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.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)