Reverend Stover

**milamber_reborn** · November 5th, 2002, 12:58 AM

Waylander - it was Mission Earth.

http://www.lronhubbard.com has information about his reasons for writing Mission Earth, and the messages it contained.

**Sammie** · November 5th, 2002, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by orty
Sammie--As for the interview in the back of the book I'm not talking about the same summary type information put on the backs of almost all paperbacks. I'm talking about 12 page long interview. Perhaps you knew that but I wasn't sure. As for allowing it to affect my reading of the book one hardly needs to read the interview to understand his the theme of the book.

Yeah - i did think you meant something longer than the usual one paragraph affair - i still think it shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the story....

Appreciate entirely that you didn't like the story regardless of the interview....i just didn't feel that it was too logical to bring the interview content into your arguement against likeing the story. Hope that makes sense!!

Also, free speach is a wonderful thing. I'm hardly saying he shouldn't be allowed to say what he wants. He should. I'm taking about his craft. I just couldn't get past the fact that he was being so overt.

Fair do's

. I guess this is just an individual thing

.

I was talking about his philosophic approach to life--not an aversion to gray characters. Post Modernism is only a "fact" if there is no absolute right and wrong.

I kinda agree with this. But i also agree with Shz (assuming his question is rhetorical

) - on the whole, wrong and right are not absolute. There is a sliding scale from absolutely wrong to absolutely right, imo - and where you place any individual event on that scale depends entirely upon your perspective on that event...

Ensuite, Gray characters are GREAT! G.R.R. Martin does wonderful gray charcters.

THought I'd finish with this bit - cos here, i agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY

.

**orty** · November 5th, 2002, 10:22 AM

Shehzad--This is an old argument but worth exploring I think. But before getting into it I think it's important to point out that neither you nor I can say absolutely that there IS or IS NOT an absolute law or lawgiver--God--at work in the universe. There is no empirical evidence to suggest conclusively that either side is right. That is important to keep in mind. I'll put it this way: Just because you can't see God/absolutes doesn't mean He/they don't exist. And the opposite is true as well. This lies at the heart of what I've been calling postmodernism.

On the other hand, as human beings living in a world full of suffering and pain we have little choice but to ask the question--Why? Without bogging you down in theology let me suggest that ALL men have a concept of good and evil. These moral codes may vary slightly from culture to culture but as a whole they are remarkably similar. Call it natural law or as I do attribute it to God (that being the Christian God). Regardless, the nearly uniform belief in right in wrong among the cultures of the world SEEMS to suggest something higher. Thus, it's the breaking of this moral code that leads to the pain, death, suffering, and evil in the world. In my own opinion, it's the result of original sin.

So back to the book. Stover's philosophy is nothing new; It's really quite common. It just irked me how incredibly brash his presentation was. I'd have been much more impressed if he could have presented the same argument without all the extra opinionated musings by Caine.

**Mithfânion** · November 5th, 2002, 11:06 AM

Regardless, the nearly uniform belief in right in wrong among the cultures of the world SEEMS to suggest something higher.

Why? Why does that suggest an all-powerful being or beings, a creator of somekind. I just can't follow that step, which of course you are far from alone in making. So many believers do. But why does having the ability to tell right from wrong indicate some sort of divine power?

**orty** · November 5th, 2002, 12:12 PM

Hopefully this thread isn't straying to much...

"But why does having the ability to tell right from wrong indicate some sort of divine power?" --Mithfanion

This is an excellent question. As I stated earlier it "seems" to suggest a higher power; it's hardly a fullproof argument. However, is it not curious that almost all, if not all, cultures have a sense of right and wrong--a belief in a higher power(s)? What causes this? Is it physiological, psychological, environmental? I would argue that it's an inate knowledge of God. Granted, the connection can't be proven but it is worth considering wouldn't you agree?

**Mithfânion** · November 5th, 2002, 12:16 PM

Granted, the connection can't be proven but it is worth considering wouldn't you agree?

Well it would be harsh of me to reply with "No"

But to be quite honest, I see no reason whatsoever for there to be any solid connection between being able to tell right from wrong, and religion/belief in a higher entity. I for one am not religious, I do not think there is a God because I have never, in my entire life, been given a good reason to think there is. Yet I am as capable of telling right from wrong as the local deacon

**orty** · November 5th, 2002, 02:43 PM

I'd like to point out that being religious has nothing to do with having an understanding of right and wrong. I'm arguing that the ability to discern is "inately" human. In other words, all men and women have a sense of morality that's buried deep within them. God gives this to all people religious and non-religious alike. I link God and morality because the two have historically gone hand in hand.

**estranghero** · November 5th, 2002, 10:46 PM

Oohh, can I play devil's advocate here?

I'd like to point out that being religious has nothing to do with having an understanding of right and wrong. I'm arguing that the ability to discern is "inately" human. In other words, all men and women have a sense of morality that's buried deep within them. God gives this to all people religious and non-religious alike. I link God and morality because the two have historically gone hand in hand.

I'm not sure about this. I thought that historically, primitive peoples became religious (i.e. thinking there was a higher being) because they couldn't explain the unexplainable (i.e. lightning, fierce creatures in the wild, Death) and that the idea of God being linked to morality (or should that be ethics?) came only after.

Actually, didn't the idea of a moral God come out with the New Testament God as the Old Testament God was more of "Obey Me or Else" rather than "Obey Me Because It is Right"? (Sorry if am using Roman Catholic terms since this was what I was brought up on. Probably this has already been debated upon by early theologists and philosphers already but I've never looked into this before.)

On the other hand, didn't morality and ethics come up during the Grecian period with Sophocles and Plato?

Sorry for the thread divert...