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."
and this is different from life how?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Kind of like the current state of Many religions. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc... all kill for the sake of their god, They just are catching up to what he christians did the past 500 years.
Killing a group of schoolchildren because they would not wear the stupid veil. Yeah, that's a peaceful religion!
All of you except the buddists are sick individuals that use your beliefs as a reason to kill murder and rape.
the enemy has folks with muslim sounding names? (Score:1, Insightful)
I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning crap is a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, all media must be protected...even, and especially, the shitty stuff like this.
Re:the enemy has folks with muslim sounding names? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pot calling the kettle black?
I think war games are an important education tool. (I'm also personally a fan of private gun ownership, so maybe I'm biased.) But watching what happens in the Emergency Room is considered educational. Then why not also the events on the battlefied. So in this one it's the Christians versus the Muslims. Maybe that's not in really good taste, but is it in good taste in Battlefield 2, Americans versus Muslims or Americans versus the Chinese? Or if the religious symbolism is offensive, what would you say if I showed you a game that's blatantly Satanic [idsoftware.com]? My two cents says it doesn't matter.
Now, I'm curious if it has good gameplay. I'm guessing it doesn't ("After you kill somebody you need to recharge your soul points and to do that you need to bend down in prayer." from the CNN Article [cnn.com]). Then we have nothing to worry about.
See... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you hate it when the truth is told... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hypocracy at its finest (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about realism in video games! I'm amazed! How did they get it so life-like?
They don't dislike the 'Left Behind' book and game series because it's inaccurate. They dislike it because it's TOO accurate. It shows how religious people really think and act. Okay, so maybe the Pastor at the local church doesn't use a gun to convert people, but the message is the same: Convert to my religion or burn in everlasting flames. And maybe if they left it at a statement, it wouldn't be so bad. But we still have clergy that do completely immoral and unethical things, sometimes not even to further their cause, but for personal gain. And they get away with it.
I used to call myself Christian, but not really name which type (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc). Now, I say I believe sort of like they do, but with a few major differences:
God doesn't care what religion you are, so long as you are a good person.
God doesn't care what name you call him by.
The Bible was written by man, not God. It was then translated by man, not God. Several times. It is a tool to guide you to the correct path, and nothing more. All holy books serve this same purpose, no matter the religion. Church is also such a tool. (I won't get into corruption, that's a long debate.)
Instead of merely tolerating other religions, I embrace them. They are God's methods of helping us be better people.
So far, I'm pretty much alone in my religion. I don't imagine I'll be setting up a church any time soon.
My guess (Score:2, Insightful)
Which of course make it hypocritical to campaign for the ban of a video-game portraying different values. Of course the values of the video game seems to be that it is good to impose your values on other people.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Religion, not freedom FROM religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My guess (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:the enemy has folks with muslim sounding names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunatley, I must side with the extremists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, creating this game is Constitutionally protected free speech, and selling it is completely up to Wal-Mart and other retailers. I think it was done in very poor taste but should be treated no differently than GTA or any other games that are similarly in bad taste.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Many other Christians understand the Bible's metaphorical message, and try to live their lives in gentle kindness and generosity.
You, however, remain ignorant and in only tentative charge of a computer. The only difference between you and the people we're talking about is you dress less neatly.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it like a critical fairy tale believer?
Nah dude, it's totally OK to dis other people's religion.
Yeah yeah, I know--all Christians are pigheaded morons who take the bible literally.
And moreover, their whole religion is a fairy tale.
See because, it's OK for you to hate and belittle their religion, while at the same time damning all the Christian believers for being bigots.
I guess it's OK to be a bigot, as long as you're not Christian.
Re:I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the books that this game is based on, teaches the same "values".
Besides, I always thought muslims DID believe in jesus christ, just not in the same way christians do. Quite similar to how judaïsm believes in jesus christ in a different way than christians. Both religions acknowledge the existence of jesus christ, they just have different interpretations. Perhaps people of these, or other, religions can clarify? Either way; having muslims "star" as the main non-christian group seems suspicious, considering the large amount of other non-christians groups.
Re:My guess (Score:3, Insightful)
No offense... but, you probably shouldn't be getting your theology lessons from the Da Vinci Code.
Thanks,
Mike
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
A progressive Christian reads the Bible and understands it for what it is, a collection of parables and rarely historical accounts of actual events, the purpose of which is to always illustrate a point that God is actively involved in his creation, encouraging trust in him (which means believing his word i.e. believing that he has done or will do what he has promised).
A progressive Christian is living in the present, and applies the word of God to his situation and does not try to bend the world to fit the Bible and live in the past, avoiding relativism, a great peril of modern world on the way.
Perhaps that clears it somewhat.
I say let Wal-Mart carry it! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only yesterday when I had a moment of reflection on my own changes in perceptions of things. I was born in 1968 and was very young when I first saw Star Wars. During that same area in time, I saw a black bell on a daycare building and thought to myself, "That bell looks like Darth Vader!" I now think that Darth Vader looks like a bell. The difference in perception is pretty clear to me but it also goes to show how minds change, develop and evolve over time and with life's experience.
So yes. Let it be. Let kids play games where they are evangelical Christians or characters from greek or other ancient mythology and legend. You cannot really condemn one game without condemning them all.
Here's one take on the game I'd like to hear: Who is that nut always trying to get violent video games banned? Yeah, that guy. What's his take on the game? "Convert or Die!" sounds pretty gruesome to me...
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:1, Insightful)
All I said in that short sentence was (1) express my conviction that religious people believe in fairies, and (2) express my feeling that "christian" and "progressive" are words that inheritently don't go together. Perhaps I'll admit there was a bit of sarcasm in it too, but I sure wasn't antagonistic or insulting, yet look at your reaction: are you insecure in your beliefs or something?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Take the fighting in the game out of context (Score:1, Insightful)
All of the violent games on the shelves are generally considered bad for kids/people to play because they promote dangerous and criminal behaviour. But, even thouse who are rabid fans of the games - and I would think even the people who go out and reenact the behavior in the real world - will still admit that it's bad and illegal behavior.
THIS type of game seems to promote a type of behavior that might be considered above the law. Someone with overwhelming religious convictions is going to disregard any societal taboos (and laws) if they conflict with those convictions. Taken to the extreme, they might strap a vest of explosives to their chest and walk into a crowded mall, or grade school, or market in downtown Baghdad. Boom.
Whats the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
the game does give the players an out, they don't have to kill anyone and actually lose score if they do so how does the game teach that its okay to kill non-believers? It doesn't, but that doesn't make a good story and we can sit in our coffee shops with our macbooks sipping lattes while mocking Christians and other people of faith can we?
Giving children games where people are getting killed, regardless if its religious based, historical, or fiction, isn't the brightest idea. Yet if we are going to hold one group, or in this case one small segment of a larger group, to certain standards why don't we hold everyone to them? Is it only okay because we believe we can browbeat certain groups or another?
Re:I give up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Jews also believe Jesus was a prophet of God but do not believe he was the son of God.
It's really sad that this game would advocate the killing of non-Christians because of their lack of faith. That is in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus. Rather, it is just like the teachings of Muhammad.
Other games may have objectionable content, but (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, you have groups like Focus on the Family and the like going after every semi-violent video game for destroying culture and humanity, but when the game is about a Christian gunning down non-believers, well, gunning down non-Christians apparently is one of the few things in life that doesn't make baby Jesus cry.
That is what was so important about getting a progressive Christian group on board the 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.
To the lions... (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know about the game (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is not known for editorial accuracy. I doubt that Muslims are the non-Christian "star" of the books. Pragmatically speaking, it seems to me that if all Christians are missing, then the 1.2 billion Muslims will be relatively more prevalent. The blurb reads "muslim-sounding" names - showing how ignorant we Americans are. Since we're the population minority in the world, almost everyone has a "foreign-sounding" name.
According to one line of Christian theology, all Christians are removed from earth by God during what is called the rapture. After this, there are *no* Christians until some people rediscover what the Bible teaches. During this season of time, people can become Christians, and the idea is that these new believers have a compelling reason to challenge others to become Christians, because at the end of that short period of time, everyone who chooses to reject Christ will be separated from all that is good, gentle, loving and peaceful for all of eternity.
Here's the deal. Either Jesus Christ is God, or He's not. If someone teaches that He is not God, according to Christian teaching, and because of the law of non-contradiction, Jesus cannot simultaneously be God and "not God" in the same time and relationship. Since Judaism, Islam, and Christianity teach different things about Jesus, man's relationship to God and how it may be possible to reconcile to God, logically either all three beliefs are wrong, or one is right and the others cannot be right.
Christian tolerance teaches me to tolerate people's rights to choose whatever religious belief they want, even if they are wrong. Christian love teaches me to tell people who God is, and how to reconcile relationship with Him, because I want everyone to have the kind of relationship with God that I have.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I agree, but one point... (Score:2, Insightful)
These people playing this game, reading the 'Left Behind' books, & watching the crappy movies, truly believe in the Rapture and what they are doing on screen is "right". That's what makes this a little more scary.
What a crock.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Just like it's ok to walk around killing people as long as you don't claim to be a pacifict. (sarcasm)
Moral relativism at it's most bankrupt.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any person that calls themselves a Christian but hates homosexuals, Muslims, non-Christians, liberals, etc. is sorely deluding themselves.
Ok, but how does this square with Leviticus:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
Are you suggesting that you should love homosexuals even while you put them to death? 'cause that's a subtlety that may not be so reassuring to the homosexuals at the receiving end of your loving.
Seriously, how you can be both progressive and follow the Christian bible is a mystery to me. I know there are in fact a lot of progressive christians, even gay christians, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The book itself contains many hateful passages like the one above. And it's a religion, which means it's not supposed to be subject to rational thought - you take it on faith, unquestioning. If you are both progressive and christian does that not mean that you've decided to disregard the offensive passages? And once you do that, is there any faith left in what you do? If you can rationalize away the killing gays bit, why not the thou shalt not kill bit? Faith is an all or nothing business I thought...
yp.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Insightful)
I just love when people take the bible completely out of context.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I said in that short sentence was (1) express my conviction that religious people believe in fairies
Oh, PS: I'm agnostic.
I'm so glad that you have assumed the responsibility to speak for all atheists. It's too bad there are ignorant people on both sides, some of whom may read your post and assume we're all idiots.
Not all of us atheists are hateful adolescent anti-Christian reactionaries. You insult us more than you do them when you spout off ignorance and hate. You think you're going to change someone's mind by mischaracterizing their beliefs and calling them all bigots? What are you? 13?
Re:I give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
(pager edition)
Same god, different prophets. Fighting ensues for milennia.
Re:To the lions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say, for example, that I live in a Sharia-based society. Should I just accept these crippling religious laws because it is wrong to judge groups of people? Can't I just reject the whole insane pile? Must I judge every single one of these woman-hating intolerant lunatics individually?
Or let's say that I live in a Xian theocracy. Again, is it wrong to judge these witch-burning adulturer-stoning fucktards en masse? Are you truly insisting that I shake every single narrow-minded pinched-souled puritanical tyrant's hand and get to know them?
I say that it is fine to judge groups of individuals if those individuals chose to join those groups. After all, it's what they want. They want to be grouped together with others of the group! Otherwise, why'd they join the group?!? I suspect many of them are weak-minded, but that's all the more reason to judge them all at once.
muslim sounding names (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
These rules were only applicable to the ancient nation of Israel.
This is not to say that other parts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality, but it is to say that Christians who cite the Bible as a source for their hatred of homosexuals are twisting the work for their own ends. Homosexuality may be wrong, but hating homosexuals isn't right.
Re:The Crusades were NOT Christian (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone forcing others to convert at swordpoint is acting out of evil. Anyone who does so in the name of Christ, is also taking the Lord's name in vain. When the Muslims slaughtered those in the Holy land, that was evil. When the Christians retaliated, and killed supposedly in the name of God, that was also evil.
But do NOT act like Christians had the monopoly on killing. The Crusades were an overREACTION to the slaughter that the Muslims had perpetrated. To pretend that the Muslims were just sitting around chatting about Allah, and the Christians came in for no reason and killed them all is beyond absurd. That pretense is evil.
I'm not defending the barbarous acts committed by many Crusaders. I'm sure many of them are roasting on their respective spits in Hell right now. However, when you PRETEND that those from whom they tried to take the Holy Land BACK were innocent victims of evil Christianity, you are guilty of slander on a massive scale.
Re:To the lions... (Score:4, Insightful)
And who killed more people specifically because of their religious beliefs -- not political, paranoid, or power-hungry reasons -- Christians or Atheists?
The violent 1% (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree partially with your sentiment, what about all the peaceful religious people? They don't get seen much, because the news chooses not to cover people sitting at home with their children hoping and praying that the rioters don't kill anybody. You're talking about the violent 1% (or 5%), and there are violent atheists as well.
I do, however, notice more and more how efficient religious power is as a tool to control people. I think that a massive reeducation about spirituality, Jesus, and the Bible are in order. Why I don't mention the Muslims is that a)I'm not a Muslim, so I'm not in a powerful position to reeducate, and b)dude, there are millions of Muslims in this country who, as a persecuted class, are more conscious, compassionate, and aware than your correlated Judeo-Christian.
Also, the Buddhist religion is also born out of a violent, sexist, oppressive time in history, and therefore contains much falsity. The reason why Christianity and Islam seem so primitive by comparison is because they are under scrutiny. Explain to me how the Buddhist governments (China, anyone?) are any better. Again, it occurs to me how religion is a freaking tool, not the problem, and the solution is education.
The government is constantly a detriment to people's freedom, spiritual growth, and personal creativity. Look at our (at least my) government's relationship with John Lennon (regardless of whether or not they killed him, which I wouldn't put past them). Look at their relationship to Osho. Look at their relationship with the Branch Davidians (Remember the Alamo, forget Waco--a true patriot!). And if you want to pretend that they killed the Branch Davidians because they were stockpiling weapons, I'll send you a videotape with the telephone conversations of Koresh begging the ATF to stop shooting at them and to please let the women and children out.
No such luck.
Re:To the lions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheists believe the only consequence to actions in life is if you get caught...
Uhmm... no. Atheists don't believe in god(s). Most of them do believe in consequences to actions.
People who have an absolute hatred of a mass group as a whole scare me.
I agree, and your incorrect generalization of atheists scares me.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The truth about the game (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Uhm. So, yeah, killing someone loses you "spirit points," but darn it, if they were evil then it was probably necessary, and it'll be fine as long as you pray hard afterwards, and go to good sermons (which, evidently, don't delve too deeply into the "You shall not murder" commandment? Well, anyway.)
It sounds truly horrifying. You can maybe say that it isn't horrifying to quite the degree the summaries are saying, but it's a grotesquely twisted view of morality, of Christianity, of the goodness (or lack thereof) of the human soul, and so on. I'd much prefer more conventional games of this type, where we deliberately invoke the "this is just fiction" card and openly acknowledge that this isn't how one should behave in reality. In any case, I strongly disagree with your claim that the article is "misleading," since the ways in which the game "discourages killing" seem like splitting hairs to me -- it "discourages" it in a way that still requires you to kill unbelievers. But you should feel bad and pray about it afterwards. I don't see a substantial moral difference here...
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity.
Sounds a lot like this video game...
Re:To the lions... (Score:1, Insightful)
Smallpox blankets and inquisitions anyone? Cruisades anyone?
Sheep indeed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To the lions... (Score:1, Insightful)
And, AFAIK, radical atheists have never been in control of an agressive country, but I could easily imagine a bunch of asshat atheists trying to wipe out believers. Christianity, or religion in general does NOT have a monopoly on violent asshats.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, and by the same token you better not cuss your mom or dad, because the penalty is
Say "goddammit" when you whack your thumb with a hammer and you get
A little extra-marital fooling around
People use the Bible as if it was a pile of magic bricks out which they select pieces to construct any kind of structure they want. It's not. It's an anthology of anything that over the years scribes throught important enough to preserve (and update). The anthology includes myth, poetry, legend, philosophy and law. Quite a bit of the law only makes sense if you're wandering around the desert with yoru livestock; puzzling over the problem this presents is probably why Judaism has developed such tradition of creative scholarship.
The Bible is not consistent with itself, because given the way it ws compiled, it became a diary of multiple cycles of religious birth and rebirth. Religion works like this: some chap like Moses or Abraham has one or more mystical experiences. The people around him try to make sense of that. My devotional practice they have varying degrees of success at reproducing it. Over time these practices become ritual and law, but as the original vision become hazier, the rituals become empty and the law barren. Then the next prophet turns up, to be misunderstood and stoned, then understood and venerated, then misunderstood and venerated.
That's why Saint Paul says "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." The Greek word translated as "sin" is "hamartia", which means missing the point.
Re:the enemy has folks with muslim sounding names? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:To the lions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Take the fighting in the game out of context (Score:4, Insightful)
I look at it this way, if those Christian readers who take offense at the game were not offended by the books then they are just hypocritical.
Good point -- I'm a Christian reader and I'm offended also by the books. For pretty much the same reason people are offended by the game -- they present a twisted, militaristic, legalistic view of Christianity that completely leaves out one of the two "greatest commandments," that is, to love your neighbor.
Well, "offended" is maybe the wrong word -- I'm more worried than offended, because the books are so popular. I could laugh them off more easily if they didn't seem to accurately represent the views of a sizable minority of Christians in the US.
Christians are set as the opposing force, after all its a book from Christians about a story in Bible.
Allow me to nitpick here: I've read the Bible, and I never saw that story. The closest it came is a lot of apocalyptic, highly symbolic imagery, especially around Revelation. The writers of these books, and some other Christians, have chosen to interpret that imagery as an explicit, highly literal timeline of events during the apocalypse. They are free to argue for this interpretation (though I strongly disagree), but it is drastically oversimplifying to say this view is "in the Bible," since no one noticed it was in the Bible until at least the 1800s or so. That is, this peculiar literal spin on unclear prophetic imagery is something that no one even thought of until very recently in history.
So, you can try to argue that this interpretation is the correct one, but the blanket assertion that these people are just "telling a story that's in the Bible" is inaccurate.
Re:I don't know about the game (Score:1, Insightful)
Technically, it's all "true believers." I'm not sure that a dramatic decline in the Christian evangelical population is one of the outcomes of the Rapture, though...
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a God, and he has been around since the beginning of creation, why do you think you are allowed to define was he does and does not care about?
This isn't a troll, this is actually a serious (and much-debated) critique to your argument. Thomas Aquinas definitively believed that the Christian God was immutable - that is, he definitely was either for or against slavery, definitely for or against homosexuality, definitely for or against coveting your neighbor's wife.
So if two people stood up, and one said, "I believe God does care that you call him by the correct name" and one said, "I believe God does not care that you call him by the correct name", then only one of these people was right.
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
So in order to believe in God, you must believe that God has always existed AND that he is immutable. So then the question merely becomes "who has the right idea about God?" And while that question is of course unanswerable, it is very easy for me to say that your idea of God and the Christian idea of God are incompatible.
And only one of you is right.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The truth about the game (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about anyone else, but as an atheist I'd rather be killed than to be forcibly converted, so I can't see how this is better: christians == good, everyone else == bad.
I'm not saying this game should be banned or taken off the shelves though. If we can have Doom like games, we can have this kind of crap, too. I'm with those that say it will starve on the shelves because nobody will want to play this sanctimonious crap. I also don't believe it represents mainstream christianity.
Re:The truth about the game (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself.
THIS. IS. NOT. CHRISTIAN.
In this game, the existance of God and Heaven (and by contrast, Satan and Hell) is an established fact. If the good guys die, they go to Heaven. If the bad guys die, they go to Hell. Right? And furthermore, the game makes it explicitly clear (even though no mortal can have this knowledge) of exactly who is Good and Evil. It's all very simple.
Now, if you're (I'm using the omniscent "you" here) a good Christian, you don't WANT people to go to Hell, correct? You want to save everyone you can.
Furthermore, if the game labels you as "Good," then your in-game salvation is assured.
So then, given these conditions which the game has (farsically) set up... why would you EVER kill someone? Even in self-defense?
If you kill them, they go to Hell, and you potentially go to Hell.
If you convert them first, they go to Heaven and you go to Heaven.
If you die non-violently, you go to Heaven and - just maybe - seeing your lamb-like sacrifice inspires them to rethink their faith. This opens the POTENTIAL of them going to Heaven where none really existed before.
And finally, even if all the Christians die... that's what's going to happen anyway. Christ returns, all the evil-doers are thrown down, etc etc. The ending is pre-ordained. There is no other course. Evil cannot win.
There is logically NO REASON to risk your mortal soul in the game. If you think through the possibilites, non-violence is the only logical conclusion one can reach - just as Jesus taught.
(and, needless to say, in real life where you CANNOT know whether the person in front of you is Good or Evil, there is even LESS justification for killing them)
Yet the game allows for violence... it allows "Christians" to kill the "Evil" and get away with it scot free. It removes the moral burden of hanging onto your beliefs EVEN if it means your death. (like, you know, Jesus was willing to do.)
It pays lip service to the idea of converting people to "Good" while not really making the player behave in a "Good" way in all but the most superficial ways. And like so many others, when the chips are down, you're allowed to compromise your morals and commit "Evil" anyway... and the game lets you get away with it with just a little prayer.
And I can think of little that could be more anti-Christian than this sort of amoral evil nonsense parading around AS Christian.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To the lions... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're upset that there is a violent video game produced by a radical group of a mainstream religion? Perhaps you should take a look at your own violence inducing statement.
"I think it is time to hear "to the lions" ringing in the ears of those arrogant enough to have faith in anything."
You're suggesting the death of BILLIONS of people. How could this ever be considered insightful except by the most ignorant of individuals. Judge people for who they are, not what you think they may believe in. Not every Christian, Muslim, Buddist etc is out to convert or kill you. Who exactly is spilling hate and malice here?
Re:To the lions... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To the lions... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really mean this, or did you just hit "submit" too hastily? The statement really doesn't even make sense. What I think you meant to say is, "Atheists only resist actions if they fear getting caught or feeling guilty."
As an atheist, I believe the consequences of my actions are my responsibility. Many people feel the same sentiment, regardless of any other creed or "religion." Some Christians may resist actions because they feel it would be a sin, or an affront to god, or, as you said, because they'd be damned eternally.
Now how the hell is that any different than someone (of any religion) altering their behavior because they're afraid of getting caught? God (purportedly) will ALWAYS catch you.
My point is that 1) your post was not reasoned or reasonable and 2) personal responsibility is agnostic and is up to every single person. Whoever modded you up insightful was reacting as hastily as your comment was posted.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
You are absolutely free to pray anywhere and anyway you like - on your own time. (In theory. If you're Muslim, well, sorry [msn.com].)
You are free to put up decorations commemorating any deities, heroes, mythological beats, prophets, or demigods you choose - on your own property.
Requiring that people do their jobs in a professional manner (e.g., teachers and military officers should not be spending their work time trying to convert others to their beliefs), and requiring that governments neither promote nor restrict religion, is not "anti-Christian", it's pro-professionalism and pro-liberty.
(Oh, and let's be honest and admit that Xmas is a pagan celebration wrapped in a thin Xian veneer, ok?)
Re:and this is different from life how?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing - war is almost always about things like money or land, and only very occasionally about things like freedom and liberty (those are also usually the ones that don't work out,) and never ever about saving people's souls. Sure a few of the boots on the ground might believe that they are doing god's work, hell even a leader might believe that. But look at any conflict ever, and the real motivation for the people really in power is always money or land, and the power that goes with controlling it.
Don't believe me? Here are a few "religious" or "philosophical" conflicts and a modicum of background.
Moor invasion and the reconquista (Spain) - Moors filled a power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman empire - the reconquista was a long process of feudal warfare involving carving out of small kingdoms, pillaging cities and demanding tribute. Eventually motives merged with empire building and the Holy Roman Empire (more empire than holy.) Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Crusades - the middle east at the time was a major crossroads for trade caravans. Anyone who controlled the trade routes stood to make huge profits. Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Thirty years war - All about the structure of Germany, and who controlled what - the French wanted a fractured Germany, the Austrians wanted an Empire. Religious motives (i.e. catholic v. protestant) provided a convenient excuse.
Every war ever involving Israel/Palestine. All about immigration and forced emigration, and which readily identifiable groups control which resources. There is a very small band of hospitable land and lots of desert and mountains. Egypt, Syria, and whoever is supporting the Palestinians this week, want an ally - the Jews ain't it, for a variety of political, reasons relating more to the scarcity of good land than the fact that they are Jews, not Muslims.
The Iraqi civil war (or is it still sectarian violence?) There is a massive power vacuum, because the only source of power (us) doesn't want to be there. Someone will fill it, and once again there is a convenient religious difference so that people can identify and support their friends/village, rather than someone who would distribute resources less favorably.
To any history majors - I realize there are gross simplifications, but the point stands - it's ALWAYS about who has what, not who believes what.
They didn't kill school children for not wearing the veil, they killed them for being part of the wrong group. If it wasn't a "religious" conflict, it would be an ethnic, social, or class struggle. All groups divide us into us v. them mentalities. In some unfortunate cases it is religion in others it is something else (see US civil war, Darfur, Rowanda, Bolshevism , French civil war, Nazism, etc, etc, etc.)
The history of humanity is one of conflict. We should try to minimize it, but blaming it on religion is misunderstanding the problem.
Re:To the lions... (Score:2, Insightful)
Err... I have a gun, and I haven't killed anyone with it. Clearly, Jesus intended us to be neither pacifists nor aggressors, as he said, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
He knew his coming would bring upheaval, as he said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." There will be be no peace until he returns. Also, despite our best efforts, "the poor will always be with us."
By the way, the actions of supposedly radical Islamic organizations such as the Taliban are perfectly in harmony with the teachings of the Qur'an, which commands the Muslim to subjugate his enemies and either forcibly convert them or demand tribute.Re:My guess (Score:1, Insightful)
Most if not all of the versions of "official" religious texts (I would argue the Torah and Quran among them) were compilations that were picked out from numerous works for inclusion in their respective books. They are a sham. Take the gnostic texts as an example. They are nowhere to be found in the bible. Why do we think this is?
There was plenty of competition within the early Christian sects. It just so happens that the "winners", those with the largest group/most powerful/most wealthy followers got to write the history books. As such, they felt the need, nay, the duty, to exclude any early Christian writings they did not agree with, that directly contradicted what they said and/or that they found not to be useful to their goals.
He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.
Who controls the present now?
Testify!
Re:To the lions... (Score:2, Insightful)
It May Be Misunderstood (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't know about the game (Score:1, Insightful)
Whereas genuine tolerance teaches me to not care if people are "right" or "wrong" in their beliefs, and just enjoy the person for who they are.
Monotheistic religion's version of tolerance is "I will tolerate you until my invisible man gives me permission to slit your throat, heretic." What a joke.
Re:To the lions... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [wikipedia.org]
A Christian is anyone who believes in Christ. John 3:16, you know? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that *whosoever believeth in Him* shall not die..."
YOU don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
See, that's the problem, right.
The believers think that there is a voice-in-the-sky without any evidence (rather, with circular evidence -- believe and you will know, and since you do not believe you will not know).
The atheists insist that there is no voice-in-the-sky (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that) without sufficient proof.
Sometimes, both sides are a tad nutty. The only difference is that the latter tends to have more rational folks (rather than, say, $FOO_BOOK says this).
As an agnost, my whole take is that we do not have enough evidence to say one way or the other, so why bother. We have a brain, to think and analyse, so why not just use it for that, rather than just spend your life pondering over some entity, fictional or otherwise?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Barely matters... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't know about the game (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me point it out for you: you're assuming you're right and that non-christians are wrong. That's not tolerance, that's religious blindness.
Re:Of course you shouldn't beat employees too hard (Score:3, Insightful)
Number of people killed by Muslim suicide bombers on Tuesday: > 60 (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/?page=details&
I'm not going to defend anyone who kills an abortion doctor, or imply that each one wasn't a terrible tragedy. The truth of the matter, however, is that the scale of the two problems just doesn't compare at all.
Also, for what it's worth, I do believe the bible with all of my being, and I have in fact read it. Actually, I've not only read it, I've studied it enough to understand the source of the apparent contradictions, and why they aren't really contradictions. In fact, under real scrutiny the Bible holds up better than just about any other work of comparable size out there.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the bible, or any religious scripture, is that people can read it and find passages that back up their preconceptions. People who hate gays can find passages that make them think thats okay. People who want to show Christianity to be hypocritical can find passages that conflict with one another. Well-intentioned people can completely disagree over which passages are important. This is why we have so many different variants of the Christian faith -- Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. etc.
In my reading of the bible, there is one passage where Jesus sums up the entire religion. Everything else is basically background information.
The passage continues to define "your neighbor" as anyone you might happen to meet. So, no...you aren't supposed to hate gays.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like me, he trusts in what he knows. That is a kind of faith just as believing in a god is faith.
When I say I believe in what I see, I'm expressing the faith I have in that my eyes see things the way they are, and that what my eyes see is the truth. You can't prove without a doubt that it is, since no human being on this earth has complete and utter knowledge of all and everything. We just have to trust in reason and logic, and THAT is our faith.
I really hate how bible-pushers can tell me to believe in God just because a book says he exists. Yes, of course that's faith, and sure, it might inspire hope in some people. But I can't see the point in believing in these fairytale stories 'just because'. It makes no sense to me, not when there's so much else in this world that has reason and logic on it's side.
I believe water is wet, because I can actually touch it. I believe fire is hot, because I actually burn myself if I get too close. I don't believe in God because there is no further proof to his existence than "the bible says so". And that's just not enough for me...
So christians, believe in whatever you want. I can't, and won't, stop you. But please, PLEASE, stop with your bullshit "because I say so" rhetoric and backwards logic. If you don't bother me, I won't other you.
Re:ANTI-Christian Computer Game, you mean (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, cause I must have missed the serious fucking leap you made in "logic" there. Rules for living in a society two millenia ago, replete with instructions on how to store your freshly slaughtered and salted meats, on selling your daughter /is/ contextual today?
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving a hundred different versions of "your word" laying around, each with hundreds or thousands of "mistranslations" in them, and then expecting people to somehow pick out the "truth" from all that is just retarded. If God exists, he REALLY needs to get a better PR person. Aside from the very basics like the 10 commandments, I really don't know how anyone can pick anything out to believe in. Even those people who've spent years trying to figure out what all the mistranslations are are still just going with their own new interpretation. It just happens, coincidentally of course, to jive with today's Christian values a lot better. Imagine that.
Re:To the lions... (Score:3, Insightful)
What I am claiming is that there are motivations behind mass killings, just like there are motivations behind murder. One guy kills someone because his wife cheated on him, another guy kills someone because he's a psychopath and has no sense empathy or right and wrong. Similarly, there are motivations behind mass killings. Some people want to rule everyone. Other people want total religious conformity.
Stalin really wasn't interested in the Communist revolution, where everybody shared everything; he just wanted everyone to do what he said. He was diagnosed as paranoid by the leading Russian psychologist of his time, who Stalin had killed later that night. If anyone showed the slightest hint of disagreement or disloyalty, Stalin had them killed. He would have been perfectly happy as a fascist dictator or a general. His Atheism ( or even perhaps closet Russian Orthodoxy ) really had nothing to do with why he killed people.
Similarly, there were priests and even townsfolk in the Inquisition who got a kick out of burning people alive. It didn't improve their standing or give them more power really, like Stalin was after; they just got the pleasure of doing the Lord's work and watching unbelievers suffer.
So my argument is that it isn't really Atheists or Atheism that kills people. Stalin, Mao, etc. were opportunistic psychopaths who embraced the philosophy of the day to gain power. However, people who hold deep religious beliefs also seem to want to kill a lot of people, but for reasons other than gaining political power. So I think, in the historical examples, you *can* decouple the atheism from the mass killings.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that's a rhetorical question, but it does have a straightforward answer.
Many people need an authority that imposes a moral system because they aren't sufficiently intelligent to have a moral system otherwise.
You can see this all the time in a standard argument for why you need a God: If you don't have God enforcing the rules, you don't have any rules, and you can commit any crimes you like. They intend this as a claim that atheists and agnostics are all immoral, of course. But if you think about it a bit, you realize that it's actually a self-condemnation. The argument really means "I don't understand how anyone could have a moral system without fear of a powerful God that enforces it."
Now, various atheists and agnostics (and libertarians and behavioral biologists
Such people do need a powerful authority figure, or they probably will go out and start committing crimes against the rest of us. Come to think of it, looking at the history of religious groups give one strong grounds to expect this. Even that "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, as clear as it might be, hasn't prevented a lot of religious wars, not to mention government executions. People who accept the Bible but commit such acts clearly don't yet have a strong-enough authority figure to make them follow God's commandments.
(Lessee, will this get moderated "funny" or "flamebait"?
Re:To the lions... (Score:3, Insightful)
The first question is flawed, the second is relevant. Atheists such as Stalin and Mao didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Many however have killed in the name of a religion.
Stalin had a moustache, so did Hitler. Who is responsible for more mass murder, people with moustaches or Christians?
Morality is fundamentally independent of religion - just look at the Scandinavian countries that are overwhealmingly atheist but have very little crime and violence. Compare that to the über-religious Middle East. In a normal state of mind people know that it is is wrong to murder, rape etc It takes strong faith to overcome that baseline morality, and religion can provide it. As physicist Steven Weinberg put it: "Normally good people do good things and bad people do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things"
While it is a bit simplified, the statement stands - religion corrupts morality. While mainstream religious people choose to ignore the nasty parts of their religion they enable the extremists by advocating that faith (belief without evidence) is a good thing.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
But -- and pardon my French, here, I usually try to keep it relatively clean on Slashdot -- it's these fuckhead zealots that get all the attention, thus smearing their shitstink on the rest of us (especially those who happen to share their skin color/place of birth). I don't like being assumed to be a right wing evangelical nutjob just because I live in the US, and it pains me every time I hear someone of Arabic (or anything even remotely mistakable for Arabic!) descent referred to as a terrorist.
I suspect the hatred you're seeing on Slashdot is more a hatred of self righteous dogma and fanaticism (and we all know that whenever one has dogma, one ends up with fanatics - wanna rag on M$, anyone?) than a hatred of moderate Christians. Most Christians are quite reasonable people; however, one can't help but notice that the Christian doctrine offers a lot of ways to justify acting like a turd (like most religious doctrines). So I certainly am not willing to exonerate the religion wholesale in this matter - according to the Bible, it is okay (some might even say it's one's duty) to kill nonbelievers if they won't convert, so contrary to your statement, this game does represent Christianity in a very accurate way. You are correct that it may not represent the qualities of its followers, and you've thus stumbled upon the contradiction inherent in being a moderate in any religion with a "frozen" holy book: if you disagree with some of the messages in the Bible, then you're just picking and choosing anyways, so what's the point of leaving the stuff you disagree with in the text at all? If there is so much interpretation required to understand God's true message, why not just edit the damn thing and be done with it? Yeah, yeah, not allowed to change the book, blah blah. Whatever. The point is that it's retarded, and when you leave crap like that in a holy book, assholes are going to read it and take it to heart, thus elevating their disgusting inclinations to hate and kill to the status of "holy."
And that's why we end up with games like this. Even if most individual Christians bear no responsibility, it is Christianity's fault...
Re:Lookup "Faith" (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't have faith in something that you've seen, or that is absolute. Faith implies that what it is you believe can't be proven. You can say, "I have faith that planes can fly.", and this means nothing because we already know that they can fly. Having faith is believing that God exists or that Jesus is God's son or that the Chargers will win the Superbowl. You can't prove it, but you're not likely to be swayed that it isn't true.
Re:I'm firmly of the opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Atheists are people just as anyone else and can be bribed (though not in entirely the same ways as a theist) as well. They are no more or less suceptable than your other average joe churchgoer.
Besides, if that person was a good theist, he'd realize doing good works for the sake of only getting to heaven is pretty self-defeating: from what I understand, this is the end result and not supposed to be the motivation for doing do (which is the good work itself.)
Re:To the lions... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at Stalin's writings and actions, it was clear that he really didn't give a damn about the communist revolution. He just wanted unfailing loyalty and obedience from his underlings.
If you look at the writings of the clergy members who were involved in the inquisition and witch burnings, it was clear they strongly believed what they were doing was helping those they were torturing and killing achieve salvation through suffering and accepting Christ. The torture and punishment got more and more severe until the person buckled and accepted Christ and the church, and if it eventually killed them, the priests were happy that they rid the world of one of Satan's minions. They clearly believed that they were doing the Lord's work.
Re:To the lions... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, you could have used this justification to make it okay to categorize me as a "goth" kid in high school. I used to get called that all the time, and insulted continously because of my appearance.
The thing is, I never saw myself as "joining" any "group". I happen to like dark clothing, leather, trenchcoats, boots, shit like that. I know it fits a certain group, stereotype or "image", but I've liked that sort of look since I was watching cartoons as a little kid and thinking the bad guys always looked so much cooler than the good guys. I don't know what's "goth" about that, but that's what everyone calls it, and apparently that means I'm suicidal, depressed, or a potential serial killer.
I guess what I'm saying is, what one might see as someone "joining a group" could just simply be the person choosing their own things along the way that happen to coincide very closely to what some organized-or-otherwise group of people represents themselves as.
Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Christians say this kind of bollocks all the time. it's like you guys are freaking brainwashed. just read what you said and actually THINK about it. if you find there is any part of you that thinks something about it is slightly odd, then I suggest you read some books on logic and philosophy. if you're completely content that you're right then please just try to focus on any parts of the bible that say don't fuck up other peoples' lives.
>Besides, the key to salvation is... blah, blah, blah
look, you can shove your "salvation" up your arse. I do not NEED salvation. just because I'm not perfect doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me. nobody's perfect.
the one thing I am sure of though is that I'm a far better person than that evil, spiteful, vengeful bastard in the bible. and I'm better than the disgusting drones that harm people in "His" name.
Re:I don't know about the game (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe there is one God, Yahweh, who came to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ.
I also believe that I should respect all people regardless of religious beliefs.
If I didn't believe the former, I wouldn't be Christian. If I didn't believe the latter, I wouldn't be tolerant.
There isn't a contradiction here. I can respect someone without thinking they're as right as I am.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps you should sit in on a Kansas School Board meeting sometime.
Or listen in to several of the vocal extremist evangelist nutjobs like Dobson or Robertson. They've got very little interest in the compassion of Christ, most of what they focus on can be found back in Leviticus.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I hear Christians say all the time that the Bible is "the word of God", and last time I checked, the Bible is comprised of both the Old and New Testaments. But I've never seen a Bible with a "God's word order of precedence" page, enabling one to tell with certainty which parts of God's word are or aren't to be taken literally.
By your interpretation, a Christian need not take the Ten Commandments literally, as they are in the OT.
then speak up (Score:3, Insightful)