| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:After reading so much scripture quoting in another thread about the "reclaiming" fairy tale in which the Amarrian God supposedly exhorts "his people" to go out and do his dirty work, a thought occurred to me; if this God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent why does he need frail, flawed, ignorant and very limited humans? Why doesn't he just snap his fingers and make his will happen?
I know this will be looked at as a blasphemous joke by the hardcore faithful but, I'm quite serious here. You claim to follow an all-powerful supreme being who created the entirety of existence, who is capable of doing anything, yet he needs the Amarr Empire to carry out his commands? Sounds a little incongruous to me. Highly irrational. What's the story Amarrians? "Enlighten" me, please.
Because then otherwise Faith would be impossible. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 05:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:From a purely logical perspective, the Amarr Empire make utterly terrible servants to their god. They've spawned at least three major heresies that threaten the foundations of their faith (the Sani Sabik, the Equilibrium of Man and Sansha's Nation) and their abhorent behaviour has utterly and forever lost them even the slightest chance of spreading their faith to either the Minmatar or the various peoples of the Federation. The State, their only major ally - and even then only through the mediation of a schismatic pseudoheretical satellite state - does not accept their faith either, allying with them only out of convenience. In the last half-millenium, they've lost nearly a third of their territory to the Minmatar and the Khanid, and risked losing more to the Blood Raiders.
Their current Empress is an affront to the very laws this deity laid down about cloning royal flesh.
For a race that's become basically a byword for religion, the Amarr are awful divine servants.
Where as the Gallenteans have nothing wrong ever happen to them really which goes to show you that there is no need to try to corrupt them they are already lost!
Since the Amarr have the truth the forces of evil seek to destroy it all the more.
Your arguments prove nothing other then bad things happen to good people. As for her ladyship there is no evidence that I'm aware of that she is a clone and even if she is the council has validated her reign after investigating the matter. since you have no issue with cloning or interest in our laws you person feelings on the matter are null in void because I strong doubt you invest any time or effect into study of Divine interpretation. Ergo the matter is closed.
I'd ask you to try again but I find you are embarrassing yourself with your have baked straw man arguments and vague interpretations of Amarrian law or scripture without any true invested time to learn them.
Go home and enjoy your free little life in your free little federation with your free little male lover. Leave the scriptures to those who have the experience to study it and the wit to understand them.
I ask you nicely but I doubt you'll listen. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 10:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Rodj Blake wrote:I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me that God gave us all free will and He respects that - therefore He won't go around changing people's minds for them or directly interfering in their affairs. So let me get this straight, right. God - a supposedly perfect, infinitely powerful, all-knowing, entirely benevolent immortal being, mark me - created mortal humans who were by their very nature imperfect. Having thus created an imperfect being (let's not even go into the impossibility of a perfect being creating imperfection, I don't want to strain your limited cognitive capabilities), it was ultimately God's fault that they committed the supposed Original Sin. It, a benevolent being, thusly decided to create a punishment for this Sin - a Sin for which it was ultimately responsible - and inflict it upon all those who did not choose - because it had given its creations free will for no apparent reason - to go to the trouble of saying "I'm really very sorry" in a needlessly specific and ritualistic manner. Yet at no point did this supposedly infinitely benevolent and infinitely patient being think to shrug its divine shoulders and say "Oh, right, well, they were imperfect, so this was bound to happen. Fair cop I suppose. All is forgiven!" as any truly infinitely benevolent and infinitely patient being would do? Seriously, the holes in the logic of your religion are so large I could fit half the Domain fleet in them and still have room enough for Vaari's ego.
Providing God Is God (which He is but roll with me here) He would be such a complex creature of immense majesty that can not be premised properly with human logic in the way you provided much less in the brief method you provided.
So to put it simply the day you can put God under a microscope and believe in Him I'll be the atheist.
God doesn't have to make sense that's not a requirement for belief. Sure you can argue that since God can not be logically argued then He is a logical impossibility. That very well sounds good on paper but paper is also used for cleaning my backside and only has as much value as it does at that moment and none later. Your witty argument is charming and I'm sure draws a crowd but doesn't solve the remaining burning questions about God and therefor is where the argument falls apart.
