A strange thing with the Christians' theory of what RPGs really are.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:40 pm

Grimreaper writes:
He cannot possibly exist. Why? Because no truly loving god that has and will exist forever would punish us for such a relitively small amount of time (100 years) with ETERNAL punishment of the ultimate torture.

@Grim, I'm with you on this--but keep in mind that some kind of Christian god may exist, but that a lot of people could have put a lot of words in his mouth. I would be curious, though, what some of the more robust believers of traditional Christianity have to say about this. There are at least a couple who have never written here on the subject, but I suppose read it--and in all fairness, they should be given a platform, too.

GrimReaper · Post by **GrimReaper** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:58 pm

@Grim, I'm with you on this--but keep in mind that some kind of Christian god may exist, but that a lot of people could have put a lot of words in his mouth. I would be curious, though, what some of the more robust believers of traditional Christianity have to say about this. There are at least a couple who have never written here on the subject, but I suppose read it--and in all fairness, they should be given a platform, too.

I am also very interested in other peoples opinions on this matter. As I said, I go to a Christian school, but I would never start a debate about the existance of a god in my school. I have never really brought my point up to a Christian and had them examine it. In my school, if anything cannot be explained, we are told that we cannot understand God, which I think is a lame excuse. If you can't explain your beliefs, than how can you believe them? And about putting words in God's mouth, as far as I know and have been told, the bible is the perfect book because it comes from God. Although, it was written by man, God guided their hand and their thoughts. That is what I have been told, which I think only makes my point more valid. Because now you have taken away the excuse that the Bible could be wrong.

Again, I would enjoy your opinions.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:57 pm

@Grim, they were wrong to imply that they had a greater comprehension of god than you, and that certain rules and beliefs were required as a result. That's just standard BS adult behavior. (Kids are more honest. When you ask them why you should do something, they reply, "Because.")

At the same time, I can't help but think that most beliefs can't rationally be explained, because logic is a tool that isn't designed for that purpose. I can tell you how I feel, I can tell you what I've experienced, but because one's relationship with one's deity(ies) is personal, there's no way I can communicate with you anything more than broken eggshells--words whose real meaning has long since escaped.

I don't question whether any book can be inspired by a god. I do question whether a god would inspire a book of laws, letters and history. There is nothing transcedent about any of that, and religion is, by its nature, transcendent. That's not to say one couldn't arrive at some kind of mystical experience while following those laws. But it's just as likely that you could arrive at such an experience without following them, if you were ready.

One of the sillier tenets of occultism is that there has always been a secret knowledge passed along in the inner circles of a given religion, available only to a few (and you can have it all, now, for $19.95!). One of the less silly tenets is that you can put anything in plain view, and it won't matter to anybody, unless the person comes along who's primed. Then, whatever you place, may set them off, and drop them through the floorboards of the universe like a trapdoor, into some kind of experience of transcendent reality.

One other thought, as disconnected as the rest in this message. A visitor came upon a monk who was walking across the yard in an Eastern monastery. "Do you know if anybody here has achieved oneness with god?" the visitor asked.

"Yes, I have," said the monk, without pride or humility.

The guest beamed. "Great! So what happened?"

"Well, I used to chop wood, and carry water--then, I had a vision, and became the universe," said the monk.

"And what do you do now?" asked the guest.

The monk grinned. "I chop wood, and carry water." And he went on his way, doing just that.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:25 am

Originally posted by GrimReaper:
[QB]Alright, I have to put in my two cents. i have been going to a Christian school since 1st grade (now in 11th) and I have drawn one conclusion about the Christian God. He cannot possibly exist. Why? Because no truly loving god that has and will exist forever would punish us for such a relitively small amount of time (100 years) with ETERNAL punishment of the ultimate torture. Think about it. It's like your child takes the 10 dollars you gave him for lunch and buys cigarettes. He took something you gave him that if used properly would have given him something good, and he used it for something bad. Now at this point would you give your child to someone who would torture him for the rest of his life (or longer?). I don't think so. You'd probably punish him, but not forever. To me, god is like the father that would hand his child over. He gives you a soul to use for good, but you use it for evil. Were he the loving father, he would punish you to teach you a lesson and then forgive you and move on. Especially since God is supposed to have more love and forgiveness for us, than we have for anyone, including our children and other family.
QB]

IMO they have been teaching you poorly, Hell in the christian faith is not Dantes Inferno it is simpler than that, Hell is when one is without the love of God and the love of others. There are several references but i am not a theologist

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:35 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>Also what is the obsession with Jesus dying on the cross, now i understand it was a large sacrifice but many people have had to make a similar sacrifice since, and how does one man dying on a slab of wood constitute the removing of our sins forever?</STRONG>

There are two basic theories of the death of Jesus:

1. "Substitution" Theory: This theory states that Jesus dies instead of us. This is illogical, because it says that God makes the innocent suffer for the crimes of the guilty. That's positively anti-Scriptural.

