violent games - should they be avoided?

[cplsamcorion]

There are so many violent games out there. Actually violent games seem to be the most popular games. Shooting games or sword fighting games, etc. are some of the most popular types of games out there. FEAR, Halo 1 2 and 3, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Far Cry, Crysis, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, the list goes on. Why are the violent games the most fun to play (by violent I mean fighting, shooting, knives, etc. but not excessive gore for the sake of my thread.. as I do not play games with excessive gore.)

Biblically how far do you go? Do you stop at the sight of blood? Grand Theft Auto style killing (hookers for money, etc.)? Shooting anything or hitting anything with a weapon in a game? What about the bloodless seemingly innocent world of Zelda? What about boxing in Wii Sports? If you go waaay out there, even Mario is violent eh? Think about it, you are killing goombas and koopas by jumping on them and throwing fireballs at them. Or what about when the violence is not helpful to a story element in which there is a battle between good and evil (a story to prove a moral point, etc.)? Paul says to seek after those things that are honorable, uplifting, etc. How far can a game go until it is no longer an acceptable practice?

Many online shooters have Christian servers which scroll uplifting messages across the screen. Many churches are having Halo parties to try to connect with teenagers in some way. Should churches be trying to reach out to people in this way? Is this appropriate?

Christianity is not a religion of peace. There is violence throughout Scripture, and violence is in some cases necessary in order to do what is right and uphold justice.

I have been playing violent games for awhile now, and as far as I can tell I have not been affected by them. I can play most any game, no matter the level of violence and not be driven in any way shape or form to do anything violent in real life. When I was a young kid me and my friend would fight (not to hurt each other or anything) and pretend we were playing Mortal Kombat, but I was only 7 or 8 and did not know any better. The same with violent movies or any other type of violent media. I am not bothered by any of it, well, with the exception of excessive gore or graphic violence such as a beheading or something.

Although, I see no evidence that they have an affect on me in my real life at all. Is this only a concern for children who know not the difference between reality and a game, or is being exposed to violence in a game, movie, book or any other form of media serve as a way to desensitize you to the real life violence?

What are your thoughts on this subject? Where do you stop? Should a Christian play anything in the shooter or fighter genre at all? Should a Christian stick to puzzle games, racers, etc.?

At the moment, personally I am leaning towards avoiding any game in which you shoot things, with the exception of 2d games like Contra or something. Stuff like Mario and Zelda I guess is ok. What do you think?

 

[K9_Trainer]

Personally, I feel it is up to the individual and God to make that decision. I don't think it's necessarily a "should a Christian be doing that" issue (as I feel with many things).

Some people may feel that the violence is too much and inappropriate for them and their relationship with God and that's fine. They should be able to draw the line where ever they think is appropriate.

Others aren't affected by it and aren't bothered by it and if that's the case, then they should have the choice to play whatever violent games they want without being criticized for it "not being Christian".

I don't think it desensitizes us at all to violence. You can play those shooting games and bloody stabbing games all you want, but if you ever get in a situation where you really could get stabbed, shot or beat up, or something horrible happens like the 9/11 terrorist attack or Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, you are quite far from being nonchalant about it because your "used to it".

As for children, I agree with you. What they watch on TV or play on video games should be monitored until they reach an age where they understand that TV isn't real and that some things you see on TV are NOT to be repeated.

As for why violent games tend to be more fun....I think it's a way for us to release urges to "kill something" without actually killing anything at all or rebel against the law without actually doing it in real life. They are actually a great way to release anger...Better to take it out on virtual person than a real one. If you want a more psychological arguement, one could say it goes back to when humans were more primal and how we are hunters. But now days, people don't need to hunt and kill for food, just go to the supermarket. So violent video games that involve killing are replacements for our need to hunt. I don't really buy into that one though lol.

 

[cplsamcorion]

I think my conviction at the moment is that a game is alright unless there is excessive language (and I mean excessive, language bothers me very little even though I do not use it) gore, or graphic killing of another human being or something that closely resembles one i.e. a zombie. So a game like Halo or Resistance: Fall of Man, Half Life 2 Episodes, Zelda, Mario, etc. are ok. A game like Bioshock, Ghost Recon, Crysis, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress and so on would not be fit to play. Do not know aobut Mass Effect, if you kill humans or not, although I have heard there are some sexual themes, I do not know how bad they are though and if you can avoid them by not saying certain things, etc.

 

[Tariel]

Personally, I've never played a video game I has a problem with, but I am aware of the controversy. Actually, I'm doing my project for a class on the subject - I'm really looking forward to it

 

[FlaymSior]

1) The commandment is to not murder. i.e. killing unjustly. This characterizes such acts as random violence resulting in death, killing for the sake of killing, and any illegal activity.
2) Most violent games feature war between two groups, whether it be Allied vs Axis, humanity vs Covenant, or US and Britain against Middle East insurgents and Russians. War, while not always the best course of action, and "just". (Some exceptions, naturally)
2b) A good portion of the remainder are for survival against foes who won't sit down to a cup of tea and talk things over. This would be like Condemned, Bioshock, Mass Effect to an extent (so I've heard), etc.
3) There's a difference between fantasy violence (man vs creature/alien) and violence (man vs man). In this sense fantasy would be Halo and Gears of War and violence would be Call of Duty 4.

I run [FLAYM]Reviews.com and often met with resistance when it comes to violent games where I'll "downplay" the violence of Halo and yet point it out as flawed in Bioshock. Number 3 is the reason for that. And if it's illegal, it's a straight away no-go, thumbs down, return to sender, address unknown.
(And yes, that was a shameless plug =P)

 

[A2597]

I play a multitude of violent games, Unreal Tournament, Half Life, GTA, Crysis, Bioshock, Oblivion, list goes on and on.

Frankly, I don't see those games impacting my faith at all. No different than seeing a movie or reading a book. It's fiction, not reality.

That said, there are games I've avoided. The Witcher immidiatly comes to mind. Sounded like a good game, but turns up theres nudity in it. Trying despertly to ensure that I can save my eyes for my wife (Whomever that may wind up being) So no need for that.

OK, so maybe a number of people find it odd that I have no problem with games where I literally shred peoples bodies into peices that bounce across that room, but do with the ocasional nude shot, but consider this.

I am male, and God gave me a sex drive, and that image can spawn thoughts I don't want, or need. But never ONCE have I while walking down the street thought how awesome would it be to blow a rocket through that guys head.

 

[Sketcher]

Define violent.

 

[Breetai]

This again???

BTW, Christianity IS a religion of peace. The Bible is partly a history book, chronicling the history of the Jewish people and their interaction with God. There is violence of course, but Christianity is not a violent religion at all. Any violence carried out in the name of the Bible is against it. Get a clue.

 

[FlaymSior]

This again???

BTW, Christianity IS a religion of peace. The Bible is partly a history book, chronicling the history of the Jewish people and their interaction with God. There is violence of course, but Christianity is not a violent religion at all. Any violence carried out in the name of the Bible is against it. Get a clue.

Not so much as many people think. Yes, we're non-violent, but that's to man. Not peaceful as in a sort of hippy way where no matter what happens we still love the other... well, we do, but not necessarily liking or taking it.

Fighting and competition are repeated themes of the New Testament.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
Struggle, battle, fight. We are more than conquerors, not less. We are civil, but not peaceful. We are always at war, just not in a way depicted in video games.

 

[Breetai]

Not so much as many people think. Yes, we're non-violent, but that's to man. Not peaceful as in a sort of hippy way where no matter what happens we still love the other... well, we do, but not necessarily liking or taking it.

Fighting and competition are repeated themes of the New Testament.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
Struggle, battle, fight. We are more than conquerors, not less. We are civil, but not peaceful. We are always at war, just not in a way depicted in video games.

I don't think that's how most people define "violent." Sure, you could say that we are "violent" towards demonic things, or towards heretical teachings... but that's not really the definition of violent, is it?

 

[The-Doctor]

The way I see it is that these games are just that games...no one actually dies and yes the violence is graphic so I wouldn't want young children playing them so I agree they should be limited to adults in those cases but I dont think they are bad in themselves. Interms of whether there is a link between violent games and violence in society. Various studies have looked at this and generally it was found that those who played violent games and acted violently generally had a perpensitiy for violence before they played the games. I play violent games but have no desire to enact any of them. After all they are just games not reality.

 

[FlaymSior]

I don't think that's how most people define "violent." Sure, you could say that we are "violent" towards demonic things, or towards heretical teachings... but that's not really the definition of violent, is it?

It's a definition, so it's accurate. Just not taken that way at face value because of assumptions and false beliefs of others towards us.

 

[Breetai]

It's a definition, so it's accurate.

No, it's not accurate. A word is defined by its common usage in various contexts. It is not correct to say that "Christianity is not a religion of peace", or that "Christianity is a religion of violence."

You could say that the name of Christianity has brought violence, but that is not what the OP said.

 

[FlaymSior]

No, it's not accurate. A word is defined by its common usage in various contexts. It is not correct to say that "Christianity is not a religion of peace", or that "Christianity is a religion of violence."

You could say that the name of Christianity has brought violence, but that is not what the OP said.

Again, it depends on the definition of violence. Example, war, could be country vs country, physical, psychological, nuclear, or a card game. Each is accurate in their contexts. Each is accurate to how it's spoken. While the statement "Christianity is a violent religion" is accurate, it's inferred meaning is off by presumptions and previous views. And from that context, both statements "Christianity is a religion of peace" and "Christianity is a religion of violence" are accurate when spoken though neither is accurately inferred a majority of the time. This is not a fault of the definitions but of the audience and, therefore, the speaker.

And now that I've thoroughly confused myself with redundant statements...

 

[Breetai]

Again, it depends on the definition of violence. Example, war, could be country vs country, physical, psychological, nuclear, or a card game. Each is accurate in their contexts. Each is accurate to how it's spoken. While the statement "Christianity is a violent religion" is accurate, it's inferred meaning is off by presumptions and previous views. And from that context, both statements "Christianity is a religion of peace" and "Christianity is a religion of violence" are accurate when spoken though neither is accurately inferred a majority of the time. This is not a fault of the definitions but of the audience and, therefore, the speaker.

And now that I've thoroughly confused myself with redundant statements...

The definition of violence? Look, I'm telling you that with the general meaning of "violent", Christianity is not violent. It does not preach violence, it does not promote war. It is quite pacifist. Theologically speaking, it is wrong and ignorant to call it a religion of violence. Historically speaking, I would say the same. Violence carried out in the name of Christianity is not because of Christianity, for it does not teach violence at all, but because of men being idiots.

 

[cplsamcorion]

it does not preach violence, but violence is necessary in many cases. Wars ARE necessary in order to protect innocents. If we all just sat by and decided not to be violent because violence is bad, while letting defenseless people suffer, that is NOT love. Christianity is a religion of love, faith and justice, not a religion of violence or a religion of peace. Being nonviolent in some cases is to be unjust and not to love those who are being oppressed. If someone strikes you on the check turn the other, it is not going to produce any good to strike them back, but if someone strikes your family or a child or a defenseless person, and you do not do something, you are not loving that person. "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild" is what is commonly said about Jesus. That casts him in an incorrect light and makes him look like a wimp and that is why so many people see faith in Him as a weakness.

He was a man's man. The LION and the LAMB. Both. He is not just the lamb, he is also the Lion of Judah. People often fail to remember that it will be Jesus riding on the clouds at the last day to judge all people. He is just, and just because he uses violence (again, take the temple courts example, he drove them out with a whip because the poor were being taken advantage of by being sold sacrifices at high prices they could not affford) does not make him unjust.

Christianity is neither a religion of violence nor peace, it is a religion of justice, love (I guess including mercy here) and faith.

 

[Breetai]

Christianity is [not] a religion of... peace...

[Christianity]...is a religion of justice, love (I guess including mercy here) and faith.

Quite the contradiction here (not to mention you missed the main point of Christianity!).

What is the purpose of justice? Is it not ultimately to price peaceful resolutions and create peace?

Christianity is ultimately a religion of forgiveness and redemption, which of course is part of love.

 

[FlaymSior]

Quite the contradiction here (not to mention you missed the main point of Christianity!).

What is the purpose of justice? Is it not ultimately to price peaceful resolutions and create peace?

Christianity is ultimately a religion of forgiveness and redemption, which of course is part of love.

Redemption and forgiveness, but for those to exist, there must be the opposite, otherwise they themselves would not exist as points. If there is redemption, there must also be damnation/condemnation, whichever the forums won't bleep out. If there is forgiveness, there must be those that do not accept.
For there to be a good God, there must be an evil, and there is. And that is what we are violent against. You're focused on the violence of man to man, which is not the case at all.

We
Are
At
War

And those who don't see it are the ones without a firm grasp of what following Christ involves.

 

[Breetai]

Redemption and forgiveness, but for those to exist, there must be the opposite, otherwise they themselves would not exist as points. If there is redemption, there must also be damnation/condemnation, whichever the forums won't bleep out. If there is forgiveness, there must be those that do not accept.

Accept what? We are unable to "accept" anything from God. On the contrary, it is God, through Christ, who accepts us. We can do nothing at all to accept it. Even our faith isn't our doing, as it is through the Holy Spirit that we are even able to have that. The only action we can do is to deny the Holy Spirit.

For there to be a good God, there must be an evil, and there is.

God is good whether there is evil or not. Evil just gives is something to compare it to, but does not create goodness.

And that is what we are violent against. You're focused on the violence of man to man, which is not the case at all.

I'm using the common understanding of "violence", which is the secular understanding. This is a secular video games forum, not a Christian forum.

We
Are
At
War

With ourselves, against sin. Still, this is a secular forum. Why are you trying to fit "violence" into a fundamentalist Christian definition in a secular forum? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[FlaymSior]

Accept what? We are unable to "accept" anything from God. On the contrary, it is God, through Christ, who accepts us. We can do nothing at all to accept it. Even our faith isn't our doing, as it is through the Holy Spirit that we are even able to have that. The only action we can do is to deny the Holy Spirit.

God is good whether there is evil or not. Evil just gives is something to compare it to, but does not create goodness.
I'm using the common understanding of "violence", which is the secular understanding. This is a secular video games forum, not a Christian forum.

With ourselves, against sin. Still, this is a secular forum. Why are you trying to fit "violence" into a fundamentalist Christian definition in a secular forum? Doesn't make sense to me.
You should edit this out of your post, as there is now a warning system in place again.

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

It creates the concept of goodness. Why would we see God as Good if we did not have evil to compare Him to. And if there were no bad, how can He be classified as Good in our minds and lives?

Well I'm sorry for not checking my God at the door. [/sarcasm]

With ourselves against sin and against sin for others! Why do so many think that our battle is just for our own minds, our own hearts, and our own souls when we should be reaching to the others as well?

What's said is said. Soz, mate, but a warning system isn't gonna stop me from talking to a Christian about Christianity whether I be in church, a secular forum, graveyard, or floral shop. Like I said, I ain't gonna check my God at the door just so people can be comfortable. A warning bell is meant to rouse people from the comforts of their beds. If they hear and don't heed, it's their own fault for whatever happens to them, not the watchman's, not mine.