Re: Runes for non-theists [was: 'Three Runes']

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_V2Eotd3gqHIpIdgIOXKCZCWSLLPvKgE6rrmiv0gYuhK-CTOE7zzt0ZkyeqQQImHH3TA>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:23:37 +1300


John Machin wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_kVlez9OvfO0Rd21OZRGfONblmzdXNMuF0hEqPp8_OmJHk7oqb8VmicIUuD0ItV00dCihrQVYtWCtWbEWNjZOAw-1J2RU.yahoo.invalid>

>> The actual statement is "an affinity is something you are". Given that
>> the Westerners worship Saints, the Praxians worship Waha and Eiritha and
>> practically every other animist follows a Really Big Spirit of some
>> sort, to characterise the emulation of immortals as the sin qua non of
>> theism is at odds with what we know about glorantha.

> Western magic does not come from personally and literally *embodying* a > saint. Unless I missed something.

You originally stated that my suggestions were crypto-theism. I was trying to understand what you meant. Since you have just given your definition of theism (and a good one it is too), I should point out that my original suggestions did not rely on the concept of literally embodying a saint or spirit - the knights for example were filled with the power of the Invisible God as revealed by the Saints for example.

Now that we have cleared that up, could I make a suggestion to be a bit fuller in your comments? A sentence or two expanding on what you thought the key problem was would have been considerably more informative than a cryptic comment.

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail