Well, the generalisation is appropriate, since faith by definition is irrational.Therefore, the faithful are more likely to be irrational in other ways, too.
what about the wise nenneke?it is not true that the "faithful" are irrational.most people are irrational.I find many ministers irrational.but I also have met, in various religions, wise, rational souls.most of them deal with doubt and faith/trust more than the certainity/dogma of the irrational.
I deal with probabilities. It's what I d
f course there are exceptions.But I wouldn't bet on it, in much the same way as I wouldn't bet on 2 7 unsuited .. of course it's possible to win that hand.
f course there are exceptions.But I wouldn't bet on it, in much the same way as I wouldn't bet on 2 7 unsuited .. of course it's possible to win that hand.Being Pagen myself, I see a great similarities to the" Pagan" way of life throughout the game. Maybe it's just me (my perception) of the game.
from wikipedia:Master of Divinity (M.Div., Magister Divinitatis in Latin) is the first professional degree in divinity in North America and is a common academic degree in theological seminaries. In many Christian denominations, and of some other religions, this degree is the standard prerequisite for ordination to the priesthood or pastorship or other appointment, ordination or licensing to professional ministry. At most seminaries this degree requires around 90 credit hours of study.It generally includes studies in Christian ministry and theology. Coursework usually includes studies in New Testament Greek, theology, philosophy, church history, pastoral theology, Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and New Testament studies. Many programs also contain courses in church growth, ecclesiology, evangelism, systematic theology, Christian education, liturgical studies, Latin, Hebrew, canon law, patristics, and the like. Courses in pastoral counseling and psychology are also standard parts of an M.Div. program. In addition, the degree may or may not include a thesis.*****also: a masters in divinity usually obtained from a seminary or university. places you can get an M.DIV include harvard, yale, duke, university of chicago. so eff off.
Keticpete, I'm interested that you are studying divinity. I was myself for many years clerk of a Quaker meeting; but eventually I had my own Damascene conversion and realised I could not square what I see as the inherent evil of Christianity with my conscience, and so had to resign. This isn't to say I don't (still) see Jesus as an inspirational religious and ethical teacher. I do. But...kelticpete said:
- Original Sin: Can a God who condemns newborn children for the sins of probably mythical ancestors who - if not mythical - died before the dawn of history possibly be either a just God or a good God?
- Misogyny: Much of the misogyny in the New Testament is down to Saul of Tarsus, a truly horrible individual. And for years I tried the defence 'yes, Saul was a misogynist, but Jesus wasn't'. Unfortunately, this just isn't true - or at least, isn't true enough. Jesus was apparently no misogynist by the standards of his culture and period, of course; his attitude to women is better than most of his contemporaries. But he does tell us that it is better to blind oneself than to appreciate a pretty girl [Matt 5:29] and that is not a good attitude. On the contrary it is the foundation stone of most of what is wrong with our society.
- Dominion over the Earth: Look where the doctrine of 'Dominion over the Earth' has got us. Mass extinction (of, presumably, God's creatures)..Wholesale destruction of forests. Desertification of whole vast regions of once-fertile land - civilisation first developed in Iraq because Iraq was so fertile. Look at it now. Pollution of the oceans. Dominion over the Earch has taken a once pristine planet and turned it into a sewer.
christianty can be very evil. it also gave us st. francis. and the idea of the modern university. any religion can be evil.the bible is not "god's teaching", nor is the bible perfect. the bible considered by some to be the record of how israel and the early church experienced Godwords and deeds of God. given that humans wrote it, it is imperfect. just like humans. but just as humans can share truth and inspire and guide, so can the narrative of the scriptures. the early christians did not think that only the bible was inspired. they thgouth lots was inspired. this books were collected to be considered "enough" according to roman catholcism, the bible is not inerrant. it is, however, seen as sufficient enough to give one the needed narrative about humanity and god to come to a redeeming (salvific) relationship with god. on match.com my profile's point is not to inerrantly show who I am, but to show enough of who i am to connect to other people of like minds. that is the point of the bible. like other religious texts, it is merely a symbol that points to truth. symbols are not true, though they can lead to truth.original sin: augustine invented it, I don't believe in it. the idea of a first sin and a bit fat stain on all babies are two different ideas.dominion over the earth: in the early life of humanity, we needed to try like hell to not let nature kill us. the genesis idea that humans should master the earth was a necessary narrative of survival. now the tables have turned.it seems your biggest problem is theodicy: allpowerful god, ****** world, god of love...how do they add up. i cheat. I say that whatever the DIVINE is, it is not all powerful. most buddhists don't act like buddha. early buddhism taught non violence. eventually you get samurais. early christianity was non violent...eventually you get crusaders. all religion fail their founders. that does not stop later people from refinding the founder. I do not think I have "the best version" of jesus. I have a modern contextualized understanding of jesus and god and it is not the final word on anything, it is merely my own best guide. it may help others, it may not. I don't see why the bible should be perfect OR useless. cause that is what most people I know think. either they think the bible is perfect and koala bears were on the ark, or they think it is all fairytales. what a pendulum swing! what about some good, some bad? no medical textbook is 100% correct. nothing is.bibilical ideas like 1) a divine being that cares what people do:this is a vast improvement over earlier gods that did not care and could be bribed.no one religion has a corner market on truth.my inspiration and guide is hopefully, existenitally, the spirit of jesus. perhaps it is merely the concept of jesus. the early anabaptists catalogued the errors of the bible. that did not stop them from believing that nonviolence, serving others, simplicity of life, and love of God and fellow humans was the way of jesus and that he was to be celebrated.personally, I prefer atheists and the rare but truly humbly devout. becaue the average "christian" or "buddhist" is merely that in name. they culturally ascrribe to a religion and when ****** hits the fan or they have a kid or get married, they run to god like a big voodoo doll. most american christians are more american and bouguesie than christian. my reliigion does not teach me I am right and others suck (cause most religion seems to teach that) my religion teaches that if God loves us all, like the buddhist monk I must strive to love everyone with the devotion I would give my family.78% of americans say they are christian. how many of them have ever tried to love their enemy? that is hard! I hate loving my enemies and blessing those who curse me. but I find that both me and the world seem better when I learn to forgive. addendum: the bible does not teach patriarchy. it is written from a patriarchal location, which is different. my grandfather thinks from a racist location but rarely does he espouse racism. it is a hidden bias that taints otherwise sound advice and stories. so it is with the bible. and the bible is not misogynistic, epecially when compared with roman culture. the bible is patriarchal (rule by and control by men) and andro-centric (thinks man is the norm) but it does not hate women. patriarchy, misogyny, and androcentrism are related and empower each other but are not equivilant. i would say that though often patriarchal and androcentric, which can than then be used misogynisiictally, the bible also has stories of powerful women (like deborah who was judge) and can also be empowering to women. to say the bible is nifty for women is a lie. the bible has been used to oppress women and has themes that harm women. it also has themes of empowering themyour position makes more sense to me then the unreflective christian who thinks god loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life but ignores stuff like global poverty and the fact that god loves iran just as much as god loves america. anyway, I have rambled.liberal and moderate christians realize that the bible is not perfect and do not think they have to have all the answers. my job is not to know everything, but to try and BE the good that I have known.
(Organised) religion be damned...The game surely shows religion from Geralts point of view, thus sceptical and irreverent to obstinate beliefs...And again, I dont play a game to have a moral view imposed upon me, religeous, sexual or otherwise... Whats next?! Be kind to frogs?What is it with people wanting to impose an agenda on what is ultimately a GAME...
People bring their values with them to whatever activity they engage in. As we've seen from several different threads, religious and anti-religious people spend time thinking about religion in the game and pro-sex and anti-sex people spend time thinking about the sexuality in the game. Interior designers probably notice the placement of the furniture and decorations in the houses, and hairdressers probably notice the hair styles of the characters. Whatever is important to people, they bring that focus with them wherever they go.As for me, I'm a psychologist, so I see people's bringing their values and personalities with them wherever they go.Slyloki said:
What you're calling 'a game' is essentially a work of fiction. Yes, it's interactive fiction, so there isn't just one possible story and there isn't just one possible ending. But it is a story which someone else created for you to enjoy. And of course that person had something they wanted to communicate. Of course that person expressed their own beliefs and values in creating the narrative. It would be impossible not to, and those who claim they don't are simply doing so unconscously and uncritically. I'd much rather have a game written by someone who was consciously thinking about the moral beliefs and values they are expressing than by someone who doesn't. But no narrative is morally neutral. No narrative is without moral content. That's in the nature of narrative, and of how we as people produce narratives.Slyloki said:
quick note on terminology....most people do not like to be called religious, at least in america.I was in a pyschology of religion class and we were asked to put ourselves in 1 of 4 categories:1) not religious/spiritual2) religious3) spirtual4) religious and spiritual.we had people in 1 and 3 and 4. no one said just religious alone out of the 30 people. a recent, more scientific survey had a very, very small number who said just religious. some people say they are spiritual, not religious. some say they are both. some say neither, but even less said just religious.as for imposing values....the nature of a game will tell a story and offer you choices.the plot, narration, characterization, ways of solving things, consequences will in some sense "impose" upon you.the most normal imposition is that violence, when justified, is good.some games are more morally nuetral about violence, and seem to say that violence is not good but necessary.few games explore what massive carnage would actually do to a character......in effect, a way of suggesting that violence is often an optimal solution.i don't want a game to be preachy or push an "ism".....but dealing with the "isms" is fun. remember the democratically leaning merchant in the trade part of town?and how the witcher thought it odd?
Exaclty. This is what happens when authors don't care - or don't think consciously - about the morality of their narrative. Violence is easy to portray. It's often the lazy way out in story telling terms. And so we develop a culture in which the core narrative is 'violence solves problems' - the 'violence solves problems' meme is deeply embedded in our popular culture. Why does this matter?We're at war in Iraq. We surely aren't making anything better there - in fact we've made things much worse. And the cost in lives and in damage to the international reputation of the United States and the United Kingdom is enormous. So how did we get there? Because we elected politicians who believe that violence solves problems. How did we come to elect politicians who believe violence solves problems? Because that's what too many of us believe. Why do we believe it? Because we were brought up on a diet of war films, cowboy films, and thrillers in which we learned that violence solves problems...It doesn't, of course.But in designing games in which the core value is 'violence solves problems', we're bringing up the next generation to elect the politicians who will start tomorrows wars.Guys, this is not smart.kelticpete said:
I do. The Witcher quite clearly pushes several isms - of which the clearest and most important is anti-racism. It seems to me that's a good ism to push.The Witcher also several times rewards choices to solve problems without violence - the werewolf and the striga, as examples. It graphically shows the dreadful consequences of violence between the Order and the Scoiatael - violence from which only the extremists benefit. Although, on the other hand, it also rewards solving the lake peoples' problem by violence (slaughtering Dagons' priests). So it's not all sweetness and light - but still a very great deal better (because more thoughtful) than 90% of the games out there.
Sorry, Simon, I don't quite agree on that last point. Both the werewolf and the striga matters are in fact designed so that you lose something if you choose the non violent option - in each case, a unique potion ingredient that you can't get by any other means than killing the two people (I refuse to call them monsters). You might get bonus XP and/or a warm fuzzy feeling if you choose not to kill them, but the unique reward is only handed out if you kill them. While that might be a good example for the "make your choice and live with the consequences" principle that drives much of this game, I think it is a point rather against than in favour of your argument.SimonBrooke said:
lol, Ain't that the truth, I'm a produce manager of a large supermarket chain, and I've learnt you can tell a lot about someone from the way they pick their apples...Corylea said:As for me, I'm a psychologist, so I see people's bringing their values and personalities with them wherever they go.
I don't mind discussing the in's and out's of a game, book or movie, I think what gets my back up is when people start complaining that aspect a wasn't done right and should be done based on their perceptions.. I paint, and I used to have a flatmate who'd look at my work in progress and say "thats nice, but I would do it xyz".. Infuriating, as I told him, think you can do it better, then grab a canvas and do it, but get out of my head... But back on topic, what i quoted from you, is kind of my point, religion in the game seems to me based on Geralts values and opinions, thus lacking the depth and goodie goodieness that some wish for.. Doesn't mean it's not there, one just wont see it through Geralts eyes...
Simon, yes I agree with you.. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a work of fiction, even a game can't have a moral message, Morals are very subjective, thus in most cases about as useful as a bull with t*ts.. I have no problem with a story trying to impart morals as long as they are a viewpoint. From what i've seen and heard so far, the Witcher does this... I do have a problem with those who for example insist that that religious view is flawed, and this is how it should be... (My way or be damned)..IMO it's their moral compass that is broken, as it always points in the same direction, no matter which way they turn...You know, birth control is a sin, No femal clergy, females are inferior, don't get em started on Pope Joan.. I think that could also well be why most religious characters in Witcher are such fanatics, They deserve mocking, where as the moderate, in my eyes good believers, don't need mocking, they go about their worship as Jesus taught... (Matt 6 on Giving to the Needy and Prayer...) And they respect those that believe otherwise...Sly...
I think that could also well be why most religious characters in Witcher are such fanatics, They deserve mocking, where as the moderate, in my eyes good believers, don't need mocking, they go about their worship as Jesus taught... (Matt 6 on Giving to the Needy and Prayer...) And they respect those that believe otherwise...Sly...*shrug* Religions were (and are still) invented by humans. They are constantly being adapted to fit changing circumstances. They have been brutally horrific, and they have been the security blankets of thousands. They have been the cause of genocide as well as long lasting peace.Come to think of it, it's almost the same as the changes on a McDonald's menu over the years...~ Roxy
Roxy, either I'm too cynical or you're not cynical enough. I can't think of any religion which has contributed to peace, even short lived. Genocide, on the other hand...Maybe the Jains.RogueRoxy said:
I suppose it depends on our definition of 'long lasting', but typically, countries sharing one religion will band together for as long as it takes to beat the idea that theirs is the 'ONE True' religion into anyone who disagrees. Then, suddenly, they realise that their ally has subtle changes in their beliefs and they're blasphemous enough to cause a break in the peace and we start all over again.
~ Roxy
True, but beating the one true religion into anyone who disagrees is not a definition of 'peace' I'm familiar with...RogueRoxy said: