Simon Hibbs:
>Far too simplistic, as both cultures takes either approach as it suits
>them at the time.
Dave Pearton:
>I have to disagree with this - Orlanthi have traditionally been very
>inclusive in religious terms. The unity-council dawn-age missionaries
>were "Orlanthi". The orlanthi also played a significant role in the
>broken council. The hunting and waltzing bands and the EWF were
>also based to a large extent on Orlanthi peoples. It is probably the
>case that Harmast's reforms and the EWF debacle made them a tad
>more insular in just what they accept from other religions but this has
>not always been the case.
Let me find a RW analogy: Suppose I said, 'Europeans tend to be
monotheists'. I suppose you would say:
'False. Europeans are monotheists now, but they were not monotheists in the
past. Romans were polytheists and Celts were pantheists'. 'They approach
religion as it suits them at the time.'
Now, both in the case of RW Europeans and Orlanthi and lunars I was thinking on their approach at a certain moment in time. More specifically, I was thinking about late third age Glorantha. I know it was different in the past. What I say is that any given culture will have an identifiable pattern of behavior relating to 'ecumenism' (or lack of it) in any given time. This pattern may change over time, of course.
Simon Hibbs:
>Two cultures can be merrily at war with each other, only to discover
>that they actualy worship some of the same gods.
Of course, once more like in the RW (catholics fighting protestans; Spanish catholics fighting Portuguese catholics). Yet in Glorantha I suppose (notice that this is a conditional statement) that there should be a clear frontier between non-religious and religious wars. Followers of a given god (say, Orlanth) can fight each other in a non-religious war. They can even call on their common god to arbitrate the war (a little like the judgement of god and ordails (don't know the exact English word) of medieval Europe). But I suppose that, say, Orlanth would not allow a religious war among orlanthi. It simply makes no sense. This is different from the RW. In the RW there were religious wars between parties of the same religion and the same church. The example at hand is the wars between the French and the Italian popes of medieval Europe. In Glorantha I assume the god would solve the conflict before it turned into war by signaling clearly which side had his aproval.
Me:
>>IMO that means that it's much harder to
>>assimilate two disparate gods into a single entity.
Simon Hibbs:
>Gloranthan theists don't have such an objective view of their deities.
>The real question is - what _is_ the real nature of Orlanth and Kahar?
>Are they connected at a deep theological level? This is a question a
>theist Orlanth worshiper might want to ask.
Sorry Simon, but I think you're confounding things. I agree with you when
you say that 'Gloranthan theists don't have such an objective view of their
deities'. Most of them deal their gods at an emotional level, not at an
intelectual level. They personalize their gods. It's Orlanth the *good*,
Orlanth the *giver*, the *fighter*, the *merciful*.
Most people don't ask "what _is_ the real nature of [my god]". And they
don't ask-it because that question, contrary to what you say, requires an
objective view of the deity. To ask this is to objectify and intelectualize
godhood.
The same can be said about the question: "[is god X] connected at a deep
theological level [with god Z]?". To ask this is to objectify and
intelectualize godhood. Most people just don't do it. That's why an
orlanthi would not even dream of asking himself if Orlanth and Kahar had
*the same nature*, or if they were *connected at a deep theologiacl level*.
In the real world the intricacies of theology are not for the faint of heart. They are for philosophers and professional theologists. I don't see why Glorantha should be different in this respect.
>To use your militaristic example. The British army and the U.S. army
>are not the same thing, but they _are_ very often on the same side,
>part of the same order of battle and under the same overall commander.
Agreed. This is the type of relationship among gods we find within a given pantheon.
>So it is with the Sartarite Uroxi and the praxian Storm Bull cult. The
>two cults are separate social organisations, yet they are unified in their
>worship of their god.
I didn't say that a given god cannot be worshiped by two peoples in different terms. All christians worship Christ and God, but there are contless ways of worshiping it. So, the Sartarite Urixi and the Praxian Storm Buller recognize they are worshiping the same god. Their myths and religious history will explain this. But their religious practices reflect their different cultures.
Dave Pearton:
>A significant proportion of the lunars (the core Dara Happans) are
>anything but inclusive - a result of the Yelm is NOT... movement
>which still reverberates through Yelmic society in the 1600's.
You seem to be confounding two different senses of the word *lunar*: The religious sense and the political sense. In the religious sense, a lunar is someone that professes a lunar religion (Red Godess, 7M, etc.). In that sense, Yelmies are not lunars. In the political sense, a lunar is someone that fits himself within the Lunar Empire. In that sense Dara Happans are lunars. I was only using the word lunar in the first sense. So, Dara Happan Yelmies are insular? true. But I never mentioned them in my message. I was referring to lunar-gods' worshipers. The lunar way is inclusive. It can even include insular gods like Yelm.
>The lunars are certainly not inclusive of Orlanth either.
False. They would certainly be happy to include Orlanth within the pattern of their religions, like they did with Yelm. The only nagging problem is that Orlanth doesn't want to be included. Examples: Tarsh, Sartar, Pavis. Lunars accept Orlanthi that don't antagonize blatantly the lunar way. The key is to accept to coexist with the Red Godess in peace, if not in love.
Dave Pearton:
>I just want to illustrate that things are not quite as simple as just
>two patterns might indicate and this view tends to obscure more
>than it enlightens.
You know, there is only that much that one can say in GD. Most of the time this means that arguments will look simplistic. Anyway, look at the two patterns (insularity vs. inclusiveness) not as two mutually exclusive, opposing, black-an-white-like possibilities. I see them more as the extreme points in a continoum, with all shades in between.
Sergio
Powered by hypermail