Hybrid Hive: Eat Shard? (Worm/MGLN) (Complete)

But, no religion should be forcing you to stay in it if you don't like it, though some do have difficulty in getting your name out of their records as a member, you're not forced to follow their precepts.
Just because the members of the religion won't force you at gunpoint to follow the precepts doesn't mean that's not the end goal of EVERY religion. They would and frequently have done so if they could get away with it, they just can't anymore.
 
Just because the members of the religion won't force you at gunpoint to follow the precepts doesn't mean that's not the end goal of EVERY religion. They would and frequently have done so if they could get away with it, they just can't anymore.
I usually see this as a corruption of the philosophies involved, though I can see how some religions and worldviews might have a violent conversion could make sense. Usually involves reincarnation in my mind though.

Edit

However, I don't think this is really the time or place to continue this conversation, this is liable to get even more heated than that last derail. Though we might be able to do a little more without too much trouble, finding the edge of acceptable is sometimes fun but is always risky.
 
Last edited:
That's, not really the case. Religions pretty much always proscribe massive controls to their followers. While some (even many) members of said religions will behave much more kindly than dictated by the sacred texts, I would argue that no "religion" respects the choices of it's members, especially the big three (remember kids, knowing right from wrong is so evil that YHWH had to murder his adopted son in order to forgive people for it.)
Heh, he didn't even stay dead for a week at that.
Which directly leads to the idea that the only difference between a Religion and a Cult is that the former has learned to hide all the Culty bits. The same way that the vast majority of adults have just learned how to keep the child hidden.
Honestly? This, and my main thought on religion is that large scale organized religion is a blight upon society writ large. A community surrounding a single church? Sure, that's fine, given that shady shit isn't going on, and proper checks can be applied to hold bad actors accountable. The institutional power held by The Church is untenable, and has festered under its own weight, and Islam has literally sought to take over multiple countries in violent fashion. Then there's the Gaza Strip too. Hinduism is one of the world's largest religions simply because India is one of the world's most populous countries, and even that has some unsavory practices in it.

... Socio-Anarchist viewpoints apply to religions as well as to governments.

Edit: This isn't the place though, I didn't see how many messages were waiting.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that Religions respect the choices of their members and others, while cults intentionally don't.

Yeah... Catholicism is a mixed bag there.
Nope. Cult and religion have the same meaning. The only difference is that the word cult has been used with negative connotations giving people an unconscious belief that cults are any different to religions.

The simple fact is that they're both exactly the same - means of psychological manipulation to put a few people in power over others.

Sounds like the Kingdom is using an older definition of cult.
The definition really hasn't changed.
 
Nope. Cult and religion have the same meaning. The only difference is that the word cult has been used with negative connotations giving people an unconscious belief that cults are any different to religions.

The simple fact is that they're both exactly the same - means of psychological manipulation to put a few people in power over others.


The definition really hasn't changed.
I agree with your first statement, I vehemently disagree with your second statement. The problems arise when the people involved forget what they're supposed to be doing. Same as any other institution, be it government or academia or whatever else. AKA corruption.
 
The simple fact is that they're both exactly the same - means of psychological manipulation to put a few people in power over others.
Unorganized religions are a thing you know, and even ones without any form of clergy. They tend to be rather small in places with organized religions though, because power hungry people don't like them. See the Romanization of Christianity in the Third and Fourth Centuries, and the colonial suppression of indigenous faiths.
 
The difference is that Religions respect the choices of their members and others, while cults intentionally don't.

Yeah... Catholicism is a mixed bag there.
...Except that each greek/roman god had a "cult" dedicated to it, the organization for priesthood and temples and such, despite being part of a "religion". Similarly, numerous legally-recognized religions (including on famous one based on a sci-fi writer) "intentionally don't respect the choices of their members" as you put it. It really isn't that clear cut, unless you make religion a LEGAL definition, and define cults as ALL worshipful sects.
 
PHO being clueless about the 'hand over kids to be raised by the enemy as theoretical incentive for both sides to not fight later' tradition.
This has obvious parallels to the historical practice of "fostering" (especially in feudal societies): the fostered child is essentially a hostage to the parent's good behavior. It was deliberately used as an exchange of hostages (between families of similar social class).

I won't get into my opinions regarding the modern usage of the term (and related topics), but it's clearly very different, as (now) both parents are either dead or have given up/been removed from responsibility for their children (and do not have responsibility for anyone else's children).

That PHO was clueless about that tradition is of course not surprising, as they don't know much about Belkan traditions. That no one saw the parallels in Earth's history is surprising, especially knowing that Belka et al (including PItSK) are kingdoms (or empires, etc.), and thus there might be parallels in feudal tradition.
 
The difference is that Religions respect the choices of their members and others, while cults intentionally don't.

Yeah... Catholicism is a mixed bag there.

Technically, at least a few decades back, the difference is determined by the root of "cult," "occult," which means "hidden". The Freemasons are a cult because most of what they do is kept from public view. Catholicism is a mixed bag partially because some of the subgroups have secretive elements that aren't shared with the broader church. Note that you don't have to have all meetings be public(such as the conclave electing the next Pope) for the religion in question to avoid the label of "cult". The Amish are not a cult because what they do is out in the open, despite a number of more recent groups insisting they should be named one. The ontological arguments of linguists can be a very strange place.
 
Isn't she still married though?
She was under the impression that her idiot husband would be spending the next decades in prison. Don't know what the local divorce customs are, but that's definitely a separation.

Plus, that would be an excellent way around the "Robin can't give the kid back due to custom" issue. He doesn't give the kid back, she just goes with them.
 
She was under the impression that her idiot husband would be spending the next decades in prison. Don't know what the local divorce customs are, but that's definitely a separation.

Plus, that would be an excellent way around the "Robin can't give the kid back due to custom" issue. He doesn't give the kid back, she just goes with them.

Or polygamy is a thing on that world and she uses it as a way to stay with her daughter.
 
Not every Christian faith goes this way, but mine goes with the idea that Adam was given three commandments. First, multiply and replenish the earth. Second, cleave unto your wife. Third, do not eat of the tree of knowledge. And until he knew good or evil, he couldn't do the first(aka breaking the third), and once Eve ate from the tree, he could only follow the second by breaking the third. I personally see the tree of knowledge bit being a symbol that they were ready to take on the world, before that, they couldn't even if they thought themselves ready, and after that they HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO whether they were ready or not. Also that as Adam didn't KNOW good or evil, he wasn't actually capable of sinning, he didn't understand enough, I've heard secular arguments that this can be looked at as the cost of sapience, now that we can think to the future, we must prepare and can't live in the moment.

But, no religion should be forcing you to stay in it if you don't like it, though some do have difficulty in getting your name out of their records as a member, you're not forced to follow their precepts.
The Bible is an antiquated how-to guide on making the world a better place to live that makes heavy use of allegory and metaphor, which selfish chancers later twisted up as a means of controlling the underclasses, and trying to engage with it as if it is composed in modern parlance tailored to modern sensibilities is both foolish and dishonest.

Which makes quite a bit of modern criticisms of it both foolish and dishonest, funny that.

On this topic, because I've built a head of steam and may as well; religious teachers were the closest thing to therapists you could find for a very long time. If the system worked as intended, your confessor or what-have-you would listen to the problems you were facing in life and attempt to counsel you in how best to solve your problems or cope with ones beyond your control. But even today there are people who get into psychology purely to leverage it for their own egos, so too back then did people join the profession with evil intent.

One good way to distinguish between a malevolent "cult" and a more benevolent "religion" might be to ask the following question; who benefits, the leaders or the community? Because Aum Shinrikyo was all about building a powerbase for Asahara, but quite a few churches are dedicated to community outreach and wellness programs.

In the context of the Kingdom, these roles may well be superfluous, because the therapist device network is so advanced that it can likely employ allegory and metaphor where more clinical approaches simply do not work with some people's minds, and it's a post-scarcity economy where nobody is in need of being reached out to and given a hand up. But state-enforced atheism is not only cruel, it's been tried before to deleterious effect, and it is already failing in the case of the Kingdom. I'm not going to hyperbolize it into a crisis, but it's something Taylor is going to have to wrestle with eventually, before the problem solves itself in a manner she's already made clear she does not want to happen.
 
I think it's somewhat telling that the safest people there, Siri and Iris, even had a moment of, 'Wow that is legitimately Terrifying,' in reaction to that last conversion bomb. That everyone Noped the heck out the second they could is just good common sense.
 
What enforced atheism? she's not letting in missionaries, but that's hardly a ban on religion.
Exactly. Her system bans people from coming if their reason is "to enlight the masses" or "convert the heretics" or some such. If their goal for coming is religion, they can't come. If they happen to follow a religion (that isn't on the short list for "actively harmful to self or others") but have a different reason for coming, then there is no issue.
 
I'm not sure if there's a specific word for what Taylor and Vivio are trying to get others to believe "I'm not a god", as opposed atheism, which I understand to mean "There are no gods".

I expect that the rules are agnostic, in that there are no specific rules for handling cults.

I imagine that cult gatherings (eg. Sunday mass) are handled under the same rules that cover allocating resources towards other gatherings; sewing circles, sports, conventions, fan clubs.

Ooh. Taylor should start her own fan club, to head off people trying to call it the Cult/Church of Minerva. =)

Unfortunately it's a tad late for Vivio to do that... or is it? I wonder what might happen if she did try?
 
I'm not sure if there's a specific word for what Taylor and Vivio are trying to get others to believe "I'm not a god", as opposed atheism, which I understand to mean "There are no gods".

Agnosticism is sometimes difficult to agree on it's definition. It can mean anywhere from "I don't know if the gods exist, but I'll act as if they do just in case" to "I don't know if the gods exist, but it doesn't really matter because I feel what I SHOULD do to be a good person doesn't change either way" or anything in between. Sometimes including the assertion that it cannot be possible to prove/disprove their existence.

Atheism tends to be a bit more hardline. The basic argument is usually something like: "There is no convincing proof that the gods exist. There is ample hard evidence suggesting they not only do not exist, never did exist, and CANNOT exist, therefore the only sensible assumption until new evidence is found proving otherwise is that these assertions are true."

Many Atheists have other opinions on the morals and ethics of gods and religions but this isn't the proper thread to discuss them.
 
Back
Top