Superweapon VII

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

If you want a brief summary of the video, it’s that there’re multiple different perspectives on the afterlife/divine punishment in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament – the OG Sheol, which was a gloomy underworld where everyone went to after death, then later on annhilationism, universal salvation, and yes, even eternal conscious torment for sinners. Is the video title a bit clickbaity? Yeah. But eternal conscious torment is not the only view expressed in the Bible, and not a majority opinion until the post-biblical period centuries later.

Okay, so repeating everything I said. The title is just dishonest and when you said “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” that was wrong.

And you don’t want to engage with the substance of McClellan’s argument, because the scholarship is at odds with your theological conservatism and God forbid you have that rug pulled out from under you.

IIRC, there’s a WEG sourcebook that established Luke spent six months on Dagobah. Wish I could make a proper citation, but the Googles do nothing.

As with ROTJ in general, I’d love to discard it, but I begrudgingly accept it if only because so much of the post-ROTJ EU I love can’t exist without it.

The only time I recall seeing Vader’s eyes is when he’s flying his TIE fighter in the first movie.

The Poes from the N64 Legend of Zelda games.

C880

C881

C882

C883

C884

C885

C887

C888

It’s Not to Scale

Love Blonde

JadedSkywalker said:

Leia was visited by Anakin Skywalker in The Truce at Bakura. Leia ends up coming to terms with her father being redeemed, a part of that was naming her son Anakin, Anakin Solo. and seeing the good in him. Tatooine Ghost. Her son died in the Vong Wars, New Jedi order.
Her other son became the next Darth Vader, Jacen Solo/ Darth Caedus, and her daughter Jaina who was trained by Boba Fett had to kill him in a personal duel to the death. Jacen had murdered Boba Fett’s daughter. And Jacen did not join the Jedi afterlife, he was not redeemed. But Leia and Han adopted their evil son’s daughter as their own. Allana Solo.

The Next generation of Jedi would be Allana Solo, Jaina Solo and Ben Skywalker, the son of the slain Mara Jade Skywalker. Mara was murdered by Jacen Solo, it was his ascension to Sith apprentice. And Ben was the son of Grandmaster Luke Skywalker.

Jacen’s Sith Master was none other than Lumiya/Shira Brie the Dark Lady of the Sith. And he had been corrupted by Vergere who was also a Sith. He wanted Ben Skywalker to be his apprentice. But Tahiri Veila ended up being his agent and assassin and sort of apprentice.

Of course this is now legends.

Ugh. A stark reminder that the NJO+ EU was just as dogshit as the ST would prove to be.

Who was the Historical Jesus?

Broom Kid said:

Anakin should have been a SUPPORTING CHARACTER at best, and the POV should have been either Padme or Obi-Wan. But it obviously would have never occurred to him to make the Prequel Trilogy be ACTUALLY about Luke & Leia’s mom, in the same way the Original Trilogy was about Vader’s kid. Not Vader.

It never occurred to me, either. But damn, now I love the idea.

Channel72 said:

I’ve actually met people that claim they can’t tell if something is CGI. And there are people who defend the Prequels saying they can’t tell that the Clonetroopers are CGI.

When I was a young kid, I often couldn’t tell CGI and practical effects apart. There’re times I’ll revisit a movie/TV show I haven’t seen in decades and see obvious CG in play, then find myself flabbergasted that I was ever taken in by the effect. In the case of the prequels, I knew most of what I was seeing was clearly CGI, though I failed to realize all the clonetroopers in AOTC were digital.

I’d like to tackle a soft reboot to the Alien series which keeps only the original film in continuity and ignores all the sequels, prequels, and spinoffs. I’d like to do the following:

Explore xenomorph society in greater depth. I wouldn’t want to flat-out establish that xenomorphs are sapient, but I’d like to hint at the possibility. Perhaps there’s possible signs of artistic design in the construction of their hives or religiosity in their reverence for their queens.

Redesign the alien queen to harken back to Giger’s Necronom V:

She’d be uncomfortably alluring, with feminine lips and thighs, semi-permanently coupled to former humans who’ve been mutated into mindless drones who exist only to fertilize her eggs. The ultimate dominatrix.

Make the Space Jockeys alien again.

No bald muscle twinks in biomechanical gimp suits, no ancient astronaut bullshit.

“I’ve heated up some warm milk for you, honey.”

“Warm milk? Gross.”

The old EU isn’t a monolithic whole*. By my reckoning, it consists of five phases:

PHASE 1 (1976-1992)

The OT novelizations; the radio dramas; Splinter of the Mind’s Eye; the Marvel comic books; the newspaper comic strip; The Han Solo Adventures by Brian Daley; The Lando Calrissian Adventures by L. Neil Smith, etc. These works existed in their own separate bubbles; there was no indication they made up a collective shared universe.

PHASE 2 (1992-1998)

The Expanded Universe proper, introduced in Heir to the Empire. This was the first time an attempt was made to create a cohesive shared universe, though continuity details were constantly in flux. Ben Kenobi was born in 60 BBY. Anakin Skywalker was born in 55 BBY. The Clone Wars were set roughly 42-35 BBY, with the aggressors being the enigmatic “Clonemasters” who possibly commanded a Mandalorian clone army. Jedi up to the time of the Great Jedi Purge were allowed to form romantic connections and have children. Jedi, dark Jedi, and Sith all wielded lightsabers of various & sundry colours/hues. Darth Vader was the Dark Lord of the Sith (“Dark Lord” was a singular title reserved for the reigning Sith Lord alone). Palpatine was Vader’s master, but he wasn’t a Sith.

PHASE 3 (1998-2002)

The EU after the release of TPM but before the release of AOTC. I like to call this the “interregnum” phase. The prequel-era Jedi were depicted wielding lightsabers of multiple colours, though dark Jedi were frequently limited to red. These same Jedi also were shown as being allowed to marry, as evidenced by Ki-Adi-Mundi’s multiple wives and children.

PHASE 4 (2002-2008)

The EU after the release of AOTC. Best exemplified by the Clone Wars multimedia project.

PHASE 5 (2008-2015)

The EU after the release of The Clone Wars series. It blatantly contradicted the aforementioned multimedia project on multiple fronts, effectively rendering it a separate continuity.

*I know I’m preaching to the choir on this site. Regardless, it felt nice to hash this out.

Spartacus01 said:

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

Personally, I like the way the old EU handled it. There was a time when Jedi were totally free to get married and have families. Then, somewhere between Tales of the Jedi and the KOTOR comics, the no-marriage rule was introduced. But later on, Luke got rid of that rule when he started his own Jedi Order. I think this kind of development adds depth to the lore, and makes the Jedi feel more organic and grounded. It shows that the Order evolved over time, made mistakes, and tried to learn from them.

Children of the Jedi heavily implied that the Jedi during the Clone Wars/Great Jedi Purge were allowed to have romantic partners and children.

I feel the best way to have incorporated a forbidden romance into the PT without overturning previously established EU lore would’ve been to have made the prequel-era Jedi endogamous.

Children of the Jedi is a terrible book anyway, so who cares?

It’s a part of the old EU lore, regardless of one’s feelings about it.

“It was a woof, goddammit! A big, black, stinkin’ ass woof! The muthafucka jumped off the boat and ran over there, and when it got there, sonuvabitch turned into a man! He did the flip-flop shit on me! Just like a whore I knew in Detroit back in ‘62,‘63. I go over to her house on Saturday night. She loved me, man! Take her chicken and some pretzels. I come to the door, she’s a man! Flip-floppin’ an shit! You ever seen a muthafucka flip-flop on you an shit like this‽ In your face, goin’ crazy, be flippin’ an shit!”

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:

I like his movies but this is just a loser opinion. People that think this way don’t understand that it’s supposed to have mythological and spiritual qualities. It’s unsurprising that he put the overly simplistic interpretation of Dune into his Dune part 2 movie.

I mean, he got closer that Jodorowsky would’ve done.

I still believe I would’ve like Jodorowsky’s Dune over Villeneuve’s, regardless of “closeness”. Villeneuve’s Dune strikes me as a soulless made-by-committee corporate product.

G&G-Fan said:

Dr. Pretorius from Bride of Frankenstein reminds me so much of Tarkin. I have to think there’s some inspiration there from Pretorius in Tarkin.

I dunno. I can’t imagine Tarkin as a pederast. He comes off as too asexual to me.

Almost like Luke was overcompensating for something.

JadedSkywalker said:

Why doesn’t Lucasfilm create a new IP. Where is all the creativity.

“Enough from the clown!”

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

Personally, I like the way the old EU handled it. There was a time when Jedi were totally free to get married and have families. Then, somewhere between Tales of the Jedi and the KOTOR comics, the no-marriage rule was introduced. But later on, Luke got rid of that rule when he started his own Jedi Order. I think this kind of development adds depth to the lore, and makes the Jedi feel more organic and grounded. It shows that the Order evolved over time, made mistakes, and tried to learn from them.

Children of the Jedi heavily implied that the Jedi during the Clone Wars/Great Jedi Purge were allowed to have romantic partners and children.

I feel the best way to have incorporated a forbidden romance into the PT without overturning previously established EU lore would’ve been to have made the prequel-era Jedi endogamous.

Hollywood is adept at showcasing the mounting absurdities of late-stage capitalism.

JadedSkywalker said:

I liked that the Callista romance went nowhere. The Akanah thing was a total waste of time. The Black Fleet trilogy was garbage.

Though I actually like 2 of the 3 Callista trilogy novels.

I used to be a Luke/Callista shipper. But that’s because I was a hormonal teenager when I read Children of the Jedi, which was the first SW story I consumed in any medium which depicted Luke as a person capable of experiencing romantic/sexual feelings more intense than chaste puppy love. When I got around to reading the entire Callista Trilogy in my twenties, my investment in their relationship cooled significantly. And once I read the Hand of Thrawn Duology, I was fully aboard the Luke/Mara train.

My memories of the Black Fleet Crisis Trilogy aren’t sharp. I remember thinking it would’ve better if the B-plot with Lando had tied into the A-plot somehow instead of just being a diversionary side story.

JadedSkywalker said:

Well there is Splinter of the Mind’s Eye where Luke and Vader first fought, and Luke had a sort of almost romance with Princess Leia. Vader even appears to have fallen in a deep pit and died and he lost an arm.

Some fans posit that the Vader Luke and Leia fought in the Temple of Pomojema was a spectre created by the Kaiburr Crystal rather than the real Vader. Think Luke’s vision of Vader in the cave on Dagobah dialled up to 11. Obviously that wasn’t what Alan Dean Foster had in mind when writing the novel, but it’s the only real way you can integrate SOTME and TESB in the same continuity holistically.