[Excubitoris Chapter] God Does Not Forgive: A Rejection of the Recent Concept of Forgivable Generational Inherited Sin

Under a salvific belief, personal salvation is not something based around emancipation. Achieving freedom is not the goal, nor is it a real expectation, for a faithful slave. It is instead about lifelong honest service and dutiful worship to God and Amarr. Whether or not that work has merited our personal salvation will ultimately be up to God.

Of course, there are concerns with slaves not being in the Book of Records whether or not we can achieve salvation, but most people I have known have believed entrance into the temporal free religious community is not essential for that.

1 Like

I suppose that creates a question of motivations, does it not? If one is motivated first and foremost to worship God and conduct honest service to God in obeying divine law in the Empire where salvation is not guaranteed since man cannot presume to know what God will do. Placing a priority on salvation first and foremost would seem to introduce a dangerous precedent: where good works and service to God and Empire becomes a transactional process for salvation instead of duty or an act of faith in their own right.

Once such a transactional belief is instilled, it also presents another danger in my mind: it creates space for religious demagogues or wayward Holders to appeal to the desire for salvation in the faithful to achieve their own ends which might be in contravention of Scriptural laws and derived dogma of the Amarr faith.

3 Likes

Why does everyone talk about people and important things in such ridiculously simplistic manner? As if there is one single belief governing people’s lives that you can boil everything down to. It is not ‘putting salvation first and foremost’. It is doing one’s duty to God and Amarr, and hoping that such duty will see our souls redeemed.

1 Like

For me, it’s not about personal belief but rather anyone who can guarantee to anyone else that God will save them, or that God will forgive them would seem to be placing man above God by making such a guarantee – it would imply God acts according to the desires of human beings instead of the other way around.

1 Like

Isn’t it the point of a priest, Holder, or other religious official to convey God’s will, as best they know it, to their followers? To serve as a intermediary between the lay person and God? And as Salvationism is not a heresy, Salvationist clergy are not conveying a message at odds with God’s will as determined by the Theology Council.

Churches established in the Khanid Kingdom are not conveying a message at odds with God’s will as determined by the Theology Council, also, no?

They were at odds with it, until only very recently.

Convey God’s will as it has been conveyed to them, yes. But not to make promises they cannot deliver on behalf of God. It is easy for an authority to fall from the former to the latter, especially if one allows individual self interest to color their understanding of God’s will.

2 Likes

Then who can say if the Theology Council will not be at odds with the Salvationists in the future? Especially when one of its most notable public adherents took up arms against the Amarr Empire.

2 Likes

Well, let me add my own two isk to the discussion.
The problem of the slavery doesn’t really interest me, so I’ll address the issue of the inheritance.

What does caught my attention is the concept of the generational inherited sin, after all - it sort of covers all bloodlines disregarding their allegiances and Faith, as I imagine it being covered by Imperial beliefs. And I will try to speak with abstract point of view, trying to minimize my personal interest as a non-Amarr who might be a sinner, etc.

And speaking from that point of view, what I do find unacceptable is forgiving somebody without them actually committing any sort of act on their own volition. On the other hand, I do speak about the concept of guilt - you need to actually commit or avoid committing something that you had to commit to be guilty. For example, if one was an Admiral of Federal Navy and rammed a nyx to a station, committing a genocide, act of terror, mass slaughter, warmongering - that surely shall be a guilt. If the nyx went out of the control and Admiral didn’t do anything to stop it from the collision - it would be guilt as well. But if a ship lost control, a captain tried to stop it, but it was unresponsive to the command, ramming something and causing loss of life - there will be no guilt at all. And with this - generational inheritance does not involve action or an inaction of a person. It happens without their own volition. Then how can we discuss whether they shall or shall not be forgiven in the first place?

But, of corse, as I have stated above, I have discussed it from the position of guilt rather than sin. The concept of sin, unfortunately, eludes me and thus it might make my ideas wrong from the start.

And from the position of the guilt you cannot really demand a child to pay for the debts of their parents, because by default they interited only genes - which only enable them to act in one way or another, but do not guarantee the path the children will take. If a father took a debt from a bank, for example, and died, his son has to repay the debt only if he inherited father’s house, father’s hovercar, ship, or anything else. If the child doesn’t put a claim of inheritance on any of parent’s posessions, then the debt could not applied to them as well. If he accepts inheritance, he accepts a debt as well - and does that on his own volition. And for that they will have to answer.

If you break with God, you commit a crime - and as a Caldari I can absolutely understand that, since there’s no really greater crime than a treason. If the God gave you life and everything and you break with Him, you become an ungrateful swine, a filth that deserves a harshest of punishments possible. That is crystal clear. But what about children of these? They didn’t commit the act of treason themselves, so why should they be punished or forgiven for that, since they didn’t do anything themselves? That I don’t understand.

Well, I have said I am not interested in the slavery, yet I will bring it as an example. If you enslave a parent for some crime, you can say you “demote” them in their social status as a punishment, turning them into a certain slave. If they have a children and children will be born as a slave, I can absolutely understand it in terms of castes and social groups. If a children is a born in a certain social group they just belong to it until they commit something to leave that group themselves. But if you say that if parents were slaves, they born a child that is not a slave and is automatically enslaved for the crimes of their parents - that I just fail to understand. I don’t see logic in that at all.

1 Like

When considering Amarrian semiosis, is not the Imperial Seal the Third Sign – imperfect union between man and God? Won’t there be unfairness in an imperfect union between man and God? The alternatives seem far worse for Amarr if one proceeds forwards or backwards: either humanity above God, or humanity separated from God.

The adoption of the Third Sign for the Empire seems to clearly state what it represents – a divine order that is imperfect, but a divine order nonetheless. If the belief among Salvationists is that they should decide who does or does not deserve mercy, or decide who deserves to dispense mercy then are they not a threat to that divine order of Amarr? Because the Amarr Empire has already decided in terms of religious dogma and doctrine who can dispense temporal mercy – the Holy Throne and Holders. If those beneath can dictate to those above, then how can a divine order be maintained at all, imperfect as it is? If human beings can decide whatever they want to, to take it upon themselves and acting upon what they think is fair or unfair, outside of their own place in God’s hierarchy as it exists in the Amarr Empire then does that not risk either separation from God or placing human beings above God?

1 Like

Considering that most Salvationists are slaves or other lower folk, they are hardly involved in deciding any of these things.

Once again, this is already truth in Salvationist belief.

… also, no, it’s not just the Holy Throne and Holders. There’s a considerably broader range of religious leaders in Amarr than just those.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your half-baked ideas. This is an Amarrian discussion, about Amarrian faith. I’m not interested in debating with a foreigner who thinks they’ve come up with some interesting conclusions after 25-minutes worth of thought about things that entirely govern other people’s entire lives.

Yes, and I remain curious as to what should be more important to one of the Amarrian faith: what they personally think the Amarr Empire should be or their obedience to it.

You’re the one expressing personal notions of fairness in the Empire, but is fairness inherently meant to be important in order to be obedient to God and Empire?

This is in my opinion a clear example of talking about God as if he’d literally forgive and more importantly as if we could wrong God. It’s the fallacy of taking Scripture literally, when it clearly speaks in analogy and metaphor.

Insult, here, can’t be meant to indicate just some rude behaviour or speech towards God. Rather, insult is here used to indicate an offence untowards and injury of God:

That means, God is here claimed to be made into a victim, a victim of a mere mortal. If that is the case, then God can’t be Perfect Being, because it is obvious that being in the state of victimhood or being injured is not a perfect state at all.

If one reads Lord Lok’ri as using the cataphatic mode, which I feel is entirely reasonable, then the counterargument doesn’t stick. If one extends that reading in the cataphatic mode to the counterargument, it does not make sense at all as counterargument.

So, it boils down to this type of counter to Lord Lok’ri being one that depends of painting God as a god that is less then perfect, anthropomorphic, and the object of human doings and doing so literally.

If one wants to remain in communion with orthodoxy and don’t make that step that leads from heterodoxy to heresy, one needs to firmly keep in mind that - however much we might consciously or inconsciously wish for the contrary to be true - God in His perfection is simply out of reach of our petty human bickering and failings and it is impossible for a human to injure God in any way.

Everything else would be denying that God is perfect. And that would be a clear expression of hubris and in my professional opinion a just as clear step towards heresy.

Seems I have to write an essay on the dangers of Scriptural literalism.

2 Likes