Christian Game Company Not Leaving Xbox or Wii Behind

Left Behind Games plans on bringing its brand of Christian-infused videogames to the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Xbox 360.

Left Behind is teaming up with LifeLine Studios to develop a title called Bible Adventures for both consoles. The new effort will draw content from Left Behind’s Charlie the Church Mouse series, which is currently available on the PC. Bible Adventures will “educate young children by teaching them academic lessons vital to early childhood development through Bible stories.”

Left Behind CEO Troy Lyndon added:

Parents and kids already love the Charlie Church Mouse Bible Adventure games for the PC. Our strategy is to follow Nintendo’s example by including up to 18 story animations and mini-games, providing significant value for our customers. We expect our financial projections to grow exponentially as we transition from a PC game developer to a Wii & Xbox developer.

Left Behind games is also known as Inspired Media Entertainment. In October the company announced a pilot effort to sell its religious-themed PC games in Texas-area Wal-Mart stores.

|Image via Kerusso|

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

155 comments

  1. sharpshooterbabe says:

    lol wow.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  2. Sukasa says:

    Shrug…I thought he was mooning the prime minister behind him.  Lets face it more then likely he didn’t know the proper bowing degree (most non japanese don’t) and he (obama) wanted to show some cultural respect, ie nothing wrong with a bow, its basically the japanese handshake.  He just messed it up. He’s is human afterall…and not the messiah that conservaties keep claiming.  But its all good, conservatives/repubs hate Obama(ODS?), just like democrats/liberals hated Bush(BDS?) and the cycle will continue. Maybe one day there will be a war between the 2 sides, though personally I prefer to see Z(zombie) day come.

  3. Glasofruix says:

    "THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET"

    Nope, not here. We just don’t care about such little details, seriosly there’s nothing to make a controversy.

  4. jedidethfreak says:

    If I should shut up about this, the explain why Obama’s own staffers said he gaffed after the incident.  I thought it was because he gave a – wait for it – bow of servitude, sending the wrong message to THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  5. jedidethfreak says:

    There’s a head bow, and there’s a bow of servitude.  The 90-degree bend that Obama did is the latter.  No US leader, on either side of the aisle, has bowed like that.  Ever.  You’re the one who’s apparently clueless about modern events.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  6. jedidethfreak says:

    The one time I’ve seen you make any comment even remotely disparaging to any religion other than Christianity was at the end of one of your anti-Christian rants, you said something about Islam, almost as an afterthought.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  7. jedidethfreak says:

    He said thongs, not thong.  He’s referring to flip-flops.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  8. Adamas Draconis says:

    Wow, I didn’t realize ya’ll were DDO runners. Cool!

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  9. Adamas Draconis says:

    That is a disturbing image. Not because of any religious thing, just because it’s a DUDE IN A THONG!!

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  10. Valdearg says:

    Have there been any nutty islamic individuals on GP, spouting thier nonsense, like Christian GP’ers do? That is why you haven’t seen me do it. Then again, the majority of my arguments can be used to argue against many religions, not just Christian ones.

  11. jedidethfreak says:

    That’s you, though (even though I’ve never seen you make any comments lambasting Islam), and not the majority of GP, even, much less mainstream America.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  12. Valdearg says:

    Again, you are kind of clueless about modern events, aren’t you? Where did you hear the Saudi King Story, Limbaugh? Obama bowed, as a sign of respect towards the king, much like he did towards the Japanese Emporer. My bet is that if he didn’t bow, the same people would be screaming "OMG, OBAMA  DISRESPECTED FORIEGN LEADERS! HE WANTS THEM TO ATTACK US!" Frankly, it’s nothing but crap.

    If you look it up, there are plenty of instances where you have Conservative Leaders Bowing, as well. The whole bowing thing was meant to stir up controversy and to attack Obama for absolutely nothing.

  13. jedidethfreak says:

    I had a Warforged Fighter (never multiclassed) that I min/maxed for a Battleaxe.  If I hit, I did 5d12.  However, on the rare occasion I did get hit myself, it was BAD.  I was known to some of my in-game friends as "The Warforged with the Glass Jaw."  Funny, funny stuff.

    He was dead when I got here.

  14. jedidethfreak says:

    Really, very, very little respect?  Didn’t the President of the United States almost orally pleasure the King of Saudi Arabia, he bowed down so far?  And, while this site MAY make some noise against an Islamic video game, I guarantee you that, on regular news media, it would be considered community outreach.

    He was dead when I got here.

  15. Valdearg says:

    Meh.. It’s easy to play any combination of classes if you don’t have to roleplay it.

    Thats one reason I left DDO.. There were so many obscure builds like Ftr/Barb/Pal/Sorc or wierd crap like that. Dungeons and Dragons was never about Min/maxing, it was about adventuring and character development and role playing!

    LOL.. Just because your spiked chain wielding Half-Dragon Ftr/Mon/Clr can kick my Battleaxe wielding gnome barbarian/illusionist’s ass doesn’t mean that your character is more fun than mine! Hell, half the fun of D&D are the interparty interactions, and how they play out on the battlefield..

    I still remember the time my brother was playing a rogue, he played a particularly nasty prank on my Wizard by replacing my normal robes with ones disguised as my own, but cursed with an the annoying ability to cause minor static discharges every time I moved (-10 to my spellcasting concentration checks), and, of course, required a "Remove Curse" spell to take off.

    Later on, rather than flank an enemy to give him free sneak attacks, I decided to eliminate the enemies surrounding him with a nice little heightened fireball. So, after failing his reflex save and taking half damage, the little bastard pickpocketed several potions from me, including a Cure Serious Wounds potion, while I was distracted by enemies. So, he takes the potion, heals up, and continues the fight, while I get myself surrounded and knocked unconcious because, to my surprise, when I go to drink the damned potion, IT’S NOT THERE!

    We laughed our asses off that night.. My damn brother is a clever little bastage..

  16. Valdearg says:

    I can second this argument. I condemn Islam just as quickly as I condemn Christianity. If someone on this game came out and started spewing Islamic crap, I’d be just as quick to bash them and thier religion as I am to bash those who spew Christian crap.

  17. Valdearg says:

    If I’m not mistaken, I believe the "Left Behind" series made a different game a while back. In that game, you were a member of the faithful, and the game adovacing violence towards those non-faithful, who were left behind after Jesus’ first coming.

    Nothing like advocating a little violence against non-believers to really get those Christian Motors running..

  18. Talouin says:

    Again, not true.  Any non-Christianity based religion gets very, very little respect within the western nations, America especially.  I am 100% positive that this blog would report the same if a games industry giant decided to release a game based upon the Christian, Islam, Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monster faiths…

    Well… maybe more favourable towards the FSM faith but I mean come on… it’s the FSM.

  19. jedidethfreak says:

    But you see all of those people as "extremist loons" anyway, and I’m not talking about extremist loons.  I’m talking about mainstream.

    He was dead when I got here.

  20. Talouin says:

     Wrong.  If there were games made and marketed as religious games the evangelist or hardcore Christian community would make many, many stupid comments… also Fox News would explode with more sensationalism.

  21. Redertainment says:

    At least a Christian Coalition Corporation Group is doing something positive and giving people an alternative to the games that they find deplorable rather than just poitlessly bitching about that which they find objectionable.

     

  22. jedidethfreak says:

    Yeah, still trying to get used to a Paladin/Anything build in DDO.  But P/Ro is a good build.  I prefer my R/Ro though.  I can basically do anything.

    He was dead when I got here.

  23. jedidethfreak says:

    I think if any other religion tried this, it would be seen as a logical way to expand "cultural awareness."  The only reason anyone makes stupid comments like yours is because it is based on a Christian faith.

    He was dead when I got here.

  24. jedidethfreak says:

    They would be in the US anyways.  However, those scrolls are all in Jerusalem, and you can damned sure bet the people of Jerusalem won’t just hand them over because of "public domain."

    He was dead when I got here.

  25. nightwng2000 says:

    Still not my genre.  While I don’t mind characters with various personalities, including religious personalities, in a particular overall story, a complete storyline based totally on even a "positive" religious background tends to come off as preachy and an unpleasant experience for me.

    A storyline that pits me against "evil" religious characters who try to pass themselves off as "holy" might be ok.  But the overall story has to be good as well.

