#Post-constantinian

[palestinegenocide]

Losing the Prophetic

Marc H. Ellis

This week Jewish theologian Marc H. Ellis died at the age of 71 following an extended illness. Marc’s work strived to define a Jewish theology of liberation. His writing and speaking over several decades influenced a countless number of people all over the world, myself included.

We were very lucky to have Marc as a writer at Mondoweiss for several years where he wrote a column called Exile and the Prophetic. That name speaks to a great theme of Marc’s work: the battle between Empire and the prophetic within contemporary Jewish life.

For Marc, the prophetic, or the challenge to power, was the true meaning of Judaism. This is a topic he and I would debate. His belief in a Jewish particularity versus my admittedly secular belief in the universality of the call to justice (which in truth he would never deny). And yet, he would insist that it was this prophetic imperative that Jews are uniquely called to wrestle with, especially in the present age with the advent and domination of Zionism. In his first column for us he wrote, “The prophetic is our indigenous. It is exploding right before our eyes.” This is the story he told through the decades of his work.

To Marc, the true core of Judaism was being sacrificed at the altar of Zionism, or as he often called it Constantinian Judaism, the toxic marriage of religion with state power. If you ever saw him speak or read his writing you are likely familiar with the vision he would recount of imagining an Apache helicopter gunship flying out of a Torah ark during a sabbath service. As you can imagine his work is more relevant today than ever.

There is one article of his that we published more than 10 years ago that I’ve thought about often over the last 8 months of the Gaza genocide. In that article, titled “Burning Children,” Marc returned to one of the great themes of his work – how American Jewish life and theology has been shaped by the experience of the Nazi Holocaust and the challenge that Jewish oppression in Palestine presents to this worldview. In the article he references Rabbi Irving Greenberg who helped shape post-Holocaust Jewish theology in the U.S. and writes:

It was in a 1974 essay that Rabbi Greenberg first wrote about the burning children of the Holocaust as a challenge for the Jewish future. I have quoted this passage often: “After the Holocaust, no statement, theological or otherwise, should be made that is not credible in the presence of the burning children.” Rabbi Greenberg’s invocation of burning children came to life in a different way for me when I visited Palestinian hospitals during the first Palestinian Uprising in 1988 and 1989. There I saw Palestinians of all ages but mostly teenagers who had been shot by Israel’s “rubber” bullets. Some were struggling for life. Others were already brain dead. I visited with the parents and siblings of the injured. Above the beds were martyr photos of the children framed by kefiyas. After I left the hospitals, I wrote a poem about my experience. I used Rabbi Greenberg’s haunting word about burning children to express my experience in the hospitals. In the poem I asked if these Palestinian children weren’t, like the children of the Holocaust, burning too. I felt the Palestinian children I saw were in many ways “our” children. We share a common humanity as starters but for Jews I knew that their “burning” was our responsibility. Though unintended by Rabbi Greenberg, his Holocaust statement has broadened to include Palestinians who are “burning,” this time at the hands of Jews. What theological statement can we make about God that makes sense to the burning children of the Holocaust – and Palestine?”

And he ended the article, written in 2014:

Chastened by history, indeed, Jews are – by the Holocaust and now by Palestine. For in Gaza right now children are burning everywhere.

I thought about Marc often this past week as we published, and imagined the discussions we would have had. How can one not mourn and rage at the unimaginable crime of burning children after reading Reem Hamadaqa’s devastating recounting of the Israeli attack that killed 14 members of her family, or in the essential reporting Tareq Hajjaj shared from the massacre in Nuseirat refugee camp. In that report, 11-year old Tawfiq Abu Youssef told Mondoweiss, “I stayed under the rubble for hours. I did not think for a moment that I might survive and see life again. I had lived through death enough while I was under the rubble. That was death.” I imagine Marc would summon these stories to demonstrate the fight against empire remains central which is why the repression we face, even in the U.S. continues to deepen.

He would also be the first to point out that the prophetic, even if weakened, refuses to submit. I know he would have responded vigorously to Anna Rajagopal’s searing indictment of the discourse over “Jewish values,” and despite the Jewish community’s overwhelming embrace of “Empire Judaism” he would raise up those charting a different path forward.

One moment I will never forget with Marc was a conversation he and I had years ago, as I was editing one of his articles. He told me, whether we knew it or not, our work at Mondoweiss was documenting the end of Jewish ethical history. I was struck then at the power of the statement and remain so today. As I reflect on Marc’s passing this is not a responsibility I take lightly.

Marc will be missed deeply and yet it has never been more clear that his legacy and work will live on. As Marc would likely say, the prophetic cannot die. In fact, Marc told us as much in his own words, “The Jewish prophetic will survive; it will continue to accompany and haunt those Jews who enable and perpetuate injustice against Palestinians.”

[andiatas]

Due to @charlotte-of-wales posts about Prince Michael of Kent in St. Tropez, I once again fell down the rabbit hole of "wait what exactly is it those two men are arguing about again in regards to the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies?" (I fall down this rabbit hole basically every single time the Duke & Duchess of Castro & their children pop up on my radar, which is more often than I like because unfortunately, they are good at Instagram)

So let's bring it back to 1934, Prince Ferdinand Pius become head of the House & pretender to the throne (since the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies doesn't exist). He had six children and one of them was a son, unfortunately, that son died already in 1914. This means that when Prince Ferdinand Pius died in 1960, we had a succession crisis because he had no male descendants. I'm just gonna quote Wikipedia here:

Ferdinand Pius had seven younger brothers. At the time of Ferdinand Pius's death in 1960, the oldest brother, Carlos was deceased but had left descendants. The next surviving brother was Ranieri (Duke of Castro). By the rule of primogeniture, headship would normally pass through Carlos to his son Alfonso (Duke of Calabria).

Ranieri contested Alfonso's claim arguing that Carlos had renounced any claim to the Two Sicilies succession on the part of himself and his heirs when he executed the Act of Cannes in 1900 in anticipation of his marriage the next year to Mercedes, Princess of Asturias, heiress presumptive to the Spanish throne.

Alfonso offered a different interpretation of the Act of Cannes, describing it as effective only if Carlos should succeed to the Spanish throne. He also took the position that the Act of Cannes was invalid under the succession rules of the House of Two Sicilies itself since these laws provided only one, specific reason for a renunciation and that was in the event of the Spanish and Two Sicilies crowns being united in one person - which has not happened since 1759.

Despite an investigation by five of the highest institutions of the Spanish state having concluded unanimously that the legitimate claimant was the late Carlos, Duke of Calabria, the junior line (the Castrian line) continues to perpetuate its claim

I know, I know, one shouldn't just take what Wikipedia says as truth but they're using this book as a source. Feel free to read it & fact-check me if you want & have the energy to.

Now fast forward to today, we have the two claimants: Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria; and Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro. Prince Pedro has seven children, the oldest being Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto, who you might remember from his wedding to Lady Charlotte in Sep. 2021. Prince Carlo has two daughters, Princess Maria Carolina (apparently she's Duchess of Calabria and Palermo) and Princess Maria Chiara (who apparently is Duchess of Noto and Capri). So as you can see, we don't just have a fight regarding the headship... we also have a fight regarding the Calabria & Noto titles!

This all leads us to the next part of this juicy ridiculous stupid drama. Take it away Wikipedia:

At the Holy Mass in Saint Peter's Basilica celebrated in Rome on 14 May 2016, during a Pilgrimage by members of the Constantinian Order awarded by Prince Carlo to Rome and Vatican City, Prince Carlo made public his decision to change the rules of succession. He claimed that this change was so the rules of succession would be (as he claimed) compatible with international and European law, prohibiting any discrimination between men and women. The rule of absolute primogeniture would henceforth apply to his direct descendants, his elder daughter being named by him as heiress apparent.

Prince Pedro publicly objected that Prince Carlo's declaration violated the terms of their reconciliation agreement, to which Carlo replied that further "destabilisation" could lead to the termination of the 2014 pact. Since the succession rules had been settled in two international treaties, enforced in the Pragmatic Decree of 1759 and incorporated into the laws of the kingdom, it was beyond the powers of any claimant to the headship of the royal house to change the succession. Furthermore, it was in outright breach of the solemn agreement made in Naples in 2014 by which Prince Carlo recognised the late Infante Carlos as "Duke of Calabria", his son Prince Pedro as "Duke of Noto" and the latter's son, Prince Jaime, as "Duke of Capua".

Saga's conclusion: Basically everyone apart from Carlo agrees that Pedro, his ancestors & his son Jaime are the ones who have the right to the defunct throne. Unfortunately, they have a distant relative who can't shut up who has everyone on Instagram convinced, much because of his wife and his daughters, that they are the ones who have the right to the throne. Now, I don't think anyone argues against that Carlo, his wife and his daughter are part of the House, it's just like... Imagine if Edward & Sophie one day just start blasting out on social media & traditional media as well that they are the King & Queen with Lady Louise as the Princess of Wales. I mean, I think all of us would side-eye them & be like "hun, please sit down & stop talking, you are embarrassing yourself"

[callsignbaphomet]

Okay, so I'm gonna try and maybe clear up some questions that short I posted might've created. Hopefully I can cover everything but if not asking is totally fine, I have fun answering Oracle questions.

>>> Here's the short I mentioned <<<

1. What are slayers and knights? What's their issue?

Slayers formed around the late 200s C.E., back then they were small and mostly just pissed off humans who were sick of being fed on by vampires and werewolves. Around the height of the Constantinian dynasty they gained more members only this time it wasn't exactly full of people just mad that non-humans fed on humans. It was christian fanatics taking shit to the extreme. Any non-human wasn't safe around them because as soon as a slayer learned that someone was non-human they'd slaughter them regardless of age, gender, social standing, threat level or any reason really.

Basically they justified their ethnic cleansing (let's be honest, that's what it is) on their religion thinking every non-human was the spawn of the devil or some such shit.

Then around the late 800s they formed into this group calling themselves the Council of the Knights, this was formed and led by exceptional slayers. Those that were better at hunting down non-humans were promoted to knights.

Now, knights and slayers have the same goals but their methods differ. Knights will use SOME arcane artifacts and they are also responsible for the extinction of species such as the original wulver. The modern wulver is a mix of werewolf but specifically Silver Sights force bred with the last remaining wulvers. Knights are the reason there are so few Silver Sights. The breed never fully recovered their numbers after that mess. To be perfectly honest there's also a bit of jealousy that none of them ever will admit to. They also hunt down and kill humans who associate with non-humans claiming that they're tainted in the eyes of their lord or whatever nonsense they wanna use as an excuse.

They're not a great bunch. They recruit ONLY humans and basically among their ranks are some of the worst kind of humans you can think of. Use your imagination.

2. Why were there slayers and knights in Norway?

They're like cockroaches. They're everywhere. Everywhere they hear there's non-humans they go.

Now, the village Loke and Jelani were born in was chuck full of Oracle familiars, Haakon and his father and his father's father had long been aware of Oracle and they helped in anyway possible and had become familiars. They were even approached to join but they preferred to stay as familiars.

*That's how you join Oracle. You're first made a familiar and after a while if Oracle sees potential in you they ask if you wanna join. There ARE exceptions to that rule like Angelus and Uthorim and others who skip the familiar stage and go straight to agents AFTER 2 years of training.

The village had become a sort of safe haven for non-humans and humans of all kinds. So naturally they set their sights on Norway. They didn't know which village was the one they were looking for so naturally they raided every village they could find. From 874 to about 890 it was a bloody time to be in that country but Oracle lent aid and Haakon, Ingvarr, Jørgen, Sanaa, and Loke as well as many others did what they could to drive them off as well as help each other and anyone that was affected. This was how Loke became a familiar.

3. Who was that woman that just suddenly appeared in the camp?

Short answer: slayers and knights hire women as scouts, they use them to sort of map out areas or get information from them. They cannot join but women who have the same mentality pretty much help out in other ways.

Long answer: that was Iain. No, she didn't know Jelani was even reborn to begin with or that he was even there, she knew he eventually would be. She just used slayers and knights to keep an eye on any potential sightings of him. She saw that slayers and knights had a huge interest in Norway at that time and proceeded to investigate.

4. Why did Haakon know about the feather? Aren't beserkers (excluding arcanist berserkers) not good at magic?

They are totally not magically inclined. Like, at all. Loke is a fluke. A once in a blue moon situation.

However, Haakon was a very sensitive man. He could feel things and even had a lot of dreams that most often either came true or warned him of things to come. The night before the boys took off he had weird dreams and he knew something bad was gonna happen to Loke but didn't know what and how.

5. Speaking of the feather. What happened to it afterwards?

Oh, Loke still has it. Like, now in 2023 he still has that feather. It hasn't broken or deteriorated at all. It is still in pristine condition and yes, it is still cold.

No, no one knows about that feather, not even Jelani. At least not yet. He keeps it safely hidden in a box in his closet.

Since that event he's been really fond of anything involving feathers and why I doodle him with something feather like on him or use anything that has feathers on him in games.

6. So Loke was resurrected?

Yes...plus something else. He won't age anymore. At all. He's kinda...stuck for lack of a better word. Yes, berserkers age but very slowly, in fact, they age slower than werewolves do and yes, they can be very, very long lived. Caveat is that they are a warrior species and most die by the blade. They can also die of diseases as well.

Now, Loke's not undead. He's very much alive and everything works as intended. It's just that he's...frozen in time?...holy shit, I don't really know how to explain this well. Point is he's not undead but he won't physically age.

He still has all of his conditions, you know, the allergies, hemophilia, asthma, then around the very early 1900s his eyesight was compromised and had to wear glasses, and whatever else happens to him. Then got hit with astigmatism in the early 2000s. So shit can still go wrong.

He can be injured, he's broken several bones, torn ligaments, muscle tissue, hammer to the right side of his face caused him to lose three lower molars and had to replace them. He's had plenty of asthma attacks and allergic reactions since then. But he won't grow old.

So what was that something else? Not only will he not grow old, he can't die. No matter what, he can't die. Well, not permanently at least. If mortally injured he'll die for a bit, how long depends on the severity of the injury and the damage done. He'll come back on his own. The only way he'll permanently die is if Jelani dies.

And no, no else knows that he can't die. Not even Jela. At least not until Jela gets his memories unlocked by Jericho and even then he won't reverse it.

Aside from not being able to die or physically age the only other change are his eyes in berserker mode. All berserkers tend to have their eyes faintly glow in whatever color their natural eye color is but from that point onward Loke's irises and sclera turn red. The same red that Jelani's eyes are in his form. If Lo only conjures a weapon his eyes only change color. If he goes full berserker his pupils change to look exactly like Jelani's in his other form.

Everyone questions it for a long ass time but eventually they chuck it up to an injury. Loke thinks it's a side effect of what Jelani did. He doesn't care, he's chill about it.

Technically Jelani did bring him back from the dead but it's more like he brought him back from the dead and now part of him is in him (yeah, I know how this sounds. Relax lol) and yes, because of the bloody shard. Also the crown is sort of part of Jela's physical form and once it was in Lo it dissolved into him.

7. Why was part of the crown broken?

Long ass story but it had to do with what Jelani did in his previous life. Concept of Existence broke it and embedded into the right side of his face.

8. Was Jelani allowed to do that?

Yeah.

But no but then again who cares? He doesn't. Thing is Makers are supposed to make sure existence continues and resurrection of a mortal is frowned upon. Why? If Jelani did it with one person then maybe another Maker will do it with another. Maybe a third Maker does it with several other people and before you know it shit's gone completely out of balance because then no one will die.

Also to other Makers attachment is fucking weird and the fact that Jelani gave part of himself to Loke is weird as fuck so when a Maker learns of what he did they're seriously weirded out.

9. Why did Jela bring back Lo but not Haakon?

Jelani can't just bring back people unless he switches to his other form or until he gets his memory unlocked. Even then he did it once and he can't risk doing it again. Would he do it again though? Yeah, he doesn't care.

Also Loke is Loke.

10. Why did he switch into his other form?

Being able to switch to his other form before he unlocks his memories is involuntary. It's sort of a last line of defense thing put in place to protect him. What activates it? Fear but off the charts levels of fear and anxiety. Like almost to the levels of a heart attack.

So yeah, 10-year-old Jelani seeing his older brother covered in his own blood telling him to leave him behind, run and not look back no matter what he hears freaked him the fuck out thus it counted as an emergency.

11. So what happened after they got back home?

Loke sat down with Haakon and asked him about the frozen feather and after a while of both kind of testing each other to see what the other knew Loke told him a little. He didn't say he had died as that would freak Haakon out, he just said he had been injured. Both kept what they knew to themselves to protect Jelani though Haakon always knew Jelani was something else, something otherworldly but he didn't care, he still loved him all the same and was always so proud of him. Throughout his life Haakon saw little clues and each one brought him lots of joy.

12. Why couldn't Jelani remember switching forms, fighting off the slayers and resurrecting Loke?

'Cause his memories weren't unlocked yet and he only switched to that form as an emergency.

[kathuisk]

The Evolution of Christian Authority: Lessons from Early Church History and Contemporary Issues.

The early Christian Church, prior to Constantine the Great who was a Roman emperor who ruled from 306 to 337 CE. focused on teachings of love, forgiveness, and community, emphasizing spiritual rather than political authority. Early Christians often faced persecution, valuing martyrdom and peaceful witness as central to their faith.

With Constantine’s conversion and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, the Church gained political power. This shift led to significant doctrinal conflicts, as various interpretations of Christianity emerged. The establishment of the Inquisition aimed to address heresy, resulting in persecution of those deemed nonconformist, including many who adhered to earlier, more pacifist interpretations of Jesus's teachings.

Groups like the Essenes, who practiced asceticism and communal living, often viewed the growing institutional Church as a departure from the original message of Yeshua Hamashiach. Consequently, many early Christians resisted this shift, leading to a complex interplay of faith, power, and authority that characterized the post-Constantinian Church.

The resistance among Christians to the shift in authority after Constantine stemmed from a desire to preserve the original teachings of Jesus, emphasizing love, humility, and community. As the Church became more entangled with state power, factions emerged, leading to conflicts over doctrine and practice.

Moreover, the Church's newfound authority allowed it to enforce orthodoxy more rigorously, leading to the marginalization of groups that adhered to earlier, non-violent interpretations of Christianity. The establishment of the Inquisition further institutionalized this dynamic, as it sought to maintain unity at the cost of persecution and violence against dissenters.

The parallels drawn between the early Church’s struggles and contemporary issues in American Christianity are thought-provoking. Just as early Christians faced internal conflicts over authority and doctrine, today’s Christian nationalism often emphasizes a specific interpretation of faith that can marginalize other views and communities.

The rise of Christian nationalism, intertwined with themes of power and identity, reflects a desire to reclaim a perceived lost authority and influence, reminiscent of the Church’s historical entanglement with political power. This movement can sometimes promote exclusionary or divisive ideologies, echoing the tensions seen in the past where orthodoxy was enforced through persecution.

The concern over a return to oppressive tactics, akin to those of the Inquisition, raises important questions about the role of faith in public life, the treatment of dissenting voices, and the true essence of Christian teachings in promoting love and forgiveness versus power and control. This ongoing struggle invites critical reflection on how faith communities can engage with society without compromising their foundational values.

- Kat Freedom Moksha 🦋

[thejesusmaninred]

"The Prophet." From Mark 6: 4-6.

Jesus's claim about a prophet and his honor is one of the most famous in recorded religious history. What does He really mean by this?

"The familiar noun προφητης (prophetes) is a word like αγγελος (aggelos), in that it represented something so contrary to the post-Constantinian religious climate that it was not properly translated but rather transliterated into English (as "prophet" and "angel" respectively) and given a meaning more conductive of the objectives of humanity's leaders. In the original, however, prophets relate to angels the way fish relate to birds."

A prophet must be able to convert the subconscious/unconventional into an earthly axiom. This was the sole mission of the Christ as far as Judaism and the Torah vs. the onset of the villainy and aggression of the Roman Empire. Here in this forum we are trying again as the world spirals out of control in the wake of a scarily mismanaged election process in the USA:

4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

The Values in Gematria are:

v. 4: Jesus said to them. The Number is 8868, ףח‎סח‎, fahsah, "now is the time."

v. 5-6: He could not do miracles there. The Number is 6153, ו‎אהג‎‎, "to love."

The fukchucks think there are all differerent kinds of love and they love to dissect what kind Jesus had and how it is different from the other kinds. Was it brotherly love, or whips and chains love, what kind of love was it? That is why they are all so full of bullshit.

The proper definition of love in Judaism is ahavah.

"The Hebrew word for love, ahavah, reveals this true definition of love, for the word ahavah is built upon the root consonants h‑v, which means “to give.” In order for love to be real love, it has to be expressed as an action. If you love your beloved, then you must show it. By the same token, if you are loved, that will show, too. You will recognize it by the way you are treated."

So a man cannot be a prophet or attain to honor unless he understands the meaning of the above definition love and institutes it around him.

[apesoformythoughts]

«What is lacking is a piercing pastoral analysis of what has brought us to this point in the first place. Why is it that so many Catholics of deep faith have grown weary of the “business as usual” Catholicism of our parishes and have felt the need to flee to an older iteration of the faith, in both liturgy and in theology, and who do so, not out of nostalgia for a past they never knew, but because they have found something there that rips open their souls with the passion of a lover? We can prattle-on with spittle flecked outrage about the audacity of those who dare reject Vatican II or who dare criticize the Novus Ordo, but it will come to nothing unless we own up to the fact that the Church has failed to recognize that the anomic and nihilistic cosmos of post-modernity has laid waste to all of our standard structures of meaning, all of the traditions that embodied and made “real” that meaning, and all of the moral and spiritual weight of everything that came before five minutes ago.

The Church has failed to even notice and, therefore, to acknowledge, that modern Catholics in the West are drowning with a slow gurgling death in the chaotic waters of modernity’s hegemonic enchantments. That we live in a collective of concupiscence that enslaves us to the morbid regime of death and the allure of immortality through pleasure. The Church has failed to recognize that all “ultimates” have been killed as effective realities by the Mammon and Moloch of modernity and have been replaced with an endless panoply of penultimate counterfeits. The Church has failed to recognize the “abyss” that Ratzinger outlines which has now opened up below us and into which we all feel inexorably drawn as we flail our arms about desperately trying to grasp hold of something (anything!) solid.

The abyss of the “unreality of God” has seized our culture and also our Church causing millions of Catholics to walk away from its insouciant drivel and its pretentious posturing as just so many empty lies designed to shore-up the last pathetic vestiges of its Constantinian trappings which have all been (surely now clearly!) exposed. We wait in vain for a clarion call from the Church for a revolution of the soul, for a great night of collective repentance, for a great divestment of privilege, for a radical living of the Sermon on the Mount, or for the lifeboats to be dispatched forthwith to collect those adrift and drowning in the abyss. There is none of that. Instead, we get a motu proprio that simply scolds those who have apparently grabbed for the wrong lifeboat and which says “silence!” to the cri de couer coming from its desperate sheep.»

— Dr. Larry Chapp, “The Hermeneutics of the Abyss: Some Thoughts on Traditionis Custodes”

[militant-holy-knight]

Castlevania Season 3 Review: Ellis is Gonna Ellis I Suppose.

Warning: Massive spoilers ahead because I don’t give a shit anymore so scroll down really fast if don’t want to get spoiled

Being a Castlevania fan is pure suffering, man. Not only is the video game franchise being put on ice by Konami at the time of writing, but your only form of enjoyment is a hit-or-miss Netflix Original written by a guy who admits never playing the games. I tried to enjoy the first season despite it being only four episodes long, and same thing with the second one which was longer but had a plethora of issues. Now it’s the third season, which took a year-long break to be made, and I am absolutely sorry to say it’s the absolute lowest point of the show: not only repeating the issues from the previous season, but amplifying them and failing to do anything interesting with anything new that is given. I will elaborate why I think so in this review.

So after Season 2, Dracula has been destroyed, our heroes have split up with Trevor and Sypha going their own way while Alucard has stayed behind in his father’s castle overlooking the Belmont Hold. Carmilla and Isaac have survived and are preparing to build an whole new army, the former to establish a new empire and the latter to get his revenge on her for betraying Dracula. 

Even though the stakes are lower than the possible extinction of the human race which was the (possible) outcome from Season 2 which never actually came into fruition, you’d imagine they would do something inciting with this new status quo... But you’d be wrong. This season as a whole felt like padding in all conceivable manners. Not only was the pacing atrocious (which I will get into a minute), but really, nearly all of the events that occurred could have been omitted and the storyline as a whole wouldn’t have been affected somehow. 

The pacing was the worst problem in Season 2 since you had the protagonists locked down inside a hold to do research on how to kill Dracula and endless exposition among the bad guys that some defenders call “vampire politics’ which ultimately went nowhere. The pacing in Season 3 is even worse since not only is it longer (10 episodes this time), you have more storylines now but each of them move at completely sluggish pace with a disproportional large amount of exposition and comparatively few action. 

The Castlevania games were level-based games which had you visiting several distinct locations whether if it was inside or outside the castle. An adaptation series of Castlevania would make more sense if it was episodic in nature, perhaps even with monster of the week formula. It would have been better off for it, but the show is attempting channel Game of Thrones with an over-aching arc with sprawling individual storylines whose episodes are build up for an epic confrontation at the end, but it fails in that regard.

Trevor and Sypha’s storyline was absolutely pointless - they have no idea of the larger threat brewing with two demonic armies about to clash against each other, but they are stuck doing what basically amounts to a sidequest, investigating a evil cult operating in a small town which takes a needless long time to conclude. They completely fail in saving the townsfolk from being sacrificed and end up discovering that one of the characters that has been helping them is actually a monster all along. This only serves to make their effort completely pointless and leave the pair absolutely bitter and angry.

Not that there is any urgency in stopping Carmilla or Isaac since they come nowhere near close to trading blows to one another. In fact, Carmilla doesn’t come anywhere close to achieving her goal of raising an army of demons with Hector (who has been enslaved by her for this purpose) and it’s actually one of her lieutenants Lenore that solves this problem at the end. On the other hand, Isaac gets the closest thing to an highlight in this season by experiencing something of an character development since he is questioned by several characters that maybe humans aren’t so bad as a whole. The problem is that his development becomes inconclusive since he doesn’t learn to be anymore different than he used to.

Alucard gets sidelined like you wouldn’t believe. He spends the entire season in his castle now with two new characters, Japanese twin hunters that seek to be training so they can free their people from the vampires... Aaaaand they try to fuckin kill him, which comes out from nowhere specially after an extremely uncomfortable threesome between him and the twins. And just in case you thought the previous season was depressing enough with Alucard breaking down in tears completely alone in his castle, this one ends not only with Alucard still alone, crying, but now emulating his dad by leaving the impaled corpses of the twins in the castle’s entrance to scare off any trespassers which is the closing shot of this season.

But for me, the biggest letdown has to be Hector. He was one of my favorite characters from the games, having starred his own entry Curse of Darkness for the PS2 where he actually turns on Dracula on behalf of humanity and pursues Isaac for murdering his wife. Here, he does absolutely fuck all during the entire season except being bossed around by Carmilla’s sisters. The guy had such cool powers of summoning Innocent Devils and wielding all types of weapons (including a lightsaber) is reduced to a whimpering slave, whom I have absolutely no hope of seeing in his absolute glory. The worst part is that it was very predictable - the moment I saw Lenore saying that both her and Hector should flee together, I knew she was gonna screw him in some way. The irony is that unlike the other storylines which pull some kind of mean twist in the last second, here you already can tell what is going to happen next.

The new characters frankly do nothing for the story. The aforementioned Carmilla’s sisters are pure window-dressing and only Lenore gets the shit done by herself might I add completely independent from the others and specially Carmilla herself (who does nothing). A video game character actually does get featured - Comte of Saint-Germain, who is some kind of magician in search of his loved one who got lost in another dimension. Another step down from his video counterpart who is a time guardian that preserves the cosmic balance (though it seems they were channeling the historical figure rather than the character that happens to share the same name given their ignorance for the source material).

There are of course those typical Warren Ellis moments like three mentions of bestiality (and one goatfucking as usual) and anti-Christian commentary, though it seems to be sending some kind of mixed messages this time: in one hand Sypha comment that while she hates God, she at least admires Jesus because of his sacrifice which can be considered one of nicest things that atheists can comment about Christianity... And then the next episode features an demon that used to be a Greek philosopher who lived during post-Constantinian Roman Empire and was persecuted by Christians because of his intellect. Oh dear. With that said, it’s rather odd this guy became a demon so maybe he had it coming? 

Overall, this season is a lot more weaker and lacking than Season 2, which at least had the climax in Episode 7 which some people were willing to forgive the dullness from that season. But Season 3′s climax is completely unfocused, interlaced with unnecessary and uncomfortable sex scenes and doesn’t even feature classical music from the games, which was the saving grace from the last time.

So did it have any upsides? I guess so if you look hard enough like Isaac’s schizophrenic “should I hate all humans or not” dillema which goes unresolved. Hardly anything that elevates the season or make it redeemable in some way. To be perfectly frank with you, I don’t know if I have any interest in keeping with this show. It blew away any good will Season 1 and 2 did, it barely moved the plot forward (and that if it has an overaching plot at all), the protagonists being disconnected to the main threat at large and quite frankly, none of the antagonists are as interesting as Dracula, I just don’t care what happens next. Specially if the pacing and exposition remain in place. In theory, if the series was restructured to be episodic instead of trying to be Game of Thrones, my interest in the show would have been renewed but it’s too little too late.

I guess in retrospect I should be grateful that Season 1 was so short had I knew later ones would be so tedious. There is so very little to do with Castlevania: Dracula’s Curse when you already got rid of the main villain and you don’t move the plot forward. If they want to regain my interest, do a Leon Belmont season that is episodic or heck anything else, but I don’t see them doing this because they have to give closure to this story arc, which already grew past it’s welcome and wasted everyone’s time with a season that amounted to nothing more than filler. Well, my patience has been worn thin.

[azspot]

Unfortunately, however, this is the approach Feser and Bessette consistently take to the patristic evidence in their book. One of the more glaring examples of their cavalier attitude toward the documents they raid for proof-texts is a single phrase they pluck from a sermon of John Chrysostom’s, praising the emperor Theodosius for refraining from a “justifiable slaughter” of Antiochene rebels: this they offer as an unambiguous statement of the death penalty’s propriety. This is simply perverse. Even in English, of course, “justifiable” would be a rather vague way of expressing John’s view of things; but, of course, John did not write in English. What in fact he commends the emperor for not undertaking is a “δίκαιος φόνος [dikaios phonos],” which might better be rendered as “lawful” or even “customary slaughter” (“dikaios” does not have anything like the simple moral connotation of our word “just”). But that is only a minor concern. As it happens, the sentence is taken from what is in fact one of the most earnest and impassioned attacks on capital punishment in the whole corpus of post-Constantinian patristic literature. I do not know whether it is ignorance or cynicism that makes Feser and Bessette appear so indifferent to the true convictions of the authors they cite, but I hope it is the former.

Further Reflections on Capital Punishment (and on Edward Feser)

[didoofcarthage]

Hi! I was busy admiring some sculptures and mosaics you reblogged and an old question popped back into my head: is the difference between art styles before and after the fall of the Roman Empire due to a difference in aesthetic taste? Or was some skill in sculpting and/or drawing lost? (... I'm sure you've seen some medieval paintings that look... a little strange, right?) Or maybe the time spent learning to draw/ sculpt wasn't financially supported during the early middle ages?

Interesting question, although I’m afraid your premise is somewhat incorrect! I’m not that knowledgable about Late Antique or Early Medieval artistic styles, but some of the differences between antique and medieval art are actually continuations of trends that began long before the “fall” of the Roman Empire. 

I’m assuming that the “strangeness” you’re describing includes such elements as perspective (or lack thereof), sizing of figures in relation to each other, and stylization of the depiction of the human body. All of these “oddities” in medieval art can also be found in ancient Roman art. You mentioned painting, but I will discuss Roman sculpture, since my knowledge of painting and mosaic is more limited (long discussion–and example pictures–under the cut!). 

We tend to think of a time period as having one particular style, but various artistic styles co-existed during the Roman Empire, depending on the region of the Empire, skill of the artists, and tastes of the customer. The so-called “plebeian style” of art could be quite different from the art commissioned by and for the ruling elite, such as the emperor and his circle. 

For example, the reliefs from the Mausoleum of the Haterii, dated to the early 2nd century A.D., commemorate a family of builders that helped construct Flavian-era monuments such as the Colosseum. The image below (from the Vatican Museums) shows part of the reliefs from this tomb. The flatness of the perspective, the proportions of the statue figures within the structures, and the depiction of buildings on a single plane (which were not near each other like this in reality) might remind you of certain features of medieval art.

The reliefs on Trajan’s column, from approximately the same period, have a similar narrative function, but the use of perspective and proportionality is quite different (the image below is from this post). The emperor Trajan, depicted here in the traditional cloak of a Roman general, is distinguished by his clothes and elevated platform, not his size in relation to the other figures.

You might also want to keep in mind that different imperial dynasties had variant styles. Augustus consciously mimicked the stately, idealized style of Athens during its Golden Age, not the more dynamic style of the Hellenistic Period. For example, the religious procession of the imperial family on the Ara Pacis (top image from this post) resembles the Panathenaic procession depicted in the Parthenon reliefs of five centuries earlier (bottom image from the British Museum). 

Subsequent dynasties developed their own styles, particularly in portraiture (compare the flat hair of the Julio-Claudian imperial family to the curly hair of the Flavians in this relief). By the Late Period, beginnings of the style that we might now recognize as early medieval or Byzantine appear. To the modern eye, accustomed to a post-medieval classicizing style, this style might appear less “realistic” than earlier styles, although the idealization of the classical style is not exactly true to life either. 

For example, this portrait of the emperor Constantine from the Prado, dated to between 312 and 325, has a squared-off head and disproportionately large eyes (a trend that seems to have continued from the Antonine Period, see this bust of the empress Sabina). 

Due to the disruptions and civil wars of the third century, there may very well have been an artistic decline, perhaps indicated by the reuse of reliefs from earlier Trajanic and Aurelian monuments in the Arch of Constantine (example tondo here). However, this reuse may instead have occurred because Constantine wanted to connect himself to earlier “Good Emperors.” I don’t think all the differences in style should be attributed to a lack of skill or resources, since the Romans of Late Antiquity clearly were still capable of creating monumental works like the various colossi of Constantine.  

However, I will confess that the art of the Constantinian Period is not really to my taste. The erotes on this porphyry sarcophagus of Constantine I’s daughter Constantia, dated to the mid-fourth century (image from the Vatican Museums), rather bring to mind the ugly babies of medieval painting, don’t they? 

[the-transfeminine-mystique]

I don't mean this question rudely so I've been hesitating to ask but your bathhouse post made me wonder - how do you reconcile the idea of casual sex with the fact that most Christians seem to have a consensus that casual sex is Bad, since you're a theologian and all? (honestly there's a lot of cute girls on Tinder but I want to figure whether it's on the theological up-and-up)

let me get this straight, anon….. if i answer this well enough, you’ll be able to lose ur virginity? holy shit this is more pressure than any of my final papers

Ok, this is going to be a longer post, so…. yeah

I guess first of all I’d trouble the notion that consensus *necessarily* means that a particular belief is definitive. Since at least the advent of Constantinian Christianity with the Edict of Milan, where the Church became explicitly tied to empire, most Christians have had many a consensus that, when it comes down to it, is diametrically opposed to Christ’s teachings. Consensus doesn’t automatically mean that something *is* or *should be.* It merely means that it has become a hegemonic or near-hegemonic view. And all hegemonic views, particularly when they concern life-and-death, eternally-significant beliefs, need to be constantly challenged and examined lest we find our belief exploited for violent human ends.

Having gotten that out of the way, the way that I would approach the question you’re asking is to ask just who/what we are theologically, because that is very significant in determining ways to have right relations. The model I subscribe to is that we are humans, made to be in fellowship with God and to receive at Dei’s hands the gifts which it is Dei’s nature to give. Through the incarnation, we, although possessing no way in ourselves to relate truly nonviolently to each other (following Derrida, even the assigning of a proper name or an identity category is a violence insofar as it reduces the radically unique individual into merely a signifier that can in no way properly describe the individual), are called into being as persons in the way that the persons of the Trinity are persons, a radically transcendent system of difference that is fundamentally nonviolent, though as such remaining outside our understanding. To understand who we are as persons, then, is a kind of negative theology, it is identifying all those things that our personhood is not.

Our personhood is not violent, however incapable we are of fully living into it and living as persons and not as humans enmeshed in a human epistemology. Nothing violent, then, can be said to be proper to our personhood, and forsaking violence can never be in violation of that personhood.

Our personhood does not consist of the identity categories that structure our human existence. Galatians 3:28 speaks of the impermanence of class, race, and gender/sex. Critical reflection, whether Marxist theory, critical race theory, or feminist/gender/queer theory, clue us in on why. Because each of those identities are historically contingent, and are premised upon violence. The emergence of race as we know it was explicitly tied to the justification of slavery. Gender/sex as we know it exists solely to justify the domination of women. The existence of the rich is premised upon the violation of the poor.

In a similar vein, Jesus himself said that marriage is not an eschatological category in Matthew 22:30. Marriage is explicitly tied to the system of gender/sex, and facilitates the domination of women. It is a human social contract, and, as such, a violent relation. Even if we view God as instituting marriage in Genesis, we are confronted with the realization that the relation that God ordained between Adam and Eve bears only the most abstract of resemblances to what marriage has come to be. The restrictions placed on who can marry, the coercion of the state in a thousand different ways, the preclusion of disabled people from the institution, the tying of marriage to the tax code, these all should tell us that what we know as “marriage” is a wholly human construct. A violent institution.

Our moral responsibility is to seek to live our human lives in the best approximation of personhood as we can. We are embroiled in violences, but we must attempt to reject it wherever it appears. This understanding of responsibility puts less weight on sexual chastity than most Christians, but puts a much greater weight on understanding the way that our relations facilitate or attempt to reject violence. The flip-side of the conservative position on sex outside of marriage, remember, is that all sex inside of marriage is good. The institution becomes the measure of morality, and abuse proliferates. That is not the kind of relation we are called to.

It doesn’t matter what your standing is with regard to a particular state-issued license. What matters is that the relations you foster are premised upon an acknowledgement of the possibility of violence, and an explicit turning away from it. By all means, be as promiscuous as you want, but ground that promiscuity in a respect and full embrace of the other person, remembering whose image you both are.

[lostprofile]

AN INCOMPLETE HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL ART LIX

Nôtre-Dame de Paris

The first of five posts on the long, complex history of the Cathedral of Nôtre Dame.

I. Late Antiquity

The Roman colony of Lutetia Parisiorum was founded on the right bank of the river Seine sometime around 10 BC. After a barbarian raid in AD 275, the town was moved to the larger island in the river and circled with a defensive wall.

The caesar of the western empire, Julian II, temporarily moved the capitol of Gaul from Augusta Treverorum to Lutetia in AD 357/58. He built an imperial palace and a Christian basilica over which a bishop presided. Valentinian II also resided in Lutetia in the 370s.

The ground plan of the cathedral—a long nave with double aisles, a transept, a semi-circular apse, and a free-standing baptistry—was closely modeled on the great Constantinian basilicae of Rome. Its scale replicated that of its models as well, making the cathedral of Lutetia far larger than the basilicas of much larger and more important cities like Lyon, Trier and Marseille.

The cathedral was sumptuously decorated: fragments of color mosaic pavements, giallo antico columns and Corinthian capitals have been excavated at the site.

The early Merovingian kings dedicated the cathedral to St Stephen. As part of the Carolingian reforms, cathedrals received a chapter of regular canons, who carried out the bishopric’s day-to-day functions. The canons ran the cathedral school and maintained the hospice for the needy, the hôtel dieu. Due to their devotion to the Virgin, the area of the church reserved for the canons came to be known as Nôtre Dame. By the 10th c, this became a de facto second dedication, with the bishop’s part of the church retaining the original dedication to St Stephen. This dual dedication persisted throughout the high Middle Ages and is reflected in the 13th-century architecture.

Roman Gaul transformed into the Kingdom of the Franks and Lutetia Parisiorum, abbreviated to Paris, eventually became the fixed abode of the royal court. With some modifications and restorations, the early Christian cathedral of Nôtre Dame remained in use until the year 1160.

[kabane52]

The Apostolic Sees and the Idea of a Patriarchate

The primitive notion of the apostolic sees cannot be separated from the idea of the patriarchate. Indeed, the former develops into the latter according to a definitive logic. Writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize the apostolicity of particular Sees because of the concrete process of receiving the deposit of faith handed down as tradition from the Apostles to these particular Churches. Because of their being special heirs of the deposit of faith, other local Churches gathered around the apostolic sees and looked to them as the sine qua non of Apostolic Tradition. Irenaeus makes the point throughout his work that the orthodox and catholic tradition is distinguished from the "secret tradition" of the Gnostics in virtue of its identity among the various apostolic sees. The Apostles in organizing the local Churches they did left in these Churches the apostolic deposit, which can then be compared and verified as coming authentically from the Twelve and thus Jesus Christ.

The Church of Rome from its earliest days had a preeminence on account of its special relationship with Peter as Prince of the Apostles but also with the Apostle Paul as the last apostle and preacher to the nations. The Lord Jesus first commissioned Peter after the resurrection and last commissioned Paul (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Thus the Roman Church was called the Apostolic See- "founded and organized by the two most glorious Apostles" as St. Irenaeus says. Being linked with the first and last of the Apostles, she represents and manifests in a special way the will of the whole College of Bishops which perpetuates the mission of the College of Apostles. As Peter was the coryphaeus (meaning one who speaks on behalf of the whole choir) of the Apostles so also the Bishop of Rome is summoned to coordinate the communion of Churches and manifest that unity to the rest of the world. This is important as it helps to elucidate the logic of the patriarchal system. The notion of the patriarchate is not a later political notion in contrast to the earlier apostolic ideal. After all, Canon VI of Nicea which confirmed the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch in their historic primatial ministries did so to maintain the status quo, not to create a new system. St. Ignatius describes the Roman Church as being she who "presides in the place of the region of the Romans." This isn't to say that she had no universal primacy, but that the notion of defined regional primacies exercised by the Bishops of particularly dignified Sees is hardly a post-Constantinian notion.

The innovation of the Second Ecumenical Council is not the notion of the patriarchate but the elevation of the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the patriarchal dignity. The historic patriarchates are the Roman, Alexandrian, and Antiochene patriarchates. Each of these three Churches was organized by St. Peter (Alexandria through St. Mark the Evangelist) and bears special dignity in view of that Petrine heritage. Pope Damasus of Rome tells us that these three Churches are immovably fixed in their standing because of the Petrine foundation- Rome being distinguished from the other two not by a qualitatively unique relationship to Peter but because of the martyrdom of Paul who "equally made Rome special in Christ the Lord." But the patriarchal system was not an abstraction- because of their special foundation, other Churches had gathered around them, recognizing them as special lights of the tradition and as the primates of the Church. How then does this develop into the idea of patriarchates not of apostolic foundation? A patriarch seems to have been recognized as a qualitatively unique office, having a special mission from Christ for the Church Universal. Why? The following is my shot at beginning a model, though it's a rough draft.

Irenaeus and Tertullian can provide some help, I believe. Irenaeus' words concerning the Church of Rome describe the preservation of the tradition of the apostles in her by "the faithful everywhere." This is an interesting phrase, and suggests to me that "convenire" is most precisely translated as "gather towards." All the Churches "gather towards" Rome on account of its "preeminent principality." Rome was of course one of the great centers of the system of Roman roads and thus travel among cities. For Christians, the dignity of the Roman Church provided additional cause for travel to Rome. It is also important to remember that it was customary for Christian writings and epistles to be copied in their first edition, sent to cosmopolitan hubs such as Rome, and then retransmitted on a broader scale. The evidence for this in the third-century Oxyrhynchus Papyri is quite incredible, where strong indications of a fairly unified program of Christian catechism across all the Churches is present. Copies of early patristic writings indicate a self-conscious preservation of apostolic tradition according to recognized and distinguished witnesses in the Ante-Nicene period, in addition to the New Testament. The churches of apostolic foundation received the deposit of faith and transmitted that deposit to the faithful baptized and catechized therein. That Rome was a cosmopolitan hub of travel and textual transmission means that "all the faithful everywhere" across the whole world have deposited their local traditions in the Church of Rome, which thus manifests the catholicity of the church in a special way.

Churches of apostolic foundation, being the original recipients of the deposit of faith, formed the first "centers of gathering" for churches of the surrounding regions. They were centers of communion, coordinating the life of the Churches among which they ministered as primates. The Church of Pentecost is a Church speaks the singular Name of Christ in many languages, expressing the same apostolic truths in different expressions and according to different emphases. What is a patriarchate? A patriarchal church is a church forming the center of communion for a family of churches expressing the faith of the Apostles according to a distinctive set of emphases. Being the center of communion, the patriarchal church forms a kind of standard for the authentic profession of faith in accordance with the tradition of the Church. In the earliest days, that a particular Church was personally organized by an Apostle was a sign that this particular Church had a kind of unique access to the tradition. But this isn't something which persists forever. The churches of apostolic foundation disseminate the tradition and the Gospel settles over a wide area, with communion among the local Churches synthesizing and making known the faith of all the Churches. Ease of travel and communication means that the apostolic faith, originally given to and transmitted from the apostolic sees, becomes equally accessible to the whole region.

Tertullian expresses this process, mentioning that the non-apostolic churches "derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine" from the churches of apostolic foundation, but eventually grow from seeds into trees and "become churches" in their own right and are "on this account...able to deem themselves apostolic as being the offspring of apostolic churches." So as the Church Universal comes into its own, the three churches of Petrine origin become centers of communion and standards of faith- Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the first three patriarchates. What about other patriarchates? In particular, why Constantinople and Jerusalem? I'm not too fond of the elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch and tend to think that in the future those three Churches should be recognized as immovably fixed in their particular primacies of first, second, and third place. But it is undoubtedly the case that new patriarchates can be created. A patriarchal church is a local Church which is a center of communion and hub of Christian life for the churches in its patriarchate. In general, it preserves a distinctive manner of Christian thought and life. Constantinople was elevated to the patriarchal dignity as New Rome, the capital of the Empire, constituting it as a new focal point for travel and communication in the Christian world. Likewise, Jerusalem was elevated to the patriarchal dignity as the site of our Lord's death and resurrection in addition to being the site of many biblical relics of the old covenant. As such it formed and forms a center of Christian pilgrimage. In the Apostolic Age, the Church of Jerusalem was the special guardian and center of the Hebraic expression of the Christian faith observed by those Jews who professed Jesus as divine Messiah, had communion with Gentiles as equals, and continued to observe those distinctive markers of their Jewish identity. Perhaps this particular unique expression of Orthodox and Catholic faith will return in the future. Regardless, the logic of the patriarchate stands.

The catholicity of the Church is most splendidly manifested when its unity is realized precisely in its diversity- diversity of liturgical traditions, theological emphases, and modes of expressing Christian truth. When joined together in unity, these different expressions allow a deeper meditation on the saving truths of the faith in permitting the observation of the one pearl of great price from many different angles. Different regions converge towards different patriarchal churches whose patriarchs have a special mission in guarding and manifesting the one tradition of faith according to the unique heritage of each family of churches. This is why, I believe, St. Nicephorus believed that the keys of priestly ministry had particular application to the gathered patriarchs of the great Churches. The College of Bishops is miniaturized and manifested by a college of patriarchs, each of whom represents a distinctive family of churches. The Second Council of Nicea, very interestingly, seems to suggest (in Session VI) that the ratification of all of the patriarchal churches is essential for a Council to be recognized as Ecumenical. The primate of the patriarchal synod is the Bishop of Rome as the Primate of the Church Universal. As the churches converge towards their patriarchal head who manifests their distinctive life, so all the Churches ultimately converge towards the Church of Rome whose bishop is the Primate of the whole College of Bishops and is entrusted with the manifestation of the tradition of the whole body of faithful- in addition to his particular role as patriarch of Rome and guardian of the distinctive tradition of the Christian West.

So I believe that the idea of the patriarchal see develops organically from the theology of apostolic sees. Apostolic sees were important not because of unique and incommunicable charismata forever localized in those churches, but because of their role vis-a-vis the Church Universal as bearers of tradition. Patriarchal churches come to acquire that role as the Church multiplies and matures.

[metaspherica]

MetaSpherica Research Links and Pagan-Gnostics-Knights KOEPM✳ Charter/FAQs

—Charter and FAQs about the Pagan-Gnostics-Knights KOEPM✳ & our "Crusade" are located below the following Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Entrepreneurial, and Scholarly Web-publishing Sites— ➡️ Tumblr https://metaspherica.tumblr.com (Web Domain metaspherica.us Link quasi-hosted @ Tumblr—Pending) ➡️ MetaSpherica Research Portal @ paper.li portfolio of technical and scholarly "AI-generated" Newsletters: https://paper.li/~/publisher/288b5707-69d6-4da2-963c-508ce90312ec ➡️ Physics/Cosmology https://paper.li/e-1551853258#/ ➡️ Multidimensional Math. https://paper.li/e-1548806910#/ ➡️ Smart-Meter Gateways https://paper.li/e-1550094018#/ ➡️ DSP/Music https://paper.li/e-1551740281#/ ➡️ Cognitive Sci. https://paper.li/e-1548806057# ➡️ Philos./Historical https://metasphericaresearch.wordpress.com/ ➡️ Entrepreneurial/Professional https://linkedin.com/ (Jamianne) ➡️ "STEM" https://scoop.it/u/metaspherica-research-llc ~ "Charter" and "FAQs" about the Pagan-Gnostics-Knights KOEPM✳ and our "Crusade" ' We are the "Nemises of the Archons." ' ➡️ Gnosticism Newsletter> https://paper.li/e-1551479344#/ We are studying, learning, and "conserving" classical, traditional, USA-Constitutional, historical, European, ancient, esoteric, occult, mystic, cultural and spiritual values, precious Caucasian-DNA and ethnic information, such as—the Celtic, Nordic, Germanic, Teutonic, Italic, Baltic, Slavic, Indo-European, Hungaro-Finnish, AmerIndian—eclectic selections from other cultures, ethnicities, and traditions. We follow the USA Founders and Framers of the Founding Documents, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and those Amendments that are Constitutional, unlike the un-Constitutional Amendments such as the 16th and the 17th. Our values and traditions, as Mark Levin says, are NOT an ideology, but rather, are the very fabric of Western Civilization. We are not ideologues advocating violence, as are the "Deceptors," the "Archons." We seek the illusive Truth, which the Archons constantly hide, distort, invert, dis-semanticize, and weaponize through their hypocritical mouthpieces in the a-civil society. ✠ No "political-correctness," no apologies ✠ No "Racism" including anti-Jewish/anti-Israel ✠ No NWO genocide and eugenics. Procreation only, no abortion outside of rape/incest ✠ No NWO culturally-enforced miscegenation and gradual-boiling "White-genocide" disguised as alleged "White-Privilege" ✠ No "Cultural-Marxism," such as the "Homosexual Agenda," UN-Agenda-21, "Green-Agenda" etc. ✠ Call for reform & decoupling of Islam from toxic Sharia-Islamic Supremacism—with the secularization of Caliphatean States ✠ Call for reform of the Roman-Church without Constantinianism, pedophilia, and Reptilianism ✠ No NWO EU 4th Reich and/or neo-USSR ✠ No Statism, "Totali-Topianism," Utopianism, Dystopianism, Post-Modernism, "Global-Banksterism," and "Globalist World Government" ✠ No to Technocracy, harmful GeoEngineering, and/or "Earth-Terraforming" ✠ No Stalinist or enforced, forced "lock-step" "top-down" ideological Tyranny. No alliance between NWO and Sharia-Supremacism NO, NO, and NO!—Instead we strive for Freedom, Liberty, unfettered research, anonymous pamphleteering, and publication, enlightenment, with protection under our Angels. "As above, so below " 2958 chars. 3/19/2019

[digitaldion]

‘The high watermark of faith in the Abrahamic religions involves the praxis of love, peace, and justice measured in relation to the widow, the orphan, and the poor, rather than in rational understanding. Contemporary religious institutions frequently reduce this ethic to charity and almsgiving rather than a serious commitment to social change. The prevailing ideas in any institution are, as a rule, those of the elite and benefactors of that institution, who keep a wary eye on those who deviate from the principles embedded in a Constantinian-type synthesis of religion and state. This has resulted in theological support for tribal and nationalistic beliefs that are more prevalent and emotionally persuasive in religion than many devout believers care to admit.’ - Charles Villa-Vicencio, ‘Living between science and belief’ (2021: 46). I am almost done with Charles Villa-Vicencio’s new book on science and belief. It offers a thoughtful reflection on some of the major contemporary questions and challenges facing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I highly recommend it! And, just in time for Christmas, I see that the Kindle edition is on special for $9.99 https://amzn.to/3yNxM1o I will be speaking at a UCT Summer School event in the 2nd week of January at which Charles and some other scholars (from Judaism and Islam) and I will consider his book and other historical and contemporary perspectives on the complex relationships between the sciences and various beliefs. I’ll post the details here as soon as I have them. https://www.instagram.com/digitaldion/p/CXxorcmqGVx/?utm_medium=tumblr

[ancient-rome-au]

Roman Currency in the 4th Century CE ↔ D&D Currency Conversion Tables

I put together these tables as a reference guide for currency units in the setting of my homebrew D&D campaign. I want historical flavor, so D&D denominations just won’t do. With this approach, I tried to balance between accuracy and convenience. By establishing conversion rates to/from Roman currency to D&D currency, I don’t have to come up with my own list of prices for goods and services. However, I will adjust book prices with percentage modifiers to account for inflation when appropriate.

This covers the period from the currency reforms of Constantine to the currency reforms of Anastasius (so, roughly 330 to 500 CE). However, Roman currency during the Empire was basically in a constant (if gradual) state of flux. Older denominations continued to circulate for decades even after major currency reforms. Debasements (and occasional rebasements) would alter the purchasing power of a given denomination and encourage the hoarding of higher purity coins. Some emperors would introduce new denominations, only for them to be abandoned by their successors.

Hence, this chart is based on a considerable amount of simplification, averaging, and speculation:

Solidus

The value of the solidus is approximated by the following calculation. A table in The Glory of Rome: Campaign Sourcebook for D&D 2nd Edition presents the Augustan currency values and conversions. 1 aureus = 4 gp. Since there are 40 aurei to a Roman pound of gold, and 72 solidi to the same, that means a solidi is worth 4 gp X 5/9 = 2.222... gp. I rounded up to 2.4 gp so that it could divide the solidus into smaller denominations more evenly. For example, as a result of this rounding, 1 siliqua equals 1 silver piece. 

 In case you missed it: here is my post on converting between Roman Currency under Augustus and D&D Currency

Miliarense

The miliarense is so-called because it was equal to 1,000 bronze coins. I have omitted these smaller coins from this table because player characters are unlikely to bother with such tiny denominations.

Historically, there were two denomination of miliarense, a small one worth 14 to the solidus and a big one worth 18 to the solidus. But either choice makes for messy fraction, and it was relatively rare, so I changed it to 12. (For what it’s worth, 12 Byzantine miliaresia were worth 1 nomisma, the Byzantine equivalent of the solidus. But this was at a much later time period.)

Siliqua

The siliqua is the name applied by historians to a very common silver coin from this time. This is based on writing by Isidore of Seville from the early 7th century; there is no contemporary evidence for its name. Isidore claimed that it was worth 1/24th of a solidus, but the physical evidence suggest that may not be quite right. However, we don’t have a better theory, so I am using that number because it doesn’t seem to be radically far off from whatever the true value was. The siliqua served roughly the same function for Romans in this time as the silver piece in D&D.

Bronze Coinage

Archaelogists have found Constantinian bronze coins in four sizes, but aren’t sure what each is worth. For simplicity, I have only presented two, and omitted the rest on the grounds that the players will not need them. I have named the centenionalis (“equal to 100 coins”), based on this coin, and another the follis ("bag [of coins]”), based on this coin. I have assigned them the values of 2 and 1 cp, respectively, for convenience, rather than historical convention.

If the DM finds it relevant to mention or use the smallest coin, it is called the nummus. In my setting, I assign a conversion rate of 100 nummi =  2 folles = 1 cententionalis.

Copper/bronze coins were a fiat currency in the Roman Empire. They were only valued only to the extent people are willing to believe the government’s assignment of value to them. Imperial administrations struck far too many bronze coins in the 4th century, flooding the market with more nominal money than was needed to conduct commerce, driving down the value of bronze coinage relative to silver and gold. (To the extent silver coins were debased, the same thing is true, but that is more applicable to the denarius prior to the currency reforms of Constantine.) Thus, in this time period, players may encounter but are unlikely to bother using nearly worthless nummi.

Various emperors attempted to introduced more valuable bronze coinage in the form of higher denominations of the nummi (e.g. Anastatius set the follis equal to 40 nummi in his currency reforms), so that the common people could have reasonably valued coins for their daily needs (and not have to pay with literal bags of coins for basic stuff). However, these attempts usually failed or didn’t last long due to a lack of understanding of the forces of supply and demand in money markets. Simply supplying more bronze coins of higher nominal value exacerbated the problem. They needed to withdraw undervalued currency from circulation to drive up the value of the currency that remained.

Barter

Not much to say here; just an option for DMs. If the setting calls for rampant hyperinflation, currency may simply stop circulating naturally and NPCs may only be willing to trade with PCs by bartering or trading with hard bullion. 

[elijahtours]

King David Well’s in Town of David – Bethlehem

When Bethlehem Enters History? Bethlehem First time that it Enters History with the Figure of David, He Was Born there According to Prophet Samuel (1.Sam 16), to An Ephrathite Family who had lived there for many Generations they are as well the descendant of Ruth as mentioned in the Four Chapters of Book of Ruth 1-4.

When Prophet Samuel Came to Bethlehem to Visit a Family of a man called Jesse, He anointed His youngest Son, David to succeed Saul As King of Israel. ”  The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.” ” , When The Jealousy of Saul Forced David to become an outlaw, David Let attack on the Philistines,

“So David and his men went to Keilah”, They Slaughtered the Philistines and Took all their Livestock and rescued The People of Keilah (1 Sam 23:5), As Result of this and consequence the Philistines ( C. 1030 BC ) had occupied the Town of Bethlehem and put a Garrison Their Around 1030 BC as it is mentioned in (2 SAM 23:14) David Was Staying in the Stronghold (Abullam/Tell Esh Sheikh Madkhur ) at that time, and a Philistine detachment had occupied the Town of Bethlehem, of course, that that Time David was hiding at that Cave of Adullam – Tell Esh Sheikh Madhkur, as a result of Saul’s Chasing him.

David Gathered Later 400 Men with a Grievance Against Saul (1 Samuel 22:1-2 ). Part of these men was the Best of the Best known as David’s Mighty Warriors, Later, Three of the best will do something extremely Dangerous.

David’s Mighty Warriors – the Three and the Thirty

A Group of Men in the Bible who were Toughest Military Warriors and who was Credited with Heroic Feats, According to (2 Samuel 23:8-39) divided them into The ” Three” which they are exactly three, and thirty of which there are more than Thirty.

According to the Biblical Text, it says there were Exactly 37 Individuals in all, but it is unclear whatever this refers to the thirty which may or may not contain the Three or the Combined total of both groups, Also the Scriptures refers to the Three and Thrity as though they were both important entities and not just a random list of three or 30 plug significant men.

What are the names of David’s Mighty Warriors?

First One and their Cheiften is Josheb-Basshebeth, he was the Cheif of the Three, He raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter.

The second One Was Eleazar Son of Dodai, The Ahohite, As one of the Three Mighty Warriors he was with David when they taunted the Philistines gathered at Pas Dammim For Battle, at that time the Israelites Retreated But Eleazer Stood his ground and struck down the PHilstines till his hand Grew Tired and Froze to the Sword, The Lord Brought him a Great Victory that Day, The Troops Returned to Eleazer but only to strip the Dead.

The third One Was Shaamah Son of Agee the Hararite, When the Philistines Banded Together at a place where there was a field full of lentils Israel’s Troops Fled from them, but Shammah Took his stand in the middle of the Field, HE Defended it and Struck the Philistines Down, The Lord Brought him a Great Triumph.

So what is the Story of King David Wells?

According to 2 Samuel 23(13-17) The three visited David when he is located at the Cave of Adullam, While there David expressed a heartfelt, a desire for water from the Well’s of Bethlehem, which is by the gate that was occupied by the Philistines, The Three therefore forcefully break past the Philistines and draw water from the Well, which they take back to David. David Refused to Drink the Water, Instead pouring it out Before Yahweh arguing that it was the Blood of the Men who had risked their lives.

Where is the Story of David Well’s Mentioned in the Tanakh / Old Testament?

as mentioned in the Bible ” During the Harvest Time ( Could be Wheat Harvest , Spring Between March and May) Three of the Thirty Cheif Warriors came down to David at the Cave of Adullam, while a band of philistines was encamped in the Valley of Rephaim, At that time David was in the Strong Hold and the Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem, David Longed for Water and Said” Oh that someone would get time a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem”, so the three mighty warriors broke through the PHilstine Lines, Drew water from the Well near the gate of Bethlehem and Carried it Back to David, but he refused to drink it, instead he poured it out before the Lord, Far be it from the Lord to do this” He Said, ” is it not the Blood of men who went at the risk of their lives” and David would not drink it.

King David Humour About A Drink

Another Assumption it was the Harvest Time ( Possibility Wheat during Spring March-May) and the Weather was hot, and he was thirsty, perhaps a good water was scarce, and therefore he earnestly Wished ” O That I Could but have one Draught of the Water of the Well of Bethlehem” with the Water of that Well he had often refreshed himself when he was a young, and nothing now will serve him but that, though it is almost impossible to come at it, he strangely indulged a humor which he could give no reason for, other water might quench his thirst as well but he had a fancy for that Above any.

Where are King David Well’s Located in Bethlehem?

The Cistern that David’s Three Men rescue their for fore as Traditionally located in Bethlehem Inside the Catholic Action Club, Three great Cisterns Excavated in the rock are known as Biyar Daoud ( David’s Cisterns or Wells) which tradition identified with “The Cisterns that is in Bethlehem at the Gate” from which David longed to drink during a battle with the Philistines as mentioned in 2. Sam 23:15, but in David’s time, the Town could not have extended as far as this.

To the East of these Cisterns was discovered in 1895 a mosaic Pavement of a Church of the 5th or 6th Century with Greek Inscription from verses 19 and 20 of Psalm 117, “Open to me the Gates of Justice and IW will never and I’ve thanks to the Lord, This Gate is the Lord’s , The Just Shall enter it.

The Church Rested on a vast necropolis Cemetery of 18 Arocosolium of from 2 to 6 Tombs Each, The Cemetery was Christian as proved by the Inscriptions, Including the Most meaning Graffito is a Constantinian Cross from 4th Century engraved in the rock at the beginning of the Cemetery which affirms the Christian Nature of the Burial Ground, When it was First Discovered it was believed that it was the Church of Saint David, where the King Was buried and of which mention was made by pilgrims in the Byzantine Period, hence the name MAusoleum of David but please note that David’s Tomb is located in Mount Zion in Jerusalem.

At the Present, the Mosaic is buried under a cultivated field and further researches are impossible, in 1962 the Custody of the Holy land Had some work done by Brother Michelangel Tizzani , during which catacombs and arcosoliums were restored , Exvacations brought to light many potsherds ( 4th Century) and wall inscriptions (4-6 Century BC ).

The post King David Well’s in Town of David – Bethlehem appeared first on Elijah Tours & Travel.