From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Mar 2 14:43:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA05617 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:43:26 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id NAA32101 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:39:08 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:39:08 -0600 Message-Id: <199803021939.NAA32101@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #655 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, March 2 1998 Volume 01 : Number 655 In this digest: IN> Trivial coincidence (quasi on-topic) IN> Cats RE: Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats Re: IN> Mephistopheles Re: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) Re: IN> Mammon Re: IN> Cats Re: IN> .BMP character sheet -> .GIF request IN> Judaism IN> Balseraph of Technology attunement Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Mephistopheles Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats & Etherial Classification Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Neel's Marches Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Judaism IN> IN:Cats Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN>: Cats Re: IN> Judaism Re: IN> Judaism RE: IN> Judaism RE: IN> Judaism IN> Geometry Re: IN> Geometry Re: IN> Judaism ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:36:12 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: IN> Trivial coincidence (quasi on-topic) Remember how I posted saying that the Soviet penal system could be held up as a model of the Game's ethos? As I was reading the Gulag Archipelago this morning, I came across the following line: "I'm an MVD man, an _asmodeus_, blue shoulder-boards, haven't you ever seen them?" (my emphases) MVD was an acronym meaning the Ministry of the Interior. Isn't that something now? Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 06:37:39 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Cats >Entirely judgemental, cats snub people and each other and establish dominance. And if one calls a cat playing with a mouse which it later kills and leaves for the worms, another might call it cruel. < Actually, you are all anthropomorphizing a great deal; you can't assign human qualities to animal behavior. Cats are neither judgmental nor cruel nor playful; they are simply acting according to their instincts, which exist for very sound evolutionary reasons. Establishing dominance is part of the survival-of-the-fittest routine, which determines who gets to breed. (Cats just aren't smart enough to realize that humans aren't breeding competitors and thus putting us in their hierarchy is meaningless. ) Cats "play" with their food for the same reason that sharks often take a bite out of a swimmer and then swim away: a struggling prey can gouge a nose or an eye, and damage to your hunting equipment is deadly to a predator in the wild. So when confronted with a lively prey, they strike to inflict a mortal wound, and then back off until their prey is too weak to fight. Of course I realize it's much more fun to give them human moral qualities in In Nomine, but that's just to make Jordi's Servitors more interesting. :) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:09:51 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: RE: Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats 1. Jordi passed over the waters in the shape of a seabird after the first flood. And lo, the Prince of Fate came to him in the form of a thundercloud and said 'Archangel, see how your creatures have been swept away.' 2. 'Know that your God is a jealous God and that He has declared that because man has worshipped your creatures as representatives of foreign gods, so they have been punished along with the guilty.' 3. 'He has promised that mankind will never more be punished so severely, but has He made any promises to your creatures too?' 4. Then the sun blazed through the clouds and broke them up and the archangel soared upwards and called 'You are answered.' 5. And as he flew he looked down upon the world and saw where one of the Grigori had tried to save its animal children before being consigned to the pits. 6. Then Jordi returned to his Savannah and sat in thought, saying 'My creatures have been given no guarantees of protection, because they are innocent and need not fear God's law. I have angels who will guard them. But I can create helpers who will watch mankind and stop it from worshipping my creatures as foreign gods.' 7. Then he came at night when no other archangel saw and plucked an outcast from the surf and shielded it with his wings. Jordi reached up to the sun and took some of its essence, then he reached into the night and took some of its essence, then he reached into the earth and took some of its essence and moulded the creature into a new form. 8. He said 'Behold the first Miw. You and yours will have the responsibility of being my ears and my eyes. You will not fall as the Grigori fell.' 9. And the Miw looked at the Archangel. And the Archangel blinked first. (NB. I read about the Miw when I was a kid, in a book called 'The Cats of Seroster' -- if you can find it, read it! Highly recommended.) Miw - --- Miw walk the earth as guardians of secret knowledge, and watchers, and guides to the souls of dying animals, and protectors of their smaller brethren. They are rare, and work in silence and secrecy, doing Jordi's work without alerting other archangels to the fact that he has recruited a cadre of children of Grigori. The most normal vessel type is a large house-cat, usually black or gold furred, with a profile similar to the cats which sat in Egyptian temples. They are permitted to mate with mortal cats and the results of such unions are kitten-napped and brought up away from mortals, where they can be taught Miw ways and customs. Miw worship God via the sun and are unabashed sun worshippers. They hold their rare gatherings in secret underground catacombs where the cats can crouch alongside the skeletons and discuss mortal affairs in their cities. They treat their smaller brethren (ie. normal cats) with affection and disdain -- they are a lesser breed and many get too attached to humans and forget that they were made to walk by themselves. Those Miw who do choose to interbreed with the little brethren select their feline mates with great care. Sometimes a Miw will 'adopt' a mortal and allow the mortal to feed it and find it warm places to sleep in its house. This is to give the Miw the opportunity to experience life amongst mortals and to gather information at close quarters. Mortals honoured in this way are likely to include those with significant political power in the mortal world. Unlike cherubim, they are not required to protect their mortals but they are required to watch. Although Jordi has been trying to keep them secret for their own protection, some of the Miw have still managed to pledge allegiance to Gabriel (the all-consuming sun, giver of warmth and punisher of cat-enemies!) or to Yves - -- they just haven't bothered to let their patron know this yet. A Miw has no real problems with having more than one master. They still tend to keep their own secrets and follow their own private agendas. Some of the mortals they choose to adopt were not suggested to them by any archangel, but just happen to be mortal children of the Grigori. Some secrets are best just kept quiet. Resonance: Miw resonate for silence and for hidden places. Any use of essence or songs is done at one less disturbance than would apply to a normal celestial/ soldier. Role/6 (mysterious cat) can also cover them for all manner of strange and disturbing occurrences in a way which just doesn't apply to other celestials in cat vessels. In addition, Jordi teaches all his Miw the ethereal song of tongues. Dissonance: 'I am the cat who walks by himself and all places are alike to me' Miw take dissonance if they allow themselves to become dependent on any mortal or other being, but can work off this dissonance by doing something definitive to prove their independence to said mortal. ;) jo, Angel of grey furry angels! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:26:00 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Mephistopheles > > > > Now; the points that I'm still not all too sure work that well are the > > Lilim resonance, and the Negative Principle attunement. I also thought > > originally of the bal's having some form of limited danger sense or > > making that another servitor attunement, but couldn't figure the best > > way to do it. > > Personally, I dislike the idea of giving Balseraphs any attunements that give them information at all. It contradicts my mental image of the Band, which is shaped by such statements as "No other sort of being is so tightly wrapped in its own selfish perspective." and "A Balseraph cares for nothing save his own point of view...". Additionally, the description of the Malakite resonance states clearly that Balseraphs are more selfish than anything else in existence. It might be generalised that selfishness equates to Will and unselfishness to Perception. It's not entirely satisfactory, but there remains an element of truth in it. So Balseraphs, being the most selfish diabolicals, should be least oriented toward Perception. In a less philosophical sense, it can be seen that the Balseraph resonance is most effective when there is an absence of contrary evidence, and even when that evidence is known to the Balseraph alone, it can create conflicts, perhaps including Dissonance. For the most part, Balseraph attunements follow this theme. The exceptions from the main rulebook are: Balseraphs of the Game, Balseraphs of Fate, and Balseraphs of Technology. Since the Balseraphs of the Game attunement follows a standard format, as for all the other Game attunements, this is not a significant contradiction. Balseraphs of Fate are more interesting: quite clearly they are an entirely different type of being from anything else in existence, and an analysis of their problems is beyond the scope of this posting, but the first part of the Balseraphs of Technology attunement is a genuine difficulty. This attunement allows them to comprehend any device created by humans and any specification of any device. The similarities between this attunement and the Calabim of Death and Calabim of Nightmares attunements are left as an exercise for the reader. For a Balseraph, however, it makes no sense, and _actively conflicts_ with the second part of the attunement, which allows them to "add their Celestial Forces to any attempt to convince someone that a mundane device has fantastical properties." For a member of another Band, this combination is not a problem, but Balseraphs can't lie, so effectively the first part of the attunement negates any advantage inadvertently gained by the second part. In summation, the Balseraphs of Technology attunement is an aberration from the thematic purity of the depiction of Balseraphs in the book (more serious, in my opinion, than the base slanders bandied about "The Liars" ad nauseam, since they are justifiable as representing the prejudices of other beings), and I would appreciate it if no more aberrations of that kind were created. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:36:44 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Mammon (was Varying Superior Disturbance Levels) > >No, the aphorism is "the love of money is the root of all evil". And > >relatively few people love money for its own sake -- most love it because > >it can get them creature comforts. That is, most people love money out > >of Gluttony, not Greed -- so Gluttony is the root of most evil. Which > >is why I serve Gluttony. > > > In my opinion, this is precisely why Greed should be more powerful than Gluttony. The existence of Gluttony fuels Greed. If I have little interest in money for its own sake, but am passionately interested in consuming books of many kinds (I say consume rather than possess because of the state they're in after a year in my possession.), then in order to fulfill my Gluttonous desires, I must be Greedy and look for money. So Gluttonous people become Greedy out of necessity, assuming that they aren't born to wealth. There are, however, other people who seek out possessions for the sake of having possessions, and that is Greed. In summary: Gluttony is the desire to consume, while Greed is the desire to possess. The desire to possess can exist without the desire to consume, but not vice versa, as it is necessary to possess in order to consume. So Gluttony is subordinate to Greed, IMO. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:19:59 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Mammon IMO, the main difference between Greed & Gluttony is that Greed implies an obsession with collecting things that you have no intention of ever consuming. So acquiring lots of money and then spending it all is the way that a Glutton approaches things. Of course, if they decide that they really enjoy the process of acquiring money and that begins to get more important to them than the spending then they'll be leaning more towards the Greed end of the scale This is why I don't agree that the card-collector is a Glutton. Collecting anything that doesn't get consumed is Greed IMO. You can be indiscriminately Greedy and just buy as many cards as you can get, or discriminately Greedy and concentrate on getting the rarest ones but it is still greed when your life becomes totally focussed on getting and /keeping/ as much of something as you can handle. You can be greedy for cards without being greedy for money (or vice versa). Does powerlust falls under Andre's word? What I'm not sure is where Lust/ Gluttony bottom out. Maybe Gluttony is the desire to own and consume as much as possible, Lust is the desire to own and abuse as much as possible -- so if you are happy with dumb consumption, gluttony is your ruler. If you actually want to go for power-tripping and self-gratification with the things you own, above and beyond the call of consumption, then that might be lust... with both of those things, if you actually HAD as much as you wanted, the gluttony/ lust would fade away. Maybe thats why Andre & Haagenti help Mammon to hang on -- the greedy people stop the gluttons and lustful from having everything they want and allow them to keep obsessing after things they can't have! jo, seraph of judgement, angel of poetic justice! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:26:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Cats On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, David Edelstein wrote: > you can't assign human qualities to animal behavior. That is clearly not true. Many kinds of animal behaviour can be demonstrated to correspond to human behaviour. Playfulness is a good example: there are many play patterns common in young mammals, which are exhibited by humans. They are driven by the survival advantage gained by a young animal practising its physical abilities. In humans, this is extended to mental, creative, and speech 'play'. Similarly for cruelty: Webster defines it basically as 'willingness to cause pain'. So anything can be cruel, especially predators. Animals do not tend to take 'pleasure' solely from causing pain, but usually do not care if it occurs as a side effect. However, humans are the only animals known to make moral judgments. So if we define 'human qualities' to mean 'those properties not possessed by animals', then we can have a (small) class of human qualities, and we cannot assign them to animals. But playfulness, cruelty, and (non-moral) judgement will not be included. > they are simply acting according to their instincts, which exist for > very sound evolutionary reasons. It cannot be psychologically demonstrated that humans do have free will, or that animals don't. As for philosophical means: arguments which try to distinguish between humans and animals tend to start out with 'animals can't think', and go from there. This is why many scientists fight so hard against evidence that chimpanzees can learn human sign language _and syntax_. Steve. Mercurian of Animals, doing my job... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 08:45:41 -0500 From: "Mark McKenzie" Subject: Re: IN> .BMP character sheet -> .GIF request It wasn't me, but I can do it if your original "GIFfifier" is not available. Just e-mail me the file (size not an issue). Pee Kitty wrote: > > Er, I feel rather scatterbrained, but a while ago, I mentioned that I had > a .BMP online character sheet. Someone offerred to turn it into a .GIF, > and I gladly took them up on it. Since then, I've updated the sheet a bit > and would love to have it giffified...but can't remember who did it. Would > that person mind performing the same transmogrification again? - -- Mark McKenzie E-mail: markadv@kinekom.com ICQ 7946364 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:18:57 +0000 From: Julian Breen Subject: IN> Judaism When, if ever, are we likely to see Judaism covered in IN? "Yeah, but Jews have the 'Don't fuck with me' God, whereas Christians are stuck with some kind of omnipotent Barney." -Devout atheist and mad Usenet poster James Lloyd Hill giving his own interpretation on the Judeo-Christian divide - -- Jules jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:44:22 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: IN> Balseraph of Technology attunement - ---Kevin Walsh wrote: > the first part of the Balseraphs > of Technology attunement is a genuine difficulty. > This attunement allows them to comprehend any device created by humans > and any specification of any device. < SNIP > > the second part ... allows them to "add their Celestial Forces to any > attempt to convince someone that a mundane device has fantastical > properties." > For a member of another Band, this combination is not a > problem, but Balseraphs can't lie, so effectively the first part of the > attunement negates any advantage inadvertently gained by the second part. > I agree & I think this particular attunement is a bit overpowered for other reasons (it duplicates one of the higher-ranking attunements of technology, I think) and I'd happily restrict them to being able to persuade people that a device fully matches its specs or be able to add Cel forces to any attempt to fiddle with test results (not that real engineers (tm) ever do this, of course). However, it isn't actually impossible. Some devices can do things which their inventors never dreamed of or have interesting side-effects if applied in odd ways. A Balseraph has free rein over anything which is unproven so as long as no-one has actually tried the device out, it can claim (carefully) that the device may turn out to have incredible but unproven powers. Careful phrasing and wild use of jargon can be convincing to people who don't really understand (and even more convincing to people who do, but aren't willing to ask the Bal to give a proper scientific explanation for fear of seeming foolish :) ). After all, technology is a wonderful thing. I'll cite an example I had in which a Balseraph convinces someone that a device will measure their integrity, when it actually measures pain thresholds. All the Bal needs to do is convince itself briefly that peopel with more integrity will have high pain-thresholds and its away! jo In the name of poetic justice, one would hope someone tries that device out on its inventor ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 09:45:59 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Judaism Julian Breen wrote: > When, if ever, are we likely to see Judaism covered in IN? Never, I expect. Nor Christianity, nor Islam. Individual contributors to this list, including me, have occasionally posted modifications for IN that would make a campaign more specific to a given religion. I don't think > "Yeah, but Jews have the 'Don't fuck with me' God, whereas Chistians > are stuck with some kind of omnipotent Barney." > > -Devout atheist and mad Usenet poster James Lloyd Hill giving > his own interpretation on the Judeo-Christian divide The Jewish-Christian divide is much twistier and sadder than that, I'm afraid. As for the omnipotent Barney, has Mr. Hill ever read the book of Revelation? Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 09:52:19 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Mephistopheles Dorothy L. Sayers, author of the Lord Peter Wimsey murder mysteries, also wrote her own version of the Faust story, a stage play entitled "The Devil to Pay." Her version ends with an interesting trial scene in heaven, with Mephistopheles and the Angel of Death wrangling before the Judge over who has rights to Faust's soul. The copy I have also has an interesting foreword by Sayers in which she talks about the changing depictions of Faust and Meph. as reflecting the changes in culture. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 09:53:58 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Re: IN: Cats & Etherial Classification Martin Leslie Leuschen wrote: > Are groups of similar Etherials "Bands?" It's kind of unfair, isn't > it? Angels have chiors, demons have bands, and the poor etherials > have no good musical adjective to call their own. I have often seen groups of fairiest refered to as "troops," which isn't musical but is at least still show-biz (as in a troup of actors or acrobats). Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:56:23 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > When, if ever, are we likely to see Judaism covered in IN? > When they remove the inherent dualism from the system, close Hell, and stop making God incarnate in Yves and Kronos. Meaning never. As far as I can tell, Judaism is fairly incompatible with In Nomine. To start with, there is no Hell. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 10:17:20 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Neel's Marches Neel's Marches follow an interesting line of folklore that makes the fays a class of the dead. In Celtic myth (I have recently learned from GURPS Celtic Myth), the Otherworld was both Faerie and the land of the dead. I know of a Scandinavian King Olaf who, on his death, was both canonized as a Christian saint and referred to as an elf. In our campaign's setting, which pre-dates IN, "the Marches" maps to Faerie and the Dreamworld, which are distinct, though there are fay colonies in the Dreamworld. Faerie is older than humanity, having been founded about 24 million years ago, when the current cycle of ice ages started. (Fays don't look like us; we look like them.) The Dreamworld was one of my own contributions to the setting and I patterned it on the Dreamworld of H. P. Lovecraft, though not as icky around the edges. (Which I suppose is like saying it's like "Winnie the Pooh" with no teddy bears.) Anyway, this Dreamworld is the shape imposed on the lighter grades of chaos near the waking world by the collective dreams of living things. There's geography, but it's pretty rubbery; return trips are typically shorter than the trip out to someplace, for instance, and if two people separate and then meet again, they seldom experience the same length of time. Scenery shifts slowly, like clouds on a lazy day. The population consists of three basic groups: dreamers, who flit in and out of course; arcane interlopers such as the fay colonists; and the dreamfolk themselves, who are not really conscious. Rather, they are outcroppings of the collective unconscious and tend to fall into archetypal categories -- Fair Young Maidens, Dashing Heroes, Wise Old Women, Villains of the Blackest Dye, etc. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:36:00 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > > "Yeah, but Jews have the 'Don't fuck with me' God, whereas Chistians > > are stuck with some kind of omnipotent Barney." > > > > -Devout atheist and mad Usenet poster James Lloyd Hill giving > > his own interpretation on the Judeo-Christian divide > > The Jewish-Christian divide is much twistier and sadder than that, > I'm afraid. As for the omnipotent Barney, has Mr. Hill ever read > the book of Revelation? > Hmmm. *read quote* Clearly not. The last 20 pages or so of Jung's ANSWER TO JOB is about Revelations, and how John dumped the entire benevolent image of God that Christ had tried so hard to preach for the fire and brimstone vengeful god of the Prophets. He talked extensively about, how if God had Incarnated himself as the ultimate Good in the universe, then he would eventually Incarnate himself as the ultimate Evil (the mentioned birth of the AntiChrist, et al.) It's some pretty wacked out stuff, but the God of Revelations isn't exactly Barney-like. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 10:47:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Judaism Emily Dresner wrote: > Hmmm. *read quote* Clearly not. The last 20 pages or so of Jung's > ANSWER TO JOB is about Revelations, and how John dumped the entire > benevolent image of God that Christ had tried so hard to preach for > the fire and brimstone vengeful god of the Prophets. If you read Christ's sayings in the Gospels and don't decide that anything harsh was put in later by someone else, you get some fairly stern pictures of judgement. Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Sheep and the Goats. The Wise and Foolish Virgins. This picture of God isn't Barney-like either. Neither picture, especially Christ's, is *simple*. They embrace extremes. My own feeling is that Jung's criticism applies more to the picture presented by the preachers of his day. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:12:27 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > > Hmmm. *read quote* Clearly not. The last 20 pages or so of Jung's > > ANSWER TO JOB is about Revelations, and how John dumped the entire > > benevolent image of God that Christ had tried so hard to preach for > > the fire and brimstone vengeful god of the Prophets. > > If you read Christ's sayings in the Gospels and don't decide that > anything harsh was put in later by someone else, you get some > fairly stern pictures of judgement. Lazarus and the Rich Man. > The Sheep and the Goats. The Wise and Foolish Virgins. This > picture of God isn't Barney-like either. This is extremely true. One thing to keep in mind was that Jesus wasn't just a Jew, he was an Essene. Everything was mystical, magical, and had the Hand of God written all over it. > Neither picture, especially > Christ's, is *simple*. They embrace extremes. Also true. > My own feeling is > that Jung's criticism applies more to the picture presented by the > preachers of his day. > He was actually attacking John who wrote Revelations, and saying that it was a rather heavy handed job which did not really mesh well with the rest of the New Testament. We go from the gospel to the four horsement in one easy step. It was like a complete about face from what was originally being preached. - - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:15:17 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> Judaism - ---Earl Wajenberg wrote: > If you read Christ's sayings in the Gospels and don't decide that > anything harsh was put in later by someone else, you get some > fairly stern pictures of judgement. I haven't read the NT but this sounds like the standard Jewish line to me, which is God as a very strict judge who is willing to scare people into behaving but will tend in practice to be inclined to mercy when possible -- even when this means directly contradicting his own previous threats. (The prophets seemed to go a great bundle into the 'scaring people into behaving' which may just be evidence of a deeper understanding of human nature.) I don't entirely see how any religion which claims that anyone who doesn't follow will be consigned to eternal damnation could really be said to be Barney-like ;-) jo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:42:55 -0600 (CST) From: Martin Leslie Leuschen Subject: IN> IN:Cats Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:43:10 +1100 From: christopher.stevenson@aihw.gov.au (Chris Stevenson) Subject: Re: IN> IN: Cats : >But they are not judgemental, and are callous rather than cruel. : : Entirely judgemental, cats snub people and each other and establish : dominance. 'Snubbing' and 'judging' are not the same thing. To make myself clear - I mean 'prone to make moral judgements.' Morals are an alien concept to cats. This makes them very different from habbies. : And if one calls a cat playing with a mouse which it later : kills and leaves for the worms, another might call it cruel. I stand corrected. There is no required sadism in cruelty, as I thought. The contrast with 'callous' hopefully made my meaning clear for some, but for the rest: Cats aren't sadists, they're solipsists, which makes them very different from habbies. : >Cats are IMHOEtherials. One of the rare kids that aren't starved for : >essence - they seem to have no problem finding worshoppers. : > : >Have you placted Bast today? : > : > Regards, : > Martin Leuschen : Interesting. How does one plact? :-) You're not cleared for that. (Just accept it's like placating for poor typists and leave it at that.) 'Ta, Martin Leuschen martinl@rice.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:35:36 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Judaism "To the thirsty I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly, the unbelievers, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerors, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." A sample quote from the Book of Revelations, for the sake of demonstrating just how much the Christian God resembles Barney. Not that we need it when we have such examples before us as the Catholic Church's extrapolation from the doctrine of original sin that unbaptised babies go to Hell. (Limbo was a later invention.) He talked extensively > about, how if God had Incarnated himself as the ultimate Good in the > universe, then he would eventually Incarnate himself as the ultimate Evil > (the mentioned birth of the AntiChrist, et al.) It's some pretty wacked > out stuff, but the God of Revelations isn't exactly Barney-like. > > - Em This is scarily close to one of my Habbalite's philosophies. The end result of this belief is that it makes her something of a nihilist, since she sees no essential difference between good and evil, and is quite happy to think of herself as evil, strictly for purposes of classification. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "as for their relations with others, that is a long story, but it can be expressed shortly and clearly by saying that of all people we know the Spartans are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:46:55 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN>: Cats Another theological take on cats: Where Do Pets Come From? It is reported that the following portion of the Book of Genesis was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. If authentic, it would shed light on the question, "Where do pets come from?" And Adam said, "Lord, when I was in the garden, you walked with me everyday. Now I do not see you anymore. I am lonesome here and it is difficult for me to remember how much you love me." And God said, "No problem! I will create a companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will know I love you, even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish and childish and unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself." And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam. And it was a good animal. And God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and he wagged his tail. And Adam said, "But Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and all the good names are taken and I cannot think of a name for this new animal." And God said, "No problem! Because I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him DOG." And Dog lived with Adam and was a companion to him and loved him. And Adam was comforted. And God was pleased. And Dog was content and wagged his tail. After a while, it came to pass that Adam's guardian angel came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and preens like a peacock and he believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught him that he is loved, but no one has taught him humility." And the Lord said, "No problem! I will create for him a companion who will be with him forever and who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of his limitations, so he will know that he is not worthy of adoration." And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam. And Cat would not obey Adam. And when Adam gazed into Cat's eyes, he was reminded that he was not the supreme being. And Adam learned humility. And God was pleased. And Adam was greatly improved. And Cat did not care one way or the other. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:04:57 -0800 From: Armand Subject: Re: IN> Judaism >> "Yeah, but Jews have the 'Don't fuck with me' God, whereas Chistians >> are stuck with some kind of omnipotent Barney." >> >> -Devout atheist and mad Usenet poster James Lloyd Hill giving >> his own interpretation on the Judeo-Christian divide > >The Jewish-Christian divide is much twistier and sadder than that, >I'm afraid. As for the omnipotent Barney, has Mr. Hill ever read >the book of Revelation? > >Earl Which, if I were to go very broad-based on this, makes God out to be a buy :now, pay later" deity. 0 Armand Ofanim that will be paying quite a bit when the final bill comes ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:26:08 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Davidson Subject: Re: IN> Judaism On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Emily Dresner wrote: > > > > My own feeling is > > that Jung's criticism applies more to the picture presented by the > > preachers of his day. > > > > He was actually attacking John who wrote Revelations, and saying that it > was a rather heavy handed job which did not really mesh well with the rest > of the New Testament. We go from the gospel to the four horsement in one > easy step. It was like a complete about face from what was originally > being preached. > Which just goes to show you how much Christianity had changed between the time the Gospels were written to the time Revelations was written. In fact, I have serious doubts that, despite what I learned in Bible school, the man who wrote Revelations couldn't be the same man who wrote the Gospel According to John. There have been more people converted to Christianity with John 3:16 than any other verse in the Bible ("For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son..."). You're right... it just doesn't "mesh". Thomas Davidson tdavidso@suffolk.lib.ny.us MUSIC: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Rush, Jimi Hendrix GAMES: Champions (old and new), In Nomine, Nephilim TV: The X-Files, the Simpsons, Superman, The Tick, the Animaniacs OTHER: Religion, Philosophy, mysticism, the runes, the Tarot, writing. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:40:54 -0800 From: "Steven Feldon (Exchange)" Subject: RE: IN> Judaism This is a commonly stated truth. . . that's wrong. My background is fairly liberal Judaism, and we were taught about Hell. (Mythology like those in Hell got to spend ten percent of their time in Heaven, so they never got used to the pain, and vice versa.) Were my rabbis just full of it? steve -----Original Message----- From: Emily Dresner [SMTP:zenith@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, March 02, 1998 6:56 AM To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Subject: Re: IN> Judaism > When, if ever, are we likely to see Judaism covered in IN? > When they remove the inherent dualism from the system, close Hell, and stop making God incarnate in Yves and Kronos. Meaning never. As far as I can tell, Judaism is fairly incompatible with In Nomine. To start with, there is no Hell. - Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 18:59:16 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: RE: IN> Judaism At 10:40 02/03/98 -0800, you wrote: >This is a commonly stated truth. . . that's wrong. My background is >fairly liberal Judaism, and we were taught about Hell. (Mythology like >those in Hell got to spend ten percent of their time in Heaven, so they >never got used to the pain, and vice versa.) > >Were my rabbis just full of it? > Err.. I was brought up orthodox Jewish so you probably don't want me to answer that ;-) Em is right AFAIK. Its pure folklore/ mythology and definitely not dogma. jo - ---------- "I like getting into hot water, it keeps me clean." G. K. Chesterton jhart@btinternet.com -- http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~jhart/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:05:16 -0400 (EDT) From: gibsonc@NKU.EDU Subject: IN> Geometry Can anyone tell me how to find the area of a cylinder, and the volume as well. How about determining mass size? javan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:25:08 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Geometry The volume of the cylinder is (pi) * r(squared) * h, where r is the radius and h is the height. The surface of the cylinder is 2(pi) * r(squared) + ( r * h ). The mass is the volume times the density, if you know the density. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:29:18 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Judaism Thomas Davidson wrote: > Which just goes to show you how much Christianity had changed between the > time the Gospels were written to the time Revelations was written. In > fact, I have serious doubts that, despite what I learned in Bible school, > the man who wrote Revelations couldn't be the same man who wrote the > Gospel According to John. There have been more people converted to > Christianity with John 3:16 than any other verse in the Bible ("For God so > loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son..."). You're right... > it just doesn't "mesh". It's true that Revelation was the last book to be accepted as canonical. However, I don't see *that* much disconnect between it at the gospels. There's plenty of apocalypse in the gospels, and there are scenes of completely ecstatic joy in Revelation. And much depends on how you interpret Revelation, a murky subject on which there are whole libraries of disagreeing documents written. Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #655 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.