Intergalactic Summit

On request to prevent derailment of another thread, I open this one.

All a free and welcome to ask, answer and debate on the topics ongoing at any given time. One thing I will ask is that coming here and simply denoucing the faith isn't going to be a productive continuation of the conversation, and will (I hope) be promptly ignored. I, myself, might not be able to keep up with this thread from time to time, and I'm not the fore most educated person on the art of debate, but I will do my best.

We start where we ended in the other thread.



Her Majesty explicitly said Lord's work, not Lord's product. While I can see the strings you're threading here to try to connect the two, it just doesn't work. An example if I may.

One cannot call fat sugar. Fat is made, in its consitutional parts, from sugars. This is an over simplification of course, but it sets the example straight. Fat is still fat. Man's work, though built on the Lord's foundation, is still Man's work.

Regardless, it is the duty of us, as the followers of the faith, to understand the message of God as relayed by Her Majesty. She is infallible, so if there is confusion on the meaning of her words it is either because it was intended to be confusing so as to lay out a challenge to us to follow, or it is by a failing of us to correctly understand. regardless, in my own humble opinion, I think you're really pulling at thin strings to conect foundation with final product and call it ultimately the foundation layer's sole work.



That's actually not a bad description on free will. My own humble opinion is that free will was granted to us for purpose of testing us. We, as humans, are imperfect beings, but perhaps with time and experiance across eons, we might become closer, more perfect beings to better please God. That is not to suggest we usurp the heirarchy of course. The True Amarr are place above me, the Holders above the rest of the True Amarr, Heirs above them, Empress above the Heirs, the Angels of God above the Empress and God above all others.

The first real test of our free will was a choice. We could follow God, and at one time all humanity did. We could also walk away from God, and my Ni-Kunni and Civire ancestors did so. God willed us to remain under him, but foresaw that many of humanity would walk from him. He planned for this through the True Amarr. The Chosen. Theirs is the mission to reclaim us, and restore us all back under

Holy **** they're just talking about their life why make it so difficult

This is agreeable. I am not asking for a willing readiness to lose faith or anything, merely the willingness to give honest and fair consideration to any argument made in here, on its merits and acceptance of its merits if it can't be reasonably refuted or disputed by something a bit more weighty than "I believe that..."

It will of course be reciprocated and I will not try to hold a standpoint simply on "I believe that.... without any supporting evidence..." etc.

I will have to do this tomorrow though, as I am in the middle of combat right now and I have meditation scheduled after.

Have you ever been a parent? When we say we are all God's Children, it is perhaps an accurate metaphor. God, our Father, guides our Evolution as a species and our spiritual growth as individuals. He is loving and just to those who obey His word. He is terrible in his wrath to those who would endanger His Children. Is it not appropriate to teach a child respect and honor? Is it not appropriate for a child to be taught obedience?

Are there not mysteries of adulthood that we cannot properly understand until we are adults?

That you ask a question proves that you are not willfully ignorant. I invite you to seek further instruction. That tug you feel at your heart, might be a seed of faith.

When people on opposite sides of a contentious issue sit down to talk, having a few ground rules and expectations clearly laid out can only help to maintain the amity and productive nature of the discussions.

As for Mizhara Del'thul's request, I have no problem with those definitions for faith, facts, hypotheses, and dogma - which I suspect surprises no-one.

And yes, I am willing to honestly evaluate my views if I encounter a position that I cannot dispute - but that does not necessarily mean faith itself, and assertions based solely on it, will sway me. Again, I suspect this is no surprise.

Now, on to Utari Onzo... and I hope he does not feel like we are ganging up on him.



As far as I can see, the Empress' words were 'not a product of the Lord's work'. My point in that aspect of our discussion was merely that she might have chosen those words more carefully. Indirectly, the Drifters are inescapably a product of Creation. This doesn't mean they're a direct product of the Lord's will, but the Empress' words could be taken by some to mean that the Lord had no part in the Drifters' existence, and likely will be by particularly xenophobic and dogmatic individuals. That has the potential to be dangerous.

