Un-Christian Themes in Baldur's Gate
Grifman
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
>known as Grifman on 19 Nov 1998 15:09:30 PST uttered the following
>message:
>
>}So, what have you proved other than any belief system can be abused?
>}"The evidence I present" :) is the murder of millions by atheistic
>}communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia, and the virtual enslavement
>}in some form or another of all those living under atheistic communism.
>}All in the name of atheism :) So does that make atheism an invalid
>}belief system? Based upon your reasoning it does. Picking the worst
>}in any belief system is not the way to disprove the validity of that
>}system - with that method, I can make any system look sick, as I doubt
>}that there is any philosophy/religion that has not been abused at one
>}time or another . . .
>
>For the sake of argument, please tell us when people have been abused in
>the name of agnosticism.
I wasn't discussing agnosticism, I was discussing atheism :)
>
>}BTW, Christianity had nothing to do with the Holocaust. That was the
>}result of atheistic/paganistic Nazism. I suggest you do better
>}research before making such obviously flawed charges in the future . .
>
>Still the point was well made for the other examples, and jews _have_
>been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
>that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
>to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
>century.
Yes, they have - as they have been perscuted under communistic atheism
also., also by Nazism, which was pagan at best, atheistic at worst . .
. do you disagree? Sorry, though I could be mistaken, I don't
believet that Hegel was a theologian of any recognized
church/denomination - he was a philospher and professor at the
University of Berlin. And Hitler was just as much if not more
influenced by Nietzche, the well known atheist :)
And the point was made that atheists have also killed their share - so
my point was were does that leave us - just count up the dead on each
side, and lowest wins?
>
>Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip service to
>Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause it's "harmful" for the
>youth. In which way? Can't they stop playing if it is bad influence on
>them? Are they mindless critters, or what?
Hey, I think it is stupid too - but I wasn't arguing that point :)
>
>If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't be
>about computer games. It should be about helping starving people to get
>food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to find a
>job/education etc...
As many do. How many atheist organizations are sending food to
Central America, feeding and housing the homeless in the US, working
with inner city youth? None that I know of . . .
Grifman
Domin 'Alien' Wnek
> Still the point was well made for the other examples, and jews _have_
> been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
> that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
> to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
> century.
Yes, and so they have been by egiptians.
Not to mention muslims - they're prosecuting them until this very day.
Besides, if you look at it from this point of view - the whole Christian
religion persecutes jews - after all, they killed Jesus.
--
Domin 'How do I become the Avatar? Or Han Solo maybe?' Wnek
Lady of Decay Productions Homesite: http://www.kki.net.pl/decay
ICQ: 2293474
bob.j.chu...@siemenscom.com
>
> For the sake of argument, please tell us when people have been abused in
> the name of agnosticism.
Agnosticism; the belief that God cannot be proved, Atheist; the belief that
God can be disproved. More similar in characteristics than different.
>
> Still the point was well made for the other examples, and jews _have_
> been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
> that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
> to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
> century.
Well now that you bring up Christians and Hitler in the same breath please
bear in mind that the armed forces that eventually crippled Germany and
destroyed Hitler were overwhelmingly represented by those claiming
Christianity as their religion. Now please remove the foot out of your
mouth, it's pressing against your brain.
Hitler was influenced by a myriad of people. To draw an inference that a mad
man was "influenced" by the teachings of another therefore the teaching is
invalid and therefore flawed is simply a weak asertion by an obviously
weak-minded individual.
>
> Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip service to
> Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause it's "harmful" for the
> youth. In which way? Can't they stop playing if it is bad influence on
> them? Are they mindless critters, or what?
Speaking of a mindless critter....oh never mind.
> If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't be
> about computer games. It should be about helping starving people to get
> food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to find a
> job/education etc...
> -- F
Well, aren't you the knowledgable one on the workings of the Christian
society. Newsflash Bubba...Christians are doing those things and more. They
also state their opinion when they see something that they feel is not to
their liking in a computer game or any other media. It's called freedom
bozo...learn to live with it. By the way, who are you to dictate what people
"should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I wasn't discussing agnosticism, I was discussing atheism :)
Yes, yes, we know you want to use this as a forum to bash atheism,
but you ignore the fact that Ibn demolished the entire basis of you
argument by pointing you to agnosticism.
[Snip]
> And the point was made that atheists have also killed their share - so
> my point was were does that leave us - just count up the dead on each
> side, and lowest wins?
Well, considering the original point, which you like to ignore,
was a comparison between the effects of a particular type of game and
Christianity on the world, your dragging atheism into the discussion is
either a concession that Christianity is far worse or merely a soapbox
for your attacks on atheism.
[Snip]
> Hey, I think it is stupid too - but I wasn't arguing that point :)
No, you aren't arguing any for or against any of the the points
raised by the original poster. You are making attacks on atheists.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
MdmeDis
says...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:06:34 GMT, fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se (Ibn
> al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>
> >In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
> >known as Grifman on 19 Nov 1998 15:09:30 PST uttered the following
> >message:
> >
> >}So, what have you proved other than any belief system can be abused?
> >}"The evidence I present" :) is the murder of millions by atheistic
> >}communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia, and the virtual enslavement
> >}in some form or another of all those living under atheistic communism.
> >}All in the name of atheism :) So does that make atheism an invalid
> >}belief system? Based upon your reasoning it does. Picking the worst
> >}in any belief system is not the way to disprove the validity of that
> >}system - with that method, I can make any system look sick, as I doubt
> >}that there is any philosophy/religion that has not been abused at one
> >}time or another . . .
> >
> >the name of agnosticism.
>
>
> >
> >}result of atheistic/paganistic Nazism. I suggest you do better
> >}research before making such obviously flawed charges in the future . .
> >
> >been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
> >that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
> >to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
> >century.
>
> also., also by Nazism, which was pagan at best, atheistic at worst . .
> . do you disagree? Sorry, though I could be mistaken, I don't
> believet that Hegel was a theologian of any recognized
> church/denomination - he was a philospher and professor at the
> University of Berlin. And Hitler was just as much if not more
> influenced by Nietzche, the well known atheist :)
>
> my point was were does that leave us - just count up the dead on each
> side, and lowest wins?
You seem to not be able to grasp the difference between killing in the
name of religion, or belief, and simply killing. Many religious people
fight in non-religious wars.
>
> >
> >Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip service to
> >Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause it's "harmful" for the
> >youth. In which way? Can't they stop playing if it is bad influence on
> >them? Are they mindless critters, or what?
>
> Hey, I think it is stupid too - but I wasn't arguing that point :)
But I was - you took it upon yourself to go off on a tirade about
atheism and belief systems.
>
> >
> >If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't be
> >about computer games. It should be about helping starving people to get
> >food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to find a
> >job/education etc...
>
> As many do. How many atheist organizations are sending food to
> Central America, feeding and housing the homeless in the US, working
> with inner city youth? None that I know of . . .
I couldn't agree more. Socially, Christian groups do a lot that benefits
communities. But as I pointed out, atheism is not a religion - its a
state of mind. By and large, people who are atheists do not meet to
discuss this non-belief. There are a few zealots who use atheism as an
excuse to do negative things, including trying to force their beliefs on
others. They are just as wrong (constitutionally)as the religious
people who do it.
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?
MdmeDis
bob.j.chu...@siemenscom.com says...
>
> >
> > For the sake of argument, please tell us when people have been abused in
> > the name of agnosticism.
>
> God can be disproved.
An atheist is a *person*, not a belief. Atheism is state of mind that
considers there is no god - therefore proof does not enter into it. A
negative cannot be proven.
> More similar in characteristics than different.
Only when you incorrectly define atheism.
> > Still the point was well made for the other examples, and jews _have_
> > been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
> > that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
> > to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
> > century.
>
> Well now that you bring up Christians and Hitler in the same breath please
> bear in mind that the armed forces that eventually crippled Germany and
> destroyed Hitler were overwhelmingly represented by those claiming
> Christianity as their religion. Now please remove the foot out of your
> mouth, it's pressing against your brain.
So were the vast majority of German troops. So what? Hitler claimed to
be a Christian and encouraged Christianity - denying or trying to
rewrite History because you don't like it doesn't alter it - just makes
you look as though you don't have much of a case.
>
> Hitler was influenced by a myriad of people. To draw an inference that a mad
> man was "influenced" by the teachings of another therefore the teaching is
> invalid and therefore flawed is simply a weak asertion by an obviously
> weak-minded individual.
> > Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip service to
> > Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause it's "harmful" for the
> > youth. In which way? Can't they stop playing if it is bad influence on
> > them? Are they mindless critters, or what?
>
> Speaking of a mindless critter....oh never mind.
>
>
> > If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't be
> > about computer games. It should be about helping starving people to get
> > food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to find a
> > job/education etc...
> > -- F
>
>
> Well, aren't you the knowledgable one on the workings of the Christian
> society. Newsflash Bubba...Christians are doing those things and more. They
> also state their opinion when they see something that they feel is not to
> their liking in a computer game or any other media. It's called freedom
> bozo...learn to live with it. By the way, who are you to dictate what people
> "should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
A dedicated, educated, conscientious Christian - at the last count about
to become a minister, this latter still correct, Ibn? Of course, it
would take one to recognize one - so where does that leave you, exactly?
Fortran Dragon
of Light...
[Snip]
> Agnosticism; the belief that God cannot be proved, Atheist; the belief that
Agnosticism: a person who holds the view that any ultimate
reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; _broadly_ : one who is
not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of
God or a god
Atheism (not atheist as you incorrectly stated): a disbelief in
the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Both definitions are from Merriam Webster. As a normal person can
see, atheism and agnosticism are fundamentally different.
[Snip]
> Well now that you bring up Christians and Hitler in the same breath please
> bear in mind that the armed forces that eventually crippled Germany and
> destroyed Hitler were overwhelmingly represented by those claiming
> Christianity as their religion. Now please remove the foot out of your
> mouth, it's pressing against your brain.
Really? The USSR was officially atheist and they did the lion's
share of defeating Nazi Germany.
> Hitler was influenced by a myriad of people. To draw an inference that a mad
> man was "influenced" by the teachings of another therefore the teaching is
> invalid and therefore flawed is simply a weak asertion by an obviously
> weak-minded individual.
Given that it is _your_ assertion I'm happy to see that you
recognize your self as a "weak-minded individual".
[Snip]
> Speaking of a mindless critter....oh never mind.
If you don't stop talking to yourself people will think you are
odd. :p
[Snip]
> Well, aren't you the knowledgable one on the workings of the Christian
> society. Newsflash Bubba...Christians are doing those things and more.
Heh. You might want to learn something about attributions and
direct your comments to the appropriate person instead of mixing the
replies to two separate people in one post.
> They
> also state their opinion when they see something that they feel is not to
> their liking in a computer game or any other media.
It is fine that they state their opinion. Just as it fine that
everyone else gets a chance to state theirs.
> It's called freedom
> bozo...learn to live with it.
Obviously you are having problems according others the freedoms
you claim for yourself.
> By the way, who are you to dictate what people
> "should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
Given that a Christian is dictating how people should entertain
themselves, you really have no leg to stand on. The people wanting to
play Baldur's Gate aren't telling Christians what to do. Rather the
reverse.
Grifman
(Samurai) wrote:
>[follow-ups set to rgcud]
>
>Quoth sg...@concentric.net (Grifman):
>[munch]
>
>>First off, yeah, there were tons of churches . . . almost all built
>>before the revolution - but how many had active congregations in
>>them? There is much more to a church than a mere building. Not
>>many, I suspect. After all Russian Orthodoxy dates back almost
>>1000 years in Russia - hard to erase that in 70-80 years of
>>communism. But most churches were turned into museums - you can
>>guarantee there wasn't a whole lot of worshipping going on in all
>>those churches in the Kremlin, or in St. Basil's on Red Square :)
>
>I visited Russia in the height of Gorbachev's administration. And I
>visited a Russian Orthodox church or two, and they were full.
Three points - First, Gorbachev's time of rule hardly makes up the
majority of Soviet history I hate to point out . . . it is hardly the
standard against which to measure Soviet treatment of religion
Secondly, it is well known that his rule was a time of great
liberlization within the Soviet Union - again not the standard to be
measured against. Anyone who knows anything of Soviet history would
know that . . .
Thirdly, know why the churches were full - because there were so few
of them open . . .
Lastly, I gave anecdotal evidence because of my personal conversations
with Russian believers - there is plenty of documentary evidence and
books about Soviet persecution - you have only to read the newspapers
about Soviet Jew seeking to emigrate for one thing . . .
Grifman
Grifman
(Samurai) wrote:
>[follow-ups set to rgcud]
>
>Quoth sg...@concentric.net (Grifman):
>[snip]
>
>>I was responding to the person who made attacked Christianity for the
>>Crusades, Inquistion, etc. Since when it is bigoted to point out
>>facts? Atheistic communism has killed millions, yes or no?
>
>No. Individual megalomaniacs did in the name of Communism, which it
>wasn't truly. Even if it had been, the atheism point is irrelevant.
That's too easy an excuse - I could blame Christian atrocities on that
too. No, the atheistic systems gave rise to those people at the very
least. No, it is not irrelevant. Atheism is a core belief of
Marxism, hence communism. If that is irrelevant, then ask all those
persecuted because of their religious beliefs in Communist countries.
Question - if they had been atheists would they have been persecuted?
>
>>Atheistic communism has "done verifiable harm to the world", yes or
>>no?
>
>See above.
>
>>Or will you concede that the person who attacked Christianity was just
>>as bigoted as you claim I am? :)
>
>I see your point, but no. The central heirarchy of the Christian
>world at the time, to which religion was the central issue, actively
>encouraged many of the misdeeds. While Communism may or may not have
>done the same, the religion point is IMHO entirely incidental.
May or may have not? Have you studied history? Millions didn't die
in Stalin's and Mao's purges? And their atheistic philosophy had _
nothing_ to do with any of that? What you and others fail to realize
is that atheism is a core foundation of Marxism - and as such, cannot
have failed to influence those followers of Marx.
>
>>And I am not discussing the impact of role playing games - that is
>>something I have not debated, nor do I care about :)
>
>Just as well, or you'd have some _real_ disagreements. :)
LOL! How do you know - you don't know what I think about games . . .
but we'll leave that for another time :)
Grifman
Grifman
(Samurai) wrote:
>[follow-ups set to rgcud]
>
>Quoth sg...@concentric.net (Grifman):
>>Atheism was officially sponsored by the Soviet state.
>>Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. were all killed and
>>imprisoned because of their religious beliefs.
>
>No, because they were seen as subversive. The state IMHO didn't give
>a flying toss about their belief in any deity, real or otherwise.
>What it _did_ care about was its authority being undermined, and
>religious establishments were seen as centres of that.
We are grasping the elephant at different ends :) It was their
religious beliefs that made them subversive. You start with
subversion, I start with the beliefs that made them potentially so :)
Either way, in the end, it was their religious beliefs that led to
their situation.
>
>Pragmatism, not idealism, was at the root of the persecution.
Not totally. Are you saying that ideology played _no_ role in Soviet
attitudes towards religion? Why not have a state supported religion
then - that way you could control things - such already existed with
the Russian Orthodox Church. But no, they choose to attempt to
eradicate religion instead of control. So it appears that ideology
did play a major role, since a currently existing alternative already
existed . . .
>
>>Those are facts beyond dispute.
>
>But are not being fully examined by your good self.
Hehehe, at least that was nice :)
>
>>So do you still say atheism had nothing to do with those believers of
>>all religions killed and imprisoned by atheistic communism throughout
>>the world?
>
>Maybe not nothing at all, but nothing significant, yes.
How can you judge that?
>
>(And now we can play count the double-negative.) :)
>
>>First one that calls names is losing usually :)
>
>Interesting. You called Ibn a mindless critter much earlier in the
>thread. Pot = kettle = black.
I looked back at my only two responses to him and I didn't see such,
but if I did I apologize here . . .
Grifman
Grifman
(Samurai) wrote:
>[follow-ups set to rgcud]
>
>Quoth sg...@concentric.net (Grifman):
>[snip]
>
>>What you fail to realize is that the state ordained religion in
>>Communist countries is atheism. So by refusing atheism, other
>>religious groups were persecuted because of their religious
>>beliefs . . .
>
>Logical flaw: one does not necessarily follow the other. The state
>religion in the UK is Church of England, but that does not mean
>Methodists, Jews or Buddhists are officially discriminated against.
You're right - but in the Soviet Union it did occur :) But militant
atheism was a core Soviet belief. I think they even had one of those
oddly named Soviet organizations, something like the "Committee for
the Propagation of Atheism" :) or something like that . . .
>
>>The fact that the Communists ended state support of the Orthodox
>>Church when they could have continued it shows that religious
>>beliefs in general were anathema to state supported atheism. So
>>religious groups were persecuted - not for political purposes,
>>but religious purposes. That is pretty clear by the Soviet
>>record.
>
>I disagree. As I have mentioned in another post, the churches, as in
>the Third Reich, were seen as focal-points of community unrest -- and
>thus closed for political reasons. And as Apteryx pointed out, they
>were reopened during the Second World War, again for political
>reasons.
Yes, which shows another way could have been chosen if atheism had not
been the over riding philosophy. They could have chosen a state
church in an attempt to coopt the church - much as in Czarist Russia -
but they didn't - those choose to attempt to crush the church.
Atheism is why they chose one course over the other - at least that
appears obvious to me :)
>
>[snip]
>>Just look at the role the Church played in Poland, Romania,
>>Czechslovakia and East Germany in throwing off atheistic
>>Communism.
>
>My point exactly. Thank you for demonstrating it.
You're welcome. So at least everything the church has done hasn't
been evil :) (unless one believes communism is good :) )
Grifman
Paul Ryan
Arise from the Depths...
> Well now that you bring up Christians and Hitler in the same breath please
> bear in mind that the armed forces that eventually crippled Germany and
> destroyed Hitler were overwhelmingly represented by those claiming
> Christianity as their religion. Now please remove the foot out of your
> mouth, it's pressing against your brain.
You mean that fighting a war against an aggressor state which started the
whole thing is the same as that same aggressor state exterminating
helpless victims? Interesting logic. Or would it be more moral to sit
back and let that aggressor state continue it's actions, conquer everyone
else, and do the same to them?
> Hitler was influenced by a myriad of people. To draw an inference that a mad
> man was "influenced" by the teachings of another therefore the teaching is
> invalid and therefore flawed is simply a weak asertion by an obviously
> weak-minded individual.
You know, if you make your points without going out of your way to insult
people, they might pay more attention to you.
> > Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip service to
> > Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause it's "harmful" for the
> > youth. In which way? Can't they stop playing if it is bad influence on
> > them? Are they mindless critters, or what?
>
> Speaking of a mindless critter....oh never mind.
Don't want to talk about yourself eh? FYI, debating good, insulting bad.
Honey better than vinegar.
> > If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't be
> > about computer games. It should be about helping starving people to get
> > food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to find a
> > job/education etc...
> Well, aren't you the knowledgable one on the workings of the Christian
> society. Newsflash Bubba...Christians are doing those things and more.
Some do indeed.
> They
> also state their opinion when they see something that they feel is not to
> their liking in a computer game or any other media.
Seems a little pointless to do the latter and not the former. If they do
both, fine.
> It's called freedom
> bozo...learn to live with it.
You mean that Ibn isn't allowed to say what he thinks about Christians
and Christianity? Where _did_ that freedom go? Or does it only apply to
people you agree with?
> By the way, who are you to dictate what people
> "should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
So you are free to deny other people the right to say what they think
about religion? You are doing exactly what you're berating Ibn for, and
not even bothering to be polite about it. Hypocrite.
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e- N T+ Om U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!K!A!L!W!M!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC+ uF uG uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nI nPT nS+ nT+ y?
The Other Codex http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~paulryan/Ultima/Codex.htm
Settle for what you can get, but first ask for the World
Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances, C IV
Negate the Spell to Wish Me Well
Samurai
[munch]
>Besides, if you look at it from this point of view - the whole
>Christian religion persecutes jews - after all, they killed Jesus.
I hope that was a devil's advocacy point of view. While some of the
more hierarchical parts of Judaeism may have been partially
responsible for Jesus' crucifixion (we're assuming all that actually
happened for these purposes), a lot of Jews formed the _basis_ of the
Christian Church. Remember Saul?
Odd how none of the images of Jesus one sees in western churches
portray him as Jewish in any way, isn't it? :)
--
___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon ~~ UDIC Code ~~
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e N T--Om+U146MA7'L8u-uC++
\ `^--^ Founder \/ of SAPS uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ \ \ (Remove fish to reply) nI++nPT+nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a22
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________
Samurai
pass this by without commenting. I'm weak. :)
Quoth bob.j.chu...@siemenscom.com:
[snip]
>Agnosticism; the belief that God cannot be proved, Atheist; the belief that
>God can be disproved. More similar in characteristics than different.
Precisely the point -- agnostics do not harm anyone for their beliefs.
>Well now that you bring up Christians and Hitler in the same breath
>please bear in mind that the armed forces that eventually crippled
>Germany and destroyed Hitler were overwhelmingly represented by
>those claiming Christianity as their religion.
You have statistics on individual soldiers rather than their nations,
do you? Besides, as Paulon pointed out, the analogy you draw is in my
estimation flawed. And as Fortran pointed out, half the army that
defeated Hitler was from the officially atheist Soviet Union. :)
>Now please remove the foot out of your mouth, it's pressing against
>your brain.
Please try to focus on the issues in a debate rather than making
personal attacks. It doesn't improve your case.
[munch]
>> Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip
>> service to Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause
>> it's "harmful" for the youth. In which way? Can't they stop
>> playing if it is bad influence on them? Are they mindless
>> critters, or what?
>
>Speaking of a mindless critter....oh never mind.
I notice you don't answer the point, though. Who's being more
mindless?
>> If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't
>> be about computer games. It should be about helping starving people
>> to get food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to
>> find a job/education etc...
>
>Well, aren't you the knowledgable one on the workings of the Christian
>society. Newsflash Bubba...Christians are doing those things and more.
>They also state their opinion when they see something that they feel is
>not to their liking in a computer game or any other media. It's called
>freedom bozo...
^^^
And again. Tut-tut. You're beginning to look like a troll, IMHO.
>learn to live with it.
*ROTFL!* The freedom they are trying to take away by banning those
elements of the game?!
>By the way, who are you to dictate what people
>"should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
Wanna tell him what your chosen career path is, Ibn? *EG*
Destrius
the entity named Samurai (Sam...@daisho.prestelcod.co.uk)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
>I know all this has already been said, but I just _couldn't_ let this
>pass this by without commenting. I'm weak. :)
-clip-
Me too. :)
-clip-
>>Agnosticism; the belief that God cannot be proved, Atheist; the belief that
>>God can be disproved. More similar in characteristics than different.
>
>Precisely the point -- agnostics do not harm anyone for their beliefs.
-clip-
They're more likely to sit and watch the fighting, because you'll never
know who is correct in the end, and it won't be nice to end up fighting for
the wrong cause. :)
-clip-
>And again. Tut-tut. You're beginning to look like a troll, IMHO.
-clip-
Strange how they seem to suddenly pop up all over the place.
But then, this is a religion thread. Thus: religion causes flame wars! :)
-clip-
>Wanna tell him what your chosen career path is, Ibn? *EG*
-clip-
I'll bet he'd be mighty surprised. :)
--
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | |
| Official Mad Mage | "Am I dreaming of the |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- | butterfly, or is the |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com/email.html | butterfly dreaming |
| Follow instructions to email me... | of me...?" |
| Website: | |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com | . o O (...) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
UDIC: d+++ e+ N++ T-- Om+ U1234567!8!AWS'! u++ uC++++ uF-
uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC+ nR nH+ nP++ nI++ nPT++++
nS++++ nT-- wM wC+ wS wI+ wN+ o- y a16
---| 庄心宇 |--Bait:--| ro...@127.0.0.1 |--| postm...@127.0.0.1 |--
Destrius
the entity named MdmeDis (mdm...@earthlink.net)
-clip-
>An atheist is a *person*, not a belief. Atheism is state of mind that
>considers there is no god - therefore proof does not enter into it. A
>negative cannot be proven.
