Heaven in a Browser

December 2, 2009 -

An Atlanta-based videogame development company has announced plans to create a virtual online faith-based community.

Universe of Faith (UOF) is being developed by Entertainment Arts Research, Inc. and is billed as the first of its kind, with plans to be a “catalyst of change” for the online Christian community. The $2.5 million project is expected to launch in the first quarter of 2010.

Entertainment Arts Research President Jonathan Eubanks, dubbed the “brainchild” of UOF, added, “My goals for creating Universe of Faith are to bring high production value to faith based media offerings, remove the taboo from discussing faith based matters and issues, use modern technology to innovate on missionary and ministry outreach and create an experience that is engaging and fun.”

Browser-based, UOF promises to be an “intriguing venue for social networking,” with a “diverse and immersive experience for users to create a life beyond the tangible world.”

The project is being developed in conjunction with Legacy Group Global, an advertising agency that specializes in working with non-profits and ministries.

On its website, Entertainment Arts Research states that its goal is, “to become the worldwide leader in video games that serve the African-American, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean markets by 2010."


Comments

Re: Heaven in a Browser

On its website, Entertainment Arts Research states that its goal is, “to become the worldwide leader in video games that serve the African-American, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean markets by 2010."

It´s not gonna happen. Religion + Games are not exactly the cleverest combination. Plus, I don´t think churches in latinamerica are precisely in touch with any kind of technology.

They usually use their time to bash on videogames and the internet.

 

My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Heaven in a Browser

*sigh*  This whole debacle depresses me.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

It's ok.....don't be depressed you sound like a good person on here defending your beliefs. Like I am & others on here too. Just be happy that no one has to change your beliefs for you, only you can make that decision. :)

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

:: Kicks Ratros under the table. ::

All right now, let's not encourage that Erik guy into ANOTHER lawsuit.  :P

:)

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

lmao, I apologize for that.  That would be the last thing I want.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I can see it now: "Gamer sues Sony for his Clinical Depression". Honestly, where do these guy get off doing stuff like that.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I wonder if there will be any friction between the different factions of Christianity in the site.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

 I don't think it's a question of "if;" it's a question of "how much." Of course, if enough atheists flame them, they might unite in one gigantic flame war...

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Considering Euopean history. I'd say yes.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

There probably will be some.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Allow me to make somethings clear. When I mentioned what I listened to, I probably should have been more specific. There are songs by these groups I don't listen to due to content I may find offensive against my faith (or because the songs suck). The metal bands I mentioned have plenty of songs that I find no problems with. As for Queen, just because we see homosexuality as a sin doesn't mean we have some sort of deep seated hatred for them. The church considers hate much worse than homosexuality. We don't see it as some sort of sin that takes you straight to hell. We have no problem with Queen. Freddy Mercury was a great singer. The church has nothing against him. His music was never offensive to us. Then there is the comment on our church being restrictive. Why does everyone accuse us of being the strictest. The only things we are strictest on is on homosexuality, chastity, and contraceptives. We have no problem with evolution (which I learned in a catholic school). The ones who are protesting against gay rights(specificly the ones who say such things as "God hates Gays" are mostly a protestant. Jack Thompson and those like him are largely protestant. To be even more specific, he is presbytarian. As for opposition of witchcraft in the media, that is, again, a protestant thing, specifically the Evangelists. The church has no position on the book. We have Harry Potter books in the libraries of catholic schools. The church's only concern with witchcraft in the media is that some people might take Harry Potter in some sort of literal sense. Even then, we aren't that concerned. As for Valdearg, faith is supposed to be part of a catholic's life, not something that is secondary to it. If by affect your life you mean that as someone outside the church, catholics have tried to control you, that isn't something catholics do.

What really annoys me is that you guys are truly are no better than Jack Thompson in certain aspects. You are criticizing me for what I believe in on the basis of sterotype. I thought this site would have members who truly believed in intolerence. Apparently I was wrong.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Like I said before, I grew up Catholic.

I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that half the crap you just said there was wrong.

First of all, I never accused Catholics of being the strictest, however, they do have plenty of rules and dogmas that must be followed if you are to be allowed into Heaven. I think, personally, the worst of these dogmas happens to be the restrictive attitute towards homosexuality, chastity, and contraceptives.

Not only are most of them not exactly based in biblical law (Barring homosexuality, though, don't get me started on that argument..), the last one is downright irresponsible.

Your assertion that Catholics don't see homosexuality as a sin that takes you straight to hell is wrong. If you practice it, you are going to hell. If you COMPLETELY cease the practice of it, and repent for your sins, you MIGHT be forgiven.

Frankly, you might want to study your religion more, before trying to correct me on the very rules I experienced punishment for, and, consequently, why I left the religion.

I think that one of the above posters hit the nail on the head when they said "I sincerely doubt that many "practicing" Catholics/Christians/etc truly know the tenants of their own faith."

