Christian Game Publisher Looks to Walmart for Help

[reg42]

How is a Christian game any different from propaganda? I'm just saying.
I play games to have a good time, not to be told what to think.

 

[Plurralbles]

I really don't know anyone that goes to Walmart to buy games...
And from living in the bible belt all my life, the though of christian-themed games never fails to make me facepalm.

I occasionally will go there when they have exactly what i want.

but as much as they are a facepalm, having it walmart will guarantee at least a FEW sales if hte box art is pretty enough.

 

[Plurralbles]

I'm a Christian, and a game based on Left Behind *sounds* cool, but it really was awful from what I've heard.

To be honest, my view on Christian games is the same as Christian music. I don't care if it's religious, I just care if it's GOOD. If the latter arises from the former, then good for them. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been the case for Left Behind.

I agree. And really why not cator to a huge segment of the US and for the matter the World. I say like LOTR and Narnia make something good with a message .. good job.. Just through a message on anything, you aint gonna win.

WOAH... LOTR has a Christian message?

Not christian, more like Anti-Industrial

 

[Therumancer]

Except for the fact that the Left Behind series is the most gut-wrenchingly atrocious [http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/] work of fiction ever spewed onto bookshelves by so-called "authors" who are horrid theologists and horrid people. They make Twilight look like Shakespeare, they make Uwe Boll look like Citizen Kane, and they make Zynga look like Valve.[/quote]


Hmmm, well you are correct that it's not exactly a literary masterpiece. Despite the less than steller writing in points, it's still an interesting concept. I think it gets attacked (sort of like your doing) simply because it's Christian. I don't think it's intended to be theologically accurate in a lot of the details, no more than say "Thor" comic books are an accurate portrayal of Norse mythology.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan, and won't pay full price for it (having only read the first book on the cheap). I simply think attacking it because it's popular but not high art is a bit unfair.

Comparing it to "Twilight", well I don't think it goes quite that far down the totem pole. While the writing might be terrible in places, at least you have to give "Left Behind" some credit for a fairly original premise. In comparison "Twilight" simply recycled and sweetened a bunch of tired "modern, romantic vampire" tropes that started to become popular with Anne Rice. There are plenty of things that cover the same territory as "Twilight" and do it much better. With "Left Behind" it can be defended on a lot of levels simply by having nothing else in the mainstream quite like it. While fairly well read (within the Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror genere), I admit to not being familiar with everything out there. However the closest thing I can think of to "Left Behind" involves going into things like Shin Megami Tensei video games and the like. However in most such cases the people doing the story also "flip the poles" and have god as the bad guy, as opposed to keeping thing "straight" like Left Behind did (God is good, the Devil is bad). "The Stand" by Steven King (who is also criticized for his writing) covered a lot of the same basic themes, but did so in a very differant fashion. Despite the cover art, "The Stand" mostly deals with non-violence rather than pseudo-military action and the like. The resolution to "The Stand" pretty much coming about due to sticking to God's philsophy and turning the other cheek, making a point, before god comes down and pretty much resolves the entire situation personally.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, though in this case I'm not saying "Left Behind" is good literature. I'm simply saying it's not quite as bad as your saying. What's more I think it opens some interesting doors for someone to cover a lot of the same territory, with higher quality, down the road.

 

[Starke]

A game about Christianity? What would it have, slaughtering millions for having different beliefs? Forcing Jews to live in ghettos? Covering up the molestation of 200 deaf boys? I think I'll stick with games that DON'T promote the most evil cult of all time.

But... Decabo, you just made the baby L. Ron Hubbard cry.

Scientology is indeed stupid, but you can't even compare the horrors that Christianity has brought about to those of Scientology. I'm currently in a Western Civilization history class, and we're talking about crusades that the pope promoted. It annoys me to see people try to jam this religion in everywhere they can, even though it's the greatest source of violence, discrimination and intolerance in human history.

It gets worse. If you haven't gotten to Andalusia yet. That's the bit that actually throws it over the top for me. Basically from the fall of the Roman Empire for about 1000 to 1200 years, it's not about religion, faith, or god, it's about consolidating as much power as possible in the hands of the Clergy. And then people wonder why Marx hated religion...

I'd stick Islam up there, but it really hasn't had enough time to do some of the really fucked up things Christianity has.

By bodycount, Stalin and Mao secure the title for Marxism, except neither one is really a Marxist or communist, so it'd be a little like holding Christianity responsible for the actions of the Mormons.

 

[Starke]

Except for the fact that the Left Behind series is the most gut-wrenchingly atrocious [http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/] work of fiction ever spewed onto bookshelves by so-called "authors" who are horrid theologists and horrid people. They make Twilight look like Shakespeare, they make Uwe Boll look like Citizen Kane, and they make Zynga look like Valve.

Hmmm, well you are correct that it's not exactly a literary masterpiece. Despite the less than steller writing in points, it's still an interesting concept. I think it gets attacked (sort of like your doing) simply because it's Christian.

While I can't speak for Sylocat, I for one am not attacking it because it is Christian. I'm attacking it for two reasons. One; its bad, really bad. Two; it promotes an extreme fringe of the religion, advocates themes that border on genocide, and in a very real way reflects a desire to take the religion back in time 800 years.

I don't think it's intended to be theologically accurate in a lot of the details, no more than say "Thor" comic books are an accurate portrayal of Norse mythology.

Theologically speaking, the rapture is the domain of a handful on the extreme end of the spectrum. There is no scriptural support for it, and there is no canonical support.

While assessing intent can always get more than a little tricky, this is something the writers believe in. They subscribe to the extreme minority that expect a rapture to come and take them away before the end of time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan, and won't pay full price for it (having only read the first book on the cheap). I simply think attacking it because it's popular but not high art is a bit unfair.

Again, not speaking for Sylocat, my... derision of the work comes from it's tone as a piece of hate literature. And before you try to rebut this, remember, the authors (or at least one of them) believe, actually believe that the United Nations, today, in the world, are a symptom of the end.

Comparing it to "Twilight", well I don't think it goes quite that far down the totem pole. While the writing might be terrible in places, at least you have to give "Left Behind" some credit for a fairly original premise.

Not really. I mean, its a little debatable, but they've taken a piece of their religious beliefs and built a series around it. In a way this is no more original than any passion play ever, and far more artistically suspect.

In comparison "Twilight" simply recycled and sweetened a bunch of tired "modern, romantic vampire" tropes that started to become popular with Anne Rice.

Okay, mark your calenders, this is something I usually just do not do. Twilight is a unique little but of random bullshit at the moment, though a lot of people are racing to take up the slack. It's modern fantasy aimed at teen girls. Actually aimed at them without any of the bullshit that's made previous attempts to target them specifically fail.

Women have, especially in the sub-genre of nerdism, been neglected, and Twilight represents one of the few attempts to bring them into the fold, intentionally or not. If you want to call it an aging woman's desire to write erotica? Yeah, maybe, I'm not sure, but, at the moment, it is still genuinely unique in its influence.

There are plenty of things that cover the same territory as "Twilight" and do it much better.

Sort of. In general vampire fiction, as a literary tradition since Bram Stokers has been about romance and sexuality. What makes Twilight work, where something like The Vampire Diaries failed? Fuck if I know. In this sense, Twilight is more of a refinement of an existing genre.

With "Left Behind" it can be defended on a lot of levels simply by having nothing else in the mainstream quite like it.

Again, this is really simply just not true. We've had post-apocalyptic literature since at least the 1890s. And most of the cold war inspired nuclear wasteland books I've read are a hell of a lot better, artistically, than the Left Behind franchise. Now, if you want to argue that post-apocalyptic literature started going out of style in the 70s and 80s? Yeah, that does seem to be the case, but Left Behind isn't some vanguard of a new style of fiction, its simply a genre that isn't that popular with the general public these days.

While fairly well read (within the Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror genere), I admit to not being familiar with everything out there. However the closest thing I can think of to "Left Behind" involves going into things like Shin Megami Tensei video games and the like.

This isn't a jab at you per say. I do readily admit, that the post-apocalyptic stuff is much less popular than, say, Anne Rice. So it's easier to fake a lit review of Vampire fiction than it is to do one of post-apocalyptic fiction. That said, there are a number of post-apocalyptic texts that build off a similar structure to Left Behind. Chris Carter ran two TV series that did so in the late 90s. The uniquely religious explanation is unusual, but it's hardly unique. The Left Behind books can be categorized as The Stand for people too squeamish to read Stephen King.

However in most such cases the people doing the story also "flip the poles" and have god as the bad guy, as opposed to keeping thing "straight" like Left Behind did (God is good, the Devil is bad). "The Stand" by Steven King (who is also criticized for his writing) covered a lot of the same basic themes, but did so in a very different fashion. Despite the cover art, "The Stand" mostly deals with non-violence rather than pseudo-military action and the like. The resolution to "The Stand" pretty much coming about due to sticking to God's philosophy and turning the other cheek, making a point, before god comes down and pretty much resolves the entire situation personally.

I swear I didn't preread before I started splicing up your post. Anyway, yes. Within the context of the end of the world, The Stand is more in keeping with Christian theology. Forgiving one's foes, and being a better human being. While Left Behind is a kind of militant prelude to Handmaid's Tale.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, though in this case I'm not saying "Left Behind" is good literature.

Given that it's borderline hate literature, yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.

I'm simply saying it's not quite as bad as your saying.

Again, having hijacked from Sylocat, it is. You can trust me, I play a doctor on the TV in my head.

What's more I think it opens some interesting doors for someone to cover a lot of the same territory, with higher quality, down the road.

I like this argument. I mean, it's completely wrong, but it sounds solid enough.

Culturally we build everything on the ashes of what came before. Left Behind is no different. Is there potential for something quality to come out of it? Yes, quite. But, honestly, theologically The Stand is a much more sound example of the exact same thing. At least in it's case it stays true to the fundamental message of the religion.

 

[Therumancer]

I pushed the quoting down because for whatever reason I have trouble breaking it up, and didn't want to chop it, even if I'm only going to respond to some of this to prevent an eternal arguement.

Generally speaking, I do not consider "it's hate speech" to be a valid criticism. Free speech means no censorship at all, and everyone gets a platform. I do not believe one can have exceptions while remaining the integrity of this belief. Simply put, being in a free country means that you have the right to both hate freely, and express that hatred through words, text, the media, etc... This applies to everyone whether you agree with them or not. Trust me, there are plenty of people I'd love to see gagged myself since they annoy me with their ignorance, but I believe them speaking is by far the lesser of two evils.

That said, we're dealing with a work of fiction. It's not intended to be some kind of prophecy of "this is going to happen". It's more or less "If this is true, this is what I think it would be like". A lot of what happens is based on the assumption of an absolute truth that is revealed in the course of that story. It's not something you can take out
into the street and act on, because honestly the Rapture never happened especially not like that.

As far as disliking the UN goes, I'm not a big fan myself (though for very differant reasons). I do however (unlike this guy) believe in a world unity as being nessicary for humanity, along with a complete global seperation of church and state (despite me being a Christian). Still, there are plenty works which take very similar attitudes for their own reasons on the UN and what it "might really be up to".

Overall, the only reason why I think this series is being "attacked" is because it's Christian (which is a practicing group of religions). Sure, it's on shaky theological grounds, but then again so are a lot of things that deal with other religions. A lot of the stuff people write involving say Greek and Norse mythology is on equally shaky grounds with the original religions. This is to say nothing of all the Aztec/Mayan stuff involving their ened of the world type prophecies. "Shadowrun" used to be a massive franchise as far as gaming went (and it's still around to some extent) and it was based on the idea that the whole "Mayan Apocolypse" was a changing of a global cycle marking the return of magic to the world. We won't even get into things like "Aztechnology" (a corperation), feathered serpents, and some of the various metaplots involving mythology that while entertaining make what Lahaye is writing look absolutly sane.

I'm not saying that you have to like it (I merely don't hate it, despite what you might think giving my defense), but I think the "Left Behind" franchise has just as much a right to distribution as anything else. If you don't like it, just don't spend your money. If more people agree with you, than disagree with you, you have nothing to worry about. If more people disagree with you, and it sells like hotcakes, well I don't think you (as a minority opinion) have the right to oppress everyone else and decide what they can and cannot choose to subject themselves to or think.

Sure, the stories get fairly extreme, but so what? A lot of things do, tons of them also loosely based on real beliefs/events/people/etc... If the whole thing seems like an immature power fantasy for Christians, there is no reason why they can't have one. It's no worse than some alternative history novels where someone creates an alternative world where what is a Trivial culture today becomes a dominant cultural force due to some "minor" changes, quite possibly including payback on some real group that "wronged" them (in their opinion) in actual history.

Nobody will give this awards for being great literature, but it deserves the same chances everything else gets, and how "accurate" it may be is irrelevent, as is the entire message.

It's no worse than say a lot of music and such which has been attacked for it's messages and protected/distributed.

Except for the fact that the Left Behind series is the most gut-wrenchingly atrocious [http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/] work of fiction ever spewed onto bookshelves by so-called "authors" who are horrid theologists and horrid people. They make Twilight look like Shakespeare, they make Uwe Boll look like Citizen Kane, and they make Zynga look like Valve.

Hmmm, well you are correct that it's not exactly a literary masterpiece. Despite the less than steller writing in points, it's still an interesting concept. I think it gets attacked (sort of like your doing) simply because it's Christian.

While I can't speak for Sylocat, I for one am not attacking it because it is Christian. I'm attacking it for two reasons. One; its bad, really bad. Two; it promotes an extreme fringe of the religion, advocates themes that border on genocide, and in a very real way reflects a desire to take the religion back in time 800 years.

I don't think it's intended to be theologically accurate in a lot of the details, no more than say "Thor" comic books are an accurate portrayal of Norse mythology.

Theologically speaking, the rapture is the domain of a handful on the extreme end of the spectrum. There is no scriptural support for it, and there is no canonical support.

While assessing intent can always get more than a little tricky, this is something the writers believe in. They subscribe to the extreme minority that expect a rapture to come and take them away before the end of time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan, and won't pay full price for it (having only read the first book on the cheap). I simply think attacking it because it's popular but not high art is a bit unfair.

Again, not speaking for Sylocat, my... derision of the work comes from it's tone as a piece of hate literature. And before you try to rebut this, remember, the authors (or at least one of them) believe, actually believe that the United Nations, today, in the world, are a symptom of the end.

Comparing it to "Twilight", well I don't think it goes quite that far down the totem pole. While the writing might be terrible in places, at least you have to give "Left Behind" some credit for a fairly original premise.

Not really. I mean, its a little debatable, but they've taken a piece of their religious beliefs and built a series around it. In a way this is no more original than any passion play ever, and far more artistically suspect.

In comparison "Twilight" simply recycled and sweetened a bunch of tired "modern, romantic vampire" tropes that started to become popular with Anne Rice.

Okay, mark your calenders, this is something I usually just do not do. Twilight is a unique little but of random bullshit at the moment, though a lot of people are racing to take up the slack. It's modern fantasy aimed at teen girls. Actually aimed at them without any of the bullshit that's made previous attempts to target them specifically fail.

Women have, especially in the sub-genre of nerdism, been neglected, and Twilight represents one of the few attempts to bring them into the fold, intentionally or not. If you want to call it an aging woman's desire to write erotica? Yeah, maybe, I'm not sure, but, at the moment, it is still genuinely unique in its influence.

There are plenty of things that cover the same territory as "Twilight" and do it much better.

Sort of. In general vampire fiction, as a literary tradition since Bram Stokers has been about romance and sexuality. What makes Twilight work, where something like The Vampire Diaries failed? Fuck if I know. In this sense, Twilight is more of a refinement of an existing genre.

With "Left Behind" it can be defended on a lot of levels simply by having nothing else in the mainstream quite like it.

Again, this is really simply just not true. We've had post-apocalyptic literature since at least the 1890s. And most of the cold war inspired nuclear wasteland books I've read are a hell of a lot better, artistically, than the Left Behind franchise. Now, if you want to argue that post-apocalyptic literature started going out of style in the 70s and 80s? Yeah, that does seem to be the case, but Left Behind isn't some vanguard of a new style of fiction, its simply a genre that isn't that popular with the general public these days.

While fairly well read (within the Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror genere), I admit to not being familiar with everything out there. However the closest thing I can think of to "Left Behind" involves going into things like Shin Megami Tensei video games and the like.

This isn't a jab at you per say. I do readily admit, that the post-apocalyptic stuff is much less popular than, say, Anne Rice. So it's easier to fake a lit review of Vampire fiction than it is to do one of post-apocalyptic fiction. That said, there are a number of post-apocalyptic texts that build off a similar structure to Left Behind. Chris Carter ran two TV series that did so in the late 90s. The uniquely religious explanation is unusual, but it's hardly unique. The Left Behind books can be categorized as The Stand for people too squeamish to read Stephen King.

However in most such cases the people doing the story also "flip the poles" and have god as the bad guy, as opposed to keeping thing "straight" like Left Behind did (God is good, the Devil is bad). "The Stand" by Steven King (who is also criticized for his writing) covered a lot of the same basic themes, but did so in a very different fashion. Despite the cover art, "The Stand" mostly deals with non-violence rather than pseudo-military action and the like. The resolution to "The Stand" pretty much coming about due to sticking to God's philosophy and turning the other cheek, making a point, before god comes down and pretty much resolves the entire situation personally.

I swear I didn't preread before I started splicing up your post. Anyway, yes. Within the context of the end of the world, The Stand is more in keeping with Christian theology. Forgiving one's foes, and being a better human being. While Left Behind is a kind of militant prelude to Handmaid's Tale.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, though in this case I'm not saying "Left Behind" is good literature.

Given that it's borderline hate literature, yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.

I'm simply saying it's not quite as bad as your saying.

Again, having hijacked from Sylocat, it is. You can trust me, I play a doctor on the TV in my head.

What's more I think it opens some interesting doors for someone to cover a lot of the same territory, with higher quality, down the road.

I like this argument. I mean, it's completely wrong, but it sounds solid enough.

Culturally we build everything on the ashes of what came before. Left Behind is no different. Is there potential for something quality to come out of it? Yes, quite. But, honestly, theologically The Stand is a much more sound example of the exact same thing. At least in it's case it stays true to the fundamental message of the religion.

 

[koolio97]

LFBG is the symbol for Left Behind Games' stock. It's currently still in sub-penny levels which is crazy considering they just merged with Digital Praise which now clearly makes them the #1 Christian video game company in the world! This company has major promise and is out there for a great cause. Perfect time to invest in this company...IMO. Any good results from walmart or any other good news would set this off to give you some ridiculous profits! Sign up with any another online broker that lets you trade penny stocks and Buy LFBG now! You'll be happy you did a few months from now!

 

[Starke]

I pushed the quoting down because for whatever reason I have trouble breaking it up, and didn't want to chop it, even if I'm only going to respond to some of this to prevent an eternal argument.

You chop it up by copying the content in brackets at the top of the post, it'll look something like this: [ quote="Therumancer" post="7.187881.5777049" ], and then close it with this [ /quote ]. Without spaces next to the brackets. It actually tends to work the other way round, so, I closed the opening of your post with a close quote ([/quote]), and then inserted the

to open your next quote.

Honestly, I find breaking quotes a lot easier to address components of an argument and avoiding larger accidental arguments, but it could go other ways for other people.

Generally speaking, I do not consider "it's hate speech" to be a valid criticism. Free speech means no censorship at all, and everyone gets a platform. I do not believe one can have exceptions while remaining the integrity of this belief. Simply put, being in a free country means that you have the right to both hate freely, and express that hatred through words, text, the media, etc... This applies to everyone whether you agree with them or not. Trust me, there are plenty of people I'd love to see gagged myself since they annoy me with their ignorance, but I believe them speaking is by far the lesser of two evils.

You're mixing two separate arguments, so I'm going to try to parse them apart separately, but I apologize if I mess this up.

Regarding Censorship: To invoke Goodwin, Mein Kampf is in print, I wouldn't want it to be banned for a number of reasons, but that doesn't mean I actually view it as a valid articulation of Fascism, which some do. Nor that I view it as quality literature, which I don't. What I think is, it's important to have it in print because it reflects an aspect of Fascism as a political ideology. It's more important to avoid banning it, because of the way freedom of speech works, and needs to work to maintain the system of government we have.

Regarding hate speech as a criticism. This is a personal taste issue, it really is. I find it disgusting. I may be in the majority on that, I might not. What I'm saying is, it devalues the work, any work.

That said, we're dealing with a work of fiction. It's not intended to be some kind of prophecy of "this is going to happen". It's more or less "If this is true, this is what I think it would be like". A lot of what happens is based on the assumption of an absolute truth that is revealed in the course of that story. It's not something you can take out into the street and act on, because honestly the Rapture never happened especially not like that.

Okay, here's the threshold: At a fundamental level, I don't have a problem with a story playing out where the Rapture happens, and you follow what happens to the people after that. I don't believe in the rapture, it isn't a part of my theological upbringing, but there's a lot of narrative potential there. And, honestly a lot of character potential too.

What bothers me is, Left Behind, to me, feels like the author says the rapture happens in the setting and then spends the rest of the book flipping off everyone who didn't expect it to happen. And this is personal, biased, perception, but, there you go.

As far as disliking the UN goes, I'm not a big fan myself (though for very different reasons). I do however (unlike this guy) believe in a world unity as being necessary for humanity, along with a complete global separation of church and state (despite me being a Christian). Still, there are plenty works which take very similar attitudes for their own reasons on the UN and what it "might really be up to".

The UN does have some serious issues. But, I think the intent is good. Officially the goal of the UN is to prevent wars, and promote an environment of world peace and mutual understanding. Getting from intent to action has been pretty problematic, however.

That said, the UN is a vast improvement over the League of Nations, so there is hope.

Overall, the only reason why I think this series is being "attacked" is because it's Christian (which is a practicing group of religions). Sure, it's on shaky theological grounds, but then again so are a lot of things that deal with other religions. A lot of the stuff people write involving say Greek and Norse mythology is on equally shaky grounds with the original religions. This is to say nothing of all the Aztec/Mayan stuff involving their end of the world type prophecies. "Shadowrun" used to be a massive franchise as far as gaming went (and it's still around to some extent) and it was based on the idea that the whole "Mayan Apocolypse" was a changing of a global cycle marking the return of magic to the world. We won't even get into things like "Aztechnology" (a corperation), feathered serpents, and some of the various metaplots involving mythology that while entertaining make what Lahaye is writing look absolutly sane.

There is one critical difference between the works you're citing as counterexamples and Left Behind. The Rapture is something Lahaye believes in (as far as I can remember, anyway), Left Behind represents something a chunk of the population really believes will happen. As opposed to Shadowrun that was specifically looking for a way to synthesize cyberpunk and high fantasy and selected 2012 as a way to do that with a unique flavor. And you're right, there is a lot out there that makes the rapture look freaking tame as far as religious beliefs go. The issue is, we have this example. If I missed the point you were aiming for, I apologize, and you might want to use a different metaphor.

I'm not saying that you have to like it (I merely don't hate it, despite what you might think giving my defense), but I think the "Left Behind" franchise has just as much a right to distribution as anything else. If you don't like it, just don't spend your money. If more people agree with you, than disagree with you, you have nothing to worry about. If more people disagree with you, and it sells like hotcakes, well I don't think you (as a minority opinion) have the right to oppress everyone else and decide what they can and cannot choose to subject themselves to or think.

Huh? I'll admit, I've done a lot of writing lately so I may have missed this. I didn't think I advocated cutting off it's distribution. I find it deeply disturbing, more so because of the number of people who seem to be consuming it without a second thought, but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned...

Sure, the stories get fairly extreme, but so what? A lot of things do, tons of them also loosely based on real beliefs/events/people/etc... If the whole thing seems like an immature power fantasy for Christians, there is no reason why they can't have one. It's no worse than some alternative history novels where someone creates an alternative world where what is a Trivial culture today becomes a dominant cultural force due to some "minor" changes, quite possibly including payback on some real group that "wronged" them (in their opinion) in actual history.

This may be unfair of me, and I apologize, but. We've already seen what happened when Christianity was unfettered and in charge, and no offense, but the result wasn't pretty.

Is this sect of Christianity free to have their own power fantasy? Sure. There's no reason they shouldn't. But, that doesn't mean I won't criticize it, or the motivation that goes behind it. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm not disturbed by it.

Religion is a wonderful thing. It has the potential to elevate us all, in our identity towards the best of what we can be. It can give us purpose, help us to understand one another, and advocates a more compassionate and humane treatment of our fellow man (and woman).

It is also, the single most destructive force in history, more wars have been fought, and more men have died over interpretations of who god is than any other single ideology (there's some statistical weirdness here). Religion has promoted hateful intolerance, oppression, and slavery, it has elevated men above their peers through nepotism, and has stalled out the advancement of the human race by over 1500 years all in the name of personal political power, (and god.)

It's both of these things. Which force is dominant is in no small part dependent on how we view and interact with it. To me, Left Behind represents door number two.

Nobody will give this awards for being great literature, but it deserves the same chances everything else gets, and how "accurate" it may be is irrelevant, as is the entire message.

It's no worse than say a lot of music and such which has been attacked for it's messages and protected/distributed.

Again, I'm not intentionally arguing that it should be banned or censored. Simply that it is crap. As crap it's certainly entitled to protection, but it's crap.

 

[Therumancer]

I'm not saying that you have to like it (I merely don't hate it, despite what you might think giving my defense), but I think the "Left Behind" franchise has just as much a right to distribution as anything else. If you don't like it, just don't spend your money. If more people agree with you, than disagree with you, you have nothing to worry about. If more people disagree with you, and it sells like hotcakes, well I don't think you (as a minority opinion) have the right to oppress everyone else and decide what they can and cannot choose to subject themselves to or think.

Huh? I'll admit, I've done a lot of writing lately so I may have missed this. I didn't think I advocated cutting off it's distribution. I find it deeply disturbing, more so because of the number of people who seem to be consuming it without a second thought, but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned...


----- (not sure if I cut this properly)

This resolves a lot of what we're argueing since it comes down to opinion otherwise, and on that we're going to have to agree to disagre as I don't see us agreeing on most of the specifics here.

Given the nature of the article/discussion (Wal Mart carrying it) I thought you were trying to justify pressuring Wal*Mart into not carrying it (for the second time) due to it being "offensive".

Sure, the stories get fairly extreme, but so what? A lot of things do, tons of them also loosely based on real beliefs/events/people/etc... If the whole thing seems like an immature power fantasy for Christians, there is no reason why they can't have one. It's no worse than some alternative history novels where someone creates an alternative world where what is a Trivial culture today becomes a dominant cultural force due to some "minor" changes, quite possibly including payback on some real group that "wronged" them (in their opinion) in actual history.

This may be unfair of me, and I apologize, but. We've already seen what happened when Christianity was unfettered and in charge, and no offense, but the result wasn't pretty.

Is this sect of Christianity free to have their own power fantasy? Sure. There's no reason they shouldn't. But, that doesn't mean I won't criticize it, or the motivation that goes behind it. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm not disturbed by it.

Religion is a wonderful thing. It has the potential to elevate us all, in our identity towards the best of what we can be. It can give us purpose, help us to understand one another, and advocates a more compassionate and humane treatment of our fellow man (and woman).

It is also, the single most destructive force in history, more wars have been fought, and more men have died over interpretations of who god is than any other single ideology (there's some statistical weirdness here). Religion has promoted hateful intolerance, oppression, and slavery, it has elevated men above their peers through nepotism, and has stalled out the advancement of the human race by over 1500 years all in the name of personal political power, (and god.)

It's both of these things. Which force is dominant is in no small part dependent on how we view and interact with it. To me, Left Behind represents door number two.


--------

Not sure if I agree there.

To be blunt I'm what I refer to as a "Christian Agnostic" which is my way of saying that I believe in the general tenets of Christianity but do not believe in The Bible literally, or believe that any church has it right. I'm generally speaking not a deeply spiritual person and am probably one of the worst critics you can find when it comes to the attitudes and teaching of most churches. I also tend to have a deep respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to spirituality, even if I don't agree with them.

At any rate, I can sling a lot of mud at Christianity myself (trust me, when I get going it can be pretty bad), but I think claims that Christianity is a "destructive force" or has done "more damage than anything else" is dead wrong.

Basically what can be said about Christianity is that it was pretty much the big winner of the outright religious warfare of the ancient Western World. Like any faith plenty of wars were fought in it's name, and just as many were fought against it. Right now as a dominant cultural force in The West it tends to be criticized unusually harshly, especially in the US where it is "hip" for people to attack and criticize their own country, and the religion/spirituality of the mainstream. It's just how things are. Sadly history has a tendency to also be re-invented by many of these same people seeking to be "edgy".

I would however point out that if you want to get technical the most "destructive" force were probably The Romans, and perhaps the Greeks before them. Religion was part of their motivation for pretty much conquering the entire known world at the time, and they committed casual genocide. It can be argued on a lot of levels, but I'd say they probably wound up spilling more blood than just about anyone else. The numbers might be lower than many other periods of warfare, BUT there were also less people (basically the absolute body count has gone up with technology and greater numbers of people in general). For their time period they probably did in/conquererd/enslaved/converted more people proportionatly than anyone else.

In a more modern sense you have guys like Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge which was more politically motivated than anything, he basically killed more people than Stalin and Hitler combined. "The Holocaust" was a joke compared to this guy. Scarier too, since he was more into raping and torturing people to death than just killing them efficiently.

Then you also have to consider that for all the bad things it's done Christianity is also largely responsible for modern civilization. It was The Church that largely preserved information and records through the Dark Ages, and was insturmental to the development of civilization after the fall of Rome. People today like to present Christians as backwards luddites, but to be frank we owe huge debts to Christian Scholors and Scholor-Monks. Things like Punnet Squares (one of the fundemental tools for genetics) were created by Christian Scholors.

The point I'm making is that a lot of people like to bust on Christians, and you hear tons of people talk about The Inquisition, politically correct (Pro-Muslim) reinventions of The Crusades, and other things, but very little is ever said about the vast amount of good that has also been done. Heck, I don't think there ever would have been a western civilization to HAVE wars if it wasn't for Christians.

This is well off topic, but the point is that to me it seems like your trying to say that Christianity is inherantly bad, and nothing good has come from it. I do not agree. I think it has done far more good overall, though when your dealing with something on this scale the bad it has done has also been on a truely epic scale.

