398 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
But what the church made out of this was mainly a justification for inquisition, crusades, colonialism etc. Even as early as in the 5th century a.D. the Church started killing "heretics" and destroying bible versions that didn´t fit to their official version.
Imo you can say:
Faith = good or bad depending on the individual
Religion = A way to control and oppress people and to excuse crimes, therefore bad

That's the problem with most atheists and anti-religious arguments. They consider all religions to have had the same history as European Christianity.

As a half Jew, half Arab, I know the history of both Judaism and Islam. They are designed to bring the Rule of Law. To structure society and give it rules. It's not about control (or more control than what any Rule of Law needs in order to be efficient). It's society controlling itself via religion. In Islam and Judaism, religion is not an institution like the Church was. There is no "The Synagogue" or "The Mosque" as political agents. It's part of society itself.

Europeans experienced their golden age and renaissance by reducing or opposing Christianity. But the Arab and Jewish experiene is completely different. Jews and Arabs experienced their golden age by being religious and by embracing their religion (both the Jewish and Arab / Muslim goden Age happened at the same time and side by side).  

So I, who identifies with both people, find it erroneous to suggest that religion is the root of all evil, while my people prospered thanks to them and eventually benefited all of mankind. Of course I am not saying that neither Judaism or Islam haven't been used to justify atrocities, sadly they have like any other religion and ideology. But it's also these religions that provide a base to condemn those actions and which, imo, will ultimately defeat those radical misguided interpretations.
So in my experience, I believe the 2 Semitic Abrahamic religions have brought more good than bad to both people and to mankind in general. 
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:05 .

[Tirigon]

RangerSG wrote...


I know that by using "Usually" you make comments by definition about people you don't even know.

If you had said, "In my experience" that would be offensive and annoying, but not bigoted.

By saying "usually" you automatically go into the realm of people you do not know: hence 'bigoted.'

Words matter.

Well, I thought it was obviously that you can only argue from your experience, but I edited my post for you, look (hope link works): http://social.biowar...25713/11#647205

[Xandurpein]

While I usually find the subject of religion in society very interesting, I wonder if it's impertinent to try and drag back this thread to dealing with Templars in Dragon Age? I'm not against the use of parallells from human history when discussing game events. Sometimes stating your personal beliefs can be useful, like when you label yourself to explain your emotional reactions. The statement "I'am think religious organisations in real life are bad, therefore I hate the chantry too" can help other people understnad your arguments, better, but I think this thread sort left Thedas way behind. I'm sure there must be lots of forums on the internet for that.



I'm not saying this to deny anyone the right to express their beliefs, just the selfish curiosity about the chantry/templar question, unless it's now exhausted.

[mrofni]

Tirigon wrote...

RangerSG wrote...


I know that by using "Usually" you make comments by definition about people you don't even know.

If you had said, "In my experience" that would be offensive and annoying, but not bigoted.

By saying "usually" you automatically go into the realm of people you do not know: hence 'bigoted.'

Words matter.

Well,
I thought it was obviously that you can only argue from your experience, but I edited my post for you, look (hope link works): http://social.biowar...25713/11#647205

If you could only do things from your own experience, we would lose many of the great innovations we have achieved in the world. Just because I don't know how to make a light bulb doesn't mean I don't use one every day. Just because I personally haven't experienced death doesn't mean I can't understand its importance. Why would this be any different Tirigon? And I know you weren't talking to me, I just figured your excuse is kind of... well shallow.

Modifié par mrofni, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:28 .

[Tirigon]

@ KnightofPhoenix: I talked about Christianity because I am officially a Roman Catholic and have to visit Catholic Religion lessons, so this is what I know about best (and Imo it´s one of the worst religions, the Islam and Judaism brought more good and less evil, current political events in Israel and Jihad nonwithstanding).

But see, you admit yourself that they brought atrocities to the world.

I think all the good things "religion" brought are actually brought not by the institution (which Islam has, too, btw, or why are there Ayatollahs, Imams and so forth?) but by the faith. I am aware that many people find the strength and the will to do good in their faith. But I don´t see why they need religion.

It´s like a symbol that most liberal, educated muslim scholars I have heard of are considered heretics and traitors who deserve to die by the Islamists.

Don´t you agree that all muslims who belief in a peaceful, liberal Islam would be off better without these Islamist dumbasses and their terror acts who only make people hate muslims for no reason?

[Tirigon]

mrofni wrote...

If you could only do things from your own experience, we would lose many of the great innovations we have achieved in the world. Just because I don't know how to make a light bulb doesn't mean I don't use one every day. Just because I personally haven't experienced death doesn't mean I can't understand its importance. Why would this be any different Tirigon? And I know you weren't talking to me, I just figured your excuse is kind of... well shallow.

Well, it was not meant as excuse, but I´m getting tired by flames of people who don´t even bother to read all my posts.
But to answer your question: It´s different insofar as faith is an individual matter. You can use common knowledge when you want to build something, but you can´t use it when talking about something that is (or at least should be) entirely personal.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

@ KnightofPhoenix: I talked about Christianity because I am officially a Roman Catholic and have to visit Catholic Religion lessons, so this is what I know about best (and Imo it´s one of the worst religions, the Islam and Judaism brought more good and less evil, current political events in Israel and Jihad nonwithstanding).
But see, you admit yourself that they brought atrocities to the world.
I think all the good things "religion" brought are actually brought not by the institution (which Islam has, too, btw, or why are there Ayatollahs, Imams and so forth?) but by the faith. I am aware that many people find the strength and the will to do good in their faith. But I don´t see why they need religion.
It´s like a symbol that most liberal, educated muslim scholars I have heard of are considered heretics and traitors who deserve to die by the Islamists.
Don´t you agree that all muslims who belief in a peaceful, liberal Islam would be off better without these Islamist dumbasses and their terror acts who only make people hate muslims for no reason?

I didn't say they brought atrocities. I said they may have helped justify some of them, to those who use the religion for their own purposes. Difference. All philosophies and idealogies were used to justify atrocities. Rousseau was used to jsutify the Great Terror in France.

The Ayatollah and imam thing is a shia construct, a minority sect within Islam. In Sunni Islam (the orhtodox one), there is no hierarchy or rank. Just religious scholars, or "ulema" in Arabic (which also translates for scientists, as all of them back in the golden age were scientists as well). In Shia Islam, it's much more institutionalised and with a hierarchy.

Of course I think it's better for Muslims to get rid of this pseudo anarchist islamist trend. It's exactly like the Kharjite faction. A radical faction that has been a thorn in the back of Islam since the 8th century. But they have accomplished nothing and will accomplish nothing. They always end up being beaten by the Orthodox view.  

[mrofni]

Tirigon wrote...

Well, it was not meant as excuse, but I´m getting tired by flames of people who don´t even bother to read all my posts. But to answer your question: It´s different insofar as faith is an individual matter. You can use common knowledge when you want to build something, but you can´t use it when talking about something that is (or at least should be) entirely personal.

Yeah, but he was talking a bout the implication of your words, not the matter at hand. What you said, was technically bigoted, even if it wasn't your intention. I would also dispute your claim that religious people tend to be stupider then non-religious people. I would put them about the same. Intelligence has nothing to do with religion or faith.

Modifié par mrofni, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:39 .

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...

While I usually find the subject of religion in society very interesting, I wonder if it's impertinent to try and drag back this thread to dealing with Templars in Dragon Age? I'm not against the use of parallells from human history when discussing game events. Sometimes stating your personal beliefs can be useful, like when you label yourself to explain your emotional reactions. The statement "I'am think religious organisations in real life are bad, therefore I hate the chantry too" can help other people understnad your arguments, better, but I think this thread sort left Thedas way behind. I'm sure there must be lots of forums on the internet for that.

I'm not saying this to deny anyone the right to express their beliefs, just the selfish curiosity about the chantry/templar question, unless it's now exhausted.

Well, for me it´s simple:

• The Chantry is a religion that oppresses people, the templars are its force, therefore I dislike them.
• Alistair gives you enough reasons to dislike them, too. All that stuff with Lyrium addiction and so forth.
• They imprison mages and oppress them. I am strongly against every kind of oppression.
• (Totally ingame argument now) Mage is my favourite class, Blood mage my favourite specialization and I´m a fan of demons. So I need to hate them simply because every templar should attack me on sight if BioWare had taken the lore serious enough.
• (Fun argument) Their armor is ugly, and Cullen turned my magegirl down, this ass.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


I didn't say they brought atrocities. I said they may have helped justify some of them, to those who use the religion for their own purposes. Difference. All philosophies and idealogies were used to justify atrocities. Rousseau was used to jsutify the Great Terror in France.

But some are easier to abuse than others. You can´t ignore that there ARE passages in both the Qur´an and the old testament of the bible that say you should fight and kill the infidels. There are no such passages in ideologies like Marxism.

The Ayatollah and imam thing is a shia construct, a minority sect within Islam. In Sunni Islam (the orhtodox one), there is no hierarchy or rank. Just religious scholars, or "ulema" in Arabic (which also translates for scientists, as all of them back in the golden age were scientists as well). In Shia Islam, it's much more institutionalised and with a hierarchy.

Thanks for clarifying

Of course I think it's better for Muslims to get rid of this pseudo anarchist islamist trend. It's exactly like the Kharjite faction. A radical faction that has been a thorn in the back of Islam since the 8th century. But they have accomplished nothing and will accomplish nothing. They always end up being beaten by the Orthodox view.  

How are the Islamist terrorists anarchist? Anarchism STRONGLY disapproves of violence, and especially of violence against civilians, what Al Quaida and the likes use.

[Xandurpein]

I think I feel sorry for the Templars more than anything. I can understand why society needs to regulate the Mages. I agree that the templar/chantry system is not the best or most humane, but the again - this is a quasi-medieval setting so not much in society is great, by modern standards really. It just seems like the Templars get a raw deal for no reason. Even if the mages need to be controlled, to avoid things like what happened to Connor, but why all the contorl on the Templars. The templars aren't strong enough to take over Fereldan. They are just very good at neutralizing mages. It should be enough to train the Templars without wierd drug controls or am I missing something?

[Tirigon]

I think the control via drugs is simply another indication that the Chantry is rather bad.

Besides, I don´t see why there needs to be control of mages. The Mages collective and the Dalish show just well that it works fine (actually even better, lol) without the templars.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

But some are easier to abuse than others. You can´t ignore that there ARE passages in both the Qur´an and the old testament of the bible that say you should fight and kill the infidels. There are no such passages in ideologies like Marxism.

I suppose you are referring to the "Kill them wherever you find them" verse in the Qu'ran? Because that's the one they usually use as an argument to show that Islam teaches killing non-believrs on sight.
The full verse is:
Sadly some idiots, Muslims or non-Muslims alike, just like to read one sentence and ignore the rest.

Same with Judaism. There is only specific circumstances were violence is justified. And even then, there are limits that cannot be exceeded.  

Tirigon wrote...
How are the Islamist terrorists anarchist? Anarchism STRONGLY disapproves of violence, and especially of violence against civilians, what Al Quaida and the likes use.

I am not talking about Anarchism as a philosophy (and even then, some of its trends were violent, see in Russia. Your anarchism perhaps isn't). Anarchism as in refusing any world authority. While philosophically, the radicals aren't anarchists, in practise they are, since they see any authority that isn't perfect (aka what they want it to be) as viable to be violently overthrown.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Tirigon wrote...
Well, for me it´s simple:
[*]The Chantry is a religion that oppresses people, the templars are its force, therefore I dislike them.
[*]Alistair gives you enough reasons to dislike them, too. All that stuff with Lyrium addiction and so forth.

[*]They imprison mages and oppress them. I am strongly against every kind of oppression.

[*](Totally ingame argument now) Mage is my favourite class, Blood mage my favourite specialization and I´m a fan of demons. So I need to hate them simply because every templar should attack me on sight if BioWare had taken the lore serious enough.

[*](Fun argument) Their armor is ugly, and Cullen turned my magegirl down, this ass.

They dont oppress people, they only "oppress" mages. And im reluctant to see it as real oppression since first of all a quiet big chunk of the mages are being "oppressed" willingly, because they recognize the danger they pose. It's a fact that all mages are potential weapons, it is also known that all mages have the potential of being possessed, these two factors is the reason of the Chantry's control of the mages. If there were no control, we would be facing a Broken Circle incident with no Templars to contain it.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I suppose you are referring to the "Kill them wherever you find them" verse in the Qu'ran? Because that's the one they usually use as an argument to show that Islam teaches killing non-believrs on sight.
The full verse is:
Sadly some idiots, Muslims or non-Muslims alike, just like to read one sentence and ignore the rest.

Same with Judaism. There is only specific circumstances were violence is justified. And even then, there are limits that cannot be exceeded. 

Well now that was interesting.  You´re right, this was one of the things I was referring to (I think there are more, but that might as well be lies; I guess you can imagine that I´m not one to believe my religion teacher everythingB))

The sad thing is, as long as some dumbasses, though a minority of the muslims, misunderstand their own holy scripture and use it to justify suicide bombers and the like you can´t really blame non-muslims for getting the popular bad image of Islam.
And well, this verse DOES promote an islamic theocracy after all. Or at least you can easily understand it that way.

[Tirigon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote..

They dont oppress people, they only "oppress" mages. And im reluctant to see it as real oppression since first of all a quiet big chunk of the mages are being "oppressed" willingly, because they recognize the danger they pose. It's a fact that all mages are potential weapons, it is also known that all mages have the potential of being possessed, these two factors is the reason of the Chantry's control of the mages. If there were no control, we would be facing a Broken Circle incident with no Templars to contain it.

Not all mages accept it, but all are forced to do so, or they will be tranquilised or killed. That IS oppression, no matter what you think. And yes, mages are people too.
About the Broken Circle: This only proved the templar´s uselessness - they couldn´t solve the problem, and without them Uldred had not had a reason to rise up violently, so nothing would have happened.

[Xandurpein]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They dont oppress people, they only "oppress" mages. And im reluctant to see it as real oppression since first of all a quiet big chunk of the mages are being "oppressed" willingly, because they recognize the danger they pose. It's a fact that all mages are potential weapons, it is also known that all mages have the potential of being possessed, these two factors is the reason of the Chantry's control of the mages. If there were no control, we would be facing a Broken Circle incident with no Templars to contain it.

Well, to be fair she didn't say all people, just people and mages are people I think. Not many here really argue that mages mustn't be trained and disciplined. There must also be some form of social control to make sure that mages don't start a mageocracy. Having people in your leadership who can mind control is not be the optimum way to ensure an open society, I think.

The real issue is if the chantry/templar system is the best way. There is examples of mages policing themselves without the chantry in-game. The example of the Broken circle is a bad one as this obviously this happened even if we had templars all over the place. It can even be argued that it was the Templar "opression" that caused it, because many of the mages felt so closed in by the templars they sought help from Loghain. Had the mage circle been treated humanly it's possible the event need never have happened.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 18 janvier 2010 - 10:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I suppose you are referring to the "Kill them wherever you find them" verse in the Qu'ran? Because that's the one they usually use as an argument to show that Islam teaches killing non-believrs on sight.
The full verse is:
Sadly some idiots, Muslims or non-Muslims alike, just like to read one sentence and ignore the rest.

Same with Judaism. There is only specific circumstances were violence is justified. And even then, there are limits that cannot be exceeded. 

Well now that was interesting.  You´re right, this was one of the things I was referring to (I think there are more, but that might as well be lies; I guess you can imagine that I´m not one to believe my religion teacher everythingB))

The sad thing is, as long as some dumbasses, though a minority of the muslims, misunderstand their own holy scripture and use it to justify suicide bombers and the like you can´t really blame non-muslims for getting the popular bad image of Islam.
And well, this verse DOES promote an islamic theocracy after all. Or at least you can easily understand it that way.

I never blamed the non-muslims. Their reaction is normal. I blame the scum within our ranks.

About Islamic theocracy. There is another verse which says: "There is no complusion in religion" and other verse about humanity always being ivided by language, ideas and religion and that God never intented humanity to have only one religion. In my interpretation, it's not really the duty of the Muslim to make everyone else like him, but rather to perfect his own society.

But this is getting way off-topic. If you have any more comments or questions regarding Judaism and Islam, feel free to pm me. I do not know them perfectly, but I think I can shed some light on both of them, if you like

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I have a question for all those whom see the 'Templars' as bad. Does this mean I take it that none of your characters ever take the 'Templar' specialisation then? Or are you a bunch of hypocrites?

[Tirigon]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

I have a question for all those whom see the 'Templars' as bad. Does this mean I take it that none of your characters ever take the 'Templar' specialisation then? Or are you a bunch of hypocrites?

Except for Alistair? No templar. Reaver on Sten, Champion or Reaver on Oghren, Champion on Alistair.

PC will be - if I make a warrior at all - reaver / berserker.

But not the technique is bad anyways. Alistair is cool, I like him. It´s their attitude.

[mrofni]

Role-playing wise, Templar Reaver Warrior is really cool.

[Althernai]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

I have a question for all those whom see the 'Templars' as bad. Does this mean I take it that none of your characters ever take the 'Templar' specialisation then? Or are you a bunch of hypocrites?

As I said, the Templars themselves are not evil. They're almost as much victims of the system as the mages -- in fact, perhaps more so in some ways. Most of them are reasonable people (with a few notable exceptions) who happen to be drug addicts and the drug that they're addicted to is known to cause insanity. There isn't anything wrong with the specialization except that anything "magical" that a Templar can do, a mage can usually do a whole lot better.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

I have a question for all those whom see the 'Templars' as bad. Does this mean I take it that none of your characters ever take the 'Templar' specialisation then? Or are you a bunch of hypocrites?

lol, well you see, it actually kinda of proves that one can be a Templar, without being under the authority of the Chantry. Unless of course Lyriums adds more powers (which I doubt).
But abilities and ideology is not the same thing really.
My Warrior, speced as Templar, loves an apostate (Morrigan). (Which is probably why he speced as a templar in the first place )  

[AntiChri5]

mrofni wrote...

Role-playing wise, Templar Reaver Warrior is really cool.

How do you justify that Roleplay-wise? A Templar who destroyed the Urn? A dragon cultist Templar?

Sounds like one poor confused bastard.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

AntiChri5 wrote...

mrofni wrote...

Role-playing wise, Templar Reaver Warrior is really cool.

How do you justify that Roleplay-wise? A Templar who destroyed the Urn? A dragon cultist Templar?

Sounds like one poor confused bastard.

Went power mad no doubt... UUUUUNLIIIMITED POOOOOOWEEEEER!!!