These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

The Theology Council is a Den of Indecency and Treason—An answer to Ms Gesakaarin

First post
Author
Odelya d'Hanguest
Order of St. Severian
#1 - 2013-09-27 09:04:35 UTC
Ms Gesakaarin,

since certain debates are not desired in another thread, I have decided to take your excellent point and discuss it her.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:

This class of priests we are reading about here has done its best to manipulate, alter, conceal, and misuse the scripture in the name of those “higher truths” and “correct understandings”. I certainly separate myself from God if I relay my faith to someone else, and do not rely on my personal capabilities—be it reason for the intellectually blessed, or feelings for the rest. The Theology Council is a den of indecency and treason.


If the Theology Council is a den of indecency and treason, then it follows that they have no legitimacy to either determine what is to be the Orthodoxy of the Amarrian faith or the moral laws derived from the Scriptures. Conversely there can exist no such thing as a heretic, for there is no longer a religious doctrine.

According to your own sentiments then, the Sani Sabik and Blood Raiders are non-heretical in their beliefs due to:

1. They interpret the Scriptures according to their own personal capabilities -- be it reason for the intellectually blessed, or feelings for the rest.

2. Since no recognition is given to the Theology Council as to setting what is to be the Orthodoxy of the Amarrian faith due to as you put it, being a, "Den of indecency and treason" they cannot be considered heretics for there is no Orthodox thought by which to judge the personal beliefs and interpretations of individuals who profess the Sani Sabik/Blood Raider interpretations bring them closer to God.

I would have to ask then:

Are you a follower of the Sani Sabik faith, Ms. d'Hanguest?

That aside, isn't the whole purpose of the Theology Council to prevent, as with the Sani Sabik, just anyone taking some Scriptural quotes and interpreting them any way they like?

Allow me to answer your question in three steps, first I would like to argue who in the past was qualified to determine what is good and what is not, then why especially the Theology Council is not, and finally I will talk about the contemporary situation.

1| When and how have the Amarr been chosen? Since God is omnipotent and omniscient we assume that those who were chosen, were chosen before the creation of the universe by himself. People maintain that men were one before the fall of the EVE Gate, but God abandoned all but one people, the people of the covenant. Both the beginning of salvation, and all the parts which flow from it, issue from God’s free mercy. God accommodated Himself in the language of men and spoke through his prophets, who are our unceasing joy—Dano Gheinok (hail to you forever), Kuria (you earliest host of our holy religion) and others (may God bless them all).

In his role as the pre-existent Mediator, Dano Gheinok (hail to you forever) is the ‘Head’ of the elect, the one in whom certain humans are elect; Dano Gheinok (hail to you forever) and the prophets are the mirror, the place we look to see our own election; guardians, protecting the election given to us by God; and a pledge, guaranteeing our eternal election. There was no need to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy when God spoke to men through his prophets.

2| The Council of Apostles and the Order of St. Tetrimon were the guardians of this prophetic revelation, but around 1500 years ago the fundaments of our sanctified order were changed—for purely political reasons. The Theology Council has proven ever since that it does not concerns itself with keeping the most holy scriptures pure and spreading the theology which is right and just, but that which serves its own agenda, which is based on lies and treason. Thus, a heretical institution itself it clearly lacks the competence to determine what is right and what is wrong. A true believer can not follow the Council, for to follow the Council is to abandon God.

3| Who can define heresies? There are many ways today and if we combine them we can achieve near absolute certainty: First and foremost it is the Grand Master of the Order in accordance with the holders of the realm and His Majesty King Khanid—the holders and the His Majesty represent the Emperor in this case who has lapsed from having real authority due to heresies. And it is also the collective reasoning of the people of God, who are safeguarded through his mercy and wisdom, who can collectively determine through a council what is good and what is bad.

Furthermore, there are also those who maintain that only God has the authority to judge who is a true believer and who is not, and that believers should consider all other believers as part of the community. And while we might not agree completely with this sentiment, we should remember to be tolerant and merciful.

The case of the Sani Sabik however it is crystal clear: The have been outlawed before the “moral reforms”; they are the lowest scum of the universe, since they know the true path, but never follow it, which, as we know, is the gravest sin. The laws of God and of men alike determine that the Sani Sabik are criminal heretics that must be exterminated by any price.

I hope this answers your question, Ms Gesakaarin.

Blessings from the Sacred Flower Garden,
Odelya
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-09-27 10:25:23 UTC
My thanks, Ms. d'Hanguest, for taking the time and care to formulate this response and elaborate further upon your thoughts to me.

If you would permit me some time to consider your words with the same care in which they were written, and to respond in kind in the interest of further discussion.

Kurilaivonen|Concern

Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#3 - 2013-09-27 13:19:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:

Furthermore, there are also those who maintain that only God has the authority to judge who is a true believer and who is not, and that believers should consider all other believers as part of the community. And while we might not agree completely with this sentiment, we should remember to be tolerant and merciful.

The case of the Sani Sabik however it is crystal clear: The have been outlawed before the “moral reforms”; they are the lowest scum of the universe, since they know the true path, but never follow it, which, as we know, is the gravest sin. The laws of God and of men alike determine that the Sani Sabik are criminal heretics that must be exterminated by any price.

I hope this answers your question, Ms Gesakaarin.

Blessings from the Sacred Flower Garden,
Odelya


A real shame; the Sani Sabik are quite the unorthodox and perhaps even enlightened in certain views. I find a certain appeal within their ways while traditional faith is an extreme turn-off due to the following.

Also, I happen to come from a slave estate, I've witness many crimes committed in His name by the faithful.

Although the Sani Sabik are not perfect... there is a certain hue to being able to see faith in both Him and one's self, appealing very much to the survivor in me and hope.

He does work through occasionally unorthodox ways, regardless of the capacity of His followers.

Now, mind you, I do not consider the Sani Sabik the same as the Red God following Covenant, their ways should clearly have been outlawed since day one. It is incredibly hard to imagine God exists there.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...

Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#4 - 2013-09-27 13:41:57 UTC
Odelya is a heretic.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.

Repentence Tyrathlion
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#5 - 2013-09-27 15:06:16 UTC
I suppose I should make a clarification about the politics here - the Theology Council (theoretically) holds absolute power with regard to doctrine and accepted interpretation only within the Empire. They hold no functional power in the Kingdom. Conversely, the Order of St Tetrimon is an outlawed entity within the Empire, but holds influence within the Kingdom.

Hence, a Kingdom citizen can make this kind of declaration without automatically being declared a heretic and outcast. It's perhaps not terribly politic, but it is more acceptable than if an Imperial citizen were to say the same.

Safe to say that these are points of contention between the two at times.
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#6 - 2013-09-27 15:44:02 UTC
Repentence is also a heretic.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.

Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#7 - 2013-09-27 15:52:57 UTC
Fascinating. Thank you, Gesakaarin-haani, Ms. d'Hanguest, for your discussion of doctrines of faith. I'll admit this is a weakness of mine. Gesakaarin-haani, I can only assume that you took philosophy courses for your electives at the STI; they've served you well.

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Repentence Tyrathlion
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#8 - 2013-09-27 16:41:09 UTC
Valerie Valate wrote:
Repentence is also a heretic.


You're so cute.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#9 - 2013-09-27 18:40:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Repentence Tyrathlion wrote:
I suppose I should make a clarification about the politics here - the Theology Council (theoretically) holds absolute power with regard to doctrine and accepted interpretation only within the Empire. They hold no functional power in the Kingdom. Conversely, the Order of St Tetrimon is an outlawed entity within the Empire, but holds influence within the Kingdom.

Hence, a Kingdom citizen can make this kind of declaration without automatically being declared a heretic and outcast. It's perhaps not terribly politic, but it is more acceptable than if an Imperial citizen were to say the same.

Safe to say that these are points of contention between the two at times.


Of course making such statements will result in being considered a heretic within the Empire. Not to even mention the reminiscences of pagan polytheism contained in stylizing the Prophet Dano Gheinok as 'pre-existing Mediator' (The only thing pre-existing creation is God) and the anti-Scriptural ideas of God's free mercy. The Kingdom would do good to follow the example of the Empire it's a Kingdom of - in this specific case.
Constantin Baracca
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#10 - 2013-09-27 23:05:41 UTC
I'd like to add a bit onto these points, but I'd like to make it clear that, as a Bishop who answers to the Theology Council, I find the overall assessment disagreeable at least as far as the modern situation and the idea that we are inimically heretical and political a bit general. Still, I do understand where she is coming from, as do most of us in the modern Theological movement. There's a reason we aren't all rushing out to cut off her head even if she isn't very happy with us.

On the subject of why the Amarr were chosen to carry the word, has often been debated among scholars, and even now the essential question of "why us?" resounds. Essentially He could have gone anywhere and made anyone His chosen messengers, but he chose the Amarr. There must have been something in our civilization that made us good candidates, or at the very least, better candidates than the rest of the universe. Nonetheless, I would agree that around 1500 years ago, the Scriptures began to be stretched for political ambitions. However, I can't say the Theology Council of that era is even the same as it is today, and I can't say I feel my ancestors were politically responsible. Those that were have long since passed into political duty with the Privy Council and left the Theology Council to wander in our books and educate.

To break down the history, 1500 years ago there was no Theology Council. There was the Council of Apostles, which had absolute power to control the Amarr Empire. It was essentially a centralizing force and kept us on the same page. What happened next is a matter of contention. Some say the Empire simply became too big to control via one megalithic organization. Some say that the landholders and businessmen of the time found the doctrines of the Theology Council to be limiting their maximum business potential. Some say the leaders of the Council of Apostles were too busy hunting heretics at the time to know that they were losing the domestic political chess game. Whatever the cause, the power of the Council of Apostles began eroding. Finally, the Emperor dissolved it, appointed the Privy Council to administer the law, and created the Theology Council from loyal priests to strictly re-examine the Scriptures. The Order of St. Tetrimon were exiled witht heir intepretation and from there diverged into a separate but similar strand of our faith. One that isn't modern doctrine, but isn't necessarily heretical, either.

The Theology Council today is more like a supreme court mixed into the church, and our mandate for the last about 1500 years has been to determine if something is or is not Scriptural. The law is now created on a feudal basis, nominally by the Privy Council. The Theology Council has had a representative seat or seats, back and forth, depending on how much legal power the Emperor decided to give them. For the court's part, one citizen can bring to the Theology Council a law which that citizen deems to be heretical. The Council can then strike the laws down and make continuing the practice a crime. I'm not as well learned on this as I was trained to be a teacher and I am not a lawyer. However, it is the recourse which allows people, even average citizens, to maintain power.

The law also allows the Theology Council to declare someone a heretic, after it is proven they have committed an unforgivable heresy and intend to commit more. Though our firepower is not as great as the Council of Apostles, that does mean that the Theology Council could conceivably arrest nearly anyone for anything. Or not arrest someone, as the case sometimes is; those who work in that particular branch of the Council have allowed quite a bit of derivation so long as it is not outright hostile or inimical to the Word.

Recently, the Order of St. Tetrimon returned, and I can say I've had good dealings with them so far. They strongly dislike the Theology Council, though we are quite a bit closer together now than we had been, especially with the new Empress's decrees. I think that might simply be a shift away from Theology as a center of power. It tends to draw those who seek enlightenment now, while those who sought wealth and power have, over a millenium and a half, largely moved into landholding positions.

I cannot say that one of the Order of St. Tetrimon have no cause for resenting us, at least as an organization. Still, even with the power of the Theology Council being trimmed, there was no one else to try to keep the Empire following the Scriptures. I know my family rose up into the Theology Council's ranks from a mercantile family about five hundred years after its inception when support for leading a life of humility began to fade and the stereotype of the rich slaveholding landlord became our vogue. I was rather pleased to see the Order allowed to return and the Khanid being allowed back into the Empire. We were not meant to drift alone, and I can't say I'm completely against re-examining our entire litany of practices against the Scriptures as a matter of law. At present, neither of us has that political capacity. Perhaps the Empress will see fit to remedy the situation. That seems to be the discussion happening at the highest orders of the Theology Council, more my grandmother and fathers' area of expertise.

As Nicoletta pointed out, we have our differences, but it takes a bit more than disliking our Council to be made heretical these days. The Sani Sabik, for their part, are heretical for any number of reasons. The chief of them is that they tend to view their slaves as cattle, forgoing the responsibility of education and indoctrination. Essentially, they are not interested in the Divine Mandate, their responsibility to convert all people to the faith by hard work, as much as immortality by some falsification of Scripture which they use as an excuse for all manner of inhuman rituals. They fairly well are the definition of a heretic.

"What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?"

-Matthew 16:26

James Syagrius
Luminaire Sovereign Solutions
#11 - 2013-09-28 00:25:57 UTC
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
Since God is omnipotent and omniscient we assume that those who were chosen, were chosen before the creation of the universe by himself.
Then if "salvation" is or was predestined, then man does not possess free will.

If there is no free will there can be no sin.

Unless of course God predestined it.

So is it your position that God causes sin?

Heresy indeed.
Constantin Baracca
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#12 - 2013-09-28 03:11:13 UTC
James Syagrius wrote:
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
Since God is omnipotent and omniscient we assume that those who were chosen, were chosen before the creation of the universe by himself.
Then if "salvation" is or was predestined, then man does not possess free will.

If there is no free will there can be no sin.

Unless of course God predestined it.

So is it your position that God causes sin?

Heresy indeed.


Omniscient and omnipotent does not mean God can see the future. If He could, this would in fact be a rather pointless exercise. He can probably guess what is about to happen, so he tends to correct us when we have fallen off the path. I suppose, considering he sends us lessons when we are not doing well by our responsibilities, he almost guarantees we will learn. That is as close as I've ever heard someone describe predestination.

However, for the very reason you mentioned, it is thought that we are not all actors living in a script that has already been written. But that is not the Scriptural definition of omniscience. Essentially, it means God can see the whole picture all at once and that nothing can be hidden from Him.

"What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?"

-Matthew 16:26

Slaver Filth
Council of Apostles
#13 - 2013-09-28 03:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Slaver Filth
Constantin Baracca wrote:
James Syagrius wrote:
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
Since God is omnipotent and omniscient we assume that those who were chosen, were chosen before the creation of the universe by himself.
Then if "salvation" is or was predestined, then man does not possess free will.

If there is no free will there can be no sin.

Unless of course God predestined it.

So is it your position that God causes sin?

Heresy indeed.


Omniscient and omnipotent does not mean God can see the future. If He could, this would in fact be a rather pointless exercise. He can probably guess what is about to happen, so he tends to correct us when we have fallen off the path. I suppose, considering he sends us lessons when we are not doing well by our responsibilities, he almost guarantees we will learn. That is as close as I've ever heard someone describe predestination.

However, for the very reason you mentioned, it is thought that we are not all actors living in a script that has already been written. But that is not the Scriptural definition of omniscience. Essentially, it means God can see the whole picture all at once and that nothing can be hidden from Him.
To attempt to define the power of God in terms we humans understand is a futile exercise we are like an ant on the side of a skyscraper contemplating the universe, some ideas are just too big to fit into our even computer augmented heads.

Ponder for a moment the life of the worst sinner you could imagine, and you might say how could God allow such evil to exist. Perhaps the people who view the unspeakably evil doings of this sinner are then inspired to never be anything akin to him. Then the one evil sinner has served a purpose that God might have intended to promote the free will he has granted us to take the forms that pleases him and not just ourself.


"In the beginning all things were as one.
God parted them and breathed life into his creation
Divided the parts and gave each its place
And unto each, bestowed purpose"
- The Scriptures, Book I 1:4



I disagree that God does not see all and know all, we as humans are perhaps limited vessels for understanding the larger big picture of human existence created by God. The tendency to limit God's will and power through the human perspective is very common, but I think always wrong. God created man, man has not the ability to create God.

"Child of Amarr seek not warmth in our cold hearts, we are the old serpent of New Eden and you must do your part, revel in our viciousness, we rule by venom and our strike is merciless, "

Slaver Filth
Council of Apostles
#14 - 2013-09-28 04:19:36 UTC
Constantin Baracca wrote:
Nonetheless, I would agree that around 1500 years ago, the Scriptures began to be stretched for political ambitions. …...................
To break down the history, 1500 years ago there was no Theology Council. There was the Council of Apostles, which had absolute power to control the Amarr Empire. It was essentially a centralizing force and kept us on the same page.


These readily available historical facts put a little more meat on this skeletal version of our history.

The Amarr Empire had until the foul machinations of Emperor Zaragram III functioned as a slavocracy ran by a body of senate like religious representatives, called the “Council of Apostles”, who elected the Emperor, as a figurehead monarch to a life time term of service as one among equals with the “Council of Apostles” in running the Empire in accordance with their faith. When the “Mad Emperor” began to dismantle the balance of power away from the slavocracy in favor of a theocracy, being traditional pure True Amarr slavocrats the House of Gheinok stood with the “Council of Apostles” resisting the transition to a full blown theocracy. The fight was historic as the traditionalists resisted the movement away from rule by the “Word of God” to rule by a "Divine Emperor", to True Amarr slavocrats granting divinity to a fellow human being was nothing short of blasphemy, and it brought the Empire to the verge of civil war. The sudden assassination of Emperor Zaragram III shocked both sides of the raging debate, as tempers and passions cooled during the official mourning period for the Emperor the possibility of civil war receded. For the slavocrats the damage was done, Zaragram's death slowed the erosion of the Council of Apostles' power but despite their best efforts they were unable to regain their former status. Stifled by the appearance of too zealously trying to undo the now legacy of the deceased Emperor Zaragram III, and further weakened by the change in their popular political fortunes fostered so deftly by a few powerful houses that portrayed them in popular media as power hungry, unsophisticated, and bordering close to disloyal, they were finally completed disbanded under Emperor Heideran V.
Constantin Baracca wrote:
Finally, the Emperor dissolved it, appointed the Privy Council to administer the law, and created the Theology Council from loyal priests.....
Emperor Heideran V, himself a former member of the Council of Apostles, but having succeeding in the election to Emperor consolidated power to himself with the backing of the five most powerful families in Amarr. The slavocrats of the entire empire had been replaced by a political artifice of theocracy by the five most powerful houses of Amarr who pronounced themselves the only heirs to the throne. With the deification of the Emperor further overt political opposition was termed religious heresy, and all the holders beneath the top five houses were effectively silenced and locked out of real impact on the administration of, or the direction taken by the empire. For most of the large to midsized holders it was a bitter pill to swallow, the dream that one day a member from their house could rise to prominence based on their faith, performance, and merit to be a candidate for Emperor was forever revoked. If not for the Imperial Navy's unswerving apolitical allegiance to any legitimately elected Emperor there might have been civil war.

To separate the political, sociological, and religious maneuvering that happened 1500 years ago tells an incomplete story, they were and are still very much intertwined.

"Child of Amarr seek not warmth in our cold hearts, we are the old serpent of New Eden and you must do your part, revel in our viciousness, we rule by venom and our strike is merciless, "

Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#15 - 2013-09-28 07:52:21 UTC
"Slaver Filth" is a heretic.

a weird one.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.

Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#16 - 2013-09-28 10:55:28 UTC
Anyone who questions the authority of the Theology Council is not worthy enough to call themselves Amarrian

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori

Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#17 - 2013-09-28 11:17:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Makkal Hanaya
James Syagrius wrote:
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
Since God is omnipotent and omniscient we assume that those who were chosen, were chosen before the creation of the universe by himself.
Then if "salvation" is or was predestined, then man does not possess free will.


Someone knowing what choice you'll make doesn't interfere with you making a choice.

James Syagrius wrote:
If there is no free will there can be no sin.


God decides what is and isn't sin. If he decided that actions we can't help but take are sinful, then they are sinful. There are even theologians who hold that humans are born in a state of sin.

Valerie Valate wrote:
"Slaver Filth" is a heretic.

a weird one.

Something people of all faiths and philosophies can agree on.

That said:

If God can see the future and God can make whatever choice He desires, can God make a choice contrary to that which He's seen?

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#18 - 2013-09-28 17:02:02 UTC
Logically speaking, no. He'll have foreseen the context around the action and would have foreseen himself making that decision.

But it is precisely that kind of boondoggle that makes omiscient, omnipotent and omnipresent gods so difficult to believe in.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.

James Syagrius
Luminaire Sovereign Solutions
#19 - 2013-09-28 17:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: James Syagrius
Constantin Baracca wrote:
Essentially, it means God can see the whole picture all at once and that nothing can be hidden from Him.
If then my future is already a memory to God, then how can any act of my individual will alter what has from Gods collective perspective already occurred?

Are you suggesting that the will of the 'creation' can supplant the will of the 'creator'?
James Syagrius
Luminaire Sovereign Solutions
#20 - 2013-09-28 17:49:59 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Someone knowing what choice you'll make doesn't interfere with you making a choice.

I think it does if that 'someone' is the prime mover, whose will is in and of itself absolute.

Can I then make any choice other than that of the 'absolute's' presupposed will?.

If all branches of a maze lead to the trap does the mouse's choice matter?
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
There are even theologians who hold that humans are born in a state of sin.

The very need for salvation seems to affirm that point.
123Next pageLast page