Yup. Thanks.

Bulldrek. Eagle is simply his spiritual guide on his path to God. No mage or shaman can claim to draw power directly from God without being called a heretic becasue God's power is Miricle not Magic, somthething the RL church and SR church understands. The fact that you think you know the secrets of Eagle makes me laugh, and your comparison of Totems to Nature Worship is not SR at all: myths only have a grain of truth, worship isn't required for magic unless you're a Voodoun or Idol worshipper (something I wish they never added).

I think you're forgetting the story of Elijah and the preists of Baal, wherein it's made quite clear that Baal is just an idol and has no power (Elijah mocks the priests of Baal for this very reason).
Or the story in the Apocryphal parts of the book of Daniel, where Daniel shows up the priests in Babylon by showing the king how they eat the offerings and by poisoning the beast they worship.

I would. But I'm a petty bastard, and not a Force infinity spirit that can grant magical powers to anyone I want, or take them away.

The idea of a practicing Catholic who follows an Animal Totem is, simply put, obscene to me. Not out of any appreciation of faith, but because it makes no sense within the game mechanics and IC elements of the game, and anyone who tried to make one in my game would have to prove me wrong.

It's not a failure of imagination. It's a failure of logic that they can work together.

Prove it.

What, that totems don't require devotion? Trivial. I can, by all the rules in SR3, play a functional Eagle shaman without ever once worshiping the Eagle totem.

Unless you meant the other thing. That's in Sharaloth's court.

Thanks again for proving the whole "two-dimensional player" thing I mentioned above. You're doing a smashing job of it.

You basically just described a single possible character concept of the Eagle Shaman game mechanic, one focused on (but not limited to) a Native American belief system.

That said, perhaps you can quote page references (not that any of it means much in a 4th Edition discussion) that specifically states that 1) totems are these sentient, all-powerful god-like beings you seem to have deluded yourself into believing and 2) no other options are available beyond that single interpretation (which, even then, varies from tribe to tribe itself) of yours.

More correctly, if you go against the philosophy of your totem (ie, the belief structure your magic is based around), you can lose your ability to weild magic. It does not require you to worship a false idol in any way, shape, or form. It can be due to a belief that totems are sentient beings judging you constantly, or it could simply be a psychological crutch you placed on yourself, or even just a lack of confidence due to the weight of your self-loathing at having violated your own principles. Or many other interpretations, depending on the player.

That's just flat-out wrong.

That pretty much sums it up.

Also:

Sweet Jeebus! He's back!

That's actually open to negotiation. The wording of the commandment is "Thou shalt have no other God before me". As long as you acknowledge that Jehovah is Eagle's boss, it's technically feasible.

Of course we're talking about a religious scripture that has been editorialised to suit the prevailing political structure from the get-go. Heck, the Bible as we know it only came into being in the 4th century - voted for by Romans, under the rulership of a pagan high priest. Go figure.

Yeah. I forgot that. I read the bible as part of a collage course. Didn´t have much time to remember the details. Thanks.

<edit> By the way. Is your sig from Unforgiven?

to which of this world's belief systems do you subscribe, anyway?

nice job, BTW

theists 1, atheists 0

How does anything he said have to do with "theists vs. atheists"? I'm just asking because I agreed with the position Jest supported from the start, and I happen to be an atheist. I don't see how it's relevent, though.

just a 'funny' way to say...

people for the possibility of having religion more defined in SR4 vs. people against putting religion into sharper relief/people against the idea of christian shamans

that's all - i didn't even think of it as people who believe in god vs. people who don't

A hard conclusion to avoid, given that the words you used describe exactly that...

I was raised in the Serbian Orthodox Church, which has its fair share and more of mysticism and what Shadowrun would call "shamanic" tendencies. As I experienced more of the world and encountered other religions, particularly the so-called "pagan" religions, I dissected my religion and theirs to decide what I believed in; how they related to each other, what they had in common, and what our religions might translate to. I also looked into some of the history of religion (I'm certainly not prideful enough to say all, or even a lot, but some of the major issues), which is where I have learned about some of the... how can I phrase this? Let me say "misconceptions" and apologise in advance if it offends, since no offence was intended. Some of the misconceptions accepted as fact in day to day religious practice (did you know "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was a mistranslation in the King James Bible, deliberately done to pander to James I's paranoia about witches? The Hebrew word chasaph actually means "poisoner").

I finally came up with a concept that I expect has been put forward by other thinkers, although its not something I've ever Googled for with any great success . Specifically, that there is one Truth, and that all religions are Man's perceptions of that Truth.

