These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If your God is so great, why does he need you Amarrians?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#41 - 2011-11-09 18:38:39 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

For a race that's become basically a byword for religion, the Amarr are awful divine servants.


Indeed. Sometimes I wonder if us rebelling Minmatar are not being more useful to God than the Amarr, by giving a suitable antagonist against which the incoherent blind "faithful" masses can mount a somewhat united front in the name of God.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#42 - 2011-11-09 19:19:37 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:


Have you considered that God is actually a passive neutral concept hat has nothing to do at all with Amarrians and the Scriptures except the fact that the scriptural pieces you refer to are instead testimony for a culture to do what they think is right, according to that concept of God ?

Or, more concretly, like Ms Mithra said : this is about the choice of a culture to follow a set of ideals that they think going in the same way than God, not God telling them to do so.


OK.

If I accept this premise then the Amarr have no right to claim any kind of superiority over anyone else, nor can they claim that their god's will--his admonition to subjugate the rest of the universe on his authority--


Even if the word "having no right" is pretty nebulous in the neutrality of cosmology, you are correct indeed. Claims of superiority and such are the fruit of a religious doctrine, and not of spirituality itself.

Anabella Rella wrote:
Now if you could just get the TC and Jamyl to drop the silly reclaiming nonsense and agree to a negotiated timetable to release my kin then I think we can do business.


I am afraid that I have absolutely no ties to people of the TC and even less with the Empress, so I would hardly be able to achieve what you look for.

Anabella Rella wrote:
See, that wasn't so hard was it?


What was that hard ?

Anabella Rella wrote:
Careful though, you're liable to get your hand spanked pretty hard if you ever go back into Amarr space for daring to say what you did.


I go in the Amarr Empire on a daily basis and have never been "spanked on the hand" for that.
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#43 - 2011-11-09 19:21:37 UTC
Rodj Blake
Well, I did say that I'm not a theologian [;) wrote:


But ultimately, what it boils down to is this. God is perfect, and humans are imperfect. As such, it's impossible for humans to directly comprehend everything about God and his ineffable plans.


Interesting. So you blindly follow the supposed will of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-encompassing being that you can't prove exists and can't understand why it bids you to perform certain acts (as interpreted by a group of fallible mortal men who can't be questioned or held to account), even though common sense and logic would say that those acts are harmful? I see. So let's say Blake that you had a vision in which this being spoke to you and told you that it considered your entire family evil and that it wants you to kill them all before killing yourself. Would you do it?

Of course you wouldn't. You'd reason that this was simply some demented nightmare caused by indigestion or some other physical or psychological ailment and ignore it.

Why is the "reclaiming" any different then? Just because it's written down (by the hand of a man, by the way, not your god) in a dusty book?

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#44 - 2011-11-09 20:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kithrus
Anabella Rella wrote:
Rodj Blake
Well, I did say that I'm not a theologian [;) wrote:


But ultimately, what it boils down to is this. God is perfect, and humans are imperfect. As such, it's impossible for humans to directly comprehend everything about God and his ineffable plans.


Interesting. So you blindly follow the supposed will of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-encompassing being that you can't prove exists and can't understand why it bids you to perform certain acts (as interpreted by a group of fallible mortal men who can't be questioned or held to account), even though common sense and logic would say that those acts are harmful? I see. So let's say Blake that you had a vision in which this being spoke to you and told you that it considered your entire family evil and that it wants you to kill them all before killing yourself. Would you do it?

Of course you wouldn't. You'd reason that this was simply some demented nightmare caused by indigestion or some other physical or psychological ailment and ignore it.

Why is the "reclaiming" any different then? Just because it's written down (by the hand of a man, by the way, not your god) in a dusty book?


A butterfly that lives one year around a tree cannot comprehend anything truly about the tree as it doesn't have the experience or the time to witness it in its fullest being a limited creature. It doesn't change that the insect makes its home and benefits from the tree.

Granted the questions regarding God and Man are not that simple but it illustrates the point that we have a limited perception of God in a way you can see and relate to.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2011-11-10 00:53:16 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
No what you have done is taken a stance that since God is unknowable he is therefore a logical impossibility without erecting anything in its place.

Hence your point has no staying power because all you did was take away an answer, the question is still there.

My point is God can only be God because He is not knowable by our limited perspective of the universe and if someone could know Him He (being the entity in question) can't be God.

Which is something you are still not addressing.


