Slashdot Mirror


Game with God

Andrew writes "GamerDad has an article up about how religion is handled in computer gaming, titled 'Game With God'. The article features quotes from Sid Meier, Jane Jensen, Will Wright, Peter Molyneaux, Phil Steinmeyer, and Richard Garriott. Here's a snippet: 'While religion and spirituality add a lot to a game world, they often aren't used effectively. 'I don't think there are any games that treat religion at anything more than a superficial level,'; says Firaxis founder and Civilization creator Sid Meier. PopTop Software's Phil Steinmeyer agrees, noting that 'Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured.'"

877 comments

  1. uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "don't think there are any games that treat religion at anything more than a superficial level,"

    In Black and White you ARE god.
    The game covers everything from how many ppl warship you to weather they build you a temple...

    Plus being god, you get toset the rule or "morals" of your ppl.

    1. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by untaken_name · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How does the particular religion you create for yourself affect the population? Apart from setting their 'morals,' I mean. Do your citizens persecute heretics? Can you tell the difference between 'worshippers' of one player versus 'worshippers' of another? Or is the 'you're God' aspect merely a superficial explanation of your control over the 'citizens' and game environment like it was in Populous? Because although I haven't played the game myself, when I have seen it played and heard it explained, it seemed merely a vehicle to explain the gamer's level of control over the game world. It didn't have anything to do with real religion.

    2. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another game which really delves into religion is Final Fantasy Tactics. In fact, it could be argued that the main point of the whole game is a critique on Christianity.

      As for myself, though, I learned everything I needed to know about religion from Dungeon Keeper.

      --
      Windmills do not work that way!
    3. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I bought B/W the day it came out.

      High hopes, buggy execution. The game needed some serious work and it never got it, not to mention the developer community did not spring up around it fast enough, the SDK really needed to be released at the same time as the game was.

      Also, the gesture system sucked, badly. The hotkeys were faster, more reliable, and overall much easier to use.

      The alignment system was quirky, the moster AI was dopey, all in all, I think I got maybe a month or so of play time out of it, mostly trying to get it working. . . .

    4. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by KDR_11k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's what the press releases said. In reality your influence on people is limited to issuing commands (chop tree, worship, build house, ...), making them love or hate your titan and blasting them with diverse spells. No such thing as defining morals. The temple is built in the beginning (doesn't require any moral fiddling, you just get there, pluck some trees and drop a few workers at it, finished) and any building is ordered by you as well. People can love or hate you, but that just determines the look of the temple, they never ran in fear or something even though I used christian conversion methods (believe or die!).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a month!

      a month of listening to 'villagers need food'!

      took me about half an hour before killing them all and deinstalling. what a piece of shit that game was.

    6. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You obviously didn't order the Anti-Semitic Expansion Pack!

    7. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Obviously. Apart from my not having played the original game, I doubt such an expansion pack would do well in my neighborhood. YMMV. I imagine it'd sell really well in New Zeeland.

    8. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For those who didn't know, the above poster was referring to the fact that New Zealand is pressing charges against Mossad spies who again tried to illegally obtain passports in other countries. There were diplomatic rows in the 80s and 90s over the exact same thing in Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. Apparently, however, the poster thinks that going after foreign spies breaking your laws is "anti-semitic".

    9. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh... Read the Article anyone?

      It's not as though the second paragraph on page two was ALL ABOUT Peter Molyneux, Populous and Black & White or anything.

    10. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Food I could supply. I kept having them complain "Villagers need offspring." Sorry, guys. You're going to have to handle that yourself.

    11. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Believe or Die?"

      Jokes aside, when have you heard any non-fanatic religious person say "believe or die," or something to that effect? Perhaps it is the superficiality of religion in games and popular culture that gives people misconceptions such as these.
      Unless of course you're referring to the "true life" offered by Christians, but I think that's supposed to be an offering rather than a threat.

      In my experience, most people's opinions of religion are invalid - based on inaccurate/biased sources. Although I'm not religious as most people would understand it (it's complicated) a lot of my Christian experience has been interesting and worthwhile - not boring, irrelevant and "burn the heretics/witches/computers."
      Basically, I'd like to say "Don't insult religion until you have hard evidence that that insult is valid." Otherwise you'll unnecessarily piss off a lot of people.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    12. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Ragica · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think this demonstrates the problem fairly well: if anyone thinks for a second that Black and White has anything beyond the more basic superficial resemblance to any religious system, that is in fact the problem. It doesn't, at all.

      Even old Populous had more depth in this respect, and it also is basically an "economic" system wrapped in semi-religious terminology.

      The analysis should perhaps take a look at art. The most successful and profound religious artists in the realm of writing often have barely detectable overt religous activities depicted: yet the religion in woven into the fabric of their art gives it a profoundness it could have gotten nowhere else. Look at Dostoevsky for example. Even look at Tolkien. His work is very spiritual, but you never actually see the Elves go to church or the Hobbits consult a priest.

      The very structure of the world and the nature of the characters imply the depth of spiritual consciousness.

      I think Garriot's Ultima has been the closest thing yet created to a religious system. It is basically an ethical system, as he explained: but it allows the character to apply religious meaning to those ethics beyond the simple religious factions provided in the game.

      I have lately been playing Deus Ex (the original... i never got around to it before), and actually think it comes close to an almost religious depth. It's interesting that it was not mentioned in the article. The name of the game at least gives a hinting reference to God. (And the G.K. Chesterton quote in a copy of "The Man Who was Thursday" found in various places in the game world was a nice touch.) While there are no priests, or cliche religious cults to battle, the balance of competing perspectives in the game often imply a depth to the characters, and an artistic soul in the designer. While most of the conversations are more political in nature, they could easily have been spun in a more spiritual direction: it's all about motives and underlying premises up which the characters feel the meaning of their existence depends and is expressed.

    13. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Um, considering that seriously telling someone "believe or die" defines you as a fanatic, no. Though, you have to admit that there are entire countries where changing your religion from the state religion carries a death sentence. They aren't Christian countries, though.

      Of course, the religious right, still tries to impose it's morality on the rest of the world whether or not they want it. And you certainly could be executed for not being a Christian in the middle ages. So overall, his criticism is spot on, when you don't close your eyes to the history you don't like.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    14. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by jardun · · Score: 0, Troll

      ---...a lot of my Christian experience has been interesting and worthwhile - not boring, irrelevant and "burn the heretics/witches/computers.--- You're not from the South (U.S.) are you? It's full of "Burn the heretics/witches/computers" type of folks.

    15. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Disclaimer: Despite any implications in the following, those were all valid and groovy points.

      However, I was referring to the current brand of Christianity. This tends to be more liberal, although any religion's purpose is to "convert the world." This is because the followers believe it to be the best way to live, so others should also join.
      That said, nowadays large bits of Christianity, and Hinduism apparently, accept that actually there is no one true way and that many religions are just different ways of getting to the same goal. This is quite different to the historical interpretation of "repent or burn (either at the stake or in hell)"

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    16. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Then find a better bit of Christianity - it's not all the same, "Thank God."

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    17. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Perhaps it is, but for me, that is irrelevant.

      I see religion a bit like a car. You're trying to drive somewhere (for example, eternal life, happiness, whatever you view the goal of religion as) - to the top of a hill. It's too steep and tall for you to walk up it, so you need a different type of transport.
      The car of your choice could be a jaguar, lexus, ford, bmw, whatever. It will still get you to the top of the hill. What "getting to the top of the hill" is like is how you live your life - as long as you live your life well, you'll be alright.
      Religion provides a way of doing that - "Christian Values" for example. Thou shalt not kill is one of these ways of life. Love thy neighbour is another. Do these kinds of things and it matters not whether you're Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jedi...
      So as long as the religion gets you your way of life, it doesn't matter. This also means it should be possible to live without the religiousy bits - and of course it is. But don't just reject religion because "it's not true" - apart from the fact it might not be and you can never know that it isn't (so don't be so sure of yourself), as far as I see it, it doesn't matter.

      Just be careful that your "religion" isn't like a helicopter - you'll miss the view.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    18. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Weirdofreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, if you percieve lies as an insult to your intelligence and morality, you presumably think that only stupid, immoral people believe said lies, and are calling most of the world's population stupid and immoral. Bearing in mind that Archimedes believed in Zeus and suchlike (I think), Sir Isaac Newton was Christian, Gandhi was Hindu and Hitler was (again, not to sure about this) Atheist, I find myself drawing no conclusion other than that you are arrogant and immoral.

    19. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by zaffir · · Score: 3, Informative

      The sequal to B&W should address the questions you had. The followers can declare holy wars, their morals are influenced by your actions (you like to rain fire onto their huts to gain belief? They'll be more warlike), etc.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    20. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative
      although any religion's purpose is to "convert the world."

      Umm...no. Evangelical religions want to "convert the world". Others don't.

      As an example, Judaism is not an evagelical religion. Generally, Jews have no interest in converting others, and, as I vaguely recall, make it moderately difficult to do so.

      Christianity or Islam, on the other hand, are evangelical religions, and want to "convert the world". The extent to which any individual member tries to convert others to his/her beliefs is, of course, self-determined.

      Buddhism is either evangelical or not, depending on the flavour of Buddhism. Some early Japanese variants were known to fight among themselves over details. Others, such as Zen Buddhism, don't bother trying to convert others.

      Zoroastrianism isn't evangelical, so far as I know, but it's been 20 years since I even knew anyone who followed that religion, so my knowledge is fuzzy, at best. Ditto Hinduism. Ditto Shinto.

      Most old religions are not especially (if at all) evangelical. The idea seems to have sprung from Jesus direction to Paul to be an Apostle to the Gentiles (all of us non-Jews, though the Mormons use the term differently).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Well the correct term here is "My Bad," thanks for pointing that out.
      Although I did contradict myself and almost say that after "however."

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    22. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Maddog2030 · · Score: 1

      Religion provides a way of doing that - "Christian Values" for example. Thou shalt not kill is one of these ways of life. Love thy neighbour is another. Do these kinds of things and it matters not whether you're Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jedi...

      The thing is, even for yourself, it has nothing to do with Christianity. You just described a set of morals that even other Christians will disagree with (eg. its okay for me to blow up abortion clinics and kill those inside). That's an extreme case, and not a good one at that, but I'm just making a point.

      If you found somewhere in the Bible that slavery is okay (and because it acknowledges slavery but doesn't mention that its wrong, its implicitly approving of the practice), would that change your moral stance at all? Or would you come up with a reason on why to ignore that part of the Bible? Honestly.

      Face it. Most people don't base their morals on religion. It may influence some of their ideas, but its simply not a moral foundation for most people whether they ackowledge it or not.

    23. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      Hitler was a Catholic. Also, on every German soldier's belt buckle, there was the inscription "Gott mit uns", arranged prominently around an eagle gripping a swastika.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    24. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by fishbot · · Score: 1

      "However, I was referring to the current brand of Christianity. This tends to be more liberal, although any religion's purpose is to "convert the world." This is because the followers believe it to be the best way to live, so others should also join."

      Actually, you'd be surprised at how few religions are on the 'convert the world' mission. Christianity (and it's myriad strange side religions like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses) are probably the most noticed simply because they are the only ones who do it.

      Some religions believe that only members of that religion by birthright go to 'heaven' (or whatever the promised reward), and some do not have a concept of heaven at all (such as Buddhism) but through repeated reincarnation one can achieve a perfect state!

      And now for an opinion piece - he folk who say that religions are all basically different ways to the same goal a) do not understand world religions very well and b) are essentially trying to self-forgive their own failings or doubts by simply passing them off as 'probably godly'

    25. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree in Nethack, I have to perform many rituals to appease my god, while at the same time playing as a knight I must obey a code of ethics.

    26. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by skwirl42 · · Score: 1

      The question I think the previous poster was trying to bring up was "the hill isn't even there." Just a guess.

      In all reality, I think the hard atheist take on it is that there is no hill, and that the journey upwards is hallucinatory, in a sense.
      --

    27. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Patik · · Score: 0, Troll
      Jokes aside, when have you heard any non-fanatic religious person say "believe or die," or something to that effect?
      Maybe not Catholics, but the Koran surely says it. Here are some quotes.

      'Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him" (Surat At-Taubah 9:111).

      "Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful' (Surat At-Taubah 9:5).

      "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Surah At-Taubah 9:29). [Jizyah = big tax]

      "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (along)..." (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193).

      Here's a look at this last passage as translated by different people. http://www.qurantoday.com/BaqSec24.htm#Verse2:193

    28. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 2

      That said, nowadays large bits of Christianity, and Hinduism apparently, accept that actually there is no one true way and that many religions are just different ways of getting to the same goal. This is quite different to the historical interpretation of "repent or burn (either at the stake or in hell)"

      Any Christian that believes the Bible (and is truly born-again) will never tell you this. It's a lie. The Bible says that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. Sounds to me like some people who are "Christians" by default because they are white Americans could use a lesson in being less politically-correct.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    29. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      (and it's myriad strange side religions like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses)

      Those are cults, not side religions of the Christian faith. They are sown in the roots of Satan, much like Islam or Buddism, that give people the appearance of belonging to some holy organization when, in fact, none of them are Biblically-based. Even the Bible says that Satan can appear as an angel of light.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    30. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      What "getting to the top of the hill" is like is how you live your life - as long as you live your life well, you'll be alright.

      So how well do you have to life your life to get to the top of the hill? How many religious laws can you break and still make it to the top? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    31. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "when have you heard any non-fanatic religious person say "believe or die," or something to that effect?"

      Amusing - defining the requirement for a "non-fanatic religious person". I suppose you can find one, but what's the point?

      If you want, though, you can count the Catholic bozos who used to show up on Art Bell's show to promise "earthquakes and darkness" if you didn't "immediately bow down before God". These morons acted like Mafia extortion thugs. If they had spoken to me like that, I'd had beat their asses to a pulp for daring to threaten me.

      The history of the Christian religion has most definitely been a study in "believe or die". Ask the Albigenses, the Cathars, the witches, or for that matter, the Jews. The latter is particularly amusing since Christianity was founded by Paul, a Roman double agent who hijacked the Jewish religion and used it to persecute the Jews in the name of their own prophet (who was a fanatical Jew who had absolutely no intention of founding a new religion, let alone one that would persecute Jews for his "execution" - which never happened anyway.) (Not that the Jews didn't deserve it, they were nationalistic assholes like everybody else in those days, invading their neighbors until the Romans, who were really good at it, came down and kicked their asses entirely out of their own country.)

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    32. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by balthan · · Score: 1

      calling most of the world's population stupid

      And how many /.ers think that way about Windows users?

    33. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by _Potter_PLNU_ · · Score: 1

      Pluralism within Christianity is definitely not a view that flows with mainstream Christianity. It is held by those who try and find a way to converge their liberal political views with their faith. However, it is true that elements of other religions, or philosophies, can be in line with Christian teachings. But, to say that Christianity recognizes all World Religions as just another path to God is an absolute fallacy.

      One of the main tenants of faith in all the denominations of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the only way (as a previous poster pointed out) to God. If your faith does not agree with that, well then, you aren't Christian are you?

      --
      "Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
    34. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by seitentaisei · · Score: 1, Funny

      I tend to let "Fluffy" deal with those heretics.

    35. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd happily call the majority of the worlds population stupid, arrogant and immoral. I'd also call them hypocrites, sheep, compulsive liars, greedy, insensitive, violent and a lot of other not so nice things.

      And stupidity and brilliance are not mutually exclusive. Many brilliant scientists and other personalities have shown sheer lunacy outside their fields.

    36. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that point of view is more nihilist. Assuming "the hill" is bettering yourself, being happy, helping others, ect. I think most atheists certainly think that it's worthwhile.

    37. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (re: religion is like a car you use to get to the top of a hill of life.)
      To make the analogy work, you need to also point out that the only people saying you *need* a vehicle are the ones who are currently using them. The statement that the hill is too tall and steep to walk up it is false, and although there aren't many who chose to go on foot, those that do end up getting a little bit miffed at those who keep telling them they can't make it that way - especially when the trail is filled with out-of-gas cars, stalled on the side and filled with people who have managed to convince themsleves they are actually at the top when they aren't even halfway up, and the hikers trod past them and keep going.

      (On the subject of rejecting religion without knowing it's not true)
      It is unnecessary to know for sure some belief system is false in order to reject it. It is merely sufficient to know that it is unable to back up the claims it has made for itself. The one who is proposing the belief is the one with the burden of proof.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    38. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The hill in question was an analogy for "how to live your life" - something everyone has to deal with somehow. It's just that some of us realize that a car is useless when the established roads don't actually go all the way to the top.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    39. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by HolyMoses!! · · Score: 1

      Apparently you are not very well read if you believe Paul founded Christianity.

      I think the main point in all of this is that everyone has a belief, even if it is no belief at all, a persons lack of belief is their belief.

      You can choose to judge a person or a group by HOW they believe or by WHAT they believe.

      If you choose to judge a person or group based on HOW they believe, you had better know WHAT they believe before you open your mouth.

      Knowing accurately another person's beliefs before you judge what kind of person they are brings you out of ignorance and into intelligently realizing that we all choose what we think is best for ourselves.

      If you want to continue in ignorance, that is your choice, but realize that puts you on the same level as Hitler & the KKK - who all think, and thought, that they are the best and everyone else sucks compared to them. That, my friend, is true agnosticism. Agnostic comes from the root word for ignoramus, meaning "with out knowledge".

      I think that games are a reflection of our society. Our culture says that it is a faux-pas to be an extremist. religious games will hold a greater market when one of two things happen: #1- our culture comes to a point where people don't get upset about someone elses interpretation of their beliefs. or #2- a really great group of game developers will come together and create something with an accurate depiction of beliefs, exceptional graphics, and great playability that draws in the gamer with cutting edge story lines and missions.
      The closest thing I have seen is starwars: galaxies. But I think that is even only touching the tip of the iceberg.

      Black and White is a very addictive game and fun, but I think, as the developers in the article do, that someone at some point should get the proper resources together and put together a game that can be held out to secular and religious factions as accurate and intrigueing to both parties.

    40. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

      Belive or die is NOT a christian conversion method. If you read the Bible instead of whatching all the fakes (or misguided), you will see that YOU must be born again. I can not force you to be that, it is someting between you and God. All I can do is to show you the way and pray that God will call on you. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Jesus

      --
      Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
    41. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? You couldn't keep up with Zeus?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    42. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "Apparently you are not very well read if you believe Paul founded Christianity."

      On the contrary, AFAIK it is the consensus of Biblical scholars that Paul essentially created the fundamental core of Christian belief. Of course, he borrowed from extant doctrines, but his particular spin - especially regarding the resurrection - is the core of Christianity and the major portion of it originates from his doctrine.

      And certainly the followers of Jesus were opposed to this. Jesus' own brother, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls (suppressed, BTW, by the Catholic scholars studying them for forty years - considered the archeological scandal of the 20th Century), sent missionaries in his wake telling people not to follow Paul's teachings as they were opposed to those of Jesus. He then confronted Paul whereupon Paul attempted to incite the crowd to attack Jesus' brother; instead, the crowd turned on Paul. Paul "checked in" (as we say in Federal prison) to Roman custody and demanded a hearing in Rome as was his right as a Roman. Forty of Jesus' followers, hearing this, swore never to eat, drink or sleep until they had killed him. Word of this plot leaked, and Paul was escorted out of town by over 100 Roman soldiers. He apparently went back to Rome where only recently has any indication of his activities come to light (I'm not familiar with the current research).

      In subsequent centuries, when the descendents of Jesus went to Rome to petition Bishop of the Roman Church (who had not yet taken to being called "Pope") for recognition (including sharing of the financial spoils) for their versions of the Church, the Bishop essentially told them to "kick rocks". The Catholic Church could not afford to have any of Jesus' descendents talking about the original hijacking of Jesus from the Jews.

      Which is also why the Catholic Church came down hard on the Celtic Church which inherited many aspects of Judaism as a result of the many contacts between the original followers of Jesus and the British Isles via the trade routes.

      Read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "The Messianic Legacy" and especially "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception", all by Baigent and Leigh. It's all laid out in excruciating detail and utterly devastates the notion that the Christian Church has any legitimacy at all.

      The Christian Church is literally nothing but an extortion racket out together by an Roman opportunist and suckers who couldn't deal with the reality of Jewish oppression by the Romans.

      Even the Jews couldn't handle it, eventually ditching messianic Judaism for rabbinical Judaism.

      It would be the biggest fucking joke in human history if it hadn't resulted in millions of deaths in religious massacres, not to mention the brain-deadening brainwashing of hundreds of millions over two thousand years.

      Believe me, the Jews and the Christians (and the Muslims) have much to answer for - and the Transhumans will see that the bill comes due.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    43. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by tobar+mersa · · Score: 1
      And now for an opinion piece - [t]he folk[s] who say that religions are all basically different ways to the same goal a) do not understand world religions very well and b) are essentially trying to self-forgive their own failings or doubts by simply passing them off as 'probably godly'
      You forgot option c) They're Baha'i.

      Stateth the article:

      In reality, there is only one religion, the religion of God. This one religion is continually evolving, and each particular religious system represents a stage in the evolution of the whole. The Bahá'í Faith represents the current stage in the evolution of religion.
      Or, more specifically:
      Bahá'u'lláh attributed the differences in some teachings of the great religions not to any human fallibility of the Founders, but rather to the different requirements of the ages in which the revelations occurred.
      If one considers all religions to really be the same religion, then the goal must have remained constant through history; rather, the methods for reaching that goal have simply changed as the situation has changed.
      --
      This sig space intentionally left blank.
    44. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by HolyMoses!! · · Score: 1

      I don't know which biblical scholars you've been listening to, but according to the BIBLE - Jesus was the Christ, and Christian doctrine came from Him.

      The passage that you spoke of about Christians conspiring to kill Paul -

      12 And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
      13 Now there were more than forty who had formed this conspiracy.
      14 They came to the chief priests and elders, and said, "We have bound ourselves under a great oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul.
      15 "Now you, therefore, together with the council, suggest to the commander that he be brought down to you tomorrow, as though you were going to make further inquiries concerning him; but we are ready to kill him before he comes near."
      Acts 23:12-15 (NKJV)

      These 'Jews' were made up of either Pharisees or Saducees and were very probably made up of some of the ruling body of the Jews, called the Sanhedrin.
      Not Christians.

      Paul himself proclaimed Christ to be the central reason for all that he did, and the one who had called him to do what he did -
      1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
      Gal 1:1 (NKJV)
      1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,
      Eph 1:1 (NKJV)
      1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,
      1 Tim 1:1 (NKJV)
      1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
      2 Tim 1:1 (NKJV)

      Paul professed Jesus Christ to be his Savior, not his persecutor.

      And as for the rest of the citations you made, unless your "scholars" have Josephus(a Jewish historian during the time of Christ and the Roman oppression) as a non-biblical reference for their ideas, you might want to look deeper into the subject on your own before you start throwing out generalizations about stuff you apparently have backwards.

    45. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by EverDense · · Score: 1

      Hitler was raised as a Roman Catholic.

      Good flamage, but:
      Being knowledgable/accomplished in one particular area, does not give you a god-like capacity to
      comprehend the universe.

      Personally I class Athiests in the same boat as religious people, their absolute lack of belief
      seems a lot like religious faith to me (sometimes).

      But WTF would I know, I'm a wishy-washy Agnostic.

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    46. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by issachar · · Score: 1
      Hitler was a Catholic

      It's amazing how the same stupid slander keeps rising to the surface. Hitler was born in a Catholic family and later rejected Christianity. He was about as Catholic as Martin Luther and not even remotely Christian.

      I'm too busy to do your research for you, but here's something to get you started.

      I'm not a Roman Catholic, but repeating the same old lies about the Roman Catholic Church is just silly.

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    47. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1
      Great link, how about this one? Face it, Nazi Germany was a Christian society just like fascist Spain or Italy (strangely, fascism rose to power in predominantly Catholic countries).

      Also, what's with the bullshit line about "my research"? Do you really think I care about this stuff any more than about any other random internet discussion? You make it sound like it was my job or something. And you're too busy? How come you're reading Slashdot at all then?

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    48. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by FerakIII · · Score: 1

      The paragraph about B&W is the second paragraph on the second page of the article. And yeah... I kinda read it.

    49. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      This is true, rumor has it your neighbourhood likes the 'Hot Jihad Date' expansion.

    50. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      That really wouldn't work with Christanity, I guess. Here's one of the most confusing passages by Paul, but it clearly explains this "As long as I do good things, I'll be ok" attitude:

      For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

      For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (KJV - Romans 7:14-21)

      Basically, what you do doesn't matter, if you are without Christ. You are born into sin, and every action that you do, whether you think it good or not, is a slight against God because of your sinful nature. There's no path into heaven that can be walked by virtue of works alone.

      The other thing is that Christianity is an exclusive religion. It matters what you believe in. If you are not a Christian, then you will not be saved. It's tough for many Christians to even accept that. So, taking the "Christian" car up the road doesn't really get you anywhere. The only way that you can is if God pulls the car up for you. According to Christian belief, he has already done so.

      Sorry. It irks me when people say "If I do good things, then good things happen," or whatever. What if what I see as bad is good in your eyes? Things that we see as evil, such as incest and conjuring things, were not evil among other cultures and other religions.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    51. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break - that sort of behaviour is not limited to New Zealand at all.

      Racism is everywhere. Majority against minority, minority against minority, minority against majority.

      Trying to suggest that no criticisms or actions should ever be taken against Israel just in case some racists use it as an excuse for their actions is ridiculous.

      Don't fall for the original poster's attempt to portray all of New Zealand as racist - he's trolling. New Zealand is no more racist than any other Western country. (and a lot less than some).

    52. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by toomin · · Score: 1

      I must agree with you, I too bought B and W the day it came out, and I was terribly excited. However, it ran slowly (not my computer's fault at all..), and got repititive and quite boring after a while. Damn that Molyneux is good at hyping his games. (the story was written by a hollywood writer and was the hardest aspect to implement)

    53. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by issachar · · Score: 1
      Nazi Germany was a Christian society just like fascist Spain or Italy

      Europe was a "Christian society" during the Third Reich, but that wasn't your claim. You said that Hitler was a Catholic and that is patently false. (Unless you believe that him being born into a family of Roman Catholics makes him a Roman Catholic for life). The page you link to says in the first paragraph that the only certain thing about Hitler's religious beliefs is that he was not an atheist. That's very interesting, but I never claimed Hitler was an atheist. I only stated that he was not a Christian and not a Roman Catholic. He certainly made many statements in his life describing himself as a Christian. Of course he also wrote letters to Heinrich Himmler in which he described Christianity as a liar. The Catholic church tends to frown on statements like that, so I think it's fairly safe to say that Hitler made political use of Christian language but that whatever Hitler's religious beliefs were, he was not a Roman Catholic.

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    54. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      First last: of course, what's good in one culture/to one person may be bad to another, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that way is bad. There does not need to be one way of doing things that is correct - there could be many, and providing those don't try and mix with each other we'll be alright. Otherwise lots of people in both cultures will get annoyed and we have a mess.
      On Exclusivity - this is one of the things that the Bible contradicts itself on, IIRC, and even if it isn't when taken literally, modern Christianity is all about interpretation of the Bible - making it useful to us, here, now.
      One of the things said is that children have an angel, and if they die before coming into contact with Christianity, this angel will stick up for them. Literally - there you have it. However, we can extend this to the fact that, if someone who's never heard "The Word" can still enter "heaven," what other virtues are they judged upon that allows them in, and why can't those virtues then be applied to us?
      Interpret it how you will - this is why there are so many different Christian denominations, but there have been discussions (with me present) about whether belief in the christian God is necessary to enter heaven or whatever you want heaven to represent. This shows that it can work with Christianity - although with some, perhaps many denominations, it doesn't.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    55. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      "If you found somewhere in the Bible that slavery is okay (and because it acknowledges slavery but doesn't mention that its wrong, its implicitly approving of the practice), would that change your moral stance at all? Or would you come up with a reason on why to ignore that part of the Bible? Honestly."

      There are but a few groups who take the Bible word-for-word (The Evangelists, sort of, and another whose name escapes me) Nowadays most Christians interpret the Bible and not so much ignore it, as explain away or take it into a modern setting.
      Yes, a lot of people nowadays choose to pass over religion, completely or otherwise. However, this doesn't mean that it is a) right or b) wrong.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    56. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      The car doesn't have to be a Methodism or a Liberal or whatever, nor even a Christianity or a Hinduism - it could be an Atheism, as long as its got that engine, petrol, steering wheel, etc.
      Perhaps some have made it to the top without a car, but it's kind of risky, and a four-by-four is a lot more attractive when going up a 1-in-3 slope. If you get tired out, or fall down, you've just lost a lot of time - you'd better hope that someone will give you a lift - hopefully you'll happen upon a religion that doesn't burn hitchhikers.
      Well, you seem to have ignored the point I made, but perhaps there was a valid reason! As I said, the belief doesn't have to be valid, although it might help, most claims that I've heard of Christianity can be backed up. There are books devoted to backing yourself up when faced with "God doesn't exist" and all that - so it can't be that false.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    57. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      Wooooaaaah, that's a bit harsh.

      The Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, but they take some parts of the bible as absolute fact. For one, that there are only 40,000 places in heaven and the only way to earn one is to convert as many people as possible
      Saying that the Bible is the only truth out there is bigoted, and anyone who does say so needs to realise that they do not and cannot know everything.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    58. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      If I said "all religions" I apologise - that was not intentional.
      Some religions are probably wrong, to greater or lesser degrees, but that doesn't mean that only one has the correct way of life. Or that there is only one correct way of life - going back to the mountain, there are different ways up it, you know.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    59. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      If we're going on exactly what the Bible says, then almost no Christian is actually a Christian. Religion has been accused of being impossible to change, and there was a book published by a Bishop entitled "Why Christianity must Change or Die." What Christianity is isn't the same as what it was, and won't remain the same forever.
      Some denominations of Christianity believe that Christ is *not* the only way, but that he is actually one, a good one, and perhaps the best - bot not the only.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    60. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Can't see how this is Flamebait, when it was straight out of the Koran. However, I'd deem that as fanaticism, as not all Muslims are out to kill all non-Muslims.
      I don't know, but I assume that there are different interpretations of the Koran, as there are of the Bible.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    61. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Pick your chemicals carefully and it's downhill all the way

      wheeee !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    62. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      Precisely - I respect someone's decision as long as they've thought about it and come to a reasonable conclusion based on what they have.
      If that decision is atheism, fine, but at least respect the rest of us.

      Personally, I'm a New Agist-Liberalist-Christian-Agnostic. And that really doesn't work...

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    63. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Since you rely on the Bible, a notoriously manipulated and rewritten document, obviously you have no fucking clue.

      Even complaining that the Jews of the day were not "Christians" shows your pathetic lack of comprehension of basic facts from biblical study and archeology. No surprise there for a Christian fanatic like yourself.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    64. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im curious to your comment. " If we're going on exactly what the Bible says, then almost no Christian is actually a Christian." You are voiding a part of a lot of people's identity. On what basis did you make the statement?

    65. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surat At-Taubah 9:111
      9:11 1
      9/11/01
      Shit, now it makes sense.

    66. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Fact is that the believe or die method was used by Christians to convert a whole lot of people. It was probably the method that converted the most people. Hey, can't argue with success, can you?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    67. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by sveinungkv · · Score: 1
      Success? My guess is that over 90% of those "converted" by this method burns in hell right now. The simple fact is: -you can not force people to be born again. All that is possible to force people to do is to pretend they are born again.

      Good enough if you want power, not god if you want people in heaven (in fact, I think fewer will be born again by using force)

      --
      Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
    68. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      I'm not in a predominantly Muslim area, Mr. Wo-one-verin-three. Also, 'Jihad' and 'Date' only go together in this way: "Abdul, what is the date for the start of Jihad?"
      Nice try.

    69. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Patik · · Score: 1
      Can't see how this is Flamebait, when it was straight out of the Koran.
      Me neither.
      I'd deem that as fanaticism, as not all Muslims are out to kill all non-Muslims.
      While I don't believe all Muslims would kill non-believers, this is straight out of the Koran, not some radical separatists' handbook.
      there are different interpretations of the Koran
      That's why I posted the link to the translations, to show that several people got the same meaning from it.
    70. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game covers everything from how many ppl warship you to weather they build you a temple...

      Warship? Weather? Yes, folks, God is an imbecile.

    71. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Good points, but interpretation is different to translation.
      One translation can be interpreted in many different ways, some parts can be "ignored." There are so many stupid and irrelevant laws in Deuteronomy that it would be pointless to follow the Bible to the letter. We can't take anything at face value, as situations were very different at those points in time. I imagine many Muslims write off those passages as irrelevant, unnecessary or stupid. (Not all, of course.)

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    72. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Patik · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    73. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      Some denominations of Christianity believe that Christ is *not* the only way, but that he is actually one, a good one, and perhaps the best - bot not the only.

      Which ones? I wouldn't use the word "denominations" but rather "demonizations" or the more popular word "cult".

      If we're going on exactly what the Bible says, then almost no Christian is actually a Christian.

      Really? The Old Testament is Jewish law and the New Testament is the new law - so point something out to me in the New Testament that points out that almost no Christian is actually a Christian? Last time I checked all you had to be a Christian was believe that (1) only through the blood of Christ can you be saved (2) that Jesus died for your sins and (3) He [Jesue] was resurrected and lives today. Remember, all who call upon the Lord shall be saved.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    74. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      Saying that the Bible is the only truth out there is bigoted, and anyone who does say so needs to realise that they do not and cannot know everything.

      Call it what you want, but I'm here to tell you that there's only one God and there's only one way to heaven.

      I'm curious about this 40,000 places in heaven thing. I've read up on the JW's before and never read that. I've also read good portions of the Bible and never ran across the 40,000 places in heaven part. I, being a fundamentalist, believe in a literal Bible and I cannot imagine the Bible says anything about only 40,000 places in heaven. Now I do know that in the end times there will be 144,000 Messianic Jews sealed with the mark of God and will be protected as they will be witnesses to the world of their faith.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    75. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the sims expansion packs is called hot date get a clue untaken

    76. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Since you rely on the Bible, a notoriously manipulated and rewritten document, obviously you have no fucking clue.

      Uh, what are Christians supposed to rely on, if not the Bible?

      Even complaining that the Jews of the day were not "Christians" shows your pathetic lack of comprehension of basic facts from biblical study and archeology.

      If they were Jews, then they wouldn't Christians, right? If they were, they'ld be called Christians, right? So they were Jews, not Christians then.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    77. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "So they were Jews, not Christians then."

      That was MY point. HE was the one saying they weren't "Christians" while my point was of course they weren't. Jesus himself was NOT a Christian - he was a fanatical follower of the Jewish Law and had no intention of creating a new religion - certainly not one that persecuted his own people for two thousand years for allegedly executing him - when not only was it the Romans who allegedly executed him, but there is evidence the crucifixion never happened at all.

      The whole thing is a joke - except for the consequences for the world.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    78. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Really? So just because I know where you/he/she got the reference from automatically makes it funny? Taking the name of an expansion and adding 'jihad' in the middle does not a joke create. You may think it is funny. You may also think people badly injuring themselves is funny. However, just because I didn't explain the joke when dismissing it, do not assume that I did not 'get it.' I did. It just sucked.

    79. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by HolyMoses!! · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess either you're right - in which case I'm suffering in this life for no reason, believing Jesus is God and Savior - or the Bible is right - in which case, if you reject Jesus as the Savior of the world from it's sin, God will have no choice but to let you have what you always chose: An eternal existence without Him.

      Are you willing to stand on your soap-box until you die, with the notion that you are the be-all and end-all of your universe?

      If you can show me proof that you have some kind of control over what you will do with yourself after you die, then I might be interested in talking with you about this further. But you can't offer any evidence of anything after this life.

      I challenge you to try an prove that Jesus didn't exist and that He wasn't crucified. Greater men with more genius than most have tried, and come up wanting - claiming that Jesus truly is who He said He was - The Son of God, God-incarnate, and the Savior of the World.

      So here's your chance. You can cuss and call me names 'til you're blue in the face, but if you are not willing to do the foot work for yourself, you'll never truly know if His claims were real or not and you will be basing your own beliefs on nothing but biased whims.

      Good luck!

    80. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      It could be 144,000, But I can't remember. I'm not a Jehova's Witness. I think it's from Revelation, however.
      So, let me get this straight: You believe in polygamy, in stoning your stubborn son and, that transvestites are a sin against God and that a non-virgin who marries must also be stoned. (Deuteronomy, 21:15,21 & 22:5, 21)

      Seems a bit harsh, to me. Did these words come from your kind God, because if so, I want a different one.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    81. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)" Cult Cult (k?lt) n .F. culte, L. cultus care, culture, fr. colere to cultivate. Cf. Cultus.
      • 2. A system of religious belief and worship.

      Now, some would add extra bits to that, such as "for the purpose of money." However, cult at its root holds no derogatory implications.

      So you say you're a fundamentalist, but reject about two thirds of the bible? I thought that you took the Bible as the word of God (i.e. literally) yet you say that some of it doesn't matter? The words here are "'Ey, Up!"

      Regardless, I have a question - what version of the Bible do you use? Surely, if there are so many different editions you can't be sure you have the right one. Or perhaps, they're all right, because the Bible is the words and what matters is how you interpret those words.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    82. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Pascal's Wager again. Been shot down a hundred times.

      Your argument is garbage, your beliefs are idiotic, and your future is to die at the hands of Transhumans, whereupon you are assured of never returning because there is absolutely no such thing as any sort of afterlife.

      Good luck!

      Or should I say, LOL!

      Moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    83. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I for one think people badly injuring themselves is funny. While we're at it so are dick and fart jokes and so are midgets!

    84. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by HolyMoses!! · · Score: 1

      Once again the Master of Trans-flamism has spoken.

      I wish I had a life where I could go around and flame others online about their beliefs to feel better about myself.

      How old are you? 10? Get some pubic hair.

      Besides, if you truly believe in Transhumanism, then you should be happy with the fact that I have choosen my own life's direction.

      "Transhumanists place a high value on autonomy: the ability and right of individuals to plan and choose their own lives."
      This is directly from the definition of what Trasnhumanism is on the website for the World Transhumanist Association.
      If you need the link, here it is:
      http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.ht ml#wh atistranshumanism

      I figured a person with the word "Master of" in front of what ever they might have describing them would actually have some kind of understanding of their own beliefs.

      So, not only do you have no comprehension of Christianity or the Bible, you really don't know anything about Transhumanism either.

      I guess that makes you "Master of Nothing"

      Have a nice day!

      Flamer.

    85. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      First of all, I'm 55. I've lost more pubic hair than you ever had.

      Secondly, you have no clue what Transhumanism is about.

      Third, I'm not sure the World Transhumanist Association has any clue what Transhumanism is about. But that's another issue.

      As for being happy that you have chosen Christianity, I am. It means your ass is grass someday, and that will be one less monkey Transhumans have to deal with.

      Feel free to drink some poison Kool-Aid while you're at it.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    86. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by HolyMoses!! · · Score: 1

      You're a 5 year old stuck in a 55 year old's body?

      Well, that makes sense.

      Better go take your Thorazine, ya old coot.
      You don't want the doc to know that the interns in the psych ward have let you at there computer again.

    87. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      You still here?

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    88. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

      I'm currently working as an english teacher in South Korea. I teach in an english institute on the 6th floor. On the 4th floor there is a Buddhist Evangelism Center. So... Buddhists evangelize.

  2. Not surprising by Xhad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's hard to feature serious topics like religion in an only semi-serious art medium like video games. I konw the RPG fanatics think video games are an art form just like movies, but the reality is that most video game stories are as deep as the average action flick.

    What's the typical action flick treatment of religion? Barely existent if at all, and usually just an excuse to give people cool special powers.

    1. Re:Not surprising by Jon+Proesel · · Score: 1

      I konw the RPG fanatics think video games are an art form just like movies, but the reality is that most video game stories are as deep as the average action flick.

      Yes, most video games don't have great stories. Neither do most movies. That doesn't mean that both mediums aren't capable of achieving great heights of story-telling.

      --

      --
      Using GNU/Linux - Windows-free zone!
    2. Re:Not surprising by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that certainly doesn't stop people from trying!

      Apocalypse Now: How a hologram, a blimp, and a massively multiplayer game could bring peace to the Holy Land

      These people scare me almost as much as these people.

      --
      Windmills do not work that way!
    3. Re:Not surprising by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      but you are missing the cool part that it could add.

      Imagine a game of ut2003 or ut2004 if in a team against team match you can find a "smite" rune or artifact that will (once per game) allow the finding team smite one member of the other team to have "bad luck" I.E. everyone can easily aim at him perfeclty all the time, his aim sucks, etc...

      Hell lots of ideas come to mind where GOD can be real fun in a game if added..

      I think that GOD needs to be a mod or fun turn-on-able feature in most any game... it add's a bit of randomness that can really get things interesting.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Not surprising by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Not sure what fps games you're playing, but all the ones I've played have god mode built in already ;)

      --
      No Comment.
    5. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steven Segal... Anyone? Anyone?

      *Rimshot*

    6. Re:Not surprising by swerk · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that a) video games are only a semi-serious art form or that b) they only have the capacity to give serious topics like religion with action-flic level treatment.

      It's true many video games have shallow (or absent) stories. There's no creation story or complex morality behind pac-man, it's just pure fun, and is certainly "serious" art; it's called a masterpiece and a classic for good reasons. And while some games are basically interactive movies, some of which do have plenty of religious content (Final Fantasy X comes to mind) even the ones that only touch on religion can sometimes do so in meaningful ways.

      In the newer Legend of Zelda games, I'm thinking primarily of Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker here, the stories are of approximately action-flic depth. A few reasonably rounded characters and a slew of flat supporting roles doing their part to help or hinder the hero on his way to get the bad guy. But every now and then, the dialogue mentions folklore and legends that at the very least create an illusion of tapping into a vast resource of Hyrulian (Hyrule is Zelda's game world) culture. We get the creation story with the 3 gods and what they each stand for, and how parts of the world and the inner spirit are to find balance. We get history of why these grand temples were built and the spiritual significance of the artifacts they hold. We even have the king of Hyrule and Gannondorf (the surprisingly non-flat villian) present conflicting interpretations of the actions the Gods have taken. I won't spoil the ending sequence of Wind Waker, but there's some serious game-world religion going on there, in a game that doesn't focus heavily on story.

      I mentioned Final Fantasy X before, which does focus on story, and even has the great evil in the game literally named "Sin", and non-believers, and religious pilgrimages, and corruption within the church. It's present in so much of the game's story that I got the same uncomfortable feeling while going through those bits as I do in, say, a Catholic service (no offense anybody!) surrounded by people who will swear to God they believe they're drinking Jesus's blood and eating his body. The medium can and does treat religion pretty seriously if it fits the spirit of the game.

      That said, can you imagine if religion were presented "seriously" or "deeply" in a game that wasn't a big long linear interactive movie? Mormons passing out miniature bibles to you on the sidewalks in Vice City... The Mushroom Kingdom factioning into those who worship Lakitu and those who just see him as a spiny-chucking bastard... That kind of stuff is part of why some of us use video games as an escape in the first place! :^)

    7. Re:Not surprising by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The best "God Mode" had to be in Rise of the Triad... Invincibility, flight, and that awesome "ball of light" seeker attack.

    8. Re:Not surprising by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Computer games may be *capable* of tackling some topics at certain levels, but one question one must ask is: Is it WORTH it?

      This is the same question which must be asked when making a movie, and the reason is this:
      When making a movie (or, indeed, a video game, both of which are inherently visual media), one takes what are relatively abstract concepts (scene __x__ looks kind of like this, and maybe thoughts __y__ and __z__ are running through protagonist's head, etc.) with a concrete picture, which everyone is pretty much going to agree upon. There are still lots of degrees of freedom for ways in which the viewer can interpret things, but many of the degrees of freedom in written works (how a name is pronounced, odors, connections with the reader's childhood) will now be gone, or much, much harder to communicate.

      Religion has such a visceral connection with people that there is a huge danger in pinning down many degrees of freedom, and presenting just ONE view of it in a game. Is that really what people want? It may, indeed, make a good game, there's no doubt that many good stories have become (to some extent) good games, but how true to original messages (as interpreted by practitioners, maybe) does one have to be?

    9. Re:Not surprising by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

      Don't fall into his trap.

      If you're going to suggest that video games are not art, or not great art, because they have shallow plots, you can say the same thing about music.

      Video games are primarily that. Visual. They are about aesthetics, visual and auditory. (And tactile, sort of...which makes them an art with only a few that have so broad a focus. I'm thinking of food, sex, and automobiles.) A plot is just gravy.

    10. Re:Not surprising by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      iddqd

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    11. Re:Not surprising by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Why on earth do videogames need a decent story line to be a serious artform? You're assuming that because we know a lot about film (which is narrative) and we know a lot about fiction (which is narrative) that videogames have to become more narrative in nature to be on equal footing? So tell me, where is the storyline in sculpture? Or in painting? And yet, I'm sure you wouldn't try to argue that they are not serious art mediums. A game is a fundamentally different type of thing from a story, although some have stories attached to them in a somewhat arbitrary manner.

      There is no problem in a treatment of religion in a videogame, but what you won't find is that treatment as a story, presenting a static impression of the authors interpretation of religion. Instead, as the field matures and topics like this are addressed, we will probably find that we start to get games in which people can play with the very concept of religion. What it means, and how the player connects to that.

      The treatment of the subject will then be what are the ways in which this thing we call religion can be adjusted and what effects (and to some extent affects) does that have on the world around it. I think that it is safe to assume that the mature field of videogames will be closer to simulation than to narrative.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  3. Anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    As long as it isn't more Christian rock!

    1. Re:Anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Christian rock" is an oxymoron. Remember how rock was touted as the devil's music back in the 60's?

    2. Re:Anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You have no idea what you are talking about - some of the best musicians out there are Christian rockers. Personally, I like Chris Impelliterri (Screaming Symphony CD) - he is one of the best guitarists out there - plain and simple (genre: metal).

    3. Re:Anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      simpsons:

      "christian rock is just pop music with the word baby changed to jesus"

    4. Re:Anything but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this isn't the 60's now. Christianity has grown overall. You still have your hard-to-please Christian, while you also have people like me, Christians who love to praise God through a more contemporary expression.

      You should check out Lacey; she's amazing!
      http://flyleafmusic.com
      She breaks the gap between Christian music and secular music by singing her music no matter where she may be--even if she's in a hard-rock Sport's bar!

    5. Re:Anything but by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Also South Park (709). Cartman starts a Christian Rock band, his first song:

      I need you in my life, Jesus [baby]
      -I just can't live without you, Jesus [darling]
      -I just want to feel you...

    6. Re:Anything but by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      >some of the best musicians out there are Christian rockers.

      yeh, handel was amazing... he totally ro>0rd ... (but these chumps today? theyr'e effing horrible)

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
  4. Personally, I would go one step further. by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would state that not only is religion handled "ineffectively" in most games, but between the wish to be politically correct and catering to the predominantly anti-christian sentiments in the gaming community most games end up being downright disdainful of christianity.

    What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories; blatant propaganda which is more concerned with pushing a message than with providing an enjoyable gaming experience, and "fluff" mostly written for children.

    What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.

    1. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      why even bother?

      is it causing a huge issue to not have religion saturating every single facet of peoples lives.

      and i dont mean to forget all religious aspects. but the gospel is not needed at every street corner.

    2. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by ramdac · · Score: 1, Funny

      Heh... those needs are primarily, mutually exclusive.

      gaming = violence. RULE RULE!!
      gospel = love, tolerance.

      you see... difficult.

    3. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you on the first two paragraphs, but as for your proposition, how do you propose to make a "Christian" video game? I can't think of anything that would fit the bill that wouldn't be cheesy or superficial.

    4. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not so much that religion is ineffectively handled; it's more that certain religions are usually targeted for ridicule. It's considered hateful to discriminate or ridicule someone based on their religion -- with the sole and unique exception that ridiculing any flavor of Christianity is acceptable.

    5. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took a whole 5 posts to find someone who believes religion == christianity. Amazing.
      Furthermore, non-christian is not anti-christian. Please make a note of this, as there are a variety of religions out there. Some are built solely for a story line, similar to Star Wars, and to a lesser extent Stargate. This is probably the best way to write a game without pissing people off. Set it in the context of a game-based religion. It usually won't be the basis for the story, but it may contribute.
      Next someone is going to tell me I'm going to hell for disagreeing with this post.

    6. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1, Troll

      Of course the gaming community is downright disdainful of Christianity. Most gammers are relativlee intellegent and can see through the hokum. Christianity itself is historically anti-imagination and anti-intellectual. How exactly could you put that into a video game? Video games are meant as an escape from the real world, a fantasy. Why would you try to put into a game that which many are trying to escape from?

      I promise to stop being disdainful of Christianity when they stop being disdainful of my beliefs.

      Oh and BTW, in case you were wondering, video games don't handle Buddhism, Judiaism, Islam, Shintoism, Hinuism or any other religion very well. That you assumed "religion" is synonomous with Christianity shows complete hubris.

      Isn't that a sin?

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    7. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by dunsurfin · · Score: 0, Funny

      Great idea, personally I am looking forward to:

      Quake IV: WWJD
      Sin City: Deliver Watchtower to the Ungodly

    8. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by VoidWraith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a short inequality statement to help solve your problems.

      Religion is not only Christianity.

      And I don't think the Christian community needs any of that. I have plenty of Christian friends who are perfectly satisfied with the way things stand. The only reason they don't go out and buy DOOM3 is because their hardware can't handle it. You don't need a game to portray Christianity, that's what people go to church for.

    9. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to Augustine or Galileo, some of the greatest minds were devout followers of the church. I'd be willing to bet that they rank higher on the intelligence scale than you do.

      The best games that handle religion are the ones with invented lands, invented people, and an invented religion. Think Morrowind.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    10. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Kedyn's+Crow · · Score: 1

      What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.

      But why do you think that it is necessary for christianity to be represented in video games at all? Christianity has always spread very well through traditional methods such as word of mouth and the good example set by its adherents. To me a pro-christian game company semms as unnecessary as a pro-irish game company or a pro-canadian game company.

      --
      "The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
    11. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Of course the gaming community is downright disdainful of Christianity. Most gammers are relativlee intellegent and can see through the hokum."

      I see you don't play games...

    12. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Please make a note of this, as there are a variety of religions out there. Some are built solely for a story line, similar to Star Wars, and to a lesser extent Stargate. This is probably the best way to write a game without pissing people off."

      Nope, you'll still piss people off.

      Fundamentalists will think your made-up religion is real and/or is a facade for Satanism, and that you're trying to recruit people.

      Case in point: their opinion of magic in Dungeons & Dragons.

    13. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by bckrispi · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Heh... those needs are primarily, mutually exclusive.

      Really???

      Inquisition = violence. RULE RULE!!
      Salem Witch Trials = violence. RULE RULE!!
      The Roman Empire adopting Christianity to expand its control and influence = violence. RULE RULE!!
      The Crusades = violence. RULE RULE!!
      The Czars establishing and controling the Orthodox Church to place themselves as God's Proxy on Earth = violence. RULE RULE!!
      The Dark Ages = violence. RULE RULE!!

      Hmm, if games took a realistic look at Christianity throughout history, they may well be even more violent...

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    14. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      It would go like this: you are a heavily armed mercenary holding a shotgun. You walk into a room filled with demons holding some hostages. You start blasting away with your shotgun. Every time you kill a demon, you hear an angelic chorus singing "Halleluiah" and "Onward Christian Soldiers".

      If you kill a hostage accidentally, the entire game freezes and a fire and brimstone preacher comes on screen lecturing you about how you are going to hell for breaking the 5th commandment. The Christian Game Company is automatically notified via e-mail and within minutes a prayer counsellor is made available for you to call on an 800 number. You call up, and you pray, and you cry, and you pray some more. It's a little like church, except you can't wait to leave to play a computer game or something. OK, so it's EXACTLY like church. When you're finished with your phone call, the prayer counsellor sends a message to your PC via e-mail that unlocks the game so you can continue to play.

      I for one can't wait to play it.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    15. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by hiero · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Most gammers are relativlee intellegent ..."

      I take it then that you are not a gamer?

    16. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Galileo? You mean the guy who was told to STFU or die? Shocking, the lies that Christians will tell in order to dupe the masses.

      I suppose that you're going to tell me that Bruno was a devout follower of the Church, and that's why he was burned to death for refusing to STFU about the same things that Galileo said.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    17. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course the gaming community is downright disdainful of Christianity. Most gammers are [relativly] intellegent and can see through the hokum [sic]. Christianity itself is historically anti-imagination and anti-intellectual.

      No. Christianity is historically anti-atheism--a distinctly different thing.

      A good number of ancient, medieval, and modern scholoarly advancements and creative achievements were done by devout Christians, often with the blessing and sanctions of their churches.

      Off the top of my head, both J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis--very creative persons by anyone's measure--were extremely devout christians. (C.S. Lewis is actually as lauded for his nonfiction books on religion as he was for Narnia.)

      Your misunderstanding is understandable, however, thanks to the semi-humanist screed that says Galileo was tried for heresey for daring to say that the sun was the center of the universe. The truth says otherwise, of course, but "Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial" doesn't work very well as a rallying cry to toss religion out on its ear.