2. "Representative" Theory: This theory makes more sense IMO. It states that Jesus, as head of humanity, represents humanity to God. He also represents God to humanity. As such, he included us in his death. We are part of it. So instead of saying Jesus died so we don't have to, this theory states that he died so we would be able to. Be able to die to our own sinfulness and evil inclinations. So the crucifixion/resurrection (they are the same event) is not merely a physical phenomenon; they are spiritual/emotional event which is meant to be experienced in the here and now.

As far as Satan "owning" the earth: that doesn't seem right. Satan has a great deal of influence over the earth but if you read the Bible, God is still in control...

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:00 am

Ah, but Satan does own the earth, and the ancients knew this. Satan is referred to as Rex Mundi, king of the world and all its sinful spheres since the Fall of Man. When Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge, she discovered God and what it means to be God and mankind has been striving to be so ever since.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:44 pm

There's an interesting series of short stories by Anatole France that explores facets of this idea of Lucifer as King of the Earth. Far from being a paragon of evil, Lucifer is presented as intelligent and compassionate, while the advocates of God are either flocks of hypocrites or those who reject the simple enjoyment of the senses. Usually, they're set around 800 AD, in Byzantium, which provides a dramatic contrast between the splendors of civilization and the abstinence of desert cenobite culture.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 3:48 pm

@loner so which viewpoint are you afixed to?

@Fable you read a very varied selection of work

@Hermetic thankyou for making me not seem like a total raving lunatic

GrimReaper · Post by **GrimReaper** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 6:19 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>IMO they have been teaching you poorly, Hell in the christian faith is not Dantes Inferno it is simpler than that, Hell is when one is without the love of God and the love of others. There are several references but i am not a theologist </STRONG>

I don't believe hell is ever actually mentioned in the bible. The one time it is in the NIV version, at the bottom of the page it says that this was translated from the Greek word tartarus. A direct translation of tartarus is where fallen angels (aka Satan and his followers) are sent, but tartarus does not refer to a human's soul, unless you consider the soul to be an angel. The only other reference to hell is in Revelation, where it say that the evil will be thrown into a "lake of fire." In that same sentence, though, it is said that being thrown into that lake is the second death. This gives me the impression of a soul actually ceasing to exist, not eternal torture. Anyways, everything stated here is actually of Jehovah's Witness teachings, but I think you can see why I think it makes more sense.

Also, something a little off topic. What do you Christians (and others thinking from a Christian point of view) think of the antichrist? It seems that most Christians believe in there being one big antichrist but in the bible it states that anyone who does not follow God is an antichrist. Any opinions?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sat Jul 07, 2001 1:59 am

There is also reference made to 'the pit' which could be Hell

The antichrist is all who apose God (idols etc) but eventually there will be a lead goverener (Tony Rottencrotch

) of this planet who will bring about the apocalypse (IMO)

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:43 pm

You don't know how often, when I hear that antichrist cr*p, that I want to scream out loud that I'm the Beast 666 and Ozzy Osbourne is my alterego.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:53 pm

If you ask me, Religion in general is just plain crazy. There are too many contradictions, and gaps. Also, not enough proof that a god does exist. I know I'm anti-religious, and aetheisit, and thats why. If someone can walk up to me, and prove that God exists, then I might change my mind. Until that point, God doesn't exist to me. Lastly, just a point for all you religous people. The more holy you are, the bigger the hat. Therefore, God, if he exists, wears a sombraero. Thank you, and good day.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 2:13 am

I’d love to contribute to this thread but between ToB and now Trials of the Luremaster I can’t seem to get my brain to wax philosophical.

Oh well, perhaps in a few days... Wait a sec! Have any of you seen Star Trek: The Next Generation’s episode "Rightful Heir?" It tells the story of the return of Kahless, the Klingon messiah (no relation to your’s truly). Here's a bit of a retrospective by Deborah Fisher.

Issues of personal faith were not often explored on Star Trek by the more humanistic-leaning Gene Roddenberry. The legend of Kahless has been alluded to over the years and he even appeared briefly in the original Star Trek (portrayed by Robert Herron in "The Savage Curtain"), but to feature the deepening of Worf's spiritual journey was a particularly intrepid move.
Interviewed several years ago for a Klingon retrospective, writer Ron Moore called "Rightful Heir" an odd script for Star Trek. "I wanted to do a show about faith," Moore recalled. "What if Kahless came back? The Klingons must have some religion that they all follow. The story explored a lot of topics and notions that had been hovering, but had not really been touched on yet."
Executive Producer Rick Berman especially cautioned his writer and director, Winrich Kolbe, about not doing a Jesus story. "What we didn't want was a skinny, long-haired Western version of Christ," says Kolbe. "We really wanted a Napoleon—a driven, compact figure who probably got picked on at school because he was so short. Now he has a chip on his shoulder and he's playing that out in politics and religion."
Kolbe thought it was possible that instead of being large and imposing, Kahless was more like, well, Danny DeVito. With that image in mind, the director and producers gave Kevin Conway the honor of bringing Kahless the Unforgettable to life.
"Klingons are usually pretty big and I'm not," says Conway without a trace of self-consciousness, "but when they called me, I would have done it—even if they hadn't paid me." Conway was primed to do sci-fi. "I was a sci-fi nerd when I was a kid," he says. "So was my brother and we would pass books back and forth like [Theodore] Sturgeon [writer of "Shore Leave," Star Trek], [Ray] Bradbury, [Robert A.] Heinlein. I was a big fan of Star Trek when it first came on back in the 60s."
The actor was also no stranger to make-up or make-up supervisor Michael Westmore. Conway had been aged 70 years by Westmore techniques for a part in Sylvester Stallone's "Fist." "When I first got to the Star Trek set, though," recalls Conway, "Michael said 'what we did before is nothing to compared to this!'"
Even more challenging than the rigorous makeup calls were the four-inch heels Conway had to wear to boost the character. Walking might not have been too bad, but Conway had to fight Michael Dorn's Worf wearing them while wielding a bat’leth.
Of the heels and the outfit, Conway says "I kind of liked it. By the time I stood up and looked at this figure, it wasn't me anymore. Then I walked around the lot and said 'hello' to people in my new voice. It was a trip."
Conway approached the development of Kahless very seriously and he relished thinking about the Klingons. "They're very strange, but they do have a national character, a kind of fierce, warlike, atavistic personality. At the same time, there's an honor that's important that makes it understandable why they'd be aligned with the Federation.
"Kahless is a Klingon, but he's also a Klingon that's 1,500 years old. I tried to think if we were going back to our ancestors, while they might resemble us, there would be a different way they'd conduct themselves. When Kahless lived, he had absolute power and there was no shortage of confidence in him. He'd been inculcated by the High Priests to think that he was the Messiah. Worf's doubting him made him a little angry at first and only later when he couldn't remember things did he start to have doubts. He realized he was a fraud. Then at the end, Worf tells him he's still Kahless. He put aside his pride and agreed to be at least a figurehead."
The episode Moore wrote (from a story by James E. Brooks) revealed the High Priests' plot to clone Kahless and install him as the true leader of the Klingons. Of course, Gowron had something to say about that. Eventually, however, Gowron agreed to allow the installation of Kahless as the spiritual emperor on the homeworld while he remained leader of the High Council.
"Playing a Klingon was quite interesting," says Conway, "because in spite of the heavy make-up that makes you look like every other Klingon, you have all those little tiny moments in front of the camera to indicate that there's a sub-personality. Each Klingon might look the same on the surface, but each one is different underneath."
For Conway, who has also voiced an audio book about Kahless, the chance to enter the world of Star Trek was unforgettable. "I had the same feelings of fantasy being on Star Trek that I imagine fans have. Stephen Hawking visited the set while I was there. How could anyone pass up an opportunity to be there? Star Trek is more than a TV series. It's a part of our culture that people will be examining years from now. Kahless is such an important figure in Klingon history. It was an honor to play him."

You can get a synopsis and review of "Rightful Heir" [url="http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/sttng/tlynch/rightful.rev.html"]here[/url]. The episode raises some intriguing questions about faith.

"If his words hold wisdom and his philosophy is honorable, what does it matter if he returns? What is important is that we follow his teachings. Perhaps the words are more important than the man."

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]