>>53990655
Just go with the flow.
Kavara the grand serpent sang the world into existence but failed a few verses causing demons to exist. Kavara still sings but slowly so that life may grow.
One day you will die and be re-sung but eventually Kavara will fail your tune and you shall become a demon.

>>53990655
Tengriism?

Sky Father rules over all.

>>53990735
>we told Steve to rip off Tolkien in his setting and he did it, the absolute madman

>>53990655


You could think about having a single deity that is very different to the Abrahamic ones. Doesn't really demand shit, doesn't punish, there's no Hell or need for salvation. Maybe there's reincarnation. Maybe the deity is pantheistic. Maybe the deity isn't even perfect - not omniscient or omnipotent.

>>53990735
Now we flesh it out.
What does Kavara look like?
Majority black scales with every 3rd ring being a rainbow.
Why did he sing?
He was alone and wanted to meet someone new.
What are the demons like?
Demon is a catch-all term for monsters.
There are normal monsters like Bugbears and goblins and then there are some fucked up beings like the Anuo that drain life in a desperate attempt to steal that beings song.

>>53990798
Oh that was a rip of LOTR? Damn. Never read it so I thought I was being original.

The Weaver works her loom without thought. Through each strand the universe forms, the events of life play out as she thoughtlessly creates her tapestry. The full picture can never be known, even the Weaver doesn't know where each thread leads. We can only hope through prayer and deeds to guide her hands to a good ending for us all.

>>53990655
...depends. In your setting, is god real?

>>53990790
This. Remember to try and conquer the world as well.

File: Zoroastrianism-religious-(...).jpg (27 KB, 450x360)

27 KB JPG

>>53990655
i recommend skimming the following wikipedia articles about monotheistic religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caodaism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenrikyo

zoroastrianism predates abrahamism, while sikhism, caodaism and tenrikyo are derived from eastern religion.

manichaeism is not quite monotheistic (though it's close), but it literally reads like a fantasy novel so it's good inspiration anyway.

Rip off Dragon's Dogma

>>53990918
Whether or not Sikhism is 'monotheistic' or just a distinct branch of Hinduism a very controversial subject, anon.

>>53990940
putting aside the true nature of god in the setting, the religion itself is just not!christianity.

>>53990655
All the Abrahamic religions start with the premise that God is supremely powerful, and usually have the premise that God is Good with a capital G.

You could alter either or both of those concepts. Maybe you just have one creator-God, but one who is not unlimited and cannot fully control his creation. Maybe you have one that is spiteful, or stupid, or acts randomly. Perhaps he can create anything, but can't uncreate anything, leading to him being very careful with what he makes because it's gotten out of control before and there is no flood this time around to clean up the mess.

Here's a thought for you; your monotheistic God cannot kill anyone directly. Maybe you even go further and he can't supernaturally aid anyone directly in the effort of killing another living being. Work from there as to how it would be different from an Abrahamic god.

>>53990883
if this doesn't convince OP, well...

Whip of Tengri and all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA3DVxZuTnQ

>>53990655
Simple enough: Honour the mother goddess from which all springs.

>>53990790
But where they really monotheistic? I thought mongols revered spirits and shit.

>>53991593

Are you forgetting how Christianity - like, hardcore 700s Christianity, heavily revered if not worshiped the Saints?

There is only one God, however there are Saints/Spirits that hear the prayers of the faithful, and whisper those prayers into God's ear.

Woman.

>>53991593
Yeah, but none of them were Tengri.

The whole thing is that Tengri was above everything, including spirits.

They didn't so much revere spirits as much as try not to offend the spirits, as, well, some could harm you, or Tengri could exact a punishment of their behalf

>>53990957
Technically, Hinduism IS monotheistic in itself, all the beings that are worshipped as gods and goddesses are just facets of Brahma that are as much as mere mortals can comprehend.

>>53990837
A little bit. It's been a while but IIRC: The Vaiar (archangels, essentially) sang the world into existence, but Melkor sang off beat to be a dick and ruined everything forever. Eventually they'll sing a new song without Melkor ruining everything for everyone.

>>53991636
You're technically correct, but tell a Hindu that and get ready for a buttblasting.

>>53991672
But it's fun to debate Brahmins, especially if they haven't studied the Vedas properly!
t. failed comparative theology 'A' level

>>53991617
Everyone in Abrahamic Club knows that christians are idolaters that must be wiped out, to be honest.

File: sol.png (170 KB, 600x600)

170 KB PNG

>>53990655
Sun worship

>>53991630
So basically like Zoroastrians have "gods" yet they're also monotheistic (or christians with their saints).

>>53991802
Eh, yeah kind of.

Though I was under the impression Zoroastrians were dualists

>>53991796
Elaborate.
What are the main characteristics of a sun worship religion?

>>53991835
Worshipping the sun.

File: Jesus Christ this holy.jpg (39 KB, 306x480)

39 KB JPG

I've always liked the idea of making the prime God evil, or at the very least a bit of a selfish prick.

Everyone in the world performs a yearly act of sacrifice, small communities just give up some animals or grain. Rich merchants are supposed to give up gold and jewels. Royalty are supposed to commission statues, build and then burn wooden palaces, or have their best 200 men petrified into statues and then smashed; given to the dark God as an army.

This God could also be the king or father of the monsters in the world, which is why monsters often have riches and wealth. Taking wealth from these monsters is really just taking back the sacrificed and plundered riches from the mortal folk back from the evil God. Maybe the players characters could aspire to become strong enough to scale up into heaven and defeat the evil God once and for all to put a stop his his reign of tyranny, or maybe just take it for themselves.

I'm sure some people would call this a fedora tipper style religion, but I think it's pretty unique and kind of fun.

>>53991890
It's only fedora tipping if you're trying to make some kind of statement or point by painting all religions/existing religion expy evil with a single brush

File: CKCXOBjWoAA2lvn.jpg (82 KB, 600x757)

82 KB JPG

>>53990816
>What does Kavara look like?
>He
You've got a serpent creating monsters. You're pretty close to having an Echidna as your supreme god you may as well just go for it. As a bonus your associating the god with the female and motherhood rather than the male and fatherhood like Yahweh is.

Also black with colour is tacky as fuck.

>>53991787
>christians

*Catholics

>>53991814
No, that's manicheans. In Zoroastrianism the Ahriman is not an equal but more like a Satan (or Morgoth) figure. An enemy, but ultimately under the monotheistic God.

File: sithrak_by_viking_heart-d(...).jpg (1.2 MB, 1814x1080)

1.2 MB JPG

>>53991890
No thank you. I'll take my chances with Sithrak, thank you.

Like all good original things, I shall take something and then just do the opposit and then expand on it.

>Monotheism is based on loving Sky-Father.
>Opposite of that would be spiteful Earth-mother.
>The Earth-Mother is worshiped not out of compassion or love, but out of fear and contempt.
>Seen as the source of all things evil and enemy of all things good, She is constantly at work undoing the greatness of man.
>Heated storms are her fury, and icy blizzards her disdain. Nature is cruel and life is a struggle to outpace it.
>Cowards and fools pray for Her wrath to skip them over, or seek to direct Her wrath at their enemies, but she hates them all just the same.
>Brave and good men defy Her openly, and seek to work against her malevolence.
>At first man built shelter, to hide themselves from Her, but as the ages went by man grew stronger and fought back.
>Farms are a cut against Her body, the taming of animals is a defience against Her design.
>She selfishly hides her riches deep inside Herself, but we tore them away from her grasp.
>Cities are our shrines that stand against her, even though she tried to cripple us with plauge and disease.
>Man rejoiced at the discovery of other worlds. For one day we could finally abandon our abusive Mother to the cold depths of the void.

>>53991944
And literally everyone in christianity except protestants, which are basically the belgium of abrahamism.

>>53991953
Ah, mea culpa.

So a lot like Islam? Or do Zoroastrians also have various saints and gods?

File: I+love+the+pope+but+that+(...).jpg (35 KB, 640x360)

35 KB JPG

>>53991990
>ITT Protestant thinks he's gonna deus vult the biggest christian denomination who incidentally are known for deus vulting

>>53992031
oh man, our boy Francis is full Pepe in that pic

>>53991990

Spiritualists are most definitely not. According to its principles even miracles do not exist, we are merely unable to understand what kind of natural phenomena they are.

>>53992031
>>53991990
>>53991944
Fuck off religionfags unless you want to contribute with your religious knowledge, this thread is not a religious debate.

>>53991943
(S)hes a god (S)he doesn't have to explain Him/herself to anyone.
And for black+rainbow see above.

>>53992042
I don't get it, isn't that true for all forms of chrisrianism?
Both God and the universe are part of the whole reality, you can't be outside the macrocosm or existence.

>>53992073
...

Yeah, I'm religious myself (celebrating Eid right now), but man, lads, cool that shiz.

>>53992031
>ITT Catholic who takes pride in the organization that activily diluted it's own teachings, invented rituals based on pagan beliefs, actively breaks commandments, worships idols, sends innocents to die for blood money, assassinates political rivals, molests little boys, funds drug traffickers, and worships literal demons is the truest branch of Christianity.

>>53992016
It's basically like catholicism but more hardcore. They have beings that are basically angels, "sparks" of Ahura Mazda who represent different facets of him AND powerful entities that you're allowed to worship (like Mithra) and would basically be considered lesser gods.

>>53992082
Any god worth worshiping has a strong understanding of aesthetics.

>>53992117
Omniscience is weird but by definition he could. If you're familiar with mathematics I think of it like a nested infinity.

>>53992127
Jokes on you, I go to a baptist congregation.

Seriously though my dood, we should stop shitting up the thread with a denominational pissing match.

>>53992169
Kavara is technically a child so (s)he probably wouldn't get that.

>>53992169
>we should stop shitting up the thread with a denominational pissing match.

Ok last one.

>(((Baptists)))

>>53990655
I'm thinking of something like a mix of Zeus, Odin, and Kratos, where the strongest dude ever (barring maybe something like an apocalypse beast or the will of magic itself or some other overpowered bullshit) travels the world as a nobody bum in disguise, partaking of everything normal people do but also soloing encounters from rats in a basement to epic-level lich armies for reasons. The clergy is at its core a glorified fan club/conspiracy theory ring that piece together that a lot of the world legends where one dude curbstomps all the shit describe him in very similar ways, and come to the accidentally correct conclusion that there's some immortal guy that's doing badass shit all over the world.

>>53992117
I am fairly certain that other christian denominations believe that the laws of nature can be broken by miracles instead of assuming that such miracles are merely the same laws at work which only seem to be broken due to our incomplete understanding of the laws.

File: tumblr_omxd56SPVS1unm603o(...).png (378 KB, 726x962)

378 KB PNG

>>53992216
Maybe way back when but in contemporary.

I think white might be better. White light gives birth to all other light after all.

>>53992282
True and white+rainbow scales makes sense.

>>53992312
Well
I feel a little better about that.

>>53992321
So do I anon.

>>53990655

Animism master race where clerics and paladins have favorite individual small gods and local spirits that duel through their mortal proxies like pokemon.

These spirits are all formed from the various pieces of the primordial Sky, Earth, and Ocean spirits who tore themselves apart in a lover's spat.

>>53991835

Perhaps the sun is literally heaven, a shining golden light in the sky where the sun-king dwells with his sun-sluts and ancestors who were worthy?

>>53992127

Also washes refugee feet.

>>53991659
And no real cultures had creation myth musicals, right?

@OP the Great Eagle laid an egg, which fell down and from the shattered shell the earth was formed, and from the Eagle's tears was born the seas, and the heavens from the feathers the Eagle ripped off itself in its melancholy. At first, the eagle was really sad it's only egg had broken, but soon it noticed that the seas started to fill with fish, the earth filled with plants and animals and birds made the sky their home, so the Eagle was no longer lonely and sad.

>>53990837
>I thought I was being original.
Don't worry, there's nothing new under the sun.

>>53992590
True that.

File: dominions_of_the_lathes_b(...).jpg (201 KB, 666x1199)

201 KB JPG

>>53990655
>How to create non-abrahamic monotheistic religions?

Step one: Praise the Omnissiah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism

File: throne_of_heaven_Ni4CAm4.jpg (520 KB, 760x596)

520 KB JPG

>>53991617
>>53991787
How about just shit like angels? What are they if not spirits?

Also, christianity has its whole trinity thing to show some of the potential variety.

>>53993014
You don't worship or revere Angels, they are the servants of God and His messengers, soldiers and choir. Last time an Angel got puffed up on the belief they had a right to worshiped you got Lucifer and a good chunk of the celestial choir cast out of Heaven and thrown howling down to Hell.

Saints are what you want.

File: Templari.jpg (135 KB, 600x350)

135 KB JPG

>>53992121
>celebrating Eid right now

This is a Christian imageboard, dog.

>>53993171
>le ebin crusader meme

Discontinue your efforts, I implore you.

>>53990655
here's some ideas:
Make the deity non-anthropomorphic, like a tree or a rock or something
Make the deity 'lesser' than mortals, as if it was trying (and potentially succeeded) in making something greater than itself
Make the deity nonlawful, or otherwise with little demands or judgments on its followers
Have the deity come into existence AFTER its followers, as their creation
Have the deity be in decline, or ascension, or otherwise imperfect and dynamic

>>53993171
You guys worship the same God, and he isn't even real. Fuck off.

>>53991983
>Man rejoiced at the discovery of other worlds. For one day we could finally abandon our abusive Mother to the cold depths of the void.
...only to find the other worlds' gods are equally - if not more - dickish

>>53993906
And they build a space station, but the AI overseer they instal accumulates increasingly unsettling quirks, because deep down they expect nothing less.

>>53993992
This shit's pretty good, y'all.

>>53990918
Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic, but Dualistic.

File: d7edaf20ebdeaf7418b88a80e(...).jpg (174 KB, 580x879)

174 KB JPG

>>53993660
>You guys worship the same God
are you really this stupid or are you just baiting?

File: 1414795452383.png (192 KB, 378x470)

192 KB PNG

>>53990655
Hinduism is not a polytheism, it's a pantheism/monism and has been for longer than most other religions have existed. Try something like that.

Otherwise you could go a dual poly/mono route like Tolkien did with his mythology. God created the gods, etc.

>>53994393
Aren't you guys and the jews all all up on the God of Abraham or have I been mislead somewhere along the line?

>>53993660

Au contraire

accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies

File: Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fid(...).png (279 KB, 2000x1800)

279 KB PNG

>>53994431
The fact that Christianity acknowledges Jesus as God already discards "everyone worships same God" """"statement"""". If you dont worship Jesus and Holy Trinity in general, you don't worship same God as Christians.

>>53994462
You can anything about the Jews but they are the ones making the most sense.

>>53994431
They do. Some are just so triggered by Islam that they make up reasons for why they dont.

>>53994541
Do Muslims worship Jesus as God? Do they acknowledge concept of Trinity?
No and No
Then they do NOT worship same God as Christians do

>>53994540
>Jews making the most sense

lolwut

Protestant Christianity overall is the most stripped-down and least contradictory version.

File: 1493920950592.png (289 KB, 430x380)

289 KB PNG

>>53994589
>Protestant
funny way to spell Orthodox Christianity

>>53994589
>the jew god is not opposed by some kind of evil demigod despite being omnipotent
>no wacky explanation about how Jesus changed the law without actually changing it.
>not "monotheistic" god made up of three parts.
Judaism is the most self-consistent of the three.

Could you stop with the religious debates?

File: 1496941813724.png (89 KB, 313x325)

89 KB PNG

>>53994617
>the jew god is not opposed by some kind of evil demigod despite being omnipotent
Satan is not a Demigod. Infact, Humans are supreme creation so he cant force us to do anything unless we let him to influence us (voluntarily or by deception). He can only deceive, hence the name Diabolos.
>no wacky explanation about how Jesus changed the law without actually changing it.
He didnt changed laws and prophecies, he fulfilled it.
>not "monotheistic" god made up of three parts.
>Implying Almighty God that transcends everything can be understandable
If you can understand "God", then he is not God anymore

but yeah, maamats tov, shlomo

>>53991796
I went to catholic school.
most of our priests were Jesuits.
they taught us that Christianity was 'glorified sun worship'

Jesuits are the only Christians worth a shit, Franciscans a close second
the rest can fucking rot

>>53994692
>He didnt changed laws and prophecies, he fulfilled it.
It's only what you believes, and he still acted against some things of the Old Testament.
Starting from the principe it's right because he is god is a self-circular argument.

Why are so many religious people fedora-tier?

>>53994740

Many of them are former fedoras, I would know.

If there is only one god, why evil exists?
Abrahamic answer is free will mixed to "god has mysterious ways" but in a non-abrahamic one?

>>53995047
God hates Man.

Humankind is at war with God.
Humans are simply more Divine than God, More empathetic, more caring, more loving, more creative, more proactive, more sheltering, more protective. Everything God is, we do better and more of it. For every failing we have, we make up for it a thousand-fold.

>>53995074
God doesn't act.
Man does. Action speaks louder than The Word.
Therefore Man is superior to God.

>>53995047
>Abrahamic answer is free will mixed to "god has mysterious ways"
Actually, its just solely free will.
And Evil here is regarded to be just an absence of Good, not opposite of it.
Hate is lacks of love
Wrath is lacks of patience and so on and so forth.

File: 23685795314566.jpg (43 KB, 850x434)

43 KB JPG

>>53994583
So Christians don't worship the god of the Jews, even though half the Bible is the Torah?

Ok then, China.

Anyway, OP, as I said, you can go with the Cosmic Snake, or the Sky-Father if you want something Monotheistic in your DnD setting without conforming to something Abrahamic

>>53995047
Well, you could keep free will, but also say that all good and all evil spring from the One God.

>>53995211
Christians worship a fanfiction OC that's based on the jewish god

>>53990735
What happens when a demon dies? Do they get re-sung, hopefully correctly this time? Could they potentially be "tuned up" without dying? Do they, in fact, _have to_ be tuned up while alive to prevent being reincarnated as a demon?

Does all this only apply to the material things or does everything, even concepts, have their song? Does every concept potentially have a "harmonious" version?

Do demons prefer their "discorded" status, or would they rather be cured (whether that's possible or not)? What's their level of malevolence - just crazy, mischievous, nasty, homicidal, genocidal, omnicidal? Are they persons or howling madness?

>>53994740
Opposite side of the coin. Same sort of attitude. They are enlightened by their Faith and it makes them euphoric.

For my most recent game the one true faith of the continent the PCs were located at was the worship of Sariyas. Who was basically supersayian-jezeus.
The religion was all about the glorification of humanity, the human form and great achivements. I could dig up what I wrote on it (it's not a lot, not even a full page) after breakfast if anyone wants.

>>53995211
>even though half the Bible is the Torah
you are a burger, aren't you?

It has been already touched upon in this thread, but I think the biggest question is how strict do you want to be with the whole concept of "monoteism".
Because frankly, what we call "monotheism" is rarely straight-forward one-god idea. Basically only Judaism and arguably the old, now-non-existent Atenism of Middle Kingdom Egypt can be pretty unarguably considered pure monotheism.
Most of the other religions we consider monotheistic are a little more complex than that.
Christianity worships the Trinity, and Catholicism even adds Saints to the mix.
Gnosis is sometimes considered to be monotheistic (or even a Christian heresy) with it's only one Godhead, but then it also contains creatures such as Sophia Pistis, Zoe and the Beast, which are arguably divine creatures themselves.
Tengrism has a world full of spirits and smaller divine beings who could be considered gods (and in some forms are).
Zoroastrianism is dualistic.
Buddhism does not even have a god in it's stricter forms, and it often transforms into versions that worship the Boddhisatwa's in a manner very similar to Christian Saints.

On the other hand, Hindu is often described as a traditional example of polytheism despite the fact Brahma/Atman of the Vedantic tradition is actually more a single, absolute god than arguably even Christian God really is.

So in reality, the very idea of "monotheism" is rather imprecise, heuristic tool we use quite arbitrarily.

So, just be creative and study real-world religions. That is the only good way to go around it.

>>53992356
You didn't even bother approaching the fucking subject you lazy cunt.

>>53995640
>basically only Judaism
Modern Judaism. Jewish historians have discovered evidence that what would be considered ancient Jews worshiped a pantheon with Jehovah as a chieftain storm deity similar to other storm gods of the Levant region.

>>53995640
>Christianity worships the Trinity, and Catholicism even adds Saints to the mix.
Three are One. The 'Trinity' isn't worshiped as separate entities, they are each a part of a singular being.
>and Catholicism even adds Saints to the mix.
You straight up don't understand the role of saints in Catholic theology. We don't worship the saints, we simply beseech them to act on our behalf with God. They aren't given worship, only shown respect as particularly worthy servants of Christ.

Saying they are gods is like saying a senator is the constitution of the United States.

>>53994731
>It's only what you believes, and he still acted against some things of the Old Testament.
The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are different gods anyway
God of War and Revenge against God of Peace and Love

>>53995693
Go back to bed, Simon the Magician.

>>53994385
Is it?

I though Ahriman was a sort of collection of mans fuckups rather than an equal and opposite of Ahura Mazda.

>>53995725
they are twin brothers
"Monotheistic" version of Zoroastrianism is Zurvanism, When primordial Zurvan gave birth to both Ormazd and Ahriman

>>53995671
Well, yeah, I guess you are talking about Canaanites tradition, which Judaism seems to be a splinter/evolution off. But if we want to be terminologically clear, those were not Judaists: those were just Semites. Same ethnic group, similar language, but the religion was different and we only speak about Judaism once the separation of Elohim from the rest of the Canaanite pantheon happened.

Fun fact though, it's exactly the old rooting in the Canaanite pantheon that is still "accidentally" captured in the story of Lucifer's fall, and in fact the whole tradition of associating the Devil's name with Morning Star. It's an old Canaanite myth predating old testament by about five hundred years, give or take. And it was apparently still common knowledge around the times of Isaiah, too.

>>53995690
No offense, but religious people are the absolute worst judges of their own religion on a more global and academic level. Of course you might scream and yell about how "it's totally DIFFERENT" but it isn't, not to an external observer who is comparing your religion to others. Saints ARE worshiped, in the same way that say, Shinto worships Kami, and Trinity is separated and then conglomerated according to immediate theological need. I understand why you don't admit that and why you chose a different terminology for yourself, but from the perspective of actual religionistics, no. You are wrong.

>>53995720
The Ancient God isn't evil, He is more *evil* than the New God

>>53990837
The only thing it has in common with Tolkien's creation myth is that the world is created through song.

File: 1402030062915.jpg (59 KB, 441x539)

59 KB JPG

>>53995693

File: E8Sejh.jpg (98 KB, 2300x1764)

98 KB JPG

>>53995742
Americans worship Abraham Lincoln. They even built a temple to him.

>>53995782
>Gnosticism
One more religion that shouldn't get out of Fantasy books

>>53995742
>Saints ARE worshiped
when you are asking someone to pray for you, or compliment him, does that mean worship?
>Trinity is separated and then conglomerated according to immediate theological need
what does that even supposed to mean?

>In the beginning, he created all.
And then he fucked off.

>In the end, she shall return, look upon her creations, and then fuck off again.
Or something like that. Religion is hard, man. I like >>53990735 it sounds really cool.

>>53995799
Call me when they specifically ask him for help in their prayers, attribute post-mortem miracles to him, perform sacrifices to him, and actually state that he is capable of directly influencing events in physical world.
I'm not just being ironic, I actually can see that happening sometime in future.

>>53995819
>when you are asking someone to pray for you, or compliment him, does that mean worship?
If you are praying to him, yes. If you attribute him with powers that can influence your existence, and preform religious rituals including sacrifice to that being, yes. That is worship. And you are insanely, INSANELY delusional if you want to claim that is not happening among the Catholics in mass, especially in the past. Fun fact, around 14th century, the Cult of Saint Mary was actually bigger and more popular than the actual cult of Jesus Christ for a good while.

Look, you can make any distinctions you need to maintain the consistency of your belief. I seriously don't have a problem with that. I completely understand that a Catholic will maintain a strict distinction between a Saint and God, just as he will maintain claim to monotheism because those are just deeply coded into the belief system and it's a way to deal with certain inconsistencies or unclarities.

And that is fine.

But there IS a different perspective and that is an academic point. Just like Christianity will insist on immortality of a soul, but Medicine and Psychology will not agree, Christians will insist on being monotheistic, but actual studies of Religionistics won't.
You'll just have to learn to deal with it.

>>53995693
God just decided to change his ways 2000 years ago, even though that is supposed to be impossible for him to do

>>53991659
>and ruined everything forever
An uneducated interpretation. Ilúvatar scholds Melkor for thinking that he can screw up His plans right after the song is finished.

>Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

>>53995889
>If you are praying to him, yes.
Nobody is """praying""" to saints, we are asking them to pray for us. HUmans are immortal, so they are still alive and reside in heaven. thats the basic concept. Its like asking a friend to pray for us.
>and preform religious rituals including sacrifice to that being
Literally what? We are sacrificing to God only and God sacrifices himself to us. "Yours from You, we sacrifice to You for Everyone and Everything" is the rough translation of the liturgical text. but you'll get the point.
>And you are insanely, INSANELY delusional if you want to claim that is not happening among the Catholics in mass, especially in the past.
I dont care what happens in catholic church
>Fun fact, around 14th century, the Cult of Saint Mary was actually bigger and more popular than the actual cult of Jesus Christ for a good while.
[citatation needed]
>But there IS a different perspective and that is an academic point.
Academic point says that Christianity is monotheistic and it has been so throughout centuries. Now if some modern """scientist""" disagrees, then its a different problem. Human has Soul, Body and Rational mind, that together form a human being, yet they are not separate humans forming some mutant. this is a rough comparison.
>Just like Christianity will insist on immortality of a soul, but Medicine and Psychology will not agree
Because medicine is about body and material, not about soul and transcendental plain, why should it care about soul anyways?

>>53995889
Or you could learn to deal with being wrong and accept that there is a difference between holding someone up as a good example to follow and outright worship.

I am Catholic, I have been a practicing Catholic for 30 years. At no point have we ever sacrificed anything to a saint nor have we ever prayed to a saint or expected direct intervention in any way from a saint.

They are held up as examples to follow, some of them imbued with some measure of authority from God to perform supernatural feats but only at the allowance of God.

I honestly don't understand where the confusion comes from in this. It's like saying that Americans are ancestor worshipers because Thanksgiving day feast.

>>53995940
>we are asking them to pray for us
Yeah, because you know, saying "Archangel Michael, give me strength" doesn't at all mean that your asking him for a favour but that you want him to bring the good word to the Big G who despite being omniscient apparently needs help with the bookkeeping.

>>53995940
>Nobody is """praying""" to saints, we are asking them to pray for us.
See, this is why you don't treat devout believers as authorities on religion, because they will eventually end up flat out lying if it's is necessary to maintain their own conceptual framework. Because unavoidably, when it comes to faith, truth of dogma has to be more important and valid than even empirical evidence.
Because you are wrong about this.

>[citatation needed]
There are literally hundreds of books on the subject of Medieval Cult of Virgin Mary. Pick any you want. Luigi Gambero is a good interaction. Or just google the damn thing.

>Academic point says that Christianity is monotheistic and it has been so throughout centuries.
That is A) provably not true (just fucking open Eliade or something) and B) even those who unproblematically categorize it as monotheistic religion will immediately add "but the idea of monotheism itself is merely heuristic and extremely arbitrary". Just like I did.

>why should it care about soul anyways?
You do realize that "psychology" literally means "the knowledge of soul"? This is some truly clueless fucking question.

>>53995950
>Or you could learn to deal with being wrong
I'm wrong from a perspective of Catholicism. Ironically enough not even wrong from the perspective of Christianity, as there are dozens of Christian denominations that actually fucking make the same claim, often as a reason for their departure from Christianity.

More importantly though, I'm not wrong form the academic perspective: that is the perspective that transcends individual specifics of individual cults or religious movements.

>At no point have we ever sacrificed anything to a saint
Millions of Christians did and still do. Candles being easily the most common sacrifice, but hardly the only one. If you deny this, you simply deny history.

>I honestly don't understand where the confusion comes
Because you literally cannot see outside of your own dogma.

>>53995725
>>53995737
They're only twins in the very same zurvanism you mention, and maybe in some flawed folk zoroastrianism beliefs. Never in orthodox zoroastrian belief, that's ultra-heretic.

The dualism meme is based on western misconceptions and people who confuses Manicheans and Zoroastrians. Zoroastriansim has big dualist features, but not in the regard of being monotheistic or not. In this context, dualism doesn't mean "two gods" since the Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) is no god but a evil spirit and is a son of Ahura Mazda. The twin of the Ahriman is the Spenta Mainyu, one of Ahura Mazda's sparks. Zoroastrianism is way more complex than it's fantasy counterparts, it can be summarized as "it's just dualism dude".

>>53995801
All religions got out of fantasy books, what makes yours special?

>>53993072
But some saints are angels, aren't they?

File: pepe.png (108 KB, 400x381)

108 KB PNG

>>53996029
>Yeah, because you know, saying "Archangel Michael, give me strength"
give me a full prayer commissioned by an official church and approved by an ecclesiarchy.
>>53996031
>See, this is why you don't treat devout believers as authorities on religion, because they will eventually end up flat out lying if it's is necessary to maintain their own conceptual framework. Because unavoidably, when it comes to faith, truth of dogma has to be more important and valid than even empirical evidence.
>I have no arguments about this, so I will call you a liar and say that "you are wrong about this."

>There are literally hundreds of books
using a weasel words I see....

>A) provably not true (just fucking open Eliade or something) and
sure, as you say (also, a protip: using an insult in conversation will make you look degenerate)
>B) even those who unproblematically categorize it as monotheistic religion will immediately add "but the idea of monotheism itself is merely heuristic and extremely arbitrary".
>Just like I did.
You have an big impression on yourself, m8

>You do realize that "psychology" literally means "the knowledge of soul"? This is some truly clueless fucking question.
Psychology now has to do something with a medicine? Its a completely different discipline. Medicine and biology plays part in it, but it is a separate. Also, see a protip up there.

>>53990655
search for Mahanubhava Sect

>It is the only religion in the world which says universe wasn't created by God

you can base it on it

>>53996088
No
Its used as a metaphore, as in "the messanger"
In nature, Humans are superior than Angels

>>53992413
>be good
>die
>go to sun
>your soul gets burnt

>be bad
>???

I would not be very comfortable with this religion.

>>53994617
>god is omnipotent yet he is defeated by fucking chariots

The jewish part of the bible is the most retarded.

>>53996031
So your entire argument is

>These people say Catholics are polytheists who worship saints

All contrary evidence to be ignored.

Also candles are sacrifices now, and are offered to the saints no less.

>Because you literally cannot see outside of your own dogma.
and you can't see past your own erroneous conclusion.

I'm glad that the spirit of Jack Chick lives on. Truly the world would be a less entertaining place without it.

File: 0743222564782568797.jpg (52 KB, 554x439)

52 KB JPG

>>53995601
Well
>>53996167

Says so too, so I mean...

>>53996089
>I have no arguments about this, so I will call you a liar and say that "you are wrong about this."
Says the person who makes a post purely out of "NO U" and complains about "bad words" and actual ad hominems?
Like:
>You have an big impression on yourself, m8
This is the best you can put together.
Here is a suggestion: Get of your fat lazy ass and walk down the nearest university. Ask for direction to the department of religionistics. And go ask them.

>Psychology now has to do something with a medicine?
Uh, psychology is part of medicine. Always have been. There is no clear separation: it's a subdiscipline of medicine, that is just a fucking fact too.

What the fuck is going on here? What is your fucking point? This is laughable.

To you and this moron >>53996175
Let's get back to the point: the distinction that Catholicism does between worship (hyperdulia) and "mere" veneration (dulia or latria) IS arbitrary to anyone outsideo of fucking Catholicism. Even the fucking Protestants point out that the distinction is in word only and functionally does the fucking same. And you should BE FUCKING AWARE of that.
It's fine that you chose to adhere to the Catholic tradition. But you are being fucking retarded if you can't even acknowledge that the validity of your terminology LITERALLY ENDS with your own faith. Even people worshiping the same fucking GOD disagree with you. Much less people who are trying to find a possition outside of this particular faith entirely.

Just fucking understand that you see that as a distinction literally because that is written in the Catholic DOGMA and for absolutely no reason. The distinction is not relevant to people who do not see the believe the same cannon as you do. Literally just a different commentary on BIBLE, clearly can contradict your belief.

And that really is where the discussion ends. Validity of distinction you draw ends where your particular faith ends. That is all.

>>53995640
>arguably the old, now-non-existent Atenism of Middle Kingdom Egypt can be pretty unarguably considered pure monotheism

I would like to see you argue that, since atenism is clearly henotheistic and way more removed from monotheism than for example islam.

>>53996212
>religionistics

Um. Are you sure that's a thing?

I did a google search, wound up not getting a definition of what that is.

Or are you using an improper name?

>>53996216
>since atenism is clearly henotheistic
I really like how you just jump on the occasion to flaunt that new word that you had learned, but not really. And the distinction between henotheism and monotheism itself is even more fucking arbitrary and unclear than the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. Hell, Elohim is a henotheistic god: Henotheism is at best a stage of transformation from polytheism to monotheism and it's frankly incredibly poorly concieved and defined, which is why religionistics don't actually use it very much. Hence it's obscurity, and hence your need to flaunt it.

You are right that I completely forgotten that Islam exists, and that is silly of me. And you are right that it would be a better example than Atenism.

I'm sorry Catholics, but you are literal idol worshipers. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." And "No other gods before me" Literally two of the big ten and you break them daily. I'm sorry you have to learn this on 4chan of all places, but I pray that God will forgive you if you repent.

>>53996230
>Um. Are you sure that's a thing?
Oh, sorry, in English it's traditionally officially translated as Religious Studies.

>>53996116
So Saint Michael is technically not a saint?

>>53996257
Ahhhh ok. See, I know what *that* is!

Uh...you're not a native English speaker, then, bro?

N-not that it matters...it's not like I like different languages and sexy accent b-baka...

>>53996205
Torah and old testament are not the same dude.

>>53996274


...Wait, isn't it, like, a chunk of the Old Testament, though?

I'm asking because I was led to believe that it was.

File: carl the cuck.jpg (84 KB, 1280x720)

84 KB JPG

>>53996212
Nice, so you cant survive without insulting someone, nice to reveal your face.
>Says the person who makes a post purely out of "NO U" and complains about "bad words" and actual ad hominems?
Ok, now you have degraded to "carl the cuck".
>Here is a suggestion: Get of your fat lazy ass and walk down the nearest university. Ask for direction to the department of religionistics. And go ask them.
I study bible (mostly tanakh) and Hebrew in university, you imbecile. And religionistics isn't even an academic discipline, its called "religion/religious studies"
>Uh, psychology is part of medicine. Always have been
No, in fact in old times it was considered to be a pseudoscience by illiterates like you.
>Let's get back to the point: the distinction that Catholicism does between worship (hyperdulia) and "mere" veneration (dulia or latria) IS arbitrary to anyone outsideo of fucking Catholicism. Even the fucking Protestants point out that the distinction is in word only and functionally does the fucking same. And you should BE FUCKING AWARE of that.
>different terms actually have same meaning.
The problem, that your retarded language cant find a difference between terms in other language, doesn't mean that there are none.
Just like in my language there are two distinct terms for deaths, that are translated same way in english, but one means "death as death, annihilation" and "death as transformation, transcedence"
>Just fucking understand that you see that as a distinction literally because that is written in the Catholic DOGMA and for absolutely no reason. The distinction is not relevant to people who do not see the believe the same cannon as you do. Literally just a different commentary on BIBLE, clearly can contradict your belief.
first of all, why should I care about catholic dogmas, I am not even catholic, but you cannot even provide single based argument, that veneration is same as worshiping. Do you realize how retarded it sounds? Its like [tbc]

>>53994617
>how Jesus changed the law without actually changing it.
That whole thing is most likely derived from way back when Christianity was still a sect within the Jewish religion which also allowed non-Jews to join, and there were conflicting opinions on wether non-Jewish Christians had to follow Jewish law or if just following the laws laid down by Jesus was enough. The whole thing about the old laws still being in place but there also being this new fancy laws that change the old laws without actually changing them is likely to mean: "If you're a Jewish follower of Christ you still need to get circumsised and you can't work during the shabbat. If you didn't do those things before, you don't have to start doing them now."

>>53996241
I mean, okay, you're very smart and all but I won't consider it monotheism when your religion allows the worship of other gods. It may be a step towards monotheism, but this very fact precisely prevents it from being monotheistic. You can say you're to in the second floor if you're still on the stairs.

>>53996212
>To you and this moron
Resorts to name calling

>the distinction that Catholicism does between worship (hyperdulia) and "mere" veneration (dulia or latria) IS arbitrary to anyone outsideo of fucking Catholicism.
Two different words with notably different meanings have only arbitrary differences outside of a particular religious branch. No. that's not how words work.

>Even the fucking Protestants point out that the distinction is in word only and functionally does the fucking same
Really? Because half my family are Baptists and they seemed to understand the distinction easily. Again, ancestor worshiping Americans and worship at the Lincoln temple.

>But you are being fucking retarded if you can't even acknowledge that the validity of your terminology LITERALLY ENDS with your own faith
Really? I mean I'm using English and the terminology seems to be at minimum as wide spread as other English speakers.

>Even people worshiping the same fucking GOD disagree with you.
Not all apparently. Also more than one person is allowed to be wrong at once.

>Just fucking understand that you see that as a distinction literally because that is written in the Catholic DOGMA and for absolutely no reason.
Other than to prevent the outright worship of saints. I honestly don't know how you failed to spot that. I mean, to play devils advocate for a moment, if I was you I would have at least tried to spin it as Catholic hypocrisy.

>Literally just a different commentary on BIBLE, clearly can contradict your belief.
Yes. This is called interpretation.

>And that really is where the discussion ends
That's not for you to decide.

>Validity of distinction you draw ends where your particular faith ends
Someone been burning dictionaries?

>That is all
Really isn't.

File: 1498117469525.jpg (91 KB, 800x631)

91 KB JPG

>>53996293
saying that "asking someone to help" is like "worshipping someone like God". (though christianity DOES say that humans are made in image and likeness of God. you can see psalm 82:6)
I dont care how you view it, I dont care if you tip fedora or worship yourself. But stop showing down in Christianity what there is not.

>And that really is where the discussion ends. Validity of distinction you draw ends where your particular faith ends. That is all.
Exactly. where your faith ends. your entire arguments have been just "are you kidding me", "b-but, y gender studies teacher said so". pathethic
bye.
Learn how to conduct an academic conversation before talking on high matters

>>53996289
It is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, are all apart of the Bible.

This anon >>53996274 is full of it.

>>53996337
Also the rabbinic commentaries.

>>53996346
>Literally Spark-notes for Jews.

Also, NOT CANON.

>>53991593
>spirits and shit.
Parts of Tengrii

>>53996323
>No. that's not how words work
That is actually exactly how words work.

>>53996267
>Uh...you're not a native English speaker, then, bro?
Nope.

>>53996293
>Nice, so you cant survive without insulting someone, nice to reveal your face.
Does not your religion frown down on hypocrisy? Did you actually read your previous post? Or the following lines of this very post?

This is boring. Make an actual point or I'm just going to ignore you.
>I study bible (mostly tanakh) and Hebrew in university, you imbecile.
And I don't give a fuck. Also, speaking of the inability to move away from insults... again, I don't actually mind. This is 4chan, insulting means nothing and I would completely screen it out if it wasn't you who just complaint about how I'm using them. It's just painfully hypocritical of you.

>And religionistics isn't even an academic discipline, its called "religion/religious studies"
Fair enough. You are right. Religionistics is a term used in most of Eastern Europe where I come from. Proper english term is Religious Studies. I tend to consistently forget that. Sorry about that. Hardly changes the point though.

>No, in fact in old times it was considered to be a pseudoscience by illiterates like you.
Uh... it has never been considered science at all until very recently when experimental psychology came into prominence. Also it's status as a science has nothing to do with it's status as a part of medicine. But sure, just use it as a bad excuse to scream more insults that you find so inexcusable in this discussion...

>The problem, that your retarded language cant find a difference between terms in other language
This is not a problem of language, it's a problem of meaning. Validity of a term, not of the particular word. Catholics and Christians are divided on this problem regardless of their native language, for an example. The question is "is the distinction useful to enough people to be broadly recognized". And clearly the distinction between veneration and worship is not useful enough even for Christianity on whole to agree on.

>>53996264
Every conscious, free willing being who is with God is a Saint.
But I was talking about nature of beings.

>>53995908

So Iluvatar basically Just as Keikaku'd Melkor?

>>53996394
>Every conscious, free willing being who is with God is a Saint.

>Implying those with God are conscious and have will anymore.
This is why we call you heretics Catholics.

>>53996414
>what is theosis/divinization?

>>53996400
Basically. It was quite humourous; each of the Valar set out to create their own fraction of Illuvatar's vision and Melkor would try to fuck it up, only aiding in creation. One Valar would make rain and Melkor would try to freeze it out of spite and he'd just create snow, then throw a tantrum over how no one was upset about it.

>>53996424
What indeed? Sounds like heretical mumblings from false prophets to me.

>>53996293
>first of all, why should I care about catholic dogmas,
Yet you systematically insist on a distinction that is pretty much unique to Catholicism and it's variants. Again, entirety of Protestantism and it's denominations actually consider people who draw such line as flat out heretics. The point here being that it's not actually an universally accepted distinction. And that is where the discussion really ends. You don't have the final word on this: academia and different denominations of your own faith contradict it. At absolute best, as I said in my first post that offended your delicate religious sensibilities (or more likely your actual poor self-esteem): it's tenatious and not clear and there is no final authority beyond "it's highly debatable and complex matter".

>that veneration is same as worshiping.
Except for the common useage of the word "worship".
>saying that "asking someone to help" is like "worshipping someone like God"
If you do it through idol-building, religious rituals and sacrificies, if you attribute the object of your interest with divine qualities and miraculous powers: that is worship. Peculiar justifications aren't important. We see Buddhism as religion even though if you explore Buddha's own teachings and some specific schools of Buddhism, they flat out deny existence of a diety. Still: On pragmatic level, they worship Buddha, and Boddhisatwa's through very much the same rituals and idol-building as Catholics worship Saints.

If we want to understand religion, we need to look at it as a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, rather than get bogged down in every single individiual post-hoc rationalization. And the pattern of behavior of Catholics and their denomintions towards saints is just exactly the fucking same as any other worship of lesser dieties in the world in many ways.

>Learn how to conduct an academic conversation before talking on high matters
Are you fucking serious with this shit?

>>53996451
>Apostoles were heretics

>>53996477
I shall take no man's word above the word of God.

>>53996500
Ok, then:

Gen 1:26–28
And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likenesss; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said to them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

Gen 5:1–3
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him. Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.

Gen 9:6
One who spills the blood of man, through/by man, his blood will be spilled, for in God's image He made man.

>>53996514
>Being the children of God is the same as being God himself.

>Im-fucking-plying

>>53996323
>Two different words with notably different meanings
Not recoginized within Christianity on the whole, much less within academia.

>Again, ancestor worshiping Americans and worship at the Lincoln temple.
Not quite yet, but yeah. The problem of american state cult rapidly closing to being a religious institution is actually fairly well known. And yes, it draws on very similar principles, it's hardly surprising that the two are similar.

>I mean I'm using English and the terminology seems to be at minimum as wide spread as other English speakers.
Among Catholics, yes. Other perspectives are aware of the distinction you people draw, but that does not mean they consider it valid.

>Also more than one person is allowed to be wrong at once.
And we are at the very root of the problem. You declare yourself right BECAUSE YOU ARE CATHOLIC. And that is not a valid line of argumentation.

>Other than to prevent the outright worship of saints.
Actually, it is because you want to maintain the tradition and custom of worship of Saints, but at the same time you don't want to change the dogma declaring the religion monotheist, because that is also a matter of old tradition.

That is all. It's just a way to solve internal inconsistency within your own belief. And it's a fair way to do it. I don't have a single problem with the idea that Catholics worship saints. I don't have a problem with them drawing a line between worship and veneration for their own internal purposes.

The ONLY problem I have is when somebody like you comes out and declares everybody else wrong and every other actual more pragmatic and universal conceptualization WRONG because "I'm a catholic and things are as I say by divine provenience". That attitude has no fucking place in public discussion, much less academic one.

YOU can distinguish yourself between the two ideas, but you can't expect everyone else to confirm to it. It's your private distinction, not an academically relevant one.

>>53996521
>>Being the children of God is the same as being God himself
>doesnt know a differences between god and THE God

File: 1419640173143.jpg (15 KB, 387x305)

15 KB JPG

>>53993660
>You guys worship the same God
Unless you're one of those Christians who believes Muhammad is the Anti-Christ predicted in the Book of Revelations and Muslims have been duped into worshipping Satan.
I unironically believe this.

File: 54422172.jpg (47 KB, 402x564)

47 KB JPG

>>53996533
>Implying there is more than one God.

Fucking heretics.

>>53996590
>still doesn't get it

>>53996583
>I unironically believe this.

This, but with Catholics desu.

File: 1fe.jpg (286 KB, 1024x634)

286 KB JPG

>>53996602

File: 1497539558739.png (1.2 MB, 1020x822)

1.2 MB PNG

>>53996617
>Psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

>>53996610
>The first Christian church founded by St. Peter on the orders of Jesus is also the church Jesus warned of
Wut?

File: f9Mx71t.gif (235 KB, 550x400)

235 KB GIF

>>53996631
>King James

"gods" as in "judges" as in "authority" in original Hebrew context. Not as in literal Godhood.

You double heretic.

>>53996638
>Peter's Church
>Same as modern day Catholicism.

File: based orthodoxy.jpg (144 KB, 500x750)

144 KB JPG

>>53996677
>>King James
>Implying it is not translated so in literally every other traditional translations
>Implying "god" doesn't mean "godlikeness"

>>53996677
>Peter's Church
>Same as modern day Catholicism.
Legit enough, but how you make the jump to "Church of Satan" is incredibly iffy, especially considering they have the same ideological foundation. Unless you're one of those Muslims who believes the Bible has been corrupted becasue the original (for which no manuscripts exist by coincidence) mentioned Muhammad.

>>53996631
>"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
Ayo hol up
so you be sayin' dat
WE

>>53991890
>Evil creator makes world to screw humanity
Was a popular heresy with Gnostic Christian sects. It's also the premise of Kult

>>53996693
ו אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם; וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם.

I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High.

It doesn't even make sense in the context in the rest of the Psalm.

Nevertheless ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.'
Arise, O God, judge the earth; for Thou shalt possess all the nations.

>>53996748
>Nevertheless ye shall die like men
It should be adam instead of man, but whatever
our body dies, news flash
:)
>and fall like one of the princes.
that prince is reference to Lucifer
we fell like satan and became degenerate, also a news flash :)

>>53996748
Also, this
>for Thou shalt possess all the nations.
Is a reference to Saviour (Jesus for us, Jews still are waiting) and that his truth will possess and cover all mankind

>>53992127
>Jesus Christ is a literal demon
Ya uh no sweetie, let's try that again when you get a brain. I'll pray for you :^)

>>53996523
Actually I believe myself right on this particular subject due to 30 years of personal experience.

You believe you are right based on some variation of "what someone once told me".

>>53996824
>30 years of being wrong.

I'd be defensive too.

>>53995799
A great man taken before his time

>>53996824
>Actually I believe myself right on this particular subject due to 30 years of personal experience.
Entirely on the basis of personal, subjective preference.

>You believe you are right based on some variation of "what someone once told me".
Dude, you are are literally just repeating words of religious authorities of past. You are exclusively just repeating the words somebody told you.
And by the way, that is how most knowledge works. Except you decided that a certain authority is valid based purely on your own individual allegiance with that group.
While I decide authorities based on comparisons of multiple different possible statements and applications of rationality and academic discourse standards.

It's really bizzare how you think "this is what I think because I'm a catholic for 30 years" is somehow superior to "This is what a massive collection of different authorities of many different religious or non-religious backgrounds ultimately agreed upon within the pretty sharp and demanding requirements and knowledge standards of the academic field".

That is just bizarre. I have a lot of respect for faith - I think a lot more than most - but you are pretty much an illustration of why people tend to look down upon your kind. Basically the fedora-wearing aggressive and dumb atheist stereotype except in reverse.

>>53991944
>>53991787
As a Spanish Catholic non practicioner, it depends, you have the South where they revere Saints and Mary like crazy, to the point of crying in the presence of their sculptures, flagelate themselves in Holy Week, etc and you have the North in where is more like superstition, you have a figure of a certain Saint to protect you from something specific, but that's it.

>>53996864
Really? Have I tried to convert you? Have I denounced you for your beliefs or once called you stupid?

No. I have not. Therefore not Tippy the Trilby.

The original point was you or someone very much like you claiming that Catholics worship saints.

I have decades of first-hand experience on the subject and the conclusion I have reached is that we do not.

I don't know how it can be put any simpler for you. Sometimes things really do resolve into a yes or no answer.

Also despite all this veneration is still not the same thing as worship.

>>53990655
no afterlife or reincarnation

File: 189342982408.jpg (51 KB, 599x321)

51 KB JPG

No matter what the system or setting, the DM is god. In RPGs, everything happens by the needs of the plot at the moment, the players' intervention, and DM fiat. The actual nature of the in-game god(s) only matter if
A) they intervene in mortal affairs by divinely empowered clerics/paladins/whatever
B) the players can meet them in person by some means of extradimensional/metaphysical travel
If neither of those conditions are satisfied, then the nature of the god(s) are irrelevant. Whether the god is triune, modal, or something else entirely does not matter at all when the players are off killing orcs or fighting space pirates.

>>53996939
>Really? Have I tried to convert you? Have I denounced you for your beliefs or once called you stupid?
Not really, you just literally rejected massive library and entire fucking field of knowledge on the basis of "I'm a catholic for 30 years and that makes you all wrong".

And that is pretty damn stupid.

>The original point was you or someone very much like you claiming that Catholics worship saints.
Actually, the original point was that the concept of monotheism is hardly an accurate and exact tool and that many religions common considered monotheistic actually show display of worship of multiple entitites - as illustrated on the example of Catholics having the institution of Saints, or Buddhism having their Boddhisattwa's.
Which are entirely valid examples of where the whole "monotheism" idea might be... let's say innacurate or insufficient, as it tries to describe reality that might be a lot more complex than the definition of monotheism suggest it to be.

>I have decades of first-hand experience on the subject
You don't have ANY experience with any kind of academic discourse. You yourself don't feel like veneration and worship are the same. NOBODY GIVES A FUCK about that though. To an external, more objective observer, that distinction is not really relevant. Really: END OF THE FUCKING DISCUSSION. Your particular subjective feeling does not matter. There are better, more universal and more relevant ways to judge this problem.