Good luck in the afterlife, bud. It's pretty clear you aren't quite matching the Catholic definition of Heaven worthy.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

First off, a lot of what I said was not just directed to you. It was at the other posts commenting on catholicism, such as the "strict" comment. And actually, my point on homosexuality was that catholics don't (or shouldn't) see it as bad as hate or a lot of other sins. What I said about them not going to hell was an exaggeration of sorts to try to show our point of view, and that was my bad. However, there is some truth to it. Many christians, especially the catholic church, feel that they don't know who is going to heaven. We don't try to predict who is. The only ones we assume to be in heaven are saints. Other then them, we really don't try to make those predictions. The reason I said especially the catholic church is because that we believe that works are as important, if not more so, than faith. I do know the tenants of my faith. And if you don't like our beliefs on homosexuality, abortion, and contraceptives, fine. You have every right to leave the church if you don't agree with our beliefs. I respect your beliefs, as well as those of others. I don't try to force my faith on anyone else. I may give advise based on my faith, but that's it. I am just sick of all the intolerence I get being a christian. That was the point of my previous posts.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

"I am just sick of all the intolerence I get being a christian."

You might face less intolerence if you did less of this: ""I may give advise based on my faith, but that's it." That's probably the most irritating part of most Christian religions.

On top of that, you are responsible for what your church leaders do. I just said this in another post, but if you have a leader that practices hate, like MANY Christian Leaders do, and you support that leader by following him and being part of his church, then you are just as responsible for every instance of religious hatred and bigotry that was caused by that leader. If you want the intolerance to stop, join a church that doesn't practice hatred and bigotry, and doesn't try to get laws passed to force non-believers to follow thier dogmas.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Wait, so if a friend asks for advise and I give some based on my beliefs, that's wrong? As for our leaders, I do not follow any leader that supports hate. And what do you mean by "many". This is just more stereotyping. Yes, there are christian leaders who support hate. They are a minority. The problem is that they seem to get the most attention. However, I am not a member of any such church. My church does not support hatred and bigotry. As for the laws, that goes into politics. That ultimately is what politics is. Allow me to use the U.S. as an example. Do you know how many different beliefs there are in this country? A lot. Everyone tries to get laws based off of their beliefs passed. Athiests, gays, christians, conservatives, liberals, etc. all try to get their beliefs made into law. So if a catholic tries to influence politics, its wrong, but if an atheist does, it's right?

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

You said you are a Catholic, right?

"My church does not support hatred and bigotry"

This is a LIE. Plain and simple. If you are a Catholic, you support hatred and bigotry, due to your support of Catholic leaders around the country.

When Catholic Leaders threatened to stop providing charity work in Washington D.C. if they passed an anti-discrimination law, which would take away the church's "right" to be discriminatory and hateful towards gays, and they literally gave thier hatred of gays the priority over the love of helping the poor, were you for or against it?

If you were for it, you are just as hateful and guilty as they are, and will be ridiculed. If you were "against" it, but are still a practicing Catholic, by virtue of your continuing to support these leaders, you are also just as hateful and guilty as they are, and will be ridiculed. The only way to avoid being responsible for those harm that will befall those people that the Catholic church is threatening to abandon, because thier hatred of gays is so strong, is to LEAVE IT. If you do anything less, you are guilty by association, as well as a raging hypocrite, and will be ridiculed for it.

"So if a catholic tries to influence politics, its wrong, but if an atheist does, it's right?"

If a catholic tries to influence politics in a way that would result in non-catholics being bound by law to adhere to some catholic dogmas that they don't believe in, YES, it would be wrong. Just like if an Athiest were to lobby for a law that would FORCE catholics to perform actions that are in direct violation of thier religion.

I'm against both situations, there. The thing is, there are MANY more laws being pushed by Catholics that would force me to live the way a Catholic would want me to live, than Athiests FORCING a Catholic to sin. In fact, I'm not aware of ANY laws that would FORCE a Catholic to sin, myself.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

So you are grouping catholic leaders into one group? Wow!!!! you know everyone doesn't think like everyone & everyone has their own minds.......

The thing that amazes me Valdearg is that in earlier posts you hate against the religions but yet you know some of the bible? That makes you a hypocrite.

& how do you know that most politicians are catholics? Really? Are you assuming again. LOL!

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

"So you are grouping catholic leaders into one group? Wow!!!! you know everyone doesn't think like everyone & everyone has their own minds......."

That wasn't even close to the point I was making.. Thats okay, though. It's clear you lack an education.

"The thing that amazes me Valdearg is that in earlier posts you hate against the religions but yet you know some of the bible? That makes you a hypocrite."

Just because I know the stories of the bible doesn't make me a believer. It's a book of myths, much like the old stories about Zeus and Hercules, or a collection of Native American myths about how the world is on the back of a giant turtle. I don't know why you think I'm a hypocrite for learning about things before I bash them.

"& how do you know that most politicians are catholics? Really? Are you assuming again. LOL!"

