MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 270 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 2) Re: Burning Water by Adrienne York 3) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 4) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by Adrienne York 5) Re: COuldn't resist :-) by Rosario Holsen-Baker 6) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by PS9562-+AT+-wheeler.northland.edu 7) RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by Gyrfalcon 8) Elves, was RE: Burning water by Cynthia of the Many Names 9) RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by Mary Temple 10) Re: Elves, was RE: Burning water by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 11) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) 12) Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) 13) RE: Burning water/set by gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) 14) RE: Casting characrers... by "Sarah A. Elliott" 15) RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth by mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) 16) Re: gods on velgarth by Catherine Osborne 17) gods on velgarth by Heather Mina 18) Re: Burning Water by Anne Cross ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:29:25 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512132329.AA25239-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Seanna wrote: > Kerry wrote (in response to gods gaining power from their > worshippers): > > > Actually with the resurgance of Pagan'ism, Norse gods could once again > > start regaining a worshipper base. I know, not all or even most pagans > > necessarily worship in the Norse mythos, but I know a few who do on the > > pagan list. > > That brings up a good question: what defines which god gains power > from the worshippers (if they do :)? Say someone worships Freya. But > that person's picture of the god is hardly the same as someone > else's. What if s/he uses some other name? Or imagines her as black? > There might also be some leak-over effect: the whole Norse pantheon > is strengthened because the individual gods gain power. Or the leak > might be directed to other gods of beauty/love/fertility... I've always loved the line/s from Narnia's "The Last Battle" where Aslan basically says 'Any good done, is done in my name whether you know it or not, and harm done is done on Xxxx's name (the bad god)' (mangled horribly - the original words were much more poetic). Now this is for a monotheastic panthenon of gods (sounds fancy, but I'm sure it doesn't mean what I want - 2 entities, one good, one bad - classic Christian stuff), but the same could easily apply across a series of god/esses of the same thing (beauty / love etc). But getting back to the point, worshipping Freya but picturing her differently, or using a different name shouldn't make any difference. I tend to the belief that Gods as a whole should not be able to be encompassed by human minds, such that necessarily we worship the aspect of the god that we perceive. I for one, tend to the gentler side of the God to whom I pay homage - the aspect that forgives & has mercy & preaches tolerance etc etc. Not exactly the Xtian god, but pretty close. I agree about the leak-over effect - it's kinda hard to believe in Freya without believing in her as one of the Norse Gods.. hence leakage. Similarly with other god/esses of similar aspect (beauty / love / fertility / whathaveyou) - the "in my name" bit above.. There's a line in one of the _Bless Me Father_ books by Neil Boyd (hilarious - definitely worth reading) where the old priest is asked by the younger one (Father Neil) why he's not concerned about all the people worshipping in other than the strict Roman-catholic relgion. His reply is classic: "Neil, the bible tells us to believe in a hell, but who in their right minds would ever believe a merciful God would send people there.." (I know I know, it's nowhere near strict catholic doctrine, but just seems so.. apt.) Anyway, once again, I ramble and at the risk of getting serious too! :) Cheers, Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:45:54 -0500 (EST) From: Adrienne York To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning Water Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Anne Cross wrote: > On a slightly more relevant note, I have zero sympathy for Tezcatlipoca. > None. Anyone who kills children and flays women to dance in their skins, > be he god or human, gets no sympathy from me at all. There are two > reasons the Aztecs fell: one was smallpox and the other was that everyone > hated them and their enemies were glad to band with Cortez and kill them off! IIRC, sacrifices were either willing, criminal, or POWs. As far as the willing sacrifices, if you really believe that your god requires *you, personally* to die in some horrible fashion, I'm not sure I should stop you. (someone else is a different story) And the criminals and POWs were fair game, in ancient and modern times. Punishment for doing wrong was vicious (and in some cases, still is) and at least their deaths had some meaning. As far as they're enemies hating them, I thought that was because the Aztecs were into heavy taxation, and were killing their enemies economically. IMO YMMV ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ;] Adrienne York-Minor ;] ;] "I'd like to believe that, but I'm fresh out of optimism." ;] ;] -Princess Jasmine ;] ;] ayork-+AT+-simons-rock.edu ;] ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:47:26 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512132347.AA25343-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Starhawk (Lyn) wrote: > Kerry wrote > >didn't destroy or drive off Burning Water - they *negotiated*. > > *sigh* Again, that's what I meant in my original post. :P I give > up...forget English and writing...I'm going to wait tables for the > rest of my life...:) Sorry, me being pedantic again. Mathematically minded people should never be allowed to study law, the combination does .. bad things (even if they decide not to practice). :) > >BW came off badly because he wasn't up to date with the current > >status of the world (and hence didn't realize how difficult it would > >be to find another sacrifice in time for him to re-enter the world > >via the sacrifice of his avatar). Actually, the way I read it was > >that (as in the original story) the sacrifice was flawed (because > >the women were lesbians or at least had not borne children and > >didn't weave their own clothes). So his avatar died in vain, leaving > >him without a gateway to the world until he can find another avatar ( > >which could well take another couple of centuries). > > That's about the way I read it. I took the ending differently, > though. That was what all the tension at the end was about: finding > an avatar isn't going to be that hard, especially for the > handmaidens. That's why Di is kind of nervous when she leaves. She > sees the possibility for the whole mess starting up again, and it was > barely a standoff this time. What about the next? Hmmm, I'll have to reread it, but it sounds definitely possible.. This seems to be a recurring thread in the Di books specifically and Misty's books generally - the Sorceress from Jinx High isn't destroyed either (unknown to Di) but rather, just inconvenienced. (Unless of course the mother's body is past child-bearing age..) Kerry. -- Yes, I know I'm mailing a lot today, but I'll shut up soon. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:52:46 -0500 (EST) From: Adrienne York To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Absolut Flaming wrote: > BTW, I agree that Tezcatlipoca was not "evil." In reference to the > ongoing discussion about gods, I would propose that this is another > characteristic of gods. Since they are the arbiters of moral good, > within their ethno-religious context, they generally cannot be evil, > unless they are explicitly gods of evil. And even then, they sort of > transcend our definitions of good and evil. The only gods in actual > religions that I can think of who are truly considered to be evil are > Ahriman (in Zoroastrianism) and Loki (in Norse mythology...and even this > is open to interpretation). Oh, and Set (in Pharaonic Egyptian). There > are prob more, but I can't think of the them off-hand. What do others > think? > I'm not sure Ahriman was specifically evil, he was just the complete opposite of the Light, and fated to lose the eternal cosmic battle, but I'm not sure *he* was a bad god/person. Set started out as just another god, the god of the desert and infertility and all that sort of thing. However, his murder of Osiris, a very popular god, did eventually sort of push him into the bad god role. But, aside from that small incident of fratricide, Set wasn't particularly evil. Loki was a trickster, but the nasty sort. He convinced mistletoe to kill ?Balder? who was the most popular god ever. Not a nice person. Satan didn't originally start out as a bad sort either. In fact, the concept of an evil counterpart to God came about relatively late. satan was originally a kind of angel that God sent to obstruct people, rather than a specific character. That was the sort of satan that tormented Job. Satan the devil came later. ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ;] Adrienne York-Minor ;] ;] "I'd like to believe that, but I'm fresh out of optimism." ;] ;] -Princess Jasmine ;] ;] ayork-+AT+-simons-rock.edu ;] ;];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];];] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:53:45 -0500 (EST) From: Rosario Holsen-Baker To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: COuldn't resist :-) Message-ID: > > > > oh, what the heck . . . > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - -+AT+- > > > > - - - --+AT+- > > > > - - - - - - - -+AT+- > > > > tennis balls HO! > > > > Anne > > ::giggling:: > > The Other Anne giggles too...when I first got ON this list, there were > tennis balls being hurled at Anne and I couldn't figure out why the heck > I was having tennis balls thrown at me... ;) > > _ - - - _ > / \ > / -+AT+- > / > / > , > o/~ ~\o > /| /| > / \ / \ *giggle!* > > On a slightly more relevant note, I have zero sympathy for Tezcatlipoca. > None. Anyone who kills children and flays women to dance in their skins, > be he god or human, gets no sympathy from me at all. There are two > reasons the Aztecs fell: one was smallpox and the other was that everyone > hated them and their enemies were glad to band with Cortez and kill them off! > > They were horrible. I'm with Diana all the way. I have some degree of sympathy for Tezcatlipoca. It can't be very nice watching all your people get slaughtered. But I lean more towards the Quetzalcoatl and the more neutral Tezcatlipoca sides of the pantheon > Does anyone know if Tezcatlipoca has a female counterpart? As far as I know, he doesn't. He has a helper, Huitzilpochtli (Hummingbird on the Left), and the god Tlaloc (I think) is sometimes called the "Red Tezcatlipoca" but other than that, and a few other names for him, I don't think he has any other identities. |--------------------------------<>------------------------------| | Three rings for the elven kings under the sky | | Seven for the dwarves in their halls of stone | | Nine for the mortal men, doomed to die | | One for the dark lord on his dark throne.... | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:59:04 CST From: PS9562-+AT+-wheeler.northland.edu To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <3D2575A2EB3-+AT+-wheeler.northland.edu> Kerry said- > I don't mean to be pedantic (well, actually I do, but it's always good to > disclaim these things first ), but I'd always thought Loki was considered > a god of Mischief rather than outright evil. Certainly I had the impression > that when Ragnarok arrived, he'd be fighting on the side of the Norse Gods > rather than their opponents (the serpent, the wolf etc). I was taught that Loki was the cause of Ragnarok and he fought against the Gods. I may be wrong, its been 3 years since I took Mythology and the details are a little fuzzy. I'm going to dig through my old tests that I have up here with me and see if I can find anything about it. "without darkness there can be no light" Stacey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:58:51 -0500 (EST) From: Gyrfalcon To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: Hello peoples, Please ignore the garbage at the end of that las post. I have no idea how it got there, but I think it's my fault. I'm working on it. Sorry. --Gyrfalcon =======================msowers-+AT+-menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu=================== Magic still exists. We have only to reach out and touch it, it is a part of the very fabric of the world. When our belief of magic completely dies this universe shall die. Because that magic; Hope, Dreams, Love, Beauty, Wonder, Belief, and Discovery are what make us a people. They are all part of a great Art whose workings are still a mystery but whose applications can be seen every day. If we ever lose the Art mankind shall not last the day. Let the magic that is in us roam free in our work, play, in each other, and most of all in ourselves. Let it roam free or it will die. ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 19:01:47 -0500 (EST) From: Cynthia of the Many Names To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Elves, was RE: Burning water Message-ID: <01HYRP8KQA2Q9KOOYC-+AT+-WELLESLEY.EDU> Kerry writes: >Hmm, it's just come home to me how long it is since I've read mythology.. >(this discussion & another one on the Amber list about Nuada of the Silver >hand and the Tuath'de'Danu (the Sidhe of Celtic mythology)). The what? I'd thought that was spelled Tuatha de Danann, or perhaps Daoine Sidhe. On a Lackey related note: what does everyone think of ML's treatment of elves? I personally find them a bit too...well...human. Right physiology, but that, near-immortality, and magic seem to be the major differences from humans. From my reading, I'd thought the elves would have a whole different *mindset* than humans. (Wasn't it on this list that someone recommended *The Dragonbone Chair* series, with its non- humans (whose name I cannot seem to remember)?) Thia-who-goes-to-the-same-college-as-Anne-Cross-but-is-much-quieter ) \ / ( /|\ )\_/( /|\ * / | \ (/\|/\) / | \ * |`._______________/__|__o____\`|'/___o__|__\_________________.'| |Cynthia Odiorne '^` \|/ '^` codiorne-+AT+-wellesley.edu | |SCA Judith Hosford V jennaria-+AT+-spike.wellesley.edu| |FDC Mrs. Potts | | http://wilbur.wellesley.edu/A-M/codiorne/codiorne.hmtl | | Meddle not in the affairs of bards | | For your name is silly and scans to Greensleeves | | .__________________________________________________________. | |' l /\ / \\ \ /\ l `| * l / V )) V \ l * l/ // \I V ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:03:41 -0600 (CST) From: Mary Temple To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: RE: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <199512140003.SAA26705-+AT+-natashya.eden.com> At 11:40 PM 12/13/95 GMT, you wrote: >Kerry Mealing wrote: > >>> Oh, and Set (in >>> Pharaonic Egyptian). There are prob more, but I can't think >>> of the them off-hand. What do others think? > >> Similarly I'd thought that Set wasn't exactly evil.. but I'm a lot >> more shaky on Egyptian mythology and might be mixing up some >> of his aspects with Osiris (Lord of the Dead).. > > >As for Set, I don't remember anything much about him other than he >was definately not the good guy. Set was the lord of darkness and >all it represents. You know, snakes, scorpions and things that go >bump in the night. > >As always this is what I remember. If anyone can fill in the blanks or >correct me, feel free to. I can't vouch for any of the info. > Well, I will, sort of. According to my own studies of Egyptology, and after talking to a couple of Theologians,Set was not the God of Evil in the Egyptian pantheon, but the God of Darkness. It wasn't until people started equating evil w/ darkness that Set became evil. "Dark" can have several interpretations: the "Dark" Ages, ignorance, primitivism, etc., not JUST "evil". And some of us still don't equate darkness w/ evil. (I'm nocturnal, as my alias should prove.) Evil is a judgement call, and what one might find evil, others have no problem with. :) >Finals are coming. > Ugh. Good luck. :) >--Gyrfalcon > NoxCat ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 12:37:07 EST From: mealink-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com (Kerry Mealing) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Elves, was RE: Burning water Message-ID: <9512140137.AA26248-+AT+-syd.au.swissbank.com> Thia writes: > Kerry writes: > >Hmm, it's just come home to me how long it is since I've read mythology.. > >(this discussion & another one on the Amber list about Nuada of the Silver > >hand and the Tuath'de'Danu (the Sidhe of Celtic mythology)). > The what? I'd thought that was spelled Tuatha de Danann, or > perhaps Daoine Sidhe. Yay! Tuatha de Danann is exactly how I spelt it on the Amber list, only to get corrected.. (and as I indicated, it had been too long since reading about them for me to be sure of my ground). According to what I was 'told', Tuath means Kindred / Family / Children etc, de means of (of course) and Danu is one of the Celtic goddesses - hence Children of Danu.. Still, Tuatha de Danann is always how I think of them. I have a vague memory that Daoine means Day / Daylight - the Seelie Sidhe in other words (as opposed to the darker-natured, Unseelie). > On a Lackey related note: what does everyone think of ML's > treatment of elves? I personally find them a bit too...well...human. > Right physiology, but that, near-immortality, and magic seem to be the > major differences from humans. From my reading, I'd thought the elves > would have a whole different *mindset* than humans. (Wasn't it on this > list that someone recommended *The Dragonbone Chair* series, with its non- > humans (whose name I cannot seem to remember)?) [warning, the following post has a nearly complete lack of names, due to impending senility on the part of its 20 yr old poster. ] Mmmm, I tend to agree, but certainly some of a long association with humans would rub off.. Immortal elves should / would *grieve*, nearly go into shock and complete denial when one of their own dies, especially someone they knew well or worse, loved. The sense of loss, to those who never expect to lose ones they love, must be horrendous. Probably the most poignant moment for me in _When the bough breaks_ was when Diana(?) (dammit, names again, the elf's mother, working as a mechanic) died - the sense of loss, of something majestic and awesome and beautiful passing from the world was magnificently portrayed.. I guess, the elves we see, are under a state of seige, fighting to establish and hold the place in their realm etc.. and they may have gotten used to it.. And we do see hints of different mind-sets, the rage the elf gets into and the warning he gives the Scot/Irish guy's near-abusive father back 50 years or so.. The fascination the Elf guy has with short-lived human females (reminiscent of the appreciation humans have for a flower's beauty). The differing mores of the Elf culture - more hedonistic, not such a strict prohibition against nudity etc.. I actually think Misty's treated them rather well - a lot of authors tend to try to create the mind-set of alien races / elves / what-have-you and they either end up two-dimensional, date (in the sense of age) horribly, or appear to be just humans-with-a-major-quirk, or degenerate into 'superficially different, but we're really all the same underneath'.. An example of something that started off nicely, but degenerated are the elves in the Elven-Bane / Elven-Blood series.. (I loved the books, but you have to admit the elves started out as majestic, powerful creatures and have kinda deteriorated towards human feelings and reactions etc. Admittedly human in the sense that humans would be if they were immortal etc, but still... somehow humans with pointy ears t'me). Having just written that, I'm having second thoughts about whether that's truely how I feel, but I haven't the time to delve into it, so I'll just throw it out as a suggestion. :) And it can be difficult to deal realistically with another mind-set, especially if it's too divergant from standard human. Hmm, I've gotta get those Gail B-wazzername books, they sound interesting. Kerry. - I think, I could be misremembering someone else's name judging by my current form. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:57:44 -0800 From: gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: >BTW, I agree that Tezcatlipoca was not "evil." In reference to the >ongoing discussion about gods, I would propose that this is another >characteristic of gods. Since they are the arbiters of moral good, >within their ethno-religious context, they generally cannot be evil, >unless they are explicitly gods of evil. And even then, they sort of >transcend our definitions of good and evil. The only gods in actual >religions that I can think of who are truly considered to be evil are >Ahriman (in Zoroastrianism) and Loki (in Norse mythology...and even this >is open to interpretation). Oh, and Set (in Pharaonic Egyptian). There >are prob more, but I can't think of the them off-hand. What do others >think? > >Kenneth Allen Hyde yah, gods tend to be placed beyond definitions of good and evil. even our beloved greek myths are filled with gods doing things that could be interperted as evil, yet the gods are not considered to be evil. like chronos eating his children ect... even the christian god does stuff that is questionable. i think that particularly in pre christian religions, that gods are considered capable of "good" or "evil" actions, that they are beyond our defintions of these things. -colette gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:06:37 -0800 From: gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Burning water, was: gods on velgarth Message-ID: >I don't mean to be pedantic (well, actually I do, but it's always good to >disclaim these things first ), but I'd always thought Loki was considered >a god of Mischief rather than outright evil. Certainly I had the impression >that when Ragnarok arrived, he'd be fighting on the side of the Norse Gods >rather than their opponents (the serpent, the wolf etc). >Comments? (And please, corrections if I'm wrong). >Kerry. yah, i agree with you. loki is a lot like the raven or coyote in native american mythology, a trickster figure. a figure represention the chaos of creation and magic. hiding truths behind the rediculous and absurd... like zen, the fool, the jack, brer rabbit, whiskey jack, heyoke, and many other paths and archtypes. they are not evil, just chaotic and unpredicable. -colette gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:15:29 -0800 From: gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com (Gjuka) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: RE: Burning water/set Message-ID: >Well, I will, sort of. According to my own studies of Egyptology, and after >talking to a couple of Theologians,Set was not the God of Evil in the >Egyptian pantheon, but the God of Darkness. It wasn't until people started >equating evil w/ darkness that Set became evil. "Dark" can have several >interpretations: the "Dark" Ages, ignorance, primitivism, etc., not JUST >"evil". And some of us still don't equate darkness w/ evil. (I'm nocturnal, >as my alias should prove.) Evil is a judgement call, and what one >might find evil, others have no problem with. :) > >NoxCat a good example of this is the obvious yin yang comparison, where darkness is merely the opposite and complement of light. neither can exist without the other. nothing is wholy "evil" or "good" (if one can even use those words). there is a balance. -colette gjuka-+AT+-cnw.