Bible Man: What the hell???
Okay, Arthur has posted a meta-blog entry on the Friendly-Atheist’s list of dubious proofs for God. For some reason (and I guessing it’s a good one because it’s really got me thinking), Arthur has an advertisement for Bible Man embedded in the post. Here it is;
If you are like me, in as much as you aren’t entirely brain dead, you’ll probably be scratching your head wondering “WHAT THE HELL???”
As Arthur points out, this is a real game. I repeat; a real game.
I use some ribald language in the rest of this post (non-abusive ribald language is allowed in comments as well), so if you are timid, don’t read over the fold.
The game is an adaptation of a straight-to-DVD religious edutainment series, which itself seems just as ghastly. Here’s another promo for the game, more heavily referencing the series.
The weird-toothed, blue-skinned guy is the “Whacky Protestor”. Yep, if you are different (aka Whacky), you are EVIL. If you protest (in a whacky manner), you are EVIL. I dare say that anti-abortion protests aren’t deemed whacky, nor their participants. They probably have THE FULL ARMOUR OF GOD!
Also, note the antipathy for atheists and the straw man of implied nihilism.
It may also be worth pointing out that if you have a look at comments (mainly by Christians) on the IMDB listings for Bible Man rubbish, there are three chief complaints; 1) violence and murder – Bible Man not only beats the crap out of villains, he kills some of them as well, 2) hypocrisy – Episodes preach what Bible Man doesn’t practice (e.g. episodes about “rage” where the baddies who spread anger and hate get the crap kicked out of them) and 3) whenever Bible Man sins, he is only made to sin by the baddies and instead of being remorseful and repentant, he passes the buck and then kicks the shit out of whoever made him sin.
On this last point, I’d hate to think of what Bible Man would do if he was “tempted” to rape someone. “It’s the fault of Villainous Vixen that I had pre-marital, non-consented sex with her! It’s like cat’s and uncovered meat! I’m going to chop off her fucking head!” Moments later, covered in blood; “Ha! Now that I have dealt with the cause of my sin, I don’t have to take the blame! No! Villainous Vixen will never force me to sin by having sex with her against her will again! Oh no! Oh… wait! She making me feel hubris now! All… A… ploy… to… make… way… for… other… sin… I… spoke… too… soon… she… can… still… make… me… lust… for… her… even… when… her… head… is… missing…” Moments later, dragged off by police “I’m not a necrophiliac! The devil gave her powers to make me sin!”
Let’s face it, while the series doesn’t go that far into rape and murder, its mode of discerning morality is no different AT ALL. Bad (and by bad, they mean outgroup) people make good Christians do bad things, so Christians are justified in leveling violence against these people. In other words Bible Man’s central morality is flat out psychotic.
Bible Man is palpably anti-modernity and if it were any less overt, I’d accuse it of dog-whistling to the worst in biblical literalism, however it’s strict apologetics are audible on all frequencies. Let’s have a look at a synopsis of a DVD;
“Not to be outdone by a new Bibleman, the Wacky Protestor formulates a plan to not only re-invent himself, but to create a world where there will be no Christians, no churches, no Bibles and no God! Using his latest anti-Christian invention, the neuroiconoclasticskeptisiser, the Wacky Protestor lures Vacation Bible School student leaders Gabriel and Olivia Phillips into his Animated Reconstructive Transport where it shows them what the world would be like with no rules, no faith, no hope and no future. Will the Wacky Protestor finally succeed with his latest plan? Join Bibleman, Biblegirl and Cypher in this exciting adventure as they practice 1 Timothy 1:18.“
(Bibleman Genesis Series: Fight for Faith: The Bibleman DVD, 2007)
And 1 Timothy 1:18 says;
“This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;”
(King James Bible)
A war given further context by 1 Timothy 6:3-5 “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
(King James Bible)
In other words, if anyone deviates from dogma, then withdraw yourself from their number and make war upon them. Now some may say “culture war” or whatever (which kind of breaks with the literalist leanings of the producers and the target audience), which in some instances is fair enough; Jihad isn’t always violent Jihad. But face facts, Bible Man kills the baddies. When it comes to “good warfare” in Bible Man, it means what it “literally means”; let’s frag them thar infidels!
So basically we have a pretty simple message being fired off at kids: If someone is different they are to blame when you do something wrong, which when it comes to murder is incidental because it’s okay to kill them because they are different. Timothy 6:3-5 makes it especially clear that different equals wrong!
Violence and false teachers. Kind of an odd combination for Bible Man to tackle considering that he is published by Thomas Nelson that also publish books denouncing teh Mussies Militant Islam and violent Jihad.
“A tiny but radically militant segment of Islam is waging a “holy way” on all “infidels,” with moderate Muslims as well as non-Muslims becoming targets of their hatred. In this balanced and reasoned account, Connie Reece details the political, social, and spiritual dimensions of the fast-growing militant Islamic movement, shows how it operates within the United States, and assesses its potential threat to Christianity as well as to freedom and democracy around the world.”
(Blurb for Holy Hatred by Connie Reece, Thomas Nelson, 2007)
Maybe Connie Reece should widen her condemnation of religious toxic crap and consider the divisive and ultimately sectarian violence promoting junk that Thomas Nelson is peddling to kids. On that other topic, it’s not like Thomas Nelson has a problem with “false teachers” either, at least “false” as in blatantly peddling falsehoods about known facts.
Hank Hanegraaff (of Christian Research Institute infamy*) is one of the authors published by Thomas Nelson. Have a squizz at the blurb for one of his books that TN publish.
“In Fatal Flaws, inspired by Hank Hanegraaff’s book The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, Hanegraaff keeps Christians from falling prey to corrupting scientific speculation about the origins of life and reminds us that we are God’s creation. This commonsense approach puts the concept of evolution in the grasp of everyday Christians and reminds us that ultimately the key to our purpose in this life comes from understanding Whose we are and Who created us.”
(Blurb for Fatal Flaws by Hank Hanegraaff, Thomas Nelson, 2007)
Hank “Manygaffe” Hanegraaff goofs over and over again. The NCSE has but a small catalogue of his factual errata; his simply incorrect assertions about the fossil record, of which NCSE only covers a few, are both particularly entertaining (in a mild schadenfreude kind of way) and chilling (in a “people are actually gulled by this rubbish?” kind of way). The NCSE are remiss in one particular respect though; they give little rebuttal to the “work” of Duane Gish, which Hanegraaff in his book cites quite heavily.
The NCSE rebuts Gish with a mere ad-hominem. If you want more than fallacious rebuttal and a true measure of the junk Hanegraff parrots uncritically, you don’t need to go much further than Richard Trott’s treatment of Gish’s oft repeated memes. Incidentally, while Trott’s criticisms are 90s material, don’t feel that he’s being left behind. Hanegraff recycles old memes (which is what happens when you “withdraw thyself“) so the corresponding criticisms won’t change. Heck, Henegraff’s book is a recycled version of one of his older books as it is.
But I’ve gone off on a tangent. I have a bit of a bias towards talking about honesty which is getting me off topic. I’m talking about truth, whereas Bible Man (and Hanegraff) talk about “Truth” with a big “T” (if biblical literalism was a sensible idea, shouldn’t we be talking about the same thing).
Bible Man pays subtle homage to the Old Testament, which you can probably tell just from the fact that there is a “Genesis” series. At the very least, it is marketed towards those who take a literal view of the old testament. Can you imagine a literalist-apologist-retelling of the story of Lot as a Bible Man episode? He is Bible Man after all.
Bible Man heard a knock on his door, it was Sean San Francisco and the evil Dr Bisexualakov!
“Hey, Bible Man, we’ve come a-knocking cause we want your side-kick Cypher for some sweet-sweet-man-lovin’!”, the Diabolical Duo chimed in together.
Bible Man’s
Light-Sabertm Lucas Films“SpiritSword” wilted at the prospect while Cypher jumped into his arms, biting his own fingernails at thecuriousterrifying prospect of being penetrated by the modern, worldly Californian duo. “Cypher’s sweet, round, firm, brown cheeks… what was I saying? Ah yes! Are too firm for thine to pass between! Nay! Unlike the Red Sea, they shall not part for a man with a large staff!”The now tumescent tag-team eyed off Bible Man’s physique, which was exposed because he had left his Armor Of God in the dryer. “I’m not having a bar of that! To lay with a man would
solve a log of nagging questions I’ve hadbe an abomination! Here, take Bible Girl around back and have thine a spit roast.”Bible Girl, being only a girl (from the Bible no less!), putting aside her Electra complex, complied with orders from her superior, for the time being having faith in his judgement.
“Cypher, these Godless men are hardened criminals! We have to keep an eye on them with Bible Girl while making ready for BATTLE WITH EVIL!”
So Cypher and Bible Man peered through the back window watching the dastardly deed while both trying to get Bible Man’s Spirit Sword ready for battle!
It’s not my Zeitgeist so don’t blame me (okay, I’m transferring camp qualities to Bible Man and Cypher from Batman and Robin – can you blame me?). Personally, I’d never merge violent, popularist-cum-propagandistic edutainment with biblical literalism. That’s probably why I’m not making Bible Man and I can be thankful for that!
