Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => CCP Public Library => Topic started by: Louella Dougans on 02 May 2010, 01:38
-
(https://i.imgur.com/gtXvbAy.png)
Dates of splits:
Khanid Cults are from somewhere before space travel.
Tetrimon is from when the Mad Emperor and the Moral Reforms started, at the dawn of Amarr space travel.
Ammatar Church is from when the Ammatar came about. Somewhere between the Amarr invasion and the establishment of the Mandate.
Space Nuns, hurr.
Sani Sabik, is ancient, from before Amarr space travel started.
Evil Space Nuns, lolz.
Takmahl, is a Sani Sabik offshoot, from the start of Amarr Space travel.
Blood Raiders are an offshoot of Sani Sabik, with possible Takmahl influence. Date is unknown.
Blood Sephrim - a recent offshoot from Blood Raiders.
Flame of Peace is a recent cult, mentioned in a mission.
Equilibrium of Mankind comes shortly after Amarr space travel. Seekers of a Silent Paradise are an offshoot.
Kernherism is an Avetatist-Tothist offshoot of Reformist Amarr, which is a heresy. Kernherism may be the most dangerous heresy to have appeared in recent times.
Sources:
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Equilibrium_of_Mankind
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Sani_Sabik
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=City_of_God
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Zaragram_II
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=The_Cult_of_Tetrimon_%28Chronicle%29
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Order_of_St._Tetrimon
http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Khanid_(bloodline)#Zealots
https://www.eveonline.com/article/orthodox-amarr-faith-increasingly-supplanting-ammatar-church - Ammatar Church mention
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/jowen/Amarr_COSMOS_guide_by_Jowen_Datloran_v1.2.pdf
https://www.eveonline.com/article/new-organisation-emerges-in-empire-outskirts - Blood Sephrim mention
https://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=413638 - post by Blood Sephrim leader
Original post below
[spoiler]Dates of splits:
Khanid Cults are from somewhere before space travel.
Tetrimon is from when the Mad Emperor and the Moral Reforms started.
Ammatar Church is from when the Ammatar came about, naturally.
Space Nuns, hurr.
Sani Sabik, is ancient, from before Amarr space travel started.
Takmahl, I've put at around the same time as the Mad Emperor which is shortly after Amarr Space travel started, and about the same time as Tetrimon and the Moral Reforms began.
Blood Raiders I've put as an offshoot of Sani Sabik, with possible Takmahl influence. Date is unknown, but is several hundred years, I think.
Blood Sephrim - a recent offshoot from Blood Raiders.
Flame of Peace is a recent cult, mentioned in a mission.
Equilibrium of Mankind, is problematic. The background mentions things like "5000 years ago" which would be before Amarr space travel, so I've put that as a "??" for origin.
Sources:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Equilibrium_of_Mankind
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sani_Sabik
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/City_of_God
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Zaragram_II
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/The_Cult_of_Tetrimon_%28Chronicle%29
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Khanid#Zealots
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3377&tid=2 - Ammatar Church mention
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/jowen/Amarr_COSMOS_guide_by_Jowen_Datloran_v1.2.pdf
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=413638 - Blood Sephrim
[/spoiler]
-
Only problem for me in there is the fact that the 'Amarr mainstream' consists of so many different variations of worship from region to region, planet to planet, from family to family, that in itself you can find more variation than in these cults that have come out to the fore.
I think that there is a few things that set these cults aside, it is because they differ in few dogmatic issues.
Let me be a bit more clear.
Mainstream:
There is one God.
God is good.
Emperor is the Viceroy of God.
Emperor leads the Empire from the Golden Throne.
Slavery is a way to keep those that would make poor choices spiritually from making them.
Slavery is a way to do penance in the eyes of God.
Inheritance of Sin.
Sanctity of Flesh.
Reclaiming is a sacred duty given to His people by God.
The Holy Amarrian Empire was created to cultivate the spirit of Man.
The Amarrians are the Chosen of God. (linked to inheritance of sin, sanctity of flesh.)
Khanid cults:
King Khanid is the true viceroy of God.
Flesh in itself is not sacred, it is what you do it is that matters in the eyes of God (cyberknights.)
Sani Sabik:
There is no Sin.
The weak are there to uplift the few to greatness.
Equilibrium of Mankind:
There is no Reclaiming, those not dedicated to God should be destroyed.
Tetrimon:
Emperor is the viceroy of God, he should lead the Empire with the council of Apostles, not as a despot.
Takhmahl:
All are created by God, as equal, all are divine.
The shape given by God at birth is not important you can mold it to your will through science/religion.
Keep in mind that these are just rough representations of the cults in question as perceived by me, these 'guidelines' here are just here to make it more clear to you that there is quite a lot of similarities between these different cults that have stemmed off the mainstream of the Amarrian religion and they really do not differ that much from the mainstream in a dogmatic sense.
In practise, even a small change in the dogma can turn a religious Amarrian into a blood drinking ghoul who praises the Red God so that he would gain the strength to be closer to God.
I would like to thank Lou for putting together this visual representation as a guideline for those interested in the Amarrian religion and its cults.
Of course as a discussion about these things there are really no rights or wrongs, partially because of the fact that CCP has not given that much information on the Amarrian religion to the playerbase, partially because every Amarrian roleplayer has touched on these subjects when playing their character and has made their own piecemeal representation of religion that they themselves subject their characters to.
Anyhoos, brekkies ahoy!
-
Interesting. I thought the Takmahl were an ancient civilization contemporary with the Sleepers and Yan Jung, or have I confused them with someone else?
-
There was the Talocan, which may be? contemporary with Sleepers. I don't know about the timescale for those two though.
According to the Gallente cosmos background stuff, Yan Jung were original colonists, so may be a lot older than either.
-
Talocan, that's who I had in mind. Thank you.
So, apart from the 'space nuns', do any of the variations listed above have strong emphasis on what we'd today call "social justice" or, in some religious traditions, "the social Gospel"? I'm thinking here of something vaguely in line with the Sisters of EVE.
-
Catch all would be "A Khanid Cult does that"
Of the listed variations, there really, really isn't much information about them at all. Which makes it hard to say.
-
Please note that I know practically nothing about the Amarr religions...
Sani Sabik:
There is no Sin.
I find that difficult to rationalise. Do you mean that they don't accept the traditional Amarrian definition of Sin (but there are still things that they consider as taboo or out of bounds) or that there really are no behaviors proscribed by their religion?
-
Personally I believe that it is more of the former than the latter.
All religions have taboos and ways of doing things, if you break those taboos or go against the grain in doing things you usually will be considered to break the will of the divinity that is being worshipped.
I doubt that the Sani Sabik would go around waving pitchforks and torches if someone refused to take an opportunity to seize more power when possible they would seek to seize it for themselves instead, there is probably a very strong survival of the fittest thing going on in their circles on many different levels which makes the machinations of the Holders seem mild in comparison.
Of course as a cult it is quite varied and probably littered with different personality cults that are more or less shortlived.
Just look at the Blood Raiders, a personality cult based on the Sani Sabik dogma.
There are several differences between the Blood Raiders and the mainstream Amarr religion.
They believe that the blood of clones is of the purest kind, therefore removing the aspect of Amarrian religion for Amarrians from the whole thing, opening it up for all the different bloodlines.
Their views on slavery are quite a lot harsher than for the mainstream religion, basically using slaves as a workforce and a blood farm to satisfy their religious need for blood.
Since the need for blood is so essential in their cult, they have replaced a lot of the spiritual aspects of the Amarrian religion with just the act of acquiring blood and sacrificing it to their God. When you have such a central and overriding aspect of a religion then basically for them the only Sin would be inability to acquire more blood to their God.
Nothing else matters.
Only blood.
Of course you have the fundies that spend their days hunting for more and more blood to the altar (and bathing) and the regular folk that go to the temple on sundays to spill blood on the altar which they buy from the vending machine in the front.
So as you might notice, religion is filled with so many different aspects and personal nuances so that you could spend your time talking about it until the cows come home.
-
Talocan, that's who I had in mind. Thank you.
So, apart from the 'space nuns', do any of the variations listed above have strong emphasis on what we'd today call "social justice" or, in some religious traditions, "the social Gospel"? I'm thinking here of something vaguely in line with the Sisters of EVE.
Social justice might be the province of The Speakers of Truth.
It's possible that there are hundreds of officially recognised religious orders (The Speakers, the Ammatar Church and the Cult of Catechization are three examples from the PF) so there's probably at least a few that focus on charitable works.
-
Other than the brief mentions of the Ammatar turning in greater numbers to the core Amarr rites, do we know anything else about that church? Does RL have an appropriate analogue to the various churches / rites within the Amarr religion? I'm not Catholic, but it strikes me that this is probably modelled on at least some parts of that tradition. I don't know about other faith traditions in this vein, though.
-
The Ammatar church may have predated the 'Ammatar', in that it may have evolved from a Nefantar adaptation of the Amarrian faith prior to the 23216 uprising, when Amarr ruled over what is now the Minmatar republic.
I quote the relevant statement from the Ammatar chronicle (http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=dec03):
The Ammatars are descendants of Minmatars that collaborated with the Amarrians during the latter occupation of the Minmatar worlds.
-
Updated with the new information on the evelopedia.
An interesting point, is to note the influence of SPACE TRAVEL on Amarr religions.
Prior to space travel, there were, on Athra, the Orthodox Amarr church, some Khanid cults, and the Sani sabik heretics.
Within a very short period of time, a century or two, i.e. probably within the lifetime of an upper Holder, there sprang up the EoM, and the Takmahl, and the Cult of Tetrimon.
The significance of Space Travel is not to be overlooked.
-
Aw sweet, SASPR made it on the timeline! \o/
-
Prior to space travel, there were, on Athra, the Orthodox Amarr church, some Khanid cults, and the Sani sabik heretics.
Within a very short period of time, a century or two, i.e. probably within the lifetime of an upper Holder, there sprang up the EoM, and the Takmahl, and the Cult of Tetrimon.
This article on the Evelopedia does explain that somewhat (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Unchallenged_Era_of_the_Amarr_Empire#Sani_Sabik_Uprising) - suggesting that the Empire had difficulty policing religious tendencies in a rapidly expanding domain.
However, it also makes it quite clear that the Takmahl never existed in the Empire, but that they were founded by Sabik fugitives.
-
Personally I believe that it is more of the former than the latter.
All religions have taboos and ways of doing things, if you break those taboos or go against the grain in doing things you usually will be considered to break the will of the divinity that is being worshipped.
I doubt that the Sani Sabik would go around waving pitchforks and torches if someone refused to take an opportunity to seize more power when possible they would seek to seize it for themselves instead, there is probably a very strong survival of the fittest thing going on in their circles on many different levels which makes the machinations of the Holders seem mild in comparison.
Of course as a cult it is quite varied and probably littered with different personality cults that are more or less shortlived.
Just look at the Blood Raiders, a personality cult based on the Sani Sabik dogma.
There are several differences between the Blood Raiders and the mainstream Amarr religion.
They believe that the blood of clones is of the purest kind, therefore removing the aspect of Amarrian religion for Amarrians from the whole thing, opening it up for all the different bloodlines.
Their views on slavery are quite a lot harsher than for the mainstream religion, basically using slaves as a workforce and a blood farm to satisfy their religious need for blood.
Since the need for blood is so essential in their cult, they have replaced a lot of the spiritual aspects of the Amarrian religion with just the act of acquiring blood and sacrificing it to their God. When you have such a central and overriding aspect of a religion then basically for them the only Sin would be inability to acquire more blood to their God.
Nothing else matters.
Only blood.
Of course you have the fundies that spend their days hunting for more and more blood to the altar (and bathing) and the regular folk that go to the temple on sundays to spill blood on the altar which they buy from the vending machine in the front.
So as you might notice, religion is filled with so many different aspects and personal nuances so that you could spend your time talking about it until the cows come home.
I'm not sure it's true that the Sani Sabik don't believe in sin.
I think where the main difference between Sani Sabik is the belief that some people are selected savants (i.e. supermen), and everyone else is destined to serve them. Even a person of low birth, such as a commoner, could potentially be one of these savants.
On the other hand, the Amarrians believe that greatness can only be passed down through one's lineage/ heritage.
So if Orthodox Amarrian was compared to Roman Catholicism, then Sani Sabik would be like Protestantism. Instead of a Catholic priest reading to his audience in Latin from a chained book, Martin Luther would be telling everyone they can own and read their own Gutenberg Bibles in German.
The Sani Sabik religion started out as a moderate departure, and then it mutated and just became weirder and weirder.
There are thousands of different sects of Sani Sabik, from the mild Gallente social circle of sharing your own blood voluntarily with your own friends, to the Blood Raider's extreme use of force and kidnapping to extract blood from others.
I think that there is a hedonistic sect of the Blood Raiders, and they probably believe that their sins are being washed away, but some BR's such as Naupilius see Sani Sabik and the BRs as merely a means of reinforcing of the lost elements of Orthodox Amarrian faith.
For me, the danger Sani Sabik posed to the Empire wasn't the use of blood in their rituals, it was because Sani Sabik would undermine the social order of Amarr Feudalism. Now, EVERY man (or woman) could potentially be ruler.
-
things don't seem to have changed since the time this was originally posted
dunno if that's good or bad
-
So if Orthodox Amarrian was compared to Roman Catholicism, then Sani Sabik would be like Protestantism. Instead of a Catholic priest reading to his audience in Latin from a chained book, Martin Luther would be telling everyone they can own and read their own Gutenberg Bibles in German.
No, not at all. If Orthodox Amarr is to be compared to Roman Catholicism, then Protestantism would be the churches of Khanid Holders (as long as they don't stray into outright heresy). Sani Sabik would be more like... well, I don't see anything like them within the scope of Christianity and the offshoots of it deemed heretic by the churches.
Sani Sabik are neither embracing the moral freedom and spiritual autonomy of the individual that Protestantism did, nor the moral responsibility of the superior man (who establishes his superiority through this responsibility) to the subordinate.
Rather, they take the worst of the two worlds: They claim there are superior man (savants) but don't bind them to moral responsibility, but rather say they are morally free: Which here means freedom from responsibility.
Both individual autonomy as well as social responsibility follow the dictum that it is more important that what you do is right, than that you have the power to do it. Sani Sabikism is founded on the idea that might makes right - an idea that ultimately leads to the dissolution of any social order, supplanting it with asociality that might be ordered.
So, it's not that the Amarr feared for their feudal order (that said, they don't really have a feudal order), but they rightly saw that the Sabikism endangered sociality at large.
-
There is a phrase I read in the lore ages ago, and damned if I remember where it is now, about the Blood Raiders. The artistic licence in the phrase is they 'saw the edge of space' -- with the strong inference of that phrase meaning that they went mad.
I myself haven't researched too closely into the subtle differences between the Sani Sabik and actual Blood Raiders, save that blood raiders are, generally, insane Sani Sabik, and that even Sani Sabik, scripture adhering or not (which with the actual size of the Scriptures isn't that hard), are considered dangerous to the coherence of the Empire.
To not be treading the lines of heresy in the Empire is very easy. Do what the Theology Council says - which is this group of.. wait.. mortal humans. Right!
Which when you think about it, it sort of makes the whole Khanid Kingdom civil war and formation slightly amusing, and makes you wonder exactly why that Amarr symbol got sent back upside down as an official response from Khanid. There were assumptions made. But one should know with an Amarrian discussion to never do that. ;)
But that aside aside, It is ALWAYS best for EVERYONE that if you're going to draw comparison from real life history to realize this -- "a is similar to b" is not equivalent to "a = b" -- especially in EVE lore, which though we're descended from modern humanity (albeit modern humanity who may or may not have existed in a parrallel universe with fluid space) several tens of thousands of years is a pretty long time for things to mutate so far from "similar to" to nearly reach "not anything like it at all" = aka gaining actual originality.
-
So if Orthodox Amarrian was compared to Roman Catholicism, then Sani Sabik would be like Protestantism. Instead of a Catholic priest reading to his audience in Latin from a chained book, Martin Luther would be telling everyone they can own and read their own Gutenberg Bibles in German.
No, not at all. If Orthodox Amarr is to be compared to Roman Catholicism, then Protestantism would be the churches of Khanid Holders (as long as they don't stray into outright heresy). Sani Sabik would be more like... well, I don't see anything like them within the scope of Christianity and the offshoots of it deemed heretic by the churches.
Sani Sabik are neither embracing the moral freedom and spiritual autonomy of the individual that Protestantism did, nor the moral responsibility of the superior man (who establishes his superiority through this responsibility) to the subordinate.
Rather, they take the worst of the two worlds: They claim there are superior man (savants) but don't bind them to moral responsibility, but rather say they are morally free: Which here means freedom from responsibility.
Both individual autonomy as well as social responsibility follow the dictum that it is more important that what you do is right, than that you have the power to do it. Sani Sabikism is founded on the idea that might makes right - an idea that ultimately leads to the dissolution of any social order, supplanting it with asociality that might be ordered.
So, it's not that the Amarr feared for their feudal order (that said, they don't really have a feudal order), but they rightly saw that the Sabikism endangered sociality at large.
Well, the way you describe Sani Sabik does make it sound like Satanism, which I suppose you could consider an offshoot of Christianity even if it is just an inversion of it. It runs a full spectrum from mild to wild, from a Gallente pop star voluntarily sharing her own blood with friends, right up to the 'Son of Sam' types who murder because 'Satan' apparently instructed them to.
Even if you accept Anton LaVey's version/ definition of Satanism, (although he does emphasize personal and moral responsibility, for the reasons you described) there is still the element of 'might makes right' in his religion. He describes his church as 'Ayn Rand with ritual'. The main difference is that I think most LaVey Satanists don't believe in any God, they are just Atheists with a dark sense of humor.
I suppose like 'Satanism', there might be soft and innocuous elements to draw you in at first, such as the pagan festival of Halloween (or that nursery rhyme about Bloody Omir). Once you get the little tykes to start dressing up like ghosts and Goblins to collect candy, you move them into the Heavy Metal music and the drugs, and so on.
-
Satanism in the sense of theists actually worshipping a deity named Lucifer or Satan is largely a misnomer and a combination of Hollywood and media hype. For the most part, it has never existed in that form. Even Luciferians are simply a very odd form of atheism that utilize Lucifer as an archetype.
-
Satanism in the sense of theists actually worshipping a deity named Lucifer or Satan is largely a misnomer and a combination of Hollywood and media hype. For the most part, it has never existed in that form. Even Luciferians are simply a very odd form of atheism that utilize Lucifer as an archetype.
Well, I meant Satanism from the perspective of the fantasy Hollywood and media hype. Blood, murder, weird rituals.
There is a 'real' Church of Satan which started in the 1960s, but it's essentially the Luciferians you described.
-
Yah, Blood Raiders are like 'Hollywood Satanism'. In reality though souch groups are virtually non-existing as a-sociality rarely lends itself to the formation of stable groups, especially if there are more social alternatives.
-
The closest I can think of in the real world is a very specific subgroup of Setians. But even they are considered absurd by other Setians - absurd to the point of virtually everyone accusing them of lying about their beliefs for attention. Which is probably the case.
-
The closest I can think of in the real world is a very specific subgroup of Setians. But even they are considered absurd by other Setians - absurd to the point of virtually everyone accusing them of lying about their beliefs for attention. Which is probably the case.
Yah, there are also some neo-nazi satanist occult groups which fit that bill.
-
Yah, Blood Raiders are like 'Hollywood Satanism'. In reality though souch groups are virtually non-existing as a-sociality rarely lends itself to the formation of stable groups, especially if there are more social alternatives.
Well the only problem with saying stuff like 'Satanism doesn't exist' is that any idiot can listen to a rock music record backwards, light some black candles and wear an upside down pentacle, and call themselves a Satanist. I suppose you are right in that this barely qualifies as even a virtual existence, and it's certainly not a group.
Someone pointed out that Satanism didn't exist in the Middle ages, but to my knowledge there were a few groups during the Black plague who figured that since God had abandoned them, well maybe Satan would help. Faust summoning Mephisto for example.
So hmm, maybe we can say that Sani Sabik would be more like the Thugee religion instead?
-
First, I don't think that "listen to a rock music record backwards, light some black candles and wear an upside down pentacle, and call themselves a Satanist" qualifies as being a stereotypical 'Hollywood Satanist', who kills kittens for fun and then rapes little girls and sacrifces them to Satan...
Second, the Story of Faust summoning Mephisto is really more fiction than history and it's alluding to the flowering of Renaissance magic. (It's not a mediaeval story.) It's not about acquiring power (What Sabikism is about), but knowledge and (self-)insight. That's why Mephisto eventually fails to pull Faust over to the dark side in the story.
Third, the Thugee had historically probably more social reasosn to robbery and murder than religious ones, borne out of necessity through poverty. While colonial sources ascribe religious motives to them that circled around them born from Kali's sweat and killing people to feed her, so that she wouldn't devour all humanity, it's documented that also Sikhs and Muslims were Thugees - and they certainly wouldn't join a Hindu assasin cult. That said, even the Thugees motives as ascribed by the colonical sources don't show the a-social ethos that PF ascribes to Sabikism.
I really think there is no non-fictional equivalent to the Sani Sabik to be found (with the excaeption of 'light' or 'popularized' forms of Sabikism, like the circle of Gallenteans that shares their own blood or get themselves seriously sick, because they drank a black cats blood for more 'recreational' reasons. They don't really qualify as being strictly Sani Sabik, imho, though.)
-
Second, the Story of Faust summoning Mephisto is really more fiction than history and it's alluding to the flowering of Renaissance magic. (It's not a mediaeval story.) It's not about acquiring power (What Sabikism is about), but knowledge and (self-)insight. That's why Mephisto eventually fails to pull Faust over to the dark side in the story.
This. If anyone is interested in reading about Renaissance magic, hermeticism, and superstition, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition is a fantastic book on the subject. While there was a significant amount of the hermetic occurring during the time period, none of the people involved could remotely be referred to as Satanists in the Hollywood sense or in any other sense, for that matter. The same is true for most of the medieval and Renaissance (it happened in both) demonologists.
-
I'd have suggested H. C. Agrippa's De occulta philosophia libri tres, but then I generally prefer primary sources.
-
I'd have suggested H. C. Agrippa's De occulta philosophia libri tres, but then I generally prefer primary sources.
Primary sources are obviously great, but one of the main benefits to contemporary academic works is that they often will include smaller or lesser known primary works that are more difficult to find because they are not published in and of themselves. Also, they can provide a variety of context that can be missing from primary sources. So while Agrippa is obviously important, there were many others within the tradition or on the outskirts of it that people may not have heard of if they just read Agrippa. This can also apply to journal articles that explore smaller or specific topics or people that scholars are not quite ready to publish an entire book on yet.
-
Pretty sure the Agrippa is a destroyer in Babylon 5. You guys are waaaay off the mark here, clearly.
-
Primary sources are obviously great, but one of the main benefits to contemporary academic works is that they often will include smaller or lesser known primary works that are more difficult to find because they are not published in and of themselves. Also, they can provide a variety of context that can be missing from primary sources. So while Agrippa is obviously important, there were many others within the tradition or on the outskirts of it that people may not have heard of if they just read Agrippa. This can also apply to journal articles that explore smaller or specific topics or people that scholars are not quite ready to publish an entire book on yet.
I agree, there is something to be said for not only studying a single primary source - and even though I'd say that Agrippa's three books give a quite nice overview, it simply lacks giving context like a contemporary study does. So unless one plans to dive head first into the various treatises of renaissance magic, I agree that startign with a contemporary study is the way to go.
I'd still suggest to go on with Agrippa after reading e.g. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Having the background of that it's much more worthwhile to study Agrippa's three books, if one wants to delve deeper. On the other hand, if one really wants to get in deeper, one certainly needs to read the three books, as they on the one hand collected most of the knowledge of their time and on the other informed almost everything that followed.
-
Lets just all watch the anime Rental Magica, that'll fix this conversation good.
When discussion a *fiction* which is EVE, this is as good a source as any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2F4cnY5Bc
/me slinks off.
-
Lets just all watch the anime Rental Magica, that'll fix this conversation good.
When discussion a *fiction* which is EVE, this is as good a source as any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2F4cnY5Bc
/me slinks off.
No. I take fiction-writing as seriously as I take writing project papers.
If you enjoy doing something, you might as well be doing it seriously. I am very serious with my fun.
-
So speaking of Satan, on the wiki it says that Molok the Deceiver went through a sort of historical deification after his death, becoming a spirit of temptation. A logical step in that process would be some people actually worshiping Molok. Or at least imagining that other people worship Molok, just as imagining that people worship Satan has probably always exceeded actual Satan worship.
In game and on the IGS, I have Nauplius accusing some of his in-character adversaries of Molok worship.
-
So speaking of Satan, on the wiki it says that Molok the Deceiver went through a sort of historical deification after his death, becoming a spirit of temptation. A logical step in that process would be some people actually worshiping Molok. Or at least imagining that other people worship Molok, just as imagining that people worship Satan has probably always exceeded actual Satan worship.
In game and on the IGS, I have Nauplius accusing some of his in-character adversaries of Molok worship.
That was a pretty standard way of accusing someone of heresy.
-
Lets just all watch the anime Rental Magica, that'll fix this conversation good.
When discussion a *fiction* which is EVE, this is as good a source as any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2F4cnY5Bc
/me slinks off.
No. I take fiction-writing as seriously as I take writing project papers.
If you enjoy doing something, you might as well be doing it seriously. I am very serious with my fun.
I kind of agree. We have been discussing RL inspirations for/comparisons to Blood Raiders here for a bit. I just think one should have ones sources right if one does so. It helps a lot with getting ones facts straight.
-
Lets just all watch the anime Rental Magica, that'll fix this conversation good.
When discussion a *fiction* which is EVE, this is as good a source as any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2F4cnY5Bc
/me slinks off.
No. I take fiction-writing as seriously as I take writing project papers.
If you enjoy doing something, you might as well be doing it seriously. I am very serious with my fun.
This.
It is as important to conduct research when writing a fictional setting as it is when writing a non-fiction one. It's what separates good fiction from bad fiction.
Just because fiction depicts events that have never actually happened does not mean that you can't or shouldn't draw upon events that did happen for reference and inspiration. LotR for example was a piece with heavy academic background, which is why it was so believable.
Studying the collective human experience is important anytime you are trying to convey the human experience, and writing is all about the human experience.
So speaking of Satan, on the wiki it says that Molok the Deceiver went through a sort of historical deification after his death, becoming a spirit of temptation. A logical step in that process would be some people actually worshiping Molok. Or at least imagining that other people worship Molok, just as imagining that people worship Satan has probably always exceeded actual Satan worship.
In game and on the IGS, I have Nauplius accusing some of his in-character adversaries of Molok worship.
Likewise, some characters consider Nauplius the worshipper of Molok. :D
Of course, in Amarr Molok, like hell, is usually viewed less as an actual spirit or demon and more as just general temptation and self-doubt, which makes him a bit different from being the classical Satan figure. Something like Christadelphian belief of Satan, or general demythologization. But it can be expected that a lot of people would still view him in an anthropomorphized way.
-
Lets just all watch the anime Rental Magica, that'll fix this conversation good.
When discussion a *fiction* which is EVE, this is as good a source as any.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2F4cnY5Bc
/me slinks off.
No. I take fiction-writing as seriously as I take writing project papers.
If you enjoy doing something, you might as well be doing it seriously. I am very serious with my fun.
This.
It is as important to conduct research when writing a fictional setting as it is when writing a non-fiction one. It's what separates good fiction from bad fiction.
Just because fiction depicts events that have never actually happened does not mean that you can't or shouldn't draw upon events that did happen for reference and inspiration. LotR for example was a piece with heavy academic background, which is why it was so believable.
Studying the collective human experience is important anytime you are trying to convey the human experience, and writing is all about the human experience.
Have you any idea just how much work I had to put in just to get one chapter of fanfiction done and posted? I mean serious, I ended up studying tons about historical swordfighting and warfare just so I can depict fighting with raw quality. I had to sit down and think about how certain characters would act for fifteen minutes before I start writing that bit down. I look at every line of dialogue and kept asking myself 'Is this what that character would had said in that situation to this other character?' I would love to say naming is the hardest part of writing but really? It isn't. I just boot up a name generator, choose a theme and click a button. Everything else, from towns to city state governance to architecture to period costume to, well, even food, I had to research. Alot.
It's actually pretty damn fun.
-
Yup. For every bit of writing I do, 90% of it is consumed by research. Which is why a lot of it never gets finished but hey! <.<
-
Anyone who thinks their fiction is not based on real life and other fiction is delusional. All fiction is inspired by something, derived from something. The difference is whether the writer is aware of those influences and attempts to handle them intelligently.
+1 for research.
-
again. Like =/= is.
If they weren't packed in 14 boxes I woud take pics of the rams of books on Roman, Etruscan, Greek and other warfare books for a fiction book that had fuckall to do with, nor could barelt be compared to, greeks, romans, and etruscans, because someone swinging a sword is not immediately idefitifiable as THE ROMAN STYLE.
-
again. Like =/= is.
If they weren't packed in 14 boxes I woud take pics of the rams of books on Roman, Etruscan, Greek and other warfare books for a fiction book that had fuckall to do with, nor could barelt be compared to, greeks, romans, and etruscans, because someone swinging a sword is not immediately idefitifiable as THE ROMAN STYLE.
Have you ever wondered where inspiration come from? Half out out serendipity and the other half out of research. Every swordfighting method has predecessors, which in turn has their own predecessors. This is the march of progress. To write good swordfighting scene, we study all those: the theory behind it, the concept of geometry, how to act and how to counter-act in different situations, the frame of mind of the guy holding the sword, the stances, etc etc. Then we add our own spin into it.
Personally, I'm a big fan of German school of swordfighting. Economy of motion, man!
-
*sigh*
Like =/= is.
But This seems to be CONFUSING PEOPLE.
Before I get SO offended by the topic I stick my foot in my mouth and get banned?
I'm out.
-
No one here has said that like = is.
Like is like, and so you research things that are like what you are writing about to get inspiration and a starting point from which to base off of.
-
No one here has said that like = is.
Like is like, and so you research things that are like what you are writing about to get inspiration and a starting point from which to base off of.
You conveyed your point in one sentence while I do the same with one paragraph. That's something I should work on.
-
So speaking of Satan, on the wiki it says that Molok the Deceiver went through a sort of historical deification after his death, becoming a spirit of temptation. A logical step in that process would be some people actually worshiping Molok. Or at least imagining that other people worship Molok, just as imagining that people worship Satan has probably always exceeded actual Satan worship.
In game and on the IGS, I have Nauplius accusing some of his in-character adversaries of Molok worship.
Well, from what Wikipedia says about Satan, I would say that Molok is more like the Satan of Zoroastrianism, who is also called the deceiver.
Actually, this wikipedia entry on Angra Mainyu (Satan) also mentions Mithra, who some say is a precursor to Jesus Christ. Mithra was born on December 25th of a virgin in a manger, etc.
I find this pretty fascinating. When I think of the Orthodox Amarrian religion I imagine it as a form of Mithra-ism. Mithra was a Persian war God, popular with the Roman army. Amarrian culture is traditionally portrayed as a combination of Ancient Rome and Persian culture.
Mithra is portrayed in statues as a man slaying a bull with a sword. I don't know what the Amarrian symbol actually represents, but it does look an awful lot like a pair of bull's horns, ears, and a head.
Worship of Mithra involved the sacrifice of an animal, often a lamb. Initiates stood in a pit beneath the sacrificial altar, and looked up through the hole. The blood of the slaughtered animal fell on their head and faces, 'baptizing' them. That initiate was considered to have been 'cleansed of their sins by the blood of the lamb'.
This might explain somewhat why Sani Sabik was at first tolerated, and even popular sect from the Orthodox Amarrian religion.
Otherwise, I had trouble wrapping my head around the whole idea that human sacrifice, or the 'blooding' tradition was in any way tolerable or conceivable to the Orthodox Amarrians at all, or at least when the two religions began on Athra.
Sani Sabik wasn't an religion invented whole cloth with no tradition, as Satanism would be. The separation of the two Churches was gradual, not immediate, as it would be for someone that openly defied the teachings of the church. Rather, Sani Sabik started as a part of the Orthodox church that became more extremist, but for some reason still identified with the mainline church when they splintered off.
For example, the Anglican church differs from the Catholic church on issues such as Gay marriage, divorce and women priests. Otherwise, the Anglican church has more in common (rituals, etc.) with Catholicism than it does with most Protestant denominations.
So what would blood actually have to do with the Orthodox Amarrian religion?
I can only imagine that blood must also play some part in the Orthodox Amarrian religion, either in the symbolic consumption of blood in the form of sacramental wine (as in Catholicism), or the actual slaughtering of an animal (or slave) upon the altar such as Mithra-ism.
Heresy is a provocative belief at a variance with established beliefs. (e.g. Catholicism / Anglican)
Apostasy is a renunciation of the established beliefs of one's religion. (e.g Christianity/ Islam)
Blasphemy is irreverence towards one's religion. (e.g. Christianity/ Satanism)
The Sani Sabik are heretics, not Apostates nor blasphemers.
The Duchess Odelya might be interested to know (unless she is already aware) that Mithra-ism even has a sacred text known as The Khorda Avesta (Book of Common Prayer).
I love this idea of slaughtering a sacrificial animal upon the altar as part of my character's religious beliefs. I like roleplaying in the cultural (and religious) traditions of Ancient Rome, and adding in the Persian culture on top just makes it all the better.
Also, why not read up on Mithra-ism as well as Zoroastrianism? As someone else has said, doing research in real life history adds a lot of depth to your fiction (and roleplay).
Likewise, some characters consider Nauplius the worshipper of Molok. :D
Of course, in Amarr Molok, like hell, is usually viewed less as an actual spirit or demon and more as just general temptation and self-doubt, which makes him a bit different from being the classical Satan figure. Something like Christadelphian belief of Satan, or general demythologization. But it can be expected that a lot of people would still view him in an anthropomorphized way.
Of course, Molok was an actual false God from Biblical times. Babies were sacrificed on the altar to honor him. Molok has since become a metaphor for any costly, needless sacrifice.
I imagine that whomever wrote the story of Amash-Akura was aware of this. The name wasn't simply invented. I recognized the name 'Moloch' immediately from a scene in Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis' where human sacrifices were being tossed into the mouth of an idol.
What does the story of Amash-Akura and his sacrifice of the human Molok upon the altar mean? Perhaps it is like a reverse version of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.
Jesus was the sacrifice of God's own son to God himself. Jesus did this in order to save all of humanity from death. This is historically significant to non-Christians because it meant that Christianity did not require the sacrifice of children, as other pagan religions of Europe did. Understandably, Christianity became quite popular with anyone that was a parent.
Likewise, Molok (taken from the name of a god that demanded children's blood) was a deceiver (fooled you, but was exposed as a fraud). The Emperor Amash-Akura sacrificed Molok upon the altar as a 'gift' to God, as opposed to merely slaying a traitor or criminal.
It is interesting to note that as a gift to God, ritual sacrifices must be of the highest possible quality. For example, Abel's lamb was an acceptable sacrifice in God's eyes, but Cain's wheat was not. Abel's lamb was the best of his flock, but Cain's saved the best wheat for himself. You don't try to save a few shekels with a second rate sacrifice.
'Sacrifice' also implies that there is a loss. It hurts you on some level to perform that ritual. Molok must have been a close friend or powerful ally, or even a powerful enemy.
I would imagine that Molok represented something in the Amarrian religion representing a tradition of ritual infanticide, and the sacrifice of Molok upon the altar was perhaps the Emperor's way of symbolically ending that ritual. Why was Molok a 'deceiver'? What lie was convincingly told? Also, why name him after an existing and well known false idol of the past, who was a baby killer?
I am aware that the heretic Blood Raiders used to use the blood of children in their rituals (as the Saturn worshipers of Ancient Rome once did). However, it was Omir Sariksura that united the fractured Sani Sabik under one flag, and proclaimed the blood of children should no longer be used. Instead, it should be capsuleer blood (the rarest, most difficult to acquire). Yet, despite this reform, the Blood Raider remain heretics (and not blasphemers).
Perhaps that would mean that the Sani Sabik were once Molok worshipers, or at least one of the thousand sects of Sani Sabik were/ are Molok worshipers, and Omir was a kind of reformer who led the Sani Sabik away from Molok-ism when a sacrifice more worthy than children became available. Despite this, the Blood Raiders are still considered as heretics.
It still makes me wonder what role, if any, blood or sacrifice (human or animal) plays in the Orthodox Amarrian religion.
Oh yes, on the topic of Hell.
I think that the Hell as we normally conceive it was largely an invention of the Catholic church. It's true that other religions have Hells. However, in the Hebrew texts of the Old testament there is no mention of a place of eternal torment.
What is mentioned is sheol, Hebrew for 'grave'. Either God loves you and you live in paradise, or your body rots in the ground like any other dead animal. If you are a good person, you love life and want it to continue. God loves you and so he fulfills your wishes. If you are an evil person, it must be because you hate life. Your whole existence is pain and misery, and you want others to be miserable and angry too. God still loves you and wants to fulfill your wishes, but in this case your wish is to simply no longer be. Upon the death of your body, you simply vanish, just as Atheists would imagine it.
I have also head that another word for Hell, Gehenna, meant a garbage dump in ancient Israel. The ancients Hebrews would set their garbage dumps on fire to accelerate their decomposition, so Gehenna was an unpleasant place of foul smells and 'eternal' fire. The bodies of the most despised criminals were dumped on the flaming heap of garbage after their execution, forever forgotten.
So, as far as the Amarrian religion would be concerned, 'Hell' would mean to have your name stricken from the book of records to be forever forgotten by mortals and God. Upon your death, your soul would not be transported to a place of eternal torment, but would simply disappear from existence.
The Blood Raiders have their own book, so their idea of Hell would be similar.
-
Well, from what Wikipedia says about Satan, I would say that Molok is more like the Satan of Zoroastrianism, who is also called the deceiver.
Zorastrianism can be either understood as a dualistic religion (and so we do have probably for it's early forms), in case of which Angra Mainyu would be a force approximately equal in power to Ahura Mazda, but inverted in the negative or as a monistic religion, if one understands Angra Mainyu as non-existing in the way that evil doesn't exist but is the privation of existence in some conceptions of evil. Only sometimes is Angra Mainyu not understood as the force directly opposing Ahura Mazda, but rather one of the Yazata's (mostly Vohu Manah, then) - and that is already a drift towards Zurvanism.
If anything, only the second undertanding could fit Amarrian religion remotely. (Ignoring Zurvanism for now.) In fact the 'demotion' of the great antagonist in the religion (in the Amarr case: "Molok, the deceiver") to human status in Amarrian religion distances the Amarrian conception of the prime agent of evil quite a lot from a Zoroastrian conception of evil.
Actually, this wikipedia entry on Angra Mainyu (Satan) also mentions Mithra, who some say is a precursor to Jesus Christ. Mithra was born on December 25th of a virgin in a manger, etc.
I find this pretty fascinating. When I think of the Orthodox Amarrian religion I imagine it as a form of Mithra-ism. Mithra was a Persian war God, popular with the Roman army. Amarrian culture is traditionally portrayed as a combination of Ancient Rome and Persian culture.
There are many parallels between (especially the roman) Mithras and Jesus. One is that both of them are Messianic figures and conform to that Archetype that came up time and again in human history. (One could also say that Mithras was a type of Jesus, meant to foreshadow him. 'Precursor' has a similarly judgmental ring to my ears.) Thus, though, both Mithraism and Christianity differ from Amarr religion in that they are strongly messianic. Mithraism was also largely embedded in polytheistic practice.
Mithra is portrayed in statues as a man slaying a bull with a sword. I don't know what the Amarrian symbol actually represents, but it does look an awful lot like a pair of bull's horns, ears, and a head.
There's an explanation of the Amarrian symbol: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Signs_of_Faith_%28Chronicle%29 (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Signs_of_Faith_%28Chronicle%29)
Worship of Mithra involved the sacrifice of an animal, often a lamb. Initiates stood in a pit beneath the sacrificial altar, and looked up through the hole. The blood of the slaughtered animal fell on their head and faces, 'baptizing' them. That initiate was considered to have been 'cleansed of their sins by the blood of the lamb'.
This might explain somewhat why Sani Sabik was at first tolerated, and even popular sect from the Orthodox Amarrian religion.
Otherwise, I had trouble wrapping my head around the whole idea that human sacrifice, or the 'blooding' tradition was in any way tolerable or conceivable to the Orthodox Amarrians at all, or at least when the two religions began on Athra.
I don't think that Orthodox Amarrians ever did something like theat Roman-Mithraic ritus - I also don't think that the Amarr ever tolerated the 'blooding' thing. Sani Sabikism started out as an offshoot that embraced two dogmas: "The first was that certain people were born destined for greatness, with all others existing solely to serve and breed these savants. The second was that immortality was attainable by these savants." The blooding evolved from that as a) a means of attaining immortality and later b) a way of attaining savant status. It eventually became officially hunted as those dogmas unfolded in more and more grisly practice.
There is certainly a connection to the Amarr being more concerned about orthopraxy than orthodoxy, that Sabikism was able to develop that far.
Sani Sabik wasn't an religion invented whole cloth with no tradition, as Satanism would be. The separation of the two Churches was gradual, not immediate, as it would be for someone that openly defied the teachings of the church. Rather, Sani Sabik started as a part of the Orthodox church that became more extremist, but for some reason still identified with the mainline church when they splintered off.
For example, the Anglican church differs from the Catholic church on issues such as Gay marriage, divorce and women priests. Otherwise, the Anglican church has more in common (rituals, etc.) with Catholicism than it does with most Protestant denominations.
So what would blood actually have to do with the Orthodox Amarrian religion?
I can only imagine that blood must also play some part in the Orthodox Amarrian religion, either in the symbolic consumption of blood in the form of sacramental wine (as in Catholicism), or the actual slaughtering of an animal (or slave) upon the altar such as Mithra-ism.
I don't see that blood must have a function in orthodox Amarr religion. First, as I pointed out the bood cult wasn't one of the initial deviations of Sabikism, but was something acquired only later in its development. When the cult was at this stage Orthodoxy turned against it. There is no PF that implies any rites in Orthodox Amarr Religion making use of blood. There's the implication in PF that the blood rites in Sabikism are a perversion of the rites involving sacred water in orthodox Amarr religion.
Heresy is a provocative belief at a variance with established beliefs. (e.g. Catholicism / Anglican)
Apostasy is a renunciation of the established beliefs of one's religion. (e.g Christianity/ Islam)
Blasphemy is irreverence towards one's religion. (e.g. Christianity/ Satanism)
The Sani Sabik are heretics, not Apostates nor blasphemers.
The Sani Sabik are heretics and blasphemers. One doesn't exclude the other and if you have a strong notion of heresy (that allows for the notion of heterodoxy as deviation from established belief, though not in central points (e.g. in catholic theology: acceptance of dogma and most doctrines, but disagreement with a select few doctrines)) it is actually quite often that heretics are also blasphemers.
The Duchess Odelya might be interested to know (unless she is already aware) that Mithra-ism even has a sacred text known as The Khorda Avesta (Book of Common Prayer).
The Khorda Avesta is (the younger) part of the Avesta and thus the sacred Scripture of the Zoroastrians. It is not the sacred text of Mithraism.
I love this idea of slaughtering a sacrificial animal upon the altar as part of my character's religious beliefs. I like roleplaying in the cultural (and religious) traditions of Ancient Rome, and adding in the Persian culture on top just makes it all the better.
Also, why not read up on Mithra-ism as well as Zoroastrianism? As someone else has said, doing research in real life history adds a lot of depth to your fiction (and roleplay).
Likewise, some characters consider Nauplius the worshipper of Molok. :D
Of course, in Amarr Molok, like hell, is usually viewed less as an actual spirit or demon and more as just general temptation and self-doubt, which makes him a bit different from being the classical Satan figure. Something like Christadelphian belief of Satan, or general demythologization. But it can be expected that a lot of people would still view him in an anthropomorphized way.
Of course, Molok was an actual false God from Biblical times. Babies were sacrificed on the altar to honor him. Molok has since become a metaphor for any costly, needless sacrifice.
I imagine that whomever wrote the story of Amash-Akura was aware of this. The name wasn't simply invented. I recognized the name 'Moloch' immediately from a scene in Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis' where human sacrifices were being tossed into the mouth of an idol.
What does the story of Amash-Akura and his sacrifice of the human Molok upon the altar mean? Perhaps it is like a reverse version of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.
Jesus was the sacrifice of God's own son to God himself. Jesus did this in order to save all of humanity from death. This is historically significant to non-Christians because it meant that Christianity did not require the sacrifice of children, as other pagan religions of Europe did. Understandably, Christianity became quite popular with anyone that was a parent.
Likewise, Molok (taken from the name of a god that demanded children's blood) was a deceiver (fooled you, but was exposed as a fraud). The Emperor Amash-Akura sacrificed Molok upon the altar as a 'gift' to God, as opposed to merely slaying a traitor or criminal.
It is interesting to note that as a gift to God, ritual sacrifices must be of the highest possible quality. For example, Abel's lamb was an acceptable sacrifice in God's eyes, but Cain's wheat was not. Abel's lamb was the best of his flock, but Cain's saved the best wheat for himself. You don't try to save a few shekels with a second rate sacrifice.
'Sacrifice' also implies that there is a loss. It hurts you on some level to perform that ritual. Molok must have been a close friend or powerful ally, or even a powerful enemy.
I would imagine that Molok represented something in the Amarrian religion representing a tradition of ritual infanticide, and the sacrifice of Molok upon the altar was perhaps the Emperor's way of symbolically ending that ritual. Why was Molok a 'deceiver'? What lie was convincingly told? Also, why name him after an existing and well known false idol of the past, who was a baby killer?
I am aware that the heretic Blood Raiders used to use the blood of children in their rituals (as the Saturn worshipers of Ancient Rome once did). However, it was Omir Sariksura that united the fractured Sani Sabik under one flag, and proclaimed the blood of children should no longer be used. Instead, it should be capsuleer blood (the rarest, most difficult to acquire). Yet, despite this reform, the Blood Raider remain heretics (and not blasphemers).
Perhaps that would mean that the Sani Sabik were once Molok worshipers, or at least one of the thousand sects of Sani Sabik were/ are Molok worshipers, and Omir was a kind of reformer who led the Sani Sabik away from Molok-ism when a sacrifice more worthy than children became available. Despite this, the Blood Raiders are still considered as heretics.
There are different concepts of 'sacrifice', changing with cultural context and specific religion. Not all share the abrahamitic context. Depending on the context it might or might not imply a loss. Similarly, I don't think that we need to read too much into names here: Remember the time spans between present time and the start of the colonisation of the EVE cluster alone. Plenty of time for changes in connotations. I'd rather think it makes sense that the authors of PF choose certain names to induce associations in us and proceed from there.
There also is good reason to assume that human sacrifice didn't happen in Amarr religion, not even in the case of Molok the Deceiver, but that the Molok story (though in some respects based on historical events) is meant to mainly convey a non-litteral meaning. Seen in the context of the whole Ametat and Avetat story it is a good guess, I think, to assume that the story is about letting go of (sacrifcing) ones egotistical desires (which Molok certainly represents as well) and instead embracing the will of God.
It still makes me wonder what role, if any, blood or sacrifice (human or animal) plays in the Orthodox Amarrian religion.
I think, as pointed out above, there is no need to stipulate a special role of blood in Amarr religion & ritual. In their religious metaphysics it is prolly associated wit/the seat of the individuals power and life: That'd be why the Sani Sabik try to attain immortality and power through imbibing it.
As to the Amarr ideas on hell, PF gives conflicting propositions. One could console them by viewing some of them as metaphorical descriptions and the other explications of said metaphors. Then your understanding of Hell (in the afterlife) is fitting, while Amarr would also think that one can be in Hell while alife - as they see it as a state of mind, by some PF snippets.
-
No one here has said that like = is.
Like is like, and so you research things that are like what you are writing about to get inspiration and a starting point from which to base off of.
I agree: And I'd like to elaborate on this:
The thing is 'is' is (great, no? :D) a predicate with two places in this context. In this context it would give an identity relation X is Y.
'Like' can be understood as a three place extension of this, qualifying the identiy relation. So, this would make ike this: X is Y in respect Z.
Now this means of course that a lot of things X are 'like' a lot of other things Y in some respect Z. When we give those likeness relations the question, though, always is, in my opinion, if the respect Z is a salient respect. I could say Sani Sabik are like vegetarian. If I don't qualify that proposition further it is certainly in some way a true proposition. Sani Sabik and vegetarians use to be humans. So they like one another in that respect. They both adhere to a certain worldview, including special dietary ideas.
Still, I don't think that this is a really good likeness relation to shed light on what to think about Sani Sabik - or vegetarians for that matter.
So, if someone gives a likness relation, I always ask the question: Are they alike in any way that is salient, that does matter and which justifie to establish that likness relation as a tool to better understand one or the other?
That's what I mostly tried to criticise: Where I didn't see those likeness relations as pointing out anything which gives us a better idea about Sani Sabikism.
I think that's quite legit.
Tl;dr: Of course the comparisons between Sani Sabik and Protestants etc. that have been made here can be made. They aren't outright wrong per se (though in some respects that were explicated but where those didn't match the facts). The question, though, is: Are they helping us out in getting a better idea of how the Sani Sabik are?
That's why you should do your reasearch and be exact in communication. It's a difference if one bases something off Hollywood Satanism or 'real life' Satanism.
-
Again Mithra gets the point and saves the day.
I'm still out though.
-
I find it might be useful to think on the nature of the Takmahl. The Evelopedia claims that the Takmahl Empire that was set up in and around Araz, "floundered and collapsed under its own religion", after reaching great technological heights.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Sani_Sabik
These technological heights were in the fields of Cybernetics and Bio-engineering.
One particular area of research, was in mass-cloning of humans. This is a technology that the Covenant were interested in, according to some of the COSMOS missions. As well as various other biological things - one mission has you shoot some Covenant Alchemists who were researching plague spores, as an example.
I would suggest then, that the "floundering and collapsing" would relate somehow to the use of these cybernetics and bio-engineered things. The Takmahl nobility, being Sani Sabik after all, would probably be obsessed with that whole thing about immortality. Hence, mass cloning, to obtain blood for rituals. And also, with cybernetics (the Takmahl biodroid controller), then that would be the replacement for slaves and servants - cybernetically-controlled people, utterly loyal and with no chance of rebelling.
And eventually, it ends up, there are a handful of nobles, and next to no normal people left - it's all biodroid servants and clones.
So, what I was thinking was that, rather than "vampires", then the Takmahl would be more like... Liches ? Summoning armies out of the proverbial ooze ? sounds like a Lich thing to do, no ?
-
Also sounds like a precursor to the Sansha Nation. Is it possible that Sansha may be using evolved Takmahl technology?
-
Mithra is portrayed in statues as a man slaying a bull with a sword. I don't know what the Amarrian symbol actually represents, but it does look an awful lot like a pair of bull's horns, ears, and a head.
Cheat sheet for amarr citizenship. (http://s22.postimg.org/gvo5mork1/image.png)(top one is probably wrong btw)
-
The graph on the first page needs updating. According to timeline (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Timeline) the Amarr faith was once part of the Unified Catholic Church (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Unified_Catholic_Church).
-
Graph is fine. The purpose of the graph is to show when the religions diverged, and which groups are related to which. It does this fine. The origin of the Amarr Orthodox religion isn't really relevant to this purpose.
-
with photobucket being terrible, and due to recent religious events, I've updated the chart, adding a new heresy that has sprung up recently.
also thought about putting Naupliusism on the chart, but unsure where it would fit.
-
\o/