Did you see the part where I said that I grew up in a Religius Reich church? I'm -very- familiar with what's in the Bible. People make mistakes. That's always been the case. But, what religion does is it brings people together to talk about and try to figure out questions of morality. And, while we need to consider the imperfections of the church, we need to, also, consider the times when they were ahead of the curve - fighting for the end of slavery, socialized medicine (that's not run by the government), (Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and some other churches have used their church organization to fight for gay rights), etc.You seriously think that if the church isn't always perfect that it's of no value? Don't be silly. We could use the same claim against science - that if science reaches wrong conclusions, that science is of no value. Both that whole idea (both when targetting religion and when targetting science) is equally retarded.
Belief is valuable because it is so powerful. What you believe has a huge impact on your life. So, pay attention to what you believe and strive to believe things that are good for you.
Why the need for religion then? Why not just strive to be good for the sake of being good? Why does it have to entail sucking up to a (or several) no-show supernatural deity (deities)? Why does it need to entail fear of eternal damnation if you don't follow the specific rules?
I don't need the promise of those rewards/punishments to be a good person. Don't see why anyone else should. But if they do, fine, just keep them to yourself and don't try to legalize your kind of skewed "morals" on society. Heck, within the same religion the various sects can't even agree on what is moral and what is not (your own mention of UUs etc. proves just that).
You, however, claimed that all those who used religion to discriminate against and attack others are "fundamentally sick/pathological and religion is just an opportunity to give them -something- to use as a platform for discrimination."
THAT is a No True Scotsman fallacy.What I actually said is that, in my experience and observation, people who use religion to discriminate against and attack others are "fundamentally sick/pathological and religion is just an opportunity to give them -something- to use as a platform for discrimination". That's my experience and observation - keeping in mind that I've had a -lot- (**FAR**) more opportunities for experience and observation of such people (than most people have) AND that I've spent a good deal of time studying social dynamics from an academic perspective (like I said, one of my degrees is anthropology). Science suggests that my experience and observation may be further refined by further experience and observation that I don't currently have.
So, like I said, you're the one using a 'No True Scotsman' arguement, I'm not.
Then you apparently have hung out with whole groups consisting of nothing but "fundamentally sick/pathological" people.
I find that hard to believe.In fact, if that's all you base your evidence on, then you obviously haven't done any research outside your own social circle and are oblivious to any kind of news outlets - strange if you say you have a degree in anthropology.
The other option could be that what you call "fundamentally sick/pathological" actually covers 80+% of humanity - or basically anyone who has any kind of animosity towards any other kind of group in society. Then it's easy to make that kind of statement. It doesn't have any backing, though, I'd say.
And again, since I haven't said that all religious persons attack others and if they don't then they're not really religious, then I cannot be using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
What I'd like to see is for this thread to be less of an excuse to bash religion.
Then let it die.
I strongly encourage all Christians to buy and burn ten copies each of the Pathfinder Core Rules. Preferably through gaming shops so your outrage is known to the community and will show up in the industry's ICv2 surveys.
If one is concerned for one's mental well-being, one speaks to a therapist. If one is concerned for one's spiritual well-being, one speaks to a trusted spiritual leader.
If your pastor has no opinion on the matter, I'd take that as at least an absence of condemnation. (And possibly start looking around for a therapist who won't feed you a guilt trip, but that's just my opinion.)
... Religion, at it's core, isn't about making factual claims of what is real as much as it is about making claims of how we should live our lives.I wish you'd tell that to more religious people....
I find myself moved by these statements. TO me, that so many religious people can't tell these two things apart is to me the great tragedy of religious morality.
*falls over laughing* Nice. You'd love my goddess Limotae in my homebrew game. She's this advanced lillend who basically acted as a prophet for a group of mortals during a very dark time in the world, and taught them how to live together in society. One of the main things is she's very much into "free love" and such. Her temples have lots of sacred prostitutes (those existed in RL history too, it's an interesting read). Her Paladins are a sight to behold too.Page 68 wouldn't prostitute herself to me. She would rip my heart out and eat it. And that's what I like about her.
Haha, indeed. Don't get me wrong, I think tough ladies are awesome. I just meant that for a Neutral Good goddess with lots of Paladins, that they're almost shocking to people who tend to think of Paladins as being Chaste, and their penchant for defeating evil by alluring them to the true path with their charms (go-go Charisma focus and Diplomacy as a class skill :P).
