Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => Chrono / Gameplay Casual Discussion => Topic started by: Daniel Krispin on February 28, 2004, 10:05:31 pm
-
You know, I really don't think the designers thought so deeply about all of this. That whole time distortion effect...I bet you they just thought it would look cool. The time passing by in the last battle: symbolic of all you have passed through. Such deep analysis was never really intended. Sometimes to delve too deeply into something's meaning and secrets only serves to ruin what magic seems to be in it. If we will someday know all there is to know of the universe, having seen every corner of it...what joy, what exitement will remain in life? When the last star is charted, where to then? What mystery will remain to marvel over? That would be a sad day; I prefer to wonder in my ignorance of the world, and the immensity of all around, rather than know all. To quote Gandalf: "One that breaks something to find what they have has left the path of wisdom."
-
Man....you're really in the wrong place if you don't want to discuss this subject. This kind of thing is what the Chrono Compendium is all about. If you don't really like that, I suggest you not hang around. Or at the very least simply don't read the threads on topics you don't enjoy discussing.
I don't take well to people telling us what we do is stupid (not your words, I know, but the inference can be made, even if you didn't mean it) on other boards, but I tolerate it because those are not boards dedicated to doing what we do here, and usually such comments come after we've already brought the subject up (usually...and I'm talking about OCR for those of you who don't know). However, I really, REALLY don't like people suggesting this on boards dedicated to the subject. Don't keep this up, or you'll be met harshly, at least by me.
Sorry if this seems a little extreme...but this kind of thing really annoys me, ESPECIALLY on our own boards. Please, anyone that has a problem with discussing any of the things we discuss, at least for reasons of "They were imperfect writers and therefore did not follow any set of rules," please just don't bring it up.
So shut up about us overdiscussing something. We will overdiscuss anything we damn well please. It's our site, and the point of it is to pick apart the series in order to basically understand it to perfection. So leave us alone...scalawag*!
*I was just recently reminded of the Strong Bad "its/it's" song, so I really wanted to say "scalawag." That was not intended to be a direct personal attack, just a joke. However, the rest of the post is serious.
-
It's not just us; the forthcoming viewers will delight and be blown away by the massing of information being undertaken. Illuminating mystery is exhilarating; I have wondered what is to come once we reach a status of near-perfection -- but would that not be Zeal? Having built everything in the sky, so that we may stand upon the highest palace and view the horizon with full knowledge and fulfillment?
-
Hmmm...not that I don't analyze either. On the contrary, I have much analyzed the CT world, albeit from a slightly different standpoint. I am a scientist of a sort, after all. I didn't mean it in quite such a way. It just strikes me that Chrono Trigger is as much a fantasy story as it is science fiction. Magic is an uncertain thing that no amount of science could explain, especially not with our science (since magic in the real world doens't exist!). That being said, Lavos too is a magical being. I merely mean that many of his attributes by that very nature may be unexplainable by analysis from a scientific standpoint. How, for example, does he cause his destruction to rain down? It is a magic attack, something concerning a realm in which science does not mean anything. Things surrounding Lavos are magical, in a way. I do not see how it could then be understood any more than that; it is how it is, and that is it. Of course you may take issue with this, but I'm not belittling what you have done here in any way. It's very impressive, to be sure. I merely take a more mythological viewpoint on the matters of the CT world; in that vein, I most especially liked the one editorial you had on here way back regarding Zeal. It was the first time I had ever seen Zeal analyzed in the way I imagine it. But really, don't be mad at me if I seek to disagree on matters. What is the point in having all this analysis, after all, if there is no one contrary to use it against?
Oh, and Zeality (just saw your post), nice philosophising there...we must just beware the folly of Zeal, of course. Rather, beware the folly of Babel, I should say. That was the dream of those that built the Tower. To build so that all around might marvel at them; their pride drove them to ruin in the end. Not unlike Zeal, I believe. Humans must remember who and what we are; we are merely humans. Not everything in this universe is for us to accomplish and know. Knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's desire is the first sin, is it not? "And you shall be as god, knowing good from evil"...they wished to know all, to be near perfect...and cursed the world with the consequences. Ah, I love philosophy and theology.
-
Humans must remember who and what we are; we are merely humans. Not everything in this universe is for us to accomplish and know. Knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's desire is the first sin, is it not? "And you shall be as god, knowing good from evil"...they wished to know all, to be near perfect...and cursed the world with the consequences.
