The Creed of the Assassins

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4givemeasinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
4

4givemeasinner

Guest
What is the Catholic view on the philosophy, or “Creed”, of the assassins?

The Creed:
Nothing is true, Everything is permitted.

Meaning: the foundations of society are fragile, and we have the liberty to make our own futures and must live with the consequences, whether those consequences are good or bad.
 
This for the most part I agree with. But remember, in Assassin’s Creed, God isn’t real and the Assassins and Templars, both, are Atheistic organizations. So, when they talk about the fragility of the law, they also mean the Law of God. That is where I draw the line. The laws of society are fragile, but the Law and Commandments of God are Eternal.
 
4givemeasinner said:
What is the Catholic view on the philosophy, or “Creed”, of the assassins?

The Creed:
Nothing is true, Everything is permitted.

Meaning: the foundations of society are fragile, and we have the liberty to make our own futures and must live with the consequences, whether those consequences are good or bad.
Click to expand...
Wrong from the get-go. If nothing is true, then the statement “nothing is true” is also not true, which means that there is something true & thusly contradicts the idea that “nothing is true.”

There must, then, be something that is true.
 
So is the statement “Everything is permitted”, true? If “nothing is true” then how can any statement following it be true?
 
But something being permitted is not equal to something being true. And these terms, as explained above, are not literal but metaphorical.
Perhaps a better phrasing would be:
“After God, nothing is true, everything is permitted.”
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Wrong from the get-go. If nothing is true, then the statement “nothing is true” is also not true, which means that there is something true & thusly contradicts the idea that “nothing is true.”

There must, then, be something that is true.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about this. If nothing is true, then something MAY be true but it is not necessarily true. If something MUST be true, then that would negate the statement that nothing is true. Or is that fallacious logic?
 
If it were “Outside of God, nothing is true, everything is permitted”, I would be inclined to agree. However this would lead to the argument that nothing is outside of God. I think it comes down to can we know if there is anything considered “truth”, aside from God or religion? If I am not following you correctly then I must bow out of this thread as to not hurt my head 🙂
 
GospodiPomiluj said:
If it were “Outside of God, nothing is true, everything is permitted”, I would be inclined to agree. However this would lead to the argument that nothing is outside of God. I think it comes down to can we know if there is anything considered “truth”, aside from God or religion? If I am not following you correctly then I must bow out of this thread as to not hurt my head 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s why I put after God, to account for his domain and His truth. So after Him, His law, and his precepts, nothing is true, etc. etc.
 
We have the natural law to consider, then. This, I believe, is what St. Thomas Aquinas did so well on proving … We can first look to nature and follow it’s laws which will lead us to God and truth. I think this is how Aristotle went about things. Plato, I believe, went the other way by starting with the unseen and then going to physical nature. But, anyways, if we can find truth by simply looking to nature which we all share, then the “creed” would have to be false, because we can find truth. Everything is permitted in the animal kingdom, but are we merely animals?
 
GospodiPomiluj said:
We have the natural law to consider, then. This, I believe, is what St. Thomas Aquinas did so well on proving … We can first look to nature and follow it’s laws which will lead us to God and truth. I think this is how Aristotle went about things. Plato, I believe, went the other way by starting with the unseen and then going to physical nature. But, anyways, if we can find truth by simply looking to nature which we all share, then the “creed” would have to be false, because we can find truth. Everything is permitted in the animal kingdom, but are we merely animals?
Click to expand...
Well the everything is permitted part is explained above. We can lead our own lives but we have to live by the consequences. Similar, perhaps, to 1 Corinthians 10:23, “all things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient.”
And the Natural Law is part of God’s truth. So after God … Etc etc
 
And remember that this is a video game that romanticizes assassinations.

Most people who murder have no philosophy. They don’t even care about justifying their actions because, if it benefits them in that moment, “then it must be good”. (However, they don’t even go that far: there isn’t even a conclusion to the “if it benefits them in that moment” statement, or even a thought process like that to begin with.

Assassin’s Creed is [an excellent] game that is created by otherwise GOOD people, for otherwise GOOD people to play. We GOOD people need silly rationalizations for everything we do, or else we can’t do them. A philosophy like this, in a game like that, does nothing more than allows us to “role play” in a situation that makes no sense.

The mind of the REAL murderer has no rationalization. It needs none. There is only the statement: This benefits me, now.

And then there is action. Violent, selfish, brutal, animalistic action.

There is no creed, or conscious. There is only unlimited selfishness.
 
Oh for Heaven’s sake. The Creed of the Assassins is rhetorical nonsense. Yet it is dangerous nonsense and an open door to evil impulses since it appeals to our fallen human nature and sounds so… practical.

Close your ears, eyes and heart to such wicked cant, replacing it with Psalms, prayers and faith in the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ. May God richly bless you and strengthen you!
 
meltzerboy said:
I’m not so sure about this. If nothing is true, then something MAY be true but it is not necessarily true.
Click to expand...
If nothing then true, then nothing MAY be true; it is all false.
meltzerboy said:
If something MUST be true, then that would negate the statement that nothing is true. Or is that fallacious logic?
Click to expand...
That is what I was getting at: the statement “nothing is true” must be false because it is paradoxical statement. Thus, at least one thing is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top