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.
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.
"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
Yeah but once a Christian takes up arms to defend his faith he's not actually a Christian anymore is he?
Incidentally, I saw a lecture on the topic quite recently, and learned that Muslims do believe in Jesus Christ. He is a highly regarded prophet, second only to Mohammed, and he plays a key role in the end-of-times scenario of Islam.
Of all the major religions in the world, Islam is the only non-Christian faith that recognises Jesus.This is from http://www.itl.org.uk/Jesus/. Googling for "jesus islam" gives lots of further reading.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
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...
So please, YOU check your facts before you spout prejudiced nonsense.
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 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
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.