![]() |
What follows is an archival copy of public information. Content herein is believed to be of historical interest to Delta Green fandom and should remain untouched, as a sign of respect for the original author(s). The article must be removed on request by copyright holders, if any. Please improve the wiki with living documents inspired by the ideas here. |
![]() |
The following material was imported from the Ice Cave. |
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 12:39:09 -0400
From: "R. Menzi"
as they go into shock their blood pressure at the brain will be maintained, and so their lungs remain empty (ie. they don't choke on vomit). This was apparantly why St.Andrew (and others) were crucified upsidedown, btw.
Nah, the Romans always put people on a single-beam stake, hands on tops feet on the bottom. They put the holes through the wrists on top, so the person's weight wouldn't tear through the flesh of their hands. As it were, people crucified by the Romans died of dehydration, not shock. It was a very standardized, as many Roman legal practices were (at least for non-citizens).
As a side note: this is also how Jesus was crucified, not on a cross. The cross motif came later as the Christians tried to incorporate the trappings of Mithras-worship to get the legionaires of their backs. It's also why they took on solar calander for holidays and the such, seeing as Mithras was a sun god and all, it backed up their claims that they were really on the same side and shouldn't be killed outright. (A common sun-god concept, this is also where the death and ressurection came entered into early Christian theology, as well as the solstace-birth thing.)
From: Shane Ivey
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 20:17:05 EDT
A common sun-god concept, this is also where the death and ressurection came entered into early Christian theology
As a Christian I've always found the whole death-and-resurrection event to be a convincing argument for the death-and-resurrection game that was so prominent in early Christian theology. Call me old-fashioned, I guess. <shrug>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 20:05:50 -0400
From: "R. Menzi" <moc.nasa|iznem#moc.nasa|iznem>
As a Christian I've always found the whole death-and-resurrection event to be a convincing argument for the death-and-resurrection game that was so prominent in early Christian theology. Call me old-fashioned, I guess. <shrug>
As it isn't (AFAIK) part of the classic Jewish messiah concept, I'd say that it, like much of modern theology, was added after the fact. The Council of Nicea (I forgot which century is occured, 5xx?) constructed what is thought of today as orthodoxy out of the bits and peices that every scholar of their Jewish sub-sect had accumulated for several hundred years. As I heard it from one of my dad's old seminary teachers, is isn't so important *if* god could make a virgin bear a child (another after-the-fact concept), so much that the Christian have faith that he could. It's in the application more than the source, yes?
Then again, faith doesn't actually change historical events, so you take what you can get from it as it is without forcing the past's versions onto today's. IMO, the proffessed loyalty to antiquaited forms of a religion makes a bad reason for belief in it, as I've told many a neo-pagan follower of "the Old Religion."
But then again, what strength does faith have if it can't stand in the face supposed "impossibility." Listen, this topic can get very ugly, very fast. I know your angle, you know mine, so lets just agree to disagree, yea?
From: "David Farnell"
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 09:23:53 +0900
In the Filipines, it happens that people still sometimes duel with live blades.
Heh. Good story. I wonder though, why "live" blades? What's a dead blade? I've heard the term many times, but I've never been able to figure the reason for it. Anyway, to the point:
I have been thinking about how human religions (especially shamanic ones) might have gotten Mythos spells (assuming an "all magic is Mythos magic" approach).
I've been thinking about this too, and I'll just toss out a little something before running off to work. Picture this: OK, all magic is Mythos magic--that is, all magic comes from mind-twisting alien/malignant sources. Thus, all societies (including sub-societies) which use magic serve the Mythos to some greater or lesser extent. At the very least, their culture is influenced by the Mythos. But over time, they have discovered (the hard way) how to protect themselves from the harmful effects, at least from the few spells they consider "white magic"--all others are "black magic" simply because they don't know how to avoid the corrupting effects. Yet the corrupting effects are always present, if defended against.
OK, so that means ALL ancient cultures were infected by the Mythos (no surprise there, when you think about it--and of course, modern cultures still are infected). But they had their little immune-system responses to contain the corruption (except for nasties like the Tcho-tcho, and others who went for the big power without the defenses). This was the standard situation for thousands of years. And of course very few, even the practitioners of magic, had enough knowledge to realize what the source of the magic really was (and of course if they did, they were usually completely insane). But now and then, people appeared who could see the situation for what it was and resist insanity (or use it creatively), and who attempted to campaign against the use of magic and the worship of gods who are merely barely-disguised versions of Shub-niggurath and Nyarlathotep and the like.
One such might have been Y'shua bar Joseph, aka Jesus.
Yes, Christianity as the original Delta Green. A conspiracy whose members were identified by signs and symbols, whose ultimate goal was to free humanity from the domination of the Great Old Ones.
Yep, the old Jesus/Nyarlathotep thread has come full circle.
Editor's note: the Jesus/Nyarlathotep Thread File is now available in the Ice Cave
Now, of course the conspiracy went awry after it broadened its goals too much (which will also happen to DG, according to William Timmins future history); corruption set in and the original goals have been mostly forgotten in favor of all sorts of other projects (good and bad) that have taken attention away from the main threat to the species. But there must be a conspiracy within the bigger sturcture. Of course this links well with the ideas from Mar and others about a Vatican monster-hunting task force.
Editor's Note: more discussion on Magic, Mythos and not, is available in a separate document
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 20:00:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau <moc.oi|uaenujd#moc.oi|uaenujd>
Yes, Christianity as the original Delta Green. A conspiracy whose members were identified by signs and symbols, whose ultimate goal was to free humanity from the domination of the Great Old Ones.
Hmmm. Shades of THE FRATERNITY OF THE STONE (David Morrell) and the origins (I've not kept up) of the Millenium Group.
Yep, the old Jesus/Nyarlathotep thread has come full circle. Now, of course the conspiracy went awry after it broadened its goals too much (which will also happen to DG, according to William Timmins future history); corruption set in and the original goals have been mostly forgotten in favor of all sorts of other projects (good and bad) that have taken attention away from the main threat to the species. But there must be a conspiracy within the bigger sturcture. Of course this links well with the ideas from Mar and others about a Vatican monster-hunting task force.
Especially with a Vatican-based secret organisation - FRATERNITY is good for this, along with the related/sequel THE LEAGUE OF NIGHT AND FOG, but the "feel" I get might better be exemplified by the related-by-organisation THE COVENANT OF THE FLAME. (COVENANT also lets you see some nice ruthless cultist [on both sides] operations, as well as how "shit happens" [an op goes bad quickly and nastily].)
Actually, running a Fraternity team might make a nice change of pace, if your players can handle it. (Make 'em actually learn the Latin passphrases. <EG>) As a matter of fact, I once tried to sneak a Fraternity agent into a TOP SECRET/SI game… ("Resources/Patron/Ally, the Catholic Church, and most/all members thereof." <smirk> "Plus El Jefe Maximum." Wonder why she didn't go for it? <heheheh>)
From: Shane Ivey
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:23:37 EDT
Listen, this topic can get very ugly, very fast. I know your angle, you know mine, so lets just agree to disagree, yea?
I do disagree with most of the statements preceding this one, but I'm willing to forego the debate. This list is much more enjoyable as a discussion of game-related ideas than as a forum for people to sell their political or religious views or to belittle those of others. So, back to Delta Green and stuff.
From: "Jon"
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:56:44 -0400
As it isn't (AFAIK) part of the classic Jewish messiah concept, I'd say that it, like much of modern theology, was added after the fact. The Council of Nicea (I forgot which century is occured, 5xx?) constructed what is thought of today as orthodoxy out of the bits and peices that every scholar of their Jewish sub-sect had accumulated for several hundred years. As I heard it from one of my dad's old seminary teachers, is isn't so important *if* god could make a virgin bear a child (another after-the-fact concept), so much that the Christian have faith that he could. It's in the application more than the source, yes?
[rant mode on]
I hate to post off topic, but I feel I must make a stand for Christianity. I don't see how so much of the Christian belief system could have been added after the fact. There are numerous prophecies in the Old Testament which refer to the messiah, who, at the time(s) the O.T. was written, hadn't come yet. The main point that differentiates Judaism and Christianity is the question of who the messiah really is. All other differences stem from that. When Jesus was on Earth, the Jews (generally speaking) didn't believe him to be messiah, because they were seeking a temporal savior, not a spiritual one. Those who would later be called Christians did believe Jesus was the foretold messiah. A large part of their belief came from the O.T. Prophecies mentioned previously, which match up with the life of Jesus quite well. From what I've seen/read/been told, we have 90+ percent of the O.T. in the form of scrolls pre-dating Jesus, and there is only 1 or 2 percent difference between the ancient copies and modern ones. This is because the Jews themselves have such exacting standards when making copies of the O.T.
Now, if these O.T. prophecies, which are so accurate about Jesus, were verifiably written before his birth, how could they be adopted after the fact?
[rant mode off]
Again I appologize for this off topic, and somewhat long post. We know what each other believes and why, and I am resigned to the fact that there will not be total agreement between all the various belief systems until it's too late for whoever ends up being wrong. But I could not let such a statement go by unanswered. I still think you're pretty cool, and, hopefully, I haven't lowered myself too much in your eyes, so lets get back to SAN-blasting the DG agents ;)
If anyone wants to continue this debate, please e-mail me personally.
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 02:01:34 -0400
From: "R. Menzi"
I hate to post off topic, but I feel I must make a stand for Christianity.
Plenty of others have done it off the list, so don't feel as though it's just you.
I don't see how so much of the Christian belief system could have been added after the fact.
Many aspects were quite maliable through time, such as: the sign of the faith changing from a fish to a cross (which has no base in Roman crucifiction techniques); the dates of celebrations and the shift from lunar to solar calanders; the several centuries before physical resserection theory won out over spiritual return in the battle for Orthodoxy; the idea of original sin; the virgin birth concept; everything the Gnostics believed, but was later dubed heresy; etc. Religion is a living, breathing, evolving thing, and apparently not a good subject to bring up on this list.
When Jesus was on Earth, the Jews (generally speaking) didn't believe him to be messiah, because they were seeking a temporal savior, not a spiritual one.
Not quite. The rabbis looked outside and saw that the sky was still blue and the grass was still green and said "Sorry, but he's not here yet." This is mainly because they believed that when the Meshuach comes, no one will be able to deny that he has come. The fact that it wasn't perfectly clear that this carpenter from Nazereth was the Messiah made it clear to them that the was not.
But I could not let such a statement go by unanswered. I still think you're pretty cool, and, hopefully, I haven't lowered myself too much in your eyes, so lets get back to SAN-blasting the DG agents ;)
No worries on that front,and I agree with the ast paragraph. As I have responded to people off the list, I was rather naively sharing what I considered to be tidbits of historical trivia of which I am resonablely sure, not theological doctrine. I'd be open to sharing a discussion with any of you outside of the list.
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 02:09:06 +1000
From: Rob Shankly
I'm a bit sorry I mentioned a crucifixion at all, since it was not my intention to raise any kind of religious discussion. There seems to be an interesting case of dueling dogmas going on: we have non-christians insisting that their version of events is both more accurate and less subject to revision than that of the believers. I thought that the stereotype was completely the reverse!
In the interest of ongoing (friendly) discussion I'd like to suggest everyone be careful with what they post. In passing I'll say that I'm agnostic, but have no axe to grind with anyone who does not proselytize. The following is not meant to be taken as an argument with anyone's beliefs about the death of Christ or any of the other Christian martyrs. Details are from "Daily Life in Ancient Rome", The "Encyclopedia Brittanica", and my (admittedly imperfect) memory of reading I did on this topic about ten years ago.
Historically crucifixion was carried out in a wide variety of ways. The idea probably started with the Carthaginians, who certainly used it frequently. By time of the mid-Roman empire it was an established form of execution that had laws governing its application: crucifixion was only used on slaves and lower class criminals. The Romans routinely whipped the victim before execution. They usually made the victim carry the cross to the place of execution (but not always: slaves executed after the revolt of 72 BCE were crucified on the spot). In most cases the person was nailed to the cross prior to its being erected, but sometimes (rarely) the cross was put up first and the victim had to climb a ladder.
On this point there is great uncertainty about the manner of Christ's crucifixion: medieval painters seem to want to include the ladder, but maybe it just gives a better picture!
And just in case you thought that there were no other variables, there were instances where victims were simply tied to the cross and no other means of securing them was used.
Sometimes a bare post was used, sometimes a cross (crux immissa, or Latin Cross), sometimes a T-arrangement (crux commissa, or Tau Cross), and sometimes an X-shape (crux decussata, aka St.Anthony's Cross). St.Andrew is widely believed to have been crucified on one of these latter, upside-down.
Death was normally due exposure and dehydration, or through shock/bloodloss (remember the Romans whipped the victim first, then put nails through their wrists). In some cases crowds were permitted to abuse the dying, hastening their end. On other occasions the crucified were attacked by animals. Finally, I have read somewhere that the sudden weight taken by the outstretched arms would have dislocated the shoulders: painful in itself, but also likely to cause a collapsed lung.
Really cheerful stuff! I will try to dig out my original sources for anyone interested. I urge caution if anyone wants to use crucifixion in a game; make sure none of your players will be offended.