How do Christians play Pathfinder without compromising their faith?

Please be careful in how you discuss other people's religions. Contempt and scare quotes aren't really civil whether you're discussing Christianity, Wicca, or any other religion. You're free to disagree, but please do so respectfully.

Please point out where I have said anything untruthful. Is pointing out reality inherently disrespectful, just because some people don't like that reality pointed out (because it might question their strongly held beliefs)?

In any other scenario or any other topic that's a given, but somehow religion/supernatural beliefs don't have to bear the burden of proof and gets a free pass.

If someone says that they worry about witches, demons, devils and magic in RPGs, is it wrong and disrespectful to ask them to explain why such things worry them, since they are not real (neither in RPGs nor in real life)?

You might believe ever so strongly in the "magick" you "perform," doesn't make it any more real than devils, demons, leprechauns, satyrs or unicorns. Not a single one of you can cast an actual "spell" or brew a "magic" potion.

And a quotation from a play is proof that devils and demons exist in what way exactly?

Anyone thinking they possess such powers are welcome to prove themselves (and may become quite rich in the process*).

* Likelihood is slim to none, based on former challengers

I do believe quite strongly in it, and fortunately, it's success is predicated on my belief in my own power, not yours. I am well aware of Mr. Randi's challenge (as I am also aware that it has gone unanswered). The very nature of our magick is that of subtlety. Certainly, I can no more conjure a ball of flame or make something from nothing than anyone else. Rather, we influence the order of things to nudge events the way we wish them to go. You, and Mr. Randi and so many others would see these things as coincidences. Further, I have no need to offer proof of what I already know to be true. That you or anyone else believe it to be bunk or hokum is irrelevant to me.

The quotation from Shakespeare was not submitted as proof. I simply found it fitting.

As for demons and devils, these things also exist. They aren't as depicted in the game books, of course. That would be silly. Make no mistake of it, though; there are forces out there beyond human comprehension. Fortunately, we are largely beneath their notice.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Everyone must find their own path to walk. The only Universal Truth is that there is no Universal Truth.

I don't really have a problem with Wiccans. I, personally, find it (Wicca) just as silly as other religions, yet also just as harmless as most other beliefs. Wiccans are also usually quite embrasive of others who might not fall into the "normal" spectrum in society (a spectrum gamers haven't been a part of for the most part).
They also don't seem to have any problems with RPGs and other make believe games.
Just as some other "movements" in society have suffered from blatantly untrue stigma from some religious institutions and people (civil rights, gay rights etc.), gaming has gotten a bad rep because of things that just aren't present in them (nor could they ever be, as those things aren't present anywhere).
So the biggest beef I have with religion in this particular instance is when it fuels untruths about one of my favourite pastimes.

This can even spill over into other parts of people's lives. Like family members causing tension because of said beliefs about people playing the game or friends acting differently over a newfound harmless hobby.

However, since the Bible teaches that God is eternal and sovereign, and that life here is a blip on the radar, the need for God to provide justice in a world full of sin, sickness and death mandates God take a pretty hard line. Note that to God, we are created, and we exist eternally after that. Note also that the Flood wiped out a straight up abominable population of people who were very busy raping and killing one another.

The babies, too, I imagine? They were all up in that raping and killing? Not to mention, of course, the ones being raped.

Or is it possible that the notion that the entirety of humanity was actually evil is essentially bogus; it just made for a nice story, and a stark lesson of what God's wrath was like in the Old Testament, when the primary concern was to avoid ticking Him off?

if you don't believe in a God or a historic flood or in the problem of sin leading to death in the world, you aren't going to place the Flood in context.

I can place the allegory of the flood in a historical context just fine. Unfortunately, as an allegorical tale, that's the only context it merits.

The idea that one has to believe in it to understand why it was stuck in the Bible is ludicrous.

You're going to judge God as an equal on your own terms and that means you can ascribe all manner of evils to him. But if he is sovereign, if he created us and has the power to make, redeem, destroy, etc, then you have a different context for what is right and what is wrong. You might say "no, Steve. Killing people is always wrong. What's the matter with you?" But then you're doing it again - God created us to be moral, perfect people who choose to worship him. By sin death enters the world. To show the world that he is a)sovereign, and b) the problem can't just be blamed on Adam or some malcontents who taught us poorly, he resets creation.

Perhaps this is what separates you and I: my sense of what is just is independent of my sense of religious faith. If my faith conflicts with my sense of what is just my faith loses, and I rework my faith to fit my sense of what is just. The alternative is that one's faith controls one's sense of justice, which is a recipe for total disaster (and is the primary reason religious conflict exists in the first place).

I am wary of those whose sense of justice is based on their religious faith, because I have yet to encounter a widely-practiced religious faith that does not prescribe a sense of justice that is flawed in a number of crucial ways.

Those he saved after they died in the flood are save eternally...their life here was over but their life elsewhere continues.

So, "It's okay, they're in heaven now!" is a reasonable justification for killing someone?

There is a remarkable difference between what you might see as arbitrary murder, and what the creator of the universe sees as a step in a long plan to save us from something we're already screwed for.

I'm pretty sure that the unilateral murder of the entirety of humanity save for a single family is very nearly the definition of arbitrary.

I'd ask you to try to understand that the existence of an almighty God requires a change in your perceptions about what he can and can't morally do.

He can do whatever he damn well pleases, but my perception of morality stays my own.

If you were to claim that Steve cannot justly start the world over by Flood, you'd be absolutely accurate. Nor even fantastic, holy people. But a sinless God has a different perspective. The world's people rejected their creator and already chose death.

All of them! Including the young children! And the mentally infirm! And consciously, too! God came down, looked each of them in the eye, and said, "So, death or life?" and they all - to a man! - replied, "Why, death, of course!"

I admit the Flood is a pretty sensitive example, but I am convinced the context of believing in God reasonably changes how we respond to him.

Nah. It's an allegorical tale in an old book slapped together by a bunch of people who couldn't conceive that their world stretched past the horizon, and figured that a story about God killing off everyone except the one less-than-monstrously-evil dude on the planet plus his family.

It demonstrably did not actually take place, at all, ever.

The very nature of our magick is that of subtlety.

You don't find that notion curiously convenient, for the purposes of plausible deniability in the face of those asking you to substantiate your claims?

I mean, it's one thing to claim that there is an all-powerful being out there who does magical things we can't see. It's another thing entirely to claim that you have the power to do magical things, but that you can't prove it because the things you do can't possibly be detected.

Jessica Price wrote:

Please be careful in how you discuss other people's religions. Contempt and scare quotes aren't really civil whether you're discussing Christianity, Wicca, or any other religion. You're free to disagree, but please do so respectfully.

Please point out where I have said anything untruthful. Is pointing out reality inherently disrespectful, just because some people don't like that reality pointed out (because it might question their strongly held beliefs)?

In that case nothing anyone believes in can be questioned, as it might be seen as disrespectful to point out the obvious.

I wasn't objecting to the questions, I was objecting to the tone. We're pretty lenient about what opinions we allow people to express here, but that doesn't mean that we consider all manners of expressing them acceptable behavior.

And I'm warning you, unofficially, that the tone in which you're asking your questions and expressing your disagreement is approaching the sort of posts we moderate.

Please keep it respectful.

I wasn't objecting to the questions, I was objecting to the tone. We're pretty lenient about what opinions we allow people to express here, but that doesn't mean that we consider all manners of expressing them acceptable behavior.

And I'm warning you, unofficially, that the tone in which you're asking your questions and expressing your disagreement is approaching the sort of posts we moderate.

Please keep it respectful.

I apologize for my tone of "voice" then. I was trying for a slightly "neutral/pointing out the obvious/factual" style, which seems to have failed on my part.

But a significant portion of them were practitioners of religions modern-day Wiccans and other neopagans believe they are continuing.

My understanding is that there are no early modern sources that seriously suggest that the victims of the early modern witch hunts were anything other than Christians. The idea that "modern-day Wiccans [...] are continuing" some sort of ancient religion is about as accurate as the styrofoam lorica segmenta used in a major Hollywood production set in Rome.

Modern neopaganism has its roots in the 19th century spiritualist movement and took off in the 1950s. Anything dated before 1880 can be discarded as fiction.

I thought the Celts were supposedly Wiccan?
Not literally, but very similar beliefs?

Beats me, but here's what wikipedia says:

"Wicca (English pronunciation: /ˈwɪkə/) is a modern pagan, witchcraft religion. It was developed in England during the first half of the 20th century and it was introduced to the public in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant. It draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice."

And, later in the same article:

"In the 1920s and 30s, the Egyptologist Dr. Margaret Murray published several books detailing her theories that those persecuted as witches during the early modern period in Europe were not, as the persecutors had claimed, followers of Satanism, but adherents of a surviving pre-Christian pagan religion - the Witch-Cult. These hypotheses, which were argued over by academics for decades, have since been widely rejected.[88]"

Wicca

I thought the Celts were supposedly Wiccan?

Not literally, but very similar beliefs?

No one knows, but the odds of this are slim to impossible. The source material we have on Celtic beliefs is basically second-hand reports from Caesar and third-hand reports from Tacitus (who never set foot in Celtic territory in his life). The Celtic territories were among the earliest targets for missionaries and were thoroughly Christianized by about the 5th or 6th centuries.

Modern "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" dates back to the 1980s.

So basically, the best the CRP was able to do was rely on "folk tradition" as filtered through literally 1500 years of Christian syncretism.

With regard to "tone" (as brought up by Ms. Price):

There is a WORLD of difference between saying "I have trouble believing X" and "No reasonable person could believe X." The first one invites discussion, but the second one turns a discussion into an argument.

(And if anyone feels the need to debate the distinction between a discussion and an argument, I'll throw this out there: A discussion recognizes the possibility that when both parties quit speaking, they will understand each other better but neither one will have changed opinion. An argument presumes that when one party quits speaking, the other has "won"; therefore, there is a sense of obligation to continue the argument even when it's clear neither party will change opinion. This effect is amplified when people feel they're playing to a public audience.)

|

With regard to the ethical dilemmas created by the Biblical account of the Flood:

This debate is over a thousand years old. There have been smart, reasonable people who were able to reconcile it with their faith as a literal event, and there have been smart, reasonable people who felt more comfortable treating it as allegory. (Or, in more recent years, as fiction.) Neither side of the topic has a monopoly on rational thinking.

Mr. Helt's explanation is reasonable if you agree to a lengthy set of premises (about God being the creator, mortal life being but a fragment of a person's existence, and most importantly, God being allowed to do certain actions because of His wisdom/position/whatever that are explicitly forbidden to humans). I don't have quite the same opinions, but that's largely irrelevant -- I understand where he's coming from.

Mr. Betts' counter-argument boils down to "I disagree with your premises, and I find them ludicrous." Nothing wrong with the first half of that statement, but all of the emotional energy (and most of the word count) went into the second half. That's where it turned into a (very distasteful) argument.

I am a big fan of d&d and pathfinder but some in my church find that RPGs are dangerous. How do other Christians respond to this or are these two issues non compatible? I would love to hear the community's thoughts on the matter!

Also happy thanksgiving to the USA !

Thanks
Nick

Very simple....Its a game.

I don't sweat it just like I don't sweat the rampant greed in Monopoly.

Or the murder apparent in Clue.

A game is not a reflection on my belief system or my morality.

I didn't mean for this conversation to be this detailed, but I want to humbly address some of the things Scott said in response to me.

I believe the bible's claims about creation, about God's character and about his plan to save me from my own sin. I used to not believe those things for most of the reasons other people don't. Then I realized my skepticism was as much a religious belief as anything else. No one ever talked about creation or one of those troubling Bible stories and suddenly saw the light. But I can tell you studying the whole text of scripture (and by that I mean humbly exploring a fraction of the truth that others have), that God's story checks out, even among cynics, when you approach it with humility instead of with hostility. I have done both in my life, and I believe.

On a gaming note: I am almost done with the Superstar adventure. Going back to work!

I believe the bible's claims about creation, about God's character and about his plan to save me from my own sin. I used to not believe those things for most of the reasons other people don't. Then I realized my skepticism was as much a religious belief as anything else. No one ever talked about creation or one of those troubling Bible stories and suddenly saw the light. But I can tell you studying the whole text of scripture (and by that I mean humbly exploring a fraction of the truth that others have), that God's story checks out, even among cynics, when you approach it with humility instead of with hostility. I have done both in my life, and I believe.

I always find it interesting, that when people say they used skepticism and reason to return to religion, the vast majority of the time they ended up choosing the religion of their parents.

It makes me dubious of the claim. If skepticism and reason were actually involved, I'd think there would be a more even distribution between the major religions. Or really, any notable distribution at all.

And if you think the purpose of the Bible is to illustrate how big and spooky and mean God is, I submit you are guilty of confirmation bias...

...But I can tell you studying the whole text of scripture (and by that I mean humbly exploring a fraction of the truth that others have), that God's story checks out, even among cynics, when you approach it with humility instead of with hostility.

Wouldn't that make you guilty of the exact same thing you're deriding Scott for?

...But I can tell you studying the whole text of scripture (and by that I mean humbly exploring a fraction of the truth that others have), that God's story checks out, even among cynics, when you approach it with humility instead of with hostility.

This also reads like the tired old "Why do atheists hate God?" trope. Something which has been debunked and explained so many times that if someone still thinks that's the truth they simply haven't done any research into it at all.

We demanded a flawed world from God, and we have it.

Once again one of those meetings I didn't attend. Someone really needs to work on their scheduling skills.

Sometimes that religion has been atheism.

And you just had to include one of the biggest fallacies, didn't you? If you want people to take you seriously, at least have the decency to not throw around such bad "arguments" and postulations. If you truly believe that atheism is a religion, then not only do you not know (or accept) the literal meaning of the word, you're also showing that you don't want to debate on reasonable terms.

I'm curious, where in my post did I imply I'd play 20 questions, or grill someone?

In fact, I think you'll find a very direct and concise response to your post if you reread the first sentence again. Reread it, tell me what you think, it was entirely intended to apply to the context of the post I quoted.

I think we're talking around each other. I didn't say YOU were doing the 20 questions thing. Malachi was apparently joking about doing it.

Malachi, sorry if I misconstrued your post. Chalk it up to the Internet.

I always find it interesting, that when people say they used skepticism and reason to return to religion, the vast majority of the time they ended up choosing the religion of their parents.

There are several reasons for this. I admit that I simply discount that particular claim on sight. At least half the time, it's simply a lie. Part of it is that the "leaving-and-returning-to-God" is part of the cultural heritage associated with Christianity (see the parable of the Prodigal Son for an example, or Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey for a more universally informed perspective). It's also flat-out listed in several "guides to discussing religion with the heathen" as a convenient lie to tell to make the Gospel more plausible. (Again, it's straight out of any salesman's handbook; try to make the customer feel that you empathize with them.) So while I'm not claiming that Mr. Helt is lying about his experiences with skepticism, I will also state that I give it exactly no credence whatsoever.

But there's also a more subtle reason for people returning to the faith of their parents; it's the one that they're more familiar with the claims of, including being more familiar with the various arguments about it. Just as every atheist here is familiar with the "I realized that atheism is a religion" argument (fallacy), so is every Christian here familiar with the "if God is omnipotent, why is there still evil?" argument -- and both groups are equally familiar with the responses.

So if you decided, for whatever reason, that atheism is not emotionally satisfying, you've got a head start on returning to Christianity over what you would have in converting to Jainism. (Assuming a normal Western Christian upbringing; obviously if you were raised Jainist, you're more familiar with those arguments....)

But I will point out to Helt that his narrative seems to be taken straight out of the Sunday School apologetics tracts and, as far as I can tell, bears not a single sign of actual personal experience or credibility.

First, the Bible isn't an old book slapped together. It's a divinely inspired message about God's plan to bring us back home. Several things prove its divine inspiration, but that's a different topic. But it is the most reliable historical document we have, it has won out against secular criticism over and over again, and we have tangible, provable evidence it has been translated correctly over the centuries.

I'd also like to point out that literally NONE of those claims are true. Even Biblical scholars accept that. Genesis, for example, is well-understood to be a mish-mash of at least three different texts (the so-called J, P, and E texts). Absolutely nothing proves the divine inspiration of the Bible, nor can it, because the existence of the Divine is well recognized to be unprovable. The historical accuracy of the Bible is appalling. As an example, looking only at 1 Chronicles alone, David's army had 1,100,000 men from Israel and 470,000 men from Judah, Of course, this numbers is ridiculously high for a battle between two tribal armies in 1000 BCE. (The United States had about 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.) David provides Solomon with a fantastically large amount of gold and silver with which to build the temple: 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver. Since a talent was about 60 pounds, this would be about 3,000 tons of gold and 30,000 tons of silver. King David collects ten thousand drams (or darics) for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is especially interesting since darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived some five hundred years after David (according to the traditional biblical chronology).

In the book of Daniel, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg 25:27 and Jer 52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar.

But more damning is the problem of King David himself. Outside of the Bible, there is literally no evidence that he ever existed. (There is one known stone marked with the phrase "Beit David," or "House of David," but this simply indicates that someone important had the name David at some point, not that he was a King or even when he lived. I have better evidence for than that for someone named King Blues based on a flyer for the House of Blues in Orlando, Florida. Or for that matter, for a King named Elvis living in Memphis; at least that identifies the King by title instead of just as a dynastic head.)

