645 réponses à ce sujet

[X Equestris]

Not requiring and not accepting are 2 entirely different things, if anything it would seem Hitler was a firm believer in christ

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

These do not seem like the words of somebody who denied the existence of Christ, while it is true they did try to play down his Jewish origins and turn him into an Aryan it in no way suggests that they denied the existence of Jesus, I think you might be misinterpreting quotes to suit your own agenda, you also seem to be relying far too much on heresay and 3rd and even 4th hand accounts when there is far more credible information that suggests the contrary.

Then why did he call Christianity "meek and flabby"? Have you even looked at Hitler's Table Talk? That should be enough to show what he really believed, in private. Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. He cultivated an image of a defender of the faith in public, but that is a rather stark contrast to what he told his closest confidants.

To pull this back on topic, I'm glad Bioware was willing to depict Chantry clergy who use their influence for their own gain, but also ones who work to help the general populace and seek to make a better world. If you want something Inquisition did better than TW3, there it is, right there.

[Elhanan]

Enlighten me then, why does religion exist? Is it because of man's desire to be assimilated in structures of higher order and meaning? I suppose you could argue that it was designed to teach good moral values and philosophical life lessons but I can't honestly say many of the teachings in the bible are actually very moral and most of the teachings seem to instill the notion of obedience to an omnipotent deity who will punish you severely for any transgressions against the laws they hold sacred.
 
Being a tool used to control the behavior of your subjects through fear of eternal damnation and the promise of eternal bliss does seem to be the Judeo/Christian faith's major function.

One should learn to read in context (immediate and complete), utilize exegesis (lifting from the text) instead of eisegesis (reading something into the text), do not interpret figurative passages as literal or the reverse, etc; utilize a proper method of interpreting the scripture (ie; Hermeneutics). It also helps to actually read it; not something else that interprets it for others. A wiki version is not a great idea as anyone can edit it.

It is also a good thing to avoid the belief that one can read the hearts and minds of others. What some perceive as facts and truth apparently differs from others. Folks tend to have their own biases and prejudices; gets in the way of communication occasionally.

[Elhanan]

You can do this without religion, a community does not require religion to exist but a common goal that can be as simple as mere survival, religion for the most part seems like more of a method of establishing some form of control over that community, to give incentive for behavior deemed morally good and provide disincentive for behavior deemed immoral in the absence of a proper criminal justice system.

For some reason, personally do not believe that having a community organizer in charge is a great example on which to build this point. Again, reality presents plenty of examples that seem to oppose this as being a productive methodology.

But back to the games, DAI does seemingly have the superior presentation.

[Queen Skadi]

Then why did he call Christianity "meek and flabby"? Have you even looked at Hitler's Table Talk? That should be enough to show what he really believed, in private. Straight from the hors's mouth, as it were. He cultivated an image of a defender of the faith in public, but that is a rather stark contrast to what he told his closest confidants.

 

The problem with that "table talk" is that is all hearsay from 3rd hand sources, it is like you are basing all your arguments off the end result of a game of Chinese whispers that has been twisted and filtered to suit an alternate agenda all while ignoring the bountiful amount of evidence that is right under your nose.

[Queen Skadi]

One should learn to read in context (immediate and complete), utilize exegesis (lifting from the text) instead of eisegesis (reading something into the text), do not interpret figurative passages as literal or the reverse, etc; utilize a proper method of interpreting the scripture (ie; Hermeneutics). It also helps to actually read it; not something else that interprets it for others. A wiki version is not a great idea as anyone can edit it.

It is also a good thing to avoid the belief that one can read the hearts and minds of others. What some perceive as facts and truth apparently differs from others. Folks tend to have their own biases and prejudices; gets in the way of communication occasionally.

 

Perhaps you are right Elhanan, perhaps I am just not well versed enough in scripture to decipher it's true meaning, please read the following and tell me what it truly means.

 

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

I always read that passage as "If your child refuses to obey you take him to the elders and have him stoned to death" but obviously I must be reading it wrong, why don't you tell us all what it truly says?

[Heimdall]

You can do this without religion, a community does not require religion to exist but a common goal that can be as simple as mere survival, religion for the most part seems like more of a method of establishing some form of control over that community, to give incentive for behavior deemed morally good and provide disincentive for behavior deemed immoral in the absence of a proper criminal justice system.

Did I say community building required religion? I did not, and the presence of alternatives is irrelevant to the purpose of religion. The church once served as the uniting factor between the peoples of Europe. The Protestant Reformation shattered that religious unity and led to the declining prominence of religion. It is because religion could no longer serve as a grounds for common dialogue that secularism went on the rise. I don't deny the existence of secular community building, but religion's declining prominence in the western world is fundamentally tied to its failure to fulfill its purpose on a mass scale, providing a sense of common community.

Like I said, religion strives to create a sense of community around values and beliefs, which inevitably means saying "this is a good thing" and "this is a bad thing". You can call that a social control, but that doesn't distinguish it from secular systems that offer penalties for actions deemed wrong. And if you want to call it a method for controlling the masses it requires someone to actually be in control, doesn't it? Which isn't true for many religions.

[Queen Skadi]

Did I say community building required religion?

 

Let me highlight it for you

 

Religion's purpose is social, building a sense of community

[Heimdall]

Let me highlight it for you

How about you read my question more carefully?

[X Equestris]

The problem with that "table talk" is that is all hearsay from 3rd hand sources, it is like you are basing all your arguments off the end result of a game of Chinese whispers that has been twisted and filtered to suit an alternate agenda all while ignoring the bountiful amount of evidence that is right under your nose.

It's a transcript of the man's private conversations. The Goebbels diaries and Albert Speer's memoirs all paint a similar picture of the man. That's good enough for me. You seem to be under the false impression that a man can't lie in public to try and rally the masses, or that a man's views of things can't change over his lifetime. The only one ignoring evidence here is you.

[rapscallioness]

As far as the Witcher and religion: at first I thought it was a commentary on the tyranny of the Eternal Fire church. But then looking back I also realized that the ancient religions and forms of worship were also portrayed as tyrannical and demanding. Like the Crones and all that.

 

But then, as the game progressed, it became more evident that even the secular leaders and civil government were just as tyrannical and demanding as the religions and various forms of worship.

 

So, then I thought it was an ode to the struggles of the common man. Psssh. The common man in this game is just as devious, narrow-minded, opportunistic slugs as anyone else. Just on a smaller scale of influence.

 

I got to the point where I did not trust anyone. I could not. No one except Ciri. And Vesemir. Triss I kind of trusted. Yen, I really thought she was going to betray me somehow towards the end. Then I found out what she was really up to....

 

I guess that's just the thankless, lonely life of a Witcher.

 

*heck, I had little kids call to me for help, only to lure me into an alley to be ambushed by some bandits. Son of a ...lol.

 

I think DA does give a more balanced view of their world. There are jerks, but there are also decent ppl.

[Elhanan]

Perhaps you are right Elhanan, perhaps I am just not well versed enough in scripture to decipher it's true meaning, please read the following and tell me what it truly means.
 
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
 
I always read that passage as "If your child refuses to obey you take him to the elders and have him stoned to death" but obviously I must be reading it wrong, why don't you tell us all what it truly says?

Context helps. This is a quick look.

While that is a harsh interpretation (would look at stubborn, rebellious, glutton, and drunkard as a bit different than 'refuses to obey'), it is not a poor one. The child is older, and willfully disobedient, and should be punished.

The greater context of that book goes back to 5:16, which is the first law of the ten that comes with a promise. The previous four are about rules for reverence to the deity; the remaining ones are about rules for mankind. The one mentioned here is the first of those, and appears to bear some significance.

Greater context: this is written in the first contract with the deity, which was broken by man, and abolished for another. This is mentioned in Jer 31:31-34. The new contract replaces the old (Heb 8, esp v13). New contract; new rules.

So stoning disobedient children is no longer required.

Picking things out of context is still a specialty of these forums, so I hope this helps. Also, this is my own take; not some decree of expertise.

[WildOrchid]

Better than Witcher? I'd say character customization, sexuality and gender. Gay playable ladies rarely exist in games like Witcher sadly.

 

Edit: as story and sidequests, Witcher 3 wins DAI by a mile.

[Corto81]

Better than Witcher? I'd say character customization, sexuality and gender. Gay playable ladies rarely exist in games like Witcher sadly.

 

Edit: as story and sidequests, Witcher 3 wins DAI by a mile.

FWIW, Ciri's bisexual.

[WildOrchid]

FWIW, Ciri's bisexual.

 

I know, still not enough. She barely had enough screentime compared to Geralt.

[Queen Skadi]

Did I say community building required religion? I did not, and the presence of alternatives is irrelevant to the purpose of religion. The church once served as the uniting factor between the peoples of Europe. The Protestant Reformation shattered that religious unity and led to the declining prominence of religion. It is because religion could no longer serve as a grounds for common dialogue that secularism went on the rise. I don't deny the existence of secular community building, but religion's declining prominence in the western world is fundamentally tied to its failure to fulfill its purpose on a mass scale, providing a sense of common community.

Like I said, religion strives to create a sense of community around values and beliefs, which inevitably means saying "this is a good thing" and "this is a bad thing". You can call that a social control, but that doesn't distinguish it from secular systems that offer penalties for actions deemed wrong. And if you want to call it a method for controlling the masses it requires someone to actually be in control, doesn't it? Which isn't true for many religions.

 

Religion's declining prominence in the western world has only given rise to a new age of prosperity, enlightenment and tolerance, sure we have still a ways to go and things arent perfect but the declining prominence of religion has only been a benefit to western society, perhaps you would like to move to Afghanistan as I hear they have a wonderful sense of religious community, about 99% I believe follow the same religion!

 

To be honest I am not really sure I would trust the Catholic Church to know right from wrong and be able to dictate what is good and bad, a lot of the actions they deem immoral have no negative effects on anyone or society and a lot of the things they consider moral are reprehensible acts that only a monster would do to their fellow human, homosexual acts with a consenting partner are evil but rape is perfectly fine? Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the basic creed I follow, if your actions do not negatively impact others or society then what you do is none of anyone else's business, however when your actions bring pain and misery to others for no reason other than your own selfish whims that is when you cross the line.

[Elhanan]

A sad mental attitude towards organized religion still does not lessen the greater portrayal written for DAI.

[Queen Skadi]

A sad mental attitude towards organized religion still does not lessen the greater portrayal written for DAI.

 

And your naive attitude towards religion does not make the Witcher 3's less idealistic portrayal of religion any less valid.

 

Look we get it, you prefer the portrayal of religion in Inquisition because you want to believe it can be a force for good in the world, which I suppose in theory can be true depending on the teachings and how it is used, however it can also be a force for evil which as history shows is more often than not the case.

[Elhanan]

And your naive attitude towards religion does not make the Witcher 3's less idealistic portrayal of religion any less valid.
 
Look we get it, you prefer the portrayal of religion in Inquisition because you want to believe it can be a force for good in the world, which I suppose in theory can be true depending on the teachings and how it is used, however it can also be a force for evil which as history shows is more often than not the case.

No; I believe in a balanced portrayal of an organization. Few are all one side or the other, and there is no better place to discover sinners than in a church where one may believe in redemption.

Naïve is using a single research source, believing in one side of a story, and believing themselves as superior to others. This can also be somewhat repulsive.

[Heimdall]

Skadi, I'm very tired of this discussion so I'll leave off with one thought: intolerance is not the sole providence of religion, some of the most intolerant people I've met in my life have been atheists.

[Xetykins]

Skadi, some of the most intolerant people I've met in my life have been atheists.

As someone who has travelled a great deal, and someone who came from a highly religious country, my opinion is quite the opposite.

For example, most of the scandinavians and dutch people I have met are mostly atheists. Yet they are the nicest and most tolerant and chilled people I know. Ofc there are exceptions, as with everything else.

Or it has nothing to do with religion at all. Maybe it come from being raised in a liberated country. I'm not that sure.

[Elhanan]

Skadi, I'm very tired of this discussion so I'll leave off with one thought: intolerance is not the sole providence of religion, some of the most intolerant people I've met in my life have been atheists.

I was going to say gamers.

Have spent my adult life as a liaison between them and those that are religious. I used to play my PnP sessions at the church building in order to answer questions, then hang out at the store to do the same. Most of the intolerance met with the religious folks came from afar, caused by news snippets, grapevine reports, and that infuriating film Mazes & Monsters w/ Tom Hanks.

Gamers however seem to be more willing, and appeared more frequently to stereotype religious folk, and pigeon hole them into the same kind of zealots they have met, or ironically, have seen in news snippets, grapevine reports, and portrayals in annoying films.

[Heimdall]

As someone who has travelled a great deal, and someone who came from a highly religious country, my opinion is quite the opposite.

For example, most of the scandinavians and dutch people I have met are mostly atheists. Yet they are the nicest and most tolerant and chilled people I know. Ofc there are exceptions, as with everything else.

Or it has nothing to do with religion at all. Maybe it come from being raised in a liberated country. I'm not that sure.

I don't mean that all atheists are intolerant, however I've met several that use their atheism to wrap themselves up in a smug sense of superiority disdaining religious minded people.

[Queen Skadi]

Skadi, I'm very tired of this discussion so I'll leave off with one thought: intolerance is not the sole providence of religion, some of the most intolerant people I've met in my life have been atheists.

 

At least we aren't burning people at the stake for having different beliefs than us, but it is funny you should say that, I myself am a very tolerant person but the question does need to be asked, how far does the limits of tolerance extend? I can respect people who have different tastes, opinions and make different lifestyle choices provided they don't negatively impact on the lives of others, but that being said why should I tolerate the charlatan who forces their beliefs on others under the threat of eternal damnation? Why should I tolerate a system of belief that causes so much misery among those it deems immoral for the crime of being attracted to those of the same gender? Why should we bow down to the demands of violent assholes who would use any excuse to kill the innocent? Why should anyone?

 

Tolerance only extends so far and some beliefs and actions should not be tolerated. It is kind of funny that after centuries of intolerance and violence against those who did not bow down and obey a wacky system of belief, now that they do not have the power to prosecute those who do not share their beliefs the religious have the gall to ask for the tolerance that they never gave and never intended to give, there is only one reasonable response to that but I am fairly sure it would get moderated, I am fairly sure you can guess what it is though.

 

 

 

But you are right and it is time for a change of subject as all this talk of religion makes me want to puke.

[Ariella]

Context helps. This is a quick look.

While that is a harsh interpretation (would look at stubborn, rebellious, glutton, and drunkard as a bit different than 'refuses to obey'), it is not a poor one. The child is older, and willfully disobedient, and should be punished.

The greater context of that book goes back to 5:16, which is the first law of the ten that comes with a promise. The previous four are about rules for reverence to the deity; the remaining ones are about rules for mankind. The one mentioned here is the first of those, and appears to bear some significance.

Greater context: this is written in the first contract with the deity, which was broken by man, and abolished for another. This is mentioned in Jer 31:31-34. The new contract replaces the old (Heb 8, esp v13). New contract; new rules.

So stoning disobedient children is no longer required.

Picking things out of context is still a specialty of these forums, so I hope this helps. Also, this is my own take; not some decree of expertise.

Half the problem of using the Torah and the Hebrew Bible in general is that it's only half the text. There's also the Oral Torah, which is just as sacred and makes a lot of modification to the written Torah. And then there's the rabbinical commentaries... There's a reason Judaism tends to be a very literate religion.

The laws of the Torah were designed to transform a bunch of semi nomadic tribes into a more settled civilization, but a BRONZE AGE civilization.

Just wanted to add this in, Elhanan, otherwise I agree with you.

[Heimdall]

At least we aren't burning people at the stake for having different beliefs than us, but it is funny you should say that, I myself am a very tolerant person

So am I, and most religious people I've met are quite tolerant. Let's not pretend secular ideologies haven't fueled their share of atrocities though...