Slashdot Mirror


Christian Videogame Alternatives Explored

Thanks to the TNL forum regulars for pointing to a CBN article discussing the most suitable videogames for Christians (Google cache). The article discusses the "extreme violence, gratuitous sex, and satanic imagery found in many children's video games", and focuses instead on Christian-orientated games such as Ominous Horizons, where "the player takes on the role of a 15th-century Christian who fights demons, but without any blood or gore. The forces of evil - instead of dying - fall to their knees and pray." This N-Lightning-developed game has the player working as a medieval Paladin to return the Gutenberg Bible, which has been stolen by forces of evil, and the developer explains: "..you have a sword of the Spirit.. [that] shoots a burst of light which vaporizes any demonic opponents and the end result is that you know Christ is victorious."

198 comments

  1. Same old same old. by Zapper · · Score: 1
    'nuther FPS.
    Do something different.

    No, I haven't thought of enough different yet, or I would be doing it.

    --
    So much to do, so little bandwidth.
    --
    Try Mozilla
    1. Re:Same old same old. by dang-a-pin · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate, but true. Still revolving around a power game, which is something that the secular FPS's do all the time and someting that Christ paid some anger to. He was more interested in helping people than the spiritual domination of things, because by doing the former, he was accomplishing the latter anyway.

    2. Re:Same old same old. by Zapper · · Score: 1

      Heh, influence without using power.

      --
      So much to do, so little bandwidth.
      --
      Try Mozilla
  2. But all the best games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...have a "god mode" cheat.

    Isn't that enough advocacy for them?

    1. Re:But all the best games... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that's good, god mode.

      and what about other cheats, would it be all right to cheat in this game?
      i mean you use cheats to help the holy cause. is that good or bad?

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:But all the best games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adam and Eve tried to enter "God mode." It was all downhill from there. Not good advocacy. :)

  3. Obligatory Simpsons Reference by darylp · · Score: 3, Funny

    That game they had at the Flanders' house, where you got to throw bibles at heathens to turn them into respectable suit wearing white men, was a CLASSIC!

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpsons Reference by TheRoss · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bart: When I'm feeling low, you know what always cheers me up?
      Todd: Is it love?
      Rod: Kindness?
      Bart: Ooh, tough room. Videogames! Whaddya got? [grabs a
      videogame off the shelf, and reads the title] "Billy
      Graham's Bible Blaster?"
      Rod: Keep firing; convert the heathens!
      [cut to a pixilated video screen. Heathens cross the
      street, as a Bible gun shoots the Holy Book at them. When
      a heathen gets hit, he turns into a conservatively dressed
      man with a halo]
      [cut back to the boys]
      Bart: Got him!
      Rod: No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.
      Todd: Look out, Bart! A gentle Baha'i!
      [cut back to the video screen. A Baha'i, sitting cross-
      legged and wearing a turban, floats past. Bart zaps him,
      and turns him into another suit-wearing conservative]
      [cut back to the boys]
      Bart: All right! Full conversion! [puts his arms around Rod
      and Todd] Thanks guys, this really cheered me up.
      Video: Second Coming! Reload, reload!
      Todd: Can we play now?
      Bart: We are playing. We're a team.
      Rod +
      Todd: [pause] Yay!

    2. Re:Obligatory Simpsons Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know! Let's play pin the nails on the jebus!

  4. Games? by kyhwana · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, christians auctally use computers AND want to play games on them? What next?

    --
    My email addy? should be easy enough.
    1. Re:Games? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Funny

      Christians watching the Simpsons and taking away wholly different messages from the jokes making fun of christians?

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Simpsons spoof of games like these actually inspired them in part.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Games? by damien_kane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, christians auctally use computers AND want to play games on them? What next?

      The second coming; Judgement Day
      Wasn't this forecasted in the book of revelation?

    3. Re:Games? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I have an idea for a christian video game. It's called Crusade. You go to the Middle East, and you get to kill moozlim Ay-rabs, burn their villages, rape their women, and set up crusader states. That's phase one of the game.

      Phase 2 happens a few centuries later. You go into villages hunting for witches, and you get to burn all the women at the stake. Don't leave any alive, as they could easily be witches. You also get to go into the Jewish ghettos with false stories like the blood libel, destroy synagogues, kill Rabbis, and burninate! All so a nobleman who has squandered his fortune doesn't have to pay back a money lender. You have to be sure to burn his records, or the debt reverts to the king.

      There are bonus stages along the way where you get to burn books!

      In stage 3, You are in America, you go door to door telling people how they are going to burn in hell if they don't join your church. You even get to deny medical care to children, because God will heal them. In the final stage, You get to help put George W. Bush in the White House, so he can start the Battle of Armageddon. If you do everything right, you are included in the rapture, and you get to fly up into the sky and meet Jesus!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    4. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like most other stereotypes, this one about Christians is bogus. Not only do we like to play games, we even like contributing to the scene. http://opengbgames.sourceforge.net/

    5. Re:Games? by ynosone · · Score: 1

      Hallelujah!!!!!

    6. Re:Games? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      A Christian's level of intelligence is no different than any other persons. Get off your pedestal. Everbody wants a purpose. Athiests just try to find it by acceptance of their own eventual oblivion. The only thing religious people have is hope for existence beyond this corrupted world. Now if your age is not greater than 15, do not bother replying. I'm not trying to troll. I'm just stating my disdain towards those who are unaccepting of people of different beliefs (note I say people of different beliefs, not beliefs themselves). This is just as disgusting a prejudice as racism or sexism. Do not create stereotypical classifications without getting insight into the target of your momentary observations.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    7. Re:Games? by Babbster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget the bonus round where you hunt "abortion doctors" with a sniper rifle.

    8. Re:Games? by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Some of my male Christian friends are close to the hacker personality, and almost all of them are gamers.

    9. Re:Games? by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I am anti-christian. I have talked to many a christian and most are not bad people, many even hold reasonable theological views (views that I, as an agnostic, have essentially no problem concurring with).

      But I am still against all christians, because thay are participating in a passive-aggressive way in a horrible, evil regime. Either take a stand and battle those who give you a bad name, or stop complaining at people such as myself when I am flambeing christians as a whole.

      (To relate this to the thread at hand: I believe that christians can only hold the beliefs they do if they are lying, evil, or idiots. Following Hanlon's Razor and Occam's Razor eliminates in turn "evil" and "lying" leaving only "idiotic" as the explanation. This is why christians are presumed to be stupid, or at least that is my reasoning.)

      I don't have a problem with differing beliefs in general, just with the beliefs that state "Only my belief is correct/valid" or "You must believe what I believe".

      And yes, reconciling a belief that anyone can believe what they want to believe with a belief that no one should be allowed to force his beliefs on anyone else (even if it is part of his belief system that he be allowed to do so) is a problem.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    10. Re:Games? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Christianity does not offer the axiom "You must believe what I believe". It just offers the idea of, "If you don't believe what I believe then you are going to hell." There's quite a bit of difference. In fact, the bible makes a pretty good point about how people have free will. This is its implicit explanation of all opposition to it. Also, offering up the idea that all Christians are evil, is equivalent to me saying that all black people are good at basketball. Not only is it completely subjective (like your Christians are evil statement), it is also a grossly overgeneralized stereotype. This, my friend, is what most people call ignorance or even idiotic. You damage your own reputation with this display of your closed minded viewpoint.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    11. Re:Games? by Catnapster · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm a Christian, and I'm not offended by his statement, because I know what kind of people he's talking about. The problem with his statement is that he forgot to put "Idiot" in front of "Christian". No, I'm not saying all Christians are idiots, I'm saying that there are Christians out there who aren't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    12. Re:Games? by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      I am a Christian, and I don't believe that what people like Jerry Falwell or that godhatesfags.com guy say represent the Christian worldview. I ask, how can I battle those who "give me a bad name?" I can tell them that the Bible goes directly against what they say, but that doesn't mean anything to them. They believe what they want to believe, and nothing can change that. They can say what they want to say, and, as an ACLU member and staunch believer in free speech, I can't argue that what they say should be banned; that would be hypocritical on my part.

      I don't think most Christians believe that they must force their beliefs on others, either. Rather, most non-fundamentalist Christians I know believe that conversion consists of two things: education and example.

      Education simply consists of teaching those who want to know about the beliefs of the church, and accepting as members those who want to join. This may also consist of missionary work, where people are told about Christ. There are no gunpoint conversions here; this is entirely voluntary.

      Second, leading by example means doing charity work through the church: working at soup kitchens, shelters for abused children, and the like, and helping church members through difficult times. If people see that the church helps others, and supports its members in times of need, they may feel that the church is an organization which they want to belong.

      Out of curiosity, what about Christianity do you find "stupid?" If you are thinking of things like the creation myth, or the laws of Leviticus, remember that not all Christians believe that the bible is always literal. Remember that the Old Testament was, for about a thousand years, the oral tradition of a wandering desert tribe. Obviously, things get a little distorted. Myths of other cultures are worked in, battles are distorted, and tradition becomes divine law.

      Finally, I can accept that my beliefs may not be correct. I can accept that they are one of many. I can't really justify them, except to repeat what Martin Gardner said about his (non-Christian) beliefs: credo quia consolans; I believe because it consoles me. I believe because I want to. If I die and there is no God at the end of the tunnel, fine. I have lived a good life, I don't have any regrets, I've helped others and tried to help them live a good life. Again, to quote Mr. Gardner,

      Beneath the credo quia absurdum [I believe because it is absurd], as Unamuno said, is the credo quia consolans. I believe because it consoles me. The true water of life, he says, is that which assuages our thirst. The true bread is that which satisfies our hunger.

      ...

      I am quite content to confess with Unamuno that I have no basis for my belief in God other than a passionate longing that God exist and that I and others will not cease to exist. Because I believe with my heart that God upholds all things, it follows that I believe that my leap of faith, in a way beyond my comprehension, is God outside of me asking and wanting me to believe, and God within me responding.

      While Gardner and I don't agree on the technicalities of belief in God, I think he makes a good point: my belief, like his, is a leap of faith. I want God to exist. I don't want to die and have no part of me go on. If that's "idiotic," so be it. I daresay I would rather be an idiot.
      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    13. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people base their lives on a book written by the same people who think cutting yourself and bleeding will heal you. That's either ignorance or stupidity, no matter how you look at it.

    14. Re:Games? by mixMastaT · · Score: 1

      Whad abou' hangin' tha colords? yee haw!

    15. Re:Games? by thelenm · · Score: 1

      Wow, a pretty blatant Troll modded +5 Funny. And you didn't even mention Microsoft! Not bad.

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
    16. Re:Games? by Islington_66_81 · · Score: 0

      Ok buddy lets talk about sterotypes shall we. First theres a reason theres sterotypes, and thats because they fit probably 90% of the group. This is of course not everyone in that group but if your generalizing (which we are you pathetic moron) then you have two choices, use a sterotype or be incredibly wrong and come off sounding like an idiot. Now about christian games specificly. Only psycho fanatic christians would play them. Im a christian and I like doom and gta vice city. Why? Because I like fun games. And while being a christian and enjoying yourself is not mutualy exclusive. Christian gameing and fun are mutualy exclusive. You gotta understand that when I talk about psycho christians im talking about people who dont let their children go out on halloween and if they do they make them dress up as big bird. These kind of people shouldnt be making games they should be lining up and walking off cliffs along with all other fanatics of any kind. By which i mean fanatical christians fanatical musslims fanatical white power groups fanatical black power groups fanatical gung ho americans and any other kind of fanatical people in general including YOU! So in short Fuck you and your whole family.

    17. Re:Games? by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Also, offering up the idea that all Christians are evil, is equivalent to me saying that all black people are good at basketball. Not only is it completely subjective (like your Christians are evil statement), it is also a grossly overgeneralized stereotype. This, my friend, is what most people call ignorance or even idiotic. You damage your own reputation with this display of your closed minded viewpoint.

      I happen to like overgeneralized stereotypes. I am being deliberately, calculatedly and self-consciously bigoted against christians. I believe that careful irrationality can be beneficial, and thus practice it here and there. I would be the first to allow that I am incorrect and being way too general, but I see no other way. I take a brain-dead style of hard line and in doing so attempt to counteract the braindead hard line people who are (or claim to be) christians take. Some believe that the good guys can work things out rationally with the bad guys, I believe in fighting fire with fire. You can't combat irrational zealotry with reason, and I'm specifically not trying.

      It's not the most glamorous stance to take. I don't really enjoy it myself. This is a tactical experiment in a peculiar kind of warfar. Whether my approach holds merit can only be determined by results, which are (admittedly) hard to quantify. I certainly never got any noticable results using rational tactics.

      [shrugs] So far my results haven't been any worse. We'll see.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    18. Re:Games? by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I ask, how can I battle those who "give me a bad name?"

      (You're not going to like this.) Simple: stop calling yourself a chrisitan. I maintain that the word "Christian" and the bible and all imagery associated with the lot have all been unrecoverably hijacked by evil morons. You support them indirectly by claiming to be what they are. It's their religion now, like it or not. To fight them, start a new religion. Make up a new word. The actual religion is irrelvent, it's the form of the religion that matters. Recreate your religion in the image of what you beleieve christianity should be, call it something else, and proceed as before. That is my recommendation, to do otherwise is to support evil.

      I told you that you wouldn't like it.

      Education simply consists of teaching those who want to know about the beliefs of the church, and accepting as members those who want to join. This may also consist of missionary work, where people are told about Christ. There are no gunpoint conversions here; this is entirely voluntary.

      It is *supposed* to be entirely voluntary. Reality so often differs from theory...

      Out of curiosity, what about Christianity do you find "stupid?"

      How about subjegating oneself to a hypothetical being of power in hopes that it'll reward you for mindless devotion?

      Yeah yeah. Define "God", define "Faith", define "Prayer". These are tricky terms that it's hard to discuss without being clear on their meaning. The above is about the worst interpretation of each, but I was going for maximum impact.

      If you are thinking of things like the creation myth, or the laws of Leviticus, remember that not all Christians believe that the bible is always literal. Remember that the Old Testament was, for about a thousand years, the oral tradition of a wandering desert tribe. Obviously, things get a little distorted. Myths of other cultures are worked in, battles are distorted, and tradition becomes divine law.

      The bible is clearly wisdom of ages, good moral principles, and anecdotes designed to teach valuable lessons on how to live as a member of society. But then there's a lot of crap in there that some people seem to think is important. Then there's a creation story, which by itself would be unremarkable. And there's a bit of geneology, and a few old laws someone stuck in, and some historical tales.

      The first parts are generally good. Some of the other parts are interesting. But the fact that it's all tied up in this domineering religion makes it all essentally useless.

      Finally, I can accept that my beliefs may not be correct. I can accept that they are one of many. I can't really justify them, except to repeat what Martin Gardner said about his (non-Christian) beliefs: credo quia consolans; I believe because it consoles me. I believe because I want to. If I die and there is no God at the end of the tunnel, fine. I have lived a good life, I don't have any regrets, I've helped others and tried to help them live a good life.

      An excellent perspective. Here's my contrasting take: I don't believe because I doubt that such belief is valid, and do not want to live a lie. If I die and there is a god, fine. I've lived a good life, have no regrets, and will be as welcome as any.

      It makes no sense to me to devote my life to something that doesn't exist or has no meaning. I can stand without the moral and emotional crutch that many others seem to so enjoy, and would sooner die than give up that independance. If you're a good person it doesn't matter whether you claim to be of this religion or that, you simply are and you will recieve whatever rewards or punshments you would get anyway.

      While Gardner and I don't agree on the technicalities of belief in God, I think he makes a good point: my belief, like his, is a leap of faith. I want God to exist. I don't want to die and have no part of me go on. If that's "idiotic," so be it. I daresay I would rather be an idiot.

      That

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    19. Re:Games? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      If irrationality is your basis, than why do you even bother providing your pseudo logically derived deductions. You admittely point out the fact that your very statements are wrong. I see no further reason to continue speaking with you. I don't like to provoke the crazies.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    20. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you.
      The sad part is there are people who via the church and how they are taught, seem to think it's their job to "save" you.
      I wonder if they stay up at night thinking about the people they know who are not saved and what can be done about it.

    21. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, fuck off, godboy. People don't choose their race or gender. But annoying preachy godboys most certainly do make a choice to become what they are.

  5. Not clear on the concept... by joelja · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Ok so demons, and swords and paladins. And they die cause they're filled with the light of the spirit? Great that's so different than any other videogame.

    There and plenty of games in the marketplace, that actually aren't violent and don't require massive killing or demons, or satanism or whatever.

    I blew a significant portion of my flight (9 hours) back to the United States last week. playing simcity 3000, and frozen bubble, a classic console stle game that's more addictive than crack cocaine... http://www.frozen-bubble.org/

    I would hold out both games as examples of what gaming is and should be all about, Entertaining diversions.

    1. Re:Not clear on the concept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blew a significant portion of my flight (9 hours) back to the United States last week. playing simcity 3000

      Playing GOD, you mean! Heathen!

    2. Re:Not clear on the concept... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      frozen bubble, a classic console stle game that's more addictive than crack cocaine... http://www.frozen-bubble.org/

      For those who don't know, frozen-bubble is a Bust-A-Move clone.

      The site seems to be starting to get a lil slow, perhaps this will slow down the /.ing (or maybe it will perpetuate it?)

    3. Re:Not clear on the concept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no mayer you are thinking of black&white

    4. Re:Not clear on the concept... by Synic · · Score: 1

      Since when are city planning commissions god-like? Last I checked they keep throwing in ridiculous amounts of one way streets in some cities...

  6. The Bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last time I checked, Christians didn't have any problem reading a book full of violence and gore, so why should videogames be any different?

    1. Re:The Bible? by danbeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last time I checked, Christians didn't have any problem reading a book full of violence and gore, so why should videogames be any different?

      Who modded this insightful? This is such an old and tired argument by the same ignorant people, over and over again. Violence is not the real issue here.. it's gratuitous and extreme violence that is rewarded and has no consequences.

      Violence is part of our world. People are violent every day. From the guys thinking ugly thoughts about a co-worker, to the guy yelling at a driver in traffic, to drive-bys in our inner-cities.

      The difference between the violence in the Bible and the extreme violence you see in *some* of today's video games, is that in the former, it's painfully (no pun intended) obvious that the violence is wrong and there are concequences, often very serious.

      The Bible doesn't give you all these examples of perfect people who live the life of the Simpson neighbor every day. These people were human. They did wrong things,they did violent things, but in the end they always came back to God and he forgave them for their hatred against other humans. Saul (who wrote much of the New Testiment) tortured and murdered many early Christians before he came to know Christ and became one of the greatest evangelists of all time. David was called a friend of God in the Bible. He murdered a man only for his wife.

      What's my point here? Violence for the sake of violence (Duke Nukem Whenever) with no concequences is the real problem here, not Gordon Freeman saving the world from an alien invasion (or hopefully City 17 soon).

      What happens is that a relative few start complaining about trash games like Duke Nukem Whenever and somehow that translates into every video game is bad.

      And you, Mr Anonymous coward, are part of the problem of ignorance here. Go read the Bible, not only might it do you some good, but might be able to argue about it's contents in a intelligent fashion.

    2. Re:The Bible? by The+J+Kid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. Being a level headed Christian myself, these "Christian Video Games" & "Christian Movie Ratings" (with the everwonderfull 'Contains bare chested men' =) are just completely silly.

      Thing is, they allways seem to originate from the States....what's up with that?

      --
      Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
    3. Re:The Bible? by floydigus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The difference between the violence in the Bible and the extreme violence you see in *some* of today's video games, is that in the former, it's painfully (no pun intended) obvious that the violence is wrong and there are concequences, often very serious.

      From The Bible, 2 Kings 2:23-24:

      "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them"


      Yup, I would say that being torn apart by she bears because you told old baldy to 'go up' was fairly serious.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    4. Re:The Bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's only gratuitous if it doesn't promote your religion? Talk about being two-faced.

    5. Re:The Bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. Answering flamebait with a troll. Good show old chap!

    6. Re:The Bible? by PD · · Score: 1

      How about the time that Jael lured a Philistine into her tent, and when the dude fell asleep she drove a stake through his head, right through the temples.

      God really thought she was the shizzat after that. For killing a man while he slept, she was called blessed among women.

      The Bible is filled with disgusting violence. For you to argue otherwise indicates that you are either deceptive, or ignorant.

    7. Re:The Bible? by aruil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A bit of context is always important. In verse 9, Elisha (the 'old bald head') asks for all the power of another prophet who had gone before, Elijah. He gets it.

      Then follows a lesson in the use of power--at least, that's how I read it. In verses 13-18, he gives in to his equivalent of peer pressure. It fails. In 19-22, he follows wise advice and a good result comes of it. Finally, 23-24 is an example of what bad comes from careless use of power. It's pretty much your own fault if you carry a drawn knife around with you, and then stab someone in a fit of anger.

      Basically, the story tells a very true lesson: power is not the answer, unless it's bound by some sort of moral control. In these days that is more important than ever.

    8. Re:The Bible? by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Did God, or did he not command (or at least, allow) the bears to rend the little children? Context will not change that.

      Try as you might, there is no way that you can square this kind of behaviour with the notion of a loving god.
      So face it: there are large portions of the bible which are fictitious, irrelevant and self-contradictory.

      P.S. Personally, I think the little bastards got what they deserved ;)

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    9. Re:The Bible? by rmach · · Score: 1

      I would like to understand what parts of the bible are self-contradictory? I have yet to find good examples of this but have heard it often quoted like you did. Would you provide me examples?

    10. Re:The Bible? by GMontag451 · · Score: 1

      For an easy example, try the two completely different genealogies of Jesus. The one in Matthew 1 completely contradicts the one in Luke 3. The only three names that are the same in both lists are Jesus, Joseph, and David. The standard answer to this problem is that one genealogy is of Joseph's ancestry and the other is of Mary's, but a quick count of the number of generations between Jesus and David in either list shows that this attempt is pretty ridiculous.

    11. Re:The Bible? by CharlesClarkson · · Score: 1

      Jesus is a mesiah. A mesiah can trace his male blood line to the House of David (Solomon's Dad). That is one reason for the geneology of Jesus. If Jesus is a mesiah, Mary wasn't a virgin. Joseph is the real father and Jesus is not the Son of God

      If Jesus is the son of an imaculate conception, then Joseph is not the father, Jesus is not a mesiah and the prophesy is not fulfilled.

      Of course Yahweh is omnipotent. It can create a paradox.

      --

      Charles K. Clarkson
      Many people truly want to help. Unfortunately, many people truly suck at it.
    12. Re:The Bible? by floydigus · · Score: 1

      My first example is posted above.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    13. Re:The Bible? by rmach · · Score: 1

      From my understanding of the way Jewish genealogies were listed, it was common to leave out generations and only list more important ones. Thus, the counts could be different for the same number of generations. To me this is still at least a plausible explination for this difference.

    14. Re:The Bible? by rmach · · Score: 1

      Let me make sure I understand the arguement assumptions:

      1) if you are adopted by your father, you can't be considered his descendent thus his geneology would not count as yours
      2) both genelogies listed in the bible are Joseph's (instead of one being Joseph's and the other being Mary's as some argue both of which have David in the genology)

      Is this correct?

    15. Re:The Bible? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      HEY! NOBODY STEALS OUR CHICKS...AND LIVES!

      (Don't knock duke nukem. It's just as much a parody of hollywood blockbusters as it is a seven year old example people keep on giving about how corrupt our little industry is(By the way, stop that.))

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:The Bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why even argue about this pap? I'm sure there was some guy named Jesus who existed back then...but he was just a good-natured Buddhist and nothing more. To take anything in the bible as fact is simply illogical. If you study philosophy...the basis for all thought and science...you'll see that belief in a god is irrational and a waste of time and resources.

      Just fucking live for yourself and your neighbor. Be nice for the sake of being nice and not just to earn some seat in a made-up fantasy land. You're your own goddamn destiny...not some imaginary being who's said to have created man in his own image but then gets upset when man starts demonstrating free will. It's all bullshit and I'm shocked that anyone on Slashdot would believe such FUD.

    17. Re:The Bible? by CharlesClarkson · · Score: 1

      1) If you are adopted by your father, you can't be considered his descendent thus his genealogy would not count as yours

      Correct.

      2) Both genealogies listed in the bible are Joseph's (instead of one being Joseph's and the other being Mary's as some argue both of which have David in the genealogy)

      Blood lines were very important to the bible authors. It was believed that women did not contribute to blood lines at all. After all, women were created for man; To follow man. They were not created to follow Jehovah. They were cherished property.

      That one bloodline was for Mary makes a lot of sense today. But the New Testament was written almost 2,000 years ago when the lineage of Mary was considered unimportant. You can not be adopted into the House of David, nor can a messiah trace his blood line through his mother's lineage. If Mary's lineage fulfills the prophesies, and everyone in the community knows that Joseph is not the father, then why include his lineage?

      Messianic tradition dictates that a messiah will produce two sons (in order to carry on the line of David). Joseph fulfilled his requirement by having Jesus and his brother James. If Jesus were not his son, he would have been obliged to keep trying. If he hadn't his position in the Jewish community would have been less respected. And he was well-respected in his community.

      I don't have an online source for Messianic law. Most of what I've read is from an a Christian author who made a very convincing argument for reconciling the Dead Sea scrolls with Bible stories. Jesus was a Nazarene[1]. It is likely that Joseph was progressive also, but that did not allow Jesus or Joseph to rewrite the law. Later, his charisma and political prowess allowed Jesus to reverse the judgements of the Essenes without being a priest himself. Such feats would be considered miracles by his contemporaries.

      1. At the time Jesus lived, a Nazarene was not a person from Nazareth (that would be a Nazarati.). He (or she) were part of a progressive movement which sought among other crazy ideas raising the status of women and the miraculous concept of allowing the guests at wedding feasts to drink wine instead of water as law demanded.
      --

      Charles K. Clarkson
      Many people truly want to help. Unfortunately, many people truly suck at it.
    18. Re:The Bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to understand what parts of the bible are self-contradictory?

      Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that the whole book is based around how loving, caring and forgiving God is, yet we see example after example of him murdering people by the bucketload? What about asking people to murder their own sons? What about drowning loads of people in a great flood? What about threatening people with infinite torture (hell) unless we do what he says? What about throwing a pair of people out of Eden for eating an apple?

    19. Re:The Bible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as an American, we fuck everything up that we come in contact with.

    20. Re:The Bible? by Digital11 · · Score: 1
      What you're missing though is that the author of Matthew was writing the book for the Jews. It was written in traditional Jewish fashion, which means starting out with genealogy.


      If you'll notice, the genealogy in Matthew 1 is divided into 3 'sections'. Each section has the same number of 'begats' in it, because that is how traditional Jewish literature went. The genealogy is not literal, its not EXACTLY the line from David to Christ, but that wasn't the point. The entire point of putting it in the book was to prove to the unbelieving Jews that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies about the Christ, the major one was that he was born of the line of David.

      Any other alleged contradictions you would like to bring to light?

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    21. Re:The Bible? by jejones · · Score: 1
      It's pretty much your own fault if you carry a drawn knife around with you, and then stab someone in a fit of anger.

      How about if you give a knife to someone who you know with utter certainty will use it? Surely an omnipotent and omniscient deity could come up with a way to teach Elisha a lesson without subjecting lots of children to a horrible, painful death.

    22. Re:The Bible? by GMontag451 · · Score: 1
      The entire point of putting it in the book was to prove to the unbelieving Jews that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies about the Christ, the major one was that he was born of the line of David.

      Again, this is a ridiculous attempt to try to worm around a contradiction. Exactly how does this geneaology show he is of the line of David? I could have sworn Jesus was supposed to be the son of God, not of Joseph, or was I mistaken on that point?

  7. Sounds familiar... by Bazzargh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This time, the entire forces of the netherworld have overrun Earth. To save her, you must descend into the stygian depths of Hell itself! Battle mightier, nastier, deadlier demons and monsters. Use more powerful weapons."

    "Choose from eight powerful spiritual weapons. Each weapon has its own unique use. Maximize your firepower by learning each weaponâ(TM)s abilities...Encounter Satanâ(TM)s minions and banish them back to their evil realm. Evil lurks everywhere you turn....Descend deeper and deeper into the depths of the underworld. Your journey will take you into the very heart of evil, through 18 hand-crafted, highly detailed levels."

    One of these is a blurb for Catechumen (one of N'Lightnings games). The other is part of the blurb for Doom II. Frankly there doesn't seem all that much different here, except for the marketing.

    Well, at least its better to see people doing something creative, rather than campaigning to get games banned.

    -Baz

    1. Re:Sounds familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Descend deeper and deeper into the depths of the underworld. Your journey will take you into the very heart of evil..."

      Sounds like the original Diablo.

  8. Spanish Inquisition FPS by Hellraisr · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they'd love that one. I bet gore would be allowed as long as the sinner would get to go to hell for all eternity.

  9. Too much pressure. by illuminata · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, if I were a Christian, I'd feel really bad if I lost one of these games. Would God, among others, look down upon me if I lost?

    Child: "Shoot, I lost..."
    Mother: "That's too bad sweetheart, were you lacking in faith again?"
    Child: "No mom! I didn't mean to lose..."
    Mother: "Don't play the game unless you can win."
    Child: "But..."
    Mother: "When you fail in the game, you fail Jesus."

    Not to mention, wouldn't some of these games be contradictory to the "Jesus, God, and faith can't loose" attitude that Christianity has?

    --


    Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    1. Re:Too much pressure. by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Who said you can loose these games?

    2. Re:Too much pressure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The publisher is the one who gets to loose the game.

  10. Advertisement? by Nakanai_de · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Granted, CBN is not what I think of when I think of journalistic integrity, but I felt this article read like an advertisement. I mean, I expect the producers of the games to wax eloquent about how great they are, but this is insane:

    Games such as "Catechumen," set in ancient Rome, feature spectacular 3-D graphics and allow the player to take part in a fierce battle between good and evil.

    That just sounds like it comes straight out of a press release. Of course, when you're dealing with a genre that includes Bible Adventures, maybe you have to plug it all you can...

    --

    Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.

  11. What is christian? by Stonehead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the newsposter describes as 'christian', is actually 'radically conservative christian', but that seems another US-ism... (how should you describe it otherwise?) In Europe - I live in the Netherlands - blood and gore in videogames is much less an issue. Of course bishops don't really like it and Rome will always be conservative, but at least the churches I know don't push their own 'christian-only' separated media.

    1. Re:What is christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, you don't need Christian videogames, you already got the Evangelische Omroep and Christian fundamentalist political parties who don't even allow women to join them and want to shut down the country every sunday...

    2. Re:What is christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think those who push propaganda don't believe that their arguments would stand up by their own merits ... well my local church hosts LAN parties :)

    3. Re:What is christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next LAN party I have, we're playing some N'Lightning, baby

    4. Re:What is christian? by superyooser · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is very, very little genuine Christianity in Europe. Cathedrals stand as museums for tourists to gawk at. Europe's glorious spiritual heritage is quickly fading into history as Christianity is replaced by Islam and atheism. My brother is living in France now, and he says it is a "dark place."

    5. Re:What is christian? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "What the newsposter describes as 'christian', is actually 'radically conservative christian', but that seems another US-ism..."

      I find "Baptist" usually works well.

    6. Re:What is christian? by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Whoah, shut down on Sunday? That sounds terrible :)

    7. Re:What is christian? by witte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Europe's glorious spiritual heritage is quickly fading into history as Christianity is replaced by Islam and atheism."

      This guy obviously have no idea what he is talking about.

      Most Europeans are finally getting rid of religion, be it Christianity or Muslim.
      We consider this progress.

      Meanwhile we see the United States seemingly being overrun by conservative christian establisment. In my perception, this makes the US a "dark place".

      Religion is fine if you don't understand your world or are too afraid to face reality. But don't impose your rightwing christian visions on others. Or on Europe for that matter.

      Dang, I hate religious zealots. Sorry for trolling.

    8. Re:What is christian? by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Native Europeans are ditching religion, but Muslim immigrants are flooding into Europe. The religious component of Europe's character is being filled by Islam rather than Christianity.

    9. Re:What is christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to jump in here and point out the post you respond too did not come across as zealtous. Yours however, did. Though obviously not the religious kind. Being this set in a mentality is not positive ever. Your hatred is no better or worse than any conservative christian's or muslim extremist's or anyone else's.

      Tolerance.

  12. new commendments by Lord+Sauron · · Score: 3, Funny

    - Thou shall not act like a camper

    - Thou shall not be a sniper

    - Thou shall not kill members of your own group

    - Thou shall not kill the hostages

  13. Lag of biblical proportions... by NJ+CoolBreeze · · Score: 4, Funny

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Lag of biblical proportions... by secolactico · · Score: 1

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

      I'm laughing so hard right now, that I'll probably end up in hell!

      Thanks, slashdot, another soul lost.

      --
      No sig
    2. Re:Lag of biblical proportions... by BobGarcia · · Score: 1

      Well, He was using an old school wireless rig with strictly line-of-sight connect. And there was this cave. And a big rock in the way.

      --
      Half of my words are lies. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can tell which.
    3. Re:Lag of biblical proportions... by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Christians can laugh at that too :)

  14. I don't quite see the point by ThePyro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • If parents attempt to teach a child their values using video games then they're probably not going to be effective. Even less so if the child in question has no desire to play such games. This sort of learning must have a human teacher. What happens when the kid has a question that the game can't answer?
    • That said, what happens when the game does answer the question... but answers it wrongly? I can't see Christian video games being less controverial than other games, simply because there are so many different views of what 'Christian' is. Do the games target Protestants, Catholics, or some other group entirely? If one of these games ever became semi-popular then someone, somewhere would hear about it and blast the game for bad theology. All the other parents would learn of the accusation and forbid their children from playing it (the truthfulness of accusation is irrelevant), and then we're back at square one.
    • What's wrong with the tons of non-violent games out there alredy? Pretty much anything from Nintendo is rated G. Mario, Zelda, etc... Then there are tons of sports games, puzzle games, simulations (SimCity, etc.), and even games where robots beat each other up instead of humans. (Total Annihilation! Woo!) My point is, there are already TONS of G-rated games out there to choose from.

    Games can entertain or they can attempt to teach you life lessons, but I can't see them being used for both without one or the other hurting. Let the kids play video games that are actually fun, and let parents teach values on their own time.

    1. Re:I don't quite see the point by follower_of_christ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If parents attempt to teach a child their values using video games then they're probably not going to be effective.

      As a Christian parent I agree with your take one hundred percent. The article really didn't say that there weren't any wholesome games out there, merely that there aren't as many as there used to be. Also, the amount of wholesome games being sold is decreasing. I myself don't use such tools to teach my children, but do try to find fun games that are also wholesome and good for their well being. I believe what the article was saying is that the mainstream games teach children negative lessons and that it's becoming hard to find games that don't.

      Do the games target Protestants, Catholics, or some other group entirely?

      Protestants and Catholics have something in common. They both believe Christ died for their sins so that when they die, they can spend eternity with God. Their beliefs are common when considering eternal salvation. Neither will contradict the statement, "The only way to the father is through a relationship with Jesus Christ." Often times we butt heads when it comes to the Religion part, meaning some believe that the way to do Religion is by going to confessional and having a religious hierarchy, whereas the other might believe that churches don't belong in buildings; rather, in homes. There are variations of Christianity just like there are variations of all other religions. Now getting back to the point I believe the article is trying to make. There are fewer and fewer games out today that are wholesome and good for my children. I'll tell ya though.. I sure do love playing Gran Turismo 3 with my wife and kids and plan on getting 4 when it comes out. You'll never see Grand Theft Auto in my house though... hehe
      For some reason, I'm thinking that picking up hookers, stealing cars, and running from the cops is not a good lesson for my kids to learn.

      ...and let parents teach values on their own time.

      Another point I'd like to agree with in your post and offer alternative thought to as well. With the society increasing the way it is and the market pushing games like Grand Theft Auto the way it is, it's becoming increasingly difficult to not look like freaks. It would be nice to think that a parent can teach every lesson to a child and therefore have total dominance on the way they were raised, but in reality, children are taught many of their lessons from external sources that parents don't have control over. From my point of view, I have to minimize the negative impact that society can have on my child's mental development. I believe it's the parent's ultimate responsibility to teach children wholesome Christian values and not rely on video games to do it.

      I can't see Christian video games being less controverial than other games, simply because there are so many different views of what 'Christian' is.

      Well actually, society (in the US at least) still has it's Quaker roots and know right from wrong and define right and wrong from values that have heritage from those Quaker roots. A game like Grand Theft Auto and some of the "Break the Law" games are blatantly thumbing their nose to traditional morality which makes them VERY controversial and sadly generates a ton of free advertising. These games are designed that way from the beginning to generate revenue. SO... I'd say that a Christian game couldn't receive as much controversy as games like that unless it was labeled Christian and showed the opposite.

    2. Re:I don't quite see the point by AhPookTheDestroyer · · Score: 1

      A game like Grand Theft Auto and some of the "Break the Law" games are blatantly thumbing their nose to traditional morality which makes them VERY controversial and sadly generates a ton of free advertising. These games are designed that way from the beginning to generate revenue.

      Kind of a ridiculous statement there. What a game isn't produced to generate revenue? I can think of many games with gratuitous violence that don't sell nearly as much...the Postal series for example. In the end, it's all about fun and good game mechanics. Those that have it will sell, those that don't, won't...no matter how many hookers you can pummel.

    3. Re:I don't quite see the point by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Except Zelda is right out, what with all the references to "gods" and their Triforce.

    4. Re:I don't quite see the point by Rysc · · Score: 1

      You'll never see Grand Theft Auto in my house though... hehe

      Oh get off it. Did you complain when Carmagedon came out? That game has many more problems than GTA.

      I am going to assert here that games that exist purely for violence aren't popular (anyone with an example is free to back me up). Games are always popular for one and only one reason: They are fun to play.

      A game like GTA is fun to play because it is relatively free-form. You are not constrained in what you do. This lets you explore your possabilities and see what the consequences of your actions are. You can play GTA in a reasonably (given the nature of who you are playing as) nonviolent way. Turning your children loose on such a game will be very educational for you and for them. They'll get a fun game where they can do what they like, where they can do immoral things and see ohw it feels, and you get to watch them do it.

      And perhaps I'm going out on a limb here, but just maybe if you let a 10 year old blow away pedestrians with a semiautomatic weapon in a video game then, having tried it out, he'll be less likely to want to try it out later in life.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    5. Re:I don't quite see the point by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      On topic, I think you are right about most of that. Christians shouldn't reject non-Christian games since there are many good ones out there.

      However, I disagree with your description of the unity between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I am a protestant and I do not accept the RC at all. We disagree on the most fundamental question - salvation. The RC's hold a form of works in order to obtain salvation, while protestants denounce all works leading to salvation - salvation is a work of God alone. Protestants also claim that Scripture alone is authoritative, while the Catholics accept many apocryphal books, along with decisions of the RC Church and Pope's. Considering these differences we are a long way from unity.

    6. Re:I don't quite see the point by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      Many of the games available for the Game Boy Advance are rated \E\. Advance Wars, Wario Ware Inc, the list goes on. Most of the stuff they bitch about being in games (people bleeding from being shot, etc) are far easier to access via the local newspaper that carries AP news (ie "Bishop accused of covering up child molestation") or FM radio. Trying to shield children from reality is a flawed strategy IMHO, as it can only go to a certain age (ie 6). After that, most kids will start asking questions like, "Daddy, what's that thing Officer Baily has on his hip?....What does it do?"). It's similar to telling the masses that if they pray and give 10% of their income to thier local church, nothing terribly wrong will happen to them as long as they don't question the basis of religion, even though they've been presented with no evidence other than knowing many people who think the same thing.

    7. Re:I don't quite see the point by mink · · Score: 1

      "Games can entertain or they can attempt to teach you life lessons, but I can't see them being used for both without one or the other hurting. Let the kids play video games that are actually fun, and let parents teach values on their own time."

      A few adventure games can come close to doing both and being fun.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    8. Re:I don't quite see the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RC's hold a form of works in order to obtain salvation

      That's not true at all. We're saved completely by God's grace.

      Protestants also claim that Scripture alone is authoritative, while the Catholics accept many apocryphal books, along with decisions of the RC Church and Pope's.

      We accept the Tradition of the Church as it was passed down to us from the Apostles, whether orally or in written form (the Bible).

      By the way, the so-called "apocrypha" we accept is actually Scripture. It's actually Protestants who reject a certain portion of Scripture by rejecting the Deuterocanonical books.

  15. YES by terbo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will I be able to go about and conqour pagan civilizations with my metal weapons and trained horses??

    Can I Personally slay the dark skins because they dont believe in my one god!?!??

    Will I refute all other world religions because I HAVE THE ANSWER??

    YES! I've been waiting for an opportunity like this!!

    --
    If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
  16. Re:It's no surprise... by Gnulix · · Score: 1

    That's telling them Eric!

  17. I don't think there is a need... by xyrw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...for `Christian' videogames. Or `Christian' movies.

    I am speaking a Christian-- specifically, an evangelical, relatively conservative Christian.

    A faith that cannot deal with death, violence, evil and malice is impratical-- our world is fallen. A faith that does not endeavour to accept sinners is arrogant. And a faith that is impractical and arrogant is not faith-- it is a crutch, a psychological dependence on superiority; it is not transforming, not understanding, not gentle, not strong, not uplifting-- it is not meaningful.

    Is there evil in a videogame? Well, then, it is a reflection of our world. Surely there will be truth in the game as well! It is of paramount import that one knows how to recognise and dwell on good, and reject evil. Adults should know how to do this; children should be taught.

    It's not about teaching people what to do, or how to act. It's about the meaning of their acts, and of the acts that they witness; though the topic of the day is religion, this is true of most things. In short: adults, behave responsibly; children, learn how to.

    (You know, we could do away with a lot of legislation if people just behaved decently (or made the effort to).)

    1. Re:I don't think there is a need... by RailGunner · · Score: 4, Interesting
      xyrw, I can't agree with you about there not really being a need for Christian games. I'm personally worried about the motives behind a lot of "Christian" media, it seems that a lot of companies are just churning out absolute crap, saying that it's Christian, and reaping the profits.


      But that's not to say there wouldn't be a value in a well written, well designed, Christian-themed game. If the game made the player really think about the consequences of their actions, and NOT just the eternal consequences, then there could be value in the game. Or, if the game presented a compelling Gospel based storyline, maybe on one of the "minor" characters such as Nicodemus or Joseph of Aramathea, I think a game would be a good way to present the Christian message.


      Unfortunately, thus far "Christian" games have just been utter crap. I'd be embarassed if I was the company that produced "Bible Adventures" or other unplayable NES crapware. But, one can always hope that someone with talent will develop a good Christian game... there are popular licenses such as Veggie Tales that could be made into an entertaining game suitable for kids.


      I'd also say that there is a need for Christian movies. Movies such as "Jesus of Nazareth", "King of Kings", even "Ten Commandments" and "Prince of Egypt" (lest we forget or Jewish roots) can reach audiences that otherwise might not experience the message of Christianity.


      However, I think we'd agree that unfortunately too many Christians want to hide behind Christian media and not deal with the fact the we do live in an ugly, brutal, fallen world.

    2. Re:I don't think there is a need... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      A faith that cannot deal with death, violence, evil and malice is impratical

      First of all, playing video games with evil content is not "dealing with" evil. You are participating in it! The Christian faith "deals with" death, violence, and evil by requiring each believer to put on the full armor of God. (Eph. 6:10-18) The Christian surely does not deal with evil by diving head first into it and revelling in it. The spiritual fruits of the faith include kindness, gentleness, peace, and love (Gal. 5:22-23), and love does not delight in evil. (1 Cor. 13:6)

      Although not isolated from the evil of the world, we are to be insulated from it. Peter urges, "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul." (1 Peter 2:11)

      A faith that does not endeavour to accept sinners is arrogant

      Woooah, buddy, you are way off the reservation. How does having games with Christian themes reject sinners from the faith? Anyway, we certainly must engage all people, but our purposes are to love them, meet their needs, and share the Gospel, not so that we can partake of and enjoy their evil for ourselves.

      Is there evil in a videogame? Well, then, it is a reflection of our world.

      How can you enjoy games that reflect the evil things of the world? "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) This is the claim of Hollywood: "We just reflect society." Yes, the absolute worst part of society! And eventually, all of society looks like that.

      How much better to reflect the beautiful things! "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy -- meditate on these things. " (Phil. 4:8)

      A faith that flirts with evil is arrogant and immature. Always remember the most important commandment. (Mark 12:30) Study and meditate on what it means.

    3. Re:I don't think there is a need... by xyrw · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your reminder. Seriously.

      Part of what I had in mind, that I did not make clear, was that even objectionable material contains some value. I didn't mean to suggest (which, in retrospect, I loosely did) that one should enjoy participating in evil.

      Perhaps, as more of a movie fan than gamer, I should explain myself with examples from films instead. I'm using the following examples because once, on a Christian website, I saw them listed as being `Very Offensive', yet I had watched them and found them illuminating.

      • Requiem from a Dream

        A film that involves drugs, but is more generally about addiction. Throughout the film one sees examples of people unable to help themselves, because they are unaware that everything they do to escape their reality merely feeds their addiction, be it dieting, sex, drugs, whatever.

        On a personal note, the film reminded me that religion itself can be addictive. It's easy to hide behind hosannas and hallelujahs, as I once did-- then one day I woke up and asked myself whether I enjoyed church for the people, the sense of continuity, the music-- or because I was truly committed to Christ. There was no question of what had to be done, yet suddenly all my religiosity seemed empty at that moment-- as, indeed, it was.

      • Magnolia

        A film ultimately about the interwovenness of our relationships. Sometimes, a little action builds up to a tremendous effect-- at some point a choice is made, and things go up/downhill from there.

        I couldn't understand the rationale behind rating Magnolia `Offensive', because towards the end, touching reconciliations were made in several previously injured relationships; furthermore, the narrator is also a character in the film, a Christian policeman who does his best despite all the sadness he sees in the course of his job.

      • Interview with the Vampire

        I found this interesting for the same reasons as I did the CRPG below:

      • Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption

        Rather an old game, I know, but anyway: You play Christof, a crusader in the Dark Ages, who falls in love with a nun. However, because you vanquish a vampire, you are targetted for revenge and turned into a vampire yourself. As the story unfolds, one of the characters you meet is a vampire who, despite being your enemy and exceedingly powerful, begs you to kill him because he is extremely religious, and cannot bear his damned existence.

        Vampire spoke volumes to me because it so acutely reflected the human condition. In its fantastical world, a vampire is a beast (drinks blood) that he may not become one (enter a blood rage). Throughout the game, Christof searches for a path by which he may become human again, yet ultimately he has to drink blood. Of course there is a difference in that we need not perform evil deeds to survive, but the point is we do, and searching for salvation through controlling our actions is futile (I do not mean to suggest that we should not seek self- control-- only that self- salvation is impossible).

      Perhaps it's easier to distill themes from films than games, which is why I get bored with games very quickly. It's the themes and not the gameplay per se that interest me. I've never really enjoyed FPS's; I've mainly liked RPG's, despite the bad reputation of Dungeons and Dragons. I enjoyed Warcraft 3, although I used the cheats on more difficult levels just to get on with the plot-- told you I wasn't a gamer.

      I think the challenge is to maintain a sensible balance, and not go overboard. On the one hand we have to empathise with others to connect on a meaningful level; on the other, we have to be sanctified, set apart, consecrated-- is this possible? I hope it is! I cannot possibly recommend a method of doing this, as it depends so much on the attitude of the person, but in general I'd say, `Open your eyes, but guard your heart and mind.'

      Lastly, I didn't mean to say anything dangerous or misleading. I guess sometimes, even when the sheer `evilness' of a scene strikes me, I just feel more acutely why we need God.

    4. Re:I don't think there is a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not a conservative christian. I can tell: Conservative christians are all zealous, reactionary, idiotic, bigoted, prejudiced bastards who wish to see the world at large converted to their beliefs by the sword, if that's what it takes.

      Conservative christians do not wish people to recognize good and evil and seperate out the good form the bad. Conservative christians don't advocate the kind of liberal, progressive thinking you seem to be engaging in.

      I don't know what you are, but a conservative christian you are not.

      (You know, we could do away with a lot of legislation if people just behaved decently (or made the effort to).)

      Yes, if you realize that part of decent behavior is not forcing ones own religion down the throats of everyone regardless of want, which is what your professed brethren the conservative christians do.

      Hypocrite? Me? well yeah.. it's an imperfect world.[shrug]

    5. Re:I don't think there is a need... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I guess sometimes, even when the sheer `evilness' of a scene strikes me, I just feel more acutely why we need God.

      I agree with you very much about this. Sometimes I find myself spending all my time with other Christians and being secluded from most of the corruption out there. (Maybe I should read my own advice. :-/ *sigh*) I don't have cable TV and rarely go to movies. Sometimes it is helpful to listen to music or see movies that show evil to remind me how bad it is out there. I think that playing violent video games could actually motivate you to be a better Christian. Still, it could desensitize you to it if you play too much (and you'd lose the ability to determine that threshold), and I'd hate to buy the game in the first place which would promote the message to game makers that people want more violent games. I think the negative outweighs the positive overall.

  18. What's that thing... by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

    ...the Catechumen character is pointing everywhere in the screenshots?

    Looks like an engraved steak knife or something. I liked the Doom II double-barrelled shotgun a lot better. How insipid can you get...

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  19. Playe Quake 3 on low detail... by Domini · · Score: 1


    Set Quake 3 on picmip level 20... voilla! No satanic imagery!

    As someone who was taking care of a minor who was religiously sensitive I understand some of the issues, and was appaled that most games tout religious content in some way.

    It's not even even that the game designers have a message they want to get across, it's purely just for it's shock value.

    Most kids aren't shocked by it nowadays, mostly just because they are spiritually desensitized... which IS a bad thing.

    I'm not a christian or dogmatic in any way... I view the use of religion in games as fouling a potentially enligtening subject.

    1. Re:Playe Quake 3 on low detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was mildly shocked when playing the Quake alpha test. There were dismembered corpses on the wall. Other than that, nothing in video games has really bothered me since.

      As for Christian video games, they're about as interesting as Christian music. The commercialization of religion reminds me of when Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple.

      This isn't exactly anything new either.. there were Christian video games around back in the early 90s which I had played. They weren't anything worth mentioning.

    2. Re:Playe Quake 3 on low detail... by iainl · · Score: 1

      "As someone who was taking care of a minor who was religiously sensitive I understand some of the issues, and was appaled that most games tout religious content in some way."

      You're hardly the only person to claim this here, but it sounds like you've had to do some checking out of this. I keep seeing "most games" being bandied about, but the only games I can think of right now are the collected works of id, the Diablo games, and possibly Eternal Darkness (though I've not played that).

      I've got a just about complete collection of the current platforms, and yet I can't think of a single game I've bought in the last two years that includes imagery of this type. When everything from Pikmin via Amped, Frequency, Ikaruga and PGR to Halo manage to be devoid of satanic images, and I generally regard most FPS games as unsuitable for any kid liable to have problems with the odd inverted cross in the background anyway, I don't see the big problem.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    3. Re:Playe Quake 3 on low detail... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      You're hardly the only person to claim this here, but it sounds like you've had to do some checking out of this. I keep seeing "most games" being bandied about, but the only games I can think of right now are the collected works of id, the Diablo games, and possibly Eternal Darkness (though I've not played that).

      and at the very least, the works of id and the Diablo series tend to be closer to Christian games than most of the others anyway (in that you are fighting against a distinctly Christian form of evil).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:Playe Quake 3 on low detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eternal Darkness seems to be based on lovecrafts works (look at the characters and other things).
      I would place it apart from Satanic in the sence that I dont see lovecrafts work being based on the Christian belief system.
      Now from a Chistian viewpoint the "bad guys" in the game are what one would associate with demons and satanism. Even the heros end up I guess somewhat tainted/used by the forces beyond their understanding.

  20. Do not mess with the christians you sinners!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  21. Re: The Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Score -1: flamebait

  22. oh neat! some other ideas! by kevin+lyda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how about a game where you travel through europe and gather what you need to fight in the crusades. once there you can kill all arab looking men, women and children! it could be called "grand theft holy lands!"

    oh how about one where you apply different methods of torture to various non-believers to extract confessions of blasphamy, demon worship and sin! it could be called "simquisition!"

    or "simquisition ii" where you extract confessions of whitchcraft from women and children in the new world!

    god, this whole field is wide open!

    "preacher-craft" where you wander around giving hate-filled speeches in tent revivals, on radio and tv. you gather wealth and gain health points from the suicides and murders of gays, lesbians, blacks, immigrants and non-believers.

    --
    US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
  23. You forgot SEX! by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    it's full of SEX, too. All kinds of weird sex, too. You got yer incest, yer whoring, yer homosexual orgies.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  24. Without any gore... by DarkVein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know what it is, but it isn't Christian. Baptists are the only Christian group I can think of which seems to have this fixation, but even they don't have this insanity. I'm certain the people who think this game is a good idea do not read the bible, except for the "safe" sections. I bet they stick little post-it notes everywhere with the "happy" lines, neatly cropped from betwixt two "nasty" lines.

