glyphstrip FAQ button
Halo.bungie.org
glyphstrip
Frequently Asked Forum Questions
 Search the HBO News Archives

Any All Exact 
Search the Halo Updates DBs

Halo Halo2 
Search Older Posts on This Forum:
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts


sin, the flood, and baptism
Posted By: forestfroggr <forestfroggr@hotmail.com>Date: 2/27/05 1:57 p.m.

In Response To: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of Answers (Eagle 117)

As much as I doubt Bungie follows biblical imagery as closely as seems to be sometimes assumed, I think it would be fun to look at some other possible parallels, if nothing else but for the sheer gratuity of it all. :)

Firstly, i think I find resonance with the angel/fallen angel theory, at least to some extent. It seems fairly clear to me that the Forerunner created the flood. Halos, even for a very advanced society, would take a long time to build, and after all, when one is involved (at least how it has been represented) in a deserate struggle for survival against a foe such as the flood, too much time would have to be taken and too many resources diverted to build them at such short notice. Guilty Spark does say they were built to study and contain the flood. If the situation is so desperate that the only choice is to fire the halos, then they must have been built before the flood were a threat or there simply would not have been time. Anyway, one could speculate about why the flood were created- possibly as a weapon, which would make sense of Gravemind being the monument to sins. At any rate, the firing of halo could be a failsafe put in by the Forerunner who understood the dangers. Interesting biblical imagery that could provide a reason for creating the flood- Satan's fall within Jewish and Christian tradition is seen as the result of trying to be God, or usurp God's place. Think about it, the Forerunner are at the pinnacle of technological advancement- they can create quais-planets, for goodness sake, but some of them want more. perhaps the Flood were seen as a means to whatever 'more' was- perhaps that is where the covenant gets the idea of the Great Journey- salvation from a doomed existence. The Forerunner, after all, were still (as far as we can tell) mortal- perchance the Flood were seen as a way to immortality. (Gravemind, can, after all, resurrect- he is an interesting character. Read what Jude 6 says...might be related somehow.)

Sin, in religious tradition, is more than violating commands- it is seen as the self trying to be what only God can be: self-existent. With the Forerunner something obviously went horribly wrong, and try as they could, nothing could stop the onslaught of the flood (which is an apt description for the effects of sin) How Gravemind survived the firing is unclear to me, but fits within the biblical imagery of the flood and the ark- A few Forerunner managed to get on the Ark (whatever it is) and were able to survive the flood. However, even in the biblical accounts the flood did not eliminate sin, just the sinners. It seems, therefore, that the Forerunners mananged to get to earth somehow, whether Earth is the ark or the Ark landed on earth- the latter seems more likely to me, but who knows? Here is where a big assumption comes in, and two possible options- If all the halos were fired, as Guilty Spark seems to suggest is protocol, then humans most likely would have been destroyed at the time of firing, unless one assumes that 100,000 years in the past they were still evolutionarily lacking in sentience. In this case, a Nephilim type scenario is more likely. Contrarily, 100,000 years is a long time, and a race such as the Forerunner, with few survivors stranded on a different planet, would be concerned with survival rather than propogating knowledge of their society, technology, past, etc., and so it is plausible that they lost most of this. This would certainly correlate with what Guilty Sprak says about lost time being human history, and how humans are able to be Reclaimers (both John and Miranda, apparently) When the Halos were originally fired, it must have been assumed that the Flood would not be completely destroyed- why else have Reclaimers or 'containment protocol' if the Flood will no longer be a threat? At the intial firing, it must have been know it was not a permanent solution. Hence, the idea of a reclaimer to come and complete the task.

This brings me to the idea of baptism and the final defeat of the flood(sin). Read what it says in 1 Peter 4:18-21
He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom he also went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God awaited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also...

As the flood in the biblical account did not destroy the power of sin, so the first firing of the halos did not eradicate the Flood. However, it was a precursor to what would come- the Reclaimer, who would stop the flood. This firing of the Halos by the Reclaimer, if the verses in 1 Peter have any relation to it, is seen as the baptism which will be the salvation of the Forerunner...perhaps not a salvation in the sense that they can survive and live, but salvation from the flood, an existence that is really a non-existence... this could have obviously been what the Covenant think of as their Great Journey. Perhaps the Forerunner see their salvation from the flood not in terms of survival, but rather of not falling into the nothingness they have created. After all, logically, the Flood is a self-destructive entity, because one way or another it is going to run out of food- after all, it will consume all. perhaps that was the Forerunners reason for creating them- maybe they thought that this was a means to immortality/greatness, whatever, except it went horribly wrong, and they paid for their sins.

My guess is that the Forerunner survivors aboard the Ark were somehow immune to effects of the halos, and therefore the firing really will be a baptism for their descendents, in that it will purify the galaxy from the flood forever. perhaps the Covenant are not that far off... At any rate, it looks as if the 100,000 year war is coming to an end...

anyway, there are fairly gaping holes in all I have said, but i thought it would be fun food for thought. :)


Message Index




Replies:

Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersEagle 117 2/21/05 4:54 p.m.
     WhewJillybean 2/21/05 5:00 p.m.
           Re: WhewEagle 117 2/21/05 5:02 p.m.
                 Re: WhewHikaru-119 2/21/05 5:10 p.m.
                       Re: WhewEagle 117 2/22/05 8:00 a.m.
                 Re: WhewFugitiveSoldier 2/21/05 5:10 p.m.
                       The Last Xion -- Would that tie in?Sniper 058 2/21/05 5:16 p.m.
                 Re: WhewMr. Mister 2/21/05 5:21 p.m.
     All I can say is. . . wow.ARCHANGEL 7 2/21/05 5:08 p.m.
     Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersoBlade 2/21/05 5:09 p.m.
     Nice ‹ <--Smiley face, look hardEchoes 2/21/05 5:17 p.m.
           Re: Nice ‹ <--Smiley face, look hardEagle 117 2/21/05 7:22 p.m.
     Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersPeptuck 2/21/05 5:18 p.m.
     Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of Answersmeleeman 2/21/05 5:26 p.m.
           Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersHikaru-119 2/21/05 5:35 p.m.
                 Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersSniper 058 2/21/05 6:16 p.m.
                       Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersHikaru-119 2/21/05 7:05 p.m.
                             Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersEagle 117 2/21/05 7:17 p.m.
                                   Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersHikaru-119 2/21/05 7:28 p.m.
           John 117 < "The Savior"Eagle 117 2/22/05 8:27 a.m.
                 Re: John 117 < "The Savior"Eagle 117 2/25/05 10:43 a.m.
                       Re: John 117 < "The Savior"Captain Spark 2/25/05 10:54 a.m.
                             Re: John 117 < "The Savior"Series III (MetalSilver) 2/25/05 10:56 a.m.
                             You should've read before opening your mouthEagle 117 2/25/05 11:15 a.m.
                                   Re: You should've read before opening your mouthCaptain Spark 2/25/05 11:28 a.m.
                                         Re: You should've read before opening your mouthSep7imus [subnova] 2/25/05 11:33 a.m.
                                               Re: You should've read before opening your mouthEagle 117 2/25/05 12:14 p.m.
                                               Re: You should've read before opening your mouthCaptain Spark 2/25/05 3:56 p.m.
                                         Re: You should've read before opening your mouthEagle 117 2/25/05 12:11 p.m.
                                         Re: You should've read before opening your mouthLouis Wu 2/25/05 1:36 p.m.
                                               Re: You should've read before opening your mouthWalshicus 2/25/05 2:21 p.m.
                                                     Re: You should've read before opening your mouthVorpal Sword 2/25/05 2:31 p.m.
                                               Re: You should've read before opening your mouthStuntmutt 2/25/05 3:04 p.m.
                                                     Re: You should've read before opening your mouthLouis Wu 2/25/05 3:18 p.m.
                                                           Re: You should've read before opening your mouthWalshicus 2/25/05 3:34 p.m.
                                                                 Re: You should've read before opening your mouthLouis Wu 2/25/05 4:15 p.m.
                                                                 Re: You should've read before opening your mouthCount Zero 2/25/05 5:21 p.m.
                                                                       Re: You should've read before opening your mouthWalshicus 2/25/05 6:22 p.m.
                                               Re: You should've read before opening your mouthCaptain Spark 2/25/05 3:54 p.m.
                                         Re: You should've read before opening your mouthAnton P. Nym (aka Steve) 2/25/05 3:18 p.m.
                                               It's funny where these conversations go :-) *NM*Eagle 117 2/25/05 3:47 p.m.
                                                     Yes...Walshicus 2/25/05 3:53 p.m.
                                                           Re: Yes...Eagle 117 2/25/05 4:19 p.m.
     good to hear from you as always eagle :D *NM*Voltage 2/21/05 5:38 p.m.
           It's nice to know I'm remembered :-) *NM*Eagle 117 2/21/05 7:18 p.m.
     *blush* :) *NM*Anton P. Nym (aka Steve) 2/21/05 5:44 p.m.
     The issue of the Flood is still unanswered...xitwound117 2/21/05 7:42 p.m.
           Re: The issue of the Flood is still unanswered...spaartan117 2/21/05 8:24 p.m.
           Re: The issue of the Flood is still unanswered...Skedar 2/21/05 8:51 p.m.
                 Re: The issue of the Flood is still unanswered...ErraticAuto 2/22/05 3:41 a.m.
     Very Nice. Well Written! *NM*Steve 2/21/05 9:20 p.m.
     Dude, you are AWESOME *nm*dude1 2/22/05 4:12 p.m.
     Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersEric Trautmann 2/22/05 7:17 p.m.
           Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of Answersdude1 2/22/05 7:58 p.m.
           Thanks for the response, Trautmann *NM*replay 2/22/05 9:47 p.m.
           Does this mean I get a cookie... at least a crumbEagle 117 2/23/05 12:18 a.m.
                 Re: Does this mean I get a cookie... at least a crEric Trautmann 2/23/05 3:51 p.m.
                       Re: Does this mean I get a cookie... at least a crdude1 2/23/05 5:53 p.m.
                       Re: Does this mean I get a cookie... at least a crJamirus99 2/23/05 7:35 p.m.
                       Re: Does this mean I get a cookie... at least a crEagle 117 2/23/05 9:28 p.m.
     A few questions/commentsyakaman 2/26/05 2:35 p.m.
           Re: A few questions/commentsEagle 117 2/26/05 11:40 p.m.
                 Re: A few questions/commentsyakaman 2/27/05 2:45 p.m.
     sin, the flood, and baptismforestfroggr 2/27/05 1:57 p.m.
           Re: sin, the flood, and baptismdude1 2/27/05 3:23 p.m.
           Re: sin, the flood, and baptism58 2/27/05 3:37 p.m.
     Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersWado SG 2/27/05 5:57 p.m.
           Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersEric Trautmann 2/28/05 5:26 p.m.
                 Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of Answersreplay 2/28/05 6:04 p.m.
                       Re: Trautmannís Clue: A Dictionary of AnswersWado SG 2/28/05 6:19 p.m.



contact us

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.