Intergalactic Summit

I say that we use science to define dogma in the sense that, as the natural laws are revealed to us through discovery, these revelations are incorporated into Scripture. This is the same as the discovery of any other dogma in Scripture. What is revealed to us by God is transcribed into Scripture, whether it be rites of worship, codes of behavior, genealogical records, or scientific breakthroughs. All are revelations from God that further our understanding of His universe and His designs for us.

Dogma is defined as, "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." The laws of nature are observable empirical truths that people from all empires can equally recognize as incontrovertibly true. They are thus indistinguishable from dogma. They are dogma, principles, that are set down upon the universe by God and revealed to us, and we cannot deny their truth.

Through the scientific process, we are able to unveil these natural laws. We learn, through study and analysis, that these laws are true and sincere and govern the workings of the universe in which we live, as set down by God. Thus they are added to Scripture, and so in this way science defines dogma.

Well, no. The laws of nature are not incontrovertible true: They are discovered by a process that merely suggests truth (though it suggest rather strongly, so that we can be quite certain) but do not ensure it for its facts. Therefore, the results of natural science are part of doctrine, but not of dogma.

By the way, the laws of nature are not obsevable: Rather we observe phenomena and the statistical analysis suggests certain laws behind those phenomena. Put bluntly: You don't observe the law of gravitation, you observe gravitation.

Though in a certain sense you are right that the laws of nature are set down by God, they are not revealed to us in the sense that we have absolute knowledge of them. Rather, the laws of nature as found in natural science stand in contrast to those at work in the physical world. What in science is described as a 'law of nature' is an imperfect reflection of the laws that are at work. That is why they are up to revision and therefore not to be accepted as uncontrovertibly true. Thus they are part of doctrine, not dogma.

Natural science does not teach us what is true, but only what is quite probably true (and only about the physical world). The results of natural science are always doctrine. Yes, they are part of the Scriptures, but that doesn't quite mean that they are dogma.

Probably that the original point of the thread has run it's course and we can stop posting in here.

I think we got off on a big tangent when we started straying into the science vs religion thing. Which is really a bullets vs lasers thing.

Mixed religions marrying? Not for me to say when it comes to the Amarr. But it seems kinda stupid to say two or more people can't marry. The only people who should have a say in marriage are the ones getting married, right?

I'm quite surprised how you interprete my words, apparently. Can doesn't imply must, where I come form: So me saying that we can stop posting is not at all me implying that "further discussion here is wrong". Also, my point was that the discussion seemed to have departed entirely from the original point of this thread: And while I have nothing against a conversation 'rambling around & touching on many different topics', in a forum it is a sensible convention to not derail a thread entirely but to rather start a new thread, should one diverge too much from the topic. But please, feel free to post whatever you like in here, as long as it conforms to forum rules.


I disagree strongly.
First: Everyone affected by the marriage should have a say, proportional to how much it affects them. That certainly means that the ones who want to get married have special precedence, but it's certainly not them being the only people who should have a say in it.
Second: As marriage is a social institution which is regulated by law, law and definition ought to have a say in it. An Amarrian marriage by Amarrian law is simply not possible if heretics are involved. It's logically impossible given how marriage is defined in Amarr and it is - thus - also outlawed.

In Amarr, who you marry, affects who you support in politics.

If you're a vassal of a Kador vassal, and you marry a Sarum vassal, then that means that your family may now be a Sarum vassal, and be subject to Sarum law, and not Kador law.

In a dispute between the Sarum Heir and the Kador Heir, you may find that your friends and neighbours are now your enemies.

That's why marrying for trivial reasons is a problem.

No, what she is saying that next to the 'will of the indvidual' there is a common good, which the individual ought to consider in his or her actions. The individual will should include in it's aims the common good. It shouldn't be supressed, but cultivated so that it can flourish - and that flourishing implies that it is taking the common good into consideration.
Sansha is taking away any such consideration from the individual and therefore prevents the individual from achieving ethical excellence - and as the individual is the proper subject of ethical excellence he takes away the ability to achieve ethical excellence in general.
In short: by taking away moral power and choice in ethical matters, Sansha reduces humans to something less than human. Setting up ethical standards as a guiding light for the individual is as different from that as day is different from night.

*A man wearing the traditional robes of an Amarrian Archbishop appears on the screen. There is a large flask with a human tongue hanging around his neck. *

Pardon me if I might interject for a moment, faithful.

Sister Sera Kor-Azor might have been here a while ago. Please don't believe her claims to the title of the Countess of Conoban. She was supposed to relinquish all titles as part of her vows when she became an ordained Nun of the order. Sadly, she has trouble keeping her vows. Apparently she had her fingers crossed behind her back, whatever that means. Sera is what we like to call a 'Sarabaite'.

Yes, it's true. Sera is a Heretic. She should be defrocked and ejected from not only Kor-Azor, but Amarrian high sec entirely. There are a few administrative difficulties to resolve first however. For one, Sera is a capsuleer. She can clone jump anywhere where she still has standings. Secondly, she is the erm...niece of the Imperial Chancellor Artitico Kor-Azor. You see, when the Imperial Chancellor *Looks over his shoulder* received his visit from Brother Joshua from the Speakers of Truth, it was determined that he had 'owed' to Sera the lives of the parents whom he had taken.

Presently, Sister 'Sarabaite' Sera is serving as an Anchorite Nun here in the Crystal Cathedral of Conoban. I suppose that is a polite way of saying 'under house arrest'. Certainly, there are those who want her ejected from the Cathedral and into low sec, but there is equal concern about what she will do in low sec space once she is there. At least here, we can keep an eye on her.

Sister Sera says she has requested 'sanctuary' within the church itself. We aren't quite sure how to handle the situation, as it falls under both religious and secular law. Conoban University is, after all, an institution where students are protected through both religious and secular law. It is a legally grey area.

If you would be willing to take Sera off my hands, I would be glad to hand her over. You can't believe the peace and quiet I would enjoy without that...woman around. I would however need to have permission from the Imperial Chancellor *Looks over his shoulder quickly* since I am her legal guardian. Also, I should inform you that if you take Sera off my hands and into low sec, you might be legally responsible for any mischief that Sera gets into.

Erm, he isn't standing behind me is he? *Looks around behind him.*

What was that noise? *Looks to his right.* Oh, probably a maintenance drone.

Oh yes, Ms. Mithra. I have heard that you are an expert in the Ancient Amarrian language.

If that is true, could you tell me what this word means please? Sera sometimes writes this word above doorways in chalk.



Also, does it have anything to do with these strange symbols carved into the walls of Sera's cell?

http://gnosticwarrior.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Abraxas-2.jpg

Oh, P.S. let's try to keep this out of the Gallente media shall we? We certainly don't need an international scandal on our hands.

Greetings,

Although my words mean little compare to the likes of other noblemen and ladies whom have already given there point of view.. I wish to say something, marriage is meant to be a holy ceremony between two believers in the true faith to us Amarrians, it is one of our.. Views if you like, this is something you must understand, as it is difficult to see it from our perspective when you are not.. As.. Enlightened in our faith, and i mean no disrespect, i understand our faith is not for all, even though i believe it is right, so i will not turn this into a speech about why Amarrians are superior.. But one must understand that we are different and hence have varying views on certain things, so i ask you to take a conservative view, while I do believe that to marry a heretic, one of the Sani Sabik, should not be allowed by the faith, i do not see the issue with an Amarrian marrying a Caldarian, or a any race for that matter, once thing you must all realise is that the term "Heretic" does not mean all people that are not on the enlightened path, it means those that have attempted to subvert it or destroy it, so please, i may stand alone from my faith in this, but everyone has there own.. Interpretations to a limit..

Apologies if i have offended anyone, i mean only the greatest respects and wish to clear a little confusion that i have seen stated here already, but as i have already said.. I am merely a child compared to my superiors on this threat in terms of knowledge, politics, and intelligence, so i will take my leave,

"My God watch, protect, and guide you in all your endeavours"

Humble regards, Eli Sariah

There are places on the outer colonies that have a more.. Relaxed structure and thus allow it if it is a local or friend of the community i have heard.. There are also circumstances i know of where the faithful have married into other races and still remained faithful.. I do not know the particulars so forgive me for not being able to give you an informed answer.

But think of it this way, would you believe that a Caldari mega-corp at war with the Federation would allow once of its members to marry a Gallente Citizen? The answer is no.. Even though it has happened in the past, those were particular circumstances, but the reason for this is because it would make the Caldarian in question have feelings towards the Federation his new suppose may have, and my decided to stop fighting, or even pick up arms against his brothers in arms, you must think these things though..

We do not want heretics being allowed to be married with one of our faithful brother or sisters as it could have dire outcomes, though none of the true faithful would waver, there are some who might turn their back to our faith and instead follow the heretics faith and that could spread, there are reasons for everything..

And keep in mind, i did say could, while i do not believe it possible, only a fool discounts something.

But as i have said, there are circumstances where this has happened and things have worked well.. But they are to far and in-between.. So please, our faith and our ways are not easy to understand by outsiders not willing to think from all perspectives to be able to learn and understand it and its ways, we are proud people, our religion is our way, it is our life.

"May the faithful be guided through the darkness"

Humble regards, Eli Sariah