For Laughs, I guess

[ravenstorme]

I recently stumbled upon this article while surfing the web. Its entitled "Dundgeons & Dragons- Concerns for the Christian". It made me laugh at some points, and want to cry at others. Let me know what you think.
www.skepticfiles.org/xhate/d&d.htm

[The Hatter]

Yeah, I have to agree with you Storme. Overall the whole fear of D&D has been put down by the Christian Coilition. These are the same people who say that Television is the Satanists to force good women into becoming lesbians and practacing Black Magick. Over the years most of their filth has been infiltrating actual level headed christian churches. It's sad really.

[gryphonpoet]

I sigh heavily and turn away...

Jeez... C. S. Lewis used many images of demonic, mythological and animist origins in his writings, both poetry and prose. I doubt that anyone would question his religious orientation. But then again, people tend to refuse to think whether they are "christian" (and I use that term in its loosest sense) or not.

[artemi]

That... is an old article. Mid to late 90's, I would gruess. I wonder what they are saying now, some ten years down the road?

Though... They are probubly just complaining about video games now... *shrug*

[celest]

and Harry Potter.


Some one of a totally unbiased nature needs to go and retranslate the bible. really they do. There is a passage that says "Suffere not the witch to live." the orginal greek word for witch ment "one who uses plants to cause harm."

yep, retraslate and it will be read "suffer not the drug dealer to live."

[gryphonpoet]

I disagree. The Bible doesn't need re-translation. It is the people who are supposedly renewed by their re-established relationship with God through Jesus Christ who need re-translated.

For two thousand years, Christianity has worked just fine. Though the people who run that show are unstable.

Just my two cents from this angle.

[curulambe]

celest said:

Some one of a totally unbiased nature needs to go and retranslate the bible.

Show me someone of a totally unbiased nature and I will show you a drooling vegetable. Consider for a moment that it is your own religious bias that is leading you to make this statement. What you really mean is "someone who is not biased in the way that Christian scholars tend to be".

On a less important but still marginally relevant note, that particular passage was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. The word you are looking for is not "drug dealer" but "poisoner" - as in someone who puts arsenic in food, not someone who sells pot - a translation of the Hebrew chasaph. The term "witch" first appears in the KJV, and was quite controversial at the time - other versions, including even the ridiculously inaccurate Vulgate, retain the base meaning of "poisoner" and the neuter gender.

Not that I have a bone to pick with the King James or anything.

gryphonpoet said:

I disagree. The Bible doesn't need re-translation. It is the people who are supposedly renewed by their re-established relationship with God through Jesus Christ who need re-translated.

Could you clarify this assertion? I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you use the word "translated" to apply to a person.

gryphonpoet said:

For two thousand years, Christianity has worked just fine. Though the people who run that show are unstable.

Christianity has not "worked just fine" for the last two thousand years. In fact for most of that time there has not been one religion called "Christianity". At any given point after about A.D. 120 there were between three and a ridiculous number of different religions all of which claimed belief in Christ. Sometimes, that was the only unifying factor. This fragmentedly schismatic nature has persisted to the modern day - put Thich Nhat Hanh, HH Benedict XVI, Pat Robertson, HAH Bartholomew I, and Rowan Williams in a room together and try to get them to agree on something. Anything. "Christ died for our sins and was raised on the third day" is about as far as I imagine they'd get.

But back to my earlier point. I cite the sack of Constantinople, the massacre of the Cathars, the Teutonic invasion of Russia, the Spanish Inquisition, the Monophysite conversion, and the closing of Japan as examples of Christianity not "working fine", ignoring the many examples to be found in America today simply by opening the paper. Perhaps what you mean to say is that Christianity has endured for two thousand years; but it really hasn't. I frankly suspect that Paul would be horrified at what people have made of his letters. (And when you ask a self-admitted asexual for advice about sexuality, you are going to get some screwed up ideas. See also: the letters to the Romans and Corinthians.)

So. In what way do you think Christianity has "worked just fine"?

[gryphonpoet]

>> Could you clarify this assertion? I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you use the word "translated" to apply to a person. <<

The word I used here is a pun. For the word, it means to change from one language to another. For the people, it means to rework their basic nature. I thought it clever, though now I am not so sure since you didn't catch it.

>> So. In what way do you think Christianity has "worked just fine"? <<

In the way that millions (and I mean that number literally, several groups of 1,000,000 people) have improved their overall demeanors by adding the spiritual regeneration of Faith. Christianity, as laid down by Y'eshua bar Yossef and taught through personal letters by his first followers was not intended to be a worldwide brainwashing system.

For your examples of "not working fine", they relate to blaming the religion for the decepetions, violations and sins of people who are ignorant, apathetic and greedy. Just like humankind in general.

I do not deny history. But there is a difference between the Church Politic and the belief system that has helped so many individuals by bringing them out of selfishness and making them spiritually aware.

Now as a pre-emptive statement...

Chrisitianity is NOT the only system that does that. It is the one that I happen to believe as being correct. Each individual (not each church, or else we fall into the same claptrap as the people who did the crusades and the other atrocities that you mentioned) has to decide for themselves what they believe and why.

MY job as a believer is NOT to judge that decision. Not even as a Christian. That is what the Creator (aka God, Godhead, or whatever else you'd like to call him/her/it) will do after time expires. My job is simply to decide for myself and keep my own little corner clean.

On an unrelated and completely personal note, I have a question. Do you have a problem with taking things in more than a strictly literal definition?

[curulambe]

gryphonpoet said:

The word I used here is a pun. For the word, it means to change from one language to another. For the people, it means to rework their basic nature. I thought it clever, though now I am not so sure since you didn't catch it.

Fair enough. I have simply never encountered the latter use of the word "translate".

gryphonpoet said:

In the way that millions (and I mean that number literally, several groups of 1,000,000 people) have improved their overall demeanors by adding the spiritual regeneration of Faith. Christianity, as laid down by Y'eshua bar Yossef and taught through personal letters by his first followers was not intended to be a worldwide brainwashing system.

I believe you are making two assumptions here which I would contest, one semantic and one spiritual. The first: that "working just fine" should be measured by successes, and not by lack of failures. If I am driving from New York to San Francisco, and my car only breaks down once on the way, my car has not "worked just fine" for the whole trip. That, however, is a relatively minor issue.

The second assumption you make - or seem to make - is that the purpose of religion is to effect a change in the behavior of the believer. I can only say that I find this utterly false. The purpose of every religion with which I am familiar is not to "improve" one's demeanor but rather one's spiritual "quality of life"; exactly what that means varies from religion to religion. Christians, for example, wish to attain a closer relationship to God, and to enter Heaven, whatever that may mean. Any change in how a Christian behaves when he or she converts is a matter of change of demeanor only secondarily.

To say that the purpose of religion is to effect a change of demeanor is to acknowledge the legitimacy and morality of the use of organized religion as nothing more than a political tool.

gryphonpoet said:

For your examples of, they relate to blaming the religion for the decepetions, violations and sins of people who are ignorant, apathetic and greedy. Just like humankind in general.

All my examples but the last two involve a unilateral action by many, many believers, including those who stand in authority over others, viz. popes, kings, bishops, etc. When men are in a position to dictate - and I use the word advisedly - doctrine and policies to millions of believers, and those believers obey because of their religion, I fail to see how that is not an action of the religion. If they have "cast aside the true path" or whatever, I submit that that is then a case of "not working fine" - whatever that may mean.

The last two examples are somewhat different. The Monophysite conversion took place around A.D. 700, and was the en masse conversion of the Monophysite sect to a new religion - Islam. The Monophysites, who consisted of a significant number of Christians in what is now Ethiopia, Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, put up effectively no resistance to their conquest by Islam - and the entire region is predominantly Islamic to this day. This does not speak well for the Monophysites' treatment at the hands of their orthodox brethren (Monophysitism was declared a heresy in 451), nor for the idea of a unified "original" Christian faith.

The last example is one of many where, because of the arrogance of Christian missionaries who felt it their duty to impose their doctrine on "the heathen", those same heathen lashed back violently. I chose this particular example because the Japanese lashed back far more effectively than most. The overbearing, arrogant manner of the Portugese and Spanish missionaries in southern Japan during the Warring States era served to further fragment an already shattered nation - and when the nation was finally unified, under the Tokugawa shogunate, the shogun gave them the boot. Violently.

gryphonpoet said:

I do not deny history. But there is a difference between the Church Politic and the belief system that has helped so many individuals by bringing them out of selfishness and making them spiritually aware.

The Church Politic is simply the body of those who adhere to that belief system. Unless you're going to say that your version of that belief system is "right", and other people's is "wrong", and that's why they do what they do. And that, sir, is how religious wars happen.

gryphonpoet said:

Chrisitianity is NOT the only system that does that. It is the one that I happen to believe as being correct. Each individual (not each church, or else we fall into the same claptrap as the people who did the crusades and the other atrocities that you mentioned) has to decide for themselves what they believe and why.

MY job as a believer is NOT to judge that decision. Not even as a Christian. That is what the Creator (aka God, Godhead, or whatever else you'd like to call him/her/it) will do after time expires. My job is simply to decide for myself and keep my own little corner clean.

Yay for personal responsibility! You're one of the few Christians I've met (and I've met a lot of them) who would say that.

Unfortunately, the avowed intention and practice of most Christian churches does not agree with you. In this age of secular states, churches have to tread more carefully, but you can bet that there are Christians in the United States - and not a small number of them - who, if they were their own nation, would not shrink from invading their neighboring secular states. The attitude is still there; it has just had its teeth pulled. Don't let shouts of coexistence fool you - many Christian churches today still hold with the "convert or be damned" doctrine.

I should further note that while it is each individual's responsibility to choose for him or herself, it is the religious community's responsibility to support, enable, and respect that choice. And I think you may find that the "believe like I do or you suck" mentality is more widespread than you think. Look at the shitstorm in the Anglican Communion today. Or the plight of Christians in China. Or the state of the Middle East. Or the ongoing strife between Orthodox and Catholics. Or -

I think you get my point. It's not a problem unique to Christianity, but Christianity certainly isn't immune to it.

I admit that I'm focusing on the negative points of Christianity; I have a great deal of respect for it, though a fundamental difference of belief causes me to not adhere to it. (I tried to reconcile it, but it really can't be done. Ah well.) The problem, as you say, fundamentally people; but that's not all it is. It's people who have been given a strict system, made all the stricter by the fact that they believe it so fervently. Would many of them still be fucktards if they weren't so rabidly Christian? You bet they would. Would all of them? Well, that's a trickier question.

And as to historical Christianity, it's true that a great many of the abuses of power come from a small number of men. But that makes it all the worse, because these were men who were given power, supposedly because they were of great wisdom and moral character. When a man like that fails, we cast greater blame upon him - and rightfully so! But it really comes down to power. There are those who call the emperor Constantine "the killer of Christianity". I'm not one of them, but there is truth in what they say.

gryphonpoet said:

On an unrelated and completely personal note, I have a question. Do you have a problem with taking things in more than a strictly literal definition?

Not at all. However, most of the clues that suggest to me that I ought to do so are in vocal tone and body language. Nothing in the two posts to which I responded suggested to me that they were meant in any sense but complete seriousness, so I addressed them as such.

(Actually, honesty compels me to say that I very much enjoy taking things more literally than they meant for humorous effect. Instances of my doing so can be recognized by the presence of a shit-eating grin on my face, as well as other phrases, like "Okay, enough of that silliness".)

I should also note that I am a linguist by profession, and thus I tend to think harder about specific word meanings than many people, with the result that I am often less able to recognize when somebody is playing fast and loose with the English language. Not that there's anything wrong with doing so, mind - that's how the language evolves - but when it's taking place purely in text, without the concomitant cues of body language, facial expression, and vocal overtone, I have difficulty recognizing it.

::reads back over what he has just written:: Good God, I'm a windbag. Shutting up now.

[gryphonpoet]

Okokok...

I have now read this post 7 or 8 times and I am still confused as to where parts of it relate to what I had said. I think that the biggest confusion is in some terms that we seem to have different meanings to. I'll explain the things in other words and hopefully be clearer in meaning.

First, the definition of Christianity. Christianity is the following of the teachings of Y'eshua bar Y'ussef of Bethlehem (c. 1 AD - 33 AD) He taught a system of religion unique in two ways. First, it promised radical change for the adherents from the inside out. All religions prior to his advent promised change (in one form or another) beginning with actions, rather than one's actions changing due to the renewed spirit. The second difference is that there was NO grand heirarchy laid down in early Christianity. No world-wide church. In fact, no church government at all.

Which brings me to the second difference of meaning. The Church Politic. Whenever it was decided to centralize the Christian church's influence and cultivate that influence universally, the religion went from being a body of believers to a political entity. Hence, the Church Politic. The bureaucratic mess that interferes with any and all actual effect in the individual's life.

Subsequently, it is the Church Politic and its cronyism that brought about the vast majority of the action Christianity is most criticized for. Many have already been mentioned, I acknowledge they occurred and they need not be re-hashed.

Third point of our mutual confusion is that the working is not related to that same heirarchy I named the Church Politic. All the "good" the religion has done has been for the individuals who actually have sought the change afforded by the belief in Jesus.

Sadly, attending church makes one a Christian in the same way that going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger. There have been millions and millions of people who have sought the global power of Christianity. And those people constuitute the Church Politic. After all, absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?

As for the aside note at the end, there seems to be a confusion as well. I asked about you being an extremely literal person. You responded by saying you interpreted the words seriously. One has no effect on the other. I can tell a literal joke and not be serious. Also, I can use metaphor and puns in a scholarly writing as a memory aid or for dramatic effect.

I hope this clears what I was saying a little bit. If not and you're still interested in the discussion, PM me and we can continue via E-mail. In either case, I have enjoyed this conversation. Thanks for the mental exercise.

[Kensai]

Sorry to bring up an old topic

Just thought I'd add my views (and subsequently get kicked off the forums forever) <ahem>
<disclaimer>I am not a Christan, I was one for two years but now I am closer to Zen Buddism and Paulo Coehlo's Warrior of Light teachings</disclaimer>

Christians, that is the people, are like Americans (a terrible generalization going on here) they believe that their way is correct and can't understand why everybody else don't agree with them. They can be so blinded by their beliefs that they lose track of what is really happening, so they go to church, say a few prayers and think they are helping the world.
I just feel that people rely too much on the interpretation of one book, whether it be Bible or Koran or the Torah (can't vouch for this one) and because of this they stop thinking for themselves. It is like they are looking through sunglasses or something. When a new concept comes along, they panic and look to their holy scriptures for a solution - anything they cannot find a solution to they brand as a 'work of the devil' and convince others that it is bad.

As I think Ghandi, or some wise person, said "Religon is like a multicoloured lantern, we all see through different colours but the flame inside is the same"

I apologise if I offended anyone, I just thought I'd put my views out on the table for others to agree or disagree with

[gryphonpoet]

Yep. You're right. A terrible over-generalization. And one that covers 90% of the human race. I am part of the 10% that is the 40 meter dash.

People of ALL religions do exactly what you've said. Christians just get the most publicity by doing it. In that same way, the Muslims get the publicity when they act zealously and the Jews get the publicity for acting haughtily.

It is another downfall of the human race to want to lump everything and everyone into neat, tidy piles. Sadly, that seldom happens either.

So you aren't a Christian. Sweet. I am and that is what makes us thinking individuals. After all, the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah both quote God as saying, "Come now, let us reason together." (Isaiah 1; 17-18) What is saddest about this conversation is that even though that quote is considered canonical by about 45% of the world's population, it is ignored almost exclusively. :-(

As far as offending me, pishaw. I enjoy conversation and TRULY respect someone who can express their viewpoint intelligently, will listen while I express mine and not become angry. Eunhathes and Atreides Conscript can vouch for this, I believe. And if memory serves, Artemi has witnessed me in conversation too... even though he may not have been paying attention. LOL.

I hesitate to say this, but I have to disagree slightly with Ghandi (Mohandas, I will presume. Since Indira was never so philosophical.) My take on the subject is (appropriately enough) a story from India about the five blind men who touched an elephant and tried to describe it.

Tell me what you feel and I will come to feel it also. I will tell you what I have known and together, we'll have a decent picture of what God is like. Religion to me is a man-made attempt to reach out to that elephant. We won't be able to "see" what we're feeling until we step away from this life and consider what we've done here.

OK... Instead of two cents, I gave a nickel. So sue me. LOL

[Kensai]

I am familar with the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant. It's a great story and you are very correct is saying we tend to lump people into neat piles.

I enjoy Kahlil Gibran's interpretation on things, especially in the Prophet (a great read!) He speaks about God by saying "And if you would know God, be not therefore the solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you shall see him singing in the wind, playing with your children and waving in the clouds"

I respect other religons, just don't say mine is wrong and I am damned to hell and this and that. But, gryphonpoet, you seem like one of those that aren't on a personal message to save the 'heathens' And I respect that. Thanks!

EDIT: Sorry, I just have to ask. Gryphonpoet, do you believe everything in the Bible? (I know its a stupid question but some do take everything they read seriously)

[gryphonpoet]

Actually, I do believe that the Bible is accurate. The histories in it are actual and literal, therefore they are used in archaeology. There are some things that are metaphorical, like the prophecies. Some things are poetic and allegory, like "Song of Solomon" and "The Revelation to John".

It isn't 100% literal and there is too much that is accurate to be dismissed as complete bunk either. From that point on, it is a matter of choice whether to believe (hold faith in it) or not. There is where the discussion lives.