Slashdot Mirror
Onward, Christian Geeks
The arrival of the first Christian computer action game opens a whole new chapter in the never-ending struggle between technology and the self-proclaimed forces of morality.
In the post-Columbine era, when computer games, the Net and other elements of geek culture are being blamed for murder, nothing that used to make sense makes sense anymore.
The new idea seems to be that while opponents can condemn TV, movies and the Net for causing violence, violence can also be used to promote wholesomeness and spirituality. It's a confusing time to be a moral guardian.
Shipped to computer stores this week, "The War In Heaven" is Doom Meets the Bible. "It may sicken traditional gamers, but my gut feel is that this game will be a hit," said Ann Stephens, president of PC Data, Inc., a research firm that tracks the $1.5 billion-a-year PC market, predicted to the New York Times.
Until "The War In Heaven," software with overtly religious themes has tended to be staid and educational, like children's games that quiz players on their scriptural acumen. There is, for example, the big-budget, Christian audience-marketed "Charlton Heston's Voyage Through the Bible," a CD-Rom released in l995 with readings by Heston (now president of the National Rifle Association) and video clips of the Holy Land.
"The War In Heaven" is a different story. Players are confronted with hissing horned monsters wielding swords and other weapons. Not surprisingly, the Christian player has two choices. He can follow "The Divine Path of Obedience," become an angel and progress up the 12-level ascent to Heaven. Or he can opt for "The Fallen Path of Power," follow Lucifer, become a demon and war against blonde angels with silvery wings.
One might assume that a Christian game would forego violence, but gamers who have e-mailed me (I haven't seen the game myself) say that would be a mistake. There's mayhem and killing, but no splattering of blood or scattering of body parts. It's rated "T" by the Entertainment Software Rating Board -- suitable for those 13 and older. Maybe they should add an "H" rating for holy.
The game's designers -- Theodore Beale and Andrew Lunstad, co- founders of the software firm Eternal Warriors -- say they're trying to reach a broad audience of gamers reared on Doom, Unreal, Quake and Diablo. The idea seems to be that if there's any group in need of soul-saving, this is probably it.
God called him to design "The Wars In Heaven," Lundstad has told reporters, adding "Let's face it, when you have angels fighting demons, it is going to be controversial." The violence, its creators claim, is merely a role-playing depiction of "spiritual warfare," the notion that non-physical agents of good and evil (which might well include TV, movies, the Net, animation and recorded music) are constantly at war and that their behavior affects people on earth.
If a person chooses to play "The War In Heaven" as a demon, explains Lundstad, he progresses by disobeying the Bible. "You have to do things that are more and more distasteful, from blasphemy to striking a praying angel," he explained in an interview. Not surprisingly, the evil path leads to destruction.
I've personally never been fortunate enough to get a direct communication from God, though perhaps that's because he doesn't yet use e-mail. But without question, many geeks are already on the wrong path, loving stuff like "South Park" and "The Simpsons" as they do, Satan's productions all. (He was even in the last "South Park" movie.) They might actually revel in blasphemy and angel-bashing.
Technology, from film to TV to the Web, is often blamed for triggering spiritual failings and degradations. But the theological notion of spiritual warfare put technology and contemporary culture smack in the middle of an epic conflict, choosing between the pathway to God or the interstate to the other place.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries. Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
"The War in Heaven" turns this on its head. The new spirituality seems to work this way: if you obsessively kill characters on Diablo or Quake, you're an evil, perhaps even murderous geek who might one day turn on your neighbors and classmates. But if you slaughter demons en route to heaven, you are merely acting out the will of God.
Finally, the online devout can rationalize some of the many contradictions that arise when they blame pop culture and the digital age for violence among the young, which otherwise makes no sense at all.
American notions about violence, culture, technology and the young have been surreal for decades, in that they are hardly ever connected to truth or reality. Violence among the young has been plunging at the very same time parents, politicians, journalists and educators are up in arms about it.
Last week, the Justice Department announced that, for the first time in half a century, more people are using guns to kill themselves than to kill others.
This week, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that American teenagers' fears of and immediate experience with violence have diminished sharply in recent years, along with the crime rate. Teen-agers reported fewer problems with violence at school and in the streets and correspondingly fewer worries; the percentage who said they feared being victimized dropped from 40 per cent in l994.
There's never been any substantive evidence to support the idea that TV shows, movies or computers have been a factor in the recent series of shootings -- statistically rare but horrific nonetheless -- in American schools.
Nevertheless, journalists and politicians continue to link the killings with technology and pop culture, managing in the process to persuade a majority of the American public that movies and computer gaming are responsible for a worsening tide of violence among the corrupted young.
Such ideas seem more related to the Inquisition than to one of the world's most technologically advanced societies, but there they are.
Perhaps games like "The War In Heaven" suggest some looming confrontation, an Armageddon-like battle out there in the digital ether for the collective souls of geeks. It's one battle geeks are well prepared to fight. They'll grab their joysticks, deploy their amassed arsenals and rush out to meet the Millenial Crusaders. Geeks have been trained for this thier whole lives; the forces of righteousness will surely be blasted to bits.
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money. Sunday school might be in for some radical change.
The good news is that ultimately such developments will drive software censors and moral guardians nuts. CyberNanny, unable to distinguish between spiritual and secular slaughter of demons and digital blondes with wings, will soon be blocking God along with the Playboy website. The new boundaries of spiritual warfare are so fuzzy that it will no longer be possible to even pretend to be able to distinguish the allegedly good guys from the reputedly bad.
This sounds so weird
i'll drink to that!
i can't post
?
Could be cool...
http://www.trog.com/jesus/
Being agnostic, I can't help but laugh. Now I completely respect the pious in any religion, but this is plain CRAP. I would even go as far to say that the game developers know that the market that will play this game the most are the same people that would take the "dark" road. And they are banking on this.. If they had in mind the interests of the religious that they claim to support, they wouldn't have made this game.
Then again, as far as I'm concerned, angels and demons are as real as anything else found in Quake, Diablo, etc..
i think the game sound interesting. and possibly fun. i still think that some christian scookie fries will opposie it.
It's true this takes religous games to a new level, but remember requiem? Same basic idea, minus the ability to follow Lucifer. Also very violent. Personally, I'm no longer suprised at humanity's ability to rationalize crass comercialism (or other atrocious acts) through religion.
On a similar note, the number 10 movie in the country last week was The Omega Code, a movie about the end of the world pulled straight from Revelations and aimed specifically at the 75 million evangelical Christains in the US. Yet another example of the justification violence and profit margins through god.
These people make a game based on their own religious values and you mock it and bash it because you think they're criticizing people who play violent games?
/. digs up enough of them on their own.
Its one thing if they impede, or you feel impeded upon by what they are doing, but they're not. They're not ringing your doorbell trying to give you pamphlets. They're not screaming about abortion or the death penalty. What can you possibly have against them other then your divine ego that makes you sane and them insane for their beliefs?
If you consider yourself a journalist, then you're a bad one, because you've shown me no evidence of their hipocracy in making this game. If you don't consider yourself a journalist, then stop dumping trash on this site and looking for a constroversy...
This appears to me to be nothing more then an attack on organized religion.
These people have absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, so why pick a beef with them?
Bah humbug, Katz. You missed the entire point. Yes the game is a problem because it proposes a "Socially Acceptable" first-person shooter. The idea that it is socially acceptable stems directly from the fact that it has Christian themes. The problem inherent in the game is the assumption that "Christian" == "Socially Acceptable". And everyone has a different definition of "Christian". Some people think that definition includes the murder of doctors and women in peculiar situations. What bothers me is the implication that violence is bad UNLESS it is Christian violence, and then it really is OK. Really. What needs to be addressed is that fact that "Christian" does not always equal "Socially Acceptable". Being Christian does not make one Right by default. Beyond that, what do you have against Christian oriented products and industries. Criticize Christian products if you will, but don't make the same kind of mistakes that you are criticizing - making default value judgements based on religious themes. The implication of your article is that "Christian" or "Christian oriented/themed" == "Very Bad/Ominous/Frightening Thing". This is rude, offensive, stereotypical and uncalled for. I am buddhist, I read/buy buddhist oriented products. You got a problem with that?
If you play violent christian games for an hour then go kill "bad" people (blacks, jews, anti-NRA folk, abortionists, etc), then you're "doing God's will".
Lovely.
Jon, take off your Jon Katz Vision(TM) goggles and take a real look at the world. Guess what? I know non Christians who don't like violent games and sarcastic cartoons. And I know Christians who watch the Simpsons and play Quake. A good online friend of mine is a Christian. He plays quake, watches southpark, and can laugh at himself. Go figure. I suppose I'm a "geek". But guess what? I prefer Django Reinhardt to Trent Reznor, and I find that there are a lot of interesting things to learn from religions. I play quake occassionally, but I also worry about the effect violence in our culture will have on my two children. I see so many obvious examples of brainless stereotyping in Jon's articles. Jocks are all evil meatheads who beat up poor little geeks all day. Every school age social misfit is a budding albert einstein. Christians are all evil fascists bent on controlling the world. Guess what Jon? Some jocks are nice, kind people. Some social misfits *are* little sociopaths. Some Christians are freethinking people who believe in the first amendment. Get over yourself.
Does anyone know if there is a demo available for this?
Can you say "stupid", who the hell would buy this game? especially if it won't run on Jesux!
Ok, this is a fps with religious themes. Yes, these types of games have been controversial lately, not in their existence but in their availability to children. That there is enough for an article, I dont see why you threw everything from but the kitchen sink into your argument for... well, I dont know what you are arguing for, but there was a flag icon, so it probably had to do with doing something whereupon your rights were infringed. Anyhow, what did the simpsons have to do with this article? And web nannys? They regulate webpages, not games. And most of all, what group in their right mind opposes "recorded music"? Thats rather vauge, dont you think? All Im saying is that for your next article, try to keep the vauge, irrelevant, and just plain untrue statements to a minimum. p.s. If you have time, post a link to those people that oppose recorded music
1) promotes violence, rather than compassion, as a means to an end.
2) reinforces a theologically-flawed notion of "dualism", with regards to good vs. evil.
Ordinarily, this would have surprised me. However, after going to a college once labelled as "a bastion of the religious right" by Rolling Stone magazine, in a town that had a massive protest rally against a White Zombie concert, this type of thing no longer catches me off-guard
-cswiii
(not anonymous, just can't post any other way.)
Nicely put man. :) I myself have drastically reduced the times I check slashdot for news anymore due to fact it's a bunch of bigots who can't stand the idea of a divine creator because this would mean they would have to follow a standard of right and wrong. I love how you morons whine about censorship and freedom on the net but you don't think that applies to christians. I must say it's both sickening and funny that you guys PHEAR religion so much that you want to stomp out all traces of it. Hitler would be so proud. Btw any christians here don't hold your breath waiting for Katz to be removed, CmdrNAZI is the biggest relgious hater of them all so you can guarantee Katz has a lifetime podium. I guess the best way I can end this message is to say I shake off the dust from my feet as a testamony against you. Jason Salopek jason.salopek@usa.net Btw moderators go ahead and moderate this post down or even delete it, being persecuted for standing up for what's right earns me browie points in heaven - GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY CROWN hahahahahahaha
I am a Christian. This story just goes to show that we have our share of idiots amongst our ranks as well (and I suppose that's not a very Christian thing of me to say). I really hoped this was a fake story but I looked up the web page and it appears legitimate.
First off, this isn't the 'first Christian Action Game.' A co-worker at a previous place of employment (he was a "Promise Keeper" type) talked a few years ago about a Christian-themed version of a Doom-like game. I believe it used either a Moses or a Joseph-coat-of-colors story line as it's basis.
Second, I am trying to figure out what is being ranted about here. Are you saying that the "good and evil" in videogames should always just be based on silly superstition? Should we only be teaching kids that good/evil pronouncements come out of silly superstition?
That does sound like the objective that some people would have, to trivialize any lessons that might be taught about good and evil, and help us plod along on a 'whatever you think is good must be good' path.
The ersatz mythology that comes out of programming like the Star Wars series are modern fabrications and teach few meaningful lessons that kids can go on in building a moral code. "May the Force be with you" is a weak parody of great theistic systems such as Islam, Judaism, Taoism, or Christianity. Granted, secular humanists love it when popular culture tries to destroy spiritual traditions by making them into Disney-level entertainment, but that isn't a particularly good thing (unless, of course, you're a "god is dead" secular humanist trying to drive more nails in a coffin.)
Faith-based FPS games can and should exist. Why shouldn't people who feel there is evil to combat in real life be allowed to act out play battles in computer games? Are you feeling left out because all such games can be for you is a weak parody?
This games tells me the following: 1) Only Blond Haired, Blue Eyed people are angels 2) Killing Demons in Doom = Bad. Do it in God's Name = Good 3) The End does justify the Means Sounds like the Crusades all over again.
Don't you just love it how just because we play games like Quake and Diablo, we are all going to go to hell because we are rotting our souls. And cartoon portrayals of the Devil..... I do not go out and start slaughtering goats after watching an episode of South Park or the Simpsons. If anything these cartoons make us laugh at the devil, thereby taking away any faith in him. I mean... not that I've seen it, but the South Park movie.... The Devil and Sadam.. like we are taking that seriously. By showing people the bad side of things in a humorous way, aren't we actually being more open to the message, as opposed to when people just try and bible bash it into us? Anyway... just another comment from a fed up Agnostic who is sick of having peoples religions shoved down his throat. RK
I'm a Christian. I play Q3A. I like the feeling of competition. I'm beginning to get the feeling that JohnKatz hates me personally. I'll probably not play this game... if it actually exists, and I don't think it will be well accepted by the Christian community... if it actually exists. It just sounds too wierd. (And honestly, letting you run around playing Satan just as easily as Gabriel, just is .... wierd)
That sounds like an awesome game! A chance to slay praying angels? Running through heavan killing everything Christian while spouting blasphemy! When can I get my copy? Maybe Id could make a similar game, but without the "holy" side.
-Jesus
damn!!!
as i rushed to buy wwsd.com and found it was already taken.
Quote from the article:
If a person chooses to play "The War In Heaven" as a demon, explains Lundstad, he progresses by disobeying the Bible. "You have to do things that are more and more distasteful, from blasphemy to striking a praying angel," he explained in an interview. Not surprisingly, the evil path leads to destruction.
End Quote:
Woah, If evil wins, evil wins. Its not fair if you're going to preload destinies. Like Wing Commander 1 if I want to shoot my wingman and attack the carrier thats my business. I can take that road and its incredbily FUN! If they want to get good and biblical - then its about choices, free will etc. The game should allow either choice - but leading to destruction by default if you choose the "evil" path leaves out a lot of options in life - its makes a dichotomy that is dangerous to be teaching children. Just like in quake there is an ALL GOOD and an ALL EVIL. I've found that in life it is neither - its vast gray areas. And games that don't explain that part aren't doing a very good job at emulating a world. -> What they at times claim to be doing.
HalfLife is a little closer to a real-life sim of types - you have people making choices, not based on some sort of blind obedience to a rule system but based the situation at hand.
We don't want to teach people "this is the only way, never break from it - you WILL find happiness" we want to teach people -> there are many ways - find your own path.
-sv
yes it is.
Cool ideas!
I hope some creative people are reading and will work on some of these and similar ideas.
"If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. " - Paul, 1 Cor. 15:14
Are you sure you don't really mean that you'll choose to play games where the mythology is all made-up-nothing, and that you resent the idea that somebody else chooses to base games on what they view is the truth?
You loonitics are just so paranoid about someone raising questions about anything included in the little Christian club that you blast anyone who questions you.
Katz is questioning the inconsistancy that somehow a very violent Christian game is hailed as morally pure, while games like Quake are blamed for violence.
If you blame Quake for another Columbine, blame this game too. It's a damn good point.
It's clear that values are on the slide; being Satanic (Quake, etc) having no limit to sexual pervasiveness is important (anything on TV, proliferation of lesbian portrayls only a decade after "the seven words you can't say on television"... So how about a change of pace? Heck, if it runs on Linux, I'll buy a few copies!
A rather backwards religion which has hampered scientific progress... Many Christians will say 'But..but'.. But look in the Bible... From Genocide condoned by God to killing homosexuals, Christianity is one thing we could all do without.
Flamebait? Really?
I thought it was funny. Wish I had moderator privs to bump this up. Somebody, please do so.
Katz has once again demonstrated that he has no understanding about human affairs or social interaction or the way the world is. Like the above poster said, there are many religious people who are geeks.
As for games, there are games out there that kill Russians and other forces of evil, films which do the same showing an American triumph versus the evil of the Christians/Germans/Muslims etc. etc. etc. You seem to have your own set of righteousness which you define and all other definitions are wrong. So what if this game thinks that non-Christians are evil? I see games and films and books and comments and news articles etc. etc. everyday that declare someone evil, on the other side, wrong. Just because you are able to post features on Slashdot doesn't mean that your view is right or holds. People have different views on different things. That's the way the world is. Live with it.
Post some News for Nerds, if you don't mind...
I am surprised to see anyone who can misunderstand the nature of religion and religious belief so completely. I had thought that those who stood outside of relgious issues at least had a basic idea of what they stood outside of.
Apparently not. I feel that Katz is a victim of the media and the extreme right of American Christianity (poor thing), and has settled for assuming that the flyposters represent the concensus. This would be more forgivable for one who did not set himself up as a journalist and a defender of the unjustly pigeon-holed geeks.
You forgot the best game of all, Sodom and Gomorrah!
You gain points for acts of perversion against "god's" boring dreamed up in a desert plan--but watch out, no act of kindness goes unpunished. The only way to win would be to "know" the angels hiding out in Lot's house, and avoiding Lot's ugly daughters he keeps trying to talk you into doing instead.
Now if they only had leisure suits back in biblical times...
-deltavivis
Will there be an expansioon pack where people who are different, say by thinking for themsleves, and other "sinners" will be killed? How many points for killing someone who gets an abortion? Will the boss of that level be a doctor who supports people freedom of choice? Look out! Its a non-jock whose wearing a trenchcoat! Sneak up behind them and smite them! Going to take on the ACLU? Get together the football team bonus powerup. A stupid game really, but then so are the number one selling games like "Deer Hunter" and those other K-mart games...
(I haven't seen the game myself)
Katz, when Dan Quayle criticized Murphy Brown without ever seeing the show, I thought, "What a lazy bum." When Falwell criticized Teletubbies without ever seeing the show, I thought, "What a lazy bum." And now you're criticizing a game based on second-hand accounts.
What a lazy bum.
Even if the game is inane, that still doesn't justify what you've done in this article-- you've stereotyped all Christians based on the worst attributes of a small minority. There is no cause so noble that it won't attract its share of losers. It's much easier to condemn the whole lot of Christians based on that minority, but if you do, guess what? You're a lazy bum.
It's more difficult to realize that Christians are a diverse group, and the most vocal members might not be the biggest group. But that's much closer to the truth than your outdated stereotype.
How is that different from Islam, Judaism, etc...? BTW I'll choose Christianity any day over those religions
On the one hand Jon Katz pushes tolerance for those who are different and freedom of speech for all. On the other, as in this
:-) :-) :-)
article, he seems to be doing the opposite. Why all the venom against Christians Jon?
I bet he was Catholic as a child
Seriously though, alot of Christians are unilaterally instructed to live a certian way despite examples around them of friends and family disregarding alot of the "rules". It makes for some real confused adults if they buy into the specifics of the faith.
But it doesn't reach the same heighth of hypocrisy as Jon here! He speaks in a harsh tone about one segment of the populace,
yet writes so many impassioned articles questioning why the general populace and traditional media do the same with geeks.
Perhaps Jon thinks Christians are safe targets right now...
People like to pick on Christians becasue of the terrible track record. The Middle Ages, The Crusades, the Inquisition, there's a lot of bad stuff we can look back on. These are the folks that executed Gallileo for heresy. Not to mention the people following guys like Falwell, who often have lost their grip on reality as they crusade for goodness. When you try to slap a homosexual label on a noted children's toy, you're going to create a stir. (And that's just waht he wants) Unfortunately you'll also alientate a host of reasonable people who cannot justify the calim within themselves. It's this sort of thing that makes the Christians targets.
Look at it this way. For every person RMS wins over with his steadfast activism, he alienates another who considers him nothing more than a communist.
Same deal, different context.
didn't know there were so many mental slaves on /. Religeon is mental bondage, a slave morality (accept these irrational mores because god says so). It unhuman and perverse, I'm glad to see it go. Christianity is the worst sort of stupidity, a hatred of the world and sex, a separation of the mind and body. Katz knocks christians because, well, the US is a fundamentalist christian country (like iran is an islamic country). They're all fucking kooks.
In the US, it has all but become another commodity. This game is just the icing on the cake. I think it's funny - christianity as entertainment!
No freedom and religeon have not, and never will, go together. Christians incessantly condemn people for their sexuality (which cannot possibly be a moral issue) or drugs (again, not a moral issue). What a hoax! I can't believe the stupidity of some of the christians here: oh we're so persecuted!!! A couple of words to you: Fuck Off, you make me sick.
Have you ever listened to a "Christian rock" band? I would bet no. Maybe you should. Christian rock bands are probably not any more produced than maintstream rock. "Christian rock", at least a great deal of it, is just music about spirituality and trying to sort this whole thing of life out set to rock. I'm not even Christian, and I like some Christian rock stuff, D.C. talk has some cool songs, you should try actually listening to it. Y Creed, the #1 rock band atm (billboard top 50 -- album is #2), could be cast as a Christian rock band, although Scott says they aren't. The moral of the story is stereotyping is for idiots. If you actually believe anything Jon says, it just demonstrates your youth, I honestly don't believe their is a single "mature" (over 18?) person who believes a word he says.
I liked this one. Katz didn't ramble on for page after page. He made a few good points. I have a lot of reading to do every day; this is one of the few pieces by him that I read to the end. More like this!
Evidence:
Yesterday I found a copy of Donald Knuth's bibe study book at a used bookstore. I snapped it up.
Basically what he did was study verse 3:16 out of each book of the bible, to show that pulling a verse at random out of each book of the bible to study can build a pretty strong unified whole.
An absolutely beautiful book, laid out as well as one would expect the developer of TeX to produce a book. Well worth tracking down a copy. I don't think it's still in print.
Ok,
I saw Omega Code.
I was actually hoping for a movie that was absurdly accurate, one that would show us all the mythical creaturs in Revelations.
If this happened, then maybe people would realize that it realize that it is only someones vivid dream that keeps being re-interpreted to mean the end of world.
Instead, this movie was realitivly boring, trying not to seem to unbelievable.
The main charactor looks and overacts like that guy on TV that has a plan to make you rich.
In the end he does call for "Jesus", so it then lost all credibility, and transformed into a movie funded by the christian cult.
Check out these passages: Numbers 31:40 Numbers 25:1 Numbers 31:17 Sam 15 Psalm 137 Isaiah 14:7 45:7 Now some will argue we cant take the bible literally.. However these are moral lessons from the key text of the Christian religion. Judge for yourself.
Sounds like a pretty fucking god damn good idea, a christian videogame.
Seriously though, for us non christians out here, this is gonna be one funny video game. I myself will be looking for an illegal copy to play on my unlicensed 95 box.
You're right. A company called Wisdom Tree made several Christian action games for the NES. There was a platform game starring Old Testament characters like David and Moses, a game starring Noah (I can't remember what genre it was), and a decent Zelda-like game called Spiritual Warfare. Spiritual Warfare was actually pretty good, but it required an extraordinarily long password to save your progress. In it, you explored a modern city looking for the pieces of the Spiritual Armor, which gave you new abilities. You had to convert sinners along the way by throwing Fruit of the Spirit at them, or hitting them with Vials of God's Wrath, which doubled as bombs. Eventually, you hiked deep into the earth to exorcise a huge purple demon.
Of course, these games weren't officially endorsed by Nintendo, so they weren't very plentiful even back then. I doubt you can find them now.
Who do Theodore Beale and Andrew Lunstad believe they could trick. I do not believe in a second they bother with religion as in being religious. They probably couldn't care less - just as long as they are getting hold of a new, unexploited market. yuk...
By coincidence, i just had downloaded the demo of Rebel Moon Rising and read the credits, when this Slashdot news popped up. What names do I see? Yes, Theodore Beale and Andrew Lunstad's. The very same engineers of a crappy little game called Rebel Moon Rising. How about religious overtones in that game? Nope.
Lucrative markets like buying into Christian bewilderness makes me sick. I am an atheist but cannot help seeing this particular move as a severly sick piece of vulgar cynicism.
I hope the game is real bad, and I won't ever feel like buying it.
Baal Zebul
Blasphemy against God is forgiven.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not.
Do you understand the meaning of this? It means in a nutshell that if you deny God's power and existence, then you will go to hell. Essentially everything else is forgiven.
For the sheep reference, he simply means to follow his teachings. You'll make mistakes if you don't.
Go read up on the religion before you make assumptions.
Actually I believe it was the Clinton organization and the movie industry that was blaming everything on the internet & games. Everybody loves a scapegoat to get their self-serving message out.
When you say Christians have ALWAYS been saying this, do you have any proof or do you believe everything that you read...I don't remember any polster coming to my door. There are a couple of freaky people that seem to think they speak for the millions of the rest of the Christian world; but the same can be said about any view: anybody heard of SCUM (society to cut up men, tried to kill Andy Worhol).
I do not understand the statement that religion has never gotten along with freedom. Do you mean that specific religions or demominations never got along with freedom, or that the idea of religion itself does not get along with freedom?
You really shouldn't use absolutes like that. To say freedom and religion have never gotten along ignores the tenets and ideas behind many religions.
In his day, Jesus was looked upon to be a liberator by many of his followers, who hoped he would save them from Roman oppression. Other religions speak of liberating the soul or mind.
Looking at Christianity specifically, there are many denominations who feel passionately about everyone's right to choose how they want to worship (or not worship)- they believe a person has as much right to religious liberty no matter if that person disagrees with that particular religion. Seventh-Day Adventists and Quakers both actively speak out against all forms of religious oppression.
Katz, stop making blanket statements that stereotype all christians and lump them into the right wing christian coalition wakos.
Also, do not assume that all geeks are irreligious, or that we technology is incompatible with God. -Oatmeal
Check out this page! http://www.christianlink.com/media/wisdom/
A little clarification... From 2 Corinthians 10:4: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds The word carnal means fleshly, or physical. We Christians aren't interested in a physical battle, but we want control of our own minds. To the game developer, I urge him to read 2 Corinthians 10:4. To everyone else: we're just interested in freeing people from drugs, mental illness, pornography, sexual addictions, etc. If you are suffering from these, then our goal is to help you out of it. If you don't want out of these problems, then we're not going to bug you.
so , i looked at the screen shots provided with this previous message .
rise of the triad was better . talk about poor modeling . and only three characters ? looks like god cant get this right either . the mid east , kidz 'n' gunz , the all too political right , and grandmas suckin up all the bandwidth .
all hail me
Yes, we should teach our children that actions have consequences. We should also teach them that computer games are NOT real life. NEVER MIX THE TWO! Feel free to shoot and kill without reason in a computer game. ITS ONLY A GAME! duh!
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money. Sunday school might be in for some radical change.
You must be joking. And the comments about "oh, your killing demons, thats ok then". Subliminal messages?! What the hell are you talking about? If anything comes of this it'll be a bunch of christian groups up in arms loudly taking offense that they would even dare to claim that it's a christian game. And if thats actually the company line, well I can't say that I'd blame the groups.
It's a cheap ploy by the company to make money. I myself am a christian by faith and I enjoy a good game of quake or halflife when I have time. To try and peg this game as something other than what it is though (another quake clone just with a slightly new twist aimed at adolescents) goes beyond stretching the imagination. It's simply absurd.
>Eventually, you hiked deep into the earth to exorcise a huge purple demon.
..." - Barney 3.16
"I love you, you love me, we're a happy family
I don't understand. What moral principles is this game trying to teach? Perhaps they should try making a game which includes some sort of moral code- I remember that Ultima IV was a good example.
Instead He just asks them to act all the same.
All non-Christians act the same too -> they don't follow God.
Pete
for getting thrown out of Israel ?
This is great stuff. Built on a WarcraftII engine it would be awesome.
The idea kind of reminds me of Oregon Trail, a children's game made by MECC back in the 1980's. To get the highest score in this game, you had to wipe out the buffalo, rape the land, starve your family, and rip people off trading with them. I learned alot from that game.
I am a Christian, but I have to agree with you. The United States should not have preference to one religion and its special days over another. Having said that, there are enough Christians and play-Christians that would claim religious reasons to get the school/work day off, that we just get the day off. Also, there are some advantages to having a collective day off. Otherwise, it would be kind of hard to get together a bunch of friends for day. FWIW, it is and will continue to change. BTW, I live in Massachusetts, were you can't buy alcohol on Sundays. I don't drink that much, but it is annoying nonetheless. -a
You mean the system of values that teaches us to treat our fellow human with respect and kindness, to gain strength from our fellow Christians and our faith in God? The values that tell us to "..give and ye shall receive". Hmmm...those sound like outdated ideals in this time of random violence and materialistic selfism.
Fun, eh? Yeah- it's really fun when we have to deal with the constant doubt, criticism and insulting commentary if we choose to be open about our faith.
And yes I know that this does not represent the majority of Christians, its just that they tend to be the ones the media pick up on the most
So you aren't buying into the stereotype afterall...boy, you had me there for a moment...
Hi, George. Anonymous Coward here. The Arabic language may have named alcohol, but, believe me, beer and wine were around a heck of a lot earlier than the Middle Ages...
you sound very proud .. one feeling that overwhelmed me when I realized God exists was one of utter insignificance and powerlessness. We are truly in the palm of his hand. That God even acknowledges our miserable existence and cares about what we do I find an unbelievable honor. That he calls himself our shepherd is I believe a huge compliment, since God is so much bigger and smarter than us that the relationship seems more like shepherd vs. bacterium. So, my choice is, do I listen to my fellow bacterium friends/ancestors/media to decide how to live, or do I listen to the one who created me and the universe I live in? I trust that he knows what he's talking about. As for you, feel free to invent your own way, just let him know when you get lost or run out of food, he'll be happy to take you back.
I find it rather insulting that the Angels follow the Path of Obedience, while the Devils follow the Path of Knowledge. What, is it wrong to seek knowledge? Is trying to learn something beyond direct obedience to the "lord" considered Satanic now?
Yeesh..
Is it just me, or does this Game Have Capture The Flag Deathmatch Written all over it?
How dare you scorn the freedom of others to create a game about a religious theme! America was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Just as everyone should be free to choose or not to choose a religion, so should software developers be free to choose the theme of the game, just as any other author in any other medium. Of course, we have the freedom to buy or not buy this game. C. Williams linuxman@i.am "Judge not ye who have no compassion."- Anne McCaffrey, Dragonriders of Pern
How dare you scorn the freedom of others to create a game about a religious theme! America was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Just as everyone should be free to choose or not to choose a religion, so should software developers be free to choose the theme of the game, just as any other author in any other medium. Of course, we have the freedom to buy or not buy this game.
C. Williams
linuxman@i.am
"Judge not ye who have no compassion."- Anne McCaffrey, Dragonriders of Pern
No no no... Christianity doesn't tell us WHAT to do. It tells us HOW to do it. We have our own free will to choose to follow that.
Oh please, why bashing him while the Pope is pretty much worse than Jon when it comes to bashing other religions. As far as anonymous cowardice is concerned, Jon does little harm compared to da Pope's.
But this simply reinforces my belief that religion is a waste of time; if God created the universe and gave us such a central role in it, surely he could make sure we at least got his message passed on correctly?
Why should he? If there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity running the cosmos, why would he have to answer to you? Wouldn't it be your responsibility to discover your role? Or does God have to submit an open-sourced, interactive, HTML-ized, multiplatform version of his commandments for your benefit?
I'm not a religious man myself, but I can see that people who try to live up to a code of moral and ethical standards don't appear to be 'wasting their time.'
Yeah, that Martin Luther guy was a real robot.
OTOH, this may just be me displaying a pathological distrust of Katz's motives ... Katzophobia?
Exactly!
Ah yes, the ever-popular Christian bashing. Why is it perfectly acceptable to badmouth Christian morals/values/worldviews, yet you can't *touch* Buddah, homosexuality, etc. without the ACLU screaming "foul" So much for "tolerance", eh?
All rules are simple to simple-minded people.
Gee, let's paint a broad stereotypical (and racist) picture here. I live in the south and know literally hundreds of Christians... and NO ONE I know would in any way, shape, or form condone the crap you're talking about. Get a clue before making such stupid, judgemental statements.
I read some of the above posts stating that all Christians weren't like all other Christians so you can't lump them together.
But now you want to be viewed as a whole when determining political power?
Would you say that 90%+ of Christians go to church on Christ's Mass?
Or would it be that more people stay home and enjoy the day off in a more secular manner? Such as watching the games and drinking beer?
Or don't you define "Christian" as any set of practices and just the belief that Christ was the Son of God?
Wouldn't that definition include Satan?
Why are these attacks on Christians tolerated???? You wouldn't DARE say the same thing about Muslims, Asians, etc. You are incredibly prejudiced. Grow up.
...like christians.
I read Linus' disgusting diatribe against religion this month in Linux Journal.
And I've scanned the posts of hate you put up on this glorified BBS.
You are not alone. Non-beleivers have hated and killed religious people since the beginning, taking from them what they wanted. so I guess you consider yourselves in good company.
Not that I have anything nice to say about organized or political religion. They are both scams -- shoddy ripoffs of what religion is all about.
Truly religious and spiritual people (and true nerds) aren't afraid to learn about manuscripts like the Q, or how many great thinkers have puts the words of Jesus Christ on a par with those of Socrates or Plato. True religion, like philosophy, is a means of transcending humanity.
JC was a homeless, itinerant philosopher, with far more in common with Socrates, arguably the founder of western critical thought, than any modern "Christian".
Remember why religion exists -- for many hundreds/thousands of years, it's been the only source of comfort for people who have had their wealth, children, lives property -- you name it -- stripped from then by the "might makes right/nietschze/ survival of the fittest" crowd.
Let's face it, if any of you religious intolerant geeks had some idiot like Jesse Ventura, with a gang of wrestler types at your door, ready to steal your property and loved ones, it would be pretty funny to watch how fast you started praying to God for help.
Well, not that funny.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were Deists. Definitly NOT Christians(or at least how Protestants and Catholics use that word). Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and you will see that he was very much opposed to how organized religion encourages people just to accept the chuches views without thinking. Thomas Jefferson re-wrote a unified Gospel, because of the gross misinterpretations by Christians. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did get there share of persecution for not being part of the Christian hurd. Now here we are, almost 2000, and People are still afraid to talk about religion for political reasons. (Even if it's just an interview in playboy, complaining about organized religion)
Yes, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were Deists. Definitly NOT Christians(or at least how Protestants and Catholics use that word).
Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and you will see that he was very much opposed to how organized religion encourages people just to accept the chuches views without thinking.
Thomas Jefferson re-wrote a unified Gospel, because of the gross misinterpretations by Christians.
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did get there share of persecution for not being part of the Christian hurd.
Now here we are, almost 2000, and People are still afraid to talk about religion for political reasons. (Even if it's just an interview in playboy, complaining about organized religion)
Have you actually seen the movie? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't have made that ridiculous statement about "justification violence". The only ones doing the killing are the bad guys, thank you very much.
So, this leaves the question, what are the modern equivalents of hanging around with "tax collectors and sinners"? Well, I would suggest that hanging around on IRC or chat rooms would be a good place to start. Lots of lonely people there, and people who are considered (or consider themselves) "losers". Also, places like bars, where similar groups of people meet.
Also, I would like to point out that not all Xtian music are simply "clean" clones of secular music. Some Christian groups are actually revolutionizing the way people see "church" and "worship". I'm thinking specifically of Deliriou5?, Brian Doerksen, Kevin Prosch, David Ruis, Matt Redman, a lot of the worship music from the Vineyard churches, Hillsongs, anything on Vertical Music or Worship Together and on the non-worship side, a lot of groups on the 5 Minute Walk/SaraBellum label, just to name a few.
So, I guess my overall point is, Jesus was definitely not "traditional", so a church that tries to be will not grow. They are simply stuck (and usually stubborn). Modern Christianity calls for modern solutions.
If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, they can email me at gmabbutt@mb.sympatico.ca (creating an account would simply be too obvious).
"I'm a great fan of The Simpsons'. I think it's one of the cleverest shows on television and it always has a moral.", quote Stephen Hawking If God exists and if God is intelligent, then God watches the Simpsons. (the last line could be flame bait, if you want it to be)
For crying out loud, Katz, you're desperately in need of a clutonium infusion. You don't need to reject any and all moral codes in order to be a "true geek". Nor do you need to like Southpark. (Personally, I find it largely unfunny and revolting. I like the Simpsons though.) Christianity does not equal a philosophical straitjacket, and not all Christians are bible-thumping sheep. Faith in God and the geeky quest for knowledge and intellectual freedom can coexist quite happily in the same brain. By setting yourself up as representative of all geeks everywhere, you're just as bad as those awful "self-proclaimed forces of morality" you seem to spend a lot of energy denouncing.
Christianity is a label choose to affix to yourself. If I see a jesus-fish on the back of a car, I'm going to make certain assumptions about the state of mind of the driver; whether those assumptions are fair or not is irrelevant. I can only assume the driver has _chosen_ the same beliefs as other bearers of the jesus-fish. It's not like someone's holding a gun to his head to force him to be a Christian - yet. If you're uncomfortable with the inherent beliefs of the view you've chosen to endorse, you're free to change them. It's not the color of your skin, or the lineage of your parents. It's more like a campaign bumper sticker you've put on your car. You can peel it off anytime you want, if your mind is free. To see something like this game show up is more funny than anything else. It simply confirms for me that despite what the "majority" in this society says, they really _don't_ know what's good for me, or anyone. For Christians who believe that they are being persecuted, I can't offer much sympathy. I've been told, in the very name of Christianty, everything from "You're the child of Satan" to "You're lost and hopeless and by the way f**ked in the head." The whole rhetoric of evangelism is to assault, distress, belittle, and berate people like me for "shutting God out." As long as Christians evangelize, they will be viewed by their victims as holier-than-thou people who refuse to mind their own business. Pity . . .the thing between my thumb and forefinger is not the world's smallest violin playing "my heart bleeds for you." It's just a booger. -"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears, or kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill." - Rush, "Freewill."
I've read a lot of comments in response to this article by punk-rocker, game-freak, and geek christians. While I think Katz's style is a tad over-inflammatory, they seem to think that the nonbelieving geek community's habitual distrust and dislike of their religion is baseless and merely a defense mechanism or prejudice.
I find the creation of this game disturbing on many levels. I enjoy a good game of quake, but only on the understanding that it is a *game*. I am a fencer, but I would find the idea of actually killing someone with a sword rather distasteful, to say the least. This game seems to take the perspective that if you were doing this *for real*, it would be OK.
This is basically the same game as Doom, but it's playable from the demon's perspective as well. There is no moral content to the game whatsoever -- it's a shooter, and as such, will teach the same moral lessons all other shooters teach, to wit, reflexes and hand-eye coordination. I don't think that a child who chooses to play the "bad guys" in this will be significantly emotionally damaged -- perhaps one with enough of a distinction between reality and fantasy to do so will even grow up mentally healthier.
As for the dislike and distaste of christianity in general, the judeo-christian tradition is inherently violent. A *thorough* examination of the KJV (not a dumbed-down sunday-school reading designed to highlight only the "good parts") will reveal some highly unnerving trends.
Imagine this as flavor-text on the box of a video-game in stores:
"When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Deuteronomy 7:1"
I'd say that any religion that accepts a book with that text in it as gospel has some serious issues to deal with before attempting to create mass-market media for children.
The only difference between this and any other good vs evil game, is that it has overtly christian rhetoric behind it. Where is the difference between the morality espoused in this game, compared to say the Ultima series? At least they let you play a *bad guy*!!!!! dan
EOM
What is an athiest precept??? Athiests don't have a precept. They are categorized by their LACK of the precept of theism. a-theism. Without theism. Learn about those with whom you argue.
Non-Christians don't make laws that restrict Christian freedom.
I never post, I just lurk, but this statement is patently ludicrous. It is EXACTLY the non-Christians, specifically the non-Christians who are opposed to Chritianity (and/or religion altogether) who make laws that restrict Christian freedom. One big example: The Pledge of Allegience. "One nation, under God..." An athiest woman hated that phrase so much, she sued the US, and now it is against the law for schools to initiate the Pledge.
It is ironic that the child in question (the son of the athiest lady) is now a hardcore Christian.
And as for "Separation of church and state," re-read the 1st Amendment:
Since 'respecting' in this instance means 'in regards to,' how come it becomes more and more illegal every year to say a prayer over your lunch at school, or have a Bible Study group, or (this is the latest) exclude gays from the Boy Scouts (which they were doing on on RELIGIOUS moral grounds)?
It is unfortunate that what was a reasonably intelligent post winds up completely shattered by such a glaring falsehood.
Law is created by voters, after politicians have created issues to vote on. It is a sad thing that so often the voters decide to restrict religion vs. defend religious rights.
As long as I have a chance to cast Falwell et al to the pits of Hell, I'll play :-)
Oh my, this Katz guy is rather intolerant isn't he? Referring to Christians as the "self-proclaimed forces of morality" and saying that "Religion and freedom have NEVER gotten along". Isn't that a bit narrow, Jon? Does he have a problem with people who think that certain things are wrong and that other things are right? Perhaps he thinks that such people are getting in the way and need to be eliminated so that we can all live freely? As a Christian who still believes that some things are right and other things are wrong I fail to see how I'm forcing these beliefs on Mr. Katz - these beliefs guide my personal behaviour. And even if I could "force" my morality on Mr. Katz, he seems to indicate that it would be wrong. And if he thought that was wrong then isn't he positing a morality of some sort - and isn't he then forcing that morality on me? In other words, Mr. Katz is basically saying that my beliefs are WRONG. A moral system of any kind deals with questions of what is WRONG and what is RIGHT. I'm a Christian but I really don't plan to rush out and buy this game (don't stereotype all of us!) for several reasons: 1) I do believe there is a 'war' between Good and Evil both in the spiritual realm and in the physical realm where we all live. However, that 'war' is not a battle with physical weapons - its a Truth struggle, a debate between truth and falsehood. This whole spiritual warfare thing being an actual fight with swords between demons and angels really got popularized by the Peretti novels (if you don't know who that is then you aren't part of the Christian Ghetto). 2) Unfortunatly there is too much profiting from religion in Christendom- way too much. So we get second rate novels, even Christian romance books - and now we'll be getting second rate Christian Computer games. And my final point: Morality isn't the central theme of Christianity - not even close! Unfortunatly a lot of Christians out there don't get this and this led to all the political activism of recent years. A lot of us now realize that that wasn't what Jesus himself would have done if he were present in these days. We got the wrong idea that we could use the power of the state to change people - in reality people can only change from the inside. You can make all kinds of laws but that won't change people inside. Jesus didn't condemn the so-called immoral people (he was a friend of tax collectors and prostitutes after all). He actually condemned the religious people who thought they had it all together - the self righteous who didn't need God's help. Unfortunatly a lot of us Christians cast ourselves in the role of the Pharisees (the Religious, self righteous guys) that Jesus had the most trouble with - now as a subculture we're paying the price. To some extent we deserve the kind of ridicule that people like Mr. Katz (and he's not the only one by far) is heaping on us - hopefully it will make us try to pattern ourselves after Jesus (the founder of our faith, afterall) and we'll respond in love and not in anger.
Ahh.. but you see the heart of the problem. I can come up with just as many non-christian postings blaiming games & the internet; one cannot start blaming any single group for overacting. The opposite side of the coin is: I know many, many people who if somethings got the hint of religion in it, it must be mashed destroyed and thrown away.
.001% of people instead of Christians.
The extreme's are what is talked about by everyone, but pretty much everyone lives in the middle. Lumping all Christians into bible thumpers is akin to lumping all atheists into pedophiles... it just isn't right. Maybe you should just throw away those wildcards and start saying the
I don't mean to undermine your point, I agree that the article was overboard, but..
1) the Pilgrims were mainly kicked out (considered too wiered by mainstream English)
2) when the emancipation movements were going on people did not admit that they were non-christian for fear of reprisal
3) Martin Luther wanted reforms because the church was not strict enough.
4) Amish and Old-order Mennonites believe that only what is in the bible is good (just my understanding please correct me if I am wrong).
New-order Mennonites however may be what your thinking about
5) The studies show a correlation between media violence and children, not cause.
Mind you in Europe Christain church has been mediators, and much of the beginings of many sciences were helped/started by christian priests
i.e. genetics, spectography.
hmmmm... perhaps u are confusing Christianity with the Watchtower society (jehovah's whitnesses)?
----Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries.
--Ever read your history, John? The Pilgrims were a deeply religious lot, and they were seeking freedom when they set sail for North America. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers were deeply religious. Those who weren't, were at least deists. Most of those who fought for the emancipation of the slaves in the US and in the UK were religious people.
Have you read history? The pilgrims were against giving rights to people of religions other than themselves. Freedom for me != Freedom. Look at what has happened to the Mormons, kicked out of places by other religious folk.
--Sure, there are those who use religion to thwart freedom, but to conclude from that that religion and freedom are fundamentally opposed is foolish. There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
They are not fundamentally opposed. I am aware of at least one religion, which allows for freedom. However, many churches, including some Christian churches do prevent freedom. The problem is that most churches try to impose a morality system on its members, and often on the world at large. As long as people believe their religion is th one true religion, they will always be anti freedom. From what I have heard, there are many UU, and some christian churches who allow for the fact that other religions have some merit and should be studied instead of ridiculed. Unfortunately, there are not enough of these.
----Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
--Hooey. Ever hear of Martin Luther? His ideas, and the religious reform and freedom that came with it owed a great deal to technology, namely Gutenberg's printing press.
Have you ever heard of the Catholic church? Martin Luthor used technology to convince people to seperate from the Church. Im sure the printing press was often called a implement of Satan for deceiving believers away from the Church.
I do not believe that religion necessarily conflicts with freedom, I would just say that most do. However, many people confuse freedom of everyone, vs the freedom of the members of the church. I feel that a church should be allowed to impose rules and restrict freedom for its members, just as long as people can choose not to be members and the church doesnt try to go after these people. One main example would be gay marriages. Despite the fact that these marriages would not happen inside specific churches, these churches are trying to get the nation to outlaw such marrages. This is clearly imposing on freedom. Until people realize that their moral code is not necessarily the only,, or even the best moral code, religion will continue to impose on freedom.
I'm a Christian, and very proud of it. Most non-Christians and athiests alike have the wrong perception of what God is. Anyway I don't want to get off topic, so... One thing I noticed was that Jon said The Simpsons was a bad show. No, it's not. If you are a mature person, it has good morals. You are supposed to know that Homer is a dope, and other characters. But the general message in most shows is good. It's certainly not a "production of Satan".
If I had all the answers I wouldn't be talking to you....
Yeah, it's off-topic but I thought of this years ago and haven't seen mention of anything similar. So, here's a free idea. You know how all PC/game console football games suck? OK, I move my thumb around and pick a pre-defined play. OK, I'm the quarterback now. OK, I press my finger to snap the ball. Ooooh, watch me pass it. Blech! Working Title: Coach Hook your PC up to a big screen TV. Have headset/microphones. Speech recognition. You call the plays and watch them from the sideline. Speech recognition. Right! Fire! 99! I'm not sure how you'd hook up more than one at a time, but invite your drinking buddies over. One is the head coach. Defensive Coordinator. Special Teams. Everyone wants to be the coach anyway, right? Define your own plays, call 'em out, and watch the game. And why is the game so cheap? Because Budweiser pays for commercials on it. And Toyota. And whoever. There's your free idea -- now go do it.
So do you get to beat the shit out of God on the final level? Oh wait, that's inappropriate. Do you get to pump bullets down his gullet or rip him apart with a chainsaw? If so, I'm there!
and yet even more incredibly funny! ROFLMAO!
Regardless, since when is simplicity a reason to follow a rule?
It's that whole vegue fluffy attitude that turns me off to Christianity as a religion. No, I don't beleive in anything supernatural. But at least Eastern religions teach one to come to understand, seek balance, meditate, gain enlightenment.
Of course, gaining enlightenment isn't as simple; it must be untrue.
Regardless, since when is simplicity a reason to follow a rule?
No, I don't beleive in anything supernatural. But at least Eastern religions teach one to come to understand, seek balance, meditate, gain enlightenment.
Of course, gaining enlightenment isn't as simple; it must be untrue. But thanks for quoting a few dictations of what to love.
It matters not at all if you think that it is right or wrong, but the fact remains that this is a country that is based on the rule of the majority... and the majority of the people in this country are christian.
True but... the Constitution contains many clauses aimed at protecting minorities (i.e., those not in the majority). While it is true that the majority rules there are limits to prevent the majority from running roughshod over minority groups.
Also, Thomas Jefferson took great pains to ensure an official church like that that existed in England was NOT set up here. If you read other political writings by Jefferson you will read how he attempted to erect a wall separating church and state.
BZZZT! Wrong answer! Try again...
I've looked at the game's screenshots and its characters at the web site. It looks like more junk! I think it's aimed at the pre-teen group. I can't see an adult, gamer or non-gamer, christian or non-believer, wanting to play it. The graphics look gud-awful.
Now, if you guys need pointers on what a good Christian game consists of, let me help you out:
So, if you're ever going to make a Christian game make sure you cover these importants points and read the New Testament, as well as the Old.
Of course people can follow their own moral code. The thing is, who can say that their own personal moral code is better than anyone else's? My version of right and wrong may be completely different from yours. But what makes mine better? This is actually a trap a lot of Christians fall into. They get so caught up in what they believe is right and wrong that they never stop to wonder what God would thing about the issue. Is killing wrong? Is it wrong to kill? If so, then why does Leviticus tell us the punishment for adultery is death? Is killing right? If so, then why did Jesus say let he who is without sin (nobody) cast the first stone? The biggest mistake you can make is to consider your own values as the absolute definiton of right and wrong. If you're not a Christian, what makes your opinion on right and wrong more important than mine. (On a tangent, can you really even say that there is a meaningful definition of right and wrong). As a Christian, your definiton of right and wrong should simply be what is pleasing/unpleasing to God. If God doesn't like homesexuality, do you really think He wants their preferences being supported by the church? But on the other hand, do you think He would be any happier with you trying to run them out of whatever job that's paying their bills and buying their food? Most issues don't boil down to black and white.
Someone who is in a Chirstian community and who suggests a view contrary to what has been determined by organized religion or dirived from the Bible (not all views held by organized Christian religions have anything to do with the Bible), that person's views are automatically considered invalid.
What if an elder in your church suggested that man created God? Do you think that view would be welcome?
How many Christians declared Darwin to be a sinner? Galileo?
tee hee hee. oh yes! yes! yes! Baptize me paul, baptize me! YES! sorry.
Do we have to wait for option pack II for the other "Monsters": Hindus, Muslims, Jews, (Athiests -- kinda a given I guess) As for missions: Cursades! Inquesitions! Armor Polishing (kinda know where I've been?) Church Splitting, Weapons: If I just pound on the keyboard randomly, Will it be interpreted as speaking in touges? How about Being Pope! I can sell indulgences! Or other minor theological choices, like "The bible sez it's ok to own slaves" -- (Why did the Souther Babtists split away?)
I don't get it! It seems as though I have already played this game. It is called Doom. Where you go to hell to battle all the demons and hellspawn in order to save humanity. I would imagine that the marine guy has a place in heaven after killing all of satans minions time and time again. And then there is Unreal with its Christian references in the Nali. I think if they really want to be revolutionary they should make a game where you get rocket launchers and various other weapons and attack abortion clinics and the like.
Funny, I didn't think a single independent thought until I became an atheist. :)
Darwin was atheish, married with believer though. Newton was a firm believer who spent last of his years studying book of revelations. No idea about McCormacks conviction.
I dunno about you guys but I'm taking path C, "The Fallen Path of Lust and Hedonism", especially if those blonde angels are cute and female. Do they have sisters? Hmm. Orgy at God's place, BYOB. Back to quake, I've got a rocket launcher and a room full of ungibbed corpses. Work undone...
...is that all the angels are white, blond haired, blue eyed males. Where are the African, Asian, Middle-Eastern, Indian or Latino angels (not to mention female)? The Bible is mostly about Middle-Eastern people anyway, so if anything, the stereotypical angel should look like them, don't you think?
-jimbo
ps This is based on the screen shots I saw on the site. If there are multiracial angels in the game, I apologize.
You should be more respectful. It is very hurtful to read such spiteful words. If you wish to pick a fight with my god, do it with him and not his people.
I don't have time to debate this all I want, but I want to poit out that in the UK the abolitionist movement was led by a great-awakening influenced William Wilberforce. Wibelforce was an example of a Christian that traslated his religion into positive social good. However, in the U.S. Christians were divided over the issue. Many demoniations split over the issue. The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest protastand demonation as of today) was orginized to protect the "positive good" of slavery. For support of this, see Paul's command for slaves to obey thier masters. On the other hand, northern christians "john Brown's Body", a hymn glorifing him. The issue of slavery divided many Christians and nonbelievers alike. It is too simplistic to say christians were all bad, of all good on that point. Academic research would solve most of the debate over this
"We Christians are NOT the Borg. We are individuals."
This statment contrdicts itself.
Considering there are many types of spiritual beliefs, it will be better to build a game based on different religions. For example, how above a game that control spiritual powers of Christianity/Catholicism/Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Witchcraft, Voodoo, Klignon, 'The Force', etc.? If they think games based on one religion is not controversial enough, imagine what will a game with ALL the religions of the world can do! Wait, isn't that call 'Dungeon & Dragons'?
Katz is not attacking Christians or religion in his article. He is pointing out the hypocrisy in promoting virtue with violence, and the double-standard involved in the specific game being discussed.
Players who choose to slay angels and such throughout the game are considered "evil" and lead a path to destruction whereas those choosing to slay demons are considered "good". Katz's point is that killing is still killing, and there should be no moral distinction between the slaying of a devil or the mutilation of a saint - both are either acceptable, or unacceptable.
Games such as Doom and Quake are frequently attacked for the violence they involve, and many moral groups condemn them as such. When games such as the "war in heaven" appear and try to market a moral distinction by justifying the violence involved, morality then makes fools of us all.
Will there be a god mode available in satan mode ?
(Sigh) 1. You were warned before you read this... 2. How are you supposed to pick a fight with something you don't believe in? (assuming the progenitor of this thread isn't christian).
Be suspicious of anybody who claims to confidently know how God does anything. How do you know what Gods intentions are? you have no idea what means God will choose to show his message. Maybe the game will cause some geek outthere to start asking questions about God? or Question the standpoint of fundies? or... well I could go on for quite some time with what if's, but you probably still wouldn't get the point. Besides you KNOW with confidence what God has planned.
You wern't expecting a kind of Spanish Inquesition
What does it require? That I love my fellow Christians and God.
What about loving non-Christians? How about universal love?
I AM a christian and I oppose ANY religious activities in public schools. Public schools have enough problems teaching are young, they do not need to be bogged down with religon. Thats my nickels worth
That I love my fellow Christians and God. SO you only love Christians? isn't that special.
Newton wrote a million words of commentary on the Book of Daniel. He was extremely religious. Ah... forget it... If you think Newton was an atheist, then far be it from to try and change your mind...
I don't have time to wade through all the anti-Katz comments that have been posted so far, so I'm going to assume that the trend continues throughout with a tired string of "Katz is wrong", "Katz doesn't know anything", comments.
Mr Katz, I enjoyed your article and found it both interesting and provoking.
Many people, unfortunately, don't take the time to carefully read things, and to think about what they are reading. They notice a few key words (names or terms that relate to them) and then feel themselves being personally attacked, especially when the overall topic is negative in nature.
Katz's article was about the hypocrisy in the use of violence in this "war in heaven" computer game. It was about the ages old suppression of technology by groups claiming a moral degradation, and how this computer game has turned this idea upside down in an effort to promote morality.
Indeed, a macabre Machiavellian morality seems to govern this game in which, it's not how you kill that's important, but what you kill. Double-standards all-round.
Slashdot readers need to learn to read critically. Until then, poor Katz is going to stay on the receiving end.
-Donny
I really wish agnostics/athiests/whatever would actually RESEARCH Christianity and the Bible before bashing it (just as I wish Christians would read Darwin's texts before bashing evolution)... The Gospel is the "good news" that Jesus brought to earth. I don't know how familiar you are with the Bible but the Gospel is in the New Testament. Deuteronomy was waaay back in the beginning of the Old Testament. God used to be pissy. He'd get mad at people and send floods to kill them and stuff. (Well it's far more complicated than that, but to paraphrase) however he realized that humans weren't learning and so he sent His Son to die for their sins and forgive them. This is the whole concept of the New Testament. Jesus died for everyones sin so God longer had to command people to "smite" other nations. Jesus told people of a new way to think...to forgive everyone as He does. Jesus told people God was changing, and that the Old Testament was now there for historical purposes of teaching about God, but not to be followed word for word. It should also be noted that it is well known that the King James version is horribly translated with many innaccuracies.
There is far more to it than that, and im sure both athiests and Christians can find holes in what i've said, but it's only a short lil comment...if you want me to explain more (or at least my knowledge of it) i would gladly do so..
"Jews follow the One True God (tm). They've had lots of fun throughout history killing in his name, and mostly enjoy not following his commands. Their spiritual leaders enjoy the bulk of the wealth." Where do you get your information? Jews have never committed genocide, christians did. Jews were the guys who were persecuted by christians and killed them. They were not wealthy! The christian church leaders were.
Didn't one of your state governers who is an ex-wrestler say organised religion is for the weak minded? I agree totally. Religion is rapidly losing its relevance in todays enlightened society. I have nothing against christians myself, but they do seem a bit hipocritical ie love thy neighbor and the crusades!
That's funny. That's EXACTLY how _you_ act when anyone tries to point the shortcomings in Linux.
SCHWING!!
If the so-called "Christian Right" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) actually had two neurons to rub together they'd realize what a great disservice they're doing to God by offending all the potential converts and promoting a message of intolerance.
Remember that the idiots in any group always speak the loudest and get the most press.
Toodles! :)
Off topic. Question for you devoted Christians. Why was Jesus of a Jewish religion and you arnt? I've always wondered about this myself, if he was so right, then why isnt most of america Jewish instead of Christians?
Don't get the sequel to "Deer Hunter's Revenge"! They made it politically correct - now, although a car turned the deer's date into road kill, all of the weapons are non-lethal.
Then why am I constantly asked by Christians to join them? I've never been asked by people of any other religion to join them... At least not with the freakish intensity that most Christians seem to have.
Jesus was a member of the Jewish church because he couldn't really be a Christian...i mean, think about it, a Christian follows Christ...so back then there were only 12 true Christians, the disciples that followed Jesus around back then. As for why Christians aren't Jewish now, well, the Jewish don't believe Christ was the Messiah. He was pretty radical after all, calling himself the Son of God and defying many of the teachings in the Old Testament (the New Testament obviously wasn't around then because the New Testament is based on Jesus essentially...) Hope that clears things up for you some.
...that he understands neither Christians nor Geeks.
I am a geek of longstanding, adminning UNIX systems since 1983. I have been a devout and commited Catholic since 1959. Get this through your self-important and sanctimonious idea filters: THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO!
The idea that religion is naturally anti-freedom is laghable on it's face. Every place that slavery has been outlawed, it has been due to Christians fighting, often at immense personal cost, to end it. The first laws recognizing freedom of religion were passed by the Catholics of Maryland in the 18th century.
Indeed, the very idea that you have a right to think whatever you want is a deeply Judeo-Christian concept. No Atheist government has ever recognised such a concept. Neither has any Pagan society. It is rooted in the Judeo-Christian idea that each and every person is made in the image and likeness of God himself, and has infinite worth thereby. The same reason that Christianity teaches that slavery is repugnant, racism is evil and abortion is abominable.
Nor is Christianity pacifistic. Read St. Augustine's "City of God" for more on that. I thought Doom was cool in that it gave a moral context for the rampage. Most games don't bother.
Danby
I think it's a very common misconception that morality can occur in a vacuum. It can't. Morality results from a culture that values morality.
We may not like a culture that "condemns" certain actions. But we certainly benefit from living in the moral society that results from that culture.
But he didn't say "fundamentalists". He didn't say "the religious right". He said "Christians".
I had a black man steal a check from my wife this weekend (seriously) and pass it at the food store buying chocolate and beer. Therefore, I think I will write an article about how "black men are drunken thieves" and post it to slashdot. I wonder what kind of reaction that would bring?
Urg.
From Romans 12:
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Satan will not be defeated by people shooting at an animated likeness of him on their computers with AK-47s.
The Greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength.
Second is to love your neighbor as yourself.
How does this game demonstrate love of God or other people? If not, how can it be labeled as Christian?
I recenly listened to an interesting speaker at one of our college's chapel services. Among other things, he made an interesting point about how many Christians seem like they're dead set on creating a Christian branded world that they can escape into. Their Christian world ends up being almost identical to the normal world, except that everything has a "Christian" label on it. They end up being "of the world, not in the world", although we are supposed to be "in the world, not of the world". Our objective should be to be an example of love and humility to those who aren't saved so that they're compelled to join us, not to isolate ourselves from the world, while constructing a world around ourselves that is just like the world we were trying to escape.
Random thought:
I like a lot of Christian music. We have something to sing about! But Christian music shouldn't just clone secular music with different words, it should take on its own form which corresponds to the joy we can have about the forgiveness that God offers us through Christ, and the sadness we also feel when we fall short of God's will. I think that some Christian music has surpassed the quality, beauty, and depth of emotion of any secular music I've ever heard. On the other hand, some of it sounds musically and theologically generic and boring.
-jim (http://cs.georgefox.edu/~jsnow, if you want to send me email, find the address on my web page)
uh, independent thought? ANY belever in dogma has in the end no real independent thought or if they seem to start having thoughts not of the hive. soon some dogma pusher, will fix that. most Christians are just but dogma junkyes. if you dont beleave me, ask one about the dangers of drugs or sex. most will repeat the same dogma over and over... it is a cold day in hell when independent or inovative thoughts come from such minds. ps those that dont think that drugs or sex arent dangerest but then clam they are christians must not get, what the bible is all about. ie reread the first chapter. what is mans sin?
Of course, this depends on your definition of "religious faith" and "freedom". I define "religious faith" as adherence to a belief system where one follows a predetermined doctrine. I also define "freedom" as the ability to decide for oneself what to do and how to think.
By requiring adherence to a doctrine, especially one which impresses moral or ritualistic requirements (read: 10 commandments, Sunday worship), one's ability to make one's own decisions is hindered.
I submit this for your consideration.
If we assume that man is free in choice (ie. to make up his own mind, as to what to do and how to think) to the extent that he is allowed by the accepted laws of nature (which is debatable), is he not equally free in his choice of what to do with his freedom?
And if he should see, in religious faith, some redeeming value, or some proof, acceptable to him, is it not within the bounds of his freedom to make the choice to accept that faith, predetermined doctrine, as you put it?
Has it made him any less free to choose for himself what he wishes to do with his freedom? I ask this, because I believe that even freedom is not an end in and of itself; and because the opposite conclusion is that as soon as we choose to use (interpret as 'limit' if you are so inclined) our freedom to some end, we are no longer free...
I am forced to reject this, simply on the basis of the fact that once having accepted even an organized religion, one can quite simply, change his mind if he is so inclined at some point in the future, thereby, if I follow your reasoning, reclaiming his freedom. The problem with said reasoning is that if his freedom consists of the freedom to choose and he is able at any point in time to choose, to change, then at which point had he lost his freedom, as you so boldly assert?
Buying into a doctrine because that is what you have been told to do is a definite denial of your own freedom.
Indeed, and a sad one at that. However, I think that you will find few in this day and age who do not question themselves, whether in their youth or later. And it is that questioning which is important, because the point of faith (not religion now), is seeking truth, as in a strange sense (that they fundamentally be so similar), is science.
However, to consider Sunday school and Sunday worship, by which I assume you mean attending a church service, indoctrination, I find rather amusing. The purpose of a parent doing that is to let a child experience the practice of its parent's faith, and the child is free to choose whether to accept or reject this (whether he is free to choose how to spend those hours is a different question, but children are equally bound to their parents will when we approach the question of school attendance.)
This is not to say that some, most parents expect their children to accept that faith based on their efforts, and find it a failing if and when they do not; but ideally, this is the point of the exercise: exposing you children to your faith, not forcing it upon them, so that they have had a chance to experience it and to decide for themselves whether they want to concern themselves with it.
Yet further, if we are honest, we all do pass our beliefs on to our progeny, whether they concern law, rights, or faith, and that much more strongly than we might think. And this is not wrong either, I suppose, for without the passing of foundation the structure of society disintegrates.
Where the line is drawn is the question, and I am not able to answer beyond this: the choice of faith (whether in anything, all, or nothing) is the child's and that choice cannot be forced upon him; If faith (or at least the foundation upon which it is built) is seeking, the seeker seeks, and it is not sought for him by others. He is influenced by all around him, and it is the parent's freedom to choose what influence they bring in, as much as it is the child's to reject it.
Shalom
(Comments? water_rat75@hotmail.com)
If you really think Christianity is neglected in mainstream culture....
Communities in the New England states have been forced by the courts to remove nativity scenes from public disply. Carollers(sp?) have been warned to go home or face charges. Children are not allowed to pray in school if they want to, not that schools are not allowed to conduct prayer.
Non-Christians don't make laws that restrict Christian freedom.
Ever listen to the atheist agenda in the U.S.? There's an aweful lot of folks who want the government to remove children from Christian homes. An aweful lot of people think Christians (or any religious person) shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are inherently irrational.
Try taking a humanities course in a modern Canadian university. Christians are blamed for everything from pollution, to misogyny, to murder to the Holocaust (Hitler was an occultist, he hated Christians, look it up), to global extinctions and the entire western mindset of conquest/male-power/rape/racism.
And I'm sick of non-Xians telling me I'm evil because I'm Xian! The last time I went to Church I left totallly bewildered. There was no mention of morality or personal accountability. Why? The Church had to change to attract modern people. I grew up with the ideas of basic respect for life and individuality and culture and freedom. But for some reason most people seem to think Xians have no regard for these concepts. That it's "worship as we do or we'll make you sorry." It's not like that. It's not like that at all. I fear for the extiction of a once rich and vital sub-culture in the North Americas due to the ignorance of bigots.
I see a lot of folks here Just Don't Get It.
I can see you just don't get it. Your personal attacks on Mr. Katz are inane and irrelevant to the discussion. However, since it is apparently okay, I have chosen to include some in my response to your bigoted replies.
Many stories are best analyzed by asking ourselves (for example) "who is the Christ figure?"
Might I point out that this method only applies to books written so that they include a "Christ figure"? And that these books do not comprise the majority of literature?
Using Biblical themes to tell a story is as old as the Bible itself. So why is it that as soon as the aliases are stripped off and the stories are presented "in the buff", so to speak, that legions of folks should suddenly become concerned that our popular culture is being overrun by "mind-controlling Christians?"
Then, we have Mr. Katz so up in arms over the violence in "The War In Heaven." I mean, come on! Hasn't he even cracked his bible and read the last chapter?
Second, it's rather silly that the non-fundamentalist Christians should worry about the infiltration of the Bible--given the fact that Biblical stories and references are so deeply ingrained into our culture.
You're missing the point entirely. Katz is not complaining about religious attempts to enter secular culture, rather, the article is about the hypocrisy of a group that condemned games of this violent nature, while exploiting it as a valuable tool with which to reach young gamers, thereby utilizing a medium that they themselves attack.
As far as what stories are in the Torah... well, I believe you have Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy available? Read 'em. The Old Testament is a Jewish text. Surprised? Let's try Jesus' wardrobe... What's that thing on his head? Or his shoulders? They're a yarmulkh and a tallis. Looks like those Jews have infiltrated your culture, eh? Look out, Big Brother Shlomo is watching you.
Religion isn't reliant on supernaturalism or superstition. It's a set of hierarchical values based on a single super-ordinatiing value. Very generally... for Xians that value should be God's love. For secular humanists it is self-determination and the dignity of the human individual. For Muslim's it is the existence of Allah. For fag-waving Americans it is the United States of America itself. For Don Cherry it is the NHL. Religion doesn't have to have God (or god, or goddess or anything above nature.) It's time for a new, workable populist notion of what religion is and is not.
FLAG-waving is what I meant to say but then again it could also work the way it was originally written. Thanks Freud, you dead, bigoted bugger.
> It's rated "T" by the Entertainment Software Rating Board -- suitable for those 13 and older. > Maybe they should add an "H" rating for holy. throw in an S and an I and you get what this game is! FUCK JESUS CHRIST FELLATER OF CHILDREN AND
jesus was a cunt
Christians get this bad rep specifically because in genneral (not all) Christians judge the world. Just ask yourself how many times you've been told/told others that you live in this world and not of this world. You've probably been told and brainwashed since you were a kid that the world is against christians. Or at least thats what I constantly find from my experiences with "Why does everyone get down on us" comments. I dunno, personnaly when someone honestly believes that they act/behave better then I and at the same time say they show humility because everyone is a sinner it just screams hippocrite.
Sorry i meant like the jewish religion...i was just typin quickly ;P
As for defying them...well thats not really what i meant either...like correcting them...eg:
"You have heard that it was said "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
When you think about it, here is some guy telling people He's God's Son, yet telling them to do the OPPOSITE of what the Old Testament tells them...that must have been pretty radical in its time...
no text
"nothing that used to make sense makes sense anymore", says JonKatz.. this is of course including his own articles.
being a Christian among people like you is harder than not being a Christian. So who is the weak minded then? Certainly not the Christians, who live with persecution from people like you on a daily basis. But it's ok, persecute me, you only make my reward greater. take my life, for i shall find it.
mock me, mock Christianity, your judgement will come. Just know this, Jesus loves you, and He gave his life for you.
usually phuzz and not AC.
I'm a hardcore Christian =]. I don't deny anything that you've said! In fact, the whole concept behind "Eye for eye" was equivalency...that is, no matter your social status, everyone would receive the same punishment. However us humans aren't too bright, and we twisted and contorted it to use as an excuse to exact personal revenge. I never meant to imply Jesus was denying God's word, maybe I just didn't take the time to fully explain myself. All that I was pointing out is that Jesus was a radical in his time. People thought eye for eye == revenge, and that was God's word, and here's the Son of God, telling them that they're wrong. I'm just sayin it was hard for some people to understand.
When it comes to religion, it seems to me that people are over-emotional and under-educated. Which I can understand, because I'm a devoted Christian myself =] However I see such ignorant arguments...both from people slamming religion without knowing anything about it, and people slamming evolution/other religions/etc. without knowing anything about them either. The thing that gets me as that despite all this ignorance people seem to think they know exactly how it is. But I digress...
I want to know why this is geek news in the first place? The only time slashdot usually runs an article on a game is if it's supported by/or ported to Linux (which this game is not). I agree it is an interesting concept, and worthy of news, but is it News for Nerds? Not only that, the review was obviously written from a biased angle...the whole article just screamed "religious debate" from the get go...
Haven't we had enough of these lately?
So why is it evil for an 18 year old to have beer? After all 18 is the legal age..
Now that we've established that religiousity and morality exist at right angles to each other...
Christians are simply morons.
>If He exists, He sent me here to worship and believe in him with no proof
>other than a big book, and televangelists
oh, and this well designed planet, and the vast and well designed universe and your body and mind, none of which could come about randomly, no matter how much people try to convince themselves of such.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
>Modern Christianity is messed up. Corruption has taken a large toll on it, and it is now
>very, very difficult to tell what all the preachers are talking about
what exactly is 'modern' Christianity anyway? Why would you listen to people that have added their own stuff to scripture over the years? Christianity is defined in the Bible, there is no need to have a fancy preacher on TV or in some castle tell you what it is. All you need is a bible to learn for yourself what it's all about, get one for free from a church or buy one for $10.. you might be surprised..
Again, right-wing Christians demonstrate that they cannot even bother to get the facts straight before shooting off: "An athiest woman hated that phrase so much, she sued the US, and now it is against the law for schools to initiate the Pledge." It had nothing to do with the pledge. It was PRAYER IN SCHOOL. The woman was Madelyn Murray O'Hair, and she went to court in, I believe 1964, to prevent her children from being forced to pray in school. I went to elementary school some 15 years after this occurred and I still recall very vividy reciting the pledge . . . "It is ironic that the child in question (the son of the athiest lady) is now a hardcore Christian. " Not ironic at all. He had the CHOICE of his religion. He didn't have it rammed down his throat with a thumping pole. I don't suppose you'd care to be forced to turn towards Mecca 7 times a day to pray. Or would you like to be forced to wear a beanie? Or proscribed against eating cows. FREEDOM of religion is the issue. You are free to practice your religion whenever you want. If you drop what you're doing to pray, no one's going to tell you to stop -- they may think you're a little weird. "how come it becomes more and more illegal every year to say a prayer over your lunch at school, or have a Bible Study group, or (this is the latest) exclude gays from the Boy Scouts (which they were doing on on RELIGIOUS moral grounds)?" Again, facts missing. I am not aware that the state has prohibited you from praying over your lunch at school. And you can have a Bible study group, IN YOUR OWN HOME whenever you want. And the Boy Scouts case was decided in favor of the Boy Scouts, as I recall, because they are not a publicly funded organization. Get it straight or don't bring it up. There is, in fact, no substance to your argument that the first amendment constitutes freedom to FORCE people to pray. Try reading those lines again. "No law respecting" religion. That means we shall not favor one religion above another with the power of the state. You can go and live in a religious dictatorship if you like. They have them in South America, and in the Middle East. They also have thousands of unmarked graves and continuous guerilla action. There, the definition of freedom is that you are perfectly free to do whatever the State tells you to. And, oh, by the way anything not prohibited is mandatory. Get OFF your high horse. Your religion has nothing to recommend it above another. You have no inherent right to shove it on me, or my children, thank you very much. Just because the majority believes it does not mean I have to.
>As for "the rise of democracy and the individual", these things were brought about by Christian ideals Wasnt democracy developed in Greece centruries before Xtianity? >Finally, the evidence that is most interestin to me are the prophecies relating to Jesus. There were 61 major prophecies, telling every detail from his family line to his birthplace to this betrail to the amount of money this betrayer was paid and what he did with it, to where Jesus was buried This is no evidence. Whoever wrote the Gospels might have just made it up to give the story more credibility.
Christianity is an intresting thing. Since its "creation" which would be considered to most the Birth of Christ, it has gone through so many divisions that its hard to define the religion. Now days we have the Pentacostals, The Catholics, the Baptists, and hundreds more. I am all for Christianity as it is displayed in the Bible, however, I am most dipleased with the Church as it is today. It seems that the Church no longer cares what the Bible says, its what the Pastor says. The Bible is the ultimate truth for the Christian faith, in my opinion, if you do not follow the path laid out in that Text, then you really aren't a true Christian. And about your coment reguarding Galileo, The Catholic church had problems ... lots of problems. I mean, just look at the Spanish Inquisition. Most aren't blatenet enough to say what I'm about to, The Catholic Church for a long time during the middle ages, up through the reformation, went so far away from their own religious text, so far from their own religion, I would dare to say they weren't Christians. Keep in mind, that the Church is controlling, but the religion is not.
Has anybody actually played this? It sounds
like a hoot no matter what religion you are!
I think he's trying to say that Christians (and other religous people) shouldn't be rich. I don't get this viewpoint. The point of the comment was (in my mind) that people who are greedy (not necessarily xtians) will make a bunch of ripoff games similiar to the whole deer hunter saga. Most of those games, to my knowledge, stunk. Now, if someone were to take the idea of this game and make it with a good story plot/graphics/sound/gameplay.. then great! But otherwise if it gets popular it might end up like deer hunter. -Morose --- Oops, forgot my password... so sue me :P
Of course not. With an attitude like that, why would God talk to you? If God did, you'd just dig yourself a deeper hole.
i'm sorry to hear that you chose to turned your back, and to walk in your own shadow. but God loved you enough to let you do that.
The truth is christianity shields you from the harsh realities of this world,
shields me yes, blinds me no. i don't know why anyone wouldn't want to be shielded from harsh realities.
-phuzz
Go to www.valusoft.com for online info and ordering.
Give me liberty or give me Hell.
GOD IS DEAD HAIL SATAN SATAN LIVES
'god' did nothing for me, and doesnt exist. what a stupid little fantasy you people have.
I know which side I'd play. God mode as a demon - that I could live with :-D
As someone who isn't Christian, it worries me that more Christians don't point out how whacked the radical right is.
(BTW, I am a Republican. And yes, I'm angry.)
I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with the true meaning of Christianity. Pull out your Bible, blow off the dust and read it. This game may be under the 'guise' of Christianity, but I don't see how this is any more christian than Doom or Quake is evil. -Christopher Fury
That is a contradiction. Perhaps they are capable of independant though, but Christian religion itself discourages independant thought. Christianity tells one what to think, what to do, even what to love.
A lot of these posts seem to be from Christians complaining of being lumped together with the _really_ far right extremists, when in fact most Christians are normal, sane, kind people.
Well, you have to realize that it's all because of the label. You call yourself a Christian, and I'm sure you're say you're proud to be a Christian. At the same time, let's call them the "extremists", call themselves Christians too. They're louder than you, so they get all the credit for being "Christian," and before you know it you're getting associated with them.
Well it may not be right, but what the hell did you expect? You can't on the one hand complain about being associated with these "extremists", pointing and saying "Hey! We're Christians, but we're not *THOSE* Christians!", and on the other hand when people ask "Well why don't you decry the extremists with the rest of us", say you're 'too mellow', or 'normal' or that you 'live and let live'.
No, it isn't fair that you're being associated with these extremists when you aren't the same people as the ones who want to shut down the internet and ban South Park. But, if you aren't being politically active and vocal in trying to re-shape the Christian message as one of tolerance, you have to expect the kind of response Katz gives. And I don't mean by bashing Katz reactively when he bashes Christians. I mean by reacting to and disagreeing with those Christians whom you don't want to be associated with.
Bottom line: If you don't want to take flak for being Christians on account of the "extremists," you're going to have to show the "extremists" what Christianity is all about. Because the rest of the us can't see you at all when you sit back and "live and let live."
P.S. Most intelligent geeks, (Katz not included, you decide whether it's because of intelligent or geek), have enough sense to distinguish looneys from sane, normal Christians. So don't worry about Katz too much. =)
Will it run on Jesux??
Face it.. kids will believe ANYTHING that is taught to them when they are growing up.. its human nature, kids are products of their enviornment. And the reason christians are so damn defensive when you challenge their views is simple, its not a good feeling to have someone tell you that you have been living a LIE your entire life..try arguing with a christian, if you bring up an example of how the bible is full of shit they just immediately shut their mind off.. they wont listen at all then they claim that you are 'possessed by the devil' and whatnot.. There is no inherent feature of this universe that says life must be fair.. or just or even have a purpose. No one wants to believe that we are just an advanced species and not some divine creation of god or whatever.. everything is perception.. people want to believe so bad that they can delude themselves into thinking its real.. Try discussing evolution with a christian, its quite funny. There is a story in the bible that tries to explain the creation of different colored people, the bible claims that god got mad at humans for trying to build a tower so he struck them down and changed their skin color/language and they all went their seperate ways.. how convient that the black people decided to go to Africa..where dark skin would be a natural adaption to resist skin cancer.. Just like ancient romans used to believe that lighting was a sign that the gods were angry.. well now we know thats bullshit.. just like all the stories in the bible are nothing but fucking fairy tales to explain what ignorant people cant understand. Christianity is nothing but hypocrasy(sp?), take the Crusaeds for example.. "Thouse shall not kill.. what? you dont believe me? *sound of christian hacking natives to death with sword*" I'm not saying that the bible doesnt have a lot of good morals to live by.. the world would probably be a better place if people did live by it, but you must face the fact that its just bullshit, like all other religions. When you get right down to it, we are nothing but patterns of energy, "order from chaos"..
Hey, Jeffry Dalhmer was perescuted for being a psychpathic serial killer.. he was fucking crazy, that didnt make him right just by being persecuted. And for your information I know what being a chrstian is like, i used to be one and I behaved exactly like you. The truth is christianity shields you from the harsh realities of this world, come out of your dilusional little hole and look around you..
First of all I want to point out that Katz actually said "post-Columbine era". In my opinion, that statement alone ruins his credibility.
But back to my main point: how is this any different than any other "shoot-em-up" game? Does changing the subject matter from shooting aliens (a la Half-life, for example) to shooting demons in this game really have any effect on the "worth" of this game. I thought that the graphic depiction of violence was what people had problems with- not whom the violence was directed against. As far as I'm concerned this game is merely another Quake clone with with an Angel-Devil MOD file tacked on there- and Katz has not given me reason to think otherwise.
Perhaps games like "The War In Heaven" suggest some looming confrontation, an Armageddon-like battle out there in the digital ether for the collective souls of geeks. It's one battle geeks are well prepared to fight. They'll grab their joysticks, deploy their amassed arsenals and rush out to meet the Millenial Crusaders. Geeks have been trained for this thier whole lives; the forces of righteousness will surely be blasted to bits.
This paragraph is close to pure drivel. What is he saying here? That Geeks are on the side opposed to the "forces of righteousness"? That if you play as the Demons rather than as the Angels you are a bad peson? I certainly hope that Katz' morality is not so undeveloped.
If the authors truly believe that they are being called by God to make this game, then I applaud them and wish them well. Unfortunately, I think that this game is an attempt to capitalize on the lack of "cool" religious games out there (and, no, those board games that you see Flanders' children play are not cool :)
The only controversy that I see this game raising is a possible stink with some brands of christianity who may find it sacreligious. Don't expect much though, most of them have more important things to deal with- poverty, and injustice and minor things like that.
2^5
Katz almost made that point. He got really close. I could see it there in between the lines. But he didn't quite make it. In truth, I couldn't figure out what point he had made!
Questions raised about Christianity are going to be met defensively almost by definition. Take Apple supporters for example :)
Seriously though, Katz did make serveral near-attacks on Christianity. "self-proclaimed forces of morality" for example. And why did he make a special point of saying that Charlton Heston is the president of the NRA? Sure, he is a christian. Hell, alot of people in jail are christians. But they certainly don't represent me.
2^5
If you don't proclaim yourself moral, who else will do it for you?
Why, the arbiters of morality in the media, like Jon Katz, for instance.
(Jon: you need to relax, seriously.)
I'd rather have my children work on their Latin or a Perl script than play a video game, but if they're going to play a game, I'd rather it be one where they have the choice to play as an angel than one where they are limited to playing as some entity who can kill, maim and destroy without reason or consequence.
Old fashioned? Maybe, but aren't we supposed to teach our children that their actions have consequences and that we should strive to be "the good guys" in this life?
Our opinions of the software developers' evangelical bent (I only mention it because Mr. Katz seem to have a problem with it) aside, we should be happy that someone is trying to offer a choice. Isn't that what the OSS community is supposed to be about--choice?
slashdot broke my sig
There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
I'm going to disagree with you here on this one...
Of course, this depends on your definition of "religious faith" and "freedom". I define "religious faith" as adherence to a belief system where one follows a predetermined doctrine. I also define "freedom" as the ability to decide for oneself what to do and how to think.
By requiring adherence to a doctrine, especially one which impresses moral or ritualistic requirements (read: 10 commandments, Sunday worship), one's ability to make one's own decisions is hindered. This is especially true of religions which include:
Coincidentally, I personally find that last point of indoctrinating one's children to be particularly repugnant. This is an extreme deprivation of free will. Regardless of the intentions of the parents, this is equivalent to rape of the mind.
Faith, on the other hand, is just fine. If you come to your own conclusions about what is morally "right" or "wrong", and how to conduct yourselfs day to day, then that is a defninte exercise of freedom. Buying into a doctrine because that is what you have been told to do is a definite denial of your own freedom.
Standard disclaimer: this is all my opinion, which I am entitled to. Your opintions may differ. That is also your perogative. Deal with it.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Yeah, preach it brothers!
:-) But we do have a weapon that's even better than that - PRAYER. THAT is the key to blasting demons beyond recognition!
While Ephesians 6 clearly states that our ENEMY is Satan and his demons, and that we have a REAL, DANGEROUS war with them, I also see no good whatsoever in animating that war on a computer screen.
Now, if I really could go running around with some kind of "heavenly armor" and zap demons around me, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Would be kinda fun.
As for Christian rock, there's quite a bit to like. My favorite rock song is Petra's "Enter In". It has an uncompromising message about our ability to go freely to God's very throne with any kind of request, and the music is as good as any rock song gets (IMHO).
I don't really understand the point of this article. Jon seems to want to get the message across that media doesn't trigger violence. Granted. Whether it dulls the emotional reaction to violence is, I think, an open question, but that's another discussion.
Basing this article on a "Christian" action game is pointless at best and inflammatory at worst. Jon makes the mistake (as many others do) of assuming that the extreme right-wing speaks for all of Christianity when he writes,
Someone forgot to tell me, apparently. Christianity is not about repression and persecution and neither are Islam or Judaism. It's amazing that anyone can hold this view anymore. As our parish pastor once said, there's a difference between religion and faith, and sometimes religion gets in the way of faith.
Now this is simply absurd. Anyone who thinks watching The Simpsons or South Park condemns one to the depths of hell has the wrong priorities. I personally don't care for South Park, but I can appreciate the humor.
All IMHO, as always.
--
Hitler persecuted the Jewish religion, not just people of Semitic descent. Sure, most Jews are of a particular race of the Semitic family (to which, ironically, Arabs also belong), but there are also black Jews, arab Jews, asian Jews, and assorted other converts. Hitler was not particularly nice to those Jews either. Despite their not being from a "bad" race, they still belonged to the religion Hitler was persecuting.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, based on this description, it sounds like if you choose to be on the good side, you get to kill, maim, and destroy without much reason other than 'the things you're shooting are bad things (demons, etc)'. As I look back at the leading first-person-shooter games, we had:
By my count, there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference (they are all baddies, and some of them are evil demons too), except for the "God told you to do this, so it's good" element. All those others assume you've joined the battle because you believe in it, for some unexplained reason (patriotism, perhaps).
And, I guess there would be a big winning ceremony at the end, when you've finished all the levels and get the final promotion to be God's hit man and sit at his right hand. (Personally, I'll take Duke Nukem's ending, where he gets the babe.)
It actually occurs to me tha the designers might not want to make the levels too hard, so that people don't get frustrated trying to 'win' and give up.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
If you consider yourself a journalist, then you're a bad one, because you've shown me no evidence of their hipocracy in making this game.
On the contrary, there have been a lot of messages here explicitly stating what the contradictions are, for those folks who were unable to sort it out themselves. (For some reason, fundamentalist christians seem to lack critical reading skills.)
This appears to me to be nothing more then an attack on organized religion. Criticism is not the same as an attack. I wish you folks would figure that out.
These people have absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, so why pick a beef with them?
They most certainly DO have an effect. Just look at public policies being pushed by the religious right, turning up in Kansas and Kentucky. That has effects all over, including making the United States the laughing stock of the educated world.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
No wonder the Romans moved in and sat on them. They were being very anti-social.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Except, maybe, its creator?
I look at this and think "strawman"...
Deism is about as close as you can get to atheism without actually being an athiest. And its about as far away from being religious as you could safely admit to being in that day and age. And you failed to mention just *whom* those deists were. Jefferson, Madison, Adams. Not just a few on the fringe, they were the really important important few.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Before anyone jumps on me, I made a mistake up above. Substitute Ben Franklin for John Adams in the list I gave.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm an atheist or an agnostic, depending upon exactly which of the many contested definitions of those words you are going by. (The difference is not relevant here.)
I dispise religion (by which I mean organizational worship in prepared ceremony, not internalized spiritual faith). I admire the US 'Founding Fathers' because they were willing to publically admit that they put secular concerns over religious ones when it comes to governing. (And I despise the way the 'Religious Right' trys to warp this fact in their version of history.)
I am confused as to how people in this day and age can still believe in Christianity, given all the parts of the Bible that have had to have their status watered down from being pure canon to being simply metaphporical fable. (Noah's Ark, the creation story (which even if you use that streched out 'god day' dodge, still puts things in the wrong order), etc.)
But, even with all that, I still say, "Katz, are you insane?!?" Christianity is *huge* (in membership size). There are vastly different people with vastly different opinions on right and wrong that all call themselves by the name "Christian". Just because some of them came up with this silly game doesn't mean they all agree with what it 'preaches' (assuming, of course, that it was meant to preach anything at all).
Christianity is the majority religion in 'Western Culture'. This means that it will have a *lot* of adherents who don't really adhere very strongly. Whenever something is a full-blown socially accepted religion rather than a smaller 'cult', it tends to attract more 'lay' members than 'true believers'. Witness: the fact that if you look hard enough you can find a Christian denomonation that preaches whatever moral philosphy you like.
The fact that it is so fractured like that means it is totally unfair to treat it like a homogeneous mass. To assume that Christian claimants have to hold the same opinions as each other on all issues is bigotry, plain and simple.
I have had several deeply religious Christain friends whom I would have never guessed were that religious until they metioned it. They didn't run screaming when I mentioned being an atheist either. The screaming lunatics promising to save our souls on TV and radio are the minority. Most Christains are more mild mannered and tolerant than that. (Although this is a recent 20th century phenomenon. In the past, Christians have been very brutal and bigoted toward 'heathens'.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
What?!? Did you really just say that?
Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Pentecostals, Mormons, Coptics, Presbyterians and Anglicans are pretty homogenous?
Apart from the common belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior, I see quite a bit of heterogeny.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Are there that many people on /. who care about Windows games, or is this just a chance for Jon Katz to wear his "I am an anti-Christian bigot" hat?
TedC
Then we come to the question of who wrote the Bible, and how do we know it's true or that it hasn't been altered? Because a bunch of people have handed it down for generations? Geez. That seems rather silly to me. We don't believe a lot of other things that they believed back then. We've since found them to be false. But the Bible is something that we can't prove to be false simply because it's based on faith in the first place. So I guess it will be around for a long time to come.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Where I have problems is in "scientific" endeavors such as SETI. Basicly, people who say that there is no scientific evidence for a God who will use vast resources to listen for Extra Terrestrial intelligence, when there is no scientific evidence for it. To me, that takes a great amount of (scientificly) non-rational faith. Just like belief in any diety. (Of course, most religions' gods could be described as extra-terrestrial ultra-intelligence...)
Sure, there's no evidence of intelligent life. But since we've so far only had first-hand (or nearly so) access to our own ball of rock and a couple others that are relatively close by, we certainly can't say that we have truly investigated a significant portion of our universe. Given the number of stars and potential planets out there, it seems, statistically anyway, certain that intelligent life exists somewhere out there. To assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe seems like it would be the true irrational act.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wrong. The Bible has lots of historical evidence included in it that can be verified. Many names of cities where things happened are given, various political figures are mentioned (like Roman leaders) to give historical references to an event. Geneologies of various people are given that can also be verified.
So? Plenty of fiction includes these kinds of references as well. Think about it. Why would you make up a bunch of places if you wanted people to believe the book was true?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
God does not exist
Nobody can really claim that God does or does not exist. There is simply no way to verify either claim. That's why religion is based on faith while science is based on what we believe to be true after ruling out that which doesn't work.
If it isn't proven by science, it can't exist
Science doesn't prove things. It only disproves them. That's why there are scientific "theories." They stand until they are disproven.
It is impossible to accept religion unless you are brainwashed
It's more like, "Don't believe everything you're told. Especially if it's by a guy on tv asking for money." Ok, that was a cheap shot, but really, taking things on faith with no evidence whatsoever does seem kind of silly. Why would you do that? For some people, it seems to fill some emptiness in them. Others don't seem to have that need. Of course most religious people would pity those people and claim that they are lost.
religion is a corruptive force
Despite the mountain of evidence in favor of this statement, I'll admit that it doesn't corrupt all people. But few things affect everyone the same way.
Unless organized religion is abolished, it will shortly cause WWIII
I think most people would recognize the futility of abolishing religion. It simply can't be done, and I see no reason why it should be abolished. Let people believe what they want. As long as they don't try to punish me for my sexual preference, my sexual habits, my (lack of) religious beliefs, or any other thing that is none of their business, I don't have a problem with it. Religion should be kept in check enough that religious leaders don't get the kind of power that let's them start another inquisition or round of witch hunts, let alone starting the Crusades all over again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have long held the belief (even during my days as an agnostic) that all human beings have a powerful desire to believe in something unprovable.
While I see what you're getting at, and I agree with you for the most part (I said something similar in another post about this article), I think grouping belief in extraterrestrial life with belief in God(s) is incorrect. I'm not a UFO watcher or an amateur astronomer or any such thing. I just believe that given that incredibly vast number of star systems out there, that it's very probable that life, and more to the point, intelligent life, exists someplace other than on our own planet. Now, this is not as farfetched as you seem to think it is. I do not pretend that they do exist, or that there is a conspiracy to hide that fact from us. I simply think it's a good idea to try to find out.
It's not the same as looking for proof of God. If there is life out there somewhere, it's a physical thing that can be verified. It's not an inner thing or a spiritual thing, we're talking about little green men that you can see with your own eyes. We thought for years that black holes existed. We couldn't prove it though. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that we shouldn't bother to look for them. We've just recently been able to gather more significant evidence in an effort to prove their existance. It's the same idea when we're looking for other life.
Maybe we get lucky and find something. Maybe it takes centuries. Maybe we never find it. Maybe all life on our planet perishes just as life comes into being on another planet somewhere. There's only one way to find out and that is to look for it. Since it isn't something that has any real influence on my life, I don't think it really compares with religion.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Oh dang, I'm not supposed to continue this thread. I guess some people consider Godwin's law to be hypocritical censorship. Hitler would agree with Godwin's view of censorship, just not on the content to be censored.... Dang! I mentioned Hitler again!
Its my oppinion (and Katz's article kind of supports this, Godwin's law really supports this, and the seemingly relentless struggle to remove God "now that we have technology") that no one is more closed minded and opinionated as an open minded modern free thinker.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I suppose that religion in general seeks for such justification from God. One who worships him as the founder of this universe and an authority on the laws and principles that when followed make our lives happier now, and after we die would certainly welcome such approval.
Much like Linus adding your code to the kernel, or being promoted by your company, someone with authority has liked your work and endorsed it. Just like Linus and most good bosses do, they are always trying to say what they like to help one understand how to do that.
I guess this is where the "Is it freedom" question comes in. Is it freedom if they told you to do it or they wanted you to do it? Is it freedom if they say one way is good or one way is bad?
The answer is definately yes. One always has the choice to follow or not to follow. However, one doens't really have the authority to proclaim there own choices as good or bad. That authority has to be given either by people agreeing with them (from man if you will) or by the natural laws of the universe (God). These aren't mutualy exclusive but do diverge into seperate entities in some cases....
Now if there is no God, then well there is no such authority right? Then there is no right or wrong except as we proclaim it. If that is true then Katz is right in his article. If it isn't then he is simply wrong on many points.
I guess that is why so many people stress (including George Lucas) that there is no more important question to find the answer for than "Is there a God?"
People can debate it but does that really answer the question? If we all decide there is no God does that mean there is no God?
After that question is answered, I guess the next question is what is God's nature and charectaristics. Then we can decide whether or not to follow God.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Newton was an avid believer, he was proud that he died a celibate even. Same with the rest, except maybe Darwin but I've never seen where he says "There is no God." I think natural selection was his view of God. Maybe that is like Pasteur who discredited the age old proof of creation (i.e. that bacteria spontaneously form in a flask) but still believed in God.
I see the same arguments in the "liberal" sciences. Mozart was a sex fiend, Shakespeare was gay, and on and on. As it turns out Mozart (from letters we have) had a pronounced love of God, and Shakespeare also (and if the arguments about him being gay are to be believed than any poet of that time must have been gay.)
Scriabin (who I never really liked his music anyway) was self professed as trying to start his own religion. Meanwhile Stravinsky (or maybe Straus I can't remember which) became more famous. And he beleived so much in the need for God's inspiration that he proclaimed that "no good work will ever come of an atheist."
But in the end its all lore. One can't say that science conflicts with religion therefore the good scientists are not religious. One can't rewrite history like that. But you can find out for youreself. Its called independant research, and I strongly recomend it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
What is "that freedom argument"? I liked the rest its a really good oration on the way the world works and is viewed if you beleive the assumption that there is no divine authority.
:)
I'm not picking, or shoving anything down anyones throaght. I'm just sticking with George Lucas and others who believe ultimately there is no more important question to answer definitavely than is there a God or not. Because if there isn't then your absolutely right. If there is, then you are most likely just mostly right becuase your lesson immediately removes God as a possibility.
And another thing, I don't believe that a person can only hurt themself. No one can really stop someone from hurting themself they can only make it more difficult to do. I'm not arguing that. But I've been around this world enough to know that no one hurts just themself. I know this.
In fact I want to figure out what this word "moral" really means becuase I don't think right wing fanatics who weild it like a weapon know what it means, nor the people that make strawmen moral right dummies and cut them down. I don't know exactly what moral means, I just know that every action has moral as well as social concequences (they hate you and beat you up is a social concequence). And its becuase of this moral fiber (I have no better word for it, so I borrow from poetic liscence) that connects human beings and bonds them together that causes us to hurt when we see others in pain or hurting themselves. No man is an island.
I know people and have been before in instances where the felt no bond with anyone, I've been there too and honestly that even hurt. Like cared if I was happy or even would rather see me suffer, that hurt. Now I feel it for others I see in the same position. I strongly think we all go through that dispair sooner or later, and more than once in a lifetime.
My belief in God comes strongly from an influence that I feel, that lets me know I am connected. It heals, enables and enriches my life. I enjoy that in my life. I don't feel a desperate clinginess to it like some presume a love of God is. I only feel happy its there, and very confident in it. An appreciation really.
I guess I'm getting more personal than I should on such a public flaming forum. People flame what they disagree with, and plenty disagree with the notion that God exists, or whether or not someone can really know that for themself. I suppose its their right. Who knows I bet I misspelled a lot and my grammer is horrible too.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
That topic was not meant to be inflamatory.
^ ~
It was from another thought that I didn't carry into the post. Sorry.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
I like your writing. I agree with it too.
~ ~^~~^~
But as far as your question, How can I base so much of my life on something I have no empirical evidence exists?
The answer isn't very easy but it is simple. I think there is what feels like a lack of empirical evidence becuase it is evidence that is very difficult to describe and define (empirical means quantifiable or qualifiable essentialy to me).
Lucky the human experience is made up of plenty of these things so we should be quite use to them. For instance if someone never tasted salt how would you describe it to them? It has a definition that is so equaly understood that the name is just a word we tack on to an otherwise undescribable emperical event. Ever hear about a roller coaster ride or wilderness adventure and just get sick at the description of it while the person is getting more and more excited to tell it?
I liked how the Movie Contact approached it. The leading man was asked simularly how he knew there was a God. He responded by asking back she (the leading lady) knew her Dad loved her (which was obvious to the story). I think there are eloquant ways of describing such an event as fatherly love, a true romantic love or a baby birth, but without experiencing it oneself we're just left to ponder if they aren't just a little demented.
Ever notice how when you break up, or really feel in love with someone that all of a sudden songs on the radio make sence? Its really just drivle, but it happens to make sence when we are feeling something simular.
Now I'm saying for me my knowledge or faith in God is built on experiences that happen along a simular and difficult to describe medium. This is contrary to what people think faith is, its my experience that faith is the same as imagionation to some people, and stubborness to see the facts by others.
For me it is the *assurance* (assurance and evidence must come externaly no matter how it is interpreted) of things hoped for which are true. Not just quirky motivation to hope one is right, not what we want to be true but it has to be based on truth or it doesn't work. If you believe in something that isnt' true, no matter how stubborn you are you will eventually see it and if you choose to be more stubborn about it you aren't seeing reality well enough to really use faith in my opinion.
Its through this medium that I definately feel the presence or influence of someone who I can't describe how but I know actualy is working with me helping me be a better person. I "listen" to it and it turns out to be right and the enrichment it brings isn't neccisarily that some galactic gift giver is selfishly pleased that I chose to follow. Its more that I was let in on a way to enjoy life more, like taking a hint on a hot stock from a friend and they were right. This influence let me in on secrets that are simply laws already in place in the universe (therefore not secret at all) but I am very impressed and feel unlikely that I would have learned them on my own. In this way following leads to me getting what I want just like following directions a friend gave me leads me to his house. That to me is almost a scientific method.
Its really to real to ignore, but to difficult to compress into cold words to talk about much. But its there. And I know my life is better for it and for that I can only feel appreciative (I don't even feel lucky or "chosen" if that makes sence, just thankful.)
Anyway I guess I've tried about as well as I can to answer. These experiences are available to all so hopefuly the world won't have to rely on my words (or lack there of) I've seen it enter in to and enrich many peoples' lives and know from watching them and my own personal experience that it is the most important question to definitevely answer "is there a God," and then "what is God like."
Feel free to email me, I enjoy answering questions, and my signature says how far I take my own opinion....
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
From context, I understand you to be lumping all the parenthesized items together under the category of agents of evil, and ascribing that view to those who believe in spiritual warfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. All the things you mentioned are media, and the message is what has an influence (whether for good or evil) on people. It may not have been your intention to portray anyone who believes that spiritual warfare is a real phenomenon as an ignorant bigot who believes that technology is bad, but that's how it came out.
But without question, many geeks are already on the wrong path, loving stuff like "South Park" and "The Simpsons" as they do, Satan's productions all.
I don't know about South Park, since I've never watched it nor talked to others about it. But here at Wheaton College, one of the more famous Christian colleges in the U.S., you can go to the T.V. room of any dorm at 6:00 P.M. and more than likely you'll find a large crowd watching "The Simpsons". Wrong again.
Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
And here you reveal your own pro-technology prejudices. Technology is good, so anyone who thinks it isn't must be ignorant. I realize I'm grossly exaggerating your position, but I'm doing so to try to make a point. I'm trying to make you think about your own prejudices and whether or not they're always correct. Try to realize that technology is a tool that can be used for both good and evil. From the splitting of the atom came both a clean source of power (leaving aside the discussion on nuclear accidents, which can usually be prevented by following appropriate safety precautions) and the most destructive weapon ever invented. Technology is a two-edged sword and should be handled carefully, not blindly accepted.
Finally, Jon, I'd like to object to the general characterization of Christians as ignorant and/or bigoted. There are ignorant bigots in every group you care to choose, whether it be Christians, feminists, Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, veterans, anti-war activists, environmentalists, you name it. But I know a lot of really wise people, whom I deeply respect, who are Christians. They've examined many different philosophies and religions and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is correct and true. Surely you know some, too. Why don't you go ask them, "You know, ________, you seem like a pretty intelligent person. You're not the kind to blindly accept what others tell you. So how come you're a Christian?" If you come across as genuinely asking, not just trying to mock them, they'll be thrilled to sit down with you and explain.
I guess what I'm saying is that you're in danger of confusing the messenger with the message. Keep that distinction firmly in mind.
By the way: what I said above about asking a Christian you know "So why exactly do you believe what you believe?": I mean it. Do. It's always good to understand the other person's position. You know, even though I wouldn't exactly consider myself the wisest person in the world, and I know I still have a lot to learn, I do have my reasons for believing in Christianity. If anyone is interested in engaging in a discussion, E-mail me or reply to this. (I suggest E-mail, because it's not exactly on topic for Slashdot.) My E-mail address is not munged in any way.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
I don't care if people are pro, anti or purple. As far as I'm concerned, I don't fund hype-masters. Their bank balance is their problem, not mine.
I'm not against games with religious aspects. I have a great time with the Populous series, and Omega (an excellent Nethack variant) is hardly agnostic. Nor am I anti-religion - sometimes faith is a powerful tool. But like any tool, it's meant to be used safely, not lodged in someone else's skull. Nor am I into censorship - what you read, write or do is your business. But I cannot see any good coming from a game that is inflamatory, especially when we're reaching a point in time when religion is likely to be on the explosive side. You're entitled to toss lit matches into barrels of gunpowder, just don't blame the gunpowder if things get noisy.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As far as Christianity is concerned, no Christian has any business defining who they, OR ANYONE ELSE is. No-one died and made them God.
ObOnTopicNote: Games like this really bother me. Not because of the gore, or the violence, or the utterly pathetic rating, but because it's so very clearly designed to cash in on religious intolerence, media hype, and doomsday fervour.
What do you bet that the designers'll hardly have to pay a cent to publicise the game? Why should they? The press and the pulpits'll do all that for them, for FREE! The designers might even get paid for some of it!
The media "backlash" will boost this game up the charts faster than a V2 rocket with go-faster stripes, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that the designers & publishers are banking on that. The righteous indignation of others'll make them a fortune. If it treads on people's feelings, who gives a damn! They'll be rich, and by the time anyone realises they've been taken for a ride, probably long-gone.
This game isn't about promoting anything, or teaching anything, except how gullible the entire planet is to a bunch of very skillful manipulators and PR wizards. You want to make someone else rich, directly or indirectly, go ahead and spew your anger or pay your hard-earned cash. I'll stick to games that don't need to spark off a flash-point to be any good.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't believe any of the designers "view" the game as being based on the truth. I =DO= believe that they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
That's not to say that I don't respect other people's beliefs. People's beliefs are very important, and deserve to be respected. It's just that I think it's more likely the designer's beliefs are based more around green pieces of paper than the hereafter.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Probably because the ones who aren't 'wacked-out' are open-minded enough to live and let live..
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
And what if someone came into an Athiests Anonymous meeting (or whatever) and stated that God created man?
As Yoda said..No Different! Only different in your mind! You must unlearn what you have learned!
Daniel
(ech, I think it's too late at night for this)
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I will if you like. No guarantees of course, but I'm cheap.
I don't own a gun, I do own a computer and use it daily, I like RTS games, I love the Internet, I work in a tech position, I'm studying for my A+ cert... And I'm a firm believer in the Man from Nazareth. I don't see any conflict there. :) I'm not an "establishment" Christian, though. My faith was as much shaped by Godspell and Cotton Patch Gospel as it was by Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and my Catholic (::gasp:: ;>) elementary school. I accept not everyone is going to agree with me - not even my husband does. He grew up Nazarene, who seem to be fond of "thou shalt nots": no dancing, no movies, etc. Though I agree with other things the talk about. :) But it's not cause enough to beat someone's head in over it. I'd rather debate it, and maybe both of us come away being more open minded for it.
On-topic: this game seems to me (without having played it yet) rather cheesy, and the Christian basis on the thin side. Nowhere does it say you can become either angel or demon. That makes me a little uncomfortable - either do it right, or don't bother.
Re: The Apocrypha. Sometimes called the Intertestament Books. Not everyone leaves them out - the Catholics don't, neither do the Orthodox. The ones that do (who have thought about it, and not just taken as law whatever their preacher says) do so not because there's anything wrong with them, but because there isn't enough historical evidence to back them up (only in a few of the oldest manuscripts, instead of most of them), or that don't have much spiritual conent (1,2 (3,4) Maccabees. Good history, mind you, but that's about it.)
Re: the person who wanted to know how Christians reconcile the two Testaments. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets(the Old Testament); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." That's from the New Testament. (MT 13:17)
Yep, in this game they can kill, maim and destroy without reason or consequence, as an angel. Playing an angel makes all the difference in the world, it really does.
It looks like they got a customer. Good for them.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
If you follow the path of evil, I mean. From a traditional Christian perspective, I thought the hordes of hell would not be able to defeat even a single angel. How then, if you follow "the way that leads to destruction" can you have anything remotely like a game? Can a demon kill an angel in this game? And if you play as an angel, how can you be hurt? Or is this a variation the vaguely D&D books that were once popular in evangelical christianity which had angels winning only through the prayer power of the saints. I remember the demon/angel combat in those books even sounded like D&D, even the descriptions of the demons twisted lizard like appearance and sulferous breath. :) And of course, they all fought with swords, with hit success depending on those prayers again (dice, anyone?) Heh. Glad I dropped all that nonsense long ago. Still, it'll be amusing to see if one can make a challenging game out of the unbalanced zoroastrian cosmology of modern christianity.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
I've visited the "War in Heaven" website, more out of curiousity than anything else. Apparently the game's author wrote this game more out of a desire to promote his own theological theories than anything else.
Most Christians I know don't believe in this "War in Heaven" (heresy), and disdain the hyper-athletic (muscular?) Christianity from which it comes.
Is the War in Heaven purely limited to the spiritual realm? There are those who believe that eventually, such a war will be fought on Earth. Unfortunatly for the rest of, a battle between pure good and pure evil (or, most likely, two or three warring factions who believe themselves to be "good" and their enemies to be "evil") will quite possibly lead to atrocities.
Quite possibly, this why most christian sects have dicarded the "war in heaven" concept.
As for your comments on Gangis (sic) Kahn (sic), Napolean (sic), and Hitler:
Christianity has nothing to do with concepts of personal freedom. There are sects that correspond to an individual's desire for freedom, and sects that cater to individual's desire for conformity.
I really don't know much about the Great Khanate, so I cannot comment on whether Genghis's conquest was motivated by theology.
As for Hitler:
The Judenfragen was well established in the Germany's political literature. Certainly Hitler was not the only anti-semite in Germany, nor was he the first. In large part, anti-semitic tendencies within the German staes was motivated by religion. Both Martin Luther and the Catholic Church preached that the Jews, (and presumably, not the Romans) were responsible for Jesus's death. Thus the Jugenfragen- lit. "Jewish Question," which was based of the supposition tht Jews were not Germans (and vice versa).
Two: Hitler was motivated by the concept of the "Ubermensch," or Superman. In the Nazi interpretation, Superman transcends ordinary morality, and is free of the constraints of ordinary society. Thus free of moral constraints, work on the Final solution could begin. If mass murder is not wrong, then mass murder is possible.
I'm more than just a little perplexed. I suppose a reference or a link would have been appreciated.
Certainly Doom already has the "defeat the demons" sort of theme built into it already. Ironically, the Christian game, assuming it's not some sort of odd joke, simply adds the option to become evil.
Somehow I always thought that Christian gaming would lend itself more to strategy games... eg, being a missionary in the 2nd century middle east trying to outrun the Romans, or maybe somkething like Warcraft II with a Christian back-story. But I never thought I'd see something as shallow as a Doom shoot-em-up.
-Dean
I am Christian, and I find the 10 Commandments in school and school sponsored prayer inappropriate. Which just proves that Christians are not nearly so homogenous a group as you would claim. FTR, the inquisition is a straw man: the popular myth is way ahead of what actually happened. The Salem Witch trials were not nearly so bad as the European witch trials that went on for centuries: blame them instead. The murders of abortion doctors are irrelevant: we're talking 2 murders? C'mon, you can do better than that. Let's try: Christian cooperation with the Nazi's. Yeap. It happened, all over the place. But there was a man named Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spoke up. He is probably one of the top ten Christian writers of this century. The crusades. Read up. The aforementioned witch trials in europe for centuries. The persecution of the Albigensian (spelling? Name? It's been a while) heresy in the 14th century. At the end of all that (and worse) I'm still a Christian. Why? Because Christianity does not require that I check my brain at the door. It doesn't require that I follow some structural church to the edge of insanity. It doesn't require that I kill, maim, or anything else. What does it require? That I love my fellow Christians and God. That I forgive people who sin against me. That I give freely to people in need (but it does not require that I become impoverished). Maybe I'm not a Christian? Maybe, maybe I'm just a poor sinner following God through Christ and the leading of the Holy spirit to my salvation every day. A "christ-follower". Have a groovy day.
-- Slashdot sucks.
FTR, the inquisition is a straw man: the popular myth is way ahead of what actually happened. The Salem Witch trials were not nearly so bad as the European witch trials that went on for centuries: blame them instead. The murders of abortion doctors are irrelevant: we're talking 2 murders? C'mon, you can do better than that. Let's try:
- Christian cooperation with the Nazi's. Yeap. It happened, all over the place. But there was a man named Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spoke up. He is probably one of the top ten Christian writers of this century.
- The crusades. Read up.
- The aforementioned witch trials in europe for centuries.
- The persecution of the Albigensian (spelling? Name? It's been a while) heresy in the 14th century.
At the end of all that (and worse) I'm still a Christian. Why? Because Christianity does not require that I check my brain at the door. It doesn't require that I follow some structural church to the edge of insanity. It doesn't require that I kill, maim, or anything else.What does it require? That I love my fellow Christians and God. That I forgive people who sin against me. That I give freely to people in need (but it does not require that I become impoverished).
Maybe I'm not a Christian? Maybe, maybe I'm just a poor sinner following God through Christ and the leading of the Holy spirit to my salvation every day. A "christ-follower".
Have a groovy day.
-- Slashdot sucks.
However, we are still called to love non-Christians. The thing is that charity starts in your own back yard: if I can't love my fellow Christians, then how can I love people who are not Christians? And what is the chance that someone who has rejected God's love will accept love from me as one of God's followers? As any teenager with a crush nows, love has to be accepted to have any vitality.
Salaam.
-- Slashdot sucks.
No. They just run into our churches, scream "This religious is bull!" and start shooting.
-- Slashdot sucks.
As a Christian, I feel obligated to speak up here. First, I would like to state that all Christians are not right wing, rifle carrying, bible bashing, violence hating, morons, as Jon Katz seems to feel.
Personally, I enjoyed Katz's articles on Columbine, and appreciate his point that geeks can sometimes be singled out as "different" and therefore worse. Violent video games were not the problem!
But, now all I see from Katz is hypocracy. He singles out and generalizes an entire community of Christians as the ones that stand out against violent video games, and other such products. This, overwhelmingly, is not true. Katz is doing exactly what he condemns in his pieces on Columbine and pointing a finger of guilt at a group of people that he simply does not understand. This saddens me, and proves that Christians on a whole get a bad reputation when a small portion of the population abuses the Bible. To me, this entire article seems very Christian-phobic. Calling the entire Christian community "video game haters" or anything that you describe in the article is the same as writing off geeks that play quake as possible murderers, just like you condemn in your own article!
Honestly Katz, you really need to hang out with a few Christians and realize that there are many well educated Christians that have thought out their beliefs rationally and scientifically.
Now, on the subject of the game discussed in this article, I am all for it. I enjoy a good game of quake every once and a while, and I would also enjoy a game like this. To me, its just another action game, but this time its based upon Biblical stories (which I happen to believe are true), instead of a fictional story created by the game designers.
In conclusion, this entire article made me very sad that Jon Katz can have such a good grasp on some things, and then totally contradict himself and have no grip on another important topic.
This actually has some historical precedence in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity has long been able to overlook slaughter if its done in God's name. The more interesting thing, I find, here is the ingenious way a game company has found a new nich in the saturated gaming market. Hmmm ... I wouldn't be surprised if this caught on with more mainstream companies. Maybe there'll be a Doom, Christian Edition. Or how about, Civ IV: Revelations.
Anyway, that's just my 0.02 Euros.
D.
Share data. Share code. Share ideas. Share the wealth.
http://stockfilter.org
It is evident that Katz doesn't view christianity with favor, but why should he be so negative about a game he hasn't played. I haven't played it myself, but I can't see anything wrong with it from what I've heard. He staunchly defends that tv violence is in a bubble and has nothing to do with violent trends in society. Here is a newsflash for Katz: Suicide is a tragic thing too. Just because someone takes their own life doesn't mean it isn't a horrible waste of life (with very few execptions).
Maybe Katz is right about there being no link... maybe kids are just confused and hurt. If that is the case, what is wrong with having a game that more directly addresses the notions of good and evil? What is wrong with parents getting fed up with games that only present a world where evil vs evil? The asumption in the article that christians want to monopolize morality or force it on others is just flamebait.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Let me start with this: I am a devout Christian. I don't always behave exactly like I probably should, but that doesn't affect my core beliefs.
Having said that, let me add that I also like:
Guess what? I'm not in the minority, either. That's why it always strikes me as sadly ironic that it's OK to go on about how the latest Christian event is hypocritical and ridiculous, no matter the topic.
I personally find no problem at all with the concept of a Quake-like video game starring angels and demons, but apparently it's because I'm not cool enough to understand the underlying issues.
Puh-lease.
Listen, fellow Slashdotters: I don't give you gried about your beliefs - please don't bother me about mine.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Did Jon ever say anyhting that the Christians didn't have the right to produce the game? No. He is just pointing out their hypocrisy (sp?)
There's a critical question here:
Are the game designers the same people who earlier decried violent video games?
If not, then no, they aren't being hypocritical.
I don't think he has anything against Christians personally he just points out the flaws they show. The days following Columbine all the Christians say 'Violence is horrible! Its the Internet! We should ban it! No more Quake! No more Doom! Its the devil!'
All the Christians? You may wish to check your sources; I happened to be at least one counterexample to your theory.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
>>The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" >>sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no >>doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games >>marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to >>appear wholesome while raking in big money.
>I think he's trying to say that Christians (and >other religous people) shouldn't be rich. I >don't get this viewpoint.
-Oky, Lets forget the big holy war and concentrate on what was said here...it's simple, what he's saying is that people are going to PRETEND to be "Good Christians" to sell their games/web pages/software if this one is a sucess. Nothing about this claims that money shouldn't be in the hands of good Christians. It just says that Christianity will be used to sell, like sex, violence, profanity, etc. And really, ever those first few decades after Christianity was founded isn't that just waht it was? An advertising tool to get people to buy the Powers-that-be's product, Be it obedience, tithes, or whatever.
I'm not limiting this to Christianity this pretty much happens to all religions at some point or another. Hence my beleif that only a truely new religion or no religion (my personal choice is to go non-religion) has any validity spiritualy. Morally they may have value, but they have been crushed into spiritual nonentity by the push of governmental powers. Hell, look at Confuscianism, it was invented AS a governmental tool!
and thats what i have to say.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
Sorry, but Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Although it's not particularly common, people can convert and become Jews, and people who are already Jews can change their religion (depending on what they're changing it to, of course...)
;)
Now there are several ethnic groups that have come about b/c of Judiasm, but that's not the same thing. The two big groups, Ashkenazi and Sephardi are mostly the result of a lack of interfaith marriages and conversions. But the two groups aren't anything all that special really, and I doubt that you could tell them apart from people of any religion who's ancestry is from the same parts of the world.
Remember, there are semitic Jews, black Jews from Ethiopia, some from India, all over really. Because it's a religion, and pretty much anyone's allowed in if they want.
(why, next you'll be dissing Sammy Davis Jr
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The same goes for the Semite ethnicity. That's a catch-all for pretty much anyone from the Middle East, or nearby. It includes the Jews that never left in the first place, but not most of the ones that did. Does include a hell of a lot of Muslims though.
Tacking in a few responses to GregWebb in post #392:
Having a Jewish mother doesn't make you Jewish. What if a boy wasn't circumcised? Big stumbling block right there. And there are various other ways in which a kid with Jewish parents isn't necessarily Jewish. Usually depends on how closely you adhere to the Talmud. (which is not really something I'm a big fan of)
What you're seeing here is just that most children inherit the religion of their parents. But your argument is pretty weird. "All Jews are descended from Abraham, except the ones that aren't." Well, yes. That's a pretty safe assumption, but doesn't prove much. I for one, don't claim to be descended from Abraham, and conversions to Judiasm used to be a lot more common back before the advent of Christianity and Islam, which held more appeal for J Random Pagan.
But as for Hitler, yeah I'll agree that he was trying to eradicate the Jewish race. But then, he was also trying to fight on two fronts, and one of those was on land, against Russia. Clearly the man was not running on all cylinders.
Ultimately, my feeling on referring to someone as a Jew, is that that's appropriate in a religious context, and then usually with the particular sect, as we don't all get along that well. For general ethnicity, it's probably safer to guess, ask, or just refer to them by their nationality (or something) like you would for people who are also whatever your default religion is. Names are also good.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This might be less likely to happen if certain groups didn't appear to use the term "Christian" to mean "conforming to our entire belief system", e.g. this "Christian, Family Oriented ISP", who emphasises that they "are dedicated to protecting our families from pornographic and foul language websites on the Internet" (admittedly, I'm a nonbeliever, but I didn't have the impression that Jesus spent much energy worrying about pornography and foul language).
Perhaps if that particular type of Christian didn't try to divide the world into "Christians" who think as they do and, presumably, "non-Christians" who don't, it might be a bit easier to see Christians as the diverse sort they are, rather than identifying Christianity with fundamentalism. (I also think people who aren't that particular type of Christian should make an effort not to view all of Christianity as being no more than fundamentalism - and should do the same for other religions, e.g. Islam.)
Speaking as a believer (and a geek, and a recovering DOOMaholic), I believe I can confidently say that God has no interest in winning the attention of gamers through crap like this.
I don't see anywhere in the Bible where we (as believers) are ordered to rip off the secular media, poorly, in the attempt to win back segments of society. How in the world does a game like this make my relationship with God any better? For that matter, how does 95 percent of Christian rock/rap/what-have-you? Or Christian romance novels (yes, they're out there)?
The fact is, most of the churchgoing Christian world thinks that they're supposed to be fighting "the world" on the world's turf, constantly playing catch-up. All most people (me included) have gotten out of this ridiculous one-sided conflict is the message, "Christian media sucks." And it does, for the most part.
I've got news for believers. The Lord wants us to work on our own relationships with Him, not stoop to playing this attention-game. We can't win at this, and do we even want to? Quake isn't the cause of society's ills. This effort was misguided from the beginning.
On behalf of intelligent believers everywhere, I would like to apologize to gamers, geeks, etc., for some of our wackoes. Every movement has them.
War in Heaven II: The missionary position
Armed only with a bible and a first aid kit, you set out to convert the pagans in the jungle. For every savage you baptise you score two points. If you get them to wear trousers you score an additional point. Bonus points can be scored by demolishing pagan shrines, and fighting lucifers unholy gorillas, serpents and alligators.
Once you have gathered a sufficiently large flock, you can start building 'wonders', like hospitals and churches, which increase the probability for a pagan to convert.
Be prepared to fend off the relentless attacks from pagan bandits, and from competing organised religions. Act fast! the catholics are gaining ground! Atheist forces converted one of your settlements! Will your technological edge over the muslim missionaries be enough to overcome their numerical advantage?
What new technology must your theologists pursue next? Choose from the following:
Creation Science 1:
leads to
+1 bonus in converting Atheist settlements.
-1 penalty on medical research
Find Noas Ark:
leads to:
+2 probability of converting pagans
-2 relations with atheist forces.
Related technologies:
Disprove nuclear physics 1, Find ark or the covenant, Quest for holy grail, Accuse rival of satanism 1
-----
That's a pitty, killing some angels whould have been extra-special if there were christians playing them!)
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
Thanks for debunking the notion that violence in media isn't related to youth violence. John's dead wrong on this. I'm thinking he needs to take some Psychology courses. The one thing I'll quibble with is the notion that religion didn't conflict with freedom for the U.S. founders. At the time the Constitution was ratified, 11 of 13 Colonies had religious tests for public office. It was largely religious differences, and a desire to not have anyone else get their way, that resulted in the Constitutional prohibitions against religious tests, and the First Amendment. I agree with your basic point, though, that religion need not conflict with freedom.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
I'll get it right the next time :)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
>The U.S. Surgeon General was recently asked to study the effects of media violence in children. He said they already did. The results are virtually unanimous: of 1000 studies, only 18 found no link between media violence and violence in youth.
I noted in a review of this data that they had failed to factor out things like time spent with parent. E.g. if kids do *anything* (say, watch "I love Lucy") to the exclusion of spending time with role models, they have a greater risk for violence and other anti-social behavior. It's very easy to get a correlation with "violence" which is actually merely a correlation with time in front of the TV & other baby-sitters instead of time with family & friends.
What a waste of time.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Get this in all of your heads now -- we Christians are NOT the Borg. We are individuals, and some of us think a little differently from each other.
The only problem is that to some people, they are. For some of us 'heathens', it's hard to go a day without being called such and told that we're wrong. I know a good many of Xtians that are good people, but I've met a lot that are complete assholes. There is a large tendancy to generalize here, and I feel for ya if you're called the borg when you're not. But some people like me tend to get defensive when told that they ought to convert, or perhaps in this case, see a game bent on morality. At the university that I go to, this is becoming more and more of an problem as issues become more and more polarized as each side gets defensive/offensive.
Basically, all I'm saying is there are a good number out there giving bad names to a lot of people, on all sides, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people are seeing this game as one of those groups giving everyone else a bad name and polarizing the whole situation.
--Me
If I didn't know better, I'd just say this was Katz displaying a pathological hatred of Christianity. Christophobia, anyone?
... Katzophobia?
OTOH, this may just be me displaying a pathological distrust of Katz's motives
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
That's a truely fantastic idea you have there. I'll help hack it. :-)
Ven. Jhanrato
John Katz, like many strong-opinioned people, has fallen into a classic and STUPID trap, and for some reason it always really pisses me off.
Katz' column can be distilled into the following statement:
"Christians condemn video games as violence, but they've put out a Christian-themed violent video game that they say is ok because it's only killing 'bad people.' This is hypocritical but they don't see it and it's really funny."
What Katz ignores, ignores, IGNORES is the fallacy that is implied by the above statement. The fallacy is as follows:
"All Christians have exactly the same views, and all those views are terribly narrow-minded."
This statement is so laughably untrue that I don't even know where to begin.
Katz, where do you get this view? Do you really think there are no Christians who enjoy a good game of Doom? Do you really think there are no Christians who think that the idea of a link between video games and violence is, to put it bluntly, just plain STUPID?
Perhaps he's not aware of the strong (but unknown) anti-athoritarian movement in various branches of Christianity? Of course he is. And why is that? Because Katz, like many people, has fallen victim to the same source of information he whined about during the wake of the Columbine massacre:
The press.
The press, which has proven itself to be nothing more than a ratings seeking sensationalist group anyway. The press, which immediately following the Columbine massacre branded all internet geeks as bomb wielding withdrawn psychopaths, which branded goth's (of all people) as bloodthirsty ticking time bombs ready to take out a High School because they wear black trenchcoats and sometimes listen to German Industrial Bands and Marilyn Manson.
Yes, this press ALSO tends to focus only on the right-wing, conservative Christian Movement. And do you really think they do so for ANY OTHER REASON than the fact that the Right-Wing Christian Movement equals RATINGS?
So do you think, perhaps, that the entire sum of Christianity just MIGHT NOT be represented in a balanced manner on the news?
OF COURSE NOT. Just like any ideology, only the "exciting" part is reported in the Top Stories. Christians who leave people alone and volunteer in the community and do nice things for people are BORING and get IGNORED. Christians who like to play video games and believe in Free Speech and think of Women as Equals, rather than Objects, are BORING and get IGNORED.
So when a bunch of Christians come out with a violent computer game with a Christian theme, Katz cannot CONCEIVE of a group of Christians who wouldn't have a problem with that. Obviously, it's the same right-wing group that hates women and blame everything on the homosexual community and believe Clinton is the AntiChrist and the Internet is Satan's Tool.
Of course, Katz is also very pithy when he states that "religion and freedom don't get along."
Here's a clue: When religion is used as a method of SOCIAL CONTROL, it doesn't get along with ANYTHING. But anyone who has any kind of religious faith -- regardless of what it is, Christian, Judaism, Moslem, Buddhist, whatever -- will tell you that if it's being used as a form of social control, it ceases to be a religion.
Have you ever read Tosltoy? He's a Christian _Anarchist_. Do you admire Dr. Martin Luther King? He was a Minister, you know. He didn't leave the faith to start a civil rights movement. (Oh, and he even got on TV a few times, without being a conservative prick.)
Are you familiar with the Abolitionist movement in the pre-civil war era? Religious based. Familiar with a guy named Mahatma Ghandi? Well, he certainly was a religious leader -- oh, but he wasn't a Christian, so I guess that doesn't count.
This game seems unbelievably silly, and I have no interest in playing it -- I'd rather play one where I _can_ see the body parts fly apart -- but I don't see where you get off beating all Christians with the "Right Wing Idiot" stick. Game over, insert two tokens to play again...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Not everything can be submitted to the scientific method such as repeating and recording data from a miracle. The miracles were done to convince people that whoever was talking/teaching had power from God and His approval.
If you value reason primarily, look into Christian apologetics (reasoned defense of Christianity). There is active scientific research and debate on many issues from Christian scientists.
Also, the Bible instructs us to gain knowledge and wisdom. The book of Proverbs contains many verses instructing people to seek knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
It may seem that deeply religious people are prejudiced against science, but I don't think that is true. They reject some of the conclusions of scientists. They are wary of scientists conclusions on things like the origin of the universe and evolution, but readily accept conclusions on health, technology, or physics. Some may go overboard and reject all science, but that is the fault of the person, not taught by God.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
You say that now "Christians" have released this game. A Christian person may have, but to attribute the attitude and product of one person to all Christians is wrong. There are probably plenty of Christians who would disagree with the game.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Rick Razzano dun said:
Scary thing is, I HAVE seen stuff like that before--specifically, types of Middle Eastern bread sold as "Bible Bread" (yes, that is the literal brand name, and no, I am not making this up, either) in odd-lots stores.
Then again, something as an aside that I think is getting a bit neglected in all this (possibly because most people just plain aren't aware of it)--this is, in all odds, being marketed mainly to very right-wing fundamentalist groups.
A fair number of fundy groups in the US, including some fairly large denominations (including at least one which has over two million members in the US, is linked with the vast majority of your politically active Religious Reich groups to the extent that the political groups are the de facto political wing of this denomination, is linked with Irangate suspect Colonel Oliver North, had quite a bit of controversy in the 80's with the televangelist scandals and has some controversy with the whole "Brownsville Revival Movement" thing, and is the very denomination Skipp Porteous [founder of Institute for First Amendment Studies which includes a section for walkaways] walked away from--I won't go into too many details because it would make me a HUGE target, but let's just say the denomination's initials are A.O.G.) in effect are groups that use mind control techniques. Yes, I'm going to come out and say it--most of them are under mind control and are not in their right minds, many of the techniques are well known to be harmful (I'll get to this in a paragraph or two), and many of them are increasingly being literally placed under coercive conditions from birth onwards.
To give an example, the unnamed denomination I mentioned above uses a fair number of coercive techniques that people outside the church would find frankly bizarre (including a fair number of moderate and liberal Christians who don't attend churches that are Bible-based cults). I'm going to compare these with a coercive group most of us are familiar with and can agree is a Bad Thing, namely Scientology...
The denomination believes in so-called "Deliverance Ministry"--in other words, the world is literally demon-haunted, any doubts one has about the minister or even doubts on one's faith are the sign of demonic obsession or posession, and one must be either exorcised, "rededicated", or otherwise get even more involved with the church at all costs. (This is very similar to the concept of "engrams" and "thetans" in Scientology; I'm sure all of you can look up on the subject on any number of websites. As an aside, this is now recognised by therapists as one of the single most damaging bits of mind-control used in Scientology.)
The denomination states flat out that whomever is not working for them is literally working for Satan; literally anyone who is not a fundamentalist of that denomination is a Satanist (including "lukewarm Christians"), if one does not totally isolate one's self from non-Christian media one risks demonic obsession (and thus you end up doing Satan's work), and you are supposed to completely isolate yourself from the world (to the point of only watching Christian television networks such as TBN and PAX, only listening to Christian radio stations and Christian music [some even say Christian metal is STILL "Satanic" because it "has a rock beat"], only associating with other Christians when possible, and even only doing business with other Christians from that denomination [there is actually a "Christian Yellow Pages" distributed where one has to take an oath that one is an Evangelical to even be listed, and it encourages members to "do business with those of like faith"]). (This is similar to how Scientologists isolate people from the outside world to keep them from being infected by "Thetans".)
The denomination has been known to expressly target celebrities, such as football stars, NASCAR drivers, etc. as celebrity spokesmen. (Scientology targets Hollywood for the same reason.)
There are typically different members of membership, depending on how new one is in the group; groups for "new Christians" are common, as are other programs meant to make the person more involved and isolated. The "Christian theme parks" are even part of this, as are "Christian DOOM clones" and whatnot. (Scientology has this with the different levels.)
There is a big emphasis on always giving money to the church; monetary scandals are often glossed over or the investigation is even discouraged by the ministers claiming that "Satan is trying to defeat this church". (Same goes for Scientology.)
Critics are often harassed; persons supporting things the church does not approve of have been picketed at best; the church believes it is morally right to lie about its aims to the outside, because "good people will go to hell and bad people will go to heaven". It also believes it is morally permissible to libel other groups (one group put out flyers during a referendum to add gay/les/bi/trans people to civil rights laws, claiming all gays were members of NAMBLA, in grocery stores across the county). (Scientology has this too, and even special sub-orgs to do this.)
The group tries to isolate them as early as possible, encouraging parents to pull the children out of schools and to not even allow them to associate with people outside of the religion. (This, as a minor aside, is why homeschool programs generally scare hell out of me. Something like 70-80 percent of homeschool groups and programs in the US are run by fundamentalist groups that are pretty well Bible-based cults, they use the exact same curriculum as used in fundamentalist schools, and the expressed purpose of this is to isolate them from anything that might taint them--in other worlds they'd never know ANY worldview outside of that approved by the church. There are nastier bits yet with this, which I'll hit on in a later section.) (Scientology isolates kids like this too, sometimes raising them communally without outside parent help.)
The group makes high demands on members--members must often attend church for multiple hours a day and for several days a week, participation in "cell groups" (more on these below) and prayer-groups and tract-handling is expected, etc. (Again, same as in Scientology--big emphasis is put in on suckering new recruits in.)
Some additional stuff this denomination gets into, which is either unique to fundamentalist religious groups or to other coercive groups, is below:
The church increasingly practices "shepherding" and "cell churches"--in essence, you are organised into groups of five houses or so, and every week (or sometimes more) one of the church members checks up on you to make sure you are being a "good Christian" or not. (Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like--"Big Brother". It is also seen as one of the most destructive practices in Bible-based coercive groups.)
The group practices what is known as "Dominion Theology"--that is, that Christians are meant to be the rulers of the world (more on this below) and everyone else is literally on the side of Satan--including anyone who tells them they're farged in the head.
Much emphasis is given on stuff like "speaking in tongues" and whatnot--not a sign of a cult in itself--but if you somehow are unable to do so you just "aren't in touch enough with God" and "need to get closer with God".
Outright lies are often told to churchgoers. Among classics I heard in Sunday school--that facial cream contains ground-up aborted fetuses, that the ERA would require women to be lesbians (being gay is right up there with Satanism with them), and that the CEO of NBC was a practicing Satanist.
The churchmembers, again, believe anything is morally permissible to get more suckers in. ANYTHING. Parody slogans (like the Pepsi spoof shirts saying "Jesus--Choice of The Last Generation"), lying to folks outside in recruiting, "bait-and-switch" recruitment tactics ("Hell Houses" which are fundy-themed haunted houses in which the persons going through are often forced to hear a sermon at the end, and billed as regular haunted houses, are common; cases are also known where pizza-parties are held where kids are forced to hear sermons and not allowed to leave till the sermon is over, or fundy-sponsored athletes have done talks in public schools under the guise of "anti-drug programs" where sermons go on and the kids are not allowed to leave and attendance is mandatory), libeling entire groups or threatening physical violence (Fred "godhatesfags.com" Phelps is a classic example of this; we have a Phelps wannabe in Kentucky, too, who's the head of the AFA here), etc.
Confession of sins to everyone--willing or not--is a big thing. (Gay kids have been outed by church leaders in past; I'm sure people have been blackmailed or could use confessions in blackmail.) So is involuntary "exorcisms" of people whose biggest crime may be being gay or having doubts about fundamentalism (and in some cases--nationwide and in Australia--people have actually died from this).
In other words, folks, the people pushing this stuff and the folks likely to buy it are as sunk in as your average clam in Scientology, if not WORSE (many people are raised in this, and statistics for walkaways from Bible-based groups who were raised in it aren't even available because it is so rare--especially when multiple generations have been raised in a coercive group, as is common with a lot of Bible-based groups). The world they live in is something between a funhouse mirror distortion of the world we live in and a house of horrors where Satan is waiting at every turn to devour them...it's really sad, if you think of it.
I would be content merely to pity these folks if it weren't for the following three things:
The group I used as an example--and that's just an example, there are many more groups like it--is considered not only the largest "Pentecostal" group in the nation but has over two million members in the US alone and has been around since the 1900's...and people still tend not to think of "Bible-based" groups being coercive. (Skipp Porteous was really the first to get the word out on how things are rotten throughout that denomination, and a few brave souls have spoken out including some Christian apologetics about some of the bad things going on...most recently about the "Brownsville Movement" stuff (just do a Google search, folks, you'll learn a ton) that led to a 20/20 investigation.)
The group believes in Christian reconstructionism, which is a subset of "Dominion Theology" and has ties to other nasty stuff like deliverance ministry--in essence, it is a canard that claims the Founding Fathers were fundamentalists (most were moderate Christians at most, and many were Deists who didn't believe in Christianity at all), that the Founding Fathers meant for the US to be a fundamentalist theocracy, and all laws ought to be interpreted according to Biblical guidelines (a number of versions actually state the Constitution should be replaced with the Biblical version of sharia law). Also, a fair number believe that anyone who works against them is working for Satan.
They've been working for some time to try to turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy and have gotten rather frighteningly far at it. (Among other fun things: The Christian Coalition has de facto taken over the Republican Party apparatus in 34 states. One of the major plans in guides by Religious Reich groups is for school boards nationwide to be taken over by fundamentalists (because they know most folks don't give a damn for school board elections) and basically fundamentalise and/or run the school systems into the group so kids are forced to go to fundy schools or do without schooling. [Think about THAT the next time something for school vouchers comes up...they have stated PUBLICALLY the ultimate goal is to destroy the school system and replace it with fundamentalist schools, and they can pretty much at that point either forcibly convert kids or kick out "pagan" kids...and the voucher folks want to do this with your tax dollars.] A college is being set up specifically for "Christian homeschooled youth" to not only isolate them from non-fundamentalist influences but to "train them to be political soldiers to take this nation for Christ"...in other words, as a political training college to make new Religious Reich political candidates to take over the US and convert it to a fundamentalist theocracy. The US is approximately four or five states away from having a Constitutional Convention (or ConCon) approved, states cannot rescind a call for a ConCon once issued, and things go entirely up in the air once one is called [a ConCon is a convention to rewrite the Constitution of the United States]--and most of those pushing for a ConCon have been fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionists that want to turn the US into the Christianised version of Taliban Afghanistan.)
It's a shame they're pretty much under mind control to the point they might as well be the Borg...but at the same time, I'm gonna be damned if I let them turn the official government of the US into essentially a Bible-based cult. :) I'm also to the point I can't stay quiet about the abuses that DO go on in coercive groups like that...I walked away 13 years ago, finally broke all links something like six months ago, and it's part of my healing in a way to let folks know just what does go on and how it IS hurtful to folks.
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
I suppose some people just don't understand this concept of "independent Christians". And I can't help but feel rather apologetic for your less-than-enjoyable religious experience.
But that doesn't give you the right to lambast Christians everywhere just because of what you went through. I suppose when you give your example of some Christian high-schooler shooting his less-than-holy classmates, that somehow the whole entire Christian religion would support that? I'm afraid not. Hell, the bible itself says "Thou shalt not kill". Period. It says nothing about the wiccan down the street, or (more likely) those heathenistic Jews that live down the street who just won't accept the later half of the bible.
Therefore, I have to say, your point of calling all of Christianity a hypocritic, two-headed religion is invalid, thanks to simple logic. I won't deny the existance of fundamentalist Chrisan-types out there who might be willing to pull off a stunt. But I will always be convinced that they are wrong, and I will never support their viewpoint.
Your assumption that al Christians are the same is fundamentally incorrect, and if it weren't so prevalent, I would almost be offended by it. However, the fact remains that for every Christian out there, there is an individual interpretation of the religion, and not every interpretation is based in reality.
Also, just for the sake of being pedantic, the odds of these exact people having endured a stint as door-knockers is probably very unlikely. You should probably have verified that before you made your second point.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Dude, open up your eyes! Virtually every group in society does the exact same thing. School teaches you there is no God, church that there is one. Beer commercials tell you to open up a keg, church says don't get drunk. The ACLU tells you that the KKK should be able to run around with hoods on their heads, and the rest of the sane country says "Are you kidding?" Companies tell you how to dress to be cool, where to go to be cool, what to do to be cool. The school system (think Pepsi only schools) and hence the Gov't is doing virtually the same thing (what to eat/drink/how to dress/etc).
Just because you have a central figure such as Jesus doesn't mean that corporations and the gov't aren't any worse. I'd even say that the gov't and schools *are* worse since you can choose to not go to church, but try to get out of school or watch TV without commercials.
Reality is that religion is only a voice of a larger group of voices all trying to get your attention. If you don't like what Jesus, Allah, or whoever has to say, then walk away. But don't belittle others for taking a leap of faith that you yourself were unwilling to make. You're a lost lamb just like the rest of us, just that you march to a different drummer.
Last, if you really think Christianity limits independant thought, you've obviously never sat in a argument at church about pre/post/mid-trib or what kind of music should be played during the service. I've seen churches split into two just because one group didn't like the fact that they were going to allow someone to play the drums during hymns. Christians can be subcategorized into Protestent, Methodist, Evangelical, and about a 100 other denomiations. Each one exists, because they didn't like everything all the others teach or how they teach it.
----------------------
Optional WIH modules that can be loaded with the game include great extras, such as:
Monsters
Abortion Doctors
Homosexuals
Non-Jesus-Loving-Sinners
Women using birth-control
Masturbaters
Missions
Stakeout the local abortion clinic.
Convert sinners at the local bus-mall.
Subject society to your own 'family-values'.
Land your own television evangelist career.
Scam the flock and run away with their cash.
Get freaky with the Altar Boy.
Enter the holy realm of Christ and be forgiving of your sins!
Requirements for Module Pack
64MB RAM
800MB Free Disk Space
4x CDROM
Windows95 (Requires plug & pray)
Notes
This game was developed by experts in holyness and godliness Benny Hinn, Luis Palau and Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
The radical right is, as you so eloquently put it, 'whacked'.
Happy now?
;-)
"That is a contradiction. Perhaps they are capable of independant though, but Christian religion itself discourages independant thought. Christianity tells one what to think, what to do, even what to love."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What to love?
Mathew 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
(King James Version)
I can live with that...I just pray to have the strength to follow such a simple rule.
Unfortunately, www.wwcd.com is already in use by the worldwide collectors digest. Pity.
:]
_ _____________
Hopefully that won't prevent you from making the t-shirts.
D
_______________________________________________
--
driph
> lives; the forces of righteousness will surely
> be blasted to bits.
Katz, you send out more crap than a hand grenade in a sewage works.
I'm aware how futile it is to try to penetrate your highly effective fact repulsion field, but here's some actual real information:
- Many geeks are not religious...
- ...but many also are.
- Many religious people are not geeks...
- ...but many also are.
- There is no inherent conflict between geekiness and faith.
Indeed, many famous and prominent geeks are Christians. You might be aware (but you probably aren't) that Slashdot itself (together with many thousands of other sites) is written in a language called PERL. The geek who inveted PERL, whose name is Larry Wall, is well known as being a Christian. He isn't a in-your-face bible-thumping damnation-decreeing Christian, but hey, neither are most Christians.At the end of the day, Katz, you are in no position to understand the minds of Christians or geeks since you are clearly neither.
Way to go Jon Katz. You know not the slightest bit about the game industry (as evidenced by your repeated claim that this is the first christian computer game) and then you proceed to make sweeping predictions about how this will change everything. Much like all your other articles.
They can all be pretty much summed up like this: 1. Jon Katz brings up a topic he is clueless about, 2. Jon Katz blathers on about said topic, and 3. Jon Katz proclaims that this development will irrevocably change the world.
Thanks Jon, but somehow I don't think the introduction of yet another poorly produced christian game will lead to "an Armageddon-like battle".
Why is anyone surprised? Just like Katz's attempt to run linux, and his other 'pieces', (though I won't say what I think they are pieces _of_...) this is just another attempt to beat whatever drum he thinks will resound the loudest.
People who actually have a clue know not to get overly excited about the high and low points in life, but journalists rely on being able to do so...
Katz seems to be unique from other journalists only in that some of them have learned how to present a fairly unbiased view of events, and that Katz found the linux bandwagon to be a great vehicle early.
Don't interpret this to be a post against linux, Christianity, or journalism in any way! I
a) am a Christian (Lutheran, specifically)
b) am a Linux user (~2 years now, love it)
c) prefer to read better journalism than Jon Katz's...
But NONE of those things mean that I should sensationalistically attack people who do things differently. If people don't believe in God for whatever reason, I think that's unfortunate; and if they want to know why I believe the way I do, I'm more than willing to share it, but I don't tell people they are stupid for not believing as I do...
Just when you thought responsible reporting in our media had hit it's all-time low, along comes Jon Katz
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
this is a sign of things to come people. they have finally done a little market research. it used to be that the christian content creators would be painfully behind the times in trying to attract youngsters into the midst (christian rap from a couple of years ago comes to mind). now they are painfully with the times. watch TBN on saturday nights if you don't believe me. it's like christ meets the x games. too funny.
Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
Blasphemy against God is forgiven.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not.
Um, not to pick offtopic nits, but I think you've got it backwards:
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men [Mt 12:31]."
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the _only_ sin that God does not forgive.
--G [apostate, damned, and proud]
Blasphemy against God is forgiven.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not.
Um, not to pick offtopic nits, but I think you've got it backwards:
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men [Mt 12:31]."
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the _only_ sin that God does not forgive.
--G [apostate, damned, and proud]
There is always Deer hunter's revenge.
...
I was looking for that game at Walmart
and all I could find was the Deer Hunter's
game. My son found one at last. There must have
been 10-20 or more of the Deer hunter game
while there was only one of the good game.
It show you the lack of taste of some people.
In light of that you can be assured that a
Christian game would sell very well.
That Deer hunter's revenge is a good game to
get. They have the calls kind of like in the
deer hunter game except that they are human
calls. For instance one call is some lady
saying "I'm horny and I got a pizza" That
brings in a hunter when you press on the
call button and all you got to do is shoot
it. The deer is the one with the gun
"Why is this bad news if they're good games? Because they're religion based? Or for other reasons?"
;).
Good question. I wasn't trying to say anything about the news itself, I was trying to make a point about Katz and the early posters attitude. I don't think it is too off-topic, but a moderator will decide that shortly
Just as most any group, the loudest ones are usually wrong. The problem is, there isn't much of a 'story' for media to pick up on about tolerant Christians, so you actually have to find someone who is mellow to have mellow viewpoints, and mellow people get overlooked pretty easily.
"You should have known you'd get flamed for it"
;).
;). The condition is just a simple inspection of the act. Personally, I don't watch South Park very often because I don't find it funny (Yes, I am aware that makes me the only person in the world who feels that way), but it is "OK" for me to watch it. For the believer, it involves your experience while viewing it. If you are a believer, and when you watch it you start to hate God and think "Satan's pretty cool", you should not watch it. However, if you enjoy it and don't take that attitude (and I really doubt many people do) it is perfectly "OK". In fact, if you learn a little bit about self humor (you are a believer and you believe God is allowing this), you _should_ watch it. Remember, a paramount Christian value is humility.
It's fine with me if it is an intellegent flame
"why did he care about gays?"
Hitler was involved in some non-racial persecution, and even some religious persecution. His main targets were based on race, though.
"Is it OK to watch South Park, if you are a 'religious' Christian? "
Yes, with a condition.
Addendum: I am speaking from my viewpoint. Other THOUGHT OUT Chrisian viewpoints are equally, if not more so, valid. Christianity is about one simple thing, sincerely following God and his lessons. If you are doing that (note sincerely, as in this does not apply to people like the inquistadores twisting Christianity to their benefit) you are a good Christian.
If I assume you are atheist, I could easily say that you are incabable of indepent thought (such as accepting Christianity *grin* ), because you are bound by atheist precepts.
Christendom is a community that accepts the notions that
- God exists
- He loves us so much that He sent His Son to spread His Word, despite the persacution and death that ensued
- following His Word is the ideal way to live
If this can be determined by independent thought, then there is plenty of room in interpretation and real life application for independent thought. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be thousands upon thousands of denominations. So you are then saying that my three precepts could only be accepted by some sort of brainwashing. I would say that blindly denying these things, which can not be proved or disproved scientifically, is not independent thought, and that someone who truly believed in independent thought would have to accept that some people could believe above to be true." . . .Jon saying that religion was responsible for all the world's ills"
He did not, given the rest of the article he did worse: he insinuated it.
"If I were to try and excuse Hitler's behaviour by pointing to the spanish inquisition, would you accept that as a valid argument?"
Of course not. I wasn't trying to excuse the acts of the members of the Inquisition, either. Frankly, there is no excuse for the acts of either. I was trying to make a point about how good/bad acts are aspects of the world both in and out of religion, and that Katz makes entirely too many ties to the 'mistakes' of religion, and the triumphs of non-religion, rather than taking an impartial view to both.
Note I could disect the word "Christian" to get Christ-like, and then say it was absurd we don't have free-thought because Christ (Whether you believe him to have been a fictional character or what not) very much practiced free thought.
I think your opinions are based on myth, and not experience. I have been members of several churches and have spoken with numerous others. Of course if you come storming into a church shouting "God is dead" your opinion will not be welcome. I don't really know how to respond to your example, however. Is the 'church elder' convinced man created God? If so, he probably wouldn't be in the church any longer. However, if he was questioning it, pondering it for himself after reading a thought-provoking work, his opinion would be deliberated, even if it was eventually denied (and no, it wouldn't be denied because "Christianity doesn't say so" but becuase those who accept the precept are no longer Christian.) A great deal of dialouge amungst Christians deals with interpretting various things that is stated in the Bible, or at service, and its application to realy life.
"How many Christians declared Darwin to be a sinner? Galileo?"
I don't know. And I am not stating that every Christian was right about everything. However, your using this example futher supports my point: your view is based on old, isolated examples, of Christianity. I highly suggest trying to speak with some Christians with an open mind and seeing for yourself if they are really as closed-minded as you suggest.
How come whenever something about Christianity on /., everyone assumes that all Christendom is behind it, and it will inevitably end in A) moral confusion and/or B) holy wars and/or C) unjust persecution of geeks. Sorry to crush a collective dillusion, but Christians _are_ capable of independent thought, and aren't necessarily bent on starting a second Inquisition. And then there are comments like "They might actually revel in blasphemy and angel-bashing." refering to watching The Simpsons? There is not a commandment that says "thou shall not laugh." And then we get the comment "Religion and freedom have never really gotten along." Nice tie, but it doesn't explain a few people like Gangis Kahn, Napolean, or Hitler (who prosecuted the Jewish RACE much more so than the religion). I am sorry, I guess it is just more 'fun' to live with a severly outdated, extremely prejudicial view of the religious.
This is nothing more than a grossly offensive screed. Katz is no troll; he's a venomous bigot. He spews out gross generalizations and over-simplifications in the hope that his readers will join him in pretending that this drool passes for reasoned discourse.
Sorry Katz. No dice. This is nothing but pseudo-intellectual drivel.
Once again: nothing to see here, folks. Move along. It's just Katz the Drooler salivating all over himself again.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
defying many of the teachings in the Old Testament Do you have *any* evidence for this claim whatsoever? You are correct, however, that he called himself the Son of God. This is something that his critics sometimes deny -- an exercise in futility.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
"This actually has some historical precedence in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Atheism has long been able to overlook slaughter if it's done in the name of the state."
The whole time you're looking silly using vague generalizations, you're overlooking the fact that you've given us no proof whatsoever -- just a throwaway mention of two periods in history that don't have many (if any) defenders among modern Christians (and the Inquisition has never had *any* defenders among Protestants, who weren't even around for the Crusades either).
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
He has demonstrated once again that his total knowledge of history goes back as far as...oh, his birthdate. Maybe. Talking about Augustine -- someone who lived over 1500 years ago -- will only confuse him. It's simply beyond his reckoning to accept the fact that an African bishop could be one of the most significant thinkers in the history of the world. It is inconceivable to him that anyone -- never mind a religious man from the 300s -- could have an impact that spans centuries.
Either that, or Katz is a troll. I can't make up my mind.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Morality is based upon one's worldview/philosophy/religion/whatever you want to call it. Good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad, sin and righteousness -- again, whatever you want to call it -- are terms that receive their content from the worldview that underlies them.
The simple fact is that even people with "high" morals do bad things -- sometimes even things they themselves would condemn -- and people with "low" morals do good things -- even when their own worldview doesn't necessarily require it of them.
The obvious proof of my assertion is in the fact that Katz the Drooler foolishly claims that religion and freedom are somehow at odds -- yet he conveniently ignores the fact that the most repressive and brutal regimes in the history of the world were/are officially atheistic.
Rather than idle rants, actual proof would have been a useful thing: for instance, demonstrating that Christianity is a foe of liberty (something he would be unable to accomplish). Meanwhile, I could easily demonstrate that under atheism there is no reason to defend or oppose either freedom or tyranny, so we ought not to be surprised to find either one...but that the tendency will be towards tyranny.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I thought that Jon was only ignorant of things related to computers, I guess I was wrong. He also seems to just have been brainwashed by society's view of "religion is bad" , "oh no, if we let the 'christians' do what they want, the whole world will be forced into their 'narrow minded' view." I invite Mr. Katz to take an honest look at what Christianity has to say and if he needs any pointers, he can e-mail me or for starters he could take a look at www.firstthings.com and see what some of the "religious" intellectuals have to say on many issues in public life. I doubt our little media clone has the guts/brains to truly look at a lot of the issues.
:)
As with any group of people, many people who call themselves "christians" take very selfish, hateful, intolerant stances. But any thinking person they would realize that a few people within a group don't reflect the group as a whole and it is unwise as well as inappropriate to make such a hasty generalization.
Being a christian, I'm still a skeptic and I'm still fairly libertarian. Jon needs a place to vent it seems and this time he's chosen christianity. That's unfortunate.
mike - self proclaimed cult leader of "Church of Mike"
Might I bring to mind Gutenberg's printing press, created to print Bibles?
How about most of the major universities in Europe (and many Ivy League schools), set up to train preachers?
Don't forget the Celts storing and copying manuscripts centuries ago, as well as monks in various other monastaries... ask yourself why the Roman Catholic church performed the High Mass in Latin exclusively until Vatican II and why so much legal, medical, and scientific terminology is based in Latin.
Look at the Islamic side of things, too. Who kept the knowledge lost after the collapse of the Roman Empire and the destruction of Alexandria until the Crusades, when Westerners were re-exposed to the classics?
It would be unfair to say that pundits are opposed to history based on Mr. Katz article here, but so very tempting...
PS -- It's just a video game. Yeah, it sounds kinda dumb to me too, but I respect people who follow their beliefs more than I respect people who bitch about stuff. Especially when the latter get their facts wrong.
--
QDMerge 0.4!
how to invest, a novice's guide
I'm not kidding. Check out the angel smoking the biggest spliff you've ever seen.
Go ahead moderators... trash my karma... I can take it...
:) I did think it all a bit odd and un-necessary, but I was not uptight about it.
..." further shows his prejudice and lack of understanding.
Once again, Katz goes on a one sided rant mocking Christians and Christianity.
Quotes such as "...the never-ending struggle between technology and the self-proclaimed forces of morality..." belie Katz's prejudice. Yes Christians have a code by which they judge behaviour, be it their own or others. Yes, they sometimes succeed in this behaviour, and they sometimes fail. Yes, there are smart articulate Christians and there are narrow and inarticulate Christians. These exact same statements could be made about any other organization that contains human beings.
Were this the ACLU making their "morality" judgements about themselves or others, or perhaps privacy advocates, or GPL advocates, etc... would they have been painted with the same broad, mocking and prejudicial brush?
Somebody talks about a Linux distribution that emphasized Christian beliefs and values, and they are mocked and derided. Somebody else releases a Linux distribution that emphasizes some extremely subtle differences between two competing open software models (GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD ad. nauseum) and they are respected and promoted.
Personally, I think both are a little whacky, but hey, it's their business so more power to them both!
I enjoyed Quake, Quake II, and Unreal (on the rare occasions it would run without crashing) tremendously, and I am a devout Christian (and was at one time a licensed pastor). I am also a software engineer, linux advocate, and have released open source software.
Did the violence in the game bother me? No. In fact, my personal opinion is that it might be a good idea for kids to play that sort of thing, so that if they are whacked out you get a warning ahead of time because their reaction to it is... well... wierd. Let them play. Ask them what it would be like to do that in real life, perhaps at their school. If they seem unable to seperate between reality and games, raise the red flag, lock up the guns, and get some serious therapy.
Did the constant deamonic imagry bother me? Well, it might of, but then that was what the rocket launcher was for... to smote them mightily
So why when Quake came out, full of deamonic imagry, it was "cool", but when the same type of thing comes out with angels it is a thing to be mocked? The deamon imagry in quake has it's roots in the exact same literature that the angels in this game came from (and in fact the deamons are Angels that made different decisions).
Katz goes off on his view that there is a contradiction between violence and Christianity... which just shows how little he understands of what he speaks. To me, one of the greatest large scale Christian acts of this century was the liberation of europe from Hitlers government by the allied forces. No shortage of violence there, as free (and more often then not Christian) men walked into nearly certian death and killed without hesitation to stop true evil.
Katz's seems to repeatedly fall into the same trap, where he is prejudicial and intolerant of groups that he does not agree with and does not understand.
As another example, his quote "Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to
For one example, when the big bang theory was originally promoted, the Catholic Church was a strong advocate of it, while the scientific establishment mocked and attacked it's supporters.
Indeed, a huge number of scientific breakthroughs in the previous centuries were done by strong believers in Christianity, and many of these people were supported by the church during a time when no other body was willing to support academic research.
Large beauracratic institutions will always resist change. This is a people problem, not a Christianity problem. Just about every radical scientific breakthrough was attacked by the established scientific establishment before it finally became accepted.
Whew. Enough rants. Katz is entitled to his opinions, I am entitled to mine. Thanks for your time.
Bill Kilgallon
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
I thought rich people went to hell. How hypocritical of them to waste money on games when people are hungry. WWJD?
The difference between all other religions and Christianity is grace. In every other religion, you must do something to earn your salvation. The God of Israel, being the loving God that he is, gave his only Son to die so that we might live. Jesus paid the price for us! I don't deserve that. I never will. I'm grateful for it. After I believed God sent Jesus, and that Jesus died for me. I confessed my sin and asked Him, Jesus, to be Lord of my life. I asked him out of my own will. That is what I disire. He gave me the holy spirt that gives me a peace that I cannot explain. When I believed it was faith. Now that I have the Holy Spirt inside me it's knowledge. Granted, Christianity isn't about feelings, but it sure does feel good.
The question isn't "did he exist." It is a fact that he did. The question is, "Is he the Son of God?" I put my faith in him and belived; then I had my faith confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
But you have to take that leap of faith yourself. I nor anyone else can do that for you. Now let me ask you a question. What if your wrong? What if Jesus is the Son of God as I say? Do you know how long eternity is?
Thank you John, for another screed filled with factual errors and logical fallacies.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries.
Ever read your history, John? The Pilgrims were a deeply religious lot, and they were seeking freedom when they set sail for North America. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers were deeply religious. Those who weren't, were at least deists. Most of those who fought for the emancipation of the slaves in the US and in the UK were religious people.
Sure, there are those who use religion to thwart freedom, but to conclude from that that religion and freedom are fundamentally opposed is foolish. There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
Hooey. Ever hear of Martin Luther? His ideas, and the religious reform and freedom that came with it owed a great deal to technology, namely Gutenberg's printing press.
Some people, like the Amish and the Old-order Mennonites are careful to analyze the long-term effects of a technology before adopting it, but they are not anti-technology, per se. Again, your conclusion is faulty.
There's never been any substantive evidence to support the idea that TV shows, movies or computers have been a factor in the recent series of shootings -- statistically rare but horrific nonetheless -- in American schools.
Wrong again. The U.S. Surgeon General was recently asked to study the effects of media violence in children. He said they already did. The results are virtually unanimous: of 1000 studies, only 18 found no link between media violence and violence in youth. Of those 18, 12 were sponsored by the media. Gee, why do you suppose the media isn't the media reporting this?
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
But as anyone who takes a second to think knows, Christians are a very heterogeneous group, particularly when it comes to what they believe. Some Christians probably do blame violent games for causing people to be violent, and those same people will probably deplore this game. Some Christians realize that violence is related to a huge variety of genetic and environmental factors, and may see this game as a great way to release agression, or as one more bad influence, or just tasteless. The one thing that is certain is that there is no single "Christian" stance toward this game any more than there is a single "American" stance toward South Park or Jerry Springer.
Personally, I don't think this game will do much to convert those who are into Doom, Quake, etc. But it might make Christians feel a bit better about indulging their shoot-em-up urges (it's not as if being a Christian kid makes you any less interested in that sort of thing).
-- Moderation in all things, exceptions to all rules --
I think you got it right earlier when you said This seems to be an issue where some software company said, "look, there's a lot of Christian parents out there that want to censor what their children play. We'd make bucks if we released something that both the parents approved of and the kids want to play." Marketing a game in this way gives the developers an advantage that is not offered by better technology, design or imagination. In the 13+ game category, the parents are the people that usually buy the games. By marketing a game in a way that appeals to Christian parents (which is a very large group, btw), they've essential created and dominated their own video game market. This isn't an issue of something being morally "right" or "wrong". Its just economics.
Also, Jon, I admire the spiritual nature of many of your articles. Thanks for your review of Virtual Faith. That was one of my personal favorite books. I hope that as you learn more about Jesus, that you discover that he didnt spread rules and regulations and hate, but instead, freedom and love. I believe that, like that movie Stigmata, the true church is not a building of wood or stone but its in the hearts of those people that believe in Jesus and follow him.
Most Jews belong to the same race, usually anthropoligically referred to as Semitic or Hewbrew. They have been a race/ethnic group for a LONG time, get your head out of your ass.
-- d'arcy poirot
Must everything be such a big deal to Katz? I've never posted on his stories, but I have to say that that I have to because he reminds me so much of my English teacher. Everything he writes always points to some event which he considers to be "revolutionary" and a foreshadowing of an amazing change in the way the human race views things. It's ALWAYS the same idea.
:) .. if he tells the story and makes subtle statements about these things, I'll look forward to his articles a lot more. He doesn't have to shove the idea that a Christian game is controversial down our throats for us to come up with an opinion about it. Tell us the story, and BREIFLY what you think about it, and then let the /.'ers do the rest. That's how it works for all the other stories on here.. and it never ceases to amaze me that 200 posts can accumulate about a story regarding dental floss :)
Can't he take a step back and tell a story? He should stop stating how he thinks it's "the next big thing" or going to change this or that about this society, or this industry, or this operating system
I know I'm now put into the category of "Katz-basher", but hell I can't help it.
--
With the advent of this game, I think that people are going to wonder who is the true Action Gaming God. In order to further our cause, I plan to launch a merchandising blitz of items labeled with WWCD?. You'll see it everywhere and it will force you to really think "What would Carmack do?" Would Carmack play a sissy game like this? No! Would Carmack write trash like Diakatana? No! Help me spread the WWCD message and rebuke the agents of Romero! Who is with me?!?!
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
LOL!
Eh, actually, one is to love one's neighbor regardless of their orientations, be they sexual, violent, or whatever. Now, love is not equal to approval of one's actions--I can love my son, but disapprove of his homosexual activity.
Homosexual activity isn't the same as being homosexual--i.e. it's not that you're gay, it's that you have gay sex.
Being the kind person I am, I feel that I'm describing this badly, but I'm probably not..
May you find peace and enlightenment.
Well, to start off, what's "scientific progress"? ;)
:p
Killing an innocent baby?
Taking away one's uniqueness via genetic engineering?
Making a bomb capable of annihilating the Earth with the pressing of a button?
Using birth control so as to make the human population's fertility fall below the rate of death? (yes, the preceding lines are loaded, I admit it. )
Contrary to popular belief, the world is in no danger whatsoever of overpopulation. (well, not by humans anyway--deer, on the other hand, what with all this "save Bambi" stuff...
However, I seem to digress. Genocide. Where?
If you mean, for instance, Sodom and Gomorrah, or how the Re{,e}d Sea's parting collapsed over the Egyptian soldiers, God is not just a God of love--He is a God of justice. He knew/knows that that was exactly what they deserved. (Unlike us, being the mortals we are. )
And as to killing homosexuals, you have to keep in mind what one calls context--if the sports section in the paper mentions stealing, you probably assume they mean stealing the ball or something. But on the front page, it's probably related to a fabulous gem or ingot. Of course, I didn't really answer that, but I hope I've planted some insight or something. (I can't answer because I haven't read as much of the Bible as other people have, so I don't know the exact context of every verse... )
And you're thinking, well, what gives us the right to kill homosexuals if we don't know for sure if they deserve it, since we're not God?
Simply put, because we as Catholics (I'm speaking from a Catholic perspective, BTW ) are more enlightened than our predecessors the Jews, we shouldn't kill them. (them being homosexuals )
(I neglected to mention things like the Inquisition. These are a result of human fallibility. No human is perfect, or something like that. )
I'm sure I'm explaining this not as well as I could... I invite anyone on "my side" to correct me. Preferably here.
May you find peace and enlightenment.
The Old Testament is... I dunno how to put this exactly... Ah, perhaps unenlightened, but that's not the best wording, either, in some places.
Another thing to remember is context--for instance, when Paul writes a letter to a given group, they have specific needs--for instance, they're afraid that those who die before the Second Coming won't go to heaven. As such, Paul is speaking to them, from himself, during a specific time period, and it's been translated a few times.
Hope this helps.
May you find peace and enlightenment.
In the words of Jesus: "[God] has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed." (Luke 4:18)
I can truly say that following Jesus has freed me more than I ever could have done by my own pilosophies.
"Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
This is the same reasoning that many Christians have come to -- that by respecting the beliefs of others, people think there is no problem with them. What is the balance between being unloving or unrespectful to someone, and spreading the truth (which can sometime be offensive).
Hands up all the Christians out there who turn the other cheek? Hands up the christians who've never copied someone else's CD (Thou Shalt Not Steal)?
Though far from perfect, I rarely attack someone back, and do not have any pirated software of CDs.
hypocrisy displayed by most Christians (the religion with which I'm most familiar. I'm Irish)
I spent several months working with a small church in Dublin recently, and I can see where you see the hypocrisy. In some ways, Ireland's religous heritage is a curse -- there is so much religion (behaviours) that have remained while the relationship with God has disapeared (in many areas). There are some amazing followers of God both in the Protestant and Catholic churches, and outside of the church in Ireland, but there are far more people in "the Church" that do it because of tradition and not love.
"Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
Yeah, I agree with you. As Christians, we're not called to judge others. We are called to live in truth, which means not ignoring something that is obviously wrong. It has a lot to do with motivations; the Bible says to say "only that which is uplifting to others." In other words, if someone is doing something that will obviously lead to their destruction or others', we're called to say something that can draw something better from them, start a fight.
Of course, if a person chooses to be offended and reject what is said, it isn't necessarily the fault of the messenger.
"Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
God is primarily interested in refining a person's character, not their behaviour. Behaviours are just a reflection of character. The character God desires for us is the best possible character for us, for others, and for him.
That being said, each individual Christian has a huge amount of freedom in their behaviour. There are infinitely many ways to live the Christian life, which is nothing more than: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love others as yourself."
"Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
It always amazes me how many people talk about Christianity as if it's a big corporation, or a giant collective. People talk as if an action taken by a single Christian is representitive of all Christians. I could see how someone might get that impression in the States (from what I hear) because there are large, politically minded Christian organizations.
At its heart, Christianity is following a leader, Jesus Christ. The act of following Jesus is subject to all of the human failings that apply to following anything else. If God was interested in making his followers robots that only do his will, he could have made all humans that way. Instead, he chooses to give us the choice to follow him, and even creativity in the way we follow him.
"Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
I think this was his point:
"I am Jon Katz"
And now we can settle all of the world's great debates on the framework created by iD software...
It's The War Over Creationism - Special Kansas edition, where the good 'TeleVangelists' can bible-thump the evil Darwinians over the head with oversized editions of the KJV Bible, while picking up coin 'power-ups' donated by sheeple clones!
It's PC v. Mac, where little likenesses of Bill Gates and Andy Grove run around throwing open-market components at a totem of Steve Jobs, while picking up 'power-ups' of 'business partner' IPOs.
Finally, a forum to settle the Republican vs. Democrat issue once and for all, with animated jackasses kicking the budget surplus out of lumbering pachyderms, eating subpoenas and depositions, while the elephants try to stomp their little donkey heads into the ground.
Will it be a Bull market, or a Bear market? YOU DECIDE!!!
Well, with the religious slant, at least we know what BFG really stands for. Big Freakin' God!
Hey, bible-boy! My diety's minions have fragged all of your diety's minions... Since killing is wrong, you don't stand a chance. Burn in Hell Gabriel!! Hahaha!!! Metaphorically, of course - please don't hurt me with that burning sword there.
I guess when it comes to making a buck, literally nothing is sacred. Sad.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Once again, Katz has managed to bastardize another completely irrelevant topic. He makes his usual sweeping generalizations, the regular slew of subtle jabs at organized religions, unfounded assertions and the rest of the rhetoric.
The only appeal he has is to the rest of the fanatics who share his views - all in the name of freedom, or "freethinking" or whatever it is called these days.
You would be hard pressed to find any scholarly material in any Katz article. The fact that this is perpetuated on Slashdot seems to indicate the philosophical agenda that the directors of this site would like to push as a subscript to whatever else it claims as its goal.
Katz's articles are clearly propaganda, designed to taint the minds of those who read them in a way that corresponds with his own viewpoints. Of course, Slashdot has never been noted for presenting any sort of material on equal grounds.
Bias is the name of the game here, and Katz is only fooling himself if he supposes that thought can ever be truly free.
I don't mind Slashdot's technological bias, as I happen to agree with it. However, I would suggest getting Mr. Katz an editor before letting him post this sort of inflamatory article dealing with the subject of religion.
How the hell did Katz even get a spot on this site? I swear, ever since Andover took over, /. has gone to shit.
I don't hate Christians, and I don't think they're all the same.
BUT
A very vocal contingent has undue influence in this country, opposing science, reason, and personal freedoms at every turn. These people are trying with their righteous fury to take us back to the Dark Ages.
This game is at least ostensibly designed to train this point of view into young people.
from the eternal warfare site:
"Each of THE WAR IN HEAVEN's twelve levels incorporates a distinct Biblical lesson relating to the consequences of following the Divine path of Obedience or the Fallen path of Knowledge. "
I think I'll take the low road, thanks.
Not to argue with the main point of the editorial, which is interesting and thoughtful (though nothing we couldn't have come up with on our own ;), it seems to me that two or three of the paragraphs in the story look rather familiar...rather like they've been lifted almost verbatim from last week's New York Times article on the game--a few words have been changed, but the phrasing is the same. Whether this was accidental or just plain lazy on Jon's part, I can't say...
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
"In the post-Columbine era, when computer games, the Net and other elements of geek culture are being blamed for murder, ..."
You know, some people out there really do have tough lives, a lot rougher on average than people who actually have the means to own their own computers. If you're going to assume the position of mouthpiece for "the geek cause," please don't make the voice a whiny one.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
P.S. Sorry if this was already posted, but I kept getting sent to the Preview page every time I would submit this. Odd...
Chris, first off, don't base your opinion of America on anything that Jon Katz writes. He has a severely distorted picture of reality. The oddest thing is that he thinks he's saying something different than the mainstream media.
As to your questions, I definitely wouldn't say that someone saying that he believed in God means that religion is a big force in his life. There's a big difference between committing oneself to one's religion and just saying, "Yeah, I guess there's a God."
Pat Buchanan's isn't considered a mainstream candidate by anyone. He's far right on some things, and far left on others -- I just think he's an opportunist willing to subvert his own views for the promise of millions of Reform Party dollars. Please don't make the mistake, however, that a lot of people here are and think that he's some kind of Hitler-lover. He's not. I wouldn't vote for him, but the people who are trying to tag him with that label are either intellectual dullards or plain intellectually dishonest. You know, the same kind of politically correct people that have made it impossible to have an honest dialogue on racial issues.
Again, put more trust in what you saw with your own eyes here than what the Christianity-hating U.S. media or Jon Katz tells you. And y'all come back some time, ya hear?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I've seen a lot of threads which have the typical Katz bashing his articles always incite. Most of them seem to center around the fact that Katz has hypocritically lumped all Christians into one stereotype. It is foolish to stereotype Christians as these evil right wing puritans out to take over the world. For every Christian fascist like Gary Bauer, or Pat Roberston the Christians have excellent heros like Sir Thomas More and C.S. Lewis.
However, a point I think Mr. Katz is making that I wish would sink in with the Christian geeks among us is that while Christians are as varied as any group you need to stand up for yourselves. Where are the Christians that oppose some of the more outlandish "evil" Christians that seem so prevalent? Obviously Christendom is a diverse and energetic force, it just doesn't come off that way. I can just hear Pat Robertson talking about how great this new game is despite the fact it's the same thing he's been against in the past. It's hypocrisy like that from the self-proclaimed leaders of Christianity that perpetuate the stereotypes.
If you are a Christian and you are sick of being stereotyped then stand up for yourself and organize. The image of this Christian collective has been culled from the rhetoric of Christian leaders like Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer. If that isn't what you are or what Christianity is all about then organize a group and let everyone know what it's really about. Until you do that the public image of the backwoods mean-spirited Christian is never going to go away. You have to take responsibility for how people perceive you. If you won't take responsibility then Bauer and Robertson will do it for you.
My impression of world history is that the greatest freedoms for humanity have because of the influence of christianity. Historically, most cultures and civilizations are somewhat oppressive. The move towards freedom has come mostly from predominantly Christian cultures.
Example: women's rights are most prominant in the western world, in post christian cultures such as Europe and the USA. One of the ways in which Jesus was radical was in the way he respected and valued women, in a culture that was male dominated. The early church attracted many women for this reason.
Example: a major force in the abolition of slavery were Christians such as Wilberforce. A major American player in this movement was Lincoln, and while one cannot be sure if he was a Christian, he was certainly strongly influenced by Christianity. More recently, one of the most powerful persons in the Civil Rights movement was Martin Luther King. His message is universal precisely because of its Christian heritiage ("I have a dream ...").
Example: The American war of independence was fought by people who were Christians, or strongly influenced by Christianity. The result is a society that has endured two centuries, and has led the world in fighting for human freedoms. At about the same time, there was also the more atheist led French Revolution. This was filled with atrocities. The society it spawned quickly turned into a dictatorship under Napoleon, leading France into a series of bloody revolutions for many years to follow.
Example: Today it is largely Christians who defend the rights of the unborn. It is largely Christians who seek to expose and destroy the slave trade in the Sudan. The Catholic Church plays a prominant role in countries like Cuba in pressing for political freedoms, and those who desire freedom are always exited when the Pope comes to visit their country, simply because his influence for freedom is so strong.
Example: when the Catholic Church lost for a while some of its direction, becoming a money maker, and a political player, rather than a spiritual leader, it was Christians such as Martin Luther who led the way towards freedom of religious expression.
Indeed the example of Galileo is an example of when the church lost its way, choosing to follow Aristotlean ideals instead of Christian ideals. Galileo's ideas have no conflict with the Bible.
Oppression and denial of freedom is spawned not by true religion, but by the greed of men and women. One only has to look at the Communist Soviet Block, and present day Indonesia, to see this. People may use religion, or any other ideals, as a cover for their political ambitions, but it is their selfishness and inner wickedness that causes the evil.
In SoV, it seems you go around the Kingdom of the Heart (through levels like The Amphitheater of Apathy and the New Age Nirvana) collecting ammo and power-ups for your Sword of the Spirit, with which to combat such enemies as Fear, Vanity, and Self-Righteousness. Scroll doors with Worldly Wisdoms on them are unlocked by reading Scrolls of Truth (Bible verses) at them.
If you'd rather the kids be blasting ambulatory abstract concepts than zombie marines, you can read more about it at www.saintsofvirtue.com.
The King James version of the Bible preserves this distinction. In the dialect of English used at that time, the word "kill" refers only to murder. For non-murderous homicide, they used "slay".
Unfortunately, the King James version succeeded so well as a literary work that (a)new translations that kept up with the language, and sometimes were based on better scholarship, didn't have the same literary power as King James; (b)ignorant twits think that because they've read one translation of the Bible, they've read "the Bible".
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Today's popular association betwen Christianity and sweet docility goes back to the 19th century, when people treated the Church as a haven from the brutal competition of the Marketplace. However, violence, symbolic or actual, in the alleged service of J.C. has a long and, er, distinguished history.
The Jewish liturgy, for example, has a large number of elegies that were composed during the Crusades: as the Crusaders marched through Europe, on their way to take Jerusalem from the heathen Muslims, some of them slaughtered heathen Jews in towns they passed.
Heck, there's plenty of violence in the Bible itself. See, for example, chapter 34 of the book of Genesis.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I've never felt the need before to respond to any of Katz's articles,even the ones that I've disagreed with, but the venom in this one has shocked me into needing to provide, if not an antitdote, some response.
First, and most simply, I think Katz is over-reacting. A software company has released a computer game. The designers and founders of the company wanted a game with overtly Christian themes, and, like all games, it is what its designers have made it. Now they've published, and they're hoping to attract an audience that's interested in entertainment with
religious overtones.
Unfortunately, they've attracted Jon Katz, who seems to take all this as a personal attack. He writes, "Perhaps games like 'The War in Heaven' suggest some looming confrontation, an Armageddon-like battle out there in the digital ether for the collective souls of geeks." I can't fathom how he makes this leap. Eternal Warriors (the software company) hasn't done anything wrong: they haven't tried to suppress anyone else's work, they haven't said that everyone who doesn't buy their game is Devil-spawned, they haven't even said that playing _The War in Heaven_ will make you a better person than playing _Doom_ or _Quake_. (I'm sure Mr. Katz would have informed us had any these things even been hinted at.) Two guys have exercised their personal freedom to publish a game they'd like to play. Jon Katz has no right to make his accusations.
Also, the sentence quoted about refers to "the collective souls of geeks". This, and the strawman of the Massed, Single-Minded Force of Oppressive Religion that Katz so enjoys kicking, is such an dumb idea that no comment I could make can do it justice. As both a Christian and (how I hate this word) a "geek", I find it a loathsome simplification that has no place in any essay that can even pretend to be well thought-out.
JonKatz writes:
The arrival of the first Christian computer action game opens a whole new chapter in the never-ending struggle between technology and the self-proclaimed forces of morality.
If this is significant of anything, it's that this is the first time this particular group has been targeted by a video game company (as opposed to retro-gamers, wargamers, arm-chair huntsmen, etc.). Where do you see conflict in this development?
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money.
Why is this bad news if they're good games? Because they're religion based? Or for other reasons?
I'm confused in general by this article -- what is the point you're trying to make?
Jon, Jon, if you're going to be a "free speech rulz, why can't everybody just get along" kind of guy, you really need to get over this allergy you seem to have to anything labelled "Christian" ...
If I hadn't been able to find the company page for the game, I would have guessed that this was a hoax/parody/whatever in the style of Jesux rather than a real product. But granted, somebody really is releasing a DOOM-style first person shooter game, with an "angels 'n' demons" theme.
Jon, Jon, if you're going to be a "free speech rulz, why can't everybody just get along" kind of guy, you really need to get over this allergy you seem to have to anything labelled "Christian" ...
If I hadn't been able to find the company page for the game, I would have guessed that this was a hoax/parody/whatever in the style of Jesux rather than a real product. But granted, somebody really is releasing a DOOM-style first person shooter game, with an "angels 'n' demons" theme, and marketing it as a "Christian" game.
I suppose if somebody is going to wrap a DOOM interface around the process list, and given the all the work done on DOOM/Quake "skins", that this was inevitable. But what wider conclusions are appropriate from this?
Wow. One sentence, and at least four glaring problems:
Let's see ... relate everything in the world to the Columbine shootings, drag out the old myths about Galileo ... flog, flog, flog.
Has it occurred to you that, rather than some sea change, this is simply some guys with a software firm out to make a few bucks?! .
As for myself, and the other Christians I know, the release of "War in Heaven" is going to be a yawner. For those Christians who don't mind DOOM/Quake (yes, they exist), this won't mean anything. For those who object to first-person shooter games because of the violent paradigm, the fact that the characters are dressed up as angels and demons will not make it better (in fact, it makes it worse, as it verges on being a blasphemous attempt to exploit for profit). I suppose there will be some small segment of Christian parents of teens who view the release of this game with a small sigh of relief -- those in the category of not liking this kind of game, realizing that kids are going to play them anyway, and being happy that there is at least a "kinder and gentler" alternative.
But for a person who objects so strenuously against the stereotyping of "geeks," and to the usage of stereotype to push an agenda, you've got some housecleaning to do yourself in that departmet.
What I mean is, a non-Christian or non-religious person has their own value system and their own morality. Everytime they do something that is counter to this system, they are being a hypocrite.
Agreed. But religion is, IMO, different. Christianity is more than just a philosophy; it's a belief that a God created the universe, and that he demands something of us; that we spend our three-score-and-ten years being nice to others, or we'll burn in hell. Hyprocisy in this case means not that you're saying one thing and doing another, but that you're saying one thing and believing another.
I can't accept that Christians who believe absolutely in hell would act against the bible's teaching. If you belive god's threats, you'll behave accordingly.
Tell me again when Christians stopped being fallable human beings and started being Perfect?
It's not a question of being perfect; none of us is. But there's a religious bookshop down the road from where I used to work, and they had a big problem with people stealing bibles. I found this hilarious.
My point is (again) that a religion is more than a philosophy. If you truly believe, you're not going to act in a way that'll cause you to burn in hell for all eternity.
I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean I'm a bastard to all I meet. It means that when I do good I do it because I choose to, not because I'm being threatened with damnation if I act otherwise. I know this is true for most christians too, btw, but my point remains.
A question. If I walked up to you and hit you for being a christian, and reminded you on the spot that Jesus told you to turn the other cheek, would you do so? Bearing in mind that to do otherwise would be to go against the word of god. You could call the cops with a clear conscience, of course, but after you asked me to whack you again.
Warning: this post may meander. I've also decided for the duration that 'nice' is a waste of time
I spent many years thinking that we should respect the religions of others; that people have the right to worship what and/or who they want. As I've grown older (and more dogmatic), I see this atitude as harmful. Pandering to superstition does nothing except encourage redneck savages to remove evolution from schools' curriculum.
In the main, this change in attitude comes from the staggering hypocrisy displayed by most Christians (the religion with which I'm most familiar. I'm Irish). Hands up all the Christians out there who turn the other cheek? Hands up the christians who've never copied someone else's CD (Thou Shalt Not Steal)?
The violence, its creators claim, is merely a role-playing depiction of "spiritual warfare," the notion that non-physical agents of good and evil (which might well include TV, movies, the Net, animation and recorded music) are constantly at war and that their behavior affects people on earth.
Sheer sophistry. The bible says 'thou shalt not kill.' It doesn't say 'thou shalt only kill if it's a metaphor' or 'thou shalt only kill demons.' If this is viewed as okay because it's a only computer game, then bang goes any argument against Doom et al.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries. Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
Galileo's persecution was a personal, not religious thing, but the argument stands. Tyrrany, be it religious or political, is the enemy of education. We should tolerate people's irrational beliefs only insofar as they don't affect the rest of us.
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money
This isn't bad news. I doubt that resources will be diverted from other games, so it's simply a case of giving the people what they want. Just because you don't want it as well doesn't make it bad.
I could go on, but I'd only get abusive.
To finish: this isn't meant as flamebait; It's my -- if you will -- religious opinion. It's as valid an opinion as the myriad 'Jesus is Lord' opinions that permeate the web (and billboards everywhere).
...who will manipulate the central belief of a large group, and twist it for their own benefit. It does not matter if it is about religion (Inquisition), nationality, or even economic principals (see Joseph Stalin's bastardization of Karl Marx's views).
Hasdi
PS. the pigs is in reference to ANIMAL FARM
It is unfortunate that the same guy who just recently was venting about how society should accept us geeks as being different but not dangerous would so quickly adopt the other position when dealing with a group that he doesn't personally belong to.
In a confrontation with those who don't share your belief structure it is best to keep in mind that they are just doing what they think is best for their community. In the case of Christian versus Atheist there are thousands of things that you will agree on. For example, the Bible is quite explicit about how you should treat your fellow man and it seems to say exactly what I believe. The difference is that the Christian claims that you should do it because the is one truth that God set down and you should follow and I think you should do it because otherwise society crumbles and life sucks for everyone. Either way we agree on how people should be treated.
Regardless of motivation, referring to them as 'moral guardians nuts' is as narrow and counter productive as assuming that all 14 year old basement hackers are proto-killers just biding their time. Just as not every teenage hacker is a danger to society so too is not every Christian a moral guardian nut looking to impose his will on everyone around him.
It is also a tremendous failing to say things like "Religion and freedom have never really gotten along" when in fact some of the finest organizations on the earth are based in religion. The Christian community (the religion that as a resident of the US I am most familar with) works unflaggingly to lower opression in China, was instrumental in the removal of slavery from the US and is the motivating force behind Habitat for Humanity (which I am happy to support regularly via my consulting www.objenv.com in spite of being an Atheist myself).
Katz isn't contradicting himself or even saying much at all except that the idiots who are marketing this game are completely contradicting themselves. Sure he could have pointed out the irony in a few sentences, but he tends to be wordy. Just because it's long and not to the point doesn't mean it's wrong!
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money.
/.ers appear to hate - not without cause) with the Christion religion. The subculture is mostly the result of hypocrisy, attempted brain-washing, and marketing (aren't those last two about the same?). The religion can be the genuine item when it's not influenced by greed.
A "slew of Jewish and Muslim save-the-soul games" is not real likely. This game preys on a huge, lucrative, and gullible Christian subculture. I could be wrong, but I don't believe a comparable Jewish or Muslim subculture exists in this country. At least, I've never seen anybody wearing a WWAD ("What Would Allah Do?") t-shirt, and I'm unaware of a large marketing/distribution network for such merchandise.
(
Note to self:
1. Secure wwcd.com domain
2. Sell "What Would Cthulhu Do" t-shirts
)
The game's creators are doubtless following a proven strategy.
1. Become popular with Christians.
2. Use popularity to launch mainstream career.
If this game is a success, the game's creators will point to it in discussions with potential investors for a more mainstream production. Of course, I could be wrong. If the game is a success, the game's creators may simply crank out a series of sequels, following another proven strategy:
1. Become popular with Christians.
2. Take 'em for all they're worth.
Anyway, don't confuse the Christian subculture (which most
Why is it that, even though nobody likes the idea of having religious views crammed down their throat, very few people seem to see this from a Christian perspective? I am neither for or against this game (haven't seen it - sounds kinda cheesy though) but it really bothers me to see any expression of Christian views leapt upon by so many with such vehemance... So often I hear people say "if you don't like it then ignore it" As a Christian I have to "ignore" a lot of things I find offensive or distasteful in the media whether it be TV, radio, games, or whatever. That should be a two way street. Christians should have the same right to expression through whatever medium we use to communicate.
I just get tired of the bashing from BOTH sides...
-- none, thank you.
I'm going to add my opinion a bit late since I just noticed this article.
I notice an increasing trend with people to belittle and put down anything with the christian name on it. This is really the only religion with which this happens. Whenever something is brought up with a religious slant it always inflames toward putting down christianity. I find this hard to deal with since my background is that I almost became a youth minister. I jsut find it odd that people associate religion with christianity first and foremost. This is really odd since biblical christianity wanted nothing to do with religion and more with relationships. Jsut my poorly written frustrated 2 cents.
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
This isn't the first Christian oreinted video
game... that's one of the oldest genres there
is. It's just not mainstream.
There are some that are borderline as well,
like the strategy game Afterlife (which I
didn't care for to much).
-- Richard Finn http://www.random-seed.com/
Holy sh1t - where'd all those extra paragraph breaks come from? I coulda swore they weren't there when I previewed this...
Perhaps games like "The War In Heaven" suggest some looming confrontation, an Armageddon-like battle out there the digital ether for the collective souls of geeks.
I doubt it's that serious. Christian gamers like to play games too. Some of them even like to play violent games. So what? Games like this allow them to satisfy those violent urges and keep the moralists off their backs.
"Violent video games are bad."
"But it's demons i'm vaporizing with my deadly, er, heavenly arsenal."
"Oh... that's okay then. Have fun!"
Sure it's subversive. But is it really worse than sneaking underage kids in to see South Park?
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along..."
Never is too strong of a word. They've seldom got along, but is that religion's fault? Done right, religion and freedom are inseparable. People freely choose whether, and how, they'll worship. Coerced belief isn't really belief.
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money. Sunday school might be in for some radical change.
That's bad news? We already have greedy web entrepreneurs raking in big money. If that's bad, it's bad whether or not they're putting a religious veneer over it. I'd expect the strongest opposition to this sort of thing to come from within the religious community. Not from someone who usually calls for more freedom of expression.
Sunday school might be in for some radical change.
Bring on the change! If games like this had been available when I was in Catholic School, I might not be as cynical about religion today.
The good news is that ultimately such developments will drive software censors and moral guardians nuts.
It's already nuts. This just makes it more obvious, for those that weren't bright enough to pick up on it before.
You pompous ass. One software group chooses to capitalize on a controversy, and you think it is news. The motive here is cash, and not the 'souls of geeks' or whatnot. The only thing righteous in this context is your sense of self.
Like many outside the USA, I'm repeatedly struck by the huge difference in the cultures of Europe and the USA regarding religion. Here in Europe religion just isn't a big force in most people's lives, yet Stateside something like 75% of people believe in the god theory. Just how bad is it over there? Is Pat Buchanan (whose views seem extreme here) really a mainstream presidential candidate? It's all the more odd because on my 4 or so annual trips to the US I see little evidence of such extremity in everyday life. Comments gratefully received....
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
I normally read Jon's articles with the knowledge that they are going to be long, and possibly boring in the process, but this even though it is informative of a new genre of game should have been a little more researched.. like maybe a review of the actual game and not another review of the moral fabric of society.
..... .. for I am only human and not expected to be perfect
Maybe I'm a little jaded with everything that has happened to me personally but I have found that morality is a subject that has many variables in which to view.. is is moral to have homosexual intercourse.. depends on if your american, or if you are an tribesman where the only heterosexual incounters are those to procreate and not just for fun...
Well enough ranting
I play Quake, Diablo, and I still manage to pray everynight to the lord for forgiveness
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
I would like to know when all these self righteous secular humanists are going to sit down and read a book about Galileo and discover the truth of what happened. I would like to know when they are going to look in a mirror and apply their morality to their own knee-jerk condemnations of others. They cry foul about all geeks being tarred with the same mop but it's okay to call all Christians dangerous zealots. They cry foul when pot is illegal but call someone who talks to God insane. They think it's horible that a Christian (or Muslim or Jew)would force (or try to convince) their views on the world but it's okay for humanists to do everything in their power to publicly destroy Christians. Grow up!
If what I said is nonsense,
I'm making a point with it.
If what I said makes perfect sense,
you obviously missed the point.
"We Christians are NOT the Borg."
;) Sometimes the idea of freedom just gets lost here in the lands of the free. It's a qualified freedom. So long as you behave in a socially acceptable manner, and the individual has no say in what is defined as acceptable, then you're free. Which means for Christians don't be open about your faith and don't ever express your opinion. Work for the betterment of the collective just so long as you have no moral input. No, that's alright, someone else will do your thinking for you and decide what's best for you and your children.
But don't you get the feeling that folks like Katz want us to be just like them? The phrase, "One of us. One of us." comes to mind if I can quote one of my favorite sources of Satanism. That's sarcasm by the way if anyone missed the intent.
If what I said is nonsense,
I'm making a point with it.
If what I said makes perfect sense,
you obviously missed the point.
Eternal Warriors (Developer)
ValuSoft (Publisher)
With that out of the way, I think this is a very interesting development. I've been waiting for something like this for quite a while.
Bitchslapped. Neat.
Remember the hacked version of Doom that we discussed last week, in the article "Kill -9 With a Doom Shotgun"? That sounds awfully similar, going around killing daemons and all... :)
Ryan
Christianity (ie: believing in Christ) is all about freedom -- freedom from the 'rules' that really lead to insanity and freedom from the crap that can bog you down in life.
The Church on the other hand is our attempt of trying to put this into practice. It just so happens that when we want to put something into place we have this need to make rules about it (a nice example would be programming - how on earth do you program freedom when programming is all about rules?). When we make it into a set of rules it fails and we find ourselves in the same, if not a worse state that when we started. It seems to me that if the Church doesn't reinvent itself often enough it gets stuck into the same old rituals and traditions and thought patterns that lets people on the outside blame 'Christians' of being the 'moral guardians of society' when all Christians can say is that there is a better way. "Don't look at me to find it because I'm as imperfect as the rest of those on the planet".
Have a think about this for a moment:
God looked down on the earth and saw us all, he loved us so much, and wanted to be with us so much that he would do anything. The only problem was that we are full of that stuff thats causing the world to fall apart - hate (murder, war etc.), lust (family breakdown etc.), lying, theft, etc. etc. etc. You know what I'm talking about, we can all see it crumbling.. How could he, who was utterly perfect have a relationship with humans who had hearts that only seem to want to do what is opposite to him? So he came up with a solution, he sent his on and only Son, a human form of God onto the earth to tell us about him and finally to die to take the punishment for all the stuff we do wrong that we just cant help. That was done 2K years ago and we are living in times when God is chasing after each of us with a choice. On one hand he is saying "Come to me, I made it possible and I want to spend eternity with you, I love you so much that I would do anything to be with you!" and on the other "I really don't want to let you go, but if you can't except what I have done for you then you will have to take the punishment for yourself".
It's not about conformity, its about the uncomprehendable Love of a God who just wants to be in a relationship with you, thats all, thats what Jesus was all about. The deal is that we have free will, he gave that to us -- we can choose which way to go. And now, people look at the church and you see a bunch of 'do gooders' who just want to tell you what to do, yet it all started with Jesus coming and raising the stakes, showing us exactly how perfect God is and how imperfect we are and giving us the option of being able to be made perfect by him taking the rap for our imperfection. It's not about rules, it's aboue pure Love that doesn't ask for anything in return - and guess what, he's going to love you no matter what way you choose, he's just going to cry when he sees that you won't accept something so simple and free.
Thats exactly how it is for me. I was on a downward spiral of suicidal depression, I had nothing to love for (do you?), there was no point in prolonging the pain of living on this planet, I sucked, the world sucked, there was no hope. I had no love, I was just another outcast Geek who may as well have done the "Killing Spree Thing"(tm) when I was in school. But God found me and confronted me with the shocking truth - there is hope, there is love, there is something to live for and all I have to do is say "ok, I'll have it", and I did, and now I have hope, now I have love and now I have something to live for and whats more, I'm enjoying living! What more could I ask for?
So be careful when you look at the church and make blanket statement about Christians and Christ. I challenge you to pick up a new testament and tell me that Christanity if about something other than what I've just presented. If you don't have one to read, email me and I'll be more than happy to send you one.
Roddy
rvagg@grug.une.edu.au: Feel free to flame me, but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Why all the venom against Christians Jon? Would you make the same nasty, baseless, comments about a game representing Jewish or Muslim mythology? How about Hindu? Paganism?
I think we all know the answer to this one: of course he would. He likes saying things to be sensational, adds the word geek from time to time, and calls it a story. (note editing is not a part of this process) I've seen him write for Brill's Content (real stand-up magazine that.) and with little exception it's the same rhetoric sans the word "geek." time to filter it I suppose.
Lowmag.net
and I'm always a sucker for the good guys
Personally, I'm a sucker for the evil/somewhat bad myself. Perception is relative in many cases.
Any time I can identify as borg/daemon/jem'hadar/shadow/otherwise i feel like I'm getting the other side of the argument. The borg aren't evil, they are cold and logical with a natural drive to achieve perfection. Can't argue with that. Jem'hadar are the way they are due to nature. The shadows also weren't evil, just driven by other motivations (chaos/evolution through opposition) rather than that of a "hero"
Anti-heroes are very powerful figures, so is it any wonder when people identify with them?
Lowmag.net
Personally, In roleplaying, I always play a lawful good character, mostly because in online gaming it is easiest to play. But when playing Blade Runner, I always play as a replicant or replicant sympathyser when I stop to consider they are the wronged ones in the game. Makes me feel better. My whole online name is Anarchangel, not a pretty name, but a unique one. When I get ticked and try my hand at flamage, I post as such. When I'm not it's angelo...
Btw: I'm a fellow Elijah too!
Lowmag.net
The only thing guaranteed to generate more flamage then choice of OS or editor is religion.
The clue here is that people disagree fundamentally on the issue at hand, and no amount of discussion will reach an answer. Furthermore, tempers invariably wear thin and get lost.
Rather like the subject of the movie War Games, it is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.
Something to consider before you add fuel to the fire.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You just can't be happy. Here some people have taken a successful medium, and put their beliefs into it. Why does this bother anyone? Without casting aspersions, you seem to be out to bash organized religion no matter what they try to do. Your first mistake is to lump all organized religion practicioners together as like-minded, then dismiss them as fascists.
I'm a practicing christian, and a geek. They don't necessarily conflict, especially for the open-minded and thoughtful (I try on both counts, with mixed success).
I'm a Christian, and I do happen to do a bit of gaming. Half-life, Quake, etc. But what else do I do on my computer? I play with weak perl scripts. Are all of those of spiritual significance? Not really. They're of very little significance whatsoever, usually, just strange obfuscation.
Sometimes I play with graphics. Can we as Christians lead others to Christ by designing a graphics program with all Biblical themes? Not generally. It arises as a cheap marketing trick or a gimmick for parents to get for their kids.
And thus with this. This is not what Christianity is about. This is just another Doom, Half-Life, Quake.
As someone mentioned before, not all Christians are Ned Flanders, but this resultant stereotype makes flamebait fly. Let me take this a step farther. Even though this is "News for Nerds", a supposed haven for those who are different, it doesn't matter who you are or what you believe. As long as you're different from someone, there's gonna be someone who disagrees with you and lets you know it. And there will always be someone different.
In a day and age of political correctness and lawsuits for the vaguest offense, perhaps it's time to realize something: Get over it. Christ said it himself: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you about me."(Matthew 5:11)
Above and beyond all this. Is it wrong to rather code than play violent sports? Heck no. Is it wrong to wear black trench coats and white goth makeup? Nope. Not in my opinion. I do all of 'em. But unlike the "geek", "goth", "nerd" culture, Christianity cannot be confined to such a narrow scope. We live our lives and function as humans. Christians are to be a "new creation" (2 Cor 5:17...granted, it seems fewer and fewer walk the walk) which isn't defined by makeup or coding or clothes. It is an actual change in the heart and mind.
Mr. Katz, IMHO, you have missed the mark.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
Hmm, /. try successfully (sometimes) to show that most of the geeks are openminded and tolerant people.
I did not exactly expect this Katz article to become such an obvious flamebait.
Especially not as so many here at
The anti-christian/christian flamewars I observed in this thread are known on various Usenet groups since a time long forgotten when punchcards were still in widespread use.
So if both sides might be able to step back from the flames of hell they are raising, let's have a look on the actual subject of the article:
Some company notices a niche market and tries to get at the supposedly "christian geek".
Nothing wrong or even very new at this point. Choosing a FPS as genre for this title is eventually commercially viable.
So all of you don't tell me that the gaming souls among us have not been pestered by mediocre game clone after game clone in the last years.
So what makes Katz article newsworthy ?
This is among the first products actively trying to promote a religious feeling via computer games, although neither should a FPS be a medium for it, nor should my memories of badly made neonazi propaganda games connect to the christian faith in general.
The amount of comments on this article shows clearly that Katz hit near to a hornets nest.
If the people behind that game are real christians give them the benefit of doubt and advise them about the harsh reality of the gaming market.
If it's just another poor game trying to get at our purses, just do the same as with other poor games, don't buy or download.
A neo-pagan geek in Europe.
"The game designers at Wisdom Tree bought permission from id to remake and slightly alter Castle Wolfenstein 3D to design a game called Super 3D Noah's Ark. In the Wisdom Tree game, players assume the role of Noah trying to get his animals back in their pens, as opposed to a soldier trying to hunt down Adolph Hitler. They also did away with the grenades and machine guns and replaced them with a single slingshot that players used to shoot food at animals. Instead of having soldiers that charged at you, then fell in a bloody pool when shot, Super 3D Noah's Ark has little goats that try to kick you with their hind legs and fall asleep when you shoot them with food."
Attention Moderators: You've got to moderate the post up. I don't think I've ever seen a funnier comment on Slashdot, and it would be a shame if others weren't able to read it because it was so far down the page.
Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
I'm British, but I'm quite happy to get very worked up about people not being mellow enough!
:)
Meet one of the world's very few autoritarian liberals
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Insightful? Why? I wouldn't consider it even slightly insightfrul and wouldn't have been surprised to see it moderated as flamebait. I've got no problem with people thinking that, as a Christian, I'm incapable of independent thought - they can think what they like, frankly. But to start asserting like that without backing it up is a fine example of religious intolerance.
We've got some fine moderators out there. Why do some have to spoil it for the rest, though?
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Literal translations are rarely very interesting or insightful: see Bernard Shaw's preface to "Man and Superman" for why he believed "Superman" is the better translation.
- '()
I havn't read the artical yet, but a "Christian action game" That sounds pretty damn dull...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
(cr#p, my submission got lost, oh well, retype)
I think you're tilting at windmills here, Jon. Don't be impatient for some news that's worthy of your commentary though, it's early in the week yet.
C'mon, it's just a game, and everybody's welcome to make and play games.
I think you're scaring yourself this time.
Besides, wasn't there already a religious video game callled Afterlife or something? Now that sure made a splash!
Jon, you strike me as a creative kind of guy, why don't you make a video game? Maybe something along the lines of a huge post by you, that people then have to read through fast and say something pertinent for points.
Oh wait, I guess we're already playing your game.
Never mind.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
More sensationalist nickel writings by Mr. Katz, from the man who brought you the sob stories of oppressed geeks everywhere (welcome to the world, boys and girls) comes the touching tale of a misguided religious effort.
Unfortunately, his article had nothing to do with the possible spiritual aspects and everything to do with the "this-game's-place-in-society" aspect, which is not at all what it's about. I thought journalists did research...I know I did.
The game, by the way, looks disappointing as far as graphics go, but I don't suspect I was really expecting to see Unreal-level graphics out of this genre. Nevertheless I think I'll try to pick up a copy.
Ugh that freedom argument again...
Okay, people, Philosophy 101.
Lesson 1:
You are the only person alive.
You live on an island.
You can do whatever the fuck you want and the only consequences would be to yourself.
You have 100% freedom.
Lesson 2:
There is someone else on the island with you.
Now, if you piss on his living room rug, he'll be upset with you. You will get in a fight and one of you may die as a result.
Right, so you make a rule: No pissing on the other guy's rug. You both agree to the rule and everything's hunky dory.
You no longer have 100% freedom (you can piss anywhere except on his rug), but you have a companion who can help you if you fall in a pit or something, and the gains outweigh the loss.
Lesson 3:
There are many people on the island.
Now, with many people on the island, you can take a piss on someone's rug, and when they attack you, run to the others and say he is attacking you without provocation.
Okay, so now we need some form of arbitration, as well as a code of ethics and conduct to ensure that this society works well. Freedom down some more, but a happy society results.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going here.
You cannot have absolute freedom and a working society. You have to give up some freedom in order to live peacefully.
Religion was a very effective tool (and still is) in keeping the masses under control.
Think about it: If you do something "bad", your karma goes down, or your god (who sees everything. convenient that) will get angry.
This saves a fortune on policing.
Actually, discussions of religion, money, statistics et al appear to be irrelevent here. Let me see if I can summarise Mr Catz.....
This game's producers seem to be operating under the following moral premise:
This is what I believe is the core issue here - internally inconsistent morality. The fact that Christianity (as a sub-class of Religion) and/or Christian values are being used as justification for this stance is mere marketing: pitching it at a particular demographic, if you will.
henley
(*) I have a very strong urge to follow this with "...mmkay?" which should probably give you enough background on my own position here
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
The Simpsons is one of the only shows I can think of where the main characters actually go to church every Sunday.
South Park == SATAN?
Maybe, but I'd love it just the same.
Galileo was persecuted by the Church not because of his anti-religions, pro-technology beliefs, but because he upset the status quo of a church which was attempting to preserve it's eroding power base. Specifically, the Church never actually denied that Galileo's observations of the heavens were false; they only bitched because he presented his findings outside the context of the Church Hierarchy. Had Galileo "played politics" with the Church, his findings may have first been stamped with the approval of the Church hierarchy, and presented as compatable with Roman Catholic Theology.
If you were awake in history class, you would have noted something quite significant:
You are wrong. Theodore K. Rabb, in The Western Experience, states: "The Church was... [attempting to control] any potentially questionable views held by its followers." He then proceeds to note that Galileo was, in fact, a friend of the pope at the time, and that his masterpiece, the Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, was approved by the inquisition. Interesting... Furthermore, R. R. Palmer, in A History of the Modern World, echoes the same sentiments, and Leo Tolstoy, a prominent scholar of his time, states at the end of the second epiloque of War and Peace (were you awake during English class?): "To the men who fought against the rising truths of physical philosophy, it seemed that if they admitted that truth it would destroy faith in God, in the creation of the firmament..."
Is it even worth mentioning that it is not a religion's duty to censor science?
As to the Orthodox Jews demanding that cinemas be closed in Israel on Friday, that is no worse than any temperance law in the United States which prohibits the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
You are absolutely right. Those temperance laws are every bit the infringement upon individual rights the the movie laws are.
Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
Frankly, I don't understand why you need a law prohibiting other people from taking part in an activity because you choose not to. It is not your right to legislate your beliefs upon others. Is it okay for me to regulate when you may go to church?
Remember: freedom also means the freedom of one sect of folks to ask for laws from their nation, no matter how odd we may think those laws are. Or are you next going to complain that in some States, it is illegal for an employer to demand without signific notice that an employee work on Sunday?
Freedom ends where it infringes upon another individual's freedom. Just as an employer does not have the right to interfere with an employee's religious observation, a citizen does not have the right to impose those observations upon others. That protection is built into our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In short, your argument in this case is warped, and in fact, your examples aid in rebuttal of your own case.
Technology, from film to TV to the Web, is often blamed for triggering spiritual failings and degradations.
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians.
Oops. He didn't say "fundamentalist Christians," did he? The author made an observation, a rather valid one, and because it did not agree with your view as a spokesman for "fundamentalist Christians," you rejected his observation as wrong.
It is evident that your bias has interfered with your ability to construct an argument.
Apparently you're an absolute, unrelenting moron, and I'm wasting my time. But, you're a moron that challenged me, so I'm going to have a bit of fun here...
No self-respecting historian wastes time trying to predict alternate futures. Too many outside factors exist. At the same time, this can be said: The church at this time was squelching all opposing viewpoints (note: "The Church was... [attempting to control] any potentially questionable views held by its followers."). Maybe you need a lesson in the English language. Strong operators such as "any" or "all" mean just that. They do not mean "most."
had he did, his fate would have been a far different one.
As i said, it's stupid to attempt to suggest alternate futures. What if we hadn't entered WWII? What then? But in response, Galileo was friends with the pope. Galileo had his work approved by the inquisition. The church was attempting to elminate any opposing viewpoints, any including Galileo's. He played the system. It didn't work.
I honestly cannot tell how my response the previous time was inadequate, but I have yet to see you produce any prominent historian's viewpoint on the subject, so I consider you done.
Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
I see you miss the point again. The point I was making is that it's alright for legislation like that to be proposed.
Maybe it is the fact that you cannot properly use the English language that has caused this problem.
Phrases such as not really a big deal imply that the proposed legislation is not something for one to be concerned about. As in, whether it passes or not is a non-issue.
Please point me to the line where either Jon Katz or myself asked to restrict the freedom of speech of any opposing group.
Your argument is absolutely irrelevant to any part of this discussion.
A valid one? Then why don't you *support* it, rather than wasting bandwidth and server space to simply call me an idiot?
Go read a newspaper. Or, refer to the fundamentalist Christian-supported bill H 1501, in response to the Columbine shooting, an amendment to which provides for the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools... What do you want, an opinion poll? Start calling... As far as a waste of your time, I'm extremely sorry that I wasted your time. I wasted mine, as well, because you're obviously too thick to pull anything useful from a post that was somewhat more intelligent than any of the unsupported opinions you had to offer.
FYI, I'm not a "fundamentalist spokesman", dispite your best efforts. Hell, I'm not even christian. (Native american, Salinan tribe, registered California Indian.)
"despite" has an e, not an i. That wasn't my best effort. spokesman, n. One who speaks as the representative of another or others. Note: status as a "spokesman" does not require membership. And I didn't say that you were fundamentalist, either. Nice try, you fail.
Besides, it doesn't do a damned thing to my point, which is this: even the most rabid fundamentalist Christians I've known aren't anti-technology.
You mean to tell me that you shared a post consisting of five hundred nintey-one words, none of which contained the preceding phrase or any similar phrase to state the above? The closest you had to offer was this:
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians. It's technology, unchecked by moral guidance, which is being blaimed. This is no different from gun control advocates who are concerned that criminals and idiots may get ahold of a gun and misuse it.
First off, the above phrase qualifies you as a spokesman for fundamentalist Christians. Second, the answers many Christians have been offering (the CDA, etc) often have more to do with restricting access than providing moral guidance. Furthermore, as I stated, morality is something that cannot be legislated, so assuming we scratch that off the list... Third, it is completely different from gun control advocates. A computer is not a device designed to cause massive bodily harm. A gun is. As a matter of fact, a gun as little other practical use than physical force of the threat thereof. A computer, on the other hand, is quite awkward to wield in combat. I'd even venture to say that (here goes predicting the future) thirteen people wouldn't have died at Columbine if the two boys were armed with 486s. Fourth, you don't know all the same Christians I know. Meaning that your point is essentially unsupported. Could you please provide *support*? Fifth, obviously you don't know what a Christian Scientist is. Sixth, I'd like to waste bandwidth and server space to elucidate my opinion that you are an idiot (or at least acting like one).
To conclude:
You're still wrong, and even though I supported that statement the first time, you are incapable of understanding other people's writing. Furthermore, you need to relearn English. Third, attacking Jon Katz (or anyone else) in a roundabout attempt to state a point that you never actually get to is a bad idea.
I love you.
I think you'd have little trouble keeping a store open on Sunday, unless you live in a place where the vast majority of the population is churchgoing.
You can't get your mail on Christmas day for the same reason I can't get mine on the Fourth of July. Until recently, I wasn't an American (citizen) and as far as I know my carrier didn't have to be either. But we celebrate it as a national holiday. Even if I didn't believe that the US ever became independant from the UK, I'd still be "forced" to deal with that national holiday.
Non-Christians don't make laws that restrict Christian freedom.
How about teachers who aren't allowed to bring "Christian" things to school (ie crosses) while no one says a word about Haunnaka, or putting up pictures of witches on Halloween for that matter?
because of certain ones who enjoy restricting people's freedom
If you want to see who's freedom is more repressed, consider whether you would have made the same comment about Muslims, or Buddhists.
The ones around here liked to molest young boys.
Anyone who likes to molest young boys should not be in the ministry. Just because you're a priest doesn't mean your close to God; that's about a personal relationship with Christ. In any case, you don't need religion to treat humans like they're humans. But you do need Christ to love all humans as yourself.
I hope you take time to meditate on your falling away from the One True Faith(tm).
+&x
A Christian cowboy is riding his horse through the woods. All of a sudden a huge grizzly raises up, spooks his horse, and leaves him hurt, laying on the ground.
The bear, seeing it's prize, starts running full-speed toward the downed cowboy. The cowboy closes his eyes and quickly starts to pray, "Please God, let it be a Christian bear."
He opens his eyes in wonder to see the bear come to an abrupt stop and drop to one knee. Then the bear says "Please God, bless this food that I am about to partake".
+&x
We will fail, guaranteed, but that is what things like Grace and Forgiveness are about.
:-)
That's a big part of what I don't like. It's rather like a repetitive TV commercial, constantly telling you that you are inferior and need something extra to be better, or just good. And by jove, the church can give it to you.
It's all about being the best you can be, but accepting that you can never be perfect and that's okay.
Except that it's not okay, that's the constant teaching, "You are fundamentally bad, you are a sinner, repent and beg for forgiveness."
For the non-Christian, who may have deeply-set antipathy towards Christianity or religion in general, can still choose to live a life of love. If they do, at the time of judgement they will be presented with the Truth in BIG BOLD LETTERS, see it for reality, and will be sheltered in Grace and Forgiveness.
You forgot they have to ACCEPT it. I've heard this story before. It's how you can account for condemning (in life) everyone who is not christian (if they don't worship the One True God (tm), they are evil), while at the same time praying for their immortal souls (after life).
Do you mean BIG BOLD LETTERS like God's finaly message to his creation from H2G2?
I wrote a similar rant (to this post) the other day for my website entitled "Christ: The Ultimate Placebo", if anyone is curious e-mail me.
+&x
Power currupts. Energy is power. Everything is emergy. Everything corrupts. Entropy.
And people are selfish and imperfect, thus vast power amplifies those imperfections leading to quicker disintegration.
Anybody see that Animal Farm movie?
+&x
So that's the answer, "Don't call me good. No one is good, only the Lord our God."
But, what's the question? (i.e. you've lost me)
Saying that the Lord, and only the Lord, is good kinda makes it tough for everyone else to be, eh? Or is this a question of semantics and taken out of context.
+&x
The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.
- --------------------------------------------
Do Katz's insinuations of fanaticism and hypocrisy also mean that these game designers are not free?
According to Katz's article Dying babies and the Myth of American Freedom, harshly criticising something that is radically different than the mainstream is essentially attempting to limit the freedom of the creators of the different idea. This game is definitely something that goes against what is expected of the gaming industry, and Katz is clearly criticizing it. Is he now limiting their freedom?
Katz, your creditbility with this audience would not be as damaged if you would at least not contradict yourself.
--------------------------------
-------------
This is the reason a lot of Christians drive me nuts. You don't believe that people can follow their own moral code without a divine creator.
Maybe I like to treat people nicely because I'm a nice person. I don't treat people like shit because it would be a bad thing to do, not because I feel a need to justify myself and go to heaven.
Honestly the thought of an eternal afterlife scares the shit out of me. Living forever being happy, with no emotion other than joy all the time sounds like one of the worst fates ever. I'd rather go to hell where I can feel pain, at least it would be more interesting.
Everyone has their right to their own beliefs, just don't try and throw it down others' throats. I'm sick of being accosted by Christians on campus trying to "save" me, regardless of the fact that I don't want to be saved. I know that you need to meet some form of quota to insure that God loves you and you can get into heaven, but understand that in most religions, there is another way to get into heaven.... be nice to people. I have a friend who became a Christian and I've gone to a few of the parties his friends were having. They were nothing but hate fests. It seemed like they had nothing better to do than talk about others behind their backs. They looked down upon gays, non-Christian music, unwed mothers, etc. Do they honestly think that this is a way to get into heaven. Rather than being nice to people, they take the easy way out and try to convert others and go to church. As long as you practice the faith, it does not matter if you have a cold heart inside.
I know not all Christians are like this, but could those of you who practice your faith the way it was intended please get the vocal minority of yourselves to shut the hell up and go back to reading the bible, and possibly get some meaning out of the message of it, instead of reading the letter of it to try and buy yourself an easy ticket to heaven.
My father was an altarboy, and he was driven away from the church by those who could see no other way to live their lives than their own way. You need to see that the death of religion is not being caused by evil, it is being caused by your own viewpoint not allowing differentiation. It may be different once you get inside the church, but from outside, you look like a bunch of hypocritical jerks.
Of course Slashdot is mostly athiest/agnostic, we have a bunch of computer geeks here who do logic for a living. When you come right down to it, logic is the opposite of faith, so of course most here will be against any form of religion, it goes with the territory. This is not the place to argue Christianity, you will invariably lose, if only because you are outnumbered.
Crap that was a long rant.
The Lord does not want you to blow up abortion clinics,
Andrew (considering himself a deist)
Katz, you seem to be a victim of your own rhetoric.
This game is trying to reach an audience of Christians often neglected by the "mainstream" world, both Christian and non-Christian. Despite what many non-Christians many think, not all of us Christians are people who scream "the Internet is the Devil!" at the first accidental web search for "free JPEGs." However, this does not keep you, the man who decried schools everwhere for their stereotyping of geeks, goths, and other form of introverts, from stereotyping and lambasting Christians.
I haven't seen the game. To tell the truth, I'd probably find it a little cheesy and would prefer more mainstream games. However, it is an attempt to create a quote-unquote religious game that is not Yet Another Boring Moral Quiz. This is an attempt that should be looked upon favorably or brushed aside if it truly is a poor game, but is instead being bashed simply because the religion in question is Christianity.
Get this in all of your heads now -- we Christians are NOT the Borg. We are individuals, and some of us think a little differently from each other. Hell, if that weren't the case do you think we'd still have all our stupid little denominational squabbles? The seeming contradiction over the creation of a violent game after so much has been said about violence in the media being the root of all evil is because it wasn't the same person giving the two different messages!
This is not News for Nerds. This is another excuse to pigeonhole all Christians into one monolithic entity and call us fools for not agreeing with one another. Well, listen to your own message for once. Christians are people and have their own differing views -- and that's okay.
By the way, Katz.. Just because you've never felt like you been sent the touch of the divine doesn't mean you should be mocking people who do. If you really want to send a message that we should be open to other people's views, you should quit being so hypocritical about religious views. (Not that there'd have been a word about this on this sight if it was a Muslim or Wiccan game...)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I don't see any hypocrisy in Jon's writings at all. He takes a firm stand for independant thought and tolerance...a stance that reflects the free-thinking spirit of the internet. Christianity -- in general -- opposes these free-thinking ideals.
It is perfectly reasonable and valid to point to Christianity and Christians as the poster children for intolerance and suppression of independant thought. Because of the actions of the Christian community, and especially the actions of their leaders, the word 'Christian' has become synonymous with 'Intolerant' in the minds of the public. It is a generalization, but a valid one that everyone who has ever been oppressed by a Christian fanatic can understand (*). The religious beliefs themselves have nothing to do with it -- it's the actions of individual Christians over hundreds of years that have ruined the reputation of them all.
Now, you can argue whether it's right for someone who champions tolerance to be intolerant of intolerant people. I'd say yes, personally...having an opinion is worthless if it prevents you from acting upon it.
Don't like how your religion (not just Christianity, but any religion) is viewed by people outside your faith? Do something about it. It's your community, you must be able to influence its actions somehow. Or do they really not permit their members free speech and independant thought?
(* -- Footnote: Yes, I used the word 'fanatic' and 'oppressed'. I am currently one of the targets of a right-wing Christian campaign, and a deliberate mis-quote of something I wrote is on their web page as an example of the kind of "monster" they're fighting. It's sleaze tactics like this and fanatic suppression of innocent and legal activities that gave Christianity their bad name.)
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
OK, the original post was by an idiot who is a self-proclaimed intellectual. He probably considers himself "open-minded" or "enlightened" and probably is to any *other* belief system.
Gee, insults, that was productive. Is there a kill file for slashdot posters? I've gotten very little from this guy with which I care to waste my time.
I'm amazed that this flame war is considered as actually being on topic. Since the poster started it, we can have fun with insults.
thanks katz
For starters, Christians believe that God has given each and every one of them "free will". That is, God is the ultimate supporter of the idea of Freedom of the individual! He lets us do as we please, and it is up to us to do what is right.
Many will argue that the United States, among other things, was founded on the idea of Freedom of Religion. And indeed, you'll find people practising all sorts of religions there.
I think it's ignorant at best and disingenous at worst to state that the concept of Freedom and the belief of Religion do not "get along".
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Wasn't being thrown to the lions in ancient Rome the world's first Christian action game?
Umm.. Is it just me or is The War In Heaven not the first time that Katz's implied religious zealots invaded the gaming industry? Doesn't Doom have religious overtones? I mean, you're fighting your way out of Hell.. gee, sounds familiar. Or how about Heretic? Or ANY roleplaying game with pagan elements? What about the old NES Kid Icarus? How about the dredel game? Let's face it, religion is a part of human life, whether or not you buy into it or not. Katz, you didn't state it outright, but it's clear that you have some serious prejudice against Christians. How is prejudice against a religious group any more logical than prejudice against a racial group.. or gasp.. prejudice against geeks? I'm not Christian, but this game sounds original and fun to play, even if it is a blatant publicity stunt from the makers of that stupid and uncreative Deer Hunter game.
The violence, its creators claim, is merely a role-playing depiction of "spiritual warfare," the notion that non-physical agents of good and evil (which might well include TV, movies, the Net, animation and recorded music) are constantly at war and that their behavior affects people on earth. I can't figure out of this is supposed to be a joke or not. It does amuse me that organized religion has been sanctioning violence for thousands of years, when it's "for a good cause." This strikes me as something the Flanders kids would play if they weren't scared of the gibbage:) Look for the sequel to this game, where you and your yahoo buddies get rid of those pesky Muslims and Jews. I hope God also told them to include TCP/IP support:)
I mean, I just can't believe it.
spoo
From what I've seen from Katz, he has generally protested official (read, "sanctioned") persecution of geeks, free speech, et al. This does not necessarily mean that he thinks religion is a good thing. It's the whole "I might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" thing.
And if Katz won't say that Judaism, Hinduism, etc., is moronic, then I will. ALL religions are based upon voices in your head telling you what to do. End of story. BUT we're not supposed to say that because we might, ooo, offend someone.
Of course, in the process, truth gets tossed out the window. But hey, at least we're all playing nice-nice with each other.
- Rev.People like to pick on Christians becasue of the terrible track record. The Middle Ages, The Crusades, the Inquisition, there's a lot of bad stuff we can look back on.
Yes, we've had our run of mistakes, but you should remember that it was thanks to the efforts of the monks and nuns that preserved much of the knowledge (pre dark ages) that later allowed hummanity to come out of the middle ages and into the Renaissance. I won't even begin to discuss all the contributions the Church made to the Renaissance itself (music, art, architechture, etc.)...
These are the folks that executed Gallileo for heresy.
Actually, had you done your homework, you would know that Galileo was imprisoned by the Church for failing to comply with an earlier decree to which he had agreed to cease teaching the Copernican doctrine. His "imprisonment" was in the confines of the apartment of an Inquisition officer and/or the home of his friends. He died while serving his sentance, not by execution.
For a complete document of the Galileo vs Church, go to the following URL:
http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/ 06342b.htm
The Doctor is Out... (Combating the ignornace of the "reasoned")
I've got a couple of responses:
First, while it's somewhat original to have it in a specifically Christian context, it occurs to me that fighting demons, and generally fighting on the side of morality, isn't that new as a way to make violent games more palatable. Remember Wolfenstein (it's okay, you're killing Nazis) and Doom (demons and devils have taken over the bodies of the people on your ship, so you HAVE to shoot them)? Is there really any reason to be more disturbed by this game doing it than by id having done it years ago?
Second, I'm baffled by the idea that the main argument for freedom of speech is to claim that speech will never have any effect on people. It's just common sense that constant exposure to violence in the media makes it seem less repulsive: that's why propaganda is such an important part of a war effort. We need free speech IN SPITE OF this because there's no way to regulate such things that doesn't also stifle human thought. As for such things as CyberNanny, I'm sure we're all as horrified as Mr. Katz at the idea that innocent children are being kept from their pornography, but there's no issue of freedom here: we're quite capable of choosing whether to install such software, aren't we? Meanwhile, I see no cause for Katz's predicted confusion: Christian gore is as worthy of being blocked as any other kind, and just as innappropriate for young children.
--Moss
This is a
Now there are two of them.
There are two _____.
If try to run this on BSD Unix, will my computer become possessed by Daemons? Seriously, I thought there was a commandment like thought shalt not kill/commit murder. You know the one after the rule against spanking monkeys (red hot pokers are okay).
Christian theme games are okay I guess, but this sounds like a bad doom patch rahter than something original.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
For those paranoid masses, the bible and most other religions are based on choice and freedom. Some people or groups would like to make decisions for you, but that does not make them holier than thou, rightious, or right. So get off your f*'n soap box and stop playing the victim of a conformist society, your welcome to play the friggin game or not, but just because it's developed with religous intent doesn't mean it's a violation of your freedom. The venomous overtone by the author over this makes me want to kick his a$$ strait to hell and back!
Point being - hatred never got anyone anyplace good so LET IT GO! It's not that big of a deal. And does anyone know why this is under the american flag as opposed to some sort of religious icon? Does this have anything to do with America other than being produced and developed here?
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
This article greatly disturbed me for multiple reasons.
One, it is not objective in nature. Katz distainfully mentions, in multiple instances, things about Christianity - a valid form of belief - that he doesn't personally agree with. I find it quite perverse that "politically correct" tends to mean, "offend none, but bash the christians".
Two, it isn't accepting of Christians - as mentioned, it verbally insults Christian belief. What's with that, of all places, at Slashdot?! People visit /. because they're outcasts (to some extent) - as are Christians, in today's society.
Third, Katz openly states that religion is a deterent to freedom. To anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history, this would be an obvious lie. Throughout history, religion has time and time again restored peace, freedom to live in safety, and even promoted the founding of a certain country, on a certain continent that would have taken much longer to develop if it weren't for a group of certain people seeking religious freedom. Religion, in a non-corrupt form, is good, nurturing people and society. (Very similar to politics, or anything else, even technology.)
There are many more, but I've not the time to address them now.
Really people! This type of thing really puts /. in a bad light. Katz, this is disturbing, and an ultimate betrayal of geekhood in general, not to mention hypocrisy - you claim to accept the unaccepted, yet you rip on a belief merely because you don't understand it and are affraid of that. I'm sorry if this comes across as flaimbait - it certainly is _not_ intended as so. I'm merely trying to portray some ballance.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Having said that, somebody is going to be upset. Either the game will be considered sacreligious (and I don't doubt this one will) or it will be an electronic sermon. It all depends on what extreeme pro or con point of view you have on the religion in question. Both will have their markets. Me... I'll be interested if its more Seventh Sign or Prince of Darkness than Jesus Christ Superstar.
This whole paragraph bothers me.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries. Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally.
Technology has always come under fire as Satan's ally?
Let's see, the first movable type printing press was a huge invention for disseminating information (I'm talking Gutenburg here). And what was the first output of this press? "Women of few virtues and fewer garments?", nah, the Bible. Of course, printing lots of Bibles did affect the religious status quo soon after.
I see Katz mentions Islam. Don't stereotype one religion based on a intolerant, minority sect. Read a little about Islam, almost all the ancient Greek texts were saved and spread by Islam during the middle ages. Also, Islam in the middle ages invented algebra and alcohol.
Speaking of saving and restoring information, many monasteries did that in the middle ages too.
Oh well, flamebait builds posts.
George
Doh, my bad!
Islamic scientists invented distillation.
George
I see a lot of folks here Just Don't Get It.
First, had Mr. Katz spent more time paying attention in an A.P. English class and less time hanging out in the campus computer room, he would realize that most of the popular thematic elements used in stories today are derived directly from the Bible. Many stories are best analyzed by asking ourselves (for example) "who is the Christ figure?" That is, who is the character who is walking the same evolutionary path that Christ is shown to walk in the New Testiment. Some stories are rather obvious (G'Kar of Babylon 5), others are more subtle.
Using Biblical themes to tell a story is as old as the Bible itself. So why is it that as soon as the aliases are stripped off and the stories are presented "in the buff", so to speak, that legions of folks should suddenly become concerned that our popular culture is being overrun by "mind-controlling Christians?" Jesus Christ, (to borrow a phrase) they're already here, and have been for so long that we think nothing about refering to someone as a Judas, or asking for our 40 pieces of gold, or entering the promised land, or a whole host of other biblically related stuff.
It's like the concern and the debate over the movie "The Omega Code"--it's rather silly. First, it's rather silly that some fundamentalist Christians should either (a) complain about the sorry state of story telling in a Hollywood who can't even come up with a plot without borrowing heavily from either the Bible or Shakespere, or (b) finally rejoice over the fact that they finally have their own movie, given the critical and box office success of a number of other, much better fair, such as "The Prince Of Egypt."
Second, it's rather silly that the non-fundamentalist Christians should worry about the infiltration of the Bible--given the fact that Biblical stories and references are so deeply ingrained into our culture.
Then, we have Mr. Katz so up in arms over the violence in "The War In Heaven." I mean, come on! Hasn't he even cracked his bible and read the last chapter? Violence is so permiated through the stories in the Old and New Testiments that it's not even funny. People hack each other up, do all sorts of unholy things, and to top it off, God Himself tends to do all sorts of awful things to random folks who aren't on His Good Side. (Rent "The Prince of Egypt" and fast forward to the part where God unleashes his Holy Wrath against the hapless Egyptians and their disappearing first born if you want to get a feel for this.)
There are a number of fundamentalist Christians who see violence in the name of Holy Good as only Rightous--there is nothing hypocritical about this. Just as there is nothing hypocritical about a police officer using his gun in a shootout in order to apprehend a bad guy whose crime was using his gun. And keep in mind that Christians are not one large undifferentiated homogeneous mass, any more than geeks or gays or high school students are. Some Christians are extremely uncomfortable with the use of violence in any circumstance--even if it were in the name of Holy Goodness and Light. Like with all things, YMMV.
And as to the bozos who have suggested that we wouldn't create a Jewish or Muslim video game--the only reason why this may be true is not because there isn't a market of "gullible" Jews or Muslims or whatever. After all, even though Babylon 5 leans very heavily on Biblical references through a number of subplots, it's not targeted to "gullible Christians." And it's not that we won't see a Jewish or Muslim video game because those traditions lack a rich and textured cultural reference and story base that could be tapped for story telling purposes. No; the only reason why we won't see such a game anytime soon is because the people in the United States and throughout most of Europe are completely clueless about what sorts of stories are in the Torah or the Koran.
After all, more people here know about some guy walking on water than about anything Mohamed may have done in his life...
(* Footnote: yes, I know most Christian and Muslem stories are also Jewish stories. But Jewish culture contains a lot more stories than the ones preserved by the Christians or by Muslems.)
Technology, from film to TV to the Web, is often blamed for triggering spiritual failings and degradations.
/. for sympathy. After all, your remarkable intolerance for religious people is as bad as the "crimes" you claim high school bullies have visited on goths and geeks after Columbine.
No, Mr. Katz, it's not technology that's being blaimed by fundamentalist Christians. It's technology, unchecked by moral guidance, which is being blaimed. This is no different from gun control advocates who are concerned that criminals and idiots may get ahold of a gun and misuse it.
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries.
And of course you just don't get it. Had you paid any attention in history class instead of playing hookie to frag your friends in Duke Nukem, you'd learned that Galileo was persecuted by the Church not because of his anti-religions, pro-technology beliefs, but because he upset the status quo of a church which was attempting to preserve it's eroding power base. Specifically, the Church never actually denied that Galileo's observations of the heavens were false; they only bitched because he presented his findings outside the context of the Church Hierarchy. Had Galileo "played politics" with the Church, his findings may have first been stamped with the approval of the Church hierarchy, and presented as compatable with Roman Catholic Theology. Instead, Galileo ignored the Church, went around their backs, and that pissed the Cardinals off.
As to the Orthodox Jews demanding that cinemas be closed in Israel on Friday, that is no worse than any temperance law in the United States which prohibits the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Here in California, the prohibition is against sale of alcohol between 2am and 6am, but in other parts of the union, alcohol cannot be sold on Sunday as well. It's also no different than England's prohibition against stores being open on Sunday. Friday night is a holy time to Jews, so asking the state pass a law which helps in their religious observances is not really a big deal.
Remember: freedom also means the freedom of one sect of folks to ask for laws from their nation, no matter how odd we may think those laws are. Or are you next going to complain that in some States, it is illegal for an employer to demand without signific notice that an employee work on Sunday?
And as to those "Islamic attacks", well--didn't you just complain about people judging geeks by the actions of two gun-welding goths mowing down a bunch of fellow students? And here you are, doing the same damned thing! Not all of Islam is made up of angry fundamentalist American-hating screaming fascists who want to murder everone and everything that goes agains the word of Allah. Just as not all geeks are black-wearing Goths who would think nothing about mixing up the Real World with the Virtual World of Doom and frag a few dozen students because they are disgruntled and stressed out on Jolt cola.
But of course your grasp of the issues surrounding Religion is so shallow, intolerant, and down-right ignorant that it doesn't supprise me that you Just Miss The Point.
That's okay; next time you cry "victim" and ask for "tolerance" of geeks and Other People Just Like You, don't look to me or a lot of other folks here on
get nerf arena at: http://pc.ign.com/news/11468.html
heard about it over at user friendly
Good Point!
Lots of people have some funny idea about the
trinity.
Regarding the trinity- the first century church
certainly hadnt heard of it, the idea originated
just before Constantines time (the merge of
christianity/state/"paganism".
It was adopted due to political reasons,.
The bible certainly doesnt teach the trinity
and it really stuffs much of the concepts in the bible up, so i wonder why everyone belevies it?
You *are* talking about the real smart newton arent you??? :), but it seems that many people post
i have one of his books in front of me!
Newton was extremely religous. Very much
anti religous dogma (ie catholic church).
Newton was more into the bible than into science
im afraid.
No offense,
making ridiculous statements like that.
Maybe you just got the wrong name.
I'm sure many of you have seen the Xtian product knock-off shirts (Coca-Cola, Tide, etc.) and heard some of the gimpy rap/heavy metal bands (a la DC Talk). These products are usually just lame attempts at filling the cultural desire that christian kids have, a desire that is the same as "secular" kids': have fun, be cool. It just so happens that the most effective way to keep from losing these kids to their oh-so-evil inherent drives for sex and fun was to mimic popular culture but "with a message". I really don't have a problem with people believing what they want, and practicing it as such. I have a problem with any religion (or company) that makes a practice of bastardizing other people's ideas and "flava", and then try to use it as their own. This goes for video games, t-shirts, and even lifestyles.
I had a friend once who was from a Jewish family (like myself), and he joined some anti-nazi straightedge skinhead group. I thought his goal was somewhat noble, but they way he attempted to achieve it was ignorant. He was trying to get in on some of the "docs and chains" coolness (circa '92), but with a message; everyone who saw him for the next 3 months sized him up as a neo-nazi. My point is this: if you have a message or an agenda, and we all usually do, the best means is usually NOT emulation of an opposing culture.
I saw some guys on campus who were walking around in white robes and beards and sandals. I talked to them briefly, and I came away with a different perspective on Christians, and religious people in general. Those guys were the shit. If you are going to do it, I mean if you really believe all of whatever it is you're into, don't half-ass it. Don't walk around in a God's Gym shirt and listen to wannabe clean rap. Don't talk about reincarnation and then cuss out your girlfriend. Those guys were "in the world, but not of the world". Eat locusts, or stop trying to throw stones at the rest of society.
I'm certain that there are serious christian artisits out there. I also know that the owners of some of the largest Xtian radio stations aren't even christians. If you asked them their religion, they would probably say, "Capitalism".
In summary, I seriously doubt that you would ever have caught Jesus playing Xtian video games and singing "To Hell With the Devil".
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I don't see where he says the game shouldn't be sold at all, either. He's merely pointing out 1) the hypocricy of having an extremely violent game marketed as suitable for teenagers because it is religious when an equivalent secular (or other than Christian religion) game would not be, 2) that many fundamentalists are more than willing to use violence for THEIR objectives even as they decry the "violent society" we now live in, and 3) that there is no conclusive evidence thatthe players of this game would WANT to be on the side of the angels to begin with.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
But pointing out the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the murders of abortion doctors would just be setting up a "strawman" example of Christianity in the other direction, right?
More bothersome to me is the way that the Religious Right is using worries about school violence (which is, as JK pointed out, DOWN, Columbine notwithstanding) as an excuse to get the Ten Commandments nd prayer back in the schools. I'm NOT Christian and I find that vastly inappropriate.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
It's something that, as a Christian, I wouldn't play :-) (and am about to fire up UT to play a little CTF)
I'm not sure about the engine. It looks like they're using the Jedi Knight engine, which in itself isn't that bad, just a little outdated. If they're using an engine they developed, it looks like they did a decent job, although the game looks dated by about a year.
If this game would have used the Q3 engine or the Unreal engine, I'd at least download the demo. I'm not sure if I'd like it, I'm not one for either gratutious violence or unrealistic happy no-blood-no-guts action games (realistic violence is alot more effective, if you cut someone, or thing in this case, with a sword, it bleeds. If you shoot someone with a bazooka, he better gib), but then again, I don't believe in demons either.
I am certainly glad that this writer wasn't too biased or anything.
Where this writer went wrong with the following statement:
"Religion and freedom have never really gotten along, from the persecution of Galileo to the demands by Orthodox Jews that Jerusalem shut down its cinemas on Friday night to Islamic attacks on writers and reporters in some Middle Eastern countries. Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally."
I cam certainly glad that I have been grouped with other people with different beliefs.
I am Christian. Before you start sparking up your flame throwers, I don't belong to a religion.
What does that mean? I am a Christian by faith not by organization. Religion was built by man and not by God. A similar comparison is partisianship in today politics. Our forefathers never had the idea of bring in two separate parties to rule our land... but they do.
God never intended to have organizations just so people maybe saved. Faith comes within... not from some brick-and-mortar structure with a bunch of hypocrites running the scene.
I truly wish that this person would get off the anti-religious high horse and at least, write about something he knows. Review the game; don't preach to us the wrongdoings of religions today.
ChozSun
ChozSun [e-mail]
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
Sheesh...I thought we wiped out Hell in the Doom saga...Hell is trite, contrived and boring...I'm sick of fighting demons...
I would like to see what the characters look like in this game though...are there abortion doctor demons? how about Howard Stern...man, he's both obscene AND jewish...he would be worth a lot of points.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
If they give you the opportunity to ascend into holiness and stomp the evil demons, I don't think it is fair that they dictate that you just be destroyed if you go the other way. I mean, shouldn't you be just as able to become a powerful henchman of Satan and overthrow heaven or something? I guess it isn't about fairness though...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"No, Katz did not critisize religion. He critisized the members of a religion, by lumping them together as a group and otherwise acting in the way he claims the traditional media does towards geeks."
/intolerant/ are naturally the enemy of the system, regardless of their skin color, religion, race, whatever. Some people just take the opportunity (or make the slip) or observing a high correlation between intolerance and another given trait, like, say, religion...
Well...a religion is a lot more binding and characteristic than an ill-defined and vague slang term. When someone proclaims to be of a certain religion, it is NOT unexpected to conceptually group them with others proclaiming the same religion...in fact it is EXPECTED, and often desired. It's nobody's fault if Christians don't want to be lumped with other Christians (applies for any religion). Maybe the particular sect should be mentioned as a qualifier then. If the traditional media described all geeks as being the "average" geek then they would still be a bit flawed, but certainly closer to the truth. What the media does is provide a view wildly different from all geeks in general. Christianity, on the other hand has a standard to which one can be normalized. When one says "Christian", well, you can pretty much surmise that they believe in the texts of the Bible and accept Christ as their savior. I don't see any evil stereotyping going on there.
"In fact I am not, but I do intensely dislike anyone putting people down as a group on the basis of something like religion, skin color or political belief. I am for freedom and tolerance, and Katz's article just didn't seem very tolerant to me..."
The fundamental problem in the "tolerance" argument is that the only thing tolerating people do not tolerate is intolerance! I think that's the problem. Sure, it's wrong to put people down base merely on religion, skin color, or political belief...BUT, in this atmosphere of altruistic tolerance, the one catch is that any who are
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I really don't think that the point is that ALL of Christendom is behind this. I would assume most moderate and intelligent Christians would find this game as silly and hypocrite as non-Christians. The point is that the same moral-authority types propagate this as "wholesome" that think it's evil if a 15 year sees a naked nipple, an 18 year old has a beer, and think it's a really good an worthy thing for everyone to be able to buy automatic weapons (and lay the blame for Columbine on South Park).
I'm not much of a Doom/Quake/you-name-it fan, but I don't think it's evil. If a teenager is incapable of differentiating between killing in a game or on TV, the cause can't just be his playing Quake.
If you do find Doom & Company offensive, this game is just as bad, what kind of a medieval concept of religion is it that allows killing for God? Ok, it's basically the same moral argument used to justify the death penalty.
I really don't think that the point is that ALL of Christendom is behind this. I would assume most moderate and intelligent Christians would find this game as silly and hypocrite as non-Christians. The point is that the same moral-authority types propagate this as "wholesome" that think it's evil if a 15 year sees a naked nipple, an 18 year old has a beer, and think it's a really good an worthy thing for everyone to be able to buy automatic weapons (and lay the blame for Columbine on South Park).
I'm not much of a Doom/Quake/you-name-it fan, but I don't think it's evil. If a teenager is incapable of differentiating between killing in a game or on TV, the cause can't just be his playing Quake.
If you do find Doom & Company offensive, this game is just as bad, what kind of a medieval concept of religion is it that allows killing for God? Ok, it's basically the same moral argument used to justify the death penalty.
Anyone downloaded this already, it seems so ridiculous that I'm tempted to believe this is a farce along the line of JeSux.
While I'll admit that there probably wasn't the same kind of overt religious evangelism in Doom as in this game, I do happen to know that one of the designers is a genuine Mormon (Sandy Peterson).
I have no problem with people trying to use a game for evangelism. My problem is when people try to run/destroy other peoples lives and use religion as an excuse. I have the exact same problem when atheist humanists who don't believe in God try to run my life using social engineering as an excuse. Tyranny is tyranny, it doesn't matter what the person claims as their basis, ultimately its an attempt of them to impose their own tastes and view of the world on others for their own personal glorification. If I'm not harming other people, then keep out of my life, for all you know my interpretation of Scripture is more correct than yours. (I think people who are really, really sure that they know the will of God are committing the sin of pride. In the New Testament, Jesus called these types of people "whited sepulchres," i.e. beautiful tombs full of decaying corpses.) I've been pretty shocked by some of the things people have done in the name of Christianity, I don't think just calling yourself a Christian exempts you from courtesy or simple decent behaviour, but some Christians seem to think it does.
This may be the first evangelical action game, but if it's designers don't think they are going to get grief if some kid who plays it decides to turn a gun on his schoolmates, they've got another thing coming. They'll be surprised at how fast glory-seeking televangelist types will jump on them.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Not yet. It runs on Sinux, at the moment, but I think a port is in the works. Check out the game news at Angelix.org and Demonix.net. ;)
---
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
Back in the days when science was young (let face it pre-Newton was a different beasty) Newton was a bit of a rebel, not relgious in the slightest and he approached the world from a logical perspective. His theories on gravity, optics and the whole shebang which tied together Kepler, Copernicus et al (I'm not a big fan of Gallileo, sounds a bit like Bill Gates to me, pushing off others ideas as his own). These guys founded modern science and of course suffered a huge religious backlash by way of various writings by christians on "why god is right and those blokes are wrong". Of course nobody in their right mind is going to stand-up for perfect spheres and the earth centred universe today, in fact the mainstream religions all except this as fact. Interestingly it was Newton's non-acceptance of religon that changed several rules in the UK (he couldn't have headed a college without swearing an oath to god, he might have refused to so they changed the rule). This could be seen as the start of the religious freedom in the UK which led pretty much directly to the Industrial revolution.
... John McCormack. Somehow I never thought I'd be able to link the three.
Then a while later came another Brit called Darwin, he drew together various other ideas added some of his own and produced probably the most controversial book of all time "Origin of the Species". This was an era when religon was still strong and many condemned his heresy. Various pamphlets defending the creationist view point were written and shot down by argument, debate and logic. Again today even the Catholic Church excepts evolution (if being a little shaky on abiogenesis).
Now we add to this list of people whom religons have copied in an attempt to destroy
When does the Jesus v Santa patch arrive ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Go knock yourself out...here is an old page with information about the game. Not much here. It looks (from the ) like an old style of gameplay--just a few things on the screen at a time. Very simple layout but great rendering. Kinda lame, but I won't slam it till I see it.
always on the edge...rift design studio
Or even better, we can pump up abortion doctors full of lead and turn their white lab coats red with the blood of justice!!
I bet ya I can make tons a money down in the southern states (Move over "Redneck Rampage!")
PanDuh!
Eeehh.. so whats the point of worshipping the Big G at all, if all we have to do is live a life of love? I mean, that would certainly free up Sunday mornings for a lot of people!
-- PanDuh!
Well as a non-believer, I don't believe in Hell, so your point is kinda moot as well.
Besides, Hell can't be all that bad, considering the majority of the world is going to be stewing in their for not believing in the "right" deity. I'll have plenty of company.
-- PanDuh!
PanDuh!
(IMHO that is about all religion is good for)
PanDuh!
Here is an interesting question... what is "joy" without "suffering"? If we have never suffered a single day in our whole lives, would we know what "joy" is? Would we appreciate this "joy"?
I tend to think that joy is somewhat relative. What might be a crappy life for us right now, might be heaven for some poor kid in Rwanda who is sick, starving and suffering just to survive.
Without pain, we cannot know pleasure.
--
PanDuh!
FYI, Ubermensch means "Overman". The concept is mostly like Superman, but slightly different.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
It always amuses me that people will lump all people who call themselves Christians into one catagory, and expect them all to be the same, but do not do the same for all people who call themselves Athiests. There were/are many horrible things going on in the world being done by athiests, that does not mean I think you are the same as those people doing it.
Not all people who call themselves Christians are.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
..you're assuming that everyone believes in Heaven and Hell.
:-P
A great number of us don't. So, by that token, YOU think we'll all end up in Hell. No one can say who's right or wrong, so why waste precious time arguing over where we're going to end up? We'll find out soon enough, eh?
So, back to the game...I am still laughing my ass off at it. And at most of these postings.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Dunno why I always play Paladins or Angels, though... I gather it's for the intellectual exercise of playing something that asks absolutely no questions of an ethical nature and is certain of everything, when I know nothing absolutely and take nothing for granted.
To come back to the subject at hand... I think the above demonstrates that your choice of character in an Angel/Demon game doesn't have very much to do with whether you're a sinner or a saint. I bet the Pope would play a kick-ass Demon if he could. :)
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
I fail to see how a game that involves angels and/or demons has anything to do with Christian morality. The idea that your actions impact on your moral alignment is nothing new, and gives the false impression that you have to do something drastic to condemn yourself to evil (like sacking the nobles for cash in Baldur's Gate, or going on a peasant rampage in most RPGs.)
What I mean by this is, this game designer is trying to hype this game by appealing to Christians. He probably also expects Christians to take up arms at the mention of this game's graphical depiction of violence and hacking down "praying angels". And poof, he's getting more publicity than you can possibly hope for. In other words, he's a marketing troll.
That being said, I'm not Christian, so I couldn't care less. I think the idea of setting a game in Heaven sounds great, and I'm always a sucker for the good guys (hence I'll probably play an Angel, if I ever acquire the game.) It doesn't sound like it follows tradition very closely, and surely a game based on Milton's Paradise Lost would have had more appeal to Christians. It probably would be very boring, though, as the Angels could never be wounded and the Son of God would beat the Rebels' asses...
Anyway. Tis just hype, and Jon Katz bought into it without thinking twice. May still be a cool game, but I don't expect spiritual enlightenment from it.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
I feel that the majority of the readership of this site are considerably less than objective about a number of issues themselves.
Moderation on Linux related issues in particular is a big indicator of what I mean here...The site is exclusively pro-Linux. If you make comments along the lines of "Linux is good, Linux is wonderful, everyone go out and buy Linux, etc etc," sit back and watch how far your comment will get moderated up. In the same spirit, woe betide you if you just happen to be a Windows user. Another thing that really bugs the hell out of me is how Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond get practically worshipped as deities...They're not deities...They're human beings, and in the case of Raymond in particular, they're not even human beings who write necessarily intelligent material 100% of the time. Yes Raymond has had some intelligent ideas, but if you go to his site you'll also find the writings of someone who is an egotistical smartass a lot of the time.
Stallman is someone who comes across to me as being a lot more impressive, sure...but I still don't find myself worshipping the man. The Slashdot group ARE bigots in just as great a sense as any Christians you'll find are likely to be. They have a polytheistic religion, complete with it's own gods, it's own ministers, and it's own heroes...and anyone who isn't willing to convert is routinely verbally burned at the stake. The religion is called Linux.
the end will be one big anticlimax when you get to heaven, but there's no god to kill.. some game.. :(
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I don't want any evil hackers possessing my computer, you know ...
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I am just more and more sickened my the holier than thou hipocracy of the right-wing freaks.
Anyone see the pattern?
First, rock and roll was "the music of the devil". Well, the old skeezers couldn't kill off rock and roll, it was too entrenched with the youth, who were actually open minded about new trends (both culturally and technological).
So what do the right wingers do? They go with the old "if you can't beat them, join them" routine. And now we have "christian rock".
Next came chrisitan metal, christian rap, christian punk, christian ska.... Sorry revrends Fallwell, Robertson, and Buchannon, but if I want to listen to your right wing fascist propaganda, I'll actually GO to church again someday (or mabye I'll just watch the televangelists).
Now we have christian Doom.
This is even more hipocritical. All throughout the media, Doom was being bashed by the christian right as one of the causes of that Columbine nonsence. "We need more family values, Doom is a "murder simulater"" etc...
Now they have their own Doom, which they plan to use to indoctrinate 3d gamers. This after denouncing Doom, and its brethern as a cause of the decline of morality in America or some such non-sence.
Any you know what's REALLY funny? You know where the hipocracy surfaces big time?
Anybody remember the plot of Doom, the very game they were so intent on bashing?????
It had a *LITTLE* something to do with fighting the minions of hell! The VERY SAME MESSAGE these guts are trying to send with this holy avengers game!!!!!
Granted, in Doom, you weren't an angel fighting daemons with a holy sword or somesuch; you were a part of the US Marine Corps, fighting the legions of hell with a 12 gauge, and a healthy supply of buckshot!
In fact, you could argue, that because this "Holy Avengers" game lets you play on the side of "evil", wheras Doom only allows you to play as "good", that Doom actually sends a MORE MORALLY "RIGHT" massage than Holy Avengers!
I don't know what's worse, the continual efforts of these bastards to infiltrate every aspect of my life; or the blantant hipocracy when they do...
john
Imagine all the people...
that the url for where I can buy this game online
was not included here. It smacks of anti religious bulldinky. If this was an announcement
for the latest version of Halflife or Diablo
the url would be here. I don't care at all for
this guys comments about wrong and right, I WANT
MY VIOLENCE. I am sincerely looking forward to becoming a highest echelon demon in the ranks of
Lucifers angels, and am deeply saddened to see
such outrageuous anti religious bullcrap allowed on this website. I think God is the greatest
product ever invented. So is Satan.
Where is the URL so I can get to smacking angels ?
Sincerely yours,
AO Crowley
void this_is_a_stack_issue(){this_is_a_stack_issue();}
I couldn't have said it better myself. When I saw this earlier in the day I didn't have time to read the entire news item, but I cringed, waiting for the bashing to begin. Nice to see this post, and nicer to see it actually get moderated UP! :)
Did Jon ever say anyhting that the Christians didn't have the right to produce the game? No. He is just pointing out their hypocrisy (sp?) I don't think he has anything against Christians personally he just points out the flaws they show. The days following Columbine all the Christians say 'Violence is horrible! Its the Internet! We should ban it! No more Quake! No more Doom! Its the devil!' Yet now they come up with this game where its now OK to blow up all these
I've emphasized the massive fallacy in your statement. *I* Am a Christian, I DID NOT blame the internet or anything else other than the sick, twisted demented minds of the kids and the blind stupid parents for columbine. When you are capable of making a rational argument please feel free to do so. But trying to catagorize all Christians as doing anything is sheer stupidity.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I guess you have never met any Christian's then. Anybody can be baptised and run around frothing off at the mouth like most of your neo-Satanic Christian Churches in America.
A Christian will never judge somebody else no matter who or what the person has done.
Don't judge the religion by the ignorant goat's who call themselves Christian's actually read the Bible and don't just regurgitate stuff you have heard others say. Who is the person who is truly questioning. I am not a Christian but I HAVE READ THE BIBLE can you say the same. Why don't you do alittle research before you start sending your bland ideas to the rest of the ether!
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
I know its kinda of late in the game but who knows someone might see this post.
At first I thought this game was silly. I mean I play games for fun, I don't expect them to
preach to me. When I play half-life I'm not picking up that aliens and soldiers are bad and
that I should kill them all, I'm usually wasting a few hours of sleep by staying up to late.
But this game is actually trying to make a point and get a message across. Now I'm not
going to debate what type of message its sending, as one can see from other posts
everyone seems to have a take on it.
If the makers of the game had said this is just an angle vs. demon game nobody would
have given it a second thought. But they didn't, it is sold as a christian game reportedly to
show christian views. Why is this so bad? People show a point of view - try to get a
message across in Movies, Book, and other types of media. Why shouldn't gaming be the
same way?
The world of gaming has been changing a lot with computers, internet, and etc. Gaming
isn't a board game any longer. More and more it is sold as interactive media, virtual
reality, and total reality immersion. Perhaps War In Heaven is one of the first "Virtual
Reality" with a message attached to it.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
The various incarnations of Christianity have a rather violent history. Nothing like a crusade or hot oil for whipping those pesky non-believers into line! What I'm curious about is what happens if you win the game as a demon. Do you get to rule over the heavens and Earth with an iron fist and cloven hoof? Or is there some sort of Deus Ex Machina (forgive the pun) at the end where the forces of Right(tm) swoop in and rob you of your just desserts?
Now I could be wrong. But there have been christian action games before. I can remember seeing a game on the original NES where you took on the role of a famous bible character, and ran around in a platform style fashion.
Technology . . is not any of these things. -Bruce Sterling
EXCEPT - Even if I was christian I would not want a child of mine to automatically assume that angels are all white and blond. ie. The most holy people are all aryans. Weeeee talk about your innane morally. Why couldn't they have made the angels blue or something? Or are they stuck in that traditional white males are the true chosen ones thing too. I wonder if they portray God or Jesus as a white anglo-saxon male too. Oh yeah while I am ranting - it's a good thing those puny little female angels have the big strong male archangels to back them up. Will there eventually be a plugin to make all the demons look jewish or black? Maybe we can have a plugin that turns it into 1940 Germany too?
Oh and another thing - why is it that whenever
anywho - head louse signing off
The arrival of the first Christian computer action game opens a whole new chapter in the never-ending struggle between technology and the self-proclaimed forces of morality.
Really? I wasn't aware that technology and morality were mutualy exclusive goals. Surely you can use technology for good.
Perhaps you only mean a struggle between the people who crusade for enforced morality (which I would admit is hypocritical), who also seem to be technophobes, and technology, but it really is difficult to tell.
[Seoman] "A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking."
We, (with we being the entire human populous), are first individuals, THEN we have traits that allign us to certain groups. But these things can be changed, because it is not WHO the person is, it is something that goes into making the whole. In all honesty, the only thing I've read here that I agree with is that the history of the world has been brutally disected by the media into two parts: Pre-Columbine, and Post-Columbine, and G*d-d*mn but Post-Columbine SUCKS.
"Where do bad folks go when they die? They don't go to heaven where the angels fly. They go to a lake of fire and fry,
Yes, but in the Bible we can find Christ saying the answer, when some rich guy called him "Good Master" (in my bible, "Maestro bueno"), and he responds: "Don't call me good. No one is good, only the Lord our God." (again in my bible, "No me llames bueno. No hay nadie bueno, sólo el Señor nuestro Dios es bueno") (or something like that, I have not read that page on my Bible in years).
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
Okay the version for the 15 year olds is out, so when are they releasing the adult version, "The taming of the succubi?"
The site says it uses a "state-of-the-art non-Euclidean portal-based engine". I don't know much about 3D engines, but I'd swear I've never heard one described as "non-Euclidean" before. Anybody know what this means?
If you read the Apocrypha (the bits of the Bible the church throws away because they don't like it) you'll find that Lucifer (bringer of light) was created as God's conscience. When Lucifer tried to tell God he shouldn't be doing this, there was a bit of a scuffle.
Now, I don't believe this either, but the point is, these texts, and many more like them exist; with no good reason to call them any better or worse than others. Entire segments of christian literature are made up (well, more so than usual :) hell was invented for the purposes of simony, and satan is blatantly based on Pan. The cross is stolen from pagan religions.
Now, for all these people who say I shouldn't criticise religion; why ? I criticise politics, I criticise research papers, I criticise articles; what marks religion out so that I should treat it any different ? I don't go around with the idea that all Christians are stupid, or bigoted or whatever... I have plenty christian friends, and we have loads of arguments, but at least both sides see arguments as a good thing, and don't try to claim persecution every time.
As an aside, I found this quote on the website...
"Outwit and outfight immortal beings armed with a variety of lethal weapons!"
Does this sound like a cynical money-making ploy to you ? And why would immortals be worried about lethal weapons ?
NP
Can you sum it up in a word? *No.* In a noise? *Whuuuurghhhhh!*
How is this different from the recent and lame Requim: Avenging Angel? Or from Interplay's upcoming title Messiah? Neither of those two titles are terribly Christian... you run around, possess enemies and kill them because "they're evil and you and the angels must exterminate them".
I'm a Christian who plays Starcraft, trades MP3's (Christian hardcore no less), and am probably by most definitions a geek. And I know there are other Christian geeks out there too.
But don't you think God would want us to use our time better than just playing games, even if/when they are somewhat Christian?
-- Primis.
I'd be very curious to see how the game plays! Wonder if they put any really effort into the development of this game... One has to wonder since there aren't any screen shots or other relevant information at the web site.
> "Why is this bad news if they're good games?
>Because they're religion based? Or for other
>reasons?"
>I think the bad news he means in this sentence is
>that this will spawn more hypocritical people
>churning out games dictating a rule of morality
>and ethics, but only looking for a buck in
>doing so.
Heh... You mean like 99% of religious figures today?
That's actually quite pessimistic of me to say. More than likely, half of them are only looking for power, and only about 49% are looking for money.
I don't agree with Mr. Katz assesment that religion and freedom are enemies. Many people came to this country over the years seeking religious freedom. Many others came seeking alot of money. The problem, as I see it, is that the two groups merged somewhere along the line.
To bring this more to a slashdot topic, I feel that these people should release their game under a GPL, so I can laugh at their pitiful coding skills. (Sorry, I needed an ego trip; frequent flier miles, you know)
Final note: I would never admit to following a "religion", but I DO believe in life outside the three dimensions through which we view this universe, whatever such being(s) may be called.
>>>>>>>> Kvort (Pickle!)
-Don't mind me, I'm personality-deficient and mentally-impaired.
Yup, you are right. Christians love slaughter. They slaughter people who believe differently, they slaughter people who don't believe anything at all, and they even slaughter each other.
Brandon Reinhart
As someone who isn't Christian, it worries me that more Christians don't point out how whacked the radical right is.
(BTW, I am a Republican. And yes, I'm angry.)
If you're a free-market capitalist, but not a Christian righter, shouldn't you be a Libertarian instead of a Republican?
If you read the Old Testament, you will quickly see that Yahweh delights in a wholesome gorefest just as much as the next deity. Seems like these guys are just continuing the tradition...
I had a Bible class in College (it was required) and I always remember a quote from my prof at times like these.
/. writer does a story on something like this they should know something about the basis (the Bible in this case), Have PLAYED the game in question (which Katz says he hasn't), or at least be respectful of the subject matter (Christianity/Religion). It is articles like these that make me believe the Mr. Katz really has no interest in making sense just seeing his own words on Slashdot.
"If they were to make a movie of the entire Bible It would be the bloodiest and sexiest movie ever."
Now granted he used this to get out attention but, having since read these parts he pointed out I have to agree. For those of you who have never read (either by choice or forcibly) the Bible let me hit some highlights.
1) David, The most respected Jewish King Takes a married woman he saw Bathing on her roof gets her pregnant and then has her Husband Killed.
2) David's son had over 500 wives.
3) There is plenty on slaughter and sacrifice and sex all over the place.
4) One of the prophets married a Prostitute who went out to work every evening.
5) And Song of Solomon is the biggest Love poem ever written.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you should have multiple spouses or be a hooker, and this isn't the only stuff in the Bible, but The Bible isn't this huge book filled with only pacifist thoughts. It tells of many things. Much of the Old Testament is about War and oppression. And how can we forget the REAL war in Heaven where Michael the Archangel banished the demons.
I think the next time a
Oh, and by the way I LOVE Quake. I AM Christian. I DO go to Church. And I sure would buy a game that had a sword-wielding angel slaying demons. As long as it plays well.
hmmmm...what? Oh, I left this stupid
As a Christian, I find it laughable that anyone would try to claim that playing this video game would have any spiritual merit. The bible even forbids "slandering celestial beings" (never mind blowing them up with lasers, bombs, whatever).
I would hesitate to label a game "Christian." That's like labeling food "Christian." Christianity is a matter of will and of the heart, not of what food you eat, what clothes you wear, what books you read, what games you play, etc.
If you love to play Doom, that doesn't mean you are evil or violent. If you love to play The War In Heaven, it doesn't mean you are a good Christian (personally, I like Warcraft). In fact, dangling things like blaspheming and killing praying angels in front of gamers is akin to spiritual entrapment.
This game would thus appear to have a premise that is more Satanic than Christian.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
Speaking as a Christian geek, I didn't know that there was a struggle between technology and morality.
There will always be groups of Christians (or Muslims, or orthodox Jews, or...) that just don't get it . These people will view anything that challenges them to think in new ways as evil. This was true of the printing press way back then, and it's true of the Internet now.
The challenge for Christians is to look beyond the things that get all the hype (porn, for example) and to figure out how God's truth applies in the new context. The challenge for non-Christians is to remember that humans screw things up . Just because a bunch of idiots use God's name to run an Inquisition (or to persecute scientists, or to burn books, or to campaign against the Internet rather than learn how to use it to spread the Gospel) that doesn't mean that God feels the same way.
Intelligent people, whether they are Christians or not, understand that there is no one, single explanation for the violence in our culture. Television, video games, movies, and the Internet are all products of our society. To hack up an old colloquialism, 'they don't make society, they just reflect it.'
Intelligent Christians don't struggle against technology, we embrace it (some, like me, make their living off of it) and find a way to use it to tell people about how much God loves them.
Ignore the idiots, whether they're Christians or not.
How can the eyes be the Windows of the soul when they never blue screen?
The problem(s) with this article and with the game:
:-)). Choices are nice.
There are lots of games out there which have metaphysical elements (ever grabbed that pentagram in quake.1?). No one ever suggests that these metaphysical elements are some sort of vast pagan conspiracy or working out of a didactic device. People who create worlds/games/etc. are reflecting elements of their worldview, which is normal while being creative. Some people would rather grab a cross for invincibility than an upside down pentagram. Some people would rather blow away barney than growling demons (barney may be the same / more evil
As other posts have mentioned, Katz is being rather condescending to Christian Geeks. In this case I can't blame him for one thing. The Christian mass-media industry tends to cater to a mindset well below the lowest common denomenator. This DOES sound like a rather silly game - perhaps the game equivalent of a "Christian Romance Novel" (try not to barf!), when what Christian Geeks really want is the gaming equivalent of Dostoyevsky!
Copying a game like Doom with a Christian theme is really changing nothing (why not just change Doom Wads/wallpaper etc.?). If a "game" reflects Christian themes, it should be something creative - e.g. how about an interactive "Chronicles of Narnia" for kids? Imaginative or Historical, and hopefully avoiding formulaic bluntness and obvious Theological axes. Sure you can war against demons, but give me the subtle and tricky demons of "The Screwtape Letters" and not just a red dude with a pitchforked nail gun!
While such silliness deserves some criticism, Katz is offbase in using it to suppose that Geeks, Christians, and the love of freedom are somehow opposed (or inherently linked) to each other. My personal heroes have all tended to be Christian Geeks such as St. Paul Florensky - a scientist who made original contributions in physics, biology, mathematics engineering, philology, philosophy and theology (and predicted the advent of cybernetics before anyone else in Russia). He was also opposed to any form of "standardized thinking" which is what forms the basis of the media's evaluation of the net, and Katz' reaction to it.
Now, I don't think this is necessarily bad. Some of this stuff is useful and beneficial. I like some Christian rock (e.g. Massivivid), fiction (Stephen Lawhead), and having a searchable online Bible on hand can often come in really handy. However, Sturgeons law applies--90% of everything is crap. A lot of this stuff is a mediocre knock-off of something secular with a "Christian" label slapped on.
This is why I think Mr. Katz is wrong in his analysis. He's not part of the subculture and he doesn't understand it. This isn't so much a result of the Columbine massacre as just another "Christian" knock-off. (Whether or not it's a good knock-off is another question.)
The significance of this event is, it seems, mostly a product of his own biases.
--Chris
Many of the high ranked posters are ranting about how Jon is an opinionated twit who slants facts in order to maximize dramatic impact.
I won't defend what I also believe was a lousy article, but on a gut level I think I understand where Jon gets his willingness to call Christians hypocritical idiots.
The trouble is that Christians in the media all look like imbeciles who would actually give money to prevent a televangelist from dying "because god said so". I'm not saying that's all the Christians that are out there. Of course not, but an amusing stereotype will surive regardless of its validity. Jon's guilty of being a lousy article writer, but his prejudices spring from understandable places.
Jon, you really need to remember that Slashdot is a place where the articles are mostly supposed to be analytical. You didn't use any analytical skills on this piece. All you did was emote all over us.
Scrappy
He advocates the rights of one group while bashing another. It seems he's trying to lead us to believe that Christian games will somehow oppress geeks. This game is just like DOOM, and many others. You use weapons to fight demons and the forces of evil. This time, however, you are an angel instead of a space marine.
Katz claims that he's for free speech, rights online, and so forth... then he goes around bashing other groups for taking advantage of the same rights. At the same time, he seems to assume that no /. readers are both geeks and Christians, which it appears many of us are.
Strangely enough, a lot of Christians and geeks actually share a lot of the same ideals, mainly minimum government control. (A few Christians even believe that Bill Gates is the antichrist, so would gladly join in your Redmond bashing.) Please remember that the televangelists you see running around don't represent all Christians. These people are basically acting. They're on TV, afterall, and they put on a show.
Anyway, Katz is entitled to his view. Many of you may agree with him. He obviously thinks Christians are all part of an anti-geek conspiracy. With his double standards on who should be allowed to express their views, I can't really respect what he says though.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Nice story Katz, I enjoyed this one more than most of your stuff.
;)
Although it is disturbing, it's also amazingly amusing. Let's hope that if the game does become popular enough to be mentioned in the (mainstream) media that somebody with a sense of irony has a field day with it.
I wonder if the demon path gives you a shot at Jesus or Jehovah, I've always wanted to discuss "creative differences" with them
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Should have posted a sarcasm statement next to that one. Really, most of my best friends (and my wife) are christian. Just because I jest about fighting Jesus I get labelled as a troll. It's not like Southpark hasn't done worse.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
What I find interesting is that any questions raised about Christianity are always met so defensively. Katz didn't critisize any religion in the slightest - at all.
No, Katz did not critisize religion. He critisized the members of a religion, by lumping them together as a group and otherwise acting in the way he claims the traditional media does towards geeks. The whole tone of his article is dismissive and, well, nasty. It almost seems like he has a personal axe to grind, and it is certainly hypocritical of him. Hence my post.
You loonitics are just so paranoid about someone raising questions about anything included in the little Christian club that you blast anyone who questions you.
Who, me? What makes you think that I am a christian, much less that I consider myself one? I am certain I never made that claim, and I hadn't thought my post would make it seem so. In fact I am not, but I do intensely dislike anyone putting people down as a group on the basis of something like religion, skin color or political belief. I am for freedom and tolerance, and Katz's article just didn't seem very tolerant to me...
On the other hand I think your choice of words says volumes about you. Plus you mispelled 'lunatics'. And no, I won't go into your grammar.
Katz is questioning the inconsistancy that somehow a very violent Christian game is hailed as morally pure, while games like Quake are blamed for violence.
I agree with that point. I only take exception with the way it was made. Katz was either deliberately making intolerant sounding remarks or he was expressing a personal opinion that had no place here. Either way, I feel correct in referring to the article as 'flamebait'.
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
On the one hand Jon Katz pushes tolerance for those who are different and freedom of speech for all. On the other, as in this article, he seems to be doing the opposite. Why all the venom against Christians Jon? Would you make the same nasty, baseless, comments about a game representing Jewish or Muslim mythology? How about Hindu? Paganism?
Not that I really care about the game in question myself. I doubt I will ever play it, much less pay money for the privilege. Nor am I in the target audience. And the idea of a violent game intended for christians does seem a bit hypocritical. Although perhaps not, if you read the old testement.
But it doesn't reach the same heighth of hypocrisy as Jon here! He speaks in a harsh tone about one segment of the populace, yet writes so many impassioned articles questioning why the general populace and traditional media do the same with geeks. Perhaps Jon thinks Christians are safe targets right now...
And notice that at no point is the game reviewed on its own merits as a game. Only on the content. I wish I could moderate articles down -- I would count this one as 'flamebait'.
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Wow. I guess this qualifies as a "holy war", huh?
;)
This may be off-topic, but no more so than all the anti-Christian / pro-Christian rhetoric above. There are several things worth noting on this conversation. My favorite fallacies:
(1) Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are both good things, unless either one of them happens to be of a religious or spiritual nature, in which case it is backwards, primitive, and medieval. Thoughts or expressions in this vein should be repressed.
(2) All Christians think exactly alike. Specifically, they all believe that unless you follow their specific flavor of Christianity, you are Hell-bound.
I was appalled to see this group of normally reasonable, intelligent people resort to this silly bickering and bigotry. I was appalled to see people I assumed to be both thinking and educated arguing from emotion, ignorance, and confusion. What happened to open-mindedness to other points of view? Oh yeah, I forgot... everything from Microsoft sucks, whether I've actually used it or not.
Why can't we all just get along?
Interesting. In all the "evil" Id games, you are on the "good" side, fighting evil. In the Christian game, you're able to play the evil side, and fight goodness.
Why does it seem unlikely that the media will ever mention this the next time they talk about how evil Quake is and how great this Christian game is.
Since this article has spawned so many religious people on both sides, I'm going to bring up a valid point, a Christian game is not going to convert the "hethans" any more so than a paganistic game is going to be making Wiccans out of 8-year old overactive-thumb snot-nosed kids. It's not going to happen.
If you'd like to discuss the "history" of Christian thought, or more important a viewpoint on christian missionary movements in europe, check out "Halloween" by Silver Ravenwolf (I believe that's his name). I was browsing through it, and found his viewpoint a stark contrast to that taught in most textbooks, and far more thought out than other arguements for or against christianity. The key to his clarity is simply "no judgement, only the facts as presented by the author".
And yes, this is in itself a contradiction.
But, looking at the game, I must say, "eh, it's ok, but can it match the Duke for sheer kick-assness!"
of course, an interesting module would be to have Mr. Nukem fighting off both sides of the conflict, kicking God and Lucifer's ass, and becoming the allmighty himself. (All too fitting, in his own mind)
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I think that this game is admirable - The fact that a company is sticking it's neck out in an attempt to make a game with some emotion - the whole good path / bad path
now i haven't seen the game yet, but if they stay true to what Jon "The Crack Addict" Katz is saying about it, then it may or may not be a good game, but it should be an admirable one. I get the feeling a lot these days that many people and companies purposely censor themselves in an attempt not to be shunned or boycotted, and it makes me sad. This company seems to be taking a stand - they're making a game that will bring emotion and morality into the experience - i mean how many comapnies will release a game where you can slaugter a praying angel - that's bound to put some feeling into the game.
One game came close to this kind of feeling - Jedi Knight - you had the option of choosing the light side or the dark side - the dark side gave you cool powers, but you had to kill off your friends and slaugter complete stangers to get there, and when you did, the cut scenes were few and far between, making the dark path seem quick and without remorse. This game just seems to take all that a step further by grounding it into the real world.
all in all - i can't wait to see this game - it should probably have a significant amount of controversy around it, but i think it will be a good experience to play both sides, evil and good.
P.S. about the only thing that could seriously kill this game is if they remove the option to play evil - then it would be the pure definition of censorship and paranoid cowardly companies. I hope the company stays true to it's intent.
---
Apart from the fact that it will be another senseless killing, I can't wait for some guy to go out and kill some people and claim that this very game made him do it. That'll produce some interesting effects.
> Last week, the Justice Department announced
> that, for the first time in half a century,
> more people are using guns to kill themselves
> than to kill others.
There is no correlation between people killing themselves and killing others. Who says that if they hadn't killed themselves, they would have killed someone else? or Vise Versa?
The statemnet that more people are using guns to kill themselves than others means Nothing, other than the number of people killing themselves has increased.
For Example: If 100 people killed other people last year, and 50 killed themselves, then this year 150 people killed other people, and 200 people killed themselves. Does that really tell us anything? Not really, just that both killings of other people and people killing themselves increased since last year. Their statement implies that people killing other people has dropped, but it has not. Its like trying to compare apples to oranges.
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Whether it's Jesus or free software, both groups (or sections thereof) like to take popular concepts and put their own slant on them.
Everybody has heard a Christian flavor of their favorite musical genre(s), e.g. D.C. Talk, Stryper, Point of Grace, and similarly, there is a free adaptation of popular titles like Photoshop, MS Office, etc. (but strangely, nothing like AutoCAD). Whether the masses like it or not isn't really of any concern
There are many respectable hackers that are Christian, most notably Larry Wall, but also Ian D. Mead, author of UltraEdit, which happens to be the greatest text editor of all time (yes, better than VI).
Geekdom may be more genetic than cultural. Truth be told, geeks are an eclectic bunch. There are geeks who don't like sci-fi/fantasy, 'cardboard crack', comic books, or RPG's, and there may as well be Christian and Satanic geeks, too.
<RANT>
I hope to keep Slashdot as "news for nerds", not "news you can lose", and "stuff that matters", not "shut yer yapper", so given the events of the past few days, Roblimo and JonKatz have bcome the first entries in my authors.deny file.
</RANT>
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Hey, John, before you review a game, or even use it as an example of your anti-Christian moral tirade, don't you think you should have tried it out first? As a supposed journalist, you hacen't given the program any objective crisitism, other than "That wacky Christian Collective are a bunch of hypocrites for releasing a violent game that lets you do the work of God". What authority/credibility/knowledge do you have to justify writing this excrement and posting it on /.?
Ever hit someone out of anger? Ever talked about someone behind their back? Ever cheated on an exam or homework in a curved class? Ever stolen? What do you think when you come across people of obviously lower intelligence? Ever have racist thoughts?
:/
What is repentance?
Yet, I have met very few people who are not Christians who will admit that they are just as deserving of hell as the aforementioned mass murderer.
And I have met very few Christians who will either. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in hate or anything else. I am, what people would call a Good Person. I attempt recognize and eliminate my problems, and I'm rather Charitable. Yet, I don't believe in God (fwiw, I am being raised in an LDS household) and I hope I never will. I don't hate God, but I don't believe in him. If there is a God, all I can hope is that he is not a heartless and cruel person, and that he will have mercy on me for not believing. If He exists, He sent me here to worship and believe in him with no proof other than a big book, and televangelists (which IS quite Arrogant). I find it hard to believe that he would send His children that he loves so much to Hell, simply for not embracing ignorance (as I view it). Modern Christianity is messed up. Corruption has taken a large toll on it, and it is now very, very difficult to tell what all the preachers are talking about. All the "different interpretations" stuff only serves to weaken the argument that God exists. And for them to call me a Bad Person because I don't believe in the hateful (He's obviously not a particularly nice god, as evidenced in the Bible) God they do, is annoying. Jesus Christ I can grok, almost. The Holy Ghost/Spirit sure. But only if God exists. And of course I don't believe he does.
One more thing, will someone please explain to me how Heaven and Hell is supposed to work? The LDS explanation of a three-tiered Heaven helps, but I am specifically interested in Hell. What could be so bad that you'll suffer for eternity? Wouldn't you get past it after a while? What if you become a good person while in Hell? Does God forgive you of your sins? What in Hell could make you feel bad for eternity? Things like pain, separation from loved ones, etc. can be gotten over relatively quickly, and things like "not being with God" certainly don't make sense. A stubborn Atheist in Hell will have nothing to suffer over, will they?
Eek. I ranted. And no one's going to see this
Heh, now there was a game! Promoted as the first Christian Computer game, it starred the player as The Saviour of souls who had to save possessed people (Who would fire guns upon thee in the name of Satan, Lord of all that is Evil and oeegoee) by throwing the fruit of faith (apples and bananas) on these evil sinners. It feature crap graphics, annyoing beeps, and scored a whopping 14% in PC Format back in 92 or sometime back then. Anyway, if this game features a trip to hell, maybe I can finally find out if the road to hell really is paved with good intentions, or, as others have suggested, frozen life insurance salesmen. -- You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on
--
Tarald - The Lord of Smeg
Tarald - The Lord of Smeg
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on
I personally disagree with the basic premise of this game, based on the details that Jon has provided. I disagree with it for different reasons than Jon. But Jon's articles have shown a disturbing trend of hatred and fear-mongering towards groups that have a tendency for more right-leaning viewpoints, so I felt compelled to reply just to maintain a sense of balance. I have particular issues with many points in this article:
"...the never-ending struggle between technology and the self-proclaimed forces of morality"
Aren't you also more than a little self-proclaimed? Isn't "forces of morality" rather strong labeling? Do all moralists, Christian or otherwise, fit neatly into this little box that you've invented? Isn't the relationship between technology and morality more complex than the single, over-simplified concept of "never-ending struggle"?
"The new idea seems to be that while opponents can condemn TV, movies and the Net for causing violence, violence can also be used to promote wholesomeness and spirituality. It's a confusing time to be a moral guardian."
This statement assumes that all "moral guardians", as you disaparagingly label them, will line up in support of this game and/or its authors' intentions. Your over-broad assertion also implies that opponents of violence in the media are the same set who would share the idea of promoting spiritual concepts with a violent computer game. Boy, your little labeled boxes just keep getting tighter and tighter. In fact, it is far more probable that many, if not most, "moral guardians" will disagree with the game at least as strongly as you, although for very different reasons.
"I've personally never been fortunate enough to get a direct communication from God, though perhaps that's because he doesn't yet use e-mail."
Stop sneering at someone else's expression of how they are inspired to create something new. Inspiration comes in many different forms. If this guy gets phone calls from God, let him. Or is religion not part of your definition of "freedom"?
"But without question, many geeks are already on the wrong path, loving stuff like "South Park" and "The Simpsons" as they do, Satan's productions all. (He was even in the last "South Park" movie.) They might actually revel in blasphemy and angel-bashing."
So Jon Katz proclaims that South Park and The Simpsons are all evil products of Satan. Furthermore, anyone who enjoys these shows has strong tendencies towards blasphemy and angel-bashing. Every last one, no choice here. If you watch these shows, you have to fit in one of Jon's neat little boxes, so let's all line up now and start Christian bashing!
"Religion and freedom have never really gotten along..."
They're getting along just fine right now, thank you. Please, how has this game in any way affected any of your personal freedom? We can have this discussion, can't we? Freedom includes this guy's right to express his views in a game. Just like you can express your views in trite little diatribes on the Hated Christian Right (tm). Same freedom, different delivery vector.
"Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally."
Technology is just as likely to be a tool of oppression. It's just a tool, not a single-sided "force for freedom". How about Fat Man and Little Boy? Lots of technology and good hard science there, do you love them as much as Slashdot? This assertion that technology is "always" viewed as Satan's ally is ridiculously over-broad and demonstrably untrue. In case you were too slow to notice, these people picked high technology (a computer game) to combat evil. Doesn't that make it God's ally, not Satan's?
"They'll grab their joysticks, deploy their amassed arsenals and rush out to meet the Millenial Crusaders. Geeks have been trained for this thier whole lives; the forces of righteousness will surely be blasted to bits."
Translation: All geeks are first-person-shooter fanatics. All geeks are non-members of, and actively opposed to, the Hated Christian Right (tm). And no member of the "forces of righteousness" would actually be good at a computer game. Lots of labels, bias, assumptions and general unsubstaniated FUD.
I don't see anyone standing up when some idiot like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwall starts making noises about our society's moral decrapitude. While it's easy to whine about "the media" (that nameless faceless entity which is always giving too much play to those on the other side) I'd rather see someone get up and make a statement. This whole sensationalist thing is a bunch of bullshit, it's called apathy and it's on the part of christians who don't stand up and make opposition noises when some bogus claim by the Moral Majority or the PMRC comes out. Do you expect this mystery media to come hunt you down and knock on your door: "We'd like a statement regarding the widespread condemnation of homosexuals by vocal christian groups." How many hindu or buddhist leaders (popular or not) on TV screaming a bunch of blather about kids who wear trench coats, or lesbians, or people who don't look the same or think the same or dress the same? So the bottom line is, if you don't attempt to say anything, then you are silently agreeing with whatever group does choose to say something. It's just like voting, if you don't bother then shut up and get to the back of the bus. gid-foo
How many games out there have basis in hell - Diablo is just one of many. Why make an issue of it when a game has a basis in heaven as well ? Many games are posed as a battle between good and evil, but because the the forces in this case are heaven vs. hell, it gets extra attention ? How the game plays will determine whether it's successful or not.
As far as religion and freedom not getting along, it should be stated that organized/institutionalized religion and the humans that run them have had problems with freedom, not the faith itself.
'Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one.' -- Sting
Hell, the bible itself says "Thou shalt not kill". Period. It says nothing about the wiccan down the street, or (more likely) those heathenistic Jews that live down the street who just won't accept the later half of the bible.
.. not so sure about that "period" -- there are a lot of get-out clauses in the Epistles which relate to gays, etc. And the Hebrew word used should be translated more as "murder" than "killing", which strikes me as providing quited enough of a blanket cop-out for any Christian who wants to "execute" someone.
Hrrrmm
It always amuses me to see Christians proudly avowing their faith, but claiming that all those nasty people who existed over the last thousand years are nothing to do with them. Kind of like modern-day Leninists pretending that the USSR had nothing to do with Communism.
jsm
Christians are perhaps the most arrogant people on the face of the earth. Read the bible and you'll know why.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
The old testament can be compared to the articles of confederation if the new testament is likened to the Constitution. The latter was temporary in preparation for the permanent defining principles. Both testaments are valid, though. If one choses to live by the letter of levitical law, they shall gain the promised rewards. To gain the rewards of the new testament, one needs to simply believe that Christ died for the absolutions of our sins.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
The web site is at www.externalwarriors.com
... I'd play it tho'.
It actually looks half-decent, sorta choppy looking
Try to understand what your talking about before you go and start bad mouthing things. Christianity and violence are not diametrically opposed. Never have been, never will be. People left to themselves are violent. Christians are people. You want a good example of violence and being unmoral, look in the Old Testament. Many wars, many deaths incest, rape, adultery, it's all there. However it doesn't describe it in every detail. It doesn't need to.
You seem to feel this is the first example of any Christian thing becoming outright violent. Ever read any book by Frank Perretti? (this coming darkness, the oath, and others) there incredibly violent. But alas, you have probably never read them...(each sold over a million copies)
Please do not group all Christians with Jerry Fallwell. We are not all of one mind.
metalgeek
metalgeek
windows, just another pane in the glass
nope humans love slaughter. atheists slaughter everyone, muslims slaughter everyone, buddists slaughter everyone, etc.
metalgeek
metalgeek
windows, just another pane in the glass
Well, he almost had me going until he called The Simpsons an agent of Satan. Is it just me, or are video games the wrong medium to use to try to "save souls"? Personally, I play them to have fun, not to learn how to redeem myself in the Lord's eyes. I guess I just can't figure out how I'm going to learn how to morally redeem myself by blasting a bunch of demons. As much as we would all like to do that in real life, it's not a very practical lesson. If we are going to "straighten out" todays youths (since the youths and their godless constructs are always the reason for social degredation) maybe we shouldn't be promoting violence at all, even if it is "morally right" violence. I believe that there were a few crusades that sang the same tune. If you are looking to "redeem" your soul, read the Bible, help out in a soup kitchen, donate your time to helping others. Don't be "shown the light" from a video game. They're meant to be fun, and it's dangerous to try taking any message out of them.
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" - Groucho Marx
Hey all,
Just thought I would bring this up as another possible contradiction. I recall that in the early 80's (at least in the church my parents went to at the time), there was a big furor about the D&D games providing a short road to satanism. This is the same mentality that the most vocal Christians (not necessarily the majority) attest to about 'Quake'ish games today.
I see this as the classic if you can't beat 'em-join 'em mentality. When it was decided that things like rock music were 'unholy' or 'unethical' eventually the pop culture forced Christianity (and I don't speak of other religions because I just don't have experience there) to adapt and produce rock musicians singing about Christian themes.
Again as others have said, the idea of killing is far from new as far as Christians are concerned, so I see these types of games as a logical extension of Christianity into realms they just haven't ventured into yet.
Let's face it, there aren't going to be any ultra-christian grandmothers fraggin' the devils. In my mind the only thing these types of games are going to do is provide well-meaning (if not well-thinking) parents an alternative to Quake for their kids. Now do parents actually think that have kids run around killing devils is better than killing mutant aliens?? I sincerely doubt it, but it provides them with an easy rationalization.
Sorry, I'll have to cut myself off now, I am babbling. Let's just hope that the open-minded will maintain and expand their leadership over the world's religions. The last thing we need are more zealots prancing around.
TheJet
The "Top 10" Reasons to procrastinate:
10.
There have been other thinly-veiled religiously themed games... does anyone remember Afterlife, the sim-city like game from Lucasarts? It ruled. :)
I don't play Doom because its cool. I play it because its fun! I don't need to be 'saved' I don't want to be 'saved'. I enjoy my life the way it is! I would rather laugh with the sinners then pray with the saints! Sinners have much more fun! Only the good die young!
And your second comment about my lack of sex. My girlfriend would like to have a word or 2 with you. ;-)
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
As an atheist the claim that relgion and freedom are always at odd is the most ridiculous piece of BS I've read in a long time. In fact the values incorporated by the Judeo-Christian cultural/religious systems formed a key part in transmitting and furthering ideas of freedom (see Orlando Patterson's "Freedom: Freedom In The Making of Western Culture."
That religion's relationship with freedom is often ambiguous and often very negative is true, but much the same thing could be said about important secular proponents of freedom such as Rousseau or Bentham.
This whole "look at the Christian action game and smirk" kind of comments seems to me the worst form of anti-religious bigotry. The criticism Katz relies on is a classic red baiting technique aimed at Christians -- since some Christians blame vidoe games for Columbine, lets just act as if all Christians believe this so then we can jump up and down and call them hypocrites when a religious action game comes out.
Typical Katz stupidity.
Just a few questions flittering through my thoughts at this moment. How exactly is one supposed to fight the demons in this game? The Christian way would be to turn the other cheek. Am I right about assuming that this is not what they do here? Do you forgive the demon for striking you? Do you pray that one day (s)he will see the light and give up evil for good?
Idealogy and entertainment don't mix. Nothing ruins a game more than getting preached at, no matter what the message may be.
...to make money or to save souls. All in all though, I must say this sounds very hypocritical. I can say that, because I spent 5 years as an evangelical, bible-thumping Christian. Now, this may be labeled as flamebait, but oh well. Here's how it is: it's bad to show a computer game with *simulated* violence, death, and gore. This kind of deplorable killing spree might lead to more Columbine-esque killings. *BUT* It's OK to nail down some of the devil's nasties. Hey, they're only dark lords of the netherworld. Go ahead, shoot them. I wonder if this will lead to a whole new generation of school shootings, where Christians go in and shoot their "less-than holy" classmates for their perversion and not choosing Jesus as their "way, truth, and life". This is, to me anyway, just one more example of the rotten-to-the-core, two-faced, hypocritical Christianity I was once a part of.
Two more points:
1. I kill demons in Magic: The Gathering so I guess that makes the game OK in the eyes of the fundies.
2. The people making this game are the same ones that bug you by knocking on your door during dinner.
Peace Out,
Charlie.
-- .sig files go when they die?
Child: Mommy, where do
Mother: HELL! Straight to hell!
I've never been the same since.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
Interesting. So now this company is proposing that we battle the forces of evil on the net (and technology in general) by playing them at their own game? So the next logical step would be a christian pr0n site? Maybe a whole network of theological warez? "God Saves" spam? "What's missing from CH__CH?" banner ads? The possibilities (and potential profits) are endless.
I'm not making any big statement, and I'm certainly not attacking the majority of (sensible) christians...this just amused me that's all.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
This is no different from doom (aside for the rating) - I wonder when people will start explaining violence with murderers thinking they're in "War in Heaven" and they were just ordered to commit crimes by whatever god they believe in.
This happening is about as likely as someone committing a murder because he confuses doom with the real world. Maybe more likely - some people do
tend to do weird things for religious reasons.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all religions are bad or something. As far as doing weird things for religious reasons, atheism is as valid a religion as all others).
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
There's an old axiom that says that you can't always trust your friends to tell you the truth, but you can trust your enemies. Mr. Katz has some serious problems with this "Christian" shoot-'em-up, and so does the Bible. To this end I have two points to make:
1. The real threat to Satan is not some WWJD-emblazoned teen wearing down the "fire" button on the demon horde, but the Christian who takes seriously what it means to be Christ-like, being "in the world", but "not of it". We need look no further than the person of Jesus Christ. When confronted face-to-face with Satan himself, His personal purity and holiness were what overcame the devil. Please refer to Ephesians 6:10-17 for the true meaning of spiritual warfare.
2. I fear that this game and its emerging genre are a cheap substitute for living a 24/7 life of personal purity and waging a victorious battle against the real forces of darkness, away from the PC, in the real world. I suppose this game will be popular fare in the same churches that use WWF style "entertainment" as a ministry tool. We need to understand that the Bible teaches that "harmless" imitations of evil are themselves evil!
All God asks is that Christians "come out from among them and be separate", and then maybe Mr. Katz wouldn't have to write an article like this.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
If you don't proclaim yourself moral, who else will do it for you?
While the notion of a Christian Doom-clone strikes me at first glance as funnier than a Jack Chick comic book, the potential ramifications of such a game strikes me as worrying.
/does/ inspire people to commit acts of brutality (and zealots don't need much encouragement), will the religious extremists condemn them as fast as they condemned the Columbine killers, or will we hear more calls of "I don't condone their actions, but religious outrage against such perversion and filth is only to be expected" like we get when people firebomb an abortion clinic?
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR FROM THE OUTSET! I am an agnostic, essentially an atheist (as well as a Discordian, a SubGenius, a Kibologist and several brands of heretic-of-the-week), but I have a number of Christian friends of all denominations. I am NOT posting this to bash religion. There is a sharp line between those who believe in God and those who feel that their beliefs should be foisted onto other people by any means necessary. I am speaking of the latter, not the former.
Extremists already claim that Doom and other games of the same type inspire ostracised teens to take up arms and massacre other living human beings, but if one looks through history, some of the nastiest and most horrific atrocities have been committed in the name of religious ideals. A game that claims, either implicitly or explicitly, that being a demon is the path to destruction and beating up demons is the fastest way to heaven is, IMO, a dangerous inspiration to kids who have people such as Rev. Paul Hill and Rev. Fred Phelps as their role models.
For the moment, take the supposition that the extremists are right: games that graphically depict violence inspire people to act more violent towards each other. Now, introduce into this a game that apparently carries the message that violence in the name of God against enemies of the faith is not only acceptable but laudable. If this game
If they're wrong and violence and FPSes aren't related, then this is just panic-mongering, but I still find it troublesome. Religious extremists seem to carry the message that any and everything is acceptable as long as it comes with a Seal of Approval from the local church, no matter how gruesome the contents may be. Rock and Roll is a danger, but Carman is alright because it's Christian Rock. Role Playing Games are satanic, but In Nomine is ok because you're playing angels (if you play demons, though, you're going to Hell, do not pass Purgatory, do not collect $200). Doom is evil, but a first-person-shoot-em-up that has you playing an angel beating up demons is ok because it's religiously-inspired and if you try to be a bad-guy then you're obviously corrupt anyway.
At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens when this game hits the shelves. I'll be curious to see if it receives the same level of condemnation that Doom, a game that has a marine beating up on the Forces of Darkness(tm), received.
I heard its a blast even though the target audience is about 10-13 yrs old. Its using the Unreal Engine so it should look pretty good and some fast action. There needs to be a paintball version next, anybody got some spare time?
Its karma, Kramer.
Just what we need, another concept promoting the simplistic good vs. bad concept of life. Of course, if you are neither Christian nor Evil incarnate you don't exist. Yep, just what the Christian kiddies need to help them deal with a rather grey life of dealing with grey people. Bravo creativity!
some CTF would be nice! One base is heaven, the other is hell! =)
...
The Bible, if translated correctly, says "thou shalt not commit murder," not "thou shalt not kill." Not quite the same thing.
"Correctly"? Let's see.
First of all, how about translating to today's English (does anyone speak King James' English anymore?):
That's better. But those among us who still know the difference between "shall" and "will" might object to the use of "shall" in a commandment. Use the correct implied imperative "will" instead:
That's better still. But why stop there? Use the direct imperative:
Ah. Much better. Direct, forceful, and to the point.
begin 644
Actualy, John, thats the good news. In a free market, finding a niche is a Good Thing. Christan dollars spend just like heathen dollars.
If the appearance of "wholsome" helps me rake in big money by selling to Christians, Muslims, Jews or Heretics, then wholesome I shall be.
The other nice thing about free markets is if you don't like the game, you don't have to buy it.
Remember these sage words.
Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
--Gordon Gekko
-137
Not only are certain religious groups rather set in their ways, but so are those who so openly reject them. Is the point that someone disapproves of this type of game really going to make a difference if the way it is conveyed is by saying things such as, "self-proclaimed faces of morality?" I applaud the religious group who produced this game, they are attempting to break the stereotypes that surround religion. But instead of being recognized for that, they are bashed by any number of groups, most likely due to the fact that they *are* a religious group.
Define Irony: The first Christian Action Game gets rated "Teen" for Violence....um....OK
---------
---------
Moo, Baby. Moo.
Fortunately, here in These United States, the Constitution prohibits government from either supporting or denigrating religion. Thus, the people are free to give their shekels to whatever religion they perceive as benefitting them the most. Currently, religions in America that have rousing music and exciting oratory are on the rise.
America is mostly a nomadic culture, so if you don't like where you're living, you can decamp to a different city or state or climate with ease, and having a religious "family" to turn to during these wanderings is a very comforting thing.
So, since European government has coopted religion and Europeans rarely move about like Americans, thus needing far less "family" support, religion in Europe has been castrated and American religions thrive.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
How is this any diffrent from Diablo? In Diablo your good fighting evil. Everything in there was demonic. And you never kill anything else good (PK's dont count :) ) so your still only fighting evil just a little more gory.
Hrm loving these
Perhaps I've been mislead, but in every first person shooter that I've played, I am thrown into the fold as a hero, a protector of humanity. The media and conservative crew get so wrapped up in the violence aspect that they forget the actual plot of the games. In Doom, the protagonist goes out to fight daemons and other hellspawn- the same evils that these Christian games (and people) try to fight against. Most other shooters follow this same path. They don't glorify violence and evil, they reflect it. I simply can't figure out why they don't see that symbolic link.
"Religion and freedom have never really gotten along"
Perhaps Mr. Katz has forgotten that Ghandi was a holy man and Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist minister. The Solidarity movement in Poland couldn't have brought down the totalitarian goverment there and started a chain reaction throughout Eastern Europe without John Paul II's support. If you weigh the closing of theaters on Fridays and battles over violent games against winning rights for millions of African-Americans or freedom for hundreds of millions of Eastern Europeans, you'll notice that religion does alot of good things, too. Admittedly, many Christians in the news lately have been facist idiots, but such a strong anti-religious statement is unsupported by facts.
Disdain and contempt are ugly no matter how they're applied. I may not agree with the morality presented in a Christian game, but I respect what they're trying to do. I think Katz needs to look in a mirror at his own prejudices before providing us with an editorial. Would this editorial be so biting (or even be written) if this was a Muslim game or a Buddhist game? I don't attend Church anywhere. I can't really define what my faith is or isn't. But I don't spit on people who do have faith. To the contrary, I respect their choices. There seems to be a large segment of today's society that belongs to the invisible church of secular humanism. Their rules are unwritten but more binding than any in the Bible. Thou shalt not let faith pass uncriticized. Thou hast not the right to protect thy children. Thou shalt not put forth a viewpoint I disagree with. Katz, you're worse than any born-again I ever met.
"The War In Heaven" is not the first Christian action game. In fact there have been several games that carried overt Christian themes. A Zelda-like game for the Super Nintendo featured a character who threw "fruit of the spirit" at "unbelievers" who, when hit, knelt in prayer. The character could pick up items and acquire new fruit with different properties. While playing I entered a bar and an angel told me "I had no business being in a bar" and removed my "belt of truth".
The ancient Commodore 64 had a maze tomb-hunting game where you had to avoid the snakes. If slain you were taken up to heaven on a cloud while the tune to Amazing Grace was played.
"The War In Heaven" is a role-playing game; it requires you to play a role in order to enjoy it. People played Ultima IV:The Quest of the Avatar, one of the greatest games of all time, without bitching about having to prove humility, charity, and sacrifice in the game, virtues that Christians advocate. Is playing the role of an avenging angel much different from playing the role of a gun wielding mercenary? In this game, it isn't. So where's the beef? If you don't feel comfortable playing the role of an avenging angel, don't buy the game. It's just a game and in my opinion far from innovative. I don't see much impact from this offering and it's definitely not worth freaking out over.
As far as the "good" christians "letting" the Religious Right be their spokespeople...what made you think that they had a choice? The reason that these people are well known is because it it much more interesting for the news to portray one who is foaming at the mouth than someone who seems calm and rational. This is true of all relegions not just christianity. I personally am not too thrilled with the way some of the public pagan "Leaders" have acted in public (especially appearing on shows like "Jerry Springer"). I certinly was never asked my opinion on wether these people should represent my relegion, why blame the christians for something that they have no control over?
I know, a pagan defending christians... what is the world coming to?
what is the christian point of view on the old testament vs. the new testament? they seem to be completely at odds with one another.
please do not take offense, for i mean none. i am just looking for information.
Jon Katz has taken something that any other person would have either just shrugged or laughed at and used it as an excuse for spewing his own brand of longwinded, innacurate social commentary.
First, on the whole pop-culture-creating-psycho-kids-who-murder, I really hate how everything such as TV, Movies, video games, music, etc. is blamed for the Columbine shooting. If it really is popular culture, then we're all at risk. I'm sure all those politicians who use this to their advantage have never seen a violent movie, listened to a violent song, etc. They're not perfect, no matter what they think.
"Gee, better watch out for Senator Bob, he just went and saw a R rated movie; he might go psycho and start killing us all"
If that's true, almost every American (with the exception of newborns) is a potential killer. We should all just be killed now, and save each other the trouble. In the long run, this would save lots of money, time, and trouble. Besides, other countries would probably be happy to be rid of all of us "psycho (and possibly murdering) Americans".
As for the Christian video game part, this brings up an even more interesting thought. I am a Christian, and I'm a bit intrigued by this. Do violent video games really affect people? I personally know a Christian who regular plays lesser violent games such as Goldeneye, and also enjoys playing the extremely gruesome ones, such as Turok and Turok 2. I'm sure he would be a Quake fan if he had a computer. However, he's an exemplary Christian. He volunteers all the time, is involved in tons of Christian events, has converted at least 100 people to Christianity, and is a youth leader in his church.
I wonder what God's view on violence really is. He certainly doesn't shy away from it. Whoever has read the old testament of the Bible discovers that gets pretty violent with massive amounts of killing, incest, rape, you name it. Does this mean the Bible is a bad influence? Should it be banned because of its violent content? Is there possibly some kid out there reading the Bible and getting ideas like "Wow! All that pillaging and killing in the old testament sure sounds like fun!"?
Well, I don't know. I just wanted to throw that out there.
and our Great Depression is our Lives. So says the protagonist of "Fight Club," IMHO one of the most provocative films in recent memory. And IMHO, he is dead on. What follows is my (take on) religion for today. Triangulated somewhere between between sober dissertation and bong-load revalation, psychic meditation and mental masturbation: I encourage all to read Dr. Boyd's "spiritual warfare" article on the eternalwarriors page. (preferably before reading the rest of this. Although we come from vastly different theological viewpoints, it's a pretty damn well written paper. Just tell the boss you're researching a new market.) In the beginning he reveals the seemingly paradoxical nature of spiritual free agency in the bible - there is only "One God" with a capital 'G,' yet there are many references, in both testaments, to a large number of spiritual free agents - angels, demons, etc. Interpreted literally, THESE AGENTS HAVE FREE WILL and are therefore prone to the same error and moral ambiguity as the rest of us (he describes one biblical passage as God "reaming out" less-than-competent subordinates.) Dr. Boyd goes on to cast Christianity in a decidedly non-platonic light - that is, while God has a Plan, free agents are perfectly able to screw up his Plan (and there isn't necessarily some perfect world where his Plan went right, either.) I found the description rather refreshing, because it is one of the few "Christian" theological viewpoints I've heard that addresses the polytheistic aspect of Christianity. It's really not that far from some traditions (e.g. parts of Eastern, Pagan, and Native American spirituality) which posit a whole sort of spiritual ecosystem. I guess it's actually closer to Catholic mysticism, since the context seems very bi-polar - you're either on "the side of" God or the Devil. Still, the picture painted by Dr. Boyd is of a big, dynamic, exciting spiritual world, in which, even if there is an absolute right and wrong, the participating free agents don't have all the data, and therefore can't always make the 'right' decision. I think Dr. Boyd's paper offers a glimmer of hope, an intellectual avenue between Christians and non-Christians. After all, WHY did God create this diverse array of creatures with Free Will, if not to enjoy the DIVERSITY of their forms? This diversity can best be enjoyed if these entities help each other to reach their full potential, rather than using their energies to destroy (negate) each other. "Evil" in this sense can be defined as this destructive impulse, this Thanatos Drive. In our multicultural society, we are exposed to countless ideas of what it is to be "good," "right," "just," "human," etc. Often these ideas contradict each other, so they "fight" for memonic supremacy. Our minds are a constant battleground of memes... and since memes can be transmitted from mind to mind, and can sometimes drastically alter our behavior (lead to epiphanies, crises, etc.) is it not perhaps fit to speak of them as "spiritual?" And it is obvious that some memes are destructive to the rest of the human personality (e.g. abuse, addiction, fascism - note that I don't necessarily include the more "primal" memes such as anger) Is it not fit to speak of them as "evil agents?" What practical difference does it make, whether the "daemon" that is prompting you to take a destructive action is external or internal (literally, memory-resident.) You still need to kill, or at least banish (re-nice?) it to take a more positive action. I believe that our spirituality is, first and foremost, how we make the material world seem "real" to us, how we make ordinary events seem "meaniful" by referring to them from the point of view of something greater and more permanent. Modern knowledge of the universe points to many things that are greater and more permanent than ourselves (although it can not yet ascribe any of them consciousness, it certainly gives plenty of room for more powerful beings, with a universe billions of light-years across, more than 4 dimensions in this universe, and any number of ways in which "our" universe isn't necessarily the only one. Any number of cosmologies which permit true infinity are now at least viable. Obviously, the notion of Spiritual Warfare can be interpreted in very destructive ways by narrowminded people. But isn't narrowmindedness one of the very memes / demons we must struggle against? "By their fruits you shall judge them," and I believe that it is blazoned across some part of our humanity, our soul, that narrowmindedness leads to destruction, death, evil, bad karma, whatever you wanna call it. Evil is the misery, the despair, the stifled dreams of THIS world. Good is our attempts to "slip the surly bonds of earth, and touch the face of God." Modern technology is giving us the means to do just that - as well as the means to make the earth a living hell. Each of us must fight for control of our own lives and minds. There are many obstacles in the way, and many entities that don't necessarily want us to succeed. Whether they inhabit the dark recesses of our minds, the dark side of the moon, or some other "plane" of existence, THEY ARE REAL. Whether they were created by some supreme being and "fell from grace," or merely arose from the frustration of fallible people dealing with a harsh physical world, THEY ARE REAL. If we sit back and do nothing, they will eventually destroy us. But if we wake up and smell the napalm, we might see that we can do a lot, individually as well as collectively. You all know what to do: stop complaining about your own problems and start doing something about them. Forget your machines: upgrade yourself. Strive to increase your bandwidth, spiritually, intellectually, socially, politically, physically, sexually (note that "financially" isn't in the list - once you start seeing money as an end rather than a mean you've pretty much given up.) Help others, love others, teach others, learn from others. Do all the other corny, warm-fuzzy things you know are right. Create islands of sanity in the midst of all this chaos. Create theories which simplify our complex lives, without sacrificing coherence with observed reality. Get in touch with your body, your mind, your neighbors, your neighborhood, YOUR universe. The more you do this, the more you will be in touch with the reality of the conflicts which surround us, and the more you will be able to take actions which are effective in shaping the future. That's what spiritual warfare means. Be a soldier, even if you're a pacifist. Be a man, even if you're a woman. Be a woman, even if you're a man. Be all you can be, which is a lot more than most of us think. Have the foresight to realize that YOUR best path is not necessarily the one which gets the most immediate rewards. Follow many paths, listen to the voices of history. I realize how corny all this shit sounds. But that's the whole POINT: statements of POWER and TRUTH are as old as the mountains, hence not copyrightable. Thus they get lost in the ones and zeroes of daily life. Their signal must be amplified if we are to remain WHOLE, COMPLETE, AUTONOMOUS free agents rather than merely being interchangeable hyper-efficient binary decision makers. Spirituality has traditionally served the purpose of reminding us who we are and what we're here for. This is the last thing that science seeks to do (quite literally - maybe if we "figure out" everything else we'll see the meaning of meaning too... but I wouldn't hold my breath) Corporate capitalism won't help - after all, if we're whole, complete people we have less needs to be filled by product. Government long ago abandoned any pretensions of spiritual leadership, and the political wing of the Religious Right is appealing to the lowest common denominator - fear rather than spirituality. Some would argue that a majority of mainstream religions have also followed this road. So we NEED spirituality, but can we TRUST religion? Perhaps - if that religion has returned to its original purpose of supporting our struggles against the evils of this world. As Dr. Boyd said in his paper, all too often religious leaders have served to keep us passive. What we really need is a system of dialogue between those of various traditions, FOCUSED on the application of spirituality to the problems of THIS world. There are a large number of AFFIRMATIVE ideals (e.g. respect for human life, belief in human dignity, respect and stewardship of the earth) which almost all traditions, from Anglicans to Zorastarians, pretty much hold in common. If there was a coalition that really embraced those ideals, it could be a strong force, politically as well as spiritual, providing a real alternative to the PROHIVITIVE, restrictions policies of the CC. It could defend reasonable people whom the CC has defined as "godless" because of their lack of adherence to some specific dogma. It could field candidates of its own, taking the REAL moral high ground and thereby revitalizing REAL spiritual dialogue in this country. It could encourage more compassionate, understanding foreign policy, restoring America's moral legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. It might even lead to a government that Americans would be willing to trust again, finally making possible solutions to social problems we have all but given up on. Phew! That's a rather long tirade. Congratulations to anyone who made it through (moderators, you DID read the whole thing before giving it an offtopic rating, didn't you?) Just so you know I wasn't totally wasting my time, part of this will probably make it into a term paper someday soon. So let me know how you felt (email roos@stanford.edu) I'm serious about all of this. There is a huge spiritual potential within us all that is ignored by most organized religions and totally negated by much of our capitalist media-orcracy. I only hope that that power is harnessed by responsible leaders, not cultish demagogues. Please e-mail any interesting links along these lines you might have... I might turn it into more than a term paper. Oh, and as for the game: looks kinda low-budget, but I'd give it a shot if there's a demo. And yeah, that angel *does* kinda look like it's smokin' a big spliff...
Sorry, the preview button didn't work so I forgot it was all getting munged together.
IMHO one of the most provocative films in recent memory. And, IMHO, he is dead on.
What follows is my (take on) religion for today. Triangulated somewhere between between sober dissertation and bong-load revalation, psychic meditation and mental masturbation:
I encourage all to read Dr. Boyd's "spiritual warfare" article on the eternalwarriors page. (preferably before reading the rest of this. Although we come from vastly different theological viewpoints, it's a pretty damn well written paper. Just tell the boss you're researching a new market.) In the beginning he reveals the seemingly paradoxical nature of spiritual free agency in the bible - there is only "One God" with a capital 'G,' yet there are many references, in both testaments, to a large number of spiritual free agents - angels, demons, etc. Interpreted literally, THESE AGENTS HAVE FREE WILL and are therefore prone to the same error and moral ambiguity as the rest of us (he describes one biblical passage as God "reaming out" less-than-competent subordinates.) Dr. Boyd goes on to cast Christianity in a decidedly non-platonic light - that is, while God has a Plan, free agents are perfectly able to screw up his Plan (and there isn't necessarily some perfect world where his Plan went right, either.)
I found the description rather refreshing, because it is one of the few "Christian" theological viewpoints I've heard that addresses the polytheistic aspect of Christianity. It's really not that far from some traditions (e.g. parts of Eastern, Pagan, and Native American spirituality) which posit a whole sort of spiritual ecosystem. I guess it's actually closer to Catholic mysticism, since the context seems very bi-polar - you're either on "the side of" God or the Devil. Still, the picture painted by Dr. Boyd is of a big, dynamic, exciting spiritual world, in which, even if there is an absolute right and wrong, the participating free agents don't have all the data, and therefore can't always make the 'right' decision.
I think Dr. Boyd's paper offers a glimmer of hope, an intellectual avenue between Christians and non-Christians. After all, WHY did God create this diverse array of creatures with Free Will, if not to enjoy the DIVERSITY of their forms? This diversity can best be enjoyed if these entities help each other to reach their full potential, rather than using their energies to destroy (negate) each other. "Evil" in this sense can be defined as this destructive impulse, this Thanatos Drive.
In our multicultural society, we are exposed to countless ideas of what it is to be "good," "right," "just," "human," etc. Often these ideas contradict each other, so they "fight" for memonic supremacy. Our minds are a constant battleground of memes... and since memes can be transmitted from mind to mind, and can sometimes drastically alter our behavior (lead to epiphanies, crises, etc.) is it not perhaps fit to speak of them as "spiritual?" And it is obvious that some memes are destructive to the rest of the human personality (e.g. abuse, addiction, fascism - note that I don't necessarily include the more "primal" memes such as anger) Is it not fit to speak of them as "evil agents?" What practical difference does it make, whether the "daemon" that is prompting you to take a destructive action is external or internal (literally, memory-resident.) You still need to kill, or at least banish (re-nice?) it to take a more positive action.
I believe that our spirituality is, first and foremost, how we make the material world seem "real" to us, how we make ordinary events seem "meaniful" by referring to them from the point of view of something greater and more permanent. Modern knowledge of the universe points to many things that are greater and more permanent than ourselves (although it can not yet ascribe any of them consciousness, it certainly gives plenty of room for more powerful beings, with a universe billions of light-years across, more than 4 dimensions in this universe, and any number of ways in which "our" universe isn't necessarily the only one. Any number of cosmologies which permit true infinity are now at least viable.
Obviously, the notion of Spiritual Warfare can be interpreted in very destructive ways by narrowminded people. But isn't narrowmindedness one of the very memes / demons we must struggle against? "By their fruits you shall judge them," and I believe that it is blazoned across some part of our humanity, our soul, that narrowmindedness leads to destruction, death, evil, bad karma, whatever you wanna call it. Evil is the misery, the despair, the stifled dreams of THIS world. Good is our attempts to "slip the surly bonds of earth, and touch the face of God."
Modern technology is giving us the means to do just that - as well as the means to make the earth a living hell. Each of us must fight for control of our own lives and minds. There are many obstacles in the way, and many entities that don't necessarily want us to succeed. Whether they inhabit the dark recesses of our minds, the dark side of the moon, or some other "plane" of existence, THEY ARE REAL. Whether they were created by some supreme being and "fell from grace," or merely arose from the frustration of fallible people dealing with a harsh physical world, THEY ARE REAL. If we sit back and do nothing, they will eventually destroy us.
But if we wake up and smell the napalm, we might see that we can do a lot, individually as well as collectively. You all know what to do: stop complaining about your own problems and start doing something about them. Forget your machines: upgrade yourself. Strive to increase your bandwidth, spiritually, intellectually, socially, politically, physically, sexually (note that "financially" isn't in the list - once you start seeing money as an end rather than a mean you've pretty much given up.) Help others, love others, teach others, learn from others. Do all the other corny, warm-fuzzy things you know are right. Create islands of sanity in the midst of all this chaos. Create theories which simplify our complex lives, without sacrificing coherence with observed reality. Get in touch with your body, your mind, your neighbors, your neighborhood, YOUR universe. The more you do this, the more you will be in touch with the reality of the conflicts which surround us, and the more you will be able to take actions which are effective in shaping the future.
That's what spiritual warfare means. Be a soldier, even if you're a pacifist. Be a man, even if you're a woman. Be a woman, even if you're a man. Be all you can be, which is a lot more than most of us think. Have the foresight to realize that YOUR best path is not necessarily the one which gets the most immediate rewards. Follow many paths, listen to the voices of history.
I realize how corny all this shit sounds. But that's the whole POINT: statements of POWER and TRUTH are as old as the mountains, hence not copyrightable. Thus they get lost in the ones and zeroes of daily life. Their signal must be amplified if we are to remain WHOLE, COMPLETE, AUTONOMOUS free agents rather than merely being interchangeable hyper-efficient binary decision makers. Spirituality has traditionally served the purpose of reminding us who we are and what we're here for. This is the last thing that science seeks to do (quite literally - maybe if we "figure out" everything else we'll see the meaning of meaning too... but I wouldn't hold my breath) Corporate capitalism won't help - after all, if we're whole, complete people we have less needs to be filled by product. Government long ago abandoned any pretensions of spiritual leadership, and the political wing of the Religious Right is appealing to the lowest common denominator - fear rather than spirituality. Some would argue that a majority of mainstream religions have also followed this road.
So we NEED spirituality, but can we TRUST religion? Perhaps - if that religion has returned to its original purpose of supporting our struggles against the evils of this world. As Dr. Boyd said in his paper, all too often religious leaders have served to keep us passive.
What we really need is a system of dialogue between those of various traditions, FOCUSED on the application of spirituality to the problems of THIS world. There are a large number of AFFIRMATIVE ideals (e.g. respect for human life, belief in human dignity, respect and stewardship of the earth) which almost all traditions, from Anglicans to Zorastarians, pretty much hold in common. If there was a coalition that really embraced those ideals, it could be a strong force, politically as well as spiritual, providing a real alternative to the PROHIVITIVE, restrictions policies of the CC. It could defend reasonable people whom the CC has defined as "godless" because of their lack of adherence to some specific dogma. It could field candidates of its own, taking the REAL moral high ground and thereby revitalizing REAL spiritual dialogue in this country. It could encourage more compassionate, understanding foreign policy, restoring America's moral legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. It might even lead to a government that Americans would be willing to trust again, finally making possible solutions to social problems we have all but given up on.
Phew! That's a rather long tirade. Congratulations to anyone who made it through (moderators, you DID read the whole thing before giving it an offtopic rating, didn't you?) Just so you know I wasn't totally wasting my time, part of this will probably make it into a term paper someday soon. So let me know how you felt (email roos@stanford.edu) I'm serious about all of this. There is a huge spiritual potential within us all that is ignored by most organized religions and totally negated by much of our capitalist media-orcracy. I only hope that that power is harnessed by responsible leaders, not cultish demagogues. Please e-mail any interesting links along these lines you might have... I might turn it into more than a term paper.
Oh, and as for the game: looks kinda low-budget, but I'd give it a shot if there's a demo. And yeah, that angel *does* kinda look like it's smokin' a big spliff...
A company called Color Dreams created a few unauthorised games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. On an odd note one of their titles was Hellraiser (based on the movie), although that title never actual saw commercial release that I know of. Later Color Dreams found God and changed it's whole cooperate philosophy, or at least their target audience. Actually their games didn't really change very much, they produced Baby Boom (a Zapper game that used the NES light gun but didn't involve killing anything resembling a living being) and other such violence reduced types while still calling themselves Color Dreams. The name was changed to WisdomTree and they produced some educational and a surprising number of non-educational christian/bible themed games (some would call them 'real games') for the Nintendo. They also published on PC, Macintosh, Genesis, Game Gear, Game Boy, Super NES and probably other platforms I can't remember. They hold the distinction of producing the only unauthorised Super NES to see commercial release, Super Noah's Ark 3D. Super Noah's Ark 3D is a doom like clone, actually is a Wolfenstein 3D clone and rumors are ID software lent them the engine. He's the kicker, Noah (the 1st person star) does not once in the game preform any action that could be considered violent. That's not to say it is entirely violence free, if the player is not careful the animals in the ark will spit, bit and kick him to unconsciousness. But it does not have the player preforming violence or rewarding violence, quite the opposite, the less violence that happens the easier one advances in the game. Despite this objective the game play is exactly like Wolfenstein, I know it sounds impossible, but it is true. All the characters, art, objects and weapons are still their only changed. You'd really have to play it to see for yourself. There is a Super 3D Noah's Ark FAQ and atleast a dozen sites that meation the game on the web if anybody reading this wants to know a smidgen more (Do a search for "Super 3D Noah's Ark").
But I'm getting off the subject. It's funny you use the term 'Christian Geeks' as there doesn't really seem to be any (NO FLAMES PLEASE LET ME CONTINUE). I consider myself to hold basic christian ideals, I consider myself a geek. There are likely many others who fit both descriptions. But they have not made themselves very well known in the gamming industry, as players, customers, creators or marketers of games. Worse still, they have remained silent while zealots WHO KNOW NOTHING OF VIDEOGAMES AND HAVE NEVER PLAYED THEM rant on about the evils of videogames. I applaud Theodore Beale and Andrew Lunstad for taking action (even though they waited to be told to do so). Keeping in mind I have not played "The War In Heaven" yet, I may like it, hate it, be offended by it and/or feel a need to excise it from my computer and repent for having ever played it. But no matter the game I still say it is a good thing that some 'christian geeks' finally said something and did something. I'm not suggesting their should be a lot of games designed to 'convert' or 'preach' but christian content alone could prove to be very interesting and profitable when used in videogames. After all Greek Myth has inspired a lot of videogame content and served to sell many videogames and very few of the customers are active devotes of the Greek Myths, nor where many of them converted by these games. It is odd that there are so many 'medieval' games that somehow skip so many of the religious connotations that permeated that era.
PS JonKatz, perhaps God does use email, read your messages carefully before you dismiss the idea.
--
"The games of a people reveal a great deal about them." -Marshall McLuhan
"Videogames are not for us. They're here to entertain the television." -Mel Brooks
"7 May 1967 [I] Played [my] first two-player video game (I lost!)" - Ralph H. Baer
"The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." -Eugene Jarvis
"I was always obsessed with games, even as a kitten" - David 'Dr. Cat' Shapiro
"I keep a backup copy of my mind at http://www.g-o-l.com/uvl/" -Zerothis
But then again, everyone knows about the Slikerians. Right? I mean, they all seemed to know immense amounts about the Slikerians. They all knew someone who had called himself a Slikerian, or did something that they knew to be a Slikerian type of action, so therefore, they must be Slikerian, or they had, at the very least, heard stories of those nasty Slikerians, or had talked to people who said they knew Slikerians, and they just didn't agree with everything that their friend's friend who once knew a Slikerian did or said -- yes, indeed, they're innately evil. So one must question, as to why everyone who suddenly becomes an authority on a subject that they may or may not know a great deal about, is up in such arms about a product when, in all honestly, they don't know the motives of the people who made them, they may not have even seen the game, much less played it, yet they hate it simply because it's made by Slikerians, for Slikerians, about the things of Slikerians.
I'll be the first to admit that Slikerians aren't perfect. Some think they are. Some have done horrible things in the name of Slikerians. Some have called themselves Slikerians, and as someone stated of the hackers, no one requires proof, they're just automatically branded Slikerians when they call themselves that, or do something that you think is particularly Slikerian-like. I could call myself a Martian, but it wouldn't make me one. I could call myself a hacker, it wouldn't necessarily mean that I was. I could call myself a devil worshipper, and people wouldn't rant on and on about the myths that I sought and pursued and enjoyed, they'd simply dismiss it as something different and go on about their way. Yet, because of the perceived notion of Slikerians, they're a group that it's okay to bash. We won't be tolerant of the intolerant! Even if that's just perceived intolerance. But after all, they're a collective, don't you know? One surely acts on behalf of the whole!
Let me finish my strange little tale with this, if the people who call themselves Slikerians aren't living by the standards that they're called to live by, such as (paraphrase) "anyone who calls himself a Slikerian, yet hates his neighbor is a liar, and the truth is not in him" -- they're not Slikerians. No matter what they call themselves. Look beyond what perhaps you think you know, realize that there are some Slikerians who are very similar to you. They come from different backgrounds, different pasts, some things have changed, some haven't. Some love linux and hacking (in the true sense of the word) and coding as much as you, and, honestly, some are probably better at it than most of you. They live their life the best they can, making mistakes of course, because everyone does. Yet, they're not there to impose what they believe like the bad experiences you've had in the past with Slikerians. They do, when called upon, stand and state what they believe. Why is bashing of any group except them allowed? If this game would've been released for --any-- other group, whether that group is based on race, skin color, sexual preference or anything else, why do I have the feeling this whole /. thread wouldn't have been here?
OOPS! Did I say Slikerians? I meant Christians.