Intergalactic Summit

Take it for what it is worth, but I think that the Amarr religion is mostly a human driven will that is the answer to the concept of God. I do not think it is clearly written anywhere in the Scriptures that God demands obedience and devotion from its subjects, nor that He asks for them to be his subjects in the first place.

I do think that a lot of people take it in the wrong direction. It is actually humans, and here, the Amarr, that devoutly pledge their obedience to God to better themselves, since it is actually God, or the universe, the Creation, that is eventually our only unbiased, amoral, objective and timeless judge. In a certain sense, that God lets everyone being their own masters. Everyone can decide for himself since the choice is left to him. It is not the will of God to enslave or enlight. It is the will of the Amarr, which is a big difference.

"Our Lord visited his flock and saw that all was not good.
Blasphemy and heresy ruled the land.
The Lord punished the sinners and drowned them in their own blood.
But the people of Amarr lived righteously and in fear of God.
Thus they were saved and became God's chosen."
- The Scriptures, Book II 2:1

"I give to you the destiny of Faith,
And you will bring its message to every planet of every star in the heavens:
Go forth, conquer in my Name, and reclaim that which I have given."
- The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming 22:13

20 And that night God spake unto emperor Amash-Akura in his sleep, saying, Thy folly is great, Amash-Akura, thou hast rejected those I sent to thee in thine hour of need. Thou must redeem thyself to me by thine own merits. - Epitoth

All of these, which are directly written in Scripture, indicate an expectation of obedience and devotion to God. Indeed, the very concept of righteousness demands devotion and obedience to God.



You presume to speak for God. You also teach a plurality doctrine based on this assessment. You've also demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the Scripture.

Quoting Scripture is showing you where it's written. It's written quite plainly.



Now you are interpreting Scripture, not reading it. You asked where it was clearly written, I provided examples. You're trying to interpret it away.

I regret that I attempted to show you where you had erred, as it apparently will only lead to pointless debate. Carry on.

If that makes him blind, what does that make you? A lobotomy patient?

I apologize Schere, I didn't mean to compare you to Farel.

I took the liberty of snipping through your own words, Farel, and the various quotations from others, so if I take your words beyond the scope of their context, I apologize.

Now then, to me, it seems that you are making the claim that God's actions are simply intrinsic to the natural state of creation as a whole. That the Divine is a fundamental aspect of reality, akin to gravity or various laws of physics. Taken a step further this would imply that any sort of Divine judgement is literally part of a predictable cause-and-effect system. Since God is a fundamental force of the universe, if you do something then God judges accordingly. If you heat water, it boils. If you sin, God judges.

From there, if God is fundamental to the universe, I can certainly see a valid footing for questioning God's expectations. After all, no other fundamental force in the universe has expectations. Gravity does not expect things of us, it simply is and simply influences how we interact with the world around us. Gravity has no expectations, but is so innate to reality that we, as humans, come to have expectations of it. When we push a glass off the edge of the table we expect it to fall. Similarly, when we see sin we expect some sort of judgement to be levied by God.

If this isn't the message you're trying to convey then I fear I've misunderstood you. However if this is the sort of point you're making then I do have a few questions. If God doesn't have expectations, what does God have? If God is like I describe, based on my understanding of your words, then why worship at all? Surely if things are as simple as cause and effect then we're all "living righteously and according to the rules" of things like fire.

EDIT: On second thought, I'm going to just continue to stay out of this discussion.

Let's see we need someone to start a fire. There is probably a big bang but there is definitely someone who brought it together. By design of the neck of the giraffe, we can see it's no accident. It's by design, a timeless a beautiful creature. God is love. You see love cannot exist without a freedom to choose. Hence robots will never love "truely", yes artificial maybe but it's self deception of cos. And because choices is the essences of love, responsibility also belongs to those who made them. Of cos if you choose so to drown you unforgiveness towards yourself or others in alcohol ... It's also your responsibility to bear the hang over :) ...

Miss Ssakaa,

Individuals accept as proof different things and so no single form of "proof" will work for all and since not all forms of "proof" are, at all times, presentable then there will always be those who see no proof. Understand that it is not "Amarr God" it's simply "God" for he is neither a product of our creation nor does he exist solely for our sake or possess sovereignty over only us.

It should also be noted that the essence of faith is accepting what is known and can be perceived as proof, which is the choice presented to all of creation. Some will choose to accept and walk by faith, others will choose to reject. I have chosen the former, you have chosen the latter.

If this makes me a villain and bonkers, then so be it.

Hello!



*Raises hand high above her head*

Clean, heretical herbal child reporting in.



Nor us! Always the beautiful thought, that; the countless enslaved children of Matar paying lip-service to this vacuum you worship, behind your backs. A glimmer of defiance in the darkness, so to say.



True, true. My clan has no faith whatsoever in anything: an unspiritual, phlegmatic, bunch as can be found anywhere in the 'verse. To their enduring credit they tried polytheism a few centuries ago, by all accounts, with hilarious results. All in all, a bit bloody silly this religious lark, but there we are.



We're all bonkers for re-hashing this silly argument over and over and over and over. And over.

Peace.

Out.