Thread: Innocence vs. Dark Matter

So I was reading the threads at Mangahelpers, waiting for a scanlation of 106... and there's a very interesting discussion going on (read it here) that reminded me of an earlier discussion (from December) in this subforum - who's really on the side of God?

The Noah are supposed to be descendants of Noah, while Innocence is supposed to be from God - but it's awfully similar to Dark Matter, isn't it? And who knows if God really wants humans to be destroyed again because of corruption...

Who do you think is really on the side of God, then? ^_^

One thing I was questioning is free will - I can't remember who, according to mythology, supports free will for humans - God? That would definitely be a point to the Noah side... humans choose if they want to ressurect someone as an akuma, but you can't choose whether you're an Exorcist or not. They've done bad things to people - kidnapping Rinari, for instance - in the name of searching for people to fight against the akuma.

Does that make sense? ^_^;;

Exorcist, although being "chosen by god" are still human - they have the "good" and "evil" in themselves (..I just want to say that I don't believe it, cause I don't believe in ying and yang stuff). They will use all means to win - it's a given, we want to survive,we need to gather strong people.
Considering Japanese mentality, where lots of people are atheist, in the end there will probably no god -as being conscious of it's actions.
In the end, Dark Matter and Innocence will be explained as something which comes from the same origin, but have different power which cannot coexist (pole negative and pole positive).
In the end - the one to learn the truth will be Allen, who has both Innocence and Dark Matter in him. The whole "Destroyer of time" can be also explained as somehow we changes the view of history - the one who brought out truth - we are creating our world and human are gods for themselves.
The origin of the dark matter and innocence is some mindless energy which was created at the beginning of our solar system (or other lame stuff).

..Although I don't know if they will mangaka has guts to create such statements. The most "safe" and most PC explanation would be "We will never know, but we can still believe".

Let us assume for a moment that Innocence is as its name implies: a power that is compatible only with those who ARE innocent. Let us similarly assume that Noah's Family are what they claim to be, the chosen ones to survive God's judgment. If you look at it this way, the answer may be both. The Earl of the Millennium holds distinctly antichrist qualities (even his head is a pentagram), but if you believe Martin Luther, "even the Devil is God's Devil", and he is supposed to be a bringer of judgment.

So then the fallout would be like this:

Exorcists represent God's compassion, the innocence of man before the fall.
The Earl, Akuma, and Dark Matter are all themselves evil, but they exist to bring judgment to the evil of mankind.
The Noah, like Noah in the Bible, are God's fallback for the time after the judgment, and are thus good.

If you follow the free will idea, then during the entire time up until the flood there was the opportunity for repentance. If earth had reformed, then the judgment would have been canceled, and individuals could always be saved if they chose to.

I might agree with punishment, with Noah idea, and I like the quote from Luther, but I don't really get the innocence stuff.

The innocence of man before the fall ? That's non-existant, considering Apocalypes of St.Paul - all evil from human shall be revealed (or something like that).
I don't see also why the innocence are in form of weapon and the purpose of bringing all innocence into one place.
It looks like god is making competition between to sites (who is the quickest, then survives). But If God wanted to perform judgement (and Earl is his tool for that) then the judgment should be unavoidable.

I was referring to the innocence of man prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Before that point, man was not born naturally sinful, and did not tend towards evil behaviour naturally but rather had a will free from sinful desires. Adam and Eve had no desire to do evil or act selfishly.

This is why Christ is referred to as the Second Adam by Paul: he was the second man on earth who did not have a sinful nature. The Evil of Man that Paul refers to is the evil that has been part of mankind's character after the fall, not prior to it.