Forums | MacLife

kb5zhh wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

You are entitled to that opinion.
Now - what is your opinion on the idealogy of the GTA games?

After you answer that -  Does anyone here remember the threads about GTA and how people shouldn't get their panties in a wad over them?

See, I'm with resedit on this one.  Its just a game, no ?  And if it isn't, how is it different from the plethera of other voilent games out there?

I'm certainly not arguing that the game should be censored.  I think the only point is that a christian game is simulating violence against non-christians, which does make me sit uneasy.

Moving the goalposts?  No one ever said the game should be censored!

resedit wrote:

If the description is accurate, then I can almost guarantee that Tyndale knew nothing about the nature of the game when they licensed the name, and very well may have been deceived about the plans.

The game and the book website make it seem more like a RTS game, though that might not be correct.  Personally I think its mostly vaporware, as they haven't finished their website, even though they've had a long while, their game trailer doesn't seem to show anything more than pre-rendered shots, etc.  But I would shocked if the license agreement didn't give Tyndal heavy handed control over one of their biggest franchises, and would like to see your evidence to the contrary.

resedit wrote:

I think the only point is that a christian game is simulating violence against non-christians, which does make me sit uneasy.

Is it a christian game?
Or is it a game labeling itself as a christian game to try and capatilize on some profit?
It will be interesting to see if the description on talktoaction - an organization whos statement of purpose says

Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it.

is accurate.

If it is accurate, then it will be interesting to see how the christian community responds to the game.

Are the left behind books christian books or are they labeling themselves as christian to make a buck?  Certainly the game will sell itself as a christian game of christian books, by a christian publisher sold in christian stores.

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

Lets say I linked to an article about "Brokeback Mountain" on a website whos statement of purpose was "a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the gay agenda -- and what to do about it."

How seriously would my source be taken?

?  Everything I've said has been taken from the left behind book and game webpages.

I've not seen you post anything specific from either.
I'll go back through the thread and look - but I've only seen you post vague opinions - such as the series encourages you to disregard evidence, which is NOT what I got from it.

Oh - and that it has wide margins.

resedit wrote:

I think the only point is that a christian game is simulating violence against non-christians, which does make me sit uneasy.

Is it a christian game?
Or is it a game labeling itself as a christian game to try and capatilize on some profit?
It will be interesting to see if the description on talktoaction - an organization whos statement of purpose says

:: wanders back with pie ::

Well, what's the difference between something labelling itself Christian, and something that is Christian?

Is there some certification body?

If a large body of people call themselves Christians, and attend megachurches, and claim the Jesus Christ as their savior, are they Christians?

If those Christians buy a bunch of books with Christian themes, are those books actually Christian?

Can a videogame be Christian themed while being very un-Christian?  If so, is talktoaction the arbiter to declare its not truely Christian?

Or can merely myself (a pagan/heathen/atheist/slacker) or kb5zhh see that a "Christian themed" item has some aspects that render it incompatible to actual Christianity, and thereby label it as blasphemy and heresy?

I see what you mean about Christian religious or culture...I was grouping the two together.

Interestingly, there's isn't much use of the word "Christianity" on the website....a few mentions of The Bible and Revelations.

All I found with a decent amount of clicking is
"The mission of Left Behind Games is to become the world’s leading independent developer and publisher of quality interactive entertainment products that perpetuate positive values and appeal to mainstream and Christian audiences, while remaining committed to increasing shareholder value and pursuing the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in all business affairs. "

It doesn't even list what platforms the game will come out for...maybe just PeeCee.

Brother, have you been certified?

Phydeaux wrote:

No, seriously. There's a site out there that slags on the Mac over that stuff.

Isn't it a landover baptist site?

radarman wrote:

Phydeaux wrote:

No, seriously. There's a site out there that slags on the Mac over that stuff.

As a joke, right?

If not, then I'm toast, because I have a FreeBSD based file-server and gateway router loaded with "daemons". I couldn't get through the day without them.

As it happens, I generally tend to believe my WindowsXP machine is the one possessed by "demons", though.

Also, 666 isn't very good for security. 644 is much better, and if it's really private, 600.

The website is a parody site.
But yes - it exists out there somewhere. I don't remember the URL.

People can claim to be whatever they want- whether it matches up or not depends on what criteria is used.

For instance, a creationist can call his story on all rocks being only a couple thousand years old "geology." Well, since he is telling a story about rocks, technically it would be "geology," right? The real deal isnt only in the labels, its also in the values used to define or judge them by.

user wrote:

_SNIP_
What you just stated is a prime example of the intellectual dishonesty of the creationists. Applying
different "values" is just a way to twist the facts to suit a purpose.

errr isn't that "politics"?

user wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

People can claim to be whatever they want- whether it matches up or not depends on what criteria is used.

For instance, a creationist can call his story on all rocks being only a couple thousand years old "geology." Well, since he is telling a story about rocks, technically it would be "geology," right? The real deal isnt only in the labels, its also in the values used to define or judge them by.

Wrong, Calling something "geology" does not make it "geology". Geology is branch of scientific inquiry that confirms to the scientific method.

What you just stated is a prime example of the intellectual dishonesty of the creationists. Applying
different "values" is just a way to twist the facts to suit a purpose.

Um, I wasnt saying it was "really" geology. I was making the same point as you- just because a label is slapped on something doesnt make it so. I'll spell it out better for you.

Semantic meaning is basically a valuation of the word, a definition of it. The meaning of tree isnt the letters t-r-e-e strung together; its what we judge it to be, the agreed upon valuation of the culture that speaks english which says "tree" refers to a woody perrenial plant and not, for instance, a dog. On the other hand though, I could name my dog "Tree" if I wanted, and everyone who agreed to call him that would say that the word refers to the dog. So, depending on the agreed upon standard, the correct values, language either works or does not.

I was NOT saying creationist "geology" is geology. But I bet two creationists speaking to each other would call it that. As a general culture though, it doesnt meet the agreed upon referent, which is peer reviewed science. But in a smaller context, its referent can be switched, like in the creationist community. Then we have a debate over the meaning of the word, and which set of values is more "true," we say that such a claim is "intellectually dishonest."

But likewise, I'd say that "christian" violence also doesnt meet the definition I take it to refer to: the teachings of Christ. I constantly argue in behalf of what I believe those values to entail. But I bet there are regardless, plenty people who are genuinely lost when it comes to what the "true" referent is, what is the logos of what being a Christian means, and for them you can call just about anything "christian" so long as enough people go along with it.