>Also despite all this veneration is still not the same thing as worship.
TO. YOU.
Except YOU don't matter. There is a guy living next door who just happens to be a protestant and his oppinion is going to EXACTLY the fucking opposite to you: based on 30 years of his experience, just like you. To him, it's exactly the same.
That is why we can't consider either of you actually valid judges of this problem. We are going to establish a better way to judge these things than your personal faith.

>>53996439
So what you're saying is Melkor is just That Guy?

>>53996975
>the DM is god
Nope, he's the referee
The DM is God is something only a That GM will say

>>53997000
And despite all this salt the definitions and distinctions of veneration and worship have not changed.

And neither has the definition of monotheism.

>>53997040
>And despite all this salt the definitions and distinctions of veneration and worship have not changed.
Tell that to Protestants you idiot. Seriously. Go and fucking ask what they think.

>>53997049
I have done on several occasions.

Most of them are capable of making the distinction.

>>53996975
bad post

File: autsim.jpg (88 KB, 640x628)

88 KB JPG

>>53997049
>Tell that to Protestants you idiot. Seriously. Go and fucking ask what they think.
having a mental breakdown lad?

>>53997040
>the definitions and distinctions of veneration and worship have not changed.
You might want to look that up, actually. The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of venerate as 'deep respect or admiration', and worship as, in addition to religious rites in general, 'great reverence'; reverence in turn being defined as 'deep respect'.

I'm with the other anon on this one. The distinction is only relevant to Catholics who use it as a post hoc rationalization for their worship of saints.

>>53997021
>DM writes at least basic plot structure (or situations in a sandbox game), players follow
>If players stray from plot, DM (ideally) sets up alternate plot
>DM decides which aspects of the setting are valid, assuming he doesn't make his own setting outright
>DM (and players) houserule mechanics
>DM can fiat in favor of or against players if plot or circumstances demand it
>NPCs act according to plot contrivance and DM strategy
Sounds pretty godlike to me. And the above is a DM's responsibilities and powers; what they do with that is up to them and the players.

File: Evil God of Carnage.jpg (557 KB, 1600x1000)

557 KB JPG

>>53991941
>>53991974
>>53996747

Can I get a name for this evil God character?

My current in design name is "The King in Red" but it's not really much of a name, just a fun little ominous title. I'm worried might associate it too much with "The King in Yellow" and all that.

>>53997059
>Most of them are capable of making the distinction.
Dude, acknowledging that you see the difference is not the same as accepting that difference as universally valid. Most protestants view the distinction as an insult to the god, a hypocritical attempt to justify barbaric notion of worshiping idols and priviledging people on the arrogant assumption that people can actually truly know God's intentions. Fuck me, you yourself defined venerated people as those you ask to prey for you because you believe their prayers will have exceptional impact, while according to Protestantism, there is hardly anything more arrogant than assuming that we can even understand what truly matters to God or that we can somehow influence his fucking judgement.

Also:
As to the "definitions have not changed".
Well, anthropology did not really change the definitions of Matriarchy and Patriarchy after they were identified as innacurate and unscientific. They just stopped viewing them as relevant. Some people (like some radical feminists) STILL cling to them, but the actual academic body with authority on this subject simply regards them as outdated and not to be used anymore.

And as for definition of Monotheism: first of all you are wrong. The definition HAS changed, I just redefined it by pointing out that nowdays, we know it's an arbitrary, historical line that has very little systematic application and should not be treated as literary.
Just like we use the concept of Race: we still use it pretty much in the same sense that Gobineau established it, yet we already know it's (biologically speaking) utter bullshit. We just used it because A) it stuck, and B) it's treated as a common heuristic, not as something to be taken too literary and seriously.

>>53997077
Nah, but judging how desperately you cling to most irrelevant assumptions to feel like you are in the right, I think you actually might be.

>>53997128
>The definition HAS changed, I just redefined it
So you are literally changing the definitions of words to win an argument on a Mongolian basket weaving website.

That's some Chris-chan tier awful.

>>53997276
>So you are literally changing the definitions of words to win an argument on a Mongolian basket weaving website.
Well, technically it was not me: I just provided the new definition, as it has been established by the entirety of the field that I - unlike you - have access to. It's how definition of monotheism has been altered through the field of religious studies and their relative fields, including anthropology, cognitive and experimental psychology and psychology of religion, and also philosophy of religion and even sociology.

What I think isn't all that relevant. What the entirely of the academia studying this subject matter agrees upon - even if (as all academic agreements are) tentatiously, is what matters.

You could have actually figured out that I'm not talking subjectively and that I'm representing the general attitude of the entire fucking field from the "today, we know". It's not a pluralis majestatis, you know.

>>53996583
Fuck it, seems reasonable enough. Crusade when?

>>53997110
Don't give him a name. He is just god, the creator of all, the one true king. Names are for lowly mortals so they can tell each other apart, but there is only one true ruler in this world.

>>53995379
>What happens when a demon dies? Do they get re-sung, hopefully correctly this time?
They do get Re-sung but it's still up to chance with what you are.
Like Hinduism with castes. You are re-sung as a plant or a dog or even just as a weaker demon.
>Could they potentially be "tuned up" without dying? Do they, in fact, _have to_ be tuned up while alive to prevent being reincarnated as a demon?
I don't get this one. Please elaborate.
>Does all this only apply to the material things or does everything, even concepts, have their song? Does every concept potentially have a "harmonious" version?
No. Only beings with a soul can become a demon. Now if a creature such as a Lich tore it's soul and placed it into things the object might fo strange things such as stay together in an impossible amount of heat.
>Do demons prefer their "discorded" status, or would they rather be cured (whether that's possible or not)?
It's both. Some demons are insane and some simply work with what they are while others actively kill people to try and "steal" their song even though its impossible.
>What's their level of malevolence - just crazy, mischievous, nasty, homicidal, genocidal, omnicidal? Are they persons or howling madness?
Like above, both. Each failed tune is different and ranges from small to colossal.

>>53990918
I'd also add that reading Evans-Pritchard's works about the Nuer people, specifically 'The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People' can also offer an interesting take on a monotheistic religion, though slightly unfitting to what OP asks, as the Nuer's monotheistic religion, though it has nothing to do with Abrahamic religions, still shares similarities and parallels in its philosophy and attitude with the Old Testament.

>>53997487
>I don't get this one. Please elaborate.
Not him, but I think he is asking if you can go "up" the divine hierarchy, or if you always have to stay on the same level/fall even lower.
You yourself mentioned that they can be re-sung as a plant, or an animal, or just a lesser demon.
The question I think was if you can actually be re-sung as a higher demon, or even as something greater than that - like becoming a human again?
The odd thing about your proposition seems to be that your future is determined by Kavara's capability to be in-or-out of tune, which seems to remove all personal agency from your existence. Which is bleak at least.

>>53990918
>manichaeism is not quite monotheistic (though it's close), but it literally reads like a fantasy novel so it's good inspiration anyway.
That is because Manicheism is pretty close to gnostic heresies, and gnosticism has been quite popular subject of fantasy fiction. Hell, Tolkien himself was quite fascinated by the subject, as well as people like Jung (who is in many ways a father of modern myth interpretation, on which a lot of fantasy is based too) or even Borges consistently drew inspiration from it.
That is not even MENTIONING people like Kirkbride.

>>53992127
>THE TRUEST WORD OF GOD IS THIS SHITTY EARLY MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE AND ALL ELSE IS JUST HOGWASH

t. American Protestants

>>53997564
Oh I see. Kavara is a child after all. New to everything. You can't really expect a kid to be perfect at a brand new tune. It may be bleak but that's life.

Gonna tip my fedora real Hardcore here, bear with me.

Essentially, Abrahamic monotheism started out as pantheism. If you look up the ancient near east religions, a lot of them have gods with familiar names to Christianity, notably El/Elyon, which is found in a lot of place names (Bethel - "house of God") and people names (Michael, Elijah, etc). The tribes from these times would have like a patron deity for their tribes, and they'd war with each other and die off. The Babylonians only took slaves from one tribe - the tribe who worshipped El, and so he ended up surviving.
It makes a few things make more sense too. These ancient gods tended to be a lot more temperamental, which is why God gets angrier in the old testament before he becomes father of all. Ba'al was also from that same pantheon, and when the Israelites felt abandoned by El, they turned to Ba'al, as they already /believed/ in him, they just didn't focus on him. Imagine if you felt like God was being annoying so converted to Islam. It's too much of a jump. They also had a belief that knowing the name of a God gave you power over them, and when God was asked his name, he said "Yhwh", which means "I am what I am" or "I'll be what I need to be".

