Ce sujet est fermé
So I come in here expecting a Witcher versus DA game (again!), and I find a religious debate of real-life religions. What the hell, people? Seriously, what the f***? How did this thread go from its initial topic to this, how does a thread derail this amazingly?
This board sometimes... 
At least in the Inquisition you are not forced to play a dirty old man.
The Witcher hasnt a lot of decision like Dragon age, specially because Geralt has his own personality.
Pretty sure telling your followers to go steal some women from a nearby festival to make up for a shortage of sex slaves is
So I come in here expecting a Witcher versus DA game (again!), and I find a religious debate of real-life religions. What the hell, people? Seriously, what the f***? How did this thread go from its initial topic to this, how does a thread derail this amazingly?
This board sometimes...
Showing how to live when slavery exists is not supporting it, in either Testament. Reading bias into the text is not wise, either. Recommend actual study.
Ahem, ahem...
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
From Leviticus 25:44. That's God talking, by the way. I can name other examples, if you wish.
Ahem, ahem...
From Leviticus 25:44. That's God talking, by the way. I can name other examples, if you wish.
I'm not interested in your uniformed and selective reading of the text, Skadi. No matter how many Bible verses you quote, religious groups that follow the text you claim condones slavery have stood against it and used that text to push the abolitionist movement forward. The written text is not the sum total of a religion.Considering that there are a good number of verses that support slavery (I have already posted a few of them) I am not sure how saying that the Bible supports slavery is humorous? Sure there might be the odd verse that condemns the taking of certain slaves under certain circumstances but for the most part it would not be inaccurate to say that the bible for the most part condones slavery.
As for the few verses that preach kindness to your fellow man there is nothing wrong with that, however I do have to wonder why it is such a foreign concept that the only way you could figure it out is if you read it in a book? Besides acts of kindness are not the sole providence of religion and I am pretty sure the act of kindness was not an invention of the bible.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth.Depends, perhaps religious people just believe what they are told but there are many who prefer to make up their own mind by studying the evidence and forming their own conclusions.
As for building moral codes are you honestly telling me that unless you had the bible to tell you right from wrong you would not have been able to figure it out for yourself? Would you honestly be out there raping, murdering and stealing because you could not figure out internally that the person you are doing these things to might not appreciate it? Have you no sense of empathy?
So could I, but as others have indicated, this was a time when slavery was extant; same for Roman rule later. And the greater context deals with the treatment of others, like not to mistreat aliens or oppress them, because Israel had once been aliens in Egypt (Exodus 22:21). Other surrounding cultures were not as considerate of their treatment.
And the immediate context is speaking of the Year of Jubilee which occurred every 50 yrs (seven Sabbatical years, plus one). This was a special year to signify freedom and remember how God has delivered them from Egypt, amongst other things. And to my knowledge, am not certain if this goal was achieved.
The scripture indicates how one was to live in the culture of slavery, but did not support it.
Of course not. I mean, the god of Israel goes out of his way to explicitly say "Slavery is A-OK as long as Jews are not the ones being enslaved, because they're my homies and all" does not signify support for slavery, in the slightest. Giving out rules to how slavery is supposed to work is most certainly not implicit support for the institution, much like like saying "rape is okay, as long as you only rape foreigners, don't cause any permanent damage, pay a fine, and only do it on Tuesdays" does not constitute support for rape.
Of course scripture supports slavery! Slavery was omnipresent at the time it was written, and it wasn't seen as wrong any more than the average modern Western person thinks capitalism is wrong. The Bible doesn't care because there's no reason whatsoever why the Bible should care. Which is exactly why there's no reason to think of it as a universal and timeless moral guideline, just like people don't put other three-to-two thousand year old books on a pedestal and claim they have any profound philosophical truths to reveal.
Of course not. I mean, the god of Israel goes out of his way to explicitly say "Slavery is A-OK as long as Jews are not the ones being enslaved, because they're my homies and all" does not signify support for slavery, in the slightest. Giving out rules to how slavery is supposed to work is most certainly not implicit support for the institution, much like like saying "rape is okay, as long as you only rape foreigners, don't cause any permanent damage, pay a fine, and only do it on Tuesdays" does not constitute support for rape.
Of course scripture supports slavery! Slavery was omnipresent at the time it was written, and it wasn't seen as wrong any more than the average modern Western person thinks capitalism is wrong. The Bible doesn't care because there's no reason whatsoever why the Bible should care. Which is exactly why there's no reason to think of it as a universal and timeless moral guideline, just like people don't put other three-to-two thousand year old books on a pedestal and claim they have any profound philosophical truths to reveal.
It was not about enslaving their own, but to remember that they were once slaves. And if one became indentured to another, this system of Jubilee was a way for all to become balanced again. If slaves were extant, these were guidelines to follow. Recommend proper study.
But no further discussion on religion; unwise to continue. Some minds seem closed on the topic, and this goes nowhere.
Alright, this is the last I'll speak of religion in this thread. But I will answer to your comment, because if not dishonest, is either a poor reading of the text or blatant misdirection.
Here's the chapter, so you can't accuse me of taking anything out of context. It says that Jews cannot have other Jews as slaves. If foreigners buy Jews as slaves, it explains the ways they can obtain their freedom and finishes by saying that even if they don't, "they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God."
That's nothing to do with what I talked about. After mentioning Jews "cannot be treated as slaves" by other Jews, the mighty Father goes on to clarify that "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." These are, by all accounts, slaves, that they "can bequeath them to [their] children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but [they] must not rule over [their] fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Proper study? Yes, the Bible is such an incredibly complex book that it merits a treatment no other book ever gets. In any other book, the maximum authority figure and moral compass saying 'you can have slaves' while teaching his chosen people a.k.a. the intended audience the rules by which they are to behave themselves would be considered unquestionable support of slavery by the author, especially when unquestionable support of slavery was the norm for his culture and time period. But no, the Bible requires 'proper study' to understand the TRUE meaning of that chapter and that particular fragment, because it is just that special!
And it is still the people arguing against you who are biased, for not holding this poorly written, archaic collection of fairy tales to any higher standard than they do the Illiad. I truly mean no offense, and if I have inflicted any, I'm sorry. But I gotta be honest like that. I won't talk about the subject here again. If you wish to respond PM me. I think you might find me surprisingly 'open' to any topic you wish to discuss, if you are willing to do the same.
At least in the Inquisition you are not forced to play a dirty old man.
The Witcher hasnt a lot of decision like Dragon age, specially because Geralt has his own personality.
You aren't forced to play as a dirty old man in The Witcher either. You're forced to play as Geralt of Rivia, who quite certainly is not a dirty old man.
Also, The Witcher has plenty of decisions, and it does them better than Dragon Age because there are quite noticable differences in the story depending on, for example, what you do with the woodland spirit, or whether you take Ciri to Emhyr or not. Your choice in the Orlesian Civil War storyline in Inquisition has no noticable difference on the storyline, nor does your choice at Adamant. Choosing Mages or Templars at least had some effect this time around, even if it is rather small.
As Maeshone says above...
dirty old man ???? Say What????
Choice????- OMG almost everything in TW# demands a choice by Geralt. How he reponds depends on how you have built him morally and ethically in the game or through out the series. Geralts personality is not static at all.
Why are you guys shocked by thy dirty old man comment? Geralt is old, dirty, and a man.
I'm not interested in your uniformed and selective reading of the text, Skadi. No matter how many Bible verses you quote, religious groups that follow the text you claim condones slavery have stood against it and used that text to push the abolitionist movement forward. The written text is not the sum total of a religion.
You keep defaulting to the stance that I'm arguing that religion is the only way to teach or learn something, but that has not been my argument at all. I have not been trying to say one is better than the other. So it seems you're taking for granted the idea that a secular source for the same knowledge is innately superior.
Oh honey if you think the Bible does not condone slavery then I am afraid it is you who are uninformed and selective in your reading of the text, I and others have already shown you multiple passages that condone it and you have yet to show even one that condemns it (of course there are passages that condemns the taking of certain types of slaves in certain circumstances but I cant recall any that condemn it outright).
While I am sure there were Christians on both sides of the debate (though I doubt the Christians on the anti-slavery side were arguing because the teachings of the bible taught them it was wrong but because they were morally minded people despite what they were taught in the bible) but throughout history Christians do have the tendency to overstate their importance in the noble events they had little or nothing to do with while denying their involvement in the horrible events they had a major hand in but the truth is the abolition of slavery was largely a secular movement.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
Tell me, do you think you believe slavery is wrong because you figured it out yourself or because the value system instilled by your parents, teachers, and childhood authority figures tells you it is self evident? It doesn't matter whether the basis for those teachings is religious or not, most people believe what they're taught to believe.
I don't like slavery because I know that I myself would not enjoy being chained into servitude and forced to do the bidding of some ******* and I would assume my fellow living creatures feel the same way, this train of thought does not just include humans but extends to all living creatures such as guide dogs and race horses.
And no I am not with PETA I just think getting whipped and being forced to do your master's bidding while some sadistic midget in motley takes all the glory for your hard work sounds like a pretty shitty deal.
Oh honey if you think the Bible does not condone slavery then I am afraid it is you who are uninformed and selective in your reading of the text, I and others have already shown you multiple passages that condone it and you have yet to show even one that condemns it (of course there are passages that condemns the taking of certain types of slaves in certain circumstances but I cant recall any that condemn it outright).
While I am sure there were Christians on both sides of the debate (though I doubt the Christians on the anti-slavery side were arguing because the teachings of the bible taught them it was wrong but because they were morally minded people despite what they were taught in the bible) but throughout history Christians do have the tendency to overstate their importance in the noble events they had little or nothing to do with while denying their involvement in the horrible events they had a major hand in but the truth is the abolition of slavery was largely a secular movement.
I'm just going to throw up my hands at this point. I've repeatedly shown you that religion is neither static nor limited to literal interpretation of unchanging scripture. You keep harping on this point because its the only thing you've got and I'm satisfied that I've shown it to be worthless.
FYI, I've studied the history of slavery and the abolitionist movement, so don't try and speak about something you know nothing about. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth century saw the emergence of new egalitarian christian movements that were critical to giving the abolitionist movement large scale traction through a belief in God's love for all creatures regardless of race, sex, or station. So get your head out of your ass.
I don't like slavery because I know that I myself would not enjoy being chained into servitude and forced to do the bidding of some ******* and I would assume my fellow living creatures feel the same way, this train of thought does not just include humans but extends to all living creatures such as guide dogs and race horses.
And do you think the idea that you should treat others as you would like to be treated is one you came up with all on your own? Probably not. Values like that are learned, not innate. There's a reason slavery went unchallenged as an institution for all of human history up until the abolitionist movement began in England two centuries ago. There's a reason some former slaves became slave traders, not wanting to be a slave isn't the same as opposing it as an institution. It wasn't because everyone thought it was self evidently evil and decided to do nothing and it wasn't because of religion. The difference between you and them is the values of the culture you were raised in, instilled by teachings and authority figures. Never take that for granted, certainly don't take credit for it.
I'm just going to throw up my hands at this point. I've repeatedly shown you
Not really, so far it has mostly been telling rather than showing and while this may be the favored approach of teaching and learning among the religious I find you do need at least some sort of evidence or reason to back up your assertions in order to make them at least somewhat believable.
I do like how the point you throw you hands up in the air is the exact point you are asked to show evidence for you assertions, what is the matter? Does the evidence not exist?
And do you think the idea that you should treat others as you would like to be treated is one you came up with all on your own? Probably not. Values like that are learned, not innate. There's a reason slavery went unchallenged as an institution for all of human history up until the abolitionist movement began in England two centuries ago. There's a reason some former slaves became slave traders, not wanting to be a slave isn't the same as opposing it as an institution. It wasn't because everyone thought it was self evidently evil and decided to do nothing and it wasn't because of religion. The difference between you and them is the values of the culture you were raised in, instilled by teachings and authority figures. Never take that for granted, certainly don't take credit for it.
Actually I am pretty sure empathy is a pretty basic mental function developed inherently by most human beings, of course there are some people who feel less empathy than others but I believe the word for them is "sociopath". As for why certain institutions like slavery went unchallenged for so long it has more to do with our ability to justify certain behaviors despite knowing their cruelty and in regards to slavery we had God telling us it was ok to keep slaves so long as we follow a few simple guidelines, and hey, who can argue with god right?
I thought I already cleared this up? This is a thread about what Inquisition does better not what the Witcher 3 does better, asking people to find what the Witcher 3 does better is like asking people to go on a scavenger hunt locating gay guys in San Fran, not exactly a difficult task, besides if you even mention what the Witcher 3 does better it gets the Dragon Age fans a bit upset and causes the chip on their shoulder to swell to massive proportions leading them to launch a crusade to prove Dragon Age is the better game by throwing out arguments that require the laws of the universe to be broken in order to make sense, like 8 being a higher number than 11 or Bethesda being top notch programmers in the games industry.
Mentioning what the Witcher does better only seems to antagonize the Dragon Age audience and when the Dragon Age audience gets antagonized they lose every ounce of common sense, remember guys this isn't a competition, if it were a competition Inquisition would lose but it isn't, we are just trying to recognize some of the things Inquisition does well, surely it can't be that hard right?
Retour en haut