God, Jahweh, Allah, Jehovah, The Lord and Lady... all different names for the same thing. Angels, demigods, ditto.

So at the end of the day, in my view of the universe it doesn't matter if you're praying for the intervention of The Virgin Mary or Isis; the same entity's on the other end of the line. I couch my beliefs primarily in the forms of Orthodoxy because that was how I was raised.

nice...so you're kinda with deism? - belief in God but rejection of religion

personally, i feel that best sums up how i feel at this point in my life - i'm not saying i'll never adopt a belief system, but for now i just don't see one out there that fits right (but i haven't looked at 'em all yet either)

actually, i was thinking of that very story when i said the bible never flatly denies the existence of other gods. re-read it: all it proves is that yhwh trumps baal in a "who's god is badder" contest, and also that neither ywhw nor baal are PETA members. it never says that baal isn't real.

I wonder what the Opus Dei would be up to in Shadowrun (and yes, I'd heard of them before that book was published )

It's a lot more complicated, obviously, than a single sentence could hope to define. A fairly short but decently informative look at it can be found here.

I hope the RCC's portrayal in Shadows of Europe went some way into setting the balance straight and making better sense of the existing canon... but then again I would.

Strange you should mention him... few people actually know about that aspect of his studies.

Again I would underline that even today the Church recognizes the existance of magic but makes a clear distinction between what is magical and what is Divine miracle.

The true issue facing Catholics (and particularly Roman Catholic Clerical magicians), isn't whether or not a particular Catholic can practice magic (hermetic or shamanic), but whether what they are doing is "simply" magic or is in fact a miracle (which makes him/her a Saint and opens an entirely different can of worms).

It's been established since SR1 (Grimoire) that the Church views magic as a god-given gift and tool to mankind (like any other natural talent or aptitude), but that it is neither inherently Good or Evil, and hence it is not Divine in nature. In fact one of the missions of the Sylvestrine Order is to go round and verify whether a certain phenomena was a miracle or a simple act of (human) magic.

DrJest - The Opus Dei in the Sixth World is a Conservative Catholic policlub which is extremely influential and powerful with both elites and lower classes in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Poland. There's more to it than that but we couldn't fit it in SoE and Loose Alliances.

That fits. Cheers, Synner

That is the english translation. I´m sure that allusion is not necesarily exact. The swedish translation would in english be "thou shalt not have any gods besides me" (which means it could be either one, or something else that is the correct allusion).

Sharaloth:

I agree.

Synner: Continue what you´re doing. I think you have the right idea. I would only like to see some of this stuff making some better spots in the books this time around.

Officially, no one gets nailed to the cross, especially not publicly like in some countries (e.g., the Philippines), although mock crucifixion do occur. Given that it is Holy Week, I would also remind you that in New Mexico many of them practice their rituals in the annual pilgrimage to El Santuarios de Chimayo. Do they have visions? That's one for debate. Given the fact that even normal pilgrims do so, and the penitentes often start from ~80 miles and 2000+ feet lower in altitude in Albuquerque without water, "visions" aren't exactly... unexpected.

Of course, their practices didn't appear out of nowhere. Persoanlly, the penitentes in Spain, and specifically in Sevilla, inflict more awful punishment on themselves. But the difference between Spanish and New Mexico penitentes lies in one fundamental difference: Most of the ones in New Mexico are very secretive about it, and will rarely admit it if asked unless you see the mock crucifixions. Many of them are also Santeros.

However, given their secretive nature, God only knows what they really do, and I'm not about to spread rumor and conjecture.

Can you not read? I gave you exactly what you asked for. Let me fill you in, again.

Now, prove me wrong.

I'm getting sick and and fucking tired of being the only fucking person on DS who has to defend myself. How about some of you back up your own claims?

you're right...doesn't matter...just going a bit off topic (while still within the realm of the topic).

i just thought that what he had to say was interesting, and so i wondered if he belonged to any specific school of thought. whenever i find someone who has an intriguing view of God/religion/whatever, i like to know where they're coming from because i may want to go there myself.

now...i feel i'm in over my head here...so i'm jumping thread...enjoy the discussion!

Well you may think it's strange but I do have a fairly good reason for knowing that about him. I'll leave it for you to speculate about what that reason may be.

Aquinas would be very difficult to evaluate given the criteria described. Where do you separate his practicing magic with being the recipient of visions and miracles? As a source of canon theology for the Roman Catholic Church, his study of magic might raise very difficult questions, and for some it could be seen as a grounds for stripping his status as a saint. It has happened, however rarely.

Magic was categorized by the Church into three categories, white/grey/black. White magic was generally seen as beneficial magic or healing magic, neutral magic was neither good or bad, it just was. Astrology, Tarot Card reading, pamphlets listing lucky and unlucky days and times... Black magic was used for selfish and often carnal purposes and involved bargaining with the powers in Hell, perhaps even Satan himself. Under the Church's law, the practice of black magic was expressly forbidden, and it's study was limited to people who had a good track record with the Church in terms of its canon laws. In a sense, this the fictional Encyclical Dei confroms with this standard. It's how the magic is used that determines good or evil. EXCEPT: There is clearly an area of magic the Church traditionally would not want even it's most trusted personnel to even touch, and I don't think that's reflected in SR, but I may be wrong about that... Generally the practice of magic of any kind was discouraged by the Church among ordinary people, even if some things like astrology and fortune telling were tolerated. Astrology was a required subject for medical doctors in Medieval and Renaissance Europe.

On the other hand, this whole debate may be an emic/etic issue. Perhaps the R.C.C. doesn't consider a "miracle" magic, but anybody outside of that belief system might not understand the difference.

So if the transfiguration of the Eucharist; bread into the body of Christ, wine into his blood, is considered a miracle by a priest, an anthropologist probably would have no problem classifying that as a ''magic" ritual.

I think Rory Blackhandcould offer you comfort, assuming you wanted it, but that is besides the point. This is what I was referring to with the 'foolhardy' thing I said earlier. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but the flaws in your argument are fairly easy to exploit, and in a highly-imaginative setting there are many ways of getting around any problems.

I believe that Funk is refering to this question ...

"i'm very glad to see that i'm wrong"

thanks...i know i'm new here, but i'm not dumb (not that i thought that anyone was saying i was ); and it's just nice that you guys are getting to know me a little better bit by bit...i wouldn't flame anyone unless it was called for and unless i could do it in a respectable way...i belong to another forum where someone actually made me flame them with grammer...well, i was right and once i provided proof the discussion ended

i do feel dumb though...i can't believe i never bothered to wander onto these boards years ago when i was first discovering the shadowrun archives. i just didn't know much about forums at the time...

allwell - hindsight

seriously...

i love shadowrun because of it's bladerunner style grit and realism and what is more gritty and real than religion and the "discussions" it can cause?

Not to flame you or anything, but I find this comment extremely funny coming from someone who doesn't use capitalization and misspells the main word in his point.

Just to clarify my initial comment. As interesting as a "what-if" discussion of the R.C.C.'s attitudes towards magic might be in a reality where mana-balls exist, there is a line that can be easily crossed between good natured speculation and pretty disrespectful or outrighted bigoted portrayals of religion. Let me just right off the bat say that I don't think discussion in the present forum has crossed the line but...

There are about 1 billion Catholics on the planet, you can't very well homogenize a group that large, but I dare say some of them would have a problem with how their religion is portrayed in SR. I find it kind of interesting that the Southern Baptist Convention wasn't given nearly as much attention... And the assumption that most main-line Protestant churches would automatically be ok with magic is somewhat absurd IMHO. I dare say Lutherans might have huge problems with it... But that's only speculation, it could be that Lutherans in general would accept magic or maybe the Missouri Synod would be the only one for or against its practical use. Who the hell knows?

I mean, can you imagine going up to the Dalai Lama and asking him what degree black belt he is? If you can imagine that, then I double-dawg dare you to ask a Jesuit priest how he scored down at the shooting range. What can I say, I get a little nervous about trivializing a group of people's spiritual beliefs. I'm fairly sure that many Native Americans wouldn't appreciate the depiction of what they consider to be sacred rites as a means to blow away some dude with an "acid bolt." Though I admit, I did know one Native American that thought the SR universe was pretty cool. He happened to be Sioux...

nice...'grammer' was an honest mistake, but i never capitalize when i type...and i do it randomly when i hand write - i also over use the hyphen and the ellipsis

nobody's perfect; however i do believe that you should at least know that

e·volve

is the break-up of the syllables in the word, not the pronunciation key for the word. am i wrong? (would't be the first time if i was )

i really think this was a good point made, not a shot taken (though i really am often wrong)...either way, i just want to say that i did say that i would think of a christian shaman as i might think of the stereotypical southern baptist, not how i would think of an actual southern baptist. i did live in alabama for about 10 years, so i know my share of actual southern baptists, and i know that the 'gospel' style churches are in the minority.....

also, i'd like to point out that i never said that the stereotype was a bad one, as i don't not think that that style of worship is any better/worse than any other...

Still waiting.