Those being since we are on the topic is the questions of how order came from chaos or what is the ultimate truth. Regardless of point of view there is a truth. One can argue that truth is subjective but that is the same as arguing that a tree falling and no one hearing does it make a sound? It does as the pressure waves that are the power behind sound are still created. Any debates that doesn't support this is based on the brain in a jar. The idea that reality is only was perceived and if it is not perceived it doesn't exist which again a major fallacy as what is outside the brain and the Jar?
REGARDLESS of perception that is The Truth.
But I don't want to stress you mind to much there because I need you to keep up before we are done here. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Kithrus wrote:Sure you can argue that since God can not be logically argued then He is a logical impossibility. That very well sounds good on paper but paper is also used for cleaning my backside and only has as much value as it does at that moment and none later. Your witty argument is charming and I'm sure draws a crowd but doesn't solve the remaining burning questions about God and therefor is where the argument falls apart. Wrong. If you can't provide logical proofs for your arguments, they are by definition invalid.
No what you have done is taken a stance that since God is unknowable he is therefore a logical impossibility without erecting anything in its place.
Hence your point has no staying power because all you did was take away an answer, the question is still there.
My point is God can only be God because He is not knowable by our limited perspective of the universe and if someone could know Him He (being the entity in question) can't be God.
Which is something you are still not addressing. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Anabella Rella wrote:Rodj Blake Well, I did say that I'm not a theologian [;) wrote:
But ultimately, what it boils down to is this. God is perfect, and humans are imperfect. As such, it's impossible for humans to directly comprehend everything about God and his ineffable plans.
Interesting. So you blindly follow the supposed will of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-encompassing being that you can't prove exists and can't understand why it bids you to perform certain acts (as interpreted by a group of fallible mortal men who can't be questioned or held to account), even though common sense and logic would say that those acts are harmful? I see. So let's say Blake that you had a vision in which this being spoke to you and told you that it considered your entire family evil and that it wants you to kill them all before killing yourself. Would you do it? Of course you wouldn't. You'd reason that this was simply some demented nightmare caused by indigestion or some other physical or psychological ailment and ignore it. Why is the "reclaiming" any different then? Just because it's written down (by the hand of a man, by the way, not your god) in a dusty book?
A butterfly that lives on year around a tree con not comprehend anything truly about the tree as it doesn't have the experience or the time to witness it in its fullest being a limited creature. It doesn't change that the insect makes its home and benefits from the tree.
Granted the questions regarding God and Man are not that simple but it illustrates the point that we have a limited perception of God in a way you can see and relate to.
|

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Kithrus wrote:No what you have done is taken a stance that since God is unknowable he is therefore a logical impossibility without erecting anything in its place.
Hence your point has no staying power because all you did was take away an answer, the question is still there.
My point is God can only be God because He is not knowable by our limited perspective of the universe and if someone could know Him He (being the entity in question) can't be God.
Which is something you are still not addressing. Then if God is unknowable, all claims by Amarrians to have any conception of its plan or have had any contact with it are utterly fraudulent.
A person you don't understand and truly know can still give you instructions. I didn't have to know my officers of the military. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 02:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Kithrus wrote:A person you don't understand and truly know can still give you instructions. I didn't have to know my officers of the military. But your officers in the military are not unknowable, ineffable cosmic higher powers. I know the legendary unwarranted self-importance endemic to Amarrians tends to convince them otherwise, but this is the truth. Either you concede that your God is an illogical being who doesn't exist, or you concede that all claims of contact or understanding related to it are fraudulent. There is no third way, there is no middle ground.
Why is there no middle ground? That is what you are not proving to me. I don't have to understand the nature of God to obey Him. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 09:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Kithrus wrote:Why is there no middle ground? That is what you are not proving to me. I don't have to understand the nature of God to obey Him. Communication with a by-definition unknowable being is impossible because it's unknowable. I know Amarrians have very serious problems with logic but this really is primary-school stuff.
Ha okay no. You do not need to understand how something works to relate to it. If your going to keep using extremes to deflate arguments then except that such extremes are thin at best.
"God is perfect therefore he can't create a imperfect being." As far as you know. That's the problem, you taking words created by imperfect beings being us and trying to fit them on God who is a perfect being.
I can't believe I had to spell that out for you this really was a given when I implied it.
Nick Bete wrote: How convenient. So the answer always ends up: this deity of yours defies any attempts on our part to understand it yet, we're to blindly accept whatever it bids us to do. Anything good or bad that happens we accept because the deity wills it and it can't be questioned because we're incapable of understanding the deity's motivations or plans.
That's a pretty nice setup. Seems like you can justify damn near anything.
I'd really appreciate it if any of you who follow the Amarrian religion would answer Captain Rella's question regarding how you'd respond if this deity of yours demanded something of that sort would you obey?
What I and you can't justify leaving a family homeless despite thier hard work out on the street by the bank foreclosing on them because their property value sunk? Doesn't matter they never missed payments but you could say its better for the common good that the property be sold to a person who can make it worth the banks investments.
Cruelty can be justified by anything you don't need God to do that and frankly if there was no Amarrians people would find a way regardless so don't you throw that at me.
Now to respond to your question. What would I do if God came down and gave me a correct bidding? I would do it without question. Same as I would do if anyone gave me important orders. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 02:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vallek Arkonnis wrote:Lyn Farel wrote:In theory, if you are perfect, you can obviously create anything, including unperfection, or your perfection is only half true and your inability to create unperfect things becomes actually unperfection. This. Nitpicking spelling doesn't free yourself from the argument, Mr. Ixiris. To a perfect being there is no such thing as "inability". If this perfect being has a limitation then it was never perfect to begin with. However a perfect being can create imperfection but still remain perfect because it was the being's intent to do so.
The sad part I find after laughing with some other CVA'ers and CLRGY around the water cooler is that given 6 months maybe a year in hopes that we as pilots retire or stop posting on the IGS he'll just try again. Some of our older pilots were telling me today that hes been at it for a really long time. The more I read his work the more is sounds like he got through the first, second maybe third year of philosophy then dropped out. Give him time, last we had this debate was on the summit and Andreus was all but boo'ed out with this logic. Now its been five months since then hes back at it.
That being said however being said I'm grateful for the assistance in the debate thus far but I fear yet again we have been derailed arguing over terminology.
Anyone care to salvage this? Frankly I don't unless someone with an actual train of logic wants to carry on. |

Kithrus
Defensores Fidei Curatores Veritatis Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 18:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:Rodj Blake wrote: Yes he can, because he can create anything.
But he would then lift it up anyway.
You'll probably say that my answer doesn't make much sense. But infinity seldom does when you're trying to comprehend it with a finite brain.
This all sounds like so much "handwavium" to try and explain and justify a bad plot predicament that you can't logically write yourselves out of. No matter what, the final answer is always, "Our god is perfect, we can't understand what he wants because we're imperfect but, we do what he says anyway because we're his chosen faithful servants and whatever we say and do in his name is justified". You also failed to answer Captain Rella's question Blake. What is your god commanded you to murder your entire family and then commit suicide? Would you do it?
There's a huge flaw with that question because God doesn't communicate directly so we have to look at context.
The first step when taking any word claimed to be God's in our time is to look at the source. The next step is to compare the exact messaged given with those of the past and to see where they line up, if previous scripture is very like message or if this message was alluded to ect. Then you look at the ramification of the message and determined if it serves to farther the spirit of the world the scriptures are aiming for.
If after all these things adds up the message is determined as legitimate and the decree from the most High is carried out.
I can tell you though without preforming half of those tests on that circumstance provided in that question it would not happen or the message in question is not of God. So no, I would not follow that order.
When I last was looking into this question earlier I couldn't find what Captain Rella's said so I took on the assumption if the message was from God then I would follow it. Now that I see the question, context according to this question must be applied. |
| |
|