Found it!

Real funny, Submitter.

Maybe he can help find Excalibur, Thor's hammer Mjolnir, and the One Ring to Rule Them All while he's at it.

mediaho: Maybe he can help find Excalibur, Thor's hammer Mjolnir, and the One Ring to Rule Them All while he's at it.

I think Hillary has to finish forging the One Ring first.

"And into this ring she poured all her cruelty, her malice and her will to dominate all life. One ring to rule them all."

mediaho: Maybe he can help find Excalibur, Thor's hammer Mjolnir, and the One Ring to Rule Them All while he's at it.

Well there is at least compelling reason to believe that the Ark at least did exist at one time..

ekdikeo4: mediaho: Maybe he can help find Excalibur, Thor's hammer Mjolnir, and the One Ring to Rule Them All while he's at it.

Well there is at least compelling reason to believe that the Ark at least did exist at one time..

indeed. Personally, I'd like to know if anyone's ever tracked down that list of treasure from the copper scroll found at Khirbet Qumran.

Weaver95: I think Hillary has to finish forging the One Ring first.

I always saw her as more of the Gollum type



ekdikeo4: Well there is at least compelling reason to believe that the Ark at least did exist at one time..

How so? (not being a d-bag, serious question)

mediaho: Weaver95: I think Hillary has to finish forging the One Ring first.

I always saw her as more of the Gollum type


Nah, that's Chelsea.



"the precious CALLS to us it does!"

Would that make Bill the Wang of Sauron? Or maybe that was Janet Reno...

mediaho: Would that make Bill the Wang of Sauron? Or maybe that was Janet Reno...

Nah, Bill is the Mouth of Sauron.

You can decide for yourself who's the witch king....

Weaver95: mediaho: Would that make Bill the Wang of Sauron? Or maybe that was Janet Reno...

Nah, Bill is the Mouth of Sauron.

You can decide for yourself who's the witch king....




Donna Shalala?

Why is no one looking for the FSM's missing Jar of Sauce!?

Why Not?



...oh

I'm prety sure national geographic already drew a better conclusion to the whereabouts of the Ark than this crappy article did. Memory's hazy, but out of a number of some highly refined temples in Africa, standing below ground level, there's one which is run by monks or something. And none but one of the monks has ever seen the Ark personally, because that one monk is chosen to guard the Ark instead the temple for the rest of his life.

/contributing a paltry 1.5 cents.

This thread is amusing because of the pathetic people who have to resort to posting 'bad pictures' of thier celebratician.

And because 99% of the pictures don't show up for me. So you look like jackass^3.

So if what I understand is correct, the Ark of the Covenant could shoot fire and kill those who were against those that held it. That seems so small minded of a god. If god was going to make a weapon for his believers to wield, why wouldn't god make one that converted non-believers and also made them into good people? That would be a far more useful weapon for the devout than one that just killed people, not to mention a lot more humane.

/it's all mythology

But I thought it was already being studied by Top Men.

/TOP men...

Weaver95: Nah, that's Chelsea.

I'd so hit that.

kroonermanblack

This thread is amusing because of the pathetic people who have to resort to posting 'bad pictures' of thier celebratician.

And because 99% of the pictures don't show up for me. So you look like jackass^3.

Sounds like you're the jackass with an internet connection that is full of teh suck.

Look, it's in a warehouse. I saw it in a documentary.

lol ultraholland

ultraholland: Look, it's in a warehouse. I saw it in a documentary.

I believe this wins the thread. You chose wisely.

As I recall my Bible, there was actually no place where the ark is supposed to be used as a "divine flamethrower." That was entirely made up by Steven Spielberg.

kroonermanblack:

99% of the pictures don't show up for me.

That's YOUR problem, n00b

waiting4godot: Why is no one looking for the FSM's missing Jar of Sauce!?

You owe me a new keyboard. Although I didn't spit on it, I would have if I had something in my mouth. Thus, you should just buy me a new keyboard. Or a stripper.

"What would such a wonder look like in our postmodern world? What might it do?"

Absolutely nothing?

Shaggy ark? Does it have quadraphonic sound?

/belongs in a museum
//got nothing else

kroonermanblack: This thread is amusing because of the pathetic people who have to resort to posting 'bad pictures' of thier celebratician.

