Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ispar on September 23, 2001, 04:50:00 PM
-
I would have preferred to send you a personal message, but you don't seem to permit that.
You have consistently and baselessly (yes, baselessly) attacked my character on this board. You insist that my opposition to conflict and my personal refusal to participate in it is because of cowardice and a lack of compassion for my fellow man. Rather than laugh in your face at the ludicrosity of that conviction, I thought I'd give you an idea of where I come from and the base for my ideals.
Kindly read this for a basic idea:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm)
For more specific and organization/historical stuff, look at this (this you can skip if you want to):
www.quaker.org (http://www.quaker.org)
Finally, please look at this:
www.afsc.org (http://www.afsc.org)
I'm going to ask you to apologize for your remarks. If you won't do so, at the very least acknowledge that you can have no true perception of "what kind of person I am" from my posts on this board.
With respect,
Ispar
[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: ispar ]
-
Dammit...
[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: ispar ]
-
If you are a quaker. All you had to do was say so.
-
Originally posted by easymo:
If you are a quaker. All you had to do was say so.
Yes, I suppose you are correct. But to just say it isn't an argument, it's just an excuse for having a certain point of view. I would far rather present my views in an articulate fashion and for their own sake rather than prop them up with the religious background point. Make sense?
-
So, Ispar.. you're saying you're a practicing Quaker?
-
Originally posted by Toad:
So, Ispar.. you're saying you're a practicing Quaker?
Yes I am.
-
LOL!
-
Never heard a quaker call himself a Quaker.
-
On a faceless Internet, all we have is each others words to judge by. It is only human nature to have an agenda. For example, in the past I have mentioned that I enlisted in the Army, and volunteered for Viet Nam at a time when it was not the PC thing to do. This makes my agenda obvious. I am a true believer in the American experiment. When people weigh my words, they do so with the sure knowledge of where im "coming from"
Had you identified your religious back ground. It would have made understanding where you were coming from far easier.
As far as your religion goes. It is up to guys like me (younger versions of course :)to make sure that you never have to choose between Islam and a bullet in the head. Soldiers understand that and they take on the responsibility voluntarily. It is what makes our young troops special.
-
Pardon me, I was wrong.
http://www.quaker.org/crime.html (http://www.quaker.org/crime.html)
-
Hey Easy, I see you are from Houston. Ever visited any of "your people's" bars on the beach in Freeport(Surfside)?
-
Originally posted by easymo:
On a faceless Internet, all we have is each others words to judge by. It is only human nature to have an agenda. For example, in the past I have mentioned that I enlisted in the Army, and volunteered for Viet Nam at a time when it was not the PC thing to do. This makes my agenda obvious. I am a true believer in the American experiment. When people weigh my words, they do so with the sure knowledge of where im "coming from"
Had you identified your religious back ground. It would have made understanding where you were coming from far easier.
As far as your religion goes. It is up to guys like me (younger versions of course :)to make sure that you never have to choose between Islam and a bullet in the head. Soldiers understand that and they take on the responsibility voluntarily. It is what makes our young troops special.
Alrighty, I can accept that :). Yes, it would have made things a little more clear, and I'll keep that in mind. I was reluctant to share the information, but decided that it was relevant later on...
And amen to that. I greatly respect those who do put their lives on the line to protect you and me, even as I despise the necessity, and even as I believe the fact that war being a necessity serves only to propagate it. Sounds weird, but it's the truth.
S!
-
Gadfly. actually I live in Spring(suburb for the rest of you). I don't get out your way to often.
-
Just a thought: If against war why play a game base on war and killing? :confused:
-
Freeport is SSW of Houston, take FM2004 off 45. There are some very good (Biker) bars down there(well, there were when I was there in the late 70's, anyway), and I never had a problem as a young surfer dude with anyone there, in spite of our ignorance.
-
Originally posted by indian:
Just a thought: If against war why play a game base on war and killing? :confused:
Because it isn't war and killing. I am very aware that it is not real life. There are no consequences, other than jumping back to the tower when you "die." It has none of what comes with war - it's very clean. There are no complicated politics, no socioeconomic inequalities, none of that stuff.
I enjoy games. Something about violence is thrilling to the human psyche. It hold far less appeal in real life, since death is part of the package in real life, but it is entertaining in a game.
Finally, I am fascinated by military history. In no way is there something that precludes me from this. It is interesting to me.
Oh yeah, and I love all aircraft, including WWII aircraft especially :-D.
-
Bishops are best :)
There's the politics :)
$15/mo there's the ecnomics :)
Real life is just a model of AH and real life is overmodeled :)
-
Be interesting to put that "war game" question before a Meeting for Business, wouldn't it? I'd be interested in hearing what the resulting minute from the Clerk would be.
Perhaps make an agenda item to discern if it's considered to be a good thing to play a computer game where the aim is to "virtually kill" another human being (or beings) who is on another computer using simulated weapons of war. Might add that "score" is kept and those that "kill" the most tend to be praised and awarded points so that they can get even better killing machines.
BTW, just curious. Do Quaker families generally give the young males play guns and toy soldiers for entertainment?
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Be interesting to put that "war game" question before a Meeting for Business, wouldn't it? I'd be interested in hearing what the resulting minute from the Clerk would be.
Perhaps make an agenda item to discern if it's considered to be a good thing to play a computer game where the aim is to "virtually kill" another human being (or beings) who is on another computer using simulated weapons of war. Might add that "score" is kept and those that "kill" the most tend to be praised and awarded points so that they can get even better killing machines.
BTW, just curious. Do Quaker families generally give the young males play guns and toy soldiers for entertainment?
Toad, it's very much a matter of personal choice, morals, views, and ideas. The resulting minute would not come from the Clerk, it would come from a consensus by all the members of the Business Meeting. I don't know what that consensus would be. I do know that I don't think I would be judged very harshly for my feelings on violence in media.
I actually do think that there is a definite line to be drawn. Games like SoF take things too far for my tastes. Hopefully there will always be less visceral choices. Violence in the media is also a sensitive issue. The way I see it, there is a little too much glorification of violence, and maybe a little too much in general. However, I think that violence can be part of a presentation and, indeed, should be kept in the media. Especially in productions such as SPR, Amistad, etc, where it is an important part of what's happening and really communicates the truth of it.
Of course, I feel that young children and other impressionable people should not be exposed to violence, either glorified or more visceral, true to life, or just plain gory. When someone is mature, it becomes a matter of what they feel is acceptable, and what their parents feel is acceptable.
Toad, no, Quaker parents generally don't give toy soldiers and guns to young boys. I wouldn't even if I weren't. However, violence and other such things are going to come up. There are plenty of little kids who in meeting are more concerned with pretending to blow the elders away with a bazooka than sitting in silence. However, they are little kids, and that's important to remember. Most do tend to grow into the faith and into an understanding of the reality of violence.
Does all this make sense?
-
Well, why don't you make an agenda item to that effect in a few weeks. I'd like to come sit silently and watch that process. The Clerk writes the minute, correct?
"But perhaps the greatest test of a clerk's ability to read the collective mind of the meeting lies in the ability to draw up, at an appropriate time, the minute which will express the sense of the meeting to those present and to others beyond the meeting."
-
Toad, I am not a Quaker or a Liberal, and I do not give my kids (toy)guns to play with. They know what guns are, and what they are for, and the reason why you don't play with them, just like they do not play with my chainsaw or matches.
As a kid, of course, I had toy guns, bb guns and real guns. Different times.
-
...and so?
I asked that so I could come to a sense of how Quakers might view violent computer games. If they gave their kids war toys, then I guess a computer war game would be in the same vein, IE: np.
Good for you and yours.
My kids had toy guns. They had GI Joe "action figures".
They also have been instructed in the proper use of real guns. They hunt with our dogs.
They had toy airplanes too. I taught them how to fly real ones. They could tell the difference at an early age.
etc, etc, etc...
..and so?
-
A quaker fighter pilot.
I am awed and amazed.
and a lil confused.
Which is, in and of itself and considering the circumstances; not the least bit surprising. ;)
Chinese curse: "May you live in intresting times."
-
Originally posted by Toad:
...and so?
I asked that so I could come to a sense of how Quakers might view violent computer games. If they gave their kids war toys, then I guess a computer war game would be in the same vein, IE: np.
Good for you and yours.
My kids had toy guns. They had GI Joe "action figures".
They also have been instructed in the proper use of real guns. They hunt with our dogs.
They had toy airplanes too. I taught them how to fly real ones. They could tell the difference at an early age.
etc, etc, etc...
