How would you, and how do you think the world would react to this?
#1
Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:26 PM
Off the shores of Isreal, England, Japan, China, India, Aurstral, pretty much off the shores of the 200,000 highest populated or largest cities a six hundred foot tall image of a woman appears wearing a beautiful dress. Her ethnicity, clothing style *always regal though*, hair style, and other specific details such as voice all depend on the perception of the individual looking at her *even in play backs recorded on camera this happens*. (but always a woman of beauty and regal apperance)
She says to the world through all this mediums in unison.
"I am the personification of the supreme being who created this universe and many others. I have only once before appeared before the people of this world. I have left no messages for you to live by, and no rules to guide you; I granted your species like all others the power to make these decisions for yourselves and develop in your own ways. While other beings below me may have tried to guide you and claimed to be me such as I, know that they are not me. I shall return again when or if your people have made the next step in their collective development."
#2
Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:26 AM
#3
Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:49 AM
My reaction would be that he is a sorcerer, a con-man using trickery or fancy technology, a meta-human, or some sort of supernatural creature like an Incubus using its powers to immitate a god and thus get people to worship it for its own ends.
Divinity is in the eye of the beholder and one's expectations of what that should be like.
#4
Posted 01 December 2011 - 05:59 PM
#5
Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:14 PM
#6
Posted 02 December 2011 - 10:01 AM
#7
Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:23 AM
#8
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:37 AM
As for the world - they'd go ape-shit crazy.
#9
Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:51 AM
#10
Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:35 AM
Rhuen, on 30 December 2011 - 04:51 AM, said:
Was there any question as to why I would be getting high and drunk?
Edited by Dhamien, 30 December 2011 - 11:36 AM.
#11
Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:42 AM
Rhuen, on 30 December 2011 - 04:51 AM, said:
Well I think we're probably a lot more adaptable than you tend to give us credit for. Not to say that some people wouldn't suffer a prolonged psychotic breakdown.
I do think if that's all the message is and nothing else is done then it will only lead to period of massive bloodshed as people react negatively and become more extreme in their views.
Personally I would not be so surprised by such a thing however I would be a little suspicious and I would also question the motivation for that message and appearance. The message itself and the appearance would interfere with our development. So why announce that you will be back when we develop more? It would seem to defeat the purpose. Why interfere in the first place then in this way? It would seem irresponsible to me. Although I suppose you could say something like this might eventually cause an acceleration of development after an initial period of chaos.
Edited by passingover, 30 December 2011 - 11:44 AM.
#12
Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:57 AM
passingover, on 30 December 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:
Granted, this would be after war. A lot of war. Hell, we might not make it very far in our attempt to develop anyway, because, well kids, once the first nuke goes airborne, you can almost be guaranteed there will be more flying.
And besides that, who would be able to accept the being speaking in every vernacular at the same time? People are not only stupid and panicky in groups, they are also greedy. Who wants to share a new god with the people who blew this up in this country? (You can insert almost anyone into that statement, except like ... the Eskimos and the Aussies)
#13
Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:06 AM
#14
Posted 10 January 2012 - 09:08 AM
Dhamien, on 30 December 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:
I think you are wrong in the way you lump "religion" together.
It was essentially a judeo-christian thing to say. "God explains nature. It needs no other explanation."
Most religions before christianity gave what they saw or experienced in nature(physically or spiritually.) names, which turned into gods. You see this in Hindu religions, Native American religions, old european religions, and even asian religions like taoism and shinto.
Then, after Christianity reigns for a good while, people feel the need to call the things they find in nature "explanations" for it, and once something is explained it is filed away, just because we have named it in a scientific way there is no longer anything mysterious about it. So what is closer to religion?
Naming things that were part of the world before we named them in no way makes them explained. Science can make us evolve, use these things, adapt. Yet no amount of times something is named and "explained" to me will make the wonder or mystery of it any less. Especially when we get into harder areas...such as love and death. Those will always retain their mystery, regardless of the reasons given for it(mating or simply being the discorporation of a living thing)
Reading the essays in "Summoning the Gods" by Colin Cleary, who can probably explain this view a lot better than I do, I am convinced this is the way most indiginous religions thought. I don't think that hinders science, but it does hinder materialistic branches of atheism...oh and most of Christianity.
As for Rhuens question, I can answer honestly that I would shrug and continue with my life. Seems like the lady does not plan to come back in my lifetime and I really can't justify clamoring for this or that divine cause my whole life when I have family to feed and lots of shit to do. Plus, it seems like any god would do that right? It seems like there are many gods in history glad to fuck with us like this and if this lady is claiming that there are beings below her she is confirming she can be any one of them....Loki/Coyote come to mind....
#15
Posted 10 January 2012 - 09:39 PM
Now that I had her in my custody, I would as her the Question that had started it all "Can you microwave a burrito so hot even you could not eat it?" and I shall reveal in her answer like a pig in a candy factory.
#16
Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:21 AM
#17
Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:08 PM
I imagine that anyone who didn't want to believe it would find a reason not to with all due haste. The atheists would say it was a sham, the believers would say it's a trick of the adversary, and the agonistics would wonder what all this has to do with the price of bacon.
#18
Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:36 PM
#19
Posted 17 January 2012 - 05:10 AM
TheHeartlessOne, on 11 January 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:
Squee said:
#20
Posted 17 January 2012 - 09:50 AM
Dhamien, on 17 January 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:
What a kwinky dink that the homicidal maniac was called Johnny.
Anyway my split persona will love to have a say in this everyday event. Tell you the truth I't would be all the rage and everyone will fight over who it is; "A test from God" "No it's our God" "No she's the real deal, lets have a orgy in her name" "She brings the devils will" "Why she not make me a sandwich?"
Anyway fights could lead to wars but that depends on more factors than I can predict when sober. In all the only concern I'll have is my safety and the safety of the people I possibly care about, I might even use it as a conversation starter next to the beer keg.
I must admit that "collective " is a very alarming word in her speech but she seems to be peaceful. "Seems".
Can the next add on have dragons?
Edited by TheHeartlessOne, 17 January 2012 - 09:54 AM.













