Game with God 877
Andrew writes "GamerDad has an article up about how religion is handled in computer gaming, titled 'Game With God'. The article features quotes from Sid Meier, Jane Jensen, Will Wright, Peter Molyneaux, Phil Steinmeyer, and Richard Garriott. Here's a snippet: 'While religion and spirituality add a lot to a game world, they often aren't used effectively. 'I don't think there are any games that treat religion at anything more than a superficial level,'; says Firaxis founder and Civilization creator Sid Meier. PopTop Software's Phil Steinmeyer agrees, noting that 'Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured.'"
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the typical action flick treatment of religion? Barely existent if at all, and usually just an excuse to give people cool special powers.
Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories; blatant propaganda which is more concerned with pushing a message than with providing an enjoyable gaming experience, and "fluff" mostly written for children.
What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.
Escapism (Score:5, Insightful)
I always thought of games as escapism. Many wouldn't define religion as escapism, or at least those that strictly adhere to their faith.
To me, the two do not mix well.
YMMV
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:1, Insightful)
is it causing a huge issue to not have religion saturating every single facet of peoples lives.
and i dont mean to forget all religious aspects. but the gospel is not needed at every street corner.
Too much realism (Score:3, Insightful)
So, is this yet another case of game designers trying to imitate the real world too closely?
-- MarkusQ
Semi-serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing about the gaming medium itself that is semi-serious. It's perfectly capable of tackling any topic just as well as narrative fiction on celluloid or page.
Calling the medium semi-serious as of now is an unfortunate but true overview, but implying the medium is incapable of more is shortsighted and wrong.
This is a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you simulate God in games? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Escapism (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
The first reason is cost of creation; the lack of a real artistic indie segment is the fact that good artists are rarely good programmers and vice-versa. No one is going to play a game that doesn't work even if the story is awesome, so any gamer indie market will always gravitate toward playable games with little to no storyline in the absence of either: -Dev tools that make it so that any kid can make a working video game -The occasional fluke -Some method of pairing the handful of good writers with enough spare time and the good programmers with enough spare time Similar pressures exist in the corporate environment, although in that case it's more like "Why am I going to take away money from the programming and visual design (risking making the game unplayable) when we could just make the game good and tack a superficial storyline on top?" Again, an unplayable game is a bad game even if the story is brilliant, and game companies are looking to sell games. So I wouldn't say the medium is incapable of "high art", but the medium does favor "low art" heavily.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion is not only Christianity.
And I don't think the Christian community needs any of that. I have plenty of Christian friends who are perfectly satisfied with the way things stand. The only reason they don't go out and buy DOOM3 is because their hardware can't handle it. You don't need a game to portray Christianity, that's what people go to church for.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to Augustine or Galileo, some of the greatest minds were devout followers of the church. I'd be willing to bet that they rank higher on the intelligence scale than you do.
The best games that handle religion are the ones with invented lands, invented people, and an invented religion. Think Morrowind.
Religion IS escapism (Score:5, Insightful)
All religions I know of assume the existence of another, spiritual, universe that's truly important, compared to our material universe, which is considered more or less irrelevant. Their reasoning goes more or less like "we do not have to worry about this life, eventually we will all die, so we should be more concerned about what comes after death."
But that assumes the existence of that unproved afterlife. What if it doesn't exist? What if this life is our only chance and, once it ends, everything is over for us? To refuse to even contemplate this possibility is the Mother Of All Escapisms.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:2, Insightful)
Really???
Inquisition = violence. RULE RULE!!
Salem Witch Trials = violence. RULE RULE!!
The Roman Empire adopting Christianity to expand its control and influence = violence. RULE RULE!!
The Crusades = violence. RULE RULE!!
The Czars establishing and controling the Orthodox Church to place themselves as God's Proxy on Earth = violence. RULE RULE!!
The Dark Ages = violence. RULE RULE!!
Hmm, if games took a realistic look at Christianity throughout history, they may well be even more violent...
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the science fiction that I've read has been the same way. Religion tends to be refered to in an historical reference or as a backwater inhibiting aspect of a small group of society.
It's also interesting to look at the progression of religion as science has progressed. In the times of the greeks religion was used to explain elements of physics (why things fall, why things move through the sky). Once these things were explained with science religion moved to the body. It was used to explain illness and the interworkings of the body. Now that we have modern medical science God has moved to our head. He is used to explain our emotions like love and anger. Once we fully understand brain chemistry where will God go next?
