Wal-Mart Asked to Drop Christian Video Game

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"?

Is it like a critical fairy tale believer?

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Is it like a critical fairy tale believer?

Kinda, but probably closer to a secure Windows.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Look this game does not represent Christianity, or the qualities of its followers. So much hatred for Christianity on Slashdot. Gleeful and spiteful hatred up and down this article's postings.

Look, I'm with you on this, more or less - after all, TFA tells us that it's a couple of Christian groups that are calling for this game to get taken off the shelves. Obviously your average Christian would find this game appalling, just like your average Muslim found the WTC attack appalling.

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"?

[A]ccording 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.

I am not familiar with the passages in the Bible to which you are referring. Could you please provide specific passages?

- Andrew

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Could you please provide specific passages?

With pleasure.

Deuteronomy:
7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

7:22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
7:23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

There has been a misunderstanding...

What you have just done is similar to (say) taking the text out of a proposed bill which would make x, y, and z illegal - all of which most people will find offensive on their own - in exclusion of the context of the rest of the bill - that the bill only applies to those (say) participating in the illicit trade of human babies (or whatever).

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

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

So is the Old Testament the "Word of God" or not? Or can you pick and choose what you would like out of the Old Testament? Or is it that the Old Testament is the gospel, except when contradicted by the new testament? Or is it more of "you should believe the parts we tell you to believe"?

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"?

A progressive Christian is someone that does not flip you off before or after they run you off the road in their SUV covered in Christian bumper stickers.

Either that or a Christian that got a good deal on his car insurance.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

A progressive Christian is someone who actually does what the Bible says to do: Love one's neighbor more than one's self Loves God with all of their heart, soul and mind. It's pretty much that simple. Any person that calls themselves a Christian but hates homosexuals, Muslims, non-Christians, liberals, etc. is sorely deluding themselves.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Exactly - a "progressive" christian is "a Chrsitain". As my favorite t-shirt says: "The Christian Right is Neither"

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Exactly - a "progressive" christian is "a Chrsitain".

What do you mean? A Dyslexic?

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Jesus didn't have 100% human qualities, as he didn't ever sin, which isn't really human, even though he was a human.

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.

And Jesus is God also, so it's not like he's some person who wants to be made king over all and damns those who don't want that.

Again, this was a decision made by men.

You have so much faith in the creative power of man, but not of anything else

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"?

Nice way to completely misunderstand his point.

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"?

The council of nicea did not 'create' the notion of the trinity. It was already accepted doctrine and has a strong Biblical basis. Instead those at the council "hammered out" the details, and gave it (the concept) a name: the trinity. The result of which was the Nicean creed.

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"?

The Bible has been translated and re-translated and edited by different people so many times that it's hard to believe everything in it or know what it originally said and what the original writers meant.

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.

Mart

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

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"?

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"?

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"?

Who is supposed to put them to death? Me? You? The book of Leviticus is a book of directions for the government and the priesthood (which are pretty intertwined in that Israeli government). The problem is that God destroyed that government. There are large sections of the Bible that haven't neccessarily been done away with (I've always hated that wording) but apply to a government that no longer exists. So in the case that you can find a Mushite or Levite priesthood in a God-sanctioned Israeli government, you could have a homosexual executed. In God's opinion, they are an abomination. In the absense of such a scenario, you'd be wise to let God worry about what to do about the homosexual and in the meantime treat them with respect, dignity, and love (not that kind). I wouldn't worry too much about it in either case. Homosexuals don't even get a mention in God's Top 10 List.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Here's my 2 scents about homosexuality. It certainly is a sin. So, IIRC, is premarital sex. With the possible exception of slashdotters, not too many people are in a position to cast the first stone.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

I did what the voice in my head told me. Now my room has nice padded walls.

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"?

You're taking the verse out of context. Leviticus is a book of rules established for the nation of Israel because they were too stupid for the Ten Commandments to be sufficient. They were harsh, but if you look at Israel's history anything less than that and they would get crazy deep into every last sin imaginable.

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"?

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"?

It really has to do with what parts of the bible you choose to quote. There are plenty of contradictions in there. You can see the biggest differences by looking at the old and new testament side by side. While the new testament takes a softer, inclusive side towards religion, the old testament is full of stories fo the wrath of god. Of course, I should mention, as a jew, that jewish people don't really interpret the old testament as is. There has been plenty of discussion and reinterpretation of the laws, so that, for instance, it is practically impossible under rabbinical law to condemn a man to death for breaking a commandment. No one in mainstream judaism honestly suggests death for homosexuality. Compare this to some of the (let's be honest) hate speech coming from the Christian Right.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

What's a "sin" and why should I care?

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Opposite over hypotenuse.

Duh.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

No, the bible doesn't say to hate homosexuals. It may say that it's not right to commit homosexual acts, but ffs, everyone does wrong, and the bible doesn't say to hate everyone because they do wrong. God hates the sin, not the sinner (similar to "don't kill the messenger" I guess).

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Exactly, that's mean.

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"?

Christians who take a message of peace and love out of it may be good people, but they're just cherry-picking passages and ignoring the ones they don't agree with. If you're going to do that, why do you need some archaic forgery to shape your morals in the first place?

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 ;-) have explained in great detail why an intelligent person would follow a moral system even without an enforcer like God. But many religious people apparently either can't understand the reasoning, or they choose to disbelieve it for reasons that I haven't yet read. All I've ever seen is the unsupported assertion that, without God, you have no moral system. If they have reasons to ignore the obvious evidence otherwise, they don't seem to be telling the rest of us. I'd conclude that they probably don't have such reasons, and are making the "no God == no morality" claim due to an inability to understand the reasons that it's wrong.

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"?

I'm sure you'll love them to death, just like Leviticus 20:13 says to.

Re:My guess

How is the parent post insightful? As far as I can tell, the superparent does not make reference to anything perpetrated by The DaVinci Code. Furthermore, alluding to the book attempts to negate the fact that the early Catholic Church performed heavy editing, ignoring entire books that were very popular, had great information, and would sway one away from organized religion. Think of it as forced selective reading of the Bible for 1500 years.

This is not The DaVinci Code, this is history, and the superparent is right on the money.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

What's a "progressive Christian"?

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"?

... we atheists always have to "respect" your beliefs ... we express the feeling the story of Jesus and the story of Peter Pan are about as credible ...

All I said in that short sentence was (1) express my conviction that religious people believe in fairies

I need to have this framed.

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"?

What is it that makes 13 years the magical age of heightened folly?

It's called puberty, you'll understand why afterwards.

Re:What's a "progressive Christian"?

Progressive Christian is a believer in one God - three persons (as defined in Nicene Creed) who does NOT engage in bibliolatry (i.e. a belief that every single word of the Bible must be taken literally, and for whom Bible is the final authority and not God. Jesus didn't write any books but revealed divine truth to his selected followers only. Hence, continuous Apostolic succession is so important in the Church, and not many churches can lay a claim to that. As a matter of fact the idea that you can "start" a church is absurd, just as the idea that someone in England, decides to "start" a kingdom and proclaim themselves a king of England).

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.

If this works, let me be the first to say:

Lions = 1 , Christians = 0

Re:If this works, let me be the first to say:

The Detroit Lions can't beat anybody, let alone Christians!

Re:If this works, let me be the first to say:

umm, this is slashdot. we don't follow baseball.

Re:To the lions...

Are you retarded? Or just naive?

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...

"christians are the reason america has taken a turn for the violent. If you believe in an afterlife - you scare the fuck out of me. You don't have the same commitment to THIS life that I do."

I disagree. Christians are not the ones that have taken a turn for the violent, 'christians' have.

For instance, I find it reprehensible that someone can defend the combined ownership of guns, the belief in a death penalty and the hatred of abortion.

I agree with the last, but the other portions are just as engrained in todays 'christian' beliefs as if it says in the Bible "Take up guns and smite thy neighbor". Bullshit. These people are not Christians, nor should you believe they are. If they truly believed in an afterlife, they'd have changed their ways a long time ago.

What was it, just about two weeks ago, the president of the Christian Coalition resigned over disagreements with where he thought the organization should go. His claim was that he felt that these people were too involved in trying to legislate moralistic viewpoints and ignoring the world at large:

"just a basic philosophical difference .... I saw an opportunity to really broaden the conversation and broaden the constituency. I'm really over this whole polarization thing."

He had asked that they back off on abortion and gay marriage, and focus on doing what Christ would have liked them to focus on -- decreasing the burdens of the poor, treating God's lands as it said in the Bible, increasing giving to charitable organizations -- more or less, changing things that will directly impact his people and have them focus their moral attitudes within, and not with forcing others to legally follow their perspective. If we change the laws to enforce a singular belief system, this is no choice, and we are no better than organizations like the Taliban -- who have increasingly been getting more liberal over the last few years (they just made changes to their charter saying they will not kill women for disobeying them without at least giving them one warning, and then one beating after that...my gawd! These guys have turned into regular Al Frankens over night!).

But seriously, there are a lot of Christians out there that are nothing what you think of when you think of all the assholes ruining the name.

(And yeah, I know I have a long way to go as well...I just try not to be a COMPLETE hypocrite about the whole thing)

Re:To the lions...

Oh please. I've only one thing to say to that:

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...

And the obligatory reply is, who has been responsible for more mass murder? Christians or Atheists?

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...

And the obligatory reply is, who has been responsible for more mass murder? Christians or Atheists?

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...

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

that if two people both lead the same 'good' life, one is a theist and one an atheist - the atheist is the better person.
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...

Christians believe that killing will condemn them to an eternity of hellfire.

No, only killing "good" people will get you in trouble. Killing "bad" people is perfectly okay. Witness all the people killed by Christians through the centuries, in addition to the current conflict in Iraq.

Atheists believe the only consequence to actions in life is if you get caught or at the very worst, guilt.

The only thing atheists have in common is that they don't have a belief in a god. It is impossible to generalize anything more about atheists or their beliefs. Although, I will say that for my part the knowledge that (as far as I can tell) this is the only life and existence that I will ever have motivates me to live it the best that I can. I feel that this is a stronger source of morals than fear of punishment.

People who have an absolute hatred of a mass group as a whole scare me. It's worse than racism.

People who denigrate mass groups of people without attempting to understand anything about them scare me as well. Bigotry is bad, m'kay?

Re:If this works, let me be the first to say:

Version 1.01:
* 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

Robotic Jesus

does it have a 100ft robotic Jesus with spinning cross attack?
How about the star of David Ion canon?

Re:Robotic Jesus

Pfff, not deadly enough. However, does it have the ... [wikipedia.org]?

Re:and this is different from life how??

Could someone go look at a history book and point me to the part that says, "this war was caused solely by religious intolerance."

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.

Re:the enemy has folks with muslim sounding names?

Yeah but once a Christian takes up arms to defend his faith he's not actually a Christian anymore is he?

I give up.

I have read the article and still can't tell whether the game makers are actually serious or not. I laughed with the it's ok to kill as long as you prey really hard - satire worthy of Stephen Colbert. Either way, I think, the game designers are worthy of our greatest of laughter.

Re:I give up.

This game seems to be, quite literally, preaching hatred.

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.

Besides, I always thought muslims DID believe in jesus christ, just not in the same way christians do.

That last bit is the issue: they don't believe that Jesus is God the Son and the Messiah, which is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Under Protestant theology (Catholic is a little different), believing that statement is the one thing that gets you into Heaven.

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.

I think that Wal-Mart should ignore the censors and leave this game on the shelves.

Exactly, if it sells it sells. Walmart can sell whatever they want. Whether its this game, Grand Theft Auto, the new Snoop Dog CD as someone said earlier. If you dont like some of that stuff, well no biggie, you don't have to buy it. Just don't deprive me of my free choice to buy what I want.

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

But I do know about Christian theology. It's my understanding that Jews accept Jesus as a teacher, but *not* as God. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as God. Of course, I disagree with them. I believe that Jesus was a real, live person walking on earth about 2,000 years ago, and that he was also God of the universe.

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

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.


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.

Vallarian's guide to major religions:
(pager edition)
Same god, different prophets. Fighting ensues for milennia.

Re:I give up.

"I have read the article and still can't tell whether the game makers are actually serious or not."

They are quite serious. I went to their web site [leftbehindgames.com] and grabbed a list of the games features.

Wage a war of apocalyptic proportions in LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces - a real-time strategy game based upon the best-selling LEFT BEHIND book series created by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Join the ultimate fight of Good against Evil, commanding Tribulation Forces or the Global Community Peacekeepers, and uncover the truth about the worldwide disappearances!

• Lead the Tribulation Force from the book series , including Rayford, Chloe, Buck and Bruce against Nicolae Carpathia - the AntiChrist.
• Conduct physical & spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world.
• Recover ancient scriptures and witness spectacular Angelic and Demonic activity as a direct consequence of your choices.
• Command your forces through intense battles across a breathtaking, authentic depiction of New York City .
• Control more than 30 units types - from Prayer Warrior and Hellraiser to Spies, Special Forces and Battle Tanks!
• Enjoy a robust single player experience across dozens of New York City maps in Story Mode - fighting in China Town , SoHo , Uptown and more!
• Play multiplayer games as Tribulation Force or the AntiChrist's Global Community Peacekeepers with up to eight players via LAN or over the internet!

Personally I think it is funny. I was hoping they had a demo I could download.

Can't wait...

Can't wait for a reaction of Jack Thompson on this one...

Re:Can't wait...

Hopefully his head will explode in a poof of circular logic.
Video game == Bad
Chirstians == Good
Christian + Video game == ??? *pop*

Re:Can't wait...

I enjoy the game and highly recommend it.

You don't have to wait

He already has responded [answers.com]

"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

Sounds like a pretty awful game, tasteless and cliched but worst of all unbalanced...the anti-christ team can't even win. But why give them the handy excuse of being censored for its impending failure? I say let them sell it, and let the free kill them.

Plus, all media must be protected...even, and especially, the shitty stuff like this.

Calls for a patch

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...

I want to buy it just so I can hack it and release a patch. Good games should balance the two opposing sides!

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...

By "Marilyn Manson" I think you mean "Dick Cheney."

Don't you hate it when the truth is told...

It's funny to me how religious followers are always offended when someone pokes fun at their beliefs, but then they have no problem being judgemental, insulting and forget they are part of one of the most violent and viscious organizations in history. (see: Crusades, Persecution, Inquisition...) Personally I would have made it so the anti christ could win. When you won every corner would suddenly have a starbucks, HMA's would be worse than Stalin, everyone would be driving a gas guzzling SUV and our president would be satan himself... ... wait a sec... crap...

The truth about the game

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

I was about to cut & paste a whole paragraph, but I think I can just cherry pick one little bit:

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

Among other choice quotes:

When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Frichner said the game does not endorse prejudice. But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game. "That is so obvious," he said.

But Plugged In, a publication of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, gave the game a "thumbs-up." The reviewer called it "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior

Thats right folks. Its OK to kill Muslims because they don't believe in Jesus. Its tons of fun for the whole family. Thats right Little Johny, shoot those non-believers.

Re:Hypocracy at its finest

FTA:

But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game.

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.

Of all the major religions in the world, Islam is the only non-Christian faith that recognises Jesus.

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

Umm. Check YOUR facts. Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet, not the Son of God (which is EXACTLY what the parent said). Also, the five pillars of Islam are as follows:

• Believing that there is only one God, and Mohammed was merely his prophet (to emphasize that he is also not a prophet)
• Five daily prayers
• Charity once a year
• Fasting the month of Ramadan
• Performing the pilgrimage once in your lifetime

So please, YOU check your facts before you spout prejudiced nonsense.

Take the fighting in the game out of context

and it does look really bad. It does come across as nothing more than "covert or die". If taken in context, the game works just fine. There is nothing PC about religion and trying to apply PC centric ideals to a game based on religion and one groups belief of the end times is even dumber than any game can be.

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

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!

"It pushes a message of religious intolerance."

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:No such thing

Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "Christian", Christ is a Jewish construct. All Christians are actually dumber-than-average Jew who like to wear crosses.

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.

Re:Wow!

Here's a good theological question:

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.

According to The Onion AV Club

the gameplay really sucks [avclub.com] anyway, so maybe the game will do more harm to the cause they are trying to promote than good....


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

Is Wal-Mart actively promoting some religious idea or merely delivering a product for which there is demand? It pains me when people forget that freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion, regardless of the religion or ideas. It's even worse when people decide to use something like supply and demand to promote their dislike for "big businesses" like Wal-Mart and go on a near religious crusade of their own to undermine the very ideals our constitution guarantees

Others lining up with the Antichrist

The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names

Presumably it also includes:

• Gays
• Bisexuals
• Atheists
• Biologists
• Geologists
• Cosmologists
• Anyone from France
• Anyone who has used any form of contraception
• In fact anyone who has ever had sex for reasons other than making more christians
• Anyone with a brain

Re:Others lining up with the Antichrist

You forgot "Choir Boys who said No"

Warning: Protestant Posting Detected

Unfortunatley, I must side with the extremists...

I thought it would be a cold day in their Hell before I did but...

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

Interesting because I know someone at my university who will probably buy this game. He commented about playing fable and how he doesn't take the evil branch because, "I don't think going to heaven and saying 'Hey God, I like killing people in a video game,' is a good idea." But you know, killing them in a game where he's doing it in God's name certainly is!

I say let Wal-Mart carry it!

I'd actually like to see this thing in action. Who cares what the slant or "message" may be? It's up to intelligent people to decide for themselves what they like, think or believe. And we'll never evolve as a people, a species or a culture if we constantly go about trying to stop people from seeing and thinking things.

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

The games is based on the wretched (as a theological work even more than as a literary work) "Left Behind" series.

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?

Think about it - in Grand Theft Auto, you routinely kill innocent people and police officers, beat women, commit various crimes, and do terrible things that all (well, most of us) would never do in real life for fun. Yet this game receives the greatest protection from the Slashdot community because, after all, what we do in a violent video game doesn't define what we do in real life, right?

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

Some of the character classes that are available in the game:

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...

But is there a God Mode?

Re:It's only a game

"Fringe Group?" As Apu once said to Rev. Lovjoy, "There are over one billion of us, sir"

Other games may have objectionable content, but

by and large they aren't produced by people purporting to represent a peaceful religion.

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 protest. Otherwise, it's just that wacko leftist radicalist group "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" attacking upstanding Christians for creating and distributing (presumably for a fair personal profit nonetheless, correct me if I'm wrong) a game that is essentially all about killing or converting anyone not like you in religious belief.

I do wonder what dog the Campaign to Defend the Constitution has in this fight. If you go to their web site http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/ [defconamerica.org]Campaign to Defend the Constitution, it looks as if most of their issues deal with the separation of church and state. Now, I'm actually a pretty staunch separation of church and state libertarian, but that's exactly why their involvement rubs me the wrong way--the government did not produce, is not selling or otherwise promoting this game. If the game sucks, or enough people find its themes objectionable, then such games will be (once again) relegated to small fundie independent programmers that pretty much everyone ignores or makes fun of because the games suck and the themes are laughable, but it's just strange to find a group with a mission purportedly involving the separation of church and state jump into a campaign against a private software developer to get a business to pull a game from their shelves.

Finally, is anyone getting sick of the "hidden agenda" attack? I know I am.

Re:ANTI-Christian Computer Game, you mean

I beg to differ. They sure sound like the Christians from the Spanish Inquisition.