All the same, consider the content of Bible Man; the DVD and the game.
The vilification and demonisation of outgroups, the (thinly-veiled) implicit advocacy of violence and outright killing, the epistles of Timothy inspired policing of thoughtcrime; absolute tolerance be damned it’s frigging disturbing! Worse, this garbage targets impressionable minds. Have a look at this promo;
Have a look in the audience. Look at the kids sitting there ready and primed to accept what they are being told as fact. How are their primary reasoning skills being developed? When they see “Whacky Protestor”, are they prompted to ask critical questions? Who dares ask if “Whacky Protestor” is right? Who dares ask if “Whacky Protestor” is a truthful representation of outgroups anyway?
Nope, these kids you see in the audience are given cues to which they are supposed to give a correct response (rewarded in the software or modeled by the DVD). You can see it in the second promo when it says “oh.. and by the way… so is he [coming to your computer!]“. “He” being “Whacky Protestor”, an implied threat that relies upon the child’s understanding that “Whacky Protestor” is innately evil (just because he is), and further that they don’t accidentally humanize him by asking too many questions.
Further to this, The Word of God is presented as being Bible Man’s sword. Clearly, the loving God of the New Testament has either been revised or retrofitted back into his bad-ass Old Testament persona. And the kids are supposed to interpret this as metaphorical? If you believe that, I have an old bar of soap that can cure all that ails you, just email me with your credit card number and it’s all yours.
What we have in Bible Man is a piece of propaganda that tells children to use violence against outgroups. Terrorist training wrapped up as Power Rangers on crack, consumed by gulled parents and used to vandalize their children’s minds, not just with the hateful crap that makes up the content, but with the inculcation of the epistemology of not asking questions. It encourages children not to think critically.
Jesus Camp rotted the minds of children in the same indoctrinatory way and sentiments were expressed that they wanted to have their kids exhibit the same enthusiasm as suicide bombing kids from the Middle East. But even Jesus Camp stopped short of advocating violence!
Woe be the kids, woe be the good teacher that has to repair the damage and woe be the security guards of abortion clinics when the children of Bible Man graduate from just playing games and watching movies, graduating to fight evil.
~ Bruce
PS. I wonder what Ruddock would have to say about the distribution of Bible Man material in Australia. At the very least it would seem to break the new provisions on sedition (particularly “Urging Violence within the Community“). But then, we all made exceptions for Alan Jones now didn’t we? Apparently it’s not sedition if while prohibited by the word of the law, it corresponds to the political Zeitgeist.
* I’m not game enough to touch that one any more than I already have.
Comments are closed.
Using his latest anti-Christian invention, the neuroiconoclasticskeptisiser
I’m SOOOOO stealing that term!
For some reason (and I guessing it’s a good one because it’s really got me thinking), Arthur has an advertisement for Bible Man embedded in the post.
Truth be told, I added it as an afterthought.
I dare say that anti-abortion protests aren’t deemed whacky, nor their participants. They probably have THE FULL ARMOUR OF GOD!
And, like Bible Man, a license to kill.
Help Create Democracy 2.0
Week Released: September 17-21, 2007
The Millennial Generation, including myself, is interested in being an
active part of changing public policy. This interest led me to be a part of
Mobilize.org¹s Democracy 2.0 Campaign.
On July 4, Mobilize.org began the Democracy 2.0 project to call attention to
the ways that our democratic process and institutions are properly serving
and failing to serve the interests of Americans, specifically young
Americans. The purpose of Democracy 2.0 is to call attention to the main
problems of our current political system, highlight the distinct
characteristics of the Millennial Generation, and provide guidelines for
change to help cultivate a renewed political process in America.
Currently, our political system is trying to manage a 21st century society
with 18th century political institutions. Democracy 2.0 will upgrade our
current political system, empowering citizens to identify community
problems, propose solutions, be a part of the implementation of these
solutions, and change the way politics is done in this country.
To begin this endeavor, Mobilize.org asked a series of questions and
collected data from youth, ages 16-30 that will be reviewed and evaluated by
Democracy 2.0 Ambassadors at the Democracy 2.0 Summit on October 3, 2007,
with the intention of releasing the Democracy 2.0 Declaration of Our
Generation. The Declaration of our Generation is a short statement of
principles describing a citizen-centered approach to democracy. The
Declaration will focus on three themes: 1) What currently works and what
does not work in our democracy; 2) What defines our generation; and 3) What
Democracy 2.0 should look like.
The Declaration will call attention to areas in which the government is
succeeding and failing to serve the public interest, highlight the unique
and defining characteristics of our generation, and provide guidelines that
will serve as a call to action for American citizens to help create this
renewed form of democracy.
I wanted to mention this opportunity since every posting here has an
interest in this. Mobilize.org is looking for people who want to serve as
Democracy 2.0 Online Ambassadors to be a part of the drafting process. If
you have any questions, please shoot me an e-mail at brendan.chan@mail.utexas.edu.
I just dropped 10% according to Germatria, so I’d better watch our for Bible Man.
Wow, that is just freaky.
PS Bruce, it’s “cue” (but I know you know I know you know).
Brendan, re Democracy 2.0, two comments:
1.0 That .0 worries me.
1.1 Surely the first topic should be “Is there a need for a 2.0 when a 1.x might do?”
2.0 Wait, that was only one comment. Oops.
2.1 This must be the second.
John,
But do I know that you know that after I knew I almost immediately forgot that I knew and forgot to correct it and that I had the vague feeling that I knew something was wrong, and that you know that I didn’t know precisely what? (It was nearing midnight).
I wonder if Brendan has considered my advertising policy and if I now have ownership over democracy 3.0?
Heh, that looks like plain ol’ spam, actually. We’ll see if Brendan responds.
Keep ‘em coming, Bruce. This post is a real doozy.
That necrophilia segment was…. well… perfectly done. ^_^
First of all I think its important that you put scripture into context, 1Timothy is a letter Paul, a missionary, sends to Timothy, another missionary…
And 1 Timothy 1:18-19 says;
“This Charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,…”
(English Standard)
-When Paul tells timothy to wage the good warfare, hes telling him to basically fight the good fight, carry his cross, etc. Remember, this was a time when Christians were flogged, beaten, and killed for being “different”. Jesus himself was nailed to a cross for being too “different”. Anyway, before he forgave the people who crucified him for being different while still on the cross, he taught a message that I think any informed person should already be aware of… Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, if a man takes your cloak give him your sandals as well… I dont think Jesus ever gave anyone a “license” to persecute anyone. In fact, just after he was betrayed, and just before he was murdered, in the garden of gethsemane, roman soldiers come to seize him, and in anger Peter, one of the apostles, cuts off one of the soldiers ears. Jesus scolds him, basically calling him an idiot and then puts the guy’s ear back on…
1 Timothy 6:3-12 :
“Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. ”
(English Standard)
-As A Christian, I firmly believe that The words of Jesus are words of truth (or “sound” as the scriptures put it). So anyone who would claim that his words were not truth would be lying. Therefore, if a person takes something out of context and tries to use it to teach something other than the truth…like yourself, and obviously the writers of Bible man have, then that person is a “False teacher”. So I ask, what is so wrong with saying “be careful who you listen to, b/c not everyone is honest, and not everyone is concerned with your best interest”. If anything it seems like REALLY good advice for anyone, ESPECIALLY early Christians who risked death for upholding the teachings of Jesus. To compare suicide bombers to missionaries is utterly ridiculous and you should be ashamed for trying to use freaking bible man to stereotype all of Christianity. Guess what, Christ isnt Bible man, infact, if you read up on Bible man you would find that the actor portraying him basically lived the life of a pornstar. “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”… Seems like Bible man should have actually READ THE BIBLE… And anyone who wants to know anything about what Christ teaches should do the same. I for one, cant stand religion, i think its the worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity… If you take religion out of the picture ( which is basically a bunch of stuff that PEOPLE made up,(not God.)) then you will find that Christianity is not as crazy as some would claim it to be, but rather revolutionary in that the key to one’s salvation does not lie in one’s own hands, and is not determined by anything one does or aspires to do… but relies completely on the slaughter of our God, Jesus Christ, and his resurrection… You have to realize that we believe that without Jesus Christ we are doomed to an eternity without hope, without love, without life. And the wonderful thing is that we freaking deserve it! We deserve to die! all of us! AND HE HAS FREED US… in him we live. Think of seeing your son die and knowing that one day you will get to spend an eternity with him…that means forever… Why WOULDNT you shout that from the roof tops?! Why WOULDNT you “fight the good fight of faith” and love others as your King, and redeemer commanded you?! Guess what, in my opinion, were different, why?! B/c youll say im crazy for disagreeing with you, while ill say I dont agree with you, but I still love You.
Theres Christianity for you my friend.
He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Secularly speaking, and based on your comment, I find these words apply to you.
Oh yes,
You have to realize that we believe that without Jesus Christ we are doomed to an eternity without hope, without love, without life. And the wonderful thing is that we freaking deserve it! We deserve to die! all of us!
I had to wipe metaphorical spittle off my face upon reading this.
We realize you (profess to) believe it, OK?
