MattyG said:
There is a parallel, as Orimazd alluded to, with the Mutazelite 'heresy' in Islam that we have brought into Interregnum. As Ahmed wrote to me, this was a fairly elitist clique within Islam, an attempt to marry hellenic rationalism with Islam, eventually deemed a heresy, and now gone from the world. Instead, we have the Mutazili move to Cordoba when they grow and expand. And for an elitist philosophy to take root as a popular movement we must presume that it grew beyond its original limitations. We don't have the capacity to conceive of the details, but that must be our presumption.
Names can be made up. It is either easier or harder with Byzantium because their history in our game isn't very well developed beyond the multitudes of military leaders and monarchs and the occasional civil war (easier because there is more freedom and space to work with, and harder because there isn't so much of an anchor to start with).
This is true also of protestantism. Much of Luther's theological points would have been totally lost on all but those well-versed in theology, but there were clearly components of his protest that appealed to the high brow, the middle brow and the ignorant layperson.
The ignorant layperson was ignorant because it was in the best interests of the Powers That Be that they not be educated. The ignorant layperson was not able to read, and whatever his pastor said had to be true, because there was no other spiritual authority to contradict the pastor. This was one of the reasons Luther (I think) translated the Bible into German. I didn't think of this.
Likewise, for the Cathars, there were theological minutia that few might have understood, others drawn to the moralistic high ground it occupied, others to the denial of self and the lack of sex, others to the genuine poverty and humility expected of the 'perfect'.
Yes. But I don't see how this relates to what you say next.
And so it must be with Mutazelism. And so it would need to be with a heresy in orthodoxy that would cause religious rifts that reached from the parish to the throne.
Were you saying that the moralistic high ground et al that you mentioned before were what drew commoners to Catharism?
So, while the gnosticism of the greeks may have been to ascetic and obscure for widespread acceptance, we need to postulate that a new twist on it has emerged, one which touches different people in different ways and which has, as sekenr and others point out, a 'worldly' edge, meaning it challenges the social and political structures of the day.
Of course. I did say that I was against copying...translating one series of events from one place to another, Harry Turtledove style
I have been reading my Nag Hammadi for the past...day (hey, I have to sleep, and eat, and do homework) to try to figure out some ideas to use. I don't know where it will lead, but I suspect that Kiiv might become the center or the old Orthodoxy, and Byzantium will be given a chance to accept neo-Gnosticism.
So, everything I have read in the posts above can fit and can flesh out this challenge to traditional orthodoxy. Throw in iconoclasm as part of it and a challenge to the wealth, power and priviledge of the various patriarchies, and you have enough to give you hits to RR, stability and inno!
I'll worry about this stuff after I figure out the differences, what causes the split, and what will happen with each alternative.
Reading through and responding to your post has made me realize that either this has to begin among the aristocracy or in a city where more people are able to read (I think), or something has to happen which leads to peasants becoming literate. I'll be able to think better after I eat and this buzzing in the front of my head stops.
