This is continued from our debate in the tavern.
It all began with the fateful posting of this (http://www.exposingsatanism.org/d_d_talk.htm) link.
Quote from: Veloxugh. Christianity vrs. roleplaying is a debate similar to the nutritional value of eggs and their yolks. At one time, it seemed urgent and interesting, and was somewhat popular. Now it's just ammo for comedians.
that guy seems to switch his argument a bit....
"everything in d&d is real! the demons you summon are real! the offense against god is real!"
"its imaginary! it pulls you away from the real world!"
so... is it real, or not? [/quote]Ars Goetia.[/quote]If not, I guess I'm a minority.[/quote]well...
she was a virgin when i found her, anyways...
and i believe the binder class is based on faust, if im not mistaken. that said, regardless of what it's based on, the fact of the matter is that it isnt real. [/quote]
There will always be zealots and crazies for any cause. There are plenty of crazies within the RPG world that give the opponents of the genre fuel for the fire-- there are plenty of fundamentalist evangelicals who fuel anti-religious debates.
The problem with sweeping statements like "D&D leads to Satanism" is that it attempts to do two things: use sweeping generalizations about Satanism and sweeping generalizations about D&D. The authors of these sorts of articles clearly have no understanding of Occultism in general or the various branches of Satanism in particular; lumping together various cults and branches of demonology (many of the largest branches of Satanism don't even believe in a literal Satan) shows ignorance at best and down-right deception at worst.
However, the blade wielded is one of two edges. Just as religious fanatics who have neither researched the subject at hand (nor understand that small samples do not represent the entire population) clearly misrepresent both gamers and RPGs, statements like "all religion should be banned" are downright inflammatory and do nothing to further a global community. Atheists should understand more than anyone that choosing a religion (or absence thereof) is a personal choice that everyone is entitled to-- spirituality and mysticism may not be your cup o' joe, but your beliefs aren't universal. Even atheists can study religions and appreciate the moral and ethical examples led by influential religious and philosophical figures such as Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha, even if you do not believe in the existence of a divine power. There is no overwhelmingly unified atheist movement for a reason-- atheism is, at its core, an individual and very personal commitment to an ideal. It is like viewing the ocean of reality through the porthole of your own life-- it may seem objective and entirely unbiased from your position, but someone next to you could see an entirely different ocean. Neither of you would be wrong, your view would just be different.
-ElDo
Exactly. As my grandfather has always said - there is no such thing as a true atheist - all of them believe in there not being a god.
This never really made sense to me, either. But still.
Atheism isn't the lack of belief, to clarify. It's the belief that there is no supreme divine being.
Yes, I know... that's why it doesn't really make sense to me. *looks slightly confused*
Well, there is a difference between believing-there-is-not-a-god (atheism) and not-believing-there-is-a-god (agnosticism)
Note: This may be a slight oversimplification of these two beliefs (or non-beliefs if you prefer)
Oh, you're confusing me now.
I thought... no, actually, I can't simplify at further :D
Quote from: GolemOh, you're confusing me now.
I thought... no, actually, I can't simplify at further :D
Believing there is no god means you have conviction in the absense of divinity.
Not believing there is a god means you are cynical or unsure and do not necessarily
disbelieve, but neither do you confirm the existence of divinity
Yus.
I'm more of an agnostic than anything...
I've long been wanting to start the Church of Atheism. I believe in religion as being an organization many people need (being an atheist myself, I nonetheless understand and admire faith) but, unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to find anywhere for people who need faith but are unwilling to go to church. A pseudo Church of Atheism would fix that. Of course, that's one of my more peculiar beliefs, I suppose.
(And it is slightly off topic.)
Quote from: JharvissI've long been wanting to start the Church of Atheism. I believe in religion as being an organization many people need (being an atheist myself, I nonetheless understand and admire faith) but, unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to find anywhere for people who need faith but are unwilling to go to church. A pseudo Church of Atheism would fix that. Of course, that's one of my more peculiar beliefs, I suppose.
(And it is slightly off topic.)
Just out of curiosity, what do Atheists put their faith in? If it's the human race, that is a bad investment.
That whole website is, pardon my language, full of shit. Of course, anyone who says anything like that in response to it is obviously a follower of Satan, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter.
Big problem: surveying fellow members of your church and only your church, contrary to popular belief, doesn't give you a good representation of everybody.
I hate these sites. People who believe their way to be the purest are often the most impure.
If these people weren't so unreasonable in their beliefs and claims, I'd gladly call myself a Christian. Until then, I'll have to classify myself as a pseudo-Christian.
Quote from: stargate525Quote from: JharvissI've long been wanting to start the Church of Atheism. I believe in religion as being an organization many people need (being an atheist myself, I nonetheless understand and admire faith) but, unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to find anywhere for people who need faith but are unwilling to go to church. A pseudo Church of Atheism would fix that. Of course, that's one of my more peculiar beliefs, I suppose.
(And it is slightly off topic.)
Just out of curiosity, what do Atheists put their faith in? If it's the human race, that is a bad investment.
science. "'god' didnt create the universe, the big bang did. 'god' didnt make humans, evolution did. it's all scientifically observable."
edit- did anybody else notice that the only source cited on that page was just another page from the same site? way to prove credibility, citing yourself....
Mmm. You'll also notice that the guy writing it is a reformed bishop of satanism or some rank like that...
It's not religions that are the problem, it's the orginizations that try to pass off as the guiding beacon of moral righteousness that are. Ban orginized religion and cults, and let people figure out what to do by working together with their neighbors. And only their neighbors.
On top of that, the writer's use of actual game material and reasonings for other topics on the site for being "false" is very selective. Notice how when he talks about the idea of D&D he completely ignores the fact that the standard D&D game is as much about being champions of good and defeating demons and dragons and the minions of evil gods as it is about gaining treasure and power. And in turn, that treasure and power gives you the ability to better combat evil. Which, unless I'm mistaken, real-world servants of God have a hard time doing without some level of wealth and influence...
One of the things I really just can't understand is how these hardcore 'devotees' think that Christianity is any more right than previous religions.
Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinQuote from: stargate525Just out of curiosity, what do Atheists put their faith in? If it's the human race, that is a bad investment.
science. "'god' didnt create the universe, the big bang did. 'god' didnt make humans, evolution did. it's all scientifically observable."
edit- did anybody else notice that the only source cited on that page was just another page from the same site? way to prove credibility, citing yourself....
Which begs the question; How do you observe something that happened several billion years ago, by your reckoning? Off-topic much, but something to think about.
Quote from: WitchHuntOne of the things I really just can't understand is how these hardcore 'devotees' think that Christianity is any more right than previous religions.
Because it's the one they believe in, the same way some Islamists think that they are the only right ones etcetera. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most older religions (created before 1000 AD) believe theirs is the only correct way.
Quote from: WitchHuntIf these people weren't so unreasonable in their beliefs and claims, I'd gladly call myself a Christian. Until then, I'll have to classify myself as a pseudo-Christian.
Physician heal thyself. Just like surveying only your church is a bad sample of everyone, so is only observing the extremists. I'm a Christian, and am glad to say am nothing like these people. The term Christianity has become a very loose category, and by definition there are alot of sects and cults in it that shouldn't be.
Quote from: GolemMmm. You'll also notice that the guy writing it is a reformed bishop of satanism or some rank like that...
near as i can tell, he was the high priest of an alexandrian wiccan coven. it's actually not quite as big of a deal as he makes it sound, more along the lines of being the local pastor, or rabbi.
did anybody notice that he has "animorphs" under the heading of witchcraft? y'know, if he really was a wiccan high priest, i'd imagine he'd know better....
QuotePhysician heal thyself. Just like surveying only your church is a bad sample of everyone, so is only observing the extremists. I'm a Christian, and am glad to say am nothing like these people. The term Christianity has become a very loose category, and by definition there are alot of sects and cults in it that shouldn't be.
I should have been a bit more clearer, but my comment on being a pseudo-Christian was a bit of a mockery of the extremist views. I've met enough Christians in the past that are hardly as ridiculous, and if anything don't even look like Christians in practice except for the fact that they go to church on sunday.
Do not confuse "looking like a Christian" with "looking like an evangelical fundamentalist Bible-thumper".
To Stargate525, I think humanity is a perfectly reasonable thing to invest my faith in. Humans astound me every single day, much more so than God does. The goodness in people is overwhelming, the sacrifice people are willing to make. I'm very partial toward human beings and I think that humans are God.
Quote from: JharvissTo Stargate525, I think humanity is a perfectly reasonable thing to invest my faith in. Humans astound me every single day, much more so than God does. The goodness in people is overwhelming, the sacrifice people are willing to make. I'm very partial toward human beings and I think that humans are God.
Vox populi, vox dei
And vica verca, Seraphine Harmonium.
Quote from: Jharviss...and I think that humans are God.
you're kidding me! i thought i was the only one....
and stargate, you're right; it does beg the question of how one can observe something that long ago. keep in mind, though, that logic also applies to biblical creation, as well.
I get the feeling that if you want to find a group of intellectuals that will calmly debate religion well, this would be a great place to do it.
We can dismiss a significant part of this site as rank hypocrisy. The ninth commandment states, 'Do not bear false witness,' but this page is so full of of lies I'm surprised my monitor didn't sprout a long leafy nose when the window opened. It doesn't say much about the accuracy of the other pages that I've seen examples of other data that I know to be false as well.
Furthermore, unlike a great many religious-right type kooks, the content of this sight condemns President Bush as the dupe of a Satanist conspiracy. Are we sure this isn't a joke site? Like Landover Baptist?
If it is a serious site, I would characterize the author as an egotist trying to revive the D&D scare of the '80s for pure self-aggrandisement. I wouldn't take it too seriously, but if anyone knows of a venue in which the author would be open to debate - even a message board would do - I will gladly take up the challenge. My father served as a Methodist preacher; I have a study bible, and I know how to use it.
Quote from: JharvissTo Stargate525, I think humanity is a perfectly reasonable thing to invest my faith in. Humans astound me every single day, much more so than God does. The goodness in people is overwhelming, the sacrifice people are willing to make. I'm very partial toward human beings and I think that humans are God.
I agree that humans have a tremendous capacity for good, but if we are god, then I'm frankly scared to death of him. We also have a tremendous capacity for evil, for every kind person there is one who is just as evil.
Quote from: DeeLThe ninth commandment states, 'Do not bear false witness,'
What bible are you using? Mine has that as the eighth... Probably combines nine and ten. Anyway...
I think the Bible pretty well states that God has a tremendous capacity for evil as well. He's not exactly the epitome of happiness in the Old Testament.
Quote from: stargate525Quote from: DeeLThe ninth commandment states, 'Do not bear false witness,'
What bible are you using? Mine has that as the eighth... Probably combines nine and ten. Anyway...
New American Standard, Study Edition. I just looked over the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and count the prohibition against being false about others as the ninth commandment, the tenth being the prohibition on covetousness and the eighth being against theft. What exactly do you mean by combining the ninth and tenth commandments? (I'm not trying to be difficult here; I have heard the prohibition against false witness listed as the eighth commandment before, and just don't know how that would work.)
from a christian perspective, however, GOD's acts of wrath and vengeance were justified by the acts of the targets. speaking as a non-christian, it reminds me of the monty python skit where a criminal would frequently nail boards to his victims heads; the victims constantly claimed, "oh yes, very nice chap. well yes, he did nail a board to my head, but to be fair, i had it coming." i imagine christians don't see it that way, though.
by the way, notice how many times this guy cites the book of leviticus? from what i understand, many scholars consider levit to be the bastard-step-child-book of the bible, as almost the entire book was rendered obsolete with the covenant of christ. if we choose to go by levit, then i no longer see any immoralty in enslaving canadians.
According to Leviticus, I have the right, nay, the duty, to stone my neighbor for shaving his sideburns. How dare he, that pagan sideburn shaving bastard!
I, of course, feel very fashionable in my enormous sideburns.
I just wanted to observe something that you won't hear very frequently from the clergy, although if you ask the wise ones will quietly admit it.
Everyone reads and quotes those parts of the bible they want and ignores the rest. Everyone.
Quote from: DeeLNew American Standard, Study Edition. I just looked over the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and count the prohibition against being false about others as the ninth commandment, the tenth being the prohibition on covetousness and the eighth being against theft. What exactly do you mean by combining the ninth and tenth commandments? (I'm not trying to be difficult here; I have heard the prohibition against false witness listed as the eighth commandment before, and just don't know how that would work.)
The way I learned it was;
8- false witness
9- coveting of property
10- coveting of everything else
I still use it simply because it's what I learned, although it does not make much sense to have them split.
Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinfrom a christian perspective, however, GOD's acts of wrath and vengeance were justified by the acts of the targets. speaking as a non-christian, it reminds me of the monty python skit where a criminal would frequently nail boards to his victims heads; the victims constantly claimed, "oh yes, very nice chap. well yes, he did nail a board to my head, but to be fair, i had it coming." i imagine christians don't see it that way, though.
Do you consider jailing someone an evil act? It is essentially what God does, only for an eternity. And to be honest, there is no confirmed case of God's wrath and vengeance being brought down on earth for thousands of years. Some would even argue that God does not punish anyone who abandons him, just ceases to protect him from the evil that would otherwise befall him.
Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinby the way, notice how many times this guy cites the book of leviticus? from what i understand, many scholars consider levit to be the bastard-step-child-book of the bible, as almost the entire book was rendered obsolete with the covenant of christ. if we choose to go by levit, then i no longer see any immoralty in enslaving canadians.
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were all rendered obsolete after Christ's coming. They were the groundwork for a civilization's attempt to stave off God's wrath, which is no longer needed through Christ.
*looks around the boards*
...Am I the only Christian here? If so, I' a bit afraid of taking on the entire boards in this conversation...
Hey guys, I don't mind religious discussion here, any discussion is fine, and any and all opinions are valid; let's just make sure everyone keeps things civil.
Edit: And let me clarify by saying, I don't think anyone here has said anything out of line yet, I just want to make sure we stay that way.
Cheers!
Quote from: stargate525...Am I the only Christian here? If so, I' a bit afraid of taking on the entire boards in this conversation...
Not the only one!
I'm not interested in "taking on the entire boards," though. I've avoided most of this topic, because extremist whackjobs like this article's author make me angry!
Thanks, Ish. We're cool.
Stargate@, I'm a Christian, although I disagree with most of the tenets of the major denominations. I cannot imagine possessing the kind of mind that would swallow biblical inerancy or the infallibility of any mortal person, even if loads of other people refer to him as a 'pope'.
Edit: And just so everyone knows, I'm not really out to take on anyone, except perhaps the author of that so-called 'exposing Satanism' site.
Quote from: DeeLThanks, Ish. We're cool.
Stargate@, I'm a Christian, although I disagree with most of the tenets of the major denominations. I cannot imagine possessing the kind of mind that would swallow biblical inerancy or the infallibility of any mortal person, even if loads of other people refer to him as a 'pope'.
There are numerous major denominations that do not consider the Bible inerrant, and only Catholics place any emphasis upon the Pope (and many Catholics I've spoken to are moving away from the infallibility of that figure, as well.)
There are a surprising number of us who are remarkably rational, progressive, well-educated, and even (*gasp!*) socially liberal. We just don't get a lot of airtime, because we don't froth at the mouth. :)
Yeah, it seems to be getting that way.
I haven't had a good yak about faith wars in quite a while, so allow me to indulge...
I myself put absolutely no stock in religion whatsoever, but heathen attempts to smear the integrity of Christianity always seem yawn-inducing. I mean, how many arguments against the theodicy do we need? It all seems to be a restating of the same nonsense you've heard innumerable times before.
The worst offender is: "religion has caused more wars than anything else." How many times have any of us heard that, and how quickly did it become an obscene, overused cliche? For one, it's basic premise is wrong. People have caused more wars than anything else - heck, we cause all wars. It's like saying "guns kill people" or "cars are made for hit-and-runs". It's the ultimate moral cop-out, wherein the absolute responsibility, which should lie in the hands of men and women, is placed upon an inanimate object, or in the case of religion, a concept without physical property.
I find it worrisome that such an argument is one of the most oft-touted in the "war" against religion. It's like the war against terrorism. You cannot fight it; it is an idea, and like religion, it stems from a human aspect that cannor be quashed by any means short of mind control. We are not fighting "terror" when we increase security measures and turn a wary eye towards those of 'ethnic' persuasion, for terror can only be conquered within onesself. We are fighting terrorists, a corporeal threat with more immediate relevance to our supposedly dimished physical safety. Similarly, we can try to fight religion all we want, but it is a quality that has no physical base. It's a human conflict; a war against aspects of Man. Better to focus your efforts against its use and abuse: Against political restructuring of faith, against genocide inspired by ideologies, and many other things. To make war against religion is to ignore its good qualities (altruism, modesty, honesty, restraint, cooperation, respect... etc.) in pursuit of the destruction of the bad, and to ignore the fact that whether or not you can destroy a given faith, you can never destroy faith, and faith will in time become religion, because that's what it does.
You're fighting a losing battle, folks (or at least one I hope you do not altogether win), and for all that I disagree with stargate525's beliefs as a Christian, I do not disagree with his unquestionable prerogative to choose.
Now that was cathartic.
EDIT:
Having said all this, let me emphasise: I agree that there are numerous faults inherent in any given religion. But it is important to remember that the fault of the part does not entail a fault of the whole. Just because a given religion has certain unsavoury qualities, it does not follow that all religions share such qualities. It is merely testament to Relgion's capacity for such things. Much like mankind, eh?
A brief reminder on terminology:
Jerry Falwell, Jack Chick, and the guy who runs that site are EVANGELICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS. Most of the stereotypes and fallacies applied to Christians in some circles are really the beliefs of a visible minority.
CHRISTIANS are a much, much, much more diverse lot. Trying to characterize a Christian belief is akin to triyng to define all scientists, regardless of their field of study-- only the most basic statements are universal (belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all things, as the path of salvation, for example-- and that's a common trait, not a unilateral truth).
And darnitall, Salacious beat me to posting AND stated my view better than I could have.
Quote from: Salacious AngelNow that was cathartic.
As cathartic to read as I'm sure it must have been to write. Thank you for that.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: stargate525...Am I the only Christian here? If so, I' a bit afraid of taking on the entire boards in this conversation...
Not the only one!
I'm not interested in "taking on the entire boards," though. I've avoided most of this topic, because extremist whackjobs like this article's author make me angry!
Huzzah, moral support!
Quote from: DeeLThanks, Ish. We're cool.
Stargate@, I'm a Christian, although I disagree with most of the tenets of the major denominations. I cannot imagine possessing the kind of mind that would swallow biblical inerancy or the infallibility of any mortal person, even if loads of other people refer to him as a 'pope'.
Edit: And just so everyone knows, I'm not really out to take on anyone, except perhaps the author of that so-called 'exposing Satanism' site.
our ranks are now three! DeeL, no worries from me as far as denominational differences.
I probably should clarify, by 'taking on the entire boards' I meant something more like 'being argued to death.' This was previous experience, and I see that I might actually enjoy this debate.
Well, I consider myself a sort of atheist, more of a "weak atheist" than strong one. (If you haven't heard the term before, google is your friend.)
But mostly I'm with SA here. In my view, all religions are human institutions, and as such, are prone to error, irrationality, bigotry, and hate, as much so for love and brotherhood. Just like other human institutions, like Rotary Club, or political parties, or the like. Individual religions should be judged (in my view) for the balance of positive vs. negative qualities.
Of course, we'd all wish that irrationality and superstition would be banished. It's identifying what exactly constitutes these things that is the hard part. I see the evangelical/fundamentalist mind set as promoting these things, and hence evil. But these can be found in variations of all religions, and also in pretty much any political party, or any movement that arrogates to itself the sole right of moral judgment. Religion isn't particularly better or worse at this than anything else.
The example at hand seems to be a case where someone is trying to "prove" his own righteousness by denouncing the perceived sins of others. The proper response to this is more pity than anger. Whatever this person is looking for, s/he won't find it on the path s/he is currently following.
As for me, I'm just glad this is the kind of board where someone can post like Salacious Angel just did without provoking either a 'duuuuuh' response or a hearty, 'YOU GODLESS ATHIEST! HOW DARE YOU TRY TO BE RATIONAL! FAITH DOES NOT CONFORM TO MERE RATIONALITY, AND I REFUSE TO THINK, OR PERMIT ANYONE ELSE TO THINK, ABOUT THE HIGH AND HOLY INSTITUTE OF RELIGION!'
I don't think we're going to see that here. And that's nice.
Quote from: JharvissTo Stargate525, I think humanity is a perfectly reasonable thing to invest my faith in. Humans astound me every single day, much more so than God does. The goodness in people is overwhelming, the sacrifice people are willing to make. I'm very partial toward human beings and I think that humans are God.
Amen to that. This is my stance as well; my only worry is that people will take this idea, mystify it, and claim that we are God in a very different, very troublesome sense. Nevertheless, I hold to it, and I hope that one day we might all come to feel the same way. (I know we won't, but that's beside the point.)
I'm kind of a "lost" Christian, as I'm not really sure where I'm going and kind of believe the potential and reasonability of a lot of different subdivisions. I find it disheartening to see that the religion has so many bad branches that are so corrupt. While I do believe in God, I'm hesitant to believe that Christianity is the right way. I am mostly willing to accept the fact that another religion could be the "right" way, if there is one at all (as much as I hate to be wrong). In my opinion it's good to know when you are right, but if you can't accept the fact that you are hardly always right and might be wrong regarding the most influential parts of your life, then there's a problem. I don't however believe that this opinion makes me agnostic.
Basically, if I were to throw my religious beliefs to the wind and see where they ended up, I think it'd come to Christian Humanism.
Quote from: WitchHuntI'm kind of a "lost" Christian, as I'm not really sure where I'm going and kind of believe the potential and reasonability of a lot of different subdivisions. I find it disheartening to see that the religion has so many bad branches that are so corrupt. While I do believe in God, I'm hesitant to believe that Christianity is the right way. I am mostly willing to accept the fact that another religion could be the "right" way, if there is one at all (as much as I hate to be wrong). In my opinion it's good to know when you are right, but if you can't accept the fact that you are hardly always right and might be wrong regarding the most influential parts of your life, then there's a problem. I don't however believe that this opinion makes me agnostic.
Basically, if I were to throw my religious beliefs to the wind and see where they ended up, I think it'd come to Christian Humanism.
Hmm, I had never heard of Christian Humanism before. Reading up on it, I think that's what I might be...
@ PenguinDragon's idea:
I do not believe an Atheist Church based on the tenets of science would work. Let me restate that: people might follow it (many people even, perhaps) but it could never be logically consistant. For it is the basis of science itself that it can never provide definitive truth. For any give scientific theory, there is a 99% chance that it will eventually be replaced by one that suits the empirical data better (at least, according to the scientists of that day). Science admits, and in fact is based on the fact that it will never achieve perfection: a definitive truth about the nature of life and reality will never come from science.
While one can follow science as a provider of day-to-day truths, illuminating some basic causalities, science provides no answers to the questions of life that are perhaps the most pressing ones, and almost certainly the most fundamental ones. For this we must turn to religious, philosophical or pseudo-scientifical systems that all ultimately rest on belief, such as (some form of) Christianity, Humanism, or what have you.
Something entirely different:
Quote from: Salacious Angelthose of ethnic persuasion
:wtf:
Túrin
It's a sarcastic remark. There's not a sane person on this planet who ain't 'white' who appreciates being called "ethnic", myself included, at least insofar as it is stressed in the nonsensical dichotomy of white/ethnic. For those of you who think it's acceptable, I advise you consider otherwise. (I think it'd be better conveyed if I added inverted commas.)
As pertaining to your comments about an atheist church, that's what I was actually about to post, myself. Even if science could be stated with absolute certainty as fact, the scientific universe is inherently devoid of meaning (which I attribute entirely to humanity). Besides which, an Atheist Church would inevitably succumb to dogma (one of my favourite things about Warhammer 40K), and eventually be mystified, thus becoming an oxymoron.
Nonsensical indeed. The word "ethnic" doesn't even have a meaning the way you used it. You can't be "of ethnic persuasion", you only have ethnic origins ("you" as in "everyone"). My ethnic origins, for example, are Dutch (fully, as far as I'm aware). Ethnic stems from Greek "ethnos" which means "people". Your ethnic origins (not sure if that is the correct term) would be your line of ancestry. I have no idea what "ethnic persuasion" could mean, except when an extra term is inserted (i.e. "Dutch ethnic persuasion" or "Greek ethnic persuasion"). Right?
Túrin
Ethnic used in the way that he used it is a misused term - but, misused by so many that it might as well have that meaning. It means, used like that, 'a different race' or 'of different nationality' or with heritage equivalent to one of those things. A misuse, but a common one.
Thanks, Golem. I'm actually thankful that Turin had to have it explained to him. It suggests that the usage might not be nearly as prevalent as I thought, which eases my mind. But when I do hear it (and I often do), it grinds my gears.
I am well aware of its actual meaning and etymology, and that is perfectly fine.
@LC: it really is a shame that christians like the ones you described (i assume youre one) don't get as much airttime as the ones like this guy; i think those are the christians that realize that jesus spoke more about Love and Peace then he did about the morality of d&d.
@ElDo: is it just me, or is it a bit confusing when these people call themselves "fundamentalists", and have so many rules like that? traditionalists, maybe, but i would imagine that a true fundamentalist would stick to nothing but the common (read: fundamental) traits of christianity, most of which you've mentioned.
edit- on the subject of "ethnic persuasion", i'm reminded of an old george carlin bit, where he commented on how people would say things like, "he happens to be black". his parents were black? yes. and they had sex? yes, yes! and now he happens to be black? yes! i'd be more suprised if he happened to be white...
And that's a great example of how euphemisms can be more insulting than their uncensored counterparts.
Humanism, just fyi, was originally a Christian concept, founded by people like Erasmus in the 16th century. Essentially its concern was less over institutions than with people, believing that the former must serve the latter.
I agree that religious fundamentalism, Christian in this case, is a problem because that minority seems often to be louder than everyone else. Part of the problem with that is that Christians who like myself don't want to grab power over other people more than they want to actually follow the Gospel of Christ are often too busy doing just that to be focused on getting airtime.
However what I find worst of all about people like Jack Chick is that they LIE. Everything I've read from his works where he is demonizing someone is full of inaccuracies. It's rather disturbing. In a class I was teaching at an evanglical college a student asked me if it was true that Roman Catholicism was a cult. (meaning in the purely negative sense) I'm sure most here have read the Chick tract about D&D...with its weird inaccuracies.
(the "Dungeon Mistress", the strange rules of play, the voodoo like attachment to character, the utter misunderstandings of how neopagan morality works...)
What I do recommend though for those who would combat this kind of thing:
1. Be aware of what is actually in the Bible. Sometimes they are misquoting things.
2. Be aware that they don't care if they misquote things. They are after power, not accuracy.
3. Be aware that they can be discredited. Many of them have nasty secrets.
Ultimately, this is a good example of why you should be careful of your rights and not let such things go unnoticed. Those who would burn books may burn people.
Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguin@LC: it really is a shame that christians like the ones you described (i assume youre one) don't get as much airttime as the ones like this guy; i think those are the christians that realize that jesus spoke more about Love and Peace then he did about the morality of d&d.
There are always going to be people who miss the forest for the trees. Some of them are going to go a step further, and see the trees from a funny angle, so that they look like Scary Clowns. Some of them are going to go a step further still, and tell everyone they know that the
purpose of the forest is therefore to warn us all that circuses are bad for you. Even if you consider the Bible to be literal, divine, or uncorrupted by human influence (and I consider it to be none of these things), the vital, core ideas of the book are clear. Some people (on both sides of the issue!) just seem to ignore, selectively apply, or entirely contradict those ideas, and somehow claim they aren't missing the point completely.
It's like Aesop's fables. We can look at the story of the Lion and the Mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_and_the_Mouse) and easily see that it's a silly fable with a useful moral: it's best to be kind to people in all stations of life. I don't have to prove to anyone that the events of the story actually happened in order for most people to agree that the moral is pretty good advice. Now, we could look at this story and conclude instead that "Thou Shalt Not Eat the Meat of the Sacred Rodent," or we could say "this story and its moral are stupid because animals can't talk, therefore this could never actually have happened," but either way, that's missing the point.
Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/firmamentfirmament[/url] than with the fundament. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundament) Ha, ha. Oh my. What an amusing accident of linguistics.)
The term "Fundamentalist" originated a long, long time back, and was originally chosen by a particular preacher whose name escapes me to describe a "back to fundamentals" approach which emphasized scripture and the practices of early Christians.
To justify this particularly central position of scripture over tradition, he started down the path of inerrancy. Since then the term has been applied to other forms of religion (such as Wahhabism wrt Islam) that take (or claim to take) a similar approach in some sense.
no... i think LC managed to pinpoint why theyre called fundamentalists.
LC, i agree 110% with that view on the bible. to stretch your analogy a little bit further, i would say that once one has that sort of understanding of the bible, really, isn't historical accuracy pretty much irrelevant? either way, the message is still there.
edit- by the way, if i had to suggest one chapter in the entire bible as required christian reading, i would suggest romans 14; yes, i have been told that it's supposed to only apply to christians, but i feel many christians could benefit by asking if it could be applied to pretty much most religions. though, to be fair, i think that's a lesson the CBG christians already know.
as the gaming, non-christian son of a man who respectabley declined Deaconhood, i would like to give this thread a big bumpage.
also, ontop of trying to get the current discussions of religion in general, and religion against d&d, i would like to add something else: campaigns and adventures that are religious in tone. i've been trying to think of what i can do to slowly introduce my father to the game, and have started him off with creating a simplified version of a human fighter, and plan on integrating christian tones once we start a campaign. if anybody has any ideas on how to do this, feel free to post them! in the meantime, i have found this site (http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/perilith/919/christiand7d.htmurl) for a few ideas.
:ontopic: in searching for ideas for said campaign, i came across several sites, such as http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/confess.html and my personal favorite, http://www.religioustolerance.org/d_a_d2.htm that do a very good job at countering the religious anti-RPG movement (as aknowledgement, i do realize it's from the vocal minority; that, unfortunately, doesn't mean it's entirely nonexistant).
Quote from: TybaltWhat I do recommend though for those who would combat this kind of thing:
1. Be aware of what is actually in the Bible. Sometimes they are misquoting things.
2. Be aware that they don't care if they misquote things. They are after power, not accuracy.
3. Be aware that they can be discredited. Many of them have nasty secrets.
really and truely believe[/i] that they're doing the right thing. Even if that right thing is burning Harry Potter books and etc. ad nauseam. There's corruption at the top; but i doubt it's actually universal--i imagine a lot of fundamentalist leaders also believe they're doing the best thing they can do with their time.
A disturbing trend I've noticed is that you can have an
angry fundamentalist evangelical who thinks all non-baptists are going to hell and also feeds the homeless and builds wheelchair ramps for old people. It's hard to accurately divide people into groups of purely benevolent and purely malevolent.
I am probably the wrong guy to put forth his view point in D&D vs. extremely-conservative-witch-hunting-Christianity discussions at least as far as positive press for D&D is concerned.
I got involved with RPGs at a young age.
I currently identify with a non-traditional, minority religion oriented towards the worship of something other than The God of the Bible (in my case solitary/ unorganized animism).
I don't see these facts as having anything to do with each other in my own personal history. I can't pin-point an exact source of my troubles with Christianity and my quest for something else. I do think it may have something to do with my looking at political philosophy when I was a teenager and deciding that I'm an anarchist. At some point, an organized church and even God became just one more oppressor of the individual in my opinion.
Somewhere I came across the concept of animism, the belief that there is a God in everything or else that everything is God. It felt right to my anarchist sensibility for the rocks, trees, small, fuzzy animals, you and me to all be on the same footing since there is a God in each of us.
RPGs have always been just a way for me to blow off steam and express my creativity.
Never-the-less I have no doubt that some would say oh, he plays D&D, off course he's an agent of Satan.
I am also slightly familiar with the writings of Anton Lavey, the founder of the Church of Satan, in the books Satan Speaks! and The Devil's Notebook. They are just something that I've started reading in my effort to become a little more knowledgable in the world's various religious, philosophical, mythological, and magical systems. I do not think most of the teachings contained in his writings are ideas that will facillitate the human race's transition to a world of happiness and peace for all.
Well, I just saw this thread now. As far as the discussion on "Christianity vs. Roleplaying" goes, I don't really have much to add. As a Christian, I just don't understand where a conflict arises; I have yet to see a roleplayer that actually worhsips some D&D deity, and until I do I'm inclined to dismiss the whole argument as rubbish. It is a classic case of obsessive focus on what does not matter in lieu of focus on what actually does. Frankly, getting all steamed up at D&D in a world where peace, justice, and humility are desperately needed elsewhere is a gross perversion of Christ's call to action - and in my opinion, so is the "born-again" movement generally.
With regards to making religious campaigns, religion is something I try to pay a lot of attention to. I've never really like the "faithless" traditional D&D gods with their obvious existence, and my campaigns tend towards making cosmic powers inscrutable and objects of faith and contention. Religion in a campaign is far more interesting to me when it includes an aspect of faith - is the mighty ruler's claim to be a god incarnate actually true? Do you want to risk finding out? I enjoy the depth added by powers whose presence is not simply a matter of course.
I'm just surprised this thread is still around. ;)
Quote from: brainfaceI don't really think this is true. I think the vast majority of the angry evangelical fundamentalists really and truely believe that they're doing the right thing. Even if that right thing is burning Harry Potter books and etc. ad nauseam. There's corruption at the top; but i doubt it's actually universal--i imagine a lot of fundamentalist leaders also believe they're doing the best thing they can do with their time.
A disturbing trend I've noticed is that you can have an angry fundamentalist evangelical who thinks all non-baptists are going to hell and also feeds the homeless and builds wheelchair ramps for old people. It's hard to accurately divide people into groups of purely benevolent and purely malevolent.
what's really upsetting is, how do you appropriately react to people like that? i mean, if they were doing something that was wrong, and they knew it was wrong, that would be one thing. how can you convince somebody that the act that they truely believe to be helpful, in fact, is harmful?
Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinwhat's really upsetting is, how do you appropriately react to people like that? i mean, if they were doing something that was wrong, and they knew it was wrong, that would be one thing. how can you convince somebody that the act that they truly believe to be helpful, in fact, is harmful?
I don't think that you can, really. In my experience, people who believe in things to that magnitude (thinking D&D is inspired by the devil, for instance) look at anyone trying to persuade them with logic as someone trying to corrupt them.
Usually the only thing is to keep working on them, and sooner or later they'll come to the truth.
Quote from: StargateQuote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinwhat's really upsetting is, how do you appropriately react to people like that? i mean, if they were doing something that was wrong, and they knew it was wrong, that would be one thing. how can you convince somebody that the act that they truly believe to be helpful, in fact, is harmful?
I don't think that you can, really. In my experience, people who believe in things to that magnitude (thinking D&D is inspired by the devil, for instance) look at anyone trying to persuade them with logic as someone trying to corrupt them.
Usually the only thing is to keep working on them, and hope that sooner or later they'll come to the truth.
(bold, mine)
That's what makes it scary. The alternative (mixing semi-conflicting liberal and conservative views), while it can be frustratingly annoying, is still much more managable. It wasn't D&D that brought up what was essentially the following conversation, but I imagine it could apply to any religiously controversial manufactured good:
"What do you think of [ insert religiously controversial manufactured good here ]?"
"It's of the devil!"
[note: fans of
The Waterboy should be able to see where I'm going with this)
"Well, do you think it has any mystical powers attached to it, in any way?"
"Not one bit!"
Now, assuming it was known, without any shadow of a doubt, D&D is, for a
fact "of the devil", and assuming it was equally established that D&D doesn't have any mystical powers whatsoever (this is propbably the easier assumption for here; We already know it doesn't), then how would it be any more threatening then.... Say, this here grain of sand that we know is "of the devil"?