# Religion in Your World: Believing, Doing, Belonging



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 23, 2013)

Someone commenting on a New York Times article today referred to Judaism as a 'creed'--and I cringed. Whatever we are, we're not a creed.

This is a common mistake among people raised with Christianity as the dominant religion--this idea that what you believe makes you a member of a particular religion. And that fact is worth some consideration when we build a religion for our stories.

Neil Gillman, a Jewish theologian, says in *Sacred Fragments* that there are three parts to being religious, and that each religion emphasizes them differently: *belonging* (what defines you as being a part of your religion?), *doing* (what do you do as part of your religion?) and *believing* (what sort of creed, if any, does your religion demand?)

(There are no right or wrong ratios here. I'm going to use two real life religions to get the ideas across, but I'm not saying one religion or ratio is better than another.)

Believing is a big deal in Christianity. Accepting certain doctrines is what makes you a Christian. In fact, C.S. Lewis argued in *Mere Christianity* that your acceptance of said doctrines is more important in defining you as a Christian than your morals: "When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian." 

But believing is much less important in Judaism--and it doesn't define you as a Jew. Unlike Christians, we don't conflate believing and belonging. There are only two ways of becoming a Jew: be born of a Jewish parent (usually the mother, but some branches accept patrilineal descent) or convert to Judaism. As a Jew, you might deny any of the thirteen tenets Maimonides thought Jews should believe. To some, that might make you a bad Jew, but not a non-Jew. Heck, you can deny the existence of G-d all you want. Chris Hitchens was still a Jew, one of my personal favorites in a long line of Jewish atheists.  

What you do is important to all religions, but again the emphasis is different. Most religions expect each member to be a mensch: to do good deeds. The theology behind those good deeds might vary, but the result is often the same. But how important is doing apart from that? 

In Judaism, crazy important. How we interpret the law, and consequently what commandments we keep, generally separates one branch of Judaism from another. That mostly comes down to doing--perhaps with a side of believing when it comes to the interpretations. Do we need to keep the Sabbath or keep kosher? Do we have to dress a certain way? Do we need to live in a Jewish community? 

In Christianity, on the other hand, doctrine (and consequently organization) usually separates one denomination from another. So that mostly comes down to believing, with a side of doing--going to confession or not, for example--depending on the beliefs.  

So how do these apply to the religions you've created? How does someone become a member of the religion? Does your religion conflate believing and belonging as Christianity does, or are these two separate issues, as in Judaism? What doctrine, if any, must members accept? What sort of things specific to your religions are members expected to do, and how important are they? 

Should I give an example of my own? Ok, you twisted my arm. In my WIP *Death of a Diviner*, what you do marks you as part of the dominant religion. If you go to a priest or turn up at a shrine periodically, you're considered a devotee. There are popular beliefs, and priests like to argue about them, but no one will ask you to confirm them. There's no official way to be born into or convert to the religion--you either worship or you don't. So this religious system conflates belonging and doing.

You might not be sincere--you might be a regular at a shrine for social or political reasons. If anyone found out, you would still be considered religious, but not particularly devout. 

Your turn!


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2013)

Edit: I didn't read the guidelines, so wasn't sure if I was in violation. I saved my comments in a file to post later after I check them out.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jul 23, 2013)

This thread is very interesting and insightful, but everyone, please check our Mythic Scribes Guidelines for discussing Religion.

Talking about Fantasy religions is just fine. When you discuss religions from the real world, please remember the Guidelines.

Thanks =)


----------



## Trick (Jul 23, 2013)

The only thing I would add is that it seems one thing might be lacking from the direction of this post. People actually believe in their religions. Not all of them, obviously, but there are many faithful (fill in the blank)s who attend their respective places of worship, scheduled or not, and live their lives according to a code because they believe it to be correct. For them it's not a study in human interaction or behaviour required to keep up appearances, it's real. They can even be offended by having what they do religiously defined in socio-scientific terms. I think, if this is purely for us as writers to create believable religions and followers thereof, we should know whether the character believes in the teachings of their church or not. If they pick and choose among the things their G-d (not sure why everyone writes it this way) has set down for them to believe they may be looked down upon by other members of their faith. If they believe wholeheartedly and try their very best to follow the code by which they believe they must live, that is a fundamental aspect of the character. If they attend religious worship for the sake of appearances, that is also something that will affect what kind of person they truly are. I suppose what I'm saying is that religion can be viewed in many ways but what's important is how the POV character views it and to represent that well, once we decide how the character feels, writers would do well to draw from real life church goers and fallen away members of religions because there is a lot of belief and emotion that we can use to show it in our work and help it ring true.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2013)

Trick said:


> G-d (not sure why everyone writes it this way) .



Some people feel it is disrespectful to refer to G-d in a matter of fact way, that it is a sacred word, and His name should be respected.

I'm an atheist, but I try to be respectful of people's beliefs. I don't want to upset people unnecessarily. So. I use god or gods when discussing gods in general, and G-d when referring to the Abrahamic god by name.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 23, 2013)

Religion has the potential to look quite different in a fantasy world. Think of a world where magic exists, or even where the gods might be directly interactive, so that there is not disputing the fact that they exist. Not much room for atheism in such a setting. It seems likely that followers will be defined by which god they revere (not necessarily which one they believe in, because you'd believe in all of them that were proven to exist).

Some may reject all of the gods (even in a fantasy monotheistic world where one god is the only game in town) if they don't agree with any of their teachings or prescriptions for mankind. See, for example, Dostoevsky's chapter entitled "Rebellion," from _The Brothers Karamazov._​


----------



## Trick (Jul 23, 2013)

Scribble said:


> Some people feel it is disrespectful to refer to G-d in a matter of fact way, that it is a sacred word, and His name should be respected.
> 
> I'm an atheist, but I try to be respectful of people's beliefs. I don't want to upset people unnecessarily. So. I use god or gods when discussing gods in general, and G-d when referring to the Abrahamic god by name.



That's understandable. I went with it because it seemed the norm and I've seen it that way in other posts. I am not an atheist but I do my utmost to remain respectful of others beliefs as well. It's actually interesting to me that I would not think of that as a reason. To me, G-d is just the English word used to describe the/a creator but it makes sense that some could be bothered or offended by the title/name being bandied about. I discuss G-d so often outside this thread that perhaps the terminology involved feels somewhat commonplace; definitely something I can ponder in future. 

If this question bothers you, feel free to let me know but I am just genuinely curious; as an atheist, do you avoid POV characters who believe in a religion or, possibly, religion as a whole when you write?

EDIT: The reason I ask is because some authors come across as believing in G-d and sometimes their religion even seems apparent but I don't think I've ever thought, "I bet this author is an atheist." If you know what I mean.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2013)

Trick said:


> If this question bothers you, feel free to let me know but I am just genuinely curious; as an atheist, do you avoid POV characters who believe in a religion or, possibly, religion as a whole when you write?



Oh no, not at all. I am fascinated by religion, I've studied just about all of them to one degree or another. I've read the major books in detail. My mother is a spiritual director in the Catholic church, I've had a lifetime of theological discussion and debate.

Myths reveal Truths about being human, about being born, living, and dying. I don't mean myths in the sense of "made up stories", but cultural stories that resonate Truth for humans. It could be an enlightening myth, such as the story of Buddha, or it could be the myth of vampires. Vampires provide stories and images for dealing with death, fear of aging, power or the lack of it. They are modern day myths, reinvented over and over again, just as Greek people reinvented the god Apollo, over and over again. We humans can't help but do this, it's just the way we are.

Talking about old time mythology, that's interesting to me as a writer. We tend to get not much more than a Ray Harryhausen view of mythology, with harpies and vengeful gods. But, these people in the past were not idiots, even if we think their beliefs are quaint from our modern perspective. They were as intelligent as you and I. They lived with a different perspective of a smaller and more mysterious world. I'm more interested in writing about people who lived in such a time. I must assume that they never saw the gods themselves, although there must have been many reports. People in general were probably not skeptical about such sightings. There's writing from Greek philosophers who certainly were, but I don't want to write about a guy who sits around and thinks all day. The farmer in the field who thinks he's angered Zeus by not sacrificing a bull is interesting.

While facts rule much of our modern existence, *Truth* is something we need to live, which is not necessarily equivalent with facts. They are different kinds of things. So, when I go into writing about religion, I am after Truths, not facts. I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of G-d. That is a tired old topic which is for me largely settled. I don't _know_ that the universe wasn't created by an intelligence but I don't feel any responsibility for disproving it. If I did, I would probably end up writing a story about an unjust god and the suffering of people. It would become a political thing. I can criticize religion in non-fiction, blogging, or chat on Reddit or at the pub, but I have no desire to put it in my fiction.

But fictional religion, sure. That's amazing stuff. I like to think of the evolution of religion. Humans naturally create religion, whether or not gods exist. If you believe in a particular belief, there are a vast number of religions in which you don't believe. Why did all those people do that? For what purpose? Does it have to have gods and spirits? There are religions that do not have any gods, some that have many, some with one. That is interesting to me, how and why people develop religions.

We soak in it, in our culture. I mean, my Biomancer story... I realized he's a gardener who is wrestling with the question of whether or not to bring forth flesh humans on a new world. There are some archetypal elements that creep in, whether I want them or not. I can't escape my own iconography, it's in my skin. 

This is at the core of human culture, for as far back as early humanity it seems. Neanderthals, our cousins and partial ancestors (for Eurasians) buried their dead with tools and weapons and food. What were they thinking about? What was their spiritual life like? What was their religion?

I am interested in what people _think_ about gods. I'm interested in the psychology of believing in gods, of doubting them, of fearing them, of trying to sway them. So, when there are gods in my stories, they are not actually G-d, but powerful beings subject to similar frailties. G-d is too big for any story of mine. I would have to either make him small enough to be able to interact with people in a real way, or I would make him too big and distant to have anything to do with the story. I'm not interested in putting the Abrahamic G-d on trial. There's no point.

This is fascinating stuff. I can't imagine why anyone would avoid it all together just because they don't believe the supernatural element is true. Au contraire! This is great material for fiction!


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Religion has the potential to look quite different in a fantasy world. Think of a world where magic exists, or even where the gods might be directly interactive, so that there is not disputing the fact that they exist. Not much room for atheism in such a setting. It seems likely that followers will be defined by which god they revere (not necessarily which one they believe in, because you'd believe in all of them that were proven to exist).
> 
> Some may reject all of the gods (even in a fantasy monotheistic world where one god is the only game in town) if they don't agree with any of their teachings or prescriptions for mankind. See, for example, Dostoevsky's chapter entitled "Rebellion," from _The Brothers Karamazov._​



There are religions where there are no gods in them, in our actual world. Taoism, Buddhism and Cārvāka (Hinduism) to name a few. Several billion people believe in these, so they aren't small.


----------



## Trick (Jul 23, 2013)

Scribble said:


> But fictional religion, sure. That's amazing stuff. I like to think of the evolution of religion. Humans naturally create religion, whether or not gods exist.



I agree on this point. In a way I envy your position because my biggest struggle with fantasy religions is to keep my own views out of the picture. Not basic right and wrong but the specifics I believe in. I know I can have a religion similar to my own but I don't want to preach from a fantasy book. I've gotten the feeling, as a reader, that I was being spoken to from a soap box; in one particular case it was more political but with a religious bent and I agreed with the message, which made it all the more irritating to have it pounded over my head repeatedly. Stopped reading the series because of it actually.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 23, 2013)

Mara's OP makes an excellent point. In some religions, you are born into it. That was the case with many of the Germanic tribes in Europe. Each tribe had its gods. An outsider (say, a Roman) might sit back and say oh, these sky gods are really all the same thing, but for the member of the Lutizi or the Abodrites, those were *their* gods, worshipped at *their* shrines, often with very specific geographic locations. You didn't "believe in" gods, and the Latin word _religio_ really doesn't properly describe what was going on. 

These same pagan tribes, when confronted with Christianity, at first were completely baffled by the notion that "believing in" a god meant abandoning the worship of their own gods. You sacrificed to a god. You listened to a god. Believing in a god was a bit like saying you believed in water. It took them a long time (and many conquests!) to begin to understand the Christian version.

Mara's point, if I may be so bold as to re-state it for her, is that we as fantasy writers often project a specifically Christian understanding of religion onto our fantasy religions. This becomes particularly relevant when we make religious conflict part of the narrative. I had a lot of problems with "Thomas the Unbeliever" for exactly this reason. I had to let go consciously of my historian's mind-set in order to give the author an even break.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank Mara for the OP. I don't have an immediate use for religious themes in Altearth, but the day is bound to come, and I'll keep these comments on the back burner. I'll just move this pot over here, and that pan over there and ... ah, plenty of room. Good old back burner.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 23, 2013)

Trick said:


> The only thing I would add is that it seems one thing might be lacking from the direction of this post. People actually believe in their religions. Not all of them, obviously, but there are many faithful (fill in the blank)s who attend their respective places of worship, scheduled or not, and live their lives according to a code because they believe it to be correct. For them it's not a study in human interaction or behaviour required to keep up appearances, it's real. They can even be offended by having what they do religiously defined in socio-scientific terms. I think, if this is purely for us as writers to create believable religions and followers thereof, we should know whether the character believes in the teachings of their church or not. If they pick and choose among the things their G-d (not sure why everyone writes it this way) has set down for them to believe they may be looked down upon by other members of their faith. If they believe wholeheartedly and try their very best to follow the code by which they believe they must live, that is a fundamental aspect of the character. If they attend religious worship for the sake of appearances, that is also something that will affect what kind of person they truly are. I suppose what I'm saying is that religion can be viewed in many ways but what's important is how the POV character views it and to represent that well, once we decide how the character feels, writers would do well to draw from real life church goers and fallen away members of religions because there is a lot of belief and emotion that we can use to show it in our work and help it ring true.



I didn't think I left out belief--believing is one of the big three things, along with doing and belonging, that comprise a religion. Neil Gillman, whom I'm following on this, is a devout Jew and a theologian and a philosopher, so he wasn't denigrating the place of belief in religion either. (And, for the record, I'm a real life religious, synagogue going Jew, albeit not as observant as I should be. ) But the point Gillman makes is, I think, a good one. Belief is important to different religions in different ratios. For some, as in Christianity, a person's beliefs define them as a member of their religion--they arguably can't be a 'true' member without those beliefs. In others, as in Judaism, beliefs don't serve that function.

Just to be clear, the only time I brought up attending religious services for the sake of appearances was in my fictional world, because there are certainly characters who do so. (And that is an historical fact in our world as well--I'd imagine across the board in all religions.) And I agree that we can draw certain conclusions about characters to whom appearance is so important. Or perhaps certain conclusions about the society they live in.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 23, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Religion has the potential to look quite different in a fantasy world. Think of a world where magic exists, or even where the gods might be directly interactive, so that there is not disputing the fact that they exist. Not much room for atheism in such a setting. It seems likely that followers will be defined by which god they revere (not necessarily which one they believe in, because you'd believe in all of them that were proven to exist).
> 
> Some may reject all of the gods (even in a fantasy monotheistic world where one god is the only game in town) if they don't agree with any of their teachings or prescriptions for mankind. See, for example, Dostoevsky's chapter entitled "Rebellion," from _The Brothers Karamazov._​



I think the components of believing, belonging and doing still hold true, even in a world in which the gods so actively meddle. But in that case, believing in the gods' existence would not be so much an issue as simply believing them--that is, believing and trusting what they say. Then you still have the question as to how you belong to a particular god's fold, and what that god requires you to do.

(Some say, by the way, that in many religions trusting is theoretically more important than a casual belief that the Divine exists. But most of us haven't spoken to the Divine in as direct a fashion as a fantasy story might allow. )


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 23, 2013)

Trick said:


> That's understandable. I went with it because it seemed the norm and I've seen it that way in other posts. I am not an atheist but I do my utmost to remain respectful of others beliefs as well. It's actually interesting to me that I would not think of that as a reason. To me, G-d is just the English word used to describe the/a creator but it makes sense that some could be bothered or offended by the title/name being bandied about. I discuss G-d so often outside this thread that perhaps the terminology involved feels somewhat commonplace; definitely something I can ponder in future.
> 
> If this question bothers you, feel free to let me know but I am just genuinely curious; as an atheist, do you avoid POV characters who believe in a religion or, possibly, religion as a whole when you write?
> 
> EDIT: The reason I ask is because some authors come across as believing in G-d and sometimes their religion even seems apparent but I don't think I've ever thought, "I bet this author is an atheist." If you know what I mean.



The G-d thing, in Judaism, is a custom but not, strictly speaking, a requirement. I think the only version of G-d's name we're supposed to be really careful writing is the one spelled out by the Hebrew letters Yod Heh Vav Heh--technically, if a paper has those letters written out in Hebrew you can't casually dispose of it. You bury it instead. But I tend to play it safe, hence I often use the dash when I'm writing or typing G-d, in any language: hence All-h in transliterated Arabic or Di-s in Spanish, etc.

That said, I don't think you'll offend anyone by writing out G-d in the usual fashion. It's usually an individual preference anyway.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 23, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> I think the components of believing, belonging and doing still hold true, even in a world in which the gods so actively meddle. But in that case, believing in the gods' existence would not be so much an issue as simply believing them--that is, believing and trusting what they say. Then you still have the question as to how you belong to a particular god's fold, and what that god requires you to do.
> 
> (Some say, by the way, that in many religions trusting is theoretically more important than a casual belief that the Divine exists. But most of us haven't spoken to the Divine in as direct a fashion as a fantasy story might allow. )



Yes, I think the trust issue would be very important. This is essentially what Dostoevsky speaks to in the "Rebellion" chapter I mentioned above. You have Aloysha, the monk, and Ivan, the skeptic. Ivan recounts a litany of horrors from the news of the idea, including some atrocities against children, and he ponders how that fits in with conceptions of god. In thinking about how god, as Ivan sees it, has arranged things, he says:



> Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It's beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future?....
> 
> What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price....
> 
> I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."




There you have the essence of the trust issue, right? Ivan isn't directly questioning the existence of god, he's just saying "Look, if this is how things are set up, then I don't want any part of it." 

Thus, the title of the Chapter, "Rebellion."

In the fantasy context, this could certainly play out with one god, and if you have multiple gods who are known to exist and whose teachings conflict, then it seems to me this has to play out, inherently. People in your world will be rejecting the idea of following certain gods, not because they don't believe in them (they know they exist), but because they lack the trust you're talking about. That is, they don't accept that the god's view of how they should live is the correct one, or what is best for them. 

Is that what you're getting at?

Because if you follow an approach similar to what Dostoevsky does with Ivan, illustrated above (and, I might add, Alyosha has his own counter and defense to Ivan after this), setting up this kind of trust scenario in a fantasy story could be a powerful way to explore real-world issues. They wouldn't even have to be real-world religious issues, necessarily, just anything that you could pull under the umbrella of a fantasy religion. If you wanted to comment negatively, you could have the character who represents Ivan, and a lack of trust, get the better of the argument. If not, you have the character who embodies trust on the strongest footing. 

So you've gone beyond how doing, being, and trust impact the religions within the context of your fantasy world to how those things actively influence theme. That's pretty cool, in my view.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 23, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> If you wanted to comment negatively, you could have the character who represents Ivan, and a lack of trust, get the better of the argument. If not, you have the character who embodies trust on the strongest footing.



Ah, it's worth pointing out that in a Jewish context, Ivan could be seen as a heroically and devoutly religious person--at least based off your quote. Abraham and Moses both argued with G-d, after all, and the gentile Job is often revered for shaking his fist at G-d and demanding that G-d give an account for unjust actions. 

The general rule seems to be that if you're arguing with G-d in the name of compassion, you're always on the right track. 

In fact, I've heard Noah criticized for not arguing with G-d and G-d's way of doing things. "The Jewish response to human suffering," one Jewish speaker said, "should never be to huddle in a boat and ride out the storm!" (Noah was a gentile too, actually, but the point holds.)

Now, I'm a progressive Jew, so I'm not sure how this all plays out in more Orthodox circles--but Ivan would certainly be welcome in any synagogue I've ever attended, and he would no doubt be a favorite of the rabbi and a favorite at Torah Study. 

(Again, I'm just going off your quote and assuming that Ivan doesn't make a habit of kicking puppies or anything.)



> So you've gone beyond how doing, being, and trust impact the religions within the context of your fantasy world to how those things actively influence theme. That's pretty cool, in my view.


 
Absolutely, and I encourage that--deep thinking about religious issues as part of an author's theme is almost always a win for me. But my original intent was more modest. 

There's something to be said for remembering the basics as well. As Skip pointed out, we in the western world tend to view religion through a Christian lens, because it's so dominant. I'm not critiquing Christianity here, but I am pointing out that other religions work differently. There's really no justification, for example, in referring to Judaism as a creed--a common enough occurrence. We're not a creedal religion. Not that beliefs are unimportant, but they don't make us Jews and they're outweighed by what we do.  

So I just wanted to point out that when we think about the religions we build, we might want to consider this: to really think about how believing, doing and belonging work in each religion we're creating. After that, yes--we should dig deeper.


----------



## Devor (Jul 23, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> In Christianity, on the other hand, doctrine (and consequently organization) usually separates one denomination from another. So that mostly comes down to believing, with a side of doing--going to confession or not, for example--depending on the beliefs.



Must . . . resist . . . faith . . . works . . . . discussion . . . . ARGGGHHHH!!!!!




Mara Edgerton said:


> So how do these apply to the religions you've created? How does someone become a member of the religion? Does your religion conflate believing and belonging as Christianity does, or are these two separate issues, as in Judaism? What doctrine, if any, must members accept? What sort of things specific to your religions are members expected to do, and how important are they?



In my setting, well, the gods are real and are part of the same system.  So there aren't religions as we understand it.  The Phoenix-goddess decides where you are reborn or if you enter Nirvana.  You can shoot for a better next-life, or not.  That's between you and the Phoenix.  The other gods are focused on other things.

Different people have different attitudes towards how they feel about the gods.  And there are the ten serving traditions, groups of people who dedicate their lives to perfect some philosophy towards the magic the gods have placed in the universe.  But you don't see different religions the way you do in our world.


----------



## Devor (Jul 23, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> Now, I'm a progressive Jew, so I'm not sure how this all plays out in more Orthodox circles--but Ivan would certainly be welcome in any synagogue I've ever attended, and he would no doubt be a favorite of the rabbi and a favorite at Torah Study.



I worked at a Chassidic organization for a while, and they always complained that the Messiah was late.  So I've definitely seen that attitude.

As a Catholic, tremendous emphasis is put on the idea that God will listen to us and to the Church, so that it's our job to intercede on behalf of the world.  So maybe that attitude, watered down a lot.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 23, 2013)

Devor said:


> Must . . . resist . . . faith . . . works . . . . discussion . . . . ARGGGHHHH!!!!!



ROFL! From my outsider's perspective, even in varieties of Christianity that put faith and works on an even setting (as C.S. Lewis pretty much did, actually, saying they were the two handles on a pair of scissors or some such), what you believe is of a deep importance in defining you as a Christian that has no equivalent in a religion like Judaism. So I think the issues of how much weight we put on believing, doing and belonging stand. 

(And, like I said, most world religions would like us each to be a mensch. In real 'faith alone' Christian traditions, the mensch-hood flows from the changed heart of a believer--or that's what I understand them to be saying.) 



> In my setting, well, the gods are real and are part of the same system.  So there aren't religions as we understand it.  The Phoenix-goddess decides where you are reborn or if you enter Nirvana.  You can shoot for a better next-life, or not.  That's between you and the Phoenix.  The other gods are focused on other things.



Intriguing! On what sort of criteria does the Phoenix-goddess judge whether you should be reborn or enter Nirvana? Is the aim to be an all around mensch, or are there ritual requirements as well? Or does entering Nirvana involve enlightenment?


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 23, 2013)

Trick said:


> I agree on this point. In a way I envy your position because my biggest struggle with fantasy religions is to keep my own views out of the picture.



I'm going to be honest, I think this is a losing battle. Your writing is an expression of yourself so, to some extent, if what you believe in _doesn't_ seep into your work somehow, you might be doing it wrong. Personally, rather than try to keep my beliefs out of my work, I try to maintain a balance. I don't try to stifle them, but I avoid soap-boxing also. For example, the creator deity in my world, though he goes by several different names and titles, is pretty much the Abrahamic God, full stop. (And the Trinitarian view of him at that.) And one culture that reveres him are heavily influenced by Old Testament Judaism. But I treat it as just another facet of the world. I'm not trying to give the reader a "message" per ce. In all honesty, the main reason God exists in my fictional universe is that I find myself unable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to imagine a universe where he _doesn't_ exist. 

Of course, while Akalesh* is the one true deity, other religions that don't believe in him or consider him a lesser spirit do exist. For the sake of variety. The most prominent of these other pantheons, the gods of Beorgia, are actually ancient creatures that were accidentally created during experiments intended to discover a way to achieve immortality, whose minds were later merged with the magical essences of eldritch demons. Later, their physical forms were destroyed while their consciousnesses were banished to a pocket dimension, from which their priests summon a portion of their power in order to perform magical feats. So while the Beorgian gods do technically exist, they are not "true gods" since not only are they many _many_ orders of magnitude less powerful than Akalesh, but during their tenure on earth they were petty, vindictive, and tended to act like spoiled children. (Like the Greek pantheon!) Magic and religion are somewhat intertwined in my world and I wanted to have magical forces to empower the evil magic users (of which the Beorgian gods are but one) while not diminishing Akalesh's divine supremacy.  When it comes to things like this, with the proper amount of creativity and worldbuilding, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too.



*One downside of the "many names" thing is that referring to the One in casual conversation with people unfamiliar with my work becomes... complicated. For the sake of this thread I'll just pick my favorite name for him, Akalesh, and try to be consistent in its use.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 23, 2013)

Okay wow I just went off on a massive tangent. Sorry about that. Back on target now.

About the belonging/belief/doing thing. 

Belief works a little different in my world. Akalesh doesn't typically intervene directly, but there is undeniable evidence of his existence in the form of magical gifts: some people can control fire, others can empathically connect with nature, others can channel lightning, things like that. And one nation, Mavaria, actually possesses an artifact called the Sword of Glass that is used to directly interpret the will of Akalesh. (Old Testament knowledge bonus: it essentially acts like the Urim and Thummim, but in sword form.) But undeniable evidence isn't necessarily "undeniable" _per ce_. After all the Israelites went back on their agreement with God several times despite witnessing miracles first hand. And there are people who act similarly in my world. People who perhaps think Akalesh is not very attentive or doesn't care, or maybe they've just decided their personal agenda is more important than his. It's an aspect of belief I'm exploring with some of my antagonists. Different religions tend to account for the magical powers exhibited by adherents of other religions by making the gods of other religions into a demon or an impostor in their own. For example, followers of Akalesh think of the Beorgian gods as "ice devils". (Though some doubt their existence entirely as magic in Beorgia is not nearly as common as it is among the believers of Akalesh, mostly because anyone who shows potential with it is immediately abducted into the priesthood. Yes, _ab_ducted, not _in_ducted.) Conversely in the Orthodox Cult of Beorgia, Akalesh is referred to as Senclane the Devourer, he who was imprisoned within the sun lest his fires consume the world and destroy all of creation. ...There's an in-world reason for that. 

Belonging, in retrospect, is a pretty big part of how religion works in my universe. What faith you adhere to is largely determined by what culture you're born into, though conversions have been known to happen. Even the followers of Akalesh don't necessarily see eye to eye and their perception of him is divided along cultural lines. "Akalesh" is properly the name used by the Mavarians, who view him as a father figure and king who is strongly associated with mountains, fire, the desert, and the sun, and the phoenix. The Mako use the name "Natsarat" and see him as the one who guides their paths, the Keeper of the Balance of nature, and the one who watches over them. They associate him with trees and the wild places, the wind, and with birds, especially the owl, which is a form sometimes taken by his messengers. The Inazuma use the name "Hakadosh" and think of him as a warrior figure, the Avenger who vindicates his people and visits judgment on his enemies. They associate him with storms, especially thunderstorms, lightning, and the whirlwind, but also with metal and smithing, since he taught them to bind the power of the storm into their weapons and armor. He is also associated with mountains and, to a lesser extent, the sea.

Doing is the part I haven't quite fleshed out yet. Different faiths do have different traditions, but I haven't written up a checklist of do's and don'ts for most of them, mostly because the majority of these faiths are primitive in that their not rigidly organized like most modern religions. Most of them don't even have priests per ce. In Mavaria the culture is very family-oriented, so the head of the household is the de facto priest of that household, the head of the clan is the preist of that clan and so on up the totem pole until you get to the patriarchs who are the de facto head priests of their extended familes, clans, and tribes while the king is the priest of the nation as a whole. The Mako have a spiritual authority called the Closest Guide who acts as an intercessor for their people, but each individual can also offer personal prayers for guidance without need of an intermediary. Among the Inazuma, religion is much more communal, so ritual gatherings and praying as a group is emphasized without any real spiritual head. Among these faiths the general guideline essentially seems to be "do what Akalesh says." I haven't worked it out beyond that, though I may later. Other faiths like the religions of the Baynish people and the Kudan focus on what is essentially ancestor worship with some nature spirits thrown in. They don't have a real "creed" per ce, except that the Baynish are focused on what is basically their version of manifest destiny (conquer ALL the land!) while the Kudan are greatly concerned with honor and (to a lesser extent) glory for themselves and their ancestors. The Beorgian religion is kind of a patchwork job of Catholicism and Paganism and the adherents pretty much do whatever the priests tell them to do. Their society is also rigidly stratified so that plays a part as well.

I really need to learn how to write briefer posts. Also, I fear I may have killed the thread...


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 23, 2013)

I've only written two kinds of religion that my characters stay in, because they're the only two I feel like I know how to write.

One is based around the worship of great figures long gone--in one setting, kings and heroes whose ashes were disposed of in a particular river; in another, one's own ancestors. In both cases, the core of the religion is to respect the advice given by those who came before. Believers ultimately have the last word in how that advice is interpreted, and the ancestor-worship one doesn't even have any priests. (The other one has a holy book, _The Word of the Water_, which the protagonist sometimes quotes.)

I feel like I can write this because I know how it feels to respect someone. I don't venerate people like Ghandi, but I can see them as inspirational figures, and I can choose to act according to principles they espoused.

The other approach is based around mental and moral improvement. In these religions, there exists a way of being and acting that is considered to be perfect, and each member is obligated to strive for this way of being. No mortal human is capable of perfection, of course, but followers believe that there's value in the attempt, and work to move closer and closer to their ideal. (This ideal is occasionally worshiped as an individual being, but it never appears as a character--I couldn't possibly portray how someone perfect would act and think.) 

I feel like I can write this because I know how to strive for improvement. I can remember something I've done, think "That was the wrong choice," and then think, "I'll do this instead." I even have a goal I'm going for, although it's a lot less specific than in my stories.

The qualifier "stay in" is important. For instance, one character thinks God betrayed her, so she spends most of the story pretending (to herself and to others) that she's lost her faith. Despite this, many of her behaviors are informed by the idea that, should she choose to fight against evil, there exists a force that won't abandon her and let evil win.

I've never successfully worked around the problem of evil, so I didn't even try to do so this time. I just set it up and let the character struggle with it.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 23, 2013)

The problem of evil isn't hard to work around, fictionally. The problem requires four things:

1. An all-powerful god
2. An omniscient god
3. An all-good god
4. Evil

Eliminate any one of those, and you've gotten around the problem. Eliminating number four doesn't make much sense, since the problem wouldn't confront you in the first place if there were no evil. So god simply doesn't know about the evil, doesn't care about the evil, or doesn't have the power to stop it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 23, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> The problem of evil isn't hard to work around, fictionally. The problem requires four things:
> 
> 1. An all-powerful god
> 2. An omniscient god
> ...



I've written things that aren't omnipotent, aren't omniscient, or aren't omnibenevolent, but that means they aren't perfect. God is that which is perfect, so calling something imperfect God feels disrespectful to any God that might exist. (Two of my characters, both religious themselves, make this argument _to the faces_--er, face-tentacles--of beings that lack these traits yet have the temerity to claim they're gods!)

Edit: Perhaps I should be more clear--the only stories I've written in which powerful beings actually appear are ones in which it's never confirmed they're gods, though it may be denied they're such. At the same time, none of my stories clearly deny that some God may exist (though one character does rant about the subject when he thinks his wife believes that she deserves to go to Hell.)


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 23, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I've written things that aren't omnipotent, aren't omniscient, or aren't omnibenevolent, but that means they aren't perfect. God is that which is perfect, so calling something imperfect God feels disrespectful to any God that might exist. (Two of my characters, both religious themselves, make this argument _to the faces_--er, face-tentacles--of beings that lack these traits yet have the temerity to claim they're gods!)



I don't think that is necessarily true (god is that which is perfect), so I guess I agree with the tentacle monsters ,  By what reasoning does god *necessarily *have to be perfect.  It's kind of like St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of god, wherein existence is more perfect than non-existence. But ultimately, there is no reason necessarily that god should have to be perfect. It fits in nicely with some conceptions of god but it isn't a necessary property, in my view.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 23, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think that is necessarily true (god is that which is perfect), so I guess I agree with the tentacle monsters ,  By what reasoning does god *necessarily *have to be perfect.  It's kind of like St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of god, wherein existence is more perfect than non-existence. But ultimately, there is no reason necessarily that god should have to be perfect. It fits in nicely with some conceptions of god but it isn't a necessary property, in my view.



By that logic, I guess you could argue I have written an individual goddess who has a personality and plays a major role in the story. She even has a high priestess. On the other hand, she's basically the Borg, so I'd kind of like to avoid applying any potentially sensitive religious terms to her.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 23, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> By that logic, I guess you could argue I have written an individual goddess who has a personality and plays a major role in the story. She even has a high priestess. On the other hand, she's basically the Borg, so I'd kind of like to avoid applying any potentially sensitive religious terms to her.



You can do some interesting things with gods in stories. Like in Steven Erikson's books (his are far from perfect). Or with Roger Zelazny's classic "Lord of Light." Good stuff.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 23, 2013)

Ah...years ago, on another site, I spent literally years participating in 'unbeliever vs christian' debates.  Hell, Original Sin, Faith vs Works, quality of evidence, all that and much, much more.  Athiests, Agnostics, neo-pagans, jews, and a dozen different varieties of christian from laid back Quaker(ish) to hard core fundi took part in those debates.  Eventually, the sites owners (it were a christian site) decided that subforum these debates were held was so dangerous they deleted the whole dang thing.   



> So how do these apply to the religions you've created? How does someone become a member of the religion? Does your religion conflate believing and belonging as Christianity does, or are these two separate issues, as in Judaism? What doctrine, if any, must members accept? What sort of things specific to your religions are members expected to do, and how important are they?



To put it bluntly, when formulating my worlds way back when, I spent way, way too much time on devising pantheons of Gods and hierarchies of saints, and worse, I formulated them with an AD&D mindset.  Not only that, there were quite a few critical issues I didn't consider at all.  

That said, the core of what is now my primary world is a sort of grossly distorted fantasy europe, in terms of cultures and peoples.  There is a sort of quasi roman empire under hmmm...call it civilized barbarian management, with locals comparable to Greece, ancient egypt, and northern europe.  This empire is emphatically monotheistic, and the religion shares enough in common with olde style christianity to drive theologians to hard core abuse of the sacrimental spirits.  This is deliberate; in the timeline, these peoples ancestors were imported from earth in the mid 3rd century AD ('Era of Military Anarchy'), and some of these people considered themselves 'christians'...though many of their contemporaries would vehmently disagree. 

In this empire, you are pretty much 'born into the True Faith'.  The clergy weilds vast influence, running orphanges, hospitals, and charities.  It also has considerable temporal power, to the point where a province or three within the empire are defacto theocracies.  It mints its own coinage, the only entity allowed to do so apart from the imperial government, and has legal authority over magicians and marriages.  It even has its own army (apart from strictly limited militias, mercenaries, and bodyguards, all other soldiers belong to the imperial army).  In short, it is a power that has significant influence on the lives of just about everybody in the empire.  

The True Faith is split into a large number of saintly orders, focusing on different things, and sometimes violently disagreeing with each other.  The orders of Michael and Mithras are for warriors, Sophia is called upon for civil disputes, Fabia's clergy has charge of things supernatural, and so and so forth.  More than a few of these saints were once pagan deities in their own right.  Magic is practiced in some of these orders, indeed the tendency is to shunt magically talented kids into the clergy ('Gods gift requires Gods instruction').  However, while miracles and visions and wonders abound, the official view is the saints are 'off in heaven', pretty much 'never to return'.

This gets into the other issue I wrestled with for a long, long time:  Are the Gods/Saints 'real'?  This opens up a lot of cans filled with worms.  Like: if the Gods/Saints are 'real', what separates them from really powerful magicians?  If real, what sort of influence do the Gods/Saints exert in the afterlife?  Could a really powerful magician become a deity?  And later on, I began to wonder at how to go about realistically incorporating a 'true' deity or ten directly into the tale.  The pro's, I should point out, are badly split here.  In the end, I opted for a sort of 'new age' solution unhappily married with Lovecraft:  there are powerful entities of pure spirit, sometimes termed 'Saints', but there are also other alien physical entities powerful enough to be termed Gods.

Despite the absolute conviction that their faith is the 'one true route to God', the clergy of the True Church is a bit hesitant when it comes to spreading the word.  The reason is truth is both subjective and local, so the new branches often become heretical after a few generations, promoting division.


----------



## Devor (Jul 24, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> ROFL! From my outsider's perspective, even in varieties of Christianity that put faith and works on an even setting (as C.S. Lewis pretty much did, actually, saying they were the two handles on a pair of scissors or some such), what you believe is of a deep importance in defining you as a Christian that has no equivalent in a religion like Judaism. So I think the issues of how much weight we put on believing, doing and belonging stand.



Ohh of course.  The debate isn't even "should I do good works" but "what role do I believe they play."  But it's the question that led me to becoming Catholic, so I'm struggling to bite my tongue.




> Intriguing! On what sort of criteria does the Phoenix-goddess judge whether you should be reborn or enter Nirvana? Is the aim to be an all around mensch, or are there ritual requirements as well? Or does entering Nirvana involve enlightenment?



That question is a big part of the backstory for two, maybe three characters who have met the Phoenix, so I won't get into it too much.  There used to be a system for it, but it broke, and the Phoenix-goddess has been a bit of a mystery since then.  She makes some counter-intuitive choices.  It's worse because there's a group which goes about testing whether the deceased have entered Nirvana, and then make a guess as to why, and they have no idea what they're doing.


----------



## Trick (Jul 24, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> I didn't think I left out belief--believing is one of the big three things, along with doing and belonging, that comprise a religion.



I didn't meant to imply that you left anything out, your post was insightful. The point that I was desperately reaching for with numb, clumsy fingers was that to some religious people there is no separation of the big three. Believing means that you must be doing and if you are not doing, then you (and others) are likely to think you're failing. If you manage to do because you believe, then you belong. 'Doing' is also not succeeding; trying your hardest may be all that is required. The three things are so tightly interconnected that a believer may never have even thought about their faith in these terms. Writers have to think in this fashion but characters don't. I think that explains what I meant but I tend to think in spiral while I'm explaining a straight line.


----------



## Trick (Jul 24, 2013)

I have three WIPs with unique creation/religion systems. I'll just hit them briefly.

1) The God's Eye Prophecies (epic) Dual system. Chaos and Order existed seperately. Order got tired of Chaos tearing everything down and ate him. The internal struggle broke them apart into shards. Two particularly large shards became Krolas and the Murkrone. While one is basically good and the other bad, each has both Chaos and Order within them. In a struggle to defeat each other, they used the remaining shards to create the universe, alternating in the creation of different world aspects. In the WIP, there is no doubt they exist but religions vary. As a whole though, Magi follow Krolas and Wizards follow The Murkrone. 

2) The Unbound (real world setting) Since it's on Earth, it's more about revealing that certain things are misunderstood about some religions and all mythological gods from history were the same immortal group of beings who are constantly at war. The concept is that humans (made in the image and likeness of G-d) are actually trinities themselves and the ones who are aware of this and separate their parts to achieve their fullest potential are the Unbound. They are immortal and the oldest of them have been worshipped everywhere on Earth since they came into existence. They do not think they are gods however because they are fully aware that G-d exists and that He created them. They are, however, petty and selfish, which they displayed particularly during their time in Greece and Rome. A lot of work has gone into research and study for this WIP to avoid offense to world religions. 

3) Darkling Sun. Something like Native American beliefs blended with beliefs from indigenous peoples around the world. Totem like spirit worship of thirteen particular animals, each a guardian of something in particular. They represent the thirteen parts of the great spirit who created everything. The great spirit is ethereal though and different people approach their religion through one totem or another. There are a myriad other ancient tribes with very different beliefs than this system but the only other one I've fleshed out believes in a system that preys on the weak. When the weak die, if they suffer, they will be reborn stronger. So, the best thing to do for them is to treat them as less than dirt and use them as necessary. This religion (more a cult really) has a lot of terrible rituals involving torture and their magic is specifically based on the properties of human blood. As you can imagine, these are the bad guys in many ways, though I plan to have some of them break away and choose alternate beliefs in a sequel.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 24, 2013)

Trick said:


> I didn't meant to imply that you left anything out, your post was insightful. The point that I was desperately reaching for with numb, clumsy fingers was that to some religious people there is no separation of the big three. Believing means that you must be doing and if you are not doing, then you (and others) are likely to think you're failing. If you manage to do because you believe, then you belong. 'Doing' is also not succeeding; trying your hardest may be all that is required. The three things are so tightly interconnected that a believer may never have even thought about their faith in these terms. Writers have to think in this fashion but characters don't. I think that explains what I meant but I tend to think in spiral while I'm explaining a straight line.



You sound to me like you're coming at this from a thoroughly Christian perspective--or another religion where calling members 'believers,' as you do, make sense. And that's fine, and it's great to draw from that in your writing. 

But my point is that 'the believer' model is not the only model out there for a religion. For example, you say that, "If you manage to do because you believe, then you belong." Not true in Judaism. In Judaism, you belong because you were born into the religion or because at some point you converted. In either case, you belong--you're a Jew--regardless of what you believe or what you do or don't do. 

Conversely, you might believe everything the local rabbi does, and you might keep kosher and keep the Sabbath . . . but if you weren't born a Jew or you haven't undergone conversion, you're not a Jew, so you don't 'belong' in that sense. You might be welcome at the local synagogue, sure, but until the conversion happens you still wouldn't be a Jew.

So that's all I'm pointing out--not all religions work the way Christianity does. That doesn't make Christianity  (or Judaism) right, wrong or otherwise. It's just something to think about in creating a religion.


----------



## Trick (Jul 24, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> You sound to me like you're coming at this from a thoroughly Christian perspective--or another religion where calling members 'believers,' as you do, make sense. And that's fine, and it's great to draw from that in your writing ... So that's all I'm pointing out--not all religions work the way Christianity does. That doesn't make Christianity  (or Judaism) right, wrong or otherwise. It's just something to think about in creating a religion.



I'm sure it's obvious that I'm Christian; Catholic specifically. As I mentioned to Scribble, I have a hard time not incorporating my beliefs (at the very least, my morality) into my work. I want to avoid though, at all costs, soap-boxing. I appreciate you breaking down how certain things are percieved by other religions, Judaism in your case. It's amazing how different religions can be, really. If there is a Catholic (baptized as such, I mean) and they do not believe in any of the dogmas of the church, they are still Catholic (we call that an indellible mark on the soul) but there is also a name for them: Apostate. We have titles for everything. If a Catholic rejects one or more dogmas but not all, that's a heretic. If one rejects the leadership of the church but abides in other things, they are in schism. Any of these kinds people distinctly do not 'belong' and we even have excommunication which makes it official. It sounds like there is probably less in-fighting among Jewish families about such things. Is that a correct inference?

I think that the biggest thing I personally can get out of this discussion is a way to represent religions in fantasy without one always being demonized. It seems to be a theme that there are bad religions and good religions in fantasy, or belief systems when the word 'religion' doesn't quite fit. How about just different religions? 

Perhaps folks, if they feel comfortable, can respond about their religions on here, as you have, and give us all a better feel for what it is like to be a member of one or another. If a religion has not been represented yet, I'd love to hear about what it's like for you to be a part of it... In the frame of this post and more. It will help me, and likely others, to create characters with more realistic protrayals of participating, or not, in a religion unlike our own.

Perhaps I should make this a separate thread? Since it's just about personal religious exposition for the benefit of other writers, it should fall within the MS guidelines, unless my interpretation is flawed somehow.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 26, 2013)

>It seems to be a theme that there are bad religions and good religions in fantasy, or belief systems when the word 'religion' doesn't quite fit. How about just different religions? 

The easiest answer is conflict. One could say that there is a theme that there are bad people and good people in fantasy, how about just different people? This can be done, of course, but for the most part you need a villain and a hero. If the story calls for it, or even if the author merely dreams it up, it's natural for the religion of the villain to be commensurately wicked.

Not to hijack a thread, but the real oddity is that there are good and evil races. What, *everyone* in a race is evil? No such thing as a good orc? Convenient for story-telling but hardly defensible. 

So yeah, I would have no problem with there being multiple religions in a world with none of them intrinsically good or evil, just different. But I don't think the OP was about virtue or wickedness, it was about a certain way of understanding religion that would allow for multiple religions in a fantasy world to be merely, but profoundly, different.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 26, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> >It seems to be a theme that there are bad religions and good religions in fantasy, or belief systems when the word 'religion' doesn't quite fit. How about just different religions?
> 
> The easiest answer is conflict. One could say that there is a theme that there are bad people and good people in fantasy, how about just different people? This can be done, of course, but for the most part you need a villain and a hero. If the story calls for it, or even if the author merely dreams it up, it's natural for the religion of the villain to be commensurately wicked.
> 
> ...



Well, are orcs even really _people,_ per ce? I always figured they were more like bio-engineered living weapons for Sauron and Morgoth before him. But anyway. I don't think it's too far fetched to have "evil" religions. I mean look at real life. You have examples, from modern day cults to the ancient cult of Moloch (wherein parents burned their children alive), of religions that can safely be declared evil, even if the people in them didn't worship the concept of evil itself as is common in fantasy.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 26, 2013)

Trick said:


> If there is a Catholic (baptized as such, I mean) and they do not believe in any of the dogmas of the church, they are still Catholic (we call that an indellible mark on the soul) but there is also a name for them: Apostate. We have titles for everything. If a Catholic rejects one or more dogmas but not all, that's a heretic. If one rejects the leadership of the church but abides in other things, they are in schism. Any of these kinds people distinctly do not 'belong' and we even have excommunication which makes it official. It sounds like there is probably less in-fighting among Jewish families about such things. Is that a correct inference?



There's nothing you can do in Judaism to make you stop belonging--once a Jew, always a Jew. That doesn't mean your rabbi or your family will be happy if you convert to another religion. There will be lots of drama--but you're still a Jew. (Bob Dylan converted to Christianity and then became post-religious, but no one batted an eyelash when he turned up at Chasidic fundraisers. He's still a Jew by Jewish law.)

There are two issues with belonging, however, that question whether one was a Jew to begin with. One has to do with conversion: for example, if you converted to Reform Judaism, Orthodox rabbis will want you to convert again if you decide to become Orthodox. (They only recognize Orthodox conversions.) The other is the issue of patrilineal descent. Most Jews believe Judaism comes down through the mother, or via conversion. But a couple of branches accept patrilineal descent--you're a Jew even if only your father was Jewish. So say you're a Jew through your father happily going to a Reform synagogue. If you decide to become Orthodox, the rabbi will expect you to undergo a formal conversion.



> Perhaps I should make this a separate thread? Since it's just about personal religious exposition for the benefit of other writers, it should fall within the MS guidelines, unless my interpretation is flawed somehow.



As long as it stays in the guidelines, I would think here or another thread is fine. Whichever works.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 26, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> Not to hijack a thread, but the real oddity is that there are good and evil races. What, *everyone* in a race is evil? No such thing as a good orc? Convenient for story-telling but hardly defensible.



I like stories (and rpg's) where you scrap the idea of inherently good or evil races. Sure, make lots of good orcs! I understand Mindfire's point, but just abandon Tolkien's idea of orcs and then no worries.



> So yeah, I would have no problem with there being multiple religions in a world with none of them intrinsically good or evil, just different. But I don't think the OP was about virtue or wickedness, it was about a certain way of understanding religion that would allow for multiple religions in a fantasy world to be merely, but profoundly, different.



Exactly. Thank you for putting that so well.


----------



## Ireth (Jul 26, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> I like stories (and rpg's) where you scrap the idea of inherently good or evil races. Sure, make lots of good orcs! I understand Mindfire's point, but just abandon Tolkien's idea of orcs and then no worries.



*cough* Actually, Tolkien never liked the idea of all orcs being evil either. It's just that the other characters never came across any -- or perhaps they just killed them all just as the orcs were realizing they WERE good. Just because something isn't encountered in the text doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the setting. In Mordor, for instance, there are huge, fertile farmlands that fed Sauron's vast armies, but because Frodo and Sam never saw them, many people probably wondered what those armies actually ate.


----------



## Trick (Jul 26, 2013)

Tangent, sorry



Mindfire said:


> You have examples, from modern day cults to the ancient cult of Moloch (wherein parents burned their children alive), of religions that can safely be declared evil, even if the people in them didn't worship the concept of evil itself as is common in fantasy.



The cult of Moloch features prominently in one of my WIPs! (an on earth fantasy) and, as I said in an above post,



> all mythological gods from history were the same immortal group of beings who are constantly at war. The concept is that humans (made in the image and likeness of G-d) are actually trinities themselves and the ones who are aware of this and separate their parts to achieve their fullest potential are the Unbound. They are immortal and the oldest of them have been worshipped everywhere on Earth since they came into existence.



I have Moloch go on to become Set (Egyptian) then Prometheus (this makes more sense in context) and then on to Loki. The book takes place in modern times and he is a business magnate named Malaki Prome.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 26, 2013)

Ireth said:


> *cough* Actually, Tolkien never liked the idea of all orcs being evil either. It's just that the other characters never came across any -- or perhaps they just killed them all just as the orcs were realizing they WERE good. Just because something isn't encountered in the text doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the setting. In Mordor, for instance, there are huge, fertile farmlands that fed Sauron's vast armies, but because Frodo and Sam never saw them, many people probably wondered what those armies actually ate.



Yay! Does that mean there were non-white humans, hobbits or elves somewhere in Middle Earth too? 

(Not insinuating that Tolkien was racist, lol--but, come on. Can we have some people of color as characters too? And yes, I know this is way off topic, so I will quiet down now. Sigh.)


----------



## Ireth (Jul 26, 2013)

Mara Edgerton said:


> Yay! Does that mean there were non-white humans, hobbits or elves somewhere in Middle Earth too?
> 
> (Not insinuating that Tolkien was racist, lol--but, come on. Can we have some people of color as characters too? And yes, I know this is way off topic, so I will quiet down now. Sigh.)



Well, there are the Haradrim, whom I think were based on Arabs as far as their looks... and I think they're in the same category as orcs. Just because we don't see any who aren't enemies, doesn't mean they're all evil.


----------



## Nihal (Jul 26, 2013)

Yes. Haradrim was a term coined by the people of Gondor to designate the people from any nation located to the south of the city; they were in fact more than one single nation. Do your remember the elephant-like creatures rode by some men in _The Two Towers_? Yeah, these were the Haradrim riding them.

If I remember it well they were quite unlucky tribes, being dominated by dark lords since the times of NÃºmenor, but that doesn't make them evil, just unlucky. What is unfortunate is Tolkien never exploring their point of view (at least I think he didn't).


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 26, 2013)

Trick said:


> I have Moloch go on to become Set (Egyptian) then Prometheus (this makes more sense in context) and then on to Loki. The book takes place in modern times and he is a business magnate named Malaki Prome.



There's something vaguely Percy Jackson-ish about that. I like it.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 26, 2013)

Nihal said:


> Yes. Haradrim was a term coined by the people of Gondor to designate the people from any nation located to the south of the city; they were in fact more than one single nation. Do your remember the elephant-like creatures rode by some men in _The Two Towers_? Yeah, these were the Haradrim riding them.
> 
> If I remember it well they were quite unlucky tribes, being dominated by dark lords since the times of NÃºmenor, but that doesn't make them evil, just unlucky. What is unfortunate is Tolkien never exploring their point of view (at least I think he didn't).



If I recall correctly, there is a moment when Samwise sees a Haradrim soldier and actually pities him, because he can tell the man doesn't really want to be there fighting someone else's war.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jul 26, 2013)

I've experimented with evil religions a few times. I base them on a mixture of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, with maybe a few drops of Nazi racialism or European colonialism. I believe the most harmful ideologies, religious or otherwise, are the ones that demand the conquest or domination of certain groups by their followers, so this is in line with my personal beliefs.


----------



## wordwalker (Jul 27, 2013)

It's good to hear this definition of belonging to religions. Let's keep in mind the other side:

For most of history, religion was an extension of the tribe-- that's how you "belonged" to a faith, period. Good and evil were just as relative; invading the clan next door wasn't "wrong," it was just unwise if it ruined more opportunities for your own people than it created. Monotheism (and some philosophies) changed all that, at least to some degree.

But then, in a fantasy system with real gods, what does that mean? Is there a real god for each tribe, or have the shamans always known that there are only ten gods, and their tribe and the five nearby are under one god's influence-- instant empire? Or do the gods mingle in most societies (Smith god, Hunter god, etc) and how does that interact with human issues? Or, how much does a god keep back and let people interpret His ways?

Lots of things to consider for a world.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 28, 2013)

The aspect I liked about Mara's original post was that it caused me to think about how different races might approach religion. It gave me a way to start thinking about how elven religion might be fundamentally different from any and all human religions. Likewise for dwarves, pixies, giants, orken, ogres, trolls, and so on. 

Already for dwarves I have "religion" being what humans would think of as quite superficial. It's all about the ritual. You do the right thing and the right time and you and the gods are copacetic. No need for faith, miracles, spirituality, etc. Humans often mistakenly think the gods are not important to dwarves, but that's not quite right. If a dwarf isn't punctilious in the performance of his ritual, then he incurs supernatural disfavor. Do it enough and some sort of retribution follows--in this life, for dwarves have no belief in an after-life. Dwarven religion is highly contractual, and contracts really do matter. As for the spiritual side of life, dwarves find that in their work. That's a whole different topic.

That's only a sketch, worked out over the past few days. I offer it up in part as a thanks to Mara for getting me thinking (re-thinking, really) about the topic.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 28, 2013)

Hmmm...

Religion and Races in my world:

As per the earlier post, the humans in my primary nation (and most of the others) subscribe to a sort of quasi-christianity.

The humans of fallen Agba are polythiests worshipping 'real' deities - but most of those deities are Lovecraftian abominations with agendas of their own.  Over time, the priests worshipping these entities come to sympathize far more with the goals of these horrid entities than they do with their fellow humans.

The nomads of the endless southern plains, human and other wise, tend towards ancestor worship combined with appeasing an array of nature spirits (a few of which are Lovecraftian entities).

Elves fairly uniformly regard themselves as spirits trapped in this reality.  (Suicide to escape doesn't work).  They have to work their way back home, one slow painful step at a time.  There are occasionally violent disputes as to the exact path.

Dwarves tend to subscribe to the religion of the humans they dwell among.  They do have a craftsman saint of their own in the quasi-christian religion.

Males outnumber females by a hundred to one or more among goblins and hobgoblins.  Furthermore, females live two or three times longer than males.  Hence female goblins/hobgoblins are treated with great, almost saintly respect in their societies, though they are seldom seen as truly divine.  The very rare goblin and hobgoblin mage 'lords' - a literal one in ten thousand, are considered to have a sort of 'inside line' to the spirit world, though they seldom claim true divinity.  More of 'special intermediaries'.

The Rachasa 'cat-men' are a created race and they know it.  Their mythology includes several variations as to how they were created from the best and most savage of other species to be a race of warriors for a demon god.  In the core form, the spirits of dead rachasa act as 'spiritual enforcers' in the afterworld.  Other myths include a rebel or redeemer figure who broke the demon-gods control over the rachasa, allowing them independance.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 28, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> It's good to hear this definition of belonging to religions. Let's keep in mind the other side:
> 
> For most of history, religion was an extension of the tribe-- that's how you "belonged" to a faith, period. . . Monotheism (and some philosophies) changed all that, at least to some degree.



Huh. Not sure Judaism changed the part about belonging--except that a lot of people convert into our tribe. But who knows? Maybe most tribes have ways to convert in or be adopted or what not. 

I think we made contributions to moral understanding--but I'd say that about all the big 'world' religions and many smaller, indigenous ones.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Jul 28, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> The aspect I liked about Mara's original post was that it caused me to think about how different races might approach religion. It gave me a way to start thinking about how elven religion might be fundamentally different from any and all human religions. Likewise for dwarves, pixies, giants, orken, ogres, trolls, and so on.
> 
> Already for dwarves I have "religion" being what humans would think of as quite superficial. It's all about the ritual. You do the right thing and the right time and you and the gods are copacetic. No need for faith, miracles, spirituality, etc. Humans often mistakenly think the gods are not important to dwarves, but that's not quite right. If a dwarf isn't punctilious in the performance of his ritual, then he incurs supernatural disfavor. Do it enough and some sort of retribution follows--in this life, for dwarves have no belief in an after-life. Dwarven religion is highly contractual, and contracts really do matter. As for the spiritual side of life, dwarves find that in their work. That's a whole different topic.
> 
> That's only a sketch, worked out over the past few days. I offer it up in part as a thanks to Mara for getting me thinking (re-thinking, really) about the topic.



I like this! I especially like religions that don't focus on an afterlife. 

I'd love to know, though, what (in the eyes of the dwarves) the gods take away from these rituals and contracts. Is there any moral dimension to them? Are they acts of remembrance and gratitude? (Think about the Seder in Judaism: we celebrate this Passover meal to reenact and remember when, in our mythos, G-d took us out of slavery in Egypt.) Or do the dwarves see the rituals as necessary to the gods in some way? Will the gods be diminished without them?

Just curious!


----------



## skip.knox (Aug 1, 2013)

Hm, good question. I give a sketch and Mara starts asking about the leaves on the tree in the background on the left! 

The gods probably should take away something from the performance of the rituals. If it's not done properly, then the good hoodoo doesn't communicate properly with the gods (I'm thinking of not having the gods reside in a particular direction, up or down, but rather have them reside in certain places). But if it's done right, what does the god get out of it? 

I don't know the answer, off-hand. Or even on-hand.  But the angles are interesting. For example, if the god (let's pick one of many) gets something he needs, then the dwarf has a kind of power -- by denying the ritual, he could weaken the god. But if the god doesn't *need* it, then why's it important? Sure, it'd be easy to say he's a wrathful god and the ritual averts the anger, but that's too easy. It might do for one or two gods, but not for all of them. Maybe it really is contractual -- do the right thing and the god showers blessings, fail and suffer wrath. But the blessings would be highly specific and limited. Ordinary Hammer +1.  That sort of thing. In that scenario, the god doesn't need anything, but will provide a service if a service is provided for him.

Other angles I'm considering: having one set of gods for males and one for females. Having a large number of gods that operate much like human families, complete with rivalries and vendettas. Not a small pantheon, but more like a whole Italian city-state. Dwarvish affairs could get entangled in that. Or might reflect that (if your faction prospers, then you prosper). I could even have the gods procreate ... and also die.

It's all still new. As with other aspects of my world, I like to make lots of different sketches, but I don't really settle on something until I start writing, then I settle only those bits that need settling to make the story work. I have to proceed carefully because once I decide something is true, it must remain true for the whole two thousand years of the world's story line. Sort of like proceeding from the cartoon to the actual fresco!


----------



## Ireth (Aug 2, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> Maybe it really is contractual -- do the right thing and the god showers blessings, fail and suffer wrath.



Sounds a lot like Judaism. That'd be an interesting angle to pursue. 



skip.knox said:


> Other angles I'm considering: having one set of gods for males and one for females. Having a large number of gods that operate much like human families, complete with rivalries and vendettas. Not a small pantheon, but more like a whole Italian city-state. Dwarvish affairs could get entangled in that. Or might reflect that (if your faction prospers, then you prosper). I could even have the gods procreate ... and also die.



The male/female sets of gods is an interesting concept; care to give a bit more detail of what you had in mind for that?

The big god-family idea makes me think of the Greco-Roman gods, with all their twisted relationships and petty squabbles over who had sex with whom, etc. Personally, I'd steer clear of having the gods be too much like the people who worship them; one of the big issues with the G-R pantheon was that they were subject to plenty of human vices, with predictably devastating results, and it was mostly mortals who got hurt because of it.


----------



## skip.knox (Aug 3, 2013)

I love how you think I have anything in mind. I'm making this up as I go!  

But, one possibility would be to have it that dwarves can put magic into their work (right now, I have dwarves able to enchant items but not to cast spells) only by invoking the correct god. This would mean not only the right one as far as the guild is concerned but also one that is gender correct. Maybe female magic only works under ground, or male magic only works in specific places. Or, though this is one I am toying with for human magic, only works at certain times of the year. I wasn't after anything particularly profound--more in the nature of patron saints. Could do it with age, too. This god is for children, but they move on to other gods as they grow up.

As for the family thing, I still rather like it. The Greek pantheon was too small. I'm talking a few hundred gods, with factions, and with greater and lesser powers within that. 

Overall, my notion is that the relationship with the gods is much closer and practical, like a kind of kinship. Not spiritual as it is with Western monotheism--that's a different kind of closeness--but pragmatic, daily, and maybe a little argumentative. 

One other aspect about the gods in general in Altearth. In tribal religions in RealEarth, the gods of your tribe exist and the gods of my tribe exist, but we each regard the other's gods as pretty much irrelevant. Sort of like the laws of different countries. So it is with the gods of Altearth. Human gods and dwarven gods both exist, but they are irrelevant to each other and do not in any sense inhabit the same space. The religious spheres simply do not intersect.

The one exception could be with orks. This race is monotheistic and sometimes evangelical. Certainly whenever they conquer a people, that people is required to abandon their own gods. As far as orks are concerned, all gods of other peoples are false gods that must be conquered even as orks conquer the peoples themselves.

I'm still working on pixies, drow, mermen, and ogres. I think all my other races will be non-sentient. Gotta draw the line somewhere!

BTW, it's fun, when in world-building mode, do make similar speculations in the realms of economics, political organization, social structures, and culture (do orks create art?). In none of these do I intend to paint the picture fully, but getting the basic principles in place is helpful and can contribute to story-making in unexpected ways.

I have to thank you again, Mara, for that original post!

-= Skip =-


----------



## Gurkhal (Aug 4, 2013)

Very interesting first post on an issue that is very present in most fantasy settings.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 4, 2013)

Wow, this thread is amazing, thank you Mara!

I'm not a religious person--but spiritual, yes. So when creating the belief system for my world, I played with several systems of belief before I settled on a monotheistic idea, where the deity worshiped is referred to simply as the 'Almighty'. There are clans that believe in their own deities, but there is one religion spread across the land that most people worship, including my main character's family.

I chose to do this because my main character avoids religion at all costs, and her relationship with the 'Almighty' is...estranged. I felt this was appropriate to the story being told and religion/spirituality isn't the focus of what's going on. I didn't want to develop an elaborate belief system I will never use in my story. Personally...ahem...I think religion belongs out of fantasy. But that's just me.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Sep 7, 2013)

Logged in to say _thank you_ for that brilliant op. It's a different and unique approach to religions and I can't wait to experiment with it.


----------



## Mara Edgerton (Sep 10, 2013)

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> Logged in to say _thank you_ for that brilliant op. It's a different and unique approach to religions and I can't wait to experiment with it.



Aw! Thanks. My pleasure.


----------

