[Obdigore]

Illuyankas, on 02 February 2010 - 10:42 PM, said:

What if it's an EOTWism?

IAMDMAIDRCism?

[Stradivarius]

hmmm i was also thinking that the ikovioan (the redemtion god?) had a few startling possible links to christianity

[HoosierDaddy]

Stradivarius, on 02 February 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

hmmm i was also thinking that the ikovioan (the redemtion god?) had a few startling possible links to christianity

But he got a power-up with Seerdomin. Actually, the two combined make up the closest configuration to christianity we've seen in the books. The Redeemer redeems anyone, without fail. That's why he was so vulnerable to abuse. It's Seerdomin's job to tell who deserves redemption amongst those who come to him so it isn't abused.

Edit: This thread is weird.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 02 February 2010 - 10:57 PM

[Terez]

Obdigore, on 02 February 2010 - 10:27 PM, said:

Terez, on 02 February 2010 - 10:26 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 02 February 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

You mean the dark one is just one side of the creator? Like yin and yang?

No. More like, the Creator created the world, and then got trapped by it, and the Wheel, being the non-sentient super-computer, automatically tossed out correctives to keep him from escaping.

The Dark One calls the 'Dragon' his 'ancient enemy', but never mentions the Creator. Ishamael believes that the Creator made the world and left it to fend for itself, going on to create other worlds, and not caring if any of them fell by the wayside. The rest of the world believes that the Creator simply doesn't interfere. But what if he can't interfere? Some people believe that the voice that spoke to Rand at the Eye of the world was the Creator, and some believe it was the Dark One. What if it's both?

what if it is neither and was Lews Therimon in one of his semi-lucid moments?

1. Rand didn't start getting the memories till book 4.
2. Lews Therin never 'spoke' in all caps.
3. Whether Lews Therin was lucid or not largely depended on whether or not Rand's subconscious thoughts made any sense.

[kingnothing]

Apologies if offendedd anyone with the concept. I'm not bagging God, I'm just saying there are some concepts in christianity that lead towards punishment as a form of a redemption or whatever.

And, um, how did this thread transition to WOT? Anyway thanks for the input. No matter what you believe in.

[Terez]

It transitioned to WoT because Bubba moved it to the DB and that made it fair game for non-Malazan discussion. Sorry about that, bud.

[Tiste Simeon]

kingnothing, on 03 February 2010 - 03:55 AM, said:

Apologies if offendedd anyone with the concept. I'm not bagging God, I'm just saying there are some concepts in christianity that lead towards punishment as a form of a redemption or whatever.

And, um, how did this thread transition to WOT? Anyway thanks for the input. No matter what you believe in.

No worries man, I just don't like the idea that some people have that redemption is gained through punishment. That is nothing like the Christian teachings, and I would be interested to know where this concept came from.

[kingnothing]

Tiste Simeon, on 03 February 2010 - 12:34 PM, said:

kingnothing, on 03 February 2010 - 03:55 AM, said:

Apologies if offendedd anyone with the concept. I'm not bagging God, I'm just saying there are some concepts in christianity that lead towards punishment as a form of a redemption or whatever.

And, um, how did this thread transition to WOT? Anyway thanks for the input. No matter what you believe in.

No worries man, I just don't like the idea that some people have that redemption is gained through punishment. That is nothing like the Christian teachings, and I would be interested to know where this concept came from.

I don't think it's the general sort of nature of christian teachings. I should have said that it compares to some of the more extreme versions of Christian teachings, and even then there isn't that many people who would follow that sort of path. I guess though that alot religions have that sort aspect, the pain aspect in their writings...
Don't you think there is quite a bit of pain and suffering that occurs within religious texts? I mean the Bible is chock full of them, although it's because alot of the time humans have sinned so they are punished accordingly, which is actually the opposite of what I was saying before.
Not sure if that makes it clearer for you but yeah, I'm rambling again.

[Dolorous Menhir]

[quote name='Terez' date='02 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1265151960' post='725736'][/quote]
1. Rand didn't start getting the memories till book 4.
2. Lews Therin never 'spoke' in all caps.
3. Whether Lews Therin was lucid or not largely depended on whether or not Rand's subconscious thoughts made any sense.
[/quote]

A voice spoke to Rand around the time of his battle with Aginor in the Eye of the World. It didn't act like the Lews Therin we saw later. I always thought it was the Creator, who else could it be, except the DO?

[Terez]

Dolorous Menhir, on 06 February 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

A voice spoke to Rand around the time of his battle with Aginor in the Eye of the World. It didn't act like the Lews Therin we saw later. I always thought it was the Creator, who else could it be, except the DO?

Well, that was what I said. Most people think it was the Creator, but some think it was the Dark One, and if the Creator=the Dark One, then it was both (silly theory perhaps, but there it is). So when Obdi suggested it might be Lews Therin, I countered with reasons why that didn't make sense.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Ok, sorry Terez. I read that as you stating there was no voice in book 1.

[Terez]

It's okay, I still <3 you.

[Vesper]

Slow Ben, on 02 February 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:

Yeah, I dont know where you get your info, but that sounds nothing like my religion.

It sounds exactly like it, to me. Mother Theresa, after all, went through a bout where she lost her faith, and it caused her great distress. When she regained it, however, she interpreted that God had caused her to lose her faith so that, in her suffering, she might be brought closer to Him.

She then took this to mean that suffering is a good thing, because it brings people closer to God, and led her to provide grossly inadequate care in her hospitals (tantamount to torture), so as that they might be healed spiritually.

So devout followers (held as idols to others in the faith) who exact torture on friend and foe alike... I can't tell the difference between a devoutly religious individual and a sociopath in this case.

(Note: I don't mean to imply that all Christians are sociopaths, or that they're evil, just that we ought to be judged by our actions and -- well -- OP makes a glaring point.)

This post has been edited by Vesper: 13 February 2010 - 08:45 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Would you mind sourcing Mother Teresa as a torturer in her hospitals?

[Slow Ben]

Yeah, i'd like to see that too.


I'm not saying he's not making a good discussion point, I'm just saying that my relationship with God is nothing like that and i dont know anyone who's is. But i'm sure they're out there.

[Terez]

I don't suppose any of you guys read the Book of Job, huh?

[Slow Ben]

Yes, but i havent talked to Job in years so he doesnt count as people I know.

[Tiste Simeon]

I think you people are getting "faith and a relationship with God" mixed up with "Crazy extreme fundies in the States claiming to be Christian" And yes, suffering is part of life, and people are very quick to blame God when suffering comes along. But let me ask you this... If you, who are happy to accept God when He is someone to blame, why do you not accept Him when there is good stuff happening? You can't just blame God for something bad and then ignore Him when something good happens... It's not rational... Either don't blame God for suffering or thank Him when life is good!

[Terez]

Who are you talking to Tiste? I don't know anyone who blames God for their sufferings that does not also believe in God. That area of thought where you both a ) believe in God, and b ) think he is out to get you, is an uncomfortable place to be, so most people who reach that point either a ) have a resurgence of faith after the initial trauma, and return to thanking him for all the good stuff, or b ) stop believing in God, because if he's real, then he's a prick, and there's no real evidence for his existence anyway, so no use believing. And, if you don't believe, then there's no good reason to either a ) blame God for your sufferings or b ) thank him for fortuitous coincidences.

This post has been edited by Terez: 15 February 2010 - 07:25 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Vesper, on 13 February 2010 - 08:44 PM, said:

So devout followers (held as idols to others in the faith) who exact torture on friend and foe alike... I can't tell the difference between a devoutly religious individual and a sociopath in this case.

I was referring to this... And I know that afterwards, he does state

Quote

(Note: I don't mean to imply that all Christians are sociopaths, or that they're evil, just that we ought to be judged by our actions and -- well -- OP makes a glaring point.)

but it seems to me that the whole "God causes suffering" thing is the predominant theme of this post.