Verse:Hmøøh/Ngedhraism: Difference between revisions

IlL (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
IlL (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 73: Line 73:
==Basic tenets==
==Basic tenets==
===Second Mover===
===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.
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. In Mărotłism it 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. In Snialism, it is often referred to as '"the Nameless"' (''mo tsip chum'').
 
===''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.