Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 01:26 PM

With the advent of magic, spirits that look like angels, miracle faith healers, and hundreds of other trappings of religion coming to life, how does an atheist in 2070 defend his faith?

On the flip side, with so many unbelievers gaining favors from spirits and creating miracles, how does a theist defend his faith?

Edit: Any responses I make arguiong against a specific belief posted here are purely from the perspective of a 6th world dissenter. If someone wishes to seriously discuss religion please PM me, as that's not what this thread is about (although I assume it will eventually get there, burn down, and be locked away).

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 7 2006, 01:30 PM

For your problems with faith, denial. The same as in any other age.

People dying? "God's testing us."

People getting better? "God made him better."

People stink too much? "The good stink keeps the devil away."

Anybody following your god is a good man; anybody else is a sinner.

As for atheists, everybody knows that magicians are born pretty much at random, and they can draw their power from anything, God, Bear, or squiggly lines drawn with expensive "magical" chalk. I would say that the sheer variety of faiths being vindicated should be the best evidence of the lack of a single God, since whatever God that may give priests the ability to heal and summon firy angels of death and love gave equal or greater power to insect shamans and blood mages.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 01:43 PM

It can definitely be viewed as a lack of a specific God, but how do you take the step from that to the lack of any god?

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 01:49 PM

I cannot fathom how SR magic, which makes no distinction whatsoever between the religious and the non-religious, could in any way be construed as evidence for or against a god. Clearly supernatural things exist in SR, or at least in the SR world there has to have been a re-definition of "supernatural", but that doesn't necessitate gods of any kind. All magic seems likely to do is make proponents and opponents of certain types of religions even more rabid.

($20 says this thread will be full of non-SR-related flaming within 3 days.)

Posted by: Tanka Jul 7 2006, 01:56 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 02:06 PM

Yeah, I know there's no such thing as proof on either side of the debate. I'm not so much looking for proof as I am for arguments.

Atheists: everybody gets magic, even some atheists, therefor they can't be gifts from the gods. As such, it's possible that miracles in the past were due to mana spikes, not divine intervention. If that's the case then the entirety of many religious texts are false, and therefor God must be false.

Theists: the Jane Christian stance would probably be a common one, as would "God works in mysterious ways, we can't know why he would have given non-Christians magic. Perhaps it is to lead them to the proper path."

What else?

Posted by: Grogs Jul 7 2006, 02:07 PM

Posted by: nezumi Jul 7 2006, 02:14 PM

For some reason I'm having difficulties seeing why atheism would in any way be hobbled by the reintroduction of magic in Shadowrun. Maybe someone can better explain to me why a hermetic mage somehow feels his power is from God or evidence of God.

Organized religion may take a hit because all of a sudden anyone can do "miracles". I'd have to assume organizations like the Roman Catholic Church would approach magic with a lot of caution, with a lot of bishops espousing the idea that magic isn't from God specifically, at least no more than any gift is. Rather, I think the RCC would try to divorce itself from thaumaturgy, to avoid being a victim of the sudden shifts in public opinion.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 02:16 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 02:18 PM

Posted by: JesterX Jul 7 2006, 02:21 PM

One could argue that the source of magic comes from the same place: Astral. And magic is nothing more than a manipulation of mana. Should it be shamanic, hermetic or religious, it's all the same after all.

You can even argue that totems/angels are only a metaphysical representation of your own mind and ideas.

You can also argue that totems/passions (Earthdawn)/powerful free spirits ARE gods.

I don't think that it proves that god exist however. I just think it proves that there *might* be something elsewhere that we don't know about.

The real question might be: Do you believe that god has something to do with the metaplanes? Does the metaplanes inhabitants were created by god (or many gods?) Does the metaplanes inhabitants can be considered as gods when they enter our world?

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 02:22 PM

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 7 2006, 02:24 PM

Technomancers are proof enough that God does not exist.

~J

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 02:30 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 02:31 PM

Posted by: Kalvan Jul 7 2006, 02:48 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 02:51 PM

http://www.softpanorama.org/Scripting/Shellorama/humor.shtml

Posted by: Backgammon Jul 7 2006, 03:01 PM

Belief, whether you believe in a god or wether you believe there is no good, is not a rational position. It has nothing to do with logic. Therefore, you can add whatever the hell you like to the argumentation pile, it won't matter. People will believe whatever they like, and invent whatever justification they want for it.

It's partially related, but (and this is the super accelerated version of the story) recently scientists brain scanned subjets who either strongly supported Kerry or strongly supported Bush. In both case, when faced with argumentation against their beloved leader, the scans showed that the arguments were not processed as arguments. Basically, belief shuts down the part of your brain that makes you listen to arguments. You simply reject them out of hand and think up excuses to justify your positions.

Hence, I submit that the Awakening did not threathen any beliefs.

Posted by: SL James Jul 7 2006, 04:31 PM

Except to break up or destabilize the faith in quite a few religious groups, most notably being the Roman Catholic Church...

There is the description of psionics, which is pretty much areligious if not atheistic when it comes to the source of their abilities. Another is a coldy scientific treatment of mana as a third state of nature (both and neither mass and energy), or reverse entropy, or some many of intersecting dimensions (which it kin of actually is), or genetic mutation. Or... There aren't people lacking for explanations for magic that don't involve a deity or deities.

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Jul 7 2006, 05:13 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 05:22 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 7 2006, 05:32 PM

Posted by: SL James Jul 7 2006, 05:54 PM

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Jul 7 2006, 06:08 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 7 2006, 06:25 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 06:32 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 06:40 PM

Who needs a reasonable argument? It's pretty obvious that magic is a gift from God. Those who use magic without God's graces are being tricked by the devil to steer away from the One True Light.

-- Oh yeah, then why would an omnipotent God let that happen?

Because he believes in free will, so long as you do what he wants you eon't be punished.

-- Insert other random silliness here

And one last silly point would round it out.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 7 2006, 06:45 PM

My point is that good things do come from God, and also ... there are good things that don't come from God. That is why things are so confusing. I know that other religions have miracles, healings and other unexplainable phenomenon, but I have so much personal proof that I could not believe otherwise. The hard part of Christianity especially is that you are commanded to spread the message of the gospel. That is tough, since you have to ride the line of trying to share something so controvercial that countless wars have been started over it.

When it switches from sharing something you find so wonderful to proving that you are on the right path things get really messy. An awakening just adds so much more to the confusion because you can attribute the phenomenon to something else other than God ... but then you get into the question of whether that other explanation is from God or not. (which is another level or complexity)

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 06:49 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 7 2006, 06:51 PM

the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_of_Endor is in I Kings (or I Samuel, if you prefer). basically, King Saul was a pussy and had the witch summon up his old advisor for advice. Sam tells Saul to go to hell.

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 7 2006, 06:54 PM

Which NEVER happens with SR summonings. No siree.

But I'm sure most summoned spirits would be much more reliable, if only because they're forced to be.

Posted by: Dale Jul 7 2006, 06:57 PM

Seeing is believing right? In Shadowrun there is magic happening all the time. So it proves magic exists. There are Idols and Totems that grant power to followers, therefore proving that they exist. The is no judeo/christian "God" giving anyone anything, therefore proving that it probably doesn't exist.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 7 2006, 07:04 PM

sure ... then 50+ years into the awakening magic suddenly changes, totems are suddently not what they were.

The bible does acknowledge that magic does exist, and that it divination is a sin. I am guessing that the church, or some denominations make a compromises to allow tolerance like it has for other "groups".

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 07:11 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 07:14 PM

Posted by: Backgammon Jul 7 2006, 07:27 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 7 2006, 07:33 PM

well said Backgammon.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 07:36 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 7 2006, 07:53 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 7 2006, 07:56 PM

If miracles form the foundation of your faith then your faith is terribly flawed and destined for destruction by the mighty power of science. However, there are plenty of people who have faith wile understanding that their religious stories and myth and metaphor rather than literal truth.

You can still be Christian without accepting the absurd proposition that Joseph was stupid enough to believe that Mary was a pregnant virgin. Most Christian scholars accept that he probably knocked her up himself.

Individuals who are inflexible deserve to have their faith destroyed.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 08:52 PM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 7 2006, 09:47 PM

Can someone lock this thread, please? The "theism/atheism/agnosticism" horse died long before this thread was made, and yet you people keep beating it.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 7 2006, 10:09 PM

So the effects of the Awakening and the 6th world on religious issues has been thoroughly dealt with before? Where?

If this devolves into arguing over RL religion, then I'm right with you on calling for a lockdown. But not before.

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 7 2006, 10:13 PM

Posted by: SL James Jul 7 2006, 10:20 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 10:23 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 7 2006, 10:28 PM

I just added this to the opening post, but figured I should also tack it on here for the folks that have already read that post and won't be rereading it:

Posted by: Platinum Jul 7 2006, 11:06 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 7 2006, 11:17 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 7 2006, 11:29 PM

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 7 2006, 11:29 PM

The metaplanes rock.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 8 2006, 12:02 AM

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 8 2006, 01:15 AM

Where to begin??

I don't know if there is a God, but if it gives you Peace and Hope, then so be it.
Do what you will, believe what you will, but harm none because of it.

Yes Atheism and religion will exist until the end of man.

Godlike beings of great power may appear one day, preform miracles, unravel the mysteries of the universe, show some all that was and all that will be, as well as take believers to a paradise. Still people will say there is no such things as God.

The world may fall into great suffering, and others will point to Revelations where it says God will give the Devil free reign upon the Earth for several years. They will point to the mention of the mark of the beast upon the head and hand of man, and claim that this refers to Com-links and RFID tags.
The bible says that the Devil will come in as a thief in the night, and point to all the evils that mankind has become accustomed to.

This is an interesting, but touchy subject, so let us all try our best not to upset or be upset by what may be a callous statement. Says the pot to the kettle.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 8 2006, 02:42 AM

Posted by: Glyph Jul 8 2006, 03:21 AM

I think atheists and religious people will continue to argue. But magic complicates things, because people will argue about whether magic itself is divine or not. And that can be interesting, because you can have people with the same religious beliefs (or at least belonging to the same religion) arguing about magic.

Some Christians will consider magic to be an ability like being a good painter or a gifted athlete. Sure, it's a gift meant to be used for good like any other, but just as artists and athletes can abuse their gifts, you can have people misuse magic. But the bad person and the good Christian are still casting the same manabolt. Other Christians will consider their own magical abilities divine, and consider other magical beliefs to be of the devil. So now you can have conflict between Christians who will each find the others' views of magic to be heretical, or even blasphemous.


Monotheistic religions shouldn't be the only ones asking these questions, though. One thing that I found to be almost insultingly oversimplified, was that any religion that incorporated magic in its worship was supposed to automatically incorporate magic into their belief system. Never mind that "magic" as practiced by, say, a modern-day wiccan or neo-pagan is probably not anything like SR magic!

I mean, picture yourself as, say, a wiccan. You have devoted yourself to your beliefs and their practice, and are very knowledgeable about your faith. On the other hand, you know a girl, Suzie, who is a babbling, trend-following, ignorant poser. The awakening hits, and you're pretty much the same, but suddenly insipid little Suzie starts throwing around SR-type "magic". Would you automatically associate this new "magic" with your religion? Or would you be just as likely to consider it a completely separate thing?


Atheists can do some soul-searching, too. It might be fun to play an atheist who awakens as a shaman, and tries to reconcile his unbelief with his increasingly ecclesiastical visions and encounters with his Totem.

Posted by: Ravor Jul 8 2006, 05:57 AM

Posted by: SL James Jul 8 2006, 06:25 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 8 2006, 06:59 AM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 8 2006, 07:00 AM

Almost nothing can convince a devoted anything that their beliefs are untrue. It's the guys that aren't hardcore fundamentalists that have the enjoyable-to-portay inner doubts and fears about a restructured belief system.

Posted by: Ravor Jul 8 2006, 07:12 AM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 8 2006, 07:33 AM

I remember someone's particular 'schtick' about God in Shadowrun.

You see, God was neither loving nor Almighty. He was real, and was a very powerful Spirit who long ago started this Religion thing. Worshippers duped into believing whatever he could get them to believe prayed, and through their inadvertant rituals (prayer) 'donated' their Karma to him.

It's really a good schtick. People persuaded to give up their Karma on false pretenses still give up karma. That would be a real monkey wrench in everyone's works, eh?

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 8 2006, 07:52 AM

Nah, because you couldn't prove it unless the spirit admitted it, and why would he stop the karma train? Of course, he's already at Force 18,000 with 48,000 spirit energy by now, but he's got to compete with the other spirits that did similar things, including his supposed son Jesus, whose just another spirit riding the faith train to gluttsville.

edit: See, it doesn't really matter what actually happened, all that matters are the points people try to make while defending their own personal corner or religious theory.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 8 2006, 07:54 AM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 8 2006, 10:38 AM

Posted by: The Stainless Steel Rat Jul 8 2006, 01:37 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 8 2006, 02:11 PM

The Bible is part historical chronical, part folklore, and part mythology couched in such a way that contempories of the authors could understand and relate to it. If you ignore the miracles, the scientificly incorrect assumptions that were taken as true by individuals back then, the mythology,the folklore, and all references to "God" it is somewhat acurate. Exact words spoken by exact individuals may have been different and some individuals may have been made up, but in a broad sense many of the events did happen. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt and they did wander in the desert for some unspecified long period of time. 40 years can't be considered accurate because it was shorthand for 'some long period of time' commonly used in ancient folktales. 40, 7, 3, and 12 can never be taken literally in these stories due to the significance of these numbers in ancient literature.


I prefer to think that Gods in SR are Free Spirits who have aligned themselves with a human ideal in a way that allows them to draw power from it, hence the Passions, Idols, and Totems. Of course, in my Abrahamic cosmology Lucifer is the good guy who champions human independance and free will. He is classified as a Fallen Angel but is a God due to his alignment with the Firebringer, The Adversary, and the Dark King.

Posted by: Ravor Jul 8 2006, 04:48 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 8 2006, 05:40 PM

Some recent translations went right back to the original texts ... like the amplified and I think the NAS.

As for the interpretation of God being a free spirit, it does work well within the mechanics of SR. I think the passions are just a complete waste of text and whatever brainpower people put into them. The Passion/GD/IE metaplots are just big puddles of barf on the shadowrun sidewalk. It may work in Earthdawn but didn't work at all for shadowrun.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 8 2006, 06:39 PM

Their is no Passions Metaplot. One Passion appeared exactly once in one short story. Passions in general were mentioned in passing in exactly one Shadowtalk post in exactly one setting book.

The Passions are old Gods, dead and dying. They have been usurped by a Pantheon of Totems and Idols. The Gods are dead. Long live the Gods.

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 12:42 AM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 12:46 AM

Hmmmmm...

God (as interpreted as a Free Spirit) Vs. Lofwyr the Dragon.


.... I'd back the Greater Dragon. If only to gloat when we march triumphantly through Rome, under the Arch of Tidus, and get to tell the Pope that we pwned his God.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 9 2006, 01:27 AM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 9 2006, 02:11 AM

I know about her! She Who Walks Upon The Waters, right?

That's why I was so annoyed when Dan Brown called God's consort "Shekina" in The Da Vinci Code. That's the name of the manifestation of God's spirit, as Dan would know if he weren't such an ignorant sillyhead.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I got to read some of Paradise Lost for English. From what I read in it, Satan struck me as being very stupidly stubborn and in denial. "Oh, I'm not sorry I was cast out of the magnificent glory that was Heaven. I don't ache with every fiber of my being to experience its indescribable joys again. No sir, not me. Excuse me, I've got something in my eye."

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 9 2006, 02:54 AM

Then again, William Blake did comment that Milton wrote of hell while he was free and of heaven while he was imprisoned.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 9 2006, 03:03 AM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 9 2006, 03:09 AM

Danger! Derailment flamewar alert! Fleeeeeee!

Note to those not reading Platinum's spoiler: it wasn't a flame, just statements that I've seen start flame wars in the past.

edit: Platinum, if you want to chat, PM me.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 9 2006, 03:13 AM

I tried to put it in a well labelled spoiler tag.... and not flame anyone but explain why I would personally would fall into the category mentioned by mfb. hopefully ... no one will be offended by what I said, but gain insight into why some people act certain ways.

James... not sure what you wanted to chat about.... but if you have a topic ... I am open to pm's as well.

Posted by: Ravor Jul 9 2006, 03:32 AM

*Chuckles* Aye, I have to agree with James on this one, its time to break out the fire retardents... *winks*

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 9 2006, 03:40 AM

I didn't mean that you were trying to upset anyone or flame them, but when statements like that are made they tend to incite others to flames, no matter how diplomatically they're presented.

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 04:42 AM

i can see Platinum's point. having grown up in a church and attended a Christian college, though, i saw a lot of people who spent--i think--way too much time arguing about whether the world is 6,000 or 8,000 years old, and way too little time preaching and practicing the actual tenants of the faith, y'know?

which i doubt will change by 206x. there are parts of Revelations and... maybe Daniel, i think, that could be construed to be talking about the Awakening.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 9 2006, 04:51 AM

I will agree with that. Many times I get asked about aliens and dinosaurs and the bible.

All I can say is that I really don't know. And to me ... it really doesn't matter to me.

One thing that I have found is that some people read what they want to read.

Glad to see there haven't been any flames. And yes,... there are times that my faith is blind.

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 05:25 AM

meh. if faith isn't blind, it isn't faith.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 06:22 AM

After all, it's hard to fleece people who think for themselves of their (pick as many as you can get away with) gold/time/blood/crops/goods/karma.

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 9 2006, 06:33 AM

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jul 9 2006, 06:56 AM

Eh? both the CAWS and the Jackhammer seem 'practical' and iirc a very small production run of Remington 1100s (?) was supposedly done for the Vietnam war.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 9 2006, 07:21 AM

Just curious, which religion/non-religion do you think would gain the most from the awakening? myself ... I was thinking Pagans then Voodoo.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jul 9 2006, 07:27 AM

I would guess that the 'deregulated' religions would benefit the most. Centralized religions like the RCC will have to take a long time to come up with their officical positions first.

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 08:06 AM

Native American shamanism. they got the most air time, at any rate... even if SR magic bears only a faint resemblance to actual NA beliefs.

Posted by: SL James Jul 9 2006, 08:42 AM

Witches of whatever name/culture you wish to think of, and beliefs like voudoun/santeria/etc. (the ones that include Catholic beliefs), but even they would be after the Indians.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 9 2006, 09:26 AM

But like I said in my earlier post, I think it's a bit simplistic to assume that just because a religion uses magic, it will automatically associate their religious practices with SR-style magic. Now, magic being fueled by belief, and manifesting in a way consistent with those beliefs, would certainly make it easier for many to accept - but I still think there should be some wiccans, voodoo practicioners, etc. who would be skeptical about magic being related to their faith.

Not to mention that other people/beliefs would be using the same "magic". In a way, religions like voodoo or fundie Chrisitians would have the easiest time with that, since they already include "evil" magic in their belief systems.


On the subject of the immaculate conception, that is part of Catholic belief, not shared by Protestants. The virgin birth/divinity of Christ is central to the Christian faith, though, for both Catholics and Protestants, including the mainstream as well as the fundies.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 09:30 AM

You know, I think the ultimate truth of Shadowrun is that athiest mages who summon up spirits in the shape of nymphs and dryads, and catholic mages who summon up spirits in the shape of avenging angels... They both have one important thing in common.

No, it's not "they're the same stats, just different skins", though that is true.

It's that they both die equally you when you unload a fully automatic shotgun in their faces. Now shut the fuck up and get on with the Run.

Posted by: Birdy Jul 9 2006, 10:15 AM

Posted by: Birdy Jul 9 2006, 10:20 AM

The Atheists defence:

None needed since the THEISTS has to proof the existence. But if you insist:

+ The effects of spell magic are the same no matter what source the Mage claims
+ Spirits are also blending into one another
+ Good, sane Atheists can do magic
+ Magic IS genetic (That is IIRC proven in SR, they are still searching the Genes)
+ Self-limitating mages (Psi) are a proven fact

=> Magic works without a god. All differences are due to self-limitations and delusions. Therefor everyone that believes his power comes from a non-existing higher being is delusional and should take his medizin. For extreme cases (aka Black Magic) we recommend a fast-acting copper-lead compound

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 9 2006, 04:05 PM

Wow, it kinda bothers me that the "Atheists [sic] defence" is based on the "realities" of a fictional game world.

Anyway, I'm posting a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God just to add some fuel to the flames.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 9 2006, 04:24 PM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 9 2006, 04:29 PM

Touché.

BTW, I'm amazed that this thread this thread has progressed this far without getting out of hand. I salute you all.

Posted by: Dawnshadow Jul 9 2006, 05:44 PM

Back to the question of religions gaining the most..

Almost definately pagans (meaning Wiccans and Witches, Asatru, Druids, Shamans, those practicing Voodoo, and anyone following a path which involves the worship or veneration of ancestors).

Basically, the religions that practice, support, or include a basic framework for the use of personal power, as opposed to external power accessed solely through prayers to a divine being, gain the most. I don't know enough about most religions to say.

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 05:58 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 9 2006, 06:29 PM

So one day God is getting bored. He doesn't like the fact that so many people don't worship him so he decides to go down to Earth and Materialize on the Stage at an Atheist's convention. He knocks the highly-paid guest speaker away from the podium and declare into the microphone. "I am the LORD your God, dumbasses. Bow and worship me." An Atheist in the front row stands up and challanges Him. "If you're God then prove it." God replies, "Why don't I prove that my foot is stuck up your ass."

Many people suggest that the burden of proof should be on God to prove his existance. The big problem is that God can't prove his existance. In order for God to do so he would have to prove that he isn't the infinite number of other things that he could be. Since human perceptions are limited we cannot comprehend infinity. So, if God does exist there is no way we would ever know without guessing.

Which is why diehard Atheists are about as insane as religious fundamentalists.

Posted by: knasser Jul 9 2006, 06:57 PM

Within the context of the SR setting there is corroborating evidence for the existence of God (read the Christian/Islamic/Judaic one).

My logic is that magicians are now having visions of totem animals, voodoo loas, etc. etc. There is evidence for all of these that they are shaped, at least partially, by human beliefs. Example evidence are things like urban Gator shamans having their totem associated with the sewers (SR2) and other instances, which shows totemic behaviour based on popular myth / belief rather than reality; different figures having mutually incompatible religious frameworks, e.g. certain amerindian totems being involved in creation myths that cannot coincide with totems in other parts of the world,etc. which indicates that the belief structure is local; and that many of these totems / beings are relatively recent in human culture. E.g. the shaman may have a belief in creator figure X but X didn't occur in human culture until late on in human development, suggesting a cultural origin for the entity rather than existing a priori.

Even if totems et al. do not originate from human belief, they've certainly shown a willingness to adapt to it.

How does this all help make the case for God? Well in all the cannon material I've read (though I could be proved wrong), I don't recall a Christian mage summoning a spirit in the form of an angel. I don't recall any Christian mages going to the "Heaven" metaplane to commune with God or having Gabriel as a mentor spirit. The very absence of Christian beliefs manifesting in this way suggests something is very seriously up with this. I.e. there must be some force preventing it. I would propose that this is God.

You could always say that these "angels" or "God" are merely refusing to show themselves but are similar in nature to other totems, spirits etc. But even that would require a radical explanation to explain the big difference in behaviour.

-K.

p.s. Austere - I found your comment earlier quite amusing and insightful so I've sigged you. Hope you don't mind. To paraphrase the Bene Gesserit - "Fear is the joke killer."

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 9 2006, 07:17 PM

That's a very cute argument, knasser. Obviously not proof, but it would be a very neat argument for a Christian character to make in the Shadowrun universe. I'm definitely going to have to remember it.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 9 2006, 07:21 PM

I t is an incorrect arguement. Templars summon angels as do many other Christian magicians. Check out Threats 2.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 09:47 PM

And a satanist mage could summon up demons and devils, just like a shaman can summon up spirits of earth and air, and so forth and so on.

The shape your summons take is only indicative of your part6icular view. It does not mean you have called for and been sent an Angel to help you, it means you have wrested a spirit from the Astral, and it projects onto the world through the lens of your mind. Your mind, in this case, has little Angels printed all over it, so the spirit takes the shape you want it to.

It's no more and no less than that.

And here's the ultimate reason God does not exist. Given that God is infinate, and Omnipotent..

There would be no athiests and agnostics, because He would imprint on each and every one of us the overriding and unshakable truth that He exists. A back-water heathen with no religious training whatsoever would not be able to quote the Bible, but his belief that the Lord our God existed would be absoloute.

Since this is not the case, then we can safely rule out that possibility. If the jeuedo-Christian God does exist, then He is not omnipotent and absoloute. Why is this? I don't care. I simply do not care, it is enough for me that I do not believe He exists, and since I have seen nothing else that could convince me, I am left to the only conclusion that I can draw; there are no Gods, singular or plural, and life's only purpose is life itself.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 09:49 PM

Heh. Them's fightin' words I just posted. Ah well, my point stands. Don't bother arguing or trying to convert me, it'll just get a flame war started.


In any event, that's the argument I use against religion in 2006, and it'll be just as applicable in 2050, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, and 2070. Even moreso, because now the athiests will be able to point at all of those improbable things that previously they had to stretch to explain, and say "It was a spike."

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 9 2006, 09:49 PM

And if God really believed in free will, Ge wouldn't punish people for not believing in him. And if He was perfect, he wouldn't give people free wil just so that their worship would mean more to him.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 9 2006, 09:55 PM

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 9 2006, 09:57 PM

But why would a perfect being give us free will for any reason other than the desire to see us free? For God to go all Paradise Lost on us seems very selfish and imperfect of Him.

I have officially grenaded this discussion; I don't know whether to be horrified at myself or to be very, very happy.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 10:06 PM

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 9 2006, 10:07 PM

Dude, oppression makes belief stronger.

Durr, God is testing me.

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 9 2006, 10:46 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 9 2006, 10:58 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 11:17 PM

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jul 9 2006, 11:26 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 9 2006, 11:27 PM

everybody makes mistakes! DON'T JUDGE ME!

at any rate, as i said, your logic is flawed. you don't take into account the infinite number of possibilities for why YHWH wouldn't use his omnipotent power to force everyone to worship him. to me, any attempt to divine the most likely course of action that an omnipotent, omniscient being might take is doomed to failure from the outset. how are you going to get into the mind of a being that purportedly knows everything?

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 10 2006, 12:51 AM

Does a Spirit take on the form that the summoner believes that it should have or does the viewer see the spirit in the form that she thinks that it should posses?

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 10 2006, 01:03 AM

The spirit's form frequently conforms to what the summoner believes.

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 10 2006, 01:49 AM

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 10 2006, 02:26 AM

Dude, you've never summoned an angel and had it beaten by a great form air spirit. That did not target you in any way.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jul 10 2006, 05:45 AM

...sweet Jebus, help me.

H. Simpson

Posted by: knasser Jul 10 2006, 06:26 AM

Hmmm. Well I had never read Threats 2 so I was unaware of that. I'd skip it in my game as it confirms that spirits are derived from the summoner's pre-conceptions and I don't want that confirmed in my game. I like to play spirits as independent entities. Secondly, it can be quite offensive to many people's own beliefs. And though I'm able to see it for the fictional-game it is, to a very little extent that includes me. For the record I do believe in God, or Allah if you like, though my beliefs are very personal to me and so at odds with mainstream religion that I'd probably get stoned in some parts of the world. I'm closer to Sufism or Gnostic Christianity than any mainstream religion. Two sects that are regarded as heretical by their parent religions. Actually that's not accurate. In both gnosticism and sufism, these are closest to their respective religions in their original forms whilst the major streams of Christianity or Islam are the ones that have actually branched / evolved. Not saying either is wrong or right though.

This has gone beyond Shadowrun now, as I've gone into my personal beliefs. I'm okay with that. I think the standard of debate and maturity on these boards is pretty high so I don't expect lots of "d00d, my elemental can pwn ur g0d" but I'm not going to be offended by people telling me they disagree with my faith or (preferably politely) think that it's nonsense.

Regarding the question of God "going all Paradise Lost on us" (which I've read, by the way, and love), I don't personally believe that. I identify far more with the Devil in that book than I do with the nauseating Almighty and his sugar-sweet Son. I don't believe in a God that would punish someone for beigin ignorant of him or choosing not to believe when no evidence had been provided. Sin has a basis in logic and is its own punishment. It requires no outside agency or father-figure.

Incidentally, the Hebrew book of Genesis does refer to God as plural (elohim, I think) and I'm pretty sure I learned once, that the hebrew name of God is actually without plural or singular form, or rather it has both, which is interesting.

-K.

Btw. If anyone hasn't read Paradise Lost, you should. If for no other reason than it's the ultimate source of quotes for bad guys. I used to have mounted on my wall two lines from that book:

"Let him surer bar his iron gates, if He would have me stay in that dark durance."

Basically, Lucifer telling Uriel you can't keep him in Hell.

Posted by: mfb Jul 10 2006, 06:37 AM

Posted by: SL James Jul 10 2006, 06:47 AM

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jul 10 2006, 09:03 AM

...in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "it's all a pack of foma"

...no damn cat

...no damn cradle.

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Jul 10 2006, 04:58 PM

Posted by: John Campbell Jul 10 2006, 06:02 PM

Or Dumpshockers.

You know you all spend way too much time arguing about whether the world should use SR3 or SR4 rules, and way too little playing the actual game.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 10 2006, 06:04 PM

Burn the heretic!

Posted by: Platinum Jul 10 2006, 06:10 PM

It's funny some of the things that you manage to come across at the exact right time.
http://www.errantstory.com/archive.php?date=2003-01-08

James will have a response tonight ... busy at work today.

Posted by: knasser Jul 10 2006, 06:37 PM

Posted by: Birdy Jul 10 2006, 07:09 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 10 2006, 07:43 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 10 2006, 08:38 PM

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 10 2006, 08:40 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 10 2006, 09:05 PM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 10 2006, 09:07 PM

Posted by: Birdy Jul 10 2006, 09:08 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 10 2006, 09:14 PM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 10 2006, 09:16 PM

Oh. See, I took it as being like "durr" as a rough equivalent of "I ride the special short bus!" Now I see that I propably misinterpreted.

Posted by: knasser Jul 10 2006, 11:42 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 10 2006, 11:49 PM

I like Babylon 5's view of Angels. The Vorlons came to earth millenia ago and became a part of our legends. One of the main characters postulates that they did it to condition us to accept them as saviors when they finally revealed themselves, but of course the Vorlons never confirmed or denied it (or even heard about it).

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 11 2006, 12:10 AM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 11 2006, 02:08 AM

Perhaps I should draw attention to my post about In Imago Dei again. Now, if Pope John XXV wanted to establish that spirits are meant to be understood as angels, he most likely would have written something like "Spirits are angels," and not "Spirits are living manifestations of nature." Therefore, I'm pretty sure that spirits are not considered to be angels in Catholic doctrine, and that the same is most likely true in Orthodox and (most of the) Protestant doctrines.

Posted by: mfb Jul 11 2006, 02:23 AM

while that's true, i'd like to point out for the sake of clarity that it doesn't necessarily mean that Catholic magicians can't summon spirits and call them angels. they would simply be creating a false division between angels and spirits, the way psionicists create a false division between magic and psionics.

in other words, a Catholic mage might summon up a spirit of man and call it an angel. his Badger shaman chess partner might summon up a spirit of man, and the Catholic would call it a spirit. the Catholic would view them as being completely different types of entities, despite their similarities.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 11 2006, 03:12 AM

It would probably tend to be the more whacky denominations that would go the shamanic route and summon "angels" and "miracles", while most other Christians would far likelier be hermetics, and view the former with great skepticism (if not contempt). They would generally not accept some crazy shaman's spirit as being a real "angel". The angels in the Bible are pretty hard to mistake for anything else - they're terrifying. Ever notice the the first thing that nearly any angel says after revealing itself is "Fear not" or the equivalent?


I doubt that the awakening would have any conclusive affect on religious debate, although keep in mind, for your game world, that not everyone in that game world will know all of the facts about magic. You will have smug, ignorant people on both sides claiming that the awakening proves/disproves religion.

Posted by: mfb Jul 11 2006, 04:32 AM

the shamanistic vs hermetic split, in Christianity, is partly true. but it's also true that there are both hermetic and shamanistic Catholics in SR.

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 06:31 AM

Posted by: mfb Jul 11 2006, 06:46 AM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 11 2006, 06:52 AM

Man, and I thought that canon evidence I cited on how spirits are viewed in SR's Christianity would help resolve the question on how spirits are viewed in SR's Christianity, but it's just made things more complicated.

*sigh* I feel so ignored. And depressed. And stabby.

However, I might just make a Sylvestrine as an intellectual exercise for my dedicated character thread in the SR4 forum. He won't have any skills or qualities that aren't plausible for a member of the clergy to have, but I hope you will like him anyway.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 11 2006, 07:05 AM

Posted by: mfb Jul 11 2006, 07:12 AM

indeed. Catholicism is not the only version of Christianity out there--and not even everyone who calls themselves Catholic agrees with it.

Posted by: SL James Jul 11 2006, 07:18 AM

Especially the branches of Catholicism that broke off from Rome - you know, in Westphalia, Ireland (officially), Aztlan (officially), Euskal Herria, Spain (for all intents and purposes when it comes to magic), as well as probably not a few splinter groups that would exist in North America, Asia, Eastern Rite, and the rest of the world.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 11 2006, 01:46 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 11 2006, 01:48 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 06:05 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 11 2006, 06:31 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 11 2006, 06:43 PM

There may be a big disconnect between what god actually is and what everyone thinks that god is. God as totem works perfectly well just as psionics-as-magic does. The fact that the people who practice this magic are lunatics doesn't change that. In fact, it helps. There is a section in MitS about miracle magic. Some people think they channel God's power to do miracles. Some of them beleive that the practice of magic is evil.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 11 2006, 07:07 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 11 2006, 07:18 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 11 2006, 07:24 PM

The difference is they are false gods with a little "g". Not a supreme being like the God of the bible says he is, but idols and objects of worship. It says that the Isrealites fashioned a god for themselves out of gold. Was is a real "God", no... just an object.

According to the bible YHWH is the only "TRUE" God.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 11 2006, 07:45 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 08:37 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 08:40 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 08:51 PM

Just to lighten all of this... this reminds me of a story:

Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai. He addresses the assembled Hebrew people.
"Oy," he says. "I've got good news and bad news.
...
The good news is I've got it down to Ten. The bad news is, adultery's still in there."




Hopefully that's non-offensive to everyone here (including the atheists).

Posted by: SL James Jul 11 2006, 08:52 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 08:55 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 11 2006, 09:00 PM

According to the "God helps those that help themselves" belief, having a summoned angel walk all over your enemies would be exactly what God would not want.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 11 2006, 09:11 PM

So now we're argueing a point that can't be won because it is a matter of taste.

The original point of this thread is how do actual people in the game world feel about religion not about how religion should be reflected in the game world. Every modern religion been proven wrong by Earthdawn but only a handfull of SR characters know that.

In the game world you have Catholics with their rigorous logic proclaiming that magic is natural but people should be careful with in, you have the fundamentalists declaring that magic is the work of the devil and only thier magicians work miracles and summon angels, and you have the dragons who roll their eyes and humor the silly children becausse they've met plenty of Gods in their lifetimes.

Posted by: SL James Jul 11 2006, 09:17 PM

And one ex-Great Dragon who openly lamented the fact that he and some of those other immortals played a hand in chipping away at not just religious institutions, but faith itself.

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 09:27 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 11 2006, 09:27 PM

wow ... that's a really good point hyzmarca. Makes me hate the historic links between the two games.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 11 2006, 09:29 PM

I was still trying to argue from a 2060 perspective. If someone says "you can't have just summoned an angel because it would have automatically won thatnks to being God's beat stick" the response is any of my last few posts.

How religion gets handled in a game world depends on the players. My group has an atheist, an agnostic, a devout christian, two mildly christians, and a guy whose affiliation I'm unsure of. We're all pretty thick skinned though, so if I decided to have Jesus come back as a BTL addict who just got kicked out of heaven for being a moocher nobody would get offended. I'd never think of doing anything like that at a table with FanGirl present because it would (presumably) offend her.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 11 2006, 09:40 PM

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 09:44 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 11 2006, 09:48 PM

I think I understand. You're saying that if, in SR, someone summons an Angel, and that angel is killed, monotheism cannot continue in the form of Christianity because Angels Can't Lose. Is that correct?

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 09:51 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 11 2006, 10:05 PM

Then my prior responses are still valid I believe, at least from a Christian in SR (or any time period) standpoint. Angels can lose because:

1) Angels are messengers, sometimes the message might be "don't rely on angels." It's kinda like that saying "God answers all prayers, but sometimes that answer is STFU."

2) God may have a reason to have the angel fail. Angels fail in the bible, so it's reasonable to expect they could fail now.

Basically, we cannot fathom the mind of God, so if He lets His messengers be defeated in combat, He must have His reasons.

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 10:27 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 11 2006, 10:43 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 11 2006, 11:01 PM

As for the issue with angels sitting around with thumbs up their asses, traditional Angeology classifes angels into a distinct buearucratic order with the most powerful of angels being given the most prestegious jobs while lesser angels are delegated tasks related to the everyday working of the universe and the lives of mere mortals. It is not unreasonable to suggest that there are lower-order angels who are tasked with answering the calls of mortal magicians. These angels would not have access to cool weapons such as flaming swords and scythes that have been sharpened since Creation so they would be significantly more vulnerable than the higher-order angels who are acting on God's personal orders.

Unless God has something personal at stake there is little reason for Him to disrupt the day-to-day workings of his kingdom and send out one of his hardcore ass-kickers.

James McMurray's arguement also does hold water. Remember Exodus? The Pharaoh was going to let the Isrealites go but God used his mind-control powers to stop that because he wanted an excuse to kick ass.

Posted by: knasser Jul 11 2006, 11:41 PM

Posted by: Apathy Jul 12 2006, 12:12 AM

While I understand and respect your perspective, I don't necessarily agree with it. I don't believe that Angels are supposed to be omnipotent - only God is omnipotent. And therefore Angels could only be unbeatable if they were acting in the service (and with the support) of God (in SR terms would that be channeling God? possessed by God? With God providing spell defense and attribute boosts?) If those Angels were acting in the service of a man (the summoner) than they wouldn't necessarily have the power of God on their side, and therefore wouldn't necessarily be unbeatable. So bitch-slapping an angel would have nothing to do with the power of God. By that perspective, maybe Angels are only spirits being summoned into God's service?

That said, I'm not very informed about the Scriptures of any faith, so if what I say is contradicted anywhere, I'm open to hearing the correction.

Posted by: mfb Jul 12 2006, 12:19 AM

Posted by: knasser Jul 12 2006, 12:23 AM

Posted by: mfb Jul 12 2006, 12:28 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 12 2006, 12:29 AM

The problem is that Christians can't agree on what Christianity is today. You don't have to change Christianity at all to fit into SR. You just have to leave it is fractured and factionalized as it is today.

Posted by: knasser Jul 12 2006, 12:32 AM

Posted by: mfb Jul 12 2006, 12:53 AM

and, again, there's nothing in SR that says YHWH isn't onipotent. you keep saying that the defeat of an angel proves that, but you haven't yet backed that up with any logical arguments. meanwhile, myself and others have shown arguments that an angel getting his teeth kicked in doesn't prove anything.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 12 2006, 01:18 AM

ok ... so everyone gets what the other is saying .... but disagree. The thread has kept cool by having continual flowing but changing topics.

So ... does anyone have any insight (not necessarilly cannon) into how buddhists, or other religions like sihk or hindu might see things? Someone with first hand faith would be nice to hear from.

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 12 2006, 01:40 AM

Here's one reason why an "angel" failing to protect someone who summoned him/her/it is not necessarily proof (to a Christian) that God isn't ominpotent:

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 12 2006, 02:11 AM

Besides, everything that happens every where and through all times is exactly how God wanted it to be. The moment he created the universe his Omniscience told him how it would transpire and how it would end. He knew 6,000 years ago when he first lit the heavens that you would try summoning an angel to do your bidding on January 13th, 2064. And he decided at that moment to have that angel get his nose bloodied rather than get your sorry butt out of the scrape you'd gotten yourself into.

--

I have no idea how Buddhists or Sikhs would react.

I think Hindus would fare rather well, as the majority of their gods are not omnipotent or omniscient. They could even visualize a high force summoning as actually calling forth Ganesh, and if he happens to get his butt kicked no biggie. I haven't read much more Hindu texts then the Bhaghavad Gita though, so if I'm wrong just ignore me.

Buddhism and Sikhism I've only touched upon in religion classes, which means I got a decidedly Westernized viewpoint of them, so I'll remain silent rather than reveal my ignorance and misinformation.

edit: I said his omnipotence told him something, when it should have been his omniscience. Although technically if you've got omnipotence you've got omniscience the moment you want it.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 12 2006, 03:03 AM

Buddhism is a very flexible religion what many factions and flavors. Usually, cultures that adopt Buddhism incorporate
their belief systems and mythologies into it.
Many Buddhist texts and doctrines acknowledge the existance of various gods and other spiritual beings. However, their importance is downplayed. In fact, by attaining enlightenment an individual can elevate himself above the gods. Some myths involve gods humbling themselves to pay tribute to Buddhas.

Some Buddhist sects would fare the Awakening better than others but, for the most part, the return of magic would have little effect on the religion. I do imagine that some would see magic as a material temptation to be avoided while others would see it as a potential path to understanding. Still, others would use magic alongside Ak-47s to accomplish their political goals.


Some powerful free spirits may take the guise of Buddhas and Bodhisattva and some may indeed be. However, it is quite easy to slot any spiritual hierarchy into the basic framework of Buddhism.

It is rather difficult to assume a single reaction from Buddhism because of the rather large variety of Buddhist factions.


Edit:
Sikhism, I have no clue.

Religious Taoism often incorporates Chinese folklore but it isn't a mythology-centered religion. Because the Tao is an impersonal force rather than a personal god one can't actually ascribe any desires or motivations to it. Gods are considered to be aspects of the Tao but so is everything else. Any god can fit into this belief system so Idols and Totems do not produce any conflicts. The practice of magic isn't an uncomon theme in certain Taoist lore so it will probably continue. It is quite possible that certain Taoist Immortals are IEs or individuals who transcended the material and became spirits.

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 16 2006, 03:40 AM

As to the whole summoning of Angels bit.

What exactly does an Angel look like? A real one.

The spirit would take the form the summoner believes that it should have, but that does not actually make it an Angel.
Walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck is meaningless if you don't really know what a duck is.

When Angels have God's backing they should be at least Forse 12+.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 16 2006, 04:24 AM

[edit]

Posted by: Apathy Jul 16 2006, 04:27 AM

Hmmm, if God summons a spirit, then it's (by default) an Angel... Any spirit not summoned by Him wouldn't be. Since He's got an infinite dice pool, he gets to summon whatever (finite) level spirit/angel he wants. Just to pick a number out of the air, we can say they're level 50. At this level, they could easily do those things the bible references, like raze cities, slay armies, etc. without any effort. P

As far as looks, according to the Old Testament, it sounds like there are different looks depending on what they did (the following blatently ripped of from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_angels.

• First Hierarchy:
  
  [1]Seraphim
  [ Spoiler ]
  Isaiah (6:1-3) records the prophet's vision of the Seraphim: "... I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the temple. Above Him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew." In the vision the seraphim cry continually to each other, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory" (vi.3). The "foundations of the thresholds" of the Temple were moved by the sound of their voices.
  
  [2]Cherubim
  [ Spoiler ]
  Descriptions in the Bible vary, but in general all describe cherubim as winged creatures combining human and animal features. In the book of Genesis cherubim are described as guarding the way to the Tree of Life, east of the Garden of Eden armed with flaming swords (Genesis 3:24): "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
  
  [3]Thrones or Ophanim
  [ Spoiler ]
  Thrones (also known as Ophanim) are a classification of angels under many Christian angelic hierarchies. They are the carriers of the throne of God, hence the name. They are said to be great wheels covered in eyes.
• Second Hierarchy:
  [4]Dominions
  [ Spoiler ]
  Administrator types who are said to prefer wearing green and gold outfits and carry both a sword and a scepter. They regulate the work of other angels and keep a close watch on even the most intimately small details of existence.
  
  [5]Virtues
  [ Spoiler ]
  Also said to perform administrative duties similar to those of the Dominations, but they are most specifically assigned to the details of our world and the cosmos. They are said to keep planets and stars moving in their proper order and looking after the weather on earth. They also are said to do a bit of work with bestowing character, such as valor and truth, in the souls of mortals. They are the patron angels of saints. According to Thomas Aquinas they regulate miracles as well.
  
  [6]Powers
  [ Spoiler ]
  Sometimes referred to as the Authorities, they are said to have the task of hitting demons over the head if they attempt to take control of the world. They guard the pathways between heaven and earth and assist humans in resisting temptation. It is this class of angels that Lucifer is said to have once been, and the class from which he drew his greatest following during the fall from grace.
• Third Hierarchy:
  [7]Principalities
  [ Spoiler ]
  The Principalities are angelic beings shaped like rays of light. They lie beyond the group of archangels. They are the guardian angels of nations and countries, and are concerned with the issues and events surrounding these, including politics, military matters, commerce and trade. One of their duties is to choose who amongst humanity will rule.
  
  [8]Archangels
  [9]Angels
  [ Spoiler ]
  In the Hebrew Bible, angels often appear to people in the shape of humans of extraordinary beauty, and often are not immediately recognized as angels (Genesis 18:2, Genesis 19:5; Judges 6:17, Judges 8:6; 2 Samuel 29:9); some fly through the air; some become invisible; sacrifices touched by them are consumed by fire; and they may disappear in sacrificial fire, like Elijah, who rode to heaven in a fiery chariot. Angels, or the Angel, appeared in the flames of the thorn bush (Genesis 16:13; Judges 6. 21, 22; 2 Kings 2:11; Exodus 3:2). They are described as pure and bright as Heaven; consequently, they are said to be formed of fire, and encompassed by light Job 15:15, as the Psalmist said (Psalm 104:4): "He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers." Some verses in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon depict angels wearing blue or red robes but no such reference occurs in the Protestant books.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 16 2006, 08:34 PM

Posted by: Apathy Jul 16 2006, 08:59 PM

Well, that's like any religious debate. The summoner may believe that the spirit in question is an angel, but that doesn't mean that it is. Just like all the different religions of the world believe their ideas to be true. Since many of those beliefs are mutually exclusive, most [if not all] of those believers must be wrong. The fact that one of them happens to be wrong doesn't mean that he believes it any less.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 16 2006, 09:17 PM

Exactly. The flip side to that statement is that it doesn't mean that it [the spirit as angel belief] isn't true as well.

A truly open-minded yet utterly devoted Christian could even convince himself that all religions are right, even his own Christianity, despite the monotheistic approach. It's possible that all Gods are aspects of The One God, merely in a different package to better reach a different culture.

Posted by: mfb Jul 16 2006, 09:59 PM

there are people who believe that now.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 16 2006, 10:15 PM

Yeah, I know a couple. It's not very popular with the masses yet, but hopefully as time goes by we'll see more religious understanding and less persecution, with perhaps this mindset winning out. Either that or all religions going away. Not that it could happen, but it would definitely make the world a safer place.

Posted by: mfb Jul 17 2006, 01:39 AM

mneh. i see more good coming out of religion than bad. it's just that the bad stuff tends to be big, visible, and really bad. but compare the donation/charity numbers of just about an religious organization with those of just about any athiest/agnostic organization. the basic tenant of most religions is "be a decent human being", and it's hard for me to argue with the concept of organizations based on that guiding principle.

Posted by: Teux Jul 20 2006, 05:21 AM

Posted by: Glyph Jul 20 2006, 05:44 AM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 20 2006, 06:32 AM

Posted by: Synner Jul 20 2006, 08:35 AM

Just to add my 0.2¥:

A lot of the stuff in this thread is a non-issue. In Shadowrun, the major denominations of Christianity (incl. Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Reform Protestantism) agree that there is a distinction between magic and miracle. According to SR Christian doctrine (described as far back as the Grimoire), Magic (including the conjuration of spirits) is not divine in nature (hence not absolute, omnipresent, omniscent and all-powerful). It is simply the manipulation of a natural force, just like any other, that God has placed on the Earth. Church magicians practicing Theurgy are bound by this doctrine.

This means that when a Sylvestrine, a New Templar or an Exarch calls forth an "angel", he is fully aware that he is not calling forth a divine messenger or representative of the Host. He is conjuring an archetypical representation of the elemental forces associated with a particular choir/dominion. The true nature of that archetypical incarnate is what makes conjuration such an issue to Christian doctrine.

Regardless, Catholic history is full of examples of Saints getting the shaft when following the commands of God (Joan of Arc comes to mind) and it does not reflect any less on the omnipotence and omniscence of God in the eyes of Catholics. There's no reason why even the defeat of a (percieved) envoy of God would be seen any differently. In essence it is no different from a priest today evoking the aid of a Saint and not getting it (the Saint is no less saintly or touched by the divine if nothing happens).

Posted by: Witness Jul 20 2006, 09:01 AM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 20 2006, 12:43 PM

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 20 2006, 01:43 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 01:58 PM

When someone dies a martyr, it is their decision to die and they have accepted the fact that they are willing to die for their faith. They are not going to curse God, when they decided to die for Him.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 02:13 PM

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 20 2006, 02:13 PM

Posted by: Apathy Jul 20 2006, 04:47 PM

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 04:50 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 04:56 PM

This thread has been remarkably tame. When I started it I expected to get 4 good ideas, 8 meiocre ones, and a 14 page flame war. Instead it's gone 9 pages with only a few minor flareups that were quickly doused and usually arose from misunderstandings.

One thing religion has over the other factors you mentioned is it's ability to remove the fear from dying on the battlefield. Properly handled you can make your troops ready and willing to die. Without religion death on the field would be a permanent part of the battle. It's kinda like "go out there and fight. If you die you get to go to heaven and have 77 virgins, none of which are 40 years old." vs. "go out there and fight. If you die you're gone forever, but at least you'll have managed to die an American."

What really works best is when you have multiple factors working together, such as Islamic Fundamentalism ("come get your virgins for killing" + Ethnicity ("The Man wants our sulture stomped out") + social dispariites ("they worship the dollar"). Then you have a cause people want to fight for, and soldiers unafraid of death.

I think if religion went away, and took with it the promise of an afterlife, there would be a lot less people fighting wars. Wars wouldn't go away altogether of course, as people will still die for causes they believe in.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 05:01 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 05:05 PM

no, it was going to be 5 good ideas, 6 mediocre ones, 15 pages of flames, and you're a stupid-head.

the thing about there being fewer wars if there were no religion... see, that's complicated. are you talking about just removing religion from the picture, but leaving in the human tendency to worship things (gods, ethnic groups, celebrities, politicians)? because if so, i don't see wars declining at all; humans are inventive enough to make up reasons to kill each other without religion's help. but if you're talking about changing humans such that they no longer worship things... well, jeez. i can't even imagine what humans would be like, after that.

but just removing the afterlife... hm. i dunno, maybe. i'm not sure you'd see fewer wars, but you might see fewer soldiers.

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 05:05 PM

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 05:08 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 05:10 PM

yeah, that'd do it. on the other hand, nobody would ever accomplish anything, and the whole human race would probably die out in less than a century.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 05:16 PM

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 05:19 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 05:21 PM

well, given the number of religious people in the world who aren't committing atrocities...

Posted by: Platinum Jul 20 2006, 05:21 PM

To be honest, there might be a few, but I think most of the religious attrocities have more human ambition and motivations to them. I don't think the crusades were "holy spirit" inspired.

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 05:22 PM

yeah. at most, religion tends to be a handy excuse for things that you wanted to do anyway.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 05:28 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 05:34 PM

i think it applies to soldiers as well. most of them--the ones who fight for religion, at any rate--are young people who want a cause to fight for. zealotry is like a drug; it takes away all responsibility and concern. religion is a better supplier than most.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 05:35 PM

Oooh, well said.

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 05:37 PM

yeah, but--wait, what is this? agreement!? you're screwing with the rhythm, man!

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 05:40 PM

Some people just refuse to play ball.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 20 2006, 05:40 PM

Oops, sorry.
Um, dirty girls are better than virgins! Who wants to argue with me?
(just kidding, please don't, I like this thread and wouldn't want to see it closed)

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jul 20 2006, 05:53 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 06:01 PM

If I've learned anything from modern music it's that Catholic school girls rule.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 20 2006, 06:25 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 06:38 PM

How many Islamic Fundamentalists feel that blowing themselves up on a bus will get them into paradise? Because something is not true for one group does not make it untrue for all. Even now, with the draft gone, Americans are still lining up to fight in the Middle East. Most of them want to avenge wrongs, but there are also a lot that just "wanna kill Hadji."

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 06:42 PM

if you take the fundamentalist islam out of a suicide bomber, i don't believe you'll end up with a peaceful guy. i think you'll probably end up with a guy who plants bombs on busses and leaves, rather than strapping a bomb onto himself.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 06:51 PM

I'd be willing to bet big money that there are thousands more fundamentalist bombers than not. I know there are more misguided fundamentalist bombers than logical and educated ones, because Islam plainly teaches that any kind of murder is wrong, but the fundamentalists read that as "killing a Mulim is wrong."

Terrorists certainly wouldn't go away, but one of the reasons for being a bomber ("he's an infidel and you'll go to heaven with free nookie forever") goes away when you remove heaven from the equation.

Of course, if you remove religion and don't replace it with another method of teaching morality you'll probably end up with a worse world. The problem in my opinion is that many religions teach that hate is an acceptable part of morality. And I don't just mean the fundamentalists whose "explosive outbursts" put them on the front page. You can still find idiots who will tell you that the Bible says that Blacks are not human, or that the Koran says that women are lesser beings.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jul 20 2006, 07:29 PM

Suicide bombing campaigns are the brainchild of nationalist terrorists/irregulars/freedom fighters, only that was (and very much is) far, far away from anything our media and viewing public deems interesting, so we only really hear about the suicide bombing carried out by religious fundamentalists.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 07:34 PM

I always figured suicide bombings were the brainchild of someone who was either a) retarded, b) hated the people who believed in his cause, or c) all of the above.

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 07:40 PM

there may very well currently be more fundamentalist bombers than other types. bombers--terrorism in general--is only a small part of the larger picture, though. for instance, the longest, bloodiest, most horriffic wars tend to be based on ethnicity rather than religion.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 07:47 PM

True, which is one of the many reasons I said wars would not go away. Religious wars would go away. Whether they'd be replaced or not is anybody's guess.

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 07:52 PM

i have faith in the ability of humanity to come up with a variety of excuses to take the place of religion.

Posted by: SL James Jul 20 2006, 07:57 PM

Posted by: Apathy Jul 20 2006, 08:01 PM

I think it's an oversimplification to think that islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up just to gain a free pass to paradise. From my perspective, this kind of mentality has to be fueled by large quantities of percieved persecution, impotent rage, and hopelessness more than anything else.

Trying to draw parallels to a [vaguely] SR-type scenario:

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 08:07 PM

I don't think anyone has said they blow themselves up just because of religion, but I think a lot of them would find other things to do if blowing yourself up didn't come with perks.

Posted by: SL James Jul 20 2006, 08:09 PM

You mean like their family getting a check from a Saudi-government sponsored charity?

Not all the perks are intangible.

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 08:10 PM

well, yeah--they'd blow other things up, rather than themselves.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 08:11 PM

SL James: You can buy bombers with money with or without religion. Religion gives you free ones too.

mfb: Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't bet money against it, but it's not a given.

Posted by: mfb Jul 20 2006, 08:22 PM

i personally view it as a given.

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 08:32 PM

Different strokes for different folks.

Posted by: SL James Jul 20 2006, 08:53 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 09:07 PM

Also true.

How's that for "kinder, gentler James?" Agreeing with mfb and SL James in the same day, and even in the same thread!

Posted by: Apathy Jul 20 2006, 09:11 PM

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jul 20 2006, 09:17 PM

Posted by: James McMurray Jul 20 2006, 09:19 PM

Miracle my ass! That's the 4th sign of the Apocalypse.

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jul 20 2006, 09:21 PM

I'm very scared of all this niceness and agreement going on. It seems almost like a civil discourse on the forums... *shudder*

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 20 2006, 10:15 PM

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 21 2006, 02:33 AM

The Enquisitor's Religious News

Here it is 2070 and there are still Trideo-Evangelists.
Saving Souls in styling shows, and designer clothes.

Street Preachers in the Subways doling out little helping of faith and hope to the passerby's that they don't annoy. This fearless reporter found one such man who tended to the injured and diseased homeless living beneath our sight. Attempts to gain Trideo images of hin seem to be thwarted by some kind of Anti-Surveyance spell. As all images came back as a hazy or unfocussed watermark like blur.

A group of people in the UCAS lobbied outside the capital today to have Darwin's image on the $500 virtual bill.

The Trideo "Brian Returns" seems to be a hit comedy, with a strange plot.

The 7th Church of Kirk on Federated way will be holding it's annual Pot-Luck this saturday.
Invitations are extended to all to come and enjoy Unity.

On a side note this reporter is still wondering were are the flying cars.
Good night, Good Luck.

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 21 2006, 03:40 AM

Devours D6 investigators per turn!

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 21 2006, 03:46 AM

I guess any subject other than SR, even religion, will make us very rational and conciliatory.

Posted by: emo samurai Jul 22 2006, 02:38 AM

Notice how the conversation died after we pointed out how nice we were being to each other.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 22 2006, 03:30 AM

[Aztec]Obviously, all the problems in the world today are caused by the fact that no one sacrifices the hearts of the vanquished to the gods anymore. [/Aztec]

Not all religions are about being good people. Some are about killing good people for your gods. Obviously the fact that Aztec-style human sacrifices work just a well as evangelical Christian miracle magic presents one with a quandry. Which religion is right?

For that matter, what about Cargo Cults? Before the awakening their wooden control towers and bamboo radios wouldn't persuade their ancestors to send over more airplanes. Now, these rituals are just as likely to summon high-force spirits in the guise of cargo aircraft.

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 22 2006, 01:36 PM

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jul 22 2006, 01:46 PM

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 22 2006, 03:27 PM

Posted by: mfb Jul 22 2006, 04:21 PM

i tend to assume that Scientology was co-opted completely by the UB.

as for old religions, well, Asatru obviously got a big boost.

Posted by: SL James Jul 22 2006, 09:18 PM

Posted by: Glyph Jul 22 2006, 10:09 PM

I think that the Scientologists, Moonies, and a few others would have a number of their members awaken, and consider taking over the world, before being invaded and destroyed by a swarming legion of awakened, bitter, ex-cult members.


But hyzmarca had a good point about some of the more obsure religions. Magic doesn't care what people believe in, as long as it is a strong and internally-consistent enough belief to channel magic. People could worship the Cthulhu mythos or their favorite anime, and get magic from it.

Atheists would point out that everyone, including them, can potentially use magic, and this magic operates by the same set of "rules" for everyone. But would anyone listen to them? Although there still would be plenty of religious people who would also consider magic and their religion to be two separate things.

Spirits are another interesting thing. Are they created from the unconsious will of the summoner, or are they beings in their own right, who take a form subconsciously chosen by the summoner? Does that "angel" you summoned actually think it's a real angel, or is it internally rolling its eyes at you?

Posted by: mfb Jul 23 2006, 02:40 AM

Posted by: Apathy Jul 23 2006, 04:47 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 23 2006, 05:30 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 23 2006, 10:48 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 23 2006, 11:02 AM

Posted by: Ravor Jul 23 2006, 02:57 PM

Posted by: Demon_Bob Jul 23 2006, 03:48 PM

Posted by: Glyph Jul 23 2006, 08:10 PM

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 24 2006, 08:17 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 24 2006, 08:39 AM

For that matter, Jephthah isn't the one who choose his daughter to be the sacrifice. He stated that whatever first greeted him wouuld be the sacrifice. He would have no control over this randomization of potential sacrifices but YHWH would. Presumably, whatever first greeted him would be YHWH's choice for a sacrifice.

Posted by: Nidhogg Jul 24 2006, 09:53 AM

Exactly. YHWH is a mac-daddy pimp stealin' all dem virgins fo' himself.

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 24 2006, 12:39 PM

ROFLMAO

It also goes to show the value placed on a man (Isaac) as opposed to a woman by Jewish culture of the time (and presumably YHVH too).

Posted by: Glyph Jul 25 2006, 06:11 AM

You really need to read that story in the proper http://www.cresourcei.org/jephthah.html.

Posted by: Nidhogg Jul 25 2006, 07:17 AM

But the proper context might destroy my YHWH is a playa' theory, and I'll have none of that. I would much rather base my oppinions on my uninformed layman's observations.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 25 2006, 07:43 AM

Well, you're in the right forum for that.

Posted by: Nidhogg Jul 25 2006, 09:09 AM

This is, as they say, how we do.

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 27 2006, 10:45 AM

Posted by: FanGirl Jul 27 2006, 11:34 AM

But I think that Glyph was making a valid point there!

The page you linked to states that "taking something 'out of context' means to isolate and/or arrange the statement or words in such a way that its meaning has been changed from what the writer or speaker intended." The page Glyph linked to indicates that, by grouping Jephthah in with a bunch of other sinful people, the author(s) of Judges intended to present Jephthah's actions as being morally wrong. However, when you first quoted the story, you implied that it was meant to set up Jephthah's actions as being morally exemplary. Thus, you misrepresented the nature of the message that the author(s) was/were trying to send - in other words, you were taking the verses out of context - and this obstructs the reader's ability to understand the lessons that the Bible tries to teach. How can a verse "stand on it's [sic] legs" if you've knocked the bottom out of it?

Now...how can we tie Jephthah back to Shadowrun?

EDIT: Changed some sentence structures and added the rhetorical question.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 27 2006, 01:42 PM

Posted by: NightmareX Jul 28 2006, 11:44 AM