12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I haven't seen the Overseer robes yet, but this sounds very interesting. Do you have pictures? And what exactly is the Overseer?

And yeah, that could be one way of Rping why, in a city full of extremist, obsessed templars, how mage Hawke can reduce the amount of attention they attract.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Armor_of_the_Overseer
Picture and description alike.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I'm still amazed that there are people who can still trace their lineage to these tribes and clans.

Yea Arabs are very obsessed with that. I have documents that show my every single ancestor all the way up to Ali.
Assuming it's authentic, it's not unheard of for things like that to be fabricated for political purposes. Many believed the Fatimids did so, though of course it was partially Abbasid propaganda.

This actually explains, at least in part, why Shia Islam is not as widespread as Sunni, since it seems very exclusive in some aspects (such as limiting political power and religous authority to a specific family/lineage) which would indeed, limit the ability of this sect to take hold in far away nations and places where this specific lineage does not exist. Not to mention it does imply a level of elitism that excludes the possibility of a broader group of people to fully participate, or contribute.

Not quite. The Fatimid Caliphate was Ismaeli Shia' and it ruled North Africa, Egypt and for a time the Levant, which were Sunni. Morocco is still ruled by Hashemites, and Sunni Hejaz was also ruled by Hashemites until the Sauds. Hashemites held prominent roles, including leadership roles, in Sunni regions and contexts.

I think what put most people off from Shi'ism is its complete rejection of most companions of the Prophet, especially Abu Bakr, Umar and Utham, whom they see as usurpers. Of course they also think that the Umayyads and Abbasids are also usurpers, and Twelver Shi'ites rejected the Fatimid Ismaeli's. 

But it must not be forgotten that the 11th century was considered the "Shi'ite" century, in core Arab lands, due to the spread of Shi'ism amongst the elite at the time. It was after that, that Sunnism remerged when it adopted new elements, like Sufism, to make itself appealing. It's called the Sunni synthesis. It in many aspects, was also inspired by Shi'ism. So it was much more complicated than 2 seperatable blocs, they intermingled a lot. Indeed, Sufis had a lot of shi'ite elements, including love for the Hashemites, which pisses Wahabis off.

Also a major reason why Sunnism became widespread is the inclusion of many Turkic peoples, who were militant in their faith. And they ended up dominating the political arena for centuries. 

It's an interesting question and Marshall Hudgson's book, the venture of Islam, offers an explanation that is too long for me to sumarize here.

What was his "verdict"? And for that matter, was is the current consensus (or at least the most widely accepted one) on the nature of the Quran?

That the Qu'ran was created, and was not eternal. I think most believe that it's uncreated and is as eternal as God, being his words.

I subscribe to a middle view, which I came up with myself lol.

Where as in Europe, where people had thousands of years of cultural and social history shaping them, still favors Protestant sects that have retained a greater degree of connection to their Catholic roots, and still practice traditions they carried over from Cathlism, rich symbolism and all. In fact, US and European Christians are often quite different on many theoligical doctrines.

Indeed, it would be interestign to explore the differences between the two. Which is perhaps why I did not know of the extent of protestant iconoclasm, because I know little of protestantism in North America.

As Nathaniel Howe so eloquently stated: "I am not a fan of oversimplification". Blanket hatred is mental laziness.

And hatred is emotionally and mentally draining, which is another reason I see no point in it. In fact, you could combine both in saying hatred is a waste of emotional and intellectual resources.

Well, unless, of course, it is hatred of Cammen.

Or as Michael Corleone said: "Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgement."

[DragonRacer13]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

And god, don't get me started on the darkspawn, lol. In Origins, they really did look creepy, twisted and corrupt. In DA2, like you said, it looks like they have all briefly stopped being scary to go trick-or treating, lol.

Yeah, I try to forget the darkspawn entirely. It's just flat-out awful. They look like Skeletor rejects. Between them and She-Ra Meredith, it really reduces the graphics level to a Saturday morning cartoon. And I liked Saturday morning cartoons and all that, but that's not how I first pictured Dragon Age. You know? And I actually am one of the few who likes and enjoys most parts of DA2. Just the darkspawn/ogre overhaul makes me die a little inside.

Oh, wow, that does sound awesome. So you actually get to hear your deceased daddy's voice from beyond? That sounds like it would be creepy in a very touching, bad ass way. I'll have to check that out on you tube. Too bad you can never get to see what he looked like, lol. Even if his appearance, like the rest of the Hawke clan, is dependant upon your chargen preset choices.

Yeah, was kind of weird at first. I still don't quite understand why, exactly, you can hear it. I guess it's kind of like a memory being released because you've undone a part of him by undoing some of that blood magic? At any rate, here's a link to the last one (there's about two or three of these prior, but YouTube only seems to have the final one). Also, here's a very spoilery conversation near the end of the DLC where it's explained why Malcolm performed the blood magic unwillingly.

It would be nice to know what he looked like. I tend to just imagine him looking a lot like the default Hawke. *shrugs* I think the forums managed to confirm he definitely had brown eyes, as Leandra and Gamlen both have those baby blues that default Lady Hawke and default Carver have. So, default Male Hawke and default Bethany got daddy's brown eyes, due to genes and recessive vs dominant and some more sciency stuff that I just have sadly forgotten since seventh grade biology.

