Having Faith in Your Games

Are games a sophisticated enough form of artistic expression to spark a serious and mature discussion around a topic as complex and ancient as personal faith?

The Gutenberg Bible. The Last Supper. The Ten Commandments. Christianity has managed to leave its indelible footprint throughout the history of artistic expression, whether you're staring up in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or holding back tears during Scotty's rendition of "Amazing Grace" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. So if we are ready to defend games as art, why is it that video games seem sorely lacking in divine inspiration? Right now, the mention of such games is likely to conjure up images of Left Behind: Eternal Forces or Super 3D Noah's Ark. Such games are mere shells of popular genres melded with flimsy biblical lip service, with neither element necessarily making for a good game, Christian or otherwise. Plus, it's probably not all that appealing if the objective of a game boils down to "convert the heathens!"

But does that have to be the purpose of a Christian video game, to make disciples out of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Christianity has managed to embed its way into storytelling over the centuries without resorting to an unapproachable heavy-handedness. After all, did anyone walk out of The Matrix because of its over-the-top religious themes? (Walking out of the sequels doesn't count.) In fact, if we're playing it loose with the term "Christian video game," you might have already played one. Darksiders tackles its own version of the Book of Revelation, putting you in the shoes of War, one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Dante's Inferno takes just as much poetic license in its portrayal of the religious epic the Divine Comedy. And ask anyone who has played Xenogears whether the game is pro or anti Christian, and you'll get a healthy discussion on religion that even an ordained pastor would have difficulty following. More recently, El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron unabashedly explores the apocryphal Book of Enoch in a story about free will, divine purification, and lots of aerial combat juggling.

While El Shaddai has been praised primarily for its outstanding otherworldly aesthetic and engaging combat, its unorthodox narrative deserves mention for weaving what would otherwise be an esoteric story into a captivating ballad. Enoch, heaven's resident human scribe, is called to return to Earth to hunt down seven fallen angels who have corrupted the world and threaten its very existence. Between eavesdropping on phone conversations between Lucifel and God and having your humanity taunted by bosses that appear out of thin air, you are pulled along by the story whether you're prepared for it or not. Most Christians would have difficulty keeping up with the original apocryphal text, so it's commendable that Ignition crafted a story that, while not the easiest to grasp, delivers a vivid yet sobering picture of the relationship God shares with his creation, humanity. As it turns out, Christian mythology is ripe for video game treatment. Just look at the tragic story of Samson: it's a God of War-ish tale where a divinely empowered hero lets his pride and lust steer him into a vicious and self-destructive cycle of violent ambition.

However, while Bible stories on steroids are easy targets for an engaging game experience, one game takes a different and more modern approach at humanizing a very real struggle at the core of any faith. The game Catherine dabbles with the good-vs.-evil element that has become a staple of many recent games (BioShock, Mass Effect, Fable), but instead of asking you to side with either good or evil, it poses the question differently. What do you value more, freedom in chaos or control in order? The protagonist, Vincent, faces this question as he struggles with his own infidelity after he wakes up next to a woman who is not his girlfriend. Each night Vincent confronts his burdens in the form nightmarish puzzles rife with gothic iconography, and you, the player, are prompted to bare your soul in a Catholic-style confessional booth with questions such as "Do you buy too much food when you're hungry?" "What do you think of actors in sex scenes?" and "Is popping bubble wrap fun?" Vincent's fate rests on your answers, and some of the endings are as entertaining as they are hellishly disturbing.

While Christianity is often painted as a firebranding "repent or perish" faith, it really is not that different from the theme found in Catherine. Choose to live freely according to human whims, or choose to abide by the order of a higher power. While trying to sell Catherine as a church-endorsed game would be grossly inaccurate, it is one of the few games that succeeds at personalizing the emotional weight of everyday sin, and that alone can prod a healthy discussion about faith. After all, exploring the effect of sin on man's relationship with God is pretty much what pastors preach from the pulpit each Sunday.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest roadblocks to worthwhile Christian-themed games is Christians themselves. Among conservative circles, video games still carry a stigma of sloth, wickedness, and depravity. As long as the church chooses to remain ignorant about seeing games as a legitimate artistic medium, you'll end up with games like The Bible Game. "But Christian games should be biblically accurate and family-friendly if they are to share the message of God's love." But isn't that what the Bible is for? The church should get over the fact that games will be filled with heresy and inaccuracies when it comes to portraying religion. If we can accept that double-jumps and extra lives aren't grounded in reality, then we can do the same with the worldly evils fictionally portrayed in-game. This isn't to condone that you fill your mind with a steady stream of smut and filth, but keep in mind that Jesus' own parables managed to pack a punch without always being squeaky clean.

Video games have come a long way from being just a diversionary form of entertainment. The Game Design Challenge at GDC this year asked three noted game designers for their take on how a game could be designed as a religion, or vice versa. And with movements like Games for Change and the Supreme Court decision behind Brown v. EMA, we should expect our games to be able to tackle serious subjects as complex as personal faith. Christianity gets its share of attention here simply because of its prevalence in Western media, but any religion should be open to a sincere discourse through the unique perspective only video games can offer. And in doing so we should recognize it's a disservice to both the faith and the player if such games end up as nothing more than religious tracts with power-ups and quick-time events.

We should expect our games to be able to tackle serious subjects as complex as personal faith.
El Shaddai and Catherine are just two examples of games that can actually be fun and engaging without being overbearing in exploring religious themes. And while they by no means encompass the comprehensive message of the Gospel, it's unrealistic and naive to expect such games to. Christians should not shortchange the storytelling potential of interactive entertainment simply because it grants players the chance to "sin virtually," but should instead recognize that games are rich vessels adept at intermingling emotion with narrative. Limbo vividly embodies a sense of loneliness; Bastion explores the notion of responsibility amid overwhelming loss; and Portal 2 speaks volumes about the strains of a mother/daughter relationship. A game that captures that unique and beautiful journey of personal faith would be a remarkable experience, indeed.

While not everyone is comfortable discussing their personal faith or their views about religion in a public forum, we certainly welcome those of you who are. Are there games that you feel have successfully broached the topic? Similarly, are there games that have disappointed you in their portrayal of theological or spiritual themes? Please let us know in the comments.

Written By

Want the latest news about Catherine?

Catherine

Catherine

Follow

Discussion

577 comments
josh-winkler
josh-winkler

I just found this and it is very interesting to see different sides. Seems every discussion of Christianity leads here eventually, prove God exists with creation. Jesus did the opposite and lived by proving through faith with healings and teachings that when tested didn't fail. As for faith in games, there is a place just the right one has to be found and each story is different. I haven't played a good one yet but I am sure I will, having a go at making some concepts too. P.S. Athiests and Christians both believe in creation, just one was an accident while the other was on purpose. Either God or coincidence created the earth. Micro-evolution sounds interesting, things changing on the small level so it is still the same but different - if this happened enough then it would eventually have many differences to what it was and may be considered a step forward. Question though - some societies force their appearance to change when they are young by, say, wearing long neck braces to get longer necks, why haven't they changed/adapted to be born with longer necks after centuries of doing it?

flyingman123
flyingman123

I am a ethist. Sooooo yeah. Im going to go play video games now..............

flyingman123
flyingman123

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

matthall7
matthall7

"...the concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is an unbiblical pagan doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D. Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell." This is just some information on how the concept of hell was introduced after Jesus' time.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@moviequest14 The lake of fire isn't hell though. That is mentioned later on as only coming into effect near the end of Revelations, and it is defined as "the second death". That's usually interpreted as meaning a destruction of spirit, meaning ceasing to exist. Why the name matter is because it tells the origin of the concept. The words translated as Hell refer to different concepts. They are not talking about the same thing just by different names, yet that's how the translators treated them. When many Christians imagine Hell, they're actually thinking of the Hell described in medieval literature like Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost. If you look at the context in which Jesus talks about Gehenna, all those mentions take place when he is warning of national judgments. National judgments were a theme in Judaism, and there were numerous instances of them occurring in the Old Testament. In those OT instances, the imagery and descriptions are the same as what you find in the NT Gehenna instances. He wasn't describing an afterlife destination, rather he was warning of a fiery national judgment which the Israelites would face, unless they changed what they were doing. That national judgment is usually seen as being the siege of Jerusalem in 70CE when the Romans set the city on fire and killed the defenders.

moviequest14
moviequest14

@sircyrus : Actually in the Bible Jesus makes more references to hell than he does to heaven.(Which he is saying both as.) He notes a ''lake of fire'' which if I am correct isn't a picture of happiness.He also notes ''My Father's Kingdom'' in reference to a completely different place.Why then would the ''drunkards and murderers'' go to the better part of ghana? When it comes down to the gritty of it I don't think it hardly even matters that there is an exact name for it (because I seriously doubt there is a sign to the underworld that says ''welcome to hell'' :P ) but all these descriptions match up to the same type of place.

sircyrus
sircyrus

In regards to the existence of hell, it should be pointed out that the Bible itself never talks about such a place. In Judaism there was no such concept of Hell like the Christian view. Originally, they believed in a place called Sheol. This was like an underworld where everyone (no matter what they did in life) would be sent there when they die. It was supposed to be a dark, gloomy place in the same vein as the Sumerian underworld. It wasn't until the Babylonian exile and emergence of Rabbinical Judaism that this view changed. Sheol became seen as having two sides - a good side (Abraham's Bosom) and a bad side (Gehenna). The righteous would go to the good side, which was a place of comfort, while the criminals, nonbelievers etc would go to the bad side, a place of punishment (for a maximum of 12 months). The two halves were divided by a great chasm. This is what is illustrated in Jesus' Lazarus and the Rich Man story in the New Testament. This was not an OT supported view though. The split Sheol comes from Rabbinic literature, which Christianity does not view as canon. It is never found in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Hades was a word borrowed from Greek to describe Sheol since the two concepts were similar. Gehenna was the punishment half. Yet Hades and Gehenna both get translated as Hell, which is not accurate. Even just translating Gehenna as Hell would be inaccurate. The Christian Hell is a very different concept from the Judaic Gehenna.

matthall7
matthall7

@ moviequest14 hey man, to answer you first question, no I do not believe in hell, I believe in an even worse fate (well worse depending on your point of view) - cessation of existence, becoming as though you never were. This is a view that I think a lot of atheists hold regarding what happens to humans when we die. And I believe just as you have said that Hell is result of choices, this fate also is a result of continually asserting ones own will over God's perfect plan for you. With regards to the Bible I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. My opinion of many spiritual books is that they hold nuggets of spiritual truth (some definitely more than others), and I think the bible as a guiding text has so much value because it has so much of Jesus in it. I definitely hold the bible in very high regard, and it has become a blueprint for living that has helped many many people develop a strong conception and connection with our Father. One thing that I think is important to remember is that while divinely inspired, the Bible is still the work of humans and has been through many human hands and editing processes. That is why I will always rely primarily on my inner connection with Jesus rather than following a book by the letter. Id be interested to hear your point of view on this my man, and thanks for being so open about your spiritual stance :)

moviequest14
moviequest14

@matthall7 : But while we are on the subject I would like to express to you my opinion about hell.It doesn't make God evil or cruel to send people to hell...in fact He doesn't send them there.Really people choose to go to hell but God being the loving father He is offers people an opt out.Here is a question to pose...suppose you are a jew that was mercilessly slain by Hitler in the holocaust you then go to heaven (a place that is supposed to be the place of endless joy) and there to greet you soon after is Hitler..the very man that has slain you and everyone you love and has done so to millions and millions of others .So how then do the likes of Hitler,Sadamm Hussain (pardon the miss-spelling),and some of the most notorious killers in history that are themselves full of hatred,anger,and fury and the very essence of misery themselves go into a place that is supposed to be full of happiness and joy? It contradicts personalities.Just like a loving parent has to punish their children God has to punish sin...otherwise why should I care if I stole my neighbor's car or killed them since there are no consequences in the end? Why should I care about or even love Jesus or God if I will get into heaven in the end anyways? So it is ultimately people's choices whether they go to hell or not by what they choose to except.

moviequest14
moviequest14

@matthall7 : lol,that is the most answer in a question I have ever seen :P So you do believe in the God mentioned in the Bible then? Based on what you said ( ''A God whose every free will act is motivated by love of all of his children and a God who has absolutely no place for anger or wrath within his infinitely perfect presence?'') are you then implying that there is no hell (or at least no hell for humans to be sent to?) because that is an entirely different but interesting debate.In regards to your opinion on the Bible,I believe that there are either 2 options for (accurate) opinions on the Bible...it is either a. completely true and what it says it is or b.a hardly worth-while fictional novel that is full of lies and deceit by liars and lunatics. Because think about this..many of these authors claim that it is divinely inspired by God...so if it isn't than these are just liars and why should we believe anything in the Bible at all? Why should we believe that God is loving and caring since it is in a book with other lies shouldn't that also make it a lie?

matthall7
matthall7

@Doubleb14 I dont think this is going to go very far, but thanks for replying anyway man. My opinion on this is that JESUS is the word of God and bible is a divinely inspired collection of writings that combines truncated Hebraic history with beautiful spiritual expression and a second hand recollection of our Masters perfect life on earth, that has been edited quite thoroughly over time. I (notice I said "I") do not see biblical scripture as the direct word of God, mostly because it contains some theories about God and his law that are completely inconsistent with my conception of our God as a Universal Spiritual Father completely dominated by love and mercy. And with this conception and other guidance I set out when I was younger to form a real and intimate relationship with Him, and this has been completely real for me. Thanks again man :)

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

@matthall7 So wait your earlier comment is saying that just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's true...but the Bible is suppose to be God's word than how can it be wrong. God can't be wrong he's perfect so than since the Bible says we did get created and did not evolve then you say that could be incorrect thus that makes the Bible false and that causes God to be unknown to us because that's suppose to be His word thus we have no idea what he's like? This is confusing...I don't think that it can work that way...

matthall7
matthall7

@moviequest14 thanks for the reply bro, I can give you those facts if you clarify something for me first, when you say the Christian God do you mean the Spirit Father of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Man and Son of God AND the First Source and Centre of the cosmos? Do you mean the God of all mankind, black, white, gay straight, disabled etc? Are you referring to a God who is freely accessible to all by faith alone and that all who are sincere in there purpose can know? A God whose every free will act is motivated by love of all of his children and a God who has absolutely no place for anger or wrath within his infinitely perfect presence? Or something else...hopefully these questions have helped to answer your question :)

moviequest14
moviequest14

@matthall7 : Well actually to be quite honest this is the first time you have directly addressed me (that I know of) but I will be happy to discuss it with you.Firs then I need a couple more facts about your opinion on the topic.Mainly..do you believe in the Christian God or an unknown being we have yet to discover?

matthall7
matthall7

@sircyrus thanks heaps for replying to me man, you are absolutely correct just because something is believed does not necessarily make it a reality, however if something is experienced that certainly makes it real to the person who has experienced it...and the weight of experiences that people on this planet have had of a power greater than themselves is incredibly compelling evidence (if not a material fact) that there is more to life than atoms and a solely mechanistic universe. Just to let you know, I am totally with you on the evolutionary idea, there is no other theory (including biblical creationism) that explains so logically, with such an abundance of observable evidence, how we got to this point in time. However, my experience of God has been even more compelling, and is not opposed to logical thinking at all in my mind, even if I can never physically show someone that He is a reality in my life. What is interesting is how it seems like these two apparently diverse realities...and they are so diverse...are always viewed as unreconcilable. Anyway thanks for getting back to me man, I have actually really enjoyed the discussion, and hope it continues.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@matthal7 by scientific methods, that doesn't mean it is therefore true any more than it would mean its false. It would be an unknown, something that would require belief to accept. But you're stating it as if it is fact.

matthall7
matthall7

@moviequest14 @sircyrus @Doubleb14 This is driving me nuts...Human beings have spirit bestowed by God...but we did evolve...we also have personality with the perogative of will (a-whole-nother story)...just because something does not gel with the bible...does not mean it is incorrect...and just because something is beyond proving by scientific methods...does not mean it is not a reality...if you guys cannot see this you will continue to go round and round and round in circles...I would be happy to enter this discussion and explain my point of view but I have been repeatedly ignored, which is your choice but kind of rude

sircyrus
sircyrus

That goes back to my earlier question of if life has always existed in it's current form, why doesn't the physical evidence show that? There is no plausible reason why the physical evidence throughout the layers and time periods would not contain a mixture of all forms of life, if all forms of life existed at that time. There should be no discernible time periods based off of the fossils present. There should be no gradual emergence of species only in certain layers if it had existed before then. That alone indicates the various species only appeared after specific points in time. Evolution suggests an explanation for why that would be.

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

I'm ok with Micro evolution which is minor changes among species over time...That doesn't go against creation! Like i mean look at culture and stuff what I don't believe in is Macro evolution. The COMPLETE change in species makeup.

moviequest14
moviequest14

@mount_judo : When you breed barley to get make it stronger or even natural selection does so it is indeed still barley..it hasn't become a new type of plant..this is only variation within the barley that has already been permitted not the barley changing into another organism.

mount_judo
mount_judo

@Doubleb14: Ok, I hate to get into this debate again, but yes, evolution is actually quite real. Sure creationism makes sense but [natural] selection such as weaker barley not surviving because it is not harvested by people leading to a more resistant barley being overall has shown us that, yes, organisms do change and mutate. And one can even consider the domestication of animals to be a sort of evolution - take the cow which did not exist in nature before humans domesticated bovine animals. Good games about evolution: "spore", and to a lesser extent "metro 2033" (also a book!)

moviequest14
moviequest14

@sircyrus: Sorry for the misunderstanding,I meant that ever since ancient egypt cats (and later dogs) were highly revered for religious purposes and while the religious context was dropped the revere for them carried on.The only reason cats and dogs are important to us is that they have been companions since ancient egypt..if opossums either a.didn't carry rabies or b.were pets for centuries or centuries then we would be just as phased by an opossum dead on the road.There are thousands and thousands of species (either plants or animals) today,with all those species even if changes did happen every thousand years we should have seen at least one with all the species we observe on a daily basis. There are several problems with the collumns in support of evolution.First is that there isn't an exact line between layers,while they are a tiny bit distinct certainly not distinct enough to be various floods over centuries or longer.Also comes in the cuttlefish (a creature closely related to squid and octopi) which,akin to its relatives,shoots ink when it feels in danger or harm.So if there had instead been a worldwide (rapid) flood then it wouldn't have had enough time to let ink out,but it could've easily done so in floods over time (MUCH slower than the speed the Biblical flood would be going).

sircyrus
sircyrus

@moviequest14 That's not true at all about cats and dogs. If you have a cat, you can't honestly tell me that why your cat is more important to you than a possum is because ancient people revered cats. As for what we see in action today, we're not going to see something drastically evolve within our lifespan. The duration they talk about with evolution is a very, very, very long process. It's not something you're going to see happen over the span of 150 years. I agree with you about the sudden change in environment making an animal unable to survive long enough to reproduce, but so do scientists. The theory about the extinction of dinosaurs is a prime example of that. They believe the vast majority of species in general do not last, and that there have been multiple mass extinctions as only handfuls of species survive a sudden change. Consider this though. If all the species have existed since the beginning of the world, than why do you find different fossils across the different rock layers? Why do all layers not contain a jumbled mess of all the different species? Why do fossils of species tend to only appear after certain periods, in which the earlier fossils cease to be found? If nothing evolved and all life existed in it's current form since the start of the world, we shouldn't see those different fossil layers occur.

moviequest14
moviequest14

@sircyrus : The only reason cats and dogs are regarded highly today is that they have been since ancient times (when considered gods or godly).So far almost everything we see (in action) today contradicts evolution..take mutation...we only see mutation in only 1 or 2 passed down generations,not consistently handed down and especially not so to develop countless new species,and also is that there hasn't been one mutation that modern civilization has charted that is even slightly good and especially not good enough to help adapt to the environment.And while I am on that subject...if we were to take (ie) polar bears in a controlled environment that is getting mildly warmer..from modern-day observation we can hypothesize (and correctly so imo) that if the current generation is even able and lucky enough to survive the growing heat with their bodies designed for cool weather that they will die out unless there is a genetic change so large that it makes the offspring of a polar bear no longer a polar bear which we all know is impossible.So if evolution is brought about by changes in the environment then it is highly unlikely that if a change is dramatic and impacting enough that dna has to practically re-code itself for evolution to take place then it is extremely unlikely that whichever species it might be would be able to survive in its original form long enough to reproduce that mutation (for the better which again is unlikely) for generations to come.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@Doubleb14 Brain damage or changes in the chemical make up of the brain can alter those things you mentioned. It can greatly change someone's outlook on the world, and their overall personality. A disorder known as "Capgras delusion" can even take away your feelings of love for someone, and it is directly related to chemical changes and/or brain damage. Someone with Capgras delusion will feel nothing when they look at a person that they formerly had feelings for. The brain then comes to the conclusion that the person must have been replaced by an imposter. That it can't possibly really be their wife, or mother, or father, or best friend. It seems to be a break between our brain's facial recognition capabilities and our amygdala. The amygdala would normally activate the correct emotional response for the recognized person, but with that break there, nothing gets activated. Which is why they feel nothing for that person, even though they recognize them. Remember that science can only rely on what can somehow be verified or indicated. The notion that we all have a soul (in the religious sense) has never been able to be substantiated. For the scientific world to accept that the soul exists and is the inner us, it has to first be proven somehow. Otherwise if you try to use the soul in an argument to evolution, the scientific community will automatically poo-poo the argument away as having no evidence.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@moviequest14 As a species we aren't on the same level as other animals, but neither are animals all on the same level as one another. If someone stomped on a cat you would see that as far worse than if someone stepped on a snail. Or if someone shot a gorilla, you'd see that as worse than shooting a rat. Our perspective places us higher than other animals, but we also view other animals as more or less important as well, largely because of how they relate to us. For example, if you were to drive down the road and see a dog dead on the side of the road, you'd probably feel more sorry for it than you would a possum, because we see dogs as being more important to us. All pack and herd animals react this way to a degree, some more than others. You wont see a herd of elephants run away or intervene because a gazelle is threatened, but if one of their own calves is threatened they will crowd around it to protect it. They see their own as more important than other species. Just as humans see ourselves as more important than others. It's interesting that you bring up the jealous wife example. Just last month there was a tiger in the West Texas zoo that killed it's mate, seemingly over a bout of jealousy stemming from a "tiger love triangle" ;)

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

Exactly I mean think about this... A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events. Basically It's along the lines of what moviequest14 was saying...Why would we care if evolution was true!

moviequest14
moviequest14

@sircyrus : But yet there is still a difference.There has always been a notable difference in perspective between human beings and other animals more than just being more evolved.Why would it be wrong or even matter right now if I were to walk outside and put a bullet in my neighbor's head? After all he is just an animal and that would be the same as killing a cockroach right? Or why should you be sad or angry if a mountain lion (it might be unlikely but go with me) were to break into your friends house,kill them,and eat them? It is just the circle of life and food chain after all..you don't care when it eats a deer so why should you care now? Why do we even have rights at all? Our only slightly less-evolved relatives have no rights.Why should a wife even get angry at her husband when he cheats on her? Most animals do have multiple partners after all.Why do we even deserve to live if we are just a couple steps up the evolutionary ladder than everything else?

sircyrus
sircyrus

@Doubleb14 Gorillas and other monkeys still rely on speed and brute strength though. They aren't using spears or bows. Consider for a moment that there are two tribes of cavemen: In the first tribe, the cavemen are very fast, and very strong. They use primitive clubs and must get close to swing. In the second tribe, the cavemen are slower and physically weaker. They use primitive spears that they can attack with by throwing, or by stabbing from several feet away. Now suppose a pack of predators that are faster and stronger than either tribes was to attack. Which tribe would you bet on surviving that attack? Both tribes are at a disadvantage in terms of speed and strength, so the tribe with the better tools has the better chance of surviving. Even though the first tribe is faster and stronger, they still need to get up close to use their clubs, which means a high risk of serious injuries, leading to infection (assuming they survived the initial attack). What allowed humans to thrive is not speed or strength, but our minds. Even with primitive tools we can take down larger prey than faster and stronger predators are capable of. We can defend ourselves against animals much larger than ourselves. Why would we as a species maintain a capability for high speed and strength if it isn't whats responsible for our survival? For sure evolution doesn't have all the answers, but out of all the theories I do think it has the most evidence to support it.

