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."
Is it like a critical fairy tale believer?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Lions = 1 , Christians = 0
does it have a 100ft robotic Jesus with spinning cross attack?
How about the star of David Ion canon?
But you are mowing down your enemy with a gun. It pushes a message of religious intolerance.
Kind of like the current state of Many religions. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc... all kill for the sake of their god, They just are catching up to what he christians did the past 500 years.
Killing a group of schoolchildren because they would not wear the stupid veil. Yeah, that's a peaceful religion!
All of you except the buddists are sick individuals that use your beliefs as a reason to kill murder and rape.
Wow, that's so divorced from reality.
When I read the description of the game in the article, I told myself "I cannot believe it". So you can imagine where I stand on the issue of faith...
I'm holding out until it comes out for the Wii
I have read the article and still can't tell whether the game makers are actually serious or not. I laughed with the it's ok to kill as long as you prey really hard - satire worthy of Stephen Colbert. Either way, I think, the game designers are worthy of our greatest of laughter.
Can't wait for a reaction of Jack Thompson on this one...
Sounds like a pretty awful game, tasteless and cliched but worst of all unbalanced...the anti-christ team can't even win. But why give them the handy excuse of being censored for its impending failure? I say let them sell it, and let the free kill them.
Plus, all media must be protected...even, and especially, the shitty stuff like this.
That's what happens when you become a stinking hypocrite! Christians history is full of blood, other people's blood. Reminds me of the letter a knight sent to his mother (or was it the king?) telling him that muslims' blood is reaching the horses' knees during the crusades.
Syllable 0.62 is here at last!!!
Besides, who wouldn't want to dominate the world for seven years of darkness? I call Marilyn Manson as my right hand man!
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
It's funny to me how religious followers are always offended when someone pokes fun at their beliefs, but then they have no problem being judgemental, insulting and forget they are part of one of the most violent and viscious organizations in history. (see: Crusades, Persecution, Inquisition...) Personally I would have made it so the anti christ could win. When you won every corner would suddenly have a starbucks, HMA's would be worse than Stalin, everyone would be driving a gas guzzling SUV and our president would be satan himself... ... wait a sec... crap...
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.
Off course the geek reply would be to make a patch - somewhere - available, in which the "non-christians" win
Or, even better, where the "opposition" could convert as well.
Or, even better, where the names of non-christians and christians was reversed?
Seriously though, this seems to be on the same scale as those hedious games in which neo-nazi's kill jews...
My guess is, though, that this game will be short lived: who wants to play a game in which only one side (the "non Carpatia" side) can win?
"Fringe Group?" As Apu once said to Rev. Lovjoy, "There are over one billion of us, sir"
"It pushes a message of religious intolerance."
;)
Talk about realism in video games! I'm amazed! How did they get it so life-like?
They don't dislike the 'Left Behind' book and game series because it's inaccurate. They dislike it because it's TOO accurate. It shows how religious people really think and act. Okay, so maybe the Pastor at the local church doesn't use a gun to convert people, but the message is the same: Convert to my religion or burn in everlasting flames. And maybe if they left it at a statement, it wouldn't be so bad. But we still have clergy that do completely immoral and unethical things, sometimes not even to further their cause, but for personal gain. And they get away with it.
I used to call myself Christian, but not really name which type (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc). Now, I say I believe sort of like they do, but with a few major differences:
God doesn't care what religion you are, so long as you are a good person.
God doesn't care what name you call him by.
The Bible was written by man, not God. It was then translated by man, not God. Several times. It is a tool to guide you to the correct path, and nothing more. All holy books serve this same purpose, no matter the religion. Church is also such a tool. (I won't get into corruption, that's a long debate.)
Instead of merely tolerating other religions, I embrace them. They are God's methods of helping us be better people.
So far, I'm pretty much alone in my religion. I don't imagine I'll be setting up a church any time soon.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
And if so, which side is he on? The devil-spawned "Christian" fundamentalists' or the devil-spawned baby-slaying heathens'?
And who cares? Let's just kill them all and let God sort them out (in the game of course)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
they so stole the idea from the Simpsons.
Don't Tread on Me
I'm guessing a Christian who does not feel it imperative to impose their beliefs and values (for US "regressive" Christians typically the belief that the King James translation of the Bible is the only true words of God, and a selected subset of old testament values combined with some values from an imaginary 50's America) on other people.
Which of course make it hypocritical to campaign for the ban of a video-game portraying different values. Of course the values of the video game seems to be that it is good to impose your values on other people.
the gameplay really sucks anyway, so maybe the game will do more harm to the cause they are trying to promote than good....
At any rate, didn't a parody of a game similiar in mechanics to this appear on the Simpsons like 10 years ago?
Monstar L
By "Marilyn Manson" I think you mean "Dick Cheney."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Is Wal-Mart actively promoting some religious idea or merely delivering a product for which there is demand? It pains me when people forget that freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion, regardless of the religion or ideas. It's even worse when people decide to use something like supply and demand to promote their dislike for "big businesses" like Wal-Mart and go on a near religious crusade of their own to undermine the very ideals our constitution guarantees
Anything you say will be held against you.
Does this mean that Medieval 2: Total War, where one also converts or exterminates ones enemies, or [Doom|Quake] [1-4] should also be banned, or....? The list would be endless.
The plot outline of the game is tawdry, but banning is far to good for it. I think it's just an excuse to drum up sales for something that will be a cut price game by March next year.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
That's what real life's for!
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
It sounds like a hoax, but taking "Left Behind Games" and the "Left Behind" series of books at face value (according to Amazon book 1 has characters such as "Rayford Steele" and "Buck Williams" which is either a kitsch postmodern joke or the books really are going to be as bad as one would expect) I do believe that they are actually serious!
I heven't played any computer games since "Quake", but damn, this sounds fantastic, I want to play it!
Still I can't help wondering that someone, somewhere in the design of this approached it with a knowing wink and could barely stiffle their sniggering at the ham-fisted naffness of the whole concept. It certainly makes the idea that I've been kicking around for a while of a collectible card game based on Catholic Saints (categories like "miracles performed, "followers", "cathederals") seem a little pale in comparison
Some masochist at Arstechnica decided to review the thing: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/leftbehind.ar s
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
I thought it would be a cold day in their Hell before I did but...
Unfortunately, creating this game is Constitutionally protected free speech, and selling it is completely up to Wal-Mart and other retailers. I think it was done in very poor taste but should be treated no differently than GTA or any other games that are similarly in bad taste.
Clones are people two.
Look, I'm Jewish, and think this type of game is terrible, but Walmart is not the only seller of this game. Why single out Walmart?
You may be surprised as to how many people share those views. Check out Unitarian Universalism. :)
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
Sort of like the muslims christians hate?
Anything you say will be held against you.
What kind of ass-hat would make a game like this
Being a bit of a racist sadistic guy, I certainly would if I had the idea and coded GUI.
what the fsck was Wal-Mart thinking when they agreed to sell it ?
Probably something along the lines of "hmm... america didn't do so hot in Iraq... I reckon a few people would buy this to feel better" or something to that tune.
Hell, someone get me a copy to Australia and I'll buy it.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Everyone here is playing right into the Christians hands...
Sounds like a cool game.
If the bible thumpers cant take a joke and realize its JUST A DAMNED GAME, then screw them. ( and i dont even like video games.. but i understand its just recreation )
All this 'political correctness' nonsense and 'cant hurt someones feelings' garbage has gotten way out of hand.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Make some games based on the eschatology of other religions.
God doesn't care what religion you are, so long as you are a good person.
God doesn't care what name you call him by.
I am a satanist, I call my God satan, I eat little babies so that I can go the Heaven umm...
Somehow I think it does matter, at least to those people who have to live with religious people.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The devils greatest achivement.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
It has a multiplayer!!! I'm buying a copy right now I can't wait to kill some christians then I'm going to kill some anti-chrisians. Miltary and spirtual forces at my finger tips i won't need to PVP in wow for weeks.
- DenialX
From what I read, it was a Christian group that had it pulled, wasn't it?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I'd actually like to see this thing in action. Who cares what the slant or "message" may be? It's up to intelligent people to decide for themselves what they like, think or believe. And we'll never evolve as a people, a species or a culture if we constantly go about trying to stop people from seeing and thinking things.
It was only yesterday when I had a moment of reflection on my own changes in perceptions of things. I was born in 1968 and was very young when I first saw Star Wars. During that same area in time, I saw a black bell on a daycare building and thought to myself, "That bell looks like Darth Vader!" I now think that Darth Vader looks like a bell. The difference in perception is pretty clear to me but it also goes to show how minds change, develop and evolve over time and with life's experience.
So yes. Let it be. Let kids play games where they are evangelical Christians or characters from greek or other ancient mythology and legend. You cannot really condemn one game without condemning them all.
Here's one take on the game I'd like to hear: Who is that nut always trying to get violent video games banned? Yeah, that guy. What's his take on the game? "Convert or Die!" sounds pretty gruesome to me...
If I didn't know my history well enough to know that this country was founded by atheistic-leaning deists so that a variety of religious could (and did) immigrate here to practice their religion without being murdered by the government for it, I would ask "why are we selling such insane tripe?"
Alas, while "this country was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (as George Washington once said), the nation was attractive in its design of keeping religion and government separate, thus attracting the craziest religious wackos Europe had to offer.
And so today, we have the descendants of those WASPs (and their non-Bible-reading, believers-in-anything, unthinking Catholic parallels) running the nation and pushing -- of all things -- a video game that, against one of the 10 commandments ("thou shalt not kill"), has you running around murdering unbelievers. But then, who ever said religious people were consistent and non-hypocritical?
The game is popular enough to show up on Wal-Mart shelves, and because Wal-Mart carries the game, it is clear that the intended market for the game are the lower classes -- just the sort of people who believe most-strongly in the nonsense that is all deistic belief (whether Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, atheist, or any other belief in the existence/non-existence of a god).
The U.S. is one frighteningly-ignorant nation sometimes.
* This message sponsored by the Church of the FSM. *
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I'm ordering this video game right now. This is the most offensively awsome thing to ever come out.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Bah, forget banning it. What would be better is some total game mods - for example, one that would enable you to send your gay, atheist, science teachers in to battle Bible-bashing Christian bigots! That would rock!
I know of lots of games where "Arabian" countries are the bad guys. You can kill them then and its OK? Most RTS games use obvious characteristics of that easily assignable to regions of the world, either race based or religious but why no offense there?
the game does give the players an out, they don't have to kill anyone and actually lose score if they do so how does the game teach that its okay to kill non-believers? It doesn't, but that doesn't make a good story and we can sit in our coffee shops with our macbooks sipping lattes while mocking Christians and other people of faith can we?
Giving children games where people are getting killed, regardless if its religious based, historical, or fiction, isn't the brightest idea. Yet if we are going to hold one group, or in this case one small segment of a larger group, to certain standards why don't we hold everyone to them? Is it only okay because we believe we can browbeat certain groups or another?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Am I the only one that thinks this is based on a couple Simpsons episodes?
In one episode, where Maude died, Bart was playing "Bible Blasters" or something like that with Rod and Todd, converting the heathens. ("Nah, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.")
Then there was another episode where Homer saw a movie called "Left Below" or something like that and became obsessed with Doomsday.
This game really sounds like they took those two concepts and put them together for humor...
I wonder if Dr. Wang would approve of this game.
It can't be any worse than Racist Checkers.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
But eating babies is good, Satan told me to do it so it must be good.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
by and large they aren't produced by people purporting to represent a peaceful religion.
In other words, you have groups like Focus on the Family and the like going after every semi-violent video game for destroying culture and humanity, but when the game is about a Christian gunning down non-believers, well, gunning down non-Christians apparently is one of the few things in life that doesn't make baby Jesus cry.
That is what was so important about getting a progressive Christian group on board the protest. Otherwise, it's just that wacko leftist radicalist group "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" attacking upstanding Christians for creating and distributing (presumably for a fair personal profit nonetheless, correct me if I'm wrong) a game that is essentially all about killing or converting anyone not like you in religious belief.
I do wonder what dog the Campaign to Defend the Constitution has in this fight. If you go to their web site http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/Campaign to Defend the Constitution, it looks as if most of their issues deal with the separation of church and state. Now, I'm actually a pretty staunch separation of church and state libertarian, but that's exactly why their involvement rubs me the wrong way--the government did not produce, is not selling or otherwise promoting this game. If the game sucks, or enough people find its themes objectionable, then such games will be (once again) relegated to small fundie independent programmers that pretty much everyone ignores or makes fun of because the games suck and the themes are laughable, but it's just strange to find a group with a mission purportedly involving the separation of church and state jump into a campaign against a private software developer to get a business to pull a game from their shelves.
Finally, is anyone getting sick of the "hidden agenda" attack? I know I am.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
...it's good for the Christian community to get a taste of its own methods for once.
Maybe next time they'll leave the Snoop Dogg CDs alone.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I couldn't agree more. It is time for some anti-christian (and all people who use belief to puss thier infriority into superiority) backlash. I think it is time to hear "to the lions" ringing in the ears of those arrogant enough to have faith in anything. Look, I am all for the masses believing in the prince of peace and turn the other cheek, but unfortunately, christians are the reason america has taken a turn for the violent. If you believe in an afterlife - you scare the fuck out of me. You don't have the same commitment to THIS life that I do.
But I do know about Christian theology. It's my understanding that Jews accept Jesus as a teacher, but *not* as God. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as God. Of course, I disagree with them. I believe that Jesus was a real, live person walking on earth about 2,000 years ago, and that he was also God of the universe.
Slashdot is not known for editorial accuracy. I doubt that Muslims are the non-Christian "star" of the books. Pragmatically speaking, it seems to me that if all Christians are missing, then the 1.2 billion Muslims will be relatively more prevalent. The blurb reads "muslim-sounding" names - showing how ignorant we Americans are. Since we're the population minority in the world, almost everyone has a "foreign-sounding" name.
According to one line of Christian theology, all Christians are removed from earth by God during what is called the rapture. After this, there are *no* Christians until some people rediscover what the Bible teaches. During this season of time, people can become Christians, and the idea is that these new believers have a compelling reason to challenge others to become Christians, because at the end of that short period of time, everyone who chooses to reject Christ will be separated from all that is good, gentle, loving and peaceful for all of eternity.
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.
Christian tolerance teaches me to tolerate people's rights to choose whatever religious belief they want, even if they are wrong. Christian love teaches me to tell people who God is, and how to reconcile relationship with Him, because I want everyone to have the kind of relationship with God that I have.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I was really hoping that the game would be like GTA, where you have to say grace before stealing a car or something, but here's the screen shots for it:
m
http://www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/the_games.ht
It kinda looks like a updated version of Syndicate Wars, I wonder if converting people works like the persuasion gun in SW.
I've actually heard from a few friends of mine that tested the game that it actually is fun. Yes, I know it's hard to believe but according to them, even though it's a Christian-themed game, it actually is entertaining. Just as long as it provides the player with amusement and entertainment, I really don't mind what kind of game it is.
Also, many stores have sold games like Doom, Duke Nukem, and Grand Theft Auto... so why wouldn't they be allowed to sell a Christian-themed game? Sounds like people might be scared of a little theistic gameplay more-so than unwanted sex scenes and mass amounts of gore.
Does the phrase "the Crusades" ring any bells here?
How about the cultural damage done to such peoples as the Celts, Native Americans, and Southeast Asians, among many others?
What's their problem with this game, evangelism, murder, or the propogation of fabricated cultural stereotypes?
Because the game was about christians first off and muslims aren't really christians now are they? Your other point was about Christians being a peacefull people, well I've met a number of muslims that are peaceful and don't kill, and I've seem alot of wacked out Christians. Christians are peacefull yet Bush who claims to be one is fighting a war in Iraq? Have you read history books and learned about the Crusades? There are no peacful religions besides the people who do nothing. When converting a group of people you are going to face adversity, if you are trying to attack someones current beliefs, and this runs thick just as much in both religions. You also generalize Muslims as terrorists, but did you know that their are different groups of Muslims in the world Muslim meaning the "one who submits (to God)" of course theres more too it then that, but you have to understand that these people do have a simular faith. The Qur'an is kind of like the book of latter day saints it follows the bible and then muhammad added to that because according to his followers he was a profit. Muhammad didn't even hate Judaism and Christianity according to wiki he "said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings."
There is alot more, Muhammed did fight a war, but I believe it was initially started because Christians in Mecca were afraid of the growing Islam religion(which is what I think you were getting at instead of Muslim) and persecuted the Islamic people. Muhammad fought back and won. Also remember that the Qur'an like most of the other books of the Bible was written after the death of Muhammad. Who knows what really happend, as the people who write history make history. But my point is, that you seem to be judging the Islamic religion based on your own hatered, and I would not doubt that you would wish them dead just as much as some Islamic extreamists(which Christians have enough of) bomb, kill, and hate. Next time you generalize like that think about how a Christian society(can't tell me Bush hasn't thrown god into the mix a few times) can go and start a war and kill thousands of people and be considered peaceful people? Most are but there is the generalization again. It goes both ways, so be prejudice towards violance but don't go around saying that because hes from the middle east and has a weird name he wants to kill you. Because there are alot of people from America that probably want to kill him.
Sorry if its one big rant with bad grammer you can mod me down but I just needed to get that off my chest. Oh and I know my spelling sucks, but at least I'm getting help.
After all, Christianity is the religion of peace.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Very interesting. Thank you for the link. I had not previously heard of this group. I'll have to do a lot more research before I consider calling my a UU, though.
There are actually 2 congregations near me, and one of them is "more inclusive towards bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people." That doesn't apply to me, but I've always been saddened by peoples' intolerance.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Most people who play these type of games, like GTA, Doom, SOCOM, etc., know that it's just a game. They don't believe what is happening on the screen.
These people playing this game, reading the 'Left Behind' books, & watching the crappy movies, truly believe in the Rapture and what they are doing on screen is "right". That's what makes this a little more scary.
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
Cool. Can the good guys cruise for male prostitutes and score meth?
an ill wind that blows no good
"It's OK to be a bigot if you don't walk around all day claiming NOT to be one (like Christians)"
Just like it's ok to walk around killing people as long as you don't claim to be a pacifict. (sarcasm)
Moral relativism at it's most bankrupt.
It's interesting the attitude Slashdotters take on various video games. In every other case, video games don't have an effect on children, but in this case the game is influencing hatred and intolerance. GTA includes violence towards prostitutes and innocent bystanders, but that couldn't possibly have an effect on children... It's the parents responsibility right? Why is this game different? By the way, I am a fundamentalist Christian. I find both the book series and the game to be offensive, but is it really _worse_ than GTA or Bully or any of the other potentially offensive games that have come out? Is it really better to depict people being killed for no reason whatsoever than to depict them being killed for having some philosophical or theological difference from the protagonist?
I can't recommend Slacktivist highly enough. He's a true evangelical associated with a seminary and has been writing "Left Behind Fridays" dissecting the first book for over a year. (He also discusses many other things.)
For those who have only seen screeching TV evangelicals, Fred ("Slacktivist") is an old school one. As he has repeatedly said, he reaches out through hospitality. Here, I see you are tired. Let me offer you a chair. Are you hungry, let me check my kitchen. You're free to ask him how he can be so pleasant and helpful and he'll tell you about Christ. You're equally free to enjoy his hospitality and then move on.
It should go without saying that he's appalled by this game.
P.S., I'm now more Buddhist than anything else, but I wouldn't hesitate to go to a weekly sermon by him. I rarely come away from his blog without fresh insights.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I have no problem with them treating prayer as a good thing. I have a problem with them treating everyone that isn't like them as less than human. I also have a problem with them saying that its ok to kill as long as you pray afterwards. For the record, I am not a big fan of FPS or games like GTA where killing is also just treated as a matter of course.
Clones are people two.
The Bible says you are supposed to murder homosexuals and misbehaved children. (This is just getting started, by the way. I am in too much a hurry to find references where God commands the murder those who worship other gods or those work on the Sabbath.) Do not say you actually do what the Bible states you should do because I am sure you are far too moral to even contemplate enacting its numerous violent precepts.
On a lighter note, some have written up ideas on how to make the Left Behind games more violent, based on the contents of the Bible. Enjoy!
Why bother.
Rod: "Convert the heathen!" Bart: "Got 'em!" Tod: "No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian."
Hard Hat Area: Sig Construction Zone
Nope. That mantra is typically associated with Muslims. Check out what the Koran has to say about "infidels". Christ taught to love your enemies and do good to those who dispise you.
=======================
Psyclo, the dark night.
Mike, the computer geek.
How do you know that?
My way back has been erased.
You'll have to buy the expansion pack to add all the minority groups you'd want to show who's who. Until then, you'll have to sate your bloodlust with the major groups.
He already has responded
"Thompson has also criticized a Christian video game based on the Left Behind series. In Left Behind: Eternal Forces, players participate in "battles raging in the streets of New York," according to the game's fact sheet. They engage in "physical and spiritual warfare: using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." Thompson claims that the makers of the game are sacrificing their values. He said, "Because of the Christian context, somehow it's OK? It's not OK. The context is irrelevant. It's a mass-killing game." Left Behind author Tim LaHaye disagrees, saying "Rather than forbid young people from viewing their favorite pastime, I prefer to give them something that's positive." The dispute over the game has caused Thompson to sever ties with Tyndale House, which publishes both the Left Behind books and Thompson's book, Out of Harm's Way. Thompson has not seen the game, which he says has "personally broken my heart," but claims, "I don't have to meet Abraham Lincoln to know that he was the 16th president of the United States.""
Technoli
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
I agree. I'm perfectly cool with letting the Christians kill Muslims in their video game, as long as they don't complain about me beating hookers in mine.
If you're still having questions about this whole "Freedom of Speech" thing, and you're looking for extremists to side with, give Jack Thompson a call. I'm sure he can find something in this game to get offended about. Or call DHS.
You want to exterminate people because you think they want to exterminate other people. Interesting. In reality your just a bigot yourself.
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?
As a lesbian, thank you for that.
I always appreciate it when people stand up for their beliefs, even if they don't immediately affect them.
I don't want anyone, telling me what kind of video game I can play, no matter how distasteful it is. If you don't like it don't buy it. Why do people feel they can thrust their moral beliefs on me? Put an ESRB rating of adult on it and kiss my $$. They tell me how video games are corrupting my mind, well too bad, it's my mind to corrupt. I don't tell anyone to ban pudding, because it's making them fat, if they want to be fat, it's their body, so be it. The problem doesn't lie in what's available to corrupt me, their has always been things to corrupt people, the problem lie's in people's inability to discriminate between what's right and wrong, or the will to resist.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
No, by unfortunately I mean its unfortunate that preaching hatred and bigotry is protected. Antisemitism, racism, sexism and religious hatred (and I mean true versions of these, not just saying that what Israel is doing is wrong, but saying that Jews are the root of all problems) are wrong. I find it unfortunate to have to protect oppressiveness like this in order to protect my right to speak and act freely.
Clones are people two.
"cast. A bunch of cowards who will slit your throat if you don't convert to their religious beliefs." Kindof like the crusades you mean? Or abortion clinic bombers? There are nutjobs from every religion, and all the Muslims I know are caring people just like the majority of non-Muslims I know.
He didn't say that he knows that. He said that he believes that...
Everyone here is jumping on the misleading article concerning this game. The fact is that killing is strongly discouraged in this game. Now, I am not completely supporting it (there are some pretty hokey aspects in my opinion), but we need to get the facts straight here. This game is not like most RTS games out there. You are actually penalized for killing the opponent's people because the goal is to convert everyone.
Each unit in the game has a "spirit" score that determines which side they are on. If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you. Anyone between 60 and 40 is neutral and can be converted. If any of your units kills another unit, they lose spirit points. Only through prayer and inspirational music (who defines inspirational anyway, but I digress...) and good sermons can you increase the spirit points. 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 where the combat comes in. This is not a game of convert-or-die. Also, the anti-christ team can "win", but this means that all of the units left in the game are going to hell (according to the game's rules) -- so in essence it is a loss.
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity. None of the acts carried out in the name of Christ were actually in keeping with his teachings. Many causes are subverted by those who take matters into their own hands. Sometimes it is because they are too zealous. Sometimes it is because they can use the system to serve their own purposes. Just because terrible things have been done in the name of Christ does not mean that Christianity is in itself evil. All of the Christians I know (including myself) abhor what happened in the Crusades. The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It was an act of barbarous and hideous evil that sickens me every time I think about it.
The problem was not Christianity, but the tightly held monopoly of the Church of Rome that kept its people in the dark about the truths of scripture while allowing corrupt people to wield incredible power. The crusaders were told that they would be "forgiven of all sins" if they went on the crusade, and in their ignorance, they did not know that Jesus gave forgiveness freely for sins confessed (you don't even need a priest). Thus the religion was subverted and misused to the profit of greedy men. As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Every Christian I know (I'm not Christian but my mother is a pastor), is all for war of any kind. They hide behind some false sense of superiority because they are "righteous". They spout out phrases like "Thou shalt not kill" but send their children to war to murder because someone disagrees with them. They murdered entire populations of indigenous people (Native Americans for ex.) because they could not understand their silly religion. Christians == Murderers in my eyes so I see a game where Christians gun down non-believers as truth. I am not speaking about all Christians. There are a few that believe the Bible is just a message and is not to be taken literally. But the majority are all hypocritical murderers. As my mother told me along time ago, "It's ok not to believe in the bible. Just believe in the message." And that message is basically "Love and treat each other as you wish to be loved and treated."
Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
I personally think the game is bullshit, but 'muslim sounding names'??? There are hundreds of thousands of Christians with 'muslim sounding names'. They live in places like Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Basra, Bagdad, Detroit, New York,.... Those of you old enough may remember Danny Thomas or his daughter Marlo. Danny (stage name) was born Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yakhoob. Certainly a 'muslim sounding name' (except maybe the 'Alphonsus'). I'd class the 'Thomas' family - whatever they call themselves - as good, honorable Christians who have contributed to the good of the world. Including St. Jude's Hospital, one of the most famous institutions helping anyone who need it. BTW, I'm Jewish. Let's not confuse Christianity with jingostic, not-my-color/ethnic/ bigotry. I have actually met a couple of people (who claim to be christians) in my life (55+) that actually seem to live up to the ideals of the various versions. Not many, but some.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "satanist". "Satan" is a Christian construct. All Satanists are actually dumber-than-average Christians who like to wear black.
...but apparantly Muslims conquering the Holy Land before the Crusades, and slaughtering all who would not convert to Islam.... well that's just ducky.
Anyone forcing others to convert at swordpoint is acting out of evil. Anyone who does so in the name of Christ, is also taking the Lord's name in vain. When the Muslims slaughtered those in the Holy land, that was evil. When the Christians retaliated, and killed supposedly in the name of God, that was also evil.
But do NOT act like Christians had the monopoly on killing. The Crusades were an overREACTION to the slaughter that the Muslims had perpetrated. To pretend that the Muslims were just sitting around chatting about Allah, and the Christians came in for no reason and killed them all is beyond absurd. That pretense is evil.
I'm not defending the barbarous acts committed by many Crusaders. I'm sure many of them are roasting on their respective spits in Hell right now. However, when you PRETEND that those from whom they tried to take the Holy Land BACK were innocent victims of evil Christianity, you are guilty of slander on a massive scale.
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
My 8 yr old neighbor boy became concerned about the disappearance of the believers in the opening movie. He asked Jesus into his heart to be his Lord and Savior when he saw that people were disappearing and going to Heaven. He did not want to miss out on that event which may happen any day.
Throw the Christians to the lions. Fa la la la, la la la la.
OK, who else has some words to add?
Friends don't let friends line-dance.
That's pretty much a given among secular scholars, along with the JEDHP theory of Biblical authorship. Those with something else to prove than the truth, however, tend to disagree with both speculations.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I would buy a game where every religion is the ennemy of peace and progress.
you play an atheist who lost his family to religious zealots and they all died for no reason whatsoever except to a false god, then you have to destroy every critical religious centers in every country starting with the vatican, then mosquee then whatever places judaism needs to be hit. A purging of all evil that prevents people to interact normally with each other
And just so racism is not implied, you were born from a half-native-americain/italian/arab father with an africain/jewish/pakistanese mother that was born in japan and raised by wolves. Did a forget someone?
that sounds pretty stupid no? remove religions= remove stupidity
All of you except the buddists are sick individuals that use your beliefs as a reason to kill murder and rape.
While I agree partially with your sentiment, what about all the peaceful religious people? They don't get seen much, because the news chooses not to cover people sitting at home with their children hoping and praying that the rioters don't kill anybody. You're talking about the violent 1% (or 5%), and there are violent atheists as well.
I do, however, notice more and more how efficient religious power is as a tool to control people. I think that a massive reeducation about spirituality, Jesus, and the Bible are in order. Why I don't mention the Muslims is that a)I'm not a Muslim, so I'm not in a powerful position to reeducate, and b)dude, there are millions of Muslims in this country who, as a persecuted class, are more conscious, compassionate, and aware than your correlated Judeo-Christian.
Also, the Buddhist religion is also born out of a violent, sexist, oppressive time in history, and therefore contains much falsity. The reason why Christianity and Islam seem so primitive by comparison is because they are under scrutiny. Explain to me how the Buddhist governments (China, anyone?) are any better. Again, it occurs to me how religion is a freaking tool, not the problem, and the solution is education.
The government is constantly a detriment to people's freedom, spiritual growth, and personal creativity. Look at our (at least my) government's relationship with John Lennon (regardless of whether or not they killed him, which I wouldn't put past them). Look at their relationship to Osho. Look at their relationship with the Branch Davidians (Remember the Alamo, forget Waco--a true patriot!). And if you want to pretend that they killed the Branch Davidians because they were stockpiling weapons, I'll send you a videotape with the telephone conversations of Koresh begging the ATF to stop shooting at them and to please let the women and children out.
