Video Game Bill Introduced in North Carolina Senate
Video Game Bill Introduced in North Carolina Senate
February 8, 2007
Yesterday, North Carolina State Senator Julia Boseman proposed a video game bill designed to restrict the access of minors to violent video games.The move was not unexpected. A staffer told GamePolitics recently that Boseman was planning to introduce video game legislation.
The new bill, SB87, adds violent games to an existing North Carolina statute which defines material harmful to minors. Although the bill's language differs somewhat from recent legislative proposals in Utah and Louisiana, it is similar to those efforts in that it seeks to define video game violence in the same terms used to restrict minors' access to pornography.
To that end, Sen. Boseman's legislation would restrict minors' access to games which feature "the realistic visual depiction of serious injury to human beings, actual or virtual; appeal to a minor's morbid interest in violence; are "patently offensive" to prevailing community standards; and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
The proposed law also requires such games to be displayed in an area not accessible by minors and mandates that retailers must inform consumers about the game rating system
The bill, which applies to arcades as well as game retailers, establishes a variety of misdemeanor offenses for violations of the proposed law. As reported by GamePolitics, Sen. Boseman proposed video game legislation in North Carolina in 2005. That bill passed the Senate, but failed to move in the House.
If passed, SB87 would become law in December.
Comments
So when they commit a crime there adults?
And when they buying a game at a store there a child?
Join me now and declare WAR ON INCOMPENTENCE
I was wondering that myself. The sheer ambiguity of that "actual or virtual" line may be the most absurd thing about this bill: actual or virtual humans? Injuries? Depictions? Does "virtual humans" mean humanoids, or just computer-generated images of people? If the latter is the case, then what the hell does "actual humans" mean in a video game context? It's completely ambiguous.
I hope I'm still that intelligent and down to earth in 14 years ^_^
I agree entirely. Though I'm 17, I can assure you I'm not biased on this - I don't own any M-Rated games, and unless I've forgotten a few instances, I didn't play an M-rated game until after I was 17. I know I'm far from the norm in that respect, but I'm sure there's others like me (and no, I wasn't refraining just to be a "good boy", I just don't have much interest in shooters and the like).
Teens catch so much flak from just about every direction, and so much of it is believed and incorporated into the average mindset, that I'm very surprised they haven't locked us all up in our individual basements by now. I knew the facts about death fairly early (my great-grandmother died when I was six, and a favorite cat at about seven) and from about 12 or 13 on I also had a sense of my own mortality, that sense that popular culture says is completely absent in teenagers. I don't dispute that there are some who don't grasp this concept, but I know a large number of people who are as I am. It's become a vicious myth, because of how it can be used to limit our rights and give non-minors a pretense to treat us like 6-year-olds.
There goes America's Funniest Home Videos, and the TV news (which can easily be argued does not hold any value these days.
Then again... perhaps that's not such a bad thing...
What has this to do with violent video games, you may ask? Well, it's the same kind of thing: I think that we do a disservice to teenagers when we treat them like children instead of like young adults. I believe that teenagers are very competent, capable, and intelligent people, and that if we quit treating them like children, and expecting them to act like children, and start treating them like adults and expecting them to act that way, we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. I firmly believe that if we give teens the actual information - on sex, on drugs, on violent media, or whatever else - not the propaganda, not the hype, but just the straight facts, and then we ask them to draw their own conclusions and make good decisions, the vast majority of them will do just that. And for those times when they don't, well, it's not like teens have a monopoly on making stupid decisions - one only has to read the news, with Congressmen hitting on teenaged pages, or preachers doing crystal meth with male prostitutes, or whatever the Scandal du Jour is, to see that adults are quite capable of being idiots despite being older and having more experience. And after all, how is one to get experience if one is not allowed to make decisions and live with the consequences?
I say - quit treating teens like children, and start treating them like young adults, and society will benefit greatly.
(And I should add, at this juncture, that I am almost 37, so this is not just a "The Man is repressing me!" kind of rant. I've been there, done that, and grew out of it. That does not change the fact that I think teens have a lot to offer, if we'd just give them a chance.)
So. Having said all that, I have to admit that it is at least refreshing to see that the Morality Police are picking on violent media now too. It used to really bother me that it's a Horrible Problem for kids to see sexuality in the media, but graphic violence is just fine. Yeesh! No wonder we have such a screwed-up country. Whatever happened to "Make love, not war"?
There go the Horrible History books and 85% of YouTube.
15-year-old: “I’d like to buy this game.”
Clerk: “Okay, but first I must tell you this game is rated T by the ESRB for violence and is recommended for ages 13 and up.”
15-year-old: “Whatever, I’m fifteen.”
Clerk: “Oh, I’m terribly sorry but you can’t buy this game until you’re eighteen.”
15-year-old: “Huh, why the hell not?”
Clerk: “Because an average adult person applying contemporary community standards found that the depiction of graphic violence in this video game has a predominant tendency to appeal to your morbid interest in violence, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community concerning what is suitable for you, and the game lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for you.”
15-year-old: “’Average adult person’? Who exactly?”
Clerk: “I’m really not sure.”
15-year-old: “Well, what about ‘contemporary community standards’? How are those defined?”
Clerk: “Excellent question! I don’t know.”
15-year-old: “Then how do you know whether this game is harmful to me or not?”
Clerk: “Honestly, I don’t. We at “Games ‘R Us” are just playing it safe to avoid getting smacked with the Class 1 Misdemeanor Stick.”
Andrew Eisen
Good-bye News...
hmmm reminds me of current game legislation that is trying to be passed in different states.
in the words of my roommates. "i just wish i could kick people in the teeth sometimes."
Yep, the miller test has only been upheld by the courts when it pertains to the depiction/description of *sexual conduct*...
In the US, at any rate.
And I think the only reason it was never overturned, is not that it's particularly constitutional, but that the SC didn't want to overturn 100 years of precedent without a really convincing reason. That and pr0n is clearly pr0n, you can define it. Violence is so dependant on context, but a bare pubic area is a bare pubic area...
Please let me keep that as a quote? :D
Also it should be noted that the Miller test doesnt not work in relation to the internet and pr0n. See what happend with the communication deceny act.
There has to be a way to punish these politicans for making stupid laws. But there always re-elected. I declare a WAR. A WAR AGAINST INCOMPETNENCE.
At least then not all the cash from these pointless ventures would go to waste.
Actually heres an even better thought. Drinking game for alcoholics.:
1 shot for every new law containing the words "patently offensive"
1 shot for every mention of games lacking serious artistic or intellectual value
Another shot if this value is aimed at minors
3 shots if it is aimed at miners
1 shot for depiction of violence on humans
2 shots if the depiction of violence is virtual OR actual (how exactly can a computer game be actual violence?)
1 shot if it defines games specifically as pornographic
5 shots if Jack Thompson created the law
1 shot for each person involved in passing the bill Jack starts an argument with
1 shot for each comtempt of court charge
and 10 alkasetsa when the law is struck down in court
The politicians get to make their stand, and pass a law, and they can tout that in their next campaign: "Senator Smith worked to limit children's access to violent games"
It doesn't cost them anything when the law is later struck down. If anything, it gives them more fodder to rage about "activist judges".
There ought to be a law making politicians personally responsible for the court costs whenever they pass a blatantly unconstitutional law after they have been warned by counsel that the law will never stand.
So the next time you go into EBGames or Best Buy, you'll want to move towards the door in the back, with all the beads hanging down over it.
Oh god... that would hilarious.
"YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"
Then a the balrog shouting "OBJECTION!"
Morbid interest is usually defined as an unhealthy state of mind in which you are obsessed with death and disease. Equivalent to a purient interest in sex, where you are in an unhealthy state of mind in which you are constantly lusting...
So I guess slaughtering Golgafrinchan is ok... because even though they LOOK like humans, they aren't... ;)
I've always disagreed with the idea that children have a 'morbid fascination' with death, if that's the case, why do teenagers so consistently take their lives into their own hands. If someone had said that children have 'A limited concept of mortality', I would have agreed with that, everyone is going to live forever when they are 15 years old, but fascination is completely the wrong word, I was never fascinated with it, just thought it would never happen to me.
