From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sun Jun 21 03:30:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA00819 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 03:30:24 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id DAA00511 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 03:30:48 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 03:30:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199806210830.DAA00511@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #832 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Sunday, June 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 832 In this digest: Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco IN> "Pagan" Christianity? IN> Tethers and San Francisco Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 RE: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? Re: Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? Re: IN> Tether destruction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:47:01 -0500 From: "David C. Shadle" Subject: Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco > (I mean LA is coming out, and I doubt we'll get any detail on the > Mexican-American barrios in East LA, or the problems with immigration, or > the bus schedule to Tijuana, or even one really good place to get tacos. > I need sleazepits, not tourist attractions, as a GM.) There's a really good Taco stand next to the Pantages theatre in Hollywierd. I always get one when I'm down in the area. If you want sleazepits Hollywood is the place. Sexshops, hookers, tranvestites, and thats in the Theatre district. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:06:52 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? >>>Which denominations of Protestant Christianity are you thinking of? All the denominations I know of, including the United Churches of Christ (also known as Unitarians Considering Christ), include a theological statement that mankind is Fallen, one way or the other, and that Christ's mission was redemptive, one way or the other. The ministers might not talk about it much, and they may couch it in less antagonistic terms, but it's there.<<< I grew up in the Methodist church, which was once one of the stricter Protestant denominations, but is now relatively liberal. Very rarely in all the years I was a believer did I hear "original sin" talked about in the terms you are -- certainly I was aware of the doctrine, and aware that in some churches it was a major issue, but not in many of the churches (Methodist and non-Methodist) that I saw. There are two issues here, really; the first is whether there is actually a doctrine in the denomination's official platform (and exactly how it's phrased), and the second is, quite aside from what the church's official position may be, do most members subscribe to it (or are they even aware of it)? >>>the verse is: "If any man says that he does not sin, he is deceived, and the Truth is not in him."<<< Yes, I know a lot of the verses that one denomination or the other uses to justify their positions. That's rather beside the point, though, since I was questioning whether all, or most, Christian denominations subscribe to the principle that everyone must do or believe X (X being whatever that denomination holds as the criteria for "salvation") to go to heaven. You simply can't speak about what "Christians believe" as if Christianity was not fragmented into hundreds of different sects and belief systems who often believe directly contradictory things. And in particular, you can't speak about what fundamentalists and evangelicals believe as if they are representative of all (or most) Christians. >>>"Most faiths" is absurdly inaccurate. "Most Christian faiths" would be completely accurate.<<< I'm still not sure I agree with you. I don't know what the official position of most denominations is, but I'm pretty sure that (contrary to what some of their members may believe personally!) an awful lot of the mainline denominations specifically do NOT assert that only Christians can go to heaven. Including the Roman Catholic Church (which may surprise many Catholics, but I've been told that by more than one member of the RCC clergy -- and the RCC certainly makes up a sizeable percentage of Christianity). - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:06:56 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Tethers and San Francisco >>> I'd run GURPS Imperial Rome with that book (and the Lindsey Davis _Falco_ books, and Hambly's _Search the Seven Hills_). I wouldn't vouch for my ability to make it historically accurate, but I'd run it...<<< I hate being historically inaccurate. (You can't really avoid it, but I try to achieve as much accuracy as possible.) I'd need a lot more detail to feel comfortable that I was doing it right. >>>And I think I'd probably be able to 'fake it' with IN Austin (well, okay, I lived there too).<<< For a one-shot, I might rely on a game supplement. For a campaign, I'd have to have a lot more material for verisimilitude. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:55:37 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Tethers and San Francisco Emily Dresner wrote: > (I mean LA is coming out, and I doubt we'll get any detail on the > Mexican-American barrios in East LA, or the problems with immigration, or > the bus schedule to Tijuana, or even one really good place to get tacos. > I need sleazepits, not tourist attractions, as a GM.) > > - Em Well, in the Valley (San Fernando Valley is part of LA city, most of it) there's this place called Casa Burrito in Van Nuys...I can rummage up the address if you want it. ;) Their grilled steak tacos are excellent, I'm told the fish tacos are as well if you go for that. But everything is REALLY big. You could work a whole day at Ren Faire, be starving, work for Haagenti and still just barely finish one of their burritos. Sean (Hey, it's relevant! I name-dropped a DP...) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:40:45 EDT From: DrHarmoney@aol.com Subject: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 In a message dated 98-06-19 23:41:03 EDT, you write: << Ah, thanks. I couldn't remember if that bit was going into the FotM or not, >> Can someone tell me what the FotM is, please? Thanks - -Take Care - -Ray ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:02:04 +1000 From: "Stevenson, Christopher (Pubs)" Subject: RE: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 Can someone tell me what the FotM is, please? -Ray Fall of the Malakim! Cheers. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:56:02 -0500 From: Uncle Wolf Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 > Can someone tell me what the FotM is, please? > > -Ray > Stevenson, Christopher (Pubs) wrote: > > Fall of the Malakim Which is the fourth book in the Revelations cycle of adventure supplements for IN. tom timberlake, cadre Cherub of Heaven ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 16:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Re: in_nomine-digest V1 #831 On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Uncle Wolf wrote: > > Fall of the Malakim > > Which is the fourth book in the Revelations cycle of adventure > supplements for IN. Which, hopefully, will be out before I die of old age. - -- Casca, Seraph of Archives (bertishg@db.erau.edu) "...I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above Him were seraphs, each with six wings: with two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying...At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke." -- Isaiah 6:2,4 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 18:21:23 -0400 From: John Maurer Subject: Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? David Edelstein wrote: > I'm still not sure I agree with you. I don't know what the official > position of most denominations is, but I'm pretty sure that (contrary to > what some of their members may believe personally!) an awful lot of the > mainline denominations specifically do NOT assert that only Christians can > go to heaven. Including the Roman Catholic Church (which may surprise many > Catholics, but I've been told that by more than one member of the RCC > clergy -- and the RCC certainly makes up a sizeable percentage of > Christianity). As a Roman Catholic, I can confirm this. The official position was taken in Vatican II (1965) that non-christians can go to heaven. I also can confirm with reasonable certainty that the Roman Catholic Church holds a majority (there are more Catholics than all the other faiths put together) as far as population goes. Now can we change the subject? Speaks ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 01:35:33 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? In a message dated 6/20/98 12:11:32 AM, David wrote: >>>MarkDEddy writes these<<< >>>>Which denominations of Protestant Christianity are you thinking of? All >the denominations I know of, including the United Churches of Christ (also >known as Unitarians Considering Christ), include a theological statement >that mankind is Fallen, one way or the other, and that Christ's mission was >redemptive, one way or the other. The ministers might not talk about it >much, and they may couch it in less antagonistic terms, but it's there.<<< > >I grew up in the Methodist church, which was once one of the stricter >Protestant denominations, but is now relatively liberal. Very rarely in all >the years I was a believer did I hear "original sin" talked about in the >terms you are -- certainly I was aware of the doctrine, and aware that in >some churches it was a major issue, but not in many of the churches >(Methodist and non-Methodist) that I saw. There are two issues here, >really; the first is whether there is actually a doctrine in the >denomination's official platform (and exactly how it's phrased), and the >second is, quite aside from what the church's official position may be, do >most members subscribe to it (or are they even aware of it)? > Actually, there's a third and fourth issue as well: the third is if there is a difference between "offical" theology and an individual member's theology whether this a problem or not, and the fourth is what this has to do with In Nomine? > >>>>the verse is: "If any man says that he does not sin, he is deceived, and >the Truth is not in him."<<< > Note that this was directed at the original post, not at the response... >Yes, I know a lot of the verses that one denomination or the other uses to >justify their positions. That's rather beside the point, though, since I >was questioning whether all, or most, Christian denominations subscribe to >the principle that everyone must do or believe X (X being whatever that >denomination holds as the criteria for "salvation") to go to heaven. You >simply can't speak about what "Christians believe" as if Christianity was >not fragmented into hundreds of different sects and belief systems who >often believe directly contradictory things. And in particular, you can't >speak about what fundamentalists and evangelicals believe as if they are >representative of all (or most) Christians. > The problem is a definition of Christianity _qua_ Christianity. Is there a single unifying commonality between everyone who calls themselves Christians, or isn't there? My arguement is that there must be a commonality, and I beleive (from talking to a *lot* of Christians of various stripes) that there is. It's quite simple, actually. I call it the Fish Creed. Jesus the Christ, God's Son, Savior. (Iesu o Cristos Qeon Uiou Sator) ( ><>) The last word is the most important to my argument. Jesus is the Savior. Even the Methodists (unless the hymnal has been changed since the copy I have) in the communion service (either one) you would say the General Confession, which includes "...we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness.... [H]ave mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee..." The Episcopal Church uses the same language, as (if I remember correctly) do the Lutherans and the Catholics, with only slightly varied phrasing (to update the language...) Every member of the congregation who intends to partake of communion is supposed to pray this to God. I leave it to your own reasoning what conclusion is to be reached about someone wh prays this without meaning it. > >>>>"Most faiths" is absurdly inaccurate. "Most Christian faiths" would be >completely accurate.<<< > >I'm still not sure I agree with you. I don't know what the official >position of most denominations is, but I'm pretty sure that (contrary to >what some of their members may believe personally!) an awful lot of the >mainline denominations specifically do NOT assert that only Christians can >go to heaven. Including the Roman Catholic Church (which may surprise many >Catholics, but I've been told that by more than one member of the RCC >clergy -- and the RCC certainly makes up a sizeable percentage of >Christianity). > _Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church_, 1994 edition, paragraphs 1023-1029 inclusive. (English Translation). Read it carefully. The arguement there is that if they die non-christian but in "God's grace and friendship", they essentially see God in Trinity, and accept the RCC doctrine _post_mortem_, as it were, Heaven being defined as "a perfect communion of life and love with The Most Holy Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed," If you didn't jump through all the RC hoops, you end up in the Final Purification (aka Purgatory), before you can reach heaven. I'm not going to quote any more, but the central tenent is there that you need to accept Christ in order to see him, and to see him is the definition of heaven. A final summary is that In Nomine has incredibly poor theology from a Christian point of view, and I for one *do* believe that In Nomine presents Christianity from a "Pagan" point of view, as the thread title states. (Note that I mean "Pagan" in the Latin sense of "Hick" rather than the more modern English/PC sense of "Polytheist") > >-David Mark (so I don't get essence, and neither does Mr. Walsh...) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 01:40:53 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: IN> "Pagan" Christianity? In a message dated 6/20/98 3:17:46 PM, you wrote: > > >David Edelstein wrote: > >> I'm still not sure I agree with you. I don't know what the official >> position of most denominations is, but I'm pretty sure that (contrary to >> what some of their members may believe personally!) an awful lot of the >> mainline denominations specifically do NOT assert that only Christians can >> go to heaven. Including the Roman Catholic Church (which may surprise many >> Catholics, but I've been told that by more than one member of the RCC >> clergy -- and the RCC certainly makes up a sizeable percentage of >> Christianity). > >As a Roman Catholic, I can confirm this. The official position was taken in >Vatican II (1965) that non-christians can go to heaven. I also can confirm >with reasonable certainty that the Roman Catholic Church holds a majority >(there are more Catholics than all the other faiths put together) as far as >population goes. > >Now can we change the subject? > >Speaks Too late. :-/ I already answered in depth previously. If you don't like it, don't read anything with the subject header... Mark (Feeling very Cherub of Stone...) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 04:12:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Sheep Boy Subject: Re: IN> Tether destruction On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Walter Milliken wrote: > >How can tethers be destroyed? Is it enough to destroy the building > >or whatever location happens to be housing it? > > Not necessarily -- though that's usually a good start.... 8< good stuff snip >8 Thanks for the nigh-canon update, Walter. :) It fit in with what I was assuming, I think, though I don't think I'd worked it out in my head quite that clearly, but you reminded me of a good point that I think I had lost sight of, about Tethers belonging to a Superior, and that meaning they belong to a Word. Makes things a little easier to conceptualize. Just conversationally, is this mysterious "Tether book" set for publication and distribution some time soon? Just curious, though I do appreciate the info you already gave. Just like to make sure I know what the canon rules are before I go changing stuff around. :) - Stavro stavro@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~stavro/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everybody talks about apathy, but nobody does anything about it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #832 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.