You have a good point there, I must admit. Maybe I should have made my idea of the Bible's truth more clear. Truly, no one knows the true nature of most of the texts of the Bible. However, Bible scholars who spend much of their lives studying it have come up with some interpretations, and I tend to follow those interpretations which the Catholic Church accepts. And, like I said before, it's all about how it is interpreted. Just because some people interpret it one way does not mean that others can't interpret it differently. I was only trying to point out the fact that there is a lot of symbolism and deeper meaning contained in many of the Bible's books, especially evident in the Old Testament. People of that time tended focus more on symbolism, it seems, than we do today. Now, like I said, you have a made a good point, and I won't deny that. I suppose that we can never truly know what parts of each book of the Bible are true or not, but, though studying the various concepts of Bible interpretation in the past, I tend to have an easier time at noticing some of the symbolism contained in the Bible. This doesn't mean that the symbolism can't also be historical truth. It's just that most non-religious people approach the Bible as a book which contains historical truth and historical references. While this is true for some of the Bible, it isn't true for all of it. Really, the Bible is meant to contain symbolism to evoke a deeper meaning. Therefore, a lot of the stories told in the Bible could either be true, partially true, or completely made-up - we just don't know for sure about any of them. It's not like reading a history textbook.Marshalrusty wrote:The double standard there is astounding. You are saying that some things should not be taken literally because they have been skewed by time. Yet you have no idea which parts have been scewed and which haven't. For all you know, the ridiculous parts are the parts that have been preserved.
Let's say I give you a truck-full of cookies and tell you that while I was baking one of the dozens, a bit of poison fell into the batch. Let's also say that one of the dozens turned out a different color than the rest of them. Would you assume that the discolored cookies are the poisoned bunch and distribute the rest?
So, to reaffirm what I'm saying here, yes - all of those stories could have been true, or some parts of them could have been made-up or exaggerated. I was just attempting to point out the possibility of symbolism or exaggeration in those specific stories, in relation to what Darth Wong posted previously.
That's not exactly what I'm saying, but partially. I meant that a lot of books of the Old Testament (and the New Testament, alike) seem to start with a simple story, such as Moses crossing the Red Sea, and then expand upon it by adding some symbolism and historically-false ideas, such as Moses "parting" the Red Sea. Such stories or exaggerations were made to convey a certain idea or concept. In the exaggeration that Moses "parted" the sea, for instance, the concept trying to be conveyed was that God was with Moses and helped him along the way. However, if they would have put down the fact that he actually crossed the coast of the Red Sea at low tide instead of parting it, then that might have taken away from the central concept of the story.Darth Wong wrote:So you appear to be saying that the Old Testament is like Aesop's Fables: a collection of morality tales intended to teach lessons, rather than being historically accurate. I have no problem with this interpretation (indeed, Bronze Age people almost certainly did not subscribe to modern empirical philosophy, and probably regarded moral "truths" to be more important than empirical accuracy). But that distinction is not really important for the purpose of the argument I was making.
Alright, I know that this isn't even really relevant to our main discussion anymore. Just clarifying my one point about the stories of the Old Testament - not all are necessarily historically true, but they all convey some sort of central concept or idea that the authors wished to make known.
In an attempt to get back to the original subject matter of this discussion (which turned into a discussion about the "good guys" of the Bible, due to me bringing religion into this), I feel that the reason why people attack video games on issues like this more than they do movies, and other forms of multimedia which may showcase the same idea, is because the person playing the video game is acting as the character in the video game. Therefore, you are the one initiating the action of shooting the innocent civilians in the video game, whereas if watching a movie you are simply observing what is happening on the screen without directly "causing" it to happen. Sounds like a bit of a cloudy idea, I know, but it's my only explanation for why people tend to attack video games more than movies and other such things in relation to issues such as this. Trust me - I'm in the same boat with everyone else who feels that video games are attacked much more than they should be, but there has to be an explanation for why this is so.