The 27 Theses

I must apologize, I only became “immortal” a year ago, and my decades of life before that have made me a bit overly concerned with my own well being.

Though, the Empire does take pretty harshly to anything the Council decides is Heresy, and both the Council and the Amarrian Lords have a record of calling anything that disagrees with their way of rule Heretical.
It’s not like in the Caldari where any public shows of religion can land you a hefty fine, in the Empire if you are not following exactly what the Council deems as correct, you are at risk of being hanged.
I and my family are still Imperial Citizens, and I am at more risk due to my association with many Monastic orders, who answer directly to the Theology Council.


… well … maybe you were more at risk …

Actually in my travels in the Empire I’ve seen a lot of differences of opinion-- mostly kind of quietly voiced, mostly in private, but also mostly carrying a lot of strong and sincere conviction. These are of different kinds, and looking around it’s not hard to find voices for the Sarumite cause, full of passion and eloquence.

It’s not too hard to find gentler voices, either, though.

I’ve also seen malice, cruelty, selfish hypocrisy … the usual stuff you find humans getting up to. I won’t say it’s rare, either. Just, I’m not sure it’s more common in the Empire than elsewhere.

It would have been interesting if someone with your kinds of views and apparent connections had actually climbed the ranks, maybe even eventually to become part of the Theology Council and helped to make policy. It seems like that freighter’s undocked, and the Empire has a lot of kick-out stations. A few thousand meters can be an awfully long way. . . .

Good luck, pilot. … I hope you haven’t harmed your beliefs’ chance of acceptance, by making your turning-away formal, public, and absolute. Sweeping statements have a tendency to be distortion or error pretty often, and it seems like the risk grows a bunch if the sweeping statement is a moral judgment.

I’ve met Amarrian apostates I’ve liked pretty well. I hope your own apostasy is not too cruel to you, but, if those you reject reject you also, you’ll have little reason to complain.


Personally I’d recommend you move to a WH system. There you have autonomy from the Empires (note that I believe all the Empires are corrupt), and can nurture your faith safe from those who would oppose you.

Of course, you have the dangers of WH life, but nothing worthwhile comes easily.


Is there a TL;DR version of this thread?



Some Amarr guy is doubting their party line and other Amarr are explaining why the water at their feet is a good thing and not in any way shape or form the sign of a sinking ship they should abandon.


There’s a few edits that need to be made. First, way too long. Twenty-seven? This is more a book than a list. Oh, right, call it a list. “Theses” will get half your potential readers to the dictionary and you’ve lost them. You’ll also need to catch and keep attention with bait and hook.

Try “12 Things the Theology Council Doesn’t Want You to Believe (Number 7 Made Me LIVID! :fire: :rage: :fire:)”.


And make sure to put a pop-up holo-ad between each point, selling the New Pax Amarria with added family friendly pictures.

1 Like

More like he should be helping to plug the holes instead of jumping ship, since fleeing is selfish and cowardly. Plus the captains shoot deserters.


You make only a few points, the rest of your arguments follow from those points, so I’ll just answer those points. My apologies in advance for using logic and reason:

It is not the will of God that nonbelievers who refuse the light be enslaved and tortured.

God neither demands nor disallows enslavement or torture. They are simply an option. Like missiles are options for the Empire Navy instead of just lasers (if you take the Light of God literally). What is your point?


It is not our mission to conquer, or enslave.

Indeed. Enslavement is but a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is also not the mission of the Gallente to imprison their citizens, but they do it anyway if they think it appropriate. What is your point?


While some may say that the Emperor is God’s mouthpiece, this too is a lie, as God speaks to no one but the Angels who transmit his message to the Worthy.

How would you know this is a lie unless you consider yourself such an Angel. And even if you do, I think the credentials of the Emperor are better than yours. Also, it seems you believe in Scriptures as the word of God? Please read Book I 1:14


The Scriptures lay out the Faithful are equal among each other, and those who follow the light faithfully will be forgiven for their sins and let into Heaven, for it is theirs to inherit.

Where do you get that? Additionally, our souls may be equal before God, but that does not mean some cannot be richer, taller or wiser than others. There is no queue to get beyond the gates of Paradise. There most certainly is a queue when trying to achieve wordly status.


Tell me, has anyone seen Empress Catiz I pray?

If you have worries about the devotion of the Empress, then do you not believe that God will sort that out when she attempts to enter paradise? What gives you the wisdom to judge her? Especially based on such a odd thing of what you have ‘seen’ her done. Have you ever spent a week in her presence?

I have most certainly seen her pray. In my presence no less.


True, but we are to reclaim these souls, are we not? To bring them into the light? How are we supposed to achieve this when the Empire actively seeks to enslave all who are not born of the “Amarrian Races”, therefore sabotaging our ability to convert them?

I don’t think you know what enslavement is. You seem to see enslavement as an evil without knowing why you believe so. Why do you think slavery is ‘bad’?

Do you have children? Then you should realize that the power you have over them by law is similar to those masters have over slaves. Keeping your children close to you and instructing them is the best way to ensure your teachings will take hold. Research has established long ago that complete control over another ensures the best odds at loyalty and obedience if such control is exercised fairly.

That is why I do not fight slavery, but I do fight immoral slavers.


If you do not fight slavery then you are complicit in it. There can be no good or bad slavery, there is only the immoral act of depriving another being of their free will for no just reason.

1 Like

If you do not fight slavery then you are complicit in it. There can be no good or bad slavery, there is only the immoral act of depriving another being of their free will for no just reason.

There are so many things wrong with your assertion here that I have difficulty starting a reply.

  1. Slavery does not deprive beings of their free will. I can assure you, it is still quite intact.

  2. I would agree with you that enslaving people for ‘no reason’ is bad. But even if you aren’t the brightest bulb graduating from capsuleer academy, you will agree with me that people are rarely (if ever) enslaved for ‘no reason’, right?

In fact, I’ll make a stronger claim: enslaving someone for no reason or for selfish reasons is immoral. Moral enslavement should always have the goal of benefitting the enslaved individual and the society at large.

I’ll restrain myself further, I do not desire to derail this discussion, as it is about the 27 points made and not about slavery in general. If you have any questions about slavery, please address them in a separate post, I will endeavour to answer all your questions.


So slaves can just up and leave if they decide they no longer want to be slaves?

I said ‘no just reason’. To be clear, there is never a just reason to enslave another. Imprison after due legal process maybe, but enslavement can never be justified.

By trying to claim it can, you become nothing more than an apologist for such behaviour.

1 Like

So slaves can just up and leave if they decide they no longer want to be slaves?

Of course they can. Just as much as you can just get up and become a president, a champion athlete or a terrorist. Free will is about the ability to make a choice, not the ability to automatically succeed. Agreed?

I said ‘no just reason’. To be clear, there is never a just reason to enslave another. Imprison after due legal process maybe, but enslavement can never be justified.

Can you back that claim? You seem to say that it is fine for society to restrain individuals under certain conditions. Why do you think imprisonement is fine (or denying children legal independent status) but slavery is not. It would reflect well on you if expand your argument beyond ‘slavery is bad because it is!’


Free will is one thing. Agency is another. If I want to, I can take steps to try to work toward becoming a leader, or a champion, or a fiend. Slaves can obey, or they can face discipline for disobedience. Those are their options.

From a simple baseline, the natural state of existence is one of pure agency: you can attempt whatever you are actually capable of attempting. Society, however, requires some abrogation of this state of natural agency in order to function. The classic example is: I agree to waive my natural right to kill you and take your stuff, and in exchange, you agree to waive your natural right to kill me and take my stuff. True cooperation is achieved only when both sides voluntarily limit their natural agency in order to promote greater achievement in mutual pursuits. It is this foundation upon which all of society rests.

Limitation of agency comes about either as a result of such voluntary choice, or from an imposition by an external force. When it is the latter, there then must be justifications for it which are beyond question, else it is oppression. The limitation of the agency of children, for example, is justified by the child not being in a position to make properly informed, well-reasoned decisions regarding complex issues which often require long-term perspectives and experience.

