Sanguis Astroism

[JPierreD]

You all miss the point. In character the prophet of the continents largest, most powerful religion is likely going to have a massive reason to believe they have superior theological knowledge. Would people from other religions agree? Probably not but by the same token he, and the religion he heads aren't going to think that anyone can argue theology on a equal footing, which was the point of the original post. To call such a figure a mere "student" in term of theology is a massive insult to the Prophet and the religion in general. This isn't the modern age remember, it is unlikely that most religions consider others to have any validity, or respect the knowledge of their priests.

The whole Dwilight University and its foundations are pretty modern themselves. The institution promotes such kind of values, so it would be expected that in the institution other's points of view would be, if not considered, at least respected. It may be not very medieval, but nor is the guild. Who would have thought about a theology department in the middle ages with Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims for example? It would be madness at least, or deep heresy at worst.

[De-Legro]

The whole Dwilight University and its foundations are pretty modern themselves. The institution promotes such kind of values, so it would be expected that in the institution other's points of view would be, if not considered, at least respected. It may be not very medieval, but nor is the guild. Who would have thought about a theology department in the middle ages with Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims for example? It would be madness at least, or deep heresy at worst.

That is like saying modern scientist all respect each others views and opinions.

[Vellos]

It would be madness at least, or deep heresy at worst.

Or, it would be some sections of Abbasid Baghdad or parts of Moorish Spain.

Regarding the Prophet and cross-religious boundaries... I guess nobody here has done much interfaith work IRL? Because if you have, you know that if two faiths are both committed to the idea that their teachings relate to the "Real, Ultimate Nature of Things" then they will take a powerful interest in each others' teachings, and tend to regard each others' highest figures as intellectual authorities (though not necessarily right for that). Consider that many Christian thinkers cited Avicenna, and much Ottoman law cited cases from Orthodox ecumenical rules as authoritative.

The idea that, in a medieval setting, members of one faith would just say that the leader of another faith is bogus without anything to say or without a perspective on the Real, Ultimate Nature of Things is not very tenable, unless there is a strong political motivation to make such a claim. But from a purely intellectual position, Medieval Christian thinkers may have thought their Muslim counterparts were implicitly worshipping demons, but they at least thought they were worshipping very smart demons with lots of interesting knowledge, a la Faustus.

[Perth]

I've many times thought a Seminary of sorts would be a neat thing for SA.

Or Maroccidental U. 

[vonGenf]

Calling the Pope a "student" wouldn't go over very well.

Unless the Pope decided to enroll in a University, and requested to be a student, which is what Mathurin did.

Did you notice how the position of Dean of Theology is vacant? Did you notice how extremely easy it is to be given a Dean position? You basically only have to write something with some original idea in it. That's pretty much it. Mathurin would get it the blink of the eye if he only tried. Branthorpe could get it. Anyone could get it, really.

(Though probably not Creed at this point.....)

[De-Legro]

Or, it would be some sections of Abbasid Baghdad or parts of Moorish Spain.

Regarding the Prophet and cross-religious boundaries... I guess nobody here has done much interfaith work IRL? Because if you have, you know that if two faiths are both committed to the idea that their teachings relate to the "Real, Ultimate Nature of Things" then they will take a powerful interest in each others' teachings, and tend to regard each others' highest figures as intellectual authorities (though not necessarily right for that). Consider that many Christian thinkers cited Avicenna, and much Ottoman law cited cases from Orthodox ecumenical rules as authoritative.

The idea that, in a medieval setting, members of one faith would just say that the leader of another faith is bogus without anything to say or without a perspective on the Real, Ultimate Nature of Things is not very tenable, unless there is a strong political motivation to make such a claim. But from a purely intellectual position, Medieval Christian thinkers may have thought their Muslim counterparts were implicitly worshipping demons, but they at least thought they were worshipping very smart demons with lots of interesting knowledge, a la Faustus.

Which was the whole point. There is a big difference between thinking another religion has aspects or teachings that are worthwhile as compared to thinking another religion is producing theology the equal of your own faith and prophets who are the equally as valid as your own religious leaders.

I think of it in a similar way to how Christians revere the Jewish prophets, but place Jesus above them all, or how the Muslims believe Jesus was a messenger of god while rejecting the claims of his divinity and in turn place Muhammad above him.

[Geronus]

Those are all Abrahamic faiths that derive from a single common theology, that of Judaism. As such, they have a great deal in common. Both Christianity and Judaism, for example, teach the Old Testament. Possibly Islam as well, though I'm not sure about that - after all, Islam teaches that Muhammad was simply the last in a long line of Prophets that includes Jesus and the Old Testament Prophets. I think that your argument would not fare as well were you to use Christianity and Hinduism, or Judaism and Buddhism.

[Vellos]

Those are all Abrahamic faiths that derive from a single common theology, that of Judaism. As such, they have a great deal in common. Both Christianity and Judaism, for example, teach the Old Testament. Possibly Islam as well, though I'm not sure about that - after all, Islam teaches that Muhammad was simply the last in a long line of Prophets that includes Jesus and the Old Testament Prophets. I think that your argument would not fare as well were you to use Christianity and Hinduism, or Judaism and Buddhism.

Yeah, Christians and Jews really hate the Dalai Lama.

But, in all seriousness, looking at the Mughals and other Indian states suggests that (or the Manichees or Nestorians earlier), in at least some cases, cross-religious spiritual authority of some kind was recognized.

Again, for a Medieval thinker, spiritual discussion is not relativistic as it is for us. We believe, or most of us do, that the most direct method to objectively debatable reality is probably the scientific method. Medievals, mostly (a few interesting dissenters among Christian heretics and some Muslim philosophers come to mind as counter-examples) thought that spiritual authority was a direct and objective thing. It's like if two scientists with radically different approaches to, say, evolution, just said, "Well, your model can be right for you, mine is right for me; ultimately, who's to say?" No, those people have a common idea of a methodology for debate and argument.

Similar things existed for Medieval philosophy and theology; common understandings of debate (such as the need for classical precedent in much of the Christian and Muslim intellectual world). They wouldn't say, "Don't bring your religion in here!" they would say, "Your religion is false, for we all know that Plato has said XYZ, which you erroneously interpret..." Now, of course, we don't have Plato. But the general idea should remain: that our characters, being Medieval, will not regard religion as a purely subjective matter, or something without recourse to objective mediation.

And I have often wondered why Mathurin doesn't take the Dean of Theology position.

[Indirik]

Unless the Pope decided to enroll in a University, and requested to be a student, which is what Mathurin did.

This point of view is something I find at odds with the station of many of the members of the University. Many of the most prominent "students" in the university would not "enroll as students". Nobles the stature of foreign rulers, dukes, heads of prestigious religions, would not become average, ordinary students. They would certainly be brought into the university as respected benefactors, supporters, honored professors, etc. The university would be falling all over itself to bestow any number of honorary degrees on someone with the stature of Mathurin. You wouldn't require him to write the equivalent of a term paper in order to be recognized as a Dean of Theology. And, to be fair, the same could be said for the prophet of Verdis Elementum, or whatever other religion has managed to survive and spread across a significant portion of the island.

I suppose this is an artifact of the guild system, though. Or perhaps the way the guild is run. But when you talk about "we're all equal here", I think you have to remember that some people are more equal than others.

[Carna]

This point of view is something I find at odds with the station of many of the members of the University. Many of the most prominent "students" in the university would not "enroll as students". Nobles the stature of foreign rulers, dukes, heads of prestigious religions, would not become average, ordinary students. They would certainly be brought into the university as respected benefactors, supporters, honored professors, etc. The university would be falling all over itself to bestow any number of honorary degrees on someone with the stature of Mathurin. You wouldn't require him to write the equivalent of a term paper in order to be recognized as a Dean of Theology. And, to be fair, the same could be said for the prophet of Verdis Elementum, or whatever other religion has managed to survive and spread across a significant portion of the island.

I suppose this is an artifact of the guild system, though. Or perhaps the way the guild is run. But when you talk about "we're all equal here", I think you have to remember that some people are more equal than others.

I rarely agree with Tim, but I figure I can make an exception. Reminds me of an old "help fairness" helpfile in a game I used to play. I've little idea about the academy in question and its basis, but thinking about old-day universities the chain of events Tim went through fits right in. Considering the atmosphere, any academy should be overjoyed and honoured to have leaders of the .001% in their faculty. its prestigious. Sounds like there's fun to be had though (",)

Finn.

