Log in

No account? Create an account
27 March 2006 @ 07:49 pm
For starters, I would like to announce that I fully blame megkips for this.
After this post which discussed several Christian themes in Fullmetal Alchemist, I made a comment about how different it looks from a Jewish perspective. megkips convinced me to write something from a Jewish perspective, and so I did, and I have to say that I was really surprised at some of the conclusions I came to.
I'm posting it here for anybody who might be interested.

Dealing with fun stuff like the definition of a sinner, why Roy is definitely worse than Ed in that sense, why bringing back your mother is dangerous but there's nothing else wrong with it, why happy endings are educational, etc. XD like I said, fun stuff.

For starters, a short explanation about sinning. The commandments in the Torah are split into two types: Thou Shalt, and Thou Shalt Not. Not fulfilling a Thou Shalt commandment is not a sin- it is simply abstinence from doing a good thing. A sin would technically be crossing a Thou Shalt Not. Meaning, you can only sin against something that is expressly forbidden.

So what's wrong with Human Transmutation, again?

From a purely Jewish point of view, it would actually seem 'nothing'. There is really nothing wrong with raising the dead. An argument against it could be that it involves witchcraft, which is expressly forbidden (and associated with Idolatry), but since they make such a point about alchemy being a science I would say that cancels it out.

In short, Ed and Al did not sin in any way by trying to resurrect their mother.
One could argue that the sin was not the actual physical act of transmutation, but the arrogance that led them to believe they could do it. I will discuss that topic when I deal with the Seven Deadly Sins.
Other aspects of human transmutation though, such as the creation of chimeras, are a completely different story.

In terms of transmutation in general, the aspects of human transmutation which involve chimeras (actually, any transmutation involving two types of creatures) would be strictly forbidden. That is because of a law called 'Kilayim', which forbids any kind of grafting together of plants in addition to 'marrying' two types of animals (such as a horse and a donkey to create a mule), or even using a horse and an ox tied to the same plow at the same time. Meaning, any transmutation of two different living things (be they plants or animals) would be a sin.

However, transmuting an animate with an inanimate (such as fusing metal with flesh) even with a human would be perfectly fine. It would also be perfectly permissible to transmute a human by adding on arms or giving them talons or something, as long as no fusion with another life was involved.

However, I'm going to start from the point of 'Human transmutation is a sin' because that's what the series gives us.
So: Edward and Alphonse commit a sin by trying to resurrect their mother. Then, Ed sacrifices his arm in order to save Al's life.

Was that sacrifice a sin too since it also involved human transmutation?

Once again, a clear-cut 'no'. Al's life was in danger. Had Ed not attempted to save him, he would have crossed "Thou shalt not stand on thy brother's blood", which basically forbids a human to stand by idly when another person is in danger. In addition, when a person saves another's life it is counted for them as if they had saved an entire world. Since there was no threat to Ed's life from the second transmutation (he only lost an arm), it would have been a sin for him not to seal Al's soul in the armor.
There are only three sins which it says a person must die rather than commit them- Idolatry, certain forms of incest, and bloodshed. (And even bloodshed has it's exceptions).

Since human transmutation would fall under none of these categories, even if it were a sin, Pikuach Nefesh (the technical term for a life being in danger) would cancel it out, making what Ed did completely necessary.

This far, Ed is pretty much in the green. Moreso, a person who is willing to endanger themselves in order to save a life is regarded as exceptionally righteous, beyond the call of duty. I would say that Ed's sacrifice for Al falls into that category.

The Long Road to Repentance

The theme of the other post was the reflections of the idea of Original Sin in FMA. Ed having committed a sin, and spending the rest of the series trying to make up for what he did- and ultimately failing, because humankind cannot ever be completely pure.

None of this stands from a Jewish point of view.

When a person sins, there are several stages they must go through, and then they can get a clean slate. A completely clean slate.

The first step in Return is Accepting the Sin. Basically, realizing that you did something wrong. I would say Ed has done plenty of that.

The second step is Regret. Once again, I think Ed feels quite sorry for ever trying to resurrect his mom.
Step three is Acceptance for the Future: promising yourself you will never do that again. Ed certainly isn't planning on trying human transmutation again any time soon.

Some say that the final stage is when you are in the same situation again, and behave differently. Now that is rather problematic, given what happens at the end of the series. Still, up until that point (which I will touch on more later) Ed is overall a pretty darn righteous guy, hardly the damned sinner he considers himself.

Now, a problem with this may be that Edward is not a terribly religious guy and really wasn't looking for forgiveness from some higher authority, but since religion (and monotheism) is not very well entrenched in the FMA universe I'm going to ignore that issue.

I swear, I didn't know…!
There are basically two types of sins: Intentional, and Non-intentional.

Whether Ed and Al were completely aware of the severity of what they were doing is arguable. They were mostly lacking in proper parental guidance, and had a certain lack of trust towards parent figures.
You may say that this really doesn't matter when it comes to sins.

However, even if they were completely aware of what they were doing, they still wouldn't be the ones to pay for their sins. Until the age of thirteen all the sins fall on the parents –meaning, the one to pay the price for the transmutation would be Hohenheim, and not Ed nor Al.

The Seven Mostly Undesirable Traits
As I said before, it is thought that it is the human arrogance that leads to the human transmutation which is the actual sin. In Judaism, arrogance, or Pride, is not a sin.

First of all, if the act itself is not forbidden, a person would hardly be punished for their thoughts. There are very, very, few instances in Judaism where a person is punished for a thought and not a deed. Overall, thoughts are meaningless in that sense; what matters is the action. People are both punished and rewarded according to their actions.

The Seven Deadly Sins, from a Jewish standpoint, are really not so deadly at all.

Pride: It is frowned upon, true. It can lead a person to sin. But it is not punishable in and of itself, nor is it expressly forbidden anywhere. It's just a bad trait to have.

Lust: Lust is actually a very good thing, under the right circumstances. Since procreation is a Thou Shalt, and lust is a very important component of that, there is little to frown on, except for misplaced lust and lust in the wrong time and place.
Actually, in the Talmud (one of the main collections of Jewish law) in the sections of dream interpretation they deal with men who dream of having sex with their sisters, mothers, and such. They say it is actually a good sign, for great learning ahead.

Wrath: It's not forbidden anywhere. It's not good to have a temper, but it's not a sin.

Envy: This is pretty much the only one of the Sins that is also a sin in Judaism. Covetousness is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, and is one of the few times that the commandment is against thought as well as deed. Envy gets to stay a sin, at least…

Sloth: Fine, so a person is lazy. Bad trait to have, work on it.

Gluttony: Gluttony is semi-comparable to the concept of Zolel V'soveh (I really don’t know how to translate that). Basically, if a child steals a certain amount of money from his parents and uses it to buy a certain amount of meat and wine, and eats and drinks it all in one sitting and eats the meat raw and drinks the wine undiluted, then that child is considered Zolel V'soveh and is put to death. The amount of food involved is almost ridiculously large, so much so that some say there never existed such a thing (since it's practically physically impossible). Some say there was one, and they stood at their grave.

[Mind you, whenever I mention 'some' I'm talking about 'some of the Sages', as read in the Talmud]
In short, gluttony is also not good, but not such a terrible sin.

Greed: Greed, just like the others, is not a sin in and of itself. It's what you do about the greed that makes a difference. But even then, you're not punished for the greed itself, but for whatever else it was you did.

Judaism doesn't really deal much with the human/not human idea. There are four categories of existence: Inanimate, Plant, Non-speaking Animate, and Speaking Animate. The homunculi are obviously Speaking Animate, and as such have free choice, and are responsible for their actions, and will be due punishment for their actions.

Oh my God, I killed Greed!

From the Jewish point of view, there was nothing wrong with killing Greed. There would have been nothing wrong with killing any of the other homunculi either, probably. Killing Scar would be fine, same for Kimbley, Cornello, Dante…

Provided they tried to kill Ed first.

If someone is trying to kill you, we are told to kill them first- that's known as the Law of the Pursuer. (Actually, if somebody is coming to kill you; you don't have to wait until you have the knife in your ribs.)

Ed really doesn't even need to feel remorse over what he did, much less think of himself as sinning further or anything like that.

There's plenty of gray before we'd call him a 'sinner'

There are three types of people: Righteous (Tzaddik, or possibly a 'saint'), Middling, and Unrighteous (Rasha, or 'sinner'). Most people are not Righteous, and in fact have no chance of ever being Righteous, and there's really nothing wrong with that. A person should not aspire to be something they aren't.
The average person is Middling. Meaning, the Good and Bad inside them is in a constant state of battle, and they have to fight their bad side again and again every step of the way, every day of their life. A good person is a person in which the Good wins more often than the Bad, but it doesn't mean they never sin.

A sinner would be someone who unfailingly allows the bad in him to win.

In no way, shape or form does Ed even remotely fit that criterion. One bad sin does not a sinner make.

Sins of the 'Flesh'

One might argue that in terms of righteousness, Al is in a very good state. Since he no longer has a physical body, he is unsusceptible to the sins of the flesh. He's spared lust and gluttony, and doesn't even have to eat or sleep. He has nothing to distract him from the spiritual side of things. Since Christianity supports abstinence of various sorts, this would probably be a good thing.

From a Jewish point of view, Al is frozen. He cannot fulfill most of the Thou Shalts, since he doesn't have a body, and a good part of the Thou Shalt Nots are meaningless to him as well. In that state, his existence is really not so good. In fact, he might even be considered dead (which is bad in the sense that the dead can no longer fulfill commandments).

I'll Save You, Al!

Only in the very last episode does Ed do something that is unquestionably a sin. Though, to be fair, Al does it first.

Under no circumstances is a person allowed to sacrifice their lives in order to save somebody else (at least, not in a premeditated way. If they believe that there is little danger and there turns out to be much more, then it's a different story)

When Ed died, Al should not have sacrificed himself to save him. Then, when Ed woke up, he should not have sacrificed himself for Al.

The thing is, there isn't really a punishment for suicide since most people don't survive it…
However, what they did was not straight suicide. A person is allowed to sacrifice their own life if by that sacrifice they are saving at least two people. I would probably have to consult a rabbi for the specifics of the law concerning what they did.

Can the Gate be compared to a God?

No. It is an arbitrary entity which leeches human life whenever it can. The fact that it has great power is circumstantial. Bypassing the 'payment' to the Gatelings is a purely technical issue, as we saw in the movie.

Unlike in the manga, where the concept of Equivalent Trade actually exists, in the anime the Gate is in no way comparable to a god, nor is what it does punishment. It's collateral damage.

"I Deserved It"

Actually, no. The ending of the series, from a Jewish point of view, should not have happened. If it's some kind of punishment, it's undeserved, being that Ed really didn't do anything all that bad. If the whole process Ed undergoes in the series is caused by his Original Sin, then that wouldn't have happened either.

He may, however, be paying for his sin at the end of the series, though in that case Al would be paying as well.

[This is probably arguable, and feel free to argue with me. However we do believe that God is merciful, and people are given many, many opportunities to fix what they have done. Also, once a person is punished for their sin, the sin is erased.]

Which brings us to the movie. After Ed comes through to Amestris, he should not have gone back to the other world. Even if all of Amestris was being threatened, there was a danger to the life of whoever would go through. As such, Ed is forbidden to do. In a situation like that, only if Ed is the absolute only one who can avert the danger (as in, they are all in danger because of Ed) is Ed allowed to sacrifice himself for everybody else, or if he's the only one that can fix it and there's no other solution that doesn't involve danger of death. They should've thrown a bomb through, and shut it on their side and been done with the issue.

Mustang the Sinner

In terms of sins, Roy would actually end up much worse than Ed.

During the Ishvar war, he killed Winry's parents. They were not threatening his life; he killed them on orders. There is absolutely nothing to condone that act.

Murder is a sin which a person must die rather than commit, and this is a clear-cut case. Even if a person stood with a gun to Roy's head and told him 'You, or them' he would still have to die rather than kill them.

And They Lived Happily Ever After

So, from the Jewish point of view, what would be considered a 'good' or 'educational' ending?
Actually, it would be a happy one. Ed restoring Al, and them both living happily and not sinning any more.

It says that God does not want the death of the Unrighteous, but for them to return from their evil ways and live. Moreover, there is a strong belief that the good people will get what they deserve, as will the bad people. Good is rewarded, and bad is punished.

It is also believed that God will never challenge a person in a way that they cannot succeed in the challenge. Given what we know of Ed and Al, it is inconceivable that either one of them would stand by idly while the other died…That's why I would say that the ending would have finished differently (Though I do not presume to know what God might think. I'm simply working on conjecture from what we've learned from the sages).

Ideally, Ed would have defeated the homunculi (who are quite definitely evil), succeeded in restoring Al, and then they both would have gone on to live out their lives without any more human transmutation.
Maybe that sounds kitschy and unrealistic, but in a sense that reflects the Messianic ideas of Judaism. We believe that the Messiah will come (not necessarily through an outside source, though, but through our own hard work and perseverance, and probably a lot of suffering), and will make the world a better place.
The destruction of Lior could probably be loosely compared do the battle of Gog and Magog, or the period of destruction said to come before the Messiah. It is definitely accepted that it will get worse before it gets better.

But once again, the destruction should have led to something better, to a 'Paradise on Earth'.
The ending of the series can in no way be regarded as being even close to an ideal, for anybody really.

In conclusion, Fullmetal Alchemist is the story of two boys who really didn't do much of anything wrong, and put up with a whole lot of crap and angst they wouldn't have had to if they had only been living by Jewish law...

If I've made any mistakes, please point them out to me, and feel free to disagree with me on any point I made.

Current Mood: curiouscurious
evilmooglequeenevilmooglequeen on March 27th, 2006 06:43 pm (UTC)
This post made me laugh, in a good way.

Yes, there are christian elements in FMA, but I think people are making too big of a deal out of them. Really, at the core, FMA is a coming-of-age story, not a christian parable.

So what happens to Ed and Al at the end of the story are probably less related to christian thought and have more to do with... well, actually since I really disliked the end of the anime I'll have to say they had more to do with random bits of poor story telling that the writers pulled out of nowhere.

But its always nice to see someone who knows something about Judiasm, unlike the rest of us bad jews who have made a habit of calling the torah the old testament...

Ketitaketita on March 27th, 2006 08:25 pm (UTC)
This may surprise you, but I agree with you entirely. I think the end of the anime was just a bunch of plot holes strung together, the Sins were a plot device, and most religious parallels were completely coincidental.
However, I like to speculate, and I like to argue. So when this idea got into my mind I couldn't not see where it went. I had loads of fun coming up with this page of nareshkite XD
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - megkips on March 30th, 2006 12:23 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - ketita on March 27th, 2006 08:40 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - ketita on March 27th, 2006 09:07 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
havocmangawip: smilingsmokehavocmangawip on March 27th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
Whee, I liked it.

WHY? Because NOT EVERYTHING is linked to Christianity!

SO I liked this different perspective.

We could look at FMA through Daoism, Shinto beliefs or Buddhism! But I think it's mostly a secular tale with morality thrown in because what is a HUMAN character without emotion/morals?

I like the concept of karma as it applies to the FMA verse.

I'm just someone raised Protestant who tries to be a "good person" and do unto others and what not. With a LOT of other idiology that seems to fit as well. I'm a spiritual mutt. ;)
havocmangawip: charminghavocmangawip on March 27th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
I have typos. Gah. Blah. But word to you!
Kim: Gothkirarakim on March 27th, 2006 07:44 pm (UTC)
As a fellow Jew I found this essay very interesting and well researched. It always bothered me that what Ed and Al did was considered a sin. Regardless of religion their intentions were innocent and they were just children.

Although at the same time I can see why trying to bring back the dead would be considered a sin because you are stepping on god’s territory. But don’t we step on god’s territory every day with the medicines and techniques we create to keep people alive. Does that make us all sinners?

So in some ways I like how the manga represents this plot more. Ed and Al didn’t lose their bodies because of sin but because they gained something and they had to pay a price (equivalent exchange). At the same time the homunculus were not the manifestations of the sins of people who attempted human transmutation.

And to top it off Ed and Al go on a journey to try to fix the mistakes they made, I hardly think that represents them as sinners.

I also agree that what Roy did was a bigger a sin. He had a choice in the anime not to take the Rockbell’s lives but still did anyways. Still he also tried to fix his mistake and for that I think he deserved to be forgiven (which I guess he eventually was by Winry Rockbell).
Ketitaketita on March 27th, 2006 08:56 pm (UTC)
*sheepish* everybody keeps complimenting me on my research...I didn't do practically any research for this thing, I just based it off stuff I know from my every-day life. If I had done research this would've turned out a bloody doctorate.

I also like the manga better for that reason-(aside from the better plot etc.) I didn't like the fact that the anime did away with Equivalent Trade.
(no subject) - evilmooglequeen on March 27th, 2006 09:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Meg: FMA: Ph34r M3megkips on March 27th, 2006 08:07 pm (UTC)
You have made my inner theology geek leap with joy x10000!

I've always loved the interepretation of sinning between Jewish and later religions, especially Christianity especially reguarding the concept of the seven deadly sins. Thank you so much for posting this.

Dang, now you've got me wanting to wax on about FMA and Gnosticism. And boy I sure do loves me some Gnosticism.
Ketitaketita on March 27th, 2006 09:02 pm (UTC)
Go ahead...we'll make a whole collection of FMA/theology posts! Then we collect them all and link them to one post so I can mem them properly ^_^
Glad you're happy, dear
(no subject) - megkips on March 27th, 2006 11:59 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Ragweed the Dwergi: FMA||Pensiveragweedtd on March 27th, 2006 08:28 pm (UTC)
This a wounderful essay. I've honestly never thought of FMA from a Jewish perspective. I found this very interesting!

There just such a mix of theology in FMA, especially in the manga. My friends and I have done a few essays on FMA from a Taoism and Confusious stand points. Hell, you could harp on about themes from everything from Paganism to Eastern Orthodox!

Thanks again for posting this!
Ketitaketita on March 27th, 2006 09:10 pm (UTC)

We really should put together some page with links to all the different theological points of view...so all the geeks can rejoice and won't have to look far XD
(Deleted comment)
menuchathateggroll on March 27th, 2006 09:01 pm (UTC)
It was a graet comparisine, I loved reading it and enjoyed how you put everything together.
the only problem I have is the Messiah part, we in no way can prove that ed was the Messiah, he had none of the sign (prophesies and so on) so that would be a sin from our part... (beliving in false saviors)
Ketitaketita on March 27th, 2006 09:04 pm (UTC)
I didn't say he was the Messiah...I just compared the end of the series to a sort-of Messianic situation (since that's the 'ending' we're trying to reach). Nah, Ed totally isn't right for a Messiah XD
Amata: rizarougaroux on March 27th, 2006 09:38 pm (UTC)
I remember when you did the Kabbalah parallels to FMA, and this tied in very nicely to that.

Just one thing to say...The "Gray area part" You say that there is no one who is righteous, and that no one has ever hopes of becoming righteous. I am going to play devil's advocate here and ask you what you are implying. Are you saying that a Tzaddik for a Hasidic sect is not considered righteous, even if he is by his own people, and from their and his viewpoint, G-d thinks it also?

Also, I will agree that Ed is most likely a middling. Though, the way stuff has happened with him, doesn't his "level" of sin overpower the good? For fear of getting stoned to death by rabid fangirls or something, I just want to point out that while all his intentions may have been pure, they became dirty as soon as he did them. Also, he was punished for his sins, so G-d forgave him? I suppose the whole 'him dying' would wipe off a lot of those sins, but....bleh, I'm rambling. Should have stopped me sooner XD

Anyway, really great work on this. This was truly a fun read, and I hope I see more type of stuff like this happen more often *claps* and if you want to know, I am a Reform Jew, not Orthodox, though many of my relatives are ^_^
Ketitaketita on March 27th, 2006 09:45 pm (UTC)
Ok. Maybe I wasn't totally clear, but I didn't say that 'no one' is righteous. According to Hassidic writings, a person is born a Tzaddik, or not born a Tzaddik. In this case, a Tzaddik is a very specific type of person, that if you aren't that, you just aren't. However, being a middling doesn't mean that you sin- it's not a Rasha. It means that you have much more of the inclination and capacity to sin, meaning you need to fight harder to be good, whereas a Tzaddik doesn't need to fight his Yetser Hara at all. However, they say that in the place where Ba'alei Teshuva stand, complete Tzaddikim don't stand. According to the way of thought I brought here, a Tzaddik is simply a different type of person, and if you aren't then you just aren't, but that doesn't mean you're bad.

'Level' of sin, huh? Tell me how he sinned. Human transmuation wouldn't even be a Yehareg U'bal Ya'avor (die before doing it). Other than that, I would say that he's not worse than most people, and probably better. He gives Tzeddakah, he does chessed, he saves lives...
(no subject) - rougaroux on March 27th, 2006 10:29 pm (UTC) (Expand)
lilfmagurl on March 27th, 2006 09:59 pm (UTC)
wow, thats a lot of information. well, thats just human transmutation according to the jewish laws and stuff, but I really don't think ed and al are jewish, actually, I don't even know if ed believes in God or not XD ehem, anywho, I'm not saying that you're not wrong, you did a great research, but you forgot one little detail: maybe according to THEIR religion (that is, IF they have one), it's a sin. but of course, it's the jewish point of view. Great job about the research ;)
Kim: H&Ckirarakim on March 27th, 2006 11:55 pm (UTC)
She is not saying Ed is Jewish or Christian. He's not because he lives in a fantasy world. She was just looking at what the Elric Brothers did through a Jewish Perspective.
Life is in the Subtitles: Alphonse -- Happy to be lost in youmaxxim_huzzah on March 28th, 2006 02:32 am (UTC)
This is an amazing essay! I appreciate the analysis because, yes, Christian perspectives dominate a lot of essays when seeing an anime series through a religion's POV. Being able to read different viewpoints is the internets at their best. I feel I've learned more about Judaism today than I ever did @ school (Catholic school but did comparative study of Judaism as the precursor to Christianity, hee...)

Thank you for writing this! :D
moon_wingmoon_wing on March 28th, 2006 02:51 am (UTC)
Your post is a lot more thought out than the other. You put a lot of thought into this. I respect that.
Sophic Proxy: So sweet...brennadouglasmw on March 28th, 2006 09:31 am (UTC)
This was really really really good! I loved it! It was very interesting and thought-provoking.

Just my one and a half cents...

While watching an FMA rerun, I got to thinking. There's more of the self-imposed sinner in Miss Izumi than in Ed and Al, ne? From what I could tell of the series at least (I haven't gotten my hands on the manga yet. *Sad-ness*). The boys seem to me to understand that they've done something wrong and stepped into "God's territory", but they haven't spent all their time worried about it or trying to atone for it. They're now really just trying to get their bodies back with the Philosopher's Stone so they can go back to living a semi-normal life.

I think Izumi was more of the obsessed "sinner" than either of the boys, probably even more than Roy. She was continually telling them how human transmutations were WRONG with a capital N-O. After they discover who Wrath is, she tells the boys that he is her "sin" and hers alone and how she doesn't want them "echoing her mistakes".

I agree with what people said about the religious parallels being coincidental. And I agree that FMA is a more unique coming-of-age story than anything, and, probably because of what exactly coming-of-age deals with, we see the religion in it.

I think the thing about the 7 Sins wasn't really focused on the Christian ideas of sin. My theory on this is that the homonculi were named after, and displayed the traits of, the "sin" their creators, and the person they were supposed to become, were most guilty of. At least that's the only explanation that makes any real sense in my mind. The Sins being the greatest fault of the creator and model(?is there a better word?) made them something tangible that was vilified. To me, it symbolized the duality of man and his more unsavory sides. The fact that they were named after the 7 deadly sins might just be a device to make them easily recognizable to the audience.

And I would be so grateful to the person who would compile a link set of relating essays, comments, thoughts, articles, etc. It would be so great for all of us philosophy/theology/ontology freaks!
friedbrain on April 1st, 2006 01:00 pm (UTC)
Thanks so much for posting this. I wish I was versed enough in religion to add to the project; I am looking VERY forward to there being a compilation of the different viewpoints if it should come to fruition.
keishiko on June 13th, 2006 02:57 pm (UTC)
This was great. Knowing just about zilch about Judaism and its relatives, I am in awe. ♥_♥ Thank you so much for taking the time and effort. I love even the fact that you've gone so far as to neatly sub-categorize your ideas!

On a more fangirly note--it's a comforting thought that a happy ending IS entirely still plausible for the Elrics: Al restored, and Ed still alive, and they live happily ever after lalala.

I worry about Mustang though. Purely for the sake of asking--supposing he got to be Fuhrer and really turned Amestris around from the warpath, thus theoretically saving lots of innocent lives by NOT continuing to wage war on random peoples, would that possibly redeem him?
Ketitaketita on June 13th, 2006 07:09 pm (UTC)
First off, I LOVE your icon!
Lol, I sub-categorize because I like to be organized like that, and make sure I got to all the points I wanted to make XD
On another fangirly note, though, there's stuff about Judaism which would definitely make the fandom less fun for some people...considering the views on things like sex-before-marriage and incest and stuff like that ^_^U
About Mustang 'redeeming' himself. Thing is, as mortals we can't really know how things are calculated Up There. Certainly it's possible for him to redeem himself, but that doesn't change the fact that he deserved death for killing the Rockbells. If there had been a Jewish High Court (Sanhedrin) at the time, he would probably have been executed (either by burning-pouring molten lead down your throat, not at the stake- stoning, hanging or decapitation). If there's no Sanhedrin, then he has to do what he can to atone, which is definitely possible.
It's really a difficult question, actually...lol. But I'm glad you enjoyed the essay.