Daniel,
I think when you claim that “we” (meaning all of us including those that don’t agree with you) deserve to die, you make my case for me.
Don’t involve others in your death wish. If you want to end you life fine, just stay away from mine.
Bruce
Incidentally Daniel, you’ve taken my treatment of Timothy out of context; I was parodying someone else’s interpretation.
You false teacher, you.
I, good metaphorical spittle covered sir, have no death wish. I do however realize that everyone is guilty in one form or another, of sin(especially my self). A.K.A. disobeying the God that I dont “profess” to believe in, but rather know exists from my personal relationship with him(as weird as that may sound). Therefore, scripture tells us (even though none of you believe this) that the wages of sin is indeed death. Not in the physical sense, but deeper than that. This means that we are all dead (in that we are all guilty…whether we choose to accept that or not) and will remain dead unless we accept the gift that is freely offered in Jesus Christ. This does not mean that Im going to kill myself, or kill anyone else, thats a ridiculous interpretation… if anything it means that we should tell people about Christ, and what hes done for them, so that they too might be saved. So you see, the reason im so passionate about your post is that in essence, even though Bible man is obviously a load of crap, is that you seem to take the themes from Bible man and superimpose them on the whole of what I believe in. Which is obviously very important to me. I think Bible man is ridiculous, I agree with you, its stupid and Id never let my kids watch that. You basically pointed out all the twisted crap thats in Bible man, then you took scripture that, out of context, would seem to completely justify what Bible man teaches, when in fact it wouldnt have, had you provided any context at all, which you failed to. I didnt take your treatment of Timothy out of context, I simply included what you failed to, so people could at least see that Christianity isn’t based on half of the bible, or a few lines here or there, but rather the whole thing…I completely agree with your assessment that Bible man is wrong…believe me I do, but I wont let you preach to people about it, simply to point out that a “Christian” show is hypocritical. I mean, whens the last time you saw a show where the good guy kills the bad guy right?(<- sarcasm)… Also, how can MYSELF saying WE possibly exclude myself and everyone else who believes? Talk about taking out of context… thats ridiculous… I think i even said all of us with an exclamation point at the end… Oh and sorry my beliefs offend you John, but we do believe that without Jesus we are doomed, which is why we love him so much, and this is why I posted in the first place, b/c i freaking love him, and I just wanted you all to know why. I dont know if you realize that I have something to be ecstatic about, something to cry about, something to laugh about. If you were on your death bed, and the one who created you, was crucified for you, and has personally carried you through every struggle that you ever encountered, and this person, this person was the person who was meant for you, this person completes you, this person who breathes meaning into your life gives you his hand and says “Come with me to the place where you belong, your home, where you’ve always belonged.” . Then this person, who has loved you even before you were born and like no one else could ever love you , or know you, escorts you into an eternity in paradise. What would you do, what would you say… when you see your sister or your mother who you thought were gone forever. What can you do when your dead mother embraces you and gives you a kiss… shes young just as you remembered her as a child, as she was always meant to look, and you realize that this really is as good as it could ever get… Just thinking about that brings tears to my eyes and you would dare insinuate that I think godliness is a means of gain… Understand that there is nothing here that wont disappear, there is nothing here that will last forever… He is my gain, He is my gift, He is my everything, and so excuse me if Im passionate about the very subject for which I live.
-Daniel
good metaphorical spittle covered sir
Consider this your last warning for name calling.
I didnt take your treatment of Timothy out of context…
Yes you did. You are doing it again. I made a treatment of an interpretation of Timothy, not a treatment of Timothy itself. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the militants who adhere to that interpretation, not me. It’s not my baggage.
The rest of your argument from assertions as well as general mental gymnastics I’ve ignored.
Daniel
I completely agree with your assessment that Bible man is wrong…believe me I do, but I wont let you preach to people about it, simply to point out that a “Christian” show is hypocritical.
First, Bruce isn’t preaching, he’s exposing and ridiculing. It’s quite different.
Second, you agree with his post, but not with his reason for posting it. Fine, you’ve said it.
Third, you’re preaching. So you do what you accuse Bruce of doing.
Fourth, your beliefs hardly offend me. I find them laughable, pitiable and pathetic, but not offensive so long as you don’t act them out.
Fifth, paragraphs can be inserted by using a blank line.
Sixth, you chose to interject dissent where you could have merely said “as a Christian I too find this repulsive” and been amicable. What was that Timothy quote again?
Bruce, let me know if I should stop feeding Daniel.
Feed away. I can manage things with various tools if they get out of hand.
The only thing I ask of anyone is that they don’t go around abusing each other or using red herrings/spam/flooding to divert people away from criticising the key point(s) under discussion.
I haven’t seen any of that yet. Except for my satire of a specific interpretation of Timothy being misrepresented as a satire of Timothy itself (or rather just another interpretation that views itself as the true interpretation – I may pull out Ninglun’s Alice in Wonderland allusion).
No worries, Bruce.
Anyway, I think Daniel would be best served by posting his take on Bible Man on the various Christian boards. As he said, Bible man is obviously a load of crap.
If it’s obvious to Daniel, I suggest it’s obvious to anyone.
So, in a sense, thank you Daniel.
I wish it was obvious to those people who take their kids to see the live show.
Ouch! You’re right and that’s scary.
Still, it’s pretty bad when a passionate proselytiser can peg it.
I cannot fathom the mindset of those beyond that level, being sane.
Bruce i wasn’t name calling as much as I was pointing out the absurd reference to me spitting on someone metaphorically made by john when in fact I was included in the group that you claimed that I claimed that i wasnt in (so i guess the real question is… why would i spit on myself?”.<– now if thats not mental gymnastics I don’t know what is… If anyone should be scolded about anything its John for saying that he believes my beliefs to be “laughable, pitiable and pathetic”… if those aren’t words meant to create conflict then sue me… Bruce your piece would have been tolerable had you at least had the good decency to give people the context that would have made the interpretation of Timothy NOT psychotic but rather a reflection of the works and teachings of Jesus Christ…which if im not mistaken is what Christianity encompasses. So rather, my argument takes nothing out of context, it simply adds much needed context so that readers can get an idea as to what Timothy actually means. I would also ask you to stop speaking down to me, I am a logical person believe it or not, I wasn’t raised up on 700 club propaganda or forced to salute the flag of God every morning, if anything my parents didn’t really view God as a priority of any sort… Yet here I stand, educated, politically informed, and I believe that what the Bible says is true, so Id appreciate it if you would refrain from comments such as “Still, it’s pretty bad when a passionate proselytiser can peg it. I cannot fathom the mindset of those beyond that level, being sane.”… Since when did people who had some sort of hope, or some sort of aspiration other than for what society deems valuable become weird? I don’t know, If anything I think were all in this thing together. Its not you verses me, Its not us and them, its us… it always has been. We are people and we are equal and God loves us all. And I still love you guys. Deal with it. In the end Im not trying to prove anyone wrong but just standing up for what I believe to be important (that scripture be presented as relatively sane and not questionable material that would give anyone the right to kill or hate or persecute anyone.). If you’d like to comment I’d ask that you would please respond to my reasoning and not my means of getting it across… be open minded.
Id also ask that you not remove my thread from here and put it in the “Christian” thread as I dont think that thats a step in the right direction as far as approaching this as adults who don’t think ourselves better or worse for believing or not believing in Christ goes… But i guess its your thread your call. As for paragraphs…who needs em? I certainly dont.
As for paragraphs…who needs em? I certainly dont.
(Or commas, for that matter.)
Daniel, you’re the one who made a point of telling readers about your belief, so I told you what I think of them in perfectly plain language. No such comment would have occurred had you kept your entire comment to the topic at hand, and irrelevantly spent the last part preaching.
By “Christian boards” I meant other than Bruce’s blog, which is not one.
PS You might wish to read the “about” for the blog before posting again.
PPS At least you use punctuation.
Correction: …and not irrelevantly…
Bruce i wasn’t name calling as much as I was pointing out the absurd reference to me spitting on someone metaphorically made by john…
Consider the warning withdrawn then.
I was included in the group that you claimed that I claimed that i wasnt in…
I haven’t claimed anything about what group you are in, or what group you claim to be in.
Daniel, Bruce made no such claim, I did.
I stand by my opinion that you are a passionate proselytiser.
Feel free.
Oh and any preaching you may deem irrelevant is probably just me trying to give you an idea of why im a “passionate proselytiser”. A guy died for me and rescued me from hell… not to mention everyone else…its kind of a big deal… theres a reason there are martyrs…
Bruce Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Daniel,
I think when you claim that “we” (meaning all of us including those that don’t agree with you) deserve to die, you make my case for me.
Don’t involve others in your death wish. If you want to end you life fine, just stay away from mine.
Bruce
…uhhhh
It doesnt matter why you said what you said, or how you said what you said, its the fact that you said it. Believe it or not, if i told a jewish person that i think that his belief in the holocaust was “laughable, pitiable and pathetic” in PLAIN ENGLISH… he would probably be offended…dont you think?
Its obvious that by Christian boards you mean a different board… I knew that when i said what i said…
“Id also ask that you not remove my thread from here and put it in the “Christian” thread as I dont think that thats a step in the right direction as far as approaching this as adults who don’t think ourselves better or worse for believing or not believing in Christ goes.”
If Bruce is a true believer in free speech and of cultural and social barriers being knocked down then I think that my reasoning should sit well with him.
-Ill make sure to stop using punctuation <–thats a good start
-Love ya
Clearly, the loving God of the New Testament has either been revised or retrofitted back into his bad-ass Old Testament persona.
-I respect that comment bruce.
Wow, take a believer, and few non believers and kids DVD trying to put across a Christian message and boooooommmmmm!
lol
I as a Christian have only one Bibleman DVD. The one where he is trying to teach a kid not too lose his temper.
As far as i am concerned, anything that gets my kids running to check the bible scriptures quoted to see if they are right, is a good thing. I now have kids that are really trying not to react violently to each other, that is not a bad thing.
On another really basic level, it is a damn site better than Power Rangers!
There is a lot of poor teaching about Christianity, and i am not going to get involved in an argument, especially since i am no where near good enough with words or grammar.
I hold firm to telling my kids, if they are not sure, and even if they think they are sure, check it out in the Bible.
Parents have a mind boggling array of stuff out there, and they all have to make informed decisions as to what their kids can and should get involved in, and what is unhealthy and unhelpful to their growth, mentally and spiritually.
“I hold firm to telling my kids, if they are not sure, and even if they think they are sure, check it out in the Bible.”
Oh dear.
There’s lots of juicy bits in the Bible – you’d be safer using the Brothers Grimm. More uplifting.
Wow, take a believer, and few non believers and kids DVD trying to put across a Christian message and boooooommmmmm!
I was talking primarily about the game.
Are you trying to tell me that a game where you go out and shoot people for demonstrating a different opinion, particularly secular opinion, is putting across a particularly Christian message?
I seem to remember Jesus saying something about leaving to Caesar, what is Caesar’s, not popping a cap in the ass of anyone who won’t submit to a particular Church orthodoxy.
There’s lots of juicy bits in the Bible – you’d be safer using the Brothers Grimm. More uplifting.
Shockheaded Peter feels neglected that you don’t mention him.
I bow to your erudition – I had to look him up.
Stephanie, now that sounds ideal – I’m sure it’s much gentler on the psyche than the Bible. You know, kind of like panadeine is gentler on the stomach than aspirin.
The Caesar thing was a reference to taxes, nothing else.
At the end of the day, you have right to decide whatever you want to believe, i am the last person who has the right to judge anyone.
I wasn’t trying to say the game is particularly Christian, as i said, i only have one DVD, i have not seen the game. But if the game is as violent as you say, how is it in its basic level any different to any other violent game that kids are bombarded with? As to the message, i cannot comment. Or is it that the game is trying to convey a Christian message that offends you?
Any Christian claiming to have it right, needs to examine themselves very carefully, a scripture about taking the the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck in another mans springs to mind.
Well, I’m sure there are tamer interpretations of biblical writings out there (I say “biblical writings” due to Ninglun’s observation that “The Bible” probably doesn’t so much constitute a single book as rather a series of writings authored over time).
It’s mainly this “Hey kids! Shoot them secularists!” spin that’s been put on it that scares me.
But if the game is as violent as you say, how is it in its basic level any different to any other violent game that kids are bombarded with?
For a start, games like Grand Theft Auto and so forth aren’t marketed to kids. Bibleman is.
Secondly, games like Grand Theft Auto don’t single out outgroups as targets of violence. Bibleman does. It singles people out on the basis of secularist activism.
Thirdly, I didn’t say Bibleman was as violent as other games. My point has consistently been that Bibleman errs in that it identifies secularists as legitimate targets of violence, as is explicitly clear in the marketing material (hence you can’t deny knowledge of it).
Or is it that the game is trying to convey a Christian message that offends you?
That’s a blatantly disingenuous question, Stephany. I won’t dignify it with an answer. Your continued participation in discussion here is amongst other things, contingent on your honesty, so no more putting words in my mouth, thank you very much.
Or is it that the game is trying to convey a Christian message that offends you?
Is it “the Christian message” that you should kill apostates?
Oh, wait . . .
I whole heartedly apologize for causing offense, that was never my intention. I was not referring to something like Grand Theft Auto, as far as my limited knowledge goes, that is rated M+ or something like that, so unlikely to be allowed in my house, let alone near my kids.
I admit to having to look up disingenuous on my computer since i had no clue to what it meant, and i have to sincerely say i wasn’t trying to pretend anything, it was a genuine question based on a recent chat with someone, again, apologies for coming across as fake.