No such luck.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
God doesn't care what religion you are, so long as you are a good person.
How do you know that?
Here is my approach on that.
Let us take as a given that God exists for the purposes of this conversation.
If God is like the GP suggests, a being of benevolence who wants everyone to get along, help each other, and generally "be excellent to each other" than I am all for it. I will try to live my life by these principles, in theory (a really amusing phrase to interject in here) God would welcome me into heaven as one of the "good ones".
No if God is as some believe, a jealous and vengeful being who most desires that we forcibly convert or kill others solely on the basis that they call him by a different name or worship him in a different way, well screw that. I want no part of it. If that is God than I do reject him and will damn well live my life the way I described earlier. It is his own fault, if he wanted mindless zombies to worship him then he should not have made me more emotionally mature than himself.
Here is a fun thought experiment, imagine there is a school for Gods, and one of the projects is to create a planet populated with people you create. You must create them with free will and intelligence but approach different groups of them early on (each time taking a different form) and tell them about yourself and create a religion, but each religion must be very similar and compatible. Then set them loose and see if they can co-exist and figure out that they are all worshiping the same God. If that were the case this God flunked, we all mangled our religions to be incompatible.
Or perhaps the religions started out vastly different, and were even intentionally intolerant. Maybe the assignment is to create a people who are (in the long run) intelligent and mature enough to figure out what is truly important to society as a whole and to even "reject" the original religions (or at least the intolerant aspects of them) in favor of peacefully coexisting. Hopefully God has some more time before it is "pencils down" and we are graded, because we are not quite ready.
Finkployd
No... you're included. Progressive Christianity would never condemn a person simply because they chose to "lie with an animal".
Seriously...
I think it's far more reprehensible that small minded people insist on imposing ther view of what is right and wrong on other people. Wal-Mart should keep selling it, and not bow to freedom hating people.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You preach tolerance while showing you have none. You're no different than a Christian who hides behind the bible to justify their own bigotry or the racist who points to the minority of blacks who commit crime to justify denigrating all blacks.
I do not think that I like the concept of Left Behind's new game. But I think their company name speaks volumes, especially from a "Mission Statement", "point of view?" The new, and old testament are ripe with First Person type game plots. A personal favorite is the old testament story of Jacob vs. Laban. One could play the kid crazy in love, or the father trying to rid the kid who just does not get it. Either view point is a humerus "Gripping White Knuckle" event; But I also think that due to its content, children should not read the story, and should not be allowed to ask to many plot related questions.
"Want to know the rest; buy the rights." - OMC
Baha'i is very similar to what you describe except they have a few more stringent rules. It's probably the closest 'world religion' to the ideas you try to embrace...
As tasteless as this game is, maybe it will serve a good purpose after all: trivialization of fundamentalist Christianity and all fundamentalist organized religion in general. There, I said it! If all the "Westboro Baptist" style fundies out there think this game is a great idea, then by all means, let them play. All of the worlds major "we are right, you are wrong, convert or suffer forever" religions should be playable options in the game. The subversive underlying message is that all religions are just games. Think of it: Millions of people being gradually desensitized to the religious dogma that otherwise indoctrinates them into thinking it worthwhile and "righteous" to justify hate and spill blood over fairy tales.
My appologies for not being clear on the "believe in" or "believe that he existed" thing. I didn't mean it in an Easter Bunny/Santa Claus kind of way.
Of course many Christians believe Mohammad existed, as much as they believe Joseph Smith existed. Their job is not to believe or disbelieve, it is to follow the teachings of Christ. My understanding of the Koran is that Muslims believe in Moses, Jesus and the whole bible story. Jesus was the son of god and whatever. Then Mohammad came along, and god spoke to him. Big M put the words directly into the Koran. So even though Moses and Jesus had their thing, the big M (or rather god himself) has/had the final word.
My interpretation could be totally out of whack though (the alternate reality that you poing out above).
BBH
SLashdot isn't a group mind. SOme epople will state their opinion in one subject, but not another.
If a single user says thuis game should be pulled, but then later says 'GTA:Rancho Cucamunga' should not be pulled, then That Person is a hypocrite, not all of slashdot.
It could also mean that person has changed they way they think on the subject as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just in case the end-boss is David Blaine and he animates a giant stone Abraham Lincoln, the way to beat him is to build a giant stone John Wilkes Booth.
Even as a Discordian, I cannot wrap my head around the chaos that would ensue if someone made a mass-marketed game based around the Islamic end times. What with the battle with the Jews and all. Yipes!
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
What's really too bad is that they are capitalizing on the "Left Behind" series, which is IMO a very entertaining and thought-provoking series that is totally unlike this game. I wonder if they could be sued for copyright infringement because of the name?
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
If this is true to the Left Behind novels, you're going to have a lot of work to do. These novels portray current days as the end times, and describe the book of revelation in a current events manner.
You'll have to rewrite revelation where the other team wins, then do all the coding to make that happen in the game.
Man, you really need that seminar!
A progressive Christian is someone who actually does what the Bible says to do:
/. suddenly lose all ability to think logically when the subject of religion comes up.
Okay, let's see how well you do.
Love one's neighbor more than one's self
You are mis-quoting scripture and mis-quoting Christ. To wit:
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mat 19:19)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mat 22:39)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:33)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Rom 13:9)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal 5:14)
"love your neighbor as yourself" (James 2:8)
Nowhere does scripture or Jesus say "love your neighbor more than one's self" and thus imply the self-deprecation and self-denigration that is popular in "progressive" thought. Just because fundamentalist Christians rewrite scripture to bash gays and women does NOT mean you have the right to rewrite scripture to match your own politics.
It's pretty much that simple.
Is it really pretty much that simple? I beg to differ. Take this mandate from Christ, for example:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." Lk 14:26, words of Christ.
Do you "do what the Bible says to do", as, by definition, a "progressive" Christian should, in regards to what Jesus said in Lk 14:26? Now here is where we will see the "progressive" Christian start to mimic the fundamentalist Christian in another nasty way by playing the game of "That's what it says, but that's not what it means!"
In short, a "progressive" Christian is a "progressive" with Christian trappings. Likewise, a fundamentalist Christian is a conservative with Christian trappings. Your claims about "doing what the Bible says" are just bunk because the Bible cannot be used as a decent moral guide due to its being both immoral and nonsensical. As for nonsense, consider what was revelaled by the scripture that I quoted in this very post. Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hang on "love your neighbor as yourself", yet he also indicated that you can't be his disciple unless you hate your own life. Hence, you are to love your neighbor as you love yourself, which, since you have to hate your own life, means you don't love your neighbor at all!
I know, I know. "That's what it says, but that's not what it means!" I can only shake my head when normally very intelligent and critical people on
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The only difficulty I have with any religious label is the same difficulty I have with our society in general over the past 20 years. People feel that everything must have a name. I used to have depression; now I have manic-depressive, bipolar disorder. My wife doesn't drive angry she has "road rage." Kids aren't undisciplined they have ADD and ADHD. I call BS.
The axioms you mention I'd call spirituality (knowing one's own self), but again that's just putting a label on something that already existed before it had a name.
My own path of belief is rather silly when I step back and look at it, but the beliefs still hold true. I've been told my beliefs compare to Buddhism, but I haven't bother to research that further. Regardless, just trying to be a decent person and accepting others non-judgmentally is a great basis for a good life and peace in general.
It was rather sad to read that article and some of these comments and have my parents come to mind: "Christian intolerance" describes them quite well. Their version of Christianity only includes white, Anglo Saxon, republican heterosexuals. They'll probably have a freak session when they discover that our nicest neighbors (about the only people in our neighborhood we care to associate with) are a male homosexual couple. I can imagine them saying "You can't raise our granddaughters next to someone like THAT!"
I define Christian science fiction as using current scientific explanations for Biblical events and prophecies. The "Left Behind" series is the premier example of this genre. C.S. Lewis wrote a fair amount of this too. I'd say the Narnia series is not quite there, though the lion has a resurrection. All these convolution explanations of Biblical miracles you read around Christmas and Easter time are borderline too.
As the only purveyor of your religion, I say declare yourself as holy ground so you can be exempt from property taxes. That would mean that technically you should be able to avoid ever paying income tax again. "I am the human temple of common sense and decency!"
You're not alone, as you know. How can billions of Buddhists all be wrong?! And there's no Jesus or Mohammed there.
Christians = 1, Fundamentalists = 0
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Here's a good theological question:
If there is a God, and he has been around since the beginning of creation, why do you think you are allowed to define was he does and does not care about?
This isn't a troll, this is actually a serious (and much-debated) critique to your argument. Thomas Aquinas definitively believed that the Christian God was immutable - that is, he definitely was either for or against slavery, definitely for or against homosexuality, definitely for or against coveting your neighbor's wife.
So if two people stood up, and one said, "I believe God does care that you call him by the correct name" and one said, "I believe God does not care that you call him by the correct name", then only one of these people was right.
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
So in order to believe in God, you must believe that God has always existed AND that he is immutable. So then the question merely becomes "who has the right idea about God?" And while that question is of course unanswerable, it is very easy for me to say that your idea of God and the Christian idea of God are incompatible.
And only one of you is right.
Sounds fun! I'll see if I can get it at WM, or at least torrent it =P
As for the bad-guys-can't-win part, well, we'll have to do like Ender did.. heh
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Your religion is about as spiritually inspiring as an Aerosmith song.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
The game is just stupid. It's a company profiting from the name of a book to make money making yet another shooter. Nothing else. Oh - for the record, I consider myself a pretty conservative Christian, with a rather literal belief in the Bible, and still manage to try to be a decent person, to everyone. I'm really unsure where the public/political 'conservative' Christian has ended up with their beliefs and their standards.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
I think the problem is that some, the more loud and vocal, Christians are the ones that spout the burning in fire message. My church sends the message of bringing heaven to earth, instead of condemning people to hell. The message is more help the oppressed and suffering of the world out. 6% of the population has 70% of the wealth. If they just gave a fraction of what they had we could completely get rid of poverty and homelessness in the world. This message seems pretty far away from convert or die message. However we're labeled a bible church or Christian church just like those others are. This is definitely a struggle Christians face.
As for the people trying to ban the game, for the amount of effort they're spending, time and cost included, they could probably feed and cloth a whole village in a developing country. Some religious people should take some more time to look at their priorities.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
If all the holy writings serve the same purpose, shouldn't they all have the same message? Why, then, does the deity of the Christian book (a God who supposedly "emptied himself" of his deity and became human) claim to be the only way? Is God confused? Is it possible that one of these groups is right?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Unfortunately, creating this game is Constitutionally protected free speech
No, this is the fortunate part.
and selling it is completely up to Wal-Mart and other retailers.
True. But Wal-Mart has a record of not selling items that might lead to... how to phrase it... moral outrage?(*) Especially since this game is presenting itself as "Christian," and thus if it was at Wal-Mart some oblivious parents might buy it for their children, assuming it to be a very different game than it actually is.
A lot of people get mixed up about "free speech" and "free market" on this score: Free speech means you are allowed to say whatever you want. Free market means that society can make a deliberate choice to ignore what you say. Moral outrage and disgust are market forces (just ask Tom Cruise how MI3 did :P), whether you like it or not, and market forces restricting where something can be sold do not limit free speech.
For example: Wal-Mart does not sell pornography. If they chose to, it would be their right, but a lot of people who shop there would probably be offended by it and would shop there less -- moral outrage as a market force. Since there is still a sizable part of the population that is interested in buying pornography, other retailers handle the demand for such things, and free speech is not impinged upon.
All of which is just to say, there's nothing wrong with asking Wal-Mart not to sell this game. (Heck, even in GTA the game isn't pretending that killing hookers is the Good Christian Thing To Do. The whole appeal of something like GTA is that this isn't how you behave, or ever should behave, in real life.)
(*) (Meaning the items themselves don't cause moral outrage. It's fine if their production methods cause moral outrage.)
I am the man with no sig!
Ahh young grasshopper, you miss the point of the New Testament and Jesus message. Unlike the Muslims that have multiple rules of engagement, that tell then when they can fight and who they can kill, Christians have only one rule: Trust in God.
If what you are saying was right then Jesus would have attacked the roman guards that came to arrest him that night in the garden. But what did he do ... he healed one of the solders, hurt my a disciple tiring to protect him, and went with them quietly.
Latvians have a pretty similar one too Dievturba, check it out on Wikipedia. Its my favorite one this week!
Folk in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wouldn't have much to argue about either, bless his noodley appendages.
Even the fiercest Discordians and Slackers wouldn't kill you for those beliefs, though they might feel tempted to murder you for wearing too loud a shirt in a built up area.
On the other hand for having such radical ideas, throughout history the Christian Church would have sought you out and killed you to protect its meme.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
I've heard Ned Flanders has the most devastating powers of this game...
He's done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!
They dislike it because it's TOO accurate. It shows how religious people really think and act.
Overly broad generalizations for teh win, then?
Yes, I'm absolutely sure any religious person thinks like this....uhhhuh.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Some of the character classes that are available in the game:
Televangelist: You get XP for getting folks to send in their social security benefits to "buy Bibles for Africans". Character starts with a broadcast license and a Makeup Kit +3
Street Corner Lunatic: You get XP based on how fast people scurry past to avoid you. Character starts off with a Sandwich Board of Hysteria and 50 Pamphlets of Harassment.
Perverted Priest: Each boy you molest gains you XP. Innate abilities include Charm Children and Lie To Parish.
Sanctimonious Believer: Gets XP for passing judgment on others. You lose XP if people point out your own failings. Character starts off with a Bible of Convenience +3.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Liberals are again calling for (self) censorship.
Such open minds.
Reminds me of Algore and his bitch.
Ah, but there's a logical fallacy there. Say God (regardless of religion) is indeed immutable... That he either does or does not care if you call him by a certain name. (To continue the simple example.) How does that affect God? Just because God is all-powerful does not mean he exercises those powers. It may be in his best interest to let me believe however I want. My belief does not change him. It changes me.
There is no mandate stating that God must prevent me from believing he does not care if he is called by a certain name.
But okay, let's talk about tolerance again then. You say that my idea of God and Christianity's are incompatible, so I must be intolerant of them.
My view of God: God wants people to be 'good'.
Christianity: God wants people to follow his commands and they will go to heaven if and only if they do so.
Christianity's God forces people to be 'good' by following dictated commands. In other words, God wants them to be 'good'.
Where is the problem?
Christians believe a great many things that are meant to hold back their natural human impulses for destruction. They are given specific commandments to follow, instead of a general 'be good' commandment. Maybe God believed that was the best way to guide those people to being good?
Here's a thought: The all-knowing God knew that not everyone would react the same to the same religion, and so made many religions, designed to help different people in different ways. There is no 'one true religion', not even mine.
Aquinas' argument is great for helping keep Christians being Christians, but doesn't mean anything to any other religion. Of course, the fallacy in his argument is that you are supposing that God can't be more than 1 thing at once. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. How can he fail to be more than 1 thing at a time? He can be something different to every person on the planet, at the same time, if he chooses. It's in His definition.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
the author of a wired magazine article on the game makes a very good point. the game is no where near as graphic as the description given in the book of Revelation and other fundamentalist sources for the endtime frenzy. when the author contacted the game makers about this they replied that while the bible was more graphic they didnt want to make the game too violent and thereby inappropriate for children so...its okay to believe this stuff literally is going to happen to people, but its not something you want your children to watch...just what kind of god are these people worshipping? heres the link: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72071-0.html
I think you should think about that.
Same way anyone knows anything about religion. He made it up.
Man, you really need that seminar!
OK, take your examples a step further...
What if God simply said this:
"OK, folks, I put you in paradise, and I gave you one simple rule: Don't eat fruit from a specific tree. Knowing the consequences, you chose to turn against me, so you and your descendants will suffer the consequences for your actions. I then gave you laws to follow, and you followed them, but then you chose to break them and turn against me, so you will suffer the consequences fro your actions. You gave me sacrifices to gain my favor, and I gave you blessings, but then you chose to turn against me, so you will suffer the consequences fro your actions. I then decided to provide a solution to your shortfalls: I sent my son Jesus to the earth to teach you about me and my plan. Part of this plan was for Him to die as a final sacrifice for your sins. But that wasn't the whole plan. The other part of my plan is that those who believe in Jesus' death as being the sacrifice that forgives your sins, will be granted forgiveness and the joy eternal life with me in Heaven. Those who reject my plan will live an eternal life in Hell. And a day will come soon where you will be required to make a final choice and accept the consequences for your actions."
Oh, wait, He did say that....
Because people are different. They need a different message.
Tech example:
x86 processor, motorola processor, ARM processor... You want to print 'Hello World' from an assembly program. Do you write the same code for all processors?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The word "Apostle", from the Greek apostello "to send forth", "to dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in III Kings, xiv, 6 (cf. ibid., xii, 24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs, according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service" (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello.
It is at once evident that in a Christian sense, everyone who had received a mission from God, or Christ, to man could be called "Apostle". In fact, however, it was reserved to those of the disciples who received this title from Christ. At the same time, like other honourable titles, it was occasionally applied to those who in some way realized the fundamental idea of the name. The word also has various meanings.
* The name Apostle denotes principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a solemn occasion, were called by Christ to a special mission. In the Gospels, however, those disciples are often designated by the expressions of mathetai (the disciples) or dodeka (the Twelve) and, after the treason and death of Judas, even of hendeka (the Eleven). In the Synoptics the name Apostle occurs but seldom with this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts, this use of the word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to the heathens, claimed with much insistency this title and its rights.
* In the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii, 1) the name is applied even to Christ, in the original meaning of a delegate sent from God to preach revealed truth to the world.
* The word Apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil., ii, 25), two unknown Christians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:23). We know not why the honourable name of Apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would equally merit it.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
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.
As far as I can tell, the word translated "slaves" in some translations of the Torah and "servants" in others is the closest Biblical Hebrew word to what Modern English calls "employees".
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
I think it's pretty obvious that the OP assumed some sort of Moral Universalism/Realism. Your argument was made from a premise of Moral Authoritativism (your god defines right and wrong) and therefore it is not valid in the framework that the OP set forth. In Moral Universalism, god can no more make it right to eat babies than he can make 1=0. So you would be a bad person because you are doing things that are Universally bad.
You should look up Socrates discussion of ethics. God defining Good by his Will is actually quite illogical.
Throughout history, people have been using various religious faiths to justify whatever they want to do, because they can leverage the people's support for the faith to gain support for their own cause. In the case of Christianity, people have used the guise of converting people to Christianity as a justification for slavery and execution of enemies. They can justify making the people slaves because they can claim this is necessary to convert them to Christianity and save them. They can justify the execution of people by saying they are eliminating sin from the world. It doesn't matter if they have no basis in true Christianity. The practice is done by fake members of all faiths, not just fake Christians. This game probably disturbs real Christians because it makes them look bad. However, the game sounds like it is historically accurate. Accurate, not as a portrayal of true Christianity, but as a portrayal of the abuse of Christianity by early propagandists.
How would the Christians feel if us non-Christians put out a "War on Christmas" video game where Christians were hunted down and Trees, Lights, and presents destroyed for additional points?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If God, the keeper of the gates to heaven doesn't define what's good and bad then who the hell does.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase what would Jesus do? banded about many times. Thats religion, it's what defines religion.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
But is there a God Mode?
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Although media reports vary, Christianity isn't a convert-or-kill kind of religion; in fact killing is only allow in the protection of the innocent. And this game sounds a lot like a virtual crusade.
:(
If someone wanted to make a *Muslim* game like this, sure- the Koran actually suggests that if non-Muslims won't convert and become slaves, they're to be killed.
Something odd happened at Medina; after Medina Muhommad became very violent, but I'm not aware that anyone knows what happened. Anyway, that's how you snag one religion, and modify it into a killing machine.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Read Deuteronomy 13 and then mod parent up.
die444die
Just going off of the Wikipedia entries, the total deaths attributable to their respective regimes are the matter of much debate. Going only off of the official records from the times, Stalin's regime was directly responsible for about 3 million deaths. But another 6 or 8 million died in the famine in Ukraine (more a result of collectivism than the hand of God). But all that is fuzzy- the range of estimates anywhere from the official 3 million up to 60 million. The account for Mao is even fuzzier- it doesn't appear to be possible to say anything more definitive than "tens of millions". Whether they were any better or worse than Theocratic regimes doesn't interest me much, though. The fact is that they were all butchers.
Sig cannot be found.
There are many, many people who agree with your philosophy. It pretty much is exactly what I believe, and most of my family. They're very active in a local Baptist church, where most of the members also believe something similar. My mom teaches Sunday School and has told kids that she doesn't really believe in Heaven, that for her 'everlasting life' is the good memories people have of you after you die, based on the generous things you've done for other people, and while other church members might argue with her, they think it's good she's teaching.
So, there are already churches working along the lines you're talking about.
There are problems with this approach, though: basically, people who go down this route aren't anywhere nearly as enthusiastic/desperate/avid as people who hew to the evangelical ideology, so the churches tend to be less active, have lower attendance, and so forth. Coz, basically, it's a smooth glide from there to some flavor of weak atheism.
Anyway, I think you're on the right track, for what it's worth, and I'd go to your church.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Kind of short sighted of him wasn't it? To only say it to a small group of people living in a specific area. So is he the God of everyone or just the God of those chosen few? Who then is the God of the others? There was not life only in the Middle East 2000 years ago you know...
And where then did these other religions come from? Many of which are demonstrably older than the "Yahweh" and "Asherah" based religions that became Judaism. Why do you not follow one of those religions? Was it entirely because you follow the religion of your parents? how fortunate you lucked out and were born into the correct one.
Frankly, if God's current plan is to send Jesus to a patch of desert and convince some followers that he died for their sins, it was not very well thought out was it? If God's single main rule is that the biggest asshole on earth can get into the kingdom of heaven simply by believing that Jesus died for his sins, and that the most noble, honorable, peaceful, and (dare I say) most Jesus-like people would be condemned to eternal hell fire if they happen to not believe that, then God is a emotionally-retarded asshole and this world he created is better off without him, no? Especially if his followers are willing to kill otherwise innocent people for not worshiping him the exact same way their parents taught them to.
Really, why go to all the trouble to giving people free will and intelligence if we are to be punished for using it?
I'm not an atheist, I believe in God, but I refuse to believe in a God with the mentality of a 4 year old. This universe is too well constructed and complicated for a rank amateur to have designed it.
Finkployd
On so the crusades were about teaching love to your enemies? I see.
ps. Adults with imaginary friends are stupid.
Lol, I never get tired of that one. What are you reading this for! I said [nt].
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Finally! A game Jack Thompson can enjoy!!!! Actually, I think his head may explode. Christianity and violence?!?!?!
I will forever be a student.
The question still remains, how is it that the Islamic concept of Jihad (which drove their efforts in taking all of the land in the first place) made it into Christianity? A lot of the horrors of the pre-crusade period have been ignored by revisionist historians, but it's still hard to jive turn the other cheek with getting killed in the service of Christ gets you into heaven (of which there is not even a single Biblical reference, but plenty of ones from the Koran).
By taking up arms and revenging yourself, you are in effect saying you do not believe in the just God, who will judge us based on our deeds. If you feel you have to take things in your own hands, you clearly do not believe in God.
And this is exactly why the dichotomy between "this world" and the establishment of kingdom of heaven within each one of us.
This is why Jesus says so many times to his followers and especially accusers "I am not of this world".
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
...as Stalin was a closet Orthodox for much of, if not his entire, life.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
You might check out the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong. He writes in great detail with great wit and intelligence on these very thoughts.
You are not alone. More believe like you than you think.
Me, I believe all of it, except in God, and embracing religion.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Bear in mind that this game is set in what is biblically referred to as "the end-times", where anyone who will not worship the antichrist will be killed. Period. That would mean a heckuva lot of people would die, not just Christians, but _anyone_ who refused to acknowledge this person as the savior of the entire world. In such a world, the "convert or die" tactic is already being used by the antichrist's forces, and it is not hard to see how in such a case it would come down to a kill-or-be-killed situation.
But that's not saying I think this game is in any way remotely acceptable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Oh yes, the concept of this game could never happen. I mean as we all know christians have never been known to be violent or to push their religion on anyone else. Not like the salem witch trials or the crusades or anything. They would never try to push their beliefs on anyone else, you know, like going to another country to preach to "the savages" or standing outside movie theaters of movies that go aginst their beliefs and shun the people going to them. And for another thing... Christians are all about love and tolerance so they would never turn their back on a pregnant teen as a sinner and they would also never tell their congreations to burn any book, CD, and/or movie that they deem goes aginst God. Sheesh, what do you try and take some Christians for? Self rightious hipocrits....oh wait...christians have done all of the above. My bad. Honestly, I do not think that this game is really on the mark in current society because there is a large, non-christian community out there, but if we let it, this country could turn into a Chruch run country and they WILL dictate everything to us. We just have to make sure that does not happen.
Copyright. The law doesn't forbid people to retranslate the Bible or Dante's Comedy and issue a new study edition. Anything since 1923, on the other hand...
This would be known as Unitarian Universalism. I have two comments regarding that though. First, Christianity does not fit into your belief structure. Christianity centers around Jesus and there is entirely too much evidence for Christ claiming divinity, and claiming that he is the only way to God/Heaven to allow for a universalist position. The result is that one of two possibilities exist. Either Christianity is correct and all other religions are wrong, OR Christianity is incorrect and all other religions have the possibility of being right. Second, your assertion that all religions are valid is making a truth claim. This truth claim says that God is a certain way (he is unconcerned with the path you take to him, all religions are from him, etc). You cannot say that your truth claim is above or trumps the truth claim of another religion (such as Christianity) just because your truth claim attempts to be all encompassing. Christianity makes a truth claim that the Christian God is the only true God. You are making a truth claim that there are many paths to God. Both can be evaluated and examined logically to determine which makes more sense. I just want you to realize that your belief is simply that, a belief. On the level of all other beliefs which may or may not agree with yours. Claiming that all paths are valid and that there should be no specific path to God is being intolerant of those who believe in a God who has set down specific rules and ideas for conduct and salvation.
I always thought that GOD was god. Where do some people get off saying that Jesus is God? Jesus and God can't BOTH be god, and if they could then why would God need the Jesus-figure for himself if he never has to prove himself to humans? Hell, why even bother with the Rapture if, once again, God never has to prove himself to mankind? And didn't Jesus really only care about people following the messages that he taught, not who did or did not believe such and such in specific?
This is why I usually try to stay out of talking religion with anyone. It doesn't make sense. No amount of explanation can make it make sense since it's been so widely interpreted and, let's not forget, practically everybody _knows_ theirs is the only Correct God. Everything in absolutes.
I have my belief, and I'm sticking with it: "don't do stupid shit."
Number of abortion providers murdered in the last 15 years: < 25 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm)
i d=5772&t=Archive)
Number of people killed by Muslim suicide bombers on Tuesday: > 60 (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/?page=details&
I'm not going to defend anyone who kills an abortion doctor, or imply that each one wasn't a terrible tragedy. The truth of the matter, however, is that the scale of the two problems just doesn't compare at all.
Also, for what it's worth, I do believe the bible with all of my being, and I have in fact read it. Actually, I've not only read it, I've studied it enough to understand the source of the apparent contradictions, and why they aren't really contradictions. In fact, under real scrutiny the Bible holds up better than just about any other work of comparable size out there.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
the enemy of my enemy is my 'gag and stammer'
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
So, you took the pill, huh?
In fact they are contradictions and much of the time they are caused because the thing was edited left and right. Also some of the books in the new testament were written to "clarify" books of the old testament but since the bible tells us that god pretty much stopped talking to people after moses, those people were just making some shit up - their interpretation of the earlier evens which frankly just don't mesh.
Also, there are many examples of mistranslation, both intentional and accidental. There are many books on the subject.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
*sigh*. The Constitution guarantees free speech under the law, not free speech at Wal-Mart. They aren't saying the game should be illegal; they're saying Wal-Mart should be ashamed to sell it and pull it off their shelves. Big difference.
Many people don't believe this book with all of their being. Most of them have never read it.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Stalin as a child went to seminary school to become an orthodox priest. He never did finish due to personal problems, but it is something to keep in mind when you look at Stalin as a person.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Oops - I just realized He never mentioned guns. So I guess you were right. My bad.
I love games with good stories. How is this any different from God of War? Besides the fact there are some silly people who might believe it.
I think the more we fictionalize the Bible, the sooner people will stop taking it so damn seriously, and what is wrong with that?
Kill or convert... really, what better way to make people realize that radical Christianity isn't that far from radical Islam?
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I'll join your group :) Well, I'm already a member!
I'm a Christian, and love telling others about Christ and what he has done for humankind, but my evangelical zeal is not motivated by fear of Hell -- for myself or for others. Such motivation results in a spoiled message, I believe, because the Gospel is Good News, not Bad News, and telling someone they're going to Hell unless they do A, B, and C is news to most people.
I've read the Bible intensely, and from what I've gathered, God judges people based on whether they are "good" or "bad", a delineation no human can make, because only God truly knows how to separate light from darkness. So I leave all judgment up to him. God doesn't speak our language, even. "God" itself is a meaningless word. He is a force of Being, Life, Action, Will itself that causes life to shine in the dead universe against all odds.
My motivation to tell others about Christ is because it culminates my joy in life. My salvation is NOT because I
1) Confessed
2) Repented
3) Was Baptized
4) Stay faithful through prayer and scriptural meditation
but because GOD died! GOD was baptized in all the evil and sin that has ever been. He soaked the evil up as surely as bread dipped in wine. It entered him, became him, and he became it. And through this unity, he purified evil.
By believing these things, the entire world has been turned upside down for me. I am not saved because I pray, etc. I pray and do good because I am saved! When I do good, I know it is God confirming to me that He lives within me.
So, I try to judge a tree by its fruit. If I see good, I know it is God acting. I have seen God acting in atheists. For them, God is an implicit force.
God gave his blood for the earth, for all life and existence. Because of this, we Live.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Look up "monk translation insertions" sometime. Even if the books were a thousand years old the script would have to be touched up by monks as the pages became worn from use. Also the oldest copy of the bible is partial and dates from 3rd century as far as I know. (http://www.allabouttruth.org/oldest-known-copy-of -the-bible-faq.htm)
Religious books were recopied every hundred years or so. The copies we have today have been copied dozens of times by monks who often "modernized" concepts to be in line with the politics of the current day. Also what they perceived as inconsistencies in the original work were "corrected".
Many Christian histories had this problem at least when compared to the record of Jewish scholars. Jewish scholars had an entire class of specialists that maintain documents and compare scrolls for discrepancies and drift. I remember from some research projects that Jewish histories were well respected for maintaining original accuracy while Christian monasteries had a reputation for "inserting" new materials into transcriptions.
The following is an except from http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.ht ml to back up my assertion on the reliability of Jewish histories. I don't have time to find reliable references for the "drift" in Christian lore, but Google seemed to have a lot of links.
The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D....to just use one of those pools from Populous that converts people? ;)
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Emphasis mine. I think that it is pretty literal of an interpretation of the Bible mixed with some of the ideas about how forces existing in the world might react. I think it is hilarious that the "Global Community Peacekeepers" are the ones causing war and attacking the believers.
that what is considered core Buddhist beliefs are generally pretty nice. But just the same way that there are inhumane christian beliefs there are inhumane buddhist beliefs. It doesn't take much for a brain to malfunction, and there are over 6 billion of them. Plus, take into account group conciousness, which tends to be far more volatile in certain situations, and you have a low level of predictability about how all people will interpret what is (or should be) an internally applied practice.
I only was refuting your claim that everyone "except buddhists" is f-ed up. I think the small amount of core integration people feel they need before they classify themselves as religious or spiritual belies the idea the "good christian" or "good buddhist" meme.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
He actually said "over 700 million of us". It was a few years ago.
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
This kind of stuff "does not further", to quite Siddhartha.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
Paraphrase:
:-p
Christians are good for Jesus
Atheists are good for nothing
After reading your question and thinking for a while, I come up with this ingenious argument:
;-p
I reject the notions of logic and rationality.
There.
Don't quote me on this.
A genuine question I'd like to ask: why even bother to bear the name of Christianity, when you(r mother) does not believe in the most basic tenet of Christianity?
Don't quote me on this.
I beg to differ. They sure sound like the Christians from the Spanish Inquisition.
For anybody that wants to try this thing out for themselves, there's a game demo available for download, although it doesn't seem to be available on the official site anymore (I think GamersHell.com is a reputable site, but you might want to run an AV scan on the binary first).
I tried playing the demo a few months ago. Overall, I thought it was pretty crappy, but it was kind of amusing and there were some game mechanics which I thought was pretty neat. For example, in most RTS games "converting" units to your side is a special thing which happens fairly rarely, while in Left Behind its a central game mechanic.
From TFA: "Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them." Oh, okay, well I guess that's ok then.. "They can earn spirit points again by having their character pray." Much cooler, God is Forgiving (tm) so you can just gun them all down and pray a little every time. In the name of *BANG!* God *BANG!* rest in peace.
I prefer Vonnegut's vision of God: God has no idea that you (or anyone, or even Earth) exists, and wouldn't care in the least if he was told. You might as well ask me to care about a microscopic colony of bacteria growing under one of the floorboards in my basement. God may have created the universe, but humanity is a vanishingly insignificant sliver of the whole, and His attentions are taken up by more important things.
Maybe not a "feel-good message", but you have to admit it explains the state of things nicely...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
These books and films scared the living shiite out of me when I was a kid. They coerced me into fundamentalist Christianity, to the point where we would fight with kids we couldn't 'convert'. How is this different than militant Islam? Now, they have made it into a game for kids to brainwash them. Well, if any parent actually wants their kids playing this game, it's probably already too late for them. :(
Banning the sales is one thing, EDUCATING the public is another.
The whole Left Behind thing should have been banned when it first came out. Governing by rule of theocratical terror...wait... aren't we living in that world now? For anyone who's read the books or seen the films, the parallels are frightening. This from a conservative Republican who's a recovering-Fundie.
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
>>God doesn't care what name you call him by.
So I can call him by his first AND last name and be okay?
You know, "God Damnit!"
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I have one more question to pose about god.
IF he exists, AND he created the heavens and the earth, and all the known stars and space...
THEN why do you think he needs us?
In other words, why does a being so powerful, vast and intelligent, need something so insignificant and fleeting as us?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
but since the bible tells us that god pretty much stopped talking to people after moses,
Who do you think Jesus is?
Also some of the books in the new testament were written to "clarify" books of the old testament [...] those people were just making some shit up
Jesus used the religious documents of the Old Testament to try to prove that he was indeed the prophesied Messiah.
Now, go pick out some specific books. I'm sure that in a book that you say is nothing but centuries of compounded mistranslations, you could be prepared to discuss one of them.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Brian Lehrer had the Left Behind authors, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, on his show November 27 to talk about the Left Behind series, their new book series, and the video game. Within the first 10 minutes, the authors clearly state that all non-believers will be slaughtered during the end times, including but not limited to Jews and Muslims. Their idea of not being biblical literalists is that they don't think Jesus will actually be mowing them down with a sword in his mouth. So, the game doesn't seem to stray too far from the authors' intents.
I think of myself as an antagnostic, my wife is a secular Jew, I live in New York, and I listen to the Devil's music, so I probably have every right to be offended by the books and the game, but I think they're funny in a campy way, similar to Jack Chick tracts. I'm going to pick up a used copy for my Satanist brother just to tweak him. I don't think the game should be banned any more than any other violent game, and it's good to know how all those Ned Flanders types really feel about the rest of us in their heart of hearts.
It got me to thinking that I should create my own spiritually inspired video game. It'll be a giant pray button that takes over the screen, and you can't minimize it or quit it. Why would you want to do anything else?
I think this game is retarded as much as the next bloke. As a firm believer in humanity over religion and science over spirituality, I think this game is hilarious and will probably be terrible. But those of you out there who disagree with the Christian religion (as I do) are wrongly lashing out at the context of the game.
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say the entire point of this game being made was to prove a point to everyone who says games do not influence people. If you guys cry fowl on this game, you lose the right to defend games like GTA.
You guys should know better. Logic people, logic. A lot of you sound just as bad as radical Christians when talking about this game. Slashdot groupthink: So long as I agree with it, it is O.K.! If I don't, BOOOOO HISSSS BOOOO. This kind of thing isn't about agreement or disagreement. It's about what is right and what is wrong. And what is right here is simple: Freedom of expression and speech. This ideal is the most important thing, no matter what the subject matter is.
P.S. I'm totally going to buy this game and play it with my friends turning it into quite possibly the most hilarious drinking game of all time.
The word "hate" is a clear mis-translation typical of a text that has had to forge the muddy waters of several languages, 2,000 years, and numerous cultural misunderstandings.
The one and only way to know that this is a "mis-translation" is to have the original autographa. Even the most staunch Christian apologists admit that the original autographa do not exist.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Um... you do realize that this is an Evangelical game made by Christians, yes? The Christians are the good guys. It's based on the bestselling Left Behind series, and the Christians in the game are fighting a defensive war against the forces of the anti-Christ.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
To reverse the cliche, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Personally, I don't see much difference between these Christian extremists and the Muslim extremists we're supposedly fighting in Bush's "War on Terra'". These Christians are terrorists in that the worldview they expouse is a violent one, in which non-believers are proselytized by the sword.
That said, now that they have their violent video game of Christian "love", perhaps these lunatics will leave the rest of ours alone. I'm not holding my breath though... after all, it is "do as I say, not as I do", in the bizarro world of Christianity.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
First I have a couple terms to make:
Old Testament == Old covenant.
New Testament == New Covenant.
Mosaic Law, Laws given by Moses from God for Israel.
Divine Law - Laws given by God to govern all human action.
Each covenant was sealed with blood. Old covenant - bunch of animals cut in half, circumcision, that stuff. New covenant, sealed by Blood of Christ.
The new covenant washes over the old testament, discard the old, in with the new. We knew in the OT that a new covenant was to be established and a Messiah was to come (Jews are still waiting). With the new messiah came a new covenant, not in contradiction with the Old Covenant, but purifying it as we move towards a new Eden -see Matthew 5: 17,19 and Definately Hebrews 8. Christ and Paul both spoke on God's law as they were often confronted by the Jewish leaders of the time as to what laws to follow. So we have to read the scriptures that relate to the Law that is set up through Christ. Which is where we get the breakdown of love the Lord and Love your neighbor -see Galatians 6:2 and Matthew 22:37-40 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.".
Also all but one of the 10 commandments are repeated in the New Testament, with the exception of remember the sabbath but it says that they "are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself.". But of the Mosaic law the NT specifically mentions a couple issues in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Now a key thing to note is that homosexuals are lumped with adulterers, prostitutes, greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. But special emphasis today seems to be put on Homosexuals, maybe because it is a hot topic, trendy or something. This is a brief version of my version of the cliffs notes of the NT view on this. It is by no means comprehensive. There is a ton of stuff in the NT and I am a Soli Scriptura Person but as such I need to take in context all of scripture rather than using pieces out of context to serve a personal vendetta. To really understand you will need to do a lot of study of the New testament so you can get things in context. This is why we have pastors and theologians. Just the same as there are Politicians and Philosophers. Some ideas are complex to delve into but simple to live by. God's Law isn't to hurt us but to keep us from making dangerous mistakes, most every one of the 10 commandments has real and dire consequences, not just spiritual. They are more guidelines to live a good and healthy life. Hope this helped.
Wasn't this a video game on the Simpsons? Convert the heathens or something along those lines?
- Kal`Goblez
I'm a lurker who just had to say something here. Bring up anything about Christians and there's automatically a lot of feelings that people have either for or against, regardless of what the article is actually about. Fine. Have your opinion, but don't flame the other side just for not agreeing with you, you're just hurting your point. "If you buy this game you're going to hell!" is just as bad as "Christians are idiots and no one with a brain would believe what they say they do." I believe in free speech and will defend your right to flame away, sure. Just be aware that you're not helping your case and tend to just sound hypocritical. So, if anyone cares, here's my hopefully rational take on TFA: First, Walmart can and should sell the game if they feel it's a good business decision. Walmart has never claimed to be a "Christian" or for that matter "Muslim" organization and as such should not have to agree with organizations which do claim those affiliations. The only reason they should take it off their shelves is if they feel they can't sell it. Second, those Christian organizations which are upset about the game also have every right to express that opinion, and should do so if that's what they believe is in line with their beliefs. Free speech is still relevant even when the opinions expressed seem ridiculous to another group of people. Period. Third, the game is not actually a "Convert or Die", that's just a blown up opinion that sounds scary enough to talk about. The writers are very clear that killing is wrong in the game and will hurt your chances of winning, not help them. While you can use weapons, they are meant in defense if you're playing the Christian side. Not so with the Anti-christ side, which are clearly meant to show that "only bad guys kill people". The goal of the game is to convert, certainly, but not as a crusade or inquisition. What you have to realize is that in this version of Christian end time theology, literally anyone who does not believe in Jesus as God by the time Earth's "timer" runs out, will be doomed to an eternity without God, a horrible unthinkable thought. These Christians are trying to save people in what is to them a very real danger, and the game is meant to reflect that, not a convert at gunpoint mentality. I'm not saying that this game is doing a great job at showing it, but that is the thought behind the process. Way, way behind, as the "game" concept seems to be overshadowing the "Christian" concept here quite a bit, and I think that's what's causing most of the trouble. Fourth, about the non-PC elements of the game, the "Muslim sounding names" etc: well, it is trying to tell the story related in the Left Behind series, in which much of the action takes place in the Middle East. In the book, as in the Christian belief, there are people from that area of the world on BOTH sides. And the main villain is, as I recall, Romanian. However, the game seems to be focusing on the main characters, who happen to be American...mostly. (There are several very prominent characters on the Christian side who are from various other countries, though it's not clear how featured they are in the game.) If this really is a racial split, than I'm disappointed but I can't comment on it since we really don't know yet. So I'd advise a hold fire on that for a second. As to Muslims not being allowed on the Christian side (and here I'm talking about religion, not race) it makes sense that if you don't believe that this end time view is going to happen, then you are not qualified to be on the Christian side if it did happen, right? Stop complaining about this point, it's not anti-tolerant, it's just a realistic viewpoint saying that if this end time happens, the only ones expecting it will be the ones who believe it will happen. And for the Anti-christ side not being able to win: this is again a conflict between the "game" and "Christian" ideas that this company is trying to put together. True, it might make a better game for the other side to be able to win (and technical
You are NOT alone!
I see various religions as different paths to the same Truth. It seems to me that God/Yaweh/Allah/Buddha/etc would have realized that religion is not a "one size fits all" proposition. Different religions speak to different people.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
If you want to feel better, go watch Borat.
It's essentially the same argument.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
The God in the Bible isn't described as having immutable thoughts, though. Otherwise, isn't God just a bag of properties that respond robotically to various situations? I wouldn't call that a God.
Rather, I think God has a conscious will, meaning He can and does change his mind with respect to various situations.
At a much deeper level, however, perhaps at some core concept we can't define, I do think God is completely anchored. Love, perhaps, or something even beyond what we can encompass with a word.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
He doesn't need us, he just wants us. I think he wants to create a new "universe" full of God Jrs.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I have sometimes mused about what a Quaker video game might be like. Specifically, how could one modify the Quake engine to make a Quaker video game... then insanity ensues.
It's extremely hard to describe what Quakers ("The Religious Society of Friends") are. They have deep roots in Christianity, but they reject the concept of any centralized creeds or doctrine or ceremony. The effect of this is that they are extremely diverse, and hard to define.
I sometimes attend the Friends meeting in my area, though I'm not a member. They are the oddest most eclectic group of people I've ever encountered in one place. There are Christians. There are Athiests. There are agnostics. There are hippy-ish love-and-peace types. There is even a Buddhist attender. They are bound together basically by respect for the quaker "peace testimony" (though one is not required to be a pacifist to be a Quaker, most consider it an ideal), and a belief that humans have within them an "inner light". Different people interpret what this "inner light" is and what it means in different ways, and for the most part everyone tries to respect everyone else's perspective.
There are quaker meetings ranging from the Evangelical all the way to the Unitarian. Most fall some place in between.
Quaker's tend to be fairly oriented towards social activism (especially in the area of anti-war and anti-poverty movements). Tom Fox (peace worker held hostage and murdered in Iraq) was a Quaker, for example.
Many quaker meetings consist of nothing more than sitting silently and meditating/praying/thinking together with the group (and occasionally anyone who feels so moved getting up and saying a few words). It's a simple yet powerful thing.
One of the main problem with translating these "spiritual" elements of life into a video game is that the "economics" of it is entirely different. Video games are individualistic to the extreme: you as the player are pretty much the only thing in the virtual universe that matters. You want bigger guns to do more damage, and stronger armour to take less damage, and all other resources are towards progressing those ends. Or some analog of those things. This just gets goofy when the analog is "more spirit" and "more conversions": in the end it's still all about you the player getting your team into heaven. The only games that come close to side stepping this issue are games with imersive story lines that give the player the sense of belonging to a world in which one begins to feel that the self is a part of a greater whole. You still have the weapons/armour/skill economy, but at least it feels like it has more significance than taking down a boss (though taking down a boss can be pretty satisfying in its own way at times too!). I think of games like some in the Ultima series, and perhaps even the original Deus Ex. Hmm, this later game I could actually imagine being played entirely without killing and still be "fun", and have a decent story to get involved with... interesting.
The First Amendment prohibits *government* from censoring speech. If it were the government trying to push this title off the shelves, I'd agree with you.
But this isn't state censorship. This a group of private citizens leveraging their power as consumers to get another private actor (Walmart) to stop spreading a message the group disagrees with. Private actors do *not* have tolerate every idea out there; if they did, we would cease to have a marketplace of ideas where the truth wins out. The First Amendment *contemplates* private citizens attempting to promote their favored ideas and suppress ideas they think are wrong--that's called deliberative democracy.
Always remember the private/state distinction when you think of free speech.
Games For Windows Magazine's latest podcast is covering this story -- interesting and in-depth commentary. 1UP Coverage: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155898 Actual Podcast Download: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3148397
games journalism blog
There are many books on the subject.
And I'm sure you have read them all.
The statement that the Bible is full of contradictions is the same as the comment that the Muslim religion is warlike; both statements are stated as fact, but in fact were overheard, matched what the hearer wanted to hear, and thus became fact to them. If someone read the bible with the intent of disproving it, they will not have a hard time. However, someone with sincerity of heart, who wants to learn from God, WILL get to know him. Jesus recognized this when he praised God for hiding the truth from the Intelligent ones and revealing them to babes. This is why I'm not shocked to read posts such as yours.
As a rule, I never trust dark brown ketchup.
The author of http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=211702&t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=17234934 that post, which I replied to, used the term "hidden agenda" and was clearly speculating that liberals having a hidden agenda (which party bashes Wal-Mart? Democrats, except if Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", then it's the Religious Right, but most of the year it's Democrats).
Maybe you should hop off your partisan high-horse before posting again. The point I was trying to make was bi-partisan.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
Yes, I think you're spot on about God.
As a Christian, the way I see it, God took all the action to save humanity in the manner he chose, namely, live on earth as a regular human and die in such the way he did. While on the cross, all the sin and evil of the world entered into him, and through this union he purified sin. This creates the bridge between God and man, and enables us to have fellowship and friendship with him.
What I don't agree with is the popular United States Christianity's exclusivity on the matter of Jesus, even though you can see prophetic imprints of this event in the subconsiouses of every culture on earth. To me, Christ is the Tao and the Buddha, and just plain everything! But he is more tangible than metaphysics; he's God in the flesh, which is very important because it shows God is real and God is the one who has taken the initiative to save humans -- not by our effort, our prayers and meditations, but by God's choice and action and sacrifice.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I think this is one of the first times a video game soundtrack is actually in iTunes....
/ viewAlbum?id=193140985&s=143441
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Did you actually just say that believing others are not wrong in their beliefs was intolerant?
Let me simplify a bit for you: God, in all His wisdom, knows that people are different and will require different help to be 'good'. My religion does NOT work for all people. Christianity works for some of those, and not others.
I cannot honestly say that I can understand how Satanism is a way to God's path. But then, if I was all-knowing, I'd BE God and there wouldn't be an issue.
I accept that. I'm disgusted by what some religions do in the name of God. Yes, that could be considering intolerant. Nobody's perfect.
So yes, Christianity DOES fit into my belief structure. I believe that Christianity is a way for God to guide people to 'good'.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
- Old referring to the covenant (or agreement) of the Law.
- New referring to the covenant of grace through (mod me down) Jesus Christ.
That should clear up many discrepancies that you describe. Course there's plenty more to argue but I have to finish writing this paper on ethnic democracy in Israel, so we'll chat later.Wait... how did you get from "The Crusades were evil" to "The Muslim conquests were good?"
I don't see anything in the parent post that suggests that the muslims were "innocent victims" or that their conquests were "just ducky."
Hmm, I think your view of Christianity is skewed. That may be how the Christian religion at large works, but that's how every religion at large works.
... how it was in the beginning and finally by the end are very similar, and in the middle you have the Laws, but at the end you're told that this isn't how it was meant to be, but was merely a system to guide a large population in discovering grace.
The main point of the Bible is that it's not by our actions that we're saved, but by God's action. Read the Bible from beginning to end, and you can see how the religion evolved by God's will
You should really study the Bible and see for yourself on this. I'd think you'd find it is very non-religious, and just all about what a badass God is.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
To make a point of the many contradictions existing between the old and new testaments is to miss the point: There's supposed to be a lot that's different in the messianic era of postjudaic tradition.
It boils down to a simple theology:
1. God creates free will
2. Creation abuses free will, God upset
3. God sends messianic figure to equalize cosmic scales of crime and punishment
Traditional Judaism takes place in #2 where God's not too happy, Christianity is #3 where He's settled down.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Here's a good slice illustrating what I meant above:
h %2028:9-16&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaia
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
No that is not what I said. What I said was believing that everyone must be right (which is what you are claiming unless I am misunderstanding you) is intolerant of those who believe that ONLY they are right. That is their belief, and you are saying that their belief is wrong.
Let me simplify for you a bit:(This is logical proof with several premises that lead to a conclusion. I am hoping this will clear up the logic of the situation)
1. Christianity says that it is the only way to God.
2. You are saying that there are many possible ways to god.
3. There cannot be both one way or many ways to God
---------THEREFORE-------------
Either Christianity's claim or your claim must be incorrect.
That seems logical to me. You seem to take issue with that logical progression. Please explain to me why because your points in your post do not seem to address this problem.
Here's a demo of the game: Left Behind: Eternal Forces demo
go play it and then comment.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
First of all the Crusades were brought on by crhistians, my point had nothing to do with if was part of christian ethics. My point was that you can be Christian and go kill people, and that it was a part of that history. So Christians as a generalization is as peacful as Islam in that regard, with people on the extreem side and people not. You do not associate Christianity with the Crusades, so why should we associate Islam on 9/11? The actions of the few should not reflect the thoughts/beliefs of the many(this is not in regards to Islam or Christianity but everyone I'm just tired of people making assumptions as the parent did). Maybe my original post was not clear.
Let's take a quick look at the here and now.
Most of the world's murder, pain and suffering is being perpetrated by fervent religious believers. You can argue who's worse: maniacs or fanatics, but the bottom line is that religion is bringing Hell to Earth, right now.
Of course, here in the good ol' U.S.&A, our religious fanatics are cute and cuddly, like this piece of work in Utah who's up on charges of involvement in serial rapes because that's what his religion told him to do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ahh, but you seem to discount free will in your argument. Free will introduced something called an opinion and we all have one. Two people who disagree do not change Gods mind, they are just stating "their" interpretation of what they think God wants. In other words they are exerting their free will. This is the challenge presented to us by God, to figure out whats right and whats wrong in any given situation and to act accordingly.
I am completely baffled at how you could have studied the scriptures and came away with the impression that being good will get you to heaven. The murderer next to Jesus went to heaven! Obviously, not a good guy. The bible is filled with stories of horrible people that were God's annointed. Let's not forget the apostle Paul was running around prescuting Christians before he was blinded.
It's the whole "not by works, but faith" thing repeated OVER and OVER in the bible. Take a look at this list:
http://www.carm.org/catholic/faithalone.htm
Quick! Somebody call Jack Thompson!
I am a Christian, and one that avoids being associated with the "fundamentalists" and "right", having more of a left-middle political standpoint. I will avoid commenting on some of the drivel that has been posted on this thread in intolerance of Christians masquerading as "tolerance of all cultures". As a group we are tolerated as poorly as telemarketers. But that is understandable given the influences that people have today. A Christian has to be tolerant of the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is intolerant by default to a Christian. The game sounds out of order from the description. Killing a non-Christian is wrong if the only reason for killing them is their faith. I fully support Walmart's decision to not sell it, although I doubt it's for the violence factor (seeing as many other violent games are sold without a problem), but more likely for its weird interpretation of one of the books of the Bible.
You can't have faith in something that you've seen, or that is absolute. Faith implies that what it is you believe can't be proven. You can say, "I have faith that planes can fly.", and this means nothing because we already know that they can fly. Having faith is believing that God exists or that Jesus is God's son or that the Chargers will win the Superbowl. You can't prove it, but you're not likely to be swayed that it isn't true.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
But what will? brb, bible study. afk, crusade. brb, bathroom. brb, confession.
I vote for the excluded middle:
3) The Bible is comprised of many different manuscripts from many different authors over many different times from both oral and written traditions and was subsequently altered by accident or volition by other humans at many different times for many different reasons.
Hence, the Bible is full of vague, nonsensical, and contradictory things.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Is the head of Wal-Mart an ancient Hebrew scholar, by any chance?
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
It's more like someone that actually tries to follow Jesus' teachings from the Bible. Much of what passes for "Christian" is more
akin to Dogma- more like the leaven of the Pharisees than anything else unless you count what the Zealots had in mind...
It's a stupid game, from the sounds of it- I'd not want the thing on the shelves any more than I would want Postal 2 or the
eventually out Postal 3 on Wal-Mart's shelves. And, if they'd ban one of the Postals from their shelves they should ban this
one for the very same reasons.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The review at the Onion AV Club gave it a D.
As to the protest, I would like to remind you that Christianity does not have a monopoly on obnoxious advocates trying to ram the prejudices of their worldview down everybody's throat.
Thank you and good night.
So what you are saying, is that EA needs to stop beating their employees?
God didn't cast Adam and Eve out as punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge, he cast them out because he was afraid they would eat from the tree of life and gain immortality. (At least, according to Genesis)
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Have you seen the faces people make during coitus? I'm sure that's worth all the effort right there.
Parent has an excellent point - the old testament != Christianity. While the Old Testament is still read, it isn't taken literally and anything that the New Testament says "overwrites" the Old. Nowhere did Christ say "kill the infidel."
n/t
She thinks the word 'Christian' means 'one who lives like Christ' -- which, of course, is exactly what it does mean. She doesn't think that 'Christian' means you have to believe that women aren't allowed to speak in church, or that men aren't allowed to cut their hair, or that there is a discrete location called Heaven, all of which she thinks are parts of the Bible that are the words of the writers, rather than the word of God. Her church generally feels that the most basic tenet of Christianity is "love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:28-31.) Which, of course, is exactly what the most basic tenet of Christianity is, since that's what Jesus said it was.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
I disagree with two conclusions made in this paragraph.
First, you can think both people are right without rejecting the existence of God, or even the immutability of God. You assume a God whose existence is governed by the human understanding of logic and rationality, which is not necessarily the case. The nature of God could be such that multiple seemingly-exclusive interpretations of God's will or existence are both, for lack of a better word, "right" or "true".
Second, and this objection stands without the first objection, even if "God" is a personal construct, that doesn't mean God "goes away" when the believing human dies. The human could go on beyond earthly existence (indeed, this is a canonical Christian belief); or his God could be eternal notwithstanding the believing human.
Me, I don't believe any of those things necessarily. All I'm saying is either the theological argument is incomplete, or incompletely stated.
The other thing, I'll probably get the game 'cause I think it looks fun and it might loosely portray actual events that might happen. (I don't find it hard to believe that one day Christians will again be killed for their belief in America as they are in other countries.) The Bible seems to say that in Revelation. From what I understand from reading the FAQ on the games website the Christians aren't the ones doing the killing.
I think you've made a mistake in reasoning about the Muslim names. You're assuming that people with Muslim sounding names already existed and then they were labelled as Muslims just because of their names, which is maybe prejudicial. However, since it's a fictional world, what really happened was the characters were created as Muslims and then given Muslim sounding names.
But you can have faith in the consistency of your perceptions. So far, in my 22 years, I've never seen gravity not work. But I must take it on faith that it will continue to do so. I'd say there's a good chance it will happen, but I don't actually know any of the relevant physics to start figuring the probabilities. So from the evidence I have, I use my faith to guide my daily life, not jumping off of buildings, for example. I don't believe that anyone's actually proven that gravity will continue to work tomorrow, but I'm not likely to be swayed that it isn't true.
Ignorance is not linguistic drift.
So, by your logic, intolerance is unavoidable then?
If I am of one particular religion, I am intolerant of every other religion because, by professing faith in my religion, I'm saying the others are wrong.
If I choose to be an atheist, I'm intolerant of most every religious person, since, by being an atheist I am saying their belief in a deity is wrong.
I think you are confusing intolerance with disagreement. One can tolerate something or someone without being in agreement.
Though I believe in Christ, I don't go around converting others, especially not at gunpoint. I don't tell others they'll burn in hell. I try to bring others to my faith by being active in it and being a decent person, and by witnessing in subtle ways.
However, this game is called Left Behind: Eternal Forces. Not Crusade 2006, not Grand Theft Torquemauto, not anything like that. It is set in the Tribulation, post-Rapture. Those who were upstanding Christians have already left. Those who are Christians now were either unbelievers or weak, and have realized the faith because they understood what just happened. Because of the Rapture, it's pretty certain (unless you willfully blind yourself) that Christianity, and in particular the book of Revelation, was correct.
Given this setup, it's entirely reasonable to believe that those who don't convert to Christianity will suffer greatly. And therefore, it's doing a favor — with good reason, because we know Revelation is right and is happening — to forcibly convert others, or at best prevent them from keeping others in the dark.
I would never approve of such a game set in the present. But if we know that Revalation is not only true but is to be literally interpreted and is happening now, the rules change a lot.
Yes, it appears that we are in agreement with each other.
I hate it when I find out I've been fighting with someone who agrees with me!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
> Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team,
...all praise His holy and good name! What a guy! Even the Bible admits the vast majority will go to Hell. Praise His kind and beneficent name! Only the vast majority of people living in unending agony, not actually all of them. Oh, my Sweet Lord, ooh you are so big. Blah blah blah what's on Dr. Phil tonight?
> but of course they can never win on [his] side.
No, but you can give God a Pyrrhic victory as he and the 3 people who didn't go to Hell look down on the vast, vast, teaming multitudes screaming in unending agony for all eternity.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I have a question, and I know you all have it, too. What is up Satan's ass?! All he wants to do is fuck us up, the dick-licker! Now the Lord said, "I am the light of the world." Now, He could as easily have said, "I am King Shit of Fuck Mountain. Why would you fuck with me?!" -Reverend Winton Dupree
Roman Catholic != Christian then or now. Even then, people pointed out that the Pope had no right to justify what he said. For that matter, trying to find any justification for the Pope in the Bible is Hard (by which I mean np-complete).
Of course, the following passage was deleted from the scriptures by unanimous consent of the church elders:
Actually, the original meaning of "lies" (untruth) has been lost in translation... In modern practice, it's NOT cool to tell your buddy that you're going to the gym, when you are, in fact, going to a friend's house to watch football on his 60" plasma TV w/surround sound. Your girlfriend, now that another story...It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I agree completely and I did not mean to imply that.
I guess that to a certain extent I overstated my point. I was mostly responding to the universalist/relativistic tendencies that seemed to be present there. The standard idea under these world views is that everyone is right, and no one is wrong, and anyone that claims that they actually are RIGHT (and by implications others wrong) is intolerant. I was merely trying to point out that by that definition of tolerance their viewpoint is also intolerant because it does not allow for others to believe things.
In reality, I believe that tolerance is simply accepting people for who they are and what they believe. As a Christian this means that I have friends who are atheists, Budhists, homosexuals, and agnostics. Do I believe that these people are wrong and that there is an eternal consequence to their choices? Yes, of course I do. That does not mean that I do not tolerate their opinions and their beliefs however. It just means that I listen to their point of view and attempt to explain to them why I believe I have a better option. They are free to choose from there. I did not mean to fall in to the modern trap of intolerance accusations and I apologize for that.
The different faiths and holy books would be equivalent to the different tech components. The problem I see is that not all faiths are saying "Hello World."
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Really? Because I thought that was exactly what James Kopp did.
For perspective on the "ethics" of "Christians":
Let's be honest now -- there are plenty of Christians that sit around planning ways to kill the nonbelievers. Just like there are Muslims that sit around thinking of ways to kill heretics, just like there are communist radicals and anarcho-syndicalists that plan murders of democratic leaders, etc. Humans are violent monsters, and ideologies make them even more monstrous than usual. Christians are no better than other group of murderous thugs on this planet. And if you don't believe me, visit an abortion clinic sometime and check out how serious the security is. That's the kind of climate of fear that Christian terrorists create.
Still not convinced? A wonder group of faithful men and women. These guys are just great, huh? Are you sure that Christians are never violent and don't use violence as a means of political and social change? If you think I'm blowing what they do out of proportion, just check out the Army of God website. They make absolutely no bones about it: they support and encourage the murder of doctors. Or David Lewis Rice, who murdered an attorney for (as he saw it) spreading atheism. The list goes on and on.
was what god told his people to do. and yes the nephilim had children and there were also women. so yes kill them. In case you are misundertanding what these characters are, they are when the 1/3 of the angels that satan seduced to come with him, had sex with human women and produced offspring. these offspring were "the Giants" that were in the land when the Jews didn't want to go back to the promise land. they may have even been the Greek Titans. but they were not entirely Human.
Gods plan for redemtion included Humans not Hybrids. and ussually when the people didn't kill off all the women and children, those that were left alive tried to kill of the Jews (Gods People) later on. Satans plan was to destroy the Humans and taint the blood line so Jesus could never exist.
Who defines 1!=0? There is no entity that can choose 1=0 through an act of it's own will. To a believer of a universal morality, your question is nonsensical.
Again, please look up Socrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Cant wait for the Hot Coffee mod!
www.shortman.com.au - top shorted stocks on the ASX
Whenever discussions about beliefs (of any sort, religious or not) arise anywhere, I tend to point people to the following website:
http://www.arachnoid.com/levels/index.html
It has a nice overview of how humans perceive the world, or better yet, how everyone's worldview is formed. Not knowing these distinctions can be fatal to your intellectual development. Those who founded this country realized the power of thought, speech, science, etc. and the fact that certain types of speech can generate beliefs which are not backed by any sort of factual/scientific knowledge. This is why they probably produced the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (my belief).
It is the height of hubris for some individual, commercial or governmental entity to demand political correctness/tolerance from Wal-Mart because their beliefs differ from mine, or the 1200 people who posted on this thread (again, my belief, since the game doesn't harm me in any sort of physical way - and it is free to try and convert me into anything, if it can...).
Ultimately, all religions converge on the one and only one issue that plagues humans to this day, and will probably continue to plague us forever - "Does god exist?". Well, I have no idea - however, I _believe_ in the _belief_ that God does exist. Note I did not say I believe that God exists - which would imply some 'truthiness' or (false, weasly) authority in my statement (of which there isn't any).
And I'll tell you why God exists - because there is no freaking way I will ever be able to know the answer to every question that ever bugged me, or why things are the way they are, why electricity flows from positive to negative, why a pile of carbon-based compounds is called a 'human', etc etc. God knows the answers, and if I can get closer to God by educating myself in the ways that God (and other humans like me, and better than me, for the last N thousand years) created for me, whether it be computer science (which is what I studied), physics, chemistry, language and/or all combined, then that's what I'll do.
What I won't do is ask you to believe any of what I said. 'Cause I could be lying too.
So now, you can believe what you will.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Why do I have to respect Christian beliefs? Sorry, but they're ridiculous, just as a serious belief in the Flying Spaghetti monster is ridiculous. "Ridiculous" is really an oversimplification: they're cruel, xenophobic, self-destructive, anti-love, anti-science... (no, this doesn't apply to every interpretation of the Bible, just the more popular ones in America today. Even the more "civilized" interpretations leave a lot to be desired.)
Why am I required to respect such beliefs? Do YOU respect the beliefs of a Satanist who believes in absolute anarchy, amorality, and survival of the fittest?
The Bible is a collection of myths, and a myth is nothing more than a fancy (i.e. pretentious) fairy tale. I am not arguing for a Christian genocide. I do not go out of my way to discriminate against Christians (unless one says something specific to piss me off, e.g. ranting about how homosexuality should be re-criminalized.) I don't burn crosses on their lawn. I believe that most Christian beliefs are morally, socially, emotionally, and/or intellectually harmful. What's wrong with that? Just where the FUCK do you get off trying to call me a bigot?
Do you hesitate to criticize religious/cultural beliefs that state that a girl's clitoris must be cut off at an early age? Or criticize a Biblically-founded belief in a geocentric universe?
The New Testament is really no different than the Odyssey or even Aesop's Fables; THAT is what the GP was saying. That isn't bigotry; it's a very reasonable opinion. Now, calling him a bigot; attacking anyone who DARES question YOUR favorite myth... now that just might qualify as bigotry.
Whoever moderated this as Flaimbait needs to be banned from Slashdot.
Just what is wrong with saying that he respects Peter Pan just as much as the Bible? I wager that many Christians would say the same about Peter Pan and the Koran.
Rejection of Christianity does not automatically make you a bigot or a whiney 13 year old. Rejection of Christianity does indeed usually include putting it on the status of, say, Aesop's Fables--some halfway interesting moral allegory, but riddled with dangerously questionable moral statements and encased in an allegorical story that absolutely was not meant to be taken seriously.
Rejection of Christianity doesn't mean that you are required to hate all Christians or actively work against them; it just means that you've analyzed their beliefs and rejected them. Just what is wrong with that? Why do I have to "respect" beliefs that I disagree with in the strongest possible terms (young earth, creationism, omnipotent god that could save me if he wanted to but instead has apparently damned me to hell by giving me a rational mind, omnipotent God that created evil/allowed it to happen (if he's truly omnipotent, THEN IT'S THE SAME THING, PEOPLE!) and yet accepts no responsibility for it, anti-homosexuality, anti-sex in general, condoned/encouraged hatred, etc.) ?
No, sorry, it's just plain irresponsible and dishonest for me to pretend to respect beliefs that I despise. As I said in another reply, do you "respect" the beliefs of an African tribal who thinks that all girls must have their clitorises cut off at a young age? Or the geocentric beliefs that the Catholic church advocated for many hundreds of years to the detriment of free thinkers everywhere (who knows how far Galileo would have gotten? Perhaps he would have invented calculus many decades before Newton did...) Or the amoral beliefs of a pure survival-of-the-fittest anarchist? Or how about the beliefs of a terrorist suicide bomber? Can I criticize those beliefs, or would I be branded a bigot or a 13 year old for that, too?
There are some specific Christian beliefs that I do respect... the love and kindness bits, mostly. But THEY sure as fuck don't respect ME and my polygamous activities (yeah, I've had threesomes. With my longtime girlfriend whom I love dearly and will marry some day. Cue the jokes...) so why should I respect THEIR backwards, love-hating beliefs? I don't. I won't pretend to. And I'd rather be called a bigot or a 13 year old than to bow down and say it's OK to do or say something that I think is completely wrong.
Don't get me wrong; I don't begrudge them of their *right* to do it in an (allegedly) free country such as this... as the saying goes, I would die to protect their right to do so. But this kind of "respect" people like you are advocating is the absolute DEATH of rationality and progress...
The Bible is an entertaining story, but it's not any more important or valuable than other myths, such as the Odyssey, and anyone who views it as being literally truthful is a damn fool. There, that's my opinion
And I'm an amoral, lecherous, unwitting tool of Satan. That's their opinion.
As long as we're willing to tolerate each other (note that "tolerate" is not the same thing as "respect") and play nicely, neither of these opinions qualify as bigotry.
As the previous poster said, there is a difference between intolerance and disagreement. I obviously don't think they are correct that God wants everyone to be Christian, or I'd be Christian myself.
On the other hand, I don't believe there is 'an eternal consequence' to their belief in that. They believe there will be, but I don't.
Intolerance would be going up to them and telling them they are wrong. Tolerance is smiling, knowing that they are not endangering their immortal souls with their beliefs, and they are not harming me, either.
The misunderstanding between us was indeed one of wording only. 'Tolerance' is not the correct word.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Totally worth modding up... wish I could.
i love you.
good post.
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
I'm not saying that people always do the right thing. People are just great at inventing justifications for their every action, vice or greedy desire. And when you get them in large groups, the tend to get dumber, not smarter (mob mentality). The Crusades were very misguided, and did a lot of damage to the reputation of Christians. But, they were an aberation, where people intentionally did NOT follow the teachings of Christ.
My point is that Christ teaches peace and self-sacrifice. Muhammad specifically taught "convert or die" and the concept of Jihad. A Muslim who stays true to his faith would have no problem killing a Christian, Jew or Athiest. Here is a helpful quote, "Throughout Islamic history, "jihad" has equaled violence and death. Today jihadists are being given the benefit of the doubt by European appeasers who choose to ignore or excuse Islamist atrocities."
I hear these violent people described as "radical Islamists", but that is wrong. They are just following their core teachings to the letter. A Christian who behaves that way is distinctly NOT following the teachings of Christ.
So, what does this make of the game at the center of the discussion?
The game is set in the future, after the Christians have been called home to Heaven. Those who are left behind were NOT Christians, so cannot be expected to behave like Christians are supposed to behave. Even if they convert to Christianity (as is the premise of the books and game), they are at a disadvantage, since the Antichrist is in power and Christians are being hunted down and killed with abandon. The situation is not "normal".
Anyway, I hope I have cleared up my original point.
=======================
Psyclo, the dark night.
Mike, the computer geek.
>> A progressive Christian is someone who actually does what the Bible says to do:
the problem with this statement is that the bible says many many things, many which contradict each other.
there's love. sure...
there's also a lot of intolerance (do we hate gays or love them... do we kill nonbelievers or reach out to them..)
just saying your statement, while i get what you're saying, isn't all that solid...
you should reword it to "A progressive Christian is someone who does what the good parts of the Bible says to do: "
which of course means picking and choosing and doing the completely arbitrary thing (we can't trust everyone to pick and choose the same thing, cause frankly some of us are nutjobs)...
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
I'm so glad I'm agnostic.
"Unfortunately, creating this game is Constitutionally protected free speech,"
I hope you mean 'Fortunatly'. Do you realy want people to be able to stop you from doing something because they feel it is in 'Bad Taste'?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Before, middle and end.
also, it's only 144,000 people.
"it's doing a favor -- with good reason, because we know Revelation is right and is happening -- to forcibly convert others, or at best prevent them from keeping others in the dark."
Stupidest. logic. ever.
BY killing them you remove the chance that they will repent.
The commandment is: Thou Shall Not Kill.
not Thou Shall Not Kill, Except in The time Of Rapture.
Of course,the ten commandment are old testiment and have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FOLLOWING OF CHRIST.
Christ gave only 1 commandment.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the old testiment has nothing to do with Christ, right?
Where does Christ say to kill people? hmmm, no where.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The article makes no mention of the element of surprise being a part of the game mechanics. If you're playing the good guys, your choices are limited to converting or gunning down the evil secretary-general of the UN (scary ! he might try to pass a resolution at you or something) and his hordes of homosexual muslim rockers. From Hell.
So, let's say I'm part of the wrong crowd, roaming in the streets, eager to rock out with my cock out (as gay rockers do). The way the game is set, I pretty much expect Christians to be there, looking to either shoot or convert me. Well, it sure doesn't sound like the Spanish Inquisition I know !
Amen. (Yes, I belong to a traditional sect of a monotheistic faith.) How many games have people fighting religious fanatics? C+C Generals America's Army Every modern-combat shooter Halo etc... Sometimes, Slashdot's atheism (forget secularism) can drive me crazy (but I respect their opinion).
What you have just done is similar to (say) taking the text out of a proposed bill which would make x, y, and z illegal - all of which most people will find offensive on their own - in exclusion of the context of the rest of the bill - that the bill only applies to those (say) participating in the illicit trade of human babies (or whatever).
In other words, you're not taking it in context of the whole text.
In short, these were commands given to the Israelites at that time, usually for a specific situation - not different than a command from God saying something like, "everyone over 40 doesn't get to see the promised land" (which actually happened). That doesn't mean that everyone today is disbarred from such things, or anything like that. It was a contextual mandate - law - specific to the circumstances and culture of the time.
This is understood within Christianity as a given, particularly as the New Testament and specifically because of the 'golden rule'/'greatest commandment' make it known that the law of the old testament (which doesn't even include the whole old testament - I'm not a bible type, so I couldn't tell you if your cited information is a part of that) is to be taken into account as long as it complies with "love your neighbor as yourself". Did Christ not 'free' the adulteress when a bunch of guys wanted to stone her?
And even if you're right, and these things are applicable outside the context of that particular story in Jewish history: would not the more important thing be how the practicioners of the faith behave as a whole right now, and not what their holy writ may be interpreted to say, completely outside the mainstream or even fringe understanding? How many Christian charities are there compared to secular ones, and how differently do they perform? Quite admirably. How many Christian-on-Muslim genocides have there been in the world (under modern Christendom)? None which I can immediately think of. Let your fruits be your witness and all that, as they say.
Karl Marx and his 'desciple Marxists' (Mao, Lenin, etc.) both did and suggested a lot of vile things in the name of the ideal, but you don't see us, as a society, blasting the snot out of Marxism and suggesting it's a vile belief system - no, we're progressive as a society, and we've largely accepted the ideals of Marx throughout the West. Same basic thing.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Why aren't these wackos shouted down by the other Christians? I know several Christians who are embarassed by the right wing, but they don't say anything. They'll speak up and talk back to non-religious because they don't want to be pigeonholed with the kooks, but they won't shout the kooks down. They let the kooks dominate the discussion because they don't want dissention within the church, but they get defensive when we assume that they agree with their more militant brethren. You need to stand up and protest when a "Christian" isn't acting in a Christian way, not close ranks and yell "bigot" when we point out that you're tolerating him. If you don't share the values of the people you're hanging out with, stop hanging out with them.
This is excellent. I love to see or hear about Christians such as you, who can clearly successfully co-exist with non-believers (such as myself). Please, continue on your path.
I never ever said I was upset by this video game and I never "suggested the death of BAZIOLLIONS of people" "to the lions" was a blatantly obvious metaphor for my suggested anti-christian backlash.
:P
I am an agnostic and I live in a "christian" nation. "christian" means you have "faith" in god. "faith" means you believe in something that is unprovable to me/you and that when you die, you go to the happy place and I don't. In my eyes, this makes you insane and arrogant - which is the best description of American foreign policy under a "christian" leader that got elected because he calls himself christian and is willing to desegregate church and state.
p.s. I'l take the flamebait for my OP, but hey it was early and I was cranky
Besides, it brought up the topic. "to the lions" FTW!
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.
Imagine you've just had all your knowledge of religion removed, but you retain all of your other memories. You are in a room with all the religious texts of every religion ever conceived present, from whatever is the first to modern day religions such as Christianity, Scientology and zenBuddhism. You need to make some decision about religion before you can leave this room. Which one would you choose? Or would you declare them all to be balderdash?
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
Maybe God wants one group of people to call him one thing and one group to call him whatever.
Also, maybe it's difficult for humans to articulate using human language the attributes of the supernatural.
At any rate, it's pretty clear that from your "call me this or call me that" example, it does not follow that God is only manifest inside a mortal individual. Also, even if it did follow, many religions believe in a mortal body and an immortal soul. Perhaps God is manifest inside of everybody's immortal soul.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and a great many of the other founding fathers were Masons. They were quite devout in their faith, but the practice they saw work in Masonic lodges they felt was a fine model for the United States, and that's what they did. That is, when you enter a Masonic lodge, you check your religion and politics at the door. You can be thrown out for talking about religion or politics in lodge.
I've seen it work myself. In my lodge in New York there are Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Druze, Lebanese, Syrians, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and even Protestants. There are any number of combinations in that mix that would have good historical reason to be at each other's throats. But they're not, and get along really quite well. Even right after 9/11, I was sure the next lodge meeting was going to be weird between the muslims and everyone else, but everyone was equally in shock about what happened and we realized we were just brothers who were all suffering.
It's a great thing, and a rare thing, and has been an island of sanity for me amidst all the insanity the last few years.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Take a minute and actually read Leviticus 20:13. In fact, read the whole chapter. It's all about forbidden sexual relationships. In fact, read Lev. 20:15 two verses later: And if a man should lie with a beast, he shall be put to death, and you should kill the beast. Are you going to honestly suggest that the Torah is going to prohibit a man from telling a falsehood to a beast (and prohibit women from lying with beasts in the next verse)? At any rate, the Hebrew word for telling a falsehood is not used anywhere here. This chapter is all about forbidden sex.
Hopefully now you can see how it can be interpreted "any other way". That other way happens to be the correct way. Your interpretation, while hilarious, is utterly wrong.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Kind of closes the door on universalism - at least from Jesus' perspective.
My biggest hang-up with the traditional theology you espouse is that a supposedly loving God is perfectly content to let billions of people suffer in eternal hellfire
1. God's desire is for all people to choose relationship with Him. I'm sure that contentment is not the word that God would choose to describe His feelings about the fate of those who reject Him.
because they had the misfortune to be born to the wrong family, or at the wrong time in history, or in the wrong geograph
2. People DO NOT GO TO HELL because they were born in the wrong time or place. People choose hell because they reject God.
In Romans chapter 1, one thing it says is that God is plainly evident as a result of His creation. People who exist have been exposed to Him through their experience in the universe, and have the opportunity to reach out to Him. In Romans chapter 2 it says that God is evident in the conscience of people. People can respond to the image of God in their conscience. Finally, in Romans chapter 3 it says that people can see God in the life of Jesus Christ.
I firmly believe that any person who earnestly desires relationship with God is able to have that relationship with Him. Specifically, though, the discussion is a bit irrelevant about the "person in Africa who has never heard of God's love" Not to put too fine a point on it - what about you - (parent poster) or YOU (other reader) who *has* heard of God's love. How will you respond?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Number of abortion providers murdered in the last 15 years: less than 25
6 3768.htm), who stockpiled enough chemical weapons and suit case bombs to kill thousands.
He was caught around the time the "Dirty Bomber" was arrested (who just had some dodgy sketches of a bomb), yet he got no media attention at all.
Number of people killed by Muslim suicide bombers on Tuesday: more than 60
That's hardly a fair comparison. You're comparing abortion related murders in the U.S. and Canada to suicide bombers in Iraq. There is currently a general violence problem in Iraq due to an impotent government & U.S. military.
A fairer comparison would be something like this:
Number of abortion providers murdered in the last 5 years in US & Canada:
A few.
Number of people killed by Muslim suicide bombers in last 5 years in US & Canada:
Zero.
The magnitude of the problems are really comparable.
I'd probably be just as worried about Christian extremists in the U.S. There are lots of these tiny militant christian groups scattered around the U.S, stockpiling weapons. They just don't get the publicity.
Look up "William Krar" (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s11
Also from the article linked above:
"The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, the CSA, they were in Arkansas, and they were about a 75-80 member right-wing neo-Nazi, paramilitary religious, survivalist group, who like many groups of their type, they didn't like Jews, they didn't like men and women of colour, they didn't trust people who had money, and it was their belief that the blacks and the Jews were going to be the ruination of the world, they had assembled weapons to protect their 300-acre compound. We found a 55-gallon container of cyanide that they had thought about dumping into the water system in Chicago, hoping that they could kill African-Americans. When we suggested of course blacks and white drink out of the same water system, that somewhat befuddled them."
Not alowed to change the book? WTF?!?!?
NIV, King James, New Word, The Good Word version, I must've seen about ten different versions of the bible while I was in prison! There's at least twenty or so different versions of the bible, and each new one is continually dumbed down so nobody has to think for themselves. Jesus spoke in Parables to make people think. Nowdays the new versions just flat-out tell you without leaving room to think. Gimme a break "You can't change the book." It's changed. It's on a 4th grade reading level, now, compared with a 9th grade reading level a couple decades back. From mature words to simple child-like words. It's made by man, and it's being edited by man to control man. And before you say much - I'm a Jew. This just is appalling.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Disclaimer: I am a Secular Humanist and so do not belive in God/god/gods.
:)
That said, and arguing this point based on your comments alone (and ignoring my stated bias), would it not be possible for God to exist as a collection of individual beliefs? I think you have missed an option in your "Aquinas" argument. Just because "our own God dies with us" does not mean that there is no God, merely that God may exist within us all, individually in part, but as a whole as a sum of our individual manifestations.
Think of it as your belief (in God), as being a single cell of a larger organism. Cells die, cells are born/created. Just because one cell dies does not mean the whole being dies. Without belief, God is nothing (and so promptly vanishes in a puff of logic).
This is merely a thought experiement, and I'm still on my first coffee of the morning
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Whoa! I didn't expect that.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
In other words, Moses issued it about 1500 years before Jesus lived. Hell, even Confucius said it a half century before Jesus lived.
But don't let the facts stop you from taking full credit. And yes I do mean facts in the scientific sense. There are copies of the Torah that are carbon dated to before Jesus lived. Believe what you want about the origins of the Torah. The fact still remains that if Jesus ever uttered those words, he was merely quoting Torah.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Regarding cheeseburgers and shrimp, the prohibition against eating shrimp is indeed found in Leviticus, and also appears in Deuteronomy.
The prohibition against eating cheeseburgers appears nowhere in the written Torah, but it is derived from a passage that appears in Exodus (twice) and again in Deuteronomy, but not Leviticus. That passage prohibits boiling a baby goat in his mother's milk, but not cheeseburgers per se. To get to the prohibition against eating meat and dairy together, one needs to look to the Oral Torah, where this "baby goat" passage is explained to mean not eating meat and dairy together.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
That should be a hell of a lot of context there for those words to mean anything different from what they say...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Can you kindly point us to a religious authoritative sources (covering 2 or 3 of the most populous Christian sects, lets say Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans for example) that would validate what you are saying?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If religion was governed by common sense, it would not exist at all (A virgin had a baby? Death people resucitated? 3 gods for the price of one? )
Thus it is only reasonable that free people (religious or not) should ask what are the theological foundations to ignore some bits of the Bible while following others.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Check out IGN's review here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745956p1.html Personally, I was as outraged as anyone over the seemingly hypocritical nature of the game, so I decided to have some fun and read a few reviews of the game. It seems that the slashdot explaination of the game is a fairly misleading- this isn't an action game where you blast your way through non-believers: it's actually an RTS. Anyone who's played Age of Empires will remember the Priest unit that you can use to convert enemy units... now imagine an entire game based on that principle. The game strongly discourages violence, and the only time you can really get away with killing non-believers is when they attack you. Still a poorly made game, and still tacky to the extreme, but as usual the subject has been blown out of proportion.
"A mind, once expanded by a new idea, never returns to it's original dimensions." -a Super King Buffet fortune cookie
I wish I knew what idiot modded you up. Apparently he doesn't own a dictionary either.
This is NOT what faith means. The first definition of faith in any dictionary, including a late 1800s bible dictionary, says nothing about that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fine. You're not my friend anymore...
The battle for attention on Sunday carries over to Slashdot.
Football or Jesus?
[UID-HeinzIntel]
I believe that someone who sees God revealed in creation or conscience will have the opportunity to be introduced to Christ.
I choose to believe that in this world what is really important is that we be good to each other. I don't think it is a coincident that that meshes really well with Jesus' teachings. I also believe that if people are being good to each other how they worship, or that they worship is irrelevant.
This is intriguing to me. Why does it matter whether we are good to one another?
What is your definition of good?
How do you reconcile the contradictions between Hinduism and Christian teaching? Outside of syncretism I don't see how they can coexist. Either one is accurate and not the other or both are wrong.
Can you shed some light here?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I just wish people would let us Christians go about our business and stop bothering us. We kind of wish you'd do the same in regards to us...
I'll be enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it
Well you're free to express your opionion, and I'm free to boycott these idiots, and encourage others to boycott them.
I think it's far more reprehensible that small minded people insist on imposing ther view of what is right and wrong on other people
It's ironic in the extreme that you make this comment defending a game that is so incredibly intollerant to non-christian beliefs. A game that depicts all muslims as evil and deserving death. How tolerant do you think we should be of such extreme intollerance?
Do you think people should have the freedom to religious expression without persecution ?
At what stage does one person's expression of their freedom become an abuse of anothers?
Do you have the freedom to walk down the street killing people? No of course you don't.
The fact is freedom is a privilege not a right, and when you abuse it in a decent society it is taken away from you e.g. when you kill someone you go to jail. These guys are treading a very thin line, encouraging people to adopt a neo-consertive christian view that is encourages violence or the acceptance of violence acts against non-christians.
Should we wait till neo-conservative fascists like these guys begin to round people up into death camps?
Who defines 1!=0? There is no entity that can choose 1=0 through an act of it's own will. To a believer of a universal morality, your question is nonsensical.
Suicide bombers believe what they are doing is Good, I think you'll find there's no such thing as a universal morality. e.g. Muslims believe and eye for and eye, but Christians believe you should turn the other cheek.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
That's actually not true. It's a fallacy to believe that the only Christian sect was Roman Catholicism. In fact, the Pope's position was actually pretty week going into the crusade. The Patriarch of Constantinople was considered by the largest power of the time (what remained of the Romans) to be the leader of the church.
In fact, after the great schism, there was no united church then. The only time where there was a united church was in the very short period after the Muslims finished sacking Constantinople and the reformation.
The infallibility of the pope doctrine, also really wasn't well established in such a world. Nevermind the fact that pope who responded to the threat to constantinople by calling for the crusades had actually had to reclaim Rome from other powers that had siezed it.
This is why revisionistic history is so dangerous. It bears no resemblence to reality.
Please understand that this is exactly what I'm saying.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
That's easy to answer.
Without a creature that can think about God there would be no God, so without us God would not exist.
I'm fairly sure that God didn't exist before man though of his existance.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You are mixing premises. There was never any argument that people practice universal morality. Morality as practiced is not the same thing as what a believer of universal morality is believing in. Inherent in believing in universal morality is also believing in ethical realism, that people's actions and beliefs about what is good do not define what is good. Such a person believes that good is a universal, not people's opinions of good.
I think it's impossible to seperate good from morality since you cannot define good without morality. On a universal scale actions are neither good or bad they are just actions. If I kill someone they are only dead without morality that it neither a good or bad thing to do.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I didn't separate good from morality. I separated people's opinions of good from what is actually good. Those are two different things.
I'd like to ask you to clarify this statement:
Well, first I believe that it is impossible for anyone to understand the nature or motives of God.
On what do you base that belief? I don't mean to be difficult - this is a serious inquiry - how can you *know* that you *can't know*?
my God is better, because I don't force him to live in my god box.
With all due respect, have you not created a different box in which to place your god?
Can your really tell me that there are more similarities between Yahweh and God the Father, than there are between Yahweh and Allah?
In fact, yes I can. The first comparison is simple, because they are the same. The second comparison is one of a personal God with one who is impersonal - fundamentally different in type.
there is a substantial disconnect between Yahweh instructing the Israelites to kill "everything that breathes" (deut 20:16) in the promised land, and Jesus' instruction to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (luke 6:31)
Again, respectfully, I disagree with this idea. Those instructions from God to the Israelites were specific commands to a particular people in a specific time. God knew that those who inhabited the land were irredeemable, and as such, if allowed to live, would have corrupted the Israelites - which they did when the Israelites disobeyed.
in so far any religion teaches love and personal improvement through selflessness, they are the same
Philosophically I can agree with this. Theologically, of course, I disagree. For me, theology trumps philosophy. YMMV. Essentially, the problem is at the micro level, not the macro level. Buddhism and Christianity teach that kindness is important. In that, they are the same. When you look at the why of kindness, they are entirely different. In fact, Christianity and Buddhism both teach exclusivity of their belief systems. If they each hold tenets that are contradictory, and each claims exclusivity, how can they both be true? (Or any divergent theological or philosophical systems.)
You then turn to some statements of philosophy:
in the sense that any religion teaches hate, intolerance, and violence, it is a perversion.
It is my assertion that the God wants us to be happy, and wants us to live in harmony.
I believe that the primary purpose of spirituality is not to pay homage, but rather to connect us with our fellow man.
This leads me to ask yet another important question. On what do you base this belief?
it is a relatively rare theology that posits that we worship God for his sake.
Agreed - and it is the theology which I espouse as a follower of Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?