Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Apocalypse - The Game

Angry Jesus Freaks make a game. SPOnG is scared.

Posted by Staff
Please see the image to the right...

Read More Like This


Comments

Joji 31 May 2006 02:11
1/14
Oh dear, you see this is why I never go anywhere near a church again. Religion is crazy bs, but having it pushed on you like a drug is wrong, crazy ass evangelist won't tell you so when they take your money though.

However an alternative to Postal should prove interesting.

way 31 May 2006 02:31
2/14
Reviewer..
Good to see you're as unbiased as ever..
more comments below our sponsor's message
vault 13 31 May 2006 03:35
3/14
We, as gamers, must unite in protest against this game. For every hot coffee scandal and hoopla about violence in video games, THIS will be our day. Our way of saying that, "Hey we play games are NOT stupid and mindless. We know when s**t is dangerous and this is dangerous!" Man, this is going to look so good for us gamers when we out these idiots.

You guys ever play that nazi FPS? It's grrrreeeaaat!
PreciousRoi 31 May 2006 05:33
4/14
I hope they say, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!", that wud be cool...

I don't see anything sinister here at least the poor kids of these people will have something more interesting to play than the Bible Trivia Game.

If it blows chunks, no one will play it, so its worthless as a propaganda tool. If its any good, it would be more effective as a propaganda tool, but will have a valid reason to exist due to not sucking. Also if it doesn't suck, someone could do some kinda wicked unholy mod, make it totally twisted...like make it set in New Jersey or something (shudders).

Besides Freedom of Expression is why US are better than THEM.
way 31 May 2006 16:44
5/14
I'm curious, where does it say:

"How do you go about doing this? Through blowing away the infidels of the world (you know the ones - those pesky Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays etc etc) with massive, high-tech guns.

In game, you get to roam around a present-day New York City, and are rewarded for how effectively you kill those who resist becoming a born again Christian. The dialogue includes characters screaming "Praise the Lord" as they blow the filthy unbelievers away."


If the games says this, then we should be concerned. But it is odd that blowing away all the infidels, which is curiously only a "Muslim" term, is directly against what Christians believe in. Actually, curiously, this is what has happened and is called for in the Islamic religion (and don't anybody try to convince me otherwise I have studied that religion as well and do not follow public declarations of deceptive re-interpretations of it). In Christianity, the core basic fundamental sort (but some interpretations vary from this original intent) the use of violence is very narrow, as a legitimate action in an official state run war, official legitimate police action, or official legitimate punishment. From what I know, this sort of action is not something for the religious to independently decide and do, but something that is upto the government to decide. Sure it speaks of God coming and declaring war, but strictly under the terms of this religion, outside the state, he is the only one allowed to decide, and has declared not to his followers.

You will also notice that in that religion it is totally, and this is the 100% biggie, not right to do to Jews what you suggested, let alone anybody else. So I would, like to see where this most unusual stuff is coming from.

Yes, as you can see, when a religion says differently then what it's active basis says to do, things are worrying. Either they will become corrupt, or revert back to original form, and original form of that religion is pretty good for us, compared others bases. Basically the original form seeks good and relationship with God (through Christ who brings salvation, because he takes punishment for people's genuine wrongs to God and each other) in love (which includes righteousness and obedience on closer inspection) and to help and love others inside and outside the religion, and make things better. Unfortunately, the American governments, don't quiet follow this, which causes troubles. Don't get me wrong, it is right to put terrorists and corrupt states in their place, and even benefit from it to over come the costs (in that case, the 'means' legitimately justifies the end). But the way they do it :(

Now, anything contrary to the above explanation, is strictly 100% off in that religion. There has been many variances to that religion in times past, but a reading will reveal they are regarded as corruptions and faults. The interesting thing is a literal reading of the term "Anti", as used in "Anti-Christ" in the original language is said to mean an "Alternative" "Christ", and that there has been many "alternatives" apart from the one this game focuses on. The meaning of this has been put in a way similar to this in times past: Without naming names, If heaven was an expensive looking restaurant that served the best food ever free, the "devil" would open up, insert cheap controversial fast food chain giant, down the road to divert people. The meaning, is that people go for the cheap alternative because they are convinced that the real thing is not free, and they can't afford it (probably the journey 200 meters down the road to find out as well). If you turn this back onto variant groups from the basic form of said religion, you see that these variances are indeed alternative. That many of the things that are contrary to the explanation before, were done by groups that were "alternative" to it, or held alternative beliefs to it, or at times that were also alternative. The spirit of the "Anti-Christ" so too speak. So said actions do not reflect the true core belief, but are a corruption of it. Anti does not necessarily mean opposite (as it might in the English language) so the original and the alternative might appear similar. On another line this also means that new "doctrine" so to speak, that is at variance to the core form (I mean opposing or compromising) is also "anti"/corrupt in part or whole. So, there are varying degrees of corruption, so people are not perfect in their actions (not to be confused with that religions belief in being made perfect by the willing sacrifice of their Christ instead). A study of the subject will show, what looks like, a gradual drifting away from this original from in the first half of the first millennium, and an alleged, gradual reformation to the original form in the last half of the last millennium. But the original form of the religion, indicates this sort of "corruption" is to be expected, and basically things would not go perfectly, and allows for people to make mistakes.

Now, the interesting thing is, that I usually only see this sort of spool of unobjective attack from very biased reports.

About the thing about fiction. I used to have a friend (now deceased) who studied at the greatest theological college in England and the things that they believe along these lines are a bit to fanciful for my liking. The evidence and schemes they use to prove fiction are just to convenient and wishful thinking. Unfortunately that is all they can do because the said text, despite any deficiencies and minor variances, is among the most attested and accurate ancient texts, and well preserved, and probably the most for it's size. Now there's a conspiracy theory.
Jay 31 May 2006 17:26
6/14
way wrote:
Way too much

Hands up if you read all that...
Rod Todd 31 May 2006 22:04
7/14
way wrote:
But it is odd that blowing away all the infidels, which is curiously only a "Muslim" term,


No, it's not. See here

is directly against what Christians believe in.


Of course it is. That's why we had the Crusades, and Desert Storm, and Pat Robertson calling for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated.

Christians believe it's wrong to kill, and they'll stab, shoot or bomb anyone who doesn't agree with them.

thane_jaw 1 Jun 2006 12:10
8/14

Meh, if anyone's read any of these books (I was very bored once upon a time in Australia) despite the hard core christianity the authors are fairly even handed with respect to religion (although ultimately they are hardcore believers).

The books (of which there are s**tloads) are concerned with the time after the rapture (where all the good people get to go to heaven and everyone else gets "left behind"). When they talk about who goes they mention people from all religions disapearing (one imagines due to them believing in God and leading a pious life), whilst some senior officials in the Vatican don't (and spoiler go on to become cohorts with the Anti-Christ).

Whilst some might feel there is something slightly wrong with having footsoldiers screaming "Praise the Lord" as they're blowing away enemies, within the context of the franchise there is only Christianity and the forces of the Anti-Christ. They're not inciting violence against any current political or religious groupings, rather the Antichrist and his legions.

To be honest, as long as they make a good game and there are no subliminal messages who cares? I think its a good thing if games can be used as a medium to bring messages to people so that they begin to consider the world around them in different ways (i.e. to reconsider their point of view and examine others'). I'm not sure Left Behind will do that for anyone apart from Christians, but hey.

Oh and Way, you didn't really express what you were trying to say very well, although the analogy for food was rather good, anyway I disagree with a few things. In my opinion people are people everywhere (e.g. there will always be arseholes in any group of people), using religion as a way of segregating people only serves to further the small minded cause (you seem to be suggesting that infidel is uniquely Muslim thing).

You also have interesting views of Christianity, in those instances where violence is sanctioned by the bible you suggest are misinterpretations of what is a fairly well structured series of narrow conditions where use of violence is acceptable. Indeed in your extended account for the origins of the "anti-christ" you suggest that groups may appear similar on the surface yet hold opposing views. I would argue on my personal experience with Islam that no Muslim I have met would even consider violence on a large scale such as 9/11 - yet they hold similar core views (5 Pillars of Islam, etc.)to those who committed those actions. Could not the entire Western media portrayal of religions like Islam and Buddhism be based on similar (deliberate...) misinterpretations of those creeds, based on small minorities - akin to the way that Christians are mocked elsewhere in the world for the actions of groups such as Opus Dei?

way wrote:
I
About the thing about fiction. I used to have a friend (now deceased) who studied at the greatest theological college in England and the things that they believe along these lines are a bit to fanciful for my liking. The evidence and schemes they use to prove fiction are just to convenient and wishful thinking. Unfortunately that is all they can do because the said text, despite any deficiencies and minor variances, is among the most attested and accurate ancient texts, and well preserved, and probably the most for it's size. Now there's a conspiracy theory.


I'm also not sure what this paragraph means. Could you further explain it please.
way 2 Jun 2006 10:14
9/14
Thane, I thank you for such a even handed reply, unlike this article. I am still waiting for confirmation about where it says these things from the writer. Yes it is interesting they have apparently sold around 63 million of these books, which I think definitely classifies it as an best seller (I think a million for a single book makes something a best seller, but am uncertain). I have not read the book myself, so I have to question things to find out.

Another interesting thing is that the thing the writer accuses the book of doing is exactly what their religious text described as being done to those left behind that become believers. The form of persecution is Islamic in origins (and a number of other religions have done at various times).

However, there are a few things in reply to your reply that I can point out (having studied Islam too and what you are told is Islam is not necessarily Islam, why do you think there is disagreement). There are also a few interesting twists in history that better explain the situation.

thane_jaw wrote:

The books (of which there are s**tloads) are concerned with the time after the rapture (where all the good people get to go to heaven and everyone else gets "left behind"). When they talk about who goes they mention people from all religions disappearing (one imagines due to them believing in God and leading a pious life), whilst some senior officials in the Vatican don't (and spoiler go on to become cohorts with the Anti-Christ).


Curious. The interpretation about who goes, or not, is upto debate. A reading reveals that people that refuse to accept are not, those that don't know it depends on their faith in God depending on what they do know (faith being the basis of Christianity) but the world is full of corruption so most people are down the wrong track. Now, this means little children do go to heaven because they know no better. The readings on this are somewhat disjointed, but when put together that is the context. So this interpretation, that you have quoted, is somewhat controversially, so is mine, but particularly for some fundamentalists.

Now the people left behind also have the chance to profess faith. But strictly speaking, everybody starts going to war, there is not real mention of Christians forming war factions or such, it is only in the end with the return of the Saviour war is engaged, fairly quickly and complete. The time of the thousand year is peace, until the Devil is released to test mean and many crazily decide to follow the Devil and attack God's camp of returned believers.

Christianity and the forces of the Anti-Christ. They're not inciting violence against any current political or religious groupings, rather the Antichrist and his legions.


Yes, War is normally, by a strict reading, regarded as a matter of divine intervention, with it being the States responsibility in the meantime. So this is curious.

Oh and Way, you didn't really express what you were trying to say very well, although the analogy for food was rather good


I did, eloquently, but that is why people get me to tune their VCRs all the time, they are unable to read even simple instructions :( . It is just a problem describing new intricate concepts to people that are unfamiliar with it. A careful (slow) reading gives it. Being tactful, it also makes it hard to describe the in and outs of what is going on. Being blunt and crass, like some aspects I was answering, is not hard unfortunately. Like knocking out a foundation of a building, easy to do, but repairing it is quiet hard. Unfortunately some people think doing this proves that a building never was fully built in the first place :( when it is just them going crazy man with a sledge hammer. It is just a matter of purposely reading it to Understand.


anyway I disagree with a few things. In my opinion people are people everywhere (e.g. there will always be arseholes in any group of people), using religion as a way of segregating people only serves to further the small minded cause (you seem to be suggesting that infidel is uniquely Muslim thing).


The term Infidel, is a Muslim thing, it is a term used in the Koran, and that is it's root of interpretation to the rest of the world, where it came before that, I don't know, but that is the use.

The persecution described is the sort of persecution suffered by Christians from the very beginning, with the latest such persecutions happening in a part of Asia, Africa, Middle east, and South America (with the biggest large death tolls in Africa and South America). In a number of hard line Muslim countries, becoming a Christian, when you were previously a Muslim, means an auto death sentence, you either get it quickly of wait for it. A lot of this stuff, does get filtered out of the official line on these things reported in the news. For foreign Christians though, and for Christian communities, largely they are tolerated, which is pretty much similar to what the Quaran says to do with local Christians that they are not at war with (the position actually changed as the Quaran was written, it looks very disjointed because the sub books/chapters of the Quaran are not in historical order. The position may completely swap around, I don't remember, definitely for Jewish people, where they are friends to be treated nicely but latter to be killed. I don't remember you gets the worst wrap, where ever it was Jewish people or idolaters. This is the broadest mind, because it is the truth of the matter.

I agree with you on the bit about certain people in different groups doing these things. I you read my explanation it explains it. The action you describe is actual a variation, yes an "Anti" such things are State responsibility, with people misusing religion as an excuse to get their way/power base, in the past. States have the responsibility of doing the right thing, what ever the religion of it's leaders. So while a Christian might have certain responsibilities as a Christian, as a leader he has different responsibilities. If you look at said religious leader's reply when asked by (Roman, I think) soldiers what they should do, he basically told them don't be corrupt and do your duty as soldiers. This varies completely from free love explanations that you shouldn't use violence and have peace, and let everything go to ...

A major issue here is that under a strict reading, a Christian is one that believes into salvation (the ancient word for "Believe in" is fundamentally different in intent then the word used for believing about something, it means, basically, "to trust in, cling to, and rely on" which is very much a relationship thing, you can believe that about anything, doesn't mean that you believe to follow, it is merely mental ascent about a fact not a "belief in" it as described. So a lot of people that may believe they are Christian, or were born Christian, are not. It also means that you can believe something and follow, but not believe in it, and even further still, going on the "anti" variances, you can believe in something that is wrong. So, it means that a lot of people out there causing the persecution behaviour you mentioned may not even be Christian, or the people whipping it up, or the leaders, or of most of the groups. Actually, a reading of the text reveals that there is supposed to be a lot of fakes and "wolves" infiltrating Christianity, presumably to cause trouble. So, just because a person professes to be Christian, doesn't mean he, or his actions, are what ever a person professes to be, doesn't mean he is, or that it is, Christian. Actually, in some of Christianity there is a thing about separating the two out, so one is described as a religion "Christianity" or "Christendom", and the other is described as a "Living faith" etc, or a "Christian" or a "follower of Christ", is another way it is described. So not everything is as it seems.


Now, in the Quaran, or was it one of the scholars, hard to remember which the one I studied from had footnotes on the major scholarly interpretations of it (which are said to be regard as valid, or more, then the actual Quaran itself, which explains some of the problems and variance positions to it), it says, basically, that by the end times, just as in Christianity there is seventy versions of it and only one is pure, that Islam will be split into seventy different forms and only one would be true, and I think it might also equates this to only that form you can be saved by). This explains why they disagree with each other and kill each other at times, each believing they are the only pure ones. The problem of variances in Islam, comes from a few sources, but the scholars, religious teachers, are one. You might say your Muslim friends don't believe in the sort of violence of 9/11. You are right, under a strict reading this sort of violence is probably not covered. But, your Muslim friends can also believe in non violence because a religious leader/teacher has reinterpreted things in that way, at the same time another has re-interpreted it to include more violence then in the Quaran. In matter of fact most of Islam is apparently books such as this on the Islamic law, but the Quaran clearly is stated as sent down pre-prepared from Heaven, the complete finale work of divine revelation before the end time, with no more prophets or miracles etc until then, so this overriding of the Quaran through the teachers Islamic law is just unreal, and maybe very alike to what happened in various parts of Christianity, including those in the crusades. But as I said last time, their are two options that leaves people in a religion with, and one is reverting back to a more basic form, which means the Quaran, or in Christianity, the New Testament (the Old testament is written for an institutionalised, run by God, country/people with set geographic boundaries called Israel, and a bit of pre history to that country, while the new testament is written for a new stateless people, that exist on the Earth among countries but are not granted a country, so to speak, who also use the old testament as prehistory and for learning/lessons). And the basic Quaran changes it's position on persecution of non Muslims a few times. During such times there where alliances formed and broken, and people killed off. After the death of it's leader, there were many more mass convert or die policies, by the time of the crusades things had started to settle down, reinterpretations had come in, and, apparently, a more cozy co-existence. See, certain things are convenient, or inconvenient, and people have a tendency to reinterpret things, so Islam has fractured and splintered many times. You notice that versions of things suit certain people in power, and the interpretations and prophecy, that a certain ex-leader of a country, and the other guy, was upto, was quiet worrying. So this would be quiet different from the version of Islam your friends would know, in matter of fact most Muslims are probably unaware/kept in the dark about it (even a good portions of Christians are probably largely unaware of the intricacies I explained about Christianity before, to that depth). It is also why you should not trust what they tell you on TV, some research is better. Also remember, in Christianity a person can be forgiven for lying, but it is still wrong. In Islam, salvation is based on works, so a convenient lie can be compensated for by what you did in the past. Controversially, the Quaran might say one thing on one page, and another on the next. So, I don't think lying leaders are frowned down upon as much as it is in strict Christianity (remembering that most people are not strict Christians). So, there is a lot of lying going on in Muslim and non Muslim sides, and a good portion of it, ironically, are people that are talking of maintaining, or having, peace. It is going to end badly..

Back to variations in Islam, above, and please remember, these are all very very touchy subjects that it is best not to bring up with people, especially not tactfully with the best of people, as they can produce major hassles for yourself. This brings us back to the problem, what happens when a knowledgeable Muslim gets disgruntled and looks around and perceives it is not right, or not working, and somebody presents to him a interpretation of a more basic form of his religion, that he is told is more "correct"? That is why it is important to look at the basic core forms of religions, it is the fall back position people can revert to for easier answers in times of trouble, or once everything settles down (probably depending on which way your religion swings on violence). It is it is also the absolute answers, the fundamentals, that can't be argued away, unless you completely throw the religion out, unlike the reinterpretations that can be argued away by it. So arguing against those fundamentals produces an even greater source of friction. You can say somebody doesn't dress well but is alright, but if you say they look ugly because there mother is ugly, you might be in for a fight.

You also have interesting views of Christianity, in those instances where violence is sanctioned by the bible you suggest are misinterpretations of what is a fairly well structured series of narrow conditions where use of violence is acceptable. Indeed in your extended account for the origins of the "anti-christ" you suggest that groups may appear similar on the surface yet hold opposing views. I would argue on my personal experience with Islam that no Muslim I have met would even consider violence on a large scale such as 9/11 - yet they hold similar core views (5 Pillars of Islam, etc.)to those who committed those actions. Could not the entire Western media portrayal of religions like Islam and Buddhism be based on similar (deliberate...) misinterpretations of those creeds, based on small minorities - akin to the way that Christians are mocked elsewhere in the world for the actions of groups such as Opus Dei?


