The origins of the Guardian

[~]|[~]

Apart from being an "extradimensional being" (stupid wisps...) what exactly is the Guardian and where/how did he come into creation?

I never bought Ultima IX, the reason being my system (at the time) could not handle the requirements - so I don't know if U:IX gave more info on Big Red's history... (.. and apparently, after reading Hacki's page, IX stiffs you when it comes to info on the Guardian)

[DreamMaster]

Spoilers below...

Although I do have Ultima IX, I haven't been able to force myself to finish it yet. But from what I understand, it's revealed that the Guardian is, in fact, you. That is to say, as the game character achieved Avatarhood way back in Ultima IV, all of his "negative" aspects were separated from him, forming the nucleus of the Guardian. The latter part of Ultima IX is, I understand, dealing with this fact and the Guardian himself.

DreamMaster.

[Lord G]

I remeber reading something about the guardian being a titan (from the lost vale) but I don`t think anyone knows the details.

[Dominus]

the official story is the one DreamMsater wrote above. The plan once thought of at the time of u7 is probably something else entirely...

[EarthquakeDamage]

The Guardian being your "evil side" in Ultima IX is yet another symptom of EA rushing the game out the door. I'm not sure who the Guardian is supposed to be, but it's certainly not the Dark Side of the Avatar.

If you became a force of "pure good" when you became the Avatar, why can you perform evil acts in all the games from there on out? Why can you play the most dastardly villain the world has ever known (excepting the few goods things you *have* to do to successfully complete each game) if you're "pure good" and your "evil side" has been stripped away?

Ultima IX tells us an outright lie. I hope someone eventually digs up the real story.

... but yes, according to Ultima IX, DreamMaster's description is correct.

[Warder]

As far as I know, the Guardian wasn't a titan - he was more powerful than them. But yeah, usually only the EA fanboys buy Ultima IX's explanation.

[Soule]

Does anyone know who the Guardian was originally intended to be?

[GuJiaXian]

I remember back in junior high (mid 90s) reading through a hint book for Ultimas 1 through 6. In the back was a lengthy interview with Richard Garriott, in which we was discussing the plots and ideas surrounding the (then) up-and-coming Ultima 7.

I remember him explaining to the interviewer that the concept behind the Guardian was a unique one: the Guardian was only one member of a whole race of super-powerful beings. Most weren't necessarily evil (or good, for that matter). The Guardian was like the magician's apprentace: he found a way to punch a hole through to Brittania, where he found that he was vastly more powerful than the human denizens. He set himself up as a god for the Fellowship to worship, when in fact he was probably a rather unimportant, low-ranking member of his own race.

I've always found that idea intriguing. Kind of makes you wonder if Ultima IX should have ended with you, the Avatar, finally coming face-to-face with your mortal enemy...and then having this booming voice from nowhere announce "Junior! It's time for dinner!" And then the Guardian says, "Aw, Mom, I was just playing with the Britannians."

Obviously, that last bit was creative interpretation on my own part, but if someone could dig up that hint book or the interview itself, perhaps we could shed some more light onto this question.

[GuJiaXian]

Okay, I did some searching and I *think* that the book was "Ultima: The Avatar Adventures" by Prima. It was published in 1992, covered Ultimas 4-6, and included an interview with Richard Garriott.

[~]|[~]

Damn, thats a bit of an anti-climax... Its a shame they couldnt go for an idea that offers more substance and originality than the ol' "Im your father" type routine.
Of course that goes into contrast to what Richard Garriot apparently said in that UAA book you mentioned, GuJiaXian. I searched for a transcript of that interview but havn't found anything yet..

[GuJiaXian]

I found copies of the book available on Amazon, but I'm (understandably) reluctant to shell out $12-$15 (US$) just to prove a theory.

