Wal-Mart Asked to Drop Christian Video Game 1535
doug141 writes "Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season and that Wal-Mart, a major video game retailer, should yank it off its shelves.Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team, but of course they can never win on [his] side. The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names, while the righteous include gospel singers, missionaries, healers and medics."
What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
But -- and pardon my French, here, I usually try to keep it relatively clean on Slashdot -- it's these fuckhead zealots that get all the attention, thus smearing their shitstink on the rest of us (especially those who happen to share their skin color/place of birth). I don't like being assumed to be a right wing evangelical nutjob just because I live in the US, and it pains me every time I hear someone of Arabic (or anything even remotely mistakable for Arabic!) descent referred to as a terrorist.
I suspect the hatred you're seeing on Slashdot is more a hatred of self righteous dogma and fanaticism (and we all know that whenever one has dogma, one ends up with fanatics - wanna rag on M$, anyone?) than a hatred of moderate Christians. Most Christians are quite reasonable people; however, one can't help but notice that the Christian doctrine offers a lot of ways to justify acting like a turd (like most religious doctrines). So I certainly am not willing to exonerate the religion wholesale in this matter - according to the Bible, it is okay (some might even say it's one's duty) to kill nonbelievers if they won't convert, so contrary to your statement, this game does represent Christianity in a very accurate way. You are correct that it may not represent the qualities of its followers, and you've thus stumbled upon the contradiction inherent in being a moderate in any religion with a "frozen" holy book: if you disagree with some of the messages in the Bible, then you're just picking and choosing anyways, so what's the point of leaving the stuff you disagree with in the text at all? If there is so much interpretation required to understand God's true message, why not just edit the damn thing and be done with it? Yeah, yeah, not allowed to change the book, blah blah. Whatever. The point is that it's retarded, and when you leave crap like that in a holy book, assholes are going to read it and take it to heart, thus elevating their disgusting inclinations to hate and kill to the status of "holy."
And that's why we end up with games like this. Even if most individual Christians bear no responsibility, it is Christianity's fault...
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Interesting)
- Andrew
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
With pleasure.
There has been a misunderstanding... (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, you're not taking it in context of the whole text.
In short, these were commands given to the Israelites at that time, usually for a specific situation - not different than a command from God saying something like, "everyone over 40 doesn't get to see the promised land" (which actually happened). That doesn't mean that everyone today is disbarred from such things, or anything like that. It was a contextual mandate - law - specific to the circumstances and culture of the time.
This is understood within Christianity as a given, particularly as the New Testament and specifically because of the 'golden rule'/'greatest commandment' make it known that the law of the old testament (which doesn't even include the whole old testament - I'm not a bible type, so I couldn't tell you if your cited information is a part of that) is to be taken into account as long as it complies with "love your neighbor as yourself". Did Christ not 'free' the adulteress when a bunch of guys wanted to stone her?
And even if you're right, and these things are applicable outside the context of that particular story in Jewish history: would not the more important thing be how the practicioners of the faith behave as a whole right now, and not what their holy writ may be interpreted to say, completely outside the mainstream or even fringe understanding? How many Christian charities are there compared to secular ones, and how differently do they perform? Quite admirably. How many Christian-on-Muslim genocides have there been in the world (under modern Christendom)? None which I can immediately think of. Let your fruits be your witness and all that, as they say.
Karl Marx and his 'desciple Marxists' (Mao, Lenin, etc.) both did and suggested a lot of vile things in the name of the ideal, but you don't see us, as a society, blasting the snot out of Marxism and suggesting it's a vile belief system - no, we're progressive as a society, and we've largely accepted the ideals of Marx throughout the West. Same basic thing.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I hear Christians say all the time that the Bible is "the word of God", and last time I checked, the Bible is comprised of both the Old and New Testaments. But I've never seen a Bible with a "God's word order of precedence" page, enabling one to tell with certainty which parts of God's word are or aren't to be taken literally.
By your interpretation, a Christian need not take the Ten Commandments literally, as they are in the OT.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, the Old Testament is a very bloody document including God punishing his true people because they did not kill all of the the women and children of a people he commanded them to slaughter.
I know that one of the commandments says that we are not supposed to think we can understand the mind of God, but it seems to me that all religion is attempting to do that, and that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament have fundamentally different ways of doing things.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
Either that or a Christian that got a good deal on his car insurance.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
What do you mean? A Dyslexic?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings. (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)
Nice bokk, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
PS just because it's not PC doesn't mean it's not 'fair'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I sure wouldn't like to meet any of those "progressive" Christians..
