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

[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

[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.

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.

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? ;)

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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

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..

[leoboiko]

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

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.

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

[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...

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?

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.

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

[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

[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: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: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?

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.

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

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.