the archives

dusted off in read-only


Tears of God posted 12 Jan 2006, 04:01 by Twayleph, Auditor

Hey Scott, this might be answered in TTT but I just can't wait :) I noticed in TWP that Fanim also used the name "Tears of God" to design Chorae. I could understand why the Inrithi would call them such - because they act against sorcerers, who are an affront against the God - but why would the Fanim hold them sacred? If I remember well, Chorae are lethal to the Cishaurim. Since the Cishaurim are Fanim sorcerer-[i:22rfw2yh]priests[/i:22rfw2yh], how do the Fanim explain that the God's Tears would serve to kill His own priests? Unless they actually know they're not holy artefacts and would give that name only to express their gratitude for a means to kill sorcerers...It still seems weird, for people who hate and fear sorcery, to use sorcerous artefacts so liberally and shamelessly... And, do the Inrithi also realize this, or is it only the Schoolmen who know what Chorae truly are? Thanks for any answer you could give, it'll help me survive the long days before I finally, finally get TTT ! view post

posted 13 Jan 2006, 14:01 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

People rationalize, [i:11p4wyx6]especially[/i:11p4wyx6] in times of war. Whatever helps them becomes 'good.' The more it helps them, the more 'good' it becomes. Look at guns in the US. Since it was the widespread ownership of firearms that allowed the revolutionaries to so quickly muster militias (and making it very difficult for the British to control any territory, even after scoring military victories), guns were enshrined in the Constitution. And now, they've become quasi-sacred fetishes for millions, despite the off-the-chart murder rates. As a result you have a nation dedicated to life and liberty, bedazzled by Jesus Christ's turn-the-other-cheek teachings, with mass ownership of hundreds of millions of weapons specifically designed to efficiently kill humans. There's no contradiction too big. The primary function of belief is to [i:11p4wyx6]serve[/i:11p4wyx6] the status quo. Other things, like consistency, veracity, and so on, tend to be more incidental than not, I think. view post

posted 13 Jan 2006, 19:01 by Nasrudin's Shadow, Candidate

So, those who would dominate us (those who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo) always ally themselves with strong 'belief systems' and most loudly praise those of us with the most apparent faith. It is like the 'American Dream' (though it has probably become the Canadian dream just as thoroughly by now)--if you believe hard enough, you can accomplish anything. That way, the poor can believe in a country that needs them to stay where they are. Run, Forrest, run! view post

posted 13 Jan 2006, 19:01 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

The 'American Dream' is the classic example, strained even more by the deepening class stratification in the US. When it comes to functionally deceptive beliefs, though, I think the constellation of assumptions belonging to 'individualism' is far more pernicious. People tend to get a little riled when they hear that though - precisely what you should expect from a naturalized belief system. :wink: view post

posted 13 Jan 2006, 19:01 by Nasrudin's Shadow, Candidate

Ahh, yes. Best not to spill anything on the Cowboy at the end of the bar... view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.