> > > 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".
But the personal-ness is implicitly suggested by the use of the word 'relationship'. Only people (or other entities having personality) can engage in relationships, surely ? My computer has no relationship with my washing machine, even though they each gain power from the same source (a nuclear power plant on the Rhone river), nor does the nuclear power plant have a relationship with either, nor does electricity itself, nor the unified field of natural forces of which the electricity is a manifestation.
> Secondly, it's
> the atheists who are engaging in the relationship, not God.
Well, yeah : what I mean about this being a tail-chaser is : we could argue ourselves into nice circles on this issue without really making any progress in any direction, simply because any position 'P' can easily be countered by sensible quibble 'Q', leading to sensible position '-P', and doubt over the whole issue.
To start with : is 'God' within Creation or not (shades of the olde Saint Plane debate) ?
Which precise meaning of the word 'impersonal' are we using ? (viz current quibbling)
What do we mean by a 'relationship' with 'God' ?
It's not just semantics : I don't know (despite a few working assumptions) what answers actual Gloranthan Westerners would give to these questions, and the whole issue is far more inextricable than, say, the Western script one (where we at least have some factual evidence to work from).
At least until there's some more precise literature on the matter.
> > > 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?
I mean : all these theories are fine for one kind of Gloranthan theologian or sorceror, but what sort of 'relationship' would the uneducated have with such an 'impersonal god' ?
An indirect one via the sorcerors I presume, through a work ethic, related to the power of alchemy to purify and shrive the body of sin by recreating the original balance of created being, et cetera, et cetera ...
Such an understanding of god seems to suggest a world view where the Creator and the Created are mostly divorced from each other, although god (OR the original harmony of created matter) does in fact remain accessible to a sorceror via various magical operations : but are there any Western sects who believe that god isn't 'inside' Glorantha ? I don't think so, but am I wrong?
I also mean that the uneducated are unlikely to want anything to do with such an
elitist theology ; especially not when they can get together for a little prayer, and
ask
God to send an Angel, Hero, Knight, Plague, etc. to smite the Evil Sorcery of their
temporal masters ...
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail