{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4682", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4682, "subject": "Original Sin and pagan gods", "messages": 21, "voices": 8, "first": "2006-08-06T12:48:25+00:00", "last": "2006-08-27T10:45:51+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-06T12:48:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Continuing to try to interpret the subtext of BotNS in terms of Christianity \nreplacing pagan religions:\n\nThe flood was meant to purify humanity from contamination while Jesus \nbrought a different way of purifying sin. The contamination of humanity \nwith nephilim and Original Sin were both products of people interacting with \nfallen angels or demons/devils.\n\nWhat was Original Sin? Eating of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of \nKnowledge was a disobedience of God's rule but what knowledge was gained? \nAdam and Eve's first act after eating the fruit was not to invent calculus \nor philosophy but to cover themselves with fig leaves. So the forbidden \nknowledge they gained was a sexual awareness of each other. Why would sex \nbe forbidden when God gave us the equipment and later wanted the Earth \npopulated with humans?\n\nThe anthropologist's \"Universal Taboo\" is incest. From a SF (and perhaps \nWolfe's) perspective, using Adam's rib to create Eve would be a form of \ncloning. So Adam and Eve were really the closest of siblings, identical \ntwins. Even if that weren't true, Adam and Eve's children were full \nsiblings and their intercourse was all incestuous. Perhaps the Universal \nTaboo and Original Sin are the same thing and that's what God was trying to \navoid in Eden.\n\nThe pagan competitors to Judeo-Christianity seem to condone incest. Their \npantheons of gods and goddesses were all brothers and sisters or otherwise \nclose family members and it was normal for them to mate with each other. Of \ncourse they didn't have a lot of choices of mates and this religious quirk \nwas probably meant to justify the incestuous marriages of ruling dynasties \nwhich maintained royal blood lines. Monothesim allows God to remain pure, \nwith no incest possible. This may be why monotheism was first popular among \nnomadic Hebrews and Arabs who didn't have an incestuous ruling class.\n\nIn Greek mythology it was common for the gods to go outside their incestuous \nmarriages and mate with humans. Zeus was most notorious for this, though it \ninfuriated his sister/wife, Hera. He had to hide his transgressions by \nappearing to human women in various forms, most notably as a bull, a swan \nand a shower of golden light. Wolfe mentions a beam of light, a bull and a \nswan in the Play and in a dream sequence after the battle of Orithyia. I \nthink this is Wolfe saying that humanity and specifically, Severian's \nfamily, have been contaminated by a matings with the Urth equivalent of \npagan gods.\n\nI think this idea is supported by combining the 5HoC idea of shapeshipfters \nwho can imitate humans closely enough to mate and the direct interaction of \nGreek gods and humans we see in the Latro books. Moreover I was really \nstruck recently by this Wolfe discussion about the Latro books in a James \nJordan interview:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "JJ: Which is another way of saying, do we have fallen angels here or some \ntype of power that >really was operative in the world before the kingdom of \nGod?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "GW: That is my personal belief. I think that the gods of paganism were \nreal. But what I tried to do >was to write about that pagan world as the \npagans themselves wrote about it. If we read modern >historians we are \nreading a very rationalistic viewpoint of this which says that all of these \npeople >were absolutely wasting their time by building temples to Ares or \nApollo or you name it. And by >offering sacrifices in worship and all that \nit was nothing there. Nothing at all there and that >whether it is true or \nnot that certainly is not the way the people who were doing it felt. They \nwere convinced that there was something there and they had all sorts of \nlegends and so forth >about the appearances of the god and in fact there is \none place in the Acts where Paul and >another one of the apostles are \nmistaken for Zeus and Mercury. Zeus and Hermes, we are mixing >the Latin \nand the Greek which is what I was trying to get away from. They are \nmistaken for Zeus >and Hermes in human form because people in those days \nexpected that you could see Zeus and >Hermes in human form. I am not so \nsure they were wrong. I am not convinced that they were >wrong. We love to \nthink how much smarter we are than people of ancient times or biblical \ntimes >or so forth but I am very dubious about that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608061155y46f443c7tda2c5e71b3dae6de@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-06T18:55:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "b writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The flood was meant to purify humanity from contamination" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "... ummm, not in any Bible I've ever read. God means to wipe out\nall life on Earth, then gives Noah & family a reprieve. Though\nNoah \"walked with God\" and all that, he is not \"pure\" -- first,\nbecause he's descended from Adam and thus subject to the\ntaint of original sin (though that is not really a concept in the\nOT); second, because he's a drunkard. So reducing the human\nrace to Noah isn't \"purifying\" by any means." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "while Jesus brought a different way of purifying sin. The\ncontamination of humanity with nephilim and Original Sin\nwere both products of people interacting with fallen angels\nor demons/devils." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The idea that the serpent was \"the devil,\" or even a devil,\nis decidedly a bit of latter-day retconning: in Genesis, he's\njust, well, a serpent. As for the nephilim ... nobody really\nhas a clue what they were supposed to be." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What was Original Sin? Eating of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of\nKnowledge was a disobedience of God's rule but what knowledge\nwas gained?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It isn't \"the tree of knowledge,\" it's the \"tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil,\" which answers the question. What that means is\na whole nother question. Charles Williams (the third of the fantasists\nwho hung about with CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien in \"the Inklings\")\nsuggested that we should consider it \"the knowledge of good _as_\nevil\" -- the idea that all that was created was good, and sin allows\nus to see it as not-good. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's\ninteresting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam and Eve's first act after eating the fruit was not to invent calculus\nor philosophy but to cover themselves with fig leaves. So the forbidden\nknowledge they gained was a sexual awareness of each other." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Uhhh... no. Adam covers himself with fig leaves because \"I saw that\nI was naked, and I was afraid.\" The first \"knowledge\" gained from\nknowing good and evil is the knowledge of how vulnerable we naked\napes are.\n\nThis kind of obviates the entire question of sex being forbidden, but\nlet's look at this detail..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The anthropologist's \"Universal Taboo\" is incest. From a SF (and\nperhaps Wolfe's) perspective, using Adam's rib to create Eve would\nbe a form of cloning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummmm.... not so much. It's pretty clear that more than simple\ngrowth would be involved. You're thinking of miracles as scientific\nprocesses; what Wolfe does (viz the cathedral and the balloon)\nis to think of scientific processes as miracles." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So Adam and Eve were really the closest of siblings, identical\ntwins. Even if that weren't true, Adam and Eve's children were full\nsiblings and their intercourse was all incestuous." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. While Genesis doesn't say where they came from, it's clear\nthat there are other people in the world: Cain leaves home after\nkilling Abel, and finds a wife _somewhere_ out there.\n\nOn the other hand, your point about the incestuous nature of the\npantheons of the surrounding peoples is right to the mark. In\nparticular, in Egypt -- which to the early Israelites was clearly\nHell on Earth -- the incestuous relations between the gods mirrored\n(or was mirrored in) the incestuous marriages of the Pharaohs.\nThe throne descended through the female line; to keep it, the\nPharaohs would marry mothers, sisters, and daughters. This was\njustified by Osiris' marriage to Isis; but which came first? The\nprimary cult of the Old Kingdom was the cult of Ra; the rise\nof the cult of Osiris (and Isis, Horus, and Anubis) came later.\n\nSo, yeah, that point is very well made." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-07T11:49:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608061155y46f443c7tda2c5e71b3dae6de@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Regarding Dan'l's response (copied below), I'll have to express chagrin that \nLilith wasn't mentioned which makes me think he didn't read my \"E&G- the \nneed for Ushas\" post which was inspired by an earlier prompt from him (and \nduly noted ;-) ). I think some of the objections he makes were addressed \nthere. Nonetheless...\n\nDan'l, you seem to agree with the main point of this thread, that the pagan \ngods, the competitors to Judeo-Christianity, were incestuous. Whether this \nis important to Urth and especially Severian remains to be seen, but I think \nit is. I have one or two essay-like posts left in me on this topic, then \nI'm done. So this next part is just hair-splitting, for fun.\n\nRegarding your alternate interpretations of Genesis I can only note that the \nones I used are certainly not my own. Seeing the talking serpent as \nrepresenting the Devil, the flood as God's cleansing of evil from earth, and \nAdam and Eve as the parents of all humanity are all fairly standard \ninterpretations I think. I find plenty of references, anyway. Your view of \nthe fig leaf as a surrogate protective fur coat for a \"naked ape\" is pretty \nradical and anthropological (was that from Desmond Morris? or Carl Sagan, \nDragons of Eden?). I think the interpretation of the fig leaf representing \nsexual shame is more mainstream. Other opinions on this, anyone?\n\nBut to me the main point isn't about finding true word of God or the \nmajority Christian or secular scholarly opinion of the Bible but rather Gene \nWolfe's interpretation. In the past, when I read Dr. Talos' play I loved it \nbut I didn't have much of a clue as to what it meant. Now, almost every \nline makes sense interpreted within the Genesis/Pagan god/Christianity \nframework I'm trying to build. If there is an another way to interpret it, \nI am definitely interested and I hope it will be posted. But in 9 years of \nposts in here and in all the other potential sources out there I haven't \nseen anything notable. Maybe Peter Wright's Attending Daedalus has \nsomething about E&G but after reading excerpts from that book I haven't \nworked up the nerve to buy it yet :)).\n\nI think Wright addresses BotNS from a socialist perspective, with a strong \nimplied criticism of imperialism and colonialism. I am comfortable with \nthis interpretation within my own framework, as I think BotNS might be \nimplying that such evils of humanity are derived from the same source as all \nevil, that being interaction with fallen angels/demons/pagan gods. In the \ntext, the corrupt Autarch of Eschatology and Genesis and the multi-world \nmonarchy of Typhon are examples of social evil in contrast to more personal \nsins.\n\n-bsharp\n\n\nDan'ls Post:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "b writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The flood was meant to purify humanity from contamination" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "... ummm, not in any Bible I've ever read. God means to wipe out\nall life on Earth, then gives Noah & family a reprieve. Though\nNoah \"walked with God\" and all that, he is not \"pure\" -- first,\nbecause he's descended from Adam and thus subject to the\ntaint of original sin (though that is not really a concept in the\nOT); second, because he's a drunkard. So reducing the human\nrace to Noah isn't \"purifying\" by any means." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "while Jesus brought a different way of purifying sin. The\ncontamination of humanity with nephilim and Original Sin\nwere both products of people interacting with fallen angels\nor demons/devils." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The idea that the serpent was \"the devil,\" or even a devil,\nis decidedly a bit of latter-day retconning: in Genesis, he's\njust, well, a serpent. As for the nephilim ... nobody really\nhas a clue what they were supposed to be." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What was Original Sin? Eating of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of\nKnowledge was a disobedience of God's rule but what knowledge\nwas gained?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It isn't \"the tree of knowledge,\" it's the \"tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil,\" which answers the question. What that means is\na whole nother question. Charles Williams (the third of the fantasists\nwho hung about with CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien in \"the Inklings\")\nsuggested that we should consider it \"the knowledge of good _as_\nevil\" -- the idea that all that was created was good, and sin allows\nus to see it as not-good. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's\ninteresting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam and Eve's first act after eating the fruit was not to invent calculus\nor philosophy but to cover themselves with fig leaves. So the forbidden\nknowledge they gained was a sexual awareness of each other." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Uhhh... no. Adam covers himself with fig leaves because \"I saw that\nI was naked, and I was afraid.\" The first \"knowledge\" gained from\nknowing good and evil is the knowledge of how vulnerable we naked\napes are.\n\nThis kind of obviates the entire question of sex being forbidden, but\nlet's look at this detail..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The anthropologist's \"Universal Taboo\" is incest. From a SF (and\nperhaps Wolfe's) perspective, using Adam's rib to create Eve would\nbe a form of cloning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummmm.... not so much. It's pretty clear that more than simple\ngrowth would be involved. You're thinking of miracles as scientific\nprocesses; what Wolfe does (viz the cathedral and the balloon)\nis to think of scientific processes as miracles." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So Adam and Eve were really the closest of siblings, identical\ntwins. Even if that weren't true, Adam and Eve's children were full\nsiblings and their intercourse was all incestuous." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. While Genesis doesn't say where they came from, it's clear\nthat there are other people in the world: Cain leaves home after\nkilling Abel, and finds a wife _somewhere_ out there.\n\nOn the other hand, your point about the incestuous nature of the\npantheons of the surrounding peoples is right to the mark. In\nparticular, in Egypt -- which to the early Israelites was clearly\nHell on Earth -- the incestuous relations between the gods mirrored\n(or was mirrored in) the incestuous marriages of the Pharaohs.\nThe throne descended through the female line; to keep it, the\nPharaohs would marry mothers, sisters, and daughters. This was\njustified by Osiris' marriage to Isis; but which came first? The\nprimary cult of the Old Kingdom was the cult of Ra; the rise\nof the cult of Osiris (and Isis, Horus, and Anubis) came later." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So, yeah, that point is very well made." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": ">Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608071130w401363f8y45740df69debd6dc@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-07T18:30:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "B --\n\nI certainly did read your post regarding \"the need for Ushas\"; I\nthought I had responded to it! Perhaps not. I'm having a kind of\nweird time right through here, between depression and lack of\nemployment, and sometimes my mind wanders." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l, you seem to agree with the main point of this thread, that\nthe pagan gods, the competitors to Judeo-Christianity, were\nincestuous." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Right, and that this is particularly true of Egypt, the single culture\nthat Israel seems most to have defined itself _against_; indeed,\nmuch of the Mosaic \"Law of Cleanliness\" can be seen as reactions\nagainst the practices of Egypt and, to an almost-as-great extent,\ntheir nearer neighbors (Phoenicia, Philistia, Moab, etc.). I honestly\nthink you can't understand ancient Israel without understanding\nancient Egypt." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whether this is important to Urth and especially Severian remains\nto be seen, but I think it is. I have one or two essay-like posts left in\nme on this topic, then I'm done. So this next part is just hair-splitting,\nfor fun." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Understood and will respond appropriately 8*)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Regarding your alternate interpretations of Genesis I can only\nnote that the ones I used are certainly not my own. Seeing the\ntalking serpent as representing the Devil, the flood as God's\ncleansing of evil from earth, and Adam and Eve as the parents of\nall humanity are all fairly standard interpretations I think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Talking serpent as representing (or possessed by, etc.) the\nSatan, absolutely, this is standard stuff.\n\nRegarding the flood, a small distinction between what you\njust said here and what you said before, what I argued with:\nearlier, you said it was to \"purify humanity from contamination.\"\nThat's rather different from cleansing evil from the Earth, which\nI don't argue with at all. The difference being, of course, that the\ncleansing of evil from the Earth would have involved wiping out\nall of humanity.\n\n \"I will rid the earth's face of man, my own creation,\"\n Yahweh said, \"and of animals also, reptiles too, and\n the birds of heaven, for I regret having made them.\"\n Gen. 6: 7, Jerusalem Bible.\n\nThis isn't about purifying humanity; it's about removing humanity.\n\n(\"You are a disease, Mister Anderson, and I am the cure.\")\n\nAdam and Eve as the parents of all humanity? No argument\nthere, provided we take it to mean \"all humanity is descended\nfrom them.\" But _only_ from them? Again, I refer you to Cain,\nwho seems to have found a wife in \"the land of Nod, east of\nEden.\" Yes, traditionalists insist that there were no other humans,\nbut they kind of waffle on the whole idea that A&E's kids actually\ncommitted incest. The escape hatch they never seem to find is\nthat Genesis describes creation twice, and one of these makes\nit clear that God created humanity in the plural (Gen. 1:26-30).\nAdam was special and set apart -- the one into whose nostrils\nGod breathed (\"breath\" being \"ruach,\" eq. to \"pneuma\" or\n\"spiritus\" -- in English, breath-wind-spirit) the breath of life." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find\nplenty of references, anyway. Your view of\nthe fig leaf as a surrogate protective fur coat for a \"naked ape\" is pretty\nradical and anthropological" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry; I was borrowing a phrase, but didn't intend anything\nparticularly radical or anthropological by it. What Genesis actually\nsays is, first, \"...they realized that they were naked. So they\nsewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths.\" Note\nthat they didn't realize they were naked and start having monkey\nsex; being naked _bothered_ them. Why? \"I was afraid because\nI was naked, so I hid,\" Adam tells God. The key point here being\nthat he was _afraid_, not ashamed. The knowledge granted by the\nfruit -- knowledge of good and evil, not biology -- brings _fear_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think the interpretation of the fig leaf representing sexual shame\nis more mainstream. Other opinions on this, anyone?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm. So, since when is Wolfe all that mainstream?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But to me the main point isn't about finding true word of God or the\nmajority Christian or secular scholarly opinion of the Bible but rather\nGene Wolfe's interpretation. In the past, when I read Dr. Talos' play\nI loved it but I didn't have much of a clue as to what it meant. Now,\nalmost every line makes sense interpreted within the Genesis/Pagan\ngod/Christianity framework I'm trying to build." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Strangely, I think this is entirely likely. However, I don't see the\nnecessity of traditional-but-not-scripturally-based interpretations\nof Genesis to make this work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think Wright addresses BotNS from a socialist perspective, with a\nstrong implied criticism of imperialism and colonialism." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How very interesting ... Wolfe himself seems to be rather more\nconservative politically; but then, I've seen socialist interpretations\nof \"Atlas Shrugged.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am comfortable with this interpretation within my own framework,\nas I think BotNS might be implying that such evils of humanity are\nderived from the same source as all evil, that being interaction with\nfallen angels/demons/pagan gods." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yesno. I'm good with saying that fa/d/pgs make suggestions that\nhumans act on. But the evil comes from our own freely made choices,\nor we're automata, which I'm pretty sure my fellow-Catholic Wolfe\nwould not wish to suggest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the text, the corrupt Autarch of Eschatology and Genesis and the\nmulti-world monarchy of Typhon are examples of social evil in\ncontrast to more personal sins." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Typhon, at least, has his full share of personal sin as well..." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-08T03:47:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608071130w401363f8y45740df69debd6dc@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well some interesting discussion points Dan'l (and wishing for an immediate \nimprovement in the employment situation! Someplace must soon discover the \nvaluable mind they are missing). I'm not a Biblical scholar or really much \nof a scholar at all but I'll do my best to respond.\n\nDan'l writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Regarding the flood, a small distinction between what you just said here \nand what you said >before, what I argued with: earlier, you said it was to \n\"purify humanity from contamination.\"\nThat's rather different from cleansing evil from the Earth, which I don't \nargue with at all. The >difference being, of course, that the cleansing of \nevil from the Earth would have involved wiping >out all of humanity.\n \"I will rid the earth's face of man, my own creation,\"\n Yahweh said, \"and of animals also, reptiles too, and\n the birds of heaven, for I regret having made them.\"\n Gen. 6: 7, Jerusalem Bible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This isn't about purifying humanity; it's about removing humanity. (\"You \nare a disease, Mister >Anderson, and I am the cure.\")" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First thanks for The Matrix quote. Just saw it again recently. Agent Smith \nis easily one of my favorite movie characters ever. His \"humans are not \nmammals but a virus\" speech is so classic, imho. I love Hugo Weaving's \nperformance\n\nNext, (sorry I couldn't find Jerusalem Bible) the next verses after 6:7 say:\n6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.\n6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect \nin his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.\n\nNot sure where you got the part about Noah being a drunk but God seems to \nthink Noah and his family are quite worth saving. \"Perfect in his \ngenerations\" to me says \"uncontaminated by matings with fallen angels\". The \nwhole part about \"Nephilim\" comes right before the Noah section.\n\nYou said you don't think anyone understands what Nephilim are but how can \nthat be? What sort of Bible is incomprehensible to all people at all times \nin history? Anyway I think Gene Wolfe agrees with the pundits who think the \nnephilim, the \"great men of reknown\", were giants,(and thus Nod, in the \nplay). I like one analyst who suggested this might be reference to the well \nknown Sumerian giant/heroes Gilgamesh and Enkidu. I think ancient Hebrews \nwould know of them, since we do.\n\nI should be more careful with my words, however, when describing the flood \nand WHICH flood I mean, (Urth or Earth). I really am more interested in \nBotNS than the Bible. I only study the Bible, currently, to try to see the \nsource that Wolfe twisted into the BotNS.\n\nSo, anyway, in BotNS, humanity as a race doesn't seem to matter much with \nregard to purity. They did their part to produce the Hiero race, despite \nbeing contaminated. But as Apheta notes, humanity has already been strewn \nacross the galaxy, too spread out to be dealt with as a whole. It is the \nplanet Urth that matters and the Hieros will purify it (symbolic gesture?) \none way or another. Freezing it would do the job (and they would evacuate \nthe remaining humans, Master Ash says). Urth would be pure and lifeless. \nBut Severian is willing to risk everything to have it purified, reborn and \nrepopulated (not that he really understands what he is doing).\n\nIsn't this the same choice God made? Destroy everything, or destroy almost \neverything, purify and repopulate. This makes Tzadkiel's ship like the ark \nand the sailors who repopulate Ushas like Noah and family, yes? (I know not \neveryone thinks it was the sailors who were landed on flood day).\n\nDan'l says:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam and Eve as the parents of all humanity? No argument there, provided we \ntake it to >mean \"all humanity is descended from them.\" But _only_ from \nthem? Again, I refer you to Cain,\nwho seems to have found a wife in \"the land of Nod, east of Eden.\" Yes, \ntraditionalists insist that >there were no other humans,but they kind of \nwaffle on the whole idea that A&E's kids actually\ncommitted incest. The escape hatch they never seem to find is that Genesis \ndescribes creation >twice, and one of these makes it clear that God created \nhumanity in the plural (Gen. 1:26-30).\nAdam was special and set apart -- the one into whose nostrils God breathed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know that it is \"Clear\" but this \"creating humanity twice\" \ninterpretation is exactly where the Lilith myth comes into play for the \nKabbalists. Notice it wasn't just any old son of Adam who found a wife in \nNod, but Cain the first murderer. So if Cain's wife was not a daughter of \nEve, then she was someone like Lilith (or maybe Lilith herself). Not a \nspecial creation. No soul. Notice the Catch 22 God sets up here with human \ncreation. Either you mate with your sister or mate with some soulless \nalternate, not really human, maybe a demon. In fact, Kabbalism suggests \nthat Adam was mating with animals first then pleaded with God for a true \nmate and that's what produced Lilith, then Eve. There is just no way to \navoid sin is there? Ah well, they say all successful religions are based on \ncontradiction.\n\nDan'l quotes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"...they realized that they were naked. So they\nsewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths.\" Note that they \ndidn't realize they were >naked and start having monkey sex; being naked \n_bothered_ them. Why? \"I was afraid because\nI was naked, so I hid,\" Adam tells God. The key point here being that he \nwas _afraid_, not >ashamed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I still don't get this point about Original Sin not being sexual. He made a \nloincloth. Doesn't that show he was afraid of his penis and what it could \ndo. If he was afraid of...I dunno,....snakes or lions or thunderstorms he \nwould make a spear or a treehouse or a poncho wouldn't he? What good is a \nloincloth except covering sexual parts? (some tribal men just use a gourd \nand Red Hot Chili Peppers used only socks on stage ;-).\n\nLastly Dan'l says:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm good with saying that fallen angels/demons/pagan gods make suggestions \nthat humans act on. >But the evil comes from our own freely made choices, \nor we're automata, which I'm pretty sure >my fellow-Catholic Wolfe would \nnot wish to suggest." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure of that. I know free will is a strong component of most \nChristian faiths but I am not sure Gene Wolfe fully believes that it \ndominates every decision in our lives. I found it excruciatingly, \ncringingly important in the Wolfe quote I put in at the end of my first \n\"Original Sin and pagan gods\" post, where Wolfe says he believes in pagan \ngods as real entities who interacted with humans. These beings are \nsuperhuman, they can fool us completely sometimes if we are not armed with \nthe proper knowledge. So we can be tricked into doing evil through \nignorance. And sometimes God allows this.\n\nTake for example, Dorcas. Severian has sex with his own grandmother. Is \nthat sort of incest an evil act or not? It has to be an evil act by any \ncultural defintion, yet we really don't blame Severian do we? He didn't \nknow at the time, and Dorcas was the most right and good thing ever in \nSeverian's life. (I'll note that I think Severian did know Valeria was a \nfamily member and his consciously celibate marriage to her was a step toward \nhis/humanity's salvation, but I mustn't get ahead of myself).\n\nOn the other hand, take Severian's decision on his Judgement Day. He has \nthe choice to stay safe with the crew and let the big Zak personage take his \nplace as Urth's Epitome. He is swayed by fear and by very rational \narguments from his crewmates to just stay put. Zak is a better choice. But \nhe knows he IS Urth's epitome and acts only on that knowledge, blocking all \nelse out and accepting responsibility. So in this situation he was fully \narmed with the knowledge he needed and used it and did the right thing. \nFree will is only available in situations when we have the proper knowledge \nof right and wrong, yes? And then again, when Severian sees the destruction \nof Urth needed to create Ushas he doubts the rightness of his choice \nafterall. Is this Wolfe's further exploration of the ambiguity of The Path?\n\nPeter Wright, (if I understand him) in his godless, Marxist, socialist glee \n;-) takes that last part to mean that God (if he actualy existed) is just as \nevil, self-serving and manipulative as Lucifer and Severian is caught in an \nevil web, pulled from all sides, too complex for him to see. I don't think \nthis is Wolfe's view.\n\nI think in leaving the angels and demons (Hieros and Megatherians in my \ninterpretation) of BotNS very mysterious and hard to understand, Wolfe is \nsaying that there are heavenly machinations; battles between good and evil \nwhich are above us and beyond our understanding. But in crucial situations, \nwe humans will be given enough knowledge to make the right choice.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060808061319.60902.qmail@web32402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "don doggett", "address": "kingwukong at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-08-08T06:13:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- b sharp wrote:\n\n Ah well, they say all" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "successful religions are based on \ncontradiction.\n\nDan'l quotes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"...they realized that they were naked. So they\nsewed fig leaves together to make themselves\nloincloths.\" Note that they \ndidn't realize they were >naked and start having\nmonkey sex; being naked \n_bothered_ them. Why? \"I was afraid because\nI was naked, so I hid,\" Adam tells God. The key\npoint here being that he \nwas _afraid_, not >ashamed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I still don't get this point about Original Sin not\nbeing sexual. He made a \nloincloth. Doesn't that show he was afraid of his\npenis and what it could \ndo. If he was afraid of...I dunno,....snakes or \nlions or thunderstorms he \nwould make a spear or a treehouse or a poncho\nwouldn't he? What good is a \nloincloth except covering sexual parts? (some tribal\nmen just use a gourd \nand Red Hot Chili Peppers used only socks on stage \n;-).\n\nLastly Dan'l says:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm good with saying that fallen\nangels/demons/pagan gods make suggestions \nthat humans act on. >But the evil comes from our\nown freely made choices, \nor we're automata, which I'm pretty sure >my\nfellow-Catholic Wolfe would \nnot wish to suggest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure of that. I know free will is a strong\ncomponent of most \nChristian faiths but I am not sure Gene Wolfe fully\nbelieves that it \ndominates every decision in our lives. I found it\nexcruciatingly, \ncringingly important in the Wolfe quote I put in at\nthe end of my first \n\"Original Sin and pagan gods\" post, where Wolfe says\nhe believes in pagan \ngods as real entities who interacted with humans. \nThese beings are \nsuperhuman, they can fool us completely sometimes if\nwe are not armed with \nthe proper knowledge. So we can be tricked into\ndoing " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "=== message truncated ===" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060808064526.11219.qmail@web32408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "don doggett", "address": "kingwukong at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-08-08T06:45:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<20060808061319.60902.qmail@web32402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi all, \n\nSorry about the last post. I hit send instead of\ndelete. Ah well, here's what I meant to send\n\n--- b sharp wrote:\n\n Ah well, they say all" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "successful religions are based on \ncontradiction." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That and ambiguity, something Wolfe takes full\nadvantage of.\n\n(much snippage)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Take for example, Dorcas. Severian has sex with his\nown grandmother. Is \nthat sort of incest an evil act or not? It has to\nbe an evil act by any \ncultural defintion, yet we really don't blame\nSeverian do we? He didn't \nknow at the time, and Dorcas was the most right and\ngood thing ever in \nSeverian's life." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am still not convinced that Dorcas is Sev's\ngrandmother. Perhaps I'm just blind and stubborn, but\nit doesn't feel right to me at all. It makes no plot\nsense, no mythic sense, no moral sense, and it hinges\non such an obvious and ham handed revelation. It's\njust a dud to me.\n\n (I'll note that I think Severian" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "did know Valeria was a \nfamily member and his consciously celibate marriage\nto her was a step toward \nhis/humanity's salvation, but I mustn't get ahead of\nmyself)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. I am eager to read your take on Severian's family\ntree. I myself see Typhon and Ymar somewhere at the\nbase of it but I've never been able to make it take\nroot and grow." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Peter Wright, (if I understand him) in his godless,\nMarxist, socialist glee \n;-) takes that last part to mean that God (if he\nactualy existed) is just as \nevil, self-serving and manipulative as Lucifer and\nSeverian is caught in an \nevil web, pulled from all sides, too complex for him\nto see. I don't think \nthis is Wolfe's view." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Godless is right on the money. His argument is\nbasically that Sev is being cynically manipulated by\nthe Hierogrammates into believing he is a religious\nsavior. To Wright, god has no place at all in BotNS,\nand all of the side stories, Eschatology and Genesis\nincluded, are simply funhouse mirrors of the\nnarrative, pointing it back in on itself. It's a\npretty bleak and, to me, unconvincing argument.\nAttending Daedalus is, however, a well written book. \n\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001601c6bab8$5bfb9140$383ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-08-08T07:00:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<20060808064526.11219.qmail@web32408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "b sharp wrote:\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So, anyway, in BotNS, humanity as a race doesn't seem to matter much with\nregard to purity. They did their part to produce the Hiero race, despite\nbeing contaminated. But as Apheta notes, humanity has already been strewn\nacross the galaxy, too spread out to be dealt with as a whole. It is the\nplanet Urth that matters and the Hieros will purify it (symbolic gesture?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "one way or another. Freezing it would do the job (and they would evacuate\nthe remaining humans, Master Ash says). Urth would be pure and lifeless.\nBut Severian is willing to risk everything to have it purified, reborn and\nrepopulated (not that he really understands what he is doing).<<\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think in leaving the angels and demons (Hieros and Megatherians in my\ninterpretation) of BotNS very mysterious and hard to understand, Wolfe is\nsaying that there are heavenly machinations; battles between good and evil\nwhich are above us and beyond our understanding. But in crucial situations,\nwe humans will be given enough knowledge to make the right choice.<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-----------------------------------------------\n\nI can only conclude, from these two paragraphs, that you are using \"Hieros\"\nwhere you mean \"Hierogrammates\". The Hieros were/will be in no sense\nangelic. They were the race of humans, cognates of our (and Severian's)\nrace, who sinned on a grand scale in producing the race of beings known as\nHierogrammates, of which latter group Tzadkiel is an example.\n\nTzadkiel's examination of the future found the probability high that the\nHieros would develop from the strand of humanity left on Urth-come-Ushas\n(URTH, 160), and thus produce the Hierogrammates in Briah. It was Apheta's\nbelief/hope that this was true (162).\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608081143q70b819f7he160bd4b1939de4f@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-08T18:43:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<001601c6bab8$5bfb9140$383ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/8/06, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nThe Hieros were/will be in no sense angelic. They were the race\nof humans, cognates of our (and Severian's) race, who sinned on\na grand scale in producing the race of beings known as\nHierogrammates, of which latter group Tzadkiel is an example." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. With the possible exception of \"sinned on a grand scale\" -- is\nproducing the Hierogrammates actually a sin? It's clearly part of\na huge _trap_, but that's another issue -- this is exactly how I\nunderstand the case.\n\nThe two \"hiero\" races, Hierodules and Hierogrammates, are trapped\nin a cycle of producing each other. Humans at the peak of their\ndevelopment are the Hierodules; they \"uplift\" (to use Brin's term) --\nthat is, interfere in and guide the development of -- the race that\nbecomes the Hierogrammates. The Hierogrammates survive the\nGrand Gnab/Big Bang cycle and guide the development of\nhumanity, thus resulting in the creation of the Hierodules, etc.\n\nUnclear: _how_ do the Hierogrammates survive across the\nGG/BB gap: is Yesod immune to it? If so, then why do they need\nto repeat the cycle; they already exist, they don't need to ensure\ntheir own creation _again_.\n\nEqually unclear: if the HGs only exist because the HDs caused\nthem to exist, and the HDs oly exist because the HGs caused\n_them_ to exist, then how did the whole damned thing get started?\n\nBut what's quite clear is that this is an exercise in self-perpetuating\nfutility, like the cycle of clones in 5HC." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608081314t2c4c3daahd9debd5222ab3c19@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-08T20:14:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8/7/06, b sharp wrote:\nWell some interesting discussion points Dan'l (and wishing for an\nimmediate improvement in the employment situation! Someplace\nmust soon discover the valuable mind they are missing)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thank you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not a Biblical scholar or really much of a scholar at all but I'll do\nmy best to respond." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm no scholar either; I'm a dilettante, an _amateur_ in the very\nbest (I hope!) sense of the word. But one of my _aimees_ is\nCatholic theology, and it seems pretty clear to me that this is\none of Wolfe's starting points.\n\nThis can be kind of confusing for people raised in Protestant-\ndominated American culture; the way Catholicism looks at some\nof the _donees_ of Christianity is quite different from the way\nProtestant culture does: sometimes deeply different, sometimes\nsubtly so. As a result what \"everyone knows\" is often wrong in\ndealing with a Catholic writer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " \"I will rid the earth's face of man, my own creation,\"\n Yahweh said, \"and of animals also, reptiles too, and\n the birds of heaven, for I regret having made them.\"\n Gen. 6: 7, Jerusalem Bible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This isn't about purifying humanity; it's about removing humanity.\n(\"You are a disease, Mister >Anderson, and I am the cure.\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "First thanks for The Matrix quote." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Technically a misquote -- Agent Smith actually says that to Morpheus,\nbut I love the way Weaving says \"MISter ANDerson,\" and it _does_\nmake the quote easier to place. Oddly enough, I just rewatched it on\nSaturday myself!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Next, (sorry I couldn't find Jerusalem Bible) the next verses after 6:7\nsay:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jerusalem Bible is not necessary. Even a Catholic Bible isn't, though\nit can be of subtle help in understanding Catholic writers: it includes\nseveral books, and passages from a few other books, that the Protestant\nversion of the Bible excludes or puts in the back of the book as\n\"Apocrypha.\" (A bit of a misdesignation; the real Apocrypha are things\nlike the Gnostic Gospels, the Letter of Pilate, etc. These texts -- all of\nthe Old Testament, incidentally -- are better referred to as\n\"deuterocanonical.\") At any rate, the text of the primary canon is going\nto be identical except for translation artifacts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.\n6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and]\nperfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a great deal of argument among Christians about just\nwhat this _means_. Generally it's agreed that \"perfect in his\ngenerations\" is not the same as \"without sin;\" for it to mean that\nwould entirely undermine the doctrine of Original Sin. Some\nProtestant churches reject the doctrine by that name, but I don't\nknow any major church that would consider it possible for any\nhuman other than Jesus to be completely without sin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not sure where you got the part about Noah being a drunk" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That would be the end of Genesis chapter 9. The first thing\nNoah does when the ark lands -- well, after making sacrifice\nto God (with what? There's only two of each animal!) is to\nplant a vinyard and get plastered." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but God seems to think Noah and his family are quite worth\nsaving. \"Perfect in his generations\" to me says \"uncontaminated\nby matings with fallen angels\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Call me stupid -- go on! -- but until right here I actually hadn't\ngrasped the emphasis you were putting on the Nephilim. That\nis, the idea that Noah and his family are apparently the only\nhumans without Nephil blood.\n\nIt's an interesting theory, but not one I've ever heard before,\nanywhere. (Note: I have _not_ studied Talmud, let alone\nthe Kaballa.)\n\nBut there's certainly no clear indication in Scripture that the\nFlood was to clear out Nephil blood from humanity. You've\ngot the bit about the Nephilim and their descendants, from 6:1\nthrough 6:4, which reads as a mythical explanation of why the\nhuman lifespan is limited to \"no more than a hundred and twenty\nyears\" -- note that this comes right after the generations of the\npatriarchs from Adam to Noah, all of whom live outrageously\nlong times. The Nephilim passage ends: \"These are the heroes\nof days gone by, the famous men,\" which seems to me to refer\nback to the long-lived patriarchs.\n\nThen comes what certainly looks to me like a change of tone\nand subject at 6:5-6, where\n Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great on the\n earth, and that the thoughts in his heart fashioned nothing\n but wickedness all day long. Yahweh regretted having made\n man on the earth..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You said you don't think anyone understands what Nephilim\nare but how can that be? What sort of Bible is incomprehensible\nto all people at all times in history?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good question. Perhaps a Bible that has been accreted in layers\nover thousands of years, such that the meaning of some words was\nchanged or simply lost over the generations?\n\nAs a Catholic, I (and Wolfe) am not dependent on the \"divine\ndictation\" idea of Scripture, the Protestant idea that the text as\nwe have it is the exact Words of God. This doesn't deny that the\ntexts are \"inspired by the Holy Spirit,\" but it's a very different model\nof inspiration. A common Catholic description of this model calls\nthe Bible \"the Word of God in the words of men.\"\n\n(One of my reasons for becoming a Catholic is that the \"divine\ndictation\" model is so _brittle_. It relies on the obviously untrue idea\nthat the exact text is maintained generation after generation, and\nthe very questionable idea of a translation that's so perfect and\nclear that anyone reading it can understand what the original\nwriter intended, when the translators are often none too clear on\nthe concept.\n\nTwo examples:\n\n1. In old art, Moses is often portrayed with horns on his head. This\nis because the translation used by the Medieval Church -- the\nVulgate Latin of Jerome, itself translated primarily from the Greek\nSeptuagint, so there's two layers of translation right there -- said so.\nBut somewhere in the generations of translation and copying,\nsomething had gotten munged: when people went back to the\noriginal Hebrew text, what it actually said was that after the encounter\nwith God at Sinai, Moses' face shone so that nobody could bear to\nlook upon it and he wore a veil afterwards.\n\n2. This one really honks off a lot of literalists ... \"Lucifer\" is _not_ a\nname of Satan. It's a kenning for Nebuchadnezzar. One of the\nmajor prophets -- I _think_ it was Isaiah, but I don't have the reference\nin front of me and don't have the energy to dig for it -- says in a long\nprophecy against Babylon, \"How you are fallen, oh Lucifer!\" -- well:\nthe original Hebrew refers to Venus as the Morning Star, with which\nNebuchadnezzar, as King of Babylon, was associated. \"Lucifer,\"\n\"bearer of light,\" was a Latin translation of the Greek translation of\nthe Hebrew name for the Morning Star, functioning as the forerunner\nof the Sun.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Anyway I think Gene Wolfe agrees with the pundits who think the\nnephilim, the \"great men of reknown\", were giants,(and thus Nod, in\nthe play)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now, the idea that the Nephilim were giants is exactly the kind of\ntranslation artifact I'm talking about. The ancient translators had _not\na clue_ what Nephilim meant, but they had to put _something_. By\nthe time you get to the King James, the phrase was: \"There were\ngiants in the earth in those days.\" But nothing in the original text\nparticularly suggests that the Nephilim were giants.\n\nMind you, I'm not suggesting that GW _doesn't_ take this point of\nview; it _does_ explain Nod the Giant rather nicely ... and notice\nthat Nod is also the name of the country \"east of Eden\" where Cain\nwent to live after killing Abel." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I like one analyst who suggested this might be reference to the well\nknown Sumerian giant/heroes Gilgamesh and Enkidu. I think ancient\nHebrews would know of them, since we do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would not be terribly surprised if this were true; as I said, a lot of\nthe OT seems to be written \"against\" the beliefs of the surrounding\nnations. But it seems simpler to me to suppose that the \"heroes and\nfamous men\" were the patriarchs. I like simple. Simple is good.\n\nBut again, I should not assume that Wolfe prefers the simpler\nexplanation..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I should be more careful with my words, however, when describing\nthe flood and WHICH flood I mean, (Urth or Earth). I really am more\ninterested in BotNS than the Bible. I only study the Bible, currently, to\ntry to see the source that Wolfe twisted into the BotNS." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, may I propose a model?\n\nIn _The Silmarillion_ (and its sequel, _The Lord of the Rings_) JRR\nTolkien, whom Wolfe clearly admires passionately, set out to create\na pagan-like mythology that did not actually contradict anything in\nCatholic belief. I am inclined to think that Wolfe follows a similar\nplan in his speculations -- Catholic doctrine always remains true, but\nanything not covered directly by it (including anything Wolfe invents\nout of whole cloth) is fair game. I've made the case that the _Whorl_\nis a deliberate instantiation of a purely Gnostic (Valentinian) world\ninto an orthodox universe; the pagan gods of the _Soldier_ books\nappear to be subject to the rule of the one God (presumably we will\nlearn more about this in _Sidon_); and the seven worlds of TWK are\nall creations of the One God in the uppermost world, who is enough\nlike the Christian God to have a winged humanoid messenger\n(angel) named Michael.\n\nFurthermore, Wolfe's major works are replete with images of\nCatholic and Christian history and ritual. One can easily point to\nexample after example of Eucharists and, especially, perversions\nof the Eucharist, in the Solar books. Severian's first (on his personal\ntimeline) encounter with Typhon is a reenactment of Jesus'\ntemptation by Satan in the desert. Etc.\n\nIf (as I believe) this is the case, then, while Wolfe's books are NOT\nworks of Catholic theology, a knowledge of Catholic doctrine is\nessential as a sanity check for interpretation -- any interpretation that\nviolates Catholic doctrine unambiguously is highly suspect.\n\nI have nothing to say about the whole question of humanity strewn\nacross the Universe and the possible sterilization of Urth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Notice it wasn't just any old son of Adam who found a wife in\nNod, but Cain the first murderer. So if Cain's wife was not a daughter of\nEve, then she was someone like Lilith (or maybe Lilith herself)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, given the name of the giant Nod in E&G, I can't argue with\nthis as a likely interpretation on Wolfe's part." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not a special creation. No soul. Notice the Catch 22 God sets up\nhere with human creation. Either you mate with your sister or mate\nwith some soulless alternate, not really human, maybe a demon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is the strongest available argument against the idea that Adam\nand Eve were alone. It supposes that God would deliberately set up\na situation where there were three choices:\n\n1. Remain celibate, in disobedience to His command to multiply and\n fill the Earth.\n2. Mate with a close relative, which God later describes as \"an\n abomination.\"\n3. Mate with an animal or demonic being, which is also an abomination.\n\nSo it involves God commanding humanity to commit \"abomination,\"\nwhich seems to go against His character." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah well, they say all successful religions are based on contradiction." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Who says this? Not me. Paradox, yes, but not contradiction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I still don't get this point about Original Sin not being sexual." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yo: the original sin was _disobedience_. Plain and simple. God\ncommanded \"Don't eat that.\" A&E knowingly went ahead and ate\nit. Whether it was shame or fear that caused Adam to hide isn't\nrelevant to this point; it was a result, not the sin itself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He made a loincloth. Doesn't that show he was afraid of his penis\nand what it could do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it shows that he was aware that, unlike other animals, he\nwas vulnerable. He wasn't exactly in a position to make Kevlar\narmor. But the key point is \"I saw that I was naked, and I was\nafraid.\" ***NOT*** \"ashamed.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm good with saying that fallen angels/demons/pagan gods make\nsuggestions that humans act on. >But the evil comes from our own\nfreely made choices, or we're automata, which I'm pretty sure\nmy fellow-Catholic Wolfe would not wish to suggest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure of that. I know free will is a strong component of most\nChristian faiths" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Strong component?\" It's the prerequisite for sin to be meaningful\nas a concept." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but I am not sure Gene Wolfe fully believes that it\ndominates every decision in our lives." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm sure he doesn't. Nor do I. The fundamental idea behind Original\nSin is that our free will has been corrupted, so that we cannot, by\nour own power, avoid sinning. (The contrary position -- that we can\n-- is one of the most ancient heresies in Christianity, called\nPelagianism, condemned at the Councils of Carthage, which are\naccepted as true \"ecumenical councils\" by most mainline Protestants.\n\nAnd God bless Wikipedia!)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe says he believes in pagan gods as real entities who interacted\nwith humans. These beings are superhuman, they can fool us\ncompletely sometimes if we are not armed with the proper knowledge.\nSo we can be tricked into doing evil through ignorance. And\nsometimes God allows this." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OK, I've gone back and looked at that quote, and it's a perfect\nexample of what I'm talking about: the pagan gods (a) were real,\n(b) weren't necessarily \"demons\" in the Christian sense, but (c)\nwere clearly not gods in the God sense. In fact, they're a lot like\nthe Overcyn in TWK.\n\nIf there's a \"message\" here, it might be: \"There are more thinngs\nin Heaven and Earth than humans, angels, and devils.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Take for example, Dorcas. Severian has sex with his own\ngrandmother. Is that sort of incest an evil act or not?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, Catholic doctrine comes in handy here. It distinguishes\nbetween different kinds of \"evil.\" There are \"evils\" that happen to\nus, objectively evil acts, and sin. There are conditions for an act\nto be a sin: you have to know it was wrong, and intend to do it\nanyway.\n\nClearly Dorcas and Severian did not know they were close kin\nwhen they were sleeping together. Therefore it was not sin. But\nit was still \"an abomination,\" an objectively evil act, which has\nconsequences for the agents." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It has to be an evil act by any cultural defintion, yet we really don't\nblame Severian do we? He didn't know at the time, and Dorcas was\nthe most right and good thing ever in Severian's life." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed.\n\nSkipping Valeria.\n\nDeleting your discussion of Severian's judgment, but I agree with\nit. Severian's act in insisting on taking his own judgment instead\nof allowing Zak to stand in for him is an act of moral courage --\nand is so precisely _because_ he knows that \"Zak is a better\nchoice.\"" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608081317m20e61644n8abf9a0e7dced80e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-08T20:17:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608081314t2c4c3daahd9debd5222ab3c19@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A brief followup, a couple of things I meant to mention but didn't\nquite fit in.\n\nRegarding the role of real pagan gods in a Christian world, consider\nwhat Lewis does with them -- he offers three very different takes in\nthe Narnia books (Bacchus in _Prince Caspian_, and, more importantly,\nthe Magician on the Island of Dufflepuds in _The Voyage of the Dawn\nTreader_); the Oyarsa in the Space trilogy; and (of course?) Eros in\n_Till We Have Faces_.\n\nRegarding contradiction vs. paradox -- Wolfe has repeatedly stated\nhis deep admiration for GK Chesterton, whose entire works, in a\nsense, form a vast meditation on this distinction." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001c01c6bb2d$ee48aae0$da3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-08-08T21:02:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608081317m20e61644n8abf9a0e7dced80e@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "b sharp wrote:\nNot sure where you got the part about Noah being a drunk but God seems to\nthink Noah and his family are quite worth saving. \"Perfect in his\ngenerations\" to me says \"uncontaminated by matings with fallen angels\". The\nwhole part about \"Nephilim\" comes right before the Noah section.<<\n[snip]\nIsn't this the same choice God made? Destroy everything, or destroy\nalmost everything, purify and repopulate. This makes Tzadkiel's ship like\nthe ark and the sailors who repopulate Ushas like Noah and family, yes? (I\nknow not everyone thinks it was the sailors who were landed on flood day).<<\n[snip]\n(I'll note that I think Severian did know Valeria was a\nfamily member and his consciously celibate marriage to her was a step toward\nhis/humanity's salvation, but I mustn't get ahead of myself).<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--------------------------------------------\n\nWherever did you get the idea that the marriage was celibate?\n\nBut the bigger problem I have with this theory is carrying the Genesis flood\nanalogy over to the Urth flood. I don't want to get bogged down in the\n\"Original Sin is carnal knowledge\" issue, still less in the morass of\nSeverian's presumed familial inbreeding, but both those things figure into" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "your theory. Earlier you wrote:\nI think this is Wolfe saying that humanity and specifically, Severian's\nfamily, have been contaminated by a matings with the Urth equivalent of\npagan gods.<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If this is true, how is Severian as Conciliator/New Sun an improvement,\nanalogous to a righteous Noah? He went to Yesod and fathered a New Sun --\nwho was/is himself. (URTH, 145) You can't get much more incestuous than\nthat. Further, he fathered himself on an insect from another universe, who\nwas the larval stage of a god-like, angelic being. How is that any better\nthan Adam's tribe and the \"Nephilim\"? I would think it even worse, because\nthe Hierogrammates were man-made to begin with.\n\nBtw, the Lilith myth figures into Wolfe's story \"Copperhead\". Fwiw.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7.0.1.0.2.20060808162337.05d4ca50@cox.net>", "from": { "name": "James B. Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2006-08-08T21:43:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<001c01c6bb2d$ee48aae0$da3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't have time to catch up on all this thread, but FWIW:\n\n1. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is associated with \nrule. \"Knowledge of Good and Evil\" is a synonym for wisdom, and the \nphrase occurs repeatedly in connection with kings and with adults, as \nopposed to children. Adam and Eve, being newborn, did not have this. \nThe serpent's job was to train them in wisdom, so that they could \npass through a \"good death\" and enter the wider world as rulers. The \nserpent rejected his job, and Adam rejected God (Eve was innocently \ntricked says Paul, twice, the supposed woman-hater!). (Note the \"good \ndeath\" Adam passed through when Eve was made.) Similarly \"opening of \neyes\" and \"becoming like elohim\" are both phrases having to do with \nelevation to kingly position.\n Now, whether Wolfe knows all that or not is a question. He \nmay have any number of speculative notions about the story, notions \nnot based in the Hebraic usage of the terms employed.\n\n2. The sons of God who married the daughters of men because they were \n\"good\" (same word used of the fruit Eve plucked) were the Sethites \nwho married with the daughters of the Cainites. This is clear from \nthe context. In Genesis 4-5, men of the Sethite line worshipped \nYahweh, and carried that worship down. By the time of Noah, however, \nonly Noah was left \"mature in his times.\" Nephilim simply means \n\"powerful men\" \"great rulers,\" and may be the origin of some ancient \nmyths about Herculean characters. The notion that the sons of God \nwere angels or some such is simply without context, and leaves \nunexplained what happened to the Sethite line of priests. True \"son \nof God\" means \"ruler\" in the Hebrew, and is used for angels once or \ntwice, but it also means \"believer\" and that is what it means here. \nTrue, a few Jewish myths hold that they were angels, but most Jewish \nwriters of ancient times do not. The alternative is to believe that \nthe final redactor of Genesis, who gives us the only text we have of \nthe book, was so stupid as to leave big loose ends in his narrative.\n But, of course, Wolfe may be educated to believe either (a) \nsons of God are powerful Cainite kings (check out the meanings of the \nnames in Genesis 4) who seized and raped helpless women, or (b) sons \nof God are angels who screwed human women and bred supermen, or (c) \nnot believing b, Wolfe may find it a useful fantasy to employ in his writing.\n\n3. Cain did not \"find\" a wife in Nod. \"Nod\" simply means \"wandering.\" \nThe murder of Abel happened when Cain was about 128, since Seth was \nborn as Abel's replacement when Adam was 130. There were hundreds of \ndescendents of Adam by that time, and Cain and his clan, and his \nwife, and his children, and his grandchildren, etc., moved away from \nthe land near the garden to a place farther east. There is no \njustification for importing any notion of pre-Adam proto-humans into \nthe text. The author of Genesis knows of no such thing.\n But who knows what Wolfe may think about it.\n\n4. The Flood does destroy and purge the old world. The Bible presents \nit as global: water 22 feet over the highest mountains for 6 months \nis not some \"local flood.\" But the Bible uses flood imagery later on \nmany times, for invading armies usually. It is used later on for the \nfinal events of Jesus' coming: the destruction of Jerusalem, which is \nthe navel of the old creation, and thereby symbolically ends the old world.\n Hence, I suggest that Wolfe's use of the Flood should not be \npressed too far. And old, tired, fallen, and corrupt world is washed \naway to make way for a new one. Beyond that, I'd be careful.\n\n5. The bottom line is that there are a number of fantasy \ninterpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, and then there are \nreadings that stick closely with text and context. Without \ninterviewing him, there is really no way to know what Wolfe might be \nthinking about such things, hence no way to know what his allusions \nmight be. Moreover, Wolfe may be alluding to fantastical readings of \nGenesis (e.g., Lilith) that he himself does not believe. So, be \ncareful, and don't over-read.\n\nFWIW\n\nPatera Nutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200608082052.51425.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-08-09T00:52:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<7.0.1.0.2.20060808162337.05d4ca50@cox.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tuesday 08 August 2006 17:43, James B. Jordan wrote:\nSo, be careful, and don't over-read." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One of the best piece of advice I've ever heard IRT Wolfe. Wolfe is deep, \nallegorical and full of allusions and puzzles. But every well has a bottom \nand the human brain is a machine that excels at finding patterns - even where \nthere are none." } ] }, { "message_id": "<004b01c6bb74$1750a780$8c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-08-09T05:24:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<200608082052.51425.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l quoted and wrote:\nThe Hieros were/will be in no sense angelic. They were the race\nof humans, cognates of our (and Severian's) race, who sinned on\na grand scale in producing the race of beings known as\nHierogrammates, of which latter group Tzadkiel is an example." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes. With the possible exception of \"sinned on a grand scale\" -- is\nproducing the Hierogrammates actually a sin? It's clearly part of\na huge _trap_, but that's another issue -- this is exactly how I\nunderstand the case." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----------------------------------------------------\n \"These men encountered many beings on other worlds who had intelligence\nto some degree, or at least the potential for intelligence, and from them -\nthat they might have comrades in the loneliness between the galaxies and\nallies among their swarming worlds - they formed beings like themselves.\n \"It was not done swiftly or easily. Uncountable billions suffered and\ndied under their guiding hands, leaving ineradicable memories of pain and\nblood.\" (CITADEL, chapter XXXIV)\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nThat sounds like sin to me, and it was certainly on a grand scale." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The two \"hiero\" races, Hierodules and Hierogrammates, are trapped\nin a cycle of producing each other. Humans at the peak of their\ndevelopment are the Hierodules; they \"uplift\" (to use Brin's term) --\nthat is, interfere in and guide the development of -- the race that\nbecomes the Hierogrammates. The Hierogrammates survive the\nGrand Gnab/Big Bang cycle and guide the development of\nhumanity, thus resulting in the creation of the Hierodules, etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I assume you are using \"Hierodules\" in a figurative sense here, but even\nthen there is a problem reconciling the usage with the text. The \"holy\nslaves\" (of which Barbatus and Famulimus are examples) were a race of beings\ncreated by the Hierogrammates to serve them in Briah. (URTH, 36) They are\nnot humans, as their living quarters on Tzadkiel's Ship clearly shows.\nThough they are doing the donkey work for the Hierogrammates, and urge\nSeverian to jump through hoops to satisfy Tzadkiel, they make it clear that\ntheir only master is the Increate. (ibid.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Unclear: _how_ do the Hierogrammates survive across the\nGG/BB gap: is Yesod immune to it? If so, then why do they need\nto repeat the cycle; they already exist, they don't need to ensure\ntheir own creation _again_." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-----------------------------------------------\n \"I was not told what became of the Humanity of that cycle. Perhaps it\nsurvived until the implosion of the universe, then perished with it. Perhaps\nit evolved beyond our recognition. But the beings humanity had shaped into\nwhat men and women wished to be escaped, opening a passage to Yesod, the\nuniverse higher than our own, where they created worlds suited to what they\nhad become.\n \"From that vantage point they look both forward and back, and in so\nlooking they have discovered us. Perhaps we are no more than a race like\nthat who shaped them. Perhaps it was we who shaped them - or our sons - or\nour fathers. Malrubius said he did not know, and I believe he told the\ntruth. However it may be, they shape us now as they themselves were shaped;\nit is at once their repayment and their revenge.\" (CITADEL, chapter XXXIV)\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nSomewhere is a statement to the effect that with each cycle there is some\nslight improvement made. Maybe, given enough repetitions, something\napproaching heavenly perfection will be achieved. Eternity can't get any\nlonger. \n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608091122m6a40363csbd5d26cde50f16d8@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-09T18:22:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<004b01c6bb74$1750a780$8c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On 8/8/06, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nText deleted, but ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That sounds like sin to me, and it was certainly on a grand scale." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certainly the grand scale. I'm not 100% on \"sin,\" but it's certainly ugly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I assume you are using \"Hierodules\" in a figurative sense here," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, I just screwed up. There isn't really a term for uplifted humanity\nin the books; people here have taken to calling them Hieros without\na suffix, which has managed to confuse me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Somewhere is a statement to the effect that with each cycle there is some\nslight improvement made. Maybe, given enough repetitions, something\napproaching heavenly perfection will be achieved. Eternity can't get any\nlonger. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't recall such a statement, but I've often wondered about this. It\nimplies a structure not unlike that in Stapledon's STAR MAKER, in\nwhich the Star Maker creates successively more complex and successful\nuniverses (ours being somewhere in the middle) until It creates one which\nachieves a level of universal sentience and perfection that allows that\nuniverse to become, well, the Star Maker. Import that construct to the\nChristian framework and you get a Creator whose \"practice\" universes\ngradually get better and better until finally one is \"good enough\" for the\nCreator to be born in it as Christ.\n\nI'm not saying this is what Wolfe has in mind, but it does fit the evidence." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-10T03:16:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370608091122m6a40363csbd5d26cde50f16d8@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is a lot of good input lately on this subject I think. James B. \nJordan, your gentlemanly responses and personal expertise are very welcomed, \nby me anyway. I don't see it as pulling rank.\n\nPersonally I hadn't ever heard of Nephlilim a month ago. I just wanted to \nfigure out what the giant Nod might mean in the play so I Googled Genesis + \nGiant and found all kinds of stuff about giants and demons and floods which \nfit the play quite neatly.\n\nI hadn't heard of Sethites either before P. Nutria mentioned them. A Google \nsearch of Sethite+Nephilim conjures up a number of sites but almost all of \nthem mention the controversy between a fallen angel interpretation and a \nhuman Sethite interpretation of the Nephilim.\n\nThe first search hit yielded this site: \nhttp://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/ which is very critical of the \nSethite view seeing it as revisionist. An excerpt:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It was in the 5th century a.d. that the \"angel\" interpretation of Genesis 6 \nwas increasingly viewed >as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. \n(Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun >within the church. Also, \ncelibacy had also become an institution of the church. The \"angel\" view of \nGenesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This jibes with an observation about Judeo-Christianity which I've long \nnoticed, that being that Monotheism as the defining theme came later in \nreligious history. The early Bible actually seems to acknowledge there being \nother gods. I think Baal and maybe Astarte are depicted not so much as fake \ngods but as rivals to Jehovah. As a kid, I was always confused by the First \nof the Ten Commandments:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of \nthe house of slavery; >you shall have no other gods before me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I used to think, \"other gods? what other gods? I thought He was the only \none\" and \"well, would it be okay to worship one of these other gods on the \nside if I always put the Big Guy first?\" Seemed like it was allowable.\n\nI really have to give credit to all those faithful monks who hand-copied and \ntranslated the Bible for 2000 years and resisted the temptation to do a \nlittle revising, to make the text more Monotheisitic.\n\nAnyway, I get the strong impression Gene Wolfe is more interested in the \nearlier parts and interpretations of The Bible, where the pagan gods and \ndemons and monsters and such were not just dismissed as a mythology of \nprimitives.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<007601c6bc37$d94c0960$d53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-08-10T04:45:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l quoted and wrote:\nSomewhere is a statement to the effect that with each cycle there is some\nslight improvement made. Maybe, given enough repetitions, something\napproaching heavenly perfection will be achieved. Eternity can't get any\nlonger. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't recall such a statement, but I've often wondered about this. It\nimplies a structure not unlike that in Stapledon's STAR MAKER, in\nwhich the Star Maker creates successively more complex and successful\nuniverses (ours being somewhere in the middle) until It creates one which\nachieves a level of universal sentience and perfection that allows that\nuniverse to become, well, the Star Maker. Import that construct to the\nChristian framework and you get a Creator whose \"practice\" universes\ngradually get better and better until finally one is \"good enough\" for the\nCreator to be born in it as Christ." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The statement is one page earlier than the other quotes I gave from chapter\nXXXIV in CITADEL.\n------------------------------------------\n \"Just as a flower blooms, throws down its seed, dies, and rises for its\nseed to bloom again, so the universe we know diffuses itself to nullity in\nthe infinitude of space, gathers its fragments (which because of the\ncurvature of that space meet at last where they began) and from that seed\nblooms again. Each such cycle of flowering and decay marks a divine year.\n \"As the flower that comes is like the flower from which it came, so the\nuniverse that comes repeats the one whose ruin was its origin; and this is\nas true of its finer features as of its grosser ones: the worlds that arise\nare not unlike the worlds that perished, and are peopled by similar races,\nthough just as the flower evolves from summer to summer, all things advance\nby some minute step.\n \"In a certain divine year (a time truly inconceivable to us, though\nthat cycle of the universes was but one in an endless succession), a race\nwas born that was so like to ours that Master Malrubius did not scruple to\ncall it human. It expanded among the galaxies of its universe even as we are\nsaid to have done in the remote past, when Urth was, for a time, the center,\nor at least the home and symbol, of an empire.\"\n-------------------------------------------\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370608092225k6bf60125i3123415883d9730b@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-10T05:25:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "B,\n\nYes, there is a definite development of monotheism in the course\nof the Bible, especially if you go through it in the order it was written\nrather than the order it appears in a bound volume. This involves dividing\nsome books up in ways that sometimes seem almost arbitrary --\nfor example, Genesis seems to have had (at least) four major\nauthors or base texts from which the book we have today was finally\nredacted. (That's why there are doublets of a number of passages,\nincluding the two creation accounts.)\n\nIn the earliest phase, other gods were seen as real beings and\nrivals to YHWH. The later redactors mostly edited this stuff out,\nbut it still peeks through in places.\n\nThe main account of the Torah (the first five books, Genesis\nthrough Deuteronomy) seems to have been written at a time\nwhen other gods were seen as real, but not really gods, not on\nthe same order of being as YHWH. A good example of this is the\naccount of the plagues of Egypt: Pharaoh's \"sorcerors\" (who\nwould most likely have been priests) were able to duplicate some\nof the miracles God performed through Moses and Aaron, but not\nall of them.\n\nBy the time of the Prophets, they are seen as being either petty\nbeings (who are mocked with names like \"Beelzebub,\" baalzhavuv,\n\"Lord of Flies\"), impotent (as when the priests of Ba'al are unable to\ncall down fire but Isaiah is), or nonexistent (the theme of mocking\nidolators as worshipping \"gods\" made by human hands, or\n\"no-gods\").\n\nFor what that's worth." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n\"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.\nHowever, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the\ncharacters.\" -- Stephen R. Donaldson" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-25T19:35:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "<007601c6bc37$d94c0960$d53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm a little late to the party, but the passages quoted below could be why I \nkept reading process theology into the BotNS when I first read it. I think \nthere's some evidence that Stapledon was influenced by A N Whitehead, who's \nresponsble for that movement.\n\n-- Iorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Original Sin and pagan gods\nDate: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:45:40 -0500\n\nDan'l quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Somewhere is a statement to the effect that with each cycle there is \nsome\nslight improvement made. Maybe, given enough repetitions, something\napproaching heavenly perfection will be achieved. Eternity can't get \nany\nlonger. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't recall such a statement, but I've often wondered about this. It\nimplies a structure not unlike that in Stapledon's STAR MAKER, in\nwhich the Star Maker creates successively more complex and successful\nuniverses (ours being somewhere in the middle) until It creates one which\nachieves a level of universal sentience and perfection that allows that\nuniverse to become, well, the Star Maker. Import that construct to the\nChristian framework and you get a Creator whose \"practice\" universes\ngradually get better and better until finally one is \"good enough\" for \nthe\nCreator to be born in it as Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The statement is one page earlier than the other quotes I gave from chapter\nXXXIV in CITADEL.\n------------------------------------------\n \"Just as a flower blooms, throws down its seed, dies, and rises for \nits\nseed to bloom again, so the universe we know diffuses itself to nullity in\nthe infinitude of space, gathers its fragments (which because of the\ncurvature of that space meet at last where they began) and from that seed\nblooms again. Each such cycle of flowering and decay marks a divine year.\n \"As the flower that comes is like the flower from which it came, so \nthe\nuniverse that comes repeats the one whose ruin was its origin; and this is\nas true of its finer features as of its grosser ones: the worlds that arise\nare not unlike the worlds that perished, and are peopled by similar races,\nthough just as the flower evolves from summer to summer, all things advance\nby some minute step.\n \"In a certain divine year (a time truly inconceivable to us, though\nthat cycle of the universes was but one in an endless succession), a race\nwas born that was so like to ours that Master Malrubius did not scruple to\ncall it human. It expanded among the galaxies of its universe even as we \nare\nsaid to have done in the remote past, when Urth was, for a time, the \ncenter,\nor at least the home and symbol, of an empire.\"\n-------------------------------------------\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bob Miller", "address": "bob_bageera at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-08-27T10:45:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting. Possibly both Heinlein and Wolfe, or Stapledon to Heinlein to \nWolfe or two-pronged--both Heinlein (Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag) \nand Stapledon having an effect on the man I think of as the best living \nwriter?\n\nBob" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Original Sin and pagan gods\nDate: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:45:40 -0500\n\nDan'l quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Somewhere is a statement to the effect that with each cycle there is\nsome\nslight improvement made. Maybe, given enough repetitions, something\napproaching heavenly perfection will be achieved. Eternity can't get\nany\nlonger. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't recall such a statement, but I've often wondered about this. It\nimplies a structure not unlike that in Stapledon's STAR MAKER, in\nwhich the Star Maker creates successively more complex and successful\nuniverses (ours being somewhere in the middle) until It creates one \nwhich\nachieves a level of universal sentience and perfection that allows that\nuniverse to become, well, the Star Maker. Import that construct to the\nChristian framework and you get a Creator whose \"practice\" universes\ngradually get better and better until finally one is \"good enough\" for\nthe\nCreator to be born in it as Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The statement is one page earlier than the other quotes I gave from \nchapter\nXXXIV in CITADEL.\n------------------------------------------\n \"Just as a flower blooms, throws down its seed, dies, and rises for\nits\nseed to bloom again, so the universe we know diffuses itself to nullity in\nthe infinitude of space, gathers its fragments (which because of the\ncurvature of that space meet at last where they began) and from that seed\nblooms again. Each such cycle of flowering and decay marks a divine year.\n \"As the flower that comes is like the flower from which it came, so\nthe\nuniverse that comes repeats the one whose ruin was its origin; and this is\nas true of its finer features as of its grosser ones: the worlds that \narise\nare not unlike the worlds that perished, and are peopled by similar races,\nthough just as the flower evolves from summer to summer, all things \nadvance\nby some minute step.\n \"In a certain divine year (a time truly inconceivable to us, though\nthat cycle of the universes was but one in an endless succession), a race\nwas born that was so like to ours that Master Malrubius did not scruple to\ncall it human. It expanded among the galaxies of its universe even as we\nare\nsaid to have done in the remote past, when Urth was, for a time, the\ncenter,\nor at least the home and symbol, of an empire.\"\n-------------------------------------------\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] } ] }