Slashdot Mirror


Digital Praise Takes Up Christian Gaming Cause

Thanks to GameSpot for its article discussing the formation of a new Christian videogame developer, Digital Praise, formed to create a "planned line of non-offensive games." CEO Tom Bean notes: "Digital Praise is founded on the principle that fun, exciting computer games don't need to be flooded with violence, sex, hate or images of horror", and the company's official press release discusses "development on two games based on the Adventures in Odyssey radio theater series", arguing: "As long as new game titles are top quality - offering exciting game play and high production value - we believe that interactive Christian games will skyrocket in popularity much like Christian music did 15 years ago."

180 comments

  1. Bad Analogy Time? by Eros · · Score: 5, Funny

    "As long as new game titles are top quality - offering exciting game play and high production value - we believe that interactive Christian games will skyrocket in popularity much like Christian music did 15 years ago."

    Well, if that is their baseline for success -- we can only hope.

    -- The Great Satan, Dark Lord Of The Underworld

    1. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by Landaras · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know you are (sucessfully) making a joke, but I'll go ahead and respond.

      I do agree that the quoted individual did mispeak a bit. I believe Christian music has significantly gained credibility in recent years, but I wouldn't describe it as "skyrocketing" and I disagree with his history.

      Christian music was HORRENDOUS for a very long period of time. The musicians had a heart for God, but not an aptitude for writing lyrics or music.

      Originally the genre was nothing more than the equivalent of hymns or thinly-veiled theology set to not always competently played music. Obviously this brought a lot of deserved ridicule.

      I put 1995 as the year that Christian music started to not suck.

      That year the self-titled Jars of Clay disc debuted (along with it the song Flood), as well as dcTalk's Jesusfreak. Both displayed expert musical skill along with lyrics that actually MEANT SOMETHING to listeners.

      Fast forward to today, and it's not unusual to hear about overtly Christian artists having secular success. Switchfoot (and their Meant to Live) is the current poster child for this.

      But I think the biggest impact is in the bands that you aren't aware are Christian, which I (and others) call "Christian-influenced."

      2001's most played radio song (as determined by Broadcast Data Services) was Lifehouse's Hanging by a Moment .

      Lifehouse is comprised of Christians, write on Christian ideas and themes (many of their songs can be properly interpreted as worship), but also intentionally allow their music to be correctly interpreted secularly.

      They don't compromise their Christian roots and beliefs, while not beating non-Christians over the heads with the Jesus Stick.

      Bringing this back to gaming (since this is the games section of Slashdot), I believe Digital Praise will be successful if and only if they are able to produce games that are as technically credible and enjoyable to the player as that which is currently on the market.

      It's great to focus on God and attempt to glorify Him. But in order to have impact in the world at large, you have to have relevance as well.

      Christian music (eventually) learned this lesson. We'll see if Christian gaming does.

      - Neil Wehneman

    2. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by dasunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Article: "As long as new game titles are top quality - offering exciting game play and high production value - we believe that interactive Christian games will skyrocket in popularity much like Christian music did 15 years ago."

      Well, if that is their baseline for success -- we can only hope.

      You may not be familiar with it, but the amount of Christian music being sold isn't small -- 47 million albums/year according to one source.

      Or how about "$800 million in [Christian music] sales [that] topped sales of classical music and jazz combined..." (from a story talking about, oddly enough, the piracy of Xian music).

      Christian music is big business, with its own famous bands, concerts, and record lables. And don't think that its all old time gospel music either -- it runs the gauntlet from folk music to pop to Christian metal.

    3. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by kaellinn18 · · Score: 1

      The one day I don't have mod points... That was very well written, sir, and I'm glad that there is at least one other Christian (I'm inferring based on what you wrote) on here who can take a joke without going ballistic and damning everyone to hell (blatant exaggeration).

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    4. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      $800 million in [Christian music] sales [that] topped sales of classical music and jazz combined..."

      Not to mention Polka and The Lone Ranger old-time radio albums

    5. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian Music sales have skyrocketed; I think that's what they're going for...

    6. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by seann · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      honestly

      I thought that lifehouse song was about anal sex for the first time.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    7. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by harrkev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I am one who fits in that category too...

      My opinion is that this will be a hard sell. The problem is that almost all games (except some in the adventure genre) are based on conflict. Almost all games involve either shooting (FPS) or battle/conquest (RTS). If you want to go completely safe for everybody, then the games are not likely to be too fun.

      There have been some games which break the usual genre system, but those are generally experimental, and as such is a risk for the publisher.

      On the other hand, if they just concentrate on making good games without going out of their way to cover me in objectionable language and needless gore, then they may count on me as a customer if their quality if good.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    8. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Perhaps they could make a game where you bomb abortion clinics and torture homosexuals.

    9. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by robson · · Score: 1

      Christian music was HORRENDOUS for a very long period of time. The musicians had a heart for God, but not an aptitude for writing lyrics or music.

      Yeah, it just needs to be good at what it does. I'm not a Christian, but one of my favorite bands is a "Christian band" -- Sixpence None the Richer. The key to their success, as I see it:

      1.They don't preach. It's just passionate music from a perspective other than my own.
      2.It's just plain good pop music. Good melodies, good production, good lyrics.

      As I'm sure is being said elsewhere in this thread, all "Christian games" need to do to succeed is be fun to play.

    10. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by Landaras · · Score: 1

      I'm a big Sixpence fan as well. Unfortunately, they disbanded recently.

      What I found interesting about Sixpence is that they were one of the few "crossover" bands to also put out worship music (specifically on the City on a Hill series.)

      However, on their studio releases, as you said, Sixpence didn't preach or get pushy. I think that earned them a lot of fans, both within and without Christianity.

      - Neil Wehneman

    11. Re:Bad Analogy Time? by I+am+Emmitt+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a good point about most games these days being either FPS or RTS. I think the reason for this is that those games are simply easier to come up with and produce. It is hard to be creative. But when someone does get creative it can pay off big time. I don't have the list but on the top ten selling games of all time there are many non-violent games. Games like The Sims and Tetris were very popular. America is still a very Puritan nation for better or worse. So even if most gamers aren't Christians or have no problem with gore and foul language, the people with the money do (I know there are exceptions, I'm talking in broad strokes here). So if you can tap into that market successfully, you can make a lot of money. For an example, even though its not a video game, look at The Passion. I think tha there is a longing in America for a rejection of the current moral decline, and if this company can tap into that they will be very successful.

      --
      *The Bill of Rights - void where prohibited by law
  2. First Game: Pearl Harbor? by jazman_777 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  3. How can this be Christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    I am not a Christian ( I am a Human).

    Somebody tell me planned line of non-offensive games." CEO Tom Bean notes How the hell is this Christian?

    This is not the Christianity that the rest of non-christian world knows off. We know of a Christianity that demands absolute conformity. We know of a Christianity that beleives in conversions and in the process is ruining states of North-east India. We know of a Christianity that is just as intolerant as Islam.

    The only room Christianity gives is for different "levels" of belief in the system itself. Everyone else and everything else is a "fool" who has to be shown the way.

    1. Re:How can this be Christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see your points but please don't compare Christianity to Islam.

      Yes, Christianity has been rammed down the throat of a lot of people thanks to moneypower but Islam is worse. Just how much money do the Arabs spend worldwide to promote ISlam?

      Between Christianity and Islam, I'll always choose Christianity.

    2. Re:How can this be Christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      THere exactly is the problem.

      Between Christianity and Islam, I'll always choose Christianity.

      It's always assumed that there are two poles to choose from. Two colors. Black or White. Yes or No. With us or Against us.

      Just what the hell is the non-Christian, non-Muslim world to do?
      BTW, honestly, there are too many similarities between Christianity and Islam. The difference is that Christianity is more moderated and "elaborate" in social justice, and allows room for individualism. As long as that individual is Christian, that is.....

    3. Re:How can this be Christian? by thrash242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm no fan of Christianity (I'm an atheist--christian raised), but I must admit it's in general not as intolerant and hateful as Islam (at least its extreme branches). Christianity used to be just as bad, but over many years reformed into a slightly more open-minded and less violent religion. Today many Christians are still close-minded and I have talked to many who think that any religion other than Christianity (or even Protestantism) is the Devil's work.

      From what I understand about Islam, one of it's main tenets is that the religion should not change or modernize. And it makes sense, since Islam to me seems to be the most "primitive" major religion. And in that I mean that it still objectifies women and endorses holy wars and the like, whereas Christinanity, in general has given such things up. Of course there's the occasional Christian nut, like the lady who drowned three of four of her children because she thought they were possessed, the people who blow up abortion clinics, and then there's David Koresh. But there aren't whole organizations (anymore) of Christians whose sole aim is to kill nonbelievers like there is in Islam.

      A note to any followers of Islam: I don't mean to insult all Muslims, I don't have a problem with anyone of any religion unless: (a) they try to convert me or (b) they kill people don't believe what they do. As long as you don't do one of those things, I will have no problem with you or the branch of your religion that you ascribe to. I have met quite a few Muslims who I'm sure just want to live their lives and practice their religion in peace and I have no problem with that.

  4. Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the press release:
    "Digital Praise is committed to releasing fun, exciting game titles that promote virtues and family values like forgiveness, tolerance and kindness, rather than the violent and sexual behavior that is the mainstay of most popular computer games today."

    This single sentence implies two things:

    - most games today actively promote violent and/or sexual behaviour;
    - any kind of violent and sexual behaviour is a bad thing.

    Starting with the second point, I think that we can all agree that this is utter nonsense. Violence and sexual behaviour are facts of life, and are two of the things which most actively define ourselves and our surroundings. Apparently it refers to the 'turning the other cheek', and the 'no sex before marriage/sex is solely for reproductive purposes' parts of fundamentalistic Christian beliefs.

    Moving on, I'm guessing that even a game like the Sims is considered to be offensive by certain people. FPSs are violent by nature, but it would be ridiculous to state that the violence in this type of games promotes more violence (looking at the crime statistics for the US, the number of crimes committed since the introduction of Doom in the early '90s has sharply decreased, and never can a criminal act be directly attributed to a game).

    Besides, there are already plenty of games which are totally PC and 'lots of fun'. They're called children's games :p

    Anyway, those smug, fundamentalistic Christian types never seem to change, so this press release isn't exactly news, or even mildly shocking. With a couple of minor adaptations you could turn it into a press release regarding Christian music.

    --
    Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    1. Re:Here we go again... by zhiwenchong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Violence and sexual behavior are facts of life, true, but that doesn't mean everyone has to condone it. And no, I do not agree that they define us as people. People should be able to choose what kinds of values they want to have without being subject to derision. And that doesn't necessarily have to mean that they're necessarily divorced from reality. They just have different values.

      I think we're all sick of holier-than-thou attitudes, but let's not stoop to that level ourselves.

      Your post confirms something: smugness isn't limited to fundamentalist Christian groups.

    2. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      Violence and sexual behavior are facts of life, true, but that doesn't mean everyone has to condone it.

      I agree. Any kind of behaviour which is aimed at causing harm to anyone is not a good thing.

      And no, I do not agree that they define us as people.

      I never said they do.

      I only said that those types of behaviour have made us what we are today. Unless you disagree that those last two world wars and the sexual revolution during the '60s were just hype.

      People should be able to choose what kinds of values they want to have without being subject to derision. And that doesn't necessarily have to mean that they're necessarily divorced from reality. They just have different values.

      You'll never find me actively trying to 'convert' people. I'll state my view(s), and if they don't agree with it, fine.

      However, don't forget that there are people who believe in creationism and similar things which are completely unfounded. Recommending not to use condoms because they would promote the spread of HIV/AIDS is another one of those views which are detached from reality.

      I think we're all sick of holier-than-thou attitudes, but let's not stoop to that level ourselves. Your post confirms something: smugness isn't limited to fundamentalist Christian groups.

      I wouldn't describe it as smugness. It's closer to confusion and puzzlement. How in the world does one deal with people who often refuse to acknowledge even the most basic facts without offering any kind of credible defense?

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    3. Re:Here we go again... by superyooser · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This single sentence implies two things:

      - most games today actively promote violent and/or sexual behaviour;
      - any kind of violent and sexual behaviour is a bad thing.

      Starting with the second point, I think that we can all agree that this is utter nonsense.

      The only sexual behavior that is not bad behavior is that which occurs privately within the exclusive bounds of a faithful, marital relationship between one man and one woman. Even if a game were to depict this good sexual behavior, that very depiction of it would be wrong. No sexual activity, good or bad, real-life or fictional, is to be put on display for the world. Marital sex is a private matter between the participants sharing their bodies and souls, one with another, as one flesh.

      You might argue that it should be okay to watch "marital" sex between artificial "people." But this is laughably a moot point when it comes to computer games (except possibly for the Sims). When we have a game with a Mr. and Mrs. Anderson getting frisky in the master bedroom, then we can address this issue further.

      What makes good sex good is its exclusive and secret nature. The husband is the only one (ideally) who has ever seen or ever will see his wife's nakedness. The wife is the only one (ideally) who has ever seen or ever will see her husband's nakedness. Their bodies are a special secret they guard for themselves. Anybody else can have a sexual experience, but not with the individuals who are committed to each other in matrimony. Each side feels special and unique that with over 6,000,000,000 people in the world, they have chosen and continue to chose each other - and no other - to share their sexuality.

      The man can say, "She wants to have sex with me and no one else!" The woman can say, "He wants to have sex with me and no one else!" Man: "My body is ALL for YOU!" Woman: "My body is ALL for YOU!" You can imagine what that does to the hormones! And the mutual love. A third person, whether a participant or spectator, contaminates the marital purity and spoils the "one flesh" sexual intimacy.

      From the Christian standpoint, the only sexual behavior (whether a real act or a fictional depiction) that you should ever see is your own sexual behavior with your spouse.

      Qualification: The above applies mainly to gratuitous depictions of sexual behavior. Pictures, diagrams, and other media presentations that are created for medical or academic purposes that benefit humanity are acceptable as long as the media are used only for their intended, noble purposes.

    4. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Such a way of thinking about sex was typical before the sexual revolution. It was accompanied by strict rules for how a woman should behave herself, before and after marriage.

      A woman should never take the initiative, leave all important decisions to men, including who to marry (which was decided upon by the potential groom and both families). Once married, a woman should only concern herself with keeping the house tidy, taking care of the children, and ensure the continuing comfort of her husband, regardless of her own condition.

      It took a world war (when women had to work in the factories, because most men were away, fighting) to shake up these widely held convictions and a revolution (from the '60s and onwards) to get things to change.

      Sexual behaviour (e.g. flirting) has been accepted for a while now, and sex itself is becoming less of a taboo as well. The reason why sex was treated like something 'special' for such a long time was because it was a taboo, thanks to good old-fashioned Christian values (re virgin birth), not because not talking about it made it somehow 'better'.

      The man can say, "She wants to have sex with me and no one else!" The woman can say, "He wants to have sex with me and no one else!" Man: "My body is ALL for YOU!" Woman: "My body is ALL for YOU!" You can imagine what that does to the hormones! And the mutual love. A third person, whether a participant or spectator, contaminates the marital purity and spoils the "one flesh" sexual intimacy.

      ...which is why all men absolutely can't stand the thought of a trisome.

      Thank you, please come again :)

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    5. Re:Here we go again... by superyooser · · Score: 0, Troll
      The sexual revolution, over all, has been a horrible tragedy. It's been a series of horrible tragedies, afflicting family after family. Too much to even describe here. The '60s nearly destroyed this nation, and we're still greatly hurting from it, socially, spiritually, financially, etc.

      Thank you, please come again :)

      Appropriate signoff for your fast food philosophy. You know nothing about life. You choose flings over marriage? You will die a bitter death. You will never know love.

    6. Re:Here we go again... by nathanh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Appropriate signoff for your fast food philosophy. You know nothing about life. You choose flings over marriage? You will die a bitter death. You will never know love.

      Spot the loving and caring Christian.

    7. Re:Here we go again... by Derkec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice little logical twist you put in there. Because traditional Judeo-Christian views on sex were more common prior to the sexual revolution and because women had a lower standing prior to the world war II, you associate the idea that sex should be between man and wife with oppression of women. That's bull and I'm calling you on it.

      Yes, attitudes on both subjects changed at roughly the same period of history. So did attitudes and laws regarding race in this country. Your argument has only slightly more merit than saying a Christian views on love and marriage are to blame for Jim Crow.

      Now, I think sex is 'special' and not because of historical matters. It's just the closest you can be to someone. It's intimate and great.

      I do find it amusing that you take the poster's most sensuous point (ALL YOU YOU!) and can only respond with a trite remark about threesomes. Every piece of relationship advice I've ever seen, be it at church, in the newspaper, online, in Cosmo... has said that if you value the relationship, don't do a threesome. More often than not, someone is going to be jealous and the relationship will be strained.

      I think that if you ask people who believe in the sacredness of the marriage bed, few will say that women should only concern herself with family and home duties. The "rules" are as strict for men as women and are geared for the joy of each.

    8. Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are certain places in the world you can live where they still oppress women and abhor sexuality. I'd recommend comparing notes with the people that live there, but I think we're bombing them at the moment.

    9. Re:Here we go again... by cryptor3 · · Score: 1
      Regarding this:

      >> And no, I do not agree they define us as people.
      > I never said they do.

      Explain this, please?
      >>> Violence and sexual behaviour are facts of life, and are two of the things which most actively define ourselves and our surroundings.

      I think it's logical to conclude that "ourselves" means "us [as people]."

    10. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice little logical twist you put in there. Because traditional Judeo-Christian views on sex were more common prior to the sexual revolution and because women had a lower standing prior to the world war II, you associate the idea that sex should be between man and wife with oppression of women.

      Did I? I'm sorry if that's how it appeared to you. I merely tried to describe some of the, now outdated, views held by many before the sexual revolution and feminism.

      Now, I think sex is 'special' and not because of historical matters. It's just the closest you can be to someone. It's intimate and great.

      If that's how you experience it, that's fine. Just realize that not everyone thinks about this subject in the same manner.

      I do find it amusing that you take the poster's most sensuous point (ALL YOU YOU!) and can only respond with a trite remark about threesomes. Every piece of relationship advice I've ever seen, be it at church, in the newspaper, online, in Cosmo... has said that if you value the relationship, don't do a threesome. More often than not, someone is going to be jealous and the relationship will be strained.

      Then you missed the point of the remark I made. The parent made it sound like to a man, having sex with a single woman is what any man instinctively craves, whereas it's a commonly known fact that monogamy is definitely not natural behaviour for humans, and might possibly contribute to the sharp rise in genetic defects we're witnessing.

      Perhaps I should have elaborated on this point, but I refrained from doing so, lest I might inadvertently 'feed a troll', so to speak.

      I think that if you ask people who believe in the sacredness of the marriage bed, few will say that women should only concern herself with family and home duties. The "rules" are as strict for men as women and are geared for the joy of each.

      Again, I apologize if I made it sound like monogamy and the suppression of women's rights are directly related.

      On a sidenote, according to the statistics, individuals who believe in the 'sacredness of the marriage bed', let alone marriage, are a dying breed. Apparently the views held by those individuals are not that convincing to younger generations. One might consider this to be the continuing 'sexual revolution'.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    11. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      "define us as people" might be interpreted as meaning "is an essential part of being human".

      I merely meant to say that all actions taken in the past, including those of a violent and/or sexual nature, shape the present, of which we are a part.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    12. Re:Here we go again... by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are people out there that could say that their belief structure says that promiscuity is "right" and that monogamy is "wrong". So what, exactly, makes the Christian standpoint the right one? You can't define what's right and wrong for everyone based on your personal beliefs, since so many different belief structures exist in this world.

      Obviously, since there are so many people playing these games, many people don't view them as "wrong". Why should your opinion matter to them?

    13. Re:Here we go again... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I'm living in the Philippines at present, a fairly religious country. (Christian)

      From experience, the filipino's I have met cannot mentally seem to comprehend that another religion beyond their own might even exist in the world. Let alone that an individual might choose to actually believe that there is no god at all.

      They will talk of ghosts and other nasty evil things like its all common scientific fact that such things are real. It's not at all unusual to find fourth hand accounts of half fish/man beasts that are believed as though seen through ones very own eyes... Sigh... Stupid. (Nobody ever seems to get a photograph, and dna samples are too far beyond the scope)

    14. Re:Here we go again... by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Wow, nice piece of dogma there, even with a link to some christian bible stuff.

      The only sexual behavior that is not bad behavior is that which occurs privately within the exclusive bounds of a faithful, marital relationship between one man and one woman.

      This is your belief, you should state as such. As it is you are attempting to make a claim as being true just because you believe it to be.

      In fact i really dont have to quote anymore then to say this is an opinion piece touted as fact or 'rules' or whatever. In the future you would do well to learn the difference between opinion and fact. Otherwise you are just FUDding yourself.

      Unless of course your whole post is meant to be well crafted subtle sarcasm, In that case you've done a stellar job.

    15. Re:Here we go again... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'm just amazed to see on of them in the wild still. I can't believe actual christians exist at all in this day and age and it is a real treat to see one in person. I wish I had my camera.

    16. Re:Here we go again... by jareds · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The parent made it sound like to a man, having sex with a single woman is what any man instinctively craves, whereas it's a commonly known fact that monogamy is definitely not natural behaviour for humans, and might possibly contribute to the sharp rise in genetic defects we're witnessing.

      How might monogamy contribute to the rise in genetic defects? I can see that in excessively small and isolated populations, it would be best for women to have children by different partners to maximize genetic diversity, but I wouldn't think it would have any significant effect in the large modern gene pool, given that actually having children with close relatives is rare.

    17. Re:Here we go again... by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1
      Appropriate signoff for your fast food philosophy. You know nothing about life. You choose flings over marriage? You will die a bitter death. You will never know love.

      Spot the loving and caring Christian.

      For sure, sometimes the biggest hiderance to Christians are other Christians. A good number of Christians are good people, but the horrible things people do in the name of God (Crusades, possibly Iraq War) are terrible. I've nothing against Christians, being one myself, but the Christains are all too human as well.

      Anyone remember the Doomesque Noah's Ark game for SNES? I heard rumors of it's existance, along with some screenshots, but I never played it.

      One reason you can't reall make a video game out of biblical events is that the end is set in stone already. If you change details, to make it a better game, you will be blasphmous or some such. I'd like to see a good solid shooter without gobs of blood. Maybe a paintball/airsoft kind of thing. If it's well made, a game is a game is a game, and I won't buy or not buy it based on religion alone.

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    18. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      Having children with close relatives is called homogamy, which is another term for inbreeding.

      Because monogamy restricts the sexual relations of a man to a single woman, in a healthy population, this means that more of those with genetic defects (active or latent) can procreate, whereas otherwise only a small subset of such individuals would be able to produce offspring.

      Furthermore, because monogamy by its very nature restricts the genetic diversity of a population, creating more of a linear spread (through generations) of genes, genetic defects can last far longer than is necessary.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    19. Re:Here we go again... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      A previous post mentioned Nerf Arena Blast, which is pretty good (I own it), and there ARE a couple of painball games already on the market (three or four years old). If you think that they should be made, then go out and buy one of the ones that already exist.

      FWIW: I do not think that Iraq has anything to do with Christianity, except that George W might be one.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    20. Re:Here we go again... by Unordained · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing the Bible doesn't talk about sex. At all. Song of Solomon, anyone? Heck, how many instances of "... A knew B ..." can you find in the Bible? How many instances of violence? Women and children being murdered because God said so (yes, that -does- happen)? Or even better -- God deciding, after drowning everyone (minus a few,) that maybe that wouldn't be such a good thing to do in the future? Nor is it uncommon in the Bible to find references to men having multiple wives (particularly kings), without this being a 'bad thing' (tm). Women having sex with their own father so as to bear him children so he can have heirs ... people receiving offers for anal sex ... yup, the Bible is devoid of any such stuff.

      And assuming that the whole "covering himself with a leaf" thing was the result of sin, and the discovery of good and evil ... wouldn't unashamed public nakedness (and acceptance thereof) be a return to the "better, good ol' days" of pre-sin innocence?

    21. Re:Here we go again... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I have an idea for a christian video game. It's called Crusade.

      In the first portion of the game, you learn that moozlim ayrabs have seized the Holyland. God's chosen people, the Christians must take it back. Onward Christian soldiers!

      Along the way to Jerusalem, stop at every village you find to rob, rape and pillage. When you get there, don't just kill the men. Women, children and livestock are fair game too.

      In the second portion of the game, you are back in Europe. You must save Christendom from withches! Go from village to village, town to town armed with the Maleum Maleficarum, and hunt for them. Kill every woman and girl. They could easily be witches. If you encounter any Jewish ghettos in the towns, break down the walls, burn down the synagogues, and kill the Rabbis. All that stuff they do is probably witchcraft, too.

      Part three is also in Europe. Catholics fight Protestants, and Protestants fight other Protestants that believe differently, all to determine who are the true christians. This fight will last 100 years!

      The fourth phase of the game is set right here in The United States of America, that shining city on a hill of which scripture says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is The Lord". You go from door to door trying to save people who can only avoid going to hell by joining your church. You will deny health care to children, instead you will lay hands on them, and pray. You will handle venomous snakes and drink poison. After all, your church believes in the full gospel, it is not one of those false churches that ignores Mark 16:17 and 16:18.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    22. Re:Here we go again... by spir0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What makes good sex good is its exclusive and secret nature.

      This is something which I personally find distasteful. Not from the perspective of wanting to see others doing it, but because secrecy allows those in a position of power to take advantage of it. This can lead to rape, even in a marital situation, but even if it's just discomfort, secrecy does not allow the uncomfortable party the freedom to discuss it with friends and family because they will feel they are breaking the sanctity and secrecy of sex.

      This is very, very dangerous and is still very common among churches and followers.

      If, as society, we force people to keep quiet about these sort of things, then we will also silence those who genuinely need help.

      An open and honest society is safer for everyone.

      --
      The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    23. Re:Here we go again... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
      the filipino's I have met cannot mentally seem to comprehend that another religion beyond their own might even exist in the world.
      Sounds familiar. Many Humanists are like this. They may well hear about other religions, but they're in some way unreal, not something that serious people do.
      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    24. Re:Here we go again... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the brevity of the last comment. It sums up what I believe would happen to him if he continues on his current path. A warning sign is love.

    25. Re:Here we go again... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      There are people out there that could say that their belief structure says that promiscuity is "right" and that monogamy is "wrong". So what, exactly, makes the Christian standpoint the right one?

