Favorite Deities

[Ancient History]

Time of Troubles wasn't transitional, that stuff was released before Faith & Avatars or Powers & Pantheons. That was 4-5 years before 3e came out.

[Ghremdal]

Total digression on the thread but what the hell.

I was totally pissed when I played MotB, and there was no option to free the souls from the wall. I mean either the writers are afraid to offend the audience with the mere concept of atheism, or they themselves are afraid of atheism.

That was the final nail in the coffin for me in regards to the Realms and Ed Greenwood.

[wotmaniac]

Sure, it's semantics. Specifically, it's different words, with different meanings, describing different behaviors, and carrying different implications.

Arguing that Seventh Day Adventists are all too eager to speak from ignorance doesn't really prove much.

Actual Catholics do not, by and large, even know the words latria and dulia. Chrome does not even recognize those as being actual words. There is no physical difference between an icon and idol. They are both representative statues that people bow to.

There is no difference to an outside observer when someone is giving "veneration" to an icon from when they are giving "adoration" to their god. Most tellingly, there is no difference to an outside observer using functional MRI. When we say that people worshiping icons of saints and worshiping gods is exactly the same, we mean it's literally exactly the same. Like, uses the same neural pathways and everything.

Sometimes semantic differences denote real differences. This is not the case with the semantic bullshit that Christian sects babble out to simultaneously claim that they only have one god and that their temples are filled with saints and angels and shit. In this case it really is just simple hypocrisy held together with cognitive dissonance. The Calvinists and Iconoclasts are "right" in this instance. The Catholic and Orthodox justifications for their many religious statues in light of their own commandment not to make religious statues do not make sense.

Now, I certainly wouldn't commit to the Iconoclast claim that worshiping without images is somehow "better". But they are 100% right that doing otherwise is inconsistent with biblical teachings on the matter. If you were really concerned about that sort of thing, the iconoclasts are the orthodox and the Catholics and Orthodox are the heretics. That's real clear.

-Username17

Having been raised Southern Baptist (not my fault, btw), I was always bewildered with how Catholics can technically call themselves Christians. I was even talking with my pastor one time about it, and made the observation that "by strict definition, wouldn't Catholicism technically be considered a cult?" And due to some PC-something-or-other, he refused to neither confirm nor deny my observation (but the look on my face said that he wanted to agree with me). Even something as simple and routine as the ceremony of confession runs directly perpendicular to Jesus' teachings.

[/tangent]

[K]

Time of Troubles wasn't transitional, that stuff was released before Faith & Avatars or Powers & Pantheons. That was 4-5 years before 3e came out.

Nevermind.

I remembered that it was transitional material from 1e to 2e.

[Lago PARANOIA]

3.x Forgotten Reams introduced the Wall of the Faithless where anyone who does not have a patron god goes, either because of atheism or ignorance. This is the source material used in Mask of the Betrayer.

Don't open up old wounds, K.

[Sashi]

Having been raised Southern Baptist (not my fault, btw), I was always bewildered with how Catholics can technically call themselves Christians. I was even talking with my pastor one time about it, and made the observation that "by strict definition, wouldn't Catholicism technically be considered a cult?" And due to some PC-something-or-other, he refused to neither confirm nor deny my observation (but the look on my face said that he wanted to agree with me). Even something as simple and routine as the ceremony of confession runs directly perpendicular to Jesus' teachings.

I actually watched this conversation play out in real time. (Though it was Episcopalian and an independent church, not Catholic and Southern Baptist).

It was very amicable, and they pretty much decided that, sure, Episcopalians were technically violating a lot of biblical stuff, but the violations didn't violate the most important part of the New Testament (love they neighbor, etc) and they were traditional, damitt, so there's no stopping them any time soon.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Every definition of cult I heard pretty much boils down to: 'religions that are coercive in recruitment, retention, and consensus attainment'. Some people throw in words like 'illegitimate' or 'non-mainstream' or 'smallish' but I think that any qualifiers of a cult that excludes Juche, Maoism, or Stalinism should be safely thrown out.

You don't stop being a cult just because your membership is large. That said, I wouldn't call the Catholic Church (these days) (operating in Western countries) a cult merely because they've achieved propaganda and cultural osmosis critical mass that they don't have to coerce people into joining. They can grow the pie larger just by having its current members have consensual sex at their leisure.

[Username17]

The whisper command doesn't actually work, just a head's up.

You're arguing that 1) taxonomy uniquely drives behavior, and 2) you don't understand the difference, therefore there isn't one.

Uh... no. I'm arguing that I do understand the justifications about how they are totes different and those justifications are laughable bullshit. The reality is that it's nothing more or less than cognitive dissonance. There are a whole host of divine family members, angels, and saints that people pray to for various stuff, and people believe in that. And there is also one god that is the only true god and the only thing that they pray to, and the same people believe that at the same time.

Having been raised Southern Baptist (not my fault, btw), I was always bewildered with how Catholics can technically call themselves Christians. I was even talking with my pastor one time about it, and made the observation that "by strict definition, wouldn't Catholicism technically be considered a cult?" And due to some PC-something-or-other, he refused to neither confirm nor deny my observation (but the look on my face said that he wanted to agree with me). Even something as simple and routine as the ceremony of confession runs directly perpendicular to Jesus' teachings.

The thing is: none of the denominations of modern Christianity really look all that much like the original Christian teachings. Most of them allow private property for example, and few of them run around burning all books other than their own revelations. Most tellingly, almost all modern Christian sects have been euhemerized and tell the story of Jesus as if it happened on Earth rather than the original version where it happened on the Moon (seriously, it's complicated).

The tongue in cheek definition of cult vs religion is "A cult kills their own people, a religion kills other people". And by that definition, Catholicism certainly counts as a religion (even counting only recent history, see Ireland and Croatia). Now the British "Cult Information Centre" (it's British, so they spell "center" wrong) has a five point system to differentiate cults from religions:

• 1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
  
  2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
  
  3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
  
  4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.
  
  5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.

Now... to be brutally honest, most Christian sects fail that test. But Southern Baptism does actually fail it harder than Catholicism does. They send out missionaries who do "rice conversions", sponsor self-appointed charismatic elite ministers, and so on.

But bottom line is that you don't call religions "cults" when doing so would offend a fucktonne of people. The Catholic Church claims that it has 1.2 billion members, which is probably a considerable exaggeration, but it's still on the order of magnitude of India and China (though probably in reality somewhat smaller than either). That's really a lot of people, meaning that by majority rules they are the "real" face of modern Christianity and every other sect is a bunch of heretics.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

Well, I did renounce organized religion back in '94, and renounced my entire faith in '96 (and have settled comfortably in to agnosticism since about '00). Point being that I'm not professing this as what I believe .... it was just an anecdote that I was reminded of when I read Frank's post.

The conversation in question came out of a claim by our pastor that "any 'church' that claims Christianity but teaches things that are not in accordance with scripture is a cult". Granted, when he said that, he had actually called out LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, and snake-healers. He was physically uncomfortable with the idea of calling the Pope a "cult leader", but realized that he couldn't outright tell me I was wrong without admitting that the definition that he just gave was self-derived and pulled out of his ass.

As to the # of Catholics .... I'm sure that # includes "cultural Catholics" -- the ones that may have gone to parochial school as a kid and maybe they show up to confession once every few years and maybe show up to a Mass every couple of years. Actual actively and faithfully practicing Catholics? I'd push that # closer to 20-30% of the claimed #.

I'm sure I had an actual point somewhere along the way; but fuck me if I can remember what it was.

[Username17]

On the number of Catholics. The Republic of Germany had their first census since reunification this year, and found that they had a million less people than they thought they did. Basically, it turns out that when people leave the country, they don't actually cancel their citizenship or anything. They just go to the new country and make whatever arrangements are required in their new country.

Similarly for Catholicism, but considerably more so. You get put onto the register by being confirmed or by converting in. But if you stray from the faith and join another church or simply quit religion altogether, nothing actually happens to take you off that register until you die. And even then, you only get taken off the register if you are still a catholic, since otherwise the church would not be told of your death.

The Catholic Church is considerably larger, worse organized, and older than the Republic of Germany. And they do "censuses" even less often ("never" rather than "once every quarter century or so"). The over reporting problem is doubtlessly not only proportionately larger, but larger in proportion to the claimed numbers. And since the Catholic Church is claiming a population fifteen times what Germany was claiming, I'd be really shocked if they weren't off by less than a hundred million people.

Which would still rival the population of India of course. I mean, it's a lot of people either way.

-Username17

[Korgan0]

What the fuck is that "on the moon" shit?

[Username17]

What the fuck is that "on the moon" shit?

The original Christian teachings are not actually passed from people who were "there" in Bethlehem. Indeed, the entire idea of it happening in Judea at all is a later addition. The early Christian groups received their information about events and their scriptures from revelation alone. And it is revelation about things that happen in a heavenly world where the battle between Jesus and Demons took place.

Now at the time, the heavens were divided into various layers that corresponded with celestial bodies. And the lowest level, the one where Jesus was probably supposed to have been crucified by demons corresponded to the Moon.

And that's why the core story of Jesus doesn't actually make any sense. And also why most of the major events in the new testament are completely ahistorical. The slaughter of the innocents was not a thing that was supposed to have happened on Earth until the wave of euhemerization that happened after the fact. And also why the "rulers of the world" had to be tricked into saving mankind by killing Jesus. Because rulers who were humans would presumably be in favor of that sort of thing, but demonic rulers of a celestial realm were apparently not.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

The original Christian teachings are not actually passed from people who were "there" in Bethlehem. Indeed, the entire idea of it happening in Judea at all is a later addition. The early Christian groups received their information about events and their scriptures from revelation alone. And it is revelation about things that happen in a heavenly world where the battle between Jesus and Demons took place.

Now at the time, the heavens were divided into various layers that corresponded with celestial bodies. And the lowest level, the one where Jesus was probably supposed to have been crucified by demons corresponded to the Moon.

And that's why the core story of Jesus doesn't actually make any sense. And also why most of the major events in the new testament are completely ahistorical. The slaughter of the innocents was not a thing that was supposed to have happened on Earth until the wave of euhemerization that happened after the fact. And also why the "rulers of the world" had to be tricked into saving mankind by killing Jesus. Because rulers who were humans would presumably be in favor of that sort of thing, but demonic rulers of a celestial realm were apparently not.

-Username17

... huh?

Citation please?

---

That being said, that sounds like a slightly cooler movie.

If I watched movies instead of letting other people do that and absorbing the memes via cultural osmosis.

[Ancient History]

Early Christianity (the Apostalic Age forward) was spread by word-of-mouth, epistles, and some highly dubious gospels (and later, apocalypses!); there was a really bad signal-to-noise ratio as different groups of Jewish Christians and gentiles argued and struggled for supremacy. The four main gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) weren't complete and formalized until well into the 2nd century AD, and even then they weren't really concerned with an accurate portrayal of Jesus.

And that's all back when you could meet people who actually were supposed to have met and talked with Jesus. It took the First Council of Nicaea to really gel the New Testament.

[Stahlseele]

Early Christianity (the Apostalic Age forward) was spread by word-of-mouth, epistles, and some highly dubious gospels (and later, apocalypses!); there was a really bad signal-to-noise ratio as different groups of Jewish Christians and gentiles argued and struggled for supremacy. The four main gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) weren't complete and formalized until well into the 2nd century AD, and even then they weren't really concerned with an accurate portrayal of Jesus.

And that's all back when you could meet people who actually were supposed to have met and talked with Jesus. It took the First Council of Nicaea to really gel the New Testament.

not to be confused with the This Council of Nicaea

And my favourite celestials are still the Northern Gods.
Thor, Odin, Loki, the whole lot.

[Ancient History]

[Stahlseele]

good find ^^

[Cheiromancer]

I've enjoyed the pantheons of Elizabeth Moon's Paksenarrion series:Paksworld Religion. The evil deities are sort of abstract, but I think there is good mythic resonance in how they work. Nayda the Unnamer is not bad just because forgetfulness and the wearing away by time is bad, but because people do awful things in order to try to preserve their legacy and be remembered by future generations. Gitres the Unmaker can receive devotion by otherwise good people when they try to resist (and undo) change. Achrya is clearly a Lolth look-alike, but not badly done. Liart is good for his associated priesthood of torturers and bullies - they make good villains.

Followers of Gird are depicted as lawful good, but also narrow-minded, provincial and stubborn. The other good gods don't get as much exposure. I like how the High Lord has different names in the different pantheons. Elves mock the human conception of the figure they call the Singer; they say humans worship him as "the sorter of beans". I guess humans are more inclined to group and classify than elves.

Oh, and about the cult vs. religion thing. My impression is that membership in a cult has pretty definite boundaries; you are either in or you're out. A group with hazy membership (like the Roman Catholic Church) and lack of homogeneity is a long ways from a cult. That said, there are a lot of orthogonal dimensions along which a group can be more or less cultish. Imminent end of the world, renunciation of personal property, intense loyalty to the founder, distinction between the saved and the damned. It's all part of Christianity's history, and often of individual Christian's faith experience. Many Christians - and even some Roman Catholics - have an intense personal relationship with Jesus. Nuns and vowed priests and brothers pool their resources communally. Lately I haven't heard much about the fiery fate of unbelievers or the imminence of the second coming, but that's been a thing historically.

[John Magnum]

Lately I haven't heard much about the fiery fate of unbelievers or the imminence of the second coming, but that's been a thing historically.

This is entirely because you haven't been listening.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Early Christianity (the Apostalic Age forward) was spread by word-of-mouth, epistles, and some highly dubious gospels (and later, apocalypses!); there was a really bad signal-to-noise ratio as different groups of Jewish Christians and gentiles argued and struggled for supremacy. The four main gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) weren't complete and formalized until well into the 2nd century AD, and even then they weren't really concerned with an accurate portrayal of Jesus.

And that's all back when you could meet people who actually were supposed to have met and talked with Jesus. It took the First Council of Nicaea to really gel the New Testament.

I meant a citation for the, "on the moon," thing.

Lately I haven't heard much about the fiery fate of unbelievers or the imminence of the second coming, but that's been a thing historically.

This is entirely because you haven't been listening.

Yeah, there was supposed to be something last winter.

EDIT: I think it was something about an undersea city or something

[Username17]

I meant a citation for the, "on the moon," thing.

Sure. this one is kind of long, but it covers things decently well.

Edit: it should be noted that by far the strongest argument in favor of a historical Jesus is the fact that the story of his life is obviously a complete fabrication. No "census" took place in 1 BCE, and at that period people were not required to travel to the cities of their birth to be counted for such things in any case. No babies were massacred by King Herod or anyone else at the time.

The argument goes: if there wasn't a historical dude upon which the Christian faith is based, why wouldn't the story be cleaner and less obviously false? If the prophecy required a dude born in David's town of Bethlehem, why not just have Jesus of Bethlehem in the first place? Constructing an elaborate and obviously false narrative for why "Jesus of Nazareth" was secretly really born in Bethlehem and not Nazareth is rather a lot of work for a purely fictional character.

The problem with this line of argument, is that the different works don't bother matching each other in any other important detail either. So the different authors who are trying to work in various prophecies are obviously working on different prophecies. When Matthew brings in the Massacre of the Innocents, it is to fulfill a prophecy of Jeremiah. But none of the other accounts bother trying to work that one in. So since you obviously and already have multiple authors making shit up to claim that various different prophecies were fulfilled, it's not really much of a stretch that they'd been talking about Nazareth for some time before someone noticed that the Messiah of David's line was also supposed to be born in David's town. And don't even get me started about the fact that he claims divine lineage through virgin birth, but claims messianic lineage through Joseph.

-Username17

[name_here]

Strictly speaking, Catholics kind of won the big Christian/Nonchristian debates before all the other currently major denominations even existed. Chances are, if it's a Christian denomination you've heard of, it's directly descended from Catholic/Orthodox Christianity (which were the same until the Iconoclastic Controversy when the Patriarch of Constantinople declared that having icons of religious figures was idol worship and heretical, and the Patriarch of Rome said it was fine)

There's not really any strict divide between cults in the modern sense of the term and religions. Some groups basically say that every religion except theirs is a cult.

[RobbyPants]

And that's all back when you could meet people who actually were supposed to have met and talked with Jesus. It took the First Council of Nicaea to really gel the New Testament.

From what I understand, the First Council of Nicaea didn't have anything to do with establishing Biblical canon, and is even mentioned in the link you provided. That notion was popularized in The DaVinci Code. That being said, Biblical canon was in flux for the first two centuries or so.

[Ancient History]

Another problem is that there's enough material between the different gospels to show that they were based on the same (or very similar) source documents - ur-gospels which contain very close accounts of events and sayings and such. So they're very obviously not eye-witness accounts because they're too consistent in some places and too inconsistent in others. It's really just a bunch of historical novels based on some earlier historical novel(s).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_gospels

And, back on subject, you don't see this a lot in fantasy religions because presumably the deities in question can pop on down for a spot of tea and to lightning bolt some heretics and give the Official Version. The only time you do really see this kind of thing is when you get a fantasy religion where the gods are a) not directly interventionary and/or b) obviously based on a real world religion. For example, Robert M. Price wrote short stories about the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Qu'ran, and the Book of Mormon vis-a-vis the Cthulhu Mythos.

[/edit]Re: First Council of Nicaea. Mea culpa. I always get confused when it comes to the apochrypha.

[Wiseman]

Heck, I'm a christian and I have no idea what any of you are talking about...