Xilizhra wrote...


And since it looks conveniently like a Chantry robe, and due to the appearance of Malcolm's Honor, this could be how she escapes notice of being an obvious mage, as at first glance she just looks like a sister who happens to have an Andraste-headed staff. Useful for moving around in the open and potentially avoiding templar scrutiny in a lore-acceptable way.

Very nice! On the opposite end of the spectrum, I tend to picture my warrior Hawke throwing on the convenient templar armor you pick up during the endgame and giving Anders those enchanter robes that Orsino gives you, so the two of you can move about as if he's just some random enchanter from a Circle in Town-You've-Never-Heard-Of being escorted by Ser Jane Doe over to the Circle of That-Town-Just-Over-Yonder (which is an idea I believe I first picked up from SurelyForth, so all due credit there for the non-mage Hawke disguise).

Modifié par DragonRacer13, 22 août 2011 - 11:32 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

http://dragonage.wik...of_the_Overseer
Picture and description alike.

I couldn't help notice the cowl for that robe features a very blatant, in your face lunar symbol in the "horns". In fact several ancient Near and Middle Eastern goddesses featured crowns with the lunar crescent turned on it's side into a pair of "horns". Wonder of this was done on purpose for these robes? ot just Bioware thinking it would look "evil cool"?

Babylonian statue of Ishtar:



Astarte, who is believed to be a Phoenican adaptation of said goddess:



Innana, a Sumerian goddess (and probably ancient version of the above:



Roman Diana, the lunar huntress:



But I can see how easy now it would be to roleplay the Chantry's colors and symbolism as being taken/appropriated from the Tevinter.

Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 22 août 2011 - 01:19 .

[Xilizhra]

I couldn't help notice the cowl for that robe features a very blatant, in your face lunar symbol in the "horns". In fact several ancient Near and Middle Eastern goddesses featured crowns with the lunar crescent turned on it's side into a pair of "horns". Wonder of this was done on purpose for these robes? ot just Bioware thinking it would look "evil cool"?

Annoyingly, that only applies to a male Hawke; the female one just gets a generic hood. However, since I play with invisible helmets, it doesn't matter and I can imagine what I like being there. And it's an interesting thought; what school of magic would lunar imagery be most associated with, do you think?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea Arabs are very obsessed with that. I have documents that show my every single ancestor all the way up to Ali. Assuming it's authentic, it's not unheard of for things like that to be fabricated for political purposes. Many believed the Fatimids did so, though of course it was partially Abbasid propaganda.

Fabricated or not, it is still something. It's alot more than many people in the west have. The best I got is that my maiden name might possibly be traced to some minor, insignifgant Germanic chieftan that might have lived somewhere in the area that is Southern Germany/Czech Republic. But beyond that, as far as I can tell, my Ancestors from both sides of the family seem to be alpine peasant hillbillies. Which explains alot about them, lol.

Not quite. The Fatimid Caliphate was Ismaeli Shia' and it ruled North Africa, Egypt and for a time the Levant, which were Sunni. Morocco is still ruled by Hashemites, and Sunni Hejaz was also ruled by Hashemites until the Sauds. Hashemites held prominent roles, including leadership roles, in Sunni regions and contexts.

Yeah, I knew the Shia had their own "Golden Age" of prominance. I was refering to that the Shia, when looking at the total of islamic history and growth, did not maintain it's dominance, nor it's share of the total believers, when compared to the Sunni, who were able to appeal to more people.

I think what put most people off from Shi'ism is its complete rejection of most companions of the Prophet, especially Abu Bakr, Umar and Utham, whom they see as usurpers. Of course they also think that the Umayyads and Abbasids are also usurpers, and Twelver Shi'ites rejected the Fatimid Ismaeli's.

I can see why that would alienate alot of people. It would be like a Christian denomination rejecting Jesus' 12 disciples, and later, the apostles.

But it must not be forgotten that the 11th century was considered the "Shi'ite" century, in core Arab lands, due to the spread of Shi'ism amongst the elite at the time. It was after that, that Sunnism remerged when it adopted new elements, like Sufism, to make itself appealing. It's called the Sunni synthesis. It in many aspects, was also inspired by Shi'ism. So it was much more complicated than 2 seperatable blocs, they intermingled a lot. Indeed, Sufis had a lot of shi'ite elements, including love for the Hashemites, which pisses Wahabis off.

I've gotten the impresion that alot of things ****** off the Wahabi's, lol. I think Wahabism is the school of thought I encountered most in saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons, since the Wahabi's played a major part in the formation of the modern day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The struck me as sort of an Islamic "puritanism" for lack of a better comparison.

I did not know the Shia dominated the 11th century, even in the Arab lands. I thought they were mostly limited to the Persians.. I also did not know about the Sunni/Sufi synthesis, that is very interesting. When you say the divisions are complicated, its a serious understatement.

Also a major reason why Sunnism became widespread is the inclusion of many Turkic peoples, who were militant in their faith. And they ended up dominating the political arena for centuries. 

It's an interesting question and Marshall Hudgson's book, the venture of Islam, offers an explanation that is too long for me to sumarize here.

That's why I think that Sunnism ultimately became more dominant and widespread, because it was more inclusive. If I'm not mistaken, the largest Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia, is primarily Sunni.
And another book to add to my list of Amazon recommedations.

That the Qu'ran was created, and was not eternal. I think most believe that it's uncreated and is as eternal as God, being his words.

I subscribe to a middle view, which I came up with myself lol.

Why not? In fact, a middle view seems like it would satisfy on both practical and spiritual/theological fronts. And given that Islam shares its origins with Judism and Christianity, one could easily believe that the concept and message is eternal in nature, but was brought into word and physical form when Gabriel relayed it to Muhammed.

Indeed, it would be interestign to explore the differences between the two. Which is perhaps why I did not know of the extent of protestant iconoclasm, because I know little of protestantism in North America.

Yeah, the iconclasm of many Protestant sects found more fertile ground in the US than it did in Europe. And furthermore, given the relatively open nature of America's foundation and development, we even ended up creating our own home-grown Protestant denominations, many of which can only be found in the US and Canada.  One of the biggest problems in trying to study Protestantism in North America is the sheer number of denominations and sects. And the further west you go, the more variety and diversity you get, as new sects that formed back East but faced opposition and rejection immigrated west where they were free to start from scratch and form their own communities. The best known, and most interesting example are the Mormons (who ironically, are not only highly centralized, but are steeped in tons of mystisicm and symbolism, likely due to it's two main founders, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young being Freemasons). The Mormons, whose beliefs, doctrines and practices pissed off and offended people back east, were persecuted, so they traveled west and settled the area which is now the state of Utah, where they are undisputedly the dominant religion. And in the states bordering Utah, there are alot of Mormon communities. 

Hell, if you want a really interesting denomination to study, it's the Mormons. To put it lightly, they have alot of beliefs and doctrines that are bizarre and even creepy from the point of view of most Christian denominations, Catholics and orthodox included. Many Christians in the US will even go as far as to refuse to aknowledge Mormons as fellow Christians, and often accuse them of everything from being a dangerous cult to outright Satanism, which is rather sad. Strange doctrines and all, their religion still centers around the worship of God and Jesus like everyone else.

That said, most Mormons are actually very respectable people. They are generally very hardworking, honest people who make some of the best co-workers and neighbors, and have very strong ethics on alot of matters. They are also incredibly self sufficent and highly independant. And most of all, the entire community will pitch in to take care of one of their own who has fallen on hard times.

One signifgant difference is the degree of centralization of doctrine and organization in European Protestantism. The two demoniations I have the most familiarity with due to my residence in both countries, is German Lutheranism and The Church of England, have a much greater degree of organization than do the majority of Protestant sects in North America. For example, the Church of England is still extremely centralized, and it's organizational model, as well as many of its rites and doctrines, are very similar to the Catholic Church. The Lutherans in Germany, though less rigidly organized, are still more organized than they are in the US. In fact, I've noticed European Protestants still maintain some aspects of catholism, though doctrine and belief is still very different than the Roman Church. The celebration of Lent, for example, is still common in European Protestants, where it is absent in most American sects.

Or as Michael Corleone said: "Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgement."

Mafiso wisdom.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Annoyingly, that only applies to a male Hawke; the female one just gets a generic hood. However, since I play with invisible helmets, it doesn't matter and I can imagine what I like being there. And it's an interesting thought; what school of magic would lunar imagery be most associated with, do you think?

Spirit and Entropy. The moon is a symbol of the shadow side of the human psyche, the subconcious from which dreams and visions, symbols and abstractions, are born. Both spirit and entropy of mystery schools that manipulate the more subtle, intangible forces of magic and the universe. Where as creation and primal, both very direct, upfront, and "concious" schools of magic.

As far as specializations go, the only spec I can think of that has strong lunar associations is not available in DA2, and that's shapeshifter. In just about every human culture, even the most primitive one, the moon has always been strongly associated with shapeshifting and related transformative sorcery (most obvious example being the myth that werewolves are effected by the full moon). Perhaps this is due to the fact that the moon itself "shapeshifts", in the changing of its phases from new,  to crescent, to waxing gibbeous, to full, to waning, to dark, and back to new.

Another interesting thing is that your choice of fire and ice also has a degree of solar/lunar symbolism. Fire's association with the sun is pretty obvious, and ice, being basically elemental water, is lunar, since the moon has always been dominantly and universally associated with water, given it's effect on bodies of water and the tides.

[Xilizhra]

So would you include the Arcane tree under Spirit in this case?

Also, has blood ever had any elemental significance? Or was it always just considered part o flife force?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

So would you include the Arcane tree under Spirit in this case?

Yeah, seeing how the DA2 arcane tree includes several spells from the old DAO spirit school. Things like crushing prison and barrier were part of the telekinetic line in the spirit school.

The concept of the Arcane school, in general (going by the DAO arcane, not the new DA2 arcane) is nonelemntal and neutral

Also, has blood ever had any elemental significance? Or was it always just considered part o flife force?

Blood has often associated with firey simbols, given its red color and association with violence/injury.

However, blood, being a fluid essential to human life, also has strong lunar associations (especially women's menstrual blood, which was widely used in alot of primtive shamanic and witch craft rites and spells). Given the "shadowy" nature of blood magic, if I were to associate it with something, I'd say the moon. Given it's nature as the universally accepted life force,  it's element is likely to be the 5th element of spirit/aether/Akasha.

[Xilizhra]

Oh, the blood conversation just reminded me of something that's interested me for a while; do you think menstrual blood would have different applications in blood magic than regular blood at all? Would the fact that it isn't "shed" but rather naturally leaves make a difference?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, the blood conversation just reminded me of something that's interested me for a while; do you think menstrual blood would have different applications in blood magic than regular blood at all? Would the fact that it isn't "shed" but rather naturally leaves make a difference?

Menstrual blood is something else entirely. It is unique because it is different in concept from normal blood. Given it's biological role and signifgance in human reproduction, even in real world magical practices, menstrual blood was in a class of its own. Not only is it shed naturally without injury, but it is the very protoplasm and raw material from which all human life srings from, as it the stuff that, if an egg is fertilized, will provide the safe environment, nutrition, and care that will someday bring forth another human being.

Thus, it has always been classed seperately, possesing symbolic, ritual, and magical powers and attirubutes that were seperate and distinct from normal blood. So yes, I believe that, were a female mage decide to utilize this particular substance, the application and power would likely be vastly different than normal blood magic. The sorts of magic that one would use this for are more difficult to pin point. There's the obvious fertility/healing/creative sorts of spells and rituals, but there are numerous others that go into the darker, more mysterious and even primal rites.

So in general, i think the use of menstrual blood would have very different applications and powers than normal blood. Whether or not it would constitute blood magic I can't say, because even the Chantry's definition is weird and inconsistant.

[Xilizhra]

Well, the uses of normal blood seem to be tearing open the Fade, mind control and controlling other peoples' blood directly (which the mind control may be linked to). The menstrual blood connection... perhaps it could be used with something with similar applications as spirit healing, without the necessity of having a diplomatic relationship with Fade spirits. The trouble is that you could only collect it once a month and in small quantities, so it might not be much of a large-scale revolution, but some interesting theoretical work could be done.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, the uses of normal blood seem to be tearing open the Fade, mind control and controlling other peoples' blood directly (which the mind control may be linked to). The menstrual blood connection... perhaps it could be used with something with similar applications as spirit healing, without the necessity of having a diplomatic relationship with Fade spirits. The trouble is that you could only collect it once a month and in small quantities, so it might not be much of a large-scale revolution, but some interesting theoretical work could be done.

With menstrual blood, you don't need large quantities. It's power is considered to be highly potent and concentrated. One doesn't need to "collect and store" it. In many real world myths and traditions, only a small amount, the normal amount being shed during any normal cycle, is more than enough to weave powerful spells, curses, and charms. Perhaps it is because even the normal amount shed during any cycle is still filled with the power of creation and life itself.

As far as spirit healing goes, you still need a spirit, that's the basis and point of the specialization. The requirement for a spirit to work with/bond to the mage is one that i do not believe you can work around. The abilities of a spirit healer, such as rezing fallen companions, are unique and specific that they seem to be something that are unique to the abilities and powers of Fade spirits, and can't be performed alone by a mage.

That said, I'm sure there are many other healing applications and powers that the blood would possess. But even beyond healing, menstrual blood was an infamous component/catalyst in many curses, hexes, and destructive magic.

[Xilizhra]

Well... considering it, normal blood magic seems to bear some similarities to Spirit magic, with Spirit spells like Walking Bomb, Death Syphon and possibly Animate Dead if it's still canon. Would menstrual blood then be more related to Creation magic (which still has some offensive applications, like the glyphs)?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well... considering it, normal blood magic seems to bear some similarities to Spirit magic, with Spirit spells like Walking Bomb, Death Syphon and possibly Animate Dead if it's still canon. Would menstrual blood then be more related to Creation magic (which still has some offensive applications, like the glyphs)?

The description for the Spirit school says that it is often on the surface mistaken for blood magic by outsiders are people with no understanding of it. So yes, it does bear, at least on the surface, similarities to blood magic. However, the similarities are mostly only on first observation. the mechanics and fundementals of both schools in theory, practice, and philosophy are very different.

Like, for example, the origins spell animate dead, vs Necromancy in DA2. In origins, animate dead, from the description, is very different from the DA2 blood magic spell. In origins, animate dead does not involve the summoning and control of a Fade spirit into a corpse, it is alot more a refined process. Instead of pushing a fade spirit into a corpse, the spell instead uses raw, pure fade energy, formed and shaped by the will of the caster, and utlitizes this raw energy in what is basically a refined, advanced form of telekinesis to animate the corpse. Hence why in origins, the animated skeleton retained only a fraction of the talents it had when living, because the animation is very limited, and does not involve the life force/spirit of the deceased directly. Not is there a spirit inside the corpse that can give it life and will of its own. Where as blood magic would either bring a spirit through the veil and bind it to the corpse, or manipulate the remaining life force/blood within the corpse to reanimate it.

In regards to your second question, menstrual blood would indeed have strong ties to creation type spells, since this is the school most associated with nature/fertility sorts of things. But equally, it would also be tied and linked just as strongly to creation's opposing school, entropy. While menstrual blood carries the symbolism of life and creation, it equally carries the symbolism of destruction and decay. The fact that a woman menstruates means that new life was not conscieved, and her body now is shedding and destroying the old, useless lining and preparing to create a new one in the next cycle, with the potential once again to concieve and create new life. And it is that wearing down and destroying of the old to make way for the new that is the central philosophy of the school of entropy. And of course, entropy encompasses spells that curse, hex, weaken, or cause decay and degredation to one's enemies, as well as paralyzing, immobilizing, or mentally incapaciting them through sleep or horrifying visions and nightmares.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I've gotten the impresion that alot of things ****** off the Wahabi's, lol. I think Wahabism is the school of thought I encountered most in saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons, since the Wahabi's played a major part in the formation of the modern day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The struck me as sort of an Islamic "puritanism" for lack of a better comparison.

In some ways, I agree with some of what they say in theory. It's the practise more than anything that puts me off.
And they would hate me with a passion, the sarcastic flirt that I am

I did not know the Shia dominated the 11th century, even in the Arab lands. I thought they were mostly limited to the Persians.. I also did not know about the Sunni/Sufi synthesis, that is very interesting. When you say the divisions are complicated, its a serious understatement.

Shi'ism only became prominent in Iran with the Safavids. Initially, it was always an esoteric and limited to small groups. And yes, with the Qarmatians in the gulf, Buyids in Iraq, Hamdanids in Northern Syria, and Fatimids in the Levant, Egypt and North Africa, the 11th century was dominated by Shi'ite dynasties.

That's why I think that Sunnism ultimately became more dominant and widespread, because it was more inclusive. If I'm not mistaken, the largest Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia, is primarily Sunni.
And another book to add to my list of Amazon recommedations.

Sufism was instrumental in the spread of Islam, and thanks to the great al Ghazali, Sufism was "included" and merged with Sunnism. A major reason why it spread.

Why not? In fact, a middle view seems like it would satisfy on both practical and spiritual/theological fronts. And given that Islam shares its origins with Judism and Christianity, one could easily believe that the concept and message is eternal in nature, but was brought into word and physical form when Gabriel relayed it to Muhammed.

Yes, that's what I believe.

Hell, if you want a really interesting denomination to study, it's the Mormons. To put it lightly, they have alot of beliefs and doctrines that are bizarre and even creepy from the point of view of most Christian denominations, Catholics and orthodox included. Many Christians in the US will even go as far as to refuse to aknowledge Mormons as fellow Christians, and often accuse them of everything from being a dangerous cult to outright Satanism, which is rather sad. Strange doctrines and all, their religion still centers around the worship of God and Jesus like everyone else.

That said, most Mormons are actually very respectable people. They are generally very hardworking, honest people who make some of the best co-workers and neighbors, and have very strong ethics on alot of matters. They are also incredibly self sufficent and highly independant. And most of all, the entire community will pitch in to take care of one of their own who has fallen on hard times.

Yea I heard about it being unusual, but I never got to study it in detail. How do they differ from others on a theoligical basis?

One signifgant difference is the degree of centralization of doctrine and organization in European Protestantism. The two demoniations I have the most familiarity with due to my residence in both countries, is German Lutheranism and The Church of England, have a much greater degree of organization than do the majority of Protestant sects in North America. For example, the Church of England is still extremely centralized, and it's organizational model, as well as many of its rites and doctrines, are very similar to the Catholic Church. The Lutherans in Germany, though less rigidly organized, are still more organized than they are in the US. In fact, I've noticed European Protestants still maintain some aspects of catholism, though doctrine and belief is still very different than the Roman Church. The celebration of Lent, for example, is still common in European Protestants, where it is absent in most American sects.

Yea I think the historical context in Europe pretty much requires some degree of cntralization on the part of Protestants. It being that way for the Church of England, is for obvious political and historical reasons.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 août 2011 - 08:42 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In some ways, I agree with some of what they say in theory. It's the practise more than anything that puts me off.
And they would hate me with a passion, the sarcastic flirt that I am

Not nearly much as some of them appeared to hate me, lol.

But I couldn't really tell you what they say specifically, as I know next to nothing about Wahbism. Given I was in Saudi for reasons other than to satisfy my curiosity and thirst for knowledge, I had little time or opportunity to get an idea of what Wahabism was about in philosophy and theory. You would certainly know much more than I about them.

Shi'ism only became prominent in Iran with the Safavids. Initially, it was always an esoteric and limited to small groups. And yes, with the Qarmatians in the gulf, Buyids in Iraq, Hamdanids in Northern Syria, and Fatimids in the Levant, Egypt and North Africa, the 11th century was dominated by Shi'ite dynasties.