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 21:48:40 -0500 From: "Sarah A. Elliott" To: "'mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk'" Subject: RE: Casting characrers... Message-ID: <01BAC9A6.1A18D8A0-+AT+-blueberry.donet.com> A River Runs Through It... (I think..) and Last of the Mohicans... -Sarah On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Catherine A Murdoch wrote: > > Daniel Day Lewis (swoon, swoon) for Vanyel? Yes, definitely. Daniel > Day Lewis is, IMO, simply gorgeous. Furthermore, he is a fantastic actor. What movies has he played in? Im trying to remember who he is Ashke S003yms-+AT+-desire.wright.edu > begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(-+AT+-X"`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!-+AT+-`(````Y 0```````#H``$--+AT+- 0` M`-+AT+-````(``-+AT+-`!!) &`&P!```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#-+AT+-`````"`?\/ M`0```&4`````````-+AT+-2L?I+ZC$!F=;-+AT+-#=`0]4`-+AT+-````!M97)C961E65L+FAE4!V M86YY96PN:&5R86QD+F-O+G5K`````!X``C !````!0```%--5% `````'-+AT+-`# M, $````D````;65R8V5D97,M;&%C:V5Y0'9A;GEE;"YH97)A;&0N8V\N=6L` M`P`5# $````#`/X/!-+AT+-```!X``3 !````)-+AT+-```"=M97)C961E65L+FAE``-+AT+-0`0```&4```!!4DE615)2 M54Y35$A23U5'2$E4*$E42$E.2RE!3D1,05-43T942$5-3TA)0T%.4RU305)! M2$].5%5%+#$R1$5#,3DY-2Q#051(15))3D5!35521$]#2%=23U1%.D1!3DE% M3$1!``````(!"1 !````# (```-+AT+-"```R`P``3%I&=?(040 M;AY &O!-"'"D9&\1<"!W(<(Z'QQZ/BB(1 !P") #("FP>;<=D ?0! `-+AT+-') # MX&\"(%\ED"KC'4 "$ 7 5-+AT+-!P>?4I\#\JL%D'D"60#;$+-+AT+-/)I$]!L>1R *:8I M*2I&XP0`)9!)34\K,0=P"U#E*D!G!;!G90A-+AT+-'M JL/Y&"' FH-+AT+-1-+AT+-%A ED!XQ M*I'^82NP`' !D!/ 'I =4"(`NP6P'PU7$8 %0 1-+AT+-=-+AT+-B0_P0-+AT+-$8 TT1Y "U$L M,!V "X!)+&!);1S Gyrfalcon wrote: > IIRC (And please don't quote me on this, I'm working with a > faulty memory and a seven year gap since I've read the mythology.) > Loki was bound and chained under an acid drip by Odin and Thor, until > Ragnarok. But he was going to be on the same side as Hel and > Fenris (sp?) against the other gods. He was a trickster, but most, if > not all of his tricks ended in misery for the poor sap on the recieveing > end. Not a nice guy, by today's standards, but hey, who are we to > judge? Riiiight. The good guys bound the bad guy under an acid version of the Chinese Water torture, for all eternity (or Ragnarok, whichever came first). Ummm, who were the good guys again? :) Seriously, now that you mention it, you're right.. Most of his tricks were destructive and as someone pointed out, he did deliberately arrange for another god to be murdered (the nice god too, Balnor (?) the one that everything/everybody loved). > As for Set, I don't remember anything much about him other than he > was definately not the good guy. Set was the lord of darkness and > all it represents. You know, snakes, scorpions and things that go > bump in the night. Yeup, that sounds right.. But when you come to think about it, snakes & scorpions and things, while not my favourite creatures, aren't evil & do perform a necessary job. It'd make just as much sense to say that Osiris is evil, because he's Lord of the Dead (and did the usual tricks of making dead spirits fight each other etc). Actually someone said Set was a fratricide (what's the noun for a god who kills another god? deitracide?), but then again, that's not all that uncommon among Gods (and seldom seems to be permanent either). Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:55:08 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine Osborne To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: gods on velgarth Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Kerry Mealing wrote: > Aslan basically says 'Any good done, is done in my name whether you know > it or not, and harm done is done on Xxxx's name (the bad god)' (mangled That would be Tash ;) I\/ Catherine Osborne "After great pain, I\/ Sundancer a formal feeling comes." I cosborne-+AT+-sidwell.edu --Emily Dickinson I http://www.sidwell.edu/~cosborne/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:56:05 GMT+0000 From: Heather Mina To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: gods on velgarth Message-ID: <9512141500.AA10578-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk> Seanna wrote: >More, why would a god need to "prove himself"? Throughout the sacred literature of our world (I mean *all* of the sacred literature, from Babylon and Egypt, to Greece, to Scandanavia, to Judaism and Christianity (and everything else in between)), every god has performed some supernatural act to demonstrate to his (generic gender used throughout - no intentions to offend anybody here, just laziness in typing) people that he is, indeed a superior (if not necessarily supreme - read "head" god) being. Besides, for a very literal interpreation of the