Highjohn wrote:On the subject of the religious beliefs of Langhorn and his followers. I think Langhorn probably didn't have much in the way of religious beliefs. He may or may not have been an atheist, he may or may not have been a theist(he had to be one or the other it is impossible not to be). However, he may have been an apathetic theist(or atheist) who didn't have much in the way of concrete beliefs. This is the state of most religious people. If you doubt me look at polls of how much people know about the tenets of 'their' religions. So he probably took a very fuzzy base, of say the three omi god(all powerful, all knowing, all loving) and his technophobia(there is evidence in text of this) and combined it with a belief that he knew best(didn't have to be narcissism, just had to think he was a competent person and be in the most senior position of power) and made up his own religion.
He may have just been agnostic.
Highjohn wrote:However, I would be derelict in my duty to intellectual honesty if I didn't point out that some religious people have been know to lie and act in complete contradiction to their stated beliefs and that the religions of today are vastly different from the religions of a few centuries ago. To give a prime example. Many slave holders in the American south held that the bible endorses slavery. However today many Christians would contend that it does not or that we have learned how to better understand the bible and now we know better, the reasoning behind the switch in position is irrelevant. The point is that the beliefs of a religious group completely changed. Langhorn could also have beliefs completely different from people today. I would further point out that Langhorn could have believed that god didn't care about the specifics of belief as long as people believed in him(See Maikel Staynair's own beliefs) and thought that god would be okay with a false religion as long as there was good intent and people were seeking him/her/it(God).
Mmm... on the question of slavery, the Bible, taken as a whole, can be interpreted either way. One could also infer that while there's a commandment against killing, what we would now consider to basically be genocide is ok. For almost every absolute in the Bible, one can find another account in it where that's been ignored for some "reason".
Highjohn wrote:With regards to technological stasis. please review human history. Humans, have had long periods of time lacking any improvement in technology or even a reversion. See early middle ages(Dark ages) in Europe or the first twenty thousand of years of the history of Homo Sapiens where I know of no technological improvements.(I'm using a 100,000 years ago origin point) I think Langhorn left Safehold to much of a base to start with(cities, common language, numbers, and a technology level far above subsistence) but it wasn't completely insane.
It's true there have been periods of time where technology hasn't progressed *much* in some particular part of the world. However, the "Middle Ages" basically applied to Europe. The rest of the world wasn't really affected the same way. And even so, the Middle Ages lasted far less than 1000 years. I will grant that it took early homo sapiens a long time to begin to develop any signs of technology, but in that case they were starting, literally, from scratch. No society or civilization since that period has had that handicap.
Highjohn wrote:On the actual subject of this thread I must point out what the return cannot be.
1: An end to Lanhorn's plan(ie a reversion to a plan like Shan-Wei's). This would make almost everything that Merlin has done pointless and all the lives lost pointless. The improved quality of life to the population in the mean time would be good, but the basis for the entire war is gone.(Minor exception, this could be the case if the PICA, AI or whatever is destroyed as a demon by the temple loyalist(or would have been))
Why not? We have absolutely *NO* data on the "Return"; other than the limited amount Paityr knows. How many times have different groups (unknown to each other) worked to similar goals? Or at cross purposes? For all we know, the "Real" Schuler may not have been in complete agreement with Langhorne and the rest. Maybe especially after the destruction of Alexandria and Zion. We don't know. While I agree it would be a somewhat bitter humor to find out that the "Return" was just another check on Langhorne's original plan, it doesn't mean it couldn't be.
Highjohn wrote:2: The first of several visits. You simply cannot have a continual pattern of new visitations over tens of thousands of years as was suggested earlier. Things would break down and any AI or PICA could go insane because of the cumulative time even if the didn't spend to much time on any one visit(They couldn't wipe the memory because they would need to know what they did the last time they cam back)
Well, several visits could have been the original plan. There's no reason something similar to a smaller version of "Nimue's Cave" couldn't be under the Temple. It's not like anyone is going to dig under it, after all. One would think that such a facility would also house nanotech repair capabilities. True, anyone who awakened might have to stay awake long enough for the repair to complete, but I don't really see anyone awakening for just an hour or two anyway.
Highjohn wrote:3: A single 'Angel's' plan. The 'return' would require a lot of infrastructure to pull off. If nothing else it would require room inside the temple, which could be maintained closed off from the 'humans' for centuries. This would require the collusion of many people involved in the rebuilding of the temple at the very least.
Mmmm... while it's true that many folks in total might be involved, that doesn't mean they'd know the "whole picture". What they'd been *told* the construction was for might not be the truth. While I suspect a large part of the rebuilding of Zion and the Temple was done (or at least overseen) by the remaining Archangels, that doesn't mean that all the "grunt labor" knew what was actually going on. After all, if your "God" says to build a wall or dig a hole, how many folks are really going to ask "Why?"
Highjohn wrote:4: Pointless. RFC won't make the 'return' a side note that is skipped over and just gets mentioned latter as "Oh that happened and nothing much changed". That would be an utter waste of ink.
Sheer speculation. We don't even know if the books will go as far as the Return, even though it's not far (historically speaking) in the future. For all we know, the EoC may win prior to the Return; and the story line ends. Or maybe even if the Return was intended to interfere with Langhorne and Beddard's plans, it may have envisioned an entire different direction from that of Merlin and Commodore Pei. That could start a whole new direction of sagas. Or maybe RFC is intending to go all the way to humans reclaiming and improving all the technology they've lost and finally defeating for all time the Ghaba menace. Anything could happen. That's the whole point of science fiction, after all, LOL.
Highjohn wrote:What the 'return' must be.
1: Important(already covered)
2: In some way deal with the bombardment system. That or there must be something inside the temple that can help with that. This is because OWL has determined that nothing they have right now can deal with that and the books aren't going to end with "It's just too bad were stuck with steam power because if we go any further we will be rendered down in many little pieces".
Why? The capabilities of the bombardment platform are merely speculative. It could be totally harmless to the planet without human intervention, even if it protects itself from "space junk". If so, there's no reason to mess with it. It *could* be an issue, or not. The story line could go either way. Plenty of stories have what appear to be major incidents at a particular point in time that become mere footnotes towards the end. They are important as *background*, but not to the end, per se.
Highjohn wrote:What it might be:
1: Actual biological return. Merlin had a thought that 'they' might have been insane enough to trust the cryo systems to do that. See Wylsynn's original reveal.
It's possible, but how likely? 1000 years vs the maximum tested 100? One would have to be extremely lucky.
Highjohn wrote:2: Schueler, I think that Schueler(PICA, AI(Like Nahrmahn) or cryo) could actually be coming back. Alternatively it could be the Commodore's friend(Who would almost have to be someone met after the Alexandrian Enclave fell and so wouldn't agree completely with Shan-Wei, and could have friends of his own). Note on this. This wouldn't break the first must not be as it could be two things. One someone(Schueler or otherwise) halfway between Langhorn and Shan-Wei or a weak return. Where the returnees don't have a lot of reasourses.
Whomever it might be, it's likely to be more than one. Since it's mentioned as the "Archangels" - plural - return. What might make the plot interesting is if it were a few with different agendas. Maybe even some sabotage that allows some to reawaken but not all of them.
Highjohn wrote:3: A check up to make sure that the plan worked even with the problem of the Commodore's nuke.(Has already been mention in this thread)
This is what probably most of the readers assume to be the case. If so, not all that imaginative.
Highjohn wrote:What it actually is:
Nothing we have thought of. The almighty author is much more creative than us and a much better writer so he almost certainly has something planned which is better than anything we think of. Not that it isn't fun to speculate.
Well, we've covered quite a few possibilities. It could be some mixing and matching. Or, yes, maybe something entirely different. After all, the Ghaba could just stumble over them a year before the Return, and wipe them all out. Not exactly the ending we might expect or want, but, then again, that's sort of up to the author, isn't it?
Highjohn wrote:Final note: In the second paragraph I mention the bible's position on slavery. As I have been involve in some debates about certain aspects of religion on this forum I feel I must state that I am not stating what I think the bible does or does not say about slavery. I am only using that example to illustrate a change in the beliefs of a religious group which most people should know about. I could have used something about the trinity or Jesus's divinity, but that would be rather obscure and people might not get the point.
Actually, I'm not convinced beliefs have changed. I'm sure one could still find some people, somewhere, that would re-instate slavery (of some sort, not necessarily racially based) in a heartbeat *if* they thought they could. Even people with religious beliefs. Luckily there are enough of us who feel differently to so far keep that from happening.