On Religious Violence And Videogame Violence

Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column discussing the violent nature of many religious texts, and how that relates to religious criticism of game violence. The piece references The Passion Of The Christ, mentioning: "The film's portrayal of the delight these men took in administering the scourging draws an alarming parallel to some claims that video games desensitize young people to violence." It then goes on to argue: "The history of opposition to games is a long one, and religion is often used to justify that opposition, though naysayers tend to ignore the fact that religion itself is a major source of violent acts", before concluding: "Frankly, the arguments for and against violence in games, as in any entertainment media, must be assessed in context or not at all."

Comments

but of course

[cassidyc]

more people have been killed in the cause of religion (crusades, inquisitions etc), that have been killed because some kid "learnt" how to aim and shoot with a mouse.

CJC

Re:but of course

[Anonymous Coward]

more people have been killed in the cause of religion (crusades, inquisitions etc)

Whoah, hang on a second there. The crusades and the inquisition were political things - the crusades were used by the Pope as an attempt to hold on to political power in the face of growing nationalism, and the Spanish Inquisition was basically an early version of McCarthyism, i.e. targetted at political dissidents. I assure you, no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind, and no inquisitor ever thought he was working for the benefit of anyone's immortal soul.

Re:but of course

[DrSkwid]

more people died from acts of god than any of man's puny attempts

Re:but of course

[Triskele]

. I assure you, no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind, and no inquisitor ever thought he was working for the benefit of anyone's immortal soul.

Sorry but that's total dross. Most inquisitors were really very devout. Some of their diaries make fascinating reading. They really believed that a little pain on Earth was better than eternal torment. The dissidents targeted were primarily religious - the huguenots and other early protestants.

The Catholic church of that time was a perfect example of how large scale religion and politics are indistinguishable. Little changes when we see Islamic fundamentalism locking horns with American Christian fundamentalism. Both are primitive regressive forms of their respective religions, but both are dominant and driven by politics as much as faith and both are leading to massacre and bloodshed of the innocents in the middle.

Re:but of course

[bigman2003]

You must be an all-knowing AC.

How is it that you can assure us that "no knight of the crusades had anything more holy than his own enrichment in mind?"

Who are you- Mel Gibson?

Re:but of course

[3rdParty]

I think your statement should read: "More people have been killed with religion as a justification, then because some kid learned to aim and shoot with a mouse."

Unless you believe that God exists, and really did speak to these people, and actually did tell them to go and kill and plunder, claiming religion is the cause of strife is putting the cart in front of the horse.

Also, since religion has been around longer than video games, it would be no surprise that more activity related to religion has taken place.

Re:but of course

[cassidyc]

"in the cause of religion" not "because of religion"

Re:but of course

[zeus_tfc]

Actually you are both right. The Inquisition started off purely religious and ended political.

The Inquisition started as a way to root out heretics, but once the various political leaders saw it working, they began to take control of it for their own purposes.

Only the focus changed, not the cruelty, but it did change.

Re:but of course

[Lady Jazzica]

And even more people have been killed in the cause of atheism (Communism).

Re:but of course

[keramida]

And even more people have been killed in the cause of atheism (Communism).

I hope you do realise that atheism is not equivalent to Communism. The former is the denial of any belief in the existence of God, while the latter is a political system. Note that even "applied communism" is different from "communism", in general.

What was it you were trying to point out? This time, without mixing up religious belief or unbelief with political theories and/or systems, please :-)

Re:but of course

[LWATCDR]

And more deaths and pain has been caused be the lust for money and power then any religion.
I tend to agree with you that the violence in most games is pretty much harm less. I loved Quake, Doom, Halflife, and unreal. However when the games loose any moral sence I have a problem. The GTA games come to mind. Truth is kids would be better of without games that make it a vitue to kill, lie, cheat, or steal. Truth be known it would also be better for kids to get of there butts and go to the beach, ride their bikes, play with other children and in general not become super couch taters.
Of course I find it funny that KMart or is Walmart will not sell music with "adult lyrics" but they sell guns, tabbaco, and beer. It all seems a little odd to me.

Re:but of course

[superyooser]

Right, most of them were political. And they weren't nearly as bad as 20th century non-religious violent episodes.

The crusades went on for hundreds of years and resulted in the murders of tens of thousands of people. The Spanish Inquisition lasted over 300 years and resulted in the murder of 300,000 people.

But in 1994 alone, the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda. Mao Tse Tung's regime massacred 26.3 million Chinese between 1949 and May 1965. By 1971, about 62 million Chinese had been murdered. From October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev, 66.7 million were killed in the U.S.S.R. None of the aggressors acted because of religion, except in certain cases for the purpose of wiping it out.

(Sources for figures cited within this page.)

Re:but of course

[superyooser]

Anti-Christian bigots' insistence on going back centuries ago to condemn "Christianity" shows just how non-"regressive" our Christianity must be (if we buy the notion that the inquisitions were even truly Christian).

Secondly, the inquisitions ended before the founding of the united states of America, so it is disingenious to associate them with "American Christian fundamentalism." The founders weren't even Spanish, and I'm quite sure that George Washington, while a war general, was not a Crusader. (He was born a little late for that. ;-)

Re:but of course

[Triskele]

You've clearly never heard of the New England witch trials then.

Re:but of course

[superyooser]

The witch trials were a very brief episode that lasted for one whole year! 1692. I wouldn't even consider it American in any sense, because it was well before the colonists gained independence. Heck, their hair was still wind-blown from the trip across the Atlantic on the Mayflower. Nobody involved in those trials would have been alive in the 1770s when the Constitution was being drafted.

IIRC, the New England witch trials were mostly localized to Salem. The hysteria started to spread, and one other nearby town executed some witches. The total number executed in the Salem Inquisition was a whopping 25. The number executed in the rest of New England was less than that. Probably more people get killed in Los Angeles and Miami ethnic gang violence in a month than all the alleged witches ever executed in New England, but we don't hear about a Los Angeles Inquisition. Maybe if they carried Bibles, we would.

It should also be noted that many of the accusations of witchcraft were nothing more than personal vendettas. The hysteria got so crazy that some people thought they could get away with accusing people they hated of practicing witchcraft. Christianity had little or nothing to do with it. Just sinful, human nature. Move along, nothing to see here.

correction

[Anonymous Coward]

more people have been killed in the cause of religion (crusades, inquisitions etc), that have been killed period. ;)

Re:correction

[cassidyc]

Though it would be interesting to know if more counterstrike terrorists/counterterrorists have been killed

Re:correction

[fuzzybunny]

Which brings up a pretty valid point:

With all this bitching about how religion X is so gory and religion Y is peaceful and video games make people violent satanists and religious lunatics are hypocrites and bla bla bla, I got to thinking.

I wonder whether training a whole generation of pimply high school students on proper counterterrorism tactics wouldn't actually be a pretty handy thing to have around when your civilization is under threat from bomb carrying suicidal maniacs?

Re:correction

[Anonymous Coward]

In re your training idea: it depends on how easy it is to download a wallhack in real life.

Re:correction

[Lars T.]

I'm much more scared of pimply high school students (and other people) with sniper rifles and other weapons, in combination with an unrealistic view of reality they got from a video game hunting down people they think are terrorists than of some bomb carrying suicidal maniacs.

Re:correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"...when your civilization is under threat from bomb carrying suicidal maniacs?? ... or Christians...

Re:correction

[fuzzybunny]

Ya you're absolutely right, but in most western countries, it's considered a bit of a faux pas to nail someone with a rocket launcher in public unless he's carrying a bomb.

Re:correction

[j-turkey]

...violent satanists...

I know that your point has nothing to do with this, but I just wanted to bring up that Satanism is still a Chritsian construct. Whenever bringing up Satanism a context like this, it's important to remember that it's both an embrace and a rejection of the Christian faith.

Re:correction

[sonamchauhan]

Satanism ... an embrace and a rejection of the Christian faith

That's akin to saying: "Nazism is primarily a Jewish construct... an embrace and a rejection of the Jewish diaspora.". i.e. Vague nonsense.

Be clearer with your words.

Re:correction

[Qzukk]

What if they're carrying my team's flag?

Re:correction

[j-turkey]

That's akin to saying: "Nazism is primarily a Jewish construct... an embrace and a rejection of the Jewish diaspora.". i.e. Vague nonsense.

Be clearer with your words.

No, it's not that far out -- and Nazism was far different from simply just latching onto a different part of the Jewish ideal. Nazim was a combination of an imperialistic effort and a hatred of anything other than "pure" German. The difference should be clear. In order for one to be "satanic", one has to believe in the Christian concepts of God, Satan, Heaven and Hell. It actively embraces the core beliefs. However, it is also a rejection of the traditional worship of God and the Christian sense of "good". To go back to your abstraction; wthout Judiasm, Nazism would have still existed...they'd have just found someone else to persecute (Gypsies, Homosexuals, Blacks, etc) along with the various other Nazi ideals.

I don't know enough about Islam to know if there are any parallels between that and Satanism. However, the parallels between Satanism and Judiasm are virtually nonexistant, since there really is no formal concept of Heaven, Hell, or Satan. The thing to remember here is (AFAIK) Satan is a Christian construct -- Satanism is a product of Christianity...for one to practice Satansim, one must accept many of the core Christian beliefs.

Still vague nonsense?

Re:correction

[JonathanBoyd]

However, the parallels between Satanism and Judiasm are virtually nonexistant, since there really is no formal concept of Heaven, Hell, or Satan.

At the very least, heaven and hell are mentioned in Isaiah and Satan in Job.

Re:correction

[j-turkey]

At the very least, heaven and hell are mentioned in Isaiah and Satan in Job.

Yes, they are mentioned in the old testament, but ask any Rabbi about an afterlife (or ressurection). You'll likely get a different answer depending on the Rabbi, but I've pretty consistently been asked the same question back "what do you think?".

Re:correction

[JonathanBoyd]

Of course, if you ask a Rabbi about who the Messiah is or whether God is a trinity o not, you'll get different answers to what a Christian would say. At the end f the day, I'm more concerned about what the Bible actually says, rather than what people claim it does.

Re:correction

[j-turkey]

At the end f the day, I'm more concerned about what the Bible actually says, rather than what people claim it does.

While what the bible "says" is interesting, in this context, it's more important how it's widely interpreted however. What the bible "says" is hardly relevant anyway, because it's a translation of a translation (unless you speak Aramaic as well as other really old languages). Our current bible is already an interpretation (because you can't translate without interpreting, especially when it's a document written thousands of years ago -- there are cultural differences, etc.).

