> goes on to make some spurious comments about his involvement.
In what sense are these comments "spurious"? As pointless as it is to be rude about people who're in error/disagree with one, to do so when they're right/agree with you seems the height of flamesummoning.
> But what does this have to do with Orlanths free will? I would
> think the fact that these questions where only settled by political and
> military means precisely that there was no unequivocal 'word of God' on the
> matter.
I believe the Other David was saying almost exactly that. It's a well-known phenomenon that the victors in such a fight will reason that they won _because_ they were right, that God was on their side, etc, and I'd be astonished if Glorantha were any different in this regard. How they choose to see His intervention at some points, and non-intervention at others may be a matter of no little furious rationalising and hair-splitting, of course.
> Trotsky points out the Arrolians - are we to assume that the Red
> Goddess has no free will, but Orlanth has, because the Arrolian question
> has not been resolved but Lokamayadonism has been? Absurd.
And a total straw man.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail