"Civilization III is a Role Playing Game"

[The Mad Monk]

That's all well and good, but, speaking as a Christian, I do find all the snickering in this thread...annoying.

[ottok]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I think the issue here is to have tact when arguing about such a touchy subject. Religious people have every right to question my non-religious views, I am so confident of my own beliefs that I believe I can out-argue them if they try to convince me otherwise (and try they have!). Confidence is really important. You must be sure of what you believe in. People who are insecure with their beliefs are usually the ones who stop an argument saying they are being disrespected or something like that, a defensive posture.

YOU LIE! ANY ONE LIE IN USA!

[ottok]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
Personally, I think people believe in god(s) to get spiritual confort, and know that when they`ll be dead, there`ll be a nice heaven to receive them, and not an simple void of nothingness and oblivion. I get myself really conforted believing that`s the truth, even though I know it can be just a Freudian negation of death.

When a discussion comes to some topics, it becomes really a matter of personal choice and peace of consciousness. If there`s people who choose to be mentally restricted by an ancient book and its sometimes questionable laws and examples, then it is only my obligation to respect and understand that choice, even if I don`t agree with it. The only thing I don`t like about some fanatics is how they try to make me believe in their faiths and body of wisdom. But that`s a rare event.

Final Law for me is: I believe in what I want, you believe in what you want. Let`s just help each other and be nice, and peace should follow.

It`s just a pity mr. Bush don`t seem to understand some issues very well...

I think is know wery well that one:
not say that truth that us is against islman,tell LIE that us try stop terrorism!

But they do,which looks first,not second!

If they want STOP terrorism KILL Ariel Sharon IS more helping at that than KILL Saddam Hussein!!
Thin that!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
That's all well and good, but, speaking as a Christian, I do find all the snickering in this thread...annoying.

Yes, well, one thing is "intelligent" debate and another quite different is snichering and trash-talking. But it says a lot about the person who does one or the other...

[Gunnar Thor]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
That's all well and good, but, speaking as a Christian, I do find all the snickering in this thread...annoying.

Then don't read it.

@Mad bomber - Yeah, that was probably it. It's been a while since I took that history class.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Master Zen

Yes, well, one thing is "intelligent" debate and another quite different is snichering and trash-talking. But it says a lot about the person who does one or the other...

Yes, but often I find there is a fine line between debate and heated arguments, esp. when talking religion or politics or anything else people feel passionate about.

And then there's answering telemarketers phone calls, but that's a whole other topic.

[Trifna]

I would just like to mention that not all Christians are pushing that far some ideas.

/me raises his hand

Personally, I believe in evolutionism and seriously do not think in that magical belief that "music suddenly transforms man into a devil". Maybe anger and such things are bad, but music doesn't mean same thing for everyone. Same for video games.

I guess the reviewer' opinions are understandable if you put yourself on the side of the guy that believes that everything REPRESENTING bad stuff is bad in itself and brings anyone playing with it to be a bad person...

[pedrojedi]

I think the issue here is to have tact when arguing about such a touchy subject. Religious people have every right to question my non-religious views, I am so confident of my own beliefs that I believe I can out-argue them if they try to convince me otherwise (and try they have!). Confidence is really important. You must be sure of what you believe in. People who are insecure with their beliefs are usually the ones who stop an argument saying they are being disrespected or something like that, a defensive posture.

Well, usually I'm not worried about out-arguing anyone with different beliefs than mine. I really please myself at achieving spiritual peace, even if it comes through meditation and questioning my own "beliefs" and "truths". The only confidence I need is my own pride of questining myself and setting my horizon a little further. Confidence of never knowing.

A defensive posture does not necessarily comes from people who don't believe on their arguments. Sometimes someone just do not like having her beliefs called "false", "heretic", "wrong" or "blind", which is a very common attittude that some fanaticly religious people take. This "rigidness" of thinking is more like a uncertainty of belief to me than defensive posture. Denial can come through many ways, including "blind faith" or "rigid thinking". Denial of different visions that may frighten the person, because they are all new and unknown. They are an addult manifestation of the childish fear of the dark.

I'm getting too Freudian. D*mn the DSM!

[star mouse]

90-100% (A) These games are free of virtually all violence, language, sexual, and occult content or material. They also contain Biblical material and/or educational material. Example: Civilization III

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Wait a minute:
Did I miss something? Where is the "biblical material" in Civ3?

It probably passes because of the "educational material" in the game. For example, there is an description of the history of each civilisation in the game.

As for the objection that the game preaches evolution by setting the age of the world at 3 to 5 billion years old, this is easy to overcome. In the "Text" directory, find the file "labels.txt", and use a text editor to change these lines (lines 371 to 374):

AGE
3 Billion
4 Billion
5 Billion

to this:

TERRAIN
Mountainous
Hilly
Flat

I tried it and it works fine.

While I don't agree with the "evolutionary" claims about the age of the earth, I provide the above as an example of the way you can alter the text files in the game for creative effect. You could also change "Archipelago" to "Snaky Lands" on line 362 if you think "Snaky Lands" is a better description of what the terrain generator produces.

[Albert B]

wow

This thread has been very interesting and entertaining as well as quite disturbing at times. The are many good posts expressing opinions both clearly and with good support (both ones I agree with and don't). There is also some very humorous stuff here.

However, the amount of ignorance on some posters part amazes me. Before anyone thinks this is a flame please be sure you know the that I'm speaking to you and that you know what ignorance means. To help you out, ignorance is lack of knowledge or education. Being ignoranct is correctable and nothing to be offended by. One of my strongest beliefs I have is that society's biggest issue today is a lack of education. If I called you stupid, that would be another story . Anyway, back to the point...

First, I will tell you that I am a relatively new Christian and I'm not fully versed in all things biblical. Not long ago, I was one to argue rather passionately against most all organized religions. I felt that while the bible offered many good ideas on how to lead a positive life, organized religion was just away for a few people to get rich while the masses of weak minded individuals got the feel good medicine they needed. I still believe that some evangilists are just looking to take advantage of weak minded individuals and that some people turn to religion for the wrong reasons. However, most churches and organizations are grounded is solid Christian beliefs looking to continue the work of Jesus Christ. I am not a "fundamentalist" or extreme right wing activist by any means. I am a firm believer in evolution and have it and several other beliefs that don't mesh well with traditional Christian prinipless that I am still struggling to understand and explain.

Now, looking through these posts there were several complaints about Christians that I found to be both disturbing and humorous due to the ignorant nature of the statements. For one, the complaint that "those darn religious folk are trying to make me believe like they do". To let you know, that's their JOB! One of the primary responsibilities of most modern religions is to "spread the word". For example, it is not the job of Christians to force you to believe but it is their responsibility to tell you what you need to do to be saved. Most good Christians will not badger you to believe but will try to find subtle ways to introduce you to Christ.

Another interesting line of posts were the "biblical fiction" comments. You may not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and maybe you believe that the miracles performed by him are legends, tricks or exagerated stories. However, the body of work that is the New Testament, are true stories. The first 4 books tell the story of Jesus' life, where he lived, what he taught, where he traveled, etc. Again, maybe you don't believe the deeds to be what they say they are but regardless, they are a historical account of his life. The book of Acts (the fifth book) is a historical account of the spread of Christianity in the years following the death and resurection of Christ (or maybe just the death if you are a non-believer). It tells the story of the disciples of Christ, everything from how they organized to where they traveled who they met, etc. Again, you may be inclined to discount some of the miracles described but the travels, people, etc are real and a historical work, not fiction. Most of the rest of the New Testament are letters written to fledgling churches describing the trials facing them and how they should act, etc. Again, all true, historical accounts, not fiction.

As for the Old Testament, again most of it is a historical record of the times. Once again, you may not believe some of the miracles happened as written but the story of Moses, the many battles, and the like are historical references. Most of these stories can be verified in other historical works. The spin may be a little different but the historical references will be the same. Basically, the point is that the bible is as much a history book as it is a guide of how to lead your life. The notion that it is all "fiction" is ludicrous and it is disappointing to hear such non-sense. Even when I was a non-Christian, I new the historical significance of the bible.

I feel as though I've begun to ramble a bit so I think I'll stop shortly. Before I do, I would like to say that I find you to be an interesting individual Master Zen. You appear to think much as I did just a few years ago. I was more that willing and quite able to "out-argue" what I considered to be the most zealous of Christians. I think it would be interesting to sit down and discuss many of your arguements. I guarantee that you could "out-argue" me since I have a fledgeling knowledge of the bible. However, I think it would be interesting to be on the "other side" of the debate. I will tell you a few things I have learned, being on the inside looking back. Most of the people that cow-tow to your arguements do so for 1 of 2 reasons. 1- they do not know enough of the bible to "win" a debate and thus can't provide an effective arguement, thus usually stop trying and get defensive. 2 - consider you to be closed minded and thus "not worth the effort", thus not ending the debate and getting even more defensive. This is a position I have found that far too many people take with their religion. These people tend to have a "blind faith" which can be just as dangerous as no faith. I would suggest that if you really want to debate religion, that you find a minister, etc to debate against before declaring yourself the victor in the arguement. They will be well versed enough to give you a valid debate and, if you find a good one, open-minded enough to be willing to debate the issues rather than decide you "aren't worth the effort".

[Albert B]

Before I go, I did want to comment on the original review and a couple other things. Personally, I think the sight doing the reviewing goes a little too far in bashing fantasy and what they see as the "occult". I would love to see their review of the Harry Potter books. I think they are quite harmless and quite entertaining and anything like this that gets kids into reading as much as they have have to be a good thing. I can only imagine the rating one of the books would get.

However, I do find it somewhat disturbing that some of the most popular games are ones that promote violence, mayhem, etc. I believe that mature individuals can enjoy some of these games without destroying their faith, psyche, etc. However, the fact that immature youths are the primary players does bother me. I have played many hours of Duke Nukem 3D, Carmageddon, Rogue Spear and other violent games. I find them to be fun, especially multiplayer versions. However, I do not let my kids watch me play these games much less play them alone. I think the sight has valid points and offers a service to parents. However, I find it quite ironic that they use such a high degree of detail in describing the inappropriate behaviours of some of the games.

As a final note, I suggest that some of you work on your debating and observation skills. For those wanting to know what the "biblical content of civ 3" is, the statement says "biblical material AND/OR educational material". There is much educational material to be found in the game. Also, pointing out the nuclear war, war, city razing, etc. if you read the comments about their reviews and such, there is a discussion that the manner in which violence is dipicted ways as much as the amount of violence. If razing cities displayed a scene of mass murder or during wars your spearmen's heads rolled across the screan then the game would not rate highly. The violence in civ 3 is minimized and not portrayed in a manner that glorifies violence, etc. There are valid complaints to be made of their reviews but this is stretching it at best.

[Master Zen]

Albert B:

I actually enjoy discussing with religion with christians because I find them to be much more knowledgabe than catholics (my family is catholic and so is 90% of my country). One of my friends is a die-hard christian and we constantly argue (in a good sense of course ) and one of the most heated topics is, you guessed it, evolutionism vs. creationism. I'm surprised why so many christians favor creationism since most catholics I know are evolutionists, and both have the same source of faith (bible)

Speaking of the bible, I do think in general most religions are a good base on whch to lead a morally good life. My philosophy however, is that is not "necessary" since smart individuals can form their own moral base not necesarily basing it on a holy book. After all, some morals are quite universal. You don't need the Bible to know that stealing is wrong for example, I know it's wrong because I don't like it happening to me so I won't do it to others.

Faith, to me, is also an interesting topic. Do we really need a deity to believe in when we can believe in ourselves? Not that we as indiviuals are gods or anyting in that sense but I mean it in the way that only believeing in our own capabilities and flaws can we truly become a better indiviudal. I don't believe life is a part of some master plan becasue all the good things that have happened to me in life have been beacuse I have been smart enough to make them happen, and all the mistakes I've made is because I've been stupid enough to allow them.

So that pretty sums up my philosophy. At this stage in life I find it unlikely to change since I'm pretty happy and secure about it.

Anyway, very intelligent post.

[Master Zen]

As for games, I think it all comes down to parent's education. Parents should know what their kids are playing, watching on TV etc. but not ncessarily prohibiting much of it (after all, prohibiting things is what incites many of them to do it). A smart kid will know that games like Quake are just fiction and are meant only for fun. I find it surprising when religious leaders or tv shows say that after the latest school shooting, the guys listened to Marilyn Manson and played games like Doom as if it were the cause of their evil. Those kids were usually poorly taken care of and gien little attention and so were much more suceptible to the negative image of these games instead of dismissing it offhand. 99.99% of all people who play those games are not psychos and the psychos will do what they do with Harry Potter if they have no Doom to resort to.

Finally, about the Civ3 review. I don't agree that not "showing" blood and gore in a violent act makes it less bad. On the contrary it might make a violent act come acrsoss as normal. Look at modern warfare in which most people never even see the people they kill. This results in a very biased view since if those people saw the slaughter firsthand they might have been reluctant to do it.

The impression I get of this site is that they are too overly concerned about the "superficial" or graphical violence, and not the violence deep down and it is not fair to slam on one type of violence and ignore the other.

[MrBaggins]

Yup... In many ways Civ3 encourages and sanitizes ethnic cleansing.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace


The Theory of Gravity is "Only" a theory.

Actually it hasn't been the "Theory of Gravity" for a long time. It's the Law of Gravity now. It's only called a theory in Civ3 because that's just what it was back then.