genessia | [Video]

You know, I hate sounding like a broken record but...

[Nikola sighs as he pulls his phone further away to show off an apartment decorated for a holiday he knows nothing about. All around his kitchen table are books that range from children's Christmas books to books discussing Christmas to even the King Jame's bible which he found somewhere. He's been trying to do a little research and really, he's just gotten himself more confused.]

What I don't understand is why is there a holiday celebrating some baby's birth in the desert that somehow translates to the fact that for one night some jolly fat man in a red suit is allowed to break into people's homes through their fireplace and leave questionable presents for those that live in the home.

Or why people try to appease this man with milk and cookies and what makes it okay for him to determine what child is nice or naughty. Isn't something like that supposed to be the parent's job? Or why this holiday requires lights and a dead tree covered in trinkets.

[...There is a LOT Nikola doesn't understand about this. ]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but, I really could use a civilized explanation..

[He pauses for a moment.]

And Rose, unless you're being serious, please don't try and tell me one of your ridiculous holiday tales about candy and monsters and one of my coworkers.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[Trust him, he appreciates the restraint. Try not to overwhelm Nikola when he's genuinely trying to understand.]

Exactly, how is a baby supposed to protect those from being damned? And if you don't mind, what IS a saint? I am not familiar with that word nor am I quite drawing the conclusion as to why that allows him to give gifts and judge children.

What qualifies this saint? Why is such judgement always okay pray tell? Ideas like that are dependent on what one considers 'right' and 'just'. If said person does not have the similar ideals of those he's judging then what is to say he is doing so wisely?

[Nikola has a ton of questions. This might take awhile.]

[Ted is honor bound to answer each and every one. He just has to keep his more clownish desires in check.]

By taking damning punishment instead.

[First no Shakespeare, then no saints? Nikola's world must be so hellish it's a wonder Nikola came out of it with even half so much civility.]

A saint, especially ones popular enough to permeate into common culture, is one especially holy and virtuous. Thus, they have all that's needed to judge, well, everything, children included.

[His face is a little screwed up trying to untangle the notion of subjectivity.]

Righteous judgment is always fine because righteous anything is always fine. That's what righteousness means. As such things necessarily involve the transcendent and absolute, particular ideals don't come into it.

I still do not understand how one would punish a baby for the wrongs of others. It seems barbaric to me.

[Nikola wouldn't argue that his world was indeed hellish thought, perhaps not quite for the reasons Ted is thinking.]

What makes this so called 'Saint' as such? What qualities do they possess that makes them the judge of so many?

[He raises an eyebrow. He's trying Ted. Honest.]

And what defines righteousness? If one believes that the death of a certain type of being is righteous and just, does that mean it is truly fine? Nothing should ever be absolute.

Do you know who the baby grew into? The name, perhaps? The celebration of the Son's birth ought to clear up much.

You don't need any particular qualities to judge save what's common to all. One acts, one thinks, one judges. That's how life is lived. Saints, being so good, are good at all three. Their virtue is second to none.

[The patient, reverent mask cracks at his last statement. Shooting yourself in the foot has that effect on him.]

"Nothing should ever be absolute", eh? Do you mean that absolutely, or just sometimes?

[He indulges in just a little chuckling. Only a smidge!]

I'm confident you know what "righteous" means, Nikolai. Come on, you do enough reading for that. Well, belief on its own doesn't make anything one way or another. It's whether the belief accords with truth. If so, all's well.

According to a fair few of the books, one Jesus Christ who apparently had no self preservation instinct. I've heard of crucifying people to put on display as a warning to others.

That practice isn't lost in my world though, rarely used to any wide spread degree. However, I still don't understand why one man dying is such a big deal.

[Welcome to a world where History is proven and deities don't exist. At least among Kindred at any rate. Nikola couldn't speak for the other people of his world.]

However, no two people think or act or even judges others the same. For instance, my perception and thoughts on how to judge another are widely different from yours.

[He raised an eyebrow slightly. Was that a crack he saw in your patience Ted? ]

I mean it as I said it, Ted. Even an absolute statement is never absolute. But, then you get into a more philosophical discussion than the one we're having.

[Nikola relaxes a little in his chair and amusingly doesn't bother correcting him on his name. ]

Of course I do. It means morally right or justifiable. However, it is my belief, that the very perceptions of what is morally right or justifiable vary from person to person.

Which also leads into ones perception of what the 'truth' actually is. I suppose if one were to align with the other then perhaps it would be so depending on the perception of the society one resides in.

However, that is never quite the case.

Ha, yes, he was rather more interested in the preservation of everyone else. Hence why his obedience led to him dying in their place.

So you say, but there aren't as many differences between people as you may suppose. Careful lest individualism have too much sway. For my own history, the moral codes and philosophies expounded by men all have very similar threads running in them.

"An absolute statement is never--" goodness, what a hopeless contradiction. I'm afraid you'll have to choose. It is absolutely impossible to fully communicate a truth if you will not believe in absolutes. I recommend believing in them; you must rely on them even to attack them. It's like sawing off the branch you're sitting on. Can't you see the vanity of it?

I'm afraid we're well into the realm of philosophy; that is, thinking of life. We can't be otherwise.

We part ways when it comes to perception and things perceived. Either the latter exists and make impressions quite on its own, or it doesn't. That the perceiving organ is fallible is granted, but that therefore what's perceived is doubtful I don't. Just as a blind man does not disprove the sun, so errant judgment does not disprove the body and the basis of such.

[Video]

Re: Video

Re: Video

Re: Video

Re: Video

Re: Video

Re: Video