I agree with you on pretty much everything, save that the reclaiming specifically calls for violence. The way I see it they could have interpreted their duty in any number of ways and gone about bringing other races under God in any number of ways.
Oh yeah, it wouldn’t have worked, because the Amarr religion is a disgusting construct in the end that only benefits those at the top, so sure, in the end it would have come down to force anyway.
But I think it’s important to remember that these people chose their path of conquest and enslavement, not because it means they might choose something else (they won’t), but because it’s good to remember that the Amarr are not just wicked because of their god. These people where not commanded to set the galaxy on fire and put everyone else in chains, they decided themselves that that was a fantastic way to go about it.
And that’s why, Ms.Valate, I am not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make. You’re saying there’s other ways then violence to “reclaim” the galaxy, but that’s always been the case, and it’s never done anybody any good because the Amarr are unrepentant little creatures who never wanted to do it any other way.
I can respect that, though if they did as I said, we would not have had the day of darkness, the slavery, the need for a revolution and liberation. They would just be another people.
Tacking on ‘of others’ doesn’t change anything about what I said. Conquest of others still has many definitions and means by which it can be achieved. It could even be said that the creation of CONCORD (which was founded in part by an Amarr emperor) was a means of conquest.
It should also be reminded that the Khanid and Ni-kunni were conquered primarily with diplomacy rather than by military force.
Where force cannot or will not be used to bring the lost into the faith, then we must prove that the faith is worthy of your worship by acting in good character and setting good examples.
I, in fact, appreciate that comma immensely. But let’s look at the whole thing.
Notice the colon? ‘Go forth, conquer in my Name, and reclaim that which I have given’ is the message. Conquest is the message, as much as any of the rest of it. All three. It’s a series of interdependent clauses. Go forth, in order to conquest, in order to reclaim. You can’t conquer unless you go forth (cuz you’ve already conquered where you are), and you can’t reclaim without the conquest.
Because, you know, I am a massive (literally. I have mass. All of my atoms have it!) pedant, but I’m also given to reading comprehension.
And Samira: diplomacy backed by the use threat of force is still force. ‘Do as I say or I’ll beat you’ isn’t any better than actually beating someone until they give in.
I’ll admit I’m kind of surprised that you chose a construction that amounts to ‘Use of force is preferred, but…’ by making the ‘good example’ only to be used where force cannot or will not be used.
This crap right here? When you know exactly what she meant, when you know exactly who she is, and when you know exactly how to take her words and you still pull this bullcrap? For no other reason than cheaparse rhetorical points with no actual value since you know you’re not arguing against something she actually means or intends? That is why you piss people off, and that is why you’re losing friends faster than you make them.
I beg to differ. We were enslaved under threat of force by the Imperial military and that full force was used to quell any who resisted.
We used diplomacy - our willingness to accept both our circumstances and the True Faith - to get out of slavery. Please do not cheapen the hard work of my people to score points with those who have no willingness to listen.
I don’t really get that metaphor. Being a dog must be pretty awesome. Just wander around sniffing things, poop where you please, have a scratch without being self conscious, dig holes randomly, never have to worry about taxes or deep religious issues. Pretty awesome, no ?
The basis of theological context for the doctrines of the Holy Reclaiming as given in the Book of Reclaiming are provided in the Book of Gheinok from the Word of the First Prophet. The Book of Gheinok makes clear the persecution and suffering inflicted upon the Faithful who exist in Holy Covenant with God at the hands of the heathen who were in rebellion against God. It was this persecution of those of the Covenant by the unbelievers that begun the exodus of the Faithful to the promised land of Amarr. As such, the Book of Gheinok describes unequivocally the relationship between those of the Faith in Covenant with God and the heathen: that there can be no peace for if afforded any opportunity to do so, the infidel who is in rebellion against God will seek out at any and every opportunity to attack and persecute the Chosen children of God in Amarr.
In persecuting Gheinok the First and those who were in Covenant with God, the infidel declared war against the Faithful. Since the sins of the forebearer are not commuted upon death but instead transferred upon their children; every heathen carries with them the stain of sin of that initial rebellion against God and His Chosen People, the Amarr. It was not those in Covenant with God who begun the war, yet it remains an act of Faith to defend Amarr against the heathen barbarians who are the inheritors of the sins of their ancestors. The Holy Reclaiming exists as a defense of the Faith and an acknowledgement of the war begun with the exodus of Gheinok the First at the hands of the infidel, who must now and forever be punished for their transgressions against God lest they do harm against the Chosen peoples of Amarr. This is done by either enacting the vengeance of destruction upon them or adopting the more magnanimous approach of enslaving the heathen and infidel so that through the trials of hardship and privation their progeny may be abjured of their inherited crimes and brought into righteous Covenant with the Lord God by the largesse of the Holy Empire of Amarr.
The Book of Reclaiming as given are doctrinal commandments and mandate to the Faithful in addition to a statement of intention towards the infidel and heathen barbarian where they are given the choice: to either abjure their sins of their own volition by submitting to the will of God or face His wrath as embodied by the Holy Empire of Amarr. The lack of a current Crusade or Reconquista does not abrogate its doctrines nor its fundamental necessity as a defense of the Faith; indeed, far from it, for an abeyance in the Imperial Crusades during the Udorian Reconquista were required – sometimes lasting for decades at a time – by the Emperors to facilitate the consolidation of Holdings and new territories. All the better launch a fresh Crusade against the heathen at a later date. This however did not prevent some Udorian nations at the time to truly believe that the Empire had abandoned its beliefs in the Holy Reclaiming, which proved to be to their own detriment insofar as it led them to the hubris of refusing the offerings of earth and water to the Holy Emperors which in turn led to their own destruction.
I believe strong parallels can be drawn from that period to the here and now as regards Imperial policy, both in the need to consolidate after the Khanid secession and Minmatar insurrection, in addition to the expression of hopes that the Empire has abandoned the Holy Reclaiming. That being said, I consider those who truly believe that the time for the Holy Reclaiming through the Reconquista has ended – whether within or without the Empire – as being led down a blind praxis, for history and theological doctrine have shown otherwise: so long as the barbarian exists so too must the Holy Reclaiming to defend the Faith and Amarr, for the original sin of rebellion against God buried in the soul of every heathen as their inheritance cannot be permitted to exist.
Tl;dr: many thousands of years ago people told the Amarr to piss off, so our ancestors wrote a book justifying the enslavement of all the descendants of those people because we are petty.