..and so?
I was actually kept away from violent media for quite some time. When I became old enough and responsible enough to understand violence in the real world is not appropriate, it was acceptable for me to entertain myself as I desired. Within certain limits, of course - there are lines that I do not cross. I do not have fun because I'm killing things in these games. What I enjoy is the thrill of competing against someone else and coming out on top. I enjoy the thrill of getting through a game despite the effort it takes. It's more of the thinking and action that I enjoy. There is imply no comparison between violence in a game and in real life.
Why do you keep trying to poke holes here? I have given you an answer. I am interested by military history, I love airplanes, and I think weapons are interesting. That doesn't mean I want to use them against someone. Not at all.
Toad, once again I can't tell you what the consensus would be. Yes, the clerk writes the minute. However, once they have written the minute, they submit it to the meeting for approval. Changes are suggested and made until all are satisfied with the minute. I do think that in these days, many have the same understanding that I do. Most of the people I know that are my age concur with me. Even if we are in a minority, we would not be held to be "wrong" by others in the meeting. As long as I remain true to the basic precepts of the faith (and I do), my exact methods and idiosyncrasies are unimportant.
-
Poking holes?
Nope. Just don't understand it. At all.
I really would like to see this discussed in a business meeting. I've got vacation end of October.... how long does it take to put an item on the agenda?
That this "playing at war" seems out of place with the beliefs of the religion?
Sort of like saying that a religion that opposes engaging in adultery and or participating in prostitution says it's OK to spend a lot of time cruising internet porn sites because one is interested in the history of sex, loves women and thinks instant intimate relationships with people you've never met before are interesting.
Hard for me to understand... it just doesn't go together. Anti-war and war games.
As I said, if you can get this on the agenda for a Business Meeting, I'll make every effort to attend. Consider it as broadening the education of an infidel.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Poking holes?
Nope. Just don't understand it. At all.
I really would like to see this discussed in a business meeting. I've got vacation end of October.... how long does it take to put an item on the agenda?
That this "playing at war" seems out of place with the beliefs of the religion?
Sort of like saying that a religion that opposes engaging in adultery and or participating in prostitution says it's OK to spend a lot of time cruising internet porn sites because one is interested in the history of sex, loves women and thinks instant intimate relationships with people you've never met before are interesting.
Hard for me to understand... it just doesn't go together. Anti-war and war games.
As I said, if you can get this on the agenda for a Business Meeting, I'll make every effort to attend. Consider it as broadening the education of an infidel.
If you're willing to make a trip up to Jaffrey, NH perhaps... but no. It won't enlighten you on the subject at all. What other Quakers think about war games is irrelevant to me, because they do not have any effect on my view of things. They are fun, but I know that war and violence and suffering in the real world is not. I oppose it. For most of them, that's what matters.
If you don't understand it, fine. You aren't required to. Your comparison is ridiculous in any case. I'll just stick with my liberal, hypocritical views on this subject. After all, the concept is so hard to grasp...
:rolleyes:
Let me put it this way: do you believe war is good? I know how you feel about war in this case - that it is a necessity (sorry if I'm oversimplifying). But, in general, is war to be encouraged? If you don't think so, why do you play this game?
Toad, I don't consider you an infidel, nor do I think you are ignorant. I do think that you have some different views on this, which I happen to disagree with. That's life, isn't it? As you've said yourself, fly what you like, like what you fly.
-
Toad, nm only point was that it is risky for kids to play with toy guns today, mainly because so many people freak out about them. Two incidents come to mind, both local, where small children were killed by accident while playing with toy guns.
In one, a father shot his daughter, thinking she was an intruder, in the other, the young(9) punk was shot for waving a toy gun in the general direction of an officer.
It is just not important enough for me to risk it. When they are a little older, I will teach them to shoot real guns; they already know how to shoot bb guns(my lil girls are 5 and 9).
It is, in my opinion, more important that they know that guns are tools and have a specific use, rather than entertainment.
-
ispar,
Being Buhddist, I can empathize with you. I have been asked the same question by people I know: How can you play a game whose intent is to kill others?
My response is that I consider the game like a game of tag, only I have to learn the basics of flying in order to participate. We use words like "kill" and "shoot down" and "destroy", but they are just words. ;)
There's nothing in the Precepts of Buhddism against doing that. At least, not to my knowledge or interpretation.
Now should we have to start lining up at the disintegrator when we get "killed", then I will either have to stop playing the game or learn to fly better. ;)
Hang in there!
Buhdman, out
-
"What other Quakers think about war games is irrelevant to me, because they do not have any effect on my view of things."
Gotta love that, huh? Subjective religion!
Now THAT I can understand. You make your own rules according to how YOU feel.
EX-CELL-ENT!
I sorta have the same system. Guess you and I are closer than you thought. Only I don't call myself by any name. Bout the time I was 21, I realized me and the Pope were never going to see eye to eye on several different religious matters.
Hmm... "Toadism". Could work.. I'll think on it some.
BTW, I think it was an pretty apt comparison. But I can see why you don't like it. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad:
"What other Quakers think about war games is irrelevant to me, because they do not have any effect on my view of things."
Gotta love that, huh? Subjective religion!
Now THAT I can understand. You make your own rules according to how YOU feel.
EX-CELL-ENT!
I sorta have the same system. Guess you and I are closer than you thought. Only I don't call myself by any name. Bout the time I was 21, I realized me and the Pope were never going to see eye to eye on several different religious matters.
Hmm... "Toadism". Could work.. I'll think on it some.
BTW, I think it was an pretty apt comparison. But I can see why you don't like it. :D
That didn't come out right...
The point is that Quakerism is a very open religion. The only real "rules" are that you understand the process and do your best to follow the testimonies (Peace, Simplicity, Equality, Truth) in your life.
But when it comes down to niceties like worship and other specificalities, it's an individual thing. In Quakerism the emphasis is on the relationship with God and the individual. To try and tell others what their relationship should be is not at all what we do. There are even atheist Quakers!
My point is that on issues like this, it's very much an individual thing. Some, likely many, feel that for them to play those games is wrong. For me it is not. I think Buhdman (thanks dude! :)) put it nicely. It's like a game of tag. If you are bothered by this, well, it's not my problem. Think what you will, I know myself. Playing these games in no way undermines my faith and conviction. And that is what's important.
-
Oh, I have no doubt you are "at peace" with it.
I, however, view the juxtaposition of the non-violent Quaker getting his jollies playing a war game in a somewhat different light.
Go get 'em.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Oh, I have no doubt you are "at peace" with it.
I, however, view the juxtaposition of the non-violent Quaker getting his jollies playing a war game in a somewhat different light.
Go get 'em.
*shrug*
If you like.
-
ispar,
just a note to say, i get your possition on this and it makes sense to me.
-
Aces High is as much about real war as "Battleship" is.
B3....miss. drat !
Some people join virtual versions of miltary squads to try increase immersion in the pursuit of a fantasy war.
Others join squads for the simple fun of "hanging out with the boys"
Others couldn't care less about joing a squad.
I think of Aces High as a game of chess.
I don't think for a second that it's anything like real combat.
There are, no doubt, many others out there who think the same way.
[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Snoopi ]
-
I'm still confused..
..but laffin my bellybutton off nonetheless.
'What did the Buddist fighter pilot say to the Quaker Bomber pilot?'
"Bang; yer dead!"
Bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!!
This is one heluva community... bless you all. <S!>
-
quote ispar
"Something about violence is thrilling to the human psyche"
a pacifist that likes violent games, something just not right here.
yoda and i will think on this we will
[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: john9001 ]
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
I'm still confused..
..but laffin my bellybutton off nonetheless.
'What did the Buddist fighter pilot say to the Quaker Bomber pilot?'
"Bang; yer dead!"
Bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!!
This is one heluva community... bless you all. <S!>
No, he says:
"Bang! With these simulated bullets I send you on to your next incarnation. I hope you have learned well from this life and that any Karma you have generated is good Karma. I look forward to meeting you in your next life where we can learn from each other even more of life's mysteries! <Salute, ohhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm>"
-
john, that's one reason why wars continue to be fought. That's right, I'm a pacifist who enjoys violent computer games. To an extent, that is - some are definitely too much for me. That doesn't mean that in real life, when things start to get dirty that it's enjoyable. I probably should have said "action," or "excitement." It's a little closer I suppose. But violence is a broader term than "shooting and killing things."
And SwampRat, yes I am willing to die for my beliefs. I am not willing to kill for my beliefs. When it comes to down to survival, however - I assume that is what you are talking about - I am simply not sure. If it's just me and someone trying to mug me and kill me in a dark alley, yeah, I'll fight for my life. It's very circumstantial.
[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: ispar ]
-
This is America people. A mans religious beliefs are his own affair. They need not be defended.
-
Aye; Easymo. Good point. :)
-
Aces High is about as violent as "You don't know Jack" (or whatever that POS from Sierra is called)...
Look at it this way: All FPS games have blood sprites modelled and blood bitmaps that apply to wall/ground textures if the 'human' model is shot. The models are so detailed that you can shoot them in the head and they die instantly- same with the heart. Other places on the body just take points off and slowly kill you. In Half-Life in particular, if you blow someone up- you have guts and other mangled body parts floating about.
That is graphic violence.
In Aces High it's only as violent as you make it. If you sit there and pretend this is a real war and those are real people dying, then I guess you can claim it is violent.
I don't view it that way. There's a pilot model, but there is no blood modelled. There is no "death" and there is no "life" either. Things blow up or crash, but there isn't a sign of attempting to re-create humans inside of the game.
In WWII pilots who shot down planes looked at it from the point of view that they were shooting the plane down, and not the person inside of the plane.
You can argue it either way, but I don't see any video games (no matter how graphic) as violent. Why? Hey buddy, reality check: it's a computer program. Violence requires real bullets, real fists, real blood and real death.
-SW
-
Thanks easymo.
A good point SWulfe. That is a part of how I look at it.
-
That is a very difficult call. Given a.) that I am armed, for whatever reason and b.) that I have absolutely no hope otherwise, I think the honest answer is that I would fight. I believe that personal self-defense is an entirely different matter, with far more depending upon circumstances. If I have absolutely no option but to fight (and 90% of the time it is possible to find a way out without fighting, IMO) than that is what I pick. I do want to stay alive and preserve the lives of my family. Other than that situation, I find a way to get the hell out of Dodge without fighting anyone. Negotiation isn't always an option, but neither is fighting.
However, personal self-defense goes far beyond conflict on an international level. I know that this war is being called necessary self-defense, and the irony is that at this point it may be indeed be so - but fighting will not solve the problem either. This didn't happen simply because someone decided they hated the US. There are motives, which should be addressed. But that's a topic for another thread ;).
SwampRat, does that address your question? Is it clear?
...and I think I should add, faced with the specific situation you mentioned that I would not fight. I don't yet know whether they are going to try and kill me or my family. In hopes of not causing trouble and being spared, I would surrender - yes and likely get killed later. But I don't know that... which is why it happens. Sad world sometimes.
Originally posted by SwampRat:
Ispar (and all)
I am not calling ispar's beliefs into question. I AM however attempting to wade through the grey and get to either black or white. Let me make this easy with an example of something that HAS happened on a large scale.
Ispar, Mom, Dad, Wife and Kids are approached by 2 armed men. Ispar is standing to the back a little out of the way. Ispar is also armed (lets say...for sake of argument). Ispar also know's the armed men are a pair of Slobodan Milosoveks henchmen, and Ispar is Albanian, in ...Kosovo.
....Ispar, where do you draw the line at being pacifist? This is not a grey subject, and my analogy is VERY black and white. You either let your family die, or you resort to hard-core violence to save thier lives. I fail to realise the difference whether this be family or large scale conflict, how can you be unsure? You are either pacifist or not...right?
Forgive me for backing you into a corner, but the United States is facing a crisis far beyond what your average citizen has yet to realise. The Taliban kills people...Islamic fundamentalists KILL people. We've lost 6000+ and WE WILL lose more. We need unity and support (yes I am Military). We do NOT need a return to the Viet-nam era campus limpdick cowardly attitude (not accusing you, I've read your other posts) that has already begun to surface. In a nutshell, stand by your beliefs as stated and show a little support, you have no obligation to respond to negative posts about your character, and I would like to request the anti-violence message be carefully thought over before more flamewars begin, the deeper this gets the more it seems to fuel the fire of discontent.
Tumor (formerly Swamprat)
P.S. Again, per statements you've made in other threads, thankyou for your humble attitude and support.
-
Originally posted by SwampRat:
Ispar (and all)
I am not calling ispar's beliefs into question. I AM however attempting to wade through the grey and get to either black or white. Let me make this easy with an example of something that HAS happened on a large scale.
Ispar, Mom, Dad, Wife and Kids are approached by 2 armed men. Ispar is standing to the back a little out of the way. Ispar is also armed (lets say...for sake of argument). Ispar also know's the armed men are a pair of Slobodan Milosoveks henchmen, and Ispar is Albanian, in ...Kosovo.
....Ispar, where do you draw the line at being pacifist? This is not a grey subject, and my analogy is VERY black and white. You either let your family die, or you resort to hard-core violence to save thier lives. I fail to realise the difference whether this be family or large scale conflict, how can you be unsure? You are either pacifist or not...right?
Forgive me for backing you into a corner, but the United States is facing a crisis far beyond what your average citizen has yet to realise. The Taliban kills people...Islamic fundamentalists KILL people. We've lost 6000+ and WE WILL lose more. We need unity and support (yes I am Military). We do NOT need a return to the Viet-nam era campus limpdick cowardly attitude (not accusing you, I've read your other posts) that has already begun to surface. In a nutshell, stand by your beliefs as stated and show a little support, you have no obligation to respond to negative posts about your character, and I would like to request the anti-violence message be carefully thought over before more flamewars begin, the deeper this gets the more it seems to fuel the fire of discontent.
Tumor (formerly Swamprat)
P.S. Again, per statements you've made in other threads, thankyou for your humble attitude and support.
I'd like to add my take on this. Although I am not your "typical Buhddist", I try to follow the 5 precepts of Buhddism, one of which is "I shall refrain from harming any living creature". Notice the words "refrain from" as opposed to "shalt not". Very important. I have read several books by the Dahli Llama from Tibet, and his advice is this. You cannot predict what situation you will find yourself in. But should you find yourself confronted with a dangerous situation like the one you describe, SwampRat, you should approach it with rationality and compassion.
If, in this situation, I were to allow the assailant to continu uninterrupted, my inaction would result in the direct harm of those I love and perhaps many, many others. I would weigh this, in an ever-so-short split second, against the harm I would do to the assailant and the assailant would be dead before he could hear the gun fire, if there were no other way.
Have I harmed another living creature? Yes. Have I acted with compassion? Yes. Have I avoided harm to the assailant's other intended victims? Yes. Have I been true to the Precepts? Most definitely.
The bottom line is that I can live with that decision.
We all have to make choices in this life and some of them are very difficult ones. The key is not to approach them with emotion and fear, but with compassion, confidence, and rationality.
IMHO.
I hope this helps you understand how I, as an individual, would react. And I hope it helps you understand better how other Buhddists might react. (Note the word "might", here. Not all Buhddists would feel and react the way I do)
Buhdman, out
-
Originally posted by buhdman:
.....Being Buhddist, I can empathize with you.
Buhdman: i'm interested in learning more about Buddism.
I find religions facinating and was wondering of you know of any good web sites that explain the basics of it without be having to read for the next 6 months straight.
You may as well send a private msg if you like.
Thanks a lot !
-
First off Ispar <S> for
A Being open about your beliefs
B Being ready to defend and explain them
I'm with Hangtime, or in other words,
"Viva La Difference!"
-
First off, thanks buhdman... you spoke my thoughts on a situation like that very clearly and with far fewer words than I needed... I think that is a very concise and accurate idea of how I might think in that situation. If there is no other choice, than I believe I would react as most any human being would.
And second, thanks Ghosth :). We are extremely lucky in this country to be able to be open about our beliefs, as well as to explain and defend them if need be. As you said, viva la difference!
-
Hyea ispar, a quickie question spawned from one of the url's you posted initially....
He spoke against holidays, sports, theater, wigs, jewelry, etc.
Why did he speak against sports and theater, which represent two very important aspects of human psychology?
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Hyea ispar, a quickie question spawned from one of the url's you posted initially....
Why did he speak against sports and theater, which represent two very important aspects of human psychology?
Quakers are a rather more tolerant bunch now than they were then. There were stricter rules about many things, even if the basic rules for treating your fellow man are no different. There wasn't even such a thing as psychology back then. Sort of a silly question, really. Just because George Fox spoke against sports and theater doesn't mean I have to be against them. Much the same way that preachers for other churches long ago spoke of manifest destiny, the inherent superiority of the white man and his "duty" to "shepard" his inferiors, and the evil Jews...