Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 It is specifically said that the Trees are the old gods, not just a tool of the greenseers . So what's their agenda? Can you give me an example of any actions they might have undertook? Any message delivered? Have they done anything that was not BR's will? I can specifically call my cactus a god, but it won't get me far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AryaNymeriaVisenya Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I don't see what is unfair about that. Believers have as much opportunities to deepen their understanding of their own religion as atheists do. Yet, on average, atheists are more familiar with theology, doctrine and the content of the bible than believers are. It is what it is. My theory is that it's kinda like a hot dog sausage. It's harder to swallow if you have a better understanding of what's in it! But knowing about Martin Luther and the word transubstantiation isn't understanding the concepts of their religion. If they go to mass they are taught them from the pulpit. At every mass there is a reading from the New Testament, Old Testament and a Gospel, every week. Ask people if they have picked up the bible and read it they may say no but to say they don't understand the bible is ridiculous. Like saying that someone who listens to an audiobook won't understand the text, even if they have a 10 minute analysis of each bit every week. Someone may not know the word transubstantiation but they will know the part of the mass that explains it 'Take this and eat it, this is my body'. You may get blank looks if you use the long academic word but that's like asking if you know what Peladophobia is. Not in that word! I'd also argue about what a 'deep understanding' of religion is. I'd say a deep understanding of Christianity is understanding the resurrection in the context of Original Sin and the Exodus for example rather than just the ethical messages of Jesus. I wouldn't say a history of the church that Martin Luther would be a part of would be a deep understanding of Christianity. He's not exactly the only person to raise the ideas presented. Just like I wouldn't expect a Christian to have a knowledge of Coptic Christians of Gnostic Christians. Or which eastern Churches are orthodox and which are Catholic. I'd expect them to know and debate the bible, the psalms because that is the faith, not the factions of the faith or the biography of the church. I will concede that atheists have probably looked these things up more. They go on the internet and they read the correct terminology, they aren't exposed to mass every week to know the religion another way. Atheists may find the story of organised religion more compelling than the religion itself. They may be more interested in looking at how the church began and fragmented than people who go to church every week and just focus on the religious aspects. They may like to look at Martin Luther because he was a dissenter and in some ways atheists are also 'dissenters' to Christianity. But I would expect a christian to understand the concepts of the faith better than an atheist such as the relationship between the old testament and the new testament in Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 But knowing about Martin Luther and the word transubstantiation isn't understanding the concepts of their religion. If they go to mass they are taught them from the pulpit. At every mass there is a reading from the New Testament, Old Testament and a Gospel, every week. Ask people if they have picked up the bible and read it they may say no but to say they don't understand the bible is ridiculous. Like saying that someone who listens to an audiobook won't understand the text, even if they have a 10 minute analysis of each bit every week. Someone may not know the word transubstantiation but they will know the part of the mass that explains it 'Take this and eat it, this is my body'. You may get blank looks if you use the long academic word but that's like asking if you know what Peladophobia is. Not in that word! I'd also argue about what a 'deep understanding' of religion is. I'd say a deep understanding of Christianity is understanding the resurrection in the context of Original Sin and the Exodus for example rather than just the ethical messages of Jesus. I wouldn't say a history of the church that Martin Luther would be a part of would be a deep understanding of Christianity. He's not exactly the only person to raise the ideas presented. Just like I wouldn't expect a Christian to have a knowledge of Coptic Christians of Gnostic Christians. Or which eastern Churches are orthodox and which are Catholic. I'd expect them to know and debate the bible, the psalms because that is the faith, not the factions of the faith or the biography of the church. I will concede that atheists have probably looked these things up more. They go on the internet and they read the correct terminology, they aren't exposed to mass every week to know the religion another way. Atheists may find the story of organised religion more compelling than the religion itself. They may be more interested in looking at how the church began and fragmented than people who go to church every week and just focus on the religious aspects. They may like to look at Martin Luther because he was a dissenter and in some ways atheists are also 'dissenters' to Christianity. But I would expect a christian to understand the concepts of the faith better than an atheist such as the relationship between the old testament and the new testament in Christianity. I'd first point out that today, the majority of people who identify themselves as Christian don't actually attend church on a regular basis. For example, in the USA about 39% claim they attend church regularly and it is estimated only half of those actually do. That leaves plenty of christians with no more exposure to sermons than an atheist would. Hey, I do attend at funeral and weddings, after all! And I'm about to be able to quote Psalm 23 and Corinthian 12 by heart because of it. Priests are nothing if not predictible. I'd also point out that for those people who go to church, I know from discussing with them that the priest will usually refer to the same parts of the bible over and over again and completely ignore others. The average moderate christian who attends church weekly for example probably has no idea whatsoever of what is contained in Leviticus because his priest/preacher would never quote from it. Which is understandable, because who wants to know about what animals to sacrifice in what fashion to wash away what sins, how to handle your menstruating daughter or what are the guideline when dealing with slaves... Yet it's part of the bible and it has a historical context worth knowing about. Usually, a priest will have go to passages that line up with his personal belief and that's what his flock is exposed to and that's what they'll know. Finally, I said on average. I ran into christians who knew the bible through and through along with tons of apologies to explain the tiniest discrepancies. They ain't the norm, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Arryn Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 69% of statistics are made up 87% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 69% of statistics are made up 87% of the time. And this bad joke shows up 79% of the time after any statistical quote. But in the previous case, I was quoting the gallup poll of 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166613/four-report-attending-church-last-week.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 So what's their agenda? Can you give me an example of any actions they might have undertook? Any message delivered? Have they done anything that was not BR's will? I can specifically call my cactus a god, but it won't get me far... First: as for an agent or actions or messages, that is not what gods do in ASOIAF. Not the old, seven, red or drowned.Second: You are totally missing the point of the concept of the old gods. Until you can get past the idea of a highly organized dogmatic religion as a measure of faith you should not continue to have discussion about this. Just keep to your assumptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 First: as for an agent or actions or messages, that is not what gods do in ASOIAF. Not the old, seven, red or drowned.Second: You are totally missing the point of the concept of the old gods. Until you can get past the idea of a highly organized dogmatic religion as a measure of faith you should not continue to have discussion about this. Just keep to your assumptions I am not assuming any organized religion of the Old Gods case and I don't see how you could have inferred that I do. Are you mix and matching what I wrote about the old gods and the OT posts about christianity? I am in fact assuming the Old Gods don't actually exist at all. The text hasn't disproved me so far. I also less strongly believe that it's possible BR don't believe they exist but surely we'll get a more definitive answer at some point, one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I am not assuming any organized religion in the Old Gods case and I don't see where you could have inferred that I do. I am in fact assuming they don't actually exist at all. The text hasn't disproved me so far. It has, you just haven't seen it. Move away from dogma and your perceptions of what a religion should be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 It has, you just haven't seen it. Move away from dogma and your perceptions of what a religion should be First of all; I did not share in this thread my perception of what a religion should be. So maybe you should move away from the perception I did so, okay? Secondly, if there is textual proof that the Old Gods exist, do enlighten me by quoting the passage. I see nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monctonvike Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 For what it's worth, members of other religious groups have become wargs (ie. Euron) They like the northmen have the blood of the firstmen in them. I think it might have something to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Idle Raven Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I agree that Bloodraven's abilities stem from his Blackwood mother. I also think that there is a lot more about Raventree Hall that is currently hidden and might be revealed in TWOW. It's clearly a very old castle, dating back to the time of the first men and the Blackwoods themselves are also a very old family. For what it's worth I still believe that Bloodraven controls, or is at least able to warg, the ravens that return to Raventree Hall every night to roost. I also think that he uses his abilities to warg ravens carrying messages across Westeros and listen into conversations in castles up and down the seven kingdoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Secondly, if there is textual proof that the Old Gods exist, do enlighten me by quoting the passage. I see nothing. The singers of the forest had no books. No ink, no parchment, no written language. Instead they had the trees, and the weirwoods above all. When they died, they went into the wood, into leaf and limb and root, and the trees remembered. All their songs and spells, their histories and prayers, everything they knew about this world. Maesters will tell you that the weirwoods are sacred to the old gods. The singers believe they are the old gods. When singers die they become part of that godhood.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Arryn Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Secondly, if there is textual proof that the Old Gods exist, do enlighten me by quoting the passage. I see nothing. Not to but in on this little back and forth, but what exactly do you mean here? At the risk of sounding stupid... Don't we have 5 books worth of mentions about the Old Gods?... And every other religion for that matter? (except maybe R'hllor, that may not have been mentioned until Clash) On the other hand, if your looking for textual proof that one religion is "real" vs any of the others, I don't know if that exists in our story. I kinda always thought that was a motif or theme that GRRM was hinting at in this story. Is there proof that the Seven are real? Or R'hllor, or the Many Faced God, or the drowned God... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Not to but in on this little back and forth, but what exactly do you mean here? I mean people believe in the Old Gods. Just like in RL people believed in Appolo and now believe in Jeovah. So? Doesn't prove they exist. This is a fantasy book. If the author has conceived the gods as real in his universe, he can easily show it to be the case. I.E. In the Dragonlance Saga, gods take avatars form and walk the earth! They are outright characters, Some people are explicitly shown to gain power from being chosen by the gods. I wouldn't be asking people whether or nor not gods are real in the Dragonlance saga, it's damn obvious they are. A clear and sign of divine intervention is common in fantasy. But in ASOIAF, gods are just about as real as in our world. That is to say, people believe they exist but we are shown no proof. If they exist, they don't intervene and therefore might as well not exist. The author could chose to provide us with proof, to make them character in the play, but he doesn't. I suspect Martin is agnostic and that there is no sentient supernatural entity at work in the serie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Arryn Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 that there is no sentient supernatural entity at work in the serie. So events such as: -Bran dreaming of the 3EC, seeing his father in the crypts, visions in the Weirnet...etc -Shadow Babies -The 9 lives of Beric Dondarion -Lady Stoneheart -Fireproof Dany, Dragon hatching These are natural events then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 So events such as: -Bran dreaming of the 3EC, seeing his father in the crypts, visions in the Weirnet...etc -Shadow Babies -The 9 lives of Beric Dondarion -Lady Stoneheart -Fireproof Dany, Dragon hatching These are natural events then? Nope. These are Supernatural powers that are exerted by mortal characters. If this was modern days, they'd be sorta like the X-Men, since bloodline seems singularly more important than faith in determining who has powers. As far as I can tell, the power comes from the character doing the deed, not an external entity that we could qualify as a god. It's amusing that you mention Bran dreaming of the 3EC in the context of this thread since we now know this was a vision sent by Blood Raven! He was reeling Bran in. Again, the Author control his universe so if gods are real, independant entities capable of agency, Martin will find a way to let us know. But so far he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Arryn Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Nope. Supernatural powers exerted by mortal characters. If this was modern days, they'd be X-Men. It's amusing that you mention Bran dreaming of the 3EC in the context of this thread since we now know this was a vision sent by Blood Raven! Now I'm really confused, there are supernatural entities at work then?... Your "X-men." But we have no proof that they are real? And a vision sent by BR is the point right? Isn't this how the old gods work, and by definition textual proof of such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I mean people believe in the Old Gods. Just like in RL people believed in Appolo and now believe in Jeovah. So? Doesn't prove they exist. This is a fantasy book. If the author has conceived the gods as real in his universe, he can easily show it to be the case. I.E. In the Dragonlance Saga, gods take avatars form and walk the earth! They are outright characters, Some people are explicitly shown to gain power from being chosen by the gods. I wouldn't be asking people whether or nor not gods are real in the Dragonlance saga, it's damn obvious they are. A clear and sign of divine intervention is common in fantasy. But in ASOIAF, gods are just about as real as in our world. That is to say, people believe they exist but we are shown no proof. If they exist, they don't intervene and therefore might as well not exist. The author could chose to provide us with proof, to make them character in the play, but he doesn't. I suspect Martin is agnostic and that there is no sentient supernatural entity at work in the serie. I dunno if you saw the quote I posted, but the Old Gods do exist. They're just trees containing the memories of the dead, not what we think of when we think "gods." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Now I'm really confused, there are supernatural entities at work then?... Your "X-men." But we have no proof that they are real? And a vision sent by BR is the point right? Isn't this how the old gods work, and by definition textual proof of such? Semantics. Is Wolverine a god? is Zeus a god? Okay, well, ASOIAF has Wolverines but no Zeus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Malenkirk Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I dunno if you saw the quote I posted, but the Old Gods do exist. They're just trees containing the memories of the dead, not what we think of when we think "gods." Well, then not gods at all, right? If that's all they are, it doesn't seem to be the understanding of those who pray to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.