View topic - [SPEC] SP references, AI personalities, etc.

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:29 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Interaction

[SPEC] SP references, AI personalities, etc.

Page 3 of 4 [57 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

[OT] Sure, leave out Betty...

Still OT.

Kali, al-hamdu li-lah, shukran. Wa ant? (Please forgive my transliteration if it's ugly or sloppy -- unfortunately I don't think the forum software will let me use an Arabic font.)

Quote:

Of course H. habilis made Olduwan tools, however the robust australopithecines were contemporaries of and significantly outnumbered (at least in their remains) early Homo...(etc.)

And yet, in your focus on hominids, you leave out poor Betty the crow, who not only used tools but manufactured them when they boys were mean enough to steal her hook.

Everyone always forgets about Betty, and she's one of my personal animal heroines. <discontented sigh>

Now, you'll have to excuse me. Having been reminded, I must go spread the Gospel of Betty to my colleagues. TTFN.

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:54 am
Last edited by Phaedra on Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Shad0
I Have No Life

Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 2180
Location: Southern California, USA

Re: [OT] VERY OT. Don't say I didn't warn you.

thebruce wrote:

And what, pray tell does YMMV stand for? I'm usually the one telling people the answers to every single acronym out there, but I just cannot figure out YMMV... You Might... that's as far as I get Smile

Your Mileage May Vary. Mr. Green

_________________
These were the puzzles that would take a day, these were puzzles that would take a week, and these puzzles they'd probably never figure out until we broke down and gave them the answers. ... The Cloudmakers solved all of these puzzles on the first day.

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:59 am

turbov21
Veteran

Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 108

Re: [SPEC] SP references, AI personalities, etc.

Going out on a limb...

Phaedra wrote:

and though her "paranoia" and "jealousy" could just be the way her programming expresses itself, her loneliness seems real.

The three stages of rampancy are Melancholia, Anger, and Jealousy. Paranoia, according to my old psychiatrist, is often manifested during depression, which as far as I know is close to melancholia. We know she does anger, as shown in team_jersey.wav. As for jealousy... I don't recall an instance, but me thinks you accentuated it with quotes for a reason.

Now, I know, I know that HALO and MARATHON are in two different universes, their AI are made indifferent ways. However, there's one interesting similarity between MARATHON and ILB, the Internet. According to the second Durandal page, "a rampant computer needs: a planetary sized network of computers in order to grow..." I'm not fully sure how AI work in the HALO-verse, but aren't they generally kept localized on a crystal -- in a glass coffin, so to speak?

If one were to get dropped onto a system made of "sand" and allowed to expand (or !grope) out into the Internet, (as both Melissa and Durga have, remember Jersey said he couldn't just shut her down) they might display signs of rampancy.

That's probably a trout and likely off topic, but the "paranoia" and "jealosy" sparked one of my own axons. Smile

Phaedra wrote:

I understand that anyone who gets the honor of speaking to Melissa live will probably not want to jeopardize their opportunity by getting too experimental, but I wonder what would happen if someone treated her like...well...a machine.

Or identifying themself as McKaskill, Herzog, or Jersey's dad (Jason Morelli?).

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:34 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

[OT] VERY OT. Don't say I didn't warn you.

So far off topic that we have lost sight of the topic and ventured into uncharted realms where there may or may not be dragons, but anyone who can catch up with us is still welcome to the party...

Please consider me to have given the standard disclaimer regarding religious offense.

Hello again, my dear discussers. Hope you've all had delightful weekends.

I attempted to get this post up on Friday, but sundown caught up with me more quickly than I expected, which in retrospect was probably a good thing, because it allowed me to attend to your posts with the care and consideration they deserved, as well as some good music and a nice cup of tea.

Let me get a slight criticism out of the way first:

SuperJerms wrote:

My point is that, while there certainly are rebuttals to individual theological issues, there are also ways to negotiate the differences. Even now, I believe that the various religions can reconcile the other's faith...

I respectfully submit that the above conflicts with the following:

Quote:

If one part seems to be getting "ignored" (kosher laws, I'm looking at you, here), it's because of a more complete understanding of the law� closer version of it's intent� Emphasis Phaedra's

Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, has a rather odd relationship with Torah law, which wasn't intended for Gentiles to begin with, yet it claims a "better" understanding of that Law than the people to whose lives it is central and who have made the study of it their highest priority for at least the past 2500 years. I'm sure you will understand if I say that some might find it a trifle�arrogant, perhaps, for people who don't even generally study the law to claim they have a "better" or "more complete" understanding of it. Most Christians I've talked to haven't the faintest idea of even the scope of say, the concept of ritual purity, let alone any comprehension of its place in Jewish life, so for Christians to claim that they follow a "closer version of its intent" when I'm a little confused as to how they would understand its intent in the first place seems to be jumping the gun.

Please remember that the following is not intended to seem snippy or angry -- I'm just trying to give you an explanation for why I'd be careful with statements like that.

These claims are not "reconciliation" or "negotiation." Pope John XXIII engaged in reconciliation. As long as Christians continue to believe that their covenant supercedes ours, and continue to try to induce us to convert to what in our view is wrong, if not idolatrous, I'm not sure that there's ever going to be real "reconciliation." I'd aim slightly lower (but more realistically in my view) and try for "mutual understanding and friendly tolerance" between the religions as a whole, and hopefully genuine friendship between individuals. If we're all feeling particularly neighborly, perhaps we can try and work together to make the world a better place.

Please do not be upset, because I know you didn't mean it in an offensive way, but making statements like that is not going to get you a particularly warm reception in mixed company. I'm not asking you to pull off a Pope John XXIII -- although personally I love the guy to pieces -- or pretend to hold a conciliatory attitude that is contrary to your beliefs, just suggesting that in interfaith discussions, there are some things that are more wisely left unmentioned. On all sides.

And again, I understand that you don't mean to be offensive.

With that out of the way, on to less touchy subjects.

Quote:

Jews can hold most of the same beliefs as Christians, but view God's plan of deliverance as more Political than Spiritual, and vice versa.

Hmm. I think the qualitative difference here is that Judaism doesn't distinguish between the political and the spiritual (our social structure was a theocracy, our laws are simultaneously religious and social, etc.) whereas Jesus essentially tells his followers to leave the political realm alone, doesn't he? ("Give to Caesar...) (I recognize that that's not the only way to interpret that statement, but it does seem an obvious one.)

And I actually think you're mistaken about us believing a lot of the same things. While we both believe in G-d, and we share some of the same scriptures and stories, our views of G-d, our views of human nature, our understanding of humanity's relationship with G-d, our understanding of terms like "salvation" etc. ad infinitum are very different. The common consensus among Christians seems to be that Judaism is essentially pre-Christ Christianity with dietary laws and a funny calendar.

It's not. And I say this with what I believe is a fairly extensive knowledge of both religions. I have studied Christianity fairly extensively. I've read Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards, Calvin, Wesley, Luther, Lewis, Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer, Barth, and yes, even Darby (well, books on Darby, anyway). I've been to Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, non-denominational evangelical (perhaps even Fundamentalist), Presbyterian, and Congregationalist services. I've been to Bible studies among many of these groups. So when I say I don't understand something like the Christian concept of inherited original sin, I don't mean I'm not familiar with the theological explanation, I mean it doesn't resonate with me. I can understand logically why someone might believe it, but it's not there for me emotionally. I believe I'm reasonably good at understanding others' points of view � I can understand the embattled mindset of a Fundamentalist Christian (or a West Bank settler, for that matter) or a devout Catholic's devotion to Mary, but many of these ideas don't ring true for me.

Again, I'm not trying to drown you in names or say, "Look here, boyo, don't argue with me -- I've read Kierkegaard, nyah nyah." I'm just trying to say that these aren't unfamiliar concepts to me and that I'm not speaking from a background of solely Jewish knowledge when I say our belief systems are thoroughly different.

I think this is a good thing. There are things that we can learn from each other that we wouldn't be able to if we were all essentially believing the same thing and just hadn't realized it because some of us wear crucifixes and some of us wear yarmulkes.

I recognize that these are generalizations. When I say "Christians believe" or "Jews believe" I of course mean "the majority of Christians" or "the majority of Jews." Of course there are Christians out there who for one reason or another end up with a worldview that more closely resembles the worldview of most Jews, and vice versa. (This is probably one of the factors that leads some people to convert.)

There are aspects of Christianity that Jews can learn from, and vice versa, even if they are aspects that we don't want to incorporate into our religious practice or doctrine. There are some things about Christianity that I find truly lovely. I find the concept of grace beautiful, even though my beliefs do not recognize a need for it. Christianity, I think, has always understood that faith begins where reason ends, something else that -- especially in this age of the brain where we're so frequently ready to sacrifice the soul � has a wider application beyond its adherents. And it seems to me that separating the personality of G-d into Jesus and G-d the Father provides a way for us poor humans to wrap our minds around a being that cares tenderly for widows and orphans, yet floods the world, destroying the innocent along with the guilty.

(cont'd)

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:14 am
Last edited by Phaedra on Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:32 pm; edited 2 times in total

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

[OT] VERY OT. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Quote:

A main point I was making was that Yasmine was a really intelligent and really curious individual. Why wouldn't she, as a muslim, know all about one of the world's biggest religions ever?

Maybe because she was only six? Razz

I consider myself fairly religiously curious, although I'm obviously not a souped-up genius like Yasmine, but at six I really had very little understanding of my own religious tradition, let alone everyone else's.

Quote:

And we have no clue as to how fundamentalism changes when we discover aliens and AI's.

I don't really see such discoveries as being a problem for them. They probably won't change all that much.

Quote:

The idea of multiple facets to God isn't new to Christianity. Similar to claiming three forms of water (ice, liquid, vapor), it's not equal to claiming three seperate beings. The first instances of it are in eary Genesis. Hebrew ruwach in 1:2 (Spirit), 'elohiym is all over the place (for Father), and Y@hovah in 2:4 (for Son). And there's the 1:26 "Let Us make man in Our image..."

Whoa there, cowboy. You think the Tetragrammaton refers to Jesus? Most Christians seem certain "Jehovah" (or any other variant of that ridiculous German orthography -- gotta love the Germans) refers to G-d the Father.

Atah medaber Ivrit? Are you quoting someone else, or is this your idea? Are you even aware of where the Tetragrammaton as opposed to Elohim is used?

Leaving aside a discussion of ruach and its uses for the moment � let it suffice to say that without a discussion of ancient Near Eastern beliefs regarding the relation of air and the soul, I can't do the subject justice, but for now, ruach means "wind," just as two other common Hebrew words for "spirit" or "soul," nefesh and neshama, also have connections with "breath" or air. The Bible does sometimes speak of the ruach ha-kodesh (as opposed to simply "the spirit of G-d" as it's used in Genesis), literally the holy spirit, but I'm not sure that even the way that's used in the Hebrew Bible really jives with the way it's used in the New Testament. The Bible is filled with imagery that resembles the storm-deity imagery of other Near Eastern cultures.

And Elohim means G-d. Just like 'ish means man. It's not His name, it describes what he is. His name is the Tetragrammaton. Like you. You're a person, and your name is SuperJerms (well, that's one of your names -- I don't know your real one). If you start separating Elohim and the Tetragrammaton into separate faces/people/aspects -- well, you're going to get some interesting readings. And "Jesus" is going to do a lot that seems a bit out of character for him -- like chasing Moses down on the road back to Egypt and trying to kill him for not having circumcised his son. And getting homicidal at Sinai until Moses talks him down.

Quote:

But it's a tad reductionistic to say it can't be read this way or that.

G-d forbid that I should limit the ways in which it can be read. The Torah has seventy faces, as the rabbis say. I'm certainly not saying that Christians can't read it in different ways, I'm just describing the most common Christian significance I've heard attached to it that goes beyond the literal. Most Christian commentary that I've read mentions a crucifixion prefiguration at some point in discussing the Akedah.

Quote:

...that meaning that the law was originally made to point out our errors, but now to show us how great a gift was given...

Well, there's a huge difference. We regard the Torah itself as G-d's greatest gift.

Quote:

We must be careful about making assertions such as, "Jews don't believe this." or "Christians don't believe that."

Well, to a certain extent. On the other hand, there are plenty of things that I can say Jews don't believe, or Christians don't believe, and have no one disagree with me. Jews don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Christians don't believe in the divinity of Zeus. Certain generalizations are true. There is a core to which you can reduce each belief system, to the point where if you don't believe in those core principles, you don't fit into that belief system.

Quote:

There are certain non-negotiables, and for this reason it is short sighted to group or exclude many people from specific classifications.

We have to make classifications, otherwise the term "Christianity" or "Judaism" is meaningless. The names themselves are a classification. If you don't exclude some people and include others in your definition, then we're all Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Shinto. And not. Then what's the point of discussing religion at all?

The fact that there are certain non-negotiables is what allows us to include/exclude people to begin with.

Maybe you weren't trying to say that we can't exclude or include too many people?

Quote:

It seems to me that an anthropologist that accepts anyone's claim that they are a Christian is making an error unless both the subject and the observer have a clear consensus. I think there is an unfortunate lapse in this method beacuse it fails to distinguish between belonging to a social group and understanding/subscribing to a specific set of beliefs. Think about it, would you accept someone's claim that he/she is a baked potatoe?

This is a bit disingenuous. No, I wouldn't accept someone's claim that they are a baked potato. On the other hand, I would accept someone's claim that they are a Republican. Or a Federalist. Or a rationalist. When it comes to beliefs, I can't legitimately judge on anything except what they say, unless their behavior is ridiculously contrary to the accepted definition for that group.

If they claim to be a Democrat and vote Republican in every single election, I might start to doubt them, but as long as they don't do anything that the general consensus of what it means to be a Democrat forbids, I'll accept what they say. Maybe they're voting Republican because they're afraid to vote Democrat. Maybe they believe that the Republican candidate actually holds to principles that they consider to be Democratic better than the Democratic candidate.

I don't know. I'm not psychic. So when it comes to matters of belief, if someone tells me they're a Democrat, I'll believe them. If they tell me they're a Christian, I'll believe that too, unless I show up at their house just in time to catch them sacrificing a turkey to Tlaloc.

Anyway, to wrap all that up, I'm not trying to be unnecessarily divisive here, but Christians, unless they've had a lot of Jewish friends and/or colleagues and actually talked religion with them, or unless they've studied Judaism pretty thoroughly, seem to assume that just because Christianity is a daughter religion and because Jews and Christians use some of the same scriptures, we all essentially think the same way and just disagree on who the Messiah is. My point is just that that's a faulty assumption. There are bigger differences than that: the fact that Christianity was designed to be universal while Judaism was designed to apply only to a specific family/people might have a lot to do with it. The differing relationships of Jews and early Christians with Hellenism might also have had a major effect.

Getting to my point -- interfaith efforts always run the risk of focusing so much on our similarities and minimizing our differences so effectively that we end up looking the same. We're not. And that's okay. As I said above, it's even a good thing, in some ways.

(cont'd)

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:16 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

[SPEC] Kamal, Yasmine and Islam

thebruce wrote:

if you really are a Christian with the love of God in your heart, then you're in pain seeing so much of the world not knowing the real way to be with God, and you just naturally want to go out and spread the new 'share the Gospel', and all that...

Silly me. I thought those Baptists kept coming to my door for the pleasure of my conversation. Shucky poo darn.

It occurs to me that while the PMs appear to be monitoring these boards, we could probably put any speculation that we didn't want them to see in the middle of one of these posts and they'd never notice. I think we've scared away most people by now. <grin>

Quote:

Not because you have to but because, well, how could you not?! It would just be wrong to keep something so huge and life changing to yourself

Well, this is one of those areas where I understand it intellectually, but not emotionally. For me, being in love with something doesn't mean I need to convince the rest of the world to be in love with it, too. But then again, my beliefs don't tell me you're going to suffer eternal torment for not accepting them, so probably therein lies the difference.

Quote:

Due to a recent situation that lowered general respect for the culture in the world... but many islam would say that those actions are not representative of the Islamic religion...

Mm. Christianity has always opposed the spread of Islam (Crusades, anyone?), and the situation in India has nothing to do with radical Islam. Christianity historically has opposed Islam because it's not Christianity. Unfortunately, throughout much of history, that opposition has taken a violent and often atrocious form. It wasn't just religious disagreement, it was true hatred. Similarly, both Muslims and Christians often felt justified in killing and even torturing pagans with impunity. Christianity doesn't have a special persecuted status. For that matter, most of the persecution of Christianity that's taken place historically appears to have occurred at the hands of other Christians. The pilgrims didn't come here to get away from the Muslims. England's bloody history of religious division occurred mainly between Christian groups. (They kicked the Jews out in 1290, so they had no one to pick on but eachother.) And, as much as I despise the cult of victimhood that seems to have sprung up lately in many major world religions and have no desire to participate in it, when it comes to religions having a history of religious persecution...ahem.

Quote:

...and that's the problem... the actions of one christian don't necessarily reflect the truth of Christianity... it would be unfair to assume that one portion or sect of Christianity represents the whole... all I'm doing here is clarifying what shouldn't be considered entirely christian, if I can...

By "clarifying what shouldn't be considered entirely christian" according to your sect's beliefs, aren't you "assum[ing] that one portion or sect of Christianity represents to whole" or claiming that the opinion of "one christian [reflects] the truth of Christianity" at least as far as who gets to say what's Christian? Smile

Quote:

He betrayed a number of the rules from the OT, this because He was the King of the Jews, so He the right to do so, the authority

Um, the Jewish monarch does not have the right to betray any of the law. In fact, if he does, it's a sign that's he's a false king. The king, unlike any other Jew, is required to keep a Torah scroll with him constantly as a reminder of the law, and is held to a higher standard, not a more lenient one, of observance. The authority to change or abrogate any part of the law belongs to G-d alone, and He promised Moses that would never happen. See Deut. 17 regarding the responsibilities of the king vis-�-vis the Law.

Someone once said that none of us (by which I believe he meant no educated Westerner) can ever read the Bible for the first time. The Bible permeates so much of Western culture that we know many of the stories even if we've never cracked open an actual Bible. We can't read the story of Adam and Eve without viewing the snake as the bad guy, because that's the way we're trained to read it. Most people are so familiar with the story as one in which Eve proceeds to "go find" Adam and tempt him that they don't even see that the text (well, any decent translation of the text, anyway) says that she gave it to her husband "there with her." As in, probably he was standing there throughout the whole conversation with the snake.

The same thing, I believe, occurs with many of the stories regarding Jesus and alleged violations of the law. Let me offer you an alternate reading of a passage in Mark (2), the corn-plucking incident, in which historical information and even part of the passage is frequently ignored when the story is referenced.

One Sabbath he was going through the cornfields; and his disciples as they went began to pluck ears of corn. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is forbidden on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his men were hungry and had nothing to eat? He went into the House of God, in the time of Abiathar the High Priest, and ate the consecrated loaves, though no one but a priest is allowed to eat them, and even gave them to his men."

He also said to them, "The Sabbath is made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of Man is sovereign even over the Sabbath."

First, a note on terminology. The Greek of the New Testament obscures the fact that "son of man" was a general Aramaic term roughly equivalent to "human being," and not some sort of special title.

Another note. While most Christians are not aware of it, the maxim, "The Sabbath is made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath," actually was a Pharisee maxim that predates Jesus in Jewish writings. So when Jesus says this to the Pharisees, he's not declaring a new rule, he's quoting one of their rules back at them. The Pharisees (the earliest rabbis) used this maxim to articulate a principle that was later codified in Jewish law as pikuach nefesh, "when a life is at stake." If a life is endangered, the Sabbath restrictions are loosened or released entirely. In a modern-day example, while according to Jewish law, one cannot ride in a car on the Sabbath, if someone has a health emergency, one is permitted to drive them to the hospital. The Pharisees differed from the Sadducees (the Temple administration) in that they were generally comparably liberal. In tried-and-true Pharisee fashion, Jesus cites a biblical story to support his contention, and the story he picks is one of starvation � danger to human life.

This would be an absurd story for Jesus to pick to justify the behavior of his disciples if they were just having a leisurely stroll through the cornfield, don't you think? Although the narrative leaves out any reference to Jesus' immediate situation, at this time in his life Herod Antipas and the Romans weren't too happy with him.

If you restore the element of emergency to the narrative, it suddenly makes sense � Jesus and his followers, like David on the run from their persecutors, arrive in a cornfield. Picking food on the Sabbath is forbidden, but Jesus, judging it to be a situation like the case of David, rules that his followers may eat the corn, and justifies it to the Pharisees who question him by citing that same story.

I'm hard-pressed to find a place in the four gospels where it appears certain that Jesus overruled an important Torah principle.

(cont'd)

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:23 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

[OT] VERY OT. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Quote:

I agree... it wasn't like sin was born with their choice... they had to make that choice, they were created with that choice

Hmm. The question of all humanity being condemned for their sin remains. They got kicked out of the Garden, yes, but they probably weren't supposed to stay there to begin with. And why it should be seen as a separation from G-d, I don't know. G-d went with them when they left the Garden. Jewish tradition holds that even though G-d decreed that the punishment for murder was death, He didn't kill Cain because Cain couldn't be held fully accountable. Having no precedent, he couldn't fully understand the implications of killing another. The same goes for Adam and Eve. Having had no one to sin before them, their sin was not as grievous as later generations'. I'd say, traditionally, while Judaism views the expulsion from Eden as sad, it's a necessary tragedy. They had to grow up some time. After all, they were supposed to "fill the earth and master it," so they couldn't remain in Eden and still obey the first command. It was never intended to be permanent.

You can view G-d's punishment as a punishment, or you can view it as him describing to them the realities of human existence. It hurts to have kids, both physically and frequently emotionally. Work isn't always as fun as gardening in a place where everything grows.

Significantly, it's *after* they're "punished" that G-d clothes them (the Hebrew can read "in skins" or "in light") and that Adam names his wife "life-giver!" (this is before she bears children, by the way). This doesn't exactly sound like a man in despair, Milton's reading notwithstanding.

Sheesh. This ended up being a lot longer than I expected.

FreemanCorporeal wrote:

Phaedra wrote:

Gentlemen? Any takers?

Aqui.

Does this mean you'll try flirting with her, or just that you were interested enough to answer the question? Smile

Platonix wrote:

Christianity, or at least the Pentateuch religion before it split, believed, as many other religions, that the sins of one man taint not only himself but also his family and descendants. Curses were quite fully heritable as well. And, again, since Adam and Eve were the entire human race at the time of the Original Sin, that means all of humanity has sin in their bloodline.

Well, the "Pentateuch religion" would be biblical Judaism, and even in biblical Judaism, you could curse someone and their descendents, but they didn't "inherit" the curse, they were part of it. If you just cursed an individual, their children didn't "inherit" the curse. And it's not certain that that was even common belief -- the Torah says that children cannot be punished for the sins of their parents, so the "inheritable guilt" theory seems iffy. Simon and Levi are cursed by Jacob, yet the Levites become, in many ways, the most prestigious and overtly holy tribe in Israel. Despite popular medieval conceptions, there is nothing in the text that mentions that Cain's descendents inherited his mark or his curse. Curses may have been heritable in the Near East in general, but you might note that there is no Israelite version of the Oresteia.

So, returning to something remotely related to the game, did anyone notice that the SP referred to her brother? I guess that more or less settles it � she's not Covenant.

turbov21 wrote:

Going out on a limb...The three stages of rampancy are Melancholia, Anger, and Jealousy. Paranoia, according to my old psychiatrist, is often manifested during depression, which as far as I know is close to melancholia. We know she does anger, as shown in team_jersey.wav. As for jealousy... I don't recall an instance, but me thinks you accentuated it with quotes for a reason.

Very interesting. I meant "jealousy" in terms of her not tolerating other AIs very well. Melissa seems to have some difficulty playing well with others.

I think you may have something here.

Quote:

Phaedra wrote:

Or identifying themself as McKaskill, Herzog, or Jersey's dad (Jason Morelli?).

Now there's a fascinating idea.

Well, I for one am a little sad that the SP isn't Covenant, but I'll get over it.

Again, hope everyone had lovely weekends! See you later!

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:48 am
Last edited by Phaedra on Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Zaxxan
Boot

Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 29

Quote:

turbov21 wrote:
Going out on a limb...The three stages of rampancy are Melancholia, Anger, and Jealousy.

Somewhere on the Marathon pagehttp://marathon.bungie.org/story/mainpage.html, I think possibly in the Cortana letters, is it not hinted that there is a fourth stage of rampancy?

Oh yeah and wth was this thread about again? My brain has been fried by a theology discussion Razz

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:51 am

SuperJerms
Unfettered

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 537
Location: indiana

As always, the utmost respect to all parties participating and lurking. You enter the zone where iron sharpens iron. No insults, rudeness, or condescension implyed or intended.
Offer void where prohibited. Sorry, no cash or COD's. Common side effects include: drowsyness, nausea, headache, nosebleeds and diarreah. Ask your pharmacist for a free trial coupon!

Quote:

TetragrammatonJahovah, Elohim, etc....Atah medaber Ivrit? Are you quoting someone else, or is this your idea? Are you even aware of where the Tetragrammaton as opposed to Elohim is used?

Heh, as you can tell, I do not speak Hebrew. With the help of others who do, I have studied these passages and have learned to do comparative studies on specific words (via Strong's numerical reference). I am aware of the differences between differing words (as much as is possible without speaking Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or Aramaic...after all, I struggle enough with Engilsh as things stand currently! Very Happy

), but please pardon my stumbling over the words and I will attempt to expound a bit.

What I was trying to convey here is the distinction in the Torah between the Angel of the Lord and God himself. It is not too uncommon for Christians to read instances of "Angel of the Lord," (Genesis 22:11) "Angel of God," (Exodus 14:9) "Man of God," (Judges 13:6) and "Angel of His Prescence" (Isaiah 63:9) as with, but seperate from God. My intent is not to focus on those specific verses, but there are a host of situations where a distinction is made between an angel from God and an Angel of God. It is my belief that this is a theophanic occurance, not just an encounter with angelic beings. Also, the Elohiym is a plural intensive, one of a bunch of other plural referents to God. Psalm 2's son to refers not to an Earthly king but to Jesus.

And there's the Tersanctus in Numbers 6 and Isaiah 6 that are interpreted by some to be reference to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I personally do not place much stock in that, but some--who are wiser than I--do. My point not to say the Old Testament explicitly lays out a systematic doctrine of the Trinity. The point is, we didn't even have a word for Trinity until over a hundred years after Christ. If the doctrine is true, it was true before Jesus ever walked the Earth, and we should not be surprised to see it in the Old Testament, too.

Yes, I would say that the Tetragrammaton refers to Jesus because of several things that he has said. However, I have once again made leaps without explaining. As you have said that you have studied these things, I am sure I would not be contributing anything you have yet to hear already. Clearly, you have a deep knowledge of cultural and lingustic contexts, and you don't need it "walked out."

Do know that I am not just slinging words around without any understanding. I have studied these things, albeit probably in less depth than you have. I understand the difference between YHWH, elohiym, ruwach, etc. At any rate, I want to stress that I am attempting to tread lightly here in deference to your beliefs. For this reason, I have not used the word YHWH until this point, and probably won't in the future.

Quote:

On the other hand, there are plenty of things that I can say Jews don't believe, or Christians don't believe, and have no one disagree with me. Jews don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Christians don't believe in the divinity of Zeus. Certain generalizations are true. There is a core to which you can reduce each belief system, to the point where if you don't believe in those core principles, you don't fit into that belief system.

I suppose this is the crux of the disagreement. While I can agree that most Jews see the divinity of Jesus as irreconcilable to their faith, I disagree that it actually is irreconcilable.

Christianity is built upon the foundation of Judaism. If the two cannot be joined, we are a house built on sand. As you know, anyone who claims to be a prophet must not lead people to other gods and what he says must come true. Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of messianic prophesy. If Jesus was not the devil of hell incarnate or a raving lunatic then he was the fulfillment of the Law.

This is no trivial matter. If He's not the fulfillment of the law, than Christians are knowingly standing in direct opposition to God, following a false prophet, changing the law, and putting ourselves at emnity with God. There's just no way to sugar coat it as a mistake, either...

...but forget about all of this.

It is time for me to be real for a moment. Everything I've been typing is true, I think, but I am totally missing the point. I am yammering on and on about theology, and not getting to the one thing that matters here.

I could go blabbing on for hours and hours about technicalities, semantics, theologies, comparitive studies, and other useful things. Sometimes I get lost in that stuff. I love discussion. I love the interplay. I love to hear about what others believe. I love to tell what I believe.

But my yammering stops here. I have been engaging my brain so hard that I forgot to engage my heart. That is dishonest and foolish. Please accept my deepest apologies. I have been a fool.

I ask God what He wants me to share with you (anyone reading), and He said back to me simply, "Your heart."

Wow. How often do we share our hearts? Man. I don't know about you, but I've found it to be a great way to get hurt severely. Who cares. Here you go. My heart.

I have met God.

I know Him as closer than a brother, more loving than my mother, more giving than anyone I've ever met. No matter what I have done, he looks at me in love. No matter how many times I have messed up, he forgives me.

I can't even look in the mirror without noticing everything that I think is wrong with me, is wrong with my life, is wrong with the world around me. He can't look at me without His heart just overflowing with love for me.

He loves me selflessly, like Hosea loved Gomer.

Everything I have, he has given to me.

He is my only good, and he is more faithful to me than the sun rising every morning.

If the day never went dark tomorrow, I would know that He hasn't changed His mind about me.

Ask me know I know. Ask your children how they know you love them. No amount of the things I've crammed into my brain could do this.

This is not cognitive dissonance.

I am sure that there is no other way to feel this than to experience it for yourself.

Another guy's words: If you don't believe in the god that you've been told about by religion...chances are, I don't believe in him either.

You should know that I am being more frank now than I ever normally am. Frankly, there is a huge part of me that cringes at the thought of saying things without the wrapping of intelligestia. My mind is so very convinced that people will miss the truth if there's not an absolute empirical appeal. Thus, I am very well aware that these are not strong intellectual statements, and what I'm saying is not waterproof apologetics.

It is the truth. I am a new thing. I have new life.

I talk to God. He talks to me. I know Him. You can too. It just doesn't get any better than that.

_________________
"If we could make your toaster print something we would." - Jordan Weisman

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:44 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

[SPEC] This one isn't theology, I promise!

Actually ON-TOPIC!!!

I posted this to a puzzle thread because there was a discussion of goddesses going on, but the puzzle has been solved, and it was actually a bit out of place, so I'll put it here, since we were discussing mythology and the Three Graces a bit before we veered off into theology.

Since it seems to be the consensus that Melissa, Durga and the SP are versions or parts of the same AI, a few thoughts on our little Trinity:

1. Potnia was a pre-Homeric/Minoan/Mycenaean goddess, one of whose symbols was the bee. Her priestesses were known as Melissas (Melissa means either "bee" or "honey" or possibly both in pre-Homeric Greek.

2. In Indian mythology, Durga is the warrior goddess who slays the evil king Mahishasura, who has usurped the rule of the gods. Despite being a maiden in the myths, she is worshipped as a mother goddess who destroys evil, protects her devotees, and establishes peace and prosperity on earth. However, she is closely associated with Kali, the goddess of destruction, who's not quite so warm and fuzzy.

3. Sleeping Princess myths are common to almost every culture on earth. Most folklorists agree that they represent the way nature (generally personified as female) goes to "sleep" in the winter and reawakens in the spring. The most obvious example is the myth of Persephone, although that's abduction rather than sleep.

So...how does this apply to our girls?

[SPEC] We've already seen the abduction and rescue of the SP, so she's more or less fulfilled her myths. I wonder if Durga's going to slay something evil. There is an actual woman named "Melissa" in Greek mythology -- a daughter of Melissus, the king of Crete, who nursed the infant Zeus and was later transformed into a bee. So, maybe Melissa will bring something to life (or perhaps she's harboring something -- Kronos wanted to kill Zeus -- the Pious Flea, perhaps?). [/SPEC]

Thoughts, oh my companions on the Speculation Road to Probably Nowhere?

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:03 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Zaxxan wrote:

Oh yeah and wth was this thread about again? My brain has been fried by a theology discussion Razz

Hey, you were warned. Laughing

The thread was kicked off by my speculation regarding the AIs personalities and suggestions for various approaches to communicating with them that might spark interesting responses.

From there, it meandered through evolutionary biology, theology and a whole host of things and at this point has, I think, become a small corner of the forums where people who enjoy one another's virtual company dicuss or debate whatever topical or tangential subjects strike their fancy.

Feel free, please, to post here whatever speculation you feel doesn't fit in anywhere else, but bear in mind that most beekeepers have probably gotten sick of our ramblings, so if you want to make sure it actually gets *read* you might want to post it elsewhere.

I'm sorry we fried your brain. My formal educational background includes both religious studies and constitutional law; I think you can tell from the fact that I chose to study these things that I'm the type of person who enjoys hair-splitting distinctions and detailed interpretations.

But I recognize that most people find the type of theology discussions we've been having excruciating, which is why I generally try to warn people at the beginning of my theology-heavy posts.

Still, sorry.

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:55 pm

Son of a Beep
Boot

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 23
Location: WI

After reading your posts, Phaedra, I have to complement you on your tolerance and all around intelligence with respect to world religions. Im not going to pretend none of what you said went over my head but it was all very interesting to read. I am a Christian (as I told you at the axon, being a WLC student) but the insights into judaism and hebrew from you are very interesting.

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:04 am

GabrielBlade
Decorated

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 202

Re: [SPEC] This one isn't theology, I promise!

Phaedra wrote:

Actually ON-TOPIC!!!
[SPEC] We've already seen the abduction and rescue of the SP, so she's more or less fulfilled her myths. I wonder if Durga's going to slay something evil. There is an actual woman named "Melissa" in Greek mythology -- a daughter of Melissus, the king of Crete, who nursed the infant Zeus and was later transformed into a bee. So, maybe Melissa will bring something to life (or perhaps she's harboring something -- Kronos wanted to kill Zeus -- the Pious Flea, perhaps?). [/SPEC]

Thoughts, oh my companions on the Speculation Road to Probably Nowhere?

Well, if the road goes nowhere, strike off the road and go somewhere else. [/cheesy cliche]

As far as your Spec goes - I never knew there was so much mythology behind - like Melissa nurturing Zeus and then being turned into a bee (bloody hell, is that symbolic, or what?) Things are starting to slowly fit together... but my only problem is that sometimes they seem to fit together too neatly - and if the PMs have already seen that, then it could be just a false trail and have nothing to do with our friends whatsoever.

Then again, they could be counting on just that line of thought I expressed, and are going to make us all go "Oh, why didn't we accept what was right infront of us all along." Of course, they could be expecting us to think of that, and therefore by some form of reverse-reverse-reve.. oh no, I've gone cross-eyed. [/Austen Powers reference]

As I was saying.. it may or may not be right, we'll never know until the end. But the Spec, as it is, is always good to read. When it's not causing my head to explode. Wink

_________________
Gabriel Blade::Lord of the Asylum::Emperor of Insanity
---�For Whom the Bell Tolls.. Time Marches On�---

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:46 am

Trynian
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 146

*boggles*

*boggles some more*

Dana was right:

Quote:

So I sat in this caf� with you. Watched the first reports come in. Fast and furious. And that's when I finally got it. Right here. This. You.

You are my extraordinary. Near strangers � brilliant, kind, loud, mean, methodical, wildly creative, above all passionate. I don't agree with all of you� no surprise, you hardly agree with one another. But your energy. This community.

By sheer fluke luck, this blog has become a way station for amazing, brilliant, compassionate, crazy people. A clearinghouse for an extraordinary phenomenon. And I don't mean the AI.

I get it now. And I'm here, I'm all in.

Jerms, Phaedra, Bruce, the rest of you...I consider myself very fortunate to have discovered this community. May we some day be able to meet face-to-face.

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:00 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Attempting to remain humble...

Son of a Beep wrote:

In truth, Beep (or would you prefer Son? or BeepMan? or -- never mind, I'll stop Razz

), you would be much less impressed with me if you'd been at the axon. I spent most of the time staring dumbly at the phone with my mouth hanging open.

And thank you very much for the kind words.

By the way, SuperJerms: I'm not ignoring your eloquent and near-poetic post -- it was truly lovely. I just haven't had time to sit down and respond to it when I've been home.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:37 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 3 of 4 [57 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Interaction

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum