Homophobia

Zakharra wrote:
For the same reason any religion wants: more followers and worshipers. The more followers the Church has, the more power they wield (and remember that pretty much everyone believed to their bones that the CoGA is a true and -very- real religion.

After all they have written proof of go's work in creating Safehold and of the Archangels. So they wanted as many followers as possible (not to mention it was a part of the original plan to have humans repopulate from their near extinction.

That didn't change when Langhorne hijacked the plan). It gives the Church something to do, more worshipers also means more people growing food, producing goods, offering more in tithes as well as more people for the Church hierarchy to rule over.

Homosexuals aren't going out to 'be fruitful and prosper' ie having children. That's likely the reason it would be frowned upon.

Highjohn wrote:Holy lands owned by Popes, Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Monasteries, Abbeys, and Cloisters? Yes
Married Priests and above? Yes (Although the Popes were either unmarried or widowers.)

Yes agreed they have that in common.



Specific Cardinals designated to handle the secular and spiritual well being of the Mother Church? Yes

What exactly is your point here. It seems to be that both the Roman Catholic Church and the CoGA both have employees with defined job roles? What exactly does that prove?


Roman Curia (Council of Cardinals, Bishops, Etc.). Yes

Where are you getting that that the Council of Cardinals was anything even remotely like the Vicariate? The only things the two have in common is they are have members who vote on things are both part of a religious group. Here are some differences. Fixed size(Vicariate). Fixed membership(Vicariate, you don't get to join by being a senior church member in the city). Internal selection of members(Vicariate). Ordained specifically in holy texts(Vicarate, Langhorn wrote the rule abut how vicars are elevated for one thing). Has representatives (theoretically) from every area on the planet(To be fair the Curia church would only need to have representatives from every catholic area on the planet). Finally and most importantly. Not always in session(Council of Cardinals).




Donations to Church Dignitaries for absolution. Yes
Donations from royalty and others for preferred placement of Bishops, etc. Yes

Yes, agreed.


Secular Control of Church offices? mabye.

I added that one. The Catholic Church had that problem. The CoGA has an intermixing of dynasties in Harchong. Which isn't the same thing but is evidence of that sort of problem.



Swiss Guard. Yes

No. The temple guard is stationed all over Safehold. The Swiss Guard were not even stationed all over Europe or even Catholic Europe.



Modification of Holy Writs (Church Dogma and Bible)to promote personal agendas. Yes (Also in other religious cultures. Shan-wie, they all did it.)

No. There has been exactly one modification to the holy writ. See OAR when Merlin is just waking up. The CoGA does not and never has had the authority to make changes to the holy writ. Nor have they. Changes to the interpretation yes. But changes to the text? Hell no! Have there been changes to the bible? The question "Which bible?" should answer that.


Papal Bulls to impede technological and medical advancement. Yes

Ish. There were some. They also failed miserably. See crossbows for a easy example.


Procuring national armies to fight off heretics and conduct Holy War. Yes

Yes, they both had holy wars and both had states which fought in those holy wars. So what? A better comparison is examining the composition of the knights of the first crusade. They were largely French. Not German, the most powerful state in Europe at that time. Or English(Saxon?) or Hungrian. (Hungary was rather annoyed at the crusaders for that matter) The equivalent of this would be the CoGA only using Dohlarans without any Harchongese or Desnarians.


Maintaining its own army? Yes

Small local army. But yes.



Constructing a Grandiose Place of Worship that also houses the Church Hierarchy? Yes

No. No. No. No.
No. No. Who built the Temple exactly? Not the church. Who built St. Peter' Basilica? The church. Different church but you get the point.


Elimination of people practicing unorthodox procedures? Yes

Yes. So does every organization with orthodox procedures that has ever existed. Most don't kill the people but plenty do. So what is your point?



Turning a blind eye and even promoting slavery? Yes

So? Who didn't? Seriously name a state which existed in an area with a large slave population which didn't. Note, states which changed their mind later don't count. Though they are great. See Great Britian. Pun intended.


Also known to declare mammals as fish. And finaly allow coffee.

So? What is your point here? Another difference to support me. Yay.

TN4994 wrote:Do you know that a few Christian type religions keep the books of the bible separate? Several eliminated certain scripture and added phraseology to justify their teachings. Others add a gnostic text. The book of Noe (Noah) is longer than in most known English translations. Seems he had two sons and one daughter. All married.

Yes. I not sure I have ever, in my entire life, said or written anything supporting biblical inerrancy. So what is your point and why are you bringing this? Also are you aware that some Sects of Christianity disagree on what books to even use. Much less their organization?

TN4994 wrote:Leviticus attempts to be a listing of things not to do; incorporating certain knowns of the time about diet, disease and letting land go untended every seven years for example.

The cure for leprosy? Some translations indicate it was a minor skin rash caused by mites/louse and not really leprosy. Thus the house cleaning.

I'm aware of the problems with translation. I never said they weren't there. The point was the massive differences between on one hand detailed descriptions of how to produce asbestos and on the other hand witch craft as a cure for anything.

Also the problems with translation highlight another difference. Further supporting me.

TN4994 wrote:Similar is not identical.

I was the one arguing that similarities in one area do no add up to similarities in another. I have been describing the massive differences to make a point that your also wrong about the similarities. You were arguing from the start that they do. So are you trying to state that you have been convinced by me and that I am right?

Dilandu wrote:

Zakharra wrote:
For the same reason any religion wants: more followers and worshipers. The more followers the Church has, the more power they wield (and remember that pretty much everyone believed to their bones that the CoGA is a true and -very- real religion.

Make no sence. The CoGA never have any limits of followers; in fact, all peoples on Safehold are Chirch followers! There are no competing religions at all; so, the "more power for Church" isn't vital. More, the small population actually would be easier to control: one of the reasons, that the Church influence was weaker in Charis was simply distance.

After all they have written proof of go's work in creating Safehold and of the Archangels. So they wanted as many followers as possible (not to mention it was a part of the original plan to have humans repopulate from their near extinction.

Make no sence. The demographical influence of 5-to-8 percents of homosexual, lesbians and others are completely insignificant. Moreover, a lot of them would be eager to have childrens from surrogate females.

That didn't change when Langhorne hijacked the plan). It gives the Church something to do, more worshipers also means more people growing food, producing goods, offering more in tithes as well as more people for the Church hierarchy to rule over.

Make no sence. In short time scale - which is the main for Church hierarchy personal wealth and power - any demographic results would be invisible.

Homosexuals aren't going out to 'be fruitful and prosper' ie having children. That's likely the reason it would be frowned upon.

So, the most logical way to deal with problem would be "it's okay, as long as they don't forget their sacred duty to marry and make childrens."