Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Discussions about constructed worlds, cultures and any topics related to constructed societies.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by eldin raigmore » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:12

Thanks 🙏 , Anradh!

(And elemtilas, and Spanick!)

.
.
.
Is it true that in most RL natreligions, if they have a Creator Deity, that is significantly likelier to be masculine than feminine?
If so, what is the explanation for that in our real world?
If such an explanation exists, could whatever-it-is also apply to our conpeoples’ conreligions?
.
.
.
Anradh, I want to hear more about that psychological horror!
And about the entheogens!
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2016, 06:10
Location: Napa Valley, California

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 16:59

I have what might be described as a "universalist" approach to religion: I believe there is some truth to be found in all religions, that there is no "one true religion", but that all religions are an attempt at accessing the Creator. Because of this, I've long been interested in the world's religions and I've tried to learn as much as I can about a wide variety of them.

This is reflected in my conworlding in that the Mantian religion takes from a number of different religions that I'm familiar with or that I've studied. It's polytheistic, but with a finite number of deities. It's both a system of worship and a political system (similar to Islam), it teaches reincarnation in a cyclic nature (similar to Hinduism) as well as mysticism, and its creation mythology is inspired by Gnosticism. So although its origins are a bit of a mishmash, it's far from haphazard, and I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about it, fine-tuning it, and writing about it.

It's not necessarily a reflection of the type of religion I would want to follow, especially as it's tinged with Mantian culture. My conworld is definitely not a utopia by any means: Mantians can be brutal and warlike and their society is very Medieval-esque; it's fairly backward from my point of view. And the religion is extremely hierarchical and political. But I've included in the religion certain elements of religious belief that I find fascinating: there are esoteric texts that monastic orders devote their lives to interpreting, there is an element of theophany (Mantian religious lore includes many stories of the deities taking human form and "testing" people in these forms), and there's an emphasis on meditation and seeking mystical communion with the deities in one's life.

And despite the patriarchal Mantian society, the religion is surprisingly gender-neutral. There are an equal number of goddesses as there are gods, and none rank above each other (though individuals or subsets of society may place emphasis on certain deities), and the creation myth tells of the gods creating three sub-deities: a male angelic being, a female angelic being, and an animal angelic being, the three of which together forged the physical world.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by eldin raigmore » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 19:02

Quite interesting, Kai!
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Shemtov » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 19:45

Actually, I just realized that my polytheistic Zlaund Cults in the world of Fuhe, oddly enough, have influence from Judaism. The Kabbalah teaches that the sun is "Masculine" and the moon is "Feminine", which is why the Zlaund Cults use that assignment to the Sun and Moon deities- I know there were polytheistic cultures IRL that did the opposite, or had both as male but that's so alien to me that the Zlaund Cults wound up with a Male Sun and a Female Moon. Also the ties of the Lunar Phases to Menstruation is also from Kabbalah- the Curse of Eve is monthly because the moon is feminine. Also, I just realized that the idea that the Moon was supposed to be as large as the Sun comes from a Midrash to Genesis 1 that says the same thing, but the angel of the moon got into an argument with G-d, and thus was punished by having the moon reduced.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1475
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Salmoneus » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:12
Is it true that in most RL natreligions, if they have a Creator Deity, that is significantly likelier to be masculine than feminine?
Why would you even imagine that it would be!?


To give a few data points:

- in Catholicism, the deity has no sex, and is considered to have both male and female characteristics
- in Hesiod, the first thing is chaos, but the second thing is Gaia, who is the first thing to act like a deity (she's female)
- Homer identifies Oceanus (male), but apparently possibly with the help of Tethys (female)
- Alcman identifies Thetis (female) as the creator
- in the popular Orphic tradition, the creator is Nyx (female)
- Empedocles and the Atomists placed the blame on two women, Philotes and Neikos (affection and strife).
- in Gilgamesh, the creator is Nammu (female)
- in Hermopolis, the creators were the Ogdoad, eight male and eight female deities, and particularly the male and female Nu and Naunet
- but in Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes, the creators were various Atum, Amun, or Ptah, all male.


One factor that might be relevant is the theory of sex. Many people have believed that women have no role in reproduction other than providing shelter - the Greek notion of the creative male seed and the female receptive soil. This is likely to promote theories of a male creator. In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
However, many other people have believed that men have no role in reproduction. Some people have believed that men (and sex) had nothing to do with conception; others have believed that the male contribution amounted only to encouragement and inspiration. Such beliefs are likely to encourage notions of a female creator.

But in general, creation myths aren't something religions are interested in - there are often multiple, competing accounts of creation, including sometimes superficially incompatible stories. Even seemingly physical accounts of creation - Atum masterbating, for instance - are usually understood as metaphorical.
User avatar
LinguistCat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat 06 May 2017, 06:48

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by LinguistCat » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 21:33

Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57
eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:12
Is it true that in most RL natreligions, if they have a Creator Deity, that is significantly likelier to be masculine than feminine?
Why would you even imagine that it would be!?


To give a few data points:

- in Catholicism, the deity has no sex, and is considered to have both male and female characteristics
- in Hesiod, the first thing is chaos, but the second thing is Gaia, who is the first thing to act like a deity (she's female)
- Homer identifies Oceanus (male), but apparently possibly with the help of Tethys (female)
- Alcman identifies Thetis (female) as the creator
- in the popular Orphic tradition, the creator is Nyx (female)
- Empedocles and the Atomists placed the blame on two women, Philotes and Neikos (affection and strife).
- in Gilgamesh, the creator is Nammu (female)
- in Hermopolis, the creators were the Ogdoad, eight male and eight female deities, and particularly the male and female Nu and Naunet
- but in Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes, the creators were various Atum, Amun, or Ptah, all male.


One factor that might be relevant is the theory of sex. Many people have believed that women have no role in reproduction other than providing shelter - the Greek notion of the creative male seed and the female receptive soil. This is likely to promote theories of a male creator. In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
However, many other people have believed that men have no role in reproduction. Some people have believed that men (and sex) had nothing to do with conception; others have believed that the male contribution amounted only to encouragement and inspiration. Such beliefs are likely to encourage notions of a female creator.

But in general, creation myths aren't something religions are interested in - there are often multiple, competing accounts of creation, including sometimes superficially incompatible stories. Even seemingly physical accounts of creation - Atum masterbating, for instance - are usually understood as metaphorical.
To add to this The Kojiki, which was a collection of various myths and folktales from early Japan (then, Yamato), states that the universe more or less developed on it's own from primordial chaos; Certain elements separated from others and spontaneously produced the first three kami, all of which were neither male nor female. Then a seed produced a shoot from which came two more genderless kami. It is only after this that 7 generations of creator kami were produced, and the first two generations where ALSO genderless, and following those were 5 male and female pairs. The last pair - Izunami and Izunagi - created the physical world together. There is a portion of this myth that some (maybe many) people have taken to mean that women should be subservient to men, but even having asked about that specifically with a Shinto priest, he said that another interpretation is simply that one should do things in the proper order to obtain the best result. (There's also a tale about the offspring Izunami and Izunagi created when "not going in the proper order" with their marriage, telling how he overcame being born into the world without bones and turned into one of the 7 gods of good fortune! But that's a bit of a tangent for this conversation.)
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Shemtov » Sun 08 Jul 2018, 21:45

To add to this, in Judaism, the Creator has no gender, but expresses itself to mankind in a "Masculine" manner and a "Feminine" manner, and as until the Messiah-King comes, the Masculine is the dominate way of interacting with creation, all Tanakh and Rabbinic Writings uses the Masculine, never the Feminine.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by elemtilas » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 01:41

Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57
- in Catholicism, the deity has no sex, and is considered to have both male and female characteristics
Correct, though more to the point, God has divine characteristics, rather than "male" and "female" human characteristics. Otherwise, the association with male terminology is surely a matter of tradition & mystery. We call God "Father" because Jesus called God "Father" (and not "Mother"). Why that should be, we won't know til later.

In The World, I take it also as a matter of unrevealed mystery why the Creator (also, Being without gender characteristics) would be called "Father" by the three principle races and regardless of their actual religion. And, in the case at least of the Daine, in light of their usual stance on such things as gender role assignment. I suppose one could point to matters of mythology and psychology of each race, though that would surely be missing the point. The truth is undoubtedly much deeper and possibly also won't be known til rather later. Or maybe not at all.
One factor that might be relevant is the theory of sex. Many people have believed that women have no role in reproduction other than providing shelter - the Greek notion of the creative male seed and the female receptive soil. This is likely to promote theories of a male creator.
An interesting thought to consider! In fact, Daine view things the opposite way around: it's the female that has the power of reproduction. She is nurturing soil as well as creative seed. The male just provides, er, a bit of a sprinkling can service to get things moving along. Encouragement and inspiration indeed!
In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
Much simpler than that, I should think. While women have always held key roles, and Mary the keyest role of all, the fact remains that Jesus, for some odd reason, appointed twelve guys. To these Apostles he gave over his priestly authority and power. One can probably argue that he chose to come into the world at a time when sex roles were rigid, a patriarchal society, etc. Nevertheless, the fact remains and the explanation was not given at the time.

(On this matter, the Church in The World is divergent. There are, apart from the Twelve (Apostles) the Other Twelve (the Protoapostles), women, whose roles are priestly in nature but more rightly governatorial. They are the ones who summon the men, call them back from the brink of despair and send them forth again. They are the apostles to the Apostles. We can see a glimpse of them here in the gospel --- they are the women who attended the tomb, found it empty, went back to the others, called the men back from the brink of despair and sent them out again.

In the World, these priestly women are always brought out from the monastic houses (most male priests are also monastic, but that's neither here nor there!) and they all have the function of bishop and metropolitan.
However, many other people have believed that men have no role in reproduction. Some people have believed that men (and sex) had nothing to do with conception; others have believed that the male contribution amounted only to encouragement and inspiration. Such beliefs are likely to encourage notions of a female creator.
Quite possibly. Although the Daine are of this opinion as far as reproduction goes, on the matter of a (mythological) creator, they are much more tacit. The Creator (.i. God) is, if you'll pardon the analogy, kind of like gravity. He's there. A fact or reality. Refusing to believe will not save you from splatting on the rocks at the bottom of the cliff. Not something that can be either ignored or waved away or arranged into a neat mythology. Daine (and Teyor) being what they are, have some interesting gaps in their mythologies. And creator god(desses) is one of those gaps in stark contrast to Men who love to multiply their gods (& goddesses) and worship anything in a pantheon. And more than creator deities, neither race has any gods to speak of. Daine have a certain veneration for living monks & passed saints (rather like the Christian communion of saints), but they have no understanding of gods the way Men (et al.) do.
But in general, creation myths aren't something religions are interested in - there are often multiple, competing accounts of creation, including sometimes superficially incompatible stories. Even seemingly physical accounts of creation - Atum masterbating, for instance - are usually understood as metaphorical.
True that. We can see two in Genesis. I think, at least as far as the lore of Teyor and the understanding of that lore of Daine goes, creation is more a matter of historical recollection rather than a matter for mythmakers.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by elemtilas » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 11:34

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sat 07 Jul 2018, 17:15
@elemtilas:
Isn’t it much more natural, if one is assigning a sex (or gender) to the Creator, to conceive of Her as a Mother, rather than as a Father?
Particularly if She is the Originator of Life?

I think that would be more consistent with the life-experience of every land-dwelling tetrapod; or at least every placental or marsupial mammal.

Who do we see giving birth, providing sustenance, etc.?
Another thought that may (or may not!) bear on this mystery of fundamental natures is Love. Of course, I'm not saying that Daine girls do not or can not love --- this is pretty basic to the Daine person! --- but there are differences in how females and males love that may help to shed some light on why they understand the Creator as male rather than female.

As I said already, among Daine, there is the belief that females have the whole power of reproduction and are thus the active vessels of creation. Chaos seeking order. Raw substance evolving towards energetic matter. The essential power of Love focused through reason. That sort of thing. What does the male bring to the table? His is the passionate love. The seeking one. The one that would unite chaotic order, energetic matter and give it shape.

Daine are, as a rule, renown creators, artisans and artists. Also, more or less as a rule, it's the boys that do most of the artistic creation. Girls are the great talkers: just rulers, deep contemplators. Likewise, their kind of love is deep and abiding, but often below the surface. Boys are the great doers: unruly, not so deep, but passionate and inflammable. Their kind of love is similarly ardent.

There is perhaps something of an understanding of the nature of God to be found here. For God is our impassioned lover: throughout history, he has sought after us, tried to woo us to his side, tried to teach us and tame our rawness. He kept at us and eventually gave himself up for us.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by elemtilas » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 16:40

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 16:59
I have what might be described as a "universalist" approach to religion: I believe there is some truth to be found in all religions, that there is no "one true religion", but that all religions are an attempt at accessing the Creator. Because of this, I've long been interested in the world's religions and I've tried to learn as much as I can about a wide variety of them.
I've long had a streak of universalism as well, and there is some truth to it. After all, bits and snatches of truth can be found in many places! I'd actually be very surprised if we geopoets in general lacked an interest in world religions, even those who affirm Atheism.
This is reflected in my conworlding in that the Mantian religion takes from a number of different religions that I'm familiar with or that I've studied. It's polytheistic, but with a finite number of deities. It's both a system of worship and a political system (similar to Islam),
Now this is interesting! What are some of the political islam-esque characteristics it shares?
it teaches reincarnation in a cyclic nature (similar to Hinduism) as well as mysticism, and its creation mythology is inspired by Gnosticism. So although its origins are a bit of a mishmash, it's far from haphazard, and I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about it, fine-tuning it, and writing about it.


Certainly touches on many branches, though I'd not call it a "mish-mash". After all, Christianity has its gnostic denominations, Islam has its mysticism.
It's not necessarily a reflection of the type of religion I would want to follow, especially as it's tinged with Mantian culture. My conworld is definitely not a utopia by any means: Mantians can be brutal and warlike and their society is very Medieval-esque; it's fairly backward from my point of view. And the religion is extremely hierarchical and political. But I've included in the religion certain elements of religious belief that I find fascinating: there are esoteric texts that monastic orders devote their lives to interpreting, there is an element of theophany (Mantian religious lore includes many stories of the deities taking human form and "testing" people in these forms), and there's an emphasis on meditation and seeking mystical communion with the deities in one's life.
I hope we can hear more about it some time!

What in particular do you find distasteful about Mantian religion?
And despite the patriarchal Mantian society, the religion is surprisingly gender-neutral. There are an equal number of goddesses as there are gods, and none rank above each other (though individuals or subsets of society may place emphasis on certain deities), and the creation myth tells of the gods creating three sub-deities: a male angelic being, a female angelic being, and an animal angelic being, the three of which together forged the physical world.
Makes sense.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
spanick
greek
greek
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu 11 May 2017, 00:47
Location: California

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by spanick » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:02

Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57
In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
May I ask for your source for this rationale? Is it something found in the Church Fathers?
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by elemtilas » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:37

spanick wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:02
Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57
In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
May I ask for your source for this rationale? Is it something found in the Church Fathers?
I rather doubt that rationale would be found in the Fathers. Or any later teaching of the Church. See here for example. Basically, it comes down to what Jesus did and who he gave his priestly authority to.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
spanick
greek
greek
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu 11 May 2017, 00:47
Location: California

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by spanick » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:44

elemtilas wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:37
spanick wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:02
Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57
In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
May I ask for your source for this rationale? Is it something found in the Church Fathers?
I rather doubt that rationale would be found in the Fathers. Or any later teaching of the Church. See here for example. Basically, it comes down to what Jesus did and who he gave his priestly authority to.
I tend to agree. The argument you gave/linked to is what I've always heard. I mean, I'm Catholic and have never heard Sal's argument before. But Sal said "a traditional rationale" which is a rather bold statement. Traditional according to whom? What is the source? I'd just like some more information what he means by that. Because otherwise, I would argue that the "traditional" rationale is the one explained in the link you posted.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 2700
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013, 03:06

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Shemtov » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 19:15

spanick wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:44
elemtilas wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:37
spanick wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 17:02
Salmoneus wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 20:57
In Christianity, for instance, a traditional rationale for the all-male priesthood was that male priests could symbolically represent the male, creative and nurturing side of the deity, while females, having no experience of creation and no role in the reproductive process, could not do so.
May I ask for your source for this rationale? Is it something found in the Church Fathers?
I rather doubt that rationale would be found in the Fathers. Or any later teaching of the Church. See here for example. Basically, it comes down to what Jesus did and who he gave his priestly authority to.
I tend to agree. The argument you gave/linked to is what I've always heard. I mean, I'm Catholic and have never heard Sal's argument before. But Sal said "a traditional rationale" which is a rather bold statement. Traditional according to whom? What is the source? I'd just like some more information what he means by that. Because otherwise, I would argue that the "traditional" rationale is the one explained in the link you posted.
I assume it comes from this passage in 1 Tim. 2:
" [11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. [15] Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. "

Maybe with some influence from this quote from 1 Cor 14:
"[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. "
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 09 Jul 2018, 23:19

elemtilas wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 11:34
Another thought that may (or may not!) bear on this mystery of fundamental natures is Love. Of course, I'm not saying that Daine girls do not or can not love --- this is pretty basic to the Daine person! --- but there are differences in how females and males love that may help to shed some light on why they understand the Creator as male rather than female.

As I said already, among Daine, there is the belief that females have the whole power of reproduction and are thus the active vessels of creation. Chaos seeking order. Raw substance evolving towards energetic matter. The essential power of Love focused through reason. That sort of thing. What does the male bring to the table? His is the passionate love. The seeking one. The one that would unite chaotic order, energetic matter and give it shape.

Daine are, as a rule, renown creators, artisans and artists. Also, more or less as a rule, it's the boys that do most of the artistic creation. Girls are the great talkers: just rulers, deep contemplators. Likewise, their kind of love is deep and abiding, but often below the surface. Boys are the great doers: unruly, not so deep, but passionate and inflammable. Their kind of love is similarly ardent.

There is perhaps something of an understanding of the nature of God to be found here. For God is our impassioned lover: throughout history, he has sought after us, tried to woo us to his side, tried to teach us and tame our rawness. He kept at us and eventually gave himself up for us.

Spoiler:
IRL some animals will kamikaze for love.
All those who will kamikaze for sexual love of their mate, are male — as far as I know.
Those who will kamikaze for parental love of their offspring, are likelier to be female than male, but some are male — if I am not mistaken.

For instance, male 🕷 spiders will feed themselves to their mates. Male 🐜 ants will mate rather than eat, and starve themselves to death 💀 in so doing. Many Other males of many other species of “lower animals” also face certain death 💀 if they successfully mate; and male amphibians, reptiles 🦎, birds 🦅, and mammals, including primates, including apes 🦍, including humans, will take huge risks in mate-seeking.

But to the best of my knowledge, unless the females and males are both monogamous — at least, take only one mate per mating-season — only the mothers will risk death for their offspring. Or, as a mama octopus 🐙 will do, feed bits of herself to predators to distract them from her offspring.

It may be incautiously anthropomorphic to attribute love and passion and kamikaze-ness to “lower animals”.
But, tossing all such caution thoroughly aside, I think 💭 that:
* Although both sexes are capable of passionate love 💗 of a mate, only in males does this passion rise to the kamikaze level;
and,
* Although both sexes are capable of deep parental love of their offspring, mothers are likelier than fathers, to feel it so deeply that they will risk death, or even sacrifice their own lives, for their offspring. In part this is just a matter of being sure that the youngster for whose benefit one is taking the risk or making the sacrifice, actually is one’s own offspring. Mothers always know; fathers sometimes guess. Even then, mothers may have fewer offspring; some fathers are polygynous.

Humans famously include many exceptional individuals who don’t act like the average human.
But more than that, the average human may not act like the average “lower animal”. Most human stepparents — whether stepfathers or stepmothers — act like good parents to their stepchildren. Most half siblings and step siblings also act like good siblings to their half siblings and step siblings. And I think some women will sacrifice their lives to save their mates.

What is true of humans, may also be true of conspecies of sapients.

Might that be relevant to some of the recent questions?

A self-sacrificing deity who died to save the world — or the species — might reasonably be considered feminine in that regard, in my opinion.

If a masculine deity did so, we’d likely deduce we must be his only creation — I guess.
And (I guess) we’d probably also deduce he thought he had a chance to survive. Maybe just a slim chance; and maybe he didn’t luck out.
—————————— —————————— —————————— ——————————
Spoiler:
I wonder if Creation wouldn’t be more sensibly thought of as a team effort?

Someone would have to light the forges’ fires 🔥. What sort of deity would set the stars ✨ ablaze? Could some flammable deity have sacrificed itself/himself/herself/themself to do that, or might it have been a non-sacrificial deed?

Then an artificer, probably a smith, would have forged the nonliving underpinnings of all the nonstellar celestial bodies, and the home planet. Being a smith, I guess, would probably mean this deity was masculine, and likely “lame” — whatever “lame” means when applied to a god. (All assuming my notions and guesses are correct!)

Then a feminine deity would carefully craft and create life, beginning with the simplest, and making plants 🌱 before animals, and herbivores before carnivores, and those things people could hunt and gather and domesticate before people themselves.
Or she could begin and oversee the creation of life in general, while important individual orders or families or genera or species, were created by various individual, possibly subordinate deities. Maybe such a subordinate could work on more than one such taxon. Maybe some problematic chimerical-seeming (or otherwise puzzling or remarkable) species could be the work of imperfectly cooperating, squabbling pairs or trios of such subordinates.

Once the physiologically modern people have been created, their culture and behavior and “human nature” would need to be created as well. Behavioral traits and “human nature” could be the work of gods and goddesses. The gender of the creator of a specific trait could be open to choice. The choice might be less open only for those behaviors having to do specifically with gender or sex. (Or whatever the conworlder wants!)

The culture could be the cumulative effort/accomplishments/achievements of various culture-heros (and -heroines and ...). Perhaps some deities or subdeities or demigods etc. might help with some of them.

IMO such a creation-myth cycle could contain most of the mythology of abiding and pervasive influence and importance in the culture’s mythology and legend-inventory.
————— ————— —————
Spoiler:
What is religion? And what is its purpose? And by what criteria has one failed or succeeded?

I have read that every religion contains a notion of salvation.
Salvation from what, and for what? I think the answers to that question vary from one religion to another.

I have also read that every religion contains notions of sin; but not necessarily of virtue.
That/those writer(s) also wrote (IIRC) that Christianity, uniquely among religions, makes sin the thing the believer wants to be saved from. This particular way of linking salvation and sin, they said, is unique to Christianity.
... ... ... ... ...
Spoiler:
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain spirits such as elementals?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain ancestral spirits?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain one or more gods or goddesses or deities?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain souls?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain life after death?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain Heaven?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain Hell?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain reincarnation?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain divinely-ordained virtue and/or morality and/or ethics?
Do sin and virtue influence the souls’ fate — heaven or hell or reincarnation — in your own religions or your conreligions?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain prayer?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain sacrifices?
How do deities communicate to people, in your own religions, or your conreligions?
What are they likeliest to communicate — commands? prohibitions? reassurance? warnings? predictions? promises?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, require adherents to praise a deity or some deities?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, require adherents to preach to and/or convert non-adherents?

If your religion or some of your conreligions contain a notion of salvation, what does it mean? Who saves whom from what? How and why? How does the adherent achieve salvation? Is it earned, or does the adherent have no control over it? Who needs salvation — everyone, or just some people? What is the ultimate fate of those who get saved?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-

To answer those questions for me:
[warning! May offend no-cross-no-crown rule!]
Spoiler:
I don’t believe in any gods or any souls or any spirits or any life after death.
I not only don’t believe morality is divinely ordained; I have difficulty understanding how anyone can reconcile the two notions of (1) there is such a thing as morality and (2) we ought to obey all of some god’s commands.
When I first came to believe as I do, I felt no obligation to preach it or convert others to it. But for the past 17 years or so, I have felt that the world won’t be safe until nearly every adult at least partially agrees with me on at least some of these points.
[/warning]

AFMCW To answer those questions for Adpihi:
Spoiler:
Everyone believes in one and only one god, and they all think everyone else believes in the same god.
They have no belief that they should preach their beliefs nor convert others to their beliefs; with the exception that, as a part of their general duty to instruct their children, they should also instruct them at least minimally in religion.
They all at least act as if they have a soul and so does everyone else. If any of them doubt the existence of souls, this doubt has no or little effect on the rest of their religious thought or feeling or practice.
Whether any of them believe in the existence of any spirits besides god and human souls, is an entirely individual matter.
Likewise an individual matter, is belief in life after death; or heaven or hell or rebirth.

Communication between adherent and deity is the essential centerpiece of every Adpihi’s religion.
But its details vary from one individual to another.
They all feel that God is always looking out for them and “on-call” available to be prayed to.
Some of them feel obligated to pray ceaselessly, some don’t. Some feel they should pray at regular times or on certain special occasions; others think it possible they may go their whole lives without needing to pray. Most of them feel they should at least occasionally thank God, if only out of common politeness; few feel that God demands their praise.

What God says to any individual adherent is up to God and is specific to that adherent.
Many adherents have some notion whether and when and how and what they expect God will probably communicate to them.
Famously, many of them are surprised; some are surprised several times!
When God says something to some mortal, it is usually God who initiates the communication.
It might be a command or prohibition, or reassurance or warning, or just useful information.
It’s not usually a question; those whom God asks a question tend to be philosophers of one stripe or another. (And probably sort of “weird”.)
User avatar
Reyzadren
sinic
sinic
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun 14 May 2017, 09:39
Contact:

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Reyzadren » Wed 11 Jul 2018, 22:38

eldin raigmore wrote:
Mon 09 Jul 2018, 23:19
Spoiler:
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain spirits such as elementals?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain ancestral spirits?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain one or more gods or goddesses or deities?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain souls?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain life after death?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain Heaven?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain Hell?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain reincarnation?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain divinely-ordained virtue and/or morality and/or ethics?
Do sin and virtue influence the souls’ fate — heaven or hell or reincarnation — in your own religions or your conreligions?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain prayer?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, contain sacrifices?
How do deities communicate to people, in your own religions, or your conreligions?
What are they likeliest to communicate — commands? prohibitions? reassurance? warnings? predictions? promises?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, require adherents to praise a deity or some deities?
Do your own religions, or your conreligions, require adherents to preach to and/or convert non-adherents?

If your religion or some of your conreligions contain a notion of salvation, what does it mean? Who saves whom from what? How and why? How does the adherent achieve salvation? Is it earned, or does the adherent have no control over it? Who needs salvation — everyone, or just some people? What is the ultimate fate of those who get saved?
Spoiler:
Spirits, ancestral spirits, souls, prayers and sacrifices exist in my conworld, but they are not considered as religion. Those things are just facts.

Hence, no irl comparison can be made.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang
User avatar
Ànradh
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2011, 02:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Ànradh » Sat 14 Jul 2018, 13:21

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sun 08 Jul 2018, 12:12
Anradh, I want to hear more about that psychological horror!
And about the entheogens!
Hmm. Ulterior motive, eldin? :P

I haven't decided what the entheogens actually are, primarily because I'm having difficulty finding naturally occurring deleriant chemicals that would grow in the correct climate—I'm thinking naturalised datura strains, maybe brought along by prehistoric human migration to the geographical region of the setting I'm interested in.
The deleriant effect is necessary for what I'm after, and contributes heavily to the 'horror' part. "Is that terrifying shadow entity real, or in the character's head? Was that actually a spell, or just the drugs? What in the hell is actually happening right now?"
The ambiguity lets me extend it to other superstitions they have. For example, about the ocean—home of Chaos, where souls not rescued by the Mother goddess go to dissolute—and deep-running water—rivers carry dead souls back to Chaos, and being submerged in deep or fast flowing water drains your soul— and then there's the fay spirits of the forest, based heavily on traditional European folklore (will o' the wisp expies and the like).

This kind of horror tends to work better in games and films, but I feel like I can still have shades of it in a written medium.
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by eldin raigmore » Sat 14 Jul 2018, 14:21

Thanks! (No ulterior motives! :-) )

What climate problems would jimsonweed (e.g.) have?

—————

BTW @Reyzadren; Thanks for your response!
User avatar
Ànradh
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2011, 02:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Ànradh » Sun 15 Jul 2018, 21:11

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sat 14 Jul 2018, 14:21
What climate problems would jimsonweed (e.g.) have?
Primarily, the colder temperature, but I suspect I could have it 'imported' down from the northern-most clans, who have it warmer. Henbane seems possibly more willing to live in the cold, if less strong in its deleriant effect.
I suppose I can use both though; any witch that dies on her trip can be blamed on the demons!
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 08:36
Location: California über alles

Re: Conworlders' religious influences on conworlds

Post by Khemehekis » Sun 15 Jul 2018, 23:06

Tanni wrote:
Sat 30 Jun 2018, 09:52
Khemehekis, you have reached 2018 posts on » Sat 30 Jun 2018, 04:52 !
Actually, my 2,018th post was this one.
Post by Khemehekis » Fri 29 Jun 2018, 20:03
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 57,500 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!
Post Reply