So yeah, just wondering if anyone else found any sort of philosophical value in Lunar.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Well said, I think you hit the nail on the head there. I also agree with the polytheistic bit especially after reading what you wrote. She like other polytheistic gods do things based on their self gratification with complete disregard to their subjects. Its kinda funny, in that regard as I've grown older and replayed SSSC I have found myself agreeing more and more with Ghaleon.Sonic# wrote:In that progression, I don't think that the incarnation is Christian at all. There's nothing about becoming human in order to bear sins, or anything like that. Love is there, but it's a different kind. No, her incarnations, and particularly her last one, seem to be this process of letting go, of becoming as self-determined as the rest. It's a way to love, finally, but not as part of any cosmic plan. She embraces human love. For her last incarnation, human love is special. It cannot be explained, is flawed, is unwilled, but is ultimately strong. But most important here is that she can experience human love, live a life, and then let it go forever.
I never have had a problem with being the captain of your own ship. I don't see that concept as being opposite of the Bible. In fact I take it as part of free will. But, where Lunar and Christianity part is in the ability of the human spirit to "save" yourself. And I know you're probably thinking, apples and oranges, but on a macro scale thats basically what is being said.Alunissage wrote:So while the idea that humans only need rely on each other and not on external "divine" help is exactly opposite to the thesis of the Bible, I would never consider it "anti-Christian".
That's a bug, not a feature. While EB has some (ill-chosen, to my mind) trappings of churchiness, e.g., the cathedral-like Sanctuaries and the music in Pentagulia, the purpose of the Cult/Chosen points up how Lunar differs from a Christian framework. While there had been a priesthood of Althena in Lunar 1, its primary purpose seems to be to train healers, not delve into theology. Zophar, working through human and quasi-human agents, used this as a base on which to build the Cult and encourage selfishness and greed in place of the altruism of the priesthood. That was his path to gaining power (from the evil of humans) and ultimately reviving. An existing evil person corrupting an existing organization to gain power and take over is not an original storyline, but nor is it a particularly Biblical one.Aaron wrote:But I still feel there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn from Lunar with Christianity.
Then you need to brush up on your Bible. Reread what I wrote, with the emphasis. The entire point, the reason human existence continued as is after Adam and Eve screwed up, is to answer that very question, the one posed in the Garden of Eden: do humans need God's guidance of what is right and wrong, or can they do just fine without, as Eve was told?Aaron wrote:I never have had a problem with being the captain of your own ship. I don't see that concept as being opposite of the Bible. In fact I take it as part of free will.Alunissage wrote:So while the idea that humans only need rely on each other and not on external "divine" help is exactly opposite to the thesis of the Bible, I would never consider it "anti-Christian".
Doesn't the question assume the ability to choose, or to do what you want with your life?Alunissage wrote:Then you need to brush up on your Bible. Reread what I wrote, with the emphasis. The entire point, the reason human existence continued as is after Adam and Eve screwed up, is to answer that very question, the one posed in the Garden of Eden: do humans need God's guidance of what is right and wrong, or can they do just fine without, as Eve was told?
Matthew 23:27 wrote:"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
It does assume that, and Alunissage wasn't disputing that free will exists. Instead, she was debating the results of free will, and the kinds of free will that are good and bad. The problem is, in both the Garden of Eden and the scripture you cite, people often choose incorrectly. Thus, they require divine help in order to function correctly. This takes various forms, like following a set of virtues and resisting a set of sins devised as part of a doctrine, internalizing the will of God, and what have you. They (Thomas Aquinas most notably) adapt classical doctrines concerned with an individual's actions towards happiness, and set the apex of happiness in God, while writing off earthly free will as fragmented and subject to the whims of uncontrollable forces.Doesn't the question assume the ability to choose, or to do what you want with your life?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 36 guests