While I agree that knowledge can often be a burden, I disagree with the statement that we are not meant to know everything, or rather, what I percieve as the rational behind it. We are meant to know everything we can discover. That is what makes us as a species special. Not our thumbs, not the blessing of some invisible tyrant, but the fact that we will cross the darkness to chase the stars, just so we can see what they cast light on to.
Even though we very well may damn ourselves by doing so, we must quest for more knowledge, as long as we wish to be who we are.
-
I believe that a fear of absolute knowledge is a bit more then absurd. There is no possible (as far as I now) way to know everything because plenty of things have infinite possibilities.
Take Pi for instance. Are we ever going to know every number? Are we ever going to find a pattern? Nope. It's not possible. Can we still try? You bet.
Even if every star is mapped (another likely impossibility depending on whether you believe the Universe has stopped expanding or what-not), there are plenty of other places to look. I mean damn, we're not even done with our own Oceans for crying out loud! Stars die baby. That's a fact. Things change all the time. More knowledge is always being created right before us, waiting to be gained.
As Captain Planet says "The Power is YOOOUURRRSS!"
For another thing...Magic may not be able to be explained in THIS WORLD, because, as you said, here it doesn't exist. But what makes it so that it couldn't be studied and further discussed and given boundries and principals in a world where Magic DOES exist?
I mean, you can take just the most base of principals of Magic from the game and have some scientific research to go on right off the bat. Magic requires magical ability and the power to use it (ie Water, Fire, Lightning, Shadow magical ability and MP). Right there is a limitation of Magic. It isn't infinite, and is thusly easier to examine as a real concept.
Mustn't we all gain as much knowledge as we can so we may not recreate the flaws of the past? Adam & Eve's "mistake" is one mankind will forever strive not to repeat. Whether it's the past or the future. Knowledge will succeed where Ignorence will fail. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...But that is true of all things. All power. God's power.
-
Power does not corrupt, I don't think, but rather it amplifies. If the only thing keeping you from corruption is weakness, power will simply enable you.
This sword represents considerable power. With it, you may either protect life, or destroy it. Wield your weapon with full knowledge of the consequences.
I knew a girl who's sister had a disease the required treatment based on stem-cell research. Because of people in power, who would forsake mankind for a fairytale, her family had to fly her from southern California to France, multiple times, at great cost: It was too late.
The power was there. Corruption stayed the hand of the powerful. Ironic, huh?
-
(In response to the original post.)
As a sincere fan of the Chrono series, albeit a reticent one, I can appreciate as well as anyone the temptation to analyze this so-called Chronoverse down its the very first bowl of primordial soup. But at the same time, I think you, Guardian, are right; the programmers did not intend any of this to be so deep as the Compendium is taking it. And that’s a very good point; it would be naïve of us and in poor form to act as though we are unraveling hidden truths…because we are not. We are merely speculating.
But the coin does have another side to it. I’m also sure that the programmers did not intend for players not to analyze these games to heart’s content. In fact, I think they would be very honored to see such zealous attention heaped upon something they created.
As far as original meaning is concerned, no work of art can grow beyond the master who created it. At that fundamental level, no one in the universe can alter the artwork of another, for any reason. In that context, this Compendium is absurd.
But, equally so, no work of art is forever bound to its master. Just as its original form is ethically immutable so too is its fate completely free, for anyone who meets such an artwork may interpret it howsoever he or she desires, and it is in this very sense that an artwork can forever grow in meaning and value. The Chronoverse as it exists on the Compendium is, as you said, obviously not the one that the programmers designed. Instead it is the Chronoverse as told by the eyes of the people who spend their time here considering this most fascinating series.
I think the lesson to learn here is twofold. The first tenet is already spoken, being that the original artists are not entitled to keep others from enjoying that art as they will. The second tenet of the lesson, meanwhile, is that there is a line that exists between elucidation and elaboration.
In the case of the former, elucidation, there are very few original facts about any of these games that have yet to be discovered and chronicled. But of the more obscure facts that had remained unnoticed or unresolved, the Compendium has done a fine job of identifying them. On the resolution side, I don’t necessarily agree with a great many of the Compendium’s theoretic conclusions—just as any scientist will be greatly wary of accepting claims of “final truth” on any subject—but to an extent that disagreement within me is allayed by my enjoyment of the lively exchange of ideas here, especially concerning ideas had not occurred to me previously; it is a great delight to meet a new idea about something you already enjoy.
In the case of the latter, well, to attach ourselves to something we enjoy and try to make it even greater, that is a fundamental element of the human condition. That’s why kids like toys. That’s why I write stories. Better, bigger, higher, more…that’s our way. Here at the Compendium we do elaborate a great deal on the original Chrono series, beyond all objective truth and reason; no one would argue (winningly) that some of the questioned raised here (let alone the proposed answers to those questions) have any true, single, objective truth written into the code of the game, intentionally by the programmers or implicitly by the cultural and authorial elements that went into the making of these games. My upcoming space-time theory for the Chronoverse is way out of bounds in terms of the original games, but that won’t stop it from making sense and being perfectly reasonable…at least if I work out all the kinks. Reason hates kinks, you know…
So, there you have it, Guardian. You are essentially correct in your original observation; the programmers never designed the games to go this far. But you missed the idea that they are nevertheless granted no license (copyrights and trademarks notwithstanding) to say that we cannot take the games this far anyway, and indeed they would probably be delighted to see people talking about their work so long after its publications. I do not condone Ybrick’s rather harsh wording—no doubtless spoken defensively rather than derisively—and I think you have made an excellent point inasmuch as a good deal of what we do here at the Compendium is unmerited by the original stipulates of the game. But, to the extent that artwork is free to grow as it will, our own speculations are no less valid than the original itself, whether or not they are contradictory or in good taste, a detail which lends further estimation to the Compendium’s efforts at being consistent and tasteful. And, furthermore, this Compendium is altogether an enjoyable place to spend some time, is it not?
~ Josh
-
In reply to Radical_Dreamer:
Hmmm...that's very true of power. It itself it not the cause of corruption, per say. Jesus had ultimate power, and yet was not corrupt in any manner. Yes, I would suppose that power merely amplifies our own inherint flaws. This means, therefore, that in the human scope, power does always corrupt, all humans being essentially flawed and corrupt.
In reply to the general comments on knowledge and its persuit:
In regards to the quest for knowledge, it is not the gain of knowledge that would pose any problems, unless the extreme I mentioned were to occur, which, as as has been mentioned, is unlikely. The folly is to think we can better ourselves through knowledge. It may be tempting to think so, but what of this then: we now, in this age, know a thousand times more than did the people three thousand years ago. Even our children know more of science than did even the great scientists of old. But what has this gained us? Are we wiser? I should not think so; the philosophers of old had as much if not more wisdom than we. If it were not so, they would have been forgotten, which they are not. Are we more content? Again, I do not think so. We still strive for power and gain, even as has always been done. Through knowledge we have but gained power. The most treasured of things that we hold to, our ideals and religions and such, are not in any way based on our persuit of knowledge; democracy itself was formed in an era when it was thought that the world consisted of four elements. So what is it really that we seek? We claim that it is knowledge, and through it a bettering of ourselves. But even a passing glance at our history can show that we are no better. For all that we know, our flaws remain. We are damned, though we attempt to find solace in what appears to be our own strength. Yet as is said, all is vanity. Knowledge, wisdom, power, joy...it all passes swiftly. The wise and the foolish meet the very same end, and all the power of the mighty will not avail them in the hour of their death. So too with knowledge. When we die, and die we must, what will it gain us? What, even, does it gain humanity? Do we know ourselves better, or are we but building ourselves high towers without foundations destined to crumble?
In Reply to Lord j esq:
I bow before a very nicely written rebuttle. What you say is very true and, I must agree, that to speculate beyond the intent of the original author does at certain times have great merits. I'm a strong believer in absolute truths, yet in a situation such as the CT world which is not only an imaginary one but also, as CC proves, seems to be itself in a constant state of being updated, as it were, the final word has not yet been said. Moreover I must admit that the speculations, though they be more complex than might have been originally intended, tend to follow the spirit of the game, and as such, having nothing to contradict them, can be considered as a good approximation at this point, the most plausable guess of what Square intended (or should have intended, if they truly knew what they were doing). Or, as a scientist would say, a good theory until something comes along to disprove it.
-
Yes, I would suppose that power merely amplifies our own inherint flaws.
I believe you have misenterpreted what I stated. I said that power amplifies, that it doesn't corrupt. If it was unclear that I was making a distinction, I apologize. Allow me to clarify:
Power enables people to act out in their true nature at a grander scale.
I grant you, every school yard bully would start a war if you put an army at their command, but I'd hardly throw Ghandi into the same category as a school yard bully. Every doctor in the world would cure every patient of any ailment they had, if they had the power to do so, and many would contribute generously to charities if they had the income to spare.
This means, therefore, that in the human scope, power does always corrupt, all humans being essentially flawed and corrupt.
This is what I meant by forsaking your species. Look at history. Many people use power for the greater good. Everything you have in your life is the result of the actions of those people. Don't trivialize that unless you are prepared to give everything up.
