Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
..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).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Though it would be interesting to know if more counterstrike terrorists/counterterrorists have been killed
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.
"
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.
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...
I'm f#$king magic!
> 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.
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.
...do people oppose game violence because they oppose violence, or because they oppose games?
There were two really good points in the article:
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.
-- $G
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.
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.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
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.
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?
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
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.
I sought out a similiar set of rules for Christians in my Bible, and this is what I came up with:
.. " (1 Timothy 4:1) [Illustrating Christ's Kingdom on earth begins with his appearing.]
"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
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.)
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
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?
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
In re your training idea: it depends on how easy it is to download a wallhack in real life.
Go read the Book of Joshua.. txt
http://www.gutenberg.net/etext05/web0610
Unilateral agression. Conquest. Pillage. Rape. Genocide.
All _directly_commanded_ by God.
Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check
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.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
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.
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?"
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
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.
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.
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
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.
-Turkey
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.
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
If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
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.
What if they're carrying my team's flag?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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?
-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?".
-Turkey
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.
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.
-Turkey
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:
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.
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.
-Turkey
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.
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?
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?
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.
-Turkey
> 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?
> 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.