      The question was about why Christian video games should avoid simulated sexual behavior. I gave you the Christian viewpoint.

    26. Re:Here we go again... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      As it is you are attempting to make a claim as being true just because you believe it to be.

      I am attempting to defend Digital Praise's policy of making video games that are not "flooded" with sexual content. It is a Christian company making video games for Christian gamers. I gave you the Christian viewpoint. This is what we believe. Digital Praise is not making games for the atheist/pagan market, so it is not in their interest to pander to those philosophies.

    27. Re:Here we go again... by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Actually I didn't get that our of your post at all. It sounded very much you were talking a lot about your opinion on how sex is viewed by christians. Or more correctly how you believe sex is or should be viewed by christians. As you have stated that sex should be kept secret, we can reasonably conclude that 'flooded' means any.

      I fear you have been lead down a primrose path of disinformation by someone about what is in games, and who they are targeted for.

      There is also this interesting 'atheist/pagan' comment, it gives the implication that as Digital Paradise is pandering to some portion of the christian spectrum, other companies have a policy of making games to a 'non-christian' market. I put hat in quotes as it is presumptuous of me to claim to know if they are, or are not marketing to a particular philosophy. Also you gave *YOUR* viewpoint. It is presumptuous of you to assume that you are either qualified, or permitted to give a generalize christian view point.

    28. Re:Here we go again... by Reapy · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, but I want to comment in this thread after I've read some. I was about to throw that away and mod you insightful.

      The one man, one woman thing, is really what turns the guy one. Some people like feet, some people like to crap all over their partners, and some like the fact that their wife is pure and untouched. This guy just has the mistaken belief that everyone wants to think like he does.

      My fionce hasn't been with another person before me, and when we are together, the though of her not having been with someone and her being pure and good does not enter my mind at all. I choose to love her for the person she is, and enjoy the moment we are sharing together, and let go and forget about everything else except the two of this. She could have been with 100 different men for all I care, it wouldn't make a difference.

      So please, do not tell me my love and intimacy is bs because she could be "unclean".

      What's funny, is going to a pre cana (sp?) class as required by the church (i have no faith while my fionce is catholic), some of the couples speaking there mentioned how the first half of their lives married together was bad, emotionally and sexually, because the woman had ben molsested as a child. She said that it wasn't until they had sought counceling that they were able to overcome their problems and have a healthier relationship.

      Your time together isnt a secret hidden afair. That just seems to be a hold over from when you were a teen and had to hide from your parents what you were doing. You are an adult now, it's ok to acknowledge that people like to be intimate.

    29. Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how every Christian quotes specifically from the Bible - but never quotes the contradictory or questionable parts of the work. It's ok to participate in incest, genocide, or for God to purposefully turn men against him so he has an excuse to destroy them, but let's just quote this one tiny little section that validates what I want to say...

      And yes, I once was a Christian too. So I've been there and saw the flaws and repented of my Christianity with good reason. Because didn't God give me reason???

      This whole diatribe is fine.. for YOU. But only for you and those who are comfortable with your perception of life.

      For others, with likewise valid systems of beliefs and morals, their views are likewise valid. (It's a hard concept for a Christian, I know..)

      So, while your OPINION is nice, it hardly applies to anyone else by default.

      Why is it so hard for the Christians to understand this? Keep your opinion to yourself -- stop trying to convert everyone to your side. It doesn't work that way, and just leads to hard feelings.

      Besides, do you really think God needs your help?

    30. Re:Here we go again... by gid-goo · · Score: 0, Troll

      But what he will "know" hopefully is many fine fine ladies and/or gents. Ideally in a deep, deep, carnal way.

      And actually it's the 50's that nearly destroyed this nation, the 60's was just an attempt to right the balance.

    31. Re:Here we go again... by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      On a sidenote, according to the statistics, individuals who believe in the 'sacredness of the marriage bed', let alone marriage, are a dying breed. Apparently the views held by those individuals are not that convincing to younger generations. One might consider this to be the continuing 'sexual revolution'.

      That in itself means nothing. There have been entire generations convinced of falsehoods all throughout history. This is an undisputable fact for this reason: there have been many generations that disagreed with what another generation taught. They can't both be right.

      What I'd say is that these young people are being taught by TV, commercial and social interests. Whether or not the ideas behind these are correct, they are being marketted better than traditional monogamous ideas. For me, the fact that younger generations are being convinced means absolutely nothing. People typically get wiser with age, so I've little interest in adopting a position for this reason alone. It may be right, it may not (I believe the latter), but this is an insufficient argument.

      Forgive me for quoting another one of your posts and putting it here to save space:

      Because monogamy restricts the sexual relations of a man to a single woman, in a healthy population, this means that more of those with genetic defects (active or latent) can procreate, whereas otherwise only a small subset of such individuals would be able to produce offspring.
      A few problems:

      1. Your argument suggests that the ultimate goal of reproduction is evolution, which presupposes Darwinism, which presupposes God's absence from working in His Creation. I do not ascribe to that, so I have no problem in forcing monogamy even though it might possibly introduce more defects.

      2. Monogamy is, strictly speaking, not a Christian norm. In the old testament there are numerous examples of pious men in polygynous relationships (never polyandrous). In the new testament little->nothing is said on monogamy vs polygyny. It is only certain all throughout Scripture that women may never have more than one husband. Therefore it is not a hard step for me to permit polygyny in a society that can handle it.

      3. Your argument sounds like you are saying "those with obvious genetic defects should not be allowed to breed". What are you saying? If I have a genetic defect that causes me to have a weaker back than others (so I can't do any heavy labour) then how in any reality would this sexual revolution reduce my chances of procreating any more than a monogamous culture? In fact, my chances of procreation in a sexually liberal society would be increased (IF such a society desired offspring, which this one doesn't).

    32. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      3. Your argument sounds like you are saying "those with obvious genetic defects should not be allowed to breed". What are you saying? If I have a genetic defect that causes me to have a weaker back than others (so I can't do any heavy labour) then how in any reality would this sexual revolution reduce my chances of procreating any more than a monogamous culture? In fact, my chances of procreation in a sexually liberal society would be increased (IF such a society desired offspring, which this one doesn't).

      Looking at other societies (e.g. in Africa) where polygamy is common, there are fewer 'free' women (in most forms of polygamy). This in turn means that more men, especially those of lower social status, have less chance of procreating.

      On a sidenote, I think that not precreating is more than just common sense if you have one or more latent or active genes which are known to be responsible for certain genetic diseases. To willingly risk that your child will be affected by a serious genetic disease, because either you knew that you and the person you're having the child with do have those 'bad' genes, or you refuse to have a test performed to check for those genes, is more than just cruel and inhumane.

      Not precreating is for now the only 100% foolproof way of curing genetic diseases.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    33. Re:Here we go again... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Furthermore, because monogamy by its very nature restricts the genetic diversity of a population, creating more of a linear spread (through generations) of genes, genetic defects can last far longer than is necessary."

      Please explain how 2 people from different families making children and then one of those children having children with a mate from a different family and so on and so on, would restrict genetic diversity?

      also you do realize that when a monogamous family has multiple children, those children are quite often very diverse in their atributes, so when each one of those children chooses a mate from other families, the individual genes they pass on are being mixed quite well.. (did i explain that well, doesn't seem like it...)

      thinking about it, wouldn't having multiple partners just be spreading the same genes from one parent to many children thus polluting the gene pool with the same dna over and over again?

    34. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      thinking about it, wouldn't having multiple partners just be spreading the same genes from one parent to many children thus polluting the gene pool with the same dna over and over again?

      When I mentioned 'linear spread' in reference to monogamy, I meant that the available genetic material is spread just like without monogamy, but at a much slower pace.

      Mutations will spread through the population regardless, unless you employ DNA tests and prevent individuals affected by or carrying genetic defects from procreating, but monogamy makes this process many times slower.

      Just look at how long certain genetic defects can last within a single family. A hereditary disease like Huntington's chorea can plague a family for tens of generations, if not longer. Without monogamy, basic statistics indicates that such a disease could be gone in a couple of generations, as it requires two copies of the same faulty gene.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    35. Re:Here we go again... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Right, but in my last paragraph wouldn't this hold true since the same half of the genetic information would propagate to a wider selection of hosts, the chances of 2 people having the genetic defect would then be greater right?

    36. Re:Here we go again... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      That's the entire idea behind it. The effect would be that for a couple of generations more people would be affected by the genetic disorder, but the genetic defect would not be propagated after that, because:

      - people affected by a genetic disorder are less likely to get children if there's a chance that those children will also be affected by, or become carriers for this genetic disorder.
      - certain genetic disorders rapidly become lethal at a young age, or at least prevent the affected individual from interacting with other people in a 'normal' manner. With more 'hits' (i.e. two copies of the mutated gene combined), there will be fewer carriers.

      Of course, if we really cared about preventing genetic disorders, we would make genetic tests prior to allowing two individuals to procreate mandatory. Unlike diseases which are spread by bacteria and viruses, genetic disorders are relatively easy to prevent.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
  5. DAMN STRAIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Digital Praise is founded on the principle that fun, exciting computer games don't need to be flooded with violence, sex, hate or images of horror

    I totally agree. Hangman, anyone?

    1. Re:DAMN STRAIGHT by MrLint · · Score: 1

      actually this poses a question, what kind of games are they going to make?

      Racing games? Well if someone crashes the car that's implied violence. And you cant hit another car as that is violent. If you race by yourself you might hit a wall and that again implies a car crash.. ok thats out.

      ok well i suppose you can do puzzle games.. *shrug* ok. However i cant think of any successful pure puzzle games other than tetris. Even the venerable Myst series had a rather complex plot that with element that some may consider 'impure'. For instance if you look at that always amusing to read standby capalert.com anymore involving drama at all that isnt pushing christian dogma in it is reviewed badly.

      So what would fall under these restrictions? A grocery shopping Sim? The dog walking challenge? or perhaps (waiting to be modded troll) a game where you can pray sim prayers and wait for your non-answer :)

  6. Re:First Game: Pearl Harbor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hilarious!! Let's kill a few Hindoos and Buddhists!! What fun!!!

  7. FP!S by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Insightful
    any kind of violent and sexual behaviour is a bad thing

    Strawman detected.

    In an average TV crime show, the hero of the plot kills one person per episode. An average New York police officer draws their gun about twice in their working lifetime. An average FPS player kills several opponents per minute.

    What they're looking for is a game which is closer to Real Life, both less traumatising/anaesthetising for the player (however small the doses of trauma are) and better training for Real Life.

    Children's games don't fulfil that aim because they are too simple.

    I notice that you don't directly address your first point. Meanwhile...

    FPSs are violent by nature
    Not. To be precise (AFAIK) all that you can make a valid claim for is "existing FPS implementations are all violent", and this represents a poverty of imagination, not a natural feature of the genre.

    Does a paintball FPS exist - where the objective is to tag opponents rather than killing them, or perhaps paint them with enough of your team's colour to initiate them into your side? If not, maybe it should. How about an FPS where the objective is to stick radio tags to wildlife? How about an "orbital debris hunter" FPS? How about a waldo FPS, where you're working on mechanical stuff in high orbit (or maybe you're in a ship orbiting a planet that needs terraforming), and there's a couple of seconds of lag in the feedback loop, maybe even a slowly-varying few seconds? Much harder to master than Quake, and much easier to set up for a meaningful ranking system.

    Any of these can be intricate and exhilarating, and there's absolutely no need for them to be nasty or gory. How about a baseball FP[BatterPitcherFieldsman]? How about a first-person run in a fibreglass suit to emplace sensors in and/or collect samples from an actively erupting volcano?

    The problem is your viewpoint. It's not an honest one, it's only an excuse to run people down from faux philosophical high ground. If your aim is to convert Christians to your own (short-sighted) way of thinking, you should be pushing this for all it's worth, as a foot-in-the-door way of weaning Christians onto more violent games. But no, you're too busy looking for immediate peer-group approval instead, so you're not. News flash! There is more to life!

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:FP!S by mutewinter · · Score: 1

      There are paintball mods for games such as ghost recon. One game I used to really enjoy is Nerf Arena. I believe it used the Unreal Tournament engine and was released shortly before Unreal Tournament. So, the graphics might be slightly dated but it is still a very fun game to play. A wide assortment of nerf guns combined with bright and very original levels adds up to a great first person shooter. Its great for kids and adults. Believe me on this one, I enjoyed Soldier of Fortune 1 and 2, and I still loved this game.

    2. Re:FP!S by HalfFlat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does a paintball FPS exist [...] ?
      Yes, but ...
      If not, maybe it should.
      if only you knew the horror.

      There are worse things than violent FPSs.

      Much, much worse.

    3. Re:FP!S by Starsmore · · Score: 1
      How about a waldo FPS

      For a minute there, I thought you were talking about a game where you wandered through a crowd from a First Person viewpoint, looking for a skinny fellow in a red-&-white striped hat.

      "There he is!"

      LEVEL COMPLETE

      Of course, in today's day and age of Gaming, Waldo would be one huge mutha-fscker, with rocket launchers, gatling guns, and you'd have to strategically blow up portions of the surrounding building so it would drop on his head and knock him out... but he'd escape at the last second! Onto the next level!!

      Damn, that'd make a fun mod for something. :)

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    4. Re:FP!S by Rethcir · · Score: 1

      There was actualy a Where's Waldo NES cart late in the NES' lifetime (probably after the SNES was out). It showed you a picture of a bunch of people, and you pointed at waldo, and presto kazam, you beat the level. And of course, it was a terrible horrible game and anyone who got it as a gift must have felt really saddened by their parents' lack of videogame knowledge and angry that a company that would put out such dreck to make a buck. I'm just glad I rented it and didn't buy it.

    5. Re:FP!S by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why you would want to play a simulation of a simulation of (as much as the modern paintball industry denies it) armed combat ?

      If I want to do something physical like that, I'll play airsoft in politically incorrect camouflage with politically incorrect realistic looking fully-automatic plastic bb shooting guns. If I want to do something like that on a computer I'll play a computer simulation of combat.

      The others sound...no offense, but very boring. The only other fun FPS sub-genre I've seen is the stealth kind or the roleplaying kind, both of which still sometimes have violence.

      If you want a non-violent game, there are plenty out there. Simcity, the Sims (well, people do get in fights, I guess), Railroad Tycoon, etc. Or you could play Civ and just avoid war.

      But a game solely about sticking tags on animals?!? Come on. A game about terraforming a planet might be fun, but it's been done and I doubt the first-person perspective would be ideal for it.

  8. Niche Market by SiO2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The words "niche market" come to mind. They are obviously targeting a very specific audience: people who want to play games, but who want to feel safe and moral while doing so.

    I would posit that the vast majority of us who play games with violent or sexual content do so for the following reasons:

    1. They're fun.

    2. Normal, being a relative term, people can't do the things in meat space that they can do in computer games. They like that. They feel free. They get to step outside the boundaries for a bit.

    3. Fragging helps to release tension. Sure, you would really like to go after Phil at the office with a rail gun, because he fucked up again and really made you angry. Go splatter some bots instead. You won't end up in either the electric chair or strapped to a gurney with a needle in your arm that is about to deliver to your bloodstream some chemicals of a very dubious and harmful nature.

    4. A lot of geeks, nerds, dweebs, dorks, and whatever term you choose were kicked around a lot when they were younger. Violent games are a way for them to kick back in a manner that, while cathartic, is not harmful to others.

    I suppose most of these points are intertwined.

    There are already a great deal of fun games available that are non-violent, non-sexual, and non-Christian. I submit, for example, games like Enigmo, Text Twist, the wiley veteran Tetris, UpLink, etc. These are but a few examples.

    I think that this company is merely using the tired argument that violent games lead to violent behavior. If anything, I would argue the opposite. I, for one, have become so jaded by violence in the news that I really don't care anymore. Some more soldiers exploded in Iraq again today. Some more Jews killed some more Palestinians. Some more Palestinians killed some more Jews. I've heard and read it so many times that I don't even care anymore.

    This company just wants to offer alternatives that disseminate Christian values, which, I think, is not necessarily wrong. More power to them. However, I do believe that their market share will be rather slim and limited to Christian fundamentalists.

    SiO2

    1. Re:Niche Market by cryptor3 · · Score: 1
      The words "niche market" come to mind. They are obviously targeting a very specific audience: people who want to play games, but who want to feel safe and moral while doing so.

      I disagree. All kinds of people play all kinds of nonviolent games. As you pointed out, Online games sites such as Yahoo Games is quite popular and if I had to guess, NOT a niche market by any means.

      The point is that this audience probably does not play these [nonviolent, etc.] games because it wants to feel safe and moral, but because there IS a broad market for [nonviolent, etc.] games.

      We've seen that (at least mostly) nonviolent games reach even the "hardcore" market and become very popular. Here's a list of a few of my favorites:

      the Simcity series

      Super Mario Brothers

      Any racing games

      There's also this other game called "Dance Dance Revolution" which I hear is becoming popular. ;-)

      Oh, and for the record, I was also once an avid FPS player. UT, Tribes 2 and CS were my favorites back when I had time.

    2. Re:Niche Market by Reapy · · Score: 1

      We've seen that (at least mostly) nonviolent games reach even the "hardcore" market and become very popular. Here's a list of a few of my favorites:

      # the Simcity series
      # Super Mario Brothers
      # Any racing games


      Actually, those can all be pretty violent. In super mario brothers, this army of goobas came in and conquored whatever world it was. The imprisoned the princess and held her captive. Mario smashes bricks with his head, then stomps and kills cute little mushroom guys and turtles. He throws fireballs at them and kills them. He solves all his problems with violence, killing his foes whenever he can.

      In any racing game, they are not intially violent, but can quickly turn so, ramming into other cars, driving in a reverse dirction on the track, causing 30 car pile ups. But this doesnt force the player to be violent, so i'll give you the racing games.

      Sim city's the worst offender. After you build up your city, you can watch floods, fires, earthquakes, and rampent monsters destroying your city on a massive scale. Thousands of people would probably die in these "fun" simulated disasters. Just because you don't see the bodies, doesnt mean they are there. That is usually the case when you see wreckage on tv, you only see the buildings, not the countless corpses laying underneath it all.

      Let's just face it, simulating violence and destroying things we built is FUN. But it's still violence at the heart of it.

    3. Re:Niche Market by cryptor3 · · Score: 1
      It's really not that hard to think up ways of injecting violence into any games. You forgot to figure one out for DDR.

      Whenever I play DDR, I think about stomping on my boss's body repeatedly to the tunes of hardcore dance tracks.

      When the beats really pick up, I think about using the little colored arrows to do unspeakable things* to him, too.

      How's that for violence?


      * I don't know what "unspeakable things" means to you, but I meant "put on a happy light show."

    4. Re:Niche Market by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      I was never really into the whole FPS thing unless there was a problem to solve.

      Now flight sims (like X Plane) are where it's at. And Civ III-type games.

      Don't get me wrong, I like killing people, but I prefer doing it in the "crush their civilization and assimilate them" way.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  9. Hangman? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Obviously, you don't get the point. (-:

    Note to moderators: please don't mod stuff down because you disagree with it. Moderate it up or down based on the quality or otherwise of the points made. The parent AC deserves the occasional positive mod for polite, constructive sarcasm.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  10. I think you mean "Humanist" by leonbrooks · · Score: 1, Insightful
    We know of a Christianity that demands absolute conformity.
    To...? If it's not Christ, then the person you're facing is not Christian, whatever they claim to the contrary. That's built right into the etiology of the word. The largest "Christian" denomination in the world demands first loyalty to the head of a small European state. Another large one demands loyalty to an office just off the same coast (not quite correct: they're split into two major faction groups, and one of those seems to have their basic priorities right).
    We know of a Christianity that beleives in conversions and in the process is ruining states of North-east India.
    It takes two to tango. Until you know about the individual Christians and what exactly it is that they're ruining, generalisations like that are at best pointless and in practice usually dangerous. Forex, if they're "ruining" a society which frowns on charity for fear of damaging the recipient's karma, then I'm all for "ruining" that. But I'd need more data than you've supplied in order to make a call there.

    More-or-less genuine Christianity is also "ruining" (depending on your PoV) hundreds of Orthodox rabbis every year and hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Mohammedans. In return, many Mohammedans have demonstrated that they would rather murder their own than see them convert, including their own children (that's a pretty clear demonstration of the inferiority of their argument). How do you feel about that? Your answers might teach you a lot about your own anxiety.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:I think you mean "Humanist" by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 2, Informative

      The largest "Christian" denomination in the world demands first loyalty to the head of a small European state.

      Catholics are Christians; in fact, they're the authentic Christians. Christ said that He'd found His Church on the rock of Peter (it was Jesus who gave Simon the name Peter/Kepha, or "rock", in the first place). See Matthew 16:18-19. Note that Jesus says this in response to the Father communicating to Peter the truth concerning the identity of Jesus.

      The above passage also mentions the keys given to Peter, which express Peter's role as Christ's steward on earth (compare Isaiah 22:22). John 21:15-17 also refers to this role: the Good Shepherd places the care of His sheep in the hands of His steward Peter, in preparation for His departure from the world.

      Also, Jesus prayed that the faith of the Apostles would be preserved by Peter. (Luke 22:31-32) Why didn't He pray for all the Apostles instead of just Peter? Because it was part of the role Jesus intended for Peter.

      So if you want to conform to Christ, then you should accept the steward He has given you: the Pope, successor of Peter.

    2. Re:I think you mean "Humanist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what says that the role would continue with "successors" rather than ending with the death of Peter?

    3. Re:I think you mean "Humanist" by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Jesus has already returned? The point of a steward is that he acts on behalf of the king while the king is away. So if Jesus hasn't returned yet, then the steward is still required.

    4. Re:I think you mean "Humanist" by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      I'm no Christian, but I am a historian. It seems to me that Catholicism has more in common with the Roman Empire than with what Jesus of Nazareth taught.

      Wasn't there something about not having an organized religion, but having small groups worship at each others houses? I'm no biblical scholar either, in fact I haven't read the Christian Bible since being forced to as a kid.

      Just because someone is a sucessor to someone doesn't mean that his leadership or ideas are consistant with the originator of the religion. Isn't the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims based on a dispute about who is the true successor?

      In short, I think that religion should be a personal decision. I don't see why being intolerant of others who worship the same god in a different way makes sense. But then, I'm an atheist, having given up caring about what (IMO) mythological entities might think, so who knows.

  11. Umm... by King_of_Prussia · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Whereabouts in the bible does it say "and ye faithful shall not gaze upon or take part in scenes of horror"?

    Calling horror and violence something foreign to the church seems a little off kilter- anyone remember the crusades?

    --

    Making the moon less necessary since 1998.

    1. Re:Umm... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I remember that the Crusades were carried out by authoritarian theocracies that forced religion upon their people. The leaders lined people up, had them walk through the water of large baptistries, and - abracadabra - they were "Christians." Utter foolishness! These were the people that also thought they could make their enemies convert to Christianity by the threat of the sword. That's not agreeing to converting; that's saving your skin.

      No, becoming a Christian must be a personal decision. One must confess and repent of his sins, and he must put his personal trust in the Son of God as his Lord and Savior. Becoming a Christian means having a profound change of heart that reorients your inclination from evil to good.

      In a theocracy, there is no room for choice. You become a "Christian" because you're born where people expect and demand you to be a Christian. So, there is no change of heart, no active following of Christ's teachings, and no rebirth - birth of the spirit.

      I do not believe the Crusaders were Christian. Allow me to present one of many contrasts. Jesus Christ taught in the synagogues. He said that He had been sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). The resurrected Christ told His disciples to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8) So what did the ever-so-devout Crusaders do when they went to Jerusalem? They burned down the synagogue with thousands of "the lost sheep" inside. The Jews all burned to death. It was a huge inferno; a 9/11 on steroids (comparing body counts). Yeah, great "witnessing" there, Christians. And there's no case for self-defense either (although there can be in the beginning of the Crusades, but that's only pertaining to the Muslim invaders).

      The evidence says they weren't Christians. A ricer can put a Jaguar hood ornament on his 1984 Honda Accord, but it's still a crappy Accord. He can slap a V-Tec or a TYPE-R sticker on it, too. That doesn't change anything inside. Same thing for religious dunking. They can plaster emblems of the Cross on everything they own. Don't mean a thing if they don't really know the King (Rev. 17:13).

    2. Re:Umm... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      I do not believe the Crusaders were Christian.

      Yes, they were Christians. Some of them were bad Christians, but they were Christians. It's the sick who need a doctor, after all. (Luke 5:31)

    3. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Calling horror and violence something foreign to the church seems a little off kilter- anyone remember the crusades?
      Ah, so Christians = "the" church = the crusades? I didn't realize every Christian at any point in time is exactly like every other Christian in any point in time. Thanks for the insight.
  12. I think this is a positive thing by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here are a bunch of people who are saying we don't like the current crop of games for a number of reasons. So instead of protesting and trying to make it so that others can't play they are going to make their own games. In a free country this is exactly what people should do. One of the points of free software is that people can take it and make it better, for whatever value of better they happen to want. Even if its something that is totally un insteresting to you and me.

    If these folks want to make their games power to them. Remember in the USA fundemtalist christains are a very large number of people.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
  13. Shame on non religious people. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is a shame that it takes a group as descredited as any religious organization (don't start me on this one, just my opinion OK?) to tackle excesive violence and demeaning or exploitatve sex stereotypes.

    I, being a non religious person, am sick and tired of games whose only aim is to brutalize as many characters as possible in the worst possible way.

    I think game designers have a moral responsibility towards society, specially having in mind that many of their "customers" are impressionable young persons, I am not saying that there should not be ultraviolent, sexually explicit or politically incorrect games, the point I am trying to make is that game developpers seem to think that without at least one of the above they can't sell.

    It is a testament to how wrong they are how Tetris, Pac Man, Myst, SimCity and other games like thes are perhaps the most successful in all time,

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Shame on non religious people. by Knos · · Score: 1

      You know what? It's because non-religious people are typically free to do what they want to do. (Likewise for dogmatic people, but i don't think i've ever seen a game claiming to bring a certain economical ideology for example)

      You want to blame them for not being organized and self-censor themselves. Well, all it requires is a little wait until the industry becomes much smaller (in terms of number of publishing houses) than it is today. It is the concentration of power that can enable self-censorship.

      A given morality cannot be imposed without a government.

      --
      . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
      may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
    2. Re:Shame on non religious people. by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      I too am not remotely religious.

      I have a number of games that would be classified as very violent. GTAIII springs to mind, more recently I have been playing Mafia. What I enjoy about them is the escapism, and I really like the virtual world to interact with, more of that please! Not so bothered about the violent aspects although they can be fun if handled well as they were in GTA.

      However, the game I have been spending most time playing lately, one might say that I am addicted to it, is Super Monkey Ball 2 on the GameCube. No killing (although they never show you what happens to the monkey when he falls off the course) but it is still great fun. I especially like Monkey Billiards (one of the party games) too. SMB2 is a completely non-offensive but very good game. But would Christians like it? There is no message as such, its just a puzzle game really, my feeling is that rather like Christian music (which is really quote horrible most of the time) these Christian games will be designed to push a Christian message and the gameplay will be secondary and for that reason I think they should fail.

      Can you imagine some of the games these people could come up with? Guide Moses down the mountain while he carries the 20 (*crunch) no 15 commandments......

      Personally, I'll keep playing Super Monkey Ball until San Andreas is out, then some Mother F***** is going to get it :-)

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    3. Re:Shame on non religious people. by identity0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I don't disagree that there are a lot of violence in games, but perhaps you could tell me what the difference between a "christian" videogame and a "secular" game is?

      I remember a while back, a "Christian game company" came out with an "Christian first-person shooter" based on the Quake engine which featured the player slaying demons and such with holy relics and swords. Someone pointed out that this was similar in concept to Doom, you go around killing demons. But Doom is considered a "bad" or "evil" game by many fundamentalist types, whereas the christian game was okay for some reason. Is there really a difference between killing demons with a sword in an "christian" game and killing them with shotguns in secular one? The point of both is to entertain through violence, is it not?

      I'm not anti-religious, I just feel that sometimes people are more lenient towards something if it's presented as an overtly religious than as secular.

    4. Re:Shame on non religious people. by dafoomie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because all religous people so abhore violence, they'd never make something as excessively gruesome as Passion of the Christ.

      Yes, shame on all of us non-religous types.

    5. Re:Shame on non religious people. by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      I'm also not religious myself, and I can see where you are coming from : I don't -need- games that have explicit violence scenes : yet, when it's all brought into good context (Resident Evil, for instance) , i think it does not matter , and i compare playing such a game as watching a good horror movie.

      The point you adress of 'customers being young persons' : this totally depends on the rating of the game, and the responsibilities the parents care to take, in making sure their lil' Bobbie isn't playing GTA3.

      I agree on you that most developers that put in sex or violence as a gimmick, don't think of other options to make their game better ; Knowing they will sell a few copies with that content in : But don't resort to 'gamedevelopers' in general, as you are totally missing out on , to bring in an oldy, Nintendo ; And their core of games of the last few decennia.

      With Nintendo's current non-violent game-lines (quality games i might add too) : I think any new 'good morals' developer will strand.

    6. Re:Shame on non religious people. by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      And the shotty is a hell (excuse the pun) lot more effective than a lame sword or cross could do ! ;)

    7. Re:Shame on non religious people. by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone pointed out that this was similar in concept to Doom, you go around killing demons. But Doom is considered a "bad" or "evil" game by many fundamentalist types, whereas the christian game was okay for some reason. Is there really a difference between killing demons with a sword in an "christian" game and killing them with shotguns in secular one?

      Speaking as a Christian who frequently finds myself critical of same, I tend to agree.

      A more contemporary example: Explain to me why Harry Potter is evil, but the Chronicles of Narnia are not.

      Actually, I can draw a meaningful line between the two (this not being a theology site its probably not worth posting it as laying the necessary groundwork would take too long); my point isn't that it is impossible, but that the way that most Christians have condemned it also condemns significant amounts of other classic literature.

      (Also, for the record, I believe there is a huge difference between this is a story and claiming this is true. Until such time as JK Rowling starts claiming it is true, I'm not inclined to worry about it in older children. I do believe younger children (4 or 5) should not see the movies, but more from a developmental psychology approach them a religious one; it is important to develop a sense of reality vs. fantasy, and that is getting increasingly hard in our world as multi-sensory entertainment gets more and more realistic. Expect to see this as an issue sometime in the next decade or two in the developmental psychology discipline.)

  14. A Couple of Issues by Hungus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Label me what you will, Mac Freak, BSD Zealot, Rolemaster 2nd Apologist, Grey Hat, Young Earth Creationist, Bad Typist Speller, and Poor Grammarian. (I just figured I would get it out of the way). On top of all that (or rather underlying it) I am an Evangelical Christian of the Reformed Tradition with Jewish roots. Oh, and I love radio dramas, and as a subset Adventures in Odyssey.

    All of that being said, I don't really like they way this company seems to be headed. Christian music has become to popular, to the point it is often difficult to tell the difference between sacred and secular. It is my entrenched belief that once you cannot see the line anymore, it isn't there. Christian games should strive be the best out there, not the most popular. Christians these days often lose sight of it not being about money. You do what you are called to do, not because it is easy or popular but because you were called. You needs will be met, and by that I don't mean your need to drive a Lexus and live in a 3000+ sq. ft home. (unless of course it is a generational home or something similar).

    Christian games can be fun, exciting challenging etc. All to often, however, they are cheesy, shoddily made, or quite droll. The Christian life isn't some go stick your head in the sand way of living (though again some have made it that). People forget that it is a Christian world view that shaped Tolkien's works and yet I would argue that there are a fair number of /.'rs who enjoy the works yet do not have a similar belief. In my mind it should be the same with Christian games. In the end, games for me are about story telling and use such to challenge the mind and soul.

    In any case I will leave you with the following quote ascribed to CS Lewis regarding one of the many conversations he and JRR Tolkien had on issues of myth, storytelling and its effects"
    "Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths; i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of the poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things' ... namely, the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection."
    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    1. Re:A Couple of Issues by Troed · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Young Earth Creationist

      Thank you. If just all of you could state that up front so that the intelligent ones could stop reading right then.

  15. Stories? by LittleBigLui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Digital Praise is founded on the principle that fun, exciting computer games don't need to be flooded with violence, sex, hate or images of horror"


    So the games won't be based on bible stories then?
    --
    Free as in mason.
  16. So.Australia: Bookkeeper job req's church-goer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only that, it's LEGAL to discriminate (in South Australia) on the basis of religion!

    Ref: An Adelaide-suburban Christian school
    advertised a job for a Bookkeeper, stating
    that th successful applicant will be a prac-
    ticing Christian & regular church-goer. The
    employment application had a place for one's
    pastor's comments. Clearly discriminatory!

    Note: This was a NON-teaching office job.

    Somebody made a complaint to the Equal Oppor-
    tunities Commission, and they won't touch it!

    I haven't checked any So Aussie IT firms, but
    maybe this explains the number of Adelaide IT
    folks that seem to sing in choirs... ;-)

    PS The Adelaide Club was known to bar females
    from membership, even while a female doctor
    was Mayor of that City (not that any female
    in town would want to join... ;-)

    1. Re:So.Australia: Bookkeeper job req's church-goer! by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one would pick up that case here in Canada either. You say it's a Christian school so I'm assuming it's not a public one. Private organizations can set their own policies regarding hiring and membership. That's why the Boy Scouts don't have to accept homosexual members for example.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  17. will what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "will skyrocket in popularity much like Christian music did 15 years ago."

    Hm, guess i'll just walk around the company a little and ask if anyone can tell me something about this skyrocking christian music which everybody seems to buy :)

  18. Christian Label Counterproductive by miyako · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that labeling a game as "christian" is setting it up for failure. While "Christian" themed things may be getting more popular, I highly doubt there is a large intersection between gamers and people who enjoy christian themed things.
    Of course the problem is, if you are not going to label it Christian, then what? One could argue that religion should be left out of it, and that there should merely be some effort put into creating games which teach morailty. Of course morality even among christian denominations is highly variable.
    I think alot of the problem is that people generally associate christian themed things with being preachy and uptight.
    Giving these people the benefit of the doubt, I think that they have good intentions, wanting fun games that do not promote violence or gratuitous sex (though I don't personally see sexual themes as being very common in many games, other than the exaggerated portrail of many female characters). The problem is that by labeling it christian it will be passed up by people who might not otherwise pass it up.
    I think a lot of times in america people forget that there are really religions beyond christianity, many of whom would likely be also interested in less violent games.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  19. "Please do not throw Baby Moses in the water!" by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Someone had to do it. ;)

  20. Here. by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Whereabouts in the bible does it say "and ye faithful shall not gaze upon or take part in scenes of horror"?
    This is fairly straightforward.
    anyone remember the crusades?
    In which one political entity (the Roman Catholic Church) taught another (Islam) how to be brutal on a large scale, yes? And what does that have to do with religion?

    How about the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which subjects of the same political entity suddenly rose up and murdered over 70,000 of their competitors in one day, not to mention slicing the breasts off others with shears, and other such pleasantries?

    Or the invasion of Beziers, in which about 30,000 people - roughly half of them being at least nominal adherents to the aforementioned political entity - were wiped out in one go by mercenaries at the direction of said political entity, and the famous quotation "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens" (or, in English, "Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His") was born?

    Yes, politics is murder. And often the reverse is true as well.

    Lest you fall to believing that all lethal political entities have paternalistic religious connections, consider that (Atheist) Mao managed to kill more than 80 million of his own people, (Atheist) Stalin got another 20 million or so, and the Manchu got another few tens of millions suppressing the Ti Ping. To say nothing of strictly commercial murder and mass inhumanity like King Leopold's Congo (chalk up another ten million for that one, give or take).
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      In which one political entity (the Roman Catholic Church) taught another (Islam) how to be brutal on a large scale, yes?

      I know this what the schools and media are telling everyone these days but it's absolute nonsense. The Crusades were a response to centuries of conquest by Islam of half of Eurasia and much of Africa. Not the Crusaders didn't behave in an utterly loathsome way, but the notion that the Saracens were pacifists who were suddenly attacked out of the blue is absurd.

    2. Re:Here. by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      In which one political entity (the Roman Catholic Church) taught another (Islam) how to be brutal on a large scale, yes? And what does that have to do with religion?

      First, as someone has already pointed out, the Muslims were already brutal and warlike. That's how Islam became so "popular" in the first place. Second, the Church did not authorize the brutality often seen in the Crusades. In fact, many Crusaders were excommunicated for participating in massacres. Third, the Church is a spiritual entity founded by Christ, not a political entity.

      How about the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which subjects of the same political entity suddenly rose up and murdered over 70,000 of their competitors in one day, not to mention slicing the breasts off others with shears, and other such pleasantries?

      Actually, it was the French court that was responsible for this. The Church had nothing to do with it.

      Or the invasion of Beziers, in which about 30,000 people - roughly half of them being at least nominal adherents to the aforementioned political entity - were wiped out in one go by mercenaries at the direction of said political entity, and the famous quotation "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens" (or, in English, "Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His") was born?

      First, once again, the Church was not responsible for this, the knights did that on their own. People actually do things without being given orders from above, you know. Second, there's no proof the "Kill them all" quote is authentic.

    3. Re:Here. by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Dude, you need to open your eyes if you think the church holds no political sway in this world.

      Yup, individuals make up a religion, church is populated by humans, I'm not even sure any two of them side by side could interpret their own 'texts' in the same light.

      Take a look at the current US administration and the religious undertones that ebb and flow... I don't know or care if it's right or wrong, but it does exist.

  21. The Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Allow me to interject with a few sobering facts from reality, taken from a book that a lot of people know of, but rarely actually read with their brains turned on:

    Sex and Violence - Lot (A just and righteous man) invites a mob to rape his two daughters:

    "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."

    Hatred, Violence and Sex - Moses, after he and his army kill the adult Midianite males:

    "Have you saved all the women alive? 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."

    Hatred and Sex - Homosexuals must be put to death:

    "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

    Images of Horror - God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven."

    So, which cosy little world of make-believe is Digital Praise living in? Have they actually read the bible, or are they "buffet christians", content to pic-n-mix tidbits from their holy tome?

    For more delightful treats from the bible, visit www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

  22. Yo, kettle! You're black! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Tagline: Oil is not a fossil fuel
    To many people, this same idea is as acceptable as a Creationist at a Humanism convention.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Yo, kettle! You're black! by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      At least, the "Oil is not a fossil fuel" theory is plausible.

      It's a hell of a lot more plausible than the creationism theory, anyway.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    2. Re:Yo, kettle! You're black! by Troed · · Score: 1

      There's sound (and tested) science behind it. There's no sound science behind young earth theories.

  23. Suggestion by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    It would be really interesting if someone made a game accurately based on the bible (Which version? Ed.) where we could have the crusades for example, or perhaps a Populous type game where you have to invade an alternative culture and "persuade" the natives to convert to your religion. It could have the inquisition and various methods of torturing people who didnt agree with the church, and various violent killings and so forth. It would make a great multiplayer where you could choose to be the Romans, the Christians or the Muslims and so on.

    The best part would be when the various happy clappy groups tried to ban it for blasphemy. After all - it would be based on "actual biblical events" and to disagree with this would surely be a sin? I think it would make an interesting statement about violence while showing that all dominant cultures are essentially the same.

    I suppose it might end up like a low-tech version of C&C Generals but with the super weapons replaced by deity smiting etc.

    1. Re:Suggestion by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      It would be really interesting if someone made a game accurately based on the bible (Which version? Ed.) where we could have the crusades for example, or perhaps a Populous type game where you have to invade an alternative culture and "persuade" the natives to convert to your religion

      Uh, yeah, 'cause the crusades are mentioned in the Bible after all.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Suggestion by will.murnane · · Score: 1
      The crusades aren't in the bible.

      Although the bible has a great deal of sex and violence (esp. in the OT) it isn't condoned by Jesus. Whatever you think of him, you gotta admit that he was a decent guy (unless you believe he didn't exist... another can 'o worms there) and wasn't really into the whole violence thing. The church has been responsible for some bad stuff, but then so has every other group which has been around for that long.

      I would agree that the groups trying to ban it would be idiots. Denying history doesn't work. If Castle Wolfenstein was allowed to be published, this game should have smooth sailing.

  24. Probably not, 'coz I can't see how... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...the story of Naaman's cure or Zaccheus' conversion can be turned into an interesting game. Mind you, some people can make toilet paper or styro-burgers seem exciting, so I won't say outright that it can't be done.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  25. They weren't pacifists... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...but they were a lot more inclined to negotiate than the Crusaders were, and did a lot less damage to the locals in their ever so righteous paths.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  26. OT (but so is parent): Sensitivity by OldMiner · · Score: 2, Informative

    FYI, 'Mohammedan' is a potentially offensive term. It implies that the followers of Islam worship Mohammed, just as Christians worship Christ. Moslems worship Allah; Mohammed is His prophet.

    Granted, there are those who would argue your callous word choice was the least offensive portion of your post.

    --
    You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
    1. Re:OT (but so is parent): Sensitivity by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      But from what I understand, Buddhists don't actually worship Buddha either, so I don't think that adding "-an" or "-ist" necessarily means that you worship the prefix. I think it simply means that you follow the prefix. And if Mohammed was the primary prophet, then Muslims would be following his teachings, correct?

      I think that Mohammedan would simply be a native English word for Islam or Muslims, which both derive from Arabic and mean something like submission, if I understand correctly. I'm sure Buddhists in China or Japan don't call themselves "Buddhist", but the China or Japanese word for it. I believe that this is the same concept.

      Then again, I'm not on the "politically correct" bandwagon.

    2. Re:OT (but so is parent): Sensitivity by OldMiner · · Score: 1

      Well, how about this: A lot of black people can trace their ancenstry to Niger, so no one should have an issue if you were to call a black man a...

      That should give you an idea of the relative severity of this term.

      And let's realize that, in the case of Buddhism, Buddha is both a specific person, and a person in general. A Buddhist would wish (or is that "would not wish"?) to become a Buddha. A Muslim does not strive to become Mohammed.

      --
      You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
    3. Re:OT (but so is parent): Sensitivity by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      The word n****r has nothing to do with the country Niger. It's a corruption of the term "negro", which I realize may also be offensive, but I'm using it just for the purposes of this discussion. Besides, just because someone is black doesn't mean their ancestors are from Niger. Besides, people from Niger are called Nigerians, which is not offensive (as far as I know). This is a very poor counter-example on your part.

      Mohammed was a specific person, but I'm not sure what you mean by "person in general". Buddha just means something like "enlightened one". Buddhists follow the original Buddha's teachings (I forget his name, but he was an Indian individual), just as Muslims/Mohammedans follow those of Mohammed. I was just pointing out that just because you take a name and add "-an" doesn't mean that you worship that person (or now, according to you, want to *be* that person). I would take it to mean "a follower of said person".

      I realize that you're just trying your hardest to be offended, but it's not going to work on me. I do not go out of my way to offend anyone, but I don't see why the word would be offensive--at least not given your reasoning. I'm not even the one that used the term "Mohammedan" in the first place. BTW, your link in the previous post is nonworking. Your are using faulty logic to justify why you or anyone else would be offensive. If you prefer another word, fine; use that word instead.

  27. Quality Christian games? by eyepeepackets · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unreal Roman Amphitheatre: The odds favor the lions, so keep your Christian butt movin'!

    Quake, the Crusades: Kill people who don't believe like you.

    Battlezone - Dark Ages: Kill more people who don't believe like you.

    DungeonMaster, Salem: Kill even more people who don't believe like you.

    Counter Strike - Inquisition!: Etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

    Only those completely ignorant of history will by into that whole "God is love" line of bs pushed by these belief-based religions, whether it's Christianity or Islam or whatever: History shows these types of religions are really, truely Nazi-types who have hatred and complete intolerance for others.

    Belief-based is another way of saying willful ignorance.

    If you're going to make "Christian" games, you'll have to make some extremely ugly products.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    1. Re:Quality Christian games? by AkaXakA · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be:

      Counter Strike - Because Islamic Fundamentalists are worse then Christian Fundamentalists.

      P.S. Yes I'm Christian (but far from fundamental) and yes I'm being sarcastic. (but not in that order)

  28. Splish, splash, I was takin' a... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Informative
    ...new religion.
    The leaders lined people up, had them walk through the water of large baptistries, and - abracadabra - they were "Christians."
    It's a time-honoured practice, if time can be said to honour anything. Constantine did this with his troops around 300AD, which was a very long time before the Crusades, also a very long time before the Crusaders' enemy faction even existed.

    Abracadabra, Aramaic for "I create as I speak" is heavily paralleled in the Bible. The term you're probably looking for is "hocus pocus", a corruption of "Hoc est corpus meum", the Latin uttered at the climax of a Mass when the priest purports to compress God (presumably a copy) into a wafer.

    In another interesting pierce of irony, the cross is actually a symbol of Tammuz, the sun god. The cross-with-halo is an exact replica of the rising sun with atmospheric "lens effects". Christ was crucified on the symbol of His arch enemy. Mutating the solar disk into a crown of thorns in order to get away from the pagan implications is spectacularly ironic.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Splish, splash, I was takin' a... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1, Informative

      The term you're probably looking for is "hocus pocus", a corruption of "Hoc est corpus meum", the Latin uttered at the climax of a Mass when the priest purports to compress God (presumably a copy) into a wafer.

      It was Jesus who said the bread was His Body and the wine was His Blood:

      And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

      In another interesting pierce of irony, the cross is actually a symbol of Tammuz, the sun god.

      It also happened to be a Roman method of execution...

      Mutating the solar disk into a crown of thorns in order to get away from the pagan implications is spectacularly ironic.

      Jesus was actually crowned with thorns, mocking Him and the claims that He was the king of the Jews. It had nothing to do with getting away from "pagan implications".

    2. Re:Splish, splash, I was takin' a... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      The irony actually rests in people who seem to make generalizations without having any knowledge of what's actually written in the bible.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  29. Jesux by pudge · · Score: 1

    I am waiting for Jesux: The Game!

  30. Here's hoping . . . by superultra · · Score: 1

    I know movie licensed games usually suck, but maybe they could score a Thief in the Night deal?

  31. Cha-chingian Games by putamare · · Score: 1

    The point here is to sell to a demographic that doesn't buy the games to play them, but rather give them to their children, paperboys, or whatever. It doesn't matter how hard they suck, the sap paying for it wouldn't begin to know the first thing from good or bad in the first place. They're not paying for a gaming experience, but fulfilling some sort of gift obligation and managing to do it in a pious way (and getting two steps closer to heaven in the process). While the title may languish on the shelf at home, it is because little Johnny/Jill has an evil mind, which just goes to show how strong the need is to buy even more christian games...

  32. but but .... by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 1

    But god uses an aimbot... its so unfair!

  33. everyone knows the best game developers are by DrunkClam · · Score: 0

    afiliated with Satan

  34. Obligatory links by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    Christian games will have to do better than this to skyrocket:

    Super 3D Noah's Ark
    Other Wisdom Tree games

    Yes, this is what we have to benefit from Christian gaming community. The Wolfenstein engine can be used for good!

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  35. we're supposed to be grateful? by IshanCaspian · · Score: 1

    Jeez, just because some group of religious fundamentalists isn't trying to oppress us, we should be happy? The fact that these people are leaving our freedoms alone is definitely not enough to make me want to be beaten over the head with the jesus stick while I'm trying to play a video game.

    I agree with your basic point, that if people don't like the way video games are they should make their own, but the prospect of having to watch out for evangelist games doesn't exactly appeal to me either.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:we're supposed to be grateful? by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 1

      Trust me I don't want to be hit over the head with the jesus stick any more than you do. As I think I said I'm not a christian, and don't want to be one. I am very much a religous person, (I moved 6000 miles to a country where I don't speek the language for relgious reasons). I will say that I don't really care what a bunch of christians in the US do or don't do with computer games. But I support the idea of reacting to things you don't like by building something you do.

      The question in my mind is are these games that are specificly Xtian games (and what version of that) or are they games like say a tux racer where there is little or now sex/violence etc. There have been many games over the years that have been quite enjoyable without sex and violence, tetris and sim city jump to mind.

      I don't play computer games for other reasons (mostly I have other things I would rather spend my time on) but thats just my taste.

      All I am saying is that a group of people found some games to not be acceptable for their own reasons, so are writting their own. Thats fine, will I let my girls play these games, probably not. But I'm not threatend by the fact that they exist.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    2. Re:we're supposed to be grateful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fact that these people are leaving our freedoms alone is definitely not enough to make me want to be beaten over the head with the jesus stick while I'm trying to play a video game.
      "These people?" You've met and know all of them, do you? And they all believe the same things and act the same way? Interesting. Did you also hear that all black people are criminals, and that all Muslims are terrorists?
  36. Christian games by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    In order for Christian games to skyrocket, they're going to have to do better than this:

    Super 3D Noah's Ark

    The Wolfenstein 3D engine can be used for good!

    (Sorry if this turns out to be a double post, the first one hasn't seemed to appear within five minutes)

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  37. MOD PARENT TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fundie asswipe!

  38. misrepresentation by IshanCaspian · · Score: 1

    Tolkien explicitly stated in the introduction to LOTR that his story was NOT allegory in any sense of the word; in fact he claims to despise allegory in all of its manifestations.

    CS Lewis, on the other hand, made no secret that his Narnia books were a Christian allegory. To the uninformed reader, because you attributed that quote to "CS Lewis regarding one of the many conversations he and JRR Tolkien," it might seem that Tolkien shared this viewpoint, which he absolutely did not.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:misrepresentation by Hungus · · Score: 1
      You are misrepresenting my post. I never stated his works were allegorical, nor did i purport that Tolkien claimed his works were allegorical. I said they came from a Christian world-view. In fact Tolkien was the one who impressed the idea upon CS Lewis so not only is my quote valid it is accurate in its intent. You are simply misreading world-view as allegory.

      Rather I would suggest that you, dear poster, are the one who is either uninformed or attempting to misinform.

      To quote Tolkien himself this time: from his collected Letters #142 of that collection includes the statement:
      'The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.'
      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  39. A bit crusty... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Informative
    It was Jesus who said the bread was His Body and the wine was His Blood
    Finish the quote, from Luke 22:19 -
    this do in remembrance of me
    Not to recreate Him, not to call Him down, but to remember Him.
    It also happened to be a Roman method of execution
    Nothing accidental about it. The political masters of the sun cult (Mithras to most Romans) seem to have deliberately chosen the crucifix shape and proportions to make their point.
    It had nothing to do with getting away from "pagan implications".
    If the ring of thorns were other than universally portrayed hung about the intersection of the crucifix, that might be believable. As things stand, the crucifix and notably the ringed crucifix as messianic symbols predate Christianity by at least several hundred years - including preChristian examples found in South America.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:A bit crusty... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      Finish the quote, from Luke 22:19 -
      this do in remembrance of me
      Not to recreate Him, not to call Him down, but to remember Him.


      "this do in remembrance of me"

      So the Apostles were told to do what Jesus did. Thus, the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ.

    2. Re:A bit crusty... by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      On top of that, the Greek and Aramaic words translated as remembrance have the implied meening of the real, physical pressence of the one being remembered, something lost in the English translation.

  40. Thanks for that! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    The server runs under WINE, I'll snaffle a secondhand client and see how well it goes.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  41. Some games we won't be seeing from them ... by Gryphn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Based on this quote from the article --
    "Digital Praise is founded on the principle that fun, exciting computer games don't need to be flooded with violence, sex, hate or images of horror," said Bean."
    We won't have the following titles show up any time soon.

    The Adventures of Jephthah

    Punish the Midianites

    The trial and execution of Jesus

    Inquisition - Heretics

    Inquisition II - Torquemada's Rack

    --
    Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
  42. So... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    ...we're getting a new version of Tetris?

    /pastor's son

  43. Does it really matter that they're Christian? by bluemeep · · Score: 3, Interesting
    All that really matters to me is if they make a good game. While it may be true that developers like Wisdom Tree have paved a grand history of mediocrity, that doesn't necessarily mean that all future religious titles are destined to be bombs. I could easily see an RPG system akin to Ultima IV being put to good use. Possibly a comical adventure game about some guy trying to join a church, but is delayed by Wacky Hijinx.

    It'd be nice to see people try and keep an open mind about games like these instead of just immediately writing them off with "Oh, a God game. It'll suck."

    1. Re:Does it really matter that they're Christian? by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Well, this is based on history. Almost all "God Games" HAVE sucked. And this is coming from a person who WANTS them to succeed, and would be very willing to buy the good ones as soon as they exist.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:Does it really matter that they're Christian? by leland242 · · Score: 1

      Woah, hold on a second. Wisdom Tree made some okay games for the NES - mainly I'm talking about some game with Moses where you shoot big W's (the word of god) at the enemies and solve on-screen puzzles. Not to mention thier SNES game - what was it? Wolfenstein Redux? Sure, they preached some nonsense at you, but that just seemed like part of the charm.

