originally posted by DarthJazy

ok time to clarify. maybe i should say men should stop going after women


Fall of the Republic because anakin loved padme. Padme could have said no the whole time and stopped much death.

On the other hand its widly beleaved the will of the force caused this change of power. Anakin through the love of his son Luke; still destroyed the emperor. (it is widly beleaved that Luke is the living will of the force) Yoda admits that he trained the Jedi for 800 years to fight the same Sith menace while the Sith had evolved. This would be the perfect chance for the force to implement change)

Adam and Eve

Adam listened to Eve and ate the apple because Eve was weak and listened to a snake. Here a man should have put his foot down and since he didn't we lost paradise.


I feel that since we know the war took place and the Horse was real that what happened was Helen and Paris fell in love and ran away together and even though people wanted an excuse anyway Helen would have known this and should not have gone. Paris may have been nieve to the idea that the greeks were just itching for a reason to take them out.


Now correct me if I am wrong for I am American and we may be wrong on this.

One of the bloodiest and warlike monarchs in your history was Mary queen of scotts?


Here I admit the bloodiest wars in human history have been over religion. To date and my knowledge the most bloody and costly war in history was the 7 year war with the holy roman empire. Now considering many of these wars were fought of view points of the bible some of them have been fought over Jesus mother when a sect seperated from the church to worship her and there has been much bloodshed over the correct view point of Mary Magdolin.

In the end Maybe I should change my stance and say Men need to stop loving in general. Where this won't stop war it will stop some war and we would still all be living in paradise.

originally posted by Julie

The bloodiest wars may have been fought in the name of religion, but really they were about power and commodities.

originally posted by DarthJazy

hince why i hate all organized religion i find yhe funniest religious war was when england monarch became his own religion of god to get divorced

originally posted by Jo

Not to offend anyone but I am not religious at all. Relgion can be elightenment for some but more often than not the reason for war. Pushing your views on to another person/s or country doesn't seem right to me. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong. There can be 1 god or many gods how do we know we don't.

Mary wasn't warlike but a religious nut and did have a lot of people burnt at the stake she wanted everyone to become catholic.

Not that I want to get into a religous debate but why is Mary Magdalene's point of view correct?

originally posted by RapierIan

On the other hand, I think the last century proved, between China and the Soviet Union, that atheism can be just as bloody as any religion.

originally posted by Clansman

Don't forget Germany, Japan, and Italy in the 1930's and 1940's.

The bloodiest war in history, for soldiers, was the Great War (World War I) 1914-1918. World War II was much less bloody for soldiers, but much more so for civilians (Holocaust for Jews, Romani, physically and mentally disabled, and Slavic peoples).

And the ethnic conflicts in Africa and the Balkans of the 1990s. More recently Darfur in Sudan.

And the geo-political interference of the United States in Latin America throughout the 20th century, not to mention Africa, the Middle East (anyone remember the Shah of Iran? Man, has that ever come back to bite the CIA in the rear) and South East Asia.

It appears that political leaders as well as religious leaders can easily abandon their founding principles for the sake of their desired ends. I submit that if political and religious leaders actually followed what there principles were, then the world would be much more peaceful.

I am forbearing from answering Darth-Jazy's take on the history of war, Adam and Eve and the like, or even the idea that the post-Reformation wars in Europe had anything to do with Mary Magdalene. Mary Queen of Scots was never Queen of England. She was executed by Elizabeth I, Queen of England. England's bloodiest monarch, tough call. Henry VIII? Charles I? Edward I? Richard III? Bloody Mary wasn't, because she didn't reign long enough (that was Elizabeth I's older half-sister).

Star Wars was just a story created by George Lucas, not history. The Republic fell because he wanted it to fall. The characters did what they did because Lucas wanted it to happen. The Republic's fall was simply a good plot device borrowed from Roman history.

For the record, I know I should not have typed that last paragraph…

originally posted by Clansman

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Elaira?

DJ, you have to read SF. That alone will tell you that Arithon's love for Elaira doesn't destroy anything, but rather creates things, and makes resolutions possible where they seem impossible.

originally posted by Clansman

To go back to a previous point, could Elaira's vow to the Koriathain keep her a little blind to the possibility of asking for F7 intervention? She is an intelligent, resourceful and strong woman, and cannot see what appears to be quite obvious.

Could this almost willful blindness be a symptom of the binding sigils imposed on her when she took her vows?

originally posted by DarthJazy

There is a point that i hadn't considered. I supposed the binding to the Korathi may cause he to over look anything that might help break such binding. dam now i have to think again.

And my over all point before was to say is Love worth it in the end. From my percpective and I am biased it is not. I am sorry for derailing the discussion about elaira.

originally posted by max

Have any of you ever read 'Gone with the Wind'? Rhett Butler said "Virtue is a matter of money". If there were no religion or politics or race or ideals to fight over, humans would find something else to fight over. And it is not all our fault either. Since everything has to be in balance in order to exist, then there can be no order without chaos, no light without dark, etc. 'They are brothers eternal'. It's the way all of nature is. Do you really think that only lions have the right to eat? The sad thing of it is, I really hate the way this all balances out. I hate lions and wolves and all the predators in the world, human and animal, that eat the young first because they are easier to hunt. But like all the rest, I can't eat air. And I can't be God and find a better way either. Damn it all anyway!!! [grinning at ya]

originally posted by Sundancer

Oooh, so many things to say. DarthJazy I'm sorry that you feel love has hurt you so much. I can empathise, after two bad relationships I'm in no hurry to start up a new one, but I still believe in the value of love, and the many many types of love and the goodness that love brings, when it is truly love (which is selfless).

I love Max's quote of Rhett Butler, but I can't really agree. Surely one of Janny's points in this saga is that we can ALL, whatever our situation, make a choice about how we behave. I agree that it is much much easier to behave well when we are well fed and comfortable and loved, and in appalling situations few people behave well, but we have the capacity to do so. I was shown a wonderful quotation yesterday to the effect that yes we must take from other species in order to live, but it is HOW we do it that matters, and we need to do so respectfully and humbly.



Regarding Enithen Tuer, didn't she only get/seek her freedom after travelling through the Sanpashir desert? Another story that would be fascinating - seems both the Biedar and the Fellowship had a hand in her freedom.

Spoiler 2
I got the impression from Stormed Fortress that Elaira knew exactly what she was doing, and that she knew she could have asked for more assistance from Asandir. She deliberatley chose to find out what the purpose of her crystal was in it's seeking to be returned to the Koriathain, and she felt she should honour its choice and declaration of friendship(?) for her, no matter the risk.

Admittedly, she and Arithon are stubbornly independent, and Arithon will seek as little help as possible from the Fellowship, BUT she is on record as accepting help offered before (e.g. Davien), so I think that if it weren't for the crystal she'd have accepted Asandir's offer on the spot.

originally posted by Clansman

I have to echo Sundancer, DJ. True love is selfless. In a perfect marriage (they don't exist, except for moments in time), each partner sacrifices everything for the other, thus it is a self-perpetuating circle of support. Good marriages (legal or otherwise) achieve this some of the time. Great marriages achieve this slightly more than half the time. Trouble is, two humans remaining selfless constantly just doesn't happen.

"A man has no greater love than this: that he lay down his life for his friends." Can two people who love each other lay down their lives, their wishes, their selfishness, their demands, their desires, their shortcomings, their needs, etc. and ad infinitum, for each other? Yes, they can, but it requires effort, and there are always moments that will require repentance and forgiveness, and vice versa.


Elaira. She did appear to know what she was doing. Is she the Martin Luther of the Koriathain? With her knowledge of Koriathain sigils, the LotMB, and the healing ways of Ath's Adepts, she would be an ideal candidate. Imagine a benevolent Koriathain, that did not use coercion and debt (bloody life-loan sharks is what they are!), but simply acted selflessly, with permission?

Elaira may very well be the vessel by which the corruption of the Koriathain is expunged.

originally posted by DarthJazy

I wonder if she may be the one to throw down seldie and lead the koriathain to be one with LotMB and pehaps be another group similar to aths adepts.

originally posted by Julie

Clansman- do you mention Martin Luther solely on his views on buying/selling indulgences? Granted he was a radical thinker and a much needed questioner of the Catholic Church doctrine/practices but he was not benevolent. ALthough he may have tried to curb the fanatical violence against CHristians he had no problem when turned towards Jews.

originally posted by Clansman

Julie: Excellent point. I mentioned Martin Luther only as the catalyst that got the ball rolling on reformation of the Christian church in general. By the sixteenth century, anti-semitism was an epidemic in Europe, and most Christians at the time believed the Jews to be evil, as Jews, according to church doctrine, "caused the death of Christ".

That view of the Jews has been completely torn to shreds in the centuries since. Christians, if they believe that Jesus is the Son-portion of the triune God, must perforce believe that Jesus chose to go to the Cross and was in total control of his fate, regardless of what (a sector of) the Jews of his time did. This belief that Jesus chose his death is central to standard Christian theology, and the weird twisting of standard Christian doctrine that occurred between Nicea and the Reformation is just now finishing its "untwisting".

The human church that put Christ's name on it has a lot to answer for.

I never thought Luther was benevolent, and I certainly don't hold him out that way. It has taken another several centuries of reform in most Christian denominations (I am personally non-denominational) to leave that evil legacy behind. Luther was very much a product of his age in that respect.

I hope that clears up my comment. Elaira is waaaaaaaaaay better than Luther. I was simply trying to make a rather tenuous comparison between human organizations.

originally posted by Julie

I just thought Martin Luther was an interesting choice as an example of catalyst for change. Although as you've said, the change was profound and has been playing out over centuries. (500 year fountain??)

While the doctrines of many Protestant religions have overturned the original teachings that Jews were "evil", ignorance and distrust continue to keep antisemitism on simmer.

Martin Luther was a product of his time as Thomas Jefferson was. He wrote the brilliant Declaration of Independance while keeping slaves!

originally posted by Trys


Thomas Jefferson was. He wrote the brilliant Declaration of Independance while keeping slaves!

While professing to be against slavery and purportedly saying he was resolved to free his slaves… something he did posthumaously. While many (most?) consider him to be a great man this hypocrisy always kept him from being that… in my mind at least.

originally posted by DarthJazy

Wow a topic derailment that I didn't start. Are you guys and gals feeling ok?

originally posted by Julie

Jefferson was human and flawed. However he did great things- take your time reading the Declaration of Independence (which he wrote)- basically he and the other signers were committing treason against the king of England with the understanding that they could hang for this crime.

originally posted by Meredith Lee Gray

Like most historical figures and "facts", Jefferson and his 'hypocrisy' is not as simple as some would make it sound. It was a very interesting, human, and well-documented dilemma he had. I completely sympathize with Jefferson's motives, even though in a modern setting they don't really make sense, I can see how they would back then. And I realize that he was a human and flawed (as Julie said) and even though most of us would like to throw off the shackles of mundane life and societal guidelines… it's easier said than done.

I would think that readers of Janny's series would know better than to oversimplify the lives and actions of historical humans as either "good" or "bad."