>>That's magic?
No, but it rebuts your statement that religion represents group interests. As a practicing "religioneer" who has frequently spoken with members of other sects about their religious practices and beliefs (i.e., Ba'hai, Buddhist, other Christian sects, Islam, pagan, Satanist, etc.), I can confirm that whatever philosophers have imagined up for themselves as religion's "true" function, it definitely is considered by its practitioners to be useful primarily on an individual level. Whatever effects it has on society as a whole are secondary concerns, compared to one's own family and friends. No doubt most believers would state that if all society adhered to their faith, things would be even better, but this societal benefit would follow largely from the fact that hosts of individuals would all be better off and more righteous.
Anyway, I believe that the main difference between the theists and the Malkioni is that the theists believe in a personal god, who cares about them individually, while the Malkioni believe in an impersonal being who made a bunch of hydrogen at the start of the universe and then sat back and watched it fester.
Martin
>my view has always been that the cults of the Orlanthi (frex)
>are more like different churches in the same sect, analogous to
the >many saints' venerators in the early church, than they are like
>separate religions
Yes, I concur with this. Or perhaps they can be compared to the multitude of Protestant Christian sects in the United States, both today and especially during the religious revival of the early 1800s. A Methodist, Episcopalian, and Lutheran might all belong to the same family, but go to different churches on Sunday. Yet they are all accepted as good Christians, though naturally prejudices can arise ("Them Baptists! A po' folks faith for the unwashed and unlettered. Not like us upstanding Presbyterians!). A century or two previously, there was open hostility between sects, but no more. Except of course for weird cultist bands beyond the pale, such as Mormons, Quakers, and Papists. (Well, nowadays Papists seem to have become almost respectable.)
Martin
>But there are two problems with Sandy's thesis: 1) you don't need
a >priest/wizard/shaman for every problem any more than you need a
>doctor for every headache or a lawyer every time your neighbor does
>you dirty.
Now see here. Just what _are_ these mysterious problems you're talking about? Whatever they are, evidently they require magic to solve them (because you need a magician), but they don't need Rune Magic or real strong sorcery, or a powerful spirit, since you don't need a priest/wizard/shaman. So evidently you can get by with spirit magic or weaker sorcery.
Well, first off, why not cast the damn spirit magic yourself? That's why you joined the cult!
In addition, for every priest, wizard, or shaman, there are a dozen acolytes, journeymen, and apprentices. Just because I wrote that you can go to "the Issaries cult" for benefits, you're not forced to hire the high priest himself. You can choose a regular priest, or a mere initiate, for decreasing price and value.
>2) people everywhere have independent magic, and sufficiently
>sophisticated peoples have always had independent magicians.
I do not concur. 1) In what important way _are_ Issaries priests, wizards,and shamans NOT independent? The Issaries priest gets the vast majority of his income out of his dealings with others. The wizard who lacks a government or clerical appointment must make his living by selling his talents. The shaman typically is willing and eager to perform magic for a fee. Just because they believe in a particular cultural religious philosophy doesn't make them non-independent.
2) So-called "Independent" magicians are still part of the culture at large. The Taoist monk who hides up a hill and does magic for visiting villagers isn't in a vacuum. He has a very structured world-view and method of study. The New Orleans voodoo queen doesn't get her powers from nowhere. She is part of an ancient religious/magic tradition. An Ozarks magic-man gets his powers from God (rarely Satan instead), his incantations mention "God Jesus and Holy Spirit", and he well may attend church every Sunday. In other words, these fellows aren't "independent" if by that you mean someone "without any religious ties whatsoever". NO one in Glorantha is without religious, philosophical, or cultural ties.
3) If what you're talking about are astrologers, phrenologists, psychic advisors, and the like, then I do not see any difference between going to an Issaries acolyte and asking for a foretelling of a journey's outcome or going to an astrologer and asking him to forecast the same. The palmist might be a dedicated scholar of an ancient science, or he might be a faker who picked up all he knew of the art in a pamphlet he found at 7-11. The same goes for your Issaries priest, "registered" sorcerer-for-hire, or shaman. The ploy of pretending to be a real priest or sorcerer is no doubt a common one among Gloranthan con men (emulating a fake shaman is harder, but they can at least pretend to more power than they have).
Sandy
Powered by hypermail