If the Drifters are taken to be in no way the Lord's creations, then they would be anathema to all of existence, no? And so, their technology might be viewed similarly, and those who use it... can you not see how this might give rise to another extremist organization in the vein of the Equilibrium of Mankind, dedicated to eradicating all of the 'Unclean' who employ 'technology the Lord finds abhorrent'?

Obviously, the terms are of my own derivation, but can you not see how inartful words can give rise to that scenario? And if the Drifters become more aggressive, more pervasive a threat to the citizens of the Empires, how many billions might be open to that message, open to that militarization and radicalization?

The strength of truth doesn't lie in a "good argument". We do not begrudge your viewpoint, but you fundamentally misunderstand the basis of our Faith.

In response to this question, I must again observe that you have identified an important element of the actual imperial position. All human beings can be called impure (certainly in comparison to God, Who is perfect purity) to some extent. This impurity has its root in the taint of sin/disobedience and a changeable nature bound in the unfolding of time. This impurity is the basic, pre-existing state of the individual in the current universe. The life of faith is an attempt to reduce and limit this impurity through the cultivation of a state of utter servitude to God by submitting totally to His will. We do know holiness, in part, through a contrast formed by our impurity. The creature, who wishes to catch sight of its Creator, is led on by the growing awareness of this contrast. As the individual submits his will ever more to the will of the Lord, this contrast decreases, but the person of faith becomes ever more aware of the enduring presence of this impurity (even though it is ever-decreasing), and this awareness adds urgency to the life of faith as well as an increased desire for unity with the Creator. In this way, the person of faith is an athlete whose pace quickens the more he or she progresses. The advancement of the life of faith is a purification. The enduring presence of the stain of sin and the potentially disobedient will also presents the possibility that the individual will err and falter, as the Scriptures state when they speak of the test of faith. The life of faith is constant struggle to defeat the enemies outside and control those of the inside. In fact, this struggle is a dialectic that refines and purifies.

In my earlier statement, I meant to imply that the true birth of a faith in the Lord requires an upward motion towards purity. It cannot begin by an indulgence of the corrupted will that is, in fact, the root of the problem.

Brother Honorius:

Thank you for continuing the conversation here. I'm hopeful that Lt. Kernher will be able to join the discussion as well, when she finishes her... studies.

I understand your point regarding why the slave is not freed upon a facile declaration of belief, or obedience. Indeed, given the purpose and devotion behind the institution as you describe it, I'm forced to admit that it could function no other way. But therein lie additional complications and questions.



We are... I suspect I will likely muck this up and not convey my point as clearly as I might like, so I do beg your indulgence... We are who we are. Our actions, our experiences, the things we've seen and done, the places we travel in this life... these things we carry with us, in many ways, define us, shape us. In a sense, is not slavery an execution, for the individual, drawn out over years or decades, forced to see their children made into something they would not have chosen?

Which is to say nothing of the particular form of slavery practiced by some of your adherents, perhaps best (or worst) exemplified by a fellow named Nauplius:



If the Reclaiming is meant to uplift those who have strayed, then does not his example only serve to harden the resolve of those who consider slavery to be a barbaric practice meant only to destroy lives and indulge the avarice and arrogance of its practitioners? How can this sort of mistreatment and open malevolence toward those in his care be tolerated by a society that sees its efforts as a just and noble insitution? I realize that, in the very statement I have quoted, Mr. Nauplius has rejected the guidance of those - yourself included - who have issued this statement regarding the enslavement of capsuleers, but he has made other, similar statements of his intentions toward my people specifically, and have not seen any denouncement by the leaders of your faith in response. If I've simply been unaware of such a statement, I'd gladly learn otherwise.

Also, he refers to the 'fear of Hell'. I'm forced to assume he does not mean that his drug-addled, abused, and highly traumatized pilot is not personally afraid of encountering a Hel-class supercarrier in his daily activities, so I must ask:

How is that not precisely the willingness to be bribed in order to secure the desired behavior? Is not an adherence to the tenets of the faith simply out of a desire to avoid torment levied precisely for the failure to do so exactly the same corruption and bribery, whether the torment is in the current life, or in some eternal existence after death? (I assume that the Amarr conception of 'Hell' lines up with the general concept among the various races - if not, how does it differ?)