And because 99% of the pictures don't show up for me. So you look like jackass^3.

You need to update your software. This site (new window) will let you download a killer upgrade for free!

strifecat: "What would such a wonder look like in our postmodern world? What might it do?"

Absolutely nothing?

Mmm.. no. I'm certain you're wrong. I think it'd get a lot of people all hot and bothered, so that's something.

tmbg: Why Not?



...oh

The melting, it does nothing.

Befuddled: So if what I understand is correct, the Ark of the Covenant could shoot fire and kill those who were against those that held it. That seems so small minded of a god. If god was going to make a weapon for his believers to wield, why wouldn't god make one that converted non-believers and also made them into good people? That would be a far more useful weapon for the devout than one that just killed people, not to mention a lot more humane.

/it's all mythology

I'm not religious, but I do enjoy history of all kinds. The caveat to your idea for a more practical divine "weapon" is in legend and lore the Judeo-Christian "God" cannot interfere with the will of humanity. Humans must have their own faith, otherwise what is it worth? I can create a sex toy to get off my rocks, but it's nicer to have my wife do it of her own free will.

Lagaidh: Befuddled: So if what I understand is correct, the Ark of the Covenant could shoot fire and kill those who were against those that held it. That seems so small minded of a god. If god was going to make a weapon for his believers to wield, why wouldn't god make one that converted non-believers and also made them into good people? That would be a far more useful weapon for the devout than one that just killed people, not to mention a lot more humane.

/it's all mythology

I'm not religious, but I do enjoy history of all kinds. The caveat to your idea for a more practical divine "weapon" is in legend and lore the Judeo-Christian "God" cannot interfere with the will of humanity. Humans must have their own faith, otherwise what is it worth? I can create a sex toy to get off my rocks, but it's nicer to have my wife do it of her own free will.

It takes a lot of faith for most Farkers to end up with a wife...

/Myself included

JonnyBGoode: As I recall my Bible, there was actually no place where the ark is supposed to be used as a "divine flamethrower." That was entirely made up by Steven Spielberg.

Not true. The bible speaks of the power of the ark laying waste to the enemies of Israel, as well as melting a few priests who didn't respect it's power. True, it's never called a flamethrower, but the Israelites were obviously in awe of it's power and terrified of misusing it.

Here's a great passage about the Ark:

"After the Ark had been among them seven months, the Philistines, on the advice of their diviners, returned it to the Israelites, accompanying its return with an offering consisting of golden images of the hemorrhoids and mice wherewith they had been afflicted. The Ark was set in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, and the Beth-shemites offered sacrifices and burnt offerings (1 Sam. 6:1-15). Out of curiosity the men of Beth-shemesh gazed at the Ark; and as a punishment, seventy of them (fifty thousand seventy in some ms.) were smitten by the Lord (1 Sam. 6:19)."

I for one would love to see a pile of golden hemorrhoids... okay, maybe I wouldn't.

Lagaidh: lore the Judeo-Christian "God" cannot interfere with the will of humanity.

If the god weapon is going to kill people, those people are effectively denied free will (as they aren't being allowed to kill the true believers), so why not have them do some good instead of just being dead?

If this world really doesn't matter, then why would god bother to give his followers a weapon to use against their enemies? The sooner they could get through this part and on to heaven the better. Having someone kill you before you transgressed would be the ultimate favor.

If free will is so important to the Christians, then why are they trying to force me to believe in their stuff by making their religion into law.

CyberRebel: JonnyBGoode: As I recall my Bible, there was actually no place where the ark is supposed to be used as a "divine flamethrower." That was entirely made up by Steven Spielberg.

Not true. The bible speaks of the power of the ark laying waste to the enemies of Israel, as well as melting a few priests who didn't respect it's power. True, it's never called a flamethrower, but the Israelites were obviously in awe of it's power and terrified of misusing it.

Here's a great passage about the Ark:

"After the Ark had been among them seven months, the Philistines, on the advice of their diviners, returned it to the Israelites, accompanying its return with an offering consisting of golden images of the hemorrhoids and mice wherewith they had been afflicted. The Ark was set in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, and the Beth-shemites offered sacrifices and burnt offerings (1 Sam. 6:1-15). Out of curiosity the men of Beth-shemesh gazed at the Ark; and as a punishment, seventy of them (fifty thousand seventy in some ms.) were smitten by the Lord (1 Sam. 6:19)."

I for one would love to see a pile of golden hemorrhoids... okay, maybe I wouldn't.

"smitten by the lord" isn't really very specific. they could have gotten the same bubonic plague or whatever this disease was.

It did seem that bad luck and pestilence followed it around when Israel's enemies had possession of it. But the exact nature of the "laying waste" is very obscure. It doesn't seem as if it was ever used this way as a weapon, that it was merely a consequence of the wrong people owning it.

mediaho: How so? (not being a d-bag, serious question)

Well, the Bible...It was essentially the centerpiece of the first temple.

JonnyBGoode: As I recall my Bible, there was actually no place where the ark is supposed to be used as a "divine flamethrower." That was entirely made up by Steven Spielberg.

No, there's a spot where the Philistines (or whoever) open it and a bunch of them die (I think this happens twice). Also, it kills an Israelite who grabs it by accident.

Don't do it, Scoob!

JonnyBGoode: "smitten by the lord" isn't really very specific. they could have gotten the same bubonic plague or whatever this disease was.

I have to agree. A flamethrower of the lord isn't nearly as believable like a plague or disease caused by god.

I don't get the connection between trumpets and gunpowder. But then again, there is a high crime rate in New Orleans...makes yah think, don't it?

OK. This theory is complete crankery. Some have argued that the Ark could be a type of capacitor (it is lined within and without with gold, a good conductor, like a Leyden jar). Electricity might have smitten any who committed the sacrilege of touching it. Also, there are hints of basic electrical knowledge in the Middle East in Ancient Times. But gunpowder? Farfetched, indeed. He's confusing the Holy Land, which is a powder keg, with a magical box.

Befuddled: why wouldn't god make one that converted non-believers and also made them into good people?

That would be like changing someone's mind in a Fark Politics tab thread. Unpossible.

mediaho: ekdikeo4: Well there is at least compelling reason to believe that the Ark at least did exist at one time..

How so? (not being a d-bag, serious question)

Simply because there are other biblical-era artifacts that did exist, and have been located.

(I'm not religious nut, don't particularly go along with any of them at all, but I do think that at least pieces of many of their stories are based on some sort of reality)

ekdikeo4: Simply because there are other biblical-era artifacts that did exist, and have been located.

Really? I have heard that they may have located some of the buildings referenced in the Bible, but I've never heard of a specific artifact being uncovered.

Lagaidh:
I'm not religious, but I do enjoy history of all kinds. The caveat to your idea for a more practical divine "weapon" is in legend and lore the Judeo-Christian "God" cannot interfere with the will of humanity. Humans must have their own faith, otherwise what is it worth? I can create a sex toy to get off my rocks, but it's nicer to have my wife do it of her own free will.

Plus, back then God was a dick. Really, look it up, he was like a grade-A douche bag.

Befuddled: So if what I understand is correct, the Ark of the Covenant could shoot fire and kill those who were against those that held it. That seems so small minded of a god. If god was going to make a weapon for his believers to wield, why wouldn't god make one that converted non-believers and also made them into good people? That would be a far more useful weapon for the devout than one that just killed people, not to mention a lot more humane.

Something about God wanting people to have free will and choose to believe. So it would kill non-believers instead of converting them.

/I want to believe
//It actually shot streetlights, not fire

Weaver95:indeed. Personally, I'd like to know if anyone's ever tracked down that list of treasure from the copper scroll found at Khirbet Qumran.

I believe one item has been found from the scroll, problem is that a lot of places listed are no longer known. Most of the stuff is probably still buried.

ftfa: "a combination of reliquary, drum and primitive weapon, fueled with a somewhat unpredictable proto-gunpowder.

As an expert on primitive weaponry, an amateur percussionist, an early black-powder gunnery enthusiast, and one who was born Jewish - I really expected to get more of a kick out of these replies.

Bucky Katt: kroonermanblack:

99% of the pictures don't show up for me.

That's YOUR problem, n00b

Actually, no. I could update my software, as someone pointed out. But I see no real pressing need to view your 'bad pictures of a woman who dares run for president'.

And I love that out of the two topics in my post, the only one people attacked me for is my 'no pictures seen' part, which was largely a add on, and completely irrelevant to the meaning of my post.