From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 17 03:39:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA32166 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 03:39:14 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id DAA07693 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 03:36:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 03:36:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199905170836.DAA07693@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 #1226 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, May 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1226 In this digest: Re: IN> Re: Holy prescences IN> Financial Income Vehicle Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality IN> Holy presences (going OT) Creating Ethereals (was Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality) IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:32:36 EDT From: BillionSix@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Re: Holy prescences In a message dated 5/16/99 10:57:03 AM Central Daylight Time, gantr@NKU.EDU writes: << IMC, the ethereal gods fall into three categories: 1) Creatures of human myth, given life by the spark of the Divine that all humans possess. 2) The souls of dead humans who have fled into the Marches in an effort to escape Divine judgement, who have then amassed much power. (That spark of the Divine gives them an edge ofver J. Random Ethereal being.) 3) Outcast Angels and Renegade Demons who set themselves up as gods to gain a new source of essence. Humans who were worshipped as gods before death *may* become ethereal gods of the second category, but this is not guaranteed. >> Another category may be humans who were revered as gods, but did not go to the Marches when they died. Perhaps they went to Heaven or Hell, or just went back to the Symphony, or reincarnated, whatever. Then an Ethereal "copy" was made from the belief of the worshipers. This copy would have none of the original's personal memories or personality, probably not even his/her physical appearance. He/She would be an idealized version of their followers beliefs. This would be appropriate for people who were martyred, and did not gain acceptance or worship widely until after their death. I'm no historian or theologian, sorry, so I can't really give examples of this. Brian A Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:50:52 From: kjijhbgv@aah.com Subject: IN> Financial Income Vehicle Dear Professional, Would you be open minded enough to learn how to make five figures per month, From Individuals who already do? No sales...Not MLM...Succeed part time or full time in the comfort of your own home. We provide full training and support to insure your success...professional referral service will have clients directly paying you commissions of $1000.00,$4000.00, or more per contact Individuals considered must have a strong work ethic and a desire to make money in a team environment...We will show you how to retire debt free with a six-figure income in three years or less...We've done it before and we can do it again for you, the choice is yours. One time moderate start up cost. For a brief 2 minute recorded introduction call Toll Free 1-888-318-2303 24 hours a day 7 days a week... Leave name and number if interested...Due to the large volume of incoming calls you may experience busy signals, be patient, keep calling...Many will call, few will be chosen... Positions limited! If you are looking for a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream this is not for you. If you are serious then so are we! SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY PLEASE This mailing is done by an independent marketing co. We apologize if this message has reached you in error. Save the Planet, Save the Trees! Advertise via E-Mail. No wasted paper! Delete with one simple keystroke! Less refuse in our Dumps! This is the way of a new Millennium. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:05:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide On Sat, 15 May 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: > I just recently bought my APG, have only read it once, even only owned it > about 3 weeks. now the binding is completely trashed, the cover is falling > off and pages are slipping. has anyone else had this problem with the book? > is this a somewhat common thing (like it is with Tor novels) or did I just > get a bum copy? Actually, I'm the opposite... my APG went through a FLOOD, and is still in survivable condition! The pages are water-warped a bit, but the glue still holds perfectly. - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 22:02:39 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality >>>Ha ha ha, touche. :) However, when a large group of people feel moved by something which they all call the Holy Spirit, that gives that thing which they call the Holy Spirit more validity.