      (Note: I'm aware I linked to a religious site. If you prefer Wikipedia, it also delves into the heresy, but with a bit more of an anti-religious slant.)

    18. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      Christianity has always spread very well through traditional methods such as word of mouth and the good example set by its adherents.

      Don't forget intimidation, torture, murder and intolerance. The Church has used those pretty effectively too!!!!!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    19. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to bet that their imaginations and intellect flourished despite religion, not because of it.

    20. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by galen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to Augustine or Galileo, some of the greatest minds were devout followers of the church. I'd be willing to bet that they rank higher on the intelligence scale than you do.

      They may have been devoutly Christian, but they also lived during a time when not being a devout follower was enough to get you killed in any of a dozen nasty ways. Or, if the church was feeling generous, you'd merely be excomunicated. At which point you lost all rights as a human and citizen of the state.

      Seems pretty obvious to me that regardless of what they truly believed, anyone smarter than gnat will happily swear publicly that they're devoutly anything.

      ~~Galen~~

    21. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, it would involve taking something like the Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings, translating it into game form, and keeping the message of the story. I don't think it's impossible, but just writing books that are both entertaining and relgiously-related was difficult. It's a miracle that there were two people that could do it in the last century, let alone that they were contemporaries too.

      Story-telling is already difficult to do in games unless you make a linear RPG or adventure game. Having a non-linear game with the same depth as Narnia or Lord of the Rings would be an inhuman feat. Honestly, to expect anything more than a basic treatment of morals and ethics is a lot to ask.

      On the other hand, I wonder if something like Pilgrim's Progress could be done in a game form.

    22. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by bob_jenkins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems to me that religion should be a natural topic for games. Religions tell you that if you're in situation x, you should do y. Or that if you do y then the world will do z. Religion attempts to model reality. Games ... do exactly the same thing.

      So, given a religion, the matching game should simulate a world that behaves exactly the way the religion says it should behave. If Christianity can't be made into a game that is believable and enjoyable, um, that says something interesting about Christianity.

    23. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you want your superstition catered for then develop your own games.

    24. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by nyssa · · Score: 1
      That you assumed "religion" is synonomous with Christianity shows complete hubris.

      I don't think he is assuming "religion" as synonomous with Christianity, but pointing out the fact that Christianity is especially maligned in games more than other religions. Just like your post especially maligns Christianity more than other religions, e.g. "Most gammers are relativlee intellegent and can see through the hokum".

    25. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      from insightful to flamebait in 10 mins.

      seriosuly how is this flamebait unless you beleive religion should be in EVERYTHING?

      and even if you do, a lot of other people dont. (and the current market for games obviosuly supports that).

      as was said in the movie "the people vs larry flynt"

      people dont want their porn and religion mixed.
      the same goes for games in my opin

    26. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would state that not only is religion handled "ineffectively" in most games, but between the wish to be politically correct and catering to the predominantly anti-christian sentiments in the gaming community most games end up being downright disdainful of christianity.
      Wrong! Fundies usually aren't interested in computer games unless they are indoctrinating tools to push their ideas. Anything that appears to be the work of the devil (non fundy life) is not acceptable for fundies.
      What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories; blatant propaganda which is more concerned with pushing a message than with providing an enjoyable gaming experience, and "fluff" mostly written for children.
      As I stated in the previous comments, there is little interest among fundies for anything that doesn't push the doomsday scemario or is likely to have the player enjoy himself or herself.
      What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.
      Perhaps games that shows lefties being tortured could appeal to fundies. There is a market for games for other depraved individuals so I'm sure people inflicted with religion could have some sort of games made for them. The game manufacturers should bring up some suggestions, do surveys or watch Pat Robertson, GW Bush and other fundy preachers for ideas.
    27. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Phrogman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would not be suprised to find that Christianity has been used to justify more killing than any other religion in human history - including the Aztecs. Certainly there is hordes of historical data of mass slaughters done in the name of the Christian religion.

      Not that Christianity directly condones that sort of behaviour - but it has historically turned a blind eye to it on those occasions when it was not actively condoning it. For example, its a sin to kill a human being, so for the purposes of the Crusades, the Church declared that non-Christians were not actually Human beings, so there was no sin involved in killing them (similarly Women were not considered entirely human throughout most of the Middle Ages it seems). By historical accounts, the blood ran so deep in the streets of Jerusalem when the Crusaders sacked it, they had to wade through it. I believe they basically massacred the entire city population, Christians, Moslems and Jews.

      Estimates of those slaughtered during the Witch persecutions in Europe number from the hundreds of thousands to millions over the course of hundreds of years.

      Religious wars between Protestants and Catholics lasted decades and resulted in huge casualties, destruction of entire towns etc.

      Periodically throughout most of Europe, they would decide to persecute the Jewish population and massacred them en masse. Hitler's final solution was merely a most efficient modern example of a long European tradition of killing Jews.

      Thousands of natives were evidently slaughtered in the New World after they were baptized - so that they could commit no sins before dying (perhaps this is legend I don't know).

      In Norway/Sweden, the local population was converted to Christianity from the old Pagan ways at the point of the sword - convert or die - and this was not uncommon elsewhere. Once Christianity gains power in a nation, it uses that power to exterminate any competing religions it seems. It certainly did so in the Roman Empire and in Europe thereafter.

      Although Christianity teaches that violence is wrong, it has been perverted into a means to justify violence pretty much over its entire history. It has also served as a major tool to keep the populace subdued and subservient to their masters - and is still being used in this manner today (See the radical Religious Right).

      Its no wonder that many intelligent people look at the history of Christianity and reject it. There are few if any bloodier paths through religious history.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    28. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Followers because if they weren't they would be dead.

      Hey, how about the invention of the printing press, gunpowder, the number zero, relativity, etc that were invented by non-believers.

      Remember, when the Christains took over in 346 AD, they closed the Universities in Greece, burned the Great Library at Alexandria (and viciously murder the priestess Hypatia) and actively banned an persecuted all thinking that did not agree with Church dogma for over 1000 years (and they are still trying it). That's why it was called the Dark Ages . Meanwhile civilisations in America, China and Muslim countries were literally flowering with art and science.

      Galileo succeed despite living in a Christian theocray, not becasue of it (and who cares about Augustine - just another apologist for a corrupt institution). I wonder how many brilliant minds and discoveries we will never hear about because the Church and its various inquisitions put the people to the torch?

      "The best games that handle religion are the ones with invented lands, invented people, and an invented religion."

      Oh, you mean like the New Testament? (or the rest of the Bible for that matter)..

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    29. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-Imagination? Are you smoking crack?

      Have you ever actually *read* any part of the Bible? Seriously...there are some kickass things in it. I mean, even if you don't believe in what it's telling you, those are some darn good stories.

      And, of course, if you do believe what it is telling you, then those darn good stories actually happened. How's that for awesome.

      Let's see...

      Living through a fire, killing ever first born child in the land (along with numerous other plauges), parting the waters of the sea, a boy killing a giant, and a man who could make the blind see and the lame walk.

      If that isn't cool, I don't know what is.

    30. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by iabervon · · Score: 1

      I think the fundamental issue is one of game balance. How do you make a game which is interesting and fun in which it is advantageous to behave in a moral fashion without having blatant propaganda? I suspect it's possible, but it is a significant leap in game design away from the current styles.

      I'm imagining a game a bit like the Final Fantasy series, where you can steal things out of people's houses if you want. But if you do so too much, the towns fall into poverty as the game progresses, making the end very difficult. On the other hand, you could give items and money to people and they will do better, giving your side in the final conflict more resources. In encounters in the wilderness, experience would be available for any way of dealing with the siutation; you can kill things, but this causes more dangerous monsters to flourish. A player who went through the game in the normal RPG way would turn out at the end to actually be the ultimate evil, having ravanged the world in a quest for power (but, perhaps, able to intentionally lose the final battle and win posthumous forgiveness).

      Of course, the most common explicitly anti-christian sentiment in RPGs (the church turns out to actually be evil) is straight out of the gospel. The plot of FFX is essentially "Popular religious figure and band of followers find that the religious organization really just wants power. It tries to do them in, but they miraculously continue. Rejecting the church-supported idea that continual sacrifice is necessary, they set out to break the cycle of violence and bring redemption to the world." If there were multiple forms of money, you'd probably be able to exchange them in the temples.

    31. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories;

      If the games were put out by christians then there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

      Besides, why is it when the word religion is used christians think they have the market cornered. Talk about self-centered thinking. No wonder people are so anti-christian. Anytime the discussion of religious rights come up the christians are front and center whining how their right to display their religious views are being infringed upon or taken away.

      For example, the judge down south who refused to remove the granite block showing the Ten Commandments even when ordered to do so. The christian folks immediately went ballistic. What if that judge had been of the Islamic faith and had a stone sculpture showing some verses from the Koran? I can guarantee that the christian community would have done everything in its power to remove that sculpture as fast as it could as soon as it went up.

      Contrary to what the right-wing christians of this country think, this country was not founded on christian principles. It was founded on the right of people to worship as they please without interference from the government. Those who came here were tired of being told how and what to worship. That also means ALL religions are treated equally and the government will not choose one over the other.

      If this nation had been founded on christian principles then Roger Williams wouldn't have been run out of Massachusetts for his beliefs. In case you're wondering he was the founder of Rhode Island.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    32. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Politicus · · Score: 1
      You have to keep in mind that major games are commercial products and therefore they will have qualities which cater to their market. A game developer will go after the largest possible market for the game. The inclusion of any religious topic is most likely to reduce the potential market for that game. Therefore, actual religions will only be treated when the lack of doing so would be a glaring omission and then only at a superficial level.

      This obviously doesn't apply for products which are directly aimed at religious markets. A paraller with Mel Gibson's Passion is appropriate here. Unless enirely funded without regard for a return on investment, this is still a commercial product, just one which has a specific market as its target. In this case, treatment may be deeper but along lines most accepted by its target market.

      The problem then is that an authentic exploration of topics is likely to have little commercial value and when topics are explored, funding sources will set the agenda.

      The rise of political correctness has also taken its toll on historical interpretation in games. My favorite example is the strategy game of conquest "Seven Cities of Gold" (of old C64 fame) which initially placed no value on the players violent acts in subjugating indigenous populations in the new world. When the game was re-released, suddenly players faced negative consequences as kings of old Europe frowned upon casualties to native populations that the player incurred. This is blatant commercial pandering to a new political correctness movement that would rather that a game present some revisionist view of history than offend any ethnic groups.

      --
      Politicus
    33. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by jotok · · Score: 1

      Sure, Christianity has a violent history, but like most amateur historians you resort to rather disingenuous arguments in order to prove your point.

      For example...you go from "Christians periodically persecuted Jews" to "Hitler's Final Solution was just the latest in a long line of Europeans killing Jews." Are you trying to make a connection between Hitler and Christianity? If so why not come out and say it?

      As for all of your other examples--hundreds of millions of witches killed, thousands of Natives being killed after being baptized, etc.--prove it. Or, at least, cite your source. Attempt some serious scholarship, at least.

      As for your last point--"People reject Christianity because it has a bloody history"--I have two things to say. One, Communism (especially under Stalin) has a far bloodier history than any series of religious wars (60 million murdered in the gulags to satisfy an entirely temporal desire to establish "heaven on earth") and yet people still believe that bullshit. Second, yes, that sort of bloody history happens when there's an issue people take as seriously as this--your point is like arguing that people should reject notions of right or wrong because it is unpleasant to disagree.

      Oh. Wait. They already do that.
      Damn.

    34. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try studying the Islamic religions. From the moments it was founded, that religion was based upon violence. Don't think for minute that Christianity has ever had a monopoly on violence.

    35. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Jahf · · Score: 1

      When a high-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church (I wish I had gotten the name, but it was a blurb on an HBO program about Celibacy that I had running in the background yesterday) states that the current Priests-as-abusers scandle is going to shake out the Church like a "second Galileo" ... I think it shows that Galileo can be used to describe -bad- aspects of Catholicism/Christianity as easily as it can be used to show that an intelligent person can be a devout follower.

      From what I have read, Galileo was a firm believer in God and the Trinity ... but was pretty well disgusted at how the Church forced him to renounce his scientific discoveries.

      And even intelligent people can make ridiculous stances in the name of their religion (not saying Galileo did, he was forced to renounce his discoveries, I'm thinking more of the state board of education in my birth state of Kansas a couple of years ago).

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    36. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Judge Moore's (yes, I know his name) argument was that the Alabama (yes, I know the state) constitution required an acknowledgement of God in his duties as Chief Justice. If this weren't the case, the entire suit was frivolous. Many Christians understand that this country was founded largely by people with orthodox Christian views, on legal traditions that find their roots in the Bible.

      You may disagree with Judge Moore's interpretation of the Alabama law, and you may dispute this reading of history - fine. But please recognize the difference between this and your suggestion of a stone sculpture of the Koran. Yes, Christians would object to that - it's not a case of all religions get a "fair shake" from gov't, it's a case of gov't recognizing its own heritage for what it is. American Muslims should be thankful they can even exist as such - there is no such thing as a Saudi Christian, because non-Islam religions are illegal there. Freedom of religion (it's something to be freely chosen in your own heart, not imposed by others) does have its basis in Christian beliefs, contrary to what you say. That said, Roger Williams got the shaft from a group of Christians that weren't acting much like Christ. But that's a black mark against those individuals, not against Christianity.

    37. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      but between the wish to be politically correct and catering to the predominantly anti-christian sentiments in the gaming community most games end up being downright disdainful of christianity.

      Care to cite some examples?? I understand that the majority of popular games contain themes that would offend the sensibilities of Christians, but I have never seen a game that attacks Christianity itself.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    38. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories; blatant propaganda which is more concerned with pushing a message than with providing an enjoyable gaming experience, and "fluff" mostly written for children.
      Wait a second. Do you have any evidence that those who create other games are predominantly non-christian? Of course those are the primary types of games that you see as being created by christians -- because, otherwise, how would you know whether or not they were religious?
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    39. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by be951 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't forget intimidation, torture, murder and intolerance. The Church has used those pretty effectively too!!!!!

      While those means have been used, I would not say that they've been terribly effective. Perhaps the most effective way Christianity spread, particularly in the early years, is by co-opting traditions, customs, symbols and feasts of other religions.

    40. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      I would not be suprised to find that Christianity has been used to justify more killing than any other religion in human history...
      This is a popular attitude, but it's nonsense. Christianity (or any other major religion today) doesn't kill anyone, and those who try to blame atrocities of the past on religion is just displaying their ignorance. You're confusing religion with the actions of governments (who professed to uphold Christianity) trying to gain more power. History has shown that people are always fighting and killing each other, regardless of religion.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    41. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > the invention of the
      > printing press [...] invented by non-believers

      Hm. Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press to print Bibles. Do you have evidence that he was not a Christian?

    42. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the most effective way Christianity spread, particularly in the early years, is by co-opting traditions, customs, symbols and feasts of other religions.

      True, true. However, a significant part of this "cultural assimilation" did involve the massacre of those who held on to their old beliefs.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    43. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Could you point out some examples of games ridiculing Christianity? I'm finding myself a bit puzzled by the frequent references to them---and besides, I might like to play some. ;-)

    44. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need a history lesson. Augustine wasn't even a Christian until later in his life. He lived in Rome for a time, while he wasn't a Christian. He was also married, divorced, and had a couple kids by a mistress. I highly doubt that Augustine became a christian because he was worried about the church going after him.

      Galileo was a different story, but he also wasn't forced into faith. He held back on the release of his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system because of the church, but he was actually one of the clergy. If someone isn't enthusiastic about a religion, even if they are forced into it, I'm doubtful that they would choose to become a leader within that religion.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    45. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Opening a whole big can-o-worms, and deviating karma-scortchingly-offtopic:

      I doubt that he used these examples as a purposful falacy, probably just an honest rhetorical mistake.

      Also, he never told anyone to reject "right and wrong". Why do people think that you need religion to obtain any form of morality, of right and wrong? I'm pretty much an atheist, but I still (in my experience), have a deeper morality than my religious friends, because, unlike them, my morality is well thought out, and deep. While most of their morality was handed to them by their parents/church, and is based on a concept that they really don't understand, or fully beleive.

      I do agree with you, that it is a shame that the postmodern view endorses the meaninglessness of morality. Situational ethics are a great evil facing western culture.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    46. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      What causes a brutal dictatorship to be overthrown by the people? When enough of them realize they are getting screwed over by The Man and getting nothing in return for their toils. Sound about right?

      Now, how does this happen in a secular government like, say, the Soviet Union? Well, all the poor slobs tired of never being able to buy shoes or toilet paper, tired of living in the 19th century while their government declares their enemy to be the people who can actually afford to buy stuff. When push came to shove, there were just too many unhappy people. Soviet economics was clearly bunk to anyone not way the hell up on the food chain.

      How does this happen in a theocracy where the populace actually buys into the mumbo-jumbo? When the clerics spout their nonsense about how getting to the afterlife is dependent on being oppressed by and dying at the hands of the government for being divinely naughty, what examples can the people look at that even an idiot could tell disproved the party line? They generally rig things so that only the dead can talk about what a load of crap it all is. Isn't it wierd how Christianity, which has historically been _monstrously_ oppressive and cruel when in power, to this day maintains the mantra of "The meek shall inherit the earth"? They tell you to bend over, to take everything you're given and like it, because that's the only that way will you get to heaven. And they can do it because there's too many suckers willing to buy into it for the 'sight unseen' rewards. Secular Western nations are way the hell better off than _any_ theocracy that ever existed, but there's no way to show that we are better off 'spiritually' (whatever that means) and that's all that fundies care about. So they try to wreck it with bombs from without and religious legislation from within.

      My problem isn't religions, per se, it's people stupid enough to take things on faith in general; after all, the former wouldn't exist without the latter. They'll believe anything and then be willing to do anything, to kill anyone, for that belief. This is not to say that people wouldn't hurt each other anyways, but it's so much _easier_ to justify the pogroms, the genocides, the centuries-long crusades and jihads, the purges and the 'cleansings', the sheer brutality of it all when you can just make up any old bullshit and have people willing to believe it.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    47. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Kedyn's+Crow · · Score: 1

      Don't forget intimidation, torture, murder and intolerance. The Church has used those pretty effectively too!!!!!

      True, however the original poster was referring to the situation in modern America where the spread of christianity was accomplished successfully through mostly peaceful means.

      --
      "The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
    48. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Japong · · Score: 1

      Well, in the Chronicles of Narnia you can ignore quite a few of the stories. The Magician's Nephew covers Genesis to an extent, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe covers the Resurrection, and the Last Battle covers judgement day. The other four novels I don't think are direct parallels to any Christian or Jewish history or mythology.

      Also, depite being an atheist now, I dearly, dearly loved Narnia. Perhaps the upcoming movie will be a catalyst for a quality interactive version of the Chronicles.

    49. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Erm... Einstien was a christian, hence the "god does not play dice" comment. Gutenburg was definatly a christian, hence the Gutenburg Bible. Actually most intelligent men of the past were religious. And most scientists now are christian.

      The dark ages are also called such because the collapse of Rome destabalized their empire, which was most of Europe. Also that nasty plague. Corrupt goverments... etc... Xtianity played a role, sure, but was it was only a necissary cause.

      Insulting Augustine doesn't seem quite fair. How was he an apologist, eh? His work is (was, sadly) the foundation of all western morality and ethics up until the silly situational ethics and meaningless of the current post-modern world? I'd would say that we were better off with Augies system, than with what we have now.

      Galileo was also a ferverant christian, though. BTW, even if the Church didn't like him.

      Mind you I'm not an "apologist" for religion, I just think that some form of moral spirituality is needed. And think that God has brought us some good things too, great art in his honor, great music, and of course great government (like the US, and its GOD GIVEN rights).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    50. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that religion should be a natural topic for games. Religions tell you that if you're in situation x, you should do y. Or that if you do y then the world will do z.

      Actually, that's morality and ethics.

      Religions attempt to explain the origins of the world and often, what happens to you after you die, (or after the world ends).

      Any moral or ethical suggestions Religions tend to make are intended to help you in the afterlife, not aid your integration into society in this life (except insofar the society you belong to espouses a dominant relgion -- whereupon claiming to follow said religion can help your integration into said society).

    51. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Eppur si muove"

    52. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      How about communism? Even though that's a political philosophy, it essentially is a religion as well. There have been far more deaths attributed to that, or whatever twisted version it is that Mao and Stalin followed.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    53. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      Many Christians understand that this country was founded ... on legal traditions that find their roots in the Bible.

      Really. Which traditions would those be? I don't believe the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is in the Bible anywhere. And I'm pretty sure the Inquisition didn't invent trial by jury. There is that bit about "Thou shalt worship me and only me", which of course is totally countermanded by the 1st Ammendment. In fact, only 2 (and in some cases 3) of the 10 commandments have any real analog in the US code of law.

      So what if freedom of religion is enshrined in Christian dogma (it certainly didn't originate there)? Every single time they are in power, Christians try to renege on it. How many states are atheists legally barred from holding office in? How many Christian judges publicly proclaim their intent to dispense Biblical justice?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    54. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by falzer · · Score: 1

      Was Einstein really a christian? Google gives mixed results.

    55. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by theyre+watching+you · · Score: 1

      Most gammers are relativlee intellegent

      Would it be right to assume that you are not one of these "relativlee intellegent gammers"? Most relatively intelligent people I know can at least spell the words.

    56. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by why-is-it · · Score: 1
      I think the fundamental issue is one of game balance. How do you make a game which is interesting and fun in which it is advantageous to behave in a moral fashion without having blatant propaganda?

      Ultima IV

      In order to become the Avatar you had to master the virtues of Compassion, Valor, Justice, Sacrifice, Honor, Spirituality, and Humility.

      Certain behaviours are expected of the Avatar. Stealing is of course a bad thing. So is attacking non-evil characters who flee from combat. It was a great game!

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    57. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by detlev409 · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps he was pointing to culture as a whole. The only game reference I can think of off-hand is possibly the religious fanatics of the Fallout series, and that's a stretch. That said, even if the the reference was to American culture, it doesn't pan out. Christianity is no more ridiculed than any other religion and much less so than most. Ask any - oh, I don't know - Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Bhuddist, Hari Krishna...I could continue.

      --
      Howdy.
    58. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY IS IT MODED INSIGHTFULL ?
      ok where are the mod points when I need 'em.
      Please ...dont tell me the average slashdot reader doesnt know enough history. And btw, the man who invented the wheel is definetly inteligent doent mean his belif system is correct. So wrong anology. since the times are completly diffrent.

    59. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding - right? We are to thank God for the government of the United States of America?
      You really must be kidding - morals are something they plainly do not have. They lie, steal cheat and kill, and not even for the benefit of their country and its people, but for themselves.

      Please, open your eyes, embrace the world for what it is, maybe then you can you have form some determination and hope for what it might be. Please don't let it be a weak minded Christian one.

    60. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well thank God that at least unfettered and random violence against demons, zombies and aliens is depicted in stunning realism.

      KFG

    61. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by detlev409 · · Score: 1

      I don't wish to get too involved, but just a ferinstance: Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, and believed that there was no competition between the belief in mathematics and physics and one's faith in a benevolent Creator. This in a time when it was actually en vogue to flaunt one's disdain of religion in favor of scientific explanation of the world. I think we can all agree Sir Newton wasn't exactly a slouch in the IQ. Not saying anyone's right or wrong, just saying that there are examples on both sides. I get irked by fanatical blindness on either side.

      --
      Howdy.
    62. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, you're assuming being disdainful of Christianity is necessarily bad....

    63. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity taught me that you can fix anything with a bird bath and a pedifile

    64. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Politicus · · Score: 1
      Christianity (or any other major religion today) doesn't kill anyone
      Sure it does. You are confusing religious belief with religion which is an institution. Religious beliefs based on the teachings of Christ were not responsible for The Crusades, but Christianity was. It's kind of like the difference between the US Constitution and the government of the US. It is the US government that is responsible for the invasion of Iraq and not the US Constitution.

      It just so happens that elites will use any ideas which conveniently enable power that they can, whether those be nationalist, racist, classist, religious or some combination of these to achieve their goals.

      Religions are susceptible to this kind of manipulation based on their penchant for conformity to dogma regardless of the beliefs that they are actually founded upon. In this sense, religions are institutions of social control as much as state power. Try to embody that in a video game.

      --
      Politicus
    65. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      True, however the original poster was referring to the situation in modern America where the spread of christianity was accomplished successfully through mostly peaceful means.

      Zoiks!!!! Ask a Native American how "peaceful" the "Good, white Christian folk" were when they landed on these shores! The rallying cry of the Spanish "Missionaries" in Mexico & central America was "God, Glory, Gold" - and seldom in that order. Now if by "modern" you are referring to 20th century, you need to keep in mind that Christianity "spread" in this timeframe not by mission work, but by immigrants coming from Europe en masse and bringing their belief system with them. There was no need to convert the "unwashed masses" because by 1900, they were all but wiped out!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    66. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      literally flowering with art and science

      Wow. There were science and art flowers sprouting all over the place?

    67. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by wtrmute · · Score: 1

      You'd certainly think that. Unfortunately, the Crusades were caused by an Economic need for more lands to accomodate the rising numbers of European Knights-errant, who weren't themselves priests. Similarly, the colonization of the New World and subsequent conversion was motivated by an economic need of European states to collect gold.

      Speaking of the colonization of the New World, in Spanish and Portuguese America, most of the time the only thing between the native tribes and slavery was the protection of the Jesuit missionaries -- several times in the XVII and XVIII centuries the colonials tried to expel the priests from the New World in order to be able to make slaves of the indians in the Missions.

    68. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by renoX · · Score: 1

      > Einstien was a christian, hence the "god does not play dice" comment.

      No, I've read a few books on Einstein, he beleived in a "non-personnal" God: a God of Nature, if you wish.
      Which is very different from being Christian, I'd call this "deism" myself.

      > Actually most intelligent men of the past were religious.

      Well, most men were religious in the past, and they really had not too much choice.

      > And most scientists now are christian.

      Well on average most people are christian now, I think so..

      I don't think that such a "global" average is very interesting though: in France, many people are not religious anymore and on average scientists are less religious than less-educated people, can you extrapolate this to all the country? No..

      > I just think that some form of moral spirituality is needed.
      Well, I don't feel this need myself and many do not either, so while you're free of course to need some form of moral spirituality, I don't see why other should follow and have the same needs as yours.

      > great government (like the US, and its GOD GIVEN rights)
      Up until now, you're post was reasonable but here I'd say you're trolling, bah.

    69. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by wtrmute · · Score: 1

      Ooh, the Angry Buddhist! Please check your facts.

      First off, several games portray Buddhist and Taoist mythologies, when they're based on Eastern (Indian/Chinese/Japanese culture). However, since most games depict either European Middle-ages or Western Contemporaneous setting, settings which have far more Christian than Buddhist influence, it is natural that Christianity features more proeminently in those.

      Furthermore, games are interesting when they are able to entertain or educate. I don't play Civilization III to escape the hopeless mediocrity of my urban middle class life. I rather play in order to amuse myself and sharpen my strategic thinking skills.

    70. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

      Einstien was a jew. You shouldn't need a Google for that.

      His family wasn't particularly devout, but during his teenage years he went through a spell of religious devotion. German high schools of the time period sent Christians and Jews to separate schools, so that was his first exposure to practicing Judaism. He seems to have later reverted back to being a not-very-jewish jew.

    71. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Troy · · Score: 1

      Blaming the Dark Ages on religion is like blaming smog on the sun.

    72. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      What causes a brutal dictatorship to be overthrown by the people? When enough of them realize they are getting screwed over by The Man and getting nothing in return for their toils. Sound about right?
      If you knew history, you'd know that governments masquerading as religion get overthown just as easily as secular states. Which renders the rest of your post moot. (You also failed to note the distinction between government and religion.) It's easy to follow party line and claim that religion is at fault for all the world's ills, but everyone who tries just comes off sounding like a bigot.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    73. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

      Galileo's real crime was not keeping his mouth shut at a time when others used his ideas to undermine the political establishment. Sure it was unfair but really he should have known better.

      Martha Stewart could have learned a lesson from him: when in the midst of a crack-down, you shuts yer yap!

    74. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Meanwhile civilisations in America, China and Muslim countries were literally flowering with art and science.

      I though Islam only got started in the seventh century? That's a couple of centuries after those discoveries...

    75. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by geminidomino · · Score: 1
      If someone isn't enthusiastic about a religion, even if they are forced into it, I'm doubtful that they would choose to become a leader within that religion.
      Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with clergy being a higher class than the merchant his father was.
    76. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Kedyn's+Crow · · Score: 1

      Now if by "modern" you are referring to 20th century, you need to keep in mind that Christianity "spread" in this timeframe not by mission work, but by immigrants coming from Europe en masse and bringing their belief system with them. There was no need to convert the "unwashed masses" because by 1900, they were all but wiped out!

      You're right I was referring to Modern America rather than our history pre-1900. I should've explained what I was thinking about more clearly. I was thinking about the behavior of an individual church, like the baptists for example, in the context of many competing christian denominations as well as members of other religions and various athiests, agnostics, and assorted free thinkers. You don't hear about catholics burning mormans at the steak, or a presbyterian mayor exileing a methodist because he wouldn't worship at the local presbyterian church. Now I'm hardly what you would call a christian apoligist but even I have to admit that christianity has come a long way towards being a more civilized religion.

      --
      "The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
    77. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard of ethics? You know, morality without the baggage of dogmatic church law. Not believing in an invisible man in the sky isn't the same as being unethical. In fact, "true believers" generally commit some of the worst acts because they are furthering their beliefs, or they think they are. Oh, and I know the grandparent didn't actually site any specifics, but those specifics aren't exactly hard to find are they? Or are you an amateur too?

      Let's see here:
      "Christians peridoically persecuted Jews" -- Spain - 1500's, the Muslims actually protected the Jews in this situation

      "Natives in new world being killed" --
      Pizarro -- Inca empire
      Cortez -- Aztec empire

      both slaughtered 1000's after they conquered an empire.

      Crusades -- I don't have any specifics here...

      Inquisition -- just ask the church...they just did a little revisionist history here, I wonder why???

    78. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Galileo's real crime was not keeping his mouth shut at a time when others used his ideas to undermine the political establishment.

      Well, you're half right.

      Even the slanted wikipedia article notes that the church did allow teaching of the very theory that Galileo is famous for. However, they wanted the traditional "you're saying the world is entirely different" theory--qualifiers that it was "only a theory."

      So--the church is being blamed for, essentially requiring that the scientists of the time keep to what is, after all, traditional scientific principles.

      (And to go off on a tangent--it IS only a "theory", and like so many others we finally got to the point where we got rid of "theory" and we just call them "models." It's no more or less correct to call the sun the center of the universe than the Earth--it just makes navigation easier.

    79. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by wtrmute · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember, when the Christains took over in 346 AD, they closed the Universities in Greece, burned the Great Library at Alexandria (and viciously murder the priestess Hypatia) and actively banned an persecuted all thinking that did not agree with Church dogma for over 1000 years (and they are still trying it).

      Funny, if the Christians burned it down to the ground, how come it was recently discovered beneath the sea off the Egyptian coast? Go here for some interesting studies on the subject. Personally, I'm inclined to believe it landed in the Mediterranean as the result of an earthquake, several of which were reported during the Middle Ages.

      Furthermore, many of the works of Classical writers which reached us today were compiled by Isidore, the Catholic Bishop of Seville in the late 500s into an anthology which was used to teach in the Medieval Universities for one thousand years. So much for actively banning and persecuting all thinking that did not agree with Church dogma for over 1000 years...

      That's why it was called the Dark Ages. Meanwhile civilisations in America, China and Muslim countries were literally flowering with art and science.

      They were called the Dark Ages by Illuminist scholars who had an axe to grind with the previous status quo, the same way "ogival" architectural style of the St. Dennis Abbey was called "Gothic" to link it to barbarism.

      Meanwhile, in Muslim countries culture thrived, but so did political strife. The Abbasids chased the Umayyads from Baghdad all the way to Seville, the old animistic religions of the Near East were stamped out, and the old Babylonian faith finally failed after four thousand years.

      In America, the "innocent" Incas and Aztecs were in fact powerful conquerors rivalling Rome in its heyday, standing proud over the remains of several civilizations they conquered and subjugated in the name of their kings.

      And in India, of course, people were relegated to a life of social ostracism due to having been born in the wrong family, and still do to this day. Look up "pariah" in the dictionary.

      (and who cares about Augustine - just another apologist for a corrupt institution).

      Ad hominem attack -- you don't bother to refute any of his work, preferring to instead attack him for being a Christian. How is this different from the Reich scientists attacking Relativity for being "Jewish science"?

      I wonder how many brilliant minds and discoveries we will never hear about because the Church and its various inquisitions put the people to the torch?

      Here are some brilliant discoveries made during the Dark Ages: several chemical elements (Albertus Magnus et al.), the underpinnings of Musical Theory (Guido d'Arezzo, among others), the water wheel, crop rotation, the "Gothic" architectural style, the magnetic compass...

      But evidently, it's the evil Christians who deserve our scorn and hatred most of all. How dare they come out on top in the cultural food-chain? Frankly, the one who comes across sounding like a bigot is you. Isn't mercy a virtue in Buddhism, too?

    80. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial" doesn't work very well as a rallying cry to toss religion
      Yes, because arresting someone for being blunt about disagreeing with a religious figure is sure a reasonable act. And making a law stating a scientific position can't be stated as fact simply because it contradicted the religious text can't possibly be an example of anti-intellectual bent.

      And, of course, taking away someone's freedom is fine if you let them spend some of it in comfy houses.
    81. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Weren't the Fallout guys always doing things like saying "Suck my holy flame!" and shooting you when you got a look at their drug shash? That was such a funny game. Everything in there was so warped that it would be a stretch to take anything in it as saying something about a real-world institution.

    82. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      China did it first.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    83. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Oh bullshit. I'm sure there are many Muslim's who would take serious exception to your little assertion. Personally, I'd love to have you point out a real example of this "ridicule" that your average Christian supposedly experiences. AFAIK, they aren't hassled while trying to board a plane or cross the Canada-US border. People don't blame all of Christianity for the acts of people like Timothy McVeigh or your average abortion clinic bomber. In fact, last I checked, the first thing the US did in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing was target, you guessed it, Muslims!

      So, sure, Christians get a little ribbing from time to time. They are a pretty large religious majority, here in the west. But they are *hardly* ridiculed or discriminated against.

    84. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      On your second and third comments, I can agree to a point, law of averages and all that. Though I think God is God, whether you view him/her/it as personal or not. I was wrong about the xtian thing though, he was a Jew, I don't know how I forgot that point.

      I really don't think *I* need more moral spirituality, I think our culture (Americans at least) do, being that we're in sever need of some form of moral influence, or at least our children are. Their not getting it at home, they don't go to church, and school is not the proper institution for it. I speak for social good, not religiosity, or personal "philosophy"

      How is my last comment trolling? It is in the declaration of independance? And in philosophically the US government is a really good thing and being that we lost a solid moral background, and gained hollow situational ethics, it is a corrupt cesspool of idiocy. All I was saying is that not only were terrible atrocities commited in the name of the Judeo-Christian God, but also great things were inspired by him, or his idea.

      And as clarification, I am not Christian, I do not believe one lick in the judeo-christian god, I am an atheist with semi-buddhist leanings. I am horrified by ignorant fundamentalism, but think that some form of spirituality is needed on behalf of the masses, since there is no secular moral education in the US (as of yet).

      i.e. the troll was unintentional.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    85. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Politicus · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the Crusades were caused by an Economic need for more lands to accomodate the rising numbers of European Knights-errant
      It just so happens that elites will use any ideas which conveniently enable power that they can, whether those be nationalist, racist, classist, religious or some combination of these to achieve their goals.

      Would the Holocaust have happened without nationalism and racism?

      Would the genocide of native Americans have happened without manifest destiny and racism?

      Would the Russian revolution have happened without classism?

      Further examples are left as an excercise for the reader.

      All of these have causes easily attributable to resources, economics, wealth and so on but which without ideologies uniting people would have left an altogether different historic record.

      --
      Politicus
    86. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by mikebelrose · · Score: 1

      "Galielo was tried for heresy because he continually provoked the Pope despite ample allowances, and had a rather comfortable life after his trial"

      What you say contradicts my beliefs, so I rule that your post is theory, and you can only preach it as theory. I expect to see your retraction on my desk in the morning. If you don't comply, I will also rule that you may never leave your home. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be quite "comfortable" there.

    87. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

      What about starting a project? I have long have sevral ideas for christian games, and there are a lot of free (as in speach) gameengines out there... (My favorit ideas is adventures or rpgs)

      --
      Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
    88. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's considered hateful to discriminate or ridicule someone based on their religion -- with the sole and unique exception that ridiculing any flavor of Christianity is acceptable.

      I've heard that Wiccans make a fine target of ridicule... oh and Mormons too.

    89. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Galileo, even under "house arrest", wasn't under the horrors that the medieval church had at its disposal.

      And--pay attention, this is important--you're neither a spiritual nor temporal figure. There's nothing wrong with forming your dialogue so as to not piss off those in charge.

      I'm sure that you're comforted by being able to laugh at pre-modern Christians, those silly rubes who thought the earth was the center of the universe!

      Truth is, of course, that the pre-modern Christians, secular or otherwise, didn't much care how the physical world was alinged.

    90. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      And having the computer randomly place your characters such that your main guy *has* to be the first to leave the map becuase he's in everyone else's way and there isn't enough room to shuffle positions - that was considered not Valorous. I had to regain that f-ing Valorous eigth over and over in that game because of random luck on the placement of figures on the battle map - that I had zero control over. In the end I discovered through trial and error that if I had a full roster of players that it would place my character differently so that it wouldn't be blocking the exit, but if I had less than the full roster it kept screwing me over

      It was an interesting idea for a game, but the idea of a stupid computer AI trying to enforce a morality system made it inevitable that it would fail to understand "extenuating circumstances" like that.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    91. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Einstien was a christian

      Blink.
      Blink.
      Uhhhhmmmm. What?
      There might be debate about him being *Jewish* versus atheistic, but certainly not *Christian*.
      There's a reason he moved out of Germany, by the way....

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    92. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by HermanAB · · Score: 1
      Well, as a child, i was subjected to Christial torture and was forced to sit through many church services and Sunday school. I am baptized and confirmed - shudder...

      Consequently, I reserve the right to comment and ridicule anything Christian to my heart's content.

      I think many 'Christians' feel like this which would explain why real Christians feel that they are being ridiculed by everybody

      Well, maybe one day you'll grow up, see what a sham religion is and get over it.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    93. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Our government comes from Greek and Roman traditions that predate Christianity (Which we honored in all the archetecture in Washington DC on these themes). And the Treaty of Tripoli, SIGNED by all the congressmen at the time (who were around for the formation fo the constitution), explicitly states that the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, most founding fathers were *definately* Christains - no doubt about it - but they explicitly set forward to create a government that divorced that belief entirely from the rules of governance. They did not like the way it had been done in Europe beforehand. They couldn't stand the idea of having merged religion and government and knew that doing so ends up corrupting the both of them in the long run. It was a deliberate, thought-out decision after much debate. Article VI explicitly states that no religious test is allowed as a prerequisite for holding office. This was there even before the debate on the first amendment.

      The idea that the US is founded on Christianity is quite false.

      As to the Declaration of Independance, it was deliberately worded in a very vague way. It doesn't say "God". It says "Creator". The reason for this is that some of the founding fathers were in fact Deists and not full blown Christians. Thomas Jefferson's first draft didn't even have that line in there. It was added at the insistence of others.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    94. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I take things in the context of their times. That JRR Tolkien was a good author is true regardless of whether or not he was a devout Christian. Just like the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a good idealist of freedom is true despite that he owned slaves. Taken in the context of his time, He was better than his contemporaries even though he had some blind spots. Taken in the context of the day, In the middle ages the Church was doing *everything* - so it's not surprising that it was funding research into learning new things - but that's all as part of it's civil side. If you want to take that as evidence of the church being in favor of science, then I get to take the crusades as evidence of the church being in favor of genocide. The balanced fair view is to just recognize that back in that day and age the church had it's fingers in a LOT of purely secular things both good and bad - and its connection to science is no more religious than it's connection to the crusades.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    95. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by rjh · · Score: 1
      Our government comes from Greek and Roman traditions that predate Christianity
      Ah, this must be why there's so many chapters in the Federalist Papers explaining why Greek-style democracy has always failed, and why the new American democracy must not be patterned on it. I was such a fool; and here I was thinking Hamilton was saying we shouldn't be like the Greeks.

      In reality, our system of government is an amalgamation of the best traits of the best governments of the day: the Iroquois Federation, the Dutch United Provinces, and England. Our idea of a strong federal government came, at least partially, from the Iroquois Federation; our idea of independent states with their own rights came from the Dutch United Provinces; and our idea of a bicameralist legislature came from Parliament (House of Representatives == House of Commons, Senate == House of Lords).
      And the Treaty of Tripoli, SIGNED by all the congressmen at the time (who were around for the formation fo the constitution), explicitly states that the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
      And they're right. The United States Constitution makes it quite clear that there is to be no test of religious affiliation required for service in any branch of government. However, this is not to say that in the minds of the Framers, God had no role to play.

      Again, read the Federalist Papers. Or some Locke or some Hobbes. The Framers were, as a general rule, all quite committed Christians of one stripe or another (from Deism all the way to ordained clergy). The surviving papers of the Framers make it clear that the overwhelming majority of them considered liberty to be a gift from the Almighty, and it was the purpose of government to safeguard the Almighty's blessing. But in order to best safeguard the Almighty's blessing, the Framers had to establish a government which neither acknowledged nor denied the Almighty.

      You keep on falling into the trap of false dichotomy. Just because the government isn't founded on any particular faith doesn't mean none of the Framers were motivated and inspired by their faith when they were establishing the government.
      This was there even before the debate on the first amendment.
      This is true, but meaningless. Remember that the Federal government is one of enumerated powers; if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow the government to do something, the government's forbidden from doing it.

      There was debate as to whether establishment of religion ought to be one of government's enumerated powers. It was shot down.

      From a strictly legal perspective, almost all of the Bill of Rights is redundant. Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion, abridging the right to speak freely, to print material, to assemble, to petition the government for the redress of grievances? From a strictly Federalist view, the attitude was "of course the government can't! That's not one of its enumerated powers!"

      However, the Constitutional Convention was eventually convinced that the American people wanted to see those guarantees made explicitly instead of implicitly... and as a result, the Bill of Rights came into being.
    96. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus round: you're a lion in the roman arena, how many christians can you eat within a certain time limit.

      Now that sounds like fun to me.

    97. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by mikebelrose · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Galileo, even under "house arrest", wasn't under the horrors that the medieval church had at its disposal.

      I understand. Because I could have done worse, it's OK for me to do wrong. Since I didn't order that you be put on the rack, I don't see why you're complaining.

      And--pay attention, this is important--you're neither a spiritual nor temporal figure. There's nothing wrong with forming your dialogue so as to not piss off those in charge.

      I wasn't aware I had to defend a concept like freedom of speech. Do you claim that it's OK for those in charge to persecute people who speak against them? It's OK to be the thought police as long as the person really pisses you off? Justice is only for polite people? There's a difference between causing your problems and deserving them.

    98. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Ah, this must be why there's so many chapters in the Federalist Papers explaining why Greek-style democracy has always failed, and why the new American democracy must not be patterned on it. I was such a fool; and here I was thinking Hamilton was saying we shouldn't be like the Greeks.

      The document explains how to improve the old system so it can work this time around. That's a far cry from saying it wasn't based on it at all. Where do you think words like "republic" and "democracy" came from?


      You keep on falling into the trap of false dichotomy.

      No. You keep accusing me of saying things I haven't. The following line doesn't address anything I claimed in the slightest:

      Just because the government isn't founded on any particular faith doesn't mean none of the Framers were motivated and inspired by their faith when they were establishing the government.

      Yes. So how does this contradict anything I said? I *said* they were religious people - who deliberately kept their religion out of the government, a point which your post agreed with, so I don't see where your accusation is coming from.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    99. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      The previous poster didn't say that all of our laws came from the Bible, just that the roots are there. And if you studied the history of law, you would see an easily discernible tradition of the practice and principles of law coming down from relgious codes, including the 10 Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi.

      Further, in your apparent anti-Christian prejudice, you miss a fairly obvious historical point: that seperating out "civil law" from religion in early societies is seldom possible or useful. In most societies of early history, the religious leadership and the civil leadership were either integrated or effectively the same.

      Judaism, for example, from whence we receive the 10 Commandments, can generally be considered a theocracy. God's laws were the civil laws; there was not a seperate code of civil laws, even though there was the beginning of what I suppose we would call today "case law" (just as there were theological commentaries which interpreted scripture).

      Why is this such a problem for you? It's no different than pointing out that the American use of fireworks, so closely associated with the most significant holiday in the American civil religion, has its roots in China. Would you try to disprove that by saying that Americans are lousy at being Chinese? Or that American fireworks don't have their roots in China because Americans horribly mistreated Chinese immigrants?

      Whether or not the legal tradition was applied well, and whether or not you feel that the legal tradition has been applied by good people, American legal principles do have roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    100. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off the top of my head - Final Fantasy Tactics, Rurouni Kenshin, Tetsuwan Atom...

    101. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...he says as he ridicules the Christians...

    102. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by renoX · · Score: 1

      >Though I think God is God, whether you view him/her/it as personal or not.

      That's a view I don't share: do not forget that some people beleive in several Gods!
      And there are many difference between a "non-personnal God" and a God: for example it means no religion, it is a very different view..

      > I think our culture (Americans at least) do, being that we're in sever need of some form of moral influence, or at least our children are.

      Why do you equal "need of moral" with "need of moral spirituality"? The first is not linked with religion, the second is.

      > school is not the proper institution for it.

      Home is but school should complement it, school is not only for teaching skills, you know..

      >How is my last comment trolling?

      Because the view of having any governement being "supported by God" is quite funny for me: are the goverment of other people which disagree with your government supported by the Devil? :-)

      > some form of spirituality is needed on behalf of the masses, since there is no secular moral education in the US (as of yet)

      Well, in France religion is not very popular currently since a long time now (the 70s, I'd say), but apparently it has not created problems, so IMHO the USA could become also areligious in a similar way, nothing prevents it..

      What has created problems in France and elsewhere are: poverty, lack of education, lack of parent/child relationship, lack of proper education (too strict is not good, too lax is not good either) so to fix the problems, the need is to fix the root of the problems not to add "religious moral" as a band-aid..

    103. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by wtrmute · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The nationalist, racist, etc. ideas are used as pretext to gain political/economic power.

      Would the genocide of indians have happenned without the Manifest Destiny doctrine? Would the Russian revolution have happenned without the ideology of the fight of the classes? Would the Holocaust have happenned without nationalism? Certainly not exactly like they happenned, I think, but they certainly would have, with a different face.

    104. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

      Yes mercy is a virtue in Buddhism. And I try to follow it on a daily basis. But so is telling the truth. So is pursuing that which is right.

      I am not trying to spread hatred of Christians. I am a former one AND and married to one. What I am trying fight is the Christian belief that they have cornered the market on truth. And many of them act as such. If you ar not with them or like them, you are against them. There are more sources of truth out there than Christianity.

      As for your historical evidence of all those things and events that happened during the dark ages, I certainly am not disagreeing that they happened. I postulate, of course, that all those things are the exceptions not the rule. Like Galileo, they happened despite living under Christian Theocratic Rule as opposed to a very tolerant pagan Rome. Remember, the lack of new thought and science is why it was called the Dark Ages, not because the sun wasn't as bright.

      BTW, More on the fate of Hypatia can be found here, about halfway down the page and about the library (which they have found a very small part of because it was purposely hidden to protect it from destruction by the Christians!).

      You realize that there was no number "0" in the west until probably the middle of the 12 or 13th century because "0" meant the abscence of anything and since God was everywhere, there could be nothing, therefore the number "0" was heresy? How much math can you really do without a zero? Yet you claim discovery flourished under these conditions?

      I'm sorry to pick on Christianity but that is the topic of the thread and the one I know the most about. Does Islam and Hinduism and the other have there warts? Sure they do. Pointing out the issues and problems with Christianity does not automatically mean I agree with the other or think they are ok. Christianity is the current topic. Start a thread about the evils of the caste system in India, or the sudden rise in violent Islamic fundementalism, and I'll happily bash the Hindus and Mulsims too.

      If you wish to say this is "hate" or "bigoted", you are entitled to your opinion. I prefer to think of those things I am saying as acting like the conscience for Christianity (and other religions too). If you say you are a religion of peace and love, I'll remind you of the myriad instances this was not true. If you say that rational thinking and discovery flourished between 300 AD and 1450sih, I'll point out that it didn't. If you put certain people up as heros or Saints, I'll point out how thery were evil and vicious and deserve contempt rather than praise.

      I'll simply try to make you live up to your word. I'll try to educate you on the history of your religion. But I won't shut up.

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    105. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

      Not angry, annoyed.

      Annoyed that this guy thinks religion==Christianity.

      Annoyed that, once again, this guy is trying to paint Christianity as the victim of some sort of percecution - this time its gamers who are patently anti-Christian and that's why he can't get a "Christian" video game.

      I was trying to point out that video games don't treat ANY religion very well. For the record, those games only treat Buddhism/Taoism very superficially. But who cares? I don't. I don't play games because they have religion in them, I play because they are fun. I don't care that they have "far more Christian than Buddhist influence". That's irrelevant to me.

      But I still get annoyed when a member of the most powerful religion in the world, the one that is itself more intolerant of other religions, historically, than any other, whines that once again the poor Christians are the victims of intolerance becasue they can't get good treatment in a video game. Please!

      That's like Microsoft saying they can't get a fair shake in the software industry or the RIAA saying they are losing money at the movies.

      (And for the record, I consider Buddhism more of a philosophy or practice than a religion and follow it as such. There are lots of other Buddhist that do the same...)

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    106. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware I had to defend a concept like freedom of speech.

      Of course you do. If we don't defend it, it goes away.

      Do you claim that it's OK for those in charge to persecute people who speak against them?

      In a certain limited extent--yes.

      The President can fire people who badmouth him. Companies that like the president can fire people who badmouth him.

      There is nothing wrong with some minor enforcement to ensure a polite society. Don't agree with me? Go to court and tell a judge to @#$! himself. See what happens.

    107. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      If you want to take that as evidence of the church being in favor of science, then I get to take the crusades as evidence of the church being in favor of genocide.

      O.K. by me. The church let the whole "holy war" thing go way too far--the bastards. Though it was justified in the begining, they really should have ended the first one and began better permanent negotiations--marriage of the rulers of the Chrisitan "kingdoms" to arabs would would perfectly.

    108. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > China did it first

      Really?

    109. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Proof. China made the first printing press 400 years earlier. Gutenberg made 1 improvement (using wood instead of clay letters). And of course, being as Europe ruled the world for so long, being the first to make it in Europe was what counted.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    110. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Very interesting, thanks!

    111. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by detlev409 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much, yea. But I still can't think of any other game involving religion, aside from that really abyssmal FPS that came out years ago. 'Course that was written by Christians for Christians, but it just BLEW all around.

      --
      Howdy.
    112. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      My point was that it is wrong for people to take the actions of the church as evidence of what religion is good for, given how the church has had a HUGE secular component for a long time and it's very hard to separate that from the religious component. The crusades were very obviously secular in nature, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. My point is that so too was the scientific research of the church entirely secular, despite and rhetoric to the contrary. They were doing science for the same reason they were teaching children of royalty how to read and write - it was just expected that the church would be the central repository of all literate work. There's a reason "clerk" is a word that came from "cleric". Once upon a time, if it was paperwork of any kind it was culturally assumed to be the domain of the church.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    113. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      The crusades were very obviously secular in nature, despite any rhetoric to the contrary.

      So, then what would have been a non-secular war?

      The first Crusade began when the Pope commanded Europe to go and take the Holy Land, after pilgrims were killed by the Moslem rulers there.

      If that doesn't make it "non-secular", then no war can ever be "non-secular."

    114. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I don't think, in the US at least, that our lack of morality is going to be fixed by any secular means, the system is screwed beyond repair in my eyes, and most people would disagree that the system is even broken. A quick religious fix would at least keep us from further becoming uncontrolled, impulsive, monsters. Thats all that matters to me, restoring some form of humanity into the next generation, humanity being something that the Xers and whatever the ones after them are called now completely lack.

      Religion would also remove some of the relativism from our culture, and relativism is one of the things that is destroying modern society. If you haven't noticed, I'm being purely pragmatic with religion, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to work.

      Religion also adds meaning to life, and when this meaning goes away, fundamentalism comes to fill the need, and we can see (with the US and her enemies) what evils fundamentalism leads to. I'm not saying that areligiosity is the only cause, but it is a major one.

      The problem with schools taking on an increasing moral burden is that children get stupider, like that fact that 1 in 5 5th graders in California don't know where the bloody pacific ocean is.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    115. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It was never about belief in god. It was about trying to spread the power of the church - the secular power of the church.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    116. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      You're applying modern views to people who really would never see the distinction.

      If you can't recognize that, to the Crusaders and their Kings and the Pope, the Crusades were a religious act taken to further what they saw as God's will, then you're rather likely thinking about them with a closed mind.

      And you'll probably misunderstand the Arabic terrorists, Arabic anti-terrorists, and Christian members of the army who feel the exact same way about what's going on in the Middle East right now.

      The Crusades were not about increasing the power of the church. They were about righting a wrong and bringing good to the world--even though they went horribly off track and may even have been mistaken in the first place, the religious nature of the whole conflict cannot be brushed aside as "the church was trying to expand their power."

    117. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      If you can't recognize that, to the Crusaders and their Kings and the Pope, the Crusades were a religious act taken to further what they saw as God's will, then you're rather likely thinking about them with a closed mind.

      You're right. In the alternate universe where I can't recognize that, I would have a closed mind. Recognizing that others think differently does not have to require that I treat their thoughts as valid. They thought they were doing it for religious reasons, yes. But they were wrong.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    118. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      They thought they were doing it for religious reasons, yes. But they were wrong.

      Oh, so you're not close-minded, you're just arrogant.

    119. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by renoX · · Score: 1

      What I find funny is that you're atheist but you think that the "mass" should become religious to "fix" the society.. A bit egocentric maybe?

      And how the society is going to fix itself by adding religion when apparently it isn't capable to fix the schools?

      And a religious society with broken school and parent/child relations is still a broken society.

      > Religion also adds meaning to life, and when this meaning goes away, fundamentalism comes to fill the need.

      A false assertion, while France has become mostly a-religious, a very,very tiny percentage has become fundamentalist..
      So while this *may* happen, this is not at all automatic.

    120. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The only way for me not to sound arrogant when talking about religious people is for me to lie. Sometimes honesty *is* arrogant.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    121. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      The only way for me not to sound arrogant when talking about religious people is for me to lie.

      Bullshit. 100%, grade-A bull shit.

      Religious people have managed to talk about the anti-religion lobby without sounding like arrogant bastards. There's no reason that the reverse cannot be true.

      Giving people the benefit of the doubt and allowing for your own mistakes is all that it takes. Here's an example:

      "The Crusades, although likely a religious choice for many, was in large parts a natural outcome from parts of European society and history that had nothing to do with religion. Whatever ecclisiastic trappings the endeavor was wrapped in, the secular causes of the Crusades cannot be ignored and in all likelihood were more influential on the contintent's decision to go to war than the words of a religious authority."

      Sometimes honesty *is* arrogant.

      Yes, it is. But even the most arrogant statement can be spoken without that arrogance clouding out the statement.

    122. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Religious people have managed to talk about the anti-religion lobby without sounding like arrogant bastards

      What planet do you live on??? They *always* sound arrogant because their position is inherently arrogant. Changing the phrasing to be polite is irrelevant to how arrogant they are being.

      I do not subscribe to the notion that the arrogance level of something is lessened by saying the exact same thing in a more polite manner. This is because the arrogance is inherent in the position being put forth, not in the phrasing of that position.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    123. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      What planet do you live on??? They *always* sound arrogant because their position is inherently arrogant. Changing the phrasing to be polite is irrelevant to how arrogant they are being.

      So, you find "I believe in God" to be an arrogant statement? If so, is it any less arrogant than "I know that God doesn't exist?"

      What country do you live in? I've heard of people who can't politely discuss religion, but I have yet to meet any.

      I do not subscribe to the notion that the arrogance level of something is lessened by saying the exact same thing in a more polite manner. This is because the arrogance is inherent in the position being put forth, not in the phrasing of that position.

      Go back and read my post. Note the word "sound."

      The difference between confidence and arrogance is rudeness. You do nothing to advance your position or to enlighten others by being both rude and arrogant, and if neither of those targets are your goal for a conversation, then you're just wasting my time.

    124. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      So, you find "I believe in God" to be an arrogant statement?

      Yes. You don't have that information.

      If so, is it any less arrogant than "I know that God doesn't exist?"

      No. It is more arrogant. "god doesn't exist" is falsifiable hypothesis, and "god does exist" is not.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    125. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      You're a bigot. A rude, close-minded, bigot.

      I am 100% certain that *I* believe in God. Whether or not He actually exists has no bearing whatsoever on my belief.

      When someone who speaks English says "I believe", they immedately frame their statement at the scientific level of a hyothesis--whereas "I know" frames it on the level of a conclusion.

      I know that I believe in God. I can interview myself, give my own testimony, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I do, in fact, have religious beliefs. It's far, FAR more provable and falsifiable than "I know God doesn't exist."

    126. Re:Personally, I would go one step further. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      You're a bigot. A rude, close-minded, bigot.


      Hypocrite.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  5. Not just in video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the clerics in Baldur's Gate or any other D&D type game are pretty god heavy. Mind you, they're not "traditional" gods, as it were. Verily, they smite just the same :)

  6. Games? by emazing · · Score: 0

    Outside of video games, I can't think of any game that portrays religon.

    1. Re:Games? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Chess has bishops

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the "Christianity" game portrays it well enough, though the rulesets are getting a bit musty. Their corebook's author has yielded even more creative design liberty than Gary Gygax himself.

    3. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ever notice that bishops and knights don't move straight, and well the king and queen can swing both ways.

    4. Re:Games? by schon · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Games? by Forseti · · Score: 2, Informative

      And then only in English! In French at least, the name of that chess piece is litteraly translated to "Court Jester".

      --
      Delay is preferable to error. (Thomas Jefferson)
    6. Re:Games? by abb3w · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Ever notice that bishops and knights don't move straight, and well the king and queen can swing both ways.

      I recall once seeing the moves expressed in terms of the powers of state (row/column moves) and church (diagonals).
      • Foot soldiers/Pawns make progress through the authority of the state, but may only prevail in battle by the grace of God.


      • Rooks/Castles, as the embodiment of worldly authority, are immensely powerful in matters temporal, but impotent in matters spiritual. Bishops, as the representatives of the Church, are the other way around.

        The King and Queen are, British style, empowered with the authority of both church and state, and may elect to act with either as they choose. If you wonder why the queen seems more powerful, look to Elizabeth and Victoria. =)

        And Knights, due to their holy vows to defend the right, must always act simultaneously under mandate of both church and state, thereby transcending any obstacles in their path.
      Any resemblance this has to why the rules are the way they are is, no doubt, purely coincidental-- but it's a servicable means to explain the moves to new players.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    7. Re:Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -- Bush and Kerry say I can trust them to run My Life. I can trust my self to run My Life.

      When the fuck did they ever say that? I don't ever recall hearing either one of them say that.

      They want to run Your Government, not Your Life. Hopefully Your Life isn't totally dependent on Your Government.

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

      God save the Queen?

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

      Queue Murray Head!

    10. Re:Games? by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      I never thought about that, but it certainly an interesting take on chess. I'll need to share this with some friends.

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

      the "bishop" came to our church today
      <jeebus> he was a fucken impostor
      <jeebus> never once moved diagonally
      - bash.org #261501

    12. Re:Games? by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      This strikes me as another case of the [Christian] church re-explaining history to put themselves at the center - after all, isn't chess originally from India?

      Obtopic: Isn't religion an act of faith? If a developer adds a plotline or algorithm to a game to "models" a religion, it's not really religion any more because by definition it's been made mechanistic.

      Personally, I feel there's not enough Darwinian evolution in games - why don't orc shamons evolve a more dangerous AI?

    13. Re:Games? by abb3w · · Score: 1
      This strikes me as another case of the [Christian] church re-explaining history to put themselves at the center - after all, isn't chess originally from India?

      The orient, anyway-- there's also some evidence China may have been a source. A website which discusses the origins can be found here, and at least sounds plausible, but whose accuracy I am unqualified to judge. However, notable (and something I remember from may days with the SCA as being accurate) is that the exact pieces, moves, and board played on have varied over the ages. The game we commonly call chess today looks notably different from the Indian original (enough to send Deep Blue into a fit if you set it up for a match), and is a composite from several influences, having changed markedly over the centuries. (There still are a lot of obscure variants out there.)

      So, while you're correct that this may have been the church altering history, it may be that life imitates art. This alteration of history might be why the CURRENT European style pieces have the CURRENT moves. You'd really want to ask an expert about it-- or at least, to recommend a good book on the subject. But more likely, it's unprovable at this point.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  7. Escapism by DocStoner · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I always thought of games as escapism. Many wouldn't define religion as escapism, or at least those that strictly adhere to their faith.

    To me, the two do not mix well.

    YMMV

    1. Re:Escapism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Religion is the ultimate escapism. You're so utterly unable to deal with reality, that you pretend some mystical being controls everything.

    2. Re:Escapism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What? You don't think that deluding oneself with tales of angels and undying blissful lands is escapism? Face it, the reason that people go with religion is because they can't cope with the cold reality of life: you're born, you live, you die. End of story.

    3. Re:Escapism by Luguber123 · · Score: 1

      I always bring on religious proportions in my gaming, like burning entire cities, killing civilians and getting rid of evil doers. I usually go all the way to save the world from doom. If you bring more religion into games, then I guess we can cut taxes for building more churces, can't we? Or atleast have more video games for the money.

  8. All I know I learned from Civ2. by Slayk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Run through the tech tree, then go for Fundamentalisim. There repercussions for that form of government were far outclassed by the *amazing* ability to build wealth and power for your fight against the infidels.

    Yup. Not portrayed realistically at all.

    1. Re:All I know I learned from Civ2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, get to "future tech" and make the switch. Then the Howitzers and Tanks went rolling along the rail-lines to chew up massive amounts of territory...

      Man, I need to see if anyone's gotten civ2 to work in linux yet...

    2. Re:All I know I learned from Civ2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      freeciv!
      open source version of civ2 (pretty close and fun!)

    3. Re:All I know I learned from Civ2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahh, civ2.

      Always used fundamentalism. Always ended up causing a world war. Always nuked entire continents into submission.

      The world should be so glad I don't have a nation under my control... :P

      - Seth

    4. Re:All I know I learned from Civ2. by servognome · · Score: 1

      I just hate it when those infidel pikemen take down my holy tanks :(

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    5. Re:All I know I learned from Civ2. by snolan · · Score: 1

      Hey, that sounds like the M.O. of the Bush Administration... I wonder if dubya is a Civ2 player? COOL!

  9. Gaming with God? But I'm at work right now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gaming with god is highly under-rated, unfortunately, the games I'm currently playing aren't accessible to most.

    Current games include:
    "Repair that vintage car amplifier"
    "Tweak that EQ"
    and "I need to run more wire in my car, 660+ feet isn't enough" (the new version with "Over a furlong!" on the box)

    1. Re:Gaming with God? But I'm at work right now... by Rei · · Score: 1

      When I read the whole "Gaming with God" thing, I was more picturing the "Ultimate Santa-Claus DM in the Sky" sort of thing. Gaming with God would be pretty neat... you could finally prove that yes, in fact, God *does* play dice with the universe (and never botches!).

      --
      Windmills do not work that way!
    2. Re:Gaming with God? But I'm at work right now... by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I think of the Gary Larson cartoon where God participates in a game show, and leads with an outrageous 15000 points against the current champion ,who hasn't even scored yet.

  10. Too much realism by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured
    So, is this yet another case of game designers trying to imitate the real world too closely?

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:Too much realism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, No.

  11. ULTIMA ANYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Ultima you had to be a paragon of Morality. You were allowed to steal, lie and cheat but it would affect your Karma. You were the avatar and you were meant to a be model of what a true hero should be. You had to show compassion, sacrifice, etc, etc.

    It's one of the few games where you actually should follow your religon in the game but didn't have to.

  12. Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Japan, religion is often portrayed quite heavily in games. Japan in general has a more liberal relationship with religion than the western world, and works of fiction aren't really lynched for not showing the church in a good light.

    If you want some GOOD examples of religion in games, try Xenogears, Grandia, or Tales of Symphonia. All quite good games that deal with religion quite heavily. In the case of Xenogears, it was almost not released in North America, as the church would consider it to be almost blasphemous.

    For a North American game dealing slightly more than average with religion... try Eternal Darkness. The game features a bit of the inquisition, and the main characters are using magick based a lot upon the pagan practices and rituals. I would guess that the church would be none too happy about this one either.

    1. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Thought, if a game does have to do anything with religion it is usually limited to RPGs. And even then usually to japanese RPGs. Xenogears is a good example you gave there, with it almost not being released in the US. However, for anyone unfamiliar with those RPGs, do remember that they deal with fictional gods and goddesses, not direct reference to the deities of any current religion. For example, Grandia II focusses on two gods, one evil god named Valmar and one good god named Granas. This is also in contrast with three of the four major religion, because christianity, islam and judaism are monotheistic religions. Lunar: SSS(C) focuses one a single goddess called Althena. No reference to any real religion either.

      it gets really interesting in the Baldur's Gate series though. Instead of following a religion you actually become part of it. Long story and a big spoiler, won't go into detail. Hoever, for a western RPG to include such large elements of religion is quite unusual...

    2. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by zeropointentity · · Score: 0

      The game did have some insightful story writers using real (somewhat obscure) authors for quotes, but the magick system itself was completely bogus. Inspired by tradition, but still fake and made up. The names of the gods themselves aren't even real. I sincerely doubt Christians are really worried about it.

      Great game nontheless though, and an awesome story, eh. By Canadians too, eh. Who knew aboot that, eh?

    3. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by scheme · · Score: 2, Informative
      In Japan, religion is often portrayed quite heavily in games. Japan in general has a more liberal relationship with religion than the western world, and works of fiction aren't really lynched for not showing the church in a good light.

      Most japanese games don't really treat games more liberally. Rather they use symbols and messages from other religions (e.g. Christianity) and adapt them using their own (sometimes flawed) understanding. A lot of christian imagery in japanese games are used with only a superficial understanding and more for effect then anything else.

      The reason why the games don't get censured is that Christianity isn't a widely followed religion so it doesn't matter too much to the average person. You can see the same thing in the US in regards to portrayals of buddhism, shintoism, hinduism, etc.

      Incidentally, there isn't a church per se in Christianity. Different denominations and sects will have separate the different reactions to using religious imagery in games and other things.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    4. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the case of Xenogears, it was almost not released in North America, as the church would consider it to be almost blasphemous.

      As a Christian who has played Xenogears, I can safely state that any accusations of blasphemy against the game are nonsense. The religion portrayed in the game doesn't remotely resemble Christianity, apart from some parallels in the creation story. There are far more Gnostic elements in Xenogears than conventionally Christian parallels.

      While it is true that the established church in Xenogears is sinister and corrupt, the breakaway Nisan sect is portrayed very positively, as a force for good in the world. I wonder if it was inspired by the situation in Europe at the time of the Reformation.

      -Stephen

    5. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the problem is that even in Japanese RPGs, religion is still carictured. Like in Xenogears, the whole deal with the Ethos was just a caricture of the catholic church. Child molestation? Hiding the truth from it's followers? Sure, they did good, or tried to, but they were portrayed as ripe bastards at the end of it all.

      Although I did like FFX's religion.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I actually didn't make the connection between Nisan and the reformation until you mentioned it-- and trust me, when I played XG I was still a somewhat religious person.

      The original poster seems to be somewhat against religion in general, so I'll forgive his implication that the only "accurate" portrayal of religion in gaming is a negative one. The mentions of Grandia (he probably meant Grandia II) and Eternal Darkness affirm this fact. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, as am I; I just think that there are other, better portrayals of religion out there. Specifically, La Pucelle's Church of the Holy Maiden (demon hunters, with little or no corruption-- of course, they're diametrically opposed to a second church which is portrayed as demon worshippers, so I guess things even out).

      I'd be willing to bet there are more good portrayals of religion. If anything, I'd like to see a noir-themed action game where the player can go to a priest for mission objectives or assistance of some sort-- something like the scenes in the old gangster movies where an aging pastor gives the detective some news he overheard in confession. The basic idea being that clergy of all types can be portrayed realistically without making them saints or demonizing them.

      Of course, religious controversy sells games, so we'll never see anything like that ever. But it's a nice thing to hope for.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    7. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      it gets really interesting in the Baldur's Gate series though. Instead of following a religion you actually become part of it.

      Always wondered about that... so, I'm a cleric, and I'm about to become a what now?

      Might piss off my current deity just a little.

      There was a very good bit of religion in Hordes of the Underdark, I thought. Well, OK - an evil bit of religion. It's the only believable evil religion I've ever seen in an RPG: he doesn't kill you on entry, he poisons you and makes you fight to prove your worth, growing ever weaker as you do so... By the end my (extremely) evil character was feeling rather inclined to convert to this faith.

      And how about the cult of the Seer? Or the Sleeping Man of Cania? All very plausible and seriously-treated religions, I thought. The Sleeping Man especially felt real, pagan myth of the finest old kind.

      Thinking back through Neverwinter Nights I also recall the encampment of Ao: a group of worshippers of a supreme god who never shows himself, in a Dungeons & Dragons world in which every wandering priest can heal wounds with a touch. THAT'S faith if ever I saw it. Shame about the Python recital, though.

      And what of the druids in the Neverwinter Wood? The poisoned forest spirit? Where've I seen that before, hmm... don't know, but at the time I was a ranger with a wolf companion, and I somehow thought that dire wolves were right at home in that forest.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that Japan is far more culturally homogenous than the USA, or even Europe. Japan isn't just a geographical location - for all practical purposes it is also a culture, language, and ethnic group.

      Japan is probably 95% buddhist. I'm certainly not an expert on Buddhism, but from what I understand I'd expect it to be fairly tolerant of debate in the religious world. Most major religions are based on the concept of a revelation from God - which is the pure start of the religion, and then the idea that the goal of man should be to conform to this revelation as best as possible. Consequently, religious divergence is evaluated in the context of how it aligns with the origin of the faith. On the other hand, buddhism is more about bettering yourself on a more secular level - and it is probably more open to the idea that its teachings are supposed to improve over time. In most other faiths, teachines do not improve over time in the minds of adherents. At best they might improve in the sense that they rediscover some original teaching that was lost (such as in the reformation - which for the most part was an attempt to return to the basic elements of christianity as taught in the new testement).

      In any case, if the Japanese game designers didn't find the game offensive, most of the population probably wouldn't either. In America, something which is perfectly acceptable to one person might be the greatest form of blasphemy when seen by another.

    9. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Addendum: oops, forgot to say what the evil religion was. I meant the cleric of Talona in the avariel village. It was refreshing, I felt, to have an evil priest who moved beyond the clichés of 'We eat babies, muhahahaha!' and into a state of dispassionate cruelty meted out to innocents out of sheer faith, knowing that Talona would restore them to health only if they proved worthy...

      There was something pure about that priest, evil solely for evil's own sake without the petty motives of power or wealth behind it. I quite admired it, which was the reason that - as I mentioned - my blackguard character was quite inclined to join the faith.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by foidulus · · Score: 1

      Heh, well first off, Japanese religion is really a mish mash of Shintoism and Buddhism. It is not at all uncommon for someone to have a shinto wedding and buddhist funeral. But from my observations, the Japanese don't really take religion nearly as seriously as Americans do.
      I could be wrong on this, but from my observations the Japanese are only religious when it comes to ceremony. IE they go through the motions(going to a temple, throwing the money, clapping your hands and ringing the bell) not because they have a deep faith in the motions, but more because it is tradition. Tradition holds very deep in Japan(as it does in America, Europe etc).

    11. Re:Obviously not talking about Japanese Games... by IroNuckles · · Score: 1

      You really overestimate the power of 'the church', by which I assume you mean the Catholic church, in America. I think the reason we don't get many of these games in America is because there is a perception that there is no market for games like that. Xenogears was a fantastic game, but I can't see the average American gamer wanting to run out and buy it.

  13. So what's the big deal? by mattbot+5000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's not like organized religion spends serious time contemplating whether the rail gun or plasma gun is more effective in eliminating aliens. Religion and video games are equally make-believe and there's really no reason we should expect either of them to address the other.

  14. Religion by falzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as the gods in nethack are pleased, I'm fine with it.

    1. Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah. Time to go kick some altars.

    2. Re:Religion by weston · · Score: 1

      As long as the gods in nethack are pleased, I'm fine with it.

      Not always reliable:

      You hear the cockatrice's hissing --
      You are slowing down --
      The pyrolisk attacks you with a fiery gaze! --
      The leacrotta hits --
      The leacrotta hits --
      You are beginning to feel weak --
      The leacrotta bites --
      you hear the howling of the cwann --
      You begin praying to Lugh --
      You are surrounded by a shimmering light --
      The leacrotta starts to attack you, but pulls back --
      The cockatrice starts to attack you, but pulls back --
      You feel Lugh is well-pleased.

      Well-pleased?

      *Well*-*pleased*?

      One too many of those events actually led one nethacker to an interesting quest: complete an ascension, but at the last minute, put on a helm of opposite alignment and offer the amulet to Lugh's opposite...

  15. Europa Universalis I and II by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    Religion was an integral part of the game...

    1. Re:Europa Universalis I and II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medieval: Total War also integrated relevent religions into the game.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. It exists for shock value. by Lethyos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Using (or abusing) religion in certain ways manner way adds significant shock value to entertainment. People (in the US at least) are generally taken back by what they perceive as evil religious symbols or inverted ones from the mainstream. A prime example of this is Doom. I think most people feel more freaked out when they walk down a hallway and see certain symbols on the walls. Anime does this a lot too. Evangelion, for example, draws from mythology that is very recognizable to most Christians and it can be very disturbing for some.

    Whether any of this is good or bad is not my concern, but I will say that it is getting very annoying. Religious nerves have been plucked far too much by a lot of entertainment and usually it's use just signals a great lack of creativity. If you really want to unsettle or disturb your playing or viewing audience, try to come up with something new.

    --
    Why bother.
    1. Re:It exists for shock value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Whether any of this is good or bad is not my concern, but I will say that it is getting very annoying. Religious nerves have been plucked far too much by a lot of entertainment and usually it's use just signals a great lack of creativity. If you really want to unsettle or disturb your playing or viewing audience, try to come up with something new.

      I agree -- the game atmosphere would be far more unsettling to me if the anti-christian elements were replaced with christian ones.

    2. Re:It exists for shock value. by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 1

      Morrowind is another prime example. I still avoid exploring those caves late at night.

      By the way, the emphasis on religion in Morrowind is very extensive. But like the article says, typical of RPGs, they are really just made up religions. That said, the game still emphasizes some of the more general aspects of religion such as the very real struggle between good and evil.

    3. Re:It exists for shock value. by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 1

      A prime example of this is Doom. I think most people feel more freaked out when they walk down a hallway and see certain symbols on the walls.

      There's at least one place in Doom where it goes further than simply freaking the player out: in E2M1, one of the corridors has a wall section shaped like an inverted cross. If you stand still between those walls, you take damage.

      Duke Nukem 3D has a "shock value" scene as well -- near the beginning of the game, there's a chapel. If you stand in front of the cross ornament and pressed the action button, you invert the cross, which has the effect of transforming the room into an evil chapel.

      -Stephen

    4. Re:It exists for shock value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      john carmacks super coding powers come from a deal he made with the devil

      oh, and "kcamrac nhoj em llik tsum uoy emag eht niw ot"

    5. Re:It exists for shock value. by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Anime does this a lot too. Evangelion, for example, draws from mythology that is very recognizable to most Christians and it can be very disturbing for some.

      You mean the imagry of nude teens/pre-teens? I think the Catholics would be quite familiar with that imagry.... =P

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    6. Re:It exists for shock value. by Lynxara · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of imagery in Evangelion that is pure shock value, I'll agree, but I don't think the Judeo-Christian references go in that pile. Evangelion was made for a Japanese audience, after all, and most Japanese aren't Christian. Furthermore, using crosses and crucifixion imagery and references to God is pretty old hat as far as anime goes. I imagine if you'd been surrounded by programs of that nature all your life, you'd just expect it because it's the sort of thing that anime does, and probably wouldn't be inclined to take it very seriously.

  18. Semi-serious? by *weasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Semi-serious? That's just an artifact of the youth of the medium and the lack of a real artistic indie segment.

    There's nothing about the gaming medium itself that is semi-serious. It's perfectly capable of tackling any topic just as well as narrative fiction on celluloid or page.

    Calling the medium semi-serious as of now is an unfortunate but true overview, but implying the medium is incapable of more is shortsighted and wrong.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    1. Re:Semi-serious? by Xhad · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While I agree it's theoretically possible for video games to become more serious storywise, I honestly doubt it will happen.

      The first reason is cost of creation; the lack of a real artistic indie segment is the fact that good artists are rarely good programmers and vice-versa. No one is going to play a game that doesn't work even if the story is awesome, so any gamer indie market will always gravitate toward playable games with little to no storyline in the absence of either: -Dev tools that make it so that any kid can make a working video game -The occasional fluke -Some method of pairing the handful of good writers with enough spare time and the good programmers with enough spare time Similar pressures exist in the corporate environment, although in that case it's more like "Why am I going to take away money from the programming and visual design (risking making the game unplayable) when we could just make the game good and tack a superficial storyline on top?" Again, an unplayable game is a bad game even if the story is brilliant, and game companies are looking to sell games. So I wouldn't say the medium is incapable of "high art", but the medium does favor "low art" heavily.

    2. Re:Semi-serious? by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it has less to do with the medium than it does with the audience. 99% of the dorks (and gamers) that I've met are aethiest or at least agnostic. As history shows, technology (read science) and religion don't mix well. Science tends to try to explain phenomena with laws that govern nature, while religion tends to use historical beliefs.

      Most of the science fiction that I've read has been the same way. Religion tends to be refered to in an historical reference or as a backwater inhibiting aspect of a small group of society.

      It's also interesting to look at the progression of religion as science has progressed. In the times of the greeks religion was used to explain elements of physics (why things fall, why things move through the sky). Once these things were explained with science religion moved to the body. It was used to explain illness and the interworkings of the body. Now that we have modern medical science God has moved to our head. He is used to explain our emotions like love and anger. Once we fully understand brain chemistry where will God go next?

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    3. Re:Semi-serious? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      I think Half-life proves you wrong on this point : Besides the multiple mods out there, which most likely also attracted people to buy Half-Life, in the start , it was most defenitely the kick-ass story line that made most people either advise it to their friends, or buy it themselves.

      If you haven't yet, and you still searching for a game with somewhat more of a story to it, try Half-Life (better yet, wait for HL to be released for free on the HL2 Source engine).

    4. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a designer, I get sick of people running around claiming that video games are an art form. They shouldn't be. I always liked Douglas Adams' quote on this (paraphrased since I don't remember it exactly)--[Whenever something considers itself an art form it starts taking itself too seriously] Video games should be fun above all else; that's their purpose.

      (and recently, on the other hand, some other people have been trying to say video games are a science, as some sort of anthropology; *sigh* )

    5. Re:Semi-serious? by Ewan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While Half-life was great, any description of it as a "kick-ass story line" just shows how awful 99% of games' stories are.

      Half-life story = guy starts new job at nuclear research site, guys first job is start up new experimental device, new experimental device opens gateway into other dimension, guy has to escape the research site avoiding enemies from other dimension and human anti-alien squads.

      it has very good set pieces, and the scripting is way above the doom type we were so used to at the time, but the story itself is 100% action movie.

      Ewan

    6. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. History shows that most of science was discovered by religious institutions. Now the religious institutions are the federal goverment, at whos tits the anti-moral scientists feed from, but mathematics, physics, chemistry and cartography were all strated and very well developed my religous institutions.

    7. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >Once we fully understand brain chemistry where will God go next?

      Into computer games apparently.

    8. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As history shows, technology (read science) and religion don't mix well. Science tends to try to explain phenomena with laws that govern nature, while religion tends to use historical beliefs.

      Just remember a few core beliefs of Chrisitanity:

      1. Even if you live a perfect life, you deserve to go to hell. Why? Original sin.
      2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.

      Kind of sums things up nicely.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    9. Re:Semi-serious? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Sci-fi can have very deep spiritual (god I hate that term) overtones, sometimes backed up by science, sometimes not. Look at the religious aspects that spring up in Asimov's Foundation saga, and how those aspects change over the course of the hundreds of years that saga portrays -- as science is forgotten, it gives way to religious devotion to the purveyers of knowledge (who themselves worship the progenitor of their system as a prophet). Look at the importance of the Ben Gesserit order in Dune, or the Bejorran religion in Deep Space Nine and the delicate, reverent and earnest way each of these is treated. In the context of the story, there are believers and disbelievers and neither is outright wrong (in fact, in ST:DS9, the detractors are more often wrong...except where church politics have polluted the "true message;" shit, a minor villain of the series is a higher member of the church as are many of the heroes).

      In fact, the biggest problem I see with the portrayal of religion in video games is that it's nearly always shown as a sham or a cult. This is just wrong. If you've got powerful gods duking it out in the primary plane of existance, with their hands directly influencing their followers and directly punishing their detractors, what you'd have is a state of immense fear and respect for religions of all kinds. Furthermore, there's a drive, especially among Japanese RPGs, to use scienfic order to explain away magical forces within the text ("magic comes from these blue rocks" or "the gods are just really powerful X and we can kill them with swords"). Also a cop out -- why not have gods that are just undefeatable, and the players have to deal with their lives within that context? Stories work best when properly restricted, and being a pawn in a war you can't affect is serious restriction.

      Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic had some interesting "religious" overtones, but they were kind of underdeveloped. Basically, they separated the light side from the dark side mostly on issues of social politics...if you chose the needs of the many over the needs of the few, you'd often lose light side points. Still, basing the outcome of the game (and indeed, the availability of skills and teammates) on moral decisions made for a fun game with lots of replayability.

      Of course, I don't really think this is what GamersDad wants. I think the editorial is referring not to a figuritive God, but a literal one. The problem there is that integrating a Chrisitian/Muslim/Judaic/Hindu/Buddhist concept of God into a game effectively alienates the others, thus reducing your game's overall appeal and indeed often relegating it a position as a genre title. It can work -- I seem to recall some positive aspects of Chrisitanity in the old Sierra "Gabriel Knight" series of action games -- but on the whole, potrayals of any real religion, positive or negative, are delicate undertakings.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    10. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > if you live a perfect life

      But you haven't, and won't. Only one man ever did.

      > What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.

      Nope, 'twas disobedience.

    11. Re:Semi-serious? by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Even if you live a perfect life, you deserve to go to hell. Why? Original sin.
      2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.


      That's a bit of a stretch. The Original Sin was succumbing to Lucifer's temptation and eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the story doesn't indicate that Eve ate the fruit of the Tree because of a desire to gain knowledge. Gaining knowledge of good and evil was a consequence of eating the fruit (one requiring some drastic measures on God's part), but was not necessarily the motivation behind the sin. Now, Lucifer, on the other hand, knew full well all of the consequences, and the entire reason for his temptation of Eve was to spoil God's creation.

      A different (and probably better) interpretation, one that reappears throughout the Old Testament (see Judges), is that the Original Sin was doing whatever the hell you want (generally, whatever "feels good"), despite God's direct instructions to the contrary.

    12. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nope, 'twas disobedience.

      Meaningless hair-splitting. The command being disobeyed was, "Don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge."

    13. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > knowledge of good and evil was a consequence

      Right on. The sin was disobedience, not "seeking knowledge".

    14. Re:Semi-serious? by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't be a nitwit.

      I absolutely hate it when people assume that they must be right, and therefore anyone of separate opinion must be an idiot. (the only reason I assume that about you is your statement can only be interpreted as an exclusive opinion)

      Every discovery science has won us, has brought with it more questions. It's just a simple fact.

      The divisiveness between those such as your self, and those of the religious persuasion, is that you dismiss that which you do not understand (evident that you seem to think that our world is 'explained' so well already!), while a religious person stands in utter amazement at the number of questions. (or rather their exponential growth in relation to answers. It's counter intuitive.)

      Someone who is open minded, does not dismiss a POV out of hand. Many people in this world are capable of managing eloquent and logical thoughts, and quite a few of them disagree with your POV. Take the time to inquire why.

    15. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 4, Informative
      That's a bit of a stretch. The Original Sin was succumbing to Lucifer's temptation and eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the story doesn't indicate that Eve ate the fruit of the Tree because of a desire to gain knowledge.

      Genesis 3:6 (KJV) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

      It says quite clearly that Eve ate the fruit in order to become wise (i.e. gain knowledge). Now you can "interpret" this story to mean whatever the hell you want, but the FACTS of the story cleary say that Eve ate the fruit to become wise (pursuit of knowledge) and was punished for it.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    16. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > of knowledge."

      You missed the last four more words - "of good and evil". That's the difference.

    17. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But you haven't, and won't. Only one man ever did.

      Wrong.

      Nope, 'twas disobedience.

      And what command was disobeyed? Geez, a little critical thinking isn't too much to ask, is it?

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    18. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 3, Informative
      But you haven't, and won't. Only one man ever did.

      I wish you people would ready our own god damned book:
      Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

      Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

      Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)

      Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

      Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(RSV)

      Nope, 'twas disobedience.

      Disobedience from a couple of innocent beings who were never taught about good and evil?

      Disobedience that warranted damning them and billions of their children to eternal torment?

      What a cool god you have!

      Some data on the faulty logic of "original sin"
    19. Re:Semi-serious? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      (donning my judeo-christian mythology hat)

      so - god was upset that the angels didnt exactly CHOOSE to worship Him, so He (and She) made a creation with free-will, and intellect.

      and then he gets upset that they excersize this free will?

      for an all-powerful, all knowing suoper-being, he sure isnt exactly... ya know... mature.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    20. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Wrong.

      Pick a verse which you feel most confident about, and we'll debate it.

      > what command was disobeyed?

      There's a difference between "all knowledge" and "specifically forbidden knowledge".

    21. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > ready our own god damned book

      Pick which verse you feel is most effective, and we can debate it.

      > who were never taught about good and evil?

      They were specifically told not to do something; they did it.

      > damning them

      They damned themselves, and us, by disobeying God.

      > a cool god you have

      Heh. He's not cool, but He is God.

    22. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As history shows, technology (read science) and religion don't mix well.

      In fact, most early scientists (in the modern sense) were Christians, and "did science" because of their belief in a rational God who created a rational universe with understandable natural laws.

      Even now, many scientists regularly attend religious services (a statistic I read a few years ago placed the number only slightly beneath that of the general public in the US).

      A common theme of modern western myths is the conflict between Science (with a capital S) and religion. While there are a few examples for which this explanation plays well, like the Scopes trial, not even all of the examples normally trotted out (Galileo) support it very well. Like most legends or myths, they tell us more about what people want to be true than what actually is true.

      Your final paragraph is full of common misconceptions. Historically, Greek mythology didn't die out because of modern scientific explanations of gravity and the like. But the more fundamental problem is your misidentification of the type of answers science is capable of giving and what this implies about religion. It may very well be the case that lightning bolts are being cast by an omnipotent being. Our understanding of the natural causes of lightning suggest nothing either way. In explaining "why" lightning struck something to a person who has such a religious belief, he may very well say to you, "It's very interesting how God did that!"

    23. Re:Semi-serious? by Lynxara · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Also a cop out -- why not have gods that are just undefeatable, and the players have to deal with their lives within that context?

      Well, at least as far as the Japanese experience goes-- this is completely alien to their concept of deity. The gods of Japan's native and almost-native traditions, Shinto and Buddhism, are not invulnerable, just very powerful, and humans have to deal with them in certain ways to get what they want without being destroyed. Buddhism goes so far as to maintain the belief that gods are just sort of irrelevant, because they won't help people become enlightened and aren't perfectly enlightened themselves. So, as far as that goes, deities are often protrayed as being largely inferior to wise monks or incarnate buddhas in Japanese folklore. I think it's hardly a cop-out for Japanese creators to follow the ideas about godhood that are natural to their culture.

      The idea of totally invincible godhood is strictly Western, and as far as the Japanese experience goes, strictly Judeo-Christian. While Japanese declares itself to be officially Christian, only maybe 1% of the population would fit the usual definition of a faithful believer. However, that 1% tends to be among Japan's cultural elite, so Christianity remains very much on the Japanese mind despite being a religion that not many people actually practice.

      This being said, your idea for a game that involved really absolute, invincible deities could make for some very nice gameplay, especially in a well-designed RPG. I don't think an RPG like that is ever going to come out of Japan, though....

    24. Re:Semi-serious? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I'd say science and religion mix perfectly. How? Well, what causes that random chance of some quantum waveform collapsing into one state or another? I'd say God does that. God is the random number generator of the Universe. God doesn't play dice with the Universe, God Is Dice. Quantum mechanics lets religion mix with science.

      Hmm, maybe the Discordians are right after all. To be safe, Hail Eris, Hail Hail, Eris Eris!

      --
      Not a sentence!
    25. Re:Semi-serious? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "There's a difference between "all knowledge" and "specifically forbidden knowledge"."

      Here's the thing: original sin is a disgusting idea for the simple fact that it blames descendents of a pair of people 2,000 years down the line, for the actions of those two people (assuming the myth is taking as wholly true). How is that possibly reasonable? We already bear the punishment that we'll die (since before the Fall, Man was immortal on Earth in Eden)

      Moreover, what's the point in putting a tree which provides any sort of knowledge right in the path of your creation, if you're not only omnipotent and omniscient, but also don't want that creation to fiddle with the tree? If God is omniscient, He knew irrefutably that Adam and Eve would Fall; if he didn't know, he's not omniscient. Lack of omniscience by definition entails the lack of omnipotence (since omnipotence means having the ability to do anything, including acquire omniscience, and to do so at any time and throughout time). Thus, either God placed that Tree and those two people with the full foreknowledge that they would Fall, or this God is not the omniscient, omnipotent being it claims to be. In the former case, how can Adam and Eve be blamed, since it was God's fault they were there? In the latter case, God is apparently a deceiver and a liar, claiming to be something he most certainly is not. In either event, why should one worship such a being?

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    26. Re:Semi-serious? by festers · · Score: 1

      And what command was disobeyed?

      I think it was the command "You can eat of any tree except from this one Tree." Been a while since you read Genesis? Or have you even read it all?

      Geez, a little critical thinking isn't too much to ask, is it?

      I don't see a lack of critical thinking here, but I do see quite a lot of overconfidence...

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    27. Re:Semi-serious? by microwave_EE · · Score: 1

      That's just silly...
      Genesis does not indicate that God forbid the pursuit of knowledge in general, but rather the knowledge of good and evil.

      Using this passage, to say that God is against scientific knowledge is assinine.

      Aside: there were 3 things that Eve noticed about the tree in question, yet you insist that the "FACTS of the story cleary say that Eve ate the fruit to become wise (pursuit of knowledge)". Why only cite one? See previous paragraph.
      In conclusion...Eve (and Adam for that matter) was punished for doing the thing that God said to NOT do.

      --
      I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
    28. Re:Semi-serious? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      2. The original sin (as in, the first one recorded) occured when Eve lied to the serpent - God told her not to eat from it or they would die, but Eve told the serpent that if they ate it or touched it then they would die.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    29. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      I think the parent's point (I might be wrong) is that fundamentally the sin was that Eve did whatever the hell she wanted, in spite of being told not to. The hidden assumption in this exchange is that the pursuit of knowledge is always a good excuse to do whatever the hell one wants, but it so obviously isn't that I don't think any examples are necessary.

    30. Re:Semi-serious? by jdavidb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a Christian.

      Here's the thing: original sin is a disgusting idea for the simple fact that it blames descendents of a pair of people 2,000 years down the line, for the actions of those two people (assuming the myth is taking as wholly true).

      Agreed, and I believe the "myth" is true. The fact is, Original Sin is not in the Bible and is contradicted by the Bible (in many places like, for example, Ezekiel 18). To go back up a few posts, the original assertion that you would go to hell if you lived a perfect life is just plain WRONG.

      For the record, true Christianity does not believe original sin.

    31. Re:Semi-serious? by EphemeralPhart · · Score: 0

      Dude, no. seriously. If you keep on sucking the yellow ice you're never gonna get that taste out of your mouth.

      You can't live a perfect live, If you think you can, you've got some serious ego issues, your liar or stupid beyond comprehension.

      Original sin != persuit of knowledge
      Original sin == doing your own thing

      There were 2 trees, remember ?

      Before teaching on the core beliefs of Christianity, I suggest you at least get acquainted with some.

    32. Re:Semi-serious? by festers · · Score: 1

      Proof-texting at its finest, gotta love it. Yeah, you can pick and choose almost anything you want and show how the bible contradicts itself. You can pretty much "prove" anything that way. Of course, if you really seemed interested in open, honest discussions I'd find the energy to respond. Instead, you're happy to shake your fist at something you haven't bothered to think about critically, and are content to just cut and paste items from another website.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    33. Re:Semi-serious? by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Oh, of course. But there's no evidence for God. He's a popular idea, but when you look for evidence, he's just as well-supported as magic elves. You should certainly keep the whole God-theory in the back of your mind, just-in-case, but with the generous grain of salt of having no evidence.

      If you would actually talk to some scientists, you'd found that scientists are also amazed at the massive amount of complexity the universe has. But instead of just sitting there saying, "Oh, it's so mysterious and amazing," we try to actually examine its awesomeness. And since we can get some neat stuff out of it, everybody's happy.

      Yes, we'll probably never know everything. Who cares? We know what we know, and what we don't know we simply don't know.

      And it's not non-intuitive that the more we know, the more questions we have. The more we know, the more stuff we have to ask questions about. And scientists are primarily in the business of finding and answering questions, so they'll be sure to search for every last question they can find.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    34. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of the dorks (and gamers) that I've met are aethiest or at least agnostic.

      Wow, you know more about the religions sentiments of your acquaintances than I do. Could it be that you implicitly assume that they are athiest or agnostic unless they do something to explicitly indicate otherwise, because they are dorks and gamers "like you"? If you mainly interact with them in a context which doesn't include religion (i.e., gaming), I am surprised that religion comes up often enough that you can make such a generalization.

      While movies and television seem to show more of religion than computer games, most certainly avoid the topic. Your hypothesis that the atheism/agnosticism of the audience causes this does not hold here, if you belive the polls showing that the majority of Americans not only believe on God, but are Christian.

    35. Re:Semi-serious? by detlev409 · · Score: 1

      Not going to get into an arguement over this, but it's worth noting that any serious biblical scholar, be they Christian themselves or not, considers Job to be a fictional story, told to deliver a point.

      There never was a Job.

      Noah, on the other hand, I have no answer for. I'll leave that to the fundies.

      --
      Howdy.
    36. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > original sin is a disgusting idea

      Here's what's disgusting - that God would interact with man at all. That he would stoop to redeem us from our sin is even worse. Anyhow who isn't amazed and shocked by Christianity doesn't understand it.

      > what's the point

      Because he wanted to give man choice.

      > the full foreknowledge that they would Fall

      Yes. But foreknowledge does not imply a lack of choice.

      > why should one worship such a being?

      Because He is God.

    37. Re:Semi-serious? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      It depends what kind of video games you're playing, which are evidently rap-mixing games the great Barbie series.

      If you get up and look out at what's really there then you'll find lots of innovative ideas, very original soundtracks (here and there), and artwork by people who have more talent in their pinky than anyone who ever did work for your local art museum. Even if that's no saying much.

      But yeah nearly everything else there is true. I'm a fairly skilled artist and it'd be great to shell out some ideas and create a video game, but the programming behind a decent game is so unforgiving that I don't even bother with it. C++ still sucks. There are few humanly legible guides to it. The only way I'd get anywhere is to find someone else who would do the programming, but how much control would that give me?

      Compilers are still way too undeveloped compared to what they could be. This wouldn't such an intangible art form if more development programs didn't require you to know every aspect and angle of C++ in order to make a sprite.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    38. Re:Semi-serious? by zhiwenchong · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't want to turn this into a debate, but I believe in critically analyzing the text we're reading. When reading the bible (like any other text), it is often useful to consider the entire context.

      If you don't, then it is often possible to contrive any naïve and convenient conclusion, and then claim that's what the good book teaches when it doesn't.

      Re your syllogism, it is a fallacy of the most rudimentary kind:

      Eve eats fruit from tree of life to gain wisdom
      God punishes her
      Therefore Eve was punished for gaining wisdom?

      Is that the only conclusion? Must it be? What kind of wisdom does the original Hebrew word talk about? What about other possibilities supporting facts? It is unfair to make any conclusion without considering these questions.

      In reality, what most Christians are taught is this (now you may consider this "interpretation"): *God punished Eve for disobedience to his explicit command*. That's it. There are also issues of pride and rebellion, and supposition that one might be equal to God, but I won't get into those. I've made my point. Case closed.

    39. Re:Semi-serious? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      1. Even if you live a perfect life, you deserve to go to hell. Why? Original sin.

      Nope. Original Sin is just the first sin--not an enternally corrupting influence. It's conceivably possible for someone to live their entire lives without sin--Christ himself (and some say the virgin Mary) lived without sin. We'll just never hear about them, because arrogantly bragging about how sin-free you are is itself a sin.

      2. What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.

      Nope, again. Original Sin was defiance of God, not pursuit of knowledge. (Yes, the act was seeking knowledge--but maybe God just wanted A&E to spend a hundred years or so in bliss.)

    40. Re:Semi-serious? by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Heh. He's not cool, but He is God.

      This God sounds like an asshole. I can understand obeying Him out of pure self-interest, but how can we derive moral authority from this guy?

      This may sound like an attack, but I'd honestly like to hear an explanation. Right now my current theory is that it's best to ignore the Old Testament and just do what everybody else does while looking for Bible verses that support what you've already decided to do.

    41. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      I wish you people would ready our own god damned book:

      Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

      Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

      Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)

      Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

      Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(RSV)

      Oh wow you got me, I never realized that... you've convinced me I am now an atheist... oh wait you're not so smart. Did you bother to do any critical thinking yourself (i.e. look at the original text and word meanings)?

      First the Hebrew word tam does not mean sinless. Tam might better be equated with "well-rounded" or "fulfilling one's duties" or "in the right place" (which would include proper reaction to sin), but it does not mean "perfection". The actual word for moral perfection in Hebrew is tamiym (cf. Gen. 17:1, 2 Sam. 22:31). ("Tamiym" is used to describe Noah in Gen. 6:9, but it refers to him as "perfect" in his "generations" [towledah], the word used of physical family descent. One suggests that, in the context of Gen. 6:4, this refers not to Noah's moral behavior, but to the fact that his line was untainted by interaction with the "sons of God" who came unto the daughters of men.)

      Thankyou drive through.
    42. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 1
      I think it was the command "You can eat of any tree except from this one Tree." Been a while since you read Genesis? Or have you even read it all? I don't see a lack of critical thinking here, but I do see quite a lot of overconfidence...

      Wow. You chastize me, then misquote Genesis and accuse me of overconfidence. Truly astounding. The relevant quote you are looking for is:

      "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (KJV)

      God forbade Adam from eating from a tree that would give him knowledge. Of course, God also lied about Adam dieing, but I wasn't going to bring that up. Humans being the inquisitive creatures that they are (and were supposedly created to be) anything else than the eventual outcome would be impossible.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    43. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First the Hebrew word tam does not mean sinless. Tam might better be equated with "well-rounded" or "fulfilling one's duties" or "in the right place" (which would include proper reaction to sin), but it does not mean "perfection". The actual word for moral perfection in Hebrew is tamiym (cf. Gen. 17:1, 2 Sam. 22:31). ("Tamiym" is used to describe Noah in Gen. 6:9, but it refers to him as "perfect" in his "generations" [towledah], the word used of physical family descent. One suggests that, in the context of Gen. 6:4, this refers not to Noah's moral behavior, but to the fact that his line was untainted by interaction with the "sons of God" who came unto the daughters of men.)

      Thankyou drive through.

    44. Re:Semi-serious? by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      While your theory has the virtue of sounding good, and is certainly a commendable way of applying your religious beliefs to your understanding of how the universe works, it is completely unscientific, and so does not represent science and religion mixing perfectly. If two scientific theories explain something equally well (in this case, "randomness, and we don't know why" vs. "randomness from God, a hazily defined and unconstrained entity whom we don't understand"), the simpler is presumed to be the best one. That is why you never see articles in scientific journals including God in their explanation: religion doesn't mix into science. However, science can, as you demonstrate, be a component of a religion.

    45. Re:Semi-serious? by mforbes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I myself am areligious, but I disagree with your statement that science and religion don't mix. Except among the fundamentalists (on both sides), they attempt to answer different types of questions. Science asks 'how?' where religion asks 'why?'

      I guess in one sense you are correct, they don't mix-- but then, it's not because of animosity toward one side from the other (again, excepting the fundamentalists)-- the methodologies of the two are incompatible enough that to subscribe to one of them does not forbid believing the other, too.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    46. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > This God sounds like an asshole

      Yet he sent his son to die for our sins. Odd, isn't it?

      > how can we derive moral
      > authority from this guy?

      There's nowhere else to go. He is, as it were, the only game in town.

      > it's best to ignore the Old Testament

      Don't do that, or you'll miss out on the lyrics to U2's song "40".

    47. Re:Semi-serious? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Yes. But foreknowledge does not imply a lack of choice."

      I'm sorry, but yes it does. If you can predict with one hundred percent certitude what it is that I will do, it means that free will is illusory: if means that no matter what I think, I can only act in precisely one manner. Moreover, since God stacked the deck of the universe in precisely the way he wanted (since (a) he could set it up however he wanted, (b) he knew how each setup would end up, ergo (c) he picked the setup to result in the outcome he wanted), he wanted us to behave in the way we did.

      Hell, lets pretend Free Will isn't the discussion. Look at just the deterministic question: if God could pick the outcome of all our lives, and did so, why would he pick the one that involved suffering? The standard, and only possible, answer is that God wanted us to either (a) learn something we don't yet understand or (b) something we cannot understand. You dont think that that is both a cop-out and absurd?

      By the way, I can't help but notice how you ignored almost my entire post: you don't think its disingenuous to ignore almost an entire argument and respond to only one part? Just curious.

      "Because He is God."

      Apparently you don't know what "a reason" is. You seem to be implying that it is part of the definition of "God" that he is to be worshipped (a thought which is disturbingly in line with the "I am" name that God uses for himself to Moses). Here's a question for you to ask yourself: if it is a core component of God's identity that he is to be worshipped, what does that mean about his motivations in Creation? If He knows (and He must know everything, right? Oh yeah, you didn't discuss that...) that his creations must worship Him because he's owed it because of nothing he did but rather only his nature, then why would he make those creations dislike worship so much? Wouldn't it make more sense to make some creation that couldn't do anything but enjoy worship? What's that you say, that the Angels were supposed to be like that? Interesting, except for the fact that apparently the Morningstar and 1/3rd of the heavenly host disagreed, and Fell.

      Sorry, your god is either a liar or a bastard. If I die, I honestly hope I don't face him, because it would drive whatever consciousness I hold completely insane to find out that the deity of the universe was so wracked with paradoxes, contradictions, horribly morality and nonsensical belief.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    48. Re:Semi-serious? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The theology there is flawed, on your end. The original story should read as other posters have put, "God forbid Adam from eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Then again, the first "sin" itself is debatable:

      • God told Adam not to eat the fruit. Adam told Eve not to eat or touch the fruit.
      • Eve's sin was the decision to eat the fruit, not the actual eating of the fruit.

      You might also want to put in the verse before that: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

      The sin was desiring to be like God. Not only was it "knowledge," but it was also power. The original sin, the one that causes us to be born into death, is the innate human desire to be in total control of one's universe.

      Now, the "knowledge" portrayed here is definitely scientific knowledge. Science has no concept of good or evil, because both of those are subjective values. They cannot be measured, and need to be defined by a religion or philosophy. Thinking that this knowledge is the same as science is complete foolishness, with regards to science. The only judgement within science is empiracle judgement.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    49. Re:Semi-serious? by jardun · · Score: 1

      I have to, at least in my personal experience, disagree with this. As far as I've seen, it's scientists who actually examine questions think for themselves. All the religious Christian people I've ever known simply put everything to "God made it that way, I'm not supposed to question" and dismiss anything that that might contradict their particular version of the Bible (although which version is right? And they sure seem to contradict between denominations) no matter how much evidence there is. Sorry, it's a bit of a sore spot. I'm trying to be objective...

    50. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what words are used to describe Jesus?

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    51. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "If God is omniscient, He knew irrefutably that Adam and Eve would Fall; if he didn't know, he's not omniscient. Lack of omniscience by definition entails the lack of omnipotence (since omnipotence means having the ability to do anything, including acquire omniscience, and to do so at any time and throughout time). Thus, either God placed that Tree and those two people with the full foreknowledge that they would Fall, or this God is not the omniscient, omnipotent being it claims to be."

      Or, there could have been infinite possible outcomes, all forseen by God, mixed in with a little Freewill to get us the outcome that is actually said to have occured in our particlar space/time.

      Or, it could have been any other number of circumstances that are currently unknown to modern man, or simply incomprehensible to us.

      If we as a people just dismiss Christian and other Religion as mere folklore, (and just continue to regurgitate popular arguments we were taught in philosophy class), we may miss out on some critcal insight into the nature of the universe...

    52. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while religion tends to use historical beliefs.

      Depends on what you mean by religion. There's more to religion that Jewish/Christian/Islamic monotheism. What about a religion like Buddhism? Nominally, Buddhism has no fixed beliefs, nor do they claim there is God. Nor do they deny the possibility of God. Rather they say one has to prove the teachings for oneself. (God may exist, but he can't "save" you, it's up to your own efforts.) So it's actually has a scientific approach. Google around for quote by Einstein:

      "If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

      easy to find

      Or at least that's the best reading. I'm aware there are plenty examples of degenerate cases. And over history the tradition have picked up many variations. But the last thing they want is to shove teachings down your throat, what would be the point? (except empire building, a degenerate case.)

      The reason religion is superficially portrayed is the ignorance of religion in game writers and their audience.

    53. Re:Semi-serious? by SABME · · Score: 1
      I always thought Campbell's analysis of this story rang true:

      1. Before the temptation, humans existed in a state of bliss (Eden) because they had no knowledge of good or evil. They were innocent, and incapable of sin. They were naked and felt no shame, they lived in harmony with the beasts, etc.
      2. Eve eats the fruit of the tree, gains a knowledge of good and evil. Now, humans are no longer innocent, since they know evil and they can choose to do evil as well as good. They are therefore cast out of Eden and enter the world of pairs of opposites: good and evil, life and death, male and female, man and nature, etc.
      3. The story of the temptation, therefore, reminds us that the human condition is to exist in a world where we may choose to do wrong. Original sin is an acknowledgement that we all have the capacity to choose evil, because we know the difference between good and evil.
    54. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 1
      Is that the only conclusion? Must it be?

      I don't recall ever saying that that was the only conclusion, merely a possibly valid one. It is certainly clear that Adam & Eve were punished for disobedience to God. However, I believe it is also important to look at the nature of the disobedience. Within the first 3 chapters of the Bible the notion that ignorance is preffered to knowledge is presented. This was the point I was trying to present.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    55. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe your first question was:

      And what command was disobeyed?

      At which point he answered your question:

      I think it was the command "You can eat of any tree except from this one Tree."

      Now that you were called out and proven that a command from God was disobeyed you get snippy and try and win debate points by showing that he misquoted Genesis. But that had nothing to do with your original question... are you cedeing the point? Second I would hardly consider the guy to be directly quoting the Bible since he qualifies his quote with "think" show his hesitation in a verbatim quote from some translation and second gives no reference. So a correct inferation would be he was just pointing out that some command was disobeyed and not a direct quote of the exact words of the command.

      Of course, God also lied about Adam dieing, but I wasn't going to bring that up.

      Translation: I've lost my first debate so I'll try and sidestep the topic by introducing another one under the guise that I had no intention of bringing it up. Again trying to win points.

      Commentators as far back as pre-Christian Judaism have read this as indicating spiritual, not physical, death.

      It has been noted that the literal Hebrew says, "Dying you shall die," which does indicate a "progressive" death. However, even if it did not -- as is the case with many cites where "death" and "die" is used in isolation -- nothing needs to be said because the context says all that is needed. Common sense alone therefore supports the "spiritual death" interpretation, but there is more, and this is where we come back to the overall pervasiveness of figurative language in Hebrew, combined with an understanding of the Semitic theological mindset. The account in Genesis goes on to depict Adam and Eve as losing fellowship with God. To the Hebrew mind, loss of fellowship with God is a fate worse than death, for it was the loss of fellowship with the prime source of peace. Thus the word "death" --- representing the most fearsome and irreversible fate in this life --- was chosen to figuratively describe this loss of fellowship with God.

      Thankyou drive through.

    56. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > it means that free will is illusory:

      Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.

      > if God could pick the outcome

      We pick the outcome, and we always choose to sin.

      > its disingenuous to ignore
      > almost an entire argument

      Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But I felt your argument was based upon foreknowledge implying that free will didn't exist, and I tried to respond to that.

      > what does that mean about his
      > motivations in Creation

      I'm not sure if I can speak to God's motivation.

      > why would he make those creations
      > dislike worship so much?

      What do you mean by "dislike worship"? Do you mean "dislike going to church"? I don't understand...

      > your god

      Hm. I don't have any claim to God...

      > If I die, I honestly hope I don't face him

      But you will, and you will. Just like everyone else.

    57. Re:Semi-serious? by Laur · · Score: 0, Troll
      That's just silly... Genesis does not indicate that God forbid the pursuit of knowledge in general, but rather the knowledge of good and evil. Using this passage, to say that God is against scientific knowledge is assinine.

      First of all I never said that. However, you seem to make clear differentiations between types of knowledge, a point of view that I do not share. I define knowledge to be "that which is true", and facts are facts, regardless of the subject. Regardless, the fact that God forbide the pursuit of any sort of knowledge is a very telling factor. What sort of God would willfully keep his subjects ignorant? Are we better off "stupid but happy?"

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    58. Re:Semi-serious? by anethema · · Score: 1

      I am an atheist.

      How does foreknowledge not imply lack of choice?

      If you KNOW which way someone will take in a fork, he has no choice. If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known.

      Since god KNOWS, man has no choice and no free will. Where do you see choice in that? If adam and eve had a choice, but their choice was already fore-ordained, i dont see how this is choice, or free will. They chose the only possible path.

      Also with original sin, (agreed on that its a disgusting idea) when a baby dies, or a handicapped person dies, they go to hell. Thats great! The baby wasnt able to redeem itself of original sin, so to hell it goes. Original sin is one of the biggest crocks of shit christians teach. This is maybe why many many dont believe in it, since the bible contradtics it many times.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    59. Re:Semi-serious? by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Core beliefs of Christianity:

      1) Even though you live an imperfect life, you are welcome in Heaven because God gave His own Son to redeem and absolve original sin.

      2) Original sin was the abandonment of wisdom in the pursuit of knowledge by disobeying God.

      It really is quite simple.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    60. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > I am an atheist.

      How do you _know_ that God does not exist?

      > their choice was already fore-ordained

      God knew what they would choose, but they made the choice.

      > a handicapped person dies, they go to hell.

      Not necessarily. Since we're saved through no virtues of our own, that person may well be saved. It would be much worse if someone could save himself through good works.

      > The baby wasnt able to redeem
      > itself of original sin

      No one can redeem himself.

      > since the bible contradtics it many times

      How so?

    61. Re:Semi-serious? by rchorse2000 · · Score: 1

      "If you KNOW which way someone will take in a fork, he has no choice. If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known."

      How does knowing what will happen remove choice? In the fork example, if I'm standing there and I know beforehand which fork you'll take, but I say nothing and do nothing to influence your choice, how does my knowledge remove your choice? God's foreknowledge doesn't mean a person doesn't have a choice, it means He knows which CHOICE that person will make. The person is still the one making the choice.

      "If he took the other fork, you wouldnt have known."

      True, but he won't. Here's another example. If I put a steak on the floor and let a dog in the room, I know with 100% certainty the dog will devour it ASAP. Does that mean I'm forcing the dog to eat the steak?

    62. Re:Semi-serious? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In reality, what most Christians are taught is this (now you may consider this "interpretation"): *God punished Eve for disobedience to his explicit command*.

      And since that command was "Don't gain knowledge", it's pretty fair to say that Adam and Eve were punished for gaining knowledge.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    63. Re:Semi-serious? by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      Eve wasn't punished for wanting to become wise. Original sin was not following God's commandment:

      "Because thou ... hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it"

      Genesis 3:17

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    64. Re:Semi-serious? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Proof-texting at its finest, gotta love it. Yeah, you can pick and choose almost anything you want and show how the bible contradicts itself. You can pretty much "prove" anything that way.

      Doesn't that just go to show that the Bible is not a reliable source of information?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    65. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm standing next to you and shoot the dog. The dog didn't eat the steak, therefore you were wrong.

      There is a difference between 99.9999% sure, and 100% omniscient.

    66. Re:Semi-serious? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, 'twas disobedience.

      In the sense that one might punish a child for trying to stick a screwdriver in an electrical outlet. There is, however, a reason behind the proscription against doing so.

      In the case of the child it is the protection of the child. In case of Adam and Eve is the protection of God. The reason behind the proscription, which you will find explicitly in Genesis, is that the acquisition of knowledge by man would make man akin to the Gods in power.

      When man is akin to the Gods in power than man will have no need of God, and thus have no reason to obey.

      Original sin in not disobedience. It is knowledge of the difference between good and evil. That is why a baby who has as yet commited no act of disobedience is still a bearer of orginal sin. He/she still carries the innate ability to discern morality and shame as his birthright through Adam and Eve who tasted of the fruit of knowledge. The sin resides in the baby even before it can commit any act. Heirarchical church structures, however, have found it to their advantage in compelling behavior to the edict of man posing as God to teach it as disobedience.

      KFG

    67. Re:Semi-serious? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      You are doubly wrong.

      First, it is scientists themselves who know that every answer brings with it more questions -- to put it bluntly, that's why there are professional scientists, because they know they've got job security. "Dismiss[ing] what you do not understand" is much more characteristic of religion than it is of science. And true believers may be "in utter amazement at the number of questions," but their usual M.O. is to use this number of questions to attack science, because it's so inimical to their worldview. Religion abhors questioning past a certain point; science not only encourages but requires it.

      And this leads to your second mistake: religion simply does not admit the existence of questions, in a true scientific sense, because the root level of every answer to every question is "God did it." Theologians expend a remarkable amount of energy examining questions arising from the implications of their beliefs, but at the beginning and the end of their questions is one unquestioned truth -- God, literally as well as figuratively the alpha and the omega, the originator and answerer of all things.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    68. Re:Semi-serious? by localman · · Score: 1

      I think you're all kind of missing the point. Who cares why Eve was punished? I find it terribly unjust that all humans are to be judged by the mistakes of one. Put another way, if your great-great-grandfather was a murderer, should you be kept in prison? According to God... sure.

      And to anyone who thinks that I'm taking it too literally, be aware that God repeats this philosphy later. The "he" is Yahweh himself speaking:

      Exodus 34:6-7

      6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD , the LORD , the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
      7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

      Know your bible. Know what you are placing all your faith in. Start here. It's not only educational, it's fun.

      Oh, and before you go off on how the new testament changes everything think long and hard about why that is and what it means that God makes mistakes. If after all that you still believe every word in the bible without question, then consider yourself very lucky.

      Cheers.

    69. Re:Semi-serious? by zaffir · · Score: 1

      I think there's a difference between a good storyline for a book, and a good storyline for a game. Instead of observing what goes on like in a book or movie, a game story line has to place you inside the events. Therefore, stories with action are better than something like, say, Big Fish. How boring would it be to play through The Great Gatsby? Half Life's story was good because it did a good job of making you the action hero in the action movie. Something like Deus Ex is even better, because in addition to pull you into the action it brings up important moral issues, has good characters with well-defined personality, etc. But i wouldn't want to read a Deus Ex book.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    70. Re:Semi-serious? by cubicledrone · · Score: 0, Troll

      Without God to keep the laws of the Universe functioning, scientists would be very confused.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    71. Re:Semi-serious? by moranar · · Score: 1

      Douglas Adams said through one of his characters in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy that (paraphrased) "If God didn't want anyone to eat from the tree, he shouldn't have made it possible to do it. Avoid planting the tree, set up a force field, whatever (hey, it's god after all). God was actually out to get them. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit, he'd have punished them for something else."

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    72. Re:Semi-serious? by Czernobog · · Score: 1

      Except that by being christened you are absolved by exactly that. Check your facts next time.

      --
      /. Where the truth
    73. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you haven't, and won't. Only one man ever did.
      What about babies who die a few days after birth. Are they damned by original sin? Can't live a more perfect life than them
      The problem I have with believing that ONLY through Jesus can my sins be cleansed, is that having such a caveat means most people are damned. Basically everybody before Christ died is damned(including all those in the old testament, since Jesus did not die for them yet), much of the world up until last couple centuries never heard of Jesus (and thus could never be saved), and now most of the world isn't christian they are also damned.
      I cannot believe that a loving God would by default send everybody to hell unless they earned their way into heaven; The more loving thing would be to let everybody into heaven unless they commit sinister acts and earn their way into hell.

    74. Re:Semi-serious? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If that were the point, why would somebody have bothered to write it down?

      After all, by writing it down, somebody preserved knowledge potentially for all of human history. If the goal of the writers of the bible were to teach against gaining knowledge, they probably wouldn't bother to write...

    75. Re:Semi-serious? by wtrmute · · Score: 1

      Calling the medium semi-serious as of now is an unfortunate but true overview

      Here, check out this place. You may be pleasantly surprised.

    76. Re:Semi-serious? by kfg · · Score: 1

      The Original Sin was succumbing to Lucifer's temptation. . .

      I can find no reference to the Lucifer you speak of in the English, Hebrew or Greek texts of Genesis.

      KFG

    77. Re:Semi-serious? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I probably should have written "Don't gain knowledge of good and evil" So the prohibition was on gaining a certain type of knowledge.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    78. Re:Semi-serious? by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

      There never was a Job.
      Maybe Job just got outsourced?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    79. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > that the acquisition of knowledge
      > by man would make man akin to
      > the Gods in power

      Hm. Genesis 3:5 says that the serpent told Eve that if she ate of the fruit, her "eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." That doesn't mean that they would be as powerful as God - just that they would then know good and evil, as God also does.

      Besides, this is the serpent - the deceiver - talking to Eve. The Prince of Lies, as 'twere.

      > When man is akin to the Gods in
      > power than man will have no need of God

      Hm. I think this is a blind alley - since Eve ate the fruit and didn't become as powerful as God, I mean....

      > Heirarchical church structures [...]
      > teach it as disobedience.

      Hm. Not sure what you mean here....

    80. Re:Semi-serious? by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 1


      When told the same basic thing Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shnerson(z'tzl) was quoted as saying "The same god you don't believe in I don't believe in either."

      There are religions other than Christianity. And other christians than the christians you've met.

      And now a word from Willy Wonka:

    81. Re:Semi-serious? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      ...implying the medium is incapable of more is shortsighted and wrong.

      Games have victory conditions, or at least goals. How do you design game goals when religions vary so wildly about what is desirable and undesirable? Doesn't every possible choice endorse or reject some religion's views? Justice v mercy; great deeds v self-enlightenment; acclamation v anonymous servitude. Plus, every simplification of some point of doctrine offends some one -- this is not like simulating tire friction on a racetrack and leaving out the effects of race-day air temperature.

      The difficulty may go beyond whether gaming is a young art or whether the designers are sufficiently talented. There seem to be constraints on the video-game medium that make it a poor medium for exploring religion. I'm not convinced that it can be done or that the resulting game would be interesting to play.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    82. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 2

      > What about babies

      Since people are not saved by their good works, a baby can be saved like anyone else.

      > having such a caveat means
      > most people are damned

      The question, though, is "why is anyone at all saved?"

      > everybody before Christ died is damned

      No, some of them were saved as well. "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness", and all that.

      > I cannot believe that a loving God
      > would by default send everybody to
      > hell unless they earned their way into heaven

      That's not how it works. It's the other way around - we all do our best to offend God and to get into hell, but in His infinite mercy he chooses to redeem some.

    83. Re:Semi-serious? by Troy · · Score: 4, Informative
      The problem with using a single verse to make an argument is that there is a whole lot of remaining Bible that can provide clarity and context to that single verse.

      For instance, while that verse does say that Eve saw that the fruit would make her wise, the issue goes deeper than that. Look at the previous few verses:
      Genesis 3 (NIV):
      2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
      3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
      4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
      5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
      Reading the preceding verses, you see that the serpent tempted Eve, not with knowledge, but with Godliness. The serpant told Eve that

      1) God had lied to her
      2) She could be like God

      and Eve chose to believe him instead of God and ate it, gaining this very specific kind of ethical knowledge. Now the knowledge is important because it is what made Adam and Eve like God, but saying that the passage is big parable against the pursuit of knowledge is a little short-cited. If you go on to read the rest of the chapter (and the rest of the Bible) the big problem is not that Adam and Eve had gained knowledge, but that they had disobeyed God and striven to become like Him. This is proven throughout Scripture: whenever someone disobeys God or attempts to deify themselves, a divine bitch slap is always close behind.

      On the other hand, wisdom and knowledge (in the general sense) are praised multiple times throughout Scripture -- only when the wisdom/knowledge is gained in defiance of God is the person punished. God blesses Solomon with both wisdom, and from wisdom comes wealth and fame:
      I Kings 4 (NIV):
      29 And God gave Solomon exceptionally much wisdom and understanding, and breadth of mind like the sand of the seashore.
      30 Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the people of the East and all the wisdom of Egypt.
      31 For he was wiser than all other men--than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol. His fame was in all the nations round about.
      32 He also originated 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005.
      33 He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; he spoke also of beasts, of birds, of creeping things, and of fish.
      The entire book of Proverbs is one big love letter to wisdom and knolwedge....especially the first nine chapters.

      -Troy
    84. Re:Semi-serious? by EnsilZah · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that being agnostic or atheist means you're not interested in religion.
      I for example, though i can't think of a definition of a god that could exist, am very much interested in religion, i've been reading up on sumerian, egyptian, vodun religions, as well as christianity, gnostic christianity, judaism (Living in Israel it's a little hard to aviod) and a little Islam to name a few.
      Most of the people i know, though devout atheists, could probably name the basic outlines of at least three religions.

      As for Sci-Fi, you must be reading the wrong books buddy.
      I suggest you try Snow Crash or the Dune series, or The Sparrow or some of Phillip K. Dick's books.

      The problem with religion today as i see it, putting the logical arguments aside is that it's dead.
      Back in the day you had all these laws that made sense because if you ate a certain thing prepared a certain way you won't get food poisoning, and collecting wood and building a fire wasted a lot of time on a day you should have been resting.
      Now alot of it is just worhsipping some old books and some long dead people, as well as some live ones, and it's tradition.
      Some even use loopholes like setting a timer instead of pushing a button, or putting a string around a city so that it's technically your house.
      At a point when you're trying to outsmart your god, maybe you should reconcider your fait.

    85. Re:Semi-serious? by DoubleReed · · Score: 1

      Ok, so we live in a multi-cultural society, yet it seems everybody in this country assumes that:
      *every religion has a goal to convert/recruit people (like Christianity)
      *every religion locks horns/disagrees/is not compatable with science (like Christianity)

      religion != jesus

    86. Re:Semi-serious? by Troy · · Score: 1

      It's always fun when an atheist takes Scripture more literally than a KJV-only Baptist.

    87. Re:Semi-serious? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      How did they know that disobeying God was evil before they ate from from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    88. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you asking for an excercise in Greek exegesis?

      2 Cor. 5:21
      1 Peter 2:22
      Hebrews 4:15
      1 John 3:5

    89. Re:Semi-serious? by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      9 out of 10 scientists say ...

      Who are these scientists? And what are their degrees? Are the Christian Scientists? Maybe their Scientologists? Maybe they just have a bad sciatica?

      Groucho go home! Well I nevah!

      In all seriousness I get a little tired of hearing about "my best friend is a scientist and ..." yeah yeah yeah. Let me tell you something. There are no shortage of "scientists" (and I mean that as Hard Sciences, physics/biology/chemistry/etc..) that are devout religious believers either.

      Some more devout than you would expect!
      (yes I know a few personally, but then I'd be a hypocrite for basing my argument on that).

      Believing in G_d is not a sign of mental damage. Though I do tend to think (this is only a personal opinion) that precluding the notion of a god all together is a sign of mental damage (at least psychologically). Since all the evidence isn't in yet.

      Many great minds believed in G_d (in one form or another), and many of those minds are the ones you claim to be your intellectual forbearer's (Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Galileo). Don't get fooled by elitism. We don't have all the answers, and we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the sheer volume questions that arise(that arise on their own, not through inquisitiveness).

      Finally there is more to life than whether a quark is cute or strange. There is an ethical dimension to our lives. And if some one, of grander or lesser intellect than ourselves (isn't that just so arrogant?) should choose a system of belief centered upon an ethical imperative (whether we agree or not) who are we to say they are wrong? After all, we don't have all the answers.

      (disclaimer: If someone's religious beliefs include punching you in the face, there rights stop at your face)

    90. Re:Semi-serious? by abram10 · · Score: 1

      It's my opinion that science and religion CAN mix well. Without God, nothing can be explained. People talk of the Big Bang, in which a tiny speck of energy caused the creation of the universe. Who created the energy speck, if not a god? In several of the New and Old Testament Books, it is explained that God was always, and will always be, there. Jesus says, "Before Abraham, I am." I think that God supplied the materials for evolution and thought and such. I don't think that He's involved with every little event or emotion, but he facilitated these things. BTW, I'm part of the other 1% :-)

    91. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Because God specifically told them not to do it.

    92. Re:Semi-serious? by geminidomino · · Score: 1
      Disclosure: I'm Asatru, not an atheist.

      In my opinion, George Carlin said it best:
      When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you. --George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".
    93. Re:Semi-serious? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Unless we dismiss Christian and other religion as mere folklore (which they are), we will miss out on some critical insight into the nature of the Universe.

      Christianity has always had a downer on critical thinking and learning.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    94. Re:Semi-serious? by zenslug · · Score: 2, Informative
      It may very well be the case that lightning bolts are being cast by an omnipotent being. Our understanding of the natural causes of lightning suggest nothing either way.

      Please look here for an explanation of how lightning forms.

    95. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How do you _know_ that God does not exist?
      Not grandparent, but also atheist. For me it is a combination of observation, deduction and choosing the most simple possibility. God makes for a more complicated universe, and therefore in absence of evidence god does not exist.
    96. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, huh...I had to read your last post twice to believe it. At the core of christianity is the mandate to not look at the "man behind the curtain". I don't know the language of original transcription, but I do know the Greek equivs and 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' mean exactly what everyone thinks they mean. I'm sure that people have given other, softer interpretations, but that doesn't mean they are "correct" or even accurate to the original author's meaning.

      This is a clear warning to not try to re-interepret the word of God by seeking knowledge. Because if someone does that, it becomes clear just how silly most religious beliefs truly are. Genesis looks like a Madlib anyway.

    97. Re:Semi-serious? by Maddog2030 · · Score: 1

      So then they didn't need to eat from the tree, no? They already knew the difference between good and evil. The tree was just a normal tree?

    98. Re:Semi-serious? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament are clearly not the same person (if that is the right word). There are many stories in the OT that show the God of it as a lying vindictive vicious bastard.

      The God of the NT, we are taught is all loving and gave his only son to save us from our sins. This is clearly a different attitude from drowning everybody except Noah and his family or zapping ancient cities because there are some gay people in them or "hardening Pharoah's heart" to give you more opportunities to visit nasty plagues on the Egyptians. Do you want me to go on? The OT has literally hundreds of stories of God's nastiness.

      "There's nowhere else to go. He is, as it were, the only game in town."

      Err, that'll be news to the Budhists, Hindhus, humanists, atheists etc etc etc.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    99. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but science will reject your explaination because you have absolutely no proof that your claims that diverge w/ science are true. Every theory (theories can't become laws, that is as far as theories go) in science has a set of experiments that provide proof that the theory is true. Religion never bothers to give any such proof on any part of their explaination, just faith. Well faith never held up a bridge, or made rockets fly, or any of the millions of things that we now take for granted. Religion survives to the modern era because of political and psychological reasons, but that doesn't mean it is any more correct than the dilusions of a crazy person.

    100. Re:Semi-serious? by Maddog2030 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you decipher what should be taken literally and whats just to prove a point? I think the Bible is to just be intepreted as a book of moral beliefs of an ancient group of people.

      Reading it so literally as to actually believe in an invisible man in the sky ruling our universe would be taking the Scriptures too literally.

    101. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      Right.... Do you have a point?

    102. Re:Semi-serious? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Is that the only conclusion? Must it be? What kind of wisdom does the original Hebrew word talk about? What about other possibilities supporting facts? It is unfair to make any conclusion without considering these questions.

      It's even more complicated than you think. There are reasons to believe that the 'Garden of Eden' myth is a Jewish adaptation of other, older myths, which is also mirrored in other cultures. A tree, a serpent, a man and woman, eating fruit, gaining knowledge, a change in universal status, etc. However, the Judeo-Christian interpretation of this as a 'fall from grace', i.e. a 'bad thing' is fairly unique.

      In many forms of the myth, it's a story about woman and/or the serpent benevolently inducting man into a higher level of being. In any case, if you read some translations of the old Jewish creation myth, it's not even clear that any of this is a punishment. God tells man not to eat the fruit, and when man does, God says "Oh, now you'll have to walk the earth and plow the soil and life will be harder, etc..." but it's not really stated like "You did this bad thing, here's the punishment I've devised." It's more like "Eh, look what you've done to yourself. You've gotten yourself into a much different world, and you'll have to live with this."

      Maybe it's like a dad coming home and finding his son is completely drunk off of his (the dad's) liquer. So, he's like, "Eh, poor stupid kid. You're going to be throwing up tomorrow, and you'll have a headache." If the son wakes up hung-over the next morning, it's not because the dad is punishing him with a "curse of headaches and vomiting".

      Anyway, it's one example of various groups having different interpretations of the same thing and insisting that theirs, clearly, is the only one that could have any measure of validity. Too bad.

    103. Re:Semi-serious? by skwirl42 · · Score: 1

      But without the knowledge of good and evil, they have no knowledge that disobediance is evil. Without any concept of good or evil, the only yard stick to measure actions by is "will this bring me pleasure, or pain?" And if you don't know, then the question comes, do you want to know?

      In any case, no religious precept can be argued for logically, because none are based in logic. They are based in dogma, and dogma is not logic.

      ---

    104. Re:Semi-serious? by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about zenslug's point, but your addition of an imaginary figure doing imaginary things doesn't change how lightning really forms.

      Deulsions come in all shapes and sizes.

    105. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were specifically told not to do something; they did it.


      But without knowledge of good and evil, how did they know that either obeying or disobeying God was a good thing to do? And if they didn't (and couldn't!) know, why were they punished?
    106. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God told them not to eat of the tree, but he didn't tell them that eating of the tree was evil, so the previous poster's question remains unanswered: how did they know it was evil to eat of the tree?

    107. Re:Semi-serious? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      You're the idiot. Science and religion have been and always will be at fundamental odds with each other, regardless of some bozo scientists who claim differently.

      However, there is one point which you may just appreciate.

      Science resulted from the blending of Greek rationalism with Gnostic thought. Gnosticism (in some cults, anyway) advocated the transcendence of humanity by specific practices (The word "Transhuman" derives from the Greek "transhumanar"). These concepts led to the development of occultism, which in turn led to the development of alchemy, which in turn led to the development of the science of chemistry. (A parallel development occurred in China where Taoism in pursuit of alchemical immortality resulted in considerable early biochemical knowledge.) Science essentially resulted when people in pursuit of the goals of religion (or more precisely , spiritual goals) diverged from occult thought and adopted rationalism as their basis. This is the classic "Faustian" split.

      And in the end, Transhumanism will prevail and achieve the Gnostic goals of transcending human nature, and just incidently, totally destroying all religion - especially the monotheistic ones, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    108. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree. And I'll ask you the same question as I asked him.. do you have a point, or are you just adding apparently extraneous information to the thread?

    109. Re:Semi-serious? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      *sigh* This shouldn't be so hard to understand. Let's assume God created the universe, and then stuck someone in it (let's call this person Adam). So, God had absolute control over every aspect of the Universe, and Adam himself.

      Now, God presents Adam with a choice, knowing full well the decision Adam will make. Now, remember, the choice Adam makes is based entirely upon who he is, his experiences, where he is, etc, etc, and all these things are controlled by God. Therefore, because God created everything, and because God knew ahead of time that, by doing things a certain way, Adam would choose a specific path, it can be surmised that God engineered things such that Adam would make a specific choice. IOW, there is no possible way Adam would do anything else except what God chose. Thus, Adam did not truly have a choice... it sure *looked* like he had free will, but in reality, what he would do was a foregone conclusion. God then punished Adam for making a choice that HE ALREADY KNEW HE WOULD MAKE!

      Or, to take your dog-and-steak example. I have a steak and a dog, and I say to myself "If that dog eats that steak, I'm going to shoot him". Then, I put the dog in the room with the steak, knowing before hand that that dog will eat the steak. So, if I shoot the dog, is it the dog's fault, or mine?

    110. Re:Semi-serious? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, he's not, because he doesn't exist.

      Anybody who wastes time debating nonsensical religious concepts with a moron is a moron.

      And I'm not debating here - I'm just declaring you a moron. Which is fun, basically.

      Your religion is bullshit, your beliefs are crap, no doubt your politics is equally asinine, and you personally are a moron.

      Fortunately your kind are doomed to death.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    111. Re:Semi-serious? by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Galileo would agree with you.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    112. Re:Semi-serious? by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      Yet he sent his son to die for our sins. Odd, isn't it?

      Everything just has to be settled by someone dying, doesn't it?

      There's nowhere else to go. He is, as it were, the only game in town.

      Interestingly enough, there are some morals that seem pretty much universal, such as not murdering or stealing, being polite and respectful, the work ethic, and the golden rule. These arose spontaneously in many cultures, even the many cultures that didn't have your God. It's no surprise; they have inherent utility in any society. I think it's pretty clear that He isn't the "only game in town". There's a phrase for assuming, despite all the evidence, that your religion is the sole source of morality: religious egocentrism. Don't let it happen to you (tm)!

      Don't [ignore the old testament], or you'll miss out on the lyrics to U2's song "40".

      I'll also miss out on a lot of rascism, sexism, and stuff that seems downright evil and non-Jesuslike. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

    113. Re:Semi-serious? by rchorse2000 · · Score: 1

      Your point isn't hard to understand, I just happen to disagree. I disagree that God controls everything that goes on in the world or the universe. He certainly influences things, but he doesn't control every situation we are placed in and he doesn't force people to make choices. If he did, why would he allow people to sin? The bible says repeatedly that God hates sin and wickedness. He creates people with certain tendencies, but also gives them the freedom and ability to make choices contrary to those tendencies. He allows them that freedom even when it will be used contrary to his will because that's the only way people can grow and progress. God doesn't control peoples' choices because people don't learn and grow that way, and our growth and progress is what God is ultimately most interested in. You're free to disagree, and obviously do, but my position does not come from a lack of understanding the countering argument. As for the dog and steak example. If you say to yourself you're going to shoot the dog, that's not the same as telling the dog IN A WAY THE DOG UNDERSTANDS COMPLETELY that you will shoot him if he eats it. If the dog understands the consequences, then still eats the steak, it's completely his own fault. Now, you could say I was evil for putting the dog in such a difficult situation. But if I wanted to train my dog to obey me even in extremely difficult circumstances, such a temptation would be necessary to help him learn.

    114. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Disobedience that warranted damning them and billions of their children to eternal torment?

      I think you're missing the point entirely. Notice that they ate not from the tree of knowledge, but from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

      They lived in an idillic place, where one can only chose from acts of good. She could not for example chose to kill Adam, because it simply wasn't a choice for her. It's hard to get your head around it (I think impossible) to live in a world where "evil"; barring obvious generalization, is not possible.

      Now, they made the choice. They made the choice to live in a place where there is good and evil. They didn't only gain wisdom, but the knowledge of good and evil. Think of it as being in an animalistic state and the fruit being rationality.

      Now, given the choice of living in that idillic place or living in our current one, where there's lots of bad and also lots of good. Was the choice so bad? It's a choice like any other, I personally enjoy life, so I don't think it was a bad decision.

      We can get into the whole good and bad are both good, ying and yang and all that, but then we'd have to get into zen.

      lazyAC

    115. Re:Semi-serious? by zenslug · · Score: 1
      It may very well be the case that lightning bolts are being cast by an omnipotent being. Our understanding of the natural causes of lightning suggest nothing either way.

      My only point was to refute this claim. I'm not sure it was really what you meant to do, maybe you were being hypothetical, but I thought I would point out a resource, just in case.

      Science answers the how while religion answers the why. They can coexist without interfering with one another. The problem is when someone mistakes a religous explanation for why something happens with an explanation as to how it happens. Knowledge of the physical world was much more limited at the time of the bible and the birth of almost all of today's religions. If the bible is taken literally and the how is taken at face value while ignoring current scientific data, that is fairly ignorant. But that doesn't mean that the bible's explanation of the underlying why should necessarily be taken to be false. It can be up to reinterpretation, perhaps, but I think it is valuable to understand that the two can be taken separately.

    116. Re:Semi-serious? by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1
      Or, to take your dog-and-steak example. I have a steak and a dog, and I say to myself "If that dog eats that steak, I'm going to shoot him". Then, I put the dog in the room with the steak, knowing before hand that that dog will eat the steak. So, if I shoot the dog, is it the dog's fault, or mine?
      Amen! ;-)

      Seriosly though, how are you people not understanding this? I guess it's because you have faith.

      faith Pronunciation Key (fth) n. : Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    117. Re:Semi-serious? by LSD-25 · · Score: 1

      There's no need to use C++ to write a video game. I'd look at a higher-level programming language like Python, or an environment like Flash. Most games use a combination of C++ and a high-level scripting language. You could write a mod for a FPS (e.g. Quake III or Unreal Tournament) or a RPG (Neverwinter Nights, maybe). Does anyone else have suggestions?

    118. Re:Semi-serious? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that God controls everything that goes on in the world or the universe.

      Interesting. It sounds to me like you don't believe in an omnipotent God. I find this interesting, since I've never heard of a Christian who didn't believe in an omnipotent God...

      if you say to yourself you're going to shoot the dog, that's not the same as telling the dog IN A WAY THE DOG UNDERSTANDS COMPLETELY that you will shoot him if he eats it.

      What difference does it make. *I knew ahead of time the choice he would make* (since I am, in this example, "God"). So, I knew he would make that choice, despite my warnings, and knowing this, I still put him in this situation and punished him for his "decision". Tell me again, how is this the dog's fault?

      Of course, if you don't believe in an omnipotent God, this argument is pointless, anyway. :)

      Which brings me around to the root of this discussion... the question was one of "choice". If you don't think God is omnipotent, then clearly, people have choice. However, if God is omnipotent, then there is no true "choice" (from God's perspective), as per my previous argument.

    119. Re:Semi-serious? by rchorse2000 · · Score: 1

      It's possible to believe God is omnipotent without believing he controls everything. He has the power to control everything, but he chooses not to. "What difference does it make. *I knew ahead of time the choice he would make* (since I am, in this example, "God"). So, I knew he would make that choice, despite my warnings, and knowing this, I still put him in this situation and punished him for his "decision". Tell me again, how is this the dog's fault?" I clearly explained how that's the dog's fault. He made the choice while fully comprehending the consequences. Let's improve the analogy to say that if the dog doesn't eat the steak, I'll give him a steak tomorrow that's twice as big. I put him in the situation because I want to reward him with a big steak, but only if he'll obey me. If he eats it, then it's his decision and his fault. Even knowing the dog will eat it now and get shot, if I don't put him in the situation, I am denying him the opportunity to get the bigger steak. The dog could rightly claim that I am unjust because I took away his right to choose and his shot at the much larger steak. The analogy isn't great, but I think it's understandable. Again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me. My only point is that intelligent people can believe different things, especially in the absence of much evidence either way. You don't have to be stupid or mentally weak to be religious.

    120. Re:Semi-serious? by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1
      ... (and just continue to regurgitate popular arguments we were taught in Sunday School)...
      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    121. Re:Semi-serious? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

      > How do you _know_ that God does not exist?

      How do you _KNOW_ the God exists? Please, show me some hard evidence for the existance of God and then maybe I'll take your religious flaming seriously.

      Honestly, beliefs are beliefs, and the sooner you learn to keep them to yourself, the sooner you avoid flame wars.

    122. Re:Semi-serious? by smellygeek · · Score: 1

      There are many stories in the OT that show the God of it as a lying vindictive vicious bastard.

      Or is this simply the way you choose to understand it?

    123. Re:Semi-serious? by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you're just being an asshole at this stage, but all the replies were in direct reference to this portion of your post:

      But the more fundamental problem is your misidentification of the type of answers science is capable of giving and what this implies about religion. It may very well be the case that lightning bolts are being cast by an omnipotent being. Our understanding of the natural causes of lightning suggest nothing either way.

      Your instertion of non-existant forces shows that perhaps you don't really understand. The grandparent was trying to help you. You were trying to be flip with your non-reply, so I made it obvious.

    124. Re:Semi-serious? by mikebelrose · · Score: 1

      Don't be a nitwit.

      I absolutely hate it when people assume that they must be right, and therefore anyone of separate opinion must be an idiot.


      Do you realize you just called someone a nitwit, while complaining about being called an idiot?

      The divisiveness between those such as your self, and those of the religious persuasion, is that you dismiss that which you do not understand (evident that you seem to think that our world is 'explained' so well already!), while a religious person stands in utter amazement at the number of questions.

      You can't use an agnostic argument to prove theism over athiesm. You can only use it to disprove both.

    125. Re:Semi-serious? by paskie · · Score: 1

      Ad Noah: This was at the start of the journey. Flip the page and read what happenned after the waters were gone. The wine affair etc.

      Ad Zacharias and Elisabeth: The same thing.

      Another example of this omit-context argumentation:

      osgeek:9740177 "What a cool god you have!"

      Glad you praise the God! (Although rather unconventionally....)

      --
      It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
    126. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      But you haven't refuted it at all.

      What's interesting (really!) is that you point out that science is limited to answering HOW something happens, and acknowledge that religion answers WHY questions. That was close to my point in the first post. (Although, I would go a step further and claim that there is no good reason to claim that HOW questions can't be answered by religion, as well.)

      Maybe the confusion is in my wording, which I intended to be taken as an anthropomorphism. Not that this omnipotent being has a hand and an arm and threw a lightning bolt in the way that a man throws a baseball, but that this being, as creator of the universe and its "laws," could conceivably will lightning strikes in something like the fashion that you or I will our alarm clocks to go off at a particular time, or mix ingredients into cake batter so it will turn out a certain way. Knowing the material causes of lightning sheds no light whatsoever on this matter.

      It's difficult for me to understand how science and religion can co-exist without some interference. Attempts to explain how they can are usually either based on the assumption or lead to the conclusion that HOW statements put forward by scientists are always to be preferred over religious HOW statements. As a conservative Christian (not necessarily a synonym for "young earth creationist"), I find this view unacceptable.

      At the same time, I don't think that the prevailing religious view should always trump what scientists think in anyone's mind. Even though the Christian has God's inerrant Word (which does make HOW statements), he does not have an infallible interpreter.

      So, the position we find ourselves in occasionally is a conflict between the dominate view(s) of the bible and the dominate scientific view(s). I am not aware of a good, systematic way of resolving every difficultly, but my personal method is to consider the relative merits of each on their own turf, to the extent that I am qualified to do so. How probable is this view of the biblical data verses How probable is this view of the scientific data?

      In considering things this way, I am fairly comfortable affirming an old universe (15 or so billion years old), but remain agnostic about evolution.

    127. Re:Semi-serious? by canicus · · Score: 1

      I think your question is fair. I've heard quite a few different interpretations of this passage. Gen. 1-11 is hardly a simple matter.

      Personally, I like the view that they would eventually be allowed to eat from it when they were mature enough. That, of course, is my personal opinion.

    128. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Which makes God quite sadistic when you think on it. If it is true that Adam and Eve had zero knowlege whatsoever about what makes the difference between good and evil, then that means God was being cruel when he decided they needed to be punished for disobeying his order to avoid eating from the tree of knowlege. After all, why follow god's orders? Is following god's orders something you should do because it is Good? If so, then that's knowlege that was still being kept from Adam and Eve, artificially, BY god himself, and they couldn't possibly be expected to realize there was anything wrong with disobeying god until after they had the knowlege from the tree.

      This is one of the big problems I have with literal Christianity. It's moral system as portrayed by it's fables isn't even *internally* consistent.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    129. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eve didn't have the knowlege of good and evil yet, according to the fable. That's what the tree was going to give her. So how is it that it was right for God to expect her to know that it was good to obey god's order and evil to disobey it? That was knowlege that, according to the story itself, was being deliberately kept away from her.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    130. Re:Semi-serious? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Though I do tend to think (this is only a personal opinion) that precluding the notion of a god all together is a sign of mental damage (at least psychologically).

      As opposed to the other types of mental damage? Hey, I have an idea: How about we ask an expert in psychology if atheism is a sign of mental damage, instead of just believing whatever we want?

      Your statement is designed to discredit your opponents, and is thus an ad hominem attack. It is a logical fallacy.

      Since all the evidence isn't in yet.

      ROFL! I'll tell you what: Let's reconvene this discussion in a month; I hear all the evidence is due to be in by then.

      Are you seriously suggesting we never, ever preclude the existence of gods, despite a complete lack of evidence, just because we're not omniscient?

      Your statement is an appeal to ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

      Many great minds believed in [God], and many of those minds are the ones you claim to be your intellectual forbearer's.

      See, here's the thing: Scientists put stock in the great minds of yore, but only within their field of expertise. I would defer to Stephen Hawking about questions of cosmology, but I give his opinions on economics or child rearing no special weight. As soon as a scientist starts talking about religion, he becomes a member of laiety.

      Your statement is an appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy.

    131. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I first learned bible stories (as a Bahii, not as a Christian) I thought they were *all* fables, and that INCLUDES the really important core story - of the ressurection (still do). I remember the day I finally figured out that other people took it seriously. It wasn't until 6th grade. I was terrified because I had the epiphany of realizing I was surrounded by insane people. It was really frightening. To this day I find it hilarious that religious scholars try to sift which parts are metaphor from which parts are literal - thereby gaining the ability to make their bible say whatever they want it to say. That's why someone telling me "I'm a Christian" gives me no fruitful information whatsoever on what their moral views are. People have used the same book to defend just about anything from opposite sides - all by careful selective choices as to which parts to highlight and which parts to gloss over.

      People pick their morality FIRST, and then try to mesh it with their religion SECOND. Religion doesn't cause morality. It is used by most as their *justification* for it.

      The Bahii religion was supposed to expose me to many different religions so I could "learn" that they were all the same at some core level and thus came from the same core god. Instead I learned that they were all the same at some core level and thus were most likely made up by ordinary people. I can't really remember ever having been a believer.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    132. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      Please see my reply to him: "Maybe the confusion is in my wording, which I intended to be taken as an anthropomorphism. Not that this omnipotent being has a hand and an arm and threw a lightning bolt in the way that a man throws a baseball, but that this being, as creator of the universe and its "laws," could conceivably will lightning strikes in something like the fashion that you or I will our alarm clocks to go off at a particular time, or mix ingredients into cake batter so it will turn out a certain way. Knowing the material causes of lightning sheds no light whatsoever on this matter."

    133. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Yes. But foreknowledge does not imply a lack of choice.

      It does if the entity with the foreknowlege is omnipotent and omniscient. The idea of a god with those two properties existing is incompatable with the idea of people having free will. For me to have free will, God has to be capable of having made the WRONG prediction about my choices. Otherwise my future is already written and fated to be what god thinks it's going to be.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    134. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      If we as a people just dismiss Christian and other Religion as mere folklore.

      There is nothing "mere" about folklore. It tells us much about what a people believed, how they thought, and what their core values were. It's just that it fails utterly to tell us a single thing about the real world outside of social human concerns.

      Questions like "is there a God" are NOT RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS. They are scientific ones. Period. They belong in exactly the same category as "is there a Sun", or "is there life on other planets". Questions like "What should we do with the world, given it's current state - how do we want to change it?" THOSE are religious questions. This is one of the big beefs I have with religions these days - they take questions of pure fact and try to attach moral signifigance to them, and that's just plain, well, *wrong*.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    135. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      Whatever the tree did for/to them, Adam and Eve had some knowledge of moral categories prior to eating from it. Eve at least understood the notion of punishment. Possibly they understood abstractly what evil/disobedience was, but had no experience of guilt or shame. It's an interesting point!

    136. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      How do you know for sure that Leprechauns don't exist? Do you? Can you disprove them? Yet I suspect that you don't believe in them, most likely. Neither do I. Yet I don't have a single shred of proof that they cannot possibly exist. I also have no proof that there are no US Navy aircraft carriers painted blue with pink polkadots, yet I'm not going to give the idea any shred of benefit of the doubt.

      Proof is unnecessary for disbelief, because disbelief is the reasonable default hypothesis for any proposed existence question. It's the only falsifiable position.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    137. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      while a religious person stands in utter amazement at the number of questions.

      Your implication that this requires religion is, of course, a lie.

      When presented with an unkown, the atheist labels it as "unknown". The theist labels it as "god".

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    138. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      And if some one, of grander or lesser intellect than ourselves (isn't that just so arrogant?) should choose a system of belief centered upon an ethical imperative

      then they are doing the exact same thing as everyone else, atheist or otherwise.

      Ethical systems do not require belief in a god.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    139. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      How did the earth form - religion DOES try to answer this "how" question. How did the plants and animals get to be here - religion DOES try to answer this "how" question. I don't know where you get this idea that religion stays away from the "how" questions. At least at first it did. It has had to slowly retreat from that over the years so that *today* it just has the "why" questions left, but that's relatively modern.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    140. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Science asks 'how?' where religion asks 'why?'

      False.
      How did the earth form?
      How did the plants and animals get here?
      Religion's retreat into staying with only the "why" questions is a relatively modern development, one borne from the fact that it really did a terrible job at the "how" questions and had to retreat or look silly. So now the mainstream Christians no longer try to defend a literal interpetation of Genesis - because Genesis is mostly a "how" book, not a "why" book.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    141. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everyone knows Genesis makes the most sense when read in the original Klingon.

      Sorry. That's why you get for talking about this on Slashdot.

    142. Re:Semi-serious? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Python? Interesting.

      In fact I'm a veteran with Flash scripting; it makes life really easy for putting together graphics, though you can't go very in-depth with the video engine or do much in the way of 3d rendering, beyond manual wireframes and isometrics. It's not very high-level compared to from-the-ground-up coding, but it does the trick for all your 2d material.

      Maybe I could look into a few alternatives.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    143. Re:Semi-serious? by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Funny

      No - Lightning is caused by the God Thor - Shame on you - Heretic!

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    144. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how about this:

      Surely resisting temptation is a moral choice. How could Eve make the moral decision to resist Satan when she did not yet have the knowledge of Good and Evil.

      It was a trick: she couldn't know she had done wrong until she did it.

      Of course, this is only if you choose to take this stuff literally.

    145. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original sin wasn't Adam and Eve's.
      It was Lucifer's.
      That sin was pride (a desire to be worshipped).

    146. Re:Semi-serious? by elbobo · · Score: 1

      The fact remains that God did not want them to eat from the tree. He didn't want them to have knowledge.

      What exactly he was punishing them for is secondary to his rationale for denying them the privilege in the first place.

      It also doesn't change the basis of religious belief, which is to take on faith things that you have no real knowledge or proof of. It's a fundamentally opposed system to science.

    147. Re:Semi-serious? by DakotaK · · Score: 1

      This is the exact sort of thing that makes me unable to stand atheists. Science does not prove God exists, at least not right now. Science also "proved" that the sun orbited Earth and that Fire, Wind, Water, and Earth were elements that made up everything. What's to say what we know right now isn't completely wrong? I'm not flaming or anything (though I'm sure it's gonna be modded so), that's just my opinion. And just for the record, I'm a Buddhist.

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    148. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Are you seriously suggesting we never, ever preclude the existence of gods, despite a complete lack of evidence, just because we're not omniscient?

      >>Your statement is an appeal to ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

      Are you implying that we can preclude the existence of gods because we are not omniscient? If you are, that too is an "appeal to ignorance."

      It all falls back to blind faith, on both sides. Some people have faith there is/are god(s), others have faith that there is/are no god(s). Both are reasonable hypothesis with no supporting evidence one way or the other.

      Anecdotally (bad science, but still), I have also noticed that the fanatics on both sides seem to be about equally religious (in fact, evangelical) in their beliefs on the issue.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    149. Re:Semi-serious? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

      This is the exact sort of thing that makes me unable to stand atheists.

      Sorry, you're wrong. I am not an atheist, but thank you for trying.

      Science does not prove God exists, at least not right now.

      Look at the parent. Did I ask for scientific evidence? No, I said show me some evidence. By the way, beliefs can exist without evidence, but I'll be damned if someone tells me that their beliefs are the way and that I accept it without thinking for myself.

      For the record, I am pagan.

    150. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I empathise with you, really I do.

      But you should have realised, that with Slashdot having such a high number of Americans, you were bound to annoy a few religious right nutters :)

      (Isn't it sad to realise there's only about 5% or so atheists in the world? To think we're so technologically advanced, but most people love to believe in a world of superstition and fear: Demon-haunted world indeed)

    151. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They lived in an idillic place, where one can only chose from acts of good. She could not for example chose to kill Adam, because it simply wasn't a choice for her. It's hard to get your head around it (I think impossible) to live in a world where "evil"; barring obvious generalization, is not possible.

      But if it was impossible for her to do evil, why was she able to disobey God?

      Your logic is faulty. If they could only do good, they wouldn't have been able to be tempted, and wouldn't have been able to disobey God (which apparently was evil enough to get them cursed with mortality and banished from Eden). But they did, according to the Bible. So they must have been capable of evil (which is pretty much a given if they are allowed free will)...

      I advise you to just realise the Bible as an old book that was useful for communities many generations ago, to get along and live by basic rules for the benefit of society. Nowadays we have evolved in terms of culture and knowledge. We can leave the superstitions behind.

    152. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post.

    153. Re:Semi-serious? by gracefool · · Score: 1

      The hebrew translated as "knowledge" doesn't refer to intellectual knowledge, but more of an experiential knowledge (which helps make sense of the story, as Rostin mentioned above).

      So the text makes it clear that God wasn't punishing "knowing things intellectually" but "knowing them experientially" - the only way to have the knowledge good and evil is to experience both.

    154. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on what? The Bible itself?

    155. Re:Semi-serious? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Sorry. That's why you get for talking about this on Slashdot.

      Yeah, In know. I try to follow Asimov's dictum that there is no point in discussing religion with people whose standpoint is that reason does not apply, but sometimes the spirit is weak.

      KFG

    156. Re:Semi-serious? by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      many of the religions of the world do not believe in all-powerfull gods.

      In the old celtic religion the gods and man battled over control of ireland, and man won.

      In norse mythology gods are mortal, and the god Balder is killed by an arrow. Moreover they are definately not omniscient they are often tricked while dealing with their "evil" counterpart the Giants.

      The totally invincible and ompipotent god seems in fact to be restricted to the judeo-christian-islamic religions. Religions which all stem from tribal religions in the dead sea region.

    157. Re:Semi-serious? by canicus · · Score: 1

      No, actually not. It's taught in some Church Fathers and held in the Orthodox Church. As such, I get it from the Church, and this, I think is defensable. The text does not say that they would never be able to eat from the Tree. It simply says God commanded them not to. We bring that to the text as an assumption.

    158. Re:Semi-serious? by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      Reading the preceding verses, you see that the serpent tempted Eve, not with knowledge, but with Godliness.

      Well, now, wait a minute - the very verse you quoted puts that to the lie.

      The serpant told Eve that

      1) God had lied to her
      2) She could be like God


      Take it one step further - in what way will she be like God? The verse tells us:

      For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

      So it's fairly disingenuous to claim that Eve's goal was Godness and not knowledge, when the verse itself tells us that she would achieve Godness only in the limited aspect of knowing good from evil.

      Moreover how someone without the knowledge of good and evil could be held accountable for the moral choice to disobey God is beyond me. Like George Bush, God seems to have no trouble putting to death those who lack the mental maturity to make informed moral decisions.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    159. Re:Semi-serious? by Lynxara · · Score: 1

      I think the deities from the Greco-Roman tradition tended to be portrayed as all-powerful... well, compared to humans, at least. You especially get a lot of invincible deities in the latest parts of the Roman tradition, when they were starting to deify increasingly abstract concepts.

      I think between this and the Juedo-Christian-Muslim tradition you mentioned (which is from a region not far removed from the Greco-Roman region), Western culture inherited its idea that godhood equates to absolute power.

    160. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you don't want to take the Bible literally, we can spend days discussing how the "resurrection" can be looked at metaphorically.

      As soon as you open the door to try to give yourself a bunch of wiggle room, you utterly doom any attempts to have the Bible prove something supernatural occurred thousands of years ago. It becomes just another primitive set of writings by a primitive set of people willing ot believe anything in an age long before Science.

      I have the most respect for those who attempt to take the Bible literally. Their motives and base reasoning for what they believe in is the most pure... they're completely wrong like you are, but they make a better start at it. :)

    161. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      But Christians say that people cannot EVER BE PERFECT because of Original Sin(tm).

      It doesn't matter how Noah or Zacharias or Elisabeth or Job died. The fact that they were said to be "perfect" at any time in their lives is an utter indictment of the concept of Original Sin. Perfect People

      If you want to look at the status of people when they ended their lives on this Earth, you can always look at the story of Enoch, whom God felt was good enough to take directly into heaven without dying.

    162. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Oh, one of my favorite games to play: "The Bible is obviously contradictory in so many ways to itself and my religious beliefs that even the enormous latitude afforded me by the English language aren't enough to get out of some serious problems -- so I have to try to manipulate an old little-known language so that I can somehow sleep at night".

      Yeah, that's a fun one.

      Even with your definition of Tam of "fulfilling one's duties", Noah and Job has been referred to by God as being good people worthy of his favor. Trying to redefine Christian's own interpretations of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic is lame in the extreme.

      So, apart from all of these word games over "perfect" that you have to so tortuously go through to preserve your belief system, let's get down to another aspect of moral perfection... being able to get into heaven to be with "God". Obviously, "God" felt that some were perfect enough to get into heaven without the help of Jayyyzusss. Remember Enoch?

    163. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was indoctrinated into Catholicism when I was young and became fervently "born again" when I was a teenager. It wasn't until I was in my twenties that my love for logic was able to overcome my natural fear of death and my useless love of a god who just wasn't there.

      Although my parents didn't know any better, I've always felt betrayed for being taught to trust in something that should have been so obviously false to anyone who took the time to study it critically.

      You're probably better of for never having wasted the energy on trusting in a god in the first place.

    164. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      > it means that free will is illusory:

      Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.


      Prediction IS foreknowledge. What kind of word game are you trying to play?

      Druid phrased the problem quite well, but let me try to see if you can follow these steps:

      1. God had a choice to create the universe however he wanted to. He's God, right?
      2. God had foreknowledge that I would become (and most likely die) an atheist.
      3. Atheists suffer eternal torment in Hell.

      Therefore, God created the universe that he knew would result in my eventual eternal torment in Hell. Better to not ever have created me than to create me so he could punish me forever.

    165. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > in absence of evidence god does not exist

      What evidence would you find compelling?

    166. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They already knew the difference
      > between good and evil

      They knew that to disobey God was wrong, right.

      I've heard it explained like this: before Eve ate, they were unable to sin; after Eve ate, they were unable not to sin.

    167. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > God of the NT, we are taught is all loving

      No, he's not. He still demands payment for sin. But Jesus made that payment.

      > that'll be news to the Budhists [...] atheists

      These can't both be true, because they contradict each other.

    168. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > But without the knowledge of good
      > and evil, they have no knowledge
      > that disobediance is evil

      They knew that to disobey God was wrong - that's why Eve said "God told us not to eat of the tree".

      > no religious precept can be argued for logically

      To the contrary, we can indeed logically evaluate religions based on their claims.

    169. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > how did they know that either
      > obeying or disobeying God was a good
      > thing to do?

      They knew that disobeying God was wrong; that's why Eve told the serpent that God told them not to eat of the tree.

    170. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > how did they know it was
      > evil to eat of the tree?

      They knew that disobeying God was wrong - that's why Eve argued with the serpent for a bit when he tempted her.

    171. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Anybody who wastes time debating
      > nonsensical religious concepts with a
      > moron is a moron.

      Would you call the British atheist Bertrand Russell a moron? After all, he wrote a book "Why I Am Not A Christian".

      > your kind are doomed to death

      Heh, true, but who ain't?

    172. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Everything just has to be
      > settled by someone dying

      Seems like it. For more on this topic, "Till We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis is a good read.

      > These arose spontaneously

      Did they? Then are they binding in any sense?

      > religious egocentrism.

      Heh, yes, and there's a phrase for assuming the sun is at the center of the solar system - heliocentrism.

      > non-Jesuslike.

      Don't forget that Jesus was the one that said "no man comes to the Father but by me".

    173. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > show me some hard evidence
      > for the existance of God

      The parent poster had said he was an atheist - i.e., he knew that God did not exist. So I asked him how he knew that. Perhaps he's an agnostic, instead - i.e., he's not sure whether or not God exists.

      > beliefs are beliefs

      Hm. Do you feel that beliefs cannot be discussed reasonable?

      > the sooner you learn to
      > keep them to yourself,

      Heh, well, you know, that's what happens in a thread called "Game with God" :-)

    174. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > if the entity with the foreknowlege
      > is omnipotent and omniscient

      This seems to be our point of disagreement. We need to find a different way to approach this; I think we're talking past each other.

      > Otherwise my future is already written
      > and fated to be what god thinks
      > it's going to be

      Hm. The thing is, that God exists outside of time. He doesn't see the future stretching ahead and the past trailing behind. So God doesn't "think something's going to happen" - instead, he sees it as it occurred/will occur/whatever.

    175. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > because disbelief is the reasonable
      > default hypothesis for any
      > proposed existence question.
      > It's the only falsifiable position.

      Succinctly put. But there's a great deal of evidence that the universe was intelligently designed.

    176. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Prediction IS foreknowledge.

      How's that?

      > God had foreknowledge that I would become

      No. He had foreknowledge that you would _choose_ to be an atheist for a certain period of time. Who knows what else your life will bring? Good things, I hope, oh thou poster to this day-old Slashdot thread! Nobody left here but us chickens...

    177. Re:Semi-serious? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Some people have faith there is/are god(s), others have faith that there is/are no god(s). Both are reasonable hypothesis with no supporting evidence one way or the other.

      Here is where you and I must part ways. Yes, there is no evidence one way or the other; I'll agree to that. What I cannot agree to, though, is the assertion that both resulting stances are reasonable. I don't see how it can be reasonable to conclude, on a total absence of evidence, that something exists. To be fair, I have not declared that there are no gods. I simply state that in the absence of evidence, it is not reasonable to conclude they exist. The only rational stance is, Not Proved.

      Let me approach this another way: If the evidence for or against gods is silent, then all choices carry the same empircal weight. The Judeo-Christian God exists, or the Hindu pantheon exists, or the Greek pantheon exists, or no gods exist, among countless other possibilities. In all but one scenario, one must show preferential treatment to one set of gods over another. This kind of discrimination is necessarily based on personal preference, since evidence is lacking.

      But using personal prejudices to make decalrations about what's real or not is not by any means reasonable. The only consistent approach is the one where all gods are treated equally: Assume none exist. Then, to be fair about it, allow for the introduction of new evidence, see how well it comports to your world-view and, if it does not fit, adjust your world-view accordingly.

      If evidence for any particular god or gods appears, I'll be among the first to accept their reality. Until such time, though, it doesn't make sense to do so. I might as well buy into the notion that there's an invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage.

    178. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well this kind of post almost makes me hope that humanity never manages to transcend.

      If all transhumanists have your sort of shallow, bigoted mentality, then living in a post human future would be worse than being a Jew in Hitlers Europe.

      Have a nice day!

    179. Re:Semi-serious? by paskie · · Score: 1

      No, (AFAIK :) Christians say that people cannot ever live a perfect life, the original sin causes everyone to make a sin - at least once. They cannot live a sinless life (with the exception of those who die in the baby age).

      Ad Enoch, Christians believe that everyone must die, and that he will come back to the Earth at the end of days (and, well, presumably sin). Well, they at least believe Elias will return, I'm not 100% sure by Enoch now but I think they do believe he will return too.

      Disclaimer: IANAT (I'm not a theologist), also these beliefs can vary between churches.

      --
      It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
    180. Re:Semi-serious? by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      But they are just as likely caused by the phantom blue dots that are the true puppet masters of the universe.

      The instertion of a divine will adds nothing to your understanding of the world.

    181. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      Supposing the "the world" is defined narrowly enough, and we have no other reason to believe one way or another, you are correct.

      But my point was and is, "religious" explanations of phenomena are not necessarily supplanted by "scientific" explanations, even if we suppose scientific explanations to be 100% accurate, as far as they go. People are not bound to become less religious simply because we learn more about the physical world. That was the original assertion/assumption of the great great (?) grandparent.

    182. Re:Semi-serious? by yumbrad · · Score: 1

      I wrote about what this Slashdot article got me thinking about... And I talk about the apparent arbitrary nature of the world God has created. Apparent being the key word. You can choose to believe it is arbitrary.

      http://yumbrad.com/archives/2004/07/20/the-story /

    183. Re:Semi-serious? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      You want some notion about who supported Hitler?

      Check out a recent fact I learned the other day - that the World Congress of Zionists supported Hitler. Why? Because they knew it would force emigration to Israel, that's why.

      I think it was Ben Gurion or one of the other top Zionists that said if he could save all of Europe's Jews by sending them to England or only half by sending them to Israel, he would take the second option.

      The Zionists have been honking the Holocaust horn for decades to justify genocide against the Palestinians. If you read any of the quotes from the Zionist literature going back to the nineteenth century, you will see that they advocated racism, land theft, genocide and murder against the occupants of Palestine for long before the Holocaust. Jabotinsky was recently quoted in an article by Stan Goff as specifically advocating racial purity for the Jews in Israel - Goff commented that the statement could have come directly from the mouth of Hitler.

      This is what you get when you have moronic religious beliefs.

      There's no distinction between a Zionist and a Nazi when it comes to racism and genocide.

      You want bigoted? Talk to Jerry Falwell or Ariel Sharon. Don't come to me.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    184. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Succinctly put. But there's a great deal of evidence that the universe was intelligently designed.

      I have heard that claim put forth, but it has two problems:
      1 - When someone making that claim lays out that evidence, it doesn't look convincing to me.
      2 - Even if it did, there is a wide gap between believing the universe was created and picking a particular diety over another. At best it only gets you a fuzzy sort of belief that doesn't amount to anything useful, and has no conclusions that can be drawn from it, such that there's really not much of a point to it at all.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    185. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > that evidence, it doesn't look convincing

      That's fair, although I disagree.

      > there is a wide gap between believing
      > the universe was created and
      > picking a particular diety

      Yes, I agree, concluding that the universe appears to have been designed is only a first step. This conclusion raises many questions, though - who is the designer? Why did he make us? How should we then live? And all that.

    186. Re:Semi-serious? by detlev409 · · Score: 1

      Well, for any number of Biblical documents, there are actually historical references to go by. Obviously, the bible isn't the only surviving text from that era.

      --
      Howdy.
    187. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did Eve know that obeying God was good, if she hadn't yet eaten of the tree? The whole point of the tree is that it confers knowledge of good and evil.

      But in any case, you're reading into the passage more than it says. Eve told the serpent that God told them not to eat of the tree, because the serpent asked her whether God said they could eat of any tree. "Did God tell you that you could eat from any tree?" "Yes, except for that one." It was a factual response to a question of fact. It doesn't say anything about whether Eve knew that it was good to obey God; it just says that Eve knew what God had told her that she shouldn't eat of the tree.

    188. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eve didn't argue with the serpent about whether it was right or wrong to eat of the tree. The serpent asked her whether God had forbidden it, and she said yes. The serpent then proceeded to tell her that it was okay to eat from the tree, and she did. Before doing so, she didn't object on the basis that she had to obey God. There's nothing in there that even implies that she knew ahead of time that it would be wrong to obey God. If anything, it implies that she couldn't tell the difference between the serpent saying whether something was okay, and God saying whether something was okay.

    189. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > she said yes

      Actually, she said "yes", and then said that God had said some stuff that he hadn't. So she was starting to slip even at that moment.

      > There's nothing in there that even
      > implies that she knew ahead of time
      > that it would be wrong to obey God.

      Hm. She knew that God had told them not to eat of that tree. Are you really suggesting that she didn't know that to disobey God was wrong? Isn't that a bit implausible?

    190. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      This conclusion raises many questions, though - who is the designer? Why did he make us? How should we then live? And all that.

      If you ask those questions you have already gone far beyond that first step because you are assuming *we* are designed and planned for, in addition to the universe being designed. A possible Creator is one that didn't plan all the tiny little details out, and therefore doesn't even think anything special of us, out here on our third stone from a rather ordinary sun, sitting in the outer spiral arm of one of many medium sized galaxies.

      If there is a creator, and he did design us, and we are the reason the entire universe was made, then either he's an extremely inefficient designer to have wasted all that space, or we are just one life form of many he designed, or else maybe the only technique he could use was a brute force semi-random technique and he's not all that omnipotent after all - just more potent than we are but he's still got some limitations to work with.

      It's because of scenarios like the above one that I don't just come out and say "there cannot be a god".

      I am however perfectly comfortable saying that the god described by Christianity is not possible given the universe as it exists.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    191. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The parent poster had said he was an atheist - i.e., he knew that God did not exist. So I asked him how he knew that. Perhaps he's an agnostic, instead - i.e., he's not sure whether or not God exists.
      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Many atheists distinguish between strong or positive atheism (the belief that no god(s) exist) and weak or negative atheism (nontheism, or the lack of belief in any system of theism). The parent poster did not indicate which type of atheist he was.

      Agnosticism is, classically, an epistemological position that proof of the existance of god(s) is unavailable or unknowable. This belief is compatable with atheism, theism, or polytheism (Fideism encorporates strong agnosticism with christian faith, for example.)

      It's true that pop culture tends to oversimplify these two different concepts into one spectrum, but self-identifying athiests are much more likely than the general populace to have familiarity with the formal definitions of these philosophical terms, so it's not a valid assumption to assume that every self-identified atheist professes strong atheism.

    192. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Science doesn't prove anything... and it doesn't make the claim that it does. What science does is to find the best hypothesis to fit the available data. That's it.

      While it's true that the ancient Greeks came to a consensus that the universe was geocentric, Aristarchus argued for Heliocentrism in 270 BC and the concept was actively debated. Aristotle mentions this controversy, but concluded that heliocentrism would require the stars to be unreasonably far away in order to appear unmoving from Earth and rejected it for that reason. Yes, the scientists of that time got it wrong, but in ancient greece geocentrism was not considered "proved" - rather, it was a subject of active debate.

      It was the Church which later objected to this debate when Copernicus found new data in support of heliocentrism, not "Science".

    193. Re:Semi-serious? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Oh wow you got me, I never realized that... you've convinced me I am now an atheist... oh wait you're not so smart. Did you bother to do any critical thinking yourself

      I think you mean "translating" not "critical thinking". He went to an actual bible looking for people said to be "perfect" or "rightous", and came back with verse numbers and everything. And you come back with you're better at hebrew translation than whoever translated the bible? Not even that his bible has a faulty translation, this bible has a good one, that his bible has a faulty translation, so read mine instead? If you're so good at hebrew, you make an english translated bible.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    194. Re:Semi-serious? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      > > What about babies >Since people are not saved by their good works, a baby can be saved like anyone else. Aren't Christians saved by believing in Jesus? If so, how can a baby be saved since a baby can't understand the concept of Jesus?

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    195. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, she said "yes", and then said that God had said some stuff that he hadn't.


      Like what? She said that God told her that they could eat of the trees, except for one; if she ate from it or touched it, she would surely die. That's accurately stated previously, except for the touching. Is that what you're nitpicking over?


      So she was starting to slip even at that moment.


      Again, you're reading a lot into it that isn't there. How do you know that she was "slipping"? There are many possibilities, e.g.:

      1. She could have been mistaken.

      2. She heard it from Adam, who garbled it.

      3. She was right and God did say what she said, because part of what God said simply wasn't recorded in the earlier chapters. It's conceivable that the Bible doesn't state every single thing that God said.

      It's quite a big leap to infer willful disobedience on her part even though she knew better, even if you're willing to accept that she attributed something to God that God didn't say. (And hey, even if she was outright lying, we come back to the same question: she didn't and couldn't know that it wasn't good to lie.)


      She knew that God had told them not to eat of that tree. Are you really suggesting that she didn't know that to disobey God was wrong? Isn't that a bit implausible?


      I don't think it's at all implausible: it's my whole point! How could she know? That's the question you keep dodging. So tell me, how could she have known? It was eating of the tree that gave her the knowledge of good and evil -- that's the whole point of the tree. Before that, she literally didn't know what "good" was, so she had no way of knowing that obeying God was good.

      It looks very much from those passages like Eve was completely amoral before eating; incapable of distinguishing between the goodness of what God said and the evil of what the serpent said. It's only after she has eaten that she starts pleading that she was "beguiled". That's also consistent with the nature of the tree. Claiming that she knew that obeying God was good, before eating of the tree which gave her knowledge of "good", is inconsistent.
    196. Re:Semi-serious? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Prediction in the context we're using it is knowing what will happen in the future. A prediction is normally a "statement" telling of foreknowledge -- but for the purposes of this discussion, the two are equivalent.

      You tell me... how are they different?

      No. He had foreknowledge that you would _choose_ to be an atheist for a certain period of time.

      I write software for a living. Programs are my "creations". If I write a program that I know will crash at a given point in time, I don't say that my program "chose" to crash. I made it that way, I knew it was going to happen. I can play word-games about "free will" all day long, but that would be in direct denial of the facts.

      oh thou poster to this day-old Slashdot thread! Nobody left here but us chickens...

      I'm just having discussions with people, not whoring for attention or karma. How old the discussion is or who else can see our cleverness isn't really relevant to me.

    197. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > the outer spiral arm

      I daresay you're familiar with this Python ditty.

      > either he's an extremely inefficient

      Well.... it's difficult to make assertions about inefficiency concerning God. If it costs him nothing to create, why not create a lot?

      > we are just one life form of many

      Hm, could be, dunno.

      > the only technique he could use
      > was a brute force semi-random

      Possibly.

      > I don't just come out and say
      > "there cannot be a god"

      Quite right.

      > the god described by Christianity
      > is not possible given the universe
      > as it exists

      Well... _not possible_, them's pretty strong words.

      Concerning the "outer spiral arm" bit - yes, the universe is big and the earth is small. But an odd thing happended several thousand years ago - a fellow was born under odd circumstances, made all sorts of outlandish claims about being God, did many very interesting things, and then died and came back to life again. This gave many people pause for thought, and still does to this day.

    198. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > [strong/weak atheism distinction]

      Yup, although I've heard it referred to as "hard-core/soft-core". But, same thing. And I was hoping to engage the original poster in an exploration of which category he felt was most valid.

    199. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Aren't Christians saved by believing in Jesus?

      In Ephesian 2:4-5, the Bible says "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ". So Christians are saved because God draws them, not because they're chasing down God trying to find them. Rather, we tend to run away from God and avoid him as much as possible. That's why sometimes folks refer to the Hound of Heaven.

      Here's a question for you, though - why should God save any of us? Babies/adults/whatever? What claim do we have over God that he should care for us?

    200. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > except for the touching.
      > Is that what you're nitpicking over?

      Exactly.

      > How do you know that she was "slipping"?

      It seems unlikely that she would be confused upon this, the one prohibition that was recorded at this point.

      > how could she have known?

      Augustine explains the doctrine of sin using a 4 part formula - "posse peccare, posse non peccare, non posse, non peccare" (possible to sin and possible to not sin before the fall; not possible to not sin after the fall). So before Eve ate the fruit, she knew what sin was, but was able to not sin.

      > Eve was completely amoral before eating

      No, but she was able _not_ to sin.

    201. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1
      > how are they different?

      Hm. I feel like the word "prediction" implies uncertainty. I can predict that the Yankees will win the World Series, but I don't have foreknowledge that they will.

      > I write software for a living
      cout << "Birds of a feather, to be sure.\n";
      > Programs are my "creations".

      I agree, saying that computer programs have free will is silly. But I don't feel that the "me->program, God->people" analogy holds together. It stands to reason that we can only create things lesser than ourselves, and a computer program is less than a person. God created people, and we're less than God.

      > I'm just having discussions with people

      Touche! I was caught up in a moment of levity, it seems.
    202. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems unlikely that she would be confused upon this,


      It's not so hard to imagine that given a warning not to eat from a tree might, in her (or Adam's) mind and over time, become associated with an avoidance of the tree altogether. Children do that sort of thing all the time, and Adam and Eve had a childlike naivete.


      the one prohibition that was recorded at this point.


      Eating of the tree was the prohibition that was recorded at this point, remember? It was the one that counted, and she knew about it. Touching the tree may or may not have been another prohibition, which in either case was not recorded.

      Even if she wasn't confused, I still don't see how you can logically go from "knowingly attributing to God something that God didn't say" to "knowing what sin is". The former simply does not logically imply the latter.

      You're just guessing here. As I already pointed out, it's possible that she wasn't confused, but was also without knowledge that she was doing wrong. It's also possible that she was just lying directly, still without knowledge that she was doing wrong. And it's possible that you're simply wrong from the start: God did forbid touching the tree.

      I don't and can't know what may be right -- and neither can you -- because it wasn't said, but that's not important; I'm not claiming that any particular one of them is right. You, on the other hand, are claiming you do know which possibility is right, on the basis of no stated information. But my possibilities (and there may be more, those were just off the top of my head) are all consistent with the stated nature of the tree, unlike your theory.

      Of course you ignored these points. Why do you think you know what happened? Personally, I think you're reading what you want to see into the passage; even if you were right and Eve knew about sin ahead of time, I still wouldn't buy your interpretation that Eve was "already slipping" because of what she said. It's simply too large a leap to make on the basis of one, indirectly-related phrase.

      It seems rather ... incautious ... to base such a point of doctrine on guessing what to read between the lines, rather than what is actually said.


      So before Eve ate the fruit, she knew what sin was, but was able to not sin.


      This doctrine contradicts the nature of the tree, as I already mentioned, and you ignored (for like the fourth time in this thread). The tree is what gives the knowledge of good and evil -- that is stated explicitly; it's not just an inference like your unsubstantial guesses. She could not have had knowledge of sin or evil before eating of it.

      Which passage states that Eve knew what sin was before she ate, anyway? Please don't tell me that this interpretation rests directly on your Gen 3:3 "slipping" theory.

      So, I'll ask you just one more time: How could Eve have known what sin was, before eating of the tree that gives knowledge of good and evil? And what is the direct Biblical support for your claims?

      Look, maybe your position is justifiable, but you haven't yet justified it anywhere in this thread. As it stands, there's more direct support for "Eve was amoral before eating" than your "Eve knew what sin was and the ability to knowingly not sin before the Fall" interpretation.
    203. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Adam and Eve had a childlike naivete

      Why do you say that?

      > you ignored [...] you're reading what you
      > want to see [...] too large a leap

      Hm. I'm not making this stuff up; this is what Augustine said. Of course, he may have been wrong, and it's good we're examining his arguments, but this is not a newly hatched viewpoint that we're discussing...

      > She could not have had knowledge
      > of sin or evil before eating of it.

      To the contrary, she could have had knowledge of what evil was, while retaining the ability to not sin.

      > there's more direct support for
      > "Eve was amoral before eating"

      God gave Adam and Eve a specific command and expected them to obey it, and they apparently did so for some period of time. Doesn't this chain of events support them having some moral faculties?

    204. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you say that?


      They were innocent of an awful lot before the Fall, much like children. But even if they didn't, it's not very hard for me to imagine adults doing it either.


      I'm not making this stuff up; this is what Augustine said.


      I didn't claim otherwise. I think it's just as large a leap, and reading too much into it, for Augstine as for you. Appealing to authority doesn't change anything I've said.


      She could not have had knowledge of sin or evil before eating of it.

      To the contrary, she could have had knowledge of what evil was, while retaining the ability to not sin.


      How could she have had knowledge of what evil is, before eating of the tree??? The tree is what gave the knowledge of what evil is! Knowing what evil was before eating of the tree contradicts what the Bible says about the nature of the tree, namely that it is the very thing that gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil.


      God gave Adam and Eve a specific command and expected them to obey it, and they apparently did so for some period of time. Doesn't this chain of events support them having some moral faculties?


      Eve sinned the very moment the serpent suggested she do otherwise. To me, this supports Eve being amoral; the alternative didn't even occur to her until somebody suggested it, and once suggested, she couldn't distinguish between the rightness of the two options, so she made up her own mind, since it had food, and looked nice, and gave knowledge.

      Personally, I think that Eve knew what sin was and had the seeds of disobedience already in her, she wouldn't have needed the temptation of the serpent; she'd have eaten it on her own long before.

      But anyway, that's just my theory, and doesn't relate to my fundamental point. That point has been raised about five times by myself and others in this thread, and you've failed to answer it every time, even when I put it in bold last time. So I don't think there's any use in my posting further; I've been trying to get a question answered about what I perceive as a fundamental contradiction, and you haven't answered it, and have shown no signs of being able to answer it.
    205. Re:Semi-serious? by Rostin · · Score: 1

      I don't know any Hebrew, but I would like to comment on your criticism of this post.

      There is no polite way to say this, so I'll just be blunt. You are wrong to feel that appealing to the original languages is "manipulation." The bible was not written in English, and serious study of the bible is almost always based on the original languages. You are placing weight on an English translation that most Christians wouldn't place on it. To put it another way, you are bashing a straw-man, and then dismissing the genuine article without any real engagement when your fallacy is pointed out.

      The simple fact is, unless you know something about the Hebrew, you are not in a position to casually dismiss this argument.

      I think if you appreciated all this, appeals to the original language would seem less manipulative to you. The trouble with most amateur skepticism is that everyone thinks they're experts, and when the argument moves out of their depth, instead of listening, they moan and complain (or in your case, mock) that their opponents aren't playing by the rules they've made up.

      Interestingly, a perusal of even an English dictionary reveals that the word "perfect" has many definitions. Moral perfection is not necessarily (or even commonly) implied, so far as I can tell.

      With regard to Enoch and others who "ascended" to heaven, a portion of Calvin's commentary on John 3:13:

      "'No one hath ascended to heaven.' He again exhorts Nicodemus not to trust to himself and his own sagacity, because no mortal man can, by his own unaided powers, enter into heaven, but only he who goes thither under the guidance of the Son of God. For to ascend to heaven means here, "to have a pure knowledge of the mysteries of God, and the light of spiritual understanding." For Christ gives here the same instruction which is given by Paul, when he declares that

      the sensual man does not comprehend the things which are of God, (1 Corinthians 2:16;)

      and, therefore, he excludes from divine things all the acuteness of the human understanding, for it is far below God."

      I suspect Calvin, if presented with your challenge, would be somewhat confused. The assumption of Enoch and Elijah into heaven as historical events, he would say, were not what Jesus had in mind. Forcing that meaning onto Jesus' words makes nonsense of what he seems to be saying to Nicodemus. (Beyond the flow of the immediate text, I would add that it also makes no sense in light of the fact that Jesus had himself not yet bodily ascended. Also, Jesus claims that he is "in heaven" presently, which certainly seems to suggest that he doesn't intend his words to be understood in a physical sense.)

    206. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Appealing to authority

      True, an appeal to authority is not an argument. I guess I felt you were getting a little frustrated, and I wanted to note that this ground has been trod before.

      > How could she have had knowledge
      > of what evil is, before eating
      > of the tree???

      God could have given it to her.

      > The tree is what gave the
      > knowledge of what evil is!

      Or took away the ability to not sin.

      > it is the very thing that gave
      > Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil.

      I think we're arguing over the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil".

      > Eve sinned the very moment

      Well, no, first she noted that God had prohibited it. The serpent had to convince her to do wrong.

      > she'd have eaten it on her own long before

      Hm. Wouldn't that contradict the account in Genesis?

      > So I don't think there's any use
      > in my posting further

      Ok.

    207. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God could have given [knowledge of sin] to her.


      No, that's what the tree did.


      The tree is what gave the knowledge of what evil is!

      Or took away the ability to not sin.


      I recognize the ambiguity of the written word, but under no stretch of language am I able to interpret "giving knowledge of evil" as "taking away the ability to not sin". So yes, we are arguing over the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil".


      Eve sinned the very moment [the serpent suggested she do otherwise].

      Well, no, first she noted that God had prohibited it. The serpent had to convince her to do wrong.


      What I said was correct: Eve sinned when the serpent suggested she do otherwise. (She noted that God had prohibited it, but that was before the serpent suggested disobedience. Her noting what God said doesn't clearly indicate her being concerned or aware of the moral consequences, as it was simply a response to the serpent's question, and not something she brought up on her own.) There's no evidence of any internal debate where Eve is deciding to eat despite knowing better.


      [If Eve knew what sin was and had the seeds of disobedience already in her, she wouldn't have needed the temptation of the serpent;] she'd have eaten it on her own long before

      Hm. Wouldn't that contradict the account in Genesis?


      It can't contradict Genesis, because it's hypothetical: I am hypothesizing that if Eve already knew what sin was and had the seeds of disobedience in her (which I don't believe), she would have eaten of the tree long before on her own, without the serpent egging her on. Contrapositively, because she didn't eat of the tree long before, she must not have known what sin was -- she was amoral. (If my hypothesis is correct, of course.)

      Anyway, I suppose I have an answer to my question now; you think that the "knowledge of evil" means "the loss of the ability to not sin". I don't buy that argument, but at least I know where someone else is coming from on this.
    208. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Well... _not possible_, them's pretty strong words.

      Yes. And I meant them. I speak very plainly and honestly about this, no matter whom it may offend.


      But an odd thing happended several thousand years ago - a fellow was born under odd circumstances, made all sorts of outlandish claims about being God, did many very interesting things, and then died and came back to life again.

      The only evidence that backs this up is that there exist people who believe it for some inexplicable reason. If that was sufficient evidence to go on then I'd have the problem of having to believe in hundreds of contrary religions.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    209. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > I speak very plainly and honestly about this
      > matter whom it may offend

      Oh, I didn't mean that those words were offensive. I meant, saying that something is impossible is a very strong statement. Because it's rather hard to know what's possible and what's not. I was surprised to here you make such a definite statement. It's not, well, as pragmatic, I guess, as your other comments earlier in this thread regarding other cosmological possibilities.

      > The only evidence that backs this up is
      > that there exist people who believe it

      Oh, I don't know. There's a fair bit of evidence that Jesus existed. And he appears to have said and done some remarkable things. It's all about evaluating historical evidence. After all, how do we know that, say, Christopher Columbus existed?

      > contrary religions

      Right, they certainly all can't be true.

    210. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > And I meant them.

      I'm curious, though - what about Christianity do you feel is impossible? Not implausible, or distateful... but impossible?

    211. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      I thought some more about this last night. I think that there's something to what you say about Eve - after all, the Bible says that she was deceived, but just that "Adam ate". And only after Adam ate were their eyes opened. So it kind of seems like Eve was less responsible than Adam. Not sure if that's extrapolating too much... dunno.

      Also, another approach to this discussion is to see what our conclusions are - you know, the logic thingy where you assume the opposite (pi is finite, or whatever) and then go from there to find a contradiction. So if God "set up" Adam and Eve in the Garden and deliberately put a trap there for them, what does that say about God? It doesn't seem to jive with the rest of Scripture.

    212. Re:Semi-serious? by WNight · · Score: 1

      And why did god say not to do it? Because it was the fruit of knowledge. You get the feeling that we're going in circles here? Maybe because the only evidence for any of this is a book written by its supporters?

      Original sin and damning an entire race for one member not following an arbitrary command sounds just as stupid as if the fruit was the reason. Your nit-picking is irrelevant. Either way, your omnipotent god was so upset at his orders not being obeyed that he blamed everyone till the end of time for the sins of their mother.

    213. Re:Semi-serious? by WNight · · Score: 1

      To keep others from looking for answers? They're trying to keep people from eating other fruit. They've done quite well, look at this thread and see how many people believe in something with no proof.

      These people don't understand that 'X exists' and 'X doesn't exist', while being the two possible cases, are not necessarily both as likely. If there's no proof that something exists, it's reasonable to act as if it does not.

    214. Re:Semi-serious? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Nobody could ever convince you to be an athiest. We're content to point out contradictions in your precious book and watch you squirm. Watch you dig deeper into the original language to pick another word, where convenient, to bolster your cirular reasoning.

      You're only proving that when motivated, people can justify anything and go to incredibly lengths to avoid having to actually take responsibility for their own lives.

      Even if you're perfectly right about the meaning in the ancient Hebrew, something which itself is somewhat circular because the bible is a large part of the surviving texts, it's still just a book which makes unsubstantiated claims. Even if you manage to prove that you've got a perfectly pure copy and to somehow read it flawlessly in the language in which it was written, it's still just a story and you've proven nothing about the outside world.

      Congrats.

    215. Re:Semi-serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that there's something to what you say about Eve - after all, the Bible says that she was deceived, but just that "Adam ate". And only after Adam ate were their eyes opened. So it kind of seems like Eve was less responsible than Adam.


      I heard someone else suggest the opposite; that Eve had all the responsibility. The argument goes like this: Eve didn't know what sin was before she ate, but she did know after she ate, and then she knowingly got Adam to eat -- that's what God was upset about. The chronology is a little unclear; it's not completely explicit whether she convinced Adam to eat before or after she ate herself. (But under this interpretation, it's hard to see why Adam got such a raw deal.)


      So if God "set up" Adam and Eve in the Garden and deliberately put a trap there for them, what does that say about God? It doesn't seem to jive with the rest of Scripture.


      Well, there is that, but the rest of scripture isn't exactly clear on what God's intentions were with putting the tree there, either. But if you want to take the position that it doesn't jive with the rest of scripture, then you can resolve it either by saying that you're misinterpreting Genesis, or you're misinterpreting something else in the scripture.

      To me, the Genesis account always seemed clear-cut in saying that they couldn't have known they were doing wrong ahead of time; that leaves either the possibility that God was setting them up -- which I suppose you could accept as part of the Biblically stated nature of God, even if God is nicer in other places; I think that's what many of the people who brought that up in this thread were heading for -- or the possibility that God had something else in mind (leaving the question of what).
    216. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > what God's intentions were with
      > putting the tree there, either.

      Perhaps He wanted to give them an opportunity to choose to obey him...

      > the possibility that God had something
      > else in mind

      C.S. Lewis explores the idea of a planet where the life forms didn't fall in Perelandra . Good stuff...

    217. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      See above post.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    218. Re:Semi-serious? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      One thing that is a problem when talking about "Christianity" is that that word does not have a clear definition because the book on which it is based (The bible) is taken differently by different people - there will be some who say that "Parts A, B and C are literal and D, E, and F are metaphorical", while others say "No, that's all wrong. D, E, and F are the literal parts and A, B, and C are the metaphorical parts." and still others who say "No, all of them are literal, A B C D E and F", and so on. Through these kinds of games people can make their own worldview be whatever the heck they feel like and still claim to be Christian. (Which is why I try not to assume anything about a person's morality when they claim to be Christian. The zillions of variations on the theme make it so that that statement tells me almost nothing at all about them. You can end up with both Martin Luther King Jr and some dumb hick white supremicist both claiming to be true Christians even though their concepts of what is moral are completely opposite from each other.)

      Anyway, with that preamble aside, the point is that when I say the Christian god cannot possibly exist, I am referring to the one you would get if you interpreted every part of the bible 100% literally. The type of god envisioned by a literalist interpretation of every bible verse. It cannot exist because the bible has contradictory descriptions of his properties. It's like someone describing some shape he saw, and claiming it is both a triangle and a square.

      (One contradictory pair of properties is that god gives us free will, yet is also 100% guaranteed to know what our future moral choices will be. For example, he allegedly knows if you will make the right decision to be saved or not since before you were even born. This sets up the situation where I am simultaneously fated to make certain choices and free to make those choices - and that is contradictory just like a square triangle.)

      (It also claims Jesus is the SON of god, and that Jesus *IS* God.)

      (It also claims that god won't punish the sons for the sins of the father and also that God sent a plague to kill the firstborn sons in Egypt for what their families did.)

      In addition to the INTERNAL inconsistencies like that, there is also several external ones - like the age of the earth, and the order in which genesis said the components of creation were made is out of order with what has been discovered since then. (Even if you take the 6 days of creation as a metaphor (And this is one of the only places where that kind of interpretation is logical, since there is no such thing as a "day" without a rotating earth and a sun yet.), there is still the problem that the events are described out of order.)

      As far as Jesus existing, that is insufficient evidence for claiming anything about the religion is true. After all, Mohummed is a historical figure that existed. The Buddha is a historical figure that existed. And yet it is impossible for Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism to be simultaneously true.

      Note that Jesus's existence predates the recording of any of new testament quite a number of years, and so he wasn't around to refute any of the stories people were saying about him. Josh McDowell's "Lord Lunatic or Liar" argument is really, really naive because it ignores the more likely explanation - "misrepresented".

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    219. Re:Semi-serious? by Troy · · Score: 1
      I can see the reasoning behind your claim, though I have a hard time conceding to your point because the theme of knowledge -> punishment does not carry through in the rest of Scripture. What does carry through is the theme of disobediance -> punishment, which is why I tend to read those few verses in that light. The fact that wisdom and knowledge are, in general, praised throughout Scripture also leads me to believe that my interpretation of those few verses is more accurate the your own.

      Moreover how someone without the knowledge of good and evil could be held accountable for the moral choice to disobey God is beyond me. Like George Bush, God seems to have no trouble putting to death those who lack the mental maturity to make informed moral decisions.


      First....please....never ever ever compare Bush to God. Just contemplating the thought made me 15% dumber than I was before. :)

      Of course, you pose a big question that people who take the Bible seriously have struggled with for a long time...and no answer is really satisfactory, so I won't even try to address this answer in general.

      In this particular instance, however, I don't even think the question of morality pops up on the radar until some time after the deed is done. To Eve I think the issue is a much more primitive issue of power and obediance than morality -- she did the one thing her creator told her not to do.

      Of course, this issue is kind of moot, since I believe very strongly that the first parts of Genesis are more mytho-poetic than historical or scientific.

      -Troy
    220. Re:Semi-serious? by Troy · · Score: 1

      I don't think Biblical truth is an all-or-nothing proposition. In fact, Biblical literalism is only a relatively recent development in Christian thought, really only popping up in the last couple hundred years. For centuries people have been able to regard Scripture as being both authoritative and reliable without resorting to literalism; I can believe in the reality of the Resurrection while still reading Gen 1 as a mytho-poetic account.

      So, I wouldn't call the literalist approach "pure" so much as I would call it "ignorant." Literalists seem to always be ignorant of the history of Scripture's development, the influences that history and culture exerts on Scripture, the purpose of Scripture throughout centuries of Christian thought, and the multiple issues that arise when one tries to render Scripture in English.

      A friend of mine wisely observed that you can take Scripture seriously or literally. I choose the former.

      -Troy

    221. Re:Semi-serious? by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'm torn between doing a point by point reply and posting something sort of general. I guess I hesitate to do the point-by-point thing because I bet you can Google up all sorts of discussions on the Trinity, old/new earth creationist, Gospel document dating, and the free will/omniscience issue as well as I can.

      I think what I find most convincing about the Bible is the way it rings true with what I see around me. If the Bible claimed that everything was great and life was a bowl of cherries, it wouldn't fit life. Or it could claim that there was some kernel of secret knowledge that could only be obtained after years of study and meditation and mentoring. But it doesn't.

      Instead, the Bible says that evil exists, and all people sin, and that sin must be paid for. These are all things that I see around me, even in my children, who, without any tutoring on my part, run to me shouting "tommy took my bear! he needs to go to his room!". They know that something unfair was done, and that it needs to be addressed somehow.

      I'm afraid that this was a very unsatisfying reply... I apologize. I've been thinking about how to reply since I read your post last night, and this is the best I could come up with. Cheers!

    222. Re:Semi-serious? by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

      No, original sin is going against God's will. Remember the tree that Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat of? It wasn't called the "Tree of Knowledge". It was called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". God simply told them not to eat of it and if they wanted to disobey God it was always there for them to do so.

      You think God held any knowledge back from them? Well the bible doesn't mention it so you'd have to wildly speculate and read your own opinions into it. You can say that Adam and Eve lived in blissful ignorance if you wanted to, or you could say that God never held any knowledge back from them, even the knowledge of what it was like to oppose His will. And God isn't holding any knowledge back from us these days. We are free to explore the world as greatly and deeply as we can. God never holds knowledge back!

    223. Re:Semi-serious? by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      To Eve I think the issue is a much more primitive issue of power and obediance than morality -- she did the one thing her creator told her not to do.

      But that's a moral issue. The only reason she wouldn't have decided to disobey would be because she would know that was wrong. But she didn't know right from wrong. Ergo, she had no reason to obey.

      It's unreasonable for God to expect obedience from a human who lacks the knowledge to know that disobedience is wrong. It's unreasonable to punish Adam and Eve for doing something that they had no moral sense to prevent them from doing. Especially when that sin was the development of moral sense.

      God's essentially faulting humanity for making the moral choice to gain moral sense. That's inherently paradoxical and to my mind, unfair.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    224. Re:Semi-serious? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Here I thought we were discussing theology, not religion.

    225. Re:Semi-serious? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Just a question; where exactly do you get the idea that Eve ate the forbidden fruit 2000 years ago ? (hint: even raving mad christian fanatics generally place the event at around 5000 B.C.)

  19. This is a good thing. by ZeroGee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A "serious treatment" of religion is not needed in games. Maybe in a form of edutainment, but not a game! Do you want to play SimWorshipper, where you choose your religion (Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Christian, and Jew, with Sikhs and Wicca forthcoming in an expansion pack) whereby you must go to synagogue/church/mosque once a week, or click to use the prayer mat, or else sit outside and meditate with nature? Then after 20 game-years have elapsed, you start trying to convince your game children to marry within the religion? Of course, we could always do "The Passion of the Christ, the officially licensed game," and give Icon Entertainment another few hundred million dollars, allowing you to be beaten for an hour and try to still stay alive by mashing the circle button. You could also argue there's been no real treatment of "sex" in video games either. Let's make a realistic sex game where the sheets smell and you have to do laundry, you have to rummage through your underwear drawer for condoms, and your roommate comes home in the middle and you have to suddenly get quiet! No thanks. Games don't have to address everything. They're supposed to be FUN.

    1. Re:This is a good thing. by mdvlspwn99 · · Score: 1

      Realistic sex in games? Slashdotters wouldn't know if it was realistic or not.

      --
      If reality was like Slashdot, most people would be (-1) Redundant.
    2. Re:This is a good thing. by EtherBoo · · Score: 1

      I need to agree....but honestly, who here wouldn't want to play a video game remake of Pulp Jesus?

    3. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you want to play SimWorshipper, where you choose your religion (Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Christian, and Jew, with Sikhs and Wicca forthcoming in an expansion pack) whereby you must go to synagogue/church/mosque once a week, or click to use the prayer mat, or else sit outside and meditate with nature? Then after 20 game-years have elapsed, you start trying to convince your game children to marry within the religion? Of course, we could always do "The Passion of the Christ, the officially licensed game," and give Icon Entertainment another few hundred million dollars, allowing you to be beaten for an hour and try to still stay alive by mashing the circle button.
      So that's what you know about religion? Arranged marriages and beatings?

      Hint: most people who adhere to a religion, do so because it is rewarding for them. They derive fellowship, strength, confidence, or any number of other positive things. You are an asshole for assuming that your own ignorant and fatalistic outlook applies to anybody else.

    4. Re:This is a good thing. by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      Well, I remember a few games where you play a Jedi.. Ain't that a religion?-)

      --
      Store with salt
    5. Re:This is a good thing. by jonhuang · · Score: 1

      In general, anything can be fun when it's a game. Such as war--I wouldn't want to be in Iraq right now, but I'll play counterstrike. The article goes in depth about how many mainstream games have used religious elements to enhance the game experience.

    6. Re:This is a good thing. by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it better myself.

      --
      Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
    7. Re:This is a good thing. by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      The Simpsons poked fun at this by showing Bart and Lisa avoiding doing lawn chores, only to end up at a convention where a new virtual reality lawn chores video game was being demonstrated. Bart and Lisa were more than happy to do virtual yard work.

    8. Re:This is a good thing. by Requiem18th · · Score: 0

      Of course, games don't HAVE to address everything. They can, and should, address anything the developers want to, it's their game, and it IS an art form. Unfortunely game developing is almost as expensive as movie making, which mean that the most comercial effort often outshines the artistic, concept driven games.

      But some games address religion, however, none of them is suppoused to TEACH religion. We should ask us: "Is this guy saying games should use more religion topics" or is he simply saying "games should preach"?
      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    9. Re:This is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand where you're coming from, but with respect, I find that your view on how religion can be incorportaed into a game is extremely narrow. Your examples are limited to tedious-to-the-extreme sim games, but there are plenty of much more effective ways to involve religion in games, I believe, without making it the focus of the game and/or without making it heavy-handed or evangelical.

    10. Re:This is a good thing. by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1
      you have to rummage through your underwear drawer for condoms
      Well, I do recall Larry Suit Leisure where you needed to buy a condom and use it when you laid with the hooker or else you would contract some weird STD... ;-)
  20. How can you simulate God in games? by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who'se AI programming could be considered good enough to simulate God? How would God come into play in, say, Doom3 or The Sims? Do you lose if you are sinful?

    1. Re:How can you simulate God in games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDKFA
      IDDQD
      IDSPISPOPD

    2. Re: How can you simulate God in games? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


      > Who'se AI programming could be considered good enough to simulate God?

      Easy solution: just let one of the players be God, and give him arbitrary power to change the game state at will. You'll soon find all the other players giving him money and sucking up to whatever he wants.

      Pardon the cynicism, but there you have it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:How can you simulate God in games? by rocketjesus · · Score: 1
      public void simulateGod() {

      }
      This code is licensed under the GPL.

    4. Re:How can you simulate God in games? by Savatte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who'se AI programming could be considered good enough to simulate God?

      Easy. John Romero.

    5. Re: How can you simulate God in games? by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1
      I don't consider this post as "funny" but quite truthful, even if posted in a quite insightfull manner.

      If you look to the previous news on games./. you'll see that the discussions around Virtual Worlds and the aproach of MMORPG's as virtual communities, you'll see that the best way to have religious systems in a Virtual World is just create the means necessary for users to do so, then you just have to sit and wait.

      As it is said in the beginning of the article (that, as usual, most of you didn't read but are commenting on it),

      Theologian Paul Tillich once noted that, "Religion is the substance of culture", which is not a controversial statement when you consider the impact religion and spirituality has had upon the faithful in all cultures.
      If you have a virtual world where you are able to let virtual communities grow, with virtual societies and virtual cultures, religion will swiftly follow if the users have the ability to do it. To proove it you have the examples of how often religion is discussed in talkers, one kind of Virtual Worlds... You even end up having a "religious" hierarchy and "religious attitudes". Of course they are no representation of Christianity, Wicca or whatever: they reflect the religion that just started to evolve in that virtual world... A world with different means, different ways of being, different societies... so, naturally, diferent kinds of "religions".

      When the parent states

      other players giving him money and sucking up to whatever he wants
      he's saying almost all is needed about this issue: in virtual societies you'll have, as in the real world, people wanting more power, control, whatever... and if they need to worship a god or kiss the ass of the guy that, in that virtual world, have the power to give him more power (that or do any other stuff)... he'll probably do it (even if there are agnostic people in Virtual Worlds too). Talking about talkers again, you'll see that, for instance, more freedom and power is usually given to the newbies when they do the right stuff they need to be "a citizen". Of course that some will go there just to check out or talk with someone and don't care, but those who care about that Virtual World (talker) will quickly do those steps... and often inquire about what to do to raise his status on that society.
  21. Of course there's religion in gaming!! by ashitaka · · Score: 0

    Which games don't have a "God" mode?

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  22. understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, the most vocal in major American religions, it seems,
    (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) look like caricatures to me.

    (and this leads me to ignore religion, at least in mass media)

    OTOH, I'll bet a few great games could be based on
    historic/fictional "holy wars". Supernatural acts or not.

  23. It's easy... by fostware · · Score: 1

    My momma always said "Don't argue religion or politics. No-one wins and everyone arguing looks bad" Games are pretty similar...

    However, Hitmen and sex-crazed Singles are all OK ^_^

    --
    "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
  24. Sacrifice and selflessness by wanerious · · Score: 1

    It is interesting to imagine what kind of game could result from rewarding players who choose to abdicate power and serve others.

    1. Re:Sacrifice and selflessness by mangu · · Score: 1
      rewarding players who choose to abdicate power and serve others


      Reward with what? With more people to serve? Wouldn't that be another form of power? "I have more people to serve than anybody else in this game"? They say priests often fall into the "humility paradox", when they become proud of how humble they are...

    2. Re:Sacrifice and selflessness by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1
      Reward with what? With more people to serve? Wouldn't that be another form of power?
      Yes. In fact, when you take a look on most online RPG games (like MUD's) you'll see that the higher ranks you reach are those immortal wizzards that are there to help other users... Religion and power are quite related.
  25. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? .... AND MORE by jakel2k · · Score: 0

    Also there is populous where you act as god. Not to mention SimCity, SimEarth, SimLife... that you pretty much play god. (SimEarth you are basically Guai, (sp?).

    There are also lots of games where daemons :) from hell are an active part of the game. I recall a friend playing a game where you control Hell or Heaven and basically run these two places like SimCity, where you would process souls, (don't recall the name, someone please reply with the name of the game.)

  26. Black and White.... by mdvlspwn99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I like games where I am god. And if the villagers didn't like it, they got a thrown in the ocean!

    Or I'd feed them to my creature.

    --
    If reality was like Slashdot, most people would be (-1) Redundant.
  27. Re: ligion by arth1 · · Score: 1


    I find plenty of religion in games - clerics and druids amass, ritual sacrifices, pentagrams and much much more. There's even a whole genre dedicated to where you play a god!

    Or did the author perhaps want jewo-christian religion? Sorry, it doesn't easily lend itself to games, except as a church building or sacrificial ritual. Face it, singing hymns and sitting still praying isn't all that exciting, compared to slaying and casting spells that actually do something you can see.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art

  28. Re: ligion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jewo-christian? ... Let's just call it Judeo-Christian shall we?

  29. evil by ogewo · · Score: 1

    Heretic and Hexen were a couple of games based on the dark side of religion. I also said a little prayer every time I turned a dark corner.

  30. oh please by glMatrixMode · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "religion and spirituality add a lot to a game world"

    Oh please. These must be really weird times, when people even _think_ about putting spirituality in games.

    Games unite people. Religion separates people.
    --
    War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
    1. Re:oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Games unite people. Religion separates people.

      Heh...and you, sir, have never seen some of the brawls that result when my two younger siblings are playing Mario Kart together.

      Oh...and you obviously haven't been to a church service where someone needed help...they needed prayer -- people unite there like you wouldn't believe.

    2. Re:oh please by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      D&D. Plenty of religion. 'specially the Deities and Demigods handbook. Using NWN, religion can be quite specific, and very present. It's up to the module designer of course.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    3. Re:oh please by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      Oh please. These must be really weird times, when people even _think_ about putting spirituality in games.

      Just because it isn't a spirituality (or, more generally, religiosity) that you recognize or endorse doesn't mean that it isn't there, and hasn't been for a long time. Many posters have cited loads of examples going back many years. Maybe you just aren't much of a gamer? Or aren't observant? Or are your own religious prejudices just surfacing?

      Games unite people.

      That's a pretty interesting statement. I won't say at the outset that I disagree, but I'd sure like to see the evidence on which you base that. Can you back that up at all?

    4. Re:oh please by glMatrixMode · · Score: 1

      Maybe you just aren't much of a gamer? Or aren't observant?

      It's just, as was mentionned by Sid Meier, that in those examples religion appears in a very superficial way. Sid has done what he could in Alpha Centauri (my favorite computer game), this game is one of the most spiritualized around, but it remains so superficial. In the special case of AC, what matters most is the consistency of the Sci-Fi world, and that's not being improved by putting a mix of buddhism, ecologism and ontologism (does that word exist ?) therein.

      Can you back that up at all?

      Take the best games ever : Chess and Go. They are the best games because when you play with someone these games, when you're losing, instead of feeling angry against your opponent, you admire the beauty of the game, and you're pleased. After having played a good game of Chess with someone, I always feel relaxed and I also have the impression of having shared something with this person. In this sense, I say that games can unite people.

      The fact that for now, no video game has ever achieved this does not mean that it will always be so.

      --
      War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
    5. Re:oh please by glMatrixMode · · Score: 1

      Sorry : I have failed to express myself clearly in my previous answer. Here's the more direct answer :

      I don't like religions/philosophies/whatever.

      (I could elaborate, but not here, since it won't be of much interest to the Slashdotters).

      --
      War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
    6. Re:oh please by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      I don't want to turn this into a dead horse which we take turns beating--even if that is a Slashdot tradition. ;-) But...

      After having played a good game of Chess with someone, I always feel relaxed and I also have the impression of having shared something with this person.

      That is admirable and salutary. However, you wrote (appropriately) in the first-person. Chess has that effect on you. There are many others for whom the opposite is true. I could introduce you to friends I grew up with (yes, I was a member of the Chess Club) for whom playing was an act of war, and for whom losing was decidedly not an opportunity to "admire the beauty of the game". And even your statement that chess and Go are "the best games ever" could be contentious and divisive for some.

      Your revised statement in this post, that

      games can unite people

      (my emphasis) is different than your original post, where you said, "Games unite people." Without reservation, I agree with the revised statement. Certainly, that is the premise behind the Olympic Games.

      However, my point is that they do not necessarily have that effect, nor are games an effectual means of uniting all peoples; and that, in a quite similar fashion, religion can be something that unites people--a statement which is not negated by the many historical examples of religion(s) having the opposite, divisionary effect.

      If we are ever to come together as humans, we must put aside or reinterpret those things which divide us--including our propensity for labeling things as divisive. Yes, that is somewhat oxymoronic. But there is great truth in the ironical statement by Tom Lehrer from many years ago: "I know there are people out there who do not love their fellow man... and I hate people like that!"

      Rather than determining that there are things which we do not like, which are not for us, or with which we do not agree, and labeling those things as "bad" or in some way pernicious, we have to find ways to accept those things which work for others to the good of society, and to honor the positive aspects of those things while simultaneously respectfully critiquing those things which are a detriment to society. That will not be easy, but I believe it is the only thing which will sustainably work.

    7. Re:oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm - how then do some religions span hundreds of countries, cultures and races? Why do people meet together in churches when they could be playing games by themselves?

    8. Re:oh please by glMatrixMode · · Score: 1

      Well, I can only agree with you now, because your point of view is so balanced. Thanks for this reply.

      Of course, I was just giving my own example, not generalizing to everyone. It is true that I'm not able to back the sentence "Game unite people", taken litterally.

      I think my first post was more intended to be 'food for thought' than actually thought.

      If there's one idea in this post that I'd still back, it's that religion and games have nothing to do with one another. But, actually, this statement is not worth backing, because : either it is false, in which case it's indeed not worth backing, or it is true, but then, any attempt to put religion seriously in games will result in a boring game, and noone will play it, and it will soon be forgotten.

      In my first post I went farther, as I implied that this would be pernicious, but I couldn't back this very seriously now, though I continue to 'feel' it in some way. Maybe one day I'll have more clear ideas on this matter. If you want, we can continue this discussion by mail :
      benoit do jacob hat ens do fr
      (but don't feel forced if you think we've said enough about all this)

      --
      War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
  31. Reason To Keep Religion Out of Games by ultrasonik · · Score: 0

    Turning the other cheek to your enemy is not nearly as much fun as fragging him with your BFG9000.

  32. The Ultima Series? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In particular Ultima IV is basically your quest to become a savior of the people. Different religions have also been crucial in other Ultima games. Nothing Judeo-Christian but plenty of religion.

  33. The best God Games are in books by Creosote · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's plenty of imagination of what the God-role might be in a computer game. I'm not a big fan of Andrew Greeley, but he did stake out this turf in The God Game a decade ago. Or, for a high metafictional take on a real-life role-playing game with a godlike director, there's John Fowles's The Magus. And I suppose the best Death-of-God Game would have to be Lucky Wander Boy by D. B. Weiss.

  34. A Precisions Strike.... by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 0

    ... on the "Fish-Without-A-Bicycle" problem.

    --
    Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
  35. easy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If you have a chip on your shoulder, take aim at Christianity. It's an easy target and you'll get applause from the gamer community for bashing. Every other religion of the world must be treated respectfully, though.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:easy by Wubby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Give me a break! Don't start the "Oh whoa is me, a little helpless persecuted christian, oh waaa!" crap!

      Christianity is big the big guy the way MicroSoft is, not because is any better than the rest, only more ruthless!

      Has Christianity been persecuted in history? Yes, starting 2000 years ago.
      Has Christianity done the same to others? Yes starting slighty less than 2000 years ago. (Approx 33 yrs less.)

      And since when has Christians treated ANY other religion with respect! (Not saying they all deserve it, but still a valid question!)

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    2. Re:easy by philbert26 · · Score: 2
      Christianity is big the big guy the way MicroSoft is, not because is any better than the rest, only more ruthless!

      Does this mean we can get Windows removed from public schools?

    3. Re:easy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're entirely right, and it totally justifies the bigotry that you and others show towards Christianity and other religions.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:easy by Wubby · · Score: 1

      As easy as removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance or from the dollor, or removing a chaplin from Congress.

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    5. Re:easy by Wubby · · Score: 1

      Bigotry or Righteousness?

      That all depend which side of the fence you're on, doesn't it.Historicly speaking, of course.

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    6. Re:easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're just following the Golden Rule:

      Do unto others

    7. Re:easy by JMan1 · · Score: 1

      Every other religion of the world must be treated respectfully, though.

      Do you know why liberals criticise the US and Christianity more than other countries and other religions? Because criticizing "the other" is already taken care of 15x over. Duh, Saddam's bad, but we do bad stuff too. The conservatives aren't going to say it. Islam has a lot of bad, but so does Christianity. Again, you'll hear a lot of the former from talk radio, but little of the latter. That's why the liberals speak ill of Christianity.

      They're trying to balance out the moronic, black-and-white Conservative Christian view of the world which is so prevalent.

    8. Re:easy by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      Aren't you both making the same mistake of generalizing, while accusing the other of doing the same? "All gamers are this way", and, "All Christians do this". This doesn't seem to be helpful, nor is it accurate. I consider myself to fit both labels, and these comments do not reflect my feelings or opinions at all.

      The OP made an interesting point about how it sometimes seems like it's okay to pick on one group (perhaps because they are perceived to be in a position of power or privilege), but not okay to pick on a different group that is defined by a similar but opposing characteristic. That seems like a point which could be validly explored.

      Can anyone offer any evidence or logic to support or refute that point? Or has this thread just irrecoverably devolved into a flamewar?

    9. Re:easy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      bigot n.

      One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  36. AHEM by Mr_Malcontent · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about Billy Graham's Bible Blasters?

    1. Re:AHEM by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahh, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian. :)

  37. One exception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The GTA series nailed Scientology.

  38. I think it hasn't been explored enough by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jewish mysticism has been only peripherally explored by Japanese game designers (quick example: what's a "Sephiroth"?) and mostly as window-dressing.

    Also, Catholic priests are, broadly viewed, the basis for D&D clerics.

    Both the Kabala and early Christian mysticism are rich footings from which to explore religious concepts in a game- I think they're mostly ignored by Americans because it's easy to offend people that way- which is fair enough.

    However, I think a game based around the book of Revelations would be utterly awesome (perhaps an adaptation of "Left Behind"? I don't think much of apocalyptic stuff but it would sure make a good game.)

    It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the religious concepts you grew up with aren't very interesting and don't have any real mysteries to explore. But even a cursory review of what's out there (ever hear of the gospel of Thomas?) reveals a great deal.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:I think it hasn't been explored enough by anubi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Interesting take on it, Stormcrow...

      It seems to me some good games based on theology may finally ignite some critical thinking on religion dogma. Just *what* is 'religion' and what is of God himself?

      It is a strong belief of mine that earthly religions are the work of man and they are just using the name of God to bolster power for themselves. Even the Bible states Jesus had to throw the Scribes and Pharisees ( yeh, all those loud moaning prayer-sayers and interpreters of the Word that pontificate profusely in public so as to appear holy ) out of the temple.

      There is a human condition called "cognitive dissonance", which is a strong drive within us to know we made the correct decision. The last thing a guy who just bought a car wants to hear is that he made a big mistake by doing so. He wants positive affirmation he made an intelligent choice. I see religious congregations in a similar light - once 'converted' to that religion, those members push it because if others join, that bolsters their belief that they were correct. Its a human condition we form religions - but I don't see these as really having anything much to do with God. Its just a gang of people - and they can be very dangerous if they are ever led to believe that doing violence in the name of God is acceptable.

      I have a hard time distinguishing earthly religion from cult and superstition. Like I am not aware of any proof that Zeus or Thor do NOT exist, yet I have no faith in their power. Well, are things any different today?

      Maybe some good games where a "supreme power" did indeed create us, and our goal is to find out about him, but along the way are all these people who have formed these little gangs to feed us misinformation and make us waste time until our lifetime runs out.

      You know these little 'pyramid' schemes that run around every so often, where a few guys organize this financial ponzi scheme that require the contributions of lots of suckers so the guys at the top can get fabulously wealthy? Yeh, they print up these little business plans and have rows of lines for people to sign up for a measly donation of $1000 to get a $64,000 tax-free return. Their heads begin yammering like air compressors as their mouths begin spewing streams of words like "outpouring of wealth", "faith", "make a committment", etc.

      But, once you've seen it, you recognize it for what it is. A ponzi scheme. A way for people to get money for just jabbering. A quick way for you to lose your resources.

      I see earthly manmade religions in exactly the same way. This is not to say I don't believe in God - its just I know that Man will lie. And Man can be very cruel if he's ever led to believe he is just being an instrument of God ( as if the God who created the universe needed the services of Man! I think of it like asking my cat to fix a leaky faucet. ).

      Please don't tell me I've got it wrong. I most likely do have it wrong. I may never find what I am looking for. I know Man will lie. And I know Man , even though he obediently follows all the religious rituals, can do unbelievably cruel things to others - and feel completely guiltless over the trauma left in his wake. ( Southern Baptist )

      It would be nice to see a few games where people actually had to *think* about their relationship with our Creator and fellow man, instead of just being led by another man.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    2. Re:I think it hasn't been explored enough by tezza · · Score: 1
      Gershom Scolem says in On the Mystical Shape of the G-dhead that the Sephiroth is 10 parts of the shape of G-d. It is often illustrated like this Sefiroth Diagram. It gets weirder from there.

      If there's space for Madonna in the Kabbala, then I'm sure there's space for a decent FPS where you frag Golem's in Prague. The manual for the Kabbala game might take several years to read though.

      --
      [% slash_sig_val.text %]
    3. Re:I think it hasn't been explored enough by Proc6 · · Score: 1

      Excellent post save for one innacurracy... Thor DOES exist - http://www.zoofur.com/thor.html And while I myself may not worship him(it), I bet there's a few females (possibly males) who do!

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    4. Re:I think it hasn't been explored enough by Denial93 · · Score: 1

      The manual for the Kabbala game might take several years to read though.

      Depends on how serious you take it. If taking some liberties, I'm sure one could make an interesting action game with a kabbalist background. Or a background from any other religion, for that matter - why not frag Ifrit in the service of Allah? As long as you don't attempt something like an adventure game that requires in-depth knowledge of some mystical worldview to complete, and as long as the graphics rock, I don't see a problem.

      Of course, people would complain the religion in question wasn't treated appropriately. But then again, many christians I know think certain pastors and priests don't treat their religion appropriately, either.

  39. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason religion is so often ignored in games is because it's complete bull.

    Gamers tend to see the man behind the curtain.

  40. Religion in gaming by Japong · · Score: 1

    I think a large reason for this is that many, many games for the hardcore gaming audience deal with killing in some way. Your Half-lifes, Warcrafts, GTAs usually involve killing a lot of people (There are other genres, like racing and sports games which are also popular but don't really lend themselves to religion all that well, Mahatma ghandi's Racing Rally Challenge not withstanding).

    It's difficult to make a game about Jesus (or whichever all-good deity) that will appeal to these people. So far game developers have turned the game into some sort of holy war, and more or less ignore all those religious calls for forgiveness and compassion, as in Requiem: Avenging Angel and Messiah.

    For now, I could see something like Ultima IV's need for morality being integrated into games that featured religous characters, or possibly incorporated into some aspects of The Sims. However, I don't think there's enough gameplay options in today's market for them to be a viable alternative as a genre on their own.

  41. How about : The War in Heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    st person shooter where you play an angel
    Tring to defeat satan, while learning about the bible.
    ( wicked cool )

    http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/warinheaven/

  42. Who hasn't exclaimed by Eudial · · Score: 1

    Who hasn't exclaimed "Kill'em all and let god sort 'em out" in a gore-spree in [insert FPS here]?

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  43. Keep Religion in the Church by MagnaMark · · Score: 1

    Religion has as much place in the video game as it does in the science classroom.

    (And I mean that to be half serious, half flamebait.)

    1. Re:Keep Religion in the Church by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      Now why would you say that? Do you really mean to say that someone who is possibly being prepared to go into a science profession should not learn about the existing of opposing (as well as supporting) religious views on issues like the origin of the universe, and go out unprepared to respond to the criticism they will, no doubt, encounter? That students preparing to enter the biomedical or genetics industry should be hamstrung in learning biomedical ethics, one of the cornerstones for which is traditional religious doctrine?

      (And I'm only addressing religion in the science classroom: the role religion and religious beliefs has played in history and international conflict is huge!)

      Religion, IMHO, has an absolutely firm place in the classroom. I simply believe that religious views should not be promoted, nor should they be used as substitutes for secular knowledge and approaches.

      As far as the place of religion in video games, well, I believe that game designers ought to be allowed to pursue whatever theme they want, however they want (superficially, metaphorically, or in depth). It's their game, their reflection on society or what they find entertaining--whether that's religion, politics, or the Great Pumpkin!

  44. Religion IS escapism by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What can be more escapist than denying the worth of this whole universe? A non-escapist religion would be more worried about ethics than theological problems.


    All religions I know of assume the existence of another, spiritual, universe that's truly important, compared to our material universe, which is considered more or less irrelevant. Their reasoning goes more or less like "we do not have to worry about this life, eventually we will all die, so we should be more concerned about what comes after death."


    But that assumes the existence of that unproved afterlife. What if it doesn't exist? What if this life is our only chance and, once it ends, everything is over for us? To refuse to even contemplate this possibility is the Mother Of All Escapisms.

    1. Re:Religion IS escapism by mdf356 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      All religions I know of assume the existence of another, spiritual, universe that's truly important, compared to our material universe, which is considered more or less irrelevant.

      As someone who is a practicing Christian (I practice because I'm not perfect at it yet), I will attempt to explain the different views of this I have seen.

      Christians hold many views about a spiritual world. Some believe it is almost entirely different, and so what occurs here matters little. (This is a short time before an eternity in the kingdom of heaven.) Some don't really believe in it at all and believe the kingdom of God will be present here, either now or later, through the actions of believers and God.

      For those who believe that there is a significantly different spiritual realm (a real life that this is just a foreword to), the view of "it doesn't matter much what happens here" also has several shades of meaning. For some, it means that, since the world will end "soon", there's no point in marrying or fighting against an occupation (see the letters of Paul for this kind of thing, though Paul seemed to believe it would happen any day now). Many see also that, since the end could be after our lifetime, we owe it to ourselves and others after us to ensure that there's an environment where people can be good to their neighbor, where justice and peace reign, where the things that get yuck on our souls are minimized.

      In a nutshell, just among Christians there's a wide view on what it all means. When you start looking at other religions (Unitarianism and Paganism come to mind), despite the existence of God or gods, the point of life is to enrich the lives of our fellow humans.

      Cheers, Matt

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    2. Re:Religion IS escapism by twd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it doesn't exist, then the believer and the non-believer net out the same, with cessation of existence. And if the believer lived a happier life in the meanwhile, who's to say he/she was wrong? Conversely, what if the afterlife does exist? Then the outcome for the two could be very different. (Pascal's wager).

      The fact is that a lot of very intelligent people throughout human history have concluded that the existence of an afterlife is a reasonable conclusion. To sweepingly dismiss all of their philosophy as being simple escapism is rather simplistic.

      In any case, the existence or non-existence of a spiritual realm is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people believe it. The majority do. Given that, it seems reasonable to make it a part of any game world that attempts to capture the richness of the real world.

      --
      ~*~ Tara
    3. Re:Religion IS escapism by endlessoul · · Score: 1

      But that assumes the existence of that unproved afterlife. What if it doesn't exist? What if this life is our only chance and, once it ends, everything is over for us? To refuse to even contemplate this possibility is the Mother Of All Escapisms.

      This is true. However, not all religions believe that you need to "be more concerned about what comes after death."

      I'd hate to bring this topic from a gaming perspective to a religious perspective outright, but I have studied and practiced a "belief", if you will, that Heaven is here. There is no reason to wait for death in order to be in a sublime state. You've heard of the saying "Everything is God." Well, this applies. Do I have evidence that God exists? No. That the Afterlife exists? No. I believe in the fact that everything I see is God. Of course, I'm not in that "perfect mindset", so I'm still a schmuck sometimes.
      If you're still interested, "Conversations With God, Book 1" by Neale Donald Walsh.

      In any case, I think religion shouldn't be on video games. Anything that can play a game where you can pick up a hooker and blast her head off after the deed is done and then play a game in which you play God must violate some sort of moral values. It's just not right.

    4. Re:Religion IS escapism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In any case, I think religion shouldn't be on video games. Anything that can play a game where you can pick up a hooker and blast her head off after the deed is done and then play a game in which you play God must violate some sort of moral values. It's just not right."

      By that logic having religion in the real world is also wrong. I can murder a prostitute then go to church. I can murder a prostitute IN a church.
      And everyone plays god, to your kids, employees, chess pieces, whatever.

    5. Re:Religion IS escapism by MindNumbingOblivion · · Score: 1

      Christianity doesn't deny the worth of the whole universe (and yes, I know religion != Christianity; but it's what I know, because I practice, so it's what I'll talk about). The philosophy of the first century Christians was not one of 'well, this place is worthless, and Jesus is coming again, so I'll go sit up on my rooftop', though there are places where Christ says that this will be done in the last days (whenever those are...). It was more one of 'how can I best serve my time here while I wait for my turn to go?'

      In fact, contrary to your statement about the importance of the spiritual vs. the material, it seems to me that Paul and the original Christians viewed the physical and spiritual with equal importance. For instance, James rebukes those who would say to a homeless and hungry man, 'God go with you and be well' without caring for the obvious physical needs. Paul likens the spiritual body of believers to the physical body throughout the Corinthian letters. And in the eighth chapter of the letter to the church in Rome, Paul seems to indicate that the physical and spiritual worlds are not in a relationship of dominate and submissive, but that each were given equal weight, but due to the Fall of Man, the two are now separate.

      But back on the topic of video games: There is a good reason religion isn't brought into more games. Look at Civilisation. In Civ2-3 (don't know about the original, never played it) religion is treated as either an opiate or as a way to score points. You build temples to soothe rebellious citizens, and you build great works with religious undertones as a way to increase your score. Religion is included in the tech tree and is treated as just another stepping stone to a better tomorrow. The problem is this: religion in videogames is treated much as it is in the real world, as a meritocracy. A practicing Christian will tell you that the path to Heaven is not through good deeds. Christians believe that the soul is saved through faith, not by adherence to law. So, if you remove the idea of meritocratic faith in a game, what's the point in including religion at all, except for the cool superpowers that someone mentioned earlier or for RPG elements? Personally, I think it would be cool to have an MMORPG world of any setting that had a faith element that was not forced on you. In most games that have aspects of religion, you have to choose either to follow the Light god or demonic forces instead of just going through the world as an atheist. The faithful could get bonuses from whichever side they chose, and for everyone else, 'the rain falls on the just and the unjust'.

      --
      #define CLUE 0
    6. Re:Religion IS escapism by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      What about Judaism (no afterlife) Buddhism (well, in most sects there is no afterlife) etc. There are plenty of religions without a seperate spiritual universe. Even Discordianism!

      --
      Not a sentence!
    7. Re:Religion IS escapism by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 1

      "(see the letters of Paul for this kind of thing, though Paul seemed to believe it would happen any day now)"

      Yes, this is called millenialism. This was the root of almost all the problems people have with the New Testament in form, if not content: Jesus' disciples believed he was returning quite literally 'any day now' after he 'ascended to heaven'. Jewish prophecies about the messiah (a military title referring to the Warrior King who would repell the invaders of Israel and reinstate the Kingdom of David) demanded the actualy presence of that man in the rebuilding of the kingdom.

      Jesus' disciples all thought this was an imminant event. This is why the earliest gospels, even according to Christian scholarship, aren't written down for decades after Jesus' death (assuming he was an actual living person). Basically what happened was this: they each went about their lives, preaching the religion, expecting each day that Jesus would return soon (assuming they really believed it). When each of them began to get close to 'old age' and started to fear that the New Kingdom wasn't coming in their lifetime, they took up the task of writing their gospels.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    8. Re:Religion IS escapism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A practicing Christian will tell you that the path to Heaven is not through good deeds. Christians believe that the soul is saved through faith, not by adherence to law.
      Well, if I go back to my years of CCD then what you've just said would be a very dangerous Heresy. Well, except that was the 70's when Vatican II was making the Church safe for Pedophiles and no one was allowed to use "judgemental" terms such as Heresy. Truly, the Devil walks among us and he wears Bishops robes!!!
    9. Re:Religion IS escapism by Jardine · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it doesn't exist, then the believer and the non-believer net out the same, with cessation of existence. And if the believer lived a happier life in the meanwhile, who's to say he/she was wrong? Conversely, what if the afterlife does exist? Then the outcome for the two could be very different. (Pascal's wager).

      "But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make god madder and madder." - Homer Simpson

    10. Re:Religion IS escapism by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      The Misanthropic Principle in action:

      If it doesn't exist, then the believer and the non-believer net out the same, with cessation of existence.

      That's only true for those who have concluded that what they do while they are here can only be meaningless unless it serves to placate God.

      If there is no "afterlife", then what you do while you are here is all that has any meaning. To simply say "what do I care, I'll be dead" is completely sociopathic, and it is that characteristic of religion that I primarily object to. The implication is that if it weren't for the rewards or punishments meted out by God, one would have no reason to behave oneself at all and would see no reason not to murder and pillage to one's hearts content.

      Such a corrupt attitude towards existance and society is a common legacy of spirituality, and in my opinion is the root of all evils.

      Personally, I have no interest in placating a God. If one exists, it must be as bound to external moral principles as we are, or it can only be considered amoral and therefore without any moral authority. While a Supreme Being may be powerful enough to dole out rewards or mete out punishments, Might Makes Right IMHO does not confer the moral authority to forgive nor the morality for us to accept such spiritual welfare.

    11. Re:Religion IS escapism by MindNumbingOblivion · · Score: 1

      Salvation is by faith alone, as noted in Romans. Paul says that Abraham was afforded righteousness through faith. Paul says in Galatians that those who would force the Hebraic law on Gentile Christians have "fallen from grace" a phrase that is picked up to reinforce the idea of meritocratic salvation. James says that faith without works is dead, and I do not dispute that. I merely raise the point that there is nothing I can do of my own merit that affords salvation. The very definition of grace implies that it is a gift, not something earned.

      If you would like to talk more about it, my email is polemarch AT charter DOT net (adjust accordingly).

      --
      #define CLUE 0
    12. Re:Religion IS escapism by twd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That's only true for those who have concluded that what they do while they are here can only be meaningless unless it serves to placate God.

      Who said that life was about placating God? Perhaps some, but certainly not all theists. That's a strawman argument.

      If there is no "afterlife", then what you do while you are here is all that has any meaning.

      And zero times any value is still zero.

      But my reference to Pascal wasn't to prove or disprove God, but to point out that some very smart people have considered (and do consider) it a topic worthy of discussion.

      In my experience, there are some very good and some very good theists, and the same is true of atheists. There are also some very smart and very stupid theists and atheists. That speaks to the fundamental nature of humans, but neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god or gods.

      Likewise, the fact that the Supreme Being that you stipulated gives you heartburn does not prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being, whether of that nature or another.

      But the original, on topic point still holds. Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean it isn't an important force in human society, which any simulation or game that claims to be realistic should acknowledge in other than a caricatured way.
      --
      ~*~ Tara
    13. Re:Religion IS escapism by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      And zero times any value is still zero.

      You again make my off topic point in apparently admitting here that spirituality has not conferred any values to you whatsoever, that aren't propped up by the existence of an afterlife.

      But WRT more realistic religion in video games, be careful what you wish for...

    14. Re:Religion IS escapism by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, this is more or less what Jesus taught:
      That heaven is a state of mind, experienced when you've got past all your major issues and are at peace with yourself.

    15. Re:Religion IS escapism by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I think the point was this: People who find religion laudable wouldn't consider it to be escapism, while poeple who do think of it as escapism are the ones who don't find it laudable - so escapist religion ends up appealing to nobody - not the believer, not the unbeliever. I don't personally agree with this, mind you, but I think that was the point that was trying to be made.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    16. Re:Religion IS escapism by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, Pascal's Wager. Yawn. All it does is prove that you should believe in the god with the bestest heaven and the worstest hell - and that means that whatever you come up with, it can always be one-upped, and when it is you should switch beliefs over to that new god you just came up with. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

      Besides, I can't believe something to be true just because I *want* to believe it. That way leads to insanity. So even if Pascal's Wager was convincing to me it still wouldn't matter. I need an actual reason to believe something true, something more than just "it is beneficial to believe it".


      In any case, the existence or non-existence of a spiritual realm is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not people believe it. The majority do. Given that, it seems reasonable to make it a part of any game world that attempts to capture the richness of the real world.


      This is true. The difficulty is that a lot of games deal with things that don't just end up saying "There exist people who believe this", but it frequently validates that belief. A priest who claims god exists is one thing, but a priest that claims god gives him the power to heal, and the game validates this by making it work, ends up validating that viewpoint. To take a non-god example of a religion, the article (did you read it?) mentioned Ultima IV. In Ultima IV, the religion was not just presented as "this is something people in the world believe", but as "This is THE TRUTH in this world, and this religion WORKS - because the game enforced the 8 virtues and required that you uphold them in order to get to the end goal of becoming an avatar.

      For an example of a game that does work like you suggested, there's the Hammerites and the Mechanists from Thief. The religion contained believers, but they may or may not be correct in their beliefs and the game didn't really do anything to answer that question. (This was made easier partly by the fact that the religion of the Hammerites doesn't really mention anything metaphysical - it JUST talked about what is good and righteous to do, and not about what spirits and gods might exist. In that regard it was almost more of a philosophy than a religion.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  45. God you say...? by liloconf · · Score: 0, Funny

    IDDQD

  46. BALDR not TRADITIONAL? by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    I take it you're not talking about this Baldur then.

  47. A v P v Big G by Cave+Crickett · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would love to see Alien -vs- Predator -vs- GOD

  48. Why should we care? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    Most gamers don't care for religion because with the modern world we get it forced upon us repeatedly by a failing group of people living in olden times. Like we don't care for being PC most the time, it's something we don't believe in and if we don't believe in it then we have no respect for it.

    I live my life as I see fit, I don't need a book several thousand years old for advice. Recently I was in church (funeral) and all that came to mind was "Man God is selfish...". Religion fitted a world hidden in mystery, not a world full of science and people trying to get money from it.

    If people wish to live in the past then that is fine but they shouldn't try and force it on others.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Why should we care? by jotok · · Score: 1

      Perfect example here...

      Gamers are into radical individualism. Every single game out there casts you as a lone wolf with the weight of the world on your shoulders...which is exactly how most people think of themselves.

      Further subcategorization of games is possible but unnecessary. I mean, you've got the fantasy genre ("I may be a 90-pound nerd, but I secretly posess magical skills that make up for it") and the action/sci-fi/fps genre ("I may be a 90-pound nerd, but you just wait 'til I get a machine gun...") and then the strategy genre...well, what can you say about a bunch of people who think of themselves as a cross between Patton and Cobra Commander?

      Games are about being heroes--the modern world does not embrace heroes who "win" by sacrificing themselves...just look at the negative /. reaction to the last matrix film.

      Oddly enough, you do find this quality in the team-based FPSs (Day of Defeat comes to mind).

    2. Re:Why should we care? by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      Wow. For a reaction that strong to a topic which is fairly innocuous, you must be carrying around a lot of pain at some very deep levels. I hope that there is someone with expertise in such things that you are talking to.

      I don't think there was a suggestion that religion should or would be forced on others. Rather it was a reflection on the absence of real religious practice. Regardless of what you think of religion and religious people, there are more people on this planet who adhere to some form of religion than people who do not.

      While (as other posters have noted) games are largely about entertainment, some sim games attempt to reflect the real world. I find it at least worth noting with interest that the majority of these games do not have characters doing religious things. I also note that some of them have sim characters that sleep, but they don't take a dump or try to get laid, which are also things many of us try to do every day.

      (The characters on TV shows like Friends and The Brady Bunch hardly ever go to work, either. Maybe the boss doesn't let them read Slashdot...)

      If the very thought of religion in a game is threatening, perhaps there is something deeper that needs to be addressed...

  49. Where's the creativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the problem with trying to make games based on religion (western religions, at any rate) is that religion has a fixed notion of how things are supposed to be, and any deviation from that is frowned upon or considered heresy. So there is really no room for making up the story as you go along. Where's the challenge if you already know from reading the Bible how the game is going to end and how it's going to be played out?

  50. Well there is this -one- game... by maxchaote · · Score: 1

    Probably been noted a dozen times already, but they missed the most obvious one.

  51. Don't think they're compatible yet by mlinsey · · Score: 1

    Sure you can have a video game about the rituals and the dress and the temples, but if you want to deal with religion in a truly non-superficial level, you have to reflect upon the ideas behind all of these things. Video games are fundamentally about actions as opposed to ideas. Sure a message can be added to the background as part of the story, and perhaps this story could even change as a result of player actions. But for philosophical ideas to be truly embedded as a part of the video game (instead of just something tacked onto the story that could just as easily be a book or movie instead), the ideas have to be integrated into the gameplay. That's a pretty difficult task - the ideas behind most gameplay usually boils down to things like combat strategy, financial management, or pure reflexes...even games that are superficially about something else, such as The Sims or Black and White, are mostly derived from these three mechanics and given a different coat of paint. I think a game that truly addressed religion at a deep level would have to move beyond these ingredients as they don't mesh well with the core ideas of most religions.

  52. Take two steps back by j1mmy · · Score: 0, Troll

    What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.

    What the christian community needs is to disappear.

    Seriously.

  53. Colonization by Tojosan · · Score: 1

    This was a Civ type game. It made use of priests to convert the Navite Americans.

    I'm pretty sure that's the game, correct me if I'm wrong someone please. :)

    I'm thinking that if ethics is included in the game, read most FPSs, then perhaps some games could include references to a diety as part of the role playing or decision making. But all too often this does fall in the category making the god be healer more than anything.

    What would probably be a cool idea is to let the player customize the description of thier diety and select values that this diety represents.

    Of course as noted by the article, even with the Sims allowing user created content, the article writer didn't find any evidence of religious items created for the game. That either speeks volumes about what type of people play, unlikely, or volumes about what people care about when playing the Sims.

    I don't think people would stop buying games if religion played a part if the only god allowed was the Christian one(lots of my fellow game playing friends are Christians), but I do think they would if it was preachy or heavy handed.

    I've run across few games where adding religion would have added a lot to the game though.

    Worship how you chose or chose not too, play what you like, and if the two should cross, well bully for you!

    Be well,
    Tojosan

  54. God is non-existant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....so it is very good games do not take it too seriously, or make fun of it.

    (sorry if you feel offended)

    It's like those who believed the sky would fall upon their heads; Backwards, daft, a sign of low IQ, stupid, andsoon!

  55. Re:Slashdot Poll: Which Religion are You? by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Funny


    I think you'll find that a very outspoken minority of Slashdotters worship Ayn Rand.

  56. Ultima VII: The Black Gate has real religion by blueworm · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Fellowship in Ultima VII The Black Gate has detailed rituals, songs, example services, etc... You even get to go through the initiation rituals to join at one point and interact with other believers and hear stories about how it's affected their virtual lives.

    1. Re:Ultima VII: The Black Gate has real religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the darkest and coolest stories in a medieval rpg for that exact reason too!

    2. Re:Ultima VII: The Black Gate has real religion by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah - actually, the whole premise of Ultima IV and forward was about religion - or, rather, virtues and ethics, which I think is what all religions ultimately are about.

      Ultima VII was different because it was also about organized religion. Previous Ultimas were mostly about golden rule - you're supposed to be the embodiment of Virtues, to set an example for others to follow. Ultima VII, then, was about organized religion - and why organized religion can easily go wrong and be ultimately harmful to its followers.

      And meanwhile back in real world, Ultima VII was supposed to tell a thing or two about new age religions, specifically Scientology.

  57. Duh by Gogl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured."

    Insert *any* substantive intellectual or philosophical topic in place of "religion" and that sentence almost always holds true. They're *games*, they're not meant to provide truly rigorous analysis but rather to entertain.

    The only game I can think of that has some rather sophisticated references to religious and philosophical concepts is Xenosaga (and presumably the prequel Xenogears, though I've not played it), but even then it's nowhere near as deep or intellectually stimulating as a good book.

    So while this is not a hard and fast rule, I would say that the vast majority of games are, well, just entertainment. Very few games truly broach into what I would consider art or substantive dialogue.

    1. Re:Duh by Lovebug2000 · · Score: 1

      I think a large reason for this is that Xenosaga is merely episode 1 of 6, and if you consider a deep, good read with as many subplots as XS has, reading 1/6th of it out loud would take about as long as XS takes to play. I think that they will go much farther with the philosophical implications and religious overtones in the next games.

      BTW, Xenogears is right around game 5 in a series of 6, so you actually get to watch the creationism that XG's plot/meaning is based on happen in the other XS games.

    2. Re:Duh by Mentally_Overclocked · · Score: 1

      I know that Xenogears, and what I've heard of Xenosaga, both reference the origins of Christianity and many other old wisdoms. If you actually read about those references, the games are pretty deep indeed. You are right though, the game(s) sometimes skews the meaning or only elude to a different one.

      Cheers

      --

      Mathematician, n.:
      Someone who believes imaginary things appear right before your i's.
    3. Re:Duh by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. As much as we like our games to be "open-ended," the limitations of technology and artificial intelligence pretty well dictate that everything always comes down to numbers and scripts. Consider games where you can choose a "good" or "evil" options and your character adjusts accordingly, like Black & White or Knights of the Old Republic. I loved how in KotOR you would get "light points" and "dark points." It's all just numbers, and you could be a little good, or a little evil, and no consistency was enforced at all. You could be a perfectly good character, and then decide to kill some random civilian for no reason, and you would now only be a little less good. Generally, it doesn't work that way. You can't be a good guy, and then kill some random passerby on the street and still be good.

      Some serious issues can generally be explored fairly well, like capitalism in games like SimCity. Economies are good for this, because they are just numbers games. You get to set the balance between super low taxes (no revenue for the city) and super high taxes (everybody leaves), and between development and zoning and the environment.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  58. Tolerance not included by NWRefund · · Score: 3, Funny

    In a country where groups got together to burn Harry Potter books because they "taught kids to be witches and wizards," can you *blame* game creators for trying to tiptoe around religion?

    1. Re:Tolerance not included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I heard TENS of people did that type of stuff. As they represent, possibly, .0000001% of the population I can definitely see how they'd be afraid. Very very afraid.

  59. I hope Civ4 has religion... by FatSean · · Score: 0

    I'll love creating an Atheist Industrious/Scientific country which will turn the rest of the world into bog-loving poverty-striken nations! Hoooway!

    --
    Blar.
  60. Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Star Wars games? Jedi is a recognized religion in certain parts of the world right? :-)

  61. God mode. by ahaning · · Score: 1

    I can't believe no one has mentioned "god mode" yet.

    -goobers , anyone?

    Anyway, this guy comes across in the story blurb sounding a bit like Ned Flanders.

    --
    Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
  62. isn't it about moral? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't know what religion is/should be doing in
    games. but playing games most definetly shows you
    the true being of some people.
    i know people who play simulations and all they want
    to do is win. they'll try all strange things like
    building something and then destroying before they
    go to war, so the the A.I thinks he's weaker now.
    they really play to beat the A.I.
    i can never keep up with these players and always
    lose if i play against them.
    if i play simulations i really really think it's
    "real". i feel bad if someone "dies" in a game.
    my friends would just research weapons
    or something, but i acctually build "garbage" like
    churches or better irrigation or "tea houses".
    so like in sim city everybody loves me as major,
    but after like 200 years the city is 10'000 big
    has no pollution, has subwyas but only an income
    of 500 bucks per month.

    it is also so that some game developers take into
    account these "cheating" player and make a
    seriously flawed A.I. that is god and nows
    everything so it can show up with an army exactely
    wher it has to to beat you. i don't like these
    "know it all" A.I.s. these games "stink", but
    might appeal to some of the "cheating" players.

    i prefer "realistic" simulations. of course
    since they're realistic but virtual, there
    are alot of loopholes for no so moral
    (e.g. i call them cheating) players. by cheating
    i don't mean using a cheat code, but doing things
    that just aren't realistic, but work.

    here's an example: one friend told me to have
    political orientation as communist in civilisation
    so if you have two troops in the city there will
    be no revolt. i honestly choose democracy, because
    i believe it that. but i keep getting revolts,
    but i deal with it ...
    so ...

  63. Exactly! by Garlock · · Score: 0

    Anybody who has played any role-playing game can attest that religion is indeed an integral part of the gameplay, and even sometimes is a pilar of the main plot. I mean, in the Baldur's Gate series it was all about being the offspring of a god, and of the consequences of your actions as such. Same with "Planescape: torment". Granted this were not "real" religions, but the concepts are close enough and, as a player, you were, from time to time, placed into some serious conundrums when you were confronted to NPCs whose beliefs were possibly in conflict with your goals but you still needed them.
    The fact that mainstream religions are not really used in games is probably mostly due to the fact that these religions don't seem to like being depicted in *any* entertainment form and game developers wisely stay away from the whole issue.

  64. Superficiality by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is it any surprise that games only portray religion on a superficial level? The vast majority of people I know are only superficially religious. Christians may say they are such, but they don't live every day as if they were following the path Christ laid out for them. Rather, they attend church once in a while - usually on major holidays - and wear crosses. At most, they slap a bumpersticker on their car or a sign in their window proclaiming their faith.

    Many games include an aspect of religion or spirituality - though it is seldom Christian. An underlying theme of good vs. evil is spiritual in nature. Most RPGs have the idea of heroes guided by destiny often based on a prophecy. Many adventure games like Tomb Raider delve into the spiritual beliefs of ancient cultures.

    Actually, as I read that article I realized that the author is more interested in seeing games that make Christianity the emphasis. That might appeal to some people, but there would be a fairly good-sized market it would turn away UNLESS the gameplay and story were otherwise engaging. Most people don't listen to Christian music for the lyrics if the music and singing are poor. Likewise, few would play a game just because it involve Christian beliefs and activities if the gameplay and story were so-so.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    1. Re:Superficiality by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about Christianity is that you are expected to fail at acting like a Christian. In fact, it's impossible to completely live your life following the path Christ laid out for you. Everything we do is tainted by who we are, and since we are not God, everything we willingly do is wrong.

      The point of Christianity is love and forgiveness, not actions of piety. Of course, being pious is great thing, probably in any religion, but that isn't the point of Christianity. So, are sinful Christians superficial? The only thing that is required for a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ is the living son of God, and that he was sacrificed in our place for our sins.

      And even that belief is something that a human cannot choose to believe, rather, it is also a gift that God has given to us.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    2. Re:Superficiality by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And even that belief is something that a human cannot choose to believe, rather, it is also a gift that God has given to us.

      Suffice it to say, what you are implying is hardly an uncontroversial statement. Well, most people would agree with your statement literally, but where they might disagree with you is whether that gift is given to everyone or not.

      Not much point in deliberating that here, however. I think that people far more learned than I have been debating that issue for a few hundred years now...

  65. (Meta) physics engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to code the AI so that the `religious' impulse would result in outcomes that include: Snake handling, female circumcision, flagellation, etc., ad infinitum. I would prefer a title that would assist in the deprogramming of voodoo widgets of every `faith' - `Darwin Smiles' is an acceptable title. If the player loses he/she would be required to jump into the abyss without dragging any other participants down.

  66. Thou hast lost an eighth! by CBDSteve · · Score: 1

    I think Ultima IV is a very good example of religion / spirituality in a game.

    In order to progress in a game, you had to show moral fibre in your actions (ie no thieving or running away from enemies), then meditate at a shrine and answer various questions about the virtue that you were trying to improve. The answers to the questions (along with the location of the shrine etc) could be picked up from talking to NPCs.

    I LOVED this game - the moral code that was imposed on your character only made the game FEEL that much more important and real.

    And you got an Ankh and a cloth map in the box. *sigh*

  67. Marxism in games by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

    It's easiest to find religious references in the strategy genre. Here religion is presented as historical context, or it's incorporated into the gameworld to function as Karl Marx put it, as "an opiate for the masses."

    1.) Who knew that on slashdot, it would be good to apply the Communist Manifesto to anything.
    2.) IF Karl Marx were to write about video games, he would have viewed that it had no place in the social order. (As you might glean from reading his works, he did not hate religion. He advocated for separation of church and state). DISCLAIMER: IANACOS (I am not a communist or socialist)

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
    1. Re:Marxism in games by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      2.) IF Karl Marx were to write about video games, he would have viewed that it had no place in the social order. (As you might glean from reading his works, he did not hate religion. He advocated for separation of church and state).

      And after it was separated, then it shall be removed. COmpletely.

      Please, dont tell lies like that. Read the Manifesto.. Again

      --
  68. Monkey Island and God by canadacow · · Score: 1

    I am almost certain that at least two of the Monkey Island games had scenes inside of a church. In the first game there was the church on Melee Island where the final battle takes place. In the fourth of the series, Escape from Monkey Island, Guybrush visits the First Church of LeChuck.

  69. Yeah, I found that particularly cool by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

    It was really about the contrast of "faith" and "religion"... good stuff.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:Yeah, I found that particularly cool by Lynxara · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What FFT did is actually a bit of a "stock plot" in regards to Japanese video game & anime stories that include a conspicuously Christian-modeled religion. Usually the political organization itself is criticized or portrayed as corrupt while the faith of the most devout worshippers is praised as being good. This is pretty consistent with the Japanese historical experience with Christianity and has a lot of precedent in Japanese literature from the early 20th century.

    2. Re:Yeah, I found that particularly cool by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      As an avid anime watcher and RPG fan, I disagree about the whole "stock plot" issue. FF Tactics' plot was unusually complex (which actually turned a number of people I know off to the game). While many Japanese games and animes often have some Christian symbolic elements and the like, outside of Evangelion I can't think of any such case that has as strong of Christian elements, and none have as close of a parallel to real Christianity and its history as Tactics.

      And the commentary on Christianity in Tactics is pretty harsh. Have you ever read the Germonik Scriptures? It basically presents an alternative to the Christian presentation of Jesus ("St. Ajora" in the game), and at the same time, the plot revolving around the scriptures is a close parallel to the Catholic Church's repression of banned books viewed as being against God in the middle ages. Likewise, the plot of Tactics itself, with the church manipulating nations and starting wars for its own advantage has clear historic parallels.

      So, I have to strongly disagree about the "stock plot" phrase you used. If you find it to be a "stock plot", give another such example that, say, offers alternatives to the Christian view of the life of Jesus or has the main plot revolve around what is essentially the historical Catholic Church.

      --
      Windmills do not work that way!
    3. Re:Yeah, I found that particularly cool by Lynxara · · Score: 4, Interesting
      While many Japanese games and animes often have some Christian symbolic elements and the like, outside of Evangelion I can't think of any such case that has as strong of Christian elements, and none have as close of a parallel to real Christianity and its history as Tactics.

      Presuming you're allowing both anime and games, this is just off the top of my head:

      • Both of the classic SNES Shin Megami Tensei games, but especially Shin Megami Tensei 2. I strongly suspect somebody on the Evangelion team played SMT 2, a lot of the material is remarkably similar.
      • Fullmetal Alchemist
      • Xenogears (although XG is a pretty straightforward Evangelion clone, I will admit)
      • Rurouni Kenshin (and, to be honest, a lot of anime & manga with a "feudal" setting will end up doing stuff with the arrival of Portuguese reformers and the subsequent political and cultural upheavals the introduction of Christianity to Japan caused)
      • The various anime adaptations of Bible stories. (there's also a lot of anime adaptations of Buddhist fables, too!)
      • Tetsuwan Atom. No, I'm serious; the material concerning this had to be censored out of Astro Boy.
      • A fair portion of Matsumoto's Captain Harlock stuff brought in Christian themes very tastefully, but subtly. It was usually done so in pure allegory, but hey, that's what Tactics did, too. Tactics just made itself very obvious.
      • Final Fantasy X. Though, really, a lot of the modern FFs seem to draw on it to more or less of a degree... it's not always very important to the storyline, though in FFX it pretty much was the storyline.

      Pretty much all anime/game/pop-culture works I've seen that deal with Christian themes have struck me as heavily derivative of the works of Japanese novelist Endo Shuusaku, who wrote very concretely about the Catholic Church's operations in Japanese history and Jesus himself. Some of his works are available in translation and I would suggest checking them out. A lot of other of his literary contemporaries also dwelled on Christian themes at great length, and the effects that the appearance of Christianity had on Japanese thought. Games like Tactics draw very heavily on this literary tradition... so I tend to think of them as using stock plot. Not necessarily a bad plot, but nothing I (or the intended audience) wouldn't expect.

    4. Re:Yeah, I found that particularly cool by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

      That sounds like the entire Protestant movement's views of Catholicism.

  70. Is there really a market for it? by gotvim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Vid games are market driven products. If there were a market for religion in games, don't think for a second these corporations wouldn't have already tapped into that? It's because the majority of gamers, at least that I've encountered, don't believe in the organized religion that lives in our mainstream reality. Most gamers are science nuts, and science is about getting to the bottom of why we exist, something religion fiercely ignores. It may be worth a shot, but I doubt games diluted with religion will sell enough to carry it's own weight. However, games where there may be fictitious religions with better ideals and morals than the pathetic ones we're forced to hear about now may prove exciting and interesting.

  71. Missed one - Darklands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darklands, from Microprose, was a RPG set in medieval Germany of about the 15th century. It used a fantasy Germany based on what the average person of that time believed. So the woods were full of man-eating wolves and witches, and villages could be filled with Satanists.

    In the game, your characters could study religion, and learn about saints. If the character was pure enough, they could call upon the saint to aid them. There were 70+ saints to learn!

    If you haven't played it, it's worth finding. Definitely one of the best RPGs ever made.

  72. Assumptions are irritating by namidim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article falls flat on two fronts for me. The article assume that 1) religion means christianity 2)ethics are the sole domain of religion.

    Outside of that particular pet peeve I would also argue that the article does not address the issue on its true scale: religion in mass media. Nor does it address the reason for the typically marginal role of religion in the mass media: there are a lot of people who either don't want to see it in that context(Christians included) or who do want to see it but can't agree on what it should look like.

    Just looking at the miriad of splinter groups within the judeo-christian pantheon of religions and the innumerable hotly contested details that caused them to split in the first place should make it clear why a strongly religious game with mass appeal would be difficult to create. Now think in terms of the gaming demographic. That doesn't mean impossible, but outside of the occassional high production value rarity al-la Passion of Christ I wouldn't hold my breath.

    And to get to the heart of the issue, is that really such a bad thing? Doesn't relying on video games to provide religion, education, ethical guidance, etc. simply mirror the TV as a baby sitter/parent problem?

    1. Re:Assumptions are irritating by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just looking at the miriad of splinter groups within the judeo-christian pantheon of religions and the innumerable hotly contested details that caused them to split in the first place should make it clear why a strongly religious game with mass appeal [no pun intended, I suppose :-)] would be difficult to create.

      Actually, I would think the opposite would be true, because of the very point which you make. Look at the incredible violence involved in some of these nominally religious disputes, and consider the mass appeal of incredible violence in games.

      It would be easy to just superimpose one's favorite first-person shoot-em onto Belfast, the Middle East, or any other hotbed. It would only require a little more imagination to convert a richer simulation game into one of those settings and incorporate the powerful role that religion and religious leaders can play. (For good or for ill: consider the effect on the game dynamic when you convince a cleric to espouse or eschew a peace initiative.) A realistic game feature could also consideration of the impact of attacking religious non-combatant hard and soft targets.

      I think what would be difficult is to make a game like that which does not severely offend one or the other of those religious groups. It's safe to make a game where you kill monster or Nazis because there is not a strong pro-Nazi lobby in the gaming industry, and undead hit squads won't come to your home and kill your family in real life; but offending a group with economic power or suicide bombers at its disposal could get a little dicey.

  73. Why should we care?-Athiest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All hail the death of the old Gods. Praise be the new Gods of Money and Science. May ye know them by their wonderful fruits.

  74. Re:Slashdot Poll: Which Religion are You? by MBraynard · · Score: 1

    Possibly true, but very much to the chagrin of Miss Rand herself as she articulated in recorded lectures that were converted into her book, The Art of Non-Fiction. She frequently goes off on 'Randbots.'

  75. Howwever... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    > would state that not only is religion handled "ineffectively" in most games, but between the wish to be politically correct and catering to the predominantly anti-christian sentiments in the gaming community most games end up being downright disdainful of christianity.

    Religion != Christianity. There are many more religions than Christianity, even in the US, and even in the parts of the US where "Christians" don't want to acknowledge that there are other religions.

    >What the christian community urgently needs is a development company to emerge which can balance both the needs of the gospel, and the needs of the game playing experience.

    When the "Christian community" can agree amongst itself on the meaning of the gospel, perhaps there will be some chance of this. The lions and the lambs will sit down together sooner than the Adventists will with the Catholics. Hmm... that might make a good Doom wad.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Howwever... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      >When the "Christian community" can agree amongst
      >itself on the meaning of the gospel,

      it would be nice to just agree on which books to include in the thing, and which translation to use.

      at least the hebrew pentateuch is still in original language, and hasnt chagned at all...

      and theres STILL debate on what that means....

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
  76. Why? by danila · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't think there are any games that treat religion at anything more than a superficial level

    Because treating religion seriously would be nasty and make the game banned quicker (in the overly religious USA) than any "DOOM-induced" real-life rampage would.

    The article is clearly written by some retarded Christian (sorry for redundancy, folks). He even cites "and they even reward players with Biblical lessons and scripture" as one of the benefits for the 3D action game. Yeah, that's really deep. Of course, what can you expect from a parental gaming website?

    Thanks, but the only kind of serious treatment of religion I want from games is that from the Painkiller where you can pin evil monks to the walls with a stake gun. :)

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  77. No correlation between religion and intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are intelligent followers of every great religion in the world. When I say "intelligent" in this context, I not only mean natural gifts for information retention, information processing, logical thought, and so on....but also well educated and accomplished in various realms of scholarship.

    There are also just as many equally intelligent and equally educated and equally accomplished atheists, agnostics, and "spiritually unclassifiable"s.

    People who are religious like to believe that intelligence predisposes people to follow their religion. People who are anti-religious like to believe that intelligence predisposes people to be anti-religious.

    History, however, shows that intelligence alone does not sway one in either direction.

    Philosophize until you are blue in the face, but the determining factor must lie elsewhere.

  78. Serious relegion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like calling videogames "semi-serios" is prone to arguments, calling any religion "serious" is also a point that can be debated.

    Myself, I prefer my states and games quite secular :-)

  79. I always thought... by FJ · · Score: 1

    ... we were the game & God was the one with the controls.

  80. Church, the most boring game ever. by emazing · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perhaps the next hit game could take place in an interactive enviroment where you can go to church and pursue a sin free life where you then await judgement day. Wait, since when do we play games for their moral values or for their realism of certain elements (i.e. religion). We play games for our entertainment value. The last time I went to Church, I fell asleep.

    1. Re:Church, the most boring game ever. by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The last time I went to Church, I fell asleep.

      Then you went to a stupid church, and need to look for a different distributor.

      "Church, the product" can meet the needs of many consumers (to continue the commercial theme). There is music, social interaction, and free coffee. Worship services and sermons are opportunities to deal with crucial social issues of the day, explore deeply spiritual and philosophical topics, and receive instruction on intimate psychological matters. Churches are also places where people can organize into collectives to further the social good--either directly, through projects of their own, or by rallying behind other organizations like Habitat for Humanity or Heifer Project. If the church you went to has lousy music, people, and coffee, doesn't challenge you intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and morally, and doesn't do worthwhile things for others, then you picked a crappy church.

      I readily admit that there are indeed many crappy churches on the market, but I would ask for the concession that there may be non-crappy churches also. I've gone to several that contributed significantly to the lives of the people who showed up and the community around them.

      Please don't paint everything and everyone with a single, broad brush. Your attitude is akin to having a bad experience at Sears and saying that all stores are bad, or shopping in general is bad. If you don't like the store, by all means, be a smart shopper and take your business elsewhere; don't decide to forswear shopping or malign all the stores that carry a similar product line.

    2. Re:Church, the most boring game ever. by emazing · · Score: 1

      I know that Church is great for some people, and I didn't question that at all. I was raised Catholic and it didn't work for me. Does this mean I hate Catholics? No. I have a good friend that attend a non-denomination church. I went with him once on a mass that had an internet theme, and I found some of the points really interesting, although I don't agree with most of them. I was merely trying to imply that there doesn't need to be a place for religion in games.

    3. Re:Church, the most boring game ever. by Maechtig · · Score: 1

      Your church service, like you milage, may vary. People, religions, denominations, congregations, services -- each and all may fall in different places along their respective spectrums (or better, spectra). Not accurate to paint them all with the same wide brush. Too, a worship service's value may not necessarily rest in the excitement it delivers, although adrenaline-rush expereinces are out there, especially among the pentecostal and other evangelical congregations. Like in many a video game...seek, and you will find.

      --
      Gee, it's so tough to find a place to park around here!
  81. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure that this is confined to religion. When was the last time any game was critical of a specific, deeply held convention of society?

    For example, have many games been critical of capitalism? Several games have been critical of rampant consumerism, but any of the capitalistic system itself?

    Or what of games that criticize the family? Have any games explored failures (real or imagined) of family units and proposed a better system? I remember creches in Alpha Centauri, but I don't think the game made a big deal of it.

    One final thing I'd like to see in games is a criticism of mind-body dualism. Many people today are dualists, perhaps for religious reasons. Many games have spirits, ghosts, and vague promises of an afterlife (in mostly non-religious settings), but I don't recall a game that was anti-dualist.

    However, in all these cases, I don't think that game designers fear a backlash so much as games just aren't the best medium for exploring those institutions. I think that this applies to religion as well: it's not that zealots will come to burn copies of the game, it's just that it's hard to portray a mature, in-depth criticism of specific religions within a game.

  82. I agree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...and it's sad that this conversation need by had via AC posts due to the bias of moderators.

    To borrow an insight from Douglas Adams:

    Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? --you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him. This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in--an interesting hole I find myself in--fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

  83. Ultima Underworld and other games... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    Ultima - Labyrinth of Worlds: what about eight virtues of avatar?

    Sacrifice: Gods are entities evolved to immortality, but without worlds they can control they are nothing

    Planescape-Torment: Do not trust the angels. Do not trust yourself if your soul is divided.

    All these messages *are* highly spiritual and connected to ancient traditions of mysticism. I mean the mysticism of supreme emancipation and freedom, not the religion.

    Looking back at the history of mankind, the greatest sin ever done to humanity was the introduction of monotheism. Don't you see it is the main source of warring for past 3000 years? Up to date?

    Because the purpose of religion is to deny what is most sacred to all humans: the Free Will.

    Let the games help to grow free decisioning in childs. Their responsibility will follow the experience. Picture totality, authoritarian hierarchism and brute force as inferior, as it is where it belongs in the society of true freedom.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:Ultima Underworld and other games... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Don't you see it is the main source of warring for past 3000 years? Up to date?

      I am usually the first to jump on religion as the scourge of mankind and a crutch for those scared of not knowing anything, but I disagree with this statement on some level. The cause of war is people, usually their greed, sometimes fear, but it is not the religion that takes the action. It is the people themselves who make the conscious decision to do evil in the name of religion. Most religions, minus the people, are neither good nor bad.

    2. Re:Ultima Underworld and other games... by Jonathan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most religions, minus the people, are neither good nor bad.

      Yeah, but that's about as meaningful as the NRA's "Guns don't kill people; people do". Just like guns make killing people easier than with a knife, religion makes hating the foreign unbeliever easier than if you just had to hate them for speaking funny.

  84. Re: ligion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The issue has nothing to do specifically with the Judeo-christian tradition. The simple presence of clerics, druids, riual sacrifices, and pentagrams no more constitutes a serious treatment of religion than the inclusion of cavalry, infantry, swords and bows makes for a serious battle strategy game. And a serious treatment of Judaism or Christianity would certainly need to involve more than "singing hymns and sitting still praying."

    Having said that, I don't really think that the lack of serious philosophy of any sort in games is a problem. If I want something serious I'll read a book; when I sit down with my gamecube I just want some entertainment.

  85. There's plenty of religion by jjoyce · · Score: 3, Funny

    Games have plenty of religion. Unreal Tournament 2004 would not be much fun if I couldn't be reincarnated every time I died.

    1. Re:There's plenty of religion by servognome · · Score: 3, Funny

      The voice of God booms, "Headshot"

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:There's plenty of religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M - M - M - Monster Kill !!!!!!!

    3. Re:There's plenty of religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The voice of N00b whines, "A1mb0t!!"

  86. Re: where will God flee to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    ... Once we fully understand brain chemistry where will God go next?

    Being immaterial and omnipresent, I doubt this will worry God in the slightest.
  87. Populous by mattis_f · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anyone remember this great old game? Now there's a game that has religion in it! Why, the player is god!

    Actually, I'm thinking maybe this is part of the reason there's so little religion in games - quite often the gamer takes on the role of the supreme being. Like Sims. If the player isn't a god, I don't know what he is. Or Civ.

    In the old times (maybe still, but definitely back in the day) some games "cheated" when you were playing against the computer. This was to make the game harder to beat, but it also became infinitely annoying. So in a sense the computer is god in a game, you know, the reason for it all. Or the programmer might be god. That means, writing god into a game will be like god creating a god for the game.

    God in a game might be annoying - a super existence that can do anything in a flash ... if he could do THAT, then why am I the one gunning down all those monsters?

    I guess though that maybe religion could be the theme of a game, rather than god... Maybe.

    A game needs to be interactive, or it's not a game. Most religions are not interactive, rather, they come with a set of rules or suggestion for how to make your life better. You can't change it, well, not much. Maybe this is the problem.

    1. Re:Populous by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh.. Popluous. Wish I had some mod points for you.

      I played this first on the SNES. It was one of the first games to come out for it.
      My favorite thing to do was to build my castles on about 5 levels of altitude. Then when the enemy's base was huge you could cause a flood. Since he only build one level up, you'd drown most his guys all at once. After that he'd try to recover, but I'd send in the knights to finish him off.

      Strangely enough for a god game, once you beat the enemy he'd say "well done mortal". Kind of freaked me out the first time he did that. Pretty cool little graphic effect with the Grim Reaper's face for time.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  88. Re:No correlation between religion and intelligenc by escher · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Philosophize until you are blue in the face, but the determining factor must lie elsewhere.

    Brainwashing via parents and community?

  89. Re:Game Guides by Ayaress · · Score: 1

    'Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured.'"

    Not entirely. Although, frankly, the people who try to use games to promote religion do an even worse job of portraying it than the rest. Anybody played Catecumen? Since I assume you all have eyes, I'll assume not. It made a fairly successful bid for the worst FPS game ever, but it couldn't even do THAT well. It was an attempt to portray the persecution of early Christians by Roman soldiers to young modern Christians. It does this by having you run around an assortment of architecture (the developers never quite get the distinction down between Roman, Gothic, Victorian, and Japanese buildings) and shoot people with a sword.

    Then I know of two games with variations on the title "Noah's Ark." One is the worst FPS game on the SNES (and considering how bad most of them were for that system, that's saying a lot) and the other looked like a half-assed hack of SimFarm.

    Frankly, I think the average treatment of religion would increase substantially if those people who want religion treated "fairly" in video games stopped developing them (by "fairly," I use their own definition of fair, in that the games serve as a conduit to spread their message). They're hardly setting an example for the rest of us.

  90. simulate religion in games? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What if you simulate a religion in a game? It would probably come out more like SimCity than Doom, but it seems like a reasonable thing to do. Religion posits that certain things exist, that if x happens you should do y, that if you do y then z will happen. Those could be built into the rules of the game simulator. For example,
    • God speaks through fortuitous circumstances. When God wants to answer "yes", you happen to find what you're currently looking for.
    • Murphy's law. If anything can go wrong, it actually does. Always.
    • The laws of physics aren't reliable because God or Angels keep mucking with things.
    • The devil can hear your innermost thoughts, but God only hears what you say. Or vice versa.
    • What goes around comes around. Always.
    • No good deed goes unpunished.
    • Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
    • You can't tell what your standing is until you die. (Might be useful to have several characters and a rewind button, so Iago can kill you off every now and then so you can peek at your standing without going to Hell due to suicide.)

    You could configure the game to play by your favorite belief system.
    1. Re:simulate religion in games? by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny
      Murphy's law. If anything can go wrong, it actually does. Always.

      A guy in Russia already programmed that game, I think...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:simulate religion in games? by JDonahoe · · Score: 1

      The laws of physics aren't reliable because God or Angels keep mucking with things

      So you don't need to have bug-free physics engine? So, when a beta-tester's avatar starts moving in unexpected ways, just tell them that God is pissed that they've been hogging all the ammo? Or they've been possessed?

    3. Re:simulate religion in games? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      That's about right. And if there are no recent misdeeds that can be used to explain the misbehaving physics, attribute it to original sin or to God moving in mysterious ways. A very proactive God could make sitting quitely in a chair a challenge.

      However, if the rules are tunable, you need to fix all the bugs in your physics simulator in order to deal with the divine_interference=0 setting.

    4. Re:simulate religion in games? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I think that would be an awesome game....I would love to play that. Developers, listen to this man! Make this game I will play it!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:simulate religion in games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know exactly the game for you. Here.

    6. Re:simulate religion in games? by nitemayr · · Score: 1

      Good Lord, I've looked over this thread a bunch of times and no punter has mentioned "AfterLife" by Lucas Arts. A game upon the whole concept of religion is it's foundation. Did I miss it? and yes, it was sim city like

      --
      Hello Kettle,
      You, my friend are as black as pitch.
      With love, Pot.
  91. dude. you're awsome. I love your post. by HelloKitty · · Score: 1

    dude. you're awsome. I love your post.

    really, I agree. there isn't a point to having religion be the only point in the game. it's always going to be secondary. as you say, there is no fun gameplay in worship or browbeating the masses into submission.

    the real fun religious gameplay comes in with stories about spiritual beings, avoiding sacrificial rituals, killing vampires, incanting spells, or stopping cute animals from following each other into the sea by digging holes.

  92. Better leave it by leandrod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Assuming there is an intersection of game producers and sci-fi fans, better leave it like it is.

    Sci-fi usually has lousy depictions of religion, except when made by deeply religious people, and even then...

    For example, Anglican CS Lewis' Space Trilogy - _Out of the Silent Planet_, _Perelandra_ (or _Voyage to Venus_) and _That Hideous Strength_ - are great, even if the last one is usually considered over the top. So is _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, by a Romanist whose name I forget.

    Even if it never rises from commonplaces, Mormon Orson Scott Card's Ender books are also fair. Perhaps its picture of Romanism is too wishy-washy, either from his sympathy for Romanist Brazil or from fear of being seen as a Romanist-bashing Mormon, but it is not so bad.

    Other than that, in otherwise well-regarded works like _Duna_ or Asimov's _Foundation_, religion is just some hierarchical, sacerdotal clone of Romanism.

    Not to mention the worse I've ever seen, Arthur C Clarke's _2001: A Space Odyssey_. The movie is useless, the book actually finishes, and it finishes in a kind of mystical scientificism that had been ridiculed by CS Lewis 30 years before, in _Out of the Silent Planet_.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  93. Does this mean... by Mongoose · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does this mean the money I pay to the temple of the dark elf sect in lineageII ( http://lineage2.com ) aren't tax deductable?

  94. morrowwind character == christ figure by Mongoose · · Score: 1

    Yes, morrowwind's story is pracitcally all about the native religions in the game. The main character ( you ) is a christ figure even! You die. You come back. But it's more like the second coming and you're cutting off heads this time! =)

  95. Thief by rgf71 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Thief series of games is all about religion. The Builders, the Hammerites, Pegans, etc. The series doesn't hide the fact that they're poking fun at religion and showing how dangerous they can be, if taken too seriously.

    1. Re:Thief by dunsel · · Score: 1

      Finaly someone said Thief. That is what I was thinking as soon as I read this blurb on the front page. That is definitely a game that involves religion and actually integrates it very well into the storyline. Of course they can't call the different types "chrisianity" or "pagan" directly. As said earlier, the only religion you can poke fun at is christianity. The other ones get too grumpy.

  96. Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? .... AND MORE by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

    Afterlife

  97. Religion Doesn't Sell by wookieemoose · · Score: 1

    I believe the main reason you don't find a lot of religion in games is because there simply isn't a market for it. There is only one religion popular enough int the western world to form a respectable sales base and that is christianity. The only problem is that most christians willing to buy a game for it's religious content are not going to be very big gamers in general. Religion can be used effectivly as a side plot or even an underlying cause, unless of course it's used in a humourus manner such as B&W, however as a main sales pitch or even main feature of a game, it simply wouldn't sell enough to be a profitable venture. It's for this reason that religion isn't used seriously in mainstream games and why it probably won't be seriously used anytime in the near future. and frankly that's fine by me, i don't want there to be some religious theme to my virtual bloodlust. WAHGHGHGGHGH to the world.

  98. *sniff* ... Populous!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss populous. What a wonderful game that was... and a wonderful implementation of so-called regligious themes.

  99. you're wrong -- we're living in an internet game by youaredan · · Score: 1

    The internet is a spiritual network of the people connected to it. We interact earth's operations like interconnected players on everquest etc.... internet games are just becoming another avenue for people to ignore thier misery while they loose at the game that's beating THEM. http://www.globallyconscio.us

    --
    -Digital Extremist // digitale
  100. Religion is suppresed because writers are ignorant by Znord · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There's been a big vacuum in the world of sci-fi / fantasy with religious overtones ever since the modern age of thought began back in the 1920s with Freud and the concept of "wishes" as a basis for fiction and dreams.

    C.S. Lewis and (to a point) Tolkien did much to show that religious themes can easily coexist with fiction. The endless "let's try it from scratch" 60s put a bit of a kabosh on that... experimenting in ideas of myth-religion without knowing how much they repeated in old fiction.

    Frankly, I see "religion" is actually present in many many spheres... but a new establishment has arrived. It's just the pop-psyche (i.e. Oprah) plus bits-of-new-age psuedoscience that we've had tons of in the 20th century. (practice X does Y for your spiritual Z condition, take two and call me in the morning).

    Religion in Babylon 5, for example, was one of the first beginnings of a good treatment in mass media... because believers at least showed some positive though vague devotion as part of a plot (monks at one point, and the Minbari otherwise).

    Most scifi religion is incredibly shallow and made for outsiders, with the constant drum of "Hey man, don't get all religious about stuff cuz it all looks the same to us." moral-of-the-story.

    Even that only started from the 50s and earlier when tons of minor religious divisions mirrored ethnic/cultural ones (i.e. blacks, whites, immigrants etc..). I knew one old lady who declared the One thing she knew about her Presbyterian church was that she wasn't Baptist. Yikes. That has always scared authors.

    Anyway the writing can only occur when religion is handled in a fashion that doesn't get everyone spooked about the loudest minorities involved. Someone's got to stop caring about Pat Robertson and yet still know who Jesus (or Bhudda) was without a minor "survey of religions" class.

    Besides, atheism/materialism keeps framing the discussion (e.g. Babylon 5 came down to assuming all "gods" were advanced races) and that forms a rift on how much you're even allowed to describe beliefs. It's tough to write plot about followers of God X or Y when the author makes clear that they're idiots doing something for no purpose or reason except the cuteness of "blind" idealism.

    What's gotta happen is that some story writer somewhere has to first avoid the swashbuckling loot-and-horde-and-kill plot. Secondly they need to leave mystery about something Bigger having a role in the story instead of mere science-and-discovery explaining it all by the last 5 minutes.

    If it's "universal harmony" that someone deals with (i.e. Ultima V) so be it, but if its God in any fashion it makes the plot and reality of behavior much richer. Yes it makes NPCs *much* more complex... and a score isn't just "gold" or "life" anymore. Deal! I want to see that happen.

    We're at the effective top for polygon counts anyway. Someone has to *THINK* that fiction matters someday in a game.

    --
    Nietzsche is dead - God
  101. MMORPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Sounds Cool. You get to pick your Race, Social Class, Job Title, and Religious Path. So you could be a Dwarven, Middle Class, Bible-Maker, Hell bent on door-to-door "Evangelical" missions.

  102. Dude!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell would we wanna play religious games?? Religions is nothing we should teach or incourage! We should banish it and bury it in the history books as "the great madness of the 21th century"

  103. Deus Ex: IW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Deus Ex: Invisible War makes use of religion in its plotline, a major group being a syncretic religious organization. There's some depth in the fictional theology of "The Order" -- I almost fell out of my chair when I heard a clip in the game talking about the moral duties of fard al'kifayah (communal obligations in Islam). Although the plot twists in the game might fulfill the paranoid thoughts of the most rabid atheist, the first half of DX:IW treats religion and its interaction with the political realm as a serious topic.

    Ultimately, religion is a way of thinking about morality -- and if you think about morality, you have to think about religion, if only for the same reason that you have to think about Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, &c. Broadening the topic, what we're really talking about is modeling moral and ethical decisions in games, something Spector tried, not entirely unsuccessfully, to do in DX:IW. This is really the tough nut to crack, and the one that will signal gaming as a meaningful and revolutionary artistic medium. (The Erasmatron was a well-meaning if failed effort to get there, and some interactive fiction gets close, but I we're not there yet.)

  104. DUH!!! by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    So these people are surprised that a form of AMUSEMENT makes fun of something? DUH. The games are attempts to have fun, they should NOT take things seriously. How many jokes "respect" religion?

    A far better question is: Why don't religions respect the games? The religions are supposed to be serious, truthfull and relevant. As such they should be respectfull of something that brings enjoyment to so many people.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:DUH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't religions respect the games? The religions are supposed to be serious, truthfull and relevant.

      Which most games are not. Maybe that's why?

    2. Re:DUH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point in the first paragraph about amusement / humor is well-taken. But in what way do "religions" (a pretty broad term) not "respect the games"? Can you cite some examples?

    3. Re:DUH!!! by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Suppose you are a CPA. Would you not respect artists because they are not mathematical? That is stupid. Variety should exist. The artist should not be judged on the same standard as the CPA, that is WHY they are called an Artist instead of "bad CPA that likes to draw".

      Yes, your answer might be accurate, but it is both shamefull and insulting to the religions. It implies that religious people are so closed minded that they can not perceive of any pursuit that is not similar to religion.

      Any worthwhile religion should recognize that it is not neccearily a sin to engage in non-religious activities.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    4. Re:DUH!!! by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      The very article itself is a slight example of religious people not respecting games.

      But best example of religious people not respecting games is D&D. It started when a detective hired to find a missing person thought his "victim" might have killed himself in a live action D&D game. He started a whole anti-D&D movement, mainly using religious groups. Eventually the public outcry resulted in the missing person annoucing to the worl he was alive and had run away from college because he was depressed about his life in general (nothing to do with the D&D game.)

      And then there were the Chick comics that made up really ridiculous christian fears to warn parents about D&D. Click here to read one of the lying comics. That comic is NOT a "Joe-Job", it was a real comic put out by religious fanatics.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  105. religious themes are a niche for video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no shortage of religious games produced by non-mainstream developers.
    A quick google search returns a game I remember a couple of my friends having growing up:

    http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-19.htm/

    Of course, this is a niche.

  106. Whatcha smokin? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2, Informative

    Tell that to Augustine or Galileo, some of the greatest minds were devout followers of the church.

    'The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.' - St. Augustine

  107. Christian Faith by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0

    In a matter of fact you can not `practice' Christian Faith. It is a matter of faith. You either believe in Jesus Christ or you don't. That's the difference in being a Christian or not being one.

    Faith is not something that can be perfected with time. You either believe or you won't. Acting like a Christian doesn't make one a Christian either. It's all just a matter of believing.

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
    1. Re:Christian Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are things people do in life that are against what being a christian is about.

      Sometimes people do these things even though they 'believe'.

      So, it is a matter of practicing.

      Of course there is no such thing as god, so you will ultimately fail, but don't let that stop you!

  108. Fuck that: Final Fantasy Tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of those games even comes close to Tactics, which delivers choice quotes as 'Blame yourself, or God', and opens the game with a girl praying in a church.

    You go on and basically end up assassinating the Cardinals and other major figures of the game's Church, ending up challenging Angels and more. Nice stuff.

  109. Black and White by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cant assign breeders and throw ppl around in real life damit!

  110. there's more to it. by wookieemoose · · Score: 1

    Religion in games is more than just shock value. Often times it's a subtheme or a driving force for the protagonist/antagonist. granted shock value is generaly the most recognized BECAUSE it's a shock. However that doesn't mean it's the only way religion is used. HALO is a good example of this, the whole game is based around a holy war, but the religious aspects aren't used as a shock factor, just reasoning.

  111. Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't there Muslims in this one?

  112. Yeah, there's a good idea.... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Jesus: The FPS":

    While demented soldiers and demons run around the battle arena trying to frag you and each other, your ask as Jesus The Peacemaker is to persuade them to stop fighting.

    With a bag full of holy water and bibles, your task is to put and end to the violence.

    Powerups include "Quad-prayer" (make them believe in you. If they fail, instill fear into them.) and "Persistent nagging" - If they ignore you, annoy the shit out of them until they listen. ...hm, on second thought: no.

    If you played that and anyone knew about it, you'd probably get your ass kicked for being such a pansy, haha.

    Not to mention, religious games (with the exception of Black and White) would be utterly boring, just like most religious movies.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:Yeah, there's a good idea.... by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 0

      what about 'stigmata', the 'the prophecy' series, and the bloodlust of the hebes ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hpassion of the christ?

      --
      The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
  113. RPGs and Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Role-playing games (RPGs) traditionally avoid using established religions in favor of using mythological gods and goddesses."

    There are two obvious reasons for that:

    1) No matter which religion you picked, it would be the wrong one according to the majority of people. Even if you picked something as generic as "Christianity" there's over a thousand flavors to choose from and most of them hate each other for a variety of nitpicky reasons.

    2) Most real religions hate role-playing games. It seems like they're either threatened by people using their imaginations, or they see Satan under every rock and bush. So there's no incentive for anybody use a real religion in an RPG.

    And why do you need religion in your games anyway? So many people whining about how there isn't religion in X-Y-&-Z... I'm only left to think that these are people who are SO secure in their beliefs that they need them slathered on every visible surface and have to hear about them every two minutes in a vain effort to convince themselves that they have a handle on the truth and not just a bunch of old folklore.

  114. Most violent game... ever! by awhite · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would love to see a game based on the bible. It would be the most violent, debased game in history!

    Those of you who've read the bible with any sort of objectivity know what I'm talking about. How many places in the OT does god command the jews to wipe out entire peoples, including women and children? There are even passages where he is angered because the jews decide to spare a few individuals or animals. So in any true bible game, genocide has to play a key role. And of course god doesn't leave all the fun to his chosen people; he certainly gets his hands dirty as well. Some of the more famous instance of god's handiwork include leveling Sodom and Gomorra, killing all the first born in Egypt when the pharaoh refuses to free the jews (interesting note: according to the text, god intentionally "hardened the pharaoh's heart" to Moses' pleas; god forced the pharaoh to refuse so that he could demonstrate his power via the plagues), and wiping out almost every living thing on the planet in a big flood cause he didn't like the way the humans he created were turning out.

    Or, how about a Sims-type game? You could try to follow god's laws as they're laid out (mostly in Leviticus, IIRC) without getting stoned to death. Choose to pick up some sticks on the Sabbath? Sorry: you get stoned. Are you a woman who gets raped in the city? Sorry: you get stoned. In a city you should have been able to scream loud enough that someone would have heard. Is your Sim character a child who makes fun of a bald guy? Sorry: god sends some bears out of the woods to maul you. On the plus side, though, you can have slaves and multiple wives, sell your daughters, and have sex with your servants. (Yes, these are all actual biblical laws/stories.)

    And the NT isn't much better. You've got the whole crucifixion thing, which is plenty violent (and intentional; not like the omniscient being didn't know it was going to happen). And then there's the problem that Jesus' core message is about as horrible a moral as you can find: "Worship me or you'll be tortured for all eternity, regardless of how good a person you are." And considering god's actions throughout the bible, could any truly moral person worship him in good conscience?

    So yeah, I'd like to see a game based on the bible. I want to see the religious right squirm when a game based on the actual stories of their holy book makes Doom 3 look like Big Bird on Ice.

    p.s. If you doubt the accuracy of anything I've said, I encourage you wholeheartedly to read the bible yourself. You'll see that the points above are but a tiny sampling of the atrocities the bible has to offer. I just discovered that some enterprising folks have even distilled a lot of the horrors (as well as the ridiculous "science" and many contradictions) of the bible for you: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

    1. Re:Most violent game... ever! by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 2, Informative

      p.s. If you doubt the accuracy of anything I've said, I encourage you wholeheartedly to read the bible yourself. You'll see that the points above are but a tiny sampling of the atrocities the bible has to offer. I just discovered that some enterprising folks have even distilled a lot of the horrors (as well as the ridiculous "science" and many contradictions) of the bible for you: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

      I'm in contact with the guy that runs that site. I'm working through the Bible and rebuking his list of contradictions in the Bible. I'd stay away from using that site as a reference - too much misinformation / not all facts are given.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    2. Re:Most violent game... ever! by awhite · · Score: 1

      I'm in contact with the guy that runs that site. I'm working through the Bible and rebuking his list of contradictions in the Bible. I'd stay away from using that site as a reference - too much misinformation / not all facts are given.

      I just discovered skepticsannotatedbible.com, and I thought it was interesting. Reading through it, it does seem to go overboard at times. But I didn't use it as a reference for anything; everything I mentioned is clear as day in the bible. You can't analyze it away.

      Skepticsannotatedbible might be over the top in a few places, but no amount of wriggling can change the fact that the bible is full of ridiculous statements, obvious contradictions, and chilling atrocities. What little it science it includes is almost invariably wrong, and its moral teachings are corrupt.

      Of course, none of that has any bearing on whether or not god exists. All it means is that people who quote the bible as a source of morality are hypocrites, and the bible is worthless as anything but an interesting fiction.

      Unfortunately, once you take away the bible as a source of authority, there is simply no evidence for god. None whatsoever. And I don't typically believe in outlandish theories with zero backing evidence.

      You can believe in god if you want; I couldn't care less. What pisses me off is that because of those beliefs, children are being deprived of a proper education in evolution. Because of those beliefs, gays can't enjoy the same civil liberties as the rest of us. Because of those beliefs, embryonic stem cells that might help find cures for terrible diseases are being wasted. Because of those beliefs, people stop questioning the nature of the universe, and accept the vacuous answer that "god did it". Because of those beliefs, my child will have to stand up in school and pledge allegiance to an invisible man. Not to mention the violence that erupts when fanatics take religion to extremes.

      Maybe at some point in history, religion was a good or even necessary institution. I believe, however, that that point is long past. It is now a hindrance to progress. Unfortunately, it won't abate any time soon -- not in the US at least. Luckily, our laws at least allow me to voice my frustrations in posts like this one.

    3. Re:Most violent game... ever! by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
      Those of you who've read the bible with any sort of objectivity know what I'm talking about.
      Your comments just barely scratch the surface. The Bible is not some fun piece of entertainment, it's a grimly serious piece of work about a lot of really bad things.
      "Oh, I see. But, anyway, I mean, I've never really understood the idea that if there was a God, that if someone was bad, He would make that person suffer forever, torture them for eternity, give them no chance to repair what had been done wrong if it was at all possible, and to top it off, punish them in such a way that it doesn't give anyone else a chance to learn from the poor bastard's misery. It just seemed so... so... well if not cruel and heartless, at least terribly bad, some how. Maybe as bad as whatever the person did; it would seem so... pointless, ahh, that's the word I'm thinking of, it seems like such a pointless exercise in futility."

      "Not bad. Most people can't see the whole logic of the entire argument. Especially when it's a religious argument. Most of those are 'hands off'."

      "I think you're right."

      "I'll tell you something, Akers. With most men who have a religious system of beliefs, and a woman that they loved very deeply, would do what Lot did and sacrifice her, first before his religion."

      "What do you mean?"

      "Lot was in the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah looking for a few honest men, and he has a couple of VIPs from Heaven with him, when the local no-longer-boys choir come by looking for some backdoor action, and want to try the VIPs out for size. So Lot brings out his two beautiful, frightened virgin daughters, and offers them to the crowd, telling them to do anything they want to them, violate them six-ways-from-Sunday, if they'll take the girls, go away and stop bothering him and his two VIPs. You can find it in Genesis 19:8."

      -Supervisor 246 to Akers 780126 in Paul Robinson's Instrument of God

      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    4. Re:Most violent game... ever! by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 0, Troll

      Skepticsannotatedbible might be over the top in a few places, but no amount of wriggling can change the fact that the bible is full of ridiculous statements, obvious contradictions, and chilling atrocities. What little it science it includes is almost invariably wrong, and its moral teachings are corrupt.

      Please give me one of these contradictions. I'm somewhat of a Bible scholar and I'd like to point out why it's not a contradiction.

      All it means is that people who quote the bible as a source of morality are hypocrites, and the bible is worthless as anything but an interesting fiction.

      Why am I a hypocrit for quoting the Bible as a source of morality? What's hypocrital about it?

      Unfortunately, once you take away the bible as a source of authority, there is simply no evidence for god. None whatsoever. And I don't typically believe in outlandish theories with zero backing evidence.

      Most everything you see was created by God. The evidence is everywhere and overwhelming.

      You can believe in god if you want; I couldn't care less. What pisses me off is that because of those beliefs, children are being deprived of a proper education in evolution. Because of those beliefs, gays can't enjoy the same civil liberties as the rest of us. Because of those beliefs, embryonic stem cells that might help find cures for terrible diseases are being wasted. Because of those beliefs, people stop questioning the nature of the universe, and accept the vacuous answer that "god did it". Because of those beliefs, my child will have to stand up in school and pledge allegiance to an invisible man. Not to mention the violence that erupts when fanatics take religion to extremes.

      See, I know evolution to be a lie and God-willing if I can afford it when my child reaches school age, he/she will attend a private Christian school.

      Gays have exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else. Heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? A marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or vice-versa. If it is so natural, why can't they procreate?

      I have no problem with stem cell research as long as the cells not come from aborted embryos. Why is it that liberal America is against capital punishment but for abortion? John Kerry recently said he was pro-abortion but believed that life begins at conception. Doesn't that make him pro-murder?

      My child will have to sit in school and hear the abomination that is homosexuality is normal.

      I'm enjoying the debate! :)

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    5. Re:Most violent game... ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most everything you see was created by God. The evidence is everywhere and overwhelming.

      It's remarks like this that will ensure that nobody ever takes you seriously. "Overwhelming", huh. If it were so "overwhelming", everyone would be in agreement on the matter. The non-Christian population isn't in some paranoid conspiracy to deny the obvious, despite your need to believe so.

      It would be interesting to see you present the "overwhelming" "evidence" that, say, E. coli was created by the Christian god. (Note: claims that "evolution is a lie" or other attempts to falsify or discredit science do not in turn constitute positive evidence in favor of creation by a deity, let alone the Christian deity.)

      See, I know evolution to be a lie

      Most Christians disagree with you. Funny, that.

      and God-willing if I can afford it when my child reaches school age, he/she will attend a private Christian school.

      Yeah, let's make sure they are never exposed to any viewpoint but your own.

      Gays have exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else.

      Your argument is specious. In principle you could make up an arbitrary rule that says, "Only Democrats are allowed to marry", or something, and argue that everyone has exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else, so the rule is therefore "fair" -- even though non-Democrats aren't allowed to marry. But I don't think you would agree it is fair.

      Heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it?

      Because, um, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals? What kind of argument is that?

      How about "5-year-olds can't drink alcohol, so why should adults be able to do it?" Or "women can't go topless in public, so why should men be able to do it?" Or, going back a century, "women can't vote, so why should men?"

      If two groups of people are different, you need to consider on a case-by-case basis whether they should be treated similarly or differently. In the case of alcohol, one could make a strong case as to why 5-year-olds shouldn't be able to drink alcohol; it's not so easy to make a case for why women shouldn't be able to vote. The question is, which category does homosexual marriage fall into, and why?

      You're trying to escape on the basis of legalistic wording: heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? But you can equally well say: homosexuals can't marry members of their sexually-compatible sex (i.e., the same sex), so why should heterosexuals be able to marry members of their sexually-compatible sex (the opposite sex)?

      Perhaps a better question is, why can't anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) marry someone of any sex they choose? Or, for that matter, what does sex intrinsically have to do with marriage? Is it the possibility of reproduction? Should infertile man/woman couples be allowed to marry?

      A marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or vice-versa.

      That is a matter of definition; that definition is what is currently being debated in society.

      If it is so natural, why can't they procreate?

      That's quite a non-sequitur. Homosexuality exists in nature among non-human animals as well as human animals; in that sense, it is "natural". What does being natural have to do with procreation? People, and animals, do many things naturally. Sex is one of them; so is yawning.

      Why is it that liberal America is against capital punishment but for abortion? John Kerry recently said he was pro-abortion but believed that life begins at conception. Doesn't that make him pro-m

    6. Re:Most violent game... ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last para sounds like a direct rip-off from "Stranger in a Strange Land". I'll see if I can find the reference...

    7. Re:Most violent game... ever! by HermanAB · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Oh yeah, and that is only the King James Bible. For good measure you should throw the rest of it in - all the dragons and stuff that King James had removed from it, would make a game way better...

      It is interesting how many of modern children's TV stories are based on Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Hebrew/Persian/Norse religion and come to think about it, that is exactly what the Bible is - a huge honkin story book for the entertainment of the masses.

      Or as Valadimir Illich said: "Religion is the opium of the masses".

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    8. Re:Most violent game... ever! by awhite · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm almost speechless. After reading your post, I thought for sure you were a troll. Who else could post something so full of circular logic without a hint of embarrassment? But based on your posting history, you're either a consistent troll, or you are indeed genuine. That, and the fact that you aren't posing anonymously, deserves some credit I guess.

      Why am I a hypocrit for quoting the Bible as a source of morality? What's hypocrital about it?

      It's hypocritical because god's actions in the bible are so completely immoral. Repeated genocide, killing children because of their parents' sins, killing children for minor transgressions, killing children just to demonstrate his power, insane laws that allow slavery, punish women who are raped, etc. Not to mention the whole concept of creating a life-form and commanding that it worship you (without providing any real evidence that you exist, I might add), then punishing it infinitely if it does not.

      Do you believe you need a god to have morals? If so, then let me ask you this: Does god base his moral code on underlying principles, or is it completely arbitrary? If the former, then man can base his code on the same principles, without needing god. If the latter, then basically anything goes, and an arbitrary moral code authored by man is no worse than one authored by god.

      Most everything you see was created by God. The evidence is everywhere and overwhelming.

      Are you truly blind to how circular this logic is? You can use the same argument to prove *anything*. Here's an example:

      "Everything was created by the Jolly Green Giant. Want proof? Look around! Everything you see exists, right? So there ya go. The Jolly Green Giant must have created it."

      See, I know evolution to be a lie and God-willing if I can afford it when my child reaches school age, he/she will attend a private Christian school.

      And how do you know evolution is a lie? How do you know the overwhelming evidence for evolution is all somehow wrong? I could go into a technical argument, but it's irrelevant, because you "know" it's a lie. The only possible reason I can imagine for why evolution must be a lie is because "the bible says so". And once again, you create a massive circular argument. Here's a similar one I can use to show that the earth is flat:

      "Despite the evidence to the contrary, the earth is flat. How do I know? Cause this book 'Tales of a Jolly Green Giant', says so. How do I know the book is correct? Because the Jolly Green Giant himself wrote it. How do I know who wrote it? Cause the book says so. How do I know the Jolly Green Giant speaks the truth? Cause the book says so."

      A marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or vice-versa. If it is so natural, why can't they procreate? ... My child will have to sit in school and hear the abomination that is homosexuality is normal.

      Well you know, my friend is sterile. Bad sperm. So I guess he shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone either, right? Cause he can't procreate. What about a hermaphrodite? One of god's creations. But who the hell can it marry?

      And how do you know homosexuality is an abomination? Once again, because the bible says so. And once again, that means squat, because all it does is lead to a circular argument.

      I have no problem with stem cell research as long as the cells not come from aborted embryos.

      Yeah; let's just throw those embryos away instead! Much better use of them.

      I'm enjoying the debate! :)

      I'm glad. For me, though, it's just tiring and sad. It's always disheartening to watch people turn off their brains when the topic of religion comes up.

    9. Re:Most violent game... ever! by jason777 · · Score: 0
      How many places in the OT does god command the jews to wipe out entire peoples, including women and children?

      It seems you do not have a grasp on the full context of what was going on here. You see, the people living in that land prior to the Israleties were an evil people. They didnt care to live by God's rules, so God chose to put them to death. He did this by having them killed by the Israel army. Yes, even women and children---the entire group of them were to be wiped out.

      And whats more, is who are you to question the actions of the creator of heaven and earth? God can choose to do as he pleases and doesnt need to explain things to you. The truth is that God desires all to come to know and love him. He chose to allow evil to exist in order to give us a true choice and free will. We are not robots, we have the ability to truly love. To have that capability, you must have a choice. The fact is that if you dont want to choose God, you have the option of living apart from him for all eternity. But realize you have the option to choose him and be with him as well.

    10. Re:Most violent game... ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh - how old is the universe? Answer correctly, and you might get an ounce of cred. Answer incorrectly, and get laughed back into the Dark Ages.

    11. Re:Most violent game... ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Gays have exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else. Heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? A marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or vice-versa. If it is so natural, why can't they procreate?

      A lot of people can't procreate regardless of which gender they might be interested in. I gather then, you would be in favor of anyone who is sterile should also be barred even from heterosexual marriage. Our past ignorance can enshrine a special status for marriage now only by blatant bigotry and predjudice.

      The "traditional" definition of marriage includes a HUGE erroneous assumption at its base. It is inherently prejudicial in that it presumes that every human individual is either a "man" or a "woman." It is now clearly seen to be an erroneous assumption that gender is a binary state. The "definitions" that are sorely in need of reexamination are far more rudimentary than "marriage"-- that of "man" and "woman."

      For example, how should the term "marriage" apply to an individual who is completely hermaphroditic, such as in a dyzygotic chimera? How about an individual who is only partially intersexed, such as an genetic XXY individual, pseudohermaphrodite or someone with an endocrine or hormonal disorder? What about someone who is transgendered via a medical procedure? And what if such a procedure wasn't voluntary, such as when newborn males with small penises are thought to be females, surgically "corrected" and grow up believing they are females only to find out later (perhaps at puberty, or even later) they are otherwise male? Who gets to decide what gender and consequently, what rights they have to marry (anyone) and on what basis?

      Does marriage simply not apply to some of these individuals? What do you do if one of these persons ends up inadvertently married to the "same" gender but who had honestly believed they were "opposite" genders when they got married and found out later that perhaps they are not? How "male" does one have to be to be considered "male" enough to marry as a male? 51%?... 80%?.... 95%?.... What does it mean to have such a fundamental social institution that simply doesn't apply to certain people? How willfully ignorant will you have to continue to be in order to argue for a definition of marriage that ignores these issues?

      Can we simply ignore the issue because it's only a minority population of individuals with indeterminate or intermediate gender? How large would such a population have to be to be taken into consideration regarding "marriage?" How do you determine if someone is a member of such a population-- what means are to be used for determining intermediacy and how intermediate do you have to be to be considered one of such a group? What if the only "intermediacy" you have is that you find yourself attracted to the same sex? Apparently, even that is too much intermediacy for "marriage" to apply, at least in some quarters-- suggesting that the required percentages of "maleness" or "femaleness" required for marriage are quite high.

      And finally, does love have anything at all to do with marriage given the restrictions some people would apparently apply?

      IMHO-- How better could we undermine the institution of marriage then to withhold it from certain classes of persons? How could we make it more irrelevant to society at large than to pass a constitutional amendment proclaiming it an exclusive club? Watch what you wish for...

      The ignorant dinosaurs who yearn for a black and white world can try to ignore these difficult issues, but even the passing of a constitutional amendment isn't going to make them disappear, facts don't disappear merely because you prefer to ignore them...

    12. Re:Most violent game... ever! by gracefool · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of this... but the implication that God is sinning ("gets his hands dirty") by killing doesn't make much sense.

    13. Re:Most violent game... ever! by awhite · · Score: 1

      You see, the people living in that land prior to the Israleties were an evil people. They didnt care to live by God's rules, so God chose to put them to death. ...
      And whats more, is who are you to question the actions of the creator of heaven and earth?


      So to sum up:
      - Why were these people evil enough to deserve death? Because they didn't worship god.
      - What makes that evil? Because god says so, and god is good.
      - How do we know god is good? We have no right to ask that question.

      Sorry, not too convincing. You can try expanding the argument by appealing to the bible as a source of authority on god's nature, but then you just get into a bigger circular argument: Why should we believe the bible? Because god wrote it. How do we know? The bible says so. How do we know god wasn't lying about his nature in the bible? Because, according to the bible (that god wrote), god is good.

      Circles within circles, and nary any critical reasoning in sight.

    14. Re:Most violent game... ever! by jason777 · · Score: 0
      So to sum up: - Why were these people evil enough to deserve death? Because they didn't worship god. - What makes that evil? Because god says so, and god is good. - How do we know god is good? We have no right to ask that question.

      By definition, God is good. Therefore, anything apart from him is evil. God laid out his rules, and if people dont want to live by it, then it is His right to punish them. Notice, though, he never takes away free will. We know God is good based on His nature, and what He has done for us, and yes, what was written in His Word. Remember, he came and lived with us on this earth to show his love and to take the place of our punishment. When the Israelites sinned, they were to kill an animal as a symbol of the punishment they were to receive. This was foreshadowing to what Jesus did. He died in place of our sins. God couldnt make it any easier: Accept Jesus as payment for sin, and have eternal life with him. Otherwise, you will have eternal life without him. I mean, God's love is so great that he did that. Why would you choose to fight God? Who are you to question his ways? He created all, and can do as he chooses. He wants nothing more than for everyone to come to know him.

    15. Re:Most violent game... ever! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Who are you to question his ways?

      I AM.

      And that's all that's needed. If God exists and is as you describe him, then it is clear that our duty is to destroy him. The Universe is not safe as long as it is run by that maniac.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    16. Re:Most violent game... ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend that you look up "circular reasoning" in your local encyclopedia.

    17. Re:Most violent game... ever! by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      It's hypocritical because god's actions in the bible are so completely immoral. Repeated genocide, killing children because of their parents' sins, killing children for minor transgressions, killing children just to demonstrate his power, insane laws that allow slavery, punish women who are raped, etc. Not to mention the whole concept of creating a life-form and commanding that it worship you (without providing any real evidence that you exist, I might add), then punishing it infinitely if it does not.

      If you'll cite me some examples I'll be more than happy to discuss. Remember, God spoke to Adam and Eve, to Noah, to Abraham, and all of the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible are 100% accurate. How much more evidence is required?

      Let me give you an example of some up-and-coming prophetically important news items. The book of Revelation says that the coming Antichrist will force all to take the mark on his right hand or forehead or die. Without the mark no one will be able to buy or sell. With the advances in technology, nothing is left to realize (technologically speaking) for this to happen. The Bible says that the East gate in Jerusalem will remain sealed until the return of Christ. Indeed, this gate remains sealed to this day.

      The Bible says that the Jews would return to their homeland and repopulate it. There were about 600,000 Jews in Israel in 1948 when it once again became a state. There are now about 6,000,000 Jews living there.

      The Bible says that Israel would once again become a nation in one day. On May 14, 1948, the Jews declared their independence and on the very same day the UN mandate giving the British control over the state expired and Israel has been a nation ever since.

      The Bible says that Israel would flourish and that trees would grow there. Israel has been a barren, unproductive land for nearly 2000 years. Through the use of irrigation systems over the past century, over 2000 million trees have been planted in Israel.

      I could go on and on, but you get my point I hope.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    18. Re:Most violent game... ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree totally with awhite's assertions, but the stuff he mentions are things that casual sunday-school attendees, not to say Bible scholars, ought to know off the top of their heads.

      Repeated genocide - Sodom and Gomorrah, Canaan

      killing children because of their parents' sins - Cain (I think; this sounds more Greek tragedy-ish to me)

      killing children for minor transgressions - don't know

      killing children just to demonstrate his power - Isaac (but not really), Passover in Egypt

      insane laws that allow slavery - pretty much everywhere in the OT

      punish women who are raped - this is scattered around, but more prominent in my mind is the guy who rapes a girl, then gets his household killed by the brothers of the girl

      Also, many of the prophecies in Isaiah are similar to those of the poet Virgil. Everyone was hoping for a new "world" ruler who would bring peace and prosperity.

      And finally, I will say that in spite of this, I remain a Christian.

    19. Re:Most violent game... ever! by awhite · · Score: 1

      If you'll cite me some examples I'll be more than happy to discuss

      You want specific examples of atrocities in the bible? There are hundreds! I recommend skipping down to Leviticus and starting there; that's where the fun begins. Numbers and Deuteronomy are even better. I'm also particularly fond of Second Kings, 2:23-24.

      and all of the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible are 100% accurate

      I won't get into further arguments with you, because you can just ignore the points you can't/don't want to refute, making real debate impossible (case in point: my comments demonstrating your circular logic, which went unanswered). Plus, on the topic of prophecy, skepticsannotatedbible.com has hundreds of examples of unfulfilled biblical prophecies. Since you're in contact with the site maintainer and plan on proving all of these prophecies correct, I'll wait for your masterwork on the subject. I will say two things regarding prophecies, though:
      1. Swing enough times, and you're bound to get a few hits.
      2. Even if you believe that every prediction the bible made is 100% accurate, its successes are dwarfed by the predictive power of the secular competition -- science.

      There is one biblical prophecy that I'd like you to educate me on, though. To my mind, it's the single biggest, most obvious prophecy of the bible: Jesus' statements that the world would end within a generation. They're repeated in every gospel, but for reference, see Mark 9:1 and 13:30.

      I understand that later NT books attempt to gloss over the fact that the world is still going, with no end in sight. But to be honest, I got sick of reading the bible and stopped before I got to the explanation. So I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the versus that explain how Jesus was anything but a doomsday prophet who, like all others so far, turned out to be wrong. Or if finding the verses is a pain, just give me the popular church line on the subject. That way I'll have learned something from this conversation, and hopefully you will have too (if nothing else, you should have learned that you need some better arguments for god's existence in the future; those circular ones won't do at all).

    20. Re:Most violent game... ever! by BeatlesForum.com · · Score: 1

      There is one biblical prophecy that I'd like you to educate me on, though. To my mind, it's the single biggest, most obvious prophecy of the bible: Jesus' statements that the world would end within a generation. They're repeated in every gospel, but for reference, see Mark 9:1 and 13:30.

      Easy.

      Jesus' statement in Mark 9:1 (NIV) reads, "And he said to them, 'I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.'"

      If you keep reading through verse nine, you'll see that Jesus and the apostles were enveloped in a cloud on a mountain where Moses and Elijah appeared and God spoke to them to say that Jesus was His son and that they were to listen to him. Jesus was transfigured and his clothes became dazzling white.

      So there's the power of the kingdom of God witnessed by some of those with Jesus in verse one.

      Mark 13:30 (actually, let's back up to verse 28 so we can get the context right) reads, "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree. As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that is is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

      At the beginning of Mark chapter 13, Jesus tells his apostles of what to look for when the end of the world is nigh. Earthquakes in diverse places, wars and rumors of wars, children rebelling against parents, famines, etc., etc. So when Jesus says, "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," He is referring to the generation that sees all of the signs he mentioned to the apostles near the beginning of the chapter.

      One side note that may or may not interest you. Mark 13:28 talks about the fig tree. The fig tree is used in the Bible to refer to Israel. For nearly 2000 years prior to 1948, Israel was a desolate place, nearly uninhabitable and certainly not fertile. That has all changed with the use of irrigation and the return of the Jews to the state (as well as its declaration as a sovereign nation). Some scholars have made the statement that the generation that sees Israel return as a nation (the fig tree's leaves coming out) will be the generation to witness the end of the world.

      IMHO, we are living in the last of the last days. When the rapture happens, start reading Daniel and Revelation. It'll tell you the future. Better yet, read it now. Please before it's too late.

      --
      When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
    21. Re:Most violent game... ever! by awhite · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the explanation. I think there are lots of problems with it (the stars didn't fall in that generation, for example, which was one of the signs Jesus mentioned... also, he specifically says that those signs would signal that the end is very near, and now 2000 years later we're still waiting... considering that the bible puts the age of the universe at that time at only about 4000 years, I don't see how anyone could consider 2000 more years "near"), but I do appreciate it. It's good to finally know what the church's thoughts are on that prophecy.

    22. Re:Most violent game... ever! by laejoh · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Karl Marx says "Religion is the opium of the masses"

  115. The reality of gaming and religion. by PaganAtl · · Score: 1

    Ok so want a realistic portrayal of religion in gaming, then start a company that specializes in that. I mean, come on, look around ya, there is Christian Television, and Christian rock, and Christian Hollywood (i.e. The Passion). Your market is about 33% of the world's population.(http://www.adherents.com/) I personally won't buy into it. Portraying a specific "religion" in a game, console or PC, would be a bore. Now if you want to impress me find a way to add spirituality into a game and I may buy. When I say "Spirituality" I mean a well rounded, all-inclusinve search for the "soul" or "inner-being" and the triumphs and downfalls therein. Religion and "GOD" do not belong in the mainstream videogame market. Just as they do not belong in our law making process and our schools. If you want a game with your religious values, then program one and sell it to anyone who will buy into it. I personally find this thread rather disturbing and pointless.

  116. wildly charicatures? by Sebastopol · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Dude needs to go back in time a few hundred years, go to the middle east, or watch one of those wild eyed preachers rant in tongues! That's the true face of religion. It is kinder and gentler in civilized societies because we're all too fat and lazy and bored and over entertained to really do what X religious text says we're supposed to. (Since there is no measureable cause and effect to judeo christian rules and regulations, people blow it off. and rightly so.) Jeez, watch people speak in tongues and tell me games are charicatures.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  117. This guy is a by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    There are plety of games that feature religions such as Jedi etc. Why shouldn't that be enough?

    I resent these arrogant zealot christians that assume religion must == christianity, and also assume that becuase they believe in Jesus they are morally superior and have the right to tell everyone else how to live.

    There are all ready too many of my TV channels filled with self-righteous christian bullshit that I don't want already. At least keep them out of my games.

  118. God is Dead by Shakezoola · · Score: 1

    - Nietzsche is there really anything else to say?

    1. Re:God is Dead by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      sorry I couldn't resist... Nietzsche is dead - God

    2. Re:God is Dead by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Cool, but which God?

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  119. Why take religion seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the justification for taking religion seriously? All religions create a world view that refuses to hold itself up to reason, instead relying on blind faith. For anyone unwilling to suspend disbelief, it *is* nonsense.

    Many (most?) individuals are emotionally indoctrinated into religions before they have the power to reason or to make individual choice or, worse, when they are emotionally vulnerable.

    But it is reason that separates us from other animals--not emotions.

    Ideas must be valued on their explanatory power. Religions have little if any explanatory power. The passion of their defense is inversely proportional to the intrinsic value of their message.

  120. hey! by Luyseyal · · Score: 1
    Hey!!! Billy Graham's Bible Blaster is NOT fluff!!!

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  121. religion isn't ignored by the roguelike community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we worship RNG

  122. [nt] you get quiet for your roommate?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you get quiet for your roommate?! that's usually my cue to get LOUDER. ;)

  123. Re: Manifesto paragraph by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

    No Problem and nothing personal. In fact, the worst thing I would worry about is being stung with a downmod for O.T. ;-)

    I would guess you are referring to this paragraph:
    "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

    So what is the problem with the grandparent?

    Double disclaimer: besides the grandparent IANACOS, I am also not a philosopher.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  124. Jihad! - The Holy War by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Now that would sell in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia would ban it, but people would buy it anyway.

    So far, Islamic game software has been rather lame. There's Come to Salah, but it's a "memorize the Qur'an" edutainment product. Something edgier is needed to sell to the Arab street.

    What's needed is Diplomacy with the graphic quality of Tropico. You're a dictator trying to play off the religious fanatics against the moderates while dealing with neighboring warlords, US-backed enemies, and ambitious relatives. Try to suppress the imans, and you get a rebellion; give them power over education, and soon few of your people have any useful skills. Start a war to divert attention from your domestic problems, and run the risk of losing. Fail to follow the precepts of the Prophet and the people turn against you.

    It must be playable in Internet cafes. That's your market.

    The islamic world does have a sense of humor.

    1. Re:Jihad! - The Holy War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Try to suppress the imans
      Iman former supermodel, married to David Bowie imam religious leader or teacher in Islam
  125. religion too controversial for US game publishers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Publishers pay the bills, and they want games to be as commercial and mainstream as possible.

    I know of a Triple A title in production that could have included religious elements for realism, and the designers would have loved to do so, but have been blocked by the [North American] publisher.

    Blowing up churches and mosques is just way too inflammatory in today's climate. So war games containing religion must be watered down, fictionalized or treated as "caricature".

    In the end, I think this is OK. Using metaphor can create meaning for more people in the long run. And, Walmart will sell it too :)

  126. "Insult to my intelligence" by wtrmute · · Score: 5, Funny

    except that for the most part, religion is false. (...) i know what's real and what's not.

    That's rich. And you are, of course, able to perceive with complete accuracy truth from lies. Maybe I should start worshipping you...

    1. Re:"Insult to my intelligence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Maybe I should start worshipping you

      Fuckin'-A.

    2. Re:"Insult to my intelligence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know what's real and what's not.
      I know a fairy tale when I read it, or was that the bible? At least science doesn't claim to know what happens when you die, something nobody, no matter how religious knows. Claiming to know that is the biggest steaming pile in human history...

    3. Re:"Insult to my intelligence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can worship me if you want.

      The Great and ALL POWERFUL AC.

      If you're going to waste your time worshipping something, you may as well worship something that can actually reply to you, and exists somewhere out there.

      (Does it bother you that the great and all powerful AC is an atheist? I command you not to be bothered by it! Oh, and build me a temple - something small and comfy, and with a view).

    4. Re:"Insult to my intelligence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edgar Cayce knew...

    5. Re:"Insult to my intelligence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, it results from simple logic.



      No single religion is in the majority

      Each religion contradicts every other religion

      If a single religion is true, all others are false

      Therefore, no matter which religion is true (if any) the rest are false- so most religions are false. The ability to perceive truth from lies with respect to any particular religion is irrelevant.

    6. Re:"Insult to my intelligence" by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

      i think that with his remarkable abilities its high time he started a cult.

  127. Ob Simpsons Scene by servognome · · Score: 1

    Bart: Videogames! Whaddya got? [grabs a videogame off the shelf, and reads the title] "Billy Graham's Bible Blaster?"
    Rod: Keep firing; convert the heathens!
    Bart: Got him!
    Rod: No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.
    Todd: Look out, Bart! A gentle Baha'i!
    Bart: All right! Full conversion! Thanks guys, this really cheered me up.
    Video: Second Coming! Reload, reload!

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  128. WHO CARES!!!! by simetra · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you want religion, go to church.

    If you want to play a video game, play a video game.

    Personally, I would like to see more video games that portray religion as the scourge that it is. POSTAL 2 does a pretty good job of portraying the religious as a bunch of loonies.

    Why do these religious freaks insist on putting their hand into everything? They want prayer in schools, they want religion in Rock, now in games. Screw them all. Seriously, screw them!

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:WHO CARES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lighten the frig up, crybaby!

      It's a discussion of using concepts behind religion in video games, not the fundies forcing things on people.

      Although I am agnostic, I find attidudes like yours equally as immature and ignorant as those of a fundamentalist. You need to grow up a bit.

  129. Well, that was a bit... by kirk444 · · Score: 1

    Misleading. I was expecting a far more interesting article, something omipotent, an article that people would gather from miles around just to read the catch line. Oh well.

  130. Yes, because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's his roommate's girlfriend.

    ba-dum-dum-CHA!

    Thank you. I'll be here all week!

  131. Not all religions are Christian by thegameiam · · Score: 1

    A tautological argument based upon Christian theology somewhat understood does not exhaust the subject of religious beliefs.

    For instance, Judaism embraces the story of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, while rejecting the notion of "original sin."

    I would venture to suggest that post Vatican-II Catholics, who believe that there is a place in Heaven for righteous non-Christians, would not be included in your analysis. As the vast majority of Catholics can be described as post-Vatican-II, I would suggest that your 2-point summary is woefully inadequate.

    Be well,

    --
    Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
  132. I wouldn't call communism a religion... by FatSean · · Score: 0

    If we accept that statement than any world-view becomes a religion. I always felt religion had to have an element of the supernatural in it.

    --
    Blar.
  133. Near the topic by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
    Dude Nyssa,

    Do you know much of the many Nyssas which the Gods Osiris and Dionysus founded -- and that "Dionysus" itself means "God of Nysa" meaning that He was born there? Googling "Nysa Osiris Dionysus" makes for interesting reading! (Since everybody can Google I'm not gonna bother with links.)

    According to Religions, the first Nysa was in Egypt. Osiris went a-touring the world. He founded a Nysa in Arabia Felix, and one in India that some think is today's Peshawar.

    Dionysos (I alternate spellings religiously) was from the Nysa in Arabia Felix. Or maybe a Nysa in what is today NE Iran, to the SE of Caspian, on the road from Tehran to Balkh in Bactria. The Persian legend says that He first cultivated the Vine in these mountains around their Nysa, producing His entheogen, Wine.

    The Nysa of Dionysos is also placed in Libya or Ethiopia. And here we meet an interesting concept, "(A)Ethiopia." The Greek means "Burning Eyes" and it's easy to see why sub-Saharan Africans might be so called. The "Aeth" can, however, also refer to "ethereal" and as such is the root of our English "ether." It refers to the "upper air" a realm of Gods.

    It is the root of the name of Aeetes King of Colchis, Son of Helios the Sun, and father of Medea. Colchis is the region to the east and southeast of the Black Sea, it's where the Golden Fleece was kept for Jason to fetch. There are maps showing this region to be called "Ethiopia!" Herodotus records the presence of woolly-haired people there, and it has been guessed that a Pharoah Sesostris (I forget which) founded a colony there.

    (The Royal Family of Persia claimed descent from Aeetes through Medea. If biblical Jesus is a descendant of biblical Esther and her husband a King of Persia, then biblical Jesus might actually be the descendant of a God: Helios!) St. Helena mother of Constantine "the Great" ("the great what?" is my question) was from a Balkan Nysa, though whether this be the same as Drepanum later Helenopolis I don't know.

    There is a Nysa in Greater Syria that is also associated with Dionysus.

    Strangely, the Nysa in Anatolia was founded much too late to be a birthplace of the God Dionysos, like 3 centuries before Julius Ceasar. The Religion of Dionysus was imported to Greece from Anatolia, but not from Anatolian Nysa.

    All of this is Googled and approximate, the reader is urged to good sources like pantheon.org for more accurate and useful stuff.

  134. Galileo? Probably not. by rjh · · Score: 1

    I won't contest Augustine; Augustine, to put it simply, was a dude. But Galileo... Let's just say I have some serious objections to how Galileo is usually represented.

    Galileo, contrary to the myths that have sprung up surrounding him, wasn't put on ecclesiastical trial just for saying the Earth moved 'round the sun. After all, that theory had already been established years earlier... by a Catholic priest.

    (Funny, isn't it, how Copernicus always gets remembered as an astronomer and never as a priest?)

    Galileo was put on ecclesiastical trial for two things: (a) being wrong and (b) politics. Galileo bought the Copernican line hook, line and sinker, and didn't care about the fact the Copernican view was demonstrably wrong. Here's a little experiment you can do, if you have enough math: compute the motions of the planets according to Copernican theory, and then compute the motions according to epicyclic (Ptolemaic) theory.

    Ptolemaic theory gives far, far more accurate results.

    Why? Because Copernicus thought the planets moved in perfect circles. They don't. Once Kepler came onto the scene and modified Copernican theory to be based on ellipses instead of circles, then Keplerian theory took off and displaced Ptolemaic theory. But Galileo wasn't arguing Kepler's perspective; he was arguing Copernicus'.

    So, in the first place, Galileo was wrong. In the second place, Galileo had an annoying habit of mocking the Pope in print. If memory serves, Galileo took Pope Urban's well-considered objections to Copernican theory and put them in the mouth of a fictional character, "Simplicio", then spent an entire book refuting "Simplicio's" beliefs.

    What does "Simplicio" mean in Italian?

    Moron.

    So right there were Galileo's two major goofs. One, he was wrong, and two, he called the Pope a moron in print.

    Very few of Galileo's astronomical "discoveries" have stood the test of time. As it turns out, the prosecutor in Galileo's trial--a Jesuit named Scheiner, if I recall correctly--has had a much better track record.

    In one of life's little ironies, everyone today knows Galileo as a brilliant astronomer, when he really wasn't. And to the extent anyone remembers Scheiner, it's always as "the guy who persecuted Galileo", not "the finest astronomer of the seventeenth century" or "the guy who established the Vatican's astronomical observatory, the world's oldest and longest-running".

  135. So what? by tektor · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't think there are any games that treat anaesthesiology at anything more than a superficial level, either.

  136. Who gives a fuck? by Polarism · · Score: 1

    Pardon the french but jesus christ I don't boot up some game just to be fucking exposed to bullshit I don't need to hear and long ago figured out was sick joke on the weak minded of the world.

    Religion is nothing more than a method of control that advertises itself as otherwise and pulls it off flawlessly.

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
    1. Re:Who gives a fuck? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Ecrasez l'infame...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:Who gives a fuck? by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

      Far be it from me to trust a democratic kind of voting process... But have you considered the possibility that if a couple billion people think you're wrong, maybe you are? I know that truth and factuality are not established by popularity, and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you, but perhaps you could be less troll-like and intentionally offensive, and express your opinions with a tad more humility.

      Others have managed to contribute positively to these conversations while holding opinions pretty similar to yours. What happened to your psyche that has hurt so badly that you are unable to do the same?

  137. parable or history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late; it is already a debate.

    In reality, what most Christians are taught is this (now you may consider this "interpretation"): *God punished Eve for disobedience to his explicit command*. That's it.

    If we are to interpret the creation account as a parable (a fiction given to teach some moral lesson), then I can accept what you are saying. It sounds good to me.

    However, if the creation account is interpreted as history, what you have done is oversimplify. By removing very important facts, you have forced a specific, though unwarranted, conclusion.

    Specifically, God was commanding Eve to remain in ignorance. Further, as the Bible clearly states, Eve ate the apple to gain wisdom. These facts cannot simply be ignored, as motivation is always a necessary element of the determination of the moral-value of any given action.

    That is why so many people reject this story as myth. They do not believe that a loving God would punish someone for reaching for wisdom, (nor, for that matter, would an intelligent God bother to put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden in the first place). Since the Bible says God did these things, they believe, it must be false. Your attempt at minimizing the significance of the relevant facts makes it sound like you are just rationalizing, and not explaining.

    That is why the notion of Genesis-as-parable works much better...we can dismiss such contradictions as being superfluous story ingredients, and focus on the central theme.

    1. Re:parable or history? by gracefool · · Score: 1

      You also shouldn't ignore the fact that Eve was deceived by the serpent into thinking that she would gain wisdom. Nowhere does the Bible say that she actually did gain wisdom as a result of eating the apple.

  138. Medieval: Total War, anyone? by bishiraver · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Medieval iteration of this game used religion fantastically. If your populace was too zealous, and you had an unreligious leader as a governer of their province, they would be less loyal. If you had a really zealous governer, and most people in the province were of another religion, you'd better set up missionaries. The more zeal a province had, the more troops a Jihaad or Crusade would gather during its stay in said province. Glossed over and caricatured? I think not.

  139. Wrath -- a game all about God! by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine and I, at the first Indie Game Jam (IGJ0), wrote a game in a couple of days called "Wrath".

    It was bascially a two-player RTS-ish game where you had various tools that you could use to manipulate the 100,000 humans running around the board. One player played God, the other Satan. You could place attractors or repulsors, you could raise/lower terrain, you could convert them to your side (save vs damn), and you can kill them. The object is to basically convert-and-kill. Whoever ends up with more souls in their domain when the time runs out wins.

    The IGJ0 page is here.
    You can see a screenshot of the game in action here.

  140. There are some Christian games out there.... by 1337+Twinkie · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of reasons that game developers have not pushed anything more than basic good/evil in most video games. First, most in the gaming community are agnostic/atheist. Second (and most importantly), it is very difficult to deal with such topics in a way that not make (some) people cry.
    That said, there are developers out there pushing Christian themes. N'Lighting Software is one: http://www.n-lightning.com/

    Predictably, their games have not exactly recieved rave reviews: http://www.game-revolution.com/games/pc/action/cat echumen.htm

    There is also Bible Blaster, (played and probably endorsed by Rod and Todd Flanders) ^_^

  141. I like this too, so long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two points must be granted. First of all, as you state, They were innocent, and incapable of sin. Therefore, the eating of the fruit must not have been a sin. If it was a sin, they would not have been capable of doing it.

    Secondly, the whole story must be viewed as a parable. If it is taken as literal history, then this analysis blatantly disregards some very important facts which make God into a big jerk.

    1. Re:I like this too, so long as.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they weren't incapable of sin. The sanctity of free-will is throughout the Bible.

  142. First you gotta pay taxes to deduct. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let's see,
    Say you have 500000gp, subtract 10000gp of donations to dark elf temple, Tax = 490000 * 0.35 = 171,500gp. Assume an exchange rate of 1gp == $1 US. Congratulations, with your dark elf temple deductions, you now owe the IRS $171,500

  143. innate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original sin ... is the innate human desire to be in total control of one's universe.

    If this human desire is innate, then God must have created us with this desire.

    Did God give us this desire to deliberately predispose us to want to disobey Him?

    Wouldn't God have known the end result of having given us this desire, along with weak wills?

    No matter how you look at it, God's hands are dirty.

    1. Re:innate? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Not really. God created the possibility of us sinning, which isn't evil. We just happened to do it, and from then on, we've always wanted to do it.

      It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that God did something wrong.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    2. Re:innate? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Sinning IS evil. How many links to the concepts of Sin and Evil do you want me to produce to prove that point?

      It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that God did something wrong.

      It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that Vishnu/Allah/Santa Claus/Superman did something wrong.

      That's effectively what I see when you write something like that. Shit's all made up. You can pretend a "God" is as smart and right as you want, but when the only representation of "His" word that we have is a horribly flawed book, it doesn't leave us much to go on but to assume that "He" or your beliefs are horribly flawed as well.

  144. http://www.cgonline.com/features/020610-f1-f1.html by thenightisdark · · Score: 1

    Computer Games Online
    This page says the artical is not from gamersdad, but from
    "This article first appeared in the May 2002 issue of Computer Games Magazine." Just for your Info!

    --
    Piracy is Adam Smiths invisble hand fisting you in the ass, Mr. Gates. - MightyMartian (840721)
  145. Sin and obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eve did whatever the hell she wanted, in spite of being told not to

    Free will, it's a bitch!

    Did God want us to be a: ignorant, b: slaves?

    If God wanted us to be ignorant, why did He put the tree there?

    If God wanted us to be slaves, why did he give us free will?

    Not that it really matters....if God DID want us to be ignorant slaves, then he is obviously both incompetent and an asshole.

    Needless to say, I am not a big fan of "doing what you are told." However, it is not from an innate desire to disobey. Rather, it is because the motivations of the one telling me what to do can always be brought into question.

  146. Christians should stop whining... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    ...because hatred for campers at the respawn points may be seen as an anti-abortion message in every FPS. ;-P

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  147. If your mind is too open, the reason escapes... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    The trick is to be open minded, yet critical. Should you dismiss everything that doesn't agree with your pre-defined (from a book?) world view? Nah. Should you believe any fool idea because it's someone's opinion? Hell no.

    Example: It is MY opinion that the sky is not blue, but rather orange. Can I have this perception? sure. Does my having it make it true, or even likely? Of course not. Unless I can produce solid evidence of the orange-ness (?) then you'd be right to dismiss it.

    Nonetheless, lots of people believe things that are (to me) nonsensical. I cannot comprehend how intelligent, critical people can be religious (or more correctly, STAY religious once they become educated adults), but they do.

    I don't think that they are stupid to be that way, but I just don't understand it.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  148. And certainly not Final Fantasy X by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I know everyone will tell me that FF7 was the best Final Fantasy -- sorry, haven't finished it. The only FF game I ever finished was X, and it was well worth it. The plot is the main point of the game, and this plot revolves around religion.

    Spoilers below. I suggest you go play the game first before you read this. Of course, if you play the game, you'll have to try very, very hard to miss the religion.

    Your character, Tidus, starts off as a star Blitzball player. He lives in an ultramodern city, and is having a great time. For about 2 minutes before the city is destroyed and he's thrown 1000 years into the future, where technology is almost lost, and things like swords and magic are much more common.

    In the future, there is a very new and strange religion called Yevon, and a huge and monstorous physical beast called Sin. As it turns out, Sin is Tidus' father, Yevon has very real implications. There are godlike Aeons who are summoned by Summoners, who become Summoners by having a very strong belief in Yevon.)

    But Yevon is also mostly false -- the people's greatest hope, a way to periodically kill Sin and have a time of calm before it is reborn, all that is a lie. The act of killing Sin in the traditional Yevon way immediately creates a new Sin, and all it really does is give the common people hope.

    Tidus refuses to accept this and goes on to defeat Sin, with his friends, in a different and unorthadox way, so that it won't come back.

    When large portions of your world are periodically destroyed by a huge beast, you'd be terrified if you didn't have religion. And when that religion betrays you?

    I have never seen, in any work of fiction, a theology created from scratch and then made so real and tangible, before it is so thoroughly destroyed. If you want more religion, you may as well go join a monastary. But don't join the Warrior Monks of Yevon...

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  149. Ok, I'll bite by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Pascal's Wager, as the name implies, was the idea of Blaise Pascal, who died in 1662. As with basically all philsophy that's been around for a long time, there are a million refutations for it.

    The most direct one is that Pascal has over simplified. Pretending that the situation is as simple as a 2x2 matrix (or even a two dimensional matrix) is silly. You ahve to consider other possibilities such as what if god can tell the difference between real believers and fake ones? I can't just change what I believe is true like a light switch, any more than you can. So what if god is fine with disbelievers, but punishes those that pretend to believe? What if I believe in the wrong god? Maybe god is fine with those that don't believe or believe in him, but believing in the wrong god is a bad thing. What if religion is a trap, like the Apple, and BELIEVING gets your damned and disbelieving gets you saved? No one said god has to obecy the logic of man. Etc.

    It's a neat excersize for first year philsophy students, but holds no weight as a serious argument. The argument against its simplicity is only one of the many out there, by the way.

    Also the argument about a lot of people believing in god/an afterlife/etc is a logical fallacy. That a lot of people believe something to be true has no relivance to the actual truth of it. This is what empiricism and the scientific mentod is about. It's not a democracy where people vote for the idea the most of them like the best, it's a method for seperating truth from fiction, regardless of popular opinion.

    1. Re:Ok, I'll bite by twd · · Score: 1

      And you miss my point. I am not such a naif as to claim that Pascal or anyone else proved the existence of god or an afterlife. As you point out, diety is not something that ultimately reduces to human logic so much as it relies on human faith.

      It is equally a logical fallacy to claim to know better than all those who have gone before, and to say that, because I do not believe, nobody else should, and that, therefore, simulations and games that attempt to capture the richness of human culture should pretend there is no such thing as religion, or caricature it. That a lot of people believe something to be false also has no relevance to the actual truth of it.

      Sadly, it seems that discussion about discussion of religion leads to as much waste of words as discussion of religion, so I'll quit.

      BTW, I think you'll find that Pascal wasn't so simplistic, either.

      --
      ~*~ Tara
    2. Re:Ok, I'll bite by vhold · · Score: 1

      But you could basically resimplify it away from most of those problems. Simply don't completely deny the existence of a higher power and through all the afterlife possibilities, you're less likely to mess it up. It's not as hard and fast of a concept, but basically I'm saying that the original idea still has some merit. What's the point of being a total athiest when that's just another form of unprovable faith?

    3. Re:Ok, I'll bite by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you mean by atheist. If you mean one who declares that there cannot be a god, yep that's a faith. If you mean someone who does not believe in god because there is insufficient evidence, well that's empiricism. The empiricist position is that you don't believe in something until there is sufficent evidence to do so. Doesn't mean you say it can't be, just that you won't believe until you are given sufficient proof.

      See god (any one of them) comes in at the same level as ESP, past lives, ghosts, and any number of other things such as that. Proponents continue to claim, yet fail to produce any evidence. So teh empiricist holds them all with skepticism. They do not believe them, since there is insufficent evidence to do so.

      As for the wager, no you can't so simplify, because you do know any better than anyone else what gods thoughts on the matter, if there is a god. Maybe all people that don't deny a god, any god, go to heaven. That's another column on the table. But maybe only those most devoute followers of a very specific religion go to heaven, another column for each specific religion. And so on.

      When you get right down to it there are TONS of distinct possibilities, and no real way to know which is right. So the whole thing is basically meaningless. As I said, interesting excersise for freshman psychology students, but not a usable argument to believe in god.

      Also, as I pointed out, belief isn't something you flip a switch on. I'm not sure why believers will declare that it would be impossible for them not to believe, but then expect non believers to just flip a switch. Goes both ways. Whatever you believe, you cannot change just through wanting. You can only change it through getting new information and/or reevaluating old information.

  150. Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I favor the Gnostic interpretation of the myth:

    The creator ordered Adam and Eve to remain ignorant because he was an asshole. He is, in fact one of the evil "powers and principalities" mentioned in the New Testament.

    The Gnostics would add that the creator is not God, but merely claims to be. Also, the serpent was not an evil being, but rather a helper guiding mankind to liberation.

    Oh, one other thing the Gnostics would add: its all metaphor, not history. :)

  151. Gaming with Jesus? by IroNuckles · · Score: 1

    When is the last time you saw/heard of a SERIOUSLY religious movie that wasn't rediculed to death? (I'm a Christian and I never went to see the Passion, I just didn't care for the whole 'controversy' surrounding it, Hollywood annoys me enough) The same goes for games; if a seriously religious game were made nowadays it wouldn't be accepted, regardless of what moral value it might have. Games like B&W basically are using religion as a plot device; it's not taken seriously the way that a believer in said religion would take it. And anyway, games are supposed to be ENTERTAINING, and religion rarely is, nor is it intended to be.

  152. Makes perfect sense to me. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    If Christianity can't be made into a game that is believable and enjoyable, um, that says something interesting about Christianity.

    Yep. And if tying your shoes can't be made into a game that is believable and enjoyable, it therefore follows that you shouldn't ever tie your shoes.

    You've actually managed to get right to the heart of modernism: "If it isn't entertaining, it isn't valid."

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  153. I half agree by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

    A religion is nothing but a product of a people and their culture. If you can't see that then don't read further and don't reply to me as I have no motivation for discussing this point.

    To say that violence is a product of a religion is unfair. Being fair would be to say that a religion is the product of a violent people.

    But like peoples and their cultures, religions change. A christian today is nothing at all like a christian a thousand nor two thousand years ago. Any christian from two thousand years ago wouldn't be nor consider themself to be 'saved' and therefore most evangelic christians would reason them deemed to hell. And a christian of today wouldn't even understand what christianity 'is' 2000 years ago as the entire mythology of christianity is completely different than it was.

    The only true thing is that religion can be a powerful tool to manipulate the masses of ignorant people in this world. And that is why religions should have no power and should have nothing to do with the state. I consider any preacher that tells his congregation to vote a certain way (Fawell) to be far worse than the lowest fake (Benny Hinn).

  154. But they didn't know the difference by spun · · Score: 1

    Without knowing good from evil, how could Eve have known it was good to follow God's commands and evil to disobey them? In fact, she couldn't have understood why she shouldn't eat the fruit until after she ate it.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:But they didn't know the difference by gracefool · · Score: 1
    2. Re:But they didn't know the difference by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Damnit! Don't apply logic to a story from the Bible. You'll force some "Biblical Scholar" to tell us how we're completely misunderstanding the thing because we don't speak/read ancient pig latin.

  155. totally serious. by bani · · Score: 1

    he just blew you away, totally. utterly demolished you into atoms. your dismissing him with a 'if you really seemed interested in open, honest discussions I'd find the energy to respond' shows you are utterly unable respond.

    1. Re:totally serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the parent but how was he "totally. utterly demolished" into atoms? Noone has yet to respond to my posts in fact as a lowly AC I've even been modded up some and yet no responses. Want to try? Here you go.

      First the Hebrew word tam does not mean sinless. Tam might better be equated with "well-rounded" or "fulfilling one's duties" or "in the right place" (which would include proper reaction to sin), but it does not mean "perfection". The actual word for moral perfection in Hebrew is tamiym (cf. Gen. 17:1, 2 Sam. 22:31). ("Tamiym" is used to describe Noah in Gen. 6:9, but it refers to him as "perfect" in his "generations" [towledah], the word used of physical family descent. One suggests that, in the context of Gen. 6:4, this refers not to Noah's moral behavior, but to the fact that his line was untainted by interaction with the "sons of God" who came unto the daughters of men.)

      Thankyou drive through.

  156. The Tao of Pac Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    What do you want? Pac-Man already laid down the ultimate dogma of reincarnation: Life is an endless strugle of frantic point-gathering and hunting, death, and rebirth. You will eventually die, but then you eyes will float back to the center box and you will reborn. Or you will use up one of your extra lives and be reborn- depending on which caste you were born into!

  157. Depends on what you mean by religion by LS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are multiple ways you could look at religion, and they are very different when it comes to video games, or any other medium.

    One way is as an institution or culture. This is not difficult, as you are treating the religion as a behavioral entity and can easily reproduce it's symbols and customs in a video game.

    Another way is to look at religion as philosophy. This is more difficult, as creating a game that encourages different scenarios based on the beliefs of the player (or at least temporary philosophy for the sake of the game).

    One last way to look at religion in regards to video games is the most interesting: The video game as an aspect of the religion itself. If you only believe that religion is defined by authorities writing in books, then you won't think this makes sense. If you believe religion to be a highly personal experience that involves defining your place in the universe, then everything is religious. A video game that changes your world view or wakes you up to a more aware thought process, then it become an aspect of religion itself.

    I had a friend who cried at the beauty of one of the game scenarios he experience in Alpha Centauri...

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  158. Evil by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1
    "Its no wonder that many intelligent people look at the history of Christianity and reject it."

    Say, rather, that there is a greater mistake that many intelligent people make with religious choice: to create straw men, tear them to shreds, and fall back into dull agnosticism.

    "Although Christianity teaches that violence is wrong, it has been perverted"

    These examples you cite are perversions of Christianity, not the thing itself; on what basis, then, can you reject Christianity?

    "... therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee..." A good deal of religion is a confrontation of death, or a working out of the problem of good and evil, or a quest for the meaning of life; it's all the same issue, however you want to put it. Christianity, at least, confronts these all head-on. Christians have to think about death, have to explain themselves, have to provide the meaning... even the meaning of the horrible events you are talking about.

    But you don't. You are willing to condemn a religion for things you think might have happened ("perhaps this is legend I don't know"). Just sling the mud, then tell people to move along, nothing to see here.

    Christianity is rich in culture, and history, and yes, even faith. But if you want the nickel answers, continue asking the 5 cent questions.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  159. Dislike Worship by MorePower · · Score: 1
    >> why would he make those creations
    >> dislike worship so much?

    >What do you mean by "dislike worship"? Do you
    >mean "dislike going to church"? I don't
    >understand...

    I don't think he meant "dislike going to church". I think he meant the way that having a higher power ruling over your life makes us all unhappy and angst-ridden. Humans have an innate desire for freedom and independance, and having anyone or anything that away, even if it's a perfectly benevolent ruler, riles up feelings of unfairness and anguish that causes us to suffer.

    Living in a world with a god in it is kind of like living in your parents house...forever! Even assuming that your parents weren't abusive or anything, it just isn't possible to be happy living under someone elses roof like that. That's why we all get out as soon as we are 18 and never go back. Life just isn't worth living if somebody else has so much power over you.

    1. Re:Dislike Worship by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Humans have an innate desire for
      > freedom and independance

      True, if there's no God, then I have no responsibilities, nor can I ever sin.

      > Living in a world with a god in it
      > is kind of like living in your
      > parents house...forever!

      Heh, that's a neat analogy, never heard it put that way before.

      > Life just isn't worth living if
      > somebody else has so much power over you.

      Actually, I'd submit that life isn't worth living if there's no purpose to it.

  160. Afterlife by destiney · · Score: 1


    Afterlife by Lucas Arts.

    In this game you are in the "afterlife" business catering to all the religions of all people, on the whole earth. There is no "God" in the game, but you cater to the recently dead who think there is, in effect being whatever "God" it is that they do believe in.. or not.

    Those who believe in reincarnation are a pain to deal with. You never make a dime off them, but you have to keep sending them back to Earth, which is of course not free.

  161. Missed Something by Syriloth · · Score: 1

    "Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured."

    What isn't wildly caricatured about video games?

  162. New players by sbszine · · Score: 1

    it's a servicable means to explain the moves to new players.

    I usually just say "The horsey makes an L-shape".

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  163. Less realistic religion = piss off less people by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason games don't have real religions modeled in them is just that it would divide their potential userbase. I really think that's all there is to it. Instead of getting people mad, since it is literally impossible to have a portrayal of religion that looks balanced and evenhanded to every potential consumer, they either make the religion realy comic-book-like and fakey, or they shift it off to something else entirely so it doesn't look like anything on earth (like the Hammerites from Thief).

    Even the preachy Ultima IV mentioned in the article had to do that sort of thing - making up a new religion that is based on eight virtues, and stays well away from anything like a belief in a god. (It was a good game, although having a computer program enforce rules of morality had problems in that it only cared about the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. For example, you could lose an 'eigth' for lack of bravery when your main character doesn't stay behind to be the last person to leave a map in a fight. That was severly flawed when sometimes the congestion of characters on the mapboard made it necessary for you to leave with your main character first just to make the room for the rest to fit out the exit. Sometimes the computer's random placement of figures on the map made it such that your only two choices were 1 - lose the virtue of bravery because the leader is in the way and has to leave first, or 2 - reload the game.)

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    1. Re:Less realistic religion = piss off less people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sure, but what is a 'real' religion???

      Religion is irational by definition.

      Religion is totally orthogonal on reality and if that could be expressed mathematically, then it would make a perfect spreading code for a cellular phone system.

    2. Re:Less realistic religion = piss off less people by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Sure, but what is a 'real' religion???

      One that existed previously outside the genre of the game.


      Religion is irational by definition.

      Not by definition, but definitely by practice. As long as it admits to it's own utter inability to come to any real conclusions, and admits entirely that it exists purely as a form of mental masturbation to make people feel better, then it is still rational. There are some religions that can fit this mold - Unitarians are often like this. I don't "get it" myself, thinking that the Unitarians are admitting to the utter inconclusiveness of religion while still trying to preserve what's good about religion - which to me is like trying to keep from throwing out the baby with the bathwater in a tub that doesn't even have a baby in it in the first place.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  164. Re:Most violent game... ever!-Doom3 mod by cathammer · · Score: 1

    With the upcoming Doom III engine maybe someone can make a religious mod. Something like Jesus with a chaingun mowing down Pimps and Dope dealers in the Ghettos.

  165. Gospelizing = Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moment a game gospelizes, it turns into an advertisement and I for one do not want to play an advertisement for religion or anything else.

  166. Mixing science into religion by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

    The problem was that the catolic church at that time had embrasedthe science of the time (greek philosophy, like it today embrases darwinisim). That was why many great minds of that time were called blasphemers. Lesson: never mix science into theology. The other way arond: well, the Bible have been proven right over the science over and over again, so... :)

    --
    Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
  167. hrmmm by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    I did some gaming with god... then he struck me with a bolt of lightning :(

  168. It has to be said by metamatic · · Score: 1

    I absolutely hate it when people assume that they must be right, and therefore anyone of separate opinion must be an idiot.

    You are absolutely right, and anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  169. Deserves insulting because religion is irrelevant by blahplusplus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well I don't know about you but religion is the last and only reason why biological science is being railed against and might take a turn for the worse, check out sites like www.arn.org and whatnot for the modern creationist movement based on some convoluted concept of "special creation" of the first cells (in Behe's case) or as some Old earthers in the movement would have it human beings. In fact religion is the cause of a lot of human division in the world where you have a lot of nutjobs believing entirely different things about the origins of humanity, the age of the earth, how long humans have been on the planet, how they got here, etc.

    For people that might flame me I do not believe in seperating the bible from history there is no historical or rational basis in doing so I do not subscribe to "different models" of faith (as seen here: Faith and reason - Internet encyclopedia of philosophy that were created because we found out that the earth was old and the bible's history is not history at all. Before scientific times this could be somewhat excused as a culture needs to have some worldview base/common values, history and culture but it's not now.

    ID is based off an incorrect and outdated worldview unless you really believe God did the whole job in 6 days a few thousand years ago, global flood, noah's ark and all that (Local flooders: if the flood was local why not just have Noah and animals move, or warp him some place also why does the biblical god a good 99% of the time use nature (or something) as an intermediary to destroy human beings, esp when it's claimed that as god you're omnipotent and have full control over matter/nature's laws?).

    Also I want everyone to look up Mathew 8:30-34 you can check out this website. Effectively disproving 1) The notion that Jesus is god (either you believe demon beings exist and cause disease/unnatural/violent behaviour, or christ is not god as god would know such things don't exist) 2) Christ promotes and endorses superstition and ignorance he actually 'plays along' with the excorcism if you don't believe in demons, which is tantamount to lying and bearing false witness which disqualifies him as the Son of god (since lying is a sin!). 3) If he was really the son of god and had eternal life he would have stuck around to make the world a better place, the christians rationalized his death away in the gospels because they lived in hopeless and harsh times, in short they were deluded.

    Finally even the OT and gospel authors conclude those who dont view the bible as historical in it's entirety on fundamentals (i.e. the first chapters of genesis, creation of adam and eve, the fall, the origin of death in humanity through 'great gran-daddy'adam's disobedience). Don't take my word for it paul's whole basis for the christian religion was that it was rooted in reality and history (or so he thought anyway). Here's the bible characters own own words on his stance towards the OT (the 'bible' before the gospels were written).

    "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

    "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

    "As by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men - . . death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression... [I]For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ".[/I] - Please notice the contrast taking place here it spells it out in HUGE LETTERS that the origin of physical death is rooted in adam not evolution or progressive creation.

    See problems with non-literal or theistic evolutionist interpretations of the

  170. Re:Religion is suppresed because writers are ignor by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

    I agree that the genre needs better story and plots. But the reason religion is not used has nothing to do with this at all. It's becuase it's impossible to include religion in a non-superficial way unless the game engine itself validates one view over another. Consider Ultima IV with its eight virtues. If you didn't happen to agree with the author that all eight of those were really virtuous, then playing that game can kind of piss you off - as you are required within the frame of the game to follow in that "religion" in order to get to the finish of the storyline. In effect, the game designer was the "god" of the world, and his say-so on what was and wasn't moral was the final say-so and if you don't like it then tough. (I agreed with only 7 of the 8 virtues when I played that game. One "virtue" was humility, and as someone who doesn't see hubris as a sin, this bothered me (especially since "Lord British" the game designer was himself not being the slightest bit humble in his decision to enforce his own morality system as *absolute truth* in the game - but it was just a game I said to myself, so I played with it that way anyway.)

    But now if a real-world religion is used, like Christianity, then this same scenario starts treading on real nasty ground - the game engine ends up having to *enforce* the religion, and since there's a zillion different interpreations of it, this will tick off a large number of the players. (Picture if Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com/) ended up making a game that enforced HIS version of Christainity, for example.)

    This is why the topic is avoided. If you try to use it your game engine itself is going to anger a lot of the players.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  171. Learned idling... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Well, as Nietsche said: Arguing about religion using only the Holy Bible as reference, is just learned idling...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:Learned idling... by gracefool · · Score: 1

      ...but if Bible was proved to have internal inconsistencies, it would be proved wrong (since it claims to be the infallible Word of God).

    2. Re:Learned idling... by HermanAB · · Score: 1
      Well, inconsistencies in the Holy Bible have never bothered theologians much - after all, they wrote it and know exactly what BS is in there.

      The Bible is for the masses, it cramps the style of a good priest.

      According to Voltaire, one of the techniques that were used by King Jame's scribes, to decide which books were kriva and which were apokriva, was to stack them pell mell on an altar and the ones that fell off were apokriva - god's will...

      People have to view the Holy Bible in the context in which is was written. European Kings used their army's to subject their enemies and then sent in their Priests to scare the bejesus out of the peasants to keep them in line. All of that was changed by the advent of the electric light bulb. Moving shadows from a flickering candle just doesn't have much daemonic force anymore...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  172. My god by HermanAB · · Score: 1
    is stronger than your god.

    The guilt god...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  173. Your sig: by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


    You say that I'm a dreamer.
    I say you're a non-believer.

    Since when are these two things mutually exclusive? Wishing for things, and going off on long flights of fancy in your mind does not have to require believing those things. A separation in one's mind between fantasy and reality is a good thing, but it does not have to imply that that the fantasy side of things is ignored and never played with.

    (It's just that with the topic of this article, this has come to mind - there's been a lot of accusations being flung around that the non-religius are non-dreamers and that's just not true.)

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    1. Re:Your sig: by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I don't think the quote refers to a belief in God. It refers to belief in me, and what I can do. Therefore, if you think that I'm a dreamer about what I want to do, I say that you're a non-believer.

      ...Never thought that I'd ever have to explain a sig. Perhaps it's time for a change.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  174. the Original Sin was Duality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fall from grace happened the instant we began to define the world as Good or Bad.
    Our minds our heuristic systems and we attempt to oversimplify the world so that we may 'understand' it.

    Just as Newtonian physics is useful, our definitions are not accurate. Nonlinear systems like turbulence and organic systems are proof of that.

    Science has a problem defining the nonlinear because traditional science is bound by Aristotlian logic. It strives to define things so that they are understood, never realizing that it is our definitions that create the world around us.

    Think about our ideas of hot or cold.
    They are opposites, right?
    Yes and no. Can you add cold to something?

    You can't because cold is not a separate state, rather it is a state of lack of heat. So cold is just the lack of heat.

    What about light and dark?
    There is not such thing as dark either. Dark is the absense of light.

    The same rules apply to just about everything in the world, even love.

    The more one experiences love, the more one will realize God.

  175. In Nomine by phr1 · · Score: 1
    In Nomine is a D&D-style roleplaying game rather than a computer game, but it's religiously based in amazing detail. From the site blurb:
    In Nomine is a modern roleplaying game in which the players take the part of celestial beings -- angels and demons -- as they struggle for control of humanity and themselves. The celestials, powerful though they may be, are merely pawns in a much larger game being played by their Superiors, the Archangels and Demon Princes.

    Based on the best-selling French RPG by the wonderfully diabolical Croc!

    I haven't played it but have looked at some of the webpages. It seems really cool.
  176. The 'Left Behind' series as a game by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
    Might be very interesting indeed.

    For those of you who have never heard of it, the book (and later series) of books under the title Left Behind describes the effects upon the world after all the Christians are Raptured (when God kills off all the Christians and takes them to heaven, leaving everyone else to face Satan when he takes over). Its biggest focus is on a group of people that engage in robbery, fraud, deceit and murder, and that's just what the good guys on the side of God are doing! The bad guys are even worse.

    I suspect that series might make a really interesting computer game! Especially if you got to either play one of the main characters as a good guy , as a bad guy, as Satan, or as God.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  177. Re:Galileo? Probably not. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


    One, he was wrong, and two, he called the Pope a moron in print.

    My name is Steve Mading. I think the pope is a moron.
    Now, notice the difference between today's day and age and those times. I won't be put in jail for saying that. The fact that Galelio *was* is, all by itself, plenty of reason to dislike the religious establishment of the time, and it was plenty of reason, all by itself, to side with Galelio on this.

    Secondly, Copernicus's theory was mistaken because it assumed perfect circles. Thbe prevailing theory at the time was *also* mistaken because it did not use the sun as the center. Comparing the two, Copernicus's theory was NOT more wrong than the prevailing one, and in the long run it was closer to the truth. It got the precise shape of the orbits wrong, but the basic layout right, and the prevailing one didn't even do that.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  178. Alpha Centauri, anyone? by raggyc · · Score: 1

    That game provided a deep spiritual experience for me, one that has endured over the 5+ years since I last played. A good friend and I were hiking once when the game came up, and he'd had a similar experience. The way Gaia is handled in Alpha Centauri is simply beautiful. I'm not surprised Sid Meier was too modest to bring it up, but I am a little surprised no one, either in the article or here in the forum, has mentioned it.

  179. Alpha Centauri, anyone? by raggyc · · Score: 1

    That game provided a deep spiritual experience for me, one that has endured over the 5+ years since I last played. A good friend and I were hiking once when the game came up, and he'd had a similar experience. The way Gaia is handled in Alpha Centauri is simply beautiful. I'm not surprised Sid Meier was too modest to bring it up, but I am a little surprised no one, either in the article or here in the forum, has mentioned it.

  180. Re:Galileo? Probably not. by rjh · · Score: 1
    The fact that Galelio *was* is, all by itself, plenty of reason to dislike the religious establishment of the time, and it was plenty of reason, all by itself, to side with Galelio on this.
    Not especially. Galileo didn't frame it as a free-speech issue, after all. Viewing Galileo's defense in the light most favorable to him, I find his defense wanting.

    You're subscribing to a false dichotomy, where you have to believe that either Galileo was a hero and Pope Urban was evil, or that Galileo was an idiot and Pope Urban was right. The reality is they were, both of them, idiots who didn't tolerate dissent. The only difference between Galileo and Urban was that Urban had a hell of a lot more political clout to bring to bear--and Galileo was such a loudmouth that he guaranteed that clout would be brought to bear.
    The prevailing theory at the time was *also* mistaken because it did not use the sun as the center.
    On the contrary. The particular flavor of Ptolemaic model used by Scheiner and others was the Tychoian-Ptolemaic model, wherein the Earth was the center of the cosmos, the Sun revolved around the Earth in an ellipse, and the planets revolved around the Sun in ellipses.

    If you actually sit down and crunch the math, the Tychoian-Ptolemaic model gives completely equivalent results to the Keplerian model. The only way the Tychoian-Ptolemaic model is inferior is that it's more complex; but it yields the exact same results.
  181. Now, from left field... by SunPin · · Score: 1
    Bioforge shows us what can happen without morals or values. It displays the evil man is capable of in intergalactic isolation. Experimentation on sentient beings is prima facie evidence of the complete absence of respect for a higher power. It is a demonstration of what happens without religion, my friends.

    ;)

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
    1. Re:Now, from left field... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Experimentation on sentient beings is prima facie evidence of the complete absence of respect for a higher power. It is a demonstration of what happens without religion, my friends.

      No it's not. I'm closer to atheism than anything, and I don't even believe animal experimentation is ok. Many of the people I know are atheists and they'ld never believe it's ok to experiement on sentient beings.

      Morals do not come from religion. Values do not come from religion. Accept that. Move on.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    2. Re:Now, from left field... by SunPin · · Score: 1

      Don't fall into the sarchasm, dude. Just enjoy it.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
  182. play xenogears? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to see religion in video games you should check out Xenogears for PS1 by Square. This game is very heavily religious and almost didn't make it to the US because of it. In this, one of the characters is out to kill 'God.' It is strongly tied to christianity and buddhism. It talks of reincarnation and how sometimes the church can become corrupt. Strongly Recommended

  183. Original Sin by Kadmium · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bah, original sin is just too difficult to bother with nowadays. Everything's been done already. The other day, I threw eggs at a nun's car while riding a unicycle and smoking a joint, and my priest said even that had been done before. QED.

  184. Re:Galileo? Probably not. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


    idiots who didn't tolerate dissent.

    If I speak out against someone's position that is not identical to being intolerant of their dissent, no matter how spitefully I do so. If I shut them up with legal means, that is a case of being intolerant of dissent.

    Telling someone he's being an idiot is not the same as saying he has no right to his opinion.


    On the contrary. The particular flavor of Ptolemaic model used by Scheiner and others was the Tychoian-Ptolemaic model, wherein the Earth was the center of the cosmos, the Sun revolved around the Earth in an ellipse, and the planets revolved around the Sun in ellipses.

    This agrees with what I said. Why did you preceed it with the phrase "on the contrary"?


    The only way the Tychoian-Ptolemaic model is inferior is that it's more complex

    When it comes down to it, that is typically all you have to go on when comparing scientific theories, and is precisely what makes one theory inferior to another. All theories explain everything equally if you allow their authors to add complex clauses to them to explain away the problems.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  185. Re:Galileo? Probably not. by rjh · · Score: 1
    When it comes down to it, that is typically all you have to go on when comparing scientific theories, and is precisely what makes one theory inferior to another. All theories explain everything equally if you allow their authors to add complex clauses to them to explain away the problems.
    Wow. If that's your view of the scientific method, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

    But that's an appalling misunderstanding of the scientific method.

    Keats is the one who said truth was beauty and beauty truth, and that was all we needed to know. Scientists like Keats; we think he was a Pollyanna idealist, but it's a beautiful ideal.

    The true test of theory is, has been, and always will be, trifold:
    • Does it explain past observations?
    • Does it correctly predict future observations?
    • Can it be proven false?
    Copernican theory fails on point one and point two. It passes point three; you can, in fact, show Copernican theory to be wrong.

    Keplerian theory gets a qualified pass on all three. It explains past observations; it correctly predicted all observations of the day (later observations, like the precession of Mercury, it couldn't); and it could be proven false, as the precession of Mercury did.

    Ptolemaic-Tychoian theory gets a qualified pass on all three. It explains past observations; it correctly predicted all observations of the day; and it could be proven false, as the precession of Mercury did.

    The only reason to choose the Kepler model over the Ptolemaic-Tychoian model is the Keplerian model is simpler; and Occam's Razor tells us that, when faced with two equally satisfying explanations, we should choose the simpler.

    Occam's Razor has never, ever said "choose the simpler explanation, even if it's barkingly wrong".

    Then, when Einstein came along, he re-established the Ptolemaic-Tychoian model. What Einstein discovered, in a nutshell, is "you pay your money, you get your frame of reference, no deposit, no return." From the reference frame of the Earth, the heavens are Ptolemaic-Tychoian. From the reference frame of the Sun, the heavens are Keplerian.
  186. Planescape Torment by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I would add to the list "planescape torment" which had pretty good sophisticated philosophical reference (but no religious one per see).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  187. Devout ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    In the case of Galileo I would certainly be devout if it save my life or allow me pursue my "hobbits" without being executed by the church once I am discovered. Never heard of the process on him ? Do you really think he would not have had another outcome if Galileo had not been known to be a devout ? And since victor write hsitory, how are we to know now that it wasn't FAKE worshipping by an intelligent guy seeing where the power-that-be are ? Epure Si Mueve is all i have to say in conclusion.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  188. Re:Galileo? Probably not. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1



    But that's an appalling misunderstanding of the scientific method.

    No. Because this:

    Occam's Razor has never, ever said "choose the simpler explanation, even if it's barkingly wrong".

    Is an appalling misunderstanding on your part of what my post said.

    I never claimed anything close to that. What I said, in exact terms, is this: All theories explain everything equally if you allow their authors to add complex clauses to them to explain away the problems.

    That's a really big "if" there. I didn't include it for the heck of it. I meant it. And that's what takes away the "barkingly wrong" issue. Any theory can be "fixed up" by adding more and more complexities to it until it shores up all the problem cases. That's why Occam's Razor needs to exist - to differentiate the single simple theory which is actually consistent from the case of inserting a long list of individual exceptions used to shore up a bad theory (one which would be "barkingly wrong" if it wasn't for the long list of exceptions.)

    Next time try replying to what I actually said instead of some made up strawman. I don't tolerate that kind of crap.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  189. Thanks for the great screenshot by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

    Here but for a fleeting moment, I was able to capture the hand of the Devil upon Slashdot's blasphemous discussion:

    http://www.keithtyler.com/gamewithgod.jpg

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  190. Apocamon by LS · · Score: 1

    Here's a really cool game based on the New Testament:

    Apocamon

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  191. Seek and ye shall find... by Derring · · Score: 1
    Perhaps this is the game you seek:
    Have a look at http://www.jesusfreakin.com/

  192. nerhack? by slavefishy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Surely the Gods in nethack are used effectively, very conspicuous and in some cases necessary?

    I often pray when stuck in a trap, with a cursed weapon (so no spells), sick, hallucinating and hungry at the same time. Yeah, I was pretty unlucky...

    Praise Anhur!

  193. Oh shut the fuck up please. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    All the myriad of Christianity sects call themsleves true Christianity, so I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

    So frankly is quite rich that there are people out there speaking with such certainity.

    Just for your information, the biggest Christian sect (the Catholic Church) recognizes the original sin on their Bible.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Oh shut the fuck up please. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I define true Christianity by proving it against the Bible. The Catholic Church's own Bible condemns them. Size and numbers have nothing to do with it. I'm just identifying true Christianity as those who actually follow the tenets of their religion.

      Very quick way to check this: I Timothy 3 states that a bishop must be married. Does the Catholic Church do that?

      I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

      Well, Jesus said in the Bible that not many would be saved and also that many who call him Lord would discover on the last day that they were wrong. The Bible further states that there would be false prophets among Christians constantly. So while the math you posted above might be counterintuitive, it is at least consistent with the tenets of the religion.

      It should be a simple thing for someone, even one who does not accept the Bible, to compare a church against its teachings and see if they are really the church talked about in the Bible or not. What might be far harder is covering all N churches in one lifetime. :)

      So while the math you postulated above
  194. At least in Catholicism... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... people that die without a chance to be baptized and with no free will go to the purgatory, where they can be promoted to heaven if pious people pray for their souls.

    OR something like that, I am a atheist raised as a catholic, so I may have some of the details worng.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  195. One can't discuss with you guys. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You live in a parallel Universe based on faith.

    Other people live here and now in a Universe best explained by reason.

    Reason is telling us your faith is a sham, so what dicussion is there to be had?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  196. GWG by CaseM · · Score: 1

    Sweet! I just found the next pop-Christian bracelet idea!

  197. There is no positive in religion by Polarism · · Score: 1

    The only "positive" effect it has is mind control, on those who probably deserve it for falling into it.

    I'm sick of seeing it spread through the world like a virus, infecting minds and destroying it.

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
  198. Religion = Primitive Superstitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of an Arthur C. Clark quote:

    "Any civilization with sufficient technology is capable of magic."

    Close enough, point being religion is an instinctive reaction to unknowns beyond comprehension that has been harnessed by the greedy and horny through humanity's history to exploit for their own personal agendas. This is why it persecuted science which made things known and understandable providing facts to support reality.

    So not having thousands year old selectively chosen useless shit tossed in my face when I am gaming suits me just fine.

  199. Other Religions Have I Known by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1
    Maybe you are thinking of Christian Science (which denies the reality of the material world) or Buddhism (which denies the importance of our attachment to the material world).

    For Christians, the world overflows with meaning. How could it be otherwise? God made it.

    For Christians, the material world and the spiritual world are intertwined. Everyday things, like bread and wine (water or juice, some places), take on spiritual dimensions. Our lives are less ordinary. Who could believe this and wish to escape the world?

    Their reasoning goes more or less like "we do not have to worry about this life, eventually we will all die, so we should be more concerned about what comes after death."

    For some irreligious people, their reasoning goes like "we do not have to worry about this death; at least we are still alive, so we should be more concerned about our life than our death." The object of their escapism is death. But so far as I know, none has yet escaped.

    They don't refuse to contemplate the possibility of death and annihilation. On the contrary, they deal with it openly and honestly.

    "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Cor 15)

    Even if you had "religion", a final death would be an incalculable loss.

    "We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you." (2 Cor 4)

    Denying the worth of the whole universe is what suicides do, not martyrs.

    "Jesus replied, 'The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.'" (John 12)

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  200. Re:Most violent game... ever!-Doom3 mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'd be totally out of character for Jesus. Read your New Testament -- Jesus doesn't kill people. (Except in Revelation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

  201. Dear Sid: Make Religion by superultra · · Score: 1

    Here's my game idea, which I now offer free to anyone (particularly Sid Meier). Call it "Religion."

    Think Civilization + Populist + The Sims = Religion. You are God, singular only in the same sense that you are a country's leader in Civlization. Like in Meier's Civilization or Colonization, where you are essentially the spirit behind the government, in Religion you are that same faceless spirit. You start at the beginning of humanity, and you can set a few minor parameters of your religion. Polytheistic? Monotheistic? Atheistic? The development of your specific religion would very much reflect the tech tree in Civ. Only a few choices in the beginning of the game, each providing branches to other choices. Do you forbid the eating of meat, even though your tribe may only be able to find meat to kill? Do you prostelytize aggressively or passively? Should you order your most devoted follower to write down what you say, or should you rely on oral tradition? You could make changes to your religion's beliefs. Executed properly, minor changes would go unnoticed. Major changes might be necessary to adapt to a changing world, but if not done carefully would alienate your current followers and create a splinter religion (oh no, it's Christianity!).

    The catch is that, like Populist, you could never just click on a human (unit) and move them as you do in Civ. You could tell them to, and like the Sims, the AI behind that human would choose to obey. Is the human you're ordering to kill another human a recent convert from a rival but pacifistic religion? Is she hungry, from not eating meat? Are you asking him to kill his son (aka a unit that has remained loyal to the religion for some time, perhaps). All these things would play into whether the follower actually follows your orders, or disobeys. Moreover, the disparity between the order and the willingness to follow might create more problems than it solves (oh no! Joseph Smith!)

    Each choice and action would cost energy (mana), but your followers would give this to you in form of devotion. Do you, then, opt for many fellowers but low requirements, or create a cult with fewer but far more devoted people?

    The challenge, like it is in Civ, would be to experiment and sandbox. Is it possible to create a monotheistic, moderate religion that doesn't require excessive devotion but do so early in humanity's development? Again, keeping with the idea that you are the spirit behind religion and not so much God, can you create Atheism? Is it possible to create a pacifistic religion early on, or an aggressive tyrannical one late in modernization? Are you content to maintain a small cult throughout world history only to create an militant apocolypse in the end?

    The underlying theory behind the game would be that religion is the primary component that molds and shapes society, as Civilization presumes that government is.

    The end score: how much did your religion affect the world. Did it create goverments, wars, peace?

    So, what do you think Sid?

  202. Diablo by cb8100 · · Score: 1

    Diablo II (and maybe Diablo, I'm a bit hazy on that one) use religion as a central portion of the plot. You have to slay the Devil (Diablo), the Lord of Destruction (Baal), and their evil minions. There's the angel Tyrael and the fallen angel Izual.

    The whole game is Good vs. Evil in a bibilcal manner. While you can enjoy the game without paying attention to the religious overtones, it is interesting to study them.

    --
    My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
  203. Buddhism? by empaler · · Score: 1

    "Take what you think makes sense and use it to benefit your life. Just ask, and we'll tell you more about anything you want to know."

    I see.

  204. Re:Mod me up! by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

    Well, from what I've seen of life and reality, the people who believe in God are the kind of people you'd want to have with you in good times and bad. They're the people that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick and help the poor.

    On the other hand people like you are sarcastic asshats who I couldn't stand to be in the same room with for longer than 10 minutes. Hrm... who is the superior being?

  205. Re:Mod me up! by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Ahh the opposite could be easily said. Religion is a motivational device; it either makes you a better person or a worse person. You could help an unlucky man and say it's God's will to help all his 'children', or you could beat him with a stick because 'he does not walk with Allah' yadda yadda. People will use anything as an excuse. In the end each is responible for their own actions, God or no god.

    That said, I'm probably a little more generous/gullible than average, but then I'm also free to chase down fake bums with a crowbar. Sure, it's not godlike to attack people, but on the other hand i'm doing the world a favor by encouraging these spoiled kids to get a job and quit panhandling while living with their parents in a $300k home. What would Jesus do ?

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  206. good god by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

    it's like a telephone pole. You could kill anything with that.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  207. King of Dragon Pass by nucleargeek · · Score: 1

    King of Dragon pass http://www.a-sharp.com/kodp/ is a game based on the imaginary world of Glorantha http://www.glorantha.com/ in which a lot of religion/religious practice is taking place: sacrifices to gods, re-enacting of myths (heroquests). Moreover it is a pretty good game, ait focuses more on story than on technical achievements, and the images (hand painted) are beautifull. It is very hard to describe this atypical game. Give it a try.
    (note that I endorsing this game just because I like it, I am not related in any way to the makers
    of that game)

  208. and red all over by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Or, choose the Church of the Subgenius, a motocross bike for ripping around the hill, churning up turf and scaring the hell out of the other travelers!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  209. faith in science by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I have faith in science - miracles every day, with the assurance that I too can perform them, if I understand its god, nature. And only one or two "axioms", articles of pure faith, to believe - simple. And rayguns!

    If you are really swayed by that "I read it in a book, it must be true", you're looking for the Church of the Subgenius.

    --

    --
    make install -not war