Imprisonment of criminals is justified in their past behavior. The choice of using their agency to inflict harm on others violates the basic social contract upon which society is built. This demonstrates that they will put their agency to use in ways that actively infringes upon the agency of others. As a result, in order to preserve the greatest amount of agency among the greatest number of people, those who intentionally curtail the agency of others have their own severely curtailed.

Oppression—the forceful limitation of agency upon others against their will without unimpeachable justification—is an offense against society. It is such because society is predicated upon cooperation. We work together, rather than killing one another and taking one another’s stuff, because the benefits of doing so outweigh the inconvenience of not being able to take whatever we want. When members of society are oppressed, this undermines that core premise: some members of society are expected to abrogate their natural agency without receiving the same benefits and protections as others.

This becomes actively detrimental to society in the long term: if a justification that is not indisputable can lead to the restriction of one person’s agency, then no-one is safe from such justifications being fabricated to use upon them. As a result, all members of society, whether they recognize it or not, are threatened. Those who do recognize this quickly begin to mistrust those in authority.

Those who do not recognize the threat will also, if less swiftly, come to mistrust authority as elements of the general mood begin to plant the seeds of (completely justified) concerns in the undercurrents of conversation. Topics will become forbidden, or ‘dangerous’ to talk about. Conversations will hush and go silent when the enforcers of authority—police forces, for example—draw near. Even if people do not recognize why these things happen, they will know that they do happen, and this will further foment mistrust in other members of society.

In short order, you have a society where fear of reprisal, not the benefits of mutual cooperation, is the primary binding force… and such societies will always experience greater stress on their members, less fulsome cooperation, greater inefficiency, schism, and ultimately collapse. Usually, social dynamics of this sort are only able to endure when there is an external threat or challenge to focus frustrations on, in order to appeal to greater social unity in defiance of the ‘other’. Lacking this hob-goblin, the need for an oppositional force to define oneself against turns inward, accelerating factionalization, paranoia, and strife. The longer such tensions are kept locked down, without a way to release pressure or work toward constructive resolution, the more likely a society is to experience cataclysmic upheaval.

Care to expand your rebuttal beyond ‘but whyyyyyyyy?’ in response?


Care to expand your rebuttal beyond ‘but whyyyyyyyy?’ in response?

I actually almost completely agree with your response. However, your response fails to connect slavery in any way to your argument. Do you have some implicit assumption that there is no justification for slavery?

Slavery can only be just when it is inflicted on those who have shown themselves to be unable to make properly informed, well-reasoned decisions regarding complex issues which often require long-term perspectives and experience and when their past behaviour indicates it. For the Amarr Empire there is even an additional condition: to inflict slavery on someone the proper procedures also have to be followed. This will give the society additional assurance that such things are not inflicted lightly or arbitrarily.

That is why I (and the Amarr Navy) fight pirates who raid villages, kidnap people and sell the people into slavery. And that is why I do not fight Amarrian authorities who apprehend terrorists, try them in court and sentence them to slavery. The first is unjust, the second isn’t.

One thing I would like to mention is that you say the justification needs to be ‘unimpeachable’. However history shows that restrictions upon children for example have been made dependent upon age, and not actual ability. And that the age at which such restrictions have been removed change from time to time and from society to society. I think that while you would like such justification to be unimpeachable, it only needs to be generally acceptable for society to function, and ‘mistakes’ at an individual level are fine.

One additional thing I do not see in your argument is that society not just inflicts restriction upon people to prevent them from using their agency to inflict harm upon society, but also to punish them for past transgressions. A mother who murders her children because she blames them for her husband leaving and who is too old to conceive again, will likely not murder her children again. But society will still inflict restrictions upon her despite this.


Ah, goodie. Let’s start with the simple stuff that’s so blindingly obvious, you can only have included it as a distraction.

The unimpeachable justification for the reduction of the agency in children is not only that they have a reduced capability to make critical, life-effecting decisions. Rather, it is also intermixed again with the purpose of society itself. As a result, society is obligated to err on the side of caution where their safety is concerned.

Society exists so that those within it benefit, and gain greater ability to achieve their goals. One of the primary goals of life is survival. Another is reproduction. Keep in mind that these aren’t necessarily the goals of individuals, but of the machinery of life itself. As such, they underpin much of individual efforts, consciously or no. So society has an obligation to do what it can to ensure that the living stay living, and that those who breed have the best chance possible of their offspring surviving to maturity, as well.

As a result of this obligation, and its nature as a fundamental aspect of society, the reduction of agency among children is about as universal as a concept gets. The fact that different societies disagree on the point at which natural agency is restored to the same levels as the rest of society in no way puts the justification in doubt. Nor does the fact that no societal rule or law can ever, in all of history and all of history to come, be perfectly and equally fair with regard to all persons and situations without being so broad and vague as to be ineffectual as a law and more accurately a statement of principle like ‘don’t be a douche’.

Next, your example of the mother. Once again, tremendous use of an outlying edge case, but the fundamental principle remains: she cannot be trusted with her agency. You say she won’t murder her children again. But clearly, the situation presented her with an emotional impetus powerful enough that she was willing to forsake the basic tenets of society. She has demonstrated that willingness to do this. Can you say with certainty that no other situation will do the same? Taking human life, after all, is like any other activity: it gets easier, once you start.

Some societies imprison as deterrent. Some as punishment. Some in order to seek rehabilitation. But the reason that agency is reduced is because the criminal has shown their use of agency is detrimental to the agency of others. All else is simply ‘what does society wish this reduction to achieve for the future?’ In the present, agency is reduced because the offender presents a threat.

This is why most societies have a period—especially in the cases of lesser offenses, or offenses with mitigating circumstances—between the initial arrest and eventual trial (while further investigation and planning of both prosecution and defense strategies is conducted) where many offenders can temporarily have much of their agency restored by posting bail.

Now, on to slavery!

And can you give me an example of this that is not simply another term misapplied to, or a gross perversion of, processes such as criminal justice? The ‘proper procedures’ issue is irrelevant. The issue of terrorism is, after all, criminal justice.

Now justify to me why those terrorists’ sentence should be applied to their children. Their grandchildren. Their great-grandchildren. Because that is a key difference between slavery and incarceration.


Now, on to slavery!

You haven’t made an argument why slavery violates the principles you laid out previously even though I specifically asked for you to do so.

The only thing you now point out is that incarceration is justified (and slavery is not), is because slavery can cross generations? Is that your entire argument as why slavery is unacceptable measure to restrain misuse of agency while incarceration is not?

As I said I mostly agree with your previous statements and even some of your latest ones, but you no amount of wisdom can make an unconnected conclusion stick. It is like you are stating that 1 + 1 = 2 several times and suddenly concluding with: “and that’s why slavery is bad folks!”

Are you actually claiming that slavery is unjust or not? A reading of your first argument doesn’t even make that clear. If you want to do so, you need to put forth an argument and connect it to your conclusion. By asking me to give more examples or asking me to justify generational slavery, you are shifting the burden of proof. If you want to make a claim, then you need to support it with reason and evidence.

The only claim I made initially was that slaves still have free will, and although you have not explicitly admitted to it, I believe you agree with me on this, right?


You haven’t provided any justification for slavery. Rather, you’ve said ‘so why’s slavery bad?’ when my point has been that without specific justification, any infringement of agency is bad. It is specifically and directly counter to the objectives of society.

So: what’s your specific justification that is unimpeachable?

As far as free will goes: Demonstrate that anyone actually has free will, and you’re not just an inordinately complex series of stimulus-response aggregations so dense that you can’t puzzle out specific root causes amidst all of the impacting situational variables (which literally include everything that has happened to everyone around you that affected every one of your past decisions).

Also, I assume you’re not including in your assessment slaves whose internal processes are limited or corrupted by vitoc or TCMCs, right?


You haven’t put forth an argument why slavery is an exception to some infringements that you deemed acceptable. Only in a later post you suddenly seem to claim that the possible generational nature of slavery is the thing that makes it unjust.

So, once again, is the generational nature the sole reason you think slavery is unacceptable, or are there other arguments you want to add?

As for free will: I would really suggest you make another thread if you want to discuss it. For me it would be impolite to the original poster to pull this thread that much off-topic.