This is the part of these bills that I don't get. Can anyone explain to me what appealing to a minors morbid interest in violence is? It's the term Morbid that gets me.
Take that out and it just becomes interest in violence which could include anything from Martial arts to Football as well.
More like "I'll probably get burned, but at least I'll get some 'family values' votes afterwards."
This copy&paste flurry of legislation convinces me now, more than ever, that these politicians don't care if these bills survive judical scrutiny or not. As long as they get in the papers, they've accomplished what they set out to do. The only way they'll stop is if we convince the voters that these bills are stupid and wasteful. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening this year.
...
What is it with these guys ? Are they just aiming to waste US taxpayers money ?
How can these legislators turn a blind eye to the rulings and decisions made in other states? Every single bill along these lines has been ruled unconstitutional (I believe the score is something like 9-0?), and the state ends up footing the bill for the industry's legal fees. I'm not sure any state's citizens would like their elected officials to squander their tax dollars like happened in Illinois. Utah even decided not to go ahead with their law in the end and were praised by local media for that decision.
I have a horrible feeling that this problem will only go away when every single state has gone through this silly cycle. It's like a kid sticking his hand in a fire and being burned, then another kid who has just watched it happen saying "I'm going to do exactly the same thing, but I'm pretty sure I won't be burned!".
Considering the whole brouhaha over the Utah bill, and the fact that it happened so recently, I think the question with this one isn't "Will it fail?", but "When will it fail?" - I have no doubt it will.
Correct me if I'm wrong but think when they mention actual violence they mean a real video (maybe a cutscene) with real violence added to a game to work as a loophole. If they specified virtual violence only perhaps someone would try this.
Or it is possible I don't know what I am talking about.
@the Sourceress
I agree 100% with what you said. I'm a strong believer in youth rights, esspecially when it comes to the First Amendment rights of older kids and teenagers.
Young people need the ability to form there own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to free speech media that expresses ideas, information, messages and opinions. Otherwise by the time they reach the age of majority their mind will be a blank except for what the government allows them to know, and they will not have entered adulthood with a free mind.
Since when is pornography dangerous Daniel. Just as there is no evidence that violent games are dangerous or harmful to anyone, there is no proof that porn is harmful either. Free Speech is universal. You can't believe in Free Speech for some media and not other forms of it. That's exactly what the government is doing with video games.
P.S - Porn is not restricted by the government because it's harmful or dangerous but because Obscene speech has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be not protected by the First Amendment.
I had a discussion a while back about pornography. I don't think that pornography is good and I'm against it, but I don't think that it should be banned because I'm against it because that would be communistic and I think that pornography is the desecration of the human body and is evil, but I don't believe in banning things because I'm against them.
I'd also take exception to your claim that east coasters are not smart, but I'm only here because I haven't found a job elsewhere. I'm not a huge fan, and besides, ever since Boston was crippled by the Mooninite invasion I don't feel safe here, lest they come back and spank us with moon rocks.
Anyhow, I can't add anything meaningful to this debate that Sourceress and F'ed Up didn't already say more capably than I did - when the War on Incompetence comes I shall join you in the trenches, bretheren.
I am against pornography because it's real. Although I am a die hard fan of violent video games, I have never defended real violence. If it's real, it's bad. Looking at a pornographic magazine is real because a person can't pretend to get naked. That's a real image in the magazine of a real naked person and that's wrong and immoral. If I saw two people beating the crap out of each other in real life, I would think that was horrible because it wouldn't be fake. Only fake violence is good.
So, by that logic, animated pornography is A-OK? You know, because no one had to actually get naked or anything like that.
My opinion on pornography: if someone's old enough, they can go ahead and watch it if they want. Who the hell am I (or you, for that matter) to tell them not to?
Banning something isn't ''communistic'' as you put it. It's more along the line of totalitarian. A country can be communist without being totalitarian.
Just a matter of semantics there.
And really I'd like to here how you justify fake violence as good. Does violence not have the same effect whether it's real or fake? Certainly no one is harmed in a movie or a game but can it not have the same desensitizing effect?
I don't believe that pornography should be gotten rid of because I'm against it. I don't like pornography and I believe it's evil, but I don't think that the country should be run on what I believe. I don't believe that naked images of people should be shown anywhere. However, with violence, I think that it doesn't desensitize and no one gets hurt when it's fake and that's why I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If it's real, it's bad.
I don't like, condone, or approve of real violence except in extreme cases. When it's fake, no one feels any pain and no human life is lost and there's nothing wrong with it.
Yes, yes, you've said that several times already. I'm not going to get into asking you why you believe pornography is "evil" (a quality I personally would never ascribe to an inanimate object, but whatever), because that's almost entirely off-topic. (Although you avoided directly answering my last post...)
I would like to ask you, however, what led you to your conclusions about violence. WHY do you think that "real" violence is desensitizing, but "fake" violence is not? And what do you define as "real" violence, anyway, mivies, TV, and the like, or just actual fights?
I think it's all desensitizing, "fake" or otherwise - but only up to a certain age, and in large quantities.
Making new friends every day, aren't we? Just keep it up.
@EOTD:
Daniel usually doesn't address posts that he doesn't have a good answer for, which is why you don't really ever see him directly responding to other people's points. Instead, he typically just repeats what he's already said before. That, along with his inability to view things except in absolutes, is one of the more frustrating aspects of trying to have a civilized discussion with him. Good luck getting used to it; I gave up weeks ago.
By real violence, I mean real fights in real life. Or shootouts like what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did at Columbine. Killing and hurting real people in the real world is real violence and I don't condone that at all. That's evil and should never happen but, of course, it will continue to happen because that's human nature.
I see. Well, to give ye an idea what yer in for, I suggest you train for this arduous task by standing in front of a brick wall. Then, ask it random questions for an hour a day. Continue this for three phases of the moon, hoping to elicit a favorable response. When cometh the end of thy labors, return here and put yon skills to the test, and may ye results fare better than mine.
*end Vice City Thor impersonation*
It seems to me that you are not totally on the side of violent video games. Trying to convince me that they're not always innocent is immpossible. That's like trying to talk to a brick wall you're right about that. What's wrong with what I'm saying? I'm on your side and while I am somewhat redundant, I don't condone violence in real life and I have a lot in common with the people on this website. The point of this website is to say things in favor of controversial video games. Guess what, homie, violent video games are the only ones that are controversial.
I can't remember anybody ever saying anything against a nonviolent video game. The nonviolent ones are not controversial and they don't need defending, homie. When was the last time you heard of anti-game activists complaining about or trying to ban a game that is nonviolent? I don't think that's ever happened, dawg. Only violent and sexual media is controversial, dawg. Did I mention I love to listen to rap music? I am a fan of most things that are controversial. Violent video games are what we're on this site to defend, homie.
Why do I talk about and defend violent video games all the time? Well, *scraching my head* maybe it's because violent media is what's being attacked on Capitol Hill and maybe it's because that's the purpose of this site. What's the matter with you? Defend violent media that's what we're all here for. *scraching my head* JEESE we're here because we want to make our voices heard DAMN IT. Isn't that why we're here? To defend violent media and say that anti-game legislation is unneccesary.
We're trying to run down the arguments of anti-game activists. That's our purpose on this site. What's wrong with you? I say that games are not the same as pornography and you practically call me stupid. Of course, you realize that by saying I'm stupid when I say that games aren't the same as pornography, you're, in essence, saying that they are. Do you think that games are the same as pornography?
They are not the same as pornography and you should know that. Pornography is harmful and violent video games aren't. Haven't you also noticed that most of the threads on this website are about video games? Why do you think that is? It maybe because that's the purpose of this site. What games are that legislation pointed at? Violent video games and people post comments because they don't like the legislation. Tell you what go to a quiet place and try to figure out what side you're on.
"Your either with me or your against me"
That is a very very dangerous attitude. That attitude has caused many problems in the world.
Your very wrong about on violent games. Poke'mon is banned in several countries for promoting Zionism and ensnaring the minds of children, however that may just be that region.
Daniel. Inside your head you twist our arguments into something they are not.
"The point of this website is to say things in favor of controversial video games."
That is one of the stupidest things you have ever said. This is a site for discussion not for "running down" anti gamers with the rest of the choir.
The problem is you cannot look at this issue as anything other then black and white.
Once again please explain how pornography is harmful. I dislike it and have a number of reasons I dislike it, but I do not see how it is harmful.
Please provide proof of this statement.
Maybe this Daniel, we are on the side of caution and moderation.
We have no Idea what the long term effects of videogames are. There have been no studies that have proven conclusive one way or the other. We cannot say for sure what a life time of games, violent or otherwise, does to a person.
Long term means 20 30 40+ years. Get that through your head.
We also believe in parental rights. Hence why many of us Believe in the ESRB. Something you seem to hate.
This issue cannot be broken into 2 sides. This issue has many factors many of which you chose to ignore.
Until you are 18 your parents are responsible for guiding you into adulthood. What minors have access to should be controlled by the parents and not the government.
As a minor you have no rights, including freedom of speech, unless your parents allow it (with the exception being if you are threatened with bodily harm). Get over it.
It is the responsibility of your parents to raise you, not the government. I see far to many parents passing the buck to the government trying to restrict something for everyone, while at the same time I see parents again passing the buck to the government saying well there no law against it.
So now we have the government playing Super Nanny, and parents losing the rights to shape their child into an adult. Spank that kids when he says something foal, ground him when he does something wrong and tell the government to F-off when it come to raising your kid and then tell the other parents to mind there own business when they don’t like your methods. God people take some responsibility for your actions. You shouldn’t have put the pecker in the hole if you didn’t want to be a parent and you are responsible for shaping your child into an adult. You are not responsible for raising everyone else’s children, so mind your own business.
Wow, I went on a bit of a rant there, but it’s a parent’s responsibility not the government.
Now about this law I have to disagree with it because once again it treats video games like porn. I don’t see them placing those violent R rated movies in the back room, so why should an M rated game be placed there? Because what is an R rating on movies except, nudity, violence, language, content for 17+? It the exact same thing as an M rating, however games get an M rating a lot easier and people want to treat it like porn.
Ill stick by what I said last time:
“A new system needs to be put into place governing the sales of video games that does NOT treat them like porn. I have no problem restricting the sales of games to minors, but that’s not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make all legitimate M rated game buyers/players submit themselves to the public status of perverts.”
No I don't think that watching violent movies is bad. I have a bunch of them myself. I think that killing people in real life is bad and evil. If a real person in the real world is being killed for real, that's bad. Not violent movies. No one ever dies while making violent movies there's nothing wrong with violent movies. I have absolutely nothing against violent movies where actors are pretending to kill each other.
@ Brokenscope
I'm not saying you're either with me or against me. I'm saying that pornography is bad because I don't believe it's right to look at a naked body that's immoral.
Seriously by that logic a lot of great art needs to be censored.
Sigh! Did you not read my post Daniel. I wasn't refering to depictions of violence in films that are fake but depictions of violence in films that are real. Real people being killed for the purpose of making the film. I was saying you were against depictions of real violence not fake violence in films. O.K.
"The point of this website is to say things in favor of controversial video games. Guess what, homie, violent video games are the only ones that are controversial."
Let's ask Dennis what he thinks about that, since it's his website. I think you're forgetting games like Leisure Suit Larry and Conker, to name a couple.
"What’s wrong with you? I say that games are not the same as pornography and you practically call me stupid. Of course, you realize that by saying I’m stupid when I say that games aren’t the same as pornography, you’re, in essence, saying that they are. Do you think that games are the same as pornography?"
Do you have dyslexia? I say one thing and your brain turns it into another? I KNOW games do not = porn. I call you stupid because you automatically assume porn is harmful the same way JT assumes games are harmful, and you can't prove it any more than he can. Here, I'll use one of your arguments: I know porn isn't harmful because I've watched it since I was 14 and I've never raped anyone. Are you convinced? It's your argument!
"Tell you what go to a quiet place and try to figure out what side you’re on."
I'm on the side of all the rational clear-headed gamers who know how to analyze issues, examine all sides and make lucid arguments for the sake of the industry. Perhaps in another 20 years when you graduate college you'll have reached a similar level of emotional maturity, but I doubt it.
Conker's Bad Fur Day is violent. However, you're right about Leisure Suit Larry. Most nonviolent games aren't controversial though. I have never seen a film where people actually get hurt and get killed. What film has actual violence instead of fake violence?
Yes, but Conker wasn't controversial because of the violence.
"Here, I’ll use one of your arguments: I know porn isn’t harmful because I’ve watched it since I was 14 and I’ve never raped anyone. Are you convinced? It’s your argument!"
What's your answer to this?
As for what's 'morally' correct - I think that if you need to appeal to one's sense of morals on something, you should just stop. People are never going to agree on what's moral or immoral. You can't legislate morality; you can only legislate YOUR morality, and only if it happens to be roughly in line with a majority of the population. I believe that video games are not dangerous and that sex, if practiced responsibly, is not immoral. And I do no one any harm in practicing those beliefs. If, however, the majority feels otherwise, does that mean that what I want doesn't matter?
Also, Conker BFD wasn't overly violent (just cartooney) but extremely crude - there's one boss battle where you have to get rounded and then urinate on enemies, a topless big-breasted sunflower, and the infamous Poo Monster. Its biggest crime (according to its detractors) was in being a game for adults, masquerading as a kiddie game with cute cartoon animals. Which is almost understandable since it was originally for the N64 and came out at the same time as Banjo-Kazooie and DK64, two other platform games with cute mammals.
Controversy tends to follow the money, I imagine. There's a fair number of games that aren't violent but are very inappropriate for the kiddies, but none of them were terribly successful. That, and it'd be hard to make a case for a kid being driven to kill people by a game starring a cartoon squirrel.
Yes, you're right. That is my argument. My only responce is that at church, the priests have repeatedly condemned pornography, but they have never really said anything about violent entertainment. I used to go to a more conservative church and the priest there gave a homily on January 11, 2004 where he said that pornography caused Ted Bundy to go on his killing spree. However, he didn't mention violent media in his homily. However, at that church, I never mentioned that I play violent video games and that I have several violent movies.
They were very conservative and I knew that they were probably against it, which is why I never brought it up. I think that pornography is bad because I'm against it and I have no problem believeing it. However, I am a huge fan of violent media and I will never believe that it causes violence. That's also why I was very upset when I saw that thread where the pope was condemning violent entertainment. I love and respect the Catholic Church, but I have no respect for those comments.
My worry is that he will make it dogma that violent entertainment is bad and evil just like Pope John Paul II made it dogma that contraception was a serious sin. If he did that, I would have to choose between my religion and my favorite thing in the world and I don't want to have to make that choice, but if it comes to that, I will choose violent entertainment even if it takes me to hell.
In the Catholic Church, there are two kinds of sin. Venial sin and mortal sin. It is believed that venial sins like cussing and doing some small harm like a small lie make the soul sick and in need of confession. Mortal sins are things like using contraception, fornication, adultery, and looking at pornography. If you are in the state of mortal sin, you can't recieve any of the sacraments and if you die in the state of mortal sin you will go to hell and burn for all of eternity. It is also believed that in the Bible where Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom, that means that whatever the pope allows will be allowed in heaven and whatever he forbids on earth, will be forbidden in heaven.
A read in a history book last quarter that Thomas Jefferson once said, "If I could go to heaven but without a political party, I wouldn't go at all." That's the way I feel about violent video games. If they aren't allowed in heaven, I don't want to go. If violent media isn't allowed there, then I don't want to go anyway. I hope the pope doesn't make it a mortal sin to see violent media because that's one thing I'll never give up.
So really you don't have to worry a bit about mortal sins and other such garbage. A sin is a sin, and according to the Gospels and Letters of the Apostles one confession, that at the time of salvation is all that is needed.
Sorry to go incredibly off topic with my theological ramblings but I just had to get that off my chest.
Jotunheim
not to mention the retooling of proverbs and such from the tora ,sometimes I wish they'd get back to basics instead of spin it into odd vague and thougly exclusive sayings that only build them up and tear everyone else down.
When God created us, He created us male and female, and "for this reason a man shall depart from his family to be with a woman." Men were meant to be with women, not men with men. Homosexual practice is an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22 demonstrates that God is not pleased with homosexual practice). You claim, then, that God would be unworthy, but this is based on your assertion that homosexuality is moral. On what basis do you claim that homosexuality is a good thing? I could point not only to the Bible as God's Word, but also to nature - homosexual practices has been known to be harmful in contrast to heterosexual practices - as evidence that homosexuality is clearly not in the natural order of all creation. You have to ask yourself first, is your opinion of right and wrong absolute and objective, or is it subjective and biased?
Without an absolute such as God's Word, who are you to judge what is a "good life?" If man alone judged his way into heaven, it wouldn't be heaven anymore, given the fallen state of mankind (I assume that you are aware of this doctrine, given your former Catholic connections).
Now, to address the points I originally opted to post about, violent games and pornography, these claims raised interesting thoughts for me that I felt obligated to write about. Biblically, there is nothing wrong with playing violent video games, as they are fantasy. Ergo, reading Harry Potter is not an erratic practice, as it is fantasy. If you understand that it is fantasy and nothing more than that, I don't see any biblical reason you can't play such games. There is nothing in the Bible against fictional depiction of violence. It may be discouraged (for obvious reasons), but it is not condemned.
The problem with pornography, however, is that it arouses lust; you are looking upon a woman (or man, depending on your gender and orientation). This, Jesus Christ pointed out, is a sin. Can you honestly, in good conscience, say you are not aroused to lust by pornography?
With these thoughts out of the way and now addressing the general reader of this post, I would like to emphasize however, that we should not concern ourselves with trying to maintain a perfect life by human efforts - this is impossible given our current, fallen nature. When God created us, we lived in perfection, but we screwed it up. We screwed our chance up, and we erected a wall between God and us - we cannot form a relationship with God with sin staring us in the face. We are all responsible for our actions, but know this - God aspired to help us out of our own hole, by sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross as an once-and-for-all sacrifice to atone for what we have done, and to clean us so that we can once again enter into Sanctuary - relationship with God. "Believe in Jesus Christ, and confess that God raised Him in three days and you shall be saved."
To respond to part of your post, On what basis do YOU, Soga claim that homosexuality is a bad thing? Harmfull to society even? Not of the natural order?
I personally am not homosexual but I AM a christian,
I have a few friends that are Homosexual (male and female).
Because of that I know that being Homosexual is not something you "do" it's something that you ARE or aren't.
Lots of fantastic art, books and inventions were made by homosexual people like Leonardo da Vinci.
Sounds like adding usefull things to society to me...
And the natural order?
I did not believe it at first, but there ARE homosexual animals that make usefull contributions to their social group, try looking up the Bonobo chimps if you dón't believe me.
And concering the bible: I don't want to step on anyones toes, but if you compare bibles through the ages you'll notice slight discrepancies creeping in from version to version due to translation and "modernisation".
The latest "modern" translation of the bible here in the Netherlands feels like almost reading a different book from the previous version, since they chose their words carefully to downplay some of the more violent parts.
A friend of mine is a Vicar and an Theologist and he pointed this out to me a little while ago.
To conclude:
Maybe the bible once was the absolute word of god, but since we humans have been tinkering with it for centuries I personally can no longer believe that it has not been "modified" to some degree.
There are still things of value in there, but please THINK about what your reading.
And thus I end my rant...
I know about the bonobos, but did you know that what they do isn't really homosexual, but rather a manner of communicating - sometimes to communicate reconcilation, as wikipedia would put it? Even so, it is questionable as to how physically - biologically - healthy these mannerisms might be for the bonobos, given the fallen nature of creation. Psychologically, sex - regardless of genders involved - obviously would reduce stress, apparently. Another thing to ask is whether these bonobos inherited these mannerisms by means of degeneration. But this is not about the bonobos, this is about the human approach to homosexual mannerisms; to me, it would seem that even if one were wired to harbor feelings for the same sex, it is -how you cope with it- that determines whether you are in sin. You argue that homosexuality is what you "are," but having struggled with it myself, I KNOW homosexuality is more of a choice. I KNOW what having non-straight sexual orientation is like, and it isn't something that "can't be helped." However, you would mind to read about the existence of ex-gays (http://exodus.to/content/blogcategory/20/149/). If homosexuality was as part of who you were, arguably a reference to the speculated gay gene, ex-gays theoretically should not exist. Like these people, I seeked God's help to remove me from that lifestyle, and the results are positive. It is apparent then, that you have a choice - you can choose to remain in such a lifestyle, or to put your life in God's hands.