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

Just a few bits of Information I gathered :)

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

. Formation of Life Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

1. Information The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

@sircyrus Yes but than why wouldn't we still use all 4 and have the ability to use some things such as gorilla's? And other Monkey type animals...They not only have a wider range of agility and speed, but they also can pick up things and stand on 2 legs...so why did we stop using our hands? If Gorilla's and Monkey just had larger brains wouldn't it be smart to say that they would be more efficient than us?

sircyrus
sircyrus

@Doubleb14 Why not? It frees up our hands to use tools, which in turn increases our survivability. Try using a spear while on all fours, or a bow, or even just try throwing a rock for that matter. We rose to the top of the food chain due to our ingenuity and tool making, not because of our strength or speed.

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

Another thing I must add about evolution..if we are suppose to evolve to become better and survive better...why in the WORLD are we on Two feet?

moviequest14
moviequest14

@calvinsora : You would say it is safe to assume that all species have evolved over the past million years because their surroundings have changed frequently right? But then there are fossils like the Okapi that if the modern ''evolution'' dating is correct are several million years old yet there are no significant changes at all.

dawnofhero
dawnofhero

Christian-themed video games are usually cheesy to begin with. Example: 'Catachumen' for the PC in the late 90s; you couldn't kill the Roman soldiers (who were the 'bad guys') but rather, you shot beams from your sword at them, in which case they would instantly kneel down in hallowed submission unto the Lord. Here's the deal: I don't care if you're Christian or not. If you're a mechanic and you can fix my car, then you're hired. People don't care what faith you are, as long as you can give them a quality product (books, music, video games, etc.) that's all that matters. Values should come from within the story of the game, not be blatantly stated like that slogan Cactus Games used for their 'Saints of Virtue' game back in the late 90s: 'Finally, a cool computer game for Christians!' Oh, yay! *claps hands*

moviequest14
moviequest14

@Doubleb14 : And you know that many here would tear you apart for even being slightly incorrect :P No problem,glad I could help! :D

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

@moviequest14 Thank you sir :) haha I couldn't remember the rate so I didn't want to post that fact because I didn't want to mis-say the rate thus giving any false information :)

moviequest14
moviequest14

@nparks : There are various things that bring young-earth at least into question.For example the rate that the earth is crumbling...an estimated 24billion lbs. of land fall off of the earth (into the ocean) every year this means that the earth itself would be 5% (or less) land only 10million years or less after it was created.But certainly not into the 50 millions to even billions of years...and yes mankind making civilizations would effect the rate..but not nearly that much.Also to note is the ocean,a certain amount of saltwater is released into the ocean each year,this means if it remained at even remotely the current rate that the world would be several thousand years old..because if several million to billion years old were true than you would hardly be able to even swim in the ocean due to the 95% salt that would make it up.

Linaxel
Linaxel

Continuing: So what is Chemical X then? Science says: We have no idea. Christianity says: That's easy, there's this guy with infinite power who decided that creating a universe and life would be fun so he did it. I think that there could be some higher power that had something to do with creating life, why not? What is hard to believe for me is that it was that God from the Bible. Because there are many other creation myths for example Vikings believed that Odin was responsible for the creation of life with the help of 2 other norse gods. So how can Christianity say that they are right while all other religions are wrong. And i think that the bible was never meant to be taken literally, what really matters is the moral lessons of the stories. I believe that if there was some kind of higher power involved in the birth of life then it must have been some kind of energy. There are many examples in fiction for such a view. Like The Force which said to be the source of all life and is present in all forms of life or like the Lifestream from Final Fantasy VII or the White Light of Creation in the DC Universe. So these are my beliefs my religion if you like. If i offended anyone i am really sorry, I never meant to.

Linaxel
Linaxel

I just want to share my views on these things. Sorry if i don't add new things to the discussion but i just couldn't read all the comments from the start. About creation/evolution: My view is although evolution seems to be the most logical explanation for the diversity of life, there is one question evolution failed to answer and that is how life appeared in the first place. They said that when the right components was at the right place at the right time with the right combination booooom suddenly something happened and thus life was born. This reminds me of Power Puff Girls where professor Utonium tried to create the perfect little girls from Sugar, Spice, and Everything nice but he was only able to create them by accidentally adding Chemical X. Well i think that so far regarding the origin of life, science successfully found the building blocks of life so using the PPG metaphor, science found out about Sugar, Spice and Everything nice but still doesn't know about Chemical X. So its not that science failed to answer the question, the truth is that science is still at the start of the long journey of finding the answer, i mean don't forget that 500 years ago we still believed that Earth is the center of the universe and that claim was founded on observations too.

moviequest14
moviequest14

@sircyrus : But most of that that was under the Catholic name was only a front and excuse for greedy people to do whatever they want.Most were purely inspired by a thirst for more and more land which was only excused in the name of religion.What you said was exactly true,the Catholic church did engage in political and economic manipulation..but it had nothing to do with their religion,most (catholic) church leaders were corrupt to begin with with power,much the same if they had been put in a position of power in government.The Church and Government were becoming so intermingled that corrupt church leaders got more and more powerful (part of the reason for separation of church and state,which is a completely different meaning than it is considered today...it was intended to keep the state from influencing the church with political views,which was rampant in Europe at that time not outlaw any personal religious choices,even by government officials) and did what they like,not what was right (the ''man of god'' villain in Hunchback of Notre Dame was a prime example of this) ,but this had much more to do with their power-trip than their religion.But it is to note that no bad mistakes made by Christianity as a whole leave the Bible at fault,it is human mistake,not the base for the religion...in fact most of those mistakes are due to NOT listening to the Bible.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@moviequest14 Don't forget that the Catholic church engaged in political and economic manipulation for many, many years, the effects of which can still be felt in today's world. Not to mention the centuries of persecution it carried out, during which it burned plenty of people at the stake similar to what the Romans did to the early Christians. I don't think people necessarily hate the religion though. For sure there are some who do, but I believe the majority of people opposed to the religion merely don't want it in the role it has historically held. It has been very influential in the past, playing a role in politics, education, science, medicine, arts, defining social behaviour, etc. Sometimes it has been a positive influence, and sometimes it has been a negative one. But more and more people are moving away from the religion, or are not quite involved in it as past generations would have been. They no longer want that influence in every part of their lives or societies. It wouldn't be that the people hate Christianity. It's that they wouldn't want it to shape our future, like it has our past. At least that's my take on it.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@TheTrueMagusX1 I never said I wasn't going to acknowledge you. That's the third time now that you've attempted to misrepresent something I've said, and the second time that I've responded to JonathanGudeman only to have you jump in with some comment, acting as if you need to be the center of attention. What I said is I wasn't going to get into it with you, and I wont. It takes far more than someone with a superiority complex to hurt my feelings. Why I wont get into it with you is because you can't seem to handle other people disagreeing with you. Through your comments since the beginning of the article you come across as one of those people who thinks they are always correct, and even when you're wrong you'll still find some way to avoid admitting it because your ego wouldn't be able to handle it. Case in point: I can either waste hours arguing with someone who is incapable of admitting being wrong, resulting in a neverending argument, or I can refuse to get into it from the very beginning. Perhaps now that I've clarified my statement for you, you can now drop your continued attempts to start an argument.

Doubleb14
Doubleb14

@Nparks...Well why would you say evolution is the correct one..what evidence do you have to support your theory? I'm just wondering this is interesting and I mean no offense. I want to know why! The more I know why perhaps I can answer better.

TheTrueMagusX1
TheTrueMagusX1

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

TheTrueMagusX1
TheTrueMagusX1

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]