Ἐλπίς (Elpis (Hope)) · 4:42am Jul 29th, 2014
I have to apologize--you folks pledged all that money for the Clarion write-a-thon, and it doesn't look like I can get another story out before Bronycon. Especially since I found out I left part of my costume in Pennsylvania. And have to rebuild it. And can't use the 3D printer I just spent 2 full days making a model for. I'll get some stories out; they just won't be in time for the write-a-thon, which ends during Bronycon.
I did get one out tonight: My write-off entry, "Elpis", which took second place. It's strange enough that I'm going to do one of those annoying why-are-you-posting-about-your-story-I-got-the-notification posts. "Elpis" means "hope" in Greek. I didn't just say "hope" because I wanted to suggest the personification of Hope, as in the ancient Greek goddess. (I used Greek characters because "Elpis" sounds like Elvis' redneck younger brother.)
It's tagged dark gore, and it has a little gore and lots of darkness, but the story is about hope. Or, it was supposed to be. Some readers disagree. It got sidetracked by gore, and could be hijacked by Jesus, depending on the reader. The circumstances proving the tenacity of Celestia's hope may overshadow that hope itself.
I hope not.
Fun fact: This is the drawing I used as the basis for the cover art:
Hey, I voted it for second place in the contest! It deserved it.
Of course, one could ask the question whether the whole "redemption via suffering" thing of Jesus is just representational the general struggle to make the world a better place and the whole idea of torture porn was people taking it totally out of context. Just because you say that it is tough work to change the world and it will involve a lot of suffering doesn't mean that when you get nailed to a tree, THAT was necessary for making the world a better place - it was just something bad that happened to you because you were trying to make the world a better place, and the world pushes back.
Or, in other words, just because you're willing to suffer or die for a cause doesn't mean that you want to or that it is necessary, just that it is likely.
I read a sci-fi short once. It was about the last living human, a woman, living a simple and comfortable life far from what used to be civilization. Every day an attractive man would come down from the sky via some weird futuristic parachute. He would be mute and sad and they would make love. Then she would reveal the next morning that she had used birth control, had no intention of being the new Eve, and kill the man, who would not resist. The next day another would arrive. The story ended with her screaming at the sky, "WHY DO YOU CARE?"
2325112
The concept of suffering being divine is something I refer to as "Jesus Envy".
It is also a twisting of entropic law where something cannot be accomplished without an outside investment of energy to fuel it. Suffering is actually a natural byproduct of not investing enough energy.
Not to mention that back then, everyone suffered. Much more than today. Believing that such suffering was godly was a great comfort.
2325126
Sure, but did Jesus think that suffering was a good thing, or did he think that suffering was inevitable but the struggle to make a better world was worth it, and his fan club just got distracted when he got nailed to a stick?
2325141 It's unclear what Jesus thought, but Paul said that the suffering was the whole point of Jesus' coming.
I don't believe that at all--that's mystical magical scapegoat thinking, an outgrowth of the habit of killing animals on altars to appease gods. I don't mean for people to read my story that way, but some probably will.
2325141
The suffering thing has nothing to do with his teachings as the Messiah. It is tied into the glorification of his martyrdom.
In other words, it is all guilt about "The Passion of the Christ".
Ever wonder why there are no real notable movies about his teachings but plenty about his miracles and his death? It's all the agenda for social conditioning of organized religion.
It's like poverty. The concept of poverty went from "it is preferable to be humble and kind but poor over being prideful and selfish but rich" to "it's godly to be poor so give the church all your money".
It's all to manipulate people.
2325157
I always thought it was the much less cynical and much more obvious "You're poor, but at least you aren't going to hell."
2325155
Well, at least you'll have good company.
2325155
Always misunderstood.
Tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, that what is important is not what religion you follow, but being a decent human being.
People decide it is actually about Jesus saving a sinful soul that the dirty Jews walked by.
Jesus defends a prostitute from a crowd, telling them that they, too, have sinned and have no right to judge her for her tresspasses, which are minor.
People decide that they are without sin after confession and pick up rocks after mass.
