Announcements

Watch this space for important information on planned twitch streams, updates and more

KNIGHTS of ST. GEORGE

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
KNIGHTS of ST. GEORGE

The Mighty Paladin is going to start THE KNIGHTS OF SAINT GEORGE a Heroes Only SG that will team up for street patrolling, missions and fighting giant monsters but not for PVP?

You can team up any time you feel like it, but if you want to solo a lot and just call the team when you really need help, that's totally cool.
We'll have one night a week that we'll plan on getting together to do stuff that requires teams.

Warning the Group leader can be a bit of a troll but he really means no harm.

Group rules:
All members must be good guys.
Even if you have 20 toons in the group we still won't make an exception for that one bad guy you made out of curiosity, he can go join a villain group. But we won't stomp him because that would be PVP and we don't do that.

When I say good guys I mean really good no dang Punisher types either.
Strangely enough Wolverine is cool because his animal nature drives him to berserk rages and it's really more of a weakness than a wrong moral choice, so if you're toon is a lunatic with a heart of gold, (like the group leader) we'll accept him. Hulk Good, Cable Bad.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Online
Last seen: 4 min 42 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
L M F A O, O L.

L M F A O, O L.

I'm in. At least for one toon.

Pal, I sometimes have issues with your lack of compromise, but I have to admire your spirit.

I by far mostly play heroes, mostly solo,and only occasionally play PvP anyway (not on principle, just by preference), so I'll pledge one pure soul to your crusade.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
As a former member of a

As a former member of a Longbow themed SG on Triumph, I think I can contribute at least one toon to the idea. Perhaps more as altitis kicks in. However, I do play all shades.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Welcome aboard

Welcome aboard

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Orichalcia Drake would like

Orichalcia Drake would like to join. ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Half Dragons are welcome. We

Half Dragons are welcome. We don't discriminate.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Over on another thread,

Over on another thread,

WarBird wrote:

*snip*
Oh, and not to stick pins or anything, The Knights of the Order of St. George are an actual modern, living organization. They are the oldest order of Knighthood in England, but still exist. May I suggest, as a Paladin, you wouldn't want to step on toes. OTH, in our alternate Superworld, maybe the Order exists as an organization to battle evil in a real living sense. Who knows?!

But this seems like a better place to answer it. ^_^

IMHO, any organization that has a disambiguation page on Wikipedia, can't really claim to be unique. And when one of those entries on that page starts out:

Quote:

Knights of St. George (in Catalan, Sant Jordi d'Alfama) appear at different historical periods and in different countries as mutually independent bodies having nothing in common but the veneration of Saint George, the patron saint of knighthood.

Well, it would seem that there is ample precedent. ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Thanks I can sleep easier now

Thanks I can sleep easier now.

You know my Group Swag thread was inspired by an idea I had in my own game. When members join the Knights of Saint George (lead by The Last Crusader) they're given a Saint George medal. But only Last Crusader, Father William and Lady Dove make a habit of wearing them.
Paladin isn't in the Knights of Saint George, in my game, because they're based in Technopolis and he lives in Birmingham.

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Ha. You know what? I was

Ha. You know what? I was thinking of the Order of the Garter, which uses St. George (and cross thereof) as its badge. :) I had no idea there were so many "Orders of St. George" out there. Still, They all seem to be good charitable organizations. Why not use the title for a more, um, pro-active initiative?

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Gluke's got one question: are

Gluke's got one question: are atheists allowed in?

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
The original Knights of Saint

The original Knights of Saint George, in the Paladin Universe, includes a couple of protestants, one atheist and an alien whose beliefs have not been elaborated on. We also have Sorceror named Doctor Weird whose beliefs are not clear, but he's a descendant of Faust and was willing to learn magic by studying Faust's books.
You can learn all about the original Knights of Saint George in My Book "Knight of Saint George" http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110448/Knights-of-Saint-George?manufacturers_id=3185

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

Gluke's got one question: are atheists allowed in?

Please clarify: are you speaking of the player or the character?

And to extend the original question: If not, what religions and denominations are excluded?

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
The Knights of Saint George

The Knights of Saint George is associated with the Catholic Church. But it's an Ecumenical charitable organization dedicated to protecting innocent people (regardless of faith) from superpowered threats and helping with disaster relief. They have also joined in the war against terror.
The group's Chaplain is Father William a Priest who has healing powers. He seldom goes on adventures, but wears a costume to fit in.
The group does not discriminate in membership or service. Anyone can join and we will help anyone in need. Since the Last Crusader the founder and leader of the group is immortal, and the group is not a democracy, there's is no concern about membership altering the character of the group. It will always be a Catholic Group and work closely with the Church. The Church provides us with financial support and spiritual direction and calls on us to deal with supernatural threats (demons, undead, witches & werewolves etc...)
Naturally due to the religious character of the group, some people might not feel welcome, but if you're not a villain, vigilante or devil worshiper, you'll be welcome. (Heck, I already said even a lunatic like Wolverine would be welcome).

