Wal-Mart Asked to Drop Christian Video Game 1535
doug141 writes "Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season and that Wal-Mart, a major video game retailer, should yank it off its shelves.Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team, but of course they can never win on [his] side. The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names, while the righteous include gospel singers, missionaries, healers and medics."
According to The Onion AV Club (Score:4, Informative)
At any rate, didn't a parody of a game similiar in mechanics to this appear on the Simpsons like 10 years ago?
Re:Hypocracy at its finest (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally, I saw a lecture on the topic quite recently, and learned that Muslims do believe in Jesus Christ. He is a highly regarded prophet, second only to Mohammed, and he plays a key role in the end-of-times scenario of Islam.
This is from http://www.itl.org.uk/Jesus/ [itl.org.uk]. Googling for "jesus islam" gives lots of further reading.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
Nice bokk, eh?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
I sure wouldn't like to meet any of those "progressive" Christians..
Re:I give up. (Score:4, Informative)
Back to the original topic, I think that Wal-Mart should ignore the censors and leave this game on the shelves.
And so should everyone else.
Re:Hypocracy at its finest (Score:5, Informative)
So please, YOU check your facts before you spout prejudiced nonsense.
Re:I give up. (Score:5, Informative)
They are quite serious. I went to their web site [leftbehindgames.com] and grabbed a list of the games features.
Personally I think it is funny. I was hoping they had a demo I could download.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:An Ars review (Score:2, Informative)
Don't get me wrong. Reading about this game is making me grit my teeth. As does reading about GTA. I don't like either one of them. But I wonder if this game is getting a bad rap.
From the review:
Engaging story (of course there will be a sequel)
A refreshing lack of violence
Better than the books!
The essays between the missions are well written, and actually intriguing
There is an agenda, but it's pushed skillfully
Surprisingly good documentation
Pathfinding issues
Explaining eschatology to your children if they want to play the game
Subpar voice acting
Horrid use of in-game advertisements
Did they really have to try to sell me Christian music?
They give you the book, and you may try to read it. Ick. That's bad.
The controversy over a relatively harmless and well-done piece of propaganda
Left Behind & Slacktivist (Score:5, Informative)
I can't recommend Slacktivist [typepad.com] highly enough. He's a true evangelical associated with a seminary and has been writing "Left Behind Fridays" dissecting the first book for over a year. (He also discusses many other things.)
For those who have only seen screeching TV evangelicals, Fred ("Slacktivist") is an old school one. As he has repeatedly said, he reaches out through hospitality. Here, I see you are tired. Let me offer you a chair. Are you hungry, let me check my kitchen. You're free to ask him how he can be so pleasant and helpful and he'll tell you about Christ. You're equally free to enjoy his hospitality and then move on.
It should go without saying that he's appalled by this game.
P.S., I'm now more Buddhist than anything else, but I wouldn't hesitate to go to a weekly sermon by him. I rarely come away from his blog without fresh insights.
You don't have to wait (Score:5, Informative)
"Thompson has also criticized a Christian video game based on the Left Behind series. In Left Behind: Eternal Forces, players participate in "battles raging in the streets of New York," according to the game's fact sheet. They engage in "physical and spiritual warfare: using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." Thompson claims that the makers of the game are sacrificing their values. He said, "Because of the Christian context, somehow it's OK? It's not OK. The context is irrelevant. It's a mass-killing game." Left Behind author Tim LaHaye disagrees, saying "Rather than forbid young people from viewing their favorite pastime, I prefer to give them something that's positive." The dispute over the game has caused Thompson to sever ties with Tyndale House, which publishes both the Left Behind books and Thompson's book, Out of Harm's Way. Thompson has not seen the game, which he says has "personally broken my heart," but claims, "I don't have to meet Abraham Lincoln to know that he was the 16th president of the United States.""
Re:I give up. (Score:2, Informative)
There IS a demo!
http://eternal-forces.net/index.php?option=com_do
The truth about the game (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone here is jumping on the misleading article concerning this game. The fact is that killing is strongly discouraged in this game. Now, I am not completely supporting it (there are some pretty hokey aspects in my opinion), but we need to get the facts straight here. This game is not like most RTS games out there. You are actually penalized for killing the opponent's people because the goal is to convert everyone.
Each unit in the game has a "spirit" score that determines which side they are on. If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you. Anyone between 60 and 40 is neutral and can be converted. If any of your units kills another unit, they lose spirit points. Only through prayer and inspirational music (who defines inspirational anyway, but I digress...) and good sermons can you increase the spirit points. The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself. This is where the combat comes in. This is not a game of convert-or-die. Also, the anti-christ team can "win", but this means that all of the units left in the game are going to hell (according to the game's rules) -- so in essence it is a loss.
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity. None of the acts carried out in the name of Christ were actually in keeping with his teachings. Many causes are subverted by those who take matters into their own hands. Sometimes it is because they are too zealous. Sometimes it is because they can use the system to serve their own purposes. Just because terrible things have been done in the name of Christ does not mean that Christianity is in itself evil. All of the Christians I know (including myself) abhor what happened in the Crusades. The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It was an act of barbarous and hideous evil that sickens me every time I think about it.
The problem was not Christianity, but the tightly held monopoly of the Church of Rome that kept its people in the dark about the truths of scripture while allowing corrupt people to wield incredible power. The crusaders were told that they would be "forgiven of all sins" if they went on the crusade, and in their ignorance, they did not know that Jesus gave forgiveness freely for sins confessed (you don't even need a priest). Thus the religion was subverted and misused to the profit of greedy men. As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I give up. (Score:3, Informative)
The player apparently loses points for killing people. How is that consistent with "preaching hatred"? Just because someone disagrees with me, or thinks I'm going to burn in hell forever because I chose the wrong god, doesn't mean they hate me.
Personally, I think it sounds like a stupid, offensive game. But people in this country are allowed to publish stupid, offensive things.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:1, Informative)
If you have heard of gods but think 'none exist', you are an atheist. If you have heard of them but 'don't know if one/many really exist', then you are an agnostic.
Re:My guess (Score:5, Informative)
This is not The DaVinci Code, this is history, and the superparent is right on the money.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Informative)
It is entirely possible (though sadly rather rare in the contempory U.S.) for a person to be a Christian, and yet not believe that every word of the Bible is true. (Especially the Old Testiment.) There were, after all, Christians before the Council of Trent [wikipedia.org].
Indeed, it's possible to be a Christian, and believe that Jeshua ben Joseph was no more or less divine than you or I; I've met some Quakers who (as far as I understand their ideas) would fall into this category.
So quoting the Bible says nothing about the beliefs of someone who claims to be "Christian", unless you know more about the parameters of their practice.
(I was raised Catholic but haven't identified as "Christian" for about 20 years.)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
Note that some slavery was voluntary in those days, when someone had a massive debt to pay, that kind of thing..
Re:According to The Onion AV Club (Score:2, Informative)
Bart - Cool, ten for ten conversions!
Todd - No, you just winged that last one and made him a Unitarian.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Informative)
The bible as we know it now wasn't even put together until the 2nd or 3rd century AD if I remember right. At the time it was kind of a best effort to throw out all the dubious crap floating around and assemble the better records into an accepted standard. Even then though it was far from perfect, and a lot of errors probably persisted. The original apostles were long gone by then, and the Christian faith was in the process of being bastardized by the Roman government.
Re:I give up. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The truth about the game (Score:2, Informative)
'Subvert'? This game is promoting the idea that anyone of substanitally different opinion to yours that tries to convert you to their point of view can be killed? That's not discouraging killing. Furthermore it's a game where sooner or later you'll have to kill someone, self-defence or not. It's not tetris. Killing people is an integral part of the gameplay. It was deliberately created that way. Again, that's not what I'd call discouragement.