I also question what kind of maniac wants his pilot to have cause to resent him - potentially enough to disable the collision safeties and send the ship nose first into a moon or asteroid - but obviously, that question is outside of the scope of this discussion.

Regarding impurity and - as that is how we came to the impurity discussion - Max's potential efforts (I make no claim to know the depths of his intent. I am an immortal, not a mind-reader.):

In the light of today's admonishment against the enslavement of capsuleers (which I find interesting in its own right, and have questions about), how then is the capsuleer to be corrected and brought to the faith, if not through a bond of trust and understanding? And, in what I admit is an interesting twist, is it not possible that the intention of any imminent campaign against Providence is itself a form of attempting a Reclamation?

Obviously, it would seem... misguided and wrongheaded to those on the receiving end. Such things always are, after all. But if his intent is a sincere service to the Lord, then is it not preferable to attempt to engage with him, much as we are doing now, rather than meet the hard line with the hard line? Such things, as I'm sure you've noticed in your own reactions, have a tendency to make people defensive, to dig in their heels, and to become more combative than before. I apologize if this strays a bit close to the political. It's certainly not my intent to stray into what might be seen as propaganda. If I do, please tell me, so that I can tack closer to our intended topics.

Ah, no - I fear there's been some confusion on that, then. My statement regarding her phrasing has nothing to do with her doctrinal infallibility. Doctrinal infallibility would stem from intent and meaning, in my understanding. After all, doctrinal infallibility doesn't imply absolute perfection - as Brother Honorius has made clear, that would be the sole province of God himself, no? If you insist the sovereign must exhibit absolute perfection, then any defeat anywhere would put that matter in question, and as you and others have explained, that is not how the sovereign's doctrinal infallibility has been interpreted.

With that - and our earlier establishment of base principles - in mind, please keep in mind that for my part, this discussion is just that: an informal, relaxed discussion, where the aim is to better understand, not to convert. I apologize for giving you the impression that I was trying to undermine your faith. The failure there is mine, I should have been more clear.

If a person is raised to believe in certain things, to think in certain ways, then will they not cling to those beliefs? You've said that the Reclamation is the burden of the Amarr, to return the fallen to Unity with the Lord. I have to ask - if a slave dies in wickedness, is it a failure of the slave, who cannot be expected to think that what is being done is to his benefit, or of the Holder? Is the slave not a victim of their upbringing, of an estrangement from the Lord that was not of their choosing, and which left them spiritually damaged and perhaps even unable to recognize the truth when presented to them?

Why is it the slave who is punished, and not the Holder who failed them - and failed the Lord?



Similarly, how can one who is Fallen, whose distance from the Lord is not of their own making, but rather the result of centuries of ignorance, fail to see a Reclamation as an attack, an act of hostility and oppression, rather than an attempt a corrective discipline? You speak of Reclamation as, in effect, the means for the older, wiser Amarrian culture to bring their erring younger siblings back to the path of Righteousness, and I would very much like to believe this is the intent. But if a child, in ignorance and misunderstanding, makes a mistake, or even throws a tantrum, is rage an appropriate response? If a culture like the Matari cannot be trusted to read Scripture and judge for itself the righteousness of the Lord's cause, then how can they be held responsible for the misunderstanding that you seem to imply they cannot help but fall victim to?

Is rage at someone who, by your own implication, cannot, without extended discipline and being stripped to their foundations and remade. be expected to make the right decision truly righteous? Or is it akin to kicking a household pet that does not understand why it wasn't supposed to chew on the slippers you so clearly left out so it could chew on them?

And if we are expected to be able to recognize the truth of the Scriptures for ourselves, is it not then counterproductive to bring the Scriptures to the unbelievers in a way that will be seen as aggression, and which our common human nature will instinctively resist?