I believe a lot of religious people and religious leaders would say they've faced many moments of doubt. This is an over generalization. Now there are zealots of every faith who will be unmoved, but I have known quite a few people to convert away from christianity, many who converted to it, and many who flip flop every so many years.
The details change but the faith remains the same. Pick somebody, anybody, and try to talk them out of believing. Converting from Christian to Muslim or the other way around for example, Not hard because the believer doesn't know what either of them is. Never read the Bible or the Koran all the way through, nor will they.
Well, I am a religious person, and I have read the Bible all of the way through, as well as the Quran, and the Torah. So by this (admittely small) sample size, I'd say 100% of the believers I know well enough to speak for have in fact read those books.
I'll do some revising and the chance of this ever getting published is next to zero anyway. So I think I'll just tell the story I want to tell because once the story is on paper I'll get a better idea of what can be "side-stepped" and what needs to be addressed. Sometimes that can be hard to see when an idea is new, you have to get to know your plotline and characters.
Why set a book in 14th century England and then establish a whole new religion and a tribe of 'non believers?' I think it is time to 'hand over,' and think about the reader a little bit more. You could have so much fun writing it immersive in the whole fulcrum of religiosity, if that's the word? I just worry about a reader's irritation with an imposed moral code, an enlightened voice might be slock or sickly.
No matter what you do or how you do it, someone is going to be offended. So I recommend that you go-to-it and have fun.
Wow. If those are the actual words your friend used, that sounds chillingly like a veiled threat. Whatever you write, whatever it may be, whatever the topic, subject, trope, whatever it is, write it knowingly and with intent. If the message that was pointed out to you was the one you meant to deploy, then deploy it. Do not ask for permission, and do not accept subjugation. Make your choices - own their outcomes. If what was pointed out to you was not your intention, then take the critique and revise accordingly.
"Witchcraft" might not be accurate per se, but every religion I can think of draws a moral line between good and bad magic/usage of supernatural forces. The Abrahamic religions have miracles powered by God standing in contrast to witchcraft powered by Satan. The Romans tolerated diviners while dealing out draconian punishment to poisoners. Medicine men vs. skinwalkers in the lore of some Native American tribes. That sort of thing. It's important to understand that magic in the minds of pre-modern humans was intrinsically tied to herbalism. So sure, you had people healing others with "magic", but you also had so-called witches brewing and selling poisons and offering their services as assassins. They'd cast curses for a fee, too. You can see an example of this sort of thing with the death of Germanicus, Roman general and likely heir to the throne, as recorded in the Annals of Imperial Rome. He mysteriously fell ill after getting into a political feud with the governor of Syria, Piso. Germanicus himself claimed to have been poisoned (one form of recognized black magic), and Tacitus writes that a search of Piso's house turned up hidden body parts and Germanicus's name inscribed on lead tablets (elements of a curse). Piso died before he could be brought to trial for this and other crimes. So the actual efficacy of poisons and the belief in the power of curses fostered a bit of paranoia. If you made enemies, they could find someone to strike at you with unseen, seemingly unstoppable forces. Now, turning to the OP, I'd say that if you're going to construct a religion you should go ahead and construct a completely original setting too. Anything less is jarring. As far as the actual handling of religion goes, it might be useful for you to know that throughout the Low and High Middle Ages the official position of the Catholic Church was that magic and witchcraft didn't exist at all and that anyone who believed in their actual power (whether they were a witch or were accusing someone of being a witch) was a heretic. This started to change in the 1400s, and within a century the witch hunting craze kicked off. Low intensity witch hunts had happened before that, without top down support from the Church, but they were fairly sporadic. Even during the Black Death. Jews were the favored scapegoats at that time. What does all that mean for you and your story? Well, one way to address the concerns about how religion is portrayed is to show your created religion's leadership taking a position like the Medieval Church's (witchcraft doesn't exist, or certain types of magic are acceptable and others aren't, or this group isn't responsible for the plague, etc.) while your lower-level, localized witch hunter characters take a more extreme one (witches exist, or there is no good magic, or this group is definitely responsible for the plague because they aren't getting sick, etc.). That approach would incorporate the sort of nuance previous posters mentioned.
Well, modern Wicca was created as a formal religion in 1954. How accurately it reconstructs actual ancient pagan practices (and the term "pagan" covered a huge spectrum of traditions across a wide area, many of which had very little in common with each other) is the subject of lively debate. I was raised Roman Catholic, I had read the Bible for myself by the age of 15, and my position has since drifted from Christian to agnostic since then. So your assertion is incorrect, and you're displaying the exact same dogmatism and inflexible thinking you're accusing theistic people of.
That's how I'd suggest going about it. Get an idea of the plot and characters, then think about the sort of religion that will facilitate that plot, and deepen those characters by showing how they interact with the religion (whether they're following it or rebelling against it).
You were raised Roman Catholic, that doesn't mean that you ever blindly believed. As for my inflexible thinking, you're right to a point, but I'm older than dirt and there comes a time when you have to get off the fence before you die. I try not to be inflexible, I really do.
The "blindly believed" qualifier is a new addition you've only just tacked on. It sounds like an attempt to walk back your assertions because you realised that throwing around blanket accusations is very rude, and easily disprovable at that. Frankly, I can understand people not wanting to talk about the nuances of a highly personal and important part of their lives to you if you come out with all guns blazing like that. And yes, I unquestioningly believed for a time, and I no longer do. Your point remains wrong. Why would I need to get off the fence? There's a lot of benefits to remaining open to arguments.
This kind of sounds like, "Nobody who really believes can be talked out of it, unless they can be talked out of it, in which case that's proof that they don't really believe." A pretty circular definition. It might make more sense to just say, "There are some people whose minds can't be changed."
A friendly reminder that this was the OP. It may be possible that this thread has run its course, and what could be said has already been said.
But I think this speaks to the OPs question. Will he get in trouble for exploring a religion even one he made up? Well look at how much trouble I'm getting into here.
In an effort to tie this back to the OP, I'm willing to accept that religious people of different faiths all believe they're right ("being right" is actually implicit in what it means to have a faith or belief, even outside a religious context). Muslims and Christians went into battle against one another, and each side firmly believed God was on their side. This gets awkward when using an example where people of the same faith fought against each other. I disagree that "there's no talking them out of it". It's no-true-Scotsman territory; if a person can be talked out of it then suddenly they were never "really" a believer. It would be of no benefit for the OP to hold this point of view. In fact, it'd be the opposite of "exploring". It'd be incredibly limiting. My advice to the OP would instead be to have a mixture of characters, some of whom are unmoving and some of whom have inner-conflict. As ChickenFreak said, there admittedly are people whose minds cannot be changed, but they only represent a fraction of all religious people.
First of all, never show your WIP to people you know. Just don't. The only offense here is allowing interruption of your creative process! Never ask for people's opinion on thoughts in progress. If you are looking for approval, finish what you have before someone else taints it with judgement. Speaking of approval, I hereby grant Eternal and overriding approval of everything you will ever write before anyone judges it. So, write on! I had to work out how a machine would resolve disproving the existence of God. I ended up logically proving the existence of God, while simultaneously disproving the premise of religion itself. * shrug * The machine's conclusion was that faith was critical to human survival. So, it's in the story to stay. Anyway, send me a link to whatever you have concerns about, anytime. The only thing I will ever do is ask what you mean, and challenge you to finish it.
