------------------
Apple of Your Eye.
Christian Entertainment

As an example:

Ok: good guy shoots bad guy; minimal/no blood, painful sound

Not ok: good guy shoots bad guy; excessive or unrealistic amounts of blood, repeated painful screaming

------------------

quote:

---

Ezekiel 18:23 (ESV)
Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

---

I don't mind realistic amounts of blood and gore in movies and games -- in fact, I think it can be quite helpful in helping to grip with the realities of war (Saving Private Ryan would be a good example of this for me). In my view, the amount of blood is not really the issue -- it's the attitude with which the violence is approached. I don't think that killing is something to be taken lightly. I don't like senseless killing, glorified blood/gore, or inconsequential actions.

That said, there is still a difference between fantasy and reality, and I'm not sure where that falls. I'm still a guy, and I enjoy a good round of paintballing, watching a movie like Fight Club or playing a round of Alien Shooter. So there's a balance there, and I'm not entirely sure where it lies.

I know I have inconsistencies in my thinking and in my life, but I'm trying to work against that. So maybe you all can point out some flaws in my thinking.

Still, I find the Biblical perspective of sorrowful (but necessary) killing to be helpful.

--clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited May 17, 2007).]

------------------
Visit my portfolio (and check out my projects):
http://Jestermax.googlepages.com/

------------------
"The generation of random numbers is too important to leave to chance."
Soterion Studios

--- Part 1 ---
Games can definitely be fun without violence, but I don't let violence rule out game choices for me personally. I don't think of violence as a crutch, but rather as a vessel. Not everyone is suited to ride a motorcylce, but that doesn't make a motorcycle bad in itself. Similarly, violent games aren't for everyone, but violence in a game doesn't mean that the game is without merit. If that idea was applied to the Bible, then much of the Bible's significant moments would be lost. Actually, The Passion of the Christ would also be a bad movie. I'm not suggesting that everyone should see the Passion of the Christ, but the violenct depiction amplifies the beauty and significance of Christ's sacrifice.

Likewise, if a game has violent content, that may make the game unsuitable for some, many, or even mot audiences, but that doesn't make the game intrinsically worthless or dependent on a crutch. Violence for the sake of violence is rarely justifiable (but even then, a game may have technical factors that are good about it), but violence as a means to amplify a story's significance can be important. It may make a game unsuitable for some groups of people, but that doesn't reduce its art factor; just its accessibility. Song of Solomon is considered beautiful, but if I recall, unmarried Hebrew men weren't allowed to read it until they reached the age of 33.

So, how can violence in a game amplify the art? Well, for one thing, violence is a symbol of struggle and conflict. Take, for example, a game in which a man's wife is kidnapped for some reason. Now, the man is obviously going to have to try and save her, so what will he do? I suppose he could walk to the local authorities and that could be the end of the game, but that doesn't exactly portray any significant art or beauty of virtue (aside from leaving the law to the law). Instead, in a feasible game design, the man is going to go after his wife and stop at nothing to save her. Now, if saving her has no conflict and just a bunch of puzzles, that isn't really plausable or relaying virtue. It's fairly inevitable that the man is going to have to deal in conflict (and most likely, physical conflict). So, the man risks life and limb seeking information on where to find his wife. This will require that he travel through all kinds of hell on earth and personal sacrifice before he even learns where she is. Along the way, he may have to use force to get what he needs, but the force isn't the point; the relentless dedication to saving his wife is the key here. Now, once he finds where his wife is, having already gone through all kinds of pain, humilation, and personal turmoil, he'll have to actually set out to retrieve her. Once he arrives where she is, he'll have a major confrontation with man that had kidnapped her. Now, to give the idea that the man saves his wife, he will succeed in bringing down the evil man (which, inevitably will have to be by force because evil wouldn't just hand the wife over). To add a twist to the story, while escaping the enemy's place with his wife, the man will come upon one of the evil man's henchmen. The henchman will have known about his boss's death, and will be furious at the man who killed the boss. The henchman will feel he has nothing left to live for, so he threatens to blow himself up and take the couple down with him. The man knows that there's no way to stop the henchman, so he does the only thing he can; he throws himself on top of his wife and bears the brunt of the blast. The man is incapable of surviving the blast, uttering his last words to his wife in his final breath: "I love you." The wife still lives, but what remains of the building is quickly falling apart. The wife knows she has to leave immediate, but is heartbroken by the death of her husband. At first she tries to pull her husband from the scene, hoping to be able to somehow save him, but she realizes that she can't do so. Tears in her eyes, she flees the building; the last words of her husband repeating in her head: "I love you."

There's a game plot that is bound to have physical violence in it, but one that is absolutely beautiful in showing a man's dedication for his wife. If that isn't significant or artistic, then I don't know what is. There is violence, yes, but the dedication and love wouldn't be as vivid or significant without it.

Violence is a mechanism in art. It isn't necessary for all art, nor is it good itself, but it can (and does) add significance to art and message.

I commend games that are enjoyable without violence, but I don't think I've seen a significant game (as in it teaches virtues in a fashion that isn't like a children's storybook or otherwise targeting children) that was completely devoid of violence. The violence itself may not be great (or even originally presented), but it is often a necessary mechanism for the significance of the story. The violence in Zelda may not have been genius for the most part, but if Link just went from town to town and somehow saved Hyrule, how would that be significant? The hero (in this case, Link) had to put his life at risk constantly in order to truly be heroic. Without risk, there is no reward; there is merely result of action. That doesn't make the violence itself good (as there is a difference between glorification and depiction of violence, as Josh Dies of Showbread has pointed out), but it does have a purpose.

--- Part 2 ---
It's not just the games, but the view of the games. I've played (to at least some extent) the three biggest games of last year: Zelda, Gears of War, and Okami. Zelda isn't about glorifying violence; it's about heroic self-risk and sacrifice. Zelda is art. Okami is also art (art about art, actually). There is violence, but the violence isn't the point: the story is the point. Gears of War would definitely be the hardest to convince anyone that it isn't about glorifying violence, but I would like to point out again (as Josh Dies of Showbread said) that depiction isn't the same as glorification. Gears of War is meant to make you fear the evil that seeks to destroy humanity.

Without realistic depictions, gamers are likely to become more enamored with battle and desensitized to its cost. The same goes for movies and everything else. Gears of War, along with the other games, is about putting one's life on the line in order to face great evils in hopes of keeping others from having to do likewise.

Replace the enemies in Gears of War with demons meaning to ravage humanity and the player's chainsaw with a Sword of the Spirit and you suddenly have a game about Christians fighting in spiritual warfare. The game could be (and probably should be) just as violent in order to relay the idea that the spiritual warfare we face is a dark, evil, and messy thing. To reduce the violence in such a scenario is to lighten the subject: something the church has done altogether too much in recent years.

The idea, however, is that gruesome violence does not mean glorified violence in itself (and, of those three games, Gears of War is the only one that's gruesome). If the violence causes panic and fear in the gamer, but the gamer puts it aside in order to save someone/the world, then it's a matter of perspective of what the gamer is learning. Many people would say that the gamer is learning violence and bloodthirst, but I would say that the gamer is learning the value of heroic self-risk, sacrifice, and determination to save others at all costs. It seems to me we don't have enough heroes like that in the world.

Out of curiosity, how many of these games have you actually played? A great deal of significance is lost in reviews and videos which typically only reveal the objectionable material in a game (and the technical merit). It's rare that one will understand a game's significance without playing it. The same can be said of movies and books.

Then again, I think this is largely a perspective issue. Here's an example of how significant perspective is. What do you see in the following picture?

There are three dots in the form of a triangle. Some people's brains will automatically see the triangle without thinking about it. Actually, in this case, you can probably see that there is a white triangle cutting into the three dots. This is the way perspective regarding objectionable material works. Many people will look at the material and only see the dots, but people like me will see that the dots form the triangle. It's possible to have the dots without the triangle, yes, but the triangle needs the dots. Stories of sacrifice require loss and potential loss (without that, where is the sacrifice?).

Going back to the Bible, would Christ's sacrifice be as significant or beautiful if it were less terrible and brutal? Would God's justice be so bold if the Israelites had spared all those God told them to annihilate? Would the calling to be Christians be so dire and somber if violence and hatred were not likely to be the scars of a Christian (as in, the things inflicted on Christians)?

EDIT: I think this fairly closely echoes what resident mastermind HanClinto said. As such, I agree with you!

------------------
Portal with information on my programming projects and links to my other work

[This message has been edited by Xian_Lee (edited May 18, 2007).]

I don't have a problem with violence usually - except with games that have lots of blood and gore it gets kind of disgusting...

I hope this little flash about my experinces on this becomes a blessing to the reader as the point was not to judge but to advice and encourage.

[This message has been edited by jari (edited May 18, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazarus:
Jari, I have heard that before a few times(mainly from parents) - but is there really anything in the Bible about being entertained by violence?

---

Yes I believe there is mucb about it and much around it from similar topics making the concept of holy and unholy.
Here's one verse however that in my opinion answers this specific question:
(1Sa 17:28) And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle.

Now it's not said that Eliab was right in his claim but that he clearly considered coming to watch the battle naughtiness in heart.

I think this is about choosing between good and evil because we would all be sinless if we had not followed these desires of heart and that's why Jesus who was the son of man ever with a pure heart was able pay our sin.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

At the risk of sounding primitive (and for the sake of playing the opposing argument), I wonder if when the ten commandments says, "Thou shalt not murder" if it is actually speaking of murder itself (take another life in cold blood). The Israelites spent a lot of time in war, and yet war heroes were championed as heroes. It doesn't seem that the violence itself is evil since God explicitly told the Israelites to completely wipe out races a few times in the Old Testament.

Of course, I want this argument to be countered. I haven't posted enough here for that to really be known, but I make arguments like these just to get stronger opposing arguments (which I tend to actually agree with). So please, counter this.

------------------
Portal with information on my programming projects and links to my other work

Remember that when God uses violence it's justice. And when I think about the ten commandments all the commandments tell me to love instead of taking from others. Not their wife nor their goods nor their life (in order to gain the first two).

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
Xian_Lee, he says "... pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; ..."

Remember that when God uses violence it's justice. And when I think about the ten commandments all the commandments tell me to love instead of taking from others. Not their wife nor their goods nor their life (in order to gain the first two).

---

Aside from that, you've said that God can use violence as a part of justice. Justice, while not always pretty, is a good thing, right? So, in effect, God can use violence for good, can He not?

If that's true, then it's not the violence that should be considered abhorrent, but the wrongful use of it.

Following that train of thought, violence in games and movies may be a necessary means to an ends (be that justice, self-preservation, or protection of others).

Then, there's the artistic/figurative part of me that translates on-screen violence into a mechanism for the art of story telling. Physical violence can be symbolic of personal, internal conflicts. Physical violence can be symbolic of the spiritual warfare the Bible speaks of. Physical violence can portray the evils associated with it.

Perhaps I'm too interested in symbolism for my own good.

------------------
Portal with information on my programming projects and links to my other work

However, I would add that God created us, and called us to be warriors. It is in our very nature, and not just our sinful nature because God himself is a warrior, and a fearful, terrible, mighty one at that. We are made in his image.

That image requires balance. Just as God is a warrior, He is also the Prince of Peace, and Jehovah Shalom.

We are warriors, and we are men of peace. Just as God is both.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:

However, I would add that God created us, and called us to be warriors. It is in our very nature, and not just our sinful nature because God himself is a warrior, and a fearful, terrible, mighty one at that. We are made in his image.

---

Well if we look at the few persons God chose to become forefathers of great nation of Israel, think about Jacob. He was a quiet man loved more by his mother than Esau who was a huntsman loved more of his father Isaac. Isaac's brother Ishmael was also an archer and this prophecy was not so peaceful way was given of him. And Joseph was also a peaceful who spent time at home and studying. So persons with this peaceful charasteric were more often forefathers of the great nation of chosen people by God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:

We are warriors, and we are men of peace. Just as God is both.

---

Jesus was only for peace however because of what He had come to do. David was the one fighting and Salomon established peace by the great wisdom given by God.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by jari (edited May 21, 2007).]

34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

I'll stop trying to cause trouble now.

------------------
Portal with information on my programming projects and links to my other work

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazarus:
...three black pacmen? (That's what popped into my head, not a triangle)

I don't have a problem with violence usually - except with games that have lots of blood and gore it gets kind of disgusting...

---

I see 3 pacmen fighting over a piece of triangular cheese...

violence, if you don't like the violence in the games RPC has/is making then you wont like my views

[This message has been edited by David Lancaster (edited May 22, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xian_Lee:
I imagine you'll refute this easily, but to make things a little more interesting, how does what you say fit with Matthew 10? That passage reads:

34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

---

What is the sword Jesus speaks of here, where is it now, even today? The sword is in fact in mouth: (Rom 10:8). The result of this is shown in Christian persecuation (Joh 3:19-20).
Only if it would be so simple that your whole family would believe when YOU do, but the word of God is salvation to us but despised by others who hate the truth. But dont give up hope, God can turn anyone, like He did in apostle Paul's case who first hated the truth and the Christians who he persecuated before he became one. Thanks to Jesus for His amazing grace!

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by jari (edited May 22, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazarus:
Jesus drove some Jews out of the temple with a whip... I imagine that was rather violent.

---

But how is the usage of the whip descripded in the Bible? Don't you think it makes sense if Jesus only used it for the animals? Especially if you consider that He made it Him self and went to the temple with it ( scourge of small cords"). I dont think that was much of an weapon to drive of any human. It's not like in indiana jones!

Sure there must have been quite an mess after He turned over all the tables...

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

Jari, I think you're splitting hairs here. Solomon was only able to establish peace because of the groundwork laid by his father, David. David paved the way for the building of the temple, and it was because of the excellent job that David did that Solomon was able to build the temple.

quote:

---

1 Kings 5:2-5
Solomon sent back this message to Hiram:
"You know that because of the wars waged against my father David from all sides, he could not build a temple for the Name of the LORD his God until the LORD put his enemies under his feet. But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side, and there is no adversary or disaster. I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God, as the LORD told my father David, when he said, 'Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.'

---

In addition to this, it may be interesting to note that David's major sin that he's noted for (his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah) started when he wasn't out in battle like he was supposed to be.

quote:

---

1 Samuel 11:1
In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

---

quote:

---

Acts 13:22
After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jari:
So persons with this peaceful charasteric were more often forefathers of the great nation of chosen people by God.

---

quote:

---

Hebrews 11:32-34
And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:
However, I would add that God created us, and called us to be warriors. It is in our very nature, and not just our sinful nature because God himself is a warrior, and a fearful, terrible, mighty one at that. We are made in his image.

That image requires balance. Just as God is a warrior, He is also the Prince of Peace, and Jehovah Shalom.

We are warriors, and we are men of peace. Just as God is both.

---

Thanks for the good discussion!

In Christ,
clint

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
But how is the usage of the whip descripded in the Bible? Don't you think it makes sense if Jesus only used it for the animals? Especially if you consider that He made it Him self and went to the temple with it ( scourge of small cords"). I dont think that was much of an weapon to drive of any human. It's not like in indiana jones!

Sure there must have been quite an mess after He turned over all the tables...

---

Well, it says he "drove them out" with their animals - I don't think Jesus really would've needed a scourge to get the animals out - do you?

In his first coming Jesus was the sacrifice lamb. In his second he will be the conquering king.

Both are equally Christ.

Han,

Good to see you again I haven't been around much since I've been concentrating on school. I've had a full year of 3ds Max now, but its an incredibly complex program so, I've still barely scratched the surface.
I just finished my first semester of Java, had some VB.net and some C++. A couple of months ago I landed an internship with a local software company, doing SQA. Mostly I've just done testing so far, but it looks like I might get to do some coding because they are looking at launching a project to automate their test process and I'm supposedly going to get put on that.

Just a quick update

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazarus:
Well, it says he "drove them out" with their animals - I don't think Jesus really would've needed a scourge to get the animals out - do you?

---

Yes. Have you seen/hear about the cow on the train tracks story? Some animals really are hard to move.
But enough of that for me.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:

Jari, I think you're splitting hairs here. Solomon was only able to establish peace [b]because of the groundwork laid by his father, David. David paved the way for the building of the temple, and it was because of the excellent job that David did that Solomon was able to build the temple.
[/b]

---

But like we know, David was strictly forbidden of building the temple, due to the wars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:

In addition to this, it may be interesting to note that David's major sin that he's noted for (his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah) started when he wasn't out in battle like he was supposed to be.

---

I dont understand the point, it seems typical case of a person comitting sin when he is alone. Are you suggesting that he felt guilt of not being in war and comitted this sin as well because of that as if he was falling in to agony?

One of David's sin was also his command to count the people of the land and great punishment came because of that. (I think he become obsessed of the power he had in ruling)

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jari:
[b]So persons with this peaceful charasteric were more often forefathers of the great nation of chosen people by God.

---

Jesus was David's son, not a son of the mighty men of David. That's why I mentioned these three persons. We can add abel among them and cain to the other group - note that God did not forsake Cain even he did wrong, like he "kept" Ishmael and Esau and the brothers who sold innosent Joseph into slavery.

I wish we could see this the same way for me reading about the prophecies of Jesus and peace to come it appears that the times of David's wars are over now.

(Isa 57:1) The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by jari (edited May 22, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
What is the sword Jesus speaks of here, where is it now, even today? The sword is in fact in mouth: (Rom 10:8). The result of this is shown in Christian persecuation (Joh 3:19-20).
Only if it would be so simple that your whole family would believe when YOU do, but the word of God is salvation to us but despised by others who hate the truth. But dont give up hope, God can turn anyone, like He did in apostle Paul's case who first hated the truth and the Christians who he persecuated before he became one. Thanks to Jesus for His amazing grace!

---

Honestly, I don't even think that verse is referring to the mouth in place of the sword. Rather, given the context, I understand "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" to be referring to conflict. The form in a literal sense is physical conflict, but it can be interpreted to mean vocal conflict; all the same, conflict is the key. Families divide over the choice to follow Christ, and that division can result in vocal and physical retribution.

When using Scripture to justify or condemn something, and especially when we use God (and His human manifestation as Christ), I think we often reduce God and Scripture. God is both the Great Judge and the Great Redeemer. If we focus on one aspect of His nature, then we tend to lose what is good of the other aspects of His nature. God brings wrath and He brings grace. His ways are not our ways. Even still, God reveals himself to men as a Sovereign King, a Compassionate Father, a Mighty Warrior, and a Willing Servant. To make one attribute more important than the other is to effectively reduce the others and lose sight of God in His wholeness.

Violence is a part of humanity, let's not try to hide from it. There have been times when physical violence has been the right thing (as evidenced in the Bible). It may not be desirable to dwell on such things, but it doesn't seem like something we can call intrinsically evil.

------------------
Portal with information on my programming projects and links to my other work

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by jari (edited May 22, 2007).]

Not sure, but it sounded like a somewhat hasty reply on your part. Did you read the whole of my post?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
But like we know, David was strictly forbidden of building the temple, due to the wars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:
However, despite all of this, killing still always brings sorrow. It was for this that David could not build the temple. Yet God still honored him, and told him that his son would be able to build the temple, and that David's throne would be established throughout all generations (this was fulfilled through Jesus).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
The point I was trying to make was that even God leads to people in battle and the world will end by God and that will not happen in peace and harmony we are not part of the wars now but spiritual war. I think its propheticed how physical wars are changed to spiritual in the Bible - that is the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
Jesus was David's son, not a son of the mighty men of David. That's why I mentioned these three persons. We can add abel among them and cain to the other group

---

Also, now it sounds like you're praising David, whereas before it felt like you were saying that Solomon was greater than David (when it seems clear that David did everything to build Jerusalem, while Solomon set it on its path to destruction). That's why I spent so much of my post defending David, though maybe I misunderstood what you were saying about him. If so, I apologize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
I wish we could see this the same way for me reading about the prophecies of Jesus and peace to come it appears that the times of David's wars are over now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jari:
(Isa 57:1) The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:
I'm not advocating that we all become crazed killer psychopaths, or that we become obsessed with killing and fighting -- God forbid! However, I'm just making the case that there is a proper place in scripture for fighting and violence, and that God praises warriors way more than you make it sound.

---

On a minor note:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jari:
I dont understand the point, it seems typical case of a person comitting sin when he is alone. Are you suggesting that he felt guilt of not being in war and comitted this sin as well because of that as if he was falling in to agony?

---

Okay. To sum it all up, it seems like you've touched on a number of issues here. Some of the things that you've brought up are:
1) I feel you have implied that David was less honored than Solomon because of his fighting.
To that, I say that David had sorrow and pain because of his fighting, but it was necessary, and because of it, God enabled his son Solomon to create the temple, as well as establishing David's throne for all generations. If I was wrong in that you were saying this, then please forgive me.

2) I feel you have implied that times have changed, and we are no longer to fight physically, only spiritually.
To that, I say that times have changed, yes -- but it is still quite Biblical for:
a) Government to possess the sword
b) Christians to be in government
c) Christians to properly wield the sword, in so far as they do so with justice and meekness
Again, this is that whole "complete pacifism" issue that we talked about on IRC before, and I'm not sure where you stand on it.

3) I feel you have implied that being a warrior is less honorable in God's sight
To that, I say concur with Simon_Templar, and I have listed numerous scriptural instances (both Old and New Testaments) that show the proper (and honored) place of warriors in God's sight. Yes, killing always brings sorrow and pain, but it is still a necessary task in this world (even in our current age).

I hope I haven't misrepresented you -- if so, please correct me.

--clint

About the prophecy of peace I was referring to and you said "I'm not sure what scripture you're referring to.". Well I had been reading Isaih lately, over again, and it's propheticed there. How Jesus the messiah will come and bring peace and everything it involves (lot about God's patience in His mercy).

You asked: "are you a complete pacifist?"
I dont know what to answer to this, labels like this are difficult to determine. But I dont intent to lift an arm against anyone and I dont believe God will ever require any physical violence towards other human from me nor from anyone else but I cannot know.

You said:
"Okay. So you're just basing your argument on who Jesus descended from? Before, you referenced "forefathers of great nation of Israel", ..."

Sorry about my english but Jacob was Israel who become a great nation. I used this form of speech because in its used in KJV when God says to Abraham: "I will make him a great nation." (Gen 17:20)

You said:
"Also, now it sounds like you're praising David, whereas before it felt like you were saying that Solomon was greater than David (when it seems clear that David did everything to build Jerusalem, while Solomon set it on its path to destruction). That's why I spent so much of my post defending David, though maybe I misunderstood what you were saying about him. If so, I apologize."

I wouldnt call either one any greater than other. Because both were blessed in the good they did under God's grace, not of their own works.

You said:
"This wasn't a major point of my argument, it was just what I felt was an interesting side-note.
No, I'm not suggesting that he felt guilt and so indulged in sin because of it. All I was noting was:
A) The Bible says that David should have been at war.
B) He wasn't, and this was one way that he got himself into a comprimising situation that wouldn't have happened had he been doing his God-ordained job."

A) Where does it say that?
B) Ok but this is what I dont understand, he could have also been in anywhere else just as well, except in war to avoid this. Are you saying that it was set however, so that since David was not in war he were put or allowed to fall in temptation? And if he would have been in war nothing like this would have ever happened?

You said:
"Okay. To sum it all up, it seems like you've touched on a number of issues here. Some of the things that you've brought up are:
1) I feel you have implied that David was less honored than Solomon because of his fighting.
To that, I say that David had sorrow and pain because of his fighting, but it was necessary, and because of it, God enabled his son Solomon to create the temple, as well as establishing David's throne for all generations. If I was wrong in that you were saying this, then please forgive me."

Honored by who, God or should be by people? I dont know how David felt about the wars he was fighting. Though there is much scripture about David's decisions when it comes to violence killing. He did not enjoy any one's death, that's for sure and he respected God's annointed king Saul.

You said:
"2) I feel you have implied that times have changed, and we are no longer to fight physically, only spiritually.
To that, I say that times have changed, yes -- but it is still quite Biblical for:
a) Government to possess the sword
b) Christians to be in government
c) Christians to properly wield the sword, in so far as they do so with justice and meekness
Again, this is that whole "complete pacifism" issue that we talked about on IRC before, and I'm not sure where you stand on it."

b) what about this? It does not appear anymore Biblical to me than Christians being a car mechanic.
c) is this adviced in new testament? It is in OT testament and it's propheticed and the meaning is spiritual battle.

You said:
"3) I feel you have implied that being a warrior is less honorable in God's sight"

No I wouldnt say that. If God gives us a job/position I dont think we should even think what is most honorable because its about being one body in Christ and body has many members. But this is somewhat different, unless you look at David and Salomon as parts of God's plan.

Well I hope the quotes are ok, I tried to make a good reply that is constructive. - Looking forward for your reply.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by Calin (edited May 22, 2007).]

Jari if you agree it's Ok with government to possess the sword and with Christians to be in government than you can't say Christians are not allowed to use the sword (literary). That would imply the Christians in the Government to break the State Laws and the Word since the Bible teaches us to do everything will with all our heart and to obey the laws.

If a soldier refuses to obey his commanders he is committing crime. He has to pull the trigger. If he decides to be part of the army (which you say is Ok for Christians) he has to go all the way through.

[This message has been edited by Calin (edited May 22, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calin:
Is it me or it's getting hot in here?

---

Jari, first and foremost, your posts are always interesting. Before asking about something you said in this most recent post, I wanted to clarify something about the Matthew 10 passage that I don't think I expressed well.

The underlying concept of the sword (even if that's the Word of God), as well as that passage, is that it will bring conflict (or perhaps "strife" is a better word). The meaning of "sword" isn't the focal point, the hard life that is related to one who follows Christ is the focal point.

Anyway, I was wanting to ask you about something in your most recent post. Specifically, when you said this:
[Is] this advised in New Testament? It is in [Old Testament] and it's [prophesied] and the meaning is spiritual battle.

I need to go back and find this passages, but working off of what I understand you to mean, it seems that you think these prophecies of physical battle are symbols of the spiritual war that was to come. Tying back in to the original topic of how violence is related to video games and movies, why is it that depictions of physical violence in a game or film can't likewise "prophesy" spiritual warfare (or other forms of non-physical conflict)?

I think this is what I meant to say from the start: Depictions of physical violence can be used as symbols of the spiritual warfare Christians face today.

I think that I will also gracefully bow out of this conversation, though, because I'm not exactly comfortable with so much Scripture-countering-Scripture as is going on here. I explained this in my last post, so I won't copy and paste it in here. I see good ideas on both sides, though I lean much more HanClinto's way on the whole, but I feel my take on things melds parts of the two and adds a bit of its own.

If more input from me is wanted, I'll provide, but I'm not looking to stir up any trouble here. "A house divided..." you know.

------------------
Portal with information on my programming projects and links to my other work

quote:

---

1 David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, 2 and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off as they went on their way.

3 When David and his men came to Ziklag, they found it destroyed by fire and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. 4 So David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. 5 David's two wives had been captured—Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 6 David was greatly distressed because the men were talking of stoning him; each one was bitter in spirit because of his sons and daughters. But David found strength in the LORD his God.

7 Then David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, "Bring me the ephod." Abiathar brought it to him, 8 and David inquired of the LORD, "Shall I pursue this raiding party? Will I overtake them?"
"Pursue them," he answered. "You will certainly overtake them and succeed in the rescue."

9 David and the six hundred men with him came to the Besor Ravine, where some stayed behind, 10 for two hundred men were too exhausted to cross the ravine. But David and four hundred men continued the pursuit.

11 They found an Egyptian in a field and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat- 12 part of a cake of pressed figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights.

13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?"
He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. 14 We raided the Negev of the Kerethites and the territory belonging to Judah and the Negev of Caleb. And we burned Ziklag."

15 David asked him, "Can you lead me down to this raiding party?"
He answered, "Swear to me before God that you will not kill me or hand me over to my master, and I will take you down to them."

16 He led David down, and there they were, scattered over the countryside, eating, drinking and reveling because of the great amount of plunder they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from Judah. 17 David fought them from dusk until the evening of the next day, and none of them got away, except four hundred young men who rode off on camels and fled. 18 David recovered everything the Amalekites had taken, including his two wives.

---

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

[This message has been edited by Matt Langley (edited May 22, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xian_Lee:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Calin:
[b]Is it me or it's getting hot in here?

---

Heh it really got hot when posting one reply yestarday because I had not drank enough and sat rather long time writing the reply. Phew, it's cooler now. [/b][/QUOTE]

You said (Xian):
"The meaning of "sword" isn't the focal point, the hard life that is related to one who follows Christ is the focal point."

Ok, I thought you meant that the word sword had literal meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xian_Lee:

Anyway, I was wanting to ask you about something in your most recent post. Specifically, when you said this:
[Is] this advised in New Testament? It is in [Old Testament] and it's [prophesied] and the meaning is spiritual battle.

---

Isaih speaks about this, it speaks about times of Israel in OT and then goes to NT and messiah. It's quite much to read to check just one thing but I believe it will be a blessing to read the whole book as it tells much about God's love and His plan of salvation in His great mercy and loyal
ty towards us all (because the nation of Israel can be thought as one person, you and me).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xian_Lee:

I need to go back and find this passages, but working off of what I understand you to mean, it seems that you think these prophecies of physical battle are symbols of the spiritual war that was to come. Tying back in to the original topic of how violence is related to video games and movies, [b]why is it that depictions of physical violence in a game or film can't likewise "prophesy" spiritual warfare (or other forms of non-physical conflict)?
[/b]

---

Well maybe this wasnt a question for me? Because I never said you couldn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xian_Lee:

If more input from me is wanted, I'll provide, but I'm not looking to stir up any trouble here. "A house divided..." you know.

---

Yeah and I would have other things to do than posting here but if there's something beneficial I can say from the knowledge given to me by God then I feel its my duty to post. This is important matter and I wonder how many Christians choose to take an real weapon instead of spiritual.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calin:
@Jari:

Jari if you agree it's Ok with government to possess the sword and with Christians to be in government than you can't say Christians are not allowed to use the sword (literary). That would imply the Christians in the Government to break the State Laws and the Word since the Bible teaches us to do everything will with all our heart and to obey the laws.

If a soldier refuses to obey his commanders he is committing crime. He [b]has to pull the trigger. If he decides to be part of the army (which you say is Ok for Christians) he has to go all the way through.
[/B]

---

Calin, I dont think it's that simple that all coverments actions and laws would be accepted by the Lord. First thing to note is that when two nations war against each other, is it the muslim nation with no Christians in the coverment that is the wrong side? And before Jesus comes there will be peace after the wars, what does this tell to you? To me it seems that Lord makes the peace because its not good for people to war (obviously). And then when the world will end, just read revelations, these coverments will be gone and all the people who rebel against God. So I wonder are there really some good coverments that are not "taken down" like in revelations when the world ends?

That was just something to think about. I'd not follow coverment in all manners knowing that not much is according to the Bible but I can still submit under the laws and ocverment as long as they wont persecuate because of Jesus - like they do in some countries.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] - Truedisciple (mp3)