| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| RayneDarkShadow1304-24-08, 09:15 PM | Hi, I was just wondering how many people on this forum are christians? I for one am and love it. WIth all the stereotypical "its the devils game" I was just wondering. |
| AngeloftheNight04-24-08, 09:37 PM | I'm a Christain, quite active at church too. The game is AWESOME!!! angel |
| Edymnion04-24-08, 09:39 PM | http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=915423 Its one of the Big Three even. |
| jradd77704-24-08, 09:41 PM | Sure, I suppose I'm Christian, in the sense that I try to live my life by Christ's teachings, and all that... but I'm not exactly a typical Christian. I haven't really heard D&D referred to as "the devil's game," not nearly as much as I heard Magic: The Gathering referred to as such. |
| Jaxgaret04-24-08, 09:51 PM | Hi, I was just wondering how many people on this forum are christians? It's over 9000. |
| Etarnon04-24-08, 10:39 PM | Student of Zen. |
| Okinawa3d04-24-08, 11:25 PM | One here...and everyone I play with is a Christian too. I grew up in the bible belt so there were many times that I heard the reference to D&D being a "devil" game, but many of those people were just ignorant. BTW, I am not just a sudo-Christian, I actually believe that Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, arose three days later, and will return again. So, this is all coming from a guy who also believes that we are blessed to live in a country that gives us the right to openly believe, and expects us to respect the beliefs of those who do not believe the way we do. Christ does not want you to be forced to believe in him, he wants you to do it of your own free will...and if you chose not to, that is your free will too. What I hope is that at the game table we can always each have a great game, respect our diversity (because it makes the game lively) and rolls as many 20's as possible. Keep on smiling and gaming....good friends are the best part about D&D...and for those who think it is an "evil" game....well, I am still waiting for the specific verse that tells me not to use my God given imagination to enjoy life. :) (For the self righteous…remember we all fall short of the glory of God….so relax, your sin is no bigger or smaller in the eyes of God….and if you think you have a monopoly on Godliness….please let me buy some of that stock. ) |
| itreeby04-25-08, 12:52 AM | +1 for Christ my dad thinks the game could be corrupting me because it has magic (which in his opinion is witchcraft). |
| key04-25-08, 01:30 AM | Hi, I was just wondering how many people on this forum are christians? Many of the people in this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=886894) thread. |
| esrz2204-25-08, 09:16 AM | I myself am not Christian (I'm not religious at all), but I have several Christian friends who play the game. |
| Zombie_Babies04-25-08, 09:34 AM | There were two threads that ventured into this sort of discussion. One for Christians and one for nons. One of them was locked (IIRC) due to the rampant flaming that threads of this nature cause. This is not a good place to go. Why is there a need to tell everyone who or what you worship? Last I checked, real life issues have nothing to do with a fantasy game. This thread (and those of its ilk) makes about as much sense as one titled "How many blond, middle aged, fathers of three play this game?". Who cares? Play the game and be happy. That is the one thing on these boards that unites us- playing the game. Why divide us with silly questions like this? |
| key04-25-08, 10:23 AM | Why is there a need to tell everyone who or what you worship? Last I checked, real life issues have nothing to do with a fantasy game. This thread (and those of its ilk) makes about as much sense as one titled "How many blond, middle aged, fathers of three play this game?". Who cares? Play the game and be happy. That is the one thing on these boards that unites us- playing the game. Why divide us with silly questions like this? [Devil's advocate]I would be very interested in a thread titled "How many young, blonde, attractive females play this game?" While I love D&D, I loves me some young, blonde, attractive females too. A person likes Subject A and Subject B. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask who else likes those two subjects, even if this is a forum for Subject A. It would be like asking "Who likes apple pie?" at a Democrats site. Not every Democrat may be into apple pie, but those that are can discuss apple pie with each other. Why not just go to an apple pie site? Perhaps they like discussing both subjects together and there is no "Democrats & Apple Pie" site. Or maybe they want to meet people with whom they have multiple shared interests. While apple pie may not have much to do with being a Democrat, I would love to find a girl that is not only young, blonde and attractive, but that also plays D&D. Even if I didn't hook up with one, it would be nice to know that there are some out there. Likewise, maybe someone is looking for a potential partner who is not only a gamer, but is a Christian. Or maybe they just want reassurance that there are people out there who are both, since some churches may not approve of D&D. There could be several motives for starting the topic. [/Devil's advocate] |
| Zombie_Babies04-25-08, 10:34 AM | The problem is that this particular topic (unlike hot chicks and apple pie) tends to cause major friction. The reasons given for asking the question (as the advocate, of course) are not substantial enough to outweigh the reasons not to ask it. Blonds don't have any real problems with brunettes, last I checked, and so would not feel a need to voice an opinion against them. Likewise, cherry pie has no issue with apple. Some people have problems with Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Satanism, etc or religion in general. Some will voice those issues here. They will be rebutted. They will rebut. Things will get nasty from both sides and the end result is not the unity quested for through the original query, but a division of gamers on a gaming site. The reason it is asked is to seek a fellowship of like-minded gamers. The result is a distancing from those that do not agree with your religious outlook. It defeats itself. So why bother? I love religious debate. I really do. Just not on a gaming website. Everything has its place. Religious discussion does not have one here. It is a Forbidden Topic for a reason, after all. |
| EscherEnigma04-25-08, 11:46 AM | I'm not but I have them at my game table. The only time it's an issue is if someone makes a tasteless joke, but that applies to all sorts of fun divisive issues. |
| sblaxman04-25-08, 12:27 PM | It would be like asking "Who likes apple pie?" at a Democrats site. Not every Democrat may be into apple pie, but those that are can discuss apple pie with each other. +1 Non, but I've played w/ several, not really any different either way. The "Devils Game" thing was from 1e in the 80's, when some moral crusaders decided that because devils/demons were in the game, and you can summon them (read: Gate spell), it must be devil worship. A small group, but had a loud voice and made the news. |
| key04-25-08, 12:38 PM | The problem is that this particular topic (unlike hot chicks and apple pie) tends to cause major friction. The reasons given for asking the question (as the advocate, of course) are not substantial enough to outweigh the reasons not to ask it. Blonds don't have any real problems with brunettes, last I checked, and so would not feel a need to voice an opinion against them. Likewise, cherry pie has no issue with apple. Some people have problems with Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Satanism, etc or religion in general. Some will voice those issues here. They will be rebutted. They will rebut. Things will get nasty from both sides and the end result is not the unity quested for through the original query, but a division of gamers on a gaming site. The reason it is asked is to seek a fellowship of like-minded gamers. The result is a distancing from those that do not agree with your religious outlook. It defeats itself. So why bother? I love religious debate. I really do. Just not on a gaming website. Everything has its place. Religious discussion does not have one here. It is a Forbidden Topic for a reason, after all. Those are all good points and the rules is the rules. It's a shame though because I would speculate (speculate being the key word) that it's easier for someone to find a D&D player who's a Christian at this site than to find a Christian who plays D&D at a Christian site. |
| Zombie_Babies04-25-08, 12:48 PM | Those are all good points and the rules is the rules. It's a shame though because I would speculate (speculate being the key word) that it's easier for someone to find a D&D player who's a Christian at this site than to find a Christian who plays D&D at a Christian site. I agree with your speculation. It is a shame that this very board has proven itself incapable of having this discussion in a civil fashion. But that's the fact of the matter. It's also a shame that an effort to unify people such as this thread eventually divides so many. I understand the spirit of it, the reality, however, is that once we bring in divisive topics we end up- you guessed it- divided. So even though it is a great sentiment, it's best left for somewhere else. We are not worthy. |
| Edymnion04-25-08, 12:53 PM | There were two threads that ventured into this sort of discussion. One for Christians and one for nons. One of them was locked (IIRC) due to the rampant flaming that threads of this nature cause. This is not a good place to go.Yes, which is why real world religion is one of the big three banned topics around here. I'm actually surprised we haven't had a pre-emptive lock. Oh well, it won't take too long for somebody to bring up a certain somebody and a certain something that will get the thread locked real quick. |
| RobbyPants04-25-08, 01:46 PM | I am a christian. In college, a lot of the people I played with were not. After college it more of the people in my group were. |
| Bacon and Eggs04-25-08, 02:54 PM | I fed most of mine to the Lions. |
| sblaxman04-25-08, 03:20 PM | Yes, which is why real world religion is one of the big three banned topics around here. I'm actually surprised we haven't had a pre-emptive lock. Oh well, it won't take too long for somebody to bring up a certain somebody and a certain something that will get the thread locked real quick. It it just me or is it humorous that the argument is on whether or not there will be an argument? :rofl: |
| katarl04-25-08, 03:48 PM | Next week on the dungeons and dragons forums... Scientology Players? Snake-Handlers and Yuan-ti? and Do we have any Existentialists here? |
| Ariakus04-25-08, 03:50 PM | [Devil's advocate]I would be very interested in a thread titled "How many young, blonde, attractive females play this game?" While I love D&D, I loves me some young, blonde, attractive females too. See, here's where the flaming begins... because I prefer Red-heads and Brunettes to Blonds! :D I'm really not even going to add anything of value to this thread because it will only be a matter of time before lockdown :) I was involved in both of the other threads mentioned and I aint gittin' into it agin :D |
| RayneDarkShadow1304-25-08, 04:55 PM | Oops, sorry everyone, I did not realize it was a banned topic, but i got my answer, thanks :D |
| Bounty Hunter04-25-08, 05:04 PM | Even if you were unaware, The Big Three are universal. Opening a thread like this is an invitation to flame-wars, arguements, name calling .... and a lot of other stuff we don't need. And it's not just here on the boards, it's everywhere. Eleventh Commandment: Keep Thine Religion To Thy Self. It doesn't matter what you believe in, we all play the game, and what you believe has nothing to do with the game. And since this forum is about the game...what you believe has nothing to do with this forum. In Before The Lock! |
| jradd77704-25-08, 09:56 PM | [SIZE="1"]Even if you were unaware, The Big Three are universal. Opening a thread like this is an invitation to flame-wars, arguements, name calling .... and a lot of other stuff we don't need. And it's not just here on the boards, it's everywhere. An invitation that no one has to accept. I'm sorry, but I do believe that people can be civil about religion. The attitude of never trying to move past our differences only exacerbates the problem. If anyone starts flaming, no one has to acknowledge them. The OP got their answer and so far, there's been nothing even slightly uncivil said. Eleventh Commandment: Keep Thine Religion To Thy Self. And, this is probably why. People are only responding to the question with small exception. No one is on some crusade to convert anyone. People have kept it to themselves and avoided any moves toward pushing anything on anyone else. So... as much as people are citing past mistakes... I'm seeing a lot of evidence that people can be civil. It doesn't matter what you believe in, we all play the game, and what you believe has nothing to do with the game. And since this forum is about the game...what you believe has nothing to do with this forum.[SIZE] For this person, there is a relation between playing D&D and their religion. Some have apparently made them feel that they have to choose. This community has responded letting them feel that there doesn't have to be a divide between what they believe and something that they love to do. For you, perhaps there's no reason to wonder... but for some people it is important, maybe. Maybe some people needed just a little reassurance from the forum... where else would they get this reassurance that they aren't the only person out there? I am glad that people have helped the OP by responding... and again... I see evidence that people can present this subject without flaming, without being inhumane to each other. Good job forumers, I hope this sort of thing can continue and the rule becomes known as the Big Pair (pair of things that people can't talk about) and eventually, that people will stop being so discriminant toward each other and simply always be civil regardless of the topic they are discussing. |
| Ariakus04-25-08, 11:30 PM | There will be flaming, I guarantee it. You, a peaceful sounding soul now, are already breaking someones post apart to argue your point, and if someone as peaceful sounding as you are already doing this... you will probably breakdown at the first accusation (and they will come, oh yes...they will come...) This is the first sign of battle when you call someone by name and break apart their post to suit your idea of the concept. I know you are peaceful, but I have seen every single thread with Christianity on this site go down in flames, and it begins with the Call Out and Quoting. Things are civil now, but this is a touchy subject. This is why heads of state, regardless of what country, don't talk religion. It is widely, and to note wisely, not brought up even in politics; another of the Big Three. I am one of those it is touchy with because I don't believe in god, and vehemently so. But since the last few threads went down badly, I tend to stay out, at least by reacting defensively. And I'm breaking my own rules by posting here, but the discussion has already passed the OP's question and heading for Flame, and I am here simply playing the soothsayer... |
| MadPrak_Mark204-25-08, 11:41 PM | I myself am not Christian (I'm not religious at all), but I have several Christian friends who play the game. Same, In my group, I'm almost the odd satanist out... My girlfriend is also a satanist, that's the only reason I'm not the only one. Oddly enough, that seems to be true hobby wide... I know two other Satanists that play, and have met a handful on here, and that's about it. |
| CommonAnomaly04-26-08, 12:05 AM | I'm Christian. I'm also tempted to write something in this post that's very flame-ish in an effort to actually get it locked so I can take credit for it. It would be decidedly un-Christian of me. I will roll a will save to see if my human desire overcomes my teachings. *rolls* Yup, made the save and only take half damage. Please take that as a joke. That was how it is intended. I think that no matter what religion anyone on this board is, we are all, deep down in our cores, nerds. Its not an insult, more of a badge of honor. Wear it with pride ladies and gents. Let the pocket protectors, tape on the glasses and general distaste for bards (3rd edition only, i know how you 2ed-ers will disagree) unite us despite whatever messianic differences we may have. The End. |
| Ariakus04-26-08, 12:19 AM | Hmmmmm, I don't look like that, but I'll take the compliment of nerd :D |
| Jaxgaret04-26-08, 03:11 AM | Let the pocket protectors, tape on the glasses and general distaste for bards (3rd edition only, i know how you 2ed-ers will disagree) unite us despite whatever messianic differences we may have. I like 3e Bards, my glasses are untaped, and I have never owned nor used a pocket protector. That said, I assert my full nerd rights and game on. |
| itreeby05-01-08, 12:20 AM | katanas? |
| Auspex705-01-08, 12:49 AM | i'm an infidel, but i'm here showing support for our christian brothers. |
| ShatteredSun05-01-08, 12:56 AM | Back in high school, everyone in my group went to the same Baptist church. Eventually, some of our parents, youth leader, other parents, etc became concerned. They heard some negative things, and let's face it, sometimes it's tough to properly explain role playing. Since I was DM, I invited them to sit in on a game, if they really wanted to. To this day I don't know if they were relieved, disappointed, or disturbed that playing Dungeons and Dragons involved pop, monty-python jokes, and sitting around a table talking about swords. |
| 1 ton ghost05-01-08, 12:00 PM | I'm a PK (pastor's [mom] kid) and this was never really a problem for me. Quite the contrary really, we were encouraged from time to time to game as mom knew where we were then; not out causing trouble, actually acountable, etc. Easy way to wrangle up friends too as kids. No big deal, no Satantic influence (laughable really). Everything was fine. We even got a youth group function at our old church to game in the choir room. Couple of the older adults jumped in too, surprisingly well versed in Dragonlance w/ no problem playing evil characters too. Nothing crazy, but the understanding we had since I was 7 held, "There's you, the player, and you, the character. Never the 2 shall meet". No snags, just a diverse group of ppl at their church, some stuffers (junk food), books, and dice. I think we managed to do more good than kill more time->fostered a few fellowship cookouts, more youth ministry initiatives, etc. all by accident. Good times. For some reason, alot of panicky idiots and some mothers imagining the Devil under every bed couldn't seem to understand such a simple concept as everyone and everythign is suspect. The whole Satanic Panic. A big joke really. Socially and mentally unstable ppl w/ a modicum of power tend to infringe on the power of those otherwise stable people. How can you live your life in constant fear like this? Not very sound spiritual grounding... Suspension of disbelief and taking some things in life in good humor go far. Failure to do these things gets you fired, involved in wars, and alienated from alot of your fellow mankind, you know? |
| nowiwantmydmg05-01-08, 01:01 PM | I just wanted to say kudos to everyone for keeping this: A) On Topic B)(most importantly) Civil I'm impressed with the maturity of the posters thus far, you are showing that perhaps a religous discussion can be had here with out starting a war of flames and hatred, I applaud you all. :clap: As far as the actual discussion: I am not a christian and in fact have never (knowingly) played with someone who defines themself so, but would be more than happy to play with someone who was(or in fact any religion). |
| dead_pool05-01-08, 01:03 PM | i think all religions have the same basic tenents and probably are worshiping the same entity who came to different cultures in different forms, that being said +1 for Christ here. |
| 1 ton ghost05-01-08, 03:13 PM | THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO Mr. B ;) the opinions expressed are strictly those of the speaker and do not reflect the beliefs of management of this station. heh. For the most part, I'd have agree. Most of the major religions of the world have the same principles overall. Karmic goodwill, helping the poor, etc. That's the biggest clue we need. We're more alike than different. That type of thinking has led to what you mentioned, universalism , which seems to make the most sense from an agnostic point of view. Think the Buddhists said all religions are a path to God. Nice, succinct. There's a reason many defer to them for their wisdom. Essentially, yeah, there's God; He/She/It exists and is worphiped in many forms by Earth's many people. Same diety, different faiths (IMO). Like they said in "Dogma", it is often better to have an idea about the divine than a belief. It's not like God came down and said, "Hey, listen up..." Even the Bible, Torah, and Quoran were written by men, they had an idea of what was being done. When you believe something blindly, you fail to do the basic precepts of religious and existential thinking. Said it once, I'll say it a million times-> religion (re'ligio). Latin, right? Ok. "re" = again. "ligio" = connect (as in ligament; connective tissue). Means "to reconnect". We reconnect w/ God/Allah/Jaweh/whatever by asking questions, problem solving, and figuring out those deep, existential mysteries of life, death, etc. We weren't given brains and free thought to just be spoonfed a bunch of crap and follow it blindly. When we choose to ignore the tools God gave us to figure out things like Dominion, Grace, the big "what-if's", it's disrespectful and wasteful. You're wasting the Gift that was given, not owed. Everything is Gift too; you, me, whole planet, time, etc. This game even. You know it's awkward when you have a quick prayer in the choir room before sitting down to ethnically cleanse a bunch of orcs, but it happened.:D We know we wouldn't do that IRL, but our dramatic improvisations (PCs)do. Does that make us sinners? Who knows? God gave us D&D. But, he has to kill moms and puppies too...I like to think of Him (?) as the ultimate formal True Neutral. Beyond that, beyond morality really. Trying to assign human terms to a diety is kinda' arrogant, but we always do, "Black or White Jesus" (he was Hebrew btw, dark skin, curly black hair, etc), God as old and bearded, many-armed Shiva, the Devil w/ a specific mustache and tail. It's the culture that puts a slant on the image. There could very well be 1 god, "The God", and we're just interpreting He/She/It as we see fit being products of our environment. We should not presume to know the answer IMO. "In imago dei" (in the image of God) exists for a reason though. Not vice versa. Does that make sense? That pretty much sums it up for me and I was born, then bapitized and raised Lutheran. This is not to say that I do not acknowledge other faiths for their many merits. Gamed w/ a handful of jews, some wiccans, an aethist or 2, all manner of catholics and protestants, 2 buddhists, 2 muslims and a Native American in his own faith (not sure of its name). All were pretty illuminating. Quite a few have aspects I like and cannibalize, others I find abhorrant, but I have to remember, they're not mine, they're someone else's. Really, it's not so different than gaming. You're more comfortable w/ certain classes or races, right? That's cool, we still need that ecclectic x-section to fill out a standard 4 person party. If everyone is a Ftr, we clean up martially, but we lack horribly in other areas. Long story short, we need these other religions to help us get real life XP. We can grow and prosper, but mostly so we can have a seperate, dissenting, or different idea (not belief) that we might have otherwise missed completely. It may pi$$ you off, but you can learn from it like most of the parables. ex)Parable of the Good Samaritan, made alot of ppl mad, but they understood brotherhood quickly. Parable of the Mustard Seed also offended people as "Christendom should be like a mighty cyprus w/ majestic birds at its crest" and bla bla bla. No, they said it was'nt this noble plant, but a weed in that it will grow anywhere... Whew, forgiveness please on such a long and preachy post. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-01-08, 07:03 PM | The problem that strongly religious folk have with D&D is that D&D uses up a share of your mind and imagination. Religion is jealous of that mindshare - all of your mind and imagination should be consumed with religious thoughts ("bringing every though into captivity ..."). Every religion has a method of consuming all your spare mind-time. You are supposed to be praying, or "meditating" on scripture, or saying the rosary, or reciting the name of Krisna or "Om Mane Padme Hum" or whatever, every second that you are not preoccupied with something else. Scientologists, for instance, spend effort memorising the dictionary definitions of basic english particle words like "of" and "the". Playing D&D can lead to uncomfortable insights. You can come to realise that it is possible to construct an entire world, with rules, that is purely imaginary. Even to the point of participating in that world with others. Once you turn this insight onto the world of angels, demons, gods, saints, "spirit dimension" and so on of christianity ... it can become obvious that the religious worldview is also an imaginary constructed world. Religion knows this. Most believers know, deep down, that they don't really belive what they say they believe, otherwise they wouldn't bother with "jobs" and "family", not with Jesus coming back tomorrow. They manage to pretend to themselves that they don't know it. Personal insight is inimical to religious devotion. Participating in an imaginary game, understanding your own imagination, is one thing that can lift the veil. |
| TimelordSimone05-01-08, 07:20 PM | Stuff. I don't think they put that much thought into it. I mean, we're talking about the kind of people that brought us 'Harry Potter promotes witchcraft!' Thinking seems to be low on their list of priorities. ;) |
| Okinawa3d05-01-08, 11:40 PM | I have enjoyed reading all the post. Almost everyone has been very respectful of their fellow Gamer (aka nerd :cool: LOL) and the couple of posting that were “different” comments were just "taken" without comment. It is nice to see that people of all faiths or lack of faith in a God(s) can have a discussion without it becoming a quagmire. Again, keep on Rolling 20s and come sit down at my game table anytime….we can put the outside would at bay and enjoy the once commonality that we have….our game. This from your friendly Christian, Officer in the US Military (yes, I know that too can start a discussion) :), Simulations Officer (the Army is turning an Infantryman into a computer Scientist...with blunt force trauma). |
| jradd77705-01-08, 11:53 PM | Yeah, the thread is still looking good. It will probably be best to stick simply to the OP's question and try not to step too deeply into any heavy statements about religion or particular beliefs (and/or systems, thereof). Let's not bend the limits until they break. I'm impressed with all the civility that has been exhibited and hope to keep visiting the thread to see such great posting going on! |
| firebeetle05-02-08, 12:00 AM | I'm an elder at my church (Presbyterian) and the son of a church organist. D&D playing has never been a problem in church, of course we Presbyterians are very mellow bunch (nearly 40 years now and I've yet to hear a sermon about "satan's influence" or anything like that.) However, I have had trouble with my job, but that's another story. Of course, there are some famous personalities in D&D who were ministers. Johnny Wilson, former Dragon/Dungeon publisher, was a Baptist Minister. James Wyatt, current developer, was a Methodist Minister who even gave a "D&D sermon" Tracey Hickman of Dragonlance fame is an outspoken Christian. Even admitted player (or at least former player) Stephan Colbert is a progressive Catholic. I hope this posts before this thread is shut down. Bunch of folks saying they believe in God and Christ is always so upsetting : P |
| Renark von Bek05-02-08, 12:55 AM | I am a christian and I play dnd. PS love the sig about Satan and Dnd very funny |
| sblaxman05-02-08, 01:18 AM | Thinking back to a game I ran in the summer of '00, there was me (athiest), 1 mormon, 1 jew, 2 catholics, 2 known christians, and 2 others that I have no idea ... went just fine (until the players decided to kill one of the others character off, but that was a personality conflict, not a spiritual one) |