And then there's this often misinterpreted bit:
anongallery.org/img/7975/help-me-you-idiots-the-aliens-are-taking-me-jesus.jpg
2325167
Actually the moral is "What makes a person good or bad has nothing to do with their station in life." It is speaking against the glorification and idolization of the rich and powerful for their wealth and station rather than their morals and actions; and against the disdain of the poor in the same way.
But the Church has often been known to twist this, among other things, to pressure people into giving up their life-savings in donations.
It is just one example of the complete normalcy of hypocrisy in organized religion.
2325180
Really, in any time anyone has excessive power over anyone else.
And I was more referring to the cynical meaning, rather than the actual intent. Though asceticism is a common religious thing for goodness knows what reason.
2325182
Many people believe that spiritual enlightment requires attaining a state of equilibrium which is easier the less distractions you have. By severing all attachment and living a disciplined minimalist life devoded to your spiritual pursuit, you clear the path.
Of course, this is just superstition. A person who casts off all attachments achieves nothing but their exclusion from society.
People will alwasy find a way to spin the most negatove scenarios in life into something positive. It's fine to have a bright side, but it's important to remember that the bright side of a dark place is still much darker than a bright place.
2325155
2325141
For Celestia so loved the world that she gave her life and perished in torment on the cro... road for it and the chance of universal happiness and harmony. And she did so again. And again. And again. And again.
The suffering isn't the point. The suffering is the measure of devotion. The reason it seems strange (ineffable) in the gospel story is that God being... God could have made suffering superfluous. I'm sure Celestia would do the same, given a chance. But if suffering is the only way to rage against the dying of the light, as it were, the only way to give the world another chance then she'll do it. And her willingness to is the measure of her hope and of her devotion. And even if there is no eternal harmony to be had, there is still hope, and there is still the fact that in the final accounting—and it doesn't get any more final than this—each 'failed' world was worth something. Possibly everything.
Or that's how I read it, anyway.
I saw the suffering as both a tool to further enhance the pain we feel at the loss of Equestria and all the ponies we know and love, and symbolic of the world and life returning to where it started. It was like a backwards evolution, Celestia slowly and painfully returning to an earlier form of life (moving backwards after progress is always painful), before presumably progressing forward again. So in my interpretation the suffering had a point...but it was not the point. For me, that was the fact that Celestia refused to give up and die, and the sense of hope that I did feel at the end. That hope was a result of her perseverance, but I think more so of the fact that she would get another chance along with everypony else we know and love. Twilight and the mane six weren't gone forever. They'd come back for another try. In this way, the story gave me what I would never expect from any doomsday story, unless like I said in my review it cheated (say by traveling back in time). You don't expect a doomsday story to give you another chance with everything you lost. You might get another chance with a few characters, or just one like Celestia, and a hope for a new future with new ponies, but you never get one with everypony who died. That's what really made it hopeful for me. There was a chance at regaining everything I had lost.
2326103
That's a very intriguing idea. Forgive what may seem like a foolish question to an obvious assertion but...why do you think he could have done that? (I suppose you mean he could have taken suffering out of the human experience, that the world didn't have to have pain in it because he could have made it otherwise)?
2326241
What you evoke in your comment is basically a special case of the problem of evil and it is an old theological chestnut. You could of course go all Leibniz and say that this current level of suffering is necessary to produce what will, in the final accounting, be the best of all possible worlds[1], but that's not really a proof so much as a statement of faith, since we have no access to neither the metrics used for such a hypothetical final accounting nor the data of how the world will be at the end of all things[2].
Anyway.
What I was actually referring to was Christ's suffering. Being that God's omnipotent, and being that Christ's also God[3], he could have made it so that suffering was not necessary to redeem humanity. Or made it so that Christ only appeared to suffer. Or turned Pontius Pilate into pilaf. Anything really, what with being all-knowing and all-powerful.
[1] Okay, we went a bit Pangloss, too.
[2] With problems on how to evaluate how much an eternity in heaven is worth and so on.
[3] According to most Christian denominations. All of those accepting the Nicene creed, at any rate.
2326369 2326241 Actually I think I could make a solid evolutionary argument that suffering is optimized for happiness. The capacity to suffer is selected for when it increases reproductive success. Similarly, reproductive success is what makes us happy--not directly, but everything that makes us happy must tend to increase reproductive success.
Happiness, on the other hand, is not usefully seen as being optimized for anything but reproductive success, so it is likely non-optimal.
Could the world have been designed to contain less suffering? By a God, yes. But from an evolutionary perspective, suffering, like population, increases until it reaches an unsteady and catastrophe-prone equilibrium.
2326369
Incidentally, the "Turning Pilate to pilaf" thing also lead to the very important and controversial argument over whether or not God could create pilaf so appetizing, even He could not resist devouring it all.
2326473
Given that creatures who are stressed out are less healthy than their less stressed out compatriots, it seems logical to assume that suffering has actually been evolved to be minimized as much as possible - basically, there is an optimal amount of suffering. Too little suffering, and you end up with lepers - people who lose body parts because they can't feel pain and thus accidentally injure themselves. Too much suffering, though, and you end up with stressed out, nervous wrecks - and even at lesser levels of suffering, it seems like there is a correlation between lack of suffering and success. Being worried about everything is probably deleterious, even if it improves raw survivorship, because you waste too much energy and impairs your ability to socialize and do other things.
Humans have both vastly reduced suffering and vastly increased their numbers and productivity in the 20th century, which suggests to me that human suffering levels were very much non-optimal.
*sees religion and reproduction comments*
*sees giant metal internet dragon flying around*
gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=206351&type=card
I don't think I can add anything to this conversation. Suffering? Raaaaah?
But I will remind Bad not to forget his Bronycon badge in his trunk like last year. Like, keep it in a costume pocket or something when you're not using it. I dunno. Because if you lose it again, this time I will make fun of you.
I mean c'mon! You're already losing bits and pieces of cosplay in hotel rooms (I'm guessing). That's already starting on the wrong hoof, Bad! Tsk tsk!
Also, if you see JMac, can you convince him to get all the voice actresses to sign his Quizzical wood carving? It'll be hilarious. I will repay you with a favour or something if you do.
I was reading the comments here and obviously I need to go read the story first. (That might turn out to be a sidetrack.)
But I originally came over here to yell at you and
call youavoid calling you nasty names for what you did to that picture, because dude, what did you do to that picture? (Don't treat that as a literal question.) I mean, maybe the whole evil thing, but come on.Very intriguing. ^^
I'm not looking for a debate here (Bad Horse knows where that would go xD), but in the spirit of sharing ideas in an open forum, I would just like to say I disagree, and why. It seems embarrassingly obvious that with a God who can do anything, he could've eliminated Christ's suffering, or even made a world where there was less of it to begin with. But I think you have to ask the question of Christ's suffering in respect to his purpose. And given that purpose--to pay the price of sin--he couldn't have avoided suffering, because suffering is the price itself--suffering and death. It's the currency with which you pay the bill. And the reasons for this (which I would be happy to explain further in a pm) flow naturally from a world in which love exists. I wouldn't say it's so much about "the best possible of worlds" so much as it is "a world where there is love", and this avoids the frightening issues of lacking reference points or testable facts; we know what love is, presumably. We can experience it. It's real (depending on your view, at least). It's something we can actually tackle, as opposed to what the "best world" constitutes, and how you measure it.
Anyway, the short of it is that suffering exists because God loves. Christ suffered because he loves, and the price of rejected love is suffering (anyone who's been dumped knows this) . Or look at it this way. If you break my bedroom lamp, I can just forgive you...but who pays for another lamp? I do. If you insult me and I choose to keep my mouth shut and forgive you, who bears the burden of that insult? I do. So in order for God to forgive, he pays the price, and that price was suffering. It's literally how you pay it. Not suffering would be not paying it. I can't pay my electricity bill by sending them carrot cake (I'd probably eat half of it first anyway). Sure, Christ could've stepped down off that cross when the Pharisee's taunted him so, but that wouldn't have been accomplishing his purpose, which was to pay our bills from his own pocket.
You're very free of course to disagree with me five ways to sunday. :3 And like I said I'd be happy to explain my stance further in a pm.
