Comments on: If video games kill, what about the Bible?

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says blaming the coarsening of society on the game development community is simply a cop-out.

[mrissman]

If it was so easy, why don't the members of this forum agree?

Wow! Where to begin first? For those of you who claim this is straight forward, I hope you're reading everybody else's comments.

Some people write as if parents are this breed of animal that were never children themselves who were influenced by the previous generation's effects. If we say the parents are to blame because they don't parent well, then why not? Could it possibly be because they were influenced by their parents and the many media around them?

The gaming industry isn't off the hook either. The gaming industry is made up of real people like you and me. Also people who were once children who were influenced by what was going on in their life as they grew up.

The retailers are made up of the same real people; all influenced by the culture they grew up in.

Yes, parents should watch over their kids better, but as my kids got older they wanted, and I gave them, more freedom. The fact is, I probably watch over them much more than my parents ever watched over me. Of the parents I know, they watch over their kids much more than my parents' generation ever did. Don't you remember how much more freedom our parents gave us in the 60's & 70's? (see below about freedom)

Yes, retailers and the industry should realize the effects of their games on every maturity level of person that might get their hands on it. Should games with a mature rating be sold to younger kids? No. Can you keep it out of the hands of a persistant kid? If you can then sell it. If you can't then don't.

What a lot of us would really like to see is people begin to take responsibility for the actions and be considerate of others, but that means they need to have responsible people in their lives influencing them in a positive way. How does one learn to be a positive influence to others? Is it by playing the last generation's games? Obviously not. I can't imagine how the kids who play this generation's games will parent if the parents that played the last generation's games are parenting so poorly.

How does a society remain safe and still remain free? It does it through respect, love, compassion, encouragement, selflessness and a myriad of other virtues. How does a society become unsafe and more restricted? Through disrespect, , indifference, discouragement and every other vice known to mankind.

Those things that teach us the virtues are the ones we should put more time into and those that teach us vices we should put less time into.

A society that spends quality and quantity time teaching and living virtuously will be safe and free. A society that spends quality and quantity time teaching and living viciously will be unsafe and restricted; and I might add, will eventually disintegrate from within (sound like any great empires of the past?)

Considering this logic, where should we ALL be spending more time? It's pretty obvious.

[mrissman]

If it was so easy, why don't the members of this forum agree?

Wow! Where to begin first? For those of you who claim this is straight forward, I hope you're reading everybody else's comments.

Some people write as if parents are this breed of animal that were never children themselves who were influenced by the previous generation's effects. If we say the parents are to blame because they don't parent well, then why not? Could it possibly be because they were influenced by their parents and the many media around them?

The gaming industry isn't off the hook either. The gaming industry is made up of real people like you and me. Also people who were once children who were influenced by what was going on in their life as they grew up.

The retailers are made up of the same real people; all influenced by the culture they grew up in.

Yes, parents should watch over their kids better, but as my kids got older they wanted, and I gave them, more freedom. The fact is, I probably watch over them much more than my parents ever watched over me. Of the parents I know, they watch over their kids much more than my parents' generation ever did. Don't you remember how much more freedom our parents gave us in the 60's & 70's? (see below about freedom)

Yes, retailers and the industry should realize the effects of their games on every maturity level of person that might get their hands on it. Should games with a mature rating be sold to younger kids? No. Can you keep it out of the hands of a persistant kid? If you can then sell it. If you can't then don't.

What a lot of us would really like to see is people begin to take responsibility for the actions and be considerate of others, but that means they need to have responsible people in their lives influencing them in a positive way. How does one learn to be a positive influence to others? Is it by playing the last generation's games? Obviously not. I can't imagine how the kids who play this generation's games will parent if the parents that played the last generation's games are parenting so poorly.

How does a society remain safe and still remain free? It does it through respect, love, compassion, encouragement, selflessness and a myriad of other virtues. How does a society become unsafe and more restricted? Through disrespect, , indifference, discouragement and every other vice known to mankind.

Those things that teach us the virtues are the ones we should put more time into and those that teach us vices we should put less time into.

A society that spends quality and quantity time teaching and living virtuously will be safe and free. A society that spends quality and quantity time teaching and living viciously will be unsafe and restricted; and I might add, will eventually disintegrate from within (sound like any great empires of the past?)

Considering this logic, where should we ALL be spending more time? It's pretty obvious.

Common Flaws in Reasoning

As I read this article and the corresponding feedback, I can't help but find two flawed reasoning shortcuts made in some of the arguments here that are commonly seen in many other debates. The argument about how video games, and the entertainment culture in general, contributes to violent behavior is a perfect example. These same shortcuts in reasoning are the same ones that contribute to racism, sexism, and a variety of other evils and misunderstandings, and everyone is guilty of them at some point in their life.

The first flaw in reasoning is in failing to understanding the range of diversity in any group or subject we do not understand, and thus assuming that the few facts we do have are true for a majority of that group or the bulk of the subject in question. In general, most of the people making the argument that video games are at fault do not understand the diversity of video games that are out there. After seeing news reports like this, I can understand how many people who do not play video games end up making the assumption that most video games on the market now are like "Grand Theft Auto", glorifying violence with virtually no message that such violence is wrong.

Another thing that many fail to understand is that video games have been around long enough that one generation has grown up with them; video games used to pretty much just target and appeal to kids and teens, and many people seem to think that this is still the only audience. Those of us who play them, however, know that is a foolish assumption.

We also know that focusing on the most violent of video games is equally foolish; the news makes it easy to assume that most video games out there are of the highly violent variety. While violence is a part of most video games, the idea that it is graphic or glorified in most of them, or that it is always the sole point of the game, is flawed. Video games are attaining the same level of diversity as books, music, movies, and TV, and to judge them only by the most publicized games is clearly part of the reason video games are receiving so much of the blame.

The second common flawed shortcut in reasoning is very common; I've seen this error even in many scientific studies, or at least in the interpretation of their results. This is the flaw of assuming that a correlation between two values implies that one value causes the other. In this case, the flawed assumption is since that violence in video games is correlated with real life violence (a debatable point in itself), that video games must be the cause.

There is also a correlation between the proportion of young male adults in the population and the level of violent crime; a correlation that I believe is even stronger than the correlation between violence in video games and real life violence. Following the reasoning of those who wish to ban violent video games, it would also seem that we should ban young male adults. As someone who falls into this category, I must highly object to such an action, of course.

While I did say I would address two common flaws, there is another I would like to mention. That would be failing to consider the issue from a much broader perspective. There is a common perception that violence is becoming more and more a part of our daily lifes, and while they may be true over the short term (meaning the last several years), I don't believe that argument can truly be made over the long term (meaning Human history). As an example, for many centuries, having a duel to the death over minor insults or slights was extremely commonplace. I imagine that merely mentioning the Roman gladiators is enough to provide another good example. The point is, this is not a new problem, so trying to focus blame on a new form of entertainment is foolish.

Many people in this discussion have made many good points, recognizing some of fallacies that set up this whole debate. I tend to believe that in most debates, when you tear through the rhetoric and factor out the common mistakes made by people on both sides, you tend to find the truth somewhere in the middle.

I believe that our entertainment culture today tends to be more a reflection on the culture as a whole than it is an influence--it does function as both, but the violence seen in the media is mostly a function of the capacity for violence within us. It is also a function of the fact that violence is a complicated issue; most people do believe that violence is a proper response to certain situations. Thus, is it the violence in games itself that represents the problem, or is it the message that comes with it? If the latter, than many games are not a problem, as they present the violence in the context of situations where most of us would feel justified responding violently. I realize this argument has already been made defending the Bible (about the context around the violence), but I wanted to bring it up in a larger context.

Another important question is the power of video games, and other forms of entertainment, to induce violent or evil behavior. It has always been my belief that violence in the media can only reinforce a willingness to commit violence that is already there. This willingness usually comes from an egoistic or underdeveloped moral perspective, or one that glorifies in some way. I believe violence in the media has little effect on those who believe it is only acceptable when it becomes necessary.

So, where does the blame go? Virtually everyone can be blamed to some degree, but primary responsibility must always fall to the one who committed the crime in the first place. And as for video games, perhaps we should be addressing the reasons games like "Grand Theft Auto" are popular in the first place; of course, it's far easier to blame the games themselves than continue to grapple with an issue that had plagued humanity throughout history.

Ban the games, ban TV, ban movies, ban books, ban religion, or the absence of it, ban all forms of art or expression, and something will rise to take its place as the instigating factor. The only hope for an end to violence is to address its underlying causes, and I fear the underlying cause is in every Human being's limited capacity and time to understand the world around us, and the shortcuts we end up taking in our attempts to do so. It is in the avoidable and unavoidable flaws in Human reasoning that the roots of unjustified violence are born; violence itself, in fact, as most justified violence is the result of unjustified violence or the threat of it. It is these same flaws in reasoning that can make some people that the problem can be cured, or even significantly reduced, by simply banning or regulating a form of entertainment or tools of violence. Do it if you must, but don't be surprised if the benefits of doing so don't even last as long as it took to pass the law.

Common Flaws in Reasoning

As I read this article and the corresponding feedback, I can't help but find two flawed reasoning shortcuts made in some of the arguments here that are commonly seen in many other debates. The argument about how video games, and the entertainment culture in general, contributes to violent behavior is a perfect example. These same shortcuts in reasoning are the same ones that contribute to racism, sexism, and a variety of other evils and misunderstandings, and everyone is guilty of them at some point in their life.

The first flaw in reasoning is in failing to understanding the range of diversity in any group or subject we do not understand, and thus assuming that the few facts we do have are true for a majority of that group or the bulk of the subject in question. In general, most of the people making the argument that video games are at fault do not understand the diversity of video games that are out there. After seeing news reports like this, I can understand how many people who do not play video games end up making the assumption that most video games on the market now are like "Grand Theft Auto", glorifying violence with virtually no message that such violence is wrong.

Another thing that many fail to understand is that video games have been around long enough that one generation has grown up with them; video games used to pretty much just target and appeal to kids and teens, and many people seem to think that this is still the only audience. Those of us who play them, however, know that is a foolish assumption.

We also know that focusing on the most violent of video games is equally foolish; the news makes it easy to assume that most video games out there are of the highly violent variety. While violence is a part of most video games, the idea that it is graphic or glorified in most of them, or that it is always the sole point of the game, is flawed. Video games are attaining the same level of diversity as books, music, movies, and TV, and to judge them only by the most publicized games is clearly part of the reason video games are receiving so much of the blame.

The second common flawed shortcut in reasoning is very common; I've seen this error even in many scientific studies, or at least in the interpretation of their results. This is the flaw of assuming that a correlation between two values implies that one value causes the other. In this case, the flawed assumption is since that violence in video games is correlated with real life violence (a debatable point in itself), that video games must be the cause.

There is also a correlation between the proportion of young male adults in the population and the level of violent crime; a correlation that I believe is even stronger than the correlation between violence in video games and real life violence. Following the reasoning of those who wish to ban violent video games, it would also seem that we should ban young male adults. As someone who falls into this category, I must highly object to such an action, of course.

While I did say I would address two common flaws, there is another I would like to mention. That would be failing to consider the issue from a much broader perspective. There is a common perception that violence is becoming more and more a part of our daily lifes, and while they may be true over the short term (meaning the last several years), I don't believe that argument can truly be made over the long term (meaning Human history). As an example, for many centuries, having a duel to the death over minor insults or slights was extremely commonplace. I imagine that merely mentioning the Roman gladiators is enough to provide another good example. The point is, this is not a new problem, so trying to focus blame on a new form of entertainment is foolish.

Many people in this discussion have made many good points, recognizing some of fallacies that set up this whole debate. I tend to believe that in most debates, when you tear through the rhetoric and factor out the common mistakes made by people on both sides, you tend to find the truth somewhere in the middle.

I believe that our entertainment culture today tends to be more a reflection on the culture as a whole than it is an influence--it does function as both, but the violence seen in the media is mostly a function of the capacity for violence within us. It is also a function of the fact that violence is a complicated issue; most people do believe that violence is a proper response to certain situations. Thus, is it the violence in games itself that represents the problem, or is it the message that comes with it? If the latter, than many games are not a problem, as they present the violence in the context of situations where most of us would feel justified responding violently. I realize this argument has already been made defending the Bible (about the context around the violence), but I wanted to bring it up in a larger context.

Another important question is the power of video games, and other forms of entertainment, to induce violent or evil behavior. It has always been my belief that violence in the media can only reinforce a willingness to commit violence that is already there. This willingness usually comes from an egoistic or underdeveloped moral perspective, or one that glorifies in some way. I believe violence in the media has little effect on those who believe it is only acceptable when it becomes necessary.

So, where does the blame go? Virtually everyone can be blamed to some degree, but primary responsibility must always fall to the one who committed the crime in the first place. And as for video games, perhaps we should be addressing the reasons games like "Grand Theft Auto" are popular in the first place; of course, it's far easier to blame the games themselves than continue to grapple with an issue that had plagued humanity throughout history.

Ban the games, ban TV, ban movies, ban books, ban religion, or the absence of it, ban all forms of art or expression, and something will rise to take its place as the instigating factor. The only hope for an end to violence is to address its underlying causes, and I fear the underlying cause is in every Human being's limited capacity and time to understand the world around us, and the shortcuts we end up taking in our attempts to do so. It is in the avoidable and unavoidable flaws in Human reasoning that the roots of unjustified violence are born; violence itself, in fact, as most justified violence is the result of unjustified violence or the threat of it. It is these same flaws in reasoning that can make some people that the problem can be cured, or even significantly reduced, by simply banning or regulating a form of entertainment or tools of violence. Do it if you must, but don't be surprised if the benefits of doing so don't even last as long as it took to pass the law.

[shanedr-1964330144520240703050]

Killing in video games

Trying to identify whether playing a certain video game will encourage violence is very difficult to prove. But why should we even try to prove it? Violence for the sake of violence cannot be beneficial. Why should any game be designed to view life from the eyes of a criminal? Why not play a game from the viewpoint of a police officer or a soldier who must deal with violent people? Why must there be such graphic violence? Decapitations, arterial wounds, etc. cannot increase a players skill level. Violence in games while in some cases may not encourage violent behavior, but it certainly will not reduce its likelihood. The bottom line is gratutious violence only has a shock value; that violence will not enhance a players ability to function in society. Until it can be proven that violence enhances the potential enjoyment of the game there simply is not any positive reason to include it. Because of that such violent behavior should be prohibited. Waiting for proof is the equivalent of jumping off a ten story building and waiting to hit the ground before its harm is evaluated.

[Fray9]

The reason

The reason for such violence and graphic depictions is because deep down regardless of how much self denial you indulge in, we are all still animals with the same instincts to kill and maime as we had back in the stone age.

We supress these instincts, but supressing such things are severely damaging to a persons mental health.

This virtual violence exists for the same reason that violent movies make millions: people want them.

It is a way for us to safely vent our violent urges, thus relieving stress and making it less likely that these supressed emotions will erupt in a bout of real life violence.

As modern day life becomes more stressful it has become harder to achieve such balance as it used to be, hence the gradual increase in the brutality of violent depictions and the slow relaxation of censorship standards.

Trying to clamp down on faux violence in its many forms would only result in a sharp imbalance that would result in much more dangerous supressed aggression spilling out into real life.

[shanedr-1964330144520240703050]

Killing in video games

Trying to identify whether playing a certain video game will encourage violence is very difficult to prove. But why should we even try to prove it? Violence for the sake of violence cannot be beneficial. Why should any game be designed to view life from the eyes of a criminal? Why not play a game from the viewpoint of a police officer or a soldier who must deal with violent people? Why must there be such graphic violence? Decapitations, arterial wounds, etc. cannot increase a players skill level. Violence in games while in some cases may not encourage violent behavior, but it certainly will not reduce its likelihood. The bottom line is gratutious violence only has a shock value; that violence will not enhance a players ability to function in society. Until it can be proven that violence enhances the potential enjoyment of the game there simply is not any positive reason to include it. Because of that such violent behavior should be prohibited. Waiting for proof is the equivalent of jumping off a ten story building and waiting to hit the ground before its harm is evaluated.

[Fray9]

The reason

The reason for such violence and graphic depictions is because deep down regardless of how much self denial you indulge in, we are all still animals with the same instincts to kill and maime as we had back in the stone age.

We supress these instincts, but supressing such things are severely damaging to a persons mental health.

This virtual violence exists for the same reason that violent movies make millions: people want them.

It is a way for us to safely vent our violent urges, thus relieving stress and making it less likely that these supressed emotions will erupt in a bout of real life violence.

As modern day life becomes more stressful it has become harder to achieve such balance as it used to be, hence the gradual increase in the brutality of violent depictions and the slow relaxation of censorship standards.

Trying to clamp down on faux violence in its many forms would only result in a sharp imbalance that would result in much more dangerous supressed aggression spilling out into real life.

[kribor]

The premise of your column is flawed

The logic in your story is flawed in a number of ways. First, you cite the "begets" -- I presume you are speaking of Matthew 1:1, which details the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Your logic is flawed because to beget is synonymous with the verb sire, or the father. Don't believe me, check a thesaurus. Second, all of the instances mentioned in Matthew 1:1 save for Christ's birth and Adam's creation, all of the births mentioned were the products of marriages. The importance of mentioning this is to confirm the promise made by God to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 that David's line and kingdom will endure forever -- which established that the Messiah (Savior of mankind) would come from the house of David. The other gospels do not mention the genealogy of Jesus because the gospel of Matthew was intended to minister to the Jews.

Your story mentions killing and destruction in the Bible. Yes, there is death and destruction in the Bible -- and when it is performed by men, it is always sin. In Leviticus, God established His law with His people, and it is clear -- the wages of sin is death. However, God being a God of love offers His wayward children a way to escape His judgement. In Romans 6:23, it reiterates Leviticus 20 "For the wages of sin is death, but eternal life is the freely given gift of God through Christ Jesus".

Your column shows that you are unfamiliar with the word of God, and thus unfamiliar with God Himself. I pray that you may enter into a relationship with our Heavenly Father by accepting the living water offered simply by accepting Jesus Christ as the propitiation of your sins. My pardons for the theological tone of this comment, but I am a Christian first, and an engineer second.

[kribor]

The premise of your column is flawed

The logic in your story is flawed in a number of ways. First, you cite the "begets" -- I presume you are speaking of Matthew 1:1, which details the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Your logic is flawed because to beget is synonymous with the verb sire, or the father. Don't believe me, check a thesaurus. Second, all of the instances mentioned in Matthew 1:1 save for Christ's birth and Adam's creation, all of the births mentioned were the products of marriages. The importance of mentioning this is to confirm the promise made by God to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 that David's line and kingdom will endure forever -- which established that the Messiah (Savior of mankind) would come from the house of David. The other gospels do not mention the genealogy of Jesus because the gospel of Matthew was intended to minister to the Jews.

Your story mentions killing and destruction in the Bible. Yes, there is death and destruction in the Bible -- and when it is performed by men, it is always sin. In Leviticus, God established His law with His people, and it is clear -- the wages of sin is death. However, God being a God of love offers His wayward children a way to escape His judgement. In Romans 6:23, it reiterates Leviticus 20 "For the wages of sin is death, but eternal life is the freely given gift of God through Christ Jesus".

Your column shows that you are unfamiliar with the word of God, and thus unfamiliar with God Himself. I pray that you may enter into a relationship with our Heavenly Father by accepting the living water offered simply by accepting Jesus Christ as the propitiation of your sins. My pardons for the theological tone of this comment, but I am a Christian first, and an engineer second.

[mhujm]

Video games don't kill people. People kill people.

It's that simple.

[mhujm]

Video games don't kill people. People kill people.

It's that simple.

the blame question: it's actually the opposite

The whole discussion about violent games (or violent media in general) leading to the "coarsening of society and the desensitizing of so many of our youth" should actually be looked at from the complete opposite angle. I'd say that our obsession with violence is simply a sign and indicator of who we are as a society.

To find who is to blame for all the violence that has become so common in our culture, we don't have to look any farther than ourselves. It's us who bought those tickets to the racy (at the time) Greta Garbo movies. It's us who kept buying those tickets as movies became more and more violent over the years. It's us who continued to tune in as television went from Ozzie & Harriet to The Sopranos. And it's us who kept buying video games as they went from Pong to Quake and Doom (or allowed our kids to.)

Don't blame the corruption of the culture on corrupt media, but blame the corruption of media on a corrupt culture.

the blame question: it's actually the opposite

The whole discussion about violent games (or violent media in general) leading to the "coarsening of society and the desensitizing of so many of our youth" should actually be looked at from the complete opposite angle. I'd say that our obsession with violence is simply a sign and indicator of who we are as a society.

To find who is to blame for all the violence that has become so common in our culture, we don't have to look any farther than ourselves. It's us who bought those tickets to the racy (at the time) Greta Garbo movies. It's us who kept buying those tickets as movies became more and more violent over the years. It's us who continued to tune in as television went from Ozzie & Harriet to The Sopranos. And it's us who kept buying video games as they went from Pong to Quake and Doom (or allowed our kids to.)

Don't blame the corruption of the culture on corrupt media, but blame the corruption of media on a corrupt culture.

God Probably Doesn't Exist

In some comments people are referring to God as if he's real. I didn't expect that on a site like this. I would say some people secretly don't believe in God and many others have some questions and doubts.

[Fray9]

Ack!

Burn the Blasphemer!

Just kidding.. thought I would get ahead of the bandwagon of people who will now attack you for questioning their fear-induced mystical self defense mechanism.

God Probably Doesn't Exist

In some comments people are referring to God as if he's real. I didn't expect that on a site like this. I would say some people secretly don't believe in God and many others have some questions and doubts.

[Fray9]

Ack!

Burn the Blasphemer!

Just kidding.. thought I would get ahead of the bandwagon of people who will now attack you for questioning their fear-induced mystical self defense mechanism.

[Danieldfacemyer]

If Video Games Kill, what about....

I believe that you would do well sticking to those things you are good about. As a father of teen children, many years ago, i felt it important to not condone their posession of some of what now would be considered "soft" harmless porn--Playboy. My issue was not my Biblicial purity but the developmental stage that the boys were in the middle of. I was concerned that they would develope a sense of sexuality that was glamorous but shallow. I was also concerned that their experimental stage of life might be turned loose without the boundaries that are requuired for proper development. I didn't let them drive an automobile before they were of age either. The brutality of some of the Video Games, the sexually abusive nature, the even racist nature of some of them, and the unrestrained emotional fever of others is not the most developmental helpful thing that our kids can encounter. Boundaries are important for all, even us Adults. Boundaries are also important for the Religious examples are too many to recapture--ancient and contemporary. Whatever you know about the use of the Biblical history or liturature is not of any interest to me. Your editorial ignorance is showing and it is not pretty. This is one battle you would have done well to avoid. Flint offered help to the Democrats by exposing hypocricy within the selfrighteous what in heavens name did you have to offer? Rev. Dan

[Danieldfacemyer]

If Video Games Kill, what about....

I believe that you would do well sticking to those things you are good about. As a father of teen children, many years ago, i felt it important to not condone their posession of some of what now would be considered "soft" harmless porn--Playboy. My issue was not my Biblicial purity but the developmental stage that the boys were in the middle of. I was concerned that they would develope a sense of sexuality that was glamorous but shallow. I was also concerned that their experimental stage of life might be turned loose without the boundaries that are requuired for proper development. I didn't let them drive an automobile before they were of age either. The brutality of some of the Video Games, the sexually abusive nature, the even racist nature of some of them, and the unrestrained emotional fever of others is not the most developmental helpful thing that our kids can encounter. Boundaries are important for all, even us Adults. Boundaries are also important for the Religious examples are too many to recapture--ancient and contemporary. Whatever you know about the use of the Biblical history or liturature is not of any interest to me. Your editorial ignorance is showing and it is not pretty. This is one battle you would have done well to avoid. Flint offered help to the Democrats by exposing hypocricy within the selfrighteous what in heavens name did you have to offer? Rev. Dan

Know your Facts before you open your mouth

Someone posted saying the "Bible promotes more violence than video games" Let's first look at it in a basic light. The Bible gives examples of certain violence and then shows the consequence of those actions. The Bible does NOT promote violence. Try reading your sources before you just talk. Just because he was a leader in a church doesn't mean he is a Christian. The word Christian is used for anyone who goes to church, does something good, thinks about himself, or anyone. Those murders acted the way they did because they did not have Christ as their Lord and Savior.

[Fray9]

You should do the same

Your forgetting that video games show the consequences as well. Kill someone in a video game and the police chase you, hunt you down and take you to jail (if you dont get killed in the process).

Yes the point of the game is to do illegal things and get away with it but its not exactly easy. Would you prefer your children to know precisely what will happen when they steal a car and how nearly impossible it is to not get caught before they attempt it or just have a vague notion that someone said it would get them in serious trouble if they got caught (they think)?

"Those murders acted the way they did because they did not have Christ as their Lord and Savior."

So if a church going citizen kills then that means they didnt really believe in god? That seems a rather narrow view to exclude all persons who do evil from being true believers (simply to dissassociate your organization from them).

Know your Facts before you open your mouth

Someone posted saying the "Bible promotes more violence than video games" Let's first look at it in a basic light. The Bible gives examples of certain violence and then shows the consequence of those actions. The Bible does NOT promote violence. Try reading your sources before you just talk. Just because he was a leader in a church doesn't mean he is a Christian. The word Christian is used for anyone who goes to church, does something good, thinks about himself, or anyone. Those murders acted the way they did because they did not have Christ as their Lord and Savior.

[Fray9]

You should do the same

Your forgetting that video games show the consequences as well. Kill someone in a video game and the police chase you, hunt you down and take you to jail (if you dont get killed in the process).

Yes the point of the game is to do illegal things and get away with it but its not exactly easy. Would you prefer your children to know precisely what will happen when they steal a car and how nearly impossible it is to not get caught before they attempt it or just have a vague notion that someone said it would get them in serious trouble if they got caught (they think)?

"Those murders acted the way they did because they did not have Christ as their Lord and Savior."

So if a church going citizen kills then that means they didnt really believe in god? That seems a rather narrow view to exclude all persons who do evil from being true believers (simply to dissassociate your organization from them).

[fshermn]

video games kill what about the bible

about the bible we must remember the bible is truely stated but not all Gods truth. Job states "that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" thats Job's statement not Gods. John 10:10 Jesus comes that we have life but the devil comes to kill,steal and destroy. Thats what God said.

[fshermn]

video games kill what about the bible

about the bible we must remember the bible is truely stated but not all Gods truth. Job states "that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" thats Job's statement not Gods. John 10:10 Jesus comes that we have life but the devil comes to kill,steal and destroy. Thats what God said.