| 1 ton ghost05-02-08, 11:09 AM | I'm an elder at my church (Presbyterian) and the son of a church organist. I feel you. "PK" here. Sucks sometimes, especially growing up. But it did open alot of doors, get me 50% off my college, etc. Sadly though, you're expected to be goody goody or a hellion growing up. Never coudl you be like a regular kid, and omg, playing D&D?! Heh. I found that the people I would define as more spiritual, religious, or existentially minded, had no problem w/ it, promoted it even, whereas the outspoken diehards and firebrands were among its biggest harsh critics and were they, themselves, poor x-ians, jews, muslims. But what do I know. D&D playing has never been a problem in church, of course we Presbyterians are very mellow bunch (nearly 40 years now and I've yet to hear a sermon about "satan's influence" or anything like that.) However, I have had trouble with my job, but that's another story. I've been to a few Presbyterian services, very very similar to our own. Went to synagogue for catechism, a few catholic masses willingly and for family functions (aunt/uncle), even sat in during circle once or twice, though I couldn't bring myself to participate, but they were cool with that, and so was I. No biggie. As for the Satanic Panic, that's about when I started playing, during it's height. Uh, about '83 I suppose, I was 7 and my bro and I were enlisted to play at the Trinity Lutheran Seminary apt/townhomes. Long story short, all our parents were going to Trinity to get their Master's in Divinity to become real life clerics to be blunt ;) . Those that didn't commute, lived here and all the kids went to school together, played at the pool kick the can, etc., but a select few of us played D&D to which we were encouraged by many adults. Sweet, right? We all grew up, kept playing, and not a single neighborhood cat "mysteriously disappeared" or other hoaky satan-esque behavior. Work though, like you mentioned, yeah, had a snag or few reading game books for doing an illustration, but later it became somewhat lucrative. Of course, there are some famous personalities in D&D who were ministers. Johnny Wilson, former Dragon/Dungeon publisher, was a Baptist Minister. James Wyatt, current developer, was a Methodist Minister who even gave a "D&D sermon" Tracey Hickman of Dragonlance fame is an outspoken Christian. Even admitted player (or at least former player) Stephan Colbert is a progressive Catholic. Wow. I never would've guess that. Especially the baptist. I mean, we gamed w/ the choir director and a few other loyal parishoners, but it wasn't that big a deal to us as kids. We didn't think twice. At the source however, that truly is surprising. Where did you find that out? I hope this posts before this thread is shut down. Bunch of folks saying they believe in God and Christ is always so upsetting : P I know, crazy right. You say you believe in this or that and they freak the Hell out on you, but you can slam another institution as its fashionable and no one bats and eyelash at all. |
| ChaosWolf198205-02-08, 03:36 PM | +1 for Christ my dad thinks the game could be corrupting me because it has magic (which in his opinion is witchcraft). It has magic? Wow... what version of the books is he reading? All my books have are ink and paper. |
| TimelordSimone05-02-08, 04:42 PM | Methodist Woo! Yeah, we methodists are a pretty mellow bunch as well. :) |
| Zombie_Babies05-02-08, 05:03 PM | I hope this posts before this thread is shut down. Bunch of folks saying they believe in God and Christ is always so upsetting : P This is the kind of crap that gets the ol' flameball a' rollin'. It's great that people have found god and still play the game. Fantastic. But to blatantly assume that religion is ok because it works for you is a problem. There are plenty of people that have a problem with Christianity, etc. These religions have done and still do some pretty horrendous things. I'm not trying to say that anyone that has posted so far has come close to representing this type of person, I'm just trying to demonstrate an issue with the thread and the attitude shown by this flippant comment. Not everyone likes religion. Not everyone likes or believes in god. These people have every right to their opinions as well. The differences between the two camps tend to lead into conflict. Keep up the posts. Just keep this kind of BS out of them. There's no need to assume that because you are talking about belief in and worship of god that everyone should be ok with it. That's just not the case. Yes, it is upsetting to some. Not the "I'm sad" kind of upset, either. The angry kind. If you truly follow Christ, take this into consideration before you trivialize the beliefs and feelings of others. If my Sunday School memory serves, He'd not look too kindly on that. ;) |
| firebeetle05-02-08, 06:34 PM | Wow. I never would've guess that. Especially the baptist. I mean, we gamed w/ the choir director and a few other loyal parishoners, but it wasn't that big a deal to us as kids. We didn't think twice. At the source however, that truly is surprising. Where did you find that out? I playtested with Johnny once during a Gen Con and he mentioned it, and he talked about it in a Dragon magazine when he was advocating for prisoners playing D&D. Nice guy. |
| firebeetle05-02-08, 06:45 PM | +1 for Christ my dad thinks the game could be corrupting me because it has magic (which in his opinion is witchcraft). I have a funny story here too. In my town, we had a store called "13 Moons" for a while that was run by a pagan lady. I went in there often because they had cool things for my D&D room, and also ran the music store in town (musical instruments and sheet music.) Yes, I frequently interact and make friends with people of different religions. I feel, as many Christians do, that adults make their own decisions and I will not judge them for it. I approached them with the idea of selling D&D books and Magic cards there on commission. I used to run a comic store, so I figured I could handle the wholesale end. They considered it, but came back with "the magic in those books is pretend. The magic we practice is real." I went back to my car and laughed my butt off. After all the hullabaloo I've had to suffer about D&D being a tool of recruitment for witchcraft; an actual witch is offended for "misrepresenting" magic. Funny how that all plays out. |
| MacrossSD05-02-08, 07:14 PM | Of course, there are some famous personalities in D&D who were ministers. Johnny Wilson, former Dragon/Dungeon publisher, was a Baptist Minister. James Wyatt, current developer, was a Methodist Minister who even gave a "D&D sermon" Tracey Hickman of Dragonlance fame is an outspoken Christian. Even admitted player (or at least former player) Stephan Colbert is a progressive Catholic. Don't forget EGG himself who had decribed himself shortly before his death as what he termed "a Christian, albeit one of the Arian* (Universalist) persuasion" *("Arian" with an "i" refers to the bishop Arius, who believed that Jesus, while the Son of God, was not in and of himself divine. This caused quite a large amount of angst in the Christian world at the time, and even the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great had to step in to sort things out at the Council of Nicea. For a while Arian Christianity was ascendent before Catholic, Trinitarian Christianity made a resurging comeback a few years later. It would last until the 6th or 7th Centuries among the Goths and Vandals, who had been converted under Arian prists.) |
| kelvinaw27305-03-08, 11:17 AM | my dad thinks the game could be corrupting me because it has magic (which in his opinion is witchcraft). Nah, hardly any of them work. Trust me, it's not a patch on the real thing ... I fed most of mine to the Lions. Damn! No wonder I couldn't find any for the Wicker Man we built on Thursday! |
| The White Sorcerer05-03-08, 12:19 PM | Heavy reformist, but still a devout subject of the King of Kings. And a "PK," as someone here put it. This little game of ours is, I believe, one of the "grey" things in biblical morality. IE, not clearly condemned, and thus up to the individual's conscience. |
| 1 ton ghost05-03-08, 01:39 PM | Oh, man, love the quip about the pagan/wiccan merchants that had no business savvy when it came to deliberating the "what-if" Beetle pitched. So so sad. So blinded by faith (dogma and rhetoric really) they couldn't see, plain as day on the cover, that is says "...a game." Like this would infringe on whatever they perceive, worship, acknowledge as existential. Truth be told, it's probably best you didn't get involved in a business relationship w/ them if they were that unprofessional and spiritually backwards. Kind of an embarrassment to their community and faith really. Look at Obama's old pastor of late. Oh, and the "religions doing horrendous things" bit I saw earlier, um, last time I checked it was the people that drive the bus, not the bus itself. It's just a vehicle, if you can excuse the metaphor, to achieve spiritual or existential clarity, peace, whatever you want to call it. People are always gonna' take scripture and religious ideas, put their slant on it, and pass it off as "this or nothing", hurt people for it, and use it to justify things that are clearly not cool w/ the original tenets. Like a house rule in game, a lot of them are really perverted from the original RAW, fine for you and your group, but when you try and impress them upon everyone else...well, you know what's next. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-03-08, 08:31 PM | But to blatantly assume that religion is ok because it works for you is a problem. Oh, the problem is waaaay broader than religion. It's faith, belief as such that's the problem. Doesn't matter if it's Allah, psychic powers, or Fung Shui. Have a look at The Ethics of Belief (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html). It's an easy read. A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales. What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it. "No right to believe on such evidence as was before him". Cue tape of tobacco executives testifying "I believe that nicotine is not addictive", of oil company climate-change deniers saying with a smug smile "I'm sorry, I just don't believe it", of teleevangeists preaching "I truly believe that if you send a donation, you will receive the free gift of healing". Bleh. Credophiles. |
| Lord Psynister05-03-08, 08:48 PM | I'm a Christian and a Priesthood holder. Not a thing wrong with it in my books. |
| Myrtlesaur05-04-08, 12:20 AM | Unfortunately, folks like pmurray are what get these threads locked, though I'm glad no one has taken his (veiled) bait. That being said, what really got things rolling in the '80s was Patricia Pulling and her desperate attempts to pin her son's suicide on D&D. Psychologist after psychologist told her to kiss off, but she finally got one to join her cause. She compiled a list of--gasp!--around 90 D&D players who had committed suicide and published it. What she failed to note, however, is the other thousands of people who committed suicide without being involved in D&D. She jumped onto the "promotes Satanism" bandwagon, and people such as the oft-maligned Jack Chick joined her cause. These people held fairly powerful sway and to be an official and go against this was suicide in some areas--it was either "you're against D&D or you're pro-Satanism/suicide/anything else in our list." Ah, yes, the famous list of Patricia Pulling described D&D as follows: A fantasy role-playing game which uses demonology, witchcraft, voodoo, murder, rape, blasphemy, suicide, assassination, insanity, sex perversion, homosexuality, prostitution, satanic type rituals, gambling, barbarism, cannibalism, sadism, desecration, demon summoning, necromantics, divination and other teachings. There have been a number of deaths nationwide where games like Dungeons and Dragons were either the decisive factor in adolescent suicide and murder, or played a major factor in the violent behaviour of such tragedies. Since role-playing is typically used for behaviour modification, it has become apparent nationwide (with the increased homicide and suicide rates in adolescents) that there is a great need to investigate every aspect of a youngster’s environment, [sic] including their method of entertainment, in reaching a responsible conclusion for their violent actions. Craziness aboundeth here. |
| jradd77705-04-08, 03:25 AM | Thanks, I was actually really curious as to a concrete answer about people being against D&D. Like I've said before, even coming from deep within the "Bible belt" I hadn't specifically heard of people wanting to ban D&D or actively keeping it out of Christian circles or anything. Also, let's not "name names" or draw attention. As I've also said before, let's just let sleeping dogs lie and continue posts which relate to the OP's question. I'd like to see this thread not be banned, and I don't want anyone coming back and flaming anybody because they spoke too harshly, however true/false or deserved/undeserved any statement/opinion/comment may be or whathaveyou. Yeah, there are somewhat off-topic posts and people going a bit too far, thanks for warnings but let's not let loose any floodgates, just be careful everyone, don't step on anyone's toes. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-04-08, 03:56 AM | Unfortunately, folks like pmurray are what get these threads locked, though I'm glad no one has taken his (veiled) bait. Guilty! :devil: I don't know that it was all that veiled. and people such as the oft-maligned Jack Chick joined her cause. I don't know that Jack Chick did any other anti-D&D stuff besides the infamous "Blackleaf" tract. Back in the early 80's, my christian mum was uncomfortable with D&D, and I don't know that she ever explicitly read any anti-d&d stuff. Of course, it never helped that the game had "devils" and "demons" in it. |
| kelvinaw27305-04-08, 04:49 AM | Guilty! :devil: I don't know that it was all that veiled. Actually I didn't think it was that inflammatory. What you said about belief was quite true - people who take decisions based upon superstition, blind faith or convenience over factual evidence are being worse than foolish. It is one thing to believe where there is no evidence either way - and certainly the belief in a god falls into this category - and another entirely to believe in something when all the evidence is entirely contrary to your belief, especially if the lives of others depend upon your decisions. As the Russian saying goes: "When your boat sinks, you pray to God - but swim for shore." There is something that we should understand about her own beliefs: they are subjective. They are unique to us. They are individual. We have the right to believe whatsoever we like, and many people can and do. But when we have to make decisions that effect other people, we have to remember that our beliefs are only that: ours, and no-one else's. Physical evidence, on the other hand, is objective. Everyone can see it and agree on it. It can be held up and demonstrated before others as factual. The interpretation of it can be up to the individual, but the physical facts remain. The shipbuilder should have inspected his ship, regardless. In short, no one person has any right to claim their beliefs as any better than anyone else's where there is no physical evidence that clearly indicates one way or another. I have every admiration for those that believe sincerely, even when their beliefs are quite contrary to my own. Belief is a very positive thing in this light - to quote Death from Terry Pratchett's Hogfather: "Of course humans believe in things that are not real. How else will they ever make them real?" If you believe in truth, justice, peace and the need to stand up to tyranny, you are on my side whether you think I'm divinely inspired, a gullible fool or a devil-worshipping corrupter. I'd like to think that most of the Christian posters on this thread would agree, as these are fundamental aspects of that faith. and people such as the oft-maligned Jack Chick joined her cause. I don't know that Jack Chick did any other anti-D&D stuff besides the infamous "Blackleaf" tract. No, Jack Chick didn't do any more anti-D&D stuff, but he was maligned not just for his Anti-D&D tract, but also for his anti-pagan tract, his anti-catholic tract ... it's a pretty long list of tracts, and it says a lot more about Jack Chick than it does about any of the subjects in question. In any event, I have waffled on off-subject of this thread enough - if anyone wants to discuss theology and philosophy, PM me! |
| Kallionastiryne05-04-08, 10:54 AM | I'm Christian and I actually love DND. It doesn't cause Satanism, but it could cause Hextorism and Tiamatism. |
| RayneDarkShadow1305-04-08, 10:26 PM | If you truly follow Christ, take this into consideration before you trivialize the beliefs and feelings of others. If my Sunday School memory serves, He'd not look too kindly on that. ;) First of all as OP I would love to thank everyone for all the wonderous responces :D Next, what i am about to say I do not to flame or anything, I just want to correct a few things, I do not mean this negativly either Zombie Babie. I do believe that everyone has their beliefs and i respect them. I just would like to point out that your Sunday School memory is somewhat wrong. Jesus stepped on toes, all the time. There is a difference in trivializing the beliefs and feelings of others and in thinking they are wrong. Jesus blatenly states that he is the only way and ticks people off and even dies for it. I can say the Jesus, from biblical discription, would not want us to make fun of others for their beliefs but rather show them how they are wrong. We christians must do this through the way we live rather than through words and THAT is where some people make the mistake. So all in all if you truelly follow Christ then you can not be afriad to step on toes, as he did. That is the point I am trying to make, lol. If I am completly wrong with what you were trying to say then I am sorry :cool: No disrespect meant either Zombie Babie |
| MacrossSD05-05-08, 05:39 PM | I'm Christian and I actually love DND. It doesn't cause Satanism, but it could cause Hextorism and Tiamatism. Nah...I'm a convert to Iuzism. Now Bow before the old one, you puny mortals! |
| Plemmons05-05-08, 06:33 PM | For the record-books, I myself am a Christian and this coming semester I will be a seminarian as well. |
| ChaosWolf198205-05-08, 09:50 PM | I'm Christian and I actually love DND. It doesn't cause Satanism, but it could cause Hextorism and Tiamatism. Pfft. Everyone knows Pelor is the only one worth following. Or so I'm told. I follow myself. Which may explain why I've been walking in circles for the past week and a half. |
| Zombie_Babies05-06-08, 10:25 AM | Oh, and the "religions doing horrendous things" bit I saw earlier, um, last time I checked it was the people that drive the bus, not the bus itself. It's just a vehicle, if you can excuse the metaphor, to achieve spiritual or existential clarity, peace, whatever you want to call it. People are always gonna' take scripture and religious ideas, put their slant on it, and pass it off as "this or nothing", hurt people for it, and use it to justify things that are clearly not cool w/ the original tenets. Like a house rule in game, a lot of them are really perverted from the original RAW, fine for you and your group, but when you try and impress them upon everyone else...well, you know what's next. True. But a lot of religions teach their followers to do horrendous things. The follower does it, yes, but with permission from god gained from their religious learnings. The horrendous things I was talking about are also probably not what many followers of Christianity would consider to be bad things. Things that happen still today. I'm not taking a cheap shot with the touchy priests, either. I'm talking about missionary work. Helping those that are less fortunate is a good thing. But re-educating them because their religious beliefs differ from yours is a crime, IMO. It is a tenet of a lot of the world's faiths that their path is the true one. This is a basic perception of faith that gives license to the faith's followers to force their ideas upon others. To me, this is genocide without the murder. It kills off cultures. That's pretty damned horrendous, IMO. And being that it's at the core of more than one religion, I'd call it more systemic than personal. And I won't even get into the religions that say all non-believers must die. That's just too easy. |
| Zombie_Babies05-06-08, 10:50 AM | First of all as OP I would love to thank everyone for all the wonderous responces :D Next, what i am about to say I do not to flame or anything, I just want to correct a few things, I do not mean this negativly either Zombie Babie. I do believe that everyone has their beliefs and i respect them. I just would like to point out that your Sunday School memory is somewhat wrong. Jesus stepped on toes, all the time. There is a difference in trivializing the beliefs and feelings of others and in thinking they are wrong. Jesus blatenly states that he is the only way and ticks people off and even dies for it. I can say the Jesus, from biblical discription, would not want us to make fun of others for their beliefs but rather show them how they are wrong. We christians must do this through the way we live rather than through words and THAT is where some people make the mistake. So all in all if you truelly follow Christ then you can not be afriad to step on toes, as he did. That is the point I am trying to make, lol. If I am completly wrong with what you were trying to say then I am sorry :cool: No disrespect meant either Zombie Babie None taken. I have no issue with a well worded rebuttal. :D That said, I must also remind you of the "turn the other cheek" idealism. And as you are most certainly correct in your toe stepping argument, it seems we have run into a classical religious issue- the hypocrisy of the word. I'm not even going to start on that as it has little relevance here. What I am going to do is take what you have stated and agree. I will also use it to reiterate a response to a different post and to demonstrate why some people take issue with declarations of religious zeal. You state that Jesus is the one way and that He'd want us to show those that differ how they are wrong in their worship. I agree, He did say as much. That, however, is the rub. We are asked to save those that do not follow by destroying a huge part of what they are. Their religion. How deep does your religious sentiment run? Who would you be without your faith? How much would you lose if it was taken from you by a reeducation program? How much of your family and cultural history comes from your faith? Are these things you are willing to lose? Are these things that should be taken from you? These questions aren't even considered by the people who feel it is their duty to reform different believers. By assuming your faith is the only true path, how are you not trivializing the differing beliefs of another? You have come out and told them that they are wrong. They are following the wrong path. A huge part of their life and culture is invalid. They believed in- and in large part are- a lie. And that's, IMO, contradictory to the broader (and more important) teachings of Christianity (Christianity not being the sole offender, of course). How many have died and are dying now because of a religious belief that one way is the right way? I have no problem with what you believe. None. But what you must start to see is that what is "good" to you is not to others. By presenting it in such a way you invite debate at best and violence at worst. This is not the place for religious debate. There is a reason this topic is forbidden here. People that espouse a deep religious belief cannot fathom why someone would not feel the same or at least not be bothered by it. When you put your ideas first you are putting others second. To some, that is bothersome. And, believe it or not, religion is a bad thing to some people. |
| 1 ton ghost05-06-08, 11:43 AM | Those that find contention w/ or slander organized religion, often, themselves have no formal training, scholastic education, or much experience w/ them. This is not always the case, however, I thought I knew more than the average Joe in the folly of youth. Big mistake. Between growing up a PK, catechism, going to a Lutheran college, going to several religious functions of different faiths, I began to have a better understanding. Especially the last portion. Compare, contrast. More specifically, it helps to have actually studied the material before you judge it I guess. Universal maxim. Typically, said detractor had a bad experience w/ a religious occurence, and usually, just 1 isolated incident. And sadly, it's not usually the faith so much as a conflict w/in in the congregation itself or the clergy. We're social creatures, to which churches, synagoges, mosques, etc, are comprised of these people. It isn't just you either. There's infighting all the time. But this is typically misconstrued into an unfair representation of the entirety of that specific faith from the specific individual. In much the same way gamers are unfairly typecast as geeks and nerds, so too is religion in many lights, it's simply, this is way more important and common. But a lot of religions teach their followers to do horrendouns things. The follower does it, yes, but with permission from god gained from their religious learnings. I respect your right to say it, support it even, however, you would do well to reconsider your wording more scientifically, or at least, diplomatically. Nothing personal. Yes, some rare leaders in some faiths espouse what you would call "horrendous", but that does not make the entirety of religion bad. God has never given permission, IMO, for these things. That's a cop out to scapegoat the "great invisible witness" that cannot/will not give testimony at this "hearing" as it were. God doesn't work that way IMO, nor should He. We're entrusted, privledged really, to decide for ourselves and blaiming a 3rd party is socially and existentially irresposible. No one wants to own their own decisions when they can levy guilt/blame on another. Each man or woman must search their own heart as per the divine plan. We're not robots, you know? Most major religions, by today's standards, don't teach "horrendous" things. That's why they're major. The outspoken zealots usually don't sit well w/ the masses. It is they, not God, that is responsible for said actions. Often, you will find splinter sects that practice underage polygamy, jihadism, and so forth that definetly deviate from the core tenets or the spirit as a whole. It's just w/ the proliferation of mass media today and the original affiliation w/ faith 'x', people associate that to the root religion and take a fairly simplistic and uneducated view of the whole. How many rednecks freaked out during the post 9-11 world to attack Islam? Alot. A local mosque here in Clifton (uptown Cincy, near UC) had ample threats and "suspicious packages" as they say. You take a few yahoos that can't think critically or follow their own religion's beliefs (like karmic goodwill), and you get things like this... I'm talking about missionary work. Helping those that are less fortunate is a good thing. But re-educating them because their religious beliefs differ from yours is a crime, IMO. Not necessarilly how it works. Seriously, how much missionary work have you done? Not recommended btw if you're a man of leisure. It's incredibly difficult, but can be very rewarding. I'm sure some go about indoctrinating, but most go in w/ an open hand to those that are receptive or at least willing to listen. Being socially disadvantaged, living in squalor, and being ignorant often foster a willingness to listen to those that aren't. How did they get that way? How might this benefit me and my family? Etc. Bringing food, curing malaria, AIDS relief, combatting illiteracy, adoption, housing of war refugees, these are just a token few of the "niceties" that most missionaries do and they play ball w/ the indigenous govt. because they are under such intense scrutiny as they might be harboring rebel factions and the like. It is often those that risk to lose much of their own power of fear that are the most fearful of those in positions of power through respect. It is in this I find great irony. Many dictatorships ruthlessly target missionaries as they help to educate their own people that are typically easier to rule (not reign over) when they are ignorant, and therefor more suseptible to their tyrrany. Edi Amin comes to mind. It is a tenet of a lot of the world's faiths that their path is the true one. This is a basic perception of faith that gives license to the faith's followers to force their ideas upon others. Perhaps some, yes. Last time I checked, mine didn't, but I cannot speak for the rest, just my own, but it stresses a more personal relationship w/ God. I find that comforting. You don't need to go to church to worship or pray. Any place, any time are good. I'm reminded of a Bible vs. that says don't be lke the rich man that prays and gives alms (charity) loudly and publically to be seen. Do it in secret, your secret master sees it anyway, bla bla bla. That's how I feel, not others, and that's cool. To each his/her own. There is no "1 true path" IMO. I think it's arrogant to presume being flawed mortal beings in respects to the infinite, god-like or otherwise. I guess, from where I'm sitting, the best thing to do is just give thanks the best way you feel, not the best way a collective feels. This is why I have alot of respect for agnostics. Even most scientists understand there is "always a bigger fish". Yeah, forcing religion is wrong, I'm w/ you there, but most of them don't do this these days, and even back "when", it was those in power, not God saying, "Uh, btw, you might want to kill or convert these people." Many clergy and perishoners may be coercive or use honeyed words, but we must not find fault w/ the religion so much as the individual. Like I said prior, it's the individual, not the whole. Sorry for the length. Hope this didn't bore you or anything. Respect. |
| ninto05-06-08, 11:49 AM | Im Christian. Im strongly involved with our church. Im the leader of our praise band and when work/school lets me im involved in our bible studies. I dont find the game evil. Its like playing anyother game to me. Yes you have to have an imagination but thats not evil. But also with anything else you cant let it take over your life and be the number one focus in it. |
| RedWizard05-06-08, 12:23 PM | That said, I must also remind you of the "turn the other cheek" idealism. And as you are most certainly correct in your toe stepping argument, it seems we have run into a classical religious issue- the hypocrisy of the word. I'm not even going to start on that as it has little relevance here. What I am going to do is take what you have stated and agree. I will also use it to reiterate a response to a different post and to demonstrate why some people take issue with declarations of religious zeal. You state that Jesus is the one way and that He'd want us to show those that differ how they are wrong in their worship. I agree, He did say as much. That, however, is the rub. We are asked to save those that do not follow by destroying a huge part of what they are. Their religion. How deep does your religious sentiment run? Who would you be without your faith? How much would you lose if it was taken from you by a reeducation program? How much of your family and cultural history comes from your faith? Are these things you are willing to lose? Are these things that should be taken from you? These questions aren't even considered by the people who feel it is their duty to reform different believers. By assuming your faith is the only true path, how are you not trivializing the differing beliefs of another? You have come out and told them that they are wrong. They are following the wrong path. A huge part of their life and culture is invalid. They believed in- and in large part are- a lie. And that's, IMO, contradictory to the broader (and more important) teachings of Christianity (Christianity not being the sole offender, of course). How many have died and are dying now because of a religious belief that one way is the right way? (Edited as I placed the wrong quote initially) I see your point and actually, I am 9 out of 10 times argueing the side of the agnostic but there was a fine point made by the OP which was perhaps misunderstood. If I am correct, and this is also how I see it, Jesus meant for his followers to spread their faith not through any form of forceful re-indoctrination nor even to blatantly belittle other religions and tell their followers that they were "wrong". It was to show the truth of Christ's teaching through example. This incorporates the "turn the other cheek" and the idea of the good Samaritan. By simply excercising the Golden Rule of "treat your neighbor as you would have him treat you" you will demonstrate the virtue of Chrstianity. You will also avoid the pitfalls of hypocracy. Unfortunately there are many "Christians" who misinterpret this and think that non-believers should be converted forcefully or demeaned for their beliefs. This is too bad as Jesus stated that what you did to another you were doing unto Jesus. He did not say what you did to another Chistian. Jesus said what you did to anybody, you did to him. That leads true Christians back to the Golden Rule. When Jesus came to Jeruselum, many expected the son of God to be a great warrior who would make all things right through force. They met him with palm leaves and were shocked to see a humble man on a donkey arrive. Jesus berated only those who stated they already followed his same religion. To those of other faiths, he merely practiced good will. |
| Zombie_Babies05-06-08, 01:18 PM | @ 1 ton ghost: No problem with the length. I found it to be a very interesting and respectfully stated post. No worries. I agree that a lot of mission work is simply one group of people united by a common belief (religion, Red Cross, whatever) to help another group of people that may or may not believe similarly. That's what it should be and all those that do such work should be praised. There are some problems with that work as well, of course, but they are not important to this discussion. The fact remains that there are missionaries that have a more sinister (IMO) goal and are sanctioned by their faith. Hopefully it is more of the former and I'd like to think that is the case. I have many, many problems with organized religion and the things done in its name. I guess that's all I was trying to say. Some of us do get offended by those posting threads like this. Whatever our reasons, some of us are just not comfortable with this topic here- in D&D land. You and I will never see things the same way and that is perfectly fine. But it lends itself to conflict. I'm not saying that because some don't like the topic no one should post it, just that this is a hot button topic and tempers do tend to flare. And the people posting do need to be considerate of those that do not feel the same. There was one example earlier that I already replied to showcasing the potential for marginalizing the thoughts of others. So far this thread is going well. IIRC, the other two lasted quite a while before the bottom fell out as well. |
| Killy05-06-08, 01:28 PM | Jesus Saves... ... everyone else takes full damage. Sorry, couldn't help myself. |
| Zombie_Babies05-06-08, 01:38 PM | (Edited as I placed the wrong quote initially) I see your point and actually, I am 9 out of 10 times argueing the side of the agnostic but there was a fine point made by the OP which was perhaps misunderstood. If I am correct, and this is also how I see it, Jesus meant for his followers to spread their faith not through any form of forceful re-indoctrination nor even to blatantly belittle other religions and tell their followers that they were "wrong". It was to show the truth of Christ's teaching through example. This incorporates the "turn the other cheek" and the idea of the good Samaritan. By simply excercising the Golden Rule of "treat your neighbor as you would have him treat you" you will demonstrate the virtue of Chrstianity. You will also avoid the pitfalls of hypocracy. Unfortunately there are many "Christians" who misinterpret this and think that non-believers should be converted forcefully or demeaned for their beliefs. This is too bad as Jesus stated that what you did to another you were doing unto Jesus. He did not say what you did to another Chistian. Jesus said what you did to anybody, you did to him. That leads true Christians back to the Golden Rule. When Jesus came to Jeruselum, many expected the son of God to be a great warrior who would make all things right through force. They met him with palm leaves and were shocked to see a humble man on a donkey arrive. Jesus berated only those who stated they already followed his same religion. To those of other faiths, he merely practiced good will. Well stated. But again, we find a problem. If His way is the only way and we do not convert the non-believers (instead demonstrating through example), are we not damning them? I agree that the problems I have shown stem from people interpreting what they have been taught in a way that not all embrace. The issue is that these people have the backup in writing. It's not a misinterpretation. It's reading a different part (and not the whole). Religion is not bad. Organized religion is. It is mob mentality behind the light of a halo instead of a torch. I do agree with what you stated. I also appreciate the way you presented it. I wanted to make that clear after re-reading what I just wrote. I kinda went on a lil rant there. That's the problem with threads of this nature, of course, they hit us right in our core beliefs. I wish I could take my own advice and shut the hell up, but with the interesting counterpoints and the shockingly (for the topic, not the posters) considerate way they have been presented I find it hard not to respond. I feel it would almost be rude not to as the responses have been so well though out. |
| RedWizard05-06-08, 01:49 PM | Well stated. But again, we find a problem. If His way is the only way and we do not convert the non-believers (instead demonstrating through example), are we not damning them? I agree that the problems I have shown stem from people interpreting what they have been taught in a way that not all embrace. The issue is that these people have the backup in writing. It's not a misinterpretation. It's reading a different part (and not the whole). Religion is not bad. Organized religion is. It is mob mentality behind the light of a halo instead of a torch. I do agree with what you stated. I also appreciate the way you presented it. I wanted to make that clear after re-reading what I just wrote. I kinda went on a lil rant there. That's the problem with threads of this nature, of course, they hit us right in our core beliefs. I wish I could take my own advice and shut the hell up, but with the interesting counterpoints and the shockingly (for the topic, not the posters) considerate way they have been presented I find it hard not to respond. I feel it would almost be rude not to as the responses have been so well though out. Point well taken. However, I see it not so much damning others if we do not enforce the "right" faith upon them so much as we are offering them the solution while allowing them to retain choice. Jesus did not force his disciples to follow him, they did so of their own volition. Peter could have gone up to Jesus and said he was fed up with it all and wanted to join the winning team. I suspect Jesus would not have used force or belittlement upon his disciple though he may have given him warning of the consequinces. We are responsible for our brothers only to the degree of how much we can help them while still allowing them total freedom of choice. A good Christian should not presume more authority then God, whom himself allows choice. I can't wait to tell my friend whom is highly religious I actually debated on the side of Christianity, he'll likely be shocked and think I was born again.;) |
| Zombie_Babies05-06-08, 01:55 PM | Point well taken. However, I see it not so much damning others if we do not enforce the "right" faith upon them so much as we are offering them the solution while allowing them to retain choice. Jesus did not force his disciples to follow him, they did so of their own volition. Peter could have gone up to Jesus and said he was fed up with it all and wanted to join the winning team. I suspect Jesus would not have used force or belittlement upon his disciple though he may have given him warning of the consequinces. We are responsible for our brothers only to the degree of how much we can help them while still allowing them total freedom of choice. A good Christian should not presume more authority then God, whom himself allows choice. I can't wait to tell my friend whom is highly religious I actually debated on the side of Christianity, he'll likely be shocked and think I was born again.;) We both see it the same way. We aren't damning them at all. But some use that statement as justification for attempting conversion. That's all I was trying to demonstrate. Though you may not be very religious, I happen to think you see it better than some who proclaim they are. |
| RedWizard05-06-08, 02:01 PM | We both see it the same way. We aren't damning them at all. But some use that statement as justification for attempting conversion. That's all I was trying to demonstrate. Though you may not be very religious, I happen to think you see it better than some who proclaim they are. Indeed. |
| Plemmons05-06-08, 02:09 PM | Amen, Zombie_Babies. Amen, RedWizard. On a slightly related topic, does anyone know of any published monotheistic gameworlds? I figure the best way to counter the ridiculous arguments of he-who-must-not-be-named and his ilk (assuming I can't for some reason or another ignore them) is to play in a world with a theology that resembles real-world Christianity, thereby removing a point of contention (let us also assume that I am too non-confrontational to actually argue against the ridiculous arguments, especially seeing as those who follow he-who-must-not-be-named rarely listen to reason), and I'm too lazy/busy to build my own world from nothing. Wow, um... the parentheticals are confusing me, and I'm the one who wrote it. Let's write it again without the side-comments, and see if it's any clearer: On a slightly related topic, does anyone know of any published monotheistic gameworlds? I figure the best way to counter the ridiculous arguments of he-who-must-not-be-named and his ilk is to play in a world with a theology that resembles real-world Christianity, thereby removing a point of contention, and I'm too lazy/busy to build my own world from nothing. |
| RedWizard05-06-08, 02:16 PM | Amen, Zombie_Babies. Amen, RedWizard. On a slightly related topic, does anyone know of any published monotheistic gameworlds? I figure the best way to counter the ridiculous arguments of he-who-must-not-be-named and his ilk (assuming I can't for some reason or another ignore them) is to play in a world with a theology that resembles real-world Christianity, thereby removing a point of contention (let us also assume that I am too non-confrontational to actually argue against the ridiculous arguments, especially seeing as those who follow he-who-must-not-be-named rarely listen to reason), and I'm too lazy/busy to build my own world from nothing. Wow, um... the parentheticals are confusing me, and I'm the one who wrote it. Let's write it again without the side-comments, and see if it's any clearer: On a slightly related topic, does anyone know of any published monotheistic gameworlds? I figure the best way to counter the ridiculous arguments of he-who-must-not-be-named and his ilk is to play in a world with a theology that resembles real-world Christianity, thereby removing a point of contention, and I'm too lazy/busy to build my own world from nothing. Well the first thing that comes to mind is to actually use the concept of Christianity in your game. The Dieties and Demigods book for 1st edition lists the Artherian legends. Thus you could have Camelot instead of Greyhawk (though Camelot is a silly place, haha had to do it). Or you could use medieval Europe and have such NPCs as Roland and the peers of Charlemagne. Or, if you want a truly fantasy type setting, use Middle Earth or Narnia. Both were set in a monotheistic setting. Middle-Earth had Ul while Narnia had the King Over the Water (or something like that, Aslan being his son). Any of these would be easily converted. |
| Plemmons05-06-08, 02:23 PM | Well the first thing that comes to mind is to actually use the concept of Christianity in your game. The Dieties and Demigods book for 1st edition lists the Artherian legends. Thus you could have Camelot instead of Greyhawk (though Camelot is a silly place, haha had to do it). Or you could use medieval Europe and have such NPCs as Roland and the peers of Charlemagne. Or, if you want a truly fantasy type setting, use Middle Earth or Narnia. Both were set in a monotheistic setting. Middle-Earth had Ul while Narnia had the King Over the Water (or something like that, Aslan being his son). Any of these would be easily converted. We sing from the diaphragm a lot.... Yeah, that probably wouldn't be too bad, taking an old DnD world and just changing the theological structure. There'd be inconsistencies here and there that would have to be fixed, but those could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Not sure I'd want to play in Middle Earth or Narnia, simply because the books involved for each place could easily limit my creativity as a DM... in ME, you'd have to work around the war of the ring, in Narnia, you'd have to work around... well... all seven books, really, and also work with the fact that the books didn't really use any of the PHB races except humans, who were a rarity. Hm... perhaps a land in the same world as Narnia, but far distant... Thanks for the help, RW. We now return to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress. |
| 1 ton ghost05-06-08, 02:57 PM | Funny you should mention that project. There is a thread going on right now to that end w/ fairly ecent debate and contribution. I believe the moniker is under "Cleric of Christ" and it kicked off about a week ago. Good OP. At first, I was thinking, "Well, I guess." but it actually has alot of possibilities in terms of complexity, character customization, and plot design/campaign hooks. Plus, it might actually facilitate better RP in relation to what we know, or think we know about the Medieval and Rennaissance eras. ie)The Church, (Counter)Reformation, the caste systems, etc. If one can take an impartial, educated world view of history in comparison to what we already have right before us (DMG, PHB), there is so much material to work with, it becomes more of problem in deciding what to delete than what to add. Endless possibilities with historical accuracy. And, for the most part, Red Wiz w/ the "Golden Rule" nod seems to be what I was gunning for, but of course, he said it in a tidier fashion. Nj btw. I don't believe anyone's damned for not converting. Like I mentioned, don't the Buddhists believe "all religions are a path to God"? Religion seems more cultural, the soul is the universal part. Apples and oranges IMO. There are gonna' be bad eggs in every carton, you just don't have to make an omlette w/ those if that doesn't sound too hammy? Mmm, ham... Which brings me to another point, you don't have to be religious to benefit from religion or its tools. The ham (by example) ironically enough. The Bible, like most religious texts, has got alot of useful stuff in it. You can be completely nihilistic, but, you cannot refute the fact that it reads like Poor Richard's Almanac in it's practical, helpful tidbits. It's designed to help you even if you arne't willing to convert or listen in. Like the Torah or Qoram, they have info on how to live a better life. By not eating pig's flesh (ham), you avoid trichonosis. They didn't know (couldn't have known, look at the timeframe) what the Hell that disease was so much as the symptoms causing you to act out in "possessed" fashion, so, as a warning, "do not eat". Bam, simple. Skewed in delivery, but their breed of logic told them this in theory just as our own in many 21st century standards will be debunked when we learn our higher truths. Clean yourself (promotes good health). Give alms to the poor (civic responsibility). Make restitutions (maintain justice). Etc. Now, some stories are interpretations IMO. I believe in Evolution, but I believe it was part of Creation Myth. The writers of these books couldn't have known. Asking a bunch of primitive Middle Easterners to carbon date, dig w/ inadequate tools, and think beyond their means is unfair. Not equiped for the job or ready to receive that wisdom. Would you ask a toddler to a question they wouldn't know until their teenage years? I think amoeba, apes, all that, it's God's plan, and He gave us the tools to slowly learn and figure this out for ourselves. Our brains, capacity to learn, debate (like this) was given so we could figure it out IMO. Everything is Gift too. We just have to be patient and bide our time is all (not necessarilly in our nature) and not screw up the presents given. When we do, it's a slap in the face, so, always learn, but maintain respect. And if you have a doubt, voice your concern, that's cool. Hopefully we'll find out when we die what's what. I know, there are some notions that don't synch up w/ today's world, but you have to remember, men, not God, wrote these books (IMO). Men are fallible and we gotta' accept that. Forgive that even. The book(s) say that too. You don't have to be religious to learn from the life lessons therein. It's just important that you maintain critical focus and leave bias, heresay, and conjecture at the door as they have no place in adult, religious discourse. |
| Zombie_Babies05-06-08, 03:11 PM | @ 1 ton ghost: After reading your latest post, I find that our actual religious beliefs are very similar. I look at things in pretty much the same way you do. I was also, in fact, going to post about the fallability of man in regard to the Bible. I chose not to as the tack I was taking with my other replies lead me to feel that I may come off as harsher than intended. I am probably a little less involved religiously, but your philosophy seems to be pretty close to my own. There are some differences, of course, but it's close enough for me. I may not agree with a lot of what organized religion (all types) has done in the past and a fair deal of what it can do still, but I must admit that I cannot argue with your religious outlook. Well stated, sir, and insightful. |
| 1 ton ghost05-06-08, 03:48 PM | Ah, got the Diplomacy synergy I see. Nj. Thanks again. I'll buy you a beer. |
| Nedned05-06-08, 03:53 PM | I'm atheist: I belive there are no gods. This is not to be confused with agnostic (?) which means undecided. I am decided! |
| sblaxman05-06-08, 04:41 PM | I'm one of the odd "pro-religious" devout athiests. I'm all for faith (married to an orthodox christian). I sometimes have beefs with certain churches, but never w/ the core faiths they represent. I actually am a big fan of the bible (much to the shock of christian friends I know), and have strong connections to a lot of it's messages. Even if you don't believe in the religious side of it, it is still a pretty good handbook on how to be a good person. Probably my favorite passages is one of the parables, where someone asks Jesus: "what is the most important commandment?" His response was "After "I am the lord thy god, it would be "Love they neighbor as thyself" I don't have it in front of me, so I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it. I always found that to be a very good message. And on the converting... I've always felt that conversion is (and can only be) an act of will and free choice. You can get someone to go to church, but if they don't truly open themselves, then they aren't really believing. In that sense, you cannot "force" someone into a faith. You can live the faith, and inform someone of it, but you cannot force them to join. I think, in general, the people that play d&d, whatever their faith, tend to be fairly open minded and creative people. There are exceptions of course (always a lurking troll here or there), but for the most part, we are mature people. Because of that, I think most people who play don't find any conflict between the game and their beliefs; the are able see the game is just a game, a fun hobby and a method of socializing with friends. There are some more, reactive, people on both sides, who may condemn the game for being evil, or condemn the church for the same, but these people (though loud) are in the minority. Unfortunately, a minority with a bull horn and a soap box can get a lot of attention. The best we can do is be civil with each other, ignore the trouble makers when possible, and have fun. |
| RedWizard05-06-08, 06:19 PM | I'm Christian and my wife is Buddhist. Our daughter is being raised in both so that when she is old enough she can make her own decisions. |
| RayneDarkShadow1305-06-08, 08:04 PM | Zombie_Babies and RedWizard, I loved your mini argument (kudos for not getting out of hand) and while reading it I realized how smart most D&D players are and how well educated they can be (not that I didnt think them educated, it just popped into my head). Just a little note from the mini that I would like to add is that I agree to your outcome. I, after studying the Bible and being a Christian for many years, know the "correct" way to try and "convert" people. I use those terms very loosly. Being a Christian, as i stated earlier, is about showing people how wonderous life can be as a Christian. Not forcing, but showing. To Zombie's statement about, "if we do not tell people about Christ then are we not damning them?" (paraphrase). Yes. In a way. I do not agree with the idea about not telling people about Christ, but I do agree that a person should only do so once or twice. Once you tell a peson what you believe, why (again, not forcefully), and show them how believing what you do has affected your life it is there choice. So, to the damning statement, the person must make a choice (which is a principle idea in Christianity) and doing so, according to the faith, saves or damns. All that a christian can do is what I stated above (and pray). Now, I know that probably well over 80% of the Christians in the world either do not realize this or simply do not care but either way it is the way that Jesus himself pretty much said to teach, and taught. |
| RedWizard05-06-08, 10:03 PM | We sing from the diaphragm a lot.... Yeah, that probably wouldn't be too bad, taking an old DnD world and just changing the theological structure. There'd be inconsistencies here and there that would have to be fixed, but those could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Not sure I'd want to play in Middle Earth or Narnia, simply because the books involved for each place could easily limit my creativity as a DM... in ME, you'd have to work around the war of the ring, in Narnia, you'd have to work around... well... all seven books, really, and also work with the fact that the books didn't really use any of the PHB races except humans, who were a rarity. Hm... perhaps a land in the same world as Narnia, but far distant... Thanks for the help, RW. We now return to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress. Another great series of books to read if you would like to see a good merger of Christianity with fantasy would be both the Deryni series and the Camber of Culdi series. In both (related) series we see magic (psionics), midieval European monasteries, regicide and king making. Lots of good stuff. In fact one of the early Dragon magazines spotlighted the Deryni and gave stats for playing them as a race (they are essentially humans gifted with magical/psionic powers and viewed with distrust by the rest of humanity). A good deal of the books center on politics between the Church and the Crown. |
| Drackthor05-07-08, 02:15 AM | *raises hand* Yo. |
| Okinawa3d05-07-08, 02:12 PM | While deployed to Iraq I was placed in charge of training Iraqi officers. We, as service members, are not allowed to proselytize our faith to others because it could be seen as serving a “God” and not a national interest and also in the name of not offending the local populace who may not share our faith (this goes of all faiths). During one of the breaks four of my students who spoke very fluent English (trained at Sandhurts, the Royal Military Academy) and another student of very deep faith, approached me to ask me if I had heard about Mohammad, the Prophet. (Now before anyone jumps their guns and thinks I am about to talk negatively about Islam…please read on)? I told them that I had read the Koran and studied the faith before deploying in an attempt to better understand the people I would be working with. (I have also read the Christian bible…since I am a Christian, and the books of faith form many other religions of the world….one of my hobbies---along with D&D, Martial Arts, and Motorcycles.) Of course they then asked me if I had converted to Islam (since I now was given the message of faith and if not was I now willing to make my articles of faith…the steps in Islam to become a Muslim). I stated no, that I was a Christian. This lead to a discussion that I was presented with the question of whether I believed Mohammed was a Prophet of God. I honestly told them that I did not know whether he was or not, but that I did believe that Christ was not only a Prophet (as they too believe), but that I also believed he was the Son of God who died for my salvation. (Now this is a touchy subject for many, so please do not take offense…continue to read) They then asked me why had had such faith that Christ was the Son of God. I simply told them that it was my faith. What followed was the most important thing of all for our civil/military operation. I told them that in America, we have the right to believe as we chose, and that it would be considered wrong for me to treat someone of another faith poorly, not only because Christ would not want me too, but because in the United States we have both the right to practice our faith, but the right to practice no faith. We are expected to treat all our fellow men/women (important to state because of their culture) as equals. I told them that Christ would only expect me to share his message, but never to force it upon them and he would want me to show the same love to them as I do my brother. We left the discussion with respect for each other’s faiths and believe, and a belief that we had the right to believe what we wanted. We also commonly agreed that for one to force their belief on someone would be wrong. If you have had experience in this part of the world you would understand that this is a VERY BIG step for many. These men were the future leaders of their nation, both civilian and military, and they had a civil conversation with me and agreed that a principle of freedom was the right to believe in God how that chose and to not force that belief on others. |
| Furryhowler05-07-08, 02:57 PM | Raised an atheist, became a pagan (of 20+ years), and now studying Islam with a (serious and genuine) view to converting.... the books of faith from many other religions of the world….one of my hobbies---along with D&D, Martial Arts, and Motorcycles. Cruisers? Streetbikes? Off-road? :D If you have had experience in this part of the world you would understand that this is a VERY BIG step for many. These men were the future leaders of their nation, both civilian and military, and they had a civil conversation with me and agreed that a principle of freedom was the right to believe in God how that chose and to not force that belief on others. Actually, its integral to Islam that religion cannot and must not be coerced. In sura 2:256 it says "there is no compulsion in religion" - essentially, truth neither needs nor profits by coercion. :) This is something that doesnt usually make it past the Faux news etc with their "TERRORISTS!!!" scream-lines :rolleyes: Its good to see folks getting past the media nonsense :) |
| Zombie_Babies05-07-08, 03:08 PM | To Zombie's statement about, "if we do not tell people about Christ then are we not damning them?" (paraphrase). Yes. In a way. I do not agree with the idea about not telling people about Christ, but I do agree that a person should only do so once or twice. Once you tell a peson what you believe, why (again, not forcefully), and show them how believing what you do has affected your life it is there choice. So, to the damning statement, the person must make a choice (which is a principle idea in Christianity) and doing so, according to the faith, saves or damns. All that a christian can do is what I stated above (and pray). Telling someone about your faith, while quite possibly irksome, is usually not much of an issue. Usually. I feel the need to bring this up as it is one of the reasons I do tend to take issue with some common religious practices. You telling me about Christ, Muhammed, Jehova, etc really doesn't mean much more than I let it. I have a stable life and it would be mere conversation. In the places missionary work takes place, however, we run into a problem. These peoples' lives are far from stable. They need help and look to those that provide it in a different way than we look at each other. To me, you extolling the teachings of your chosen path is comparable to talking sports stats (not to belittle anyone's faith, just to illustrate it's a normal topic to converse about). You telling a person you minister to as a missionary carries a lot more weight. These are lives you may very well be saving. They are influenced by your actions and listen in a different way. Is this god at work? Maybe. But ask yourself this: If someone converts because they were in great need and someone of your faith helped them, would they have done the same if a mission from a different sect appeared first? Would those that choose Christ instead look to (insert divine messenger here) if a representative of that faith were to help instead? IMO, they would. They are in a state that can be taken advantage of. And if that's the case, is what they feel true? Ok. I get it. I went waaaay out there again. I have no problem with what I quoted at all. None. It's not only a duty of your faith, it's also your right as a citizen (in a lot of places anyway). Just keep in mind that often those that need most are also the most easily influenced. I have once again let personal belief interfere with a post. Kind of a habit of mine in this one, I guess. Please do not take the above as something personal. It's just my problem with one aspect of faith that most will never encounter. And it really doesn't have much to do with what Rayne said at all. :D |
| RayneDarkShadow1305-07-08, 03:25 PM | Telling someone about your faith, while quite possibly irksome, is usually not much of an issue. Usually. I feel the need to bring this up as it is one of the reasons I do tend to take issue with some common religious practices. You telling me about Christ, Muhammed, Jehova, etc really doesn't mean much more than I let it. I have a stable life and it would be mere conversation. In the places missionary work takes place, however, we run into a problem. These peoples' lives are far from stable. They need help and look to those that provide it in a different way than we look at each other. To me, you extolling the teachings of your chosen path is comparable to talking sports stats (not to belittle anyone's faith, just to illustrate it's a normal topic to converse about). You telling a person you minister to as a missionary carries a lot more weight. These are lives you may very well be saving. They are influenced by your actions and listen in a different way. Is this god at work? Maybe. But ask yourself this: If someone converts because they were in great need and someone of your faith helped them, would they have done the same if a mission from a different sect appeared first? Would those that choose Christ instead look to (insert divine messenger here) if a representative of that faith were to help instead? IMO, they would. They are in a state that can be taken advantage of. And if that's the case, is what they feel true? Ok. I get it. I went waaaay out there again. I have no problem with what I quoted at all. None. It's not only a duty of your faith, it's also your right as a citizen (in a lot of places anyway). Just keep in mind that often those that need most are also the most easily influenced. I have once again let personal belief interfere with a post. Kind of a habit of mine in this one, I guess. Please do not take the above as something personal. It's just my problem with one aspect of faith that most will never encounter. And it really doesn't have much to do with what Rayne said at all. :D :cool: I agree that many missionaries do take advantage of people. I will not get deeply into the "missions" aspect of this due to the fact that I would be stepping out of line of what I know. All i can say about it is that I feel, that you are putting all missionaries in a giant group that goes out and converts people, which I feel is not true. At my church they take mission trips to Haiti every year (wish I actually had the money to go, lol) and their main job is not to "convert" people. What they do over there, from what the people have told me, is talk to others over there that are already christian. They help with cleanup, building, moving, farming, whatever they can. In fact there is a Voodoo temple right down the road from the mission. From what I have heard the too groups have a somewhat mutual agreement not to bother each other and so they kinda get along. I guess that is all I can really say about missions since I do not know very much about them and have never been on one. And I can not say if (and dont feel like you can either, no offence Zombie) if they would go to another religion first. Again I see where you are coming from Zombie and do not agree nor do I disagree. I mean no offence from my statement and took none from yours. :D |
| Zombie_Babies05-07-08, 03:51 PM | :cool: I agree that many missionaries do take advantage of people. I will not get deeply into the "missions" aspect of this due to the fact that I would be stepping out of line of what I know. All i can say about it is that I feel, that you are putting all missionaries in a giant group that goes out and converts people, which I feel is not true. At my church they take mission trips to Haiti every year (wish I actually had the money to go, lol) and their main job is not to "convert" people. What they do over there, from what the people have told me, is talk to others over there that are already christian. They help with cleanup, building, moving, farming, whatever they can. In fact there is a Voodoo temple right down the road from the mission. From what I have heard the too groups have a somewhat mutual agreement not to bother each other and so they kinda get along. I guess that is all I can really say about missions since I do not know very much about them and have never been on one. And I can not say if (and dont feel like you can either, no offence Zombie) if they would go to another religion first. Again I see where you are coming from Zombie and do not agree nor do I disagree. I mean no offence from my statement and took none from yours. :D I should have been more clear in my statements. I did not mean to imply that all mission workers are of that sort. Not at all. But the fact that some are (or even were) is enough to be a problem. I still do believe that in a lot of the cases I was talking about that it's just a matter of who helps them. The mind is an easy thing to manipulate, even unintentionally, and one in that state could easily be "taught" whatever message the teacher chooses. When we consider how similar religions are at first glance, you can see why I think it would simply be a matter of who's preaching. But, as you stated, I can't know. Call it faith, then. ;) Missionary work is important and the help these people provide cannot be discounted. The job is more difficult than some realize, however. Again, this is personal stuff I'm going on about. I loathe the fact that so many indigenous people of so many lands were "helped" into abandoning their faiths. Think of the Native Americans. Think of the Celts. What was done to them in this regard was a type of wrong that should not be forgotten. And the loss is not something that only they should feel- we should as well. It is our world, after all, and losing these faiths (mostly) has taken something from us all. I also happen to disagree with the Westernization of indigenous peoples. Tribal peoples should be left to their own devices in their own lands. So, it's not just a religious thing for me. And it's obviously something I should shut up about here. :D |
| CurbsideProphet05-07-08, 05:42 PM | I too am a christian, and a member of the military. I remember, as a kid, finding out about RPGs, and my dad telling me I was a little too young. However, when I was about 15, I discovered the Star Wars RPG, and began running the game with 6 christian friends. One of them was incredibly devout, and even her parents had no problem. Skip forward to two weeks ago. One of the junior Sailors in my Department asked me if I was a christian. I said yes, and I've been getting razzed about it every day from him since. A few other people in the Dept. have asked if I was, and when I said yes, they didn't care, but this guy really seems to be on my back about it. He wondered how it is I can be "one of those D&D geeks" (I kept about a dozen or so RPG books in my drawer at work when we were over in the Gulf), and be a Christian. I simply told him that it's ridiculous for anyone to believe that D&D is evil. |
| Mr_Seth05-07-08, 10:50 PM | I'm a devout lutheran myself. My first real GM is catholic, and most of the other people I've played with have been, in fact, Christian. My parents were none too pleased about my early interest in the game - a fact that stemmed from an incident with my uncle, which I won't get into too far here. In all honesty, I can see where "the incident" would have put them off of the game, though... and the barrage of negative publicity towards D&D in Texas during the 80's (where we lived at the time) didn't exactly help. Since then, I've been published in Dragon, been a part of several campaigns, and had no conflicts with my spiritual life. And I've only met one person who has assumed that my involvement with gaming meant I was a satanist... a fellow who was standing on a street corner screaming bible verses at passing cars. (For those of you that live up north, no, he wasn't a hobo. It's something that the more legalistic baptist/pentacostal churches down here do every now and then. It's sort of surreal, especially if you didn't grow up in the bible belt, but ultimately harmless.) |
| RayneDarkShadow1305-07-08, 11:10 PM | But, as you stated, I can't know. Call it faith, then. ;) :D Wonderous play on words, I *clap x12* for you on that one. :clap: I see your point and the world does get rid of relgion and culture. But you cant hold on to them forever lol. Someone more powerful, whatever kind of power that is, will always come in and screw you over (native americans and celts respectivly). I agree with that, and with your statement of it being wrong. Its just one of those things that has gone on forever and will continue to go on forever. Lol, just sitting here i realized why I love America so much. We can have arguments like ours, without getting out of hand, and end up agreeing to a degree. We both have our views and it is perfectly fine. Lol, something else that just popped into my head is a fact about America and missions. More people are being sent to the U.S. to theach about Christianity than the U.S. is sending to other places! Weird considering we "supposedly" are the most Christian nation on the planet. Just a little thought :D |
| kelvinaw27305-08-08, 06:50 AM | Lol, something else that just popped into my head is a fact about America and missions. More people are being sent to the U.S. to theach about Christianity than the U.S. is sending to other places! Weird considering we "supposedly" are the most Christian nation on the planet. Just a little thought :D Well you are the most religious developed nation in the world (ironically it is here in the UK, where we have an official state religion [Anglican] that we are the most secular), and are largely Christian, but not perhaps the most religious nation in total. I believe that a lot of churches in less developed nations consider Christianity in the US to be corrupt, so perhaps they are sending people over to show you how to do it right ... Zombie Babies, I applaud your stance. As a Celt, I am in touch with my pagan roots! :w00t: |
| RayneDarkShadow1305-08-08, 07:45 AM | Well you are the most religious developed nation in the world (ironically it is here in the UK, where we have an official state religion [Anglican] that we are the most secular), and are largely Christian, but not perhaps the most religious nation in total. I believe that a lot of churches in less developed nations consider Christianity in the US to be corrupt, so perhaps they are sending people over to show you how to do it right ... Zombie Babies, I applaud your stance. As a Celt, I am in touch with my pagan roots! :w00t: Very well said. Kinda what I was trying to get across but for some reason the rght words would not come to me :embarrass but I completly agree with your statement:) |
| Zombie_Babies05-08-08, 10:04 AM | Wonderous play on words, I *clap x12* for you on that one. :clap: I see your point and the world does get rid of relgion and culture. But you cant hold on to them forever lol. Someone more powerful, whatever kind of power that is, will always come in and screw you over (native americans and celts respectivly). I agree with that, and with your statement of it being wrong. Its just one of those things that has gone on forever and will continue to go on forever. Lol, just sitting here i realized why I love America so much. We can have arguments like ours, without getting out of hand, and end up agreeing to a degree. We both have our views and it is perfectly fine. Lol, something else that just popped into my head is a fact about America and missions. More people are being sent to the U.S. to theach about Christianity than the U.S. is sending to other places! Weird considering we "supposedly" are the most Christian nation on the planet. Just a little thought :D Not much to say here. Just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the discussion as well. Good stuff. |
| Zombie_Babies05-08-08, 10:12 AM | Zombie Babies, I applaud your stance. As a Celt, I am in touch with my pagan roots! :w00t: While I'm only 1/4 Irish, something about that Celtic Cross really chaps my ass. :D Subterfuge for enlightenment, I guess. Oh well. Dammit. I said I was done! ;) Though I do have issues with organized religion, I must state the following. This week I went to a funeral for my Step-Grandmother (my Grandpa remarried after his first wife passed away). To see the aid that a very religious ceremony like a Catholic funeral actually provides to the people that believe (and those that do not) is a fantastic reminder of the good faith can do. When done "right", there's not much that can compete with the healing power I was again witness to. |
| Germund05-08-08, 11:58 AM | I am a very infrequent reader, end even more infrequent poster to the Wizards boards, but I find this discussion interesting. I am a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) and play with a Christian group (either Evangelicals or "post church"). What I find interesting about our group is that our faith and love of the game creates some very interesting interaction. I love theology, and really enjoy a game where I can explore theological concepts through fantasy/sci fi (Cordwainer Smith and Gene Wolfe are two of my favorite authors there). Others in the group use the game to explore their "dark sides" and do things they would never do in real life. Others are there just for the game. Earlier in the forum it was mentioned about running a game with a monotheistic religion. I tried this in one of my campaigns, I used FR's Ao as the God (Ao is reminiscent of Alpha and Omega, a biblical description of God). It didn't really work out too well, the main issue is that I found it difficult to describe my faith in game terms - my faith is too real to me to "play" it, and it doesn't lend itself well to allegory or the exploration of theology. It becomes too literal. Over the years I have stumbled across some attempts by Christians to make a "Christian RPG". The result was pretty painful. DragonRaid was the first I discovered, one has to recite Bible verses from memory to "cast a spell". Another one I don't remember the name of, (fortuantely) was a free download where the PC's were agents of the church in the middle ages, and had to hunt down and kill all the monsters who were agents of Satan. It claimed to use the "historical church" as it's backdrop, but I couldn't stomach it long enough to see how historical (or not) it really was. As far as the modern idea that one should keep his/her religion to him/herself, I have an issue with that, religion is a part of who one is, and though most of us don't stand on streetcorners preaching, it does (or should) come out in how we live. Perhaps how we live shows what we truly believe, not what we say we believe. St. Francis of Assissi (sp?) has a good quote in this regard, "preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words." I hope my intrusion here causes none of the long awaited division, rancor, and flaming that has been prophesied. |
| 1 ton ghost05-08-08, 12:04 PM | Just some observations and/or thoughts: -About the Muslim/X-ian exchange from our serviceman gamer, you handled it admirably. Guessing you're an officer given your degree of tact, duty. Nj. Funny how they have Christian churches in Iraq and they are kept "in line" per Shiite and Sunni numbers, whereas in Saudi Arabia, the seat of Islam, only game in town is Islam, no other churches allowed. It is in the later that we are more or less acknowledged as good business partners, but our Western faiths are prohibited, but in the former we're reviled yet our faiths have a towhold. -Conversion process; consider why Islam is so prolific in the Middle East and North Africa. During its advent, the term "convert or die" came to be. Rule through respect wasn't as easy as rule through fear. Slowly becoming that way again IMO too, but in a secular capacity. Still, violence worked. It's not to say alot of Jews on the business end of a hot poker didn't face the same principle during the Inquisition or plenty of Protestants being burned as heretics in largely Catholic areas. -The Muslim mentorship/conversion; is more or less like our (my) own. Like I said, most of the major tenets of most major faiths are the same. Even Bin Laden offered to be Bush's "teacher" to the path of Islam to sate the war. Obligated to offer your enemy the chance at a willing conversion. It's just, I would question my teacher's credentials as a wise mentor when his/her resume lists murder as a highlight. -Like the faiths themselves, the clergy and worshipers are largely the same too. It's the ones that use blood and fire rhetoric that get air time on TV. Fear makes for a good motivator and good ratings... There was an Iranian comic I saw during the start of the war. Funny guy, normal standup bit on Comedy Central. He basically said, "American conceptualization of Islam is more or less slandered by Fox News/CNN. You only put the guy waving a bloody knife and screaming in the streets on camera for your piece. That would be like us turning on Al-Jazeera and seeing a grand wizard of the KKK as a 'fair and impartial' representation of Christianity." -They should redefine or rename "pagan". Technically, it means anything non-Christian technically. That's everything basically. It's Latin, pagani, n. "farmer" being a rough translation according to my professor. They called them (non-Christians at the unpersecuted rise of Christendom during Roman empire) that as they didn't live in the city. That is to say, rural dwellers, namely farmers, were largely uneducated w/out the benefits of formal schooling in urban centers, a bit xenophobic and superstitious, and clung to the old ways of the empire's former polytheistic (read, cannibalized Greek) pantheon. Pagan became derogratory in the same capacity that one of us might call someone a bumpkin or redneck in their stubborn, if not, illogical fervor given unwillingness to acknowledge new things, in this case, the empire's new religion. Essentially, they were seen as provincial simpletons. Ironically, now a' days, a great many of these "rednecks" are diehard Christians that live in rural communities and slander, if not openly persecute other religions. Circle of life... Unusual that some of the bloodiest and most savage cultures, namely the Celts and Vikings of old, were some of the largest proponents of Christianity. Ireland and Scandanavia particularly have an inordinate amount of churches there. Not alot of forced conversions going on then. Just small delegations of missionararies, not hosts of soldiers, that's the state's $ and men, not hte church's. Typically, those missionaries that tried the heavy handed approaches died horrible deaths. Sets a pretty good standard when you teach or lead by example as other posters more eloquently stated rather than the join us or die routine. |
| Zombie_Babies05-08-08, 12:20 PM | It is true that not all conversion attempts were as heavy handed as others. But the Celts in particular bring up a more insideous form. The Celtic Cross was created to intertwine pagan symbols with Christian ones. Holidays were also similarly combined to foster a feeling of trust from the Celts so that they would be more ready to convert. And to do so feeling that they chose to. The reality, however, was that they were tricked into it, in a way. The combinations were done to pull them in and to allow the church to eventually discard the combined symbols and holidays for pure church ones. Why was this done? To facilitate a bloodless eradication of the pagan faiths. This was a calculated decision and implemented as a plan. It's purpose was to provide a false sense of acceptance to the people it converted. It was not leading by example to allow an educated decision on the part of the Celts. This was set up to make the Celts believe that they would be allowed to keep their religious traditions when the goal was to eradicate them. The reason these religions are so prominent in the region now (Catholicism, Protestantism) is because so many were tricked into espousing them. It is accurate, of course, to point to them today as the religions of the region. The people that worship now were indoctrinated in more proper fashion- choice, family tradition, etc. Their predecessors were not so lucky. |
| 1 ton ghost05-08-08, 12:57 PM | Ah, man... And you were doing so well. :weep: There is so much that could be said in a logical, secular response/retort that woudl be more illuminating, but I don't know if I'm the man for that job now given the circumstances. |
| kelvinaw27305-08-08, 12:57 PM | It is true that not all conversion attempts were as heavy handed as others. But the Celts in particular bring up a more insideous form. The Celtic Cross was created to intertwine pagan symbols with Christian ones. Holidays were also similarly combined to foster a feeling of trust from the Celts so that they would be more ready to convert. And to do so feeling that they chose to. The reality, however, was that they were tricked into it, in a way. The combinations were done to pull them in and to allow the church to eventually discard the combined symbols and holidays for pure church ones. Why was this done? To facilitate a bloodless eradication of the pagan faiths. This was a calculated decision and implemented as a plan. It's purpose was to provide a false sense of acceptance to the people it converted. It was not leading by example to allow an educated decision on the part of the Celts. This was set up to make the Celts believe that they would be allowed to keep their religious traditions when the goal was to eradicate them. The reason these religions are so prominent in the region now (Catholicism, Protestantism) is because so many were tricked into espousing them. It is accurate, of course, to point to them today as the religions of the region. The people that worship now were indoctrinated in more proper fashion- choice, family tradition, etc. Their predecessors were not so lucky. I will further point out that the Celtic Church, the Church of the Culdees, was the one that presided over the conversion of the celts, and they themselves were then the targets of the papal church for their various customs, such as allowing priests to marry, that were at odds with catholic teachings. The Culdees were eventually given the options of joining the catholic church or being branded heretics (and branding was only the start). Not surprisingly, most opted to join. On the subject of names, the term Heathen was also used to refer to the followers of the pre-Christian religions as they were 'of the heath' or not of the towns where the churches were. From the perspective of the medieval Christian mind, there were two forces in the world: God and Satan. Anyone not a Christian was a Pagan, and if not actively misguided they were also a devil-worshipper. They drew no distinction between a Muslim from the middle east, a travelling Jew or a Pagan from their own country - all were Pagans. In modern usage, Pagan or more accurately Neo-Pagan refers to a practitioner of reconstructed pre-Christian belief systems of north-western Europe. In comparison with it's size, the proportional grown of neo-Paganism is the fastest of any religion in the western hemisphere (the one we have statistics for). |
| Plemmons05-08-08, 01:03 PM | Interestingly, some of the more heavy-handed attempts to convert people backfired stupendously. Specifically, I'm thinking of three very similar new-world religions which were createdin the Americas, even though their component parts came from Europe and Africa - Candomble in Brazil, Vo-Dun (VooDoo) in the Caribbean, and Santaria in the Southern US (apologies if I misspelled any of that, today's the last day of finals and my brain is shutting down for the summer already). All three were attempts to convert African slaves to Catholicism, and all three look on the surface fairly similar to Catholicism. Just beneath the surface, though, these religions are much, much more akin to their other parent religion, the tribal religion of the Yoruba. I know about these mainly because they're religions with a strong musical aspect, and I took a Latin American ethnomusicology course. |
| Germund05-08-08, 01:31 PM | I was out of line and off topic, and for anyone who read my post I apologize. I don't know how to delete this post, so I just edited in an apology. |
| itreeby05-08-08, 04:26 PM | It has magic? Wow... what version of the books is he reading? All my books have are ink and paper. *sigh* has magic as in: the plot is heavily centered on magic/ don't spend your time thinking about that crap. |
| RayneDarkShadow1305-08-08, 04:34 PM | I was out of line and off topic, and for anyone who read my post I apologize. I don't know how to delete this post, so I just edited in an apology. I find nothing to apologize for :) I did not feel that you were out of line in any way. It seemed to me that you just stated your opinion. :D |
| 1 ton ghost05-09-08, 12:12 PM | I was out of line and off topic, and for anyone who read my post I apologize. I don't know how to delete this post, so I just edited in an apology. You're kidding, right? You have nothing to apologize for, if anything, you contribution has only driven this/us a bit further. Not seeing the guilt here IMIO. :confused: Moving on. As for the spreading of faiths, stewardship, evangelizing, or prosylization are what you want to look to. Same concepts in all religions. Some view it as a spiritual duty in the same manner Jehova's Witnesses come to your door to "have a minute of your time" (always interesting to see their reactions when I tell them I'm a Lutheran PK, game, have interests outside "normative ranges), others see it as a courtesy, a gift to your fellow man I suppose. Whatever you want to call it, doesn't matter. And of course, there are those that will use force of arms. It's like human nature, go forth and multiply and all that. It's just, w/ religion and/or spiritualism, if you find it to be beneficial, and most are in that they better humanity as a whole, you might want to share your little secret. "When a (wo)man leads and extraordinary life, he has no right to keep it to (her)himself" is kinda' where I'm going w/ this. In game (you didn't think it would be all fluff did you?), I think this should be largely expressed as varying class skills and the like. More options. Not all clerics, adepts, and the like are the same. Diplomacy is largely the tool of the trade for preaching to the masses and spreading the faith, is it not? Now, a healthy delivery of Knowledge Religion might reveal the existential mysteries that many find attractive, identify w/, and then cause them to join. Many great theologians that weren't "people persons". However, I can think of many religious leaders that weren't/aren't good examples (IMO) of their faiths that were/are masters at public speaking/expression/etc; (Sharpton, Farrakhan, many popes, most of Hezbollah, al Sadr, many deMedicis in the papacy, etc). Could go on and on. Sense Motive; pretty much the staple for the Sacrament of Confession (if you're Catholic), not to mention a slew of other religious aspects and FX. Inquisitions, rooting out heresy, etc. Alot of room here. How can you measure a (wo)man's heart w/out it? Prying into his mind via Divination magic is kinda' unlawful (violating civil rights in some cases) and not moral. I mean, all the clergy I knew/know have to be good at grief/bereavement, crisis, and marriage counseling. Preaching on Sundays if just the tip of the iceberg. Trust me, it's very stressful and wares you thin at times, but can be very rewarding, like a doctor I suppose. You're saving lives, albeit, spiritual ones, Sense Motive is definetly the tool to get there. Intimidate of course for more martially minded types. Not winning many over this way, but defenders of the faith isn't necessarilly a book title, you know? Bluff, cuz' in some cases, moral flexibility are in play, not necessarilly good though. Etc., etc. For what it's worth, Chondathan Missionary (Races of Faerun) might shed some light on an otherwise big grey area here. I'm just of the opinion that some skills remain, some change as no 2 clerics are the same. Certain domains change the skills, it stands to reason that the heart of the faith, not a domain, would have more clout and convincing power. Perhaps trade one class skill for another. Balance is key in game as well as out here, you know? Still don't feel that clerics as a whole get enough skill points. I mean, they were the 2nd caste traditionally. Living monastic lives, formal schooling was made available to them, certain knowledges and specific skills/talents/etc are there's alone, basically, alot of emphasis set on the cerebral end of things. Yet they get a paltry 2+Int...after insuring your basics, it leaves very little. :( |
| kelvinaw27305-09-08, 01:01 PM | "When a (wo)man leads and extraordinary life, he has no right to keep it to (her)himself" is kinda' where I'm going w/ this. I always felt that if your life was extraordinary, you wouldn't need to publicise the fact and people would be coming to you to ask your secret. |
| 1 ton ghost05-09-08, 01:38 PM | I always felt that if your life was extraordinary, you wouldn't need to publicise the fact and people would be coming to you to ask your secret. You're not publicizing anything, that implies personal ego and essentially, a fool's game. I do not recall saying "publicize" either. Please quote correctly, or if unclear to the original meaning, ask for clarification and I will humbly oblige you. The posts don't necessarilly do language its full justice in their conveyance of meaning, tone, or general information. So we gotta' help each out to that end. No biggie. What I wished to imply or state was that when you have found spiritual enlightenment/peace/whatever (a considerable boon or gift) that was otherwise unavailable normally, you should share that possibility w/ the masses so that they to might enjoy the benefits as well. That is to say, life's little pleaures are better shared, right? But if you keep it all to yourself, it's kinda' selfish and kills the majesty of the inner message that most religions hold paramount, karmic goodwill, etc. Hence the abundance of religious text and the like as 1 example. You know what a big deal it was for the Bible and other texts to be printed in common languages let alone using movable type to get there? No one was forcing it on anyway, the means were simply there for people to read what was otherwise unavailable to them. Someone had to share their vision to put it in German, English, whatever, cuz' most serfs weren't too savvy w/ Latin, you know? By doing this, that let the individual decide for themselves what the text meant for them, rather than someone else's interpretation. You've given them the gift of free will and clarity is all in this example. And if they don't want to read it, so be it, but they have the choice. How can you decide for yourself what's right for you in you can't even understand the message, or secret as you say, in the "basic instructions" for lack of a better word? In other cases, consider the Qaballah and it logistical highlights. That fostered alot of relgious and secular growth. The spread of Islam helped Western civilization discover the number "10" from the Moors. That's pretty basic, right? Zen meditation, Suffism, etc., all had forms of great insight and benefit both physically, spiritually, and mentally that were "shared". The point is, if you look at it as a gift, and to me, everything is Gift (there is no entitlement, it was given to us), you should share that bounty. Keeping it to yourself dishonors the spirit of the blessing and benefits no one. In fact, it slowly perverts you for your greed and selfishness. You said "secret". If it were a secret, how would people know this and come to seek you out? Essentially, what I'm saying is, great religious figures are not only teachers, but messengers. If no one gets the message, no one gets the information therein. Whether you use said info or not is up to you as it should be, but to be denied the basic premise is pretty sketchy IMO. |
| kelvinaw27305-09-08, 02:03 PM | You're not publicizing anything, that implies personal ego and essentially, a fool's game. I do not recall saying "publicize" either. Please quote correctly, or if unclear to the original meaning, ask for clarification and I will humbly oblige you. The posts don't necessarilly do language its full justice in their conveyance of meaning, tone, or general information. So we gotta' help each out to that end. No biggie. What I wished to imply or state was that when you have found spiritual enlightenment/peace/whatever (a considerable boon or gift) that was otherwise unavailable normally, you should share that possibility w/ the masses so that they to might enjoy the benefits as well. That is to say, life's little pleaures are better shared, right? But if you keep it all to yourself, it's kinda' selfish and kills the majesty of the inner message that most religions hold paramount, karmic goodwill, etc. Hence the abundance of religious text and the like as 1 example. You know what a big deal it was for the Bible and other texts to be printed in common languages let alone using movable type to get there? No one was forcing it on anyway, the means were simply there for people to read what was otherwise unavailable to them. Someone had to share their vision to put it in German, English, whatever, cuz' most serfs weren't too savvy w/ Latin, you know? By doing this, that let the individual decide for themselves what the text meant for them, rather than someone else's interpretation. You've given them the gift of free will and clarity is all in this example. And if they don't want to read it, so be it, but they have the choice. How can you decide for yourself what's right for you in you can't even understand the message, or secret as you say, in the "basic instructions" for lack of a better word? In other cases, consider the Qaballah and it logistical highlights. That fostered alot of relgious and secular growth. The spread of Islam helped Western civilization discover the number "10" from the Moors. That's pretty basic, right? Zen meditation, Suffism, etc., all had forms of great insight and benefit both physically, spiritually, and mentally that were "shared". The point is, if you look at it as a gift, and to me, everything is Gift (there is no entitlement, it was given to us), you should share that bounty. Keeping it to yourself dishonors the spirit of the blessing and benefits no one. In fact, it slowly perverts you for your greed and selfishness. You said "secret". If it were a secret, how would people know this and come to seek you out? Essentially, what I'm saying is, great religious figures are not only teachers, but messengers. If no one gets the message, no one gets the information therein. Whether you use said info or not is up to you as it should be, but to be denied the basic premise is pretty sketchy IMO. :cookie: Good answer. The common mistake made (in my view) when people have such an epiphany of understanding is that they assume that because they have discover A truth, they have therefore discovered THE truth, and get frustrated when others don't understand, or understand but do not agree (I've been there from both sides). I believe in leading by example, and I find for me the best method of helping others to attain their own spiritual epiphany is not to proselytise my beliefs, but to illuminate those of others - we are after all, individuals. If their evolving ideas move in the direction of my own, then I'll talk more in depth about them then. To put it simply, I would rather a person expanded their views to encompass the spiritual in their own way, that may be a direction I don't follow, than try to show them my way, and fail to move them at all. If they are going to progress in my direction, they won't need to hear me tell them that first. |
| Renown005-09-08, 03:56 PM | Everyone in my gaming group is Mormon. Yes, Mormons are Christian. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-09-08, 07:47 PM | Over the years I have stumbled across some attempts by Christians to make a "Christian RPG". The result was pretty painful. Have you encountered the Frank E Peretti books? I think one was called "This Present Darkness" and was very popular at one stage. In the first book, the act of christians praying acted as a sort of power-up for the (literal) angels. In the second book, that whole aspect was toned down considerably - maybe someone explained to him that it was utterly unbiblical. In any event, that worldview of the first book would possibly make an interesting game mechanic. It certainly fits my experience as a fundie christian - doesn't matter so much what you pray about, so long as you feel that your are exerting yourself doing it. Almost grunting with effort. Some "great intercessors" would take centre stage at the prayer meetings. Most would just pray in tongues at a moderate volume for the two to four hours that the meetings went. And we'd always score a great victory against the forces of Satan ... or everyone would say so, anyway. Pastor W once pointed out to me that all the women into intercessory prayer were either single/divorced or had weak husbands. He was telling me, in code, that these intercessory prayers simply needed a good root. However: maybe there's stuff from the book of erotic fantasy that could be used in a game mechanic centering around intercessory prayer powering-up the angels - sublimating your sex points into spiritual power, using sexual vampirism to steal sex points and using them for power. it would fit the Peretti fantasy worldview perfectly. Another interesting mechanic is the naive RC concept of sin vs. grace, a curiously quantitative notion. Your soul is like a bucket that can contain sin or grace. The two cancel each other out - if you have sin in your soul bucket, then you have to put grace in it via holy communion, doing penance, or other ways of producing grace. If you have excess sin in your bucket when you die, you go to purgatory so that your sufferings there create grace, until it is all cancelled out. If you have excess grace, you go straight to heaven and the excess gets put in a big vat, which the pope can dole out by issuing indulgences. Mother Teresa is an interesting case. She kept sick and poor people in horrid accommodations without proper medical care, because their suffering was "precious". She was farming them for grace, like ants farm aphids. She was also kicking back millions - literally - of dollars a year to the Vatican. Mother Teresa was not interested in money - she was interested in accumulating enough grace from the suffering of others to secure a good spot in heaven. Now there's a role-playing villain of the first order! A real BBEG! She'd use the excess grace from the suffering of those indian poor to power-up the "angels" working for her, and the PCs would have to put a stop to it - either spiritually or in the material world. Will they use political maneuvering? Publicity? Assassination is a bad idea - it will only allow her to ascend. Maybe arranging for some real medical care so as to reduce the suffering of her aphids and choking off the flow of grace? Maybe doing that temporarily, and then launching an assault in the spirit realm - spells and magic, oh my! How do you manage - in game - the ties between the material, the spiritual, and that layer that ties the two together: human activity? Spirit combat is easy - you could just use standard D&D, with spells and everything. The normal material world becomes the D&D etheral or shadow plane. Combat and spellcasting there may potentially create paranormal effects in the real world, but not obviously. As far as the modern idea that one should keep his/her religion to him/herself, It's a bit earlier than "modern". It's an enlightenment period idea. All the notions of that period were conditioned by the recent memory of bloody religous wars. The only reason peace broke out was that so many common people had died that there was no-one left to till the soil. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-09-08, 08:03 PM | Funny how they have Christian churches in Iraq and they are kept "in line" per Shiite and Sunni numbers, whereas in Saudi Arabia, the seat of Islam, only game in town is Islam Prior to the US invasion and occupation, Iraq was a secular state - the Ba'ath party was (and is) a secular party. Saddam Hussein kept the muslim factions on a leash (although the Sunnis were the ruling party), and there was room for people to be Shia or Christian or even nonreligious as they chose. They had science and archaeology and were a modern state. I'd be unsurprised to find jews in pre-invasion Iraq too - Islam was always more accommodating of Jewry than Christendom, at least until modern times. The only thing you couldn't be was a political rival or critic of Saddam Hussein. Of course, the invasion swept away all that. No more schools for girls now. No christians or jews (apart from the US forces, obviously) - and the cities and country are divided up by religious faction. Shias in the Sunni parts of town get killed, and vica-versa. War swiftly reduces everyone involved to barbarism. |
| Alter_Boy05-09-08, 11:09 PM | Christian Player. I don't think they put that much thought into it. I mean, we're talking about the kind of people that brought us 'Harry Potter promotes witchcraft!' Thinking seems to be low on their list of priorities. ;) What really burns my britches is not how evil something is, but how POPULAR it is. Was D&D more evil in the '80s, or was it attacked because it was popular then? Dork Tower did a fun strip where a bunch of RPGers grew resentful that Pokemon was being burnt on a bonfire, and not one person cared about D&D anymore "But I'm very evil!" ;) So yeah. I feel, as a Christian, you should oppose evil no matter its popularity, and embrace good things, no matter how inconvinient it might be. |
| Okinawa3d05-10-08, 02:02 AM | Prior to the US invasion and occupation, Iraq was a secular state - the Ba'ath party was (and is) a secular party. Saddam Hussein kept the muslim factions on a leash (although the Sunnis were the ruling party), and there was room for people to be Shia or Christian or even nonreligious as they chose. They had science and archaeology and were a modern state. I'd be unsurprised to find jews in pre-invasion Iraq too - Islam was always more accommodating of Jewry than Christendom, at least until modern times. The only thing you couldn't be was a political rival or critic of Saddam Hussein. Of course, the invasion swept away all that. No more schools for girls now. No christians or jews (apart from the US forces, obviously) - and the cities and country are divided up by religious faction. Shias in the Sunni parts of town get killed, and vica-versa. War swiftly reduces everyone involved to barbarism. My comments on this subject may cross the line of discussion, but I feel it necessary to correct what is being said by the writer. (This response is not meant to spark a debate on the virtues of one faith versus another.) It is true that for the most part Iraq was a secular state before the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the ruling Ba’ath party, but what the write does not mention is the fact that all (not some) members of this party were Muslim…now the degree to which they practiced their faith is one that I am unsure, but membership required elegancy to Mohammad, the Prophet. The Christian members of the Iraqi society are considered dhimmis and are therefore considered protected/guilty (in Arabic the word has both meanings), unlike other faiths that are considered peagans and idolaters. They were allowed to practice their faith, but under very restricted conditions that placed them in a position of second class citizen. They are also required to pay the jizya (poll tax) for not practicing Islam, if they failed to do so there property could be ceased at any time in accordance with Qur’an 9:29. This tax and sever restriction on faith cause many individuals to convert to Islam not out of a true sense of faith, but instead to maintain both property and livelihood. So the statement that Jews (I never saw or heard of a practicing Jew while in Iraq) and Christians were somehow treated better in modern times is the view of the oppressors, not the oppressed. These schools that the write talks about where in existence, but segregated based on gender. (The penalty for homosexuals in much of the Middle East is death….meaning dead.) The schools existed primarily in the larger cities and were afforded to the wealthy. If you drove outside the city limits you were likely to see women dressed in full length black outfits showing only their eyes. American Soldiers/Marines were instructed not to make eye contact with these women for fear that somehow the husband could take offense and kill his wife for dishonoring him…so much for progress. This conduct is fact, not fiction…women are property and may be dealt with as the owner pleases. Now we can have debates on the need for war in Iraq. I have experienced “war” and I believe it is the Soldier who truly prays for peace, because we are the ones who see its true impact…not just a picture on a TV or story in a newspaper. War is an instrument of foreign policy and one can only hope that war is only ever the last resort. So this was not meant to spark a debate on the war in Iraq…instead it was to show that things were not “good” in Iraq before the American/Coalition…32 Countries participated, I know some would discount this as simply a publicity stunt, but I wonder if those individuals who fought for their countries considered it simply a PR stunt? No country is without is black eyes, the United States is seen by many as the “evil empire.” This is a reputation that is some cases is deserved, and in others in error. Our nation spends more money than any other nation in the world to help the needy….I am talking gross donations by both government and non-profit organizations. Could we do more? Should we do more? Does the money really help those in need? Many questions….and this is not the forum for discussion. I hope I did not offend any reader…if so I apologize. We all need to look at what we believe and test it against what is “right.” (Another discussion in and of itself) |
| 1 ton ghost05-10-08, 01:08 PM | Prior to the US invasion and occupation, Iraq was a secular state - the Ba'ath party was (and is) a secular party. Ah, the benefits of a military dictatorship and armed suppression of the people you are supposed to rule over and protect. Perhaps this is why so many other Middle Eastern nations reviled them. I find it interesting that right after the Islamic Revolution in '79 (Iran, a largely religious state), Iraq and Iran immediately went to war from '80-'88, w/ Hussein blatantly using WMD's, in a few cases, VX (cyanide) Nerve Gas (see Karbala during Iranian occupation) in addition to gassing his own people and Kurds in the North. Perhaps it was inevitable (the war) given the Shiite majority, but Sunni rule and Iran being predominately Shiite too. Who knows, the point was it was secular in motivation and horribly bloody. Then, 2 short years later, another massive military buildup ($ that could've been spent on his own people) to invade Kuwait (most oil flows down the Saudi Peninsula), and we step in at Kuwaiti request, but namely to insure our own interests too. And here we are now... However, Ba'ath membership isn't solely secular. It has a religious veneer in some portions, but power in the only endgame, albeit, ruthless in their acquisition. I would highly advise you to read Okinawa3d's posts as they are more or less from the source and impartial. I think he's the only one on here that's actually been in that neck of the woods and therefor has the most XP. Saddam Hussein kept the muslim factions on a leash (although the Sunnis were the ruling party), and there was room for people to be Shia or Christian or even nonreligious as they chose. "Leash", yes, a bullet in the head and tidy disposal in the desert has a good editorial effect on dissenters. They're still finding mass graves all over Iraq. Typically, rule through fear vs. respect seems to be the way things are done there. Not many Christians there, but they exist. A popular target for extremists during the outbreak too. Actually, not long ago, a week or so, a Christian bishop was assassinated there (drive-by I think). How does this help "liberate Iraq"? It doesn't, just an extension of stuid ppl w/ weapons. I found the tax Okinawa3d mentioned to be particularly interesting. They did this in the Holy Land too during the Crusades. Muslims were allowed to worship in Christian European holdings (before Jerusalem was captured I think), Jews were there too, everything was cool. But, of course, people in power out of touch w/ what the real scene is made/do make foolish decisions and well, you know how the rest goes... Jews in pre-invasion Iraq too - Islam was always more accommodating of Jewry than Christendom, at least until modern times. The only thing you couldn't be was a political rival or critic of Saddam Hussein. "Jewry"? I don't know about that. Perhaps a few in Iraq, mostly in secret I'm guessing. They're not well liked at best. Al-Jazeera openly slanders them. Muslim nations are often polarized against Judaism, Israel particularly, when they aren't brutalizing each other. Why do you think Saddam immediately launched Scud missles into Tel Aviv in the 1st Gulf War? We begged and pleaded for the Israelis to just "hang back" and not retaliate as that woudl draw in more Islamic forces and make the whole mess worse. Remember the Patriot missle arrays we sent them to shoot down the Scuds and Bush (senior) in his PR shots w/ New England Patriots ball caps all around and trying like Hell to get Israel to play ball? Scary time to be Israeli too, they didn't know if it would go chemical/biological either as he did in fact have them and had used them in a 1st strike capacity in the past too. Hussein was baiting the Israelis to join the fight so he could enlist other Muslim countries to rally to his cause under religious pretext. Simple, but evil as Hell. No longer a political thing. Same thing Bin Laden and many others do. Declare jihad and try to get "all good Muslims" to do "the right thing" rather than deliver their platforms w/ diplomacy and normal political means. Most of them are just like us and just want to work their jobs, raise families, and worship the way they are comfortable w/, not worry about getting vaporized at the checkout line in the market from a bomb. Of course, the invasion swept away all that. No more schools for girls now. No christians or jews (apart from the US forces, obviously) - and the cities and country are divided up by religious faction. Shias in the Sunni parts of town get killed, and vica-versa. War swiftly reduces everyone involved to barbarism. You might want to check your sources again. Alot of things have gone sour, but I namely levy blame against poor administrative stategy that the military was forced to execute. Namely Bremer and Rumsfeld disbanding the Iraqi military (nothing like a bunch of angry, recently unemployed men that are armed to the teeth in an unstable country), White House officials not debriefing each other like they should (keeping some in-the-know, others out), and insisting Rumsfeld's "Light Footprint" strategy (abyssmal failure) to Rice's progressive "Clear, Hold, Rebuild" strategy (working) among other shortfalls. How could the best military on the planet be so hamstrung by such an ineffective administration at its control? It's like taking a million dollar sports car and insisting you can take it off roading. They were made for attack and defense, not policing an otherwise hostile nation. Religious divide was, has, and always will be there. Those reactionary elements are only using the chaotic backdrop of this war to reinflame old hostilities as law and order are a relative notion. Alot of this was deliberately orchestrated by insurgent elements. One must remember Iran's (Shiite) finger in this pie (probably still raw about the 80's), Al'Quida being namely Sunni, and a populace that had known nothing but military conquest and brutal suppression for the past few decades. It's hard to stop a train but everyone wants immediate results... |
| twad05-10-08, 02:44 PM | Hi, I was just wondering how many people on this forum are christians? I for one am and love it. WIth all the stereotypical "its the devils game" I was just wondering. im technicaly a christian... and i love the game. Never saw anyone yet that ffits in the "crazy zealot type" religious person nor i ever saw someone ask me if it was "the devil game". Now the question should be.. is anyone here a member of -insert religion here- who is also a gamer? Im curious to see outside the christian population. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-11-08, 05:00 AM | Ah, the benefits of a military dictatorship and armed suppression of the people you are supposed to rule over and protect. Beats me why you take that tone when I am only agreeing with you. Yes: religion is often a bad thing, whether it's muslims in africa engaging in genital mutilation, or christian polygamists in the USA serially raping their granddaughters. I simply made the point that the repression in Iraq was not religious in nature. In pre-invasion Iraq, women could attend schools and universities and walk about with their faces bare, and you could address God by whichever pet name you preferred. Yes, Saddam Hussein shot his countymen wih US-supplied arms, and gassed them with US-supplied VX gas (sold to him by Dick Cheney, VP of Halliburton at the time) - but that's not religious persecution: he was simply doing what every other US-backed CIA glove-puppet does. Up to and including invading his neigbours with tacit US support ... until he decided to attempt to sell oil in euros. Of course, without unlimited amounts of essentially free oil, much of the US military becomes scrap metal, so he got his chain yanked hard. (yes, free. Oil's price is denominated in US dollars, which the pentagon can get unlimited amounts of for nix - witness pallet-loads of the folding green stuff going missing in Iraq, and no-one in uniform giving a damn). Now Iran and Russia are selling oil in euros, and that accounts for the renewed bellicosity from the US. As for your comments about Al-jazeera openly slandering Jews, I don't know, as I am not a regular reader of it like you obviously are. However, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they disapprove of the ethnic cleansing of palestine by the state of Israel. Israel likes people to think that "The State of Israel", and "Jews" are the same thing, so I can understand your confusion. As for the religious divide in islam being inflamed by "insurgent elements", you refer to the Iraqi resistance? I doubt it. I think it's just preachers making a power grab. It's the old story: the old men getting the young men to fight and die, so that there's more money and women left over for them. Bronze-age tribalism at it's best. Read the intro to the book of Job, or the story of Abraham and Isaac, or that of Jephtatah's daughter in Judges to understand how semitic culture values the young (yes, arabs are semitic, far more semitic than israeli jews, who look white IMO). BUT TO GET BACK ON TOPIC The role of oil in all this makes a great - if obvious - campaign theme. You could do the same with Eberron dragonshards - make it impossible to do magic without them, so the whole world geopolitics becomes about sourcing them, in a time when half the dragonshards have already been dug up and used. A time with is the apogee of magical civilisation. Sharn's towers fly, challenging the very gods - but for how long, without a continuous supply of dragonshards to keep them aloft? |
| Okinawa3d05-11-08, 12:30 PM | Continue to read only if you wish to hear my view, understanding that we have left the topic of the forum to a degree. The previous writer has mixed so many half-truths in his comments that I believe it is near impossible to “change” his opinion….because his opinion seems to have been shaped already. Throughout my adult life I have encountered this many times. I believe that too many see the world in black and white and fail to realize that there are shades of gray. (This took me a while to do too.) This does mean that there are not universal truths. Many want to paint the actions of all peoples by the actions/comments of the few. Take the authors slanderous statements about the US military. This seem to be born out of ignorance and failure to understand that we (I am in the US Military) do punish those who violate the law (to a much higher degree and a more consistent degree of fairness than the population at whole……this is easily proven – by the way I am a law major as an undergraduate and have been responsible for the legal actions taken against many.) Do we have mistakes made? Do the guilty sometimes walk? Do we always catch the bad guy? The answer to that is no, but what we do have is a system of justice that is much more racial/gender/ethnicity/etc…blind that many others. So if it seems I take that particular part of the previous authors comments “personally,” there would be some truth to that statement. I would offer that my experience has show me that although we do have some bad apples, as a organization we tend to have no toleration for those who abuse their authority. It will always be the privilege of the protected to criticize the protected in a free society. (BTW, freedom is not free….it has been paid from by the blood of our brothers and sisters throughout history who have fought to maintain it…..from the people who died on the battle field of the civil war to give an entire people the God given freedom given to them by Our Creator to those who die in China trying to simply speak their minds and live their faith….numerous examples all over the world, but rarely is freedom simply given by the oppressor…it is usually taken.) Again, I digress…..the lessons of life sometimes cloud what is read in “books” or seen on “TV” that do not match the reality of what has been seen and experienced. (The number of times I have witnessed an incident only to have seen it portrayed in a manner that is contrary to reality by the news media is simply pathetic.) In saying this I am thankful that not everyone has had the “opportunity” to learn/see some things personally….I am disappointed that too many simply take the words of a “reporter” or “author” as the gospel (Faith) and fail to critically weigh all the evidence presented. I understand that the extremes on both sides will always skew the outcome. (BTW….comparing the genital mutilation of young women in Africa to the actions of religious zealots who are acting in a manner that has been outlawed by the state –the mutilation of the young women in Africa is accepted as “okay” because it is their tradition/religion---is simply misguided) Hopefully we can get back on topic or simply let this thread die. The question was, are their Christian Player out there. Answer yes. Do we all have different view of faith…most likely yes? Will there always be those who disagree on God/Faith/No-Faith….yes. Should that keep us from living in peace…I hope not. So, how can we do our part to help the world a better place…..keep rolling those d20 creating a fantasy story that those who are gather can all fight the common fight and laugh at our common folly. Small steps taken over time lead to many miles walked. |
| pmurray@bigpond.com05-11-08, 06:41 PM | The previous writer has mixed so many half-truths in his comments ... Take the authors slanderous statements about the US military. So many half-truths, that you dare not address them for fear that you get more truth than you might wish. In any case, I hope you don't take my statements above as being "slanderous" of the US military. They barely directed at the military at all. This next bit is slanderous of the US military! I was on the point of posting it yesterday, but the boards went down for maintenence. Read it, and froth at your leisure. How could the best military on the planet be so hamstrung by such an ineffective administration at its control? Oh - I missed this one. Best? Biggest and most expensive, certainly (actually, scratch "biggest" - that's China's), but I don't know that I'd say "best". Particularly not now that the Pentagon has lowered recruitment standards to the point that they are accepting gang members, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. Particularly since this "best military in the world" has never won a war on the ground, except maybe against sandbox "nations" in central america. The US military is simply a mechanism for funnelling bribes to congresspeople, nothing more. The government taxes the people, congress grants budget from tax revenue to the pentagon, the pentagon outsources to private companies, and the companies pay bribes to congress and the administration - "Campaign Contributons", I think you call 'em - and grants sinecure jobs for ridiculous salaries. It's all just a money laundering scheme. Not that there isn't somthing for the electorate too - there's also job creation, now that all real manufacturing of useful things is done elsewhere. Pork barreling and all that. But "best military in the world"? Naah. It will always be the privilege of the protected to criticize the protected in a free society. (BTW, freedom is not free….it has been paid from by the blood of our brothers and sisters throughout history who have fought to maintain it…..from the people who died on the battle field of the civil war to give an entire people the God given freedom given to them by Our Creator to those who die in China trying to simply speak their minds and live their faith….numerous examples all over the world, but rarely is freedom simply given by the oppressor…it is usually taken.) No mention, I see, of those who died in the Civil War to keep freedom from their black bretheren. Or perhaps I'm confused as to your position: Both sides in tha conflict, you know, were fighting for freedom, they just disagreed as to what it was. By 'freedom' you mean the freedom to keep slaves, or the freedom to not be one? In any case: armies do not create freedom. They create conquest. It is civilians briefly taking up arms that create freedom - a world away from the professional militaries of our day. Today's "free-world" militaries have far more in common with the redcoats of your war of independence, than with the insurgent forces that founded your nation. (BTW….comparing the genital mutilation of young women in Africa to the actions of religious zealots who are acting in a manner that has been outlawed by the state –the mutilation of the young women in Africa is accepted as “okay” because it is their tradition/religion---is simply misguided) WTF? Are you saying that one is ok and not the other? I can think of a few words to describe female genital mutilation, "misguided" is not one of them. And the business with the polygamists extends far further than simply contravening state laws: were you not aware of the serial rape and sexual abuse of minors? Is it a shocking disgrace when Mohammed marries an 8-year-old girl, but not when some american christian loony does it? I think it's a very fair comparison indeed. Hopefully we can get back on topic or simply let this thread die. Well, I've been making a bit of an effort. I wish someone had picked up my Idea of mother Teresa as a BBEG, though. And comparing dragonshards to oil is very apt. It would make a fine campaign arc - the druids championing the cause of getting magic from the sun, while the mages suppress them. The question was, are their Christian Player out there. Answer yes. Do we all have different view of faith…most likely yes? Will there always be those who disagree on God/Faith/No-Faith….yes. Should that keep us from living in peace…I hope not. So, how can we do our part to help the world a better place…..keep rolling those d20 creating a fantasy story that those who are gather can all fight the common fight and laugh at our common folly. Small steps taken over time lead to many miles walked. I'm sure we all agree on that. Cheers. |
| 1 ton ghost05-11-08, 07:08 PM | Beats me why you take that tone when I am only agreeing with you. :confused: There is no tone. Your defensive posture may have implied one, but I assure you, there is none as I'm trying (very hard) to maintain Okinawa's request for civility in truth, not heresay and conjecture. Apologies to everyone else as I'm rather guilty for deviating from the OP. I just don't like to see falsehoods passed off as maxims and absolutes w/out protocol or evidence. Yes: religion is often a bad thing, whether it's muslims in africa engaging in genital mutilation, or christian polygamists in the USA serially raping their granddaughters. FGM is often state and privately funded and widely accepted, encouraged even by those I would call socially or religiously backwards, but it is their faith and my opinion. Never the 2 shall meet sadly. As for the later, it is largely condemned, illegal as Hell (here I mean), etc. Even the Mormons denounced it and they get unfairly slandered for it when they do not practice it. Splinter faiths often get lumped into the original unfairly. I simply made the point that the repression in Iraq was not religious in nature. In pre-invasion Iraq, women could attend schools and universities and walk about with their faces bare, and you could address God by whichever pet name you preferred. That's unusual (contrary I mean) given the rumormill and facts I heard in Fayettville (Ft. Bragg) when visiting my g/f's family, not to mention a few frineds and contemporaries I know serving. I guess the best rebuttal to your assesment (as I feel it's untrue and unfounded ) of women in Iraq would be post-Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Women there can now go to school, people can listen to the radio, the film archives don't get torched, etc. etc. Choice is choice, and if they wish to rule w/ religious overtones, then their elections will reflect that I guess, but I feel some further clarification needs to be involved. Yes, Saddam Hussein shot his countymen wih US-supplied arms, and gassed them with US-supplied VX gas (sold to him by Dick Cheney, VP of Halliburton at the time) - but that's not [i]religious persecution: he was simply doing what every other US-backed CIA glove-puppet does. Up to and including invading his neigbours with tacit US support ... until he decided to attempt to sell oil in euros. Yeah, pretty messed up. I shamefully agree. Of course, so did the French, but mostly the Russians. Almost all their military used/uses Warsaw Pact (old Soviet, now, eastern bloc gear) weaponry (AK-47s, RPGs, MiG fighters, Scud missles, etc.), not NATO Pact gear (what we and most coalition forces use). Why do you think the Russians were so upset for one of many reasons? One of their best customers were null and void now. And despite a healthy nod from the Reagen administration cuz' we hated the new Iranian govt., we were still "not cool". They did in fact attack and kill many sailors on the USS Stark in '86 in the Gulf w/ an Exosit <sp?> missle (French made btw). That story was quickly "tidied up" though. As for "invading his neighbors", you mean neighbor, right? Iran ('80-'88). The Kuwaiti campaign occurred quite a while before the advent of the Euro btw too... As for Cheyney and Rumsfeld, that I will agree w/ you on in that they're unethical snakes in the grass. Military industrial complex takes on a whole new meaning when you control the means to wage war and the tools of reconstruction. Win win, $, $. The worse it gets, the more $ they make. The other paragraphs written prior by Murray would take entire new threads to reply to given the sweeping generalizations made previously. Alot to dissect there. As for your comments about Al-jazeera openly slandering Jews, I don't know, as I am not a regular reader of it like you obviously are. C'mon, really? :rolleyes: Why, of course, would the 2 be at odds, hmm? It is widely accepted and a known for many many years throughout the world that Al-Jazeera blacklists Judaism as a whole. Check their website, it's so blatant, a good comparison would be PETA and KFC. Yes, some truths exist on both ends, but so much hate-fueled rhetoric exists, it's nearly impossible to determine what is truth vs. lies. However, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they disapprove of the ethnic cleansing of palestine by the state of Israel. Israel likes people to think that "The State of Israel", and "Jews" are the same thing, so I can understand your confusion. There is no "ethnic cleansing" in Israel/Palestine. Alot of animosity, some righteous, though much petty reprisal attacks, and sabre rattling, but not what you think or have said. Darfur, old Bosnia, Rawanda, etc. That is (are)ethnic cleansing. Hamas is a terrorist organization and the Israeli govt is heavy-handed and undiplomatic w/ them. Both are guilty IMO. My confusion? Um, ok... As for the religious divide in islam being inflamed by "insurgent elements", you refer to the Iraqi resistance? I doubt it. There is a ton of impartial (ours and non coalition or insurgent) intel that would speak otherwise. Shiite death squads of the last 2 years and Sunni reprisals seem to argue pretty loudly as well as Zarqawi's <sp?> fairly b/w statements, bin Laden's, al Sadr's, etc. These are attempts to draw the confict into a religious one, not a political one. Same old song and dance. I think it's just preachers making a power grab. It's the old story: the old men getting the young men to fight and die, so that there's more money and women left over for them. To a degree, I agree. Whole thing sucks. The poetic sentiment is surely not lost. But it's never that b/w. There are so many independent variables to consider that glossing it over in such an oversimplified maxim is dangerous and rather disrespectful (IMO) to all those that must sacrifice or suffer through it. BUT TO GET BACK ON TOPIC Um, yeah (feeling guility/stupid at this point :( ). We really should... The role of oil in all this makes a great - if obvious - campaign theme. You could do the same with Eberron dragonshards - make it impossible to do magic without them, so the whole world geopolitics becomes about sourcing them, in a time when half the dragonshards have already been dug up and used. A time with is the apogee of magical civilisation. Sharn's towers fly, challenging the very gods - but for how long, without a continuous supply of dragonshards to keep them aloft? Well, it's relevant and progressive w/ everything going on now. Nj I guess. |
| Bringer of autumn05-11-08, 07:25 PM | I'm a atheist, and my playing group is a mix of Christians, agnostics and atheists. |
| Blackshade05-11-08, 07:36 PM | [Devil's advocate]I would be very interested in a thread titled "How many young, blonde, attractive females play this game?" While I love D&D, I loves me some young, blonde, attractive females too. A person likes Subject A and Subject B. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask who else likes those two subjects, even if this is a forum for Subject A. It would be like asking "Who likes apple pie?" at a Democrats site. Not every Democrat may be into apple pie, but those that are can discuss apple pie with each other. Why not just go to an apple pie site? Perhaps they like discussing both subjects together and there is no "Democrats & Apple Pie" site. Or maybe they want to meet people with whom they have multiple shared interests. While apple pie may not have much to do with being a Democrat, I would love to find a girl that is not only young, blonde and attractive, but that also plays D&D. Even if I didn't hook up with one, it would be nice to know that there are some out there. Likewise, maybe someone is looking for a potential partner who is not only a gamer, but is a Christian. Or maybe they just want reassurance that there are people out there who are both, since some churches may not approve of D&D. There could be several motives for starting the topic. [/Devil's advocate] I like you. Your smart. Have a :cookie: |
| JediJoeH05-12-08, 04:26 PM | I am. I have an atheist, an agnostic and two don't cares at the table as well. My father, before he passed away, looked down on the fact that I played D&D. I told him to get bent. Its a game, not a cult. |
| key05-14-08, 01:51 AM | My father, before he passed away, looked down on the fact that I played D&D. I told him to get bent. Ah, words to cherish in your final moments. :P |
| LCD2YOU05-14-08, 08:29 AM | I'm agnostic. |
| Drow_Assassin05-14-08, 10:34 AM | This is old news, but happened to stumble on it when I did a search on google for DnD. For the record, I'm a Catholic and a DnD gamer and was sickened by the level of venom that the author spews for anyone who plays DnD. chick.com/articles/frpg.asp It is a shame that this level of fundamentalism still exists. I think the author would support witch burning if it wasn't illegal. |
| LCD2YOU05-14-08, 10:45 AM | This is old news, but happened to stumble on it when I did a search on google for DnD. For the record, I'm a Catholic and a DnD gamer and was sickened by the level of venom that the author spews for anyone who plays DnD. chick.com/articles/frpg.asp It is a shame that this level of fundamentalism still exists. I think the author would support witch burning if it wasn't illegal.Oh, you didn't read about him and his anti-Catholic diatribe as well? Try this: chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/ He puts the "FUN" in fundamentalist! |
| Drow_Assassin05-14-08, 10:50 AM | Oh, you didn't read about him and his anti-Catholic diatribe as well? Try this: chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/ Lol....Didn't see that one. Pot sees kettle. "You're black!" |
| Okinawa3d05-14-08, 12:16 PM | There will always be those who take issues to the extreme. I looked over this guy’s writings, Jack Chick, and he seems to believe what he writes…..which I would expect considering he has taken the time to publish his work. He apparently has an advanced degree so that makes him an expert on subjects of this nature. (Hmmmm, my D&D group consist of One Player with a PhD, One Player with an MS, One Player with an MBA and MS, and Three Other Players with BA degrees…..so collectively we seem to have a great deal of “schooling.”) My entire gaming group except one are Christians, Catholic and Protestant, and I believe at least one member may be an Atheist (have not really talked to him much about his faith or lack off….he is just a great gamer and we love him). What is important is that a couple of us, including me actually believe what the bible says…..you know the whole six days to create the world thing…and to think we are “educated….from some of the best University and Colleges in the World – we have international players (no need to debate me on this one……it is a matter of faith to me and I have had MORE than enough education that has taught me about other theories….just for note, I believe most of them as provable/disprovable as my own). None of us argue about religion….if we discuss it we have a common understanding that we will most likely disagree on some points….BUT, what is most important is that we all have a GREAT time playing D&D together. None of us play evil characters, because we want to be the hero’s (Could be that a lot of us are in the military or former military….except couple guys….but they are a blast to be around!!!). I personally play a Cleric (Inquisitor) in the game….I know give the fundamentalist the Inquisitor ;) . We never even get into the “religious”/“magical” issues that this Jack Chick seems so concerned. Our spells are the tools/weapons that we use to portray a heroic character….hence…D&D is a game….role playing the same way you would if you participate in a play. (The Passion Play is preformed thousands of times a year to tell the story of our Lord’s Crucifixion and Resurrection…..is the guy who plays Judas or Pontus Pilot consider “condemned for eternity” because of the “role” they play? I think not.) Those who do not share the Christian faith have nothing to worry about from those zealots….at least in the US I believe….because the same way they have the “right” to condemn those things they find offenses….we have the right to keep on playing our game and fellowshipping with each other. (You would be surprised how many people have come to love the Lord though this simple game….maybe it is because those who do not believe see those of us who do having a good time, laughing, joking, making life long friends, etc….) As for those who feel that we playing the game are not “Christians”….well, I would ask them to search their hearts and consider if they have the right to tell me what I believe? (I believe one of the most misquoted lines in the Bible is about judging….we do have the right to judge actions, but not the soul of a man…that is for God alone….at least that is what I believe….and by the way….what the Bible states. :D ) Again, keep on rolling those dice….wosp, that would be relying on chance correct…how do Christians play any games of chance…that would include “Monopoly”? Just sarcasm to illustrate the absurdity of many arguments used to condemn this great game we play. (Just so everyone knows…I am well aware there are those who take the game places I would not….that is why I don’t game with them….free will….got to love it. :) ) Hope to see some of you (y’all where I am from) at some of the Cons. When I get back to the East Coast I hope to hit them all!!!! |
| Zombie_Babies05-14-08, 12:43 PM | This thread has been good so far but I do feel the need to point out that it has now officially touched upon two forbidden topics. The religious discourse (the first forbidden topic in the thread) has been pretty civil. Jack Chick is another forbidden topic. Now that we are discussing two, I can feel the ice thinning. Let's lay off Jack and his moronic rantings. Also, linking to his work is forbidden. It is the position of the staff, IIRC, that linking to his writings helps to further his cause. Why give him attention? So, if I may be so bold as to ask, can we please get back on topic, forbidden as it is? |
| Okinawa3d05-14-08, 01:00 PM | Sounds good to me....did not know we could not talk about he who shall not be named. :) I agree, not spreading his kind of message is better for all. |
| 1 ton ghost05-14-08, 01:29 PM | Forbidden territory, eh? If we're adults and handle it maturely, everything shoudl be ok. I know, CoC and all, but I hate feeling coralled "for my own good" as I get enough of that from big govt. But rules are rules no matter how demeaning they make you feel. Wait, did I mention how Christianity has effected katanas in game? ;) Sorry, had to go there. At least we didn't get into the sexual end. Why not talk about the weather and some politics as well. Related: They killed the Mature forum, right? Anyone know why? Anyway, Mr. Chick and his blind dogma... It's like I tell my g/f in child-like sarcastic flavor, "Oh, don't worry hun, I'm sure it was just some guy filled with hate is all." Don't worry, I'm not getting into him, just the demonization of gaming as a whole. Laughable really. The ones that are the greatest enemies of idea, institution, or concept 'x' are usually the ones that have never even tried it, studied it at length, or done much logistical work on it at all. It would make more sense to do one's homework than blindly attack it w/out much bearing. I mean, didn't Sun Tzu say, "Know your enemy"? I'm guessing all his rhetoric is probably based on a few isolated incidents that his psyche/pride could not deal with, and viola! Condemnation w/ a religious veneer. I hate that. Taking a perfectly good idea (this faith or another) and using it as a jump point to promote hate. Not exactly a "good will to men" kinda' stance most religions promote, huh? Seriously, if D&D did all the things he's so violently opposed to, others, more educated and articulate w/ more power and influence would've exposed it and had their way. He's just another firebrand w/out focus and degree or no, totally dismissable. I'm going to see what all the fervor is about on his page try and keep an impartial outlook, though I doubt it will change my resolve as a gamer or religious person. More than the openess he gave TSR or WotC I'd wager. It bares mentioning though that I feel that I'm not your typical Christian or gamer for better or worse. IMO, I'll find out how much of those were up to par when my ticket gets punched. I don't need a highly fallible source telling me all of the perceived shortcomings while exhibiting no humiliy/decency to confess any of his own as a healthy comparison. I have no illusions about it, gaming or Mr. Chick. It's just w/ so many other bigger fish to fry, why zero on RPGs? Seems petty when he could be doing so much else w/ so many things wrong in the world? |
| Zombie_Babies05-14-08, 01:43 PM | I think people like that tend to focus on the minutia since trying to solve actual problems is so much harder. They take on a small issue and put all of their energy into defeating what amounts to nothing in the bigger scheme of things. Take the FCC, for example. Woe be to those that show a bare breast on television- we don't want to harm our children - but those that show corpses and inestimable suffering (news programs) are perfectly ok. Death is fine but the human body is not. Why? Getting into this sort of topic takes a lot more stones than most with real power to make changes have. So they prey upon the weak and easily dismissed to seem like they are helping. They hide behind the "success" they have here to draw attention away from the greater failings in our society. Failings they know they can do nothing about. It's far easier to blame a game for the decline in moral behavior than it is to look at society as a whole and see it's many failings. If we did, we'd have to lay some blame upon ourselves as well. Those up on a high horse cannot afford to take on any blame. So they damn the rest of us to spare themselves. As an aside, I posted that bit about JC* so that we could possibly keep this going. I had anticipated this thread being locked for a different reason and am glad to see that it has not happened. I've had fun posting here and would like it to continue. I fully believe that most here could easily talk about JC without bruising any feelings or causing any wars. Unfortunately, that decision is not ours to make. *JC, in this case, is for Jack, of course. |
| LCD2YOU05-14-08, 02:06 PM | As an advocate of ToE (yes, I'm an Evilushunist) I've tackled the damage done to science in schools by the blatant misrepresentation of science in general and the complete hogwash especially on evolution that appear in those little pamphlets. I've never seen a worse example of what a closed mind can do to kids in science that a Jack C. pamphlet. |
| Plemmons05-14-08, 09:13 PM | Actually, the "official" reason that Chick's site can't be linked is because he sells things. That's how the WizOs got those links banned using the CoC. Or at least, that's the reason they gave back when the site was officially banned, back when I had a different screen name (forgot the password for that one... whoops...) |
| KelanenPrinceofSwords05-15-08, 12:01 AM | I'm a former Christian who has recently converted to atheism. I say recently, but doubt has been building ever since I began to learn about history (particularly the history of Christianity), science (which teaches proven facts, not wishful thinking), and most importantly, ever since I actually read the Bible with a critical eye. If God really existed, and was anything like the misogynistic, ethnic cleansing, infanticidal, insanely jealous psychopath described in the Old Testament, I would rather burn in hell (and I know that many honestly believe that I will for this very reason). Let's examine this with reason (the enemy of faith, according to St. Augustine and other early Christian writers -- I don't trust any institution that encourages ignorance in order to preserve faith): Adam and Eve disobey and eat an apple, for which God punishes them and all of their future descendants with death and suffering. Then, he becomes a man, so he can be killed for our sins, in order to appease himself, apparently:confused: . And no matter how good a person may be in this lifetime, unless they believe that one religion (out of many religions that are all mutually incompatible and equally delusional IMO) is the true way, they burn for eternity in endless agony (because of a sin they did not commit, namely eating a forbidden fruit). Why would belief in something that is impossible to prove be more important to an omnipotent deity than human kindness and the excercising of the reason that God allegedly gave us? Is God that insecure? I'm not trying to offend the religious people, and I'm not trying to sow existential angst. I'm pointing out the reasons I no longer believe, in hopes of helping others to escape from what I now consider a harmful delusion. This life can be a beautiful thing, and I find myself being even more loving to all living creatures now that I no longer believe that I will have eternity to be with my loved ones. I wish there really was a heaven where my loved ones and I could enjoy each other's company forever, and I even wish there was a hell for those who actually deserve it (many of whom consider themselves good Christians/Muslims/Jews/insert religion here). But such notions are like the adult version of Santa Claus to me now -- good for getting you through childhood, but eventually the spell wears off, if you listen to that small voice of reason in the back of your mind that so many struggle to ignore that tells them there are no invisible friends living in the sky. Except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- he's real. |
| 1 ton ghost05-15-08, 11:56 AM | KelanenPrinceofSwords: Uh, seriously, what the Hell? Why go there? This thread wasn't an invite to dump all over something that alot of people hold dear or has value for them because 1 person feels (thinks) otherwise. Even the other atheists that posted had the civility and tact to state their platform w/out libel while maintaining the "we're all gamers (friends, brothers, sisters) mentality". We have more in common, please do not drive a wedge further down. I totally respect your platform, endorse the Scientific Method wholeheartedly, don't go in for fundamental interpretation of most things, etc., but I try not to rob people of their ethos and existential peace either. You could have articulated everything w/out the apathy and hate, much of it, to me (not all), is w/out basis and seems largely grounded in conjecture. Not trying to win you over or anything as I resepct "where you are" so to speak. Relgion, or lack thereof, is a personal thing IMO (between you and God, not everyone else). I don't, well, try not to prosyletize, just trying to set the record straight as bashing contemporary religion is terribly fashionable. It's done more good than harm and past crimes are not indicative of religion's failings so much as the people that (ab)use them. That is to say, you can blame a whole philosophy/religion, or a book of all things, but at some point you have to step up and take responsibility for your own actions. Long story short, the individual at heart is to blame/glorify. Free will, doesn't get any simpler than that. You choose to do good or evil and came cite religion 'x' or book 'y', but the choice fell w/ you. Like I said, religions are akin to cars IMO. Vehicles that move us from 'A' to 'B'. We don't destroy the car for a DUI, we target the driver. Same thing. It's just sad that the car gets damaged due to "irresponsible drivers" so to speak. Alot of metaphors could be applied betweent the 2, but to me, it's a tool for potential growth or abuse. The tool itself isn't bad. If God really existed, and was anything like the misogynistic, ethnic cleansing, infanticidal, insanely jealous psychopath described in the Old Testament, I would rather burn in hell (and I know that many honestly believe that I will for this very reason). Like I said, interpretation helps understanding. God didn't write it btw, some fairly battered and hardened people did (it's tough/was tough over there). Rough times and an environment that is often hostile will often color one's outlook, or in this case, finished products like a book. Different time, different place. We're coming from a very different place. An interpretation, nothing more IMO. You can't, well, shouldn't be absolutist about religion and other metaphysical things. It's not like a science where absolutes apply. Apples and oranges. I could very well be wrong but I'm not going to lambast anyone for it. Just my opinion. And there's the New Testament too, but of course, that wasn't mentioned in the body of evidence. Your Creation Myth POV: again, an interpretation IMO. I believe in Evolution, but I think it was set in motion that way and primitive theologians couldn't understand the big divine plan. They weren't ready too, so they took their best shot at the idea w/ the tools they had at the time. But those were gifts too, it's just the ones He/She/It gave us now are decidely better. We're not always ready (IMO) for the wisdom God grants us which is the whole of science, philosophy/religion, the arts/humanities, etc. Everything. All things in time IMO. Just imagine how much insight there will be in another 40 years. I'm not trying to offend the religious people, and I'm not trying to sow existential angst. I understand your intent, it's just the delivery is all... Just try and consider you know. When in Rome. I'm pointing out the reasons I no longer believe, in hopes of helping others to escape from what I now consider a harmful delusion. You just said, "I'm not trying to sow existential angst." Nevertheless, despite the divergent viewpoints we have, I support your right for healthy, intelligent discourse...just not on this thread. It wasn't designed for it. However, I would totally back you in starting a new one and participate 100%. I can assure you, many would flock to it for a quick look or to throw in their $.02 most likely. Give it a shot, you could foster some serious growth. This life can be a beautiful thing, and I find myself being even more loving to all living creatures now that I no longer believe that I will have eternity to be with my loved ones. Noting Heaven as a past motivator to love creatures less is, um, kinda' messed IMO. I know you feel liberated, cool, happy for you, but I like the idea of Hope in this regard. Hope that I can be w/ loved ones and so forth. And if I'm wrong, what's wrong w/ that? I'll rot and that's the end of it, but Hope gives me something to believe in, makes us better than who we are w/out it. Another human ideal, which I would argue is more important when what you see these days is increasing moral decay. I wish there really was a heaven where my loved ones and I could enjoy each other's company forever, and I even wish there was a hell for those who actually deserve it (many of whom consider themselves good Christians/Muslims/Jews/insert religion here). Heaven: I have to believe, keeps me going, gives me drive. It builds hope and we could always use more of that these days. Scientifically though, I mean, there's a reason that pretty much every civilization, despite never having contact w/ each other, have versions of afterlife. A universal constant. Or you could look at it as the collective psychic potential of humanity, whatever floats your boat. Being the only sentient species we know of now, I'm inclined to think that somehting more is out there. Belief like that can make things real too I guess. Who knows, I'll find out hopefully when I die. No hurries, you know? ;) I just can't abide hijacking/perverting it (suicide bombers/'x' amount of virgins, Heaven's Gate cults, etc.). And Hell, well, to me anyway, if it exists, I like to think it's seperation from God's love. Ultimate lonliness and isolation. We always feel it, but when it's cut off, yeah, look out. Kind of like Hellraiser; everyone deserving (not sure who that is) gets their own specific Hell, no collective fire and brimstone. Custom fit as it were. Maybe they just wink out. Who knows. But such notions are like the adult version of Santa Claus to me now -- good for getting you through childhood, but eventually the spell wears off, if you listen to that small voice of reason in the back of your mind that so many struggle to ignore that tells them there are no invisible friends living in the sky. Except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- he's real. St. Nick was real btw...German guy, toys for kids, etc. Did in fact go down chimneys (that's how he died; broken leg :( ). Reason, for me, supports morale existential growth. If everything else grows, our bodies, psyche, and so on, we need our souls to as well. Religion helps foster that end. Healthy living from a scientific viewpoint. Some more healthy than others, but ultimately, it comes down to individual IMO. Even alot of brilliant scientists you'd swear were atheists due in fact give credance to higher powers for their own faith or the constant, 'There's always a bigger fish". |
| Kobajagrande05-15-08, 12:41 PM | So, I'm somewhat of an atheist, but I'm here to support all religious people and tell them not to worry about those who feel they will sound intelligent and educated by trashing religion, when, in fact, they show themselves to be completely opposite. |
| 1 ton ghost05-15-08, 01:29 PM | That's what I'm talking about. Well said and respect... |
| LCD2YOU05-15-08, 02:08 PM | Respect comes almost always from the atheist/agnostic side. New "converts" to agnosticism or atheism still generally have a good deal of bile to choke down, the reason why they left religion in the first place. They tend to continue the same tactics they employed while they were a believer for a while. I guess old habits die hard. One could say the anger comes from putting so much energy and belief into something that has never shown up save stories that come to us from Bronze and Iron age peoples. Now it was written that Athena came down to the Greeks to tell them to end their war, yet how many who are Christian believe that? And that's different from those of us who don't believe the books you read that you believe how? Ever hear of Janus? Mitra? Hercules? As for religious people being respectful when you don't have a religion, how many in the US WON'T vote for a person who never cheated on their taxes, used drugs, had an affair on their spouse, etc., if they never went to church and were in fact atheist/non-religious/agnostic? Damn few is the correct answer. |
| 1 ton ghost05-15-08, 03:44 PM | Respect comes almost always from the atheist/agnostic side. That's pretty open-ended, don't you think? I mean, did they say that in Newsweek or CNN, a quip out of the Vatican, Jerusalem, or Mecca perhaps? Respect must also be earned, not given too... And speaking of respect, Diplomacy isn't just an in game concept, you know? Please consider the civility here, CoC, and so forth. Everyone's willing to read what you have to say, it's just more consideration is given when there's actual facts and the protocol of dialogue. New "converts" to agnosticism or atheism still generally have a good deal of bile to choke down, the reason why they left religion in the first place. Bile to choke down? And we should "swallow this tripe"? See how that works. It's not pleasant so kindly rephrase, especially when overgeneralizations like this are grossly inappropriate and inaccurate. It's like journalistic integrity, it helps your POV or story rather than the "other". This is why Pulitzer winners get read more for one example. "The reason" (cuz' it's just the 1 reason of course :rolleyes: )... It could be disillusionment, falling out w/ their congregation that spilled over to the whole of the faith, psychotic breakdown, bitterness over the death of a loved one, embittered reaction to aggressive religious others, or any other manner of existential crisis. The causes are myriad. Like it matters though. There's not just 1 reason. All are valid, some are just moreso, others are from frail and weak people, and yet others still are those grounded only in reason and logic, not metaphysicals/existentials. To each his/her own. They tend to continue the same tactics they employed while they were a believer for a while. I guess old habits die hard. One could say the anger comes from putting so much energy and belief into something that has never shown up save stories that come to us from Bronze and Iron age peoples. A period of self-reflection is typical. Anger isn't always the outcome. Anger clouds judgement and technically makes you stupid (release of triptaphane <sp?> slows reaction and thinking processes as well as anger precluding other rational thought as a result of hostility and determination). Like I said ealier, you don't have to be religious to benefit from it's wisdom and helpful advice. Alot of it is interpretive, some are stories, whatever, the point is you can't say "it's this or that", doesn't work that way. This type of reaction is largely responsive to Bible beaters, jihadist types, anyone that takes religion to an extreme. Rubs people the wrong way and they take it as the whole or all religion to be wrong. It's a tool, use it if you want, but don't take it out on the whole because of a few bad eggs. Chuck D said once, "Don't believe the hype." ;) Sound advice. As for Greek mythology, I am well versed. I understand your position, respect it well. These were different times and thinking though. You can't apply the same standards we do now. I mean, brilliant people, invented democracy and philosophy, but also looked at an elephant's skull and thought, "Ah, cyclops." (presumed trunk's void was the eye socket, Nova, PBS). And that's ok, the 2 don't necessarilly synch up though. As for religious people being respectful when you don't have a religion, how many in the US WON'T vote for a person who never cheated on their taxes, used drugs, had an affair on their spouse, etc., if they never went to church and were in fact atheist/non-religious/agnostic? Damn few is the correct answer. That would be a good poll for Time or Newsweek. In fact, I bet you it's been done a few times already, but I like where your head's at, but you're proposing you know the answer in "damn few", which is likely, but false. We (you) don't know the answer, and it doesn't matter anyway really. I think (cuz' I don't know either) Americans want a religious background in their elected officials cuz' the major ones (religions) have a well defined moral and ethical grounding which is pretty damn important to the masses when, you know, said leader is determining the laws of the land. They're usually moderates too. No one elects firebrand religious zealots very often in the US. They're a minority cuz' no one wants extreme politics. Well, some, but we're about the majority of the people, not fringe interests. In theory, moral leaders tend to make moral decisions that benefit their constituency via altruism, a tenet most major religions hold dear, not themselves which is egocentrism, sadly, becoming way way more popular...at least in America. But, I'd like to think that an upstanding atheist could hold office. If he was better qualified than a Lutheran (I'm Lutheran for what it's worth), I would vote for him in a second. Why? Simple, I'm voting for a political sphere of influence, not a relgious one. Seperation of church and state, best (wo)man for the job and all that. I'm shooting for that altrusim he/she is hopefully as well, what's good for the country, not me specifically. If they don't believe in a higher power, so be it, that's on their conscience, not mine. We have the freedom here...something we voted on too, right? It's perfectly acceptable to be atheist, agnostic, or of a specific denomination. But drawing this, hijacking really, into an "us and them" mentality only serves to foster more hate which grows and grows. Sorry for the rant/lecture/whatever you want to call it. Don't want to offend. |
| KelanenPrinceofSwords05-15-08, 04:07 PM | I apologize for the tone of my previous post. I'm not attacking religious people, but I am attacking religion itself, which is unacceptible in any forum on this site, much moreso this one. I have no (good) excuse for breaking the CoC, and again, my apologies. I also apologize to any who take special offense at my previous (or any future) post. If I'm banned, I will take it like a man. Peace!:D |
| LCD2YOU05-15-08, 04:40 PM | That's pretty open-ended, don't you think? I mean, did they say that in Newsweek or CNN, a quip out of the Vatican, Jerusalem, or Mecca perhaps?Not that I'm aware of.Respect must also be earned, not given too...True. But then that respect that one gives BEFORE one is shown the person doesn't deserve it. One mention that one is agnostic/atheist/etc. and in all too many cases, the veneer of civility from religious people to the non-religious person drops away.And speaking of respect, Diplomacy isn't just an in game concept, you know? Please consider the civility here, CoC, and so forth. Everyone's willing to read what you have to say, it's just more consideration is given when there's actual facts and the protocol of dialogue.I have.Bile to choke down? And we should "swallow this tripe"?Many people who stop being religious, stop following the faith of their parents, family and so forth in almost every case have to deal with not just the emotional turmoil of releasing something they've done since they can remember, I was born into Catholicism something about being both Italian AND Irish I suppose, and were taught about "right and wrong". Right was giving yourself up to god and wrong was denying that said god even existed. I'm 44 and my mother and sister still try to get me to go back to the Church. The guilt is still there. Then there's that aspect of losing friends, some will no longer associate with you though you still are the same person, and others assume that somehow you are not a good person. Yes, that happens a great deal. So there you are, giving up your religion, losing friends, etc. It is a bitter pill to swallow but if you are giving it up as I did, I can't see any reason to worship a god that nobody has seen in 1975 years, it is honest. You feel like you were stupid and wasting time on something that has no real value yet people kill and die in the name of religion everyday.See how that works. It's not pleasant so kindly rephrase, especially when overgeneralizations like this are grossly inappropriate and inaccurate.No, what I wrote is appropriate and it is accurate. OTOH I just take what you wrote, though in error, is how you saw it as you didn't understand what I was referring to now.It's like journalistic integrity, it helps your POV or story rather than the "other". This is why Pulitzer winners get read more for one example.True. But then again in religion, Christianity there is essentially one book with two parts, that wouldn't get a pulitzer either."The reason" (cuz' it's just the 1 reason of course :rolleyes: )... It could be disillusionment, falling out w/ their congregation that spilled over to the whole of the faith, psychotic breakdown, bitterness over the death of a loved one, embittered reaction to aggressive religious others, or any other manner of existential crisis. The causes are myriad. Like it matters though. There's not just 1 reason. All are valid, some are just moreso, others are from frail and weak people, and yet others still are those grounded only in reason and logic, not metaphysicals/existentials.But the ostracism experienced by many, along with the guilt is very much in the picture. I don't think you really understand that. Most that I found who are frail and weak cling to religion as a crutch in bad times.To each his/her own.yup.A period of self-reflection is typical. Anger isn't always the outcome. Anger clouds judgement and technically makes you stupid (release of triptaphane <sp?> slows reaction and thinking processes as well as anger precluding other rational thought as a result of hostility and determination).No argument here. But those who don't experience anger when family and friends drop away all due to there losing religion is not right IMO.Like I said ealier, you don't have to be religious to benefit from it's wisdom and helpful advice. Alot of it is interpretive, some are stories, whatever, the point is you can't say "it's this or that", doesn't work that way.That is true. Yet so many, I live in the Bible Belt which may help explain my position, who are Christian I've encountered here basically hold non-christian wisdom to be interesting but with little value.This type of reaction is largely responsive to Bible beaters, jihadist types, anyone that takes religion to an extreme. Rubs people the wrong way and they take it as the whole or all religion to be wrong. It's a tool, use it if you want, but don't take it out on the whole because of a few bad eggs. Chuck D said once, "Don't believe the hype." ;) Sound advice. As for Greek mythology, I am well versed. I understand your position, respect it well. These were different times and thinking though. You can't apply the same standards we do now. I mean, brilliant people, invented democracy and philosophy, but also looked at an elephant's skull and thought, "Ah, cyclops." (presumed trunk's void was the eye socket, Nova, PBS). And that's ok, the 2 don't necessarilly synch up though.Yeah, cyclops=elephant. Like the story of Noah, which is just a retelling of the Gilgamesh Epic. But yet the ramblings of Bronze Age sheep herders are ok?That would be a good poll for Time or Newsweek. In fact, I bet you it's been done a few times already, but I like where your head's at, but you're proposing you know the answer in "damn few", which is likely, but false. We (you) don't know the answer, and it doesn't matter anyway really.It has been done and it is very low.I think (cuz' I don't know either) Americans want a religious background in their elected officials cuz' the major ones (religions) have a well defined moral and ethical grounding which is pretty damn important to the masses when, you know, said leader is determining the laws of the land. They're usually moderates too. No one elects firebrand religious zealots very often in the US. They're a minority cuz' no one wants extreme politics. Well, some, but we're about the majority of the people, not fringe interests. In theory, moral leaders tend to make moral decisions that benefit their constituency via altruism, a tenet most major religions hold dear, not themselves which is egocentrism, sadly, becoming way way more popular...at least in America. But, I'd like to think that an upstanding atheist could hold office. If he was better qualified than a Lutheran (I'm Lutheran for what it's worth), I would vote for him in a second. Why? Simple, I'm voting for a political sphere of influence, not a relgious one. Seperation of church and state, best (wo)man for the job and all that. I'm shooting for that altrusim he/she is hopefully as well, what's good for the country, not me specifically. If they don't believe in a higher power, so be it, that's on their conscience, not mine. We have the freedom here...something we voted on too, right? It's perfectly acceptable to be atheist, agnostic, or of a specific denomination. But drawing this, hijacking really, into an "us and them" mentality only serves to foster more hate which grows and grows. Sorry for the rant/lecture/whatever you want to call it. Don't want to offend.Well, as people think in the US that "One Nation, Under god" is the correct way to say the pledge (that under god part was added in the 50s to show that while communism was atheistic - actually communism is a state religion that worships itself - and the US was "godly") I wish that was more true. When people think that the 10 Commandments need to be in the courts (what about the parts of the Vedic, Satan's bible and others?), that this nation was founded by Christians (some were but many were Deists) and when ID is being pushed as an alternative to real science, I think you've over stated the lack of pressure religion has in the US. |
