Oannes

Lee Berman · 20 Mar 2012, 18:53 · from 2012-March.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:53:31 -0400
Subject: (urth) Oannes
Message-ID: <SNT123-W305677125125CB1996A815CF430 at phx.gbl>

>David Stockhoff: So to rephrase your question: why tell stories of gods 
>revealing their changing "natures" to characters if the characters' idea 
>of these gods does not change? Fair question. I think Silk's does, as has 
>been discussed. Severian ... who knows. He's seen enough to blow several 
>people's minds. 

Thanks, I appreciate the rephrasing. It can help sometimes. Yes, surely 
Severian, Silk and Horn have undergone massive personal, spiritual changes 
during the course of the story. But is Wolfe saying that any differences in 
perception of God are purely due to differences in the perceiver? 

This is a very static, impersonal view of God. And given Wolfe's extreme 
interest in pagan mythology, I gather there is a part of him that needs more 
dynamism and personality in a deity, at least when he writes about it. A
perfect, unchanging god who cannot and does not change and respond as people 
change seems extremely boring. Hardly worth writing about. 

Let's say a person changes. Is it possible that God can do a Tzadkiel and pinch 
off a piece of Himself and that piece can relate to that changed person in a new
way, while retaining the integrity and changeless perfection of the whole?  This 
almost sounds like what James was suggesting in his discussion with Antonin. Since 
I am not religious and have never had a personal encounter with God I must rely on 
the reported experience of those who have. 

>James Wynn: Unless The Divine is not a concept like Economics or Geography, but 
>instead a Person like, for example, the Outsider who is not discovered 
>or understood but instead reveals himself in finite ways to finite 
>individuals as he chooses. 

I think this ties into my perception of an evolving God. In the early days 
(of Judeo-Christianity, who knows what God was doing before that), Yaweh was a God 
only to the Hebrews. A god revealing him/herself only to selected, special people 
seems so pagan. My impression is that Paul opened the door of God and Christ to 
everyone. No longer does God reveal Himself only to a few selected Hebrew guys but
He is available to all who look for him.

>"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be 
>opened to you."  Matthew 7:7

Yes?

>>How could one group of humans have a better grasp of the infinite than another?

>Gerry Quinn: The same way that one group of humans could have a better grasp of 
>science, or economics, or poker, or any other unsolved matter. 

This demonstrates an interesting world view. religion, science, money and social games
are all activities which are performed for the purpose of determining personal 
superiority. Knowing more, making more money, beating others and worshipping the best
god is what life is all about. I have known a number of people who take this view. An
interesting group...

>To say that the unknowability of absolute truth renders all views equally valid is the 
>silly end of relativism.

And what is the opposite of relativism? Absolutism? What is the silly end of that? Do we
find it on display in this forum?

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net