Christian bloggers protesting fake EA protest
by Ben Gilbert 
{ Jun 13th 2009 at 2:00AM } 
Catholic Video Gamers fires an even more direct shot at EA's Dante's Inferno, saying, "Instead of engaging in a shamelessly anti-Christian stunt to promote your poor excuse of a product, maybe you ought to work on making this game, you know, something better than a blatant God of War rip-off." Wait, isn't Christianity all about forgiving? Oh well! Hopefully EA will think twice next time it decides to fake a protest and instead choose protesters without any major religious affiliation.
[Via GameSpot]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Longhorn of Myon [PSN: MariusElijah] @ Jun 13th 2009 2:06AM
OH SNAP!!!
Heh @ Jun 13th 2009 2:44AM
Hey EA: You basically got called a BITCH!
Ridgecity @ Jun 13th 2009 3:27AM
I wonder if the guy wasn't surprised the moment he realized "God Of War" wasn't about Christianity.
Sayed @ Jun 13th 2009 3:49AM
I knew something was up from the very beginning i saw the pictures of the protest. Look how carefully and perfectly they made the EA symbols in some of the posters.
Also because i didn't see FOX news commenting anything about it :P
Vegnagun bwf @ Jun 13th 2009 11:02AM
That was the exact same reaction i had.
Henry @ Jun 13th 2009 11:49AM
If anyone has a better example of irony than this article, please let it be known.
BigD145 @ Jun 13th 2009 12:46PM
Isn't Christianity all about ripping off older religious/spiritual belief?
BigD145 @ Jun 13th 2009 3:01PM
-Xmas = Winter Solstice
-Easter = Vernal Equinox
-Virgin Birth? Done over several dozen times prior to any Christ worship.
-The cross is a very old death symbol.
All borrowed and repurposed.
cuteSAVAGE @ Jun 13th 2009 3:32PM
@ BigD - True, but that really doesn't change a thing. Every belief system is derived from one or more other beliefs. Christianity didn't rip anything off, it simply reinterpreted them. Christianity in and of itself is essentially pre-christian Judaism with the belief that the Messianic Prophecy had been fulfilled. Most Christians are proud of that, so I don't see why you feel the need to take a swipe.
Traditions are always going to be interpreted and incorporated into the various beliefs of the people they are passed down to. That's what culture is, and that's how culture spreads. As an example, my family is Jewish, but for my entire life we've lived in mostly Protestant and Catholic Christian communities. While we don't necessarily celebrate Christmas, we certainly join in the Christmas festivities and celebrate the overarching holiday message of good will towards your fellow man. Incorporating human tradition into spiritual tradition is never going to end, and shouldn't be looked at as something wrong.
dogmaticatheist @ Jun 13th 2009 4:33PM
@cuteSAVAGE:
"Incorporating human tradition into spiritual tradition is never going to end, and shouldn't be looked at as something wrong."
It is definitely something wrong when that spiritual tradition is the primary reason for discrimination and hatred towards other groups of people.
Secondly, I think it's very important to point out that Jesus is a blatant copy of other deities. It sure does make the entire thing look completely fabricated, which I believe it is.
Innagadadavida @ Jun 13th 2009 7:37PM
I love it when I see people who watched Zietgiest and thinks that they're suddenly all knowing. Listen, I know that film is eye opening, but there's a lot of misinformation and wordplay. Check out some other sources before believing that you're enlightened and everybody else is a sheep. To be honest, that belief is a little ironic.
squeehunter @ Jun 13th 2009 8:39PM
@BigDsomethingsomething
-Xmas = Winter Solstice
-Easter = Vernal Equinox
-Virgin Birth? Done over several dozen times prior to any Christ worship.
-The cross is a very old death symbol.
All borrowed and repurposed.
1) My origional reply, didn't go through for some reason so I'm going to try this again. First of all, you really burned us by putting an X in Christmas. Secondly, Christmas was put there on purpose because the pagans celebrated it. It's clear from the gospels that Jesus was born in the spring or summer anyway.