Also, I really want to learn more about the nitty gritty of evolution to be able to think more critically on ideas like yours, BH, because it's certainly an interesting one. 2326667 makes a good point on it, I think, but it's certainly an issue worth investigating more. To do that, I really need to learn just about everything about evolution, where its limits are and what ramifications it has. I'm no biologist or chemist, but I am a budding physicist, so that hopefully that will help.
2328164
Such is the conventional theological position, yes. I'm not much of a fan of the conventional theological position, as a rule. Taking your currency example, God is not a private citizen paying out of his own pocket. He is the issuing bank. He's the Federal Reserve, only more so. Being that nothing is beyond God's grasp to do should he will it, he could have changed the denomination any debts he feels are owned. He could have made it so that love can exist without there being suffering. The suffering is in no way inevitable because the existence of an omnipotent entity excludes the existence of inevitability. An omnipotent entity cannot be constrained by circumstances, nor can an omniscient one be paralyzed by choice. An omniscient and omnipotent deity cannot, thus, fail to act under any circumstances, or rather the failure to act is in itself an action and never a mistake. The suffering was not necessary. Not for God. Necessity means nothing to such as him.
So why did he do it? No idea. Assuming the veracity of the sacrifice and the motive behind it, I don't think anybody does, centuries of vain soteriology aside. And if treat it as a story—and whatever your faith it is also a story no matter what—then the open question of why such a thing was done represents a weakness in the story. Electing to bear suffering as a result of a hard choice is a story motif we comprehend. Electing to bear suffering to no apparent gain, isn't.
That said, I am not interested in continuing this argument. There is, to my mind, nothing to argue about. We are discussing a scenario that, without faith, would not be up for discussion. And it has been my experience that in matters of faith argument gets you absolutely nowhere.
2328279
In that case I respect your wishes, Ghost. I won't rebuttal anything you said, in order to avoid engendering the temptation to reply, and thus deny your desire to not proceed any further. I do hope we can return to this topic one day, perhaps after we know each other better, and can do so as friends as opposed to acquaintances.
2328279
That has not been my experience when arguing with Axis.
2327550 I just stared at it for about a minute.
2328539
In general, I accept this. I have no reason to doubt Axis. But in matters of faith things are always different. I neither want to argue anyone out of their faith or to change anyone's mind about their faith. And my argument was only ever about the story, wholly uninvolved with theodicy of one sort or another.
2325178
I was raised Catholic--CCD, Confirmation and all--and I've never heard of these interpretations until you told me about them just now. Not in my parents' Christianity, nor in the varying Christianities of my various Christian friends.
That's not to say they're not a thing: I'll take your word. It is to say that to large swaths of rather observant Christianity, these interpretations are neither taught nor argued.
2325141
2325155
There is some evidence that Jesus was dreadfully afraid of the crucifixion and actually prayed that it wouldn't happen: "that this cup should pass by me," as the words of his prayer are rendered.
This evidence is found in an obscure text called The Bible.
2330228
I was making a joke in the last case. Well, sort of; there are a lot of people who confess and seem to not understand that a critical component of confession is that you're not just fessing up to what you did, but that you understand why it was wrong and are trying to change yourself for the better. Any truly observant Catholic shouldn't commit crimes, but we all know there are plenty of Catholic criminals.
The former, however, is in fact an interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is, as far as I can tell, mostly used because some people are crazy. It is not the primary interpretation, but it is a relatively common one (it is common enough to be on the Wikipedia article, for instance). That being said, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the parable is indeed about being decent to each other, but the Catholics have come a long way in acceptance; I remember back when my mom used to drag me to church there is the whole big section in the prayer books they had in the pews that was about how "the Jews" was the leaders of the Jews and not all the Jews, and that it was those particular Jews who had done wrong, not all Jews, and about how you should deal with members of other faiths (other Christian denominations and non-Christians) coming into the church and being welcoming, and what rites they're supposed to take part in.
2330266
Indeed. But if you read that, you might find all that stuff about being nice to other people, and who wants to read that?
I hear it is stuck in there somewhere towards the back.
(I have, for the record, actually read the Bible - twice, in fact. Plus read a Picture Bible as well.)
So I guess the theme of the story is "Elpis lives!"
But are we talking about slim young Tupelo Elpis or fat old Vegas Elpis?