They claimed they were Christians and presumably believed they were and for the rest of us that's enough. If claiming you are of a religion has no impact on whether you really are of that religion then everyone that lives, has ever lived and will ever live is now a member of Raymond [pandnotpian.org] whether they like it or not. That's fine by me but you'll probably disagree. Or perhaps you are suggesting they're not christians because they did wrong? If that's the case then there must be very few christians indeed - 'he who is without sin' and all that. Or maybe it's the extent of their wrongdoing? Are you suggesting some people are automatically disbarred from being christian by the extent of their immorality? That doesn't sound very christ-like to me. In short, the fact that some christians disown the behaviour of other christians is no consolation at all to the rest of us.
Re:To the lions... (Score:4, Informative)
Good question. Technically Stalin and Mao are responsible for the most mass murders.
Now technically, Stalin wasn't a true atheist per say according to his contemporaries. He did sort of believe in some type of god and afterlife, but wasn't much on the organized religion thing and promoted forced state atheism. He relaxed some of the rules during World War 2 during the German invasion and focuses everyone's attention on the Great Patriotic War which had religious over tones.
Mao wasn't as much anti-religion as he was anti-intellectual. Most of his victims weren't really religious and the biggest religious victims ended up being Tibetan Buddhists. However, one could really blame the CIA for dropping the ball on that country.
Which leaves us with Hitler and the holocaust. Again, Hitler was not an atheist although not a Christian and his contemporaries noted his often mocking of organized religion in general and his involvment in Pagan type of groups.
His persecution against the Jews was not simply because he didn't like them, but rather a deep hatred of Jewry going back since medevial times. See... The German Crusade [wikipedia.org] in which rather going to Muslim lands to liberate them, they stayed at home and focused on Jewish people.
Not to mention this lasted all the way up until Hitler's time and was actually one of the reasons for the Nazi's party success.
So yeah... Technically religion was responsible indirectly at least for the Holocaust.
I can't find it right now but there is also the instance in the 1800's about the civil war in China that was started by a guy who thought he was Jesus's brother. I can't seem to find it on Wiki right now since the names spelling evades me. But that costed several million lives as well.
I'm not defending either religion or atheism, but in general often times you can't black and white the issue since usually religion and politics are always intertwined.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If this works, let me be the first to say: (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely. Always enjoyable
I can see where you're going with this, but I would have to disagree. His career average run is over 5 yards [wikipedia.org]. Of course, this is a bit screwed as often those runs where 50,60,80+ yard runs. Certainly, scoring points, and getting first downs, cannot be seen has hurting the team.
yes, I agree he ran out of bounds a lot. Though, it's not always a bad thing. Particularly when you're trying to stop the clock. Doing it during the middle of the game, well, the impact on the game is debatable, in only hindsight. It also can be debated that he did it to preserve his health longer (less injuries), which is a benefit to him and his team.
More than 50% of this is the fault of Barry's running style. However, the Lions never exactly had a super offensive line, even the years when all the sporting magazines had Sanders and the big guys blocking for him on their front covers, you still rarely saw holes you could drive trucks through. A lot of Sanders yards came after the first contact.
As for more of a Bettis back...that maybe true. I don't really know as at the time, I was just a kid collecting football cards and playing Techmo Super Bowl. However, being a half-back, I would make the argument that it's not Sanders position to 'punch it in' at the 5 yard line, but that of a good Full-Back. I would also attribute it to crappy coaching/GM, and quarterbacking. They always seemed to call the wrong play at the wrong time. They tried to get Barry to run it in, when a short half-back pass, only on the text down, they do the half-back pass when the defense expected it, instead of punching it in or doing a play-action QB keeper.
I think Sanders was good for the team, but the team was not good for Sanders. Coaching and management has always been miserable. Quarterbacks have always been over-hyped and under-performing. They had some of the best defense for a while (Lomas Brown and Chris Spielman). They had some great receiving talent (and not just Herman Moore who was also 'streaky') and they've had some of the best special teams and kickers every (Mel Grey and Jason Hanson). Yet, they couldn't get to a super bowl. My only conclusion is it came down to poor coaching/training. The games the Lions lost, I just feel like they didn't care because they coach never gave them enough discipline in training.
Well, it's been a pleasure to drum up some old Lion memories. =) Thanks.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:1, Informative)
The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that the rest of the Christian churches have more or less lost it a long time ago (like after the original apostles all died) and the Bible is only "true as far as it is translated correctly". God, not wanting his children to be lost in darkness forever, called a new prophet, Joseph Smith, to help restore the truth on the earth. To prove to the world that this is for real, God instructed him to translate some records written by prophets who lived on the American continent over 2,000 years ago, who are descended from a prophet who was instructed by God to leave Jerusalem around 600 BC. The result of Joseph Smith's translation is the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is also largely responsible for a book called the Doctrine and Covenants which is a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith, and it also includes a few things that have been added by his successors in the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Joseph Smith also translated some papyri that fell into his hands that contained writings of Abraham and Moses, some of which is very similar to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. You can find all of those http://scriptures.lds.org/ [lds.org]here.
The Church of Jesus Christ still uses the Bible, but yes, they also have other books of scripture that they hold to be just as authoritative as the Bible, if not more so.
Honest Question (Score:2, Informative)
First I have a couple terms to make:
Old Testament == Old covenant.
New Testament == New Covenant.
Mosaic Law, Laws given by Moses from God for Israel.
Divine Law - Laws given by God to govern all human action.
Each covenant was sealed with blood. Old covenant - bunch of animals cut in half, circumcision, that stuff. New covenant, sealed by Blood of Christ.
The new covenant washes over the old testament, discard the old, in with the new. We knew in the OT that a new covenant was to be established and a Messiah was to come (Jews are still waiting). With the new messiah came a new covenant, not in contradiction with the Old Covenant, but purifying it as we move towards a new Eden -see Matthew 5: 17,19 and Definately Hebrews 8. Christ and Paul both spoke on God's law as they were often confronted by the Jewish leaders of the time as to what laws to follow. So we have to read the scriptures that relate to the Law that is set up through Christ. Which is where we get the breakdown of love the Lord and Love your neighbor -see Galatians 6:2 and Matthew 22:37-40 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.".
Also all but one of the 10 commandments are repeated in the New Testament, with the exception of remember the sabbath but it says that they "are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself.". But of the Mosaic law the NT specifically mentions a couple issues in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Now a key thing to note is that homosexuals are lumped with adulterers, prostitutes, greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. But special emphasis today seems to be put on Homosexuals, maybe because it is a hot topic, trendy or something. This is a brief version of my version of the cliffs notes of the NT view on this. It is by no means comprehensive. There is a ton of stuff in the NT and I am a Soli Scriptura Person but as such I need to take in context all of scripture rather than using pieces out of context to serve a personal vendetta. To really understand you will need to do a lot of study of the New testament so you can get things in context. This is why we have pastors and theologians. Just the same as there are Politicians and Philosophers. Some ideas are complex to delve into but simple to live by. God's Law isn't to hurt us but to keep us from making dangerous mistakes, most every one of the 10 commandments has real and dire consequences, not just spiritual. They are more guidelines to live a good and healthy life. Hope this helped.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Informative)
One thing I have to object to though, is your analogy to the scientific method. It doesn't count as science if you make your own interpretation of what is a positive and what is a negative result. If, say, you will take a sign from God to mean that God does, in fact, exist, then you'd first have to determine what sign that is. Just going on hoping to one day get said "sign" isn't really all that scientific. That's faith
I suppose it's technically possible to both be a scientist and have religious beliefs. I don't, however, think that they have anything what so ever in common. They are two very separate things, able to coexist in their own, separate spheres of reality. It does require you to be quite flexible in your scientific beliefs, though.
What you ended with, respect, is very true. The same way you believe that your God will respect the righteous, intelligent believers, I give respect to those who respect me. If a christian can't respect my non-belief, then why should I respect their belief?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Informative)
I like your usage of the phrase "hammered out". It implies that it was not a decision that was fabricated, but was based on accepted beliefs and biblical passages. Only the details needed to be filled in. But you then say
By which you seem to imply that the decision was completely fabricated. Whether you believe it or not, the Bible is quite internally consistent with regards to Christ's divinity. For example, there are many passages in Acts that state "God raised Jesus from the dead", e.g. 2:32, 3:26.
Then in John 2:19 it says, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'" There is little doubt (within the Biblical text) that Jesus is referring to Himself.
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.
Brian
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
This is the very antithesis of history. It was not accepted doctrine; at the time there were literally dozens of Christian sects, all fighting for control of the symbology and dogma of Christianity. The same is true of Judaism, and in fact Jesus himself got the foundation for his beliefs from a splinter sect of Judaism. A pretty far-out one, too.
Not being a professional bible scholar I tend to forget the names for the various views on the nature of Christ and God, but there were four dominant views; one, that Jeshua was fully human. Two, that he was fully divine. Three, that he was partly human, and partly divine. Four, the winner: that he was both fully human, and fully divine. The text of the old testament could be read to support any of these views, which is one reason that there was an ongoing debate over it in the first place. The roman state became involved because various types of christians were killing each other over this debate regularly.
There were also two main camps of christians regarding the old testament; one camp wanted to throw it out and start over, while the other camp wanted to accept it as canon. Naturally, a third group wanted to retain only pieces of it.
Making the assertion that Christians were on the same page prior to the council of nicea is a particularly ridiculous piece of revisionist history. In fact, the truth could not be further from this statement.
Kill the nephilim (Score:1, Informative)
Gods plan for redemtion included Humans not Hybrids. and ussually when the people didn't kill off all the women and children, those that were left alive tried to kill of the Jews (Gods People) later on. Satans plan was to destroy the Humans and taint the blood line so Jesus could never exist.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is why in all the sects of Protestant Christianity I have experience with, a Masters degree in theology is a requirement to be a Reverend. Of the prerequisites of this degree is a decent grounding in Classical Hebrew, Greek and Latin, so that the Reverend is at least conversant with the untranslated texts. To study for a full doctorate may even entail courses in more obscure languages such as Aramaic.
Now, I understand that Christian sects in the U.S. have less stringent requirements, but that does definitely not mean that all Christians have no contact at all with the untranslated texts.
MartRe:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Informative)
With pleasure.
There has been a misunderstanding... (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, you're not taking it in context of the whole text.
In short, these were commands given to the Israelites at that time, usually for a specific situation - not different than a command from God saying something like, "everyone over 40 doesn't get to see the promised land" (which actually happened). That doesn't mean that everyone today is disbarred from such things, or anything like that. It was a contextual mandate - law - specific to the circumstances and culture of the time.
This is understood within Christianity as a given, particularly as the New Testament and specifically because of the 'golden rule'/'greatest commandment' make it known that the law of the old testament (which doesn't even include the whole old testament - I'm not a bible type, so I couldn't tell you if your cited information is a part of that) is to be taken into account as long as it complies with "love your neighbor as yourself". Did Christ not 'free' the adulteress when a bunch of guys wanted to stone her?
And even if you're right, and these things are applicable outside the context of that particular story in Jewish history: would not the more important thing be how the practicioners of the faith behave as a whole right now, and not what their holy writ may be interpreted to say, completely outside the mainstream or even fringe understanding? How many Christian charities are there compared to secular ones, and how differently do they perform? Quite admirably. How many Christian-on-Muslim genocides have there been in the world (under modern Christendom)? None which I can immediately think of. Let your fruits be your witness and all that, as they say.
Karl Marx and his 'desciple Marxists' (Mao, Lenin, etc.) both did and suggested a lot of vile things in the name of the ideal, but you don't see us, as a society, blasting the snot out of Marxism and suggesting it's a vile belief system - no, we're progressive as a society, and we've largely accepted the ideals of Marx throughout the West. Same basic thing.