    While I play Paladins in various RPGs, I try not to play him as a religious crusader unless I’m forced to by storyline.  In fact, I like the Paladin/Rogue build I have in DDO.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  26. hellfire7885 says:

    Joy, kidsi n Texas can look forward to more Wii minigame collections. I wonder if one will be a book burning or a witch burning.

    What’s sad is if ANY other religion tried anything remotely like this, there would be potential lynchings


  27. Glasofruix says:

    The bible and the whole religious bullcrap is part of the public domain, so if you want to make jesus wear thongs, you’re free to.

  28. Baruch_S says:

    I think you’ve pretty much explained why tie-in games generally suck.

    Also, the Bible itself would be public domain. Modern translations would be copyrighted, but the original material (eg the old scrolls) and the older translations would be well outside of copyright law.

  29. whiston532 says:

    The reason i believe behind tie in games/movies/etc, suck is because of 2 major reasons ( and several smaller ones )

    1. Securing the rights, everyone knows you cant just go and make a game with Batman, Jesus or the New York Rangers. You need permission. And when you get past the costs trying to and securing the rights to it monetary wise ( which takes a large part of the games budget ) you then have to respect the rights owners wishes wich can either be limited ( ie just make a decent game that will bring in the money ) to the hardcore ( ie, they pretty much either hijack the direction or give set limits which pretty much takes a lot of creative space away ).

    The Bible, being the most sold book ever and the most valuable, would obviously fall into the latter. But im not 100% on wheter or not someone actually owns the rights to the bible or if its public domain. But if it was public domain and you did a disrespectful job, that would hurt your buisness.

     

    2. Limits. If your making a game from square 1. Its pretty much anything goes. Wanna make a flying lizard dressed like an eskimo fighting aliens from Jupitor, you go right ahead. But when you make, say, a Batman game. You cant go ape shit. Batman cant fly, cant shoot lazers, cant fight aliens from Jupitor. You can still make a quality game ( Arkham Asylum ) but im pretty sure most designers would rather be more creatively free.

     

    Sorry for the long reads tonight. Im in a real writting mood.

  30. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I have heard very rarely in the past of Christian games, but I wasn’t looking for them either. This game(s) seems like what my baby cousins would be playing at an early age….i.e. a leap frog.

    Left Behind games is also known as Inspired Media Entertainment. In October the company announced a pilot effort to sell its religious-themed PC games in Texas-area Wal-Mart stores.

    Since I am from Texas & there are a lot of Wal-mart’s here….. O.o I know there are a lot of churches in the South as well. But this will be a big hit to the families of the Christian religions. I would also hope that the Left Behind & Lifeline studios won’t just get half the info & change around the bible……of course depends on what bible they are getting it from….

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  31. MechaCrash says:

    The problem, ultimately, is that tie in games suck. It doesn’t matter if you’re tying it into a cartoon, a movie, a toy line, or a religion — it’s a tie-in product, and "sell the main product" takes massive priority over "don’t be shitty."

  32. whiston532 says:

    To me its not the fact that the games are based of the bible that make them suck. Its the fact that these game designers seem to think that because theyve thrown a cross here and there, name a couple characters after people from biblical times, and have the main character on a mission from God, that they can just fill the rest in with what is at best blatant rip off of recent games. Then sit back and wait for southern grandmothers to walk into walmart and see them in the discount bin with the big, shiny cross on the cover, and decide to buy it instead of that evil COD MW2.

    Now, all games use some filler parts, its pretty damn hard not to. But when a game is 99% filler we have problems. These people have 0 drive, im assuming most of them are guys whove been kicked out of better studios for just not being good enough, so they lose interest in game design but still need food on the table, so they throw out crap and divvy up the scraps they make.

    FTR im a christian, not trying to create a religion argument here, just saying that even the people these games are aimed at know this stuff is BS

  33. gamegod25 says:

    And like the Left Behind game this will suck too. Why? Becasue all bible games have sucked. If you don’t believe me then just watch the AVGN bible game reviews.

  34. Talouin says:

    Those people that are flipping out like that are being idiots and need to learn some tolerance, people are entitled to what they believe in so long as it is not infringing on your personal rights.  Also please point to a LAW that is on the books that makes it illegal to be a Christian in public.  Also, are you aware that some Christian faiths are making it illegal to go against their faith.  Take laws on the topics of abortion and homosexual marriage.

  35. Talouin says:

    Actually I prefer to live in today.  There are many reasons why I disagree with the standpoints of many religions.  Some of them include the following:

    Islam:  The treatment of women, the penalty for apostasy.

    Catholicism:  The standpoint on contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage.

    Some Christianity-based faiths:  The standpoint on contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage.

    Really, what happened in the past shaped what could occur today.  It is important to know your history and I am of the opinion that the book of the faiths of the book (bible/torah/Qur’an) should be read by students in the same way that the works of Shakespeare are taught… as literature.

  36. Sukasa says:

    Both isnt necessary right, waste of juvy space to send some kid for praying and the teacher shouldn’t have any religious symbols up.  Teachers should keep it to just teaching, and leave religion to priests, preachers, etc.

    Shrug, I thought about it, but hey whats wrong with wanting the true version of how the pledge was before a bunch of idiot politicans thought it would be a great idea to change it?  Sure I really don’t care if people want to unorganized prayer before school starts. However, there’s always someone who wants to try doing it after school starts.

  37. jedidethfreak says:

    Or, starting the day off, before the bell, students pray to whomever the fuck they want, then say the pledge of allegiance (omitting "Before God" if they so chose) and everything is just the way it always has been.  Bet you didn’t think about that, did you.

    And before you can say that we can already do that, when I was in high school, a friend of mine was sent to juvy for a month for praying on school property.  Before the bell.  Before the Principal even made it to school.  Meanwhile, the Jewish teacher we had was able to have the Star of David on her wall all year.  Now, tell me that’s right.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  38. jedidethfreak says:

    The difference is that Christians aren’t making LAWS making it all but illegal to be atheist in public.  Atheists are making laws making it all but illegal to be Christian in public.  In a Target store I worked at, I once saw a woman freak out on my manager because he wore a cross necklace UNDER HIS SHIRT.  It popped out when he went to help her get something.  Now, who’s trying to "force culture" upon whom in that example?  Again I say, if it ain’t good for the goose, it ain’t good for the gander.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  39. jedidethfreak says:

    Actually, that fighting already happened, in Europe.  The end result was, ultimately, America.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  40. jedidethfreak says:

    And you are one person in a world that thinks it’s okay to attack one religion for things it did hundreds of years ago, but remain quiet about the things another religion is doing today.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  41. Glasofruix says:

    In BELGIAN constitution, pauvre nouille.

    By the way, you live in a multicultural country with countless beliefs and traditions, forcing YOUR idiotic belief in some invisible, intangible and highly improbable omnipotent being is not what i call freedom, you know the thing that US is very proud of?

  42. Sukasa says:

    If parents want their children to learn about god, take them to sunday school and church. If thats not enough, there are various churches that have schools such as the catholic schools (which I went to one till the 8th grade). Schools should be spent learning about how read/write english, math and science. I could see around high school having an optional Philosophy class, that covers some of the major religions history but thats about it.  If you want prayer in public school then one will have to accept prayers from other religions who have a kid in that school.  I can see it now starting the day off, you got a pledge of allegiance, then a christian prayer, then a muslim prayer, then a buddhist prayer, then a hindu prayer and then you got annoucements, and finally maybe an hour later you can start class.  Our schools are already bad enough in teaching the basics. Now we should also be teaching them religion(but only christianity of course)?  Course, then we also have to make sure to teach the "Right kind" of christianity.  Baptists likely wouldn’t want catholics doing the religious teaching or vice versa.

    If I aint mistaken, originally "in God We Trust" wasnt placed on currency till around the civil war.

    http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

    So I would think if you are true "founding fathers were right about everything, etc", then one would take off "in God we Trust" off currency, restore the pledge back to with out God in it (since that was just added back during the cold war)

  43. Sukasa says:

    There are idiot atheists just like there are idiot christians.  I think its probably a good thing for christians that they have atheists, etc to place the blame for everything.  If there was nothing but the various sects of christianity, there would probably be fighting over being the right "type" of christian. 

     

  44. Talouin says:

    "They’re also the same people that put the phrase "In God We Trust" on every piece of currency in this country."

     Incorrect again.

    In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States and the U.S. state of Florida. The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956

  45. Talouin says:

    Are you aware that the original pledge of allegiance did not have the clause "under God" in it?  This was added to the pledge in 1954.  Perhaps people are simply sick of having a culture forced upon them.  Being atheist, as you have demonstrated above, is not the common factor within the equation.  The common factor is "non-Christian".

    If you want an argument to emotion from me, how do people of the Jewish faith feel because people do not constantly wish them Happy Hanukkah in a mass-media manner?  I am personally a fan of the expression "Merry Christma-Hanu-Quanzica to you" as it’s entertaining.  Also, many atheists still say Merry Christmas and you are making an argument to absolutism with your entire post.

  46. Talouin says:

    I revise my statement, please try to dispute upon something other than semantics.

    "You’re wrong about that.  I would definitely be saying something.  The reason why people address Christianity more here is that this is a Western-world message board.  If this were a U.K. message board you would see many, many more comments regarding Islam." 

  47. jedidethfreak says:

    There are school districts all over this country that have been sued because of one Atheist not wanting their child to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  Also, read a history book.  Our Constitutional laws were drafted using the Ten Commandments as a blueprint.  Finally, businesses have been sued by atheists and muslims alike for their employees saying "Merry Christmas," as this is seen as forcing Christianity on them.

    Frankly, it sounds like you’ve been reading too much Daily KOS.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  48. jedidethfreak says:

    There’s a huge difference between the church ruling the government and saying god in school.  You’re right, there is a separation of church and state in this country, but the same people who wrote that into our Constitution are the same ones that prominently displayed the Ten Commandments in the first United States Court.  They’re also the ones that had all political figures swear an oath on the Holy Bible to protect the same Constitution that separates the Church from the government in this country.  They’re also the same people that put the phrase "In God We Trust" on every piece of currency in this country.

    Jackass.  Nice that you can’t even spell your own fucking country’s name right.  It’s spelled BELGIUM.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  49. jedidethfreak says:

    You’re right.  You picked one country in Europe that supported your views, even though your argument was that ALL OF EUROPE shared them.  Therefore, one of your arguments is flawed.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  50. Talouin says:

     I picked an example from a country within Europe.  Whilst all of Europe may not have issues, some of it does.

  51. Glasofruix says:

    Huh? Are you an idiot?

    The religion and the power MUST be clearly separated (dunno if it’s stated in the US constitution but it sure is in the belgian), otherwise we go straight to the 1000’s with inquisition and witch burning.

  52. Valdearg says:

    Erm.. None of what you said is even remotely true. There is nothing illegal about practicing religion. You can still say the pledge and you can still say merry Christmas. The whole ten commandments thing is a matter of Separation of Church and state. Also, our laws aren’t necessarily based on the 10 commandments. They are there for the Good of society, not because God wants them there.

    Frankly, it sounds like you’ve been listening to too much Conservative Punditry.

  53. jedidethfreak says:

    Really?  There isn’t an Atheist culture?  Then why in the hell are they suing every chance they get to make expression of religion illegal in this country?  Can’t say the Pledge of Allegiance because it says God in it.  Can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courtroom (the same Ten Commandments that our laws are based on) because that’s a religious thing.  Can’t say Merry Christmas because it’s a relgious thing.  Atheists go to the Supreme Court for these things, claiming that Christianity is – say it with me – infringing on their culture.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  54. Talouin says:

    You’ve proven that you have no idea what atheist means.  Firstly, there is no Atheist culture, often one of the few things that Atheists agree upon is that there is no supernatural realm.  The Christian god happens to be a part of that realm.

  55. Talouin says:

     Please look into the many, many debates on the topic of religion that come out of the United Kingdom.  You will find that vocal Atheists have just as many things to say about Islam as they do Christianity.  I can point a couple out to you if you would like.

  56. jedidethfreak says:

    But Atheist cultural segregation – which you seem to support – can and does support bigotry and resentment as well, so you really have no moral high ground here.

    He was dead when I got here.

  57. jedidethfreak says:

    Doubtful, due to the fact that in Europe, there is double the Islamic population per capita than here in the US.  Here, it’s all about Political Correctness, meaning Christian, politically conservative white men (ideally ones who work for some big corporation) are akin to Satan, and anyone or anything that opposes them is worthy of praise.

    He was dead when I got here.

  58. Baruch_S says:

    Yeah, there are some groups like that. Generally, I think they tend to be the more radical Evangelicals (who are really to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about Christianity…). A lot of Christians–especially those that belong to denominations that are considered Mainline Protestant–aren’t that crazy, and I think the younger generations of Christians are much less inclined towards isolationism because they’ve been exposed to supposedly evil stuff and found out the truth.

  59. Magic says:

    Honestly, I don’t know, as I’m not in the US, I’m in the UK.

    I don’t hold it absolutely and I am speaking about the sort that seem to, as you say, withdraw completely and refrain from participating with people who don’t follow their religion. I’m certain there are plenty of Christians who ‘mingle’ with everyone else. My impression is based on an American fundamentalist I used to know over the internet, who did have the sort of nauseating derogatory attitude that things that were non-Christian are far and away from being decent or acceptable. All I’m saying is that sort of insulation and isolation is wrong, but they’re absolutely free to do it if they wish, and that these games from Left Behind are a potential example of it.

  60. Magic says:

    By Christian job, I do mean that in a church, or a Christian book store or so such – anything like that which shields them away from the evil outside world of secularists and heathens. In that instance, it effectively is some sort of ‘cultural segregation’ – why not? I really don’t think that’s a healthy way to live, it can easily cause bigotry and resentment to grow.

  61. Talouin says:

     You’re wrong about that.  I would definitely be saying something.  The reason why people address Christianity more here is that this is a Western-world message board.  If this were a European message board you would see many, many more comments regarding Islam.

  62. Baruch_S says:

    How prominent do you think this cultural segregation is? I know that a small number of groups do withdraw from culture (they also tend to have 8 kids per family, probably are hardcore homeschoolers, and may or may not live in a commune with a small arsenal in the basement), but most Christians are actually pretty normal people. They watch normal TV shows, play normal video games, read normal books and listen to normal music. They’d likely play "Christian" games, listen to "Christian" music, read "Christian" books or watch "Christian" TV if the stuff was pretty good quality, but they’re not going to relegate themselves soley to "Christian" products.

  63. jedidethfreak says:

    A christian job?  Outside of working for a church (which would really make you look stupid for your "cultural segregation" comment), it’s illegal for any job to have any religious connotation.

    And, so what if Christian people play Christian games?  If this was about Islam, nobody would be saying a damned thing.  Well, except maybe us conservatives, but then we’d be getting shit on by the liberals here on GP left and right.

    He was dead when I got here.

  64. Magic says:

    It’s the whole cultural segregation that was discussed last time this Left Behind developer came up on GP. Imagine a Christian who listens to Christian radio in the morning with Christian music, then coming home from work (A Christian job?) and watching Christian TV shows and playing Christian games. Maybe they only have Christian friends and everything else in their life has to be linked to Christianity.

    If they choose to do so, fair enough, but, I don’t know, it seems to me like something that leads to a weak perspective of life – surely a contrast in today’s world is more crucial than ever? Arguably it could lead to an insulated world view, one that protects their bubble of faith in their religion.

  65. Talouin says:

    I actually wish you had read the article that you linked.  I’ll take some excerpts out for you.

    Catholicism:  "Though purgatory is often pictured as a place rather than a process of purification, this idea is not part of the Church’s doctrine."  Purgatory is the process of cleansing the soul goes through before it reaches heaven.

    Protestantism:  "In general, Protestant churches do not accept the doctrine of purgatory. One of Protestantism’s central tenets is sola scriptura ("scripture alone"). The general Protestant view is that the Bible, from which they exclude deuterocanonical books such as 2 Maccabees, contains no overt, explicit discussion of purgatory and therefore it should be rejected as an unbiblical belief."  Rejected by this faith.

    Anglican:  "The Anglican Church, rejects the doctrine of purgatory, with the exception of a small minority known as Anglo-Catholics. Article XXII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church states that "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory…is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.""  Rejected by this faith.

    Lutheranism:  "Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran Church, believed that it was of no avail to pray for the dead."  Considered a useless idea by this faith.

    Methodism:  As Protestantism + "What it specifically repudiates is the concept of purgatory as a place where the souls of those who have died in Christ can be aided by the prayers of the living."  Rejected by this faith.

    Church of Latter Day Saints:  Confusing on this topic, their views aren’t really in line with the concept.

    Judaism:  Accepted as a place sinners spend for 1 year before being released.  Called Gehenna.

    Islam:  The place souls go after they are redeemed from hell.

     

  66. Talouin says:

     Just going to repeat what I said before as your entire argument is based upon a logical fallacy.  You cannot prove a negative statement no matter how much you want to.

    The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"),  or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

    I am neither arguing for the existence or non-existence of an unprovable entity.  I am merely stating that it should not be used to fill gaps in our knowledge base without observable, quantifiable evidence to back it up.  If you really need an example, in early Rome, Zeus was stated to be the cause of lightning yet we now know today that this is not true.

  67. Talouin says:

     Your point is still invalid as this is the model that IS accepted for reality.  Until a better one can provide enough evidence to gain acceptance you need to play by its rules if you want to argue in a logical or scientific manner.

  68. Baruch_S says:

    So what are you saying? We’ve never been able to prove that people are or are not hearing the voice of God, and we’ve never seemed to have trouble locking them up when they become dangerous. And what’s this "Man’s law/God’s law" business? A crazy person would get arrested on the basis of man’s laws no matter what he thought God’s laws were. That’s consistent. You’re disproving your own idea that being unable to prove or disprove God someone leads to the release of the mentally unstable, and I don’t understand why you’re doing that. What point are you trying to make?

  69. nightwng2000 says:

    I’m not derailing.  I’m trying to enforce a sense of consistancy.  Something both society in general and the legal system are sorely lacking in.

    The idea that some individuals can be deemed insane because they believe they can see or hear things other individuals can’t while others can be considered sane because it’s a "God" they claim to speak to, yet suddenyly, they are insane if the acts they commit in the name of their "God" are "bad" in the views of some in society, while others consider it totally sane.

    There is no consistancy there.  "Man’s law" and "God’s law" are not compatible as "God’s law" can be made up based on the beliefs of the individual making the laws up.  "Man’s law" can easily be made logical by simply creating laws on the stance of "The Rights of an individual end where the Rights of another individual begin" (and "entities", such as business, would have to be taken into consideration in some fashion as well).

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  70. Baruch_S says:

    Not that, the absurd idea that being unable to disprove God automatically leads to the release of the mentally unstable. You have as much logic behind that idea as someone saying that disproving God automatically gives people a free pass because there’s no supreme authority. There’s the state and the state’s laws, and they’ll still apply to people whether or not God’s existence can be proven or disproven. Your tangent is pointless and prove nothing in either direction.

  71. Baruch_S says:

    But we’re not saying that "can’t prove it doesn’t exist" outrules "can’t prove it does;" we’re saying that the model for proving or disproving a deity is flawed and therefore moot. I’m not saying God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t; I’m saying that you have no way to prove or disprove God’s existence because, if he does exist, he is not part of the physical universe and therefore cannot be measured by systems that explain said universe. You’re arguing against a point I’m not making and arguing against it absurdly by suggesting that, somehow, an inability to prove that something doesn’t NOT exist automatically leads to the release of deranged and/or dangerous persons. You’re trying to set up a straw man by equating an inability to disprove God with the unrelated idea that, if we were somehow unable to disprove God (which we currently are and always have been), we’re going to be forced to do something dangerous and stupid like releasing mental patients who are an obvious danger to the rest of society. The two are not remotely related, and you’re only derailing the discussion by trying to say they are.

  72. nightwng2000 says:

    No horrid acts?  That’s pretty sick and twisted considering the number of acts committed by various religious organizations, INCLUDING Christianity, that were done while claiming "God" said it was ok.

    From acts of bigotry to abuse (all forms, from verbal and mental to physical and even sexual) to subjegation based on, at the least, race and even gender.

    And the whole point to whether "God" exists or not is that, according to most who argue about man’s law, is that the "morality" detailed within "man’s law" comes from the morality of religion.  We’ve seen that in recents years as regards to the issue of marriage, religious marriage versus neutral (supposedly) legal marriage. 

    We’ve seen a number of other clashes between "God’s" law and "Man’s" law, and that pendulum swings many times.  We’ve seen the jurists of "Man’s" law accept "God’s" law over "Man’s law" many times, as mentioned above.  We’ve seen the supporters of "God’s" law have an effect on "Man’s" law (as was the case for a short time in NC where an Anti-Abuse (Anti-Bullying) law was temporarily delayed but eventually passed, though it WAS delayed).  We’ve even seen how the leaders of "God’s" law ignored "Man’s" law to protect other religious leaders, such as covering up the various abuses, recent and in times past, from being prosecuted by "Man’s law" for their actions.  Apparently those actions were not "horrid" enough in the eyes of those dispensing "God’s" law.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  73. nightwng2000 says:

    Yeah, it’s telling in that I said I was Non-Religious AGNOSTIC.  Which, as already stated, I lean away from the Supreme Being theory, however, it’s clear you do not.  In fact, if anything, you’re leaning towards religion to the point that you would probably be considered more non-denominational religious than Religious Agnostic.

    Frankly, I’d more believe that the Human species was, in fact, created by a technologically superior species as the subjects of an experiment in Unified Diversity.  A failed experiment, mind you. 

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  74. nightwng2000 says:

    On the contrary.  Many times the argument has been made that even the very US Constitution itself was created by theists.  As such, the laws contained in it, and in the general US legal system, are based on the "morals" of religious teachings.  Even the arguments about religious phrases used in government ("In God We Trust" on government approved currency, the use of religious reference in the pledge of allegence, and even the fight, and at times the winning, of religious use in Federally funding public schools, and more) supports that argument.

    As such, if we’re going to argue that the rule of "Can’t prove it doesn’t exist" should outweigh the rule of "Can’t prove it does exist", then we would have to take into account ALL claims of individuals who say "’God’ told me to/said it was ok".

    And since such an argument of "Can’t prove it doesn’t exist" should rule out, prove that schizophrenics who claim they hear voices AREN’T actually hearing REAL voices.

    In fact, PROVE that those mental patients who say they ARE "God" are, in fact, NOT "God".  We have their word.  And we have everyone else’s.  Prove they aren’t.  Or set them free.  How do you intend to prove it?

    It’s hardly High School argument.  It’s straight forward logic.  You say we should automatically accept that "God" exists because it can’t be proven it doesn’t.  What makes that argument any more or less logical than people who claim they were told to do something, by "God",  bad, by SOCIETY’S rules, and we should accept it because it can’t be proven that it didn’t really happen?

    Really, you seem to pick and choose what is reality and what isn’t.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  75. nightwng2000 says:

    Since any religious text can, and has, been interpreted and/or translated to suit the needs of the individual who is doing the interpretation and/or translation, "understanding" is, in fact, not possible.  Even the authors themselves may have had entirely different views on what was actually written.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  76. djnforce9 says:

    "If it’s ok with their "God", then whatever they do is acceptable.  Doesn’t matter how horrid the act."

    I doubt you can so much as name one "horrid act" that God (in terms of Christianity) deemed acceptable because there is none. Even if there was, you still have to follow societiy’s laws (also known as "man’s law" in biblical terms) which "NOBODY" regardless of religion is exempt from (if the two clash, then that is an entirely different matter altogether).

  77. djnforce9 says:

    I guess you’ve never heard of "Purgatory" Talouin. Having one or more sins on your slate does NOT equal an instant trip to hell in the afterlife. You are given a chance to cleanse your soul provided that your sins are not so severe that you can’t be saved from eternal damnation.

    Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory

  78. Baruch_S says:

    Come on, really? Now you’re just being absurd. Being unable to prove or disprove the existence of God in no way grants people a free pass to ignore society’s laws, and I think you know that. Give up the crap and find an intelligent argument. Right now you’re using petty high school Internet atheist garbage, and I don’t think anyone is impressed.

  79. Baruch_S says:

    Where do you get this garbage from? My argument in no way suggests that we have to set mental patients free or that one can use God as a free pass to do whatever he or she wants. I’m merely saying that arguing the existence of God is pointless because humans don’t have a model for understanding and quanitifying deities. You’re the one adding all these ridiculous and untrue ideas to it.

  80. nightwng2000 says:

    By your argument, we MUST set free every mental patient who claims to hear/speak to "God".

    Every mental patient that killed someone because "God" told them that their victim was possessed.

