>I think, for the people of Alkoth, Shargash is the One Who
>Gives Life and Takes It Away.
That may be true for your glorantha but it isn't the existing knowledge of Shargash which is where I am coming from. There he is viewed as within and without Alkoth as a destroying deity (in much the same way as Shiva Nataraja).
> >Elmal is a great god?
>Not according to the old definition. He is according to the Hero
>Wars definition (HW, p.175).
There's nothing in that definition that warrants Elmal's label as a Great God. It doesn't say that all gods that provide a social role are Great Gods.
> >And this is evidence of Shargash having _intrinsic_ fertility
> >powers? When Humakt kills Orlanth and shows his brother how
> >to rise again (ST p88), you don't consider Humakt a fertility
> >deity.
>I think the bit on ST, p.88 is Humakti propaganda, myself, but I
>realize that my quotes are open to the same cricism.... Taking them both
>at face value, Shargash is portrayed as returning the living to the world,
>while Humakt choses not to oppose Orlanth's return, finding it Just.
Humakt does not chose to oppose Orlanth's return, he _shows_ Orlanth how to return. Thus there's little difference between Shargash's resurrection of the world and Humakt's.
> >I don't see anything about a fertility rite here. Danfive and
> >Gerra have similar rituals but nobody thinks them fertility
> >deities.
>The Descent into the Underworld and Return to Life is at the heart
>of many fertility rites.
But not all such rituals that involve a descent to the underworld are fertility rituals.
>Gerra and Danfive have more of a sense of "purification through
>suffering" which is, at least to me, different from what Shargash
>is described as doing.
But the Shargash ritual isn't described as a fertility ritual, its stated effects are purification and refreshment.
>This may be hairsplitting, but that's theology for you.
It's not so much the hair-splitting that concerns me but that you are overly eager to point out minute differences as being a difference in kind (Humakt's and Shargash's revival of the world) whereas major differences are merely represented as being differences in degree (Shargash's purification ritual becomes another fertility ritual). Warping definitions in this way robs them of their meaning IMO.
> >Yes, some gloranthans do recognize [Shargash]
> >as Rebellus Terminus but that is as mythically valid as the
> >recognition that Shargash is Orlanth. It is not part of
> >Shargash's core identity.
>[snip a quote of greg's]
>I'll admit this is part of a rather confused thread about a number of
>things, but it suggests that at least some Gloranthans believe that
>Shagash is Rebellus Terminus.
Which is what I just said, I believe.
> >[...] I do think
> >that Alk is a fertile aspect of nature acceptable to Shargash
> >eyes rather than an intrinsic aspect of Shargash himself (in
> >much the same way as Harst is acceptable to Orlanth even though
> >he's Issaries son).
>Even if Alkor is the only fertile part of Shargash worship, he's still
>part of the great god, in the same way that Harst, Yavor, and Matakos
>are part of Orlanth the great god.
Harst, Yavor and Mastakos are not part of Orlanth the Great God. They are Thunder Brothers and other gods whose worship is _compatible_ with an aspect of Orlanth (whether it be Allfather for Harst, Adventuros for Mastakos and Thunderous for Yavor).
>If Alkor has fertility aspects, large or small, Shargash has
>them as well.
I strongly disagree and I've already stated how I view the relationship.
>You wouldn't say that Ernalda does not have birthing powers because her
>midwife functions are accessed through worship of Eninta.
I do say this. Ernalda is the insubstantial part of the earth, including mind, energy and direction (a better way would be the spiritual wealth but that clashes with animist terminology unfortunately). Midwivery is not an intrinsic part of her but a compatible part.
Powered by hypermail