Regional Religious Bias

You was taught wrong. There are what are known as Eastern Rite Catholic churches who are a lot like the Orthodox Churches but are considered in communion with Rome. However the Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves are a different thing entirely. Rather than a single authority like the Pope theological matters are generally decided by a Council of Patriarchs from various locations. There are also a whole host of other issues separating them such as the issue of priests marrying (Orthodox priests can, Catholic priests cant's), whether or not to use leavened or unleavened bread when celebrating communion, Orthodox churches still using the Julian calendar for calculating the religious events (and using a different method of determining the date of Easter) and so on and so on.

Nevermind that in D&D they explicitly have demons as evil and angels as good, and white magic as good and black magic as evil, etc. It's just like that silly reporter who was talking about how Mass Effect was a pornographic game, and then admitted she'd never played it. Though granted, I haven't played D&D either.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

I've never played it, but I find it laughable that anyone could seriously think a roleplaying game could call up demons and shit for real. It's not even claiming to be any sort of mysticism or religion! It advertised itself as a game from the start!

Yeah, but see, their problem is that the world has magical stuff, period. The fact that there is "good magic" just adds fuel to the fire, so to speak.

edited 7th Jun '12 4:58:27 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

When I showed my friend the Chick Tract on D&D, he immediately complained that after playing D&D for almost 10 years and advancing multiple characters past 20th level, I (his DM) had never granted him the ability to cast spells in real life.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Heee: if angels and God do it, it isn't magic. It's a miracle. Anybody else who messes with the ether (or just thinks about it), it's damnation and devils all the way!

It's a particularly black-and-white view of the world that's not restricted to Christianity. After all, you get the same in Africa: the god/spirit/entity/identity/no-real-English-word that speaks/ acts through the correct channels is good*

, fine and probably one of the ancestors you should be proud of. Anything else? WITCHCRAFT you must BURN! (Or cut, or starve, or just discriminate against.) Strange how often that happens to be something your local out-group is going to be accused of, eh? Or, the part of the family you don't want to give the silver to.

edited 7th Jun '12 5:11:38 PM by Euodiachloris

So I guess the fact that I actually own a copy of the Necronomicon put me right out there?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

No, but it may make you an undiscerning hobbyist who can't tell the Cthulhu mythos from actual occultism.

Having been born and raised in the American Christian South, I was unaware that there were any followers of Christianity that didn't condemn 60% of the world to Hell until I met some on the internet. Though I wasn't an atheist at that point, those good people helped me to realize how screwed up it is to expect all decent people to come to your religion just because it must be so blindingly obvious from every facet of Creation that YHWH is Lord.

EDIT: See Romans 1:20 for the justification of their belief that everyone who doesn't come to Jesus is willfully sinful and perverse.

edited 7th Jun '12 7:46:22 PM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!

From my own perspective (former Presbyterian*

living in the Bible Belt for entire life)

Re: Catholics as not Christian: I've run into a few people with this perspective, but it seems rare around here. While a lot of the Protestants I know would probably take issue with specific points of Catholic doctrine, very few if any of them would go the whole hog and say they're not actually Christians.

Re: D&D et cetera: Don't think I've ever run into anyone who seriously believes it's a gateway to Hell or somesuch. One of my very conservative Christian friends is a massive D&D nerd, and a furry to boot.

Or maybe I just landed in the nicer part of the Bible Belt.

Somehow you know that the time is right.

Is there a difference?

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

If you don't believe in the "occult" (safe to assume this position applies to most on this forum), no. If you do, depends on whether you practice chaos magic.

(will not discuss this subject further because that's begging for a massive derail)

edited 7th Jun '12 9:18:26 PM by MasterInferno

Somehow you know that the time is right.

As a Christian myself, I have met a number of Christians (Mainly Protestants around my age group) who don't count Catholics as Christians.

Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.

Yes in that one is considered fictional and the other is not by those who believe in it. Occultism also has places in religions and their history. Lovecraft, as lovely as he is, doesn't. At least not to the extent of say Kabbalah with Judaism or the tantra with Buddhism and Hinduism.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

What Aon said. One is as real as the other in my view, but the difference between Cthulhu and Chaos Magick is in intent.

Also, Lovecraft is entertaining without LSD.

edited 7th Jun '12 9:32:56 PM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!

I don't know about that. But I know for certain that after the Da Vinci Code became popular, the Opus Dei (the Catholic organization which was the "bad guy" in the book) was flooded by people who wanted to apply to it and become super-secret shadowy assassins. And the Opus Dei had to explain, again and again and again, that they are no such thing, that there is no such thing, and that if hypothetically speaking they were super-secret shadowy assassins, they would not consider unsolicited applications

edited 7th Jun '12 11:46:11 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Rather, I'd like to think that they referred the cream of the crop to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Oh, they're a prominent conservative American sect that sort of fuses Baptism and Confirmation. They split off from the Northern Baptists over being pro-slavery. I was just making a crack about their being sinister.

edited 8th Jun '12 12:22:38 AM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!

I don't understand the reference. What's this about Southern Baptists?

EDIT: On the topic of different forms of Christianity, this is a rough outline of the main subdivisions.

Ah, OK. Thanks.

edited 8th Jun '12 12:42:56 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I guess I never got this. How many Christians don't eat shellfish or pork, considering them unclean? How many Christians do you know don't mix milk and meat? How many Christians eat only meat that's been slaughtered in a kosher manner? How many Christians leave some crop in their field for the poor? How many Christians feed their animals before they eat? How many Christians don't wear clothing with mixed materials?

All of these rules were explicitly waived in the First Council of Jerusalem, as reported in the New Testament. If I may quote from the Acts of Apostles 15, 28—29:

Afterwards, Paul argued (very convincingly, in my opinion) that the prohibition from meats offered to idols is unnecessary, or at least that it is pointless to worry overmuch about it: one is not to worship other gods, what one does or does not eat is entirely irrelevant. The prohibition from blood and strangled beasts sorta fell into disuse after a few centuries — there are a few groups, for example in the Orthodox Church, which still hold to them, but the common opinion seems to be that these prohibitions existed only in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of the Jewish converts to Christianity of the time. The prohibition from sexual immorality still stands, but there are of course rather different opinions about what does or does not constitute sexual immorality.

edited 8th Jun '12 5:25:56 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It all just seems very bizarre.

edited 8th Jun '12 5:32:26 AM by ohsointocats

That passage referred specifically to the ritual rules of the Mosaic law — in particular, to the issue of whether the Christians should be circumcised (that was the main reason why that council was called.)

Basically, the thing is that these ritual laws have always been meant to apply to the Jews, to the people of the Old Covenant. Even now, Jews do not ask that Gentiles observe them; instead, they say that a righteous Gentile should observe the Noahide Laws, which they believe apply to the whole of humankind. If a Rabbi sees someone eating bacon, they won't think "look at that sinful Gentile, how he is offending God"; they will think "uh, I suppose that he is a Gentile."

The question that was debated in the Council, and later in Paul's letters, was whether one had to belong to the Old Covenant before joining the New — if a Pagan had to make himself Jew in order to make himself Christian, or if he could make himself Christian directly. The second interpretation won.

So I, as a Christian, have no part whatsoever in the Old Covenant, but only in the New. I am not expected to follow the rules that were set in the Old Testament for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish people, because, well, I am not Jewish.

edited 8th Jun '12 5:53:49 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

This is probably just an example of No True Scotsman.

Really, the idea of people honestly thinking that "Catholics aren't Christian" baffles me. I've never encountered that before.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

On the other hand, some Catholics argue that Protestant Churches are not "real" Churches, but only "churchlike organizations" or something like that. It comes down to the issue of Apostolic Succession, and to the idea that a religious movement can claim to be a rightful successor of the original Church only if there is an unbroken line of consecration from the Apostles to its ministers.

Personally, I acknowledge the importance of Apostolic Succession; but I also think that as an act of common courtesy, there is no harm of extending the name of "Church" to all the religious organizations which attempt to follow (what they believe is) the Christian message.

edited 8th Jun '12 6:47:03 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

, That's why I tend to facepalm so hard when someone trots out the "But real Christians would never..." thing. Because according to the doctrine I was raised with, anybody that isn't a very specific type of Protestant is either not Christian, or they're Christian, but they've been deceived by Satan.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Christianity, taken as a whole, is the most common world religion. Given any claim, no matter how outlandish or bizarre, I am pretty sure that one could find a decent number of Christians who subscribe to it.

edited 8th Jun '12 7:19:05 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.