[Geronus]

Yeah, Christians and Jews really hate the Dalai Lama.

But, in all seriousness, looking at the Mughals and other Indian states suggests that (or the Manichees or Nestorians earlier), in at least some cases, cross-religious spiritual authority of some kind was recognized.

Again, for a Medieval thinker, spiritual discussion is not relativistic as it is for us. We believe, or most of us do, that the most direct method to objectively debatable reality is probably the scientific method. Medievals, mostly (a few interesting dissenters among Christian heretics and some Muslim philosophers come to mind as counter-examples) thought that spiritual authority was a direct and objective thing. It's like if two scientists with radically different approaches to, say, evolution, just said, "Well, your model can be right for you, mine is right for me; ultimately, who's to say?" No, those people have a common idea of a methodology for debate and argument.

Similar things existed for Medieval philosophy and theology; common understandings of debate (such as the need for classical precedent in much of the Christian and Muslim intellectual world). They wouldn't say, "Don't bring your religion in here!" they would say, "Your religion is false, for we all know that Plato has said XYZ, which you erroneously interpret..." Now, of course, we don't have Plato. But the general idea should remain: that our characters, being Medieval, will not regard religion as a purely subjective matter, or something without recourse to objective mediation.

And I have often wondered why Mathurin doesn't take the Dean of Theology position.

You're missing my point. In your fictional example, both religions are based on the teachings of Plato, and the two different religions can debate productively the meaning of his words and how they should be applied. The same is true of the Abrahamic faiths and even more true of denominations under the Christian umbrella - they all purport to worship the same deity and accept a common mythology.

An Abrahamic faith does not have the same relationship with Hinduism. There's very little common ground on which they can meet to debate something on the merits. Religions in BM are the same way. If we ever have a schism in SA, there would be much more fertile ground for this in the divergence of one faith into two or more, all debating the true nature of the Stars and the value and meaning of Mathurin's teachings.

[Vellos]

You're missing my point. In your fictional example, both religions are based on the teachings of Plato, and the two different religions can debate productively the meaning of his words and how they should be applied. The same is true of the Abrahamic faiths and even more true of denominations under the Christian umbrella - they all purport to worship the same deity and accept a common mythology.

An Abrahamic faith does not have the same relationship with Hinduism. There's very little common ground on which they can meet to debate something on the merits. Religions in BM are the same way. If we ever have a schism in SA, there would be much more fertile ground for this in the divergence of one faith into two or more, all debating the true nature of the Stars and the value and meaning of Mathurin's teachings.

In my non-fictional example of Christianity and Islam, neither is based on Plato. I could probably find you Hindus citing Buddhists with ease; cross-citation in Chinese religious traditions is even easier. Consider the relationship between Patriarchs and the Pope pre-schism; disagreement, yes, but disagreement founded on a notion that there was a Real about which everyone was talking, and concerning which there could be an objective recourse.

Triunists ICly listen when Astroists speak on theological issues. Triunists ICly disagree with Triunists, but the belief is that, though we disagree with your model and think it erroneous, we still accept much of your methodology--- or at least think your methodology worthy of a critique by ours. This is a properly Medieval intellectual model.

But to simply say that promulgation of religious belief doesn't have a place in a Medieval university; that religion is a matter of personal choice or somehow less than objective... do remember, Medievals classified theology as one of the fundamental academic disciplines. The way we might see math, reading, history, science... for them, it's the trivium and quadrivium, but, of the higher disciplines, theology was primary. It was considered a rigorous, practically scientific subject. You can't read the debates between nominalists realists about the problem of universals without being inundated by citations of non-Christian thinkers, and repeatedly encountering what smells like peer-review.

[Zakilevo]

Religion wasn't a personal choice during Medieval.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Religion wasn't a personal choice during Medieval.

Eh, now that's using a blanket judgement, something that people do too often with history.

[Zakilevo]

I am pretty sure Christians purged Jews more than once during Medieval period. If religion was a personal choice in those days, why would they have forcefully tried to convert people.

Western religions consider other religions false unlike Buddhism. Well Buddhists didn't start a crusade over Hindus for believing in something else at least.