>Me>Gloranthan Atheists believe that God is _impersonal_ rather than
> >inaccessible.
>Much the same thing, unless you're using a different definition of
>"accessible" than I am - which may well be me using the word
>incorrectly, of course.
Well the laws of the Cosmos are thought of being impersonal yet they are accessible through reason. Being accessible is not a property confined to people.
> > All sects that believe in a personal god would [believe that God
> > is accessible without the necessary interaction of priests] as
> > there are numerous examples of non-priestly Saints in the Malkioni
> > canon.
>True enough; saints are an exception to the normal rule in that
>regard.
IMO there is no such normal rule. The HW rules on natural piety (HW:RiG p197-198) state that a naturally pious person acquires the ability to ask God directly for miracles and have him respond. No priestly intervention is necessary regardless of whether you are Rokari or Hrestoli.
Julian Lord:
>Me> Just because they consider God to be impersonal does not mean
> > they are incapable of having any relationship to God.
>That's a bit of a theological tail-chaser IMO : surely, by
>_definition_ an impersonal god doesn't engage in personal
>relationships with mortals ?
I never said the relationship was "personal". Secondly, it's the atheists who are engaging in the relationship, not God.
> > The exercise of
> > one's Will is the sorcerer's method of establishing such relations.
>Indeed. What about the muckrakers, though ?
Who do you mean?
Powered by hypermail