We will have to agree to disagree. Aside from anything else i have neither the time nor the inclination to keep looking up words! lol. I just wanted to voice my own opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to reply and engage, i appreciate your comments and will think on them more.
The scripture verse that your link returns 2 Chronicles 15v13 needs to be read in the context of the whole chapter It is very easy to take a scripture out of context, just as easily as it is easy to take almost anything someone says, and put it out of context.
For example and no doubt this is a terrible example,
if i was overheard to say “argh I am going to kill that dog!”
You may report me to the RSPCA.
In the context of the hypothetical dog barking all night, and the knowledge that i was just venting frustration, puts the statement in a totally different light.
Just as taking the above scripture on its own merit, sounds completely different when the entire chapter of 19 verses is read.
You’re quite right, Stephany, context is very important.
Let’s see…
This guy, Azariah, got all inspired by God and tells this influential guy, Asa, about how Israel has been in bad shape for a while, what with it not it being safe to travel about nations crushing each other and suchlike (since “God was troubling them with every kind of distress”), and that’s ‘cos they’d turned away from God which means God turned away from them. “Hm”, goes Asa.
So, Asa got everyone together, off they went a-rampage, and “removed the detestable idols from the whole land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns he had captured in the hills of Ephraim”.
Afterwards, out of the plunder, “they sacrificed to the LORD seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats”, and finally took an oath to indiscriminately kill anyone who didn’t worship the LORD.
So, anyway, Asa went on to depose his granny, stuff his temple with the leftover plunder, and “There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of Asa’s reign.”
Yay! They made the LORD happy!
Me being heathen and all, it seems to me the moral of the story is “don’t piss the LORD off, or else”.
Stephany, I anticipated that you would attempt the “context” defense. I suggest that you do as you counsel me to do, and read the chapter. There’s nothing there that lends the slightest bit of credence to your interpretation.
Indeed, reading the verse alongside all of the other verses in chapter 15 simply underlines how abhorrent is the Old Testament, and how woefully it serves as a guide to ethics. A religious dictator and his followers conquer a land by force, denying the inhabitants their religious freedom and destroying their “idols” . . . and then putting to death all who would not follow their religion, “whether small or great, man or woman.” I could just as easily be describing Afghanistan under the Taliban.
John: you beat me to it
Stephany: Earlier, you said “At the end of the day, you have right to decide whatever you want to believe.”
No, no, no. It doesn’t work that way. We don’t decide what we believe: we’re either convinced of the truth of a proposition, or we’re not. I can’t decide to believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns if there is no evidence that they exist, for instance.
Oops, sorry for setting off your snare, AV.
Anyway, I’m sure they were very practical people. I mean, God likes the smell of burning entrails so they got to have the leftovers (i.e. giant BBQ) and the gold and silver gets stashed away.
Funny enough, Asa used it later to bribe another king to attack his enemies but it backfired, because God had a seer tell him he was to punished for not turning to God to solve his problem in the first place: “You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.”
Love the next verse:
10 Asa was angry with the seer because of this; he was so enraged that he put him in prison. At the same time Asa brutally oppressed some of the people.
I note that, though Asa then suffered with a severe foot disease, “Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians” until he died. I guess he finally got wise.
Me being heathen and all, it seems to me the moral of the story is “don’t piss the LORD off, or else”.
Well, it could be the old “Old-Testament-being-descriptive-rather than-dictating-good-behaviour” shtick as is often the case with interpretations of the tale of Lot.
Rather than “undertake genocide and God will be happy”, the “moral” of the tale could just be that genocide removes your opponents, hence no war. More stone age social commentary than ethics.
No, no, no. It doesn’t work that way. We don’t decide what we believe…
Which brings us back to Bibleman. Even if we could decide to be convinced of something other than God, we wouldn’t be given the choice if the narrative within became the norm. At least not in as far as living a life in accordance with those beliefs.
The “wacky protesters” that Bibleman targets (literally) are those who don’t want teachers leading prayer in public schools, who don’t want observance of sectarian dogma made compulsory in the public domain (mandatory oaths to God, religious tests for employment etc) and who don’t want sectarian dogma dictating what they do in their own homes, or whom they chose to love and how.
Bibleman (the computer game) encourages the deprivation of liberty through sectarian violence. It’s utterly two-faced for anyone to come out and advocate for Bibleman (the computer game) while at the same time claiming to have a “live and let live” attitude towards people holding different beliefs.
Orwell, as often is the case, is useful conceptually in this case.
Orwell, as often is the case, is useful conceptually in this case.
Spot the tautology.
Elegant? Perhaps not. Tautology? I don’t think so.
Oh behave, you.