Verse:Hmøøh/Ngedhraism: Difference between revisions
m →Ideas |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Traditional Talman religion/philosophy is often called '''Ngronaism''' (/ɪŋˈroʊneɪsm/ ''ing-ROH-nay-zum'', [[Eevo]]: ''Ŋronaivih'' /ˈŋrɔnaivih/), and serves as the civic religion of Talman and Talman-derived societies. | |||
Ngronaism is, often, less a set of beliefs than a set of common symbols, language, and rituals. Ngronaism recognizes that narratives are important - in modern Ngronaism, efforts are made to construct narratives that approach truth. | Ngronaism is, often, less a set of beliefs than a set of common symbols, language, and rituals. Ngronaism recognizes that narratives are important - in modern Ngronaism, efforts are made to construct narratives that approach truth. | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
==Basic tenets== | ==Basic tenets== | ||
===Second Mover=== | |||
The '''Second Mover''' ([[Eevo]]: ''a Nwtxáh Arn'' /ə nuˈtʃah ˈaɾ(ə)n/; [[Clofabosin]]: ''ribilzavudan'') is a central [[Talma|Talman]] spiritual concept representing creativity, agency and moral good within humans. The belief states that we humans are responsible for "creation" and formulating rules, where "God has left off", even when no one is telling us what to do. | |||
===''Dipăreatü''=== | ===''Dipăreatü''=== | ||
The originally Mărotłian concept of ''dipăreatü'' is a principle of nonviolence, analogous to ''ahiṃsa'' in Dharmic religions. (The [[Windermere]] word ''dipăreatü'' means 'non-aggression'.) Mărotłian ''dipăreatü'' allows violence in retaliation or self-defense, or as a punishment for violence - the reasoning was that aggression is so serious that it should be discouraged by any means necessary. There has been much debate among Talman thinkers on exactly how much retributive violence is justified. | The originally Mărotłian concept of ''dipăreatü'' is a principle of nonviolence, analogous to ''ahiṃsa'' in Dharmic religions. (The [[Windermere]] word ''dipăreatü'' means 'non-aggression'.) Mărotłian ''dipăreatü'' allows violence in retaliation or self-defense, or as a punishment for violence - the reasoning was that aggression is so serious that it should be discouraged by any means necessary. There has been much debate among Talman thinkers on exactly how much retributive violence is justified. | ||