It's true that gay people contribute useful things to society, but did I ever say, explicitly or implicitly, that they didn't? I am arguing that homosexual offense is immoral in the eyes of God. God did NOT intend for a man to lie with another man. I am not saying that homosexual people themselves are useless to society. Nowhere in my post do I even imply that.
And to your assertions about the Bible, there are Bible translators that translate using the OLDEST, MOST RELIABLE manuscripts of the Bible. If you work backwards, you will notice that changes are for the major part, very minimal and hardly substantial to distort the Bible.
I have put thought as well as prayer into these posts, and I hope this discussion bears blessings for these who partake of it.
Venial sins you can say a quick prayer for forgiveness, but you should do penance. But you can still receive the sacraments.
Mortal sins you MUST confess and do penance and you are not allowed to receive sacraments until you do.
---
Paraphrasing from Galieo "The bible is absolute and perfect, but our translations of it are not" Throughout the centuries the bible has been translated to make it more understandable for people. There are still bibles made that are (more or less) one-to-one translations of the original Latin/Greek bible, but is is very difficult to understand.
Also when interpreting the bible you must understand what words meant when they were written.
Example (non bibilical context)
the word 'gay' meant Happy, cheerful. That was a few decades ago. Today it has become to mean Homosexuality.
I end with a quote from Jesus, Matthew 16:23
"...You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
The problem is that, in my religion, they teach that if a person dies in the state of mortal sin, that person will go straight to hell. If the Pope says that seeing violent media is a mortal sin and makes it dogma, then that means that if I continue to see violent media, I will go to hell. I will therefore have to choose between my religion and salvation and my entertainment, that I will never let go of no matter what. That will be a tough situation.
I don't want it to come down to that. If it does, I'm screwed and I'm going to hell to burn for all eternity. That is why I was very upset when I heard the Pope condemn violent media. I hope he doesn't make it dogma.
Of course, the problem is that we as humans seem to have a notoriously hard time agreeing on a single moral code. You'd think after millenia of experience we might have figured it out, but lately society seems to be more and more divided on the issue. Hence my creed that one should live how one wants as long as in doing so one does not wrong another or interfere with another's ability to live how he/she would want. So, you don't push your bible in my face, and I don't tell you about how wrong it is to push your bible into another's face - a practice I've always found despicable. You should find your faith by introspection, not by having evangelists try to recruit you.
As for what it means to 'live a good life' or to have done one's penance - such a decision is not one that you arrive to lightly. I for one have thought a great deal on the matter as it applies to myself and have sought forgiveness from myself and those I have wronged; at this point I can say I haven't lived badly but at the same time have not done much good, either. The world has given me much and I have offered very little in return, but that process of giving back is the work of most of one's lifetime. Until then I would not say I have lived a good life - just a not bad one. I say it's worth thinking about what you think of your life - as that is what matters - but at the same time to consider the full weight of your life's actions. Being at peace with oneself is not a conclusion one arrives at quickly, easily, or without some very painful doubts.
You come off to me as someone who does not practice catholicism, and has not read up on it for some time.
I think you should re-read what the pope said and be more open minded. You seem too focused on the negative singular point to be able to see what he is truly saying.
I go to church every weekend and I know what the Pope said. He said that violent media that glorifies violence in the name of entertainment is a perversion. That's what he said. I don't read the Bible on my own that's true, but I know that what the Pope makes dogma is law and can't be changed. If he makes it dogma, I'm screwed. I know what he said and it was against violent video games. He is against violent media and may make it dogma.
How do I sound like a person who doesn't practice Catholicism? I know what he said perfectly. Another problem is he's German and right now, Germans are against violent media completely because they blame it for what that crazy madman did. He was calling violent media a perversion didn't you get that? He said it is a perversion. Why is it that everything I ever say here is always wrong? I know he called it a perversion.