Intergalactic Summit

Thank you for the apology.

However, I must attest that his lordship said nothing of the sort. Nor would I consider myself a "savant", where we to actually use those terms. I am not a slave anymore, but I am still a servant and I am still Minmatar. If we were to use the "savant" label at all I would only consider it applicable to True Amarr.

But truly, all Amarr are servants. We each serve one higher, and all of us serve God.

Ah yes, the common foreigner misconception that Amarr is a nation of backwards, anti-science degenerates, even though our culture is one that greatly values science and many modern natural laws that you take for granted today were discovered by Amarrian scientists and are part of Scripture.

God created an orderly, structured universe. Natural laws are the laws that He wrote, and the discovery of them is as much a revelation as any code of demeanor. We have sainted people for their discoveries.

So yes, it's a thing. We value science highly.

It is a common attack people make against Amarr.

If that was not what you were intending, then I apologize for assuming.

Now, it is a fact that the Sani Sabik branched out of Amarr orthodoxy: That is logically necessary if they are heretics. That is quite different from the proposition that the "Sani Sabik were the orthodoxy of the Amarr". Actually, if something arose by branching out of another thing, it follows already logically that it can't be that other thing.

The imperial side didn't decide that only Holders should be savants: In fact the 'imperial side' or the Amarr orthodoxy showed that the new concept of 'savants' - though derived from a reading of the scriptures justifing the reclaiming - was an eisegetical interpretation of those parts of the Scriptures and both forms of 'savantism', the one that claims savants to be born destined for greatness, with all others existing solely to serve and breed these savants and the other that claimed that savant status is attainable but all others still destined to serve having been and still being unorthodox positions.

In fact, as you claim to be so interested in historical facts, you must know that the position within the movement that developed into the first Sani Sabik was that 'savants' are born as such and one can't acquire that status. Coming from the milieu of Holders this is not surprising at all: Those Holders claimed savant status for themselves and used it as a way to cement their status against the orthodoxy that placed ethical achievement first. It's against all sources we have to claim that it startet with priests. Priests, of all groups, were the least involved in the formation of this movment.

Commoners jumped only later on the bandwagon and reinterpreted that concept of savants as something that transcended traditional caste divisions, because the concept did allow for a relatively easy way to elevate themselves in standing - without the need to prove their righteousness within the context of their caste. Of course that was only the logical conclusion for them, as the savant concept severed ethical qualities from a concept of superior persons - and was thus alien to Amarr orthodoxy from the times of Gheinok the First, of whom we are quite certain that he authored Book II of the Scriptures, which forms along with the other two books he most certainly authored the basis of the Amarr religion and are thus to be considered the most important ones and the ones that are to be taken as guide to properly understand all later books.

Thus, there never was a 'rest of orthodoxy'. By definition, there can only be one orthodxy: That is the entire point about orthodoxy. Your claim that there were a Sani Sabik movement that - As you yourself say! - differed in dogma and doctrine from Amarr orthodoxy while both were part of orthodoxy is just gibberish and shows that you aren't a competent speaker: Obviously you are not aware of the meaning of 'orthodoxy'.

Summarizing: The concept of 'savants' - individuals who are greater than their fellow man and capable of great achievements - is foreign to Amarr orthodoxy and has always been. This faulty concept is based on an eisegetical reading of parts of the Scriptures and formed the basis of a movement that developed into the Sani Sabik. So, yes, the Sani Sabik are in that way an offshoot of Amarr orthodoxy - that is established historical fact - but that is not at all the same as "the original Sani Sabik were the orthodoxy of the Amarr". Rather being an offshoot through an eisegetical, faulty reading of scripture that originated a departure from orthodox dogma and doctrine, they couldn't be an orthodox movement. One doesn't even need carbon dating to see that, but must merely make use of simple logic. (In fact, carbon dating doesn't help there.) The development into the Sani Sabik only finalized with the incorporation of ritual practices using blood and grisly practices to acquire it - and by then they were clearly distinguished from the orthodoxy they descend from.

In conclusion: You are the most horrible archaeologist and historian - taken together: scientist - I ever had the displeasure to meet. Next time, make your homework and take at least that basic course in logics. Not history is heretical: Your distortion of history is.

Inanity of that level is properly to be considered a sin.

No.

Mr. Riis is correct.

Scripture is not Knowledge.

Knowledge is gained from Facts.

Scripture will say, "Do not do the thing, go do the other thing." Science will tell you what was written, when it was written, who wrote it, why it was written. It will tell you what were the materials it was written on and with. It will tell you about the people that wrote it and read it and followed it.

Theology and philosophy will try to tell you what it meant.

The corrupt will make up facts and interpretations to obfuscate the truth to serve their own twisted ends.

By updating the text. That is one of the Theology Council's duties.

Well, at least you're not denying it anymore.

A thread about heretics, has now revealed two. It is very disappointing.

No one has denied this.

I am afraid that we are not talking about the same thing sir. You are merely speaking about dogma.

I am talking about Scripture, not mere dogma. Dogma is just a tiny part of the whole.

The dogmatic part telling, as you crudely say, "do not do something, and do that instead", is either doctrinal or dogmatic conclusions formed upon facts, actually. You should read deeper into it and you will see the facts you speak of, as I believe you only refer to the core, most famous parts of holy scripture like the Book of Missions, Reclaiming, or Revelations, or the Epitoth.

Those dogmatic conclusions, especially the ones concerning those core, old pieces of scripture, have sometimes been updated through new additions as progress made its natural way into Amarr society. The same way a historian will look at original texts of old as they were written, with all their flaws and misunderstandings and imperfection, it is important to keep in mind that the Scriptures, albeit the Word of God, have been written by mortal hands, in a mortal language. It is also fundamental to understand that it is due to this central value that Scriptures are not never-changing. Scripture is evolving at every minute, enriched by new texts and Knowledge.

You may already know that some scriptural parts have been made apocryphon over the years. Not the core parts of course, but some were not far from that, especially some Tetrimonic texts. As much as political and societal evolution happens, so does Scripture.

If you are implying that philosophy and epistemology is not about Knowledge, I am not sure what you learned at Hedion, if I may be so bold to say so.

Given the overall bad form the heretic shows, I'm quite sure he's an imposter in regard to learning and teching at Hedion.

The dogmas, by the way, are in fact not changing. (Doctrines are, though.) But they aren't all saying "Do not do the thing, go do the other thing.", either. Central dogmas are things like "The universe is ordered and thus accessible to systematic study." Actually, one could summarize most of the body of dogma thusly:

• There is order in the cosmos: This order shows itself in the laws of nature as well as in an ethical law. Both are to be discovered.
• There is a source of the cosmos and its order: God.

Those propositions aren't scientific facts - at least not in the narrow sense of 'science' which should be properly qualified as 'natural science' - but the dogmas are in fact: Facts.
Actually, they are stronger facts then the facts of natural science, as they are accepted by deductive arguments that bear the weight of logical necessity, rather then being merely based on inductive reasoning building on experiment and observation, which means that the arguments of natural science can only suggest truth but do not ensure it for its facts.
Also, the endeavour of natural science rests on the acceptence on propositions we find enshrined in the dogmas of the Amarr religion, like the one I stated above: That the universe is ordered in a way that openes it up to be investigated in regard to this order. Without accepting or at least assuming such a statement as the axiomatic basis of research within the frame of natural science, one couldn't assume justifiedly that the results of such research were valuable. So, whatever strength the arguments of natural science have, they owe it to these particular propositions, which are in Amarr part of religious dogma.

Interestingly, I just recently heard a lecture by a professor at UoC who claimed that the Amarr are one of the first cultures of New Eden to develop sophisticated scientific programs, exactly because the Amarrian dogma includes the propositions that form the basic axioms of science.
He then went on to claim that the Amarr religion was engineered to do exactly that, when the contact with Terra broke off and societies deteriorated. Religion, he claimed, would be the most stable way to ensure the propagation of such principles. This latter part seems more like conspiracy theory to me, than a scientific hypothesis.

To summarize the central point after that brief excursion: Dogma in the Amarr religion is basically the collection of axioms that are necessary to expand our knowledge about the natural, ethical and spiritual aspects of the cosmos and its source.


So impatient, while patience is one of the most premier virtues.
Also, I'd remind you that there is a difference in discussing something and rebutting someone's claims.


Actually, it's not so hard to understand, I'd claim. It's neither that hard to follow. We have the capacity of reason to enable us to do both. Of course that doesn't mean that it is effortless.
Actually, if we effortlessly would do what is right, that would - in the extreme - mean that we do it necessarily. Doing the right thing out of necessity, though, isn't as valuable as doing it out of choosing to do the right thing.
We can conclude, therfore, that the supreme being isn't intent on making life as easy for us as possible, but in maximizing value and meaningfulness of life.