Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pssst.......come here......yes you......let me tell you a little secret about this thread.......come on you know you want to hear it....come closer...yah thats it.....The Church of Scientology created the Emperor in the world of 40K....its true think about it........

AgeofEgos wrote:Pointing out troll posts....is not trolling. It's just calling out poor behavior, which you were displaying.

Now you're the one making me laugh, Mr. RaptorJesus-for-an-avatar.

Manchu wrote:

AgeofEgos wrote:Pointing out troll posts....is not trolling. It's just calling out poor behavior, which you were displaying.

Now you're the one making me laugh, Mr. RaptorJesus-for-an-avatar.

You'll be ok Manchu .

We all will.

I always saw the whole story of The Emperor as sort of analagous to Jesus, I dunno maybe that's just me reading my personal beliefs into it.

Jesus died for your sins = Jesus was killed because stupid donkey-caves killed him because people are stupid donkey-caves and he tried to tell them not to be.


The Emperor was killed by Chaos = because he told everybody not to believe in it and it would go away, but people were stupid and believed that the Emperor would save them from it, rather than just not believing in it, so it killed him. Again because people are stupid donkey-caves.

I think its a pretty good similarity.

Your hero dies because you are an ignorant idiot, so worship him. If only people would have listened.

Manchu wrote:- Wearing a string of beads that have religious significance and are called a Rosarius is an overt reference to the rosary.

Bhuddists do it too.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:- Wearing a string of beads that have religious significance and are called a Rosarius is an overt reference to the rosary.

Bhuddists do it too.

Not on rosaries.

They're called Juzu, Shu Zhu, etc depending on what languate you speak, but the string of prayer beads is the same concept as rosaries-- to the point where Juzu are frequently referred to as "Bhuddist Rosaries".



In Hindu, they're called Japa Mala.



Frequently they're specifically 108 beads long.

Prayer beads, each bead is a different mantra.

Actually, Melissia, religions are not interchagable. Calling Buddhist prayer beads "rosaries" is an example of ANALOGY. Counting prayers on beads is not all the rosary is about -- it connects to a specific spirituality not shared by Buddhists or Hindus. Calling something a "rosarius" taps into that spirituality as opposed to a Buddhist or Hindu one. There's a reason they're not called jappa or whatever. The authors of the fluff are not commenting on those traditions.

Manchu wrote:Actually, Melissia, religions are not interchagable.

No gak, really? Gee, I wouldn't have known that.

No, I'm fairly certain that the reason they're called Rosaries is because the writers were British Christians.

The concepts for both are still similar, prayer beads which represent some form of spirituality.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Actually, Melissia, religions are not interchagable.

No gak, really? Gee, I wouldn't have known that.

No, I'm fairly certain that the reason they're called Rosaries is because the writers were British Christians.

The concepts for both are still similar, prayer beads which represent some form of spirituality.

Did Manchu say that the beads weren't similar in nature? No.

Saying that the Rosarius isn't based on Rosaries is pretty silly.

... didn't I just say it was?

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:- Wearing a string of beads that have religious significance and are called a Rosarius is an overt reference to the rosary.

Bhuddists do it too.

Then why even bring this up?

What I meant, as Amaya points out, was that superficial commanalities between Buddhism (et al.) and Christianity don't enter into this discussion. The IoM is certainly not referencing those traditions. Bringing up Buddhist prayer beads in this conversation ends up being a nonsequitor -- unless someone really doesn't grasp that the similarity is merely superficial or an incident of jingoistic translation -- which Melissia has clarified that she does indeed grasp. So, nonsequitor it is.

Being used as a counter to someone I agree with in not fun, so just to clear up my views on this...

Manchu wrote:Who cares whether it would be hard to avoid references to the Catholic Church when you want to create a "Gothic" setting? It doesn't matter whether or not you "have to" use such references -- what is important is that [b]these references are in themselves degrading to Catholicism.

Yes. I completely agree on your basic point. The authors of 40k wanted to depict a giant, totalitarian middle-ages style religion that rules with an iron fist and executes people who do not agree with them, with the implication that, while they are necessary, they are incredibly distant from their origins. A religion that is an oppressive, but necessary evil.

The authors chose to base this on the Catholic church in the middle ages, this is true. They could have chosen to base it on Wicca, or Hinduism or whatever, but they chose Catholic Christianity in the Middle Ages. However, there are many reasons why, from a non-religious and objective perspective, Catholicism fits the bill perfectly - as previously stated, it's historical significance, it's powermongering and political actions in the period, and it's imagery and iconography from the time.

In 40k, MANY things from real life are exaggerated to the nth dgree - that is one of the primary points of 40k. So, if war is hellish, then in 40k is WORSE. If Russian Commissars were strict, well 40k Commissars are going to be STRICTER. And if the religion of 40k takes it's influence from Catholicism, then you can bet it will be 'turned up as well. So our nuns are ultra-dedicated zealots, our crusaders are permanently on crusade, our Inquisition is completely merciless, and the merest whiff of Heresy will get you shot. Things were not quite like this in the real Middle Ages Catholic Church, but there is a grain of historical truth in all of them.

I should also point out that the religion of the IoM has been shown to take in many creeds. While it's organisation is undoubtedly Catholic, various world worship in ways more similar to other religions - for example, the Fenrisian veneration of the Emperor as a Norse-style 'Allfather'. Or the Ayatanis of the Sabbat Worlds in the Gaunts Ghosts series, who inhabit a world that is much more 'eastern' in religious feel.

While this may be insulting to Catholics, I imagine the authors simply don't care. I happen to agree with them, for the following reason...

Manchu wrote:So Christian faith is the equivalent of believing in fairies? I don't know if I've ever seen better evidence of the near-total lack of understanding of religion that is so common today

YES. From an objective, outsiders point of view, the point of view of someone who doesn't follow any religion or superstition, then the central tenets of the Christian faith sound just as ludicrous as Fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Are you asking me to ascribe more importance or respect to one system of beliefs merely because lots of people believe it? Lots of people thought the world was flat. They were still wrong. If you said you were a Socialist, or a Marxist, or a Confucianist, you would live your life by a system of beliefs, just like a Christian or a Muslim. But I would be allowed to question those beliefs without being considered insulting. Yet, if I call it a religion, suddenly we're not allowed to question it?

Manchu wrote:And yet Dawkins believes he can write such a book about religion -- with no qualifications at all. This alone should tell you a lot about the extreme hostility (what he disguises as scientific objectivity and neutrality) with which he approaches the topic.

Wikipedia wrote:Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford,[1] and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.[2]

I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins, and the argument about him probably belongs in the off-topic forum. I tend to agree with his view on religion, but I find that his methods lack subtlety. Either way, as a student of human nature, I'd say he is pretty well qualified. The point above, that religions should not be accorded more 'respect' than other belief systems is one thing I agree with him on.

EDITS to close the correct quote marks!