The Seekers of Illumination

Hmmm...I'm intrigued by the possibility. Oh, the excitement of expectation!!

...that sounded wrong. Very wrong.

Aaaanyways, with the few final touches, Sinis and I will have the first bout, and with Celtic's intention to participate, would anyone else try to sign in, so that he won't feel so alone? If not, then I suggest a triple set of matches (as in, Sinis-Me, Celtic-Me, Celtic-Sinis) as an alternative. I did saw Aerif making a new character with a very general and wide set of moves. Perhaps a match in the making?

Mr. Oskar you are a mind-reader!

Yes, I did create an RPB character with intention to actually use her. I hoped to be able to use her with an association of SoI, but saw no openings, I'm about to start a privately-formed match however I tend to work better when I have more than one post to make.

So yes, if Celtic approves then I will use my new character. We're both theoretically the same level at RPB, creative, yet not extremely experianced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerif

So yes, if Celtic approves then I will use my new character. We're both theoretically the same level at RPB, creative, yet not extremely experianced.

---

I'll accept once I've made myself a char for the SoI, BUT from looking at a few RPs I somehow get the feeling I'm gonna get my ass handed to me. ><
Sounds fun. ;D

Ah, light themed character... ><
Give me another day. :lol:

EDIT: I made my character. Can be found.... here.
http://thefinalfantasy.net/forums/sh...&postcount=583

Yeaps, he'll be my SoI RPB char. ;D

Well...perhaps not a mind reader, Aerif, but somewhat a summoner. I just mentioned the word and *poof*, suddenly a post appears. Lemme try this...

Fishie...

Fishie...

Fishie...

...we'll see if the results are as I expect, or was just a random coincidence.

Do you think coincidences happen? Or merely forces beyond our frail comprehension cause events to happen? Such as, and not limited to: conspiration of the Universe, vestigial psionics (a.k.a. calling someone with your mind), fate, and others. How much of a "coincidence" is unintentional and unexpected, and how much is really something pulling the strings for it to happen?

As for the characters: I've seen before Sinis' character (Jaffar), and I'm glad he kept the finer points of his background the same (which is, essentially, everything). As for Gabrielle (Aerif), that was pretty fast done, as if you had quite the experience to make a character on the fly that was interesting enough to be played. Consider that talent praised.

Then there's Nate's character. I had quite the question of how a club of Law and a club of Chaos would behave. Good and Evil, the moral extremes, can be easily defined and determined. But Order and Chaos, the ethical extremes, were...too hard to be rationalized. I must congratulate Celtic for his character: it is well thought, how an envoy of Chaos could consciously choose to upheld Good over Evil. I'd really like to see how you go on with fights. Interesting concept...

As for my character, I decided to give it a massive overhaul. Something fitting to consider the fact of leadership and the boosts that come with it. Considering the amount of skills and power degree the rest of the characters there have, I decided that a bit of an overhaul was necessary. I hope that it isn't that much of an overhaul. I got the idea that a character that drew most of his powers through stamina from Eragon: I see it as a very interesting way to: A) explain what is given in exchange when using power in a qualitative way, rather than a quantitative way (it's easier to explain "I'm mighty tired after the spell" than "I lost xxx amount of MP because of the spell"); and B) limit the powers and abilities that may cause a bit of trouble (curative magic and protection wards, as they can unnecessarily prolong the battle) by making the big guns be really costly on stamina. Placing a protective ward and keeping it for a long time, considering the potency of various attacks, can be especially draining; accelerating the natural rate of recovery of the body by a thousand-fold drains resources of the body like uncontrolled hunger, and unconsciousness is the last thing you really want when fighting, so it gives a sense of consideration on whether to use a big-shot power to end things fast, or stall your stamina to land key strikes with lesser abilities. And of course, since recovery of stamina is pretty much hard to do, the element of resource management remains intact.

Hopefully that'll explain my thoughts if you or anyone who sees this considers the character a tad overpowered. I'd likely think not, but rather balanced to the overall power degree of the characters presented there.

I have come out on top of my little mental episode and, as such, would like to apply again. I know that looking back through past posts makes up part of your procedure, Oskar, and I've got a black mark on my record. All I can say is something happened which set off a lot of things that had been sitting in my head anyway. But I'm back to as close to normal as I ever was now.

I consider myself an altruist because I love life, and everything that lives; trees, cats, people, tea bushes. I would do anything to protect that life, all the little bits of life which give us the wonderment we call Earth. I've always tried my best to do so, and to speak out against injustice whenever and wherever I come across it. It's not part of any belief system, since I don't really have a defined system - I have my own little arrogant code of morals, which places life and the intellectual marvel of justice at the top of my list of Big Things.

I don't really know what else to say, really. I'd like to write an essay for you about Japanese Shinto, if that'd be useful. I've been studying it lately, and I really like the way it seems to go, about kani and all of that - that all life is sacred, and connected, and that trees and the sea deserve respect. That when you die nothing horrific happens to you if you've not been a massive Shinto follower; the fact that you don't need to declare your belief to be recognised by your local temple.

I've never RPB'd in my puff and my RP'ing is decidedly dodgy; but it'd be fun to try, as long as there's somewhere/thread/thing/person which could show me the ropes of RPB. I may be pretty dodgy, but it shouldn't (operative word) be too bad. That and the overwhelming temptation to type I SHOOT YOU YOU DIE if bored (I wouldn't really do that).

Well, that's that. Take care loves.

EDIT: Oh, coincidence; I love it. How cool. Perhaps there's more to it than the butterfly effect and those complicated physics things; I tend not to prod into them, since I like coincidence too much to want to know more, for the moment at least. Circumstance. Does rain automatically make a day bad, or can rain make a first kiss all the more special? What if I hadn't been drawn to live with the people I do; would I be listening to the music I am now? Why did that bin fall over just that asshole on a scooter was speeding by? And how the **** does Hazel from college know my auntie Jacqui? I do love life, I do.

Well...seems not to have worked as I thought... Not a summoner, sadly...

@Govi/Pablo (who knew you liked that name more?): Well, I was quite explicit with the rules, but I'll be more than happy to let that episode pass away. See, while you were trying to make ends meet, Celtic and Sinis were doing as possible to explain what was the reason you were a bit absent. Consider, albeit ironic, that while you tried to convince people that Internet is not the way to make friends, two complete (so to say) strangers stood up to you.

Which is, why, I let that one slip away. And perhaps a few more, who knows. Rules are rules, but a friendship, or at least a sense of camaraderie, is stronger than rules at times.

Shit happens, and more times than you think. Don't look at me as the stern enforcer of the law (I'm not a mod, whom are bound by duty, I am a sensible poster that happens to be the one that leads the club). And, being altruist does not mean that you have to cross your arms when shit like that happens. If you made the guy crash and realize he did stuff wrong by throwing a stone at it, I wouldn't mind.

Shinto..."the way of the Kami" (shin = one of the many ways to speak of a god or animistic spirit; to/tou = path. Or so I recall) I've heard a bit on Japanese lessons. There's supposed to be over 60 thousand kami all over Japan, and the one that's revered with greater depth is Amaterasu. Please, if you have the time, go ahead and make our day.

Which reminds me...I should do my essay too. But, I'm at a lack for ideas. Mostly everyone knows here about Christianity (be you accepting or not), so that essay would be redundant. So does Judaism, and Islam as well. A bit off would be the ideas of sects outside the main course of the religion, so off with Kabbalah (I know very little, but it's the most interesting sect of Judaism I've ever seen. And I was not drawn to it by Sephiroth, mind you, but by the Elementals)...unless you'd like to hear, in which case I'd have to get some reading. Perhaps a bit of still-practiced Mazdeim (Zoroastrianism)? One of the few dualist religions, as far as I recall. Either that or Zen Buddhism.

For RPBs, not everyone here is adept in the development of RPBs, and everyone is at most doing their first battle, so if you want to give it a try, there's the Roleplay Battle forum just a few steps down from the clubs sub-forum in the main page. First two threads are the character applications (important), and after that, the rules (also important). If you've participated in RPs, it's not that different; you simply participate with another, and attempt to deal blows to overcome the other one. I think I explained to Celtic a few pages ago: you might wanna read that. So far, Celtic and Aerif are still partner-less unless they decide to battle each other: you might want to wait for Fishie to come, unless otherwise. Just don't feel like pressured: if RPBs are not your forte, then you can just remain debating.

Cheers love :).

I've been studying quite a lot of Japanese lately - by coincidence. Twice a week I have to drag my sorry arse to the Language Centre of my own accord and listen to awful tapes of French people talking quickly, and then singing. A few weeks ago I was going into the TV/Tape room with my second tape when some German asshole crashed into me in the doorway, muttered something gutteral, and left; I crashed into the filing cabinet by the door, one I've walked by 100 times. I pulled it open and found drawer upon drawer of Learn Japanese, Learn Korean, Learn Russian etc videotapes. So I've started watching them as a treat for getting through the awful French tapes in one piece. That sparked the interest in Shinto; and I'd love to write an essay on it for you. I don't think I'm meant to be going anywhere near Learn Japanese, but hey, yesterday I learned the kanji for my name.

As for RPB, I'll give the forum for it the once over soon (probably tomorrow). Sounds like fun.

They did stick up for me, huh :). They're good like that. I don't think I ever really believed what I was saying in that thread I made; I was in a kind of episode, I guess. And it's such a huge compliment that people did actually stick up for me. Sticks more than mud ever will, in my view at least.

I'm off to bed now. Sleep tight dearhearts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by T.G. Oskar
So far, Celtic and Aerif are still partner-less unless they decide to battle each other: you might want to wait for Fishie to come, unless otherwise. Just don't feel like pressured: if RPBs are not your forte, then you can just remain debating.

---

I could use more RPB experience. I seem to lack RPB in general and have only done one since my time at TFF. Mind you, I was a noob at the time so I'm guessing it didn't go well. ;! I'll be creating my character either tonight or tommorow morning. Don't know who I'll be going against though.

I've also decided to participate in the essay activity as well. I go up and down with what I want to do. I would do religion but I'm not like a hardcore believer on religion at this point in my life. I'm not saying that I doubt whether some sort of divine entity is but I'm not sure whether I believe what I'm supposed to believe is true.

That's been going somewhat on mind for a while now, religion. My whole life I've been raised as a Catholic. My father's Christian and my mom's Catholic. However, my dad was willing for my sister and I to be brought up as Catholics instead. I've noticed that there's not much of a difference between the two but my questions are these....

1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?
2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?

And its good to see you back at the forums Govinda. After reading your journal and hearing your side of the story, I'm glad you're back. You have a big heart I see now. Even for someone you don't know you do. And we need more people like that in life. :)

Well...at least you got better luck than me, Govi/Pablo.

Also...love? I feel cared for.

As far as any conscious sensei would tell you, you can't turn your name into a kanji, since it must follow the rules for foreign language. In an essence, it means that you must use Katakana (the simple-looking and straight ideograms) to write it. As well, you must equal the sound of your name into the syllabic sounds of the language. That means, for instance, that all "L"s turn into "R"s, that consonants often follow the "consonant + u" syllable, and so on.

Now, if you've equaled the meaning of your name into the Kanji(s) that represent your name, then you've done something really wonderful. That's similar to re-adapting your name in the Chinese format.

How would the name Oscar translate? I've heard somewhere it's German for "lance of the gods", but that's a bit far thrown-off proportions. I know it would be somewhere around "Kami no yari", or "Shin no Yari", since most of the Japanese words have no plurals, instead depending on aids to determine the qualitative amount.

Or so I recall. Anyways, it's often Katakana or Romaji for foreign languages. And Kanji can be real complex, since often times a word has multiple meanings (Shin can refer to either new, god, or even bird. Whaddya know?)

Oddly, as a final on languages, I have the ability to read in almost proper pronunciation French, and pretty much understand it, yet I have not taken a single lesson in French. And, to add up to the mystery, Spanish and French, even if both are Latin-derived languages, rarely are similar. Odd, don'tcha think?

@Fishie: your two questions are pretty much solved easily. They don't need that deep of an answer.

First and foremost, you spoke about the religion you have "faith" upon. That, in a way, is your answer. To believe in the reality of a religion's dogma, you need to have faith in the dogma's main principles themselves.

Explanation: you believe that Christianity (of which, believe it or not, Catholicism belongs to) is the true faith, and you have faith on it. To prove that, you quote from the Bible, which by faith you have given authority. If you speak to, say, Govi or Celtic, they won't recognize the authority of the Bible (that's my assumption anyways), so you cannot use the Bible as a tangible proof of your convictions. If you take your belief into philosophical terms, then you have a greater chance of succeeding by the sole proclaim that you have faith in your beliefs. I can't say that you cannot be "out-logic"ed by someone else, but you cannot be disproven as long as you claim to have faith. Since faith implies that you believe in the thing you have faith upon without any further proof, as it goes beyond proof, you believe in it as true, and cannot be proven otherwise (since you have forgone proof and the need of evidence to support your claim, because your claim is that you need no claim), you need no further proof to reaffirm your claim.

Faith allows you to see things through a different lens. If you have faith, you'll begin to see things in a different way. Roughly the same as if when you believe in a particular philosophy, when you see things by the perspective of that philosophy. That does not mean you will see things the same way the others that have faith do, but you'll recognize the work of God, or whomever you worship, in the lens of that very same faith.

One final thing. Faith is not objective, but then again, nor does philosophy. You need hard evidence and lack of bias to achieve objectivity, something that philosophy cannot provide. In the realm of philosophy, the right belief is the one with the strongest support.

In short terms: if you believe it's right, then to you it must be true. If you have doubt, then you do not believe it's right after all.

Second: for hope to be false, it should be easy to dismantle, in the long term. If you claim that, for example, a long-lost relative of yours, whom you haven't seen for a long time but have fond memories of, will return eventually, you have hope that it'll return. Unless you are proven that the person is incapable of returning, it cannot be a false hope, since there's a possibility that it may be true: the window of possibilities is still open, regardless of the chance that it may happen. It becomes a false hope in the event that it becomes impossible for it to happen. If it has not happened before, then it does not mean it's false: it has not happened yet. That's it. Now...if the relative is dead, then it's a false hope, but it's not false until disproven. If, knowing that the relative cannot return by any means, you still claim that it will return, then it becomes a false hope as you realize it cannot happen, but you look for it anyways.

How does that translate into religion? Well, you cannot prove in hard terms that God exists without the other person having faith. But, since you cannot prove God does not exist (it happens because to do so, you must destroy the authority a person places on faith), you cannot then determine that religions only offer a false hope. You can, however, prove that the effects of worship and praise can either affect a person negatively, positively, or make no effect at all. A positive effect increments faith, a negative effect shakes the faith of an individual, and no effect at all diminishes faith. There are three possible outcomes, each of them having a response depending on the ability to offer authority to faith. That is easily proven: it's a statement. It's impossible that it happens and it does not happen, and rarely does it happens positively and negatively at the same precise time. Now, if something happens out of prayer and belief, does it means that when it happens the way you don't want to, you must lose all hope?

The answer is nope. See, if you have faith, you believe that God has a mission, and that His Will cannot be twisted or changed to your whims. If it happens in the negative sense, or nothing happens at all, then you understand it is in His Will that it does not happens the way you seek to. That keeps your hope alive, or gives you a new hope, which replaces the aforementioned one. If you do not have faith, then either you must place authority on faith, and believe of heart, or stop seeking a religion and live your life the way you really want to.

In a nutshell: it depends on whether you have faith or not. If you have no faith, then you'll be deceived when you find that what you seek has not been given. If you have faith, then you will not lose your hopes even if you do not receive what you sought for.

I must admit, these two questions are easy to answer, but present a challenge. Why easy? Well, you answer them according to your point of view. Why challenging? Because there is no single equal point of view: all are different.

I can foresee a future "well, I must differ from your dissertation" or something similar. All I can say is, "I place authority upon the words of the Bible, although I have my issues with how true the parts of the whole are. Just as I cannot prove God's existence with things you place no authority to, so cannot I accept your proof of God's lack of existence if I do not recognize the authority you cite".

JIC, that's my defense in case someone feels offended. Don't take it as an attack to personal beliefs, but, in the end, you believe what you want to believe, and place the authority of truth on whatever you want to place it to. You cannot convince someone that religion is false as long as you do not challenge the beliefs of that person and the authorities and where it places them. In the same way, if you are to challenge the proof, you must accept that the person is equally capable of challenging your beliefs and refusing to recognize your authorities. In the end, the winner of the debate is, believe it or not, the one with the greatest power of conviction.

Or how do you think Nietzche, Marx and Lenin extended their beliefs? And why do you think people recognize them as authority? Because they have solid proof and aren't biased? Or because they had skill to convince? Regardless of the answer, consider that perhaps not asking and pondering upon the question solves much of your problems. Because it grants you focus on those really important ones, such as "what'll you do tomorrow".

Whew...that was a mouthful. And it's about to be morning over here, so I bid ye adieu and good moment-when-you-wake-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar

If you speak to, say, Govi or Celtic, they won't recognize the authority of the Bible (that's my assumption anyways), so you cannot use the Bible as a tangible proof of your convictions.

---

Actually I do consider myself Christian. Just not your typical sort. I recognise the authority of the bible, yet I DO NOT recognise that anyone has the flawless ability to interpret it completely right. ^^

Here's why. Most if not all random passages will reveal different things to different people. Or a person will respond differently to the same piece of text. A decent enough example can be seen through all the Christian denominations. Some people disagreed with what the established meanings were and broke away from the main part of the church.

