Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Asked to Drop Christian Video Game
doug141 writes "Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season and that Wal-Mart, a major video game retailer, should yank it off its shelves.Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team, but of course they can never win on [his] side. The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names, while the righteous include gospel singers, missionaries, healers and medics."
that's so divorced from reality.
Yeah, what kind of nut would ever have thought that names like Timothy McVeigh or "the Unibomber" or Charles Dreyling sound Muslim?
and it does look really bad. It does come across as nothing more than "covert or die". If taken in context, the game works just fine. There is nothing PC about religion and trying to apply PC centric ideals to a game based on religion and one groups belief of the end times is even dumber than any game can be.
The books, yes I read them - I love most end time fiction (whether is religious or not - Zelazny wrote some good stuff). The books deal with a society where the surviving members of society are either members of the new world order and subscribe to that order's church or are denied rights, and eventually killed out of hand. Christians are set as the opposing force, after all its a book from Christians about a story in Bible. Throughout the series they convert many people from various religions and non-beliefs. Though many times that never convert and directly or indirectly stop them. It isn't all happy go lucky and neither will be the game.
I look at it this way, if those Christian readers who take offense at the game were not offended by the books then they are just hypocritical. Does making it a game, itself just another work of fiction, present it in a way that that is more offensive than print? I guess seeing a visual representation does the trick for many people. I know many who can read murder novels, even graphic ones, but take offense at seeing dead bodies on the TV. Hell, there are many who can read about sex but damn if they would watch it.
Look, the first rule is no one is forcing anyone to buy it. The second rule is, you have the right to be offended but you do not have the right to suppress what offends you. The third rule is, get over it.
Leave the game in the stores. There are far more more violent and offensive games that have come out and they are still sold. If we change the rules because the game is based on religious themes how long before we change the rules for everything else?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"Fringe Group?" As Apu once said to Rev. Lovjoy, "There are over one billion of us, sir"
When Christianity turned 1500ish they had things like Conquering South America, and The Spanish inquisition.
Guess What Islam is 1427
Interesting because I know someone at my university who will probably buy this game. He commented about playing fable and how he doesn't take the evil branch because, "I don't think going to heaven and saying 'Hey God, I like killing people in a video game,' is a good idea." But you know, killing them in a game where he's doing it in God's name certainly is!
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Don't worry be happy! This game will in a few years if not sooner be used to make up like this was the way all Christians acted. This is just like the western gunslinger movies and TV shows of the 1960's have become most people's idea of what really happened in the old west of the USA. Both of course will have equally as much to do with reality as the Santa Clause and Rudolph cartoons every Christmas do. (i.e. NONE!)
Of course they will be used by delusional people to line up on both sides and act really stupid. My question here is, "What about insanity don't you understand." Quit trying to make logic of the insane behavior of the fringes of humanity it isn't going to work. Insanity is insane. Please do not make what I have to say here as support or opposition to any religious or other ideology group. It isn't such. As to a stupid video game where people try to kill each other... I have no support for that what so ever, but a lot of people seem to like them and demand them. Honestly I wish they didn't like such behavior but they do.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Yes the bulk of them claim to be christians but tailgate the car in front of them, speed like crazed lunatics and certainly do not act christian in their daily lives yet have the stickers and fish all over their car.
so lumpy is 100% correct then.
Why not call the real christians "christians" and the rest of them hippa-christians? it would make things easier.
After the 2004 election, a well-known British comedian said on the BBC (words to the effect of): "You try not to stereotype Americans as all being lazy, venal, ignorant and Americo-centric... and then they go and elect a bellicose fundamentalist who is an argument against alcoholics recovering. You want to say, ``for heaven's sake, stop acting up to your stereotype!' " Stories like this, and the recent spate of "global warming sceptic" bullshit really does dismay those of us who want to believe we have shared cultural values. Sorry if this sounds like flamebait or troll, it's not intended to, but that's how it looks from over here. (Yes, I know there are islands of civilisation on the coasts, but even California has the death penalty and throws 30% of it's black male citizens in jail.)
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Think about it - in Grand Theft Auto, you routinely kill innocent people and police officers, beat women, commit various crimes, and do terrible things that all (well, most of us) would never do in real life for fun. Yet this game receives the greatest protection from the Slashdot community because, after all, what we do in a violent video game doesn't define what we do in real life, right?
Along comes this "Christian" game (as a Christian myself - well, Mormon, but I most certainly consider myself Chrisitian and couldn't care less what the Southern Baptists, et. al. believe - I would never consider purchasing this trash) and suddenly it's a terrible sign of what's wrong with the country, the people, etc.
I say let Wal-Mart sell the 3 copies of this game they'll sell and let the publisher of the game take a bath on it. It looks like total crap, it's offensive, but if we're going to protect other violent video games filled with scenarious we'd never condone in real life, then why not this one?
Also, how many people here who decry game censorship and hate people like Jack Thompson, are supporting those who want to ban this game now? And what does that say about your intellectual hypocrisy?
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "Christian", Christ is a Jewish construct. All Christians are actually dumber-than-average Jew who like to wear crosses.
I'm sure you can say the same thing about the Jews to.
Infact, Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "Religious person", they were all born Athiests. All Religious people are actually dumber-than-average Athiests who like to beleive in God.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Holy spirit does not lie and reveal one truth to one person and another to someone else (we know who the father of lies is), hence one needs to validate his "revelations" with what has been revealed to the church Jesus founded.
How can we spot the difference between truth revealed by the holy spirit, and lies that are said to be from the holy spirit? It's all very well to say that words from the holy spirit just "sound right" in some way.. but it seems that many people have a different idea of what sounds right to them. Even amongst Christians there has been endless debate about what God wants. Here are a few:
Is homosexuality ok? What's the deal with transsubstantiation? Does the Pope have any special authority? Is the Bible inerrant? If we believe in evolution or say that diseases aren't caused by devils, do we go to hell?
It seems that the holy spirit has been giving various different answers to these questions. Either that or some people have claimed authority that they do not have.
"You go back to the dark ages to bring up an example for Christians, yet I can go to yesterdays newspaper to find murdering atheists."
name one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here's the deal. Either Jesus Christ is God, or He's not. If someone teaches that He is not God, according to Christian teaching, and because of the law of non-contradiction, Jesus cannot simultaneously be God and "not God" in the same time and relationship. Since Judaism, Islam, and Christianity teach different things about Jesus, man's relationship to God and how it may be possible to reconcile to God, logically either all three beliefs are wrong, or one is right and the others cannot be right.
Unless of course God chose to reveal Himself differently; we cannot begin to understand His ways, nor divine His intentions with respect to his covenents with us.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It really has to do with what parts of the bible you choose to quote. There are plenty of contradictions in there. You can see the biggest differences by looking at the old and new testament side by side. While the new testament takes a softer, inclusive side towards religion, the old testament is full of stories fo the wrath of god. Of course, I should mention, as a jew, that jewish people don't really interpret the old testament as is. There has been plenty of discussion and reinterpretation of the laws, so that, for instance, it is practically impossible under rabbinical law to condemn a man to death for breaking a commandment. No one in mainstream judaism honestly suggests death for homosexuality. Compare this to some of the (let's be honest) hate speech coming from the Christian Right.
I came here for a good argument
I still don't understand this. In the old Israel they were too stupid to interpret the ten commandments themselves, so God lays down additional rules very explicitly. Nowadays, we're smart enough to understand the 10 commandments, so we can now disregard his other rules? If the other rules were there to clarify the 10 commandments for simpletons, should we not assume that they are by design consistent with the spirit of the 10 commandments? Or is it that somewhere later on in the bible Jesus rescinds the anti-gay stuff?
Honest question, I haven't read much of the new testament, and lots of smart people seem able to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality, so I expect I'm missing something important here.
yp.
What's a "sin" and why should I care?
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
that if two people both lead the same 'good' life, one is a theist and one an atheist - the atheist is the better person.
One could argue that a believer does the right thing due to either the threat of a smiting, or a reward in heaven. An atheist doing the same act is performing a truly altruistic act, knowing he could either have got away with the alternative and will receive nothing in return.
The problem is that so many people can ignore these mistranslations. People believe this book with all of their being. I must assume that most of them have never read it. People talk about muslim suicide bombers, but there are plenty of Christian terrorists as well. People bombing abortion clinics for example.
die444die
The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself.
THIS. IS. NOT. CHRISTIAN.
It can be. Jesus recommended turning the other cheek. But he also tossed the moneychangers out of the temple.
There is certainly a Christian policy of Just War, dating back to Augustine or so, in which violence is justified.
I'm a Christian - Catholic actually (not that that really matters) - myself, and while I tend to agree with most of what you say, I take a bit of a more mystical approach to what God and Jesus are. Specifically it is impossible for us to know anything about the nature of God. It makes about as much sense for us to say, "God is good," as it does to say, "music is delicious." The adjective simply doesn't apply - what is more no adjectives apply to god. I realize that you may not subscribe to my particular theology, but I do have a specific question that your post raised.
You say that Jesus is either God or not God, due to non-contradiction. I don't know which flavor of protestantism theology you hold on to, but catholic dogma holds that Jesus is one person, fully human, and fully divine. Practically the definition of a violation non-contradiction. There are four outs, either Jesus is at least two persons, Jesus is not fully human, Jesus is not fully divine, or non-contradiction doesn't apply to God. I'm curious which out you choose - and as you might guess, each one has problems.
If Jesus is two persons, the divine person couldn't die, and it would be more accurate to say Jesus half-died for our sins - is that a sufficient sacrifice. If Jesus is not fully divine, he wouldn't have the power to redeem us, and honestly we shouldn't be worshiping someone not divine. If Jesus is not fully human he couldn't die at all, and you've already said you think non-contradiction applies, and besides if it didn't Jesus might not be the only way to God.
I did what the voice in my head told me. Now my room has nice padded walls.
Seriously, though, if you can pick and choose which morals you want from the Bible, why even have the Bible? If it comes down to a person's own conscience as to whether or not to favor the death penalty, gay marriage, or abortion, why should one keep reading an archaic book every Sunday as if it were the authoritative source of morality? Instead, why not let the Bible go, and look at the facts and arguements founded on reason, so you can at least come up with a defensible position as to what is "right" or not?
I find it equally reprehensible (maybe hypocritical is a better word) that anyone would be opposed to the death penalty, vehemently anti-war AND pro-abortion. What the hell does that mean? You're against all forms of violence so long as it's not personally inconvenient? Oh yeah, it's "my body" so I can do whatever I want. Thanks mom!
I do agree that pro-death penalty Christians really need to stop and think it through because it is terribly inconsistent. I suppose many figure they're criminals anyway, as opposed to innocent unborns, but I don't believe that changes things much.
As for the whole ownership of guns thing, I don't get how that conflicts with Christianity at all. Seems the people who oppose gun ownership the most come from urban areas with high crime and don't really know many actual gun owners. In their minds, guns = crime, which sounds pretty silly to someone from a rural area. Everyone I knew growing up (in a semi-rural area) owned a gun and I can't remember a single gun-related crime ever happening. Now I live in a large metropolitan area (in a state that has practically banned gun ownership) and people are getting killed left and right. Doesn't seem banning gun ownership does a whole lot.
Maybe what we really need to do is start thinking about what makes people want to kill each other in the first place.
The nature of the holy trinity and the belief that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine were hammered out by a bunch of leaders of various christian sects, and some members of the roman government, at the council of Nicea. It was a decision of men, not of gods, which is why unlike events in the bible no one was turning sticks into snakes or being plagued or what have you.
We know nothing of Jesus' life in between infancy and the years immediately preceding his death. No historians of the day confirm his existence - the only writings we have which support it are those which are contained within the bible. But if he was human, then he must necessarily have sinned.
Again, this was a decision made by men.
Some of us have faith in what we have seen. We trust what we have been given a reason to trust. We have learned not to believe that something is true simply because someone said so.
Some of you never learned that lesson and you've been wandering around like deluded children as a result.
I had the same brainwashing material thrown at my mind, but luckily my will was strong enough to dismiss it out of hand and move on with my life.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Basic answer, Jesus supercedes the Old Testament, so Christians follow the New Testament, and regard the Old Testament as inspirational stories, but ignore most of it. It comes down to: Follw the Golden Rule, "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." and the corrolary Silver Rule, "Do not do onto other as you would have them not do onto you." The Golden rule takes precedence over the big Ten, but try to find a situation where that would apply. The strictures against homosexuality violate both the Big Ten- do not murder, and the Golden rule.
Much of Leviticus made sense way back when, where eating pigs would make you sick and unbalanced diet of meat cheese would lead to heart disease (that one still makes sense), procreation between men and women was required to maintain population levels. Most of the prohibitions made sense from a secular view for the time.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Well, actually, it does.
"At this season of the the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
- Andrew
I meta-moderate because I care.
Honest question, I haven't read much of the new testament, and lots of smart people seem able to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality, so I expect I'm missing something important here.
I don't believe it is appropriate to be an active homosexual and a Christian. The recent papal encyclical did a decent job of this: you can be attracted to people of the opposite sex, but unless you're married to them in a church-sanctioned marriage, you can't have sex with them. Same with people of the same sex. You can be attracted, but you're called to chastity.
I don't believe it's my mission to tell homosexuals they're going to burn in Hell. If they're chaste, I have no reason to, and even otherwise I have no right. What God really thinks of homosexuals -- or pre-marital fornicators or anyone else -- and whether they can reconcile their actions with God is between themselves and God, not me at all.
So is the Old Testament the "Word of God" or not? Or can you pick and choose what you would like out of the Old Testament? Or is it that the Old Testament is the gospel, except when contradicted by the new testament? Or is it more of "you should believe the parts we tell you to believe"?
Remember, the Old Testament is a very bloody document including God punishing his true people because they did not kill all of the the women and children of a people he commanded them to slaughter.
I know that one of the commandments says that we are not supposed to think we can understand the mind of God, but it seems to me that all religion is attempting to do that, and that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament have fundamentally different ways of doing things.
Look at the dates of those quotations!
The earliest is 17 years after his death, why was nothing written in AD 35, The supposed year of his death.
Hasn't it gone quiet? :)
The comments that lead up to this post and the others scattered throughout this entire thread of "I don't know anywhere in the bible that condones this!" Just goes to show how little most Christians actually understand of their own faith, or how many have actually read the entire bible.
I was brought up Roman Catholic and it was the day that I sat down and decided to read the bible cover to cover that I started turning into an Atheist. I was halfway through the old testament by the time I was like "What the hell is all this? People encourage this stuff? Why did no-one tell me this was in here?"
I think if more Christians did read the bible we'd end up with more Atheists and the ones that were left would be clearly fundamental or very good at rationalising "what was meant, not what was said."
For example, everybody knows that Joshua blew the trumpet at Jericho. What is understandably not emphasized in most Bible schools is what happened to Jericho after the walls crumbled.
Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 6:24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
So there you go: the murder and the subsequent looting of a whole city, blessed by the Bible. There is much, much more of this in the Book of Joshua. Hey, if I commit as many genocides as that guy did, could I get a book of the Bible named after me?
what's really needed is a game where you play one of the few uninfected humans left in the world, and you have to survive in a world full of zombies. the zombies are the (genetic and cultural) descendants of people infected by an alien mind-parasite thousands of years ago. the parasite called itself "god" to the gullible primitives it encountered. now the mind-parasite has returned to harvest its crop of food/believers, so it has switched all the infectees over to harvest mode (aka ravenous slaughter mode). you are armed only with a shotgun and rational thought, and the zombies outnumber you by thousands to one.
call it "The Second Coming", and i bet it would be a smash hit.
I can only hypothesize on the matter, as I've got no first or second hand experience of such things - just what I hear about from places like Iraq.
First, you assume that all of those in the armed forces would shirk their duty to the Constitution they've sworn to uphold. Many would - it's just a pay check - but a large number would not.
Aside from that, the only thing that comes immediately to mind is political decapitation. There are a good number of people in the US who can - with ease - make 1,000 yard shots on human-sized targets. Many of them are or were military snipers or marksmen. There is a strong tradition of riflery in the US - something the Iraqis do not have. Even if your average Bubba can only hit a deer at 300 yards with his deer rifle, that's about 250 yards more than your average Iraqi could.
Against SWAT-style teams, the American 'militia' doesn't stand a chance, not one on one. But I imagine that's where asymetrical warfare comes in. Even with all the high-tech wiz-bang gadgetry our military has, it's still unable to effectively stop the Iraqi insurgents - and Iraq is only about the size of (say) North and South Dakota combined. Much of the infrastructure
Another difference between Iraq and any potential 'civil war' is that the government can not realistically - from a logistics perspective - bomb, missile, and shoot up towns and cities at will to destroy insurgents when that city or town is a critical part of your own supply structure.
Do I think it would be something easily won by a US insurgency? Hell no. Do I think Americans have the mettle for such things, pragmatically speaking? No, not really. At this point I think it's merely a token, but an important one which must be maintained just in case - if, for no other reason, then personal defense against small-time tyrants such as burglars and thugs, and for other emergency utility. I have no desire to attempt withstanding against state-sponsored tyranny myself.
I hope this answers your question, and I hope you weren't just asking it out of rhetorical spite.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers