I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on bad teachings and goals in Christian video games.

Not just things that are bad, but things that are flat out WRONG.

For instance, picture this with me.

I've seen some games marketed as "Christian" because you're a guy who is out there fighting demons. Archangel, I've seen you post on more than one occasion where you've quoted Ephesians where we're taught that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities, etc etc. HOWEVER, this does not mean that we're taught to "storm the gates of Hell". However, I've seen some games that seem to do almost that. When confronted by Satan, what does the Bible teach us to do? Hint: It's not to "pull out our Sword of the Spirit and divide his soul from spirit". We're told to resist the Devil and he will flee. We're taught to run from temptation.

Doesn't that create a problem with Christian computer games though? How much fun is that? It's like having a game where waves upon waves of enemies attack you and you've got one button "pray" that you mash repeatedly. "You win! New high score!" </sarcasm>

Also, we must be careful when treading into ground that we don't know much about, such as demonology and the spiritual realm. Is it really proper for a player to control an angel or seraphim or other type of supernatural being and to fight demons in the spiritual plane? We don't know much if anything about the spiritual plane, and we want to be careful about putting ideas about such things into the minds of the players (especially if they're not Christian or don't know that the Bible doesn't actually teach these things, especially if it's being marketed as a "Christian" game).

Do any of you share the same struggles that I do in game design? I would like a game to be doctrinally correct, but it's hard to find many things with a Christian purpose that's not terribly boring/cheesy/meaningless/wrong.

Thoughts? Comments?

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited October 14, 2004).]

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

I think a Christian game is a Christian game if it teaches Christian views than saying that you are a Christian and you take on demons.

I presented a Christian game idea in the design forum that I think is on the right track.

I also think a good Christian game is not one that mainly preaches to Christian since it would be like doctors dealing with the healthy.

Jesus used parables a lot because they relate to us, and I think that they make us look at things in a more natural way. I've decided to go that route as well. (For the most part)

But I believe that the most important thing to remember when designing a Christian game is prayer. Cause otherwise we could end up with a "Christian" game that isn't really a part of God's plan, and that's not my intention, not at all.

------------------
3rd Day Studios

"So many laughing at Jesus,"
"Well the funniest thing that He's done,"
"Is love this poor stubborn rebellious world,"
"While the hate for Him just goes on."

However, i think you're trying to pull out a perfect allegory between the game world and spiritual warfare. it isn't necessarily a perfect allegory. that's probably why I support those games and you don't.

------------------
Soterion Studios

quote:

---

However, i think you're trying to pull out a perfect allegory between the game world and spiritual warfare. it isn't necessarily a perfect allegory. that's probably why I support those games and you don't.

---

Yeah that's a good point and I can relate to that, cause I tried it for about a year and I always ran into a dead end. Although that might be due to my lack of prayer in those sad days.

Also I want to add this

quote:

---

I've seen some games marketed as "Christian" because you're a guy who is out there fighting demons. Archangel, I've seen you post on more than one occasion where you've quoted Ephesians where we're taught that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities, etc etc. HOWEVER, this does not mean that we're taught to "storm the gates of Hell". However, I've seen some games that seem to do almost that. When confronted by Satan, what does the Bible teach us to do? Hint: It's not to "pull out our Sword of the Spirit and divide his soul from spirit". We're told to resist the Devil and he will flee. We're taught to run from temptation.

---

When making a game, most of the time the main (fighter) character isn't the average guy just trying to survive, and then the devil attacks him, and he goes and fights the devil with the Sword of the Spirit. It's more like "You are Chosen for this special mission, God wants to use YOU in a HUGE way!" In times past there were many men like this, Moses, Gideon, Samson, David and many more. A very important thing to remember is that even though this business of Christian games is a ministry, that we are also designing games, we have to make those fun but at the same time they have to be "God lead". As far as spiritual warfare goes, I haven't seen a Christian Game yet that I haven't enjoyed or thought highly of. I honestly haven't.

------------------
3rd Day Studios

"So many laughing at Jesus,"
"Well the funniest thing that He's done,"
"Is love this poor stubborn rebellious world,"
"While the hate for Him just goes on."

[This message has been edited by brandon (edited October 15, 2004).]

Wow, thanks so much for the great response! I appreciated reading all of your replies.

Bennythebear:

quote:

---

if you follow the bible it would be a fun way for people to learn about king david and all that went on. although i'm not sure how you would manage to have the user control the action in the war, and stay biblicly sound, unless the end of the war had a scene that played how it ended and what happened afterword. like they do the fighting, and after they win, let's say if in the bible king david cut off the head of the opposing king it would go to a scene showing that and following what the bible said david said and etc. i think it would make a great game if done correctly.

---

That's a really interesting idea. Like you said, it would be *really* interesting if it could be pulled off. There's always the hard question though of "what happens when you lose" kind of idea. Hrm. Maybe you could play the part of one of David's generals (not Joab, but maybe one of the mighty men or whatever) and just control a troupe that has a specific mission, but whether or not you win or lose, the battle still has roughly the same outcome and the story still progresses unchanged.

Interesting thoughts Benny, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks!

Klumsy:
Thanks for the warm greetings! I'm really impressed by the setup and community you all have here, thanks for making me welcome!

Warsong:

quote:

---

I think if we deal with the spiritual realm we should get the reference form a book. I have a book about after life that a friend of mine game me but I did not read it fully.

---

In a way, that's exactly what I'm scared about though. How does Frank Peretti know any better about how to deal with the spiritual realm than we do? I was searching for game premises in Christian books last summer, and two of the books I read were by Peretti. How does he know what the rules are for demons and angels? Sure, it's fun stuff to theorize about, but if we're making Christian games for Christian teaching (both to Christians and non-Christians), I really don't think Peretti (or things like his stuff) is a sound way to go.

quote:

---

I think a Christian game is a Christian game if it teaches Christian views than saying that you are a Christian and you take on demons.
*snip*
I also think a good Christian game is not one that mainly preaches to Christian since it would be like doctors dealing with the healthy.

---

I think that's a very good point about preaching to Christians. How does one make something entertaining for non-Christians though? I guess this is the same question that POD and Kutlass and Switchfoot are dealing with though.

Brandon:
Thanks for replying, Brandon! I appreciate your concern and your heart for the issue. It sounds like you've thought along a lot of the same lines that I have.

quote:

---

And though it's not hard to come up with a cool game idea, it's hard to make it fit in the "not wrong" category.

---

It's tough to hammer out what a good game should be though. What purposes should it try to accomplish? God forbid that I spend a lot of time on something that is merely a "stale alternative". I don't want to make an "alternative", I want to make something that is good and fun and right on it's own, irrespective of what other computer games are out there that this might be an "alternative" to.

quote:

---

Jesus used parables a lot because they relate to us, and I think that they make us look at things in a more natural way. I've decided to go that route as well. (For the most part)

---

quote:

---

But I believe that the most important thing to remember when designing a Christian game is prayer. Cause otherwise we could end up with a "Christian" game that isn't really a part of God's plan, and that's not my intention, not at all.

---

ArchAngel:
Howdy! Not sure if you were addressing me in your post or not, but I'll reply to you as if you were.

Thanks for disagreeing with me! I appreciate critique on my thoughts, and I hope that if I'm off in my thinking, that you can help point it out to me.

I see so many non-Christians with false ideas about what it means to be a Christian, and how Christians look at the world. That's my first fear, is to turn off non-Christians because they get a false image through false doctrine in our music/stories/games.

Second, we shouldn't try to make games that are "off a little bit for the sake of being more fun". We should make games that are true, that are right, that are noble, that are of good report. If we can't have fun playing a game that's accurately related to the Christian life, then why are we playing it at all?

Third, if a Christian game is going to have a positive impact (as opposed to just having a less-negative impact than secular games), people have to take something from the game that applies to real life. Whether their thought life, prayer life, how they deal with others, etc. If we make things too untrue or ideas that have analogies that break down too quickly, we lose so much of the positive impact we can have on people as game makers.

That being said, I don't want to discount all of the great work that has been done through so many Christian games. I'm not expecting games that are perfect, though I am concerned with the level of standards that I've seen in many games.

Brandon Pt. #2:
Thanks for replying again! You raise some very good points.

quote:

---

In times past there were many men like this, Moses, Gideon, Samson, David and many more.

---

For that reason, it seems like we're safer sticking with allegory, but it would be really sorry if we couldn't teach more from the Bible than abstract theological concepts.

Thanks so much for all of your replies guys! I look forward to seeing where this all leads.

A brother in Christ,
clint

The "delve too deeply" quote transitions into my other question from this topic (since it is taken from Tolkien). the Lord of the Rings is a great example of a story, which is among the most epic every imagined, it has everything, so much so that pretty much every fantasy book, movie, and game since has been a cheep knock off from it, and yet it is entirely christian. Its ideas, concepts and philosophies are all born out of christianity, the values it teaches are all christian. In fact I would go so far to say that most people could probably learn better christian philosophy from the Lord of the Rings than from a good portion of the christian non fiction books that have been written.
So why is it that we today, as christians, some how feel that we can't make products of similar genre, we can't make things that depict realistic struggles, with realistic people, in a realistic world? Why can't we make products that reflect the fact that sometimes people who serve evil attack those who serve good, and even servants of good have to fight? Because he did this Tolkien was able to illustrate beatifuly the difference between the best men who fight with bravery when they are forced to defend good, but love peace and crave an end to war, and the less wise who fight for good but grow to love war. These are the kind of things that make truly epic stories and struggles, and they're the kind of things that resonate with the human spirit and ring true to us. Am I the only one who feels this way?

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:
... The bible contains little explicit information on demons and angels, but it does have some significant hints, especially when it is studied in the light of extra biblical jewish literature such as the apocrypha and the book of enoch (which is actually quoted in the bible). So it is possible to know more than most people do about the spiritual world and its denizens, HOWEVER, IT IS STILL DANGEROUS. It is dangerous to "delve too deeply into the workings of the enemy" It can be very seductive and subtle. I don't think I can over stress the danger of being lightly involved with something like that.

---

It's very dangerous to delve too deeply into the workings of the enemy, I agree. I also agree that it's dangerous to take things lightly.

It's another thing entirely to read the enemy's propoganda (that being, false books of the Bible) for one's information.

I agree, the book of Jude is a tough subject, and one which I am not able to give judgement. (the otherwise-unknown event between Michael and Satan over Moses's body, and the quotation from the Book of Enoch) There's a lot of spiritual information in the book of Enoch, but is it accurate? Just because an author quotes from something, doesn't mean that they believe the quoted source entirely. For an example of this, see Mars Hill, where Paul references the Greek's religion to reach them better.

I'm just *very* scared of going to apochryphal books for information regarding the spiritual realm. This is an intriguing area, and it is one in which the Devil would *love* to insert untruths and lies into our thinking.

Reading things like the the Gospel of Nicodemus (sometimes the Acts of Pontius Pilate) give us a very good view of how the spiritual realm looks, but I don't think I can trust it. It's fun to theorize about that stuff as Christians, but unless something is true, I have a hard time evangelising with it.

quote:

---

The "delve too deeply" quote transitions into my other question from this topic (since it is taken from Tolkien). the Lord of the Rings is a great example of a story, which is among the most epic every imagined, it has everything, so much so that pretty much every fantasy book, movie, and game since has been a cheep knock off from it, and yet it is entirely christian. Its ideas, concepts and philosophies are all born out of christianity, the values it teaches are all christian. In fact I would go so far to say that most people could probably learn better christian philosophy from the Lord of the Rings than from a good portion of the christian non fiction books that have been written.
So why is it that we today, as christians, some how feel that we can't make products of similar genre, we can't make things that depict realistic struggles, with realistic people, in a realistic world? Why can't we make products that reflect the fact that sometimes people who serve evil attack those who serve good, and even servants of good have to fight? Because he did this Tolkien was able to illustrate beatifuly the difference between the best men who fight with bravery when they are forced to defend good, but love peace and crave an end to war, and the less wise who fight for good but grow to love war. These are the kind of things that make truly epic stories and struggles, and they're the kind of things that resonate with the human spirit and ring true to us. Am I the only one who feels this way?

---

No, you're not the only one to feel this way. However, who would you say has been served by Tolkien more? Pagans or Christians?

How many wiccans have you known who are totally into LOTR? That kind of fantasy fights right into their ideals. When compared side-by-side, one could say that it's a better illustration of Wiccan ideals than of Christian.

Satan creates little new material -- so much of what he does is just a twisting and a perversion of the truth. If you gray things out too much, then you don't know if it's pointing to a twisted version of the truth or to the truth itself.

For a perfect example of this, take a look at Final Fantasy X -- one of the most clear allegories I've seen in a video game, where the storyline talks directly with good and evil and even goes so far as to call evil "sin". How Christian is the game? Christians can gain from it, though so can Wiccans and Muslims and Zoroastrians and any other group that shares similar ideals of good and evil, though lacks a savior.

That's probably the clearest difference between Tolkien and Lewis's writings -- a picture of Christ.

Who is Christ in Tolkien? Aragorn? Not likely -- it just doesn't fit. He's too much human to be divine in any way (even if he does live for a really really long time). Gandalf? If so, not a very good Christ. He was easily fooled and decieved by Saruman, kept in the Necromancer's dungeon for a long time, etc. There is the encounter with the Balrog as a picture of sacrifice, but not in a Christlike way.

Tolkien's just not a very good one-to-one analogy. There's bits and pieces we can take out of it as Christians, but it's not something that screams "Christian and only Christian", it just seems to fit some of my friend's pagan ideals more than it fits Christianity.

I don't have a problem making a creative game, but I just want to be sure to deal with demons and evil in a way that is scriptural, and to not let wrong personal fantasy or heretical ideas to creep into the storyline or gameplay.

Just to address something in specific you said:

quote:

---

So why is it that we today, as christians, some how feel that we can't make things that depict realistic struggles, with realistic people, in a realistic world

---

I look forward to hearing your reply -- you've got some great things to say, I'd love a critique of what I'm saying.

a fellow worker in Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited October 26, 2004).]

When I made refrence to extra biblical literature such as apocrypha, and book of enoch, I basicly meant simply those two sources. I would not give gnostic gospels and the like any serious consideration. The book of Enoch deserves at least reasonable consideration considering that it is quoted in scripture. I believe the bible is inspired by God (and I expect you do as well) which means, essentially to me, that when Jude attributes that prophecy to Enoch, it was literaly given by Enoch, which means that, at least in part, the book of enoch is authentic. Your right, it is a matter for caution, and it can't be taken as scripture because we don't know if it has survived uncorrupted. However, we know that portions of it, at least, are true.
The apocrypha has an even stronger case, since all the apocryphal books were included in the church council that established the canon of scripture in the 5th century. As protestants (which I assume you are) we may not accept them as 100% authoritative, but it is undeniable that the church as a whole did accept them for over 1000 years, both the orthodox and catholic churches still have them as part of their scriptures. Personaly I think everyone should read the apocrypha for those reasons. At the very least they are good historical books and a companion to the scriptures.
The Scripture is authoritative, and inerrant, and anything that contradicts it is wrong. However, I think many times we discount things that contradict our interpetation of scripture, rather than scripture itself.

To make sure we're on the same page, by apocrypha I mean the following books 1st and 2nd Esdras, 1st and 2nd macabees, tobit, judith, bell and the dragon, ecclesiasticus... hmm I think I'm forgetting one

Now, talking about things which have elements of christian doctrine, or shadows of christian doctrine, you mention Final Fantasy X etc. Its true that a number of the world's religions have similar values when it comes to "good and evil" and a story could be taken to fit with any of them if the story talks about good and evil. True enough, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still use such stories. The story of Joseph and the coat of many colors from the old testament is a great story, it tells alot of truth and teaches great lessons, yet the muslims use the same story, and in fact, its even in the Koran. Does that mean we shouldn't use the story, or that the story is some how diminished? I don't think so. One of the great lessons you can learn from the Lord of the Rings is that the forces of evil, whenever they can, appear as good, angels of light as it were, and further that the devil isn't really very creative, he is by nature a counterfieter, he can only take what God has made and try to corrupt it.
Starwars is an interesting example. The philosophy presented in starwars is pretty much verbatim budhism, however, Budhism in many of its teachings and ethics is almost identical to christianity as a result many of the teachings in starwars can easily be applied to christian understanding. There is only a few small (but very important) differences between the two.

On the Lord of the Rings. As you say the difference between tolkien and lewis is a picture of Jesus. Thats true, mostly, and I'm sure Tolkien himself would probably agree with you because he purposely intended not to write an allegory. He thought that allegories were clumsy, uninteresting and generaly inneffective. However, in a way the Lord of the Rings does not contain one picture of Jesus, but many. The Lord of the Rings portrays not allegory but rather simply tells a story about the things in life that are true and beautiful struggling against the things that are ugly and untrue. As a result it portrays the elements of a savior, specificly of Christ. Though your correct, Aragorn is not a perfect, or even good alegory for Jesus, he does display one aspect of the Christ, he is the returning King, the king of promise. The signs of his coming are healing hands and driving away the demonic oppression of the Nazgul (you'll notice these are the same signs by which Jesus said you know the kingdom of heaven has come). Like Jesus he waits to be invited, and hailed by his subjects (he is a marvelous picture also of true authority). Gandalf also is not a perfect allegory of Jesus, as you point out, and yet he does portray elements. His substitionary death, his return in greater glory, He is a wise counselor and guide. Frodo, again not a perfect allegory, but he shows beautifuly the element of bearing the weight of the worlds sin. He carries the ring, the embodiment of evil for the sake of the free peoples of the world, he himself is consumed so that he can never again rest in peace in this life, but through that process he becomes a great light as gandalf said "for those to see who can". Much like Jesus own words about his parables. It is a common misconception that Jesus told parables to make his teachings more understandable. Jesus himself said that he spoke in parables so that "hearing they would not hear, seeing they would not see" so that those who had ears to hear might, but it would be hidden from the rest. (but I'm rambling again).
Anyway thats just scratching the surface of whats contained in the Lord of the Rings. One of the common complaints from christians is that the Lord of the Rings doesn't more clearly show God, or Jesus. God in the Lord of the Rings is always veiled, behind the scenes, hinted at but never seen. To be honest, I think this is a much more accurate portrayal of real life than a direct allegory like the chronicles of Narnia (which are great). How many of you have ever seen Jesus come walking into your living room, or seen the hand of God, or even seen an angel? Not many I'd guess, I never have, and I don't know anyone who ever has. The point here is that God moves in subtle ways, he is always moving around us and through us, accomplishing his purposes but usualy we don't see it, only when we stop and really think about it do we understand that God has moved things in our lives to serve his purposes. This is exactly the way God is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.

Can wiccans draw parallels with their beliefs, sure. On the surface the Lord of the Rings would probably seem to fit pretty well with their views. I think the comparisons they may draw, however, are only very surfacey and don't really touch the deeper elements of the story. Much like budhism and christianity, on the surface they are so close that some people have actualy theorized that Jesus studied budhism.. however, fundamentaly, on the deeper levels, they are totaly different, on some things even opposite I would say.

I also am looking forward to your replies, good conversation is always beneficial and fun

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

[This message has been edited by simon_templar (edited October 26, 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:
The book of Enoch deserves at least reasonable consideration considering that it is quoted in scripture. I believe the bible is inspired by God (and I expect you do as well) which means, essentially to me, that when Jude attributes that prophecy to Enoch, it was literaly given by Enoch, which means that, at least in part, the book of enoch is authentic.

---

I think I would disagree with you here. Jude references it as the prophecy given by Enoch -- it's much like us quoting Shakespeare or Aristotle or anyone else we're not sure of what they actually wrote or what their fans/followers wrote. Though we're not always sure what they wrote, it's still attributed to him. Anyone familiar with those works is familiar with the baggage that comes along with them. It seems as though one would say "As Aristotle wrote, yadda yadda yadda", just references that, not necessarily that Aristotle actually wrote yadda yadda yadda, but that it's attributed to him for reference. Jude saying that Enoch wrote that prophecy very well may just be a qualifier for people's reference, not necessarily actual fact.
Looking at the Book of Enoch itself, it's pretty sketchy for that book to come from Enoch (as written in the first-person). Nothing's written about the book anywhere else, it's not referenced anywhere in the old testament (though it references several books that we don't have, it doesn't reference this one that we do have), it wasn't recognized even as part of the Apocrypha. When Moses wrote the Pentatuch, he doesn't draw from it for his Genesis account. It's just all very sketchy.

Though, please keep in mind that this is all from the perspective of one who currently would sooner question the invalidity of Jude than the validity of Enoch. Don't take what I have to say as necessarily right, it's just where I'm at personally.

quote:

---

Your right, it is a matter for caution, and it can't be taken as scripture because we don't know if it has survived uncorrupted. However, we know that portions of it, at least, are true.

---

To summarize what I wrote above, I would say that we know that portions of it are useful for illustrating points, but not necessarily true. I.E., Paul on Mars Hill again.

quote:

---

The apocrypha has an even stronger case, since all the apocryphal books were included in the church council that established the canon of scripture in the 5th century. As protestants (which I assume you are) we may not accept them as 100% authoritative, but it is undeniable that the church as a whole did accept them for over 1000 years, both the orthodox and catholic churches still have them as part of their scriptures. Personaly I think everyone should read the apocrypha for those reasons. At the very least they are good historical books and a companion to the scriptures.

---

quote:

---

The Scripture is authoritative, and inerrant, and anything that contradicts it is wrong. However, I think many times we discount things that contradict our interpetation of scripture, rather than scripture itself.

To make sure we're on the same page, by apocrypha I mean the following books 1st and 2nd Esdras, 1st and 2nd macabees, tobit, judith, bell and the dragon, ecclesiasticus... hmm I think I'm forgetting one

---

Wisdom or something? I don't know either. I've not read many apocryphal books.
To let you know where I'm coming from, I too believe that scripture is authoritative, inerrant (as originally written), and anything that contradicts it is wrong. "The scripture cannot be broken". I'm just not sold on what exactly is scripture, and with something like the book of Enoch, I'm extremely hesitant to use it in evangelism when there's so much better stuff to use. I'd rather not inject doubt into new Christian's lives before they can chew on it.

quote:

---

Now, talking about things which have elements of christian doctrine, or shadows of christian doctrine, you mention Final Fantasy X etc. Its true that a number of the world's religions have similar values when it comes to "good and evil" and a story could be taken to fit with any of them if the story talks about good and evil. True enough, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still use such stories.

---

Nice morals and sacrifice and all of that is good, but if it's not *Christ* it doesn't mean much to an unbeliever, they just say "Wow! That fits right in with what I believe!" That's totally what pagans do with LOTR. They say "Oooh! White magic! Ooooh, evil magic! Good earth (Bombadil/elves/ents), bad earth (Sauron, trolls, orcs, etc)". Have you read anything Zoroastrian? There is one good creator god, and an evil perverting god, the good creator god created man to help him, and the good creator god will triumph in the end over the bad perverting god. Tell me that doesn't sound like a *very* good 1-to-1 analogy in LOTR? I'm telling you, the only thing missing is Christ, and the only important thing is exactly that -- Christ.

quote:

---

The story of Joseph and the coat of many colors from the old testament is a great story, it tells alot of truth and teaches great lessons, yet the muslims use the same story, and in fact, its even in the Koran. Does that mean we shouldn't use the story, or that the story is some how diminished? I don't think so. One of the great lessons you can learn from the Lord of the Rings is that the forces of evil, whenever they can, appear as good, angels of light as it were, and further that the devil isn't really very creative, he is by nature a counterfieter, he can only take what God has made and try to corrupt it.

---

quote:

---

Starwars is an interesting example. The philosophy presented in starwars is pretty much verbatim budhism, however, Budhism in many of its teachings and ethics is almost identical to christianity as a result many of the teachings in starwars can easily be applied to christian understanding. There is only a few small (but very important) differences between the two.

---

quote:

---

On the Lord of the Rings. As you say the difference between tolkien and lewis is a picture of Jesus. Thats true, mostly, and I'm sure Tolkien himself would probably agree with you because he purposely intended not to write an allegory. He thought that allegories were clumsy, uninteresting and generaly inneffective. However, in a way the Lord of the Rings does not contain one picture of Jesus, but many.

---

quote:

---

The Lord of the Rings portrays not allegory but rather simply tells a story about the things in life that are true and beautiful struggling against the things that are ugly and untrue.

---

quote:

---

As a result it portrays the elements of a savior, specificly of Christ. Though your correct, Aragorn is not a perfect, or even good alegory for Jesus, he does display one aspect of the Christ, he is the returning King, the king of promise. The signs of his coming are healing hands and driving away the demonic oppression of the Nazgul (you'll notice these are the same signs by which Jesus said you know the kingdom of heaven has come). Like Jesus he waits to be invited, and hailed by his subjects (he is a marvelous picture also of true authority). Gandalf also is not a perfect allegory of Jesus, as you point out, and yet he does portray elements. His substitionary death, his return in greater glory, He is a wise counselor and guide. Frodo, again not a perfect allegory, but he shows beautifuly the element of bearing the weight of the worlds sin. He carries the ring, the embodiment of evil for the sake of the free peoples of the world, he himself is consumed so that he can never again rest in peace in this life, but through that process he becomes a great light as gandalf said "for those to see who can".

---

quote:

---

Much like Jesus own words about his parables. It is a common misconception that Jesus told parables to make his teachings more understandable. Jesus himself said that he spoke in parables so that "hearing they would not hear, seeing they would not see" so that those who had ears to hear might, but it would be hidden from the rest. (but I'm rambling again).

---

To sum up, Christians can benefit from LOTR (we have "ears to hear" so to speak, so we can get good things out of it), but if one doesn't have Christian "ears to hear", they're not going to hear the name of Christ.

quote:

---

Anyway thats just scratching the surface of whats contained in the Lord of the Rings. One of the common complaints from christians is that the Lord of the Rings doesn't more clearly show God, or Jesus. God in the Lord of the Rings is always veiled, behind the scenes, hinted at but never seen. To be honest, I think this is a much more accurate portrayal of real life than a direct allegory like the chronicles of Narnia (which are great). How many of you have ever seen Jesus come walking into your living room, or seen the hand of God, or even seen an angel? Not many I'd guess, I never have, and I don't know anyone who ever has. The point here is that God moves in subtle ways, he is always moving around us and through us, accomplishing his purposes but usualy we don't see it, only when we stop and really think about it do we understand that God has moved things in our lives to serve his purposes. This is exactly the way God is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.

---

quote:

---

Can wiccans draw parallels with their beliefs, sure. On the surface the Lord of the Rings would probably seem to fit pretty well with their views. I think the comparisons they may draw, however, are only very surfacey and don't really touch the deeper elements of the story.

---

quote:

---

Much like budhism and christianity, on the surface they are so close that some people have actualy theorized that Jesus studied budhism.. however, fundamentaly, on the deeper levels, they are totaly different, on some things even opposite I would say.

---

quote:

---

I also am looking forward to your replies, good conversation is always beneficial and fun

---

I agree! I hope I haven't come down on your ideas to harshly, if I have, I apologize. I seriously want to know when I'm wrong though, so please point things out to me as you see them.

Thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it, and look forward to your reply.

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited October 26, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited October 26, 2004).]

Book of Enoch: My view of scriptural inerrancy is such that when Jude, for example, says "the prophet enoch prophecied" that statement was inspired by God, it wasn't simply Jude saying, "yea this statement is attributed to Enoch, but he may not have said it". What that tells me, is that at least that small section of the book of enoch was actually passed down from enoch himself. While you are correct that the Pentatuch doesn't specificly refrence the book of enoch, it does mention events which are contained in the book of enoch. To be honest, I don't accept the book of enoch as scripture, or even something that should be seen as reliable. But for a well grounded person I think it can provide valuable information for consideration.

the refrence you use to paul on mars hill I think is a good illustration, but I would paint the difference between the two this way. Paul on mars hill said "I see you are so religious and superstitious that you have an alter to the unknown god, so you don't risk offending him, well I've come to tell you about Him". What paul said here was absolutely factual, but it in no way validates greek paganism as true religion. What Jude says doesn't validate the entire book of enoch, but it does validate that the one quote was spoken by enoch as a true prophecy.

As for your comments about bel and the dragon, and the rest of apocrypha, I understand where your coming from.. I looked at them and continue to look at them with a good deal of scepticism. However, I've come to realise that our modern protestant christianity is vastly different in practice and even more so in outlook than the church has ever been in the past. Most protestants don't have any idea that this is the case because they have been totaly divorced from the historical church. In my opinion, the protestant church, or at least a good portion there of, has been so impacted by humanism and modern materialist philosophy that our worldview is much closer to humanism than it is to historical christianity (and by that I don't mean the catholic church I mean also the church before it became Roman Catholic). I think that should raise serious questions for us. I also think that it is importantt hat we consider things like the apocrypha which were highly regarded by the early church and were actually included in the scriptures that Jesus and the apostles themselves used.

I agree very much with your comment about not confusing young believers with stuff like this. you don't give infants steak, you give them milk. As we grow in Christ, however, we need to grow beyond milk and start looking into the deeper things. When someone is ready then it is appropriate to study things like this.

Now, I disagree fundamentaly with the rest of the comments you made regarding comparative religions and fantasy stories based off diferent religions or philosphies. Your primary argument seems to be that Jesus (ie a savior) is the only real difference between the "nice" religions. Its true that Jesus is the most visible difference, the central difference, but it is far from true that he is the only difference, or even the only important difference. Wiccanism and neo-paganism is vastly different than christianity even in basic ethics and morality, let alone when you get to issues of theology. The closest comparisons are between islam and christianity, and budhism and christanity. Islam is theologicaly closer to christianity than budhism (I would say) but Budhism is ethicly closer to christianity (again in my opinion). However, the differences between christianity and either are still vast and significant.

I have spoken with budhist, and studied budhism and yes they are very nice people. However, budhism even at its closest point is fundamentaly different from christianity. Budhist teaching centers around the "noble truths" The noble truths essentially follow this line of reasoning, Life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, to be free of suffering you must be free from desire. So the goal of budhism is self denial, or more specificly denial of your desires, the ultimate goal to transcend this existence by ceasing to desire anything (the last hurdle is usualy to cease to desire to cease to desire). (in starwars parlayance this is why the Jedi are not to be attached to anyone or anything).
This doctrine produces alot of results that look like christianity, but if you really look at it, it is criticaly flawed on a number of points. First and most obvious, Christianity teaches us to desire many things. To desire to serve God, to desire the greater gifts of the Spirit so that we can edify each other and the body of Christ, to desire peace, and most importantly, Love itself is a desire, infact it is one of the most potent desires. So Christianity teaches that our desires must be conformed to Christ and God, Budhism teaches that we must not have desires.
Also, in the bible it is clear that God uses suffering to shape and mold his people. In many ways suffering in scripture can be seen as a good thing, while in budhism it is the worst thing in life and escaping it is the root of all budhist teaching.
Budhism, is a great example of how decietful our enemy really is, and how subtle. Budhism appears compassionate, yet its core teachings deny love as ultimately a source of evil. Budhism appears very like christianity and yet in truth it is an empty shell which takes people looking for peace and contentment, robs them of everything that God gave us to make life good, and repays them by leaving them empty with quite literaly the promise of nothing.

Now that brings me to another religion you mentioned, which is, in my mind, something of an exception. Zoarastrianism. To be honest I don't know much about modern zoarastrianism, but I've studied it historicaly and read some of the teachings of Zoaraster himself. while Zoarastrianism quickly became corrupted, mixing with babylonian mysticism and various other false religions from the region, the teachings of zoaraster himself are remarkably compatible with ancient Judaism. In fact the similarities between judaism and original zoarastrianism are so close that many secular historians believe that old testament judaism is a branch of zoarastrianism. They believe that the books of the OT were written after the captivity and were primarily a restatement of zoarastrianism in jewish terms. They are of course incorrect in this view. However, it does illustrate the remarkable resemblance between the two beliefs.

I must first point out that the teachings of Zoaraster himself are not dualistic, as is often said (and as the religion later became). Zoaraster himself believed and taught only one true God (Ahura-Mazda). He taught that all other gods were false gods and demons. He did believe in a force of evil, but it was not equal with God in his teachings (much like the devil in christianity is not equal with God). Zoaraster even taught about the Holy Spirit (Spetna-Maiyu)aspect of God.

Now consider this, Zoaraster lived and taught shortly before the rise of the medo-persian empire. He was not well recieved by most people and his religion survived primarily because a small king took him in and became a convert of his. The son of that small king would go on to become (unlikely as it may seem) the emperor of the medo-persian empire and his ruling name was Darius. Darius had been raised as a follower of Zoaraster, and he played a key role in befriending and defending the Hebrews in exile (we all remember Daniel in the lions den right). I think it is very likely that Zoaraster was sent by God specificly at that time to spread some truth among the persians so that God could raise up darius.
It is also interesting to note that the "wise men" who came from the east to honor Jesus after his birth, were almost certainly Zoarastrian Magi.

Zoarastrianism I have no doubt over time has fallen into darkness and paganism, especially through its mixture with babylonian religions, but I think its very likely that at the beginning it was a true revelation that God gave to the persians to prepare them to serve his purposes in protecting his people.

quote:

---

This raised a red flag in my mind when you wrote this. We are not our own saviors, we do not "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps", we are saved not of any thing we do ourselves. It is the free gift of Christ. Do you think that one could fit the "many saviors" and "we are all saviors" picture portrayed in LOTR into something non-Christian easier than into Christian philosophy?

---

This is not at all what I was trying to say. What I said was "it doesn't contain one picture of christ, but in a way it does contain many pictures of christ". I didn't mean it portrays many christs. Neither I, nor the Lord of the Rings for that matter, said anything about many saviors or we are all saviors. What I was saying is that the characters in the Lord of the rings display, in many examples, Christ-likeness. Unless I missed something, that is an important goal for all of us in life, to try to be more christlike. Because a character exhibits self sacrifice, doesn't mean he is trying to save himself, quite the opposite, it means he is exhibiting a virtue of Jesus Christ that we should all hope to emulate.
The single most clear message through out the Lord of the rings is that the characters themselves were utterly incapable of succeding in their quest. They were without final hope of victory based on their own efforts. that is made very clear. The central message is that the characters went on without hope of victory in themselves, doing what they knew they were called upon to do, and trusting that providence (God) would do what they could not. In the end frodo doesn't destroy the ring, Providence does. This is a better portrayal of the epistles of the new testament and their messages on grace and obedience than most of the doctrinal debates in the church today have accomplished. We can not succede, we can only obey and trust that God will succede for us, and through us. I think this is fundamentaly and beautifuly christian (and I might add not in the least wiccan). As an aside, even as false religions go, I'm not a fan of wiccanism... that is a polite way (in case there are any wiccans around) of saying I think wiccanism is a particularly dumb religion.

the idea of beauty and truth agaisnt lies and ugliness is not pagan, or yin and yang. In both paganism and Yin and Yang the light and dark, positive and negative are seen as equaly valid. Both sets of beliefs do not when you get down to it believe in right and wrong, good and evil. They believe in positive and negative... negative isn't wrong, or evil in their view.. its actually necessary. Thus the Goddess and her consort of wiccan/neo-pagan belief embody both positive and negative. these views believe that positive and negative struggle against each other, but that both are necessary and both should exist. This is fundamentaly different than christian doctrine (and than the Lord of the Rings). It is also another point at which I disagree with your view that Jesus is the only difference between the "nice religions". In christian view it is not positive and negative (which are really just stupid euphamisms to try and escape reality) it is good and evil. Evil is not something that is part of good, it is not something which is necessary, it is not something which should exist.. it is something that must be opposed at every turn, it must be faught in every battle, it must never be tolerated... ever. It can never be used, it can never be dabbled with it must always be shunned.

This is a huge difference between paganism and christianity as well as eastern religions and christianity.. it is the difference between absolute truth and relative morality. The concept of Good vs. Evil is very common in myth and legend for the very reason that it is true and as much as people would like to work around it, or deny it (ala neo paganism etc) we all know its true. Thats why Good vs. Evil is foundational to every epic story, because it is foundational to life, and to the christian life. Its easy to think of something like Beauty vs ugliness, truth vs lies, good vs evil as shallow, or not central or even unimportant because it is seen as common, but look at the world around you, is there anything more relavent? we are beseiged even in the church with the concept that there is no truth, that nothing is really ugly, or beautiful and that good and evil don't really exist. To be honest, this is probably the salient point of the battle for christian society right now.
In the psalms there is a verse which says "if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" This is a question we are facing right now because our foundation is almost gone. How succesful do you think you will be presenting Jesus when people no longer believe in truth, He said " I am the way the Truth and the life" how can that be if there is no truth, when the very concept of love has been perverted and destroyed, how can you tell people about a God who is love?

You say that all the people you've seen havn't gotten christ out of the Lord of the Rings? you havn't seen it take hold in them? well honestly I can't say I'm surprised. Maybe a few of these people you know havn't heard the gospel, been to church, but from my own experience among the non christian gaming and even pagan community most of them have heard the gospel many of them grew up going to church at least once in a while... and if they didn't get Christ from the gospel, or from church, they probably won't get it from Lord of the Rings either.

I don't believe the Lord of the Rings is a great witnessing tool, its probably not even a good one, but thats not my point. Games and stories in general aren't going to be great witnessing tools. They may be used in some cases but I don't think they are a media which is well suited to witnessing. I think they are a good media for teaching and for inspiring believers. I'm not really interested in making games to witness, because I don't think it will ever work well. But I think we can make games that serve to further the virtue and understanding of believers.

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

on the topic of tolkien:

quote:

---

I wasn't claiming we should use those stories, but the problem as I'm seeing it is that unless you knew before-hand that Tolkien was a Christian, then you wouldn't know that his work was Christian.

---

i love LOTR and tolkien, but there are a few things i have against it (things that go against christian worldview, rather than complement it, or be neautral), things like aragon summoning the army of the dead to fight for him etc. but most things in LOTR really speak true, and clear of UNIQUELY christian values, most religions either accept people as innately good, or see salvation,goodness, etc something to be EARNED, and attainable, and most of them think you can use any power for good , while LOTR shows clearly the human heart , which is deceitful, shows the powre of the ring as deceptive, and the desire of humans to use it for "good", which that such a thing is impossible (so though pagans grasp white/black magic, there are many things that will challenge their worldview, but mostly only if 1) the holy spirit works in the heart, and 2) somebody uses the redeeming qualities to point them BEYOND the book to the truth of hte gospel, utimately to Christ, but following how Jesus, paul interacted with people, first they met them where they were , and guided them often via some intermediatary steps to the ultimate truth,
for another example, you tell somebody "jesus loves you and died on teh cross for your sin, so you could be saved". it might not affect them , as who needs a saviour? saved from what etc? If they think they are a good person, they don't need a saviour to save them from their sin, so that is usefulness of the Law, to show us that we are indeed sinners and in need of a saviour.

another thing that unsettles me with tolkien is his works, good as they were was pretty much the genesis of a genre of fantasy that has produced a whole lot of bad fruit..

but i suppose even true chrsitianity was the founder of something that got so corrupted so often to produce so much bad fruit throughout history, stuff that had the title christian on it, but was something completely opposite, and God is the founder/creator of humanity and men have produces some horrid fruit, but we know the whole story and the context and know of God's love and righteousness.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

I was raised protestant charistmatic non denominational, and pretty strict. My parents pretty much forbade anything that had or was perceived to have new age or occult elements or overtones, everything from He-man to any RPG's (especially the arch-evil Dungeons and Dragons). I can actually still remember at christmas one year when Dungeons and Dragons was still a new product one of my brothers bought it for another brother and it was right after that, the big anti Dungeons and Dragons craze started and my parents returned the game. The only 'fantasy' things I was allowed were traditional fairy tales (brothers grimm and such) Narnia, and Lord of the Rings. To this day, I have never read any of the major "secular" fantasy novels. My fantasy experience consists of Stephen Lawhead, Tolkien, Lewis and my study of world mythologies and legends (including Jewish legend and lore which I find very interesting).

My worldview is entirely biblical christian, but I would be remiss if I did not give credit to Tolkien as well, both reading his fictional works, and also his personal letters to friends like Lewis has had a very strong influence on me. There is actually a fairly large number of christians from various denominations etc that have been very strongly influenced by tolkien. I'd have to say, in my opinion, he was the best story teller of our age.

Anyway the only other comment I wanted to make in regard to klumsy's post was not a disagreement, but rather a question.

you stated that your uneasy with tolkien because he spawned the fantasy genre which has produced alot of bad fruit. It is true that he was the father of modern fantasy literature and thus in turn of much of fantasy gaming etc. My question is this... The fantasy genre was largely abandoned by christianity and even reviled by christianity for about the last 30 years or more, do you think this is because the fantasy genre produced so much bad fruit, or do you think that the fantasy genre produced so much bad fruit because chritians abandoned it?

I tend to think it is the second option, because I think most of the bad things to come out of fantasy came after the christian anti-fantasy craze, rather than before it.

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

quote:

---

you stated that your uneasy with tolkien because he spawned the fantasy genre which has produced alot of bad fruit. It is true that he was the father of modern fantasy literature and thus in turn of much of fantasy gaming etc. My question is this... The fantasy genre was largely abandoned by christianity and even reviled by christianity for about the last 30 years or more, do you think this is because the fantasy genre produced so much bad fruit, or do you think that the fantasy genre produced so much bad fruit because chritians abandoned it?

---

that is true, if you take the light out of a room, there is nothing left but darkness, and part of it (the bad) would have happened irregardless of tolkien, and its just the reality and result of a sinful world.
though fantasy rooted in a solid biblical worldview hasn't totally died. one example (and computer game as well) is Myst, one of the best selling games of all time, made by christians with a strong christian worldview.

there are other issues about christian worldview fantasy getting in the mainstream, since the days of tolkien western secular society has gotten decidedly more antichristian and mainstream publishers often don't want to go anywhere near anything remotely christian, but actually seek out controversial extreme works, but not only the secular market/readers, but christians have isolated themselves to producing media for christian consumption, christian fiction, christian music , christian this and christian that, but there have been many notable exceptions which is always encouraging.

b.t.w since your worldview is entirely biblical christian, i think i should hang out with you more , to get it to rub off onto me more, i believe i have a pretty biblical worldview, but i'm sure i got alot of blindspots, hopefully none too serious, and i strive to be transformed into the image of Christ more, and thus get an even more biblical worldview.
------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

[This message has been edited by klumsy (edited October 27, 2004).]

of course no one is perfect, we are all walking the narrow path.. running the race, and when you get to the end, it usualy means your dead so most of us aren't there yet. I didn't mean to imply that I was of course. Its one thing to have the right worldview, its quite another to live up to it.

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

Thanks for the great posts! I don't have internet access in the evenings, so I wasn't able to reply last night.

Your view on scriptural inerrancy:
Hey, that sounds great. I'm very glad that you're so confident in the canon of scripture as we know it today, I just am not as convinced about this book as scripture as you are. That's probably our most diversive point.

Mars Hill:
I wasn't saying that Paul validated the greek religion, I was using that as an example of someone taking a usable point out of something that is generally accepted by the audience, even though it is false. Kind of like saying, "You believe in God? Great, the demons say that too." That's not a 1-to-1, but I agree, you make a very good case as well.

Bel and the Dragon (and other apocryphal works):
"and were actually included in the scriptures that Jesus and the apostles themselves used"
I would agree that Jesus and the apostles were in all likelyhood very familiar with the apocryphal books, but I would not go so far as to say that they were ever used in their teaching/evangelism. Now you maybe didn't mean to imply that Paul "used" the apocrypha when arguing with the Jews, but those books aren't quoted from in the new testament (with the exception of one possible one in one of the Maccabee's?)

Other religions and philosophies:
"Its true that Jesus is the most visible difference, the central difference, but it is far from true that he is the only difference, or even the only important difference"
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jesus is the actual only difference, that position is indefensible. But (correct me if I'm wrong), it seems as though all of the other elements of Christianity can be found in different world religions in one way or another. Monotheism, universal right and wrong, golden rule, sacrificial love, the depravity of man, sin, faith, etc. The one thing that is not found in any other religion is Jesus as Christ as God. If that is lacking in our evangelism, then we've hamstrung our effectiveness in spreading the gospel.

Buddhism:
The desire of desirelessness. I'm probably very ignorant of so much in Buddhism. Most of my first-hand experience came from a very incredible plane ride where I was seated next to a Buddhist monk from Sri Lanka or something. Really cool guy, and from speaking with him, I could have feasibly been persuaded to accept the Buddhist way of thinking if it wasn't for the amazing miracle in Jesus Christ. If I didn't have the evidence that I do about Jesus dying on the cross, I think that I would probably be a Buddhist. However, it sounds like you're much more informed as to what Buddhism is, so please take what I say with a heavy dose of salt.
I wasn't saying that Buddhism is theologically similar to Christianity, but I was saying that on a day-to-day basis, it appears to be lived out very similarly to ideal Christianity. Surrender of our desires to God's will, being content in all circumstances, seeking to be at peace with everyone, and looking forward with anticipation to ethereal things.

