Well, that came out of Xtainity's need to unify itself in the face of persecution,
and to weed out the weirdos from the church who were giving the authorities an
excuse to persecute the church.
(Supposedly there were 50-odd versions of the Gospel at one stage,
including the very strange and disturbing Gospel of St. Thomas. But that's another
matter.)
>
> Orthopractic systems, as John points out, are quite comfortable with
> more than one version of a particular story. For instance, there are
> multiple stories about the creation of the world in Egyptian mythology.
> These stories are pretty much mutually exclusive, but the Egyptians don't
> seem to have minded that.
Err, up to a point. Egypt was divided into about 50 different nones, or regions, each of
which had its
own tradition of gods worshipped. Which set of gods were the Big Kahunas varied
with the political importance of the different regions in Egypt (e.g. Heliopolis
verneated Ra more than Thebes
[Theban triad: Osirus, Isis, Horus the Younger]), so Ra's more important in the Old
Kingdom versus the Middle Kingdom (where he's mushed together with Amun).
But goes to show you can have a coherent political system that is wildly heterodox. Lunars take note.
> They seem to have been very comfortable telling
> contradictory stories to explain the same thing, because in an orthopractic
> system, it really doesn't make too much difference, unless it leads to a
> violation of orthopraxis. This is why the Egyptians ultimately couldn't
> accept Akhenaton's religious system, because it meant putting an end to long
> established religious rituals.
Well, that, and the fact that Aktenaten's response to requests from his generals like: "We're getting our butt kicked by the Hittites. Send more troops" was to tell them "Don't worry about it, Aten's bounty is plentiful, and oh look, just to cheer you up, here's a nice little hymn to Aten I wrote."
The Egyptians may just have decided they hated being ruled by a fecking hippy.
>
> > 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).
>
> Hypocrisy implies an intent to deceive. A worshipper would only be
> hypocritical if he claimed that he loved the god when he didn't (since the
> issue of existence isn't really relevant in Glorantha).
Tell that to the Brithini.
"Their Gods are merely the once-incarnate minds of ancient sorcerors or other
magic-weavers
who have managed to acquire a steady source of so-called magical power (i.e. the pure
primal
element, called by the ignorant "darkness") from their misguided worshippers. "
"Manifestations of the god, and alleged miracles are merely, as with all magic, the action
of the conscious mind upon this malleable element, which, from its nature, can be
transmuted into other elements and elemental effects though the focused will.
Because the element of darkness - the primal element - in its normal dodecahedral state,
interacts weakly with other
forms of matter, the phenomena associated with the manipulation of the primal element are
attributed to
"spirits" or to "gods".
However, in truth, all phenomena are, in the final cause, physical in their nature.
Knowledge of alchemical principles demonstrates this truth to us."
> Perhaps in
> Gloranthan terms one could be a hypocrite if one claimed to adhere to a
> virtue such as honor or generousity but then failed to demonstrate that
> virtue, but that's a question of practice, not belief.
Well, an alternative view might be to view the Gloranthan religions as being more like RW political parties. Yer lay members are the voters, yer initiates are the party activists and low-level office holders, and the devotees who are the equivalent of yer mayors and congresspeople and whatnot.
You might easily have an Orlanthi priest who believes in the existence of Orlanth, but who believes that long-term, the Orlanthi will lose. Like, say, Faltikus the Good in Pavis. Or a lunar who, while convinced of the righteousness of the Lunar Way, just can't stand that they allow chaotic creatures to live, and believes that this will lead to the downfall of the lunars.
This is in the same way as a politician might believe that the "other side" might triumph in the next election or in the long-term. Or in the same way as some Soviet apparatchiks (or even some western politicians) doubted the long-term viability of their own side during the Cold War. Or a political activist who believed sincerely in an idea in their youth, but now is not so sure the other side isn't right. Similarly, you could have a Gloranthan who secretly doubts that their god is more right than another god. Or was enthusiastic about killing chaos in their youth, but now is more circumpsect (like Oddi the Keen).
> The person would
> have to commit an act which would violate the god's laws. So it really
> ceases to be an issue of hypocrisy as most people would define it and
> becomes a question of crime.
Or politics. There isn't much in Glorantha that isn't about religion in some way, and so there's much more of life to be hypocritical about. For instance, the Lhankor Mhy sages may have good religous reasons for always charging through the nose for their advice; Irrippi Ontor sages may be more flexible about the virtues of occasionally free information. So an economic issue can be also a religous issue, and one which an initiate or devotee may be hypocritical about.
There may be similar issues between Issaries and Etryies traders.
Tom
Powered by hypermail