Questions about Elenicoi and Oikumene

[Mr. Z]

1. Does anybody in Almea still know Greek?
2. For how long was Greek preserved in Almea before it died out?
3. Did anybody in Almea ever know a terrestial language other than Greek?
4. What is the etymology of the name "Oikumene"?
5. How much do Almeans know about Earth?

[Exez]

4. Greek Οικουμένη which is a name for the inhabited world, and means 'she who is inhabited'. I don't know whether the particular name was the standard name for 'world' in the Greek of that era. I have seen the word in modern times only in poetic context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene

In any case, the modern Greek name for 'world' is /kosmos/ and for 'earth' is /ge/

[Legion]

Hm, those are really pronounced [kozmos] and [ʝi], in modern Greek.

[Exez]

Indeed, I provided the transcription

[zompist]

1. Does anybody in Almea still know Greek?
2. For how long was Greek preserved in Almea before it died out?
3. Did anybody in Almea ever know a terrestial language other than Greek?
4. What is the etymology of the name "Oikumene"?
5. How much do Almeans know about Earth?

1. Yes, grammars were written by Eleďi, to allow consultations of the Greek NT/OT. (This is of only minor utility, though, since there is no other corpus to draw on for comparison.)

2. As a living language spoken by the Elenicoi (i.e. by the families of their adopted children), a few centuries.

3. Well, there was Wat Porridgeton. Very likely some of the Elenicoi spoke other languages. But Almean scholarship doesn't know of them.

4. (answered by Exez)

5. Almost nothing. Eleďi would know what can be surmised from the NT and from the Book of Mihel. (The stuff about the Swedish Embassy is mostly for fun and is not intended as a major point of contact between the worlds.)

4. Greek Οικουμένη which is a name for the inhabited world, and means 'she who is inhabited'. I don't know whether the particular name was the standard name for 'world' in the Greek of that era. I have seen the word in modern times only in poetic context.

It's Biblical. "World" in the NT translates no less than four Greek words: ge, oikumene, aion, kosmos, each of which have slightly different meanings. In the Verdurian NT these were distinguished as almea, naroda/Oikumene, ciy, ataigar.

As indicated, the translators sometimes used naroda for oikumene, but mostly seemed to feel that it was a foreign concept and retained the Greek word. Almost surely the Elenicoi themselves, before they worked on the translation, had come to use oikumene to refer to their planet, once they realized that they were no longer on it. It would be natural to use ge as a generic term that included this new planet, and they assumed they were still in the same kosmos.

[Legion]

Indeed, I provided the transcription

No, even in transcription this was wrong. Maybe you provided a *transliteration*, but those shouldn't be between slashes.

[Duaseron]

How did Mihel actually learn an Almean language?

[zompist]

He and the other Elenicoi learned Old Verdurian the way any missionary or field worker would: by finding informants and intensively communicating. It helped that some of the curious onlookers became converts who both taught OV and learned Greek.

[Pthagnar]

Given that Almean humans are sons not of Adam but of this Araš, and it is apparent that Almeans and Terrans cannot interbreed, and look different and so forth, how does Christ's resurrection have any redemptive effect on Almean humanity?
Or, for that matter, the other species.

[zompist]

The Avélan Church's position is that this was settled by the Miracle of the Translation, as well as other miracles witnessed on Almea. If God was facilitating spreading the gospel, evidently it was efficacious for other planets.

More generally, if there were multiple species that had fallen, I don't really see that God would need multiple acts of redemption. From a human point of view the difference between species is a big deal, but from his perspective they're all just created things gone bad.

[Salmoneus]

What position on atonement are you ascribing to your early christians, then? In many theologies, the humanity of Christ is specifically salvific for humankind alone.

[Pthagnar]

The Avélan Church's position is that this was settled by the Miracle of the Translation, as well as other miracles witnessed on Almea. If God was facilitating spreading the gospel, evidently it was efficacious for other planets.

More generally, if there were multiple species that had fallen, I don't really see that God would need multiple acts of redemption. From a human point of view the difference between species is a big deal, but from his perspective they're all just created things gone bad.

Yeah? Cite divine revelation or derive this soteriological fact via Unaided Reason! I agree that it is *charitable* to assume that if you find rational beings who appear attentive to the Gospel and are desirous of it, then Christians should baptise them but this is not very sound theology.

As evidence against being sure that God only needs one:
*It is, as far as I know, an open issue whether or not War in Heaven and the fall of Adam happened at the same time as or at different times [or indeed if War in Heaven happened in eternity] -- so we have an example of a nonhuman fallen race -- the angels.

*As far as I know, Christ's resurrection did precisely shit for the fallen angels, who are just as damned as they ever were. All Christians can do is shake them up a little.

*Your nondiscriminating God is pretty weird. The God *I* know not only revels in details, but creates everything in hierarchies of high and low, immature and mature, perfect and imperfect, base and noble and so forth. Although it is true that Man is master of all terrestrial creation, it need not be the case that he is master of *all* creation.

*And it is in the nature of these hierarchies that they add *entirely new qualities* -- animals lack a rational soul, whereas it is the defining quality of Man. Taking a sufficient degree of humility in mind, there is no reason to be *sure* that there are no similar qualities in which Man is deficient, but other races of hnau are our superiors... This is all a little Scholastic, but it is good enough.

*Or inferiors. Perhaps profoundly so. We know that Christ's resurrection worked to save Man, but would it be powerful enough, or of the right sort to save some hypothetical *really Fallen* species, more like Satan? There is precedent -- see A Case of Conscience for an example of such a perverted race beyond Christ.

*SImilarly to this, just because you are sure that God is leading you somewhere does not mean that things need be as they
*seem to you*. A man may well believe, for example, that his mission to the street dogs of a big city are divinely ordained -- they listen to him, and submit to baptism and show every sign of listening to his sermons. Almea could have been a waypoint that they have failed to move on from, or they could have been caught in some demonic trap, or it could all *really* be for the benefit of the Flaids who are actual Adamic humans who fell through a similar dimensional portal from Earth's far future and the uesti are an empty distraction.

* The other big example of jesusy-SF relevant here is the Space Trilogy -- Lewis has no problem with multiple Adams and multiple Falls from different Heights -- indeed he implies in Perelandra that if Weston were to beat Ransom, then the Fall there would be exponentially worse than it was on Earth! Here was a man open to a view of evil beyond that of "general cussedness" which you once ascribed to me.

[zompist]

You raise lots of interesting points, without convincing me. Mostly because it's not something that can be proven!

Historically, there's been controversy even within our own species. The Judaiziers were skeptical in the 1st century whether non-Jews could be saved... not surprisingly, their policy led to their marginalization. And there were some in the 16C who argued that the Indians couldn't be saved. So I would fully expect that if Christians met an unsaved species in the future, there would be disagreement. At the same time I'd fully expect the more universalistic view to prevail.

The fallen angels are an interesting test case, but not definitive. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that some theologians held that the devils could not repent, but others held that they could; but in any case the article expresses the difficulty of understanding demonic consciousness. If they don't live in time as we do, the notion of repentance may not apply. I'll also note that other Christians did believe in the salvation of devils-- such as George MacDonald, a big influence on Lewis.

Lewis would, I'm sure, admit that he was speculating. I'm pretty sure he covers the idea somewhere in his Letters, but they're not easy to search. Note that he has the idea that after the Incarnation, all sentient species would look like humans; this sounds strange to me but at the very least suggests that he viewed the Incarnation as having a cosmic import, not a merely local one. Also FWIW there's no suggestion that Aslan died for Narnia (only for Edmund).

We might also cite the case recounted by M. France, wherein a partly blind monk accidentally converted an island full of penguins. Rather than embarrass his prelate, God turned the penguins into humans and granted them a soul.

In any case, the Elenicoi had no way of reporting (or being reported) back to Rome, so if they were in error no one was in any position to tell them.

[Pthagnar]

In any case, the Elenicoi had no way of reporting (or being reported) back to Rome, so if they were in error no one was in any position to tell them.

except god, presumably.
who is pretend, yes, but so are pretend christians, so there is no problem on that account.
they are a specific *kind* of pretend christian, though -- as salmoneus points out, ones closer to your judaisers of the first century than the imperialist sixteenth century spanish catholics, or the imperialist twentieth century american universalists

[zompist]

What position on atonement are you ascribing to your early christians, then? In many theologies, the humanity of Christ is specifically salvific for humankind alone.

What are you referring to? What were they distingushing as not human?

[Mornche Geddick]

Back to the topic. They certainly had the OT, but that's considered obscure and only of interest to scholars. If the Elenicoi did bring any other books with them they are probably gathering dust in the back rooms of various university and monastery libraries in Erenat, or in the HQ of the Knights of Devora. It's not as though the Almeans have Interlibrary Loans.

[Salmoneus]

What position on atonement are you ascribing to your early christians, then? In many theologies, the humanity of Christ is specifically salvific for humankind alone.

What are you referring to? What were they distingushing as not human?

I'm speculating. It's not that they said "it doesn't work for non-humans", more that the stated rationales don't seem to apply to non-humans.

If, for instance, the idea is that God needs to punish humanity, and that because Jesus is human, punishing Jesus is punishing humanity so no more punishment is required... well, that's got nothing to do with God's punishment of non-humans. Likewise, if the idea is that humanity has failed to honour God through sacrifice, and that by killing god-made-human humanity has now performed the perfect sacrifice, then non-humans are still left out of it.

In general, I would think that Platonic approaches, with strict substantial distinctions between different types of things, would be hard to convince - for them, human and uesti are simply essentially different, in a metaphysical way that can't be overcome by any amount of observation about how similarly they act or think or speak.

[zompist]

OK, but I think they'd categorize the uesti as humans. The differences are subtle, after all, and they already had the NT example of Ethiopians being saved. They were also on their way to India, so it's reasonable that anyone with very parochial ideas of who could be saved stayed home.

[Pthagnar]

OK, but I think they'd categorize the uesti as humans. The differences are subtle, after all, and they already had the NT example of Ethiopians being saved. They were also on their way to India, so it's reasonable that anyone with very parochial ideas of who could be saved stayed home.

This sort of thing is the sort of thing that gives theologians nightmares, though. None of the present Eleďi are humans -- they are all uesti [or flaids]. The fact -- discovered through colonialism -- that Eretaldian and Arcelian uesti are interfertile, and Greek humans and Aethiops humans were, but humans and uesti were *not* should be a disconcerting fact, and should get more and more disconcerting when they develop something like our concept of "species" [didn't you say that the Verdurians, at least, had a *19th century conception of evolutionary biology?].

They could easily be excused for repressing it because Eleďát, from reading what there is, is not really Christianity and has no contact with the human Church and so does not place much [any?] importance on remaining in communion with them [by whatever means]. I do not know if you intend this by calling it Eleďát rather than, say, Eretaldian Christianity but this is the impression I get. It also seems to be rather free of fundamentalism (with just conservatism in Avela) -- but should modernity end up going the same way it did here then I can see the species problem becoming a big deal.

[rotting bones]

Come to think of it, that does sound fishy to me. The original sin is Adam's responsibility and gets passed down to his descendants, right? So how does Jesus' expiation as Adam's heir apply to the uesti if they are not of his line? Shouldn't an heir of whichever uesti ancestor is responsible for their original sin sacrifice himself or herself for their salvation? Seems to me they should stick to Cuzeian theism/Arashei till then.

What I'm saying is, isn't "progeny of Adam" the only definition of "human" that's relevant here? I think the Elenicoi would need significant elaborations of doctrine to make theological sense of this mess, which would be quite interesting, if you could explore Eled'e doctrine through your Almean connections. (Eg. Even defining the uesti as sons of Adam by fiat stirs up potential for some quality controversy later on.)

[zompist]

Although I hate memetics, I think about this memetically. An institution can have debates, but it's almost always going to come to conclusions that support its existence and continued mission. (Even if a majority decide that the group should disband, those folks will just leave, and if the minority is big enough it will become the group and continue the mission.)

For the Elenicoi, we have a group already committed to evangelization and mission (they were on their way to India); they're cut off from home; they meet a bunch of new people who not only need the gospel but political rescue; plus (as they see it) there are supernatural signs pointing to intervention. Naturally there were debates, but it seems a no-brainer that they'd choose to pursue evangelization. They would work out whatever theology they needed to justify their decision.

I like Pthug's idea that the whole thing could become a big controversy centuries later, perhaps galvanized by a better understanding of the species concept. On the other hand, by then it'll be a controversy among Almeans, and the three legs of Eleďát (the books of Eleď, Iesu, and Mihel) are 2/3 Almean. From their point of view, there's millennia of experience of God working on Almea; the episode involving Oikumene was important but only part of the story. And again, there's zero influence from Rome which might condemn any local variations as heresy.

[rotting bones]

Yeah, but their justifications could be interesting. If they are on another world, how is the lineage of Adam found there too? Even if Adam was originally created in a heaven situated Platonic hierarchies above both worlds, one soul couldn't have been banished to both Almea as well as Oikumene at the same time. Maybe they believed that Oikumene was the original homeland of humanity, and the uesti had found their way to Almea just as the Elenicoi had. Dogmatically motivated misconceptions like that can go up in really pretty conflagrations centuries later, is all I'm saying.

Although I hate memetics, I think about this memetically.

...don't become what you hate?

[Pthagnar]

Although I hate memetics, I think about this memetically. An institution can have debates, but it's almost always going to come
to conclusions that support its existence and continued mission. (Even if a majority decide that the group should disband, those folks will just
leave, and if the minority is big enough it will become the group and continue the mission.)
For the Elenicoi, we have a group already committed to evangelization and mission (they were on their way to India); they're cut off from home;
they meet a bunch of new people who not only need the gospel but political rescue; plus (as they see it) there are supernatural signs pointing to
intervention. Naturally there were debates, but it seems a no-brainer that they'd choose to pursue evangelization. They would work out whatever
theology they needed to justify their decision.

I like Pthug's idea that the whole thing could become a big controversy centuries later, perhaps galvanized by a better understanding of the
species concept. On the other hand, by then it'll be a controversy among Almeans, and the three legs of Eleďát (the books of Eleď, Iesu, and
Mihel) are 2/3 Almean. From their point of view, there's millennia of experience of God working on Almea; the episode involving Oikumene was
important but only part of the story. And again, there's zero influence from Rome which might condemn any local variations as heresy.

I think you are using "memetically" here as a euphemism for "agnostically" or "atheistically". A Christian interpretation does not ignore the fact
that institutions seek to propagate themselves -- it just says that (especially where the Church is concerned) this is *because* God is in Heaven
pulling strings of grace; some people get hold of them and prosper while some flee from them and are damned. The Church continues because God wills
it and declares its destruction to be impossible, even though at times the whole of the visible Church may be able to fit in a very small room
indeed.

In an atheistic universe, it also does not matter that the Church on Almea has no contact with the Church on Earth -- all it means is that sure,
they will diverge from each other but that is a fact of no special interest. In a world which *used* to be theistic, but from which God has
disappeared, then this sort of thing would matter in the mythical past but not be relevant in the present -- here one can point to grace as working
during this time period, but since then it has been absent. Thus, the humans who were important were the Greeks. The humans who would seem to be
*more* important, such as Lord Jesus, King of the Universe or the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven *aren't*. A properly Christian worldview is one
where these sanctified humans are at work throughout history, do their work by being in communication with individuals and that by listening to
them one can avoid heresy. This is, of course, nonsense to atheists.
If you give this attitude up and approach it like a Christian, then the fact that the Eretaldian Christians are beyond the reach of Rome becomes of
less importance than the fact that they are *not* beyond the reach of Christ. This is how the uesti remain in contact with humanity. What Christ
the human thinks is of more importance than what the human Elenicoi thought -- Christ is supposed to be the paradigm to which Christians are
supposed to compare themselves, the figure of whom the priest is the vicar. If one is to have such an intimate relationship with Christ, then
either his [literal] alienness is something to be a) wrestled with or b) repressed. How often is he portrayed as *looking* human, for instance?
Don't uesti lack foreskins? What is to be made of *that*?

[Rodlox]

And again, there's zero influence from Rome which might condemn any local variations as heresy.

. Thus, the humans who were important were the Greeks.

thought the conversation was about how Christianity was transmitted to Almea -- in which case, yes, the Greeks are important.

(in the same way that St. Thomas brought the Word of God to India, these Greeks brought it to Almea; yes, St. Thomas and those Greeks would believe that Jesus is acting through them, but we still credit them for being the feet on the ground)

If you give this attitude up and approach it like a Christian, then the fact that the Eretaldian Christians are beyond the reach of Rome becomes of
less importance than the fact that they are *not* beyond the reach of Christ.

the Rome comment was more aimed at the fact that it doesn't matter if Rome or St. Petersburg or Constantinople or Cairo consider Almean Christianity to be heretical or not.

If one is to have such an intimate relationship with Christ, then
either his [literal] alienness is something to be a) wrestled with or b) repressed. How often is he portrayed as *looking* human, for instance?
Don't uesti lack foreskins? What is to be made of *that*?

I've heard that one or two churches claim to have relics of Christ's foreskin...but I don't think any Churches depict Christ as having one. (either in icons, statues, or other forms)

besides, its a moot point - after His infancy, Jesus didn't have one either.

[Pthagnar]

thought the conversation was about how Christianity was transmitted to Almea -- in which case, yes, the Greeks are important.

How it was transmitted and what happened to it when it got there. The Greeks are obviously important, and are doubtless highly venerated, but my point was that Almean knowledge of humanity did not die with them. To believers, this is not only knowledge of humanity, but communion with *living human beings*.

the Rome comment was more aimed at the fact that it doesn't matter if Rome or St. Petersburg or Constantinople or Cairo consider Almean Christianity to be heretical or not.

If you are a Christian, it matters to God.

besides, its a moot point - after His infancy, Jesus didn't have one either.

But he *had to have it cut off*. Imagine if the Jews had nose tentacles, and the covenant of Abraham was that these aliens had to cut the nose tentacles off. You do not have nose tentacles. Nobody you know has nose tentacles. That these people *had* nose tentacles to cut off in the first place makes them peculiar.
And when I said iconography, I obviously did not mean iconography of Christ's hot cut cock. I meant the fact that he looks like a human, not a uesti. There are differences -- different number of toes, as I recall, and obviously subtle facial structure differences too. Unlike his dick, Christ's toes and face make an appearance frequently, particularly in crucifixion scenes.