1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Thescripture wasn't changed at all. It was omitted.

Thus changing the document as a whole.

But even then, that has nothing to do with corruption. Nothing at all. The corruption regarding text from the definition you gave, are regarding unintented change due to alteration. A corruption of data so to speak. Your computer can sometimes accidently corrupt a text file for example. Does that make your entire computer corrupt?

That's exactly not what happened to the Canticle of Shartan.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 28 octobre 2013 - 01:37 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Thescripture wasn't changed at all. It was omitted. But even then, that has nothing to do with corruption. Nothing at all. The corruption regarding text from the definition you gave, are regarding unintented change due to alteration. A corruption of data so to speak. Your computer can sometimes accidently corrupt a text file for example. Does that make your entire computer corrupt?
Elthina, Lelianna, Cassandra, the Divine, probably several more, aren't hardliners and they are at the tippy top of Chantry leadership. But even then, promoting an extremist is not a sign of corruption either, so it is irrelevant for the subject matter.
I don't know what happened during the Exalted Marches in the Steel Age, I can't say wether or not anyone was punished for the massacres. If you have data, which must be exclusive to you, then by all means share it with the community. Either way, the massacres in Rivain were a tragedy, still not a sign of corruption of the Chantry as an organization though. It could just as easily be a sign of impatience with the armies in the field, since holding a town and waiting for them to convert back, was not an ideal situation for an army.
Are you talking about the Templars or the Chantry? Because it seems you are confusing the two. And either way, the Templars as an organization may be ruthless but they are pure in their intent. besides it was Adrian who murdered Pharamond and tried to frame Rhys.

The Canticles of Shartan were taken out because it would have made the Chantry look bad,how is altering a religous text for your own purposes not a sign of corruption?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I've already answered this. The Chantry represents Andraste as the author. If this is true, then by your own words they are wrong to change it. If it is not, they are massively overemphasizing it, what with it being the center of their beliefs.

Edit: As for your analogy of removing the middle chapter of the book, what you're missing is that I'm arguing intent and scale. An important collection of documents, represented by its keepers as the word of their God, was tampered with by its keepers for political reasons. This is a good deal higher stakes than ripping out pages of a work of fiction. (Unless you're tearing out the bits of 1984 or Animal Farm you don't like before speaking at a rally, for instance. Then you're guilty of a lower stakes version of this same act, with the stakes lowered in that Orwell wasn't God.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 28 octobre 2013 - 01:58 .

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

So it's totally okay to alter the Bible because you don't like what's in it?The Chantry changed the Chant while having the gall to condemn the Imperial Chantry for interpreting it in a different way.

[wcholcombe]

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

. It is not corruption in a religious organization to consider the strength of your faith to be a factor in promotions.

C). Yall are again mistaking individual corruption for systemic corruption. Being harsh on mages isn't corrupt, its a belief system.

The problem is most of this is just off of perspective. Those who follow the chant probably view the dalish as corrupt because they shelter and protect mages in their tribes.

Don't like them fine, disagree with their methods OK. But to insinuate corruption implies an active intent to mislead and misuse the chantey to better yourself in direct contrasts to the teachings and intents of the chantry.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I should think anyone with more than two braincells to rub together could figure out that there's a mighty big difference between an author deciding to excise bits of their published book because they decided they don't like those bits any more, and a religious organization removing whole sections of its religious manual because it (the organization) has decided that those particular sections might make a given practice of the organization look bad in some way.  Of course the latter is a sign of corruption; I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously argue that it isn't.

[EmperorSahlertz]

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

So it's totally okay to alter the Bible because you don't like what's in it?The Chantry changed the Chant while having the gall to condemn the Imperial Chantry for interpreting it in a different way.

Do you have ANY idea how many times the Bible has been altered? ANY at all? But do you know who has been behind these alterations? The Church. You know why? Because it is in their power and rights to do so.
The Imperial Chantry did not at the time have the right or power to change the Chant. So they had to secede and create a seperate religion. Much like the Catholics and Protestants.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I should think anyone with more than two braincells to rub together could figure out that there's a mighty big difference between an author deciding to excise bits of their published book because they decided they don't like those bits any more, and a religious organization removing whole sections of its religious manual because it (the organization) has decided that those particular sections might make a given practice of the organization look bad in some way.  Of course the latter is a sign of corruption; I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously argue that it isn't.

And I would imagine any one who claims intellegence would realize that ALL known religions have changed throughout time. Even their scriptures.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Do you have ANY idea how many times the Bible has been altered? ANY at all? But do you know who has been behind these alterations? The Church. You know why? Because it is in their power and rights to do so.
The Imperial Chantry did not at the time have the right or power to change the Chant. So they had to secede and create a seperate religion. Much like the Catholics and Protestants.

The same argument I made against removing the Canticle of Shartan still applies.

[cjones91]

wcholcombe wrote...

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

. It is not corruption in a religious organization to consider the strength of your faith to be a factor in promotions.

C). Yall are again mistaking individual corruption for systemic corruption. Being harsh on mages isn't corrupt, its a belief system.

The problem is most of this is just off of perspective. Those who follow the chant probably view the dalish as corrupt because they shelter and protect mages in their tribes.

Don't like them fine, disagree with their methods OK. But to insinuate corruption implies an active intent to mislead and misuse the chantey to better yourself in direct contrasts to the teachings and intents of the chantry.

Sorry,but it's highly suspicious that the Chantry basically erase the text that detailed the elves had helped their prophet.If they did'nt have something to hide then why remove the Canticles of Shartan?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Do you have ANY idea how many times the Bible has been altered? ANY at all? But do you know who has been behind these alterations? The Church. You know why? Because it is in their power and rights to do so.
The Imperial Chantry did not at the time have the right or power to change the Chant. So they had to secede and create a seperate religion. Much like the Catholics and Protestants.

The same argument I made against removing the Canticle of Shartan still applies.

Doesn't make you any less wrong in claiming corruption...

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I should think anyone with more than two braincells to rub together could figure out that there's a mighty big difference between an author deciding to excise bits of their published book because they decided they don't like those bits any more, and a religious organization removing whole sections of its religious manual because it (the organization) has decided that those particular sections might make a given practice of the organization look bad in some way.  Of course the latter is a sign of corruption; I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously argue that it isn't.

And I would imagine any one who claims intellegence would realize that ALL known religions have changed throughout time. Even their scriptures.

The difference being nobody tried to edit Jesus out of the Bible because they disagreed with his teachings or tried to alter what he and his disciples did.

[wcholcombe]

Actually according to the dead sea scrolls, the old testament at least is pretty unchanged.

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Do you have ANY idea how many times the Bible has been altered? ANY at all? But do you know who has been behind these alterations? The Church. You know why? Because it is in their power and rights to do so.
The Imperial Chantry did not at the time have the right or power to change the Chant. So they had to secede and create a seperate religion. Much like the Catholics and Protestants.

The same argument I made against removing the Canticle of Shartan still applies.

Doesn't make you any less wrong in claiming corruption...

But it is somewhat suspicous that the Chantry would remove something after trying to paint the Dalish as heretics.What would they have to hide if they were in the right regarding the Dales?

[wcholcombe]

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I should think anyone with more than two braincells to rub together could figure out that there's a mighty big difference between an author deciding to excise bits of their published book because they decided they don't like those bits any more, and a religious organization removing whole sections of its religious manual because it (the organization) has decided that those particular sections might make a given practice of the organization look bad in some way.  Of course the latter is a sign of corruption; I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously argue that it isn't.

And I would imagine any one who claims intellegence would realize that ALL known religions have changed throughout time. Even their scriptures.

The difference being nobody tried to edit Jesus out of the Bible because they disagreed with his teachings or tried to alter what he and his disciples did.

And Shartan isn't Jesus.  His Canticle is just an account of the wlves rising up to aid Andraste.  It has no religious importance.

[Silfren]

wcholcombe wrote...

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

Which is exactly the problem.  The Chantry is not unaware that history and religious faith are bound together.  If it were JUST about religion, then there would be no need to slice out a canticle which is purely historical, right?

Wrong. The Chantry isn't just about religion, and anyone who honestly believes this hasn't been paying a damned bit of attention to how intricately the Chantry is tied in with politics, especially in Orlais, where the two are pretty much inseparable.  Andraste promised the elves both freedom from slavery and their own land, but Orlais isn't interested in the elves having their own sovereign nation, or in endorsing the idea that the elves should be free to worship as they like, or, indeed, in harboring any idea that might suggest elves deserve to be provided equality with humans in real, practical terms (not just in some nebulous all-are-the-Maker's-children spiritual idea).  Given that the Chantry's position ALWAYS supports Orlais, it becomes inconvenient to have any Chantry doctrines that might even suggest that Chantry-supported actions are antithetical to Chantry precepts. 

So the Chantry manipulates its own texts to suit the political ambitions of its native seat.  This absolutely is a form of corruption, especially if the Chantry would do this while claiming that its doctrines have been unchanged down through the ages, being exactly today as they were when Andraste herself walked the earth.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 octobre 2013 - 03:09 .

