According to the CIA fact book:Roman Catholic 26.8%, Protestant 2.1%, other 3.3%, unspecified 8.8%, unaffiliated 59% (2001 census)This was in 2001. Unaffiliated does not always mean atheist. It does not mean no religion either. Nor does this list as the fastest growing group. Where do you get your information?
Wikipedia summarizes the unaffiliated as follows:
According to the 2001 census, 59% of the country is agnostic, atheist or non-believer, 26.8% is Roman Catholic and 2.5% is Protestant
It cites a Czech language source that looks like it's their version of the Census Bureau. I can't authenticate it since I don't speak the language, but the same fact was reported heavily when the census came out back in '01. This seems to agree.
It might be strange, but I've been thinking! As a chrsitian I was wondering how do other christians defend D&D/ Pathfinder to strictly religious types? Do you ban clerics, magic and combat? Are devils and demons a no-no? Thanks
|
It might be strange, but I've been thinking! As a christian I was wondering how do other Christians defend D&D/ Pathfinder to strictly religious types? Do you ban clerics, magic and combat? Are devils and demons a no-no? Thanks
In what way should I defend anything? I guess I do not understand the question.
Why would I ban Clerics Magic or Combat? I would not use Christianity as the basis of an in game religion. I may use historical conflicts that involved the Church for inspiration however.
Devils and Demons have always been a touchy subject but I feel if you need a truly evil opponent ....
I meant - as a christian can I, and should I play D&D? Is it against biblical principles ? i love the game but certain aspects can make me uneasy. Demons and devils would be out! but come on the main character archetyes aren't exactly good role models. the fighter is always fighting things, the mage is doing magic (God don't like that!), rogues steal things and the closest to real religion deals with magic and turns undead!
Do any other people get problesm from the church or chrsitian friends,and how to defend themselves? I don't have the problem as i don't play, but would love too.
|
It might be strange, but I've been thinking! As a chrsitian I was wondering how do other christians defend D&D/ Pathfinder to strictly religious types? Do you ban clerics, magic and combat? Are devils and demons a no-no? Thanks
When I've done this in the past, part of my explanation has involved arguing that an understanding of what is "fantasy" and what is "reality" is important. At best D&D has realism... it's not real but seeks to create a situation in which you could imagine it.
Honestly, it doesn't seem that far off from what many people do anyway when they're going to church (if you're dealing with biblical non-literalists). They can imagine the red sea parting, a man walking on water, talking-legged-serpents, and all those crazy angels... It's great imagery (and you can find a 3 out of 4 of those in D&D already), but they take it all in knowing they've never actually experienced something like it and probably never will.
Alternatively, I've said that D&D is full of ready made miracles. If anything a game based on producing numbers randomly on a die is a game about faith anyway. Hopefully I'll hit that DC 25 or make my saving throw.
|
|
Do any other people get problesm from the church or chrsitian friends,and how to defend themselves? I don't have the problem as i don't play, but would love too.
I've played with some evangelic christians in the past, they've had some rough times dealing with the game. It seemed that the crisis didn't stem from them thinking the game was wrong, but from what their religious community thought they were doing. I don't know how it is for you or anyone else, but this has been one of my experiences.
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.Luckily, there were no Mormons to feel bashed a page or two back.
There was at least one, me. It's been an interesting discussion to follow and brought out a whole range of emotions out in me. In the end, every time I felt like posting a rebuttal to something that was said, I realized that I was being too emotional at the moment and would probably cause more harm then good, and so I held back. I learned a long time ago that you can't 'argue' religion.
I also feel that religion cannot be 'proved'. To me it is strictly a matter of faith and belief. If you believe in a religion, that is okay by me. It is also okay with me if you don't, but I'm pretty easy going that way.
We all have the freedom to choose for ourselves. I can't force anyone to be LDS anymore then anyone could force me to give up my belief in the LDS church. We all choose for ourselves, I made the choice to join the LDS church when I was ten years old and I'm glad that I made that choice.
Well ... I better sign off before I start preaching and trying to convert everyone, just kidding. ;-) Have a good afternoon.
As Studpuffin points out, this is fantasy. Do Christians prevent their children from ever playing War and 'killing' someone? It is make believe.
I would think Christians would be more inclined to play Clerics as it would be easy to empathize with someone who truly believes and wants to spread the word.
If demons make someone uncomfortable, it seems easy enough to avoid them or any other creatures which too closely mirror 'real' monsters. In most of the games I have ever run, my villains were predominately humans. I find humanity capable of enough evil to need a scapegoat.
Also, fighting does not necessarily equal killing. Something I believe is lost on many D&D gamers.
I played when I was a believer and I have played with believers. It was a non-issue.
There was at least one, me.
I sincerely apologize for opening that can of worms. I specifically used your religion because I knew it would get a rise. I am sorry.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well ... I better sign off before I start preaching and trying to convert everyone, just kidding. ;-) Have a good afternoon.
Glad you joined the conversation, and would be very interested to hear your responses to some of the comments made about the Book of Mormon upthread. We promise not to throw you out for proselytizing. ;-)
Also, are you related to Steve Greer? The last name + religious leanings made me wonder.
Thanks for the replies guy. Food for thought! It seems common sense to me!
|
|
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.Luckily, there were no Mormons to feel bashed a page or two back.There was at least one, me. It's been an interesting discussion to follow and brought out a whole range of emotions out in me. In the end, every time I felt like posting a rebuttal to something that was said, I realized that I was being too emotional at the moment and would probably cause more harm then good, and so I held back. I learned a long time ago that you can't 'argue' religion.
I also feel that religion cannot be 'proved'. To me it is strictly a matter of faith and belief. If you believe in a religion, that is okay by me. It is also okay with me if you don't, but I'm pretty easy going that way.
We all have the freedom to choose for ourselves. I can't force anyone to be LDS anymore then anyone could force me to give up my belief in the LDS church. We all choose for ourselves, I made the choice to join the LDS church when I was ten years old and I'm glad that I made that choice.
Well ... I better sign off before I start preaching and trying to convert everyone, just kidding. ;-) Have a good afternoon.
Thank you for your post.
|
|
Thanks for the replies guy. Food for thought! It seems common sense to me!
If only it were... :P
It seems a good portion of this thread deals with conflict between what is common sense to one and common sense to another. I think we all try to stretch our minds to encompass new ideas and questions, and if it gets a little rough it's nice to see everyone who discusses things at least willing to back off and cool down. Civility has been tested, but remained key to the success of this thread and its slowly growing size.
In the end, every time I felt like posting a rebuttal to something that was said, I realized that I was being too emotional at the moment and would probably cause more harm then good, and so I held back. I learned a long time ago that you can't 'argue' religion.
Have a good afternoon.
Hi, Doug! Please accept my apologies, for we've been exceptionally poor hosts.
For what it's worth, your post exemplifies all of my myriad past dealings with those in your church -- without exception extraordinarily well-mannered, polite, committed, and non-confrontational. Without going into the metaphysical aspects of the LDS, I can definitely say that the ability to deal amicably with the greater community that the Church seems to instill is beyond reproach. I can only wish that more people, religious and secular, presented themselves half that well.
Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.
Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.
Except, in my opinion, Prop 8.
|
|
Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.Except, in my opinion, Prop 8.
And the fact that blacks that try to join the clergy are denied when their lineage is "traced" back to cain.
There is that age old argument: Humans cannot conceive of something unless it is real.
Well that's easy to disprove: What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.Except, in my opinion, Prop 8.
It's easy to say nice things about groups of people when you ignore the things they do. I mean, suddenly everybody is nice. With that methodology I'm unfailingly polite. :)
|
|
It's easy to say nice things about groups of people when you ignore the things they do. I mean, suddenly everybody is nice. With that methodology I'm unfailingly polite. :)Until I meet a Mormon who does not follow that example, I'm happy to put the LDS at the top of my list of examples of religions that seem to be doing more good than harm.Except, in my opinion, Prop 8.
Ugh again this is why their should be seperation of church and state completely. In Canada we didn't vote on the issue of gay marriage. Why? Because it involved a minority group and by definition minority groups almost never have the voting power to protect themselves so our supreme court did it for us.
Ugh again this is why their should be seperation of church and state completely. In Canada we didn't vote on the issue of gay marriage. Why? Because it involved a minority group and by definition minority groups almost never have the voting power to protect themselves so our supreme court did it for us.
That's what we did in Brown vs. the Board of Education. And Loving vs. Virginia. Pretty much every civil rights case, in fact. The alternative is that there are no rights whatsoever, only privileges of the majority.
|
|
There is that age old argument: Humans cannot conceive of something unless it is real.Well that's easy to disprove: What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
Right, the age old rebuttal: could god make a rock so large that he cannot move it? But that doesn't deter those who bring up the original argument. They've already made up their minds. My only thought is that they sorely lack an imagination if this is an argument they espouse... or they're just in denial maybe. <shrug>
|
|
Ugh again this is why their should be seperation of church and state completely. In Canada we didn't vote on the issue of gay marriage. Why? Because it involved a minority group and by definition minority groups almost never have the voting power to protect themselves so our supreme court did it for us.That's what we did in Brown vs. the Board of Education. And Loving vs. Virginia. Pretty much every civil rights case, in fact. The alternative is that there are no rights whatsoever, only privileges of the majority.
Really if we are in a democracy, or resemblance there of, WHEN DOES THE MAJORITY have a voice?
|
|
Really if we are in a democracy, or resemblance there of, WHEN DOES THE MAJORITY have a voice?Ugh again this is why their should be seperation of church and state completely. In Canada we didn't vote on the issue of gay marriage. Why? Because it involved a minority group and by definition minority groups almost never have the voting power to protect themselves so our supreme court did it for us.That's what we did in Brown vs. the Board of Education. And Loving vs. Virginia. Pretty much every civil rights case, in fact. The alternative is that there are no rights whatsoever, only privileges of the majority.
When it limits the civil rights of a minority group unfairly then there is no vote. Thats the perview of the supreme court. I mean by your vote logic we should have voted on the 1967 interracial marriage act instead of shoving it down peoples throat through the supreme court. It was unpopular at the time and was forced into law, the rights of a minority group were protected and not voted on. Frankly when it comes to civil rights it's not up for a vote and it never should be. Because someone else's life is none of your business, like I said in another thread Canada has had full gay rights since 2005. Have we threatened straight marriages and straight familys---- Nope they're just the same as ever and less gay activism because the necessity has not been there. Have we destroyed religion by forcing churchs to marry us----- Nope churchs have full rights to refuse a gay marriage based on religious belief. Has it changed anything in Canada----- Yes, people seem more content and have forgotten it's even there. Frankly we all know that the anti-gay marriage camp doesn't have a leg to stand on. /end rant
Really if we are in a democracy, or resemblance there of, WHEN DOES THE MAJORITY have a voice?
In every vote ever taken. You've been great. Thanks for playing the home game.
I agree there needs to be some control on the majority. Otherwise, we could vote that we do not like CJ and ban him from the thread. All we need is one more person with an axe to grind than CJ has friends.
Hmmm, this makes me think I need to reconsider my stance on 'activist judges'.
|
|
When it limits the civil rights of a minority group unfairly then there is no vote. That's the preview of the supreme court. I mean by your vote logic we should have voted on the 1967 interracial marriage act instead of shoving it down peoples throat through the supreme court. It was unpopular at the time and was forced into law, the rights of a minority group were protected and not voted on. Frankly when it comes to civil rights it's not up for a vote and it never should be. Because someone else's life is none of your business, like I said in another thread Canada has had full gay rights since 2005. Have we threatened straight marriages and straight familys---- Nope they're just the same as ever and less gay activism because the necessity has not been there. Have we destroyed religion by forcing churchs to marry us----- Nope churchs have full rights to refuse a gay marriage based on religious belief. Has it changed anything in Canada----- Yes, people seem more content and have forgotten it's even there. Frankly we all know that the anti-gay marriage camp doesn't have a leg to stand on. /end rantReally if we are in a democracy, or resemblance there of, WHEN DOES THE MAJORITY have a voice?Ugh again this is why their should be seperation of church and state completely. In Canada we didn't vote on the issue of gay marriage. Why? Because it involved a minority group and by definition minority groups almost never have the voting power to protect themselves so our supreme court did it for us.That's what we did in Brown vs. the Board of Education. And Loving vs. Virginia. Pretty much every civil rights case, in fact. The alternative is that there are no rights whatsoever, only privileges of the majority.
I did not mean to start another rant. I could have worded that better. Wanted opinions.
Ha.
Your rebuttals are becoming more and more verbose, CJ. Feeling overly philosophical?
|
|
I did not mean to start another rant. I could have worded that better. Wanted opinions.When it limits the civil rights of a minority group unfairly then there is no vote. That's the preview of the supreme court. I mean by your vote logic we should have voted on the 1967 interracial marriage act instead of shoving it down peoples throat through the supreme court. It was unpopular at the time and was forced into law, the rights of a minority group were protected and not voted on. Frankly when it comes to civil rights it's not up for a vote and it never should be. Because someone else's life is none of your business, like I said in another thread Canada has had full gay rights since 2005. Have we threatened straight marriages and straight familys---- Nope they're just the same as ever and less gay activism because the necessity has not been there. Have we destroyed religion by forcing churchs to marry us----- Nope churchs have full rights to refuse a gay marriage based on religious belief. Has it changed anything in Canada----- Yes, people seem more content and have forgotten it's even there. Frankly we all know that the anti-gay marriage camp doesn't have a leg to stand on. /end rantReally if we are in a democracy, or resemblance there of, WHEN DOES THE MAJORITY have a voice?Ugh again this is why their should be seperation of church and state completely. In Canada we didn't vote on the issue of gay marriage. Why? Because it involved a minority group and by definition minority groups almost never have the voting power to protect themselves so our supreme court did it for us.That's what we did in Brown vs. the Board of Education. And Loving vs. Virginia. Pretty much every civil rights case, in fact. The alternative is that there are no rights whatsoever, only privileges of the majority.
Just do me this one little favor CJ try and see things from my perspctive. I had a very hard time with my sexuality, a VERY hard time. I tried so hard not to be gay. I did everything in my power, until I fell in love. I fell for the most wonderful guy in the world, he's now my husband. But everyday I have to turn on the news and listen to people say, being gay is a choice, that homosexuals don't deserve civil rights, that (in some countries) homosexuality is such a heinous life choice execution is in order. I never had a choice, I wanted one for many years, but it never came. Then when the one really good thing happened in my life, I was lucky enough to live in a country that allowed me to make the highest of all social contracts with the love of my life. If you really want, go to page 129 of this thread and read my story. Maybe you'll see why I have a problem with the anti-marriage laws, with the ignorance of the evangelical movements. Just imagine that you lived in a country that wouldn't let you marry your wife?
Edit: Now I'll try to get out of my depressed mood. It's probably not helping anyone.
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.
|
|
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.
Thanks for th gesture, but I'm probably just gonna be in a bad mood for awhile, Alex is gone for 3 months on field research, so I get cranky usually when he does, apologies I'll try to be more civil.
How about a poodle hump?
|
|
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.Thanks for th gesture, but I'm probably just gonna be in a bad mood for awhile, Alx is gone for 3 months on field research, so I get cranky usually when he does, apologies I'll try to be more civil.
Is he going back to that island that you showed me the pictures of again?
|
|
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.Thanks for th gesture, but I'm probably just gonna be in a bad mood for awhile, Alx is gone for 3 months on field research, so I get cranky usually when he does, apologies I'll try to be more civil.Is he going back to that island that you showed me the pictures of again?
** spoiler omitted **
Yup same island. Training new grad students to take over the project, since he's done his PHD in January. But then a new project starts in scotland next summer (studying Skuas in the Shetlands). But I can`t complain I did marry a research biologist.
And no I would not like a leg hump, but you can go hump sebastians leg if you want.
...but I draw the line a beastiality. :P
So do I...on your leg.
|
|
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.Thanks for th gesture, but I'm probably just gonna be in a bad mood for awhile, Alx is gone for 3 months on field research, so I get cranky usually when he does, apologies I'll try to be more civil.Is he going back to that island that you showed me the pictures of again?
** spoiler omitted **
Yup same island. Training new grad students to take over the project, since he's done his PHD in January. But then a new project starts in scotland next summer (studying Skuas in the Shetlands). But I can`t complain I did marry a research biologist.
And no I would not like a leg hump, but you can go hump sebastians leg if you want.
Sucks that you guys have to be apart though. I still say go with. Get wild. Reconnect with your inner caveman. ;)
How about a poodle hump?Hey, I'm all for gay rights, but I draw the line a beastiality. :P
I would have, and I never loved him, but that goat just looked so lonely.
But doesn't this state that trying to retrieve stolen property, fighting back, etc. are prohibited?A lot of what Jesus taught was dealing with how people were not understanding the Law. I'd have to take a better look at the passage to better answer the question, but Jesus didn't condemn the military for example. I think that Jesus was talking more about taking a look at the root of the problem. If someone steals your cloak it's very possible that they may need it more than you do. I don't think that it means that we should take a beating for no reason. If someone strikes you, find out why rather than strike back. Far too often we are trying to force "karma" or something like that.
Again, more than anything, Jesus was addressing people's misinterpretation of "eye for an eye".
Part of the issue here is that the writers of the various texts presume that they are not of the military. They'd never be able to swear the oaths necessary for service in Romes Legions at the time for example. Most are part of cultures where a foreign state maintains power through military force that is not normally related to the people being controlled.
Early Christianity really would likely not have much to say about the military one way or another except to fear its power to persecute them (hence the emphasis on concepts like 'give unto Ceasaer that which is Ceasaer's). Certainly no one is contemplating Christians in the actual army, never mind an army made of Christians for Christians.
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.Thanks for th gesture, but I'm probably just gonna be in a bad mood for awhile, Alex is gone for 3 months on field research, so I get cranky usually when he does, apologies I'll try to be more civil.
Ditto, man. Marry whomever you choose.
Call me crazy, I've never been able to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to justify denying anyone basic human rights.
|
|
If it is any consolation, Jeremy, I fully support your right to live your life with the person you choose.Thanks for th gesture, but I'm probably just gonna be in a bad mood for awhile, Alex is gone for 3 months on field research, so I get cranky usually when he does, apologies I'll try to be more civil.Ditto, man. Marry whomever you choose.
Call me crazy, I've never been able to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to justify denying anyone basic human rights.
In this case it depends on whether marriage is a basic civil right or not (personally, I think it is. But I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry anor polyamoury, although they'd be a tax and inheritance nightmare). Actually, that's usually the argument. No one argues that [group of people who are being denied equality] aren't deserving of basic human rights just that [thing being denied] isn't a basic human right so it's not the same thing at all.
In this case it depends on whether marriage is a basic civil right or not (personally, I think it is. But I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry anor polyamoury, although they'd be a tax and inheritance nightmare). Actually, that's usually the argument. No one argues that [group of people who are being denied equality] aren't deserving of basic human rights just that [thing being denied] isn't a basic human right so it's not the same thing at all.
Trust me, I'm fully aware of what they sell themselves to sleep at night. ;-)
Fixed that for you.
No evidence for aetheism, rather basic evidence against.
Does not really work, Aetheism is the null hypothisis. Its what your logically stuck with of none of the other options on the table can be shown to be true.
Well if he was really lonely. :P
I would have, and I never loved him, but that goat just looked so lonely.
Poor sod. He was beset by she-goats so incessantly that he was mounting them left and right just to scare them off!