>Metcalfe: A shining example of cogent argument:
>>Hence stick your slurs where the sun doesn't shine.
It was an imperative statement, not an argument. BTW I do have a first name. Use it.
Jose Ramos:
Me>>I am not repeating my arguments, I do not 'read too deeply', I do not
>>have a 'fixation' and I do not 'ignore' other people's points. Hence
>>stick your slurs where the sun doesn't shine.
>Let's see, I have just read you answering the same thing to Nikk Effingham,
>Nils Weinander and me.
Show an argument which has been repeated to Nikk, Nils and to you. Mere assertions don't count, especially considering what you say was said and what was actually said are apparently different things.
>I believe noone has slurred you, yet, and if intimidation is your
>objective, you apply it the wrong way. But of course, your divine
>mandate to be right precludes debate, I suppose.
O ho, it's 'intimidation' now, is it? More slurs from Jose.
>We know at length you don't like the boddhisattva parallel, because you
>don't want any Malkioni to believe the saints are outside Solace.
I do not like the boddhisvattva parallel because we have ample literature to suggest that the Saints are in Solace (Hrestol ascending to Solace on his martyrdom). To adopt the boddhisvattva parallel means we would have to junk this marvellous imagery. Hence it is not just 'my dislike' which is causing the disagreement.
>And you go to extreme length to disavow living Saints, false saints,
>etc, as they cannot be in Solace.
This is a flat out lie. I have stated there are living Saints in Glorantha and cited them. I have never denied the existance of false Saints, merely that the God Learners deliberately made them up.
Given this, one is lead to wonder what else Jose has
>>Gerlant makes swords burst into flame, Rokar comforts the faithful.
>>How can you distinguish those manifestations from that of Saint
>>Orland striking people with the Thunderbolt?
>And I agree many sects will hold your position. But a quick look to
>christian sects will show little agreement on this matter. Why should the
>Malkioni be different?
You seem conflating two issues here. One is the issue of false saints and the other is the issue of whether Saints are in Solace. The existance of a dubious (or downright fictitious) saint has no bearing on its existance in Solace.
So I ask, once again, whether we can determine whether or not a Saint is in Solace or not. If the answer is "we can't", then nothing prevents the Ralians from saying Orland is in Solace.
>Weren't you (or perhaps the heretic Nick) who proposed a strong iconoclast
>current in the rokari church, followed by destruction of saint's imagery and
>proscribing saint worship as idolatry? A nice idea that influenced my
>thoughts on the western gloranthan religions.
How does this require the Saint not being in Solace beforehand?
>>Perhaps it helps to know what is said about the Saints before
>>arguing at depth about them...
>That's why instead of a blanket statement about saintly status (you
>dislike them, I believe) I prefer an individual position in each sect,
>with differing currents in large sects (as in RW).
You argued that the Rokari have no contact with their Saints. I have just shown differently. Now you purport to dismiss this as a blanket statement. BTW what differences can be found in Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy about the position of Saints?
>> [Snodal passage snipped]
>> Heroes v1 #6 p45
>Well, who has included Snodal in the saints list, and specially the Priests,
>and other heroes (believers enough in gods to kill one) who helped him? I
>thought it is Siglat the saint in the family.
Snodal is a Saint? Since when did that happen? And what about his companions? Are they too Saints?
>And your own arcane source shows there are different opinions among the
>scholars.
The difference is over the means to contact those in Solace. Communing with Malkioni in Solace is a Lawful Act as it is undertaken under the Aegis of the Church. Necromancy is a vile unclean crime as it is derived from the pagan ways of Witch- -Endor-esque mediums.
>And I repeat, AFAIK, the souls of mortals in Solace cannot be interacted
>with. One of the tenets of Malkioni faith, that shows their difference from
>theists.
Okay, I'll bite. Where does it say that? Put up or shut up.
>>>That is the root of the problem. You accept the statement: Saints are in
>>>Solace, while ignoring "All those in Solace cannot be interacted with (or
>>>something like that)".
>>I recall answering this in a response to Nils to the effect that I
>>_deny_ that people in Solace cannot be interacted with. Given that
>>this post was directly below the post you are responding to, may I ask
>>who is doing the ignoring in this debate?
>Maybe my knowledge of English is incomplete, but if you read again my
>statement (change denying for ignoring), you will see I acknowledge you
>deny "those in Solace cannot be interacted with."
Bollocks. 'ignore' and 'deny' are two different verbs with different meanings. Given that they both are of latin derivation, I find it difficult to believe that they have similar meanings in Spanish. Furthermore if you did mean to suggest that I was denying X then why did the hell did you describe my beliefs as a 'problem'? Weasel.
>I suppose you have not found an authoritative source for "All saints are in
>Solace", or with your mastery of cross referencing you would have posted it
>now.
I don't have to as one can rely on the simple syllogism:
PREMISE: Good Malkioni go to Solace after they die.
PREMISE: Saints are Good Malkioni.
CONCLUSION: Saints are in Solace.
Therefore the onus is on you to show why Malkioni should _not_ agree with this syllogism. BTW It is not enough to say 'this is a cool idea, let's use it to create dissension among the sects'. You have to show *why* the Malkioni would work themselves up into a fuss about it in the first place. Most of the other disputes that they have have real concrete implications: castes, tapping, sin, women, heretical saints (Arkat, Boris), strange practices (flagellation). Merely prattling at length about abstract metaphysics holds no attraction for most malkioni.
>BTW, I agree with Nikk Effingham. You need a _lack of proof_ when you deal
>with Malkionism, to differentiate from Theism. The confort of faith in God
>is felt by Christians anywhere, no matter what their sect, and that is not a
>an accepted proof of God's existence (although some Church Fathers have
>argued so, Anselm, I believe).
You should try arguing with modern fundamentalists. By feeling this 'comfort'/'presence of the holy spirit' they take this as proof that every detail of their faith is completely and utterly correct. Most Malkioni by partaking of the 'Worship Invisible God' will be utterly convinced of the veracity of their church's tenets.
Nils Weinander:
>> 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.
>Nobody else seems to have come to that conclusion.
Because nobody is taking the trouble of rebutting it and nobody else has been accused of making a big fuss.
>> So what is wrong with the concept that people in Solace can
>> be contacted?
>Nothing wrong, it just clashes with the general opinion
>on Solace.
Whose general opinion is this? Jose, Nikk and yourself? Why should we junk, for example, the crime of necromancy merely for this?
>> It's contradicted by the existance of Malkion
>> and Hrestol having an influence on the mortal world.
>They were the holy prophets, making laws and setting
>examples.
As they also set the examples of Sainthood and are now in Solace, surely it follows other Saints are also in Solace?
>> >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?
>The saints can be contacted, aunt Edna who swore in the
>temple and had an affair with the neighbour once can be
>contacted but angelic uncle Fred who was an exemplary
>Malkioni in every way can be reached with the utmost
>difficulty. That's the problem.
Why is a hierachy of difficulty a 'problem'? It accords well with the Malkioni belief that the world resists contact with the Invisible God and so those closer to him are more difficult to reach. Besides not all Saints are equally easy to reach.
>>>That's a mark of a saint: the miracle making.
>> How do the Saints work their miracles?
>Magic, in a similar way that deities and heroes grant
>it to their devotees.
What distinguishes the Saint's miracles from the wizard's spells and prayers?
>>The Saints in Solace is hardly my 'fixation' as it is almost canonical
>>as you can get.
>Is it? Malkion and Hrestol are explicitly said to have ascended into
>Solace. What I and a few other Digesters are less sure about are the
>rest of the saints. I think there is no such canon - yet.
FYI Rokar is also said to have ascended into Solace and Mardron 'embraced Solace and Glory' upon his death, according to ToTRM#13.
[responding to the Snodal quote]
>Do we know that Snodal is in Solace?
He was a Good Malkioni according to the Loskalmi.
>If someone found his _ghost_ it sounds rather like he is stuck
>in the material world.
Note that the ghost was sent by the Invisible God. Why would that be needed, if he was stuck in the material world?
>>Therefore there is nothing to prevent
>>intercession with the lower world.
>OTOH there is nothing to prescribe it either.
And the reason for proscribing is?
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #622
Powered by hypermail