I see where you're coming from, but what's important to me (in a cultural discussion, like this one) is how the text is applied and interpreted across relegions and sects. To go back to Judiasm, the Old Testament may say one thing, but a Rabbi may say one thing, the Torah may say another, and the Talmud may say another. Maybe I used a bad example because Judiasm is a little different in that regard -- it seems less organized than most sects of Christianity -- Judiasm tends to stress the core beliefs and leave alot for the congregation and the individual to decide on.

Re:correction

[sonamchauhan]

The _written_ originals of the new testament Bible were in Greek since they quotes Aramaic phrases that Jesus said, then provide their (Greek) translation. Also, Greek was a common language known by many educated people of the time, and functioned as a bridge language for the multiple ethnicities of the area and the Jews outside of Israel, much like English does today (More documentation).

Having said that though...

> Our current bible is already an interpretation
> (because you can't translate without interpreting,
> especially when it's a document written thousands
> of years ago -- there are cultural differences, etc.).
All communication has to interpreted - including that in the discussion we are having. And, depending on the communication and the interpreters, people can do fine job at it.

Humbly, sir, consider two common forms of arrogance:

1. One is not to know something, but think one knows.
   
2. The other, more insidious, is not to know, and think that no one else can possibly know.
   

You seem to have the second form of arrogance with regards to the Bible. After all, you're talking about the most comprehensively documented ancient text. Also, Greek classics like Plato's republic, or the Illiad have much less documentary evidence.

Re:correction

[j-turkey]

All communication has to interpreted - including that in the discussion we are having. And, depending on the communication and the interpreters, people can do fine job at it.

No way, dude. When you translate, you interpret -- on a far different level than this discussion (that's a bad comparison, anyway). We are writing in the same language, and we are communicating in the same time span (not 1200 years apart), the message is relativly clear. (And I'm not 100% certain about the time differential here) but the time differential between the Greek, Aramaic, various other languages and English (to get to the King James English version) are around 600-1200 years (again, more or less). With such a differential in time, there are a few thing you need to understand: First, (and I repeat) you need to interpret to translate. Second, times change. Colloquialisms, culture, morality, ethics, even humor: These things change over time -- and over a vast period of time, they change vastly. Much of this culture is lost forever. We may never know what the authors really meant.

Finally, I think you're speaking in typical religous double-talk. I do not feel that my beliefs are out of arrogance -- and I respectfully view your post as typical Judeo-Christian intolerance for another viewpoint having something to do with your beliefs. I've studied your bible. It's the doctrine that, like it or not, much of our culture is built on. It sounds like you're a believer, which tends to make your views on the topic less-than-objective. I don't believe in the god, or the bible that you believe in...and what you write just tastes of an opinion of religous faith -- it can't be reasoned with, it can't be changed. Actually, this has to do with one of the reasons why the bible is an interpretation -- it was translated by true believers. How can one be objective about a document when they already have an accepting, absolutely non-critical, belief in the subjective, meta-physical ideals in the bible -- a document that their entire belief system is created around? I don't think that it can be done. So why are we even discussing this? It's pointless.

Re:correction

[sonamchauhan]

Dude, yup, yup yup, when you translate, you interpret and the interpretation is at a different level when it's between languages. So what? English is not my native tongue either. And as for the time span, it's funny how God (yes, I am a believer) chose such a language (Greek) to effectively record the New Testament Bible that had a huge body of literature already exant and surviving that made translation *very* possible from Koine Greek (the variant of Greek used in the New Testament) to any other language. Remember Greek was the English of the day. And it can be very effectively translated today due to the *huge* body of similarly translated non-Biblical literature exant -- remember modern Western society (of which I am not a member anyway) is essentially *based* on these non-Biblical Greek literature.

For instance, have you heard of the phrase "leave no stone unturned"? It's origin is ancient Greek and it is effectively used here to disambiguate the finer meaning of a Bible verses that uses the same word.

> First, (and I repeat) you need to interpret to translate.
I hear ya. And I repeat, you need to interpret to _communicate_. And translators can do a really good job with Biblical translations, thanks to the huge body of work available.

> Second, times change. Colloquialisms, culture, morality, ethics, even humor:
Some things change, some things remain the same. To wave your hands in the air and say "everything changes, nothing can be understood" is to hide your head in the sand and ignore the obvious. You really don't have an excuse to not understand God's word.

> differential between the Greek, Aramaic, various other languages and English
It's fairly obvious that you have not studied the Bible with anything close to the diligence and intellectual effort the Bible translators did. Its immature and churlish of you to grossly underestimate their work and insist that due to _your_ ignorance, _they_ couldn't possibly have done a thorough job at translation. Or mutter "blind faith"... "conflict of interest" to conveniently brush their work aside.

> I respectfully view your post as typical Judeo-Christian intolerance
> for another viewpoint having something to do with your beliefs.
Hey, I am Christian (not Judeo-Christian), and I am not intolerant either (I used to be Hindu). I'm just pointing out the facts. What you choose to do - whether you decide to honestly inspect them, or decide to live in a fatal ignorance, is your choice.

> Actually, this has to do with one of the reasons why
> the bible is an interpretation -- it was translated by true believers.
So? It was (mostly) translated by true believers. Remember some tenets of Christianity are: "don't mess with God's word" and "be honest". Are you telling me tens of thousands of Bible copyists and translators would somehow disobey these tenets just so your distorted worldview hangs together? -- that's laugable! You need a reality check (and I hope you got it)

> How can one be objective about a document when they already have an accepting,
> absolutely non-critical, belief in the subjective, meta-physical ideals in the
> bible -- a document that their entire belief system is created around?
There you go again, implying that you use your brain, but the "believers" don't. More arrogance, born out of ignorance and quite possibly some silly pride. God gave _me_ a brain too, and he meant me to use it. Since I used to be a evolutionist humanist (quite like you it seems) and I held the Bible in not a little contempt, when I finally decided to seriously seek God, and ended up believing into Jesus Christ, I had trouble accepting parts of the Bible. So I asked God for help. And he did: apparently serendipitiously, I found peer-reviewed scientific papers in mainstream secular scientific journals that matched what the Bible said.

> I don't think that it can be done. So why are we even discussing this? It's pointless.
I urge you for your own sake to seek God. If you're interested, contact me either in this thread or by email and I can point you to what I found.

Re:correction

[j-turkey]

So? It was (mostly) translated by true believers. Remember some tenets of Christianity are: "don't mess with God's word" and "be honest". Are you telling me tens of thousands of Bible copyists and translators would somehow disobey these tenets just so your distorted worldview hangs together?

Well, remember that "god's word" has to be interpreted by the prophets as well (which kind of makes it hearsay, doesn't it?)... I'm not telling you that the tenents were disobeyed for me. This has nothing to do with me. It was so their (and your) "distorted" (your words, not mine) worldview hangs together. I'm not saying that anyone is lying here...but I'm saying that based on who translates and interprets it, and what their motives are, it's a suspicous doctrine. You can't possibly tell me that the message from eons ago is still clear when Americans still can't agree on what the spirit of the constitution was 200 years ago. The US Constitution is even in its original language, and without any extraneous mythology and we can't agree on what it meant. Everyone carries their own interpretation away. How is the bible (and a translation, noless) be any different?

There you go again, implying that you use your brain, but the "believers" don't.

It's not like that. Look, I can accept that science is a religon in the loosest sense (in that it tries to describe our origins). Basic judeo-christian ideals tend to rely on the metaphysical and subjective. The modern scientific method relies on repeatable methods to observe and prove/disprove others obervation (and interpretation of) certain phonomea (the objective). The two can only coexist on a very limited basis. At a certain point, the two become mutually exclusive, because the phonomena of god is not directly observable (or even indirectly). There are no repeatable experienents that will ever allow us to prove the existance of god. Anythign that cannot be explained by science will be explained by Christian mythology. When something is explained differently from the biblical mythology, part of the (Christian) community embraces the idea, and the more conservative part of the community will call it a tool of the devil. Case in point (and this has nothing to do with evolution) -- do you believe that the world is only 10,000 years old?

I urge you for your own sake to seek God. If you're interested, contact me either in this thread or by email and I can point you to what I found.

You seem like a nice enough guy and all, and are clearly intelligent, but I don't believe in any god, or any subjective metaphysical ideals. Furthermore, I don't believe in absolute good and evil -- I find this concept most distasteful and highly dangerous. I also feel that organized religion is responsible for a significant chunk of suffering in this world...and it continues to be. No thank you -- I do not want to involve myself with that, and will never participate in your religion.

Re:correction

[sonamchauhan]

> Well, remember that "god's word" has to be interpreted
> by the prophets as well (which kind of makes it hearsay, doesn't it?)...

Yes. God's word was _recorded_ by the prophets. Which brings me to the point I made: All communication involves interpretation, and serious people can do a pretty good job at both. Regarding your comment about "hearsay", scripture itself has a very objective test of it's own validity when it was being recorded:
Deut. 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
The false prophets were also killed. This is obviously an effective way to weed out false prophets.

> The US Constitution is even in its original language, and without
> any extraneous mythology and we can't agree on what it meant.
More handwaving. If most people truly couldn't agree what the US constitution _meant_, there would be _much_ more _anarchy_ than there is now. But know this: the constitution is an imperfect instrument. It was written by several selfish and imperfect people. It is sometimes contradictory in letter and spirit. It is sometimes in need of constitutional amendments to *improve* it. *And*, on top of that people sometimes dispute what the words actually mean (but that's why the courts exist).

For instance, despite pre-constitutional documents proclaiming how obvious it is that "all men are created equal", certain phrases in them suggest the superiority of the white race. The original founding fathers themselves condoned slavery. The constitution itself had phrases that condone slavery by talking about handling of escaped slaves (give them back). That's why the republican party was founded (to abolish slavery by amending the constitution if necessary).

> How is the bible (and a translation, noless) be any different?

1. The Bible is perfect.
   
2. The Bible is explicitly not subject to amendment. It stands or falls on its own, according to what the original stated.
   
3. The Bible is well translated and (repeating this is getting tiresome) there is a huge corpus of work to support the validity of the translation. Look - if you disagree with this point anymore; you having studied the Bible yourself, why don't you just try to prove your point by stating _your opinion_ of a specific invalidly translated scripture (_not_ a secondhand "Googled" opinion - your opinion).
   
4. It makes prophecy of the world around you, far in advance of the actual happenings. When the predicted events happen, God expects you to believe what he said (Repeat: he's asking you to use your brain). For eg: (a) when science corroborates what the Bible says, or when (b) prophecy is corrobarated by events in human history (like the current happenings in the middle east).
   

> do you believe that the world is only 10,000 years old?
It is about 6000 years old. That is the date I spoke earlier about that I had trouble honestly accepting. And the evidence (that I think God gave me) from genetics is summarized here. (Note, everything cited is mainstream peer-review, non-Christian, published scientific work.) The correlation between the work cited in the NYTimes article and Genesis Chapter 10 (the "Table of Nations") amazed me in particular.

religion as argument..

[gl4ss]

..is used blankly on just about anything one with religious position wants.

it can be used to justify *any* opinion about *anything* and it has been used too. yealous about your neighbour? well your neighbour obviously did a pact with the devil and must die! well not that straightforward most of the time but you get the point.. one should be wary of any unfounded argument pulled from somebodys hat, no matter who he is(as made up arguments against something are usually just something used to enforce superstition or some to get some personal goal through).

Re:religion as argument..

[obsid1an]

The reason why religion seems to be such a good argument to people like these is because there really is no way to effectively argue against it. The difference between religion and science is that only science can be proven wrong. Religion can't.

Re:religion as argument..

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Religion can be proven wrong. Let's first start with your statement that science can be proven wrong. I am going to assume you meant instances of scientific experimentation can be proven wrong - not that the entire scope of all that is science can be proven wrong in one swoop. Thus, your second statement that religion cannot be proven wrong is false if I can prove one religion incorrect. Take any doomsday cult that has predicted an end-date for the universe that has come and gone. Obviously these religions have been proven wrong. Thus, religion can be proven wrong.

What you meant to say is that with most religions, the ability to prove the beliefs incorrect is severely limited by the nature of the beliefs. For instance, the belief that Jesus will have a second coming is difficult to prove because it cannot be proven in the affirmative until he comes back and it really can't be proven in the negative. But there are hypotheses in science that are similar to this. Theories can be proposed that will only manifest over eons. These are difficult to prove because you need those eons to pass by in some cases. Furthermore, any proof in the negative could be countered with some sort of statement regarding a miscalculation on the timeframe and that a longer amount of time needs to go by.

In short, religion can be proven incorrect and science can be proven incorrect.

Re:religion as argument..

[IndigoDarkwolf]

I'm reminded of when the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series aired, back in the late-80's-slash-early-90's. There was so much effort placed on being non-offensive. Nevertheless, the presence of a wizard in the party wasn't what inflamed religous zealots--- it was the thief. -_-

People need to stop giving good religions a bad name.

Re:religion as argument..

[Tyreth]

Well said. It annoys me when people make ignorant claims like this, because it shows wishful thinking.

Re:religion as argument..

[Tyreth]

Arg. That's such a terrible example. How many people do you know would say, "gee I don't like my neighbour getting that new car I want. That must be because he's made a pact with the devil!". I'm not sure where you live, but down here we don't think like that. And anyway, just because such conclusions have a religious foundation does not mean they are right. They may have justified it using religion x, but religion x actually says something the opposite. And anyone can do the same with science - make up one reason why something took place, when in fact something else is true.

An idea for a game.

[tai_Dasher]

GTA: The Second Coming
You'll play jesus come again (voiced by Willem DeFoe), wreaking havoc in Jerusalem by converting people.
Using a shotgun and a Katana.
You'll get to drive a flaming chariot and turn water into funk.

Re:An idea for a game.

[The Other White Boy]

Reprising his role, eh...

I'd buy it.

Christ vs. Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is great. It brings up major points on both sides and addresses a very sensitive issue in a way that should make most people stop and think.

I think, though, that there still is a fundamental difference between media like Passion of the Christ and a violent game.
In this particular movie, (though I have not seen it) I believe there was a message for people of religion, to look upon a man they believed in and see what he went through specifically for them. The violence was there as a tool to make people think in one specific way (as religion is so oft to do).

However in most games the violence either exists for the sake of violence itself (Doom; because its fun to blow up enemies), or merely as a more exciting vice for conflict (Counterstrike, which could be developed with nearly the same mechanics using a more innocent, but less gripping, theme).

Still, killer article. Glad to see people tackling such great subjects. True gaming journalism is NOT dead, it's just out of the limelight.

Re:Christ vs. Doom

[Haeleth]

I think, though, that there still is a fundamental difference between media like Passion of the Christ and a violent game . . . in most games the violence either exists for the sake of violence itself (Doom; because its fun to blow up enemies)

Let me tell you a little story.

Once there were some people who, in the course of a foolish experiment, accidentally opened a way for the forces of hell to enter the world. Demons roamed the earth. Then one man came along and fought them. He descended into the very depths of hell, fighting demons all the way, and defeated the lord of all demons before making his escape.

Is that the plot for Doom, or is it the classic Christian stories of the Garden of Eden and the Harrowing of Hell? Why, it could be either! The only major differences between the two are that Christ doesn't use rocket launchers, while the Doom guy doesn't rescue the souls of virtuous Jews.

Now tell me again how violence in video games is different from violence in religious stories? ;)

Re:Christ vs. Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand how you could see that, however people do not play Doom for the story. They play because it is fun to detonate an enemy at 50 yards away with a rocket launcher. ;)

That is why I feel that in games the violence is done for the sake of being violent. There are movies that are the same way, but in the case of Passion of the Christ I seriously doubt that Mel Gibson started off with the idea "let's make a gory movie!"

Re:Christ vs. Doom

[Mr. Shiny And New]

How about, Christ generally didn't use violent means; in the end he gave up his life to make his point? At the time he was arrested he had enough followers to raise an army. So it's truly different from the Doom story.

Doom just caters to our tendencies to enjoy violence, and provides an arena for us to wallow in. The fact that there are "demons" is irrelevant; just replace "army of demons suddenly attacking" with "army of aliens suddenly attacking" or "army of terrorists suddenly attacking" and you have the same game with different sprites.

Re:Christ vs. Doom

[Lars T.]

Yeah, but his followers did not not form an army because they were so peacefull, but because they were chicken.

Re:Christ vs. Doom

[keoghp]

God mode by default - nice

Re:Christ vs. Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ may not have used violent means, but that does not make him a non-violent person.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

If you order people to commit violence, that makes you a violent person just as if you were committing the violence yourself. Telling people to commit the violence right in front of you makes you a pretty violent person.

And if you take the bible and it's violence, and any other violent book, its the same story, just different words.

This topic always irks me

[j.bellone]

Okay, let me first start out with what I always argue this with:

You show me a gun that has a mouse and moniter to aim it with, and I'll show you a priest that doesn't molest children.

The fact is that the church simply uses the topic of games to force people to look away from it's real problems. One being that they lost their control over the world's countries. The second being that they have so much corruption in their system that it makes Windows look better alongside a Linux array.

Is there problems in some games? Of course, but that is why they are rated mature. You can't blame a developer like id because they develop a game that 95 percent of their fans enjoy but the other 5 percent is sue happy.

Bottom line, parents make sure your children play the games that are meant for them.

I'm glad my parents didn't enforce this rule on me, and look at me, I turned out alright... yeah...

Re:This topic always irks me

[torpor]

Bottom line, parents make sure your children play the games that are meant for them.

This argument neglects the fact that there are many children without parents, who do not have guidance from above on making moral choices based on 'media' they have in front of them.

It is for these children that traditional religion toils, as it always has, as anti-religion zealots seem all too ready to forget. The world is not a 3.5-children-per-house-picket-white-fence ...

Re:This topic always irks me

[jmpoast]

If you are insinuating that there are a number of children running around with no adult supervision/guidance, then they have much bigger problems than violent videogames.

Re:This topic always irks me

[FortKnox]

The fact is that the church simply uses the topic of games to force people to look away from it's real problems.

Troll troll troll (yet I'm biting).
First of all, you speak of Catholics, not Christians when you speak of 'corruption' with the priests and all. Not only that, but they HAVE been speaking against games long before that ever came up.

That being said, I'm a Christian (raised Catholic) that has played video games all my life. Its all about knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. I've played violent video games constantly. When I see a car wreak I don't smile and drive away... I cringe in horror and try to help out. That's cause I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Those that can't? Well... violent video games are the least of their problems...

Now, its also something to note that 'religion' isn't the ones really crying out against violent video games... its usually overly strict parents and parents that want their children to see/hear no evil. The problem is the media spin and people shouting out about not knowing one side from the other. For example, the Catholic Church has agreed that Harry Potter is a good book and children can read it. I bet you either don't believe me, or are surprised to hear it. That's cause you talk from a perspective of knowing games, but not really knowing what the religions are doing/saying. Its the same thing with the religions and the parents... they speak knowing the religion, just not the games (or have ever really gotten into it). I try to stay in the middle and tell you both to quit getting your panties in a bunch and pay attention to your kids. If they exhibit violent behavior or an apathy to violence, its not the video games, but a problem with your child (if they didn't have violent video games, it'd be violent movies, or violence on the news, etc...).

I'd go on about how this country is so anal about nudity but fine with violence (except in games), when the rest of the world is the opposite, but I'll contain myself ;-)

Re:This topic always irks me

[torpor]

its not 'insinuation', its fact. there are a lot of un-parented kids in the world - do you really want generations to grow up, unsupervised, unguarded, with the notion that human slaughter, death and mayhem are a commercial substance made viable by our society and propagated?

society is already value-less enough as it is. why should our commercial art forms -only- be used to further debase these values even further?

i'm not for censorship and enforcement on the issue of culture and art-forms, but if there is a continual refusal to take responsibility for the relationship of trash media to moral decay, then we either a) continue to live with Columbines, or b) structure our society in a way that encourages positivity, rather than entropy and death worship.

just because the religious get involved in this debate does not mean that it is without merit, nor that it is important for society to consider the validity of the "health of the mob" when dealing with the spread or entropy of morality ... religions have been having these arguments longer than most -isms around, anyway ...

Re:This topic always irks me

[j.bellone]

I was raised Roman Catholic, although right now I'm more so of a person who doesn't believe in religion (because of no proof to myself). But that really has nothing to do with the post.

But yes, I was talking about Cathloics because that is what I relate to... my bad :).

Re:This topic always irks me

[j.bellone]

He is right, there are many kids that are un-parentented (he doesn't mean by not having parents... just parents don't "parent" them). But this is also true that they have bigger problems than worrying about video games.

Stores should be held liable for selling a game to a kid much like movie thearters are held liable for bringing a minor into a R-rated movie. It's just that we've been de-sensitized by the whole movie scene and games are popping up now as a "newer" entertainment industry.

Re:This topic always irks me

[j.bellone]

You cannot blame the entertainment industry for a kid that goes on a killing spree. That's the guardian's problem. You are suppose to know when your "kin" is going crazy, there are signs. It's just that you choose to ignore them.

Do you see kids killing people because they saw it in the movies? Yes - there have been. But was it later deemed the movie's fault, the publisher's fault, the movie thearter's fault?

Where's the limit of blame here? Instead of looking at the person who makes the game for a specific audience, how about look at the person who should be responscible?

Re:This topic always irks me

[jmpoast]

society is already value-less enough as it is. why should our commercial art forms -only- be used to further debase these values even further?

Our commercial art forms arent 'only' being used that way. There are plenty of non-violent, and even educational games out there (they just dont get as much press).

It is the parents, or guardians, job to watch over their children. It is their job to keep them from playing emotionally damaging video games at young ages.

If the children do not have this supervision and guidance, then yes they will be affected by these games. But if you take away the games the problem still exists. The children will still not have the guidance they need to properly develop values, and will most likely be degraded by other means (movies, drugs etc).

Violent video games are not the problem, parents are. The games are just one median which unsupervised children can be adversely affected by. It's not the games fault, they weren't made for young children. If you take away the games, you'll have to take away the movies, and the news, and every other form of media that could affect children if their careless parents allowed them to experience them. Do that and you leave no entertainment for the rest of us. That's not the world I want to live in.

Re:This topic always irks me

[torpor]

You are suppose to know when your "kin" is going crazy, there are signs. It's just that you choose to ignore them.


WTF? are we talking about moral human responsibility, or the New World Order? sig Heil, my sons & daughters, and don't show signs of disorder!

it is this 'coffeeshop psychology' that is the problem. morals don't allow people to scientificially and rigorously categorize each other and asses someones entire worth/value/behaviour on the basis of so-called 'empirical standards of behaviour'. are you the one who's gonna define those so-called 'warning signs', buddy? because if you are i wanna see your -full- qualifications. show me your papers, comrade, and tell me what school of in vogue pop psychology you are currently subscribed to!

morals, which are -vital- to human society, simply give each human a basis of association, a way for two people to relate to each other. if i know you are a pr0n-hoarding-sex-fiend, and i happen to not be one, then we have a basis of understanding and prediction in the ways we can consequently relate. if, instead, you've got some relativistic 'chart' in your head that lists 'warning signs' that i'm gonna become a homocidal maniac, and are always placing me on it, then there's -always- going to be Columbines.. because there is no way i'm going to stand for such discriminatory behaviour.

anything less than a moral association between two or more humans is a fascist-tainted system. those Columbine kids were American Fascists, whose value systems were entirely based on corrupted coffeeshop pscyhology.

Where's the limit of blame here? Instead of looking at the person who makes the game for a specific audience, how about look at the person who should be responscible?

well, why not cover -all- angles, and even regulate those who would covertly use culture and art to moderate and control behaviour of citizenry on a massive level? videogame developers are far, far, far from being innocent purveyors of need and moral substance ... why shouldn't hardware-accelerated 3D virtual universes be prevented from becoming hyper-tense bloodbath and gore/war simulation vehicles for all the mad doctors^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdirectors to use to perpetuate their mind games on society? oh, wait, maybe you don't think that happens ... too 'fantastic' an ideal for you ...

anyway ... surely, in the virtual world, murder is still murder? why must we glorify it and allow people to profit from the propagation of the ideal of mass murder, rewarded?

(thats what the average FPS is: rewarded murder)

Re:This topic always irks me

[torpor]

It is the parents, or guardians, job to watch over their children. It is their job to keep them from playing emotionally damaging video games at young ages.

well, since society is actually composed of indidivuals who cannot exist without parents, its soooo easy to 'blame the parents for the child'.

society, and members of society, do have a responsibility for the raising and education of future generations. yes, this starts with the family and the parents, but above and beyond that, there is -still- a degree of responsibility in our society for kids. perhaps this is a moral value rarely displayed in this decadant age, but i believe it is ignorant to keep parroting 'parents are resonsible for societies problems' every time society has horrible problems on its hands as a result of some young terror.

'blame the parent' is a trendy zombie dance, mostly parroted by people whose responsibility for social consequence is highly dubious in any regard ...

the issue of regulation of video games stems from one thing: profit. should we allow commerce and industry to profit from the broad simulation of violence, death, mayhem and turmoil? aren't societies supposed to protect its citizens from the effects of such madness in the human sphere?

to give a generation of children the ideals and sensibilities behind the differences between a 'head shot', a 'knife sneak', and reward them for exhibiting skills in differentiating the effectiveness of various kill methods ... are you -SO- sure you want 7 or 8 year old boys over-dosing on sugar and methamphetamines after a 32-hour session to brave those moral waters so young?

its not 'freedom' we're giving that sort of kid. it is conditioning. 8 hours spent blowing away zombies is 8 hours not spent learning moral applicability or pro-social behaviour.

i'd be very happy for there to be limits on how much profit a company can make from luring my kids into that world, if i had kids, and was a parent...

Re:This topic always irks me

[Anonymous Coward]

You show me a gun that has a mouse and moniter to aim it with,

I get your point, but please, look at the weapon systems the US Army is using and developing (aiming sniper rifles with a PDA? "Point and kill"?). Granted, those aren't available to the general public, but really, we are seeing weaponry that behaves just like a game. It might be possible that some nutjob creates a similar device with some LEGO and a webcam (and, of course, a gun) and starts killing people like in a video game. Not very effective, probably stopped pretty fast, but technically possible.

Re:This topic always irks me

[MMaestro]

The second being that they have so much corruption in their system that it makes Windows look better alongside a Linux array.

Heresy! Lets burn him at the stake!

Re:This topic always irks me

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Of course. Organized religion invariably encourages poor parents to have children that they can't afford to raise. All the more better to raise religious zombies.

Organized religion "toils" for no one but itself. It does "good works" simply to preserve what is left of its power.

Re:This topic always irks me

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Bullshit. An irresponsible parent is not an excuse to censor MY entertainment. It's an excuse to jail the parent as negligent and make the child a ward of the state, but it's not MY problem. Stupid people should not breed.

Entertaining games == Rewarded murder? you're a fucking idiot. And a demagogue.

Police your own kids and keep your laws off my entertainment.

Re:This topic always irks me

[torpor]

a cynical view indeed. i hope your children never need a burn unit.

Re:This topic always irks me

[torpor]

Stupid people should not breed.

Fascist. I suppose you are the one who defines stupid, eh?

Entertaining games == Rewarded murder? you're a fucking idiot. And a demagogue.

One mans entertainment is another mans murder. The Romans learned that lesson ... seems America is up next.

Re:This topic always irks me

[AlternateSyndicate]

The fact is that the church simply uses the topic of games to force people to look away from it's real problems. One being that they lost their control over the world's countries. The second being that they have so much corruption in their system that it makes Windows look better alongside a Linux array.

Since this is a "fact", perhaps you'd like to back it up by citing a time when "the church" has spoken out against video games. I'm going to go out on a very long limb and assume that by "the church" you mean the Catholic Church. When has the Pope ever talked about video games? I haven't seen anything from any church that touches on this issue. All I've seen is media assassination and some crazy lawsuits.

I think that for the general public the violent video game dispute flies under the radar. No one cares about it except game news sites, advocacy groups (which usually aren't linked to "the church", whatever that means), and that stupid lawyer that's trying to get rich off the deaths of kids in schools. (Jack Thompson?)

Killing in the cause of Religion

[AnwerB]

> more people have been killed in the cause of
> religion (crusades, inquisitions etc)

More people have been killed in the cause of *xenophobia* than have been killed in the 'cause' of religion.

Christianity didn't tell the crusaders to slaughter all the men, women, and children in Jerusalem when they surrendered. It didn't tell them to rape the nuns when they took Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Islam didn't tell the terrorists to fly a plane into a building.

Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War', but there are several rules of engagement for combat in Islam:

- Treaties must be upheld.
- Cannot kill innocents/non-combatants.
- If the enemy seeks quarter, give it to them.
- Prisoners are never tortured, and fed well.
- Declaration of war unless you are occupied.
- Cannot destroy churches, synagogues, etc.
- Cannot destroy property, trees, animals, etc.
- Should try to reach an agreement first.
- No religious compulsion or coercion should ensue.
- Give prisoners of war a chance for freedom.
- Bury the dead with dignity.

The Qur'an describes those people who are permitted to fight:

[Quran 8:61]"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."

[Quran 4:90]"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."

However frustration and the feeling of impotence makes people willing to believe anything. I don't think that religion is the cause of all evil - I think it's evil people that are the cause of all evil.

Re:Killing in the cause of Religion

[CannibalCrowley]

The problem with this argument is that religious people inherently ignore parts of their religion that don't support their personal goals. Add this to problems with translation and interpretation at that's why so many people have been killed in the name of religion (it's also why there are so many Christian sects).

Re:Killing in the cause of Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity didn't tell the crusaders to slaughter all the men, women, and children in Jerusalem when they surrendered. It didn't tell them to rape the nuns when they took Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Islam didn't tell the terrorists to fly a plane into a building.

Sure. It's like the Onion story God Angrily Clarifies "Don't Kill" Rule.

Most major religions are like Flash for web development: 99% of the people involved cock it up, so it's difficult to not blame Flash. Same goes for religion: when practically everyone you meet perverts a religion in some fundamentally unsound way, it's difficult to not blame religion.

Re:Killing in the cause of Religion

[Theosis]

Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War'

That's the funny thing. There isn't any.

As an Arab Christian myself, I'm glad.

Re:Killing in the cause of Religion

[Tyreth]

Well then, isn't that a problem with the people, and not the religion?

Re:Killing in the cause of Religion

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Not when the religion serves no other purpose but to be an excuse for such actions. THat and to be a crutch for the weak minded. I have never met an allegedly devout religious person who was willing to take responsibility for his own actions and decisions. I have no respect for that kind of intellect. "it's gods will" Bullshit.

Re:Killing in the cause of Religion

[Lady Jazzica]

Sure there is:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Points Raised

[salesgeek]

This article is not what you expect. How to tell if someone hasn't read the article: ranting about religion being used to justify political positions.

There were two really good points in the article: ...do people oppose game violence because they oppose violence, or because they oppose games?

I've always thought people who oppose games just don't like to have fun. They see it as wasteful.

And while I'm not comparing the Bible to a video game, it's worth noting that those games which don't get much attention from pro-censors fit their violence into the overall milieu of the game, just as the Bible fits violence into its context.

This is very interesting - the games cited as examples (Max Payne, etc...) do a very good job of making the violence as part of the story line.

Re:Points Raised

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting example to me is XIII. At some parts in the game, you are considered to be a highly dangerous criminal, and so the police, SWAT teams, security guards etc are attempting to kill you. However, if you kill any of them, you lose the game. The most you can do is knock them unconscious. However the real bad guys are fair game.