I never claimed that every religious person have. I know a lot of religious people who don't try to push their views and "morals" on society. This section of the religious are, however, very, very silent when the outspoken parts try to do so.
Speaking from personal experience, often times we are drowned out by the very groups you are describing. Many of us who aren't out to judge others face the same judgments by those who seem more interested in their crusades rather than spiritual reflection. There is something I have come to realize in my life. No matter the walks of life, the loudest and most in your face people of every sort of group (be in religion, politics, or even the guy at your local hobby shop) are usually the worst examples of their group and yet the most noticed.
My apologies again.
But Lincoln, then the badwrong stuff won't be corrected!
Yeah, I wish more people could resist the urge to post, and just let stupid posts/threads sink into the archives.
I was kinda hoping the thread could live until Aug 31, 2011 so we could all celebrate its one year anni.
Greg
|
Speaking from personal experience, often times we are drowned out by the very groups you are describing. Many of us who aren't out to judge others face the same judgments by those who seem more interested in their crusades rather than spiritual reflection.
+10
Case-in-point: the numerous folks that have been branded heretics throughout history for interpretations of Christianity that veered towards inclusiveness, enlightenment, and a general more laid-back outlook rather than dogmatic absolutes.
I really wish Origen was more well known.
I strongly encourage all Christians to buy and burn ten copies each of the Pathfinder Core Rules. Preferably through gaming shops so your outrage is known to the community and will show up in the industry's ICv2 surveys.
*Chuckles* I see what you did there. :P
I'd rather buy ten copies of each of the pathfinder core rules and then distribute them to ten other people and spread the <3. ^-^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, not all religions have a belief in a god. As for Christianity, a person's relationship to god is changing. In fact, many Christians nowadays don't believe in old school hell.
As for why the need for religion? Religion provides churches - which provide social support systems and areas for people to come together to consider morality. I think those are two things not to get rid of.
As Lewis said in Screwtape Letters, the Enemy's greatest triumph is getting people not to believe in the devil or evil. SO long as there';s no Hell, there's nothing to be redeemed from. Dangerous business, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are easiest to fill your coffers with. The book is Truth, or it is not.
And I believe it is.
*Chuckles* I see what you did there. :P
I'd rather buy ten copies of each of the pathfinder core rules and then distribute them to ten other people and spread the <3. ^-^
Totally.
|
|
I strongly encourage all Christians to buy and burn ten copies each of the Pathfinder Core Rules. Preferably through gaming shops so your outrage is known to the community and will show up in the industry's ICv2 surveys.
One local church with a...questionable repution...did just that with Harry Pooter during that craze. I don't think any of them caught onto any of the irony.
Just found out recently that one other church tried to buy the copies off of them at a lower price for their libraries. Hey, if you can get a deal...
Speaking from personal experience, often times we are drowned out by the very groups you are describing. Many of us who aren't out to judge others face the same judgments by those who seem more interested in their crusades rather than spiritual reflection.+10
Case-in-point: the numerous folks that have been branded heretics throughout history for interpretations of Christianity that veered towards inclusiveness, enlightenment, and a general more laid-back outlook rather than dogmatic absolutes.
I really wish Origen was more well known.
Fun fact. There were many gnostic christians that focused on spirituality that were wiped out for having different interpretations to the religious texts than was accepted by the masses during their time. I learned about them while I was reading about gnosticism (because I was told I have very gnostic outlooks on things like souls).
If anyone has ever seen the movie "Saved", it's a wonderful movie that has a lot to inspire thinking. This is one of my favorite scenes: This is not a weapon.
EDIT: We just need to learn from the past, and make sure that we do not repeat mistakes made by our ancestors.
Y'know, I've enjoyed this conversation more than most I've had on these boards in a while. It feels good to chat about this sort of thing, and try to see eye to eye with each other on a topic that does ultimate affect all of us (I mean, we've all been discriminated against in some way or another in our lives, and sadly our hobbies or interests are a common target for such things). And yet, here we are, of different ideas and walks of life, communicating and talking in such a great way.
You can't even talk about magic in a fantasy world without starting a dumb argument on these boards, and yet again look at us here. I'm proud to partake in this discussion. ^-^
Saved is one of my favourite movies, I agree with the whole thing and love Ellen Page.
Oh yes. I just found out my younger brother hadn't seen the movie, so we just watched it from start to finish. He's getting to an age where he's thinking about things spiritually as well, and he really seemed to enjoy the movie. Even said it was very much worth staying up a bit later than usual to watch, and he noted he could see why it was one of my favorite movies ever. ^-^
I have a Christian friend I game with every week. His mother used to hate the game and try to stop him from playing it for the same type of reason your therapist gave because of all the bad PR the game received.
He still plays it.
Playing Pathfinder is no different than going to a movie, reading a book, or any other kind of imaginary activity. If God didn't mean for you to have an imagination, he wouldn't have given you one.
If your imagination happens to enjoy playing a fantasy hero with your friends or fellow gamers, then who are these folks to question what you enjoy doing? What's next? Are they going to tell you not to read an entertaining book or watch a superhero movie because it is imaginary? Where do they draw the line?
It's a game that involves the imagination. Nothing wrong with it. If you enjoy it, then I don't see why you can't play Pathfinder. My friend has no problem maintaining his Christian beliefs while playing Pathfinder. He is well aware that Pathfinder is a game and his faith is something real to him.
As long as you keep things in perspective, I don't see why playing a game should be a problem. Some people like to read, some people like watching movies or sports, some people like jogging, some people like knitting, you happen to like Pathfinder. It's just another form of entertainment, not some work of the devil.
It's just another form of entertainment, not some work of the devil.
...unlike jogging. ;)
I tried to avoid posting, but I failed my will save due to lack of sleep, it being 2:30 AM.
I'm sort of agnostic personally, there may or may not be a supreme being. If there is, I don't understand him/her/it, and I'm pretty d*#* sure nobody else does either.
I have no issue with religion, and I don't think there's anything wrong with religion.
It's organized religion I have an issue with, as organizations tend to attract those who identify with them. And the more power an organization has, the more extremists it attracts. Religion is an extremely powerful organization, and it attracts extremists like a pile of horse #*$& attracts flies. Unfortunately, all organizations tend to promote from within, and the stronger you align with the organization, the faster you rise. This means that those in power tend to be the most rigid and extremists in an organization. :(
So, religion = good, organized religion = evil.
|
|
I tried to avoid posting, but I failed my will save due to lack of sleep, it being 2:30 AM.
I'm sort of agnostic personally, there may or may not be a supreme being. If there is, I don't understand him/her/it, and I'm pretty d*#* sure nobody else does either.
I have no issue with religion, and I don't think there's anything wrong with religion.
It's organized religion I have an issue with, as organizations tend to attract those who identify with them. And the more power an organization has, the more extremists it attracts. Religion is an extremely powerful organization, and it attracts extremists like a pile of horse #*$& attracts flies. Unfortunately, all organizations tend to promote from within, and the stronger you align with the organization, the faster you rise. This means that those in power tend to be the most rigid and extremists in an organization. :(
So, religion = good, organized religion = evil.
So...All clerics/paladins in Pathfinder = Evil, But Oracles are A OK? .....Im just joking but that is a way you can interpret it...
So...All clerics/paladins in Pathfinder = Evil, But Oracles are A OK? .....Im just joking but that is a way you can interpret it...
Yeah, actually.
Let's put it like this. If you get 8 nuts spread out over the entire US that think it's perfectly fine to use cattle prods on kids if they don't eat their food when told, then you have 8 nuts abusing kids.
If you get those same 8 nuts in a church, and they can take control of it and make that doctrine, then you get hundreds of people using cattle prods on their kids for not eating their veggies.
The big problem with organized religion is that it rewards extremists, and caters to those who define their self worth by how much they judge others. Your average religious adherent is not an extremist, and would be horrified at using a cattle prod on a kid who didn't eat their veggies. But, if you get priest telling them too, they start second guessing themselves, and negative peer pressure takes over, people pretending to use cattle prods. But then other people begin to see those fake adherents, and they start believing, and they start prodding. It's a vicious negative feedback loop.
That's my view on why things tend to go off the wheels with organized religion anyway. Having been in a cult when I was an early teenager, who heard things like D&D = Devil, and that we shouldn't go see Ghostbusters because it glorified the devil, well, I think my observations are at least based on observations, not beliefs.
Just don't show him the bestiary. he will try to kill you by the Demon section... No need to even mention the Devil section!
I still admire the legendary Gygax, oh what glorious day it was for satanism when he found out that nothing tempts the mortal man more than a twenty-sided die! Forget television, forget evil music (like Queen or The Rolling Stones), forget even Harry Potter (tough it is quite good in seducing children to our cause), the twenty-sided die is the great dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. Ia! Iä! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
(always remember:http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP)
Also, these guidelines for how to live are based on nonfactual claims, so we're back to the irony again.
The thing is, most of what people do is based on 'non-factual' claims. People spend a lot of time believing in things that are not real, like 'justice' because - to quote DEATH from Terry Pratchet's Hogfather "Only be believing in things that are not real can you make them real."
I do not see any harm and I do see a lot of good in believing in things that are not proven to be real - even scientists do a lot of that (especially theoretical physicists). On the other hand, I do see a lot of danger in believing in things where there is solid proof to the contrary, something that borders on the definition of 'delusion'.
Organization is powerful, but not inherently evil.http://preview.tinyurl.com/3nl8fnx
The ability to organize is not. An organization, however, tends toward evil as it grows larger. Unless it is constantly vigilent. Power corrupts, and extremists want power, because they realize that good people will not follow them unless they have that power.
As an organization grows, it becomes very protective of itself, and seeks to crush anything that threatens it, even if it means violating it's core values.
Examples :
1) Catholic Church protecting and hiding priests it knew were pedophiles, to protect the reputation of the church, rather than the flock it was supposed to care about.
2) McCarthyism, political zealots destroying people who didn't agree with them in the name of political purity.
3) Our current congress, where hyper-partisanism is a side effect of power grabs to protect encumbents resulting in the extremists on both sides taking control of the parties.
4) Microsoft, which illegally used it's monopoly power for years to beat and batter at any perceived threat, either buying it or putting it out of business with bribes to hardware manufacturers. And would still be doing so today if it could.
So again, the ability to organize is a powerful tool. But unless you put checks and balances in, any sufficiently powerful organization will become corrupt through it's own hubris.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As counter-examples to all organizations being evil, you've got
1.) The Underground Railroad2.) Charity hospitals
3.) PFLAG
4.) The underground organizations which protected Jews, etc. in Hitler Germany
5.) The CDC
Since I didn't say that all organizations are evil, you're twisting my words. What I said was as organizations grow, the larger they are, the more they tend toward evil. However, I can point out issues with your examples.
1) There were people involved in this who abused the escaping slaves, insisting on sexual favors or money in exchange for helping them.
2) Charity hospitals are often the refuge of those who can't keep a job at a more traditional hospital. I worked at one for 8 months while in college. There were drug addicts on staff, and the hospital was investigated while I was there for medicare fraud.
3) PFLAG?
4) See #1
5) As part of the government as a whole, the CDC is subject to the same political pressure and lobbying that every other government organization is subject to.
Ok, I get it. Christians are victims who are being opressed. Boo Hoo. As a gay man living in the american south the victim stance from conservative christians is the very essence of hypocricy. Nothing said on these boards will change that.
The bottom line is all religion is based on faith, and nothing else. Not just christianity, because believe it or not there is more than one. I find all religion to be utter nonsense, but that's just me. Saying that I belive it to be nonsense is not an attack on your faith. It's simply me expressing my faith, as you (the religious) are prone to do early and often in conversation. You live your life however you like and allow me to do the same. If you want a free exchange of ideas than don't expect that everyone will agree with you and certainly don't tell them they're attacking you when they say they feel differently. So many problems have been caused by this very thing.
Nothing anyone said on either side of the discussion is going to change anyones mind. If something like pathfinder causes your a crisis of faith than stop playing. However if you want to feel better go buy 100 copies of each book and burn them. I'm sure it will be cathartic.
Disregard the fact Pathfinder has similar themes as many holy texts (the bible, for example) and go live under you're nice safe rock somewhere.
Finally, an observation. Re-read this thread and you'll notice something as I did. The non-religious people will say one thing and in response the religious people turn it into something completely different as opposed to actually offering a respectable counter point. I suppose that's the nature of the thing. When one believes that blatant fantasy stories are true (or base their lives around such things), than what one can invent for a counter point is far more important to than offering an actual counter point based on what the individual actually said.
By all means feel free to continue and prove me right. Otherwise let this inflammatory thread die (again). It's really not helping anyone. (bolded in an attempt to make sure people actually read to the end, but alas I doubt it. Lets watch together and see how these comments get perverted from their actual meaning.)
Edit: My spellcheck doesn't seem to be working, so please forgive my typos.
The big problem with organized religion is that it rewards extremists, and caters to those who define their self worth by how much they judge others.
I disagree. What is it that you believe is inherent in organized religion that judgmental extremists are rewarded or promoted into the leadership?
I know the criteria that go into choosing the leadership of the churches I have associated with, and it's absolutely the opposite -- a positive reputation in the community, specifically with regards to being compassionate and wise, are a necessity to come anywhere near a leadership position.
In fact, I know longstanding members of the church who have been passed over multiple times for leadership positions specifically because they had a reputation for being judgmental or having extremist views. These are respected pillars of the church and the community, but their disposition makes them inappropriate for the eldership, and so they are passed over.
So whatever you think organized religion has that causes this institutional flaw, we appear to lack it. Can you articulate what exactly it is?
|
THE PROS
"Roleplaying games [like Pathfinder RPG] expand the mind," according to a priest and psychologist I interviewed. Any type of mental exercise in which you place your actions within a 180 degree arc of consideration, provides you, the player or GM, the increased capacity to stretch your imagination, as well as neutralize biases as you view a situation or character from all sides. This mind expanding act moves the person out of the median "normal" range of cognitive thinking, and into a range of heightened awareness. In life there are key competencies and skills used in professional jobs that require this level of cognition. Games like Pathfinder RPG expand the mind, increase vocabulary, teach meeting and facilitation management, and increase teamwork concepts and behaviors. Saint Augustine once said, 'the depth to which a soul can sink is the heighth to which it can rise,' roughly paraphrased. To this extent, those in life who do not have an outlet for imaginative thoughts, nor have a playground to explore these ideas, might not also have the capacity to truly imagine/create wondrous things. The world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game has been good to me for the past 30 years, however, I provide some cons to consider, as any mind expanding act/work/game/art might not be appropriate for everyone. Consider this game like a butter knife--it may be used to spread butter or turn a screw on the positive side, while butter knives may also be used as a weapon to hurt one's self or another. Roleplaying games, when used beyond mainstream use (light rolling of dice and story) can be escalated into an expression of ones fears, or hopes, or regrets, or deepest desires. This can be expressed in-game with the right mature players able to facilitate that kind of story. In this regard, it can potentially function as a light form of therapy, introspection, and work to increase enough self-awareness about inner-self that it enables a player or GM to then learn more than is normally apparent, thus help the person act upon issues otherwise hidden from view (as in the Jahari window panel that others see in us, but is hidden to ourselves). In the end, its just a game. As long as its just a game, and viewed that way, the benefits of playing Pathfinder RPG can be tremendous!
THE CONS
During the 1980s there was a lot of backlash against items like rpgs because they featured devils and demons and included a secular and polytheistic approach, which is antithema to the general history of early America's monotheism. As mentioned above, as your thinking and creative capacity increases your thinking becomes much more metacognitive, and therefore more volatile to ideas and concepts mainstream society avoids. At this point, if you suffer from medical issues or psychological issues, you may mistakenly view certain concepts included in the game as real. This happened to James Dallas Egbert III in the 1980, and from his story the movie, Mazes & Monsters was created, starring a young Tom Hanks. The movie illustrated how a player could become lost as the distinctions between game concepts and reality concepts were confused for him. Because the brain has similar response to visual stimuli as it does memory, its possible, given a pre-existing mental condition, to confuse reality and fantasy.
At this point, if you suffer from medical issues or psychological issues, you may mistakenly view certain concepts included in the game as real. This happened to James Dallas Egbert III in the 1980,
No, it didn't.
James Dallas Egbert III was drug-addicted and depressed. In 1979 he entered the steam tunnels below Michigan State University with a bottle methaqualone, planning to commit suicide.
His disappearance had nothing to do with D&D, nor is there any good evidence that Egbert confused reality with D&D at all.
|
So, my takeaway from this thread is that threadcrapping/intentional derailment is a permitted and respected form of behaviour on these forums.In which case, can I get a hand threadcrapping this beast?
Inflammatory, offtopic, soapbox for a handful of posters who insist on discussing religion in general in the Pathfinder RPG subforum. I'm not sure what it hasn't been locked yet.
My bad. Mea Culpa.
SMURF!
The big problem with organized religion is that it rewards extremists, and caters to those who define their self worth by how much they judge others.I disagree. What is it that you believe is inherent in organized religion that judgmental extremists are rewarded or promoted into the leadership?
Organized anything, by it's very nature, requires that everyone follow the same standards. Those who follow those standards the best are usually the ones who receive more recognition and are promoted within the system. In any system such as this, an extremist/fantatic/zealot will be perceived as following the standards the best, because they eat breath and live the standards. When they have no power, that is fine, however, as they rise up within the organization, they begin to gather power. That power is then used to try to make people obey the strictures that the efz (extremist/fanatic/zealot) believes are the true tenets.
I know the criteria that go into choosing the leadership of the churches I have associated with, and it's absolutely the opposite -- a positive reputation in the community, specifically with regards to being compassionate and wise, are a necessity to come anywhere near a leadership position.
Positive Reputation : A positive reputation means that the person espouses the organizations beliefs more than others, or at least is perceived to. As stated above, quite often, this is a zealot. It is entirely possible that your experiences are an exception, or mine are. In my experience, those who rise in a church fall into one of a couple of groups. Those who contribute lots of money (and usually end up being made deacons), those who are fire and brimstone adherents, and those who turn in anyone whom they think are not living up to the church standards. All 3 of these groups naturally select for people whom I consider to have low or non-existent moral standards.
In fact, I know longstanding members of the church who have been passed over multiple times for leadership positions specifically because they had a reputation for being judgmental or having extremist views. These are respected pillars of the church and the community, but their disposition makes them inappropriate for the eldership, and so they are passed over.
So, you're saying that in your church, there is a strong check and balance kept in place to prevent an extremist from gaining control. I applaud that your organization has such checks and balances in place. This actually reinforces what I said earlier though, that if you don't have such things in place, the extremists will rise up in power. The fact that you are aware that these people would have had power if not for the check means that they were considered for leadership roles due to their perceived fervor.
So whatever you think organized religion has that causes this institutional flaw, we appear to lack it. Can you articulate what exactly it is?
See above.
Playing Pathfinder is no more offensive to any religion, than collaboratively writing a good fantasy story with friends.
Further, the game setting aspects (gods or God, bestiary, presence of magic etc.) are all customizable, and can suit whatever sensitivities the group is willing to play with.
Those who are religious, and want to stay religious for some reason, should only restrict their hobbies and activities insomuch as they don't interfere with fulfilling the demands of their faith.
FYI, I'm not religious, and am against organized religion. But railing against the religious institutions is a waste of breath, because it's here to stay.
So, you're saying that in your church, there is a strong check and balance kept in place to prevent an extremist from gaining control.
Yes. This check is called "criteria for leadership incompatible with extremism".
I applaud that your organization has such checks and balances in place. This actually reinforces what I said earlier though, that if you don't have such things in place, the extremists will rise up in power.
Wait, you're saying that if our criteria for leadership are compatible with extremism, we'll end up having some extremist leaders? You appear to be begging the question.
The fact that you are aware that these people would have had power if not for the check means that they were considered for leadership roles due to their perceived fervor.
No, they were eligible for leadership roles due to their age, experience, and knowledge. They were ineligible due to their "perceived fervor".
Are you trying to say that age, experience, and knowledge correlate with extremism?
Is your argument basically that your most experienced and knowledgeable members will tend to be extremists? Because, again, I have not found this to be the case. Extremism, IMO, correlates with inexperience. We don't have novice leaders (that would be un-Biblical).
So, you're saying that in your church, there is a strong check and balance kept in place to prevent an extremist from gaining control.Yes. This check is called "criteria for leadership incompatible with extremism".
I applaud that your organization has such checks and balances in place. This actually reinforces what I said earlier though, that if you don't have such things in place, the extremists will rise up in power.Wait, you're saying that if our criteria for leadership are compatible with extremism, we'll end up having some extremist leaders? You appear to be begging the question.
