0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Guys, it's actually pretty straightforward. On Earwa, there is an Old Testament-like God that is Real, and he judges people. If you disobey his rules, your immaterial 'soul' (which again, is 'real' although how something immaterial can be real we just have to close our eyes and accept like flying men and dragons, and fireballs) gets 'stained' with 'sin' and you are 'damned' when you die.You do sorcery? Stain.You anger the gods? Stain.You profane the tusk? Stain.You murder the righteous? Stain.What is NOT straightforward is what damnation actually is. The Inchoroi's bitch boys (the Consult) seem to think it's THE WORST THING EVER, thanks to the Inverse Fire, which lets them glimpse it.Speculation:Also, it is not established that the rules, according to God (who seems to be broken into pieces) are always static. It's possible that certain acts alter the rules. When the Inchoroi added a few key sentences to the Tusk, the belief of men changed, and that belief may in turn influence the way the God, Outside, sees acts.
Callan, no ad hominem wasn't intended.But it is pointless to carry on this conversation, since it is oneway and uncommunicative. We're speaking different languages. There's no point in continuing when I use a metaphor and you don't address the metaphor at all and instead isolate a variable and then start talking about which laws of physics apply to the isolated variable.
Jorge, well what's not straight forward is why does anyone associate this stain you talk about, to do with their own sense of morality? If people said they have no sense of morality, it just exist as some external thing to them - well, I'd argue that, but I could see where they are coming from.As is, stain apparently==morality, yet morality<>morality.Unless there are two moralities in play, how can there be an objective morality which <> ones own morality?QuoteBut it is pointless to carry on this conversation, since it is oneway and uncommunicative. We're speaking different languages. There's no point in continuing when I use a metaphor and you don't address the metaphor at all and instead isolate a variable and then start talking about which laws of physics apply to the isolated variable.I think you've just described science. If I may flatter myself in having taken such an approach.The problem is, we may be speaking two different languages, but if my schoolmen's choir can summon mobile phones, expanded human life spans, atomic bombs, the internet were both talking by, etc - ie, when this language I speak commands the world, what happens when you turn away from it as 'a different language'? What world will you be left with?Yes, I isolate variables of your metaphor and disect them. If this is representative of science, then don't turn away. Beware!
But it is pointless to carry on this conversation, since it is oneway and uncommunicative. We're speaking different languages. There's no point in continuing when I use a metaphor and you don't address the metaphor at all and instead isolate a variable and then start talking about which laws of physics apply to the isolated variable.
It's not easy being Teal for me! It's not either/or, but it is in part. If I can be a teal, I can be a good mix of all simultaneously. To evolve from one color to the other in a linear sequence is not seeing the forest for the trees. Although, being all blue one moment then on to green the next is viable. But you can't cling to one forever, although, it is fun temporarily experiencing it.
possible that certain acts alter the rulesgod does not play at benjuka.
That's what benjuka wants you to think.
