Intergalactic Summit

Amen.

But who is the one spreading myth and speculation ? Uh, I am not sure that I ever stated that all civilization came out from the Eve Gate. The Eve Gate is merely a point of reference in New Eden archaeology since it is the oldest artefact know to us currently.

If you really are interested in the matter, you can find more about it on the 3 theories of the origins (Common, Syncretism and Mold). Note that the Common origin from the Eve Gate is an old concept priviledged essentially by the Amarr.

I personnally find archaeology and scientific venues a lot more worth of interest as the meaningless wars you refer to. Of course you are enticed to your own opinions, but I hardly see what the Eve Gate has to do with the current discussion in any case. As I said above I merely used it as a point of scientific historical reference.

What is your point exactly if I may ask ?

I used the eve gate reference as a dating method, like you use YC 114 or whatever. Why blaming me for derailing a thread...

Also, I apologize on my behalf for taking a part in this.

Amen, mr. Amith. And the very existence of the Minmatar Republic is a reminder from God to everyone who thinks that his social rank entitles him to abuse the lesser beings in his care.

With the direct intent of speaking on her behalf, it's a terminological confusion.

"Lesser" in terms of the Imperial social caste system not in terms of creation or identity.

Mister Cresthill,

Arzad Hamri was stricken from the Book of Records, the single highest form of punishment known to the Empire. His teachings and practices were branded heretical.

From research, the greatest amount of opposition to his teachings came when he decided to use a relic and symbol of the Emperor's authority and divinity and turn it into a gift to be given to slaves he elevated from slavery. It wasn't that he was elevating slaves (that is rather the point, is it not?), it's that he was completely disregarding the authority and sanctity of the Emperor and the Empire in doing so.

Let it be known that while his practice of working alongside his subjects and studying their wisdom and knowledge may have been frowned upon by some, the Theology Council does not forbid this practice nor do Scriptures. There is nothing stopping a Holder from doing the same except their own choosing. It was not these practices that placed Hamri in opposition to the Theology Council and the Empire.

To assert that the Amarr do not also learn from slavery and slaves is to demonstrate an impressive level of negligence (willful or otherwise). As I have carefully explained time and again, the Amarr do study and learn other cultures and other people's wisdom and talents, our interest is not in destroying or obliterating such things. We work to remove only that which prevents an individual from living righteously before God and thus heralds the eternal servitude of their soul in Paradise.

While I agree that more Holders could benefit from sharing in the labor of their subjects, I would disagree with the assertion that this does not already happen or that the Amarr do not learn from their subjects.

Respectfully, do you not already have your own thread dedicated to broadcasting the teachings of Arzad Hamri and your reflections on them?

You have an impressive understanding of the life and history of Arzad Hamri, which I find compelling as nearly everything pertaining to him from the Imperial side of things has been vigorously destroyed (as is common when someone is removed from the Book of Records) and remains available to only the highest officials and clergy.

Your assessment of the Theology Council is also erroneous. Allow me to break it down for you:

The Theology Council:

• Acts as the supreme court of the Empire
• Makes decisions pertaining to the doctrine of scripture and canonizing of saints
• Hears cases against Holders and Heirs and elevated cases against Commoners (to some degree)
• Hears most cases pertaining to religious doctrine and practice
• Has no governmental authority in the Empire apart from judiciary capability

If the Theology Council "feared" Heretic Hamri's actions and practices, they'd have simply ruled against them explicitly instead of cowering in the shadows and waiting for some opportune moment to strike at him. Instead, the official court records indicate that the basis for his arrest and judgment pertained to his profaning of a sacred symbol of divinity and authority by altering it without proper authority and then copying it for distribution to those unauthorized to receive it. Even still the Theology Council makes no mention of concerns with his practices or the way in which he governed his holdings, nor in how he interacted with his subjects except in passing out this altered sacred symbol. I suspect he would not even have been challenged if the symbol were not a sacred one with religious relevance and representation of divine authority and merit. Had it been a signet ring, for instance, it would have hardly been an issue.

There is some mention that his name was attached to the later rebellion of the Starkmanir and the use of one of these relics was used in the slaying of Lord Arkon Ardishapur. Whom, by the way, was supposedly a friend and supporter of the Hamri Family at the time and if he was against the actions taken against Arzad Hamri, it seems suspect that he would then be slain using one of those relics by the "leader" of the uprising.

You suggest the Theology Councils is governed by fear, cowering in the shadows of Holders and Heirs (which would be completely contradictory to its purpose and place in the Imperial Hierarchy) and that it is corrupt and in need of reform. I suggest that your assessment of history is entirely biased and likely received entirely from biased sources (the Starkmanir, perhaps?), that your assessment of the Theology Council has no foundation and is based entirely on your own biased perception.

You also claim they were nearly wiped out of existence for opposing the Theology Council when history records that they were nearly wiped out of existence by the personal fleet of the Ardishapur Family for slaying Lord Arkon Ardishapur and thwarting any attempt to otherwise put down their uprising. (An action that was later condemned by the Empire, by the way).

I commend your compassion and your desire to show the tender side of guidance and righteousness. Your desire to reach out to those that wander apart from God is admirable and the passion by which you pursue your heart for righteousness is also commendable. I would counsel you to take each step carefully, however. Passion often gives way to blindness and zealotry and compassion can lead to compromise. Neither of these will serve you well when the test of faith finds you. Do not let yourself become deceived by biased representations of history and idolatry of a good man whom made a very grievous error and refused to repent of it.

May God shine his light on you as you continue to search for righteousness, Mister Cresthill.

Now that is a pointed question.

It would be a betrayal of my humble station and presumptuous on my behalf to try and offer you an official position, this would be the realm of the Theology Council. However, I can (and will) provide you with my own understanding through research and prayer.

Allow me a moment to try and provide an answer by establishing a foundation by which to work from.

First, we understand that God is eternal and that the realm of Paradise is eternal, thus only the eternal may reside there. This excludes the possibility that anything temporal could enter Paradise.

Second, we understand that our bodies are temporal and exist in the mortal realm. It is therefore impossible for our bodies to enter into Paradise.

Third, we understand that our soul is eternal and therefore able to enter the realm of Paradise. However, the soul is first bound to the temporal body as an aspect of the Divine imparted upon his creation and it is not until the temporal passes away that the soul may ascend to the eternal realm.

With those three points established, we try and understand the relationship between the body, the soul and God. The Scriptures consistently reference the soul as the aspect of the human individual that God identifies with. This would make sense given that it is our soul, not our body, that will dwell eternally with God in Paradise.

The question then becomes, when exactly does the soul leave the mortal realm and ascend to the eternal realm? From a faith standpoint, I would argue that an individual's consciousness is their soul (or at least the manifestation of it in this realm). In that, an individual is not truly dead until their consciousness ceases to exist in the mortal realm. The body is therefore nothing more than a temporal shell which houses the consciousness (the soul). As it is the soul that God relates to, not the body, then it is when the soul leaves this realm that it stands before God in the eternal realm of Paradise.

With that in mind, I would argue that the death of the body does not herald the ascension of the soul, it is the death of the consciousness that does so. In the case of capsuleers, we do not truly die when our bodies are slain within the pod, our consciousness is transferred to another body. I see no indication in Scripture that this transfer of the consciousness could not be an actual transfer of the human soul, indeed I would suggest that while we consider ourselves transferring electrical signals from one host to the next, the soul is transferred. (This would imply that God is capable of moving the soul from one body to the next in order to preserve his established order and purpose, which would again fall in line with his sovereignty over creation).

In summary, I do not believe an individual soul actually ascends into the eternal realm until the intended host for that soul ceases to exist (this includes clones) in this realm. Therefore, capsuleers are not soulless constructs, our souls remain with us through the cloning process and do not ascend until we no longer exist.

I can explain in greater detail how I arrive at this conclusion but believe it would be easier and more prudent to do so in a more private setting by which we can discuss and debate more freely and rapidly.

You are, of course, welcome to be a part of the discussion.