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The nature of the holy trinity and the belief that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine were hammered out by a bunch of leaders of various christian sects, and some members of the roman government, at the council of Nicea. It was a decision of men, not of gods, which is why unlike events in the bible no one was turning sticks into snakes or being plagued or what have you.
We know nothing of Jesus' life in between infancy and the years immediately preceding his death. No historians of the day confirm his existence - the only writings we have which support it are those which are contained within the bible. But if he was human, then he must necessarily have sinned.
Again, this was a decision made by men.
Some of us have faith in what we have seen. We trust what we have been given a reason to trust. We have learned not to believe that something is true simply because someone said so.
Some of you never learned that lesson and you've been wandering around like deluded children as a result.
I had the same brainwashing material thrown at my mind, but luckily my will was strong enough to dismiss it out of hand and move on with my life.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like me, he trusts in what he knows. That is a kind of faith just as believing in a god is faith.
When I say I believe in what I see, I'm expressing the faith I have in that my eyes see things the way they are, and that what my eyes see is the truth. You can't prove without a doubt that it is, since no human being on this earth has complete and utter knowledge of all and everything. We just have to trust in reason and logic, and THAT is our faith.
I really hate how bible-pushers can tell me to believe in God just because a book says he exists. Yes, of course that's faith, and sure, it might inspire hope in some people. But I can't see the point in believing in these fairytale stories 'just because'. It makes no sense to me, not when there's so much else in this world that has reason and logic on it's side.
I believe water is wet, because I can actually touch it. I believe fire is hot, because I actually burn myself if I get too close. I don't believe in God because there is no further proof to his existence than "the bible says so". And that's just not enough for me...
So christians, believe in whatever you want. I can't, and won't, stop you. But please, PLEASE, stop with your bullshit "because I say so" rhetoric and backwards logic. If you don't bother me, I won't other you.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
This is the very antithesis of history. It was not accepted doctrine; at the time there were literally dozens of Christian sects, all fighting for control of the symbology and dogma of Christianity. The same is true of Judaism, and in fact Jesus himself got the foundation for his beliefs from a splinter sect of Judaism. A pretty far-out one, too.
Not being a professional bible scholar I tend to forget the names for the various views on the nature of Christ and God, but there were four dominant views; one, that Jeshua was fully human. Two, that he was fully divine. Three, that he was partly human, and partly divine. Four, the winner: that he was both fully human, and fully divine. The text of the old testament could be read to support any of these views, which is one reason that there was an ongoing debate over it in the first place. The roman state became involved because various types of christians were killing each other over this debate regularly.
There were also two main camps of christians regarding the old testament; one camp wanted to throw it out and start over, while the other camp wanted to accept it as canon. Naturally, a third group wanted to retain only pieces of it.
Making the assertion that Christians were on the same page prior to the council of nicea is a particularly ridiculous piece of revisionist history. In fact, the truth could not be further from this statement.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why in all the sects of Protestant Christianity I have experience with, a Masters degree in theology is a requirement to be a Reverend. Of the prerequisites of this degree is a decent grounding in Classical Hebrew, Greek and Latin, so that the Reverend is at least conversant with the untranslated texts. To study for a full doctorate may even entail courses in more obscure languages such as Aramaic.
Now, I understand that Christian sects in the U.S. have less stringent requirements, but that does definitely not mean that all Christians have no contact at all with the untranslated texts.
MartRe:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
A progressive Christian is someone who actually does what the Bible says to do
Well I guess that excludes me, as I've been serious thought to coveting my neighbour's ox lately.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
Well I guess that excludes me, as I've been serious thought to coveting my neighbour's ox lately
Man, the ox is OK, but you should see her ass!
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any person that calls themselves a Christian but hates homosexuals, Muslims, non-Christians, liberals, etc. is sorely deluding themselves.
Ok, but how does this square with Leviticus:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
Are you suggesting that you should love homosexuals even while you put them to death? 'cause that's a subtlety that may not be so reassuring to the homosexuals at the receiving end of your loving.
Seriously, how you can be both progressive and follow the Christian bible is a mystery to me. I know there are in fact a lot of progressive christians, even gay christians, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The book itself contains many hateful passages like the one above. And it's a religion, which means it's not supposed to be subject to rational thought - you take it on faith, unquestioning. If you are both progressive and christian does that not mean that you've decided to disregard the offensive passages? And once you do that, is there any faith left in what you do? If you can rationalize away the killing gays bit, why not the thou shalt not kill bit? Faith is an all or nothing business I thought...
yp.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, though, if you can pick and choose which morals you want from the Bible, why even have the Bible? If it comes down to a person's own conscience as to whether or not to favor the death penalty, gay marriage, or abortion, why should one keep reading an archaic book every Sunday as if it were the authoritative source of morality? Instead, why not let the Bible go, and look at the facts and arguements founded on reason, so you can at least come up with a defensible position as to what is "right" or not?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
These rules were only applicable to the ancient nation of Israel.
This is not to say that other parts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality, but it is to say that Christians who cite the Bible as a source for their hatred of homosexuals are twisting the work for their own ends. Homosexuality may be wrong, but hating homosexuals isn't right.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I still don't understand this. In the old Israel they were too stupid to interpret the ten commandments themselves, so God lays down additional rules very explicitly. Nowadays, we're smart enough to understand the 10 commandments, so we can now disregard his other rules? If the other rules were there to clarify the 10 commandments for simpletons, should we not assume that they are by design consistent with the spirit of the 10 commandments? Or is it that somewhere later on in the bible Jesus rescinds the anti-gay stuff?
Honest question, I haven't read much of the new testament, and lots of smart people seem able to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality, so I expect I'm missing something important here.
yp.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
Duh.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
Note that some slavery was voluntary in those days, when someone had a massive debt to pay, that kind of thing..
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that's a rhetorical question, but it does have a straightforward answer.
Many people need an authority that imposes a moral system because they aren't sufficiently intelligent to have a moral system otherwise.
You can see this all the time in a standard argument for why you need a God: If you don't have God enforcing the rules, you don't have any rules, and you can commit any crimes you like. They intend this as a claim that atheists and agnostics are all immoral, of course. But if you think about it a bit, you realize that it's actually a self-condemnation. The argument really means "I don't understand how anyone could have a moral system without fear of a powerful God that enforces it."
Now, various atheists and agnostics (and libertarians and behavioral biologists
Such people do need a powerful authority figure, or they probably will go out and start committing crimes against the rest of us. Come to think of it, looking at the history of religious groups give one strong grounds to expect this. Even that "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, as clear as it might be, hasn't prevented a lot of religious wars, not to mention government executions. People who accept the Bible but commit such acts clearly don't yet have a strong-enough authority figure to make them follow God's commandments.
(Lessee, will this get moderated "funny" or "flamebait"?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it like a critical fairy tale believer?
Nah dude, it's totally OK to dis other people's religion.
Yeah yeah, I know--all Christians are pigheaded morons who take the bible literally.
And moreover, their whole religion is a fairy tale.
See because, it's OK for you to hate and belittle their religion, while at the same time damning all the Christian believers for being bigots.
I guess it's OK to be a bigot, as long as you're not Christian.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I said in that short sentence was (1) express my conviction that religious people believe in fairies
Oh, PS: I'm agnostic.
I'm so glad that you have assumed the responsibility to speak for all atheists. It's too bad there are ignorant people on both sides, some of whom may read your post and assume we're all idiots.
Not all of us atheists are hateful adolescent anti-Christian reactionaries. You insult us more than you do them when you spout off ignorance and hate. You think you're going to change someone's mind by mischaracterizing their beliefs and calling them all bigots? What are you? 13?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
It's called puberty, you'll understand why afterwards.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
A progressive Christian reads the Bible and understands it for what it is, a collection of parables and rarely historical accounts of actual events, the purpose of which is to always illustrate a point that God is actively involved in his creation, encouraging trust in him (which means believing his word i.e. believing that he has done or will do what he has promised).
A progressive Christian is living in the present, and applies the word of God to his situation and does not try to bend the world to fit the Bible and live in the past, avoiding relativism, a great peril of modern world on the way.
Perhaps that clears it somewhat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No offense... but, you probably shouldn't be getting your theology lessons from the Da Vinci Code.
Thanks,
Mike
Re:My guess (Score:5, Informative)
This is not The DaVinci Code, this is history, and the superparent is right on the money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't worry be happy! This game will in a few years if not sooner be used to make up like this was the way all Christians acted. This is just like the western gunslinger movies and TV shows of the 1960's have become most people's idea of what really happened in the old west of the USA. Both of course will have equally as much to do with reality as the Santa Clause and Rudolph cartoons every Christmas do. (i.e. NONE!)
Of course they will be used by delusional people to line up on both sides and act real
If this works, let me be the first to say: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If this works, let me be the first to say: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If this works, let me be the first to say: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If this works, let me be the first to say: (Score:5, Funny)
* Misc bugs removed
* Fixed Satan exploit, allowing him to take over the world
* Spawn of Evil will now spawn in lesser numbers
* The stone introduced as a new weapon, allowing you to stone the infidels
* The Billy Graham level is now accessible in Realistic mode
* Kofi Annan removed as head of evil, Son of satan; replaced with generic character awaiting the new appointment of the UN leader
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To the lions... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [wikipedia.org]
A Christian is anyone who believes in Christ. John 3:16, you know? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that *whosoever believeth in Him* shall not die..."
YOU don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian.
Re:To the lions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say, for example, that I live in a Sharia-based society. Should I just accept these crippling religious laws because it is wrong to judge groups of people? Can't I just reject the whole insane pile? Must I judge every single one of these woman-hating intolerant lunatics individually?
Or let's say that I live in a Xian theocracy. Again, is it wrong to judge these witch-burning adulturer-stoning fucktards en masse? Are you truly insisting that I shake every single narrow-minded pinched-souled puritanical tyrant's hand and get to know them?
I say that it is fine to judge groups of individuals if those individuals chose to join those groups. After all, it's what they want. They want to be grouped together with others of the group! Otherwise, why'd they join the group?!? I suspect many of them are weak-minded, but that's all the more reason to judge them all at once.
Re:To the lions... (Score:4, Insightful)
And who killed more people specifically because of their religious beliefs -- not political, paranoid, or power-hungry reasons -- Christians or Atheists?
Re:To the lions... (Score:4, Informative)
Good question. Technically Stalin and Mao are responsible for the most mass murders.
Now technically, Stalin wasn't a true atheist per say according to his contemporaries. He did sort of believe in some type of god and afterlife, but wasn't much on the organized religion thing and promoted forced state atheism. He relaxed some of the rules during World War 2 during the German invasion and focuses everyone's attention on the Great Patriotic War which had religious over tones.
Mao wasn't as much anti-religion as he was anti-intellectual. Most of his victims weren't really religious and the biggest religious victims ended up being Tibetan Buddhists. However, one could really blame the CIA for dropping the ball on that country.
Which leaves us with Hitler and the holocaust. Again, Hitler was not an atheist although not a Christian and his contemporaries noted his often mocking of organized religion in general and his involvment in Pagan type of groups.
His persecution against the Jews was not simply because he didn't like them, but rather a deep hatred of Jewry going back since medevial times. See... The German Crusade [wikipedia.org] in which rather going to Muslim lands to liberate them, they stayed at home and focused on Jewish people.
Not to mention this lasted all the way up until Hitler's time and was actually one of the reasons for the Nazi's party success.
So yeah... Technically religion was responsible indirectly at least for the Holocaust.
I can't find it right now but there is also the instance in the 1800's about the civil war in China that was started by a guy who thought he was Jesus's brother. I can't seem to find it on Wiki right now since the names spelling evades me. But that costed several million lives as well.
I'm not defending either religion or atheism, but in general often times you can't black and white the issue since usually religion and politics are always intertwined.
Re:To the lions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheists believe the only consequence to actions in life is if you get caught...
Uhmm... no. Atheists don't believe in god(s). Most of them do believe in consequences to actions.
People who have an absolute hatred of a mass group as a whole scare me.
I agree, and your incorrect generalization of atheists scares me.
I'm firmly of the opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
One could argue that a believer does the right thing due to either the threat of a smiting, or a reward in heaven. An atheist doing the same act is performing a truly altruistic act, knowing he could either have got away with the alternative and will receive nothing in return.
Re:To the lions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Robotic Jesus (Score:5, Funny)
How about the star of David Ion canon?
Re:Robotic Jesus (Score:5, Funny)
Pfff, not deadly enough. However, does it have the ... [wikipedia.org]?
I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the books that this game is based on, teaches the same "values".
Besides, I always thought muslims DID believe in jesus christ, just not in the same way christians do. Quite similar to how judaïsm believes in jesus christ in a different way than christians. Both religions acknowledge the existence of jesus christ, they just have different interpretations. Perhaps people of these, or other, religions can clarify? Either way; having muslims "star" as the main non-christian group seems suspicious, considering the large amount of other non-christians groups.
Re:I give up. (Score:4, Informative)
Back to the original topic, I think that Wal-Mart should ignore the censors and leave this game on the shelves.
And so should everyone else.
Re:I give up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, how many people here who decry game censorship and hate people like Jack Thompson, are supporting those who want to ban this game now? And what does that say about your intellectual hypocrisy?
I don't know about the game (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is not known for editorial accuracy. I doubt that Muslims are the non-Christian "star" of the books. Pragmatically speaking, it seems to me that if all Christians are missing, then the 1.2 billion Muslims will be relatively more prevalent. The blurb reads "muslim-sounding" names - showing how ignorant we Americans are. Since we're the population minority in the world, almost everyone has a "foreign-sounding" name.
According to one line of Christian theology, all Christians are removed from earth by God during what is called the rapture. After this, there are *no* Christians until some people rediscover what the Bible teaches. During this season of time, people can become Christians, and the idea is that these new believers have a compelling reason to challenge others to become Christians, because at the end of that short period of time, everyone who chooses to reject Christ will be separated from all that is good, gentle, loving and peaceful for all of eternity.
Here's the deal. Either Jesus Christ is God, or He's not. If someone teaches that He is not God, according to Christian teaching, and because of the law of non-contradiction, Jesus cannot simultaneously be God and "not God" in the same time and relationship. Since Judaism, Islam, and Christianity teach different things about Jesus, man's relationship to God and how it may be possible to reconcile to God, logically either all three beliefs are wrong, or one is right and the others cannot be right.
Christian tolerance teaches me to tolerate people's rights to choose whatever religious belief they want, even if they are wrong. Christian love teaches me to tell people who God is, and how to reconcile relationship with Him, because I want everyone to have the kind of relationship with God that I have.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:I don't know about the game (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless of course God chose to reveal Himself differently; we cannot begin to understand His ways, nor divine His intentions with respect to his covenents with us.
Re:I give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
(pager edition)
Same god, different prophets. Fighting ensues for milennia.
Re:I give up. (Score:5, Informative)
They are quite serious. I went to their web site [leftbehindgames.com] and grabbed a list of the games features.
Personally I think it is funny. I was hoping they had a demo I could download.
Can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Video game == Bad
Chirstians == Good
Christian + Video game == ??? *pop*
Re:Can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
You don't have to wait (Score:5, Informative)
"Thompson has also criticized a Christian video game based on the Left Behind series. In Left Behind: Eternal Forces, players participate in "battles raging in the streets of New York," according to the game's fact sheet. They engage in "physical and spiritual warfare: using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." Thompson claims that the makers of the game are sacrificing their values. He said, "Because of the Christian context, somehow it's OK? It's not OK. The context is irrelevant. It's a mass-killing game." Left Behind author Tim LaHaye disagrees, saying "Rather than forbid young people from viewing their favorite pastime, I prefer to give them something that's positive." The dispute over the game has caused Thompson to sever ties with Tyndale House, which publishes both the Left Behind books and Thompson's book, Out of Harm's Way. Thompson has not seen the game, which he says has "personally broken my heart," but claims, "I don't have to meet Abraham Lincoln to know that he was the 16th president of the United States.""
Banning crap is a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, all media must be protected...even, and especially, the shitty stuff like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Calls for a patch (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, who wouldn't want to dominate the world for seven years of darkness? I call Marilyn Manson as my right hand man!
Oops, let me help you... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you hate it when the truth is told... (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth about the game (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone here is jumping on the misleading article concerning this game. The fact is that killing is strongly discouraged in this game. Now, I am not completely supporting it (there are some pretty hokey aspects in my opinion), but we need to get the facts straight here. This game is not like most RTS games out there. You are actually penalized for killing the opponent's people because the goal is to convert everyone.
Each unit in the game has a "spirit" score that determines which side they are on. If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you. Anyone between 60 and 40 is neutral and can be converted. If any of your units kills another unit, they lose spirit points. Only through prayer and inspirational music (who defines inspirational anyway, but I digress...) and good sermons can you increase the spirit points. The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself. This is where the combat comes in. This is not a game of convert-or-die. Also, the anti-christ team can "win", but this means that all of the units left in the game are going to hell (according to the game's rules) -- so in essence it is a loss.
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity. None of the acts carried out in the name of Christ were actually in keeping with his teachings. Many causes are subverted by those who take matters into their own hands. Sometimes it is because they are too zealous. Sometimes it is because they can use the system to serve their own purposes. Just because terrible things have been done in the name of Christ does not mean that Christianity is in itself evil. All of the Christians I know (including myself) abhor what happened in the Crusades. The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It was an act of barbarous and hideous evil that sickens me every time I think about it.
The problem was not Christianity, but the tightly held monopoly of the Church of Rome that kept its people in the dark about the truths of scripture while allowing corrupt people to wield incredible power. The crusaders were told that they would be "forgiven of all sins" if they went on the crusade, and in their ignorance, they did not know that Jesus gave forgiveness freely for sins confessed (you don't even need a priest). Thus the religion was subverted and misused to the profit of greedy men. As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
Re:The truth about the game (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself.