Then it got knocked about and the kinks got fixed and it became Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


I guess you could do the same process, but with another pantheon perhaps? Maybe the God isn't the one and only because he's always been that way, but the other gods have died out? Would be interesting if the one last God didn't have omnipotence but instead retained his limited control. Like if Thor was the only God left, and all he could control was thunder n shit. Maybe the Israelites worshipped Baal and go from there?

>>53997661
This is half-true.
So first all all, those "lot of ancient east religions" have a common name, they are known as the Canaanite religions, as they were worshiped by the Canaanite people, on old semitic population in the region.
We even know what the "El" words means: it means "high", or "highest", less literally "highest being" and only indirectly meaning "God". That is why Bethel means more precisely "the house for the highest (being) translating to "house of god". The names like "Michael" means "who is the highest (being)?" - it's not a statement, more like correctly (if less literally) translated as "nobody compares to god".

El (or Elohim - which curiously enough is a plural of El) and it's variations have most commonly however been associated with the position of the highest of the Gods within Canaanite pantheons, a presumably solar diety sometimes also known as Elyon. And we even know something more: We know that Old Testament DIRECTLY refers other Canaanite myths, meaning that the two were strongly interconnected.
Most clear example is the reference to the story of Attar a morning-star god, a lesser diety that in Canaanite tradition attempted to challenge Elyon and out-shine him, but utterly failed and was punished for his hubris. We know this story being part of Torah through both Ezechiel 28 and Isaiah 14, who both compare two different presumably real human kings to a "A Morning Star" and which later have been also interpreted as depictions of the story of the Devil himself.
Both of these particular verses actually clearly presume the audience being aware of the myth of Attan/The Morning Star, meaning that they assume their audience is familiar with the Canaanite mythology.

What we don't really know is the relationship between Canaanite Elyon and Jewish Elohim though. We don't know if Elohim emergent as an "evolution" or Elyon, or if it was a separate cult that just adopted the nomenclature.

>>53997871
>>53997661
>>53997871
Oh and by the way, the whole story of Attan, The Morning Star (which is actually a pretty intuitive story, because it basically just humanizes regular celestial event, the Morning Star growing in brightness for a while before dissapearing in front of the rising sun) translated into Old Testament and then interpreted as a story of Devils hubris is how we got - thousands of years later - the idea of Lucifer.
Because really, Lucifer means just "Morning Star" in Latin. Nothing more, nothing else: it's just that. It was associated with the image of devil through literal translations of Ezechiel (note the El in Ezechiel, the name actually means "The God Grows Stronger") and Izaiah (interestingly enough, the "iah" in "Izaiah is the same root as Yah in Yahwe and the whole name means "Jewish-God is salvation") where the respective people are slandered by being compared to Morning Stars: Lucifers.

Funny thing is that a different part of New Testament (I think it's the Revelation of Saint John, but I'm not sure) uses the word "Lucifer" to refer to Jesus Christ, which caused quite some confusion at one point. That is because the author of that part of New Testament was not raised in Canaanite-influenced mindset and did not associate Morning Star with negativity and implications of hubris and failure, thus deemed it acceptable to associate it with Jesus.

>>53996590
Even the old testament acknowledged there were other gods, they just were in conflict with/not as powerful as the abrahamic god.

>>53998340
Actually, a little later the same Old Testament paterntly stated that it's OK to slaughter anyone who actually recognizes the existence of a different God than the Only God. So it's not that simple.

>>53990655

What you seek is something that isn't a sky-deus pater.

Basically take any other god that isn't Zeus, Odin, Abrahamic God, etc, and make him the creator, king/queen of everything.

Example: If you take something like Dyonisus and make him the Supreme God you can have a mythology where the universe was created so the supreme god coul experience infinite sensations and pleasures, and even pains.

You can have an Allmother, something like Isis a supreme femenine deity that in fact, can only create, and can only choose to punish, never to destroy, and receives everyone in the afterlife with love. Everything is born within her and she is within everything.

Also you can have something like a deistic god. A sun god that just shines. Doesn't have a sex or a personality. Is just a force that fills everything with light and good but is indifferent to prayers.

>>53997957
Go on, I love this kind of history

>>53996439
Raises the question though: Why even make Melkor in the first place? Why not just have a nice guy do these things?

>>53997314
>cognitive and experimental psychology and psychology of religion, and also philosophy of religion and even sociology.

So Gender Studies was all booked up I'm guessing.

>>53998607
There isn't that much more to this that I know about, outside of the fact that the history of Lucifer then later on got into a pretty interesting spin because the whole association with Devil and the concept of a Morning Star lead to false association with Gnosticism.

The whole gnostic associations of Lucifer are partially caused by the fact that the Greek word for Morning Star is heōsphoros, which means "bringer of light".
This lead to some interesting but largely arbitrary sets of associations, resulting in a an apocryphical theory describing Lucifer as "the brightest of Gods Angels", and through further mental gymnastics to a story in which it was Lucifer that "brought humans the light of knowledge" and was punished for that: creating an a somewhat strange image of a "unjust punishment" and certain degree of sympathy for the character. A big role in this was played by Milton's Paradise Lost, a story that really likes to humanize Lucifer and make him sound almost like a good guy.

Now, the story of Lucifer being "the one who brought people Knowledge (from the tree, because Lucifer = Devil) and was punished for it bought well into the whole Gnostic ordeal in which the Biblical God is actually a lesser, malevolent diety that imprisoned humans (who are really just a shards of the real god) in this false, evil material world: resulting in neo-gnostic movement that worshiped Lucifer as the only true God's servant, attempting to make people aware of their trap and lead them away from worshiping the false malevolent Biblical God: a popular narrative then particularly spread in 19th century North America as part of an anti-semitic campaign.

All of this associations, though, are ahistorical. Actual Gnostism never worked with the idea of Lucifer (actually, it was Zoe, also known as Eve, who brought the light of knowledge to humans in old Gnostic texts). Association of Lucifer with Gnosis is a 19th century romantic invention. However, it works remarkably well.

>>53998780
Really desperate for those (You)'s, aren't you? All right, here you go. Use it wisely, because you probably won't be getting any more from me.

>>53998803
>Implying this isn't my first post in this thread
>Implying we don't live in a world of Emperor's New Clothes

>>53990655

>single deity isn't almighty
>single deity doesn't enforce a strict moral codex, instead there are only a few liturgic rules like which powders to use for a ritual
>demons are enemies the deity can't just smite
>demons and other entities can be more powerful
>maybe people worship demons and work for them in exchange for their dream afterlife
>the deity can be killed by a mortal champion that then takes it place

>>53998652
The valar weren't exactly made with intent. Illuvatar just sort of thought them up one day then taught them how to sing, because that's just what you do in the void before creation I guess. Melkor was just the little shit that thought he could sing a better song, but didn't realize he was just playing into the greater themes. Maybe it's some intrinsic law of creation that a dickbag needs to be around for anything to get done. Maybe a world of turmoil and conflict is just inherently better. You know how gods are with their mysterious ways. Ultimately it really just reads like a story about a petulant son thinking he knows better than daddy. All metaphorical or something.

>>53996583
Then I unironically say you suck.

ironically

>>53997661
>I guess you could do the same process, but with another pantheon perhaps? Maybe the God isn't the one and only because he's always been that way, but the other gods have died out?
>>53974819
>Wholly believable, especially if he's some sort of dark god and there's some myth about how it rose to power by devouring all that opposed him or some such

>>53990655
God exists in a state that's hard for people to directly wrap their heads around, but has a number of reflections radiating outward. But like any reflection, it really only captures one side of what it reflects. These are like differing interpretations of God, given their own authority and power, but not the true God. They favor different ideals or aspects of God.

This splits religious beliefs along the lines of which aspect they choose to approach God from. They technically all seek the same God, but their practices can be wildly different as a result.

>>53995693
I would prefer a god of war and revenge. I would totally follow a religion that told me to conquer an arbitrary strip of land because it is my god given land and then exterminate everyone living there.

>>54000478
And accordingly, each of these reflected aspects has its own reflected aspects of sort, making up its own individual divine court. And each of these may have yet another set of reflections. Each step down, and things stray yet further from the perfect ideal at the center. Somewhere along this line is the mortal world.

>>53998340
It's more complex than that. The text has clearly been rewritten to never explicitly recognize the existence of other gods, even though certain segments heavily implies that there are, or that the Jewish people once worshiped, other gods besides Yahweh.

>>53998652
Melkor's evil served as something for the forces of good to overcome and eventually prove themselves to be superior over. His sin was his hubris in thinking that he could outsmart Ilúvatar and not realizing how his actions only served to further His plans.