Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: CthulhuKefka on November 02, 2008, 03:21:14 AM
-
Although I thought of posting this in the Role Playing Games forum, I decided against it and decided to post it here as it is accompanied by a small rant.
http://www.giantitp.com/index.html
Again, I repeat. ARE. YOU. SERIOUS?! Oh no, the devil's game raised money for starving children! We cannot take their dark and evil currency to help give water and food and medical supplies to people suffering. We'll let our pathetic hate cloud our judgments and refuse a donation to our charity and let these kids suffer some more.
Now, the charity may have every right to turn down a contribution, but in doing so, in my opinion, makes them pathetic and cowardly and evil.
-
Honestly, I don't think hate had anything to do with it. I think they just plain don't understand gaming. Whoever it was who made the decision to turn it down probably was out protesting against Harry Potter too.
Some people just don't understand what fantasy is for. It's not due to malice; they just...don't get it.
Sure is dumb though.
-
I agree with the sentiment, entirely. What were they thinking? I understand that a charity has every right to refuse, or accept, any and all donations that come to them, but I would think that a Christian charity would be more tolerable of where the money comes from. I honestly don' t think that they pre-screen all their charitable donations do they? That would be an awful lot of time and effort just to make sure that the "wrong" people weren't donating to your charity. And if they are willing to give, are they really the "wrong" people?? Frustrating, especially for someone like me, who is not only a gamer, but someone who gives to charities when I have the extra money.
-
If I came across as a little heated in the previous post it was because I don't usually stop to think when I'm mad and typing. :D
Mok: You're probably right, about the "just not understanding," but it saddens me that such ignorance can still exist.
What I don't understand is that Mr. Gygax himself donated for years to the CCF and was never turned down (which is ironic considering he is one of the father's of the game lol). He should be public enemy #1 to them.
-
Stuff like this really bothers me. Christians are supposed to be a think first, act later group of people. Self promoted as not being over-judgmental. A willingness to show compassion to the person and not the sin. These were the big things I was raised with. And aside from what my beliefs are now, I still yearn to see these things from the Christians communities because it is exactly what they preach. But, things like this just help promote the secular conception of Christians. The exact opposite of everything I just mentioned. Sometimes it feels like they are trying to find reasons to bring themselves back to what everyone thinks they are really like.
-
Yes, a fairly moronic decision.
-
I'm guessing that either it was a different person making the decision or they just didn't know who Gary Gygax was before.
I understand the desire of a religious group to avoid association with evil or the appearance of evil. D&D is not evil and does not teach kids to worship demons, but the perception problem has been out there for decades. I'm not saying it's the D&D community's responsibility to counter a perception problem that wasn't their fault in the first place, but have they been trying to counter it, or have they mostly been just ignoring it?
-
Well, as a D&D gamer, and a giver to charities when I have extra lying about, I never thought that I needed to announce, or defend, the fact that I was a gamer who also gave to charities. The fact that this charity was to be the featured charity at this event is what made the fact that they were being given money by a certain group obvious. I don't hide the fact that I am a gamer, and I honestly haven't done D&D in quite some time due to a lack of people to play with, but I don't advertise it either.
But, I don't really know how D&D gamers could actively change their image with the religious groups that label them as evil. Most of the extreme groups that feel that way wouldn't bother to read, see, or hear anything that was said that contradicted their view point, at least that is my experience with that kind of person. My step-dad can be that way, his way is the only way, and just because you have proof that his way is wrong, or not the only way, that doesn't mean that he has to see or hear it. Very frustrating for me, but that is neither here nor there.
-
http://www.giantitp.com/
Update.
-
no offense but thats kinda what I figured :-\
-
Honestly, I can see that being a cover for the after the fact negativity that it receives, simply because of how many religious zealots still see roleplaying in general as evil. I'm not saying for a fact it is, it just wouldn't surprise me if it was.
I think it's ironic how D&D players especially can still see some backlash from the old "Dark dungeons" comic from the 80's, which pretty much started the hate against it :-\
-
The real fear religious groups have about fantasy is the comparison. If the Lord of the Rings, D&D, etc, are all made up, then is the bible made up as well? If elves never really existed, do angels? I'm not defending their position, but I know from talking to other Christians that this is what some believe. A guy I work with believes that just by having a TV on in your house you are choosing sin over God. He's really been on a roll since the election. Most of you know why if you have heard what Obama is being portrayed as. I won't repeat it because it beyond ludicris, but this is what you deal with sometimes.
-
The real fear religious groups have about fantasy is the comparison. If the Lord of the Rings, D&D, etc, are all made up, then is the bible made up as well? If elves never really existed, do angels? I'm not defending their position, but I know from talking to other Christians that this is what some believe. A guy I work with believes that just by having a TV on in your house you are choosing sin over God. He's really been on a roll since the election. Most of you know why if you have heard what Obama is being portrayed as. I won't repeat it because it beyond ludicris, but this is what you deal with sometimes.
I'm sorry, but I can find no good way to describe this except as a straw man. There may be some individuals whose grasp on reality is weak enough that they can't distinguish between things written as fictional and things written as historical (which includes most of the Bible---no matter what you think of it, it was intended to be believed as historical, with perhaps some exceptions), but such people are (a) not typical of any healthy group of people anywhere, including the adherents of any religion I am familiar with and (b) in serious need of help in the modern world, which is also not typical of any religious group I am familiar with.
Incidentally, I strongly suspect that your coworker who refuses to have a T.V. in his house is not suffering from this particular problem. There are real issues with the influence the media has over the public perception, and their ability to frame issues which offends many people of all stripes. That you understood it in terms of the above straw man is much more indicative of your understanding than his. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him (I doubt I agree with him either, certainly not about Obama being the Antichrist), but I doubt you understand him.
-
Oh, I understand him quite well, believe me, and he is part of a Baptist church that has a very large following. Are saying you are not familiar with Catholics (who believe the Harry Potter books are evil, as do some Protestant groups), or the Quakers, who have shunned the modern world almost entirely? Fear is fear, and it is seldom rational. I am not saying that the members of these groups all think the same, but unfortunately those that are extremists always seem to be the ones who get on the news.
-
I think you're confusing the Quakers with the Amish/Mennonites.
-
I thought the Amish were Quakers? Maybe not. I'll take your word for it.
-
Oh, I understand him quite well, believe me, and he is part of a Baptist church that has a very large following. Are saying you are not familiar with Catholics (who believe the Harry Potter books are evil, as do some Protestant groups), or the Quakers, who have shunned the modern world almost entirely? Fear is fear, and it is seldom rational. I am not saying that the members of these groups all think the same, but unfortunately those that are extremists always seem to be the ones who get on the news.
I'm not at all certain about the attitudes Catholics have towards Harry Potter. I am, of course, well aware of the Protestant groups. While I disagree with them about their appraisal of Harry Potter, I'm quite certain they do not disapprove for the reason you gave, e.g. seeing fictional worlds in which things that never really happened might make the Bible seem fictional. It seems to me that the reason they actually give (rather than reasons that you fantasize about) is that Harry Potter makes witchcraft seem fun, exciting, and otherwise harmless, whereas these groups view it as dangerous, dark and something to be avoided. Even while disagreeing with the specific allegations they make, I can see the logic behind this argument; it's not inherently flawed. There are certainly books whose influences on culture I find abhorrent, which I would never recommend to anybody, not because I have any trouble telling fiction from reality but because I view the moral stance the author took to be badly flawed.
And yes, you definitely mixed up the Quakers with the Amish. And while I don't understand why the Amish do what they do, I doubt you do either.
And for the record, Mennonites dress in older-style clothing, but they don't actually eschew modern technology. My grandparents live in a Mennonite-run nursing home, which is actually quite modern.
-
i don't have a problem with someone who objects on things from a moral stand point (i.e. if you dislike harry potter because of the message it sends, OK, that's fine). i do, however, hate when certain people/groups distort things beyond the actual issue, either out of ignorance, or a desire to rally support. Sort of like the previously mentioned Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" which has a heavily distorted perspective on roleplaying games in general, and has refused to even listen to complaints of how it is horrendously wrong
-
i don't have a problem with someone who objects on things from a moral stand point (i.e. if you dislike harry potter because of the message it sends, OK, that's fine). i do, however, hate when certain people/groups distort things beyond the actual issue, either out of ignorance, or a desire to rally support. Sort of like the previously mentioned Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" which has a heavily distorted perspective on roleplaying games in general, and has refused to even listen to complaints of how it is horrendously wrong
Well, that's different. Clearly distorting the evidence is a problem, and it happens all the time. As I said, I really liked Harry Potter and roundly disagree with its detractors (in terms of "witchcraft" problems at any rate).
Even in the most distorted arguments I've heard, though, I've never seen anything like darxbane's hypothesis.
-
There are a significant number of people out there who believe the bible is fiction, many more who believe it is heavily distorted history. Those who do believe the bible is literal and 100% factual will defend that belief. I have often heard people comparing belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, elves, or other fantastic creatures. Where are these ideas obtained? From comparing fantasy stories to the Bible. These books give naysayers the opportunity to try to marginilize the Bible's teachings. After all, have you ever seen an angel? What about someone who could part water with a gesture? We believe these things based on faith; There is no physical evidence. You may not have heard of people who do this, but I have met them.
-
But any Mother Goose story can give you that excuse if you're looking for it. Applying it specifically to popular fantasy books seems a stretch to me.
The objection I've heard is the "makes witchcraft sound like fun" one. Personally, I am much more concerned by movies like Grease (for the same reason, except without the witchcraft). It's a lot easier to separate fantasy from reality than to separate how your kids' peers may actually be behaving from how you want your kids to behave.
-
Dude, any person who does not believe in the literal translation of the bible (about 2/3 of the American population) is going to "marginalize" in some way or another the bible when talking about it, if you're looking at the bible from a literal point of view. You don't need fantasy stories to do it. More importantly, any person who does not believe in the bible being at all true, or being very distorted, is going to do so with or without fantasy stories.
It's just as easy for somebody to point to a picture of Starry Night and say, "Well, the diegesis in this piece is unlike anything you've seen in real life, so the diegesis in the Bible could be equally unreal." Should there be a stance against all still art, too? And, really, in all movies--as any person who has studied film will tell you--everything from the basic appearance of movement to the editing affects are facets which appear to be real despite the fact that they are illusions. So, again, it's easy to say, "Films look like moving pictures, but they're not--everything in them is fake. The bible probably just looks like a historical outlook on Christ's teachings, but it too is fake."
Nearly ANY art can be construed to compare to the bible as "unreal." Not only is that logic inherently flawed because it attacks one facet of creation where all facets fail, but it is also flawed because even without the arts these comparisons would STILL happen, so the art is, in this case, an unnecessary tool instead of the cause. In fact, like you said, it would be just as easy to compare the Bible to facets which stem FROM Christianity, such as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Any person who has to defend their belief by attempting to take away ways to question it, rather than addressing those ways, either does not understand his or her beliefs well enough or is believing the wrong thing. Obviously, with Christianity, they are not inherently believing the wrong thing. Darx, if your argument is, in fact, a stance any person takes, perhaps these people should spend more time trying to understand why they believe what they do, and less time trying to remove the beliefs of others from their surroundings. It seems to me, however, that you are misunderstanding the stance some people are taking.
-
You guys are making my point, but I am obviously not explaining it well. I will qualify my statement earlier. I re-read and realized it sounded like I was talking about the majority of Christians. I was actually talking about those who condemn based on ignorance and fear. I fully believe that the vast majority of those who are so quick to anger and rash judgement are either weak in their faith, or have an agenda.
-
I'll just chime in and bring out the point that the Bible's kinship with Fantasy actually helped C.S. Lewis to believe in it—one of the most profound religious experiences he had was realizing that the Christianity was "the true Fantasy", so to speak.
-
I'll just chime in and bring out the point that the Bible's kinship with Fantasy actually helped C.S. Lewis to believe in it—one of the most profound religious experiences he had was realizing that the Christianity was "the true Fantasy", so to speak.
Huh. I never heard that. Not that I've done much research or anything...but I always thought it was logic that finally convinced him.
-
It's an easy assumption to make, because Lewis' approach to Christianity is so terribly logical. His conversion, as far as I can tell, was only partially logical, and largely spiritual, however. He wrote an entire allegory about it, "The Pilgrim's Regress". It's worth reading—kind of a fascinating insight into his spiritual journey.