Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yeah yeah, and this dress makes me look fat too.
|
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
I understand you to be saying, and I'm rephrasing here, "The majority of people agree this is an important question [therefore, it must be]."
That is the epitome of an appeal to the people.
I'm just saying...
|
|
Moving along, now...
There's another recent thread around here asking whether Christians should play Pathfinder (and D&D, in general); an argument I thought was pretty much put to bed.
Nonetheless, I mentioned the topic to one of my players this afternoon (we went to his house for a BBQ), and he said, rather without much apparent thought, "It's doubtful devout Christians would actively play the game. The basic elements are pretty anti-scripture." He paused. "Unless they turned the game into a kind of evangelical roleplay--mini-crusades and Paladins spreading the Gospel."
"What about me?" I asked, a bit miffed.
He gave me a half-sardonic look as he turned the burgers on the grill, grease sizzling and spitting, and raised one incredulous eyebrow. "Andy...when was the last time you went to Mass? Easter?"
OK, so I'm not exactly devout, and my 'position improvement' on Life, the Universe and Everything continues to chip away at any notions of faith, as defined by my upbringing and the Church. My wife, herself a lapsed CoE / Anglican, tells me I'm a hair's-breadth from secular humanist / atheist. So maybe, for me, it's a non-question because I've simply stopped asking it.
If Christians are, Scripturally, supposed to abjure all things Occult and associated with the Occult, wouldn't any positive representation of magic or witchcraft be counterproductive?
If gods and the like are identified by Scripture as devils and demons who led previous generations of man astray, wouldn't playing a game where you pretend to worship, of all things, the God of Magic, significantly undermine the very precept itself?
I could actually go on and on like this, but we here have heard these exact arguments before. I remain unfazed; and the issue, for me, remains a nonissue.
My friend's final comment on the subject went something like this--
"Do you really believe there are so many Christians--Sunday-Go-To-Church Christians--playing D&D? Wouldn't it be a grand coup if they were all Pretend-Christians, just going through the motions, saying the right words, making the right gestures? What better way to mainstream the hobby than by converting the naysayers of the 80s into the players of today? Wolves in Sheep's clothing, and all that jazz..."
|
|
Moving along, now...
There's another recent thread around here asking whether Christians should play Pathfinder (and D&D, in general); an argument I thought was pretty much put to bed.
Nonetheless, I mentioned the topic to one of my players this afternoon (we went to his house for a BBQ), and he said, rather without much apparent thought, "It's doubtful devout Christians would actively play the game. The basic elements are pretty anti-scripture." He paused. "Unless they turned the game into a kind of evangelical roleplay--mini-crusades and Paladins spreading the Gospel."
"What about me?" I asked, a bit miffed.
He gave me a half-sardonic look as he turned the burgers on the grill, grease sizzling and spitting, and raised one incredulous eyebrow. "Andy...when was the last time you went to Mass? Easter?"
OK, so I'm not exactly devout, and my 'position improvement' on Life, the Universe and Everything continues to chip away at any notions of faith, as defined by my upbringing and the Church. My wife, herself a lapsed CoE / Anglican, tells me I'm a hair's-breadth from secular humanist / atheist. So maybe, for me, it's a non-question because I've simply stopped asking it.
If Christians are, Scripturally, supposed to abjure all things Occult and associated with the Occult, wouldn't any positive representation of magic or witchcraft be counterproductive?
If gods and the like are identified by Scripture as devils and demons who led previous generations of man astray, wouldn't playing a game where you pretend to worship, of all things, the God of Magic, significantly undermine the very precept itself?
I could actually go on and on like this, but we here have heard these exact arguments before. I remain unfazed; and the issue, for me, remains a nonissue.
My friend's final comment on the subject went something like this--
"Do you really believe there are so many Christians--Sunday-Go-To-Church Christians--playing D&D? Wouldn't it be a grand coup if they were all...
Well, I'm an agnostic, so take this with a huge truckload of salt, but I don't understand how fiction can be a problem. The Chronicles of Narnia, hardly devoid of occult imagery, was created by a devout Christian. JK Rowling is Christian. Now I know the extremist wing of the extremist wing of Christianity has a problem with both but I really don't understand it (especillay Rowling for not only promoting the occult but also making Dumbledore gay. Surely that's mitigation as it means the occult leader is even more sinful. Or am I just thinking about this brand of insanity too much?). So, from the outside, I can't see the issue unless you go full on 'Mazes and Monsters' and blur the lines between reality and fiction completely.
|
|
Therein lies a chief concern--is a devout Christian one who emulates the teachings of Christ or one who worships Christ/God? There must be a fundamental distinction between believing in Christ and believing in the teachings of Christ; which is not to say you can't do both.
However, if you believe in Christ, you accept the supernatural as a matter of course. It's not much of a stretch to take the next step and agree that if you therefore accept the supernatural, then Scriptural admonitions to remove yourself from all trappings of the Occult are not metaphorical warnings designed to protect the naive from charlatans and conmen, but genuine warnings against trafficing with supernatural entities and associating with mysticism--for this set, magic is physically real.
Does a devout Christian believe in loving his fellow man, or evangelizing to his fellow man in order to save his soul? Many might argue they're one and the same. If you're Christian, I think it's a bit of a contradiction to call yourself devout but not believe that 'the only way to Heaven is through Christ.'
I might ask, does 'through Christ' mean emulation of the Christ-like behavior, or literally belief in Christ the Supernatural?
|
|
Therein lies a chief concern--is a devout Christian one who emulates the teachings of Christ or one who worships Christ/God? There must be a fundamental distinction between believing in Christ and believing in the teachings of Christ; which is not to say you can't do both.
However, if you believe in Christ, you accept the supernatural as a matter of course. It's not much of a stretch to take the next step and agree that if you therefore accept the supernatural, then Scriptural admonitions to remove yourself from all trappings of the Occult are not metaphorical warnings designed to protect the naive from charlatans and conmen, but genuine warnings against trafficing with supernatural entities and associating with mysticism--for this set, magic is physically real.
Does a devout Christian believe in loving his fellow man, or evangelizing to his fellow man in order to save his soul? Many might argue they're one and the same. If you're Christian, I think it's a bit of a contradiction to call yourself devout but not believe that 'the only way to Heaven is through Christ.'
I might ask, does 'through Christ' mean emulation of the Christ-like behavior, or literally belief in Christ the Supernatural?
And now we're passing well outside the zone where a non-theist like myself can offer any advice whatsoever. I'd still say no, but then I don't believe in Christ the Supernatural so it's not like it's a hard question. If you do believe in the divinity of Christ, and the supernatural elements that go with it, then I can see how the question is harder ro resolve.
My cube neighbor spoke at his church a couple of Sundays past. He was kind enough to give me a link to the video podcast. I did not make it all the way through, but I did get to the part where he suggested that every Christian must ask himself of his activities:
"Do they glorify Jesus? Do they edify a fellow believer? Do they point a non-believer to the way of Christ?"
If not, then do you really love Jesus. This is coming from a man who is a huge comic book fan. What I take from this is everyone justifies their own actions according to their preferences.
If I were a devout Christian, I would ask myself what was Jesus' real message and does that conflict with participating in role playing games. As I understand it, Jesus' message was love and accepting him as savior. I do not see how either of these would require abstinence from a game of pretend.
If I were a devout Christian, I would ask myself what was Jesus' real message and does that conflict with participating in role playing games. As I understand it, Jesus' message was love and accepting him as savior. I do not see how either of these would require abstinence from a game of pretend.
Unless all that stuff is just flavor text and the real meat of the matter is the rules system by which one is to navigate the supernatural, which is a perspective that appears on occasion here. Didn't we have someone ten or twenty pages ago declaring that Christ's message was worthless and his life was wasted if all the supernatural stuff wasn't true?
So far as being a Christian and RPGs (or horror movies, or ouija boards, etc) goes, I would have two answers:
1) To the degree that one is a Christian in the sense that you believe the things that the majority of Christians have historically believed, then it's transparently obvious that one should have nothing to do with anything that refers to, includes, or features the supernatural unless it's explicitly Jesus-approved. Everything else is evil and trying to tempt you to hell.
Traditionalist Christianity teaches more or less that all the supernatural is real, and everything except its own brand is totally evil. (Witches, for example, were not theologically in error but rather working for the other team.) I'm sure we can all dig up the relevant Bible verses.
2) But to the degree that one is a secular modernist (and virtually every non-fundamentalist is) none of this stuff should matter since it's all fiction to begin with. Only Christianity has real supernatural stuff.
Discarding the supernatural stuff totally would, I think, make one no longer a Christian but rather a post-Christian if one still thinks Jesus had lots of great ideas. I guess Phil Pullman is like this. Personally I think Jesus is overrated.
I do not recall Jesus speaking specifically about magic or any other mysticism. Was that added later? Possibly to squeeze out the Gnostics.
|
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
I understand you to be saying, and I'm rephrasing here, "The majority of people agree this is an important question [therefore, it must be]."
That is the epitome of an appeal to the people.
I'm just saying...
There is a scientific response to such a question. Our evolved tool using primate brain constantly associates objects with a purpose, a rock has a purpose (can be used to smash coconuts, sharpened into a weapon), a stick has a purpose (can be used to reach things out of arms length, can be attached to sharpened rock for weapon). Fire has a purpose (cooks food, provides heat, and light). So we know our ancestors constantly looked at things as having a purpose. Now add free time, (time not spent hunting, gathering food, surviving) = instant spirituality (If stick has a purpose, if rock has a purpose, if fire has a purpose, do I?). Spirituality was a direct result of our developing primate brain. Ever wonder why the gorillas they trained in sign language had no concept of God? Point is that is why that question is so prevalent, with the progress in our society we no longer just focus on pure survival, we have all this time to think, and with it arose spirituality.
I do not recall Jesus speaking specifically about magic or any other mysticism. Was that added later? Possibly to squeeze out the Gnostics.
Traditional Christianity is not exclusively concerned with Jesus. If it's in the book or in the folklore, it's dogma. It's all fit for instruction, correction, and reproof if I'm remembering the verse well enough to paraphrase it.
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Therein lies a chief concern--is a devout Christian one who emulates the teachings of Christ or one who worships Christ/God?
I mentally separate "Christians" into two groups: "Babblers" (as in "The Babble sez you goin' to Hell, boy!") and "Christ-Followers." The first group seems to outnumber the second.
Traditional Christianity is not exclusively concerned with Jesus. If it's in the book or in the folklore, it's dogma. It's all fit for instruction, correction, and reproof if I'm remembering the verse well enough to paraphrase it.
I do not follow.
Also, that is Paul (allegedly) and I am skeptical of Paul. The more I read of Jesus, the more I am inclined to think he expected his followers to keep Jewish laws. That may have been rather inconvenient for Paul who did not want anyone going near his member with a sharp knife.
Therein lies a chief concern--is a devout Christian one who emulates the teachings of Christ or one who worships Christ/God?I mentally separate "Christians" into two groups: "Babblers" (as in "The Babble sez you goin' to Hell, boy!") and "Christ-Followers." The first group seems to outnumber the second.
I think, even that, is an over-simplification. People are going to agree with things they are predisposed to and rationalize away the things they are not. So the babblers quote that which supports their personal view of Jesus' teachings.
Also, that is Paul (allegedly) and I am skeptical of Paul. The more I read of Jesus, the more I am inclined to think he expected his followers to keep Jewish laws. That may have been rather inconvenient for Paul who did not want anyone going near his member with a sharp knife.
Paul already had his member approached with a sharp knife. :)
I understand what you're saying, but traditional Christians do not have a minimalist conception of the canon. If it's in the book, it's in the book. (And the folklore is grandfathered in too.) Paring things away to Jesus alone is pretty much antithetical to the concept. That's Enlightenment thinking.
That aside, I might be inclined to agree except that I don't think at this remove and given the wild biases and fundamentally alien, exceptionally unreliable, worldviews of the authors there is anything we can meaningfully say about any Jesus-in-reality. If there was one, it's impossible to separate him from Jesus-in-myth.
Paul already had his member approached with a sharp knife. :)
I did not know that.
Paring things away to Jesus alone is pretty much antithetical to the concept.
Ah, o.k. I get you now.
…we can meaningfully say about any Jesus-in-reality.
I am inclined to agree. Josephus did mention him, however, even that account seems dubious. I am willing to concede there was a Jesus, but I can see the argument against as well. Of course, I like to think there was a King Arthur, Robin Hood and even Shakesphere. I guess I am just a romantic.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
"Do you really believe there are so many Christians--Sunday-Go-To-Church Christians--playing D&D? Wouldn't it be a grand coup if they were all.."Do you really believe there are so many Christians--Sunday-Go-To-Church Christians--playing D&D? Wouldn't it be a grand coup if they were all Pretend-Christians, just going through the motions, saying the right words, making the right gestures? What better way to mainstream the hobby than by converting the naysayers of the 80s into the players of today? Wolves in Sheep's clothing, and all that jazz..."
.
I fall into the Sunday-Go-To-Church Christian category, as does my wife, who also plays.
So far as being a Christian and RPGs (or horror movies, or ouija boards, etc) goes, I would have two answers:
Keep on stuffing the straw man. For a professed atheist you sure know a lot about what Christians are "supposed" to believe. The folks I go to church with for the most part know that I play and have never expressed any issues with it religious or otherwise--and they'd be quick to proclaim themselves traditional, supernaturalist Christians, not secular modernists.
To argue that Christians should not enjoy stories or participate in entertainment that features elements of the supernatural would mean, among other things, that we couldn't see or perform MacBeth (witches), read Narnia (more witches), read Paradise Lost or the Divine Comedy (demons and devils), or the Bible itself (all of the above). Playing fantasy RPGs makes one guilty of participating in the occult about as much as performing Medea makes the actors guilty of murder.
In fact, I'd argue that many of the core suppositions of fantasy RPGs in the D&D tradition actually affirm Christian beliefs. D&D is supernaturalistic and theistic, with deities rewarding worship by direct miraculous intervention in the form of divine magic. Heck, many cleric spells were drawn from Biblical miracles. The struggle between good and evil is built into the alignment system, the planar cosmology, and everything in between. Good PCs fighting evil bad guys (and winning) is the default assumption of the game. Can you play the game differently? Sure... but off-the-shelf high fantasy D&D draws so heavily on the Tolkien tradition, which itself communicates a Christian perspective, that it fundamentally conveys many of the same messages. "But wait," you will say, "D&D is polytheistic and Christianity is monotheistic." D&D has many deities because they represent different portfolios--they are analogues for ideas. Lewis and Tolkien both used powerful supernatural beings who are not true gods (Lewis's oyeresu in the Space Trilogy and Tolkien's Valar) to represent differentiated ideas and principles exactly the same way. Nor is this use of (essentially) pagan religious figures in Christian art of recent origin. Lewis and Tolkien are quite within the literary tradition of Milton, Dante, Donne, Shakespeare, the Cavalier poets, the early Renaissance, and on back for using secular or classical allusions in sacred works.
Paul already had his member approached with a sharp knife. :)
Accurate. Paul was a Jewish convert. His argument against the Judaizers, who would have required converts to Christianity to become circumcised, is the quintessential expression of the principle of Christian liberty over legalism. It's particularly germane to this discussion because the insistence by some Christians (and non-Christians, evidently) that Christians shouldn't play D&D is just the sort of spurious legalistic nonsense that Paul was condemning.
His argument against the Judaizers, who would have required converts to Christianity to become circumcised, is the quintessential expression of the principle of Christian liberty over legalism.
Paul was against homosexuality, correct? In Romans…I believe.
EDIT: Actually, it looks more like he believes homosexuality is punishment for turning away from god.
Paul already had his member approached with a sharp knife. :)I did not know that.
The story goes he was born a Jew, so Little Paul would have met Mister Snips.
Jack Vance put it best: "Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question; it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists."And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
I want to come back and agree with this statement, ironically, because I'm a happy nihilist. Logically, there is no objective 'why?' (there's a sudden stop or else turtles all the way down). This, however, makes the subjective 'why?' all the more important. The essence of spirituality is finding your 'why?'.
So far as being a Christian and RPGs (or horror movies, or ouija boards, etc) goes, I would have two answers:Keep on stuffing the straw man. For a professed atheist you sure know a lot about what Christians are "supposed" to believe.
I know a fair bit about what Communists and Libertarians believe too. You also once credited me with having a fair grasp of what Calvinism entailed, if I recall correctly.
You'll have to go to someone else for opinions about what Christians are ought to believe, as Christians. I don't care in the slightest. (If you want to know what I would prefer they believe in general, I would begin with abandoning religion entirely.) This is a straightforward historical matter to me and most Christians thoughtout history have believed in the whole hog of the supernatural and that every speck of it that wasn't their own was purely evil and must be shunned.
The folks I go to church with for the most part know that I play and have never expressed any issues with it religious or otherwise--and they'd be quick to proclaim themselves traditional, supernaturalist Christians, not secular modernists.
Of course they would. Why wouldn't they? But they grew up in a secular, modernist society. They'll take their kids to the doctor. As I said, these are matters of degrees. To the degree that one accepts secular modernism (or the Enlightenment, as it happens) one is not going to have a problem with all manner of extra-Christian supernaturalisms, even as a Christian. The Christian and atheist agree that these are simply false. Harry Potter and Zeus are equally make-believe.
To argue that Christians should not enjoy stories or participate in entertainment that features elements of the supernatural would mean, among other things, that we couldn't see or perform MacBeth (witches), read Narnia (more witches), read Paradise Lost or the Divine Comedy (demons and devils), or the Bible itself (all of the above). Playing fantasy RPGs makes one guilty of participating in the occult about as much as performing Medea makes the actors guilty of murder.
Again, I'm not saying that Christians of any stripe should or should not partake in any particular form of entertainment. My invocation of tradition is descriptive, not prescriptive.
And I'm sorry Charlie, but you don't seem to be reading very carefully. Did you miss where I specified that traditionalist Christians consider all the supernatural real, but insist that their stuff and their stuff alone does not stink? I don't know how you read that and then thought the Bible, Paradise Lost, or the Divine Comedy were good counterexamples.
But of course even over your objections it would be trivial to find Christians opposed to Narnia (I know a few), Harry Potter (Ditto), and even Shakespeare. It is, of course, an equally trivial exercise to find those who think all the above are a-ok. A switch does not flick on and make one no longer a traditional Christian. Rather to the degree that one is X, one is X. To the degree one is not X, one is not X. As I said:
1) To the degree that one is a Christian in the sense that you believe the things that the majority of Christians have historically believed
[...]
2) But to the degree that one is a secular modernist
I'm not trying to tell you that if you're having fun doing X or Y then you are doing Christianity wrong. I am only commending on the general historical trends.
Paul was against homosexuality, correct? In Romans…I believe.EDIT: Actually, it looks more like he believes homosexuality is punishment for turning away from god.
John Shelby Spong speculates that Paul was a self-castigating gay man. Personally I'd rather not have him in the club, but lately it seems that the main way one gets to be a successful antigay activist is to be in the closet so deep you get mail from Mr. Tumnus.
John Shelby Spong speculates that Paul was a self-castigating gay man.
Never heard of him.
EDIT: Dear Lord! Not Christianity 3.0! He is trying to 'dumb down' religion…isn't he?
|
|
...To argue that Christians should not enjoy stories or participate in entertainment that features elements of the supernatural would mean, among other things, that we couldn't see or perform MacBeth (witches), read Narnia (more witches), read Paradise Lost or the Divine Comedy (demons and devils), or the Bible itself (all of the above). Playing fantasy RPGs makes one guilty of participating in the occult about as much as performing Medea makes the actors guilty of murder...
The key difference in D&D and all your examples is that in D&D magic might rule the world and be actively used to benefit others. In your examples, magic is always either very understated or very negatively portrayed.
I think many Christians might disagree with associating a divine miracle with divine magic. Just my opinion.
|
Lots of stuff over the past few days. With regard to the Christians and D&D -- I go to church every Sunday and don't really have a problem with it. Does that make me a "bad Christian"? I'll let God deal with that when the time comes.
There were other things I could have commented on but didn't really see the point. But then I saw this.
People are going to agree with things they are predisposed to and rationalize away the things they are not. So the babblers quote that which supports their personal view of Jesus' teachings.
I thought it was an interesting statement. Is this universally true? Are atheists the same way? People who don't care -- will they never care?
Personally I think that this happens until something happens in a person's life that causes them to think differently.
Save in cases of chemical change where neural pathways are significantly altered, as in cases of anyreuism, whatever you do you are predisposed to do it. The religious often espouse that all things are by the will of God. The less religious might hold that all things happen as a matter of genetics. Choices and decisions in life are influenced by environmental conditions, true, but the predilection to choose one way or another can often be reasonably assumed based on genetic disposition. Social normalizing occurs based on the society, but the decision to be more adventurous or less so has more to do with marker R18812 than with whether or not your immediate or extra social order demands it be so.
Thus, even the individual who seems to experience a life-altering episode reacts just as his genetics predisposed him to act.
Save in cases of chemical change where neural pathways are significantly altered, as in cases of anyreuism, whatever you do you are predisposed to do it. The religious often espouse that all things are by the will of God. The less religious might hold that all things happen as a matter of genetics. Choices and decisions in life are influenced by environmental conditions, true, but the predilection to choose one way or another can often be reasonably assumed based on genetic disposition. Social normalizing occurs based on the society, but the decision to be more adventurous or less so has more to do with marker R18812 than with whether or not your immediate or extra social order demands it be so.
Thus, even the individual who seems to experience a life-altering episode reacts just as his genetics predisposed him to act.
Eh, I'm willing to give environment and genetics an even 50/50.
I thought it was an interesting statement. Is this universally true? Are atheists the same way? People who don't care -- will they never care?
Generally, I think so. Obviously, people do change, but I think it is usually a gradual change. For the most part, people maintain their own status quo. And yes, I believe atheists and myself are included. I try to maintain an open mind, but I recognize I am biased.
Just look at this board for an example. Of all the discussions/debates/arguments concerning religion, politics or really weighty issues like 3.5 vs 4e…how many times do you see someone change their mind? All I ever see is people become more polarized. There are none so blind as those that will not see. applies fairly universally.
|
|
I thought it was an interesting statement. Is this universally true? Are atheists the same way? People who don't care -- will they never care?Generally, I think so. Obviously, people do change, but I think it is usually a gradual change. For the most part, people maintain their own status quo. And yes, I believe atheists and myself are included. I try to maintain an open mind, but I recognize I am biased.
Just look at this board for an example. Of all the discussions/debates/arguments concerning religion, politics or really weighty issues like 3.5 vs 4e…how many times do you see someone change their mind? All I ever see is people become more polarized. There are none so blind as those that will not see. applies fairly universally.
So is the predisposition to remain steadfast, no matter the issue, or is it to the issue itself?
So is the predisposition to remain steadfast, no matter the issue, or is it to the issue itself?
I think humans, in general, resist change. We are probably more tolerant of change in things we deem less important. So I guess it is a little bit of both, depending.
Shana Tova
May you be written and sealed for a good year.
I removed some duplicate posts.
I removed some duplicate posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
@ Samnell: I concede that the universe is a harsh and random place with no sense of justice: browser crash destroyed my reply. I will recompose when I am not buried under a mountain of actual work.
@ CourtFool: Bad dog. You did it again. Proverbs 26:11.
Proverbs 26:11.
And the following verse to you, sir.
@ Samnell: I concede that the universe is a harsh and random place with no sense of justice: browser crash destroyed my reply.
I hate when that happens.
Just look at this board for an example. Of all the discussions/debates/arguments concerning religion, politics or really weighty issues like 3.5 vs 4e…how many times do you see someone change their mind?
I've changed my mind based on internet arguments before, and changed someone else's too. I used to believe in free will and that rights existed independent of states and societies. Neither idea withstood scrutiny and when I discovered this I abandoned them quite eagerly.
I've changed my mind based on internet arguments before, and changed someone else's too. I used to believe in free will and that rights existed independent of states and societies. Neither idea withstood scrutiny and when I discovered this I abandoned them quite eagerly.
Nu uh!!! Did not!!! :P
I've changed my mind based on internet arguments before, and changed someone else's too. I used to believe in free will and that rights existed independent of states and societies. Neither idea withstood scrutiny and when I discovered this I abandoned them quite eagerly.Nu uh!!! Did not!!! :P
Did so!!! Say it happened or I'll throw action figures at you!
So…what you are really saying is I can convince people of Hero's superiority?
Sa-wheat!
So…what you are really saying is I can convince people of Hero's superiority?
Sa-wheat!
People can be persuaded, sure. Though it's a bit harder, of course, to settle matters of taste.
I thought it was an interesting statement. Is this universally true? Are atheists the same way? People who don't care -- will they never care?Generally, I think so. Obviously, people do change, but I think it is usually a gradual change. For the most part, people maintain their own status quo. And yes, I believe atheists and myself are included. I try to maintain an open mind, but I recognize I am biased.
Just look at this board for an example. Of all the discussions/debates/arguments concerning religion, politics or really weighty issues like 3.5 vs 4e…how many times do you see someone change their mind? All I ever see is people become more polarized. There are none so blind as those that will not see. applies fairly universally.
I think there is a mind-changing gender skew. Sure, there are some rigid and stubborn women and some wonderfully open-minded men. However, in my experience we men are generally much dumber than women in this regard. We are more likely to entrench for the sake of pride/honor/dominance/saving face, or simply because we are pigheaded.
|
|
I think there is a mind-changing gender skew. Sure, there are some rigid and stubborn women and some wonderfully open-minded men. However, in my experience we men are generally much dumber than women in this regard. We are more likely to entrench for the sake of pride/honor/dominance/saving face, or simply because we are pigheaded.I thought it was an interesting statement. Is this universally true? Are atheists the same way? People who don't care -- will they never care?Generally, I think so. Obviously, people do change, but I think it is usually a gradual change. For the most part, people maintain their own status quo. And yes, I believe atheists and myself are included. I try to maintain an open mind, but I recognize I am biased.
Just look at this board for an example. Of all the discussions/debates/arguments concerning religion, politics or really weighty issues like 3.5 vs 4e…how many times do you see someone change their mind? All I ever see is people become more polarized. There are none so blind as those that will not see. applies fairly universally.
I've actually had the exact opposite experience. I know many more woman who get stuck on something and entrench themselves deeper than men, who don't tend to emotionally invest themselves as much. My mom, sisters, and some friends are perfect examples... as opposed to some of my guy friends who will tend to keep counter examples in mind.