    The message in the Bible is written within a world of disease, common prostitution, gorey punishments, and rationalized cruelty. Christ, within this world, sees everything, and learns from it. He makes a choice to counter the cruelty, and teaches others to help. He teaches that the evils pass if you don't reciprocate, or evils will become stronger with vengeful acts. A Christian who understands this message can take enlightened meaning and understanding from any situation, especially when things go wrong. A Christian wants to increase common well-being, decrease common suffering, and teach others to enjoy life and let transient suffering pass on and die.

    Under no circumstances does this allow a Christian to insulate themselves with illusions and ignorance. Protecting yourself with magick illusions is a mighty sin.

    For example, I had an interesting experience with GTA: Vice City. I was nearly through the book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" when I started playing it. The game was nearly painful because I had no options to do anything except the way the story required. From reading the book, every situation I entered I could think of ways to improve the situation, but the character always took the violent route. The characters in Vice City were fleshed out, and the world seemed real. So, when I was or wasn't playing the game, I was thinking of ways to improve my character's situation by improving the situations around him. Your character in VC is such a brilliant and driven fuckup, it's hard not to think of better ways to go about everything. And, if nothing else, you're slightly more mentally and emotionally prepared to encounter such backwards situations, even if they don't involve gunfire.

    Whatever these "Christians" are, they want to pretend bad things don't happen. That marks them as distinctly un-Christ-like.

    --

    I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.

    1. Re:Without any gore... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      Denying reality, most likely because they don't feel their faith can stand the test of seeing things as they are. They will be judgemental (judge not), react violently (shalt not), inspired to one of the seven deadly sins, what have you.

      The only way their "faith" can bolster them is to attempt to live in a bubble world where bad things may happen, just not anywhere near them.

      This is not a comment on all Christians or religious people. Just the ignorant ones who refuse to deal with reality using the tenets their religion provides for them; compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and love.

      Unfortunately there are a lot of them.

      There can definitely be a niche for Christian games. End results can be in line with their teachings, recreate biblical situations, explore "heaven" and "hell", whatever, there is certainly plenty to build upon and explore in Biblical literature and teachings. A RTS of the Exodus for example might be interesting. But that's a far cry from providing one more method of insulating oneself from reality and bolstering a false faith that stands only because you refuse to allow it to be challenged.

    2. Re:Without any gore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people read what they want in to the Bible. Just one example "Spare the rod and spoil the child....".

    3. Re:Without any gore... by pmz · · Score: 1

      Baptists are the only Christian group I can think of which seems to have this fixation, but even they don't have this insanity. I'm certain the people who think this game is a good idea do not read the bible, except for the "safe" sections. I bet they stick little post-it notes everywhere with the "happy" lines, neatly cropped from betwixt two "nasty" lines.

      The message in the Bible is written within a world of disease, common prostitution, gorey punishments, and rationalized cruelty. Christ, within this world, sees everything, and learns from it. He makes a choice to counter the cruelty, and teaches others to help. He teaches that the evils pass if you don't reciprocate, or evils will become stronger with vengeful acts. A Christian who understands this message can take enlightened meaning and understanding from any situation, especially when things go wrong. A Christian wants to increase common well-being, decrease common suffering, and teach others to enjoy life and let transient suffering pass on and die.


      Very well said. Thanks.

    4. Re:Without any gore... by VGMSupreme · · Score: 1

      I don't know what it is, but it isn't Christian. Baptists are the only Christian group I can think of which seems to have this fixation, but even they don't have this insanity. I'm certain the people who think this game is a good idea do not read the bible, except for the "safe" sections. I bet they stick little post-it notes everywhere with the "happy" lines, neatly cropped from betwixt two "nasty" lines.

      I think you need to quantify that statement. Those would be Southern Baptists. I am an American Baptist (Usher and Deacon of a church), and I know that American Baptists do not have much care for the gore in games. Of course, I am still cursed with a mom who thinks that Kingdom Hearts has too much violence, but that is just my Mom (and she is not Baptist).

      It is not just Baptists, it is every Christian group. In some way, shape or form, all Christian groups have this sort of attitude. There are some people who choose to not care, or believe that is should be there, cause it happens in real life. But don't think that this mentality only exists in one group.

      --
      The Galatic Freedom Force marches on! Defend!
    5. Re:Without any gore... by Peyna · · Score: 1
      "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." - Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)


      So what is it that people are reading into that that I'm not seeing? I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

      --
      What?
  25. I don't understand... by 010_digital_100 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    How can they say that video games are sooo violent when religion has continuously been the most violent aspect in history.

    More people have been killed in the name of God than in GTA:Vice City.

    Has anyone ever heard of "The Crusades".....actually that might make a good game.

    --
    1. Re:I don't understand... by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

      try reading whats already been posted before posting your own ignorant remarks.

    2. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone ever heard of "The Crusades".....actually that might make a good game.

      I'm picturing a massively multiplayer world that lets each character pick a major religion. Any time you run across someone who picked a different religion, they're a target.

      Hmm, sounds a lot like the US under G W Bush.

    3. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you should.
      Notice he simply said religion was behind the crusades.
      That didnt single out one side or the other, I have no idea what exactly the Moslims of the time called them.

      However religion and the way it was being pushed at the time (by both sides) is what made that bad situation.

  26. Bad URL in article by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
    The URL in the article seems incorrect.

    I believe the real link is: here.

    Back to Super 3D Noah's Ark for me.

    1. Re:Bad URL in article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now fixed.

  27. Ummm... by Shishio · · Score: 3, Interesting
    working as a medieval Paladin to return the Gutenberg Bible
    I'm not very religious, but I thought Gutenberg came after the medieval period. Also, didn't the Catholic Church oppose the vernacular printings of the Bible, instead of sending Paladins out to guard it? Oh well, maybe these games are just trying to be as historically inaccurate as the rest of the gaming world.
    --
    Twelve fingers or one, its how you play. ~Gattaca (Vincent)
    1. Re:Ummm... by Qender · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The character shoots beams of lights and there are demons in the game.

      If they wanted to make a realistic religious game it would be a bunch of stupid people brainwashing each other since the dawn of the human race. I don't know what the gameplay would be like.

      Or they could make a game about the crusades...

    2. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1
      Also, didn't the Catholic Church oppose the vernacular printings of the Bible

      No, it's not true. The problem was with bad translations of the Bible, but vernacular versions as such were not a problem.

      Catholic Reverence for the Bible
      Nor is it at all true that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in vernacular languages (it did oppose some Protestant translations which it felt were inaccurate). For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German...

      The situation was no different in other European countries. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478 with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the sanction of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.
    3. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholics also chased down, imprisoned, and killed Tyndale. Why? He was determined to make a Bible in English that the average farmer could read and understand. This was anathema to the RCC. They also lots of Jews and Bible-believing Christians in the Pope-ordered Crusades in addition to Muslims. The Inquisition was an attempt to cleanse Europe of Bible readers - if you denied the pagan beliefs of the RCC, you were burned at the stake.

      Look at how they attack the Authorized Version (commonly known as the KJV). The RCC has only supported vernacular translations of their corrupt manuscripts, which are closer to Jehovah Witness translations than the real Bible (JW's do not believe Jesus Christ is God).

    4. Re:Ummm... by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      You are seriously lacking in education. - First, the RCC doesn't disapprove of the KJV and considers it legitemate for study, though there are better versions. - The Inquisition killed an average of one person a year, not for being Jewish, but for serious crimes of the day like adultery. This compares to the 1000s killed in the same period by protestants putting witches to the stake. - The RCC's corrupt manuscripts? The RCC composed the Bible in the 390s. - If anyone's bible is corrupt, it is the Protestants who not only mistranlated intentionally the Greek, but who took away several books of the Old Testament by going with the Palestinian version rather than the Septurgian version. Essentially, they took the side of those who put Christ to death on the basis of having difficulty finding Hebrew versions of the missing books- yet most were found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls. - Martin Luther corruptly translated into German, for example, adding the word "alone" to the statement that Faith can save you. The JW Bible is more like the Protestant bibles for that reason, too. So how about backing up what you have to say with fact? Protestants faith depends on ignorance of history. YOu are proving my points.

    5. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you do a bit of research before making statements such as you have here.

      The Septuagint is a corrupt translation; observe that it has Methuselah living after the flood. There is strong evidence that it was created by the heretic Origen. The KJV is based on the Masoretic text, which was proven accurate by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

      I don't read German, so I cannot comment on Luther's translation skills.

      As for your statistics on the Inquisition, all I can say is that denial is not a river in Egypt. For some vivid details about the inquisition methodology, see here.

      Those desiring more detailed and thoroughly researched information should read Dave Hunt's book, ISBN 1565071999 at your favority bookseller. This book documents that in Spain alone, three million people were condemned under the RCC Inquisition, and 300,000 were burned at the stake. As neo-Nazis try to claim the holocaust did not kill millions of Jews, some rabid RCC apologists try to claim that the inquisition was also not a mass killing machine. Neither can hide history, but they keep on trying.

    6. Re:Ummm... by Qender · · Score: 1

      flamebait? we must have some christian moderators then...

    7. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, your distortions are mind-boggling. Check out the history of Beziers - a town slaughtered on orders of the Pope. Just Google for "1209 Beziers Catholic" and you'll see. Estimates of the deaths in one day are from 15,000 to 100,000 men, women, and children slaughtered on orders of the Pope for "heresy".

      For a good history of the Inquisition itself, see here for example.

      And a warning to fellow Bible-believing Christians out there: the Roman Catholic Church has never disbanded the office of the Inqisition, nor have they admitted fault, renounced, or repented of the horror they inflicted.

      And your attempts to deny the first Holocaust are as reprehensible as the neo-Nazis who attempt to deny Hitler's Holocaust.

    8. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crusades were a series of campaigns by the Roman Catholic Church against three groups: Jews, Moslems, and Christian. The RCC does not like Moslems much, but it likes them better than it likes Jews and Bible-believing Christians.

      Just FYI

    9. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1

      The Septuagint is a corrupt translation; observe that it has Methuselah living after the flood. There is strong evidence that it was created by the heretic Origen.

      The Septuagint predates Christianity, so Origen couldn't have created it. It was actually translated by about seventy Jewish scholars living in Alexandria, around 200 BC.

      It was, in fact, the Greek translation used by the Evangelists. Direct quotes from it appear in the New Testament.

    10. Re:Ummm... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I still can't figure out what brilliant person decided to name a Christian organization "Campus Crusades for Christ." Do they not understand the images that the word 'crusades' puts in to people's minds? Ugh.

      --
      What?
    11. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a common misconception. But notice in scripture that anything originating in Egypt is considered to be on the negative side. So Alexandrian anything is suspect. And as I said, the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong. The Septuagint is called the LXX frequently; an odd name for something supposed produced outside the influence of the Roman Empire...

      And if Origen produced it, of course it would look like there were quotes in the NT from it; he had the NT to work from, and could easily work his "translation" to fit perfectly into the NT text.

      Although you are a Roman Catholic apologist, perhaps others reading this thread would like to see the truth about the LXX for themselves.

    12. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1

      That's a common misconception.

      Actually, it's pretty much universally acknowledged.

      But notice in scripture that anything originating in Egypt is considered to be on the negative side. So Alexandrian anything is suspect.

      That's a bit silly. You can't say that everything having to do with Egypt is automatically bad. For instance, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod.

      And as I said, the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong.

      You'll find little copyists errors like that in just about any hand-copied manuscript. In itself it doesn't make the text "corrupt".

      The Septuagint is called the LXX frequently; an odd name for something supposed produced outside the influence of the Roman Empire...

      The very word "Septuagint" is Latin, meaning "seventy". "LXX" is just a Latin abbreviation for a Latin word, just as "&" is a quick way of writing the Latin word "et", "etc." is short for "et cetera", and so on. The reason they'd call it by a Latin name is that people in Europe have been using the Latin language for a long time. We call the Dead Sea Scrolls the "Dead Sea Scrolls", but that doesn't imply that English speakers were involved in producing them.

      And if Origen produced it, of course it would look like there were quotes in the NT from it; he had the NT to work from, and could easily work his "translation" to fit perfectly into the NT text.

      Of course, we could also imagine that, say, Joseph Stalin produced the Septuagint, and come to the same conclusion. But making up theories like this that contradict history won't do us any good.

    13. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many things are "universally acknowledged" yet wrong. Fifteen million people bought Ford Pintos, you know, the "strike on rear bumper to ignite" car. Citing masses is as useless a tactic as you can get.

      I could cite many references in scripture about Egypt being bad, from Isaiah to Jeremiah to Exodus. And of course Joseph and His mother escaped to Egypt - they were told to, and it fulfilled a prophecy.

      Claiming copyist errors shows you align with the textual critics. Sorry, I believe God, not you on that one. He promised to preserve His word, and therefore only the corrupt manuscripts will have corruptions in them.

      Next you wander into a lesson on "Septuagint" being Latin. The fables about the LXX being written in the B.C. timeframe are convenient for those who want to prop up the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. For the truth about the LXX, see here instead.

    14. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1

      Claiming copyist errors shows you align with the textual critics. Sorry, I believe God, not you on that one. He promised to preserve His word, and therefore only the corrupt manuscripts will have corruptions in them.

      I don't think God ever meant to say that He would never allow typographical errors to enter into Biblical texts. There probably isn't any version of the Bible in existence without a few typos here and there (but even so, most Biblical versions are extremely close to each other in content). And even if there were a perfectly "non-corrupt" Bible version, how would we know which one it was? If, for instance, there were a perfect copy of the Bible preserved somewhere in the sands of the Middle East, that would (technically) satisfy your interpretation of God preserving His Word, but it wouldn't do anyone much good. It seems pretty clear to me that the Word of God is the Word that is preached to us - in New Testament times, by the Church. Remember that Jesus told the Apostles that He'd be with them until the end of the world. It is in that sense that the Word of God is preserved. He founded a Church that preserves and preaches His Word until the end of the world.

      Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31) But on the other hand, John writes, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25) Clearly many things that Jesus did are not recorded anywhere. And, similarly, many things that He said, many of His words, have passed away from our knowledge (especially most of what He said up to the age of thirty or so). So how should we understand Mark 13:31? It seems to me that what Jesus meant by "my words" is His doctrine, the content of His teaching. This has not passed away, even if we no longer know what specific words He might have used to teach His teachings.

    15. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typographical errors are one thing; scriptural and translational errors that make bad doctrine are another.

      I noticed your claim there that the RCC is a church founded by Jesus; you need to read Revelation 17&18 and see what He things of the RCC "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues".

      You claim that " most Biblical versions are extremely close to each other in content"; there are a huge number of significant differences between versions based on the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts (the Westcott & Hort family, including Nestle-Aland) and the Textus Receptus.

      Further, Jesus told us that "Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4). And the Lord cannot lie (Titus 1:2). So if we are to live by EVERY WORD OF GOD, then we need to have manuscripts that contain EVERY WORD OF GOD that He has given us in His scripture.

      So since we need every word, why do current RCC-friendly versions omit 17 verses completely? The corrupt manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) have over 5000 (yes, five thousand) differences to the Textus Receptus. If you claim the Westcott & Hort manuscripts are accurate, then how did people get the whole word of God for over a thousand years while those manuscripts were hidden by the RCC?

      You try to argue that since we don't have a comprehensive (holographic?) record of the Lord's time on earth that we shouldn't be too fussy about the Bible and its completeness or accuracy, since as long as we have the meaning that's good enough. Wow. Okay, first of all, we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect[complete], thoroughly furnished unto all good works." So there is no scripture which is unnecessary. And what we have been given is sufficient for a believer to be as edified as God thinks is proper. Again, I'll certainly go with God and not with you on that point. We don't need any more, and cannot stand to lose, any of the scripture He gave us. He said so, and that's enough for me.

      You also draw a conclusion that "my words will not pass away" refers only to the meaning of the words, not to their preservation. I suggest you check out Psalm 12:67, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, Luke 16:17, 21:33; 1Peter 1:24 and see if you still hold that opinion.

      Which bible version(s) are you defending, and which manuscripts? As an RCC apologist, I gather you use the RSV or NRSV or Douay-Rheims.

    16. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1
      Typographical errors are one thing; scriptural and translational errors that make bad doctrine are another.

      So let's look at the example you provided of "errors that make bad doctrine": you wrote earlier that "the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong." What bad doctrine does this lead to?

      I noticed your claim there that the RCC is a church founded by Jesus;

      It's not a church founded by Jesus, it's the Church founded by Him. "I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18) Note that "church" is singular; Christ only founded one Church.

      you need to read Revelation 17&18 and see what He things of the RCC "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues".

      This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Babylon is Jerusalem:

      As is evident by now, we hold that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in Revelation points to the reality that John is interested in the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, not in pagan Rome (much less in prognostications about the Catholic Church) as the "Whore of Babylon". We argue that the identification of Rome, rather than Jerusalem, with the "great harlot" of Revelation 17 can only be accomplished by systematically ignoring the Old Testament background of Revelation. For as we have already seen, Revelation 11:8 specifically identifies the "great city" as the place "where their Lord was crucified." In calling Jerusalem a "harlot" Revelation continues a tradition with deep roots in the prophets of the Old Testament. And so, Isaiah 1:10-23, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16, Hosea and other prophets all identify one city as the "harlot city": Jerusalem.

      John gives us other clues to this identification as well. The woman is seated on a "scarlet beast" with "seven heads and ten horns" (17:3). She is described as "drunk with the blood of the saints and blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (17:6). We would argue that this represents the Jerusalem which persecuted the early Church, riding on the back of Rome (a city on seven hills which had had ten emperors by 70 AD) in order to accomplish that persecution. Such a picture dovetails with the verdict of Jesus in Matthew 23:35, who tells Jerusalem that upon her will come "all the righteous blood shed on earth." It also dovetails with the general New Testament picture of Jewish persecution of the early Church, which tended to try to make use of Roman power wherever possible in order to more effectively harass and suppress the church, beginning with the crucifixion of Jesus himself and continuing through the persecution of Paul and even the persecutions of Nero. The length to which these first century Jewish persecutors were willing to go is shown by the shocking reply of the chief priests to Pilate's question, "Shall I crucify your King?" Their answer: "We have no King but Caesar." Such an answer commits the corrupt power elite in Jerusalem, both political and religious, to a prostituted relationship with Rome against the young Church. As both Luke and Acts note, one of the strange realities of the dawn of the gospel was that former enemies become "friends" in their unlikely coalition against the Lamb. And so Acts 4:26-28 records that the Church noticed a fulfillment of Psalm 2: "'The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'-for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place." In a seemingly unlikely yet strangely logical joining of power politics and false religion, two otherwise bitterly opposed foes, the Harlot and Beast, "make war on the Lamb" (17:14).

      But the Lamb conquers. How?

    17. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your hermeneutics and exegetical principles are clearly badly lacking, and discussion with you bears no fruit. Your twisting of scripture is painful to witness, and I suggest you read the Bible and ask God directly with all your heart to open its meaning to you.

      Amazingly, you see no doctrinal issues with a Bible altered to state that Methusaleh survived the flood. A basic principle in Biblical understanding is types. For example, the passover lamb is a type of Christ.

      In the same way, the ark is a type of Christ. When judgment (the flood) came to destroy sin, only those safely in Christ (Noah, his wife, and his three sons with their wives) could survive. Yet from your acceptance of Methusaleh surviving the flood as the Septuagint teaches, that would mean that one can survive God's coming judgment without Christ. I realize the RCC teaches this, but it is utterly against the entire redemption message of the Bible ([N]o man cometh unto the Father, but by Me -- John 14:6).

      If you don't know that, the RCC teaches this ; the current pope on December 6 of 2000, said "The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God's kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom". Reference: here about twenty minutes in. There are many further examples if you doubt that one, see here, here, here, etc. etc.

      Again proof that the RCC is not only non-biblical, it's anti-biblical. And note that here the "infallible" pope got the gospel entirely wrong.

      While your acceptance of Methusaleh surviving the flood is tragic, your (and the web site you cited) claim that Jerusalem is Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is as well. Revelation 17:9 states "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Can you find a single source that says Jerusalem was known at the time John wrote Revelation (90-95 A.D.) as a "city on seven hills"? It doesn't have seven hills, Mount Moriah is its chief feature. Or perhaps you could admit that even today Rome is universally known as the "city on seven hills"? Additionally, the source you quote confuses the Whore OF Babylon with the city, as he cites OT references to Jerusalem as a harlot city. The Roman Catholic Church is not the city of Rome, but it's located there. Thus the seven hills are the hills on which the women sitteth. Further, when John wrote, Jerusalem had been destroyed at least twenty years earlier. It was rubble, not one stone was left on top of another.

      On the theme of OT references to harlotry, I recommend you read the book of Hosea. The entire book is given to that theme. It shows how God views spiritual infusion of pagan practices and other pseudo-gods into worship of Him.That is what God considers harlotry against Him. And notice that Hosea is directed to Israel (and Judah as well, but primarily the northern kingdom of Israel). The book is certainly not directed solely at the capital (Jerusalem) of the southern kingdom. Now that you see what harlotry is about, examine Jeremiah 7 and 44, see what God thought of worship directed to "the queen of heaven". Then check here, here, here,

    18. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1

      Amazingly, you see no doctrinal issues with a Bible altered to state that Methusaleh survived the flood.

      Okay, I see what you mean now. But this would clearly fall into the "typo" category, and not a corruption of the Bible that introduces false doctrine. I doubt many people would add up the ages and realize that there were a contradiction in Methuselah surviving the flood. But even if someone did, all they'd have to do is look at the context, including what Peter wrote on the Flood, to realize that Methuselah's age was a copyist's error, since he wasn't in the Ark. Or they might guess that one of the other ages was wrongly transcribed, etc., but in the end it would probably be assumed that some sort of copying error was involved, one way or another.

      that would mean that one can survive God's coming judgment without Christ. I realize the RCC teaches this

      The Catholic Church does not teach this. Anyone who is saved is saved through Christ. Without Christ's sacrifice, we would all be damned.

      If you don't know that, the RCC teaches this ; the current pope on December 6 of 2000, said "The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God's kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom".

      The thing to keep in mind is that we are saved by accepting God's free gift of grace. Ideally, we would learn about Christianity and accept it, and be baptized and thus saved. But some people never hear the gospel. Are they automatically damned? No. God offers his grace to everyone. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32) Anyone who accepts that grace is accepting Christ, whether they know it or not. Paul himself said that one can worship God without even hearing of Him (Acts 17:22-31). Also, the people in the Old Testament never explicitly heard of Jesus either, and yet if any of them were saved, they were saved through Christ.

      Of course, if someone knowingly and culpably rejects the Gospel, then that person can't be saved until he or she has a change of heart.

      However, even it is possible for a non-Christian to be saved, it is more difficult than for a Christian. For one thing, even if someone were to be saved without explicitly knowing Christ, it would be easier for that person to lose their salvation because they don't necessarily know what is a mortal sin and what isn't, because they haven't been taught and thus they could inadvertently fall into a state of sin more easily than a Christian for that reason. Also, the sacraments make it easier to be saved and remain saved, due to the grace they give us. Someone who is willingly baptized is automatically saved through the justifying grace they receive. On the other hand, for a non-Christian to be saved, without baptism, he'd have to make an act of perfect charity, or pure love for God, which may be difficult since we sinners are prone to hold back a little in our love for God. In a similar way, Catholics are automatically forgiven our sins if we make a good confession. However, Protestants don't have the sacrament of confession, and so the only way for them to get their mortal sins forgiven is to make an act of perfect contrition, which again is difficult because it requires a perfect rejection of sins.

      Revelation 17:9 states "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Can you find a single source that says Jerusalem was known at the time John wrote Revelation (90-95 A.D.) as a "city on seven hills"?

      It is not the harlot who has seven heads, but rather the beast she rides. The harlot is Jerusalem, and the beast is the Roman Empire (based in Rome). Jerusalem used Roman power to persecute Christians.

    19. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The topic here about the age of Methusaleh had to do with the purity of a manuscript; the Septuagint is corrupt, one evidence being the concept of someone surviving the flood without shelter given by God. You claim that's a typo; manuscripts that have typos like that are not the preserved Word of God, they are just man's corruptions thereof.

      Then you get back into that "act of perfect contrition" bit. We talked about that with regard to the thief on the cross; what act of perfect contrition did he perform while nailed to a cross and hours (at most) away from death? Asserting that he did perform some such act is an argument from silence. It's like saying that the pope enjoys playing bocci ball on Mars, since none of his writings don't deny that he does it. Argument from silence is an absolutely absurd basis for something as vital as salvation. God would not rely on that argument being made for such a key doctrine, would He?

      Next you deny the papal legate ordered a slaughter at Beziers. Unfortunately for you (and even more so for the innocents who suffered at the orders of Innocent III's legate) Arnaud Amalric said when asked how to know heretics from loyal Catholics, "Kill them all. For God will know those who are his" on July 21 of 1209. In his report to Innocent III, he apparently bragged about the atrocities there and elsewhere, and was congratulated by the pope. Beziers alone is estimated at 20,000 to 100,000 people killed. There is no comparison; no emperor of Rome came close to killing as many Christians as the RCC has. Only the RCC qualifies as "drunk on the blood of the saints".

      Then you twist scripture some more by saying that "the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her" somehow are predictive of the gnashing of teeth in their future? I think God's word is pretty clear here - the kings "shall bewail her, and lament for her". They are not depicted in any way as bewailing for their own future destiny. They are lamenting the fall of Babylon, and no one outside Jews and Christians cared a whit about Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And notice the future tense - this is not about something previous to John's writing, it is in the future.

      Just curious, are you one of those who holds that we only have the Word of God in the original autographs, and that today we must use the most scholarly means possible to reconstruct the original text?

    20. Re:Ummm... by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1
      The topic here about the age of Methusaleh had to do with the purity of a manuscript; the Septuagint is corrupt, one evidence being the concept of someone surviving the flood without shelter given by God. You claim that's a typo; manuscripts that have typos like that are not the preserved Word of God, they are just man's corruptions thereof.

      I see. So, in that case, the Textus Receptus is not the preserved Word of God either, as it too contains errors.

      Then you get back into that "act of perfect contrition" bit. We talked about that with regard to the thief on the cross; what act of perfect contrition did he perform while nailed to a cross and hours (at most) away from death?

      Again, we don't know whether or not he was in a state of mortal sin when he was on the cross. He may have had his sins forgiven earlier.

      But assuming that he was in a state of sin, and assuming that he had at some point in the past been in a state of grace (i.e. saved), then he could make an act of contrition, which basically is to feel perfectly sorry for your sins, without reservation. He does seem to regret his sins, based on what he says.

      On the other hand, if he had never been saved before, then he would have to make an act of perfect charity which is to love God perfectly (in addition to the act of contrition).

      Next you deny the papal legate ordered a slaughter at Beziers. Unfortunately for you (and even more so for the innocents who suffered at the orders of Innocent III's legate) Arnaud Amalric said when asked how to know heretics from loyal Catholics, "Kill them all. For God will know those who are his" on July 21 of 1209.

      "It is not true that the leaders of the Crusade shouted: 'Kill them all; God will know his own.'" Joseph Strayer, "Albigensian Crusades," p. 62

      There is no comparison; no emperor of Rome came close to killing as many Christians as the RCC has. Only the RCC qualifies as "drunk on the blood of the saints".

      Really? How about the Protestants? They not only killed Catholics, but also each other.

      In any case, though, it's pretty clear that John is referring to Jerusalem, and the irony that the Israelites would attack their own Messiah and His followers. Jesus talks about the fact that this sort of thing happened a lot in Jewish history, and was still going on in His day, since Herod intended to kill Him:

      The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, "Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee."
      And he said unto them, "Go ye, and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!' " (Luke 13:31-34)

      Then you twist scripture some more by saying that "the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her" somehow are predictive of the gnashing of teeth in their future? I think God's word is pretty clear here - the kings "shall bewail her, and lament for her". They are not depicted in any way as bewailing for their own future destiny. They are lamenting the fall of Babylon, and no one outside Jews and Christians cared a whit about Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And notice the future tense - this is not about something previous to John's writing, it is in the future.

      Concerning the future tense, that's part of what suggested to me the lamentation was partly over their own future destruction. It would make sense that the Bible would try to warn people to turn away from sin, in this case by having people contemplate their eventual fate. As for

    21. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly your favorite debate tactic is "argument from silence". Since you have a very strong bias to prove the Roman Catholic Church position, you force that interpretation on scripture wherever you find it, regardless of the plain meaning that one gets from just reading scripture. Such as your interpretation of the thief on the cross. The plain reading of the Bible is that the thief is saved merely by confessing faith in Jesus as Lord. No baptism, no confession of sins. Just faith in the Lord. Arguing from silence is a pointless exercise, and if that's all you've got, you've demonstrated that you're unable to answer based on facts.

      Same thing on the principle of the whore being drunk on the blood of the saints. Only the RCC has killed that amount of Christians; your response is to ask if Protestants ever killed Catholics. Of course they did; the issue here is one of sheer volume of mass murders such as Beziers, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Hussites, and the Inquisition. Again, without any evidence, you're making an argument from silence. Again, you've demonstrated that you can't respond based on facts.

      Then you continue to claim that the woman in Revelation 17 is Jerusalem; that is so appalling a misunderstanding. Read verse 18: " And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth". At the time John wrote, what city reigned over the earth? ROME. Not Jerusalem. Jerusalem has NEVER reigned over much, but ROME sure has.

  28. Marketing by Ch3t · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This has nothing to do with sex and violence. Some marketing executive realized there was an untapped market. Do you really think a bunch of "Christians" got together and said, "Hey lets form a rock group" and thus Christian Rock was born? Somewhere a recording industry genius figured out the record companies weren't selling Rock and or a Roll(use Rev. Lovejoy voice) records to "Christian" teens. That's how Christian Rock was born and it's the same reason for this. The "Christian" kiddies aren't allowed to play mainstream games, so we'll make games they are allowed to play. There are Christian ISPs, Christian money market funds, and my favorite the Christian Outlet Store. What does one buy at a Christian Outlet Store? Factory-second Christians?

    --
    I thought I had an appetite for destruction, but all I really wanted was a club sandwich. --Homer J.
    1. Re:Marketing by Tarindel · · Score: 1
      "Christian" kiddies aren't allowed to play mainstream games, so we'll make games they are allowed to play


      I've always been amused that the classic German board game The Settlers of Catan spawned a Christian version (The Settlers of Canaan) last year. Thing is, I've never played a more theme-neutral game in my life... so it's obviously not that the theme is offensive.

      The amusing part is that they changed the relatively inoffensive concept of the robber to "the plague". Which is more "evil" in your mind, sic-ing the robber on someone's wheat field or giving them the plague?
  29. Does it really send a Christian message? by jensend · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not mostly about the amount of violence and sex in the game, it's about the message which the game tries to send. The situation is very much the same as with books- Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov depicts a world with plenty of violence and sex but sends a strong message of faith. As plenty of others have pointed out, the Bible is the same way. There are plenty of books with little or no violence or sex which nevertheless broadcast a message of nihilism, selfishness, and immorality.

    As far as I can tell, these games don't really send any message at all (unless it's that missionary work, even among demons, is ridiculously easy, just point and zap), much less one of true faith. If you're going to be playing a FPS which is designed not to send any message, you might as well enjoy it and have it be Serious Sam (with the 'hippie gore' option turned on if you prefer lower levels of blood, etc) :)

  30. beam of light, eh? by qu4rtz · · Score: 1

    video game, eh? forces of evil, eh? master sword, eh?

    1. Re:beam of light, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more.

  31. Sandy Peterson by ronfar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A lot of people may not realize this, but Sandy Peterson, level designer for Doom, is a practicing Mormon. I always thought it was annoying that some of the Cult Cop-type Fundies would attack Doom for being Satanic. How is blowing away demons with shotguns and RPGs "Satanic." Black and White should be more objectionable because you can play an evil "Pagan" god, but because Doom fits certain criteria:

    1. It's a First Person Shooter.

    2. It has great demonic imagery to show on talk shows and sensationalist news reports.

    3. It is very well known.

    Doom is the game that gets the bad press. (Note: Both games are cool, I would've thought so even back when I was a practicing Catholic.) Really, if Jack Chick made a game, would it be that different than Doom. (Haw, haw!)

    On the other hand, all Color Dreams has to do is find Jesus, slightly retool Menace Beach and they have a game they can sell in Christian bookstores Sunday Funday

    --
    All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  32. doom the christian game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW. i thought the lowest point was achieved, but there is always somebody to bring you a shovel... it's really something non violent: grab your mighty swork and kill every hellrisen creature. that would make doom a christian game, hey i go to hell and kill daemons. come on!!! or ROTT: let's kill the evil members of a diabolical sect! so, what would be the next christian game? "1426 ad: the spanish inquisition"? "1037 ad: the crusade"? fvckin morons... seriously! how about "50 ad: christians vs. lions"? all christian non-violent games...

  33. Re:oh neat! some other ideas! by ZeoRanger · · Score: 1

    ...Better not name it "*-craft" or you're likely to get shut down by Blizzard.

    -z-

    --
    -z-
  34. Commandments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Thou shalt not kill. ...
    n) Thou shalt play Pong(tm).

    1. Re:Commandments by mythr · · Score: 1

      n+1) Thou shalt ignore commandments one through n. ;)

  35. I'm a born-again Christian by frankjr · · Score: 1

    And this is some corny shit. Back to Quake3.

    1. Re:I'm a born-again Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have 1 new message waiting for you.

  36. Next thing you know by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    ...they'll have a game out where you play a Knight Templar in the Crusades, trekking toward the Holy Land to free it from Muslim oppression but instead stopping in Constantinople to sack and loot the place.

    1. Re:Next thing you know by Lurch+Kimded · · Score: 1


      "SMACK" "SMACK" "SMACK "THUD"

      Sorry, (no offence attended to writer of above post) I just needed to vent after reading a number of these posts. It gets kind of annoying having certain things constantly thrown in your face just becuiase of your lifestyle choices.

      OK, I admit it the Crusades was a bad thing, a very bad thing done by a complete set of lunatics who used religion as an excuse to do what they pleased, stop lumbering us normal people in with them.

      Please.

      Pretty Please.

      Oh go on...

      --

      How can you say that civilisation's do not advance... in every war we invent new ways to kill you.

    2. Re:Next thing you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey. Don't forget the inquisition.
      "Let's go kill some Muslims and Jews."

      Besides, according to our illustrious leader, that Bush Bastard currently illegally occupying the White House, the crusade is still going on.

      Sorry. I just had to vent too.

    3. Re:Next thing you know by Lurch+Kimded · · Score: 1

      touché! :-)

      --

      How can you say that civilisation's do not advance... in every war we invent new ways to kill you.

    4. Re:Next thing you know by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Well, I re-read my post, and I can't seem to find the part where I lumbered normal people in with anyone else.

      I'm just saying it's a bad idea for this company to make a game with more or less the plot of Diablo II - which many Christians certainly find distasteful - and say that it's good because all of the demon slaying is done in the name of Jesus.

      By the way:

      "OK, I admit it the Crusades was a bad thing, a very bad thing done by a complete set of lunatics who used religion as an excuse to do what they pleased...."

      As I recall, it was the Pope at the time who ordered the Crusades to go forth. Of all of them, he was probably the closest to lunacy at the time - all the rest were likely caught up in mob mentality once they got to whatever destination they finally reached (only one Crusade actually reached the Holy Land, and their influence persisted in Lebanon until the mid-20th century when Muslim influence rather violently took over).

    5. Re:Next thing you know by Lurch+Kimded · · Score: 1

      I take your points, tho I must say that I of course include the pope, at that time, within my "lunatics". The Crusades and other big duff-ups of the church (in its many forms) are a subject I suppose that means a lot to me being a Christian, I guess I tend to get a bit carried away sometimes (just like in the Crusade... oh oh)

      I of course meant no offence to you personally, its not my style, I guess I just got kinda heated up after reading a bunch of the other posts, sorry.

      --

      How can you say that civilisation's do not advance... in every war we invent new ways to kill you.

  37. YOU FAIL JESUS!!! by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    I need to register that account to combat the evil hordes of Satan posing as frist postryers.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  38. Re:oh neat! some other ideas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simquisition should be a real word

  39. What does Christianity mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't good or tame video games exist on their own? Why do they have to be Christian to be nonviolent? It seems like Christian means instant good, and if we look at its sullied past (and present, GW) it really isn't. And what are violent video games? Pagan? Why are blood and gore so completely against specifically christian morals. They're against normal morals as well, but we realize it's just a freakin' game!

    1. Re:What does Christianity mean? by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you a question. If I go and kill 100 people in your name, are you instantly evil?

      Most Christians are against needless violence. No where in the new testament does it say, Kill your enemies, rather is says "Love your enemies" for even the pagans love their friends.

      It is just a game, but there is a line for most people. I'm sure most people would feel quesy about a game where you are a pedophile, with graphic images.

      Also, you will notice that computer games have followed the same path as movies. It used to be that just about every game that came out was quite clean and good. In the late 90's this started to change. Movies followed a similiar pattern it just took much longer.

      Christian games are reaction from some the games that have come out lately. Just as Christian music has become popular and more and more Christian movies have come out.

  40. Add Nauseam by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Oh Jesus ... /me walks away very quickly

  41. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of War in heaven.

  42. Finally, proof! by Omicron32 · · Score: 1

    The request cannot be processed while the Web site is restarting.

    Where's your God now, eh?

    1. Re:Finally, proof! by Lurch+Kimded · · Score: 1

      Trying to upgrade His servers to Apache ;-)

      --

      How can you say that civilisation's do not advance... in every war we invent new ways to kill you.

    2. Re:Finally, proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? God is already running the final stable utterly-hack-proof version of Apache, and has been for millenia.

      One of the benefits of being an all powerful entity.

      If he'd only release the source code...

  43. Mod the parent UP!! by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

    That's both funny and Insightful

    --
    We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  44. Re:oh neat! some other ideas! by Tyreth · · Score: 1

    The Roman Catholic church has a lot to answer for. As for pentacostals - while I don't like that group much I don't understand your reference to their desire for suicide and murder of gays, lesbians, etc?
    That part is quite obviously flamebait. Pentacostals want the conversion of those people, not their death. As for blacks and immigrants that sounds outrageous, though I guess I can imagine it happening in America some time earlier. But you can't stain the name of a group for the actions of a minority in a fixed time. You would find few/no pentacostals today that reject blacks/immigrants.

  45. commentary by jensend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A standard commentary on this is that the 'little children' is a definite KJV mistranslation, and that the people who came to him were probably adolescent boys who had been paid to bring water to sustain Jericho while the spring there was bitter (salty; the story is recounted in the four verses immediately previous to the passage you quoted, v 19-22; Jericho is below sea level near the Dead Sea and thus it wouldn't be too strange for salt water to end up in their water table). Having been deprived of their livelihood by Elisha when he healed the spring and thus eliminated the need for bringing fresh water into the city, they were outside the city jeering Elisha as he left, waiting until he came in range that they could stone him.

    I think the commentary is Talmudic and old enough that it quite possibly in some form predated the compilation of 2 Kings. I could be wrong, my memory isn't fantastic.

  46. Sounds exactly like by Kelz · · Score: 1

    Spiritual Warfare, an actually fun little NES gamethat was later ported to SNES and PC. I think I still have the 3.5" floppy for it.

  47. geez by raindog2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hit this article hoping to see a discussion of "different drummer" type games with different and more interesting playmechanics than "obtain bigger weapon, shoot monster/other player." (Seriously, I liked Doom and Duke3D a lot, but by Quake III I was wondering if there was ANYTHING else to play anymore....)

    Instead I got to relive for a moment that dark period of the 80's when born again failed record execs came around to the Catholic schools passing the hat and suggesting we all burn our "satanic" records and buy some new ones that sounded superficially the same, but with awful songwriting and a message from Jesus. Records by bands like Stryper.

    Yes, that's right, these videogames are the 21st century version of Stryper. Rock on, Christian soldiers....

    1. Re:geez by jejones · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist, but I have to defend Christian rock and rap groups, at least in principle. People have used whatever the current musical forms are for religious purposes throughout history, so why not rock, jazz, rap, tone rows, whatever? (Ever hear a polka mass? Yes, they do exist...) Religious rock is just close enough to us in time that we get to see Sturgeon's Law in effect, whereas the centuries have filtered out J. Dufus Grobnik's Schlock Oratorio in F Minor, leaving Bach, Mozart, Palestrina, et al. and giving the impression of a past golden age of religious music.

    2. Re:geez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it wasn't so much the ignorable music that turned me off as the well-coordinated and cynical marketing campaign disguised as a crusade against satanic rock. In the end, MTV even played some Stryper video for about a week.

      Christian videogames don't get as much attention (videogames serve a more narrow market and only the really mainstream ones get mainstream press coverage) but there are those of us who are turned off by excess violence who don't need to go through the same motions under the pretense of "saving" or "converting" other characters in the game. Christian videogames have been around since at least the early 80's, but to my knowledge this is close to the first time it's been posited that they're the only ones "safe for christians" the way Christian rock was billed as the only alternative to so-called Satanic music.

      If they're successful, you'll start to hear how Tetris and Chu Chu Rocket are satanic for insufficient glorification of God. If not, they'll go away for another couple years and then come back with a game that feels a lot like GTA3 only with bibles.

    3. Re:geez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, didn't mean to post anonymously. But now I'm off topic so I guess I'll have to be anonymous this time too. Sigh.

  48. Lol by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

    God & Faith are believing in the otherwise unbelievable simply because society dictates that is *right*.

    All species on a boat! lol...
    We're all decended from Adam & Eve (btw women are evil otherwise we'd still be the lovely garden). Sounds like Arkansas to me.

    Religion is the fear of the unknown personified by allowing people to buy their way to some groovie place in the sky. BTW Jesus was white and he traveled to America to chat with the American Indians too!

    If a person tried to sell this shitty writing in any other way besides "religion" people would see right through it. Unfortunately most people cannot accept that they are worthless in the grand scheme of things without becoming a depressed individual.

    In God We Trust!

    1. Re:Lol by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      God & Faith are believing in the otherwise unbelievable simply because society dictates that is *right*.

      Hmm. Is anything truly unbelieveable? Does anyone have the full spectrum of knowledge that exists? Of course not. A flashlight would be unbelieveable to a Roman. Does that mean we shouldn't believe in flashlights?

      All species on a boat! lol...

      Change that to 'all species' genetic material cataloged and coded in a single giant freezer' and it isn't quite so laughable...and really it's just a different viewpoint on how it *could* happen. I'm obviously not saying that such a thing exists, just that it really isn't a huge leap to believe it's possible. I'm not claiming that anything *did* or *did not* happen, btw, just saying that I can say the same thing in a different way to create different connotations and insinuations, just like you did.

      We're all decended from Adam & Eve (btw women are evil otherwise we'd still be the lovely garden).

      Hmm. Well, we're all descended from some common point originally. I dunno if they were called Adam and Eve. As for women being evil, I rather took that story to mean 'those who con you are evil' rather than 'those who get conned (both adam and eve, according to the story) are evil'
      also, and this is just me, it seems rather a paradox. Adam and Eve were forbidden the fruit from the tree of knowledge which would have saved them from trusting in Luficer...perhaps the fall was not avoidable? Maybe that's the *true* lesson of that story....or then again, perhaps I've gotten it completely wrong. I don't claim to have the answer.

      Religion is the fear of the unknown personified by allowing people to buy their way to some groovie place in the sky.

      You really don't know too much about religion, do you? Either that, or you are *intentionally* misrepresenting all religions in order to make a point you could not make otherwise.

      If a person tried to sell this shitty writing in any other way besides "religion" people would see right through it.

      What shitty writing are you referring to? I was unaware there was a 'all religon book' that included every religion and was sold to the masses. Perhaps you are saying that all religious writing is shit? If so, you, sir, are very close-minded.

      Unfortunately most people cannot accept that they are worthless in the grand scheme of things without becoming a depressed individual.

      On what do you base the assumption that people are worthless 'in the grand scheme of things'?
      How can someone be worthless in a 'grand scheme of things' if there *is* no 'grand scheme of things'? If there *is* a 'grand scheme of things', isn't that what religions are supposed to address?

      Clearly you dislike 'religion', although I'm fairly certain from your post that you assume all religions are Christianity or are similar. This isn't a very enlightened point of view, and minimizing others' beliefs without even attempting to understand them is illogical.
      If you wish to believe that an entire universe sprang from nothing, for no reason, with no purpose, please go ahead, but I'd like to know why that belief is any more or less ridiculous than any religon.

      I think the point here is that no one knows for sure *what's* out there. Many people have theories, and those theories are going to remain unproven until death, where your personal theory will either be proved, disproved, or changed in some unknown way. I don't claim to know what happens when we die, and anyone that does is probably lying. I know what I *believe*, but accord no more weight to that than what anyone else believes. In the absence of proof, any theory which fits the facts may be correct.
      Remember that many forward thinkers have been called insane, have been ridiculed, and have been later vindicated.
      Humans can fly. The Earth isn't flat. Here there be no monsters. Rotten meat doesn't magically turn into maggots. Saying things like this during their respe

  49. Bad name for Christains by Robo210 · · Score: 1

    I must say, as a born again Christian (as in Christian by choice and not because my relatives are) these games paint a very bad picture for Christians in general. I agree with another poster that this must be because of an untapped market because no real Christian developement team would sink to such lows by choice. It is humilating to thing somebody would expect anybody to buy these games. Anyway, just because one is a Christian does not mean that all other games are off limits. In fact, my favorite games are Continuum and Unreal Tournament 2003, which i enjoy very much for the action/gameplay. I guess I should have supected somebody would come along and do this... its a shame.

  50. Why the Gutenberg? by DarkLordHelmut · · Score: 1

    I am not entirely sure of this, but wasn't the Gutenberg bible the first printed (i e mass produced) bible? Why not guard one of the unique bibles instead?

  51. Religious games, inc. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is a small company I founded. We're current working on these titles:

    Zoraster: the return of Zarathrustra! Fight heathens, greeks, and Muslims in this action-packed adventure. 32 levels of puzzle solving fun. Don't let them call you the Jesus of Persia anymore!

    Quest for National Autonomy: Suicide Bombing as last resort. Kabloom you go in this multi-cultural tale of political infighting and intrigue. Recruit men, women, and children to fight the holy fight. (virgin cut scene only available in Europe)

    Children's Crusade: 11-14 year olds run off to the middle east to fight the good fight. Game impossible to win.

    Culture War: bring Christ back to America. Micromanage conservative pundits and media outlets to push abstinace, cover-up pedophilia, push pro-corporate views, and support the war on drugs. There is also no way to win this game.

    Greek Gods: getting it on! (adult title only) Turn into an ox and pick up chicks. Think Leisure Suit Larry, but with lightning bolts!

    Lemmings IX: Janists strike back! Control a Janist who must shoo all lemmings trying to jump over a cliff into safety. Must not step on any bugs using holy broom. Fun for the whole family!

    Caste Attack: Brahmins vs. Shudras. Play a Brahmin, a chosen superior man and punish the Shudras untouchables when they get uppity. Whips, chains, and bonus level where police don't bother investigating a shudra murder.

    Man, Rockstar has nothing on us.

    1. Re:Religious games, inc. by mink · · Score: 1

      "Caste Attack: Brahmins vs. Shudras. Play a Brahmin, a chosen superior man and punish the Shudras untouchables when they get uppity. Whips, chains, and bonus level where police don't bother investigating a shudra murder."

      Way to simple for a Rockstar game, or the Indian caste system. It should be more like:
      The Brahmin gang gets wind of the Sudra gangs intention to marry between the castes. So the Brahmin gang tells the Kasutria gang to go kill the Sudra gang while the Visha gang sells stuff to both sides.Last the untouchable gang is literally shit upon by everyone.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  52. Re: The Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be...

    Score:-1, Fire/Brimstone Worthy

  53. Re:It's no surprise... by goatan · · Score: 1

    It's hard to tell if thats a joke or your insane

    --
    Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  54. ultimate christian game by goatan · · Score: 1
    Try medieval total war itâ(TM)s the perfect Christian game. You have to keep the pope sweet or he excommunicates you, and if the opposition is excommunicated then itâ(TM)s a free for all between you and the other Christian kings to grab to there land and take his head. You can also raise crusades, train inquisitors and priests to convert heathens and pagans the fact that it is one of the finest RTS games ever made is irrelevant itâ(TM)s the killing/converting thatâ(TM)s the real aim here.

    Seriously this game reminds me every day that Religion has caused far more suffering than it has ever prevented

    --
    Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  55. "15th-century Christian" by mixMastaT · · Score: 1

    Well we all know how Holy the 15th-century Christian was. Once again Christians making people who follow Jesus' teachings look like assholes. Go figure.

  56. If it doesn't suck... by Sploozoo · · Score: 1

    I say make the games, more power to 'em. Just don't make them full of suck. Contrary to popular media opinion, violence, gore, and sexual imagery are the ingredients for a bestselling game. Unfortunately the christian creative community doesn't have such a good track record in the "not suck" arena. Remember "Bible Adventures" on NES? Or how about christian "rock". You'd think that if these guys had the power of God behind them, they'd play some kick ass tunes. But oh how this is not the case....

    1. Re:If it doesn't suck... by Sploozoo · · Score: 1

      MAJOR typo I meant popular media opinion, violence, gore, and sexual imagery are *****NOT******** the ingr

  57. So, what's wrong with just playing most games? by iainl · · Score: 1

    Right, dumb question: Name 5 popular games out there that you consider would be suitable for a ten-year-old, if only it wasn't for that darned evil Satanic message.

    Doom? In the early, good levels, where you don't get the cheesy inverted crosses, you're mostly shooting a bunch of guys with machine guns, watching their blood spray everywhere. Hardly suitable for kids anyway, is it?

    You see, most of the really good games of the last couple of years (I'm talking the likes of Mario, Frequency, Zelda, Gran Tourismo 3, Project Gotham, Amped, Super Monkey Ball and Ikaruga to pick a random personal 8) are fine for kids. The rest (say Halo and Vice City to round out a top ten) are so violent and clearly aimed at adults that quibbling about "Christian themes" seems the least thing Christians, or any responsible parent, should be worrying about.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  58. Gutenberg Bible not vernacular by Pall+Agamemnides · · Score: 1

    I already replied to this, but I just remembered something. The Gutenberg Bible wasn't a vernacular version of the Bible, but rather a Latin (and Catholic) edition.

    Here's a page on the Gutenberg Bible, including an image of one of the pages, in which you can see it's in Latin.

    1. Re:Gutenberg Bible not vernacular by Shishio · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      And a link to Big Red too, very nice. :)

      --
      Twelve fingers or one, its how you play. ~Gattaca (Vincent)
  59. Another uninformed antagonist by Vexar · · Score: 1

    Without really getting into a re-cap of several centuries of military and political history, I'd like to point out that these Muslim invaders reached the gates of Paris around 700 AD, and your glib stereotype of Christian oppression is propagated only by the undereducated or American public schools, which one might argue is an equivalence set. As long as we are going to get a smidge technical, let's turn to the Muslim holy book, the Q'uran: The Prophet said, "Before long, you the Arabs will conquer many countries and cities. Qazvin, shall be one of such places. The person who takes part in that battle for forty nights or forty days, will be given a gold pillar in paradise encrusted with jades and rubies. He will enjoy residing in a palace, having seventy thousand gates, and each gate shall be attended by a houri (virgin girl for sex) and his wife." (Ibn-E-Majah, Vol. 2, p. 169) I'm sure there's some relevant Nietsche quote that could fit in here nicely about the evils of religion, but I won't honor his memory. I think the lesson overall is that religion has been central to the themes of many wars, but that with the fall of effective monarchy (except Thailand) where a "protector of the faith" king rules the land outright, our more contemporary governments, where the government does not control the religion, and its leadership is chosen by the masses, have given us many years of relatively peaceful times. Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson's discussion of separation between church and state is how I have just said, and is not bilateral, as the ACLU puts it, but then, if you haven't read up on the history of the Middle Ages, you haven't even heard of the Federalist Papers, much less investigated the validity of this "new doctrine" of 21st century atheist lawyers. On the topic of video games, Big Idea Productions has multiple titles which are Christian-based. Sure, no ego-shooters, but the Mystery of Veggie Island is an excellent Christian title. Honestly, the lessons within that game are common to just good upbringing, they make no mention of specific theological distinctions, and teach the value of sharing and helping others. As for door-to-door evangelism, I also find it annoying when a JW (Jehovah's Witness) or Mormon comes and starts a discussion with me, finds out I'm a Christian, yet still pursues to share the "doom and freaking gloom" message of end times, naively expecting I'm unread on the subject, and easily "scared" into going to a Kingdom Hall with them. I can't imagine how that sells to an atheist. There are more loving, personal ways to invite people to attend church, and consider a new life. They don't translate to action video games, however. It is my hope, MacDaddy357, that you view this response as an invitation to explore the true history behind your views of the Crusades. Truly, you will find a far kinder balance of events than your perception has offered.

  60. Jesus action figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this is for the kids that have to play w/ Jesus action figures.

  61. Posted on a Sunday? by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

    Interesting that this post came out on a Sunday, when most (or many) Christians wouldn't be reading /., and thus wouldn't be around to contribute to the discussion until it was "old news".

    If Christians want to make video games for themselves, more power to them, but I doubt any of us need to pay them any attention unless the games are actually worth playing.

    Personally it seems like some pretty serious syncretism. If you're that serious about your faith to buy some cheezy Christian-themed video game, why not have the kids turn off the computer and pray for *real*, and actually do something in the world?