Add Episode
| Add Episode |
|
On fitting in with existing schema...Episode submitted by nothingsp on Fri Dec 16 03:43:15 2011 Return to Parent Episode Heh, this has prompted some interesting discussion ;D I guess on a base level I'm kind of inclined to agree with chompy, that it's easier/more manageable to keep it vague and not really settled - you know the old saw about the riddle being more interesting than the solution. The explorations we've made so far have set up some interesting questions to which there are a number of possible answers, and half the intrigue is in the speculation, I think. The further you narrow it down, the less of that there is. That's not to say that there shouldn't be exploration, of course - it'd be pretty unsatisfying for all of us for the subject to come up and be abruptly dropped. It's just a thought while we're on the topic, not to rush into finalizing explanations unless it's going to ultimately be more satisfying than leaving something unresolved (or hinted-at-but-ambiguous.) But of course you can't go exploring without bringing some things to light. On which note: while TheWeirdo's first proposal (the everybody-exists one) seems like the easiest course to take, it raises some pretty thorny questions, re: mutual exclusivity. Simply put, all religions can't be definitively true, not at face value; some of them have a rather more exclusive definition of the term "god" than others. It'd just be kind of awkward. The second proposal (the many-faces theory) seems closer to what we'd be looking for - that the entities under discussion may be those named by various religions, but not necessarily tied to or exactly defined by them. That could quite easily fit in with the "embodiment of universal aspects" notion - the gods might fit into the basic roles in many belief systems, but the exact specifics are human cultural constructs (whether simply mythical or, as TheWeirdo suggested, like a "face" that they wear when playing that part.) (Parenthetical aside: In that case, there would be a case to be made that they aren't "real" gods, by the more exclusive definitions (but it should be noted that they may not ever have claimed to be.) If, for example, you took someone like Lois at the cafe and introduced her to Venus/the Woman, and asked her how that affected her faith, she might conceivably reply that while the Woman was real, and might indeed fill some kind of cosmic role, she's not God in the Christian sense (because, quite clearly, She's nothing like the Christian God.) She could acknowledge the reality of that figure for what She is while maintaining her faith in the real God as she always has, by faith. I'm specifically thinking of the Space Trilogy by C.S. Lewis here. In this series, the author has it that the deities of classical mythology are in fact real beings, angelic figures associated with and ruling over their respective planets, under a Trinitarian set of higher-authority figures. In this way, Lewis gives an in-story basis in truth both to his own beliefs, and to the classical mythology that inspired him as an author. Not that I'm suggesting that as our model here, of course - just as an interesting example of this very question being raised and addressed in prior fiction. And, coincidentally, a pretty good series of planetary-romance novels.) I guess that's kind of what it comes down to, for me; the more specifics we get into, the more these questions will be raised. That's not a bad thing, but I'd like to make sure that if the answers are provided, they're not trite answers. Okay One more thought | |
| Episode not yet rated (You must be logged in to rate episodes) |
|
| Add Episode |
|