Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[kasperbbs]

History lessons showed me that religion can be evil before anything else..

 

[Frozenfeet2]

what about the games that don't associate it with violence? Off the top of my head I can think of being blessed in skyrim which heals diseases.
And anyway, stop blaming videogames when other meadia do it to equal extent.

 

[Vhite]

Also whats always gives me a chuckle is how people think that evertyhing that was done in name of religion was because of religion. Like when vikings accepted christianity and kept pillaging, yeah thats because bible says so, not because they just wanted to make strong allies just so they can keep raiding other lands.

 

[Jinxey]

Sigh. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved, but then somebody had to go and say something retarded.

I see that we will be fighting like gentlemen *discards monocle*

You seem very adamant in your understanding of the student's "point," yet also make it abundantly clear that you did not actually read the study. At most you read the title of this post and the first few sentences. The student isn't trying to make any sort of "point," they're just observing a trend that happens to make for a good narrative.

This is actually correct. I didn't read the students paper but I read the Escapist article in whole. I trust the Escapist to skew a bit to the left but to be truthful and diligent in their representation of gaming news.

I believe I may have misrepresented myself a little. I shouldn't have implied that the student is trying to prove what I believe, but someone else is looking into what I do view as a problem. It's been a grudge of mine in the industry for a couple years now so it was quite vindicating to see someone start the process.

I was excited, I shall try to suppress my joy in the future

so, you claim it hard to find a game with religion in it where religion isn't inherently evil. I counter with two incredibly obvious examples you have apparently overlooked: Assassin's Creed 2 and Skyrim. "But wait!" I hear you cry. "In Assassin's Creed, the Templars are the bad guys!" To which I reply...yeah. Welcome to the point. The Templars are the bad guys. The Templars are not, however, all of religion. They're simply one very vocal group. In fact, Ezio himself is portrayed as a man of faith, and he's a heroic badass. As for Skyrim...does this really need explanation? Seriously. The closest thing to "problematization" of religion in that game is the portrayal of crazy cults as...well, crazy cults. You'll note that almost all of the cast of good guys believe in the divines, and many are open followers.

While I misrepresented myself earlier, I believe it is you who misunderstood my main problem. The problem isn't that religion is being portrayed as bad but that it is the ONLY way it is being presented.

To talk to your specific examples. I disagree with your perspective on both Ezio and religion in Skyrim. In my opinion Ezio removes himself from the church. Furthermore if you read all the database entries in AC2 (I did because it irked me) they make a pointed effort to implicate that the entire church, up to the papal office, are corrupt/amoral not just the Templars. This gives the whole game a perspective that a righteous man must either leave or fight the church to be righteous.

Furthermore in Skyrim the Empire/Church sells out its beliefs to the Thallmore to save its life. The Thallmore in turn use this religion as a motive to enact genocide in Skyrim. I don't see that as a positive example of religion (i.e. as a motive to genocide).

Welcome to logic. I know, it must feel weird to have an atheist provide a logical argument in a discussion about religion and gaming, but hey. I'm a weird guy.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augastine say hi.

 

[Jinxey]

So science equals absence of belief? I don't know about that.

Also, we have know about racism and selective reproduction before science, and way before we discovered genetics. No scientific development was needed for the belief that Jews were inferior.

Not when said like that it doesn't. "Science/Logic/Reason" are the reasons given when someone says they don't believe in God. I haven't heard of any other. You may disavow God because you think He is cruel/unfair but that's completely different then believing He doesn't exist.

And the act of reasoning and logic falls under the "science" branch right? inductive reasoning is part of forming the hypothesis that is to be tested. I remember from history class that the Nazi regime dissected blacks and Jews to prove their hypothesis that Jews were a inferior race. So step 1.) use reasoning to form a hypothesis 2.) experiment...scientific method in action.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Also whats always gives me a chuckle is how people think that evertyhing that was done in name of religion was because of religion. Like when vikings accepted christianity and kept pillaging, yeah thats because bible says so, not because they just wanted to make strong allies just so they can keep raiding other lands.

The original action doesn't have to be done in the name of religion, religion simply has to be leveraged to accomplish said atrocity: It's certain that many crusaders were in it for the money, however such a massive expedition to go kill muslims would not have occured without the religious framework provided by Christianity, even if none of the crusaders had any strong religious belief the Crusades could only have happened due to the Us vs Them grouping because of religious differences.

Your example with the vikings totally misses the point, people are not claiming that viking raiding done in the name of God because they didn't do it in the name of God.

But you're correct that not everything done in the name of religion is necessarily due to religion however, Christianity and most other major religions form some of the largest collective groups of people on earth and they give a lot of political power and leverage to people who are horrendously underqualified, even by the standards of politicians.

Pretty much every religion is founded on beliefs that illogical or demonstrably wrong, they also like to wield of faith - blind belief in something for no reason.

So we have huge groups of people who to various extents blindly follow the words of idiots with more power than they can handle. Viewed on the large scale, these groups cause huge problems in the modern world - Think about how screwed up the law is in many Islamic countries, how the pope manages to hinder the progress of science and medicine in due to some 2000 year old book of fairy stories that should have absolutely no relevance on technology that its writers couldn't even imagine.

I don't have to believe that everything in the name of religion was by religion there's enough stuff that's indisputably caused by people's religious beliefs to go on for long while.

Not when said like that it doesn't. "Science/Logic/Reason" are the reasons given when someone says they don't believe in God. I haven't heard of any other. You may disavow God because you think He is cruel/unfair but that's completely different then believing He doesn't exist.

And the act of reasoning and logic falls under the "science" branch right? inductive reasoning is part of forming the hypothesis that is to be tested. I remember from history class that the Nazi regime dissected blacks and Jews to prove their hypothesis that Jews were a inferior race. So step 1.) use reasoning to form a hypothesis 2.) experiment...scientific method in action.

Actually the roots of german anti semitism go back to medieval Christianity (look up Pogroms in germany) There was no reasoning involved, it's false logic based upon irrational belief and thus nothing at all to do with actual science.

 

[ElPatron]

Not when said like that it doesn't. "Science/Logic/Reason" are the reasons given when someone says they don't believe in God. I haven't heard of any other. You may disavow God because you think He is cruel/unfair but that's completely different then believing He doesn't exist.

Actually I have heard that people are simply atheists. No reason. Just like there is no reason to believe.

And the act of reasoning and logic falls under the "science" branch right? inductive reasoning is part of forming the hypothesis that is to be tested. I remember from history class that the Nazi regime dissected blacks and Jews to prove their hypothesis that Jews were a inferior race. So step 1.) use reasoning to form a hypothesis 2.) experiment...scientific method in action.

We dissected bodies before we developed what we consider scientific knowledge. Many times we were wrong, we thought the heart was our "brain".

Also, if you are telling a lie, it's not the scientific method. You don't need one to make people believe in you.

 

[AnarchistFish]

In my experience in dealing with Christians who insist creationism rather than evolution should be taught in schools (and all aspects of the bible being literally and infallibly true). Over and over again they fall back on the hollow threat hell that they use to argue their point, attempting the fallacy of Pascal's Wager not realising (or not caring) that it is effectively blackmail. And ineffective blackmail as every other religion would make the same wager it's a matter of believing in WHICH god!?!

Never met a Christian who's even openly believed in creationism, let alone push it that far. Things are probably different here though. And yeah, Pascal's Wager is pretty ridiculous, although I see people saying you can't be certain there isn't a god (which isn't really the same thing) and people jump on it accusing them of using Pascal's Wager.

OK, so what is the point in religion? We are SUPPOSED to be good anyway! If that's the case, why can't we just be good and God will take over when we die. Do NOT try to tell me morality comes from religion.

When did I say morality comes from religion? Of course it doesn't, but I don't think you can deny that it helps and directs many people.

Of all the false claims of origins of the universe, religion does not have the moral high ground of telling people what is right and wrong.

Don't really understand exactly what you mean by this.

Oh of course, because religions have some rather twisted forms of morality they want to enforce. Such as Leviticus declaring that homosexuality is an abomination that must be stoned to death and their fate in afterlife is to be tortured forever in hell. Nice morality there. It is somewhat open to interpretation but none the less this allows horrific homophobic persecution. Christianity IN PRACTICE you have not seen compassion here, you have seen oppression.

And of course the bible is very explicit, it doesn't matter how good you are, you MUST believe in this one god AND "His Word" or you do not stand a chance, this has been made clear to me by angry creationists and I cannot dispute that is what their holy scripture does make this threat. The ultimate threat of violence. But a hollow one.

And the real corker, the way these rules are laid out, a believing priest can rape little children and then if he says a load of magic words of "repent" then he can still get into "heaven". But all the good and charitable Hindus and other polytheists, bible is explicit that they will suffer an infinitely horrific fate.

I don't really think the bible is a good representation of Christianity. It's pretty much just a collection of books written by different people many years after Jesus supposedly existed. It repeats itself, contradicts itself, probably misses things out, probably is extremely inaccurate even if Christianity as a concept is true and most importantly, it includes so many opinions from the writers themselves, of course it's mostly a load of crap. Leviticus is the worst. And there're all the disparities between religions. Religious documents are dangerous and I think people rely too much on them. Would a god who's main teaching is compassion actually believe in stoning homosexuals? Or in forcing people into believing in something they have no evidence for? It's with those misunderstandings that religion is then misused. I guess that's the difference between organised religion and personal spirituality. People who follow the bible literally are morons. But you shouldn't forget that people do use religion for good as well.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Farther than stars]

I must say, I've always felt that video games lightly demonize organized religion by usually making it seem cultist and run by maniacs. Fallout is a good example of that. But then I figure a large part of the video-game-developing community is atheïst, so that they might be looking at religion less personally (i.e. a religious person might not tie religion to violence and inquisition so easily). It's just a theory though.

 

[Woodsey]

snip

"Looking into the archeological and historical evidence for the resurrection, the least preposterous explanation is that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later."

The least preposterous explanation is that he wasn't resurrected.

Oh dear, look at that; A news item about a guy who somewhat stands up for religion.

Duh, I wonder how well this will go over with the community?

Anyway, the guy's absolutely right, though I don't really think it warranted an entire study. Everyone with functioning eyes and ears already came to this conclusion. Most game developers know that the majority of their fanbase dispises religion in every possible way, so why come up with some sort of new and interesting evil corp. when you can just say "they're religious" and be guaranteed the fans will hate them on the basis of their ideology alone?

Preaching to the choir, ey Escapist!

A quick look over the games he looked at (that I've played):

Assassin's Creed: Number 1 is set during the crusades. Number 2 and Brotherhood revolve around a Pope who was, to put it mildly, a bit of a ****. So yeah, real mean and false of them to, y'know, take actual historical instances.

(As for the wider plot of the series, it depends on your interpretation somewhat as to how critical they are of religion, although the question they pose is essentially, 'what is a god?'.)

For Oblivion, all of the gods that you encounter live in The Elder Scrolls' equivalent of Hell, all of the ones you don't (at least, from what I remember you don't) grant blessings and the priests and whatnot are all such wonderful people and whatever else.

And it seems no one knows what the Mass Effect example is this, so I'll guess and say perhaps the problem is with Ash being religious and a teeny-tiny-massive bit racist. Although, Mass Effect 2 quite obviously works as a Christ allegory. So... yeah.

So, that's three of his examples where religion isn't demonised, can't say I'm really sure what yours are. Looking over most of the games in my Steam library, none of them have a religious element.

I suppose the Chantry in Dragon Age are twats to the Mages (ironically).

Although my concluding line would be along the lines of "stop whining". Believe what you want, but if you believe something which is, by all accounts, completely ridiculous, then other people have every right to scrutinise and take issue with it.

 

[lacktheknack]

To be fair, video games tie EVERYTHING to violence. Religion is an easy target, but video games have depicted most urban cities as violent crime ridden areas, most archaeological digs are filled with hyper-violent undead/spirits/etc, and so on.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Well, I think, therefore I am. I don't see why I have to look into it more than that. There is no need to pin down neurone-X for feeling-y. Especially as it would go too far off topic.

Once again, I'm in agreement. Anyone who denies the existence of consciousness is clearly a whack job. One's own consciousness is more immediately certain to the individual than any scientific proof, so the fact that it can't be observed doesn't mean that much. Just nitpicking.

 

[Elamdri]

Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

A University of Missouri doctoral student says many modern videogames "problematize" organized religion by equating it with violence in their stories.

As improving technology has allowed videogames to evolve over the years, their narratives have become more detailed and nuanced as well, according to Greg Perreault, a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. That increased sophistication has led to a growing incorporation of religion into various storylines, and that in turn has led religion to be "problematized" in videogames by way of strong narrative connections with violence.

Perreault looked at Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy 13, Assassin's Creed, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in his research and found that all of them tied religion to violence. "In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a 'Knights Templar' and crusader motifs," he said. "Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt."

But he also stated that despite the common presence of those themes, he doesn't believe game makers are trying to "purposefully bash" religion. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at videogames across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting," he continued. "Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."

This is where I'd normally make a crack about being thankful that organized religion has never been responsible for any real-world violence, but I don't want to offend any sensibilities so I'll simply note that Perreault presented the results of his research at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion and leave it at that.

Source: University of Missouri


Permalink

...I fail to see a problem here.

 

[Treblaine]

Never met a Christian who's even openly believed in creationism...

I don't really think the bible is a good representation of Christianity.

I don't know how to reply to these statements, they contradict actual religious practices so much it's mind boggling.

 

[Bluecho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematization

Problematization is a critical thinking and pedagogical dialogue or process and may be considered demythicisation.

I wonder did they REALLY mean to use that term, or did they just make up that term think it meant "oh, they're just MAKING problems".

I'm not sure.

I will say the central tenement of Christianity (at least) is based on violence; that is you don't follow their dogma then you will be horribly tortured for all eternity. And much violence has stemmed from that.

Organized religion, for sure. But if you really think Christianity itself is at its core violent, hateful, and mean spirited, you've obviously never read a good chunk of the Bible. It repeatedly preaches forgiveness, kindness, generosity, and love for all God's creations.

Sappy to be sure, but the religion itself is generally against wanton violence. It's just that plenty of people, past and present, tend to not pay attention to much of what their religions say. Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says not to harbor hatred in your heart.

 

[BrotherRool]

Hey, it says God made everything and has absolute power. You can't then say:

"God who is desperately trying to stop this thing happening"

When god is responsible for this! HE send them to hell! It's HIS decision! According to the bible. Is god like a crazy man holding a gun to someone's head "I'm desperately trying to prevent your brains being blown out, if you will just do what I say!"

And even if he is desperately" trying to warn people what he is going to do why is this one warning in an ancient and highly adulterated book? Why has his voice not boomed over the Indian Subcontinent to warn them all that if they don't follow his text as prescribed.

God is coming off more like the villain from that awful movie series Saw, giving the victim a possible way out from a horrible fate that is totally implausible for them to realise most don't stand a chance. Why doesn't god just SAY! Why why does he whisper in people's ear one at a time (indistinguishably from mental delusion) on what you need to do to avoid this trap?

How can I believe Jesus is the son of God if I don't believe in god? I believe he is the son of man, OR he is the result of an extremely rare case of human parthenogenesis.

"The word hell only appears in the whole bible 15 times, comparable to helmet"

So? Religions only need it to be mentioned once to use it as a hollow threat against all non-believers. And Hell is alluded to many times than directly by that term and by exclusion.

I've been in enough creationists debates and they always tap out by saying "well I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell".

I don't care about the bible. It's just a book. I care about how OTHER PEOPLE care about it. The bible says a lot but each denomination and each individual uses and abuses it for their own ends. How they use it to deliver veiled and hollow threats of an inescapable and HORRIFIC punishment. Something so bad it can scare people beyond the ability to reason to caving in, the "pascals wager" is blackmail.

The duality of heaven and hell is the inescapable part as it is the main appeal of religion as what happens after death is an inescapable and burning question and religion seizes on this fear and ignorance.

It's nice to see that you've obviously given this a lot of thought and if you don't mind me saying, you seem pretty passionate too which is cool. What should people be more passionate about than how they view the universe? (Incidentally have we talked before? I think i recognise your name?]

If it's okay may I ask you a question, if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?

CS Lewis wrote 'There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done''

God is perfect, not as descriptor, but as a thing. Literally perfect. And heaven is being with God. But for something to be perfect it has to have no faults, and that's not true of any of us, since we chose to be as we are. So he decided that he would take the consequences of our perfection, so that if we ask him, when he'll look on us he'll choose to see perfection instead and in the end, if we let him, he'll make us perfect.

But 'God is love'. Every time you have smiled in your life, every time you've felt love for someone or been loved by someone, that was God. So if you become completely seperate from God, that's how life will be. Without hope, love, humility, patience, kindness, because all of those things ultimately stem from God.

And you don't quite need the bible, it's a shaky point theologically, but it's possible to believe in God, without being told about God it's just a lot harder. And yeah it's an ancient book, but it's an ancient book that's been read by more people in the world than any other book ever. And in the end, he didn't just write a book, he did things with people and left them with experiences that guided them to write the things down that he willed. Even if your atheist, especially if you're atheist, it's almost undeniable that there is no single person in the world that has had a more significant effect on the course of history than Jesus (Except possibly The Buddha there's roughly 500 million Buddhists to 1 billion Christians but I don't know enough eastern/indian history to gauge the overall affect through time). And he was just one guy. To you, one ordinary guy.

You are right Hell is intricately linked to the whole christian faith, but even by reference it's only mentioned a handful of times throughout the whole bible. The vast majority of books don't talk about it/reference it/imply it even once, but you are right, it's there and thing. It's just not the central purpose or even something that's highlighted or particularly valued. People's understanding of hell is far more based on things like Dante's Inferno (which is in itself a lot more focused on mercy and compassion than people think) and Paradise lost.

And I'll be frank with you, hopefully those creationists who talked to you had a think and pray about what they said afterwards. Hell is a thing and a fact but if God sees no joy in it, then they don't have any right to want to see people there either.

Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.

But Pascal meant it pretty tongue in cheek, I like it more because I'm a mathematician and like to think that I'm pretty logical and well, if things aren't eternal, then yeah, there aren't really any consequences to our actions. 1/n -> 0 as n ->infinity.


I hope you're okay with what I've said. I don't want to make you irate but I hope you can understand that as much as you can't agree with what I say (unless you do), I can't agree with what you say (unless I do). I feel a little uncomfortable talking like this because 1)I'm not God and so can easily be wrong and 2) The only way I can talk is to talk about what I believe in, but that's something you don't believe in and take objection to, so at best I can only make you feel uncomfortable about my weird mindwashedness

In the end we look at the same thing in a completely different way and we've almost got no common point. Thanks for taking the time to read this, although to you it must just seem like righteous tripe

 

[AnarchistFish]

Never met a Christian who's even openly believed in creationism...

I don't really think the bible is a good representation of Christianity.

I don't know how to reply to these statements, they contradict actual religious practices so much it's mind boggling.

I don't agree with many religious practices that are widely accepted. Anyway, bible passages like the one you cited are rarely paid attention to by most Christians.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Not when said like that it doesn't. "Science/Logic/Reason" are the reasons given when someone says they don't believe in God. I haven't heard of any other. You may disavow God because you think He is cruel/unfair but that's completely different then believing He doesn't exist.

And the act of reasoning and logic falls under the "science" branch right? inductive reasoning is part of forming the hypothesis that is to be tested. I remember from history class that the Nazi regime dissected blacks and Jews to prove their hypothesis that Jews were a inferior race. So step 1.) use reasoning to form a hypothesis 2.) experiment...scientific method in action.

Actually the roots of german anti semitism go back to medieval Christianity (look up Pogroms in germany) There was no reasoning involved, it's false logic based upon irrational belief and thus nothing at all to do with actual science.

Three things:

1) @Jinxey: Only inductive reasoning could be considered scientific. Science is an empirical methodology used to gain a posteriori truths through experimentation. Logic, a.k.a. deductive reasoning is a priori. In other words, logical truth is supposed to be known prior to any empirical data. This isn't really an objection per se, this particular confusion is just a pet peeve of mine.

2) Science is a purely descriptive enterprise. It only describes the world, it doesn't tell you what to do with the information. The latter duty belongs to the normative enterprise known generally as 'ethics'. Even if geneticists proved that some races were less intelligent or more prone to criminality than others, that fact still wouldn't justify the holocaust. This is generally known as the 'is'/'ought' distinction.

3) The 'is'/'ought' distinction works both ways. Just because people ought to be equal, it doesn't mean that they actually are. The question as to whether any group of people has some genetic advantage over others is an empirical question. People tend to have an instant negative reaction when you start talking about the genetic differences between races. But it's something that must be studied. If everyone turns out to be equal, great. But if someone turns out to have a disadvantage that doesn't mean we should discriminate against them. If some people do have a genetic disadvantage we can work to fix it with genetic engineering and level the playing field.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

God is perfect, not as descriptor, but as a thing. Literally perfect.

Someone hasn't been reading their Kant. Perfection is not a predicate. I hope we aren't giving an ontological argument for the existence of God. Those went out of style in the 1700s.

Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.

Pascal's wager only works if there are two options: materialism and Christianity. But in actuality there are multiple, mutually exclusive options in the form of each religion. So if you're going to buy into pascal's wager you're going to end up looking like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDWR5RkWRTY

 

[Treblaine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematization

Problematization is a critical thinking and pedagogical dialogue or process and may be considered demythicisation.

I wonder did they REALLY mean to use that term, or did they just make up that term think it meant "oh, they're just MAKING problems".

I'm not sure.

I will say the central tenement of Christianity (at least) is based on violence; that is you don't follow their dogma then you will be horribly tortured for all eternity. And much violence has stemmed from that.

Organized religion, for sure. But if you really think Christianity itself is at its core violent, hateful, and mean spirited, you've obviously never read a good chunk of the Bible. It repeatedly preaches forgiveness, kindness, generosity, and love for all God's creations.

Sappy to be sure, but the religion itself is generally against wanton violence. It's just that plenty of people, past and present, tend to not pay attention to much of what their religions say. Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says not to harbor hatred in your heart.

Against wanton violence... still blackmails every living with the (hollow) threat of eternal torture by their god. THAT is the underpinning of violence. God could stop this, stop this infinite punishment of finite transgression but he won't. I've had this used against me and the Westbro Baptist Church use it extensively and - according to scripture - they use it correctly.

And why is it when I object to religious practices, I'm told I should judge religion by the scripture... but when I point out awful things in scripture they say to judge religions by their practices.

It's a double standard. Religion is at best redundant, at worst an instrument of suffering and it ONLY WORKS because people believe it.

"Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says not to harbor hatred in your heart."

Empty platitudes versus explicit commandment to lynch gays. Give me a break, we see in practice how homophobes use the bible to give false legitimacy to their persecution.