From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Wed Dec 16 14:06:21 1998 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 OAA08220 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:06:21 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA24193 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:27:06 -0600 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:27:06 -0600 Message-Id: <199812161927.NAA24193@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1057 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 Wednesday, December 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 1057 In this digest: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Uriel Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Re: IN> Habbalah Re: IN> Neopaganism Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) Re: IN> Absolute Morality IN> Destiny/Fate and Heaven/Hell Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Uriel Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) Re: IN> Absolute Morality Re: IN> Uriel IN> Bethlehem Inquiry, part 1 of 3 IN> Bethlehem Inquiry - part 2 of 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:30:19 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > > > Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > > > Going off point a little: Is there any reason why the consciousness of the > > > Symphony equates to Goodness. > > > > Interesting question. The best answer I can give right now is, yes, by > > tautology. The conciousness of the Symphony is God. God is good. > > Therefore... Not the most rigourous of proofs, but one you have to accept if > > you're using the framework of this game. > > You base this on two assumptions - that the consciousness of the Symphony > is God (which is CDaU, I think) and that God is good, which isn't > necessarily true. OK, accept that I'm dense, but "CDaU"? > > A thought that just struck me about the Destiny and Fate threads(I know this > > isn't involved here, but hey). I think people are looking at these things > > wrong. One's Destiny and Fate are the best and worst things one can be. > > Assuming the abscence of Celestial interventions, if one's destiny is to become > > a little old man who kicks dogs, one _can't_ become a serial killer. And > > similarly with ones Destiny. They're the zenith and nadir of a person's > > potential, unless something from outside interferes. > > But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, > lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done > worse things? As we seem to be working our way into saying that there is no universal morality, then I would say yes. Hell would be where those who have sunk as low as they possibly can would go. Besides, I have difficulty envisioning a Fate so, well, petty. - - Tom btw - I tend to be on the "Yes, there is an absolute morality" side of the arguement, but we seem to be loosing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:49:00 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 04:30:19AM -0500, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > > You base this on two assumptions - that the consciousness of the Symphony > > is God (which is CDaU, I think) Only if we believe that Yves is wrong about things he makes definitive statements about. and that God is good, which isn't > > necessarily true. > It isn't necessarily true, but it looks true, given all the evidence. > OK, accept that I'm dense, but "CDaU"? > Canon Doubt and Uncertainty. > > But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, > > lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done > > worse things? > They aren't necessarily going to get away with it. It seems to me that you go to Hell is you get close enough to your Destiny, and likewise with Hell. > As we seem to be working our way into saying that there is no universal morality, > then I would say yes. Hell would be where those who have sunk as low as they > possibly can would go. Besides, I have difficulty envisioning a Fate so, well, > petty. > No Fate is petty. In every instance, someone had the choice of doing good things or doing bad things, and knowingly chose to do bad things. It isn't so much the actions as the thoughts behind them that decide what is Fate. Someone who believes all violence is wrong and kills in self-defence does more wrong than someone who believes killing rapists is right and does exactly that. Kevin Walsh, BaLseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:53:56 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Uriel On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 09:06:58PM -0500, Chad and Erin wrote: > Uriel was a hero to be commended for doing something no other angel would > undertake, the cleansing of the Symphony. The other angels should have > been ashamed of themselves for not thinking of it sooner. > That's one interpretation. Another is that by destroying the Ethereal Gods, he was attacking the Free Will of the humans who created them, which some might consider a Bad Thing. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:22:49 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > Anders Gabrielsson wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > > > > > Ramesh Satkurunath wrote: > > > > > > > Going off point a little: Is there any reason why the consciousness of the > > > > Symphony equates to Goodness. > > > > > > Interesting question. The best answer I can give right now is, yes, by > > > tautology. The conciousness of the Symphony is God. God is good. > > > Therefore... Not the most rigourous of proofs, but one you have to accept if > > > you're using the framework of this game. > > > > You base this on two assumptions - that the consciousness of the Symphony > > is God (which is CDaU, I think) and that God is good, which isn't > > necessarily true. > > OK, accept that I'm dense, but "CDaU"? Sorry. Short for "Canon Doubt and Uncertainty". > > > A thought that just struck me about the Destiny and Fate threads(I know this > > > isn't involved here, but hey). I think people are looking at these things > > > wrong. One's Destiny and Fate are the best and worst things one can be. > > > Assuming the abscence of Celestial interventions, if one's destiny is to become > > > a little old man who kicks dogs, one _can't_ become a serial killer. And > > > similarly with ones Destiny. They're the zenith and nadir of a person's > > > potential, unless something from outside interferes. > > > > But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, > > lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done > > worse things? > > As we seem to be working our way into saying that there is no universal morality, > then I would say yes. Hell would be where those who have sunk as low as they > possibly can would go. I feel that this isn't right - it offends my sense of morality. :) I think there should be some kind of absolute requirements too, but I'm not sure what they should be. :-/ Besides, I have difficulty envisioning a Fate so, well, > petty. Just an example. If you take someone born with a disease that will kill them before they're ten you'll probably get even pettier ones. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:23:53 +0000 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 07:14:56PM -0500, Elizabeth McCoy wrote: > The first Habbalah who Fell knew they had not Fallen. Did not Malakim > arise from the purity of passions? Did you develop this line of argument independently? Personally, I enjoy the theory that Camael was trying to replicate the creation of the Malakim. And didn't he succeed? After all, Habbalah don't Fall... They are no longer their weak > chrysilis form. They understand that their *Every Whim* is Divinely > inspired. And that they must punish the unworthy, those who must not > be allowed to drag Heaven down with them. > As I see it, that particular theory isn't the only Habbalite doctrine, it's just the most popular, since it bolsters the Habbalite's sense of self-esteem, and it probably was the mindset of the first Habbalah, and was hence passed down by peer pressure. Broadly speaking, I divide Habbalah into Punishers, Testers, Healers, Defenders and Traitors. The reason the Punishers look so numerous is that Testers, Healers, and Traitors tend to behave very like Punishers, and Defenders don't tend to get much time to Punish people anyway. Punishers are those who punish the weak, however weak is defined. Many Habbalah of the Game are Punishers. Testers are those who test people to find out if they are weak. The testing involves a process that looks superficially very like Punishing, but is in fact completely different. And if you've Tested someone and found them unworthy, you might decide to Punish them, or leave that job to someone else. This is a very popular attitude among Habbalah of Fate, who get to see people's weak points and test how vulnerable they are to them. Healers are those who teach people to overcome their weakness by the strategic application of hardship. Healers are especially numerous among Habbalah of Nightmares, who frequently refer to themselves as Angels of Fear, recalling their duties before Beleth's Tower was built. Some people don't manage to overcome their fears, but they weren't going to get better anyway. Defenders are those who keep the whole show on the road. Hell is part of God's plan, and is therefore Good, and they work to ensure it stays that way, by defending it against attacks both internal and external, or by strengthening its defences and infrastructure in other ways. This attitude is naturally very common among Habbalah of the War. And Traitors are those who don't believe any of this, but who are, in fact, under the impression that they are undermining Hell in preparation for Judgement Day. Rest assured that the Game is ever vigilant when watching for their ilk. As for why they believe this, my answer is that it's convenient for the Habbalite and (usually) the Demon Prince. Habbalah need to believe they're doing tbe right thing, and if you can convince them that they're angels doing God's work, they'll settle happily into their work. The fact that everyone around them is manifestly inferior means that they are fully justified in unleashing their temper on them. It's very convenient for the Demon Princes because it means that not only will the Habbalite's worst qualities keep them at their work, but so will their best qualities (things like conscience which other demons aren't so bothered with). The character traits that can make other demons Redeem will only serve to make Habbalah more zealous in their duties, which is why it's worth putting up with the odd bit of the kind of flakiness other demons would be skewered for. It's convenient for both the individual and the Superior, and they're indoctrinated in it from the hour they're created. Possibly a properly socialised new Habbalite wouldn't believe it was an angel, but why bother experimenting? You'd probably have to end up killing it for disloyalty if you did. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "Warfare is the Tao of deception. Thus although capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:26:17 +0100 (CET) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 04:30:19AM -0500, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > > > You base this on two assumptions - that the consciousness of the Symphony > > > is God (which is CDaU, I think) > > Only if we believe that Yves is wrong about things he makes definitive > statements about. Sorry, I'd missed that one. :( > and that God is good, which isn't > > > necessarily true. > > > It isn't necessarily true, but it looks true, given all the evidence. Depends on your view of things, I suppose. > > > But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, > > > lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done > > > worse things? > > > They aren't necessarily going to get away with it. It seems to me that you > go to Hell is you get close enough to your Destiny, and likewise with > Hell. Still, he could do far worse things than kicking dogs and still not go to Hell, because he wasn't getting close to his Fate. If Hitler had just murdered his parents, would he have gone to Hell? > No Fate is petty. In every instance, someone had the choice of doing good > things or doing bad things, and knowingly chose to do bad things. It isn't > so much the actions as the thoughts behind them that decide what is Fate. > Someone who believes all violence is wrong and kills in self-defence does > more wrong than someone who believes killing rapists is right and does > exactly that. Picking a little nit: it's not whether you believe it's right or wrong, but whether you act selfishly or unselfishly, I think. It isn't always the same thing. Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 05:30:36 -0500 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Uriel >>>Now that makes sense, especially since iirc Uriel was mostly evicting the Ethereals from Earth until many of them took shelter with Beleth, whereupon he went berserk and killed anyone within reach except a few religions that acknowleged a creator god not part of their pantheon.<<< Actually, Uriel went rampaging across Blandine's and Beleth's realms both. But it's still never been made clear (even to the Archangels) whether Uriel was in fact being *punished*. Certainly God decided Uriel needed to not be doing what he had been doing anymore....but what exactly does that mean? Was Uriel wrong? Had he simply done enough already? Had God decided Uriel had demonstrated abilities that could be better put to use elsewhere? Even the Archangels don't know, though they all have their own thoughts on the matter, no doubt. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 07:23:48 -0600 From: "James Bearse" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality > > > A thought that just struck me about the Destiny and Fate threads(I know this > > isn't involved here, but hey). I think people are looking at these things > > wrong. One's Destiny and Fate are the best and worst things one can be. > > Assuming the abscence of Celestial interventions, if one's destiny is to become > > a little old man who kicks dogs, one _can't_ become a serial killer. And > > similarly with ones Destiny. They're the zenith and nadir of a person's > > potential, unless something from outside interferes. > > But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, > lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done > worse things? What does _should_ have to do with it? If we're discussing cosmic law, their doesn't have to be a "fairness" aspect to it, it's just the way things are. To quote from Terry Pratchett, "There's no justice. There's just me." (Death) The universe seems to exist to cull the good from the evil, and until you "be all you can be", you don't get culled. (You might get your forces disbanded, but that's the luck of the draw.) Savage Wombat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:46:35 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Limbo Heresy, eh? Well its really pretty simple as I see it, Limbo proves that God is just another Ethereal spirit, although one that has garnered a great deal of support. Here's what happened. God (or YWWH, whatever) is just another Ethereal spirit with his on pantheon of supporters (the Angels) who are all also Ethereal spirits. His word and work begin to spread throughout the word in multiple different religions (perhaps this was all part of Gods insidious plan). When he has developed a large enough power base he rewrites reality a bit making him the one true God and separates himself and his followers from the Ethereal reality and creates the Celestial. The rest, as they say, is history. Why does Limbo prove that Celestials are in fact Ethereal spirits at heart (or more accurately, without one)? Simple. The truth of it is that Celestials can make vessels, and always could. It is their hearts that keep them anchored into the Celestial. Without them Angels can make vessels just fine, from the stuff of nothingness. Limbo is probably what is left of God's kingdom on the Ethereal. Peace, Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:52:17 -0500 From: Andrew Frades Subject: Re: IN> The Limbo Heresy Oh the part I left out of my original Limbo Heresy post... This makes Lucifer an Angel who sides with the other less fortunate Ethereal spirits, those written out of history. For his (and other's) heresy he was cast out. Being as powerful as he was he created his own realm, much as God had done and began to dig in for a very long war. No wonder Beleth shelters so many of the renegade Ethereal spirits. Ever wonder why Uriel really lead the purge and why God brought him to the higher Heaven? Ever wonder why Demons in canon IN don't really seem that Evil, just misunderstood? Ever wonder what Kobal's big joke is? Ever wonder why Jean is directly connected to the laws of the Symphony but Vapula isn't? Etc. ad infinitum. Peace, Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:29:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah Neel, I gather from your example Habbalah that your rule for them seems to be, "Habbalah gotta punish, and gotta rationalize it as deserved. Individual rationalizations are left as an exercize to the player or GM." Would that be right, or close to it? I find that a very plausible approach to Habbalah psychology. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:47:45 -0500 (EST) From: Emily Dresner Subject: Re: IN> Neopaganism > Just wondring how neopaganism(wicca and so forth) fits into the overall In > Nomine universe. Is the resurgence of these neopagan religions the result > of some ethereals at work or is it perhaps an alternate interpretation put > forth by some archangel like novalis or something like that. Just > wondering what people think I'm of a few minds on this. There are many, many different forms of NeoPaganism from the hard core OTO member who believes that Crowley is the Way and the Light to the Astartu to the Hard Wiccan to the more soft, "Do whatever" Wiccan. The NeoPagans come in Heinz 57 flavors, it very much is "do whatever you want and whatever you believe". I've chopped NeoPaganism into three categories: Ethereal, Novalean and Fate. Ethereal - -------- One of the traits is the worship of "pantheons". The most common are: Celtic, Norse, Native American, Greek, and Egyptian. My take is that the NeoPagan practice of this worship is almost entirely unlike the actual worship that took place among these people when the Gods were part of an active, live religion. The Gods are taken out of context, worshipped in ways they never were before, or not really worshipped at all. Things get very strange in the name of spiritual comfort. In the In Nomine universe, this is represented by new Ethereals popping up in the middle of the Marches unbidden, old Ethereals getting their meanings and their existences changed to fit this new representation, and some just die. For example, Isis [Spelled wsrt] the Chair of Power, the Seat from which the world flows, has become a nice warm fuzzy Mother Goddess. Is this her original intention? No, not really. I can just see Isis wandering around looking at this strange amalgamation of Isis and Hathor wondering what the world is coming to. Novalean - -------- I tend to put things like pure Dianetic Wiccans in this category: people who are more interested in worshipping and becoming one with Mother Earth then finding their pantheon. This includes in the package the rituals and feast and holy days. It isn't a stretch to imagine Novalis supporting the gathering of people into a circle to celebrate and worship the Earth and all that is contained within it. I also tend to put certain practices in this category: Aromatherapy, working with herbs, some forms of crystals [not all], and massage. All of these are geared toward healing the body and the soul, and make one more at peace with the world around them. Fate - ---- If it's not pure Ethereal worship and it's not Novalean, well, it's got to be _something_. There is a disturbing tendancy for people to enter NeoPaganism for the allure of "magick" - this is, the ability to impress one's will on the universe through some ritual to make a change. The hook is the ability to change and control the world around them without having to actually put forth the effort, through effort, through belief, through ritual. This little bait on a hook is provided by fate, and is waggled there on the bookshelves of major bookstores everywhere in the world. Why actually sit down and do some work when you can learn the secrets of the universe in a $12.95 trade paperback from Dover Publishing? This is for people who enter groups like the Ordo Templi Orientalis [Crowley's Thelema], the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Rosicrucians, BOTA, and the like. Although most of the so-called magick is worthless, the very allure of the occult and the "universal mysteries" it provides is enough to get some people hook, line and sinker. These organizations are nothing more then a Hellsworn hunting ground. Nothing makes it easier to find a new Soldier then to pick through the already selfish so-called secret human societies and enlist them with some "real" magick - a song, some information about the universe, or a name or two of a real demon so that the Soldier can get down to the business of really damning their soul for good. - -------- So that's the really [really] short, headache riddled, sleep deprived take on NeoPaganism and where it falls in the In Nomine universe. I loathe to stuff it all under the heading of "Ethereals" because it's not, and I loathe to stuff it all under the heading of "Hell", because it's not all evil. There's a heck of alot more, but I think it's for another time. Current Quote: Dana_ giggles. "I think that DON'T LICK JESUS should be added to the etiquette rules for dealing with the second coming." Hitherby coughs. Hitherby doesn't want to know about Jesus' second coming if licking has anything to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:04:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Truth (was Absolute Morality) Another formulation of Goedel's Theorem is: "All formal systems that include arithmetic contain true statements that cannot be proved true within that formal system." You can enlarge the formal system to make those statements proveable, but then new unproveable statements will crop up. One philosophical upshot is that no formalized system of rules can capture ALL truth. But then, no metaphysical system humans would find at all interesting is "formalized" within the meaning of the term as used in mathematical logic. Mathematical statements of physical law, on the other hand, ARE so formalized, and therefore demonstrably cannot include all truths. But any Ethereal could have told you that. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:15:44 -0500 From: neel@cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami) Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality >From: "Ramesh Satkurunath" > >2 If there are "Laws of Physics" who says they are constant why should the >future behave like the past? Why should every region of space behave like >like every other? Why should a stone drop from your hand when you let go >of it? Hume saw no reason why! Here we get to the heart of it -- In Nomine's cosmology makes NO SENSE AT ALL if you approach it using any philosophical system developed in the past 200 years. You need to go at it with the philosophical widget set the church fathers and Kabbalists used -- Neoplatonism! In a Neoplatonist worldview, reason and evidence aren't what you use to dig up the truth -- reason is fallible, you see. So you need to use your intuition to directly apprehend the truth, and the ultimate truth is God. Yes, INS/MV was a satire, but no small part of its satirical power was from lampooning the weird and non-modern philosophical guts of Catholicism, so it retained the Neoplatonist outlook on life. The translators at SJG either recognized this or didn't know enough philosophy to toss this out, so it stayed -- you can see touches of it in the attribute breakdown (perception is a celestial attribute and intelligence an ethereal one, f'ex), and in other places. Here's a small scene from my game, that illustrates the point. The PCs had been through an extremely confusing episode that culminated in Malphas personally messing around with their memories. When they realized that this had happened, they didn't bother investigating and figuring out the origins of this. Instead, they cornered a Seraph of Judgement and had him grill them until he got the real story. IOW, they didn't use reason; they went to someone with a direct and intuitive apprehension of th truth. - -- Neel Krishnaswami neelk@cswv.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:29:11 -0500 From: Stacy Stroud Subject: IN> Destiny/Fate and Heaven/Hell >> A thought that just struck me about the Destiny and Fate threads(I know this >> isn't involved here, but hey). I think people are looking at these things >> wrong. One's Destiny and Fate are the best and worst things one can be. >> Assuming the abscence of Celestial interventions, if one's destiny is to >>become >> a little old man who kicks dogs, one _can't_ become a serial killer. And >> similarly with ones Destiny. They're the zenith and nadir of a person's >> potential, unless something from outside interferes. > >But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, >lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done >worse things? Depends on how you envision it. There are those even in the real world who would say yes. C.S. Lewis, for example, insisted in _Mere Christianity_ that the important thing, in God's eyes, about both sin and virtue is their effect on the individual character and the individual soul, *not* the visible effects they have in the world. He explained that two men might both be susceptible to the sin of anger, and to the same degree. Yet due to circumstances, the worst effect that one of the men can cause with his anger is, say, the end of a friendship. (I'm not quoting directly here, so Lewis may have used a different example.) The other man, however, may be so placed that with the same anger he brings about the deaths of millions. But that's just luck; each man actually has the very same character defect. Had their positions been reversed, the same outcomes would have happened. And in the next world, it's those virtues or defects of character that matter, not what you've managed to do with them on Earth. (As a side note, Lewis used this same principle to integrate Christian thought with psychology in a way I've not seen elsewhere. He accepted the existence of mental illnesses that could incline one toward sin -- kleptomania or sociopathy, for example -- but believed that God takes into account the "raw materials" each person has available when judging their culpability for an act. He even went so far as to suggest that a sociopath, by refraining from a single act of cruelty, might do just as much for his spiritual state as another might accomplish with a lifetime of charity -- because the second person is not predisposed *against* being kind to others.) To climb to the top of the hierarchy, at least in terms of Christian thought, we have the part of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus reminds his listeners that avoiding *acts* of murder or adultery is not enough -- sufficient malice or lust, even if not carried through, is just as bad in God's eyes as the actual act. So yes, there are those, at least within Christianity, who would make the argument you question. Stacy Stroud sstroud@uky.campus.mci.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:04:03 -0600 (CST) From: Elizabeth Bartley Subject: Re: IN> Uriel On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > Not to mention a common demonic theory about what happens to human souls > who go to the higher Heavens.... I.e., God gets *all* the souls > himself, unlike the Demon Princes, who have to share. Talk about a > racket! IIRC, geasa on human souls gone to the higher Heavens don't vanish, which provides evidence that God doesn't turn the souls into Forces en masse. It doesn't preclude Essence harvesting or selective Force-stripping. Elizabeth Bartley e-bartley@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:38:49 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Uriel At 10:04 16/12/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >> Not to mention a common demonic theory about what happens to human souls >> who go to the higher Heavens.... I.e., God gets *all* the souls >> himself, unlike the Demon Princes, who have to share. Talk about a >> racket! > >IIRC, geasa on human souls gone to the higher Heavens don't vanish Surely geases on humans vanish when the human dies? jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:41:00 +0000 From: Jo Hart Subject: Re: IN> Habbalah (Re: seneschal query) At 10:23 16/12/98 +0000, you wrote: > Broadly speaking, I divide >Habbalah into Punishers, Testers, Healers, Defenders and Traitors. [snip] I thought that was extremely cool. jo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:51:21 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Ladegard" Subject: Re: IN> Absolute Morality Kevin Walsh wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 04:30:19AM -0500, Thomas J. Ladegard wrote: > > > You base this on two assumptions - that the consciousness of the Symphony > > > is God (which is CDaU, I think) > > Only if we believe that Yves is wrong about things he makes definitive > statements about. You took out a credit. This is Anders taking. I'm the one before that. > and that God is good, which isn't > > > necessarily true. > > > It isn't necessarily true, but it looks true, given all the evidence. Agreed. > > OK, accept that I'm dense, but "CDaU"? > > > Canon Doubt and Uncertainty. I figured that out just after I mailed. Oh well. > > > But should he go to Hell for that, when someone else can kick dogs, steal, > > > lie and even commit murder and get away with it because he could have done > > > worse things? > > > They aren't necessarily going to get away with it. It seems to me that you > go to Hell is you get close enough to your Destiny, and likewise with > Hell. I'm not sure I agree here, but I'm close enough to take it as an arguable point. > > As we seem to be working our way into saying that there is no universal > morality, > > then I would say yes. Hell would be where those who have sunk as low > as they > > possibly can would go. Besides, I have difficulty envisioning a Fate > so, well, > > petty. > > > No Fate is petty. In every instance, someone had the choice of doing good > things or doing bad things, and knowingly chose to do bad things. It isn't > so much the actions as the thoughts behind them that decide what is Fate. > Someone who believes all violence is wrong and kills in self-defence does > more wrong than someone who believes killing rapists is right and does > exactly that. My comment about a petty Fate is based on the previously stated idea of someone whose Fate is to become a little old man who kicks dogs. This _particular_ Fate does seem petty to me, that's all And so it seems I'm in agreement with the Bal of Nitpicking. I'm in trouble here. - - Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:19:13 -0500 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Uriel Jo Hart wrote: > > At 10:04 16/12/98 -0600, you wrote: > >On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > > > >> Not to mention a common demonic theory about what happens to human souls > >> who go to the higher Heavens.... I.e., God gets *all* the souls > >> himself, unlike the Demon Princes, who have to share. Talk about a > >> racket! > > > >IIRC, geasa on human souls gone to the higher Heavens don't vanish > > Surely geases on humans vanish when the human dies? Nope. As long as the soul exists, the Geas exists. It's possible that some force in the higher Heavens removes such things, but how to prove such a conjecture? ;) An amusing scenario is trying to a particular DEAD person in Hell. You eventually find out that a particular Lilim has a Geas on them and is willing to help track them down... if you are willing to voluntarily accept a Geas yourself. - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:20:19 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry, part 1 of 3 Even angels long to look into these things. -- 1 Peter 1:12 - --- Inquisitor: Please state your name, choir, and word for the record. Witness: Peniel, Mercurian of Fire. Inquisitor: Thank you for coming. Witness: Huh?! You're-- you're welcome. Inquisitor: Wasn't it made plain that this was a voluntary interview? Witness: I-- I guess so. Now that I think of it, yes. I was just so flustered... I mean, when the Inquisition calls you, it's usually-- Inquisitor: We are seeking information on the recent activities of your Archangel -- more information than he has been willing to give in person. Witness: Oh! Does Gabriel know about this? Inquisitor: Yes, and has given permission. [Wryly] No futher information, but permission. Witness: Very well. Inquisitor: Thank you. Did your Archangel tell you to participate in a mass appearance to a group of mortals? Witness: Yes. Inquisitor: Please tell us about it. Witness: He had us rehearse a song, then led us down to the Corporeal. It was over a hillside near Bethlehem. There were several shepherds out on night-watch. One had just grumbled something like, "Nothing ever happens in this job," when Gabriel appeared to them. Inquisitor: What did he say? Witness: He waited for them to stop wailing, then said, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Lord Messiah. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." Inquisitor: And then what? Witness: Then we all appeared and sang. It's very pretty. Like the old days, before the Fall. I don't know if you remember... Anyway, it goes, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to folk on whom his favor rests." Inquisitor: Very nice. The chorus included angels of all choirs? Even seraphim and cherubim? Witness: Yes. Inquisitor: In celestial form? Even kyriotates? Witness: Well, we kept them toward the back. You know how humans get twitchy when they see kyriotates. Inquisitor: Were there serivtors of other Archangels there? Witness: Oh, yes. It was quite a crowd. Stone. Flowers. War. Destiny. Um... in fact, I remember seeing him there. Inquisitor: What? The bailiff? (Let the record state that the witness indicates Daniah, Malakite of Judgement.) Daniah, why didn't you say something? Daniah: You didn't ask. Inquisitor: [sighs] We'll want your report. To resume: Did the Archangel Gabriel say anything to you regarding the message given to the shepherds? Witness: No. I know what the Messiah is supposed to be, of course, but-- Inquisitor: [a little impatiently] Do you? And what *is* the Messiah supposed to be? Witness: Ah... Means "anointed one." Taken to be a prophecied king of Israel that will usher in, um, something. A golden age. End of the War. Something big and good. And of course I *did* hear what Gabriel said to the Seraphim Council. Inquisitor: I had better check this for rumor control. What did you hear? Witness: That Gabriel said the baby was the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. That Yves told him this and told him to go to this girl, Miriam, to announce the conception. Isn't that true? What do *you* lot know? I mean, if you want rumors controlled, hadn't you better put out the straight story? Inquisitor: What you have heard is true. Dominic asked Yves to confirm it. Yves said only, "Are not many of you seraphim?" So we know that Gabriel believes what Yves has told him, but no more. At any time, from Gabriel or anyone else, did you hear anything about the nature of the child? Whether it was a mortal, a celestial, or even an aspect, emanation, or hypostasis from the Upper Heavens? Witness: No. I don't know anything about Upper Heaven, or aspects, emanations, or, uh, hypostases. What's a hypostasis? Inquisitor: [flaps wings disconsolately] I don't know. I'm only repeating a question I was told to ask. - --- Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:22:40 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: IN> Bethlehem Inquiry - part 2 of 3 Inquisitor: Please state your name, choir, and word, for the record. Witness: Ithniel, Elohite of Destiny. It may save time if I tell you that my Archangel has told me nothing about the nature of this case that was not also said before the Seraphim Council, which is to say, precious little. Inquisitor: Indeed. Please tell us, then, of the assignment he gave you regarding this case. Witness: My normal work is uplifting the activities of the Persian Magi. These are priests of the monotheistic religion of Persia. Many are also astrologers. I influence their astrological interpretations in various ways, to urge them and their clients toward their destinies. Two years ago, I reported what appeared to be outside influence to my Archangel. There were three closely-spaced conjunctions of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn at that time. For no very good reason, my Magi took these to indicate the birth of the Jewish messiah. I tried to disabuse them of this, but failed. Inquisitor: But, in fact, the Jewish messiah -- or one identified as such by Gabriel -- *was* born around that time. Witness: Yes, but I did not know that. And there was no compelling reason for my Magi to make that inference. Inquisitor: What did Yves say when you reported their interpretation? Witness: He told me to continue fighting against it. If they continued to believe it, I was to try to keep that interpretation quiet, or at least keep them from acting on it. I failed. I failed even despite the use of Divine Logic. They decided to seek out this newborn king. I reported to Yves, and he told me, in that case, to direct them straight to Bethlehem. Again, I failed. They went to Jerusalem, to King Herod. As a result-- Inquisitor: Yes. Do you believe you were up against covert infernal resistance? Witness: I do. I am not so incompetent, nor are my charges so unreasonable, that I would normally fail. It is possible that the interference was Ethereal, or even Celestial, but that seems very unlikely. Inquisitor: We may hope so. - --- Earl ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1057 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.