And, finally, the traditional translation, especially the KJV, is well-understood to be terrible. Beyond that, the differences in the Synoptic Gospels demonstrates the translation problems rather conclusively. It's exactly the sort of gibberish we'd expect if we were looking at a mixed-up chronicle based on badly understood oral traditions. Similarly, is the Number of the Beast 666 or 616? (We've got manuscripts from the second or third centuries attesting to both.)

So, basically, no. None of the statements you make in the paragraph above are actually true. This, in turn, reflects really badly on the idea that you were at any point serious about applying skepticism and critical thought to the Bible. Every serious Biblical scholar is well aware of the issues above and in fact, most of them were discovered by Biblical scholars.

ETA: Oh, yes, some more classic examples. In the Book of Luke, the famous tax/census that required Joseph to return from Nazareth to Bethlehem? Never happened. In the Book of Matthew, The "murder of the innocents"? Never mentioned by any other Roman historian. Cyrenius, Governor of Syria (who supposedly ordered the tax, before Jesus was born) started to rule nine years after Herod (who ordered the massacre after learning of His birth) died.

By Forum RAW I feel like this thread should be locked or moved to Off-Topic since the discussion now has nothing to do with the OP's original question (and everything to do with belief criticism on both sides).

Gotta say though, it can be entertaining to read the posts of people who seem to believe they can settle an argument that has no one else has in the history of civilization.

I like reading well-informed posts of people who have actually given a fair amount of thought to the subject, and have a reasonable opinion.

So if you decided, for whatever reason, that atheism is not emotionally satisfying, you've got a head start on returning to Christianity over what you would have in converting to Jainism. (Assuming a normal Western Christian upbringing; obviously if you were raised Jainist, you're more familiar with those arguments....)

I always liked the scene in Hannah and Her Sisters when Woody Allen find atheism not emotionally satisfying and decides to convert to Catholicism.

Let's see if I can find it on youtube...

Link

My fave part starts at 1:37.

By Forum RAW I feel like this thread should be locked or moved to Off-Topic since the discussion now has nothing to do with the OP's original question (and everything to do with belief criticism on both sides).

Gotta say though, it can be entertaining to read the posts of people who seem to believe they can settle an argument that has no one else has in the history of civilization.

Agreed, it pretty much went sour a few pages back, and is completely off topic and unhelpful, if not bordering on bashing at this point.

WhtKnt wrote:

The very nature of our magick is that of subtlety.

You don't find that notion curiously convenient, for the purposes of plausible deniability in the face of those asking you to substantiate your claims?

I mean, it's one thing to claim that there is an all-powerful being out there who does magical things we can't see. It's another thing entirely to claim that you have the power to do magical things, but that you can't prove it because the things you do can't possibly be detected.

They can be detected. I said that onlookers would likely be dismiss them as mere coincidences. To answer your question, however:

No, I find the need to offer positive proof meaningless. I already know that my magick works. I don't need to prove anything to anyone.

I am not trying to convert people to my belief. In fact, if you don't come to this path of your own free will, then anything I offer will be meaningless (much like any religion, actually). I don't need to prove anything. ::shrugs:: You either accept my view, or you don't. No skin off my nose.

Agreed, it pretty much went sour a few pages back, and is completely off topic and unhelpful, if not bordering on bashing at this point.

Why do you feel like it's bashing? Is asking questions and looking for verification about claims made by some really bashing? Would you feel the same way if the claims were of another nature? Like political claims? Or when testifying in court?

I thought the Celts were supposedly Wiccan?

Not literally, but very similar beliefs?

Uhm... no.

The Celts, as far as we know, practiced Druidism, about which we know relatively little. According to Roman sources (a reminder here that history is colored by the victor), the Druids practiced extensive human and animal sacrifice. This is something that most modern Wiccans would find abhorrent.

It is true that many of the ideals of modern Wicca are drawn from older, earth-based religions, but the practice itself is quite new.

I don't think the assertion that humanity is evil is bogus at all. Have you looked around? We are pretty screwed up. Even the "civilized" among us end up hating each other in self-important, tribalist fury. We change the window of acceptable morality to appease our own sense of enlightenment, but that doesn't change that we are immoral, self-righteous, misguided people as a whole.

No, we're not. Plenty of people follow a relatively reliable set of moral guidelines, and do not commit violent offenses even when they're certain they won't be punished. In fact, those who self-describe as atheist or agnostic tend to be pretty morally upright (this is firmly established by study).

The assertion that the entirety of humanity - every single person - is evil and deserving of death is fundamentally bogus. I know that's what a lot of Christian faiths are predicated on (and, frankly, that's what's wrong with a lot of them) but that doesn't make it true.

And if you think the purpose of the Bible is to illustrate how big and spooky and mean God is,

Not the whole thing. Just big chunks of the Old Testament. There's a reason God appears to go through the equivalent of a mid-life crisis before the New Testament takes over.

I submit you are guilty of confirmation bias. If you want to challenge the beliefs of millions of peaceful, charitable people, you're not going to let context and full illumination of our holy text and traditions get in the way.

Millions of peaceful, charitable people who are only peaceful or charitable because they are Christians, right? Because, otherwise, they'd be fundamentally evil like everyone else, right?

Come on.

But I humbly submit you approach the topic charitably, and ask believers how this or that episode of scripture is acceptable to them, instead of applying a humanistic point of view to a supernatural event you don't believe in.

Why should it matter to me what thin rationalization you use to justify your beliefs?

With respect, sir, that isn't true just because a person says it is. The belief that God is cosmic and alien and knows what we do not has a dramatic impact on my belief in his righteousness. If I thought I could do better, I'd judge him by my standards (and boy would that suck). But you and I are not God. We don't sit in judgement of the world, our creation. It's a full-time job just sitting in judgment of myself. Even then, I'm not qualified because I rationalize things, or I might be wrong or I might confuse practicality with principle. We demanded a flawed world from God, and we have it. And he hates that, but loves us. So me demanding an explanation on my terms, of a God who is just trying to work history back to the perfection of creation, is as arrogant as it is futile.

The entirety of the Bible - indeed, the entirety of religion - is people trying to understand God. They're totally cool with trying to understand God, right up until the point that you spot something in their "understanding" that doesn't make sense. As soon as you point that out, they come back with, "God cannot be understood!"

I'd find that argument much more compelling if any Christian actually believed it.

Sometimes that religion has been atheism.

Atheism is not a religion, in much the same way that an empty fruit bowl is not a pineapple.

Sometimes we lie and say we are pursuing justice for this or that person, but we are really lining our pockets with donations and begging for votes on the basis that the other guy is evil. But trust us. Everything sucks, but re-elect us. The other guy is the liar. Trust me.

This does nothing to address my point: every religion prescribes tenets of human justice, and every religion justifies that sense of justice by calling it God's will. And not a one of the widely-practiced religious faiths manages to be anything short of barbaric in that respect.

You won't like this, but I don't want to misrepresent scripture. I didn't say they all went to heaven.

My bad. I'll rephrase.

So, "It's okay, they're either in heaven or hell now!" is a reasonable justification for killing someone?

Not at all. It's arbitrary if there's no reason for it. But there is. Those people were already dead in God's sight.

I'm sure they were alive in their own, however.

But, either way, God killed them all. He sent them to heaven, or to hell, or wherever. Or maybe nowhere. Who knows!

But he didn't have to. He didn't have to flood the world to reset it. He could have just left them all alone and made a brand new world elsewhere, without the nasty business of mass murder.

I wonder why he didn't? Given that he had a choice between killing everyone to free up some room on the planet, or just creating a new planet instead, God sure appears to enjoy murdering people. You're cool with that, I guess.

The second reason God destroyed humanity by flood, and spared the only righteous family he could find, was to point out that the disease is in our nature. No one can say "well...this is what I was taught" or "everyone else is doing it" or "well..that is just the culture I grew up in".

To point out to whom? The one family that survived? That's convenient, don't you think? I mean, if literally everyone on the planet died except for one dude and his family, who could blame him for calling himself righteous and convincing his family that his righteousness is the only reason they're alive?

Of course, the best part of all of this is that the flood literally never happened.

Within a few generations of the flood, wherein one faithful family survived ONLY by the provision of a visible active God, humanity was back to building a temple to itself, to point out that God (who brought a flood to the whole world when grandma was young) was no big deal. Sin is our fault and our problem. Our blood isn't on God's hands. But our salvation is in his hands.

Again, creating a bunch of people and then murdering them because some of them decide not to grovel at your feet is pretty sociopathic. It paints a picture of a terrible, petty, wrathful God. Which, of course, was the point. Early religions incorporated fear pretty heavily.

And thus, humanity's problem. Goid creates us and gives us the whole world to rule and explore. And we respond by declaring our independence and judging him.

And for daring to declare our independence, we deserve death!

Or something.

What a cool guy your God is.

This is an example of "confirmation bias", above. You are dishing out judgment on God as unworthy right now.

Not on God. Just on your God. Your God would be a pretty poor excuse for a human, much less an all-knowing, all-loving omnipotent deity.

I get it's because you don't think he exists.

I'm Catholic. So sure, I think he exists. I don't think your God exists. I don't worship your God. What I want to know is: why do you? Holding that up as your ideal makes me wonder what you're willing to accept in yourself.

Much of this statement is not at all true. First, the Bible isn't an old book slapped together. It's a divinely inspired message about God's plan to bring us back home.

Or an old book that was slapped together over successive generations. I can prove that it's an old book slapped together over successive generations, because that's literally what it is. You're free to prove to me that it's the divine, literal word of God.

Several things prove its divine inspiration, but that's a different topic.

No, it isn't. But it's perfectly understandable that you'd want to stay as far away from that can of worms as you can.

But it is the most reliable historical document we have,

I could write, "In the year 2013, at least one person sneezed," on a post-it note and that would constitute a more reliable historical document than the Bible.

it has won out against secular criticism over and over again,

Won what, exactly? Indeed, every time the Bible goes head-to-head with secular knowledge, Christianity appears to hemorrhage the faithful like a fresh wound. You'd think that the Bible would have something to show for it if it kept winning all the time.

and we have tangible, provable evidence it has been translated correctly over the centuries. I realize you choose not to believe those claims, but so you know, they are absolutely true.

You really need to focus. You can't tell us that the Bible has been translated accurately for thousands of years. We already know that's false. Literally no one here is going to be even a little bit convinced by you pointing to the Bible to prove that the Bible is true.

You need to use a wedge. Start with something small - something much easier to convince someone of - and use their perception of that as the truth to gradually convince them of more and more elaborate falsehoods. I don't mean to give you hints, or anything, but the way you're going about this is roughly as effective as me knocking on your door with a friendly, "Do you have a moment to talk about the wondrous power of Zeus?"

Second, the Bible is replete with references to the world being spherical in shape, and hung in space at a time when no one in the world believed those things. The Hebrews easily conceived that the world stretched past their horizons.

Belief in a non-flat planet was actually not uncommon at all.

But none of that matters, because the Bible is also replete with references to the world and the heavens being arranged in silly ways that we know are false.

The Catholic Church has moved past all of this nonsense because they have the integrity to admit that their holy book might not be literally true all the time - and the maturity to acknowledge that it doesn't have to be for their faith to have meaning.

It's time for you to get there, too.

Third, there is demonstrative evidence that the Flood did happen. Now, I am not necessarily a young earth creationist like the GM mentioned previously. Genesis makes it fairly clear an unknown amount of time passed between the world being created "from nothing", and the world we know today being formed from "something useless and shapeless". But we have canyons carved out opposite the flow of their rivers. We have fossil records that place sea creatures near land creatures in the same time frame. There are other cultural records of a massive flood.

See, I'm stupidly well-informed about this particular topic. Well-informed to the point where it makes me sad, because I really didn't need all of that knowledge and honestly that space in my brain would probably be better-used in another way. Like exciting new pasta recipes. I could really go for some pasta. But I can't, because I decided it would be a good idea to learn about limited ring species interfertility instead. I can give you volumes of information - any one of which invalidates the premise that the Bible is an accurate literal record. So you trying to convince me that a global flood took place sometime within humanity's existence does not help your case. I place exactly zero stock in what you have to say on the topic.

Instead, what you are doing here accomplishes the opposite. I now know that your beliefs have transcended mere philosophical silliness, and have graduated to actual denial of reality. You can keep pushing this, but if you are this wrong about something you believe this strongly, it would behoove me to assume that the rest of what you say is equally unreliable - for much the same reason that I am unlikely to take stock investment advice from someone who tells me they know for a fact that the President is a lizard-person.

Again, start small with something you can easily convince someone of. It doesn't need to actually true. It just needs to be plausible enough that your natural charm can win them over. Then you branch out into trying to convince people that your all-loving God drowned all of humanity in a flood a few thousand years ago. It'll still be an uphill battle, but you'll have a fighting chance!

Then I realized my skepticism was as much a religious belief as anything else.

Nothing you have said here damns you or your argument as much as this statement right here.

Nothing.

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I believe the bible's claims about creation, about God's character and about his plan to save me from my own sin. I used to not believe those things for most of the reasons other people don't. Then I realized my skepticism was as much a religious belief as anything else. No one ever talked about creation or one of those troubling Bible stories and suddenly saw the light. But I can tell you studying the whole text of scripture (and by that I mean humbly exploring a fraction of the truth that others have), that God's story checks out, even among cynics, when you approach it with humility instead of with hostility. I have done both in my life, and I believe.

I always find it interesting, that when people say they used skepticism and reason to return to religion, the vast majority of the time they ended up choosing the religion of their parents.

It makes me dubious of the claim. If skepticism and reason were actually involved, I'd think there would be a more even distribution between the major religions. Or really, any notable distribution at all.

It's weird! It's like skepticism and reason change wildly depending on what part of the world you come from! "My rational examination led me to believe the people around me are correct and that the people far away are wrong!"

They can be detected. I said that onlookers would likely be dismiss them as mere coincidences.

There's an easy way around this: develop a study and test your hypothesis against it. No need for pesky onlookers and their claims of "coincidence"! Just throw a strong enough set of results at them that coincidence fades into irrelevance!

Weird that no one's done this already, isn't it?

No, I find the need to offer positive proof meaningless. I already know that my magick works. I don't need to prove anything to anyone.

Again, it's weird how many people who adhere to beliefs that have never been proven feel that they have nothing to prove. While, meanwhile, humans in general fall all over themselves to try and prove things that actually have a chance of being proven correct!

So. Weird.

DM Beckett wrote:

Agreed, it pretty much went sour a few pages back, and is completely off topic and unhelpful, if not bordering on bashing at this point.

Why do you feel like it's bashing? Is asking questions and looking for verification about claims made by some really bashing? Would you feel the same way if the claims were of another nature? Like political claims? Or when testifying in court?

I mean that it is getting close to that line, and is also completely off topic. Rather than being about "hey, I have an issue and wanted to see what others in a similar situation think or how they deal with it?", it's now "no, you're wrong", "no, you're wrong", . . . . .

GentleGiant wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

Agreed, it pretty much went sour a few pages back, and is completely off topic and unhelpful, if not bordering on bashing at this point.

Why do you feel like it's bashing? Is asking questions and looking for verification about claims made by some really bashing? Would you feel the same way if the claims were of another nature? Like political claims? Or when testifying in court?

I mean that it is getting close to that line, and is also completely off topic. Rather than being about "hey, I have an issue and wanted to see what others in a similar situation think or how they deal with it?", it's now "no, you're wrong", "no, you're wrong", . . . . .

We're on a tangent, certainly, but bringing it back to the thread's topic is as simple as, "And that's why it's silly to avoid D&D simply because it portrays fictional violence - the Bible is chock full of fictional violence, such as the flood."

We're just trying to hash out the "fictional" part.

WhtKnt wrote:

They can be detected. I said that onlookers would likely be dismiss them as mere coincidences.

There's an easy way around this: develop a study and test your hypothesis against it. No need for pesky onlookers and their claims of "coincidence"! Just throw a strong enough set of results at them that coincidence fades into irrelevance!

Weird that no one's done this already, isn't it?

To what end?

Quote:

No, I find the need to offer positive proof meaningless. I already know that my magick works. I don't need to prove anything to anyone.

Again, it's weird how many people who adhere to beliefs that have never been proven feel that they have nothing to prove. While, meanwhile, humans in general fall all over themselves to try and prove things that actually have a chance of being proven correct!

So. Weird.

I think you are missing my point. I don't care if people believe me or not. I know the truth, and that is all that is relevant.

I think this should seal the deal. :)

To what end?

I don't know. "Look everyone, magick is real!" would be a pretty awesome conclusion section.

I think you are missing my point. I don't care if people believe me or not. I know the truth, and that is all that is relevant.

Right. I get that. Maybe you're, like, one of the five people on the planet who doesn't enjoy the thought of having their beliefs vindicated in the public eye. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

(As a thought experiment, imagine for a moment that you had a big red button which, if pushed, would immediately publish undeniable proof that your magick is real to every major media outlet in the world, and that you would be forever known as the person who revealed the truth of magick to the world. Oh, and that there wasn't some mystical, terribly convenient "You have to come to magick on your own," requirement. Tell me you wouldn't push that button.)

But the fact of the matter is that no one has done it. Not you, and also not any other person, ever. So either every single person who shares your beliefs is so zen as to not care that everyone thinks they're crazy - even though they definitely could prove them wrong if they wanted to! - or it actually is impossible to detect the results of your magick, and "I could prove it if I wanted to!" is just a smokescreen that excuses you from having to confront your beliefs with a critical eye.

EDIT: Now, this? This is off-topic. But fun, so let's keep doing it!

Is this the point where the combination of religion and atheism have ruined another once useful thread?

DUnno. No one's brought up the Athiesm-Communist connection yet...

I always find it interesting, that when people say they used skepticism and reason to return to religion, the vast majority of the time they ended up choosing the religion of their parents.

And yet in my case, I'd hardly call it the religion of my parents, who don't go to church much and who ceased being a spiritual influence on me very early in life. If we're having friendly conversation, and not throwing daggers at one another like some do, can we stick with things people have actually said? I don't recall mentioning my parents' religion, or lack thereof, at all.

It makes me dubious of the claim. If skepticism and reason were actually involved, I'd think there would be a more even distribution between the major religions. Or really, any notable distribution at all.

I think the reasonable response is that I don't know skeptics don't choose Islam or Buddhism. I couldn't have chosen those beliefs, but maybe there is more balance than this talk is giving former skeptics credit for.

Or just maybe, there's truth in scripture and people who search humbly are drawn to it.

....and people who search humbly...

You keep using that word. What do you mean by that? There are a few meanings of the word and some of them aren't favourable if you mean to impress on anyone that you did rigorous, honest, unbiased research. In fact, they strongly enforce the notion of confirmation bias.

These are getting long, and I only get so many breaks from writing. I'll tackle the upcoming mistakes in biblical historicity later.

Also, these are getting longer and further off topic, so after said historicity, if there's not a fun, respectful dialogue going, I'll probably bail.

Just want to re-iterate: gaming is like any other open-handed issue (drinking, R-rated movies, playing poker). If you are an addict and you throw your worship and other priorities under the bus to game, then as a Christian you shouldn't do it. Either until you get a grip, or maybe never again.

[spoil]

Wouldn't that make you guilty of the exact same thing you're deriding Scott for?

I think first it's fair of me to say I haven't derided anyone for anything. I am defending the beliefs of Christians, which came under attack as a side-subject of the OP. I have atheist friends. I have Christian friends. I stick up for my beliefs when they are under attack and I don't kick people for believing differently. I think it's easy in this thread to find places where I have respectfully disagree,d and even said "if you don't believe, I can see where that's a reasonable position."

I mean, I'm not perfect. I'm not always a good sport about these things. But the older I get the better I get at keeping mellow. :b

As regards confirmation bias, I dunno. I'm telling a guy I didn't use to believe either and change my beliefs based on evidence, and the understanding that the problem isn't whether someone can prove God to me, but that I just didn't want to let go of me and my issues. I talk to atheists every time in friendly and less-than-friendly conversation. I can tell you the number one re-occurring factor in those conversations is that when you get past yelling at each other, the conversation becomes less about why a guy has no reason to believe and more about why he doesn't want to believe. And having been through it, I get that.

This also reads like the tired old "Why do atheists hate God?" trope. Something which has been debunked and explained so many times that if someone still thinks that's the truth they simply haven't done any research into it at all.

I don't know what you mean here. Are you interpreting me as saying 'there are no atheists, only people angry at God'? I don't think I have ever said that. I'd like to stick to defending comments made by me. If I misunderstand, please forgive me and let me know what I am missing.

Also, "God's story checks out"?

That's quite a claim to make, seeing how there's no physical evidence for any such claim. If you approach anything with "humility," as you call it, that's already accepting the claim, thus we're back to the confirmation bias.

God's story absolutely checks out. First, he sent us this book recording the whole thing. We can choose not to read the book, but that's our choice. As regards the book (and I see someone is quoting some bad history below here, so defending the book is gonna happen in a second, the book is historically accurate, explores scientific principles its authors had no way to know, and is accurately, supernaturally predictive in several episodes. It stands up to textual criticism. It has remained accurate over time with no mixture of meaningful error. That's a pretty tall order.

Setting the book aside for a minute, the whole of creation evidences a Creator. Now, this talk has been had before and maybe one thread, already jumping the shark in off-topic conversation, isn't the place for it. But for short: we know enough about physics that the universe had to have a start from outside. Competing theories lack proof. And the human condition proves the existence of God and the miracle of his love and the power of change. Now, I know some of you don't believe that. I'm not here to change your mind so much as to point out, it's not unreasonable for people to believe those things.

As regards confirmation bias, again: I looked at Christianity skeptically and then changed my mind. Is that not the opposite of confirmation bias? I don't accuse confirmation bias (for Scott or anyone else) because they refuse to believe. I say those words when I see someone offering a few cherry-picked examples of why Christianity isn't what it says it is. Cause the guy that says "the Bible is pro-slavery" or "pro-rape" or God is "genocidal" is ignoring 998 pages of a thousand page book in order to stand their ground. I just stopped doing that one day.

Once again one of those meetings I didn't attend. Someone really needs to work on their scheduling skills.

Also, you're now making claims for every human being that's ever been in existence, based on a story (the flood) which has been clearly debunked by any honest scientific research.

It has not been debunked. It is not believed, and there are competing theories for the things Christian geologists point to to support the flood. That is not debunked. Debunked means conclusively disproven.

I don't understand the snarky "I didn't get invited to that meeting" response. If my meaning was unclear, we asked for a screwed up world by rejecting God and inviting sin into it. Right? We tell ourselves he's not just, or he doesn't exist, or he's not the boss of us. There isn't a meeting. I did it in my life. You did it in yours. I struggle to understand why that isn't clear. We're talking about willfully rejecting God right now, yes?

And you just had to include one of the biggest fallacies, didn't you? If you want people to take you seriously, at least have the decency to not throw around such bad "arguments" and postulations. If you truly believe that atheism is a religion, then not only do you not...

How is atheism NOT a religion? It's not a fallacy just because you don't think of it the same way as I do. Atheism is a belief regarding God and religion, specifically that there's no such thing as God. But it requires as much blind faith as any other religion. If you reject the whole conversation about how the Bible makes accurate predictions or natural science evidences an act of creation, we are still stuck perpetually at "can't prove there is a god, can't prove there isn't". You're defending your belief there is no God. You have a theology. You reject the terminology because you want to classify your faith as superior in reasoning and evidence. But you probably take a lot on faith, unless you have advanced degrees in anthropology/geology/microbiology/astrophysics AND have conclusively defeated the questions of irreducable complexity and similar questions, AND have a time machine AND saw the creation of the universe as well as that lucky lightning strike that correctly zapped the correct combination of chemicals with the right salinity on the back of the perfect crystal.

In which case, I'd like to attend one of your seminars.

And I am not trying to make that last comment personal. Everyone here seems like a pretty smart person, and people are discussing what they believe or don't. Just don't treat the Christians like second-class intellects. You don't believe. I get it. But millions do, and it's not unreasonable or uninformed for them to do so.[/spoiler]

Uh.....I use the word humbly to point out that some people research matters of faith with the intention of finding flaws in that faith and then rejecting it. Some people make an honest effort to find out if the faith appeals to them, to decide if they are asking the right questions, etc.

I have been both those people. I know atheists whom I think misunderstand the gospel, but I'd say they looked at the issue with humility and genuinely checked their beliefs so as to not color the beliefs of those they asked.

I am not interested in calling out specific individuals here as humbly or not humbly searching. But if a guy goes to skepticsbible.com to do his research, and then posts on Facebook "maybe those Christians ought to think twice before they worship a God who allows slavery"...he is pretty clearly NOT making a humble search for truth. He is eisogetically rejecting the majority of the evidence in order to justify his belief that the bible is flawed or evil or whatever.

Again, to be clear, I hope for people to make an honest effort at understanding scripture before rejecting its claims. I am not naming anyone as having made or not made that humble effort, except that I admit I did it wrong for a while.

Hopefully that clear up my intention?

Hopefully that clear up my intention?

Given your context, I think "sincerely" might make more sense than "humbly".

As for why people might "return" to the religion they grew up with after questioning it, perhaps they just learn that faith in God is more important than identification with a religious denomination. Such a person might see no need to endorse one denomination over another by actively announcing a change.

Isn't "spiritual but not religious" one of the fastest-growing ways in which people of faith (at least in the USA) identify these days?

There are several reasons for this. I admit that I simply discount that particular claim on sight. At least half the time, it's simply a lie. Part of it is that the "leaving-and-returning-to-God" is part of the cultural heritage associated with Christianity (see the parable of the Prodigal Son for an example, or Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey for a more universally informed perspective). It's also flat-out listed in several "guides to discussing religion with the heathen" as a convenient lie to tell to make the Gospel more plausible.

Later, I'll address the issues you raise about Scripture, and there's a lot of error to address. But for now, I wanted to invite you to provide a book and page number of any guide to dealing with heathen that recommends lying about your experience with God in order to win folk over. This assertion is offensive, made-up, and in fact the whole paragraph is completely devoid of conversational charity. First, you don't know me personally, so let's not have you narrating my story as a reason why what I say about my conversion isn't true. Second, a couple of literary references don't make individual testimony about questioning God before converting, or leaving the faith and coming back any less true. Christianity includes elements of self-denial and patience through adversity. Sometime, people don't handle those things as well as they like.

As a quick aside, this is an example of what I do mean by humble study. If you knew the story of the prodigal son better, you'd know the story is about the father and not the son.

If you don't readily have a book and page number available, I hope you'll have the class to confess that comment was posturing and that the cause of decent conversation deserves better.

I am a big fan of d&d and pathfinder but some in my church find that RPGs are dangerous. How do other Christians respond to this or are these two issues non compatible? I would love to hear the community's thoughts on the matter!

Also happy thanksgiving to the USA !

Thanks
Nick

I read my study bible instead of listening to other people's interpretations of the word. I see no problems with RPGs.

All I know is that humans are creatures of faith. Its takes just as much faith to not believe in god as it does to believe in god. With that I am out. Why people talk about religion on these boards I don't know. Its akin to the edition flame wars. YEESH!! Have a good weekend everybody. PEACE!!

the whole of creation evidences a Creator

This quote is the poster child for 'begging the question'!

Irontruth wrote:

I always find it interesting, that when people say they used skepticism and reason to return to religion, the vast majority of the time they ended up choosing the religion of their parents.

And yet in my case, I'd hardly call it the religion of my parents, who don't go to church much and who ceased being a spiritual influence on me very early in life. If we're having friendly conversation, and not throwing daggers at one another like some do, can we stick with things people have actually said? I don't recall mentioning my parents' religion, or lack thereof, at all.

Quote:

It makes me dubious of the claim. If skepticism and reason were actually involved, I'd think there would be a more even distribution between the major religions. Or really, any notable distribution at all.

I think the reasonable response is that I don't know skeptics don't choose Islam or Buddhism. I couldn't have chosen those beliefs, but maybe there is more balance than this talk is giving former skeptics credit for.

Or just maybe, there's truth in scripture and people who search humbly are drawn to it.

Are you affirmatively claiming that your parents have never partaken in any Christian religious services, and/or never took you to any Christian religious services?

I don't care about sectarian differences, that your mom took you to Missouri Synod Lutheran, you didn't really latch on to it and later joined a Methodist church, thus qualifying you as a "different" religion. It's still Christianity. You didn't change God's, you just altered which interpretation you prefer.

Actually...there is an incredible amount of self-righteous hostility here. I said "respectfully" several times. I am willing to talk about anything civilly, but wow.

There's the trouble: if I roll and tend to more important things, I haven't answered the challenges. If I stick around, it's pretty clear I am just sticking around for two people to stay hostile. Yeesh.

So...a couple of things, then if the responses are civil discourse when I return, great. If we get more of the same long posts containing insults and moving footballs, then I'll bounce. I think that's more than fair.

A little hyperbole is fair, guys. But be respectful.

All I know is that humans are creatures of faith. Its takes just as much faith to not believe in god as it does to believe in god. With that I am out. Why people talk about religion on these boards I don't know. Its akin to the edition flame wars. YEESH!! Have a good weekend everybody. PEACE!!

You mean it takes no faith at all to believe in god? That's interesting.