Intergalactic Summit

Dear Captain d'Hanguest etc. pp.

I could debate with you what things meant all day long - that's etymology - but it will help you here as little as claiming that "make" can't be applied to "sense" as "make" etymologically meant "knead/form". This isn't about historical uses way back, it's about using contemporary terms in the way they are defined - which you fail at. Especially if it's terms as important as these in theological debate where they are technical terms of central importance. If you can't handle those terms correctly, you have every reason to stay out of such debate. I recommend that you do so!


Do you even understand these "claims" you have supposedly been "confronted with"? The idea which you were bringing up in your original post here was, I cite again, that "only True Amarr are among the chosen". "True Amarr" referrs to either the ethnicity that formed on and hails from the Amarr island - often even in stark contrast to the other Athran ethnicities, even though they already are assimilated, like the Udorians - which gives it the meaning of the original, biologically homogenous group of the Amarr that originated on Amarr island. You use it in exactly that dimension of meaning when placing the results of the trials in contrast to what you falsely insist to designate as "dogma".


Maybe you're mistaking me with someone else, but at least when it comes to doctrine and theology, I tend to be quite the antithesis of being liberal: I expect others to stick to the established and time-proven standards of good theological debate, that is to use the technical terms properly, to know which status is actually enjoyed by which propositions in the orthodox theological systems, to have a basic command of propositional logic as a foundation to all debate. That is, of course including that anyone can at anytime ask the others to ground their claims and justify them and expect an answer.

Also, this traditional position acknowledges theological debate is never simple and should preferably be conducted by professionals in the field - like the ones found in the Theology Council. I strictly oppose the liberal and - may I say so - dangerously lax and novel ways in "theological debate" - and I put this in quotation marks here to make a point of how far this is removed from all proper theological debate - that are embraced in the Kingdom, where every Holder, however uneducated they may be in theological matters (which in itself is not a bad thing - a good Holder's primary concern is righteous rule not theological detail, mind you) is allowed to talk about things they don't comprehend and basically start their own little sect. Those experiments are all too likely to spawn heresy.

But it still seems to me that you are actually more invested in vindicating your personal glory than in honest contemplation of the divine.

One thing that I've noticed about Odelya d'Hanguest is that she always resorts to using language more complicated than necessary when she thinks she might be on dodgy rhetorical ground.

I'm still not clear on what exactly the problem here is ?

Some argument that claims that having an Udorian as Empress somehow negates the idea that True Amarr are the First amongst the Chosen ?

Like using sentences akin to "The genealogy of a term is part of its social semiotics."? You might be onto something Admiral Blake!


First, I neither think nor did I claim claim that there is only one contemporary use of a given term: I said it's reasonable to restrict oneself to the contemporary uses in a debate. And while it's true that the genealogy of a term is parts of it's social semiotics - because studying a word in the context of human signifying practices in specific social and cultural circumstances includes the history of the term, it doesn't follow that we should exchange current signifing practices by past ones in current communication. We shouldn't need an etymological dictionary to understand you here, but either a simple current dictionary, which sometimes give indeed multiple (current) meanings of the term dogma, or a special dictionary for technical terms in theology. But really, the first should suffice for our purpose. Let us see:



Now, in a theological debate, what is the sensible usage of the term dogma? Let us look at the usages under 1., shall we? Usage 1.b) is out of question as one idea can't be a code of tenets. Use 1.c) might apply, as there are no adequate grounds to accept the idea that "only True Amarr are among the chosen". Still, I don't see anyone who seriously brought the view forth as authoritative in the first place. So, your last straw is 1.a), though we already excluded the hard core of "a definite authoritative tenet": So only the more loose meaning of "something held as an established opinion" is left. One that is especially unsuited to theological debate. Also, we might debate what counts as "established opinion" here. But OK.

Which leaves us with meaning 2., which is "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church". Now, that sounds like a usage of "dogma" that is appropriate for theological debate, no? And indeed, it is!

So, there, you're welcome for me providing you with what you should've had already: A look in a dictionary.

And, you see, I'm not at all bitter. I also assure you that I do wish to contribute something to this debate! Something that is much needed - especially if the aim is theological debate. And that's terminological clarity. You have to make clear what exactly you want to debate, if debate - successful debate - is the aim. Doing so also protects you from "allegations" like the one I rose. And, given your reactions to my attempts at clarifying, I still stand by my "allegation" that it seems that your true aim here isn't theological debate.

It is interesting. First, you criticise that “the genealogy of a term is part of its social semiotics” is too complicated language, then, you discuss it and acknowledge that “it’s true that the genealogy of a term is parts of its social semiotics.” That said: It is not sufficient to have one current dictionary that reflects the usage that we feel comfortable with—at least not if we want to understand what someone else says. Unless, of course, it is the only argument we have. I can also cite definitions such as: “prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group,” or “a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle”—all found in current dictionaries. However, I do not consider them the only valid definition. There is no such. You are right, however, that in a debate one needs terminological clarity. I have provided it.

In the beginnig, I was asking a very simple question: I asked those proclaiming the superiority of the True Amarr: How do you maintain your position? Is it selection or servitude in the name of the Lord that makes you a True Amarr? You have provided your viewpoint.

No, I criticised that you hide behind language more complicated than necessary. Because your statement a) was trivially true and b) had no impact on the argument at hand - which you concealed by saying "social semiotics". If you had said "investigation of human signifying practices in specific social and cultural circumstances" instead - which is easier, though more, words - then that much would've been obvious. It's a true statement, but that part of social semiotics is dealing with another question than current usage of a word. It's part of studying signifying practices, but in our case it suffices to have a look in a contemporary dictionary. Or more than one. Or, even preferrably, a dictionary of theological technical terms. No etymology should be needed. There should be no need of re-defining the term "dogma" again. That's the reason for technical terms!


That's why I was giving an example. I didn't even survey multiple ones and picked one that's to my liking. That said, given the ones you cite, both of them don't fit how you justified your mis-usage of the word "dogma" either! The problem is, while you elucidated on what you meant, you still misuse the word "dogma", especially if you mean this to be a theological debate - in which you have to stick to it's use as a terminus technicus, unless you're especially aiming at criticizing the defined use of the technical term. Which you clearly don't.


And my critique was equally simple: You asked this question in a misleading and inexact way, implying that the idea of "true Amarr superiority" was a position held authoritatively as an unchanging truth by Amarr orthodoxy. You did so furthermore by using language like "not few", "many", "volumes of exegesis", or "the True Amarr’s claim". Something included in this and which I haven't even mentioned yet, is that you also obfuscate the difference of the terms "True Amarr" and "Amarr".

You've brought forth nothing to back up that "the True Amarr" or any sizable number of them is comitted to that idea. Show me the statistics: What was the percentage of people who "considered the elevation of a family of Udorian ancestry blasphemous"? How many people "believed that the Lord would not permit a" - I assume: Udorian - "champion to win" and how many of them were True Amarr? How many volumes of exegesis have been written on the superiority of the "True Amarr"? Is it really "the True Amarr’s claim to superiority"? Certainly not as generally as you make it sound in your OP. I am True Amarr and I have no claim to True Amarr superiority whatsoever! Conversely, I know non-True Amarr who claim True Amarr superiority. Give me the numbers that show that this is the True Amarr’s claim.

As to you obfuscating the difference of the use of "True Amarr" and "Amarr": The scripture refers to the "Amarr", the "Amarr people" but is not differentiating between "True Amarr" and some implied "non-True Amarr". "True Amarr" (with captial T) is a relatively recent term used to distinguish the ethnical Amarr from the other ethnicities that have been brought into the Empire: The Udorians, the Assimians, The Khanid and Ni-Kunni and all the others which are, regardless of their ethnicity, as subjects of the Empire Amarr. Mixing these two terms as you do is, equally problematic as your misuse of the term "dogma". If you want to ask who's truely Amarr, then you'd at least have to make a distinction between "true Amarr" (non-capital t: those that are truely Amarr) and "True Amarr" (captial T: the ethnicity).

You were framing the question in a gravely misleading and inappropriate way. Your simple question was inexact on so many levels and laden with implications about "those proclaiming the superiority of the True Amarr", that it really borders the fallacy of a straw man. And it's a cheap cop-out to now try to reduce your post to the questions you posed, which may in themselves be innocent ones.

Maybe you didn't intend all this, but your unwillingness to admit to you failing to put all this in the right perspective and to find the appropriate words speaks quite a clear language to me.

May the Lord shed His light on your path!
N. Mithra

Also:

If, the other races of Man that exist, could not be brought up to equivalence to the True Amarr, could not be brought up to be potential rulers of the Faithful then:

Why would the Amarr religion attempt to convert anyone in the first place ? instead of exterminating them ? Hmmmmmmm ?

The existence of the conversion efforts of the Reclaiming shows that the goal is to bring others up to the standards of the True Amarr.

Well, Cpt. Ixiris...

No, it's not an essential aspect of the Amarr religion. There is no alleged fundamental superiority of the "True Amarr".

There is a concept of superiority of the Amarr people in Amarr religion, but even that's not a concept of some fundamental superiority - and much less that this superiority stems from them being God's chosen. The idea that Amarr superiority must be fundamental probably stems from this false idea, that the superiority of the Amarr must stem from God chosing them. (That's the main premise of your argument, Cpt. Ixiris.) But it's not that the Amarr are superior because God chose them - no, God chose them for their superiority in righteousness and faithfulness. (The implication has exactly the opposite direction to the one you claim in your premise.)

Those traits don't depend on God's existence: You could even live a righteous life in fear of God if God wouldn't exist! So, even without God, the Amarr might very well be superior in those traits to others: Though, admittedly, it'd be quite meaningless to live in awe of God, if He didn't exist - but maybe even there it might be better to live as if God exists.

As such, there is a contigent superiority of the Amarr. That's why the Scriptures repeat all the time that we have to make ourselves deserving of his gift of being chosen. It's something we constantly have to do, to not loose that status.

Regards,
N. Mithra

Reading comprehension is not Mr. Moray's strong point (Also most humans, even Amarr, aren't capsuleers).

I comprehend just fine, sweetheart.

Thanks for helping to prove my point.




Thank you too.