Re:Points Raised

[ronfar]

Obligatory Simpson's

Lisa: Where are the dice?

Todd: Daddy says dice are wicked.

Rod: We just move one space at a time. It's less fun that way

The Simpsons, Episode "My Sister, My Sitter"

But this doesn't just deal with religious people. Years ago, when I was working at Software, Etc. (sigh.... those were the days) I had a teacher come in looking at Super Nintendos. She was full of bitterness and resentment because she felt that she was being pushed into buying one of because of the peer pressure her son was recieving. I could tell that she considered them to be a decadent hobby, and that she was one of these people who felt everything her child did needed to be "educational" and defined in a very narrow way. I did not encourage her to buy a SNES, I could see that leading to trouble (I think she walked out with Mario is Missing for PC).

However, I didn't get the impression this was based on religion.

There are people out there opposed to games, and they'll be opposed to them even when the only games available are "Pink Pony Princesses in Powder Puff World."

Re:Points Raised

[Lars T.]

There are people out there opposed to games, and they'll be opposed to them even when the only games available are "Pink Pony Princesses in Powder Puff World."

And why wouldn't they? The title is:

• A slur against homosexuals
• A gender stereotype
• Abuses animals for recreation
• Propagates Monarchy
• Promotes drug use

Re:Points Raised

[Deraj DeZine]

Sounds like something religious leaders would love!

Re:Points Raised

[cgranade]

But, those are all good wholesome Christian values!

Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0 now with beastiality..

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually might be really funny to do a bare knuckled version of the bible in one of the role-playing engines like Neverwinter Nights. Start off in eden, with gratuitous sex and nudity. Eve would be super-hot and 3d, IYKWIMAITTYD. The player could have sex with her whenever and however they wanted as long as they stayed away from the pooper, and she wouldn't kiss *it* as long as they didn't take the apple. Just render the whole bible like that interactively, in all the gory detail, in Sodom you could do anything, animals, any people, trees, kill them, f-them, their corpses, while burning, whatever. What could the morality police get pissed off about. It'd be the ultimate GTA, and so depraved Ron Jermy would blush. You could crucify Jesus yourself. And stab him with the lance. Dogs and cats could live together in domestic partnerships. It'd be sweet. And kids could play it in Sunday school. It'd be so depraved it'd flip back over to wholesome.

Re:Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0 now with beastiality..

[JFMulder]

Well look no further then : Eon of Tears I don't know if the game will ever come out one day, but hey, it's part what you suggested. Tough you seem to be playing the good guys.

Re:Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0 now with beastiality..

[leoboiko]

Not as fun as your idea, but still quite funny: The Brick Testament. Give it a careful read.

Rockstar Games presents: The Passion of the Christ

[zero_offset]

Seriously, wouldn't that be sweet? The religious types would be beside themselves with confusion. Not that Mel would ever give them the rights, of course.

Making Up Problems?

[illuminata]

I've never really seen much of a clash between video games and religion. For the most part, the industry seems to battle more with racial groups, anti-gun groups, and parental groups. Most of the people that back these kind of groups in public are lawyers and politicians, take that for what you will.

In this article, Matt Sakey fails to show how religion is against video game violence in the first place! When it comes down to actually showing hard examples as to how religion is against violence in videogames, he doesn't really have anything. This doesn't prevent him from pointing out the hypocrisy of religion, though. Take for example the quote aforementioned in the Slashdot article: "The history of opposition to games is a long one, and religion is often used to justify that opposition, though naysayers tend to ignore the fact that religion itself is a major source of violent acts". Matt never does say exactly when religion was used to justify opposition in video games.

I'm not arguing against Matt Sakey's article because I'm religious. In fact, I'm an atheist. But, I think that Matt just had a bone to pick with relgion as opposed to a strong debate pointing out religion's opposition to video game violence, an opposition that he never did show to exist.

Re:Making Up Problems?

[theMerovingian]

I'm not arguing against Matt Sakey's article because I'm religious. In fact, I'm an atheist. But, I think that Matt just had a bone to pick with relgion as opposed to a strong debate pointing out religion's opposition to video game violence, an opposition that he never did show to exist.

I agree. I'm a Christian involved in youth ministry, and I don't see any sort of conflict between games and God. Games are just something to do when you're bored - there isn't some spiritual/ephemeral component to them.

As a Christian gamer, you just use the same discretion with games that you use with movies. I won't watch a late show on Skinimax, and I'm not really interested in GTA. That doesn't mean those things should be banned, but it isn't something I would want to watch, either.

It's very difficult to legislate morality. If someone wants to live a clean lifestyle, that has to come from within.

Re:Making Up Problems?

[Talith]

I've never really seen much of a clash between video games and religion. For the most part, the industry seems to battle more with racial groups, anti-gun groups, and parental groups. Most of the people that back these kind of groups in public are lawyers and politicians, take that for what you will. It seems you may be too young to remember the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' 20 yrs ago when D&D first became popular... or even the Fighting Fantasy books. My parents, caring in their self-righteous religious way, almost had me locked up for even daring to play them... and the propaganda that flew backwards and forward almost certainly helped push games forward rather than backwards... let's face it, the more religion pushes, the more people are interested... I can't see that much would have changed nowadays, other than the fact that I am old enough to ignore the idiots, and declare it a waste of breath to argue with them.

Re:Making Up Problems?

[socode]

Which is also, funnily enough, where your definition of "clean" comes from.

Re:Making Up Problems?

[3rdParty]

Is it me, or did you just say that was 20 years ago? Hardly "religion vs. games" these days, now is it? And let's define "religion." Some conservative Protestant sects protest anything that is not conservative or self-serving. Hardly a great example to support the "religion hates games" argument.

Re:Making Up Problems?

[balthan]

Never saw a Christian review of Max Payne then, huh?

"The thing that bothered me the most was the presence of Satanic activity. That stuff is most definitely real and very scary. I honestly can't recommend this game. It is a lot of fun, but don't let that pull you into what is hidden deeper."

An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is there. The one of hope, of faith, of sacrifice. It, however, is not in the forefront. Maybe it shouldn't be. As it is, and as people appear to take it on average, it is basically a thorough record of the grevious injuries Christ suffered as recorded by the gospels with a furniture joke randomly added for randomness. This of course completely misses the point. That he submits himself to the whim of man, which he well knows will treat him so badly that a latin phrase (excruciate) will be used in english to describe a shadow of his suffering, because his God asks it of him and does not tell him why. To trust that which one cannot see, when one has no reason for it. To have an unassailable bulwark of certainty in a world that is by nature perilously uncertain. To have that still point, I can only imagine, must be fantasticly empowering and freeing.

Christianity forsakes icons, perhaps rightly, as they distract one from one's relationship with one's God, and their spiritual emotional connection. Yet how many Christians are walking around with WWJD, crusifixes, stupid little alpha fishes, and now crusifix nails. Instead of a story about a man who, though he did not completely understand, chose to save the world at the cost of his own life, who questioned God, but never doubted, it's a story about some dude who was like wickedly beatdown and totally killed by ass-hats and what's worse he would have totally given us presents. And to focud not on the gift of a life free from regret, not on the power of faith, but on a the wicked beat-down, is to lose the message for the image. And a shame.

And as an Atheist, can I just say how fucked up that is? One's a story of generosity and hope, like an adult version of a "Secret Wars" comic, and the other is a lament that one was two millenia late to a party.

Re:An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[IndigoDarkwolf]

Hey, you have a point when people place their symbols before their God. Some of them want to "look" Christian so they aren't pestered. Some think they're Christian, but do not live a Christian life, read their Bible, or do any of the things real Christians do. Some are real Christians, and want to tell the world.

That aside, The Passion is not about the life of Jesus. The life of Jesus is the "curing of the sick", offering the "yoke that is not heavy", and the let's give everyone a present.

I didn't find the movie funny, either. What parts did you think were jokes? I'm curious, and wondering if I can explain some of them.

The Passion is about the death of Christ. Why He went through all this pain and agony is the question that's supposed to be generated. Here we have a guy who (in life and in the movie) claimed to be God incarnate. When he said "my kingdom is not of this world", he was referring to heaven and eternity. When he said he'd destroy the temple and raise it up in three days, he was making a reference to his own death and resurrection.

So why the heck did Jesus have to go through this beat-down, torture, and death?

One of the fundamental beliefs of both Jews and Christians: God is the definition of good. God is perfect, cannot make mistakes, cannot lie, cannot do evil. God hates evil and sin, and as such his standards are perfection.

Ever tried to live a perfect life? It's bloody hard. I bet you can't find anyone in history---not even Ghandi or Mother Theresa---who has lived a perfect life.

So there you have it. We all fail. We all fall short of God's expectations. We lose, and burn in hell. God hates sin and evil.

Fortunately for us, God still loves us. He hates our sin. He hates our evil. But, like a father loves their child, no matter what, God loves us... no matter what. And he wants us to be with him.

Enter Jesus. He was the price. He footed the bill for us. He died a terrible death and took the punishment of our sins on our behalf. All we have to do is ask for him to know us. Why does this work? Because Jesus was the son of God himself.

Which is why people refer to John 3:16 as "The Bible in a nutshell": For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...

Dang... I'm starting to sound like a priest, and I'm running out of time to write this post...

Re:An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[leland242]

"Ever tried to live a perfect life? It's bloody hard. I bet you can't find anyone in history---not even Ghandi or Mother Theresa---who has lived a perfect life. " You are assuming that one wants to live by the codes of christianity. If you free your mind of all that mumbo jumbo you will find that you aren't constantly "failing", you're just living.

Re:An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[Dr. Manhattan]

God is perfect, cannot make mistakes, cannot lie, cannot do evil.

So, does God lack free will, or does whatever God happens to do become, by definition, good?

If the former, why worship an automaton? If the latter, what makes God anything but the biggest bully on the block?

If God both has free will, and yet would never do evil, why not create humans with that remarkable trait from the start? It's obviously not logically contradictory...

Re:An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[ZX-3]

Way to spoil the ending of "Passion" for me.

Re:An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[superyooser]

Great post! I enjoyed that very much. That was the most beautiful post I've read on Slashdot in a long time. We could use some more writing that sounds like it comes from a priest.

I know I'm preaching to the choir as far as you're concerned, but I just want to comment on a common statement you made that we often hear in discussions on Christ. The following is something I've been thinking about lately, and this is as good an opportunity as any to put it into words and share it with a brother in Christ.

Here we have a guy who (in life and in the movie) claimed to be God incarnate.

I think that would be better stated:

Here we have a God who claimed to be man in the flesh.

Look at it from God's perspective. He's been sitting up there in heaven forever.

God sends a messenger (as prophesied in Malachi 3:1), John the Baptizer, to announce that He will be coming soon as a man.

God enters Mary's womb as a human and sends an angel to announce that He is here! (Matthew 1:20)
Immanu El (God is with us).

He is born, He grows, He lives, He teaches. It is God Himself living as a man, not a man making claims to be God.

The great action was that supernatural God put Himself squarely in the material world that He had created and fully immersed Himself in the human experience (unlike the "angel of the LORD"). To cast the experience of Christ as that of a man (implied: having not existed before his physical birth, inheriting a sinful state, existing as spiritually separate from the Father, born of the flesh requiring remission of sin) and yet claiming to be God is to mischaracterize what happened. Even as one who already believes that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate, I wince when I hear "Jesus was a man who claimed to be God." It's a half-truth at best, because it implicitly precludes Jesus' supernatural existence of eternity past. Before He was Jesus of Nazareth, He was Jesus of Heaven.

Jesus of Heaven became Jesus of Nazareth. God became a man. Then as a man, He asserted the authority of God. His actions spoke louder than His words. His miracles and fulfillments of the ancient messianic prophecies were His major "claims" to be God.

To say that Jesus was a "man who claimed" to be God implies that He simply spouted off, "I am God!" as any arrogant or delusional fool could do. No, He lived God's Word in a way that manifested the reality that He was God incarnate more than any direct, verbal claim could ever do.

There have been thousands of people throughout the ages who claimed to be God. Why do they have no followers and Jesus has billions? If Jesus were just a man--any old Tom, Dick, or Harry in the desert--who ballyhooed himself to be God in the flesh, the examples of history indicate that He would not be able to get more than a handful of people to revere Him for very long.

However, if it were God making claims about a man, and in this case, about Himself being a Man... you would expect that Man to attract huge masses of worshippers... which is exactly what we've seen for 2000 years.

I know you believe this, IndigoDarkwolf. I just want you to see that the statement you wrote uses language that is actually kind of hostile to what you and I believe. Moreover, I find that saying "Jesus was God who claimed to be man" is profoundly inspirational to me. It's more theologically correct and helps to guide my thinking when I think about Jesus.

Re:An Atheist Reviews The Passion of the Christ

[fm6]

Christianity forsakes icons, perhaps rightly, as they distract one from one's relationship with one's God, and their spiritual emotional connection.

What a sweeping, ignorant statement. It's true that there's an anti-iconic tradition in Christianity, inherited from Judaism. But Christianity draws from other traditions as well.

There are over a billion people calling themselves Chrisitans, and they adhere to thousands of different denominations and sects. The generalizations you can make about all Christians are very few. You certainly can't claim that all, or even most, Christians revile icons. It's particularly stupid to make this statement in connection with a movie made by a guy who adheres to a form of Christianity that revels in icons, about the iconic moment in Chrisitian history.

Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Great work, it's about time someone pointed out the monstrous religious chutzpah of decrying violence.

A quick read through the bible or quran will reveal fluffy love-thy-neighbour stuff, and not so fluffy women-are-unclean, treat-your-slaves-nicely, homosexuals-must-be-executed, an-eye-for-an-eye, break-the-sabbath-and-die, unbelievers-will-wear-garments-of-fire-forever stuff.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

If the religious practised what they preached, they would throw away their holy texts and make the world a less violent place...

Seems pretty underhanded....

[Kick the Donkey]

There's a burgeoning Christian development community that sees opportunity in creating mainstream video games that speak to their beliefs and values, realizing that the consumer base is available and that gaming would be an effective tool to build interest among young people.

Oh boy! I can't wait for Coverting the Heathens IV: This time, its Biblical ;) Maybe the lead developer on that game would be Ned Flanders. That does sound a little scary, though. Religions are having trouble reaching youths, so they try to use ulterior methods for getting their message across. To me, it seems like they don't respect people's intelligence enough; they think people can't evaluate the message on its own merits. They have to sneak it in, when people are least expecting it. Pretty underhanded, no?

Re:Seems pretty underhanded....

[analog_line]

You've obviously never heard of War In Heaven then, eh?

Re:Seems pretty underhanded....

[3rdParty]

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is wrong with a religious group publishing a game, vresus a book or video? Who is really going to be "tricked" into becoming Amish because of a video game?

Re:Seems pretty underhanded....

[Kick the Donkey]

Its the very idea that they feel they must hide their message in an entertainment medium to gain converts. I would feel the same way about a social group doing it.

Let me evaluate your message on its own merits; don't try to sneak it in on me.

Religion and gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a fascinating topic. I remember the spate of school shootings in the US a few years ago, with Columbine as the grisly centre-piece. I remember how shocked people claimed to be that this spate of shootings was centred on the "Bible Belt" and how quick religious groups were to blame games and how shrill they were in this condemnation.

This got me thinking...

Aren't "bible-belt" communities going to be more likely to ostracise and condemn those who don't fit into their own (fairly narrow) pattern of social behaviour? Aren't they, whether well-meaningly or maliciously, going to make life worse for those who, as they go through an extremely difficult stage in anybody's life, find themselves as outsiders? Aren't these religious groups and communities actually the real "pressure cooker" that create the environment in which these events can occur?

Maybe these fine, upstanding religious groups are so eager to blame computer games because it stops the finger of blame pointing where it really should... at themselves.

Re:Religion and gaming

[gobbo]

Aren't "bible-belt" communities going to be more likely to ostracise and condemn those who don't fit into their own (fairly narrow) pattern of social behaviour? Aren't they, whether well-meaningly or maliciously, going to make life worse for those who, as they go through an extremely difficult stage in anybody's life, find themselves as outsiders? Aren't these religious groups and communities actually the real "pressure cooker" that create the environment in which these events can occur? Maybe these fine, upstanding religious groups are so eager to blame computer games because it stops the finger of blame pointing where it really should... at themselves.

Aye matey! Well said. There was a study I heard about on the radio recently (how's that for credibility?) that suggested the school gun rampages we've been hearing about happened predominantly in smaller communities with high levels of intolerance for difference. I've 'done time' living in bible belt communities and the mental homogeneity gives me the creeps, it's no wonder people crack.

Another huge issue in small-town and rural middle america and canada: sexual abuse, particularly incest, is much more of a problem than people realize, as these homogenized communities are also very good at secrets. Now where did I put my [virtual] M16?

Don't worry, be happy.

Re:Religion and gaming

[gobbo]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the study also conjectured that the ready availability of unlocked rifles and a 'pry my gun from my cold dead hands' cultural thread influenced the likelihood of going postal at school. Guess that's just common sense, thinking back on my experiences.

Re:Religion and gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing religious groups with '"bible-belt" communities.' Yes, many people in small towns in the "bible-belt" go to church, but don't you think that may be because of the pseudo-forced culture? I grew up in a community that would be very similar to what I think you have in mind, and many people went to church on a regular basis because that's what you did. Everybody went to church. Many were hardly what I'd consider Christians.

It's not that religious groups are making people into outsiders, it's the social atmosphere in small towns. There are less "outsiders" so of course someone who is different is going to be lonely.

Christian Rules of Engagement

[prezninja]

I sought out a similiar set of rules for Christians in my Bible, and this is what I came up with:

"But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (Matthew 26:52)

"Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.'" (John 18:36)

".. the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom .. " (1 Timothy 4:1) [Illustrating Christ's Kingdom on earth begins with his appearing.]

Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?

(It's a different case to discuss with Old Testament Israel who, according to the Bible, was actually a nation representing the Kingdom of God at that time.)

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Mattintosh]

Perhaps those who have been fighting, since they're not following Christ's example and command, aren't really Christians at all.

I can claim to be a black man, but my appearance tells you that I'm lying. Others claim to be Christian, but their actions tell you they're lying. Find the people that are doing exactly as the Bible commands, and you'll have found true Christians.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Planesdragon]

Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?

Almost exclusively for temporal concerns--such as "Ceaser told me to" or "these invaders are trying to kill us" or "we can't get to the holy land to pray anymore."

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[|/|/|||]

Great, true Christians should follow the bible to the letter? So they should be out stoning people in the street and whatnot?

How about if we all base our values on what's best for society, instead of trying to follow some documents cooked up to control the populace thousands of years ago.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means that if I stop ACTING like a black man, I will no longer be one?

Cool! Good bye "Bling Bling", hello Brooks Brothers! I'm on the road to MANAGEMENT!

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Tikiman]

Great, true Christians should follow the bible to the letter? So they should be out stoning people in the street and whatnot?

Christians are not bound by Old Testament laws, so no stoning is required

How about if we all base our values on what's best for society, instead of trying to follow some documents cooked up to control the populace thousands of years ago.

This is one of the silliest objections to Christianity - you realize that the people who "cooked up" the New Testament all died as martyrs, right? Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"? Seems like if eveyone followed that value, then there wouldn't be problems with society. This society has major problems because people are selfish and lazy, not because of Christianity.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[scot4875]

Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

What's wrong with it is that most people completely misunderstand it. Most people at best think that it means "love the guy in the house/apartment next to me (if that), and some arbitrary people I choose, and to Hell with everyone else -- they're not my problem."

--Jeremy

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Necromancyr]

Christians are not bound by Old Testament laws, so no stoning is required What's great about this is how people ignore the things they WANT to in the Old Testament (since Jesus directed them that the old rules no longer applied in his new kingdom, etc.) - but they STILL use the ones they want to argue about homosexuality (via Sodom, etc.) and things of the like.

It's just scared people that can't accept anything different then what they've been raised with. Everything different MUST be wrong - otherwise it would be the same.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Lady Jazzica]

they STILL use the ones they want to argue about homosexuality (via Sodom, etc.) and things of the like.

Homosexual relations are forbidden in the New Testament too.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[virg_mattes]

> Christians are not bound by Old Testament laws, so no stoning is required

This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.

> This is one of the silliest objections to Christianity - you realize that the people who "cooked up" the New Testament all died as martyrs, right?

Not right. Some did, but some did not. How did Paul (nee Saul) die again? Still, how does this support your point? The fact that they died for their words doesn't in any way prohibit those words from being designed to control.

> Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Absolutely nothing. I'd like to ask this question of quite a few Christians, as well as quite a few non-Christians.

> Seems like if eveyone followed that value, then there wouldn't be problems with society.

Again true, but again it's not just the non-Christians that are ignoring this directive, and I could easily argue that no Christian has any right to ask my compliance to this unless he's willing to do it first.

> This society has major problems because people are selfish and lazy, not because of Christianity.

Very short-sighted of you to say this. You seem to think there's not enough blame to go around. It's possible that this society has major problems because people are selfish and lazy and because of Christianity, or maybe it's neither of those things alone. Your answer is so simplistic that it's meaningless.

Virg

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[JonathanBoyd]

This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.

The Old Testament is fully the word of God and is what s being referred to when Paul writes in 2 Timothy that 'All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.' We are still instructed to obey God's law, which is given in the Old Testament and summarised by Jesus as loving God and loving your neighbour. At no point are the laws contradicted. rather, Jesus says that he has come not to take away anything from the law, but to fulfil it. The problem here is twofold:

Firstly, people don't understand the laws and think, for example, that ti is wrong to eat pork. In actual act, it is wrong to eat unclean food. Pork is described as unclean in the OT, but following the crucifixion and resurrection, it was declared clean and could be eaten.

Secondly, people fail to distinguish between law and punishment. Homosexual acts are cited as being sinful in the OT and NT. The difference is that there was immediate judgement on earth and punishment in the form of stoning in the OT. In the NT, judgement is left until after death and there is no earthly punishment required to be administered by society. The law didn't change, just the time of judgement and punishment.

Not right. Some did, but some did not. How did Paul (nee Saul) die again? Still, how does this support your point? The fact that they died for their words doesn't in any way prohibit those words from being designed to co

The majority of the NT is written by martyrs. Paul died while awaiting trial as a result of his missionary work. He died a martyr. The gospel writers were martyrs.

> Also, what is wrong with the central Christian value of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Absolutely nothing. I'd like to ask this question of quite a few Christians, as well as quite a few non-Christians.

Incidentally, the core value is actually love God and love your neighbour. God is at the centre, not man.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[Tikiman]

This does beg the question why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then. The real argument should be that Christians are bound by Old Testament except where the New Testament contravenes it, but even that comes up inaccurate. And still, it's not very difficult to find statements in the New Testament that require appalling behavior.

such examples of "appalling behavioir" are usually willfully taken out of context. The fact is that the central message of the NT is love - God's love for man, and how men should love each other. While it is certainly possible to find a few statements that can easily be warped to mean something else, the central message is love. If you read the whole NT cover to cover, you'd realize this.

Not right. Some did, but some did not. How did Paul (nee Saul) die again? Still, how does this support your point? The fact that they died for their words doesn't in any way prohibit those words from being designed to control.

It is commonly understood that Paul was killed in Rome, probably beheaded. My point is that modern obervers look at how Christianity has been used in modern times, e.g. to justify slavery to bilk money out of vulnerable people. They look at this, and figure that's why Christianity was invented in the first place. However, the earliest Christians all suffered persecution and lived lives of misery and suffering. It just isn't logical that they were maintaining some kind of sham just to control people and get wealthy, when they all knew the consequences of their actions would be to die a death that was likely to be quite gruesome. People just don't martyr themselves for what they know is a lie.

... Again true, but again it's not just the non-Christians that are ignoring this directive, and I could easily argue that no Christian has any right to ask my compliance to this unless he's willing to do it first.

I agree, and Jesus addresses this point directly - Luke 6:41-42 - "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye."

Very short-sighted of you to say this. You seem to think there's not enough blame to go around. It's possible that this society has major problems because people are selfish and lazy and because of Christianity, or maybe it's neither of those things alone. Your answer is so simplistic that it's meaningless.

You are confusing Christianity, the message with people who call themselves Christians, but who are not. If everyone truly did love their neighbor as themselves, many problems would go away - as you acknowledge. Somehow, it is hard for me to believe that a religion that says, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" is responsible for the murder, rape, and general mayhem that pervade this world. I feel comfortable blaming those who ignore or willfully distort that message to their own selfish ends.

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[virg_mattes]

> such examples of "appalling behavior" are usually willfully taken out of context. The fact is that the central message of the NT is love - God's love for man, and how men should love each other. While it is certainly possible to find a few statements that can easily be warped to mean something else, the central message is love. If you read the whole NT cover to cover, you'd realize this.

I have read the New Testament (and the Old Testament) quite a few times, both when I was involved in the church and afterwards, and you're quite right that the underlying message of Jesus is love. This is what Christianity should be, and this is the point I want to address with you now.

> Jesus addresses this point directly - Luke 6:41-42...

He did, yes. This then requires me to ask why so many of his followers don't listen to His advice.

> You are confusing Christianity, the message with people who call themselves Christians, but who are not. If everyone truly did love their neighbor as themselves, many problems would go away - as you acknowledge. Somehow, it is hard for me to believe that a religion that says, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" is responsible for the murder, rape, and general mayhem that pervade this world. I feel comfortable blaming those who ignore or willfully distort that message to their own selfish ends.

Confusing them? It would seem that this is the crux of the problem. A religion, any religion, is defined by the actions of its adherents. Ask any Muslim how this works, especially these last few years. When Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell come out with messages that insist on hate and division, I don't see a groundswell of "proper" Christians saying that this isn't Jesus's message to the world. While you profess that the real central tenet of Christianity is love and brotherhood, the vast majority of Christians don't follow that message, so either it isn't as important to the religion as you would have me think, or the religion needs some serious reworking, or Christians need to "get back to their roots". Choose one, but strangely, none of those choices seems to involve non-Christians.

In short, Christians as a whole have a lot of log removal to do before they can say that they're not just as much a part of the problems with this world as anyone else.

Virg

Re:Christian Rules of Engagement

[virg_mattes]

> The Old Testament is fully the word of God and is what s being referred to when Paul writes in 2 Timothy that 'All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.' We are still instructed to obey God's law, which is given in the Old Testament and summarised by Jesus as loving God and loving your neighbour. At no point are the laws contradicted. rather, Jesus says that he has come not to take away anything from the law, but to fulfil it.

How does Jesus's summarization to "love God and love your neighbor" deal with OT statements like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)? The statement in Exodus is plain religious intolerance, to the point of killing, and that seems out of line with Jesus's message of "love your neighbor."

> Firstly, people don't understand the laws...

You know, I hear this an awful lot in discussions about Biblical contradictions, and it's a cop-out. In response I can say that even Christians don't understand the laws, since they keep misapplying them whenever it suits them, just like non-Christians misapply them when it suits them. If both sides can abuse the word of God to dodge Jesus's message, what place do you have to say I'm the one who's misunderstanding it?

> Secondly, people fail to distinguish between law and punishment. Homosexual acts are cited as being sinful in the OT and NT. The difference is that there was immediate judgement on earth and punishment in the form of stoning in the OT. In the NT, judgement is left until after death and there is no earthly punishment required to be administered by society. The law didn't change, just the time of judgement and punishment.

If this is true, then why was there a public outcry from churches when Texas repealed criminal charges for sodomy? Why didn't those Christians simply allow God to do the judging, like Jesus says they should? It seems that it's the Christians themselves that are falling short of Jesus in this regard, and this is the problem I have with most Christian churches, and most Christian people. They don't use their religion as an inspiration, but as a cudgel, and that's extremely hypocritical for a religion that preaches "love God and love your neighbors." Remember that I don't think that Christianity is to blame for all of society's ills, but I do take umbrage with those who say it's not responsible for any of them, and that society would be so much better if we all followed God's will. Perhaps that's true, but wouldn't you think that Christians should be doing it first if they want everyone else to follow?

> The majority of the NT is written by martyrs. Paul died while awaiting trial as a result of his missionary work. He died a martyr. The gospel writers were martyrs.

I concede this point, as I didn't know Paul was in prison when he died.

> Incidentally, the core value is actually love God and love your neighbour. God is at the centre, not man.

God is at the center, but neighbors get an honorable mention.

Virg

Clockwork Orange

[n1ywb]

Does anybody else have stuck in their head now the image of Alex in Centurian garb whipping Jesus?

It had been arranged by the prison charlie, as part of my further education to read him the Bible. I didn't so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives' handmaidens. That kept me going.
Biblical fighting shot. Alex slashing away. Blood spurting.
Alex lying with three semi-nude handmaidens.
Christ being whipped on by Alex, dressed as a Legionary.
"Move on there. Move on."
I read all about the scourging and the crowning with thorns and all that, and I could viddy myself helping in and even taking charge of the tolchocking and the nailing in, being dressed in the height of Roman fashion.

Yahweh has no room to criticize violence

[senahj]

Go read the Book of Joshua.
http://www.gutenberg.net/etext05/web0610. txt
Unilateral agression. Conquest. Pillage. Rape. Genocide.
All _directly_commanded_ by God.

Re:Yahweh has no room to criticize violence

[Thedalek]

While I understand the futility of speaking in spiritual terms to someone who does not relate to spirituality (much like trying to talk math with an Art professor), I have to ask for clarification on at least one of your points:

After reading the text in question, I see no reference to rape. In fact, not even the Skeptic's Annotated Bible entry on Joshua has a reference. Could you perhaps give a more succinct citation?

Re:Yahweh has no room to criticize violence

[senahj]

You are correct; I was mistaken. Samuel does not mention rape.
The Lord commanded Joshua to kill every one of the land's
inhabitants, men, women, and children, with the edge of the sword.

I was conflating Samue's account with the earlier conquest
in Numbers, where God commands the Chosen People to enslave
the virgin daughters of their enemies :

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman
that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that
have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31: 15-18

Even here, rapine is an inference, although I think a defensible one.

Re:Yahweh has no room to criticize violence

[Eevee]

One problem you get when speaking math with an Art professor is getting hung up on the minor details the Art professor is getting wrong while ignoring the major point. While Joshua may be lacking in rapes, he could have been referring to:

Genesis 19:8

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Judges 5:30

Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two;

Judges 19:25

But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

2 Samuel

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Re:Yahweh has no room to criticize violence

[Thedalek]

Genesis 19:8 - The speaker in question is Lot, not God. In this situation, he is reacting as a citizen of Sodom would be likely to do. There is no pretense that he is performing a noble act by offering his daughters to the people of Sodom.

Judges 5:30 - It is not clear whether the speaker is Sisera's mother or her "wise ladies," but it is clear that the phrase is pure speculation, and does not demonstrate a general approval of rape.

Judges 19:25 - Like the instance of Lot offering his daughter, this is merely a reflection of the normal behavior at the time. It is not depicted as noble, and was not done at the command of God.

2 Samuel (12:11 for those who were wondering) - The speaker here is not directly God, but Nathan speaking to David regarding his (David's) injustice, having indirectly killed Uriah to marry his wife, Bathsheba. Whether Nathan is taking liberties with his communication with the Lord is debatable, as is the literal or figurative nature of the warning. It could just as easily mean, "I will take all that you hold dear, and ensure that you will never have it again."

At any rate, the issue at hand was whether God commanded/approved rape in some circumstances, not whether rape occurs in the Bible.

Re:Yahweh has no room to criticize violence

[Thedalek]

It's difficult to directly infer meaning from this section, owing to the lack of quotation marks in the language. The excluded section (your "...") is verse 16, which reads:

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the council of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord." (KJV, pronounciation symbols omitted)

Without a graduate course on what role the council of Balaam had in these matters, or who Peor was and how it related to the issue at hand, this seems a little disjoint. At any rate, including verse 16 makes the speaker of 17-18 unclear.

Even if Moses is the speaker in this instance, Moses is not the Lord, and as is demonstrated in Numbers 20:8-11, is quite capable of misinterpreting or falling outside the will of God.

Hmmm, can't recall the last time a gamer...

[Anonymous Coward]

A. Bombed a Federal Building.
B. Bombed the Olympics.
C. Hijacked an airplane and flew it into a building.

Remember, this country was founded by religious zealots that were driven out of England by religious zealots.

The constant is religion - which as someon points out below is a political tool used to control morons with FUD.

That's all for now fellow citizens, if you're offended by these remarks, go to heaven. Now.

Love,

Jah

Re:Hmmm, can't recall the last time a gamer...

[gothzilla]

Well you know, MS took out the ability to crash planes into buildings in Flight Simulator. Everyone says kids copy games in real life, but MS is making sure kids can't copy real life in games.

Re:Hmmm, can't recall the last time a gamer...

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's some type of atheistic M$ plot?

Who knew?

Christian??? Rules of Engagement

[Crash Culligan]

Is it fair to ask then why (if Christ's Kingdom isn't established yet) Christians have been fighting at all?

I think a better question is: why don't we call them on their claims of being proper [Christians|Muslims|*]? They say that "the less a politician amounts to, the more he loves the flag." A similar parallel could be drawn to the Shakespearean observation, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

I put it to you (nay, everybody) that most people responsible for the crap going on today are shabby examples of piety at best and their hypocrisy should be pointed out soon and repeatedly. For instance, I've heard it said that proper Christians don't resort to lawsuits... After that, the question becomes what to do about them. It's like my favorite twist on an old saying, "If we outlaw guns, then how will we shoot the conservatives?"

Missing the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the whole violence in video games debate is based on the games being targeted for and played by children. The Passion of The Christ was never intended for a younger audience, which many people said use discretion when taking your children to see it. To me, this seems like comparing apples to oranges, but perhaps that is not the point...

Religion doesn't cause violence

[xTown]

Religion doesn't cause war any more than a gun will rise up and shoot someone all by itself.

People cause war. We may use religion as an excuse, but I think people that wage war--at least in the name of Christianity--are adhering more to the word of man than the word of God. Unfortunately, favoring the word of man over the word of God seems to be the standard MO for most religious people today.

Re:Religion doesn't cause violence

[absurdhero]

I don't think you can separate people and religion in the same way you can physically separate a person and a gun. A gun is a tool for killing while religion can be either a driving force, or an excuse for war.

"favoring the word of man over the word of God seems to be the standard MO for most religious people today"

I agree. The word of man is all a religous person has. Who shows a person religion? Who interprets religous teachings for children? Who writes holy books? People do. So, it is far too natural for a person to follow the word of man (particularly religous and political leaders) over the word of his god.

Re:Religion doesn't cause violence

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And therein lies the problem with organized religion. It cannot represent the will of the alleged diety that it upholds, because it will always be bent to serve the will of the polyester clad salesmen who define it's requirements to the drooling masses.

I don't listen to Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob is a luddite imbecile who lusts after his 16 year old step daughter.

Religion and the Crusades and Violent Games

[Anonymous Coward]

All right, let me begin my noting that I am not against violence in video games and I play my fair share of very gory and meaningless FPS games. The reason I am posting also is due to the incredible slant in this forum for violence and against religion.

On the topic of the Crusades: the Crusades were politically motivated. The people who started and controlled the wars were not in it for God, Christ, or religious altruism. They were in it for themselves. I could go out and kill 20 people and claim that Christ ask me to do and I could doubtlessly find a bible passage that seems to give me the power to do it, but the bible is a text written by humans inspired by God and like all things it is far from impossible to misinterpret it. So just because I say religion give me the power, the truth of the matter is, particularly if you are Christian, only God has the power to take life.

On the topic of the goriness of the bible: The bible is graphic because as a whole it is a fairly descriptive book. It is attempting to paint the scene which occurred. The key to the bible though is its motivation and meaning. Its motivation is to make people realize the frailty of humanity and the power of God and impress upon them that they must care for their neighbor and love their God and show their neighbor the path if they have stepped of it. NOW, I don't care whether or not you agree with this intent; just realize that this or something close to what I have described is the intent. When it comes to games violence is there purely for entertainments sake, heck that's why they are called games. The problem here is that people who would like to see less violence in society believe that this violence for entertainments sake, in graphic visual and audio description, makes kids who get access to these games more likely to commit these actions in real life because their exposure to it has jaded them. (And kids will get access even if you restrict sale to 18+ and have solid parenting.) I personally don't know if this is true, I've played quite a bit of quake, doom, unreal, and half life but I also enjoyed the classic adventures games. And I am far from a violent or hateful person. The moral of my story is: it's unwise to judge whether games do or don't have an effect on children and teens yet. But it is an important issue. Much of the Slashdot community tends to believe wholeheartedly that children AND ADULTS are not affected by what they are exposed to and I argue then what are they affected by. My solution is not the removal of violence from games, but a balance of violence with other themes. Max Payne was still a little too violence focused, the story being revenge. The Bible tends to be fairly balanced describing violence and then arguing that despite all of this we should have compassion for all.

In Context

[TalMaximus]

I find this quote the most intriguing of what is said. How violence in video games and in any other media "must be assessed in context or not at all." Saying that the violence portrayed in The Passion of the Christ is the same as some of the violence in games spoken against recently like GTA, is definitely taking things out of context. Sure there is violence in both media...but how is it being portrayed. Who is performing the violence? Why is it happening? How is it looked upon?

Violence in Christianity is frowned upon by Jesus himself. When Peter rose to his defense and cut the ear off of the soldier...it was Jesus who calmed Peter...Jesus who put the ear back on. As far as historical events "in the name of religion"...just because they were done in the name of Christ doesn't mean those who committed the acts were right, or acting justly. Just look at Scripture and you will find no justification for the Crusades...Jesus said to love your enemies, not exact violent punishments upon them in His name.

Which brings me back to my point, the context in which the violent acts were being performed in The Passion of the Christ were performed by the antagonists of the film. The 'bad guys' per say. The sheer delight the soldiers took in punishing Jesus was wrong and portrayed as such.

The problem with some violent video games is how the violence is portrayed. I've heard people quote that they enjoy playing games like GTA so they can committ crimes and not be punished for it. Some people find pleasure in pretending to committ violent acts. The violence is glorified...a selling point if you will. People didn't go to The Passion of the Christ to see violence, they went to see the story of Christ and His suffering for our sin. Some play these games for the violence and the violence in context is detestable. Some violent games I don't have a problem with...wars happen, sometimes you have to fight and kill in defense of a nation, or a world. In those respects the violence is inescapable. But when the violence is glorified...pursued...that's when I have issues with the violence in the respective video games that contain it.

It's all to be taken within context. Just like Scripture. If you want to know why one verse says what it says, you must compare it to the verses around it, as well as the grammatical techniques being used. I would encourage people to stop using old hat attempted justifications of violent games by speaking of the Crusades and other such events. A relationship with Christ and understanding of His word is all anyone needs to know that those were not Biblical acts. The Bible teaches of false prophets...those who will do things in disobedience to God in His name. Do not be surprised and do not believe for one instance that they have Christ's approval. Another thing that isn't funny is these jokes about video games in which Jesus comes back with things like shotguns and swords exacting violent punishment. This portrays Jesus to be like those who have taken His name in vain and mocks everything He lives for. Jesus meant for us to have life and have it more abundantly. He came to seek and save the lost. He died for our sins. He intercedes on our behalf to God. He lives for us. Please do not mock Him for a punch line.

Joshua

And this is why he fails.

[Anonymous Coward]

His God is the "this is what the priest/father/cleric/pastor told me, and I'm about 14 so it seems more or less workable." And as an atheist who's found himself surrounded by christians, some born again (yikes!), his whole life, I've done a lot of investigation on this, into innerspace and other places. God is supposed to be a refuge not from infallability, or a source of easy answers. God is supposed to be a refuge from regret, the inequities we work, those worked upon us, and doubt. Faith is the star that guides one to that refuge. It's entirely a feeling, free and independant from reason. It's about questioning everything, even God, and being certain that one with be provided with the strength to find the answers. God doesn't want to be worshiped, in so far as a typical monotheistic God would want anything. It's not about being the center of attention or winning American idol. His hope is not for himself, but for us, that we each allow Him to lead us to that refuge so that we may more easiliy make a life that is better for ourselves and those we cherish. His reward isn't presents it's peace.

Religion, however, is a completely different animal. It would seem to be the get rich quick scheme to spiritual wealth. Even in TPoTC the problem wasn't the Jews but the Priests who wanted to maintain and consolidate their power. Not so different from clergy who just move people who prey on children around because they don't want people to find out and have donations dry up. Or Imams who preach about America being the great satan because it puts asses in the seats.

Oh, I'm sorry...

[Talith]

...I didn't realise we were only talking about the present...this moment...right now, as though time was a static entity.

In which case, we daren't mention Christianity, which has been around for about 2000 years, which kinda makes my 20 years paltry.

In fact, I was ordained (by my gf) as the religious leader of my own religion not 5 mins ago, called VILOGAME, in which the doctrine is to play violent games all night, eat pizza and drink copious amounts of beer - is that up to date enough?

The point I was trying to put across is that things have not changed, and in fact were (or seemed to be) a lot worse many years ago, when gamers were considered wierd by the general population anyway, gaming was relatively new, and the church was a much more powerful force to contend with. In the current MTV days, the political correctness and general apathy most people have towards religion (especially in the West - except for in the Bible Belt, where... oh, let's not go there), the cries of horror from the churches are usually drowned out by teenagers screaming 'Yeah man, did you see me blow his f*****g head off!!'

It hasn't changed in years, it will never change, because the church is an archaic form of control which is rapidly becoming redundant... although there will always be someone willing to wail and moan about it.

Personally, I'm not overly sure they are wrong sometimes - I find the whole idea of using Chenobyl as a backdrop for a game involving freaks and mutants completely repugnant - there are still people living in the area who have had to deal with the after-effects for years... if that doesn't get the 'holier-than-thou' ones going, I think we win!

Tal