What about here in Al-Andalus? Did any of the Shia dynasties of North Africa have any influence? (Most of the legacy of the Moors here was Sunni based, however, given the climate of religous tolerance and exploration here, I know alot of idealogies were allowed to exist).

Sufism was instrumental in the spread of Islam, and thanks to the great al Ghazali, Sufism was "included" and merged with Sunnism. A major reason why it spread.

What about the Drzes of lebanon? Do you know anything about them, or how they came to be?

Yea I heard about it being unusual, but I never got to study it in detail. How do they differ from others on a theoligical basis?

Since I never was  Mormon, nor attended many Mormon services, my knowledge is limited to what I have learned from friends who were Mormons, as well as reading some parts of the Book of Mormon.

Basically, the Mormons do believe in God and Jesus as God's son. However, that's where the similarities end, and it gets interesting. They also believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, with Satan being the "fallen" son, or something to that effect. Or another version I was told, is that they are two halves of the same being, though I do not know if this is actual core doctrine or not. They also believe that Jesus traveled to North America after his ressurection and spread the Book of Mormon to the indingenous people, who were the descendants of the lost civilization of Atlantis (which was also supposed to be somewhere in North America, possibly Mexico or someplace around there). The Book of Mormon is supposedly to be a "lost gospel" or "Hidden Testament", and is as central to the Mormon faith as the Bible. In fact, in alot of regards, it's even of more signifgance. Joseph Smith, the main founder of Mormonism, claims the Angel Gabriel revelaled all to him (which makes me wonder if Smith was deliberately copying Mohammed in that respect) and have him the Book of Mormon. And all these other revelations. They also generally believe that the Native Americans are really the lost tribes of Israel, so American Indians and even some Indian traditions hold signifgance in the doctrine.

There are a number of practices and doctrines that have been very controversial. The most well known was polygamy, which was actually the first and biggest reason they were persecuted and driven from the Eastern States where they originated, as polygamy was considered morally and socially repulsive by Americans. They continued this tradition when the settled the West. However, when the territory of Utah, which had been settled and developed by Mormons, applied for statehood in 1890, they were required to outlaw polygamy in practice in order to be accepted as a State, and thus, the offical Mormon sanction of polygamy ended. Unoffically, however, there were a number of Mormons not happy with this comprimise, as some believed it was actually a divine commandment to have multiple wives (or in some cases, husbands), and they left the offical church and spread out into distant, isolated communities, some of which still exist today, polygamy and all. And for the most part, so long as they remain isolated and segrgated, and don't bother anyone, local and state law enforcement in those regions are usually content to leave them be.

The second biggest controversy was a racial one, and that was the earlier Mormon views on the black/African race. Until  as recently as the 1970's, black people were not allowed to become Mormons. This was due to part of their doctrine that stated black people were black because black skin was supposedly "the mark of Cain" and thus, marking them as cursed by god and not having souls. I think another part of the doctrine said they were also cursed because they were the children of Ham. or something like that. regardless, this was pretty much the dogma until the 1970's, when the church elders re-examined it and struck it from the offical doctrine. And thus, the Church now accepts black members and no longer believes them souless, though understandably, there are few black Mormons anyway. This has been a point of equal controversy, since it was a relatively recent change. Alot of the reason this was changed, was not only external pressure, but also internal from church members who felt the doctrine was wrong, or most likely being incorrectly interpreted.

There have been a number of changes within Mormon doctrine in recent years, and I am not up to date with what changes have been made, or what is currently offically and universally accepted. Even some of the earlier beliefs I mentioned might have changed, as I am going on information from about 10-30 years ago. But needless to say, it is understandable as to why most Christians have a hard time accepting them as fellows in the faith. When one looks at Mormon doctrine and beliefs compared to traditional Christian ones, as well as even jewish beliefs, Mormon doctrine seems, to put it lightly, way out in left field. And even debatable as to being in the same ballpark. However, sadly, this oppostion to Mormonism most often manifests as open hostility, rudeness, insults, and accusations of all sorts of horrible things, which are entirely unecessary. especially as alot of Mormons still practice alot of core Christian principles, such as forgiveness and turning of the cheek when insulted or bashed.

Aside from their curious doctrine, it is especially interesting to note that, of all the religous denominations, sects, and groups in the US, the Mormon church is the wealthiest. Even wealtheir than the Catholic Church within America. Yet this is not apprant or obvious, as the Mormons are not people who engage in excessive displays of wealth, excess, or materialism. They accumulate large amounts of wealth through good old fashioned practical stewardship an careful management of resources. They are in every way self made. And they do have quite a bit of influence in politics, though it is more subtle. Despite many other denominations rejecting them as heathens, Mormons are still quick to offer the same people financial and other support when it comes to campaigns promoting Christian family values, moral responsibility, or other conservative social values, as they are willing to look past hatreds or disagreements to promote a common goal or agenda.

Which is why, odd theological concepts aside, I have alot of respect for the Mormons. Like I said, they are hard workers, slow to take charity but quick to offer it to anyone in need, regardless of belief. (And they have an awesome Tabernacle Choir and band, as well, that is quite renown all over the US). And frankly, considering the fact that I grew up in California, where everything from UFO cults, New Age lunatics, and Hermetic Hippy orders to Satanism are more the norm than the exception, Mormon beliefs really fail to be strange at all, lol.

Yea I think the historical context in Europe pretty much requires some degree of cntralization on the part of Protestants. It being that way for the Church of England, is for obvious political and historical reasons.

I must say, I do prefer going into a European Church over an American one, because European ones then to be beautiful built and decorated with all their artistry and symbolism. American churches usually tend to be either modern and bland, or quaint but austere little wood buildings in rural communities.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Not nearly much as some of them appeared to hate me, lol.

But I couldn't really tell you what they say specifically, as I know next to nothing about Wahbism. Given I was in Saudi for reasons other than to satisfy my curiosity and thirst for knowledge, I had little time or opportunity to get an idea of what Wahabism was about in philosophy and theory. You would certainly know much more than I about them.

Yea I researched about them a bit. Met a few. Overall it's meh, but a few things here and there are sound and valid.

What about here in Al-Andalus? Did any of the Shia dynasties of North Africa have any influence? (Most of the legacy of the Moors here was Sunni based, however, given the climate of religous tolerance and exploration here, I know alot of idealogies were allowed to exist).

Shi'ism never had a real presence in Al-Andalus. Yea there was relative tolerance, but it was dominated by Maliki Sunnism. And they were at war with Fatimids, who were Shi'ites. So Al-Andalus was less tolerant of Shi'ite than it was of Christians and Jews. Plus it never had social presence that much.

What about the Drzes of lebanon? Do you know anything about them, or how they came to be?

One Fatimid caliph was called Al-Hakim. An erratic and eccentric man at best, mentally unstable at worst. He is one of the few notable exceptions when it came to Medieval Islamic history, in that he was intolerant of non-Muslims and non-Ismaelis, and persecuted them. He came up with the weirdest laws such as the banning of the production of female shoes, so that they stay at home. Or declaring that people should sleep at day and work at night. And what was weirder was his sudden renounciation of the laws he as abruptly tried to apply. 

Well one day he disapeared, most likely assassinated by his family. The Druze believed that Al-Hakim was in fact a divine manifestation (the more extreme say incarnation) that was there to teach humanity of all its contradictions.

So yes, extreme idolatry. They are free to believe whatever they want, but I do not consider Druzism at its core as Islamic, and indeed many of them do not identify themselves as Muslims. 

Of course the Druze doctrine is much more extensive than that, and in some ways resembles Islam. In others, fundamentally deviates from it.

Aside from their curious doctrine, it is especially interesting to note that, of all the religous denominations, sects, and groups in the US, the Mormon church is the wealthiest. Even wealtheir than the Catholic Church within America. Yet this is not apprant or obvious, as the Mormons are not people who engage in excessive displays of wealth, excess, or materialism. They accumulate large amounts of wealth through good old fashioned practical stewardship an careful management of resources. They are in every way self made. And they do have quite a bit of influence in politics, though it is more subtle. Despite many other denominations rejecting them as heathens, Mormons are still quick to offer the same people financial and other support when it comes to campaigns promoting Christian family values, moral responsibility, or other conservative social values, as they are willing to look past hatreds or disagreements to promote a common goal or agenda.

Very interesting. I remember a a kid watching a documentary that apperently tried to make the Mormons look creepy, and I didn't try to learn much about them after.

The way you describe it, I doubt they have much if anything in common with Islam, minus polygamy. I doubt Wahabis would even like saying their name lol

I must say, I do prefer going into a European Church over an American one, because European ones then to be beautiful built and decorated with all their artistry and symbolism. American churches usually tend to be either modern and bland, or quaint but austere little wood buildings in rural communities.

I like going to mosques, because of their charming simplicity and Arab architecture that already is decorative imo. They are not modern, bland or austere, at least not the ones I went to. Not to mention that beautiful persian carpets.

[Costin_Razvan]

In other news I finished my Witcher 2 tribute: 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

One Fatimid caliph was called Al-Hakim. An erratic and eccentric man at best, mentally unstable at worst. He is one of the few notable exceptions when it came to Medieval Islamic history, in that he was intolerant of non-Muslims and non-Ismaelis, and persecuted them. He came up with the weirdest laws such as the banning of the production of female shoes, so that they stay at home. Or declaring that people should sleep at day and work at night. And what was weirder was his sudden renounciation of the laws he as abruptly tried to apply. 

Well one day he disapeared, most likely assassinated by his family. The Druze believed that Al-Hakim was in fact a divine manifestation (the more extreme say incarnation) that was there to teach humanity of all its contradictions.

So yes, extreme idolatry. They are free to believe whatever they want, but I do not consider Druzism at its core as Islamic, and indeed many of them do not identify themselves as Muslims. 

Of course the Druze doctrine is much more extensive than that, and in some ways resembles Islam. In others, fundamentally deviates from it.

So in summary, they revere a lunatic? Well, they wouldn't be the first, lol.

Very interesting. I remember a a kid watching a documentary that apperently tried to make the Mormons look creepy, and I didn't try to learn much about them after.

The way you describe it, I doubt they have much if anything in common with Islam, minus polygamy. I doubt Wahabis would even like saying their name lol

Yeah, it has little in common enough with other Christians, so I'd imagine even less with the other Abrahamic religions. There have been alot of documentaries that have been made, many critical, because of the many fundemental and controversial differences in theology, as well as practices and traditions. So I'm not surprised that the documentary would give you the impression it's a bit creepy, alot of people even in the states consider it so.

What I found particularly creepy is how they mysterious only seemed to show up on my doorstep after a night of epic sinning. The type of sinfest that was so much fun, you had trouble remembering it the next morning. And I swear, without fail, they alwaus showed up, knocking on my door. Even some of my friends were creeped out by it, as was my mom, who suggested maybe God was sending them to punish and annoy me, along with the epic hangovers I was often sporting, for having too much fun, lol. But it was weird.

I like going to mosques, because of their charming simplicity and Arab architecture that already is decorative imo. They are not modern, bland or austere, at least not the ones I went to. Not to mention that beautiful persian carpets.

The remaining Mosques here in Spain left over from the Islamic era are very beautiful and elegant. I love Morrocan style and art, and I even prefer it to the baroque/roccoco style of many churches, which is too ostentatious for my tastes. Morrocan Arabic art is very intricate and elgant, with it's blend of rich jewel toned colors and geometrics.

If you ever go to Spain, I really suggest you visit the Cathedral of Cordoba. When the Catholics took over and conquored Cordoba, they didn't destroy the mosque, but added on and converted it into a Church. They continued to add on or change, and what you have today is a building that is half Medieval Islamic art and architecture, and half Christian of mutiple epochs and artistic ages. The mix and combo is interesting, to say the least, especially because its one of the few places in the world where both systems and styles exist side by side in the same building.

[Monica21]

 Since the new DA2 Item Pack has Loghain-specific stuff, I figured I'd post the codex entries for them here. The Arms of Mac Tir is the higher level chestpiece, and although I haven't seen a picture (my rogue is only level 8) I believe it does have the red square on the shoulder. Other than that, the armors look the same. And, of course, it looks like "betrayal" is now DA canon with regard to Ostagar, despite even the developers defending him shortly after the game's release.

Arms of the River Dane 

The Battle of River Dane is among the most famous in Ferelden's history, fought at the onset of the Dragon Age in a bid to secure the country's independence from Orlesian rule.

The Ferelden army was cobbled together from commmoners and banns who had turned against the Orlesian usurper, King Meghren. Even so, under the leadership of Loghain Mac Tir, they scored an astounding victory against a large force of chevaliers fording the River Dane.

Afterwards, Loghain was hailed as a Fereldan legend, and for a time veterans of the battle enjoyed a similar status. The soldiers' possessions became prized mementos, in particular the suits of armor belonging to those early supporters who joined Maric after the death of his mother, Moira, the Rebel Queen. Folk tales suggest that the Maker's blessing lives on in the armor those brave allies wore on that fateful day.

Arms of Mac Tir

Teryn Loghain Mac Tir was not born a nobleman. It's said his family descended from freeholders in the western Bannorn, a region known as Oswin. His father, Gareth, would have had no surname of his own. He likely would only have described himself as "of Oswin" or "ban Aehswin" (as the region would have been known in the Old Tongue).

The name "Mac Tir" means "son of the land." It was bestowed upon Loghain by King Maric after the Battle of River Dane. The Ferelden people considered the name highly appropriate: to them, Teryn Loghain was a son of the entire nation, and he was famously said to have told a crowd that Ferelden would forever be "part of his blood."

After Loghain's betrayal of King Cailan at Ostagar in 9:30 Dragon, the general became as reviled as he had once been revered. His manse in Gwaren was looted and many of his personal possessions stolen - among them the armor he wore at the Battle of River Dane. That armor is said to have had special significance to the man. One peculiarity of the armor was a square of red silk pinned to one of its shoulderbelts. "For luck," Loghain once explained.

Modifié par Monica21, 23 août 2011 - 07:18 .

[Costin_Razvan]

After Loghain's betrayal of King Cailan at Ostagar in 9:30 Dragon, the general became as reviled as he had once been revered.

And people wonder why I hate Gaider...huh.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Beautiful. Yes Bioware, simplify the greatest character you ever made. You wouldn't want to rise above averageness, now would you.

[Monica21]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

After Loghain's betrayal of King Cailan at Ostagar in 9:30 Dragon, the general became as reviled as he had once been revered.

And people wonder why I hate Gaider...huh.

Well, I guess there are two ways to look at it. One, the devs just took the majority opinion (since I have the distinct impression most people are more than happy to kill Loghain) and made it canon. The other is that history is recorded by the victors. Since Loghain is defeated at the Landsmeet whether or not you bring up Ostagar or kill him, he then becomes the treacherous betrayer depicted in the opening of DA2.

The codex entry is very one-sided though, since he is still considered a hero if he kills the AD, what with the statue and all. 

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Beautiful. Yes Bioware, simplify the greatest character you ever made. You wouldn't want to rise above averageness, now would you.

The only thing good about it is the red square of silk.