Nobody will give this awards for being great literature, but it deserves the same chances everything else gets, and how "accurate" it may be is irrelevant, as is the entire message.

It's no worse than say a lot of music and such which has been attacked for it's messages and protected/distributed.

Again, I'm not intentionally arguing that it should be banned or censored. Simply that it is crap. As crap it's certainly entitled to protection, but it's crap.[/quote]

Then we have little to argue about actually.

I actually think it's very average as opposed to being crap. Not something I'm rushing out to read all of, but interesting enough in it's own way where I might read more of it on the cheap at some point.

The big question I'd ask at this point is whether you've actually read any of it, or have you simply heard about it second hand, and read the absolute worst bits that people have pulled out to bust on it?

For example, I can tell you first hand (from the first book) that it's not *THAT* anti-UN (though it is). The UN are the bad guys, but it isn't a situation where they start going snively whiplash evil for no reason other than their inherant malevolence. For example a key moment is when The Anti Christ (who is representing a minor country) manages to impress everyone by being able to greet everyone in the UN by name, and in their native language, and by having knowlege of pretty much every issue going on everywhere. The book I read was just setting things up, but basically he's both very manipulative (with supernatural powers), and acting with good timing. He also apparently has to clean house (so to speak) a bit. I mean you can't really say that in the book the UN itself is portrayed as being inherantly evil, there are extenuating circumstances.

Thus, while the writer might dislike the UN, and the writing might not be the best, to be entirely fair in the actual stories there is a LOT more behind it than a simple rant.

Of course (it's been a while) I do remember that Anti-Christ's super-secret goverment identity being "Mr. Carpathian" so well... that has something to say about the writer. At least early on he's kind of like a B-movie Vampire gone political (I might be getting it mixed up with something else due to time, but that is how I remember things). I also get the impression that despite some of the claims, it wasn't intended to be taken 100% deadpan seriously.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Wait. Fiction and non-fiction!? I didn't think Christianity had both categories!

This is clearly a misleading report. Clearly.

you never read Action Christ? dude, youre missing some 100% holy asskicking stories.

heres a Christ comic:

Dear god! (No pun intended) I forgot all about Action Christ. My apologies, sir.

Though to be clear, my post was a minor bit of sarcasm, mixed with Atheistic leaning. And no, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition do not count as "Christian non-fiction". That is simply "non-fictional History". The Bible itself has some historical relevancy, but despite personal beliefs, God is not a historical fact.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Wait. Fiction and non-fiction!? I didn't think Christianity had both categories!

This is clearly a misleading report. Clearly.

So Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, and the Medicis didn't actually exist? Who knew? Thanks internet!

Thomas Aquinas was an Illuminati Plot, the Medicis were insane, and Francis Bacon was delicious.

And, again, all Christian nonfiction. That's my only point.

Read my latest post on that. Non-fiction is simply that. Non-fiction. We don't create subcategories for non-fiction, as it actually happened in some historical relevancy of time-line.

 

[SaintWaldo]

Wait. Fiction and non-fiction!? I didn't think Christianity had both categories!

This is clearly a misleading report. Clearly.

So Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, and the Medicis didn't actually exist? Who knew? Thanks internet!

Thomas Aquinas was an Illuminati Plot, the Medicis were insane, and Francis Bacon was delicious.

And, again, all Christian nonfiction. That's my only point.

Read my latest post on that. Non-fiction is simply that. Non-fiction. We don't create subcategories for non-fiction, as it actually happened in some historical relevancy of time-line.

I don't need to read your post to know you are wrong. We do so categorize non-fiction taxonomy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fiction], unless of course you assert there is no utility in distinguishing between history and mathematics. Even if you do, I don't think most reasonable people would agree.

So, because we are a categorizing kind of folk, it is completely reasonable to entertain the notion of Christian non-fiction, the least example of which would be history of known self-avowed Christians. Like every Pope, ever. Shroud of Turin studies, archaeology concerned with finding historical artifacts confirming Biblical accounts, those are reasonable examples non-historical Christian non-fiction.

I'm not Christian and I can see that calling something Christian non-fiction can be completely reasonable.

 

[TheScarecrow]

Also, Christian non-fiction, how does that work?

You've been ninja'd waaaaaaaaaaaay back, and facepalmed at for deliberately misunderstanding what was written.

Christian non-fiction = missionary biographies, self-help books with Christian values inserted, etc.

Yeah I thought that might happen. I actually did not deliberately misunderstand anything thank you.

Hmm, ok, that makes sense.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Wait. Fiction and non-fiction!? I didn't think Christianity had both categories!

This is clearly a misleading report. Clearly.

So Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, and the Medicis didn't actually exist? Who knew? Thanks internet!

Thomas Aquinas was an Illuminati Plot, the Medicis were insane, and Francis Bacon was delicious.

And, again, all Christian nonfiction. That's my only point.

Read my latest post on that. Non-fiction is simply that. Non-fiction. We don't create subcategories for non-fiction, as it actually happened in some historical relevancy of time-line.

I don't need to read your post to know you are wrong. We do so categorize non-fiction taxonomy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fiction], unless of course you assert there is no utility in distinguishing between history and mathematics. Even if you do, I don't think most reasonable people would agree.

So, because we are a categorizing kind of folk, it is completely reasonable to entertain the notion of Christian non-fiction, the least example of which would be history of known self-avowed Christians. Like every Pope, ever. Shroud of Turin studies, archaeology concerned with finding historical artifacts confirming Biblical accounts, those are reasonable examples non-historical Christian non-fiction.

I'm not Christian and I can see that calling something Christian non-fiction can be completely reasonable.

Sorry, I meant I personally don't see a reason for giving sub-categories to non-fiction. I am well aware of the Dewey Decimal system in reference to Fiction/non-fictional material. I tend to find that, where I live, non-fiction is usually sorted by mere alphabetical order, in which Christian literature and non-fictional informative books would always just appear under "C", and not under a "Christian literature" section.

 

[Starke]

I'm not saying that you have to like it (I merely don't hate it, despite what you might think giving my defense), but I think the "Left Behind" franchise has just as much a right to distribution as anything else. If you don't like it, just don't spend your money. If more people agree with you, than disagree with you, you have nothing to worry about. If more people disagree with you, and it sells like hotcakes, well I don't think you (as a minority opinion) have the right to oppress everyone else and decide what they can and cannot choose to subject themselves to or think.

Huh? I'll admit, I've done a lot of writing lately so I may have missed this. I didn't think I advocated cutting off it's distribution. I find it deeply disturbing, more so because of the number of people who seem to be consuming it without a second thought, but that doesn't mean I think it should be banned...


----- (not sure if I cut this properly)

You didn't. That's basically okay, it takes some practice.

As a quick shortcut I didn't think of before, you can just copy this:

[/quote]my thoughts here[quote]

into your posts, and it should do all the work for you. Sorry if I confused you earlier. The quote tag has some extra information that tells the forum where it came from, but there isn't really any need for you to replicate that info.

This resolves a lot of what we're argueing since it comes down to opinion otherwise, and on that we're going to have to agree to disagre as I don't see us agreeing on most of the specifics here.

Given the nature of the article/discussion (Wal Mart carrying it) I thought you were trying to justify pressuring Wal*Mart into not carrying it (for the second time) due to it being "offensive".

I can get into a weird sort of very fine distinction here. I don't think Wal-Mart should carry it, but, I also don't think that anyone but Wal-Mart should be making that decision. They want to carry it, that's fine, that's their choice. And I'm glad they have that choice. I'm just somewhat less thrilled with the choice they did make.

I'm not sure if that's more or less confusing than it was before.

Sure, the stories get fairly extreme, but so what? A lot of things do, tons of them also loosely based on real beliefs/events/people/etc... If the whole thing seems like an immature power fantasy for Christians, there is no reason why they can't have one. It's no worse than some alternative history novels where someone creates an alternative world where what is a Trivial culture today becomes a dominant cultural force due to some "minor" changes, quite possibly including payback on some real group that "wronged" them (in their opinion) in actual history.

This may be unfair of me, and I apologize, but. We've already seen what happened when Christianity was unfettered and in charge, and no offense, but the result wasn't pretty.

Is this sect of Christianity free to have their own power fantasy? Sure. There's no reason they shouldn't. But, that doesn't mean I won't criticize it, or the motivation that goes behind it. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm not disturbed by it.

Religion is a wonderful thing. It has the potential to elevate us all, in our identity towards the best of what we can be. It can give us purpose, help us to understand one another, and advocates a more compassionate and humane treatment of our fellow man (and woman).

It is also, the single most destructive force in history, more wars have been fought, and more men have died over interpretations of who god is than any other single ideology (there's some statistical weirdness here). Religion has promoted hateful intolerance, oppression, and slavery, it has elevated men above their peers through nepotism, and has stalled out the advancement of the human race by over 1500 years all in the name of personal political power, (and god.)

It's both of these things. Which force is dominant is in no small part dependent on how we view and interact with it. To me, Left Behind represents door number two.

Not sure if I agree there.

To be blunt I'm what I refer to as a "Christian Agnostic" which is my way of saying that I believe in the general tenets of Christianity but do not believe in The Bible literally, or believe that any church has it right. I'm generally speaking not a deeply spiritual person and am probably one of the worst critics you can find when it comes to the attitudes and teaching of most churches. I also tend to have a deep respect for anyone who dedicates themselves to spirituality, even if I don't agree with them.

At any rate, I can sling a lot of mud at Christianity myself (trust me, when I get going it can be pretty bad), but I think claims that Christianity is a "destructive force" or has done "more damage than anything else" is dead wrong.

The irony is, for the most part we actually agree. The notation up there that there's some statistical weirdness? That's not an exaggeration. The most cynical way of describing it is, I'm skewing the numbers to make my point. In point of fact, I am using a statistic I came across elsewhere that I know full well has dicey methodology to make my point. I did this, primarily for eloquence.

The more deaths one is the easiest way to blow it out of the water completely: classify Mao and Stalin as Marxists and no other ideology in history can compete. Additionally the number is coming from lumping the deaths from all religious conflict together.

The more wars statistic is legitimate, but, it requires that you count the crusades as separate conflicts, and the Roman operations as interstate conflicts. (At least, that's what I recall, I'm not looking at the numbers now.) A big part of why this is, is because of the pure number of conflicts in Europe and the middle east that centered on religious disputes.

Stalling out human progress for 1500 years is a legitimate number... it might be 1200, I can't remember. The problem was under the Catholic Church in Europe, scientific advancement was frozen for over a millennium. The Church adopted Plato as the canonical truth about the natural world and moved on. If you've ever read any of Plato's treatises of how the world worked, you might understand. (Technically they also excepted an abridged form of Aristotle's beliefs as well.) It's not until Aquinas in... I want to say the thirteenth century that we really start to see any kind of scientific advancement in Europe again, and a lot of the medical and scientific development we do encounter in that era actually comes from the middle east, where Muslim scholars were (mostly) unfettered by religious limitations.

Basically what can be said about Christianity is that it was pretty much the big winner of the outright religious warfare of the ancient Western World. Like any faith plenty of wars were fought in it's name, and just as many were fought against it. Right now as a dominant cultural force in The West it tends to be criticized unusually harshly, especially in the US where it is "hip" for people to attack and criticize their own country, and the religion/spirituality of the mainstream. It's just how things are. Sadly history has a tendency to also be re-invented by many of these same people seeking to be "edgy".

American self criticism does have some cultural linage. With some validity you could say that
criticizing the government has been the American pastime since the 1600s. It is certainly an element from the 1760s on. In the 1950s the threat and fear of communism created an illusion of a monolithic government that people had at one time been loyal to religiously. But, in reality, that image was really more of an illusion. The bulk of the current iteration of this phenomena comes from two sources. On the liberal side of the equation, the counter culture movement in the 1960s. On the conservative side, a meshing of the 1950s anti-communist ideology with the religious right that happened sometime in the 1980s.

These are the ideological strands. There's certainly a large chunk of people who come off of a non-ideological bent that simply want to rebel against the system. Maybe you could call them anarchists, but really they are rebels without causes.

Because Christianity has had a disproportionate role in American politics in the last 30 years, and because of the ideological strands it has interfaced with, the perception has become that it is somehow integral into American political history, and hence, a target for attack.