[Colourless]

The backlash against Ultima 8 screwed up Garriot's plans for Ultima 9. It wasn't meant to be set on Britannia. It was intended to be set on the Guardian's homeworld. The Ultima 9 that was originally meant to be, was likely not going to be in anyway remotely similar to the U9 that we ended up getting.

From FANS.TXT that comes with the Ultima 8 Patch:

The design of Ultima IX (which is still in progress) relies heavily on this feedback and has resulted in a dramatic turnaround back toward classic role playing. Even better, it has resulted in a classic Britannian Ultima.

Had people not complained about U8 not being in Britannia, then U9 also wouldn't have been in Britannia and the original story would have been used. As such, I do not blame EA for the Guardian is the Avatar's evil side, I would blame the fans, though indirectly.

-Colourless Dragon

[Chris Schumacher]

Quite some time ago I posted this to the Ultima newsgroup when we were
talking about the Lost Vale.
Unfortunately some of the sources of this article have now disintegrated (there used to be an Ultima message board, it's where Bob White and the
others used to hang out. I forget which website it was on, but one of the Lost Vale designers was on the board. This is where the overview of the Lost Vale plot came from. The latter half is based on several comments I've heard from assorted fans throughout the years. However, considering I've heard the same story from at least three different, I think that RG really DID reveal the origin (no pun intended) at a convention)
Message follows:

OKay, what we know, from every conceivable source:

There is a door in a cave in the plateu which cannot be opened. After
you added the patch, you either got some kind of key which opened it,
or it became unlocked. When you go through this cave, you would end up
in one of the sections of map that you never visit (it's the one with
the sunken ship).
Within this Lost Vale are the last remaining Zealans (their
descendants, actually) who are actually at war with one another for
some reason. You accomplish several quests to gain the parts of a
shattered Zealan shield (one of these quests might have involved the
lost ship with Tenebrae's treasure on it. In any case, that ship was
in the Lost Vale). When the shield is rejoined, you enter a temple
which contains the statues which contain the souls of the lesser
Zealan gods (the ones that were sealed away some time ago); the ones
representing Fear, Joy, and Grief (their names are in one of the books
in the game, they escape me at the moment.) When you place the
restored shield on the pedestal, you release the three gods.
This results in the wars between the Zealans being stopped.
The Avatar returns to the outside world, doubtlessly with some new
kick ass weapons and spells.

However....

Some fans had reported that RG once told a group at a convention the
true origin of the Guardian. The Guardian was the seventh Zealan
deity. I assume he represented something to do with protection or
leadership. Adding this to what we know, we can assume that the
Guardian struck a pact with the three major Zealan Gods to seal away
the power of the three minor ones, thus doubling their powers. He then
used the Titan gambit to get rid of the Zealan worshippers, and became
the one god of their world.
This would also explain why, until the last minute, The Lost Vale was
supposed to be part of Ultima 9.

[Sergorn]

I guess what's really obvious is that the origins of the Guardian pretty muched changed at every game

Yeah according the Ultima IX; the Guardian is some sort of anti-Avatar that "spawned" from his evil side when he became the Avatar. Ironically though the origins of the Guardian as explained in the final game are *not* what Richard Garriott intended them to be in Ultima IX

This is from the official Ultima IX guide...

RG:"If you go back to the very beginning, in Ultima I, and the first evil wizard, known as Mondain, you remember that he was in the process of creating a gem of immortality ... a way to make his ultimate evil survive forever. The way you stopped that was that you went and shattered that gem. That process had a very profound impact on the history of all Ultimas. The first impact that the player is aware of is that the three major shards ultimate manifest the three Shadow Lords, which affect Blackthorn and the evils that take place in that era. What you also discover in this game is that, in fact, of course, the three shards were first uncovered/discovered between Ultima IV and V. In IV, as you become this person of pure virtue, the fiction we've created is that that process of casting out the darker side of yourself, and where that goes and how it happens, also goes back to that gem as well. This gem, from the fact that you've had contact with it from way back, is where the dark side of you resonates and maintains itself. So the Shadow Lords really are a part of you, that dark side of yourself. As you banish them in Ultima V, and send them off to some other plane of existence, which you think of as non-existence, they get back together and plot their revenge. It's that darker aspect of yourself that comes back in Ultima VII. Ultimately you discover that you really can't wipe that out without wiping out yourself."

