> > > >That's a bit of a theological tail-chaser IMO : surely, by
> > > >_definition_ an impersonal god doesn't engage in personal
> > > >relationships with mortals ?
>
> > > I never said the relationship was "personal".
>
> >But the personal-ness is implicitly suggested by the use of the
> >word 'relationship'. Only people (or other entities having
> >personality) can engage in relationships, surely ?
>
> But it does not require that both parties to the relationship
> be capable of personality. "I love my country" is a statement
> of a personal relationship to a demonstrably impersonal entity.
Symbolised over here in Frogland by "Marianne" ...
Anyway, I'm buying your first point.
I _could_ argue that one's country isn't necessarily a
"demonstrably impersonal entity", but not on this forum.
> >To start with : is 'God' within Creation or not (shades of the olde
> >Saint Plane debate) ?
>
> Split between the Loskalmi and the Rokari. The Loskalmi believe
> that the Godhead is Irensavel who is "totally separate" from the
> world, and thus hidden. The Rokari believe that God's ultimate
> identity is Makan who is immanent within the Creation, and thus
> invisible.
Now you're talking !!
So (easiest first), Loskalm has more atheists than Seshnela (makes sense).
The Rokari would see atheism as blasphemy ; but the Loskalmi would have a more varied approach to the issue.
That's cool info.
> >what sort of 'relationship' would the uneducated have with such
> >an 'impersonal god' ?
>
> Fidelity to the laws.
Obedience ? AKA ritual ...
> Development of their logical faculties through
> philosophy that allows them to appreciate the splendor of the same.
We're talking about the Loskalmi, right ?
I can see that this is the ideal of Hrestoli religion ; what I can't see is that it would be generally successful. I don't think most peasants would accept the Idealism, so I guess that the educational dimension of their religion must be basically lost on them. Bums on pews.
Which is fine for Glorantha BTW.
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail