Treatment of slaves and faith in the Holy Amarr Empire

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

The Amarrian God has most certainly not abandoned them; the God cannot do that, given that the Amarr people are what He is.

Whether He is capable of aiding His people given that He is, in fact, quite mad, is another matter altogether.

[Mizhara_Del_thul]

I was trying to be kind. His absence would, one’d hope, be more tolerable than Him being mad, cruel and in need of being put down like a rabid dog.

… then again, Amarr mindsets might just consider it quite the opposite.

[Gaven_Lok_ri]

The idea that God is insane is a peculiarly Minmatar Heresy. I am still trying to track down its origins.

I have no doubt that God is still actively inspiring the Amarr towards a glorious future filled with pious art.

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

@Gaven_Lok_ri

The idea that God is insane is a peculiarly Minmatar Heresy. I am still trying to track down its origins.

I should think it follows easily from secular experience in an Empire lead by God.

It is a particularly Minmatar thing that we mix and match myths and stories and each teller changes them to fit better to the context and audience of their telling. Real tradition, after all, is a living thing; unchanging texts are Scipture.

[Gaven_Lok_ri]

Scripture is not unchanging. It grows and evolves based on continuously unfolding divine revelation.

[Imrik_Schereau]

@Amicia_Cora

So often do I see arguments being made on this Summit and elsewhere that Amarr will, with cast iron certainty, seek to destroy everybody else via force - the warning being that all attempts at cooperative engagement are disingenuous and dangerous based on a very specific reading of our history that casts Reclaiming via force as a never-changing aspect of the faith.

Please correct my understanding if it is incomplete or inaccurate.

Is it not a basic tenet of the Amarr faith that all must come to serve the Amarr as the Amarr serve God and it is the divine mandate of the Amarr to bring all peoples to that end?

If this statement is true then even should you approach with diplomacy and benevolent intent, your faith cannot coexist with those who willingly and continually live outside of it, it is your mandate to convert them after all.

It would seem to follow that at some point diplomacy and coexistence fails and the Reclaiming must be done by force or it will not be done at all.

Is this not a correct understanding?

[Mizhara_Del_thul]

@Amicia_Cora

So often do I see arguments being made on this Summit and elsewhere that Amarr will, with cast iron certainty, seek to destroy everybody else via force - the warning being that all attempts at cooperative engagement are disingenuous and dangerous based on a very specific reading of our history that casts Reclaiming via force as a never-changing aspect of the faith. It reaks of abject pessimism and a complete lack of belief in basic humanity, let alone the humanity of Holy Amarr, as forces that can and do change as their understandings of the cluster, themselves, and God evolve.

Or it’s pretty simple pattern recognition. Until the Empire demonstrates clearly an ability for fundamental change and potential for redemption, one can only deal with what is, and that is countless of our people in bondage and no discernible intent to change that situation within their lifetimes. It is a constant and repeated cycle of aggression, destruction, enslaving of innocents and attempted genocides.

You can start complaining once these things have changed and attitudes towards you haven’t. Until then, you’re putting the cart before the horse, expecting the outlook of those you consistently and continuously wrong to change before you do.

This is a somewhat unrealistic tack to follow.

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

@Gaven_Lok_ri

Scripture is not unchanging. It grows and evolves based on continuously unfolding divine revelation.

One apologizes for any perceived insult caused by quoting a traditional way of expressing a crucial difference.

I suppose it is fair to say that the difference lies not so much in living tradition versus immutable scripture, but in the interpretation of who has the right to make alterations and who can they expect to follow their versions.

[Kitaula_Kuusa_Jouhinen]

More like based on the whims and fancy of whatever sect is in power at the time.

[Valerie_Valate]

I believe we are dealing with the “recent convert” phenomenon where someone relatively new to a religion seizes upon the literal meaning of some aspect, as they have not yet encountered the vast amount of previous interpretation and commentary that previous generations of scholars have written on the matter. Occasionally such a fresh approach generates new insights but more often it results in a repeat of old, in some cases ancient, arguments.
This happens a lot in the Amarr religions with their thousands of years worth of dialogue and commentary, from scholars on a thousand worlds.

That said, if Synthia has a stronger understanding of contemporary religious arguments than some people, then those people should probably have a serious think about things.

[Saronu_Yassavi]

@Imrik_Schereau

Is it not a basic tenet of the Amarr faith that all must come to serve the Amarr as the Amarr serve God

You come close to truth, but in framing one correct understanding miss it completely; the basic tenet which underpins the Book of Reclaiming is

I give to you the destiny of Faith,
And you will bring its message to every planet of every star in the heavens:

There are as many correct understandings of that mission as there are ways to spread God’s message, it is upon the matter of ‘enemies’ that Scripture is at its least ambiguous.

[Imrik_Schereau]

Thank you for the clarification but I would seek to drive the point further.

At which point does someone cease being the unenlightened heathen and become an ‘enemy?’ If, for instance, I maintained amiable relations with the Amarr in every way except that I refused to submit to their faith; do I become an ‘enemy’ when I refuse conversion even if I’m amiable in every other way or do I simply remain un-Reclaimed until the day of my death (which, presumptively, doesn’t come at the hands of the Amarr)?

[Saronu_Yassavi]

@Imrik_Schereau

I would seek to drive the point

A point of any value can be made, with no need to drive it.

An enemy hates or opposes, seeks to harm or thwart; but you know this. You seek to drive your point, whether sincere or otherwise that the Rite inevitably makes Amarr the enemy of all who are not Amarr.

That you are a heathen does not make you an enemy, that you proliferate a stale argument designed to harm— that may well suffice.

[Arrendis]

@Gaven_Lok_ri

The idea that God is insane is a peculiarly Minmatar Heresy. I am still trying to track down its origins.

Wouldn’t God have to be insane? After all, your God can deliver perfect prophecy, right? Absolute, inerrant ‘X will happen’ stuff that can’t possibly be wrong if God says it? And it’s able to do this because it’s got a mind that transcends our comprehension? Well… if its mind transcends comprehension, then it transcends concepts like ‘sanity’. Sanity’s got bounds. Sanity’s got limits. And anything that goes beyond those limits… like, y’know, any ineffably transcendent mind… is then… insane.

[Arrendis]

@Saronu_Yassavi

There are as many correct understandings of that mission as there are ways to spread God’s message, it is upon the matter of ‘enemies’ that Scripture is at its least ambiguous.

But it’s not really enemies, is it? What do the Scriptures command regarding those who reject the Amarr faith, without ever saying those people have to attack or otherwise harbor animosity toward the Amarr?

I mean, on enemies, the term used is ‘defeated’, or even ‘wrap your arms around your enemy’.

But those who turn away from his light,
And reject his true word
Shall be struck down by his wrath

That doesn’t seem to need them to be enemies. In fact, it reads like it should apply to literally every Caldari who’s ever said to keep your faith out of the State. Are the Caldari your enemies, then?

[Synthetic_Cultist]

Why would a Perfect God create a Universe ?

[Ulysses_Redmane]

I’ll bite that question. Sanity is generally defined as logical and rational behavior and, depending on the subject, can be a moving scale. Take Capsuleers for example: Many of us, dare I say most of us, would not be considered sane by the common person. Our deathless peers are usually more motivated by greed or simply bloodlust. As a social class we are practically defined by covetousness and we don’t care who gets in the way. How many smoking fields of debris have you left in your wake? As for myself: Countless.

I do not faulter under the weight of my sins, but if I were omniscient that may be more difficult. Imagine if you knew, in great detail, every person we’ve harmed. Imagine feeling the sorrow and rage of every widow and every orphan that has wept because of our actions. Would you be sane? Would you be rational? I don’t know if I would be.

[Gaven_Lok_ri]

This is a an inaccurate binary for describing the ineffable, both categories are bound up in our humanity, and are tied up with ideas of health.

God surpasses sanity or insanity.

Also, in Elsebeth’s strange heresy some divinities appear to be sane.

[Imrik_Schereau]

Perhaps ‘drive’ was the incorrect choice of words but it did get me the information I was looking for, so thank you.

A better choice of words was perhaps “pursue” the point, I was seeking clarification and nothing more.

Thank you for providing it.

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

@Gaven_Lok_ri

Also, in Elsebeth’s strange heresy some divinities appear to be sane.

Sane for gods and spirits, anyway?

The pain, grief and greed of the Nameless God is indeed something specific, not a feature of of being a god.