And of course what's interesting is that THIS would have THE thing tying up everything right up to Ultima I (which is exactlt what we had been promised). I guess EA felt it would have been to much for the Ultima newbies *sigh*

(BTW I made a whole personnal interpretation of all this Guardian stuff at the Dragon Press; you might find it interesting maybe http://dragonpress.tumbolia.org/destinytale.html

-Sergorn

[perilisk]

Sorry to dredge up a dead topic, but I was looking at the different theories:

Theory 1: Ultima IX theory: The Guardian is the Avatar's dark side, spawned from the process of becoming Avatar, champion of all that is good and holy.

Pros:
- Well, it's the official line, nonsensical as it may be.
- Presents a sort of balance. Call it the theory of conservation of virtue. This happens to be a very stupid theory, though. For every Ghandi there must be a Pol Pot? I guess it parallels the plot of U5, though -- bringing the Codex to the overworld caused an imbalance in the underworld that led to the creation of the Shadowlords.
- The Avatar is vain, cruel, selfish, unjust, decietful, and dishonorable. He prefers manipulation from afar to a fair fight. He's probably not spiritual either. He fails at every virtue, though in entirely believable, human ways.

Cons:
- There is no real maximum on virtue. Even the Avatar has room for improvement. If the Avatar has an evil twin, so does everyone else. The Avatar's twin is big, red, and evil. For an evil guy, maybe his evil twin is nice, and tiny, and blue? So that's where smurfs come from!
- Why is he big and red, and how does he have a homeworld other than Britannia?
- Despite what I said above, the Guardian doesn't really seem anti-virtuous in the extreme black-and-white way that the Shadowlords are, merely unvirtuous. His evil is human, not idealized (although, techically, I guess that would make him a better foil for the Avatar). In fact, the Guardian seems like the sort that would love a society run on the basis of virtue, as long as those virtues served him (such as the Tenets of the fellowship). Stratos is, after all, an aspect of the Guardian's personality -- he is Companion, Provider, and Master. To me, the Guardian isn't the counterpart of the Avatar, he's the counterpart of Lord British.
- The Guardian should get weaker, or at least more virtuous, with every less-than-virtuous act that the Avatar performs. While it can be argued that the Avatar never did any evil act that was optional in the series, Ultima 8 forces the Avatar to betray Vardion or Bane to his/her death and nearly destroys the world of Pagan. Not very virtuous. Should the Guardian become more noble to compensate?


Theory 2: The Guardian was spawned by the Stranger's contact with the Gem of Immortality.

Pros:
- Another theory of balance
- Ties together the entire series

Cons:
- All of the Cons from #1 apply. The Shadowlords appeared in Britannia, so why is Guardian extradimensional? What actually triggered his manifestation? The Shadowlords were spawned from a horrific act of violence. Furthermore, the Guardian seems unvirtuous to me, not anti-virtuous, see above.


Theory 3: The Guardian is from Pagan

Pros:
- I vaguely recall that there were some references to Pagan being the Guardian's homeworld, but I'm not sure where from.

Cons:
- The Guardian doesn't seem like a Zealan god. What emotion would he represent? The Guardian is not that focused. He isn't the physical representation of some metaphysical principle or principles. His motivations are human and understandable.
- The Guardian is definitely not a Titan. The Pagans created the Titans, at the direction of the Guardian.
- If the Guardian was from Pagan, why did he need a Black Gate to enter?
- So where exactly is the Guardian? Not in the void, apparently. Not in Pagan. Not in Britannia.


Theory 4: The Guardian is a minor twerp from a race of superbeings

Pros:
- It would explain a lot about his attitude
- It would explain why the Titan of Ether once again starts off as basically nobody. On the Guardian's world, even the lowliest peasant is a Titan of something-or-other.

Cons:
- The wisps claim that the Guardian is powerful on his own world. This would seem to contradict that theory.


Anyway, none of these theories seem to fit exactly, though they all have some merit. What do I think? I think that Ultima 7 was an attempt to get away from formulaic, black and white, mathematical ethics (Red Courage + Blue Truth = Purple Honor. How nice and neat!), and start getting into the issues that face us in reality. Racism, poverty, pollution, cults, loss of belief in ancient legends, and so on and so forth. The Guardian was supposed to be a villain that fit into this new Britannia, where things weren't nice and neat, and the answers weren't multiple choice -- if the answers even existed at all. "I have no secrets, my foolish friend. Thou art a fool. There are -no- answers. Only questions."

The Guardian was not a one dimensional villain, as previous Ultima Big Bad Guys had been. While his personality traits almost exactly mirrored what the Avatar was not, they were at the same time not exagerrated or ridiculous. Indeed, there have been many human beings who were about on the same karmic scale as the Guardian. The Guardian was a being that derives pleasure from the domination of others. This domination takes many forms -- by speaking to people telepathically and guiding them, or even almost possessing them; by fostering reliance on the Guardian as a protector and provider (while also being responsible for the need for protection and providence); by spreading propaganda and inducting the weak-willed into a cultlike atmosphere; by taunting them and playing mind games with them, as in Pagan and Ultima Underworld 2; and by brutally slaughtering his political enemies. The Guardian was a totalitarian autocrat, the Stalin of the Britannian universe, though a bit more subtle. He was a political villain, not a moral villain.

Having not played Underworld 2, I can't comment, but things that I've heard indicate it also had political undertones.

In the later portions of the game, Serpent Isle returned to the principle formula of previous Ultimas, though these principles were also more political in nature (note the Virtues and Anti-virtues of Order and Chaos somewhat mirror the tendencies of moderate and extremist political groups, respectively). The earlier portions had somewhat political undertones, though, dealing with feminism, elitism, militaristic states, and so on. I think RG made a comment once about the Imbalance plotline being a metaphor for the fact that all individuals are affected by the fabric of their society (ie, the storms were a metaphor for a society going mad from extremism).

Serpent Isle also revealed a somewhat childish aspect of the Guardian: If he couldn't conquer Britannia, then he would damn well destroy it. Of course, this might have been as a precaution against a future threat, but I get the impression it was more of an angry "If I can't have it, no one will!" sort of thing. It was also, methinks, due to his pride being insulted. This was one reason why he planned the death of Batlin, the druid being instrumental in the Guardian's ego-deflating defeat. The Guardian might be clever, manipulative, and cunning, but he is just a bully at heart.

Of course, Serpent Isle turned out to be a much darker game than Ultima 7, what with the disasterous plot twist in the middle. Ultima 8 seemed to move away from the political undertones of BG and SI, and instead tried to expand on the dark and ironic themes of Serpent Isle, where pursuing good meant, intentionally or unintentionally, causing very bad things to happen. Still, Ultima 8 reveals a bit about the Guardian's character.

Pagan seems to me to be the place that Britannia could have been, had the Avatar failed in U8. There was an underlying social structure which the Guardian undermined. The Pagans directly parallel the Fellowship, the faithful subversives who enabled the Guardian to conquer their world, while the Zealans are a parallel for the Way of the Avatar. The Guardian helped the Pagans create the Titans, knowing full well he would command their powers, and through them, own the people of Morgaelin, both in life and (un)death. While it might seem like the people command the Titans to some extent, the fact is that they depend on them for their lives. This is to the Guardian's benefit.

I won't discuss Ultima 9, as I don't consider it to have much consistency with any other aspects of the Ultima series. I think U9 got shafted for the sake of UO. Still, it's nice to see that people want to remake it. I have my own ideas for a u9 storyboard, it seems to be every Ultima fan's hobby. Maybe someone will use Exult to make u9 the right way? Well, at least in a way that's true to the Ultima series.

[Soule]

Another one of my creative theory:

The Guardian is the Order Hierophant.
When the Order Hierophant stepped through the Wall of Lights, she(he?) ascended to become the Guardian.
That was why we found the Guardian in the void? He needed an extradimensional gate such as Black Gate or Wall of Lights to travel into worlds. He can only influence events from the void. Otherwise, what happened to the Order Hierophant and his(her?) followers after they ascended? Supposingly they become entities rite?
Perhaps the Order followers who went through the Wall became the Titans?

[perilisk]

That's actually kind of interesting -- it could explain the Guardian's appearance. Sort of an Automaton made out of Stoneheart or something. But if that's the case, his attitude changed out in the Void. The Order guys were your basic genocidal religious fanatics, who are perfectly willing to sacrific all of their individuality to a higher societal order. The Guardian, on the other hand, seems to be concerned first and foremost with the well-being of the Guardian.

But maybe the people of Order found another world (wasn't that their goal), and war resulted. The Guardian could have been created by one side or the other as the ultimate weapon, created with a combination of the magics of the invaders and the defenders, who ultimately turned on them and enslaved the whole lot of them.

[Carlos]

I have played almost half Ultima IX and there not much info about the Guardian,
Ultima VIII has a nice topic because its a world were the guardian fullfill hes plans as he tries in Ultima Vii
as The Fellowship there were the Pagans in Ultima VIII

and we wasnt a titan, he fought against the titans and loose

[Carlos]

the creature known as destroyer in Ultima VIII is the guardian

[Tristan de Inés]

I remember reading somewhere, that the Guardian is a conqueror from another world full of equally powerfull beings. He hops from world to world, trying to take them over.

So I was very surprised at how U9 turned out.

Unfortunately I don't remember where I read this.

[Tristan de Inés]

This theory of a world full of powerfull "guardians" would also explain the U8 ending.
After all, the Avatar absorbed the power of the four titans and turned out über-powerfull, properly equipped to travel to the guardians homeworld for a final showdown among super-beings and put an end to their rule over other worlds.

[Carlos]

Yeah, Ultima VIII story is very interesting

[painful]

So why not use exult to make a story that continues the ultima 8 'story'. Give the avatar his godlike abilities of a Titan, and let him go to the guardian's world and kick some uber-being ass. I so want to start a game in the exult studio but everytime people say they're interested in helping.. they NEVER get back to me and one person cant do everything it would take.

[Gunnar]

Kel,

I don't know If you ever read the following to FanFics from Evil_Freak Dragon:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Do ... tima91.htm
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Do ... script.htm

The first is his U9 story, the second talks about a remake using exult although I don't think that one ever started.

[Oblivious]

This is all very interesting.

[~]|[~]

Sorry to drudge up this post again, but its been a long time since I've been here. Some interesting idea's here and perilisk's post was spot on.
As for my view on the matter, I've always believed that the Guardian was actually the 'Old Testements' (bible) God.
If you have read the bible cover to cover (and I was forced to), you will realise that "God" is not all peach's and cream - 'He' accepts slavery, punishes with plauges, death, famine and terrible acts of bloodshed on many occasions, that is when he doesn't get his followers to commit the acts.
Similarites between the two are :

* The early Christian's belief system is VERY similar to that of the Fellowship. The were open to other peoples beliefs, and believed in equality, and also helping your fellow man (or woman) -- but only if you join them.
After gaining power the Christians then began the curious act of killing heretics and enslaving other cultures to force them to convert to Christianity. Imagine that the Guardian did conquer Brittania - the Fellowship would have enslaved and murdered all those who oppose their belief system, launching a "Crusade" against the enemies of the Guardian.

* Some of God's actions are also very similar to the Guardian himself.
I won't post all the quotations here (there are far too many of them), but check out www.evilbible.com for annotated versions, and then compare those quotes to the Fellowship and the Guardian's ideals.
There are quotes that refer to Ritual Human Sacrifice, Murder, Enslavery, Biblical Contridictions (similar to the Fellowship's belief contridictions) and more.

I also remember reading somewhere (here?) that there was an interview with an Origin employee who stated that Origin created the Fellowship with Christianity in mind -- anyone heard of that?

[Dominus]

I also remember reading somewhere (here?) that there was an interview with an Origin employee who stated that Origin created the Fellowship with Christianity in mind -- anyone heard of that?

Scientology was the one refered to if I remember correctly

[Oblivious]

I believe Dominus is correct. Though the Fellowship does have some understones of the organized Catholic church, its affirmation aspect is ripped straight off of Scientology and psychology/hypnosis/self-esteem building cults, which are surprisingly common in today's society. Aside from extremist offshoots of organized religions run by charismatic narcissists, there's also the affirmation-type cults which is basically what the Fellowship can be summed up by.

One of the things Scientology teaches, if I remember correctly, is that the greater one's morality, the more riches they will have, and the healthier they will be (this is one of the reasons that scientology is so incredibly popular among celebrities-- it's basically telling them that the fact that they're rich is proof that they are essentially saints.)

[Oblivious]

"The early Christian's belief system is VERY similar to that of the Fellowship. The were open to other peoples beliefs, and believed in equality, and also helping your fellow man (or woman) -- but only if you join them.
After gaining power the Christians then began the curious act of killing heretics and enslaving other cultures to force them to convert to Christianity. Imagine that the Guardian did conquer Brittania - the Fellowship would have enslaved and murdered all those who oppose their belief system, launching a "Crusade" against the enemies of the Guardian."

Actually, that is not true. We Christians are required to help others almost unconditionally. The missionaries that go to other countries are supposed to offer medical aid, education, and relief aid to the disadvantaged in foreign countries as well as offer the word of God. They're not allowed to turn people down simply because they refuse to become Christian, though, sadly, not all of them follow these rules.

As for the witch burning and the crusades: Those were not Christian acts. In fact, the New Testament (which takes priority over the old when it comes to issues both covered) strictly forbid the crusades, and anyone who pays attention to Jesus's and Paul's actions would know that putting a witch to death is wrong.

Unfortunately, the poor populace of the time was illiterate, and depended on men to tell them what the Bible said... You can imagine the potential for corruption there...

At that time, the Bible was a mere political tool for the corrupt royal family and government. It is unfortunate, but all religious texts have this disadvantage. If you do research on Tibet's organized monastaries, you will find stories full of child molestation, sexual harassment of nuns, extortion, smear campaigns, whoremongering, and slavery all performed by 'Buddhist Monks'. (that region is a complete mess... Oh, BTW, Buddhist monks and nuns are required to be celibate. That's why the whoremongering is mentioned. Prostitution is a no-no in Buddhism, anyway.)

[drcode]

Scientology: I once allowed myself to be pulled into one of their offices for a "personality test" waayyy back in college. The main thing I remember is that they try to sell you these extremely expensive courses and retreats that will bring enlightenment (or whatever they call it). I gave them a fake name ("Frederick Gauss" - I was pretty nerdy) and a fake address so they wouldn't bother me. Although they claim to be a religion (and get text-exempt status, I believe), I don't know of any other religion that starts out trying to get money.

There's also a story (or rumour) about the founder. Hubbard was a science-fiction writer around the same time as Heinlein, who wrote at least one story based on the notion that "a good way to get rich is to start your own religion." Apparently, Hubbard took the advice.

Anyway, I'd hate for us to start getting into religious wars over religion:-) Different faiths appeal to different people, just like computer games. If scientology make someone happy, that's fine with me (as long as they leave me alone.)

[Kagehi Kossori]

> As for the witch burning and the crusades: Those were not Christian acts.

Modern Christian's seem to know very little about the history of their own faith. Or rather they ignore the inconvenient bits that don't fit their modern interpretation of how warm and fuzzy the church was meant to be. After all, the Catholic church sanctioned the crusades, pretended ignorance of the wide spread growth of the Inquisition (which was found in nearly all of europe, but was later blamed on one country). The king of spain though had 3 seperate churches that advised him, only one of which was the Inquisition and ordered that no arrests/burning would happen without his permission. The kings of spain have been recorded as having given permission for something like four, in the entire 300 year span the Inquisition existed. Oops! So... Why did everyone else find it so convenient to blaim spain for all of it and why did the Catholic church, who helped to disband and confiscate the records of the Inquisition after, "allow" such a lie to be told? Could it be that the Catholic church's *only* attempt to stop them happened 200 years or so into the Inquisitions existance and then it consisted of a short letter that basically said, "We don't really approve of what you are doing."... Oooh! That really must have scared them. lol

No other record exists to indicate that the Catholic church ever apposed the Inquisition when it existed. A fact that is really odd, since the Catholic church's own records and the records from the Inquisition that they confiscated would, one has to assume, contain some verifiable evidence that such actions where apposed by the church, unless no such evidence exists and they in fact sanctioned it. This is quite possible, since different popes have been more or less strict than prior ones, depending on how literally they interpreted their faith. And the bible makes quite clear in several places that killing, murdering, enslaving or even torturing non-believers is not only acceptable, but expected.

Anyone interested in an examination of biblical contradictions may want to take a look at: http://www.evilbible.com/

Yeah.. I see a lot of "true" Christian history and corruption in the Fellowship. In a few hundred years they would probably have had huge cathedrals and everyone would be sitting around talking about how all the stuff that *used* to happen in the past was done by people that didn't really believe.

[Chris Schumacher]

DrCode wrote: "Although they claim to be a religion (and get text-exempt status, I believe)"
I guess that means there's no point attacking them with Emacs.
As for that Heinlein/Hubbard conversation, I heard it went something like this:

Hu: Bet ya I can start a religon.
He: Bet you can't.

There's a nice satire of it in the series Millennium, called "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense". Unfortunately it's hard to find as the series has never been released on DVD. (that's something that makes you go "hmmm").

[THE Guardian]

Foolish Mortals, hath thou forgotten the lessons of Pagan! Art thou without virtues, and wholey the subsidiary of mine will! Canst thou rummage through thine brain's and findeth a better reason for mine existense than these lowly theories! Even the fool Blackthorn saw me for what I was!

[Oblivious]

I might remind you that a vast number of today's Catholic saints from throughout the ages are actually martyrs who were put to death as heretics, several during the inquisition. Most of the saints who were martyred during the inquisitions were given the saint title during the early Reniassance. They were the ones who were brave enough to speak out against the church's corruption at the time, or to simply stand up for what they believed in, but paid for it with their lives, and that is what happened to many of the true Christians at the time. Unlike those in power, they were usually poverty stricken and led simple lives. They also lacked the charisma that their richer peers possessed.

An example of one such martyr is Saint Joan of Arc.
The story behind her is this: She was raised during the 100 year English-French war. She was loyal to the king of France at the time, and became a HIGHLY successful general. At one point, she got captured by the English.
The English accused her of being a witch. They told her to confess to their pope, but she refused, because she knew what they were up to. Joan of Arc was a major political rival of the English, so they decided to label her a witch in order to dispose of her. The story goes that most of the French knew what the English church was doing, as did most of the populace of the English commoners, but there was nothing they could do. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. Th corrupt church officials realized that the populace was suspicious of them, so they decided to come out 2 weeks later and announce that they conducted an internal investigation and found that they made a mistake during the 'trial'; Joan of Arc is found innocent.

[artaxerxes]

Like DrCode said, I don't think this is the best place for a religous war. I would just like to give some answers to some points that were mentioned earlier:

~]I[~:
>you will realise that "God" is not all peach's and cream

If you take a look at 2 Peter 2:4-10, you'll see that God is not weak so that he would tolerate badness indefinitely. That doesn't mean He is bad or wicked. You wouldn't say a judge is wicked if he condemns a criminal, would you? Now compare that with 2 Peter 3:9, in which you read "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (copied from a bible online website). So while people are granted time to change their ways when they are bad, those who refuse endure the consequences of their choice.
I agree the Western world got a very confusing idea of God. The God in the old testament is the same that in the new testament; we just got to know him better.

Anyways, again, I don't want to use this website as a portal for religous war. So let's head to another site if you want to pursue the conversation.

Artaxerxes

[Kagehi Kossori]

Umm. Well Artaxerxes, two sections out of roughly the same area is nice, but you don't find true contradiction until you start comparing different sections. Some examples from the link I gave (just a selection, there are 143 listed in one section and 43 just in the N.T. part):

N.T. Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

O.T.
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

24. Robbery commanded
Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
Robbery forbidden
Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15

30. Slavery and oppression ordained
Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
Slavery and oppression forbidden
Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10

41. The Sabbath instituted
Ex 20:8
The Sabbath repudiated
Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16

47. Marriage approved
Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
Marriage disapproved
1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8

49. Adultery forbidden
Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
Adultery allowed
Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3

54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers
and punish evil doers only
Rom 13:1-3,6
It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the
good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35

130. Poverty a blessing
Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5
Riches a blessing
Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12
Neither poverty nor riches a blessing
Prov 30:8,9

There is nothing unclean of itself.
- Romans 14:14

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud
or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the
hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the
hoof, therefore they are unclean unto you. And the swine,
because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is
unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch
their dead carcass.
- Deuteronomy 14:7,8

Rabbits chew cud? And camels don't have cloven hooves? Hmm. Maybe they evolved since then.... lol

And a real good one:
N.T. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
- John 5:31

I am one that bear witness of myself...
- John 8:18
[Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes]


Some horribly confused people wrote these passages or God is extraordinarilly mercurial in nature (and possibly by modern medical standards insane).

The point is that modern ideas about religeon bare very little resemblance to the original view and where people do try to follow everything in it precisely, you tend far more often to get a mess like the middle east, where everyone believes in the traditional punishments for sin, which in virtually all cases is death. Rape is a bit different, every mention of it in the bible says that the women who was raped should be forced to marry the rapist. Huh??? There is no other punishment or action given anywhere in the bible for that crime and in several places it is considered a valid means of conquest (including by Moses at one point), but only the virgins mind you, the rest where to be killed.

But you may say, Christ superceded all that. Wrong, in several passages he specifically states that the old law is still in effect until the end of the world. Of course he did claim that this was to happen in his disciples life times. So, do modern Christians assume that that 'end' happens in two stages or something, the first stage being the overturning of the O.T. and the second a 'true' end in some obscure future? Would be convenient I suppose, but it isn't correct within the context the prophecy of such events where given. Both the statement about the old law and the end of the world happen in the *same* passage and even the same sentence. It also very clearly says they will happen in the life time of the disciples.

I don't think the west has any more a confused view than the rest of the world and the N.T. has enough of its own contradictions to confuse things even more. It is also bloody short compared to the entire O.T., so I and not clear how you 'get to know' something better in the equivelant to a short story than you do with a bloody epic stretching over thousands of years.

But as DrCode said, this really isn't the place for this, even if both of us do feel the need to defend our views on the subject.

[wjp]

This thread is really getting a bit too far off-topic