Print

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

[Louella Dougans]

things don't seem to have changed since the time this was originally posted

dunno if that's good or bad

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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.

[Arista Shahni]

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.


 

[Jikahr]

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.

[Jace]

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.

[Jikahr]

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.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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.

[Jace]

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.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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.

[Jikahr]

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?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

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.)

[Jace]

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.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I'd have suggested H. C. Agrippa's De occulta philosophia libri tres, but then I generally prefer primary sources.

[Jace]

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.

[Mizhara]

Pretty sure the Agrippa is a destroyer in Babylon 5. You guys are waaaay off the mark here, clearly.