These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

True Amarr, Udorians, and the Chosen—A Theological Question
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Odelya d'Hanguest
Order of St. Severian
#41 - 2016-05-10 20:19:01 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
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.”

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!

Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
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.

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.

Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
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.

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

Now you made me feel really bored.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#42 - 2016-05-10 20:28:59 UTC
Rook Moray wrote:
Maria Daphiti wrote:
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.

If you had comprehended what I wrote, you would not ascribe the following to me:
Rook Moray wrote:
So you walk around with this massive superiority complex, killing people, enslaving them and invading their space and planets and it's ok because it's "God's Will" and "God chose you" and "it's in the Scriptures."

Furthermore, it just says that you have no idea about who I am, yet still you've already judged me based on prejudice against Amarr.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#43 - 2016-05-10 20:33:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
Now you made me feel really bored.

Don't worry, that's a common reaction to properly conducted theological debate. Proper debate is after all following logical arguments and is, in a way, dispassionate. Just take that it isn't meant to entertain you as one more reason to leave it to the professionals.
Rook Moray
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2016-05-10 23:47:20 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Rook Moray wrote:
Maria Daphiti wrote:
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.

If you had comprehended what I wrote, you would not ascribe the following to me:
Rook Moray wrote:
So you walk around with this massive superiority complex, killing people, enslaving them and invading their space and planets and it's ok because it's "God's Will" and "God chose you" and "it's in the Scriptures."

Furthermore, it just says that you have no idea about who I am, yet still you've already judged me based on prejudice against Amarr.



It's not so much about what you say. It's how it's said. It's the things you don't say. It's the hypocrisy and smug, moral superiority that you wear like a robe. It's the system you belong to that gives you license to perpetrate crimes that make us Guristas look like a bunch of kids fighting over a piece of stolen candy. But you have your god's permission, so that's ok.

You're on this thread arguing over who is fit to lead based on heritage? Based on a few minute differences in DNA? Over ink on some thousand year-old scroll?

Damn skippy, I'm judging you. Not the Amarr that fly with me. Not the rank and file. It's your system that's rotten to the core. I don't even hate you. You're not worth that much expenditure of energy.

Only you can teach yourself how to see.

pratya yavati

“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart.” -Guristas Proverb.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#45 - 2016-05-11 00:59:07 UTC
Rook Moray wrote:
You're on this thread arguing over who is fit to lead based on heritage? Based on a few minute differences in DNA? Over ink on some thousand year-old scroll?

You noticed that I was the whole time arguing in here that it's not the DNA or biological heritage at all? That it's about righteous action and that righteousness is nothing you're born with?

No? Well, lack of reading-comprehension, I guess.
Rook Moray
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2016-05-11 16:25:13 UTC
Oh really? First, let's do a TL'DR version of this debate and see where race, heritage and scripture come in.

Odelya d'Hanguest wrote:
When the Tash-Murkon Family was made a royal family following the Glorious Revolution of His Majesty King Khanid II, not few considered the elevation of a family of Udorian ancestry blasphemous. Further questioning the dogma that only True Amarr are among the chosen, the succession of an Udorian holder—descending from slaves—to rule the Empire founded by the Lord’s Command and to “cultivate the spirit of man” (Book I 1:14) has until then only remained a theoretical possibility. Many believed that the Lord would not permit a champion to win, for it would provide irrefutable truth: The elevation of the Tash-Murkon Family was by His Will. Of course, this argument holds only true if one accepts the so called “Moral Reforms.”


Race, Heritage,Scripture.

Valerie Valate wrote:
And while other races such as Udorians may, through long righteous service, become Chosen, because of their spirit being cultivated to remove the stain of blasphemy, this doesn't really alter that position.
A righteous Chosen Udorian, would still be a Chosen, but they wouldn't be First amongst the Chosen, because they're not True Amarr.


Race, Heritage, Scripture.

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Yes, there are some True Amarr who hold such beliefs - and also some non-True Amarr as it is - but that's actually a deviation from the ethical standards with which the Amarr have been charged by God: The claim that biological characteristics are more important than cultural traits and ethics, invariably led to heresy if pursued further than holding it as a personal worldview.


Counter-argument using Scripture, but agreeing that inherent prejudice a thing. Your words.

Valerie Valate wrote:
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.


Race, Scripture.

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

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.


Race, Scripture. And this is where you really prove my point.


You argue that, “There is no such dogma in the Empire and has never been” That it's about "righteous action." However, your entire bearing is that you can’t possibly be wrong in your interpretation because of who and what you are. You are that dogma, revashokad. You can't define righteous action if you can't identify your own capability to f*ck things up.

I counter that it is you that lacks ahet, Understanding. I know I can come across as a Guri weko at some points. It’s in my job description. But it’s said in Intaki, “Change within universe which desire I, I” or,“I am the change I desire in the universe.” If you want to prove your point, you must be that point. So if you’re looking at this discussion like it’s a competition or a battlefield, you lost before you even showed up. You can't just stomp your little foot and say "It is so." You cannot teach with the barrel of a blaster.

May you seek and may you find.

“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart.” -Guristas Proverb.
Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#47 - 2016-05-11 16:51:25 UTC
You know that arguing with slavers is a lot like teaching physics to a fedo; an exercise in futility for you and annoying for the fedo.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#48 - 2016-05-11 17:56:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Um. Respectfully, Mr. Moray? Speaking as someone who's argued a certain amount with Emerita Mithra?

She's really, truly not claiming racial superiority via attitude. She's, maybe, claiming superior personal insight and understanding, and she can be a little high-handed, but that's more to do with training and (at least to her mind) expertise than blood.

Also, try asking her to define "The Amarr." I promise you she's not talking about DNA. Book a date on your calendar; you'll be there a while.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#49 - 2016-05-11 18:01:26 UTC
Nick Bete wrote:
You know that arguing with slavers is a lot like teaching physics to a fedo; an exercise in futility for you and annoying for the fedo.

If they make fedo like you, Bete, annoyed, they are doing it right.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Rook Moray
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2016-05-11 18:15:57 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:
Um. Respectfully, Mr. Moray? Speaking as someone who's argued a certain amount with Emerita Mithra?

She's really, truly not claiming racial superiority via attitude. She's, maybe, claiming superior personal insight and understanding, and she can be a little high-handed, but that's more to do with training and (at least to her mind) expertise than blood.

Also, try asking her to define "The Amarr." I promise you she's not talking about DNA. Book a date on your calendar; you'll be there a while.



Ok.

I will.

Thanks.

“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart.” -Guristas Proverb.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#51 - 2016-05-11 21:35:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Rook Moray wrote:
Oh really? First, let's do a TL'DR version of this debate and see where race, heritage and scripture come in.
... (quoting Odelya d'Hanguest) ...

Race, Heritage,Scripture.

Yes she's bringing all three up, yet she's asking those that claim racial superiority to give their justification. And though she makes it sound as if all True Amarr take the stance of them being superior qua race/ethnicity that's not the orthodox position.

That said, she's a Khanid Kingdom seperatist, so she's not really a good source to ground your argument in. She's really not representative of the Amarr of the Empire in any way.

Rook Moray wrote:
... (quoting Valerie Valate) ...

Race, Heritage, Scripture.

Again Ms. Valate is bringing all three up all three. Here waters get muddled as to racial/ethnical versus non-racial/ethnical superiority. That said she's a Sani Sabik, so she's even less representative of the Amarr Empire and she's merely giving her - in many ways flawed - understanding of orthodox Amarr doctrine.

Again, if you want to take her as representative of what the Amarr position is, then you are quite off the spot!

Rook Moray wrote:
... (quoting me) ...

Counter-argument using Scripture, but agreeing that inherent prejudice a thing. Your words.

Now, I never said I'm not sticking to Scripture - I do, of course! I don't "agree (to?) that inherent prejudice thing". Just because some Amarr have those prejudices it doesn't follow that all Amarr hold them or even that a majority does. The idea of racial superiority is a rare one in Amarr society and one that's ostracised as soon as a group tries to push it to doctrinal status.

That said, I don't deny the existence of racists in Amarr. They exist. Just as Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar racists do exist in their respective societies. That doesn't make any of us racist in general, though. You should be able to make that distinction.

Rook Moray wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
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.


Race, Scripture. And this is where you really prove my point.


You argue that, “There is no such dogma in the Empire and has never been” That it's about "righteous action." However, your entire bearing is that you can’t possibly be wrong in your interpretation because of who and what you are. You are that dogma, revashokad. You can't define righteous action if you can't identify your own capability to f*ck things up.

I counter that it is you that lacks ahet, Understanding. I know I can come across as a Guri weko at some points. It’s in my job description. But it’s said in Intaki, “Change within universe which desire I, I” or,“I am the change I desire in the universe.” If you want to prove your point, you must be that point. So if you’re looking at this discussion like it’s a competition or a battlefield, you lost before you even showed up. You can't just stomp your little foot and say "It is so." You cannot teach with the barrel of a blaster.

May you seek and may you find.

Of course it's my position that I am superior to you in interpreting scripture and knowledge of Amarr culture. If that hurts your feelings, then I'm not really sorry. As Peregrinans Jenneth points out: " that's more to do with training and (at least to her mind) expertise than blood."

So, you commit the fallacy that because I feel superior and act like it, that I must do so because I assume to be racially superior. I don't - not even a little bit. I grew up in Amarr, I have an intimate knowledge of Amarr culture, I studied theology at Hedion and the UoC - so I have an insiders perspective, but I know about the outsiders perspective as well, that includes several courses on logics, I also teach exchange students on these topics at Hedion and in Hedion's capsuleer program.

I'm qualified and competent to talk authoritatively on these topics, while you don't seem to have any qualification in the field at hand and only limited competency: So I don't see how I'm not superior to you in this regard and I don't see why I shouldn't make this felt to someone who's coming in, blasting doors open, and accuses me of racism.

If you think that has anything to do with racial superiority, you merely prove my point.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#52 - 2016-05-11 21:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Also, Mr. Moray, please don't take the sensation of your head being chewed off as too much indication of what she actually thinks of you.

Personally, I was floored to find out she didn't hate me.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#53 - 2016-05-11 22:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Oh, well, if we talk about what I'm thinking about you, Cpt. Moray, I can disclose that - so far - I don't think badly of you. I simply don't react with cuddles to being called 'racist'.
Previous page123