Then if God is unknowable, all claims by Amarrians to have any conception of its plan or have had any contact with it are utterly fraudulent.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#46 - 2011-11-10 01:26:16 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Kithrus wrote:
No what you have done is taken a stance that since God is unknowable he is therefore a logical impossibility without erecting anything in its place.

Hence your point has no staying power because all you did was take away an answer, the question is still there.

My point is God can only be God because He is not knowable by our limited perspective of the universe and if someone could know Him He (being the entity in question) can't be God.

Which is something you are still not addressing.


Then if God is unknowable, all claims by Amarrians to have any conception of its plan or have had any contact with it are utterly fraudulent.


A person you don't understand and truly know can still give you instructions. I didn't have to know my officers of the military.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2011-11-10 01:30:22 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
A person you don't understand and truly know can still give you instructions. I didn't have to know my officers of the military.


But your officers in the military are not unknowable, ineffable cosmic higher powers. I know the legendary unwarranted self-importance endemic to Amarrians tends to convince them otherwise, but this is the truth. Either you concede that your God is an illogical being who doesn't exist, or you concede that all claims of contact or understanding related to it are fraudulent. There is no third way, there is no middle ground.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#48 - 2011-11-10 02:30:27 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Kithrus wrote:
A person you don't understand and truly know can still give you instructions. I didn't have to know my officers of the military.


But your officers in the military are not unknowable, ineffable cosmic higher powers. I know the legendary unwarranted self-importance endemic to Amarrians tends to convince them otherwise, but this is the truth. Either you concede that your God is an illogical being who doesn't exist, or you concede that all claims of contact or understanding related to it are fraudulent. There is no third way, there is no middle ground.


Why is there no middle ground? That is what you are not proving to me. I don't have to understand the nature of God to obey Him.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2011-11-10 05:01:48 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
Why is there no middle ground? That is what you are not proving to me. I don't have to understand the nature of God to obey Him.


Communication with a by-definition unknowable being is impossible because it's unknowable. I know Amarrians have very serious problems with logic but this really is primary-school stuff.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Uraniae Fehrnah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2011-11-10 07:43:30 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:


Communication with a by-definition unknowable being is impossible because it's unknowable. I know Amarrians have very serious problems with logic but this really is primary-school stuff.



I believe you're taking a very absolute stance on what someone else is saying is unknowable, Mr. Ixiris. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but if I were to use the word "unknowable" in reference to God, I would be extremely particular about a very specific aspect of God. For example, "God's will in regards to the course of my life, is unknowable." What I'm trying to illustrate is that you seem to be taking "unknowable" for all values and facets of God, where I think others are attempting to reference more specific facets that are unknowable, and not being as specific as they should be.

Further, if God was completely and entirely unknowable in any way, there wouldn't be religion at all, in any form that centers around a deity.


And before you decide to use your standard fare of anti-Amarrian arguments and call me illogical, blind, or idiotic, do keep in mind that just like there are different stances, beliefs, and people in the Federation, there are different stances, beliefs, and people in the Empire.
Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#51 - 2011-11-10 08:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Bete
(( Bad double post ))
Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#52 - 2011-11-10 08:02:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Bete
Kithrus wrote:

A butterfly that lives one year around a tree cannot comprehend anything truly about the tree as it doesn't have the experience or the time to witness it in its fullest being a limited creature. It doesn't change that the insect makes its home and benefits from the tree.

Granted the questions regarding God and Man are not that simple but it illustrates the point that we have a limited perception of God in a way you can see and relate to.


How convenient. So the answer always ends up: this deity of yours defies any attempts on our part to understand it yet, we're to blindly accept whatever it bids us to do. Anything good or bad that happens we accept because the deity wills it and it can't be questioned because we're incapable of understanding the deity's motivations or plans.

That's a pretty nice setup. Seems like you can justify damn near anything.

I'd really appreciate it if any of you who follow the Amarrian religion would answer Captain Rella's question regarding how you'd respond if this deity of yours demanded something of that sort would you obey?
Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#53 - 2011-11-10 09:12:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kithrus
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Kithrus wrote:
Why is there no middle ground? That is what you are not proving to me. I don't have to understand the nature of God to obey Him.


Communication with a by-definition unknowable being is impossible because it's unknowable. I know Amarrians have very serious problems with logic but this really is primary-school stuff.


Ha okay no. You do not need to understand how something works to relate to it. If your going to keep using extremes to deflate arguments then except that such extremes are thin at best.


"God is perfect therefore he can't create a imperfect being." As far as you know. That's the problem, you taking words created by imperfect beings being us and trying to fit them on God who is a perfect being.

I can't believe I had to spell that out for you this really was a given when I implied it.

Nick Bete wrote:

How convenient. So the answer always ends up: this deity of yours defies any attempts on our part to understand it yet, we're to blindly accept whatever it bids us to do. Anything good or bad that happens we accept because the deity wills it and it can't be questioned because we're incapable of understanding the deity's motivations or plans.

That's a pretty nice setup. Seems like you can justify damn near anything.

I'd really appreciate it if any of you who follow the Amarrian religion would answer Captain Rella's question regarding how you'd respond if this deity of yours demanded something of that sort would you obey?


What I and you can't justify leaving a family homeless despite thier hard work out on the street by the bank foreclosing on them because their property value sunk? Doesn't matter they never missed payments but you could say its better for the common good that the property be sold to a person who can make it worth the banks investments.

Cruelty can be justified by anything you don't need God to do that and frankly if there was no Amarrians people would find a way regardless so don't you throw that at me.

Now to respond to your question. What would I do if God came down and gave me a correct bidding? I would do it without question. Same as I would do if anyone gave me important orders.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2011-11-10 17:45:24 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
"God is perfect therefore he can't create a imperfect being."


If you honestly do not believe this statement, you are quite literally mentally handicapped, and demonstrably so. Perfection, by its very definition, is incapable of creating imperfection. Perfection is not a multiple-tier affair - there are not "levels of perfection" and a perfect entity cannot become "more perfect". Perfection is one half of a binary-state system. You are either perfect, or imperfect. A perfect entity is by definition complete, without flaw, without disadvantage, without limitation. A perfect entity is not merely incapable of producing imperfection - for if imperfection of any form can stem from an entity, it is itself imperfect - it has no need to create at all. A perfect entity is complete, whole, integral, without need or want. Nothing need be added and nothing need be taken away.

Such a being is in itself a logical impossibility, but the idea that a perfect being could create imperfection is not just logically unsound, it is ludicrous even at a semantic and even a linguistic level. Think about what the words mean.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#55 - 2011-11-10 18:03:03 UTC
In theory, if you are perfect, you can obviously create anything, including unperfection, or your perfection is only half true and your inability to create unperfect things becomes actually unperfection.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2011-11-10 18:08:55 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
In theory, if you are perfect, you can obviously create anything, including unperfection


No! You are mentally challenged! For hell's sake, you didn't even get "imperfection" right, and I wrote it, what, seven times in my last post? You would have had to read that post to work out what it was that I was arguing!

Lyn Farel wrote:
or your perfection is only half true and your inability to create unperfect things becomes actually unperfection.


The inability to create imperfection is part of perfection. The ability to create imperfection would itself be imperfection. Now you understand, perhaps, why the idea of a truly perfect entity is logically impossible, but - oh, to hell with it, there's not a chance in hell you understand that.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#57 - 2011-11-10 18:32:06 UTC
I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this 'A perfect being could not create imperfection' thing from, Andreus. Please show your work.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2011-11-10 18:48:13 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this 'A perfect being could not create imperfection' thing from, Andreus. Please show your work.


I don't have anything to say to toasters.

But you can read what I've already written. Or maybe you can't. Maybe whatever they replaced your frontal lobe with doesn't have very good reading skills.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#59 - 2011-11-10 19:04:09 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this 'A perfect being could not create imperfection' thing from, Andreus. Please show your work.


I don't have anything to say to toasters.

But you can read what I've already written. Or maybe you can't. Maybe whatever they replaced your frontal lobe with doesn't have very good reading skills.


The fact I'm a nation pilot has little to nothing to do with the fact that the words coming out of your mouth do not make any sense. Please state your arguement in a logically ordered fashion, premises preceeding conclusion, and give us something sensible to work with here.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2011-11-10 19:27:35 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
The fact I'm a nation pilot has little to nothing to do with the fact that the words coming out of your mouth do not make any sense.


They make perfect sense. Perfection cannot create imperfection - since every aspect of the creation is undertaken by this perfect entity (it would have to be - if the entity is perfect, it would by definition need nothing else to undertake such creation), at no point can imperfection enter into it, for there is no source of imperfection. If that imperfection is sourced from the entity, the entity is itself imperfect.

Perfection cannot create imperfection. Perfection is the utter absence of imperfection and the utter absence of any possibility of imperfection.

I refuse to repeat this blindingly simple truism again. If you cannot grasp it, the failing - and it is a miserable one indeed - lies entirely on your shoulders.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.