I have said above that the Mighty Paladin is starting the group, but I meant me.
In the game I'll create the Last Crusader so he can be group leader just like in my game.

Honestly I'm not sure just how much of the original group's history I will be attempting to bring into this game. Obviously I can't go with the official Paladin Universe story of them being founded in 1941 when the original members teamed up to save Norfolk Virginia from a Nazi attack, and I don't know if Titan City was attacked during the war (but I rather doubt).

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

The Knights of Saint George is associated with the Catholic Church. But it's an Ecumenical charitable organization dedicated to protecting innocent people (regardless of faith) from superpowered threats and helping with disaster relief. They have also joined in [bold]the war against terror.[/bold]

As long as they're not affiliated with the Bush family, that's just fine. ;) I ain't their biggest fan.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

It will always be a Catholic Group and work closely with the Church. The Church provides us with financial support and spiritual direction and calls on us to deal with supernatural threats (demons, undead, witches & werewolves etc...)

I've got no problem with the idea of a religiously supported super-group, but... the Catholic Church hasn't had the most holy of histories, as religious organizations go, and crime and abuse of power among it's bureaucracy remains a serious issue up to the present day. Does that issue play a role in your fictional background?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Naturally due to the religious character of the group, some people might not feel welcome, but if you're not a villain, [bold] vigilante [/bold] or devil worshiper, you'll be welcome. (Heck, I already said even a lunatic like Wolverine would be welcome).

Wait, vigilante...? You mean like MOST superheroes? The Catholic Church doesn't have legal authority outside of Vatican City, IIRC.
Also, how about if a villain turns good and tries to redeem themselves, isn't it in the group's interests to rehabilitate them?
How about if your toon IS a demon but wants to defect to the other side?
Plus what how does the group feel about those with heterodox religious beliefs like Gnostics?

I'm not picking holes, honest, I'm just curious.

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Gluke's got one question: are atheists allowed in?

Please clarify: are you speaking of the player or the character?

Either, but character ostensibly.

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

As long as they're not affiliated with the Bush family, that's just fine. ;) I ain't their biggest fan.

Last Crusader is not interested in Politics. He doesn't believe in Democracy, doesn't vote and longs for a king.

Gluke wrote:

I've got no problem with the idea of a religiously supported super-group, but... the Catholic Church hasn't had the most holy of histories, as religious organizations go, and crime and abuse of power among it's bureaucracy remains a serious issue up to the present day. Does that issue play a role in your fictional background?

No. All institutions face corruption from within if they last any time, especially if they gain any size, wealth or power. The Last Crusader lived through the "Reformation". His view is that of Saints John of the Cross and Ignatius Loyola (Not Martin Luther). He stands against corruption but never challenges the teaching or authority of the Church.

Gluke wrote:

Wait, vigilante...? You mean like MOST superheroes?

No. When I use the word Vigilante I nearly always mean people who routinely use excessive and deadly force, and act as judge jury and executioner; people like the Punisher, Rorschach, Equalizer, etc...

Gluke wrote:

Also, how about if a villain turns good and tries to redeem themselves, isn't it in the group's interests to rehabilitate them?

Certainly, but if they've gained our trust we no longer think of them as villains. We don't ban former villains.

Gluke wrote:

How about if your toon IS a demon but wants to defect to the other side?

We don't believe that demonic creatures are able to repent. Even a person who was not a demon but got powers from a demonic source would definitely be banned from membership. And if it can be arranged legally they would be subjected to an exorcism.

Gluke wrote:

Plus what how does the group feel about those with heterodox religious beliefs like Gnostics?

All non Catholics hold heterodox beliefs. This is an ecumenical organization not a religious order. We focus on helping people. If you're heart is in the right place it matters far less where your head is.

Gluke wrote:

I'm not picking holes, honest, I'm just curious.

It's cool I enjoy answering these questions.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
How about if your toon IS a demon but wants to defect to the other side?
We don't believe that demonic creatures are able to repent. Even a person who was not a demon but got powers from a demonic source would definitely be banned from membership. And if it can be arranged legally they would be subjected to an exorcism.

Good thing I decided against Rhythiel asking to join. We'll have to agree to disagree on the redemption issue, I think. ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Last Crusader is not interested in Politics. He doesn't believe in Democracy, doesn't vote and longs for a king.

He don't believe in democracy?! Oh dear.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

No. All institutions face corruption from within if they last any time, especially if they gain any size, wealth or power. The Last Crusader lived through the "Reformation". His view is that of Saints John of the Cross and Ignatius Loyola (Not Martin Luther). He stands against corruption but never challenges the teaching or authority of the Church.

Would he reveal corruption in the Church even against the word of higher ranking clergy, thus working against their authority?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Wait, vigilante...? You mean like MOST superheroes?
No. When I use the word Vigilante I nearly always mean people who routinely use excessive and deadly force, and act as judge jury and executioner; people like the Punisher, Rorschach, Equalizer, etc...

Aw.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Also, how about if a villain turns good and tries to redeem themselves, isn't it in the group's interests to rehabilitate them?
Certainly, but if they've gained our trust we no longer think of them as villains. We don't ban former villains.
Gluke wrote:
How about if your toon IS a demon but wants to defect to the other side?
We don't believe that demonic creatures are able to repent. Even a person who was not a demon but got powers from a demonic source would definitely be banned from membership. And if it can be arranged legally they would be subjected to an exorcism.

That's harsh! How about a 'demon' from a different religion? And how about a god from a different religion, a figure of worship, could they join?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Plus what how does the group feel about those with heterodox religious beliefs like Gnostics?

All non Catholics hold heterodox beliefs. This is an ecumenical organization not a religious order. We focus on helping people. If you're heart is in the right place it matters far less where your head is.
Gluke wrote:
I'm not picking holes, honest, I'm just curious.

Good stuff. But here's the $64000000 question: can openly gay people join?

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

He don't believe in democracy?! Oh dear.

But he has no interest in politics. He is not trying to overthrow our government and establish a monarchy.
Also there are a lot of people in the group who don't share this views.
Defender is our resident patriotic hero.

He's a Reagan Republican, and argues with Last Crusader a lot.

Gluke wrote:

Would he reveal corruption in the Church even against the word of higher ranking clergy, thus working against their authority?

No one can have the authority, to order you to keep their crimes a secret. Last Crusader would feel no obligation to follow such an order.

Gluke wrote:

That's harsh! How about a 'demon' from a different religion? And how about a god from a different religion, a figure of worship, could they join?

Creatures that are not from Hell or in league with Satan are not satanic, even if linguists have a habit of using the words "demon" or "devil" to translate some foreign word. Creatures that are not satanic, may not be inherently evil, so they would have to be evaluated as individuals using the same standards we would apply to human beings. That means if they're not villains or vigilantes they're probably welcome.

Gluke wrote:

Good stuff. But here's the $64000000 question: can openly gay people join?

Yes. As I said we are not a religious order we're a charitable group and "charity shall cover the multitude of sins" 1Pe_4:8
Remember, homosexual desires are disordered and homosexual acts are sinful, but we are all tempted to a variety of sins. We can't help being tempted, nor do we choose what we're tempted by. Homosexuality is no worse than the sins that I commit.
However there is something wrong with identifying with your sins and being defensive about it or worse proud of it. We are all expected to show self control, chastity and humility. Being "Openly gay" is fine, being flamboyantly sexual (gay or straight) is NOT.
We can't allow overtly sexual costumes or promiscuous behavior, and we won't tolerate sexual harassment from anyone.

Of course this raises the question: What is an overtly sexual costume?
Most superheroes wear skin tight costumes (Even Father William). It's part of our culture, no different from the nearly nude costumes worn by people in tropical regions.
Sexuality is often in the eye of the beholder, but there are certain norms we can set.
No costumes that expose or accentuate the genitals or female breasts.
No costumes with sexually suggestive words or images printed on them.
Cover your middle and legs, for goodness sake. This is New England not Florida. You'll catch a cold. And even if your powers make you impervious to the weather you still need to be mindful of the effect you have on other people, who aren't used to seeing that sort of thing.
Wearing full body tights under a small costume (like superman's briefs) is fine.
So a lot of Robin's costumes wouldn't be acceptable, but when he adds tights to cover his legs he's in.

Finally I know that some people will read these guidelines and say "I should be free to wear what I want and not have to worry about what some pervert is thinking!"
That's kind of selfish but you're Right you should, be free. Unfortunately, this world is not what it should be, and it's not just the perverts either. Blame Adam if you want, but it's really Satan's fault, and every human being's fault. We all have weaknesses, and we should consider other people's weaknesses when we decide what to wear and how to act. It's a necessary part of loving each other and not being selfish.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
You still there Gluke?

You still there Gluke?
You satisfied?
Offended ?
or just lost interest?

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Sorry, always interested,

Sorry, always interested, never offended dude, just busy lately. To answer, this is my second or first favourite ever show, and this is a good scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALd6xCvZgpc
Got no further comment.

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Interesting but not really

Interesting but not really relevant.
First of all the reason the woman sat in stunned silence was partly because he was the president and he was ranting like an obnoxious jerk, but mostly because the script writer commanded it. It wasn't very convincing.
The Church's teachings on homosexuality are not based on just one verse
and the verse she picked is not the first one anyone would be likely to use.
The fake president's rant was offensive, inappropriate and showed an ignorance of Scripture's meaning.
In the Old Testament, God was establishing a nation, Israel. He gave laws to govern that nation, including how to punish those who violated the law. America is not Israel. Even Israel isn't the nation it was. A lot of those laws were needed at that time but were never meant to be everlasting.
In the New Testament God gave us the Church which exist in every nation and doesn't have authority to enforce it's own laws on anyone.
But the New Testament still tells us that homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I don't really care that most modern people have changed there views on homosexuality.
Personally I'm glad people are less inclined to hate.
I don't hate homosexuals or want laws to punish them.
They're not banned from the group, and won't be.
The rules about sexual behavior and clothes apply to everyone gay and straight.
Our temptations and sins are something we have to struggle with on our own.
Only the Church can help, and this group is Not the Church.

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
I know I said I wouldn't

I know I said I wouldn't comment again. I should never say that, it's not in me to quit... This is now off-topic somewhat but we'll get it out of the way:

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Interesting but not really relevant.

Sorry if I was unclear about my reasoning for posting that, but the point of the diatribe Martin Sheen makes there is that he objects to the radio therapist choosing to take one passage of the Old Testament as literal (the anti-gay people bit) while ignoring or assuming the rest of the "laws" or assertions are either merely contextual, not to be taken literally but symbolically, or simply no longer apply because it's not convenient for the believers to live by them. The President in that show there is not an atheist himself, he is a devoted Catholic, but he takes ALL of the Bible symbolically and figuratively and he cannot abide those who do so for themselves while applying and seeking to enforce the "laws" of Paul and the boys on everyone else, ie Bible-based homophobes.
The woman there, Dr Jacobs, is a close expy of Dr Laura Schlessinger, a conservative Jewish radio talk show host. Writer Aaron Sorkin has admitted the scene is strongly inspired by an open letter to Schlessinger about her homophobic views which went viral a few years ago (early 2000s). The speech of the President is a strongly worded retort along the same lines to Schlessinger and ALL who do the same: disregard some elements of the Old and New Testaments while preaching others.
On specific points:

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

First of all the reason the woman sat in stunned silence was partly because he was the president and he was ranting like an obnoxious jerk, but mostly because the script writer commanded it. It wasn't very convincing.

You thought she was stunned? That wasn't my impression, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the intention of the script or her performance, she seemed quite self-possessed and defiant. I think the intent was for her character to be aloof and arrogant, and although she doesn't come off THAT unfriendly, she remained seated against custom when the President came in quite purposefully to make the point that she disapproves of him/his liberal Democratic administration.
And again, with the context of who the Dr is and what/who she represents, the President's diatribe comes off to me as an angry retort to those of the religious right like Dr Schlessinger, who have never been shy of going on the verbal offensive themselves. It is a response to their own preaching aimed to highlight the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of their positions, and with Martin Sheen's acting, doesn't strike me as obnoxious or even as a rant, so I'm sorry you feel that way. (It's also worth noting the context of the scene even further: that bit when she stands and the President turns to one of his staff and says "Toby? That's how I did it," refers to an earlier conversation, when he told Toby about a previous politician he beat in an election who also used the Bible inconsistently, in his case presumably to form a campaign and build a political career just as the woman used it to get radio listeners. Thus, President Bartlet used similar reasoning and argument to beat them both)

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

The Church's teachings on homosexuality are not based on just one verse
and the verse she picked is not the first one anyone would be likely to use.

Specifically, in the scene above he took her to task for calling homosexuality an "abomination", not for every line about it in the Old and New Testaments. But to answer your point, which verse would you choose?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

The fake president's rant was offensive, inappropriate and showed an ignorance of Scripture's meaning.

I'm sorry you felt offended. But why "inappropriate"? Do you mean for a President? And in terms of ignorance, more on this below:

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

In the Old Testament, God was establishing a nation, Israel. He gave laws to govern that nation, including how to punish those who violated the law. America is not Israel. Even Israel isn't the nation it was. A lot of those laws were needed at that time but were never meant to be everlasting.

But how can you be sure? And which ones were never meant to? How does one choose without simply relying on your own reason, intepretation, or the reason and intepretation of other mere mortals? And if you cannot be one hundred per cent sure which ones to apply today and which ones to politely ignore, what business has anyone proclaiming themselves the authority on them OR trying to condemn others for failing to live by them? I think it's clear THAT is the point being made by the fictional President above.
There has been a few discussions and retorts of the scene made available online, though I won't dig them up (edit, except this one: http://pastortubbs.com/debunking-the-famous-west-wing-bible-lesson-president-bartlet-builds-a-straw-man-and-then-destroys-it-in-popular-west-wing-bible-rant.html That one is a few years old and has some great questions posted in the comments, if only the Pastor would return to answer them). If you find them, I'm sure they'll make interesting reading.

TheMightyPresident wrote:

In the New Testament God gave us the Church which exist in every nation

Not the First Nations of Canada it didn't, nor those in what is now North America, nor the first nations of most parts of the world until it set up shop in usually quite a brutally secular fashion. And further to that, one question I've asked of Christians many times and have almost always been answered with evasion or a hand-wave and then a slight change of station is this: prior to the birth of Christ and subsequent rise of his following and then of the Church, am I right in thinking everyone who ever lived was damned to eternal perdition for no reason whatsoever?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

and doesn't have authority to enforce it's own laws on anyone.

Well amen and you'll get no argument from me there, but I think it's not me but many in the Church itself you need to remind of that. Sadly, the matter of separation of Church and state hasn't had an easy existence in any place the Catholic Church has taken root, from Mexico to County Mayo. Added to which is the fact that Vatican City actually IS a state, meaning the only way to separate the two there would be by dynamite (or just selling the place to someone else).

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

But the New Testament still tells us that homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Too bad for the kingdom of God. I don't really approve of inherited wealth anyway, it tends to make people complacent (I say 'wealth' assuming the kingdom of God has half as much of it as Vatican City, that is).

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I don't really care that most modern people have changed there views on homosexuality.

I think you should care, since it's a great thing people have progressed from burnings and torture to imprisonments to now 'simply' rudeness and periodic teenage suicides. It's been tough, but changes have been made. The thing to remember, IMO, is that nobody is born with a view on homosexuality, which is why homophobia is profoundly unnatural and as far as I'm aware, occurs nowhere else in nature.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Personally I'm glad people are less inclined to hate.

Good, so am I.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I don't hate homosexuals or want laws to punish them.

Good, but does that include the "laws" of Paul you cited earlier?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

They're not banned from the group, and won't be.
The rules about sexual behavior and clothes apply to everyone gay and straight.

This is a really, really silly question and more than a bit strange, but can avatars in the group have relations outside of marriage?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Our temptations and sins are something we have to struggle with on our own.

The only temptation I've had which I regard as morally wrong is for cocaine, and that stopped when I found out how many people statistically die for every line of sherbert that ever went up my face (it's two, during the process of cultivation, manufacture, preparation, shipping, transportation and trade, plus the little matter of the war between the semi-militarized drug cartels and the whole of Mexico, which is two deaths too many for me to do it anymore). The one thing you can say about fornication of the gay or straight variety is that, usually, nobody was kidnapped and set on fire as a warning.
My question in response to your comment, though, is what were YOUR temptations, Paladin? That's only if you're of a mind to share, of course.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Only the Church can help,

(Tell that to most Mexicans, or Irish, or those who were abused by members of the clergy, or...) I know what you mean, Paladin, but I'd still dispute that pretty strongly. Myself, I've never had much contact with the Catholic Church, good or bad - in fact, I'm not sure if if I've ever even been in one, unless I was too young to remember - and while I've had some problems in my time, periods of depression and unresolved love-hate relations with coke, ketamine and the bottle, I've never, ever, sought help from religion. And I'm still here.

TheAllMightyPaladin wrote:

and this group is Not the Church.

I am relieved to hear that! But in the interests of gamer-boi cordiality, let's agree to disagree, agree that Stephen Fry is never wrong, and then have a song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6sz8D411kE )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWrMGXwhFLk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzmoWCPGGU

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
First of all it did come

First of all it did come across as stunned silence, because I had sorrectly read what kind of character she was supposed to be, and I can assure you that there is no way she would have been silent if that happened in real life.
Also yes I did mean it was inappropriate for the President.
And I won't fault Charlie Sheen. No actor except maybe Ben Stein could've recited those lines without it sounding like a rant.

Gluke wrote:

to answer your point, which verse would you choose?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,

But I should also point out that it's not just a matter of any Bible verse. The Church, and Judaism together have a 4,000 year tradition of condemning these actions as sinful. Understand that as I've said before, these ACTIONS are sinful, but that doesn't mean everyone who does these things is forever doomed. Everyone is called to repent and be forgiven. And since TODAY we use the word homosexual to refer to people who feel a temptation to this sin, a person can even be openly gay and still be saved, so long as he is living a celibate life and not giving into this temptation.
As for his membership in this group, we're not the kingdom of heaven and as long as he keeps his private life private we won't say anything about it either. You could say we have a Don't ask don't tell policy. Which is fine since we don't share showers, or even have sleeping quarters.

Gluke wrote:

But how can you be sure? And which ones were never meant to? How does one choose without simply relying on your own reason, interpretation, or the reason and interrelation of other mere mortals? And if you cannot be one hundred per cent sure which ones to apply today and which ones to politely ignore, what business has anyone proclaiming themselves the authority on them OR trying to condemn others for failing to live by them? I think it's clear THAT is the point being made by the fictional President above.

That's what the Church is for really, Jesus gave his authority to the Church saying "Whoever hears you, hears me, and the one who sent me. Whoever will not hear you, will not hear me or the one who sent me."And elsewhere he promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth. (Notice, he didn't say they'd always do the right thing but he did promise they always proclaim the truth with authority) So when we listen to the teachings of the Church we are not hearing a mear mortal's interpretation, we're hearing the word of God.
Just as a relevant sample:
God gave the 10 commandments when he appeared to the people and spoke to them all as a group. Those laws are part of the revelation of God himself and stand forever. But at the beginning of his speech he tells the people to hear his voice and obey, and the covenant he was offering them hinged on that, and they rejected it. They told Moses don't let God talk to us any more we're too afraid. You talk to him and tell us what he said. So God offered a different covenant, written in stone. It starts with the 10 commandments but then adds a long list of other laws. These other laws make up a big chunk of the Torah, and that's the part that's no longer binding because we now have a better covenant. This by the way is not MY answer. It's the the Church Teaches.

Gluke wrote:

am I right in thinking everyone who ever lived was damned to eternal perdition for no reason whatsoever?

No The church assures us that Everyone is given sufficient grace to be saved. Those who have never heard the Gospel can be saved by seeking love life and truth, and being faithful to what they believe.

Gluke wrote:

but does that include the "laws" of Paul you cited earlier?

Gods laws for his kingdom are his and he will enforce them when we see him. Paul only tells us what those laws are.

Gluke wrote:

This is a really, really silly question and more than a bit strange, but can avatars in the group have relations outside of marriage?

If they do they're expected to be quiet about it. If they're flaunting their inappropriate behavior publicly they will be required to cut it out or leave the group.

Gluke wrote:

what were YOUR temptations, Paladin? That's only if you're of a mind to share, of course.

My sins are an embarassment to me, and I only talk about them in Confession and prayer.

Gluke wrote:

I've never, ever, sought help from religion. And I'm still here.

But are your sins forgiven? That's what I was talking about.

I haven't watched the videos yet will after I post this.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Sorry changed my mind.

Sorry changed my mind.
The first 2 and the last one were too freeking long,
I'll try to watch them this weekend.
and the 3rd one I tried but couldn't get into.
I just can't understand someone talking that fast.

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

First of all it did come across as stunned silence,

Not to me, she seemed embarassed by the end of the talking down, but didn't look "stunned" at all - her conspicuously remaining seated when he came in was, I'm quite certain, intended as a deliberate snub of his office to convey her disapproval, so either she was arrogant enough not to expect any adverse reaction, or to assume that, as you say, any such rebuke would be inappropriate from a President, making it quite safe for her to be as rude as she likes, just as she presumably does on her radio show (exactly as Bartlet alludes to before reminding her of protocol regarding asses and seats when greeted by the incumbent, whether you happen to like them or not).
Or, she did expect a reaction but just wasn't prepared for a quickfire test on biblical references, and didn't have an answer to his hypothetical questions not because she was "stunned" but simply because she doesn't know the bible as well as he does. Note how he tries to ignore it at first as he speaks to the other guests but finally can't pass up the challenge of replying to her and everything she represents directly, given the chance.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

because I had sorrectly read what kind of character she was supposed to be,

Do you mean Laura Schlessinger, upon whom she was based? (Please don't tell me you're a fan...) Or do you mean rightwing fundamentalist lobbyists and demogogues in general? Because that "kind of character" is fairly broad.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

and I can assure you that there is no way she would have been silent if that happened in real life.

Sorry, but you can't -- as I said above, she seemed to me embarassed by the direct rebuke, and as a radio personality presumably has a reputation to maintain, so arguing back directly with the President in the middle of a reception wouldn't do her any favours, even with her kind of fanbase. Again, she made the gesture of staying seated when he came in, but didn't seem to expect a retort as harsh as he gives her (as harsh as, say, referring to homosexuality as an "abomination", or presumably as however she describes a culture or White House administration that "promotes" homosexuality by refusing to condemn it) - if she tried to argue back it would damage her reputation and career, which it seems means more to her than her supposed conviction, so she didn't reply. Or again, she just doesn't have enough knowledge of the bible to dispute what he says. Either way, IMO her character is convincingly protrayed as a superficial rightwing commentator who uses a sketchy and selective reading of theology to pay her bills, of which there are numerous real-life examples.
Of course, I admit that the whole scene is more dramatic than it likely would've played out had, say, President Obama noticed Ann Coulter glued to her seat during a White House reception and decided to quiz her on the Reign of Terror, but let's not forget this is a drama series, and great though it is, Aaron Sorkin's writing is more emotively charged than realistic at times.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Also yes I did mean it was inappropriate for the President.

Maybe so. But was it warranted and deserved by the ever eloquent and diplomatic words of the Christian right?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

And I won't fault Charlie Sheen.

Lol, that's MARTIN Sheen! Charlie Sheen would probably have snapped her neck and then drowned her in the punch bowl. Then eaten the crabpuffs himself (he'd probably have the munchies) and declared war on Norway. I love Charlie Sheen.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

No actor except maybe Ben Stein could've recited those lines without it sounding like a rant.

Disagree again, Paladin, have you even seen Tommy Wiseau? Besides, I guess if you agree with his words, it doesn't sound like a rant. And you're a Ben Stein fan as well? Aw, crap...

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
to answer your point, which verse would you choose?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,

So no-one who lost their virginity before marriage is going to heaven, is what you are saying? Oh dear, that doesn't sound good for most of your fellow players in this game, I'd imagine.
I'd also ask in reply to that, what language was that passage in orginally, and what were the literal and implied meanings of the terms translated as "unrighteous", "inherit", "fornicators", "idolaters", "adulterers", "effeminate" and "homosexuals"? I'd say this point is pretty crucial to anyone who doesn't want to burn for all eternity etc.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
But how can you be sure? And which ones were never meant to? How does one choose without simply relying on your own reason, intepretation, or the reason and intepretation of other mere mortals? And if you cannot be one hundred per cent sure which ones to apply today and which ones to politely ignore, what business has anyone proclaiming themselves the authority on them OR trying to condemn others for failing to live by them? I think it's clear THAT is the point being made by the fictional President above.
That's what the Church is for really,

Uh uh, remember I said "other mere mortals". The Church is made up of human beings, as flawed and fallible as anyone else.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

but just as a relevant sample:
God gave the 10 commandments when he appeared to the people and spoke to them all as a group. Those laws are part of the revelation of God himself and stand forever. But at the beginning of his speech he tells the people to hear his voice and obey, and the covenant he was offering them hinged on that, and they rejected it. They told Moses don't let God talk to us any more we're too afraid. You talk to him and tell us what he said. So God offered a different covenant, written in stone. It starts with the 10 commandments but then adds a long list of other laws. These other laws make up a big chunk of the Torah, and that's the part that's no longer binding because we now have a better covenant. This by the way is not MY answer. It's the the Church Teaches.

See my previous reply.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
am I right in thinking everyone who ever lived was damned to eternal perdition for no reason whatsoever?
No The church assures us that Everyone is given sufficient grace to be saved.

You mean in the bible it says that?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Those who have never heard the Gospel can be saved by seeking love life and truth, and being faithful to what they believe.

On the surface, that's an unusually positive answer on the matter, I'll grant you. But when you say "truth" do you mean that literally, or do you mean only what the Church defines as being true? And when you say "faithful to what they believe" do you genuinely mean that worshippers of other religions who never convert still go to the Christian heaven? That's not what I've heard from most other Christians in my time.

TheMightyPaul wrote:

Gluke wrote:
but does that include the "laws" of Paul you cited earlier?
Gods laws for his kingdom are his and he will enforce them when we see him. Paul only tells us what those laws are.

This is the main thrust of my argument: how do you know you can trust what "Paul" says (or may have said at some point in the first century AD)?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
This is a really, really silly question and more than a bit strange, but can avatars in the group have relations outside of marriage?
If they do they're expected to be quiet about it. If they're flaunting their inappropriate behavior publicly they will be required to cut it out or leave the group.

I was only kidding, but any decent sized league can expect some visual spammers.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
what were YOUR temptations, Paladin? That's only if you're of a mind to share, of course.
My sins are an embarassment to me, and I only talk about them in Confession and prayer.

I'm sorry to hear that.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Gluke wrote:
I've never, ever, sought help from religion. And I'm still here.
But are your sins forgiven? That's what I was talking about.

By those I've offended with them? Well for the most part, assuming they remember them, yes, most of them are. My worst "sins" cited earlier regarding my drug use and the statistical deaths I funded are unknown to the people affected by them, to whom I was merely one of millions of users fuelling the drug trade with my custom. If you mean forgiven by "God", that's not an issue for me, since I don't believe there is one.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Sorry changed my mind.
The first 2 and the last one were too freeking long,

lol, this from a guy who's read the bible? Like, ALL of it?! It's huge!
But seriously, the first vid is a broad debate on whether the Catholic Church is a positive and relevant institution in the world today or not, with arguments in favour of it presented by Archbishop John Onaiyekan and British Conservative MP Anne Widdecombe, and against by the late, great writer Christopher Hitchens and British institution himself Stephen Fry, with the second vid being just a closing case by him. With a perspective as fervent as yours, I thought that'd be right up your street.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

and the 3rd one I tried but couldn't get into.
I just can't understand someone talking that fast.

I was just kidding on with the second two, but I realize the last one may be offensive to a devout Christian, so hope you know no offence is intended. Peace.

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

TheMightyPaladin wrote:
First of all it did come across as stunned silence,
Not to me, she seemed embarassed by the end of the talking down, ...And you're a Ben Stein fan as well? Aw, crap...

AAAAGH! I don't wan't to talk about that any more I'm bored!
But to answer your questions:
Yes I could tell it was Dr. Laura.
No I'm not one of her fans. I only listened to her show once. I liked what I heard but never heard it again.
Sorry I can't tell the Sheens apart Honestly I couldn't tell you what either of them has been in. I don't really follow a lot of celebrities.
I had to Google Tommy Wiseau to find out who he was. I recognized him but that's all I can say.
Finally since she's based on an outspoken radio personality, and she took upon herself to stay seated, she obviously came wanting a confrontation, so she would not have come unprepared or backed down silently. Doing so would have been seen by her fans as chickening out and would probably cost her all of her credibility, and ended her career. A realistic president would have seen her looking for trouble and had her escorted out of the building, which is something she would have spun into "he was afraid of her" but only her own fans would have been fooled.

Gluke wrote:

So no-one who lost their virginity before marriage is going to heaven, is what you are saying? Oh dear, that doesn't sound good for most of your fellow players in this game, I'd imagine.
I'd also ask in reply to that, what language was that passage in orginally, and what were the literal and implied meanings of the terms translated as "unrighteous", "inherit", "fornicators", "idolaters", "adulterers", "effeminate" and "homosexuals"? I'd say this point is pretty crucial to anyone who doesn't want to burn for all eternity etc.

Paul wasn't actually condemning anyone. Including the unrighteous people he mentioned specifically. He was calling them to repentance. As I recall the Church offers forgiveness to those who repent.

Gluke wrote:

Uh uh, remember I said "other mere mortals". The Church is made up of human beings, as flawed and fallible as anyone else.

It was at this point in reading your response that I realized you were responding to what I originally posted and didn't seem to realize I had edited it later by adding a lot of stuff that would have answered some of your questions before you asked them.
Anyway, I don't see the Church as merely human. Human yes but also divine. Just like Jesus. Remember that the Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus said to his Apostles Whoever hears you hears Me and the One who sent Me. Whoever will not hear you will Not hear Me or the One who sent Me.
He also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth. On matters of Faith and Doctrine the teaching of the Church is the infallible Word of God.

Gluke wrote:

The church assures us that Everyone is given sufficient grace to be saved.
You mean in the bible it says that?

No I mean the Church teaches it.

Gluke wrote:

On the surface, that's an unusually positive answer on the matter, I'll grant you. But when you say "truth" do you mean that literally, or do you mean only what the Church defines as being true? And when you say "faithful to what they believe" do you genuinely mean that worshippers of other religions who never convert still go to the Christian heaven? That's not what I've heard from most other Christians in my time.

When you're seeking truth, you don't know what you're going to find. I wouldn't have said I was seeking the Catholic Church during my searching. I wanted to know what's true whatever it turned out to be. I read the Book of Mormon, The Koran, The Nag Hamadi Library, and even studied mystic experiences and Norse Mythology. Seeking takes us to strange places. Some people don't find the truth in this life, but everyone who seeks will find. Jesus himself promised us Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
This is the truth proclaimed by the Catholic Church no matter what you might have heard from other Christians.

Gluke wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that.

Why?

Gluke wrote:

lol, this from a guy who's read the bible? Like, ALL of it?! It's huge!

It took me years to know the Bible as well as I do.
To this day I still skip the genealogies, and the counting stuff.

Gluke wrote:

But seriously, the first vid is ... so hope you know no offence is intended. Peace.

Once again You missed my later update where I said I'd try to watch them this weekend. It's Friday. I'll probably watch them tomorrow.

By the way in case you're interested I have written a book about Jesus. It's called "A Picture Of Jesus". It's a collection of pictures and poems illustrating the life of Christ. If you're interested you can download it for $2.50 from this site http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SuperCrusaders
I'd really like for SOMEONE to buy it. It's been for sale for 11 years and not one copy has ever sold.

Nos482
Nos482's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/25/2013 - 14:50
I usually play Villains, but

I usually play Villains, but I like the idea. Count me in.
What will I play though? Maybe a guy in a 13th century power suit?

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

He was calling them to repentance.

Terry Pratchett wrote:

‘And they shoved a leaflet under it saying “Repent!” , Nanny Ogg went on. ‘Repent? Me? Cheek!
I can’t start repenting at my time of life. I’d never get any work done. Anyway,’ she added, ‘I ain’t sorry for most of it.’

-Carpe Jugulum

=P

When people ask me about my religion, I tell 'em I'd worship Cthulhu.

How bad could I possibly be? Let's see...

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
I joined a group or two in

I joined a group or two in COH but never really did much with them. I am not into power leveling, or constant enforced grouping.
I ended up soloing a lot.

That said the laid back nature of this group sparked my interest. Street sweeping, giant monsters...count me in!
Just understand I lack a lot of group experience, but I will do my best.

I would Like to bring in Black Falcon as soon as I can get her to look right.

In COH she was a darkness/electric brute. I will bush for a similar build here

BF was only cheesed out once. She was chasing Killer Croc down a stinking, slimy sewer, when he stopped and slammed the wall. A rain of cockroaches fell on her...they got in her hair, crawled all over her...One even got in her mouth! Spitting it out, Falcon screamed and ran out of the sewers. She did not eat for a week. She did eventually get her Croc, but he yucked it up in the prison, and now everyone knows.

So if you are willing to give her a break, BF will do her best to be a Knight.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Forced grouping. WoW. Sounds

Forced grouping. WoW. Sounds like your SG experiences were not positive. All the SGs I was in were casual - grouping voluntary, SG colors optional. We also tended to be a small group of online friends who enjoyed playing together. If you disappeared for a few months (years even), no biggie, your still part of the family and never got kicked. Stay away from the SGs run like fascist dictatorships trying to be biggest and greatest SGs ever created.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Nyxz wrote:
Nyxz wrote:

Forced grouping. WoW. Sounds like your SG experiences were not positive. All the SGs I was in were casual - grouping voluntary, SG colors optional. We also tended to be a small group of online friends who enjoyed playing together. If you disappeared for a few months (years even), no biggie, your still part of the family and never got kicked. Stay away from the SGs run like fascist dictatorships trying to be biggest and greatest SGs ever created.

Bingo! Everything you said is true!
That's why Paladin's opening post drew me in like a magnet. playing casual with friends is the only way to group.
thank you for saying what i was thinking.