  44. Christian games or games for Christians? by Tojosan · · Score: 1

    Do these folks have it backward?
    Though I see nothing wrong in making a game geared to Christians as the target audiance, perhaps they are working this from the wrong angle. There objective seems to be a games espousing Christian values and perhaps based on scripture.
    Perhaps their efforts would be better spent making games that Christians can play. The difference is just like difference between making music just for Christians or making music that is Christian friendly.
    Of course this implies that there are no games Christians can play currently. This is obviously not true. We merely have to look to the numerous console games that are successes that aren't focused on sex, violence, hate or horror. One only has to look at the huge number of sports games out today. Follow those up by the number of games with heros who's major skills are running and jumping.

    Maybe these folks should just go work for companies already making those types of games?

  45. Yeah, here we go again. by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Compare a previous rather similar Slashdot story:
    Recruit More Women Developers, Attract Women Gamers?

    Quotes: "Half of the population isn't having input into what's being created... And the one thing that I learned is that people make games they like to play. Having a diverse opinion helps games"

    Contrast with: "Digital Praise Takes Up Christian Gaming Cause" (that's this story)
    Quotes: "those smug, fundamentalistic Christian types never seem to change"

    Read the various comments on both articles.

    Sure they're not about the same thing. But it sure is enlightening if you really think about it.

    --
  46. WTF dude? by TheAdventurer · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought DOOM was a christian game? I really thought I was helping Jesus by murdering Satan's minions. I was the archangel of righteous shotgun punishment! BOO YA! In other news, this reader prefers his heavy metal, rock and roll, pornography, junk food, and brutally violent video games. [/me renews his subscription of playboy] I was raised in a fundamentalist christian home and didn't manage to throw off that oppressive intellectual yoke until I was 21 years old. My 21 years as a "born again" christian have taught me that Christianity is wrong, it is backwards, it is founded on the worst kinds of mysticism and collectivism, and is no better than Islam or any other religion in any way shape or form. My intimate experience with religion has caused me to now believe that, while people may practice whatever backwards mysticism they want on their own time, religious people should be banned from all forms of government service, religion should be stricken from public influence, and all laws based on a religious principle should be, at the very least, re-examined. I love my parents, but one I took control of my own brain, I realized they were crazy. I predict that very few gamers will buy into these games, and that the general christian public does not like games enough in the first place to financially support the genre.

  47. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Zorilla · · Score: 2, Funny

    Taken from here.

    Bart: When I'm feeling low, you know what cheers me up?
    Rod: Kindness?
    Bart: Oooh, tough room. Video games! Whaddyagot?
    (He reaches to the bookshelf and picks up a copy of "Billy Graham's Bible Blasters," and they begin to play.)
    Rod: Keep firing! Convert the heathens!
    (A series of "heathens" crosses the video screen as a "Bible gun" fires Bibles at them. When a "heathen" is hit, he turns into a conservatively dressed man with a halo.)
    Bart: Got him!
    Rod: No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.
    Todd: Look out, Bart! A gentle Baha'i!
    (Bart zaps the Baha'i, turning him into another suit with a halo).
    Bart: All right! Full conversion!

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  48. Re:First Game: Pearl Harbor? by 0racle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Historically accurate Crusades perhaps.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  49. You want quality games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well what about all of the cool puzzle type games out there? Some are quite successful, because they're fun. Or stuff like roller coaster tycoon and sim city. They all fit in with the idea of a non violent game that encourages productivity rather than destruction.

  50. Poor History is no reason not to change the future by MarthaStewart32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the realm of video games, christian video games have been lacking. There have been a couple doom off shoots and other miscellaneous games that have fallen short of being anything quality. One possible reason is because these company are not doing it out of a want to spread "the gospel". But they are also capitalist trying to make a quick dollar. If they can sell a game that does require almost any time for programming the game and market merely as a "christian" game. Some mom is going to see it on the shelf and say "Its christian, it will be a good alternative to my little boy that like to play games that blow up things." This is as far as the game producers would care. Once the product is bought the lack of quality is no longer a problem. A game should not merely be looked down because it holds the title "christian" but because it is coming froma capitalistic society that it marketing on its christian label. If this company can produce quality games that have a christian influence it might change the tide of previous crappy programming. And in defence of christian about the previously mentioned crusades. These are obvious black marks on christian history. But the inquistion and the crusades had little to do with what the bible actually said. No where in the bible does it say anything about harming anyone or forcing anyone to believe in anything. The crusades where not based on christian morals. Simply Christianity is not at fault for the actions of people claiming to be Christians. Churches have been filled and will be filled with people who claim to be christians but really aren't.

  51. Plenty of kickass "Christian" games already out. by shihonage · · Score: 0

    Games do not have to be violent to be fun. Shrek 2 for Gameboy Advance is one of them. A very clever, fun, bright game animated at 30fps, Lost Vikings style. Yeah sure, Shrek and Donkey have to kick the attackers sometimes, but there's no blood, they just disappear, not unlike how King's soldiers disappeared when Shrek turned to their commander and said "Oh yeah ? You and what army ?".

  52. I take offense by spir0 · · Score: 1

    I find games offensive if they DON'T have violence and sex. Offense is such a subjective thing.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  53. No, he meant christian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your statements regarding christianity, you neglect to mention that one of the keystones of the religion is hypocrisy: You must constantly encourage others to live by those commandments on the slab, while disobeying them yourself, since no sane human can keep to all ten at once, all the time. One of the best examples of Christianity's hypocrisy is the current war in Iraq. Here you have a so called "one nation under god" waging a war motivated by revenge. Quote me some scripture that encourages Christians to seek revenge.

    I can hear you already: "But those aren't real Christians!" Fine. If the only true Christians are those who live their lives as Christ would have, then surely the only true Christian is Christ himself. All you other wannabes, stfu and leave those of us capable of rational thought alone. We have problems here in the real world, since we're not quite as certain of the afterlife as you and the rest of the flock. A word, by the way, which means a group of animals unable to think for themselves. A fine definition of christianity, it is.

    1. Re:No, he meant christian. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      You must constantly encourage others to live by those commandments on the slab, while disobeying them yourself, since no sane human can keep to all ten at once, all the time.

      Pathetically incorrect. Do you even know what the 10 commandments are when you wrote this post? Give me an explanation why a sane human cannot keep all ten at once, all the time.

      As for Iraq, there are plenty of Christians who oppose it. I personally oppose the Iraq war, but do not oppose war in general - it just must be for the right reasons.

      All you other wannabes, stfu and leave those of us capable of rational thought alone.
      By what standard or measuring stick do you determine that you are capable of rational thought? What if you are deluded such that you cannot see and understand? If you were, then you would sincerely believe that you were not deluded. Your contention that Christians are incapable of rational thought belies ignorance and self delusion. Personally, I try not to assume that everyone else is as stupid as one representative I meet of another faith or belief system.
    2. Re:No, he meant christian. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      besides the point that the ten commandments are jewish law not christian, jesus changed this to one "golden rule" (well basically 2) "Love god with all thine heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself.. this sums up all of the law and the prophets..." many times over he makes this point as the 10 commandments and most of the other jewlish laws were fufilled through Jesus' death.

  54. this has to be a troll, surely. by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

    or are people really this uptight and insane about stuff like sex? whoa.

    you spout your beliefs as tho they were facts. try to remember that a lot of people arent as obsessed with sex and what others are or arent doing. we just enjoy it in whatever form we happen to experience and move on.

  55. The Right Stuff by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    So what, exactly, makes the Christian standpoint the right one?
    Uncannily accurate history and prophecy. Miracles. But both of those can be forged to some degree; God's the only deity to claim authorship of the universe de novo, ex nihilo and offer evidence (e.g. astronomical details not available to the ancients) to back the claim up.

    "The Christian standpoint" could be made to cover a lot of ground. I specifically exclude interpretations incompatible with Scripture, since they will be considerably less true-to-plan.
    You can't define what's right and wrong for everyone based on your personal beliefs, since so many different belief structures exist in this world.
    Welcome to relativism, where there is no point in doing anything because there's no goals, no endpoints, no purpose, no hope.

    All beliefs may be equally sincere, but not all beliefs can be equally valid, especially so since most of them contradict one another. The scientific approach to deciding which is most valid is to compare each belief system with observation and history.

    Unfortunately for materialism, many features of this universe and specifically the planet we're standing on are completely incompatible with a long history, and even if a long history is granted in the face of the evidence most of the processes which we observe around us work directly against the development of the myriad forms of life which we also observe. And of course, commensurate with this, what we actually see in nature is species disappearing, not new ones forming.

    Supporters of materialism are caught on the horns of a cruel dilemma (or possibly crottling fork :-) in that they cannot admit [2nd-last par] any hint of teleology to the question, yet without it the odds against anything recognisable as life happening are far beyond jaw-droppingly huge. "Scientific materialism" is an oxymoron.

    Once you delete materialism, it completely changes the philosophical playfield. You're basically down to creationism, standing the world on turtles (hello, Terry Pratchett), or building it from the body parts and blood of assorted godlets. Tough call.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:The Right Stuff by gid-goo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sweet fucking jesus, the loons come out whenever jesus is mentioned.

  56. The "holy flesh" movement by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    wouldn't unashamed public nakedness (and acceptance thereof) be a return to the "better, good ol' days" of pre-sin innocence?
    BION, this is actually quite a historically common occurence. Forex, not long after the turn of this century a bunch of people calling themselves the "Holy Flesh" movement decided that since they were forgiven all sin (they had a kind of Catholic view of it: it was technically possible in their eyes to kind of pre-forgive a crime), they were immune to its effects and that as an act of faith they should at least worship starkers. With predictable results.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  57. Which witches? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Go from village to village, town to town armed with the Maleum Maleficarum, and hunt for them.
    You'll also need a large set of scales, and a duck.

    On a more serious note, "witches" was a term which in practice meant anyone who believed differently to you, or that you didn't like. Protestants (even before the Protest of the Princes, they had Waldenses and Albigenses and such to torture) were as much fair game as helpful, peaceful herbalists and genuinely nasty might-makes-right invokers of dark powers.

    To give you some idea of how this mentality works, consider that when Inquisitions were set up, wealthy people were one of the high-risk categories. Methinks the confiscation of property and the spotter's-fee bounty associated therewith might have had something to do with this. A lot more than anything to do with religion, in point of fact.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  58. Successful puzzle games by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    i cant think of any successful pure puzzle games other than tetris.
    Sokoban? Atomix?
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  59. I call bullshit by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Here's one set of lists from among many. Yes, many real scientists are creationists.

    The scientist on the right is a creationist, and wrote the TERRA software being discussed on that page. In its time, it was regarded as the single best Earth-modelling package available and is still very well regarded (Linux and ForTran afficiondos will be pleased by that too, since it's written in ForTran-90 and runs on Beowulves).

    Dr D Russell Humphreys predicted the whacko magentic fields of Naptune and Uranus from creationist principles; the predictions of materialists were well wide of the mark.

    I could go on to labour the point, but there is real science and real scientists on the side of creationism.

    GAME OVER
    PLAYER <1>


    Consider yourself called. (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:I call bullshit by Troed · · Score: 1

      There's no "creationist science" that can explain what we observer in the universe, from the smallest to the largest. Nothing.

      The fun thing is, it's a lot easier to explain the Bible. From the tribal god system to Abraham's personal God, used by Moses to sway the people into following him as a leader - all the way up to the anarchist Joshua/Jesus who used the myths as a way to help bring on social reforms.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Oh yes - and precisely what does evolution predict? Any conceivable future can be explained by Darwinism, even those situations that today are claimed contrary to Darwinist predictions.

      Darwinism is a theory that predicts everything and explains nothing.

  60. It's kind of appropriate... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Jesus prayed that the faith of the Apostles would be preserved by Peter. (Luke 22:31-32)
    ...who promptly goes on to betray Christ...
    Why didn't He pray for all the Apostles instead of just Peter?
    He did. "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." John 17:6-9. A verse out of context is a pretext.

    The bit about the rock is misleading too. Jesus said "You are a loose stone ["petros"], but upon this rock ["petra", think in terms of bedrock] I will build My church". You could possibly interpret that as "upon these stones", but that's still too inclusive to support a Pope. Jesus repeats the offer of the keys to all of the Disciples in chapter 18, and note that in context there the Disciples are not represented as being in any way the leaders of the church as it existed then.

    Next, consider Matthew 8:14 - Peter is married, and Popes are not (well... not in theory anyway). In Acts 15, James presided over the council and Peter was merely one of those who testified to it. In Galatians 2, Paul condemns Peter's hypocrisy. Finally, in 1Peter 5:1, Peter explicitly refers to himself as one among equals, and in 1Peter 2:8 he calls Jesus "the rock". None of this supports what you're saying, all of it speaks against the traditional Catholic position. You can see how the Bible wound up on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum until Vatican II.

    If you want to conform to Christ, then you should accept personal responsibility for your own actions, so you can then admit fault completely to God and in turn receive complete forgiveness and be pointed towards a completely guileless and helpful life.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:It's kind of appropriate... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      Jesus prayed that the faith of the Apostles would be preserved by Peter. (Luke 22:31-32) ...who promptly goes on to betray Christ...

      Peter's denial of Christ had nothing to do with a lack of faith or disbelief. Peter's faith was always intact; he knew who he was denying.

      Why didn't He pray for all the Apostles instead of just Peter?
      He did.


      Not on that occasion (Luke 22:31-32) He didn't. Peter clearly was to have a special role in preserving the faith of the others.

      The bit about the rock is misleading too. Jesus said "You are a loose stone ["petros"], but upon this rock ["petra", think in terms of bedrock] I will build My church".

      Jesus actually said it in Aramaic, thus "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha..." with no difference between the two words. (The name "Cephas" found in various parts of the New Testament is a Greek transliteration of Kepha.)

      As far as the Greek text is concerned, I've read that at the time of the New Testament, petros meant the same as petra. But even if that weren't the case, Peter wouldn't have been called Petra even if "petra" had been the specifically intended meaning, since Peter was a man and "Petra" is feminine in form - it would have been made masculine as "Petros".

      Jesus repeats the offer of the keys to all of the Disciples in chapter 18

      No, He doesn't repeat the offer of the keys. He gives the keys only to Peter. In chapter 18, we see that the Church (the "Disciples") can open and close, but no keys are mentioned. The opening and closing is done through Peter's keys, which were promised to him two chapters previously.

      and note that in context there the Disciples are not represented as being in any way the leaders of the church as it existed then.

      Actually, I think the context does hint that here the word "Disciples" is used to mean "Apostles". In the first verse of this chapter (Mt 18), they're wondering about who is the greatest in the kingdom, and there are other mentions of this sort of thinking among the Apostles (which one of them will sit at Christ's right hand, etc.).

    2. Re:It's kind of appropriate... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      Continuing my reply...

      Next, consider Matthew 8:14 - Peter is married, and Popes are not (well... not in theory anyway).

      There's nothing in theory that says Popes can't marry. It's just that now Latin-rite Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy, and the Pope tends to be one of these priests. But any Catholic male, married or not, can become the Pope.

      In Acts 15, James presided over the council and Peter was merely one of those who testified to it.

      Actually, Peter was the one who stated the doctrine to be followed, which is what Popes do. There had been much disputing (verse 7), then Peter stands up and makes a speech that ends the dispute. James accepted Peter's decision and said what he thought should be written in the letters sent out.

      In Galatians 2, Paul condemns Peter's hypocrisy.

      Even Popes can sin.

      Finally, in 1Peter 5:1, Peter explicitly refers to himself as one among equals

      He says he is "also an elder", which is true.

      and in 1Peter 2:8 he calls Jesus "the rock".

      Jesus was also the Good Shepherd, and yet Peter was given the role of a shepherd too, acting on behalf of the Great one.

      You can see how the Bible wound up on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum until Vatican II.

      That's not true, obviously.

      If you want to conform to Christ, then you should accept personal responsibility for your own actions, so you can then admit fault completely to God and in turn receive complete forgiveness and be pointed towards a completely guileless and helpful life.

      Yes. And Christ intended us to obtain forgiveness first through baptism, and subsequently through confessing our sins to a priest:

      "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.'" (John 20:22-23)

    3. Re:It's kind of appropriate... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Yes. And Christ intended us to obtain forgiveness first through baptism, and subsequently through confessing our sins to a priest"

      Didn't jesus changed the rules for this (which was the original way that sins were forgiven through the preists in old testament law) and show this to be changed by ripping the curtain of the most holy room in the temple from top to bottm (notice the signifigance of the direction of the rip).

      the pasage you quote has more to do with forgiving people of sins casted against the apolstle, shown in jesus telling his disciples to cast the dust off of their shoes when leaving a town if they are treated wrongly as a sign of not-forgiving them their actions...

      Anyone can ask Jesus directly for forgiveness of sins..

  61. Response by Thedalek · · Score: 1

    Setting aside the already-pointed-out fact that all those events you mention are post-biblical (since the Bible cuts out at sometime before 100 AD), I have a question: Does this mean that for the final 150 years or so of the game that you would turn into a non-aggressor who merely has unpopular opinions? Or are you going to argue that your game avatar would spend that time bombing abortion clinics and the like?

    (sarcasm)'Cause we all know how the Church supports that.(/sarcasm)

    --
    Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
  62. Things we can look forward to by weeboo0104 · · Score: 2, Funny

    (In the style of Zork)
    You are in a brightly lit room.
    You are likely to be blessed by a Grue

    (In the style of Zero Wing)
    How art thou?
    All thine church are belong to us.
    You have no chance to resurrect, make thine prayers.

    (In the style of Mortal Kombat)
    After performing a fatality, your opponent comes back to life 3 rounds later.

    (In the style of Dance Dance Revolution)
    (to a chant with a techno beat)
    KNEEL, PRAY, GENUFLECT, HAIL MARY, NOVENA, NOVENA, GENUFLECT, KNEEL...

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  63. Irony by Schlaegel · · Score: 0

    It is a bit ironic, (I might be wrong, Alanis Morissette messed me up) that there are people on Slashdot, a champion of freedom, that think this is bad.

    The company doesn't want to require other game companies to make only clean and Christian games, it just wants to make them itself.

  64. These games will be heavenly... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    ... sitting on store shelves forever. But let's not forget to teach old testament morality and justice and the new testament apocalyptic message.

    Possible bestsellers:

    1) Jesus & the apocalypse: Kingdom of god on earth.... Snippet: Wipe out those heathen unbelievers at your return who just 'didn't get' the low quality, paradoxical, contradictory message that took an omniscient, omnipotent god 1000 years to write!

    2) Demon vanquisher... Starring Jesus as the excorcist (ref: Math. 8) because we *all* know demons cause disease!

    3) Marry your rapist... Snippet: Be a benevalent god creating benevalent laws such as these for your followers! (ref: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

    4) Show no evil... Snippet: Be the OT god and mete out justice for disobedience, remember all acts of disobedience require death by our omniscient super-rational reasoning!

  65. Adventures in Odyssey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just going to chime in here with something about Adventures in Odyssey, the audio series that the games will be based on.

    I run a website (I have for years) devoted to the show at http://www.aiosf.com.

    Actually, I was approached by Focus on the Family (the company who produces the show) to write one of the video games because of my background in gaming as well as my knowledge of AIO. Anyway, it's a rather popular show which is suprisingly very secular, despite it's "Christian" branding. I would say about 40% of the shows are entirely secular in content... and it's quite a fun show with a large adult fan base despite the age target of 8 - 12 (as they've always had a policy they would never talk down to kids, they deal with everything from abortion, murder, hold ups, villains, government spys, and of course family issues). Considering it's a radio drama, it's very good... with voice talents ranging from Townsend Coleman (the guy who plays The Tick), to Janet Waldo (who voiced Judy Jetson and Josie from Josie and the Pussycats), to Earl Boen (the voice of LeChuck in the Monkey Island games as well as Dr. Silberman in the three Terminator movies).

    Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out there to give people a better idea on what the games will be based on. They obviously aren't going to compare with any of the games out there these days (the games themselves have a very short development cycle in a little over 8 months I believe), but the audio series is quite fantastic.

    Shadowpaw

  66. Might be Interesting by Reapy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am not religous at all, but I would love to see some different themed games. For one, I think the adventure game genera would fit in with their goals nicely. With some good animators drawing some really nice 2d artwork, it could make for a fun game. They could theme it a bible setting, or the garden of eden, or even do a modern story with someone finding faith through some adventures. I don't mind what the message is behind the game as long as it's well written and nicely animated.

    Maybe they could invent some sort of sim game where you run a church and have to deal with the same types of things that most church administors have to deal with. That could be interesting, letting you build and expand the church, while trying to run programs that increase the amount of worshipers coming in. You could try to generate aditional income by using different donation collection methods all the way to installing a cell phone tower in your steeple for 12,000 a month. Throw in some events, such as weddings and funerals, and you've got an interesting game.

    This could be interesting, but I know it will result in some people making crappy games trying to make a few bucks by using the term "christian" in the title and marketing it as the safest video games EVER for concerd parents.

  67. How Harry Potter and CoN are different.... by HanClinto · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A more contemporary example: Explain to me why Harry Potter is evil, but the Chronicles of Narnia are not.

    I was wondering the same thing, and read most of the books (up through half of the fifth).
    The main distinction between the two was the framework and the underlying worldview which permeated both works.
    Both Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia are set in modern-day England, both involve every-day children that the reader can easily identify themselves with, and they both embark on journies which said readers would like to envision themselves.

    The main difference to whom one answers. In the Chronicles of Narnia, sorcery is something that is not for mortals, and shouldn't be meddled with (the two main mortals I can think of using magic in CoN are Dr. Cornelius in Prince Caspian, and Diggory's uncle in Magician's Nephew.) All magic is recognized as above one's self, it's not a solution to problems (it doesn't set scrubbers to wash pans automagically, etc).

    But as said before, the main difference is the worldview, and what it would instill in a child fantasizing about what they wish they could do. Witchcraft is a real thing. I recognize this, I believe it, and have known people with very personal contact with this (as I'm sure most of us have). Both stories recognize the existence of good magic, and evil magic, but it is a problem when the users of magic are not ultimately answerable to any being higher to themselves. In Harry Potter, if you're strong (whether it be the Ministry of Magic or Voldemort's Death Eaters), you can be the end-all-say-all. Morals are arbitrary, though granted HP & friends do exhibit many noble charictaristics, Harry still has no accountability (unless you count the sparse teachings by Dumbledore) for his lying.

    It's all very abstract, and I don't feel qualified to say "Harry Potter is evil, you shouldn't partake of it!". However, for myself, I've read them, though when I found myself enjoying them too much, it sent up a warning flag in my mind, and I decided to stop reading halfway through book 5. If you can read it, and not feel prodding of the Spirit to do otherwise, then I do not speak against you, and I can only support you and try to encourage you in your walk. :)

    A similarly tough example in my own mind is why Tolkien is okay and HP is not -- though I follow similar reasoning for all of this. Basically the worldview behind the story, and who is Ultimate in the story: people or Something Else.

    Respectfully,
    clint

  68. Christian games eh? by Moo+Moo+Cow+of+Death · · Score: 1

    Christian games eh? Jesus 3: The Awakening? (Quake 3 + religous reference) Jesus vs. Sinners? (Alien v Predator) Jesus Tournament 2004? (Unreal 2K4) Jesus & Satan? (Black & White) Jesus Confronts Prostitutes? (Leisure Suit Larry, hehehehe....)

  69. State Of The Badass Art by Chi+Hsuan+Men · · Score: 1

    Ripley: What do those pulse rifles fire? Gorman: 10 millimeter explosive tip caseless. Standard light armor piercing round. Why? Ripley: Jesus explicitly said in Corinthians 3:16, that violence is not the answer to our problems. Burke: Whoah, whoah, she's right. We can't have violence in this situation, it would be against the Lord's will! Hudson: Hey, what the hell are we supposed to use man, harsh language? Ripley: You can't use that either....

    --
    Respect It.
  70. PARENT IS NOT A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you even read it? He's expressing his real opinion, not just trying to tick people off.

  71. Explaining it and getting it right are different by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Given that the ratio of scientists being paid to produce results compatible with Naturalism to those being paid to produce results compatible with Theism must be hundreds to one, I think the creationist theories that have been put forward so far have fared exceptionally well.

    Even so, Naturalism is a house divided against itself. One bunch tout "dark matter" and "dark energy" because without them their theories fall flat. A more honest bunch speak up about the patent ridiculousness of these just-so stories and try to produce Naturalistic theories that fit (so far, to no avail but yet their efforts are a good deal purer in heart than their opponents). Occam's answer would be to discard a lot of Naturalistic preconceptions about the age and uniformity of the Universe, and just work with what we have actually observed, not adding any interpretation to it until the last moment.

    If you find your own gradual creation myths comforting, well, enjoy it. But I suggest that getting a right answer is far more important than getting a reassuring answer.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  72. To get the strategy without the gore by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Paintball gives you objectives and urgency without the need to kill or injure your competitors. The opportunity to work out strategy and tactics (and or teach those to others) in a fairly direct manner with minimal risk, and without requiring ill-will.

    I'd rather be playing real paintball, but if I can't, a simulation is better than squat.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:To get the strategy without the gore by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Well, I much prefer airsoft to paintball, but that's beside the point.

      The exact same things go for any multiplayer FPS. You don't obviously don't actually kill anyone either way.

      Paintball originated as a simulation for armed combat. I don't get the point of playing a computer simulation of a live-action simulation of armed combat. I realize that paintball has been made politically correct and players dress like clowns and call their guns markers, but it's still a combat simulation, whether you admit it or not. Airsoft just embraces that and goes all out for realism. (Guns, gear, tactics, etc) Noone gets killed in airsoft either. Or Quake. Or Doom. Or, paintball.

  73. Bible Themed Games I want to see: by zombiestomper · · Score: 1

    EXODUS: The Game-

    You are Moses. Now lead the Israelites around a desert the size of Rhode Island for 40 years.

    Or

    Second Coming: Vengence

    a game where the devil interferes with the timeline (ala Start Trek) and hurls Jesus 2000 years into the future where he never dies for our sins.
    Now 'saviour-free', the earth is overrun by demon-zombies and aliens.

    Jesus can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes, destroying demon-spawn until he has a showdown with the devil -- his twin brother *gasp*.

    Of course, they use ninja swords in the showdown.