There's also another little chat I had with someone who's spent a lot more time than myself trying to find revelations within the pages of the bible who had something to say that I found interesting. I'd heard it before of course, but this time it got me thinking. Know how Jesus used parables to teach people who may not have gotten the meaning through other means?
Well basically I wonder this. What if there are in fact meanings hidden even deeper? Like the first meaning of something is a simpler lesson, and there's much more meaning below the surface.

The bible could be telling more than we could ever know. ><
Presuming it's Christianity a person believes in of course. Chaos dictates to me that there's nothing better than a wide variety of beliefs. :lol:

Let me clarify my beliefs a little...
Chaos in mythology is a big part of my beliefs. Granted it was Greek mythology I believe, BUT it told of a void that the Gods came from. And was said to be made up of the four Greek elements earth, air, water and fire.
Since I'm lazy...

Quote:

---

* Air is primarily wet and secondarily hot.
* Fire is primarily hot and secondarily dry.
* Earth is primarily dry and secondarily cold.
* Water is primarily cold and secondarily wet.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

---

Quote:

---

They represent in Greek philosophy, science, and medicine the realms of the cosmos wherein all things exist and whereof all things consist.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

---

So to me that would indicate all things can be made of the void. Everything from nothing. Granted these are older ideas, but perhaps there's a truth to them. Anyways, I see this void as the Christian God. He's not exactly nothing, more he's everything, just not really in the same form of existence to us.

All things come from God. :D

Then finally there's God's nature. It's commonly believed by some that however things end, it will turn out for the better. I also believe this. BUT I believe that God is behind everything both good and bad. And that the good and bad may not really be exactly as we think they are. That is good may not be as good as we think, and bad might be better than we could ever believe.

For a time I believed God to be unfair just due to the interpretation of the bible by a few people who were higher up in a Christian church type sense. I've since realised it was most likely just a poor interpretation on their behalf, BUT I still question a lot more than most will, whilst maintaining a less than typical view of God.

So I'm a Christian, yes. Just not one of any named denomination. :lol:

Gaah!!! I had forgotten for a while that you are much more orthodox in belief than the Orthodox Christians. I had taken for a fact that you had taken a leave to Christianity: here I stand proven wrong. I had to take some people as an example, and since the only good atheist I know that you know for sure is Honey, so...I thought I needed a second example.

Aaaanyways, as far as I recall, there is a Void in every mention of religion, almost as much mentioned as the meaning of good and evil. Norse had the Ginningagap (which, far as I recall, is not Norse but Norwegian), Greeks had the primordial Chaos from where Gaia and Uranus emerged, and so on. In fact, if you come to think closely, the Judaic faith, and by proxy the Christian and Islamic faiths as Abrahamic faiths also believe in a Void. Well...a void filled halfway with water, but a Void nonetheless, which was ostracized and altered by the utterings of the Word of God. But, the world before Creation was empty and lifeless, save for the water: sounds like a Void to me.

Second, and perhaps something that will strike odd...there is no specific mention of the Devil after the fall of Eden as the one that does all the bad things. See, it is common Christian association that God is good and the Devil, the Instigator, is the original serpent, but when the Pharaoh was being plagued, who hardened its heart? And why? Believe it or not, it was God. Originally, and in true monotheistic fashion, God was the bringer of mercy and calamity, the one that ordered to kill as easily as to forgive. It is by later scripts that the Devil is re-introduced as the bad guy, as the one against humanity (around Job, to be precise) Granted, for all the questionable acts of God (which have their purpose, mind you), there are 7 to 77 (number not accurate) acts that sustain its position as chief good deity. But, nowhere in the Torah you can find tangible evidence of the presence of the Devil, expect via interpretation of the Word. Idols and pagan deities are perceived to be the agents of evil, but again, via interpretation. It does not change the meaning.

The Christian religion is quite odd when you think about it. It's dualistic and at the same time monotheistic. It is dualistic in the way it is interpreted (one God for good, one being that encompasses all evil, and all the aspects of the world revolve around these two), but monotheistic in the importance of the dualist beings (God is the only god recognized, and Jesus is recognized as either God incarnate, the son of God, or a combination of the two), while the Devil is perceived as flawed, inferior, and moreso, submit to God's orders (Job is the perfect example: God agrees to torture Job to challenge its faith, but it strictly determines that its soul shall not be touched; that means, he could not be killed by the Devil's acts, or otherwise). So, since there is an imbalance in power towards the good deity, it cannot be fully perceived as a dualistic religion. As well, since the Trinity cannot be perceived as deities of equal power, so does the Christian religion cannot behave as a polytheistic religion.

But, that it has all the other requisites to be considered a dualistic religion, yes it does. Just look at Mazdeism: Ahura Mazda/Ormuz and Ahriman are beings of equal power, and both are to be worshiped to prevent the fury of disobedience. And, all things that exalt the spirit are the fruits of Ormuz, while the flesh is the realm of Ahriman. Everything and it's grandmother is defined in the sight of these two.

As for the parables...Christ is using an often used tactic during the time. After all, fables were popular, but instead of using animals and personification, Christ used examples of common people. Gents, Christ was a very, very educated person, and had gift of communication: it is expected because of his formation as a teacher that he had to be literate. He was a Rabbi, and read the scrolls of the synagogues. It is evident that he used one of the simplest tools to convey a message. A deeper meaning is a resource from the Second Millenia.

Elements...why the descriptions sound so similar to the classic winds? One I recall is Boreas, which behaves like Water: cold and wet wind. Zephyros, the West Wind, was the favorable wind, and was the closest to its element (which, if I recall, is not Wind but Air (pneuma). And Notos, the South Wind, is the dry and hot desertic wind coming from the Sahara. Euros, the East Wind, is dry and cold. Not sure if I recalled them correctly, but far as I know those are the classic winds.

