Not all of Christianity, no. Likely just the more fundamentalist/literalist versions of the faith, as I stated. More moderate/liberal/metaphorical versions of the faith would eventually adapt, as is shown in SR. I do think it would have a somewhat reductive effect on the faith (mainly clearing out a significant amount of "pew fillers"). Due to said reductive effect and geopolitical events (not to mention VITAS - death has a way of thinning the ranks of any religion), I would hazard a guess that in the Christianity may well have lost it's majority status in the Western world (though not to the extent that the entire faith is marginalized).

Note that I do not speculate as to the effects of the Awakening on Judaism or Islam as I know little of those faiths (apart from the OT documents in the bible).

Insult is, at times, a matter of perception. But I won't go any further into this, as religious debate isn't my point here and my recent track record regarding insult has been less than exemplary.

While I think in time moderate Christian denoms would adapt to the Sixth World, I agree that the notion of them playing "follow the leader" to the Papacy's tune to be rather...ill informed or perhaps dismissive of a great many differences and issues that would prevent such a scenario.

Oh, most definitely agreed. Personally, I wonder if he would have gotten that much of the Christian vote to begin with, even with the more Awakened tolerant attitudes of SR, for obvious reasons.

Same here, I'm on vacation from religious debate. But yes, this is my educated guess as well, having once been a fundamentalist Christian for some time.

..wasn't that touched both in MitS and SM?

There have been a number of religion based threads that have gone just fine in the past, so I'm not too worried.

In a "this is what's out there and how they generally deal with Awakened stuff" sense, yes. Real doctrinal changes were glossed over or not mentioned - for instance, in Christianity (and Judaism) the acceptance of magic as "ok" means in essence that a significant portion of the OT and NT has be reinterpeted or ignored, which has real ramifications as the bible is viewed as the literal or inspired Word of God. See what I mean?

I'm interested in digging a tad deeper and getting a bit more specific. For example, Christianity is the single largest religion today IRL (roughly 1/3 the planet's population in some form or another) - does that hold true in the Sixth World or has that ratio dropped? (As stated, I would guess it dropped) What about the religious demographic of the UCAS (for example) - who are the biggest players religiously speaking, and in what proportions? Or Seattle? What are the various megacorps opinions on religion (presuming they care)?

And also, how does the existence of advanced technology (cyberware, cloning, VR - virtual churches anyone?) and AIs (and technos to a lesser extent) effect various religions?

Well, I know I can get very passionate on the subject, so that was kinda dual purpose - partly reminding myself to be good

That's SOP.

This is not an entirely correct evaluation, as to both the need for profound doctrinal changes and to the biblical interpretation - at least as concerns Christianity and Judaism. Both feature a long history (and continuing acknowledgment) of mystical and pseudo-hermetic/hellenistic lore and symbology in the case of Christianity dating back to the Gnostics and the first and second century splinter Christian churches (and in the case of Judaism, Qabbalistic studies have always been there).

Just for the record, recent writing in SR books has been thoroughly researched and grounded, and any hand-waving has been the result of trying to reconcile previously existing canon on religious doctrine with a deeper perspective. I know I've been responsible for a significant chunk of them.

I agree that Fundamentalist Evangelical denominations and hardcore Catholic conservatives are going to have some serious problems coming to terms with magic (as a non-divine gift) - which is one of the reasons I singled them out in SoE, Sota64 and Street Magic.

However Roman Catholicism in general, Orthodox Christianity, many Reform Protestant denominations (Anglicans, Lutherans, etc), and the increasing number of Neo-Evangelical and Post-Evangelical denominations (which show huge growth in South America and Africa will face far fewer problems.

In fact Catholicism just has to tap the significant Church law left by several imporant and "untouchable" figures like Saint Thomas Aquinas and the neo-platonic mysticism of the early Christian philosophers and mathematicians. Reform Protestantism needs little tweaking to tap the huge resource of Renaissance Christian Qabbalism and Hermeticism (which flourished in Hungary, Austria, Southern Germany, the Hanseatic league and in what is today the Czech Republic). All the major branches of Orthodox Christianity have a long history of near-shamanic and ecstatic trappings and rituals - that have not-so-innocent parallels with Sufi practices.

Important note - one thing I see ignored all too often when people start bandying about numbers is the enormous difference between practicing believers and people who identify themselves with a particular faith (ie. those that show up in census). Christians are roughly "1/3 the planet's population" but the vast majority is non-practicing and feels no special attachment to the doctrines and edicts of their "church of choice". This important because subscribing to a faith does not necessarily give that religion any significant social or political weight in the democratic process (though it can, as attested, ironically, by the unlike trio of the US, Pakistan, and Iran).

Keep in mind that this is what really matters - not overall figures but committed believers and practicing faithful. While in Islam the figures are skewed to something like 75% practicing (church-going, doctrine-practicing) believers to 25% non-practicing Muslims, in Christianity figures are skewed the opposite way with only about 20% worldwide actually qualifying as practicing members of congregations (going to church more than twice a year, following doctrine in everyday life, etc). Admittedly numbers might be closer to 80% among Fundamentalist christians, most notably in heartland America, but those are still a very small minority worldwide (to give you some perspective according to a 2004 Georgetown study for several interfaith groups including the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue - the (growing) number of conservative Protestant Evangelicals in America (around 100 million which is relatively close to the US Census Bureau's 2007 Statistical Analysis figures) is dwarfed by UNESCO's figures for Neo-Evangelical numbers in South American - with 120 million in Brazil alone).

True But that gets a tad too close to religious debate to pursue further methinks. Now a reason for such happening in the Sixth World, on the other hand....

Very true, but if you look at the world and society described in SR4 I find it hard to see what, if any, remaining shreds of JudeoChristian morality remains. Then again I don't find that problematic given the traumas Western society went through to get to 2070. Said morals certainly didn't go easily (and likely not completely).

Very true, but we must remember the fate of the Gnostic heresies. As a (fundamentalist) Christian friend and player of mine said when I had her read over the Christian Theurgy tradition from Street Magic "That isn't Christian". While her perspective is admittedly, well, flawed and lacking historical context to put it kindly, I suspect that many Christians of various denoms these days would have a similar response. Especially given the rather clear prohibitions and denunciations of things magical throughout the bible.

Of course, if they went the "double think" route that Judaism went with Qabbalism - ie "our magic is good but all other magic is bad" - I would find that totally believable.

My apologies Synner, I wasn't clear enough. It was the original (1st edition) writers I was referring to when I made the "ill informed or perhaps dismissive" comment. I think you know I feel you guys are largely doing a good job.

(btw, a note to the general public - While it may have the appearance of it, this is in fact not ass kissing. Ass kissing presupposes a desired reward and I have no such intentions in regard to Synner or anyone else that works on SR. While I once had ambitions of freelancing, the realizations that my writing is crap and that I am chronically unable to get anything done made it apparent that such ambitions were pointless. Thus, I am simply a consumer.)

Hmm, I don't know much about those denoms, and thus hadn't thought about them. Thank you, something new to research there

But further Synner, thank you for this - very concise and informative. I think I may show it to the friend I mentioned above

It's these non-practicing/non-committed individuals whom I meant when I referred to "pew fillers" (ie Christian in the same sense that Homer Simpson is). As you said, they are the majority in Christianity.

This is of course assuming that things continue to go this direction. The future is unpredictable. It is very possible church attendance could go up. Without knowing what is attributing the leaving of churches it becomes rather difficult to predict what the future holds. Might I remind you that church attendance has fluctuated greatly and is something that rises and falls as time passes. Remember the enlightenment period and Voltaire boasting that in 100 years time of his death the Bible would disappear. It is way past 1878 and we still have plenty of Bibles, even in France. It is still the best-selling book in America.

I doubt you disagree with me because I said nothing to that effect. I also disagree with that notion you seem to presuppose I made. The only thing I said is that the Bible does not cover anything as far as the cycles of magic. I do not recall placing any timeline for revelations nor inferring anything about when the end of time was. If I did, I assure you that was not my intention.

This is wholly false, your example is an incorrect evaluation of the Hebrew words used. The Hebrew word used for "expose" in this passage is the very same used later in Leviticus for having sexual relations with ones mother. In fact, the Talmud goes as far as to say Ham either castrated or in agreement with the word usage in Leviticus, sodomized him. We know that some sort of sexual action was taken due to the word used, the specific is just unknown. This curse, was in no way some magical curse, the text itself nor the Hebrew word used even infer or state this. I don't know where you got that from. The reason why Ham's son was cursed and it was actually fulfilled was because Canaan was ostracized due to the curse Noah placed on him. Punishing ones offspring, for an especially depraved act, was a common punishment due to the immense shame it put onto the individual because your progeny was highly valued. Just think of Abraham and his legacy. This curse is also congruent to God's promise to Abraham that his descendants on Jacob's side were to inherit the promised land and not the descendants of Ham.

You can continue on believing what you may, but realize that thousands of years of precedence and biblical scholars do not support your statement. That, and the text is contrary to your views as well.

The only close to magical tradition stemming from Jewish belief, is Kabbalah. This is a form of Jewish gnosticism, and I would call it more mystical than magical. The only parts of the Bible that include non-divine magical powers are places like Exodus which deal with witchcraft. Pharaoh's magicians could produce some of the same wonders God did through Moses. Of course, God always did it considerably better, and there came a time where they just couldn't reproduce them at all due to their very limited power. Non-divine magic is also not the best way to say it, because it implies that there might be divine magic. As a follower might say, the judeochristian God does not need to resort to such cheap tricks. Magic in the Bible is depicted as inherently evil and is why you have seen such things as the Salem witch trials in Christianity's past. If there were such a thing as divine magic that those in God could use, it would call into question the very power of God. Because then, God's power could be used as an art, with discretion subject to only very whims of the person granted this divine magic. God works by miracles, signs, wonders, and gifts, never by magic. This is why magic to judeochristians is so counter to what they believe. Because if it isn't by God's power, then it is either by the flesh or by satan.

Just noticed you said "which were used by righteous people". A righteous person would never use magic, whether divine or non-divine. For two reasons, there is no such thing as divine magic, and non-divine magic is satan's domain. Magic is synonymous to witchcraft in the judeochristian religions. I realize that some might say, "In the Bible God does wonders that one would consider magic by definition.". God works by is own power which is supernatural by nature. Supernatural power does not always mean magical. God's supernatural power does not use trickery, the sleight of hand, illusion, or any sort of manipulation of energy(mana) to work. He just wills it and it happens. As I stated previously, these are miracles, signs, wonders, and gifts. And no, these are not just some repackaged forms of magic under a different name. No one in the judeochristian religion believes this way. Except maybe for people that reject wholly parts of the Bible.

Sorry to make this so long, I just wanted to get past all of the misconceptions that this could bring up about what judeochristians believe. They may not believe exactly as I have said, but they certainly agree on the singular point, magic is inherently evil.

right... the israelites (or moses, or whoever you wish to attribute that passage of scripture) made up a curse on the canaanites to justify everyone else enslaving them... makes perfect sense.

also, while their concept of hell may be different, it is my understanding that they do, in fact, have some concept of hell. though my understanding is admittedly incomplete on that matter...

No, the Isrealites made up a curse on the Canaanites to justify the Israelites enslaving the Canaanites. And they did just that.

Of course, the Canaanites weren't black. The whole Canaanites being black idea comes much later when the enslavement of Sub-Saharan Africans become popular.

We aren't even talking about ancient history here. There are people alive today who remember when some of these sects retracted that particular viewpoint. Hell, there are sects today which have not retracted those teachings (some, like th so-called "Volk Churches" embrace it).

-Frank

i would have to question his research, given he hasn't even got the name of the church in question correct, and i'm pretty sure the change he's referring to was not in 1965 at all, but i suppose that's neither here nor there.

[edit] this next part actually is in response to hyzmarca more than it is to Frank [/edit]

and iirc, i'm pretty sure the bible indicates that the canaanites were wicked at the time the israelites invaded, (in other words, they were not just being punished for what Ham did) and that they were *supposed* to kill them all and/or drive them out of the land rather than enslaving them... which would seem to indicate that it wasn't used as justification to enslave them at all.

though i suppose your case remains if you were to replace "enslave" with "kill", so it's not a particularly relevant point.

still, it's generally speaking better to be accurate, i suppose.

Yes. The LDS church did not allow Blacks as priests until 1978, Spencer Kimball coincidentally receiving a revelation from God that it was time to treat black people as equals while they were in the midst of losing a discrimination suit in US Court and under threat of losing their tax exempt status.

Here's a fine transcript:

So yeah, the Mormons are on record as saying that blacks are inferior and should be treated differently as recently as 1978. They also are on record as saying as recently as 1997 that they were not wrong to do so.

So if people come up and start talking about racist tirades made by religious establishments about "Sons of Ham" and shit - that's not atheist jibber jabber. That's not a smoke screen. That's not a tragic misunderstanding of the faiths of other people. That's a very real, very recent, very relevent problem whose ramifications continue to haunt people of all nominally Christian denominations. There are people alive today who were brought up being taught by the highest of the LDS elders that black people were cursed and separated by god and that they should not be afforded the duties and priviledges of white men.

This isn't ancient history. This is recent history. Memory. Now.

-Frank

To be accurate, they killed and they enslaved. They didn't actually kill everyone, despite divine orders.

The Bible doesn't indicate that they were wicked so much as that they might leads the Isrealites into worship of other gods, such as Baal and Asherah, which violates Commandment #1. Of course, the Canaanites weren't bount by the Commandments so their worship of other Semitic deities couldn't be considered wicked. It was simply the possibility that the Canaanites might teach the Isrealites about these other gods that YHWH was trying to avoid. Of course, that didn't work out too well. The worship of the fertility goddess Asherah as YHWH's wife wasn't uncommon at certain times during Jewish history and is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

The quote from Christopher Hitchens seems to be inaccurate, going to far as to get the dates wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints did not permit black people to hold Priesthood until 1978 (though it did permit them to do so in the early years under Joseph Smith, the prohibition came from Brigham Young) by stating that God lifted the part of the curse that made it impossible for them to hold Priesthood. He did not, however, lift the part of the curse that makes them black. When he does it'll be quite obvious.

Current fundamentalist Later Day Saint splinter churches do still deny the Priesthood to blacks, of course.

The Latter Day Saints are Christians and to claim otherwise is bigoted.
They believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the Begotten Son of God (YHWH). There are no other requirements to being a Christian.
The Book of Mormon is no less valid a Christian text as any book of the New Testament is.


To say that the Curse of Ham is currently a doctrine held by many Christian churches would be incorrect. It is a rare doctrine. The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints doesn't even teach it anymore, though they were the last holdouts among the major churches. But it was a widely taught doctrine amongst many Christian churches in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And there are still a few holdouts amongst smaller churches.

Edit:
Back on topic:
Faiths that allow polygamy will probably be much more popular in the Sixth World due to the position of marriage is a social contract that can be made between any number or combination of peoples.

Neo-Paganism, Wicca, New Age, and other Polygyny-tolerant faiths will probably get a boost from all of the women who want multiple husbands. And, of course, from the Homosexuality tolerant and bestially tolerant faiths will get huge boosts, too.

actually, the book of mormon pretty much has nothing whatever to say about the canaanites. quite possibly this is because the canaanites were in the middle east area, whereas the book of mormon starts in the middle east (specifically jerusalem) immediately goes into the wilderness and deals with only one family and doesn't ever really mention anyone else along the way, and then heads across the ocean to the americas.... which, coincidentally, is somewhat separated from the middle east.

so, inasmuch as the LDS church got anything pertaining to the canaanites (and their descendants) it would have to come from the Bible.

incidentally, it could be argued that the justification for enslaving the canaanites (by the ancient israelites) is that those canaanites (supposedly; i have my doubts here) tricked the israelites into enslaving them rather than killing them all. although i for one have to say that particular story seems a little far-fetched (oh yeah, they practically *begged* to be our slaves, honest!)

that being said, as far as the majority of christianity is concerned, i would say that largely the only people who pay much attention to what luther said would be those who go out of their way to study it... i would not be surprised at all to hear two 'lutheran' sermons where opposing things are taught, simply because joe average doesn't much care what luther thought about God so much as he cares about going to church (if that) listening while the preacher goes on for an hour, and then going home and promptly ignoring the majority of what he's been listening to. i'm pretty sure the priest, provided there is no governing body keeping an eye on things, could say just about anything he wants and the congregation would probably just accept it as long as it doesn't directly contradict something *extremely* basic. oh sure, he'd lose a few people who take the time to study things in-depth, but the majority of the congregation either wouldn't know better, or wouldn't particularly care enough to go the extra 5 minutes to the next-closest chapel (just let the minister make a comment about the inappropriate clothing mrs. average is wearing, on the other hand...)

i can't vouch for any of the other "major" religions out there, but i do know that at least in new testament times (going back to the bible) there were groups within judaism who completely disagreed with each other on some fairly major aspects of the faith, and i wouldn't be surprised if that continues to some extent today (for example, i understand some rabbis feel that driving to church on the sabbath is fine, while others consider that to be work and feel that it is a sin).

