Print

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

[Lyn Farel]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

[Arista Shahni]

Do I need to post the NASCAR prayer again?  Just for giggles.

[Gaven Lok ri]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

This.

[Vic Van Meter]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

[Arista Shahni]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

Again,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk

Cause ppl dont think "Catholisism" when they think they're thinking Catholisism.  They think Westboro Baptist Curch.

Because.

People are ignorant.
I said it.

[Vic Van Meter]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

Again,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk

Cause ppl dont think "Catholisism" when they think they're thinking Catholisism.  They think Westboro Baptist Curch.

Because.

People are ignorant.
I said it.

I had kind of guessed that it was more along the lines of Gaven's point about Rome.  Even if it is a good analogy, it's not 100% and people might get burned out on it, I suppose.

I just think it's a better match than most because it wasn't just a religion, it was a system of governance.  The See had an incredible amount of power in Europe for long after Rome was sacked, it's a comparatively recent development that it's not administering Europe anymore.  They were good because they're a decent example of a religion that was a state and power rather than being attached to one.  So they have a decent set of administrative tools.

Certainly the Theology Council is led by a Grand Deacon, so it's already a source for terminology.

[Arista Shahni]

You are expecting people rapped with rulers or told by religious extremist they will burn in hell or people who read Facebook chainmail bullshit as for realsies to bother to open their minds to the fact that that is not the whole of the religion.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

Here is the problem.

Christianity, as a religion, is a little less than 2000 years old.  I won't go into its roots or where it came from before that, since I want to look at the history of christianity here, and specifically the time line.

In less than 2000 years, the christian church has changed well beyond its starting point.  I dare say that modern catholics, or protestants, or offshoot "heresies" would see what Christianity was and be able to say "It is the same".

Remember the time like.  This is 2000 years.  Remember that recorded history is only about 5000 or so years.

According to the EVE Timeline, the first Amarr emperor was crowned in the year AD 16470.  This is 8000 years after the group that could possibly be recognized as the "Space Catholics", the Conformists, landed on Athra.  It took them till 20544 to completely control Athra.  That is 3.5 thousand years later.  One thousand years later (This is starting to seem like a very small amount of time) they built their first stargate.

It is currently AD 23351.  That is a full 21 millenia from the foundation of Christianity.  The Amarr do not have a bible.  None of their scriptures mention Jesus or any equivalent figure.  Their god is described as an entirely different one (For instance, the Amarr have solved the whole "God cannot be All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Merciful at the same time or else evil would not exist" problem.  God is not all merciful.  Mercy is for the emperor, after all)

Quite simply, too much time has passed for the Amarr to be considered Space Catholics.  Or even space Christians.  Or even Space Abrahamics.  They have been around, and mutating as a culture, for 4 times longer than we have had recorded civilization.

Edit:  As Evi Polehvia just said to me on team speak, "Christianity is closer to Zoroastrianism than the amarr are to anything we have today."

[Vic Van Meter]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

Here is the problem.

Christianity, as a religion, is a little less than 2000 years old.  I won't go into its roots or where it came from before that, since I want to look at the history of christianity here, and specifically the time line.

In less than 2000 years, the christian church has changed well beyond its starting point.  I dare say that modern catholics, or protestants, or offshoot "heresies" would see what Christianity was and be able to say "It is the same".

Remember the time like.  This is 2000 years.  Remember that recorded history is only about 5000 or so years.

According to the EVE Timeline, the first Amarr emperor was crowned in the year AD 16470.  This is 8000 years after the group that could possibly be recognized as the "Space Catholics", the Conformists, landed on Athra.  It took them till 20544 to completely control Athra.  That is 3.5 thousand years later.  One thousand years later (This is starting to seem like a very small amount of time) they built their first stargate.

It is currently AD 23351.  That is a full 21 millenia from the foundation of Christianity.  The Amarr do not have a bible.  None of their scriptures mention Jesus or any equivalent figure.  Their god is described as an entirely different one (For instance, the Amarr have solved the whole "God cannot be All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Merciful at the same time or else evil would not exist" problem.  God is not all merciful.  Mercy is for the emperor, after all)

Quite simply, too much time has passed for the Amarr to be considered Space Catholics.  Or even space Christians.  Or even Space Abrahamics.  They have been around, and mutating as a culture, for 4 times longer than we have had recorded civilization.

Edit:  As Evi Polehvia just said to me on team speak, "Christianity is closer to Zoroastrianism than the amarr are to anything we have today."

We're not really talking about the content of the religion, though, we're talking about titles and organization.  I mean, Hell, if it's closer to Zoroastrianism, you're talking about a religion that predates Judaism.  The "wise men" that brought Jesus his anointing oil were probably Zoroastrians.

The Amarr Empire isn't a nation that has a church, it actually is a giant church where all things within it, science, philosophy, accounting, test cricket, penne, et cetera are all part of the church program.

That's why I can't see why Catholicism in the Middle Ages is such a horrible example.  The Church essentially educated and funded everything from artists to scientists and architects.  Those men weren't usually even instructed in their native languages, they learned Latin.

I'm not sure where there's been a church with more authority.  Essentially, all the kings of England right up through the Reformation got their right to rule from God, and thus through the Pope.  The church started wars by essentially excommunicating countries for various offenses.  Even after the Reformation, all Catholic countries still owed fealty to the Catholic church until democracy came along.

The religious ideas may be different, but the organization is broadly similar.  I'm not sure there's anything else that comes closer to that spiritual-political dichotomy.

[Arista Shahni]

Its a fantasy game.

I can't comprehend why so many people with amazing imaginations are blanketing RL on it.

[Vic Van Meter]

Its a fantasy game.

I can't comprehend why so many people with amazing imaginations are blanketing RL on it.

Well, it's not completely fantasy, it's all based on RL institutions.  It isn't like the Amarr have constructed spires made of sharp cheddar cheese and believe that the soul is the wellspring of eternity contained entirely within the left leg.  Weird would be if the Gallente Federation was the one with the slaveholding.  The idea of a relatively conservative empire with slavery, mandated religion, and ritual suicide didn't come from a vacuum; those are generally assumed to be traits common to conservative and authoritarian governments in the real world.

Even if we were trying to be uber inventive and creative, we'd be making it into something that CCP made sure it just wasn't.  It's not modeled completely after any one time period or government in history, but I'd be hard pressed to say that it's a totally original take on a theocracy.  There isn't anything in the game that doesn't have a direct corollary in RL.

Which, given the whole thing did originate on Earth, it kind of makes sense.  At least there's a good reason that those institutions are the same; they came from the same place and just didn't die off entirely.

It makes more sense than when spacefaring peoples who aren't from Earth in games and movies somehow end up 50% Weimar Republic and 50% Japanese Feudalism.  In a vacuum, there's no reason that alien cultures wouldn't be forming governments based entirely around tidal pull on their home planet.

[Lyn Farel]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

It's not bad per se, it's just like seeing people overdoing it everywhere which gets harmful, like space french gallente, space japanese/fin caldari, etc. It's taking catholism and translating it its complete form into the Amarr ICly. Taking a few relevant bits and translating them as inspiration, sure. Taking the whole and translating it literally, no thanks.

We're not really talking about the content of the religion, though, we're talking about titles and organization.  I mean, Hell, if it's closer to Zoroastrianism, you're talking about a religion that predates Judaism.  The "wise men" that brought Jesus his anointing oil were probably Zoroastrians.

The Amarr Empire isn't a nation that has a church, it actually is a giant church where all things within it, science, philosophy, accounting, test cricket, penne, et cetera are all part of the church program.

That's why I can't see why Catholicism in the Middle Ages is such a horrible example.  The Church essentially educated and funded everything from artists to scientists and architects.  Those men weren't usually even instructed in their native languages, they learned Latin.

I'm not sure where there's been a church with more authority.  Essentially, all the kings of England right up through the Reformation got their right to rule from God, and thus through the Pope.  The church started wars by essentially excommunicating countries for various offenses.  Even after the Reformation, all Catholic countries still owed fealty to the Catholic church until democracy came along.

The religious ideas may be different, but the organization is broadly similar.  I'm not sure there's anything else that comes closer to that spiritual-political dichotomy.

We are pointing that the Church even in those times was all powerful yes, but they had more or less defined roles and fields of authority, where the old secular meaning was applied to everything that was not clergy, and thus secular roles were the responsibility of lords, kings, nobles, etc. That's not to say that clergy did not have a HUGE influence on those (because they had), but at least officially there was a difference in the ladder.

I can't accept that Church and State were separated in the middle ages since everything was intermingled, but there was a distinction (secular duty vs men of the cloth). In the case of the Amarr, I don't think so. Read the article on Amash Akura, which clearly states that Holders and so are more or less clergy, and that everything is actually clergy, just with very different branches. Even nobles are men of the cloth (Holders especially).


And anyway, considering the definition of the scriptures vs what is the holy bible or whatever makes it clear to me that crass obscurantism is more likely to happen in one of both than the other...

[Vic Van Meter]

Anyway it's always better when it borrows from many cultures. It makes it harder for people that want to paint it with broad strokes based on IRL strawmen...

(looking at you space catholism...)

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?  They get a lot of titles and such from it, so it's a fairly obvious and undeniable source for the Amarrian religion.  It's far from the only one, but it seems as good as any if you need to draw from the outside for something.

It's not bad per se, it's just like seeing people overdoing it everywhere which gets harmful, like space french gallente, space japanese/fin caldari, etc. It's taking catholism and translating it its complete form into the Amarr ICly. Taking a few relevant bits and translating them as inspiration, sure. Taking the whole and translating it literally, no thanks.

We're not really talking about the content of the religion, though, we're talking about titles and organization.  I mean, Hell, if it's closer to Zoroastrianism, you're talking about a religion that predates Judaism.  The "wise men" that brought Jesus his anointing oil were probably Zoroastrians.

The Amarr Empire isn't a nation that has a church, it actually is a giant church where all things within it, science, philosophy, accounting, test cricket, penne, et cetera are all part of the church program.

That's why I can't see why Catholicism in the Middle Ages is such a horrible example.  The Church essentially educated and funded everything from artists to scientists and architects.  Those men weren't usually even instructed in their native languages, they learned Latin.

I'm not sure where there's been a church with more authority.  Essentially, all the kings of England right up through the Reformation got their right to rule from God, and thus through the Pope.  The church started wars by essentially excommunicating countries for various offenses.  Even after the Reformation, all Catholic countries still owed fealty to the Catholic church until democracy came along.

The religious ideas may be different, but the organization is broadly similar.  I'm not sure there's anything else that comes closer to that spiritual-political dichotomy.

We are pointing that the Church even in those times was all powerful yes, but they had more or less defined roles and fields of authority, where the old secular meaning was applied to everything that was not clergy, and thus secular roles were the responsibility of lords, kings, nobles, etc. That's not to say that clergy did not have a HUGE influence on those (because they had), but at least officially there was a difference in the ladder.

I can't accept that Church and State were separated in the middle ages since everything was intermingled, but there was a distinction (secular duty vs men of the cloth). In the case of the Amarr, I don't think so. Read the article on Amash Akura, which clearly states that Holders and so are more or less clergy, and that everything is actually clergy, just with very different branches. Even nobles are men of the cloth (Holders especially).


And anyway, considering the definition of the scriptures vs what is the holy bible or whatever makes it clear to me that crass obscurantism is more likely to happen in one of both than the other...

Oddly, the power of the church was heavily centered on how the pope handled political matters.  A few popes were just figureheads and essentially got pushed around by the kings.  On the other hand, a strong pope essentially could run Europe, call unified European armies to crusades, and doom whole groups of people.

Either way, space-Christians is probably not the best way to describe it, but oddly space-Catholics might be.  The religion might not be entirely similar to Christianity, but the structure seems pretty close.

[Louella Dougans]

What exactly is everyone's problem with Catholicism as a basis?

Amarr character says something about the scriptures.
non-amarr character says "is that what the priest said to you when abusing you?"

There is a substantial and vocal proportion of the Eve RP community, including members of this forum, that want to equate the fictional Amarr religion to the real RC religion, in order to use the RL failings of the RC church to "win" against Amarr roleplayers.

That is one of my problems with people equating the two things.


Also, equating Scripture with the Old Testament and similar:
People describe the fictional Amarr scriptures as including "the collected ramblings of people who mistook schizophrenia for demonic possession, felt that a powerful body odour was the best means to ward off the tormenting spectre of disease"

When questioned on this people say things like: "They're your scriptures, haven't you ever read them?"

Again, taking RL religions out of their historical context, and using bits of them to attack Amarr roleplayers.

Then accusing the Amarr roleplayers of DOING IT WRONG if they do not submit to this godmoding.

So.

Amarr religion is clearly the Worst thing ever. All of the Scriptures are written by people who know nothing of science. Any Amarr player who thinks the Scriptures might contain any bits of science are clearly wrong. Any Amarr player who is not an expert on every part of the Scriptures is wrong and stupid and uneducated.

And that is the view of a significant and vocal proportion of the EVE rp community and of this forum community.

Which means, that if you want to play an Amarr character and incorporate the religion into your RP, then you are only allowed to play a stupid uneducated simpleton.

Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

Which means this forum, has no real purpose for any player who has an Amarr character.

And that's my problem with equating Amarr=Roman Catholicism.

[Lyn Farel]

That's where I disagree. I certainly don't disagree that clergy and state weren't in practice kept separate and that a lot of religious figures, or just religion in itself, played a huge role in politics and everything in a very pervasive way. Although there was a distinction between both, which does not seem to be really the case with the Amarr.

But for the structure ? Definitely not. Holders are clergy and nobility, and the only similar example in History fitting to the Amarr structure might be prince archbishops that held the same title as feudal lords, but were also men of the cloth.

But I think we are redoing this thread again so i'll just refrain here.