Why did the Emissary have to be Benjamin Sisko?

[at Quark's]

From Shadows and Symbols

SISKO: What you're telling me isn't easy to accept. You arranged my birth. I exist because of you?
SARAH: The Sisko's path is a difficult one.
SISKO: But why me? Why did it have to be me?
SARAH: Because it could be no one else.

So we learn here that the Prophets arranged Sisko's birth 'because it could be no one else'. But why not? What unique attributes or character trait combination does Benjamin Sisko have that wouldn't have been filled by any other Starfleet captain (or any Bajoran or other sentient being for that matter)? Why couldn't it have been major Kira, to give a simple example?

Sure, I can't see Janeway or Picard going along with the Prophets as Sisko did -- Starfleet captains in general seem a somewhat headstrong bunch - they'd probably have to be, mostly, too. Then again, they didn't have his 7 years arc of developing a relationship with them, so who knows what would have happened.

Of course, the show's intention was to not 'explain' this, to add to the mystery of the prophets. I still can't help but wonder, though....

 

[Bad Thoughts]

So we learn here that the Prophets arranged Sisko's birth 'because it could be no one else'. But why not?

Because Sisko was the one who came to them in Emissary. (Hint: time is not linear to the Prophets.)

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

He had a bigger pah

 

[at Quark's]

Because Sisko was the one who came to them in Emissary. (Hint: time is not linear to the Prophets.)

Wouldn't an argument like this exactly show linear thinking, though? ( "Sisko contacting the prophets was the 'first cause', so the Prophets "knew" it had to be Sisko and they then went back in time to make sure of that, etc") Basically then, it would boil down to 'brand loyalty' (I will only wipe my face with Kleenex, since that's the brand I always have used).

Unless of course you mean to say that this causes a paradox of infinite recursion, and that thisis the answer.

Moreover, Sarah doesn't say: 'because it isn't someone else', but 'because it could be no one else'.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Because a non-linear peek at the timeline would’ve confirmed that he was and not even the Prophets could choose otherwise.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Wouldn't an argument like this exactly show linear thinking? ( "Sisko contacting the prophets was the 'first cause', so the Prophets "knew" it had to be Sisko and they then went back in time to make sure of that, etc")
Basically then, it would boil down to 'brand loyalty' (I will only wipe my face with Kleenex, since that's the brand I always have used). Unless of course you mean to say that this paradox of infinite regression is the answer.

Moreover, Sarah doesn't say: 'because it isn't someone else', but 'because it could be no one else'.

No, because the relationship between causes and effects have no linear equivalents. There's not even retrocausality, and the only element that determines how the Prophets react to something is space, not time. From our perspective, the Prophets perceiving the arrival of the Emissary, the Prophets intefere in the birth of the Emissary, the Prophets meet the Emissary. It is actually a loop. From the Prophets perspective, the three events don't occur distinctly in time. The Prophets meet the Emissary is a close event, the Prophets perceive the arrival of the Emissary is an event that occurs at the edge of their perception, the Prophets interfere in the birth of the Emissary occurs beyond the normal range of their perception.

 

[NCC-73515]

cause a prophet possessed his mom and dated his dad

 

[at Quark's]

No, because the relationship between causes and effects have no linear equivalents. There's not even retrocausality, and the only element that determines how the Prophets react to something is space, not time. From our perspective, the Prophets perceiving the arrival of the Emissary, the Prophets intefere in the birth of the Emissary, the Prophets meet the Emissary. It is actually a loop. From the Prophets perspective, the three events don't occur distinctly in time. The Prophets meet the Emissary is a close event, the Prophets perceive the arrival of the Emissary is an event that occurs at the edge of their perception, the Prophets interfere in the birth of the Emissary occurs beyond the normal range of their perception.

I can buy your explanation that for the Prophets, there is no (retro)causality, and that to them, it might essentially be a single event. As to what they can or cannot (easily) see, I wouldn't know. Still doesn't explain to me why it would necessarily be the Sisko (other than the 'it is the way it is, because it is the way it is'-argument). But perhaps this cannot be understood from my linear frame of reference....

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Still doesn't explain to me why it would necessarily be the Sisko (other than the 'it is the way it is, because it is the way it is'-argument)

No, you won't get an entirely satisfying answer. It's basically like Akorem: first come was not first serve.

 

[C.E. Evans]

A case could be made that the Sisko was simply the right person at the right time to be the Emissary, but the Prophets were not aware of that when they initially met him. They had no concept of cause and effect until the Sisko showed them how the Universe worked for everyone else. Once they did so, they arranged past events so that there would be no chance of anyone other than Benjamin Sisko to be their Emissary, IMO.

Most people believe the future isn't written in stone. Maybe for the Prophets, the past isn't either. Could be they just wanted insurance of Sisko being the Emissary.

 

[Farscape One]

Not sure why it had to be Sisko, but I can definitely agree it had to be a non-Bajoran, for a simple reason.

I think it was Opaka that said one should not be able to see one's own gods, or words to that effect. I think it's better an outsider is the Emissary so it has less of a chance of conflicting with one's own personal beliefs.

 

[Captain pl1ngpl0ng]

cause a prophet possessed his mom and dated his dad

Totaly science fiction...

 

[NCC-73515]

Totaly science fiction...

okay, a wormhole alien did it. XD

 

[Captain pl1ngpl0ng]

^

 

[Xhiandra]

"Making sense" and "religion" are not frequent bedfellows. Usually, the answer is "because I/we said so!"

 

[at Quark's]

^ except that in this case, I don't think religion really comes into play for answering my question.

I mean, yes, there certainly are religious components to the story. The prophets are central to the Bajoran religion, yes. The Emissary is central to the Bajoran religon,too. You might also argue that the kind of guidance Sisko gradually learns to accept from them is somewhat religious in nature.

But on the other side, the wormhole aliens are undeniably real (in the context of the narrative of course). Their existing outside of time seems to be real too. As is their meddling into our linear timeframe. And it's from that perspective I'm asking the question -- why did the wormhole aliens believe it could only be the Sisko and no one else ? There doesn't seem to be much of a religious component from their side.

I'll agree though, that I did clothe my original question in somewhat careless terms- in retrospect I probably should have avoided terms such as "the Prophets" and Emissary, which do refer to the religious dimension of it.

 

[kkt]

We would have to be wormhole aliens in order to understand their reasoning.
(Sorry that's ducking the question.)

 

[Roboturner913]

Because it's not linear

 

[Ocanain]

My view is because he was the only ‘gatekeeper’ to open communication with the prophets. The non linear nature of their view also showed that he was willing to sacrifice his son and I imagine any other ‘potentials’ would have been under the same scrutiny. To use a Ghostbusters pun; he was the gatekeeper to their key master.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Think of it this way: the Prophets simply exist, as does their non-linear view of time which shows them everything about Sisko’s life. Sarah exists and therefore she’s Ben’s mother. There is no before or after, no making sure he’s born one way and not another: the whole ‘sequence of events’ is just there.