I would however point out that if you want to get technical the most "destructive" force were probably The Romans, and perhaps the Greeks before them. Religion was part of their motivation for pretty much conquering the entire known world at the time, and they committed casual genocide. It can be argued on a lot of levels, but I'd say they probably wound up spilling more blood than just about anyone else. The numbers might be lower than many other periods of warfare, BUT there were also less people (basically the absolute body count has gone up with technology and greater numbers of people in general). For their time period they probably did in/conquererd/enslaved/converted more people proportionatly than anyone else.

Rome is a weird case. On the one hand they conquered a hell of a lot of territory. Killed a lot of people, and destroyed a lot of cultures. On the other hand they built a hell of a lot too. London comes to mind rather quickly. If they had practiced some kind of scorched earth policy, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but instead they created an infrastructure that still exists today throughout much of Europe 2000 years later.

In a more modern sense you have guys like Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge which was more politically motivated than anything, he basically killed more people than Stalin and Hitler combined. "The Holocaust" was a joke compared to this guy. Scarier too, since he was more into raping and torturing people to death than just killing them efficiently.

The basic argument against this is, Pol Pot caused massive damage in Cambodia, a country that is roughly the size of a postage stamp. The Crusades laid waste to most of the middle east, and Spain multiple times.

Does this justify the Khymer Rouge? No. But, Stalin and Mao do easily top them. Combine that with the fact that you can (incorrectly) label the Khymer Rouge as a Marxist movement (IIRC), and count those three together.

Then you also have to consider that for all the bad things it's done Christianity is also largely responsible for modern civilization. It was The Church that largely preserved information and records through the Dark Ages, and was instrumental to the development of civilization after the fall of Rome. People today like to present Christians as backwards Luddites, but to be frank we owe huge debts to Christian Scholars and Scholar-Monks. Things like Punnet Squares (one of the fundamental tools for genetics) were created by Christian Scholars.

It kinda goes both ways here, honestly. And that was actually the point I was trying to convey. Religion acts as a kind of catalyst, it invokes the best and the worst in us as a species.

One thing that the Catholic Church has done in the last few years that I really approve of, is acknowledging that they'd made some bad calls in the past, particularly in regards to the Crusades.

The point I'm making is that a lot of people like to bust on Christians, and you hear tons of people talk about The Inquisition, politically correct (Pro-Muslim) reinventions of The Crusades, and other things, but very little is ever said about the vast amount of good that has also been done. Heck, I don't think there ever would have been a western civilization to HAVE wars if it wasn't for Christians.

There would have been. When you start digging through history, and get up into the 900s it's very apparent that Europe is a wreck. The stabilizing force that did emerge was Christianity, but looking at this moment in time, something would have emerged, eventually. I can't tell you what it would have looked like, I simply don't know.

This is well off topic, but the point is that to me it seems like your trying to say that Christianity is inherantly bad, and nothing good has come from it. I do not agree. I think it has done far more good overall, though when your dealing with something on this scale the bad it has done has also been on a truely epic scale.

Again, this really is not what I'm arguing. The first half is every bit as critical. And my argument is, these two parts cannot be easily separated.

Nobody will give this awards for being great literature, but it deserves the same chances everything else gets, and how "accurate" it may be is irrelevant, as is the entire message.

It's no worse than say a lot of music and such which has been attacked for it's messages and protected/distributed.

Again, I'm not intentionally arguing that it should be banned or censored. Simply that it is crap. As crap it's certainly entitled to protection, but it's crap.

Then we have little to argue about actually.

I actually think it's very average as opposed to being crap. Not something I'm rushing out to read all of, but interesting enough in it's own way where I might read more of it on the cheap at some point.

The big question I'd ask at this point is whether you've actually read any of it, or have you simply heard about it second hand, and read the absolute worst bits that people have pulled out to bust on it?

A little of both actually. I read some of the original book. Most of it as I recall. When it first came out... god, what was that? 1998? I've certainly seen quite a few of the snarking at it over the years. And I've caught bits and pieces of the film adaptations by accident over the years, hence my Colin Fox gag earlier.

What I haven't read was external criticism that bashed on it as serious critique. Most of what I've read online over the years has been in the venue of pointing and laughing at how bad it is.

Which one influences my opinions the most right now? Honestly, I'm not sure. I remember I stopped reading the book because I was getting sick to death of the writing, (that's very rare for me, usually I finish a book.) Today, I cannot tell you what comes from which, in regards to my opinion.

For example, I can tell you first hand (from the first book) that it's not *THAT* anti-UN (though it is). The UN are the bad guys, but it isn't a situation where they start going snively whiplash evil for no reason other than their inherant malevolence. For example a key moment is when The Anti Christ (who is representing a minor country) manages to impress everyone by being able to greet everyone in the UN by name, and in their native language, and by having knowlege of pretty much every issue going on everywhere. The book I read was just setting things up, but basically he's both very manipulative (with supernatural powers), and acting with good timing. He also apparently has to clean house (so to speak) a bit. I mean you can't really say that in the book the UN itself is portrayed as being inherantly evil, there are extenuating circumstances.

Alternately there's the game at hand which casts them as unambiguously evil.

Thus, while the writer might dislike the UN, and the writing might not be the best, to be entirely fair in the actual stories there is a LOT more behind it than a simple rant.

It's been long enough that that's a detail I didn't recall. I seem to remember some kind of multipage rant about them in the text, but I've no idea if that was something that was in what I read, or something someone had pulled out later.

Of course (it's been a while) I do remember that Anti-Christ's super-secret goverment identity being "Mr. Carpathian" so well... that has something to say about the writer. At least early on he's kind of like a B-movie Vampire gone political (I might be getting it mixed up with something else due to time, but that is how I remember things). I also get the impression that despite some of the claims, it wasn't intended to be taken 100% deadpan seriously.

Given that I had the book shoved in front of me a couple months after it started popping up everywhere? You're probably more aware of what's in it than I am, given how memory is.

 

[dthvirus]

Any tarnishing of the title "Trials and Tribulations" is expressibly outlawed among gamers.

EDIT: Typo.

EDITEDIT: Another typo. I'm petty good at this.

 

[Starke]

Any tarnishing of the title "Trials and Tribulations" is expressibly outlawed along gamers.

EDIT: Typo.

...along? Tarnishing... What?