HFQ Official Snippet #20

lyonheart wrote:Hi Don,

You've kind of confused me here.

What do you mean by "a solid commitment to servanthood"?

That our society must cooperate and in a sense serve one other is a given, but 'servanthood' seems to imply too much submission to the 'general will' than is good for a freedom loving community.

L

Yeah, I can see where you would find that confusing in isolation. I was reflecting on what can prevent religious fanaticism. Next week is holy week and Jesus said,"The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." Servanthood in that sense has a component of humility. It commits itself to the wellbeing of all. It doesn't promote itself. It is willing not to claim the credit. In the Bible words like kind, patient, and love are used to describe it.

Mind you we mortals corrupt everything we touch including this. But the ideals are enshined here and we can always return to them.

Don

Hi PeterZ,

I'm sorry, I thought I'd already posted this.

I still don't see how, where or why you see some kind of truce being broached by Duchairn when there's absolutely not a shred of textev to support any of your contentions regarding Duchairn, or even considering how willing you think Cahnyr or Maikel or the people of Glacierheart or Siddarmark are to do your bidding.

It is truly bizarre that you expect the CoGA to want to heal the schism, when we have no textev to support such a claim, while there are mountains against.

You may see it as a rational course, only because you know things the characters don't.

Do you seriously expect all those priests and inquisitors guilty of war crimes or atrocities to stay where they might be caught, tried and executed?

That they won't have friends and followers who support what they did and won't turn them over, even fighting any orders to do so?

What kind of guarantees for their safety could the Reformists and CoC investigators and judges expect to have when all CoGA members know they're supposed to kill them?

Expecting anything like such trials to happen is ludicrous.

Cayleb, Sharleyan and Greyghor all evidently have a far better sense of what is possible, can or likely to happen and what is not however much it ought, so expecting them to fall for such unenforceable promises, however sincere Duchairn or whoever may be.

Given how rational their subjects are, I don't see Cayleb or Sharleyan being compelled by such pathetic promises at all.

Sorry, but but that's the way I see the cookie crumble when it comes to results from such faulty premises.

L

PeterZ wrote:
SNIPPED 4 BREVITY

So, in an effort to heal that schism the CoGA must reform itself. Reform must begin with the Inquisition. A reasonable place to start is to revert to the original separation of powers between defining heresy and prosecuting it. Yet, reform does not mean the abusers of power within the Inquisition are forgiven their excesses. Charges of Inquisition misconduct must be investigated. Representation of investigators must be distributed between Refromists, Loyalists and CoC clergy/representatives.

If the allies were offered something like this, enough would be interested that Cayleb and Sharley would have to enter negotiations.

lyonheart wrote:Hi PeterZ,

I agree the inner circle hasn't told everyone its ultimate plans, but I think the average CoC or reformist knows the CoGA has been corrupt for centuries, that the Go4 and Clyntahn are only symptoms of that corruption not recent aberrations, so the idea only the Inquisition needs some correction isn't going to be acceptable to any of them with a brain.

Given that Zhasyn Cahnyr was a member of the circle for around 20 years, and friends with all those that were killed and or tortured, which constantly waited for what it hoped would be its opportunity to fix things; I very strongly doubt that now when he has the power or influence to truly change the CoGA rather more than slightly or moderately, he's going to back off and and settle for promises to make the Inquisition better.

Getting the CoGA to accept the CoC and reformists, when the former has effectively disavowed the book of Schueler etc, would be very interesting if RFC were to follow your assumptions, but I don't think he has time in the story arc for such sub plots.

snip
L

lyonheart wrote:Hi Don,

Thank you very much for those kind words.

NTM kudos for the excellent points!

Having the archbishops reside in their sees will bring the CoGA administration much closer to the people, which Duchairn might offer as a precondition to post war negotiations, while seeing their archbishop might get them to consider replacing him sooner rather than later.

Comparing what the pilgrims see of the alliance and how things work or don't work back home will be quite educational, as will the archbishops in their annual or semi-annual convocations.

If they're smart, what they see there may tell them why another war is such a bad idea for the CoGA remnant.

L

Duchairn may be able to earn a reprieve from head-on-pike action exactly as Charis' friend in court in the CoGA remnant. Charis may be able to march into Zion and dictate terms, but occupying all of the mainland is beyond it and Siddarmark, and probably beyond their desire. So a mainland Church that commands the loyalties of the mainlanders and can be a partner in a peace becomes a useful tool.

Duchairn is a likely leader of such a Church. If he's tainted by participation in the jihad from their point of view, well, he's respected for it on the other side - and for being the point person restoring the Church's role as comforter and provider, too. Zhasyn Cahnyr is another, representing Reformists in better standing and being much more clearly a friend of Charis. I wouldn't want to suggest recreating a Group of Four, but I do suppose that a suitably reformed CoGA is going to have some few people who are at least leaders.

On the other side - call it the CoGA's surviving right wing - there will be a lot of people who are not at all happy about any reform or toleration for schism, whatever boots may be in the Temple. Duchairn may appeal to them well enough as not too deeply in Charis' pocket with jihad-cred, and he can use the threat of another Charisian invasion or occupation (or subsidies for home-grown revolutionaries) as a stick to make them swallow reforms, like the re-interpretation of the Writ, elimination or radical de-fanging of the Inquisition, and decentralization of the Church.

I don't see Trynair or Magwair avoiding pikes that way though. Trynair's a better politician than Duchairn, but he's also too shifty to be the solid pivot needed in that spot. Magwair's conducted the war as professionally and decently as Clyntahn's allowed, but he's no politician at all and he'd be too tainted by the failure of the jihad and what Clyntahn did under its cover. Maybe a generous peace settlement may allow them both merely to retreat to well-guarded austere monasteries under Siddarmark's or Charis's eagle eyes and to remain available for debriefing as needed. But that's the best they should hope for and I'd not get my hopes up too high in their places.

Hi Don,

I'd go with the biblical definitions of humility and 'charity towards all' instead of inventing some new term, but now I understand what you intended.

Remembering Jesus pointed out that by losing yourself in the service of others, you will find yourself, happiness and personal satisfaction.

Given how so many point out from personal experience how giving the credit to others can accomplish almost anything, just proves his wisdom.

Thank you very much for clarifying that confusion so quickly.

L

n7axw wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Hi Don,

You've kind of confused me here.

What do you mean by "a solid commitment to servanthood"?

That our society must cooperate and in a sense serve one other is a given, but 'servanthood' seems to imply too much submission to the 'general will' than is good for a freedom loving community.

L

Yeah, I can see where you would find that confusing in isolation. I was reflecting on what can prevent religious fanaticism. Next week is holy week and Jesus said,"The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." Servanthood in that sense has a component of humility. It commits itself to the wellbeing of all. It doesn't promote itself. It is willing not to claim the credit. In the Bible words like kind, patient, and love are used to describe it.

Mind you we mortals corrupt everything we touch including this. But the ideals are enshined here and we can always return to them.

Don

Howdy JeffEngel,

Kudos and thanks again for another great post!

I agree very strongly with all your major points as I have in long ago threads.

Let me reiterate that I'm not rejecting some kind of 'Modus vivendi' after the alliance takes Zion and the temple, only before when there will be too much chaos.

To clarify further, I expect no attempt by the alliance to conquer let alone attack Northern Harchong or the western KotTL in this war [aside from some naval raids], since it'd be beyond their resources and unnecessary in the first place, being as you put it so well, beyond their desire.

OTOH, I don't think the CoGA remnant is going to command that much loyalty from its far right, like most of the Harchong and other aristocrats, who will wish to restore things to how they were in the far more comfortable past, creating their own schism with all that portends.

L

JeffEngel wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Hi Don,

Thank you very much for those kind words.

NTM kudos for the excellent points!

Having the archbishops reside in their sees will bring the CoGA administration much closer to the people, which Duchairn might offer as a precondition to post war negotiations, while seeing their archbishop might get them to consider replacing him sooner rather than later.

Comparing what the pilgrims see of the alliance and how things work or don't work back home will be quite educational, as will the archbishops in their annual or semi-annual convocations.

If they're smart, what they see there may tell them why another war is such a bad idea for the CoGA remnant.

L

Duchairn may be able to earn a reprieve from head-on-pike action exactly as Charis' friend in court in the CoGA remnant. Charis may be able to march into Zion and dictate terms, but occupying all of the mainland is beyond it and Siddarmark, and probably beyond their desire. So a mainland Church that commands the loyalties of the mainlanders and can be a partner in a peace becomes a useful tool.

Duchairn is a likely leader of such a Church. If he's tainted by participation in the jihad from their point of view, well, he's respected for it on the other side - and for being the point person restoring the Church's role as comforter and provider, too. Zhasyn Cahnyr is another, representing Reformists in better standing and being much more clearly a friend of Charis. I wouldn't want to suggest recreating a Group of Four, but I do suppose that a suitably reformed CoGA is going to have some few people who are at least leaders.

On the other side - call it the CoGA's surviving right wing - there will be a lot of people who are not at all happy about any reform or toleration for schism, whatever boots may be in the Temple. Duchairn may appeal to them well enough as not too deeply in Charis' pocket with jihad-cred, and he can use the threat of another Charisian invasion or occupation (or subsidies for home-grown revolutionaries) as a stick to make them swallow reforms, like the re-interpretation of the Writ, elimination or radical de-fanging of the Inquisition, and decentralization of the Church.

I don't see Trynair or Magwair avoiding pikes that way though. Trynair's a better politician than Duchairn, but he's also too shifty to be the solid pivot needed in that spot. Magwair's conducted the war as professionally and decently as Clyntahn's allowed, but he's no politician at all and he'd be too tainted by the failure of the jihad and what Clyntahn did under its cover. Maybe a generous peace settlement may allow them both merely to retreat to well-guarded austere monasteries under Siddarmark's or Charis's eagle eyes and to remain available for debriefing as needed. But that's the best they should hope for and I'd not get my hopes up too high in their places.

lyonheart wrote:Hi McGuiness,

Again a great post, and I'm running out of superlatives to express my pleasure, so please feel free to suggest some of your favorites.

Here you go Lyonheart. Since i enjoy reading your brilliant posts I did a google search for synonyms for excellent. I figured I'd apply one of them to you.
Thanks to all for keeping me entertained as we await the next installment in a little over 5 months now I think.

ex·cel·lent
ˈeks(ə)lənt/
adjective
1.
extremely good; outstanding.
"a 3-bedroom house in excellent condition"
synonyms: very good, superb, outstanding, exceptional, marvelous, wonderful, magnificent; preeminent, perfect, matchless, unbeatable, peerless, supreme, prime, first-rate, first-class, superlative, splendid, fine, beautiful, exemplary; informalA1, ace, great, terrific, tremendous, fantastic, fabulous, splendiferous, fab, top-notch, dandy, divine, blue-ribbon, blue-chip, bang-up, skookum, class, awesome, magic, wicked, mean, cool, out of this world, hunky-dory, A-OK, brilliant, killer

So... Can we declare this thread thoroughly hijacked, change the title to something like "What is the possibility of an Alliance truce with the COGA", and then start a new thread for discussion of Snippet #20?

DennisLee wrote:So... Can we declare this thread thoroughly hijacked, change the title to something like "What is the possibility of an Alliance truce with the COGA", and then start a new thread for discussion of Snippet #20?

No. This is our way of showing how much we need snippet 21 to keep us from going craaazy

jeremyr wrote:

OrlandoNative wrote:One other point.


The closest we allegedly might come to *anything* directly given from anyone/thing other than a "fallible human" might be the original tablets with the Ten Commandments, but as far as we know they haven't survived to this day; *if* they ever existed in the first place, which is something many of us take on faith.

I've often wondered why such an important document would be handed down on something as fragile as the tablets. You'd think God would want to put them on something a little more lasting, like an undestructible material only he could make.

Stone tablets were probably one of the best options available at the time and place. Clay tablets are fragile; paper doesn't hold up well unless protected, gold plates are liable to theft and re-melting, perhaps a copper or bronze plate *might* have been a better option, but a group of people marching through a desert might not have any at hand.

Depending on what kind of stone, and the thickness of the tablets themselves, they could reasonably be expected to last a long time with little need for maintenance.

Tonto Silerheels wrote:OrlandoNative wrote:

As far as we know, there are *no* existing samples of laws, rules, morality, ethics, or anything else that have come *directly* from the hand of any kind of "supreme being". All we have has been written and/or transcribed by various humans - some possibly with their own agendas that might have "colored" their writings, copies, or translations.

Very interesting! I suppose the same thing might be said of the Constitution of the United States of America. Or the Eiffel Tower. Or the Colossus of Rhodes. Or the Code of Hammurabi. Or the Odyssey. Or the thirteen books of Euclid. Or Alexander the Great. I mean, I had this history teacher once that told me that there was a guy that conquered the entire known world by the age of 30, but I have to wonder: what was in it for him?

~Tonto

The Constitution still exists, it's displayed in the National Archives. Similarly the Eiffel Tower can be visited and seen. While the entire Colossus of Rhodes no longer exists, there is at least archeological evidence that it did at one time, and it's presence was notated by several - not just one - source(s).

We only have *one* source that really says anything about the tablets of the commandments. And one could not say that source is "unbiased". There is no archeological evidence - eg, no fragments, no mention in any Persian accounts of the conquest of Israel when they, and, for that matter, the Ark of the Covenant, would have been "war booty" and thus possibly listed in records of the war, no place so far located where they might have been carved out of the rock of the mountain. It's not like that damaged obelisk in an Egyptian stone quarry.

That's why I say there's no substantial evidence the tablets were inscribed by God, or, if you'd rather. a "Supreme Being". Could hey have been? Maybe. Were they? Who knows.

If we even had *fragments* with letters inscribed on them in such a way that *wouldn't* have been possible to the people of that time period, then that would be some reasonable degree of proof. Lacking any of that, it's just an article of faith, and possibly incorrect.