literature, how would we know that a being is a god unless he gave us some kind of demonstration of his powes and abilities? >It is. I repeat: we are using the term "god" in different >meanings. You are using it the way Misty uses it, I think. I'm >applying my own viewpoint. You can't say my view is in-valid, just >because Misty says there are gods, since we use different >definitions. We agree Kal'enel and Vkandis (for example) exist on >Velgarth, no? Now, they might be collectively created by their >worshippers imagination; that is irrelevant. You are saying they are >gods, end of discussion. I'm saying they are "gods" in the sense that >they are superior (to humans, that is) beings who can perform >miracles, who are worshipped etc, but they are not "gods" in the >sense I defined the word. >You are not making yourself very clear, btw. Are you claiming that >there are gods (my definition: pre-existing/permanent beings who >possibly created the world) on Velgarth? The problem, Seanna is that you are asking the wrong question. When we discuss religion in Velgarth, we have to discuss it by Misty's rules (as derived from textual analysis), and not by anybody else's, your own included. This is not to say that your views on religion are invalid, simply that you cannot imply your own basic assumptions about the nature of gods and religion to the gods and religions in Velgarth. The only rules of nature, physics, and religion that apply in Velgarth are Misty's rules. Ken wrote: >> Actually, when you look >> cross-culturally, there are actually very few creator gods, although >> there are huge bunchies of other kinds of gods. Do we want to say that >> Shiva is not a god simply because he is not the creator? Or that >> Ameterasu Omi Kami (The goddess that is the heart of Shinto) is not a >> goddess, because she did not create the world? Seanna replied: >If you had read what I said, instead of just interpreting it >deliberately wrong, you'd have noticed that nowhere did I claim that >a god (even by my definition) had to create the world. I said that I >think "god" requires pre-existence, and _that_ in turn, often goes >with having created the world. The creation is by no means necessary. >I just think it's often intertwined. << Seanna's quote about not recognizing gods deleted --> Ken is just trying to supply examples for us here. If you don't recognize them, look them up. But it's not necessarily Ken's responsibility to give us an entire mythos, when that is just as readily supplied by an encyclopedia, or resources on the 'net.>> Moreover, I too saw your earlier comments about the nature of gods implying that the god could have (if not *did*) create the world. You may have meant by this that the god existed prior to the existence of the world, but others of us interpreted it as the god creating, or having the sheer power to create, the world. The problem arises when there are pantheons - I don't think any one of the Greek or Norse gods could have created the world; hell, they didn't even pre-exist the world. But they did have one key ingredient - worshippers. (?? sorry - don't know who wrote this) >> > Again, I wasn't saying deities should be worshipped as genderless. I >> > said that even though humans prefer to give a face, and usually a >> > sex, to their god, that doesn't mean that the god (if it exists) is >> > _intrinsically_ male or female or dark-haired or blue-eyed or >> > whatever. Ken replied: >> It also doesn't mean that they are intrinsically non-sexed. The opposite >> of prescription (they have to have gender) is not necessarily >> proscription (they have to not have gender). It could be optional (they >> do not have to have--but may have--gender). Seanna responded: >It's not necessarily, logically so, true. However, I _strongly_ >disagree with the theory that souls/spirits are somehow sexed. I >think that's just a prejudice that results from centuries of brain- >washing along the lines of "women are earthy, sinful, and emotional. >Men are logical, wise and spiritual". I think sex is just a trait of >our bodies, since evolution gave us this form of continuing the race. >If we were a hermaphroditical species, I don't think we'd have "male" >and "female" gods. True. Let's just say that gods are created in the image of man, and let it be. (Now *that's* a weighty philosophical argument shrugged off in an instant!) Seanna wrote: >> > (For example: if an author tells us that there are dragons on her >> > world, which have pink wings and plaid skin, and which whistle >> > Mozart's symphonies, do we just accept that yes, that's the way it >> > is? Or do we search for an explanation - or get a headache from trying >> > to imagine the things and go read something else?) Ken responded: >> A good author would use novelistic narrative strategies to establish >> that such a creature does exist in the setting of the novel. S/he would >> not attempt to give a logical explanation for why a draconian in another >> world happens to know and love "Eine Kleine NachtMusik." Such an >> explanation does not exist. So in answer to your question, yes, you do >> just accept that that's the way it is. Seanna replied: >Would you _please_ stick to the topic? In all your answer, you didn't >address what you thought wrong with my theory. The "reality" of a >fictional work is dependent on what the reader puts into it. I don't >understand your reasoning why it is so EEEVIL to try to understand >that reality internally. No, the reality of a fictional work is entirely created by the author, who uses narration, setting, dialogue, and outright exposition to explain their world to you. It's not your world, and it exists entirely separately from your interpretation of it (as the Real World exists entirely separately from your interpretation of it). This is not saying that it is bad to internalize the author's work and make it part of yourself. Quite the contrary, for that is how we grow. But it is wrong to take your own views and apply them inappropriately to the author's work. If the author tells you that dragons have plaid skin, then you believe her. If another author tells you that dragons are tweed, then you believe him. That's what fiction is all about. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Life is to be fortified by many friendships - ~ ~ to love and to be loved is the greatest ~ ~ happiness of existence. ----- Sydney Smith ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..... hlmina-+AT+-mailhost.vwc.edu ..... heamin-+AT+-sunshine.vab.unisysgsg.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:58:46 -0500 (EST) From: Anne Cross To: Mercedes Lackey Mailing List Subject: Re: Burning Water Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Kerry Mealing wrote: > (Badly paraphrased from memory 'cos I deleted the message by mistake): > Anne Cross wrote about not respecting *any* god that flays and/or kills > women & children.. I beg pardon. I should have put this a little more clearly: I do not respect any god that kills anyone unwilling as a sacrifice. Self-sacrifice for a god/ess is all very well and good; Tezcatlipoca didn't seem to care whether or not the women or children were willing or not. > I'm not trying to flame, but perhaps point out that 'traditionally' it's > always been considered acceptable for Gods to do 'bad things' to their > enemies or the worshippers of their enemies. Also, sacrifices of the > God's own people are also acceptable (as indications of the people's > great love for their god). I have never been a fan of following tradition when it's doing something that I consider stupid. (Some other people may not think it's stupid. I could very well be wrong. This is me I'm talking about though... :) > While I suspect you (Anne) aren't of christian persuasion (judging from that > brilliantly funny witches quote in your sig file, there are lots of examples > from the christian old testament. Sodom & Gomorrah spring to mind - there > had to have been women & kids in the city.. (and you don't get screams and > wails from nothing), and Lot's wife certainly didn't do anything more than > give momentary vent to her curiosity - hardly enough to warrent being turned > into a condiment. That's a very good example of the reasons I'm not Christian anymore. > None of this makes it acceptable or moral of course, just more widespread > than might first be suspected. (Avoids the whole issue of applying human > morals to a deity). Sigh. I can't avoid putting my morals on the deities that I worship. > One of the few Aztec gods I've read mainly good things about is > Feathered Serpant (English translation again) aka Quetzalcoatl (Thanks > Jaguar!). Even then, he's portrayed as having human sacrifices in the > Lord Darcy Investigates series of mysteries, though I suspect the author > was mixing him up with Burning Water. (Y'see, some of my sources are > exceedingly suspect). Mmm... As said before, I can understand people willingly sacrificing themselves. If that was the case, I'm okay about it. Unwilling human sacrifice, like the sacrifice of children or (in _Burning Water_'s case, Sherri) is wrong. > Can anyone think of any god who somewhere along the line didn't smote > someone that you'd have thought oughtn't to have been smoted? Dana springs to mind... ____________________________________________________________________________ | Anne Cross | "How many witches does it take | | juniper-+AT+-fledge.watson.org | to change a lightbulb?" | | http://www.watson.org/~juniper/ | "What do you want to change it into?" | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 270 *********************************