Jump to content

Off Topic - Really! Christianity and RPGs


pansophy

Recommended Posts

Agreed.

Such as commenting that 'U.S. Christians are Hilarious'. :td:

It seems an unfortunate trend.

Though on the one hand I can understand the desire to poke fun at and/or cut back at someone who obviously spouts untruths... doing so in such a generic and overly inclusive way doesn't lend any dignity or credence to a counter argument.

Please DO offer a counter argument! I promise i wont laugh nor poke at it's dignity.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please DO offer a counter argument! I promise i wont laugh nor poke at it's dignity.

My point wasn't that I agreed with the 'RPGs = Devilry' perspective. Rather that lumping all Christians into one group and ascribing these view to all of them, and mocking them collectively over it, is illogical and instead ( to me ) lowers my opinion of the one doing the mocking.

There are a variey of different interpretations and schools of thought as to Christianity. It is hardly a monolithic group. It makes no more sense than ascribing terrorism to all Muslims and saying that therefore all Muslims are bad.

As to a counter argument itself it really isn't that difficult, if you actually understand Christianity and know scripture, to pose a variety of different arguments against RPGs with certain thematic elements as being 'Un-Christian' and therefore activities that 'Good Christians' shouldn't engage in. That however is rather not the point. It doesn't sound as if the original article really did this in an intelligent way to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to a counter argument itself it really isn't that difficult, if you actually understand Christianity and know scripture, to pose a variety of different arguments against RPGs with certain thematic elements as being 'Un-Christian' and therefore activities that 'Good Christians' shouldn't engage in. That however is rather not the point. It doesn't sound as if the original article really did this in an intelligent way to begin with.

That's only because most christians are not very familiar with their own scriptures, that have "good christians" engaging in murder, rape and slavery all the time.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The website linked by Vile makes fun of a certain kind of Finnish Christians, and

here in Germany we also have Christian sects which consider almost every acti-

vity except reading (and misinterpreting ...) the Bible as more or less satanic. A

certain kind of religious narrowmindedness bordering on brainless fanatism is not

a privilege of Christians in the USA, although it often seems that the lunatic frin-

ge of Christianity is a bit more numerous and vocal there than elsewhere, perhaps

at least partially because its most spectacular publicity stunts would be illegal in

many other countries.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only because most christians are not very familiar with their own scriptures, that have "good christians" engaging in murder, rape and slavery all the time.

Again, on the one hand I would agree most people in general do not seem to have a very good grounding in 'any' religious education these days. Yet that said, your words seem to project a rather solid anti-christian bias, which is what I was pointing out. And this statement doesn't really do much to refute that. Which isn't to say you don't have logical or well considered reasons why you feel the way that you do. I just don't care for such blanket statements attributing things to a whole group rather than the espousing individuals unless a given idea or statement actually 'is' endorsed by the whole group. Which it is plain that RPG = Devilry is not a 'Doctrine of the Faith' in Christianity of any sect and that people have varying opinions on the matter. Which is why the 'U.S. Christians Are Hilarious' statement annoyed me. It lowers any possible debate and is, frankly, offensive to me... and I'm not even a Christian. If I were, I could imagine my annoyance being rather greater.

As for Christians in scripture being involved in various 'nefarious' or 'immoral' activities... that is rather difficult to discuss in a 'general' kind of way. Specific points are more or less necessary to have any meaningful discussion on that. By so-called 'modern' standards, I would agree in principle that there are a variety of different behaviors described in scripture that 'modern' people don't tend to agree with however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only because most christians are not very familiar with their own scriptures, that have "good christians" engaging in murder, rape and slavery all the time.

The statement is not only insulting on its face, but patently untrue. Good Christians do not routinely engage in murder, rape and slavery all the time. Or even part-time. In fact, devoted Christians in 19th century Britain and the United States led the drive to end the global slave trade. Modern Christians oppose slavery's insidious, secretive current form. Parents of murder victims forgive their child's killer and pray for the murderer's salvation. Christians also oppose practices that they consider murder, such as abortion on demand and assisted suicide. Christians open homes and counseling centers for rape victims, unwed mothers and former prostitutes, offering safe haven until they can get their lives back together. Christian doctors travel the globe at their own expense to provide free medical and dental care to children in remote villages. Christian laymen, at their own expense, build orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the homeless. Despite having to recover from their own natural disasters, American Christians dug deep in their pockets to send aid to victims in Indonesia, Japan, and Hati.

If that is hilarious, so be it. Unfamiliar with their own Scriptures? Sounds like they're living them to me.

Back on topic, what then of John Adams, owner of Brave Halfing Publishing? He publishes RPGs such as X-plorers, Swords and Wizardry WhiteBox, and Delving Deeper. He also publishes support materials for Castles and Crusades and Labyrinth Lord. And is a devout Christian clergyman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement is not only insulting on its face, but patently untrue. Good Christians do not routinely engage in murder, rape and slavery all the time. Or even part-time. In fact, devoted Christians in 19th century Britain and the United States led the drive to end the global slave trade. Modern Christians oppose slavery's insidious, secretive current form. Parents of murder victims forgive their child's killer and pray for the murderer's salvation. Christians also oppose practices that they consider murder, such as abortion on demand and assisted suicide. Christians open homes and counseling centers for rape victims, unwed mothers and former prostitutes, offering safe haven until they can get their lives back together. Christian doctors travel the globe at their own expense to provide free medical and dental care to children in remote villages. Christian laymen, at their own expense, build orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the homeless. Despite having to recover from their own natural disasters, American Christians dug deep in their pockets to send aid to victims in Indonesia, Japan, and Hati.

If that is hilarious, so be it. Unfamiliar with their own Scriptures? Sounds like they're living them to me.

Non-Christians also do all that stuff.

Just from the new testament, the old one is much much worse:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49)

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53)

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." (Revelation 2:6)

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which the thing I hate." (Revelation 2:15)

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." (Revelation 3:9)

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that non-Christians also engage in charitable works does not negate my point that your statement was patently untrue and insulting.

The verses cited are meaningless out of context. They are part of larger passages that are not incitements to crime and violence. Jesus' statement in Luke 14, for example, is not a command for Christians to slay their parents. The point is about priorities. A believer's commitment to Christ must be absolute, even above his devotion to his close relatives. Of course Jesus expects his followers to love their families, since he also expects them to even love their enemies. However, he warned Christians that this commitment could cost them the fellowship of family members who choose not to believe, as it continues to do to this present day.

Re: the references from Revelations, 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that anyone should perish but wants everyone to come to repentance. As a consequence, he hates false teaching (what those verses are about), which prevents people from coming to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that non-Christians also engage in charitable works does not negate my point that your statement was patently untrue and insulting.

The verses cited are meaningless out of context. They are part of larger passages that are not incitements to crime and violence. Jesus' statement in Luke 14, for example, is not a command for Christians to slay their parents. The point is about priorities. A believer's commitment to Christ must be absolute, even above his devotion to his close relatives. Of course Jesus expects his followers to love their families, since he also expects them to even love their enemies. However, he warned Christians that this commitment could cost them the fellowship of family members who choose not to believe, as it continues to do to this present day.

Re: the references from Revelations, 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that anyone should perish but wants everyone to come to repentance. As a consequence, he hates false teaching (what those verses are about), which prevents people from coming to him.

So basically, you must put religion over real people, and god HATES. Got it!

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-Christians also do all that stuff.

Not that I have figures on-hand to quote, yet, all statistical information about this subject that I have ever seen shows consistently that Christians donate far more often and far larger proportional to their income than any other area of society. And they do it willingly, out of genuine charity, rather than from being compelled by some tyrannical government seeking to 'redistribute' their wealth.

Downplaying that is downplaying the facts. By the numbers, straight up, Christians do more for the disadvantaged than anyone else.

Just from the new testament, the old one is much much worse:

Not that there is any bias what-so-ever in 'that' statement? Of course not. :7

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)

Quoting out of context, to say the least.

A passage, read as a whole, that indicates that Christians are going to persecuted for their belief and faith. That divisions will occur, even within families. That the true believer should adhere to their faith despite such divisions and pressures, or they are not ultimately a believer/saved, and worthy of the Grace of God.

But then cherry-picking seems to be common practice in these sorts of things.

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49)

This is part of the same passage, only from a different Gospel.

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53)

Same. You seem to like this passage.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Again. Yet I find this ironic, a scripture essentially saying knowing misdeeds are greater than misdeeds in ignorance you find reprehensible?

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

Again, upon consulting the entire chapter/scripture, this passage speaks as to the potential costs of being a believer, and having to deal with persecution.

As for example comparing to the parable concerning the careful weighing of costs during the construction of a building etc.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Leaving completely aside that the speaker in this parable is the rightful ruler and these enemies so mentioned are rebellious subjects? :7

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." (Revelation 2:6)

Speaking of an early heretical branch of Christianity which did not adhere to the doctrines of the faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)

What is it exactly you think is so objectionable here, speaking about people operating under false pretext and misrepresentation while actually being other than virtuous?

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which the thing I hate." (Revelation 2:15)

As before.

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." (Revelation 3:9)

And again.

---

Really, I am not a fan of cherry-picking. You may disagree with some of the teachings represented here... even find them reprehensible. But cherry-picking things out to lead others to a distorted view to suit yourself is... less than honest.

Though I will grant perhaps I misunderstand your intent. If you would like I would freely discuss any of the relative merits or flaws of any of these ideas. In full context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, you must put religion over real people, and god HATES. Got it!

God, in scripture, has expressed hatred and/or disapproval or wrath over a great many things. This is not unusual. Generally these are things he finds evil and irredeemable. Such as Sodom and Gomorrah. Even still, those that 'could' be redeemed, were, in that instance. Reference 'Lot'.

And really? Seriously? Being ready and willing to accept the costs of faith and belief is to 'put religion over real people'? Your bias is showing again. The teaching isn't telling the believer to cast aside all family bonds, as a tenet of faith. It is saying that you should be ready for any possible or potential strife within your family that such belief and faith might cause. Rather distinct there. And I don't see how that is 'putting your religion before others'. Unless you mean to say that we should all adhere only to beliefs that our families approve of, at all times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I have figures on-hand to quote, yet, all statistical information about this subject that I have ever seen shows consistently that Christians donate far more often and far larger proportional to their income than any other area of society. And they do it willingly, out of genuine charity, rather than from being compelled by some tyrannical government seeking to 'redistribute' their wealth.

Downplaying that is downplaying the facts. By the numbers, straight up, Christians do more for the disadvantaged than anyone else.

Im sceptic of this, would you be so kind to provide a source please?

Though I will grant perhaps I misunderstand your intent. If you would like I would freely discuss any of the relative merits or flaws of any of these ideas. In full context.

I made a comment about christians, someone thought it wasnt good, i clarified and apologized on my 2nd post, then people wouldnt let them go, so i started trolling. Not that im bitter cause its 1 am on a friday and ive nothing to do but watch tv or anything.

Still, im not a christian so im going to hell, so i guess i can get some entertainment out of the topic!

God, in scripture, has expressed hatred and/or disapproval or wrath over a great many things. This is not unusual. Generally these are things he finds evil and irredeemable. Such as Sodom and Gomorrah. Even still, those that 'could' be redeemed, were, in that instance. Reference 'Lot'.

A god that created the whole universe AND is allmighty and knows it ALL has room for reproval, finds stuff irredeemable? If he doesnt like evil, why did he create it? Free will is not an argument, since we are incapable of great many things, so theoretically we could be incapable of evil.

Also, he hates SHRIMP... C'mon!!!

And really? Seriously? Being ready and willing to accept the costs of faith and belief is to 'put religion over real people'? Your bias is showing again. The teaching isn't telling the believer to cast aside all family bonds, as a tenet of faith. It is saying that you should be ready for any possible or potential strife within your family that such belief and faith might cause. Rather distinct there. And I don't see how that is 'putting your religion before others'. Unless you mean to say that we should all adhere only to beliefs that our families approve of, at all times?

No, im saying that our families are more important than a makebelief about an intollerant god.

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sceptic of this, would you be so kind to provide a source please?

Generated by a quick google search.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?

A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

I made a comment about christians, someone thought it wasnt good, i clarified and apologized on my 2nd post, then people wouldnt let them go, so i started trolling. Not that im bitter cause its 1 am on a friday and ive nothing to do but watch tv or anything.

Still, im not a christian so im going to hell, so i guess i can get some entertainment out of the topic!

As a non-christian myself, my objection is more to the tone of contempt with which you seem to treat the subject and Christians in general. Which I find objectionable in and of itself.

A god that created the whole universe AND is allmighty and knows it ALL has room for reproval, finds stuff irredeemable? If he doesnt like evil, why did he create it? Free will is not an argument, since we are incapable of great many things, so theoretically we could be incapable of evil.

Also, he hates SHRIMP... C'mon!!!

So, I'm only allowed to use arguments or positions that you consider valid in premise? That isn't usually how this works.

Free Will most certainly is a rather cogent argument. That the vast majority of evils in the world come directly from decisions made by people. And therefore are acts of Free Will.

There are also a variety of interpretations of the Devil and Satan, that are much more in-depth as to the existence of hardship and want in the world. Suffice it to say that Christian Theology and Doctrine rather adequately explain these things from a variety of different angles.

The question is whether you find the explanations believable, on a personal level, and choose to have Faith in them.

You quite plainly do not. Neither do I. But I do /not/ choose to have contempt for those who do. You seem to quite readily do so, and that I rather strongly dislike.

No, im saying that our families are more important than a makebelief about an intollerant god.

Which is a personal value judgement based on your concious decision to consider someone else's religion hopeless make-believe, rather than respecting the fact they chose differently in that decision making process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have re-read RetroQuest over ten times, and I still can't find this stuff anywhere in the rules!

That's cause you need to buy the new supplement (or we'll sacrifice your dog!)

polediton.jpg

Generated by a quick google search.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?

A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

Ok, this is for the US (so it may not hold true on other countries), and also, it doesn't discriminate between faiths, so all that money could be coming from jews, catholics or neo-pagans.

As a non-christian myself, my objection is more to the tone of contempt with which you seem to treat the subject and Christians in general. Which I find objectionable in and of itself.

I don't really. Christians (as an institution) openly discriminate against people that "offend" their god (i.e: gays) and shamelessly rally to limit individual freedoms (read: whatever they're campaigning against at any given time). They also historically go against knowledge (see "intelligent design" bs)

So, I'm only allowed to use arguments or positions that you consider valid in premise? That isn't usually how this works.

Free Will most certainly is a rather cogent argument. That the vast majority of evils in the world come directly from decisions made by people. And therefore are acts of Free Will.

No, you may use any argument you like, the same as i am. But i find... weird at the very least, than an allmighty god willingly creates something he despises, knowing the result beforehand. Also, he is EXTRA cruel (adam, eve, the apple, original sin... He knew all of this would happen, it is unfair to punish they creations when he made them that way). Also, i can -will- burn in hell for ALL ETERNITY for... 2? 3? 20? years of sinful behaviour... If anyone finds that fair, he or she deserves someone beating some sense into them.

There are also a variety of interpretations of the Devil and Satan, that are much more in-depth as to the existence of hardship and want in the world. Suffice it to say that Christian Theology and Doctrine rather adequately explain these things from a variety of different angles.

Not adequately. They rely on the bible as basis for their doctrine, and the bible contradicts itself on several points. Also, it was not written by god, it was written by man, so i see no point to it. If the bible was written by god (possible, though i don't deem it probable) then god really is twisted.

The question is whether you find the explanations believable, on a personal level, and choose to have Faith in them.

You quite plainly do not. Neither do I. But I do /not/ choose to have contempt for those who do. You seem to quite readily do so, and that I rather strongly dislike.

Lets agree to disagree then. I find the christian faith (on several guises over the years) quite troublesome. After all, they killed and tortured A LOT of people (crusades, colonization of the americas, inquisition, witch-hunting, etc, etc). Jews and muslims are no better though.

To honor godwin's law... "I do not like hitler's ideals, but i chose not to have contempt for those who do". Of course, NO, I DO NOT CONSIDER MODERN CHRISTIANS ON EQUAL FOOTING THAN NAZIS (maybe catholics a few centuries ago were as bad or even worse), but my argument has the same logic as yours.

I find the doctrine *NOT* the people, objectionable (for some stuff i said and way more theres no point debating even on an off-topic topic), and thus, quite worthy of my contempt.

Which is a personal value judgement based on your concious decision to consider someone else's religion hopeless make-believe, rather than respecting the fact they chose differently in that decision making process.

Yours is also a personal value judgement; i do not (and will not, ever, at least while i'm able to without too much repercussions) respect a belief system that does not respect others. You may if you like, though!

PS: I think the level of this discussion is going way above and beyond my english fluency :(

Edited by icebrand

"It seems I'm destined not to move ahead in time faster than my usual rate of one second per second"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement is not only insulting on its face, but patently untrue.

Your taking umbrage at icebrand's statement shows that you misunderstand it. SOME vociferous Christians ( but not every single Christian in existence ) apparently aren't familiar with the barbarism and misogyny in the Bible. Or else they wouldn't be trying to lord ( pun intended) it over those they consider morally inferior.

The God of the Old Testament is a perverted genocidal monster. Jesus must be Nyarlathotep if he represents that angry jealous deity. So Christians must be either ignorant of what is in their holy book, or they actively reject the primitive nastiness of the Old Testament and the other brutally misogynistic events portrayed in the Bible.

If they weren't either ignorant of the bad parts of their holy book or actively chose to ignore them then they'd have to face up to their God as an angry jealous monster control freak, and not the "lovey dovey fluffy loves you all" God that Jesus was supposed to promote, though that is based on selective reading.

The Bible is a hodge podge of many different attitudes on morality, so if someone is an authoritarian they can pick some passage to back up their control freakery; or if they're laid back they can point out the caring parts.

Edited by Conrad
http://www.basicrps.com/core/BRP_quick_start.pdf A sense of humour and an imagination go a long way in roleplaying. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, Conrad, Giordano Bruno had a very sad end because of such state-

ments ... ;)

But I think this discussion is likely to lead nowhere and to do a lot more harm

than good, this is just neither the right kind of forum for such a debate nor a

good start of such a debate.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with SOME facets of Christianity( Roman Catholic church in particular) is that they'd love to be back in the position that they could burn anyone who objected to their outmoded ideas, like they did to Giordano Bruno, or their power. There are Christians that would drag the USA into a pit of total ignorance when it comes to science (I'm talking about the Intelligent Design mob, and antievolutionists). And some who would adhere so closely to the barbaric laws in the Bible that children would be killed for objecting to their parents ( but didn't Jesus say to give up on your family and come join him?). They may be in the minority but they are an active and bullying minority. And their narrow minded viewpoints are spreading around the globe. So it is good to be able to discuss the various kinds of Christianity and how its varying beliefs affect its relationship to an innocuous hobby like roleplaying. Because you can bet that should any of these extremist minorities ( or the RCC ) ever gain a lot of power RPGs would be a target for their ire, as would a lot of other innocuous hobbies.

Now, to get back to roleplaying, it might be interesting to have a sci fi analogy to the D&D cleric from a religion that has real miracles caused by psionics. Psionic training would be part of the religion as would healing by the monks/nuns of this future belief system. I can see parts of Christian and Muslim faiths that could be used to add flavour to such a setting, "Qwisatz Haderach" anyone?

Edited by Conrad
http://www.basicrps.com/core/BRP_quick_start.pdf A sense of humour and an imagination go a long way in roleplaying. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it is good to be able to discuss the various kinds of Christianity and how its varying beliefs affect its relationship to an innocuous hobby like roleplaying.

In this regard you might find this interesting, although the website is already a

bit old:

http://www.christian-gamers-guild.org/xians.html

As for the Roman Catholic Church, at least over here it has no problems with

roleplaying games, probably mainly because roleplaying (not the tabletop game

kind) is a very often used method in its youth movement groups, so the word

has a basically positive association.

Edited by rust

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vile Traveller

By the way, did I ever tell you about that invisible dragon in my garage ? O:)

Wow, you too?! I thought mine was the only one! And the weird thing about it is, it doesn't leave any footprints. In fact, it's a bit creepy the way you can walk right through it without feeling a thing. But at least it doesn't seem to eat (it certainly doesn't poop), so I guess it's not a bad house guest to have.

smiley_abxb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at least it doesn't seem to eat (it certainly doesn't poop), so I guess it's not a bad house guest to have.

Well, mine has developed a nasty habit to eat those invisible singing potatoes

which come floating over from the neighbour's garage whenever there is an

alien abduction on the nearby highway - I will never understand why people

have to abduct those poor aliens and do cruel experiments to them ...

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with rust that this thread has been unproductive. The title wasn't "A few misinformed people from 30 years ago and RPGs." It was "Christianity and RPGs." If the statements made about Christians had been made about any other group, forum members would have been outraged and the moderator would have shut the thread down. Unfortunately, the thread has demonstrated that rational, polite discussion has little effect on bigotry -- in this case, not bigotry by Christians but bigotry by their detractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...