Scars of War - Creating Game Religions

I would call that Western thinking. To me that describes a Judeo-Christian point of view more than an atheistic one.

Read the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) and then explain how its a faith in god. While you're at it explain how true Buddhism, a religion with many thousands of gods that doesn't accept the actual existance of gods, is a faith in god. Its view of all that is, IMO, superior to yours (no offense intended).

Religions all require a certain amount of faith, of course. But the amounts can be vastly different. Some require not much more than commitment and an expectation. That's not what I would consider a faith. More to the point, it's not what Gareth apparently would either. But he does anyway, and that's where I become confused.

Sorry for the confusion. I can see that my post can be interpreted to mean that any religion should have a personified God. Not so. Faith in a higher power, a higher plane of existence, a higher order...all are examples of faith. All religions are based on faith in something unprovable by scientific observation (otherwise they'd be folded into the body of scientific knowledge ;) ). Since you can't prove it, the only reason you have to accept it's truth is a conviction about an unprovable idea, aka faith.

(Side note : Haven't read the Tao Te Ching, so can't comment. But most of the religions that believe in a philosophy instead of a personified God still have a god-like figurehead, usually the prophet who discovered the "true path". Buddhism, for example. )

And I'm a Christian btw, for anyone who thinks this stuff the rambling of a cynical atheist. ;)
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
But most of the religions that believe in a philosophy instead of a personified God still have a god-like figurehead, usually the prophet who discovered the "true path". Buddhism, for example. )

That's not how Buddhism works. Sorry. Also, not a prophet.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
290
Trying to get my head round how it would work in a game context as far as magical powers go, i.e. if you get the relatively reliable magical abilities then why wouldn't one have faith?

Although presumably that's no guarantee without the direct and reliable communication and divine appearance, I could imagine that the priesthood might have their meditative practices, lifestyle and specific prayers that they thought were requirements of their gods in return for which they received divine favours, but actually they're just other forms of magical rituals and their deity may or may not exist at all.

Or are you planning faith based powers to be more random & unreliable?
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
That's not how Buddhism works. Sorry. Also, not a prophet.

Ah, my apologies, my understanding of Buddhism is limited. I was going by this information, from wikipedia :

The following information about Buddha's life comes from the Tipitaka (other scriptures, such as the Lalitavistara Sutra, give differing accounts).

Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, was born in the city of Lumbini around the year 485 BCE and was raised in Kapilavastu.[9][10] Moments after birth, according to the scriptures, he performed the first of several miracles, taking a few steps and proclaiming, "Supreme am I in the world. Greatest am I in the world. Noblest am I in the world. This is my last birth. Never shall I be reborn."

Shortly thereafter, a wise man visited his father, King Śuddhodana. The wise man said that Siddhartha would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a holy man (Sadhu) based on whether he saw life outside of the palace walls. Determined to make Siddhartha a king, Śuddhodana shielded his son from the unpleasant realities of daily life. Years after this, Gautama married Yasodhara, with whom he had a son, Rahula, who later became a Buddhist monk.

At the age of 29, Siddhartha ventured outside the palace complex several times, despite his father's wishes. As a result, he discovered the suffering of his people through encounters with an old man, a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These are known among Buddhists as "The Four Sights",[11] one of the first contemplations of Siddhartha. The Four Sights eventually prompted Gautama to abandon royal life and take up a spiritual quest to free himself from suffering by living the life of a mendicant ascetic—a respectable spiritual practice at the time. He found companions with similar spiritual goals and teachers who taught him various forms of meditation, including jhāna.

Ascetics practised many forms of self-denial, including severe undereating. One day, after almost starving to death, Gautama accepted a little milk and rice from a village girl named Sujata. After this experience, he concluded that ascetic practices such as fasting, holding one's breath, and exposure to pain brought little spiritual benefit. He viewed them as counterproductive due to their reliance on self-hatred and mortification.[12] He abandoned asceticism, concentrating instead on anapanasati meditation (awareness of breathing), thereby discovering what Buddhists call the Middle Way, a path of moderation between the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification.

After discovering the Middle Way, he sat under a sacred fig tree, also known as the Bodhi tree, in the town of Bodh Gaya, India, and vowed not to rise before achieving Nirvana. At age 35, after many days of meditation, he attained his goal of becoming a Buddha. After his spiritual awakening he attracted a band of followers and instituted a monastic order. He spent the rest of his life teaching the Dharma, travelling throughout the northeastern part of the Indian subcontinent.[13][14]

He died at the age of 80 (405 BCE) in Kushinagar, India, from food poisoning.

Scholars are increasingly hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of Gautama Buddha's life.[15] According to Michael Carrithers, while there are good reasons to doubt the traditional account, "the outline of the life must be true: birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death."[16] Most historians accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order, but do not consistently accept most details in his biographies.[17]

Please, if this is incorrect (wouldn't be the first time with wikipedia, heh), enlighten me.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
Oh. You learn about other people's religions through wikipedia. That's nice. The copypasta doesn't even do anything except stretch the page. What, did you think I was denying that Buddhists believe that such a person existed?

(Hint: not a prophet, not a "god-like figurehead," not treated even remotely the same way you would treat, for example, the Judeo-Christian god or Jesus. Teacher, yes. Prophet, no. The idea is that everyone can achieve what he achieved, given enough discipline, virtue and cycling through rebirths.)
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
290
You seem upset Essaliad, no offense was intended. Would you like to link to accurate information instead of simply making sniping comments?
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
I'm struggling to see why you think this is so unusual and non-cliched that it'd stretch the boundaries of people's comprehension. Isn't this kind of... every fantasy deity, in general terms, ever?

Well, in most religions deities don't actually participate on the living of the people.

And, well, to come up with something original is difficult here, too.

As an example one could take deities from some obscure real-world religion of the past, and still some dude would appear and say : "Hey ! That's a clear rip-off a REAL religion ! It's NOT original in ANY way !"

There's always someone feeling bored because he or she knew it before.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,997
Location
Old Europe
You seem upset Essaliad, no offense was intended. Would you like to link to accurate information instead of simply making sniping comments?

I agree to that. Complaining that someone "hasn't got it right" without providing the "right" path is fruitless.

To me, by the way, Rational Thinking (aka "Science" in general) has become a religion, too. It bears quite some elements of what I'd call a "real" religion.

Considering the little I know about Thales and Platon, I tend to think that they were into the direction of believing such a thing, too. At least if put "maths = logic", this way.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,997
Location
Old Europe
You seem upset Essaliad, no offense was intended. Would you like to link to accurate information instead of simply making sniping comments?
I'm less upset and more amused at you assuming that every religion has Christian analogues. The wikipedia information I've little issue with, largely because it has nothing to do with the point at hand. Your generalization about religions is, on the other hand, ignorant. Do you believe Confucius is a "god-like figurehead or prophet" too?

Well, in most religions deities don't actually participate on the living of the people.

What, like the gods of Greek mythology? The Norse ones maybe? Man, those are real obscure.

And, well, to come up with something original is difficult here, too.

See, you claimed that what you came up with was so original and non-cliched people couldn't comprehend it (!) that I wanted to see exactly what brilliant stuff you've cooked up. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound even a little bit original in any way whatsoever.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
290
I'm less upset and more amused at you assuming that every religion has Christian analogues. The wikipedia information I've little issue with, largely because it has nothing to do with the point at hand. Your generalization about religions is, on the other hand, ignorant.

That's nice. Now you need to provide proof. I was simply admitting I don't know everything about religion, which is a sensitive subject generally, and providing you the opportunity to correct me.

Now you need to actually do so, provide links to information that corrects me. Because otherwise I still see Buddhism as fitting into the form I outlined. A revered teacher who performed miracles, who led the way to a higher path of existence, whose teachings show the way to that higher plane and who is revered by his followers, so much so that art depicting his life and works have been created throughout history, kind of like the art depicting scenes from the Bible in Christianity?

Fits the Divine Figurehead mold, sorry. Unless that wiki info was incorrect, which you don't seem to think it was, you need something else to prove me wrong.

Please, go ahead and do so. Because statements about how amused you are don't impress me.

Do you believe Confucius is a "god-like figurehead or prophet" too?

Confucius was a philosopher, not so? A revered philosopher, sure, but I don't think he had supernatural connotations attached to him.

To me, by the way, Rational Thinking (aka "Science" in general) has become a religion, too. It bears quite some elements of what I'd call a "real" religion.

Indeed.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
so much so that art depicting his life and works have been created throughout history, kind of like the art depicting scenes from the Bible in Christianity?

Wait, wait. So art depicting someone's life = "it's just like the bible"?

Can't spam enough lol'ing gifs for this.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
290
So you have nothing then?



And yes, this type of image :

445px-Sermon_in_the_Deer_Park_depicted_at_Wat_Chedi_Liem-KayEss-1.jpeg


610px-Parinibbana.jpg


Is religiously stylized, in a similar way to bible scenes depicted in the middle ages.

Ary_Scheffer_-_The_Temptation_of_Christ_(1854).jpg


478px-Christus_Ravenna_Mosaic.jpg


Now please, I'm waiting patiently, provide information disproving my statements.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
Very simply put, a buddha is someone who's achieved the highest state of potential in life. The point of practicing Buddhism is to achieve that state.

It's common here in the western world for people to refer to Gautama as "Buddha" and think of him as some kind of prophet or god. And they're welcome to their opinion, of course.

There's a lot to know about Buddhism. I practiced it (and therefore studied it) diligently for five years (and not so diligently for another two), and my fundamental understanding of it would be considered at about 6th-grade level.

There are many, many sects of Buddhism, some of which don't bear much resemblance to each other. The article you pasted is a little like a one-page synopsys of the history of human culture. It's a nice overview, but you would need to take a closer look in order to really get a full understanding.

If you want to call faith anything that can't be confirmed by science, then go ahead. Myself, I think there are better ways to understand religion.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Very simply put, a buddha is someone who's achieved the highest state of potential in life. The point of practicing Buddhism is to achieve that state.

Yes, but that "highest state of potential" still makes him the "god-like" equivalent. Look, I understand that people who practice a religion feel strongly that it isn't the same as other religions, I am Christian myself and a lot of Christians would feel that it is blasphemy to even draw the slightest link to your heathen Buddhist ways. But, from the viewpoint of designing an artificial religion for a story, the structures and patterns are what you are interested in. And most of the religions that believe in achieving a "higher path" have some sort of divine or semi-divine figurehead, even if that person is only divine in his wisdom. Hell Scientologists kinda treat L.Ron that way, as do most cults. The leader is often considered touched by divine wisdom by their followers.

There are many, many sects of Buddhism, some of which don't bear much resemblance to each other.

Yes, there are a lot of sects of most mainstream religion.

The article you pasted is a little like a one-page synopsys of the history of human culture. It's a nice overview, but you would need to take a closer look in order to really get a full understanding.

I'm not as stupid as some people seem to think, I am aware that a 1 page wiki summary is nowhere near the "whole" truth. However, we're not discussing the truth of any religion, we're discussing how a writer of lore for a video game can go about making it more interesting and believable. Which means we're looking at the patterns of religion around the world and trying to use those patterns. Me, I see a pattern with the philosophical religions, most still have a sort of holy figurehead, a prophet, a wise man, a holy mystic. This person is revered and idolized. In fact, the trend is for more and more symbols and idols to get associated with that person as time passes.

If you want to call faith anything that can't be confirmed by science, then go ahead. Myself, I think there are better ways to understand religion.

Care to elaborate?
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
Sidharta Guatama and Jesus have so many similarities that some have suggested they share the same source of inspiration.

Both are believed to be in spirit in heaven before they are born.
In a vision the parents are told their children are holy.
Their birth is a miracle with heavenly visions.
Their mother were virgins.
They have a stepfather.
They are born dring a journey but are still said to be from their fathers hometown.
They are of royal heritage. Wise men see signs and seeks the children out.
As babies they are cheered by a wise old man.
They are prodigies.
They are lost on a journey but his parent finds him.
They reside alone, they are fasting, they are tempted and they resist.
They are 30 when they begin their ministry, they are baptise and the heavens rejoice.
They have 12 disciples.
Their disciplies are simple humans but also they make miracles.
They live simple and socialize with the lest fortunate.
They are called the savior.
They calk in parables and challenge the priests.
They stop the storm and they walk on water.
They make miracles with food.
They cure lame, blind, deaf and defeat spirits.
They predict the future.
They are transformed before their disciples.
They eat a last supper with their disciples.
They are betrayed.
They are hanged on a tree or crucfied.
Their favorite disciple are there when he dies.
When they die there's a earthquake and a solar eclipse.
They come back from the dead.
They show themselves to their disciples.
They are carried up to heaven.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Care to elaborate?
Honestly, no. If you're going to balk and take offense at the first distinctions I would make, then I don't see a conversation here.

But you're welcome to your view of it, Ninja, and I don't mean that in any kind of condescending way. Buddhism is just about the last thing that would be an exception to that rule. That's why there are so many sects, after all -- because there are so many different views of it.

And you're not wrong. There are a handful of sects of Buddhism that fit right into your way of looking at it. To me they don't seem much like Buddhism, and I can tell you most Buddhists I knew found them surprising.

OK, I'll provide one example of the difference (all of this is subject to dispute, naturally -- so cut me some slack please). Gautama taught for about fifty years and became well known. People would travel long distances to ask him questions.

To many he seemed to have suggested there was no need for morals, so let's assume a married man asked him if he shouldn't just go ahead and see a prostitute whenever he wanted. Gautama would confirm that he saw nothing morally wrong with that, but he would warn the man that that kind of intimate connection would mingle some of their karma. So the man would be left wondering if he really wanted any prostitute karma.

That kind of thinking can easily be misunderstood. For instance, someone who believes in karma may be reluctant to argue or fight with someone they don't respect for the same reason that man might be reluctant to sleep with that prostitute. They don't want the bad karma.

edit: I should clarify that I don't mean that as a shot at you. No disrespect intended, of course.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
@NN: Re Buddhism vs Christianity (and most other religions for that matter): there is a crucial difference that you appear to be missing.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. deal with the divine as something handed down from the Godhead, either as a physical individual (the Christ, Sri Krsna), or as divine wisdom to a prophet (the OT prophets, Mohammed, etc). It's "outside in," in a way -- God is something out there that practitioners of the religion attempt to reach; sometimes God acts on the world as well.

Buddhism works from the inside out: it's a path to enlightenment that proceeds from the self; a discipline to be followed with certain results to be expected. "Testing the dhamma" -- that is, practicing it and experiencing the results for yourself (or not) -- is central to it. It's a bit like kung fu for the spirit -- and it's no coincidence that kung fu and many other martial arts are associated with Buddhist monasteries, or monastic orders strongly influenced by Buddhism.

The central point is the belief that any human can achieve what the Buddha achieved -- if not during this lifetime, then during the next one, or one after that. IOW, the only thing that's special about the Buddha is that he was the first on record to achieve enlightenment, and he provided his students with copious and detailed notes on how to follow the same path he did. But there is nothing special about the Buddha himself: unlike Mohammed, Moses, Jeremiah, or George W. Bush, he had no private hotline to God; unlike the Christ or Sri Krsna, he carried no divine essence other than what every living being carries.

Incidentally, IMO the best fantasy depiction of Buddhism is in Planescape -- the Dustmen. "Nibbana" or "nirvana" properly translates to "extinction." So the ultimate goal Buddhists seek is what the Dusties call True Death. If that doesn't put Buddhism into a category of its own as religions go, I don't know what does. :)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
@ Squeek :

Honestly, no. If you're going to balk and take offense at the first distinctions I would make, then I don't see a conversation here.

I only take offense when people act like I'm an idiot, so if you avoid that we're golden. ;)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how your example negates my point about faith, since that is what I asked you to elaborate on? How is that not faith based, you have to believe in Karma to ascribe to any interpretation of what Gautama said about mingling Karma. Since you can't prove Karma scientifically, never mind reincarnation, the whole thing is based on a foundation of faith in unprovable principles. That's what I was saying, yes?

@ PJ :

I am aware of what you are saying, it's just not really as big a difference as all that. Christians achieve salvation, Buddhists achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment is supposed to be "internal", but it's still an externally imposed set of rules on a human being, a code of conduct and thought they take on and practice. You can argue if you want, but it's fairly equivalent, the semantics are just a bit different.

The central point is the belief that any human can achieve what the Buddha achieved -- if not during this lifetime, then during the next one, or one after that. IOW, the only thing that's special about the Buddha is that he was the first on record to achieve enlightenment, and he provided his students with copious and detailed notes on how to follow the same path he did.

It amounts to the same thing. Even if he's not born special, he ends up special, and his teachings enlighten all who follow. You say he isn't special, so list me a couple of other buddhas, and give me some links to things like murals and statues created idolizing them. I'll bet that for the most part they don't get the type of "kudos" Gautama did. Kind of like Christian saints.

I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned it's functionally equivalent. You've changed the background philosophy, sure, and it has a different overall flavor, but the structural pattern is similar.

But there is nothing special about the Buddha himself: unlike Mohammed, Moses, Jeremiah, or George W. Bush, he had no private hotline to God; unlike the Christ or Sri Krsna, he carried no divine essence other than what every living being carries.

Erm, as I see it "enlightenment" is essentially a less personified version of divinity. He may have had no hotline to God, but he was so close to that enlightened state that people traveled from far and wide to hear his teachings, because he was so enlightened, not so? Divine wisdom, or enlightenment as you call it, is still a form of divinity. Whether the Word is coming from a connection to a personified God or a connection to Supreme Enlightenment which is present in everyone is fairly irrelevant. The pattern is the same.

He still fits my concept of a supreme mystic or divine figurehead fairly accurately.

Incidentally, IMO the best fantasy depiction of Buddhism is in Planescape -- the Dustmen. "Nibbana" or "nirvana" properly translates to "extinction." So the ultimate goal Buddhists seek is what the Dusties call True Death. If that doesn't put Buddhism into a category of its own as religions go, I don't know what does.

So Buddhists seek complete oblivion then?Or is it more like subsuming of the self into oneness with the universe or something? I struggle to believe that this is a religion with no "carrot" dangling at the end. Save me googling it and just describe it for me. ;)
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
195
Hmmm, I'm not sure how your example negates my point about faith, since that is what I asked you to elaborate on?
It didn't negate anyone's point about faith. You asked me to elaborate on what I thought were better ways to look at religion, so I offered you an example of something outside of the perspective I see as yours.

I'm not enjoying this anymore and have decided to get out of this thread. Good luck with your game.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Back
Top Bottom