Off Topic - Really! Christianity and RPGs

[rust]

During my discussions about religion with Christians it took me a while to under-

stand their reactions when the bible becomes the subject of the discussion. The

founder of my religion told his followers never to trust in authorities or holy scrip-

tures and to accept only what they themselves have thought through and recog-

nized as probably true. As a result our tradition treats holy texts with much cri-

tical scepticism and little obvious respect. However, for Christians the bible is the

word of god, and criticism of the scripture and its literal content is often seen as

very close to criticism of god, which understandably is considered and felt as of-

fending.

[Vortigern]

Dial down the melodrama a bit seneschal. Whenever someone forces you to confront the ambiguities in Christian belief you take it as a personal attack. This is a sure sign of faith becoming dogmatic armour. You are the bigot if you cannot admit that your holy book has glaring inconsistencies. Not ALL Christians are as extreme as the anti D&D crowd (and they still exist after all these years) or the antievolutionists, or the batty Biblical literalist minority. I've known many types of Christian from the frankly mad to the spiritually uplifting so I don't hate them all; in fact I've loved some of them. So get off your high horse and deal with things in a less drama queenish fashion.

You might want the whole thread stopped by moderators but that really is about your uncomfortable feelings, not reality. Christian censorship? Nein danke!

Christian Censorship? Really?

Have you never seen a thread anywhere shut down for perfectly reasonable 'anti-muslim' comments? I'm not in favor of censorship, yet, as one poster has already noted the 'double-standard' in some circles against Christians is plain to see. It is Liberal types who started the whole 'Offensive' language taboo to begin with. Funny how they only seem to apply it when convenient to them. Frankly your outcry of 'Christian Censorship' makes me see -you- as the drama queen in this situation. Hyperbole in the extreme.

And you show your own contempt as you use 'anti-evolutionists' or 'Biblical literalist' as examples of people that are 'batty' or completely 'extreme' or crazy etc. You have not been alone in this. As if no reasonable person could ever hold a viewpoint that you disagree with... Perish the thought.

And I would say that the odds are that your 'ambiguities' and 'inconsistencies' in the Bible that you refer to are most likely either your own limited knowledge thereof, or misinterpretations seeking that end even if unintentional.

Most of the time a plain reading of the text, in context, leaves one with a quite plain meaning in my experience.

[icebrand]

Most of the time a plain reading of the text, in context, leaves one with a quite plain meaning in my experience.

Not true in the old testament. Jews are god's "chosen" and pretty much are allowed to kill, rape and pillage (and they DO). Also, god is full of hatred and vengeance, and even demands human sacrifice.

[Vortigern]

Not true in the old testament. Jews are god's "chosen" and pretty much are allowed to kill, rape and pillage (and they DO). Also, god is full of hatred and vengeance, and even demands human sacrifice.

Not true that a plain reading yields plain results?

I don't see how that is at all incompatible with the rest of your statement? Not that I think you are at all on-point with all of it. Yet I'm beginning to tire of picking through individual points in this thread, as... there are so many of them. So, to keep things to one point, how does any of the rest of what you said in any way contradict the principle of plain reading yielding plain results?

[icebrand]

Not true that a plain reading yields plain results?

I don't see how that is at all incompatible with the rest of your statement? Not that I think you are at all on-point with all of it. Yet I'm beginning to tire of picking through individual points in this thread, as... there are so many of them. So, to keep things to one point, how does any of the rest of what you said in any way contradict the principle of plain reading yielding plain results?

Your plain meaning response was a reply to someone nitpicking the bible to make it seem "evil" or contradictory; thus, context, and you are doing exactly what you accuse other people of!

[rust]

Not true that a plain reading yields plain results?

The results depend on which bible you read, since they are not at all identical.

There are very different translations of the original sources, and often different

sources are used, too. For example, the bibles of several Christian churches do

not include the Book of Revelation, because their theologians consider it as non-

canonical. Other Christian churches do not accept the entire Old Testament, in

their case their bible contains the New Testament only, and even there are major

differences concerning which texts - especially letters - are accepted as canoni-

cal parts of the Acts of the Apostles. So the results you get from plain reading

of your bible can be very, very different from the results another Christian gets

from his plain reading of his bible. And, frankly, only god could tell with any au-

thority which of the churches got it right, and which is reading the wrong texts.

[Vortigern]

Your plain meaning response was a reply to someone nitpicking the bible to make it seem "evil" or contradictory; thus, context, and you are doing exactly what you accuse other people of!

One can't really 'nitpick' while being unspecific and speaking in generalities. When -you- made specific points, I went through them, one by one, and attempted to explain the context and the genuine meaning of the scriptures that you had quoted.

Conrad didn't do that. He spoke in very vague terms about the flaws and inconsistencies of the text, and I expressed an equally emphatic disagreement with his vague assertion. How am -I- now the one who is now speaking out of context?

[Vortigern]

The results depend on which bible you read, since they are not at all identical.

There are very different translations of the original sources, and often different

sources are used, too. For example, the bibles of several Christian churches do

not include the Book of Revelation, because their theologians consider it as non-

canonical. Other Christian churches do not accept the entire Old Testament, in

their case their bible contains the New Testament only, and even there are major

differences concerning which texts - especially letters - are accepted as canoni-

cal parts of the Acts of the Apostles. So the results you get from plain reading

of your bible can be very, very different from the results another Christian gets

from his plain reading of his bible. And, frankly, only god could tell with any au-

thority which of the churches got it right, and which is reading the wrong texts.

Which is an entirely different discussion that the relative merits and inconsistencies within 'the bible' as generally commonly accepted. Which I grant has more merit.

The process by which given texts are selected for Canon and which become apocryphal I've always found rather interesting and dubious at the same time. Mmm. Yet the existence of different versions of the Bible I suppose is a natural by-product of schisms in the religion. Some of which seem to be genuine religious and interpretive differences, and some of which seem to go plainly against established mores and be more of what I mentioned previously... Altering the religion to suit their own views. It seems the world is full 'heretics' these days.

[rust]

Well, there are also quite a lot of problems in the bible texts themselves. The

most obvious example is probably the genealogy of Christ, because the genea-

logy according to Luke and the genealogy according to Matthew are not identi-

cal - one of the two has obviously got it wrong.

There are other, more important contradictions, and of course each church has

to decide which of the versions it considers as the true one. Depending on the

choices and on the chain reaction of a series of choices even the same texts

can lead to very different interpretations of their meaning, and again it is nearly

impossible to find out which one is right - or whether there is a right one at all.

Using the example of the genealogy, both authors use the genealogy to demon-

strate that Christ is a descendant of the House of David. However, both genea-

logies lead to Joseph, who is not the biological father of Christ, so it remains un-

clear what connection between Christ and the House of David the authors had

in mind. Again interpretation is required, and this time there is not even a choice

between two distinct options, there are lots of possibilities - including the one

that the entire mysterious genealogy thing was added at a later date and is not

an original part of the two gospels.

And this is just an easy and obvious example of a typical problem ...

[soltakss]

This is all in my opinion. I do not claim to be speaking for other Christians or to have a great deal of scriptural knowledge.

It's funny about Christianity and Roleplaying. My parents were much more worried that I became a Mormon than when I started Roleplaying, in fact they never had any problems with me roleplaying. Personally, Roleplaying helped me convert to Mormonism - I played in Glorantha for years and had no problems with gifts, geases, cult tithes, revelations and extra scriptures.

I have no problem with writing about or playing with deities, whether made up or real life. RuneQuest uses cults and the Christian cults of the Middle Ages or the Norse cults of the Viking period are just as valid to me as a gamer.

All religions have some parts that don't stand up to scrutiny. However, what is gained by attacking them? In my opinion, nothing. Just because I do not share someone's faith doesn't mean that I will actively attack their faith. In this, I seem to differ from many of the people in this thread.

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)

This is metaphorical, indicating that someone's whose faith is threatened by the actions of his family should oppose them.

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

Metaphorical.

"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)

As above.

"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)

Metaphorical.

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

Metaphorical, might be talking about slaying their arguments.

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

Revelations has a lot of stuff in which seems to be talking about other sects that would oppose the fledgling Christianity, so is quite hostile towards them.

"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)

As above. Christianity at the time was trying to distance itself from Judaism and forge a new identity.

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

As above.

"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)

As above.

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.

Thanks for hijacking the thread. Very productive.

Not that im bitter cause its 1 am on a friday and ive nothing to do but watch tv or anything.

Good reason.

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

Are you? That's a shame. I suppose it all depends on which theology turns out to be true in the end.

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.

That's a deep theological question that has been argued about for years. My take? God didn't create Evil, rather Evil is what people do. Satan was probably the first one to do Evil, because he could, or was allowed to.

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

And I agree with you.

Not necessarily about the makebelief stuff.

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)

What do you mean by Christians (as an institution)? Are you generalising again? Obviously, you don't mean "all Christians" as you said above, just Christian institutions.

Personally, I am not "anti-gay" and never will be. Many Christians are, as are many people of other faiths and people with no faith at all. People are what they are, in my opinion, and good luck to them.

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.

Original Sin? Not all Christians believe in that. Will you burn in Hell? For eternity? Not according to my faith.

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 Bible is contradictory, as it was written, rewritten and interpreted many times over the years. It was written by men, not by God.

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.

A lot of the things that you described were led by churchmen and done because of church doctrine. Does that make it right? Not at all. Church doctrine was wrong, in my opinion.

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.

Yes it does. However, if your argument is "You are wrong and everything you believe in is wrong" then I could equally use the same argument against you and nobody wins. Pointless argument really.

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.

Two Commandments of Jesus "Love thy God" and "Love thy neighbour". Those countermand everything that came before, all the laws of the Jews, the Ten Commandments, the dietary rules and so on. I am not a biblical scholar, so I might have misquoted them. those aren't bad laws, really.

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!

True, and that is something that I have struggled with. My way of living is to not impose my views or beliefs on others. Now, Conrad is almost certain to pick up on that and say "Well you wanted to close the thread down" and, yes, that is true. But that isn't imposing my views on other people, in my opinion.

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

I don't think so, you have made your points very clearly.

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 Bible is a chronicle of the Jews and early Christians and records what happened. Whether you choose to believe it or not, much of it is supposed to be historical. People did bad things, they still do. Many of the things done in the Old Testament were done as part of a series of wars, especially when the Jews were carving out their nation. Were they barbaric? Yes. Are we supposed to do what they did? No. Are we supposed to learn lessons from their deeds? Yes.

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.

A very reasoned argument. Christians are either ignorant or must reject the Bile in entirety.

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.

That sounds about right.

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.

Yes, it is.

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.

Sure, there are religious extremists. I am not in favour of them. The Religious right in the USA scare me. Leaders/rulers of countries who have extreme religious views scare me. They are dangerous. By all means discuss how they are screwing up the world and hate RPGs, but don't drag all Christians into it.

Well, OF COURSE we are talking about a some christians and not all christians. It applies to any group, really; following your reasoning you can't talk about anything ever (humanities-related) because there is no such thing as an homogeneous group. Also, i saw no bigotry on the thread, unless you consider not agreeing with something (like christians don't agree with gay people) as bigotry.

"like christians don't agree with gay people" - a broad sweeping statements, like many of your statements on this issue.

Also, in my personal experience rational and polite discussion usually sways the opinion of non-believers much easily than it does for believers (since they follow a dogma, and that leaves no room for reasoning, thus they gain +30% to their resistance roll).

In my personal experience, rational argument rarely converts people to or from a religious belief. Religious experiences, however, do. This is definitely from personal experience.

In any case, are you trying to persuade Christians as to the error of their ways? If so, why? Live and let live.

Also, christians have bishops?!? I thought that was a catholic thing!

Ignorance of basic facts doesn't help your arguments. Many Christian sects have bishops. Catholics are Christians as well.

AAAANYWAY, Biblosium's BGB says its bad, under spot rules:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

And this applies to Christians how? As I said before, the Jewish Law was superseded. Sure, some people quote the laws of the Old Testament but they don't have much validity.

I get it... you disagree with Christianity about the scriputural/doctrinal stance concerning homosexuality. And you are correct. Homosexuality is, scriputurally, an abomination before God. Yet you consider that grounds for complete contempt? The fact that they have a moral/ethical disagreement with you about that one facet of human behavior? It seems you are instead displaying your own narrow-minded intolerance to other people's ideas.

I disagree with this interpretation.

Are they really Christian if they openly violate the tenets of what is supposedly their faith? You can't live your life in complete opposition to scripture and still claim to be a devout priest of that faith. Have the courage to be something else, if you genuinely don't agree with it.

Yes you can. Not all scripture is the literal truth, much has been interpreted or reinterpreted. Sure, they don;t follow your interpretation or your version of what Christianity is, but Christianity has many different versions and interpretations.

[rust]

This is all in my opinion.

...

Thank you very much for a very interesting post. Since I am not a Christian, I

can only agree with 99 % of it.

[smiorgan]

Hi All,

Since I do not post often here I will introduce myself. Forty years, roleplayer since 1985, favorite game (Stormbringer, the one with demon summoning!). Devout Catholic. Unabashed Papist. Professor of linguistics, with a specialization in the fields of formal semantics and of argumentation. I don't want to impress you with my academic or rpg resumé - you're probably way cleverer than me in both fields- just to say that I like reasoning, argument and rolling criticals as any other guy here.

AND

I must say I'm with Simon. This thread is off topic and at times VERY unpleasant. Saying that believers have little or no room for reason, really does not help the discussion.

Casting pre-emptive doubt on the reasonableness of your interlocutor goes against the very ethos of a discussion.

By the way, it's nice to point out how logic flourished in the Age of the Cathedrals as Abelard, Roger Bacon, St. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ockham and other fine Franciscans and Dominicans can attest.

It was in the Renaissance that, in many respects, it started to languish and made little progress until the late XIX century. As those fine friars, I would not give much credence to a faith that was contrary to reason or obliged me to believe in contradictory statements. The role of the Bible in the Christian Faith is a quite complex matter and it would not lend itself to being settled by pointing to contradictions between the texts. The blessed cardinal John Henry Newman - someone who certainly was a friend of reason - had a few interesting ideas on that subject. If anyone is genuinely interested to see how Christians cope with that I can really reccommend to have a look at his books (like 'An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine'). It's all online: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/index.html

Also, reading what the current Pope actually said in his (in-)famous Regensburg speech (the one which infuriated Muslims worldwide) would not hurt. That's the most constructive input I can think of to this discussion.

But, moving to serious things, I really look forward to read Simon's Merry England. BTW one of those English Franciscan logicians - Roger Bacon - was also a wizard of sorts and accused of summoning demons.

An with that we have come full circle.

Have fun. Roll low!

Smiorgan

[rust]

The role of the Bible in the Christian Faith is a quite complex matter and it would not lend itself to being settled by pointing to contradictions between the texts.

Very true, but on the other hand at least in my view the existence of these con-

tradictions is an important warning that an approach which treats all parts of the

bible as literal truth to be accepted without questioning would carry a lot of se-

vere risks.

[icebrand]

Personally, Roleplaying helped me convert to Mormonism - I played in Glorantha for years and had no problems with gifts, geases, cult tithes, revelations and extra scriptures.

Ok, 1st misunderstanding. I would never, ever, thought you were a mormon. Again, for us a christian is an evangelical christian, a mormon is a mormon, a catholic is a catholic, and so on (as a mater of fact, you can see me saying im not a christian and then saying im catholic!)

Also, im not positive about all you say is metaphorical actually being metaphorical, but im not up for that much research, so ill take your word (because, at the end of the day, i just don't care enough about it)

Are you? That's a shame. I suppose it all depends on which theology turns out to be true in the end. Original Sin? Not all Christians believe in that. Will you burn in Hell? For eternity? Not according to my faith.

Yeah, i should probably become buddhist or something. Resurection sure beats the crap out of burning and being tortured forever. Then again, i don't really believe on any of that, so again, i'll give my pow to the first deity that grants me some superpowers.

What do you mean by Christians (as an institution)? Are you generalising again? Obviously, you don't mean "all Christians" as you said above, just Christian institutions.

Most christian (of all sects) dogma is like that; though there are some exceptions since each sect is unique.

Yes it does. However, if your argument is "You are wrong and everything you believe in is wrong" then I could equally use the same argument against you and nobody wins. Pointless argument really

"like christians don't agree with gay people" - a broad sweeping statements, like many of your statements on this issue.

Then again, posting at 3 am after a fight with my girl entitles me to some fun troll times.

Sure, there are religious extremists. I am not in favour of them. The Religious right in the USA scare me. Leaders/rulers of countries who have extreme religious views scare me. They are dangerous. By all means discuss how they are screwing up the world and hate RPGs, but don't drag all Christians into it.

+200

In any case, are you trying to persuade Christians as to the error of their ways? If so, why? Live and let live.

Never tried to... All those arguments quickly devolve into trolling, and im not into trolling IRL where i can get punched in the face

Ignorance of basic facts doesn't help your arguments. Many Christian sects have bishops. Catholics are Christians as well.

Again, see 1st paragraph

[soltakss]

I would never, ever, thought you were a mormon.

Really, in what way?

Again, for us a christian is an evangelical christian, a mormon is a mormon, a catholic is a catholic, and so on (as a mater of fact, you can see me saying im not a christian and then saying im catholic!)

So, all your biblical quotes were not aimed at Catholics, or Mormons, or Protestants but at Evangelical Christians, even though we all share the same scriptures? That doesn't make it much better.

Also, im not positive about all you say is metaphorical actually being metaphorical, but im not up for that much research, so ill take your word (because, at the end of the day, i just don't care enough about it)

So why bring it up in the first place?

Yeah, i should probably become buddhist or something. Resurection sure beats the crap out of burning and being tortured forever. Then again, i don't really believe on any of that, so again, i'll give my pow to the first deity that grants me some superpowers.

Like Reincarnation makes any more sense than Heaven and Hell.

Then again, posting at 3 am after a fight with my girl entitles me to some fun troll times.

Does it? Come to my house and share it with a menopausal, emotional wife. You've got it easy.

Never tried to... All those arguments quickly devolve into trolling, and im not into trolling IRL where i can get punched in the face

Just into trolling on forums? As you admitted earlier. Hmmm.

Can't find a "Punch in the face" smiley, so how about this one? Look at the thread discussing martial arts for the reference.

[rust]

Yeah, i should probably become buddhist or something.

Please don't. A buddhist trolling on a religious subject because he thinks he had

a bad day would ruin my day.

Oh, and no resurrection in buddhism, but lots of extremely painful hells at least

in the Tibetan version, compared to them the Christian hell looks like a luxurious

summer camp for children of the high society.

Edited July 3, 2011 by rust

[icebrand]

Really, in what way?

Mormons, Protestants, etc =! christians in the context the translated phrase works =)

So, all your biblical quotes were not aimed at Catholics, or Mormons, or Protestants but at Evangelical Christians, even though we all share the same scriptures? That doesn't make it much better.

So why bring it up in the first place?

Good enough reply?

Like Reincarnation makes any more sense than Heaven and Hell.

That was a joke... Maybe i suck at jokes

Does it? Come to my house and share it with a menopausal, emotional wife. You've got it easy.

To be more specific, i don't got it at all... Oh well

Just into trolling on forums? As you admitted earlier. Hmmm.

Can't find a "Punch in the face" smiley, so how about this one? Look at the thread discussing martial arts for the reference.

Link? Btw, i DO know martial arts!!!

Please don't. A buddhist trolling on a religious subject because he thinks he had

a bad day would ruin my day.

Oh, and no resurrection in buddhism, but lots of extremely painful hells at least

in the Tibetan version, compared to them the Christian hell looks like a luxurious

summer camp for children of the high society.

****, i always go for the wrong religion, first humakt, now this... Screw it, im gonna be a sorcerer. At least the invisible god doesn't actually exist!

[Smoking Frog]

Very true, but on the other hand at least in my view the existence of these con-

tradictions is an important warning that an approach which treats all parts of the

bible as literal truth to be accepted without questioning would carry a lot of se-

vere risks.

Well, belief in Trinitarian Christianity depends, ultimately, on believing the truth of one historical fact: At some point between 26 and 36 AD, the Teacher was executed under Roman authority and on the third day after his death, was bodily resurrected, and then appeared to his followers. There is no non-supernatural explanation for that fact, so if you believe it is true, then there has to be some explanation for whatever contradictions might appear in the scriptures. That is, if he came back from the dead, whatever might have been bungled in his genealogy is such a trivial item in comparison that it can't be important enough to be determinative of the truth of the religion as a whole.

On the other hand, if someone does not believe that the Resurrection is true as a historical fact, then it's really unclear why he should care in the least what the Christian scriptures say; they are fundamentally about a lie or fraud, or whatever.

[rust]

There is no non-supernatural explanation for that fact, so if you believe it is true, then there has to be some explanation for whatever contradictions might appear in the scriptures.

Here I cannot follow, because I see no connection at all between Christ's bodily

resurrection and the problems of the scriptures. Even if the resurrection is a true

supernatural fact, parts of the bible can still be contradictory, wrong or only of a

historical interest. Christ was not resurrected in order to prove that all what had

been written into the bible centuries before his birth or what would be written by

his followers after his death was the truth, or to guarantee that there has to be an

explanation for problems of the scriptures.

Edited July 3, 2011 by rust

[famouswolf]

An unpleasant thread, to be sure.

I have no interest in discussing anything with the likes of Icebrand or Conrad.

I will state that most of the best people I have known in my long life have been Christian. When you slander them you slander me.

And slander them you have...no amount of sophistry will change that.

I do not see you.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Soltakss, I just want to point out that icebrand's idea of what is meant by "Christians" is not unique to his country. Where I live, no-one would ever believe you if you told them Catholics are Christians. In other words, this is a difference in cultural viewpoints, not ignorance of the facts. Is it any wonder this type of debate always goes badly?

Screw it, im gonna be a sorcerer. At least the invisible god doesn't actually exist!

Yes, he does. He shares my garage with the invisible dragon. Because they're both immaterial as well as invisible, both don't take up any more space than one. In fact, I'm thinking of exploiting this loophole to open the place up as a boarding-room for imaginary beings, as there will always be a vacancy no matter how many of them co-exist in the same space.

Only if they have paypal accounts, though.

Damn. I think I just spotted the flaw in my plan.

I will state that most of the best people I have known in my long life have been Christian. When you slander them you slander me.

Really, steady on. Identifying so dramatically with a group strikes me as pretty scary. If I sent to Coventry everyone who held an opposing view to every group that held some beliefs in common with mine (and I have very few of those), Coventry would be a very crowded place. Mind you, lots of elbow room for me.

Well, belief in Trinitarian Christianity depends, ultimately, on believing the truth of one historical fact: At some point between 26 and 36 AD, the Teacher was executed under Roman authority and on the third day after his death, was bodily resurrected, and then appeared to his followers.

I have no intention in engaging in this debate in a meaningful manner, but I would like to clarify this statement. What you seem to be saying is "believing that the above is a fact". There's no need to believe in a fact, because it is a fact - to all intents and purposes indisputable. I am not aware of any evidence that the above events actually took place, other than the bible itself. This is a matter of faith, not fact.

And with that, it's back to the popcorn for me (unless I can find any amusing links to throw into the flames).

Edited July 3, 2011 by Vile

[icebrand]

An unpleasant thread, to be sure.

I have no interest in discussing anything with the likes of Icebrand or Conrad.

I will state that most of the best people I have known in my long life have been Christian. When you slander them you slander me.

And slander them you have...no amount of sophistry will change that.

I do not see you.

Excuse me? Have you actually read what i posted?

Where did i slandered your friends? Bah, never mind, i don't know you and i have no interest in this anymore

[Conrad]

Conrad, i would appreciate if just dial it down a bit; soltakks is a personality i respect (due to multiple and long standing contributions to one of my favorite hobbies) and i don't see the point in arguing with that much... emphasis, when he clearly states it bothers him (i, myself wouldn't mind your message at all, like a good brawl, i enjoy no-holds barred threads!)

Icebrand. Soltakss just threatened to try to get this thread moderated out of existence, just because he felt uncomfortable. Whatever respect you have for Soltakss, don't let it blind you to the fact that he turns into a control freak and issues threats to to stop comments when he doesn't like them.

But, if you want to discuss Christian theology then knock yourself out.

Thanks for giving us all permission to discuss subjects that you find uncomfortable. Thats mighty charitable of you sir. Now who made you moderator? And why do we need your permission to discuss anything?

. It is Liberal types who started the whole 'Offensive' language taboo to begin with. Funny how they only seem to apply it when convenient to them. Frankly your outcry of 'Christian Censorship' makes me see -you- as the drama queen in this situation. Hyperbole in the extreme..

"It is Liberal types.." Why can I smell frying meat and pipe smoke when I read that ranting sentence? Soltakss announces that because he is uncomfortable with legitimate criticism of some Christians he is going to try to get this thread closed. He's a Christian and he is threatening censorship. That is hardly hyperbole or even extreme hyperbole. And you sir are being oh so dramatic. Flouncing and huffing is very unbecoming of you, Johnny boy.

And you show your own contempt as you use 'anti-evolutionists' or 'Biblical literalist' as examples of people that are 'batty' or completely 'extreme' or crazy etc. .

Please feel free to ignore any positive comments about other Christians I've known, your selective reading only strengthens my argument. Yes I have shown contempt for that minority of extremist Christians that would drag our civilization back hundreds of years with their ignorance. Those people deserve contempt. Try googling "Kara Neumann" and see how nice her death was, and why she died. If you support such ignorant lunacy you're a religious maniac.

Do you support Kent Hovind and Ken Ham? Do you believe that the world is only 6000 years old?

You have not been alone in this. As if no reasonable person could ever hold a viewpoint that you disagree with... Perish the thought..

You try to paint me as a control freak and yet I'm not the one calling for the closing of this thread. I think you're just trollin' for a reaction. And you might want to read a dictionary, as you obviously don't understand the word "reason". Next you'll be saying that the only decent book ever for an education is the Bible.

And I would say that the odds are that your 'ambiguities' and 'inconsistencies' in the Bible that you refer to are most likely either your own limited knowledge thereof, or misinterpretations seeking that end even if unintentional.

Now I know you're trolling, and haven't properly read my posts. Robert M. Price does some good Biblical criticism. You should try to read some and learn the deeper stufff, historical and social, behind the Bibles weirdness.

Most of the time a plain reading of the text, in context, leaves one with a quite plain meaning in my experience.

Since you've shown that you haven't understood my posts, your experience is very suspect. Plus several Biblical scholars disagree with your limited and troll like "experience".

Edited July 17, 2011 by Conrad

[rust]

.

Only if they have paypal accounts, though.

Damn. I think I just spotted the flaw in my plan.

No problem there, they usually have lots of intangible and invisible cash you can

spend for all the nice invisible things they have at that invisible shop down the

road.

Which reminds me that I have to do some work on my invisible setting, so I will

leave this thread to its fate now.

Edited July 3, 2011 by rust

[Guest Vile Traveller]

No problem there, they usually have lots of intangible and invisible cash you can spend for all the nice invisible things they have at that invisible shop down the road.

OH YES!!! You mean that golden-paved internet road, don't you?

The Post-Scarcity Society Is Here!