[Silfren]

wcholcombe wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I should think anyone with more than two braincells to rub together could figure out that there's a mighty big difference between an author deciding to excise bits of their published book because they decided they don't like those bits any more, and a religious organization removing whole sections of its religious manual because it (the organization) has decided that those particular sections might make a given practice of the organization look bad in some way.  Of course the latter is a sign of corruption; I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously argue that it isn't.

And I would imagine any one who claims intellegence would realize that ALL known religions have changed throughout time. Even their scriptures.

The difference being nobody tried to edit Jesus out of the Bible because they disagreed with his teachings or tried to alter what he and his disciples did.

And Shartan isn't Jesus.  His Canticle is just an account of the wlves rising up to aid Andraste.  It has no religious importance.

It DOES have religious importance, actually, but even if it didn't, that fact alone would hardly mean that no corruption is present.

[wcholcombe]

cjones91 wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

. It is not corruption in a religious organization to consider the strength of your faith to be a factor in promotions.

C). Yall are again mistaking individual corruption for systemic corruption. Being harsh on mages isn't corrupt, its a belief system.

The problem is most of this is just off of perspective. Those who follow the chant probably view the dalish as corrupt because they shelter and protect mages in their tribes.

Don't like them fine, disagree with their methods OK. But to insinuate corruption implies an active intent to mislead and misuse the chantey to better yourself in direct contrasts to the teachings and intents of the chantry.

Sorry,but it's highly suspicious that the Chantry basically erase the text that detailed the elves had helped their prophet.If they did'nt have something to hide then why remove the Canticles of Shartan?

Because they got pissed when the dalish attacked val royeux.  Basically it was fine you damn elves don't belong in our religious txt.

[cjones91]

wcholcombe wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

I should think anyone with more than two braincells to rub together could figure out that there's a mighty big difference between an author deciding to excise bits of their published book because they decided they don't like those bits any more, and a religious organization removing whole sections of its religious manual because it (the organization) has decided that those particular sections might make a given practice of the organization look bad in some way.  Of course the latter is a sign of corruption; I honestly don't see how anyone could seriously argue that it isn't.

And I would imagine any one who claims intellegence would realize that ALL known religions have changed throughout time. Even their scriptures.

The difference being nobody tried to edit Jesus out of the Bible because they disagreed with his teachings or tried to alter what he and his disciples did.

And Shartan isn't Jesus.  His Canticle is just an account of the wlves rising up to aid Andraste.  It has no religious importance.

Shartan was basically described to be the Thedas version of one of the disciples.He had helped Andraste fight the Tevinter Imperium and died serving her.That makes him a religous figure.

[cjones91]

wcholcombe wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

. It is not corruption in a religious organization to consider the strength of your faith to be a factor in promotions.

C). Yall are again mistaking individual corruption for systemic corruption. Being harsh on mages isn't corrupt, its a belief system.

The problem is most of this is just off of perspective. Those who follow the chant probably view the dalish as corrupt because they shelter and protect mages in their tribes.

Don't like them fine, disagree with their methods OK. But to insinuate corruption implies an active intent to mislead and misuse the chantey to better yourself in direct contrasts to the teachings and intents of the chantry.

Sorry,but it's highly suspicious that the Chantry basically erase the text that detailed the elves had helped their prophet.If they did'nt have something to hide then why remove the Canticles of Shartan?

Because they got pissed when the dalish attacked val royeux.  Basically it was fine you damn elves don't belong in our religious txt.

So it's totally okay if someone rewrote all of the history books in his/her country because that country had a conflict with another country?That does'nt make it right in any way.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chant is not a single document, and still changing it is NOT corruption.

An example:
I've bought a book. I remove the middle chapter. The book I bought is now in a corrupted state. That doesn't make me corrupt. It simply means the book is not in the state intented by the author.

An author is writing a book. He removes the middle chapter. The book he is writing is not corrupt now. It is his right as the author of the book, to change whatever the **** he pleases. The Chantry are the authors of the Chant of Light, it is their RIGHT to change it if they goddamn well pleases. All alteration, despite what you are trying to make it sound like, are not corruption.

So it's totally okay to alter the Bible because you don't like what's in it?The Chantry changed the Chant while having the gall to condemn the Imperial Chantry for interpreting it in a different way.

Do you have ANY idea how many times the Bible has been altered? ANY at all? But do you know who has been behind these alterations? The Church. You know why? Because it is in their power and rights to do so.
The Imperial Chantry did not at the time have the right or power to change the Chant. So they had to secede and create a seperate religion. Much like the Catholics and Protestants.

I know a great deal about how often the Bible has been altered; I also know a great deal about how interpretations of unchanged texts have altered over the years.  I also know that to say "The Church" has been behind those alterations is misleading and overly simplistic. 

What I DON'T know is how this somehow means that corruption is not present. 

[wcholcombe]

Silfren wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

Which is exactly the problem.  The Chantry is not unaware that history and religious faith are bound together.  If it were JUST about religion, then there would be no need to slice out a canticle which is purely historical, right?

Wrong. The Chantry isn't just about religion, and anyone who honestly believes this hasn't been paying a damned bit of attention to how intricately the Chantry is tied in with politics, especially in Orlais, where the two are pretty much inseparable.  Andraste promised the elves freedom from slavery and their own land, but Orlais isn't interested in the elves having their own sovereign nation, or in endorsing the idea that the elves should be free to worship as they like, or, indeed, in harboring any idea that might suggest elves deserve to be provided equality with humans in real, practical terms (not just in some nebulous all-are-the-Maker's-children spiritual idea).  Given that the Chantry's position ALWAYS supports Orlais, it becomes inconvenient to have any Chantry doctrines that might even suggest that Chantry-supported actions are antithetical to Chantry precepts. 

So the Chantry manipulates its own texts to suit the political ambitions of its native seat.  This absolutely is a form of corruption, especially if the Chantry would do this while claiming that its doctrines have been unchanged down through the ages, being exactly today as they were when Andraste herself walked the earth.

  
 Actually no, andraste didn't promise squat. The elves rose up in rebellion against their Tevinter Magisters.  They were opportunists.  As for freeing the elves.  Marfareth freed the elves.  Not Andraste.



Actually no.  Andraste didn't promise squat to the elves.  She wasn't even the one who freed them.  They rose up in rebellion against their tevinter magisters

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Do you have ANY idea how many times the Bible has been altered? ANY at all? But do you know who has been behind these alterations? The Church. You know why? Because it is in their power and rights to do so.
The Imperial Chantry did not at the time have the right or power to change the Chant. So they had to secede and create a seperate religion. Much like the Catholics and Protestants.

The same argument I made against removing the Canticle of Shartan still applies.

Doesn't make you any less wrong in claiming corruption...

What is the actual flaw with my logic that indicates they are, though?

Either Andraste (a Divine leadership figure) gave them the Chant (the closest they have to Divine teachings), or she didn't. It's tautological, but I believe it's a valid starting point.

If she did, they cannot change it due to it being the word of someone who outranks them religiously and was in direct communication with their God. Therefore, what they did to Shartan's Canticle is corruption, doubly so since the motive was political.

If she did not, then they are wrong to overemphasize it to the extent they do. They wrote their religion around it, and are using it to guide their law in places where simple logic may serve better.

And the latter proof still applies in the only middle ground I've heard suggested, where the Canticle of Andraste was Divine and the rest mortal. They emphasize the whole dang thing to this extent and the law I refer to was not based on the Canticle Of Andraste.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 28 octobre 2013 - 02:33 .

[wcholcombe]

cjones91 wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

A) The chant is a collection of canticles some written by Andraste some by her followers.
All the canticle of Shartan says is that Shartan and the elves aided Andraste-it is an historical account. It has no bearing on the religious meaning of the Chant.

. It is not corruption in a religious organization to consider the strength of your faith to be a factor in promotions.

C). Yall are again mistaking individual corruption for systemic corruption. Being harsh on mages isn't corrupt, its a belief system.

The problem is most of this is just off of perspective. Those who follow the chant probably view the dalish as corrupt because they shelter and protect mages in their tribes.

Don't like them fine, disagree with their methods OK. But to insinuate corruption implies an active intent to mislead and misuse the chantey to better yourself in direct contrasts to the teachings and intents of the chantry.

Sorry,but it's highly suspicious that the Chantry basically erase the text that detailed the elves had helped their prophet.If they did'nt have something to hide then why remove the Canticles of Shartan?

Because they got pissed when the dalish attacked val royeux.  Basically it was fine you damn elves don't belong in our religious txt.

So it's totally okay if someone rewrote all of the history books in his/her country because that country had a conflict with another country?That does'nt make it right in any way.

A)  they didn't rewrite it.  That would mean they wrote it as the elves aided the Magisters.
They omitted it.
C) They are a religious group, they are well within their rights to remove the canticle.