violent games - should they be avoided?

[Victory of the Cross]

war/violence is a terrible thing that is very often needed a counter-weight to evil men.

War is not the message of Christianity,

"We war not with flesh and blood"


Yet As Christians i believe we have a certain duty to protect the weak also.

 

[ravendta]

I was playing Super Mario Brothers, and then I had this incredible desire to go outside and jump on huge walking mushrooms with eyes and shoes and then shoot fireballs at ducks in turtle shells. Mom says I need therepy.

 

[Victory of the Cross]

I was playing Super Mario Brothers, and then I had this incredible desire to go outside and jump on huge walking mushrooms with eyes and shoes and then shoot fireballs at ducks in turtle shells. Mom says I need therepy.

I knew it was you whom upset my poor giant mushroom friend!

 

[ravendta]

Well, after getting the sarcasm out of my system (there always seems to be an abundance of it!) I decided I should post a real reply here.

I do not believe that video games, in and of themselves, are evil. 90% of what you see in video games these days is still tame compared to PG-13 and R-rated movies. I mean, there are even some cable TV shows that are worse! Yet there is little to no outcry against them; on the contrary, the public embraces them.

Why, then, do video games get constantly put under the microscope by people in congress, religious leaders, and many many others?

The only answer I can come up with is the fact that with games, you interact with the violence that is occuring.

But let's take a step back and be realistic here for a second. Taking a gun and shooting someone in real life is MUCH MUCH different from picking up a game controller and shooting a polygon-composed character in a video game - a character that respawns moments later, or when you come back to the level, or when you play the game again. As much as the naysayers want the world to believe that game violence is realistic, a quick encounter with any of these games will tell you that it isn't. Even with the new and improved graphics of the age, you still have a Playstation/Xbox/Wii controller in your hand, no bullets, and an artificial character that neither lives nor dies. Not very life-like.

Do video games incite violence? That is hard to say for sure, but I truly believe that, like movies and TV, if a person knows the difference between fantasy and reality, then a game will not push them toward violent behavior. Criminals kill because the evil is in them to kill. That evil is born of anger, hatred, frustration, bitterness, jealousy, or whatever other negative emotions humans fight with on a daily basis. A game isn't going to make someone want to shoot another person - if they have that much hate in them, they're going to do it regardless. No one sits down for a game of Halo and then goes, "You know what would be more fun than this? Getting a few rifles and doing it for real!" And if they do, then they have serious mental problems that would've brought them into trouble with or without the help of games.

So then we turn to the question of whether or not violent games are sinful. Let me ask you this: Is it sinful to look at the naked human body? Male or female, it doesn't matter. Is it a sin? Of course not. The human body is God's most loved creation. HOWEVER, as with anything else, if looking upon a naked woman or man causes you to lust, then you should not do it. That's why porn is sinful. No one watches porn for the "art" of it, because lets face it, there is very little "art" going on there. Besides, God intended sex to be between the man and woman, not the man and woman and a crowd of spectators. Anything in your life that causes you to sin should be removed. "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off." The naked body in itself isn't sinful, but lusting after the naked woman or man is.

It is the same with video games. Playing games isn't sinful, but if what you play fills you with the urge to go do it in reality, then you need to stop playing them. If shooting people in Halo makes you want to kill people in real life, then you need to put down the controller and get rid of the game. However, if you can distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality, if you know and believe that murder in real life is unacceptable, if you can put down the controller and return to Earth, then I see nothing wrong with it. In the end, it comes down to a personal decision. Is it right for you? Should they be avoided?

That's the thing - only YOU can answer that.

For me, video games have actually had a VERY positive affect on my life and led me to discover my talent for writing. If you want more examples of how games can be a good thing, I wrote a blog on it a few years ago that you can read.

http://ravendta.blogspot.com/2004/12/game-of-life.html

The bottom line is that whether or not you should avoid these games is between you and God. Keep the lines of communication open with him, and he'll steer you in the direction that is right for you.

 

[Breetai]

So are we default saved that if we do not deny Christ that we are saved? I think not!

Are you sure that your church doesn't teach this? Tell me, how is it that we are saved? Are we saved by our works, as you seem to be (unknowingly) implying?

It creates the concept of goodness.

Evil creates the concept of goodness?

Why would we see God as Good if we did not have evil to compare Him to.

Why? That's what you have been trying to say.

And if there were no bad, how can He be classified as Good in our minds and lives?

Good exists whether we can compare it to anything or not. Having an opposite thing just gives us something to contrast it to.

 

[FlaymSior]

Bingo, so WE have something to contrast it to. Otherwise the concept would be lost on us.

Actually yes, the church has ever taught that it is our choice to take or reject the gift of God which is given to everyone. Otherwise, the commandments are null and void since we get the gift of grace whether we sin or not. Should we go on sinning so grace may abound? Nope. So what MUST we do to be saved? Not, what must we do to be lost. Accepting God's role for you in His plan is our active part, one that goes from our choice through our baptism till our death. Or shall we just say we're saved and let others go on their way in their sin because we have the gift of salvation?

 

[mrpiddly]

just pure gaming in general is rather silly and pointless. The least a gamer can do is develop content/mod for games or make his own game.

That is why i dislike pure gamers, they just sit wasting their life with nothing. Hey im wasting my life too, but while wasting my life i learned multiple coding languages and how to do creative things with programs like modo or flash. Plus ive made some money in the process. And i still have a real life that is always more important than a virtual one.



Violent games do nothing wrong but i often question the necessity of the mature content in some games. This however only applies to games like postal 2, the whole urination thing was rather absurd along with the flaming decapitated head dog fetching. That and games like "ethnic cleansing" which is possibly the worst game ever because you go around shooting people of other races for no reason. Even with its ps1 graphics, the whole idea is just sickening. It also contains horrible stereotypes and every copy of the game should be destroyed.

 

[Breetai]

Bingo, so WE have something to contrast it to. Otherwise the concept would be lost on us.

... Yet, evil does not need to exist in order for there to be good. That's what I gathered you were claiming.

Actually yes, the church has ever taught that it is our choice to take or reject the gift of God which is given to everyone.

Are you aware that this was a major issue in the reformation? You also mentioned that grace is something that is "given to everyone." I agree. This agrees with God's Word. Take a look at John 3:16 and its following verses:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The entire world was saved through Him. EVERYONE. All we can do is reject this.

Otherwise, the commandments are null and void since we get the gift of grace whether we sin or not.

Null and void? No. Sin is still sin, as God tells us. We are to follow the Lord. Yet, EVERYONE is a sinner... yet Christ still died for us all.

What you are implying here is that we are saved through our works. That is pure heresy. We are still saved even though we yet sin.

Should we go on sinning so grace may abound? Nope.

I said nothing of the sort.

So what MUST we do to be saved?

Nothing. We can do nothing. Please drill this in your head. Christ has done all the work for us, and nothing we can do can help us. Even our faith is possible because of the Holy Spirit, not of our own accord. You have no power to save yourself, only God can save you... and He did. This was also the basis for the reformation of the 16th century.

Not, what must we do to be lost. Accepting God's role for you in His plan is our active part, one that goes from our choice through our baptism till our death.

Can you support that Biblically? When we are baptized, it's GOD'S WORK! You are saying that baptism is OUR WORK. Not so.

Or shall we just say we're saved and let others go on their way in their sin because we have the gift of salvation?

We are called to spread the Gospel, not to sit and do nothing. Whether you like it or not, Christ died for all... but many will reject this. Through the Holy Spirit, they might believe... but please don't call this "accepting Christ." It's easy to say that, but in doing so you're saying that we have to do something in order to be saved. In reality, even saying that we accept Christ isn't possible. We only believe because of the power of God.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, or works? "Accepting" is a work. Jesus already accepted us, we CANNOT accept Christ.

Flaymsior, instead of arguing me point for point right away, I'll give you a good example of how God's grace works:


There's a boy who has a birthday coming up. His parents decide to buy him the game, Manhunt 2. They buy it, they pay for it, they do the work of getting it together, and on his birthday they present it to him.

Now one might ask at which point does that game belong to that boy. Some may say that it belongs to him when his parents gave it to him or when he accepted it from them. The reality, though, is that the game was his at the moment his parents bought and paid for it. They didn't but it for themsleves. In fact, they may have referred to it as "Johnny's Manhunt 2 game" even before they presented it to him. It was already his, he owned that game. He just didn't know it until it was presented to him. He didn't have to pay for it or do anything to have it. All that was done for him, even without his knowledge.

Our faith and salvation from God is the same way. God made the decision, Christ did the work on the cross, and that salvation won at Calvary is ours. It belongs to us.
There is a time in our lives where that gift is presented to us. We call that conversion. Some of us were raised from infancy knowing that we have that gift, that we already have possession of it. Others don't find out until some time in their lives. The gift is presented in the proclamation of the Gospel. St. Paul writes in Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Now, Johnny owns Manhunt 2. He owned it even before he was aware of it. He did nothing to possess it. He didn't have to "accept" it to have ownership of it.
But he does have the ability to reject it and say he doesn't want it. By doing so, he does not receive any benefit from having the game. In the same way, he also got no benefit from it before his birthday and before his parents presented it to him. We can't really benefit from something we don't even know we have.

Again, our faith is the same way. There are many (sadly) who have actively rejected this gift from God, and thus reject the benefits of everlasting life. And even more sad are those who have yet to even hear that they have this gift, and thus cannot benefit from it either. (Read Romans 10:13-17)

Our salvation is a gift. It has already been given to us at the cross. We already own it. We don't need to ask for it or choose it or accept it because we already have possession of it.

 

[tasteofchaos]

did you know there is no evidence for violent video games causing any kind of violence in youth, crime rates in the united states, the biggest video gaming nation of them all, have been on the decline since the late 70's. Media is all rubbish if you ask me, at least 90% of the time.

 

[FlaymSior]

... Yet, evil does not need to exist in order for there to be good. That's what I gathered you were claiming.

You infer incorrectly to the implication, and I apologize if it came across that way at any point.

Are you aware that this was a major issue in the reformation? You also mentioned that grace is something that is "given to everyone." I agree. This agrees with God's Word. Take a look at John 3:16 and its following verses:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The entire world was saved through Him. EVERYONE. All we can do is reject this.

And yet there must be a choice to follow God... ;-P

What you are implying here is that we are saved through our works. That is pure heresy. We are still saved even though we yet sin.

Not when one looks at Scripture. This is probably what you've been waiting for.
James 2:14-19
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith ; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Faith = actions, and that is what many people miss. Our faith is defined by our actions, not JUST in serving God but in serving others, doing it to do it because you know it's the right thing, not seeking a reward of some sort or earning anything as many decide it means.
Romans is actually quite a good book to truly study and see the integration between grace and faith in terms of salvation.

Nothing. We can do nothing. Please drill this in your head. Christ has done all the work for us, and nothing we can do can help us. Even our faith is possible because of the Holy Spirit, not of our own accord. You have no power to save yourself, only God can save you... and He did. This was also the basis for the reformation of the 16th century.

*chuckles* Yes, you can do nothing. You are able to do nothing. You can sin. You can abstain to the best of your abilities (and still fail, but that's a given). In the end, that's exactly what it is. What you can do and what you can't do. What can you do? Glorify God and God will glorify you.

Can you support that Biblically? When we are baptized, it's GOD'S WORK! You are saying that baptism is OUR WORK. Not so.

Believe I already did. What must WE/I do to be saved? The invitation is there, the gift is offered but... well, I'll get to that when I further and eventually correct your example.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, or works? "Accepting" is a work. Jesus already accepted us, we CANNOT accept Christ.

Soz, but that goes against more Scrips than it goes for.

There's a boy who has a birthday coming up. His parents decide to buy him the game, Manhunt 2. They buy it, they pay for it, they do the work of getting it together, and on his birthday they present it to him.

Now one might ask at which point does that game belong to that boy. Some may say that it belongs to him when his parents gave it to him or when he accepted it from them. The reality, though, is that the game was his at the moment his parents bought and paid for it. They didn't but it for themsleves. In fact, they may have referred to it as "Johnny's Manhunt 2 game" even before they presented it to him. It was already his, he owned that game. He just didn't know it until it was presented to him. He didn't have to pay for it or do anything to have it. All that was done for him, even without his knowledge.

Continuing! The parents present the gift to Johnny. Johnny refused because he's too many bad things about Manhunt 2, whether it's true or false, and says he doesn't want it. What happens to it? Who's is it? Even if the parents repeatedly tried to give Johnny "his" new game, and he continually refused, who's game is it? It's meant for Johnny but does not always mean it's meaning is fulfilled. What would Johnny do with the gift if he takes it just to make his parents happy? Would it really be his? It would be (most likely temporarily) in his possession, but would it be his? He wouldn't associate with it, he wouldn't play it, he wouldn't use it, or show it to others, or spread word about it. So by going by your logic, you're saying whomever serves with their lips to make God happy but not with their hearts and minds is saved just because of words.

Again, our faith is the same way. There are many (sadly) who have actively rejected this gift from God, and thus reject the benefits of everlasting life. And even more sad are those who have yet to even hear that they have this gift, and thus cannot benefit from it either. (Read Romans 10:13-17)

So you can actively reject and that's it? Hmm, how about passively reject? Is that possible? Then if it's possible to passively reject, the opposite must be true that you can actively accept as well as passively accept. Tell me, were you raised to believe or did you come to it later in life?

Our salvation is a gift. It has already been given to us at the cross. We already own it. We don't need to ask for it or choose it or accept it because we already have possession of it.

It has out name on it, but that does not mean it is ours. It is ours once we bow before our Lord, admit insignificance in comparison, complete humility and servitude, and are given (note the word choice) are given our gift. Otherwise you say that active sinners will be with God.

 

[FlaymSior]

did you know there is no evidence for violent video games causing any kind of violence in youth, crime rates in the united states, the biggest video gaming nation of them all, have been on the decline since the late 70's. Media is all rubbish if you ask me, at least 90% of the time.

It's true. The major thing people fail to contemplate is the violent preferences to already violent people. Violent people will likely like violent games. Not saying anyone who likes violent games are violent, but violent people are a demographic, eh?

 

[Breetai]

Continuing! The parents present the gift to Johnny. Johnny refused because he's too many bad things about Manhunt 2, whether it's true or false, and says he doesn't want it. What happens to it? Who's is it? Even if the parents repeatedly tried to give Johnny "his" new game, and he continually refused, who's game is it? It's meant for Johnny but does not always mean it's meaning is fulfilled.[/color] What would Johnny do with the gift if he takes it just to make his parents happy? Would it really be his? It would be (most likely temporarily) in his possession, but would it be his? He wouldn't associate with it, he wouldn't play it, he wouldn't use it, or show it to others, or spread word about it. So by going by your logic, you're saying whomever serves with their lips to make God happy but not with their hearts and minds is saved just because of words.

Good grief. You take an analogy, literally attribute it to what must be my doctrine, and claim I said something which I did not. Do you always do such things?

So you can actively reject and that's it? Hmm, how about passively reject? Is that possible? Then if it's possible to passively reject, the opposite must be true that you can actively accept as well as passively accept. Tell me, were you raised to believe or did you come to it later in life?

Seems a linguistic argument.

Tell me this: is it possible to believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit?

 

[FlaymSior]

That's exactly why most analogies fail, because they never tell the whole story.

Depends on your linguistics. You can believe Christ exists (believe in him) without giving your life to the Spirit. Some religions and atheists experience that including my own granddad.
However if you're arguing that it's the Holy Spirit that gives knowledge of Christ regardless of a personal affiliation with either, then your evidence is but supposition as no one knows in what way the Spirit moves.

 

[Raheelah]

my landlords boys are 5 and 6 and they play tomb raider, but they know the difference between fact and fiction

 

[childofgod57]

an 10 year old boy could play doom 3 until he was tired to death of it and it wouldnt affect his personality 1 jot if he was a rational individual,ok it may make him have nightmares during his sleep but he would not be unable to distinguish between real and fantasy - another 10 year old boy with a social psychosis could watch tom n jerry then go out and try to recreate the violence he saw on other children - its all down to the individual

as for violent games as a whole?,if i had boys as children i wouldnt let them play them,thats my choice on the matter as a parent

 

[FlaymSior]

an 10 year old boy could play doom 3 until he was tired to death of it and it wouldnt affect his personality 1 jot if he was a rational individual,ok it may make him have nightmares during his sleep but he would not be unable to distinguish between real and fantasy - another 10 year old boy with a social psychosis could watch tom n jerry then go out and try to recreate the violence he saw on other children - its all down to the individual

as for violent games as a whole?,if i had boys as children i wouldnt let them play them,thats my choice on the matter as a parent

Well go you! Not saying every parent should limit what games their kids play, just have a level of involvement. Restrict it as you would movies or television.

 

[Steezie]

I play the Battlefield series (2 and 2142) with a speciality in sniping. I've practiced and I will say, if I can get into a good position, I can take twenty people or so down before I get taken out.

Thats not to mention the BILLIONS of people I've killed in games over the years, if you count strategy games, I've killed probably trillions. Have I gone out yet and massacred people? Nope.

I know many people who play as much if not more so than I and none of them have yet to go on a rampage.

Its simple dits and dots on a screen, you arent actually ending a human life.

 

[cat1]

an 10 year old boy could play doom 3 until he was tired to death of it and it wouldnt affect his personality 1 jot if he was a rational individual,ok it may make him have nightmares during his sleep but he would not be unable to distinguish between real and fantasy - another 10 year old boy with a social psychosis could watch tom n jerry then go out and try to recreate the violence he saw on other children - its all down to the individual

as for violent games as a whole?,if i had boys as children i wouldnt let them play them,thats my choice on the matter as a parent

Excuse me but would YOU let your own 10 year old play Doom 3 I think NOT!! I know I wouldn't let my kids play them thats for sure. they have age restrictions for a reason!!! get a clue.

 

[mrpiddly]

Excuse me but would YOU let your own 10 year old play Doom 3 I think NOT!! I know I wouldn't let my kids play them thats for sure. they have age restrictions for a reason!!! get a clue.

are you doing that for their sake or are you just making yourself feel better?

 

[Steezie]

Excuse me but would YOU let your own 10 year old play Doom 3 I think NOT!! I know I wouldn't let my kids play them thats for sure. they have age restrictions for a reason!!! get a clue.

I played Doom II at age eight