| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got a second opinion from the pastor of the church I used to go to and he said that for someone that doesn't have a knowledge of the game that he would say he would treat it as any other thing that takes our time away from god and say that we must have a balance of how we use up our 24 hours each day and that if the game becomes the center of who we are then maybe it is a bad thing for us. "To much of a good thing can become a bad thing" So I will continue to play the game but I will not let the game play me to the point that it controls my life. Also I made a phone call to my therapist and discussed his statement with him and he said the reason he mad such statements he had heard bad things about the game I asked him have you ever seen the game played he said no I asked him how he can judge something when he has no knowledge of the thing he is against and he said I'm right his statement was wrong and that he felt that he let his religious up bringing as a catholic get in the way of treating me. I will be seeing him on the 14th again and possibly will be switching to another therapist.
That's actually good from both the pastor and the therapist. If you feel that this therapist has been helpful up to this point, you might want to consider giving him another chance beyond the 14th. He admitted he was wrong. Hopefully this means he can get back to the business of treating your condition and leave the preaching up to the preacher.
You should do what you feel is best for your treatment. Don't get caught up in the minutia. You won't find a perfect therapist. You just need to find one that helps you.
|
I got a second opinion from the pastor of the church I used to go to and he said that for someone that doesn't have a knowledge of the game that he would say he would treat it as any other thing that takes our time away from god and say that we must have a balance of how we use up our 24 hours each day and that if the game becomes the center of who we are then maybe it is a bad thing for us. "To much of a good thing can become a bad thing" So I will continue to play the game but I will not let the game play me to the point that it controls my life.
+1
Sounds like you got it all worked out.
*congratulates himself on being patient enough to read all the posts in this thread*
Thank the God that I don't coun't myself into any organised religion.
*congratulates himself on being patient enough to read all the posts in this thread*
Thank the God that I don't coun't myself into any organised religion.
How about a disorganised one?
Hail Eris!
Disbanded and forgotten would work as well ;)
Thank the God that I don't coun't myself into any organised religion.
Nor me - I follow wicca, and that's about as disorganised as it gets.
Could be that we're CG alternative :o)
Was it Isaac Bonewitz who pointed out that the one consistent thing in Wicca is the inverse square law of pentacle - the bigger the pentacle the Wiccan is carrying, the smaller the amount of spiritual enlightenment?
I wouldn't know, I don't usually wear one.
I cant see how religion playes a part in therpy, i myself am an atheist, so my advice is do whatever ´makes you happy, as long as no one is hurt by it.
i would normally make a long rant about how religions f+@* up ppl's lifes and stuff like that but it late and im to tired.
so enjoy the game, findt someone who is not driven by religion to treat you and í you need advice on religion then ask yoursef, i hope logic and reason will prevail here.
For some people the religion is a very important part of their life, let's not take it away from them. The thing I can't wrap my mind around is, how on Earth can they even consider a mere game able to influence what they believe in. Is their faith that weak? Nope... some things are better left unanswered.
|
|
Just to throw a wrench in the works:
This message board isn't going to be the best place to get a good answer. Everyone who reads & writes to the Paizo boards is going to be pro-Pathfinder. You have a faith-based question, not a Pathfiner-based question. You need to find a mature member of your faith and sit down and discuss the faith issue with him.
As a fairly hard-line conversative Christian, do I believe Pathfinder is inherently evil? No, not usually. But my opinion doesn't matter. Seek the will of God. Pray about it with open eyes, earnestly listening to what the Holy Spirit wants to say to you.
I believe the Devil can and will use anything to gain a foothold in someone's life. Drinking alcohol is not a sin: yet Satan uses it to make some people alcoholics. Listening to rock-and-roll is not a sin: yet Satan uses it to turn some people away from the Lord. Does that mean that all of us should flee from these things? Not nessecarily, but we must indulge with caution and prayer. And sometimes, our prayer reveals to us that we do need to flee.
If Pathfinder or roleplaying games is a stumbling block before you: then you may need to take a break for this season of your life. Then, once you recalibrate, you can return to it in strength.
Here's my litmus test: which is more important to you: playing RPGs, or worshipping Jesus Christ? And if you *had* to choose between the two of them, which would win?
+1 very good words
+1 very well said
If you would choose RPGs over your faith, then you are guilty of idolitry and in sin, and you need to repent of that. I say this not to condemn you, for the cross has already borne that sin of idolitry for you, making you innocent, you need only repent before the Lord. I would recommend a taking a season away from the game to seek the face of the Lord, not as "penance", but merely as a way to draw closer in love to Christ who sustains us (and frankly, who doesn't need more sustaining?). However, if you can say with a clear conscience that you would give up RPGs for your faith, then you...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a Catholic, I wondered as a child and a teen-ager about this whole "giving something up for Lent" thing. How was abstaining from chocolate, or TV, or anything else, supposed to help me, or benefit the world. I could see "avoiding chocolate and then donating the savings to charity", but how would abstaining itself help anyone.
Then, one year, I chose to abstain from time-wasting hobbies (Solitaire, Sudoku, that sort of thing), and spend that time with the Rosary instead. And it was suddenly, ridiculously hard. And I understood that I was in training. From then on, I know that, if it ever does come down to a question of getting up and doing God's will or, say, working a crossword puzzle first, I know that I can live without the puzzle, because I have gone for 40 days without it, and it didn't kill me.
I suspect, honestly, that this coming Lent, I'll be giving up paizo.com.
Speaking as a Catholic, I wondered as a child and a teen-ager about this whole "giving something up for Lent" thing. How was abstaining from chocolate, or TV, or anything else, supposed to help me, or benefit the world. I could see "avoiding chocolate and then donating the savings to charity", but how would abstaining itself help anyone.
Then, one year, I chose to abstain from time-wasting hobbies (Solitaire, Sudoku, that sort of thing), and spend that time with the Rosary instead. And it was suddenly, ridiculously hard. And I understood that I was in training. From then on, I know that, if it ever does come down to a question of getting up and doing God's will or, say, working a crossword puzzle first, I know that I can live without the puzzle, because I have gone for 40 days without it, and it didn't kill me.
I suspect, honestly, that this coming Lent, I'll be giving up paizo.com.
When I was a regular at Candlekeep, I went through this same realization. I gave up the website and spent a lot more time exploring my faith during Lent, and it was one of the most spiritual Lenten seasons I had even had the blessing of participating in.
However, I also noticed that when I gave up something that wasn't time consuming, but was ever present, in my case, soda, every time I thought about how much I could use a soda it reminded me how trivial a thing it was to not have access to a soda, and how much more other have sacrificed for their faith.
Speaking as a Catholic, I wondered as a child and a teen-ager about this whole "giving something up for Lent" thing. How was abstaining from chocolate, or TV, or anything else, supposed to help me, or benefit the world. I could see "avoiding chocolate and then donating the savings to charity", but how would abstaining itself help anyone.
Then, one year, I chose to abstain from time-wasting hobbies (Solitaire, Sudoku, that sort of thing), and spend that time with the Rosary instead. And it was suddenly, ridiculously hard. And I understood that I was in training. From then on, I know that, if it ever does come down to a question of getting up and doing God's will or, say, working a crossword puzzle first, I know that I can live without the puzzle, because I have gone for 40 days without it, and it didn't kill me.
I suspect, honestly, that this coming Lent, I'll be giving up paizo.com.
Catholicism and other modern religions seem to have a penchant for instilling sacrifice as a good thing amongst their members. It is hard not to see that tendency as a continuation of time-honored traditions of self-mortification and renouncement of the self in order to favor the group, a typical mechanism of repression and control of the masses. Sacrifice is definitely necessary at times, to renounce coffee to have a better blood pressure, to renounce devoting so much time to writing the novel of my dreams in order to prepare my classes better and do a good job at teaching, all of that reflects maturity, for sure. But sacrifice for sacrifice's sake is normally a directed attitude by an ideological dominant power (like a church in this case).
Sorry, but I personally find that your childhood and teen years attitude was far more genuine and unbiased by ideology.
Let's be careful with proposals of self-renouncing and self-denial, they tend to be mechanisms of control.
Speaking as a Catholic, I wondered as a child and a teen-ager about this whole "giving something up for Lent" thing. How was abstaining from chocolate, or TV, or anything else, supposed to help me, or benefit the world. I could see "avoiding chocolate and then donating the savings to charity", but how would abstaining itself help anyone.
Then, one year, I chose to abstain from time-wasting hobbies (Solitaire, Sudoku, that sort of thing), and spend that time with the Rosary instead. And it was suddenly, ridiculously hard. And I understood that I was in training. From then on, I know that, if it ever does come down to a question of getting up and doing God's will or, say, working a crossword puzzle first, I know that I can live without the puzzle, because I have gone for 40 days without it, and it didn't kill me.
I suspect, honestly, that this coming Lent, I'll be giving up paizo.com.
Chris, we'll miss you if you do, but I salute your intentions.
A little self-sacrifice now and then is a good thing I think, for the reasons you and KnightErrantJR have expressed so well.
Sorry, but I personally find that your childhood and teen years attitude was far more genuine and unbiased by ideology.
Let's be careful with proposals of self-renouncing and self-denial, they tend to be mechanisms of control.
I am not so sure. I think that they serve to give us a sense of perspective, especially as children. Today children have whole lists of 'must have' items to fit in with their peer groups, TV they 'have' to watch, and so on. Going without tends to give them a sense of perspective on how important these things really are.
For us as adults, we clutter our lives with junk both material and psychological, things that distract us from the fundamentals. What do we really need at the end of the day, and why do we spend so much time and energy pursuing things we do not need?
Going without helps us get a sense of this. To much we are told by a constant barrage of media that we have to have certain things, that they will make our lives better (itself a form of 'control' by distracting us from things that matter to us but that perhaps some would rather we didn't think about). We all know they don't, and sometimes it is good to just cut the chatter out of out minds and focus on things that really matter to us, be it religion, family, health or other.
Edit: Chris, it's been a while, Gashelle has been missed! But glad to know you are OK and still up there.
Well, I do have to say that asking this question in the game's forum is inviting a lot of bias. Not that this is a bad thing, as that therapist obviously has his own bias too. Here's my take. I'm Christian, and not only have I been playing Dungeons and Dragons for 15 years (along with several other RPGs), but I've found it to be an entertaining and worthwhile activity. There are 'Christians' out there that hear the word 'magic' or 'demon' and start frothing at the mouth. Just like so many other things in the world, this is scapegoatism. People want to blame objects for the horrible deeds of people. Recently, there was someone in my town who committed horrible crimes against a mentally challenged girl (the details of which I won't get into here, but suffice it to say, they were pretty repulsive), and he happened to play World of Warcraft, so now we have people blaming WoW for what happened, ignoring all the people who DON'T commit these kinds of acts who play these kinds of games. Some people just want something to blame, and anything with certain words in it is a viable target, regardless of the actual content.
Now I'll try to disprove and show examples for the things that 'Christians' (and I use the word in marks because they're only about 5% of us, they're just very loud) say is evil about DnD in general.
"There's magic in those games, so it encourages people to use magic!"
Then perhaps we should ban Superman comics so people aren't encouraged to fly too. First, Everyone wants to be special, to be able to do things no one else can do. RPGs are a good, healthy way to do that. Second, the magic in any role playing game I've ever found in NO WAY bears any resemblance to modern day mysticism. Whether you believe in the power of magic or not, there is still a huge selection of books on modern witchcraft, new-age metaphysics, and crystal worship in any Borders or Barnes and Noble you go into, and the rituals and spells in those books are unlike the magic in DnD in pretty much every conceivable way.
"Look at the pictures! There are demons in thar! It encourages Demon Worship!"
Yeah! Except that those demons and devils are set up as powerful villains to be defeated, not cooperated with (since Lawful or Chaotic, the fiend WILL betray you if you try).
"The game makes people retreat into their imagination, and they get stuck there!"
The most famous example of this is the movie 'Mazes and Monsters' where Tom Hanks (not kidding) joins a role playing group, and goes insane because of it. This is the most extreme case of scapegoatism. A couple of people (and I'm serious, there have been, like, 3 people in the history of DnD) take the game concepts too far, and everyone blames the game. No one thinks that maybe, just maybe, those people had serious problems with their brains, and they just happened to play? What about all the other people that do the same things and don't play DnD? Like the Son of Sam killer, who took orders from his dog. The Dog must be evil! Ban dogs from America! Talking about DnD like that is equally ludicrous, but a lot of people don't understand RPGs. I don't really understand why? Everyone played make-believe when they were kids. We just added rules. Much better hit detection.
I personally think that DnD can be a very good thing. It forces you to think outside the box, come up with solutions to problems that you'd never encounter in real life, and exercise that Wis score of yours.
Peace out.
Next year, I'm giving up Catholicism for Lent.
ROFLMAO!
Just about the entire youth group at the local First Baptist Church plays; the youth minister DMs, and when he wants to play, one of the deacons DMs (they tag team it so everyone gets to play). The pastor's son DMs 4th edition when he can get people together to play it. Most of them also play Warcraft.
It's never played at church functions, mind you, but no one here thinks it's evil (which honestly surprises me given the actual backward-ness of this town).
As long as you are able to separate fact from fiction, no one should have any more problems with you playing Pathfinder than they have with you going to a movie theater (to see anything).
I hope you find a therapist you're comfortable with and whatnot. :) Vaya con Dios, mi amigo.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Well I guess what I'm try to get at is I don't really want to give up the game I love just because my faith says it's "evil" because I don't see anything "evil" about it.
Mageye: I have been a Christian for almost 24 years. I have have had periods of time in that stretch where In have had a great relationship with God and was focused on discipleship. I have had times in that stretch where I didn't understand my faith and I rebelled against it fully out of a sense of disappointment. SO I assume I have had roughly the same experience as any other Christian.
In that time, I have learned and matured a lot as a Christian, putting away surface beliefs and learning that I'm not entitled to things just because I am under God's grace. A few of those principles as they relate to role-playing:
1) Your faith doesn't call role-playing a sin. If a pastor or church deacon or whatnot says otherwise, recall that your faith is in the Bible and God's communication to you. You don't worship the pastor or elder. You live under grace. According to Paul, we must be all things to all people. Some things are sins for some people and not for others. As God said to Peter in Acts, 'call nothing unclean that I have not called unclean'. To do otherwise is to embrace legalism. Neither your salvation nor your faith is there.
2) Christian must be involved in culture, arts etc. To ask a Christian not to use his imagination is to seal off part of yourself, created by God in his image, and run away from whatever talent or amusement you might be able to use for His glory or enjoyment. Should we then also swear off rock music, fine wine and Mountain Dew? Anyone who tells you what you can and can't do (with the exception of clearly, always sinful activity like sleeping with another man's wife) must be perfect to have that expectation. I remember people assailing one guy at a Baptist Student Union. One of my friends said "ok...how about he gives up the occasional beer, the fat Christians all lose fifty pounds and no one dates anyone who isn't a regular church-goer?". You are your own high priest. You have one intercessor between you and God, and that is Christ. No one else stands in that role.
3) Despite the above, maybe the counselor is right. We all hang on to things we shouldn't. If you are convicted that your heart and your behavior during a game don't reflect the character God wants from you, consider it. Again, no one can tell you what to do. Some Christians are great gamers and bear a strong witness that living by grace doesn't mean adopting a list of arbitrary DOs and DONTs. But if you can't game without feeling nagged by your conscience, or without alcohol or profanity (and that's for you to decide, not me), or without being a poor sport, then it's worth considering.
Just don't let anyone tell you you have to do something or give something up to be a Christian. Cocaine and premarital sex? Sure. Role-playing, a beer with dinner, and progressive metal? Only you can decide that.
3)
But sacrifice for sacrifice's sake is normally a directed attitude by an ideological dominant power (like a church in this case). Sorry, but I personally find that your childhood and teen years attitude was far more genuine and unbiased by ideology.
Let's be careful with proposals of self-renouncing and self-denial, they tend to be mechanisms of control.
To consider it "sacrifice for sacrifice's sake" is to miss the point. And I think that's what Chris was trying to say he learned.
I got a second opinion from the pastor of the church I used to go to and he said that for someone that doesn't have a knowledge of the game that he would say he would treat it as any other thing that takes our time away from god and say that we must have a balance of how we use up our 24 hours each day and that if the game becomes the center of who we are then maybe it is a bad thing for us. "To much of a good thing can become a bad thing" So I will continue to play the game but I will not let the game play me to the point that it controls my life. Also I made a phone call to my therapist and discussed his statement with him and he said the reason he mad such statements he had heard bad things about the game I asked him have you ever seen the game played he said no I asked him how he can judge something when he has no knowledge of the thing he is against and he said I'm right his statement was wrong and that he felt that he let his religious up bringing as a catholic get in the way of treating me. I will be seeing him on the 14th again and possibly will be switching to another therapist.That pastor's advice sounds quite a bit more evenhanded.
RPG-trashing aside, I would drop this therapist immediately, because what sort of counselor is giving advice on things HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, BASED ON HEARSAY? Scary stuff..........
+1
This is what would scare me the most. Not that he was against Pathfinder. There might be plenty of good, psychological reasons for not wanting you to play a RPG. (Then again, he's only a therapist, not an actual Psychologist, which might be part of the problem.)
But to use the reason he did, without actually doing the research. That's just a bad therapist and, frankly, a dangerous one. Who knows what else he'll make snap judgements on.
There are plenty of good therapists out there. I'd drop this one quickly and find another who is a bit less likely to let his own personal problems interfere with your mental health.
To consider it "sacrifice for sacrifice's sake" is to miss the point. And I think that's what Chris was trying to say he learned.But sacrifice for sacrifice's sake is normally a directed attitude by an ideological dominant power (like a church in this case). Sorry, but I personally find that your childhood and teen years attitude was far more genuine and unbiased by ideology.
Let's be careful with proposals of self-renouncing and self-denial, they tend to be mechanisms of control.
Definitely not missing the point, but assessing it from an ideological pov. I mean "sacrifice for sacrifice's" sake in the sense that Catholicism (among other religions) sees virtue in denial when there is no practical reason to do so (e.g. fasting once a year in the "World Fast Day" to be aware of people in need, where you don't give the food you save to hungry people, the important thing is just the experience of denial or deprivation). In other words, a ritualized approach to sacririce and denial, which, unlike some other belief systems, is incidental, as it is based, e.g., in calendar dates such as Lent, as opposed to a personal path of self-denial, like the one to be found in certain Asian systems, which I won't bring into the discussion, because I find inaccurate and Western-centric to call them "religions".
To think that renouncing something on a voluntary basis and in a ritual community setting can make one connect with people who are deprived daily because of life situations is really preposterous. It would be more productive to focus resources and energies in helping them (if they want to be helped) instead of "communing with their feelings". I do not doubt the genuine good feelings of many practitioners of such procedures, ie, Chris and other posters, but I am wary of its implementation by Church hierarchy at large; ritualized denial is a good way of washing away our conscience from misery in the world without really trying to change anything.
|
"Look at the pictures! There are demons in thar! It encourages Demon Worship!"
Yeah! Except that those demons and devils are set up as powerful villains to be defeated, not cooperated with (since Lawful or Chaotic, the fiend WILL betray you if you try).
There are also demons and devils in the Bible. Thus, the Bible is obviously a demonic tool that Satan uses to suck the soul out of otherwise faithful Christians.
HANG ON PEOPLE!!!!!!
We do not have the whole story of the OPs disorder. Yes, on the surface it seems like the therapist overstepped their professional boundary. BUT there is NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION here to recommend that the OP walk away from the therapist.
How many of you are professional therapists that you can make this call without a thorough investigation of the OPs status? You are treading on VERY DANGEROUS ground by making those suggestions.
To the OP: TALK TO YOUR THERAPIST! Find out if there is a SOLID reason based on your individual case of bi-polar disorder that you should not play. If your individual case merits putting Pathfinder on the shelf for the time being then you should do so.
Again, TALK TO YOUR THERAPIST, and your Pastor! They are the people you should be listening to!
For the record, I AM a psychological therapist, who is state licensed.
I would suggest that the discussion might be aided if the original poster provided some additional context of what he has previously told the therapist (about himself and what role RPGs play in his life) as well as the therapists exact statements, to provide for more clarity in the discussion.
While bipolar mood disorder and other similar conditions are significant mental health conditions (please take your prescribed psych meds as directed by the way:), these conditions certainly aren't directly related to playing RPGs, nor should they automatically "prevent" anyone from playing PFRpG, who has such a condition, barring other extenuating circumstances.
Therapists must to a large degree (but not completely) suspend their own personal judgements on priorities/agendas that a client has.
If a client is demonstrating behavior(s) that I don't personally or morally agree with, I have to be cautious in how I approach these issues. The 'scale' for which i base my decision of whether or not to broach the behavior usually centers on whether the behavior would cause 'clinically significant distress' or problems to the average person, if he/she were to engage in the behavior, ex-a client with a STD informs me he is engaging in unprotected sex, and has no qualms or concerns about engaging in this behavior, without informing others.
Even then, I usually form my statements in the form of a questions, ex. 'How do you think this behavior might effect you or others? Why do you think this behavior appeals to you? What if any negative results might occur from your continuing this behavior?...
For a therapist to come straight out and condemn a behavior, which is not clinically significant(and to boot: to take a strongly religious tone to his condemnation) is extremely questionable at best, and suggests that the therapist is placing his own personal views in the center of his work as a therapist. That's not appropriate. People dont' pay me to lecture them about how I think they should live their lives, or what I consider 'right or wrong'. Rather, they come for professional therapy and counseling services as to how they can accomplish THEIR goals and objectives--not mine. My ideas and values can't trump the client ideas & values, even if I may be "smarter and wiser" than the client. And if I'm doing my job well, I don't convey that attitude, Knowingly or unknowingly to any client.
I think the Original Poster could offer a bit more exact dialogue and context of what his therapist said to help the discussion. This could clarify some things, and save other posters the task of belabouring the "Separation of church and Gaming" that most subscribe to.
Ultimately, psychologists, counselors, and therapists are like plumber or electricians. If the first one doesn't get your water or your lights on, how many more times are you going to call him, before switching to one who can?
If you (the orignial poster) like your therapist, and this is the only "issue" between you and this particular therapist, then maybe you address it. Otherwise, I'd label the therapist a little "Nutty" and consider your other options.
There are also demons and devils in the Bible. Thus, the Bible is obviously a demonic tool that Satan uses to suck the soul out of otherwise faithful Christians.
That would explain so much ...
To think that renouncing something on a voluntary basis and in a ritual community setting can make one connect with people who are deprived daily because of life situations is really preposterous.
No, it isn't. If you have never been truly hungry in your life, how can you comprehend how a starving person feels? You can comprehend it intellectually, maybe, but you don't actually understand hunger, or what it can drive people to do.
It would be more productive to focus resources and energies in helping them (if they want to be helped) instead of "communing with their feelings".
Now here is where you aren't getting it: it's not about "communing with their feelings" it's more about motivating people to do something by showing them how it feels.
I do not doubt the genuine good feelings of many practitioners of such procedures, ie, Chris and other posters, but I am wary of its implementation by Church hierarchy at large; ritualized denial is a good way of washing away our conscience from misery in the world without really trying to change anything.
Yes, you have a point in that if you are just going without food rather than doing something, you are in practical terms doing nothing. If you are taking the lessons and learning from them, getting motivated to do something, it isn't wasted effort.
To think that renouncing something on a voluntary basis and in a ritual community setting can make one connect with people who are deprived daily because of life situations is really preposterous.
Yes it is, and if that's what was being discussed, you'd be right. So you still seem to be missing the point. I'm rubbish at explaining this sort of thing - in part because I'm not a super-devout follower of any particular ritual set - but something like "Lent" is a time set aside to "remember to do something." In the case of "Lent," in particular, that "something" is something like this - "Remember to periodically take a half-step away from the world (by 'giving things up') to gain insight. Not into 'hunger' or 'needy people,' - but into myself." I'm sure I've done that injustice, but it's the closest I can come.
The actual DATES could, in fact, be arbitrary, but by having them, the participator in "Lent" has two advantages (1) the reminder to take that time and (2) something of a shared experience with other participants. How much of an advantage (or disadvantage) one finds in such a structure over simply "picking a Lent" (or a Christmas, or whatever) every now and again probably lines up well with one's tendency toward (or away from) a community of faith.
I understand that "willing self-denial is good" can be shaky territory - especially when mass-broadcast by a powerful, influential institution (but, really, does the Vatican even measure up any more?) to - but the fact remains that willing self-denial CAN be good, and can teach one a good deal about oneself - no matter the specifics.
|
|
*congratulates himself on being patient enough to read all the posts in this thread*
Thank the God that I don't count myself into any organized religion.
Alas i did not, for which I am jealous sir.
Secondly, I am going to simply state that i am a christian and I play Pathfinder. If someone has a religious problem with a game like this, they are entitled to their opinion. But an opinion is just that, and opinion. It is neither wrong or right unless supported by non-biased solid proof. (In my opinion...:>....lol)
If someone says you shouldn't play this game because of religious reasons, than they shouldn't let their children pretend to be superman or learn how to do math. That is all this game is, pretending and a basic concept of mathematics.
I've gone on voluntary water-only fasts. I've also gone hungry involuntarily. Doing one is in no way equivalent to doing the other.
Simply from reading this thread, I'm pretty sure nobody disagrees on this.
People hopping onto this thread to stir the pot had best look elsewhere. It only takes a mouse click for me to shut this puppy down, and since the concerns of the OP appear to have been addressed, I urge everyone to behave themselves and not turn this into any kind of flame war.
The fires of an Admin burn hottest of all. :)
Oh, I think this bears repeating.
Self-denial is all about control. Self-control.
Sadly too many have been convinced they are incapable of self-control, from sex, to food, to spending, what have you. Consume, consume, consume, is the mantra of society. To take that control back can be a very powerful thing, and a scary thing. It is understandable why some would oppose or at least feel uncomfortable with others demonstrating control over themselves.
Self-denial is all about control. Self-control.
Sadly too many have been convinced they are incapable of self-control, from sex, to food, to spending, what have you. Consume, consume, consume, is the mantra of society. To take that control back can be a very powerful thing, and a scary thing. It is understandable why some would oppose or at least feel uncomfortable with others demonstrating control over themselves.
Quoted for Truth.
Self-denial can be argued to be denying others power over us, as opposed to granting it.
Self-denial is all about control. Self-control.
Sadly too many have been convinced they are incapable of self-control, from sex, to food, to spending, what have you. Consume, consume, consume, is the mantra of society. To take that control back can be a very powerful thing, and a scary thing. It is understandable why some would oppose or at least feel uncomfortable with others demonstrating control over themselves.
Quoted for Truth.
Self-denial can be argued to be denying others power over us, as opposed to granting it.
+1 to both, for saying more than I did with less.
To consider it "sacrifice for sacrifice's sake" is to miss the point. And I think that's what Chris was trying to say he learned.But sacrifice for sacrifice's sake is normally a directed attitude by an ideological dominant power (like a church in this case). Sorry, but I personally find that your childhood and teen years attitude was far more genuine and unbiased by ideology.
Let's be careful with proposals of self-renouncing and self-denial, they tend to be mechanisms of control.Definitely not missing the point, but assessing it from an ideological pov. I mean "sacrifice for sacrifice's" sake in the sense that Catholicism (among other religions) sees virtue in denial when there is no practical reason to do so (e.g. fasting once a year in the "World Fast Day" to be aware of people in need, where you don't give the food you save to hungry people, the important thing is just the experience of denial or deprivation). In other words, a ritualized approach to sacririce and denial, which, unlike some other belief systems, is incidental, as it is based, e.g., in calendar dates such as Lent, as opposed to a personal path of self-denial, like the one to be found in certain Asian systems, which I won't bring into the discussion, because I find inaccurate and Western-centric to call them "religions".
To think that renouncing something on a voluntary basis and in a ritual community setting can make one connect with people who are deprived daily because of life situations is really preposterous. It would be more productive to focus resources and energies in helping them (if they want to be helped) instead of "communing with their feelings". I do not doubt the genuine good feelings of many practitioners of such procedures, ie, Chris and other posters, but I am wary of its implementation by Church hierarchy at large; ritualized denial is a good way of washing away our conscience from misery in the world without really trying to change anything.
+1
If someone gives up something due to their religion and as a result decides to do something to improve the world around them - for example giving up something at Lent and that experience leading them to go out and volunteering at a soup kitchen - then great. If it is purely an introspective exercise driven by the requirements of your religion, then what is the point? You can feel empathy for those who are hungry without giving up food, but actually doing something to help others - irrespective of what you do to change your own life - should be the mark of a "good" Christian.
One of the reasons I am an atheist. Religion is driven too much by ceremony, inward-looking self-satisfaction, peer group pressure etc. You don't need any of that to do good deeds, live a "good" life or be a good person.
Self-denial is all about control. Self-control.
Sadly too many have been convinced they are incapable of self-control, from sex, to food, to spending, what have you. Consume, consume, consume, is the mantra of society. To take that control back can be a very powerful thing, and a scary thing. It is understandable why some would oppose or at least feel uncomfortable with others demonstrating control over themselves.
You could have done without that last sentence condemning those who are wary of an organization who has used the ideal of "self-sacrifice" in the past to simply keep people under control while they used them.
A similar technique was recently used by the U.S. government. Insisting that we had to give up our rights to retain our safety.
That's not discomfort about what's being done, it's rightful concern.
What's more, people can learn self-control without denying themselves something. Martial artists do it on a daily basis.
This conversation has been pretty interesting, but now I think there's different groups of people here talking about at least two different aspects of something only slightly related to the initial post. (And no offense taken, I hope, when I say folks are "missing the point" - maybe I'm missing part of your point,too, and I'd like to understand it. That's why discussion is had.) I don't know if this sort of loggerheads can end well, and I'd rather not wait for a threadlock to find out... See you in another thread. <Exits>
|
I have flagged a few posts here for the simple reason that I tire of this thread. If this isn't locked down, I will start the following threads to illustrate my frustration with the inappropriate nature of this thread:
Should a jew play Pathfinder?
Should a muslim play Pathfinder?
Should a buddhist play Pathfinder?
Should a scientologist play Pathfinder?
Should an atheist play Pathfinder?
Should a pizza chef play Pathfinder?
Should Vin Diesel play Pathfinder?
That is all. Have a good day! :)
+1 to just about what everyone has said so far.
Get a new therapist. Know that this is a healthy outlet because it is a social activity you do with friends. Know that it is just a game.
The only time you should stop playing a RPG is when it starts becoming more than just a game. When it becomes an obsession that is when it becomes a problem because it takes you away from living your life. As long as you play the game in a healthy manner you will be fine.
Should a pizza chef play Pathfinder?
Cannot speak for the other ones, but this would be just sick and wrong: my pizza could risk to arrive late at my table.
Iam a Christian also and I play many RPG's. Your decision to play should not be based on what any man says but the word of God. Maybe the therapist does not understand what the games are. You should take some time to pray and seek wise council. I have no issue with the hobby but certain things I wont do or play. at all.
Yes, well, we won't mention THAT GAME that begins with an 'F' ...