700 Club; Christians and Magic
PawOfGod
I understand your frustration. However, understand that when we talk of
christains, we mean most christians. If 90% of christians hate magic, then it
is fair to say that Christians, as a group, hate magic. If you are different,
then we are not talking about you, thats all.
JuBOARDER
by defining yourself as christian and complaining about the things that affect
you , you therefore invite people to sterotype you as well as becoming a
hypocrite yourself.
if you dont play black because of your beleifs then your
spending to much time with magic
ITS A GAME , not a philosophy
ok , christian?
--JuNET OWNz U ALL!--
John7099
Well, I was the one who saw the 700 club on magic the gathering.
What I hailed to mention is that the 700 club is a bunch of old people. They
have nothing better to do than to find things that offend them and make sure
no one else has fun with these things. So what really angered me was that
these people are really talking to paernts who are impressionable about child
rearing methods seen on T.V. so the kids never really have the chance to
establish their own beliefs. That was my major complaint.
Elliot Fertik
JoeMac5367 (joema...@aol.com) wrote:
: Yes well that's just the sort of thing I'd expect you non-magic hating but
: still christian people to say,. Don't lump me in with all the christian
: hating magic players
Replies like this are exactly what he is complaining about - if doesn't
want to play black, but still plays magic, what's wrong with that? Some
people don't play with some colors because they hate them, some may have
other reasons. Why do you care? As long as he doesn't preach and is fun
to play, I say good for him!
-Elliot Fertik
Talcott Starr
PawOfGod (pawo...@aol.com) wrote:
: I understand your frustration. However, understand that when we talk of
: christains, we mean most christians. If 90% of christians hate magic, then it
: is fair to say that Christians, as a group, hate magic. If you are different,
: then we are not talking about you, thats all.
that 10% is more vocal. Not more prevelant!
--
/_________/| "I can't pretend to be, someone
|___ ___|/ who pretends to be, someone else.
| || Or so my pretend friend tells me"
|___|/ALCOTT STARR -The Rutles- "Unfinished Words"
Sean
On 3 Nov 1997 08:03:24 GMT, gau...@kamloops.net (Jeff Gaudry) wrote:
>all Canadians say "eh?".
>(well, I admit, I do from time to time :)
Hey, don't you like Hockey too? ;)
Rosa Mainsel
Turtle wrote:
>
> I am a Christian, I play Magic (as well as a few other card games) I
> really wish that people would stop saying negative things about Christians,
> in general, when a Christian complains about the game. Don't lump all
> Christians into one category. As a Christian I don't lump all
> Non-Christians into one category. In fact I have seen just as much, if not
> more, complaints about Magic come from Non-Christian sources. Example;
> China and Japan both would not let Magic be printed in their language(s)
> and distributed in their country(s) unless some changes were made, such as
> the Pentagram on the Unholy Strength. With that in mind Wizards has done a
> lot to toe down any sort of Demonic notation in their cards, and I'm the
> happier for it. When it comes down to it, I wont play Black, why???
> Because it does have conflicts with my beliefs structure. Does that mean
> I'm saying that no one should play black? NO. Does it mean I'm saying all
> Christians shouldn't play black? NO. It means I don't, that's all.
> Also, let it be known, the 700 Club does not speak for all Christians. No
> more then Clinton speaks for all Americans. Or Hitler spoke for all
> Germans. Get my point here? If the 700 club doesn't want to support
> Magic, fine, it doesn't effect me, and it shouldn't effect you UNLESS the
> 700 Club speaks for you (and if they do, that's an entirely different
> subject)
> For the record, don't clump all Christians together, no more then you would
> Clump all Americans, Africans, Australians, etc.... together
>
> For what it's worth
> Turtle
It's the first time i read something wroted by a "christian" that don't
sound as a lecture.
I'm not a "christian" and i believe that you are correct, it's you who
should choose with your mind, i don't blame you for not playing black,
if that's your nature of seeing things. Very good indeed.
You returned my faith in christians because i thought they were all hard
headed.
Pedro Magalhaes
email: rosam...@mail.telepac.pt
the necromaster
err ok I'm a Christian (no mater what you may think when you see my name) I
play black, in fact I play all colors except WHITE (ha bet you couldn't see
that coming) I hate white the way my friends hate my stuipd blue premision
deck.
I hate to see the color that handels damage (cop's shadow honorble pasage)
like it never happened esp. with the COP:'s I mean the one color that can
handel enchantments has the most daming of them all (I hate main deck COP's
yes there is one person around here who play's five in every deck and I
would just like to reach across the table and smack him for it!)
My point is SFW he doesn't play black, I hate white, and you have no brain
It's a free country, I know more people who are atheists and hate magic
than Christians who hate magic, you can't make every one happy, and I'm
rambling on again.
the necromaster (YES I AM A CHRISTIAN AND PROUD NOT TO BE IN THE 700 CLUB
[they pissed me off with episode on NIN])
JoeMac5367 <joema...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971101235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Yes well that's just the sort of thing I'd expect you non-magic hating
but
> still christian people to say,. Don't lump me in with all the christian
> hating magic players
>
>
> Better still don't play at all. If you can't bring yourself to play with
> a piece of card because of it's colour, try a different gain.
>
> I'll send you a free Fountain of Youth and two free mana
> Use it ;)
>
the necromaster
Ok I must have missed the survey on wether or not we hate magic when it
went threw my church (all though I must say that probaly 90% of the people
at mine have never herd of M:tG let alone have an opinion)
Also, no that is not any more fair to say that then it is to say that
because 90% of Black people can't read they are illiterate (this is not my
belief nor do I do not wish to offened any one I'm just making a point! I
HATE RACISM IN FOR OR AGAINIST ANY ONE ETHNICTICITY!!)
So if you want to think of Christian's as thickheaded fools who have
nothing better to do than find satan every where they look, fine. You fit
into MY definition as a bigot (along with thoose idiots with the sheets and
the (esp.) the shwasticas, you know the ones who killed several million
people for their religion)
the necromaster (YES I AM A CHRISTIAN)
PawOfGod <pawo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971102011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Andrew Ross
In <34608d1b.1913041@news> sstr...@hotmail.com (Sean) writes:
>Why do people always associate God with the Old Testement? God only
>caused War, etc. in the Old Testement because he was establishing his
>following. If he had set back and not gotten involved, his following
>would have been killed off long ago.
"That's right, consarn it! Back in the Old Testament, we didn't have any
of that God-of-Love crap. I made my disciples sacrifice their only sons!
I flooded the entire Earth, drowning almost everybody on it! I sent
plagues of blood and darkness and locusts and hop-toads...AND I LIKED IT!!"
Andrew Ross
"Oh Lord, I pray thee protect me from your followers"
Seth Jaffee
The last thing I want to do is start a religious debate, especially on a
'strategy' newsgroup, but lucky for me it's already been started. What I'd
really like is to see it end, but since that is unlikely, I'll just put in
my comments and then continue to ignore the thread...
> According to the bible it is not God that condemns people to hell,
> it's their own sins that condemn them.
... And who wrote the Bible? Who are they to say who is Damned and who
isn't? Unless God wrote the bible... in which case I guess it *is* God who
condemns people...
... And who defined these sins in the first place (the ones that people's
eternities in heaven/hell are gained or lost by)? Was that God's word as
well?
So it isn't God who condemns people, it's God's word that people are
condemned because or their actions which were not in accordance to God's
word... (about as confusing as those roundabouts they have as interchanges
on freeway systems...)
> God desires all to be saved
Very nice of him... remind me to send an X-mas card.
> and sent His son to die to save them.
... Make that a *Christmas card... I guess...
Maybe he should have just made his son eat his veggies and look both ways
before crossing the street... Talk about kids not having their own beliefs
about math, right and wrong, and the shape and orientation of their bed...
Also, a point of confusion that I've always had is the whole Jesus/God-
Father/son and yet interchangeable relationship. God isn't a being or
anything, he just *is* (some devout Christian told me that). As the story
goes, he had a kid (who was mortal, lived a regular life, and was in all
ways normal except that there's a question as to weather his dad existed,
let alone who it was). Blah, blah, blah... on the cross for everyone elses
sins, blah, blah, blah...
Next thing you know, for 2000 years people are saying things like Jesus is
our lord, etc, etc. What happend to dear old Dad? Who died and made Jesus
god? If Jesus is indeed God, why did he die 2000 years ago when the
prototype has doing fine for something like 5500 years?
And the biggest question of ALL is ....... (drumroll please)
What does ANY of this have to do with Magic Strategy?!?!?!?!?
Even in type one, the closest we could possibly get is casting
resurection on a creature, but since noone plays resurection, and type 1
players have little use for creatures (unless they're playing Necro, but
that doesn't have much to do with religion either) in the first place, it
really doesn't have any bearing.
People argue constantly about religion because by definition, there is no
right and wrong. therefore, the arguments will never end. If anyone feels
they need to continue these pointless debates, perhaps they could take it
to rec.games.trading-cards.magic.religious.ramifications
In the meantime, I'll stand by my arguement that Force Spike is *way*
better than Disrupt. Since this was a post about a religious arguement, I
won't bother to give my reasons why Force Spike is better (It kills
creatures), and I won't bother to use the words "I think," "I feel," or
"in my opinion." Instead I'll simply insist that Force Spike is better,
and maybe I'll even go write it down somewhere to reference as proof that
I'm right.
> Of course I realize that's two sentences so it's beyond the mental
> capacity of the average Christian basher.
Craig,
I enjoy reading your strategy related posts, and I don't want
anyone to think I am a Christian Basher (I'm an equal opportunity basher,
I'll be happy to criticize any race, creed, color, religion, or financial
organization). I just wish we could keep this crap off the Strategy
newsgroup for the exact reason that people proliferate it as I have in
this post, which has become much longer than I intended, and has made me
very late for Hydraulics class.
Enough!
I gotta go...
I hope nobody who reads this decides that it's god's will that they burn
my house or eat my cat or anything like that (I like that cat, nobody
better come near it!)
- Seth
> >Maybe we have never known this all-forgiving, loving God as a God of
> >great and harsh judgement as well?
>
> >And hey - who says He condemns people to Hell for playing a game?
> >Christians who thought they knew everything?
>
> >Michael Chan
>
> >On 4 Nov 1997 01:28:40 GMT, gangr...@aol.com (Gangrellll) wrote:
>
> >>I just find it humorous that those believing in an all-forgiving, loving God
> >> (myself included) tell people that this loving God condemns people to hell for
> >> playing a game.
>
>
>
>
>
Mart541
Religion sucks
if you are so weak minded as to need someone to tell you how to live life, you
have no buisness being alive in the first place
sta...@thegrid.net
You're a Christian? What does that mean? Which one of the thousands of
sects do you belong to? The word Christian has come to be synonomous with
the majority of fat, fascist republicans. I think a better term for
Christian in the 1990s should be invented. The majority of Christians have
become more Pharasetical than I would ever have believed possible. Sigh.
For this reason, I no longer call myself a Christian in spite of the fact I
believe in the deity of Christ. (It's important to me that I make sure
people don't get the impression that I'm an even more fascist, liberal
democrat - I'm a registered Libertarian).
Anyway, my point is this: Magic is a game. A fun game. If the "Christian"
community gets upset about Magic it is only the latest episode in a
pathetic, continuing pattern begun in the middle ages. Only, in our
century, the latest movements have been the evils of "Dungeons and Dragons"
and before that Rock'N'Roll and before that Prohibition, etc. It seems like
every week the Pharisees in Christian clothing come up with some new thing
that is going to send us all to hell.
Many people would call me a Christian, but most "Christians" would hate me
if they knew me. So long as you cause me no harm, live your life as you
will and I will live mine as I will. You are free to worship my God and you
are free not to. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
Magic is a GAME, and not all "Christians" are the same. Remember, minds are
like parachutes, they only work when open.
sta...@thegrid.net
>If your going to criticize at least get it right.
If you're going to answer criticisms, please think your answers through.
>According to the bible it is not God that condemns people to hell,
>it's their own sins that condemn them. God desires all to be saved
>and sent His son to die to save them.
Uhm, I think it necessary to point something out. It is true that God
created everything, at least the mechanisms which began evolution. It is
also true that God created all the laws, all the forces and ideas of
morality. God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Therefore, he could just as
easily have created things differently so that no one had to go anywhere.
God says to everyone believe in my son or burn in hell. It's your choice.
Some choice.
>Of course I realize that's two sentences so it's beyond the mental
>capacity of the average Christian basher.
Something else I should point out - the God you serve is guilty of murdering
all those he "wishes to be saved". A rather cruel and sadistic god, if you
ask me. Also, don't try to feed us this line about God can do anything. We
hold our fellow man to higher standards!
With such a God, I tremble. Because of this, I do not stand over others,
condemning them. For if God kills his own servants, how much more a sinful
one!
sta...@thegrid.net
>Well you sure seem willing to dish it out. Lets see just how open
>minded and willing to think it out you are.
>
>You start off by making a bigoted comment about old people. A bunch
>of old people who at least have the guts to stand up for what they
>beleive. If this had been some liberal cause such as say... smoking,
>they would get all kinds of kudos from the press. But because it
>happens to be Christanity, they get slammed, both from the press and
>nitwits like you.
Hitler had the guts to stand up for what he believed in. Should we follow
his teachings? Nitwits, eh? Nothing quite like Christian love, is there?
Liberals, conservatives, what's the difference?
>After your bigoted comment, you get angry because they are talking to
>parents. Parents who probabbly share the beliefs in the first place
>since 700 club isn't exactly main stream TV. What really seemt to
>anger you is that someone dares put forth an opinion that you don't
>agree with.
What really angered the church during the inquisitions and crusades were
people who dared to put forth an opinion that they didn't agree with...
people like Galileo...
>Then you repeat one of the stupidest comments about religion in
>general. You feel that "kids never really have the chance to
>establish their own beliefs". Do you let your child establish their
>own beleifs about math, or racism, or looking both ways before
>crossing the road, eating vegetables? Probabbly not. You can't
>"force" beleif on anyone. But you can keep a person ignorant so that
>they never have a chance to decide. And letting a child grow up with
>no exposure to religion is doing just that. Plenty of kids grow up
>with Christian parents and decide to go their own way.
Pity you probably don't even follow your own beliefs. I certainly hope you
don't mind exposing your children to Satanism, witchcraft, and the like.
Afterall, Satanists are just Christians rooting for the opposing team.
>If your so enflamed by the 700 club's take on magic then make your own
>web page to refute them. But slamming Christian's in general is just
>hatred. Re-enforcing a society norm of ignorance and regection of
>religion will just re-enforce religions people's belief that you just
>don't have a clue.
Hey, slamming Amalekites is just hatred too...
>One of the best way's to counter mindless attacks on magic is to make
>the attacker think about the logic of what they were saying. If an
>critic says that the shivan dragon is evil, try asking what color the
>dragon was in sleeping beauty and if it was evil too. The same
>technique can be used when someone condemns haloween but decorates
>Christmas tree's. If the person is consistant in their logic then the
>least you can do is respectfully disagree. If they are not consistant
>then perhaps the both of you can at least agree to be respectful while
>you sort it out.
>
>Of course, it does cut both ways......
>If religion is just a crutch for the weak, then why do those "weak"
>tend to live longer and healthier lives? Saying they have nothing
>better to do is just as weak an argument as saying the shivan dragon
>is evil cuz it's red.
Who's talking about crutches or lifespans? People live longer lives because
they live in ways condusive to good health. Not because they pray to some
god or read some book. Read your bible and then go play on the freeway.
Betcha don't live too long.
Where do you get your reasoning?
Sheesh. Nutty Christians.
Jamin P. Gray
> God says to everyone believe in my son or burn in hell. It's your choice.
> Some choice.
Your choice of wording I find interesting. The way hell is presented in
the Bible is as separation from God. Now, let's suppose you are the sort
of person who really doesn't care to live as God's nature dictates (i.e.
live according to natural moral law that is inherrent in all human
beings.). Fine. That's your choice. That is the choice we all have.
And it is *some* choice..you are right. We either decide to not give a
crap, or we care. If we decide not to give a crap, then God says, in
effect, fine, you can have your way..live *forever* without me. If you
don't want to be in my presence, fine. That is hell. And existing
without God is far worse than we can imagine..we don't realize just how
much our existence right now is tied to God.
> Something else I should point out - the God you serve is guilty of murdering
> all those he "wishes to be saved". A rather cruel and sadistic god, if you
> ask me. Also, don't try to feed us this line about God can do anything. We
> hold our fellow man to higher standards!
>
> With such a God, I tremble. Because of this, I do not stand over others,
> condemning them. For if God kills his own servants, how much more a sinful
> one!
I respect your fear of God. Just attempting to fathom his nature strikes
almost infinite fear in my hear as well.
----------------------------------------------------
Jamin Philip Gray
jp...@cec.wustl.edu
http://www.cec.wustl.edu/~jpg2/
How do you make Windows faster ? Throw it harder.
Sean
Like I said, he was establishing His Church. God never had ANYONE
sacrifice his son, he did one time in the Bible, but to test the faith
of his follower (which he stopped him before he did it). He flooded
the Earth to reestablish his Church. He plauged the Earth with
locusts and the like because the Egyptians disobyed him.
He was establishing his Church, plain and simple. But, Egyptians and
Babylonians where stuck in their false beliefs and condeming and
MURDERING early Christians for their beliefs. So that He may
establish his following, the only way He could hold his following was
by eliminating those that purscuted Him.
Rob Glunt
Yeah? Well, if you can't begin sentences with capital letters, you have
no business writing in the first place. And if you can't say something
intellegent, don't say anything at all.
Rob Glunt
( You don't have to be a lamer to be an AOLer, but it helps )
--
She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.
Byron
Rob Glunt
sta...@thegrid.net wrote:
> God says to everyone believe in my son or burn in hell. It's your choice.
> Some choice.
The Government says to follow the laws or be punished for not doing so.
That's not much of a choice either, but most people seem to live with
it.
> Something else I should point out - the God you serve is guilty of murdering
> all those he "wishes to be saved". A rather cruel and sadistic god, if you
> ask me.
Nobody asked you. You are one of his creations. He made you, and if he
feels like unmaking you, that's his right. All powerful means that your
position is irrelevant, and all knowing means that if you have an
opposing view, it's wrong.
>
> With such a God, I tremble. Because of this, I do not stand over others,
> condemning them.
Naah, you just tell them that their beliefs are wrong just because you
feel differently. That's so much better.
>For if God kills his own servants, how much more a sinful
> one!
It is not your place to judge him. It is every bit his place to judge
you. That's why he's a GOD and you're just a human.
Robert Glunt
Nate Fichthorn
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Rob Glunt wrote:
[Religous argument snipped]
All powerful means that your
> position is irrelevant, and all knowing means that if you have an
> opposing view, it's wrong.
Does this statement remind anyone else of Wylie? :)
[More religous stuff snipped]
Nate
************************************************
Nate Fichthorn nfic...@gmu.edu
************************************************
Kytep
>sta...@thegrid.net wrote:
>
>> God says to everyone believe in my son or burn in hell. It's your choice.
>> Some choice.
No, God says to everyone, "I'm offering you a FREE gift of salvation. You may
take it or leave it. It is YOUR choice."
If YOU *choose* not to accept this *GIFT*, it's your OWN damn fault you went to
hell. This is what makes God so cool. He cares for us so much He even gives
us the choice between Heaven and Hell, instead of "forcing" us into Heaven.
Besides, even if you're right, why is beleiving in His Son sooooo bad,
anyway??? What do YOU know that just makes it sooo obvious that it is soooo
awful to believe in Him? Oh, yeah, the old argument: "Oh, it just COULDN'T
be! It would just be too WEIRD! It MUST be impossible!" <- (Many people's
argument on UFO's, ghosts, God, etc, when you get right down to it.)
Dave
PS: Sorry to this poster for having to reply to YOUR post to reply to the
person you were replying to (sta...@thegrid.net). I haven't been watching
this thread, and have already deleted probably 20-some-odd replies to this already...
Unknown
Nate Fichthorn <nfic...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Rob Glunt wrote:
>
>[Religous argument snipped]
>
>All powerful means that your
>> position is irrelevant, and all knowing means that if you have an
>> opposing view, it's wrong.
>Does this statement remind anyone else of Wylie? :)
Hey, God had Abeyance right the first time!
Craig :)
Alan R. Henderson
****Sen...@aol.com****,NewsGroups writes:
>Mart541 wrote:
>>
>> Religion sucks
>>
>> if you are so weak minded as to need someone to tell you how to live
>life, you
>> have no buisness being alive in the first place
>Yeah? Well, if you can't begin sentences with capital letters, you have
>no business writing in the first place. And if you can't say something
>intellegent, don't say anything at all.
Religion doesn't suck, but the 700 club does, it's all faith healing
and parasitic hypocrytic bastards trying to suck money out of saps
through mass media covered faith healing.
-ALan
sta...@thegrid.net
> The Government says to follow the laws or be punished for not doing so.
> That's not much of a choice either, but most people seem to live with
> it.
Differnece is, we don't live in a dictatorship. We can vote for people to
change laws, and we have the right to overthrow an oppressive dictatorship.
Can't really say that about God, can you?
> Nobody asked you. You are one of his creations. He made you, and if he
> feels like unmaking you, that's his right. All powerful means that your
> position is irrelevant, and all knowing means that if you have an
> opposing view, it's wrong.
Great God. Let's create some beings and then compel them to worship me and
if they don't, kill them. Some God. No thanks, you can keep him. Truth
is, we hold our fellow man to higher standards.
> Naah, you just tell them that their beliefs are wrong just because you
> feel differently. That's so much better.
Uh...what are you talking about?
> It is not your place to judge him. It is every bit his place to judge
> you. That's why he's a GOD and you're just a human.
Damn straight it's my place to judge him. Otherwise, where's the supposed
free choice you and the other pharisees keep spouting?
That's why humans are better than God in many ways. Human parents don't
have children and then kill them if they don't like the way they grow up.
Can't say that about your god.
John7099
Well guys I do not know about you but god has never spoken to me and I have
never seen him, not even on a home video camera like I saw bigfoot on. I have
never seen or talked with the devil either. To me seeing is believing.
Experiencing something is believing. I do not really believe in anything I
can't see, read complete fact about, or experience first hand. I DO have
opinions on the existance of things that I have not yet seen or experienced.
Such as god,bigfoot, and UFO's. But until I see something I can't tell anyone
that it exists. So there is no way that I would become religious unless god
comes to me and we have a REALLY LONG talk.
Jay Shergill
John7099 babbled something like:
> that it exists. So there is no way that I would become religious unless god
> comes to me and we have a REALLY LONG talk.
If God did come to me, I think a short talk would suffice. Though, I
would have a lot of questions...
Jay
"What is marvelous? That which we do not comprehend.
What is truly desireable? That which we cannot have."
- The Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
Grifter
Jeff Gaudry wrote:
>
> >>all Canadians say "eh?".
> >>(well, I admit, I do from time to time :)
> >Hey, don't you like Hockey too? ;)
>
Isn't the "eh?" always at the end of a question?
Like what is your name? Eh?
Being a Canadian I always pronouce the "A?" at the end of almost every
phrase...
G-MAN
Unknown
Seth Jaffee <s...@engr.arizona.edu> wrote:
>The last thing I want to do is start a religious debate, especially on a
>'strategy' newsgroup, but lucky for me it's already been started. What I'd
>really like is to see it end, but since that is unlikely, I'll just put in
>my comments and then continue to ignore the thread...
>> According to the bible it is not God that condemns people to hell,
>> it's their own sins that condemn them.
>... And who wrote the Bible? Who are they to say who is Damned and who
>isn't? Unless God wrote the bible... in which case I guess it *is* God who
>condemns people...
Great logic, and who ordered the warning lables on cigarrets?
Oh, so people dying from smoking is the surgeon general's fault?
If you realized the definitions of sin and hell that Christians use,
you might see why none of them take your argument seriously. Sin is
the regection of God and hell is eternal seperation from God.
>... And who defined these sins in the first place (the ones that people's
>eternities in heaven/hell are gained or lost by)? Was that God's word as
>well?
So your first grade teacher "invented" math too?
We just aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. I'll drop it (yet
again), but remember. I only respond to these threads when some bigot
drags up a quote from some idiot media leader and then uses it to slam
all "Christians". This is doing the same thing (using 1 weirdo to
condemn the whole group) that they accuse the 700 club/others of doing
with magic.
Craig
Grifter
John7099 wrote:
>
> Well guys I do not know about you but god has never spoken to me and I have
> never seen him, not even on a home video camera like I saw bigfoot on. I have
> never seen or talked with the devil either. To me seeing is believing.
> Experiencing something is believing. I do not really believe in anything I
> can't see, read complete fact about, or experience first hand. I DO have
> opinions on the existance of things that I have not yet seen or experienced.
> Such as god,bigfoot, and UFO's. But until I see something I can't tell anyone
> comes to me and we have a REALLY LONG talk.
What if an alien comes in a UFO, says that he is GOD and that he lost
his pet BIGFOOT on Earth...
G-MAN
Ken Tyburski
In article <63rmfd$sbr$1...@zinger.callamer.com>, sta...@thegrid.net says...
>
>You're a Christian? What does that mean? Which one of the thousands of
>sects do you belong to? The word Christian has come to be synonomous with
>the majority of fat, fascist republicans. I think a better term for
>Christian in the 1990s should be invented. The majority of Christians have
>become more Pharasetical than I would ever have believed possible. Sigh.
How many Christians do you know? How many exist? That little percentage, eh?
Don't try to come to conclusions about things that you don't know. You cannot
categorize us (and as a Christian I listen to Alice in Chains, play Magic, and
drive fast), and trying to is like trying to categorize people based on race,
personal lifestyle, or anything else. It's a waste of time and offensive to
too many people, not to mention being wrong.
>For this reason, I no longer call myself a Christian in spite of the fact I
>believe in the deity of Christ. (It's important to me that I make sure
>people don't get the impression that I'm an even more fascist, liberal
>democrat - I'm a registered Libertarian).
Well, I'm a Republican, but, again, you prove that it's impossible to
categorize people based on one criteria.
>Anyway, my point is this: Magic is a game. A fun game. If the "Christian"
>community gets upset about Magic it is only the latest episode in a
>pathetic, continuing pattern begun in the middle ages. Only, in our
>century, the latest movements have been the evils of "Dungeons and Dragons"
>and before that Rock'N'Roll and before that Prohibition, etc. It seems like
>every week the Pharisees in Christian clothing come up with some new thing
>that is going to send us all to hell.
Look, the only reason that the religiously fanatic look to things like Magic,
role-playing, and hard rock is because it needs something to blame for the
breakdown of America's family structure. All 3 of those are convenient because
a) the loss of them doesn't compromise their beliefs, b) they all lend
themselves to open-mindedness (those who would follow without thought tend to
want others to do so as well), and c) the appearance and habits of those who
usually promote or practice those 3 are all different from theirs. People have
a tendency to fear and try to destroy those things/people they do not
understand.
>Many people would call me a Christian, but most "Christians" would hate me
>if they knew me. So long as you cause me no harm, live your life as you
>will and I will live mine as I will. You are free to worship my God and you
>are free not to. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
If you are a Christian, be proud that you are such by choice and respect those
with other choices equally, as long as the choices were made by free will and
are not imposed on you. I like the rest of your ideas.
>Magic is a GAME, and not all "Christians" are the same. Remember, minds are
>like parachutes, they only work when open.
Couldn't have said it better.
-Ken Tyburski
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
sta...@thegrid.net wrote:
: >Well you sure seem willing to dish it out. Lets see just how open
: >minded and willing to think it out you are.
: >
: >You start off by making a bigoted comment about old people. A bunch
: >of old people who at least have the guts to stand up for what they
: >beleive. If this had been some liberal cause such as say... smoking,
: >they would get all kinds of kudos from the press. But because it
: >happens to be Christanity, they get slammed, both from the press and
: >nitwits like you.
: Hitler had the guts to stand up for what he believed in. Should we follow
: his teachings? Nitwits, eh? Nothing quite like Christian love, is there?
: Liberals, conservatives, what's the difference?
Godwin's law. The thread is dead.
Move on to something else now; preferable something actually <gasp>
on-topic.
ObM-TG: Green still sucks.
--
Randomness is not hypocrisy, if done with honesty.
In chaos, all is possible.
Seth Jaffee
Craig said this:
> Seth Jaffee <s...@engr.arizona.edu> wrote:
> >The last thing I want to do is start a religious debate, especially on a
> >'strategy' newsgroup, but lucky for me it's already been started. What I'd
> >really like is to see it end, but since that is unlikely, I'll just put in
> >my comments and then continue to ignore the thread...
>
> >> According to the bible it is not God that condemns people to hell,
> >> it's their own sins that condemn them.
>
> >... And who wrote the Bible? Who are they to say who is Damned and who
> >isn't? Unless God wrote the bible... in which case I guess it *is* God who
> >condemns people...
>
> Great logic, and who ordered the warning lables on cigarrets?
> Oh, so people dying from smoking is the surgeon general's fault?
I'm sorry, but I see no continuity in the above paragraph, or any way that
it is at all an arguement either for or against anything. People smoke for
different reasons- they think it's cool, it's addictive, they're stupid...
whatever. The Surgeon General's warning label on the packs is a
superficial attempt to protect people from their own habits.
I suppose you could attempt to draw similarities to religion: People
'believe' for different reasons- -they think it's cool, it's addictive,
they're stupid... whatever. No one puts warning labels on the bible...
perhaps they should.
The point still remains that at least *someone* thinks that the bible's
word on everything is final (I'll bet a lot of people do...).
According to the bible blah blah blah (see above) plainly states something
that is true only if whoever wrote it was right. Is that person's opinion
any more plausable than the guy who lives down the street? If so, why?
The only way you could possibly argue what I just said is by saying that
God wrote the bible (... perhaps he was dictating...) in which case the
sentance above is in fact a contradiction in and of itself, which is just
what I said before (and yes, i believe it was great logic, thank you very
much).
> If you realized the definitions of sin and hell that Christians use,
> you might see why none of them take your argument seriously. Sin is
> the regection of God and hell is eternal seperation from God.
Well that's the thing... it's all about definitions, isn't it? I hate how
every religious argument is really just a semantics arguement, and
everyone takes it so seriously...
> >... And who defined these sins in the first place (the ones that people's
> >eternities in heaven/hell are gained or lost by)? Was that God's word as
> >well?
>
> So your first grade teacher "invented" math too?
As we all learned in math class, math is either right or wrong (2+2=4,
period)... it isn't a matter of opinion. As discussed above, the
definitions of sin and all that stuff is basically a matter of opinion- be
that yours or god's. Therefore the comparison of religion to math is
clearly uninteresting.
- Seth
Mark Jacobson
PawOfGod wrote:
>
> I understand your frustration. However, understand that when we talk of
> christains, we mean most christians. If 90% of christians hate magic, then it
> is fair to say that Christians, as a group, hate magic. If you are different,
> then we are not talking about you, thats all.
figure? I only know one non christian person that plays magic. Does that
mean I am in minority? Can I have the Uninted Christians That Play
Magic College Fund give me money now? How about getting into the college
even if I am less qualified because I am a christian magic player. How
about equal rights for me and my people. We shall no longer be oppressed
by The Man.
Incase you couldn't pick up the sarcasm dripping from my statements, let
me point it out. Also, this is a strategy group. Not a theological
disscussion on Magic: The Gathering and Religeon group. Why not move
discussions like this to the .misc group and spend more time discussing
strategy. Also, as far as I can tell, Magic has nothing to do with
religeon. I don't know of any cults that play M:TG to "gain powers" or
anything along those lines. NO ONE should be offeneded by any aspect of
magic. Anyone that is, is usually a hippocrit. If you dissagree, I
challeng anyone that is offended to speak up and why. I will then point
out why I think you are wrong. But if you are offended, please post in
the .misg group. I'll debate you in there where it is prudent. Not in
here which is,imho, in the wrong group.
Thats my 2 dollars. (I never offer .02, I am way to longwinded for that)
:>
Ken Jacobson
bl...@yfn.ysu.edu
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: if you are so weak minded as to need someone to tell you how to live life, you
: have no buisness being alive in the first place
Close... organized religion sucks, for the reason you gave.
Any system of belief, taken as a lifestyle, is a religion; this includes
atheism.
Religion itself is a tool; organized religion is that tool being used to
keep people in line.
How this is on topic to M:TG? It's part of the chaos-magick paradigm, and
M:TG uses the archetypes of magic as the basis of it's game.
(Okay, that' weak, but the best I can do at the moment.)
darkspider
John7099 <john...@aol.com> wrote in article :
> Well guys I do not know about you but god has never spoken to me and I
have
> never seen him, not even on a home video camera like I saw bigfoot on.
I have
> never seen or talked with the devil either. To me seeing is believing.
OK, counter point, have you see air? No, neither have I but I believe in
it. Or how bout outer space? I've see pictures, just like I've seen
pictures of Jesus, but never seen it with my own eyes. How what about you?
> Experiencing something is believing. I do not really believe in
anything I
> can't see, read complete fact about, or experience first hand. I DO
have
> opinions on the existance of things that I have not yet seen or
experienced.
> Such as god,bigfoot, and UFO's. But until I see something I can't tell
anyone
> that it exists. So there is no way that I would become religious unless
god
> comes to me and we have a REALLY LONG talk.
Not be come off as a religious fanatic (which I'm not, really I play magic,
listen to Mason and like a good hackem up film like the next guy) but
unless you WANT to talk to God, you'll never expirience it. I have ssen
some strange crap done in God's name (ie: the Crusades, kill for GOD! yeah
thats it;-) but I have also seen some good done with my own eyes.
Joey Carey
proud to be a Christian
blak...@*sprint.ca
Please don't stop guys. I am really enjoying this thread!
B.L.
Grifter
darkspider wrote:
>
> John7099 <john...@aol.com> wrote in article :
>
> > Well guys I do not know about you but god has never spoken to me and I
> have
> > never seen him, not even on a home video camera like I saw bigfoot on.
> I have
> > never seen or talked with the devil either. To me seeing is believing.
>
> OK, counter point, have you see air? No, neither have I but I believe in
> it. Or how bout outer space? I've see pictures, just like I've seen
> pictures of Jesus, but never seen it with my own eyes. How what about you?
> proud to be a Christian
You're comparing fantasy with facts? Science has proven that air exist
and at least you can feel air. Outer space as been proven also. There's
a big difference between God/Jesus/bigfoot/devil and air/outer space...
Benjamin David Moudry
PawOfGod (pawo...@aol.com) wrote:
: I understand your frustration. However, understand that when we talk of
: christains, we mean most christians. If 90% of christians hate magic, then it
: is fair to say that Christians, as a group, hate magic. If you are different,
: then we are not talking about you, thats all.
I wouldn't say that 90% of christians hate magic. I think it would be
more true to say that most christians don't even know about magic. I is
true that when first introduced to magic, most people have their doubts.
Just the name of the game gives people pause. It is also true though that
generally people don't feel intimidated by the game when it is explained
to them. When casually glancing at a table of people playing a serious
game of magic, the look of the cards and the concentration on a serious
player's face could easily mislead someone. The trick is to make sure
that those people whose opinion you care about are fully informed on the
game. I usually find that this clears up most of the doubts. The real
problem is that the majority of christians that object (not hate) to magic
just don't understand it because the only people who will tell them about
it are those people that really do hate it.
--
"Don't put a question mark where God put a period."
Benjamin David Moudry
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
E-mail: gt4...@prism.gatech.edu
John7099
No I have not seen air, but you can look up at the night sky and see outer
space. And besides, what are you breating if there is no air, and how is
there wind if there is no air? Air IS there.
Merel
On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:03:59 -0500, "darkspider" <darks...@ij.net>
wrote:
>John7099 <john...@aol.com> wrote in article :
>
>> Well guys I do not know about you but god has never spoken to me and I
>have
>> never seen him, not even on a home video camera like I saw bigfoot on.
>I have
>> never seen or talked with the devil either. To me seeing is believing.
>
>OK, counter point, have you see air? No, neither have I but I believe in
>it. Or how bout outer space? I've see pictures, just like I've seen
>pictures of Jesus, but never seen it with my own eyes. How what about you?
>
>> Experiencing something is believing. I do not really believe in
>anything I
>> can't see, read complete fact about, or experience first hand. I DO
>have
>> opinions on the existance of things that I have not yet seen or
>experienced.
>> Such as god,bigfoot, and UFO's. But until I see something I can't tell
>anyone
>> that it exists. So there is no way that I would become religious unless
>god
>> comes to me and we have a REALLY LONG talk.
>
>Not be come off as a religious fanatic (which I'm not, really I play magic,
>listen to Mason and like a good hackem up film like the next guy) but
>unless you WANT to talk to God, you'll never expirience it. I have ssen
>some strange crap done in God's name (ie: the Crusades, kill for GOD! yeah
>thats it;-) but I have also seen some good done with my own eyes.
>
> Joey Carey
> proud to be a Christian
Could you gentleman please take your religous discussion to e-mail or
to one of the religion based newsgroups?
Merel
Rob Glunt
Grifter wrote:
>
> darkspider wrote:
> >
> > John7099 <john...@aol.com> wrote in article :
> >
> > > Well guys I do not know about you but god has never spoken to me and I
> > have
> > > never seen him, not even on a home video camera like I saw bigfoot on.
> > I have
> > > never seen or talked with the devil either. To me seeing is believing.
> >
> > OK, counter point, have you see air? No, neither have I but I believe in
> > it. Or how bout outer space? I've see pictures, just like I've seen
> > pictures of Jesus, but never seen it with my own eyes. How what about you?
> > proud to be a Christian
>
> and at least you can feel air. Outer space as been proven also. There's
> a big difference between God/Jesus/bigfoot/devil and air/outer space...
The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe in
it.
Oh, and by the way. The only difference between God/Bigfoot and
Air/Outer Space is popular opinion. Science can be used to prove
anything. Facts are twisted to suit theories, instead of the other way
around. I mean, do you really KNOW that air exists? Or if you do, do
you KNOW that it exists in the form and has the properities that are
commonly attributed to it? Science is interpreted, just as religion is.
Rob Glunt
Special Agent Rettberg
> >> OK, counter point, have you see air? No, neither have I but I believe in
> >> it. Or how bout outer space? I've see pictures, just like I've seen
> >> pictures of Jesus, but never seen it with my own eyes. How what about you?
You've never looked up at night? You should try it. There's all these
bright glowing things (which are called stars), and even this big
moon-looking thing (most of the time).
We Are
adam
Third of Five
John7099
If we want to post here, we can. That is why there is still spam around the
groups.
Kytep
>The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
>things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
>never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe in
>it.
>
>Oh, and by the way. The only difference between God/Bigfoot and
>Air/Outer Space is popular opinion. Science can be used to prove
>anything. Facts are twisted to suit theories, instead of the other way
>around. I mean, do you really KNOW that air exists? Or if you do, do
>you KNOW that it exists in the form and has the properities that are
>commonly attributed to it? Science is interpreted, just as religion is.
>
>Rob Glunt
Damn straight. "Science" through the ages has told us the Sun revolves around
the Earth, then vice-versa. It tells us eggs are bad for us, then "not so
bad". Science is continually changing its stances. Yeah, science can help us
make things like these neato computers and internet access, but you want a
screwy religion based on human interpretation *WITHOUT* all the facts, stick
with "Science". Besides, I guarantee belief in Science takes at *least* as
much faith in the unknown as does belief in God.
Sorry to post this on .mtg.strat, but no one else is reading this thread by now
anyway...
Dave
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
John7099 (john...@aol.com) wrote:
: If we want to post here, we can. That is why there is still spam around the
: groups.
And that, John-boy, is the stupidest justification I've ever heard.
It's like saying "It's okay to kill someone, because he'll just die
anyway."
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Grifter (omar....@cgi.ca) wrote:
: darkspider wrote:
: >
(Snip)
: > OK, counter point, have you see air? No, neither have I but I believe in
: > it. Or how bout outer space? I've see pictures, just like I've seen
: > pictures of Jesus, but never seen it with my own eyes. How what about you?
: > proud to be a Christian
: You're comparing fantasy with facts? Science has proven that air exist
: and at least you can feel air. Outer space as been proven also. There's
: a big difference between God/Jesus/bigfoot/devil and air/outer space...
Did outer space exist 1000 years ago, before it had been proven?
Did atoms exist, before they'd even been theorized about?
Lack of proof only means one thing: we *don't know.* It doesn't mean, by
default, that there's nothing there.
7353...@compuserve.com
Most of the founders of WotC were raised Christians and most of them
still maintain their Christian beliefs. I went to school with them
(including the CEO) at a private Christian college and still keep in
touch with them. We played quite a bit of AD&D in college, and we
didn't really care what other people thought, and my guess is that is
probably still the opinion of WotC.
People should realize that Magic and AD&D are just games that require
some thinking processes. These people say that games such as these
take up large amounts of time (which they can), but these same people
see no problem in sitting in front of the TV for hours. Which is the
worse of the two. At least while playing AD&D or magic, I am using my
mind, instead of letting it go to waste.
Damien Harrison
There isn't anything wrong with Magic. It has no element of role-playing
at all, which is what most Christians are against. I'm Christian and so is
my entire bloody family and the only bad thing it does to me is suck my
money (I'm getting better, really I am).
All we need to remember is that there are a lot of ignorant people in the
world and there is a large contingent in every sphere of society, be they
Christian or no. We need to stay informed and open. So I'm for the hearty
discussion of religious beliefs right smack dab in the middle of this
Strategy newsgroup. Long live this thread.
Harro.
her...@student.adelaide.edu.au
On 15 Nov 1997, Kytep wrote:
> >The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
> >things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
> >never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe in
> >it.
I can't touch it, but I sure as hell can see it via telescopes. I've talked to
astronauts. Why shouldn't I conclude that space is real? I think you should
take "perception" or "detection" as the broader sense of "sense".
> >Oh, and by the way. The only difference between God/Bigfoot and
> >Air/Outer Space is popular opinion.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Bigfoot doesn't try and get his followers to indoctrinate me.
Science can be used to prove
> >anything. Facts are twisted to suit theories, instead of the other way
> >around. I mean, do you really KNOW that air exists? Or if you do, do
> >you KNOW that it exists in the form and has the properities that are
> >commonly attributed to it? Science is interpreted, just as religion is.
That's not science, that's forgery.
> >Rob Glunt
>
> Damn straight. "Science" through the ages has told us the Sun revolves around
> the Earth, then vice-versa. It tells us eggs are bad for us, then "not so
> bad". Science is continually changing its stances.
hopefully working towards the <perfect stance>. Religion wants you to think
that it has the perfect stance all drawn out for you, right now.
Yeah, science can help us
> make things like these neato computers and internet access, but you want a
> screwy religion based on human interpretation *WITHOUT* all the facts, stick
> with "Science". Besides, I guarantee belief in Science takes at *least* as
> much faith in the unknown as does belief in God.
God/Religion and science both give humans a way to interpret reality, right?
Try to fit each "filter" to the way you perceive the world. Which one fits the
easiest? Science; because by it's very nature it does it's best to explain
the mechanics of reality: It changes as our understanding changes. Religion on
the other hand doesn't fit so well: we know too much today to be able to
reconcile the metaphysical easily into our world view. Most of the world's
religions are old enough to encompass either views, customs, cultures or other
details that simply have no place in the modern world; they are outmoded.
Religion is built on pillars of stone; once you knock them out from under it,
it topples: hence, religion does it's damndest to keep those pillars in place.
Science on the other hand *wants* it pillars removed if they are not worthy.
Admittedly, there is always resistance to this, but eventually, even if it
takes hundreds of years, the more enlightened view wins out.
> Sorry to post this on .mtg.strat, but no one else is reading this thread by now
> anyway...
Really? I suppose they won't mind me replying then...
Ok. Let me have a go.
Science continually changes it's standards because it is continually receiving
new information about the world and INTEGRATING it into it's world view this
is entirely at odds with most of the world's major religions (not up on
buddhism or shinto), which are stuck in a type of stasis (token MTG
reference) that started the last time someone added something to their canon
of "background reading material" (bible/Koran/scriptures whatever).
Science does not say; "this how it is" Science says "This is how it is as far
as we can tell for the moment". Admittedly this does set in to the more
concrete "This is how it is and has been for some time so maybe it will be for
a while longer", but that's nothing to certain religions that jump in at the
deep end with "This is how it is, has always been and will always be until
your reality-ending/restarting event of choice."
Science deals in the currency of malleable, adaptable, upgradeable
proto-truths. It is not vulnerable to the same crushing that one is able to
apply to a religion started a-way back in the mists of time. ie Showing up
what it thinks as reasonable and truthful as utter nonsense.
Science deals with theories, hypotheses, proofs. Not set-in-granite truths.
As far as faith goes, scientist have faith in proof. Shit you can touch,
taste, smell, see, hear, or detect with one of a million tools.
Faith in the unknown, the undetectable is a denial of common sense.
You don't believe for any reason (that you will admit to yourself), except
that you believe. The true believer does not let logic stand in their way.
That's why it's impossible for me to win an argument with someone who has
true unshakeable faith; because my logical reasoning makes no difference to
them, and I have no other way of breaking it.
On that note, why am I even bothering writing this?
Better stop then...
Steve.
Talcott Starr
7353...@compuserve.com wrote:
: Most of the founders of WotC were raised Christians and most of them
: still maintain their Christian beliefs. I went to school with them
: (including the CEO) at a private Christian college and still keep in
: touch with them. We played quite a bit of AD&D in college, and we
: didn't really care what other people thought, and my guess is that is
: probably still the opinion of WotC.
Wow. I did not know that.WHat we need to do is find out if any of them or
their parents are members of the 700 club. Think of the it, Maybe if they
knew this they would come out of their own little worlds. The whole world
would live in peace. No more world hunger. No more wars no more....
****SMACK****
Anyways it would be great to find a way to tell the &00 club people this.
--
/_________/| "I can't pretend to be, someone
|___ ___|/ who pretends to be, someone else.
| || Or so my pretend friend tells me"
|___|/ALCOTT STARR -The Rutles- "Unfinished Words"
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
her...@student.adelaide.edu.au wrote:
: On 15 Nov 1997, Kytep wrote:
: > >The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
: > >things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
: > >never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe in
: > >it.
: I can't touch it, but I sure as hell can see it via telescopes. I've talked to
: astronauts. Why shouldn't I conclude that space is real? I think you should
: take "perception" or "detection" as the broader sense of "sense".
When you look at it, what do you see?
WHy is the word of an astronaut, who claims to have been there, any more
viable than the word of a priest, who claims to have spoken to god?
: > >you KNOW that it exists in the form and has the properities that are
: > >commonly attributed to it? Science is interpreted, just as religion is.
: That's not science, that's forgery.
Same intent as "that's not christian, that's a loony taking the bible out
of context."
: hopefully working towards the <perfect stance>. Religion wants you to think
: that it has the perfect stance all drawn out for you, right now.
Funny... the religion I follow claims God has the perfect stance, and
we're still trying to interpret what it is...
Of course, I avoid the fanatics of that religion as much as I do the
fanatics of science...
: God/Religion and science both give humans a way to interpret reality, right?
Okay.
: Try to fit each "filter" to the way you perceive the world. Which one fits the
: easiest?
It depends entirely on what you're looking for.
If you're looking for *how* things work, then science.
If you're looking for *why* things work, then religion. Science hasn't
gotten that far yet.
I look for both myself, and haven't yet found any interference between the
two. Much like the way a kill-file and an "unread messages only" filter
work - they look for different things, but they're not mutually exclusive.
BTW, I've seen a report showing scientific evidence that God *could*
exist...
: the mechanics of reality: It changes as our understanding changes. Religion on
: the other hand doesn't fit so well: we know too much today to be able to
: reconcile the metaphysical easily into our world view.
That's a blindness of science, and the arrogance of man. Science tends to
discard what it can't prove, without always bothering to disprove it
first.
: Science continually changes it's standards because it is continually receiving
: new information about the world and INTEGRATING it into it's world view this
: is entirely at odds with most of the world's major religions (not up on
: buddhism or shinto), which are stuck in a type of stasis (token MTG
: reference) that started the last time someone added something to their canon
: of "background reading material" (bible/Koran/scriptures whatever).
Good religion changes as well; new information alters the interpretation
of the "background reading material."
As for stasis... check out the LDS (Mormon church.) Continually adding to
the bible, as new "prophets" appear. WHile I don't have much faith in
their beliefs, they certainly disprove your blanket statment.
: Science does not say; "this how it is" Science says "This is how it is as far
: as we can tell for the moment". Admittedly this does set in to the more
: concrete "This is how it is and has been for some time so maybe it will be for
: a while longer", but that's nothing to certain religions that jump in at the
: deep end with "This is how it is, has always been and will always be until
: your reality-ending/restarting event of choice."
Only the fundies. Good religions say "This is what we think (insert
deity) has said about how it is."
And science never bothers with the why's; just with the how's.
Religion's main purpose is to deal with the why.
: Science deals with theories, hypotheses, proofs. Not set-in-granite truths.
And discards anything that doesn't fit in with those theories.
Some things (cold fusion) have been made to happen, but for some reason
weren't repeatable. Science takes those things, and says "it was an
error; therefore, we forget it happened."
Some of those things did happen.
: As far as faith goes, scientist have faith in proof. Shit you can touch,
: taste, smell, see, hear, or detect with one of a million tools.
And what about the stuff we haven't found *yet*?
Atoms, for instance. Did they not exist before we developed the
technology to detect them?
: Faith in the unknown, the undetectable is a denial of common sense.
As is saying it doesn't exist.
We don't know; that's why it's the unknown. Saying "Nope, nothing there"
is pretending we know.
: That's why it's impossible for me to win an argument with someone who has
: true unshakeable faith; because my logical reasoning makes no difference to
: them, and I have no other way of breaking it.
Question: can you set aside disbelief long enough to see their point of
view?
To butcher an old saying... "you can't lead a horse to water if you can't
find the damn horse in the first place."
: On that note, why am I even bothering writing this?
Danm good question... why are any of us bothering?
(Well, for me it's because my bloody newsfeed ain't giving me the group I
usually discuss this crap in, so I'm settling for here. My apologies for
the wasted bandwidth.)
Zeiram1980
Okay I have a few things to say about this whole thread, so here goes.
I was born into a Christain home and was one till I was about 13, I still
believed in God but I wasn`t a Christain. Now I`m not sure I`ve tried, to talk
to him as him to "make himself real to me" it never happend. I am not sure if
there is a god or not anymore, when at one point I was sure of it.
I NEVER have met a Christain who likes Magic. When I first started playing
(about 3 years ago) my Parents found my cards (and my brothers) and they burnt
all of them. We tried to explain our take on the game, how it is just a game
and not "satanic" (although I wish I knew for sure) but they didn`t care they
burnt them anyway. course that wasn`t gonna stop me from playing, so I brought
more cards.
Now 3years later I`m almost positve my Parents know I play but they
haven`t tried to steal me cards when I`m at work or something,(thank god) but
they still think it`s satanic.
I`ve gotten off my point but here`s my take of it.
Christains do not look at magic as a game but as a very well crafted
plan (by satan) to lure people into thinking it`s a game and playing it.Thus
leading them away from God.
MTG players on the other hand don`t really care what Christains think
about it, they play it for fun. And they don`t care what anyone says about the
game who hasn`t given it a try.
Caleb Donnelly
PS. I don`t beleive in "The Big Bang" or "Evolution"
John M Shuler
Zeiram1980 (zeira...@aol.com) wrote:
: PS. I don`t beleive in "The Big Bang" or "Evolution"
Yeah, those crazy things like "science" are things I
don't believe in, either.
--
John M. Shuler jsh...@gmu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why post in .rules and get a good answer, when you can post
in .strategy and get abused?
- Jeff Boes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Allen
John M Shuler wrote in message <65bru8$4...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>Yeah, those crazy things like "science" are things I
>don't believe in, either.
>--
>John M. Shuler jsh...@gmu.edu
I don't understand why Christians are so defensive about their religion...
in some instances they seem comparable in terms of limiting ideas to even
the Nazis. Perhaps not so extreme, but comparable. Are there are
Christians in here to defend themselves?
I'm really starting to believe that whole hypothesis on science vs. religion
and the balance (don't ask me to say who said this, the name is pretty long)
basically saying it's impossible to be a religious scientist or a scientific
priest.
To make this pertain to Magic (and not have the thread deleted ;) --
explain to me how cards can affect a person. Also, I'd like to know why a
Christian would even care if someone else was playing Magic, even if their
soul was in jeopardy. Why is it that person's business what the other
person is doing to his/herself? Once again, we need a Christian to defend
so if there's anyone interested in discussing this I'm truly interested (as
I don't know too much about religion but am curious) ..... email me at
ga...@home.com
Geoff
Kevin Denelsbeck
In article <65ck72$hpa$1...@ha2.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
Geoff Allen <g_a...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>John M Shuler wrote in message <65bru8$4...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>>Yeah, those crazy things like "science" are things I
>>don't believe in, either.
>>--
>>John M. Shuler jsh...@gmu.edu
>
>
>I don't understand why Christians are so defensive about their religion...
>in some instances they seem comparable in terms of limiting ideas to even
>the Nazis. Perhaps not so extreme, but comparable. Are there are
>Christians in here to defend themselves?
We *have* defended ourselves, but that was a while ago and this thread
just refuses to go all the way away.
>I'm really starting to believe that whole hypothesis on science vs. religion
>and the balance (don't ask me to say who said this, the name is pretty long)
>basically saying it's impossible to be a religious scientist or a scientific
>priest.
As a religious scientist, I can tell you that it's quite possible.
You do need to get everything straight in your head, though.
>To make this pertain to Magic (and not have the thread deleted ;) --
>explain to me how cards can affect a person. Also, I'd like to know why a
>Christian would even care if someone else was playing Magic, even if their
>soul was in jeopardy. Why is it that person's business what the other
>person is doing to his/herself? Once again, we need a Christian to defend
>so if there's anyone interested in discussing this I'm truly interested (as
>I don't know too much about religion but am curious) ..... email me at
>ga...@home.com
>Geoff
Rather than try to regurgitate or sum up (probably ineptly) all the
discussion that has gone before, I think the best thing I could do
for you is to direct you to www.DejaNews.com and use some of the
search facilities there to track down this thread.
A few, very general, answers to your questions:
* there are plenty of Christians who play Magic, with a clear
conscience
* the game is perhaps about as dangerous for someone's moral fiber as
television (a decidedly ambiguous statement)
* only a minority of Christians are the fringe hardcases you see on TV
or in printed media
* Christians against Magic act the way they do for the same reason you
might save a perfect stranger from a fire
Kevin
--
Kev @ UNC & Hope College _|_ "Even if those creepy Castro heads were part
denelsbeATcsDOTuncDOTedu | of some fake assassination scheme, how had one
www.cs.unc.edu/~denelsbe | of them found its way into her grandmother's
GO HEELS! /"\ hands by way of Booger the manatee?"-NCTM
Talcott Starr
Zeiram1980 (zeira...@aol.com) wrote:
: Okay I have a few things to say about this whole thread, so here goes.
: I NEVER have met a Christain who likes Magic.
Where are you living? I can nmae plenty of Magic playing Christians I
know of at least 7 on this news group.
: I`ve gotten off my point but here`s my take of it.
: Christains do not look at magic as a game but as a very well crafted
: plan (by satan) to lure people into thinking it`s a game and playing it.Thus
: leading them away from God.
Same with T.V. and rock music. There are atleast 10 essays on the 'net
about how CHRISTIAN rock music is evil. Some people just go to far and
ruin it for everyone else. Evil is were you find it.
: MTG players on the other hand don`t really care what Christains think
: about it, they play it for fun. And they don`t care what anyone says about the
: game who hasn`t given it a try.
What do we have to do to convince open minded normal nice Christians are
the majority not the minority? Althow this thread is a step in the right
dirrection.
: Caleb Donnelly
: PS. I don`t beleive in "The Big Bang" or "Evolution"
Talcott Starr
Geoff Allen (g_a...@rocketmail.com) wrote:
: explain to me how cards can affect a person. Also, I'd like to know why a
: Christian would even care if someone else was playing Magic, even if their
: soul was in jeopardy. Why is it that person's business what the other
: person is doing to his/herself? Once again, we need a Christian to defend
: so if there's anyone interested in discussing this I'm truly interested (as
: I don't know too much about religion but am curious) ..... email me at
: ga...@home.com
: Geoff
Look at it from their point of view. You live for 70 or so years the
soul; is eternial and so is its resting place. If you thought someone was
doomed for eternal peral would you help them?
Personaly I don't think there is anything wrong with magic, D&D, spam,
ect. but I am just showing why some people are fanitical. NEVER make
genralizations unless you have met and talked to EVERY person of a group.
Or to put it paradoxaly....
"All genrilizations are flase"
Geoff Allen
If that person was willing to sacrifice their soul for whatever they choose,
and as long as it didn't hurt anyone else or involve anyone else without
their consent, then no, I'd let them damn themselves or whatever they choose
to do. I believe they have the right to hang themselves, if you will, so
I'd just walk away.
Geoff
Talcott Starr wrote in message > Look at it from their point of view. You
the necromaster
Zeiram1980 <zeira...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971124115...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Okay I have a few things to say about this whole thread, so here goes.
>
> I was born into a Christain home and was one till I was about 13, I
still
> believed in God but I wasn`t a Christain. Now I`m not sure I`ve tried, to
talk
> to him as him to "make himself real to me" it never happend. I am not
sure if
> there is a god or not anymore, when at one point I was sure of it.
>
> I NEVER have met a Christain who likes Magic. When I first started
playing
> (about 3 years ago) my Parents found my cards (and my brothers) and they
burnt
> all of them. We tried to explain our take on the game, how it is just a
game
> and not "satanic" (although I wish I knew for sure) but they didn`t care
they
> burnt them anyway. course that wasn`t gonna stop me from playing, so I
brought
> more cards.
Where I live (middle of nowhere Ohio) the only card shop that sells Magic
cards is owned by a guy who has Christian Material on every wall of the
store, is a substitue at Christian school during the day, and has one more
than one occasion preached at his church on Sunday's when there Pastor
couldn't make it. (on top of all of that he his a hell of a good Magic
Player)
The guy who is probably the best Magic player around here (I don't get to
many to turny's but He has one every one I've been to) teaches full time at
the same Christian School, and has missed more than a few Gaming nights
,and other misc. events to go to church
I'm a Christian (and proud). I'm also number one in the store (only
because the afore mentioned guy hasn't played in Arena since they started
giving out big cards as prizes), tenth in the state last time I checked
this Arena season, and there is more around here (there even a couple of
Johova Witness who play, and pretty good)
The "Christian's" who hate something just because they think it's wrong,
are no differnt IMO then thoose who hate others for something as redicoulse
as the color of there skin or there ethnic background. Christianity is
about love and understanding thoose who killed the name of Christ weren't
Christians, just as thoose who hear and see Satan every where just to make
a buck (whether it's the 700 hundred club or Jimmy Swagort) aren't real
Christians only doing something further themselves. They don't reprsent me
or most of the Christians I know
>
> Now 3years later I`m almost positve my Parents know I play but
they
> haven`t tried to steal me cards when I`m at work or something,(thank god)
but
> they still think it`s satanic.
My parents where the same way at first (esp after they say my LoP), but
after I party I would have been at if I hadn't been of playing Magic got
busted they began to lighten up, they came to the conclusion it was only a
game, and I could have a lot of worse hobbies. My mom even has made a few
attempts to learn how to play but can't get passed Taped and Untaped Land,
oh well can't have everything ;) If they bring it up explane that it is
only a game, and get them to tell you how it is making you not worship God
while thier taking away YOUR interests in the name of God is leading you to
him!
>
> I`ve gotten off my point but here`s my take of it.
>
> Christains do not look at magic as a game but as a very well
crafted
> plan (by satan) to lure people into thinking it`s a game and playing
it.Thus
> leading them away from God.
This is said by the same people who hate games from Go Fish to Poker, and
is utterly FALSE!
>
> MTG players on the other hand don`t really care what Christains
think
> about it, they play it for fun. And they don`t care what anyone says
about the
> game who hasn`t given it a try.
>
>
Serman
Kevin Denelsbeck <dene...@cs.unc.edu> wrote in article
<65cpao$b...@capefear.cs.unc.edu>...
> >explain to me how cards can affect a person. Also, I'd like to know why
a
> >Christian would even care if someone else was playing Magic, even if
their
> >soul was in jeopardy. Why is it that person's business what the other
> >person is doing to his/herself? Once again, we need a Christian to
defend
> >so if there's anyone interested in discussing this I'm truly interested
(as
> >I don't know too much about religion but am curious) ..... email me at
> >ga...@home.com
> >Geoff
>
>
> Rather than try to regurgitate or sum up (probably ineptly) all the
> discussion that has gone before, I think the best thing I could do
> for you is to direct you to www.DejaNews.com and use some of the
> search facilities there to track down this thread.
>
> A few, very general, answers to your questions:
>
> * there are plenty of Christians who play Magic, with a clear
> conscience
> * the game is perhaps about as dangerous for someone's moral fiber as
> television (a decidedly ambiguous statement)
> * only a minority of Christians are the fringe hardcases you see on TV
> or in printed media
> * Christians against Magic act the way they do for the same reason you
> might save a perfect stranger from a fire
>
> Kevin
>
> --
> Kev @ UNC & Hope College _|_ "Even if those creepy Castro heads were
part
> denelsbeATcsDOTuncDOTedu | of some fake assassination scheme, how
had one
> www.cs.unc.edu/~denelsbe | of them found its way into her
grandmother's
> GO HEELS! /"\ hands by way of Booger the manatee?"-NCTM
>
I think that most Christians over react about Magic. About the time magic
came out (I was in elementary school at that point) our school banned magic
due to increasing amounts of calls from parents who were christians who
found there kids with cards in there back pack. In one case, one of my
friend'f parents ripped and then burnt all his cards after looking at them.
(he had a whole buncha nice rares from beta, I think he even had a
timewalk) From that point on, people in our school stopped playing magic
which really sucked because some of us who had magic cards had only one or
two other people to play with. I feel that over reacting about a card game
is pretty sad. I mean, what harm can it do you? I personally don't think
its that bad of a deal. I mean some *fantasy* books or games have some of
the same concepts in them. And I don't know how magic could be *satanic*
either. Except for a couple of cards such as demonic hordes/tutors etc.
the whole game doesn't have any satanic things in it. Anyways, that's my
$0.02.
Cray88
Well, it it's basic form, Christianity is about people looking out for one
another. According to their beliefs, they feel it is necessary to try and
explain their point of view to others, thus giving those others the chance to
believe. What most Christians don't understand is, that if you push too hard
you will be fought against even harder than before. The deal is, as a
Christian, to let the other person know what you think and, at that point, it
is out of your hands. The same goes for Magic players, if they try to shove
Magic down the throats people who don't want to play, then those people will
never want to play. I guess this only my opinion, as I am not a "by-the-book"
Christian, and I am a Magic player. I play Magic because of its strategy and
competitiveness. I play it just like I play Monopoly, Spades, or any other
game. Some people take their games to the extreme, just like some people take
their religion to the extreme. Extremistic(is this a real word?) viewpoints
are what the other sees, or thinks about, when the opposing subject is brought
up. There are "bad apples" in both groups, and sometimes they ruin it for the
rest of us.
Cray -]------
P.S. Is a Señor Stompy, or variant, a valid tourney deck?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" P.T. Barnum
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Talcott Starr (tst...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
(Snip)
: Look at it from their point of view. You live for 70 or so years the
: soul; is eternial and so is its resting place. If you thought someone was
: doomed for eternal peral would you help them?
: Personaly I don't think there is anything wrong with magic, D&D, spam,
You had me up until here. Spam is definately bad. (We're talking usenet
spam, right? Not the canned pseudo-ham stuff?)
Usenet spam is the biggest waste of server resources out there (second,
unfortunately, is third-party spam cancels.)
I'd plug an url for an anti-spam page, but I don't have any handy (well,
anti-spam tools, but nothing explaining why spam is bad.) Try a web
search on something called "Simple English Message." (Or just spam in
general, that's how I found it.)
Kaos. (Now stepping off his soapbox, to offer apologies if he
misconstrued what version of spam was being discussed.)
Sammy
For the record,
herring+AEA-student.adelaide.edu.au wrote in message ...
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-On 15 Nov 1997, Kytep wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- +AD4-The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
+AD4APg- +AD4-things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
+AD4APg- +AD4-never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe in
+AD4APg- +AD4-it.
+AD4-
+AD4-I can't touch it, but I sure as hell can see it via telescopes. I've talked
to
+AD4-astronauts. Why shouldn't I conclude that space is real? I think you should
+AD4-take +ACI-perception+ACI- or +ACI-detection+ACI- as the broader sense of +ACI-sense+ACI-.
+AD4-
+AD4APg- +AD4-Oh, and by the way. The only difference between God/Bigfoot and
+AD4APg- +AD4-Air/Outer Space is popular opinion.
+AD4-
+AD4-Bzzzt. Wrong. Bigfoot doesn't try and get his followers to indoctrinate me.
+AD4-
+AD4-Science can be used to prove
+AD4APg- +AD4-anything. Facts are twisted to suit theories, instead of the other way
+AD4APg- +AD4-around. I mean, do you really KNOW that air exists? Or if you do, do
+AD4APg- +AD4-you KNOW that it exists in the form and has the properities that are
+AD4APg- +AD4-commonly attributed to it? Science is interpreted, just as religion is.
+AD4-
+AD4-That's not science, that's forgery.
+AD4-
+AD4APg- +AD4-Rob Glunt
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Damn straight. +ACI-Science+ACI- through the ages has told us the Sun revolves
around
+AD4APg- the Earth, then vice-versa. It tells us eggs are bad for us, then +ACI-not
so
+AD4APg- bad+ACI-. Science is continually changing its stances.
Science has never told anybody anything.
Science has only ever said +ACI-I think +ADw-whatever+AD4AIg-
As far as constantly changing its stance, is this a weakness?
Should we assume that everything we know today is all there is to know?
For years we thought maggots came from rotting meat. That was popular fact.
Then we learned that maggots came from the flys that landed on the meat+ACEAIQ-
WOW+ACEAIQ- the entire planet did a pardigm shift on meat storage.
Should we not treat what we know as fact, until someone proves it fiction?
Should we live in caves and grunt because someone might prove that
communication started the downfall of man?
+AD4-
+AD4-hopefully working towards the +ADw-perfect stance+AD4-. Religion wants you to think
+AD4-that it has the perfect stance all drawn out for you, right now.
like he said.
+AD4-
+AD4- Yeah, science can help us
+AD4APg- make things like these neato computers and internet access, but you want
a
+AD4APg- screwy religion based on human interpretation +ACo-WITHOUT+ACo- all the facts,
stick
+AD4APg- with +ACI-Science+ACI-. Besides, I guarantee belief in Science takes at +ACo-least+ACo-
as
+AD4APg- much faith in the unknown as does belief in God.
+AD4-
+AD4-God/Religion and science both give humans a way to interpret reality,
right?
+AD4-Try to fit each +ACI-filter+ACI- to the way you perceive the world. Which one fits
the
+AD4-easiest? Science+ADs- because by it's very nature it does it's best to explain
+AD4-the mechanics of reality: It changes as our understanding changes. Religion
on
+AD4-the other hand doesn't fit so well: we know too much today to be able to
+AD4-reconcile the metaphysical easily into our world view. Most of the world's
+AD4-religions are old enough to encompass either views, customs, cultures or
other
+AD4-details that simply have no place in the modern world+ADs- they are outmoded.
+AD4-Religion is built on pillars of stone+ADs- once you knock them out from under
it,
+AD4-it topples: hence, religion does it's damndest to keep those pillars in
place.
+AD4-Science on the other hand +ACo-wants+ACo- it pillars removed if they are not
worthy.
+AD4-Admittedly, there is always resistance to this, but eventually, even if it
+AD4-takes hundreds of years, the more enlightened view wins out.
+AD4-
+AD4APg- Sorry to post this on .mtg.strat, but no one else is reading this thread
by now
+AD4APg- anyway...
+AD4-
+AD4-Really? I suppose they won't mind me replying then...
+AD4-
+AD4-Ok. Let me have a go.
+AD4-
+AD4-Science continually changes it's standards because it is continually
receiving
+AD4-new information about the world and INTEGRATING it into it's world view
this
+AD4-is entirely at odds with most of the world's major religions (not up on
+AD4-buddhism or shinto), which are stuck in a type of stasis (token MTG
+AD4-reference) that started the last time someone added something to their
canon
+AD4-of +ACI-background reading material+ACI- (bible/Koran/scriptures whatever).
+AD4-
+AD4-Science does not say+ADs- +ACI-this how it is+ACI- Science says +ACI-This is how it is as
far
+AD4-as we can tell for the moment+ACI-. Admittedly this does set in to the more
+AD4-concrete +ACI-This is how it is and has been for some time so maybe it will be
for
+AD4-a while longer+ACI-, but that's nothing to certain religions that jump in at
the
+AD4-deep end with +ACI-This is how it is, has always been and will always be until
+AD4-your reality-ending/restarting event of choice.+ACI-
+AD4-
+AD4-Science deals in the currency of malleable, adaptable, upgradeable
+AD4-proto-truths. It is not vulnerable to the same crushing that one is able to
+AD4-apply to a religion started a-way back in the mists of time. ie Showing up
+AD4-what it thinks as reasonable and truthful as utter nonsense.
+AD4-
+AD4-Science deals with theories, hypotheses, proofs. Not set-in-granite truths.
+AD4-
+AD4-As far as faith goes, scientist have faith in proof. Shit you can touch,
+AD4-taste, smell, see, hear, or detect with one of a million tools.
+AD4-
+AD4-Faith in the unknown, the undetectable is a denial of common sense.
+AD4-You don't believe for any reason (that you will admit to yourself), except
+AD4-that you believe. The true believer does not let logic stand in their way.
+AD4-
+AD4-That's why it's impossible for me to win an argument with someone who has
+AD4-true unshakeable faith+ADs- because my logical reasoning makes no difference to
+AD4-them, and I have no other way of breaking it.
+AD4-
+AD4-On that note, why am I even bothering writing this?
+AD4-
+AD4-Better stop then...
+AD4-
+AD4-Steve.
+AD4-
Not all things fall into the realm of science.
And science and religion can co-exist
And why doesn't religion want us to explore the world of god?
He build it, we are trying to figure it out.
It's almost a form of worship.
Just my 2 cents.
Sammy
Nate Fichthorn
The thread that wouldn't die! :)
Talcott Starr
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Talcott Starr (tst...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: (Snip)
: : Look at it from their point of view. You live for 70 or so years the
: : soul; is eternial and so is its resting place. If you thought someone was
: : doomed for eternal peral would you help them?
: : Personaly I don't think there is anything wrong with magic, D&D, spam,
: You had me up until here. Spam is definately bad. (We're talking usenet
: spam, right? Not the canned pseudo-ham stuff?)
Actualy I WAS talking about the foodlike substance. I keep forgeting to
find some way to make a diffrence.
Dave Lin
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents into this whole thread.
I am a Christian and have been one for about 3 years (I am 22 years old
right now). I have also been playing Magic a little longer than that,
about four years. I don't have any moral problem playing Magic and in
tournaments. None of my Christian friends have approached me warning me
about the spiritual implications about my favorite hobby. They all do
tease me about it and think it's a "nerd" game =)
This is a point that has been harped on before, but it is not to say that
"all Christians" or even just "Christians" do not approve of the game of
Magic. There are of course numerous Christians and Christian parents who
are very concerned about the game and perhaps its message. However it is
not correct at all to lump all Christians in that category. Probably
because the Christians who do not give a hoot about Magic don't talk about
Magic (and why should they if they don't care), it has been generalized
that Christians are opposed to Magic just because a minority has been very
vocal about their beliefs.
Another point that has been addressed is whether why should I care or
someone else care about what I am doing as long as I am hurting myself
only and no one else. Well there are just two points I want to make about
this. First, I think someone beautifully summed it up when he said that
you would try to save a person dying in a fire correct? The same thing
goes for your soul as well. If I feel strongly that your soul is headed
toward total damnation, I of course because I CARE for you (imagine that!)
want to do something to stop that from happening. Christians have been
blamed all throughout the centuries for judging people and saying who is
going to hell and who is not. It's not that Christians say who's going
and not going to heaven or hell. I mean if it were up to me, EVERYONE
would go to heaven. But God (through His word the Bible and Jesus the
Incarnation) has explicited given who will be sent to hell and why they
are. And to tell you truth, the reason is pretty good.
Secondly about the "who cares if I'm only hurting myself" statement, there
are obviously laws out there not to protect people from harming other
people (maybe indirectly) but to stop a person from hurting themselves.
I'm thinking about laws against drugs, underage drinking and smoking, etc.
Sometimes human desires need to been constrained because otherwise, they
will have a heck of time hurting themselves.
I'm sorry if some of what I said doesn't make quite sense. Please feel
free to e-mail me if anyone out there has any questions about Christianity
or the such.
Dave
dav...@his.com
Rick Braun
Serman wrote:
> > www.cs.unc.edu/+AH4-denelsbe | of them found its way into her
> grandmother's
> > GO HEELS! /"+AFw- hands by way of Booger the manatee?"-NCTM
> >
> I think that most Christians over react about Magic. About the time magic
> came out (I was in elementary school at that point) our school banned magic
> due to increasing amounts of calls from parents who were christians who
> found there kids with cards in there back pack. In one case, one of my
> friend'f parents ripped and then burnt all his cards after looking at them.
> (he had a whole buncha nice rares from beta, I think he even had a
> timewalk) From that point on, people in our school stopped playing magic
> which really sucked because some of us who had magic cards had only one or
> two other people to play with. I feel that over reacting about a card game
> is pretty sad. I mean, what harm can it do you? I personally don't think
> its that bad of a deal. I mean some *fantasy* books or games have some of
> the same concepts in them. And I don't know how magic could be *satanic*
> either. Except for a couple of cards such as demonic hordes/tutors etc.
> the whole game doesn't have any satanic things in it. Anyways, that's my
> $0.02.
I can agree on that. I think that MTG should have nothin' to do with
religion or religion to do with Magic. How do people overreact about this
innocent card game, geez, they act like we're going to worship it or something.
One time I had a deal with a kid at school that I would buy all his 4th
edition cards for Five dollars. Soon people were taunting and runnin' there
mouths, "You worship the devil", they just went on not even knowing there was a
game until just then until some kid announced it.
M. Keane
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97112...@mail.his.com>,
Dave Lin <dav...@mail.his.com> wrote:
>Another point that has been addressed is whether why should I care or
>someone else care about what I am doing as long as I am hurting myself
>only and no one else. Well there are just two points I want to make about
>this. First, I think someone beautifully summed it up when he said that
>you would try to save a person dying in a fire correct? The same thing
Not if they didn't want to be saved.
>goes for your soul as well. If I feel strongly that your soul is headed
>toward total damnation, I of course because I CARE for you (imagine that!)
>want to do something to stop that from happening. Christians have been
Even if it means harassing people? Even if they don't want to go to
heaven? Nope, I guess you have to step in and "save" them even if they
don't want your "help."
>blamed all throughout the centuries for judging people and saying who is
>going to hell and who is not. It's not that Christians say who's going
And rightly so.
>and not going to heaven or hell. I mean if it were up to me, EVERYONE
It's just that Christians say who's going and not going to heaven or hell.
>would go to heaven. But God (through His word the Bible and Jesus the
Pah. Who would want to go to heaven? Why would I ever want to spend
eternity with sanctimonious gits such as yourself? Well, I suppose other
sanctimonious gits would, but the rest of us might not. But, no, you, in
your infinite insight into the mind of God, have seen fit to override
our wishes.
>Incarnation) has explicited given who will be sent to hell and why they
>are. And to tell you truth, the reason is pretty good.
And of course, you know what God is saying through your own interpretation
and intuition.
And of course, everyone has their own interpretation and intuition into
God's wishes, they all differ, and they all think *they* are the ones that
are right and *you* are the one that's wrong/psycho/pawn of satan.
A course in objectivity is needed here. Maybe some logical thinking as
well.
>Secondly about the "who cares if I'm only hurting myself" statement, there
>are obviously laws out there not to protect people from harming other
>people (maybe indirectly) but to stop a person from hurting themselves.
>I'm thinking about laws against drugs, underage drinking and smoking, etc.
>Sometimes human desires need to been constrained because otherwise, they
>will have a heck of time hurting themselves.
If someone wants to off themselves, that's their decision. It weeds out
the stupid and Goddess knows we've got enough of those already. And what
about those that *do* want to die? Are you going to constrain their civil
liberties? Doesn't have a right to their life? If they do, they can give
up that right as they choose. Or do they only have a right to life except
when you say so? Somehow I sense a "Life is God's Gift to Christ" speech
coming up.
>I'm sorry if some of what I said doesn't make quite sense. Please feel
>free to e-mail me if anyone out there has any questions about Christianity
>or the such.
Do you mind if I constantly harass you and your family at home and at work
because I think you're going to the version of hell I believe in? Why or
why not?
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane - Associate Professor of Gravitational Morality
University of Edicara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve! E-mail me to join.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
Talcott Starr
M. Keane (ae...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97112...@mail.his.com>,
: And rightly so.
In other words all christians are wrong because some have forced their
belifes on you. How are christians anymore closed minded than people who
assume they are all alike?
Mudslide
I also am I Christian, and I play magic. Now my problem is that many people
look at Magic and things like Demonic Tutor or torment or hordes etc. and
they judge it right then and there. People have been doing this forever
pretty much, and it pisses me off. I mean, if you don't take the time to
really learn about something, and talk to the full spectrum of people that
are active in that area, how can you be a judge. Just because you saw that
freak down the corner that has a shrine to magic doesn't mean that all magic
players are like that. Correct me if i'm wrong somewhere, I would really
like to know how you can be the judge on the moral "correctness" of
something you know sooooooooo little about.
ODariani
i agree... you cannot make a judgement on anything in ignorance and expect your
opinion to count. i am sure the same stance could be made towards the bible...
an uninformend person could open it, by chance flip to a page talking about
hell, the devil etc... and denounce the entire book as satanistic. perspective
is everything... and therefore the blind have nothing.
omeed.
M. Keane
In article <65s370$j...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Talcott Starr <tst...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
> In other words all christians are wrong because some have forced their
>belifes on you. How are christians anymore closed minded than people who
>assume they are all alike?
Feel free to point out anywhere in my post where I assumed Christians are
all alike. In fact, I pointed out that one of the problems with
Christianity is that Christians have varying beliefs and interpretations
of the Bible and they all think they are the ones with the correct
interpretation.
Okay, I assumed all Christians think they are right. But, if they didn't,
it wouldn't be much of a religion, would it?
Ragan Buckley
I think you're absolutely right. I have been doing research on the
creationism vs. evolution debate and the case is virtually the same as
it is with Magic. Charges are constantly made and there is nothing to
back them up. For the record, I collect Magic cards and play in casual
games and I am not a Christian, nor do I subscribe to any other
religion, but I do believe that there is a place for religion in some
people's lives, and that, as with evolution and religion, there are
separate spheres for religion and hobbies/pastimes like Magic, and the
two don't have to conflict. If you don't agree with something, don't do
it, but don't try to keep other people from enjoying it. What is most
important is that you are all right with yourself.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
M. Keane wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy:
>In article <65s370$j...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>Talcott Starr <tst...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>> In other words all christians are wrong because some have forced their
>>belifes on you. How are christians anymore closed minded than people who
>>assume they are all alike?
>
>Feel free to point out anywhere in my post where I assumed Christians are
>all alike. In fact, I pointed out that one of the problems with
>Christianity is that Christians have varying beliefs and interpretations
>of the Bible and they all think they are the ones with the correct
>interpretation.
>
>Okay, I assumed all Christians think they are right. But, if they didn't,
>it wouldn't be much of a religion, would it?
Well, there are quite a few religions which maintain that there is
*not* one single set of beliefs which everyone MUST follow.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Kaos Rayn
ODariani <odar...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971130230...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
i wonder what they would say about serra angel, and the like.
ODariani
>i wonder what they would say about serra angel, and the like.
>
>
>
that isn't the point. the idea is that a person that does not take a step back
a view the whole picture is missing most of the idea. it would be akin to
staring at one figure in an escher picture, saying "he's upside down, that's
stupid," and walking off. whereas, to take the whole thing into account, you
would see WHY that man is upside down. it is very easy to misunderstand a
thing if you do not take its whole into account. the kind of person that
denounces magic as satanistic immediately after seeing a demonic tutor would
not CARE if there were angels and devils... they would not care if the game did
not encourage satanism or chrisianity... they simply would not care. this kind
of person is the danger and product of american society, someone who likes to
ring the bell to show that he or she can... not to denounce evil. if magic
were satanic, very few people would play it. if magic were christian, very few
people would play it. the idea of a game is that it is a game. it does not
care what you think or who is right or wrong, it simply exists to give people
pleasure. magic is doing just that... there are those that believe that
worldly pleasure is the too, of the devil. to those people, naturally, magic
is satanistic. and, bear in mind, this isn't a group of wacko facists living
in a self made convent somewhere... many important historical figures have held
this stance. in america, perspective is everything and the person who owns a
mirror is either a sheperd or a witch hunter.
omeed.
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
ODariani (odar...@aol.com) wrote:
: i think this is a very intresting topic... but it doesn't really belong in the
: strategy newsgroup...
: omeed.
At last, *true* words of truth are spoken.
Don't discount this man's words merely because of his AOL affiliation.
Obi Akwani
Let's all keep a few things straight:
1) Some Christians have said MtG is "bad," or something to that effect.
I don't understand the supposed reasoning behind this.
2) Some Christians once said Dungeons and Dragons was "bad," or
something to that effect. I didn't understand the supposed reasoning
behind this either.
3) God, if he exists, gave each and every one of us the right to choose
to play MtG, AD&D, sell our souls to the Devil -- if he exists -- be
sanctimonious dorks, gamble, kill, steal, lie, screw our neighbor's
wife, be honest, not screw or neighbor's wife, etc.
4) I don't think the Pope, or Billy Graham, or whoever it is who needs
to create a common enemy to herd his disintegrating flock back to his
fold (and his chequebook) has the right to take (3) away. There is a
reason these people call their followers "flocks" you know.
This kind of rabble rousing is exactly the same thing the Argentine
Junta did in 1982, when they invased the Falklands to give the general
population something to think about besides the 10,000 people that had
"dissappeared" in that country under the Junta. Give them a common
enemy, a "cause" to rally around and once again they are under your
control. What do you think the crusades or the holocaust was all about.
5) Someone made a statement in this thread about saving someone in a
burning house. Does this mythical person want to be in the burning
house? Probably not, and if they do then they may have started the fire
themeselves and therefor be guilty of endangering others through their
crime -- note that while suicide may be on the books as a crime, it
really isn't considered one anymore. So, yes, should such a situation
arisre and I have the courage I will try to save them. Just to see them
tried for arson, if that be the case.
As far as the impact this has on MtG, or vice versa, when there is
clinical evidence that MtG is "bad" for me, or when it falls out of
popularity and I can no longer find someone to play aganst, or when I
finally become totally disenchanted with WotC and the DCI, then I will
stop playing. It will be my decision, the same kind of decision I make
everytime I roll the dice and opt to "play."
Of course, if the the streetcorner prophets are right Gabriel will blow
his horn long before then and all this will be moot. See you on the
other side -- if there is one.
Alex
Mudslide
Hey Fred, we all know that you just want to test out your reader, but there
is a place called alt.test or something like that, next time try it there.
I'm not mad or anything, but many people don't like coming across something
like this, just so you know for next time.
Quebst
Mudslide wrote:
>
> ODariani wrote in message <19971201082...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> if magic
> >were satanic, very few people would play it. if magic were christian, very
> few
> >people would play it.
>
> the most Christian game out there, until it's makers realized that no one
> was interested, and the game Kult, which I have never played, but judging by
> the name only would likely be at least a little more "satanistic" than
> magic, and that flopped too.
>
> And yes, I know this was a run-on sentance, but i'm not in english right
> now, so why do I care. All I wanted to do was get my point across.
Just a little web page I thought you might like to check out when
someone gets just a little too serious about magic.
http://www.execpc.com/~dlbrown/logos/magicard.html
hehe
ODariani
>At last, *true* words of truth are spoken.
>Don't discount this man's words merely because of his AOL affiliation.
>
>
well, thank you. i don't see any reason to badmouth aol or people who use it.
all i do on the net is read this and try to get writing jobs... aol works out
very well for that. it is simple easy to access and suited to my uses of the
inet.
(shameless ploy)
check out my article on temporal control at www.thedojo.com
omeed.
Onix
-=> Quoting "Mudslide" to All <=-
>were satanic, very few people would play it. if magic were christian, very
few
>people would play it.
It is a typical thung...
This anti-witches movement in the church belongs to middle-ages not?
So why would someone bother nowadays. It may sound farfetched,
but the times of burning herbalists and people with fantastic ideas
are over.
We generally agree it is not a good thing to condamn people because
of their ideas or fantasy's.
The thing is people being raised and educated the way they are have
not the theologic background to give a more philosophical content
to their experiencing. They 'll just rely on archetypes of TV etc.
I don't see why we would discuss religion like a sport overhere.
In fact those people condemning Magic are looking for a thrill
and an enemy. Where we are looking for friends to play with,
at least I am.
Onyx
Unknown
<her...@student.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 1997, Kytep wrote:
>> >The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
>> >things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
>> >never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe in
>> >it.
>I can't touch it, but I sure as hell can see it via telescopes. I've talked to
>astronauts. Why shouldn't I conclude that space is real? I think you should
>take "perception" or "detection" as the broader sense of "sense".
You can see an empty vaccum? Can you also prove a negative? Seems
you don't even understand the science that you champion.
I've seen God make changes in other peoples lives, I've talked to
other Christians. Why shouldn't I conclude that Christianity is real?
I think you should take "perception" or "detection" as the broader
sense of "sense". Heh, sounds pretty good both ways, huh?
>> >Oh, and by the way. The only difference between God/Bigfoot and
>> >Air/Outer Space is popular opinion.
>Bzzzt. Wrong. Bigfoot doesn't try and get his followers to indoctrinate me.
No, that would be the environmentalist with the junk science, the
sensitivity croud with the privaleged groups of people...
Oh, didn't mean those people?
Oh, then perhaps you mean those 1st grade teachers teaching the
"scientific method" to little kids who don't even know what the word
scientific means yet. (Taught by some teachers who don't know what
the word means).
>Science can be used to prove
>> >anything. Facts are twisted to suit theories, instead of the other way
>> >around. I mean, do you really KNOW that air exists? Or if you do, do
>> >you KNOW that it exists in the form and has the properities that are
>> >commonly attributed to it? Science is interpreted, just as religion is.
>That's not science, that's forgery.
Get a grip, there are many things that are consistantly flip flopping
in the realm of "science". Science boils down to the best
explaination of what we beleive to be true based on experiements.
Both the beliefs and the experiments can be flawed.
>> >Rob Glunt
>>
>> Damn straight. "Science" through the ages has told us the Sun revolves around
>> the Earth, then vice-versa. It tells us eggs are bad for us, then "not so
>> bad". Science is continually changing its stances.
>hopefully working towards the <perfect stance>. Religion wants you to think
>that it has the perfect stance all drawn out for you, right now.
That's a generalization and I don't know of many religions that tell
you that you can be perfect right now.
You really don't have a clear understanding of relegion, furthermore
you seem to have a negative outlook on anything associated with it.
It's a shame. Because you do miss out on a lot of the good points
when your busy painting the bad with a broad brush. I can't speak for
other religions, but I know there are many questions that Christanity
DOESN'T have the answer for. In fact, one of the biblical beleifs is
that we won't figure it all out in this life time, but we should keep
on trying. Many Christians read their bible and try to make their
best guess based on what they observe there about the things that
aren't spelled out specifically. Just like scientists don't always
agree on what the results of an experiment mean, many times people
read the Bible and don't agree on the interpretation.
> Yeah, science can help us
>> make things like these neato computers and internet access, but you want a
>> screwy religion based on human interpretation *WITHOUT* all the facts, stick
>> with "Science". Besides, I guarantee belief in Science takes at *least* as
>> much faith in the unknown as does belief in God.
>God/Religion and science both give humans a way to interpret reality, right?
>Try to fit each "filter" to the way you perceive the world. Which one fits the
>easiest? Science; because by it's very nature it does it's best to explain
>the mechanics of reality: It changes as our understanding changes. Religion on
>the other hand doesn't fit so well: we know too much today to be able to
>reconcile the metaphysical easily into our world view.
Dogma, Dogma, Dogma.
So your basic argument boils down to I'm too smart for that...
Based on what? Since when did science have ANYTHING to do with the
"metaphysical"? I know of many well educated scientists who manage to
"fit" the two together, so they are idiots?
>Most of the world's
>religions are old enough to encompass either views, customs, cultures or other
>details that simply have no place in the modern world; they are outmoded.
>Religion is built on pillars of stone; once you knock them out from under it,
>it topples: hence, religion does it's damndest to keep those pillars in place.
You make the assumption that the religious beliefs are based on the
views/customs/cultures where they originated. This may be an
acceptable premise if you make the assumption that the religion was
man made in the first place. But most religions claim to be inspired
from non human sources which is in direct contradiction with your
assumption. You give some nice symbolism, but quite frankly doesn't
have much to do with reality.
>Science on the other hand *wants* it pillars removed if they are not worthy.
>Admittedly, there is always resistance to this, but eventually, even if it
>takes hundreds of years, the more enlightened view wins out.
Science quite often is based on the facts of what you see, and many
times people see/hear exactly what they want to. Do you really care
if science finally figures out the right answer a couple hundered
years after your dead? Does that really sound like a superior
solution to you?
>> Sorry to post this on .mtg.strat, but no one else is reading this thread by now
>> anyway...
>Really? I suppose they won't mind me replying then...
I hope not, or I'll probabbly get some nastygram's for replying :)
>Ok. Let me have a go.
Ahh, the beauty of net group discussions, no one can interrupt you :)
>Science continually changes it's standards because it is continually receiving
>new information about the world and INTEGRATING it into it's world view this
>is entirely at odds with most of the world's major religions (not up on
>buddhism or shinto), which are stuck in a type of stasis (token MTG
>reference) that started the last time someone added something to their canon
>of "background reading material" (bible/Koran/scriptures whatever).
Then perhaps you would like to explain why in earlier parts of history
many of the great scientists were religious people and the church
encouraged scientific exploration? If the two are at such odds, it
doesn't seem like they would have ever worked together.
I am not quick to buy that science is entirely at odds with
Christianity. Most people's knee-jerk reaction is to compare a 7 day
creation with evolution. Of course, beats me why they assume a 24
hour day when the sun/earth weren't even made by the end of "day 1".
(oops, forgot, you don't allow us religious types to use logic, sorry)
Not only is science not at odds with religion, it would be hard put to
do so. There are some very interesting takes on different parts of
the Bible (and I bet other religious documents).
I've even had Christians point to a verse referencing "other sheep you
don't know about" as meaning that there are other forms of intelligent
life on other planets. Personally, I'll leave the debate on alien
existance to science and worry about other matters in religion.
>Science does not say; "this how it is" Science says "This is how it is as far
>as we can tell for the moment". Admittedly this does set in to the more
>concrete "This is how it is and has been for some time so maybe it will be for
>a while longer", but that's nothing to certain religions that jump in at the
>deep end with "This is how it is, has always been and will always be until
>your reality-ending/restarting event of choice."
So? And most religions don't deal with the same areas of explaination
that science does. Science is hard pressed to prove/disprove the
existance of an omnipotent being, especially since it isn't something
that sicence can classify as an observable phenomena. You are dealing
with apples and oranges.
>Science deals in the currency of malleable, adaptable, upgradeable
>proto-truths. It is not vulnerable to the same crushing that one is able to
>apply to a religion started a-way back in the mists of time. ie Showing up
>what it thinks as reasonable and truthful as utter nonsense.
So because it deals with different things, it is superior to things
that don't deal with those same things.
>Science deals with theories, hypotheses, proofs. Not set-in-granite truths.
>As far as faith goes, scientist have faith in proof. Shit you can touch,
>taste, smell, see, hear, or detect with one of a million tools.
So your admitting that science fails for anything you can't
taste/smell/see/hear or detect with one of a million tools?
>Faith in the unknown, the undetectable is a denial of common sense.
>You don't believe for any reason (that you will admit to yourself), except
>that you believe. The true believer does not let logic stand in their way.
The first part is a paper tiger way of phrasing something that I
beleive we could agree on. But logic is not restricted to science,
logic can be applied to many areas including religious beliefs.
>That's why it's impossible for me to win an argument with someone who has
>true unshakeable faith;
Such as a blind devotion to the beleif that science will find the
answers to the areas of truth that relegion deals with?
>because my logical reasoning makes no difference to
>them, and I have no other way of breaking it.
Or perhaps they don't agree with your "logic".
Kinda like you probabbly don't buy any argument that uses the Bible as
support.
>On that note, why am I even bothering writing this?
Trying to convince yourself?
Craig
James Liu
Craig Sivils (csi...@hotmail.com) <c s i v i l s @ h o t m a i l . c o m>
wrote in article <Ent7r...@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>...
> <her...@student.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >I can't touch it, but I sure as hell can see it via telescopes. I've
talked to
> >astronauts. Why shouldn't I conclude that space is real? I think you
should
> >take "perception" or "detection" as the broader sense of "sense".
>
> You can see an empty vaccum? Can you also prove a negative? Seems
> you don't even understand the science that you champion.
You can prove a negative if the negative has a sensical scope. Of course,
this is assuming that the proof required has a sensical scope. Sense is
lost to us if we go beyond a certain point of "absoluteness." For
example,
you can often sensically prove a certain event has not happened at a
certain
point in time and space.
> I've seen God make changes in other peoples lives, I've talked to
> other Christians. Why shouldn't I conclude that Christianity is real?
> I think you should take "perception" or "detection" as the broader
> sense of "sense". Heh, sounds pretty good both ways, huh?
>
> >Bzzzt. Wrong. Bigfoot doesn't try and get his followers to indoctrinate
me.
>
> No, that would be the environmentalist with the junk science, the
> sensitivity croud with the privaleged groups of people...
>
> Oh, didn't mean those people?
>
> Oh, then perhaps you mean those 1st grade teachers teaching the
> "scientific method" to little kids who don't even know what the word
> scientific means yet. (Taught by some teachers who don't know what
> the word means).
Unfortunately, almost all systems of beliefs have their share of nuts.
A science or religion complex enough to be worth the paper it's
printed on requires a lot of effort to understand. The problem is
that people will go around shooting off their mouths half-cocked
(or worse, acting on their beliefs half-cocked).
> >That's not science, that's forgery.
>
> Get a grip, there are many things that are consistantly flip flopping
> in the realm of "science". Science boils down to the best
> explaination of what we beleive to be true based on experiements.
> Both the beliefs and the experiments can be flawed.
>
> >hopefully working towards the <perfect stance>. Religion wants you to
think
> >that it has the perfect stance all drawn out for you, right now.
>
> That's a generalization and I don't know of many religions that tell
> you that you can be perfect right now.
>
> You really don't have a clear understanding of relegion, furthermore
> you seem to have a negative outlook on anything associated with it.
He is, I think, what they on alt.atheism refer to as a "scientific
antitheist"
(very different from an atheist). Ever since the commercialization of
the internet, alt.atheism has been overloaded with them, and is no longer
a viable newsgroup.
> It's a shame. Because you do miss out on a lot of the good points
> when your busy painting the bad with a broad brush. I can't speak for
> other religions, but I know there are many questions that Christanity
> DOESN'T have the answer for. In fact, one of the biblical beleifs is
> that we won't figure it all out in this life time, but we should keep
> on trying. Many Christians read their bible and try to make their
> best guess based on what they observe there about the things that
> aren't spelled out specifically. Just like scientists don't always
> agree on what the results of an experiment mean, many times people
> read the Bible and don't agree on the interpretation.
Christians fight Christians; scientists fight scientists; men fight men.
This is who we are.
> >God/Religion and science both give humans a way to interpret reality,
right?
> >Try to fit each "filter" to the way you perceive the world. Which one
fits the
> >easiest? Science; because by it's very nature it does it's best to
explain
> >the mechanics of reality: It changes as our understanding changes.
Religion on
> >the other hand doesn't fit so well: we know too much today to be able to
> >reconcile the metaphysical easily into our world view.
>
> Dogma, Dogma, Dogma.
> So your basic argument boils down to I'm too smart for that...
>
> Based on what? Since when did science have ANYTHING to do with the
> "metaphysical"? I know of many well educated scientists who manage to
> "fit" the two together, so they are idiots?
To put it plainly, science is grounded in metaphysics. The scientists just
didn't know it until they made up the term "metaphysics" to describe
the little bugs which might exist at the foundation of science.
> So? And most religions don't deal with the same areas of explaination
> that science does. Science is hard pressed to prove/disprove the
> existance of an omnipotent being, especially since it isn't something
> that sicence can classify as an observable phenomena. You are dealing
> with apples and oranges.
Well, in modern logic, the word "omnipotent" is non-sensical, so any
statement with that word in it does not even have the dignity of being
a candidate for proof ('cause the statement is indefinitely predictive).
This is not a blow against omnipotent beings, of course, since most
religious types can become proud of the statement "omnipotence is
non-sense" by rephrasing it to "omnipotence is beyond the scope of
modern logic (or science, or antitheists, or whatever)."
> >Science deals with theories, hypotheses, proofs. Not set-in-granite
truths.
> >As far as faith goes, scientist have faith in proof. Shit you can touch,
> >taste, smell, see, hear, or detect with one of a million tools.
>
> So your admitting that science fails for anything you can't
> taste/smell/see/hear or detect with one of a million tools?
That's exactly what he's saying. The barrier separating science
from religion is the better understanding of the human body,
and therefore of the human need for semiotic effluvia (tm).
It will be a sad day indeed when that line is finally crossed,
that is why we try to retard the efforts of mad men of science
attempting to cross the line, by law, by propaganda in movies
and TV shows (how often do you see people in shows screw
with nature and turn out happier for it?), and by any mean at
our command.
The message is clear: We don't want too much power over
ourselves. It is a blow against our freedom as human beings.
> >Faith in the unknown, the undetectable is a denial of common sense.
> >You don't believe for any reason (that you will admit to yourself),
except
> >that you believe. The true believer does not let logic stand in their
way.
>
> The first part is a paper tiger way of phrasing something that I
> beleive we could agree on. But logic is not restricted to science,
> logic can be applied to many areas including religious beliefs.
That's the beauty of religion. By "logic" one can mean any number
of things, as one can by "day."
> >That's why it's impossible for me to win an argument with someone who
has
> >true unshakeable faith;
>
> Such as a blind devotion to the beleif that science will find the
> answers to the areas of truth that relegion deals with?
Science was not designed as semiotic effluvia (tm), and therefore
would be at an inherent disadvantage to religion in that role, but
some people would no doubt use science in that role.
> >because my logical reasoning makes no difference to
> >them, and I have no other way of breaking it.
>
> Or perhaps they don't agree with your "logic".
>
> Kinda like you probabbly don't buy any argument that uses the Bible as
> support.
Facts are different from truths. Truths are always interpretive and
therefore
subjective. Facts support truths; truths explain facts. The distinction
is
subtle and people usually use the two words interchangeably. Some thing
may happen and be a total lie; another may not happen and be truer than
the facts.
Both science and religion deal with truths; the difference is scale. The
laws
of thermodynamics is rarely of any use to me when I face a question of
morality. And knowing that being drugged and raped by your daughters
to save your ethnic race because your wife is stupid, disobedient, and
turned into a pillar is alright is rarely of any use to me when I face a
question of entropy (how was that for a run-on sentence?).
> >On that note, why am I even bothering writing this?
>
> Trying to convince yourself?
In the end, religion is not about dogma, but about ideological
asthetics and behavioral guidance. And, as Steve would say,
any religion which doesn't make it easier to find nubile virgins
is not worth the four hundred brain cells required to practice
it. Either you use science or religion for your semiotic effluvia
(tm) need, one thing is for sure: You will feel the need to
convince somebody, of something, of anything, because this
is who we are.
> Craig
And, of course, Cursed Scroll is fixed. Thank you, Wylie.
--J
vacant
sorry to be talking about theological matters on the ng, but let's just get
everything all straight and in order....religion is just propaganda that is
used, by people to explain the unknown. It can also be used by
unscrupulous people to pray on others who are afraid of the unknown. It is
just something to hide behind because it easily explains things that people
are afraid of. It is cowardice. Science on the other hand, even though it
has it's faults and sometimes has incorrect assumptions, is used to try and
explain the unknown. For instance...evolution. For many, many years it
was thought by most people that humans were the 1st beings on eatrh (Adam &
Eve) . Then a long came the discovery of dinosaurs. And further down the
road...evolution. Of course the church is going to try to it's fullest to
denounce evolution as incorrect, because it does not fit into the churchs
plan for total and utter dominence over the followers. And why??? Because
it explained something. It took away some of the mist surrounding humans
and life in general. It started to make people question the church. And
that was horrible from the religious leaders because that gave them less
power over the people, and in turn made them less powerful, and power over
people is what they really craved. Power and the ability to twist and warp
people to do their needs.
Now the bible. Ask yourself...do you believe everything you read? Of
course not. You read a book you know not everything is a total fact. How
the FUCK do you know that the bible is real? It's just a book. A very
good book. I in fact have read it myself, and i found it an amazing work
of FICTION.
I'm running out of steam here so I'll just finish off my ramble with a list
of other "achievements" that have resulted from religion -- slavery,
deaths of millions of innocent people (witch hunts, holy wars), death of
millions of Native Americans (was through "god" that explorers and settlers
came to North and Central America, and gave Natives blankets covered in
small-pox virus), bigotry, racism, Nazis, putting down of ideas (Galileo,
Newton, Darwin), taking away of personal freedoms ({sorry all the women who
reads this but it is true} female religious zealots inventing prohibition,
criminalization of natural herbs such as yage and marijuania)....I could go
on forever......PRAISE JESUS FOR CAUSING MORE SUFFERIG THEN ANY OTHER
PERSON DURING THE COURSE OF HISTORY!!!!!!!!
Craig Sivils (csi...@hotmail.com) <c s i v i l s @ h o t m a i l . c o m>
wrote in article <Ent7r...@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>...
>
> >On 15 Nov 1997, Kytep wrote:
>
> >> >The person whom he was replying to stated that he only believed in
> >> >things that he could see/hear/touch. I'm going to assume that he's
> >> >never been to outer space, so by his definition, he couldn't believe
in
> >> >it.
>
> >I can't touch it, but I sure as hell can see it via telescopes. I've
talked to
> >astronauts. Why shouldn't I conclude that space is real? I think you
should
> >take "perception" or "detection" as the broader sense of "sense".
>
> You can see an empty vaccum? Can you also prove a negative? Seems
> you don't even understand the science that you champion.
>
> I've seen God make changes in other peoples lives, I've talked to
> other Christians. Why shouldn't I conclude that Christianity is real?
> I think you should take "perception" or "detection" as the broader
> sense of "sense". Heh, sounds pretty good both ways, huh?
>
<SNIP>
Grifter
vacant wrote:
> For instance...evolution. For many, many years it
> was thought by most people that humans were the 1st beings on eatrh (Adam &
> Eve) . Then a long came the discovery of dinosaurs. And further down the
> road...evolution. Of course the church is going to try to it's fullest to
> denounce evolution as incorrect, because it does not fit into the churchs
> plan for total and utter dominence over the followers.
I think the Pope decided to except evolution... Saw it on TV or read
about it somewhere.
BTW, I'm not a Christian, but I do play Magic.
Orly Bayani Canlas
I'm not the most religous person around, but what kind of crack are you
smoking?
Yes, religious organizations often condemn CCGs, RPGs, and TV as the
"devil's tools", but isn't overgeneralizing religion (and science for
that matter) just as bad?
You start off okay...
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy: 14-Feb-98
Re: 700 Club; Christians an.. "vacant"@hotmail.com (3559)
> sorry to be talking about theological matters on the ng, but let's just get
> everything all straight and in order....religion is just propaganda that is
> used, by people to explain the unknown. It can also be used by
> unscrupulous people to pray on others who are afraid of the unknown. It is
> just something to hide behind because it easily explains things that people
> are afraid of. It is cowardice. Science on the other hand, even though it
> has it's faults and sometimes has incorrect assumptions, is used to try and
> explain the unknown. For instance...evolution. For many, many years it
> was thought by most people that humans were the 1st beings on eatrh (Adam &
> Eve) . Then a long came the discovery of dinosaurs. And further down the
> road...evolution.
Okay, was this before the Bible came out? How about the verses in
Genesis that claim the creation of animals happened before Adam & Eve?
Wouldn't dinosaurs have appeared then?
<snip - Just more about religion trying to control our souls ;-) >
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy: 14-Feb-98
Re: 700 Club; Christians an.. "vacant"@hotmail.com (3559)
> Now the bible. Ask yourself...do you believe everything you read? Of
> course not. You read a book you know not everything is a total fact. How
> the FUCK do you know that the bible is real? It's just a book. A very
> good book. I in fact have read it myself, and i found it an amazing work
> of FICTION.
Well, apparently you missed the first couple of lines because it
mentions the creation of animals before humans. Of course you don't
believe everything you read. We *choose* to believe what we read. How
do you know if everything in the Bible is true? You'll never know for
sure. Why do some people believe in the Bible? Why do people believe
history books or textbooks or newsgroups for that matter? Someone told
them it was right (or wrong).
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy: 14-Feb-98
Re: 700 Club; Christians an.. "vacant"@hotmail.com (3559)
> I'm running out of steam here so I'll just finish off my ramble with a list
> of other "achievements" that have resulted from religion -- slavery,
> deaths of millions of innocent people (witch hunts, holy wars), death of
> millions of Native Americans (was through "god" that explorers and settlers
> came to North and Central America, and gave Natives blankets covered in
> small-pox virus), bigotry, racism, Nazis, putting down of ideas (Galileo,
> Newton, Darwin), taking away of personal freedoms ({sorry all the women who
> reads this but it is true} female religious zealots inventing prohibition,
> criminalization of natural herbs such as yage and marijuania)....I could go
> on forever......PRAISE JESUS FOR CAUSING MORE SUFFERIG THEN ANY OTHER
> PERSON DURING THE COURSE OF HISTORY!!!!!!!!
1) Isn't slavery usually brought on because of economic reasons?
2) Yeah, like settlers planned on bringing disease across. Like the
people of Ukraine wanted Chernobyl to explode. It was an accident. (Of
course, the latter was thanks to science.)
3) Nazis? What are you on? Hitler wanted a scapegoat for Germany's
poor economic conditions. The jewish community was his wealthy target.
4) Yes, religious groups are often slow in accepting new ideas, but who
isn't. Remember the discovery of germs? "Why do I have to wash my
hands before I cut him open?"
5) I agree with you against the stance of most religions, which
discourages such substances. Religions, IMHO, shouldn't act as your
parents. They shouldn't try to protect us from ourselves. If you want
to consume such substances, you should be allowed to. If you want to
commit suicide, you should be allowed to. I mean, you would think
people would already be smart enough to avoid that crap without the
government or religion telling you. (At least they don't have trouble
with guns. Yup, I definitely need to get behind the wheel, high & piss
drunk, with my 12-gauge.)
Well, that's about all. Sorry about posting off topic.
If you want to continue this thread, would you care to move it to its
proper newsgroup?
Okay, you're on hotmail so this could just be a little joke. Ha. Ha. Ha.
OBC
Vulture
Ummm.... Evolution is not accepted by quite a few fundamentalist protestant
churches. But it is accepted by the Pope, which means that most Catholics
agree with it. The 700 Club sucks, BTW
Glenn
ps. I'm not one either
Grifter wrote in message <34E55B...@cgi.ca>...
>vacant wrote:
>> For instance...evolution. For many, many years it
>> was thought by most people that humans were the 1st beings on eatrh (Adam
&
>> Eve) . Then a long came the discovery of dinosaurs. And further down
the
Erik E. Fink
Tell it, brother!
and btw, the Pope hasnt accepted evolution, he said that it might not be
completely without basis.
Erik Fink
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
vacant (vac...@hotmail.com) wrote:
A load of anti-religious crap that, in itself, elevated science to
a religion of it's own and completely misinterpreted the point of the
Jesus-incident; even if one believes Jesus was a fictional creation, this
was sheer idiocy.
That was definately *not* worth posting here.
--
My illusions are shattered,
That I might build a new one from their pieces.
Fejmorgan
Please, don't ascribe faults to Jesus that belong to human beings.
All of those problems that you say are caused by religion can be just as
readily ascribed to other factors. And science is not really any better.
There are plenty of things (atom bombs, chemical warfare agents, and other
instunments of war being a glaring example) that have caused just as much
destruction. Yes, guns don't kill people, people do, and all those things were
used by people. That is my point. People may use religion as an excuse, but
science has been used also (Hitler and his "genetically pure" race).
We as a species need to take responsibility for our actions and not use other
"higher" reasons to explain our actions. God or science are poor scapegoats to
use for peoples personal goals and the means they use to make them reality.
Magic :TG is just a thing. Unless it is given power over you, by you, it is
just an expensive pile of cardboard.
Phillip Mackenzie
In article <6c5jch$a...@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Erik E. Fink"
<ef...@primenet.com> wrote:
Depends on whether you are talking macro(from one species into a
completely new and different species) or micro(changes within a species)
evolution. IMHO Christians can happily accept micro eveolution, but macro
is a real tough one to swallow.
BTW I seem to be reading a lot of anti religion posts on this ng lately.
Something along the lines of 'it's propaganda' etc...and brainwashing. Its
amazing that Christians are so inflexible that they just won't listen to
any arguement with an open mind...sort of like those die hard science
advocates ;)
On a similar subject, science has its roots firmly in the judaic religions
of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Their whole philosophy states that
God created the Earth and all that is in it and the humanity are its
stewards. It befalls on them to understand the world and universe to
better know God and His creation. If it wasn't for religion Science would
barely be off the ground, IMHO.
Broccoli!
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Phillip Mackenzie wrote:
-(Depends on whether you are talking macro(from one species into a
-(completely new and different species) or micro(changes within a species)
-(evolution. IMHO Christians can happily accept micro eveolution, but macro
-(is a real tough one to swallow.
-(
-(BTW I seem to be reading a lot of anti religion posts on this ng lately.
-(Something along the lines of 'it's propaganda' etc...and brainwashing. Its
-(amazing that Christians are so inflexible that they just won't listen to
-(any arguement with an open mind...sort of like those die hard science
-(advocates ;)
-(
-(On a similar subject, science has its roots firmly in the judaic religions
-(of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Their whole philosophy states that
-(God created the Earth and all that is in it and the humanity are its
-(stewards. It befalls on them to understand the world and universe to
-(better know God and His creation. If it wasn't for religion Science would
-(barely be off the ground, IMHO.
Yeah and then you play a black vice and then the pope is screwed.
He would be taking 3 points a turn unless he can dump cards. Guys, no
matter how much I love a religious talk, I am not quite sure how much it
belongs on this NG.
Marcellus Teisler Broccoli! Fauci
oh yeah
Kris
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote :
>A load of anti-religious crap that, in itself, elevated science to
>a religion of it's own and completely misinterpreted the point of the
>Jesus-incident; even if one believes Jesus was a fictional creation, this
>was sheer idiocy.
>
>That was definately *not* worth posting here.
>
Ok right, so let's get back to Magic and theme decks : how about a christian
deck ?
There are a lot of cards out there : remedy, Serra inquisitors, inquisition,
shephard of souls, missionary, black vise, brainwashing, preacher, exorcist,
holy of the holy etc...
any idea ?
note : the deck is a *christian* deck, not a *christian myth* deck, so no
angels, etc...
/< r i s
M. Keane
In article <pmackenzie-16...@203.1.252.153>,
Phillip Mackenzie <pmack...@nexus.edu.au> wrote:
>Depends on whether you are talking macro(from one species into a
Of course, there is no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution, at
least not the way you're using them. The t.o FAQ archive has plenty of
instances of speciation.
Before anyone makes an idiot of themselves, please check out the
talk.origins FAQ archive...
http://www.talkorigins.org
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane, Political Science, University of Washington
Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis, University of Ediacara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve!
M. Keane
In article <6c982d$igc$1...@courrier.nctech.fr>,
Kris <kr...@wyrm.supernews.com> wrote:
>Ok right, so let's get back to Magic and theme decks : how about a christian
>deck ?
>There are a lot of cards out there : remedy, Serra inquisitors, inquisition,
>shephard of souls, missionary, black vise, brainwashing, preacher, exorcist,
>holy of the holy etc...
>any idea ?
>note : the deck is a *christian* deck, not a *christian myth* deck, so no
>angels, etc...
Don't forget Angry Mob and Witch Hunter.
David Costley
Broccoli! wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Phillip Mackenzie wrote:
>
> -(Depends on whether you are talking macro(from one species into a
> -(completely new and different species) or micro(changes within a species)
> -(evolution. IMHO Christians can happily accept micro eveolution, but macro
> -(is a real tough one to swallow.
> -(
> -(BTW I seem to be reading a lot of anti religion posts on this ng lately.
> -(Something along the lines of 'it's propaganda' etc...and brainwashing. Its
> -(amazing that Christians are so inflexible that they just won't listen to
> -(any arguement with an open mind...sort of like those die hard science
> -(advocates ;)
> -(
> -(On a similar subject, science has its roots firmly in the judaic religions
> -(of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Their whole philosophy states that
> -(God created the Earth and all that is in it and the humanity are its
> -(stewards. It befalls on them to understand the world and universe to
> -(better know God and His creation. If it wasn't for religion Science would
> -(barely be off the ground, IMHO.
>
> Yeah and then you play a black vice and then the pope is screwed.
> He would be taking 3 points a turn unless he can dump cards.
But being the Pope he would be playing some white and be able to disenchant
your vise :>
Graham Downs
Vulture <con...@valentine-ne.com> wrote in article <34e63...@news.nque.com>...
| Ummm.... Evolution is not accepted by quite a few fundamentalist protestant
| churches. But it is accepted by the Pope, which means that most Catholics
| agree with it. The 700 Club sucks, BTW
The only problem I, as a Christian, have with it (Even though the Bible <John, I think?> says that God's day lasts a thousand years), is that Adam was created from dust, not monkeys. :-(
Cheers
Nocturne
vacant
blahblahblahblahblah.....
i was in a pissed off mood cause a group of fucking bible thumpers forced
me to losee about 500 bucks when they shut down a concert i had organized
to get money for a pro-choice orginization and there just happened to be a
post bout religion on the ng so i had to make myself feel better...and i
don't believe that i elevated science to a religion i pointed out why
science isn't a religion......and by the way i apoligized at the start of
my post that this was totally off topic so that was definately *not* worth
bitching about
have a happy happy day.....
vacant
ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in article
<6c6n13$ipo$2...@news.sas.ab.ca>...
> vacant (vac...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> A load of anti-religious crap that, in itself, elevated science to
> a religion of it's own and completely misinterpreted the point of the
> Jesus-incident; even if one believes Jesus was a fictional creation, this
> was sheer idiocy.
>
> That was definately *not* worth posting here.
>
Unknown
"Graham Downs" <_noct...@geocities.com> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>------=_NextPart_000_01BD3D44.E9F59C20
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The same verse also said a thousand days with God (thought it was
10,000) lasts a single day with man....
And the bible didn't say if there was any intermediate steps between
the dust and Adam.
You can go round in circles on this one.
Craig