Zoroastrianism:
Phew! *very* interesting set of information here. It sounds as though you might have studied classical Zoroastrianism more than a lot of people who claim to follow it. My experience with Zoroastrianism is extremely limited, and I therefore have to surrender the argument. You raised a *very* intriguing point by suggesting that Zoroaster recieved another true revelation from God, and that Zoroastrianism, at least in it's inception, was a true religion. Very interesting, very sketchy, and I will reserve judgement on that. Interesting, though that's a discussion for another day.

Many Christs in LOTR:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that you were implying that we are all our own saviors. I was saying that that's the image that people would see. For instance, when people see Christ in us, we can point them to the "real deal" that is Jesus. When people "see Christ" in Frodo and Sam and Aragorn and Gandalf, there isn't a character that they can point to, so they're left pointing at the characters only. It's natural to see them rising to the occasion, more than it's natural to see them empowered through the redemptive work of a savior. (though I understand the point you and/or Klumsy made about the work of Providence in the final destruction of the ring, and that was a concept that I haven't heard before).

Please keep in mind through all of this that so many of the new age "roll your own religion" kind of people that you meet everyday on the street don't study this stuff (being proper world religion), and they sort of pick and choose between ideas and religions. That's why I say that the uninformed masses of non-Christians can probably read Tolkien and have an easier time seeing Mother Nature / Providence fighting against the force of Evil, and we need to be on the side of nature and all that is good, even though Evil is very powerful. I would see that being seen easier than the images of Christ that are in certain aspects of the characters.

quote:

---

"The single most clear message through out the Lord of the rings is that the characters themselves were utterly incapable of succeding in their quest"

---

quote:

---

"We can not succede, we can only obey and trust that God will succede for us, and through us. I think this is fundamentaly and beautifuly christian (and I might add not in the least wiccan)."

---

quote:

---

"In both paganism and Yin and Yang the light and dark, positive and negative are seen as equaly valid. Both sets of beliefs do not when you get down to it believe in right and wrong, good and evil."

---

quote:

---

"In the psalms there is a verse which says "if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" This is a question we are facing right now because our foundation is almost gone. How succesful do you think you will be presenting Jesus when people no longer believe in truth, He said " I am the way the Truth and the life" how can that be if there is no truth, when the very concept of love has been perverted and destroyed, how can you tell people about a God who is love?"

---

quote:

---

You say that all the people you've seen havn't gotten christ out of the Lord of the Rings? you havn't seen it take hold in them? well honestly I can't say I'm surprised. ... <snip> ... I don't believe the Lord of the Rings is a great witnessing tool, its probably not even a good one, but thats not my point. Games and stories in general aren't going to be great witnessing tools. They may be used in some cases but I don't think they are a media which is well suited to witnessing. I think they are a good media for teaching and for inspiring believers. I'm not really interested in making games to witness, because I don't think it will ever work well. But I think we can make games that serve to further the virtue and understanding of believers.

---

For a longer exposition on this of mine, I wrote a purpose statement for Christian video games, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. I put it on the web at: http://www.includingjudas.com/christiangame.html . I'll probably put a link to it in my signature sometime soon, I just haven't done that yet.

Thanks so much for your input and insight Simon_templar, I appreciate your knowledge and the areas in which you've corrected me.

Respectfully,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited October 27, 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:
My question is this... The fantasy genre was largely abandoned by christianity and even reviled by christianity for about the last 30 years or more, do you think this is because the fantasy genre produced so much bad fruit, or do you think that the fantasy genre produced so much bad fruit because chritians abandoned it?

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall hearing anything about fantasy genres being pushed by Christianity. Lewis being the exception, but until recently, I never even heard that there was a Christian bent behind LOTR.

Along the same lines:

quote:

---

Origininally posted by klumsy:

though fantasy rooted in a solid biblical worldview hasn't totally died. one example (and computer game as well) is Myst, one of the best selling games of all time, made by christians with a strong christian worldview.

---

I would also go so far to say that if the spiritual impact that Myst had is the best that I can do as a Christian game developer, then there are other areas that are more worth my time and I should drop Christian game development right now.

Respectfully,
clint

My first point to respond to is the apocrypha and its usage by Jesus and the aposltes. I agree that it isn't significantly quoted in the New testament, and it probably wasn't used very much for the purposes of evangelism. What I was originaly refrencing was that the books of the apocrypha were included in the septuagint (greek) translation of the hebrew scriptures, and that Jesus and his apostles (both from historical and textual evidence in the bible) almost certainly used the septuagint (along with the hebrew language scriptures). Although Jesus and the apostles (in modern terms) had bibles that contained the apocryphal books, none of them ever said anything against the apocryphal books which I would think they would have done, if the books were false or deceptive.
It should be noted that the Jews themselves never regarded the apocrypha on par with the torah as inspired scripture, but they did believe in it enough to include it.

Now, your comments raised another thought. Although the apocrypha is not specificly quoted in the new testament, I think that it and some other elements of Jewish lore are necessary to understand some of the fine points of the new testament. For example, Paul speaks of knowing a man who was "caught up to the third heaven". Protestant christianity has developed its own understanding of this, generaly protestants believe that the first heaven is the atmosphere, the second is the spiritual realm around the earth and the third is God's heaven (ie throne room). However, In Jewish religion (which paul no doubt was familiar with and was likely refering to) there are actually seven heavens. So I think that when he said "third heaven" he was refering to the third of the seven heavens. Obviously this isn't a major doctrinal point, but it is a point of interest to people who want to know more about such things.

The next point I believe was comparing christianity to other religions and philosophies.
You are correct, it does seem that many elements of christianity can be found in other religions. The point I was making is that this seeming, is often false, its a veneer (sp?) of deception.
To be honest I think that there are really two reasons why other religions and philosophies share or seem to share elements of christianity. The first reason is that I believe Humanity as a whole (and probably as individuals also) has a vague memory of the truth. When things are passed down generation to generation they get twisted and clouded, but there is usualy some memory of the original event in them. This is why I believe that there is some truth in most legends and even in mythologies. Its because of this that I've actually come to theorise that some of the ancient pagan religions (particularly sumerian and egyptian) actually contain representations of the story of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. But thats beside the point Anyway, this memory of the truth explains why some religions really do have elements of christianity in them.
The other reason is simply that the best lie is the one that most resembles the truth. Satan is a deceiver. Most people don't realize that by nature deception is not easy to see. It camoflages itself and disguises itself. We are often confident that we will see any deception, and that makes it even easier for deception to slip past us. (as paul said, if you think you stand, beware lest you fall) I think satan deliberately crafts his deception to resemble elements of the truth. He knows that people are smart enough to see obvious fakes, and he needs people to believe that it is true, thus he has to make it look like the truth.

a side point is also that some philosophies and religions resemble the truth simply because much of the truth is either innately in us, or in nature around us (the heavens declare his handy work etc). Platonic philosophy discovered an amazing amount of truth considering they didn't have the bible to go on. When I say the truth is innately in us, I am refering specificly issues of right and wrong.. people inherintly know that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, courage is right, love is right etc. They are universal because they are innate (even though they themselves are now under attack).

Your experience with budhism sounds very interesting, I wish I could have shared it. Its always helpful, when your seeking a good understanding of a belief, to talk to someone who actually believes it .

I've spent alot of time talking, debating, and being shouted at with/by people from various religions, atheists, and alot of heretical christian view points as well. So it is my natural reaction, just as it is yours, to see false teachings and heresies in statements where sometimes they were not meant. It was likely poor statement or poor explanation on my part that caused you to think I was refering to 'many christs' or 'you're your own christ' ideas.

I was a history major in college, but I also studied a fair amount of philosophy, especially political philosophy. Virtually all of the "great works" of philosophy are written in such a way that you have to dig to find out what the author is really saying. Often times they pretend to be serious when in reality they are sarcastic of writing satire. In most cases they purposely obscure their true meaning. Jesus did the same thing when he spoke in parables. There are a couple of reasons that they do things like this, the reason Jesus did it was because he wanted to obscure the truth from those who were not meant to see it, and God could guide those who were meant to see it to understand. Similarly many of the philosophers did this because they felt the process of learning to understand and to dig was nearly as important as the message itself. Also many of them did this because what they were saying was politicaly dangerous and they could have been executed if they just said it straight out.
One of the things I like about tolkien is that he is a bit mysterious. There are very few messages in the LoTR that are in your face, if any. The story is subtle and it drops quiet hints here and there which you have to peice together. I like that because I enjoy things that are mysterious and puzzle like. I think things mean more when you have to work to find them and understand them. Not everyone is that way though, just like not everyone likes fantasy, or sci fi, people have different tastes.
In hind sight, I might revise and say that the single most clear message in the LoTR is that the ring represents power, specificly power to dominate and thus that seeking power, especially for the sake of domination, corrupts. That is tied very much into what I said before about the characters not being able to succede on their own strength. That is the main tension of the story, They NEED immense power in order to succede and to finish the quest and win, They have desperate need of power because they themselves do not have the strength necessary to win. All the while, they have the ring, which is emmensely powerful and if any one of them were to take it, it promises to give them power (which they truly need) yet they can not take it because to obtain that power in itself (even to use it for good) is evil. So their only hope is to do what they can do, to obey the call that has been put upon them and hope that providence sees them through. To rely upon an unseen power that cannot be controled or used, it can only be obeyed and trusted.

About wiccanism, my experience with wiccanism came first from personal experience with wiccans. For about two years I worked with two wiccans. One of them, my manager, had been a catholic and had several years before converted to wiccanism. I had many religious conversations with her and learned alot about wiccanism from her. She was very intelligent and thus I got a good ground work for her belief system from talking to her (easily the smartest wiccan I have ever spoken with). After that I began to encounter more wiccans and other assorted neo-pagans so I did more research on what their beliefs were and where they originated from.
I said in my last post that I thought wiccanism was dumb, which is really because in my experience, a huge percentage of wiccans know nothing about their own belief system. In fact what most of them think they know about wiccanism (as in its history and origins) is totaly wrong.
You made the statement "I know very little about classical or true wiccanism," and you don't have to worry too much because most wiccans don't either. In reality it would be hard to say that there actually is any such thing as "classical wiccanism" because wiccanism is a very new religion. The roots of wiccanism go back about a hundred years, or a little more into the victorian era. During this time there was a strong "spiritist" and occult movement. The occult movement had several major figures, perhaps the most famous of which is Alasdair Crowly (or possibly Madam Blavatsky). Crowly and a couple of friends had a whole crowd of followers and ascociates and contemporaries who shared similar views. They began as masons and then moved into hermeticism (take hebrew kabbalah and remove all biblical or hebrew elements, flavor it with greek mythology and you have hermeticism). Eventually they began to experiment with eastern religions as well and founded a group called "the Order of the Golden Dawn". In the end what this group of people had was a mixture of occultism, hermeticism, and dark path hinduism. Dark path hinduism is also sometimes known as (or is similar to) tantric hinduism. It centers around trying to find enlightenment through indulging your carnal desires and lusts in the most extreme ways possible. Anyway, the core ideas and beliefs that have become wiccanism, were forged in that group of people. The cheif moral doctrine of wiccanism "and harming none, do what thou wilt" was coined by Alasdair Crowley (or at least brought into popular usage by him).
Most wiccans believe that theirs is an ancient religion (they will commonly claim to be the oldest religion in the world) and they believe they are a rebirth of ancient paganism, when in fact the religion is a mish-mash of victorian mysticism and occultism with some ancient pagan names slapped on to make it look cool.(the same source which gave rise to the most of the new age movement incidentaly). Wiccanism and neo-paganism, other than the names involved and some imagery, have almost nothing in common with ancient paganism.

In fact, when you peal away the names and imagery, and some of the rituals involved, wiccanism is almost identical with many "new age" beliefs.
Wiccanism doesn't technicaly believe in personal spirits, demons, angels, that kind of thing. They actually believe that "spirit" is really positive or negative energy that has been personified. Thus demons aren't real personal entities, they are negative energy (like anger, hatred etc). Which is the same thing that most new agers believe. My manager who was a wiccan was a greaco-roman wiccan (most are celtic) which means she venerated the greaco roman gods (more emphasis on the goddesses tho). However, she did not actually believe that there was a real personal entity named athena, or artemis, or what have you, she actually believed (and this is how she explained it to me) that those names embodied divine energy which was oriented to certain principles, like wisdom or fertility etc.
It is very hard to nail down a standard wiccan belief, however, because by nature the religion opposes "organized religion". So there is little or no heirarchy capable of establishing a norm. Thus as Clint stated, its got a strong element of "roll-your-own religion".

I was very pleased to see you mention "understanding the times" I'm assuming your refrencing the book by Dr. Noble? I could be wrong, but it makes me wonder if perhaps you've been to The Summit?

Anyway, last point before I have to go to work. Regarding bottom up vs. top down, evangelism (as you put it), I think that its really a catch-22. Bottom up evangelism doesn't work very well ever, but if the bottom doesn't exist, top-down doesn't work very well either. That I think is the point of the verse in psalms "if the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do". If we really finaly lose the war for our culture (and we are on the verge) we will be in an extremely difficult spot on all counts, especially evangelism. God created the world in such a way that it favored good. Even after the fall when mankind is wicked and evil by nature, truth and goodness have always in every culture been viewed as superior and everyone for the most part has always known what they are. Satans last grandstand effort, his coup de grace, is to pull the rug out from under the world, as it were. To remove that foundation. The only way he can have the dominion he wants is by destroying, in our minds and hearts, the very meaning of goodness, truth, love, beauty. He will never succede in doing it totaly because God will always maintain a remnant of his people, but Satan wants to do it in society because then he can persecute and destroy us physicaly since he can't deceive or seduce us.

anyway time to go to work I look forward to hearing back from both you guys. (and anyone else )

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

Your probably right about not blabbing to every christian about sumerian religion etc, and I don't often for the simple reason that I'm relatively sure most people's eyes would glaze over and they'd be snoring before long
I never really studied sumerian or any mesopotamian culture in depth until I started tutoring and teaching some homeschool kids a history course. Now I'm actually writing a Unit study on mesopotamia oriented for christian homeschoolers, tying it into what was going on in the bible at the time etc. I've found the entire culture to be a very interesting study. It has increased the scope of my vision of Genesis vastly. By that I mean things make much more sense now and fit together a lot more.

I understand first hand, however, how information and knowledge, especially from a secular perspective can be a huge challenge to faith. I believe that for most people they should take the challenge as they are ready and grow through it. Sadly alot of kids aren't prepared for it when they hit college. A few years back I saw a statistic that approx. 50% of evangelical christians who went to college lost their faith at some point during their college education.
I faced the same thing when I went to college. I was homeschooled from 4th grade so I was given the christian education all the way through, which had its good points but also its bad points. I went to college expecting to be challenged, and knowing that I was going to be the minority and on the defensive etc etc.. and I was still hit pretty hard a couple of times. One of those was when I took anthropology in my first year
I learned two lessons that kept me afloat.. and I learned them the hard way. The first thing I learned was that perspective plays a huge HUGE roll in interpeting "the facts". When you are presented with "facts" that "disprove" your faith you must realize that what you are being presented with is not "the facts" but someone elses interpetation of "the facts" and then you have to be able to determine what the real facts are, what the objective evidence is and what that can mean when viewed from different perspectives. Thats crucial.. the second lesson, however, is even more important. The second thing I learned was that our faith comes from God. We don't even have the faith on our own to really believe unless he gives it to us, so ask him for it and trust him to give it. this is where I usualy break into my poor yoda impression "a jedi's strength flows from the force" well not only a christians strength, but also a christian's faith flow from God.

well its bed time for me God bless and God speed

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

3rd Heaven:
That sounds very similar to the discussion we were having a few posts back -- how much does Paul referencing that validate the source that he's speaking from as his context? Or is it just a figure of speech to let his reader's know what kind of spiritual experience he had? And yeah, it's of interest to people who want to know more, but it's so sketchy, that I personally cannot take it as truth.

Elements of truth in other religions:
I totally agree with your two reasons as to why there are so many elements and nuggets of truth in otherwise false religions.
As far as similar old stories, don't forget all of the different flood accounts.

Buddhism:
It was really cool, I had a gideon Bible with me at the time, one of the ones that has John 3:16 in 20-some different languages, and he was able to translate John 3:16 back to me from his mother tongue -- it was really cool. Really neat guy, was actually taking a college class in world religions at the time, and I was able to explain some stuff regarding Christianity to him that he didn't understand. It was really neat, and a great discussion. One of the funnier awkward moments was when I was trying to just make small talk and get to know him better, and I asked "So, do you like the warm weather of Florida better, or do you like the cold of New York (or wherever it was that he was flying, I don't remember exactly where he was going). His answer was (of course), that it didn't matter to him. I thought that was funny.

LotR:

quote:

---

So their only hope is to do what they can do, to obey the call that has been put upon them and hope that providence sees them through. To rely upon an unseen power that cannot be controled or used, it can only be obeyed and trusted.

---

Wiccanism:
Thanks for the information and insights! That's much more than I knew previously, and I'll have to process this.

Top-Down/Bottom-Up Evangelism:
The way my dad taught me to evangelise was to ask people questions in such a way as to get them to question what they believe. Once they're honestly questioning themselves (and no longer taking their beliefs for granted), then when they ask you about the truth, you can lead them through it. It's nothing new, it's just like Kennedy's "Evangelism Explosion" or any other basic kind of evangelism.
A great example of this kind of evangelism in popular media is Stacy Orrico's song "There's gotta' be more", not giving any truth, but just inserting the question of what's more than just chasing down every temporary high.
Could an evangelistic video game do a similar thing? Create an environment that doesn't lend itself so easily to twisting and perversion (I.E. Tolkien's world -- that's already overdone with other games anyway), and which causes players to think about what might really happen in the afterlife, cause them to think about where everything really could have come from, cause them to think about truth, and then have an easy chat environment where Christian players could be there to discuss these things with non-Christians. A gaming environment that encourages discussion of the truth. Can it be done? I don't know, but I wonder if you think about these things like I do.

Klumsy:
That's great to hear about the people you led astray coming to truth -- that's really encouraging to hear. I've been appreciating your comments in here -- thanks for your input!

Homeschooling:
Neat about the homeschooling thing! I was home-schooled for 13 years before going to college and graduating with a degree in computer engineering. I don't have quite the same philosphy and historical background that you do as I spent my time studying programming and physics and such, but I still enjoy discussing this stuff!

Faith:
lol about the "a Jedi's strength flows from the force" -- that's pretty funny. And yes, I see how it applies -- that's great.

Simon_templar, you mentioned in another post that you recently found this place in exploration of making a Christian computer game. If you can't tell, I registered on the boards for the same reason only a short time before you did. If you're interested in talking about discussing working on something like this together (I appreciate a lot about the way you approach all of this), give me a buzz. (anyone else on here is free to contact me too)
AIM: HanClinto
ICQ#: 11462056
MSN: HanClinto@hotmail.com
Email: HanClinto@hotmail.com

Thanks everyone for the great replies!

A fellow worker and servant for Christ,
clint

I don't really intend to say that the apocrypha should be taken as scripture or fully trusted. I more intend to raise the question that we may be lacking (as protestants) in understanding of scripture and doctrine because of the fact that we lack it as context. I think it can provide us with valuable insights. Of course the caveat always applies that people shouldn't get involved with things before their ready... In hebrew tradition they weren't allowed to study kabbalah, for example, until they were 40 year old. I'm not advocating kabbalah at all, or even setting an age people must attain in order to study certain things, but merely offering an illustration of the importance of being mature enough to handle what your studying. (which was a very valid point you raised).

One of the things of interest in cultural studies is that virtualy every civilization in world history has had a flood tradition. This is a great example of how perspective determines conclusions (or as the summit would say, assumption determines conclusion). When secular people look at this fact they say "well see, this is just a common tradition of the human psychy, and it also reflects that many civilizations experienced local floods".. when a christian looks at it they say "well see, this just shows that there probably was a great flood because every people group in the world has at least a vague memory of it." Personaly I believe the second option is by far the more reasonable.. but then, I may be biased

The similarities between the flood traditions of mesopotamia and that of the bible are often used to attack scriptural inspiration and it is suggested by most scholars (even supposed christians) that the scriptural account is simply borrowed from the mesopotamian legends and changed as it was transmitted through hebrew tradition. The arguments presented for this case often seem quite convincing, but here again you have to look closely at what real evidence there is. It is assumed by these scholars (for the most part) that the hebrew scriptres were composed during or after the babylonian exile and that they did not exist in any significant form before that. The bible itself of course claims to be much older than that however, these claims are discounted by the 'scholars'. That places the scripture, at the latest possible date of around mid 500's BC.
Now they claim the mesopotamian accounts which contain flood epics are much older than scripture. However, the actual documents containing these legends, for the most part, were from the library of Ashurbanipal in assyria and don't date much more than one hundred years before their dating of the Jewish scriptures. So in the actual verifiable archeological record there is little difference in age between the sources. It is primarily the assumptions that are different. In the case of mesopotamian epics they assume that the epics were composed much much earlier than any of the sources we have for them and the earliest sources have simply not survived. With the bible, they assume that it is no older than its oldest provable source. I should point out I'm not saying that there are extant sources of scripture from the babylonian captivaty, merely that it is historicaly provable that the scriptures existed in their present form at least by that time.

The Gilgamesh epic which is one of the main sources for the babylonian/sumerian flood story has some very interesting elements that I do think shed light on relating sumerian history to scripture, even though I think the biblical account is the true account.
One of the main themes of the gilgamesh epic is trying to reconcile yourself to mortality. Gilgamesh looses his great friend Enkidu and then realises that he himself will one day die. His quest is then to find utnapishtim the flood survivor who is immortal, and see if he can discover the secret of immortality.
Consider it in this light, Gilgamesh, it is fairly certain was a historical king, one of the early kings of Uruk (Erech in the bible), so right off the bat, this story is about a real person (even though he seems legendary in scope). Gilgamesh probably ruled Uruk somewhere between 2700 and 2500 BC, which according to the biblical account (and the gilgamesh epics themselves) means he could not have been too far removed from the flood itself.. maybe a few hundred years. The bible tells us that after the flood there was a dramatic drop in life spans, while yet a few people, noah and his sons, still had the dramaticly long lives of people from the pre-flood era. So if this is the case, then Gilgamesh would have been living in a world that remember the cataclysm.. remembered that people once lived for hundreds of years, and yet knew that people all around him were dying earlier and earlier, life spans decreasing rapidly. Yet at the same time, it is likely they would know that there were legendary figures, the very patriarchs of the race, who did not die, but were still alive, hundreds of years later. Seemingly immortal.

anyway, I don't want to ramble too much, I've been doing alot of that in here

your method of evangelism sounds very socratic. Socrates was a smart guy.. he realised that most people really knew less than they thought, they had accepted things as true without really thinking about them because everyone else accepted them. So he asked people questions and showed them that what they thought they knew, they really didn't know. When he was put on trial one of the charges against him was that he claimed to be the wisest man in greece. His reply was that the oracle of Delphi did not call him wise, but merely said no one was wiser, because while socrates knew that he didn't know the important answer... everyone else didn't even know that they didn't know. So he at least was wise enough to know that he wasn't wise. rambling again.

Asking questions I think probably is the best way, and incidentaly its one of the better methods of teaching (or tools of teachings).

I was lucky enough to go to the summit twice, and loved it both times. I went in 96 and 97 (2nd session both times I believe). It was a great time, a great experience. I highly recomend it to anyone.

I'll send you some info about the game ideas I've got so you can see if your interested.

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

It has been a great discussion!

*Really* interesting things about the flood accounts. I too, tend to think along the latter lines -- that the flood stories stem from the true Biblical flood rather than similar local experiences. Though I too, am biased.

Thanks for the info on Gilgamesh! I've read the account, and your insight into it is interesting and thought provoking. I find the connections between pre-flood and post-flood history interesting -- one of my favorites being the references to the Nephilim.

To critique myself for a moment, I guess Socratic evangelism isn't necessarily even exemplified in the Bible. Doesn't Acts say that Paul spent his time arguing with the Jews, proving to them that Jesus was the Messiah out of the scriptures? If so, then I guess I don't follow a terribly Biblical model of evangelism. I do like to know why I believe what I believe, and like to share it with others, though if one just spouts what one thinks all day, it comes across as Bible beating. It's a fine line to walk to be truly honest in considering other people's points while having confidence in the truth. I like to say that if something else more convincing came along, that I would drop Christianity and follow that, because I'm seeing the truth. That is dangerous ground to tread sometimes, but I'm confident in the truth of Christ.

Wow, this discussion has certainly come a long way. I originally intended it to talk about how Christian game developers felt about creating games that were doctrinally in error. Things like "At level 3, you get Aaron's staff which shoots chain lightning! And you can collect prayer points to upgrade the lightning to do double damage to dark beasts!" and "In this game, we're demon hunters, we go around excorcising demons and vanquishing them with this sword" kind of thing.

This *does* happen in Christian games, so much so that people can create joke games (see the game "Monsters From Hell", which I found labeled as a Christian game but cannot find reason to believe it was created with anything but sarcasm in mind), and often Christians have a hard time telling the difference.

I look forward to reading your game ideas and discussing them with you.

In Christ,
clint

------------------
http://www.includingjudas.com/christiangame.html

On evangelism, paul did spend a good deal of time arguing with the jews from the scriptures. Its interesting that whenever he went anywhere he always went to the jews in the synygouge first and only after that to the gentiles. However, paul also said (after a bad experience with pointless arguing) "I resolved to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified". It is important to know what you believe and why. It is also important to know what other people believe and why. Asking questions, I think is the best way to make conversations personal and relevant to people and Jesus himself did much of his work through asking questions. In evangelism, even when your asking questions (which I think is the best way of doing it) just make sure that everything leads you back to Jesus. Which the most important topics really always do anyway.
In my life I went through one period in particular that I had alot of doubt. In particular I doubted scripture. It was a fairly long period of time and my doubts were pretty strong. The one thing i could never doubt though, was Jesus. Even if I doubted the bible, the church, everything else.. I knew Jesus had to be true.. and eventualy I realized if He was true, then the rest of it was true too.

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

About asking questions, something that I struggle with and have to continually remind myself is to not ask leading or baited questions, but to ask honest questions. For example, a question like "Well if God is all-powerful, then can He make a rock so big He can't lift it?" is a baited question, and when I think that atheists are stupid, I have a hard time not asking questions that make them feel belittled. Honest questions and honest discussion is powerful, while just asking "gotcha" type questions only brings out enmity (I'm not saying this for your benefit Simon_templar, but just to clarify what I wrote earlier for other readers).

Interesting to hear about your faith experience -- it's similar yet very different from a good-sized doubting time that I had in my own life. It's interesting, because even though I had been taught with a fair bit of apologetics growing up, after I got to college I still had to make my faith my own and go through a time of doubting everything that I had been taught my whole life.

In Christ,
clint

------------------
http://www.includingjudas.com/christiangame.html