Fist of Jesus

FarligOpptreden said:
This thread isn't really a debate anymore. It's turned to Graal asking for reasons why Christians might find it offensive, valid reasons being provided, but him posting the same replies every time. Christians then respond with the same reasons, Graal refuses to accept them on the same grounds and it starts all over...
Click to expand...

This has effectively become the premise of this thread.
 
Graal said:
I'm pointing out the responses I've been dealing with, while simultaneously being painted as the big bad meanie. There's nothing to resolve between me and Ike_009 because he attached it to a positive rep comment and I can't really be arsed by what he thinks of me either. It's just some hilarious hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Not actually, I was trying to point out that you obviously don't know enough about the topic or are to ignorant to see the true so the problem we have is this never ending circle of you asking for reasons, you reject said reason because it doesn't meet your standard and then we go back to square one. So the problem we have is you obviously don't know enough on christianity to realize how off target you are.

A link to the video/ Gif i was referencing (I'm not saying you're stupid but you are arguing with people who are actually in that position when you are not)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
 
Last edited:
FarligOpptreden said:
Makes me think of a terrible meeting with a client today. We were arguing in circles and they kept refusing to understand our view, even though we spelled it out as clearly as humanly possible. Even the member of their own team that minuted each meeting tried to explain to them our point of view, as she understood it correctly.

Point is, people will stick to their opinions and seldom, if ever, change it. We're all at least a bit selfish and stubborn. That's human nature. I do believe we need to respect each other's views and right to taking offence. We all react emotionally different to situations. Some might think I'm an emotionless prick for not grieving my sister's death for more than a day, but I deal with tradegy quite well. Heck, I was the only one at her deathbed.

Graal has the ability to see the lighter side of most, if not all, things in life. It's an admirable quality that I lack in. I get offended by certain things, but I have respect for others views/opinions/choices in life. I think Solitude's post sums up why some Christians take offence to this game quite clearly. We just need to be tolerant and empathetic towards one another.

This thread isn't really a debate anymore. It's turned to Graal asking for reasons why Christians might find it offensive, valid reasons being provided, but him posting the same replies every time. Christians then respond with the same reasons, Graal refuses to accept them on the same grounds and it starts all over...
Click to expand...

I have not posted in this thread because I don't want to become part of this, for what it has mostly become, circlejerk.

From all the posts I've read so far though, this seems like it should be the post to end the thread (obviously it wasn't).
 
Wyzak said:
Fair enough, I guess the real problem here is that I expected more from MyGaming. I will adjust my expectations.
Click to expand...

I have to point out the unfair nature of that comment. Mygaming, as much is it feels like an internet home to us, is first and foremost, a news site with the focus on gaming (granted, they inject lots of humor in their coverage, good or bad). So if a story within the gaming industry breaks, they will by all means cover it in some fashion. Whether the story is controversial or not is irrelevant. It's also somewhat irrelevant that the subject of the news may have sparked the controversy purposefully to get coverage. The fact of the matter is, if the article being written has reach, they'll cover it. And this article was sparked by this very thread, so it definitely has reach considering how far this thread has gone (I speak under correction).

So, all I'm saying is, what happens when they start cherry-picking the content they write?

What I will give you is maybe I would have expected them to make mention of the controversy surrounding the game.
 
Saint_Dee said:
I have to point out the unfair nature of that comment. Mygaming, as much is it feels like an internet home to us, is first and foremost, a news site with the focus on gaming (granted, they inject lots of humor in their coverage, good or bad). So if a story within the gaming industry breaks, they will by all means cover it in some fashion. Whether the story is controversial or not is irrelevant. It's also somewhat irrelevant that the subject of the news may have sparked the controversy purposefully to get coverage. The fact of the matter is, if the article being written has reach, they'll cover it. And this article was sparked by this very thread, so it definitely has reach considering how far this thread has gone (I speak under correction).

So, all I'm saying is, what happens when they start cherry-picking the content they write?
Click to expand...

I disagree. When the story might be offensive to several of it's members it should think twice before publishing the article. Jan even said above that Kevin (who published the story) is an atheist, and as such probably finds the reaction here hilarious. But IMO MyGaming should have considered the effect that it would have on members who are Christians.

Should a story about a rape-game, lesbian-bashing or a racial-hatred game be published blindly even though it will most likely / definitely offend certain community members?

When it's obvious that certain decisions were made only to get air-time, I think it's sometimes necessary to intentionally block out that airtime.
 
Wyzak said:
I disagree. When the story might be offensive to several of it's members it should think twice before publishing the article. Jan even said above that Kevin (who published the story) is an atheist, and as such probably finds the reaction here hilarious. But IMO MyGaming should have considered the effect that it would have on members who are Christians.

Should a story about a rape-game, lesbian-bashing or a racial-hatred game be published blindly even though it will most likely / definitely offend certain community members?

When it's obvious that certain decisions were made only to get air-time, I think it's sometimes necessary to intentionally block out that airtime.
Click to expand...

Another person involved in the publishing was Christian... They are probably just trying to cater to the entire forum, not just one group :)
 
Donisia said:
Another person involved in the publishing was Christian... They are probably just trying to cater to the entire forum, not just one group :)
Click to expand...

Yep, but if one person of a group isn't offended, it doesn't mean that nobody from that group will be offended...
 
Solitude said:
3. This game makes you play as Jesus in a demeaning way thus making a mockery of God.
Click to expand...

And that's what I'm disputing. What's demeaning about it? That he punches zombies? That he farts?

I say again, your reasons devolve into "funny + Jesus = Offense". It seems many christians believe that if Jesus is portrayed in anything other than a totally serious way, it's offensive. I'm pretty sure Jesus would see the humour in this little game. It's time you guys stopped painting your own deity as a grumpy old man with no sense of humour.
 
Graal said:
And that's what I'm disputing. What's demeaning about it? That he punches zombies? That he farts?

I say again, your reasons devolve into "funny + Jesus = Offense". It seems many christians believe that if Jesus is portrayed in anything other than a totally serious way, it's offensive. I'm pretty sure Jesus would see the humour in this little game. It's time you guys stopped painting your own deity as a grumpy old man with no sense of humour.
Click to expand...

OK, religion aside. If someone used a loved family member of yours' likeness for a game like this, same mechanics etc. Would you be offended? Like say, it's your dead grandma that used to bake you cookies, and they called it 'Fists of Nanna'.

Other than that, I cannot believe I'm perpetuating this debate....
 
Ike_009 said:
Not actually, I was trying to point out that you obviously don't know enough about the topic or are to ignorant to see the true so the problem we have is this never ending circle of you asking for reasons, you reject said reason because it doesn't meet your standard and then we go back to square one. So the problem we have is you obviously don't know enough on christianity to realize how off target you are.
Click to expand...

I grew up in a christian household in a deeply conservative afrikaans christian town. I identified as christian until about the age of 20, went to sunday school every sunday like a good little christian boy, did the whole getting accepted into the church thing at the age of 17, like a good little christian boy and even attended a few christian camps, seminars and some weird EEE3 course this one time. I think I know quite enough about christianity, thank you very much for making that assumption.

I'm still unswayed in my opinion that if you consider this game a mockery of your faith, you're a little on the oversensitive side.

BTW are you going to have that hilariously ironic tag of yours changed?
 
Graal said:
And that's what I'm disputing. What's demeaning about it? That he punches zombies? That he farts?

I say again, your reasons devolve into "funny + Jesus = Offense". It seems many christians believe that if Jesus is portrayed in anything other than a totally serious way, it's offensive. I'm pretty sure Jesus would see the humour in this little game. It's time you guys stopped painting your own deity as a grumpy old man with no sense of humour.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's right what people say. This is going around in a circle. Because I will say something along the lines of if the game had president Zuma as the player character then he would have sued because he would find it offensive. And you would say but he shouldn't find it offensive even if he does.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Snoopimaru said:
OK, religion aside. If someone used a loved family member of yours' likeness for a game like this, same mechanics etc. Would you be offended? Like say, it's your dead grandma that used to bake you cookies, and they called it 'Fists of Nanna'.

Other than that, I cannot believe I'm perpetuating this debate....
Click to expand...

Ignoring how implausible it is, no, why should I? I would think that most people would find a game about their grandma punching zombies quite awesome. My grandmother would probably find it hilarious too, had she still been alive.

Solitude said:
Nah, it's right what people say. This is going around in a circle. Because I will say something along the lines of if the game had president Zuma as the player character then he would have sued because he would find it offensive. And you would say but he shouldn't find it offensive even if he does.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...

The irony is that the circular logic has been coming from your side. Here's a little how the discussion has been going so far.

"So why do you think it's offensive?"
"Because it's demeaning to Jesus."
"Why do you think it's demeaning?"
"Because it's offensive."
 
Last edited:
Graal said:
Ignoring how implausible it is, no, why should I? I would think that most people would find a game about their grandma punching zombies quite awesome. My grandmother would probably find it hilarious too, had she still been alive.
Click to expand...

Then, good sirs, nobody is going to be satisfied with this debate, no matter how long this carries on.

Graal, you don't take things too seriously, which isn't a bad thing. In many cases, it's a very good thing. I agree, some people can be oversensitive, while at the same time other people come across as overINsensitive.

Like I said earlier, this type of thing (the game) does offend me. So I'll be avoiding it, but I won't be going on a crusade to burn down the developers' offices. I'll just silently pretend like I've never seen it, like a good little Christian boy. It's futile trying to do anything about it, it's not like it's going to go away.

I would find something like this about a dead family member incredibly offensive. But people are different like that, it's crazy.
 
Graal said:
The irony is that the circular logic has been coming from your side. Here's a little how the discussion has been going so far.

"So why do you think it's offensive?"
"Because it's demeaning to Jesus."
"Why do you think it's demeaning?"
"Because it's offensive."
Click to expand...

Haha Graal, I can see why you have been banned from MyBroadband. You are a difficult person to deal with. I've explained exactly why it can be found to be offensive. I understand why you feel Christians shouldn't find it offensive but I find it a bit disappointing that you do not have the insight to see their point of view.

The fact that these posts have been going in circles is not just because of me but because you would not accept my points.
 
czc said:
That would be getting to the level of censorship then.
Click to expand...

And that is the dangerous territory my argument alludes to... If you start cherry picking your content/news coverage because a group might find the fact that you're covering said news might add on to the potential offensive affront by the subject matter to a particular group, then who is to say which group doesn't get this consideration. Who makes that call? Because then we get into the territory of a group hierarchy, and that, ladies and gentlemen is dangerous and risky territory. One could argue that the manner of coverage or the way the articles are written could be different, but that's another subjective topic for another thread.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be offended that the subject matter gets covered, what I'm saying is they shouldn't expect the subject matter not to be covered if it's within the parameters of the entity covering it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top