    That every individual who claims that their "God" told them it was ok to abuse others, whether family, friends, others under their care (such as children under the care of teachers), or even strangers, should be considered innocent of any crime because "God" must be presumed real and we can’t violate THEIR Rights to believe in the "God" they want to believe in.

    No, really, you want us to fall on the presumption that "God" exists because it can’t be proven that it doesn’t exist.  Fine.  All one should have to do is say "’God’ said it was ok and you can’t prove it didn’t, so I didn’t do anything wrong!", and they are set free to do whatever they please.

    YOU wanted to take this path.  So YOU have to accept the consequences.  So if someone, anyone, does harm to you in any way, shape, or form, and says "ood" told them it was ok, don’t demand "justice", whether having the individual arrested or put into a mental facility, because you can’t PROVE "God" DIDN’T say tell them it was ok to do what they did.

    After all, you can’t PROVE whose "God" is the one true "God" and whose "God’s" beliefs are the correct one.  You can only ASSUME what "God" wants.  You can only speculate.  You can only read other people’s interpretations and translations. 

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  81. jedidethfreak says:

    Again, you’re the one missing the point.  All that is required, according to the bible, to avoid eternal damnation, is to be repentant to God for your sins.  Also, with the exception of, maybe, "Honor thy father," sins are pretty bad.  You know, murder, rape, theft, lying, worshiping other gods and such.  Basically, say you’re sorry to God, and all is forgiven.

    As for your last point, you again missed my point.  Regardless of where karma came from, there are religious mirrors for it in almost every religion in history.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  82. jedidethfreak says:

    You say there’s evidence that God doesn’t exist, yet you show none.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  83. jedidethfreak says:

    I stopped reading when you admit you don’t understand the Bible.  It explains everything.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  84. jedidethfreak says:

    That’s my point.  I was just trying to see if he’d point it out.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  85. Baruch_S says:

    You’re starting from the assumption that a divine being has to be something quantifiable or measurable by science, and that frankly isn’t an assumption anyone can prove. It’s rather hard to prove or disprove something that doesn’t fit into the model you’re attempting to utilize.

  86. Talouin says:

    Your statement is a logical fallacy.  

    A layman example is, Unicorns exist because they have not been proven to not exist.  One can only state that all evidence points to the statement that unicorns do not exist or have not been proven to exist.  You can never find evidence to support lack of existence, you can only find evidence supporting existence.

    The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"),  or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

  87. Talouin says:

     Apparently my edit button is broken but here’s more.

    "Just because you have free will, you think you can’t be punished?  Your argument against religious free will is akin to violating State and Federal Law.  We live in a free country, but there are rules.  Just like in religion."  

    Again you’ve missed the point.  As I stated, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.  Hell is not a valid punishment for every transgression just as life in prison is a valid punishment for every crime.  In addition, society’s established laws are real and valid whereas religious laws are unprovable and thereby invalid.

    "I have free will, but God will get me.  We also call this karma.  The latter is a more PC phrase, but it’s the exact same thing"

    Actually Karma is founded out of the various philosophies / religious beliefs within early India.  The western interpretation of karma is also superstition and thus belongs in the realm of the supernatural.  Though there are trends that doing good things for others means that people are more likely to do good things for you this is not an absolute statement as it does not necessarily occur.

  88. jedidethfreak says:

    But the people whining about it are the ones saying it doesn’t exist.  That puts the onus on them.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  89. Talouin says:

     "And to counter your argument against atheism as faith, there is no evidence AGAINST religion whatsoever, just as there is no evidence FOR it, so your argument is null.  One must have faith that god doesn’t exist, because it cannot be proven whether or not God exists."

    The onus of proof is not on atheism, it is on theism.  You cannot prove a negative.

  90. Talouin says:

    The onus of proof is on the individual/group attempting to state their case.  In addition, "Prove god doesn’t exist" is invalid as a hypothesis as you cannot prove a negative.

  91. jedidethfreak says:

    Alright, you really think that religious people are the only ones who demonize people who don’t follow their line of thought?  You’re the one who said that religious people are illogical morons.  And you’re right, that we cannot prove God exists.  I have given you that many times.  However, you’re unwilling to entertain the fact that you can’t prove he DOESN’T exist, thereby allowing the possibility that he does.

    Also, you keep this illusion that Science and Religion cannot live hand in hand, when they can.  The fact that science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist proves it right there, because the rules of science state that it’s always possible to garner multiple outcomes until it’s proven that only one outcome is possible.

    I find your last comment very telling.  You don’t believe in a supreme being, but you claim that a supreme being is the only way humans could turn out the way they are.  If you don’t believe a supreme being exists, than how could this be?

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  92. Valdearg says:

    "Just because God knows what you’ll do, doesn’t mean he makes you do it.  You know of the "self-fulfilling prophecy?"  It’s the same thing; just because the future is known, do we have the ability to prevent it, or by attempting to prevent it, do we cause it?"

    The fallicy here is that we cannot change it, no matter what. He KNOWS the future, according to that teaching. Therefore, you, as a person, have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on it. This completely negates your argument of "Free Will." It may seem like we have it, but if that teaching is correct, then we don’t, because we have no way of affecting our future.

    " Also, to kind of destroy your first point, God doesn’t know what will happen in everyone’s future in the first place.  If he did, he would have cast Lucifer to Hell before he started a war."

    "God, according to Christianity, created the Universe, animals, plants and two people."

    That may be what you believe, but it wasn’t what my church taught.

    " I can understand that, because, apparently, you had some shitty Christians feeding you false information.  If that’s why you hate Christianity so much, maybe ACTUALLY READING THE BIBLE might help you."

    I have read the bible. In fact, I was forced to read it, study it, and do "homework" on it. I don’t have an INTRICATE understanding of the bible, but those few years in elementary school, where I was forced to study it, pretty much gave me the jist of it all.

    That being said, your comments support a point I usually bring up in religious debates. Who are you to decide what interpretation of the bible is the "Correct" one. I was taught what I was taught because it was my church’s interpretation. The Dogma of MY church said what they taught was the one, truly correct interpretation. You are telling me the same about yours, and you both can’t be right. The point here is that to imply that my church’s interpretation is wrong is to cast doubt on ALL interpretations. If one can be false, why can’t all be false? 

    The same concept applies to religions. Christians in all forms resoundly reject any other forms of religion, whether it be a different intepretation of Christianity, or a different religion altogether, like Bhuddism or Islam. Who are you to say that your god is the only true god, and all other gods are fake? Who are they to say that thier Gods are the only true Gods and that your god is fake? Especially when there is no evidence to support either of your faiths. To cast doubt on one religion is to cast doubt on them all.

    That is yet another reason why I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no god. Put simply, there are so many competing theories and interpretations, even among strictly monotheistic religions, that being part of the "Right" one is strictly pure chance.

    The vast majority of individuals grow up practicing the religion thier parents practiced, and never doubt that thiers is right. What happens if thiers is wrong? What happens if those who grow up in Islamic countries and practise Islam turn out to be right, and that all non-muslims will be sent to whatever hell Islam believes in? How would you feel, if you were punished because you just happened to learn the "wrong" religion in life?

    I can’t possibly believe that a Christian God, given what everybody seems to say about him, would do the same to other religions. He won’t give access to heaven to non-believers, so you are punished, either banished to hell, or have spend eternity in limbo, just because you didn’t get lucky enough in the cosmic roll of the dice to grow up in the right religion. Again, I say, this behavior certainly doesn’t match the "Loving" description you read about in the bible, which further proves my point that you can’t reconcile the differences between the God in the bible and the percieved "God" in real life. Put simply, he doesn’t exist.

     

  93. jedidethfreak says:

    How is me pointing out that you can’t use the "Prove God exists" comment the same as saying "Prove God doesn’t exist?"  That’s what you just did.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  94. nightwng2000 says:

    I have not lied.  Just because I don’t accept the "Imaginary Friend"-as-"God" delusion does not necessarily make me Atheist.  Nor did I say there was anything wrong with being Atheist.  It is, in fact, the religious community who wishes to demonize anyone who doesn’t follow the sociopathic, mentally delusional path of "My Imaginary Friend says it’s ok, and if you don’t believe in my Imaginary Friend, then you’re evil".  It is more likely that there are Superior Beings, as opposed to Supreme Beings.  As has been said may times, any techology can be viewed by any significally lower techological society as being magical, or even mystical or "God"-like.  This is, of course, as theoretical and speculated as the belief in the Supreme Beings worshipped by the religious community.  Until directly observed, not indirectly through the speculated creations of the Supreme Being for example, there is no way to actually prove the being’s existance.  The same is true of Strings.  The same is true of the Big Bang.  We can theorize and speculate, but until witnessed, we cannot PROVE it.

    Religion relies solely on faith, without even vague evidence of the existance of "God".  This is far closer to Blind Faith, than straightforward faith.

    Even String Theory has a mathematical formula, actually several, to base speculation on.  The same is true of the Big Bang and Evolution, having scientific tests to support the theory, though not the final actual proof.

    So, I do lean more to the scientific side, though I don’t believe science will, ultimately, explain everything. 

    And if a Supreme Being proved to be real, but turned out to actually approve and advocate some of the many horrid, dishonorable, and unethical acts that the followers of religion have believed in and committed, then I’d rather serve in oblivion or Hell or whatever.  Because such a being would be far closer to the demon so many of the religious community condemn others as being.

    Of course, such a creatue would explain why Humanity has turned out so horrible.  Because only such an evil creature could have created such a species to turn out this way.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  95. nightwng2000 says:

    That makes absolutely no intelligent sense whatsoever.  Are you sure you aren’t a Scientologist?

    Seriously, you’ve just, yet again, played the "Prove me wrong" nonsensical card.

    It is even idiotic to claim that Atheists believe themselves the highest power in the universe.  They merely bluntly state that you have not proven the existance of your "imaginary Friend".  And the religious community hasn’t. 

    Now, Atheists may deny that there are mysteries in the universe.  That EVERYTHING can be explained by science.  An Agnostic states that there are mysteries that cannot be explained, no matter how much science is applied.  If they are like myself, a Non-Religious Agnostic, then they will deny the existance of a Supreme Being to fill in those gaps of mysteries.  A Religious Agnostic may lean more towards believing that SOME SORT of Supreme Being may the source of those mysteries.

    However, in the end, the religious community has failed to do anything other than justify their actions and beliefs by claiming the source to be their "Imaginary Friend".

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  96. jedidethfreak says:

    Look.  You’re not a Non-Religious Agnostic.  That would imply you were willing to entertain the theory of God’s existence.  You’re not.  You’ve made that clearYou are an atheist, plain and simple.  It’s okay, there’s nothing wrong with that.  Just don’t lie to me about what you are.

    Also, to your final point, there are always consequences to your actions.  Whether God, Karma or the police get you, you need to atone for your sins one way or another.  It’s just a matter of whether or not you’re willing to accept the fact that you did wrong.  Apparently, you think that accepting you did something wrong somehow makes you weak.  Being overly apologetic does, but if you say "I did that, and I’m sorry," and actually mean it, that makes you a moral person in my book.

    He was dead when I got here.

  97. Sai says:

     Still if some of the classic bible stories had to be rated by the ESRB they’d probably get an M rating. Intense Violence. Blood. Sex. Use of Alcohol. Etc. 

  98. jedidethfreak says:

    Hmm, okay, he’s an agnostic, not Catholic.  With all of the references to God in his books, I assumed he was Catholic.  My bad.  That still doesn’t change the fact that he believes in God, and, according to whom I was replying, that makes him an illogical moron.

    Just because you have free will, you think you can’t be punished?  Your argument against religious free will is akin to violating State and Federal Law.  We live in a free country, but there are rules.  Just like in religion.  I have free will, but God will get me.  We also call this karma.  The latter is a more PC phrase, but it’s the exact same thing.

    And to counter your argument against atheism as faith, there is no evidence AGAINST religion whatsoever, just as there is no evidence FOR it, so your argument is null.  One must have faith that god doesn’t exist, because it cannot be proven whether or not God exists.

    He was dead when I got here.

  99. jedidethfreak says:

    Just because God knows what you’ll do, doesn’t mean he makes you do it.  You know of the "self-fulfilling prophecy?"  It’s the same thing; just because the future is known, do we have the ability to prevent it, or by attempting to prevent it, do we cause it?

    Second, to bring balance is not evil.  There cannot be good without evil, so, in order to create anything good, a sufficient amount of evil must be created to balance it.  Just as there is a Heaven in scripture, there’s a Hell.  Can’t have one without the other.  Also, to kind of destroy your first point, God doesn’t know what will happen in everyone’s future in the first place.  If he did, he would have cast Lucifer to Hell before he started a war.

    Third, if God didn’t allow suffering, people couldn’t become strong and wise.  Also, God didn’t create you, your parents did.  God, according to Christianity, created the Universe, animals, plants and two people.

    Also, your final point proves a lot.  You just don’t like Christianity.  I can understand that, because, apparently, you had some shitty Christians feeding you false information.  If that’s why you hate Christianity so much, maybe ACTUALLY READING THE BIBLE might help you.  Because you’d find out that Christians don’t have to attend church.  As long as they love God and Jesus and try to live an honorable life, that’s all the Bible asks of us.  Anyone else (pretty much all churches) that says anything different is telling you the wrong thing.  That’s why I’m agnostic.

    He was dead when I got here.

  100. jedidethfreak says:

    Well, you can start by sweeping away the smokescreens of your own argument, because just as you say the "prove me wrong" argument is invalid, you’re using it in every post you make.  To deny a Supreme being exists, even with current techology, is merely speculation, theory and opinion.

    That’s why religious people view Atheism as a religion; because you make it out to be one.  Your viewpoint can’t be proven through science, just like regular religion, and you just change the wording of the same arguments that religious people use.  That’s why, even though I’m an Agnostic, I have a lot more respect for religious people versus Atheists, because religious people don’t believe that they are the highest power in the universe.  Atheists do.

    He was dead when I got here.

  101. nightwng2000 says:

    This isn’t about "winning".  This is about The Truth, The WHOLE Truth, And Nothing But The Truth.

    The Truth is, claiming that a Supreme Being exists is no different than String Theory.  The "Prove me wrong" argument is just a smoke screen.

    Making, based on current evidence, the belief in a, and justification in following the laws of,  Supreme Being nothing more than "My imaginary friend said it was ok, and since you can’t prove my imaginary friend doesn’t exist, then I can say what I believe and do is ok and that’s all the justification I need."

    Religious texts, whether they are religious laws or parables, were written by individuals who wanted to mold society a certain way.  No factual evidence exists that any of the religious texts originated anywhere other than from the imagination of the writers, translators, and interpreters of the religious text.  No factual evidence can be provided that anything written, even the beliefs expressed within the documents, came from any form of Supreme Being.  Any attempt to do so using current technology is merely speculation, theory, and opinion.

    Again, this isn’t about "winning" the argument.  Merely sweeping away the smoke screens and misinformation spread by the religious community who believe that it is "moral" to lie to and deceive others.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  102. nightwng2000 says:

    As I’ve stated many times before, I’m Non-Religious agnostic.

    But then, lies and deceit are "moral" acts in the religious community. 

    You can cover up the sociopathic, mentally delusional religious beliefs all you want by trying to turn the argument around on me.  But, as I’ve said, the religious community are the ones setting the creating of what is "good" or "bad" at the feet of their "God".  If it’s ok with their "God", then whatever they do is acceptable.  Doesn’t matter how horrid the act.  If "God" says it’s "good", then it’s "good".  But since, in reality, it is the individual follower who is attempting to have their beliefs and actions considered "good", then their "God" will ALWAYS find it "good".  If the individual finds a reason to change their beliefs or change the belief that certain actions were actually "bad", then there is automatically an excuse.  They had "strayed" from what "God" wanted.  So their beliefs can change with the wind, as can their "God’s" beliefs.

    Hawking is scientific theorist.  Based on the various comments he’s made, after researching those comments through Google, it is clear that his comments have been made in discussions on the THEORY of the existance of "God".  Indeed, his Wikipedia article classifies him as AGNOSTIC.  Since he appears to lean more towards the potential of the theory of a Supreme Being having created the universe.  This would make him closer to a Religious-Agnostic.  Whereas, I am a Non-Religious Agnostic.

    Additionally, his comments indicate that the Supreme Being he would theorize to have created the universe would most likely have no contact or interest in contact with those living in the universe.  That, if anything, the Supreme Being created the universe, then left the lifeforms to fend for themselves, making their own rules and choices entirely.

    If anything, Hawkings theorized Supreme Being would support a TRUE Free Will.  Not one supported by the religious community that a "God" tells its people "You’re free to do as you please.  But if you break the laws -I- set forth, there will be consequences."  And, of course, those "laws" that "God" supposedly set forth are based on the beliefs of the individual.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  103. Talouin says:

     Sigh, please fact check before you make statements like the following:

    are you more logical or intelligent than Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientific minds of our time, also devoutly Catholic?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Religious_views

    If you visit the link above, you will find that Stephen Hawking is a an agnostic.  Here is more proof than the wiki article:  http://www.nndb.com/people/563/000022497/#FN1

    Now, as per free will.  The problem I have with the religious view of free will is that, in essence, it is not free will.  The god of the peoples of the book (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) is a vengeful god that will seek retribution against his people if they do not conform to his will.  For instance, if you lie to your parents you go to hell.  This is a commonly preached interpretation of a transgression against the commandment "Honor thy father and mother"  Where does the punishment fit the crime here?  People have no way to argue against this and MUST conform to whichever punishment / repentance task that the religion hands down… and it is equal for every crime.  There are very few mortal sins that cannot be confessed/reconciled away however the fact that a person with free will MUST confess/reconcile for even the tiniest of transgressions or face hell is what makes free will a sham.

    In addition, the "atheism is a faith" argument has been countered in many, many public places better than I can personally counter it.  Atheism is a standpoint based upon evidence and does not require faith.  One does not have faith in atheism, they make an observation based upon the available evidence.  In order to believe in religion you must have faith that an unobservable entity that leaves no evidence of its existence in fact exists.  Faith and atheism are mutually exclusive.

  104. Valdearg says:

    Here’s a more interesting conundrum.

    In the relgion I was brought up in, Catholicism. One of the things they taught was that God knows everything. He knows what has been, what is now, and what will be in the future. More specifically, he knows the outcome of every decision that every human will make from the time he created the earth to the time the earth will end.

    This brings to mind three questions.

    First: What’s the point of supposed "Free Will" when your path has already been set forth for you, no matter what decisions you’ve made. Even if you "Feel" like your in control of your own life, it’s false, because your entire life path has been set forth and "seen" by God already. No matter what decision you are faced with, your choice has already been predetermined and the consequences of that choice have already been put in place.

    Second: If God, in making the Earth, already knew exactly the amount of evil, death, destruction, pain, and suffering that "his" creations, humans, would endure, that wouldn’t exactly make him a "good" force. In fact, his sheer decision to "make" our universe, when faced with the immense amount of evil humanity holds would almost certainly make God an evil, malevolent force in this world, rather than the loving force that Christianity teaches.

    Finally: If the above teaching is True, then that means that even before God "created" me, he had already seen and decided that I will be going to hell. Let’s face it, IF I happen to be wrong about this whole religion thing, and thats a BIG if, in my opinion, I’m screwed. If God does exist, I will certainly be sent to hell, as punishment for my non-belief. Therefore, since God knew ahead of time that I would be sent to hell, yet he still created me, that would mean that by creating me, he had intentionally condemned me to hell, from the moment I was born, and I didn’t have a voice in the matter. If you ask me, condemning people to hell, even before they are created doesn’t sound like a kind God to me.

    I REFUSE to believe that even IF this type of God exists, that he is a God worth worshiping and praising for his love, benevolence, and kindness. He clearly isn’t a "Good" force, if what they taught me in church is true.

    This is only one, of many, many reasons that I don’t believe in God. His very existance is a non sequitur. He cannot exist exactly as he is described in Christian Teachings, because there are too many logical conflicts with how he is described.

     

     

  105. jedidethfreak says:

    The problem is, at least as it relates to Nightwing, he’d have to WANT to try and make peace.  Instead, he, like the others on here who hate Christianity, are more concerned with "winning," even though there really isn’t a fight in the first place.

    He was dead when I got here.

  106. Valdearg says:

    Yeah. I’ve been busy working this week. It seems I’ve missed a few interesting discussions where I could have stewed up some controversy and righteous indignation (The best kind). It’s a shame I couldn’t have been here.

  107. jedidethfreak says:

    Did you read the whole "free will" comment?  I’m guessing not, because of the fact that it’s one of the most talked-about tenants of any monotheistic religion.  That’s the whole point of confession in the Catholic church, that all people are responsible for their own actions, and admitting those actions to a higher power can cleanse the soul, so the guilty party could, ideally, make the right decision in how to atone to his or her fellow humans.

    Your interpretation of free will, as it relates to religion, just goes to show that your atheism is your faith, and your faith will blind you to anything about opposing faiths, as you so accuse all other religious people of doing.

    As for your last point, I’ll leave you with a couple of things to consider.  Before being arrested, Jesus questioned God.  That wouldn’t make him any more "logical" or "intelligent" in your eyes, would it?  Also, are you more logical or intelligent than Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientific minds of our time, also devoutly Catholic?

    He was dead when I got here.

  108. jedidethfreak says:

    INCORRECT!

    Christians (not segregated by denomination) have a majority in this country of about 65%, and about 60 percent worldwide.  Also, this includes your "christians who respect other beliefs," because, believe it or not, that’s a vast majority of Christians.  Now, add in Jews and Muslims and you have almost 80% of the population of America, and about 90% of the world population.

    I doubt that this "Atheist Revolution" you see coming is going to happen any time soon.

    He was dead when I got here.

  109. jedidethfreak says:

    You didn’t do anything too exorbitant on this board that I saw…

    Besides, you know how much I like insulting you;P

    He was dead when I got here.

  110. Valdearg says:

    "However, please stop implying that all Christians hate gays. For one, some denominations are openly accepting of gays and even allow them to be church officials or pastors"

    I never said that "ALL" Christians hate gays.. In fact, let me get my original quote.

    "It may not be as vocal, but a hatred of gays is present in nearly all forms of Christianity, especially the major sects, like Catholocism."

    "NEARLY ALL" is what I said. I left room to acknowledge the more accepting venues.

    That being said, disapproval is hatred, in my book. If you disapprove enough to restrict equal rights, and not bat an eye when it’s still legal in a significant number of states to fire someone just because they happen to be gay, it’s hatred. I don’t care if it’s outward hatred, or even if you won’t acknowledge it. That disapproval is hatred, clear as day. The same goes for the people who don’t care. They may not want to get involved, or they may very well just not give a crap what happens to the Gay community, I don’t care. That’s a form of hatred as well.

    ANYONE who doesn’t support equal rights for EVERYBODY, regardless of sexual preference, is guilty of at least a little bit of hatred. Some are guilty of more than others, but the point still stands.

    Just because you don’t actively fight against or perpetrate violence against someone, doesn’t mean you don’t hate them. Standing idly by while injustice is being perpetrated is hatred enough.

  111. Baruch_S says:

    Wow, way to be a paragon of tolerance…

    Yes, gays don’t have equal rights yet, and yes, Christians do share in the blame. I agree that Christians need to stop trying to put their beliefs into legislation. However, please stop implying that all Christians hate gays. For one, some denominations are openly accepting of gays and even allow them to be church officials or pastors. Also, you’re confusing hatred with disapproval. Many Christian groups disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, but very few of them would advocate hating homosexuals. If members of a Christian group are hating homosexuals, they’re doing it of their own accord and not because it’s biblically advocated.

  112. Valdearg says:

    If the Religious right didn’t hate gays, why is it that gays don’t yet have equal rights?

    It certainly isn’t because all Christians have helped the matter..

    It may not be as vocal, but a hatred of gays is present in nearly all forms of Christianity, especially the major sects, like Catholocism.

    So, in respnse, how about you stop being rediculous and defending hateful persecutors when they exist?

  113. Vake Xeacons says:

    Not the point. We’re the same. Christian and Atheist. The way we fight, the way we argue over what’s more "logical" or ethical"…

    Growing up Christian in an Atheistic society, I’ve never judged or condemned, just defended. All I’ve ever wanted is to get along.

    My best friend feels like you do, Nightwng. He’s not Atheist, but he feels the same way toward Christians as you do. I’m a hardcore Christian. And yet, we love each other like brothers. Best of friends.

    If we can do it, anyone can do it.

  114. Baruch_S says:

    Even worse, their hatred of gays, sexuality, science (still living in the 1000’s), and basic free will (its called separation of Church and State) makes them even worse.

    Really? Come on. Stop being ridiculous and basing your views of everyone on the ultra-crazy evangelical groups.

  115. nightwng2000 says:

    "No religion believes in a god who controls the people. "

    Again, a false claim.  The whole point to claiming the existance of having a Supreme Being is to claim that the beliefs and actions of the individual are the will of their "God".  Yes, they have Free Will.  Free Will to either do the bidding of the "God" or betray the "God’s" demands.  The proof is in the existance of "Gods" for simiar religions having different, even contridictory, beliefs or accepting different, even contridictory, acts.

    "My ‘God’ says this act is ok and if you don’t follow the acts approved of by my ‘God’, then you are ‘evil’."

    "No, My ‘God’ says this act is ok and you aren’t following the commands of the ‘One True ‘God”, that, of course, being MY ‘God’."

    "Free Will", when in reference to religion, is actually that the individual believer can adapt and interpret "God’s" commands in any fashion they so choose.  Magically, they ALWAYS follow "God’s" commands, until they’ve been led to believe that the act is actually "evil".  Then, suddenly, they have, in fact, not been following "God’s" commands (oh, the horror!  Living such a life of Sin!).  The new beliefs they have chosen to follow are, suddenly, what their "God" actually wants them to follow.

    An individual only begins to question their "God", especially the existance of their "God", when they start to think logically and intelligently because of a major event, or a series of events, in their life or the lives of others, and they wonder how their "God" can allow such to happen.  That is when REAL Free Will starts to take hold.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  116. jedidethfreak says:

    Yeah, and Christans still make up about 65%.  You got a long way to go.

    He was dead when I got here.

  117. jedidethfreak says:

    Zerodash specifically accuses Christians, and Nightwing is coming pretty close.

    He was dead when I got here.

  118. jedidethfreak says:

    "Religion is fueled by existance of conscious higher power which supposedly directs its followers to have certain beliefs and commit certain acts."

    This is where your bias comes out.  No religion believes in a god who controls the people.  All monotheistic religions believe god gave humanity free will.  God can’t control someone with free will.  Your "justification" comment could only be described as someone saying something was "God’s will."  If you believe in good or bad luck, it’s exactly the same thing.

    He was dead when I got here.

  119. nightwng2000 says:

    It is not faith that fuels my view of religion.  It is the acts of those who follow a religious path and, even more, those in authority, both within the religion and outside of the religion, who use religion to justify their actions.

    Religion is fueled by existance of conscious higher power which supposedly directs its followers to have certain beliefs and commit certain acts.

    There is no such being in the Atheist view.

    There may or may not be one, in the Agnostic view.

    There isn’t a higher power directing force that gives commands and can be used to justify certain beliefs and/or acts, but there are many mysteries which have yet to be explained, or may never be explained, by science, in the Non-Religious Agnostic view.

    As to the issue of support for gaming, see my comment further below.  It was the issue of "snob" from a Non-religious viewpoint and the nature of religion in general that I was taking to task in this particular thread of comments.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  120. Austin_Lewis says:

    I hear you man.  As a Catholic and a Gamer, I get it from both sides.  The extreme Christian jackasses (mostly baptist and born agains) who say that I can’t dance, drink, view movies or play games, and in here I get this elitist atheist crap.

    But then I realize that I live in a large house with a hot wife, a good son, and nearly everything I could want, and I don’t care too much what they say about my religion OR my gaming.

  121. Vake Xeacons says:

    And yet you’re using your faith to fuel your snobbishness. “Atheists are better than any religious jerk.” You sound just like them, just as holier-than-thou, just as religious. God or no God, religion isn’t defined by a deity. And this whole discussion started with an article about Christians supporting the game industry. Isn’t that what we want, support? Aren’t we tired of bashing? I get bashed out there for being a gamer; I get bashed in here for being Christian. I can’t win. I think I liked it better when I was “stupid” for what I believed in. Now I’m a “threat to society and must be eliminated at all cost.” What is a Pariah to do?

  122. Vake Xeacons says:

    While only 4% go to church. Just remember that next time you accuse us of oppression. Which would you rather have: Christians making and praising games, or Christians bashing games? We’re all on the same team, so why can’t we all just get along?

  123. nightwng2000 says:

    Actually, they don’t.  We all know that the religious communities believe that lying and deceiving are "moral" acts, proven time and time again.  Atheists and Agnostics are too intelligent to waste time with such nonsense and poorly designed polling systems.

    We also know that the religious community also approves of falsifying polls by padding them by individuals voting more than once, such as in the unreliable online polls, or covering up false identities by blocking public investigations into the identities of petitioners opposed to Washington state’s Referendum 71.

    In the end, better to be a snob, whether an Atheist or Non-Religious Agnostic snob, than someone who is sociopathic and mentally delusional enough to use a made up Supreme Being to justify acts of bigotry, hate, and various forms of abuse.  These religious individuals tend to be so cowardly that they can’t even take responsibility for their own beliefs and actions.  They have taken "Imaginary Friend" to a whole new level.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  124. Zerodash says:

    I’ll agree that many atheists are indeed eliteist jackasses, but it pales compared to the level of judgemental, moral eleitism American Christians expouse.  Even worse, their hatred of gays, sexuality, science (still living in the 1000’s), and basic free will (its called separation of Church and State) makes them even worse.

    You people can have all the Left Behind games you want, just keep your Middle-Age ways to yourselves and not try to impose them on everyone else. 

  125. Roh02 says:

    if you want to talk numbers dont just bring up the number of christians and atheists lets see more detail please like for example

    other religions , agnostics , and of course christians who actually respect other beliefs

    atheists alone are at 18% and growing throw in those others who are likely in with us on this and Im fairly sure your numbers wont be so clearcut.

    and as the older generations die off its set to explode in our favor

  126. SeanB says:

    Not for long! "no religion" as a survey answer has grown to 18%, atheists are now the largest minority in the united states.

  127. Kincyr says:

    and yet ironically, they cherry-pick despite their bible telling them not to do so

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  128. Baruch_S says:

    Basically, these games are a try to get away from the rest of the "not-enough-christian" world they dislike very much.

    Uh, what?

  129. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    Games like this are just some kind of cultural substitute. They hope that by creating their own items (like christian music) people will get away from the mainstream and get away themselves from popular culture.

    Basically, these games are a try to get away from the rest of the "not-enough-christian" world they dislike very much.

    My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  130. SeanB says:

    you hit it on the head. If i recall correctly, they run thier company as 2 organizations, one public like you said, the other "non profit", so they can take donations. The donations can pay employees who then donate thier time to the public company.

    that’s just one example, and it’s late and i’m going strictly from memory here.

  131. Parallax Abstraction says:

    I truly don’t understand how this company is still in business.  They’re actually publicly traded (currently worth a whopping $0.014 a share, yeah that’s 1.4 CENTS a share) and I remember tham once saying that Left Behind sold so badly that they weren’t sure if they could continue operations.  Now they’ve put out a couple more games on PC and are doing console games.  I can’t understand where they’re getting their money from.  Unless it is either being funded by churches or maybe directly from the pockets of the Left Behind book authors (who are apparently bazillionaires), I don’t know.  Given their track record and inredible niche market, I can’t see any private venture capitalist wanting to go anywhere near them.

    Parallax Abstraction
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    blog.digital-lifeline.ca

  132. whiston532 says:

    A series of video games that attempt to promote a group of people over others and attempt to convince others that they are supperior ? This is unacepptable ! Now, tf youll all excuse me im gonna go play every COD game ever.

     

     

    ( not sayin these games are gonna be COD quality, but you all get my point )

  133. jedidethfreak says:

    And, by extension, like Christian movies as well as regular movies (loved 300 and the new Star Trek, but thought Passion of the Christ was good, too – The Nativity Story was garbage, though).  I’d think extending that yet again to games isn’t too much of a stretch.

    He was dead when I got here.

  134. jedidethfreak says:

    Because, at least in America, the religious people outnumber atheist snobs like you.

    He was dead when I got here.

  135. Roh02 says:

    these games should have decently high rating to keep them out of the hands of children due to the adult (religious) themes

    they do it with sex and violence why not religion?

  136. Kajex says:

    Bible Adventures will “educate young children by teaching them academic lessons vital to early childhood development through Bible stories.”

    I was raised Catholic, but I remember my childhood clearly enough that I know that my "academic lessons" were not garnered from Bible stories.

Comments are closed.