But yeah...give your thanks to Luther for breaking the absolute order of the Roman Catholic Church. Even if I recall that God is the god of Order (and then again, I do recall that he's a chaotic god at times. Each time I hear that God is a god of Order, I remember the chaos of Babel, sent by? Right.)

Last words...I'll respond to Sinis at close thing Saturday if not late today or tomorrow. I'd like to have some rest (sleeping 1 hour is not healthy, folks) Though, I must admit, I really like to give that fight a forward. I'm not the kind of people that back down from a challenge.

Yes, kanji! It wasn't the tapes though. My friend brought a few of her friends over a few nights back, and one was a Japanese guy called Yoyo (assumed nickname). He's interesting - he's a seemingly serious guy, yet his nickname's Yoyo. Anyway, I told him I'd been learning Japanese on the sly - and he translated the kanji for 'beautiful mountain flower' (I'm named after the Highland flower Heather) for me as best he could. Mountain was as close as he could get to Highland, I think, his speech was a bit quick. I hope Molly brings him around again, he seems smart (and he told me I was beautiful, hahaha. Flattery will get you somewhere). He also told me that my literal, forgien name in Japanese is, in fact, Hezza. What a fascinating language, what a fascinating culture.

Hi Fishie :). Your questions:

1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?

I don't have faith in any religion

2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?

I don't think that religion was designed to give people false hope, but I won't deny that it feeds the false hopes of some. False hope can be interpreted in many ways - for instance, some Christians hope for the Rapture, where Jesus comes back and most of we nonbelievers perish. In that case, I would say that yes, religion gives people false hope, since there's no way in hell I see Jesus floating down and drowning me in a river of blood. Anything promised in books and hoped for by believers I would take to be false hope.

However, if it's hope in a time of crisis, then I don't mind it, and I don't think it's false. If someone is ill, or someone they love is ill, and they pray and find hope in that prayer, it's not false so long as it keeps them sane. Even if the doctors say its a terminal illness - the hope isn't false if it's all they have left to hold on to.

Marx was the one who called religion 'the opaite of the masses', wasn't he? Giving poor workers false hope in the glory, rest and comfort of heaven. That still goes on, you know - Rapture missionaries target war-torn African areas on purpose, for they know that their message will find a home in the hearts of people with nothing at all, no shred of hope; to them, it will give false hope, because as far as I'm concerned, no god is coming to solve their problems, fix their homes: they have to do it themselves. In that case, yes, religion spreads false hope.

So, overall, I'd say that religion gives people with nothing completely false hope, and that this can be a very bad thing if it stops the people from working (together or alone) to change what is wrong; but if all it does is supply comfort, then it's not such a bad thing. I know that if the faeces does hit the fan and something someone's been falsely hoping against goes wrong, they'll be shattered; but perhaps then they can find comfort in a hope I would call false but that they wouldn't: reunion, retribution or restoration in some kind of afterlife.

What a good question.

Having trouble logging on...Stupid Ice storm cuts the power every other five minutes and the Internet connection keeps cutting out...

Just wanted to say that the BoD is officially dead...and I'm very sorry that the Masters had to do it for us...We're all alone now...no polar opposite...Taoism would be most unpleased, we're not balanced. I hope they'll be back, somehow.

At anyrate...I'll post up on RPB when I get the time and the WWW behaves.

Also in a personal matter, does anyone here take exception that I'm in the "light club" and has a name like Sinister? I guess I have to be the inner balance :D

Anyway, post when I can.


Love,
-Sin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinister

Just wanted to say that the BoD is officially dead...and I'm very sorry that the Masters had to do it for us...We're all alone now...no polar opposite...Taoism would be most unpleased, we're not balanced. I hope they'll be back, somehow.Anyway, post when I can.

---

I feel bad for them, a total cancelation of their club and club activities. They where unorthodox and sectarionist and a whole manner of other crude things. But it was always nice to think that they where running in parallel with the forum.

Also, according to Toromor, every single BoD member will leave the forum in protest, which seems untrue but if that is the case then TFF would lose a number of good people and probably a good bit of activity.

Anyway, now is the time for me to post responses to Fishie's questions.

1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?

As philosophy dictates, there is no true way in knowing if something is true or not. Ideas are only there because humans came up with them. I'm Roman Catholic and I do find myself doubting religion at times, however the fundamentels of faith are just that, faith. If you have faith that something is true then that is all the reassurance you need when it comes to religion.

2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?

I personally don't believe this, though I could see it being a possible truth. Most religions are based upon altruism (well, the one's I'm thinking of) which of course is used for the benefit of others. To give another person hope would be a form of altruism, so on a basic level, 'false hope' would be a reasonably acceptable result for the founder of the religion.

However, I'm going to have to stick with my answer in saying that I don't believe that that's what religion was intended for. Christianity and Judiasm (sp?) where not the first religions, also, there are quite a few religions that don't have 'salvation' at the end of one's life. Religion was created because people knew that the only explanation of the world was a great being, they practiced it in order to keep this being happy, so the concept of 'false hope' would only work for a handful of religions. Hence, I refuse to believe it.

I don't think it's every single member. And there aren't that many active BOD members anyway. Priscilla and Vampiric are still here. Bryan is most likely still here since he is a staff member and said he'd be working in his FF7 forum yesterday.

So really, not that many people are leaving, but at the same time, it is sad to see them go. But it was their decision. And really, "quitting to make a statement" plans never work out.

I, personally, would not like to say anything about the stunt the BoD is pulling off. I know they like to pull off some threats and some pranks, and I'm sure this is one of them. I won't say the BoD's influence is off this thread until half a year has passed. In the meantime...

The Masters as organization are more of a neutral group. Anomaly's character himself was an ultimate neutral, which could fight in both light and darkness. IN a sense, if the BoD were to lose, they are to become the "Dark" group on the grounds of proper balance. In fact, in a sense, they themselves balance the Tao.

However...I have quite a difficulty on the term of balance, especially since effectively neutralizing a band of good for the balance of the world is irrelevant in a world unbalanced by evil. So, regardless of the happening, I still vie for the good. For the Light, although Light and Altruism are not necessarily stuck together. Many times does so-called members of the "Light/Good" have done atrocities worse than imagination can allow.

Sinis...are you saying that you are not in tune with the club because you're a "lefty"? DO remember that, sinister derives from the term referring the left hand, as dextrous refers to the right hand. It is culture that relates the left hand (the sinister hand) to evil, while the right hand (the dextrous hand) is the one related to good. Pure hogwash. And, if you bypass that hogwash, then you must be aware that sinister merely has a negative connotation, but is not truly evil.

As a foreclose of the BoD's stunt, I will say that they have their own site where they can do what they want, as they are the mods and the admins. If they want to make the staff act as they want, they're dead wrong.

And...dead straight, I thought Vicky over here would have a slight bias over the BoD. Then again, being a staff member and a responsible individual that has helped form many good clubs and prune others, I commend the adherence to objectivity. Then they say that Toph goes in favor of the Masters...

Old saying says, "you reap what you sow". They desired to reap extermination, they got annihilated. Heck, Anomaly's godly character got wasted (and I know just how well-thought was that character, personally I must admit), that's a mention.

...all I finally have to say is, those gents are too addicted to TFF. They were born here, they will return here, in one way or the other. And more boisterous and preposterous as ever.

While that happens, I expect to build ourselves as a force to be reckoned, and also respected. After all, ID is another battlefield, one where the power of conviction, the smartest mind, and the greater amount of proofs make the discussions closed satisfactorily.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the assigned significance of the terms, Oskar. I have a long standing rapport with the word Sinister(that for the time has been revealed to enough people). But you may also see, via an inspection of my address ([email protected]), that I am both principly ambidextrous and a fan of balance.

As for BoD, I anticipated this outcome should they lose, and they failed me not. I do not like to see them leave, the Masters PALE in comparison. "Tis meet the armor sketch the foe." Inversely like-wise so.

I might mention my utter lack of debating skills as well. As it stands I'm far from an idiot, far from by most standards, but I'm not one for conflict outside of a fencing strip and apparently an RPB. I like to listen and say my peace but apart from that, I'm not one to battle-charge an issue.

-Sin

If The Masters failed in comparison, then why did they win? =P
I think they were severely underestimated. But that's just my opinion.

But anyway.. yeah, I'm not one to battle-charge an issue either. That's just sad. =(

I apologize my context was dubious. I meant that they pale in comparison in filling in the shoes of the "token bad guys". They just are. As Oskar said, sublimely neutral. They are no where near as daunting and evil. Their RPB skills being whatever.

I meant no slight to whatever skills they are believed to possess.


-Sin

I'm gonna miss those guys... *sniffles*
But then I do find it a little funny with the whole honour thing and now this little drama...

Anyways, on to Fishie's questions.

1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?

Honestly? I'm not 100% sure on anything. But I just know some things. No evidence or proof, but it's like instinct. I feel something there. And I see how things relate to it, even if I can't explain it all that well.

2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?

I agree with what Govinda said. It gives some people false hope and is a tool used by some for screwing over the ignorant. There have been a few religion based cons...
But others it's very beneficial for. It gives them a goal, helps them make decisions that are good for others AND at times (depending on the religion) teaches that people should be tolerant of others and act justly, even if some branches of some religions seem to ignore that at times...

The BoD shall return...or atleast certain portions of them shall. At anyrate the great thing about clubs like the BoD is that it won't take long for a replacement to spring up. That is called the Tao balancing itself. The best custodian of the Tao is itself. "The way of heaven is good at overcoming though it does not fight." -TTC



1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?
It is supported by evidence that should be common sense to most of mankind and party to less obvious evidence that involves the misperceptions of our species caused by personal point of view and environmental determinism. The great thing about Taoism? Doesn't require evangelism. It is the sort of wisdom and religion that must be pursued rather than handed out in flyers or on churchsteps. You must earn it. And once you do, there is a reticence to share it.

2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?
No. I think they are attempts to account for something. As the horrible David Hume once noted that if it was in the scope of mankind it would eventually become known. The problem is inherent in that afterlife, creation and likewise issues are only food for speculation based on available evidence.

Proceeding from this...one can assume that MAN knows nothing of it and never did and that the answer lies in nature(which is what Taoism is)...which rules out Christianity. Or that MAN does know or atleast has had it explained to him by the forces that be at some point in time..


@Celtic concerning his RPB. All very good, I would refrain from refering to it as a Ballestra lunge though, for redundancy sake no one calls it that anymore. Also it only involves feinting in the sense that it is a tempo-feint, no feinting blade work is implied or necessary but can often be found as an addition to the technique itself. It's executed by retaining weight on your back leg while kicking up with your front foot to balance a forward leap. It nearly always ends in a lunge but can end in a mere extension via prise de fer. But they can be given any number of personal flourishes that would make that definition inaccurate. It is merely maintained out of historical reasons. It has since become a way of covering ground in short bursts.

I swear some masters/manuals have the most anitquated definitions. ^^


-Sin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinister

@Celtic concerning his RPB. All very good, I would refrain from refering to it as a Ballestra lunge though, for redundancy sake no one calls it that anymore. Also it only involves feinting in the sense that it is a tempo-feint, no feinting blade work is implied or necessary but can often be found as an addition to the technique itself. It's executed by retaining weight on your back leg while kicking up with your front foot to balance a forward leap. It nearly always ends in a lunge but can end in a mere extension via prise de fer. But they can be given any number of personal flourishes that would make that definition inaccurate. It is merely maintained out of historical reasons. It has since become a way of covering ground in short bursts.

I swear some masters/manuals have the most anitquated definitions. ^^


-Sin

---

Oh well over here I heard it used to describe a move I saw I thought was cool. :D Instead of a simple lunge it was a fake start and then he went in for the kill. Or the win really.

So what do they call it now then? I don't see how it's a redundancy as a lunge don't involve the feinting first. :lol:

It's funny...it's not really my pet peeve...but John Yarder, my old instructor used to rant about the old names and defs being misnomers and inaccurate. An added irony being that he took a great many of his lessons straight from the Verdadera Destreza manual(the parts that were translated) The more accurate term is just Ballestra(as lunges are generally the rule with that technique but not entirely necessary, the same with feinting.)

What you're describing sounds like a technique called a redebipoe(SP? Means redoublement or double-lunge). But I wouldn't know without seeing it firsthand.

They both are particularly decent techniques in their context, but if your opponent has any inkling that you are about to execute a Ballestra...well...it means your ass. Passata-soto. Rechambered parry of either primo or secondu or a sidecut or even something as simple as a disengaged bind and you are history. The same cannot be said of a redoublement as they tend to keep the opponent at some distance.

-Sin(sorry about sp I'm typing on my PS3 ^^; )

Just a quick thing to say that Fishie and I are going to 'battle', to train up a little. It'll be cool, I think! We'll pwn the rest of you once we know what we're doing, just watch.

Speaking of fencing, the Spanish girl in my French class was talking about how the AUSU Fencing Team have a tradition of eating too much ice cream as punishment when they lose a tournament.

I think that's cool. I'm not really awake. Okay. Well. Just a word.

Cheerybye

Whoo....that is some workout. Govi/Pablo, and Fishie, you may think again. I can't wait to finish this battle. Sinis has given me quite the workout, and he's pretty much ready. I should do this more often. Perhaps, after we finish, I might duke it again. I'm especially eager to see what would happen with a Oskar/Gabrielle fight, since essentially we are from the same race (except a different name, but that's artistic license. Who'd think about it?)

Eager to see the third battle go into fruition. I hope it's entertaining. At least, to last a few days or something...

One final thing. I like the Govinda name. She likes the Pablo name. I will formally refer with both names, as I can't decide upon one name or the other.

Decisions, decisions...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinister
(sorry about sp I'm typing on my PS3 ^^; )

---

I envy you bro. I hope you're having an awesome time playing it. Assasin's Creed and Heavenly Sword FTW! :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo Honey
Just a quick thing to say that Fishie and I are going to 'battle', to train up a little. It'll be cool, I think! We'll pwn the rest of you once we know what we're doing, just watch.

---

haha Exactly!! We shall. Don't underestimate Shasta and Doughboy!!! We're gangsta. :spyfap:

On a serious note, I've have my RPB character sign-up for our RPB by tonight or tommorow for sure. I have a busy weekend at TFF. I'll be putting up pieces of poems I've been working on. I've decided to join Lunasa's RP and I need to work on Ann's RP as well. :)

Um...again on inactivity. I excuse for not being here for the last few days, but I've had the server issues affecting me. Hopefully this'll stay fine, but if you hadn't watched me on the last days, I beg your pardon.

On other terms, I believe that the battle between Sinis and I has reached a finish, because I can't seem to make a move, and neither do him. A draw? Well, I cannot say, but that is a very good first battle. Cheers for more to come.

Well...I believe that's all I can honestly say. I added you guys to the family (though I believe you've noticed). Happy Easter, ladies and gents!!

...however you celebrate it, mind you.

Awesome. Good to see you posting again. :)

Quote:

---

Dimarik (aka Fishie, Squishie ) is The Nephew Most Likely To Replace a Member of Lacuna Coil to Get Closer to Ms. Scabbia.

---

I literally laughed when reading that. You know it. I would replace a member just to get closer. I get close and marry her in my dreams! ><

I've been having a hard time coming up with an RPB character. I have some stuff down but I'll finish it up and set up the battle between Gov and I. Last time I talked to her, she was going on a trip to the mountains. I'm not sure if our battle will be an active one. But I'll talk to her about it.

As for discussion, there's something that I thought I could bring up. Some people have different beliefs, different ideas, and different views on life. We're all individuals and there's something that makes us individually different from the person next to you or the other person across from you. Aside from that. There's people who like to have an open mind and who want to take risks and live life to the fullest and are open to experiencing new things. Would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?

Then there's people who are a close-minded. They like to have their guards up and are cautious when they are out of their comfort zone. They stick to their own beliefs religiously and morally and on how they see things. And even if they're in the wrong, they think they're in the right. Sometimes, people like that frustrate me. But at the same time, you can't change them. And you can argue with that person over and over and over and still can get no where with your point.

So my questions are this...
1) Have you been in a situation with a person you thought was close-minded? If so, how did you handle it? If not, how do you think you would take it if you were to meet someone like that?

2) Do you think people like that are that way based on personal experiences or on how they were raised?

3) Would you consider yourself open-minded or close-minded? Or a bit both?

4) Would you consider someone being open-minded a bad or good thing?

Yeah. I felt withdrawal symptoms from not posting in here. Each day, seeing as how I couldn't enter exasperated me. Oh well, I could handle the not being here that much...

Problems with character concept? I think I can help a bit. I've been working on a character concept for a really, mercilessly broken character. But, alas, it will not be for forum battle. I do am writing a story about it, though. It's a challenging concept, and a really entertaining one. Having worked with such a challenge, I don't see why we cannot help in that one.

Open/close mind. That's a challenging question. There are good things and bad things to both an open and a closed mind.

Open-minded people are understanding and reasonable people. Open to new perspectives and new visions of the world. It is good because it allows you to have a greater understanding of the world, and have various ways to explore it, but it can be bad if you open your mind too much that eventually you become malleable to people. Such an extreme causes a person to have no self-regard, to accept whichever thing anyone says, which can at times lead into loss of identity. You are what the others want you to be, and that is terribly bad.

A close mind is not that bad, though. It gives you a sense of security, and a stability from where you can determine what can be good or bad to you and to other people. A too open mind can lead to some crazy stuff, like having no qualms to kill people because you feel no remorse or something. A close mind grants focus, and perhaps direction. The bad part of a closed mind is where the only possible reality is the one you deem as proper, or when people "close" your mind to a single possibility, becoming unable to grow. You staunchly defend a posture, without realizing you might be on the wrong side of the discussion. Same as someone with an open mind may be in the wrong side of the discussion, but insists in being wrong because he has already deemed the close-minded individual as wrong and in need of therapy or ignoring.

So, really, the question of open/close mind cannot be fully established without seeing advantages or disadvantages. If someone says "never be close-minded, always be open-minded", do consider that it's always better to have the best of both worlds (the ability to understand of the open-minded, the ability to decide the proper thing and stand for it of the close-minded. Let not be fooled by the stereotype.

So, on to questions!!
1) Have I been on a situation with someone of closed mind, the dangerous species? Well, you might just have noticed the thread of the Ten Commandments. That is one big example of it, and I personally took it as "wow, this guy speaks a lot of bull", but I tried to respect the mods and haven't debated what I perceive is wrong with his side of the argument. I still think what he says does not have a slight degree of reasoning, but at times dealing with someone with a very, very closed mind can lead to unwanted flaming. I went the area of "I expose my opinion and keep quiet to prevent flaming". Now, if that were in a more personal thing (normal conversation, at least), I'd be very blunt and mow him to the ground (with arguments, don't think badly). Seriously. I need to control that sometimes...

2)I'd say a person's perspective is a bit of each. You are raised to believe something, then you face the world and harden or soften with your personal experiences. Your experiences solidify or part with your older beliefs, but at times the form you are raised affects your daily interaction with people. I would also add that people of closed mind are at times influenced by peer pressure, and also fear.

3)I'd like to think of myself as open-minded when I can, and have a bit of a close-minded attitude when I need to make a stand. I do, however, keep a bit of a "devil's advocate" stand most of the time, and love to debate the opposite side even if I know I'm wrong just for listening how it is debated. Considering how I often fail in such endeavors, I should not be doing that so much, but I often make a point when I'm speaking the thing I know most people feel is the right one.

4)I think I explained before. Being open-minded is as good as you have your own identity defined. Otherwise, you become an amalgam of what the rest of the world thinks. I'd like also to point that, at times, "open-minded" people (or those, to be precise, that say they are) are often arrogant, deeming someone with a strong inclination to a point but willing to listen a "close-minded" person, and refuse to make any point on the matter. It's pretty stupid to listen how someone takes your idea and gives it no value, deeming it either a "fallacy", an "opinion", or a "flawed argument" without trying at least to listen it, and then treat you as someone who lacks the capability of making a point. Truly, an open-minded person should at least, even when the idea is wrong, point out what little value the argument might have, and be less blunt in why it is that wrong. Perhaps dealing with fanatics may have caused arrogance, but that is not a good attitude to assume, especially when in reality you might be making a point. Those people (the arrogant people) are what propel the formation of closed minds, and those of the worst variety to be precise.

1) Have you been in a situation with a person you thought was close-minded? If so, how did you handle it? If not, how do you think you would take it if you were to meet someone like that?

Back down. Always. If someone is that into what they're into, then it's going to take planning and some serious assessment of their psyche to break them down a bit. You'd need their trust before anything you said would really penetrate. They'd need to ready to take on board what you said. I've managed to do that to someone before; it wasn't religion or anything big; but at least now she thinks it's okay to be a lesbian, put it that way.

I know all of this also as I am a close minded person. If you're going to put something new into my head, it needs to be backed up as far as the hills over yonder before I'll even consider it. I know this blocks me to potential new ideas, but there really is no other way I can function.

2) Do you think people like that are that way based on personal experiences or on how they were raised?

I don't know. I suppose that's a question that can't really be answered; everyone is who they are for a plethora of reasons held both in their past and in their present, reasons that are different for everyone, perhaps even innate for a few (and WHOO bringing up Nature vs Nurture, how cool am I).

Personally, I am closed-minded because of my past. I've always found keeping most of myself back, shielding myself from ideas that aren't fully formed, keeps me safe. Yes, I miss out on things; but my present prevents me from changing that. It's just the way I am, I suppose. My friend Andrea put it well. She's got a fairly closed mind too.

We were talking on the phone about, after 6 months at uni, why we hadn't found the super special wonderful totally connectable people who'll make lifelong friends that our parents and their ilk all claimed to have met at uni. We were wondering why we couldn't find people like us when she hit the nail right on the head, 'Wait. They're just like us. That's why we can't find them! If they're anything like us at all, they'll hide themselves like we do until prolonged, forced time together forces either party to open up!'

She really talks like that. She's very cool. Anyway.

So, we hide away. We play sly tricks on people who aren't as smart as we are. Anything at all that mentions Gods hiding in places humans couldn't get to 2000 years ago is thrown out of the window before it can speak. We're insufferable in actual debate, because we know what we believe, or what we're looking for, to the extent that anything other than precisely the answer we want and telepathically expect the other party to magic out of thin air is completely and utterly unacceptable.

This is not the best way to live, I think. It allows fear, my biggest twatting paranoid ****er of an enemy, to grow. It stops people who may become true friends from seeing enough in me to summon the patience required to extract it in person. I'm almost never completely honest, because that would mean giving too much away (the internet is useful in this respect, as I can tell it anything I like that is too true for reality, whilst knowing that I'm telling everybody but moreover nobody). My mind is closed, but I'm happy in here. Mostly.

3) Would you consider yourself open-minded or close-minded? Or a bit both?

Well.

4) Would you consider someone being open-minded a bad or good thing?

Sinny put it excellently in a usernote he sent me. Let me see if I can remember it word for word.

'We must be careful to let our minds get air, but be careful not to suffocate them.' Words to that effect, only far more elegant. I'd go and find them were I not 'cruising' on 46.6 kbps.

It's good to be open to new ideas; but it's also good to be guarded against stupid or dangerous ones. The truly wise and gifted are the ones who land themselves right in the middle of those two extremes.