That verse says nothing about receiving divine revelations from the Maker in one's dreams, a claim which still ignores the whole abandonment issue without giving any theological justifications.
That's not how it works. A claim must be supported first, if it can't be supported it is meaningless and not worth engaging with. Note that I'm not talking about the context of the religion itself, not about what I as an outsider and atheist would consider meaningful evidence.
Exactly. As I said, Leliana is essentially putting herself on the same level as Andraste, which should at the very least raise some eyebrows even among the most progressive and charitable believers.
What is good or decent has no bearing on what is theological truth. Of course I'd rather live in a world shaped by softened-Leliana's beliefs ... as long as she manages to remain stable in her fuzzy-wuzziness this time around. But that is beside the point. The problem I have with "find your own path to the Maker" is that many people tend to be lazy and can easily ignore reflection and questioning (yes, I continue to harp on this a lot) in favor of simply following whatever whims they already had. Which renders the whole issue meaningless.
No, I desire some indication that Leliana actually gives some thought to her beliefs, that she engages with the canonical doctrine instead of simply ignoring it when it does not suit her, that her faith is about something more than her need for unconditional love and acceptance. It seems to me that the Maker is supposed to fill a similar role for her that Marjolaine once did, then the Warden, then Justinia: the center of her emotional world and the source of her stability and self-worth, except this "person" ever so conveniently can't disagree with her or die on her. She feels strongly about something? It must be because the Maker wants it too!
This sh*t is dangerous. Uncritical faith in the divine truth of your own convictions is one of the quickest paths to tyranny, and we know how much Leliana's personality can twist back and forth, even with the caveat that some of the easiest and most extreme flip-flopping could be due to bad writing.
If she's just any random nobody picking and choosing from her religion's tenets on a whim, it doesn't matter. I'd expect many people do that to some degree or another. But when she's in a position of religious power and authority, she needs to do better than just go by her wants and feelings. Most of all, she needs to demonstrate the willingness and ability for critical, intellectual reflection, especially in the light of her own unstable history.
Of course it doesn't satisfy. You don't need religion for any of that. At the end of the day, religion is not about what the believers want or need, it's about seeking and serving the will of the deity in question. Obviously that's not exactly a walk in the park, especially with a deity who is said to have abandoned the world, but it is what you sign up for if you subscribe to that faith. That is why I have far more respect for the likes of Cassandra or Mother Giselle as believers than for Leliana as a believer, because they engage and examine -- or even for Varric, who at least admits that he kind of hopes it's true simply because he likes the story and the musical numbers.
Your condescending comparison to Cassandra and Giselle, how exactly have they critically examined their beliefs? If you are to judge superiority of them over Leliana, I'm going to need an in-depth deconstruction of how their intellectual pursuits to their faith is somehow superior to Leliana's. Just so I know what parameters you are going by. Seems to me, all Cassandra did is be impulsive and accept the consequences whether right or wrong and Giselle only tells the Inquisitor platitudes.
As for Leliana putting herself on the same level as Andraste, she never claimed to be a prophet. Considering the PC plays an Inquisitor under the title Herald of Andraste and used that posturing to gather an army, that's kind of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Anyways, if Leliana becomes Divine, it wasn't because she was claiming she was Andraste or superior to Andraste. It's because the Grand Clerics, whether influenced by the radical choices of the Inquisitor themselves or not, believed in Leliana's vision for the Chantry.
I don't know how one can accuse Leliana on charges of tyranny. Her whole platform is based on encouraging good and not dictating it. Barring her hardened ending where she uses assassins, she is the least militaristic divine and has no army to bludgeon anyone to accept her beliefs. There is the Inquisition but even Leliana refuses the Inquisition armies support even if offered. The only weapon she uses is her ability to sway people, in which case criticism would fall to those who chooses to follow her. Rather she leads by example, redirecting the Chantry's efforts to charity of the downtrodden and letting those who can fend for themselves, do so an not infantilize or pander to them to consolidate power as the old Chantry has done. How can she be a tyrant and have the most tolerant leadership at the same time?
Also who are you to dictate what is canonical to the Chant of the Light? Even the current Chant of the Light is a bunch of revised and edited bullshit used to sway the masses for political expediency with various interpretations by various cults. Blind adherence to the popular Chant of Light in southern Thedas is intellectually lazy as well don't you think? Seems to me you spurn unproven fundamentalism but yet the status quo Chant of Light before Leliana is still unproven fundamentalism, so how can you reconcile that?
A religious matter such as faith has no objective truth, so how do we reconcile something to persuade you that has no objective truth when you desire objective truth. I leave you with this anecdote:
What is green? Imagine I should present to you an object which, to my mind, is of indisputable greenness and ask, "Does this thing appear to you to be green?"
Naturally, you might say that it does, for you have come to recognize the appearance of the color of the object to be "green," associating the word with what your eyes see. But could it be my understanding of "green" differs entirely from yours? What if, perchance, you could see into my mind? You might realize that all things that I name "green" are actually "red" in your understanding.
Ah, without the moorings of objective truth, we are set adrift in oceans of solitary experience.
—The promising opening to a lecture given by Karsten Groeke, philosopher-poet at the University of Orlais. The lecture's quality dropped significantly after this point, and ended quickly when Groeke subjected audience members to a poorly constructed ode to chartreuse. He fled from the auditorium under fire from students armed with overripe "red" tomatoesWhat is green? Imagine I should present to you an object which, to my mind, is of indisputable greenness and ask, "Does this thing appear to you to be green?"
Naturally, you might say that it does, for you have come to recognize the appearance of the color of the object to be "green," associating the word with what your eyes see. But could it be my understanding of "green" differs entirely from yours? What if, perchance, you could see into my mind? You might realize that all things that I name "green" are actually "red" in your understanding.
Ah, without the moorings of objective truth, we are set adrift in oceans of solitary experience.
—The promising opening to a lecture given by Karsten Groeke, philosopher-poet at the University of Orlais. The lecture's quality dropped significantly after this point, and ended quickly when Groeke subjected audience members to a poorly constructed ode to chartreuse. He fled from the auditorium under fire from students armed with overripe "red" tomatoes
- "Always remember that faith sprung from a barren branch." (painting in anteroom of thorny branch)
- "Above all, that strength lives in an open heart." (painting in statue room of Andraste's death)
- "That light has no fear of darkness." (brazier in statue room)
These are the last words of wisdom from Justinia given to Leliana to restore her faith. Her faith is derived from what she interprets as good and beautiful from the teachings of the Chant of Light. Note that religion has no objective truth so how can you claim that her faith is any less intellectually valid than say what Cassandra believes, or Giselle believes. Doubt nor humility does not make a person right. Even so, Leliana at the beginning of the game, considers doubt as she has a crisis of faith but regains her faith after the completion of her personal quest, presumably after reaching a conclusion from the Inquisitor's actions and Justinia's words of wisdom. Not that Cassandra is also swayed by the Inquisitor so do not say Leliana is easily influenced. But doubt isn't bad, it's how people learn and grow. How does one justify her philosophy in empirical terms when philosophy is a way of life? Consider that she doesn't need to justify her way of life to anyone but herself, and her reign as divine in my opinion, is just the freest and tolerant of all. she does not dictate her way is right, but at least respect her right to believe in it when all things consider, the central question is, who are you to say otherwise?
Then the Maker said:
To you, My second-born, I grant this gift:
In your heart shall burn
An unquenchable flame
All-consuming, and never satisfied.
From the Fade I crafted you,
And to the Fade you shall return
Each night in dreams
That you may always remember Me.
—Canticle of Threnodies 5:7
In passages one through six, His first children wanted for nothing; freed from need, they could only praise. But it was hollow, without cost. We—and all the physical—were created immutable, that our works would require struggle. A wonder created of wood and stone proves more intent than any wish of the Fade.
Here in the gentlest verses of the Chant, we see how great His gift and how stern His punishment. To inspire, He gave us dreams, such that we would strive to make this limited world reflect His glory. Some look upon that nightly memory and feel only desire, as though owed His splendor. We, the second children, were meant to master the wonts and wanes of emotion and childish pursuits, to honor at a distance and move ever forward. We failed in this, and the weakest of us did act as petulant infants, clawing back into His sight. Because we could not master our desire, because we acted on pitiful instinct, because we dared look upon our Maker to fulfill our need and not His, He is lost to us.
But He is merciful while stern, and we remember what we have lost. His second children can learn, grow, and change. If we cannot, then we are no better—and no worse—than His first children.
—From The Word and Challenge of the Chant by Revered Mother Hevara
You state that being religious isn't about what a person wants but to do the Maker's will. Well what if the Maker wants you to think for yourself? Isn't that what separates mortals from spirits and according to the Chant, what the Maker delights in? The ability to create instead of just copy as he dictates? Understanding the complexity of life, some could be understood but in terms of faith, how do you judge a valid parameter other than what feels right in your heart?
Retour en haut