The New Testament is a collection of books full of shit that some guys made up. The book of Mormon is a book full of some shit that a guy made up. Dianetics is a book full of shit that some guy made up.
They're all equally valid religious texts.
The odd one out here is Dianetics because the other two books are full of shit some guys made up about Jesus Christ being out Lord and Savior.

Divine inspiration cannot be bestowed by consensus. It either is divinely inspired or it isn't and no amount of human scrutiny can determine one way or another which is the case.

And this is why all earnest religious texts are equally valid. There is no way to prove that they aren't. It is why all religions are equally valid and everyone has a right to the religious faith that they choose and it is why no one should look down on any faith. One can argue about the correctness of any scripture or doctrine within that faith's internal belief system, of course, but one can't look upon another faith as invalid simply because its internal belief system differs from that of the majority.

I do agree that social trends will have more impact on religious faith than the return of magic does. I will, however, disagree that the megacorporate atmosphere is necessarily toxic to faith. In fact, many for-profit corporations are run by people of faith. Others still are based entirely around faith. In fact, the Aztechnology corporation is a good example of how a megacorp can improve and promote faith. Without Aztechnology's support of the Aztec Church, it would not have experienced the resurgence that it has. Aztechnology'a encouragement of its employees to take up the Aztech faith combined with its support of the Aztec state of Aztlan both ensure a bright future for the Aztec Church and paves the way for a resurgence of other human sacrifice based religions.

In a Christian viewpoint, there is a black-and white view of the world and the Powers attendant in it. There is a Big Good Guy and a Big Bad Guy and everything that transpires reflects back to them. Paul speaks of this in his letter to the Ephesians:

Time after time, the bible, in each half, makes repeated, constant reference to a spiritual war with only two sides. Angelic beings are mentioned - Paul even says they are girded for war, walking in heaven with "strange weapons". One could argue that angels would be good totemic avatars except for the repeated warnings not to worship them. One of the most dangerous sins in Christianity is worshiping another being besides god himself.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that all of this could mean one thing - or the verses I've quoted can be used to mean something entirely different, if the context is chosen carefully enough. It's really a case of pick and choose - the bible can say whatever you want it to say in this matter, really.

that's not the only conclusion one can draw. there's one good guy, but there's a multiplicity of bad guys. Baal, for instance, was a thorn in the Israelites' side throughout their history, and there's nothing i know of in the text that links Baal to Satan. for that matter, Satan only gets a few sparse mentions, and is rarely if ever actually made out to be some kind of big bad guy. i mean, heck, reread Eph 6:12--he talks about the bad guys as being plural, right there.

Not trying to single out hyzmarca, just using this as an example. Remember that these are people's beliefs that in many cases guide how they live their lives. I understand the point that you're making. Others might not. Please keep this in mind and try not to take it lightly when discussing the guiding principles in some people's lives.

Don't forget Exodus 12:12, in which YHWH in solitary glory fights and triumphs against all the gods of Egypt. Seriously, the Old Testament has a lot of gods in it. The first commandment is that you should not worship any of the other ones higher than YHWH, not that they don't exist.

-Frank

definitely. the Bible's full of examples of supernatural power that isn't from God. everything from Pharaoh's court magicians to the Witch of Endor to Simon the Sorcerer. hell, even the prophets of Baal that Elijah did his showdown with expected their god to light fire to their offering.

Yes, that's why I clarified with the point that the uncertainty of divine revelation is not a reason for intolerance, but instead a reason against it. There is no logical way for anyone to be sure about what is true and what is not. It is all a matter of personal feeling. And if you feel that one text is divinely inspired and another not, then there is nothing wrong with that. Your feelings and beliefs just might be true. But the feelings and beliefs of people who have different faiths are also equally likely to be true.

And there is the rub. Before you look at a religious text and just dismiss it as nothing more than shit that someone made up, you should also look at your own religious text and remember that it is also shit that somebody made up and you should think about how you would feel about someone who just dismissed your religious text as such. Divine revelation and divine inspiration cannot be proved, but they also cannot be disproved. It is far better to look at new things with an open mind and an open heart than it is to be closed to the possibilities. And it is far better to accept that just maybe people of faith know what is best for themselves even if you don't share that faith.

I don't mean to metaphorically poop on anyone faith. It is just that I don't appreciate it when people forget about the old glass houses and stones proverb. People who live in the former shouldn't throw the latter. And if people of faith, and I'm including Atheist in this one don't understand that they are living in glass houses, then they do need to be enlightened.

And this goes for Atheists, too. In spite of what many think, it takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe in nothing. Atheistic faith is no more or less valid than theistic faith, a fact which many Atheists, unfortunately, fail to understand.


Now, one interesting thing about the secularization of society is that people still tend to identify themselves with the religion of their parents even if their parents never once took them to church. There is basically a whole generation of people who place check marks in all the right places on government forms, but who otherwise have never once practiced the religion that they have ascribed to.
And this probably still goes on the in Sixth World, but they'd have more religions to choose from.
And, of course, there will be guys who suddenly decide to change their religion to something exotic, such as Olympianism, but still do nothing other than checking a different box on forms.

First of all, ask any Jew, even a Reformed Jew if he believes Moses used magic, and you will get a flat out no. You just really don't know what you seem to be talking about on this one. I would really like to know what verses of the Tanakh you are referencing here or what explanation from the Talmud you are using to interpret Moses using magic. This is so far from God's nature and how he works. He doesn't just grant people powers that they can use at their whim and will. He grants His power on a case by case basis according to His will only. Supernatural power does not mean magic. Please show me where in the Bible it says God advocates the use of magic, and he has his people use magic. Then I will believe you. You won't find any verse that says this. In fact, you will find the exact opposite to be true. That the Bible is very harsh against magic, because it is a sin against God. It is doing things in your own power, and even called rebellion against God. If you want me to dig up the Bible verses I will, but I think this should be enough.

The reason I said God would be forced into the metaplanes is because he would not be a real entity in Shadowrun. There is no God in Shadowrun that exists as we know him. If that was the case, anyone under God would be completely unaffected my magic or any other kind of witchcraft. There would be no need counterspelling for true Christians. God truly existing in Shadowrun as Christian's believe would be game brreaking. That is why he would resided on a metaplane and be some metaphysical entity. He would have a very different nature than the God the Christians of our world know.

Hyzmarca:
Your presuppositions about religion make any sort of objective debate completely destitute. For one, all religions can not be true. That would create a paradox. Thus, not all of them can be equally valid. If they are all "full of ****" then that would make them all invalid. Your logic doesn't seem to follow. One religion, if a true religion does in fact exist, would have to be correct. That religion could be found if one was actually seeking that true religion out. If you never seek however, how can you ever know? You seem more predisposed of insulting other people's religions than being reasonable and objective. If I were to use your same logic I could say that the grass in front of my yard is green. However my neighbor thinks it is blue. My other neighbor thinks it is hot pink. Under your logic, we could actually all be right.

Solomon Greene: I would not refer to Fundamentalists as refusing to adapt. Fundamentalists rather refuse to change their beliefs just because new beliefs or philosophy's arise. Many of these movement's that have "adapted", as you would say, have brought in philosophies that are contrary to the religions they claim to believe. If you can't be genuine and honest with your religion, why even have it? Truth manipulated for man's convenience, or what appears to be good at the time, results in falsity. If what was truth previously is no longer truth, then that truth is not absolute. If not absolute, then it is relative. If relative, then it becomes meaningless. Because as hyzmarca said, all religions would then be equally valid. Though they would consist of some man's ****.

Begging pardon, but that's refusing to adapt. Holding fast to what has come before and being unwilling to sully it with new ideas is a cornerstone of Fundamentalism and I can't think of any other way to put it.

You're specifically refusing to change - how is that not refusing to adapt?