<<< It gives validity to the phenomenon that people with very strong religious convictions can experience a mental state variously described as ecstatic, transcendental, moving, etc. Whether this is something that occurs only in their brains (self-induced), or is induced by an external power (the Holy Spirit, loas, take your pick of any number of other religious explanations) remains extremely subjective. >>>If American culture were to reject a major scientific theory, it would less believed and therefore by given less validity. It's all what the culture, or sub-culture, believes to be true. Truth is relative, AFAIK.<<< Man, I hate White Wolf philosophizing. No, if American culture were to reject a major scientific theory, the theory would have less credence among the public; it would NOT be less valid scientifically. If, for example, Biblical creationists were to convince school boards across the country to teach only creationism and exclude evolution, that would not make evolution more valid (and, to be fair, the mere fact that evolution is taught as science rather than creationism does not *in itself* make creationism less valid). The laws of physics are not subjective, however. Either creationism or evolution (or some other explanation) is true, and since they're mutually contradictory, they can't all be true*. Which means that whichever explanation is true won't become more or less true based on what the general public *believes* to be true. To give a real-world example, and a reason why White Wolf's "consensual reality" theory just doesn't cut it, ever see those Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons, where the Coyote runs off a cliff, sails on in a straight line for a while before realizing there's no ground underfoot, and then begins descending in an arc (or else drops straight down)? Well, several surveys have shown that the MAJORITY of the American public believes that this is more or less the trajectory that an object propelled off a cliff would actually take! Of course, if you remember your high school physics, you know that's NOT how it works....but if reality were consensual, then it would. A majority of people DO believe in lots of things that simply aren't true. In Nomine tie in: I have never been that fond of the "ethereal spirits are created by human belief" premise, because there really should be a big honkin' Jesus-ethereal with as much power as an Archangel...actually, probably several, reflecting various interpretations of the dude from Galilee. We could of course say that the Big Honkin' Jesuses keep getting in Outer Marches no-holds barred death matches with the Big Honkin' Mohammeds and various Hindu deities, and that's why they don't show up to stomp the Superiors. But consensual reality is one of the worst things you can do to a game world if you really want any kind of consistency, IMO. And I personally think In Nomine is a lot more fun if you take a stand and say yes, God IS the One True Monotheist Deity, Be-All and End-All of the Universe, Creator, Alpha and Omega, Amen, and the Buddhists, pagans, atheists, and other non-believers are just plain wrong, so deal with it. Silly adventure seed most likely to bring Taliban and Christian Identity bombers to SJG's Austin Offices: "Live in the Outer Marches Arena tonight: Jesus and Mary Tag Teams Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) and Shiva, Destroyer of the Universe! That's right, for one night only, setting apart a thousand years of internecine religous strife, the Muslim Mangler from Mecca will step into the ring with a well-armed Hindu and have it out with those upstart neo-Jewish icons once and for all....the winners take the Essence of over 1 BILLION fanatical devotees and square off on Judgment Day with the current world champions from the Seraphim Council Archangel Federation, before the final bout with Old Scratch himself!" "Showing exclusively on the Nybbas Pay-per-View Cable Channel, thanks to a special licensing deal with Beleth! Contact any NCC office in Shal-Mari, Perdition, or Hollywood to sign up." - -David (yes, I'm probably going to Hell) * I'm speaking of strict Biblical creationism -- I know many liberal theists reconcile the two theories by stating that evolution is a process instigated by God ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 22:02:45 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >>>Research indicates that, overall, regular church-goers tend to live longer and happier lives.<<< Research also indicates that overall, regular church-goers are more likely to abuse their kids. (No, I don't believe religion leads to child abuse. I'm making a point about trying to "prove" the validity of subjective beliefs by using statistics.) >>>Of course, those *are* statistics. And, IMHO, it is better to live a spiritually fulfilling life than a spiritually dead one.<<< IMHO, you are being extremely offensive by defining religious believers as "spiritually fulfilled" and non-believers as "spiritually dead." You are being extremely offensive by defining those who don't share your beliefs in imaginary friends as "spiritually null." (Did you find that last sentence offensive? Good, I'm making my point, then.) Get your proselytyzing off this list NOW, unless you want to be roasting in the mother of all flamewars. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:33:34 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Creating Ethereals (was Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality) I sort of like an idea inspired by Sandman I have used in other games. It isn't precisely that powerful spirits are formed purely be belief. But someone has a dream, a really vivid dream, about Joey, God of Basket Weaving(all due apologies to TPO). Something rare and strange happens. Joey as an Ethereal figment is dreamed strong enough to keep coming back. And one time, Joey manages to make a break for it. And then Joey 99.99_% of the time is destroyed when he's found wandering around where he shouldn't be...in the Inner Marches. Or if he makes it to the Far Marches, probably eaten by Dread Cthulhu or something. But maybe Joey manages to sneak around the Marches for a while, somehow doing whatever Ethereals do to gain essence from worshippers. If he can appear to one or two in a dream, maybe they can start performing Rites to give him Essence. Then Joey can get stronger. Does it really happen much these days? No. I mean, deities who still have minority followings, who people have believed in for thousands of years(such as it is) aren't doing too well these days. But that's my take on it. There was also a story once in Dragon magazine about a man who worshipped a wolf god. The end revelation was that the spirit he worshiped hadn't existed until a wolf had been sacrificed to it. That wolf's spirit had gotten lost and not gone to the wolf afterlife. It hung around and accepted sacrifices and, while being a bit confused, sort of shaped itself to what this guy expected. If we postulate that True Belief allows a mortal to transfer essence to another somehow... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 01:08:31 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling All right, we know that Words become innate to the Wordbound. A part of their nature. To my knowledge Words can't be stripped of a Wordbound Celestial without tearing them apart. And we know that an Angelic Word cannot be held by a Demon and vice versa. So... when a Wordbound falls/redeems, does he retain an aspect of his Word until he's given a new one? And if he isn't given a new one, can his Forces survive the loss of Word? - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:29:33 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >From: Anders Gabrielsson > > >Unfortunately, most people also believe external reality conforms with > > >their internal reality. > > > > I would say that it is actually a fortunate thing! How unfortunate it >would > > be for humankind to NOT believe that external reality conformed to their > > understanding of it! > >You misunderstand. I meant that people form opinions inside their heads >and then think they are True (as opposed to true); that they have >universal validity. I agree. >Actually, I'm quite certain that the external, True reality is quite >different from how I percieve and understand it. > > It is also a good thing, IMHO that people are able to maintain an >internal > > reality which can be quite different from external reality. In some >this > > manifests as optimism, in others negativity, others appear to be insane, > > others ... are just weird. This inner stability allows us to function. >The > > problems crop up when people need to change their > > interpretation/understanding of reality in order to flourish and they >fail > > to do so, and end up shooting themselves in the foot. :) > >I think we're talking past each other here, but I'm not quite sure how. I >mean that people think that their view of the world is how it actually is >- black people are lazy wellfare leeches, Christians are brainwashed >zombies, They are bad people while We are good, and so on. and so forth > > > > Example: Henry is shot by a gun, however no one he talks to >believes > > >that > > > > guns exist. They attribute his wound (and misfortune) to an evil > > >spirit. > > > > In time, Henry may begin to believe what he is being told. Thus, as >his > > > > perception of what happened changes, what happened changes. He >wasn't > > >shot > > > > by a gun he may tell you, he was harmed by an evil spirit. > > > > > >But the Truth is that he was shot by a gun, right? Whether he believes >it > > >or not, that's what happened. > > > > The Truth according to whom? The Truth just is, what we choose to label >the > > componants (sp?) of the Truth is subjective. A gun to one, a Colt .45 >to > > another, a boomstick to another, a unholy weapon to another. The object >may > > remain the same, but the name can change. > >Now you misunderstand again. The Truth is of course impossible to describe >in words, but something actually happened. The thing that happened, which >I will label "Henry got shot with a gun" is the Truth. What people think >happened belong to their personal, little-t truths. They may or may not >believe that their truths are the Truth. But people can only speak about the label in their head, not about what actually happened, because we don't have access to that knowledge (except the lucky seraph), so all we can do is compare labels and by doing so attempts to find a composite label which many people can agree upon. Agree upon requires a shared understanding of the word: socialization. If guns aren't part of the culture and spirits are, then people will be more likely to believe in the spirit explanation of what happened. > > And, unless we have a Seraph around who rolls CD 6 often, we don't have >a > > single being who could witness the event without a subjective >understanding > > of it (the Elohite, without access to the Truth as the Seraph is, is >trapped > > in the eternal paradox: seeking pure objectivity without the tools to be > > purely objective). The mind is not a camera, it doesn't just record; in > > order to store the memory it must make sense of the sensory information >it > > is receiving (so far as I can tell). > >Yes, of course. Excellent, excellent. > > And society would thus wish to push you out of its sight, you would be >the > > fly in the ointment so to speak. How lonely it must be to be a >Balseraph > > with strange beliefs . . . > >Is there any other kind? :) A Balseraph whose reality has been repeatedly changed by a more powerful Balseraph's might not have strange beliefs to the more powerful Balseraph. Other than that . . . > > In the *canonical* version of the game there is objective Truth. :) > >Personally, I can't imagine a reality without Truth, because that would >mean communication was impossible, and even existance, I think. If you >exist, then your existance is part of the Truth, what you think is part of >the Truth - if there is no Truth, nothing can exist. Or at least my mind >can't grasp such a concept. > >If you can describe it, please do. :) > take away the idea that there is only one Truth, rather multiple. Within each Truth reality is constant, between them not. IMC Yahweh's Truth/Symphony happens to the one which envelops everything. Essentially he's a Big Bad Balseraph who's Truth has been made real enough for others to fit inside. Only problem is, another Balseraph named Lucifer figured it out and is trying to take over by making his Truth/Symphony the biggest and baddest. Or, at least take out Yahweh's. > > >Research indicates > > > > that, overall, regular church-goers tend to live longer and happier > > >lives. > > > > Of course, those *are* statistics. > > > > > > At the price of deluding themselves, yes. Also, how > > >much time do they spend in church compared to how much longer they >live? > > >;) > > > > Delusion? Science is also delusion, mon ami. The beautiful thing about > > science is that it cannot ever prove anything, merely fail to disprove! > >Which is not delusion. Science admits that it can't prove anything, while >most religions very much deny that they could be anything but the pure >Truth. But countless of followers of science claim that things have been "proven scientifically", and there's always "scientific fact". Science is taken as truth by many, many people. > > "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he > > didn't exist." > > - The Usual Suspects >Actually, that quote is older than the movie. ;) I'd love to know the original source. :) > > There is a difference in being religious and being spiritual, though I >did > > make the two seem awefully similar up above. I agree, spiritually > > fulfilling does not necessitate religion, and I attribute the benefits >of > > religion to any group with a shared cause or belief, in fact mereoy that >act > > of being part of a group of individuals is tremendously healthy. > >Yes, people need companionship. But exactly how do you define "cause or >belief" here? Would atheism qualify, for example? I believe firmly that Atheism, as a belief system, requires a tremendous amount of faith. In what? In the belief that there is nothing out there. That we are alone, without soul, nothing after death, nothing there. Granted Atheism merely means the absence of God, but without belief that there is direction to all this, that it is all chaotic, without method or order . . . what's the point? I would crumble into an existential mess . . . > > Have you never been "in the zone", where everything just begins to >click? As > > though you're not really thinking, but reacting, moving with something >that > > feels greater than yourself, or is perhaps yourself moving finally as >one > > whole complete being? > >No, I don't think so. Why? Sounds like the sort of experience people have >at mass rallies. ;) mass rallies? I don't know much about mob mentality I've had it while writing, playing computer games (especially while playing Quake on-line against other people in real-time), in arguements, usually always when doing something *active*. > > >Or, to show the other viewpoint, it's only those who delude themselves > > >into believing there is anything beyond what we can see and touch who >are > > >able to allow their minds to trick them into believing there is a > > >spiritual presence there. > > > > See and touch? People have visions and have touched the untouchable, >they > > have *felt* the presence of ghosts, angels, and ghastly things, felt >them as > > real as your keyboard beneath your finger tips. Are they mad or merely >of a > > different opinion? > >They're definitely of a different opinion, which doesn't invalidate their >opinion or mine. IMO, they have deluded themselves - they believe they >have been touched/had visions/etc, which may be true in their subjective >realities, but that doesn't change my view of objective reality, since >that includes the possibility that people can delude themselves. As does mine. :) Of course >it's possible that I'm wrong - I freely admit it - but in my experience, >which is all I can judge from, it's much more probable that they have >deluded themselves than that they are correct. IMO, since I believe in some of the otherworldly things (spirits, ESP, precognition, deja-vu) as well as self-delusion, I can see how someone could delude themselves into not believing in something. That seems much more probable to me (meaning it fits better with my understanding of the world). > > I find it quite objectively possible that there are things out there >which > > not everyone is able to perceive. > >So do I, but that doesn't mean I believe each and every story about such >experiences, or any specific one of them - or that what people describe is >what actually happened, even if something Real did happen. To believe every story would be careless, but I would say the same about disbelieving every story as well. I also take what people described as being what happened as being merely their interpretation of what happened. > > >I'm not sure if it's conscious or not from your side, but you keep >stating > > >these things as if they were True, which is debatable, and I find that > > >mildly offensive. You should remember that the world isn't divided into > > >the two groups "fellow believers" and "the deluded, >soon-to-be-converted > > >multitudes". ;) > > > > I speak truth with a little T. :P > >Well, it's good form to qualify such statements and not state them as if >they were True. IMO. ;) Bah. I defy. Since I cannot possibly know the Truth (except by happenstance) it is necessarily little truth. But I see your point. > And, yes, it is divided into those that > > agree with me and those that don't. Simple boolean expression. > > So there. Of course I believe myself to know the truth, if I didn't >what > > kind of spineless toad-eating bastard would I be? > >An honest one? I don't think I know the Truth. Of course I know my own >(little-t) truth - in fact, that's -all- I know. But to claim to know >anything for sure about objective reality is a very strong, and totally >unverifiable, statement, IMO. Note I used little t in my truth up above. :P And if no one claimed to know anything for sure about objective reality, where would we be? "It is an apple." "I agree, but can we be sure?" "It's a banana!" "No it isn't." > > >*shrugs* That's your opinion. My opinion is that the human mind is > > >mallable (sp?) enough to delude itself into believing there are things > > >"out there" that actually don't exist. > > > > And I agree with you. The human mind *is* malleable enough to delude >itself > > into believing that there are things out there that don't exist. >Doesn't > > mean that there *aren't* a few things out there that do. > >Of course. But claiming one's own set of delusions (mine, yours, Vasco da >Gama's) to be the Truth is dangerous, IMO. Very well. I have felt all the blood in my body stop because my heart has. It's scary, but your skin becomes warm. Do you believe me, or do you need more evidence? Without some degree of certainity about the world one cannot function except in fear. We do the dangerous every day by assuming that our understanding of reality is how objective reality works. The claim is necessary. Everyone's a Balseraph, baby. > > Comparing it to > > >being emotionally unsensitive is definitely offensive, and hints of the > > >commonly held fallacy that atheism equals immorality and egoism. > > > > Immorality does not at all equal atheism, if it did then this world >would be > > in a whole lot of trouble. Egoism? Don't see why it would . . . too >many > > religious people are ful of themselves. > >Again, a misunderstanding. Your examples drew parallells between being >"spiritually null" and insensitive towards one's lover. They did? Hmmmm . . . Oh, well. >I guess I was a little imprecise above - i should have said "implies" or >"contains" rather than "equals". Many Christians seem to think that there >is no such thing as a moral atheist. *shrugs* Stupid of them. Morals, I've found, while affected by religious beliefs, are not defined by them except in the few. > > >Anyway, being "spiritually null" isn't a bad thing if there is nothing > > >spiritual to be null in relation too, right? > > > > Ha ha ha . . . too true. It would be like being asfcally null. > >Uh... asfcally means... what? Doesn't mean anything; doesn't exist :) > > >If I did IN the way I see the real world there wouldn't be much point >in > > >using the game, since I don't believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, > > >Demons, Destiny, Fate, or an afterlife, which pretty much kills off all >of > > >the interesting subjects. :) > > > > Nonsense! You can have programs of mass hypnosis, drug treatments, or > > something like "The Matrix" to explain everything in In Nomine in terms >of > > "that which has no soul" Who knows? Maybe everyone's been locked >inside a > > computer and while we have no souls, we are on backup somewhere . . . > > Demons and Angels are programs written by the "Mainframe", ethereal >spirits > > are programs written by the unconscious processes of the human minds >stored > > in the Mainframe . . . woah. > > > > What a neat thought. > >Sounds more like Paranoia to me. *shrugs* Only if you have the PCs killing each other to win favor in the Computer's eyes, IMO. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Men talk of 'finding God,' but no wonder it is difficult; He is hidden in that darkest hiding-place, your heart. You yourself are a part of Him." - Christopher Morley _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 01:07:52 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >From: David Edelstein > >>>Research indicates that, overall, regular church-goers tend to live >longer and happier lives.<<< > >Research also indicates that overall, regular church-goers are more likely >to abuse their kids. (No, I don't believe religion leads to child abuse. >I'm making a point about trying to "prove" the validity of subjective >beliefs by using statistics.) Neat! I'll have to add that one to my collection. > >>>Of course, those *are* statistics. And, IMHO, it is better to live a >spiritually fulfilling life than a spiritually dead one.<<< > >IMHO, you are being extremely offensive by defining religious believers as >"spiritually fulfilled" and non-believers as "spiritually dead." I'm sorry that you made that assumption. I have found many church-goers to be quite spirually dead, thank you. I do not hold religious institutions in great esteem myself, TYVM. After reading the rest of this message, including your implication that I am a proselytizer (which I find *quite* offensive as I do not believe that anyone should have anything beat into them whether it be a nail or a belief) I am deeply sorry that you chose to take an action which felt like an attack to me. I apologize, David, for making statements of my understanding of how the world possibly works as if they were Truth. I hope that despite what I perceive as bitter resentment towards proselytizers (which I feel you have labeled me as, labeled me as something I hate) you will distance yourself enough from your emotions enough to consider the rest of what I have said in my posts on the subject of spirituality and things outside the realm of "normal" experience. I find the subject to pertain directly to game play, or at least IMC. The relationship between person, perception, and reality is (could be/sounds good as) the basis of belief and to have a game about the war between good and evil, light and dark, selflessness and selfishness, Heaven and Hell without belief seems rather silly to me. You are >being extremely offensive by defining those who don't share your beliefs in >imaginary friends as "spiritually null." (Did you find that last sentence >offensive? Good, I'm making my point, then.) No, I did not find it offensive. It was the following which was offensive. >Get your proselytyzing off this list NOW, unless you want to be roasting in >the mother of all flamewars. I would ask that you refrain from attacking me publicly on this list, despite the safety your position of power within In Nomine's organization grants you. I feel that the subject pertains to game play and so I have kept this discussion on the list. I'm sorry that you were forced to read such fifthy trash. I will attempt to refrain from engaging in behaviors which you interpret as "proselytyzing" in the future. I also apologize to all others who are offended by my point of view for making it known and speaking it as if it had some validity. - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "They say there's just enough religion in the world to make people hate one another but not enough to make them love." - Louis Cyphre Angel Heart _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:36:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) I think this will be my last post in this thread since I think we've pretty much emptied the subject and aren't making much progress. I'll try to make my position clear. On Mon, 17 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > >From: Anders Gabrielsson > > > >Unfortunately, most people also believe external reality conforms with > > > >their internal reality. > > > > > > I would say that it is actually a fortunate thing! How unfortunate it > >would > > > be for humankind to NOT believe that external reality conformed to their > > > understanding of it! > > > >You misunderstand. I meant that people form opinions inside their heads > >and then think they are True (as opposed to true); that they have > >universal validity. > > I agree. > > >Actually, I'm quite certain that the external, True reality is quite > >different from how I percieve and understand it. > > > > > > It is also a good thing, IMHO that people are able to maintain an > >internal > > > reality which can be quite different from external reality. In some > >this > > > manifests as optimism, in others negativity, others appear to be insane, > > > others ... are just weird. This inner stability allows us to function. > >The > > > problems crop up when people need to change their > > > interpretation/understanding of reality in order to flourish and they > >fail > > > to do so, and end up shooting themselves in the foot. :) > > > >I think we're talking past each other here, but I'm not quite sure how. I > >mean that people think that their view of the world is how it actually is > >- black people are lazy wellfare leeches, Christians are brainwashed > >zombies, They are bad people while We are good, and so on. > > and so forth > > > > > > Example: Henry is shot by a gun, however no one he talks to > >believes > > > >that > > > > > guns exist. They attribute his wound (and misfortune) to an evil > > > >spirit. > > > > > In time, Henry may begin to believe what he is being told. Thus, as > >his > > > > > perception of what happened changes, what happened changes. He > >wasn't > > > >shot > > > > > by a gun he may tell you, he was harmed by an evil spirit. > > > > > > > >But the Truth is that he was shot by a gun, right? Whether he believes > >it > > > >or not, that's what happened. > > > > > > The Truth according to whom? The Truth just is, what we choose to label > >the > > > componants (sp?) of the Truth is subjective. A gun to one, a Colt .45 > >to > > > another, a boomstick to another, a unholy weapon to another. The object > >may > > > remain the same, but the name can change. > > > >Now you misunderstand again. The Truth is of course impossible to describe > >in words, but something actually happened. The thing that happened, which > >I will label "Henry got shot with a gun" is the Truth. What people think > >happened belong to their personal, little-t truths. They may or may not > >believe that their truths are the Truth. > > But people can only speak about the label in their head, not about what > actually happened, because we don't have access to that knowledge (except > the lucky seraph), so all we can do is compare labels and by doing so > attempts to find a composite label which many people can agree upon. You claimed that what acutally happened, the Truth, changed, unless I misunderstood. I say that it doesn't. What people think the Truth is changed, but not the actual Truth. > > > In the *canonical* version of the game there is objective Truth. :) > > > >Personally, I can't imagine a reality without Truth, because that would > >mean communication was impossible, and even existance, I think. If you > >exist, then your existance is part of the Truth, what you think is part of > >the Truth - if there is no Truth, nothing can exist. Or at least my mind > >can't grasp such a concept. > > > >If you can describe it, please do. :) > > > > take away the idea that there is only one Truth, rather multiple. Within > each Truth reality is constant, between them not. IMC Yahweh's > Truth/Symphony happens to the one which envelops everything. Essentially > he's a Big Bad Balseraph who's Truth has been made real enough for others to > fit inside. > > Only problem is, another Balseraph named Lucifer figured it out and is > trying to take over by making his Truth/Symphony the biggest and baddest. > Or, at least take out Yahweh's. IMO, this isn't a world with multiple Truths. What you just described is the Truth, if you exchange the word Truth with "laws of nature" or something similar in your statements. The Truth encompasses the whole world, everything, it's how things Actually Are - that Yahweh and Lucifer can change how things work is part of the Truth, but that doesn't change the Truth. > > > Delusion? Science is also delusion, mon ami. The beautiful thing about > > > science is that it cannot ever prove anything, merely fail to disprove! > > > >Which is not delusion. Science admits that it can't prove anything, while > >most religions very much deny that they could be anything but the pure > >Truth. > > But countless of followers of science claim that things have been "proven > scientifically", and there's always "scientific fact". Science is taken as > truth by many, many people. That people are confused on the subject doesn't make science a delusion, it makes those people deluded. > > > "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he > > > didn't exist." > > > - The Usual Suspects > > > >Actually, that quote is older than the movie. ;) > > I'd love to know the original source. :) I think someone here on the list gave at least an earlier source not too long ago. > >Yes, people need companionship. But exactly how do you define "cause or > >belief" here? Would atheism qualify, for example? I'll just note here that you didn't answer my question. > I believe firmly that Atheism, as a belief system, requires a tremendous > amount of faith. In what? In the belief that there is nothing out there. > That we are alone, without soul, nothing after death, nothing there. > > Granted Atheism merely means the absence of God, but without belief that > there is direction to all this, that it is all chaotic, without method or > order . . . what's the point? Why does there have to be a point? Seriously, what gives my existance meaning, if that's what you mean, is that I can enjoy life and make it more enjoyable for others. That's enough for me. > I would crumble into an existential mess . . . If I was feeling elitist I'd say inability to live without a higher meaning was a sign of weakness, but since I'm a nice, kind person I won't. ;) > > > I find it quite objectively possible that there are things out there > >which > > > not everyone is able to perceive. > > > >So do I, but that doesn't mean I believe each and every story about such > >experiences, or any specific one of them - or that what people describe is > >what actually happened, even if something Real did happen. > > To believe every story would be careless, but I would say the same about > disbelieving every story as well. Not if you disbeliev after thinking about it. Should I believe some unprobably, stupid story just because it would be careless not to? I don't think so. I should mention that disbelieving the stories doesn't mean I say there's no chance of them being true, or containing a grain of truth. > I also take what people described as being what happened as being merely > their interpretation of what happened. Good for you. :) > > And, yes, it is divided into those that > > > agree with me and those that don't. Simple boolean expression. > > > So there. Of course I believe myself to know the truth, if I didn't > >what > > > kind of spineless toad-eating bastard would I be? > > > >An honest one? I don't think I know the Truth. Of course I know my own > >(little-t) truth - in fact, that's -all- I know. But to claim to know > >anything for sure about objective reality is a very strong, and totally > >unverifiable, statement, IMO. > > Note I used little t in my truth up above. :P So your magnificent claim was that you know what you know? Rather pointless, IMO. And if no one claimed to > know anything for sure about objective reality, where would we be? > > "It is an apple." > "I agree, but can we be sure?" > "It's a banana!" > "No it isn't." Replace "apple" and "banana" with, for example, "democracy" and "authoritarianism" and you'll have a pretty good summary of a political debate. You can't know for sure (in the strictest sense of the word) that what you see and feel is true, since your sensory organs are part of the outer world. > >Of course. But claiming one's own set of delusions (mine, yours, Vasco da > >Gama's) to be the Truth is dangerous, IMO. > > Very well. I have felt all the blood in my body stop because my heart has. > It's scary, but your skin becomes warm. Do you believe me, or do you need > more evidence? I have no idea what this little anecdote is supposed to illustrate. Without some degree of certainity about the world one cannot > function except in fear. We do the dangerous every day by assuming that our > understanding of reality is how objective reality works. The claim is > necessary. Not at all. We only need to assume that our understanding of reality is a good enough approximation, or even that "when I do this, that usually happens", which isn't nearly the same thing. > Everyone's a Balseraph, baby. Bingo! You're finally beginning to reach enlightenment. ;) > >I guess I was a little imprecise above - i should have said "implies" or > >"contains" rather than "equals". Many Christians seem to think that there > >is no such thing as a moral atheist. *shrugs* > > Stupid of them. Morals, I've found, while affected by religious beliefs, > are not defined by them except in the few. You did the same thing, except you used "spiritual" and "spiritually null" instead. *shrugs* > > > >If I did IN the way I see the real world there wouldn't be much point > >in > > > >using the game, since I don't believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, > > > >Demons, Destiny, Fate, or an afterlife, which pretty much kills off all > >of > > > >the interesting subjects. :) > > > > > > Nonsense! You can have programs of mass hypnosis, drug treatments, or > > > something like "The Matrix" to explain everything in In Nomine in terms > >of > > > "that which has no soul" Who knows? Maybe everyone's been locked > >inside a > > > computer and while we have no souls, we are on backup somewhere . . . > > > Demons and Angels are programs written by the "Mainframe", ethereal > >spirits > > > are programs written by the unconscious processes of the human minds > >stored > > > in the Mainframe . . . woah. > > > > > > What a neat thought. > > > >Sounds more like Paranoia to me. *shrugs* > > Only if you have the PCs killing each other to win favor in the Computer's > eyes, IMO. Sounds like a typical Diabolical campaign to me. Give each of 'em six vessels, make them serve opposing Superiors but don't tell them who serves whom, give them some powerful artifacts and send them to Earth for the first time. :) "Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Artifact Handy!" "Trust Lucifer! Lucifer Is Your Friend!" Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1226 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.