2) I dare you to come up with "several dozen" instances of virgin births just like Jesus's. If you mean Horus, then a virgin birth means having sex with a dead man with a fake penis made out of clay. If you mean Mithra, he was born out of a rock. If you mean the Persian Mithra, his mother had sex with Ahura Mazda. (Oh, and don't try to pull any Mithra=Jesus bullshit because I will rape your arguments) Zeus and other gods came down and boned a bunch of women, as stated in a lot of myths about the births of various Roman emperors and while Romulus and Remus were born of a virgin, being a virgin was her temple duty and that's why she is known as one but Mars seduced her in a forest, making her a virgin no longer. I'm not going to comment on any asian "virgin-births" because they're so far removed culturally, that it's unlikely that anyone would know about them to copy them. Regardless of Matthew's quoting of Isaiah and whether it's meant to be read as a virgin or not, it doesn't matter. Matthew quotes a lot of scripture that mirrors Jesus's life regardless of whether they were supposed to be about the coming messiah or not. For example the "I call my son out of Egypt." part. For the beleivers out there, it looks like Jesus was actually born of a virgin, and Matthew starts reading the Old Testament, trying to find a verse that says something about that in order to connect him to really being the messiah.
Also, I see it hard to beleive that a religion so opposed to other gods, and pagan practices, (read the Old Testament) would so blatantly borrow a pagan idea and stick it on the birth of the freakin' son of God.
Anyway, let's say someone was ACTUALLY the son of god, regardless of what you beleive. Wouldn't their birth be special in some kind of way? Like being conceived by that god, the father?
3) Seriously. I'm not even going to respond to that.
Lambrick @ Jun 13th 2009 9:33PM
my sentiments exactly. EA got BURRRRNED. no pun intended.
as for the guys saying that Christianity (or what you THINK is Christianity) is all about ripping off things from other religions (e.g. Christmas, Easter), go ahead and find the biblical basis for those "holidays." i'll wait.
RobT @ Jun 13th 2009 9:40PM
um.... i like video games?
HitNRun @ Jun 13th 2009 10:34PM
Hey guys, there's a whole lot of scholarship on this issue. You might want to peruse some of it - you know, the parts that aren't in make-you-feel-better-for-being-a-smart-atheist documentary form - before making wild irrelevant generalizations.
I mean seriously, Christmas? What the fuck does this discussion have to do with the Vatican co-opting pagan solstice holidays a thousand plus years ago to ease conversion efforts?
And the cross is an "ancient death symbol?" Yeah, no shit, because they fucking nailed people to them.
dogmaticatheist @ Jun 14th 2009 12:36AM
Well, I've never seen Zeitgeist so there goes your assumptions.
Similarities to other deities aside, just the CONCEPT of a god sacrificing his son, which is really himself (logic, anyone?), to himself to convince himself to circumvent a law that he himself imposed is so laughable, that I really have a hard time understanding the mental acrobatics that are necessary to honestly believe it.
99% percent of people only believe that nonsense because their parents believed it. People who want to believe in a wacky idea will rationalize it to themselves in any way they can to make it fit.
Questions to Christians:
1) Do you really believe that vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is a moral action?
2) Given that all human beings are born sinners (original sin, which I also find to be an immoral idea), and can only be redeemed through Jesus, how can you be sure that babies that die go to heaven? As far as I know there is no biblical support for this. It sounds like a lot of backpedaling on an idea that we all know is ludicrous.
I dunno, I can go on for days about how Christianity is nonsense, but I always like hearing the craziness people come up with to defend the things they believe solely because their parents forced it on them.
squeehunter @ Jun 14th 2009 1:46AM
First of all I was raised a Christian then I became an atheist, mostly due to my hate for Christains. I can pull statistics out of my ass too, so I'm going to say that 99% of atheists became one because of their hatred of Christians not unlike how I started. It often seems like that's the case as you will see in the comments below.
Secondly, since I'm done arguing with you people, why don't you go read "The God Delusion" and touch yourself like you usually do on Saturday nights?
squeehunter @ Jun 14th 2009 2:05AM
Oh, and so you don't say I didn't answer your questions...
1) It doesn't matter, yes, and aren't you the guys who say morality is subjective?
2) Origional sin brought humans out of harmony with God, but Paul, the guy who started the whole "origional sin" thing goes on to say. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has DONE, whether good or bad." There. That's probablly not a good enough answer for you though.
I was just trying to clear up some pop unscholarly BS here but if you want to go and argue theology, then go to Theologyweb.com and have fun.
Feba @ Jun 14th 2009 2:35AM
As someone who has been an atheist since literally longer than I can remember, and thus didn't 'turn against' any religion, and has put a great deal of study and thought into the matter, I really have to say:
Seriously guys? *Seriously*. Aren't we¹ supposed to be mocking the people that are getting pissy over a goddamn PR stunt?
How about instead of trading mistruths and falsehoods², we go "haha, whiny idiots." and go back to playing games?
¹- I'm referring to everyone present, regardless of whether they're religious or not.
²- I'm referring to the semantics of "oh man Jesus is a total ripoff of Sumerian myths!" and the like, on both sides of the argument; not the validity of religion in general.
rglong @ Jun 14th 2009 8:00AM
The irony here of course is that the stunt only mocked the very crazy (very real) type of Christian protesters that really do stand around in the streets harassing everyone with (usually bigoted) protest signs and placards.
So by freaking out about it, these Christian bloggers are, in a way, aligning themselves with the crazy types.
Otherwise why not just laugh it off: "heh heh, yeah there are those crazies like Fred Phelps out there, but thank god the rest of us aren't like that."
Hmmm... methinks this aspect of American Christianity can't be so easily swept under the rug.
dogmaticatheist @ Jun 14th 2009 1:04PM
@squeehunter:
"1) It doesn't matter, yes, and aren't you the guys who say morality is subjective?"
It doesn't matter? Do you realize what you are saying? This idea is the lynchpin of your ideology and you don't even have an opinion on it? That's pretty sad, and is a shining example of why people believe such nonsense: they don't want to have to think.
"2) Origional sin brought humans out of harmony with God, but Paul, the guy who started the whole "origional sin" thing goes on to say. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has DONE, whether good or bad." There. That's probablly not a good enough answer for you though."
So if we are judged solely on deeds, than isn't original sin pointless? And if original sin is pointless, than so is Jesus.
The contradictions keep adding up!
Wiizer @ Jun 14th 2009 5:32PM
Feba---
How'd you do the little '2' thing? That is so magical.
Bandit5317 @ Jun 14th 2009 6:05PM
You just couldn't help it could you. You sat at your desks in Joystiq HQ debating whether or not you should post it, knowing full well the wrath it would bring down upon us. Well I hope you're happy now, gazing into the interwebs and laughing, as many of your devout followers are burned until they are but smoldering piles of ash on the battlefield of one of the greater flame wars.
Phinehas @ Jun 15th 2009 12:28AM
@dogmaticatheist
What the heck, I'll bite.
"1) Do you really believe that vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is a moral action?"
Yes.
I'm tempted to leave things there, but you'll probably want some explanation.
a. It is moral because God did it and God defines morality, not the other way around. Perhaps that's not as satisfying an answer as you'd like, but it is no less true for its lack of satisfying.
b. A redemptive sacrifice is only possible under certain circumstances, chief among them being the righteousness of the one sacrificed. Christianity says that, by grace, through faith, we can be identified with Christ in his death, suffering, and resurrection. In other words, in Christ we die and in Him we are raised to a new life, our guilt having been taken away.
This identification not only involves Christ taking on our sin (and dying for it), but also us taking on His righteousness. If Christ himself were not perfecty righteous, He could not give that perfect righteousness to those who came Him in faith, hence they would not be redeemed. Nor could He die for anyone else's sins, since His death would only cover His own sin.
Non-redemptive human sacrifice (at least of the variety I think you are talking about) would be a meaningless waste, and therefore immoral.
Similarly, since Christ's sacrifice once for all is redemptive to all who are willing to put their trust in Him, even if one were able to perform a vicarious redemptive human sacrifice at this point in history (and given the above, that isn't really possible, because only God is perfectly good), it would be redundant, meaningless, wasteful, and therefore immoral.
So, to bring this back around, the answer to your question is "yes" because the sacrifice is redemptive, and it could only be redemptive because it was the perfect Son of God who was sacrificed.
"2) Given that all human beings are born sinners (original sin, which I also find to be an immoral idea), and can only be redeemed through Jesus, how can you be sure that babies that die go to heaven? As far as I know there is no biblical support for this."
There are a number of different beliefs on this topic within Christianity. The one that holds that babies that die go to heaven is not completely without biblical support. Upon learning that his baby (the result of his adultry with Bathsheba) was dead, David said the following: "I will go to him, but he will not return to me" (II Samuel 12:23). Many scholars take this to mean that David expected to see his baby again in heaven.
I wouldn't personally use a word as strong as "know" one way or another on this issue, except that I know that God's method for handling the issue (though I may not have figured out what it is) is the right one.
dogmaticatheist @ Jun 15th 2009 1:35AM
@Phinehas :
"a. It is moral because God did it and God defines morality, not the other way around. Perhaps that's not as satisfying an answer as you'd like, but it is no less true for its lack of satisfying."
Ah, the classic Euthyphro dilemma. I won't attempt to articulate it here because there are most certainly better explanations to be found on the ole interwebs. But ultimately "God defines morality" has many problems.
I won't retort the preachy stuff because, no offense to you, it is rather meaningless to me.
"2) Given that all human beings are born sinners (original sin, which I also find to be an immoral idea), and can only be redeemed through Jesus, how can you be sure that babies that die go to heaven? As far as I know there is no biblical support for this."
"There are a number of different beliefs on this topic within Christianity. The one that holds that babies that die go to heaven is not completely without biblical support. Upon learning that his baby (the result of his adultry with Bathsheba) was dead, David said the following: "I will go to him, but he will not return to me" (II Samuel 12:23). Many scholars take this to mean that David expected to see his baby again in heaven. "
Honestly, that phrase by David could mean anything. I find it interesting that such an important idea can only be justified by a single vague line in the Bible. But then again, you can find a single line in the Bible to support pretty much anything you want, so it really doesn't have much to stand on.
"I wouldn't personally use a word as strong as "know" one way or another on this issue, except that I know that God's method for handling the issue (though I may not have figured out what it is) is the right one."
I appreciate the honesty. Although, I find it interesting that you can know god's method is the right one without even knowing the specifics of that method.
Frankly, you can't call a god omni-benevolent if he designs a system that allows people to be tortured for eternity essentially because they were born in the wrong place or died before they could know anything about his offer of redemption.
Phinehas @ Jun 15th 2009 10:36AM
"Ah, the classic Euthyphro dilemma. I won't attempt to articulate it here because there are most certainly better explanations to be found on the ole interwebs. But ultimately "God defines morality" has many problems."
Not nearly as many problems as "I define morality" or "morality cannot be defined," but let's leave that aside for the moment.
The Euthyphro dilemma doesn't quite apply to what I've said. Let me explain.
The Euthphro dilemma states: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
But when I talk about God defining morality, I'm not talking about Him defining it by His *commandment*, but rather by His *being*. You see, the Euthyphro dilemma sets up a false dichotomy because it assumes a priori that morality and God can be viewed as completely separate things. But God cannot be defined by anything out side of Him. He is self-defined, which is why He is I AM.
I didn't come up with this response to the Euthyphro dilemma all by myself. It's been around at least since Thomas Aquinas, as a quick look at Wikipedia will tell you. Of course, admitting that there are solid, well-known responses to the dilemma wouldn't be as expedient to your argument as hand-waving accompanied by a vague claim that God defining morality, "has many problems," so I can see why you didn't bring it up.
"I won't retort the preachy stuff because, no offense to you, it is rather meaningless to me."
The "preachy" stuff is a second perspective on how your question can be cogently addressed. If you are going to dismiss answers to your questions with claims of meaninglessness, maybe you aren't really ready to ask them in the first place?
"Although, I find it interesting that you can know god's method is the right one without even knowing the specifics of that method."
Given that God defines morality, it follows logically that His method is the right one.
"Frankly, you can't call a god omni-benevolent if he designs a system that allows people to be tortured for eternity essentially because they were born in the wrong place or died before they could know anything about his offer of redemption."
I call God omni-benevolent because He is. I AM is not defined by your concept of benevolence or mine. It is entirely possible that neither you nor I understand the how or the why of where babies spend eternity. All it takes is the slightest modicum of humility to admit that our intellectual arms are rather too short to grasp some concepts, despite the feeling of comfort that attends our notion that we have wrapped them completely around the concept and have interlocked our fingers on the other side.
D_Average @ Jun 15th 2009 12:08PM
"But God cannot be defined by anything out side of Him. He is self-defined, which is why He is I AM."
This does not answer the dilemma. It is an "answer", but it does not resolve the inherit problems with the christian definition of God and morality. Therefore, hundreds of years later, the dilemma is still alive and well. Just like the challenge for someone to explain what occurred on Easter without contradicting one of the four Gospel accounts.
dogmaticatheist @ Jun 15th 2009 12:08PM
@Phineus:
"But when I talk about God defining morality, I'm not talking about Him defining it by His *commandment*, but rather by His *being*. You see, the Euthyphro dilemma sets up a false dichotomy because it assumes a priori that morality and God can be viewed as completely separate things. But God cannot be defined by anything out side of Him. He is self-defined, which is why He is I AM."
I've heard the "god's nature" argument before, but that simply begs the question: Where did God get his nature? If he gets his nature from somewhere else, then he is not god. And if he defines his own nature, that is quite the paradox. So your argument still doesn't hold any weight.
Your argument is essentially: God is good because he says he's good. And, that's such a huge cop out I don't even know where to begin. How do you know god is good? How do you know that what god is telling you is good, is in fact good? It's circular logic.
"I call God omni-benevolent because He is. I AM is not defined by your concept of benevolence or mine. It is entirely possible that neither you nor I understand the how or the why of where babies spend eternity. All it takes is the slightest modicum of humility to admit that our intellectual arms are rather too short to grasp some concepts, despite the feeling of comfort that attends our notion that we have wrapped them completely around the concept and have interlocked our fingers on the other side."
There's plenty of things I don't understand. But it's one thing to not understand a concept, and quite another to realize that a concept inherently makes no sense. And if a concept inherently makes not sense, than it is flawed and is probably not true.
charlie b. @ Jun 15th 2009 12:10PM
up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start
Todd @ Jun 15th 2009 4:06PM
Amen, brotha!
Kree @ Jun 28th 2009 7:39AM
Submitted for your approval:
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. - Heywood Broun
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. - Eric Hoffer
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself. - Sophy Burnham
Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force. - Flavius Josephus
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man. - Francis Cardinal Spellman
They say that God is everywhere, and yet we always think of Him as somewhat of a recluse. - Emily Dickinson
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. - Frank Lloyd Wright
The gods help them that help themselves. - Aesop
All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring. - Chuck Palahniuk
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better. - Ellen DeGeneres
You can't count on God for jack. He pretty much told me so himself. - Bender Bending Rodríguez
ArchiGamer @ Jun 13th 2009 2:08AM
Remember when ya'll said that Christians aren't crazy enough to protest Dante's Inferno?
Well now....umm....yeah...
chispito @ Jun 13th 2009 3:07AM
Except this isn't a protest, it's two blog entries.
Phinehas @ Jun 13th 2009 4:13AM
And they aren't protesting Dante's Inferno, they are protesting a cynical marketing ploy.
Other than that, though, you were right on the money.
:D
WINterfang @ Jun 13th 2009 2:08AM
I'm not going to take part on this one, it's going to turn ugly.
Rhamsey @ Jun 13th 2009 8:42AM
agreed
Spartan @ Jun 13th 2009 9:40AM
Acceded
Peter Moore @ Jun 13th 2009 2:08AM
"It's been clear for a while now that the entertainment industry views Christians on the whole as priggish, thin-skinned fun-killers,"
And by being priggish, thin-skinned fun-killers about it, they hope to dispel that stereotype.
These people are geniuses.
sonicspike41 @ Jun 13th 2009 2:47AM
"And by being priggish, thin-skinned fun-killers about it"
"Wait, isn't Christianity all about forgiving?"
I think these two statements go quite well together.
Instead of attacking EA they should have taken the "high moral ground" and instead said they aren't mad at EA but wish that in the future EA would be more considerate.
"Dear EA, we understand you were not trying to enforce negative stereotypes of any religion in particular, but we feel this protest may not have been the best way to promote your upcoming product. We know you're probably going to take a lot of flak for this, but on behalf of Christians everywhere, we'd like to apologize in advance for any rude comments you may receive. Hopefully next time the boys in marketing will come up with something a bit better. Sincerely, [name here]"
That seems more appropriate coming from a Christian blog than what was actually said.
Phinehas @ Jun 13th 2009 3:05AM
@Peter Moore
Fun killers? What the heck were you reading? I thought the responses were just as much fun as the original protest.
Don't the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as Christian? Is it really a wise marketing strategy to disenfranchise them by using negative stereotypes to sell your product?
"These people," huh? How very tolerant and inclusive of you. FYI, this particular *person* is a Christian, plays video games, and designs them as well. I also have nothing more against Dante's Inferno than what was expressed by the Catholic Video Gamers.
So, do you want to dialogue about games with a real Christian, or do you find it much more comfortable arguing with a stereotype?
Peter Moore @ Jun 13th 2009 3:18AM
"Don't the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as Christian? Is it really a wise marketing strategy to disenfranchise them by using negative stereotypes to sell your product?"
Uh, I'm not arguing whether or not this is good marketing on EA's part, I'm arguing that in their attempt to remove a stereotype of a angry, fun-hating group, they are justing playing to it.
Kinda like what you're doing right now. Hhm...
"'These people," huh? How very tolerant and inclusive of you. FYI, this particular *person* is a Christian, plays video games, and designs them as well. I also have nothing more against Dante's Inferno than what was expressed by the Catholic Video Gamers."
Hey, I don't give a fuck if you're a Christian, okay? If I find something that I think is stupid, like these people- oh, excuse me- "those particular *persons*" getting worked up and angry over something they really shouldn't be.
This was clearly making fun of the extremist Christians who get so angry over irrelevant shit, not the general Christian, who probably doesn't even care about this game has hell in it.
And to get angry over this only makes others see them as the image they're trying to distance themselves from.
Oh, and about the intolerant comment, fuck off. If you want to play that game fine, but I'm not going to.
"So, do you want to dialogue about games with a real Christian, or do you find it much more comfortable arguing with a stereotype?"
If you're a "real Christian," then no. I don't want to.
ChristmasBeard @ Jun 13th 2009 3:26AM
@Peter Moore:
Right now I'm picturing myself taking a dump on your head.
Here it comes.....*errg*
Right on your greasy head.
Much better.
Peter Moore @ Jun 13th 2009 3:27AM
You are clearly a man of few words.
Phinehas @ Jun 13th 2009 3:55AM
@Peter Moore
You seem pretty confused about who is getting worked up and angry and who isn't. I'm really quite prepared to have a calm, level-headed discussion. You? You'll note that I'm not the one telling you to get lost in colloquial terms.
Nor did I find anything particularly angry about the quotes from the Catholic sources that Joystiq posted. In fact, I thought the second quote was downright good-natured, but maybe I'm just not reading into it the same stereotypes that you are?
