Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5601680" data-attributes="member: 4937">No.  Nor were any of the thoughts that you have on my mind at the time.  Frankly, I tangle with a lot of people over a lot of topics - some by design and some by accident.  I apologize if I've tangled with you in the past and offended you, but I honestly have no memory of what we might have tangled over.  So be assured that I'm not bearing you any particular ill will.As for what I'm taking a jab at, I taking a jab at the notion that a priest of a particular diety has a relationship with his diety that is comparable to that of the relationship assumed of between a Christian and his diety.  I'm saying that this simplification grossly misunderstands the full range of complex ways that different religious groups have seen how they stand in relationship to the divine.  Many existing religious groups and most ancient ones had entirely different outlooks on the relationship between mortals and gods, than the way the Christians percieve the relationship with their God.For example, other religious groups might percieve the deity in any one of the following often mutually exclusive ways: blind, uncaring, distant, hateful, essentially mindless, mechanical, suffering the same failings as mortals only to greater degrees, ignorant, unknowable, and so forth.  Thus the idea of relating to that diety as a servant to a benevolent subject, or even as a subject of at all does not always make sense under such conceptions.It should be noted for example that in 1e, the clerics prayers of up to 3rd level were assumed to be answered BY THE CLERIC HIMSELF.  Only 7th level spells required the direct dispensation of the diety.  Now aspects of this conception have been lost over time as the cleric gets refined into a more and more standardized version of the Christian priest, but fundamentally even under the 3e rules there is nothing that requires this.No, cleric recieve and cast spells, some times from their deity and sometimes not.  And of course you assume that faith is a vital part of the prayer because you are steeped in the Western Christian tradition, and in that tradition the mystery aspects of the religion are played down or (in the Prostestant traditional) often totally shunned.  But faith is not always a strongly emphasized aspect of religious belief.  Christianity involves very little magical practice, but in the case of ancient religions its almost all magical practice.  In ancient polytheistic religions it doesn't really matter if you believe the God is good and looking out for your interests or not - and in fact you may very much believe otherwise - it only matters that you perform the particular sacred rites which bring about the gods favor.  A cleric may see his role not as upholding the 'faith' of the deity, but simply propitiating the diety to perserve the natural order or to forestall his unpredictable wrath.No, it's only natural to assume that in Christianity - which presumes a benevolent, all-present, living deity that wants to contact those that worship him.   Modern imans of the Moslem faith don't presume a spiritual connection to the diety.  Ancient priests of various pantheons did not persume a spiritual connection resulting from performing magical rites, though they might have presumed power gained thereby.  For example, shortly after Christianity began, a sect of Jews explained the miracles attributed to the founder of the religion to that founder learning the secret name of God and misusing it to work wonders.  Now under your modern conception of the relationship of a miracle worker to a deity this is impossible, because a god would not allow his power to be used against his will.  But even to certain ancient Jews, whose conceptions of a diety were much closer to modern than say the Romans or the Etruscans, this was apparently a reasonably satisfactory answer.Sure.  And in the same way, an expert might have signficant knowledge of the arcane and of spellcraft, but not be able to practice wizardry.  Your making the assumption here that a) the deity is going to mind being decieved rather than being impressed by the mortals resourcefulness and b) that the deity is a mindful being with a will and not a mechanical and impersonal force.  Again, you are defaulting to the Christian conception of religion.Again, you are making the assumption that what the diety cares about is sincere and honest devotion, and that's not the usual assumption of ancient religions.  In the greek religion for example, the idea that you would love and be devoted to a deity would seem rather strange and perhaps an act of hubris.  What the deity really cared about was simply that you offered them the resources they desired through acts of sacrifice which they got some satisfaction from.  In other words, what the deity really cared about was that you paid your taxes, and whether you did so of a cheerful heart or not wasn't that important.  It's only in the Judeo-Christian tradition that you see a conception of the divine that could care less if you paid your taxes if you did so uncheerfully and without loving the deity.Ok, yes, that is more correct.  Some monks are also clergy.That's where you are going with the argument that I don't agree with.</blockquote>

Verification