No, I said that the fact you have to have the checks and balances proves that without them, you would end up with extremist leaders. Which is pretty much the opposite of what you interpreted it as.
The fact that you are aware that these people would have had power if not for the check means that they were considered for leadership roles due to their perceived fervor.No, they were eligible for leadership roles due to their age, experience, and knowledge. They were ineligible due to their "perceived fervor".
Are you trying to say that age, experience, and knowledge correlate with extremism?
Is your argument basically that your most experienced and knowledgeable members will tend to be extremists? Because, again, I have not found this to be the case. Extremism, IMO, correlates with inexperience. We don't have novice leaders (that would be un-Biblical).
No, what I said was, that the fact you are aware that these people were passed over proves that they would have been promoted without that check and balance, since it was the only thing that kept them from rising up in the heirarchy. And once an extremist gathers some power, they begin to try to pervert that power.
And there is no correlation between extremism and inexperience. Just look at any terrorist organization, the extremists in control have a ton of experience. The people in control of the Spanish Inquisition had years of theological training and experience.
So can a Pathfinder play a Christian?
Only in a homebrew, as the core system has no specific gods, and the Golarian setting doesn't have Christ or Jehova or any other 'real world' god who's currently actively being worshiped.
So can a Pathfinder play a Christian?Only in a homebrew, as the core system has no specific gods, and the Golarian setting doesn't have Christ or Jehova or any other 'real world' god who's currently actively being worshiped.
Besides Lamashtu and Pazuzu, evidently.
Besides Lamashtu and Pazuzu, evidently.So can a Pathfinder play a Christian?Only in a homebrew, as the core system has no specific gods, and the Golarian setting doesn't have Christ or Jehova or any other 'real world' god who's currently actively being worshiped.
Well, duh. ;-)
THE CONS
During the 1980s there was a lot of backlash against items like rpgs because they featured devils and demons and included a secular and polytheistic approach, which is antithema to the general history of early America's monotheism. As mentioned above, as your thinking and creative capacity increases your thinking becomes much more metacognitive, and therefore more volatile to ideas and concepts mainstream society avoids. At this point, if you suffer from medical issues or psychological issues, you may mistakenly view certain concepts included in the game as real. This happened to James Dallas Egbert III in the 1980, and from his story the movie, Mazes & Monsters was created, starring a young Tom Hanks. The movie illustrated how a player could become lost as the distinctions between game concepts and reality concepts were confused for him. Because the brain has similar response to visual stimuli as it does memory, its possible, given a pre-existing mental condition, to confuse reality and fantasy.
I appreciate your psychologist/priest's very balanced point of view here, however the mind expanding, meta cognitive benefits of RPGs and the resulting backlash seems to be a description of RPGs opening people to learning about polytheistic concepts and archetypes. The fact that church groups got up in arms about perceived "devil-worship" seems to be a case ignorance on the part of the church groups. It's not to fault of the RPGs that they challenged insular thinking religious muggles. Not sure that it forced people to be more open to new ideas is a Con, per say.
As for mental issues, Egbert actually ran away from college and was later discovered by a private detective living in another state. It had nothing to do with LARPing in the steam tunnels. That was just a juicy nugget the media latched onto since they didn't know what RPGs were. RPGs can probably be a trigger for the mentally unstable, but so can tv, books, movies, any other form of media. There is nothing I know of that credibly shows a link between RPGs and delusional behavior ... except perhaps the off-topic forums here :D
Ok, I get it. Christians are victims who are being opressed. Boo Hoo. As a gay man living in the american south the victim stance from conservative christians is the very essence of hypocricy. Nothing said on these boards will change that.I don't think anyone in this thread said that Christians in the US are being oppresssed.
Finally, an observation. Re-read this thread and you'll notice something as I did. The non-religious people will say one thing and in response the religious people turn it into something completely different as opposed to actually offering a respectable counter point.I notice that -some- people in this thread think that if someone defends religion, that defender must believe in religion. When in actualality, the defender believes in treating people who believe differently with respect. I, for one, sure am not religious.
And this thread isn't inflamatory. It does, however, have far too many posters who are emotionally stunted and have never learned to treat people who believe differently with respect. Fortunately, the thread has FAR more people who don't suffer from that social handicap.
You're wrong, but thanks for proving my point. ;-)