LMAO.. I never said that. What I DID say is that there are more groups of Catholics lobbying to get legislators to pass laws forcing thier beliefs on others than there are athiests trying to force Christians to violate thier beliefs.

Again, I forgive you for that idiocy. You seem to have the reading comprehension of a kindergartener, so I don't expect you to properly understand any of the points I am trying to make.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Valdearg, I'm done. This is my last post on the subject. You've been nothing but insulting and offensive in this whole debate. How can you accuse anyone of hate and bigotry and then turn around and then insult someone of a different belief than you (albeit, someone who may have no idea what she's talking about). If you weren't calling me ignorant, it was a comment such as me being "dense".Then there is your lastest post. Sharpshooterbabe was wrong about you being a hypocrite and on the whole catholic politicians thing. Your response to her mistakes: being totally uncivil. In response to her , you called her uneducated. Her second, you said this: "Again, I forgive you for that idiocy. You seem to have the reading comprehension of a kindergartener, so I don't expect you to properly understand any of the points I am trying to make." And you continue the insults on the shoutbox. And actually, she is right on one account. You are grouping all catholic leaders into a group. You still haven't specified the leaders. You say to beware of leaders straying me and others away from our doctrine. Which ones? Name them. I really would like to know. And you just helped identify my earlier point. Those who stray from doctrine do not define the belief as a whole.

"Okay.. And I don't. Does that mean it's okay for you to enact a law against it, despite the fact that I don't believe the same as you do? How far would you go? Would you, if you adhered strictly to the Catholic doctorine, put us in Jail? Would we be executed? Would we be castrated? There are Catholic leaders who believe we should be punished in those ways for our lifestyles, and YOU follow those leaders. I keep telling you, PAY ATTENTION to what they are saying, teaching, and doing. You'd be surprised at how far your leaders stray from the doctorine, in order to teach thier hate and bigotry to the blind, ignorant masses."

This paragraph irritated me a lot. First off, how can you say we are making a law, when your last point was the other way around. The law to legalize gay marriage is an example of putting something into law that we don't see as right. I have no problem with it. Like I have already said again and again, that is what creating laws is all about(moral ones anyway). Everyone wants their belief turned to law. And what's this rant on what we would do to insure catholic rules are in law are ridiculus.Who said we would even put all of our doctrine into law, let alone enforce them with such cruelty. The reason I gave our reasoning to our beliefs that we have tried to put into law was to get you to see our point of view. I don't care whether you agree with the reasoning or not. Always try to understand the reasoning of a person who has a different belief than your own. I don't see those who are pro-choice as those who support murder. I understand that, to you, the body of a mother should take priority from the fetus. I don't think you have taken the time to look at our point of view. Notice how the only laws we really try to pass are on abortion and contraceptives. That is because we see the fetus as a person. Just try to undertand. I don't care if you agree or not. We haven't been getting our doctrine force to law. No law has been passed forcing no meat and forced Fasting on Fridays during lent. No law has been lobbied to force people to have Advent Wreaths.

You said that we are trying to use legislature against homosexuals. Its actually mostly the other way around. Homosexuals are trying to make laws to allow it.

"This sort of thing is the exact reason for the separation of religion and state.  Your viewpoint is based upon a false premise (or at least an unprovable premise).  You believe that the soul is bestowed upon conception.  It's really hard to argue with an assertion based within mysticism without falling into pleas to emotion such as cases where a woman is raped and conception occurs.  I am saddened that you cannot see the devastation an unwanted child could bring to an individual and later in life to the child when they discover that they were unwanted."

First, the seperation of church and state (in the U.S. anyway) was made to ensure freedom of religon. As for our viewpoint being on a false premise, that is your belief. We have gone from hate in the church to debating on abortion. I will not get into that argument or any other moral argument because it would never end until one or both of us got irritated and ended it. The thing about moral arguments is that most of them really can't be logically reasoned into a conclusion. For example, which is more important: the unborn life or the mother's choice. Both are important, there is just disagreement over what takes priority. I could counter your rape comment, but, again, the argument would never really reach a sound conclusion. Your offensive nature wouldn't help either. If you want to debate belief, do it with sharpshooterbabe. I just checked. She has responded to your comment. Just don't do it with me. Besides, I think there are better atheists I could have that arugment with.

You still haven't shown hatred or bigotry in the church by the way. Merriam-Webster describes hatred as an "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury" and as an "extreme dislke or antipathy. This sounds like your feeling about the catholic church, judging by your comments. It describes bigotry as "the state of mind of a bigot" or "acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot", with a bigot being described as "a person who obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinion and prejudices". Again, this descibes you based off of your past posts. And you still haven't show the church as either. I stand by what I said earlier: the catholic church considers hate the worst of any sins, due to what hate is and because it only leads to other sins.

Just realized that one of the posts I commented on is not yours Valdearg. My bad. It was Talouin. That would explain it being a bit more civil.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser


"Just realized that one of the posts I commented on is not yours Valdearg. My bad. It was Talouin. That would explain it being a bit more civil."

For a second there I was wondering where you gathered a hostile nature from my posts.  It sort-of confused me.  

 "First, the seperation of church and state (in the U.S. anyway) was made to ensure freedom of religon. "

One could make this argument, however the counterpoint is also that it was made to ensure freedom from religion.  However this vein of argument takes us nowhere so we would have to be forced to acknowledge each other's interpretations as valid and move on.

"As for our viewpoint being on a false premise, that is your belief."

It's actually not a belief, it is an understanding based upon available evidence.  There is a distinct lack of provable evidence available for me to lend credence to the argument for a soul.  I base a lot of what I know on what can be proven via observation.  I don't necessarily count everything else out however that doesn't mean that I will accept it without valid evidence.

"We have gone from hate in the church to debating on abortion. I will not get into that argument or any other moral argument because it would never end until one or both of us got irritated and ended it. The thing about moral arguments is that most of them really can't be logically reasoned into a conclusion. For example, which is more important: the unborn life or the mother's choice. Both are important, there is just disagreement over what takes priority. I could counter your rape comment, but, again, the argument would never really reach a sound conclusion. Your offensive nature wouldn't help either. If you want to debate belief, do it with sharpshooterbabe. I just checked. She has responded to your comment. Just don't do it with me. Besides, I think there are better atheists I could have that arugment with."

Firstly, I was simply using abortion as a point of how religion can affect law, even for those that do not share the same beliefs.  Not all religious people are against abortion, not all religious people are for it.  Catholic dogma states you have to be against it in order to be Catholic OR you must repent daily (most devout Catholics would do it weekly I imagine due to real world time constraints) for your sin of believing it is a right.  Loopholes are fun.  As per examples, there are several others I could have used but Valdearg was more vocal regarding them so I decided to go a different route.

Also, as per atheists, I am closer to agnostic than atheist however I am aware that the two terms are mutually exclusive.  I am agnostic wherein if there is valid evidence for a god that can be observed and/or demonstrated I will accept it after my personal questioning.  I am atheist in the sense that I don't give religion much of my daily thought as it does not have an impact upon my life in any major way.

I would love a response from you on my second point.  I am just a touch curious on how someone can hold a viewpoint on contraception that kills many people due to the missions in underdeveloped countries where the education on issues may not be as varied as they are in the Western world.  There is a recorded incident of a sanctioned mission informing all of the villages within Africa under their jurisdiction/domain/dominion (I can't remember what it's called) that condoms actually INCREASE the chance of contracting AIDS.  It is my personal assertion based upon available empirical evidence that the viewpoint on contraception held by the Catholic church kills many people every year and causes many unwanted pregnancies every year.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

You know you are right gellymatos. I have already specified my beliefs & yet he still wants a reason & logic from me, from you, from Ratros & others. But he isn't acknowledging our beliefs, just arguing w/us. I don't like to even argue w/atheists b/c their all not fun to talk to in a good way & they just whine & complain like Valdearg is. I stated my opinions on here & my beliefs like everyone else did. So I am done talking about it too. He can't acknoweldge that other people have opinions on here.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Now hold on. Don't generalize atheists like he is doing to christians. I know plenty of reasonable atheists. Many friends I currently have and have had are atheists. I often have discussions with them and they are perfectly understanding. They don't whine and complain. They give a point, I give them my reasoning, and vise versa. Often, we do come to an agreement in our talks. Don't stereotype or generalize any group.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Kindergardner?!?!? Lol Well I love English class & I get mostly A's in college in English class so you are from what you think of me & how I read sentences & paragraphs. LMAO!

When I was reading in your earlier posts you sounded like you were saying the politicians are Catholics. & since you keep talking about Catholics & you said you went to a Catholic church, didn't like it & dropped it. & now it seems to you, everyoen is a Catholic including politicians. That's what it sounded like. & oh btw I like to keep myself simple in what I say too. :)

It's a book of myths, much like the old stories about Zeus and Hercules, or a collection of Native American myths about how the world is on the back of a giant turtle. I don't know why you think I'm a hypocrite for learning about things before I bash them.

So explain to me how the Bible is a book of myths & stories? Oh wait, ummm are you going to tell me too that God is a bad God that kills people & lets the starving kids die every day of every year? Or why does God let wars happen like the one we are in right now? B/c if you are going to ask me that, then you would on the borderline if not an aetheist. :) But I don't believe in myths as in Zeus or Hercules. Why? B/c there is no one that captured what they were doing and wrote it down in a book. I have read stories of myths of the Gods & Goddesses. But since I have been reading my Bible since I was a child & could pick up a book, I found out at an early age the Bible is written by diff/ people before Christ & after Christ. So do I believe in it? Yes, b/c that's my belief.

& the reason why I think you are a hypocrite is b/c you do know about some of the stories of what you have said on here trying to make a point to the believers of people's religions on here. & then you go & hate on the people that believe in the bible & their religion & that know the stories. So that's why I think you are a hypocrite. Don't like it? Oh well.....

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

 "So explain to me how the Bible is a book of myths & stories? Oh wait, ummm are you going to tell me too that God is a bad God that kills people & lets the starving kids die every day of every year? Or why does God let wars happen like the one we are in right now?"

My comments towards this issue would revolve more around the contradictions that lie within the bible.  I would also like to clarify that the bible is actually a collection of books and stories, hence the different book names such as "The Book of Revalations" or "Corynthians" (probably butchered the spelling of that...).  The four books of the New Testament are four books (Matthew/Mark/Luke/John) on the topic of the same story written in slightly different ways.

"But I don't believe in myths as in Zeus or Hercules. Why? B/c there is no one that captured what they were doing and wrote it down in a book."

Just have to correct you here, people did.  Famous examples of such are written by the famous poets Hesiod and Homer. Examples of these works are the Illiad and the Odessey.  For a direct correlation, the manuscript "Theogany" would be the equivalent of the book "Exodus"

"I have read stories of myths of the Gods & Goddesses. But since I have been reading my Bible since I was a child & could pick up a book, I found out at an early age the Bible is written by diff/ people before Christ & after Christ. So do I believe in it? Yes, b/c that's my belief."

I have personally read both the manuscripts of the greek gods and the books of the bible since I was a child and was able to pick up a book however I found out in my teenage years that one should not always blindly believe in what is told to them.

Just so you do not confuse my intentions, I am not trying to make you lose your belief.  If your belief is healthy for you, brings you happiness and/or joy then keep it!  However with that said, what I would like you to take from this is that not everyone holds to your beliefs and not everyone should be held to your beliefs.  It is also healthy to question your beliefs.  If they hold up, your belief can only be stronger and under Catholic dogma you can repent (reconcile) the sin of questioning your belief and all will be forgiven.  If they do not completely hold up, your understanding of your beliefs will grow as your knowledge on the subject does.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

The actions that the church in D.C. planned to do were wrong and were recanted. The church is still going throug talks on the subject. The problem the church has with the law is not only that it will allow gay marrige, but that the law may force the church to perform gay marriages when we don't believe in it. That is why the church threatened the way it did. Again, the church later recanted. There is no hate involved. Thanks for jumping the gun there, Vald.  Also, this was a local act. The Vatican did not order the D.C. diocese to do anything. I am still not seeing bigotry or hate.

As for the laws, I still don't think you get it. Multiple groups and factions will try make laws based on their belief. That is politics. Also, your being vague again with the word "many". What laws are you talking about? What laws do catholics try to "force" that restrict other groups. I repeat, politics when it comes to laws is many groups trying to get their beliefs onto law.

By the way, you haven't countered some of my earlier comments (catholic advise, heaven)

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

"but that the law may force the church to perform gay marriages when we don't believe in it."

WRONG, yet again. The law would NOT force the church to perform gay marriages. Perhaps you should do some more research? In fact, the law was written SPECIFICALLY to allow churchs to choose NOT to perform a gay marriage if it didn't want to. If THIS is the kind of misinformation they are feeding you, it's no wonder you've got NO clue what, exactly, your church does.

"There is no hate involved. Thanks for jumping the gun there, Vald.  Also, this was a local act. The Vatican did not order the D.C. diocese to do anything. I am still not seeing bigotry or hate."

How dense are you? The very fact that they were willing to throw thier charity work overboard because the DC Council was going to pass a law that prevented EMPLOYERS from discriminating against gays in the workplace, is hatred. They hated gays enough to threaten to stop helping others! That is a PERFECT example of bigotry and hate. It doesn't need to be violent or angry to be hate. The very act of discriminating against gays is a hateful act.

Also, it doesn't matter if the act was local, national, or global. THOSE people are practicing a faith IDENTICAL to yours. THEY are who YOU are. THOSE leaders are representing what YOU believe. YOU, by the very fact that you practise the same religion, and continue to support this behavior day in and day out, are just as responsible for the message they are spreading as the people who are actually spreading it.

"What laws do catholics try to "force" that restrict other groups"

This phenomenon is most prevalent in laws of a sexual nature. Abortion, Laws against Homosexuality, laws against Adultery (more prevalent in the past, but there are those who still lobby for it)..

Separation of church and state is there for a reason. What if Muslims tried to get a law banning the consumption or pork, for the good of society? Or if a jewish lobby group tried to ban the manufacture of non-kosher food, because they believed it was wrong?

That's exactly what many christian groups are doing, except to a more profound level. Christian groups are trying to RESTRICT HUMAN RIGHTS in order to force thier dogmas on those who don't believe.

There is a line that needs to be drawn when it comes to lobbying for laws to be passed. We are NOT a Theocracy.

"By the way, you haven't countered some of my earlier comments (catholic advise, heaven)"

Probably because I don't exactly feel the need to respond to every point you make on every little thing? You've not responded to every single point I've made, either, so it would be hypocritical for you to try to hold me to that standard.

 

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I think you ignored the first two sentences of my last post. I said it was wrong to threaten to stop giving charity and the church recanted their threat in this realization. You also took the third sentence out of content. I said the church was worried that it might(or may) have to give gay marriages. I never said it was true nor that I thought so. The problem the law had that, again, might, have caused this issue was certain language in the law about anti-descrimination possibly may have been used in to force it. I read the law myself, and I don't think it is possible.

Now as for me being dense. Really? Calling me dense. Is that really called for? I repeat: the act of not giving charity was an act out of fear of the new law and this threat was recanted when it was realized that the act was wrong. It was not hate of gays.

As for whether it matters if it is it is local or not, it does. A belief or group as a whole is not represented by a minority who go against said groups principles. Allow me to use a gamer example similar to one that Ratros used earlier. If a gamer, or better yet, a group of gamers within the gaming community, decide to use violence to make sure games aren't baned, should other gamers, who also believe that games shouldn't be banned but don't believe those tactics, be considered as bad as the ones that commited the violence. Are all gamers on a GLOBAL scale as bad. How about NATIONAL? So, no. A minority in a group cannot define the rest of it.

Then there is the laws issue. First, I poked around, and the only formidable advocate of an adultery law I could really find was a certain John Ashcroft, who is a member of the Assemblies of God, not catholicism. Second, for those other three, you need to understand the catholic point of view on them. Catholics believe that all human life is sacred. To put it simply, we oppose ending or preventing life. To us, abortion and contraceptives end or prevent life. To us, to abort a fetus is to kill. For us and others, abortion and contraceptives are restricting the human right to live (it is also due to this reasoning that we don't believe in the death penalty nor torture). I have already explained homosexuality. We see it as amoral. That is our belief. You compare our actions to the hypothetical situation of Muslims and Jews forcing their diets. We aren't trying to force all of our beliefs onto others. We fight for pro-life because we see abortion as killing. Everyone has beliefs that they feel should be put into law if it isn't already do to some moral reasoning. Do you understand? The reasoning for that is entirely different then our reasoning for what we have lobbied for. We don't just blindly make rules. We do have some sort of reasoning behind it, just as everyone else has for theirs. As for restricting human rights, that in itself is contraversial since even many rights, such as the right of life, is debated. To those who are pro-life, those who are pro-choice are restricting human life. You simply gave what you think to be restricting human rights.

Now what line do you suppose we draw, hmm? One that only your beliefs can be lobbied? Where only certain people can effect certain laws?

As for my last question of my last post, I was not trying to hold you to a standard. I asked for two reasons. One, I noticed we may have digressed a bit from the original argument. Two, The comments I mentioned were on beliefs and practices of mine that you attacked. I was wondering why you seemed to have forgotten about them. In retrospect, it really was a question that I didn't need to ask.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

"Second, for those other three, you need to understand the catholic point of view on them. Catholics believe that all human life is sacred. To put it simply, we oppose ending or preventing life. To us, abortion and contraceptives end or prevent life. To us, to abort a fetus is to kill. For us and others, abortion and contraceptives are restricting the human right to live (it is also due to this reasoning that we don't believe in the death penalty nor torture)."

This sort of thing is the exact reason for the separation of religion and state.  Your viewpoint is based upon a false premise (or at least an unprovable premise).  You believe that the soul is bestowed upon conception.  It's really hard to argue with an assertion based within mysticism without falling into pleas to emotion such as cases where a woman is raped and conception occurs.  I am saddened that you cannot see the devastation an unwanted child could bring to an individual and later in life to the child when they discover that they were unwanted.

I could ask you to see the standpoint of those without your view however I don't believe that would have any effect upon your viewpoint.  I instead ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe that a human being should have control over their own body?

2) Do you believe that a human being should have the right to prevent their own death or at least lower the possibility of their own death?

Now onto your position on contraceptives.  Are you aware that the Catholic church's position on contraceptives KILLS many, many people every year?  The spread of STI's like HIV would be much lessened were it not for anti-contraceptive campaigns initiated by the Catholic church.

I believe that it would benefit you to watch the Intelligence Squared debate between Archbishop John Onaiyekan, Ann Widdecombe (MP British Parliament), Christopher Hitchens, and Steven Fry.  This debate's topic is the question: "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?"  It is a great debate to listen to.

 

Re: Heaven in a Browser

" I have already explained homosexuality. We see it as amoral. That is our belief."

Okay.. And I don't. Does that mean it's okay for you to enact a law against it, despite the fact that I don't believe the same as you do? How far would you go? Would you, if you adhered strictly to the Catholic doctorine, put us in Jail? Would we be executed? Would we be castrated? There are Catholic leaders who believe we should be punished in those ways for our lifestyles, and YOU follow those leaders. I keep telling you, PAY ATTENTION to what they are saying, teaching, and doing. You'd be surprised at how far your leaders stray from the doctorine, in order to teach thier hate and bigotry to the blind, ignorant masses.

"You compare our actions to the hypothetical situation of Muslims and Jews forcing their diets. We aren't trying to force all of our beliefs onto others."

I think my brain might have exploded, here.. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU  ARE DOING WHEN YOU TRY TO LEGISLATE YOUR BELIEFS AGAINST US. You don't believe it should be legal to live as a homosexual. I do. You try to legislate against homosexuals living happy lives and raising children. THAT'S FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON US! It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Ugh.. It's this exact blind, unquestioning, and, frankly willfully ignorant behavior that makes people like you so insufferable. Try opening your frigging eyes and looking at some of the things your church leaders are doing. HOW can you NOT see that it's hateful, and it is causing harm to people on a massive scale?!?

You wonder how I can have so much animosity towards your religion... Ask yourself this, how would YOU feel if people were trying to make laws that restricted your right to enjoy your life with the person YOU loved. What if I was trying, and sometimes succeeding, in getting laws passed that made it illegal for YOU to raise children because you are Catholic? How would you react? I bet you'd be angry, too.

 

 

 

Re: Heaven in a Browser

As I stated earlier about the polarisation of forums, when one particular denomination is in the ascendant, they tend to be intolerant of other denominations, alas.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Fuck it. After seeing all the heated debate on this site today, that heavily explains why I generally keep my own beliefs to myself.

My only explanation will be, that many, MANY cultures have myths and legends that intersect and share many similar traits, andi n cases involve creatures that some cultures could never have seen in the time those legends were first written. Those legends had to emerge from somewhere

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I think this may bite them in the butt. I mean, supposing you've struggled all your life to be a good christian: abstaining from sex, staying in on saturday nights, listening to crappy religious rock bands and boring sermons. Then you play this game and your realize that the afterlife you've been promised is dull, boring, tedious, annoying, buggy, and has terrible graphics?

It might make christians turn to druidism and head toward the World of Warcraft. At least there, you have life everlasting with thousands of resurrections per day.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I can't tell if you are trolling, or if you just ignorant and truly believe in the sterotypes of christians. I am a practicing catholic and you know what, I do go out saturday nights almost every weekend. I don't listen to christian rock. I just don't like it. I listen to the Black Eyed Peas, Ozzy, Frank Sinatra, Queen, Serigo Mendes, Guns n' Roses, Barry Manilow, the Bee Gees, and Motorhead. As for our sermons, well they weren't meant to be entertaining, they weren't meant to give a religious christian lesson. If you want to be entertained, go see a movie. I am really sick of the sterotyping. I'm a religous gamer. If it isn't people like Jack Thompson sterotyping me as a gamer, its atheists and those other christian denominations that are doing so because I'm catholic. 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Heaven in a Browser

What sort of games do you play?  If they are games with any form of witchcraft (magic) within them you are considered to be supporting the notion of witchcraft which is against the Catholic interpretation of The Bible.  Unless you attend reconciliation every single Sunday and repent for your sin you cannot claim to be a practicing Catholic.  

I sincerely doubt that many "practicing" Catholics/Christians/etc truly know the tenants of their own faith.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

OMG! I can't believe I'm reading this. In my bible as long as you don't practice witchcraft, necromancy in real life in this real world or practice being a Pagan Or if you use a Ouija Board which is a no no......then you are fine. Geez yall have a huge imagination of religious people lol.......makes me laugh so much.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

I recommend you review the Catholic interpretations of your bible and review Papal dogma on this subject as you are simply incorrect. 

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Lol..

You know that you aren't exactly a very "Good" Catholic if you listen to Ozzy, GNR, and Queen, right? Same if you play video games. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and those sentiments were quite prevalent where I was raised.

So, yeah, you might consider yourself a "religious gamer" but you might want to see how Catholic Leaders feel about what you are doing.

PS: Make sure you beg for forgiveness in Confession for listening to music you like and participating in a hobby you enjoy. Those are grave, grave sins in the Catholic Faith. If you don't, you might as well join me in my trip to hell.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

It doesn't matter what music a religious person listens to b/c its something to listen to......what you think religious people should all be nuns? LMAO.........you lack the knowledge of putting yourself in other peoples shoes. You are very closed minded.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Heaven in a Browser

But you can be a Mainline Protestant.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

:D

Any faith that is less restrictive than Catholocism is a step forward, I suppose.

I've always said I've got no problem with people worshiping things I don't believe in, as long as they don't let thier faith affect my life. That's where most of my animosity comes from.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

However, belief in religion, which IS a concious choice, doesn't have any logical explanation.

 

Most all emotions: Love, Hate... fall into that area as well. Perhaps you can explain the biological "mechanics" - but explain "why"...

Re: Heaven in a Browser

The "why" of emotions, just as the choice of belief, or disbelief, comes from all the experience over time of the individual.  At our earliest development, emotions are less choice and more expression of reaction to other stimuli.  Hunger is experienced as a lack of pleasure, and sadness is the expression of a lack of pleasure.  Conversely, laughter is an experience of pleasure, and happiness is the expression of pleasure.  Hunger is represented by pain in, at the least, the stomach.  Laughter is represented by pleasure, either physical or experiences learned as pleasurable.

Belief is through learned experiences.  Belief can also be blind just as faith can, which is the acceptance of a belief without experience in it.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Fail.

Emotions aren't concious choices. They are EMOTIONS they can be controlled, at times, by sheer force of will, but you don't conciously choose to be angry.

Unlike belief in religion, which you choose whether or not you believe.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

*sigh*  Swalloing your anger isn't controlling your emotions, it's not letting your emotions control you.  You still feel the anger, you just don't do anything because of it.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

And... your point is?

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Felt it neccessary to make the distinction.  You were kinda contradicting yourself.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

There was no contradtiction. My point was that Emotions aren't choices. You didn't make that any clearer with what you said. Then again, I suspect you are just being moronic, and lack the reading comprehension to fully understand what I'm saying. I can't say that it surprises me, though. It's pretty clear from reading your posts here that you aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

No, I was commenting on your mis-use of words. 

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Heaven in a Browser

Or.. you know.. You were just being a petty troll.

It's pretty clear you lack the intelligence to make any larger point regarding this line of argument, and you were just grasping at straws to try and sound smart.

Way to go, by the way. You failed. MISERABLY.

Re: Heaven in a Browser

*sigh*  By saying that you can control emotions you are saying that they are in fact concious choices.  By using the term control, one might think that you could summon up any emotion at any time.  Like I said, your use of terms was contradicting. 

 

Nice of you to call me a troll though, I find that I bother you this much remarkable.  I make a simple statement and you feel the need to demean me because you do not understand my point.  It's quite interesting. 

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZenWrote up a story about people wanting Nintendo to drop the GamePad...and why I think it needs to stop. :) http://bit.ly/1raIQvv Let me know what you think!07/23/2014 - 10:53pm
MaskedPixelanteHey, so remember that "redeem your Sims 2 key on Origin for a free copy of the all-in-one edition" promotion? Well, it didn't work, so to make up for it, just go into your Origin profile and redeem the product key "I-LOVE-THE-SIMS" for your free Sims 2.07/23/2014 - 9:12pm
Andrew EisenThe Steam controller may have changed again. http://www.vg247.com/2014/07/23/steam-controller-valve/07/23/2014 - 6:46pm
james_fudgePlease use the comments section for bitching about specific articles :) We do read them, after all.07/23/2014 - 10:52am
Andrew EisenThat's unfair but thank you for the tip on the Reddit thread containing the Kickstarter message to backers. The article has been updated.07/23/2014 - 10:50am
SleakerHere's the message Areal backers recieved from Kickstarter: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2beqlc/areal_kickstarter_suspended/07/23/2014 - 8:52am
Sleaker@MW - I still think Cogent/Level3 hookups were lacking prior to the comcast switch, but I do think verizon is being dumb here.07/23/2014 - 12:06am
Andrew EisenOf course it's a question. It's got a question mark and everything!07/22/2014 - 6:43pm
Matthew WilsonHate to say it, but that poll is not even a question. there is too much evidence that points to Verizon. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth07/22/2014 - 6:23pm
Andrew EisenHuh. The new Battlefield has been delayed to early next year. Are you feeling okay, EA? http://blogs.battlefield.com/2014/07/bfh-will-launch-2015/07/22/2014 - 6:11pm
SleakerWest End Games - Areal developers just got their Kickstarter suspended. Might want to dump that 'fully funded' status.07/22/2014 - 12:08pm
MaskedPixelanteHas anyone who bought it gotten their Sims 2 Ultimate Edition upgrade yet? Still waiting on mine, especially since they're supposed to be out by today.07/22/2014 - 10:45am
IanCDynasty Warriors 8 for the PS4 finally has the option to turn off the OTT depth of field that made the game look like a blurry mess. Only a few months behind the JP version patch...07/22/2014 - 10:17am
NeenekoI see nothing in Section 111 that would exclude IP transmission. It even explicitly includes 'other transmission methods'07/22/2014 - 9:28am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/07/19/ruling_aereo_is_not_a_cable_company07/22/2014 - 8:13am
ZippyDSMleelul what?07/22/2014 - 7:53am
ZippyDSMleehttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/bungie-cross-generation-destiny-wouldnt-be-fair-to-low-res-players/07/22/2014 - 7:53am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/22/wii-u-update-adds-system-to-system-transfers/ The latest Wii U update allows you to do the system transfer between two Wii Us. Still not true accounts, but getting there.07/22/2014 - 7:39am
Papa MidnightSpeculation from PC Gamer. Don't hold your breath. http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/21/microsoft-job-listing-says-nice-things-about-pc-gaming-isnt-clear-if-it-means-them/07/21/2014 - 5:58pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician