>I already said so, but I repeat (and you can re-ignore, of course):cogito
>ergo sum (you are learning, Alex), by modern philosophy is not an avidence
>anymore. It's just the evidence of subjectivity, but evidence implies
>objectivity so... what a mess!
>In the Christian Catholic sense: faith and believing is not a matter of
>emotion, no-basis, mere thought or superstition. It is a matter of
>subjective evidence (the mess is back) based on the fact that you, as a
>human being, have been Loved by Someone. The rest, all the rest, is
>subsequential. Love here is not an emotion but an act of will and of being
>by God Himself.
>I do not want to convert you, guys, I simply show why I think that in
>Glorantha, faith, being based on do ut des, I give Power because you, deity,
>give me blessing (also the Invisible God). So, I say, RW faith, Christian RW
>faith does not exist in Glorantha. It is more similar to medieval and
>primitive superstition (I propritiate the deity so he/she/it spares me,
>gives me power, victory, fruits etc.
>
>A pity to apprehend you are no religious, Alex, really.
I have to confess that I haven't followed this debate too closely,
but this posting caught my eye, and in a lot of ways I'd have to agree with
Gian here. Ancient religion, which RQ religion tries to imitate in many
ways, is based on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. In other words,what
matters is that you perform your rituals correctly, not what you think
while you're performing them. It's a system of contractual obligations
between diety and worshipper. Belief in a diety in the modern sense is
irrelevant. Modern faith, at least Christian faith, works on an entirely
different principle. This might be different for some other modern faiths
(Santeria leaps to mind immediately), but I'm not really qualified to speak
about that.
Andrew E. Larsen