I find the need to respond to your commentary on my article, as I am
unclear on a few points. In your first paragraph, you ask if those who
pick apart or even mock the beliefs of their opposition believe that in
so
doing, their opposition will see the "error" of their ways. Inferring
that this was directed in some small manner towards myself, it would
seem
that you have grossly misunderstood the purpose of my article. As I
thought I made clear in my first paragraph, my analysis of the Codex was
intended for those unenlightened to its ways or willfully ignorant of
what
is stated within it. Clearly, noone in their right mind would try to
explain to Pentharian what he himself had written. A god can surely
understand such things much better than I. It would also make little
sense to explain the Codex of the Church of Achaea to the church's
members, as I have no doubt that they fully understand the rules which
live their lives by.
That being cleared up, we examine the second paragraph. In it, you
conjecture that the reason behind postings of a category mine seems to
have been placed in, is simple ego. While we have already covered my
reasons for writing the article, I think it prudent to point out that I
have an ego, as does every other sentient creature in Achaea. It's not a
fact that I am ashamed of.
Now we come to the third point, and the one most personally
disturbing. You ask if anyone places any credibility on the opinion of
an
occultic student with regard to the Holy Codex or the place of the
church
in Sapience. You wonder if others actually came to the article 'tabula
rasa', or if they were thinking to themselves as you did, "Not another
one." In these few lines, you simultaneously declare you opinion that I
am biased, as well as showing a remarkably secure bias of your own. I
find this most perplexing. If my presumed bias against all things
related
to the church is a bad thing, then wouldn't your bias that I will be
biased by simple virtue of the organization I am a part of, also be
a bad thing? After some puzzling over this quandary, I can only come
up with two explanations. Either your article was a pure opinion piece
(well-written I might add), with no attempt at logical or persuasive
merit. Or some biases are good and better than other biases. Why else
would you so unashamedly display your own bias while decrying my
supposed
bias? I look forward to your reply, whether public or not, as I am
interested in which was the case.
In closing, I have some additional thoughts regarding my previous
article. As it now occurs to me that an article regarding the Codex
might
still be of interest, to those already familiar with it, I would like to
put forward a request at this time. If any can find any factual or
logical errors in my explanation of the text, using the text itself as
the reference, I would like them to inform me either here or through
private message. I am always looking to impove my analytical abilites,
and any assistance in that regard would be appreciated. Of
particular interest are the thoughts of well-established members of the
church, as they would naturally be the experts on the text. Any
divinities who may have taken an interest in these proceedings are, of
course, more than welcomed in the sharing of their words. Finally, I
would like to address an early assumption in the response to my article.
Since when has criticism or open debate been a bad thing? As long as
the discussion stays intelligent and doesn't devolve into name calling,
how can anything but good come if it? In discussing one's ideas, one
comes to better understand one's beliefs and refines them. You yourself
alluded to this fact, Rianne, when you discussed how
opposition to one's ideas tends to solidify them.

Until next time.

Penned by my hand on the 23rd of Phaestian, in the year 307 AF.