Quote from: StormBringer;354797Again, you assert without citation.  That is called a lie.  When you manage to locate a source, I will gladly recant my accusation, but until then, you have no argument.

I already quoted the Bible at you. So when you say I have not given a source, you are lying. In fact, your posts are pretty much full of lies, so I guess flinging that word around is your way of dealing with the insecurity you feel about your position. I honestly have a hard time fathoming your motivations for posting in this way at this point.

Feel free to clarify what it is you are looking for. I have already quoted a Biblical passage on demonic possession. It is true, by definition, that Biblical literalists believe the Bible, literally. Therefore, Biblical literalists believe in demonic possession. I cannot think of any clearer proof.

Quote from: pawsplay;354907Feel free to clarify what it is you are looking for. I have already quoted a Biblical passage on demonic possession. It is true, by definition, that Biblical literalists believe the Bible, literally. Therefore, Biblical literalists believe in demonic possession. I cannot think of any clearer proof.

Well, at least you have started down the right path.  Your next goal is demonstrating the preponderance of 'Bible literalists' in the Catholic sect; it will be difficult enough among the clergy, including laypersons will make this very difficult.  Once you have established that, you can make the claim that demonic possession is a matter of 'doctrine'.  With that firmly behind you, a copy of Werewolf will be required for you to tackle your other premises.  Having a supported argument for all of those separately, you will have a basis for making some correlations that you are currently making baseless assertions regarding.

I already know the outcome, so I will advise that you have your work cut out for you.  As a minimum, however, you will have the opportunity to at least be wrong, to paraphrase Dr Pauli.  Right now, you don't even have that.

Quote from: noisms;354894We're in complete agreement. I just think that the initial impulse on the part of the designer was probably a good one inasmuch as he is trying to make the world a better place - however idiotic his way of going about it is, and however unneccessary and meaningless the results are.

I can't mount a reasonable argument to counter your claims here.  I don't doubt his motives were honest or sincere, as you state.

QuoteFor what it's worth I think that things like Bang Bus, Grand Theft Auto 3, etc., do have a detrimental effect on our society which it is worth analysing. Where Gang Rape differs is that it is explicitly an exploration of why something is bad, whereas Bang Bus is just plain and simple revelment in nastiness. (A bit like Poison'd.)

Agreed on both counts, without reservation.

QuoteThat's valid, but I think the number of novices to the hobby who first encounter Gang Rape, as opposed to D&D, GURPS, Shadowrun or Exalted, is vanishingly small. The main image problem for the hobby is the idea that it's the realm of nerdish singletons living in their mothers' basements, not that it's a hobby in which people enact simulated gang rape.

Most likely true, as well.  I should, then, refine 'novice' in my argument to mean 'a player who has some initial experience with RPGs, and has begun to explore other possibilities', rather than the rank beginner as I seem to have implied earlier.  Perhaps someone with a few months under their belt, up to a year of more or less regular sessions.  Someone whom the Forge gamers would want to recruit before they became irreparably 'brain-damaged'.  

As far as absolute beginners, I am not concerned about the danger of them being exposed to the likes of Gang Rape either.  The odds are near enough to zero that the rare few can be written off, if they take that as representative of the whole hobby.

Quote from: StormBringer;354918Well, at least you have started down the right path.  Your next goal is demonstrating the preponderance of 'Bible literalists' in the Catholic sect; it will be difficult enough among the clergy, including laypersons will make this very difficult.

No. Anyone who is a doctrinal Catholic OR a Biblical literalist would believe in demonic possession. They don't have to be both.

Quote from: pawsplay;355527No. Anyone who is a doctrinal Catholic OR a Biblical literalist would believe in demonic possession. They don't have to be both.

And anyone who isn't either of those wouldn't.  

As you have no idea as to the size of the population to which you are referring, there is no real weight to this line of argumentation.

And that is only if you manage to demonstrate your point, which you really haven't.

Quick Tip:  Cite this 'doctrine' where these 'doctrinal Catholics' would turn for information about 'demonic possession'.  Hint:  They use more than just the Bible to determine doctrine.

Quote from: pawsplay;355527No. Anyone who is a doctrinal Catholic OR a Biblical literalist would believe in demonic possession. They don't have to be both.

Pawsplay, your back & forth arguments are boring.

The thread is/was about a morally objectionable thing that can be best described as a waste of time masquerading as either misery tourism or greoup therapy for the clueless.

The fact that you seem to want to defend the despicable thing by dragging in the Bible or biblical literalists makes no damn sense.


- Ed C.

Quote from: pawsplay;354779Nope. I said it was a doctrine, not that it was a doctrine shared by all Christians of all sects. It is Catholic doctrine, it is doctrinal in all sects that teach Biblical literalism, therefore it is a doctrine of Christians. Millions of them.

I may be misreading your post here, but I just think it is worth pointing out, Catholics are not biblical literalists. There is a lot of allegorical interpretation in Catholic Doctrine (Not that I am Catholic myself, but my mother is).

Quote from: StormBringer;355537Quick Tip:  Cite this 'doctrine' where these 'doctrinal Catholics' would turn for information about 'demonic possession'.  Hint:  They use more than just the Bible to determine doctrine.

My understanding is demonic possession remains part of Catholic Doctrine (and it should be found in the Catechism). But my sense, and again I am not a Catholic, so someone feel free to correct me, is that it is a fading doctrine; or at least much less of a focus among catholics than many of the American Fundamentalist groups.

Edit: There are bunch of entries on it in the Catechism, here is one:

Quote1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing.178 In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.

It looks like the Church looks for a scientific explanation before moving to a spiritual one.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355606My understanding is demonic possession remains part of Catholic Doctrine (and it should be found in the Catechism). But my sense, and again I am not a Catholic, so someone feel free to correct me, is that it is a fading doctrine; or at least much less of a focus among catholics than many of the American Fundamentalist groups.

Edit: There are bunch of entries on it in the Catechism, here is one:

It looks like the Church looks for a scientific explanation before moving to a spiritual one.

As much as your input is valued and well-thought, if you do his work for him, he will just continue to screech nonsense and let others figure it out.  

Besides, this thread is a lot more fun to read when everyone is screeching about gang rape and not so much when they are talking about the fine points of doctrine.

Entertain me, Motherfuckers!

Quote from: StormBringer;355537As you have no idea as to the size of the population to which you are referring,

That is a bizarre premise.

Quotethere is no real weight to this line of argumentation.

And that's a non sequitur. What does the size of the population have to do with anything?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355603I may be misreading your post here, but I just think it is worth pointing out, Catholics are not biblical literalists. There is a lot of allegorical interpretation in Catholic Doctrine (Not that I am Catholic myself, but my mother is).

I am not claiming Catholics are Biblical literalists. In fact, I was about to add something about the past two Popes explicitly calling Genesis religious poetry, but I thought it might be a distraction. My mistake.

Quote from: Koltar;355538Pawsplay, your back & forth arguments are boring.

That's probably why I've been spending less and less time responding to this thread. Nonetheless, nonsense is nonsense. I care a lot more about the moral and cultural awareness of gamers in general than I do about jeeprape, a topic of such moment it could be a soap bubble.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355606My understanding is demonic possession remains part of Catholic Doctrine (and it should be found in the Catechism). But my sense, and again I am not a Catholic, so someone feel free to correct me, is that it is a fading doctrine; or at least much less of a focus among catholics than many of the American Fundamentalist groups.

Edit: There are bunch of entries on it in the Catechism, here is one:

It is not a fading doctrine; rather a sharper distinction has been drawn between demonic possession and other causes of moral failure or insanity.

QuoteIt looks like the Church looks for a scientific explanation before moving to a spiritual one.

That is also my understanding.

Quote from: pawsplay;355723It is not a fading doctrine; rather a sharper distinction has been drawn between demonic possession and other causes of moral failure or insanity.



That is also my understanding.

My impression, from priests and catholic relatives I have spoken with is it is fading in the sense that enthusiasm for it has declined. They usually peg it as more of an old school thing. As doctrine it is still there, but exorcisms are increasingly rare. Compare with fundamentalists where exorcisms are much more common.