"Civilization III is a Role Playing Game"

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Master Zen




Einstein once said that science brought us closer to God. Most Christians I know always quote this believing that ultimately science will bow down to the bible. I think Einstein's intent was that science would bring us closer to true knowledge, the REAL god.

No, actually he meant God. He was both Jewish and a Theist. In fact he once said that because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, he felt that our lifeforce must continue on after the corporeal being was long gone.

[Albert B]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So that pretty sums up my philosophy. At this stage in life I find it unlikely to change since I'm pretty happy and secure about it.

Anyway, very intelligent post.

First, thanks for the compliment. Second, you don't know how familiar your statements sound. Your philosophy sounds exactly like what I use to believe. Much of that I still believe and much of it very Christian in nature, probably more so than you realize. The big exception of course the lack of need for a diety. My guess is the only thing you need to become a "good Christian" is to accept Christ as your savior. Of course that's all anyone needs to do, it just sounds like you might be closer than you think.

I'm about 9 years older than you now (according to your profile) and I know that at that time in my life there was nothing that would convince me of that. That was at the height of my "sinical years" as I like to call them. I still can't exactly put it into words what caused me to change my perception but mostly it involved meeting the right people at the right time. The same may or may not happen for you in the future but if it ever does I think you will see what I mean.

Personally, I still struggle rectifying some of my beliefs with the bible as well as accepting certain parts of the bible due to the scientific aspect of my nature. Evolutionism is definately one of those elements and another one is the whole Noah's ark story. However, I always take a bit of comfort from a quote I read while in college from some famous religious studier. I would have to look up the exact quote but the gist was that there is more belief behind honest doubt than in blind faith or something like that.

Anyway, this is a great discussion that is completely OT, but sometimes you just can't help yourself.

[Master Zen]

Well, I'll try to find this thread in 9 years and reply to that!

[Albert B]

Back to the games, I again agree with much of what you say. You can't outright ban a teen from playing a game and you can't blame games, movies or books for anyone's actions. There is much to be said for personal responsibility regardless of your beliefs. The same can be said for the inane lawsuits that get filed in the U.S. on a daily basis.

In the news here now, the wife of a pro baseball player is sueing a company that makes a diet supplement that he took that contained ephedrine (sp?). He had a known history of liver problems, dehydration and such and virtually must know the history of the drug. It is apparently the drug companies fault for making it even though it was the players personal choice to purchase and use it!

Also, as for the reviews, I agree that the violence in civ should probably get it downgraded in that sites review. I was only pointing out that according to thier definitions found on their site, the violence is "ok". Personally I think their obsession with what they call the "occult" and such is way overboard. Something like Heroes of Might and Magic recieved an F basically just do to the "magic" part. The violence there is as minimal as possible for a war/strategy game and is noted as such. But because of the magic items and spells, it will surely corrupt any that play it. I think that is ludicrous.

I am about to read a book called "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It is suppose to be a very powerful book about Christianity. After seeing this site, I really want to finish it so I can ask them their opinion of this book and the fact that Lewis also wrote the "Chronicles of Narnia", one of the all time classic fantasy series written. The best known book in the series is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". I would like to here their take on the "occult" content of the series.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Albert B
I really want to finish it so I can ask them their opinion of this book and the fact that Lewis also wrote the "Chronicles of Narnia", one of the all time classic fantasy series written. The best known book in the series is "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". I would like to here their take on the "occult" content of the series.

The Narnia Chronicles is packed full of Christian allegorical imagery. Aslan as Christ, etc. etc. In fact, there are many Christians up in arms because Harper Collins want to "secularize" the series and make it more Harry Potteresque.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Stuie

The Narnia Chronicles is packed full of Christian allegorical imagery. Aslan as Christ, etc. etc. In fact, there are many Christians up in arms because Harper Collins want to "secularize" the series and make it more Harry Potteresque.

Now that would be a shame...

Speaking of fantasy tales, I'm changing the subject quite radically but I wanted to know the name of this fantasy story I read waaay back in 7th grade, it was in a US textbook the ones you get for English class (it was maroon colored I think). Basically the story was about this kid who had to do something and was stalked by a shadow throughout his travels from island to island.

Anybody know what the hell I'm talking about?

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Stuie


The Narnia Chronicles is packed full of Christian allegorical imagery. Aslan as Christ, etc. etc. In fact, there are many Christians up in arms because Harper Collins want to "secularize" the series and make it more Harry Potteresque.

Yeah, C.S. Lewis specifically said that Aslan was representative of Christ. He wrote another book related to Christianity, but I can't seem to recall what it was... The Screwtape Letters maybe.

Although J.R.R. Tolkien never overtly drew direct correlations to Christ and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, his son C.J.R. (IIRC) did mention that the Nine Companions all had portions of Christ in them, as well as the Apostles. Examples I believe he used were: Gandalf's resurrection; Frodo's "weight of the ring"; and Boromir treachery-turned-fatalism.

Just my $.02

[Traelin]

Albert B,

Not to stay OT (I promise I'm done on this one, really! ), but you raise some interesting similarities between my Christian (more specifically, Catholic) doctrine and my scientific beliefs. I believe in the Big Bang and in the Theory of Evolution, but with a twist. I do not believe humans evolved from animals, but I do believe that we evolved from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens to our current manifestation, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I also do not take ALL of the Bible literally (i.e., the Old Testament), because I look at it as a means whereby an ancient, uneducated culture attempted to describe the Genesis in the only means they could. They couldn't fathom a google, so my educated guess is that described things according to a day. This logic could be extended to their descriptions of Noah's, Moses', etc. longevities, too. To me, when they said that person X lived 756 years, they were saying he lived a heck of a long time.

I've always found it interesting that the Biblical order of events WRT the Creation correlate exactly with the geological order of events. Just a simple point, but to me it's pretty darned cool to brainstorm.

EDIT: Oh, and who was it that said math is the language of God? Was it Einstein or Hawking? It's pretty cool to view the incredible order of the universe WRT math, especially such events as the Fibonacci sequence.

[Cyclotron]

This thread is final proof that the best OT discusisons are never in the OT.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
This thread is final proof that the best OT discusisons are never in the OT.

In my short time at Apolyton, the best discussions have NOT been in the OT. Some of the threads are just too stupid to bother posting.

[Trifna]

Traelin:

Personnally I do not really see a chasm between the theory of evolution and theology, Christianity: it may come from animal, but animal is animal and human is human. From a certain moment it wasn't animal to me. Where? I believe that from the moment it is able to chose between good and bad, and not only between "it hurts" and "I like it" it is capable of moral decisions thus responsible of what it does.

[Ripley1001]

Evolution violence and rpg

I liked the article, anyone who read it must realise that it is opening up the game to people who are not within the computer game culture and that to me is a good thing. The distinction between RPG`s RTS`s or TBS`s is only meaningful to those within the gaming culture. Easy meat for those noob haters. (were they ever new to anything).

Evolution - well, its still a theory, if you get up from your keyboard you will find the theory is still a theory under continuous development..... We do so much want it to be true though.

Violence within games. It appears that people on the forum are not concerned. Admittedly not if you are 13 years old ploughing your way through GTA III`s interesting scenario`s. For the rest of us, being run down by heroic joyrider types is not the ideal way to end a day. Anyone still believe there is no connection between games, films etc and the real world?

The article actually sees CIv III as positive in this respect but like other posters I cant help noticing that the strategies encouraged in CIV3 would probally see you in deep trouble at a War Crimes Tribunal.

Surprisingly, some posters are hostile to a positive review, gadzooks. I suppose tolerance, religous or otherwise is not going to be a major characteristic of people heavily into dominating the world, albeit a fictional world.

Nevermind all that nonsense when is PTW going to be playable/enjoyable over my lan, never mind the internet, yes I want a patch and I want it now.

[pedrojedi]

As Master Zen and Cyclotron7 said, good OT discussions are often found on other parts of forums (it's not just this one, heh...)
Of course, there comes a time when such conversation must end. I feel the time is coming at any moment, so I'd like to address a few comments of my own, besides the ones I already did before.

Cyclotron7 said something way earlier that left a "not-right" sensation about it, and I'd like to rectify it.

Theory: an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

Most people who say "it's only a theory" are using the colloquial version of the word, which is more similar to "conjecture" or "hypothesis" than the technical meaning of the word theory

Thus, in a scientific sense, it is true. There really isn't any "might" about it. Of course, on a certain level, nothing is certain, but Creationism is not a scientific theory and evolution really has no competition as far as its specific sphere of explaination.

Well, I must disagree with thee, as a theory, well, "is just a theory".

As a man of science myself, I must say that it is wildly accepted that science has a "margin of error". Sometimes the theory is very strong; so strong to become a Law. Most often, specially when dealing with things that we didn't knew or saw, we conjecture about what happened or what may have happened or may not. Such work comes like a Sherlock Holmes to some people, and it's kinda like that: we find evidence, formulate a theory, and test it if we can, to see if it works.

If it works, great, then it comes to be a fundamented theory. Still a theory, because ultimatelly we can't prove that the results were true to the theory or just a coincidence to what we expected. So, lots of experiences are done and we get a probability, based on number of experiments and results.

Pulling this to my field, most works with practical application on medicine comes through numbers like "odds ratio" or "confidence interval", concepts of statistics that involve on most papers little theorization on "how that worked" or "what exact mecanism that drug have". But I know from colleagues and friends who do their researches on chemistry and physics that such concepts apply to them as well, as most theories remain with a statistical error.

Such is the beautifulness of science that it is not just a granite thing, written on rock to never be changed: it is evolving, malleating, changing constantly as we discover new things. And that is the difference between science and religion: science changes and evolve, as religion stays almost the same through millenia.

Practical example: Newtonian physics. It was accepted for almost 300 years that Newton had formulated some of the most unchangeable laws of nature, and his works were the utmost truth in physics. Anyone who is doing it in a university knows that Quantum Theory almost completely ignores what Newton wrote, as most of his formulas could not be applicated on this "new" field of research, and were eventually considered "wrong" - at least when comparing to quantum formulas and theories.

Ripley1001 said a wise thing: we so much want science to be "the" truth. Many scientifical biases come from such "wanting".

Another practical example: Carbon 14 testing for age. It went wrong so many times. One of them involved a labirinth made by two guys, who left it on a beach some years ago. Scientists found it, theorized it could be from an old european tribe on Mediterraneum, and tested it. Thousands of years old. NOT, at least for the guys who remembered doing it. And I'm not even talking about Christ's death blanket! (I forgot the name of that thing)

Trifna - Good and bad become arguable seeing some animal's behaviors, like those dolphins or chimpanzes. They seemed for many years "good" creatures, but recent field researching found disturbing acts of cruelty made by those two specimens.
The concept of Moral, more than moral distinctions, is a real quantum leap of intelect evolution. Even if it is used to choose the "wrong" ones.

Still, sometimes the company of an animal seem more pleasant than a human company. Specially on these violent days, where wars are fought for beliefs and money/political donations. This is the time when I really become a cynic about "man's superiority" or "human's nature".

Nevertheless, I got too extensive, I think. There's a lot to talk about it, and it's a shame it is OT here. Maybe we should consider a transfering...?

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: Evolution violence and rpg

Originally posted by Ripley1001
...
Anyone still believe there is no connection between games, films etc and the real world? ...

Films and games are often a reflection of the real world, but the real world is worse. Nuking a city or starving your population IRL is not as fun as doing it in CIV3. Shooting someone in Counter-Strike is more fun than in the real world.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Albert B
Back to the games, I again agree with much of what you say. You can't outright ban a teen from playing a game and you can't blame games, movies or books for anyone's actions. There is much to be said for personal responsibility regardless of your beliefs. The same can be said for the inane lawsuits that get filed in the U.S. on a daily basis.

Well so much for me not contributing anymore.

You are so right. My number one wish for this country would be to create more restrictive tort laws, but the chances of lawyers (i.e., politicians) creating laws restricting other lawyers is slim to none.

People in this country always want to blame someone or something else for their problems. I think that if we all took more personal responsibility and stopped blaming games, TV, etc. for societal blunders, we'd be SOOO much better off. I may be Catholic, but that shouldn't dissuade my common sense from dictating to me the silliness of banning "questionable" games.