Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jikahr]

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.

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.   

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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

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.

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.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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? ) 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.

[Arista Shahni]

Again Mithra gets the point and saves the day.

I'm still out though.

[Synthia]

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 ?

[Anyanka Funk]

Also sounds like a precursor to the Sansha Nation. Is it possible that Sansha may be using evolved Takmahl technology?

[Ashley]

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.(top one is probably wrong btw)

[Anyanka Funk]

The graph on the first page needs updating. According to timeline the Amarr faith was once part of the Unified Catholic Church.

[Synthia]

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.

[Louella Dougans]

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.

[Graelyn]

\o/