In one town in New Jersey, half the parents think they can shield their children from the fact that some parents are same-sex. They want to discuss it in the home, rather than let an award-winning documentary director relay the truth through a video shown at school. Rather than let a montage of children, like the third grade viewers, tell them that same-sex couples are real and (blasphemy) actually healthy loving families.
The kids in the video are probably just like the kids your child will meet at school. Some of your child's classmates are bound to know about gay people and may even come from a family with two dads. Do you want to risk that they start a conflict by saying "your parents are both faggits" or "they're not your parents"?
You fundamentalists must be shaking in your boots. Divorce didn't go the way you wanted it to, and society may be better or worse (people are evenly divided on that, though I personally think marriage is underrated). Divorce didn't go your way either, and society didn't fall apart so you may be wrong. Hell, back i nthe day when slavery was illegal and women couldn't vote you didn't want to change. Now things are so different, and what's next but acceptance of different sexual lifestyles. If a homosexual family comes across to your kids as healthier than your own, you're done. Either that, or there'll be some new societal advance to stop from evolving. That reminds me, shouldn't we keep evolution out of schools? Yet another place where America is evenly divided.
If people can't agree on what God is, if God is, and most of all on what God wants with the SAME EVIDENCE, how the hell can a person who refuses to expose themselves and/or their children to some of that evidence hope to know the truth? This country is proof that humans don't know squat, and news like this is proof that 50% of humans don't know we don't know. See quote in last post.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Absolute rationalism - the irony
Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices. - Laurence J. Peter
That certainly applies to Ken. It also reminds me of an inherent fallacy in liberal thinking: the conservation of an attitude that conservatives are wrong. Maybe conservatives fight against the lifting of traditional discrimination in societies. Maybe they got us into a wrong-headed war in Iraq and don't know how to win or quit. If you read that sentence and ignore the maybes, as I think Move-On.org and other super-liberals do, then you do NOT have a liberal open mind. Think about it.
On a personal note, the same goes for Ken. See the quote above. When you have a "higher standard" or rationality, reason, etc. you are in fact close-minded. Maybe you are open-minded about the status of women, or homosexuals or even people of many ethnicities. When you, as an absolutist atheist, demand that people with faith prove it with rational science, you are still closing your mind in that area. You make the quote true. That's the danger of absolutes, even "absolute open-mindedness." We are human, as God said. Need forgiveness? Ask Him.
That certainly applies to Ken. It also reminds me of an inherent fallacy in liberal thinking: the conservation of an attitude that conservatives are wrong. Maybe conservatives fight against the lifting of traditional discrimination in societies. Maybe they got us into a wrong-headed war in Iraq and don't know how to win or quit. If you read that sentence and ignore the maybes, as I think Move-On.org and other super-liberals do, then you do NOT have a liberal open mind. Think about it.
On a personal note, the same goes for Ken. See the quote above. When you have a "higher standard" or rationality, reason, etc. you are in fact close-minded. Maybe you are open-minded about the status of women, or homosexuals or even people of many ethnicities. When you, as an absolutist atheist, demand that people with faith prove it with rational science, you are still closing your mind in that area. You make the quote true. That's the danger of absolutes, even "absolute open-mindedness." We are human, as God said. Need forgiveness? Ask Him.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Which Cthonic god am I?
Your Score: Sisyphus!
O Creature of the Underworld!
Definately not a god, but a well known Underworld figure.
Sisyphus was punished so harshly for very good reason. He was a very evil man in life, and would waylay travellers by the side of the road to kill them. He was famous for chaining Thanatos to a rock, so that no one would die, but thankfully Hades interviened and had him roll a rock up and down a hill for all eternity. Good riddance, I say.
My test tracked 1 variable: How you compared to other people your age and gender. You scored higher than 99% on underworldness!
| Link: The Cthonic God Test written by ErebusNyx on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Wealthy Killers - on Abortion
I today read an argument against abortion by a Christian doctor. He called doctors "wealthy killers" of "silently screaming" babies.
It made me think. First, I remember the strongest argument in the area of abortion which I heard during college philosophy classes. A woman said that abortion would be wrong so long as we lived in a society filled with people who could afford to adopt children as an alternative. So, views against abortion would be weaker in a weaker economy. Second, I remember that religion is strongest when an economy is poorest.
So, speaking from a mathematical perspective, religion is inversely proportional to economic health. The strength of pro lifers, a religion-motivated movement, should also be inversely proportional to economic health. I know, it makes my head hurt too.
My extrapolation is thus: So long as America is rich, Christianity will not have the pull it wants, but abortions will remain relatively uncommon. If the economy falters, Christianity would strengthen, but not without limits. There would be a breaking point, after which abortion would become a good idea, especially in the absence of birth control which some sects oppose.
It made me think. First, I remember the strongest argument in the area of abortion which I heard during college philosophy classes. A woman said that abortion would be wrong so long as we lived in a society filled with people who could afford to adopt children as an alternative. So, views against abortion would be weaker in a weaker economy. Second, I remember that religion is strongest when an economy is poorest.
So, speaking from a mathematical perspective, religion is inversely proportional to economic health. The strength of pro lifers, a religion-motivated movement, should also be inversely proportional to economic health. I know, it makes my head hurt too.
My extrapolation is thus: So long as America is rich, Christianity will not have the pull it wants, but abortions will remain relatively uncommon. If the economy falters, Christianity would strengthen, but not without limits. There would be a breaking point, after which abortion would become a good idea, especially in the absence of birth control which some sects oppose.
Monday, June 25, 2007
I think I'm going to hate it
They finally made a movie of Neil Gaiman's Stardust. now I know why readers complain when their favorite becomes cinema. I think I'm going to hate it. It doesn't feel like Neil Gaiman. The preview makes it look like a fantasy/action film. It's the next Pirates of the Caribbean, when it should be a macabre modern fairy tale.
On top of that, the movie, as the book, centers around the male human adventurer. Nowhere in the previews and poster does it mention the actor's name. DeNiro and Pfeiffer? I'm scared at how awful this movie could be. I'll keep my fingers crossed that it will be unlike the preview says. Claire Danes could be its saving grace.
On top of that, the movie, as the book, centers around the male human adventurer. Nowhere in the previews and poster does it mention the actor's name. DeNiro and Pfeiffer? I'm scared at how awful this movie could be. I'll keep my fingers crossed that it will be unlike the preview says. Claire Danes could be its saving grace.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Darth Vader and Lancelot du Lac – kindred spirits
Lancelot of the Lake is the original Vader (prophesied to bring peace to the kingdom, yet his son Galahad is the real deal). He mysteriously enters Arthurian legend. He was orphaned, then raised by women, and is clumsy with a horse. He is destined to give in to passion and betray his king. Though he will in time repent and spend his last days as a hermit, the damage is already done.
I see a lot of similarities there, though Vader is the Black Knight of the Modern Age. Lancelot, to my knowledge, is always portrayed as a paragon of virtue, even though he has an affair with the queen.
Vader and Lancelot have at least as many fans as their children. Another common thread, though Lancelot doesn't wear black threads, is that they steal the show.
I see a lot of similarities there, though Vader is the Black Knight of the Modern Age. Lancelot, to my knowledge, is always portrayed as a paragon of virtue, even though he has an affair with the queen.
Vader and Lancelot have at least as many fans as their children. Another common thread, though Lancelot doesn't wear black threads, is that they steal the show.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Reasons why fantasy role-playing games are safe, and even good for a Christian
First, some arguments against role-paying games, saying they are evil:
In ‘Dungeons and Dragons: Concern for the Christian’ (http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=603) by Mr. & Mrs. Mel Gabler, the ultraconservative Texas textbook critics, they warn that young people may be introduced to world mythology, and may devote excessive time and energy to role-playing. Interestingly, there is no talk of the game leading to suicide or murder. This site also has long essays against Judaism, Islam, Michael Jackson, Mormonism, Hinduism, Carl Sagan, and much more. This is the same Mel Gabler who is quoted in "The Stupidest Things Ever Said": "Too many textbooks and discussions leave children free to make up their minds about things."
Chick Publications, (www.chick.com) radical Protestants, once published a comic book called "Dark Dungeons", depicting gamers acquiring supernatural powers and being driven to suicide. The company has also published a collection of young-earth creation-science lies in comic-book form, and an anti-Roman Catholic comic which calls communion "the death cookie". The latter speaks for itself, while young-earth creationism was condemned as dishonest by every U.S. Nobel science laureate in the amicus brief to the Supreme Court in "Edwards". Of course, if you would rather believe a comic book, that is your business.
Demonbuster (www.demonbuster.com) gives only passing reference to Dungeons and Dragons. The same page claims that Cabbage Patch dolls also teach satanism, and that people who are born out of wedlock "have so much trouble with their church relationships; they are cursed." The site also devotes a full page to diabetes (http://www.demonbuster.com/diabetic.html) -- "squid-like demons attacking ten parts of your body."
The links above are listed at www.pathguy.com/lipo.htm#relright. It’s the site of a Christian D&D gamemaster and pathologist. Elsewhere, he gives an inspiring argument for why Christians should play role-playing games (http://www.pathguy.com/whyrpg.htm).
If role-playing games are wrong, why are there so many Christians who enjoy them, and even create role-playing games especially for Christians?
The Christian Gamers Guild: http://www.christian-gamers-guild.org/welcome.html
Holy Lands, the free Christian RPG: http://www.holylands.net/
The Way (http://www.rollspel.com/engelsk/way.htm) is an educational fantasy role-playing game for church youth groups. It is Christian, but non-denominational, and therefore useful in all mainstream churches. It lets the players deal with complex moral problems and serves as a basis for teaching a Christian way of life.
The Way was developed at the youth works section of the Västerås Bishopric of the Church of Sweden (the Lutheran church that is the main denomination in Sweden). The project was endorsed of Bishop Ytterberg, financed by the Administrative Board of the Bishopric and managed by Len Howard. Reverend Åke Eldberg has provided theological and pastoral advice during the development.
Is fantasy, stories about magic and monsters, bad?
J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, two Christians, wrote the most popular fantasy series of the 20th century, The Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia respectively.
Fantasy actually helped Lewis, a former atheist, to become a Christian. Lewis converted to Christianity because of the influence of Tolkien, his Christian friend, and Christian fantasy writer George MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Conversion_to_Christianity). In Narnia, Lewis actually set out to create a vision of Jesus in a fantasy world. The Jesus figure in The Chronicles of Narnia is Aslan, the talking lion, who sacrifices himself for his friends but returns as king. Lewis also wrote many books defending Christian faith (Bob quotes him often).
Pathguy.com also says D&D fantasy was derived mostly from the Christian fantasy milieus, including Tolkien, and that even Pat Robertson's channel (very conservative Christian) has a medieval cartoon called Prince Valiant. Valiant has been in newspapers since 1937. Prince Valiant once used the guise of a demon, and began his adventures by meeting Merlin in King Arthur’s court. Magic and demons appear in a fantasy that even the most conservative Christians enjoy. Hmmm.
Finally, Tolkien’s lengthy essay on fairy stories (http://www.pathguy.com/ofs.htm) says the following:
The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatasrophe [unexpected happy ending] …
But in God's kingdom the presence of the greatest does not depress the small. Redeemed Man is still man. Story, fantasy, still go on, and should go on.
Just remember to be an effective steward of your time. Heroic fantasy games may be a good way to explore what good is, but the Bible describes what good we ought to be doing: 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8. Shepherding God’s lost sheep is always a better use of your time than just gaming, so look for opportunities to be a shepherd more often. I’m personally hoping I can use fantasy role-playing games themselves as a ministry.
All materials in this document were borrowed from the named sources for non-profit instructional and coaching purposes by Jason Przybycien (przybycj@gmail.com).
P.S. If you like Harry Potter, be aware that there are a lot of sites which bash it as witchcraft/Satanism. Those claims are argued at the urban legend site Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp). And it seems arguments that children become witches or Satanists after reading Potter all point to a fake news article on www.theonion.com:
If The Onion's parody has demonstrated anything, it's that we should be worrying about adults not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. The kids themselves seem to have a pretty good grasp of it.
In ‘Dungeons and Dragons: Concern for the Christian’ (http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=603) by Mr. & Mrs. Mel Gabler, the ultraconservative Texas textbook critics, they warn that young people may be introduced to world mythology, and may devote excessive time and energy to role-playing. Interestingly, there is no talk of the game leading to suicide or murder. This site also has long essays against Judaism, Islam, Michael Jackson, Mormonism, Hinduism, Carl Sagan, and much more. This is the same Mel Gabler who is quoted in "The Stupidest Things Ever Said": "Too many textbooks and discussions leave children free to make up their minds about things."
Chick Publications, (www.chick.com) radical Protestants, once published a comic book called "Dark Dungeons", depicting gamers acquiring supernatural powers and being driven to suicide. The company has also published a collection of young-earth creation-science lies in comic-book form, and an anti-Roman Catholic comic which calls communion "the death cookie". The latter speaks for itself, while young-earth creationism was condemned as dishonest by every U.S. Nobel science laureate in the amicus brief to the Supreme Court in "Edwards". Of course, if you would rather believe a comic book, that is your business.
Demonbuster (www.demonbuster.com) gives only passing reference to Dungeons and Dragons. The same page claims that Cabbage Patch dolls also teach satanism, and that people who are born out of wedlock "have so much trouble with their church relationships; they are cursed." The site also devotes a full page to diabetes (http://www.demonbuster.com/diabetic.html) -- "squid-like demons attacking ten parts of your body."
The links above are listed at www.pathguy.com/lipo.htm#relright. It’s the site of a Christian D&D gamemaster and pathologist. Elsewhere, he gives an inspiring argument for why Christians should play role-playing games (http://www.pathguy.com/whyrpg.htm).
If role-playing games are wrong, why are there so many Christians who enjoy them, and even create role-playing games especially for Christians?
The Christian Gamers Guild: http://www.christian-gamers-guild.org/welcome.html
Holy Lands, the free Christian RPG: http://www.holylands.net/
The Way (http://www.rollspel.com/engelsk/way.htm) is an educational fantasy role-playing game for church youth groups. It is Christian, but non-denominational, and therefore useful in all mainstream churches. It lets the players deal with complex moral problems and serves as a basis for teaching a Christian way of life.
The Way was developed at the youth works section of the Västerås Bishopric of the Church of Sweden (the Lutheran church that is the main denomination in Sweden). The project was endorsed of Bishop Ytterberg, financed by the Administrative Board of the Bishopric and managed by Len Howard. Reverend Åke Eldberg has provided theological and pastoral advice during the development.
Is fantasy, stories about magic and monsters, bad?
J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, two Christians, wrote the most popular fantasy series of the 20th century, The Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia respectively.
Fantasy actually helped Lewis, a former atheist, to become a Christian. Lewis converted to Christianity because of the influence of Tolkien, his Christian friend, and Christian fantasy writer George MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Conversion_to_Christianity). In Narnia, Lewis actually set out to create a vision of Jesus in a fantasy world. The Jesus figure in The Chronicles of Narnia is Aslan, the talking lion, who sacrifices himself for his friends but returns as king. Lewis also wrote many books defending Christian faith (Bob quotes him often).
Pathguy.com also says D&D fantasy was derived mostly from the Christian fantasy milieus, including Tolkien, and that even Pat Robertson's channel (very conservative Christian) has a medieval cartoon called Prince Valiant. Valiant has been in newspapers since 1937. Prince Valiant once used the guise of a demon, and began his adventures by meeting Merlin in King Arthur’s court. Magic and demons appear in a fantasy that even the most conservative Christians enjoy. Hmmm.
Finally, Tolkien’s lengthy essay on fairy stories (http://www.pathguy.com/ofs.htm) says the following:
The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatasrophe [unexpected happy ending] …
But in God's kingdom the presence of the greatest does not depress the small. Redeemed Man is still man. Story, fantasy, still go on, and should go on.
Just remember to be an effective steward of your time. Heroic fantasy games may be a good way to explore what good is, but the Bible describes what good we ought to be doing: 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8. Shepherding God’s lost sheep is always a better use of your time than just gaming, so look for opportunities to be a shepherd more often. I’m personally hoping I can use fantasy role-playing games themselves as a ministry.
All materials in this document were borrowed from the named sources for non-profit instructional and coaching purposes by Jason Przybycien (przybycj@gmail.com).
P.S. If you like Harry Potter, be aware that there are a lot of sites which bash it as witchcraft/Satanism. Those claims are argued at the urban legend site Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp). And it seems arguments that children become witches or Satanists after reading Potter all point to a fake news article on www.theonion.com:
If The Onion's parody has demonstrated anything, it's that we should be worrying about adults not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. The kids themselves seem to have a pretty good grasp of it.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Atheism, the religion
Atheists may claim they have no religion, aren't religious, don't believe in God. The first two claims are called into question when atheists try to spread their beliefs in a manner very similar to some evangelical Christians. The "truth," available to you free. If you say this 'prayer,' your life will change for hte better.
Even if I believed that Jesus' story was a myth, and I've examined quite a bit of evidence against that, I still think following his teachings would do a lot more for individuals and societies than joining the "I don't believe in God" club.
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
I didn't watch their "critically acclaimed" documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." I did watch their trailer. They take the religious right, the most extreme among them such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and they don't mention any of the good done by Christians in the world. I don't like the religious right either, and I prayed for Jerry Falwell's sould because I worry what God thinks of him. I am a Christian and I don't believe in hating everyone for God, nor do I believe in a Rapture iwhtin the next 50 years.
Then they examine the "hero story" and imply that the Jesus myth is just like every other myth about virgin birth and resurrection and ascendance into Heaven. That's their opinion, since there is no strong proof. The Bible is printed more than any other book, and before printing it was copied or memorized more than any other book. It's a little harder to find copies of these supposed texts which Christians plagiarized. No one wanted to keep them, apparently. Maybe it's because the Bible offered them good news and a better life, something no other myth did.
A persecuted minority of Christians, formed from a bitter minority of Jews in the Roman Empire, probably didn't have the power to establish a religion that didn't work or wasn't original. there were plenty of religions at that time, even though there are many fewer now.
I looked up the "documentary" on Wikipedia. It didn't express opinions about the film so I'm not getting any from them. Let's just talk facts: everyone interviewed in the film, except one, has written something claiming Jesus is a myth. That's called card-stacking in the world of public relations. It's a sign of propaganda. The other one interviewed: a Christian accuses the documenter of misrepresenting himself, and walks out.
It's awful easy to make something look true when you only ask people who already believe it, and ignore those who believe differently. Please people, relieve yourselves of the 'Jesus is a myth' myth.
Even if I believed that Jesus' story was a myth, and I've examined quite a bit of evidence against that, I still think following his teachings would do a lot more for individuals and societies than joining the "I don't believe in God" club.
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
I didn't watch their "critically acclaimed" documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." I did watch their trailer. They take the religious right, the most extreme among them such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and they don't mention any of the good done by Christians in the world. I don't like the religious right either, and I prayed for Jerry Falwell's sould because I worry what God thinks of him. I am a Christian and I don't believe in hating everyone for God, nor do I believe in a Rapture iwhtin the next 50 years.
Then they examine the "hero story" and imply that the Jesus myth is just like every other myth about virgin birth and resurrection and ascendance into Heaven. That's their opinion, since there is no strong proof. The Bible is printed more than any other book, and before printing it was copied or memorized more than any other book. It's a little harder to find copies of these supposed texts which Christians plagiarized. No one wanted to keep them, apparently. Maybe it's because the Bible offered them good news and a better life, something no other myth did.
A persecuted minority of Christians, formed from a bitter minority of Jews in the Roman Empire, probably didn't have the power to establish a religion that didn't work or wasn't original. there were plenty of religions at that time, even though there are many fewer now.
I looked up the "documentary" on Wikipedia. It didn't express opinions about the film so I'm not getting any from them. Let's just talk facts: everyone interviewed in the film, except one, has written something claiming Jesus is a myth. That's called card-stacking in the world of public relations. It's a sign of propaganda. The other one interviewed: a Christian accuses the documenter of misrepresenting himself, and walks out.
It's awful easy to make something look true when you only ask people who already believe it, and ignore those who believe differently. Please people, relieve yourselves of the 'Jesus is a myth' myth.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Christian history of America - Jamestown vs. St. Augustine
Funny how quickly people forget. The '400th anniversary of America' was just celebrated in Jamestown. WND.com lamented that the Christian edict from England which created Jamestown to Christianize the savages wasn't given weight.
I remember learning in history class that St. Augustine, Florida was the oldest city in America. It is. It was established 42 years before Jamestown. It was Spanish and Catholic. Why don't people argue that we are a Catholic nation or that the national language should be Spanish? It has nothing to do with actual history. It has everything to do with the tradition dictated by those who won, the English. The English and German colonists in the north were more numerous and more successful. The Germans became 'aliens' several hundred years later when American nationalism peaked during World War I. Then we became an English Protestant nation by tradition, but historically speaking things are much murkier.
I remember learning in history class that St. Augustine, Florida was the oldest city in America. It is. It was established 42 years before Jamestown. It was Spanish and Catholic. Why don't people argue that we are a Catholic nation or that the national language should be Spanish? It has nothing to do with actual history. It has everything to do with the tradition dictated by those who won, the English. The English and German colonists in the north were more numerous and more successful. The Germans became 'aliens' several hundred years later when American nationalism peaked during World War I. Then we became an English Protestant nation by tradition, but historically speaking things are much murkier.
Separation of church and state and the unavoidable adherence of law to religion
Church-state separation is entirely possible and healthy. State-religion separation is definitively impossible and utterly unthinkable. Your laws are going to have to come from some belief system(s) and or philosophy. The laws in this country came from progressive Christians in the 18th century.
The laws today come from a number of faiths and philosophies that have asserted themselves into our laws over the years. Atheism is a religious philosophy, even if it is is not a religion per se. A number of culturally commonplace principles now shape our laws.
If the law favored no religion, as it definitely favored progressive Christian religions in the beginning, it would have an even smaller domain. the law must say something is wrong and something is right. Religions, if you try to include all of them, will disagree on virtually every topic. (This includes faiths within "world" religions" like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.)
If you want laws at all, you have to choose. There are some general things, like the violent and sexual crime, where virtually all religions agree in spirit. If you want to include all philosophies, you can at least have those laws. Beyond that, laws addressing worship and prayer will quickly offend someone. That's not including the possibility that someone will simply offend another by practicing a different faith.
Now which religion or philosophy should you favor or choose? That answer is hard to find, because the 11,000 religions of the world each claim to be THE ONE. How many are right? All, most, just one, or none? That belief is a meta-religion itself. And after you answer that question, do the ones you define as wrong or questionable deserve the right to believe anyway? Maybe they do, so long as they don't harm or offend anyone else.
The harm principle and the principle of offending others. That's contemporary social problems in a nutshell. Then you add in the further complications of who is a person who can be harmed, how they can be harmed and how to protect them from harm. Hence, America. The United States of America, since those in South and Central America are also Americans and may be offended that we claim to be the only nationality of the continents.
The laws today come from a number of faiths and philosophies that have asserted themselves into our laws over the years. Atheism is a religious philosophy, even if it is is not a religion per se. A number of culturally commonplace principles now shape our laws.
If the law favored no religion, as it definitely favored progressive Christian religions in the beginning, it would have an even smaller domain. the law must say something is wrong and something is right. Religions, if you try to include all of them, will disagree on virtually every topic. (This includes faiths within "world" religions" like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.)
If you want laws at all, you have to choose. There are some general things, like the violent and sexual crime, where virtually all religions agree in spirit. If you want to include all philosophies, you can at least have those laws. Beyond that, laws addressing worship and prayer will quickly offend someone. That's not including the possibility that someone will simply offend another by practicing a different faith.
Now which religion or philosophy should you favor or choose? That answer is hard to find, because the 11,000 religions of the world each claim to be THE ONE. How many are right? All, most, just one, or none? That belief is a meta-religion itself. And after you answer that question, do the ones you define as wrong or questionable deserve the right to believe anyway? Maybe they do, so long as they don't harm or offend anyone else.
The harm principle and the principle of offending others. That's contemporary social problems in a nutshell. Then you add in the further complications of who is a person who can be harmed, how they can be harmed and how to protect them from harm. Hence, America. The United States of America, since those in South and Central America are also Americans and may be offended that we claim to be the only nationality of the continents.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Sectarian violence - The dumbest interpretation of religion … ever
72 were martyred in the initial Sunni-Shia struggle. How do you elevate them for sacrificing themselves in conflict with the "enemy" and not hold it against the faction who killed them? How can you praise the death of your friends and not dwell upon the murderers? Christianity, in some sects, has found an answer.
Historically, there was enmity between Jews and Christians. The operative word is deicide. At some point, most Christians and eventually the Catholic church grew tired of scapegoating Jewish populations. They accepted that it was Christ's place to die, or else he could not be sacrificed to appease God for the sins of man. One death put an end to the need for killing. Maybe the Shia and Sunni should learn from that, and stop fighting over who killed Hussein way-back-when.
If you look at the geographic distribution of Muslims, Shia is obviously the unpopular opinion. They maintain majority in only a couple countries, Iran and Iraq, as well as numerous scattered communities. Shia Muslims are to Sunnis as Jews are to Christians: "We're related, but God favored us over you. Therefore, you don't deserve your rights."
That's the same story behind all supremacy. The people in control find an explanation for their supremacy, not in history, culture or chance, but in unfounded divine intervention. It must be the color of my skin or the way I vote or the way I pray or the fact that my genitals are on the outside that makes me better than you. I thank God every day for social scientists which disrupt these excuses for violence and hegemony.
Speaking of God, I do believe that when He sent His Son, the message was "care for the least of these." Scapegoating the minority groups is the exact opposite of his teachings. Christians, if you want to be better than the other 10,000 religions in the world, remember that.
Historically, there was enmity between Jews and Christians. The operative word is deicide. At some point, most Christians and eventually the Catholic church grew tired of scapegoating Jewish populations. They accepted that it was Christ's place to die, or else he could not be sacrificed to appease God for the sins of man. One death put an end to the need for killing. Maybe the Shia and Sunni should learn from that, and stop fighting over who killed Hussein way-back-when.
If you look at the geographic distribution of Muslims, Shia is obviously the unpopular opinion. They maintain majority in only a couple countries, Iran and Iraq, as well as numerous scattered communities. Shia Muslims are to Sunnis as Jews are to Christians: "We're related, but God favored us over you. Therefore, you don't deserve your rights."
That's the same story behind all supremacy. The people in control find an explanation for their supremacy, not in history, culture or chance, but in unfounded divine intervention. It must be the color of my skin or the way I vote or the way I pray or the fact that my genitals are on the outside that makes me better than you. I thank God every day for social scientists which disrupt these excuses for violence and hegemony.
Speaking of God, I do believe that when He sent His Son, the message was "care for the least of these." Scapegoating the minority groups is the exact opposite of his teachings. Christians, if you want to be better than the other 10,000 religions in the world, remember that.
Friday, April 13, 2007
How I think supernatural creatures gained identities
I think it was through writing, developed in Mesopotamia, that angels and demons, gods and goddesses became something. The animistic and shamanistic spirits were in many belief systems. It was through language that the identities of these spirits developed into tangible individuals. It was also through reading and writing that Persian angels and demons became Judeo-Christian angels and demons. Persian, or Zoroastrian, spirits probably had their roots in shamanistic or animistic cultures.
These cultures may have conceived such spirits, and their influence over man, to explain things and give them more control over their world. A world that was inexplicable without science, and people inexplicable without psychology.
Once, shamans or animists passed on their knowledge of the spirit world. With writing, shamans became prophets. It is indeed amazing that the Old and New Testament hang together as well as they do, being written by so many prophets and priests over so many centuries.
These cultures may have conceived such spirits, and their influence over man, to explain things and give them more control over their world. A world that was inexplicable without science, and people inexplicable without psychology.
Once, shamans or animists passed on their knowledge of the spirit world. With writing, shamans became prophets. It is indeed amazing that the Old and New Testament hang together as well as they do, being written by so many prophets and priests over so many centuries.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The origin, and fate, of demons
Did the angels and demons of Zoroastrianism, Persian religious magic, become our more modern concepts of such? Why does it seem Zoroastrianism is demonology light, Judeo-Christianity is demonology darker, and Satanism is demonology black? It's like Judeo-Christians worked so hard to personify evil, in its king the devil and in its finites applications through his minions, that old Zoroastrian eschatology became perverted, in effect creating Satanism.
I am also struck with the fact that my worldview is somewhat similar to Zoroastrianism, though I am nominally a Christian. Is it because of my background in comparative religion, and Zoroastrianism is a religion which can encompass all deities? Is it my holistic explanation for things, allowing polytheism (the myriad demons and angels and/or all your pagan gods) and monotheism (the one uncreated Ahura Mazda) at the same time?
Personally, I wish Christianity hadn't invented Satanism, as it often seems it did. Then again, atrocity is nothing new; the Christians did not invent that. Thankfully, most of the evil blood rites of previous religions have faded from memory. There are no Celts burning the bodies of their enemies, and no Mayans sacrificing prisoners to dark gods, I think. Satanists are just the kind of people who want that sort of control, objectifying other human beings. They are not a whole lot different from racial supremacists, slavers, chauvinists, and those who fund prostitution/pornography. These are all people who reduce others' humanity for their own pleasure and/or gain. Yes, these are the vampires who walk among us. They feed on the blood of others, be it physical or spiritual.
And yes Dan, religious zealots are vampires too. They want to consider some other people less than human based upon religion. Yes, they may not be doing so to fulfill their own selfish desires. I do not believe that evil has limits. Lawful evil? Please. Someone who is willing to brand millions of people Muslims, to justify taking their oil, or Jews, to justify taking their wealth, seems to have ulterior motives.
Well, I've come full circle. I used to believe religion was false, and now I'm beginning to again. I still believe that Jesus Christ offers us the best hope for a peaceful future, provided that people quit taking things out of context, stop planning for the Apocalypse, stop religious violence, and start treating each other like their sins are forgiven.
We must all personify God's love and desire to save each one of us. Each human being is valuable to God, and should be to each of us as well.
We're brought once again, through the above musings and through today's news of a woman found guilty of dismembering a lover with a chain saw, to the question: Why is is evil in the world? Who is responsible? If humans can't fix it, stop it, or remedy it, who do we turn to? The religions of the world seem to agree: evil is in the world because a higher power wants it to be here. They also agree that people are responsible, until they repent or are exorcised or perform the appropriate ritual, for the evil they commit. There seems to be agreement that the powers of evil are strong, but man has free will, and the powers of good are stronger. In that, there is hope. If your religion is an eschatological one, you can believe than one day evil will be finished. Until then, we must live here and do what we can to create a preview of that perfect world.
I am also struck with the fact that my worldview is somewhat similar to Zoroastrianism, though I am nominally a Christian. Is it because of my background in comparative religion, and Zoroastrianism is a religion which can encompass all deities? Is it my holistic explanation for things, allowing polytheism (the myriad demons and angels and/or all your pagan gods) and monotheism (the one uncreated Ahura Mazda) at the same time?
Personally, I wish Christianity hadn't invented Satanism, as it often seems it did. Then again, atrocity is nothing new; the Christians did not invent that. Thankfully, most of the evil blood rites of previous religions have faded from memory. There are no Celts burning the bodies of their enemies, and no Mayans sacrificing prisoners to dark gods, I think. Satanists are just the kind of people who want that sort of control, objectifying other human beings. They are not a whole lot different from racial supremacists, slavers, chauvinists, and those who fund prostitution/pornography. These are all people who reduce others' humanity for their own pleasure and/or gain. Yes, these are the vampires who walk among us. They feed on the blood of others, be it physical or spiritual.
And yes Dan, religious zealots are vampires too. They want to consider some other people less than human based upon religion. Yes, they may not be doing so to fulfill their own selfish desires. I do not believe that evil has limits. Lawful evil? Please. Someone who is willing to brand millions of people Muslims, to justify taking their oil, or Jews, to justify taking their wealth, seems to have ulterior motives.
Well, I've come full circle. I used to believe religion was false, and now I'm beginning to again. I still believe that Jesus Christ offers us the best hope for a peaceful future, provided that people quit taking things out of context, stop planning for the Apocalypse, stop religious violence, and start treating each other like their sins are forgiven.
We must all personify God's love and desire to save each one of us. Each human being is valuable to God, and should be to each of us as well.
We're brought once again, through the above musings and through today's news of a woman found guilty of dismembering a lover with a chain saw, to the question: Why is is evil in the world? Who is responsible? If humans can't fix it, stop it, or remedy it, who do we turn to? The religions of the world seem to agree: evil is in the world because a higher power wants it to be here. They also agree that people are responsible, until they repent or are exorcised or perform the appropriate ritual, for the evil they commit. There seems to be agreement that the powers of evil are strong, but man has free will, and the powers of good are stronger. In that, there is hope. If your religion is an eschatological one, you can believe than one day evil will be finished. Until then, we must live here and do what we can to create a preview of that perfect world.
Devil worship in roleplaying games
I did a lot of reading today on Dungeons and Dragons and its alleged causal relationship to Satanism. I think the evidence is questionable, and probably pales in comparison to violence stemming from religious zealotry.
Now, I would offer up World of Darkness games as an alternative to D&D. It has a stronger focus on morality, and those who are immoral are punished. Albeit, they are punished in this life with no mention of a Judeo-Christian afterlife.
Faith is also a strong force in the game. Within the Hunters Hunted and Hunter the Reckoning, mortals have the power to reveal, fight, slow and destroy supernatural forces with faith. Also, the Huner scenarios seem rather benevolent, ie: the players are defending humans or themselves, fighting dark forces. I like that idea a bunch. So much, I want to lead hunter games and maybe never let my players be vampires or werewolves or even mages. The danger is this: is a player who believes themselves an invincible religious zealot, or a paradise-bound martyr, any better than a selfish sorceror? Maybe, but only when their goals are for the glory of God and the good of mankind.
Also present in HH is some simple magic. Mortal hunters have a few simple psychic and magical abilities. If you think magic is evil, then there is evil there. I don't think magic is inherently evil, though I think it has no power in the real world. In a world where magic were real, it's all about how you use it, and then about how you live with it after it's done.
However, in Masquerade, the Player's Guide, and beyond into the new WoD, vampire magic is all about blood rituals. Sacrificing this and making that. Vampire existence revolves around blood so this should come as no surprise. Still, no matter how many actions I can look at objectively, blood magic seems evil. It seems like Satanism to me. It seems like some ancient, scary pagan ritual. It certainly employs the magic worldview, that the caster can do things God would not do for them Himself. It also gives the character an opportunity to fuel his or her goals with the suffering, death and destruction of others. That's a very scary propositon, and one I hope to avoid delving into.
On a lighter note, I am utterly tired of the D&D bestiaries' focus on demons and hell. Lords of the levels of the underworld based on real demonology scare me. I suppose that's the point, but I really would rather work with some inexplicable or inconceivable horrors, even Lovecraft. Judeo-Christian demons have a stronger possibility, in my mind, of being real. That makes me quite hesitant to throw around their possibly real names during the wee hours of the morning.
Now, I would offer up World of Darkness games as an alternative to D&D. It has a stronger focus on morality, and those who are immoral are punished. Albeit, they are punished in this life with no mention of a Judeo-Christian afterlife.
Faith is also a strong force in the game. Within the Hunters Hunted and Hunter the Reckoning, mortals have the power to reveal, fight, slow and destroy supernatural forces with faith. Also, the Huner scenarios seem rather benevolent, ie: the players are defending humans or themselves, fighting dark forces. I like that idea a bunch. So much, I want to lead hunter games and maybe never let my players be vampires or werewolves or even mages. The danger is this: is a player who believes themselves an invincible religious zealot, or a paradise-bound martyr, any better than a selfish sorceror? Maybe, but only when their goals are for the glory of God and the good of mankind.
Also present in HH is some simple magic. Mortal hunters have a few simple psychic and magical abilities. If you think magic is evil, then there is evil there. I don't think magic is inherently evil, though I think it has no power in the real world. In a world where magic were real, it's all about how you use it, and then about how you live with it after it's done.
However, in Masquerade, the Player's Guide, and beyond into the new WoD, vampire magic is all about blood rituals. Sacrificing this and making that. Vampire existence revolves around blood so this should come as no surprise. Still, no matter how many actions I can look at objectively, blood magic seems evil. It seems like Satanism to me. It seems like some ancient, scary pagan ritual. It certainly employs the magic worldview, that the caster can do things God would not do for them Himself. It also gives the character an opportunity to fuel his or her goals with the suffering, death and destruction of others. That's a very scary propositon, and one I hope to avoid delving into.
On a lighter note, I am utterly tired of the D&D bestiaries' focus on demons and hell. Lords of the levels of the underworld based on real demonology scare me. I suppose that's the point, but I really would rather work with some inexplicable or inconceivable horrors, even Lovecraft. Judeo-Christian demons have a stronger possibility, in my mind, of being real. That makes me quite hesitant to throw around their possibly real names during the wee hours of the morning.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Headline comment
Bush Assails Democrats on War Financing
In a perfect world, that headline would lead to a story where the leader of the free world berated his colleagues for funding war. Bush would be a hero who sought diplomacy, peace and prosperity for all. A man who funded those greater goals directly rather than hoped they would come some indefinite time in the future after a meandering march of military men.
No, in real life Mr. Bush says "pay for this war," even though he it hasn't accomplished any of the promises given before it started, and no one knows when it will end.
I wish the Democrats were the ones trying to fund a war that hadn't happened yet, so it coudl still be stopped before it starts. In a perfect world.
In a perfect world, that headline would lead to a story where the leader of the free world berated his colleagues for funding war. Bush would be a hero who sought diplomacy, peace and prosperity for all. A man who funded those greater goals directly rather than hoped they would come some indefinite time in the future after a meandering march of military men.
No, in real life Mr. Bush says "pay for this war," even though he it hasn't accomplished any of the promises given before it started, and no one knows when it will end.
I wish the Democrats were the ones trying to fund a war that hadn't happened yet, so it coudl still be stopped before it starts. In a perfect world.
Requiem recant
I have re-examined the new World of Darkness and found more to like.
Vampire the Requiem is not so bad. You have clans, 5 basic ones nearly identical to the original 7.
You have the _option_ of bloodlines, which are more specialized versions of the clans. There are also do-it-yourself bloodlien creation instructions if you want more options.
You have the option of covenant, which is the beliefs your Lick subscribes to. I think they lead to paths of enlightenment but I'm not sure. Some of the covenants allow spells, so you aren't restricted to magic by clan.
So, new WoD is an option for my gamemastering. I still think it gives a much better, more diverse system for playing mortals. There is a core set, just called World of Darkness, which I think describes the world from the human perspective.
The new Promethean line is promising, too. If I hadn't seen the sourcebooks I'd never have believed frankensteins could be more diabolical than vampires. They can.
Vampire the Requiem is not so bad. You have clans, 5 basic ones nearly identical to the original 7.
You have the _option_ of bloodlines, which are more specialized versions of the clans. There are also do-it-yourself bloodlien creation instructions if you want more options.
You have the option of covenant, which is the beliefs your Lick subscribes to. I think they lead to paths of enlightenment but I'm not sure. Some of the covenants allow spells, so you aren't restricted to magic by clan.
So, new WoD is an option for my gamemastering. I still think it gives a much better, more diverse system for playing mortals. There is a core set, just called World of Darkness, which I think describes the world from the human perspective.
The new Promethean line is promising, too. If I hadn't seen the sourcebooks I'd never have believed frankensteins could be more diabolical than vampires. They can.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
MySpace
I have been infected by the plague of the day. Find me at www.myspace.com/indigonegative (simplebrilliance was taken, even though the owner looks borign and uncreative). I may migrate this blog there or not. God knows. I just work here.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Review of Vampire the Requiem
Just skimmed Vampire the Requiem. It's a helluva lot different from The Masquerade. I don't know why. I appreciate that they simplified the system, or at least I thought they did. It looks like they tried to keep everything, reorganize it (unsuccessfully), and add a plethora of new (and questionably interesting) content.
Complaints: 1. The heading font is light, handwritten cursive in pale red. Some of the headings are simply indecipherable.
2. The headings have no clear order. Some are bigger than others for emphasis, while others to denote categories and sub-categories. Plus, and worst of all, things are addressed multiple times. Why do I have to find clans listed in 3 or 4 different places? Holy shit.
3. Why all the new content? Covenants, Clans, Bloodlines ... Your character can be a member of at least three overlapping categories and for what? I can understand one or two levels of complexity in vampire society, but why a third? There are so many levels of organization THINGS AREN'T ORGANIZED.
4. Why drop or drastically change the old content? The old bloodlines mostly survive, but some are clans and some bloodlines. (And Malkavian is now Malkovian) It's like they want the names to pull in older players, but it's in a parallel universe where things aren't related in the same way. Why, pray tell, is the Camarilla dismissed as a silly historical construct? I thought it was central to the old system. Keeping only three of the five traditions? I just don't get it.
5. Now you need an extra book? There are a few places in Requiem where it directs you to the new World of Darkness "core" book. Thing is, the core book doesn't add much to Requiem that you need. And alone, the core book is barely playable. You can only be a mortal, and there are no explanations of vampires, werewolves or mages AT ALL. That means you can't fight them or hunt them down, much less play them. The best you can hope for with the core book is an encounter with police and wild animals, or maybe some ghost hunting.
Conclusion: Play Masquerade or Requiem. Expect no carry-over from the old World of Darkness to the new. If you switch, disregard your previous experience because it's so different you will only be confused. Personally, I prefer the style, layout, feel and mood of the Masquerade. I am, however, torn because the new system has such straightforward usage of morality. Vices, virtues, degeneration, derangement ... It all works, but I think it falls apart when you have to be a member of a coterie, a clan, a bloodline, and a covenant while still obeying your prince.
Complaints: 1. The heading font is light, handwritten cursive in pale red. Some of the headings are simply indecipherable.
2. The headings have no clear order. Some are bigger than others for emphasis, while others to denote categories and sub-categories. Plus, and worst of all, things are addressed multiple times. Why do I have to find clans listed in 3 or 4 different places? Holy shit.
3. Why all the new content? Covenants, Clans, Bloodlines ... Your character can be a member of at least three overlapping categories and for what? I can understand one or two levels of complexity in vampire society, but why a third? There are so many levels of organization THINGS AREN'T ORGANIZED.
4. Why drop or drastically change the old content? The old bloodlines mostly survive, but some are clans and some bloodlines. (And Malkavian is now Malkovian) It's like they want the names to pull in older players, but it's in a parallel universe where things aren't related in the same way. Why, pray tell, is the Camarilla dismissed as a silly historical construct? I thought it was central to the old system. Keeping only three of the five traditions? I just don't get it.
5. Now you need an extra book? There are a few places in Requiem where it directs you to the new World of Darkness "core" book. Thing is, the core book doesn't add much to Requiem that you need. And alone, the core book is barely playable. You can only be a mortal, and there are no explanations of vampires, werewolves or mages AT ALL. That means you can't fight them or hunt them down, much less play them. The best you can hope for with the core book is an encounter with police and wild animals, or maybe some ghost hunting.
Conclusion: Play Masquerade or Requiem. Expect no carry-over from the old World of Darkness to the new. If you switch, disregard your previous experience because it's so different you will only be confused. Personally, I prefer the style, layout, feel and mood of the Masquerade. I am, however, torn because the new system has such straightforward usage of morality. Vices, virtues, degeneration, derangement ... It all works, but I think it falls apart when you have to be a member of a coterie, a clan, a bloodline, and a covenant while still obeying your prince.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Questioners of Christ
Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code), Gnostics old and new, James Cameron (who made Titanic and The Lost Tomb of Jesus), writers of "lost" gospels, some extreme feminists (happy to have Mary Magdalene as a church leader), possibly even Muslims (who claim Jesus was a real human prophet not the son of God), and many amateur historians who work with these questionable materials ...
They all point to the New Testament and say, "This book is a lie that proves my truth."
How can lie prove truth? An how can you use the Bible to support your "truth," if your revelation questions the central message of the Bible itself?
It's a good thing Dan Brown and James Cameron and others make a lot of money. They don't make much sense.
They all point to the New Testament and say, "This book is a lie that proves my truth."
How can lie prove truth? An how can you use the Bible to support your "truth," if your revelation questions the central message of the Bible itself?
It's a good thing Dan Brown and James Cameron and others make a lot of money. They don't make much sense.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Speaking in Tongues
While watching The Da Vinci Code, I am unable to express in words my distate, disgust and frustration. I care nothing about any characters, history, plot or religious connotations in the film. It is not because I am not interested in such things. It is because the writers weren't and so they forget to write those things well. The movie is just terribly written.
Losing the War on Terror, Iraq or not
"American officials say that the new intelligence is focused on Al Qaeda and points to the prospect that the terrorist network is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained American-led campaign to weaken it." - NY Times today
How can we be winning the war on terror if Al Qaeda and Taliban forces have regrouped and strengthened in Asia? Osama is not directly involved but that's always been his role. Why don't we attack the people who are actually going to attack us, or quit lying to America Mr. Bush. I don't feel safe.
How can we be winning the war on terror if Al Qaeda and Taliban forces have regrouped and strengthened in Asia? Osama is not directly involved but that's always been his role. Why don't we attack the people who are actually going to attack us, or quit lying to America Mr. Bush. I don't feel safe.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Which religion began the myth they all refer to?
Separating a solution into two problems: I combine the idea of Leviathan, beast of the Deep in Judaism; Tiamat, giant serpent whose body became the sea and sky in Sumerian myth; Elder Gods forecast to return and end humanity in Cthulhu; the endless cycle between Shiva and Vishnu in Hinduism; and the Midgaard Serpent forecast to return for Ragnarok in Norse myth into one comparative religious idea. I feel very gnostic when I say that deep down all of these are ways of expressing that people know what the Big Bang is, and that the resulting expansion of the universe is ultimately finite. Perhaps I just exemplified the failing point of comparative religion in believing that my Hindu science theory of calpas is the correct one, and all others just copies. I think these are also ways of remembering that life has ups and downs, bright days and dark days. I think it says, in my agnostic thinking, that what makes or breaks your day is often beyond your awareness or even comprehension.
Listening to heavy metal and reading mythology after taking Ginkgo Biloba is a mind-expanding experience.
Listening to heavy metal and reading mythology after taking Ginkgo Biloba is a mind-expanding experience.
To Those Who Take the Bible as the Perfect Word of God:
To accept your truth, I must deny everything I know. I must say that my accomplishments which make myself and others happy and which make the world a better place are worthless. I must become nothing to be anything to you. I cannot conceive of a transcendant love which would wish that loved ones are nothing. You are the anti-example of Christ's love.
Through doubting, questioning, and discovering great men of faith became more faithful and influenced Christians and others to this day. Why then should I deny my questions and simply accept things at face value?
The Bible is not the Word of God, unless I believe it is. There is no evidence that it is, neither does that matter to me in my faith. The Word is not the Truth. The Truth transcends the Word.
If I am to trust the Book and not the words of men, shut up. Everything you say must be a lesser version of the Truth if I believe you at that point.
To accept your truth, I must deny everything I know. I must say that my accomplishments which make myself and others happy and which make the world a better place are worthless. I must become nothing to be anything to you. I cannot conceive of a transcendant love which would wish that loved ones are nothing. You are the anti-example of Christ's love.
Through doubting, questioning, and discovering great men of faith became more faithful and influenced Christians and others to this day. Why then should I deny my questions and simply accept things at face value?
The Bible is not the Word of God, unless I believe it is. There is no evidence that it is, neither does that matter to me in my faith. The Word is not the Truth. The Truth transcends the Word.
If I am to trust the Book and not the words of men, shut up. Everything you say must be a lesser version of the Truth if I believe you at that point.
More Role-Playing, Less Game
I was just browsing my free Holy Lands manual. It looked like there was no mention of levels at first. What a brilliant idea. People IRL never go up levels, so why bother with all the damn math? Have all the challenges on a table and set out the DC simply for commons, heros, enemies, animals. Boom.
It would be so much simpler, and more realistic. It also makes it easier to create a character. So much less calculation, especially to create a new character with advanced levels. The GM would have to make some changes and decisions as necessary. People wouldn't need to be attached to their character, making killing them easier. Great. If everything is always at the same level, everything is always balanced for your level. Boom. Work more with plot and less with numbers.
No levels. No experience. No guarantee the PCs will live to the next adventure. It would be great for a horror setting.
Attributes? What another pain in the ass. Skills? Don't get me started. I want a game with common people. I like to build characters but what the hell do I need all this stuff to deal with. I just want heroes to be better than the average joe. Villains should be close to heroes. Animals are less than the above. Done. That's it. I don't want characters to be that damned different and I don't want to worry whether Biff can thread a needle with a bullet at 40 paces because he learned a skill at his last level up. Brotha please. Let's make a game that's fun to play and not be so damned proud of ourselves for creating, refining and then endlessly expanding a system. All that does is showcase our overblown creativity without allowing any obstacles. What if this game isn't sellable? What if it isn't much fun? What if it isn't playable by anyone but the absolute suckas with nothing but time on their hands and allowance to buy the latest book? What the hell do we need another DND clone for? It's been done. You can't make it better by adding content. It doesn't work for anyone but the nerds. Niche market bullshit.
New Game. New rules. Simple game. Some dice. Some markers. Characters aren't different numerically. They are set in stone. The only thing that changes is the equipment. I don't want ot hear, "My character was built for this situation. I have a solution on a bag." That's not the kind of play I want to support and I either need to convince that player that that isn't a fun damned experience for anyone else, or change the rules so that gameplay is impossible. I want a game anyone can play at any time, and all they need to worry about is the plot they are involved in and maybe the equipment involved in the current mission. Character building is not part of hte gameplay anymore. That's it. It's done.
Example 1: Player bump into a special forces soldier. IRL he would probably best the average joe, but a martial arts master in the party might be able to take care of him. Why damn well bother? Make the players think of a way to stop the dude. Try something other than combat. Every enemy is a puzzle, not an opponent to roll some dice against. You build a character and write him as a martial arts master. I don't give a fuck. The reason you win is that PCs are better than the average NPC. If I want it to be a challenge I'll put you on the same level., not 5 or 3 but both PC level. I don't want you to be able to level up and beat up the dude I never meant you to beat either, or trick the system by using a weapon in a way not intended by the rules. THE GAME IS NOT TO BREAK MY RULES SO YOU CAN WIN. The game is for me to have fun writing a story and telling it to you as you experience it through a character within it, as we play out roles in life. We will address philosophical problems and questions of faith, politics, religion, ETHICS. Role-playing is a game, a story and a discussion. IT IS NOT YAHTZEE WITH MORE COMPLICATED SCORECARDS. Fuck your DND. I want to ROLE-PLAY.
It would be so much simpler, and more realistic. It also makes it easier to create a character. So much less calculation, especially to create a new character with advanced levels. The GM would have to make some changes and decisions as necessary. People wouldn't need to be attached to their character, making killing them easier. Great. If everything is always at the same level, everything is always balanced for your level. Boom. Work more with plot and less with numbers.
No levels. No experience. No guarantee the PCs will live to the next adventure. It would be great for a horror setting.
Attributes? What another pain in the ass. Skills? Don't get me started. I want a game with common people. I like to build characters but what the hell do I need all this stuff to deal with. I just want heroes to be better than the average joe. Villains should be close to heroes. Animals are less than the above. Done. That's it. I don't want characters to be that damned different and I don't want to worry whether Biff can thread a needle with a bullet at 40 paces because he learned a skill at his last level up. Brotha please. Let's make a game that's fun to play and not be so damned proud of ourselves for creating, refining and then endlessly expanding a system. All that does is showcase our overblown creativity without allowing any obstacles. What if this game isn't sellable? What if it isn't much fun? What if it isn't playable by anyone but the absolute suckas with nothing but time on their hands and allowance to buy the latest book? What the hell do we need another DND clone for? It's been done. You can't make it better by adding content. It doesn't work for anyone but the nerds. Niche market bullshit.
New Game. New rules. Simple game. Some dice. Some markers. Characters aren't different numerically. They are set in stone. The only thing that changes is the equipment. I don't want ot hear, "My character was built for this situation. I have a solution on a bag." That's not the kind of play I want to support and I either need to convince that player that that isn't a fun damned experience for anyone else, or change the rules so that gameplay is impossible. I want a game anyone can play at any time, and all they need to worry about is the plot they are involved in and maybe the equipment involved in the current mission. Character building is not part of hte gameplay anymore. That's it. It's done.
Example 1: Player bump into a special forces soldier. IRL he would probably best the average joe, but a martial arts master in the party might be able to take care of him. Why damn well bother? Make the players think of a way to stop the dude. Try something other than combat. Every enemy is a puzzle, not an opponent to roll some dice against. You build a character and write him as a martial arts master. I don't give a fuck. The reason you win is that PCs are better than the average NPC. If I want it to be a challenge I'll put you on the same level., not 5 or 3 but both PC level. I don't want you to be able to level up and beat up the dude I never meant you to beat either, or trick the system by using a weapon in a way not intended by the rules. THE GAME IS NOT TO BREAK MY RULES SO YOU CAN WIN. The game is for me to have fun writing a story and telling it to you as you experience it through a character within it, as we play out roles in life. We will address philosophical problems and questions of faith, politics, religion, ETHICS. Role-playing is a game, a story and a discussion. IT IS NOT YAHTZEE WITH MORE COMPLICATED SCORECARDS. Fuck your DND. I want to ROLE-PLAY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)