The original marketing strategy was cynical, likely hoping to get some free media coverage out of the "controversy." Some Christians point out it is cynical, and they are "fun-killers?" What fun, exactly, are they killing? The fun of negative stereotypes? Is that the fun that I'm now being accused of hating as well?
The cynical marketing strategy is obviously working, which is, of course, exactly what EA hoped. I imagine this was partly the point you were making, and if you'd stopped there, I wouldn't have disagreed. But the marketing was still cynical, and pointing out that is was isn't the same thing as getting worked up and angry, nor is it analogous to being fun-hating. The stereotype was still a stereotype, and it doesn't hold either for the quoted responses or for my own comments, no matter how angrily you protest otherwise.
burgerbat @ Jun 13th 2009 5:48AM
Shit Phinehas, you need to fucking chill. Peter Moore never called Christians "fun-killers". He was quoting the bloggers, who themselves were generalizing BIG TIME. It looks like you, Sister Christian, came in here looking for a fight...er...discussion. Your knee-jerk behavior pretty much falls in line with the stereotype being discussed here, and you are doing your cause a disservice by acting like a child.
sonicspike41 @ Jun 13th 2009 6:35AM
"I thought the second quote was downright good-natured"
"to promote your poor excuse of a product"
Yes, it's good-natured to say "your poor excuse of a...". Yeah, because as we all know offering your criticism in a constructive way makes you the devil.
The Baron @ Jun 13th 2009 8:28AM
No, the christian bloggers said that Christians are being portrayed as priggish, thin-skinned fun killers. Peter argued that by complaining about the protest, they are in fact enforcing that very same stereotype.
You've misread his argument, and indeed the Joystiq post, at every single level.
Phinehas @ Jun 13th 2009 2:12PM
@sonicspike
Saying, "your poor excuse of a game," is basically what gaming blogs do. News flash: gamers are passionate about games. I don't take offense when gamers write such things because I know that their "hating" on a game is, usually, good-natured.
Bloggers and commenters alike are always trying to come up with that "Oh snap!" comment that will make their case in a witty, entertaining, and often ascerbic way. The bloggers at Catholic Video Gamers did exactly that. I read lots of humor in their response and very little actual anger. Then again, as pointed out before, maybe I'm not reading into their comments the same negative stereotypes that others are.
You also seem to have a lot of concern about what is and isn't appropriate coming from a Christian blog. What's that all about? Are you an authority on what Christians should or shouldn't say or do? Where are you getting the standard you are trying to hold them to?
sonicspike41 @ Jun 14th 2009 1:00AM
I'm merely preaching what they themselves preach.
I was raised a Catholic Christian, and went to a Catholic middle and high school, so I had a religion class for 7 years of school (more like 8-9 if you count summer school, haha). I'd like to believe that during all that time learning about the religion I have gained the right to speak the "turn the cheek" method.
I wouldn't call it "a lot of concern". I made one comment about how I felt the situation could have been better handled on their part, and then I made one comment about how I disagree with the comment being in good nature.
They may not have meant anything bad by it, but it's kind of hard to not see the negative when the entire quote itself is in negative tone. You wouldn't go up to a doll maker and tell him "This is just a Pinocchio rip-off meant to sucker young kids with too much money. Go take your poor excuse of a doll somewhere else." Would you? Of course it's going to come off sounding rude.
I am however a firm believe that everyone and everything is fair game when it comes to comedy, so long as there is no ill intent and both parties realize it's all in good fun. This does not seem the case here.
The Catholic Video Gamers clearly were not in favor of the protest, which makes it even harder to believe they are in favor of the product. If he is not in favor of the product (or at least can show he has neutral objective views of it) then his words are most likely meant to attack EA and the product they are releasing, which is also evidenced by some of his comments on his own blog post.
Moris @ Jun 13th 2009 2:09AM
Oh Please, take the thumbs out of your asses, and chill. Don't take EA's Stunt the wrong way, I'm sure that everyone there wasn't thinking the way you thought :P