I want to preface what I am about to say with the statement, "I am an atheist." None of my current questions or statements are born from an investment in any particular religion. In point of fact, in real life, I probably like and dislike them all equally. Which is to say, I think that all of them have beautiful elements that are socially constructive, and all of them have, from time to time, become destructive forces due to extremist interpretations of religious text and dogma.
So, with that out of the way, I am very confused about why Islam, specifically, manages to adapt to a more liberal and secular view, and why Christianity and Judaism fail to do so. Judaism has managed to survive for thousands of years. Despite the loss of ties to the land it was originally based around (Judea), forced diaspora, and the loss of their center of religious worship, the religion managed to restructure itself around hearth and home. They have survived pretty much every form of persecution imaginable, including the holocaust. Every time their system of belief stops being applicable to the world they live in, they have sat down and reinterpreted their "torah" via something they call the "oral tradition," finding ways to survive. As a result of that process, today they exist in sects of various degrees of "conservative" (a term that is almost laughable considering how little in common the contemporary religion has with its pre-Christian existence) practice. Some of those sects have become extremely secular, existing as "Jewish" only insofar as they tie them-self to a cultural affiliation.
Christians are no different. Since their inception, their religion has a habit of "forking" (and the EP related pun is intentional) into multiple different sects designed to better serve the needs of a geographic and social populous. When the Catholic notion that only priests could talk to god, and the various practices that notion engendered, got in the way one one sects ethical sensibilities, they reformed. I don't think I am even aware of all the different Christian sects in existence today. I know that the practices of my wife's parents bear very little in common with the practices of various Catholic friends I had growing up. Moreover, much of the very humanism that has been sublated into the post-human philosophy that Eclipse Phase deals with was born out of Enlightenment era Christian philosophy. Granted, that philosophy has become far more secular over the years (as evinced by the writing of someone like Feuerbach), but even as late as 1933 humanism maintained a connection to Christian practice. The primary author of the first Humanist Manifesto was a Unitarian minister! It is out of that tradition that posthumanism is born (albeit as something of a revolution against certain concepts---but still, the two continue to bear much in common).
And then there is Islam. Islam was once the scientific and secular center of the religious world. There are many beautiful elements to the religion, and I can certainly buy the notion that a religion devoted to submission to god could learn to submit to its environment, changing its practices, and adapt to the transuman world. But, what makes them more adept at doing so than Jews or Christians? I mean, they are no less prone to extremist practices that fly in the face of convenience. One need only think about the various gender based inequalities and issues that currently plague various Muslim countries to prove that. Al-Queda can't get over the idea of female children gaining an education. Just look at their interaction with Malala Yousafzai! While I completely defend the notion that less extremest groups would be able to adapt to transhuman life, am I really supposed to buy that a religion that has such extremest groups would find it easier to adapt to Egos moving between male and female bodies than some of the more secular (and potentially adaptive) branches of Judaism or Christianity? Really!? There are sects of Islam that can hardly get over the notion of women showing their skin to the world...
Can someone please explain the logic of this position to me. I would imagine that extremest sects of all three religions would die out in the face of Eclipse Phase's vision of the coming singularity. I would imagine that all three would restructure themselves, surviving in some shape or form. I don't see anything that would suggest that ANY version would end up being more or less capable at surviving the transition. So, I find myself at a loss to explain the book's position. Can someone possibly explain it to me?
Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.
Questions (and maybe debate) about the 3 monotheist pre-fall religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)...
Sat, 2013-11-09 16:03
#1
Cyber-Dave
Questions (and maybe debate) about the 3 monotheist pre-fall religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)...
Sat, 2013-11-09 19:04
#2
zombiak
Uncertainty about Pre-Fall Earth
I will start with a sidenote: I don't really like the fact that the general description of the Pre-Fall Earth is so vague. I understand that it is very much open-ended in order to encourage the GM to come up with their own scenarios concerning politics, religion and social movements, but the truth is that even with the timeline included in the core rulebook (focusing mostly on technological advances) and the description provided in the Time of Eclipse chapter (focusing how awful living on Earth was at that time), I'm still not able to come up with realistic locales/scenarios involving the Earth before the Fall. The issue is even more painful when you consider that most characters actually lived before the Fall, some of them for many decades - even though the TITANs devastated the world and the global data storage centers, the characters should rememeber how it was like to live before the Fall. Right now, it's very problematic for my players to imagine it, and I LOVE providing my players with a good background story for their character. It doesn't have to be explained in meticulous detail; I just want to know which countries existed during the Fall, which ones were just puppet states for the hypercorps, what's the deal with Europe freezing over, and - back on topic - why Christianity and Judaism almost *vanished*, while hinduism and Islam still thrive.
Generally, it is a fact that the Western civilization grows more and more secular every decade, especially when you look at Europe. We do celebrate holidays, but they are more and more a *cultural* and social thing; the religious factor slowly disappears. There are places where the faith is strong - South America can be considered a bastion of Catholicism, along with Africa; meanwhile, the US/Canada seem to be a strange blend of strong Protestant movements and 'cultural' faith, where X-Mas and Easter (with Easter Bunny replacing the Lamb) are little more than family events and an opportunity to get a day off from work. Meanwhile, the ever-growing population of the Indian sub-continent and the Muslim countries really does care about the ritualistic part of their faith - praying five times a day, doing a pilgrimage to Mecca, bathing in Ganges etc. In a way, they might be considered more superstitious, just like Orthodox Jews not using elevators on the Sabbath just becasue the Holy Book forbids them to do so. The bottomline is: Muslims and Hindus already outnumber the population of the Judeo-Christian world, and - in general - their societies are more conservative and *orthodox* in their beliefs than Judeo-Christians. Even in Israel, being Jewish is more connected with their current nationality than their actual beliefs, thanks to the rampant globalization. Secular Judeo-Christian societies will become even more secular, leaving only pockets of more conservative followers (like South Americans - which makes sense, because they ended up in the Jovian Junta). Islam and Hinduism will slowly change to face technological progress, but they won't suddenly become open and universal for everyone - even the Reformed Islam is said to follow some pretty controversial stances.
Another thing I've been thinking about - the Pre-Fall conflicts and megaprojects, never described in detail, but still crucial to the issue of Post-Fall religion. Judaism was always able to survive, it's true - but what if this time, it simply didn't? The Jewish diaspora all over the world is really large, but most of those people are 'cultural' Jews more than 'religious' Jews, so they might become secular in a few generations. Meanwhile, Israel might have simply been destroyed during the Fall - a conflict with their Muslim neighbours is always possible, so that might explain why the surviving Jewish population Post-Fall is few and far between. On the other hand, the Islamic countries of the Middle East and North Africa are a perfect place for rich European people to escape the new Ice Age in Europe - 'Sunward' mentions French citizens evacuating to Morocco and Tunisia, so why not other countries as well? Mega/hypercorps might pump their money into developing nations, using their human and natural resources to grow in power, while forcing a change in their social structure and, consequently, lead to reformation of Islam. It would be an odd twist of faith, considering that right now, it is the Muslim population in Europe that is growing - and often causing massive social issues over their inability to adapt.
Maybe the problems with the Muslim immigrants will cause the right-wing governments to rise in Europe (which is already happening, btw) and expel the immigrants, maybe lead to serious riots bordering a civil war over religious issues? The Muslims would be forced to adapt and reform; after that, and after severe climate changes, their brothers and sisters in the Middle East/North Africa would be forced to do the same or die of starvation/dehydration or accept major investments from European, Asian or American hypercorps.
Sorry if it seems a bit chaotic, but that's how I actually see it; it would be good to see some official stance on this issue.
Sun, 2013-11-10 07:12
#3
Ravn
This is a can of worms.
This is a can of worms.
A can of worms that is extremely wriggly because of OP using Al-Queda as an example of Islam, and not the Westborough Baptists as an example of Christianity.
Fact of the matter is, this is a game in a fictional universe and you can say that Shinto is the dominating religion if you want, but if you're looking for a plausible reason that things are the way they are in EP I think the following is to take into account:
- Historically speaking, Islam is the religion of the three that has a deeper rooted culture of tolerance to outside ideas and science.
- Islam, as opposed to Christianity, isn't centralized around a leading authority.
- Compared to Islam, Judaism is quite insular in it's character, and faaaar from being as big in numbers of people.
- Christianity is, again historically, the one of the three that's been the most connected to a conservative worldview and reactionary when it comes to politics.
Of course this is generalizations. Bear that in mind.
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/fallevac_userbar.png[/img]
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/anarc_userbar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/marlib_userbar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/mesh_userbar.jpg[/img]
Sun, 2013-11-10 11:59
#4
Cyber-Dave
Ravn wrote:This is a can of
I used Al-Queda not as a general example of Islam, but as an example of extremism. My point was that Islamic extremists are no less destructive, insular, and unaccepting than the extremists of other religions. I don't think the philosophy of the Westborough Baptists would have an easy time surviving the fall either. Nor do I think that there are no destructive, insular, and unaccepting Christian (or Jewish) forces. But, the book already reflects the difficulty that extremist Christian and Jewish sects would have adapting to a post-singularity world. So, there was no real need to bring them up. On the other hand, the book seems to hand-wave the issues that the Islamic world would have adapting away. I want to understand why... perhaps there is some key fact that I am missing!
Can you please go into this in more detail? While I agree that this was true of old-world Islam, it doesn't seem to be true in contemporary times. These days, Jewdiasim and Christianity seem to, by and large (and not in the case of extremist minorities), be having an easier time adapting to change. Mind you, religions seem to, historically, go through periods where they are more or less accepting of outside thought, so I can accept that this might one day change again. But, why would one say that TODAY Islam is more accepting of outside thought (as an aggregate whole)?
Sorry, but Christianity has a centralized leading authority? What authority would that be? It seems to me that such statements are born of a serious lack of understanding surrounding what Christianity is. Certainly, Catholicism is centralized around a leading authority. But, Catholicism is only ONE sect of Christianity. There are many others. One of the famous reformations of Christianity was based around the movement AWAY from centralized leading authorities due to the problems such authorities created (see: sale of Indulgence and Martin Luther). So, this doesn't seem to work as an explanation.
I am going to need you to defend the first statement. I do not agree. I see nothing less insular about Islam (today). In fact, one of my wife's Islamic Turkish friends, recently immigrated to Canada, often decries just how insular his childhood was. It was not until coming to Canada that he realized what the Nazi party of Germany actually was. He had been taught that Nazis were merely a highly advanced culture--they were to be thought of as cool. He actually wore a Nazi t-shirt in his youth! He didn't even know what the term the holocaust referred to. That seems fairly insular to me. Mind you, that is a fairly anecdotal example. I don't think it is proof of anything. There could be all sorts of factors there that I am not aware of. So, please, explain to me how Islam, today, is any less Insular than any other religion.
As for the second statement, that is true! Islam is a rapidly growing faith. Judaism has existed in a fairly static state (at least in comparison to the other religions) for a long time. And yet, it has managed to survive whatever history has thrown its way. That, to me, seems to suggest that it would ALSO survive the-fall. There probably would not be a lot of them running around. But, I would be surprised if they didn't continue to exist in some shape or form.
I don't know that it has been the "most connected." Every Orthodox sect of any religion tends to be highly connected to conservative worldviews. I am sure we can all think of examples from all three to back up their position as a conservative force. But, Christianity is also known for adapting and modernizing. Look at various North American sects of Christianity that use rock groups as a form of Sunday prayer. Look at various contemporary theologians who are starting to incorporate postmodernist philosophy into their exegetical interpretation of text (mind you, this phenomenon still seems to be a minority practice evinced only by a few bleeding-edge religious thinkers, but when I ran into it through a conversation with one such theologian I was quite impressed).
They don't just seem to be generalizations. They seem to be mischaracterizations. Now, I will be the first to admit that I might be wrong! But, I would really like some details. I prefer to run settings as written. This comment from the core book, however, just doesn't seem to logically work. Based on what I know today (and I admit that there might be a gaping black hole in that knowledge), I would think that ALL of the monotheistic religions would be affected roughly equally. (I think that what the book has done with the polytheistic religions, and the new religions, on the other hand, is very neat.)
Sun, 2013-11-10 15:03
#5
Ravn
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Except that you didn't mention it in the context of extremists. But I get what you mean now.
Which is why I wrote 'historically speaking'. Compare the intellectual climate of Christianity and Islam (or Christianity and Judaism for that matter) through history.
These days you have other factors, like socio-economic factors that helps explain some of the "regression" in for example the Middle East. But there's no denying that for instance the universities in for example Iran rival those in Europe and North America when it comes to quality in for example computer science.
You have the authority of the priest, who speaks for God in a way that the Imam doesn't. And most christian sects do have some sort of central leadership or authority in a way that the Umma doesn't. Call it Pope, Patriarch, Archbishop or what you like. Christianity has a tendency to have a more hierarchal structure than Islam.
That was what I meant.
Didn't mean in society, but in a religious way, in that Judaism isn't something you just convert to, like Islam or Christianity. Judaism concerns the people of David and has never ever been about converting other people to "save them".
And please don't use strawmen; I didn't say that Islam is any less insular than ANY other religion.
I totally agree with this. I see no reason what so ever to have groups around. Would not be far fetched to have pockets of Jewish Reclaimers wanting to get back to Israel for instance.
Absolutely. But you haven't seen the level of conflict between progressives and reactionary forces inside any of the two other Abrahamic religions.
If my words have come across as mischaracterizations I sincerely apologize. I come from a historical background, and have a degree in the scientific exchange between the Muslims, Christians and Jewish communities in the 13th century (mainly in what is North Africa and Spain today).
Not that that means anything when it comes to opinions.
As for EP, I am convinced that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam would have the easiest time with coping and adapting, philosophically and theologically, with the new times and technologies in terms of amount of believers. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be any representatives from the other two around; flourishing to different degrees.
Cheers.
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/fallevac_userbar.png[/img]
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/anarc_userbar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/marlib_userbar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/mesh_userbar.jpg[/img]
Mon, 2013-11-11 13:43
#6
Cyber-Dave
Ravn wrote:
Honestly, I thought I had. I mean, I wrote:
And:
But, if I was unclear, I am sorry. I was only referring to Al-Qaeda as an example of an extremist group, not Islam in general.
I agree. Socio-economic realities are a major factor. That, however, doesn't change the nature of their influence on contemporary Islamic culture. And, it is out of contemporary (and not old world) Islam that the EP future-culture would grow. Currently, the Islamic faith seems to be having trouble adapting to the secular world. Why would the Islamic faith of EP be any different? Why would it have an easier time adapting than Jews or Christians?
Again, that depends on the sect. Protestants believe in the ability of anybody to directly access a connection with god through prayer. No priest is required. In the protestant faith, as I understand it, priests play much the same role as the Jewish Rabbi--a scholar who is capable of guiding his parish through his own learning experience. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that very similar to the role played by the Imam? In any case, the protestant priest does not have a hierarchical position above his Parish ala the Catholic, Russian Orthodox, or Assyrian Christian faiths.
Ah, I see. Fair. I agree. But, seeing as this hasn't impeded their survival as a culture up to now, why would it start impeding their survival as a culture after the fall?
I am sorry. If that was not what you meant, I misunderstood you. It seemed to me that you were implying something along those lines. Please forgive my misunderstanding.
I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.
No need to apologize. As I said, I could be the one who is mistaken. With that being said:
Ok. So you are convinced. Could you please explain to me why? I mean, 13th century scientific exchange aside, what about the current world makes it likely that Islam would have the easiest time coping with and adapting, philosophically and theologically, to the new times? What elements of their faith prepare them for that? How are those elements lacking in Judaic and Christian faiths? What are the lines from the Quran that support your conviction? I would like to understand the books position. I currently don't. You obviously do. Could you possibly explain it to me in concrete and specific terms?
Mon, 2013-11-11 21:44
#7
thezombiekat
All this stuff about which of
All this stuff about which of the 3 religions is more insular, more progressive or more adaptable is bull.
Christianity includes dozens of groups with varied opinions on everything except the divine nature of Christ. I learned about embryonic stem cell research at a catholic university and it wasn’t something to simply not do. (also wasn’t theology class)
Judaism runs almost as wide a range as Christianity.
Islam, while including a doctrine that there can be no new religious thought, still manages to be probably the least consistent of the three in behaviour and attitude with groups embracing everything from treat everybody nicely, education for all and a headscarf makes a good cultural marker, to all non-Muslims should die or be converted by the sword (bomb), and women must be uneducated and hidden.
Actually there are probably some other religious groups just as bad as the worst Muslims, there just getting the press at the moment.
Now on to eclipse phase.
It doesn’t take much during a time of crisis to make the difference between a religion succeeding and failing. In general terms any religion that cannot (or dose not) provide a way to continue, will fail to continue.
If the respected leaders of any religion during the fall said “ego casting will destroy your soul” then the majority of that religion will ether abandon the religion, or stay and die. The pope apparently managed to get himself and some of his followers on a ship and continue the religion almost unchanged around Jupiter.
And all the history of flexibility in any given religion will not guarantee that the leaders of the day will have that flexibility, when history marches a new leader can emerge and adapt. When the world comes crashing down there isn’t time for anybody new, and if the current crop of leaders are inflexible only a few of there followers will have the strength to say “you have defined most of my beliefs but on this one thing only you are wrong. I am going to ignore your rule that I can’t leave earth but continue to believe everything else you said” the few people that do this may still be religious but there religion won’t be a large part of any habitat because they were few and not all in one place. The books have only addressed prominent religions, just like a short book about life in America probably would mention Christians but not Seeks, the former is a major cultural influence, the latter is a small demographic that has little or no impact on life outside of their own sub community.
So the religions that continued are those where a significant portion of the leadership managed within about a weak to reconcile their religion with doing what was necessary to keep their believers alive.
Wed, 2013-11-13 08:41
#8
Lorsa
Ravn wrote:Fact of the matter
They may be generalizations but some of them are simply wrong. It is very hard to make such statements about the religions as such, so I guess you are talking about societies heavily inspired by the various faiths.
Now, the belief that Islam dominated countries have been more tolerant to outside ideas and science is simply not so. It is true that before the crusades, these countries had more general knowledge in many fields compared to the Christian invaders. However, the Christians brought it home and used it and the whole scientific philosophy is born out of a culture heavily inspired by Christianity. That isn't a coincidence, it's because it was seen as a high calling to learn and study nature as it was God's creations. Much of the early research and universities in Europe were based in church.
When the new inventions of Europe, such as the mechanical clock for example, was brought to the Islamic world it wasn't greeted very favourably as it was seen as "outside knowledge" and that everything they needed to know had already been shown them. The Chinese were similarly conservative towards outside inventions.
My source on this matter is:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Poverty-Nations-Some/dp/0393318885
Historically speaking, the most scientifically progressive of all these three faiths have been Judaism. Note that Jews is a people not only a religion. That's one of the reasons why they have survived and kept their traditions; it's a culture AND a faith. They're interconnected. Judaism has always favoured critical examination and thinking. They learn by asking questions which lends itself very well to scientific inquiry.
I think all of these three religions are equally focused around authority figures, it's just that these figures are dead, have risen to heaven or both. If you'd say that the Catholic Church is prone to having a centralized authority you'd be right, but that isn't Christianity, it's a specific type of church.
Christianity is conservative in its world-view? All of them are based on a core belief that hasn't changed for 1000+ years. Apart from the core dogmas though, claiming that Christianity is tied to reactionary politics is very strange. If you look at the social changes between Europe and the Middle-East between 11th and 20th century I'm sure you'll see which one has changed the most politically and socially. And Europe between the 11th and 20th century was quite dominated by Christian believes.