-
I should not think so; the philosophers of old had as much if not more wisdom than we.
How can you say that when we can look back at those philosophies and use them ourselves? Not to mention amplify or create new philosophies based on them. We can be just as wise, if not wiser then those of old. I mean, there are still hundereds of scholars in the world you know? I would think many more then of old (think mearly of populations!).
[quoteIf it were not so, they would have been forgotten, which they are not. Are we more content? Again, I do not think so. We still strive for power and gain, even as has always been done. Through knowledge we have but gained power. The most treasured of things that we hold to, our ideals and religions and such, are not in any way based on our persuit of knowledge; democracy itself was formed in an era when it was thought that the world consisted of four elements.[/quote]
This is where opinions may diverge then...I believe that religion and science can peacefully co-exist if certain fundamental laws are accepted by the religious side: All things that aren't known can be made possible. We don't know how the universe was created. Neither science nor religion. We may never know. It may be impossible to know. Religion can simply be a way to understand it, as can science, and so too can you combine the two.
New ideas and theologies are being made even now. Not just by the scholars as was the case so long ago when most were farmers or slaves. Everyone now is able to choose how they wish to live and what they wish to believe in. There are no real restrictions (in my culture?).
The wise and the foolish meet the very same end, and all the power of the mighty will not avail them in the hour of their death. So too with knowledge. When we die, and die we must, what will it gain us? What, even, does it gain humanity? Do we know ourselves better, or are we but building ourselves high towers without foundations destined to crumble?
Yes we die, but our knowledge may live on with others. Others are born, born they must. They live and learn, learn they must. We may or may not know our individual selves better, that's really up to each of us to find out. I think it's a lot easier for people to do such now-a-days. I mean, how many people in the past could have the opporotunity (damn you spelly head!) to go out and be themselves w/o fear of prosecution of some kind? People are better. I don't see how you can think it was better before at all really. It was simpler yes. But not necessarilly in a good way.
Every doctor in the world would cure every patient of any ailment they had, if they had the power to do so, and many would contribute generously to charities if they had the income to spare.
There are such things as corrupt doctors of course...There are people that believe that there's even an actual cure to the common cold that remains hidden (of course it's rediculus, but not completely unjustified). Doctors get good income, some of the best. If power doesn't corrupt, money sure as hell can.
On a similar note: How come the most important job in the world (Teachers) get paid shit?
Oh, and I retract that shit I said about power and corruption...I was just talking out my ass and thinking about YBrink's sig for some reason...
-
Mustn't we all gain as much knowledge as we can so we may not recreate the flaws of the past? Adam & Eve's "mistake" is one mankind will forever strive not to repeat. Whether it's the past or the future. Knowledge will succeed where Ignorence will fail. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...But that is true of all things. All power. God's power.
*Points to sig* :wink: Not that I want to start another conversation about knowledge corrupting or ignorance being bliss, but...yeah.
Anyway, I haven't read the last three posts yet, but I want to clarify something in response to Lord J esq. But first, I want to say that I agree with pretty much everything he said, especially the bit about us having every right to discuss this beyond the original intent of the developers. Sums up what the site's all about.
Yes, my harsh words were defensive. But there's a reason for that. On many forums--particularly OCR, where this all began--we are met with a great deal of adversity, often to the point of simple flaming. Most of the time, it's from elitist assholes who think they're so much better than we are simply because they don't overanalyze the series. In those places, sometimes those people are partially justified because we invaded their boards with analysis that nobody asked for (which is why I never start those types of threads anymore). However, I see this site as something of a bastion, a safe haven for us to discuss things as we please without people accusing us of ruining a great series of video games. The Compendium was more or less founded on that notion. To come into our safe haven and suggest that we're overanalyzing the series simply threatens the site's status as a safe haven for us. Therefore, it is often met with a fair deal of hostility.
I am sorry if I offended anyone, but I just felt I needed to let you all know that the purpose of this site is to analyze the Chrono series, and that to suggest that what we're doing is stupid or futile practically insults the site's validity. I just think that anyone who comes onto a site and attacks that site for what it is shouldn't be doing that.
I realize that is not exactly what Guardian_of_Ages was doing, at least not entirely, but much of what he said follows that general idea. I just don't like it, and will generally meet such comments posted on this site with hostility. You're welcome to say whatever you want wherever else, just don't say anything of that nature here. None of us like being told what we're doing here is stupid and shouldn't be done (which sort of makes me sound like a hypocrite since I'm telling you what not to say around here, but...I don't really care).