| 1 ton ghost05-16-08, 12:49 PM | KelanenPrinceofSwords: Wow, that read terribly well. Professional even. No worries though, at least you are making the attempt to maintain critical perspective and civility to which I applaud that effort. I understand your position, it's not a retraction/apology so much as an explanation and that's cool. Clarification is always good as text (words on screen) don't carry the full weight, tone, and inflection of oration, and it's not like we have a PowerPoint display to back up the text, you know? We make do as best as we can and you're fine, don't worry. Not really sure you broke the CoC. So what if you did though, it wasn't done out of malice of forethought or bitterness/ignorance. I'm pretty sure I do (CoC) regularly, probably am right now, but I just want to keep the olive branch of diplomacy out there and make sure we're all cool. Respect for you doing it first though :tiphat: . You're fostering healthy, adult debate. Nj. Though I wish you had some spirituality/religion, I respectfully yield to your right to choose otherwise. I don't think you're embracing nihilism or evil by being atheistic for what it's worth either. Though I must confess, agnosticism and atheism are religions of a sort too. I posted earlier, "religion" (re'ligio). re=again, ligio=connect. "To reconnect." In this case, to the source, existential mystery, higher powers, whatever. Not God specifically, but it can be. It's just a humanized tool for philosphic exploration. I also wish you could participate in a collegiate relgion/ethics course. Not trying to win you over, simply to invoke serious, meaningful reflection and analysis where the tools for intense religious & philosphic deconstruction are available in an adult, cerebral environment. Ex) you want to study human form & biology, you engage in gross anatomy, medical courses, intern at a hospital, etc. Same thing here, just another institution of humanity's pursuit of truth and knowledge and where we come from, yada yada yada. I had to (core class, everyone does) and many of my classmates were atheists and there was no static for that. The purpose was just to dissect religious meaning and mysticism, examine different interpretation of different religious texts (there's never just 1), study the history/lands/ppl, and just keep an open forum in general. There was no sermonizing or conversion at all, part of the university's policy/stance towards higher education, not prosyletizing. No one made miraculous conversions, we just study some heavy stuff, figured out what archaic story 'x' really meant, alot of Hebrew and Aramaic translations, general acadamia. But, in the trip getting there, the atheists and others at least learned why they were doing 'y'. Quite a few just did it cuz' of tension w/ religious hotheads, extemeists, pushy parents, etc. When you're in a classroom free from all that and given an impartial open channel to the intelligencia w/ no agenda (other than to learn), then you can figure it out for yourself, not be swayed by pop-culture jargon, disillusioned/disenfranchised youth, and general social malcontents that think they have all the answers to religion but haven't studied a lick beyond a show or 2 on the History channel and some old stories they've heard. Consider: you want to know about a new drug. Who woud you rather listen to, the salemen selling it, or an impartial doctor that's has studied its effects on many patients? I guess I should try and explain my position (sorry this is so long btw :blush: ). Religion and my life have always been conflicted and often contradictory but vital. Nothing good comes easy, right? Grew up a pastor's (mom) kid, but was given alot of surprising leeway/freedoms due to her own rigid upbringing. That alone was divergent and upset alot of folks. A woman pastor?! Even Missouri Synod Lutherans don't have them, just ELCA. Omg, right? Yeah, that doesn't fly w/ me when ppl give my mom static for her job (we had to eat, have a house too) of all things, much less sprituality. But I am her son, so the bias is there. What are you gonna' do, right? :rolleyes: She raised me & my bro on her own, so my loyalty is insured, a non-negotiable for me. I'm hypocritical in many degrees, but I have no illusions about it. :) For ex) Sing hymns at church, but like to rock out to decidely darker music too (skinny puppy, sepultura, NIN, etc). Go to church functions, but game (many consider it "bad", right Mr. Chick?;) ). Helped out in Sunday school and do chraritable volunteering, but live w/ my g/f and *ahem*, you know. Etc. etc. Anyway, had to go to church all the time due to mom's wishes (the age old under my roof, my decision clause) which you hate as a kid, but as an adult, you understand it's value later and the good it did (if done correctly IMO). Like eating one's vegetables, a crude approximation I know, but bear with me. This is very difficult to concisely state. Sorry again. Just being around those people (congregation) is beneficial sometimes; at the most basic level, they are interested in self-improvement, it's just the spirit is all (a church), not the body or mind. Same thing at a gym (body) or college (mind), it will help you in that dept. Universal mandate: we are products of our environment, hence, a positive envrionment tends to yield positive results. Not always, but often enough. Like alot of the anti-religious fervor on here, many of those disinclined had negative experiences in their former faiths and that fostered a negative reaction. Negative environment, negative endgame. I know, oversimplified, but if anything is forced upon you w/out intelligent explanation and love, you'll resent it. Current gas prices come to mind as well as a certain, and most unwelcome (IMO) new edition of my fav game... Anyway, hindsite, 20/20, bla bla bla. Now I go to church infrequently due to work schedules, long commute, and, well, comfort levels. Maybe I'm making excuses, who knows. The point is, it did alot of good, helped me through some rough patches (friend's murder and other untimely deaths, 50% off college tuition [Lutheran college], etc), got me to help others that would have been totally isolated in crisis (I'm very good at counseling, psych, etc), landed a few illustration jobs (big networking pool), and some good times (D&D youth group [getting a $ budget to game rocks], some new friends (1st friend when we moved to cinci was a church kid who hooked us up w/ 2nd ed Faerun), cook outs and parties, and helping each other out (whole congregation came to our home for reconstruction/dmg control after tornado of '89 smashed my neighborhood). So, yeah, the love is there. Community. Doesn't matter what face (religion) you put on it, it's a staple that's existed for millenia. We have to look out for one another and not be dividied by petty differences. Church isn't a huge deal for me now. I feel you can worship any time/place to which I do. As loathe as I am to quote the Bible, it says to not be like the rich man that prays loud and publically to appear pious and charitable. Do it in secret, God's gonna' know it anyway, so making a show of things is narcisisstic. All prayers are going to the same source IMO, it's just the delivery system (varying religions) is different for Earth's many different people IMO. Organized worship helps sometimes; one might draw strength from others kinda' cannibalizing that drive. Lots of reasons. I mean, there's a reason people have been congregating in mass, be it to worship fire and snakes, the sun, Allah, God, Jaweh, etc. We're social creatures. I mean, look where we are right now, a gaming forum. Gaming is social as can be... But organized worship is not for everyone and I find myself often falling into the "Chreaster" category. A dumb joke they make for ppl that only attend on Christmas and/or Easter. Whatever, doesn't make me a bad Christian or person IMO. In fact, alot of the non-attendees, atheists, and agnostics alike are better "Christians" so to speak than alot of the diehards I'd see every Sunday like clockwork. You don't have to label yourself religion 'x' to adopt and espouse some of its beliefs in other words. But we all know this. It's between God and me, not the congregation and me[/B], but just because a few condemn me namely by social choice, doesn't mean I reject the whole of religion as a result. It's a human constant, a tool we need IMO and exists for a reason, but no one said you have to pick up said tool and use it, just don't spoil the hope or comfort it might bring someone else is all. Like gaming we cherish so well. I swear by it. Cheaper than a movie, many times longer. Great way to kill time w/ friends and have fun as well as stretch the imagination, inspire young artists/writers, whatever. Who's it hurting though? And yet, there are many (a vast many) that unfairly slander it constantly, seek to censor or get rid of it, and know nothing of it as they've never engaged or studied it and are prone to making sudden leaps to rather extreme conclusions. When people do that, odd things happen like wars and revolutions, book burnings, you know. Rather than spend that time fighting (cuz' who's it hurting really?), it would be best for all to try and understand, then at least we'd know why we hate 'x' or love 'y' and not do it for the wrong reasons. |
| Okinawa3d05-16-08, 05:41 PM | Great auto-biography. I believe that it is in the spirit of the discussion and personally I like to read everyone’s story….not just Christians. As I have stated before, I personally have no conflict with D&D and Christianity…now I know some do and as I will tell shortly how I grew up around a WHOLE lot of people who do take issue with D&D, and some who still do….i.e. Mother-In-Law. I was raised in the church of Christ, non-instrumental, so for those of you who do not know this denomination, it is not Mormon….I would call the denomination conservative Baptist. LOL I too was forced to attend services as a child and did not enjoy the fire and brimstone sermons that took place almost weekly. I even went through a period of rebellion of stating I was an atheist and did not believe in God….that was more to get a rise out of my step-father and mother than my actual belief system. When I finally truly came to a conclusion that Jesus was Christ, and my Lord and Savior was on a canoeing trip on the Buffalo River in Northern Arkansas---if you have not been down the Buffalo you are missing a great time…on many levels. I was teamed up with my pastor, who was a Canadian that came to the US to pastor a church…..he told me that Canada was much more secular and that he believed the time was coming in Canada that Christians would be punished for expressing their belief IAW the Bible. So there we were floating in a canoe down a river when I asked Dean---the pastor, how do I know that Christ was real? He asked me a couple of simple questions (now I was only sixteen so the examples were good for my age)…he asked if I believed that there was a man named George Washington who was the first President of the USA…I said yes…Then he asked me if I believed there was a man named Abraham Lincoln, and I said yes. He asked me why I believed in them if I had never saw them…I said, because they are in our history books. Then he said to me…”you know the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people setting the foundation for the coming of the Messiah and the New Testament is the history of Jesus’ time on earth passed down from person to person….in writing believed to have been written by people who actually knew the Lord.” This made me give pause….then he told me…..”You know that there are only two types of people in the world….saved sinners and unsaved sinners.” He said God loved us all and it was not his place to say anyone was going to hell, but he did believe that the bible was the word of God and therefore he believed what Christ said to us….That he who believes in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (Now, this is not meant to convince anyone I am right…only to tell my story….so no offense meant to anyone.) Well this was good enough for a sixteen year old so I got baptized not long after that day. (I will not go into the dogma of that denomination and this is not meant to spark debate on baptism…so please none needed.) Well, now came a pivotal moment in my life as a Christian…it occurred about two years later outside the church when I was talking to one of the church elders. I asked him why some believed that just because others had music in the church that they were dishonoring Christ and would be punished. He gave me the standard dogmatic answer about the subject….well, I said…”Brother, I just don’t see how that can be true.” Then he did the unthinkable…he told a young impressionable young man….”Well, if you don’t believe that maybe you don’t belong here.” Can you imagine the nerves of this guy? Now, the icing on the cake was my next statement…..”You mean to tell me that it is okay for you to be standing outside the church smoking a cigarette, but Baptist are going to hell for a piano in church?” He stated, “I am not smoking in the church.” I could not believe the hypocrisy of this guy…so that was my last day in that church for a great number of years. (So I let the actions of one guy cloud my vision of Christ…he was one idiot and did not speak for the body of Christ…but, I was young.) Well, fast forward many years….I am now married attending a non-denominational church with my wife and they have a full band and everyone is laughing at the pastor telling jokes and smiling and praising the Lord. Now the message was still very biblically based, but all of a sudden the pastor was making the word of God relevant to everyday living and preaching of how God loves everyone and our job as Christians is to love our neighbor. He emphasized free will and that no one should feel forced into believing…that God would never want that. This was more of the loving, yet disciplining God that I believed exist. Now, has my walk been smooth….NO…far from it. I still wonder sometimes about all the bad in the world and all the hate between our fellow man….for dumb things, race...creed…gender…sexuality…nationalit y…etc…. you pick it and someone will find a reason to hate you for it (or find some sentence in the Bible to justify their hate). I wonder about all the children who are born in pain and all the pain people suffer. I wonder about my chosen career and the things I have done in the name of my government and how God will view those actions at my judgment. Let’s just say I wonder a lot. BUT, what is important is I don’t feel like I am sinning by question the above. I feel like God gave me a brain to try and figure out questions of nature, science and morality. I also rely on my faith to accept those things that I cannot explain. Meaning, I just don’t think about them constantly. I figure that I will come to understand more as I live and learn…I will gain Wisdom (which of course age would give me a higher modifier). I have A LOT of education…A LOT…let’s just say that the US Army has spent its money to educate me…and the education will not stop. It will not be long before I have a PhD (on top of a MBA and MS) and then I am still considering what degree I want when I use my GI Bill. So, I have access to the best and brightest minds in academia. (I joke with the mother-in-law sometimes that I am going into religion…tax free money. Of course that horrifies her, but what horrifies me more is the clowns that are getting peoples money and living in 10 million dollar houses and driving expensive cars….I guess they have been “blessed” because of all the “good” they have done. Okay…can’t wait to be in line behind them at judgment…..and if you are behind me….well, I may be a while.) In saying all that…some of my BEST instructors have been those who profess to be atheist or agnostic….now, let me qualify this statement…these are men and women who do not want to stop my freedom to believe and accept that we will disagree. They have very well thought out reasons for their lack of faith in God (or something). They are mostly “progressive” types who do not slander those of faith and instead understand that the 1st Amendment of our Constitution protect our right to have faith and the right to have none….and above all they understand that the intent of the Amendment was to prevent a state religion. (Now I have great professors who are very devout Christians, Mormons, Buddhist, Muslim, etc…. I used atheist and agnostics to make a point.) In all time of travel through faith, it has often been the ones who most twist their faith to fit their world view who have found “evil” in the game I love. Instead of talking to us who play it and seeing the fun we have, the fellowship of friends (of all faiths and lack of faiths), to see us follow the second most important Commandment --- To love our neighbor as we love God ---Now that is paraphrased a lot, but my point is live in peace and goodwill. I really think that as long as we are not “casting spells” and “kneeling at the altar of whomever” then we are playing a game. (I also believe Christ would be the ultimate DM…sorry Gary…can you imagine a DM who knows what you are going to do before you do it and since he does he keeps the story going and makes sure you have fun all the time. That you learn something from your adventures with friends (and that does not mean memorize bible verses…but, learn through living) ----- Again, no offense to anyone. That is just my take on the entire process.);) We game to have fun….not to become a real “elf” “dwarf” “gnome” “fighter” “cleric” etc…. get the point. : ) Do some people use the game for other reasons? Probably. Will someone use the game to excuse horrible acts conducted by an individual with free will? Yes, happens all the time in an age that does not encourage individual responsibly and accountability. Will, I be playing D&D in heaven? I sure hope so and I want to get Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter to play an epic campaign with me. I want to see if I can best the greatest writers in history (IMO)….and while they are at it explain the whole dinosaur thing to me….JK. :) I know this has been a long response…if I bored you I am sorry. I am a Christian, Husband, Father, American, Soldier and I am sure many other things to different people. But, what I am to my gaming group is John St. John, Cleric/Inquisitor of Photus who keeps them alive and puts the wicked in their place. So, come on d20 with a +5 circumstance bonus for brevity. :D |
| KelanenPrinceofSwords05-16-08, 06:07 PM | Though I wish you had some spirituality/religion, I respectfully yield to your right to choose otherwise. I don't think you're embracing nihilism or evil by being atheistic for what it's worth either. Though I must confess, agnosticism and atheism are religions of a sort too. I posted earlier, "religion" (re'ligio). re=again, ligio=connect. "To reconnect." In this case, to the source, existential mystery, higher powers, whatever. Not God specifically, but it can be. It's just a humanized tool for philosphic exploration. I also wish you could participate in a collegiate relgion/ethics course. Not trying to win you over, simply to invoke serious, meaningful reflection and analysis where the tools for intense religious & philosphic deconstruction are available in an adult, cerebral environment. Ex) you want to study human form & biology, you engage in gross anatomy, medical courses, intern at a hospital, etc. Same thing here, just another institution of humanity's pursuit of truth and knowledge and where we come from, yada yada yada. I feel a strong connection with nature -- a wonderfully complex universe of such beauty that it is natural that observers should assume it could only have been designed by an omnipotent creator -- I believed so for 35 years. I am still filled with a sense of wonder by reality, even if I no longer see it as the product of an immortal designer. I am also strongly attracted to Stoicism, at least what I know of it from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and Taoism as I understood it from reading the Tao Te Ching. So I'm not completely devoid of a "spiritual" side. I guess I'm a multiclass when it comes to spirituality -- naturalist/stoic/taoist.:) I did actually take a world religions course in college, which ultimately was, to me anyway, a step along the path to atheism. I've also studied biology, anatomy, physiology, pathology, and earth sciences, all of which contributed to my current interests, and also my current beliefs (or lack thereof ;) ). |
| Renark von Bek05-16-08, 11:54 PM | Sorry, but this thread reminded me of something in my game please don't get offended anyone. I was playing a bard and due to some insane dming we ended up in a ravenloft realm which started out as WWI france. After a slight miscomunication about what AD meant my bard decided that since it was 1919 years into the reign of that lord he must be a lich. |
| Winterleaf05-17-08, 01:09 PM | Ah, where to go with this thread. . . First off, in order to bring any potential biases right up front: I'm an atheist. I'm 39, and I've played D&D and other RPG's on and off for about 24 years. I was "lucky" enough to recall when public perception of D&D was shaped by the tracts of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, and the Mazes and Monsters movie (should have been subtitled That-Which-Should-Not-Be-Watched). Friends who were religious or lived in religious homes were often under siege from two fronts; the general ridicule role-players had to put up with, and the disapproval of parents or religious leaders who saw the game as a corrupting influence. I didn't envy them. Fast forward to 2000. Having picked up the box that introduced the 3E rules, I decided to teach my daughter and one of her friends (Andrew) to play (both were 7-8 at the time). The friend's mom (Rachel) sat in on a couple of sessions, with her own character. Rachel was active in her church, her brother was a pastor or church official of some sort, and she had no issues with the game. So all should have been good. . . . . . except that Andrew's cousins, who he was very close to, were beginning to feel uncomfortable with some of Andrew's hobbies. He loved Star Wars, M:tG, Pokemon, Harry Potter, and was enjoying D&D. Although it did not happen all at once, over time his cousins were disallowed from collecting Pokemon (pokepowers=magic) Star Wars (Force=magic) M:tG, Harry Potter (even have to ask?) and D&D was out of the question. And because they were forbidden from taking part in these things it started to drive a wedge between him and his cousins because with each edict handed down to them it was one less game they could play, one less topic they could discuss, and Andrew loved to talk with his cousins about the stuff he did. Thankfully, Rachel did not agree with the substance of her Andrew's uncle's decisions, and actually played a few sessions before the whole thing ran out gas. What's my point? 1. Rachel made up her own mind about the game. People are like that. Some people disagree about tertiary elements of their faith, even though their core beliefs might be the same. Thankfully there are plenty of Christians who disagree with certain notions some of their peers (and some of their Christina leaders) have about D&D's "inherent evil." 2. Faulty reasoning can have a religious component, or a secular one. All the people who thought D&D would cause you to lose your marbles were no less misguided than the people who thought D&D would lead you down the path to Satan. I'll try to keep this on the whole D&D topic, because the whole atheist/believer debate has thousands of other boards on which to propagate. Suffice it to say that over the years, any flack I've gotten from gaming has had less to do with religious beliefs and more to do with social conditioning, and that most of the gamers I've known would call themselves Christian, probably non-denominational or non-practicing. |
| 1 ton ghost05-17-08, 02:07 PM | I feel a strong connection with nature -- a wonderfully complex universe of such beauty that it is natural that observers should assume it could only have been designed by an omnipotent creator Druidic in a way. You seem to have a decent Wis ;) Do you find a totemic representation valid? In short, what's your bearing or what do you mean? I feel you and all. I can appreciate the reverence for the natural world, encourage it even. Especialy in America. God, the rampant waste...That's a sin if there ever was one, you know? They don't talk about it alot in contemporary circles, but the concept of Dominion, especially w/ everyone going green now is major. It's just not gonna' get the ratings other bones of contention might on CNN. Sad, but true. Essentially, the world is this big, magic, complex place we've been gifted IMO. We're the tenets and it's a present. Thus, we have the right to use these presents from God, but we don't have the right to trash "His apartment". We're supposed to use the planet responsibly. He'll be pi$$ed if we squander and take it for granted, he'll "raise the rent" so to speak. Hence, alot of the environmental troubles we're seeing of late. It's not necessarilly preordained IMO, just a result of carelessness on our part, consumerism, greed. Now, nature's gotta' throw out hurricanes, earthquakes and the like, necessary evils I'm afraid, but it's also giving up alot of food, timber, all manner of wildlife. More good than bad it would seem. We need to respect it, but sadly, more and more entitlement seems to be the way of all things which infuriates me. It, like respect, must be earned... So, yeah, treating the natural world as a religion can be very sound spiritualy, it's just alot (not all) of the pseudo-religious hippy types I know that do this are flippant and posture religious seriousness when it's convenient. That's not to say that there aren't those that take it very seriously and commmit, it's just you don't see them often cuz' they're busy actually doing what's right, they don't have time to advertise their faith. "Do no harm to yourself or others" is often a matter of convenience to alot of "posers" which bothers me, but hypocrisy isn't specific to 1 faith. Take me for example...:rolleyes: I know, I know, but acceptance is the first step and all that jazz. When has pride ever helped? I just think their lack of organization and committment/sacrifice has fostered a kind of casual, cult-like status, not a bona fide religion which is sad. With proper funding, actual houses of worship (be it a church, grove of trees, menhirs, crop circles, etc), and strong/moral leadership, it could work well, but failure to ante up and make a show of force in faith and life will sadly keep it seen as a movement, not a religion. It takes sacrifice to kick start it. I think this is why I have a strong appreciation for John the Baptist, Buddhist monks, anyone that rejects the material world as it's fleating at best. They had to fight hard, sacrifice to appreciate the natural world, not jsut read a few books at the library and attend a camp out to celebrate Beltaine. You have to have follow through which is in rare supply these days. I appreciate that position. I would not rule out the possibility of outside creation, it's just, like you said, as a rational conclusion, "so wonderfully complex" and so on, it would lead me to believe it wasn't just a random fluke. But who knows, I could be wrong, you know? Like I tell most everyone, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." I am also strongly attracted to Stoicism, at least what I know of it from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and Taoism as I understood it from reading the Tao Te Ching. Right on. Respect and all. Can't say I'm practicing Shintoism, but when I was really into Kendo, I started up on Bushido and cannibalized alot of it into my own version of Lutheranism. Read the Tao, Book of Five Rings, alot of other Eastern mythoi and it's all good. Stop me if I'm out of line; Religion, I guess, is kind of like a buffet. Some parts are more appealing than others. Some people have food allergies, others really like desert, some people aren't that hungry to begin with, etc. But, the bill is the same IMO... So I'm not completely devoid of a "spiritual" side. I guess I'm a multiclass when it comes to spirituality -- naturalist/stoic/taoist.:) I'm sorry if I implied that you were. I stand corrected in that event. I was wrong to have named you so or too quick in my typing (rambling really). Like I said a post or 2 back, alot of the atheists/agnostics I know are better Christians than alot of the Christians I grew up with. Many are very pure biologically, give alms and help the poor, help their neighbors, and so forth. Good things overall, not specific to 1 faith, right? They have a sprituality, it's just they do not identify w/ the popular preconceived notions of contemporary religion, namely the big 3 for whatever motivations they subscribe too. Said it once, I'll say it a million times, "Religion (spirituality), or lack thereof in this case, is a personal thing between you and God or whatever you identify with." I did actually take a world religions course in college, which ultimately was, to me anyway, a step along the path to atheism. I've also studied biology, anatomy, physiology, pathology, and earth sciences, all of which contributed to my current interests, and also my current beliefs (or lack thereof ;) ). Ditto. I just went the other way long story short. :D College wise; Relgion, Ethics, Religon and Film (loved that one), all manner of Psych courses, ton of studio art, art history (probably the most influential) and art therapy (my degrees technically), and bla bla bla all had their way with me so to speak and helped to cultivate my present belief system (it changes over the years). This was formal acadamia though. My sister's death at 5 (DUI hit her), several friends 19-26 dying too young (murder, accidental shooting, and car wreck), good and back breakups, folks divorce, unplanned pregnancy and subsequent paternity nightmare (another guy's), stuff like that could've broken me. It didn't though, I understood. This kinda' stuff turns alot of people to atheism. Life, especially in college, was incredibly difficult for me and I could've pointed the finger, but I didn't. I get mad as Hell when ppl say, "Why did God take them?" or "Why did He do this to me?" Own the fact of life and responsibility for a change. Like I saw in an old music video, "God kills moms and puppies cuz' He has to." That is to say, it has lead me accept the inevitabilities of life/death. My current religious conviction isn't pure Lutheran, Christian. I got some issues (more like a subscription ;) ), but I make do and go through life for now. It works for me. I'd say it's Neutral Good for the most part and makes for good conversation when I'm at the bar w/ my friend Chip when we're not talking about our girls, playstation crap, or the news. Otherwise, it's mine and mine alone and thus far, has worked pretty good. My take has helped alot of others, but I never forced it on anyone which is the stance I think ppl should take IMO. But, it's not gonna' happen so I just keep to my own devices and move on... Sorry for long lecture part II. Gonna' have a book signing soon ;) . |
| necklace_o-fireballs05-18-08, 02:46 PM | I'm atheist, but I come from a christian family, and live in a christian neighbourhood. Quite honestly, no one in my family has anything against D&D, but some people in my neighbourhood are really uptight about it... Ah well. On topic, no, I'm not christian.:( |
| JediJoeH05-29-08, 03:54 PM | Ah, words to cherish in your final moments. :P Okay, it wasn't THAT close to when he died. A month maybe. And it wasn't that harsh. But it was short like that. I really didn't want to get into a whole discussion. So I didn't. |
| key06-02-08, 01:13 AM | I really didn't want to get into a whole discussion. So I didn't. Just giving you a hard time, no offense intended. Sorry for your loss. Fortunately, I haven't had to go through something like that yet. |