So, I am quite certain all these three Faiths would and could survive into a transhuman future. There is nothing in their believes that would tell me otherwise.
For example, I am a Christian and would quite welcome a transhuman future (even help get there) and in no way see it speaking against anything in my faith. I don't see how this couldn't be true for other Christians as well?
—
Lorsa is a Forum moderator
[color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]
Wed, 2013-11-13 09:57
#9
Cyber-Dave
I am 100% sure that many
I am 100% sure that many Christians would have many problems with downloading. The same folk who, today, refuse organ transplants are unlikely to adapt to anything far more troubling, such as downloading. Hell, I am an atheist, and the concept of a transhuman future (in reality) scares me half to death. I wonder how much of what makes us human comes from psychological factors born of gender, the ability to die, and the surety that each of us is individual and unique.
But, as you said, I don't see any reason why any of the Abrahamic religions would have a harder or easier time adapting to the transhuman paradigm shift/world.
Thu, 2013-11-14 08:10
#10
Lorsa
Cyber-Dave wrote:I am 100%
As evident by things that take place in the Eclipse Phase setting (discounting the virus), a transhuman future SHOULD scare you half to death. The possibilities for abuse of technology and people are almost endless.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't love the ability to swap morphs or augmenting myself or live forever in this world. Of course you need to be wise with how you use the technology so you'll do good with it, but I don't see the technology itself as being problematic. Certainly not affecting my religious believes.
I've always thought the "Religions and Science don't go together" idea to be completely illogical and the thought that there is some form of war between them to be made up. It's always made me think that people that say such things don't quite understand Science, or Religion, or both.
—
Lorsa is a Forum moderator
[color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]
Thu, 2013-11-14 16:58
#11
nezumi.hebereke
Zombiak basically summed up
Zombiak basically summed up my beliefs on the subject. Statistics show that the number of active Christians is about stable or shrinking in most places, while the number of active Muslims is growing. I anticipate that Islam will hit its own peak and begin shrinking as well, but I'd expect that Islam will continue to be the biggest of the three in regards to sheer numbers for a while. (For reference, in 2013 Christianity has 2.1 billion adherents, Islam has 1.5 billion, Judiaism clocks in at 14 million.)
So straight off the hook, most people would be Muslim.
The numbers further shift through a few different things:
1) As was mentioned, if a few major leaders say 'yes egocast' or 'no, don't', whether they are correct or not, that will skew the numbers heavily.
2) Cultural groups are very important. One Jew alone in a city most likely won't remain Jewish for very long. On the other hand, if 95% of Christians live on one moon, while they may outnumber Muslims, their cultural impact will be very small. In the books, Islam has large, self-sustaining populations on a lot of different areas, which counts for a lot.
3) Views on forking. I don't recall any group saying they support forking, but it only takes one sect to say 'go forking!' and all of a sudden you have scads of people who hold that particular belief set.
Sun, 2013-11-24 14:37
#12
Metallion
Christian leaders announcing
Christian leaders announcing that abortion is forbidden, even Popes declaring that abortion automatically excommunicates one from Roman Catholicism, has not stopped many Christians in general and Roman Catholics in particular from having abortions and going right on seeing themselves as good Christians in general, including Roman Catholics in particular. Egocasting would be no different. Nor would the evolutionary results be overly daunting -- Dan Simmons wrote abou how the Roman Catholic Church would adapt, smaller but still very present, by the time of the reign of Pope Tielard I -- and he wrote about it 30 years ago. That's without considering how Christianity schisms at the drop of a hat.
I'm four generations removed from the first of my ancestors to reject Jewish religion while retaining a strong Jewish ethnicity. The changes outlined in EP's future history would cause lots of debate amongst the Rabbinates, books upon books would be written, and 10 years after the Fall, Rabbis would still be filling terabyte after terabyte regarding whether a Jew is commanded to break their Sabbath in order to save a life in the age of resleeving; whether nano-produced bacon was kosher; and if it still made sense to say "Next year in Jerusalem" on Pesach. Purely secular Jews would still very strongly retain their Jewish identity, yet another brush with extinction only serving to strengthen that further.
The notion that either of those religions would not survive the Fall seems the result of confusing Roman Catholicism as seen from the Vatican for Christianity and Hasidim for Jews combined with a lack of research. Very disappointing for a world that otherwise evidences sweeping vision and examination.
—
-- Metallion
Sun, 2013-11-24 21:44
#13
thezombiekat
If the Cristian leaders
If the Cristian leaders declare resleaving suicide and utterly forbid it many Christians will disobey and still consider themselves Christians.
But they will each individually, or in small groups manage their evacuation and each individual or small group will end up in different locations with primarily secular communities. They may form small churches meeting regularly on stations where there are enough. Communicating with other Christians via the mesh where there are not. But without a coordinated effort to keep together during the evacuation of earth, or a pre-fall community of migrant workers all taken from the same religious communities (such as some of the Muslims had) they will lack the critical mass in any given location to shape the overall culture of a major habitat.
The exact same scenario works for Jews and every other religious or cultural grouping.
Tue, 2013-11-26 22:18
#14
Chaos Blade
Too tempting to pass up
You know, I registered just to add to this conversation, not sure if this is a good idea or not.
I too found the whole western religion die off to be a bit jarring or even SoD breaking. I am an atheist of Jewish origin and while I find religion to be rather silly I still retain jewish traditions, even if only the barest of them.
That said, I could understand Judaism being mostly a casualty of the fall, with our people's low numbers, well, stands to reason we could be wiped out by such a conflict.
Before the fall it is iffy, probalby because judaism is not a religion, it is a culture and a very adaptable one at that (we did survive quite the gauntlet, to be honest). Rabbis would argue, for sure, but they are only learned scholars, they lack power to easily make changes and desicions, but I wouldn't be surprised if, in stead, new branches would form. it has happened in the past, and will probably happen in the future, as younger men and women would opt to create their own comunities. easier example is the appearance of female rabbis in some comunities.
Of course, it is academical, it was probably made, that line, to throw us off our confort zone or make sure we were shown that this wasn't kansas, toto. (always wanted to use that line)
Still as gamers on a pen and paper system we can bypass what we think is silly or irrealistic. with EP set so close after the fall, and most of our PCs being born before it, it does put us in a conundrum, our PCs would have lived though all of it, as some have said.
I think it is the weakest of EP I've found, setting us so close after the end of the world and giving so vague info on the world itself.
Well that and the idea that resleeving is imortality, but that is probably my facorite nitpick I won't tell my players till after the campaign. in short if you move a file you are doing two things, creating a copy and then deleting the original. same logic applies, having somebody with all my memories and experiences doesn't make him me (and I am not talking of the soul here, just simple logic, he is a copy of me, might even be a perfect copy, but a copy is that ,a duplicate, not an original and thus not me)
Anyway, it is too late here so I'll probably leave it off here and come back tomorrow to further discuss it.
g'nite
Thu, 2013-11-28 10:14
#15
thezombiekat
Chaos Blade wrote:
It’s not that simple. It goes to the way we define an individual, and what makes an individual important. Ask 3 random people what they think and you will probably get 4 different answers. And rom my reading of EP this uncertainty is part of the point. Mirrored in truth by the fact that most of the people in the setting are deliberately not thinking about it.
Even with your current beliefs if faced with the reality of the fall, the certainty of death on earth you would probably take the ego cast. Waking up on the other side how will your mind cope, it can’t think of itself as being not you. Its entire sense of identity and purpose is tied to the fact that it is you, as is its right to draw on your bank accounts which it must do to survive. So for many people they accept that there is nothing special about a body, it’s no more important than a change of clothes. But most of them don’t look too closely at this acceptance, because while the new belief can’t be disproven with facts they know that they can’t back it up with facts either. And dwelling on the doubt would destroy them.