On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:55:10 +0100, Timothy Collinson wrote:

>Right, where was I?
>
>ah yes, 'Model' under Characteristics of a religion.
>
>Actually, FWIW nigh on 24 hours later and having slept on it, I'm
>relatively pleased with the possible 4th option of 'Relationship' (or
>Covenantal) as usually I'm better at seeing detail than 'big picture'.

OK, I'm going to answer this from an "outside perspective". As I see it,
Christianity shares with (Rabbinic) Judaism the idea that the rules that
G-d has set forth are those that make the society an 'ethical' one - and
Christianity isn't cancelling most of those rules, but reminding one that
they _are_ G-d's rules, and that they are coming, as best we can
understand, from deitic love. This leads almost directly to the _Clerical
Role_ being what I called "Paternal" - and I would consider this especially
apropos for most Christian denominations - "G-d the father...".

Looking at it from your presentation, I would contend that Rabbinic Judaism
is no less "Covenantal"; consider the declared symbolism of the rainbow,
and of circumcision, both of which predate Christianity.

>On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 00:12, Jeff Zeitlin - editor at
>freelancetraveller.com (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>
>>     Deitic Structure
>>
>>     The Deitic Structure of a religion describes the "shape" of the Deitic
>>     Principle. When evaluating a religion for its Deitic Structure, look at
>>     actual practice, rather than the religion's own doctrinal claims;
>>     historical syncretism resulting from accommodation of rituals from
>>     converts answering the call of proselytism may have in practice changed
>>     the Deitic Structure.
>>
>>
>
>OK, this seems a reasonable set of categories.  I certainly can't think of
>more.
>Panentheistic is new to me and interesting to think about.

Doing some of the research for this proposal was quite interesting...

>>     Deitic Distance
>>
>>     The Deitic Distance of a religion describes the level at which the
>>     Deitic Principle is believed to interact with devotees.
>>
>>
>OK, I wonder if there's room for another possibility here.
>
>It's *kind* of hinted at in 'Personal' but not really covered.
>How about 'interacted with in the past' but no longer does so.

I think that sort of thing is for the notes, or for fleshing out the
encyclopedia entry - in this case, the religion has "moved" or "evolved"
from Deitic Distance being "Personal" to "Uninvolved". That might make a
difference in how one plays the character, but is it really different
enough from "Uninvolved" to warrant a separate classification? Especially
given that it's generally a bad idea to "over-specify"?

>It's a view of some Christian (denominations/thinking?) that while miracles
>etc *did* happen (in Biblical times), they don't now.

And there are similar beliefs in Judaism; for various reasons, G-d took
from us the Miracles, the Priesthood and Sacrifice, and the Sons of David;
those changed what Judaism meant and became, but it's not exactly directly
relevant to the majority of believers.

>So, the 'Deitic distance' has changed depending on when in history you live.
>If you need a name, how about 'Ceased' ?  (Not quite the same as Uninvolved
>because the deity once was, or would you just call it a subset of that?)

Again, this is more for the notes, not the profile, as I see it.

>    Clerical Structure
>>
>>     The Clerical Structure of a religion describes who may teach or
>>     interpret the principles and scriptures of the religion, and who may
>>     perform the rituals of the religion (this is henceforth referred to as
>>     'acting as clergy').
>>
>
>I've been in churches with all three of these!
>Struggling to think of another option except for the obvious 'they have no
>clergy' but that's really your 'Individual' option with a need for
>definition of terms!
>(i.e. I could picture a religion that doesn't claim to any clergy at all
>and has no teachers)  (in fact, now you make me think about, aren't the
>Quakers along these lines?  Perhaps there is a separate category after all)

Consider the question of how a young child of a Quaker family learns about
doctrine, principles, scripture, etc. - isn't that almost exactly
"Individual" - every member is thus empowered?

>
>    Clerical Role
>>
>
>In general, I like the idea.
>
>>
>>         Pastoral
>>
>
>I like this and the title, but wonder if it's a bit too rooted in (I would
>say Christianity, but perhaps 'earthly' might be better).  What about
>'Guiding' or 'Mentoring'?  (I did consider 'Shepherding' but I think that's
>too much back with Christianity - at least in my experience, and it has
>some negative connotations there as well.).  What about Caretaker?

I can't deny having been influenced by the wider society I live in; the
terms I've chosen seemed to be the best expression of the ideas in
question. If that's because that wider society is fundamentally built on a
Christian foundation, well...

Similar comments apply to the other classifications. Given that the
"Anglosphere" in general is built on fundamentally Christian foundations, I
don't really have a problem with the terms I chose.

>But how about additional possibilities:

Most of these look to me like secondary roles of clergy, rather than
primary. But some of them can be borderline. In assessing their validity as
'clerical modes', I think the fundamental question is going to be how
clergy sustains the community of belief, especially over generations. If
"ranked" clergy only handle the Museums Et Cetera, but leave the teaching
of doctrine, scripture, principles, and so on, to the rank-and-file, then
it may be appropriate to define the clerical structure as "Individual" and
the clerical role as "Pastoral", but include in the notes that
appropriately knowledgeable and inclined individuals may be awarded the
title of "Poohbah" and placed in charge of maintaining the Historical
Cloisters.

>I'm also wondering if there's a more mystic possibility here too.  Bit
>outside of my experience but Babylon 5 reminds me of possibilities - clergy
>initiating believers through stages of spiritual mystery or enlightenment.
>Perhaps it might be more secretive (or layered?) than simple teaching?
>(Would this be Scientology's approach?  Or the Masons?)  Not sure I've got
>an adjective or a noun (other than Mystic) for you there.

"Layers" of clergy - and layers of doctrine/scripture/principles may well
be structurally interesting, and possibly warrant some sort of notation
beyond notes in a religion, but I'm not sure that it should be tied to
clergy, per se. It also wouldn't be 'model', because if one reads what's
publicly known about Masonry and Degrees therein, it's clear that Masonry,
taken as a religion, is one whose Model is "Ethical", while the best
description of the Model of Scientology would be "Transcendental". It also
can't be 'Deitic Structure'; Masonry is definitely unideitic, and
Scientology is at best undefined, although a case could be made that it is
nondeitic.

So, I'm not sure where this would fit - or what the alternatives would be.
For now, leave it as notes.

>Don't know if that helps?
>
>    Influence
>>
>>     While any religion will by definition have influence among its
>>     devotees, it's possible for a religion's principles to become
>>     influential among others.
>>
>>         Congregational
>>
>>         The principles of the religion are held primarily by the devotees,
>>         with little acceptance or application beyond that.
>>
>
>I think, then, with that suggestion, there must be room for one before:
>Individual
>The principles of the religion are held primarily by the devotees as
>individuals and may vary even within a community.
>
>and then the Congregational changed to:
>The principles of the religion are held by groups/communities of devotees,
>with little acceptance or application beyond that.

The problem I have with this is that if devotees can pick and choose what
principles they will adhere to even nominally, is it really a religion? And
is a principle that all do not hold to even nominally really a principle of
the religion? Essentially, I would hold that a religion would be defined by
a set of core principles - whatever and however many they are - that are
"universally" (among the devotees) acknowledged and (at least nominally)
held. Everything else is, more-or-less, decoration that is intended to
remind devotees of those core principles, or describe how to live to them.

Ultimately, for the purposes of Traveller, it is actually the decoration
that is most important, as it is the decoration that will drive the
character's behavior. Thus, the detail in the profile as defined in the
original posting - and notice the distinct lack of specific principles
being defined.

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Mongoose Publishing, 1977-2025. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)