THIS. IS. NOT. CHRISTIAN.
In this game, the existance of God and Heaven (and by contrast, Satan and Hell) is an established fact. If the good guys die, they go to Heaven. If the bad guys die, they go to Hell. Right? And furthermore, the game makes it explicitly clear (even though no mortal can have this knowledge) of exactly who is Good and Evil. It's all very simple.
Now, if you're (I'm using the omniscent "you" here) a good Christian, you don't WANT people to go to Hell, correct? You want to save everyone you can.
Furthermore, if the game labels you as "Good," then your in-game salvation is assured.
So then, given these conditions which the game has (farsically) set up... why would you EVER kill someone? Even in self-defense?
If you kill them, they go to Hell, and you potentially go to Hell.
If you convert them first, they go to Heaven and you go to Heaven.
If you die non-violently, you go to Heaven and - just maybe - seeing your lamb-like sacrifice inspires them to rethink their faith. This opens the POTENTIAL of them going to Heaven where none really existed before.
And finally, even if all the Christians die... that's what's going to happen anyway. Christ returns, all the evil-doers are thrown down, etc etc. The ending is pre-ordained. There is no other course. Evil cannot win.
There is logically NO REASON to risk your mortal soul in the game. If you think through the possibilites, non-violence is the only logical conclusion one can reach - just as Jesus taught.
(and, needless to say, in real life where you CANNOT know whether the person in front of you is Good or Evil, there is even LESS justification for killing them)
Yet the game allows for violence... it allows "Christians" to kill the "Evil" and get away with it scot free. It removes the moral burden of hanging onto your beliefs EVEN if it means your death. (like, you know, Jesus was willing to do.)
It pays lip service to the idea of converting people to "Good" while not really making the player behave in a "Good" way in all but the most superficial ways. And like so many others, when the chips are down, you're allowed to compromise your morals and commit "Evil" anyway... and the game lets you get away with it with just a little prayer.
And I can think of little that could be more anti-Christian than this sort of amoral evil nonsense parading around AS Christian.
Hypocracy at its finest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypocracy at its finest (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally, I saw a lecture on the topic quite recently, and learned that Muslims do believe in Jesus Christ. He is a highly regarded prophet, second only to Mohammed, and he plays a key role in the end-of-times scenario of Islam.
This is from http://www.itl.org.uk/Jesus/ [itl.org.uk]. Googling for "jesus islam" gives lots of further reading.
Re:Hypocracy at its finest (Score:5, Informative)
So please, YOU check your facts before you spout prejudiced nonsense.
Whats the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
the game does give the players an out, they don't have to kill anyone and actually lose score if they do so how does the game teach that its okay to kill non-believers? It doesn't, but that doesn't make a good story and we can sit in our coffee shops with
Take the fighting in the game out of context (Score:5, Interesting)
The books, yes I read them - I love most end time fiction (whether is religious or not - Zelazny wrote some good stuff). The books deal with a society where the surviving members of society are either members of the new world order and subscribe to that order's church or are denied rights, and eventually killed out of hand. Christians are set as the opposing force, after all its a book from Christians about a story in Bible. Throughout the series they convert many people from various religions and non-beliefs. Though many times that never convert and directly or indirectly stop them. It isn't all happy go lucky and neither will be the game.
I look at it this way, if those Christian readers who take offense at the game were not offended by the books then they are just hypocritical. Does making it a game, itself just another work of fiction, present it in a way that that is more offensive than print? I guess seeing a visual representation does the trick for many people. I know many who can read murder novels, even graphic ones, but take offense at seeing dead bodies on the TV. Hell, there are many who can read about sex but damn if they would watch it.
Look, the first rule is no one is forcing anyone to buy it. The second rule is, you have the right to be offended but you do not have the right to suppress what offends you. The third rule is, get over it.
Leave the game in the stores. There are far more more violent and offensive games that have come out and they are still sold. If we change the rules because the game is based on religious themes how long before we change the rules for everything else?
Re:Take the fighting in the game out of context (Score:4, Insightful)
I look at it this way, if those Christian readers who take offense at the game were not offended by the books then they are just hypocritical.
Good point -- I'm a Christian reader and I'm offended also by the books. For pretty much the same reason people are offended by the game -- they present a twisted, militaristic, legalistic view of Christianity that completely leaves out one of the two "greatest commandments," that is, to love your neighbor.
Well, "offended" is maybe the wrong word -- I'm more worried than offended, because the books are so popular. I could laugh them off more easily if they didn't seem to accurately represent the views of a sizable minority of Christians in the US.
Christians are set as the opposing force, after all its a book from Christians about a story in Bible.
Allow me to nitpick here: I've read the Bible, and I never saw that story. The closest it came is a lot of apocalyptic, highly symbolic imagery, especially around Revelation. The writers of these books, and some other Christians, have chosen to interpret that imagery as an explicit, highly literal timeline of events during the apocalypse. They are free to argue for this interpretation (though I strongly disagree), but it is drastically oversimplifying to say this view is "in the Bible," since no one noticed it was in the Bible until at least the 1800s or so. That is, this peculiar literal spin on unclear prophetic imagery is something that no one even thought of until very recently in history.
So, you can try to argue that this interpretation is the correct one, but the blanket assertion that these people are just "telling a story that's in the Bible" is inaccurate.
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about realism in video games! I'm amazed! How did they get it so life-like?
They don't dislike the 'Left Behind' book and game series because it's inaccurate. They dislike it because it's TOO accurate. It shows how religious people really think and act. Okay, so maybe the Pastor at the local church doesn't use a gun to convert people, but the message is the same: Convert to my religion or burn in everlasting flames. And maybe if they left it at a statement, it wouldn't be so bad. But we still have clergy that do completely immoral and unethical things, sometimes not even to further their cause, but for personal gain. And they get away with it.
I used to call myself Christian, but not really name which type (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc). Now, I say I believe sort of like they do, but with a few major differences:
God doesn't care what religion you are, so long as you are a good person.
God doesn't care what name you call him by.
The Bible was written by man, not God. It was then translated by man, not God. Several times. It is a tool to guide you to the correct path, and nothing more. All holy books serve this same purpose, no matter the religion. Church is also such a tool. (I won't get into corruption, that's a long debate.)
Instead of merely tolerating other religions, I embrace them. They are God's methods of helping us be better people.
So far, I'm pretty much alone in my religion. I don't imagine I'll be setting up a church any time soon.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a God, and he has been around since the beginning of creation, why do you think you are allowed to define was he does and does not care about?
This isn't a troll, this is actually a serious (and much-debated) critique to your argument. Thomas Aquinas definitively believed that the Christian God was immutable - that is, he definitely was either for or against slavery, definitely for or against homosexuality, definitely for or against coveting your neighbor's wife.
So if two people stood up, and one said, "I believe God does care that you call him by the correct name" and one said, "I believe God does not care that you call him by the correct name", then only one of these people was right.
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
So in order to believe in God, you must believe that God has always existed AND that he is immutable. So then the question merely becomes "who has the right idea about God?" And while that question is of course unanswerable, it is very easy for me to say that your idea of God and the Christian idea of God are incompatible.
And only one of you is right.
Re:No such thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure you can say the same thing about the Jews to.
Infact, Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "Religious person", they were all born Athiests. All Religious people are actually dumber-than-average Athiests who like to beleive in God.
According to The Onion AV Club (Score:4, Informative)
At any rate, didn't a parody of a game similiar in mechanics to this appear on the Simpsons like 10 years ago?
Freedom of Religion, not freedom FROM religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Others lining up with the Antichrist (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Others lining up with the Antichrist (Score:4, Funny)
Warning: Protestant Posting Detected
Unfortunatley, I must side with the extremists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, creating this game is Constitutionally protected free speech, and selling it is completely up to Wal-Mart and other retailers. I think it was done in very poor taste but should be treated no differently than GTA or any other games that are similarly in bad taste.
Fable (Score:3, Interesting)
I say let Wal-Mart carry it! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only yesterday when I had a moment of reflection on my own changes in perceptions of things. I was born in 1968 and was very young when I first saw Star Wars. During that same area in time, I saw a black bell on a daycare building and thought to myself, "That bell looks like Darth Vader!" I now think that Darth Vader looks like a bell. The difference in perception is pretty clear to me but it also goes to show how minds change, develop and evolve over time and with life's experience.
So yes. Let it be. Let kids play games where they are evangelical Christians or characters from greek or other ancient mythology and legend. You cannot really condemn one game without condemning them all.
Here's one take on the game I'd like to hear: Who is that nut always trying to get violent video games banned? Yeah, that guy. What's his take on the game? "Convert or Die!" sounds pretty gruesome to me...
Left Behind & Slacktivist (Score:5, Informative)
I can't recommend Slacktivist [typepad.com] highly enough. He's a true evangelical associated with a seminary and has been writing "Left Behind Fridays" dissecting the first book for over a year. (He also discusses many other things.)
For those who have only seen screeching TV evangelicals, Fred ("Slacktivist") is an old school one. As he has repeatedly said, he reaches out through hospitality. Here, I see you are tired. Let me offer you a chair. Are you hungry, let me check my kitchen. You're free to ask him how he can be so pleasant and helpful and he'll tell you about Christ. You're equally free to enjoy his hospitality and then move on.
It should go without saying that he's appalled by this game.
P.S., I'm now more Buddhist than anything else, but I wouldn't hesitate to go to a weekly sermon by him. I rarely come away from his blog without fresh insights.
The GTA of Christian Games? (Score:4, Interesting)
Along comes this "Christian" game (as a Christian myself - well, Mormon, but I most certainly consider myself Chrisitian and couldn't care less what the Southern Baptists, et. al. believe - I would never consider purchasing this trash) and suddenly it's a terrible sign of what's wrong with the country, the people, etc.
I say let Wal-Mart sell the 3 copies of this game they'll sell and let the publisher of the game take a bath on it. It looks like total crap, it's offensive, but if we're going to protect other violent video games filled with scenarious we'd never condone in real life, then why not this one?
My favorite game character classes (Score:4, Funny)
Televangelist: You get XP for getting folks to send in their social security benefits to "buy Bibles for Africans". Character starts with a broadcast license and a Makeup Kit +3
Street Corner Lunatic: You get XP based on how fast people scurry past to avoid you. Character starts off with a Sandwich Board of Hysteria and 50 Pamphlets of Harassment.
Perverted Priest: Each boy you molest gains you XP. Innate abilities include Charm Children and Lie To Parish.
Sanctimonious Believer: Gets XP for passing judgment on others. You lose XP if people point out your own failings. Character starts off with a Bible of Convenience +3.
But... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pot calling the kettle black?
I think war games are an important education tool. (I'm also personally a fan of private gun ownership, so maybe I'm biased.) But watching what happens in the Emergency Room is considered educational. Then why not also the events on the battlefied. So in this one it's the Christians versus the Muslims. Maybe that
Re:the enemy has folks with muslim sounding names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other games may have objectionable content, but (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, you have groups like Focus on the Family and the like going after every semi-violent video game for destroying culture and humanity, but when the game is about a Christian gunning down non-believers, well, gunning down non-Christians apparently is one of the few things in life that doesn't make baby Jesus cry.
That is what was so important about getting a progressive Christian group on board the prot
Re:and this is different from life how?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing - war is almost always about things like money or land, and only very occasionally about things like freedom and liberty (those are also usually the ones that don't work out,) and never ever about saving people's souls. Sure a few of the boots on the ground might believe that they are doing god's work, hell even a leader might believe that. But look at any conflict ever, and the real motivation for the people really in power is always money or land, and the power that goes with controlling it.
Don't believe me? Here are a few "religious" or "philosophical" conflicts and a modicum of background.
Moor invasion and the reconquista (Spain) - Moors filled a power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman empire - the reconquista was a long process of feudal warfare involving carving out of small kingdoms, pillaging cities and demanding tribute. Eventually motives merged with empire building and the Holy Roman Empire (more empire than holy.) Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Crusades - the middle east at the time was a major crossroads for trade caravans. Anyone who controlled the trade routes stood to make huge profits. Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Thirty years war - All about the structure of Germany, and who controlled what - the French wanted a fractured Germany, the Austrians wanted an Empire. Religious motives (i.e. catholic v. protestant) provided a convenient excuse.
Every war ever involving Israel/Palestine. All about immigration and forced emigration, and which readily identifiable groups control which resources. There is a very small band of hospitable land and lots of desert and mountains. Egypt, Syria, and whoever is supporting the Palestinians this week, want an ally - the Jews ain't it, for a variety of political, reasons relating more to the scarcity of good land than the fact that they are Jews, not Muslims.
The Iraqi civil war (or is it still sectarian violence?) There is a massive power vacuum, because the only source of power (us) doesn't want to be there. Someone will fill it, and once again there is a convenient religious difference so that people can identify and support their friends/village, rather than someone who would distribute resources less favorably.
To any history majors - I realize there are gross simplifications, but the point stands - it's ALWAYS about who has what, not who believes what.
They didn't kill school children for not wearing the veil, they killed them for being part of the wrong group. If it wasn't a "religious" conflict, it would be an ethnic, social, or class struggle. All groups divide us into us v. them mentalities. In some unfortunate cases it is religion in others it is something else (see US civil war, Darfur, Rowanda, Bolshevism , French civil war, Nazism, etc, etc, etc.)
The history of humanity is one of conflict. We should try to minimize it, but blaming it on religion is misunderstanding the problem.