#so who to believe when two jewish people come to totally different conclusions?

[mooregan07]

ah yes why care about anything when mother is giving us new music!!!! so thankful ☺️🥰

like keep being distracted by the shadows babes but there is an actual world out there that does get impacted by these things (i’ll assume from your stance you won’t be) and believe it or not the mega superstar has a massive role in it (and the arguments of hypocrisy is that she knows her massive role, has said she wants to use it to be better and better the world, and doesn’t because she don’t wanna lose the breakup)

and yeah the implications of a rich white british man saying he gets off to women of colour being brutalized is no big deal! so right! 🧐

kind of longer post coming in.

hey love! thank you so much for sending in this ask and i totally understand what you’re saying here. also thank you for explaining the hypocrisy thing to me, i do need to get more versed on everyone’s thoughts and theories, and i definitely will.

while i am not a person of color, i do have many close friends who are, and i do truly understand where everyone is coming from. i am lgbtq, a woman, i use she/they pronouns, and i have a lot of greek blood in me, and my grandmother is jewish, and so i do truly know the damage and harm that someone can cause by saying things like what matty says. i’m not trying to defend myself for any comments that someone may have deemed problematic or “distracted by the shadows”. i’m so sorry if this is how i came off. let me just take some time and explain myself a little farther, as it seems i need to do.

i just really don’t like to jump to conclusions about celebrities because we don’t know them personally, and we don’t know what they are truly like. i do realize that satire or not, there are a lot of things that matty has said that are very, VERY wrong and should be talked about and critiqued. however, again, we don’t know who taylor is behind closed doors. it’s hard to cope with and hard to hear, and i’ve been very anti super stans since the beginning because people get so heartbroken over celebrities coming out to be more problematic. i would like taylor to make an official statement, and i have educated myself more on the issues with matty.

as i saïd in my earlier post, i wasn’t super sure about everything, and i still a teenager and i’m learning about politics and how to be/how to live. i’m so very sorry if my comments hurt anyone, that was not AT ALL the intention. i was just hoping that it could help some swifties who are very upset about this to find some hope in the situation.

also, i am very very aware that influencers/celebrities and even mega stars like swift majorly contribute to a lot of the problems we have in the US and all over the world right now. i just really try not to focus on the bad part and focus on the good because the bad really upsets me. i’m sorry if i came off as a defender for different issues. i’m very optimistic person and i try to find something that can possibly make a situation less anxiety inducing or upsetting for people and so once again, i was trying to spread some hope.

i do believe matty saying he watches pornographic material of women of color getting brutalized is HORRIBLE, and should not be condoned or said to be okay. i didn’t know he said that. i’m sorry i neglected this. i really want to emphasize that i do not neglect the pure disgusting things that matty has said in the past, i was just unaware and i have learned more now.

the idea of separating the art from the artist is very important to me for many reasons, one is because we never know what celebrities will do, and two, no one is perfect. public figures shouldn’t be glorified to the extent that we think they’re perfect/surprised that they get things wrong. so, i was still super excited about taylor’s new songs and i’m really pumped to see what she does next. taylor is still human and she gets it wrong sometimes, so i love her music but i don’t idolize her.

i would like to sincerely apologize for my ignorance and taking to the internet to say something that i do understand fully is controversial and is seen as very problematic for to some people. i just wanted to spread my feeling of hope that i had, because i seriously think taylor is a good person. i love taylor so very much that i don’t want to believe that she would condone matty’s behavior nor support it or tolerate it. i just wanted to hope that he’s a better person. maybe i’m in the wrong. once again i’m sorry, and i will educate myself better on this topic.

however, i just wanted to let everyone know that shaming people over opinons and thoughts, especially people who said explicitly that they are not super well educated on the topic and just wanted to share their opinion is not cool. taylor promotes kindness, and so called swifties who do not follow this are not true swifties. i know you were just trying to share your opinion, anon, but i do believe it could have been done in a much kinder way. i’m a huge believer in kind criticism, and so it would be much appreciated that you wouldn’t assume that i’m not impacted by the things matty says, and that i really don’t understand it. i do now, and i did not appreciate how harsh your criticism came off. i’m really just trying to promote hope and love and respect for peoples privacy. i hope you understand. i’m a very empathic, anxious, and emotional person, and so this did hurt me a little bit to be basically called ignorante. however, i truly do understands where you’re coming from.

nonetheless, thanks for sharing, anon.

[beardofkamenev]

TIL I’M AN ANTISEMITE?

Imagine wildly accusing an entire group of people of being “unrepentant antisemites” and “laughing about bullying Jewish people in group chats.” And imagine your entire basis for your unsubstantiated accusations about our group chat is that one member we are loosely associated with didn’t reply to a random anon from your ‘Jewish friend’ accusing this callout post of being antisemitic, despite it referring specifically to YOUR words and actions and despite none of you people ever pointing out the ‘obvious offensiveness’ of the tweet you were mocking until after you were called out for your petty and completely unprovoked behaviour. By the way, I’ve been warned by multiple others that dealing with you lot requires receipts. I submit it to the good faith and honesty of anyone reading this post to judge for themselves whether failing to answer this anon in this context is an act of antisemitism that warrants these accusations.

Seeing as you’ve basically confirmed what we’ve all suspected all along — that you and your friends read our WOTR group chat for the purpose of using our words and discussions against us (like co-opting our discussion of 15th century catholic antisemitism to use in the anon above) — I’m surprised you didn’t pick up at some point that one of the users you just blanket accused of being an “unrepentant antisemite” is an openly ASHKENAZI JEWISH PERSON, as well as users you know for a fact to be black and brown POC, some of whom have openly criticised your petty and tone deaf behaviour in the past.

As a POC from a literal ‘third world’ country who has dealt first hand with your brand of ‘white performative wokeness’ before, I will not allow anyone — let alone some white American girl — try to guilt trip me into policing my content and interactions on this site, and I sure as fuck won’t let anyone try to make me personally accountable for the behaviour of other users here. If another user not answering an anon from your ‘Jewish friend’ who NO ONE even knew existed makes them and everyone they ever associated with an antisemitic bully, what the fuck does your behaviour now make YOU? Do you have any sense of self-awareness or irony? Or are you just going to keep trying to gaslight everyone when called out for your questionable actions? Don’t blame me for using your own logic against you; these are the standards of ‘discourse’ you have set for this never-ending Tumblr drama you insist on perpetuating. This is the hill you are choosing do die on. Perhaps you’ll finally learn from this whole experience, but somehow I doubt you will.

Feel free to ‘vague’ about me on your blog. Seeing as you’ve already blocked me (despite the fact that I have NEVER interacted with you in all my years here) when I tried to tag you so you can at least respond directly, I thought I’d give you the courtesy of showing your url.

[floatingbook]

Hey just re your unorthodox Jewish anon! I grew up catholic & am seriously considering conversion to Judaism. I’m also a feminist & a lesbian. I think it’s very different for Catholics vs for Jews. You can’t really be culturally catholic but not believe in God, whereas being culturally Jewish & an atheist is definitely possible. Many strands of Judaism encourage disagreement & doubt in a way that, in my unfortunate experience, even the best parts of catholicism don’t. You might have to find a different type of Judaism (reform maybe? I know in some places there are also LGBT+ synagogues, which is just honestly INCREDIBLE coming from a catholic perspective, I wish I’d had a gay-affirming church when I was younger. Anyway). And I know there’s a whole lot of feminist Jewish theology too, which is cool. Anyway. Sorry this is a bit of a mishmash. But it’s basically to say, I think there’s more possibility of staying within your religion / culture in Judaism as a gay feminist woman than there is in Catholicism. All the best!

So this anon was sent to me when I reposted the anon which spurred me to write the twelfth habit shift, You too can kill god. The original anon wondered how to reconciliate her religion and her belief in women’s liberation. My conclusion is still the same. Women’s liberation is in total opposition with any sort of patriarchal religion, and whether you like it or not, Judaism falls into that category. So at the end of the day, “you will likely have to let go of one of them, otherwise you’ll always be pulled into two conflicting directions, dragged around and stretched thin by compromises”.

It’s too easy to say, ‘but my personal understanding of religion is different’, ‘but my group of religious people are not like that’, or to make any other excuse as to how the rest of the people who use the same name and pray the same god are sadly misguided. I understand you mean well, but when you choose to associate with groups or institutions who belittle and oppress women, or when you choose to share a name with them, you’re putting up time and energy to uphold them as well, not just your own, progressive interpretation. So at the end of the day, you’re still choosing the comfort of men telling you what to think, instead of the liberation of women. And that is your choice, to which you are entitled, but you cannot pretend that it’s all well and without consequences.

It’s perfectly possible to upkeep a misogynistic religion while calling yourself a “gay feminist woman”, especially because you’re not defining “feminist” in here. What you, anon, and I would put under “feminism” differs radically. Down the line, perhaps you can manage to reconciliate equality with religion, or make the compromise which sooth you, but I want liberation and I won’t make such compromises. I don’t need a god. If you do, there’s nothing I can do to part you from it, so do not worry too much.

But honestly, pretending that you can separate any sort of patriarchal religion from its god figure, or that you can just take a name charged with history and tradition and pretend nothing bad ever happened in connotation with that name is a self-delusion. You don’t need to call your moral conscience by the name of god for it to exist. It’s fine, you can decide for yourself what’s moral or not, you don’t need to listen to someone else to figure out morality, and you certainly shouldn’t blindly follow something just because your religion says it. You don’t need to disguise or hide morality under any other name.

On a side note, you mentioned it being impossible to be culturally catholic but not believe in god, and I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken on that. France is a good exemple of a place heavily culturally catholic, despite there being fewer and fewer people who actually believe in god.

[a-queer-seminarian]

Hello, you seem to be knowledgeable about god. Do you know where to find him and what his weaknesses are? I have dedicated my life to hunting him down and killing him for the indescribable amount of suffering he has directly or indirectly caused.

cw: violent language, including about fighting / killing God; as well as discussion of the Shoah / Holocaust later on in the post

(gonna start this long-ass response by saying that yes, i know this anon is probably joking about dedicating their life to hunting down God, but i’m gonna answer it like they’re serious because that’s the kind of person i am haha)

honestly anon, all power to ya! it sounds like my own understanding of God is quite different from yours (for instance, i would claim that God’s main weakness is actually Their best strength, which is compassion and steadfast solidarity) -- but the question of why God allows suffering is one i come back to all the damn time.

if you do track God down -- if God turns out to be a Being that can be tracked down to one location and time -- please do deliver my regards and my sincerest “WTF??”

you’re not the first to demand God answer for the suffering that’s happened on Their watch --

for if God is truly omnipotent, and truly all-loving, why don’t they do something about all this pain??? Indeed, the Bible is rich with similar demands -- from the psalmists to Job to Jesus himself from the cross (quoting a psalm, he cries, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me??”).

You might already know all this, but if not, the question of God’s place in suffering is often referred to as theodicy, at least in Christian circles.

That term comes from the Greek for god + justice, so what it literally means is “justifying (or vindicating) God”....which I’m not a huge fan of, because it implies that when we explore this question of where God is in suffering, we already know the result will be that God will be proven innocent (or at least “not guilty”).

But do we know that?? See the bottom of this post for an example of a time people of great faith found God guilty!

Anyway, theodicy describes intellectual efforts “to jerry-rig three mutually exclusive terms into harmony: divine power, goodness, and the experiences of evil.“ - Wendy Farley

If you want to learn more about theodicy and the way some theologians have “made sense” of suffering, check out this introductory post I’ve got.

Or wander through my whole #theodicy tag over on my other blog.

I invite you to explore theodicy not in any attempt to convince you of anything, but so you know some of the arguments you’re up against! Honestly, the more i explore theodicy, the less satisfied i am with any justifications for why God doesn’t intervene in the face of so much suffering...so if you do the reading and still conclude God is guilty, i’m not gonna tell you you’re definitely wrong.

Anyway. Like i said, you’re not alone in wanting answers for why God -- however, i don’t know that i’ve seen anyone else with your determination to find and kill God!

(Except, and i hate that i know this lol, that’s apparently the plot of the final season of Supernatural -- they find out God’s a total ass who not only is guilty of negligence but also directly responsible for a lot of suffering for his own sadistic enjoyment. so. they kill the bastard.)

Still, while i don’t know that i’ve seen too many people who want to take God out, the idea of wrestling God is pervasive -- especially within Judaism, but also among some Christians.

i’m very into wrestling God, myself, finding it far more faithful to the God who gifted us free will and invites us into true, mutual relationship than unquestioning obedience.

i have a whole #wrestling God tag over on my other blog.

For the most intense example of wrestling with God i’ve yet seen, with God put on trial and found guilty, keep reading.

_________

cw: discussion of the Shoah / Holocaust below

You might connect to Elie Wiesel’s play The Trial of God, or the movie that was made based off it. Wiesel survived Nazi concentration camps but ceased to believe in God after what he suffered. His play was inspired by something he witnessed while a teen at Auschwitz:

"I witnessed a strange trial. Three rabbis—all erudite and pious men—decided one winter evening to indict God for allowing his children to be massacred. I remember: I was there, and I felt like crying. But nobody cried."

Robert McAfee Brown wrote more about this trial Wiesel witnessed:

“The trial lasted several nights. Witnesses were heard, evidence was gathered, conclusions were drawn, all of which issued finally in a unanimous verdict: the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, was found guilty of crimes against creation and humankind.”

Note that in 2008 when commenting on this event, Wiesel clarified that “At the end of the trial, they used the word chayav, rather than ‘guilty.’ It means ‘He owes us something.’”

In the chapter “No God, Only Auschwitz” of his book Embracing Hopelessness, Miguel A. De La Torre comments on this verdict by explaining that if God wasn’t going to intervene, then God must at the least speak -- but instead, God was silent:

“God must be held accountable for refusing to speak to those yearning for God’s voice. Something. Anything. A note of solidarity. A testament of love, accompaniment. But they hear and receive nothing. The trial...ends with God owing us something.

De La Torre goes on to describe the play Wiesel wrote based on this memory, which actually takes place in a 1649 Ukranian village, rather than at Auschwitz. The Cossacks raid the village and kill all but two of its Jewish residents.

“In Wiesel’s play, he has the inkeeper Berish voice the same questions those sitting in death camps centuries later asked, if not audibly, then silently:

‘To mention God’s mercy in Shamgorod [Auschwitz] is an insult. Speak of his cruelty instead. ...I want to understand why. He is giving strength to the killers and nothing but tears and the shame of helplessness to the victims. ...Either he is responsible or He is not. If He is, let’s judge him; if He is not, let him stop judging us. ...

‘[I] accuse Him of hostility, cruelty and indifference. ...Either He knows what’s happening to us, or He doesn’t wish to know! In both cases He is...guilty! Would a father stand by, quietly, silently, and watch his children being slaughtered?’”

De La Torre continues with his own thoughts on all this:

“The horrors humanity faces indict God as being less loving and attentive than sinful parents. I hesitate to make any pronouncements as to the character of God because in the final analysis, I lack any empirical knowledge upon which to base my study. Still with all my heart and being I want to say: my God is the God of the oppressed who incarnates Godself among the least of these.

I want to make this bold claim based on the testimony of the gospel witness. But in the midst of the dark night, I confess this hopeful belief is at best a tenet accepted by faith, lacking any means of proving the truth or falsehood of the claim. In the shadow of Auschwitz, though I am not Jewish, nonetheless I am left wondering if the precious Deity who notices the fall of a sparrow is blind to God’s children crushed in the winepress. Do I dare wonder if God is the God of the oppressors?

...Or maybe this is a God who really wants to do good, but lacks the power to do anything in the face of inhumanity. ..."

There’s one more piece to this tale of Wiesel’s witness of the trial of God at Auschwitz. And that is that, after declaring God guilty (or chayav)...

...after what Wiesel describes as an "infinity of silence", the Talmudic scholar looked at the sky and said "It's time for evening prayers", and the members of the tribunal recited Maariv, the evening service. (McAfee Brown)

...That ending is the part that astounds and awes me. These Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz find God guilty -- and then proceed to pray as they always do. I am reminded of what my Jewish friends as well as various Jewish scholars have told me: that Judaism is totally compatible with wrestling with God and even with disbelief. Whether these Jewish prisoners believed God even existed, they prayed -- because that tradition of prayer is what unites them to one another, to their people.

As De La Torre closes his telling of Wiesel’s story,

“At the conclusion of the movie God on Trial, based on the events Wiesel described, shortly after the barrack inmates find God guilty, and those chosen are marched to the gas chamber, they cover their heads and pray. ...

Believers and unbelievers who took the audacious act of placing God on trial do what is totally illogical -- in the midst of their hopelessness they demonstrate their faith as they march toward the gas chambers, or they defiantly embrace who they are while still remaining in heated conversation, damning God. It matters not if God still hears their prayers, or if there even is a God to hear; they still pray, they still debate -- not for God’s sake, but for their own.”

And that brings me to the one bit of actual advice I’ll give you, anon:

If you want to spend your life “hunting God down,” as I said, all power to you! But I do suggest you ponder for whose sake you do so -- and whether you do so for justice or just revenge. What good does such a quest do for those who are suffering now? Are their other paths you could follow that would bring more good? What about your own healing? I imagine you’re not interested in repairing any relationship with religion -- would walking away from God rather than hounding God be a more healing and fruitful path for your finite life?

I’ll close with one more quote from De La Torre, from the very end of his chapter:

“As I stroll through what was once the concentration camp of Dachau, I am cognizant that this space witnessed the unspeakable horrors that befell God’s children at the hands of Christians hoping for a better, purer society and future. ...So do not offer me your words of hope; offer me your praxis for justice. ...In the midst of unfathomable suffering, the earth’s marginalized no longer need pious pontifications about rewards in some hereafter. Nor do they need their oppressors providing the answers for their salvation. What is needed is disruption of the norm to push humanity toward an unachievable justice.

When there is nothing to lose, when work does not set you free, not only are multiple possibilities opened up with new opportunities for radical change unimaginable to those playing it safe; but also a venue is provided by which to get real with whatever this God signifies. ...”

[lysergicdialectic]

Matt Christman on pseudo-experience and the ‘Uncut Gems’ death drive

Excerpted from Friday Vibestream: Alpha Sanction, Feb. 5, 2021.

Someone had a long thing in chat just now saying that we're a schizophrenic society because of the divide between our digital and real selves. And I think that's true, but I think it even goes deeper than that, because that is only a proxy for the greater, the deeper divide in the modern self between the chronologically grounded self—i.e., the body in space—and the mental, mind self that is unbounded by space or time. And the Internet is, more than anything, a tool to allow us to spend time in our bodies that is not processed chronologically, and therefore cannot accrue meaning because meaning must adhere to experience. And there is no experience to online. It is a pseudo-experience.

You get mad, and you get angry, and you get horny, and you get scared, but it's essentially your brain tricking you into feeling those feelings. And so what you assign the cause of those feelings is also made up by your brain, which is harder to do when the source of your emotional responses is a material interaction that occurs in a chronological space-time.

I was pretty old when I really got into the Internet and I think that's one of the reasons it wore off for me, because it was never as satisfying as it is for younger people because the contrast between a life that I had had or I imagine I could've had instead of it was greater. Whereas I think for younger people, the internet is taken for granted.

But that doesn't mean that a crack-up is not inevitable. We're in the process of a full social breakdown. But that doesn't necessarily mean the apocalypse or the end of anything. It means people are getting to the end of their particular ropes. The coping mechanisms we've created, they have a fuse. They don't last forever. There's only so much dopamine you can get from a pseudo-existence. And it's different for people, like some people it's longer than others. But everybody gets to a point, and I think we're all getting there.

And I think one of the big reasons that we've had this big explosion in political hysteria in the last year is 'cause of fucking COVID. And it's weird how we've normalized COVID so much that we forget that there's no way that I, anyway, can imagine things like QAnon occurring, the fucking Capitol breach occurring, without a context where our coping mechanisms have been radically reduced. The things we have had historically to allow us to vent, to compensate for the lack within our lives, are sucked in. And if that persists, it's only going to get weirder. I think we're in for weird, weird, weird times. But weird times are when new things emerge, by definition.

And that's something that—it's obviously scary but to me, it's less scary than the narrative that a lot of people have internalized of total social fixedness; of the idea that these categories are unchallengeable. And people have said that I say that, but I just mean that looking through the current structures, that is the conclusion to draw—but that doesn't mean that it's the correct conclusion. ...

The last movie I saw in a theater was Uncut Gems, which we talked about a little bit on the last episode about Trump movies, but I'd like to end here talking about how I couldn't really have picked a more perfect film becuase that movie is about the death drive of American society. I mean, I know it's specifically about, you know, Judaism and stuff and the Jewish experience, but it's part of a broader analysis of a people—Americans—who believe themselves to be eternal beings, but have physical bodies, and who can't reconcile those two things other than by subconsciously seeking death on their preferred terms.

Like the beginning of the movie he's getting the rectal exam and it's actually kind of up in the air, and I actually thought he was going to get a call halfway through that he had cancer. And then he gets the call, "Oh, I don't have cancer." Yet! Oh he doesn't have it now. That doesn't mean in five years he's not going to have it. That doesn't mean in ten he's not going to get it, and he even talks about his family history. He's probably going to get it. Does he want that? Does he want to wait around to fucking get chemo and get sick, the thing that everybody watches their family members go through with horror? Or, do you die on your own terms going out on top. And that is why that movie has a happy ending. He got what he wanted.

But in real life, you can't do that. And one of the reasons we're cracking up is that it's a society of Howie Ratners trying to dictate their end, but you can't know. You can't do it. Because you set it up and it doesn't come because you don't want to die in your conscious mind, and then it doesn't happen, and then you have to keep doing it, you keep doing the same thing, and it drives you into madness. And it's driving us all into madness.

It's especially funny seeing that movie right at the moment where Bernie looked like he might win, you know, before COVID happened. It's like oh, if you could pick a moment, wouldn't that have been the moment? But you don't get to pick the moment. You don't get to be Howie Ratner. He is a classic hero in the sense that he saw the moment, even though he didn't know he was seeking it, and he got his end. He got an end on his own terms.

[giftofshewbread]

Nothing to See Here (or is there)

 By Jeff Van Hatten      Published on: June 24, 2021

For years we have been lied to. I am tired of being lied to. No, not just tired, livid. But take heart, many of the lies that have been perpetrated upon the people of the world are being revealed, as prophesied.

Titans / Giants / Nephilim

For years we have been told that the Sons of God are just the progeny of Seth. Giants, called Nephilim by the Bible, are just the figments of imagination. The Titans, those men of renown, were just superheroes of ancient times, not the hybrid progeny of humans and Gods. Nuttin to see here . . .

However, bones do exist that are not strictly human – they are much larger than human bones and have DNA that is different, the Titans of ancient times are historically documented, and those truths are slowly being revealed, no matter how assiduously the powers that be deny it.

Deep State

For years we have been told that there is no such thing as a hidden group of individuals that actually run the governments of the world, who control those who have been “elected”. . Nuttin to see here . . .

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are indeed rulers, authorities, cosmic powers, and spiritual forces of evil that guide the nations’ leaders, and those truths are slowly being revealed, no matter how assiduously the powers that be deny it.

Election Fraud

For months we have been told that there was no fraud committed in the 2020 election. Nuttin to see here . . .

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that numerous anomalies have been discovered, and those truths are slowly being revealed, no matter how assiduously the powers that be deny it.

Earthquakes

For years we have been told that there has been no great increase in the number of earthquakes. And yet, just recently, the USGS has posted revised totals for the past several years that have jumped anywhere from 22,000 to over 100,000 above the original numbers. Nuttin to see here . . .

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the number of earthquakes is increasing each year, and those truths are slowly being revealed, no matter how assiduously the powers that be deny it.

UFO / UAP Phenomenon

For years we have been told that unidentified flying objects are just the figments of imagination. I recently received an email from a person claiming to be a member of the U.S. operational intelligence community who wrote, “The ‘interest’ that the U.S. Government is expressing now is a psychological operation (psyop) being played upon the public.” Nuttin to see here . . .

However, craft and other objects do exist that are not produced by earthly individuals, the Pentagon recently admitted that military personnel have been encountering unidentified aircraft for a while now, and we have records of these encounters dating back decades. Those truths are slowly being revealed, no matter how assiduously the powers that be deny it.

Covid-19

At the outset of the Covid-19 infection, we were told that this would be the most devastating disease ever to hit the planet – millions were going to die. Lock-downs were ordered, masks were demanded, and the PRC test was used to confirm that this was indeed a pandemic. None of the available remedies, such as Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Ivermectin, or Remdesivir would help. Now we are being told that the “vaccines” do not have any dangerous side effects. Nuttin to see here . . .

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that had then-current medicines been used, it may have reduced the death toll, lock-downs and masks have not been effective in slowing or stopping the disease, and the “vaccines” (which are more truthfully genetic modifying agents) do not stop those injected from getting Covid-19. These truths are slowly being revealed, no matter how assiduously the powers that be deny it.

The Rapture

For years we have been told that the rapture is an instant disappearing event. Nuttin to see here . . . (no pun intended – smile)!

However, the raptures of Elijah (2 Kings 2:7-12) and Yeshua (Acts 1:9) were fully witnessed events. The rapture of the two witnesses of Revelation will also be witnessed (Revelation 11:12).

Virtually all agree that the Jewish Wedding Ceremony is a perfect picture or pattern of Yeshua’s actions of taking his Bride. When the bridegroom’s father gives him permission to go get his bride, he does not simply walk outside his newly built home, blow the shofar, shout “Wife, come here,” and poof, she instantly disappears from her father’s house and appears at his feet. NO, NO, NO – he and his friends literally have to go and carry her from her house to his new home. That ride is well witnessed by all who have been awakened by the shouting and blowing of shofars of the bridegroom and his friends. No disappearing event here, either!

The patterns are consistent. The truth that the rapture of Elijah, Yeshua, and others was (or will be) a well-witnessed event is slowly being revealed and lends me to believe that the rapture of the Bride of Yeshua will more than likely also be a well-witnessed event, no matter how assiduously anyone may deny it.

Conclusions

Luke 8:17 – “For nothing is hidden that will not be disclosed, nothing is covered up that will not be known and come out into the open.” (also see Job 12:22; Matthew 10:26; Mark 4:23; and Luke 12:2)

The world loves the lies. But Yahweh hates the lies and reveals the truth. Yeshua is about to return, and so the lies that are being perpetrated are being revealed for what they are – blatant untruths. Yeshua is the way, the truth, and the life; and the darkness must give way before him.

[365days365movies]

February 24, 2021: Annie Hall (Part 2)

Back to a great movie made by a, uh...controversial figure!

Back to The Neurotic Misadventures of Alvy Singer! First part of the Recap is right here. On we go!

Recap (Part 2)

Well, dinner’s awkward with Annie’s family, which includes her anti-Semitic grandmother, who sees Alvy as the most Jewish stereotype ever, in yet another case of visual storytelling. Seriously, Allen is extremely adept at melding verbal and visual storytelling in an amusing fashion.

That’s made even clearer when Alvy speaks to us again, and compared Annie’s family to his own, as the screen divides in two. Towards the end of the scene, the families converse with each other and compare their traditions. It’s, uh...it’s fantastic. I genuinely love it.

After dinner, Alvy talks to Alvy’s brother, Duane (Christopher Walken)...and just, like...just watch this. Please.

That’s fucking hilarious.

We fast forward, and Alvy and Annie are arguing about close contact between Annie and a college instructor of one of her classes. She says it was nothng, and counters that Alvy’s not willing to commit to a relationship. She believes that this is because he doesn’t believe she’s smart enough, which leads to another flashback.

Fresh off of a visit with a Freudian psychologist recommended by Alvy, she comes home having seemingly had a breakthrough. But her dreams also seem to suggest that Alvy’s smothering her. That’s seemingly confirmed by the fact that he’s been following her around when we flash forward to the argument about the professor. Fuckin’ YIKES.

The two basically break up, right there on the street, immediately causing Alvy to go into a spiral of confusion. He asks random people on the street questions about their relationships, in a sort of fourth-wall breaking way. This leads to Alvy remembering watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as a child, and immediately falling for the Evil Queen rather than Snow White.

That bring us into an animated segue starring Annie as the Evil Queen (I think, since that’s definitely Diane Keaton’s voice), and Alvy as himself. He asks her if she’s ornery because she’s on her period...and yeah, it’s the right time to point out that Alvy DEFINITELY is not a perfect guy. In fact, he’s kind of a paranoid asshole whose neuroses tend to ruin his relationships, but he never truly blames himself for those problems, always seeming to target outside factors. Yeah, dude needs a therapist, but...maybe a different one?

Rob appears in the animated dream, and tells him that he has a woman just for her. That woman is Rosicrucian reporter Pam (Shelley Duvall), who’s...not the right person for Alvy, clearly, as is proved by their tough sex that night. But right after this date, Alvy gets a call from a clearly distressed Annie, who asks him to come over at 3 in the morning. But why?

To kill a spider. Yeah, she calls him to kill a spider in the bathroom. He’s clearly upset by this, and acts hostile and critical of Annie, while speculating on her current relationship status. He also mocks the fact that she can’t kill a spider...until he sees the spider, which is apparently huge. What proceeds is him destroying the bathroom in order to kill the spider, which is hilarious, naturally. 

But as expected, the spider’s not the reason that she called him. Because she actually just misses him. He lies about having Pam at his place, and the two reunite, deciding to continue their relationship. With Rob, they go to Brooklyn and visit Alvy’s memories of his family - literally.

Once again, I’m genuinely impressed by the visual storytelling. They interact indirectly with the memories, and it’s fantastic. Seriously, I understand the appeal of this film, because it’s very well-written and conceptualized. And that concept is well-realized as well. I am impressed.

Annie’s once again singing at a club, and it’s a good song. On a related note, Diane Keaton has a nice voice! Never knew, but she’s a very talented woman. Alvy agrees, and tells her as much after her set is finished. A man named Tony Lacey (Paul Simon, yes, of Simon and Garfunkel, holy shit) approaches her and asks if she’s attached to a record label, but a jealous and paranoid Alvy essentially sabotages the possibility.

Instead of going to a party where she could potentially make a connection, Alvy convinces her to once again go and see The Sorrow and the Pity. And from there, we see each of their therapy sessions, side-by-side. And things are...not going well. Yeah, since Brooklyn, the two aren’t gelling like they used to.

After a VERY funny scene involving cocaine (yes, really), the two go with Rob to Los Angeles around Christmastime. They’re there so that Alvy can present an award on live television, and also to see Rob’s television show. He suddenly comes down with a case of nausea and sickness, and the doctor can’t figure out why. However, as soon as the award show finds a replacement for him, he gets immediately and miraculously better.

They head to a party later on, held by Tony Lacey, much to Alvy’s display. Also attending the party is...Jeff Goldblum? He, uh...he forgot his mantra.

On the flight home, the two have an internal monologue about their relationship, and both of them each come to the conclusion that their relationship no longer works. That inner monologue breaks into outer monologue, and they mutually agree to break up.

When they get back, they formally break up, and would appear to be complacent with that. However, Alvy basically IMMEDIATELY regrets it, which he tells to passersby on the street. He goes out with another woman, but it also doesn’t work out. Meanwhile, Annie’s in L.A., working with Tony Lacey on a record deal. Despite her urgings for him not to, Alvy flies all the way out there to reunite with her, and even rents a car that he can’t really drive.

They reunite once again at a restauant, where Alvy immediately proposes to her. However, Annie wants to stay in L.A., as she’s happy, and criticizes Alvy’s inability to enjoy life. She refuses him, and says that she’s not sure she loves him anymore. He’s not really OK with that, and has a hard time accepting the idea of just being friends.

They part ways with some turbulence, and Alvy immediately gets in a car accident, and gets arrested after having a neurotic breakdown. He’s bailed out by Tony, who goes to get him after being interrupted from...sleeping with twin 16-year-olds...Jesus.

Upon returning to New York, Alvy writes a play that’s LITERALLY just their relationship the way that Alvy wishes it would end. He speaks to the screen and notes that as his first play, it wasn’t particularly very good.

However, he did run into Annie again after all that time, back in NYC, where she’d moved back. They reminisce over the good times, which is seen through flashbacks through all of the moments of love in their relationship. However, they part ways without any further longing. Alvy closes us out on a joke, and relates it to his feelings on relationships as a whole.

I thought of that old joke. This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, ‘Doc, my brother’s crazy. He thinks he’s a chicken.’ And the doctor says, ‘Well, why don’t you turn him in?’ And the guy says, ‘I would, but I need the eggs.’ Well, I guess that’s pretty much now how I feel about relationships. They’re totally irrational and crazy and absurd and . . . but I guess we keep going through it because most of us need the eggs.

And that...was Annie Hall! Wow. As comedies and as romances go, that was absolutely not what I was expecting. I’ve got a lot of thoughts, but I’ll get to those in the Review! See you there!

[stina-is-a-punk-rocker]

becky albertalli’s ‘simon vs. the homo sapiens agenda’: a review, amongst other things

I walked into Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda fully prepared to hate it. I’d read it a grand total of one (01) time before, way back in December 2019, with very high expectations that were dashed to smithereens halfway through. On my first reading, I found it terribly cliché, vapid and utterly undeserving of the multitude of four- and five-star ratings on Goodreads.

I’m still iffy about those ratings (it’s a solid two-point-five, three at best for me), but I didn’t hate it as much the second time around. Maybe it was because my expectations were so low that the only way it could go from there was up. You could say that I almost… enjoyed it.

That didn’t stop me from scribbling a page of complaints, though.

I’ve seen many reviews hailing the book as a win for the LGBTQ+ community, for BIPOC, for YA fiction. And Albertalli’s certainly done a better job of writing the character of a homosexual male than certain others. Simon’s whole coming-out crisis is definitely relatable, and it’s definitely a relief to have a character who’s accepted their sexuality instead of one who spends roughly 200 pages whining, “bUt HoW cAn I LiKe BoY wHeN I aM bOy??”

And yet it can be so tone-deaf in other parts.

The most glaring example is at the start of the book (I doubt this constitutes as a spoiler), where Simon says (lmao), about lesbian and bisexual girls: “I think it’s different for girls. Maybe it’s easier. If there’s one thing the Tumblr has taught me, it’s that a lot of guys consider it hot when a girl is a lesbian.”

Yes, the really says ‘the Tumblr’. And it’s not the last time, either.

I find it hard to believe that Simon, a gen-Z if my calculations serve me correct, has a Tumblr account and doesn’t know about Phan, Drarry, Destiel (RIP), Larry Stylinson (yikes) and the other staple gay OTPs of gen-Z Tumblr culture. If there’s one thing the Tumblr has taught me, it’s that there are way too many gay male ships with a brunette and a blond, with predominantly female fans.

Granted, Simon’s talking about their school’s gossip blog in particular, but that can’t be the only blog he follows.

Because fetishization is so easy, am I right, ladies?

You might bring up the ‘death of the author’ paradigm; Simon’s views ≠ Becky Albertalli’s; Simon is a teenage boy and teenage boys are generally idiots- and yet it feels like this is something the author genuinely believes, because she’s also included Simon being A-okay and even flattered by his friend Leah’s gay fanart and fanfic obsession. Yeah… no. Fetishization of queer people is creepy and dehumanizing and I’ve yet to meet a single queer person who’s on board with the idea of cishets doing so.

Also, the fact that he warmed up to Martin even while he was being blackmailed is something no actual closeted queer would do, ever. I’m pretty sure I’m speaking for loads of queer people when I say that being out to someone you don’t trust is a literal nightmare- even worse when they use that against you. And this motherfucker’s all like, “Well yeah, he’s threatening to out me to everyone if I don’t set him up with my best friend, but he’s kinda funny :) I think we could be friends.”

Simon- fuck you, you smoothbrained numbskull.

Another thing I found cringey was how many pop culture references were thrown in. Why, on god’s green earth, would you name a dog Bieber? For one, that’s a godawful name; for another- Justin Bieber? Really?

I consider myself a pretty avid fan of Harry Potter (here I will insert the obligatory ‘fuck you, JKR’), and whenever I see a reference thrown in, I feel like that one Spider-Man meme. And yet there were way. too. many. in this damn book. Seriously. We get it. Simon’s a Potterhead. That’s enough.

Also, I’m obligated to cancel anyone who likes Reese’s cups. They’re fucking vile.

Other attempts at gen-Z-ing that made me want to fling myself into the nearest black hole: every time Simon said ‘I can’t even’; a pop-punk band called ‘Emoji’ (!!! the way I cringed !!!); ‘the’ Tumblr (yeah, I’m never letting that go); Nora unironically saying ‘OMG’ in a verbal conversation; the absolute LACK of One Direction references (see, this is why I love John Green); amongst others.

Simon’s got zero personality outside of his sexuality. In case you didn’t catch it the eight thousand times it was mentioned, Simon is gay. And… that’s about it.

Leah’s annoying and yet I’m ashamed to say I can sort of see where she’s coming from (I’ve had a long and illustrious history of being left out and ignored by my friends, but this is neither the time nor place to discuss my childhood trauma, so I’ll leave it at that). Her enmity with Abby was unnecessary and uncalled for. Nick’s… a Jewish guitarist? And that’s about it? Abby’s cute and quirky and lovable and I love her. Martin’s a bag of dicks plus more. It was pretty obvious to me who Blue was; if you’ve read a YA book, ever, it’s the easiest thing to guess.

The characters were painfully one-dimensional. I can imagine them existing in that particular story, but I couldn’t tell you a single thing about them outside of it. It’s like they don’t exist outside of those pages- they couldn’t be actual people, if that makes sense (it probably doesn’t, but humor me).

The family dynamic between the Spiers was believable and pretty well-written (says me, who has zero siblings). I liked how the diversity didn’t feel contrived- just enough information to tell you that Abby and Bram were black, Nick was Jewish, Blue was half-Jewish, amongst others (funnily enough, when I first read it, I thought the exact opposite). The dialogue between characters felt pretty natural, too.

In conclusion: was Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda a perfect LGBTQ+ novel? I’ve read objectively better works on Ao3 (seriously, those of you who look down on fanfiction are missing out on some quality stuff), but it’s a pretty standard Wattpad-worthy story. It has its issues, and it’s far from the best thing I’ve ever read, and it’s not going on my favorites list anytime soon. You’re not missing out on anything if you choose to not read it, I can guarantee you that. But it’s a decently fun read, and perfect if you want something to while away an afternoon- it’s hardly going to take up too many hours to get through.

And would you look at that- I finally managed to write a review without a single spoiler (admittedly, there’s nothing to spoil outside of Blue’s identity, but let me have this).

[allypacino]

15,22,25

Thank you for the ask <3 I RANTED ranted so I'm putting all of it under the line.

I've seen up to 4x20 so far and I think my favourite episode thus far might be "What Is and What Should Never Be" in season 2, the djinn episode (2x20).

I've put some thoughts into this and I think that this might be my favorite example of early SPN for me. Although it deviates from the norm, the general premise still rests within the monster of the week format while allowing for some of the best character exploration of the series. Don't get me wrong, 4x16 lives in my head rent free and I am always thinking about rebelling against authorfathergod, the theological implications of having the work of angels be undone by a leaky pipe, the holiness that lies in fallibility yada yada but I'm aware that the precarious, dizzying potential Supernatural carried did not mean that the episode itself was perfect on paper. On that level, I thought that 2x20 executed its storytelling really well.

It was during a time where the narrative predominantly relied on Sam as the audience-insert protagonist, and having Dean be the one who we relied on was a fascinating change of pace. The show was famously dark during this period with its lighting and the episode flipped it on its head, letting us see Dean's dream world - and get this. John Winchester is dead and Dean and Sam are estranged.

This literally drives me CRAZY. Even in an ideal world John is not around. What does that mean for Dean, who idolised his dad and copied everything he did? It suddenly introduced this fascinating fold in Dean's characterisation, and allowed for the deconstruction of the nuclear family. Paradise is not just mom and dad and two dogs, paradise depends on the people. And Dean was deep down self-aware enough to know that John, as he knew him, would not fit in. He's always been aware, and even though this was season 2, where he was in throes of guilt over the death of his father, he still couldn't see a way he'd be back.

But the saddest part of the episode is how he felt distanced from Sam. His brother meant everything to him, and here they barely spoke to each other. It was clear that the Dean in this universe was a troublemaking alcoholic. Was he afraid that hunting was the only thing he and Sam had in common? Did he think that he was so awful and worthless that without their trauma that bound them together, he'd be cut out of their lives? Was he relieved that he and Sam had their individual lives? It was devastating to see. Oh toxic codependency we're really in it now!!

Apart from the characterisation, the plot was neatly done and I was genuinely kinda scared by the ghostly visions in this a couple of times. So good job on the horror for back when this was a horror show!

So I think that s1-5 are all about the legacy of John Winchester. Even after his death his shadow looms over the entire show. In many ways this show is about John Winchester, because this show is about authorfathergod. Everything is about what John Winchester left behind and every episode is about Sam and Dean dealing with the implications of John Winchester's decisions to give his life or leave them behind or teach them that they need to suck it up. Every couple of episodes Sam and Deam argue about what dad would do and what it means to be made in your father's image, what it means to have always been destined to be cursed, or carry the anger or the stubbornness. Begotten not made. Where did John come from? And is it your father's fault or your father's father's fault, and will you deal with that or will you take his lessons and pass it on. Is it your duty to honour thy father or is it your mission to rebel. Is your religion only your religion because it was passed down to you by your dad? Do you believe in God or do you believe in the fear of God your father put in you? Who is God but a negligent father. Neither of them answer your prayers.

John was in the navy and his militaristic parenting method and the ruthlessness with which he treated monsters defined the tone of the show in its early days. I read yesterday that s1-2 of spn were the most requested dvds by this military division in? Like 2007? And honestly that's the problem!!! The entire show refuses to address the humanisation of monsters and presents them as almost unambiguously evil, with the protagonists never truly confronting what it means to kill the innocent but different. That's the military! John's navy background, in this way, literally sets up one of the primary flaws of the entire show. The inability to see the enemy as worthy of life because they are inherently other. Yikes yikes! As a post-9/11 show, very haunting to see the influences of the American military here knowing what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Furthermore John was just... A really bad parent. He never celebrated christmas with his sons (let alone any Jewish holidays, I'm assuming, even though Mary had Jewish ancestors), never even took Dean (or Sam) to a baseball game. He neglected his very young children and made Dean the parent of the household, and punished him by sending him away if he strayed from his orders. He was a goddamn drill sergeant and gave his sons so many issues. He told Dean to kill Sam before he died. He never said he was proud of them. And yeah, he drove out to see Sam at Stanford and also gave his life for Dean, but the guy was terrible at raising his kids.

The thing is that John is a righteous man. He's supposed to have never broken in hell, he saved countless lives, he's like the ultimate hero that Sam and Dean can't live up to. And on a narrative level... That's such a cop out, man. This is a character written for those who can't bring themselves to care, or be responsible to their loved ones, but go "I would die for you and I would kill for you". You know the ones. And maybe they even could. But it doesn't matter, because people are in fact nuanced and sacrificial acts of love does not make up for the years of neglect he put his kids through. But yeah, he's complicated. In "In the Beginning" we see how he was such a hopeful mechanic, far removed from what we know him as, but then you think back to the pilots and you remember how the beer bottles started before any demonic activity, and you know that the picturesque family John hammered into Sam and Dean like a religion was never going to last.

I do think some writers were fully aware of his flaws whereas some loved him as a dad, but in many ways I think that that's totally in character for Sam and Dean, who loved their father regardless of everything yet knew that he was an obsessed bastard. Spn is such an inconsistent show that I feel like the story can get so thin sometimes that the secret good version of supernatural is one step away from breaking out from underneath it. I love it no I don't I do <3

I've said a lot about Sam and Dean BUT my favorite character is Castiel so i am at a direct disadvantage having only seen up to 4x20 here! I have a special love for season 2 because it has a lot of my fave motws, and also ended on a really devastating note of Dean making the hell deal, and I like pain. But Castiel Angel of the Lord is in s4 and also this season has legit been really good. I feel like s5 might be my favorite season from what I know of it though. In conclusion... Idk!!! I love Cas but post-hell Sam and Dean are so miserable. Maybe I'd love Dabb era domesticity instead.

Muchtothinkabout.jpeg I am sorry for procrastinating this for 24 hrs and i'm sorry for this long ass ramble <3 hope it's a little entertaining

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: Muslim Beliefs: Existence and Oneness of God Almighty: TAWHID (GOD’S ONENESS)

All religions revealed to the Prophets have the same essence. Over time, however, the original message was misinterpreted, mixed with superstition, and degenerated into magical practices and meaningless rituals. The conception of God, the very core of religion, was debased by anthropomorphism, deifying angels, associating others with God, considering Prophets or godly people as incarnations of God (Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, and Rama), and personifying His Attributes through separate deities.

The Prophet rejected such theological trends and restored the conception of God as the only Creator, Sustainer, and Master of all creation to its pristine purity. Thus, as John Davenport puts it:

Among many excellencies of which the Quran may justly boast are two eminently conspicuous: the one being the tone of awe and reverence which it always observes when speaking of, or referring to, the Deity, to Whom it never attributes human frailties and passions; the other the total absence throughout it of all impure, immoral and indecent ideas, expressions, narratives, etc., blemishes, which, it is much to be regretted, of too frequent occurrence in the Jewish scriptures.

Tawhid, Divine Unity and Oneness, is clearly observed throughout the universe. If we look at ourselves and our environment, we easily discern that everything depends upon this principle. For example, our bodily parts cooperate with each other. Each cell is so connected with the whole body that the One Who created it must be He Who created the body. Likewise, each element comprising the universe is interrelated and in harmony with each other element and the universe as a whole.

Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the same Creator Who created the particles created the universe, and that the motion of subatomic particles is the same as that observed in the solar system. Everything originates from “one” and returns to “one”: We originated the first creation, so We shall bring it back (to its former state) again (21:104). A tree, for instance, grows out of a seed or a stone and finally results in a seed or a stone. This strict obedience to the One Who established that order explains why the universe is so orderly and harmonious. As the Creator, One, All-Omnipotent and All-Knowing, operates it directly, how could it be otherwise? As the Qur’an reminds us:

Each god would have taken off what he created, and some of them would have risen up over others. Had there been gods in Earth and heaven other than God, they both would have been in disorder. (21:22)

Tawhid is the highest conception of deity that God revealed to us through His Prophets, among whom were Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Over time, people deviated from the pure teachings after their Prophets died. Turning to polytheism or idolatry, they relied upon their own faulty reasoning, false perceptions, and biased interpretations to satisfy their lusts. Such a course is impossible with a tawhid-based system, for this requires that they obey only the One Supreme God’s commandments.

‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib is reported to have said:

The foremost in religion is God’s knowledge, the perfection of His knowledge is to testify to Him, the perfection of testifying to Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him as pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny all kinds of negative attributes about Him.

He is infinite and eternal, self-existent and self-sufficient. As stated in the Qur’an:

He is God, One, needy of nothing and Everlasting Refuge; He begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him. (112:1-4)

There is nothing like or compared unto Him. (42:11)

Vision perceives Him not, and He perceives all vision; and He (alone) is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing. (6:103)

In the words of ‘Ali:

He is Being but not through the phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not by physical nearness. He is different from everything but not by physical separation. He acts but without the accompaniment of movements and instruments. He is the One, only such that there is none with whom He keeps company or whom He misses in his absence.

God’s Attributes cannot be transferred or present in another, since they are infinite. One who cannot keep himself alive cannot give life to others. One who cannot protect his own power cannot govern the vast universe. The more one reflects, the clearer it becomes that all divine powers and attributes must exist in only in that one particular being.

Implications of Tawhid

Monotheists, those who believe in Tawhid, cannot be narrow-minded. Their belief in One God, Creator of the heavens and Earth, Master of the east and the west, and Sustainer of the universe, leads them to view everything as belonging to the same Lord, to Whom they belong as well. Thus they consider nothing as alien. Their sympathy, love, and service are not confined to any particular race, color, or group, and they come to understand the Prophetic saying: “O servants of God, be brethren!”

Monotheism produces the highest degree of self-respect and self-esteem in people. Monotheists know that only God has true power, can benefit or harm them, fulfill their needs, cause them to die, or wield authority and influence. This conviction makes them indifferent to and independent and fearless of all powers other than those of God. They never bow in homage to any of God’s creatures.

Monotheists, although humble and mild, never abase themselves by bowing before anyone or anything except God. They never aim at any advantage by their worship, even if that advange is Paradise. They seek only to please God and obtain His approval.

Monotheists, although naturally weak and powerless as human beings, become powerful enough through their Lord’s Power to resist the whole world. They are virtuous and altruistic, for their purpose is to gain God’s approval by working for His good pleasure. Boisterous pride of power and wealth can have no room in their hearts, for they know that whatever they possess is bestowed by God, and that God can take away as easily as He can give.

Monotheists know that the only way to success and salvation is to acquire a pure soul and righteous behavior. They have perfect faith in God, Who is above all need, related to none, absolutely just, and without partner in His exercise of Divine Power. Given this belief, they understand that they can succeed only through right living and just action, for no influence or underhanded activity can save them from ruin. However, some believe that someone has atoned for their sins; and others assert that they are God’s favorites and thus immune to punishment. Still others believe that their idols or saints will intercede with God on their behalf, and so make offerings to their deities in the belief that such bribes give them a license to do whatever they want. Such false beliefs keep them entangled in sin and evil, and their dependence on such deities cause them to neglect their need for spiritual purification and for living pure and good lives.

Monotheists do not become hopeless and disappointed. Their firm faith in God, Master of all treasures of Earth and the heavens, and Possessor of limitless grace and bounty and infinite power, imparts to their hearts extraordinary consolation, fills it with satisfaction, and keeps it filled with hope. In this world they might meet with rejection at all doors, nothing might serve their ends, and all means might desert them. But faith in and dependence on God, which never leave them, give them the strength to go on struggling. Such a profound confidence can come only from belief in the One God. Such a belief produces great determination, patient perseverance, and trust in God. When they decide to devote their resources to fulfilling the Divine Commands to secure God’s good pleasure and approval, they are sure that they have the Lord of the Universe’s support and backing.

Many polytheists and atheists, on the other hand, usually have small hearts and depend on limited powers. Thus their troubles and the resulting despair soon overwhelm them and, frequently, they commit suicide. Professor Joad’s testimony is explicit on this point:

For the first time in history there is coming to maturity a generation of men and women [in the West of the 1950s] who have no religion, and feel no need for one. They are content to ignore it. Also they are very unhappy, the suicide rate is abnormally high. (Phillip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, 6th ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1956), 129.)

As opposed to this, a non-Muslim historian who is not sympathetic to Islam, writes the following about Tawhid:

In this uncompromising monotheism, with its simple, enthusiastic faith in the supreme rule of a transcendental being, lies the chief strength of Islam. Its adherents enjoy a consciousness of contentment and resignation unknown among followers of most creeds. Suicide is rare in Muslim lands. (The Present and Future of Religion, quoted by Sir Arnold Lunn, And Yet So New (London: Sheed and Ward, 1958), 228).

Monotheism inspires bravery, for it defeats the two factors that make people cowards: fear of death and love of safety, and the belief that someone other than God can somehow be bribed into postponing one’s death. Belief in the Islamic creedal statement that “there is no deity but God” purges the mind of these ideas. The first idea loses its influence when people realize that their lives, property, and everything else really belong to God, for this makes them willing to sacrifice whatever they have for God’s approval. The second idea is defeated when people realize that no weapon, person, or power can kill them, for only God has this power. No one can die before his or her appointed time, even if all of the world’s forces combined to do so. Nothing can bring death forward or push it backward even one instant. This firm belief in One God and dependence upon Him makes monotheists the bravest of people.

Monotheism creates an attitude of peace and contentment, purges the mind of subtle passions and jealousy, envy and greed, and prevents one from resorting to base and unfair means for achieving success. Monotheists understand that God holds their wealth; that He bestows honor, power, reputation, and authority as He wills and subjects them to His Will; and that their duty is only to endeavor and struggle fairly. They know that success and failure depend upon His Grace, for no power can block His Will to give or not to give. They also know that they must strive to deserve His Grace. But many of those who do not believe in God consider success and failure to be the result of their own efforts or by the help of earthly powers, and do not take God’s Grace and Will into consideration. Therefore they remain slaves to cupidity and envy, and use bribery, flattery, conspiracy, and other base and unfair means to achieve success.

Monotheism makes people obey and observe the Divine Law. Monotheists know that God is aware of everything, whether hidden or open, and is nearer to them than their jugular vein. If they sin in secret even under the cover of night, God knows it. He knows our unformed thoughts and intentions, even those of which we ourselves are unaware. We can hide things from people, but not from God. We can evade everyone, but not God’s grasp. The firmer our belief in this respect, the more observant we will be of His Commands. This is why the first and most important condition for being a Muslim is to have firm and sincere faith in God’s Oneness.

This is also the most important and fundamental principle of the Prophet’s teachings, as well as Islam’s bedrock and the mainspring of its power. All other beliefs, commands, and laws of Islam stand firm on this foundation. Lastly, we quote the remarks of Dr. Laura Veccia Vaglieri, a famous Italian Orientalist, concerning the universal spirit of Islamic monotheism:

The Prophet, with a voice which was inspired by a deep communion with his Maker, preached the purest monotheism to the worshippers of fetish and the followers of a corrupted Christianity and Judaism. He put himself in open conflict with those regressive tendencies of mankind which lead to the association of other beings with the Creator.

In order to lead men to a belief in one God, he did not delude them with happenings which deviate from the normal course of nature. Rather, he simply invited them, without asking them to leave the realm of reality, to consider the Universe and its laws. Being confident of the resultant belief in the one and indispensable God, he simply let men read in the book of life.

Thanks to Islam, paganism in its various forms was defeated. The concept of the Universe, the practices of religion, and the customs of social life were each liberated from all the monstrosities which had degraded them, and human minds were made free of prejudice. Man finally realized his dignity. (Vaglieri, Laura Veccia, Apologia dell Islamismo. Washington: American Fazl Mosque [1957]; trans.

Aldo Caselli, An Interpretation of Islam. Beirut: Laila Khalidy Memorial Foundation [1957?], 30-33.)

[juliabohemian]

Can We Take a Joke?

Recently I have been thinking a lot about what it means for something to be offensive. A few years back, a favorite comedian of mine lost his prestigious job, working alongside a duck, as a spokesperson for a large healthcare corporation because he tweeted a joke that some people (or perhaps an entire nation of people) found offensive. 

This particular comedian is notorious for joking about topics that are really touchy. I have been a fan of his comedy since the 80s, probably since before I was even old enough to be watching his shows. I have never been offended by anything he's said. The reason being that there is not an ounce of maliciousness to be found there. He doesn't come across as hateful. Just tactless. Almost to the point where it's so ridiculous, that you know he isn't serious.

Gilbert Gottfried is notorious for joking about topics that are really touchy. I have been a fan of his comedy since the 80s, probably since before I was even old enough to be watching his shows. I have never been offended by anything he's said. The reason being that there is not an ounce of maliciousness to be found there. He doesn't come across as hateful. Just tactless. Almost to the point where it's so ridiculous, that you know he isn't serious. 

Gilbert Gottfried has always appealed to me because of how bravely and stubbornly he refuses to yield to social conventions, which I personally find exhausting. Growing up as a neurodivergent (I have both autism and ADHD) I would often say things that offended other people and could never seem to understand where I’d gone wrong. I felt like I was running some kind of obstacle course, in which the rules were constantly changing. I was fascinated by watching Gilbert on stage, being true to himself despite whatever heckling he might endure. It took me years of navigating around other people's feelings to figure out how I could still be me, without causing others distress. I am still working on it. 

Which brings me to my first point, which is what does it actually mean to be offended? We’ve all been offended at some point, whether we like it or not. Basically it means that something another person said or did triggered an emotional reaction in us that we did not enjoy, and after some analysis (or no analysis) we came to the conclusion that the source of our emotion lay entirely outside of ourselves, rather than consider the possibility that some portion of our reaction was the result of our own trauma or emotional baggage.

So, what is it that makes people feel the need to censor other people? It comes down to control. Just so you know, we don’t have any. The sooner you embrace that, the happier you will be. The problem is that, for the most part, we tend to feel helpless unless we take some sort of action. It gives us the illusion of control. When, in fact, we cannot control what other people say or do. Not really. If you don’t believe me, have some children and you should be thoroughly convinced. At the end of the day, we can only control ourselves. And most of us can’t even do that.

That being said, censorship actually began with conservatives and evangelicals. That’s not too hard to dissect. A major component of their ideology involves monopolizing the moral high ground. They devoted a great deal of energy to protecting humanity from such dangers as homosexuality and promiscuity and women wearing pants and having jobs. Things like that. And they had that gig for a few thousand years until, sometime during the last 4 decades or so, there was a paradigm shift. The right passed the censorship torch to the liberals. Or the right accidentally dropped it while they were looking for Obama’s birth certificate. Either way, it now seems that the left is attempting to do what the right could not, which is to police the world and rid it of its ills.

Bearing in mind, of course, that I consider myself as liberal as a person can possibly be. I find that while I often share the views of other liberals about what is and isn’t offensive, I don’t always agree with them about what, if anything, we should do about it.

Which begs the question, when should a reasonably intelligent, emotionally mature person be offended? And I think it really does come down to a few factors, primarily intent and context. These things are really important. Who told the joke and why were they telling it? Who is the target of the joke? Are we laughing AT them or WITH them?

A Jew telling a joke about jews is not offensive. And if you’re not Jewish, you don’t get to have a say about it. A black man joking about what it’s like to drive around a strange neighborhood, while black, is also not offensive. Neither is a white person joking about it, frankly, so long as the point of the joke is how ridiculous it is that a black person even has to deal with that shit in the first place. 

When the target of the joke is a member of a marginalized group and the purpose of the joke is to commiserate with that person, then it’s not offensive. It only has the potential to be offensive when the person telling the joke is a member of a privileged group (male, Caucasian, Christian) and the target of the joke is not. Note, I said POTENTIAL. Because sometimes jokes that fit that definition aren’t offensive. They’re just not funny. In which case, that situation usually takes care of itself.

I have found that almost all comedy can be divided into two categories: drawing attention to that which is obvious or doing the exact opposite of what people are expecting. Most stand-up comedy falls into the first category. Which is why stand up comedians talk about things like relationship woes, airplane food, having kids etc. Because poking fun at experiences that large groups of people can relate to is a practical choice when you are dealing with an audience of total strangers. Especially when those strangers are your primary source of income.

The thing about comedians is that most of them don't genuinely believe what they are saying. The audience knows this. Or at least, they should. Comedians often adopt a persona when they take the stage, which differs drastically from their real life selves. Do I think Gilbert Gottfried is happy that Japanese people lost their lives to a horrible tsunami? Not for one second. Do I think that he was amused by the events of 9-11? As a lifelong resident of Brooklyn, I seriously doubt it. I think he was doing what he's always done, what we ALL do, which is to make jokes about things that are uncomfortable, in order to alleviate the discomfort. That’s what comedians do. In fact, we RELY upon them to do it. We RELY upon humor to help us cope with tragedy and trauma.

Which I can relate to on a very deep level because I have been through some pretty horrific shit in my life and I have always been the first person to make a  joke about it. There have been times in my life where I have been telling a story about something terrible I went through and the other person was clearly uncomfortable with my making a joke about it. I could tell, just by looking at them, that they wanted to be offended. They wanted to claim that moral high ground and let me know that I was being inappropriate. But they couldn’t because it’s MY LIFE AND I WILL JOKE ABOUT IT IF I WANT TO.

Getting back to how to know whether something is offensive...I was watching a documentary called Can We Take a Joke? which was specifically addressing the topic of people being offended by comedy. Within the documentary there was some footage of a young man at a college doing some (and I use this term generously) stand-up comedy in which he was disparaging women's studies as a major, after which a woman in the audience (who he called a loud mouthed cunt) ran on stage and told him to shut up. 

This is a perfect example of when intent matters. How is this young man different than a comedian who is simply joking about something uncomfortable in order to alleviate discomfort? Simply put, he believes what he is saying. Not only does he dislike women’s studies, he dislikes women in general. He is drawn to the stage out of a desire to have a platform for expressing that disdain. And that came across in his act because, well, he didn’t try very hard to hide it. 

Can the concept of women's studies be funny? Absolutely. There are many jokes we could make about women's studies and gender studies and other similar academic majors. I could probably do an entire 30 minute routine just on social sciences in general. But this young man wasn't drawing attention to the obvious, which is that often these majors don't lead to any specific career path. He was simply expressing disdain for women. 

Is that offensive? Well, yes. Disdain can be funny, so long as it isn’t the product of bias towards an entire group of people. Disdain for having a cold, for instance. Disdain for being stuck in traffic. Disdain for women, however, isn’t worthy of laughter.

But is the appropriate response to run on stage and demand that he be quiet? No. The level of anger expressed by the woman in the audience was, shall we say, disproportionate. She seemed a little unhinged. Although, it’s possible that she already knew the young man or that they had some sort of personal history. Either way, the solution, if there even is one, is to ignore him and stop giving him attention. Is it fair to be offended by someone who seems genuinely hateful? Absolutely. But it isn’t always appropriate, productive, or even possible to take any sort of counteraction. 

Not only that but I think there is no real danger that this kid will ever break into the comedy business for real. So, he will likely have to look to some MRA themed subreddit for further validation of his misogyny. Unless the next loudmouthed cunt that storms on stage kills him, of course.

When Mr. Gottfried made that unfortunate tweet about the tsunami in Japan the internet crucified him. People actually said he should die. Which, to me, is a far worse statement than any jokes the comedian has ever made. I was furious, not only with the general public, but with other show business personalities who refused to speak up on Mr. Gottfried’s behalf. In hindsight, I realize that they were probably terrified that they would be next on the chopping block. Which says a lot about us as a society, I think. 

But I don’t think the problem is that people are too easily offended. The problem is that too many people lack critical thinking skills. We need to be willing to ask ourselves whether something is genuinely offensive, or if the topic of it simply evokes negative feelings for us because of our own individual experiences. We need to be willing to step away and resist the urge to take everyone else with us. We also need to accept that sometimes there are genuinely hateful assholes in the world and that silencing them is not always an option. 

If something genuinely is offensive, what should you do about it? 99% of the time, the correct answer is nothing. Now, I'm not talking about hate speech. I'm not talking about propaganda. I'm talking about some comedian, shock jock, TV personality making a joke that you found offensive. You can certainly blog about it, if it makes you feel better. But after that you should avoid that person, their material, their show etc. Because, clearly it is not the right entertainment for you.

I feel that way about King of the Hill and Family Guy. But since I am capable of acknowledging that those things are amusing to other people, I am able to refrain from launching a campaign against their creators under the guise of making the world a better place for everyone.

TL;DR Gilbert Gottfried is a national treasure and should be protected, like the Grand Canyon. AFLAC knew exactly what they were getting when they hired him and merely fired him due to the pressures put in place by late stage capitalism, which dictate that anyone working for a profit seeking entity is at the mercy of public opinion. Shine on, you crazy diamond.  

[meanwhileinthebroomcloset]

Mhm...  This post was meant to be much shorter, honestly. Not to mention it got super personal, which was not my intention. It actually made me a bit teary-eyed and I’m usually an emotional constipated dumbass. 

Am I ready for the potential backlash this is going to cause? Eh, probably not. Am I going to engage in the discourse this can cause? Ah, you wished. I have more to waste my energy on. I didn’t write this post to argument with anyone, anyway. 

Gonna risk it, still.

-----------------------------------------

Isn’t it kind of ironic that it was witchcraft that made me fully return to Catholicism?

I mean, I kind of never left, hence the ‘’fully’’ in that sentence. But now I really know who I am. Although I don’t think Catholicism is the most accurate label (Christo-pagan, perhaps?) it’s the one I grew up with, and the one that comes more naturally to me.

Studying the beginning of it all, the commentaries of Pagans and Jewish writers at the time are just so fascinating and honestly beautiful.

Then everybody started chasing and killing each order, and it sure wasn’t fascinating anymore.... ‘’Stop being murderous revenge-driven assholes’’ I angrily mutter into my book, while frying my brains for High Middle Ages exams.

And then it split into Catholicism and Arianism (not that Arianism! The no-holy-trinity-on-my-watch one), and that was a totally different can of worms. Then Rome got pissy and the Orthodox Church officially became a thing that existed.

Man, why is religion so messy?

Faith is such a strange thing. So much power, so much potential for good and evil and everything in between. I started losing mine some years ago. 

Contrary to some horror stories you may hear, especially from people who are now no longer Christian, I was raised in a pretty open environment.

‘’Don’t be mean, have faith, give second chances... Here are the commandments. They’re perfectly acceptable, see?’’

‘’Yes, there are different religions, but you should always respect them and the people that believe in them. Remember, Jesus was Jewish. Here’s some historical context... ‘’

‘’What the hell kid, nobody here is going to hell. Also, you’re five, there are no children in hell. No, the cops also won’t... Lord give me patience... Are you sorry? Did you apologize? Are you going to try to not repeat it? Great! Then it’s all fine and dandy!’’

‘‘Man, we are definitely all going to hell... At least since we’re all gonna be there, we could form a basketball team. The devil can be the referee. He will be an awful one, but hey, we’re in hell’‘

‘’I know the bible says the earth was created in seven days, but when that story was written, people didn’t know dinosaurs were a thing. Science is cool, and we are not in the middle ages. ‘’

‘’Blind faith is dangerous, kid.’’

‘’Thinking thoughts and acting upon them are two very different things.’’

‘’Yes, the second mom in that Solomon story was willing to see another kid die for the sake of an argument... sometimes people are that bad.’’

‘’God is perfect. People aren’t. That’s the world we live in and it’s okay.’’

‘’There are people who do terrible things in name of religion or say they’re doing it because the bible says so. Don’t believe them. There’s no excuse for murder and abuse.’’

‘’Yeah, Portugal is very enthusiastic when it comes to Catholicism... ’’

Pretty good summary of religion in my childhood.

Still, I found my faith waning. I didn’t really know why and I’m still a bit iffy talking about that.

‘’What did witchcraft do, then?’’

 Well for once, it reinforced my ideas on how faith worked, and how strangely powerful it can be. Being skeptical is healthy but completely closing yourself off because something isn’t completely clear is too radical and you're just doing the equivalent of closing your eyes to the less brighter lights.

My god, I can hear the hardcore atheists coming...

Can I remind you there are more things in life that will not provide the proof you want, but that won’t mean they aren’t there? Relationships. Relationships are too complicated to have straight answers, a lot of the times. People hide their feelings, they fake them, express them and react to them differently. There are so many things we don’t understand or know about yet, like space and organisms that live on this Earth.

Sometimes what you need is a different approach to see they exist! It’s one of the things I learned with witchcraft.

There was also the religion itself. As I worked on my magic, I started seeing magic around me again. Not just with gods I had never considered and the one I was leaving behind, but with the faith I had always known.

The affection when someone says ‘’Our Lady’’ when talking about the Virgin Mary, my family calling upon Saint Barbara when thunder comes, children screeching excitedly because the Compasso has arrived to give us the news that Jesus has come to life again in Easter, the marble cemeteries, the comforting prayers, the masses I couldn’t ear because the local church’s echo is terrible, those boring long-ass weddings (oh my god, how many blessings do two people need?!), the loving dedication I see in every saint carved, my church's priest’s good humor... I never owned a rosary, but I always like the ones my aunts and grandparents keep.

I found Christian and Catholic witches on this site and I finally got to my conclusion. It’s really there. I just needed a different approach to it!

These things made me believe again, but also in new things.

‘‘But you can’t do that! You can’t combine magic and christianity’‘ 

Oh, watch me. And also watch the centuries of cunning women and witches in European history and those still alive today. The women that make ‘’mezinhas’’ and other types of favors in Portugal sure as hell are doing witchcraft, but you can bet your ass they don’t think they’re any less Catholic than anyone else. They don’t care about your opinions and I will hopefully do the same.

Relationships with deities are personal, and my relationship with God, Jesus and all of them is no different in that regard. I am a witch, I am human, I am catholic. I’m a follower, not a fucking mindless sheep.

You know what? I always compared God to Aslan. The lion wasn’t always there for Narnia, he wanted his people to solve their problems on their own. Get their independence, as a good parent does. They both don’t come up all mighty, that’s a posture reserved for evil and people who need a good slap in the face. They come to your level. God may come through one of the less eldritch abomination looking angels, though...

‘‘Well, if you have god, you shouldn’t need anything more. He's everthing. Why are you also a witch?’‘

Excuse me, do I look like a goddamned saint to you?! What part of human did you not understand?

And before you bitterly start quoting the Old Testament, let me remind you that it’s Old for a reason. Christ came to this earth to give us new rules since he technically saved us and things became different. That’s why Jewish people follow the Old Testament, for them, the messiah hasn’t arrived yet. Not to mention that to them that testament is not Old, it’s just the Torah.

You can keep quoting the bible to me all you want. But in my short twenty years of life, I was thankfully able to learn a few things. One of them is that the world isn’t black and white. Yes, I know this sounds obvious but there are some really dumb people out there. Also, this is the hellscape that we call tumblr.

Anyway, as I have mentioned several times before, I’m a never-ending knowledge seeker I found the world beneath my feet is not pure myth and I want to explore it. Look at me go.

I keep a critical mind with everything. Faith and religion are not an exception. I’m not overly skeptic about faith itself, but I am of its writings, interpretations, translations and etc... I study history, it’s a skill you naturally develop.

And there’s quite a few plot-holes, characterization differences and much more. It was written by humans that couldn’t do a cohesive collaboration even if their lives depended on it. Godphones sometimes don’t get a good reception. There’s a ton of cultural context to unpack. I hear people saying all the time that taking the bible’s words literally is one of the most stupid things you can do.

And when I say people, I mean priests, clergy, theology students, etc... I didn’t hear this from my drug dealer in the street corner..

...... I don’t have a drug dealer.....

Anyway...

There are many problems with the catholic church. There are many problems with a ton of catholic and christians out there. I will never deny that. Shit needs to get fixed and maybe even chucked into the trash.

But I still believe in God, I still believe in the saints but I also still believe there are more gods and spirits out there. And those things are separate.

I have no interest in converting you. I’m just yelling into the void.

If you are one of those that no longer is a christian, or catholic because some dipshits banged self-hate onto your head, I’m really sorry. I hope you heal well and get the help you need in your new faith or lack of it. Banging the ten commandments back onto their heads repetiedly and tell them to actually read the damn book is optional, though.

In the end, if you are (or are trying) to be good, you deserve respect and freedom to worship whoever or whatever you want. You don’t need to be perfect, you can just strive to be the best you can be in your situation.

--------------------------------------------

And now back to our schedueled programing.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

I saw your post about how Xianity is not essential to Judaism and and I don't want to derail it it but one particular thing really struck me while reading it; the concept of teshuva compared to Xian forgiveness, particularly how those differences really reflect how I've seen both religious cultures (???) handle person-to-person forgiveness. Judaism (at least from what I've seen) has actual steps for apologising, and they're all really good common-sense rules like 'don't do it again'. (1/3)

(cont.) The burden is on the offender to make things right, they’re the active party. In contrast, in Xianity you don’t have to do anything to make it up to the person you hurt. In fact, in Xian communities there’s usually a burden on the /hurt/ party to forgive and it’s seen as really cruel and a sign of moral weakness that you won’t let them feel better about what they did, even (sometimes /especially/) when they’re not sorry and intend to keep hurting you. (2/3)

(cont.) To me these two things feel like extensions of the attitude towards divine forgiveness and repentance. In Xianity receiving forgiveness feels like a very passive thing that’s all centred on your own guilt, your own inherent sin, and an attitude of ‘I said sorry so my hands are clean and now you have to make it up to me for making me feel bad for what I did’, etc. Judaism, on the other hand, seems to take a very pro-active, balanced approach of doing better for yourself and others. (3/3)

Hi Sarahsyna, 

The differences between xian and Jewish understandings of what forgiveness is and how we should go about it are interesting, no? 

I would say this is a pretty accurate analysis of the differences and where they come from. However, I would like to expand on this and add a bit of nuance to it, if I may. 

There are different levels and types of wrongs to be forgiven, and the responses to them should be different. 

Wrongs that are relatively minor, are fixable, and/or that are relatively common amongst otherwise decent people; 

Wrongs that major, unfixable, and/or that are criminal/violent in nature; 

Wrongs committed against oneself

Wrongs committed against others (usually in your sphere of influence, such as to your family members, but not necessarily) 

In my experience, Judaism does a much better job of making these distinctions than xianity. 

Minor Wrongs vs. Major Wrongs

Xian forgiveness is really appropriate for minor wrongs (with proportionately minor consequences.) Things like: someone took your lunch once, which creates an annoying but temporary problem. We shouldn’t sweat the small stuff, and as frustrating as that situation is, it’s not worth holding a grudge against someone forever because of a dumb prank. 

Judaism similarly holds that we shouldn’t hang onto a grudge over this, and encourages people to let it go. Give the offender ample chance to apologize, but if they don’t, don’t waste your energy being mad at them. (Have you forgiven them? No. Should you still move on with your life? Yes.) 

Of course, if by taking your lunch, they caused you to be unable to take a vital medicine, which consequently put you in the hospital, it should change the equation, no? 

In xianity as I experienced it (**please insert that caveat throughout this discussion), it actually doesn’t change the equation. The intent of the offender was a dumb prank and so the forgiveness should be equally straightforward, even if the consequences to you are more severe than that person realized they would be when they did it. You should try to put yourself in the prankster’s shoes and imagine how awful you’d feel and how badly you’d want to be forgiven if it were you. 

In Judaism, that person would need to do a lot more to make it right before asking for forgiveness. That might involve helping you pay your hospital bills, picking up your slack at work and/or otherwise trying to help in concrete ways because while their intent was minor, the effect on you was major. They must cope with that reality in the same way that you must. Might their intent factor into how inclined you are to forgive them afterwards? Sure! But they need to show that they realize how serious the consequences of their actions are and seek to remedy it first. 

Fixable vs. Unfixable Wrongs

The consequences of some wrongs are fixable to varying degrees; others are not. If you take five dollars from my bag and then feel bad about it an hour later and put the money back? You’ve totally rectified the situation. 

On the other extreme? While I have put in many, many hours of therapy and self-reflection and healing and therefore have gotten it under control, I will never not have trauma from having been raped and abused. Even if the perps spent the rest of their lives truly regretting what they did and doing hard work on behalf of survivors, they could never undo the damage they caused, even if they subsequently changed their behavior 180 degrees. (Editorial note: unsurprisingly, none of them have actually done any of that.) 

Growing up, I felt an unbearable need to magnanimously forgive the perp despite his refusal to admit to what he did or apologize, and even as a culturally xian adult, I still felt a compulsory need to forgive subsequent offenders at least for my own sake in order to move on. 

Judaism relieved me of any responsibility to forgive any of them, ever, because they have never apologized. I’m not even allowed to forgive them since they’ve never asked for it, but I don’t have to do so in order to heal because nothing they could do could heal me anyway. Them apologizing wouldn’t change the reality of their acts and me forgiving them wouldn’t change their future behavior. My healing is (for better or worse) my problem, and their becoming better people is their problem. 

In a better world where they did hold themselves accountable? That would be stellar, but even in that world my remedy comes from the peace of mind in knowing that they aren’t hurting other people, from them still staying the hell away from me, and the justice in knowing that they have to live with what they did and are truly reckoning with it. 

As a side note, it’s worth noting that this is why lashon hara is compared to murder by the rabbis. Lashon hara literally means “evil speech,” but refers to true statements that did not need to be made for any serious purpose and are malicious in nature. As an example, “Alex has gotten really overweight this year, huh?” might strictly speaking be true, but is nevertheless clearly intended to be mean and gossipy. Why is lashon hara taken so seriously? Because you can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube. You can’t unring that bell. Once those words have left your lips, they’re out there, forever. You can apologize, but you can’t unsay what you already said. 

Grace vs. Accountability

Ultimately, I believe that the foundational difference between how xianity approaches forgiveness and how Judaism approaches forgiveness are how it is defined in each. 

In xianity, forgiveness flows, as you said from the idea that humans were forgiven for our sins by Jesus on his own initiative, and therefore we should replicate that kind of forgiveness in our own lives. Sin is inevitable, and the work of repairing it can be done by the person who was wronged, the same way that Jesus repaired humanity’s relationship with God through his sacrifice. This creates a model that centers grace given by the wronged person. Deservingness on the part of the wrongdoer does not factor into the equation. 

At its best, this gives the person who was wronged the agency to address the problem themselves without waiting around for the wrongdoer to get it together. It has the potential to allow people with pain to let go of that pain. At its worst, it creates a system where victims are pressured (by their communities, spiritual leaders, and/or themselves) to forgive at great cost to themselves with zero accountability on the part of the offender. 

However. 

That assumes, as a baseline, that forgiveness is a prerequisite to moving on with your life. In the same way that forgiveness by God/salvation is a prerequisite to eternal life in xianity, so too is forgiveness between individuals a prerequisite to living the rest of your life without that baggage. 

Judaism makes no such assumption. In fact, it comes to rather the opposite conclusion: forgiveness may be necessary for the wrongdoer to move on, but you, the wronged person, should feel no need to provide it unless and until the person has actually rectified the situation and asked for forgiveness. (And even under those circumstances, while forgiving is the morally correct thing to do, you aren’t always actually obligated to do so.) 

Judaism operates on an accountability model that says that if you harm another person, it’s on you to fix it to that person’s satisfaction. If you are harmed by another person, you should do whatever you need to in order to move forward, but you don’t have to say that they’ve met their burden unless and until they actually do. In this view, forgiveness is not defined as grace, but rather as recognition that the person has actually held themselves accountable for their actions. 

This, too, flows from a theological perspective: G-d expects us to constantly be striving to better ourselves, which we can only do by holding ourselves fully accountable for our actions. We are moral creatures, capable of making an active choice between good and evil. While mistakes are inevitable, we elevate ourselves spiritually, not by the grace of G-d or others, but by evaluating and reflecting on our own behavior and then taking active steps towards long-lasting change. 

All of that, however, refers to direct wrongs between the wrongdoer and the wronged. I would be extremely remiss if I didn’t address … … 

Wrongs Committed Against You vs. Wrongs Committed Against Others in Your Vicinity

One of the most serious problems I have with xian theology is the fact that the concept of grace doesn’t just apply between the wrongdoer and the wronged. It also applies between bystanders and the wronged. 

Here is a great example of this: 

Many of you may not know that one of my four children has Down syndrome. Her name is Bekah, and today she is 25. Bekah went to public school in elementary and middle school and was in normal classes and had lots of friends. Later, she attended college.

Many years ago, Bekah wanted to try out for cheer leading. My wife and I were amazed at how she learned the routines – jumping in the air, doing splits, and yelling out the cheers. Unfortunately, she did not make the team which was very disappointing for her and us. She had a really hard time understanding that she could no longer cheer with the other girls.

Soon afterwards, we received a letter from the coach explaining Bekah was not cut from the team because of her disability but because…she kicked, hit, yelled and cussed while in line with the other girls. We were stunned, no shocked, because Bekah had never exhibited any of those behaviors ever in any situation.

At a sleepover a few weeks later, which Bekah hosted in our home, several of the girls who had made the team asked my wife why Bekah had not made the team. My wife gently told them about the letter. They all immediately cried out, “Ms. Ellen, that’s not true at all. Bekah didn’t do any of those things. In fact, she did great in the tryouts.” Ellen called for me and asked me to come hear what the girls were saying. They repeated it all again.

This person had not only lied but had impugned Bekah’s character and we were angry! What had been done to our daughter was dastardly. The question afterwards was, “What are we going to do about this?” We knew we could not pull these girls into a dispute with this coach. So, we had no recourse. This coach had hurt a person who could not speak up for herself due to her disability and there was nothing we could do about it…except forgive.

Did this person deserve to be forgiven? Absolutely not. But we were not going to allow a root of bitterness to grow within us that Hebrews 12:15 warns about. We were not about to give this person power over our lives. We were not about to give Satan power over us. Was it easy? No! Everything in us cried out for justice but there was none to be had.

So, we trusted Christ in us, the greatest “forgiver” of all time, to live through us so we could forgive. We wanted to live like who we are in Christ, “forgivers”, in obedience from the love in our hearts for our Father. We wanted to “forgive one another just as God had forgiven us in Christ” (Ephesians 4:32) So, we sat before the Lord and poured out to Him our anger, our hurt, and our desire for justice. Then, because God had forgiven us for all our sins we did not deserve to be forgiven for, we forgave this person; meaning, we released the person from the debt we believe they owed us. In this case, the debt would have been an admission to us and especially to Bekah of the wrong they had done.

A few weeks later, would you believe that we saw this person at a church we were visiting? We were both so glad we had been honest with God about the hurts we received from the offense and then chose to forgive. We live free today from bitterness, resentment and unforgiveness. Praise God!

[Source: x] 

Okay, so we don’t have time to unpack all of that, but just… sit with the fact, for a moment, that Bekah is utterly silenced by this approach. Did her parents have any right to forgive the coach? No, no they did not. That was Bekah’s right, and Bekah’s alone. 

Compare that to what Rabbi Telushkin relays in his Code of Jewish Ethics: 

”The differing attitudes of Jews and Christians on granting forgiveness for serious, particularly violent, crimes is reflected in an incident that Dr. Solomon Schimmel, a psychologist and a religious Jew, relates in his book, Wounds Not Healed, concerning a Christian woman who nursed back to life a man who had murdered her parents and raped her. The man, shocked by her behavior, asked the woman, “Why didn’t you kill me?” She replied, “I am a follower of him [i.e., Jesus] who says, ‘Love your enemy.’ “A remarkable story, but as Schimmel, writing from a Jewish perspective, asks, “Why, however, is it noble to love and take care of evil people?”

“In contrast to this woman’s attitude, when the Jewish writer Cynthia Ozick was asked if it was morally appropriate to forgive a penitent Nazi SS officer who had participated in the murder of a Jewish community in Poland, she responded: “‘I forgive you,’ we say to the child who has muddied the carpet, ‘but next time don’t do it again.’ Next time, she will leave the muddy boots outside the door; forgiveness, with its enlarging capacity, will have taught her. Forgiveness is an effective teacher. Meanwhile, the spots can be washed away. But murder is irrevocable. Murder is irreversible…. Even if forgiveness restrains one from perpetrating a new batch of corpses, will the last batch come alive again?…Forgiveness is pitiless. It forgets the victim. It cultivates sensitiveness toward the murderer at the price of insensitiveness toward the victim.”

“And what of the penitent SS officer? “Let the SS man die unshriven. Let him go to hell.”

“The Jewish view can be summed up as follows: Forgiveness is almost always a virtue, but the taking of an innocent life is an unforgivable offense.”

[Source: x] 

[urfavmurtad]

It’s Ramadan.... what a blessed time to celebrate Mohammed’s own family getting repeatedly fucked over by the caliphate. Let us continue The Death of Crazy Mo.

CHAPTER 2: FAMILY MATTERS

There are three intertwining subplots at this point in the story. The first is the ongoing Islamic conquests, which are still happening but have been somewhat interrupted by the second subplot: not everyone brought into the loving embrace of Islam by Mohammed’s men wants to remain within its fold. There is a real possibility of the caliphate breaking apart before it even expands outside of Arabia. Actually, it’s not a “possibility”–it’s already happening.

Ibn Ishaq’s sira, written around 750 AD and the oldest text of Islamic history available to us, concludes with Mohammed’s death. It ends with two mourning poems, prefaced by this ominous note:

“I was told that the last injunction the apostle gave was in his words, ‘Let not two religions be left in the Arabian peninsula’. Aisha used to say: ‘When the apostle died, the Arabs apostatized and Christianity and Judaism raised their heads and disaffection appeared. The Muslims became as sheep exposed to rain on a winter’s night through the loss of their prophet until God united them under Abu Bakr.’"

These incidents of mass apostasy will come to be known as the Ridda (apostasy) Wars, and Abu Bakr will spend most of his time as caliph trying to get the lost sheep back in line. It is the first warning sign that the early caliphs will not actually enjoy their jobs very much.

The final subplot, bubbling under the surface, is the still-unresolved issue with the Banu Hashim. When we left our heroes, Abu Bakr had just been declared the caliph and Mohammed had been buried, in that order. So how do Ali & Friends feel about all this?

Well… not too happy, is the obvious answer. Upon learning that the issue of Mohammed’s succession has been resolved without their input, the Banu Hashim are rather sulky. A hadith describes Ali indicating his displeasure with the whole process to Abu Bakr a few months after this:

“We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to [Mohammed]."

The same hadith says that Ali “had not given the oath of allegiance” to Abu Bakr for six months following Mohammed’s death, and another hadith states that the rest of the Banu Hashim also avoided pledging fealty to Abu Bakr. They weren’t openly agitating against his rule, but they also weren’t sanctioning it by giving an oath of fealty. The message was clear: Ali and the rest of the Banu Hashim felt  robbed of their rights. Even if being related to Mohammed wasn’t enough to confer the right to rule, it at least conferred the right to decide on the ruler, in their eyes. And Abu Bakr and Umar denied them even that.

Given the delicate nature of the situation, Abu Bakr decides that it’s preferable to just leave the Banu Hashim alone to sulk, so long as they’re not openly opposing him. He knows that engaging in a PR battle (or worse: an actual battle) with Mohammed’s extended family literally immediately after his death is unlikely to positively impact his image. Abu Bakr does, however, feel entitled to the support of his own extended family. Nearly all of them support him already, but there are two holdouts named Talha and Zubayr, with the former being a member of Abu Bakr’s clan and the latter being Abu Bakr’s dumbass son-in-law via his other daughter, Asma. Al-Tabari’s account describes them neglecting to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and instead visiting Ali’s house, presumably to grumble about recent events for whatever reason. (As we will later see, both of these guys were opportunists–they weren’t loyal to Ali, but they were happy to ally with him if they thought they would get something out of it.) Umar responds to the situation with his usual tact and grace.

Talhah, al-Zubayr, and some of the [others were] in the house (with Ali). 'Umar cried out, "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance [to Abu Bakr], or l will set the house on fire.” Al-Zubayr came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled [upon something], the sword fell from his hand, so they jumped over him and seized him.

This story is highly dramatized by many sources, in which Umar actually does set the house on fire, or barges into the house and hurts Fatima in the process, or something similarly outrageous. Those accounts aren’t reliable, but the event itself is mentioned by authors who had no real reason to depict either Abu Bakr or Umar as evil, and Zubayr aligning himself with Ali is something found in strongly-sourced reports. So this may well have actually happened, and if it did, it certainly did not make the Banu Hashim any happier with the way things were going in the caliphate.

Another, more minor problem adds to the Banu Hashim’s  sense of victimhood. Mohammed had owned many pieces of property, and now that he’s dead, his relatives want to inherit those lands. The properties are located in multiple different areas, but the prime land is in a Jewish-majority cluster of cities that had been conquered by the Muslims a few years earlier. It’s rich agricultural land, and it’s extremely valuable in Arabia’s desert climate. Some of Mo’s widows ask Abu Bakr for it, and their requests are denied. Both Fatima and Abbas also request a share of the inheritance. Abu Bakr rejects their petitions.

Fatima and Al-`Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, “I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.’ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”

“So....” says Fatima.

“So,” agrees Abu Bakr.

“My father is dead.”

“It would seem thus.”

“It says here that when someone’s parents die, their children should inherit a significant portion of their wealth.”

“And?”

“And I am my father’s only surviving child?”

“...and?”

“........and I should inherit from him because of that??”

“Oooooh! Lol sorry I didn’t get where you were going with this. Look, that’s what it says in the Quran, you’re right. But the Amendments to the Quran state--”

“The... the fucking what? The Quran was supposed to have been created before humanity, and it has amendments?”

“Ma’am, I don’t make the rules. As I was saying, the Amendments to the Quran state that these rules actually do not apply if one’s father was a prophet. All the wealth and property owned by prophets is transferred to the state after their deaths, according to clause 5633§26. See?”

Fatima squints at Abu Bakr’s copy of An Idiot’s Guide to the Stuff Allah Forgot to Put in the Quran. In green crayon, someone has written “moe’s agricultural land belongs to the caliphate now -allah”.

This is evidently news to the Banu Hashim, and many of them plainly do not believe that this is what Mohammed actually would have wanted. Now they feel robbed in a political sense and in an economic sense.

On the face of it, this seems way less contentious than the whole succession thing, and it mostly is. But there is one detail that inflates its importance. Fatima is genuinely pissed off at Abu Bakr for rebuffing her, to the point that she holds a grudge against him and doesn’t even speak to him for the rest of her life.

So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not [talk] to him till she died.

This is not, as it turns out, a long period of time. Fatima dies around six months after Mohammed, probably of the same infection that killed him. Stress and a lack of self-care due to grief are sometimes also said to be the cause of her death, while some Shia traditions attribute it to miscarriage-related complications or (more dubiously) violence at the hands of Umar. No one really knows for sure, but the last of Mohammed’s children is now dead.

This might surprise non-Muslims, but the reality is that very little is said about any of Mohammed’s daughters in reputable sources. His middle daughters Roqaya and Umm Kulthum might as well not even exist for how little they’re mentioned; his oldest daughter Zaynab has a biography totaling perhaps two paragraphs. Even Fatima, the youngest and the only one who outlived him, is mentioned in only four or five anecdotes over the entire course of her life in reputable sources, one of which is the inheritance incident. They presumably played some important role in early Islam, at least among young Muslim women, but that’s never actually said.

But it is at least clear that Fatima was held in high honor by the Muslim community after Mohammed’s death, being his only surviving child and all. Also, Mohammed had specifically told people to never make her angry. (Funnily enough, this was prompted by something Ali did–he was considering taking a second wife and Mo said no because he didn’t want to upset Fatima, making poor Ali the only Muslim man forced into monogamy! ...well, ignoring his sex slaves, so... a-anyway...)

Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.

If you’re a Muslim who believes that everything Mohammed said was true, and you know that Abu Bakr made Fatima upset, then how can you avoid the conclusion that this situation would displease Mohammed? And by extension, how could you avoid thinking that something in the new caliphate’s milk ain’t clean? Even if you think Abu Bakr is the rightful caliph, and even if you’ve never really given any thought to the Banu Hashim’s temper tantrum, this still might give you pause. That perhaps explains why Fatima and the Banu Hashim’s refusal to swear loyalty to the empire’s new leader in a time of war–which is ordinarily insubordination, if not worse–was something that many people frowned at, but ultimately let slide.

But the sympathy train can’t last forever. And now that Fatima is dead, the Banu Hashim have lost their prophet-approved excuse for holding out on Abu Bakr. They have to rethink their strategy, and fast.

So after she dies, a clearly pissed-off Ali buries her by himself, without Abu Bakr’s involvement. It’s hard to tell that snub was due to Fatima’s own wishes or Ali’s. Regardless, keeping the caliph away from the funeral of the prophet’s kid is A Choice.

When she died, her husband `Ali buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.

This was essentially the end of an era for Ali. The day he put Fatima in her grave was the last day he could get away with feuding with the caliph, and he knew it. The above hadith continues:

When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him.

Times are tense in Medina: the Ridda Wars are ongoing at this point, the caliphate has fallen apart, and this feud is no longer cute in the people’s eyes. The general population may have looked the other way when Fatima was alive, owing to Mohammed’s own instructions, but now she’s dead and people think it’s time for the Banu Hashim to grow the fuck up. The negative change in people’s attitudes is evidently immediate, so the Banu Hashim, deprived of what little support they had, effectively surrender.

So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death). `Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr … So Abu Bakr entered upon them

Ali explains why he’d delayed swearing allegiance for so long and tells Abu Bakr how aggrieved the Banu Hashim have been feeling over everything that’s happened. Abu Bakr doesn’t apologize, but strikes a conciliatory tone, letting bygones be bygones.

And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good”

Later that day, Ali finally publicly swears allegiance to Abu Bakr, ending the feud. The rest of the Banu Hashim follow him, and the people of Medina stop giving them the cold shoulder.

On that `Ali said to Abu Bakr, "I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon.” So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of `Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then `Ali (got up) [and] praised Abu Bakr’s right …

On that all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims then became friendly with `Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).

This is the end of the drama between the Banu Hashim and Abu Bakr. It is not the end of the drama regarding the Banu Hashim in general, and while they may have publicly forgiven Abu Bakr for “usurping” their rights, they certainly have not forgotten it. Ali himself may be playing nice for now, but he and Abu Bakr aren’t friends, and Ali isn’t friends with anyone in Abu Bakr’s circle, either. Especially not Aisha, who has loathed him ever since his involvement in a romance subplot straight out of a shitty show on The CW. These issues will all come to a head later on. The true beginning of the Shia-Sunni split, you see, didn’t happen right after Mohammed died. It happened years later, and it was an absolute disaster involving civil war, assassinations, and lots of tears. We will shortly see that the real Miracle Of Islam is that these people’s empire didn’t disintegrate due to their headassery.

Relatedly, you may have noticed that some of the people I listed in the cast of characters last time, namely the Banu Umayya, have been awfully quiet throughout all this inter-Quraysh drama. Where are they? Well… they’re around. Watching.

But for the moment, there are bigger issues, namely a bunch of people who have declared themselves prophets and amassed large groups of armed followers. What a bunch of lunatics, who would even think of such a thing??

[stevenuniversallyreviews]

Episode 93: Alone at Sea

“But why would a fish ever bite a hook?”

Something I don’t believe I’ve mentioned here before is that both of my parents are ministers. I myself am not religious (not because of trauma or anything, my folks are great), but I was raised in the Presbyterian Church by a mom and dad who often saw things through a “hey, that could be in a sermon!” lens, and that tends to rub off on a kid. Not to oversell the value of these posts, but it’s not lost on me that I ended up writing something to share with people every Sunday. I can think of worse people to emulate.

So it’s hard for someone like me not to notice that Gems take crucial steps towards becoming Crystal Gems through some pretty baptismal circumstances. I’m not saying the symbolism is intentional, because neither aquatic rituals nor the show’s crew are uniquely Christian—Rebecca Sugar, for instance, comes from a Jewish background—but we’ve yet to see a Gem fall in love with Earth without being reborn through water. Peridot first bonds with Steven in the rain. Ruby and Sapphire land on solid ground together in the rain. Pink Diamond and Pearl first realize they need to rebel as a storm brews.

And then there’s Lapis Lazuli. 

Lapis literally entered the series because Steven broke a mirror, so it’s no wonder she’s misfortune personified. Bad things happen to Lapis. Bad things happen because of Lapis. And sure enough, she might control the same waters that herald rebirth for other Gems, but she’s also consumed by them. Her old life can’t get washed away because she’s still submerged. So an episode about Steven trying to reconnect her with water is bound to be a bit more complex than a joyous scene in the rain.

Alone at Sea takes us to a dark place for Steven Universe, even compared to its preceding episode, the harrowing Monster Reunion. Plenty of bad things have happened to our characters, but for the first time since the Week of Sardonyx we must confront that one of our characters has herself intentionally done a bad thing. Not day-to-day meanness or misguided acts of loyalty to Homeworld, but something truly awful. Almost as if we’re priming for some big reveal about a core character’s moral ambiguity at the end of the season. 

This isn’t to say that Lapis, who also entered the series by stealing the ocean and battling the Crystal Gems, is a stranger to doing bad things. But there’s a gulf of difference between seeing magic antagonist stuff and the learning that she was abusive to her ex. Not many kids are gonna cause marine catastrophes, but way too many kids are gonna have to deal with abusive relationships one day, so Alone at Sea can’t help but feel more raw.

The first moments of the episode show that Lapis is more than her suffering; she’s capable of having genuine fun, especially with Steven. She hints at her deeper issues by insisting she doesn’t deserve to be treated nicely, but she’s just as quick to snort with laughter. And even after boarding the rechristened Li’l Lappy, she’s willing to give happiness a shot. While she’s uncomfortable about dipping her toe in the water, she still finds moments of joy (particularly when it comes to horns). But more often than not, this positive outlook is hindered by her crewmates.

Greg, bless him, hurts more than he helps. He introduces himself as the guy whose leg Lapis broke, his discomfort around her water powers stifles her floundering self-confidence, and he bores her to death with regular fishing. Likewise, while Steven means well, he’s overbearing in his attempts to make Lapis happy. As awkward as it is, I’m glad the show acknowledges how easy it can be to mess up when trying to cheer up a friend in the dumps. Despite Steven’s apology about pushing too hard, we don’t get an explicit lesson about paying attention to how your friends are feeling instead of steamrolling them with fun. This isn’t a criticism: it’s okay to not get explicit lessons all the time, and it’s a nice change of pace from the show’s recent string of episodes that outright tell us the moral, even though these morals are sound.

Everything comes to a head when the rudder is thrown off, veering Li’l Lappy and her namesake off course. Steven gives that apology, but Lapis reiterates that she doesn’t deserve his help, and this time we learn why: as brutal and bullying as Jasper is, in some twisted sense Lapis learned to love their toxic relationship, using it to take all her grief and rage out on Jasper. We saw a hint of her aggression in Chille Tid, but in Jennifer Paz’s best delivery of the episode, Lapis reveals that she misses Malachite. And right on cue, the opportunity to fuse with Jasper again reveals itself.

Jasper’s last lines that weren’t just shouting “YOU!” at Steven were all the way back in Jailbreak, but Kimberly Brooks is worth the wait. Her hungry correction that she was “looking for you” instead of the crew as a whole is perfect (the woman knows her way around second person pronouns), and she manages to become even scarier when she transitions from menacing to begging. All at once we see that Jasper is still monstrous, but has been changed by Lapis. Not in the way she’s saying when trying to convince Lapis to fuse again—there’s little indication that Malachite would be any healthier if she came back—but in the way this massive warrior is on her knees pleading to essentially be made a prisoner again.

From her debut, Lapis has been the most powerful being on Earth by a country mile thanks to her mastery of its most abundant resource. She effortlessly bested the Crystal Gems in Ocean Gem, and had the mental fortitude to overcome Jasper’s iron will and wrest control of Malachite. But only now, in Jasper’s pleas, does a character finally acknowledge Lapis’s power. It speaks volumes to their relationship, because it’s not just about control and manipulation: at some level, beneath all the toxicity, Jasper understands Lapis in a way others don’t. It’s not enough to make them a functional couple, but it shows that there’s an uncomfortable level of nuance even in relationships that are obviously bad. It would be much easier to write either Jasper or Lapis off as totally rotten, but Malachite wouldn’t work without a hint, however small, of real affection. 

Malachite made both Jasper and Lapis feel stronger, but they weren’t strong in the real way: they were suffering, and instead of trying to fix this problem, they each learned to like the suffering. And it might be easy to place more blame on Jasper than Lapis, because even here we see how manipulative and violent she can be, but Alone at Sea doesn’t shy away from Lapis’s complicity even when presenting her in a more heroic light. Steven doesn’t call her out on her behavior, but he doesn’t exactly correct her when she reveals how terrible she’s been.

Back in It Could’ve Been Great and Message Received, we got a taste of uncertainty in terms of Peridot’s future. Sure, a promo spoiled that she was staying with the Crystal Gems, but otherwise there was no telling whether she was a temporary addition. Lapis has the same quality, but amplified to a thrilling degree due to her rockier stance with the Crystal Gems. When I first watched Alone at Sea, I legitimately didn’t know what would happen next. Lapis was such a new and tenuous ally and had so much baggage with Jasper that it wouldn’t have shocked me if she had gone back to being Malachite, especially considering how underused Malachite ended up being. It gives the episode way higher stakes than, say, the Week of Sardonyx, where despite the turmoil you could pretty much guarantee that the Crystal Gems would come out of it okay. Lapis is fundamentally not okay, so anything could happen.

And that actual chance of returning to Jasper makes Lapis’s rejection so much more triumphant. She seems to sincerely consider Jasper’s offer, even when she sounds sickened by the prospect, but when given a true choice she’s able to see past her longing for that life. Malachite began with Jasper’s forceful “Just say yes,” and she can’t come back if Lapis says no. It might be alluring, but unlike Jasper, Lapis refuses to take the bait. 

I haven’t gushed about Aivi and Surasshu for a while, have I? I’ll be honest, a big part of that is that with the release of Steven Universe’s first soundtrack, the composers stopped releasing background tracks on the internet, and only several years later have these tracks finally popped up again. Access to their music got scarcer and scarcer, but I’m so glad that before it dried up, we got the instrumentation of this final sequence, because it’s really something.

As the clouds gather and she talks about her time fused with Jasper, we hear the buildup of Lapis’s darker theme, and the moment she reveals that she misses being Malachite, the fusion’s ominous two-note motif clangs just once. The track is soon overtaken by Jasper’s synth drum war march, with only hints of Lapis’s celesta leaking in (just like in The Return), but as Jasper begs to fuse again we get the very first quiet version Malachite’s motif (at 1:49, it’s so easy to miss); the fusion’s theme is no longer a force of nature, but a desperate plea. 

A piano rendition of Lapis’s theme drowns out Jasper as she considers her options. Strings build to the same fever pitch that we got when Lapis first agreed to dance, but they fade to a quiet conclusion as she refuses to go back to Malachite. Jasper’s drums make one last appearance as she lashes out at Steven, but Lapis’s counterattack is as musically calm as her rejection. Lapis could have gotten loud, dramatic variants of her theme for her one-two punch defending herself and then Steven, and it would have sounded awesome, but instead both big moments show that she’s shunning loudness for peace. Tying all these musical themes together is impressive enough, but that restraint ties the whole scene together.

Jasper is about to dominate the final arc of the season in a story that has nothing to do with Lapis, but everything to do with Lapis. It’s safe to say Jasper doesn’t handle their breakup well, and her collection of Corrupted Gems is less a matter of a soldier raising an army and more a jilted lover looking for acceptance after being abandoned for what’s likely the first time in her very long life. This is the first in a string of blows that knock Jasper down more than her fight with Garnet ever did: it’s one thing to lose, but it’s another to be rejected, and until Jasper learns to make a change, rejection is the only future she’s got.

Lapis goes right back to being an angsty teen after this, despite getting more comfortable around Peridot. But Alone at Sea makes me appreciate her eventual abandonment of Earth when the going gets tough again, because while it’s not the right thing to do, it makes sense that a character with massive unresolved trauma would follow the most defensive instincts possible to avoid further pain. I’m not huge on the show just saying Lapis did something awful and not following it up with much soul-searching, but she does plenty of work outside of Jasper and perhaps it’s for the best that she focused on less toxic parts of her life for self-improvement.

The big bummer of Lapis and Jasper’s story is that it never really resolves: even when Jasper halfway reforms, she and Lapis will never share a screen again, let alone have a conversation. I’m not saying I want a reconciliation, but apology is good for the soul, so I hope that someday Little Homeworld sees a moment where Lapis says she’s sorry for her part in Malachite’s agony, even if Jasper was worse.

Still, seeing Lapis refuse to re-fuse still works as a resolution to the episode, if not the arc. And she does work on her issues in other ways, even if Jasper doesn’t. But even though this is their last interaction in the series, admitting your mistakes and choosing not to repeat them is itself a noble step.

I’ve never been to this…how do you say…school?

She’s not even in the episode, but Pearl and her swim cap are the winner of this entry. Does nobody else care about their hair?

We’re the one, we’re the ONE! TWO! THREE! FOUR!

This is our second excellent feel-bad episode in a row. We may not ever get an acknowledgement about the abusive nature of Lars and Sadie’s relationship in Island Adventure, but at least we have this episode addressing the issue.

(Bear in mind I’m not champing at the bit for more abusive relationships in children’s media, but if you’re going to have them, I just think it’s irresponsible not to use them as an educational tool, is all.)

Top Fifteen

Steven and the Stevens

Hit the Diamond

Mirror Gem

Lion 3: Straight to Video

Alone Together

The Return

Jailbreak

The Answer

Sworn to the Sword

Rose’s Scabbard

Mr. Greg

Coach Steven

Giant Woman

Beach City Drift

Winter Forecast

Love ‘em

Laser Light Cannon

Bubble Buddies

Tiger Millionaire

Lion 2: The Movie

Rose’s Room

An Indirect Kiss

Ocean Gem

Space Race

Garnet’s Universe

Warp Tour

The Test

Future Vision

On the Run

Maximum Capacity

Marble Madness

Political Power

Full Disclosure

Joy Ride

Keeping It Together

We Need to Talk

Chille Tid

Cry for Help

Keystone Motel

Catch and Release

When It Rains

Back to the Barn

Steven’s Birthday

It Could’ve Been Great

Message Received

Log Date 7 15 2

Same Old World

The New Lars

Monster Reunion

Alone at Sea

Like ‘em

Gem Glow

Frybo

Arcade Mania

So Many Birthdays

Lars and the Cool Kids

Onion Trade

Steven the Sword Fighter

Beach Party

Monster Buddies

Keep Beach City Weird

Watermelon Steven

The Message

Open Book

Story for Steven

Shirt Club

Love Letters

Reformed

Rising Tides, Crashing Tides

Onion Friend

Historical Friction

Friend Ship

Nightmare Hospital

Too Far

Barn Mates

Steven Floats

Drop Beat Dad

Too Short to Ride

Restaurant Wars

Kiki’s Pizza Delivery Service

Enh

Cheeseburger Backpack

Together Breakfast

Cat Fingers

Serious Steven

Steven’s Lion

Joking Victim

Secret Team

Say Uncle

Super Watermelon Island

Gem Drill

No Thanks!

     5. Horror Club      4. Fusion Cuisine      3. House Guest      2. Sadie’s Song      1. Island Adventure

[rabbiaharon]

The Exodus According to Jewish Tradition

PART II: Heading To Egypt

PART 1 HERE

So, I am doing a series of posts illustrating Yetzias Mitzrayim (The Exodus from Egypt) according to the Talmud/Midrash. Since the Talmud and Midrash are incredibly vast, I’m going to put some limitations on where I’m going to go, in order to provide a basic story. This one is going to be really long, because I’m glossing over around 3.5 sedras (Vayeishev, Mikeitz, Vayigash, and Vayechi)

In a place where there are multiple interpretations, I intend to bring a basic one in order to keep the flow, as opposed to a convoluted one that implements more complex or deeper methods of biblical exegesis (There are tons of different rules in that, and this is not the time or place to explore them). I may occasionally hint to or explain what the lesson is for us in details of the story, but in general I will try to keep to basic storytelling. In this one, i will not be including the events that happened in The Land of Israel after Yosef was sold down to Egypt, until the second year of famine, when the brothers come down to Egypt the first time.

I will be proceeding in chronological order, but because this post could end up being massive, I will be dividing it up into narrative sections, so I present to you the second one, “Heading to Egypt”.

So Yosef was sold by the Ishmaelites to a group of Midianites who sold him, in turn, to a despot by the name of Potiphar. Potiphar was Pharaoh’s butcher (confusing, as it were, since the Egyptians worshipped animals and did not eat them, so for what purpose did Pharaoh have a butcher?) and one of the wealthy nobles of Egypt. He purchased Yosef for a specific purpose - to be used for sexual enjoyment. As soon as he finalized his purchase, the angel Gavriel came and castrated Potiphar, rendering him incapable of having children. Yosef was relegated as a household servant, and a fast learner. In fact, everything he touched was blessed, and every endeavor he came to manage became incredibly successful. It wasn’t long before Potiphar realized that it was to his benefit that Yosef be appointed over all of the processes in his house, managing his business and making him even more successful. We know, of course - as the torah says - That it was none other than the Master of the World who granted him this success and favor.

In the meantime, Potiphar’s wife, who we refer to as Dova (a female bear) was trying to figure out her new life with a husband who could not give her children, and used magic and other idolatrous procedures to try and discern her future, if she would be able to have descendants and a family to raise. She saw through the veil that someone from her household - she didn’t know who - would have children with Yosef, and from them would come out kings and prophets. Since her husband could not have children, she assumed that the one who would have children with Yosef was her (she would find in the future that the one destined to marry Yosef was actually her adopted daughter, Osnas). 

Believing this faulty conclusion, she began to try and seduce Yosef to having relations with her, hoping that she would be able to have children with him. She tried daily, but Yosef was - as it were- impossible to get. She waited, then, until the Solstice, when everyone was to go out and serve their idolatry, she pretended to be sick at home. When Yosef was bringing food to Dova (pretending to be sick), She grabbed onto him, and pulled him down onto the bed. Yosef, in an effort to struggle away, left his shirt in her hands. Angered that she was unsuccessful, Dova claimed that Yosef came to assault her, and ran when she cried out. When Potiphar heard this fabrication, he threw Yosef into prison.

And so Yosef sat in prison. Soon, the prison warden found that Yosef was able to lead the other prisoners, to get them to straighten themselves out and improve their behavior. Once again a fantastic manager - thanks to G-d’s constant blessing - Yosef was placed in charge of all the prisoners, and helped the warden with the procedures which needed to be completed daily in the prison. For 10 years Yosef continued this stage of his life, punished 1 year for each of his brothers whom he had slandered. At the end of the 10 years, 2 servants of Pharaoh angered him - the Butler, who had served Pharaoh a glass of wine with a fly floating in it, and the Baker, who had given to Pharaoh bread which contained a small pebble.

One night they each dreamed a dream, from which they awoke, each one afraid. When Yosef made his rounds, working with each of the prisoners, he found the faces of the Butler and Baker crestfallen. Yosef began by inquiring as to their well-being, to which they responded that they were afraid, because they each had dreams which they did not understand. Yosef offered, with the help of G-d, to try and explain them. The Butler began first: 

“In my dream, i saw a vine in front of me. On this vine there were 3 branches, each one blossoming - then its buds came out, and the clusters ripened into grapes. Pharaoh’s cup was in my and, and i took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I placed the Cup in Pharaoh’s hand.”

Yosef was delighted to hear this dream and understood that it meant a deeper message for him. Yosef interpreted the dream as follows: I saw a vine before me - Israel is compared to a vine, as it is said גפן ממצרים תסיע (You have brought this vine out of Egypt, Psalms 80:9). Not only am i going to see my father again soon, but afterwards we will all come out from the exile in Egypt! And not only that, but there will be 3 MORE cups - the cup in the hand of the butler, the cup to which the wine was squeezed, and the cup placed in Pharaoh’s hand. The 4 of them total represent the 4 cups which my children will drink on the first night of Pesach! (courtesy of Bereishis Rabbah! )

Having heard this wonderful news, he also had good news to give the butler: "the 3 branches are 3 days, and in 3 days you will be restored to your position, serving Pharaoh as you did before. When you do, please remember me, and don't forget me, for I am innocent of what I was accused."

The baker heard the good news given to the butler, and figured he would probably get some good news too, so he began "I also had a dream. There were 3 wicker baskets on my head, Each one filled with bread. And the birds began eating from the baskets atop my head, until there was nothing left."

Yosef heard this, and was crestfallen at the bad news he had received. This was Yosef's interpretation: the 3 baskets of bread symbolize the Exile of Babylonia, the Exile of Persia, and the Exile of Greece... And the birds which devour everything left symbolize the Exile of Rome, which consumes the jewish people and seems as if there is no end. (also courtesy of Bereishis Rabbah)

Given the bad news, he had bad news to give to the baker. "the 3 baskets represent 3 days, and at the end you will be executed and hung".

3 days passed, and everything happened just as Yosef had said. The baker was hung, and the Butler was restored to his place. For the 2 times which Yosef asked of the Butler to get him out of prison (remember me, and mention me to Pharaoh), G-d caused the butler to forget, and Yosef remained in Prison for another 2 years.

After 2 years had passed, one night Pharaoh had a dream which shook him to his core - and simply not understanding the meaning was enough to disturb his sleep. He was standing by the edge of the river, and 7 fattened, healthy cows came out from the river. After them came 7 emaciated cows, which stood by the side of the 7 fat ones, and then devoured the fat cows, looking just as emaciated afterwards. Pharaoh awoke with a start, and when he finally managed to get back to sleep, he dreamt again, standing by the side of the river. 7 beautiful, healthy ears of grain came up from the river, and 7 dry, dead ears of grain followed them. The dry ears stood by the side of the 7 healthy ears, and then devoured them, looking even worse than before. He awoke again, and called in his best wise men and dream interpreters, and none could explain the dream. They said that he would have 7 daughters, and then bury them, or that he would capture 7 countries, and then lose them. But they could not account for the 7 emaciated cows/dry ears of grain standing next to the healthy ones before devouring them.

Just then, the Butler remembered and spoke to Pharaoh "With your permission - I have sinned, and forgotten a favor done for me while I was in prison, 2 years ago when Pharaoh became angry with his servants. There was a young Hebrew man who interpreted our dreams, that the baker would be hung in 3 days, and that I would be restored. He is helped by his G-d, and perhaps he can help you." Pharaoh, hoping to find the interpretation to his dream, ordered his servants to find Yosef, bathe him, change his clothes, and cut his hair, and bring him before the king.

With Yosef standing before him, Pharaoh told over his dreams. After listening carefully, Yosef spoke up; "I will speak only with the help of the G-d of my fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yisroel. Your two dreams, they are really one. The 7 healthy cows, and the 7 healthy ears of grain - they represent 7 years of plenty, which begin now. The 7 emaciated cows, and the 7 dry ears of grain represent 7 years of famine, both of which will effect the whole world. What must be done is that we must take a portion of the grain from each of the years of plenty, and set them aside so that we have them during the years of famine." Pharaoh understood then... THAT is the explanation of the dream - how the years of plenty could stand next to the years of famine. Pharaoh exclaimed "And you will be there to help me organize it, to separate the tithe of grain to prepare for the years of famine, and you will be my right hand!" The previous advisors to the king were insulted, that they were passed over for a servant and a prisoner, they said "Your Highness, it is unbefitting of a king to have a servant and a prisoner as an advisor. At least devise a test by which we can ascertain that he is indeed a great wise man, and that this is not simply a lucky guess". Pharaoh said "As you said. Tomorrow Yosef will go through a trial. It is befitting that my second in command should have mastery of the 70 languages spoken by the nations of the world. Let him address Pharaoh in each language and thus climb the 70 stairs to my throne." That night, the angel Gavriel (Good friend of Yosef's by now?) came and taught to Yosef all 70 languages, so when he stood before Pharaoh the following morning, he would be ready.

The next morning they began the test, and in each language Yosef spoke to Pharaoh, and was allowed to ascend one step up. When he reached the 70th step and spoke in the 70th language, standing right in front of Pharaoh, he addressed Pharaoh in Hebrew - the language of creation, and a language which Pharaoh did not know. Pharaoh was embarrassed that he did not understand the language of Yosef's home, and the language of his people, and asked him to swear an oath to him that he would not reveal this to the people. Yosef was thus established as second to the king, and ruler over Egypt. Soon Yosef became married to Osnas, the adopted daughter of Dova and Potiphar - and a descendent of Yaakov through Dina. He has 2 sons from Osnas, Menashe and Ephraim.

OKAY, so fast forwards a bit, we’re holding in the second year of the famine.

Yaakov Avinu was one of the first holders of the name “Ba’al Shem” (Like the Ba’al Shem Tov!). The responsibility given to the person who holds that title is to be the mission control for the 36 hidden righteous people who hold up the world - to keep tabs on them and their location, and to send them wherever they are needed. This means that Yaakov effectively had a GPS map of where in the world all the Tzaddikim are located... and he did not send anyone to Egypt. 

Two years into the famine, Yaakov Avinu and his children still had plenty of food; they had merit, and righteousness, the 2 things that were established even then to guarantee that a person had the success they needed to get by. However, Yaakov was curious - there were no Tzaddikim in Egypt, to his knowledge, and yet they had plenty of food. To satisfy this wonder, he decided to send his sons down to Egypt to investigate, under the guise of buying food, so that the other inhabitants of the land, the descendants of Eisav and those of Yishmael, would see them descend to Egypt and not get jealous of their prosperity.

He warned them - you are many as you stand together, and so I beseech you, please enter the city when you get to Egypt through different entrances, and remain split up while you are there. They met together, and decided as one: “If there is a tzaddik in Egypt, it must be Yosef! It was not correct that we sold him, not proper that we went against him, and now our obligation is that of freeing a captive.”

In Egypt, and knowing that his brothers would one day come down, Yosef gave instructions to Ephraim, who in turn instructed the guards of the city to collect the names of everyone who entered the city - their name, the name of their father, and the name of their grandfather. At that point in time, the name Yehuda ben Yaakov ben Yitzchak was probably only held by one person in the world - and by this Yosef would be certain of his brothers’ arrival.

When his brothers entered the city, they spread out to the farthest reaching neighborhoods to look for Yosef - They looked in all the slave markets, they looked in all the other markets, and they searched in houses, high and low. Sound like spies? They certainly seemed like spies to the Egyptians. 

This report was brought to Yosef, who demanded that they be brought to his house. While they were waiting to see Yosef, Ephraim spoke to them, asking why they had come down to Egypt. Yehuda spoke for them “We are not spies, but rather the children of one man. We are 10 out of 12, one is by our father’s side, and one is lost. We have come to search for the one who was lost. We thought he was pursuing us, and we sold him into slavery... But we were wrong.”

Ephraim asked “For how much did you sell him?”, to which the brothers replied “For 5 selayim”, 

Ephraim continued, “And if his master offered to sell him back to you for 5 selayim, would you buy him back?”

“Of course”, they answered

“And if his master offered to sell him back for 10 selayim, would you buy him back?”

“Certainly”, they replied

“And if his master said that he would not sell your brother back to you, even for 1000 selayim?”

“We would certainly rescue him, or we would die trying” said the brothers.

Just then, Yosef came out from behind the curtain. Since his beard had grown out, and he looked much older (They saw him when he was 17, he was not 39), they did not recognize him. He accused them immediately of being spies, to which they repeated their denial, and their request to find their brother, and to get food, as their father had requested. Instead, Yosef seized Shimon and imprisoned him in front of the brothers. He said “If you are telling the truth, take your grain and go back to your father, and bring back your other brother. If you do not bring him down with you next time, you will not see my face again, and your brother Shimon will remain a servant in my house.” He received their money and filled up their bags with grain, and on top of the grain, he slipped in the money they brought.

As soon as the brothers departed Egypt (and afterwards discovered the money  which was placed back in their bags), Yosef went and got Shimon out of prison, brought him to his house and gave him food to eat and water to drink... and there he remained as an honored guest until his brothers returned to Egypt.

As a year passed by, they wanted to get Shimon “out of prison”, and they began to run “low” on grain again... So they spoke to their father, and convinced him to allow them to go back down to Egypt, and with Benyamin in tow. On this, Yehuda gave his word and swore an oath - an oath that would affect him, even after his passing from this world, and even though he did not violate it. With them also they took their money from the first time - just in case it had been a mistake - and the additional money with which they would buy more grain. They brought with them as well fruits of the land, Dates, Figs, Pomegranates.

When they got to Egypt, they were brought before Yosef, who welcomed them, and sat them down at the table and gave them food to eat. He brought out Shimon, who sat with them. They brought out their money from the first time, and offered it up - perhaps it had been a mistake that it had been returned to them. Yosef responded by saying, your G-d and the G-d of your fathers has done this for you (something VERY un-Egyptian, and VERY jewish to say. Big question mark there...). Yosef then decided to spend some time alone with his brother, Benyamin. They sat together, and Yosef confessed to him, and told him of his plan - a plan by which he intended to verify whether their brothers had done Teshuva - that they had repented and would protect Benyamin, or whether they would repeat their mistakes. Benyamin agreed, and they spoke of it no further. When they were preparing to depart, Yosef’s servants slipped his silver cup into Benyamin’s bag, where it would be found later.

The brothers departed from Egypt, but were soon returned, with a horrible accusation, that they had stolen Yosef’s silver cup from which he drinks. They told Yosef that it was a mistake, and that the one in whose bag the cup was found would remain as a servant. They opened the sacks to find it at the top of Benyamin’s sack, and the brothers tore their garments in mourning.

Yehuda stepped up as Benyamin’s advocate, saying "I am his guarantor, rather that I should be as a servant to you, and Benyamin should return to his father. For we were once 12 brothers, and one of them has since passed away (Yehuda was afraid that if he mentioned that Yosef was not dead, that Yosef - as it were - would demand to see their 12th brother) - our father has been in mourning for him all of these years, do not send our father to the grave in mourning for his second son, the last one remaining to his father from his mother." As the brothers began to beg, on behalf of Benyamin, who didn't speak up, Yosef began to cry, and yelled that all of his servants should depart from the room - and the Egyptians cleared out. Left only him and his brothers, he said "I am Yosef, is my father alive?"

The brothers were so awestruck that they could not speak, only to express their disbelief - there is no way that this individual, the second to Pharaoh, was Yosef, their long lost brother. They asked for proof - which Yosef provided. The first bit was that Egyptians could not - and would not - speak Hebrew. It represented something disgusting to them, as they associated it with Yosef’s meat-eating and anti-idolatry (according to the kabbalistic interpretation, they were actually too spiritually unrefined -for the lack of actually working to refine themselves and rather smothering themselves with idolatry- to be able to conceive of the depth in the Hebrew language, and were therefore unable to speak it). The second sign was his Bris Milah - showing them that he was circumcised, something that was limited to the children of Avraham - and definitely not an Egyptian thing. The 3rd sign was that he was able to tell them the day and time they threw him into the pit. A fourth sign was given - the place at which he had left off learning with their father - but that was to be given over to Yaakov Avinu when they came to bring him down to Egypt.

The brothers were wondering - after all this time - how do we tell our father that his son Yosef is alive? And so they concocted a plan. They wrote a song in which was explained their going to Egypt, and they would have Serach - the daughter of Asher - sing it to their father. When she did so, Yaakov Avinu said “If this is so, may you live forever.“ The Midrash follows by bringing a tradition on a verse in Kings in which David and Yo’av ask Serach for advice, something which happened more than 700 years later.

They came down to Egypt, where Yaakov lived out the remainder of his life. He passed away and his brothers buried him in the Land of Israel. One by one they began to pass away as well - the first to pass being Yosef. As Yosef was on his deathbed, he gave over a sign - פקד יפקוד - G-d will surely remember you... “When G-d will send a true redeemer, the redeemer will come with the words פקד פקדתי... I have surely remembered you.“

That leads us to the real beginning of the exile. The next installment “The Faithful Shepherd“ will be released G-d willing soon.