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?
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.
So, on the opposite side of the coin, these liberal and progressive Christian groups want to either convert the game into a bland game for youngsters, or kill -9 it.
Pot calling the kettle black?
I think war games are an important education tool. (I'm also personally a fan of private gun ownership, so maybe I'm biased.) But watching what happens in the Emergency Room is considered educational. Then why not also the events on the battlefied. So in this one it's the Christians versus the Muslims. Maybe that's not in really good taste, but is it in good taste in Battlefield 2, Americans versus Muslims or Americans versus the Chinese? Or if the religious symbolism is offensive, what would you say if I showed you a game that's blatantly Satanic? My two cents says it doesn't matter.
Now, I'm curious if it has good gameplay. I'm guessing it doesn't ("After you kill somebody you need to recharge your soul points and to do that you need to bend down in prayer." from the CNN Article). Then we have nothing to worry about.
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.
"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
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.
Yeah but once a Christian takes up arms to defend his faith he's not actually a Christian anymore is he?
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.
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
Tritonman,
No offense... but, you probably shouldn't be getting your theology lessons from the Da Vinci Code.
Thanks,
Mike
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Don't get me wrong. Reading about this game is making me grit my teeth. As does reading about GTA. I don't like either one of them. But I wonder if this game is getting a bad rap.
From the review:
Engaging story (of course there will be a sequel)
A refreshing lack of violence
Better than the books!
The essays between the missions are well written, and actually intriguing
There is an agenda, but it's pushed skillfully
Surprisingly good documentation
Pathfinding issues
Explaining eschatology to your children if they want to play the game
Subpar voice acting
Horrid use of in-game advertisements
Did they really have to try to sell me Christian music?
They give you the book, and you may try to read it. Ick. That's bad.
The controversy over a relatively harmless and well-done piece of propaganda
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
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
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?
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!
Are you retarded? Or just naive?
Let's say, for example, that I live in a Sharia-based society. Should I just accept these crippling religious laws because it is wrong to judge groups of people? Can't I just reject the whole insane pile? Must I judge every single one of these woman-hating intolerant lunatics individually?
Or let's say that I live in a Xian theocracy. Again, is it wrong to judge these witch-burning adulturer-stoning fucktards en masse? Are you truly insisting that I shake every single narrow-minded pinched-souled puritanical tyrant's hand and get to know them?
I say that it is fine to judge groups of individuals if those individuals chose to join those groups. After all, it's what they want. They want to be grouped together with others of the group! Otherwise, why'd they join the group?!? I suspect many of them are weak-minded, but that's all the more reason to judge them all at once.
Man, you really need that seminar!
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?
...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
Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "Christian", Christ is a Jewish construct. All Christians are actually dumber-than-average Jew who like to wear crosses.
I'm sure you can say the same thing about the Jews to.
Infact, Sorry, dude, but there's no such thing as a "Religious person", they were all born Athiests. All Religious people are actually dumber-than-average Athiests who like to beleive in God.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
And the obligatory reply is, who has been responsible for more mass murder? Christians or Atheists?
And who killed more people specifically because of their religious beliefs -- not political, paranoid, or power-hungry reasons -- Christians or Atheists?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
Atheists believe the only consequence to actions in life is if you get caught...
Uhmm... no. Atheists don't believe in god(s). Most of them do believe in consequences to actions.
People who have an absolute hatred of a mass group as a whole scare me.
I agree, and your incorrect generalization of atheists scares me.
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
lord mike,
No offense... but, you probably shouldn't assume Dan Brown has ever had an original idea in his life.
Thanks,
freeweed
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
How is the parent post insightful? As far as I can tell, the superparent does not make reference to anything perpetrated by The DaVinci Code. Furthermore, alluding to the book attempts to negate the fact that the early Catholic Church performed heavy editing, ignoring entire books that were very popular, had great information, and would sway one away from organized religion. Think of it as forced selective reading of the Bible for 1500 years.
This is not The DaVinci Code, this is history, and the superparent is right on the money.
"You go back to the dark ages to bring up an example for Christians, yet I can go to yesterdays newspaper to find murdering atheists."
name one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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."
.... I saw an opportunity to really broaden the conversation and broaden the constituency. I'm really over this whole polarization thing."
I disagree. Christians are not the ones that have taken a turn for the violent, 'christians' have.
For instance, I find it reprehensible that someone can defend the combined ownership of guns, the belief in a death penalty and the hatred of abortion.
I agree with the last, but the other portions are just as engrained in todays 'christian' beliefs as if it says in the Bible "Take up guns and smite thy neighbor". Bullshit. These people are not Christians, nor should you believe they are. If they truly believed in an afterlife, they'd have changed their ways a long time ago.
What was it, just about two weeks ago, the president of the Christian Coalition resigned over disagreements with where he thought the organization should go. His claim was that he felt that these people were too involved in trying to legislate moralistic viewpoints and ignoring the world at large:
"just a basic philosophical difference
He had asked that they back off on abortion and gay marriage, and focus on doing what Christ would have liked them to focus on -- decreasing the burdens of the poor, treating God's lands as it said in the Bible, increasing giving to charitable organizations -- more or less, changing things that will directly impact his people and have them focus their moral attitudes within, and not with forcing others to legally follow their perspective. If we change the laws to enforce a singular belief system, this is no choice, and we are no better than organizations like the Taliban -- who have increasingly been getting more liberal over the last few years (they just made changes to their charter saying they will not kill women for disobeying them without at least giving them one warning, and then one beating after that...my gawd! These guys have turned into regular Al Frankens over night!).
But seriously, there are a lot of Christians out there that are nothing what you think of when you think of all the assholes ruining the name.
(And yeah, I know I have a long way to go as well...I just try not to be a COMPLETE hypocrite about the whole thing)
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
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.
I disagree. It's not fair for anyone to be pressured by censors. But maybe that's because I don't believe in revenge.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"...christians are the reason america has taken a turn for the violent."
You're upset that there is a violent video game produced by a radical group of a mainstream religion? Perhaps you should take a look at your own violence inducing statement.
"I think it is time to hear "to the lions" ringing in the ears of those arrogant enough to have faith in anything."
You're suggesting the death of BILLIONS of people. How could this ever be considered insightful except by the most ignorant of individuals. Judge people for who they are, not what you think they may believe in. Not every Christian, Muslim, Buddist etc is out to convert or kill you. Who exactly is spilling hate and malice here?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Do you really mean this, or did you just hit "submit" too hastily? The statement really doesn't even make sense. What I think you meant to say is, "Atheists only resist actions if they fear getting caught or feeling guilty."
As an atheist, I believe the consequences of my actions are my responsibility. Many people feel the same sentiment, regardless of any other creed or "religion." Some Christians may resist actions because they feel it would be a sin, or an affront to god, or, as you said, because they'd be damned eternally.
Now how the hell is that any different than someone (of any religion) altering their behavior because they're afraid of getting caught? God (purportedly) will ALWAYS catch you.
My point is that 1) your post was not reasoned or reasonable and 2) personal responsibility is agnostic and is up to every single person. Whoever modded you up insightful was reacting as hastily as your comment was posted.
Limina.Log
You are absolutely free to pray anywhere and anyway you like - on your own time. (In theory. If you're Muslim, well, sorry.)
You are free to put up decorations commemorating any deities, heroes, mythological beats, prophets, or demigods you choose - on your own property.
Requiring that people do their jobs in a professional manner (e.g., teachers and military officers should not be spending their work time trying to convert others to their beliefs), and requiring that governments neither promote nor restrict religion, is not "anti-Christian", it's pro-professionalism and pro-liberty.
(Oh, and let's be honest and admit that Xmas is a pagan celebration wrapped in a thin Xian veneer, ok?)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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
Could someone go look at a history book and point me to the part that says, "this war was caused solely by religious intolerance."
Here's the thing - war is almost always about things like money or land, and only very occasionally about things like freedom and liberty (those are also usually the ones that don't work out,) and never ever about saving people's souls. Sure a few of the boots on the ground might believe that they are doing god's work, hell even a leader might believe that. But look at any conflict ever, and the real motivation for the people really in power is always money or land, and the power that goes with controlling it.
Don't believe me? Here are a few "religious" or "philosophical" conflicts and a modicum of background.
Moor invasion and the reconquista (Spain) - Moors filled a power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman empire - the reconquista was a long process of feudal warfare involving carving out of small kingdoms, pillaging cities and demanding tribute. Eventually motives merged with empire building and the Holy Roman Empire (more empire than holy.) Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Crusades - the middle east at the time was a major crossroads for trade caravans. Anyone who controlled the trade routes stood to make huge profits. Religious motives provided a convenient excuse.
Thirty years war - All about the structure of Germany, and who controlled what - the French wanted a fractured Germany, the Austrians wanted an Empire. Religious motives (i.e. catholic v. protestant) provided a convenient excuse.
Every war ever involving Israel/Palestine. All about immigration and forced emigration, and which readily identifiable groups control which resources. There is a very small band of hospitable land and lots of desert and mountains. Egypt, Syria, and whoever is supporting the Palestinians this week, want an ally - the Jews ain't it, for a variety of political, reasons relating more to the scarcity of good land than the fact that they are Jews, not Muslims.
The Iraqi civil war (or is it still sectarian violence?) There is a massive power vacuum, because the only source of power (us) doesn't want to be there. Someone will fill it, and once again there is a convenient religious difference so that people can identify and support their friends/village, rather than someone who would distribute resources less favorably.
To any history majors - I realize there are gross simplifications, but the point stands - it's ALWAYS about who has what, not who believes what.
They didn't kill school children for not wearing the veil, they killed them for being part of the wrong group. If it wasn't a "religious" conflict, it would be an ethnic, social, or class struggle. All groups divide us into us v. them mentalities. In some unfortunate cases it is religion in others it is something else (see US civil war, Darfur, Rowanda, Bolshevism , French civil war, Nazism, etc, etc, etc.)
The history of humanity is one of conflict. We should try to minimize it, but blaming it on religion is misunderstanding the problem.
that if two people both lead the same 'good' life, one is a theist and one an atheist - the atheist is the better person.
One could argue that a believer does the right thing due to either the threat of a smiting, or a reward in heaven. An atheist doing the same act is performing a truly altruistic act, knowing he could either have got away with the alternative and will receive nothing in return.
The problem is that so many people can ignore these mistranslations. People believe this book with all of their being. I must assume that most of them have never read it. People talk about muslim suicide bombers, but there are plenty of Christian terrorists as well. People bombing abortion clinics for example.
die444die
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.
But is there a God Mode?
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Oh please. I've only one thing to say to that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
A Christian is anyone who believes in Christ. John 3:16, you know? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that *whosoever believeth in Him* shall not die..."
YOU don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian.
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
...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."
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...
And the obligatory reply is, who has been responsible for more mass murder? Christians or Atheists?
Good question. Technically Stalin and Mao are responsible for the most mass murders.
Now technically, Stalin wasn't a true atheist per say according to his contemporaries. He did sort of believe in some type of god and afterlife, but wasn't much on the organized religion thing and promoted forced state atheism. He relaxed some of the rules during World War 2 during the German invasion and focuses everyone's attention on the Great Patriotic War which had religious over tones.
Mao wasn't as much anti-religion as he was anti-intellectual. Most of his victims weren't really religious and the biggest religious victims ended up being Tibetan Buddhists. However, one could really blame the CIA for dropping the ball on that country.
Which leaves us with Hitler and the holocaust. Again, Hitler was not an atheist although not a Christian and his contemporaries noted his often mocking of organized religion in general and his involvment in Pagan type of groups.
His persecution against the Jews was not simply because he didn't like them, but rather a deep hatred of Jewry going back since medevial times. See... The German Crusade in which rather going to Muslim lands to liberate them, they stayed at home and focused on Jewish people.
Not to mention this lasted all the way up until Hitler's time and was actually one of the reasons for the Nazi's party success.
So yeah... Technically religion was responsible indirectly at least for the Holocaust.
I can't find it right now but there is also the instance in the 1800's about the civil war in China that was started by a guy who thought he was Jesus's brother. I can't seem to find it on Wiki right now since the names spelling evades me. But that costed several million lives as well.
I'm not defending either religion or atheism, but in general often times you can't black and white the issue since usually religion and politics are always intertwined.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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."
I beg to differ. They sure sound like the Christians from the Spanish Inquisition.
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.
Leaving a hundred different versions of "your word" laying around, each with hundreds or thousands of "mistranslations" in them, and then expecting people to somehow pick out the "truth" from all that is just retarded. If God exists, he REALLY needs to get a better PR person. Aside from the very basics like the 10 commandments, I really don't know how anyone can pick anything out to believe in. Even those people who've spent years trying to figure out what all the mistranslations are are still just going with their own new interpretation. It just happens, coincidentally of course, to jive with today's Christian values a lot better. Imagine that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I argue that it was a coincidence. I think that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were power-hungry politicos who wanted to rule people. If they had been born in the middle ages, they would have killed people in the name of the King. If they had rode the crest of a Fascist revolution, they would have killed people in the name of the dear leader.
What I am claiming is that there are motivations behind mass killings, just like there are motivations behind murder. One guy kills someone because his wife cheated on him, another guy kills someone because he's a psychopath and has no sense empathy or right and wrong. Similarly, there are motivations behind mass killings. Some people want to rule everyone. Other people want total religious conformity.
Stalin really wasn't interested in the Communist revolution, where everybody shared everything; he just wanted everyone to do what he said. He was diagnosed as paranoid by the leading Russian psychologist of his time, who Stalin had killed later that night. If anyone showed the slightest hint of disagreement or disloyalty, Stalin had them killed. He would have been perfectly happy as a fascist dictator or a general. His Atheism ( or even perhaps closet Russian Orthodoxy ) really had nothing to do with why he killed people.
Similarly, there were priests and even townsfolk in the Inquisition who got a kick out of burning people alive. It didn't improve their standing or give them more power really, like Stalin was after; they just got the pleasure of doing the Lord's work and watching unbelievers suffer.
So my argument is that it isn't really Atheists or Atheism that kills people. Stalin, Mao, etc. were opportunistic psychopaths who embraced the philosophy of the day to gain power. However, people who hold deep religious beliefs also seem to want to kill a lot of people, but for reasons other than gaining political power. So I think, in the historical examples, you *can* decouple the atheism from the mass killings.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
The first question is flawed, the second is relevant. Atheists such as Stalin and Mao didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Many however have killed in the name of a religion.
Stalin had a moustache, so did Hitler. Who is responsible for more mass murder, people with moustaches or Christians?
Morality is fundamentally independent of religion - just look at the Scandinavian countries that are overwhealmingly atheist but have very little crime and violence. Compare that to the über-religious Middle East. In a normal state of mind people know that it is is wrong to murder, rape etc It takes strong faith to overcome that baseline morality, and religion can provide it. As physicist Steven Weinberg put it: "Normally good people do good things and bad people do bad things. It takes religion to make good people do bad things"
While it is a bit simplified, the statement stands - religion corrupts morality. While mainstream religious people choose to ignore the nasty parts of their religion they enable the extremists by advocating that faith (belief without evidence) is a good thing.
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
If you had evidence to back this up, it would be more believable.
If you look at Stalin's writings and actions, it was clear that he really didn't give a damn about the communist revolution. He just wanted unfailing loyalty and obedience from his underlings.
If you look at the writings of the clergy members who were involved in the inquisition and witch burnings, it was clear they strongly believed what they were doing was helping those they were torturing and killing achieve salvation through suffering and accepting Christ. The torture and punishment got more and more severe until the person buckled and accepted Christ and the church, and if it eventually killed them, the priests were happy that they rid the world of one of Satan's minions. They clearly believed that they were doing the Lord's work.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
"I say that it is fine to judge groups of individuals if those individuals chose to join those groups. After all, it's what they want. They want to be grouped together with others of the group! Otherwise, why'd they join the group?!?"
You know, you could have used this justification to make it okay to categorize me as a "goth" kid in high school. I used to get called that all the time, and insulted continously because of my appearance.
The thing is, I never saw myself as "joining" any "group". I happen to like dark clothing, leather, trenchcoats, boots, shit like that. I know it fits a certain group, stereotype or "image", but I've liked that sort of look since I was watching cartoons as a little kid and thinking the bad guys always looked so much cooler than the good guys. I don't know what's "goth" about that, but that's what everyone calls it, and apparently that means I'm suicidal, depressed, or a potential serial killer.
I guess what I'm saying is, what one might see as someone "joining a group" could just simply be the person choosing their own things along the way that happen to coincide very closely to what some organized-or-otherwise group of people represents themselves as.
However, I hear Christians say all the time that the Bible is "the word of God", and last time I checked, the Bible is comprised of both the Old and New Testaments. But I've never seen a Bible with a "God's word order of precedence" page, enabling one to tell with certainty which parts of God's word are or aren't to be taken literally.
By your interpretation, a Christian need not take the Ten Commandments literally, as they are in the OT.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
So is the Old Testament the "Word of God" or not? Or can you pick and choose what you would like out of the Old Testament? Or is it that the Old Testament is the gospel, except when contradicted by the new testament? Or is it more of "you should believe the parts we tell you to believe"?
Remember, the Old Testament is a very bloody document including God punishing his true people because they did not kill all of the the women and children of a people he commanded them to slaughter.
I know that one of the commandments says that we are not supposed to think we can understand the mind of God, but it seems to me that all religion is attempting to do that, and that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament have fundamentally different ways of doing things.
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.