Religion in CRPGs

[kingcomrade]

He's known for being a broken record about gay rights.
It's a general consesus that he cried when they got rid of gay marriage in massachusettes or california or wherever.
He's a one trick pony, and though he says he's a conservative, I haven't heard him say much on any subject besides gay rights. Then again, I don't read his blog or anything.
Usually, the only columnist that I read regularly is Mark Steyn, because he's fun to read.

 

[Twinfalls]

So Sullivan's a fraud and a fuckwit, willing to trample all over serious healthcare rights in pushing his own stupid faggot-wedding wheelbarrow.

Hopefully the 'gay conservative' gene will be isolated and his theory gets put to the test.

 

[yipsl]

Though I'm not a conservative, I've seen articles by Andrew Sullivan and he's a gay Catholic isn't he? I believe that sig comment was from a Time magazine column where he pointed out that religious conservatives are so anti gay without reason that they'd go for abortion if it meant getting rid of gays. He used in the context of "end justifies the means" examples where conservative values are violated by conservative activists.

Conservative columnists really need to stop providing quotes that can be misunderstood, like that other Catholic conservative discussing race, crime and abortion who gave an example of an immoral extreme position in such a way that part of it got quoted as if he were advocating it himself. Philosophical discussions do not lend themselves to sound bites!

Anyways, as a Jewish moderate who's conservative on some issues and liberal on others, I have serious problems with many of the classic Western philosophical discussions of G-d vis a vis omnipotence, omnipresence, the arrow of time and relationship to the world. They all seem to be based on Hellenistic science, whereas if a discussion of G-d were based on modern science, the flaws in philosophy alone would be apparent.

Since this has gotten away from game religion to religion in general, I have to state that panentheism is the only logical form of theism. Monotheism works as poetic metaphor but it should not lead to a literal interpretation of the white haired guy on the Sistine Chapel. Pantheism presupposes the natural universe is deity, but it's a very much unaware deity, but panentheism considers the natural universe to be part of a greater whole that is self aware and reaches out across all worlds as G-d.

Rather than saying that G-d created time, and experiences it in one instance, as classical philosophy does, it makes more sense to see the arrow of time as a localized experience. Our experience of time through our senses and indirect observations both is akin to our experience of only a part of the visual spectrum. Thus, it's as illogical to ask if G-d knows you will someday wear red pants and a blue shirt on such and such a future date, because past, present and future is only a human reference point.

As quantum evolution posits our DNA enters a quantum state and selects the mutation that best fits the gene and then collapses the possibilities into that mutation (avoiding both mechanistic Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinian randomness), so too does a cloud of possibilities arising out of the many worlds interpretation allow for both a knowing and an unknowing of what suit of clothes you'd choose to wear on such and such a date.

Perhaps there's a spiritual uncertainty principle? Just as we cannot know both the vector and the location of a particle because our observation precludes knowing both, so too we cannot experience the numinous and describe the numinous at the same time? Take mysticism seriously, regardless of your religious or nonreligious tradition. Whether it's the Cloud author, the Zohar, modern mathematical cosmology with many worlds and dimensions included within a greater whole, it all comes down to the fact that if we can describe G-d in anything other than metaphorical language of relationships, then we aren't describing G-d, merely our localized impression of G-d

Anyway's has anyone read any of the classic science fantasy works, or should I describe how they differ from both SF and fantasy, and if you're aware of the difference, what sort of RPG cosmology and religion would work in applying science fantasy to a computer game?

 

[Twinfalls]

Ah, so it comes down to whether Sullivan actually said 'The evil of abortion' bit at the start, or whether his words are being twisted through the addition of that line.

If someone else added that bit to the beginning, and its not his words, then whoever did that deserves to die after having his fingernails removed, for being such a fraudulent, lying idealogue fuckwit.

 

[Ausir]

In the Witcher books (dunno about the game yet), clerics don't have any fancy kind of magic - most of them don't use any magic at all, and those who do are really nothing more than wizards who claim that their powers come from some deity.

 

[Human Shield]

God Knows that on April 17, 2010 you will wear a red shirt and green pants to work. Can you decide to wear anything other than a red shirt and green pants?

But by looking at all time, the reason he knows you will wear red is because that is what you choose.

The knowledge exists because you choose, not the reverse. You could choose any of them but that would create the knowledge of that choice.

He would know those concepts <i>because</i> he made them. However that is immaterial really. The point is that he KNOWS/KNEW what will happen on April 17, 2010. What he considers as his perspective is immaterial to the fact that what he knows MUST happen, <i>will</i> from our perspective, or he was wrong.

You can't use the concept of "MUST" when the knowledge exists because of the choice.

The concept of Omnipotence leading to contradiction is pretty much my point.

Because you have a flawed view of omnipotence.

Then there is a limit on his power? You have a funny definition of ALL POWERFUL.

Power doesn't mean everything is possible. It isn't a limit if power isn't part of the equation.

The idea that power can create contradictions is flawed.

Enough power to create the universe itself, but not to create something heavier than he can lift?

Because he can lift everything.

All-powerful doesn't include being able to have no power. What do you see wrong with that?

You couldn't. I couldn't. The being who defined the universe should be able to, even if he has to create an entirely new universe to do it within.

Then definitions would change along with it.

Power doesn't let you have two defined mutually exclusive elements at the same time. I don't know where the idea that is can came from.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I don't understand how aborting kids is more moral as long as you don't know their sexual orientation. And how does a "gay gene" work in an evolutionary sense? Shouldn't it have dissapeared thousands of years ago?

 

[kingcomrade]

The "gay gene" is a silly bit of junk science that gay rights groups came up with (which, i'm pretty sure has been disproven) because if you allow that homosexuality is a choice, then you must also allow the argument that homosexuality could be a wrong or bad choice. Not saying it is, of course, but a lot of people do.
They kinda wanted to ride the success of the black rights movement. Being black isn't a choice, after all.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

We can't judge people based on their choices and actions, silly!

 

[Twinfalls]

I don't understand how aborting kids is more moral as long as you don't know their sexual orientation.

Because it is being done for reasons other than 'we want a particular type of children'.

Abortion is a health issue. Which gets co-opted by lunkhead so-called 'conservatives' (who are anything but - 'reactionary statists' is better, as is 'suckholes to power') for their bullshit hypocritical suckage-to-power.

Do you think abortion never took place before medical science at least made it safe?

The shamelessness of these guys sitting their and proclaiming 'you, impoverished teenager, shall be FORCED to have your unwanted child' and think they are being MORAL, never ceases to amaze.

 

[kingcomrade]

I don't understand how aborting kids is more moral as long as you don't know their sexual orientation.

Because it is being done for reasons other than 'we want a particular type of children'.

Abortion is a health issue. Which gets co-opted by lunkhead so-called 'conservatives' (who are anything but - 'reactionary statists' is better, as is 'suckholes to power') for their bullshit hypocritical suckage-to-power.

Do you think abortion never took place before medical science at least made it safe?

The shamelessness of these guys sitting their and proclaiming 'you, impoverished teenager, shall be FORCED to have your unwanted child' and think they are being MORAL, never ceases to amaze.

RED ALERT! DANGER: ABORTION DETECTED IN THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!
PREPARE TO ABANDON SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Revasser]

The "gay gene" is a silly bit of junk science that gay rights groups came up with (which, i'm pretty sure has been disproven) because if you allow that homosexuality is a choice, then you must also allow the argument that homosexuality could be a wrong or bad choice. Not saying it is, of course, but a lot of people do.
They kinda wanted to ride the success of the black rights movement. Being black isn't a choice, after all.

There is, as far as I'm aware, no "gay gene", and nobody who has done the tiniest bit of research into the subject will actually try to argue on the basis of an on/off genetic switch.

Current theory is that homosexuality comes as a result of a combination of genetic factors and environment factors. The idea is that you can have a genetic predisposition toward being gay, but you won't always end up gay, and that a number of environment factors can skew you in one direction or the other (what these factors are is up for debate; levels of certain chemicals/hormones in the womb, diet of the pregnant mother, events in early childhood, early childhood diet, etc. etc. There are huge number of possibilities.)

But the idea of a "gay gene" is mostly pretty silly. There are very few traits which have on/off switches in your genes, the vast majority are just a series of clines ranging from one extreme to the other, with everything in between.

 

[Claw]

Being black isn't a choice, after all.

You've never even heard of Michael Jackson, have you.

 

[yipsl]

In the Witcher books (dunno about the game yet), clerics don't have any fancy kind of magic - most of them don't use any magic at all, and those who do are really nothing more than wizards who claim that their powers come from some deity.

I'd like to see them translated into English. Perhaps if the game does well enough. Do the novels deal with racism like the game? Humans are supposed to have prejudice against elves and dwarves. Are religions portrayed as good, bad or as depending on the behavior of the believers?

 

[kingcomrade]

Being black isn't a choice, after all.

You've never even heard of Michael Jackson, have you.

Michael who? You're old.

 

[Claw]

 

[ExMonk]

I don't understand how aborting kids is more moral as long as you don't know their sexual orientation.

Because it is being done for reasons other than 'we want a particular type of children'.

Abortion is a health issue. Which gets co-opted by lunkhead so-called 'conservatives' (who are anything but - 'reactionary statists' is better, as is 'suckholes to power') for their bullshit hypocritical suckage-to-power.

Do you think abortion never took place before medical science at least made it safe?

The shamelessness of these guys sitting their and proclaiming 'you, impoverished teenager, shall be FORCED to have your unwanted child' and think they are being MORAL, never ceases to amaze.

You're joking about this, right? Twinfalls, do you have some tired old pro-abortion playbook that you're reading from? Has some 1960s or 70s feminist taken over your body--or are you a 1960s or 70s feminist. That's right: Abortion is a HEALTH issue. Problem is, the unborn child's heath is just as important as the mother's. Both should be cared for. I am so sick and tired of the moronic "It's my body so no one else has the right to tell me what to do with it." Actually, no. Except the hard cases of rape and incest, the moment a woman decides to have sex and gets pregnant there are two bodies involved, and the mother's rights DO NOT trump the rights of the unborn child. Equally moronic is the tired, old, bankrupt argument, "It's not right to force impoverished teens to have their babies." The answer is, and has always been: ADOPTION." No one is forcing anyone to keep the baby!!!!!!!!

It is absolutely immoral to murder a human life at any point in its development. In fact there is nothing more immoral than that.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Because it is being done for reasons other than 'we want a particular type of children'.

Abortion is a health issue. Which gets co-opted by lunkhead so-called 'conservatives' (who are anything but - 'reactionary statists' is better, as is 'suckholes to power') for their bullshit hypocritical suckage-to-power.

Do you think abortion never took place before medical science at least made it safe?

The shamelessness of these guys sitting their and proclaiming 'you, impoverished teenager, shall be FORCED to have your unwanted child' and think they are being MORAL, never ceases to amaze.

Why is it wrong for a parent to want a particular kind of child? Aren't we hard-wired to try and seek the mate who will contribute good genes toward making "a particular type of children"?

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

Whilst gods being real in games and giving you powers and stuff is cool, I'd like for once to see a game in which religion plays a role more approximating to reality. That is, the in-game religion serves as a means of power and control, for a privileged minority who extract and maintain wealth from the people using fear and indoctrination, and as a distraction from pursuing collective political action.

Thus might serious moral decisons and implications be generated for the player who chooses to seek power from that path, or who is naive about the reality to begin with.

so essentialy allowing you to rp as dubya?

and ex monk your right and if anyone gets pissed off about womans rights it is the flaunting of the fair pay act which also applies to black and overweight people that they are talking about unless they are saying otherwise in which case they are not real liberals but anti-conservatives

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Who cares about unborn babies? What good have they done for us? The fuckers.

 

[Section8]

"People suck, and it's easier to kill them when they're foetuses than when they're grown up."

Tell us ExMonk, why would the child of a non-consentual union be any different to any other unwanted child? It may be a "hard case" but so is the whole abortion issue. If militant "pro-lifers" expended the energy they reserve for flapping their gums, blocking clinics and murdering doctors or security guards* on helping to create a positive upbringing for unwanted children then maybe some people would reconsider their abortion stance. As it stands the moral choice is between ending a "human life" before it becomes a conscious being, or willingly depriving a child of loving biological parents.

* If any ever asks me to define irony, I'm going to say "pro-life murderers."

And since it's topical, back in 2001, a security guard at a Melbourne abortion clinic (and father of seven ! ) was shot and murdered, by a 48-year-old raving, militant, pro-life fundie. In true Jack Thompson style, the Herald Sun pinned the blame on video games!

--
And for fuck's sake, why do these threads have to wander so much?

 

[ExMonk]

"People suck, and it's easier to kill them when they're foetuses than when they're grown up."

Tell us ExMonk, why would the child of a non-consentual union be any different to any other unwanted child? It may be a "hard case" but so is the whole abortion issue. If militant "pro-lifers" expended the energy they reserve for flapping their gums, blocking clinics and murdering doctors or security guards* on helping to create a positive upbringing for unwanted children then maybe some people would reconsider their abortion stance. As it stands the moral choice is between ending a "human life" before it becomes a conscious being, or willingly depriving a child of loving biological parents.

* If any ever asks me to define irony, I'm going to say "pro-life murderers."

And since it's topical, back in 2001, a security guard at a Melbourne abortion clinic (and father of seven ! ) was shot and murdered, by a 48-year-old raving, militant, pro-life fundie. In true Jack Thompson style, the Herald Sun pinned the blame on video games!

--
And for fuck's sake, why do these threads have to wander so much?

I hardly know where to begin. First, where on God's green earth did we ever get the idea that we should decide whether a human being lives or dies on the basis of whether someone else in society considers the human being WANTED? Wanted is an extremely subjective concept that has nothing to do with whether a person should live or die. Nothing! As you point out, there are many out of the womb children that are unwanted. But nobody (yet) is demanding that it would be more merciful to kill them since they are "unwanted." The day is probably coming, though. Second, what rock have you been hiding under? There are thousands of crisis pregnancy centers set up that specifically give loving support to mothers who choose to let their babies live, including providing housing, medical care, adoptive services, etc. We care about the women involved as much as we the babies--even though it is much easier to wrongly stereotype pro-life people as raving maniacs. Of course there have been a few insane pro-life people. That does not invalidate the work of saving babies from being murdered. Pro-life people also actually care for orphans too. Imagine that.

Enough for now.

 

[Stella Brando]

First, where on God's green earth did we ever get the idea that we should decide whether a human being lives or dies on the basis of whether someone else in society considers the human being WANTED?

As long as it's done early, isn't abortion about preventing a life, rather than ending one? Isn't abstinence therefore equally morally reprehensible, in that it also stops potential life from coming into existence?

 

[Twinfalls]

And this is where the argument gets very difficult.

Those are fair points you raise, ExMonk. It is indeed unfair to label the whole 'pro-life' cause on the basis of the lunatic minority.

May I just say that the vitriolic nature of my comment against anti-abortionism stems from anger at the rank hypocrisy of powerful right-wing characters, like senior Republicans, and the Pat Robertsons of the US, who use the issue for their own political gain. These are the same people who bring about the type of policies which cause abortions to be needed in the first place, due to the resulting decline of social services and swelling in the numbers of working poor.

And that's where I'll leave this discussion....

 

[kingcomrade]

Who cares about unborn babies? What good have they done for us? The fuckers.

I always thought ultrasounds were pretty erotic.