Re:Escapism (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:5, Insightful)
They may have been devoutly Christian, but they also lived during a time when not being a devout follower was enough to get you killed in any of a dozen nasty ways. Or, if the church was feeling generous, you'd merely be excomunicated. At which point you lost all rights as a human and citizen of the state.
Seems pretty obvious to me that regardless of what they truly believed, anyone smarter than gnat will happily swear publicly that they're devoutly anything.
~~Galen~~
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Insert *any* substantive intellectual or philosophical topic in place of "religion" and that sentence almost always holds true. They're *games*, they're not meant to provide truly rigorous analysis but rather to entertain.
The only game I can think of that has some rather sophisticated references to religious and philosophical concepts is Xenosaga (and presumably the prequel Xenogears, though I've not played it), but even then it's nowhere near as deep or intellectually stimulating as a good book.
So while this is not a hard and fast rule, I would say that the vast majority of games are, well, just entertainment. Very few games truly broach into what I would consider art or substantive dialogue.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:1, Insightful)
seriosuly how is this flamebait unless you beleive religion should be in EVERYTHING?
and even if you do, a lot of other people dont. (and the current market for games obviosuly supports that).
as was said in the movie "the people vs larry flynt"
people dont want their porn and religion mixed.
the same goes for games in my opin
Assumptions are irritating (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of that particular pet peeve I would also argue that the article does not address the issue on its true scale: religion in mass media. Nor does it address the reason for the typically marginal role of religion in the mass media: there are a lot of people who either don't want to see it in that context(Christians included) or who do want to see it but can't agree on what it should look like.
Just looking at the miriad of splinter groups within the judeo-christian pantheon of religions and the innumerable hotly contested details that caused them to split in the first place should make it clear why a strongly religious game with mass appeal would be difficult to create. Now think in terms of the gaming demographic. That doesn't mean impossible, but outside of the occassional high production value rarity al-la Passion of Christ I wouldn't hold my breath.
And to get to the heart of the issue, is that really such a bad thing? Doesn't relying on video games to provide religion, education, ethical guidance, etc. simply mirror the TV as a baby sitter/parent problem?
Re:All I know I learned from Civ2. (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahh, civ2.
Always used fundamentalism. Always ended up causing a world war. Always nuked entire continents into submission.
The world should be so glad I don't have a nation under my control... :P
- Seth
No correlation between religion and intelligence (Score:1, Insightful)
There are also just as many equally intelligent and equally educated and equally accomplished atheists, agnostics, and "spiritually unclassifiable"s.
People who are religious like to believe that intelligence predisposes people to follow their religion. People who are anti-religious like to believe that intelligence predisposes people to be anti-religious.
History, however, shows that intelligence alone does not sway one in either direction.
Philosophize until you are blue in the face, but the determining factor must lie elsewhere.
Re:I think it hasn't been explored enough (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me some good games based on theology may finally ignite some critical thinking on religion dogma. Just *what* is 'religion' and what is of God himself?
It is a strong belief of mine that earthly religions are the work of man and they are just using the name of God to bolster power for themselves. Even the Bible states Jesus had to throw the Scribes and Pharisees ( yeh, all those loud moaning prayer-sayers and interpreters of the Word that pontificate profusely in public so as to appear holy ) out of the temple.
There is a human condition called "cognitive dissonance", which is a strong drive within us to know we made the correct decision. The last thing a guy who just bought a car wants to hear is that he made a big mistake by doing so. He wants positive affirmation he made an intelligent choice. I see religious congregations in a similar light - once 'converted' to that religion, those members push it because if others join, that bolsters their belief that they were correct. Its a human condition we form religions - but I don't see these as really having anything much to do with God. Its just a gang of people - and they can be very dangerous if they are ever led to believe that doing violence in the name of God is acceptable.
I have a hard time distinguishing earthly religion from cult and superstition. Like I am not aware of any proof that Zeus or Thor do NOT exist, yet I have no faith in their power. Well, are things any different today?
Maybe some good games where a "supreme power" did indeed create us, and our goal is to find out about him, but along the way are all these people who have formed these little gangs to feed us misinformation and make us waste time until our lifetime runs out.
You know these little 'pyramid' schemes that run around every so often, where a few guys organize this financial ponzi scheme that require the contributions of lots of suckers so the guys at the top can get fabulously wealthy? Yeh, they print up these little business plans and have rows of lines for people to sign up for a measly donation of $1000 to get a $64,000 tax-free return. Their heads begin yammering like air compressors as their mouths begin spewing streams of words like "outpouring of wealth", "faith", "make a committment", etc.
But, once you've seen it, you recognize it for what it is. A ponzi scheme. A way for people to get money for just jabbering. A quick way for you to lose your resources.
I see earthly manmade religions in exactly the same way. This is not to say I don't believe in God - its just I know that Man will lie. And Man can be very cruel if he's ever led to believe he is just being an instrument of God ( as if the God who created the universe needed the services of Man! I think of it like asking my cat to fix a leaky faucet. ).
Please don't tell me I've got it wrong. I most likely do have it wrong. I may never find what I am looking for. I know Man will lie. And I know Man , even though he obediently follows all the religious rituals, can do unbelievably cruel things to others - and feel completely guiltless over the trauma left in his wake. ( Southern Baptist )
It would be nice to see a few games where people actually had to *think* about their relationship with our Creator and fellow man, instead of just being led by another man.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Half-life story = guy starts new job at nuclear research site, guys first job is start up new experimental device, new experimental device opens gateway into other dimension, guy has to escape the research site avoiding enemies from other dimension and human anti-alien squads.
it has very good set pieces, and the scripting is way above the doom type we were so used to at the time, but the story itself is 100% action movie.
Ewan
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just remember a few core beliefs of Chrisitanity:
1. Even if you live a perfect life, you deserve to go to hell. Why? Original sin.
2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.
Kind of sums things up nicely.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not as though the second paragraph on page two was ALL ABOUT Peter Molyneux, Populous and Black & White or anything.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the biggest problem I see with the portrayal of religion in video games is that it's nearly always shown as a sham or a cult. This is just wrong. If you've got powerful gods duking it out in the primary plane of existance, with their hands directly influencing their followers and directly punishing their detractors, what you'd have is a state of immense fear and respect for religions of all kinds. Furthermore, there's a drive, especially among Japanese RPGs, to use scienfic order to explain away magical forces within the text ("magic comes from these blue rocks" or "the gods are just really powerful X and we can kill them with swords"). Also a cop out -- why not have gods that are just undefeatable, and the players have to deal with their lives within that context? Stories work best when properly restricted, and being a pawn in a war you can't affect is serious restriction.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic had some interesting "religious" overtones, but they were kind of underdeveloped. Basically, they separated the light side from the dark side mostly on issues of social politics...if you chose the needs of the many over the needs of the few, you'd often lose light side points. Still, basing the outcome of the game (and indeed, the availability of skills and teammates) on moral decisions made for a fun game with lots of replayability.
Of course, I don't really think this is what GamersDad wants. I think the editorial is referring not to a figuritive God, but a literal one. The problem there is that integrating a Chrisitian/Muslim/Judaic/Hindu/Buddhist concept of God into a game effectively alienates the others, thus reducing your game's overall appeal and indeed often relegating it a position as a genre title. It can work -- I seem to recall some positive aspects of Chrisitanity in the old Sierra "Gabriel Knight" series of action games -- but on the whole, potrayals of any real religion, positive or negative, are delicate undertakings.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.
That's a bit of a stretch. The Original Sin was succumbing to Lucifer's temptation and eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the story doesn't indicate that Eve ate the fruit of the Tree because of a desire to gain knowledge. Gaining knowledge of good and evil was a consequence of eating the fruit (one requiring some drastic measures on God's part), but was not necessarily the motivation behind the sin. Now, Lucifer, on the other hand, knew full well all of the consequences, and the entire reason for his temptation of Eve was to spoil God's creation.
A different (and probably better) interpretation, one that reappears throughout the Old Testament (see Judges), is that the Original Sin was doing whatever the hell you want (generally, whatever "feels good"), despite God's direct instructions to the contrary.
Re:Religion IS escapism (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is that a lot of very intelligent people throughout human history have concluded that the existence of an afterlife is a reasonable conclusion. To sweepingly dismiss all of their philosophy as being simple escapism is rather simplistic.
In any case, the existence or non-existence of a spiritual realm is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people believe it. The majority do. Given that, it seems reasonable to make it a part of any game world that attempts to capture the richness of the real world.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:3, Insightful)
While those means have been used, I would not say that they've been terribly effective. Perhaps the most effective way Christianity spread, particularly in the early years, is by co-opting traditions, customs, symbols and feasts of other religions.
simulate religion in games? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could configure the game to play by your favorite belief system.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
I absolutely hate it when people assume that they must be right, and therefore anyone of separate opinion must be an idiot. (the only reason I assume that about you is your statement can only be interpreted as an exclusive opinion)
Every discovery science has won us, has brought with it more questions. It's just a simple fact.
The divisiveness between those such as your self, and those of the religious persuasion, is that you dismiss that which you do not understand (evident that you seem to think that our world is 'explained' so well already!), while a religious person stands in utter amazement at the number of questions. (or rather their exponential growth in relation to answers. It's counter intuitive.)
Someone who is open minded, does not dismiss a POV out of hand. Many people in this world are capable of managing eloquent and logical thoughts, and quite a few of them disagree with your POV. Take the time to inquire why.
Re:Church, the most boring game ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you went to a stupid church, and need to look for a different distributor.
"Church, the product" can meet the needs of many consumers (to continue the commercial theme). There is music, social interaction, and free coffee. Worship services and sermons are opportunities to deal with crucial social issues of the day, explore deeply spiritual and philosophical topics, and receive instruction on intimate psychological matters. Churches are also places where people can organize into collectives to further the social good--either directly, through projects of their own, or by rallying behind other organizations like Habitat for Humanity or Heifer Project. If the church you went to has lousy music, people, and coffee, doesn't challenge you intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and morally, and doesn't do worthwhile things for others, then you picked a crappy church.
I readily admit that there are indeed many crappy churches on the market, but I would ask for the concession that there may be non-crappy churches also. I've gone to several that contributed significantly to the lives of the people who showed up and the community around them.
Please don't paint everything and everyone with a single, broad brush. Your attitude is akin to having a bad experience at Sears and saying that all stores are bad, or shopping in general is bad. If you don't like the store, by all means, be a smart shopper and take your business elsewhere; don't decide to forswear shopping or malign all the stores that carry a similar product line.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, most early scientists (in the modern sense) were Christians, and "did science" because of their belief in a rational God who created a rational universe with understandable natural laws.
Even now, many scientists regularly attend religious services (a statistic I read a few years ago placed the number only slightly beneath that of the general public in the US).
A common theme of modern western myths is the conflict between Science (with a capital S) and religion. While there are a few examples for which this explanation plays well, like the Scopes trial, not even all of the examples normally trotted out (Galileo) support it very well. Like most legends or myths, they tell us more about what people want to be true than what actually is true.
Your final paragraph is full of common misconceptions. Historically, Greek mythology didn't die out because of modern scientific explanations of gravity and the like. But the more fundamental problem is your misidentification of the type of answers science is capable of giving and what this implies about religion. It may very well be the case that lightning bolts are being cast by an omnipotent being. Our understanding of the natural causes of lightning suggest nothing either way. In explaining "why" lightning struck something to a person who has such a religious belief, he may very well say to you, "It's very interesting how God did that!"
Re:Assumptions are irritating (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I would think the opposite would be true, because of the very point which you make. Look at the incredible violence involved in some of these nominally religious disputes, and consider the mass appeal of incredible violence in games.
It would be easy to just superimpose one's favorite first-person shoot-em onto Belfast, the Middle East, or any other hotbed. It would only require a little more imagination to convert a richer simulation game into one of those settings and incorporate the powerful role that religion and religious leaders can play. (For good or for ill: consider the effect on the game dynamic when you convince a cleric to espouse or eschew a peace initiative.) A realistic game feature could also consideration of the impact of attacking religious non-combatant hard and soft targets.
I think what would be difficult is to make a game like that which does not severely offend one or the other of those religious groups. It's safe to make a game where you kill monster or Nazis because there is not a strong pro-Nazi lobby in the gaming industry, and undead hit squads won't come to your home and kill your family in real life; but offending a group with economic power or suicide bombers at its disposal could get a little dicey.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even old Populous had more depth in this respect, and it also is basically an "economic" system wrapped in semi-religious terminology.
The analysis should perhaps take a look at art. The most successful and profound religious artists in the realm of writing often have barely detectable overt religous activities depicted: yet the religion in woven into the fabric of their art gives it a profoundness it could have gotten nowhere else. Look at Dostoevsky for example. Even look at Tolkien. His work is very spiritual, but you never actually see the Elves go to church or the Hobbits consult a priest.
The very structure of the world and the nature of the characters imply the depth of spiritual consciousness.
I think Garriot's Ultima has been the closest thing yet created to a religious system. It is basically an ethical system, as he explained: but it allows the character to apply religious meaning to those ethics beyond the simple religious factions provided in the game.
I have lately been playing Deus Ex (the original... i never got around to it before), and actually think it comes close to an almost religious depth. It's interesting that it was not mentioned in the article. The name of the game at least gives a hinting reference to God. (And the G.K. Chesterton quote in a copy of "The Man Who was Thursday" found in various places in the game world was a nice touch.) While there are no priests, or cliche religious cults to battle, the balance of competing perspectives in the game often imply a depth to the characters, and an artistic soul in the designer. While most of the conversations are more political in nature, they could easily have been spun in a more spiritual direction: it's all about motives and underlying premises up which the characters feel the meaning of their existence depends and is expressed.
Re:Ultima Underworld and other games... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but that's about as meaningful as the NRA's "Guns don't kill people; people do". Just like guns make killing people easier than with a knife, religion makes hating the foreign unbeliever easier than if you just had to hate them for speaking funny.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Insightful)
I myself am areligious, but I disagree with your statement that science and religion don't mix. Except among the fundamentalists (on both sides), they attempt to answer different types of questions. Science asks 'how?' where religion asks 'why?'
I guess in one sense you are correct, they don't mix-- but then, it's not because of animosity toward one side from the other (again, excepting the fundamentalists)-- the methodologies of the two are incompatible enough that to subscribe to one of them does not forbid believing the other, too.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I was referring to the current brand of Christianity. This tends to be more liberal, although any religion's purpose is to "convert the world." This is because the followers believe it to be the best way to live, so others should also join.
That said, nowadays large bits of Christianity, and Hinduism apparently, accept that actually there is no one true way and that many religions are just different ways of getting to the same goal. This is quite different to the historical interpretation of "repent or burn (either at the stake or in hell)"
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
And since that command was "Don't gain knowledge", it's pretty fair to say that Adam and Eve were punished for gaining knowledge.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the sense that one might punish a child for trying to stick a screwdriver in an electrical outlet. There is, however, a reason behind the proscription against doing so.
In the case of the child it is the protection of the child. In case of Adam and Eve is the protection of God. The reason behind the proscription, which you will find explicitly in Genesis, is that the acquisition of knowledge by man would make man akin to the Gods in power.
When man is akin to the Gods in power than man will have no need of God, and thus have no reason to obey.
Original sin in not disobedience. It is knowledge of the difference between good and evil. That is why a baby who has as yet commited no act of disobedience is still a bearer of orginal sin. He/she still carries the innate ability to discern morality and shame as his birthright through Adam and Eve who tasted of the fruit of knowledge. The sin resides in the baby even before it can commit any act. Heirarchical church structures, however, have found it to their advantage in compelling behavior to the edict of man posing as God to teach it as disobedience.
KFG
Re:Religion IS escapism (Score:2, Insightful)
Who said that life was about placating God? Perhaps some, but certainly not all theists. That's a strawman argument.
And zero times any value is still zero.
But my reference to Pascal wasn't to prove or disprove God, but to point out that some very smart people have considered (and do consider) it a topic worthy of discussion.
In my experience, there are some very good and some very good theists, and the same is true of atheists. There are also some very smart and very stupid theists and atheists. That speaks to the fundamental nature of humans, but neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god or gods.
Likewise, the fact that the Supreme Being that you stipulated gives you heartburn does not prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being, whether of that nature or another.
But the original, on topic point still holds. Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean it isn't an important force in human society, which any simulation or game that claims to be realistic should acknowledge in other than a caricatured way.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading it so literally as to actually believe in an invisible man in the sky ruling our universe would be taking the Scriptures too literally.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point entirely. Notice that they ate not from the tree of knowledge, but from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
They lived in an idillic place, where one can only chose from acts of good. She could not for example chose to kill Adam, because it simply wasn't a choice for her. It's hard to get your head around it (I think impossible) to live in a world where "evil"; barring obvious generalization, is not possible.
Now, they made the choice. They made the choice to live in a place where there is good and evil. They didn't only gain wisdom, but the knowledge of good and evil. Think of it as being in an animalistic state and the fruit being rationality.
Now, given the choice of living in that idillic place or living in our current one, where there's lots of bad and also lots of good. Was the choice so bad? It's a choice like any other, I personally enjoy life, so I don't think it was a bad decision.
We can get into the whole good and bad are both good, ying and yang and all that, but then we'd have to get into zen.
lazyAC
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
To make the analogy work, you need to also point out that the only people saying you *need* a vehicle are the ones who are currently using them. The statement that the hill is too tall and steep to walk up it is false, and although there aren't many who chose to go on foot, those that do end up getting a little bit miffed at those who keep telling them they can't make it that way - especially when the trail is filled with out-of-gas cars, stalled on the side and filled with people who have managed to convince themsleves they are actually at the top when they aren't even halfway up, and the hikers trod past them and keep going.
(On the subject of rejecting religion without knowing it's not true)
It is unnecessary to know for sure some belief system is false in order to reject it. It is merely sufficient to know that it is unable to back up the claims it has made for itself. The one who is proposing the belief is the one with the burden of proof.
Less realistic religion = piss off less people (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the preachy Ultima IV mentioned in the article had to do that sort of thing - making up a new religion that is based on eight virtues, and stays well away from anything like a belief in a god. (It was a good game, although having a computer program enforce rules of morality had problems in that it only cared about the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. For example, you could lose an 'eigth' for lack of bravery when your main character doesn't stay behind to be the last person to leave a map in a fight. That was severly flawed when sometimes the congestion of characters on the mapboard made it necessary for you to leave with your main character first just to make the room for the rest to fit out the exit. Sometimes the computer's random placement of figures on the map made it such that your only two choices were 1 - lose the virtue of bravery because the leader is in the way and has to leave first, or 2 - reload the game.)
Re:Most violent game... ever! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's remarks like this that will ensure that nobody ever takes you seriously. "Overwhelming", huh. If it were so "overwhelming", everyone would be in agreement on the matter. The non-Christian population isn't in some paranoid conspiracy to deny the obvious, despite your need to believe so.
It would be interesting to see you present the "overwhelming" "evidence" that, say, E. coli was created by the Christian god. (Note: claims that "evolution is a lie" or other attempts to falsify or discredit science do not in turn constitute positive evidence in favor of creation by a deity, let alone the Christian deity.)
Most Christians disagree with you. Funny, that.
Yeah, let's make sure they are never exposed to any viewpoint but your own.
Your argument is specious. In principle you could make up an arbitrary rule that says, "Only Democrats are allowed to marry", or something, and argue that everyone has exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else, so the rule is therefore "fair" -- even though non-Democrats aren't allowed to marry. But I don't think you would agree it is fair.
Because, um, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals? What kind of argument is that?
How about "5-year-olds can't drink alcohol, so why should adults be able to do it?" Or "women can't go topless in public, so why should men be able to do it?" Or, going back a century, "women can't vote, so why should men?"
If two groups of people are different, you need to consider on a case-by-case basis whether they should be treated similarly or differently. In the case of alcohol, one could make a strong case as to why 5-year-olds shouldn't be able to drink alcohol; it's not so easy to make a case for why women shouldn't be able to vote. The question is, which category does homosexual marriage fall into, and why?
You're trying to escape on the basis of legalistic wording: heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? But you can equally well say: homosexuals can't marry members of their sexually-compatible sex (i.e., the same sex), so why should heterosexuals be able to marry members of their sexually-compatible sex (the opposite sex)?
Perhaps a better question is, why can't anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) marry someone of any sex they choose? Or, for that matter, what does sex intrinsically have to do with marriage? Is it the possibility of reproduction? Should infertile man/woman couples be allowed to marry?
That is a matter of definition; that definition is what is currently being debated in society.
That's quite a non-sequitur. Homosexuality exists in nature among non-human animals as well as human animals; in that sense, it is "natural". What does being natural have to do with procreation? People, and animals, do many things naturally. Sex is one of them; so is yawning.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:1, Insightful)
But if it was impossible for her to do evil, why was she able to disobey God?
Your logic is faulty. If they could only do good, they wouldn't have been able to be tempted, and wouldn't have been able to disobey God (which apparently was evil enough to get them cursed with mortality and banished from Eden). But they did, according to the Bible. So they must have been capable of evil (which is pretty much a given if they are allowed free will)...
I advise you to just realise the Bible as an old book that was useful for communities many generations ago, to get along and live by basic rules for the benefit of society. Nowadays we have evolved in terms of culture and knowledge. We can leave the superstitions behind.