So anyway, I just felt I needed to explain myself a bit. Please honor my request not to suggest the futility of what we do here while you're actually in here. It's a simple request. If you think it's a bad idea to analyze one point, just ignore that thread and related threads and go to another thread that you think discusses something worth analyzing.
All that said, this has turned out to be a pretty healthy thread, with some good philosophical discussion. A pretty good read.
[Edit]...And I just saw V_Translanka's post about my sig. D'oh![/Edit]
-
In reply to Radical_Dreamer
Yes, forsake our species. It may appear that people do things for good, and that may even be the intent, but in the end even our best intentions fall short. Interestingly, this is the very idea that Tolkien brings up in regards to the ring. Yet to use it, even for good, is perilous. Even Gandalf refuses to use it, knowing that the power would corrupt him. But this is certainly a much older philosophy than that. My point is that human nature never changes. Circumstances do, but we do not. Romes bloodlust is tempered by Pericles' visions of democracy, even as now there is evil tempered with good. But the most noble of people would be the first to admit that they are inherintly flawed. And yes, I would throw Ghandi into the category of evil people. All people are, by nature. Who has not sinned even once? That is the only way someone can be truly good; everything else is just good from the human perspective. I was speaking in absolutes.
In reply to V-translaka:
If you read Proverbs or Ecclesiasties, you will see what I mean. Most modern philosophy has its roots in such places, and I have heard little from modern culture that can compare to those who wrote in ancient times. There may be more scholars (my father is a scholar, after all), but that doesn't make them any wiser. All I mean is that knowledge does not preclude wisdom. For example, in regards to science I know far more than my father does, yet I would not count myself to be wiser.
In regards to science and religion, I full well realise that they can coincide most peacefully. I will be an Engineer by profession, but still hold to the teachings of my Faith. In what may seem a strange paradox, I am very traditional in regards to church matters, yet despise the idea that Christans should go out and evangalise the word, and hold a more sombre and scientific view of the world. In the Christan tradition, God is beyond the universe; therefore no thing of science can say anything of God. Therefore science and religion will never conflict. The issues I have with, say, evolution, are not religious but rather scientific. I disagree with it on a matter of science, and not because the Bible says otherwise. I know full well that many of the more ancient stories in the Bible are written in the style of mythology, emphasising meaning over fact, and making use of figurative language to an extreme. Oh, and "everyone is able to choose how they wish to live" is a dangerous thing. Even within this there must be boundaries. For certainly if everyone begins to do only what is right in their eyes, we will have reached a dangerous point called anarchy.
In regards to things being better now, they are not. You spoke of being able to believe what they want without fear of persicution; a common myth. Interestingly one of the most heavily persicuted faiths, even in our Western culture, is Christianity; by some odd twist it has become politically incorrect, and it is a damnable offense to profess wholeheartedly to be one. And, worldwide, there are more Christans killed for their belief than ever before in history. How are we better in this? What makes our world now so much better than that which was lived in two millenia ago?
And in regards to things falling away...I don't know if you quite realized what my reference was in that matter. Proclaiming everything to be vanity is one of the first verses of Ecclesiastes, a book that seems at first glance to be very cynical. It goes through the list of things, and proclaims each to be not worthless, but transient and passing, availing us nothing in the end. Even such high ideals as wisdom, spoken of highly in Proberbs that came two books before, are said to be so. But rather than being depressing, Ecclesiastes is a hopeful book, showing that when the strength of humanity fails, there is yet hope in God. And in the end, all things pass, both the good and the bad; no torment will last forever. Even so no strength lasts forever, and neither does knowledge. We may pass it on to others, but what does this gain us? And no, we are no better than before. We seem better, and certainly our lives are cleaner and more refined. But in our hearts have we changed? No. This then is my view; we seem wise, and strong, and even good to our own eyes...but we must realise that compared to perfection, we fall short, and always will. I will end there, as this went off in a direction I did not quite want it too; it has turned a little too theological rather than philosophical, I think. I have not been as eloquent or coherent as I likely should have been, but it would take time to say such things correctly, and I may not even have the skill.
-
And yes, I would throw Ghandi into the category of evil people. All people are, by nature. Who has not sinned even once? That is the only way someone can be truly good; everything else is just good from the human perspective. I was speaking in absolutes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll venture to guess that you believe that there is in fact an absolute morality, and furthemore, it's based on Christianity. It's fine if you believe in that morality (for the most part) but it is not absolute. You say people are inheritly evil: define evil. Against god? Your god, someone elses?
Most people do not set out each morning with evil intent. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same as each other or malice.
-
Yes, I do believe most strongly in absolute morality, and yes it is Christian. And I will say without doubt that my God is the only one there is, and that knowingly or unknowingly people sin against Him. I do not buy into pluralism. I hold fast to my own faith, with no exceptions, in the same way that I would expect others to hold to theirs. I respect others beliefs, and their devotion to it, but in no way consider them to be a way to truth; if you are true to your faith, you can consider it and it alone to be the way to Truth. Otherwise it cannot be considered a faith, only an idea.
-
(http://www.crsn.com/studiostrip/brucelee.com/bruce03%5B1%5D.jpg)
-
Well, it's traditionalist, to be sure. But I do not see any problem whatsoever in clinging fast to my beliefs. As I said, should not everyone cling to their belief to the exclusion of all others? To be pluralist is merely to be a fence rider and not know where you stand. Not to say that you cannot see other sides, or understand other things; I respect other religions very much. The devotion that is shown by people of other faiths is admirable, though I would say it is misguided. In the same way I would not be offended if a Muslum were to tell me I'm damned for my beliefs. In a sense I would be more upset if they did not.
-
What you believe is less important than how strongly you believe it, huh?
I agree with that sentiment, probably in a different sense.
If it works for you, that's fine, just don't use it as an excuse to hurt others. Well, that's my morality at least, not absolute, but I believe in it. :)
-
Well, not quite. What you believe does, I would say, outweigh how strongly you believe it. I merely mean to say that if you truly believe it as your faith, it should stand at the basis of your being and not be swayed by anything. An impossible feat, I know (for who does not doubt?), but even so is what is ideal. What I meant in saying that I respect others who cling to their faith is that, while I hold their beliefs to be wrong, they show great strength in clinging to it. I respect them as dedicated humans.
-
Who has not sinned even once?
What about those born dead babies? What sin have they committed? Especially one so great as to die before they experience life?
Otherwise...I guess that part where you speak about beliefs and ideas is where we make a definate split in thought. I think that ideas are much better than beliefs. People die because of beliefs. Wars are faught over beliefs. If you only have ideas, what you do is you just change them as new information is recieved. Nothing is solid of course, as you cannot know everything, but I think it is better that way. The world would be a better place w/less belief and more idea.
^^^^^^^
Parts inspired by the movie Dogma! Wowzers! Go Kevin Smith!
-
What sin have babies committed? Being born human. To be born human is to be born sinful. It is what is called original sin; it is why Christans (at least some denominations) practice Baptism. As for those who die before even being Baptised...we must trust to the mercy of God. After all, I am sure God knows all things that would or might have been.
-
Original sin: What an outright disgusting concept. Everything about it screams against everything that is good.
I suppose that I'm an extra bad sinner, being left handed? A choice I didn't make, I suppose I'm still responsible for it? (Never mind I prefer things this way, but it's a matter of principle)
Trusting the mercy of a being who hold everyone responsible for a choice made millenia ago entirely different beings? Good place to put your faith.
-
It is the only place to put your faith. What do you trust in, the strength of humanity? That has been shown time and again to be ashes. Were we not for fourty years in the last century on the brink of destroying ourselves with nuclear war.
And I understand that original sin seems very repulsive. It is hard to admit oneself to be so corrupt from the beginning that redemption is beyond your means. But what, really, is wrong with the concept of original sin? It merely admits that human nature, from it's most basic form, is flawed. And do we not see this in society as it is, time and again? Whatever good there may be is outweighed by the most basic of human flaws that never go away: greed, lust, anger...they are never gone. We have found no way of erasing this from ourselves. Pardon me if I cannot give a more convincing argument on the matter; I could ask my father who has a far better understanding of the theology and philosophy standing behind it, but I cannot at this moment. The thing is, it is not a choice you made; but you carry in you the very same flaw, even from birth, that caused this. Unbridled ambition and such things, they are the sins that caused the fall, and through that first sin we too are afflicted with it. We are living as dead, damned to hell for eternity in the eyes of God. Original sin does not scream against good; rather, what makes it so repulsive seeming is that it is the accusing finger of the law. As bad as the Devil is our own sinful nature, and is even as subtle. It works in such a way that our hearts deplore the ways of God, and rather follow the paths of our own hearts. So it seems that Original Sin is an antipode to good, but the concept is only at odds with what our flawed nature tells us is good. For original sin tells us that we cannot depend on our own strength; and our nature despises that. We like to think of ourselves as the masters of our own destiny. But when disaster strikes, then it becomes apparent: all our strength does not avail us in death. But neither take from this that God is so harsh that He is beyond mercy; remember the story of Jesus. It is the counterweight to the law...for the law condemns, and the gospel sets free.
Well, this is not going in the way I had intended...again. I sound like some foolish evangalist, talking about things beyond my learning. I honestly do not wish to speak so much about theology on these forums; I realise that no words of mine could sway any other opinions, and so amount to no more than noise in the end. In other circumstances I would ardently continue with this, but I know that many of those on these forums do not hold to the same ideas I do, and to be overly vehement accomplishes nothing for the better. It is only that when such a challenge is put before me (like saying that Original Sin is a repulsive concept), my faith screams at me that something must be said to counter it, to not remain silent; what little I know of the theology of the matter must be brought forth, or else I will feel that I have not done as I should. Please do not judge me too harshly on this; my father is both a professor in this field, and a pastor. I take greatly after him.
-
I understand your desire to defend yourself, I worded my statement that way on purpose: I find the concept of Original Sin to be unforgivable.
I suppose I should give more details as to why.
I refuse to believe that anyone is responsible for the actions of anyone else. If I kill a man in cold blood, that is my sin, that blood is not on your hands. Original Sin says that all man kind partook in a sin that only two people partook in. That to me is horribly unjust.
Furthermore, I see it as an absoltuion of personal responsibility. Do I believe that I am the master of my own destiny? As I believe that I have free will, I cannot believe otherwise. Destiny, fate...words a coward uses instead of God. I have free will, I believe everyone does. Therefore, I am ultimately responsible for my actions. Only I am responsible for them, and I am responsible for only them. Without the belief in free will, and with the belief in fate where does that responsibility lie? Certainly not with me, how can what I do be considered a sin if I had no choice to do it? Furthermore, if what I am doing, I am doing because it is God's will (as I have no will of my own) how can what I am doing, no matter how vile, be a sin, for I am simply fulfilling God's purpose for me?
Is humanity a good place to place faith? Not particularly. But you mischaracterize some of our "sins."
Lust is the cause of generation
Appetite is the support of life
Fear or timidity is the prolongation of life, and
Fraud the preservation of its instruments.
So, without a god or gods to believe in, and a species that is for the most part full of cretins, where do I place my faith? Only place left: In me. I will write my own destiny.
And I don't veiw you harshly on this, debate keeps the mind sharp. I could hardly be mad at you for helping me work out.
-
Furthermore, I see it as an absoltuion of personal responsibility. Do I believe that I am the master of my own destiny? As I believe that I have free will, I cannot believe otherwise. Destiny, fate...words a coward uses instead of God.
Humanism! Yes, yes, pure and good!
We forge our own destinies.
-
I do not dispute free will. And yet there is an element of fate, as well. Let me ask you, if you make a choice, it is your, correct? You had free will, correct? But was this not fated to happen? Was it not your fate to make this choice, yours though it was? I think the idea of destiny does not mean that we cannot make our own choices (which we can indeed do; we certainly have free will), but, rather, that those choices are already predestined. I have noted before that both the religious and the atheists must believe in fate, and this is why. The religious believe in fate because they say that God knows all things, and therefore knows beforehand what choices we will make; this is fate. For the atheists who belive in science as their religion (and it is most certainly a religion), they too must believe in fate. For if you deny the existance of a soul, and we are but animals at the mercy of the choices of our mind...are not the workings of our mind dependent on the electrical signals? And are those not in turn influenced by the position of chemicals and such in the brain? This can be taken backward a thousand fold, and it could then be said that every action we do now is simply a result of the primordeal arrangement of atoms at the birth of the universe; all that ever was and shall be was set in that moment. So as an animal, and nothing more (which is what you must then profess to be), you are at the mercy of the universe, and have no true understanding, only instinct and survival. But enough of fate and predestination. Even within the Church predestination is a debated topic.
In regards to humanism and such, and the concept of Original Sin. You are thinking merely of sin in what you see and feel in your life and world. It is a deeper problem than this. It is the inherant flaw in all humanity, which does most certainly exist. If one were to take a child and put them into isolation at birth...would they grow to be perfect, thinking no evil? Would they then not know anger, or greed? No, they would. Why, then? Because of the inherently sinful human nature, and this human nature is the result of Original Sin. It taints our inborn souls, and drives us to evil. Moreover it is more insidious than this, as it tells us that the things of God are despicable, because they rely on strength other than our own. We are proud, far too proud, and wish nothing else to hold sway over our lives; and so we deny God. And all this feels very good in our hearts, because we think ourselves free of any domination of any sort. Yet this very feeling is that which betrays us; our own heart betrays us in this. Because the very thing which feels best is that which is worst. You may claim this to but theory, but think about this: how much do you really master your own destiny? Can you tell me that you will not die tomorrow in a car accident, or that you will not be suddenly afflicted by some disease? You cannot know. You can only look back, the future is a mystery. To try to be captain of your own destiny in such a manner is akin to captaining a ship through fog; you may be fortunate for a time, but what will you do when disaster strikes? What will you put your faith in on your deathbed when all your strength can no longer avail you, when all your knowledge is ashes?
The belief in the strength of humanity is also what has caused the worst atrocities the world has ever seen, I might add. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, some of the most dire leaders in history, upon whose collective hands are the blood of millions, were all people who did not believe in God but rather trusted in their own power; it too seemed good and mighty for a time. And yet it not only led to evil, but it did not last. They all found all too late that their power was worthless.
In reply to the quote you had, here is one from one of the masters of literature: "There are more things in heaven or earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies" -Hamlet. (pardon me if I missed some of the wording; I wrote it down from memory)
-
You do not dispute free will, yet you say the decision is already made. If that is so, and I can't make a different choice, then my free will is an illusion, my life is meaningless, and I am completely without sin.
Your analogy of the ship in the fog is a good one. That being said, I'd still rather place my faith in my ship than in the fog.
The dictators you mention didn't have faith in humanity. For them to come to power, they had to work against human merit, the power they held, and their attrocities against mankind are all the result of exploiting human weakness at every step of the way. Totalitarians don't have faith in humanity, if they did, they'd be anarchists.
-
Im going to step in, split a hair, and depart, because I love listening to these conversations rather than participating; cleans out the ears. Besides, I prefer an intellectual discussion on the bible anyday compared to a boring sermon. Thats why I go to a church who has a Theological Professor as a pastor (And I mean an active professor who goes and teaches classes afterwards.) I like being taught, as opposed to screamed at that Im going to hell. (Something I've gotten from Catholic pastors when I refuse to go to their sermons). I find this a rather interesting note that sometimes an academic interest can indeed go hand in hand with a religious one.
The Hair: Hitler
Hitler was not a religious man, but he did Encourage it heavily.... albeit in a scary, cultist, paganistic sort of way (And I dont mean pagan as an insult. It has now become an actual term for those religions as their names have faded into history.)
Hitler, to fuel his war machine and indeed to prove that his form of humanity was blessed, allowed Himler and others to search out for numerous religious artifacts (aka Indiana Jones but with far less success.) Most of what they found was used to RELIGIOUSLY reinforce the strength of man. The hair that Im splitting, I'm afraid, is that Hitler achieved a rather interesting balance of science and religion. He used Religion to rally support for his science of life.
Thus, Hair split.
Keep going, I still have 2 years of earwax that Im trying to remove.
-
Okay, is it just me, or does this topic (at the very LEAST NOW) belong in the General Discussion forum???
Okie doke...Now, as for "our actions can be placed within our internal workings" bit. It's true that at the base of humanity are our animal instincts. Hunting & Gathering and all that rot. Our environments play a major role in what we feel and what we do.
BUT! They aren't the ONLY influences in our lives. CURRENT projections and situations are also taken into account. These things cannot be calculated, cannot be fated. There is always chaos. It is the workings of the world. After a certain point of information and variables, chaos is the result. And that is without fate.
-
I was considering moving this thread to Gen. Disc. earlier. One more "Yea" and it's done.
-
Yea.
(Not that I am not following this thread with amused interest.)
~ Josh
-
ZeaLitY and I discussed moving the thread a few days ago, and decided against it on the premise that people who come in here thinking that they would say crap about our overanalyzing could see that thread and maybe be discouraged.
But I guess it can be moved, and I can just post an announcement thread in a little while saying what I think needs to be said.
-
Well, hold on, you bring up a good point. That this thread is here could serve as a red herring.
We can always start a new thread in Gen. Disc.
-
Well, hold on, you bring up a good point. That this thread is here could serve as a red herring.
We can always start a new thread in Gen. Disc.
"But that was just a red herring." - Clue, the funniest movie ever based on a board game
-
Only thing I'll say in response to this topic:
Why do we over-analyize? Because we can! :D
-
Only thing I'll say in response to this topic:
Why do we over-analyize? Because we can! :D
Hellz yeah.
-
Your thinking about it too much.
No i'm not talking about the chrono series. I'm talking about all the other stuff.
Although I think the story writers wanted us to leave with the true meaning behind the game and not the logistics of the story. Then again the logistics do help us find meaning. But now i'm thinking too much.
This is my beleif...
...At least for now.