You're got to understand, there are two different groups being addressed by the different parts of the Bible, one Jewish, who are told in the old testament how to behave as a religion and as a state, and Christians who are told how to behave as a religion. While the Old testament was written to a people and about a people, to establish and maintain a state, the new testament has a different purpose, how to establish a state in the heavens (this is not just the general concept of heaven, but of heaven within, as an foreign ambassador to Earth, and heavens without) not on Earth, which is left upto God's personal intervention to establish here. the interesting things is that new testament purpose is a continuation of the old, and the old a pre basis for the new, but in the need the old and new are established. Meaning, that the old established the conditions that the new arose from, but in the need God comes back and establishes Israel and his reign) through the new religion. There is a lot of historical variance here historically, with some people wishing to establish a new Earthly kingdom, or states, themselves, and to abolish the old Earthly state (Israel) as a rival. Even in Islam, this is why there is not peace, there is stuff written about wiping them off the face of the Earth. For example, even though most of either, the artificial Roman Governet of Palestine, or it's mixture of people, lay in Jordan, the convenient focus point for a state of Palestine is on Israel and it's abolition. With such a nasty situation (and I got to admit, that these areas were won in a war started for the purpose of wiping out Israel, after the inhabitants unprovoked decided to join in the fray) this makes peace there almost impossible, somebody can always stand up and say, look here, what we should do. Something interesting I read, and it is unconfirmed, and I got to admit, some of what I have said in relation to Islam I am not confirmed on, though I have studied it, that there is virtually no incident of a word meaning peace in the Quaran, except for a word they used in the original accords as a focal point for reaching peace, that actually means "Subservience". This means the peace that we can have is to subservient to it, which does in the end mean Islamic state control. The reinterpretation of the word Ji-had, to mean struggle, is probably convenient, though it might be true (I am not certain) but I think it still means war as well. It is also the stated aim to take over the entire world. So this could be interpreted (not reinterpreted) to at least gain dominance through acquisition of state control, or war, progressively over the entire world, this is exactly what has been happening, though now it is more to do with state control. The struggle for state control is the present worry point, but otherwise, I imagine your Muslim friends in the west, probably personally prefer things as they are. If people went to these places, they would probably be shocked at both the sheer humanness (in a good way) of these people, and what they actually believed, compared to what the media portray. With emotional people, they might got off at times, but they can be very kind, nice and sincere otherwise.

Now, the core I have explained, the problem is that those small groups you described are an attempt to revert to an abstraction, or pretty close in some respects, to core values of original Islam. The problem is that this is the fall back basis, as I described. With Opus Dei, and I am not sure what they believe in, so take it with a pinch of slat, they appear to be an abstraction away from Christianity, they might even be trying to revert to some alternative, I don't know. Now, when somebody is getting off point you can argue with them to get them back on point, as with variances, you can argue that which is more original to either change their minds or make people aware that what they are saying is not right, so they decide not to join this si what these small Islamic splinter groups (well the one I know of) do to recruit to their splinter, because it is closer to the regional, they argue that it is more authentic. With Opus Dei, I don't know where they see their basis, so the rest of this is just speculation as to what might (or might not) be the case, in fairness to them. It might be an alternative variation, but they appear to hold their belief tightly, so such arguments even though they are a variation away, might be difficult, they could even be an variation to an ideal they think is more right, but might even be completely off track (meaning that they don't see their basis as original Christianity as written in the Bible, but something else). I don't know. Now, fundamentalists, are the ones, allegedly, trying to revert back to original form of there religion, and probably a better example. Christian fundamentalists are probably the fastest growing religious group in the world, often getting the worse media hype criticism and misunderstanding I have seen in previous years. Also some, apparently, fundamentalists groups miss the mark, or are not Christian, and have alternative interpretations, especially those racist groups that want to masquerade as fundamentalists. Some, in private (even once you get through so many secret levels) or some more openly rejecting the core of Christianity as a basis and putting an alternative in. There are some that come from a completely different basis, and actually these are "heresies" identified in the basic scriptures of Christianity. One such basis was a bunch that believed in secret knowledge, so basically, you could not believe what you read, so they could reinterpret everything to mean what they wanted you to believe. So the basis shared with these people is very very small, even to the point, that the religious centre, the Christ, could theoretically be reinterpreted to be somebody else then described (which is usually what cults do). When ever you hear people like this you got to be careful, but the question comes down to, are they right or not.

Something that helps clears things up, is looking at the opposing religious groups to the Christ of the New Testament, on one hand we have the hardliners, fundamentalist Jews, collecting over strict laws beyond what their Old Testament requires, that came from the basis of making it so difficult, as to be impossible for people to sin but burdening people. On the other hand were the scribes allied to the priest hood and the Royalty, who, apparently, favoured a more loose, lenient, re-interpretation on the other hand, whom the rich and powerful liked. So one was conservative and the other liberal, the truth being relationship instead. Then you had the people in power, and the idolatrous Romans, and these are the alternatives you see.

So, yes I agree, things are very confusing at times.


way wrote:
I
About the thing about fiction. I used to have a friend (now deceased) who studied at the greatest theological college in England and the things that they believe along these lines are a bit to fanciful for my liking. The evidence and schemes they use to prove fiction are just to convenient and wishful thinking. Unfortunately that is all they can do because the said text, despite any deficiencies and minor variances, is among the most attested and accurate ancient texts, and well preserved, and probably the most for it's size. Now there's a conspiracy theory.


I'm also not sure what this paragraph means. Could you further explain it please.


I'm trying to be tactful, to avoid a debate. The excepted norm, among the more liberal sides of Christianity, and non-Christians, and probably Muslims, as they have an interest to disprove the Bible in order to clean up the fact that it doesn't agree with their Quaran and it is supposed too (even though, in a dispute concerning Christians, or something, the Quaran, basically, states that they are to go to the Christians for the answer, as they had the true "Injil" (I think that is what they call it, skips my mind for the moment) the New Testament, which totally contradicts this, as the Quaran is taught as perfect and complete, and it says similar things about the old testament, which the Quaran is also art variance with. The Quaran's interpretation on Christianity is also a bit strange, I can't remember, but I think it totally leaves out the "holy Spirit" and replaces it with Mary, in the trinity, what sport of Christians was he hanging around with, and there might be other things, apart from a reference that looks like it is indicating God in multiple persons. They have new and old testaments from before this period, and they are largely as is todays. I am not entirely sure about the validity of what I am about to talk about, so take it with a pinch of salt needing some research, even though I think it true, I have yet to see the original copies of original documentation on it, and you know how it normally goes with the accuracy of peoples statements (so, this is extra touchy subject): But to be fair, from what i have read, which is only one document, the way the Quaran was collected into the official version, after their leader's death, might explain this (basically they produced one version, burnt the rest) but it also raises the question what did it originally say. This came from a period of their rule and power, were they could do what they wanted. I don't know of any record of things like this happening in Christianity concerning their new testaments scriptures, they were guarded under persecution and death with their lives, they were guardedly religiously copied, even what appeared to be mistakes. So given the life threatening nature of this, they would not change them, even when it was more convenient in power, and Church law seems to be invented instead of doing that. See, to people in power, it doesn't matter what a document says, what they say is more important, so they may ride just straight over the top of it, and write their own decrees, as long as it is coming from them they feel more important etc.

Any way the accepted form is a liberal one based on things like Textual Criticism, and other even more illustrious theories were they can squint the eye and say, hey, I think that should be something else. Sorry, I find these sorts of .people, irritating, we have academia full of them (and if you know how they award doctorates etc, you'll know why there are so many half useless mongrels up there) they are even in science, which means a lot of bad science politics holding back real science. Far out, I'd better stop, this fever plus my rising blood temperature, might not be too good for me? Having studied this stuff I now regard it as a load of nonsense, largely, I see there are possibilities there, but mostly they lack the accuracy and evidence, so just possibilities (if you want them to be there as well). The problem is on one side you have these suspicions, on the other side you have handed down documents and historical attestation to them, apart from protocols, physiology and intent, in handing them down. In such a circumstance, with such people, the onus of proof is on disproving what you have in hand, it retains it's own proof. So very lax and slack standards. So, what you find many times, is that for these suspicions, there are at least one or more, more credible explanations that can explain them away. Of course, you have to have a brain, in order not to be hand feed, and have a brain bigger than the one writing it helps to, and that doesn't appear to difficult by the shear number of holes and gaps in their theories, and the techniques they use. But it come down to what you want to believe in, and so that means that it is more convenient for the majority of people to believe this, it is accepted, here's your doctorate. The problem being that a doctorate is for something new, and their is only so much credible new stuff you can write in cases like this, which leaves most students scratching around for something new to write about, so it then comes down to how impressive is your theory on the thin possibilities left, eek, morons. I am not absolving the text, and saying it's perfect, but there seems to be a clear overzealous believe in the opposite. If anything, at least, I wish they would change culture, and award doctorates on theory or technique and where ever it had actually proved something or not, and how much likely hood it could, and how comprehensively they had covered alternative explanations for the subject matter they are examining.

So yes, desire to more conveniently interpret things this way = conspiracy.

Anyway there is a lot more to cover there, but I have been sick and going for around four hours (around six hours in th end) or so, already, and I need a break. If such things were completely provable and there were sufficient evidence, that would be great as well, but I just see past it.

Please appreciate, I am writing this stuff just for the benefit of your understanding, I have a lot of other things that need to be done.


Rod Tod wrote:
way wrote:

is directly against what Christians believe in.


Of course it is. That's why we had the Crusades, and Desert Storm, and Pat Robertson calling for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated.

Christians believe it's wrong to kill, and they'll stab, shoot or bomb anyone who doesn't agree with them.


Read my explanation above, it is up to the state to do certain things, and Christians as members of the state as well, not separately. So, it is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order, and military action. Whatever has been wrongly done, for whatever bad non christian motive, or done by people that merely claim to be Christian, doesn't mean it is part of that religion, but an alternative, as in "Anti" Christian. If you can separate out these core and variation issues, you can un-narrow mindedly determine that certain people are not threats. It's like this, if your friend's brother robbed or hit you, you wouldn't necessarily be worried about your friend doing the same, but if you found out the core belief of his family towards you was to get you, you would be worried. So what one person does is not representative of what the rest will do, but what there core belief is, is. Still on your robbery. You would not go to the police and tell them to arrest your friend as well as his brother, or not bother because you can only find a Christian police man, you would say Oi! this and that, can you do something about it, because it is his responsibility in the state to sort it out. Same thing, just because a president is a Christian, doesn't mean that he should not do what he should do as a president. So, putting that aside, the question then comes down to, should he, or any president, have done it under the circumstances?
Rod Todd 2 Jun 2006 11:28
10/14
way wrote:
Same thing, just because a president is a Christian, doesn't mean that he should not do what he should do as a president.


If he is doing what is required of him as a president, despite it being against the basic tenets of his religion (there are ten of them and they are, according to believers, the Word of God), should he be claiming to do it at God's behest?
DoctorDee 2 Jun 2006 11:53
11/14
way wrote:
I am still waiting for confirmation about where it says these things from the writer.


Are you being serious? I (and I assume the writer also) took your question to be entirely rhetorical.

You quote a part of the news article, and you ask where it says these things. CLEARLY it says them in the news article. Nowhere does the writer attribute them, he does not make any claim that they are written anywhere in the real world, nor that they are the principles of sanctioned acts of any major religion.

He states that IN THIS GAME, in order to "remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life across the globe." one must "blow away the infidels of the world (you know the ones - those pesky Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays etc etc) with massive, high-tech guns."

So the question "where is this written" can only be rhetorical. It is written here in the fifth paragraph.

Your assertion, that Christian fundamentalists only endorse and support government-sanctioned violence, is specious. Tell that to the families of the doctors who have been slain - by Christians for facilitating pro-choice operations.

The reality is that some Christians (and some followers of many other religions) are so evangelical that they are prepared to set aside the teachings of their religion in order to perpetrate and perpetuate violence against those who do not share their beliefs. They do this not as a part of state sanctioned military or penal activity.

Some of them, and the current President of the United States of America is one of these, are prepared - happy even - to preditace attrocities on the basis that they are doing it FOR their religion. There is something DEEPLY unsettling about a man who is killing Muslims in great numbers, and claiming to do it because the christian God told him to. Of course, he did not say the christian God, he claimns to be a christian, and he said God told him to do it, whic lead people to infer that he was talking about Jesus' dad. But George W Bush's god is money and power and the approval of the GOP.
President Evil 3 Jun 2006 15:29
12/14
DoctorDee wrote:
But George W Bush's god is money and power and the approval of the GOP.


All through history Christians have abused and exploited those "without their god". And I am no different, my god is money, and I abuse and exploit those without it. I've always believed that god is an allegory (OK, I didn't think that word, Karl told me it, and Dick speeled it for me) for money. After all, Money cures the sick (with the Held of the Matyo Clinic, of course), money feeds the hungry, and money means that I can walk on water.

F**k the poor.

way 6 Jun 2006 18:24
13/14
DoctorDee wrote:
way wrote:
I am still waiting for confirmation about where it says these things from the writer.


Are you being serious? I (and I assume the writer also) took your question to be entirely rhetorical.


How do you go about doing this? Through blowing away the infidels of the world (you know the ones - those pesky Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays etc etc) with massive, high-tech guns.

In game, you get to roam around a present-day New York City, and are rewarded for how effectively you kill those who resist becoming a born again Christian. The dialogue includes characters screaming "Praise the Lord" as they blow the filthy unbelievers away.


He clearly attributes them to the game, but where does it outline these things, where does it say these things are in the game, can he point to a credible witness. From what he says, it is obvious he is not saying he has used it. He is making out they are sanctioned acts in the game, and this clearly is either biased, mistaken, or something to be concerned about that such a game exists in this context, and I would personally like to know if it is. So, even pointing to an example that this has been 100% witnessed playing the game, would be something. If it is a personal opinion about what the game will contain, then let him say so, though it is still not the best journalism (politely).

He states that IN THIS GAME, in order to "remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life across the globe." one must "blow away the infidels of the world (you know the ones - those pesky Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays etc etc) with massive, high-tech guns."


You see this is the bizarre point.

Your assertion, that Christian fundamentalists only endorse and support government-sanctioned violence, is specious. Tell that to the families of the doctors who have been slain - by Christians for facilitating pro-choice operations.


No, I didn't, ideally that should be the case, but as I pointed out there is a lot of variations from this that are in a stricter sense, wrong. Your example is just inflammatory, as you know that they reflect this as preventing many times, what is regarded in a strict sense, more murders. I do not say I agree with this interpretation of remedy of theirs, as again, this is in the states domain to manage.

Why not promote understanding.


The reality is that some Christians (and some followers of many other religions) are so evangelical that they are prepared to set aside the teachings of their religion in order to perpetrate and perpetuate violence against those who do not share their beliefs. They do this not as a part of state sanctioned military or penal activity.


I agree.

Some of them, and the current President of the United States of America is one of these, are prepared - happy even - to preditace atrocities on the basis that they are doing it FOR their religion.


I don't think I, or you, have proof enough to say that, even though the proof doesn't really support it. People have a tendency to act on their own leadership, as much as they can get away with, despite what their leader, rules of conduct, or the "plan" is. People in authority also like to exercise there own leadership too, as much as they can get away with, despite what their leader, and all the rest, would like. I have serious misgivings about the style of enforcement that the US military is adopting, overwhelming force (add, supremacy) is like running over somebodies foot, they are not going to be too conducive afterwards, nor, likely, are the rest of their village. Recruiting soldiers from the lowest and least educated rungs in society, taking all the ideals of that part of society, putting them in another country without proper training, or training in diplomacy, socialisation (local ideals, ways of talking and acting towards people, customs and culture) or etiquette for, effectively, a police operation (they should be regularly being trained in the language) is not good. Despite a peaceful outcome not being possible, because of the fact that there are multiple separate political, ethnic and religious oriented factions wanting to carve up the country and go it with each other, and deliberately wanting to undermine any possibility of peaceful transition in the first place, or peaceful policing, this is a bad idea.

While I have my suspicions about others involved, I can see one man does not intricately control millions of people, or so to speak, the tail does not wag the dog. This is what people don't understand about power and leadership, the further away and the lower the level of detail the less control you have over it, and when certain bigger, closer things are around you like a raging bear, it doesn't matter if your the leader or not, the best you can do is try to get along with it, and keep it under control. So, being the "leader" of a country usually does not means as much as people think. This is the reality.

Things happen, but it is being just and putting them right that is important after they happen, and I hope this is what they go onto do. I hope they can change the way they do things, though it might be a bit late to do so, with the factions trying to run the plot.

But I am talking about genuine atrocities here.

There is something DEEPLY unsettling about a man who is killing Muslims in great numbers, and claiming to do it because the Christian God told him to.


I heard about that, and it was not at all in that context, it was in the context of fixing the problem, and note he also used that as the excuse to try to get Israel and the Palestinians to the peace table again (and a reading on that one gets unexpectedly interesting) and I must admit that is a valid excuse as the leader of a country. Actually that is a valid excuse to do these things, but the word, outside of state power, is to make peace not war (basically leave it up to the state to police that). As a leader he is required to do these things, there is no conflict, as a non leader, and a Christian, he wouldn't be, unless directed, but as I pointed out they are directed in a peaceful direction.

But George W Bush's god is money and power and the approval of the GOP.


I hope not, and it definitely doesn't look like it, and if his God was money instead (please note it mentions serving money in their scripture, the actual word used is the name of a local God of money, effectively a local demon of money, who seems alive and well in the world of commerce and business today) then he must be a pretty bad at his calculations, as this is probably costing the Americans much more than they can hope to make back in money. Though I did say that I was concerned about some around him. So, these arguments, that always conveniently sidetrack reality or morality, on oil, are laughable sometimes. Even if it is so, and not a primary concern for peace security and Justice, the means (of getting rid of somebody that actively modelled himself on Stalin and Hitler with even more murdered then this war has cost, and "trying" to restore peace, thought that doesn't appear to have succeeded yet) would justify the end. Oh, yes, we can be selfish, forget all those people that were, and would be, murdered, tortured, raped and just think of nobody else but our own precious callous selves. I have seen grandmothers fretting that one of their children might have to go over, or serve time on an air base, and they are savage they don't care about anybody else, millions could die, as long as their grandchild doesn't go over there to stop it from happening. I tell you, if those things had happened here, and those children were killed, they would probably want those people put to death, even screaming for it. Me, me, me.. They can even turn around and think abortion is good because it is more convenient for them. The selfishness of the world.

Things are not so clear, unless you have a clear mind.

The Philosopher.

All copyright Way 2006, permission given for legitimate thread use.
way 6 Jun 2006 18:25
14/14
Rod Todd wrote:
way wrote:
Same thing, just because a president is a Christian, doesn't mean that he should not do what he should do as a president.


If he is doing what is required of him as a president, despite it being against the basic tenets of his religion (there are ten of them and they are, according to believers, the Word of God), should he be claiming to do it at God's behest?


There are more than ten of them, and even though they are deliberately taken out of context in cases like this, they do not circumnavigate military action. Lots of people talk about things the way they conveniently want them to be, rather than conform themselves to the reality of the way things are. If you look, you see that not only does the God in question command military action, he personally takes such action, and under strict interpretation it is his right, and death is also commanded of others as a form of punishment (or dispatch unto a judgement depending on which way it is viewed) and allowed under certain principles, this probably being one of them. The one not allowed is unjust killing (murder) of people. The justice of it is an consideration, wherever unjust, just or accidental (not saying that situations are not a mixture of these).

As previously said, strictly speaking, it would not be against his religion, but as the state responsibility, part of his religion.

I must say, for this President, along the lines of what I have just expressed previously, that trying to swing a huge mobilised army like this into action and trying to get it, and things, to do your will is a bit like riding a bucking bull, a bumpy and all too often a less than perfect one.
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.