-clip-
And before you start up with a new post about proving negatives, be
forewared that we have Dracotheran here. :)
Destrius
the entity named Grifman (sg...@concentric.net)
-clip-
>That's too easy an excuse - I could blame Christian atrocities on that
>too. No, the atheistic systems gave rise to those people at the very
>least. No, it is not irrelevant. Atheism is a core belief of
>Marxism, hence communism. If that is irrelevant, then ask all those
>persecuted because of their religious beliefs in Communist countries.
>Question - if they had been atheists would they have been persecuted?
-clip-
If they had been atheists, they wouldn't have gone to church, and thus
would not have become part of a group that could have done something to
hurt the government.
If all the atheists in the country went to "atheist church" regularly, I
think they may have been killed off too.
-clip-
>LOL! How do you know - you don't know what I think about games . . .
>but we'll leave that for another time :)
-clip-
Oh, please don't. We'd love to hear your opinions. :)
Domgrief the Dragon
Dragon) wrote:
<snip>
>> By the way, who are you to dictate what people
>> "should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
>
> Given that a Christian is dictating how people should entertain
>themselves, you really have no leg to stand on. The people wanting to
>play Baldur's Gate aren't telling Christians what to do. Rather the
>reverse.
A lot of the people who play Baldur's Gate will be saying to their
friends "It's cool! Buy it!". In addition, rave reviews,
advertisements and promotional material say the same thing.
It's equally reasonable, then, to say "It's wrong, don't play it", but
this type of attitude seems to be such a shock to some people's
systems that they fight against it.
Instead of, for example, burning all of the copies of Baldur's Gate in
existence, Christians are expressing their point of view in a manner
no different to the "It's cool" type people, if not less loud and
opressive.
Domgrief the Dragon
Dragon) wrote:
<lots without his signature, which should work this time>
(if it doesn't, he won't bother trying again)
---
Domgrief the Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
Samurai
>On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:07:17 GMT, Sam...@daisho.prestelcod.co.uk
>>>Crusades, Inquistion, etc. Since when it is bigoted to point out
>>>facts? Atheistic communism has killed millions, yes or no?
>>
>>No. Individual megalomaniacs did in the name of Communism, which it
>>wasn't truly. Even if it had been, the atheism point is irrelevant.
>
>that too.
Not strictly analagous. A whole string of Popes tacitly or overtly
condoned the activities mentioned. And these were supposed men of
God, upholding doctines of "peace and love", as I believe you put it.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao _did_ act more or less as individuals (often
contrary to what their parties might have wanted), and they were not
disobeying any grand rules. The only rules they acknowledged were
their own.
>No, the atheistic systems gave rise to those people at the very
>least.
No, the political system gave rise to them. The fact it was atheistic
doesn't matter a whit.
>No, it is not irrelevant.
Not entirely, but for the purposes of this discussion, I do think it
can be discounted.
>Atheism is a core belief of Marxism, hence communism. If that is
>irrelevant, then ask all those persecuted because of their
>religious beliefs in Communist countries.
And in the same countries before Communism, too, oddly enough.
Pogroms were _not_ just a function of Marxist regimes.
>Question - if they had been atheists would they have been persecuted?
If they had been members of the intelligensia, yes. The three
Communist dictators I mentioned all struck out forcefully against that
class, and many clergy were part of it.
>>The central heirarchy of the Christian world at the time, to which
>>religion was the central issue, actively encouraged many of the
>>misdeeds. While Communism may or may not have done the same, the
>>religion point is IMHO entirely incidental.
>
>May or may have not? Have you studied history?
Not for a while, but yes.
>Millions didn't die in Stalin's and Mao's purges?
Not for a while, but yes. Religion or opposition to it was not the
motivating factor. Both wanted to eliminate the _intelligensia_,
among which churchmen are obviously going to number.
>And their atheistic philosophy had _nothing_ to do with any of
>that?
As I've said elsewhere, it may well have been _a_ factor, but I don't
believe it was the important one.
>What you and others fail to realize is that atheism is a core
>foundation of Marxism - and as such, cannot have failed to
>influence those followers of Marx.
I think the folks at the top were too cynical and Machiavellian to be
motivated mainly by ideology. Ambition, maybe. Anti-religion? I
think not.
>>>And I am not discussing the impact of role playing games - that is
>>>something I have not debated, nor do I care about :)
>>
>>Just as well, or you'd have some _real_ disagreements. :)
>
>LOL! How do you know - you don't know what I think about games . . .
You just said you didn't care. :)
>but we'll leave that for another time :)
If you don't care, it won't be a very long conversation!
Samurai
>Sam...@daisho.prestelcod.co.uk (Samurai) wrote:
[snip]
>We are grasping the elephant at different ends :)
*G* It would seem so. However, as I've said in another post, it
seems a little pointless continuing this, since neither of us is going
to be willing to switch. I like it up here near the trunk. ;)
>It was their religious beliefs that made them subversive. You start
>with subversion, I start with the beliefs that made them potentially
>so :) Either way, in the end, it was their religious beliefs that
>led to their situation.
That's not quite what I meant. It was being a large, non-Soviet
organisation that made the churches a threat to the state. Whether
they were religious or not was IMHO largely irrelevant to the ranking
Soviets who decided to close them down.
>>Pragmatism, not idealism, was at the root of the persecution.
>
>Not totally.
Of course -- some generalisation is required, or we'll be arguing
semantics all the time. <:)
>Are you saying that ideology played _no_ role in Soviet attitudes
>towards religion?
No, that would be too simplistic. What I am saying is that the
_overriding_ concern was pragmatic rather than just anti-religious.
>Why not have a state supported religion then - that way you could
>control things - such already existed with the Russian Orthodox
>Church. But no, they choose to attempt to eradicate religion
>instead of control. So it appears that ideology did play a major
>role, since a currently existing alternative already existed . . .
Though I've never tried it ;) I would say it takes a great deal of
time to subvert an organisation as big as a major church to one's own
viewpoint. In the interim, it can still be used as a focal point for
opinions contrary to one's own.
The Bolsheviks' grip on power was tenuous enough as it was in the
1920s. It was much easier to shut something down that try to bring it
round. Pragmatism.
>>>Those are facts beyond dispute.
>>
>>But are not being fully examined by your good self.
>
>Hehehe, at least that was nice :)
I don't like flaming. There are much more satisfying ways to argue.
;)
>>>So do you still say atheism had nothing to do with those believers
>>>of all religions killed and imprisoned by atheistic communism
>>>throughout the world?
>>
>>Maybe not nothing at all, but nothing significant, yes.
>
>How can you judge that?
It's an opinion. I might as well ask you how you can know the minds
of dead Soviet politicians, to be sure they _were_ anti-religion
ideologically. :)
[snip]
>>>First one that calls names is losing usually :)
>>
>>Interesting. You called Ibn a mindless critter much earlier in the
>>thread. Pot = kettle = black.
Or Samurai = twit = fool. <:)
>I looked back at my only two responses to him and I didn't see such,
>but if I did I apologize here . . .
You didn't, and 'tis I who should be apologising. After a DN check, I
discovered I got you and bob.j.chu...@siemenscom.com mixed up
when I was posting. My mistake entirely -- sorry about that.
Samurai
[snip]
>>Logical flaw: one does not necessarily follow the other. The state
>>religion in the UK is Church of England, but that does not mean
>>Methodists, Jews or Buddhists are officially discriminated against.
>
>You're right - but in the Soviet Union it did occur :) But militant
>atheism was a core Soviet belief. I think they even had one of those
>oddly named Soviet organizations, something like the "Committee for
>the Propagation of Atheism" :) or something like that . . .
Yes, because if no-one went to chuch, there would be no centres of
non-political activity in the country. Some of the people on the
committees might have been genuine atheists and determined to spread
their views.
But I'll bet the top brass couldn't have given a flying toss about the
religion in and of itself one way or the other. One gets to the top
by being pragmatic, and therefore Churches would have been viewed as
potential centres of dissent, not potential
[snip]
>>I disagree. As I have mentioned in another post, the churches, as in
>>the Third Reich, were seen as focal-points of community unrest -- and
>>thus closed for political reasons. And as Apteryx pointed out, they
>>were reopened during the Second World War, again for political
>>reasons.
>
>Yes, which shows another way could have been chosen if atheism had
>not been the over riding philosophy. They could have chosen a state
>church in an attempt to coopt the church - much as in Czarist
>Russia - but they didn't - those choose to attempt to crush the
>church. Atheism is why they chose one course over the other - at
>least that appears obvious to me :)
Clearly I am of a different opinion. The Tsars were monarchs, thus
claiming a divine right to rule, and requiring the Church's support.
The Soviets did not make any such claim, and simply saw churches as
possible sparks for counter-revolution. _That_, I think, is why they
were closed. There may have been a side-issue with the religion, but
I don't believe it was the important one.
Since this appears to be the key contention between us, there really
doesn't seem to be any way round it, unless we care to contact dead
politbureau members and ask them. <:)
>>>Just look at the role the Church played in Poland, Romania,
>>>Czechslovakia and East Germany in throwing off atheistic
>>>Communism.
>>
>>My point exactly. Thank you for demonstrating it.
>
>You're welcome. So at least everything the church has done hasn't
>been evil :)
*G* No indeed, though I should point out it was the organisation
rather than the religion that made it an effective opponent.
I'm happy to concede that lots of good works have come out of
organised religion. I am just of the opinion it is not entirely a bed
of roses.
>(unless one believes communism is good :)
In principle, it's great. But Marx didn't take human nature into
account, and that was a fatal flaw.
Samurai
>>I visited Russia in the height of Gorbachev's administration. And I
>>visited a Russian Orthodox church or two, and they were full.
>
>Three points - First, Gorbachev's time of rule hardly makes up the
>majority of Soviet history I hate to point out . . .
I am sufficiently cognisant of Russian history to know that, yes.
>it is hardly the standard against which to measure Soviet treatment of
>religion
Nor was I attempting to make it so. You offered some anecdotal
evidence to support your claims. I countered with some of mine to
show that anecdotal evidence is not good enough for a debate of this
general nature -- depending on when and where one went, there was
bound to be evidence to support both our arguments.
>Secondly, it is well known that his rule was a time of great
>liberlization within the Soviet Union - again not the standard to be
>measured against.
Not always true. Initially, Gorbachev's rule was as strict as
Andropov's.
>Anyone who knows anything of Soviet history would know that . . .
I do know that. You are misinterpreting my intent with the post you
reply to. I hope the above explanation makes things a little clearer.
>Thirdly, know why the churches were full - because there were so few
>of them open . . .
I don't know about that, but I'm happy to accept your explanation. It
doesn't detract from the point I was making, however.
>Lastly, I gave anecdotal evidence because of my personal
>conversations with Russian believers - there is plenty of
>documentary evidence and books about Soviet persecution -
>you have only to read the newspapers about Soviet Jew
>seeking to emigrate for one thing . . .
I have covered this elsewhere -- progroms in Russia, especially
against the Jews, date back hundreds of years. The Soviet atheism
cannot be solely blamed for them.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 02:06:34 GMT, fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se (Ibn
}al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
}
}>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
}>known as Grifman on 19 Nov 1998 15:09:30 PST uttered the following
}>message:
}>
}>}So, what have you proved other than any belief system can be abused?
}>}"The evidence I present" :) is the murder of millions by atheistic
}>}communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia, and the virtual enslavement
}>}in some form or another of all those living under atheistic communism.
}>}All in the name of atheism :) So does that make atheism an invalid
}>}belief system? Based upon your reasoning it does. Picking the worst
}>}in any belief system is not the way to disprove the validity of that
}>}system - with that method, I can make any system look sick, as I doubt
}>}that there is any philosophy/religion that has not been abused at one
}>}time or another . . .
}>
}>For the sake of argument, please tell us when people have been abused in
}>the name of agnosticism.
}
}I wasn't discussing agnosticism, I was discussing atheism :)
Well, you were replying to someone who wasn't discussing atheism, but
christianity - what a coincidence. And your point was, well atheism
doesn't seem to be better, and my point was, well agnosticism seems to
_be_ better, if that is a way to prove what is best. Aside from all
this, IIRC the Soviet communism is the only of your examples which had
_organized_ atheism.
}Yes, they have - as they have been perscuted under communistic atheism
}also., also by Nazism, which was pagan at best, atheistic at worst . .
}. do you disagree?
Oh, the german church tended to go with the Nazi party IIRC (not all of
it though).
}Sorry, though I could be mistaken, I don't
}believet that Hegel was a theologian of any recognized
}church/denomination - he was a philospher and professor at the
}University of Berlin.
Take my word for it, or do your homework, Hegel was - and still is, the
most influentiall of the western culture in the 19th and first half of
the 20th century. Theologians like Kirkegaard, Bart and Bultman had to
relate to his theories in order to make their own theories understood.
He was a professor of philosophy alright, but his reasoning was
theological. Take the word of a theologian for it.
}And Hitler was just as much if not more
}influenced by Nietzche, the well known atheist :)
As a matter of fact, he was a lot more influenced by Nietche's sister
(who published some of N's books in a _very_ altered state). And
Nietche, in his turn, was fundamentally influenced by Hegel. When he
said that God is dead, it was the god described by Hegel, God
manifesting himself in the people through the Spirit. If you have any
more questions on this subject, I could point you to a couple of very
good books.
}And the point was made that atheists have also killed their share - so
}my point was were does that leave us - just count up the dead on each
}side, and lowest wins?
And my point was, if you want to do _that_ (even as a rethorical
question), you must consider that no people has been killed in the name
of agnosticism.
}
}>
}>Furthermore I think that it is rather stupid to be paying lip service to
}>Christianity by propagating against a game 'cause it's "harmful" for the
}>youth. In which way? Can't they stop playing if it is bad influence on
}>them? Are they mindless critters, or what?
}
}Hey, I think it is stupid too - but I wasn't arguing that point :)
Well, you were arguing against a post which was also arguing that point,
why?
}As many do. How many atheist organizations are sending food to
}Central America, feeding and housing the homeless in the US, working
}with inner city youth? None that I know of . . .
Simply because atheists as well as agnosticists organize themselves in
other organisations, not based on belief (and thus open to christian
people as well as muslims too).
-- F
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
-==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
-==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
Eatest the pie! / || || \
_____________________________/______||__||______\___
d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}Sorry, but I suggest you take another look at communism. Part of
}communist philosophy is atheism, that there is no god. A part of that
}so-called "political ideology" _was_ atheism, whether you like it or
}not. If Pol Pot was a communist as you concede, he was by
}definition, an atheist. And you conveniently ignore the Russian and
}Chinese communism which I pointed out, which were also atheistic.
}Which indeed, persecuted people of all faiths, Christians, Muslims,
}Jews, etc. all in the name of atheism. It's not fun to look into the
}mirror is it . . .
Oh, please point us to the valid definition of communism that excludes
religion. I grant you that Marx didn't very much like religion, but OTOH
I can't recal where he forbade it either. And giving Soviet and
Communist China monopoly on communism is a bit over the line. After all,
then we should give the pope monopoly on christianity too.
}BTW, many of the cases of Christian atrocities I could try and use the
}same lame out you did above, by claiming that it was a political
}ideology or meglomania masquerading as religion :) What's good for
}the goose is good for the gander :)
It was in many cases, in other cases it was clearly a case of christian
fanatisism (sp?), communist fanatics have also been heard of. I don't
think we should expect people to live entirly without ideology, and if
they have one - some of them sure as hell will abuse it (IMHO that's the
definition of original sin). The point was, is the likelyness (sp?) that
someone will abuse Baldur's Gate larger than that someone will abuse
christianity?
}Hehehe, speak for yourself. You have done nothing to refute anything
}I have said . . . come back when you have an argument based upon
}facts.
OTOH you did nothing to refute what Dis (nor I) said either. BTW, come
back when you've done your research in theology, no sooner please.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
GMT uttered the following message:
}
}>
}> For the sake of argument, please tell us when people have been abused in
}> the name of agnosticism.
}
}Agnosticism; the belief that God cannot be proved, Atheist; the belief that
}God can be disproved. More similar in characteristics than different.
}
}>
}> Still the point was well made for the other examples, and jews _have_
}> been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
}> that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
}> to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
}> century.
}
}Well now that you bring up Christians and Hitler in the same breath please
}bear in mind that the armed forces that eventually crippled Germany and
}destroyed Hitler were overwhelmingly represented by those claiming
}Christianity as their religion. Now please remove the foot out of your
}mouth, it's pressing against your brain.
Funny that you should mention that, my crucifix (the one I wear around
my neck, as a symbol of my religious belief) blocked the path to the
mouth so that my foot missed it, now where's your foot at?
}Hitler was influenced by a myriad of people. To draw an inference that a mad
}man was "influenced" by the teachings of another therefore the teaching is
}invalid and therefore flawed is simply a weak asertion by an obviously
}weak-minded individual.
Well, his teachings fundamentally built upon the theology of Hegel,
which said that the people of Europe (and more specifically Germany) was
Gods fulfillment of himself.
}Speaking of a mindless critter....oh never mind.
Well, what was that you were about to say? I am a christian myself, and
I don't like that other people get abused by christian people; the post
I was responding to was very much abusing atheists, by ascribing the
deeds of a couple of lunatics to all atheists, while the posts before
that (the one by Mdme Dis) was pointing out that religion can prove a
very big negative influence. Have a look at David Koresh if you don't
believe that, christianity has been, and still is, abused by a lot of
people - it's a fact.
}
}
}> If someone is reacting as a Christian in our society, it shouldn't be
}> about computer games. It should be about helping starving people to get
}> food, visiting lonely people, helping unemployed people to find a
}> job/education etc...
}> -- F
}
}
}Well, aren't you the knowledgable one on the workings of the Christian
}society.
I am. I am studying theology for my 4th year, and am becoming a pastor
in a small congregational church here in Sweden.
} Newsflash Bubba...Christians are doing those things and more. They
}also state their opinion when they see something that they feel is not to
}their liking in a computer game or any other media. It's called freedom
}bozo...learn to live with it. By the way, who are you to dictate what people
}"should" do. Rather self-righteous of you.
Nope, self-critical, as I am one of them.
Where's your foot hiding at?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}Quoth Domin 'Alien' Wnek <do...@elektron.pl>:
}[munch]
}
}>Besides, if you look at it from this point of view - the whole
}>Christian religion persecutes jews - after all, they killed Jesus.
}
}I hope that was a devil's advocacy point of view. While some of the
}more hierarchical parts of Judaeism may have been partially
}responsible for Jesus' crucifixion (we're assuming all that actually
}happened for these purposes), a lot of Jews formed the _basis_ of the
}Christian Church. Remember Saul?
}
}Odd how none of the images of Jesus one sees in western churches
}portray him as Jewish in any way, isn't it? :)
And odd that some people get angry over a black or female Jesus, in
addition to that.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
<SNIP>
}A dedicated, educated, conscientious Christian - at the last count about
}to become a minister, this latter still correct, Ibn?
Exactly, I'm on my last year of theology now. I'll take a year of CS
inbetween before I start working as a minister though.
} Of course, it
}would take one to recognize one - so where does that leave you, exactly?
I think that phrase he used about foots and brains might be usefull
here. >;)
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon wrote:
}
}> Still the point was well made for the other examples, and jews _have_
}> been persecuted by christians until the 19th century. And apart from
}> that Hitler _was_ very influenced by the thoughts of Hegel, who happened
}> to be one of the most influential theologians of all of the 19th
}> century.
}
}Yes, and so they have been by egiptians.
}
}Not to mention muslims - they're prosecuting them until this very day.
}
}Besides, if you look at it from this point of view - the whole Christian
}religion persecutes jews - after all, they killed Jesus.
Oh, _I_ am a christian, and I _don't_ persecute jews...
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
the following message:
}A lot of the people who play Baldur's Gate will be saying to their
}friends "It's cool! Buy it!". In addition, rave reviews,
}advertisements and promotional material say the same thing.
Though I wouldn't listen for a minute, if they don't say why they think
it's cool.
}It's equally reasonable, then, to say "It's wrong, don't play it", but
}this type of attitude seems to be such a shock to some people's
}systems that they fight against it.
}
}Instead of, for example, burning all of the copies of Baldur's Gate in
}existence, Christians are expressing their point of view in a manner
}no different to the "It's cool" type people, if not less loud and
}opressive.
And I would like to know why I, as a christian, should not by the game.
After all, I like this kind of game very much, and I having been playing
this sort of games a lot. I have also been LARPing and playing ordinary
pen and paper RPGs, in spite of warnings from some chritian people, and
I can't see what the harmful effects should have been. If someone is
warning for something they ought to tell me why, I'm plain sick of
people crying wolf about RPGs (as well as movies, dancing, comics etc).
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
GMT uttered the following message:
}Anyone who thinks that Communism was
}anything but atheistic roots either is strictly dead from the neck up or has
}a hidden agenda.
I'm not denying that, but to say that communism excludes religion is
equally stupid (unless Soviet and Communist China has monopoly on
communsim - but then the Roman Catholic church has monopoly on
christianity too).
}Karl Marx himself wrote "religion is the opiate of the
}masses."
But in what context did he write that? Was it in a situation when all
the established churches freedom of speach, equality among all people
and to care for the weak people in the society? If your answer is yes;
you just flunked in history.
}The first thing that Bolshevik's did was plunder the churches and
}outlaw organized religious services. It's common knowledge.
Translation: It's an urban legend.
It was the second thing they did. The first thing they did was to
plunder the rich who had been opressing the people (if some did it in
the name of the church, I can't blame the communists for plundering them
among the first), and outlaw their means to do that.
As an aside, one of the major factors in persecution of christian people
in Russia today is the orthodox church - it's christians persecuting
christians these days, wonder why? Could it have something to do with
the fact that the pentecostal churches who have come there recently have
declared that the orthodox church isn't properly christian? Could it
have to do with its impressing displays in fanatisism (sp?)?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:52:35 -0500, mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis)
}wrote:
<SNIP>
}>No - you twisted that so you could go off on a little rant about
}>atheism. I posted that the Christian's habit of mass massacre in the
}>name of a supernatural being was a worse example for American youth than
}>playing pretend games. Another example of how unhealthy Christianity can
}>be is Jonestown.
}
}No, I didn't twist anything - feel free to show me exactly where I
}twisted anything. I merely brought forth that atheists have their own
}atrocities to account for. You just didn't like it that someone
}pointed out the black past of atheists, since you usually have it so
}easy in pointing out Christain abuses. People who live in glass
}houses shouldn't throw stones :)
This is what Dis wrote:
>>Our roleplaying games are fiction; fantasy, and by and large depict
overcoming the evil demons. You actually believe your supernatural being
exists, and further more seek to remove my freedom of choice in the
matter. I am perfectly happy for you to have your beliefs, to express
them even though I think your kind of delusion being taught to an
impressionable mind is infinitely more harmful than playing pretend
games. The evidence I present for the harm done by your beliefs are the
countless millions massacred in the name of your supernatural being in
the endless religious wars, starting with the Crusades, working through
such jolly little events as the Spanish Inquisition right up to the so-
called Holocaust. All in the name of Christ.
The key sentence here is: "I am perfectly happy for you to have your
beliefs, to express them even though I think your kind of delusion being
taught to an impressionable mind is infinitely more harmful than playing
pretend games."
And I do have to agree with her that there are more christian fanatics
than there are Role-Playing fanatics, anyway, here's what you answered:
>>So, what have you proved other than any belief system can be abused?
"The evidence I present" :) is the murder of millions by atheistic
communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia, and the virtual enslavement
in some form or another of all those living under atheistic communism.
All in the name of atheism :) So does that make atheism an invalid
belief system? Based upon your reasoning it does. Picking the worst
in any belief system is not the way to disprove the validity of that
system - with that method, I can make any system look sick, as I doubt
that there is any philosophy/religion that has not been abused at one
time or another . . .
>>BTW, Christianity had nothing to do with the Holocaust. That was the
result of atheistic/paganistic Nazism. I suggest you do better
research before making such obviously flawed charges in the future . .
And we all agree that any belief system can be abused, but that wasn't
the issue. The issue was that there are more reasons to be on guard
against people who try to influence on the behalf of a belief system,
than to be on guard against a CRPG. You twisted that issue into atheism
against christianity. QED
BTW Why on earth did you assume (assuming you did ;) that she is an
atheist?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
the following message:
}Lenin and Stalin took some efforts in exterminating xtianity, but
}unfortunately it never was a number one importance issue for them ;/ In late
}20 years there was no persecution at all, only a happy symbiosis. When
}initial extremities fade away, mind-enslaving doctrines find it very easy to
}cooperate..
You are plain wrong here. The persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church
faded away (though it didn't cease), not the persecution of the
christians.
Interesting how all ideologies get abused in the end, isn't it? Not so
long ago, child pornography (to have it, not to publish it) was defended
in that name of freedom of speech here in Sweden.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}Be sure :) Marxism is the core of Communism. By definition, Marxism
}is atheistic - Marx did not believe in any god, and made it a part of
}his philosophy.
No he didn't. Marx isn't communism in person. The communist party
existed before he joined it (IIRC it started during the French
revolution). And he didn't state that it it should be forbidden, merely
that it was a power tool, which it clearly was.
}So Communism gave rise to Stalinism. And Stalin was no god, and never
}claimed to be. He was an atheist, through and through, known for his
}oft quoted remark," How many divisions does the Pope have?"
<SNIP>
}He wasn't a god though - but a very evil man - and an atheist.
Is this where we could refute you by quoting a number of evil popes with
a lot of armies?
Stalin was no god, he was a person who abused a system. The system was
there, but not made to be abused, it just wasn't foolproof. Is the
christian church foolproof?
As an aside, you are aware that Madme Dis could have made her point by
using communism as an example, aren't you? Her point wasn't that we
mustn't listen to chritian people, it was that we must always be
thinking for ourselves, and if we do; Baldur's Gate won't, Stalin won't
and Kenneth Hagin (sp?) won't seduce our minds without us agreeing to
let them.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
Destie wrote:
}>Me agnostic! ...and a bit pantheist too, actually. Dunno really. :)
}Americans use too many odd religious titles. ;)
Americans!?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}Wanna tell him what your chosen career path is, Ibn? *EG*
I think I just did in two other posts, but I'm proud of it - so here we
are again. I'm about to become a astor, that's the christian sort. So
what I said about christians that seemed like criticism, was more like
self-criticism.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}if you read writings of some of the 'missionaries' who went to china you get
}the impression these folks expected immediate adulation from the 'ignorant'
}locals for their self-styled selflessness. imho, the boxers gave them what
}they deserved for their condescension. real missionaries don't sit in
}compounds pontificating, and they often die alongside their adopted
}breathren at the hand of a common oppressor.
The interesting part is that this is what Grifman proves by telling us
that the christian chruch in China was doing much better without the
'missionaries', even though it was persecuted. ;)
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}Destrius <u...@the.sig.addy> wrote in article
}<733ua9$k3k$1...@newton.pacific.net.sg>...
}>
}>
}> :Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
}> longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
}> approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
}> this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
}> has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
}> Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
}> thread length in those groups.
}>
}I've never heard of the above Law/proverb and think that it sounds great.
}There should be corollary stating that it does not apply to threads that
}when they start they are about Hitler or Nazis, for these there should be
}some other feature that would end the thread. I'm not sure what though,
}maybe something group specific.
There is such a corollary for thread and newsgroups discussing Hitler or
the Nazis. I think the intent of the use of the Nazi/Hitler parallell
was such that it should be invoked. The poster did firmly plant his foot
in his mouth though, and we haven't had a decent troll to decapitate
around for a while, so lets just get on with it... >;)
}Does this newsgroup uphold this worthy tradition?
Well, the theory is that it proves itself each time. It usually comes to
flaming, and the person invoking Godwin's law eventually loses the
flamewar, since most people are disgusted by this kind of asault...
MdmeDis
fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se says...
> In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
> message:
>
>
> I think I just did in two other posts, but I'm proud of it - so here we
> what I said about christians that seemed like criticism, was more like
> self-criticism.
I've taken the liberty of popping a 'P' in - the house of Astor does not
sit well with the subject.
I don't know about self-criticism, but acceptance of historic facts,
however unpleasant, makes this reluctant atheist much more inclined to
hear what you have to say about Christianity, than to people denying or
justifying the bad things that happened because of it. Such denial does
not lend credence to he cause of Christianity.
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?
MdmeDis
fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se says...
> Have a look at David Koresh if you don't
> believe that, christianity has been, and still is, abused by a lot of
> people - it's a fact.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with you on this. ASFAIAC, it was the
wonderful government that was totally and unforgivably out of line on
this one. They acted exactly like the Marxist regimes we have been
talking about - all this in a country that constitutionally protects our
freedoms to worship who and what we like. Yes - he had arms. The
constitution allows us to have them. I feel the government murdered
those people, and I hope the people that perpetrated it and participated
in it are haunted by it for the rest of their miserable lives.
This action by the Government only feeds the paranoia such groups feel.
I think if they were welcomed and accepted by society, the hold such
leaders as Koresh and Jones can exert would be lessened.
MdmeDis
> In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
> message:
>
Possibly because I referred to God as a supernatural being? I am, but
not particularly happy about it. I've played around for years with the
word agnostic, but the time came finally when I had to admit that I
simply do not believe in a higher power, a supreme being or anything
that involves a belief system. In short, I lack the necessary faith, and
irritatingly enough, I think I know what it is, and have used it.
Frankly, I envy those who do believe in someone perfect, who has pre-
ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> A lot of the people who play Baldur's Gate will be saying to their
> friends "It's cool! Buy it!". In addition, rave reviews,
> advertisements and promotional material say the same thing.
Which is fine.
> It's equally reasonable, then, to say "It's wrong, don't play it", but
> this type of attitude seems to be such a shock to some people's
> systems that they fight against it.
Which is also fine.
The problem comes in when Christians/Atheists/Shoemakers'
children/etc. seek to suppress something that they don't like (as opposed
to something that, say, is trying to kill them). Tolerance for other
ideas and other ways is important.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
Charles Krug
> }Destrius <u...@the.sig.addy> wrote in article
> }<733ua9$k3k$1...@newton.pacific.net.sg>...
> }>
> }>
> }> :Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
> }> longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
> }> approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
> }> this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
> }> has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
> }> Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
> }> thread length in those groups.
Speaking of Nazi's, is there anyone here who has both read the Stephen King
novella, "Apt Pupil" AND has seen the recent film. I loved the story (I think
his short stuff is good to great, his novels fair to awful), but films of his
stuff tend to turn up the ol' SUCK button.
(I had to, sorry)
--
Charles Krug, Jr.
Application Engineer
Pentek Corp
1 Park Way
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}In article <365aaa1c...@news1.tninet.se>,
}fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se says...
}> In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
}> known as Samurai on Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:06:12 GMT uttered the following
}> message:
}>
}> }Wanna tell him what your chosen career path is, Ibn? *EG*
}>
}> I think I just did in two other posts, but I'm proud of it - so here we
}> are again. I'm about to become a Pastor, that's the christian sort. So
}> what I said about christians that seemed like criticism, was more like
}> self-criticism.
}
}I've taken the liberty of popping a 'P' in - the house of Astor does not
}sit well with the subject.
Gee, thanks! ;)
}I don't know about self-criticism, but acceptance of historic facts,
}however unpleasant, makes this reluctant atheist much more inclined to
}hear what you have to say about Christianity, than to people denying or
}justifying the bad things that happened because of it. Such denial does
}not lend credence to he cause of Christianity.
That seems reasonable.
Capabiblity of self-criticism is the cornerstone of credibility IMHO,
and recognising the unpleasant parts of one's movement, no matter if
they're historical or contemporary, seems a good way to do that.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}I'm not entirely sure I agree with you on this. ASFAIAC, it was the
}wonderful government that was totally and unforgivably out of line on
}this one. They acted exactly like the Marxist regimes we have been
}talking about - all this in a country that constitutionally protects our
}freedoms to worship who and what we like. Yes - he had arms. The
}constitution allows us to have them. I feel the government murdered
}those people, and I hope the people that perpetrated it and participated
}in it are haunted by it for the rest of their miserable lives.
}
}This action by the Government only feeds the paranoia such groups feel.
}I think if they were welcomed and accepted by society, the hold such
}leaders as Koresh and Jones can exert would be lessened.
Apparently we have different views on specific examples, but I wouldn't
suppose you're disagreeing that christianity can be abused by leaders
who turn their followers into fanatics, do you?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the sects of Koresh and Jones weren't very
healthy places to stay at, and also that those leaders were completely
incapable of realsing they could be wrong (ie I'd bet they were
fullfledged psychopaths (sp?)).
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}Possibly because I referred to God as a supernatural being? I am, but
}not particularly happy about it. I've played around for years with the
}word agnostic, but the time came finally when I had to admit that I
}simply do not believe in a higher power, a supreme being or anything
}that involves a belief system. In short, I lack the necessary faith, and
}irritatingly enough, I think I know what it is, and have used it.
}Frankly, I envy those who do believe in someone perfect, who has pre-
}ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
}I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
Well, I certainly have to gainsay you on one point: Don't you dare die
in a decade or two. You'd better live and stay active until you're at
least 150, or else!
MdmeDis
fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se says...
> }This action by the Government only feeds the paranoia such groups feel.
> }I think if they were welcomed and accepted by society, the hold such
> }leaders as Koresh and Jones can exert would be lessened.
>
> Apparently we have different views on specific examples, but I wouldn't
> suppose you're disagreeing that christianity can be abused by leaders
> who turn their followers into fanatics, do you?
Not at all. I think in the last few days I said that somewhere - that
religious organisations are often either the magnet or the excuse for
extreme people.
>
> Anyway, I'm pretty sure the sects of Koresh and Jones weren't very
> healthy places to stay at, and also that those leaders were completely
> incapable of realsing they could be wrong (ie I'd bet they were
> fullfledged psychopaths (sp?)).
It seems more like extreme paranoia to me. It gets worse, and more
justified in the eyes of the congregation as outside forces try to
intervene. What fascinates me are the people that go along with it -
what is it that grabs them? It's too easy to say they are simple people
who don't know better, but they are not. Aum whatever in Japan, and that
spaceship bunch in California were highly intelligent individuals.
Christianity is not the sole domain of these disasters - these cult
mentality things.
I was raised in a very fundamentalist religion in Britain that
eventually became a cult and its being driven underground coincided with
the governments intervention. But I can tell you - we all started out
perfectly normal, if extremely religious families, with no official
leaders or 'messiah' type. Those began to emerge as the government
stared to make enquiries. Half the congregation split away as things
started to get really extreme, so I don't know what happened to the ones
that remained. I do remember the pressure being put on us by the
leaders, the visits to the house, talking to us telling us we would burn
in hell if we turned our backs now - that this was our test, etc. And
all my parents friends were in this church... FYI - the church was
called the Exclusive Brethren, and had a less potent branch called the
Open Brethren. It orginated in America.
James N. Daniel, III
> > message:
> >
> > }On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:52:35 -0500, mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis)
> > }wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > }>No - you twisted that so you could go off on a little rant about
> > }>atheism. I posted that the Christian's habit of mass massacre in the
> > }>name of a supernatural being was a worse example for American youth than
> > }>playing pretend games. Another example of how unhealthy Christianity can
> > }>be is Jonestown.
I doubt that Jonestown is an example of how unhealthy Christianity can
be
any more than the common sad-sacks who find refuge in computers and RPGs
represent how healthy computers and RPGs are. There are always people
who are easily obsessed by something or another, and sometimes religion
fits the bill, and sometimes RPGs fit the bill. Neither RPGs nor
religion
so much -cause- this behavior as they provide vehicles for those
inclined
to obsess.
[Snippety snip snip snip]
<James gives up and pulls out a chainsaw>
[Zzzzzzzzrrrrrrrrrooooooooowwwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]
> Possibly because I referred to God as a supernatural being?
Yeah, this ends up being a major issue even among theologians. Probably
because once you assert the existence of some sort of being, it
becomes as easy to pick apart as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
> I am, but
> not particularly happy about it. I've played around for years with the
> word agnostic, but the time came finally when I had to admit that I
> simply do not believe in a higher power, a supreme being or anything
> that involves a belief system.
*nod* Agnostic appeared to me to be the only logical answer, since
logic is unable to address the issue. Paradoxically, since logic
is unable to address the issue, of what use is a logical answer?
> In short, I lack the necessary faith, and
> irritatingly enough, I think I know what it is, and have used it.
I'm not sure what you mean be the 2nd half of your sentence, and
would be intrigued by its elaboration.
As for the first half, I tend to differentiate between belief and
faith. For example, if you describe a concept of "God" to any
degree (whether or not you believe in it), and ask me if I believe
in that God, I'll say that I do not. Yet I have faith in God.
I've been called a Deist for phrasing things that way, but I
don't think that's accurate. Another example: if understanding
the world rationally requires "thinking outside the box",
understanding it spiritually requires "feeling outside the box."
> Frankly, I envy those who do believe in someone perfect, who has pre-
> ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
> I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
It's comforting, but not what I have come to believe. "Pre-ordained"
is meaningless to me. My philosophy is more about living in the "now",
and appreciating it -now-. Most people have a concept of heaven that
I find absolutely horrifying (not to mention eternally boring), so
I'm not worrying about an afterlife, at the moment.
James Daniel
Infinitron Dragon
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
>known as Domin 'Alien' Wnek on Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:01:47 GMT uttered the
>following message:
>
>}Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon wrote:
>
>Oh, _I_ am a christian, and I _don't_ persecute jews...
>-- F
> Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
> -==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
> -==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
> Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
> Eatest the pie! / || || \
>_____________________________/______||__||______\___
>d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
>uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
Yep. Except for some oddball Neo-nazis and the occasional evangelism,
persecution from that side of the political table is all but over,
generally.
That freaky general in Russa made a lot of noise, though. Probably
just noise...
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Infinitron Dragon
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
>known as Infinitron Dragon on Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:19:33 GMT uttered the
>following message:
>
>Destie wrote:
>
>}>Me agnostic! ...and a bit pantheist too, actually. Dunno really. :)
>
>}Americans use too many odd religious titles. ;)
>
>Americans!?
>-- F
> Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
> -==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
> -==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
> Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
> Eatest the pie! / || || \
>_____________________________/______||__||______\___
>d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
>uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
All those 'ists', I dunno. In Israel you're either religious or not.
Basically everyody believes in god, it's just a matter of how much and
what kind of work you put into it.
Damocles
<dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Frankly, I envy those who do believe in someone perfect, who has pre-
>> ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
>> I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
>
>It's comforting, but not what I have come to believe. "Pre-ordained"
>is meaningless to me. My philosophy is more about living in the "now",
>and appreciating it -now-. Most people have a concept of heaven that
>I find absolutely horrifying (not to mention eternally boring), so
>I'm not worrying about an afterlife, at the moment.
>
>
Unfortunately, however much fun the "now" is, it will soon be over.
Even 70 or 80 years of time is an infinitesimal speck on the face of
eternity. I certainly understand where the concept of an afterlife
came from, though Christianity is somewhat unique in making it a
basically fun place (subject to the believer's definition of fun, of
course).
I like the idea of the Wheel the best, slowly moving towards some
kind of enlightenment throughout countless lives. That's enough to
provide life with meaning without burdening it under some heavyhanded
concept of sin.
Allan Olley
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>For the sake of argument, please tell us when people have been abused in
>the name of agnosticism.
I would say you have a point, any belief that by its nature is
moderate or simply motivates inaction can not be abused in the same
way as a belief that motivates action. Still, I suppose you could
have a group of extremist agnostics trying to force their views on
everyone else through violent means.
"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no extremism at all."
Robespierre (I think)
--
d e- N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!6A78! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP nI+
nPT nS+ nT- y- a19
Member of the Cinnaguard
Blue Bow [B><B]
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Allan Olley
wrote:
>Possibly because I referred to God as a supernatural being? I am, but
>word agnostic, but the time came finally when I had to admit that I
>simply do not believe in a higher power, a supreme being or anything
>ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
>I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
Well, no need to take such a negative attitude towards non-existance,
Lucretius and the epicureans seem to see it as not such a bad thing.
Personally, I have a hard time seeing it that way.
Still, to me the hardest belief to justify is the belief that allows
us to think that one action is preferable to another. I think you
have that belief in abundance as the beginning of this thread attests
to.
Of course, I seem to have a very different view on the nature of
belief than most people.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
<SNIP>
}Buddhism is passive in nature. Killing of any kind is a forbidden sin. Being
}killed is ok (I am not joking). Using this clue to examine your conjecture.
Both Ashoka and the kings before him of his line, as well as loads of
other Indian kings, were Buddhists, yet they were not very passive at
all. In fact they were fighting a lot.
Destrius
the entity named MdmeDis (mdm...@earthlink.net)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
>I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
-clip-
As will everything, all in due time. Reality is about cold stone spheres
revolving around big balls of fire. Whether there is a being out there
beyond the physical world I do not know, but even if there is one, it
doesn't change the fact that we're just a tiny spark in the big eternity we
have the cheek to give a name to.
--
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | |
| Official Mad Mage | "Am I dreaming of the |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- | butterfly, or is the |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com/email.html | butterfly dreaming |
| Follow instructions to email me... | of me...?" |
| Website: | |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com | . o O (...) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
UDIC: d+++ e+ N++ T-- Om+ U1234567!8!AWS'! u++ uC++++ uF-
uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC+ nR nH+ nP++ nI++ nPT++++
nS++++ nT-- wM wC+ wS wI+ wN+ o- y a16
---| 庄心宇 |--Bait:--| ro...@127.0.0.1 |--| postm...@127.0.0.1 |--
James N. Daniel, III
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:37:08 -0600, "James N. Daniel, III"
> <dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
> >
> >is meaningless to me. My philosophy is more about living in the "now",
> >and appreciating it -now-. Most people have a concept of heaven that
> >I find absolutely horrifying (not to mention eternally boring), so
> >I'm not worrying about an afterlife, at the moment.
> >
> >
>
> Unfortunately, however much fun the "now" is, it will soon be over.
> Even 70 or 80 years of time is an infinitesimal speck on the face of
> eternity.
Ah, but there's the rub. Here's a couple of different perspectives.
On the one hand, would you -really- want to live for eternity?!
Plenty of SF/Fantasy stories have explored this question extensively.
On the other hand, the "now" -is- eternity. It's always "now".
While one should always learn from the past, and prepare for the
future, the only instant in which one can act is the now.
> I certainly understand where the concept of an afterlife
> came from, though Christianity is somewhat unique in making it a
> basically fun place (subject to the believer's definition of fun, of
> course).
Don't forget the place based on the believer's definition of
"not fun", too! :)
Ironically, another unique aspect of the Christian faith is
the focus on forgiveness. Not that other great faiths and
teachers avoid the lesson, but it is the crux of Christianity
(pun intended) that one is not condemned by one's mistakes
(hellfire and damnation sections of the Bible notwithstanding). :)
> I like the idea of the Wheel the best, slowly moving towards some
> kind of enlightenment throughout countless lives. That's enough to
> provide life with meaning without burdening it under some heavyhanded
> concept of sin.
This reminds me of a quip that has been used against those who
profess to have lived past lives: "You mean to say that you've
been through all those past lives and you haven't learned anything
-yet-?!"
Your description of a "heavyhanded concept of sin" is quite apt,
though. The word "sin" is derived from an ancient Hebrew word (my source
doesn't provide the word) meaning "to miss the mark". That
puts the concept in quite a different light. Instead of being some
sort of moral "high crime", a sin is rather a failure to live
up to our highest expectations. Another way of looking at it
is as God's law vs. Man's law. When Man's law is broken,
people must enforce the law and attempt to find and punish
the wrongdoer. When God's law is broken, the consequences are
more direct: just as getting burned is a consequence of sticking
your hand in a fire, one's life tends to get messed up when
one lies, steals, cheats on a spouse, and so on. I don't subscribe
to the notion that sin (or lack thereof) is something you get
punished (rewarded) for by the metaphysically appropriate
afterlife.
James Daniel
James N. Daniel, III
>
> In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
> known as Lorenz Liu on Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:09:23 +0800 uttered the
> following message:
>
> <SNIP>
> }Buddhism is passive in nature. Killing of any kind is a forbidden sin. Being
> }killed is ok (I am not joking). Using this clue to examine your conjecture.
>
> Both Ashoka and the kings before him of his line, as well as loads of
> other Indian kings, were Buddhists, yet they were not very passive at
> all. In fact they were fighting a lot.
Yeah, but can we name anyone who killed in the name of Buddha?
Historically
speaking, the God of Jews, Christians -and- Muslims was for all intents
and purposes a War God, with the concept of God aiding the righteous in
their fight built in. Oddly enough, the Baal of the Old Testament was
a god of storms and agriculture, of prosperity and growth rather than
of war. Jesus, just as Buddha, preached an openhearted tolerance, but
the roots of all three religions (I respectfully refuse to call them
"faiths" in this sense) are based on the Old Testament God that
performed
disasterous miracles to rescue "His Chosen People" from Egypt.
Buddhism,
however, is derived from the Hindu religion, which was already very
broadminded in the sense that all gods of whatever stripe were regarded
as
merely aspects or faces of the One.
So have there been any equivalents in Buddhism to Christian Crusades and
Inquisitions, or to Islamic Jihads?
James Daniel
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}I think in the last few days I said that somewhere - that
}religious organisations are often either the magnet or the excuse for
}extreme people.
I certainly don't agree with you about the magnet thing. I'd say that
any group of ordinary people have the potential of becoming a sect, and
that any ideology has the can be abused by a leader who's good at
rethorics.
}It seems more like extreme paranoia to me. It gets worse, and more
}justified in the eyes of the congregation as outside forces try to
}intervene.
Well, I've been working close to one such leader who was later diagnosed
as psychopath, the extreme paranoia was one strong indicator along with
the total capability of selfcriticism. The sect-like group I was part of
wasn't very large though, and I managed to break free from it when I
left my home town. Afterwards when I have been studying psychology, I've
found that the characteristics of a psychopath are those of many sect
leaders as far as I can judge. Also, not just any paranoid person gets
lots of followers, but a psychopath has the kind of charisma it takes.
}What fascinates me are the people that go along with it -
}what is it that grabs them? It's too easy to say they are simple people
}who don't know better, but they are not. Aum whatever in Japan, and that
}spaceship bunch in California were highly intelligent individuals.
}Christianity is not the sole domain of these disasters - these cult
}mentality things.
I think it has to do with the atmosphere in the group. It's a very nice
and caring environment to stay in for those who stay in line, at least
according to my own experience (very local).
}I was raised in a very fundamentalist religion in Britain that
}eventually became a cult and its being driven underground coincided with
}the governments intervention. But I can tell you - we all started out
}perfectly normal, if extremely religious families, with no official
}leaders or 'messiah' type. Those began to emerge as the government
}stared to make enquiries.
Well, that's your experience, and I can't do anything but respect it.
But I don't think it's universal for sects. As for David Koresh, he was
that kind of a leader before the government tried to intervene. Among
other things he monopolised sex IIRC. And as for the spaceship bunch
(was it 'heaven's gate' they were called?), the government never
intervened. I think that was the case with Jones too.
}Half the congregation split away as things
}started to get really extreme, so I don't know what happened to the ones
}that remained. I do remember the pressure being put on us by the
}leaders, the visits to the house, talking to us telling us we would burn
}in hell if we turned our backs now - that this was our test, etc. And
}all my parents friends were in this church...
That is how ideological organizations behave generally, not only the
early christians, buddhists and muslims, but also the communists, and at
least here in Sweden - the liberals, and the labour unions, behaved in
the same way. I don't like it at all when sects take control over their
members lifes, but other kinds of groups of people behave similarly -
especially if they're certain that they are right.
Thrasher
<dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Ah, but there's the rub. Here's a couple of different perspectives.
>On the one hand, would you -really- want to live for eternity?!
>Plenty of SF/Fantasy stories have explored this question extensively.
Not me. I've noticed as I get older it's harder and harder to find
things that are new and interesting. I think human lifespans are what
they are for a reason.
>This reminds me of a quip that has been used against those who
>profess to have lived past lives: "You mean to say that you've
>been through all those past lives and you haven't learned anything
>-yet-?!"
If our souls are immortal, in whatever fashion, I think the reason we
have to start anew goes along with the comment I made above. Would you
_really_ want to know everything there is to know? The purpose of life
is to learn and to grow. What would you do if you knew everything and
had done everything? Commit suicide?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}Yep. Except for some oddball Neo-nazis and the occasional evangelism,
}persecution from that side of the political table is all but over,
}generally.
As for Neo-nazis, I have yet to meet a christian one (the other sort is
not so uncommon in Sweden as one would wish).
The evangelicals certainly don't. They buy boats and ferry them from
eastern Europe and Russia to Israel (where they are not so welcome
anymore) to fulfill a prophesy in the Book of Revelation, that says that
when all jews return to Israel - Jesus will return.
}That freaky general in Russa made a lot of noise, though. Probably
}just noise...
Lebed?
Allan Olley
wrote:
>Not me. I've noticed as I get older it's harder and harder to find
>things that are new and interesting. I think human lifespans are what
>they are for a reason.
Well, I am young, but I have a hard time believing I could get all I
want to do done in an eternity.
>If our souls are immortal, in whatever fashion, I think the reason we
>have to start anew goes along with the comment I made above. Would you
>_really_ want to know everything there is to know? The purpose of life
>is to learn and to grow. What would you do if you knew everything and
>had done everything? Commit suicide?
First of all their are an infinite number of things to do and know and
second the answer to your question is "Do it again.". If you do not
want them to be nothing is even worth doing once, but if it is worth
doing surely it is worth doing twice (and three times and so on).
Singing Dragon
(Thrasher) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:37:39 -0600, "James N. Daniel, III"
><dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ah, but there's the rub. Here's a couple of different perspectives.
>>On the one hand, would you -really- want to live for eternity?!
>>Plenty of SF/Fantasy stories have explored this question extensively.
>
>Not me. I've noticed as I get older it's harder and harder to find
>things that are new and interesting. I think human lifespans are what
>they are for a reason.
Lots of science fiction that I've read lately seems to support that,
not that it's evidence, but obviously, you're not alone! :)
However, at my tender young age (20) I still see an AWFUL lot ahead of
me, and can't imagine squeezing it all into just one lifetime.
>If our souls are immortal, in whatever fashion, I think the reason we
>have to start anew goes along with the comment I made above. Would you
>_really_ want to know everything there is to know? The purpose of life
>is to learn and to grow. What would you do if you knew everything and
>had done everything? Commit suicide?
Learn everything that had changed since you learned it. :)
-Singing Dragon Jon-o Addleman
-=|UDIC|=-
"Youth is wasted on the young, stereos are wasted on old people."
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}All those 'ists', I dunno. In Israel you're either religious or not.
}Basically everyody believes in god, it's just a matter of how much and
}what kind of work you put into it.
It is? I what part of Israel is that? Does it include palestinians?
Infinitron Dragon
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
>known as Infinitron Dragon on Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:38:17 GMT uttered the
>following message:
>
>}Yep. Except for some oddball Neo-nazis and the occasional evangelism,
>}persecution from that side of the political table is all but over,
>}generally.
>
>As for Neo-nazis, I have yet to meet a christian one (the other sort is
>not so uncommon in Sweden as one would wish).
>
>The evangelicals certainly don't. They buy boats and ferry them from
>eastern Europe and Russia to Israel (where they are not so welcome
>anymore) to fulfill a prophesy in the Book of Revelation, that says that
>when all jews return to Israel - Jesus will return.
>
>}That freaky general in Russa made a lot of noise, though. Probably
>}just noise...
>
>Lebed?
>-- F
> Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
> -==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
> -==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
> Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
> Eatest the pie! / || || \
>_____________________________/______||__||______\___
>d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
>uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
No, some communist guy. Nevermind. It's not a problem these days.
Infinitron Dragon
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
>known as Infinitron Dragon on Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:08:38 GMT uttered the
>following message:
>
>}All those 'ists', I dunno. In Israel you're either religious or not.
>}Basically everyody believes in god, it's just a matter of how much and
>}what kind of work you put into it.
>
>It is? I what part of Israel is that? Does it include palestinians?
>-- F
> Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
> -==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
> -==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
> Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
> Eatest the pie! / || || \
>_____________________________/______||__||______\___
>d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
>uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
1) Pretty much all of the country, except the yuppier areas of
Tel-Aviv. I guess that kind of belief is pretty meaningless, but it's
better than nothing. If you're religious, you do everything. If not,
you only do the less annoying parts, but you're not an atheist or
agnowhatever. :P
2) The Palestinians, generally, are all religious ( although they do
have a communist faction ). I wasn't talking about them, though.
Destrius
the entity named Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon (fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se)
-clip-
>Both Ashoka and the kings before him of his line, as well as loads of
>other Indian kings, were Buddhists, yet they were not very passive at
>all. In fact they were fighting a lot.
-clip-
They were not suitably enlightened. :)
--
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- |
| Official Mad Mage | Web: http://destrius.simplenet.com |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- | Email: d e s t r i u s @ g e o c i t i e s . c o m |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| "Am I dreaming of a butterfly, or is the butterfly dreaming of me...?" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Destrius
the entity named Allan Olley (aol...@accglobal.nospam.net)
-clip-
>I would say you have a point, any belief that by its nature is
>moderate or simply motivates inaction can not be abused in the same
>way as a belief that motivates action. Still, I suppose you could
>have a group of extremist agnostics trying to force their views on
>everyone else through violent means.
-clip-
Err...
"You! Do you believe in God?"
"Err...yes."
"Kill him!"
"Oh, nononono. I don't believe in God!"
"Kill him!"
"Waitwaitwait. What am I supposed to answer?"
"Say you don't know."
"I don't know."
"Good. Now, do you believe in ghosts?"
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
the following message:
}Yeah, but can we name anyone who killed in the name of Buddha?
}Historically
}speaking, the God of Jews, Christians -and- Muslims was for all intents
}and purposes a War God, with the concept of God aiding the righteous in
}their fight built in.
There is a problem here. I'm not going to agree with you that the
Christian god is a war god - you can counter that by naming the
crusades, but I'll then re-counter that they are against the theory of
Christianity in the same way as the fighting Buddhist kings are against
the theory of Buddhism. Actually Buddhism even allows the killing of
people in theory, whereas Christianity doesn't - in theory.
}Oddly enough, the Baal of the Old Testament was
}a god of storms and agriculture, of prosperity and growth rather than
}of war.
That is true, but the reason the worshipping of the Baals is coming back
all the time in OT is probably that they never differed very much from
the worshipping of Jahwe, it seems quite clear that Jahwe was worshipped
in the form of a calf at least during 11th to 9th centuries BC...
}Jesus, just as Buddha, preached an openhearted tolerance, but
}the roots of all three religions (I respectfully refuse to call them
}"faiths" in this sense) are based on the Old Testament God that
}performed disasterous miracles to rescue "His Chosen People" from Egypt.
Well, that is an important motif - but if the god of Christianity isn't
different from the god of Judaism, why are they to different religions?
(Which of course applies to the god of Islam too.) In addition I might
add that of all the christian people I know, almost noone reads the OT
except in the light of the NT (ie they let the teachings and actions of
Jesus interpret the parts that they are having trouble with in the OT).
}Buddhism,
}however, is derived from the Hindu religion, which was already very
}broadminded in the sense that all gods of whatever stripe were regarded
}as merely aspects or faces of the One.
That is a _very_ anachronistic view on Hinduism, much of the deeper
theology in Hinduism comes from Buddhism, Helenistic mythology,
Zoroastism and Christianity. Also you have to take into account that the
theology you mention has always been an esoteric one. Even today most
Hindus does not regard the god(s) that way. Not even all the gurus do...
Also, ahimsa as non-violence is contributed to Mahatma Gandhi, and is
actually mostly a question of vegetarianism in its earlier
understanding.
}So have there been any equivalents in Buddhism to Christian Crusades and
}Inquisitions, or to Islamic Jihads?
This is a problematic question, since your examples aren't all alike. As
for Jihad, which is a dogm about holy war esablished by Mohammed
himself, neither Christianity nor Buddhism has anything like it (ie
nowhere in the holy scriptures of Christianity nor Buddhism has the
respective founder sanctioned war).
As for crusades, they haven't had the geographical need to invade their
holy places - since noone took them from them (until the Muslims came
around anyway, but by that time Buddhism wasn't very strong in the
Indian society, and the Tibet Buddhists were having trouble with the
Mongols).
Also Buddhism and Hinduism (both the one before Buddhism and the later,
by Buddhism significantly altered, one) were kind of tolerant religions,
and the kind of Buddhism practiced among ordinary people was mostly a
Hinduism with a new god and some new ethics (eg vegetarianism), and to
this day many Hindus worship Buddha as the 9th avatar of Shiva.
In addition Buddhism was mostly a minority religion, though more than a
few kings were Buddhists. In spite of that the kings like Ashoka (or
Asóka) and his predecessors made war to spread Buddhism. Some Buddhist
kings were afraid of rebellion if they did anything like that though.
Then of course we have Tibet, which has been a theocracy on and off
since 1650; where a monk raised in a monastery has been ruling the
country without much contact with the outside world at all - it's like
begging for oppression (intentionally or not). I'm not saying that it
got better when the Chinese invaded in 1950, it certainly didn't - but
their criticism against the previous rule in Tibet was relevant none the
less.
Also Tibet was something of a power in the area between the 7th century
(or earlier) and the middle of the 13th century, when the Mongols came
along (and turned into Buddhists BTW). In this period Tibet made war on
south China and conquered parts of it, as far as I understand, in the
name of Buddhism.
So how about inquisition? Well, it's hard to say - since their schisms
date back to the 3rd and 4th century BC, but it is certain that they cut
off a "heretic" branch back then, though there were no historian around
to acount for the methods they used to do it.
This leaves us with the first of the Ten Precepts:
"I accept the precept to refrain from harming living beings."
This sounds like a promise not to kill humans, but it's actually the
other way around. It meant a Buddhist couldn't kill animals (eg couldn't
be a butcher), but could still be a solider or a judge, dealing a death
penalty.
So, where did I get all this information? Well mostly from A L Basham's
"The Wonder That Was India" (mostly pages 256-287, though all of it
provides for a nice reading) except from the information on the history
of Tibet, which I found in a pretty standard Swedish encyclopedia called
"Bonniers Lexikon" (part 19).
Beeing a Christian pastor soon to be, I might add that I still think
Buddhism contains a lot of good prophecy.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}...and it was written on the heavens that on Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:18:03 GMT,
} the entity named Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon (fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se)
} inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
}
}-clip-
}>Both Ashoka and the kings before him of his line, as well as loads of
}>other Indian kings, were Buddhists, yet they were not very passive at
}>all. In fact they were fighting a lot.
}-clip-
}
}They were not suitably enlightened. :)
*G*
Neither were any pope ever...
Destrius
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>}They were not suitably enlightened. :)
>
>*G*
>
>Neither were any pope ever...
-clip-
That's because the only way to achieve enlightenment is to live atop a
mountain for the rest of your life and do nothing but meditate and look at
landscape surrounding you, while dishing out cyptic prophecies that
everybody in the city under the mountain will be clamouring for. :)
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}That's because the only way to achieve enlightenment is to live atop a
}mountain for the rest of your life and do nothing but meditate and look at
}landscape surrounding you, while dishing out cyptic prophecies that
}everybody in the city under the mountain will be clamouring for. :)
I'm not sure at all that all the Buddhas and boddhisatwas (sp?) did
that. ;)
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}1) Pretty much all of the country, except the yuppier areas of
}Tel-Aviv. I guess that kind of belief is pretty meaningless, but it's
}better than nothing. If you're religious, you do everything. If not,
}you only do the less annoying parts, but you're not an atheist or
}agnowhatever. :P
May I ask you how you know that? (Not that I want to sound picky, I am
really interested.)
}2) The Palestinians, generally, are all religious ( although they do
}have a communist faction ). I wasn't talking about them, though.
Consdering there are both muslim and chrisitan Palestinians, as well as
communists. And a couple of really differing muslim fractions at that
(eg those who believe Ali is a god too), and that there are a lot of
palestinians living in Isreal, and areas controlled by Israel - I'd say
what they believe ss fairly significant, don't you? I mean, I could say
that almost all people in Sweden are christian too, around 85-90% are
members of the church of the state (and then there's the catholics, the
orthodox, the baptists, the congregationalists and the pentecostals -
around another 5-10% together). The point is that I would be lieing if I
said that makes all of them christian.
Infinitron Dragon
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
>known as Infinitron Dragon on Thu, 26 Nov 1998 14:54:27 GMT uttered the
>following message:
>
>
>}1) Pretty much all of the country, except the yuppier areas of
>}Tel-Aviv. I guess that kind of belief is pretty meaningless, but it's
>}better than nothing. If you're religious, you do everything. If not,
>}you only do the less annoying parts, but you're not an atheist or
>}agnowhatever. :P
>
>May I ask you how you know that? (Not that I want to sound picky, I am
>really interested.)
Hmm. Well, I live here. ;) Seriously, I enjoy looking at society, it's
interesting. And I read the opinion polls, too. ;) Then again, though,
you shouldn't take my word for everything...I'm not the outgoing type,
and everybody has his own view of what the people are like.
It's just my impression that there's a pretty large population of
people that are somewhere between being religious and not believing at
all, including me. :)
>
>}2) The Palestinians, generally, are all religious ( although they do
>}have a communist faction ). I wasn't talking about them, though.
>
>Consdering there are both muslim and chrisitan Palestinians, as well as
>communists. And a couple of really differing muslim fractions at that
>(eg those who believe Ali is a god too), and that there are a lot of
>palestinians living in Isreal, and areas controlled by Israel - I'd say
>what they believe ss fairly significant, don't you? I mean, I could say
>that almost all people in Sweden are christian too, around 85-90% are
>members of the church of the state (and then there's the catholics, the
>orthodox, the baptists, the congregationalists and the pentecostals -
>around another 5-10% together). The point is that I would be lieing if I
>said that makes all of them christian.
Heh. I never said I was an expert on the Arabs living here. I don't
think that ( except for the communists ) any of them are
less-than-traditional in their thought, whatever religion they
actually belong to. That was your question...
If you want to know about the populations themselves however, don't
forget the Druzes...a very odd people indeed, but valorous.
BTW, your name...'Son of Hazardous'?
>-- F
> Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
> -==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
> -==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
> Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
> Eatest the pie! / || || \
>_____________________________/______||__||______\___
>d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
>uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
Infinitron Dragon
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
<SNIP>
}It's just my impression that there's a pretty large population of
}people that are somewhere between being religious and not believing at
}all, including me. :)
Well, I won't dispute what you say if you put it like that.
}Heh. I never said I was an expert on the Arabs living here. I don't
}think that ( except for the communists ) any of them are
}less-than-traditional in their thought, whatever religion they
}actually belong to. That was your question...
I have friends who have been working among them, and they had a
different impression. One might add that whether people hold on hard to
traditional thought is often related to the availability of higher
education though.
}If you want to know about the populations themselves however, don't
}forget the Druzes...a very odd people indeed, but valorous.
True, I forgot about them...
}BTW, your name...'Son of Hazardous'?
Well, are you sure you want to hear?
Infinitron Dragon
Umm, whynot? :)
Destrius
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>I'm not sure at all that all the Buddhas and boddhisatwas (sp?) did
>that. ;)
-clip-
It's a good life, tho. Sure beats carving off your flesh to feed the
vultures. :)
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
following message:
}On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:30:16 GMT, fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se (Ibn
}al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
}>In the hall of rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons the entity commonly
}>known as Infinitron Dragon on Fri, 27 Nov 1998 20:34:19 GMT uttered the
}>following message:
<SNIP>
}>
}>Well, are you sure you want to hear?
}Umm, whynot? :)
'Cause it'll be tedious?
Anyway, here we go: Not so long before I joined the Dragons I was at a
LARP taking place during the Viking era in eastern Sweden. A friend of
mine was acting a traveller who had returned from Bystantium where he
had been part of the Vaering guard (Vikings hired to protect the
emperor). In Bysantium he had come to know an Arab magician, Ibn
al-Hazardous (REEAALLYY bad pun; think Ahmed al-Hazred - the mad Arab)
which was me. Anyway - I got attached to the role, not to mention the
sword I made (unrealistically big, but then, I was a magician ;). The
traveller was a heir to the throne, though not so righteous; his name
was Ulf Svarte (Wolf the Black one), and tried to frame the king for
murder (it was taking place at a district court). 'Twas the first time I
was reeaallyy bad in a LARP, loads of fun. ;)
Infinitron Dragon
al-Hazardous Dragon) wrote:
>
>'Cause it'll be tedious?
>
>Anyway, here we go: Not so long before I joined the Dragons I was at a
>LARP taking place during the Viking era in eastern Sweden. A friend of
>mine was acting a traveller who had returned from Bystantium where he
>had been part of the Vaering guard (Vikings hired to protect the
>emperor). In Bysantium he had come to know an Arab magician, Ibn
>al-Hazardous (REEAALLYY bad pun; think Ahmed al-Hazred - the mad Arab)
>which was me. Anyway - I got attached to the role, not to mention the
>sword I made (unrealistically big, but then, I was a magician ;). The
>traveller was a heir to the throne, though not so righteous; his name
>was Ulf Svarte (Wolf the Black one), and tried to frame the king for
>murder (it was taking place at a district court). 'Twas the first time I
>was reeaallyy bad in a LARP, loads of fun. ;)
Wow, that sounds like fun...Real World RPGing... :)
I've never really been into PnP Rpging ( no, not Plug and Play, heaven
forbid, Pen and Paper :) )...don't really know why, actually...
MdmeDis
copy was sent to the cited author.]
Headers trimmed because a couple of my answers don't belong in csipgr.
In article <365B2704...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu>,
dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu says...
> MdmeDis wrote:
> > > }On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:52:35 -0500, mdm...@earthlink.net (MdmeDis)
> > > }wrote:
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > > }>No - you twisted that so you could go off on a little rant about
> > > }>atheism. I posted that the Christian's habit of mass massacre in the
> > > }>name of a supernatural being was a worse example for American youth than
> > > }>playing pretend games. Another example of how unhealthy Christianity can
> > > }>be is Jonestown.
>
> I doubt that Jonestown is an example of how unhealthy Christianity can
> be any more than the common sad-sacks who find refuge in computers and RPGs
> represent how healthy computers and RPGs are.
But said sad sacks find a niche that provides them happiness and allows
them to do productive things - it does not provide them with the answer
to all things and end in them swallowing cyanide laced Koolaid. All in
all, I would say gaming provided them with a fairly healthy outlet - as
opposed to the form of religion practised at Jonestown.
> There are always people
> who are easily obsessed by something or another, and sometimes religion
> fits the bill, and sometimes RPGs fit the bill. Neither RPGs nor
> religion so much -cause- this behavior as they provide vehicles for those
> inclined to obsess.
Right. But it would seem that gaming provides the healthier alternative
- which was my point. I was responding to (supposedly) a Christian
pointing out the evils of gaming.
>
> [Snippety snip snip snip]
>
> <James gives up and pulls out a chainsaw>
>
> [Zzzzzzzzrrrrrrrrrooooooooowwwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]
>
>
> > Possibly because I referred to God as a supernatural being?
>
> Yeah, this ends up being a major issue even among theologians. Probably
> because once you assert the existence of some sort of being, it
> becomes as easy to pick apart as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
>
>
> > I am, but
> > not particularly happy about it. I've played around for years with the
> > word agnostic, but the time came finally when I had to admit that I
> > simply do not believe in a higher power, a supreme being or anything
> > that involves a belief system.
>
> *nod* Agnostic appeared to me to be the only logical answer, since
> logic is unable to address the issue. Paradoxically, since logic
> is unable to address the issue, of what use is a logical answer?
Actually, for me it is logic that makes me say I am an atheist. Which
itself is ironic, because logic is a long way from being a solvent for
most problems relating to feeling and emotion.
>
>
> > In short, I lack the necessary faith, and
> > irritatingly enough, I think I know what it is, and have used it.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean be the 2nd half of your sentence, and
> would be intrigued by its elaboration.
Second and third steps of a well know recovery program. 'Came to believe
that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity' and
'Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God
as we understood him' Essentially with all my religious hang-ups, these
steps I didn't take - and I stayed drunk. Finally I took the leap of
faith, and pretty much came close to the blinding light bit. Not
exactly, but things changed very dramatically for me. I could handle
easily all the things I couldn't before. I stayed very close to this
spirituality for the next 18 months, when I tried to expand it into the
religious arena. Then all the old doubts and questions arose - couple of
years later I was back to the agnostic thing, and finally had to admit I
do not believe in a supernatural being. But I did when I needed it, and
it worked when logic and medicine didn't.
> As for the first half, I tend to differentiate between belief and
> faith. For example, if you describe a concept of "God" to any
> degree (whether or not you believe in it), and ask me if I believe
> in that God, I'll say that I do not. Yet I have faith in God.
> I've been called a Deist for phrasing things that way, but I
> don't think that's accurate. Another example: if understanding
> the world rationally requires "thinking outside the box",
> understanding it spiritually requires "feeling outside the box."
I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Are you saying belief is
thought and faith is emotion? Are you saying that you have faith that
God can do things, even though you do not believe in him? (Which would
at least make some sense of my experience)
For me, belief is - I have been given enough facts to come to a
conclusion. That conclusion could be subject to change if presented with
additional facts, but for the time being I believe this conclusion.
Faith is - I have reached a conclusion without any shred of evidence,
without any concrete fact one way or the other.
> > Frankly, I envy those who do believe in someone perfect, who has pre-
> > ordained all things. Its enormously comforting. Its lonely, knowing that
> > I will cease to exist a decade or two from now.
>
> It's comforting, but not what I have come to believe. "Pre-ordained"
> is meaningless to me. My philosophy is more about living in the "now",
> and appreciating it -now-. Most people have a concept of heaven that
> I find absolutely horrifying (not to mention eternally boring), so
> I'm not worrying about an afterlife, at the moment.
In truth, and I suppose this goes back to my fundamentalist upbringing,
it does cross my mind periodically that if I'm wrong, I face a warmish
eternity, and that is the thing that made me hang onto 'agnostic' for so
long. Plus I'm not entirely thrilled at being associated with a lot of o
atheists. The O'Hare woman, who has mercifully disappeared, and her
rabid hunting down of those who did believe bothered me enormously
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?