116 réponses à ce sujet

[Jae Onasi]

The problem is there is no room for middle ground on this issue at all. Either someone is pro-gay (with the 'in your face flamers' serving as the fundamentalists) or someone is pro-straight (with virulently anti-gay at the other end of the spectrum, mostly fundamentalists, but not exclusively the realm of the religious).

There doesn't seem to be any room for people like me who say "Hey, being gay is not for me, I can't embrace the lifestyle myself, but I can love family and friends who are gay with no problem whatsoever." I've been lucky enough to have guys and gals flirt some with me. I don't feel threatened or scared. In fact, I'm rather flattered that someone takes an interest, regardless of the gender, and harmless flirting is fine as long as we all know that I'm hopelessly in love with my hubby of nearly 20 years and have no desire to do anything to jeopardize that incredibly wonderful relationship.

I've been labeled as anti-gay by some because I said "I can't be gay myself, my moral/religious code strongly encourages straight behavior, and I've chosen to go along with that path because that's what's best for my life", and pro-gay because I have close, loving relationships with a number of gay/bi/etc people. My sister-in-law is gay, some of my other friends are gay, and one of my dearest friends ever who I loved more than some of my own kin, who unfortunately died in '96 from AIDS, was gay. I wasn't about to stop loving them just because their door swung a different way from mine in the bedroom. Unfortunately, I'm getting nailed on both sides (innuendo not intended) at times. Too many conservatives think pro-gay equals anti-straight, and too many (social) liberals think pro-straight equals anti-gay. Neither of those extremes has to be true. You can be gay (or bi or other non-straight flavor), yet respect those whose moral or religious codes close off any option but heterosexuality for them as individuals. You can be straight and respect those who are not straight. Fortunately, my gay true friends love me even though their religious beliefs differ from mine, and my religious true friends love me even when their stance on homosexuality is far more conservative than mine.

As for gaming, as long as the devs keep any kind of relationship optional, it's cool. That way, those who are uncomfortable with straight relationships aren't forced into them any more than those who are uncomfortable with gay relationships are forced into them.  My sister-in-law wouldn't want to touch a romance with the guys with a 10 foot pole.  I might romance the girls to see the dialog options, otherwise it's simply something that doesn't particularly interest me.  As for romancing Zevran, I could happily do that in an RPG, but never in real life.  His thang has just been with too many people and God only knows where else.  Thank goodness Bioware has chosen to leave out things like STDs from the role-playing experience.

I wouldn't worry about fundamentalist opinions too much in terms of sales--they're not the market for the game to begin with. The people that Pat Robertson and others like him are preaching to were very unlikely to buy the game anyway. I grew up with him saying Dungeons and Dragons was Satanic, too, and I didn't grow horns by playing it. Well, maybe little ones, but they help hold up the halo.

Modifié par Jae Onasi, 04 février 2010 - 04:23 .

[RangerSG]

Creature 1 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
And that is intellectual hypocrisy. If you want your own argument taken seriously, you must take seriously the intellectual arguments of those who disagree with you. If you insist on using Allinsky's Rules for Radicals and ridiculing those you disagree with, do not be surprised if your own arguments also come in for ridicule.

Please, there is no intellectual argument against homosexuality from fundamentalist Christians.  Their views are based upon a handful of Bible verses, and not at all upon actual facts and research.  Peeker is right.  The foundation of their belief is a literal and prescriptive interpretation of the Bible.  Without this literal interpretation, there can be no moral argument against homosexuality.  Fundamentalists defend their opinions on homosexuality, the role of women, the theory of evolution, and other such topics with such vehemence because they fear that if they drop the ball on one of these and allow that the Bible may be interpreted nonliterally or nonprescriptively on these topics, they'll lose the whole.  If the Creation story can be thought to be figurative, perhaps the Crucifixion and Resurrection are figurative as well--and there goes your afterlife. 

<--Ex-Evangelical Christian. 

First of all, this isn't the kind of forum to say whether there is or is not. But your own rejection of those views presupposes you to believe there isn't anything to them. And if you are saying I should accept a post-modern hermeneutic to literature, well then I can just suppose your argument is that there "is" a rational argument and my reading of your post is as accurate as yours, since authorial intent and plain text cannot be taken at face value.

And I personally believe Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is a poetical passage. Doesn't make me less an Evangelical. It accurately conveys what the author intended it to convey. This isn't a discussion on how people can attack the textual accuracy of the Bible while at the same time defending the textual traditions of other ancient documentation we have literally 1/10th the manuscript evidence for, is it?

The simple fact is, no literature has meaning if you assume that you can bend the rules of hermeneutics to fit what you desire. In which case, you have just proven yourself incapable of living by your worldview by posting on this forum. The only way to accurately interpret any piece of literature is to do so consistently with the rules of the genre of writing in question. It is then up to the reader to decide whether the moral of such writing is to be considered prescriptive or not based on their worldview.

But I am hardly "threatened" or "afraid" of anyone for disagreeing with me. I have not been the one projecting "fear" at those I disagree with. Rather, it has been those who disagree with me who are assuming--from behind their own PC monitors--what my motives and emotions are.

The simple fact is, no two people think alike. And assuming any two people do is prejudiced and bigoted thinking. To dump a stereotype of "fear" or "narrow-mindedness" on anyone else is to demonstrate the very "intolerance" that the post-modern worldview claims it opposes. Hence, intellectual hypocrisy.

Modifié par RangerSG, 04 février 2010 - 04:16 .

[Lenimph]

Dahelia wrote...

I must say...if I met a girl like Leliana..I'd be lesbian in a second...oh yes I would. I think the overly religious just need to stop..I'm waiting for the Fox News Report on Dragon Age: Origins now, you know like they sooo convinced me not to get Mass Effect.

I too am waiting for the fox news report, that would be hilarious XD

Yeah Leliana's one of those girls... I agree

[SuperMedbh]

Jae Onasi wrote....  As for romancing Zevran, I could happily do that in an RPG, but never in real life.  His thang has just been with too many people and God only knows where else.  Thank goodness Bioware has chosen to leave out things like STDs from the role-playing experience.

I'm sorry Jae, that was a very thoughtful post, but I had to LOL at this. 

But you're right, that sort of thing underlines the fact that all this is FICTION.

[Creature 1]

RangerSG wrote...
First of all, this isn't the kind of forum to say whether there is or is not. But your own rejection of those views presupposes you to believe there isn't anything to them. And if you are saying I should accept a post-modern hermeneutic to literature, well then I can just suppose your argument is that there "is" a rational argument and my reading of your post is as accurate as yours, since authorial intent and plain text cannot be taken at face value.

Bolded above:  wrong.  I said that I am an ex-evangelical.  I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church and was educated at a prominent evangelical college, with the Bible minor to prove it.  I used to be as opposed to gay marriage as any fundamentalist, and would claim against all evidence that the universe was created 6000 years ago and there was a literal global flood 4000 years ago.  Then I saw the light, so to speak.  This deconversion didn't come about from my assuming that a literal interpretation of the Bible was wrong, it came about from assuming that it was correct, and then examining the Bible to see how this really worked out.  I was attempting to resolve the idea of an immutable God and moral absolutes with the genocide of the Canaanites--ended up multiple different passages just did not compute.  In my case I was so married to the idea the Bible being inspired by God, literally intended, and largely prescriptive that I was unable to go to a more moderate interpretation of certain passages as being figurative or nonprescriptive.  A lot of non-fundamentalist Christians resolve these issues by choosing a different interpretation.  My conclusion was that I couldn't fathom a God that to me seemed either incompetent or uncaring, so most likely God did not exist.  Obviously from the next quote you have chosen this more moderate route on certain passages, but not all.   

And I personally believe Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is a poetical passage. Doesn't make me less an Evangelical. It accurately conveys what the author intended it to convey. This isn't a discussion on how people can attack the textual accuracy of the Bible while at the same time defending the textual traditions of other ancient documentation we have literally 1/10th the manuscript evidence for, is it?

Not sure what you mean.  There are zero historical documents that I credit with being authored by a supernatural entity and accept as proof of past miracles for which we have no evidence, or contradictory evidence. 

The simple fact is, no literature has meaning if you assume that you can bend the rules of hermeneutics to fit what you desire. In which case, you have just proven yourself incapable of living by your worldview by posting on this forum. The only way to accurately interpret any piece of literature is to do so consistently with the rules of the genre of writing in question. It is then up to the reader to decide whether the moral of such writing is to be considered prescriptive or not based on their worldview.

As said above, my conclusion is not "interpret it figuratively", it's "there is no God".  But I will say that taking a literal interpretation on Creation and the Flood requires a wanton disregard of physical evidence. 

But I am hardly "threatened" or "afraid" of anyone for disagreeing with me. I have not been the one projecting "fear" at those I disagree with. Rather, it has been those who disagree with me who are assuming--from behind their own PC monitors--what my motives and emotions are.

I just know what the motivations of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians I have known are.  There is a reason Christians refer to feelings of doubt as a "crisis of faith".  When you've built your life around a worldview to the extent that many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have, it's scary to feel doubt and contemplate the possibility of changing your mind about something so foundational.  For many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, their primary social sphere is the church.  Their family members are likely mostly Christians.  Leaving Christianity might mean losing their friends and maybe even losing their family.  For many (pastors, youth pastors, music ministers, professors at my undergraduate college), it would result in losing their job.  I was lucky, my dad is agnostic, my Christian relatives pretty moderate, and my husband a moderate Christian.  If I were as embedded in Evangelical Christianity as some of my friends, I wonder whether my fear might have led me to exercise more intellectual hypocrisy in persisting my avoidance of an examination of my doubts.  As it was I was able to tackle the question with the goal of settling it once and for all without risking much more than my immortal soul (and yes, I was worried about that, I didn't take Communion for some months while thinking about all of this because I didn't want to tick God off in case he really did exist!)  

The simple fact is, no two people think alike. And assuming any two people do is prejudiced and bigoted thinking. To dump a stereotype of "fear" or "narrow-mindedness" on anyone else is to demonstrate the very "intolerance" that the post-modern worldview claims it opposes. Hence, intellectual hypocrisy.

All I can do is go by what I have observed, and that overwhelmingly is that people whose worldview is based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible are threatened by the idea of modifying any of these literal interpretations, lest the whole fall down. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

So you didn't like the "harshness" of that particular denomination of Christianity so you became an ick... atheist? Excuse my horrible analogies but I swear that is like like locking yourself inside of a freezer after getting a bad sunburn.



Now I am not an evangelist but according to the left I am one of these inpolitically correct right wing "hate-mongers" that eats babies. Yet lets clear up some things, shall we? There is nothing in the Bible stating the world was created 6000 years ago. If I recall correctly that was an estimate done by some Catholic official in the 14th(?) century.



Second like RangerSG my beliefs have nothing to do with fear. Rather it is a matter of "I believe society would be best like this" and "I don't want these other idiots in charge." Now you can phrase it a bit nicer than I did, but we think the same way. If you wish I could try to attribute your own beliefs to fear as you do to Christians evidently.

[Peeker2009]

RangerSG wrote:

The problem with this argument is there is an underlying assumption
that one has to be "afraid" of what one disagrees with. Quite frankly,
I've always thought a great deal of projection goes into such a claim.
Most people who claim Christians are "homophobes" are actually living
in fear of a "V for Vendetta" style Theocracy that is not the aim of
even 1% of so-called "Fundamentalist" Christians.

Perhaps you misunderstood my intentions, which were merely to attempt an explain the how and why of fundamentalism, not to belittle religious conviction in any way. My post was certainly not directed at the particular views of anyone in this thread. There are many definitions of fundamentalism, ranging from the general to the more specific, and the one thing they all have in common is a stress on the literal truth of a religious text. Personally I would expand this to include political ideology and even science (at its worst).

I have no personal problem with same-sex relationships being made in a
game, because it's a GAME. It's not the real world. And the character
I make is not real-world me, and may not share any of
my own views. That's why it's called "Role Play." I'm not "afraid" of
same-sex relationships. That does not remove my right to comment on
whether or not they are constructive in society. But when those they
disagree with "all" react out of fear, they are making a nice little
box they can shove beliefs they do not take seriously away in. They are
intentionally ridiculing the intellect and the rationality of those
they disagree with.

All I can say to this is that you are therefore not a fundamentalist. We may still disagree with eachother, but we could participate in a rational discussion and not simply point to the Bible, or use terms such as "unnatural" without feeling the need to explain why, or indeed to examine the definition of "natural".

If you want your own argument taken seriously, you must take
seriously the intellectual arguments of those who disagree with you

No argument from me here, except to say that I wasn't responding to you at all. In fact, after checking again, the only post of yours I can find is: "I haven't seen any either. And I'm an evangelical Christian." And so far I haven't see any other intellectual argument for or against homosexuality in this thread. I am more than willing to take part in such a discussion if it comes up.

But I am hardly "threatened" or "afraid" of anyone for disagreeing with
me. I have not been the one projecting "fear" at those I disagree with.
Rather, it has been those who disagree with me who are assuming--from
behind their own PC monitors--what my motives and emotions are.

The simple fact is, no two people think alike. And assuming any two
people do is prejudiced and bigoted thinking. To dump a stereotype of
"fear" or "narrow-mindedness" on anyone else is to demonstrate the very
"intolerance" that the post-modern worldview claims it opposes. Hence,
intellectual hypocrisy.

Again, we are yet to even enter into a discussion, except for this one of cross-purposes, and again, from what you have said, you are not a fundamentalist, so please calm down. My use of the term "fear" was very specifically intended towards a certain type of believer, who must believe in the literal truth of everything contained in a certain text, be it religious, political or anything else, and who refuses to entertain the idea that it can be questioned. If you can't see that there are people like that around the world, then we just have very different perceptions.

Modifié par Peeker2009, 04 février 2010 - 07:09 .

[Peeker2009]

Jae Onasi wrote:

The problem is there is no room for middle ground on this issue at all. Either someone is pro-gay (with the 'in your face flamers' serving as the fundamentalists) or someone is pro-straight (with virulently anti-gay at the other end of the spectrum, mostly fundamentalists, but not exclusively the realm of the religious).

I think there's plenty of room for the middle ground, though at times it may not seem so. Thats why we have concepts such as "tolerance" and "open-mindeness". In fact, you might say that there so much room for the middle ground in such emotive issues that it can feel downright lonely.

ReconTeam wrote:

So you didn't like the "harshness" of that particular denomination of Christianity so you became an ick... atheist? Excuse my horrible analogies but I swear that is like like locking yourself inside of a freezer after getting a bad sunburn.

This is a prime example of intolerance, and over-simplification, made all the worse coming as it does after Creature1's heartfelt post, and the analogy is just a throw-away one-liner bordering on offensive. You might not like her conclusion, but at least show some respect that it was arrived at through much contemplation and reflection.

Modifié par Peeker2009, 04 février 2010 - 07:08 .

[RangerSG]

Peeker2009 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote:

So you didn't like the "harshness" of that particular denomination of Christianity so you became an ick... atheist? Excuse my horrible analogies but I swear that is like like locking yourself inside of a freezer after getting a bad sunburn.

This is a prime example of intolerance, and over-simplification, made all the worse coming as it does after Creature1's heartfelt post, and the analogy is just a throw-away one-liner bordering on offensive. You might not like her conclusion, but at least show some respect that it was arrived at through much contemplation and reflection.

No less so than my own from Atheism to Biblical Christianity (and for what it's worth, I have a Masters in Biblical Studies as well, not that degrees mean anything in this discussion). Yet if one listens to the mainstream media and/or mass culture, the "thorough contemplation" can only work in one direction.

In any case. The point is, I move in Evangelical circles and I have not seen one drop of ink or serious story attacking Dragon Age. I'm sure they exist, but they aren't taken seriously. Honestly, there's no great "wave of hysteria" in "Christian circles" seeking to see the game burned on a pyre. And threads like this that start with the presumption that a religious group is out to take away their right to play a game accomplish nothing but inflame the suspicions of those on either side who think that they are being bully-pulpeted for no cause. I have done enough study on the subject to know that you'd be hard-pressed to find 1 in 1000 Christians in North America who think Theonomy (the imposition of Scripture as a rule of law in a nation) is a good idea. The vast majority of us would be perfectly happy if we were just not subjected to personal attack for daring to allow our deepest-held views to influence our thought-processes when we vote.

But 'that' is not going to happen as long as the Mainstream Media is free to call "narrow-minded" anyone that they disagree with.

[Asylumer]

I found the article on WorldNetDaily but that's all. OP, if you're going to make claims, please provide citations and links to them.

[AlgolagniaVolcae]

The only religious outrage I have is use of escape to skip the many many conversations about the Maker, after awhile it starts blending together and all you hear when they talk is " Maker, maker maker maker maker? ".

Modifié par AlgolagniaVolcae, 04 février 2010 - 12:08 .

[Creature 1]

ReconTeam wrote...

So you didn't like the "harshness" of that particular denomination of Christianity so you became an ick... atheist? Excuse my horrible analogies but I swear that is like like locking yourself inside of a freezer after getting a bad sunburn.

You need to work on reading comprehension.  I changed my mind not because it was too harsh, but because when judged according to its own standards it was inconsistent.  The reason I decided God most likely does not exist rather than choosing a more moderate version of Christianity is because I have high standards for competence for deities.  The fundamentalist God is incompetent--or possibly chaotic evil.  I decided it's not likely that if there is a God he is incompetent or evil, so the most likely explanation is he got made up out of whole cloth by a Bronze Age society. 

I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic.  I'm sure that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, but it's impossible to deny the existence of any supernatural entity.  How can you determine for sure that something that is intangible does not exist? 

And I actually found my deconversion quite liberating. 

There is nothing in the Bible stating the world was created 6000 years ago. If I recall correctly that was an estimate done by some Catholic official in the 14th(?) century.

It was based upon the geneologies in the Bible, which purport to trace the line of descent of various people all the way from Adam and Eve.  Even throwing in a few missed generations you don't get anything like 200,000 years. 

[Asylumer]

The only religious outrage I have is use of escape to skip the many
many conversations about the Maker, after awhile it starts blending
together and all you hear when they talk is " Maker, maker maker maker
maker? ".

Maker says what?

Modifié par Asylumer, 04 février 2010 - 12:40 .

[Creature 1]

RangerSG wrote...
No less so than my own from Atheism to Biblical Christianity (and for what it's worth, I have a Masters in Biblical Studies as well, not that degrees mean anything in this discussion). Yet if one listens to the mainstream media and/or mass culture, the "thorough contemplation" can only work in one direction.

My background is only of interest in that one of the usual comments I get is, "Well, you never really believed in the first place".  According to all evidence, I did. 

This makes me curious, I really don't see how it does work the other way around.  In order to become religious, you need to be convinced of the existence of something for which there is no evidence.  At this point I can only see becoming religious again out of emotional reasons (my husband thinks I will believe in God again once we have a kid. . . ) and I don't see how any emotional reason could be compelling enough.  I'm a scientist, probably one of the reasons I felt so compelled to tackle my doubts permanently, and emotional arguments don't usually get far with me.  I certainly couldn't go back to fundamentalism, but I don't think I could take seriously any more warm and fuzzy version of Christianity. 

In any case. The point is, I move in Evangelical circles and I have not seen one drop of ink or serious story attacking Dragon Age. I'm sure they exist, but they aren't taken seriously. Honestly, there's no great "wave of hysteria" in "Christian circles" seeking to see the game burned on a pyre.

No, there was more regarding Harry Potter, but even then most Evangelicals thought it was mostly harmless. 

Seriously, there's way too much material to be angered about to get too worked up over one game/movie/TV show. 

[Peeker2009]

RangerSG wrote...

Peeker2009 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote:

So you didn't like the "harshness" of that particular denomination of Christianity so you became an ick... atheist? Excuse my horrible analogies but I swear that is like like locking yourself inside of a freezer after getting a bad sunburn.

This is a prime example of intolerance, and over-simplification, made all the worse coming as it does after Creature1's heartfelt post, and the analogy is just a throw-away one-liner bordering on offensive. You might not like her conclusion, but at least show some respect that it was arrived at through much contemplation and reflection.

No less so than my own from Atheism to Biblical Christianity (and for what it's worth, I have a Masters in Biblical Studies as well, not that degrees mean anything in this discussion). Yet if one listens to the mainstream media and/or mass culture, the "thorough contemplation" can only work in one direction.

I find the way you have used my post a little disturbing. Have I said or implied that "thorough contemplation" can only work in one direction? Or are you just using my words as a springboard for your views on religious intolerance generally? Rest assured that if someone attacked your beliefs in such a glib way, I would be the first to leap to your defence (not that anyone needs my help I'm sure), whether I agreed with your views or not. And I am sure that others would do the same.

I will repeat if I may the one and only assertion I have made in this thread: that fundamentalism in any shape or form is anathema to rational discussion, because it deals in absolutes. Fundamentalists will quickly lose patience with rational discussions, or they will attempt to characterise rationality as being of less value than faith/ideology, and thus the rational discussion quickly descends into the personal and emotional. Yes, frustration can go both ways, but because a person with fundamentalist views has more riding on the outcome, he/she is more likely to become emotionally upset. This is where fear comes into the equation.

RangerSG, you have quoted me, and made a reply of sorts, but are yet to reveal whether you agree with my views on fundamentalism or not. Of course, it's completely up to you whether you respond or not. I certainly agree with your views in regard to mutual respect, as I hope I've made clear.

Apologies to all that this has gone off the topic. After reading through this thread again, I think I could be accused of jumping the gun with my original post even though I do stand by its sentiments (I do enjoy discussing religion and politics I admit ). After a little googling research, I would agree with those who have pointed out that the "outrage" from religious groups is hard to find; furthermore, on the Christian gaming sites I visited, there was mostly high praise for DA:O.

Modifié par Peeker2009, 04 février 2010 - 01:13 .

[LadyVaJedi]

At least they aren't attacking those of us that Wiccan and Pagan this time around.

[Jae Onasi]

Peeker2009 wrote...
In fact, you might say that there so much room for the middle ground in such emotive issues that it can feel downright lonely.

Heh, it is indeed rather lonely here.  Maybe I need to host a party or something.

SuperMedbh wrote...

Jae Onasi wrote....  As for romancing Zevran, I could happily do that in an RPG, but never in real life.  His thang has just been with too many people and God only knows where else.  Thank goodness Bioware has chosen to leave out things like STDs from the role-playing experience.

I'm sorry Jae, that was a very thoughtful post, but I had to LOL at this. 

But you're right, that sort of thing underlines the fact that all this is FICTION.

That's OK, that part was supposed to be amusing.  I have this genetic aversion to being very serious for more than a certain length of time, so I have to add in some levity now and then.