I really wish you wouldn’t. I’ve got another 115d before I can mark the biggest item off of my persistent bucket list.
‘Have a birthday’.
1 Like
Well-- you’ve had a lot, though, even counting that way.
They’re all your zeroeth, though, of course.
Reading this dreck has almost, but not quite, given me enough pause to reconsider trade partnerships near Amarr Prime.
How could such fanatical madness overtake such folks, when God’s nature is first and foremost one of merciful love? Divinity is the source of all love, the font from which we are to enact its will on creation. This is a universal truth, a fact reinforced by faith. If you were to use such a gift as a cudgel against others, you are failing tremendously in understanding the nature of the divine.
I do not need to read Scripture to know of this divinity. I only need to look inward, into the divine and its vast ocean currents, to see how corrupt this hopeless epistle truly is!
I spit.
Citation needed.
Something, scholarly and peer reviewed by scientists and not pro-slavery zealots.
Did you know, that if you faith hard enough, even Fedo-■■■■ might taste good?
Oh, no. The Amarr understand it just fine. As a handle to justify a perpetual war and total authoritarianism under the guise of a divine reclamation.
Mr. Thorne, with respect, these comments are …
Our faith has more in common with the Way of the Winds than with Ammarian belief, but still, we Achura care a lot about spiritual matters, and many of us-- I’d even say most-- do indeed believe in some form of spiritual divinity.
Your people’s intercession freed Achura from the old feudal aristocracy, leaving us a theocracy under the leadership of our monks these last two hundred years. What wars have we inflicted on our neighbors? Who have we enslaved? … Our religious conflicts can be measured mostly in peaceful evenings disrupted by loudly-bickering monks.
If you view us as such a threat because most of us believe in realities beyond what instruments can measure, then I would submit it is not we who are insisting that others bend knee before our beliefs. Portraying others as warmongers is a common method for encouraging war against them, after all.
Pretty sure his context of the Amarr Rite was even mentioned in his post. Not that it makes whatever substitute for reasoning used in the post valid or reasonable in any way, but you’re kind of changing the context and goalposts a bit there.
So, you’re saying that you’re not an orthodox Amarrian?
Well, good. Those comments shouldn’t apply to you.
And yet… you seem pretty sour about it. Strange.
1 Like
It’s not clear that the person you were originally talking to was, either. She even suggested she might need to reconsider trading near Amarr, which suggests her view is an outsider’s.
And your comments, Mr. Thorne, also didn’t seem confined to the Amarr. Your hostility seemed expressed towards the idea of faith and “divinity” more than any particular conception of these.
It’s common for those with little doubt in the correctness of their perceptions to take that certainty as reason to suppress those who might disagree. That applies to secular causes as much as to religious ones. Secular ones might theoretically be easier to talk down from their positions through reason but in practice that might be confined more to theory than we might hope-- witness the Provists, or Arrendis for that matter.
(Heck, rabid Splinterz fandom.)
Well, it was.
The Amarr have a twisted sense of what “divine” and “faith” mean.
Mostly, from what I’ve seen, they use it as justification to condone their terrible ideals of slavery, and land grabbing.
True faith is personal, and never forced onto other people. And what is divine is so subjective that it too, is personal and should not be forced upon populations of people for the sake of controlling the masses.
It does get used for those things. But you kind of act like Heideran VII, the Peacemaker, never happened. Or the Pax Amarria, which he wrote and which is up for consideration for inclusion in Scripture.
In a way it seems you’ve kind of adopted Nauplius’s view of what the Empire is. Only, he sees it falling short of that vision (to his great distress), while you seem to see that as what the Empire actually is. Considering he’s originally from here … maybe it would be worth listening to him a bit, just to hear from someone who thinks it SHOULD be a full-on conqueror culture the various ways in which it’s not.
(I mean a lot of what he wants is extreme to a point that’s kind of silly, but it’s worth noting where and what he thinks the mistakes were, and what the symptoms are.)
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I didn’t. But eh.
I came here in the first place to challenge a perception similar to yours-- to test what I thought I knew. My predecessor never questioned it in her own time, though, so in your place I probably wouldn’t have been interested, either.
Are you high on boosters or something?
One minute you literally agree with what I said:
You state that I see what Empire as it really is. Or at least how you see it, which is in agreement with my view.
Then less than 10 minutes later you argue that you didn’t?
Or perhaps you’re just to cerebral for me to comprehend the depths of your intellect.
sigh Fine. Self-quoting, annotated.
In a way it seems you’ve kind of adopted Nauplius’s view of what the Empire is. Only, he sees it falling short of that vision (to his great distress), while you seem to see that [Nauplius’s conqueror-state ideal] as what the Empire actually is.
I didn’t say you saw it as it is. I said you see it as what Nauplius wants it to be: a conqueror state.
It’s been that in the past, for sure, and that legacy remains. The present is something of a crossroads, allowing for multiple possible courses moving forward. Withering, unrelenting, and unselfcritical hostility abroad is one element that could tip the decision-making in a particular direction.
(Currently I’m posting under the heavy influence of caffeine.)
Glad you agree.
Wow. I didn’t realize the fate of the empire rest solely on my opinion of it.
That’s some serious power I got.
Oooooh, selective editing! This is a fun game! Can I play?
Wow, what an amazing change of heart you’ve had! … Don’t know that I like this one better actually, though.
Seriously, though, I didn’t say your sole opinion was what anything rested on. Enough drops of water can make an ocean, though, or even a whole ocean world.
What exactly did you edit?
You correctly used “[…]” to show that there is additional information that wasn’t shown, and therefore didn’t change the actual message (so long as the reader decides to go back and fill in the blanks).
I seriously doubt that you’re just on “caffeine.” You’re clearly hopped up on something stronger.
Exactly. A lot of people won’t bother, especially if the response is to the quoted section rather than the meaning taken in context, so it’s an efficient method for spreading a misunderstanding. I made a joke of both the edit and my response to highlight exactly that-- and to show I wasn’t in earnest.
I’m not like Arrendis, Mr. Thorne; I don’t argue for the fun of it (though it is fun), or to score social or political points (though I’m maybe not awful at that). What I’m after is insight, whether mine or others’. Rhetorical trickery mostly just gets in the way.
Your underlying point’s a serious one: that the Amarr are a predatory theological menace. You can maybe guess from my position in this world that I don’t quite agree.
To me, this is worth talking about seriously. How about you?
(I also haven’t otherwise had lunch, which might be affecting my mood somewhat.)
Yup. And that’s not my problem. Nor am I going to loose any sleep over it.
If people want to misrepresent what I’ve said. Let them. Because at the end of the day, I know I’m in integrity with myself. And I don’t have the desire or time to manage other people.
I wouldn’t say, theological menace. I’d say they are a societal menace hiding under a thin veneer of theology.
I think it’s perhaps a little bit your problem if you’re purposely inducing it. Or at least, your work.
Suppose it’s arguable whether your work is always your problem, but as a first thought the main place that doesn’t apply is if you’re on enemy territory and the more damage you do (and the bigger the cleanup) the better.
Do I really seem like an enemy to you, though?
Hm. Fair distinction-- I guess I tend to see things a little bit in religious terms since I’m from a rival faith, and with a clerical background.
So a question-- if the Amarr were to abolish slavery and renounce “Reclaiming by the sword,” would you still maintain that view?