> This is reflected by how closely the subject embodies the virtues that
>the god favors. Again, this is a question of practice (seen broadly as
what
>the person does) rather than what the person believes or thinks. If the
>person doesn't consider those virtues important, he won't be able to
>manifest those virtues in his life.
I can't accept this, I'm afraid. I define hipocrisy as a mismatch between what you think and what you do. I think it is quite possible to manifest virtues you don't believe in (equally I think it possible to not manifest virtues which you do).
> In orthopraxic systens a person can be devoted to a particular god.
For
> [snip]
>there's a strong element of contract here. He loves her because she's done
>things for him.
I agree that this defines orthopraxy.
> I still think you're looking at this the wrong way. It's not a
question
>of the god not caring about this issue. It's that the issue simply isn't
>relevant at all. When an engineer builds a plane, it simply isn't issue of
>what he thinks about the air or what the air thinks about him. What
matters
>is whether he builds the plane according to the laws that allow it fly in
>the air. If he fails to keep to those laws, the air won't properly lift
the
>plane. (Grossly oversimplified, I know.)
Again, I agree with this, within the context of an orthopractic Glorantha. What I don't necessarily agree with is that Glorantha is orthopractic.
I expect we're in danger of wandering into 'impersonal gods' territory, which I know has spawned long drawn out threads in the past. I will happily agree that, if the gods are impersonal forces of "nature", then hipocrisy isn't an issue.
Richard
Powered by hypermail