>>>Are [Hrestol's relevations] understood [as part of Malkioni materialism]?
>>>I believe that this is matter for some contention among the Malkioni ...
>> The only people who claim that the true understanding of Hrestol's
>> message has been lost are the Perfecti.
>Not true. The Rokari, to start with, claim that such understanding (lost
>during the period of the God Learners), was returned by the personal
>Revelation of Saints Hrestol and Malkion to St Rokar in the fourteenth
>century.
I fear that we are drifting in context somewhat. My position is that Hrestol's message has for the most part been understood in traditional Malkioni modes of thought (ie so-called materialism). That was the path he was brought up with, the path his followers thought in and that is the context by which his message has been transmitted down through the ages within the Malkioni church.
If Hrestol had been a mystic along the lines of the Perfecti today, I would have thought that somewhere along the line, a follower (like Duke Yadmov) would have written down the methods by which he achieved his status.
Now most Malkioni may quibble about what Hrestol taught (cf the dispute on whether one may rise through the castes), but their differences are not large compared to the Perfecti who are teaching something that is completely radical in Malkionism.
>> Given that [the Perfecti] claims are used to justify cultic
>> practices that are demonstrably non-Malkioni in origin, orthodox
>> Malkioni have little difficulty in dismissing them as deluded
>> idiots.
>"orthodox Malkioni" ? Which ones?
The usual gang of Hrestoli, Rokari and Sedalpists.
>Politically, and theologically, I don't think that such dismissal can
>be as easy as you claim, except of course for pedantic and small-minded
>fanatics.
Politically and theological dismissals are quite easy to accomplish if one a) makes the _a_ _priori_ assumption that the other side is completely and utterly wrong in every particular and b) has the will and the power to ensure that such beliefs should be extirpated with the conversion or extermination of the belief holders. Attempts at compromise and/or understanding the other side's PoV are more likely to end in internal corruption and rampant heresy.
>> IMO the RW parallel would be to say that the gospels are completely
>> wrong and that Jesus said something different
>But many people *have* indeed believed just such over the centuries.
Yes. But they are still wrong from a mainstream christian PoV (or a Higher Criticism PoV for that matter).
>St Augustine seemed to believe that many within the Church weren't
>christians at all, and that many who were without were far truer
>to Christ.
Undoubtedly he was thinking of Pelagius at the time.
>Religious messages are NOT, in fact, universally heeded as you have
>suggested, even among "orthodox" Malkioni, whoever they are.
I never said they were. My intent is to show that there are broad streams of thought and that particular points in a stream should be understood within the stream rather than indulge in speculation about whether it belonged to another stream.
Powered by hypermail