before he could try to say anything, Maria speaks for him, calling the messenger of God and that he had been sleeping in the Ark of the Covenant which sounded like a super big deal (and he can’t even whisper to Malik to ask what the hell she was talking about because the Farm was never religious and the only time Desmond even heard of the Ark of the Covenant was from Indiana Jones) and…

… why does it feel like Maria was converting people into becoming his personal army???

Oh god… Was this…

Was he going to take his own army to Masyaf???

[walkswithmyfather]

Joshua 3:11-16 (NLT). [11] Look, the Ark of the Covenant, which belongs to the Lord of the whole earth, will lead you across the Jordan River! [12] Now choose twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one from each tribe. [13] The priests will carry the Ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth. As soon as their feet touch the water, the flow of water will be cut off upstream, and the river will stand up like a wall.” [14] So the people left their camp to cross the Jordan, and the priests who were carrying the Ark of the Covenant went ahead of them. [15] It was the harvest season, and the Jordan was overflowing its banks. But as soon as the feet of the priests who were carrying the Ark touched the water at the river’s edge, [16] the water above that point began backing up a great distance away at a town called Adam, which is near Zarethan. And the water below that point flowed on to the Dead Sea until the riverbed was dry. Then all the people crossed over near the town of Jericho.”

Joshua 4:1-8 (NLT). [1] “When all the people had crossed the Jordan, the Lord said to Joshua, [2] “Now choose twelve men, one from each tribe. [3] Tell them, ‘Take twelve stones from the very place where the priests are standing in the middle of the Jordan. Carry them out and pile them up at the place where you will camp tonight.’” [4] So Joshua called together the twelve men he had chosen—one from each of the tribes of Israel. [5] He told them, “Go into the middle of the Jordan, in front of the Ark of the Lord your God. Each of you must pick up one stone and carry it out on your shoulder—twelve stones in all, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. [6] We will use these stones to build a memorial. In the future your children will ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ [7] Then you can tell them, ‘They remind us that the Jordan River stopped flowing when the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant went across.’ These stones will stand as a memorial among the people of Israel forever.” [8] So the men did as Joshua had commanded them. They took twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan River, one for each tribe, just as the Lord had told Joshua. They carried them to the place where they camped for the night and constructed the memorial there.”

“Remembering God’s Goodness” By In Touch Ministries:

“How can you create reminders of the Lord's faithfulness?”

“Some information—like a birthday or phone number—is easy to remember. Yet we tend to forget examples of the Lord’s goodness to us. Today’s verses suggest a way to counteract this.

After bringing His people safely out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, God miraculously provided another dry path by piling up the Jordan’s waters in a heap upstream. He knew the Israelites were about to enter Jericho and would, by His power, overcome that city. It was certainly compassionate of God to give that tangible illustration of His strength and presence before the battle. But He also knew how quickly they had forgotten Him before.

The Lord had a plan to help His people recall the miracle at the river. He told them to create a memorial with 12 stones, each representing a tribe of Israel that had passed safely through the waters (Josh. 4:7-8). Then they would have a lasting visible reminder of divine rescue.

We’re much like the Israelites: When God works in big, obvious ways, it’s easy to trust Him. But in time, we drift toward self-reliance until we’re reminded of our need for Him and repent.

How can you create reminders of God’s faithfulness? Whether it’s by journaling or creating a “thankfulness list,” make sure you have a way to remember the Lord’s involvement in your life.”

[Photo thanks to Mikhail Tyrsyna at Unsplash]

[imagine-darksiders]

Fighting capitalism by having an art ‘aesthetic’ that is so so rancid, no brands want to use you for marketing.

Yes I’m looking at Tiktokkers who have cute tidy work spaces where everything is displayed ‘just right’ lending a superficial atmosphere that’s appealing to consumers and marketers who want you to slide their brands into your videos.

I show my studio space to Instagram artists and they dissolve like I’ve opened the ark of the covenant.

[cainhart]

Thinking about how Sparda was a nomad for so long, traveling the world, closing and sealing rifts and demon portals, and probably sealing demonic relics with his abyssal sigils or outright destroying them. Okay I get it he saved humanity and separated the two worlds, yadayadayada—BUT from a witch’s perspective, I’d be fucking FURIOUS at Sparda because why would you destroy the Ark of the Covenant or the Dagger of Brutus, or Selene’s Light dude I was going to use them my man… please put that tome down, I beg you.

No wonder demons and witches/magicians had a beef with Sparda—he nearly wiped out the magic on Earth, and as if that wasn’t enough he destroyed their tools dhsjdjsdnsm

Then his elder son travels the world just like him (except this time he has the Prince of Hell and his mutts on his tail), seeking knowledge and trying to find more ways to gain power. He gets frustrated and questions why the relics mentioned in ancient tomes aren’t where they should be or have been sealed away. I DUNNO DEVIL BOY maybe ask your dad?!

[fruityyamenrunner]

they made Israel into a mummy. Joseph too. They put Joseph in a scarmophogoghs. it's easy to read "the physicians embalmed him" and imagine some almost medical procedure, but when egyptians mummified someone they were doing magic to them

part of the reason there is a whole, probably fictive, section where the Israelites are in Egypt is because a) it provides a more desirable parentage and b) it turns the Exodus (and therefore Hebrew dominance over Canaan) into a rewilding project

and what a fantasy it is. "the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we". They are, as it were, the real Egyptians. Pharaoh's little "Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply" rhymes with God at Babel amusingly. It's not difficult to see why commies like to read this as class warfare, with the Israelites taking their origin in some sort of uprising of a subaltern class, c.f. the linking of "Hebrew" to "habiru" supposedly being some term meaning "nomad", or "marginal" or "gypsy" or "nigger" or something w i l d🦁

The first time "Hebrew" actually appears is in the bit with "Hebrew midwives" not complying with pharaoh's demand for infanticide, or a "late term abortion" really -- the excuse offered is that the baby has come out by the time the midwife-abortionist gets there. it's left ambiguous whether we are meant to believe this racial difference is real or just a ruse. Either way, "God dealt well". the plain infanticidal stage of the genocide (also apparently a fantasy, and one which the apparently mighty Hebrews take rather placidly) only comes after abortion fails.

the baby moses is kept in an "ark" with "slime" and these are both magic words signalling the catastrophic end of a dispensation.

The Old Testament holds some clues that the character of Moses did not originate as a Hebrew. First, he is raised as an Egyptian with an Egyptian name. Second, when he kills an Egyptian for mistreating an Israelite, Moses escapes into exile, where he marries not a Hebrew, but a Midianite woman, Zipporah.

Perhaps logically, God chooses this border-crossing man to be his intermediary in approaching Pharaoh about freeing the enslaved Hebrews. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, God decides to kill Moses. And that's where the third clue comes in.

In Exodus 4:24-26, Moses is on the road to accost Pharaoh when the Lord comes to execute the death sentence. Zipporah, apparently understanding the reason for the attack, immediately grabs a piece of flint and whacks off their son's foreskin, dropping it at Moses' feet and calling him a "bloody spouse," her Midianite heritage possibly rebelling against this painful, gory practice. God is appeased.

The context: Immediately before this, God has instructed Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel is God's firstborn, and unless the Chosen People are released, God will kill Pharaoh's firstborn. The unstated implication is that Moses, in order to utter such a challenge, must stand worthy in the case of his own firstborn -- who, contrary to the Covenant, is not circumcised.

Given that the son, Gershon, is the offspring of a gentile woman and of Moses, who was raised by Egyptians, the retention of his prepuce up to that point doesn't seem unlikely. In fact, Exodus suggests that, although circumcision was practiced -- not universally -- by Egyptians (a fact not mentioned in the Torah) as well as by Hebrews, Moses himself was not circumcised.

The veiled revelation of this condition arrives in Exodus 6:12 and again in 6:30. Moses is complaining about being assigned as an interlocutor despite his lack of qualifications: He calls himself what the New American Bible translates as a "poor speaker" and the King James Version more literally renders as "of uncircumcised lips." For "uncircumcised," Moses uses the Hebrew word "arel," which at root refers to something loose or disordered, particularly a foreskin. Moses' choice of terminology (he says "uncircumcised" twice, and the word doesn't relate to lips anywhere else in the Old Testament) is hard to justify unless he intends to imply that it applies "as above, so below."

[hiveswap]

Whats that part in indiana jones and the holy grail where theyre down in that crypt in venice and the woman hes with asks what something is and hes like "that's the ark of the covenant" and even says that hes sure of it. Then just like keeps walking

[genesisgrey]

Halo: Season 3

Not that I don't have like 40 half-finished Halo fics on my computer... but let's have some fun with fantasy Halo Season 3 brainstorming, shall we? These are just some notes I made for myself today.

Stuff That Needs to be Addressed:

Kai - Alive? (Okay, if Halo Infinite expects me to buy Master Chief was space debris for six months, not to mention an unprotected slip-space jump, with no side-effects and can just boot up with no muscle atrophy or anything, Kai can absolutely be fine.)

Makee - What is her purpose on the Halo? (In relation to the game storyline, what does she add? What opportunities does she create?)

Talia Perez - Follow Chief to the Halo? Try to regroup Spartan IIIs? Hook up with Ackerson/Kwan group?

Ackerson - What now?

Soren and son (Cassius? No, Kessler?) - What now? (Obviously recovering from the loss of Laera, but what is their quest? Maybe she can be saved? Not likely.)

Miranda - Escape? Hold up with the Flood while science-ing it? (Gravemind avatar?)

Halsey - Are we going to find a cure for Flood infection? Or is she a future carrier when someone pulls her from cryo?

Riz - Come back if her fellow Spartans need her? (Probably not, but maybe? What if her new home is threatened? Her and Vannak's armor is still on the planet.)

Kwan - What does she do now? Does she go to the Halo? Does she seek the Ark? What is helping her along? (Librarian?)

Sparks - Having two Reclaimers with opposite purposes. What is Sparks purpose? (Seemed like a more composed version of Sparks we saw in the last episode. Also, if the Flood outbreak started somewhere other than the Halo, it wouldn't know yet to want to fire Halo?)

Cortana - Definitely getting stuck in the Halo system and separated from Master Chief like the game. (Maybe can be the connection for Makee and Master Chief's storylines?)

Covenant - Survivors of the battle, also going for the Halo? (High Charity is still in play, I believe.)

UNSC/ONI - Do we have a marines dropping to Halo? Possibilities of bringing in Lord Hood and Serin Osman to regroup these factions.

Stuff I had questions about that was probably not going to be addressed even if the show got a Season 3:

How augmented were the Spartan IIIs? Kind of felt like they were portrayed as ODST with better armor rather than augmented.

Why were there child soldiers being trained if Ackerson already had his Spartan IIIs? Parangosky? (Definitely spelling that wrong.) Did he know? I feel this variant Ackerson wouldn't have used kids if he thought he was getting the results he wanted out of adult candidates. Or maybe Spartan IIIs were a publicity stunt, since the show really played up the propaganda around Master Chief's image, and the kids Kessler was grouped with were the real program? (Flipping purpose of Spartan III and IV projects?) Also, where are they now?

Is Violetta Franco from season one still around? I honestly can't recall if she died or not.

Feels like with how Reach went down in the series there had to be Spartan IIs deployed elsewhere to still be around. (I feel like Kai was very much Kurt in season 2. Cut off from all the other Spartans to train new Spartans, and given bad/misleading information about her job and who was still alive.)

And what is Chief's plan?!!?

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous ask: What do you think of the new Indiana Jones movie? And of Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

In a nutshell: From start to finish ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ is watching Indiana Jones being a broken-down shell of a once great legacy character who has to be saved by the perfect younger and snarky but stereotypical ’Strong Independent Woman’ that passes for women characters in popcorn movies today.

I went in to this film with conflicted feelings. On the one hand I was genuinely excited to see this new Indiana Jones movie because it’s Indiana Jones. Period. Yet, on the other hand I feared how badly Lucasfilm, under Kathleen Kennedy’s insipid woke inspired CEO studio direction, was going to further tarnish not just a screen legend but the legacy of both George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. The cultural damage she has done to such a beloved franchise as the Star Wars universe in the name of progressive woke ideology is criminal. The troubled production history behind this film and its massive $300 million budget (by some estimates) meant Disney had a lot riding on it, especially with the future of Kathleen Kennedy on the line too as she was hands on with this film.

To me the Indiana Jones movies (well, the first three anyway, the less we say about ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ the better) were an important part of my childhood. I fell in love with the character instantly. Watching ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ (first on DVD in my boarding school dorm with other giggly girls and later on the big screen at a local arts cinema retrospective on Harrison Ford’s stellar career) just blew me away. 

As a girl I wanted to be an archaeologist and have high falutin’ adventures; I even volunteered in digs in Pakistan and India (the Indus civilisation) as well as museum work in China as a teen growing up in those countries and discovering the methodical and patient but back breaking reality of what archaeology really was. But that didn’t dampen my spirit. Just once I wanted to echo Dr. Jones, ‘This belongs in a museum!’ But I happily settled for studying Classics instead and enjoyed studying classical archaeology on the side.

I couldn’t quite make sense why Indiana Jones resonated with me more than any other action hero on the screen until much later in life. Looking like Harrison Ford certainly helps. But it’s more than that. I’ve written this elsewhere but it’s worth repeating here.

‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ is considered an inspiration for so many action films yet there’s a very odd aspect to the film that’s rather unique and rarely noticed by its critics and fans. It’s an element that, once spotted, is difficult to forget, and is perhaps inspiring for times like the one in which we currently live, when there are so many challenges to get through. Typically in action films, the hero faces an array of obstacles and setbacks, but largely solves one problem after another, completes one quest after another, defeats one villain after another, and enjoys one victory after another.

The structure of ‘Raiders’ is different. A quick reminder:

- In the opening sequence, Indiana Jones obtains the temple idol only to lose it to his rival René Belloq (Paul Freeman). - In the streets of Cairo, Indy fails to protect his love, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), from being captured (killed, he assumes). - In the desert, he finds the long-lost Ark of the Covenant, only to have it taken away by Belloq. - Indy then recovers the ark only to have it stolen a second time by Belloq, this time at sea. - On an island, Indy tries to bluff Belloq into thinking he’ll blow up the ark. His bluff fails. Indy is captured. - The climax of the film literally has its hero tied to a post the entire time. He’s completely ineffectual and helpless at a point in the movie where every other action hero is having their greatest moment of struggle and, typically, triumph.

If Indiana Jones had done absolutely nothing, if the famed archeologist had simply stayed home, the Nazis would have met the same fate - losing their lives to ark’s wrath because they opened it. It’s pretty rare in action films for the evil arch-villains to have the same outcome as if the hero had done nothing at all.

Indy does succeed in getting the ark back to America, of course, which is crucial. But then Indy loses the ark, once again, when government agents send it to a warehouse and refuse to let him study the object he chased the whole film. In other words: Indiana Jones spends ‘Raiders’ failing, getting beat up, and losing every artefact that he risks his life to acquire. And yet, Indiana Jones is considered a great hero.

The reason Indiana Jones is a hero isn’t because he wins. It’s because he never stops trying. I think this is the core of Indiana Jones’ character.

Critics will go on about something called agency as in being active or pro-active. But agency can be reactive and still be kinetic to propel the story along. It’s something that has progressively got lost as the series went on. With the latest Indiana Jones film I felt that Indiana Jones character had no agency and ends up being a relatively passive character. Sadly Indiana Jones ends up being a grouchy, broken, and beat up passenger in his own movie.

Released in 1981, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ remains one of the most influential blockbusters of all time. Exciting action, exotic adventure, just the right amount of romance, good-natured humour, cutting-edge special effects: it was all there, perfectly balanced. Since then, attempts have been made to reproduce this winning recipe in different narrative contexts, sometimes successfully (’Temple of Doom’ and ‘the Last Crusade’), usually in vain (’Crystal Skull’).

What are the key ingredients of an Indiana Jones movie? There are only four core elements - leaving aside aspects of story such as the villain or the goal - that you need in place before anything else. They are: the wry, world-weary but sexy masculine performance of Harrison Ford; the story telling genius of George Lucas steeped in the lore of Saturday morning action hero television shows of the 1950s; the deft visual story telling and old school action direction of Steven Spielberg; and the sublime and sweeping music of the great John Williams. This what made the first three films really work.

In the latest Indiana Jones film, you only have one. Neither Lucas and Spielberg are there and arguably neither is Harrison Ford. John Williams’ music score remains imperious as ever. His music does a lot of heavy lifting in the film and let’s face it, his sublime music can polish any turd.

This isn’t to say the ‘Dial of Destiny’ is a turd. I won’t go that far, and to be honest some of the critical reaction has been over-hysterical. Instead I found it enjoyable but also immensely frustrating more than anything else. It had potential to be a great swan song film for Indy because it had an exciting collection of talent behind it.

In the absence of Spielberg, one couldn’t do worse than to pick James Mangold as next best to direct this film. Mangold is a great director. I am a fan of his body of work. After ‘Copland’, ‘Walk the Line’, ‘Logan’ and ‘Le Mans 66’ (or ‘Ford vs Ferrari’), James Mangold has been putting together a fine career shaped by his ability to deliver stories that rediscover a certain old-fashioned charm without abusing the historical figures - real or fictional - he tackles. And after Johnny Cash, Wolverine and Ken Miles, among others, I had high hopes he would keep the flame alive when it came to Indiana Jones. Mangold grew up as a fanboy of Spielberg’s work and you can clearly see that in his approach to directing film.

But in this film his direction lacks vitality. Mangold, while regularly really good, drags his feet a little here because he’s caught between putting his own stamp on the film and yet also lovingly pay homage to his hero, Spielberg. It’s as if he didn't dare give himself away completely, the director seems too modest to really take the saga by the scruff of the neck, and inevitably ends up suffering from the inevitable comparison with Steven Spielberg.

Mangold tries to recreate the nostalgic wonder of the originals, but doesn't quite succeed, while succumbing to an overkill of visual effects that make several passages seem artificial. The action set pieces range from pedestrian to barely satisfying. The prologue sequence was vaguely reminiscent of past films but it was still a little too reliant on CGI. The much talked about de-ageing of Harrison Ford on screen was impressive (and one suspects a lot of the film budget was sunk right there). But Indiana’s lifeless digitally de-aged avatar fighting on a computer-generated train, made the whole sequence feel like the Nazi Polar Express. Because it didn’t look real, there was no sense of danger and therefore no emotional investment from the audience. You know Tom Cruise would have done it for real and it would have looked properly cinematic and spectacular.

The tuk tuk chase through the narrow streets of Tangiers was again an exciting echo of past films, especially ‘Raiders’, but goes on a tad too long, but the exploration of the ship wreck (and a criminally underused cameo by Antonio Banderas) was disappointing and way too short. 

The main problem here is the lack of creativity in the conception of truly epic scenes, because these are not dependent on Ford's age. Indeed, the film could very well have offered exhilarating action sequences worthy of the archaeologist with the whip, without relying solely on the physicality of its leading man. You don't need a Tom Cruise to orchestrate great moments but you could do worse than to follow his example. 

Mangold uses various means of locomotion to move the character  - train, tuk tuk, motorbike, horse - and offers a few images that wouldn't necessarily be seen elsewhere (notably the shot of Jones riding a horse in the middle of the underground), but in the end shows himself to be rather uninspired, when the first three films in the saga conceived some of the most inventive sequences in the genre and left their mark on cinema history. There are no really long shots, no iconic compositions, no complex shots that last and enrich a sequence, which makes the film look too smooth and prevents it from giving heft to an adventure that absolutely needs it.

And so now to the divisive figure of Phoebe Waller-Bridge. 

It’s important here to separate the person from the character. I like Phoebe Waller-Bridge and I loved her in her ‘Fleabag’ series. She excels in a very British setting. I think she is funny, irreverent, and a whip smart talented writer and performer. I also think she has a particular frigid English beauty and poise about her. When I say poise I don’t mean the elegant poise of a Parisienne or a Milanese woman, but someone who is cute and comfortable in her own skin. You would think she would be more suited to ‘Downton Abbey’ setting than all out Hollywood action film. But I think she almost pulls it off here. 

In truth over the years Phoebe Waller-Bridge, known for her comedy, has been collecting franchises where she is able to inflict her saucy humour into a hyper-masculine space. I don’t think her talent was properly showcased here. 

Hollywood has this talent for plucking talented writers and actors who are exceptional in what they do and then hire them do something entirely different by either miscasting them or making them write in a different genre. I think Phoebe Waller-Bridge is exceptional and she might just rise if she is served by a better script.

In the end I think she does a decent stab at playing an intriguing character in Helena Shaw, Indy’s long lost and estranged god daughter and a sort of amoral rare artefacts hustler. Phoebe Waller-Bridge brings enthusiasm, charm and mischief to the role, making her a breath of fresh air. She seems to be the only member of the on-screen cast that looks to be enjoying themselves. 

To be fair her I thought Waller-Bridge was a more memorable and interesting female character than either Kate Capshaw (’Temple of Doom’, 1984) and Alison Doody (’Last Crusade’, 1989). She certainly is a marked improvement on the modern woke inspired insipid female action leads such as Brie Larson (’Captain Marvel’), or any women in the Marvel universe for that matter, or Katherine Waterson (’Alien Covenant’). Waller-Bridge could have been reminiscent of Kathleen Turner (’Romancing the Stone’) and more recently Eva Green, actresses who command attention on screen and are as captivating, if not more so, than the male protagonists they play opposite.

To be sure there have been strong female leads before the woke infested itself into Hollywood story telling but they never made it central to their identity. Sigourney Weaver in ‘Alien’ and Linda Hamilton in the ‘Terminator’ franchise somehow conveyed strength of character with grit and perseverance through their suffering, while also being vulnerable and confident to pull through and succeed. Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character isn’t quite that. She doesn’t get into fist fights or overpowers big hulking men but she uses cheek and charm to wriggle out of tight spots. She’s gently bad ass rather the dull ‘strong independent woman’ cardboard caricatures that Marvel is determined to ram down every girl’s throat. If Waller-Bridge’s character was better written she might well have been able to revive memories of the great ladies of Hollywood's golden age who had the fantasy and the confidence that men quaked at their feet.

What lets her character down is the snark. She doesn’t pepper her snark but she drowns in it. All of it directed at poor Indy and mocking him for his creaking bones and his entire legacy. It’s a real eyesore and it is a real let down as it drags the story down and clogs up the wheels that power the kinetic energy that an adventure with Indiana Jones needs. ‘The grumpy old man and the young woman with the wicked repartee set off across the vast world’ schtick is all well and good, but it does grate and by the end it makes you angry that Indy has put up with this crap. I can understand why many are turned off by Waller-Bridge’s character. As a female friend of mine put it, we get the talented Phoebe Waller Bridge’s bitter and unlikable Helena acting like a bitter and unlikable man. But it could be worse, it could be as dumb as Shia LaBeouf‘s bad Fonzie impersonation in 'Crystal Skull’.

I would say there is a difference between snark and sass. Waller-Bridge’s character is all snark. If the original whispers are true the original script had her way more snarkier towards Indy until Ford threatened to leave the project unless there were re-writes,  then it shows how far removed the producers and writers were from treating Indy Jones with the proper respect a beloved legacy character deserves. It’s also lazy story telling.

Karen Black gave us real sass with Marion Ravenwood in ‘Raiders’. Her character was sassy, strong, but also vulnerable and romantic. She plays it pitch perfect. Of all the women in Indy’s life she was good foil for Indy.

Spielberg is so underrated for his mise-en-scène. We first meet Marion running a ramshackle but rowdy tavern in Tibet (she’s a survivor). She plays and wins a drinking game (she’s a tough one), she sees Indy again and punches him (she’s angry and hurt for her abandoning her and thus revealing her vulnerability). She has the medallion and becomes a partner (she’s all business). She evades and fights off the Nazis and their goons, she even uses a frying pan (she’s resourceful but not stupid). She tries on dresses (she’s re-discovers her femininity). Indy saves her but she picks him up at the end of the film by going for a drink (she’s healing and there’s a chance of a new start for both of them). This is a character arc worth investing in because it speaks to truth and to our reality.

The problem with Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character is that she is constantly full on with the snark. Indy and Helena gripe and moan at each other the entire film. Indy hasn’t seen her in years, and she felt abandoned after her father passed, so there’s a lot of bitterness. It’s not unwarranted, but it also isn’t entertaining. It’s never entertaining if the snark makes the character too temperamental and unsympathetic for the audience to be emotionally invested in her.

I think overall the film is let down by the script. Again this is a shame. The writing talent was there. Jez and John-Henry Butterworth worked with James Mangold on ‘Ford v. Ferrari’ and co-wrote ‘Edge of Tomorrow‘ while David Koepp co-wrote the first ‘Mission: Impossible’ (but he also penned Indiana Jones and the ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’, and the 2017 version of ‘The Mummy’ that simultaneously started and destroyed Universal’s plans for their Dark Universe). I love the work of Jez Butterworth who is one of England’s finest modern playwrights and he seemed to have transitioned fine over to Hollywood. But as anyone knows a Hollywood script has always too many cooks in the kitchen. There are so many fingerprints of other people - studio execs and directors and even stars - that a modern Hollywood script somehow resembles a sort of Ship of Theseus. It’s the writer’s name on the script but it doesn’t always mean they wrote or re-wrote every word.

Inevitably things fall between the cracks and you end up filming from the hip and hoping you can stitch together a coherent narrative in post-production editing. Clearly this film suffered from studio interference and many re-writes. And it shows because there is no narrative fluidity at work in the film.

Mads Mikkelsen’s Nazi scientist is a case in point. I love Mikkelsen especially in his arthouse films but I understand why he takes the bucks for the Hollywood films too. But in this film he is phoning in his performance. Mads Mikkelsen does what he can with limited screen time to make an impact but this character feels so recycled from other blockbusters. Here the CIA and US Government are evil and willing to let innocent Americans be murdered in order to let their pet Nazi rocket scientist pursue what they believe to be a hobby. But to be fair the villains in the Indy movies have never truly been memorable with perhaps Belloq, the French archaeologist and nemesis of Indy in ‘Raiders’, the only real exception. It’s just been generic bad guys - The Nazis! The Thugee death cult! The Nazis (again)! The Commies! Now we’re back to Nazis again which is not only safer ground for the Indy franchise but something we can all get behind.

However Mads Mikkelsen’s Dr. Voller, is the blandest and most generic Nazi villain in movie history. At the end of World War II, Voller was recruited by the US Government to aid them in rocket technology. Now that he’s completed his task and man has walked on the moon, he’s turning his genius to his ultimate purpose, the recovery of the ‘Dial of Destiny’ built by Archimedes. Should he find both pieces of the ancient treasure, he plans to return to 1930s Nazi Germany, usurp Hitler, and use his advanced knowledge of rocket propulsion to win the war. In a sense then he was channeling his inner Heidegger who felt Hitler had let down Nazism and worse betrayed Heidegger himself.

So there is a character juxtaposition between Voller and Indy in the sense both men feel more comfortable in the past than the present. But neither is given face time together to explore this intriguing premise that could have anchored the whole narrative of the film. It’s a missed opportunity and instead becomes a failure of character and story telling.

Then there are the one liners which seemed shoe horned in to make the studio execs or the writers feel smug about themselves. There are several woke one lines peppered throughout the film but are either tone deaf or just stupid.

“You trigger happy cracker”-  it’s uttered without any self-awareness by a black CIA agent who is chaperoning the Nazi villain. Just because white people think it’s dumb and aren’t bothered by it doesn’t make it any less a racial slur. If you want authenticity then why not use the ’N’ word then as it would historically appropriate in 1969? The hypocrisy is what’s offensive.

“You stole it. He stole it. I stole it. It’s called capitalism.” - capitalism 101 for economic illiterate social justice warriors.

“[I’m] daring, beautiful, and self-sufficient” - uttered by Helena Shaw as a snarky reminder that she’s a strong independent woman, just in case you forgot.

“It’s not what you believe but how hard you believe.” - Indiana Jones has literally stood before the awesome power of God when the Ark of the Covenant was opened up by the Nazis, and they paid the price for it by having their faces melted off. Indy has drunk from the authentic cup of Christ, given to him by a knight who’s lived for centuries, that gave him eternal life and heal his father from a fatal bullet wound. So he’s figuratively seen the face of God (sure, he closed his eyes) and His holy wrath, and has witnessed the divine healing power of Christ first hand. And yet his spews out this drivel. It’s empty of any meaning and is a silly nod to our current fad that it’s all about the truth of our feelings, not observable facts or truth.

For me though the absolute worse was what they did to Indiana Jones as a character. Once the pinnacle of masculinity, a brave and daring man’s man whose zest for life was only matched by his brilliance, Henry Jones Jr. is now a broken, sad, and lonely old man. Indiana Jones is mired in the past. Not in the archaeological past, but in his own personal past. He's asleep at the wheel, losing interest in his own life. He's lost his son, he's losing his wife. He's been trying to pass on his passion, his understanding to disinterested people. They're not so interested in looking at the past. He remains a man turned towards the past, and then he finds himself confronted by Helena, who embodies the future. This nostalgia, this historical anchoring, becomes the main thread of the story.The film tries to deconstructs Indiana Jones on the cusp of retirement from academia and confronts him with a world he no longer understands. That’s an interesting premise and could have made for a great film.

It’s clear that the filmmakers’ intention was for a lost and broken Indiana to recapture his spirit by the film’s end. However, its horrible pacing and meandering and underdeveloped plot, along with Harrison Ford’s miserably sad demeanour in nearly every scene, make for a deeply depressing movie with an empty and unearned resolution. 

By this I mean at the very end of the film. It’s meant to be daring and it is. There’s something giddy about appearing during the middle of siege of Syracuse by blood thirsty Romans and then coming face to face with Archimedes himself. The film seems to want to justify the legendary, exceptional aura and character of Indy himself by including him in History. Hitherto wounded deep down inside, and now also physically wounded, Indy the archaeologist tells Helena that he wants to stay here and be part of history. 

It's a lovely and even moving moment, and you wonder if the film isn't going to pull a ‘Dying Can Wait’ by having its hero die in order to strengthen its legend. But in a moment that is too brutal from a rhythmic point of view, Helena refuses, knocks out her godfather and takes him back to the waiting plane and back to 1969. The next thing Indy sees he’s woken up back in his shabby apartment in New York.

I felt cheated. I’m sure Indy did too.

After all it was his choice. But Helena robbed him of the freedom to make his own decisions. She’s the one to decide what’s best. In effect she robbed him of agency. Even if it was the wrong decision to stay back in time, it’s so important from a narrative and character arc perspective that Indy should have had his own epiphany and make the choice to come back by himself because there is something worth living for in the future present - and that was reconciling with Marion his estranged wife. But damn it, he had to come to that decision for himself, and not have someone else force it upon him. That’s why the ending feelings so unearned and why the story falls flat as a soufflé when you piss on it.

‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ feels like the type of sequel that aimed to capture the magic of its predecessors, had worthwhile intentions, and a talented cast, but it just never properly materialised. In a movie whose pedigree, both in front and behind the camera, is virtually unassailable, it’s inexcusable that this team of filmmakers couldn’t achieve greater heights. 

The film was a missed opportunity to give a proper send off to a cinematic legend. Harrison Ford proving that whatever gruff genre appeal he possessed in his heyday has aged better than Indy’s knees. He may be 80, but Ford carries the weight of the film, which, for all its gargantuan expense, feels a bit like those throwaway serials that first inspired Lucas - fun while it lasts, but wholly forgettable on exit.

I wouldn’t rate ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ as the worst film in the franchise - that dubious honour still lies with ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’.  Indeed the best I can say is that I would rate this film at the benchmark of “not quite as bad as Crystal Skull”.But it’s definitely time to retire and hang up the fedora and the bull whip.

For what’s worth I always thought the ending of ‘Last Crusade’ where Indy, his father Henry Jones Snr., and his two most faithful companions, Sallah and Marcus Brody, ride off into the sunset was the most fitting way to say goodbye to a beloved character.

Instead we have in ‘Dial of Destiny’ the very last scene which is meant to be this perfect ending: Indiana Jones in his scruffy pyjamas and his shabby apartment. Sure, the exchange between a reconciling Indy and Marion is sincere and touching. But that only works because it explicitly recalls ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. That's what Nietzsche would call “an eternal return”.

I shall eternally return to watch the first three movies to delight in the adventures of the swashbuckling archaeologist with the fedora and a bull whip. The last two dire films will be thrown into the black abyss. Something even Nietzsche would have approved of.

Thanks for your question.

[dandelionh3art]

The Ethiopian Bible is the oldest, original and most complete bible on earth. Written in Ge’ez an ancient language of Ethiopia, it’s nearly 800 years older than the King James Version and contains 81-88 books compared to 66.

Written on goat skin in the early Ethiopian language of Ge’ez. It is also World’s first illustrated Christian Bible. It includes the Book of EN0CH, Esdras, Buruch and all 3 Books of MACCABEE, and a host of others that was excommunicated from the KJV.

The Ethiopian bible dating analysis dated Garima 2 to be written around 390-570, and Garima 1 from 530-660. During the Italian invasion fire was set in the monastery in the 1930s to destroy the monastery’s church nevertheless the Bible survive.

The original Christianity of Egypt was established by the apostle Mark in AD 42 in Ethiopia (Coptic Church--Coptic Orthodox Christianity) where it spread to Europe and some part of Asia. Today We have been told Christianity came from Rome.

The Catholic Church begin with the teachings of Yeshua (Yehōshu'a) who lived in the 1st century CE in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile by AD 313, the Roman Empire Catholic Church faced persecution and christianity was not openly practice, the Coptic Orthodox Christianity was flourishing in the Aksumite Empire now in Ethiopia.

Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion Axum Ethiopia, houses the Ark of the Covenant, bears a design similar to that of Eastern Orthodox churches in Europe. Its most recent building, reconstructed in the 1950s, has a dome similar to the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. It is heavily guarded.

Lalibela is a holy town most famous for its churches carved from the living rock, which play an important part in the history of rock-cut architecture. Its buildings, built in the 11th and 12th centuries, are considered symbolic representations of biblical Jerusalem.

For early Christians, the risk of persecution from the Romans sometimes ran high, forcing them to practice their beliefs in private, posing a challenge for those scholars who study this era.

The King James Version Bible New Testament which is said to be translated from Greek, and the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin, All were originally translated from the Ethiopian bible. original Greek Bible was written around AD 1500.

It is also known that Ancient Afrikans of Old Egypt (Kemet) studied this bible in their temple which was known as the "The Book of the Coming Forth by Day and Night". The original Bible was produced by Black Afrikans approximately 3,400 years.

Before the Old Testament and more than 4,200 years before the New Testament, and countless versions of it have been written and published. Different scholars also translated the bible to their local languages during their studies in Kemet.

Your comments on this

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Ark of the Covenant

1 Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. 2 He overlaid it with pure gold, inside and outside, and made a gold molding around it. 3 He cast four rings for it on its four feet, two rings on one side of it and two rings on its other side. 4 He made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. 5 He put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it.

6 He made a Mercy Seat of pure gold two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide. 7 He made two cherubim of gold; he made them of hammered work at the two ends of the Mercy Seat. 8 One cherub was at one end and one cherub at the other end. He made the cherubim at the two ends of the Mercy Seat and of one piece with it. 9 The cherubim had their wings spread upward, covering the Mercy Seat with their wings and facing each other. The faces of the cherubim were turned toward the Mercy Seat.

The Table of Showbread

10 Then he made a table of acacia wood two cubits long, one cubit wide, and one and a half cubits high. 11 He overlaid it with pure gold and put a gold molding around it. 12 He made a rim one handbreadth wide around it, and made a gold molding around the rim. 13 He cast four gold rings for it and put the rings on the four corners where its four feet were. 14 The rings were close to the rim as holders for the poles to carry the table. 15 He made the poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold to carry the table. 16 He made the utensils which were on the table, its plates, dishes, bowls, and jars out of which libations are poured. He made them of pure gold.

The Lamp Stand

17 He made the lamp stand of pure gold. He made the lamp stand, its base, and stem of hammered work and its cups, calyxes, and flowers were of one piece with it. 18 Six branches extended from its sides, three branches of the lamp stand from one side of it, and three branches of the lamp stand from its other side. 19 Three cups shaped like almond blossoms with calyxes and flowers were on one branch and three cups shaped like almond blossoms with calyxes and flowers were on the other branch, and so on for the six branches extending from the lamp stand. 20 On the lamp stand itself there were four cups shaped like almond blossoms each with their calyxes and flowers. 21 A calyx was under the two branches that extended out of the stem; a calyx was under the next pair of branches that extended out of the stem; and a calyx was under the last pair of branches that extended out of the stem, and so on for the six branches extending from the lamp stand. 22 Their calyxes and their branches were of one piece with it, all of it was of one piece of hammered work of pure gold. 23 He made its seven lamps, its tongs, and its trays from pure gold. 24 He made it and all of its furnishings from a talent of pure gold.

The Altar for Incense

25 He made the altar for burning incense of acacia wood, a square, one cubit long, one cubit wide, and two cubits high, with its horns of one piece with it. 26 He overlaid it with pure gold—its top, its sides all around, and its horns—and he made a gold molding around it. 27 He made two gold rings for it under its molding, on its two opposite sides, as holders for poles by which to carry it. 28 He made the poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. 29 And he made the holy anointing oil and the pure aromatic incense, the work of a perfumer. — Exodus 37 | International Standard Version (ISV) The Holy Bible: International Standard Version® Copyright © 1996-2012 The ISV Foundation. All rights reserved internationally. Cross References: Exodus 25:5; Exodus 25:10-11; Exodus 25:17; Exodus 25:27; Exodus 25:31-32; Exodus 25:33-34; Exodus 25:35-36; Exodus 30:1; Exodus 30:23; Exodus 30:25; Exodus 31:7-8; Exodus 37:10; 1 Kings 6:23; 1 Kings 6:27; 1 Kings 8:8; Hebrews 9:4; Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 1:12; Revelation 1:20

Exodus 37 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (concise)

Key Passages in Exodus 37

1. The ark and mercy seat with cherubim made 10. The table of showbread with its vessels 17. The candlestick with its lamps and instruments 25. The altar of incense 29. The anointing oil and sweet incense

[helix-enterprises117]

Trying Something New

Okay, I didn't wanna resort to asking Cortana (my ChatGPT's name) for any prompts cuz I wanted ACTUAL human discussion this, but I caved and I asked her to give me 20 generic sci-fi plots. I only asked Cortana 'cuz my last post asking for prompts, concepts and ideas flopped😓. Here's what she gave me; note, I cut some out to just the ones I liked.

Nebula Storm: Master Chief enters a nebula that disrupts electronic equipment, forcing him to rely on primitive weapons and tactics against an alien race that thrives in the electromagnetic chaos.

Echoes of Valhalla: An experimental weapon tears a hole in space-time, trapping Master Chief in a parallel universe where the Covenant won the war. He must find his way back and prevent this reality from bleeding into his own.

Orbital Decay: A city-sized space station is falling into a planet's atmosphere, and Master Chief must rescue the civilian population before it's too late, facing both mechanical failures and insurgent attacks.

The Siren Moon: An SOS signal from a long-lost UNSC ship leads Master Chief to a moon where sound can manipulate reality. Exploring this phenomenon might hold the key to new sonic weapons for the UNSC.

Frozen Tomb: Discovering an ancient alien race frozen in ice on a remote planet, Master Chief awakens them and must deal with their ancient grudges and advanced technology.

The Garden of Eden: A planet that supposedly cures all diseases is found. As factions fight over control of this world, Master Chief must protect its secrets and the indigenous life from exploitation.

Starforge: The race to find a legendary Forerunner facility capable of creating stars and planets pits Master Chief against a rogue faction of ONI who wants to use it for weaponizing celestial bodies.

The Ark of Life: Master Chief is tasked with recovering a lost ship carrying thousands of species from extinct planets. Pirates and alien traffickers also want the ship for the priceless DNA aboard.

What are y'alls favorites? Do you guys have any to add or discuss?

[submalevolentgrace]

xena warrior princess is a great show i do wish there was more of, but honestly it's probably best that it ended when it did. if it had dragged on for more seasons, the writers probably would've gotten desperate and started doing really dumb stuff outside of greek and roman mythology…

xena has to save the ark of the covenant! gabrielle gives birth to satan! xena gets kung fu qi powers from a chinese empress! xena pulls excalibur from the stone surrounded by knights of the round table! ares tries to pit xena against the nazis!

like imagine how goofy it would be if the show had lasted long enough for an episode where xena and gabrielle have to teach santa claus the true meaning of christmas by using home alone trap shenanigans to defeat ebenezer scrooge's thugs… no way it would be remembered as a beloved classic of lesbian television if they'd done dumb shit like that.

[bookshelf-in-progress]

The Inklings Challenge Stories I Didn't Write

The Lake Queen: When my time travel story wasn't coming together, I brainstormed a secondary world story about a woman returning to the place where, centuries ago, a great kingdom was flooded. Her son was the rightful king of this land, and she'd been called to return to one of the islands in this area and rebuild some type of chapel/temple. The central part of this temple was some kind of Ark of the Covenant type artifact that was lost in the underwater city. Only the rightful king could touch this artifact without dying, so after several years of building a home and chapel on this island, she had find enough faith to send her child on this extremely dangerous quest alone. It was very Abraham and Joseph, but there was also a huge component of this woman developing relationships with the locals on the island, who distrusted these outsiders, but eventually came to trust her as she taught them about the old history and culture and religion. It felt, unintentionally, so much like The Wild Robot that I hesitated to write it. Anyway, the time travel story did come together, and since this idea was much more of a novella than a short story, I gave up on the idea of writing it for the Challenge.

The Mermaid Story: Reading one of the Epistles got me thinking about apostolic evangelization, and this story unfolded very quickly in my imagination. It centers around a mermaid who's the highest-ranking wife of a powerful lord within an extremely wealthy sea-dwelling culture. She goes to the underwater dungeons to visit a human prisoner--to ask him how he can possibly still be alive. He was trying to preach to the merfolk and angered them so much that they tried to drown him, but he finds himself miraculously able to breathe underwater. The man insists he's not alive by his own power, which leads to him telling the mermaid about his message of salvation. The mermaid is extremely educated in science and philosophy and can't resist engaging with these new ideas, that seem both wise and foolish. Anyway, she starts to befriend this guy as her husband keeps trying to torture/kill him, and this starts to endanger her political position (especially since her husband has an ambitious young new wife), until she finally has to decide to give up everything to help this human in his mission. This is another story that probably needed to be a novella. I considered writing it as a short story, but in that case the religious element probably would have come across as way too preachy, so I had to let it fall to the side.

The Lady Knights: A few pictures I saw during my September brainstorming process made me develop a world where lady knights ride on giant insects as they protect the realm. I would have loved to write a short story about this concept--any one of the themes could have provided inspiration--but I just couldn't come up with a plot. I think it would have worked best as a portal fantasy, anyway, with a timid young girl learning courage from these women.

The Reading Room: A time travel short story about a guy who has access to a library that, at a certain time in the evening, brings together people from across different points in time. It would have had a kind of ghostly but cozy vibe, and would have been about the C.S. Lewis concept of escaping the biases of your own time period by reading books of the past (and the future, if we could get them). I didn't have enough of a plot to write a story with the concept (aside from a vague idea that a very "modern" person could meet the MC and get book recommendations from the future that challenge their biases). I could have maybe gone for an atmospheric flash fiction sketch, and maybe I still could, if I could find the right angle.

Shadowstruck: When I was trying to think up secondary world ideas to replace my faltering time travel story, I got intense inspiration for a few scenes in Shadowstruck that came to me so vividly I felt like I had to write them. I did write a scene, thinking that maybe I could pull together a couple of scenes that could work decently enough as a standalone short, but it took more time than expected and needs some more development, so I decided to wait to give this story the time and space that it needs to develop into the fully fleshed-out version. But I still love this story idea and the inspiration keeps coming, so it's definitely going to be my main focus for a while.