From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Nov 29 13:31:17 1997 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 NAA19805 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:31:17 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id NAA24170 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:26:32 -0600 Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:26:32 -0600 Message-Id: <199711291926.NAA24170@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 #490 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 Saturday, November 29 1997 Volume 01 : Number 490 In this digest: Re: IN> Kyrio hit points IN> God - Good Guy or not? Re: IN> (Various) Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #487 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #487 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #487 IN> Theology (was Re: digest #487) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:30:42 +1100 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: Re: IN> Kyrio hit points At 07:44 AM 28/11/97 +1100, Patrick wrote: >G'day. > I remember this being debated a while ago, but don't recall what the >canon verdict was. With the rules for the HP of mortal changing in >Night Music, what does this mean for the HP of mortals possessed by >Kyrio/Shedim? > >-- >Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia Dear Patrick (and List) well since I didn't bother to change the way I calculate mortals Body Hits after I got Night Music, then I just left Kyrio/Shedim Body Hits the same, but I guess that if you did change the mortals Body Hits then Kyrio/Shedim Hits would change too. Regards, Peter. PS. Nice to see you back. Nice to have a chance to make a comment myself as well :) Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:30:44 +1100 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: IN> God - Good Guy or not? > >Corey: >> But _if_ God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, then he must be held >> responsible for the evil in the world, as well as the good. To continue >> with your example, he created and set in motion the the hedge maze. >> Therefore he is responsible for all the things in the maze. >> >> In case you can't tell, I'm a big Preacher fan. >> >tom timberlake wrote >Well, I am an XMan fan myself, who believes in the dream of Prof. >Xavier, so you know I am a hopelessly cockeyed optimist right from the >start. ;-] Dear Corey and Tom (and List) God made everything, what you do with it is your business. I chose Life. I would buy a beer for both Prof X or Rev. Custer, but find I have a sympathy for Marshal Law :) . Regards, Peter Reply to peterf@wr.com.au What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:52:01 -0000 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> (Various) >"Boss, will you please STOP SPREADING RANDOM RUMORS? We have >three guys down here who are claiming to be Angels of Theft in the front >room." "Tell them to take 2 Mona Lisa's and see me in the morning!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:48:10 -0800 From: The Saint of Killers Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #487 Corey wrote: > But _if_ God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, then he must be held > responsible for the evil in the world, as well as the good. To continue > with your example, he created and set in motion the the hedge maze. > Therefore he is responsible for all the things in the maze. > > In case you can't tell, I'm a big Preacher fan. > > Corey You've just quoted parts one, two and four of the allegedly inconsistant tetrad. That being: 1) God is all knowing. 2) God is all powerful. 3) God is all good. 4) Evil exists. If God is all knowing, he knows evil exists. If God is all powerful, he can stop evil from existing. If God is all good, he'd want evil to not exist. Yet evil exists, so one of the above must be untrue. I'm not particularly sure how this ties into God being bored. What you're doing is you're using the primary defense of atheism. The Problem of Evil is the only real 'evidence' an atheist can offer against theism. (Which isn't to say that the atheist position is flimsy. When you're arguing that something - -doesn't- exist, you rarely go out of your way to find evidence.) Of course, the Problem of Evil has myriad defenses itself. Introducing... Welcome Corey to the Wide World of THEODICY! 1) Natural Law Theory: God set up the world to work in a specific way. It is as a result of this set up that NATURAL EVIL happens. (IE: Hurricanes, volcanos.) Sure, we've got such amazing beauties as Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Canyon and Ayers Rock, but we have to pay the price for them. Forest fires, draughts, earthquakes and more! 2) Free Will Theory (brought to you by Saint Augustine, the same man who says that evil is genetic, passed by the semen. What a crazy bizarro world nut.): Man has free will. If man chooses to do evil toward man, such is man's fault. God can stop it, but he won't, because that would defy man of his Free Will. Is it evil that God would allow such evil to happen? Hey! Don't judge God! Perhaps He, in his All Knowingness, has decided that it would be far more evil to defy us our Free Will. (Those who use their Free Will for good get a special prize.) 3) Disciplinary Defense: Ever read the story of Sodom and Gomhorra? Ka-bam Sodom, God scores! Ka-zowie Mrs Lot, God told you not to look. God punishes the sinners, and if you're suffering, it's cos you done someone wrong. (Hey, it's flimsy, but I'm just reporting the facts.) 4) The Eschatological Defense: At the end of the world (or our lives) those of us who have been evil will go to Hell, and the good will go to Heaven. Evil is just a way of preparing us for the greatness that we will receive come tomorrow. (It's no coincidence that Eschatological, which means 'having to do with the end of the world' is one syllable away from Scatological, which means 'having to do with shit'.) 5) The Hidden Harmony Defense: Here's your In Nomine defense. We can't hear the symphony, so we've got no clue what's going to happen next. Some good can come from evil, and we're just too short sighted to see it. Oh a little plague here and there may get a few of us, but after that plague there's always medical reform. (Well, sometimes, maybe, not usually, kinda... shut up.) A more plausible explanation. There is famine in Calcutta, that's vile, but without that famine to spur her onward, Mother Theresa may have become a member of a Satanic cult that released a biogenic weapon into the atmosphere to kill four and a half billion people! Egads! See? It's all about fate and destiny, bwoy. 6) The Ontological Defense: God is perfect. God is the only thing that's perfect. If it's perfect, it's God. Thus, when God created the world, something that was apart and different from God, the world naturally had holes in it, imperfections that were a part of the creation process. Had God worked out all of these imperfections, reality would have been perfect, thus reality would have been God. God chose not to work out these imperfections, because God -wanted- a world to exist. These imperfections are what allow evil to exist, but they are also what allow the world to exist outside of God. Anything else is pantheism. (The belief that God and the world are one. Everything is God.) So there you go. Theodicy in brief. sok (I liked Preacher too. Until Ennis decided that Jesse wasn't the Preacher, he was.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:12:51 -0600 From: Corey Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #487 At 12:48 PM 11/28/97 -0800, you wrote: > > > You've just quoted parts one, two and four of the allegedly inconsistant >tetrad. That being: > > 1) God is all knowing. > 2) God is all powerful. > 3) God is all good. > 4) Evil exists. > > If God is all knowing, he knows evil exists. If God is all powerful, he >can stop evil from existing. If God is all good, he'd want evil to not exist. >Yet evil exists, so one of the above must be untrue. No, there is an answer to that, God, being all good, knowing, and powerful uses Evil to temper humanity's spirit into a vessel worthy of his companionship. [I realise I'm making God out to be an ass here, but that's not my plan.] by virtue of being omnipotent, he could destroy evil, but then would have to deal with a bunch of robotic worshipers, and for wahtever reason, God doesnb't desire that. > > I'm not particularly sure how this ties into God being bored. What you're >doing is you're using the primary defense of atheism. The Problem of Evil is >the only real 'evidence' an atheist can offer against theism. (Which isn't to >say that the atheist position is flimsy. When you're arguing that something >-doesn't- exist, you rarely go out of your way to find evidence.) Boredom leads to apathy, and in my opinon, apathy is the greatest of evils. Abandoning creation to the angels is IMO tantamount to betrayal of the Symphony. > > Of course, the Problem of Evil has myriad defenses itself. Introducing... > > Welcome Corey to the Wide World of THEODICY! I like that. :) > [snip natural evil] Problem with that, not all Evil occurs naturally, rape, murder, sadism, etc. > [snip Free Will] Good point, especially about Augustine. :) > [snip disciplinary defense] Sort of supports what I was trying to say. God is a jealous god. [snip Eschatological defense] Funny how Revelations doesnt support that, most of the sinners get thrown into the Lake of Fire , which "is the second death" So no one except the devil and his rebellious angels ever gets to go to hell. Oops. [snip Hidden Harmony] perhaps the only "logical" answer in my viewpoint. [snip Ontological] Never did like Descartes. > So there you go. Theodicy in brief. Thanks. Oh and if we continue this discussion, perhaps off list would be better, so as not to offend the AA of List-Admin. > > sok > (I liked Preacher too. Until Ennis decided that Jesse wasn't the >Preacher, he was.) Too true, too true. > Corey - --"I see the end in every beginning. I hear the last word echo in the first. I do not desire, or dream, or destroy. I do not despair, or delight. I know." -Destiny. "Destiny: A Chronicle of Death's Foretold" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:18:06 -0800 From: The Saint of Killers Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #487 Corey wrote: > > If God is all knowing, he knows evil exists. If God is all powerful, he > >can stop evil from existing. If God is all good, he'd want evil to not exist. > >Yet evil exists, so one of the above must be untrue. > > No, there is an answer to that, God, being all good, knowing, and powerful Yes, and, as I said, that answer is theodicy. You offer an answer in the form of one theodicy. There are several. It's an entire branch of theology. > [snip natural evil] > > Problem with that, not all Evil occurs naturally, rape, murder, sadism, etc. Correct, which is why evil falls into two catagories. Natural Evil, or that evil which is caused by natural causes. Earthquakes, fires and diseases. And Moral Evil, or that evil which is wraught by the willing human mind. Some theodicies only deal with some specific kinds of evil. (IE: Free Will doesn't explain hurricanes.) > [snip disciplinary defense] > > Sort of supports what I was trying to say. God is a jealous god. This isn't to say that God is jealous. It just says that God is willing to temper us now to prepare us for infinite glories later. Had the defense said, "God blasts us so we don't worship Apollo." then yeah, he's jealous. Of course, the first commandment is a symbol of that. The death of Socrates is a symbol of that. La ilaha illa'llah is your proof of that. It's less jealousy, however, than common sense. If Wal Mart could do it without losing business, they'd force you to sign a contract saying THOU SHALT SHOP AT NO OTHER CONVENIENT DEPARTMENT STORE THAN WAL MART! > [snip Eschatological defense] > > Funny how Revelations doesnt support that, most of the sinners get thrown > into the Lake of Fire , which "is the second death" So no one except the > devil and his rebellious angels ever gets to go to hell. Oops. The Revelation (common mistake) says that the sinners will get thrown into the Lake of Fire, but attention must be paid to the details. Day of Judgement. The mere name suggests time spent weighing a person's good versus a person's bad. It's easy for some people to say that since Bob's a Hindu, no matter what a swell guy he was, he's off to the Lake of Fire, and since Jimmy was a Baptist, he's safe and secure in the arms of a loving Jesus. That's not judgement though, that's some kind of -ism. Religiousism or whatever. And it certainly isn't the mark of a merciful God. Of course, not all of us believe in a merciful God, but those of us who have the Revelation of St John as part of our bible are supposed to. > [snip Ontological] > Never did like Descartes. Er. Not that Descartes had anything to do with it. I'd assume you were mixing up the Ontological Theodicy with the Ontological Argument, if it was't for the fact that it was Anselm who came up with That Than Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived. The Ontological Defense harkens back to Aristotle, though Aquinas and Augustine both had versions of it. > Thanks. Oh and if we continue this discussion, perhaps off list would be > better, so as not to offend the AA of List-Admin. If they want us to stop, they'll ask us to. I don't think they would. This has as much to do with In Nomine metaphysics as angel sex and the Metatron. sok ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:22:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: IN> Theology (was Re: digest #487) On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, The Saint of Killers wrote: > This isn't to say that God is jealous. According to what I understand of IN, (and I might be slipping up here because I've only read the first book), the reason God isn't jealous is that he doesn't _need_ to be. You don't have to be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, to avoid Hell. Apparently, all these people are worshipping exactly the same God, since He seems to accept them all. This is something of a minority viewpoint in the real world, however. > It just says that God is willing to temper us now to prepare us for > infinite glories later. This sounds fair enough. Why do you think He let the rebel angels live to plague humanity. They fall either under 'natural evil', or 'free will'. > Day of Judgement. The mere name suggests time spent weighing a person's > good versus a person's bad. The name may well suggest that, but Christianity doesn't seem to. I can't quote accurately off hand, but Christ said that 'there is no other way to God than through me'. So he said that Jews, Muslims and Buddhists are all damned. I have never seen any Biblical support for the salvation of non-Christians. As far as I can tell, and I am neither a Christian nor a theologist, the central theme of Christianity is that we are all irredeemable sinners, doomed to death for what we have done, but that Christ, by dying for us, can save us _if_ we accept his gift. > It's easy for some people to say that since Bob's a Hindu, no matter > what a swell guy he was, he's off to the Lake of Fire, and since Jimmy > was a Baptist, he's safe and secure in the arms of a loving Jesus. 'Some people', in this case, includes the Gospel writers. Provided Jimmy has truly accepted Christ as his saviour, it doesn't matter what he did previously. He will be saved from death. Bob won't. He's off to the 'utter darkness, with eternal fire and the worms that never sleep'. This is not true in IN, where Christianity is simply Laurence's pet project. Maybe 'utter darkness' was Milton's phrase. But the fire and worms are definitely in Matthew and Mark. Incidentally, who exactly _was_ Christ? God's vessel? Some other being higher than the angels? A soldier doing as he was told? Or are SJ Games not telling? A final point, and one which might get me flamed: Why doesn't a Seraph of Dominic, with 6 Celestial forces, and perception 12, simply find some slob and ask him 'Why does God allow evil?'. The guy says 'Because He doesn't care', the angel has an automatic success on his resonance, with check digit 7-12, and instantly knows The Truth, whatever it is. I can only think of two ways out: 1) The Truth to this particular question does not lie within the Symphony (a way to feed Seraphs false info, since Celestial action can change The Truth of any question). 2) The GM (or God, or Dominic) blows the angel's head off for being a smug, nosey, so and so. In which case maybe it should be dissonant for a Seraph to ask the Wrong Questions... Any thoughts? Steve Jessop. ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #490 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.