Tabletop Role-play, D&D and Media

[The Mighty Gerbil]

As I'm about to be playing some Deck Quest with 5e rule elements I thought it might be best to clarify my thoughts and issues with the genre.

First off Tabletop role-play IS NOT D&D and I've never thought of it as so. D&D is probably the most popular and known game in it but I'll get to that later. Tabletop role-play is a genre of game like a shmup, fighting or role-playing game is for video games but for tabletop games. The distinction is important because most of my problems are with D&D specifically not Tabletop role-play. A book is neither good or bad it's the contents of it which make for moral questions, not the form.

That said I do believe tabletop role-play has the potential to be just as, if not more, influential than other forms of media. To be blunt tabletop role-play is basically made to feed one's ego because the world is a collaborative creation of a small group of people with your own rules and typically, if the GM isn't an egocentric, one you have a chance at winning in. Here you can be heroes, or unfortunately villains, because the world literately revolves around and shapes itself to you. I liken it to playing pretend as a child with a few rules to keep it grounded in some sense of reality and consequence. This isn't a bad thing if the world is made with a Christian moral view applied but typically, at least in videos I've seen, the behaviors reinforced vary greatly based on the people playing it. Let me be clear I understand the need for flaws in characters, that is what allows character development. I understand the need for an antagonist to have a challenge to overcome. I even understand how playing campy unrealistic evil (think 1960's Batman) can be fun. I do not however accept the murder hobo play style or the hedonistic I'm here to sleep with things play style. If living out your dreams of killing indiscriminately is fun you need a therapist. Compare GTA V. It's story does have campy elements BUT it's ultimately a serious one because it tries to make you sympathize with it's murdering jerks. It tries, and fails, to condone this by making everyone around them also murdering jerks. The problem is of course you are still a murdering jerk. These are bad people who you should want to lose but, because making the player lose wouldn't be fun, you can literary get away with murder in the end. No bueno sir. Also if you are playing to imagine your sexual fetishes, with a bunch or other dudes, you are kind of a pervert.

More influence, for both good or bad, can come from tabletop role-play than other media because you are actually interacting with others. The game is not real but the peer pressure is. If every other player does something conflicting with your world view do you stop them and ruin everyone's "fun" or laugh it off and go with the pack? If anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart than even in a make-believe world we should be thinking of what is acceptable to Christ.

Finally if you feel yourself a loser in the real world and find yourself still losing in a fantasy world it can be pretty disheartening to say the least. I don't believe people would suicide on this alone but I can very easily see it pushing someone over. If someone can kill themselves over the death of their anime character some maturity should be involved before playing a game which can have even more emotional investment. At the very least I can see a game, as with all other media, changing from an occasional escapism to an idol where people hide from solving their real life problems. I'll put my conclusion on tabletop role-play games this way. Would I let my 13 year old child (if I had one) play it with their friends alone? NO most 13 year old kids aren't mature enough to create a mature world by themselves. Would I let my 13 year old play if I played with them. YES I would because I don't think kids are going to be getting frisky with the bar maid or lop off her head with their Dad there.

Now as far as D&D goes there are couple areas I object to. No I don't think the game itself is satanic but it does take liberties with concepts which can lead one away from God, the truth or peek interest in the occult. If you are making a tabletop role-playing game these are the things I'd avoid...

1. Souls can't be manipulated like physical objects. The entire point of a soul is it is the part of you that is more than flesh that can live beyond it. It is the part of you that is more than the sum or your parts. I've seen countless hours of drivel in movies and tv (Buffy, Angel etc.) where souls are swapped like clothes or traded like baseball cards. If you need to "revive" a player just have them be healed from a "dead" state. If EMTs can bring you back after your heart and lungs have stopped just have your fictional abilities work better or perhaps just knock out characters instead.

2. Heaven and Hell. Again you can't just take a day trip there. It's supposed to be beyond us, our understanding or our ability to manipulate. If it's not it's just a tourist spot.

3. Devils and Angels. While they can have influence in our lives if they aren't kept distinct and separate from man you end up with the same above problems. If you want to fight demons just call them monsters or something else because you can't fight real demons with swords anyway, well maybe the sword of the spirit but I digress .

4. Gods plural. Polytheism has never made sense in the real world so it doesn't make sense in the fictional world. Everything is connected you can't have a storm and wind god because one needs the other to function. Only the most powerful one would be "God". The problem is it's never stated. When I played jrpgs back in the day the big bad at the end who claimed to be God would always, always, always be denounced by plucky mortal friends saying "we don't need God we can get by without you". They should have been saying "you aren't God" but they never said it, not once, and so I stopped playing jrpgs. If you want to have different religions in your world ok, there are lots of religions in the real world too. The problem starts when you have these gods start showing up in the world, doling out power to you or being a boss to defeat. Are you going to teach they are really gods? God is the ultimate power by definition if one of the gods was God he would just win.

While Tolkien handled some of these things well by keeping distance I generally feel it's better to avoid them at least directly. It's easy to get incorrect if not studious about it. Furthermore there are also mechanical problems with power creep when you get to the dueling gods level. Good story is character based. Threatening a world with nothing in it is valueless but put one character players are attached to in danger and they will care.

As to Magic I'm ok with it's redefinition as a natural phenomenon, like electricity or inherited by blood. I've considered simply calling it something else in my stories but if it looks like magic everyone will probably call it that already so changing it is pointless. The problems start when you link it to a satanic ritual, god or some such specific thing.

I know you are saying but it's just fiction or a game. The problem is there is so much misinformation going around already I believe it's a responsibility not to add to it if not altogether set the record straight (I've spoken countless times about the need for Christian media but another subject). There are a lot of weird ideas out there casual Christians and virulent Atheists use to justify their lifestyle. Don't make reality into fantasy or things with important meaning meaningless. Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Finally Wizard's of the Coast has gone the extra measure to support homosexuality both in their game and out of it. If you still doubt a game can have influence on people ask yourself why then are they doing this? They've marched in gay pride parades, the lead rules developer of D&D 5e is proudly gay and most importantly page 121 of the player's handbook goes out of it's way to say "You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender." In a game were you can be practically anything they give special support to this. Even if I was to accept this morality, and I don't, now every DM has to deal with "but the rule book says I can". Really could you not just say anything not covered in the rule book is up to your imagination and DM approval? No they couldn't because they clearly want to use a fictional game to influence everyone in a real way and not for good.

I do like the idea behind tabletop role-play with collaborative storytelling. I just won't be buying D&D 5e or specific games.

I also have many mechanical complaints about 5e but that's another subject.

 

[Patriot]

You imply that fiction should always be written from a Christian worldview. Yet the whole point of fiction is that it is a made-up story. While I would agree that certain elements are detrimental even in fiction (sexual content, lewd violence, etc), I don't see a problem with a fantasy world that is not a duplicate of our world so long as all participants have no problem separating fantasy and reality. In addition, I believe the whole point of role playing is to "play a role". In other words, you are not playing yourself and what you would always do (i.e. Christian values) you are playing the role of the character you are in the game and their values, much like playing a character in a theatrical production. If you only ever play yourself and your values aren't you kind of missing the point of role-playing? At that point, it kinda isn't role-playing and is more of an interactive story starring yourself.

For instance, what if your fantasy world was Star Wars related. It doesn't conform to the Christian world-view. The Force contains some quasi-spiritual meanings. Is it okay, in your opinion, to play a Jedi within the Star Wars world?

Full disclosure, I've only ever played tabletop role-playing games twice in my life. Both those times were about 20 years ago. And I felt weird both times (I am not an actor). The first game was Star Wars (I was a Jedi) and the only part I remember is one of my friends rolling so badly that his Wookie was murdered by Storm Troopers about 5 minutes into the game. The second game I only remember that I was a dwarf with an arm cannon and I pulled some crazy roll that obliterated the boss in one shot. I'm not sure our DM knew what he was doing. . .

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

You imply that fiction should always be written from a Christian worldview. Yet the whole point of fiction is that it is a made-up story. While I would agree that certain elements are detrimental even in fiction (sexual content, lewd violence, etc), I don't see a problem with a fantasy world that is not a duplicate of our world so long as all participants have no problem separating fantasy and reality. In addition, I believe the whole point of role playing is to "play a role". In other words, you are not playing yourself and what you would always do (i.e. Christian values) you are playing the role of the character you are in the game and their values, much like playing a character in a theatrical production. If you only ever play yourself and your values aren't you kind of missing the point of role-playing? At that point, it kinda isn't role-playing and is more of an interactive story starring yourself.

It's not about playing yourself, a perfect character or being in a perfect world but creating a world (worldview) that supports and encourages certain behavior or morals. For better or worse everyone wants to be validated and accepted and will write their beliefs into their creations to do so, even those who deny it. Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis created different and varied worlds which dealt with with many of the issues I listed but they did it with a distance and respect which is unfortunately lost on many. Take the idea of an absolute evil. Tolkien likened the ring to the machine but it's very clearly sin inspired. You can be the best of us and the ring, sin, will tempt you until you inevitable fail, it is an absolute evil. To moral relativists an absolute, good or evil, does not exist yet the Lord of the Rings revolves around one because it's written with a Christian worldview. Thing is a lot of works inspired by Tolkien have lost this. In pursuit of "new" and "bigger" things they are willing to use anything without restraint or respect. We should never be so bored with good we play truly evil characters. To them warlocks making pacts with the devil and hell are still technically "bad" but things you can get away with if you have the "human" willpower or roll high enough. Why do you think Aslan or Gandalf don't just follow the people around? Because instant win. So you have to write other things for them to be doing, and other challenges appropriate to them, distance and respect. If secular people wrote Aslan he'd be just a powerful cat you can overcome if your level is high enough.

Both Tolkien and Lewis wrote with a Christian worldview and yet managed to make unique fictional worlds. Anything created or done by Christians should encourage Christian morality. If you take the extremely popular Critical Role D&D show it's gone out of it's way to support homosexuality in it's characters' behavior. It's not just shown that this sin exists in their world but that it is shown without consequence and as a beautiful, accepted thing. Same with false gods. It's not that they exist but are encouraged as truly gods making the term meaningless. I see no harm in calling Christ Aslan in a fictional world if they get His existence and morality correct but secular people aren't concerned with this. Devils, angels, gods, it's simply power and a plot device to them. Don't confuse the trappings of a fictional world with fictional morals. The first is fine the second is not. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, names don't matter but what they are portrayed as being matters.

Regardless it's simply far easier to simply avoid directly writing about souls, angels, demons, God, heaven and hell than writing about them directly and correctly. Respect takes time to formulate so unless you are willing to do that it's what I'd recommend. If you are playing tabletop role-playing on the cuff it's going to be really hard to do. You can have your morals in reference to them but when they show up in a game with Super Saiyans, Jedi and Smurfs how are you going to play it? That's the problem. God, the real concept of God, deserves more respect than being a deus ex machina.

Now if I was writing fiction for other media I would do story lines analogous to Christian truths, like Tolkien and Lewis, but there you have the time to do it right and the outcomes aren't up to rolls.

For instance, what if your fantasy world was Star Wars related. It doesn't conform to the Christian world-view. The Force contains some quasi-spiritual meanings. Is it okay, in your opinion, to play a Jedi within the Star Wars world?

As to Star Wars. Yes I do have a problem with the force's Taoist Buddhist gobbledygook but when Christians aren't the ones writing it or controlling that world you are stuck with it. If I was to DM a Star Wars game I would not get into the gobbledygook or have it in the story. You can have your force powers, good and evil people using them but I would not do the whole circle of life, balance of the force, shtick. If you want to go the extra distance you could re-write the source content but again it's far easier just to not cover it at all.

Now whether we should avoid Star Wars altogether is the same question as any other media. It's the question of how much content we should tolerate and another debate than this one. It is one that has lead me to avoid enumerable games and movies though. If you are making the world you shouldn't have to tolerate anything because you have complete control so it's a different question.

In researching D&D 5e I created many characters all of which have flaws. One is dumb, one has a magical book driving him mad, one is a con artist, one is driven by vengeance. None are perfect and all are meant to grow beyond their flaws having character development. They are hardly dry, perfect or identical. None of them would be considered evil, at least by D&D alignment standards. Only one of my characters, the most controversial one, would be effected by the limits I've suggested. She is hated and hunted for her blood relation and appearance of a demon (trite perhaps but there is much more to the character than that). The important point here is she didn't need to be demon related for her concept to work, nor did I want her to be, if not for the content of the world I have to work with. I could script my own world and monstrous race (partially did) that would serve the same exact purpose but you can't when there are actual demons in your world. The whole "I'm a powerful scary person" is diminished because demons are scarier than monsters because losing your soul > losing your life. So you are stuck with power creep and the whole host of moral problems because of the world you are forced to play in. Changing the world to one created with a Christian worldview would solve this, just don't have demons waltzing around, have respect and limits to your world. There are also moral problems with her resulting from 5e mechanics. Want her to feel powerful? Two levels in warlock make sorcerer more powerful. To be fair warlock in 5e can have, but doesn't require, a pact with an evil entity but it's still a warlock so yeaaaaaah. To be clear here she is not an "evil" character but if you have a concept of a scary and powerful character you're going to be forced to either take certain things or feel ineffectual when those things show up to fight you.

Always a pleasure talking to you Patriot .

 

[Patriot]

I'm reminded of when I read the Percy Jackson series. I made it through the books but ultimately felt rather depressed at the end. Why? Because in that universe, Greek mythology is real. Which means Greek afterlife is real (not to mention their petty, bickering gods). Which, to me, is a rather depressing thought. The characters, regardless of what they accomplished through the stories, ultimately had no hope. They were destined for the underworld.

At the same time, you talk about playing "evil" characters. I'll admit I played several in Skyrim. Most I lost interest in within a couple levels as I couldn't relate to the character at all. [In game] stealing from honest people, murdering them, and generally just living to further myself at everyone's expense just doesn't do it for me. However, a couple I played specifically for the redemption story, having their character change at some point, realizing the error of their ways. Guess I'm a bit of a sucker for an awesome redemption story. I always liked it when I would read a book and one of the "bad guys" would switch sides in the finale to save the day. Guess it reminds me of what God does with each of us (although we don't really "save the day" by any stretch of the imagination).

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

I'm reminded of when I read the Percy Jackson series. I made it through the books but ultimately felt rather depressed at the end. Why? Because in that universe, Greek mythology is real. Which means Greek afterlife is real (not to mention their petty, bickering gods). Which, to me, is a rather depressing thought. The characters, regardless of what they accomplished through the stories, ultimately had no hope. They were destined for the underworld.

Yup. Sad thing is if you can have those feelings imagine how an Atheist feels. They see that and use it to justify saying "religion is dumb" lumping Christianity in with others to dismiss them all. They deliberately avoid recognizing each religion is different, some diametrically opposing others, Islam etc. . I've seen so many trolls come on TF2 or making Youtube comments saying that. An opportunity to educate, to share Christ, lost (really a Christian worldview not specifically Christ) and traded for a worldview that is used to justify Atheism. No entertainment is worth that.

At the same time, you talk about playing "evil" characters. I'll admit I played several in Skyrim. Most I lost interest in within a couple levels as I couldn't relate to the character at all. [In game] stealing from honest people, murdering them, and generally just living to further myself at everyone's expense just doesn't do it for me. However, a couple I played specifically for the redemption story, having their character change at some point, realizing the error of their ways. Guess I'm a bit of a sucker for an awesome redemption story. I always liked it when I would read a book and one of the "bad guys" would switch sides in the finale to save the day. Guess it reminds me of what God does with each of us (although we don't really "save the day" by any stretch of the imagination).

Yeah it's when the redemption never happens or sinful behavior is pooh poohed that I have a problem with not that they've sinned or even continue to struggle with some flaws. GTA V was like that. If you do everything right you get the "good" end and the 3 main characters, criminals and murders, win, no repentance. I might be able to justify a heist from bad people, like the movie The Sting, but these guys, particularly the psychopath Trevor, needed a comeuppance. You could kill him for another ending but the way it was laid out it clearly wasn't the goal or "good" ending. Oddly enough there is an awkward side story where Trevor, of all people, goes off on the evils of torture. Coincidence the whole al Qaeda and Taliban torture controversy occurred at the same time? I think not. It was Rockstar's leftist diatribe but using Trevor as our conscience just made it ridiculous.

Another funny thing is the guy who did the let's play of GTA V I watched spoke of not liking the hunting side mission because he didn't like killing animals. Yet the same guy was yanking innocent people out of cars saying "get out b@@@@" thinking it was funny. SMH.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I can't say as I agree, at least where it comes to D&D. Especially some parts.

To be blunt tabletop role-play is basically made to feed one's ego because the world is a collaborative creation of a small group of people with your own rules and typically, if the GM isn't an egocentric, one you have a chance at winning in. Here you can be heroes, or unfortunately villains, because the world literately revolves around and shapes itself to you. I liken it to playing pretend as a child with a few rules to keep it grounded in some sense of reality and consequence.

I take issue with this, as the only possible ego to be fed is that of the DM who is creating the sandbox that the others play in. And like a sandbox (and books, and most other forms of story driven media, collaborative or not), there is no 'winning'. Roleplaying is ultimately about the journey itself and the people you do it with, and that's why it's so powerful currently -lack of social interaction became norm, not the exception, to the point that being around 4-6 others with no distractions for a few hours is a now a high social point. but that's a different topic. I actually contend that if the situation between the players and the DM has become an us vs him -especially if it's because he's egocentric-, the DM has utterly failed his job, with the sole exception being if the campaign was explicitly designed that way (AD&D's Tomb of Horrors, World's Largest Dungeon, etc.). An egocentric DM who's good at their job creates experiences and feeds off the player's praise of how good a job he does with it, a mediocre egocentric DM runs the campaign heavily on rails, because he's got 'his story' he wants to tell.

Then you kinda go off on a thing that to be honest feels like you haven't really played all that much, or at the very least with a decent GM or group of people, and take a fairly dim view of it in general. Yes, games vary wildly depending on the group of people playing it. It's the nature of Roleplay. Every group is different, and every individual brings their own thing to the table, but the DM is ultimately the single most important factor for how a game is going to go, because they're the ones 'pulling the strings' and playing the part of the world itself. For example, a good DM can easily take a murderhobo group and take a single violent action or death and turn it into a multi session arc where they have to deal with the consequences (it's a long read, but super good). Any DM can prevent any overly sexual roleplay by having the NPC's shut down the lecherous Bard's advances (it's always the Bards...), and it's the exception rather than anything remotely close to norm for any romance to go beyond just hitting on or at most inference that things happen/ed.

Generally, you play in a known social group. If you're so worried about something so terrible happening in the group that it actually causes conflicts with your worldview (to be honest, I have an exceptionally difficult time thinking about how a group playing any game could do something that conflicts with your basic understanding of the structure and construction of reality), why are you with those people in the first place? If it's a random pick up group at the local game shop or convention, I've never seen one where there wasn't a list of rules you had to agree to before you could play (no politics, no sensitive issues, no sex, family-friendly, etc.). Especially nowadays in the more Politically Correct culture.


Tabletop RP, specifically D&D, is neither any more dangerous or influential compared to literally any other form of 4-6 person multi-hour social group interactions. And rather than potentially driving people to suicidal ideation like you seem to suggest, psychologists are finding and using D&D to help teach people (especially kids) important aspects of socialization: communication, empathy, friendships, nuance, etc. Things that are perfect for helping people escape suicidal tendencies. The reason it works is because you don't lose. There is no risk of true failure. A good social group is an uplifting thing for an individual because it makes them feel like they belong, and I've never met a DM that made anyone feel like 'losers' no matter how terribly the dice roll. Some of the most entertaining and memorable experiences I've had, were because of horrible dice rolls. But hey, I suppose it could happen. Just like people die from playing videogames too long. It just doesn't happen anywhere near enough to actually warrant much of any consideration other than the traditional 'all things in moderation'.

When I have a kid (or kids, or when my nieces are older), we're going to be playing D&D from like, the age where they're learning basic math. Calculating rolls, solving puzzles and riddles, stretching the limits of creative imagination. It's almost insulting to think that they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality at a very young age (or my nieces are literal geniuses, I dunno). But here's the thing. I'm going to be the DM. And I don't mean I make myself the DM by executive fiat, I mean, every nerdy kid my children know (and possibly their parents) want in on my campaigns, and nobody even wants anyone else to do it. But if their friend wants to try to DM and it's just a bunch of 13 year olds playing D&D together, go for it kiddo, whose house and when should I pick you up. Tabletop RPGs are like the bottom of the barrel, a little above local Church Youth Group, in terms of things I'd actually worry about what my 13 year old is doing with his friends.

Now as far as D&D goes there are couple areas I object to. No I don't think the game itself is satanic but it does take liberties with concepts which can lead one away from God, the truth or peek interest in the occult. If you are making a tabletop role-playing game these are the things I'd avoid...

Yeah... no. That's the literal fantasy part of it. This is the part where people roll their eyes at Christians, because normal people, even secular ones, have no issue whatsoever separating fact from fantasy, and are about as likely to get into the occult from it as someone deciding to worship Norse deities because they watched Thor: Ragnarok. (which if someone caused a Christian to fall away into the occult because of D&D, that person's spiritual leader failed on multiple utterly catastrophic levels, regardless of age). The whole idea of Roleplaying in D&D is the 'What if' of an entire universe. I'm going to address your list in the opposite order, because when you're trying to build an alternate universe you start big and go small.

4. Polytheism. Of course it doesn't make sense in the real world, because in the real world there's only one, and He created the universe in a manner such that other deities don't make sense. That didn't stop the vast majority of other civilizations across the earth pre-Christianity from being heavily polytheistic though. Gary Gygax, co-creator of D&D and himself a devout Christian (who refused to celebrate Christmas on Biblical grounds), had no issue with asking the question "What if, in this made up alternate universe, a pantheon of deities actually existed and directly influenced the world and occasionally walked around like the Greek/Roman/Norse myths? What would that be like? What would the world be like? This is the kind of question that gets the imagination rolling. But at no point is anyone thinking, or will think, hey this is the way things are.

3. If multiple deities exist in this fantastical made up world, and they operate in a manner like the old myths, they're gonna need underlings. How convenient the Catholic Church spent a millennia fleshing out some pretty wild and crazy ideas and stereotypes of what Angels and Demons are, they'll fit perfectly. Anyone who thinks Angels are muscly dudes with wings dressed in white with pretty faces, and demons are grotesque monsters (or naked/half naked women who want to seduce you first) who devour your soul and drag you to hell are already deep into the realm of fantasy, so including them in that form in a fantasy setting does nothing to anyone, and trying to explain how they're really different is an exercise in futility when they have a hard enough time believing in the supernatural in general.

2. If multiple deities exist in this world of fantasy, then they must live somewhere. Boom heaven and hells (because who doesn't like ripping from Dante's Inferno?), hey if we split them up and spread them around, we've got domains and planar systems. Now things can get real crazy when we get some imagination involved.

1. Souls, secular people don't even believe they exist. Christians should know better than to believe they can get swapped around. But what are deities supposed to fight over? How are undead monsters supposed to be tethered to the mortal plane? How can that sword speak? Souls are so easy to just drop in there.

Magic. This is the most enjoyable lifeblood of the fantasy experience. From a worldbuilding perspective, having multiple deities in charge of some really odd things in a generally dysfunctional pantheon makes no sense in anything resembling a 'realistic' world. However, if you unbind physics (and the atom) as actual laws of the universe, you get a world where magic becomes the method of natural order, and it all falls into an oddly internally consistent world. But not one an 8 year old is going to think is actually real or spiritually influential.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I know you are saying but it's just fiction or a game. The problem is there is so much misinformation going around already I believe it's a responsibility not to add to it if not altogether set the record straight (I've spoken countless times about the need for Christian media but another subject). There are a lot of weird ideas out there casual Christians and virulent Atheists use to justify their lifestyle. Don't make reality into fantasy or things with important meaning meaningless. Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.


Finally Wizard's of the Coast has gone the extra measure to support homosexuality both in their game and out of it. If you still doubt a game can have influence on people ask yourself why then are they doing this? They've marched in gay pride parades, the lead rules developer of D&D 5e is proudly gay and most importantly page 121 of the player's handbook goes out of it's way to say "You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender." In a game were you can be practically anything they give special support to this. Even if I was to accept this morality, and I don't, now every DM has to deal with "but the rule book says I can". Really could you not just say anything not covered in the rule book is up to your imagination and DM approval? No they couldn't because they clearly want to use a fictional game to influence everyone in a real way and not for good.

This is where you really lose me though. I absolutely loathe the very idea of Christian Book Stores and other media. Western Christianity is pulling itself out of the world and shutting the doors to the outside. We have entire vertical markets for 'Christian Stuff'. And you know what happened? It got separated out and easy to skip over. Good job. Now the rest of the world can straight up ignore us and our message, because we expect them to come to us begging to be saved, instead of doing what Jesus commanded, which was literally the other way around. No wonder Christian influence and power have been waning so much in America. The only ones left the secular world sees are the ones actively damaging the Church, because everyone else is hiding in their little bubbles tut tutting to each other at the latest popular thing. Again.


You know what's an awesome witness? Inviting a bunch of people of varying degrees of spirituality and just having fun in a social setting where who or what you are doesn't matter for four to six hours.

--Snip--
I cut myself off because this post is already way, way too long, and I mean no offense or aggravation against you Gerbil and I apologize in advance if it comes off that way, I just kinda started ranting halfway through this thing because it allowed me to state some pent up feelings I've had for a long time...

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

This is where you really lose me though. I absolutely loathe the very idea of Christian Book Stores and other media. Western Christianity is pulling itself out of the world and shutting the doors to the outside. We have entire vertical markets for 'Christian Stuff'. And you know what happened? It got separated out and easy to skip over. Good job. Now the rest of the world can straight up ignore us and our message, because we expect them to come to us begging to be saved, instead of doing what Jesus commanded, which was literally the other way around. No wonder Christian influence and power have been waning so much in America. The only ones left the secular world sees are the ones actively damaging the Church, because everyone else is hiding in their little bubbles tut tutting to each other at the latest popular thing. Again.

Uh you preaching to the Choir on some of this dude (Haven't you read my old posts before?). While I do believe there is a place for Christian specialty stores I've said COUNTLESS times on the forums there needs to be original quality entertainment written with a Christian worldview for EVERYTHING. There is no reason there can't be fantasy, science fiction, and adventure stories written to these standards, they don't need to be in a separate Christian store, but instead you end up with another Noah's Ark educational book. Nothing wrong with that but we've left a glaring whole in ministry. People aren't at the well anymore, at least in America, they are online, in game and in front of the TV, in their own little worlds alone. We can only reach them by making content which they will both watch and gets our message correct.

Tolkien did it and all the fantasy that came after him is based on him. C.S. Lewis did it too. There is no excuse.

Want a cop show just write about a Christian cop doing his job while being a Christian. Want a war story, Sargent York (and he was more Christian than even the old movie let on). Historical, countless Christians. Yet the amount of Christian values represented in mainstream movies is diddly. Seriously every time I hear about the power of friendship in Anime my eyes roll out of my sockets. Could we not just do a correction here saying "Even if I stand alone I will give everything to do right by God!" instead of "Friendship powers activate!"? It's the emotional crescendo, so it is important, but the majority of the content was created completely irrelevant to it. Instead of the JRPG "god" being evil and the final boss could we not make him good and the main characters' savior?

...AND again their is no reason to make compromises on a Christian Worldview when you are the DM and are literally controlling the entire world. You can't make the characters or the world perfect but you can make the consequences of your world based on Christian values.

If I believed in hiding in a hole I would have never used the internet, joined TF2 or spent time making long forum posts. Yes we are supposed to be in the world but we are not supposed to be of it.

You know what's an awesome witness? Inviting a bunch of people of varying degrees of spirituality and just having fun in a social setting where who or what you are doesn't matter for four to six hours.

The problem is as you try to witness to them they will try to change you and seek your approval. I've already had one guy try to get me to refer to another guy as a girl just in hanging out with them, not his "fake character", but him. Will I still hang out with him? Sure I will for his sake but I'm not going to change my behavior from what is right by God.

Thing is with that in mind what happens when the dude who wants to be a chick, for REAL not pretend, joins a D&D group with this in mind. By RAW and RAI I have to now call him a girl and you have six other players pressuring you. You are the one holding up the game and you are the one ruining their fun. It may be fake but when you know why they are doing it you become responsible. You are patting them on the back and giving them the validation for the sin they desire. That is the exact reason why it was singled out to be written into the rule book (and it's a whole page too not just what I posted). The game is fake, the emotions, the validation of the sin, is not. You want me to watch a movie or play a game with some objectionable material, I do tolerate some things, but only to the point I believe I can make a positive impact through it and never if by my actions I am directly encouraging the sin. I'm not going to sleep with someone to convert them and by extension I'm not going to help create a world were they can pretend sleeping with people to convert them.

The most popular D&D game out there, Critical Role, had several fictional homosexual characters and story arcs supporting their activities. Understand it's not a matter of my delicate ears hearing it but that if you play in a game like this you WILL be expected to support those activities. I can't do that. No Christian should. Additionally if you play D&D with people who hold vastly different values because of the alignment system (which is stupid mechanically BTW) one person's "good" will actively conflict with another "good". If one fawns over the gay couple being cute and another says it's gross you are going to have issues. Who is going to be punished by the DM? In which way will the world give consequences? That's why, in a world were you can do specifically and literally anything, it should be made to a Christian worldview. It's like joining an expedition that wants to go in opposite directions it just doesn't work without a common goal.

The afterlife supernatural stuff is dangerous ground too because, if not done in a Christian Worldview, it can just as easily become an atheist worldview. Look at the zillion episodes of Buffy, Angel and Firefly by of Joss Whedon, he doesn't believe in the Sky Bully and it often shows. I would not play in a game DM'ed by him. Again no reason we cannot just do the opposite of Whedon in our creations.

I cut myself off because this post is already way, way too long, and I mean no offense or aggravation against you Gerbil and I apologize in advance if it comes off that way, I just kinda started ranting halfway through this thing because it allowed me to state some pent up feelings I've had for a long time...

No worries or offense taken but I think you've, not totally, but partially misinterpreted it.

 

[Kendrik]

The most popular D&D game out there, Critical Role, had several fictional homosexual characters and story arcs supporting their activities. Understand it's not a matter of my delicate ears hearing it but that if you play in a game like this you WILL be expected to support those activities.

hahahaha So! Played D&D in seminary with other seminary students. We played more or less in the Forgotten Realms universe. The DM decided to make a male NPC shopkeep hit on one of the male players/characters. My friend got soooo uncomfortable with it. Then his real-world wife, playing a female character, would go into the shop and get no attention. The difference here being that apparently this wasn't a game like the one you've talked about. Then again, that's a statement to the diversity of how the game can be played. You can be in the Forgotten Realms and not have imposed upon you a need to engage with/support certain activities just because you're there.

Who is going to be punished by the DM?

In our case, nobody.

In which way will the world give consequences? That's why, in a world were you can do specifically and literally anything, it should be made to a Christian worldview.

This is actually a good point. We're in a society where it's social disapproval if you go against the flow. There are consequences for it. The Forgotten Realms setting, much less D&D as a rule-set, doesn't enforce or even encourage morally problematic things. The DM gets to do that, it's true. But it's not intrinsic to the game. But even if the DM has a certain bent and you go a certain way against it, then you're actually reflecting our real-world culture. Hard for me to see that as a bad thing. If you know you'd be playing with a group heavily saturated in pro-counter-biblical values, then I wouldn't play with them. But I also wouldn't try to be close friends or accepted by such a group of people. I'd talk with them. I'd treat them with respect. But if there's a significant divide in values, then the ability to relate dwindles.

...I trust that all y'all know me well enough to know that I'm absolutely opposed to isolation strands in evangelicalism. Recently had an agnostic trans friend come out to me before other Christians because there was a trust that I'm still gonna treat said friend well anyway. It's important to have those connections, where you're very different in realms of values but still are able to hold mutual respect for each other. If this friend needs something, I've got a listening ear. But if homosexuality or some other issue comes up, then I stand on my convictions (with utmost effort to do so in love with the aid of the Spirit) with knowledge that there may be a parting of ways in the future because of that divide, but hopefully not by my decision.

That's the reality of a culture that's pro-LGBTQ+, and a culture that claims to be pluralistic with its acceptance of religions (even though the mainstream tends toward declaring all religion human construct that is unnecessary if not also harmful, and usually reserved for people too stupid or weak to accept a godless universe). Personally, I'd rather play a game in a setting that isn't from a Christian worldview but where I can exercise Christian value (or not, depending on my character--but I also don't think you have to play a Christian-valued character. My bard was not exactly that way, and he did some questionable if even dark things, but always did so for a reason, and it forced the party to deal with that).

That said, you wanna build a tabletop RPG, even a D&D one, that is very pro-Christian in worldview and values? Absolutely doable. Heck, I'd even start in the Forgotten Realms where there are other gods, but tweak them to be dead gods. People still uphold them, but it's more social custom and memory than anything. But have a Living God. Have the worshippers of other gods upset by the worshippers of the Living God because they claim monotheism, and "clearly there are other gods, why would there be temples for them if not?"

Boom, you've turned Paul's context into a fantasy setting and you already have mechanics good to go.

I digress. I've enjoyed reading this. Even when I disagree with you, whether that disagreement is based on correct understanding or misunderstanding, you (Gerbil) are always thoughtful in the things you have to say, and I appreciate that. I'm clearly pro-D&D, and I come from a family that was anti-D&D in no small part thanks to things like Chick Tracts and Focus on the Family. There are plenty in the church that still hold exception to D&D and tabletop-RPGs in general, so I've caught my share of flak for it, but there are also plenty of very grounded, ministry-minded, holiness-desiring Christians who uphold it as a perfectly acceptable medium. (Though implementation can be problematic; the platform itself is morally neutral.)


Edit: Sorry if this came out a little jumbled. It was written over the span of an hour while working and taking care of less-than-well waifu and kiddo.

 

[EDAC]

Finally Wizard's of the Coast has gone the extra measure to support homosexuality both in their game and out of it. If you still doubt a game can have influence on people ask yourself why then are they doing this? They've marched in gay pride parades, the lead rules developer of D&D 5e is proudly gay and most importantly page 121 of the player's handbook goes out of it's way to say "You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender." In a game were you can be practically anything they give special support to this. Even if I was to accept this morality, and I don't, now every DM has to deal with "but the rule book says I can". Really could you not just say anything not covered in the rule book is up to your imagination and DM approval? No they couldn't because they clearly want to use a fictional game to influence everyone in a real way and not for good.

At the risk of performing a complete derailing of this thread, I want to unpack the first part of this statement and some major problems I see with how you're presenting your views (and potentially what those view are, but I'm deferring any judgment on that until the lack of clarity can be resolved.

For full context: I am a Christian, believe that gay sex is not permissible according to the Bible, but am also gay. I choose that word particularly -- not "struggling with same-sex attraction" or anything similar -- I consider myself gay, and I also believe that this sexual orientation will require that I remain celibate for my entire life.

With that said, I want to unpack what you mean by "supporting homosexuality". Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to the same sex, and given that such attraction is generally unchosen (a statement to which I can attest personally), I don't see exactly how one "supports homosexuality". There is nothing to support -- it is merely a word describing an unchosen, generally unchanging state of being.

I don't see any problem with marching in gay pride parades either. I would go march in a gay pride parade without hesitation (the only reason why I haven't thus far is that my schedule hasn't permitted it in recent years). The purpose of a gay pride parade is most importantly to focus on the fact that LGBTQ people don't have to feel ashamed about existing (another thing to which I can attest personally). Yes, some pride parades include inappropriate displays -- but most don't.

One final note -- it's important to remember that everything that you say has an impact on others. Have you considered how your words may impact a gay person who comes across them (like, say, me)? That treating homosexuality as an "issue" will inherently make LGBTQ+ people distance themselves from you because we're used to people (particularly Christians) talking about us as if we're something to be debated instead of people to be loved? Your comments in this thread alone would likely be enough to make many LGBTQ+ people distance themselves from you, which from your perspective should be a problem since that also means you lose influence with them.

To be plainly honest, even I'm inclined to distance myself, but I decided a while ago that I would be willing to put myself at risk within Christian circles in the hopes that I can help people understand the impact their words have. To say that you can't "support homosexuality" would suggest that you can't support my existence -- do you understand how damaging that kind of statement is?

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Hi Edac .

For full context: I am a Christian, believe that gay sex is not permissible according to the Bible, but am also gay. I choose that word particularly -- not "struggling with same-sex attraction" or anything similar -- I consider myself gay, and I also believe that this sexual orientation will require that I remain celibate for my entire life.

Do you think committing murder and thinking about doing it are actually the same. Yes both are sins, true, but I'd hazard to say there is a significant difference in how we should treat each of these in the world. I have lust in my heart. I know in God's eyes I'm an adulterer but I don't believe I should walk around calling myself an adulterer, it's too easily misconstrued by people as someone who accepts and encourages the act. You've explained yourself here but that's not always going to be possible so I hope you don't just say you are "gay" elsewhere. You may always struggle with ACTING on homosexuality but it's when acting on it that the label should be applied. We should be wary of turning desires into actions but no one but God knows until you act on them. You may always want dudes, another may always want a harem of women neither is acceptable and we may always struggle with it. We each have our own cross to bear and anything can be forgiven but the rejection of the Holy Spirit. If you are avoiding acting on this attraction you are by definition resisting or struggling against it.

With that said, I want to unpack what you mean by "supporting homosexuality". Homosexuality is the state of being attracted to the same sex, and given that such attraction is generally unchosen (a statement to which I can attest personally), I don't see exactly how one "supports homosexuality". There is nothing to support -- it is merely a word describing an unchosen, generally unchanging state of being.

Even if I was to agree on it being unchangeable there are "support" groups for being a woman, man, or certain color. Changeable or unchangeable it's still "support". Semantics aside the marches aren't just about a state they are about acting on that state. It's silly to say they simply include "LGBT" and don't actively celebrate and "support" the behavior as acceptable and equal to heterosexual behavior. We don't celebrate being sterile or impotent as normal or good and have scores of treatments for it yet somehow LGBT, which results in the same problems, is good? My eyes don't work right. For me to celebrate my poor vision would be foolish. In fact I dislike it intently. I may never be able to change this but it's irrelevant because I don't define myself by my negatives alone. Define yourself by Christ.

I don't see any problem with marching in gay pride parades either. I would go march in a gay pride parade without hesitation (the only reason why I haven't thus far is that my schedule hasn't permitted it in recent years). The purpose of a gay pride parade is most importantly to focus on the fact that LGBTQ people don't have to feel ashamed about existing (another thing to which I can attest personally). Yes, some pride parades include inappropriate displays -- but most don't.

Honestly I'm ashamed about my unchosen lust for women. You may not "lust" (referring to an excessive amount) after men but the fact that it's a different sin doesn't make it right, something to be proud of or something to encourage people to act on. You aren't a special snowflake in this. Sin is sin. When James Bond borks three different women in the same movie I object to his sin too . Ok we may never shake our sins but I'm not proud of them I'm ashamed, forgiven, but ashamed. When you do something wrong, or even think about doing something wrong, you should feel bad, not take PRIDE in it, and not march in a PRIDE parade. When you do this the people that can change, and people have, say "my behavior is acceptable why should I bother trying to change". BTW the very concept of bi-sexual means you have the choice. Life is a struggle against sin. Some days we fail but out of love for God we try again and in our struggles become better people. If any would follow after Christ let him pick up his Cross and deny himself daily.

You know what makes sin harder to avoid? Not recognizing it. Being around others continually doing it. Tempting yourself. Defining yourself solely by it.

If you want encouragement I'll happily applaud you resisting acting on your feelings. Many wouldn't put up the effort. Keep on fighting it's worth it!

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

One final note -- it's important to remember that everything that you say has an impact on others. Have you considered how your words may impact a gay person who comes across them (like, say, me)? That treating homosexuality as an "issue" will inherently make LGBTQ+ people distance themselves from you because we're used to people (particularly Christians) talking about us as if we're something to be debated instead of people to be loved? Your comments in this thread alone would likely be enough to make many LGBTQ+ people distance themselves from you, which from your perspective should be a problem since that also means you lose influence with them.

It is an issue. A cursory look at media will tell you that it's not me bringing LGBT up. On every occasion I have mentioned it here it was the result of those views being supported by something I had to deal with. D&D, Overwatch, Firefox, Steam etc.. How can you expect Christians to discuss morality and how we should act and then exclude any subject people have differences in? Bring up any moral and there is someone, somewhere, who will object to it. These are the ones that matter because people are already supporting the ones we all agree on. It's IN THE 5E PLAYER'S GUIDE, the very first rule book for 5e. How can I avoid it in a discussion on the morals of D&D now? Wotc made it an issue and I'm supposed to say nothing? Sin is not a passive thing. Sinners seek acceptance for their acts, as all people, and because Christians hide, go with the flow and say nothing it has been allowed to flourish. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Believe me I had no desire to discuss it, yet again, but if it's there I'm not going to ignore it.

To be plainly honest, even I'm inclined to distance myself, but I decided a while ago that I would be willing to put myself at risk within Christian circles in the hopes that I can help people understand the impact their words have. To say that you can't "support homosexuality" would suggest that you can't support my existence -- do you understand how damaging that kind of statement is?

We should define our existence by what God thinks of us, not by our sin alone or what people think of you.

I've noticed logic is often ignored by emotional responses so if logic will not suffice I'll put this in emotional terms.

Don't you think Christians feel the exact same way?
Don't you think straight people feel the exact same way?
Do you think you were the only one picked on in school or called gay?
Where can Christians go to talk openly about the truth and what we should do or believe?
How much of a hole do you want Christians to crawl into?
Christians are being forced to support homosexual behavior should I abandon them?
Yes I've long, long considered how homosexuals feel.
Have you considered how I and others like me feel?

We are supposed to try to save everyone but you can't do that by denying the truth. How can you accept forgiveness for sin if you don't believe you are sinning? Step one of salvation is "God I am a sinner"!

I'll put it this way my entire self value is wrapped up in two things, God loves me, and I am a man. I have to believe there are others like me and I must consider them too not just LGBT. Those that hope one day they might have a place as a man to call their own. That men and women are different and by these differences have a place that is uniquely theirs. LGBT continually attacks this by saying you are what you believe you are. That you have no inherit biological strengths, weaknesses or responsibilities. In a free country you shouldn't be forced for fill these things but I'm also not going to deny these things exist. If you are what you "think" you are than all relationships are equal in ability and no one has a place to call their own. This is a cup half full or half empty situation. Support gay marriage and you say traditional marriage is meaningless and unnecessary. Either you have a God given biological responsibility to call your own or people are interchangeable based on what you desire. Choose.
...
...
...
Sigh, in the long past I've considered eating a bullet, partially, not totally, because of LGBT supporters and those who are so afraid of speaking, not to support me, but the unpopular Biblical truth. You aren't even allowed to have a dream. To believe you are good for anything. I don't want yes men I want to be around people earnest in their pursuit of God above everything. Earnest about pleasing Him not getting false converts by hiding the truth. You aren't alone in being alone Edac but you are treating others like you think you are.

Women and LGBT rights have never been more at the forefront of our nation yet suicide rates are increasing and then they wonder why, fools. In a secular world no one has a place to call their own anymore. The burden of responsibility may crush us at times but consider not being needed at all? Your job, your personality, your beauty, your intellect, odds are whatever you do in your life you are replaceable. That there is someone else who can do whatever you can but better. The things that give us value are God and Family. Thing is you will always have only one Father and Mother. Oh you may love others as your Father and Mother but, contrary to certain people, you only get one set of biological parents. Love them or hate them there is a inseparable bond of blood which will always tie you and call you back. Every day you'll look in the mirror you will see them. Get divorced, get widowed and a part of a parent remains in their child. If you have visitation rights you are going to bump into your ex a lot! In the past people have wrongly made this blood bond everything, but now the world wants to make it nothing, when the truth is it is something and something important. After all it's how God showed his love for us in the sacrifice of His only begotten Son. I know some people will always struggle with homosexuality but I don't know why they couldn't pursue a heterosexual relationship for this alone. To have a place to call yours alone.

Consider sin is not a creation unto itself it is a mistiming, a failure to get one's priorities correct. Gluttony, lust and greed are all amounts. Murder or self-defense, the situation, the timing, not the act dictates the difference. Sex is not a sin but sex with the wrong person or at the wrong time is. Sexual desire exists first and foremost as a means of having children, not pleasure. They ignore this saying "but they are happy!" which has no bearing on the LGBT argument. If love or happiness made sin ok all manner of sin would be permissible. Your actions have consequence, a meaning, pursue this not "happiness". Only when a person has purpose and meaning can they be fulfilled and truly happy and only God can give this.

Regardless neither my or your feelings matter Edac, what is right by God matters.​

That is what a Christian should pursue. The greatest commandment is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." As God loved us we show love to him by saving those he loves but we do this first for Him not the unsaved. It is God who we should first be concerned with, not me, not you and not getting converts.

Just a couple extras:

So you know Edac your views come as no surprise to me I noticed your protect LGBT tag on Steam long, long ago. No I'm not for violence against gays but I also don't see a reason to give special protections to just them. I'm merciful because they are people, as any other, but I would not appear as condoning the sin. John 8:3-11 describes my stance on LGBT. I'm not going to stone them but go, and sin no more, don't do it. It's odd because you are telling me to worry about pushing people away from Christ but your tag probably did the same on the other end. What attracts one repeals another. We should always be polite but I'm less concerned about scaring people off than getting things right by God.

I didn't put this thread up to start a debate though I've long realized if you object to anything that might happen. I put it up because my DM asked me what I wanted/expected out of our game. I will not play with certain content. Regardless of what you are doing we should all strive to hold God's will paramount in all things. Too often Christians gush over the latest new thing without even mentioning any negatives. I try not to do this and you should too. Put aside the hype and ask God should I do this, what are the positives and what are the negatives on everything. This what it means to pray perpetually.

I'm too exhausted now to go back into D&D debate for now but I think it pales in importance to this one ATM XD.

 

[EDAC]

Offering a few additional quick thoughts:

1. I think you fundamentally missed my point about treating homosexuality as an “issue”, so let me try and illustrate my point a little better. Go back and read your post. You consistently refer to LGBTQ people as “them” — which has many problems, but I’ll call out two specifically. First, I am part of that group, as I specifically stated in my post, and so continuing to refer to LBGTQ people as “them” is disrespectful — have the respect to talk to me, not about me. Second, it encourages an “us/them” mentality (reinforced by the first half), which makes it easier to vilify and demean.

2. I know what God thinks of me. I’ve given it an awful lot of thought, as a matter of fact, and if you pay any attention to what my scriptural beliefs mean for my life you’ll realize that I’m willing to give up a lot to live out what the Bible says. But the Bible never says that we can’t consider ourselves gay or homosexual. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that having a gay orientation is wrong or sinful. It isn’t in there. Even so, many Christians expect that LGBTQ Christians have to become or act heterosexual in order to be acceptable to God — something that God and the Bible never said. I — and many other LGBTQ Christians — DO love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and I know that I am right by God.

3. Expecting for LGBTQ people to enter a heterosexual marriage for fulfillment is both unrealistic and an extrascriptural demand. From a practical standpoint, it ignores many problems. It requires that I feel comfortable marrying a woman who I don’t feel I can love properly. From the standpoint of bearing children, it requires that the LGBTQ person force themselves to engage in acts that they find disgusting / unappealing (I react to heterosexual sex the same way that you might react to being told to have homosexual sex). It requires that the LGBTQ person be able to find someone of the opposite gender that would be willing to enter a marriage knowing that their partner would never find them attractive. Mixed-orientation marriages do exist, but they are rare and extremely difficult to maintain.

From a scriptural standpoint, expecting that individuals must marry to find fulfillment is blatantly extrascriptural, and I would dare say heretical. The Bible never mandates that people get married, and at times even says that being single is preferable (1 Corinthians 7). Expecting people to get married is often the easy out for the church. It allows the church to avoid the difficult matters of how we support people who are single (beyond singles...more accurately called “dating” groups).

4. I am aware that I drove some people away by suggesting that LGBTQ people be protected from harm, but the reality is that was Christians, and that doesn’t bother me so much. Suggesting that we protect LGBTQ people was sufficient for Christian communities to remove me from leadership and threaten to ban me from their servers, even as a non-member. Meanwhile, I watch Christian culture and see people pushing for the right to deny me services — even medical services — over something I didn’t choose and don’t control. I help organize events with large groups of LGBTQ people, and we have to discuss and consider how we would handle someone coming in to injure or kill us for simply being LGBTQ. I’ve been mistreated by so many Christians that I’m frankly terrified of Christian spaces that I’m not familiar with. We (Christians) like to talk a lot about “speaking the truth in love”, but it seems that all people seem to get is “speak the truth” part — because if we were truly speaking in love I wouldn’t have to say things like “putting myself at risk in Christian circles” or “terrified of Christian spaces”. We’d see more Christians speaking out against things like Christian families rejecting their LGBTQ children and putting them out of the street. We’d see Christians looking out for the health and safety of LGBTQ people before calling them out on their sin — following the same example that Jesus provided.

5. I can actually accept discrimination or mistreatment for being Christian a lot better than I can accept it for being LGBTQ. I chose to be Christian, I didn’t choose to be gay. If I’m going to be mistreated for something, I’d actually prefer that it be for something under my control.

6. I do consider how straight people feel about things, but the reality is that conservative churches put a lot of effort into supporting straight people and very little (if any) effort into supporting LGBTQ or single people. We have churches with singles (dating) ministries, marriage ministries, parenting ministries, Sunday school ministries for children, but almost nothing for people who aren’t — and who aren’t going to be — married. Christians should be able to speak the truth, but go back to the “in love” part — often, Christians are paying the price for how they speak. Let’s go back to the 1980’s or so, when Christians were busy preaching about how AIDS is God’s judgment on LGBTQ people. That teaching — which has no basis in the Bible — did substantial damage to our (Christians) ability to reach out to LGBTQ people. We basically approached LGBTQ people with a message that said “God hates you and is killing you”. We’re not that overt these days, but we’ve bought into a lie that says speaking the truth is always speaking in love. There’s a reason that the Bible says to “speak the truth in love” and Jesus said to “be as gentle as doves” and that he would not break a broken reed. Most times, the issue isn’t with the truth — it’s that we (Christians) present the truth in unloving manners or make demands that the Bible doesn’t.

 

[EDAC]

And because I didn’t see the first reply when I wrote mine...

I don’t have any issue with calling myself gay, and I do so without hesitation here and elsewhere. Society at large has accepted the term “gay” as a descriptor of orientation only, not something attached to behavior. It’s only conservative Christians that attach “behavior” to the term (there’s actually a survey/study for this, but I don’t have the link handy at the moment because I’m not at home).

Using other “Christian-approved” terms like “struggling with homosexuality” isn’t necessary. First, I don’t struggle with my orientation. I might struggle with lust, but I don’t view my orientation as something that I need to struggle against or change. Second, using those terms impedes my ability to exist and be an influence in LGBTQ circles.

God knows what “gay” means.
Non-Christians know what “gay” means.
Christians might get stuck on the word. When that happens, I try to educate — and if that’s not sufficient, I move on. That — and the suggestion we protect LGBTQ people from harm — are why I had to leave CC. However, as you rightly pointed out, it is God who I should be — and am — first concerned with.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Oy vey four part post XD.

1. I think you fundamentally missed my point about treating homosexuality as an “issue”, so let me try and illustrate my point a little better. Go back and read your post. You consistently refer to LGBTQ people as “them” — which has many problems, but I’ll call out two specifically. First, I am part of that group, as I specifically stated in my post, and so continuing to refer to LBGTQ people as “them” is disrespectful — have the respect to talk to me, not about me. Second, it encourages an “us/them” mentality (reinforced by the first half), which makes it easier to vilify and demean.

Things I referred to as "them" and I assume "themselves" in my first post...
1. Murdering Jerks.
2. Fellow players.
3. Person who killed them self over the death of their anime character.
4. 13 year olds.
5. A dead character.
6. Demons.
7. My list of D&D objections.

Second post
1. Moral relativists
2. Positive portrayals of Angels and God.
3. Secular people.
4. Actual Angels and God.
5. Characters good and evil.
6. The characters I created.

Third post
1. religions

Fourth post
1. The unsaved. Multiple times.
2. A LGBT.

Fifth post and probably the "first" post you refer to as it is the first one I replied to you with.
1. Desires.
2. My sins.

Sixth post. Second half of the fifth so I'll consider it the same post.
3. Christians who are forced to support homosexual behavior.
4. People like me.
5. Used 3 times for your biological father and mother.
6. Used 2 times for LGBT.

I'm not seeing the nefarious, consistent or selective use of "them". It looks like I used it 3 times for LGBT in all the posts I made and just as many times for things I support. Most people generally use "them" for things and concepts that aren't "themselves" so they don't have to write it out. I had far more "thems" written about my objections to how D&D treats religion than homosexuality before you showed up.

This reminds me of when an Atheist was offended by me not prefacing everything with "I believe". Everything is a belief, it's silly. Them is them in the vacuum of the internet I don't see how you can tell someone is saying it dramatically while pointing... and now all I think of this... Oh no THEM Ahhhhhhhh!

...after the time I've spent trying to phrase things in the most ginger way possible if anyone should be insulted it's me.
...after derailing a thread over essentially syntax issues if anyone should be insulted it's me.
...but seriously if a person keeps looking for things to be offended about I'm sure they will find it.

First, I am part of that group,

...but you aren't part of that group. We are expected to be in the world but not of it. Drawing the distinction between approving of a sin and simply saying you are a sinner is an extremely important and fundamental difference in Christianity. Whether the world cares or doesn't care to clarify this distinction is irrelevant, it should be relevant to you and it is most certainly relevant here.

2. I know what God thinks of me. I’ve given it an awful lot of thought, as a matter of fact, and if you pay any attention to what my scriptural beliefs mean for my life you’ll realize that I’m willing to give up a lot to live out what the Bible says.

Yes it's tough I realize, and I empathize and encourage you but again you aren't a special snowflake. Nuns and Priests live a life of celibacy too. Right now Christians are in prison in Muslim countries awaiting execution for their faith https://beheardproject.com/ . People are struggling with birth defects, disease and infirmity. To accept Christ is to accept life will not be easy.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Part 2.

But the Bible never says that we can’t consider ourselves gay or homosexual. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that having a gay orientation is wrong or sinful. It isn’t in there. Even so, many Christians expect that LGBTQ Christians have to become or act heterosexual in order to be acceptable to God — something that God and the Bible never said. I — and many other LGBTQ Christians — DO love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and I know that I am right by God.

Again Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Now it's true that I am assuming this applies to all other sins but I don't see why it wouldn't. Which is why I used it earlier. You may not act on homosexual desires but since even thinking about a sin, is a sin, any homosexual attraction would be a sin. Again lust is an EXCESS, particularly of sexual desire, but it can also be in regard to money power, etc. You are not sinning in simply having children or working for money. Homosexuality, or say, coveting another man's wife is a sin by what you are desiring not amount, not lust. It doesn't matter if you don't act on it for it to be a sin to God.

It's very hard for a book written before the term existed to say "orientation". If you want to be technical the Bible says nothing directly on pedophilia but I think we can assume it "harms little ones". You could say gay marriage is acceptable because the Bible doesn't mention it and sex doesn't have to occur for marriage to occur. Since the state obviously encourages or tempts one to homosexual sex I think it's a given we shouldn't support it. I've read about people sexually attracted to plants and the Berlin wall but coming up with a new concept not verbatim stated by the Bible doesn't let you slide the sin by.

If your logic is because the Bible doesn't directly use the word it is ok you must apply it to everything.

This is the same type of thing used to legalize gay marriage and it's why, whether you believe in it or not, it's legally inane. Constitutional amendments had to be passed both for race and sex. To then extend one of these to include sexual orientation, when different amendments had to be passed before is silly. If the intent of the fourteenth amendment covered "orientation", and therefore gay marriage, the sodomy laws that existed at the time, and long after, would have been struck down immediately. It's not that you couldn't legalize gay marriage but that you'd have to, exactly like the other groups, get an amendment to the constitution.

Following the letter and not the intent, the spirit of the law, God's or Man's, will always, always, always lead you astray.

Carm had some stuff on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 https://carm.org/matthew-vines-on-1-corinthians-6-9-10 too but I prefer my explanation.

Speaking plainly, so you know, encouraging this type of falsehood is the thing that gets you banned Edac. You could simply say you struggle with homosexual attraction but your desire to be included with them, which seems to be purely vanity doing it on a Christian forum, leads you to be included with them and banned.

3. Expecting for LGBTQ people to enter a heterosexual marriage for fulfillment is both unrealistic and an extrascriptural demand. From a practical standpoint, it ignores many problems. It requires that I feel comfortable marrying a woman who I don’t feel I can love properly. From the standpoint of bearing children, it requires that the LGBTQ person force themselves to engage in acts that they find disgusting / unappealing (I react to heterosexual sex the same way that you might react to being told to have homosexual sex). It requires that the LGBTQ person be able to find someone of the opposite gender that would be willing to enter a marriage knowing that their partner would never find them attractive. Mixed-orientation marriages do exist, but they are rare and extremely difficult to maintain.

From a scriptural standpoint, expecting that individuals must marry to find fulfillment is blatantly extrascriptural, and I would dare say heretical. The Bible never mandates that people get married, and at times even says that being single is preferable (1 Corinthians 7). Expecting people to get married is often the easy out for the church. It allows the church to avoid the difficult matters of how we support people who are single (beyond singles...more accurately called “dating” groups).

...buuuut I didn't say I expected LGBTQ to enter into heterosexual marriage. I don't expect anyone to marry unless they are tempted to or engaging in premarital heterosexual sex which in that case Corinthians does encourage. I did say I don't know why homosexuals couldn't see the value in having a place to call their own beyond sexual desire but that's a far leap to "expecting" them to marry. I know when I was a prepubescent child I simply expected to emulate my Father in his role and duties in a marriage. Performing a sexual act never entered into it. The biological and cultural necessity to reproduce is separate from the sexual attraction which serves to that end. Thing is biology only gets you babies between a man and a woman. You can feel as disgusted as you like about taking out the trash but it still needs to be done. Regardless I do not "expect" anyone to get married.

4. I am aware that I drove some people away by suggesting that LGBTQ people be protected from harm, but the reality is that was Christians, and that doesn’t bother me so much. Suggesting that we protect LGBTQ people was sufficient for Christian communities to remove me from leadership and threaten to ban me from their servers, even as a non-member.

The perception of accepting a sin, real or false, matters Edac. "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Thessalonians 5:22 .

Meanwhile, I watch Christian culture and see people pushing for the right to deny me services — even medical services — over something I didn’t choose and don’t control.

"pushing for the right to deny me services — even medical services" Um, er, what services? While you may not be able to control your homosexual feelings I'm not sure what homosexual feelings require services, medical or otherwise. Since you aren't acting on these desires there shouldn't be any functional way for people to know unless you tell them you are "gay".

I help organize events with large groups of LGBTQ people,

Uh, er, assuming here you are talking about events with LGBTQ people who are either Christians who rejecting acting on it, like you, or events to preach Christ to them? Cause if it's not you are just providing a place for LGBTQ to hook up.

and we have to discuss and consider how we would handle someone coming in to injure or kill us for simply being LGBTQ. I’ve been mistreated by so many Christians that I’m frankly terrified of Christian spaces that I’m not familiar with. We (Christians) like to talk a lot about “speaking the truth in love”, but it seems that all people seem to get is “speak the truth” part — because if we were truly speaking in love I wouldn’t have to say things like “putting myself at risk in Christian circles” or “terrified of Christian spaces”.

Odd I get the opposite Christians afraid to speak out on any unpopular truth as things fall apart. Let's not forget homosexual marriage is now legal. Nor the Christians punished for not condoning LGBTQ http://www.freetobelieve.com/ .

I'm sure there is violence and discrimination against LBGTQ but it's not mainstream approved.

We’d see more Christians speaking out against things like Christian families rejecting their LGBTQ children and putting them out of the street.

Uh is that tossing a 14 year old out in the street or a 18 year old bringing home gay hook ups? I agree the former would be cruel, as you still have authority and responsibility over them, while the latter you are an adult. If you can take care of yourself I would not allow my house to be used for such things. I know Alan Keyes kicked his daughter out but she was an adult actively working against him on his dollar.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Part 3.

We’d see Christians looking out for the health and safety of LGBTQ people before calling them out on their sin — following the same example that Jesus provided.

That can be the same thing given the consequences of sin.

I don't think you understand what love is. Love is not letting your child run amok in the street while you wag you finger ineffectually at them. It's punishing them if they run in the street to get them to stop. If we can use the carrot first great but if not the stick comes out (If you consider simply saying no cruel you need to visit some Muslim countries). Sometimes we can take the bullet meant for them hoping that the sacrifice will wake them up to their behavior however other times all you are is an enabler. Giving a person money and having them spend it on drugs does not help them. It's called tough love. It's true we can only do so much but to do something without any consideration of it's effectiveness is a vanity. Love requires sacrifice, effort, and more often than not saying no.

Going to take a shot in the dark here but I was under the impression homosexual (or any promiscuous) sexual behavior has consequences and that most of the time you should say don't do it. What is the point of treating people for STDs if it only keeps them going out to infect and hurt others? If you fail in saying "don't do it you are hurting yourself and others" you DO NOT care for that person or the others they will hurt. Because we have to spend money on a preventable consequence everyone suffers. Insurance goes up, taxes go up and we have less money to spend on things that we can't prevent. You don't love people and deny the consequences of their actions to themselves and others. I want to help everyone, LBGTQ included, but I'm not going to put money in a pocket with a hole before using it where it might actually help people. That means using it on the people who have the best chance of changing their behavior. Their is no point of saving someones life if it's only to burn in hell by their sin. If you are just throwing out "help" without thought or consideration as to if it's actually helping you do not care and it's just a vanity (Aside from individual issues this is actually the main difference between Left and Right viewpoints).

Christ forgave but said don't sin any more John 8:1-11 .

5. I can actually accept discrimination or mistreatment for being Christian a lot better than I can accept it for being LGBTQ. I chose to be Christian, I didn’t choose to be gay. If I’m going to be mistreated for something, I’d actually prefer that it be for something under my control.

I would debate whether such desires might be cured but this is already long enough as it is. Just don't take my silence as agreement or disagreement.

6. I do consider how straight people feel about things, but the reality is that conservative churches put a lot of effort into supporting straight people and very little (if any) effort into supporting LGBTQ or single people. We have churches with singles (dating) ministries, marriage ministries, parenting ministries, Sunday school ministries for children, but almost nothing for people who aren’t — and who aren’t going to be — married.

Not sure what you want? There are outreaches to the unsaved regardless of family. Charities for the old, poor, etc. . Activities within the Church revolve around families because that's the primary means of passing values along. Children are the future unsaved. There is a natural familial bond which makes children look to parents for guidance, a bond which helps make those values strong and pass them along. If our country's values have roots in Judeo Christianity the basis for passing these values on is the traditional family. If you want to pass on values you are going to do it through families first.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14

I mean if you aren't in or seeking to be in a relationship you aren't effectively "doing" anything so what do you expect help with? If it's just living or dealing with temptation I'm sure there is counseling not limited to families. I'm sure there are plenty of Bible studies and outreaches you could join. I guess you want a social get together just to be together? I'm not sure what that would be because a place just for LGBTQ could easily turn into one that temps them to hook up.

If you want empathy ok I CAN relate to not having anywhere to go but I don't expect, or want, Churches to shift their focus from families.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Part 4.

Christians should be able to speak the truth, but go back to the “in love” part — often, Christians are paying the price for how they speak. Let’s go back to the 1980’s or so, when Christians were busy preaching about how AIDS is God’s judgment on LGBTQ people. That teaching — which has no basis in the Bible — did substantial damage to our (Christians) ability to reach out to LGBTQ people.

Technically "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Long before AIDS God judged people and gave them consequences for their sin. I would not say only "AIDS is God's judgement", it omits salvation. However since homosexual behavior is a sin there are clearly worded consequences from sin. Saying "If you reject Christ you will burn in Hell" is true but misleading because it omits God does not want you to burn in hell. You can't teach sin without consequences or salvation without the consequences of sin to be saved from.

We basically approached LGBTQ people with a message that said “God hates you and is killing you”.

Yes it is incorrect. God hates sin but wishes for everyone to be saved from it.

because I didn’t see the first reply when I wrote mine...

I don’t have any issue with calling myself gay, and I do so without hesitation here and elsewhere. Society at large has accepted the term “gay” as a descriptor of orientation only, not something attached to behavior.

What society accepts is a red flag. Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Society used to treat LGBTQ as a problem to be cured. No it is not "ok" to feel gay just as it is not "ok" for me to feel lust (and see above if you need the distinctions again). Maybe biological reasons cause it maybe they don't, cause is irrelevant. If you define homosexuality solely by the attraction to the same sex, and not acting on it, it's still not a good thing. Unlike heterosexual attraction it can only lead you into temptation as there is no safe outlet for it. Don't define yourself by sin.

Desires shouldn't define a person, actions do, God does. That's why separating yourself from the groups that support sin matters. It is an action to call yourself gay, it has an effect. If you are including yourself with LGBTQ who both reject, and endorse that behavior, you need to identify yourself from them. I align myself with Christians first. That's how I define myself and want to be seen. I do not introduce myself as "straight" because I am not looking to date people, it is erroneous, but introducing yourself that way will infer intent.

Using other “Christian-approved” terms like “struggling with homosexuality” isn’t necessary. First, I don’t struggle with my orientation. I might struggle with lust, but I don’t view my orientation as something that I need to struggle against or change.

Again lust and homosexuality are two different sins. Lust is an excess of sexual desire. Homosexuality, coveting another mans wife, etc. different thing. Calling it orientation doesn't make it slide by.

It’s only conservative Christians that attach “behavior” to the term (there’s actually a survey/study for this, but I don’t have the link handy at the moment because I’m not at home).

Could it be that the acceptance of homosexuality is largely resisted by conservative Christians too? If the world doesn't attach the term it's probably because they don't care if homosexuals act on their feelings at all. Honestly I would reject any statistics saying this anyway so don't bother. It's not that I ignore all statistics but statistics are only as good as the researcher and in the face of common sense yes I do reject them. I didn't need to be told people are bias but Veritasium, which itself leans leftist, had an interesting video about this. Regardless the common sense is if you walk into a porn convention and say you are horny everyone will assume you approve of pornography. Walk in a pride march, say you are gay and everyone will assume you approve. Walk into a Christian forum, say you are an Atheist and everyone will assume you disprove of Christianity. Say you are straight and everyone will think you approve of straight sex. All of these could could be false but the context dictates the perception. We as Christians should not give a false perception, abstain from all appearance of evil. If you are helping gays while saying you are gay you should be wary of giving the perception of approving. It's a lie of omission.

Even without this walking into another person's house or forum and expecting them to speak your language, whether that language is right or wrong, is insulting and confusing. Most of the planet accepts cursing and we still ban people for it.

Put it this way how would I exclude you from "those who support acting on homosexual desires". Am I going to have to be expected to type "those who support acting on homosexual desires" every single time I refer to LGBTQ? Because I don't care if you struggle with a sin I care when you approve of it by word (which can include calling yourself that) or deed. One is Christian the other is not.

Second, using those terms impedes my ability to exist and be an influence in LGBTQ circles.

-_- Edac how could it possibly impede your ability unless people are assuming you approve of homosexuality or don't care. It's not a Christian approved term, it's a term meant to accurately portray your beliefs. I'm assuming you are telling them you are gay to get in their good graces and Christian, and just leave it there? What if they get interested? You can say you are taken, not interested or don't approve of pre-marital sex but again it's misleading at best.

Edac I'm not suggesting you run up to people rubbing it in their face saying NO but if you never state the truth you aren't helping. Just say you care because you are a Christian. If they say "I thought Christians disproved of LBGTQ" you say "Yes but I want to save you not condemn you".





I once dreamed I had a D&D thread and now two thousand years later.

 

[EDAC]

One of the things I find most interesting about modern, conservative Christianity is this perceived need to make certain that everyone knows that we disagree with same-sex sexual intercourse. I find the use of 1 Thessalonians to back that rather disingenuous because:

1. It relies on using the word "appearance of evil" as the basis for the thought, which is interesting because it relies on the use of the KJV translation since the other major translations translate it differently (either as "every kind of evil" or "every form of evil"). The thought of "we must not do anything that even looks evil" is not as clearly derived from the original text as your posts would make it appear.
2. If we hold to that standard, Jesus himself would find himself in conflict with 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Consider the scene with the woman caught in adultery. Jesus stands up for the woman first. He protects her. He says nothing about her sin to the crowd. He only addresses the matter of sin with her -- privately -- after the crowd is gone. By your standard, Jesus himself committed a lie of omission -- and I don't think that's the case. (And it's not like it's a secret that the conservative church disapproves of gay marriage / same-sex sexual intercourse / etc. -- the LGBTQ community knows).

Also, a couple of fun facts as you toss around the "this is what gets you banned" hammer -- I can discuss, at length, and using plenty of scripture (and I hope you're familiar with Greek and Hebrew, because it matters) why the state of being gay/homosexual is not sinful, why the use of the label gay is not sinful, and I have statistics which back up my statements about how the culture at large uses terms such as "gay" (although you've already declared that those don't matter, I guess because they don't fit your already decided opinions?). Also worth noting is that I am actually a ToJ member (still) and still have some level of staff access at CGA. (So, technically, this is also partly my house/forum, even though I'm not routinely active.)

If you want to pursue banning me because I disagree with your theological stances and general callousness towards single/celibate people ("I mean if you aren't in or seeking to be in a relationship you aren't effectively "doing" anything so what do you expect help with?" For starters, maybe emotional support because that's hard?) then please go ahead. If the community here is willing to reject me for that, I'd rather get it over with.

 

[Patriot]

Step away for a couple days and come back to. . .impressive thread derailment!

Not much I can add that hasn't been covered. Suffice to say, I land on Gerbil's side (although I think I found one or two parts that I may have varied a bit - or it might have been a nit-picky detail - I can't remember after sorting through the "Wall of Derailment").

Honestly, EDAC, it looks almost like you were searching for a fight: complaining about the use of the term "them", being upset at Gerbil being upset at the games overt pushing of lgbt "values" when you declare the actions to be sinful yourself, and then spinning it into an all-out attack on conservative Christians. You don't want all lgbt people lumped together because not everyone commits the acts but then turn around and do the same thing to conservative Christians.