Like, say, you have a character who objectively is the best person for the job, but he's missing part of a finger. For a long time in the Catholic church, he would've been barred from the priesthood based on a certain interpretation of a single line of text. If you're a believer, then there's not much to discuss, here.
Er. Um. I'm guessing you really haven't spent much time in religious circles. Or, at least, the only ones you've spent time in have been some of the more strident "Conservative (American) Christian" ones. (I am politically conservative, and I am a devout Christian. I have a huge number of very, very large theological disagreements with the entirety of the "Conservative Christian" wing of American Protestantism for both theological and political reasons.)
The "not much to discuss, here" only holds true if you are speaking of believers in that particular interpretation. And there are very few points (if there are any at all) that are always interpreted the same by everybody. For example, if you ask me if the Bible is the Word of God, I will say yes. So will a fundamentalist. But if you ask us to explain what it means that the Bible is the Word of God, we will have vastly different explanations because we both mean different things when we say "The Bible is the Word of God."
Basically, a lot of religious people spend a lot of time debating theology and practical applications, and various interpretations thereof, and (at least in the Western Christianity with which I am most familiar) there tends to be a far wider degree of diversity of belief and practice at any given historical moment than is generally remembered today. So if I'm reading a story with religious characters (whether set in the real world or a fantasy/SF world) and everyone believes the same thing and interprets the sacred text the same and emphasizes the same bits of theology and practices everything the same way, I raise my eyebrows. Because that's not, in my experience, the way things actually go, even if the leaders of that particular group/kingdom/church/whatever would claim that everyone believed and worshiped exactly the same. There will be similarities, yes, but not identical anything.
It may help you to focus on relationships. From what I can tell, pretty much every religion focuses on two basic things: how its adherents relate to the divine (in whatever way that religion perceives the divine) and how they relate to each other. So, what kind of relationships do your characters have with the divine in this world you have created? Is it a personal relationship with a vaguely human-like deity or deities? Is it a more general sense of connection to the divine as found in some sort of a spirit world? How does their relationship with that divine affect their relationships with other people? How is all that different for Character A than it is for Character B? Then, once you have all of that planned out, ask yourself how those relationships would be ritually acted out, keeping in mind that no two people are going to believe and practice exactly the same way. Don't assume that nobody in this religion grapples with the problems you have, but at the same time don't assume they frame the question the same way you do, either.
If you're trying to make a sympathetic/understandable portrayal of why someone would do something that would normally be considered awful, don't focus on the awfulness of it (unless they're a sociopath, the character won't be focused on the awfulness of it). What are they trying to accomplish by doing that? What other evil are they trying to prevent? Even if, to you, it seems like a stupid evil, you have to take it seriously.
A historical example. Christians have, in some places and times, burned heretics and witches at the stake. This was, in many cases, seen as the merciful form of execution, more merciful than hanging. Why? Because it gives the heretic/witch time to repent. If you believe that someone will go to hell and be eternally tormented for the sins they have done/their wrong beliefs, then giving them as much time as possible during their final moments to change their mind and throw themselves on God's mercy and possibly escape Hell is the merciful thing to do. So, if you were asking someone who burned heretics alive why they did it, they might say something like "it's a horrible way to die, and I hate it, but I hate the idea of them going to Hell even more. The torment of these earthly flames is far, far less than they will have to endure if they go to Hell. I hope and pray they repent, and if burning alive helps them do it, then it is worth it."
I hope that helps. Thank you so much for being thoughtful and open-minded enough to ask these questions.
no subject
Date: 18 Mar 2013 06:19 am (UTC)Er. Um. I'm guessing you really haven't spent much time in religious circles. Or, at least, the only ones you've spent time in have been some of the more strident "Conservative (American) Christian" ones. (I am politically conservative, and I am a devout Christian. I have a huge number of very, very large theological disagreements with the entirety of the "Conservative Christian" wing of American Protestantism for both theological and political reasons.)
The "not much to discuss, here" only holds true if you are speaking of believers in that particular interpretation. And there are very few points (if there are any at all) that are always interpreted the same by everybody. For example, if you ask me if the Bible is the Word of God, I will say yes. So will a fundamentalist. But if you ask us to explain what it means that the Bible is the Word of God, we will have vastly different explanations because we both mean different things when we say "The Bible is the Word of God."
Basically, a lot of religious people spend a lot of time debating theology and practical applications, and various interpretations thereof, and (at least in the Western Christianity with which I am most familiar) there tends to be a far wider degree of diversity of belief and practice at any given historical moment than is generally remembered today. So if I'm reading a story with religious characters (whether set in the real world or a fantasy/SF world) and everyone believes the same thing and interprets the sacred text the same and emphasizes the same bits of theology and practices everything the same way, I raise my eyebrows. Because that's not, in my experience, the way things actually go, even if the leaders of that particular group/kingdom/church/whatever would claim that everyone believed and worshiped exactly the same. There will be similarities, yes, but not identical anything.
It may help you to focus on relationships. From what I can tell, pretty much every religion focuses on two basic things: how its adherents relate to the divine (in whatever way that religion perceives the divine) and how they relate to each other. So, what kind of relationships do your characters have with the divine in this world you have created? Is it a personal relationship with a vaguely human-like deity or deities? Is it a more general sense of connection to the divine as found in some sort of a spirit world? How does their relationship with that divine affect their relationships with other people? How is all that different for Character A than it is for Character B? Then, once you have all of that planned out, ask yourself how those relationships would be ritually acted out, keeping in mind that no two people are going to believe and practice exactly the same way. Don't assume that nobody in this religion grapples with the problems you have, but at the same time don't assume they frame the question the same way you do, either.
If you're trying to make a sympathetic/understandable portrayal of why someone would do something that would normally be considered awful, don't focus on the awfulness of it (unless they're a sociopath, the character won't be focused on the awfulness of it). What are they trying to accomplish by doing that? What other evil are they trying to prevent? Even if, to you, it seems like a stupid evil, you have to take it seriously.
A historical example. Christians have, in some places and times, burned heretics and witches at the stake. This was, in many cases, seen as the merciful form of execution, more merciful than hanging. Why? Because it gives the heretic/witch time to repent. If you believe that someone will go to hell and be eternally tormented for the sins they have done/their wrong beliefs, then giving them as much time as possible during their final moments to change their mind and throw themselves on God's mercy and possibly escape Hell is the merciful thing to do. So, if you were asking someone who burned heretics alive why they did it, they might say something like "it's a horrible way to die, and I hate it, but I hate the idea of them going to Hell even more. The torment of these earthly flames is far, far less than they will have to endure if they go to Hell. I hope and pray they repent, and if burning alive helps them do it, then it is worth it."
I hope that helps. Thank you so much for being thoughtful and open-minded enough to ask these questions.
(here from