>You have the KoL. Then the prophet Malkion gives his laws.
Malkion founded the Kingdom of Logic IMO.
Nils Weinander:
Me>> You are doing it again! In the last post you said you wanted
>> it because it would be a useful bone of contention between
>> the differing sects. And now it's back to all saints are
>> postponing Solace.
>No, I'm not. You are the only one who has mentioned
>_all_ saints in this debate. Right now it seems to me
>that you have read mine and others' arguments as
>meaning "all Malkioni saints are exactly like buddhist
>bodhisattvas". That is not what I'm suggesting.
In the absense of _any_ qualification _whatsoever_ about the model, the default assumption is that the model is going to apply to all Saints in general. Thus trying to blame me for the furore caused by your slipshod writing is disingenuous.
>For further qualification: even if the model were
>all-encompassing, that wouldn't mean that the malkioni
>themselves knew about it. They can still argue to no
>end about the nature of saints.
I frankly do not the time for gloranthan metaphysical theories that are unknown by the people who are allegedly affected by it. If the Malkioni say the Saints are in Solace then for all intents and purposes, we should treat them as being there rather than smirk at the ignorance of the Malkioni.
>So, you say my model is wrong because some saints are
>known to be in Solace, that you have your own cool
>idea but don't want to expand on it since I have
>a differing opinion from the beginning?
I have explained my model in sufficient detail such I do not see the need to explain it any further (given that I do not know any further details). This is a completely _seperate_ matter about whether your model is right or wrong and I have _given_ good reasons _why_ I think it is incompatible with what we know about Malkionism.
>If you do have a good idea I want to know about it
>and why it is better than mine.
Reread the thread for details.
>If there are details
>which don't work in my model, I want to have either
>suggestions how to make it work better or another
>model which works better.
What is _wrong_ with the standard theory about Saints being in Solace? Why should I have to give you a 'better' model than the one we already have? My theory is merely an embellishment on the standard theory.
>[If Saints are in Solace] That also means that the premise
>that Solace is completely beyond the world, that
>those who have gone there cannot be contacted in any
>way, must go.
So what is wrong with the concept that people in Solace can be contacted? It's contradicted by the existance of Malkion and Hrestol having an influence on the mortal world.
>So, can ancestors be contacted in some way, or is that
>something which is the mark of saints? If they can,
>since holier saints are harder to reach, "bad" ancestors
>would be easier to contact than the exemplary malkioni
>ones. Odd, but perhaps consistent.
Why is it odd? The more entanglements with the mortal world, the closer you are to it, no?
>> If [Saints] are not in Solace, then how do they gain the
>> ability to work miracles?
>That's a mark of a saint: the miracle making.
How do the Saints work their miracles?
>But I would like to know the reason why you think they have
>to be in Solace for that.
Because they are in contact with the Invisible God and thus they are in Solace.
>Which brings up an interesting question: are living saints
>worshipped?
Yes. Look at the prosopaedia entry for Gerlant:
'Gerlant's prowess and honor became so legendary,
that even before his death, he was worshipped as
a Saint'
GoG Prosopaedia p7.
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #617
Powered by hypermail