Bible Navigator X costs on Xbox Live

By Robert Purchese Published 12 November, 2009

Testament to Indie Games' open doors.

America's oldest Bible publisher B&H has adapted the book for Xbox Live, and is asking for a mandatory donation of 400 Microsoft Points (£3.40/€4.80) to read it.

Bible Navigator X, available from the Indie Games channel, has both Old and New Testaments, a search tool, bookmarking and various customisation options for viewing on a big telly, just as the original authors no doubt intended.

"The Xbox [360] isn't just secular entertainment anymore," said Aaron Linne, B&H evangelist. "We can use technology that other people developed to study Scriptures through a new medium. Some people are just more comfortable with a controller in their hands than a book."

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (80) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Raz76 #1 2 years ago

    Will it have achievements?

  • r_simsini #2 2 years ago

    Are there any achievements? And by that I mean for my gamerscore and not by a bearded man in robes.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 09:57

  • craigy Verified Senior Developer, Eurogamer Network #3 2 years ago

    Yep, the achievements are:

    * Turn water into wine
    * Feed 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes
    * Walk on water
    * Etc

  • Valis #4 2 years ago

    Can I make ammendments? Some of it is shit.

  • kangarootoo #5 2 years ago

    Sweet Jesus! ... so to speak.


    Secret achievement.

    * Fool the population of the world

  • Raz76 #6 2 years ago

    360 exclusive too, eh? That should make for some great fanboy arguments.

  • r_simsini #7 2 years ago

    "God prefers the 360. Proof."

    Considering Bill Gates is God, this is indeed proof.

  • VicViper #8 2 years ago

    The name suggests that the bible turned into some sort of Xtreme sports game or a scrolling shooter.

  • joe90 #9 2 years ago

    Will it have logic bugs?

  • GamerG #10 2 years ago

    I love the way they added an "X" in order to "get down with da kids"

  • MiniAmin #11 2 years ago

    LOL it isn't exactly a donation if it's mandatory is it?

  • Retroid #12 2 years ago

    I presume it has Hypocrisy, Self-Contradiction and We-Just-Randomly-Pick-Stuff-Out-Of-This-Part-To-Justify-Homo phobia-But-Ignore-The-Rest-Because-It's-Inconvenient searchable indexes too.

  • Retroid #13 2 years ago

    Oh, and examples of translation errors being behind some of the 'miracles'.

  • SleepyDeathFred #14 2 years ago

    Does it have quick time events?

    If it does I'm not getting it.

  • dither #15 2 years ago

    Is there a gun pointing into the screen?

  • kangarootoo #16 2 years ago

    "Oh, and examples of translation errors being behind some of the 'miracles'."

    That and the old "nobody actually wrote any of this down until a few hundred years after the people being quoted died you know" bug bear.

    Translation errors are only half the probelm when you have a couple of centuries of "XYZ happened, pass-it-on" buggering about with the details before you even get as far as translating anything.

  • SAMagic #17 2 years ago

    "The Xbox [360] isn't just secular entertainment anymore"
    Ah yes, because if it isn't Christian or another religion then it's part of some unified secular group, that's why there has be a Christian equivalent of anything mainstream - even as far as Christian TV channels, rap and rock music and games too.

    I don't have a problem with someone putting their religious text in a game or as an app on XBL, but that sort of attitude really annoys me.

  • Riggers #18 2 years ago

    How can a donation be mandatory? :/

  • sickpuppysoftware #19 2 years ago

    You have been crucified. Continue?

  • beastmaster #20 2 years ago

    Epic win! Actually that should be Biblical Win!!

  • VandelayIndustries #21 2 years ago

    Can we also have the "Great Orbiting Teapot: mini game collection" please.

  • Canyarion #22 2 years ago

    What translation are they using and how good is it? Did they replace God's name JHWH with something like 'Lord' or not?

    Anyway, I wonder how this will sell. I suspect a target audience conflict.

  • harzo #23 2 years ago

    Heavens above!

  • SpaceInvader #24 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    Actually, many scholars strongly suggest that Mark's Gospel (the first Gospel) was written approximately 30 years after the death of Christ.

    Also, it is widely believed that two of the Gospel authors (Matthew and John) were disciples of Christ, and therefore witnessed the events themselves. Of the other two authors, Mark was a companion of St Peter (another disciple who witnessed the events) and is believed to have based his Gospel on his recollections. Finally, Luke was a companion of St Paul the Apostle, who was famously converted by the risen Christ soon after the crucifixion.

    Thus, rather than being written a couple of hundred years after the events, it appears that the Gospels were actually written very soon after the death of Christ by people who knew him, or were based on the accounts of those who were with him.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 12:05

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #25 2 years ago

    Does it have dedicated servers?

  • SleepyDeathFred #26 2 years ago

    "Can we also have the "Great Orbiting Teapot: mini game collection" please. "

    None of your Flying Spaghetti Monster style satire here!

  • muters #27 2 years ago

    'This game contains scenes of explicit violence and gore.'

  • macmurphy #28 2 years ago

    Can you imagine how gutted you'd be if as a kid you just whacked on the Xbox and your dad comes and tells you he wants some quality Bible time. Way to ruin some poor kid's life.

  • Dodgymat #29 2 years ago

    £3.40? You can get it free in any hotel room or old building with a fucked roof!

  • SAMagic #30 2 years ago

    @VandelayIndustries \ SleepyDeathFred: But there must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster version too as people MUST be told about the causation of pirates and global warming.

    (Seriously. And the profits could go directly to charity)

  • Jesus: Action Figure #31 2 years ago

    Oh me oh my...

  • kongzi #32 2 years ago

    Let's publish the Origin of Species for free on PSN.. for free

  • Tzetrik #33 2 years ago

    ban this sick filth

  • MKorkia #34 2 years ago

    My country does not have Indie Games channel, we're doomed now!!!

    /heeds the call of duty and goes back to shooting infidels

  • Retroid #35 2 years ago

    Actually, yeah; I hope someone does do an Origin of the Species & The Descent of Man.

    Probably for cheaper, too.

  • thesombrerokid #36 2 years ago

    @SpaceInvader it's also true that the books didn't turn up till 100 years after they were supposedly written and were anonymous for a while until someone put these guys names to it.

  • kangarootoo #37 2 years ago

    @SpaceInvader

    I don't doubt that most of what is written is based on personal accounts. My point was that a personal account passed on by word of mouth loses its integrity.

    Some of the text was originally written soon after the events, I agree. But equally large portions were not documented for many generations. Even 30 years is a long time, especially if the text is not written by the original witness.


    "Finally, Luke was a companion of St Paul the Apostle, who was famously converted by the risen Christ soon after the crucifixion."

    Talking of the risen christ, I was listening to a radio programme recently about that very event. Is it true that when Luke first met the "risen christ", he didn't recognise him? I don't want to go out on a limb here, but is it not possible that the reason he didn't recognise him was because it wasn't in fact the same person (raising question over the whole "risen" aspect of things)?

    I'm eager to learn (rather than just continually be sarcastic just for the sake of it), so a link or two wouldn't go amiss.

  • kangarootoo #38 2 years ago

    Btw, I +1'd both SpaceInvader and thesombrerokid, 'cos its important having both sides of the debate involved (there is nothing more boring than a room full of sanctimonious aetheists all in smug agreement - i.e. me and my friends when I was 17).

    I am not going to be converted anytime soon, but knowledge is still good.

  • glaeken #39 2 years ago

    I think really a biblical game would work best as a beat'em up. You could even have a cross over with Origin of the Species and have Jesus take on Darwin to settle that debate once and for all. I would definitely buy such a game.

  • Skurmedel #40 2 years ago

    Slagging on the religious is so cool.

  • tinyspark #41 2 years ago

    "This game contains scenes of explicit violence and gore."

    ...and incest.

  • kangarootoo #42 2 years ago

    @SAMagic

    "Ah yes, because if it isn't Christian or another religion then it's part of some unified secular group"

    Well, yes. Because that is what the word secular means.

    Either something is spiritual, or it isn't (even if that isn't its main focus). And if it isn't, it is secular. A game that doesn't have religious content is secular, simply because of the absence of religious content. It has to be one or the other.

    Edit:
    secular

    Of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
    Not pertaining to or connected with religion
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 13:15

  • Skurmedel #43 2 years ago

    This thread should be secular.

  • sneetch #44 2 years ago

    @GamerG
    I love the way they added an "X" in order to "get down with da kids"

    I assumed that it was because Bible Navigator I to IX had already been released. Bloody sequels, how's about some new IP?

  • kangarootoo #45 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel

    You obviously have a bit of a bee in your bonnet, which I can understand 'cos people do confuse questioning of religion with mocking religious people (me included at times).

    Is it that which you object to, or more any questioning of the existence of God at all (and all that entails)?

  • Wolverfrog #46 2 years ago

    I'd have rather had a cool platform game about the Bible. That would have been sweet. Maybe heresy, but sweet.

  • Skurmedel #47 2 years ago

    Questioning is not the problem, as you, and myself do. That is in fact healthy.

    The downright slagging that goes on in the above is though, some of the comments are funny yes, some are rather ignorant. I'm quite used to these discussions on the net and they tend to end in "group think" or a flame war.

  • kangarootoo #48 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel

    Fair point, and I quite agree.

  • kangarootoo #49 2 years ago

    Been looking up groupthink. Interesting stuff.

    [link url=http://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
    ]http://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
    [/link]

    Some good methods for avoiding it mentioned in the page. Though personally, I think I have an allergy to it, as I much prefer playing devil's advocate.

  • SpaceInvader #50 2 years ago

    @ thesombrerokid and kangerootoo

    Thanks for your responses. It’s certainly true that the authorship of the Gospels has not been proven beyond doubt. Whenever we are dealing with ancient sources (written or oral) there are always questions concerning authenticity. However, I don’t think we should dismiss the oral tradition too readily. Ancient societies took the oral tradition much more seriously probably than we do. For what it’s worth, my reading on the subject leads me to believe that the dates and authors of the Gospels are as stated in my first post.

    On the issue of Luke, he does write that two of the Disciples (including St Peter) did not immediately recognize the risen Christ on the road to Emmaus. However, they did recognize him when he broke and blessed the bread at dinner later that evening. It’s not explained why they didn’t recognize him. It’s possible that Luke was using this event as a literary device to emphasis the significance of the Eucharistic meal (the body of Christ).

    In terms of sources, most of my information comes from books. I found the following book really useful: Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. It’s by a legal affairs journalist who became a Christian, and the book is essentially a series of interviews with Biblical scholars about the evidence for Christ.

    Hope this helps

  • robg #51 2 years ago

    Case For Christ is pretty cool.

  • SpaceInvader #52 2 years ago

    @ kangerootoo

    I completely agree about the need for balanced debate. A +1 for all those involved.

  • kangarootoo #53 2 years ago

    The Case for Christ sounds interesting. I'm not expecting any conversion miracles (ahahaha.... ahem) but I'll have a nosey sometime.

    When we say "Biblical scholars", are we talking about people who all already believe in God? I'm always wary when someone collects together a lot of experts to selectively argue the case for something they already have a vested interest in being true. All the same, I shall peruse it.

  • Skurmedel #54 2 years ago

    kangarootoo: Yeah hehe... just watch politicians debate :)

  • thesombrerokid #55 2 years ago

    Personally i think it's well known and obvious that the bible has been manipulated and massaged for political reasons regardless of when it happened.

    The important thing is to focus on the message, particularly, humility and treating others as they'd like to be treated, i for one, being atheist would find it hard to believe that anyone would or could take issue with these sentiments regardless of whether or not the bible is divine.

  • darc #56 2 years ago

    I've no problem with the bible, or any other reference material, showing up on the XBox. But "mandatory donation"?? Distinguish this from "price", please, and explain how they figured they'd get that one past us without sounding utterly sinister.

  • kangarootoo #57 2 years ago

    @thesombrerokid

    I once had a lengthy discussion with a couple of evangelists on my front door step (quite some years ago now). We chatted about all sorts of stuff, from evolution to "doing good works", until they gave up on me and ran to catch a bus :)

    I asked the question at one point "what is more important, believing in the christian faith, or being the good person that the faith says you should be?". The guy thought about it for a bit, and eventually said the belief was more important, but I could tell that as he said it he wasn't feeling very comfortable with the way it sounded coming out of his mouth and he almost ended the sentence with a rising question mark. I'm not sure he had ever really faced the question before.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 15:28

  • kangarootoo #58 2 years ago

    @darc

    I think "utterly sinister" is going at it a bit strong. "Slightly ridiculous" is the way I would describe it :)

  • SpaceInvader #59 2 years ago

    @ thesombrerokid

    You make an interesting point about the message. I became a Christian about five years ago, and alongside the spiritual dimension I was also really taken with Christ's message. It made much more sense to me than any of the political ideologies or philosophies that I'd studied.

    @ kangerootoo

    In relation to Strobel's book, I'm not sure whether the quoted scholars are all Christians, or whether they became Christians as a result of their studies. I do remember that in his next book, 'The case for Faith', he begins by interviewing an atheist who was once an evangelist working with Billy Graham.

  • darc #60 2 years ago

    You're right, kangarootoo. I do have a thing for hyperbole. But yeah, ridiculous, like when used cars gave way to "certified pre-owned" cars, and so on.

    "...raising question over the whole 'risen' aspect of things..."

    Every time you turn up, we wind up talking about Risen. ;) (And you're ever the skeptic!)

    @Tzetrik re: "ban this sick filth" LOL!
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/09 @ 15:34

  • kangarootoo #61 2 years ago

    Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that.

    I've been sent by a higher power to grumble about RPG ports.

  • brider #62 2 years ago

    Think i'd rarther wait for super jeesus fighter 5

  • Bravestinsane #63 2 years ago

    As long as it doesn't start preaching all that crap to me put it on there all you want, i wont be buying it...

    and btw you morons at the top of the church

    IT'S NOT A FUCKING DONATION IF YOU "HAVE" TO PAY IT TO READ THE DAMN THING

  • kangarootoo #64 2 years ago

    Ok, we get the whole "a donation is by definition optional" thing. It is clear to everyone. We can stop saying it now... k?

  • Skurmedel #65 2 years ago

    Have they actually said somewhere that it was a donation or was it just Mr. Purcheses way of putting it?

  • kangarootoo #66 2 years ago

    [link url=htt p://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/biblenavigatorx/
    ]http://ww w.bhpublishinggroup.com/biblena...[/link]

    No mention in there.

    Could have just been Rob being flippant (riffing on the whole evangelist donation angle).

  • Retroid #67 2 years ago

    Skurmedel: "Slagging on the religious is so cool."

    Pointing out the flaws in religions and 'holy' books is fine, slagging off religious people simply for being religious is not.

  • spidermanalf #68 2 years ago

    I suppose this settles the PS3 vs 360 debate. Gods gone for the 360, therefore it wins!
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/09 @ 07:42

  • Pro_Gamer #69 2 years ago

    @SpaceInvader

    christfag detected

  • Pro_Gamer #70 2 years ago

    @retroid

    slagging off religious people because they are delusional fucktards is fair game.

  • zedzee #71 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo:

    That evangelist guy was obviously not very sure or strong in his faith. Believing in Jesus Christ and his message of salvation is obviously the most important thing for a Christian and for someone who is curious/trying to understand to appreciate.

    Why? Well, even if you are a 'good person', but not a Christian, then to Jesus, what would be the point? It's like going to a costume party with a particular theme, but after arriving, you find out that you're wearing the wrong themed clothes, because you misread the invite or ignored that part altogether. I'm sure your costume is fantastic, but at the end of the day, it's the wrong one for the party's theme!

    Now some might think that's arrogant or unfair or simply not true. But if you think it is true or believe it to be so or KNOW it is so (let's say Jesus definitely knows it to be so), then it's not hard to reach that conclusion, from THAT perspective. Non-believers would then sound like they're simply wasting their time...and soul!

    The thing with God is that he has given human beings free will - you have a choice to make. If God wanted to, He could definitely MAKE YOU love Him but what would be the point in that? It would be a forced love, it would be a pretence and probably rather boring for Him - too easy!

    Instead, God prefers that you love him by your own choice (i.e. by following Jesus Christ), voluntarily. His perceived 'absence' from this world is EXACTLY proof that He's leaving us to decide; applying the Star Trek Prime Directive of non-interference, if you like!

    He's tried it the other way a number of times (see Sodom & Gomorrah, Noah's Ark etc) and He's ended up regretting it, because He's not into destroying things for the fun of it. He genuinely loves us and that's why He promised that He'd never destroy the world again. But that doesn't mean that He won't reach a point and say 'enough is enough - time to whip them all into shape' (see Revelations).

    I think the rest is just man-made scenery - debates about time of when The Bible was written, what could've been included in it, who wrote certain parts, how accurate they are, etc. For someone with faith in the quintessential message of Jesus can bypass such distractions and focus on the essence of His message and beliefs.

  • Pro_Gamer #72 2 years ago

    The poster above me is a perfect example of a delusional fucktard.

  • evild_edd #73 2 years ago

    "God prefers that you love him by your own choice" - Hmmm. OK, let's look at the wider problems in the World of war, famine, hate, murder. These are crimes/deeds often carried out by the most 'religious' of people who convince themselves that they believe. This leads me to think "does God exists?". The answer: possibly (I can't prove that he doesn't, in the same way no one can prove he does). Unfortunately for God, if he does turn out to exist then I've reached the inescapable conclsuion that any being that could create a World with so much suffering - caused by nature or the failings of man (which he also created, allegedly), is clearly a fucking cunt. To be honest, I hope he does exist just so I can give him a kicking in the afterlife!!!

    "His perceived 'absence' from this world is EXACTLY proof that He's leaving us to decide" - I think you need to understand what PROOF means. There's 2 explanations as to why he is 'absent': 1. he's hiding (see above "he's a cunt" conclusion). 2. He doesn't exist. Either is possible. Neither can be PROVEN.

    I find it hard to understand why anyone would choose to folow something so deeply flawed and out of date - and that stands for all religions. We have scientific PROOF of a number of things that undeniably go against previous iterations of religious texts (Earth is flat, centre of universe, 3000 years old etc, etc). Having said that, I have some good friends who 'believe'. They are nice people, we have a laugh. I have no problem if someone feels they need religion in their lives to plug a gap.

  • kangarootoo #74 2 years ago

    @zedzee

    I get your fancy dress party example, but to be honest it doesn't sound very benevolent or loving to me. Note: lets assume for the rest of the conversation that I believe in God and heaven and so forth.

    Surely it would be more important to God that his children are out there doing good things, rather than believing in him. If he can get both, then cool. But why is the belief more important?

    We talk about the belief being the way to get into heaven and save your soul and so on, but God made those rules, and he could have made the rules a different way. He could have said "live your life in a selfless way, and you will get into heaven, but instead he said "believe in me above all other things, and you will get into heaven". Why? Put simply, that seems a little self centred.

    A (good) parent that tells off their child for doing something daft is doing so because they want to the child to be safe or happy, etc. For the parent the most important thing is not that the child obeys simply for the sake of enforcing authority (for some it is, but I'll ignore them as selfish parents), but that the child obeys because the end result is for the benefit of the child.

    If God is all loving of the people on earth, why don't the rules focus on the wellfare of the people on earth (be good to each other) instead of the glory of God (believe in me above all else)? I honestly find it contradictory.


    And on a side note, "He's tried it the other way a number of times (see Sodom & Gomorrah, Noah's Ark etc) and He's ended up regretting it".... so God made a mistake? I thought that was supposed to be impossible (I'm no expert in this fiend, so maybe I've misunderstood the details). I thought God was supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so how does he end up regretting things? And if despite all of that a mistake was made, why isn't the mistake simply undone and deleted from history?


    I understand that if you have faith, much of this does become man-made scenery as you say. But those of us without faith might suggest the whole lot is man-made scenery. I understand what faith is, and that the normal rules don't apply, and I can't say it is wrong. But I think it is risky to start using words like "proof" in that context, as proof has a very specific meaning and it is not the same as an inference or an association.

    A given set of events might infer several possibilities. True proof replaces the inference with known fact. All religious debate is based on inference, as no true proof exists (not least because something can never br proved to not exists, it can only be proved to exist). If true proof DID exist, there would remain no inference and frankly no debate.

    But debate is good, so sometimes I'm glad no true proof exists regardless of my own "beliefs" :)


    P.s. "That evangelist guy was obviously not very sure or strong in his faith" Maybe he was until I presented him with a difficult question that placed the contradiction right in front of his eyes. Surely faith that cannot be shaken regardless of what happens is not strong faith, it is blind faith (and in my mind, has little value).



    @evild_edd

    "I have no problem if someone feels they need religion in their lives to plug a gap." Thats a bit of cheeky shot, as it implies religious people are missing something that aetheists are not. In my experience, EVERYBODY is flawed and we all fill our various gaps with various things. If not religion then something else (just look at Richard Dawkins, and tell me that isn't a guy filling an empty space in himself by acting the way he does).
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/09 @ 10:51

  • Pro_Gamer #75 2 years ago

    ITT: mythology.

  • evild_edd #76 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: "In my experience, EVERYBODY is flawed and we all fill our various gaps with various things." Very true, but I have a huge respect for people who fill the gap with the important things in life (friends, family, videogames, tequila) rather than elitist nonesense (money, politics, religion).

    Let's not beat around the bush here: if religion was wiped from the face of the Earth, we would all be a lot better as a result. I find it very frustrating that it's not acceptable to criticse people's beliefs; that atheists are not allowed to criticise religious folk for believing in something patently untrue (I may not be able to prove it, but for goodness sake - wake up and smell the coffee people!)

    Just had a thought actually - do you reckon that religious people are childish. A little like they need the protective parent figure standing over them saying "don't worry, everything will be OK, I love you......"? I always struggled with the idea that belief systems (particularly Catholic and Muslim) take a degree a ownership away from the individual. That if you worship your own God then all is forgiven, or that you're doing God's work. Repent and your sins are forgiven. That's basically given a green light to do whatever you want. In short: religious people need to grow up and take ownership of their actions rather than justifying them within belief structures.
    Edited by 1 at 15/11/09 @ 10:30

  • fizzyfish #77 2 years ago

    @glaeken I think really a biblical game would work best as a beat'em up.

    Search the web for Flash game 'Bible Fight' :)

  • zedzee #78 2 years ago

    evild_edd:

    Cheap swipes at religious people being less aside, there's no need to be abusive in your language. By all means debate something but DO NOT abuse the privilege we all have on here and having mutual respect for each other (and love, from my perspective, for everyone else regardless) - I don't think that is fair and really quite unwarranted.

    "World of war, famine, hate, murder. These are crimes/deeds often carried out by the most 'religious' of people who convince themselves that they believe."

    I agree with you. These are all caused by man on man - wrongly - in the name of God - much in the same way that the London Underground was bombed in 2005. You also need to really understand the role that the devil plays in all this - religiously speaking, if you don't get that concept, then you're missing a big part of the picture.

  • zedzee #79 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    "I get your fancy dress party example, but to be honest it doesn't sound very benevolent or loving to me. Note: lets assume for the rest of the conversation that I believe in God and heaven and so forth.

    Surely it would be more important to God that his children are out there doing good things, rather than believing in him. If he can get both, then cool. But why is the belief more important?"

    >> We cannot be 'His children', if we don't know about Him. This is contradictory to God's covenant and the promises He's made to us, through His Son. There's an alliance that man is apart of and has a place in God's plan and everyone is given the opportunity to grab their place through religion and belief in Jesus Christ.

    "We talk about the belief being the way to get into heaven and save your soul and so on, but God made those rules, and he could have made the rules a different way. He could have said "live your life in a selfless way, and you will get into heaven, but instead he said "believe in me above all other things, and you will get into heaven". Why? Put simply, that seems a little self centred."

    >> Belief in God is more than just about getting into heaven; there's a number of themes explored in The Bible that are far too numerous to mention here. I would suggest that for quick answers, you can always have a chat to a priest at your nearest church. No harm in that and you can use them as a 'search engine' to Bible contents as well. :-)

    "A (good) parent that tells off their child for doing something daft is doing so because they want to the child to be safe or happy, etc. For the parent the most important thing is not that the child obeys simply for the sake of enforcing authority (for some it is, but I'll ignore them as selfish parents), but that the child obeys because the end result is for the benefit of the child."

    >> I understand this analogy but the parent, at the end of the day, DOES expect the child to recognise them (the parent) as being their parent (and therefore, know what's best for their own child) and not someone else or indeed some other source of doctrine, because after all, it is that particular parent that is providing the guidance.

    "If God is all loving of the people on earth, why don't the rules focus on the wellfare of the people on earth (be good to each other) instead of the glory of God (believe in me above all else)? I honestly find it contradictory."

    >> The rules do focus on 'love one another' type of messages, but the devil makes man stray and do unthinkable things to one another. One thing to point out is that a great deal of non-believers seem to underestimate or even completely discount the devil's role in man's affairs. I would urge you to maintain that at all times, especially when trying to appreciate religious matters.

    >> Why do we have to believe in God and have faith - you might ask? Well, it's like having a project - you'd really want to see it to the end and not let it go or leave it in the hands of others (the devil, man by himself) that might screw it up.
    "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast."

    "And on a side note, "He's tried it the other way a number of times (see Sodom & Gomorrah, Noah's Ark etc) and He's ended up regretting it".... so God made a mistake? I thought that was supposed to be impossible (I'm no expert in this fiend, so maybe I've misunderstood the details). I thought God was supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so how does he end up regretting things? And if despite all of that a mistake was made, why isn't the mistake simply undone and deleted from history?"

    >> He is indeed "omnipotent and omniscient", however, He does have emotions and can express them as well; hence we were made in "His image", not just in looks but also in other aspects, such as emotions. I think meddling with the time-line (like all good sci-fi films recommend) is not a good idea, so that's probably why such things have not been "undone". And God does want the world (and indeed, man) to have free will to choose the path they want, and He hopes that path will lead man to Him.

    >> God does have emotions (He feels our pain), as well as joy (like when He made man) and therefore, it's absolutely normal for Him to feel regret over destroying people (Sodom & Gomorrah) and the Earth (The Flood - Noah's Ark).
    "And the waters shall no more become aflood to destroy all flesh."
    The rainbow is a sign from God, as a promise, that He wouldn't do it again. Of course, scientists would explain the rainbow as a 'natural occurrence in nature' but for Christians, it means God has given man even more free will than ever before. We are free to choose our path and He hopes that by listening to the Word, that we'll not reject or deny Him.

    "I understand that if you have faith, much of this does become man-made scenery as you say. But those of us without faith might suggest the whole lot is man-made scenery. I understand what faith is, and that the normal rules don't apply, and I can't say it is wrong. But I think it is risky to start using words like "proof" in that context, as proof has a very specific meaning and it is not the same as an inference or an association."

    >> The issue here is that you are talking about empirical proof (and therefore, man-made rules about truth), whereas actually, truth is beyond that and takes a higher meaning, when it comes to God and religious matters. And as you agree, someone who has faith does not need proof and therefore those religious matters are something that can be believed in to be proof of God etc.

    "A given set of events might infer several possibilities. True proof replaces the inference with known fact. All religious debate is based on inference, as no true proof exists (not least because something can never br proved to not exists, it can only be proved to exist). If true proof DID exist, there would remain no inference and frankly no debate."

    >> I don't know which "proof" you are looking for here, because Christians have faith and do not necessarily require proof (although there are exceptions sometimes, such as "Doubting" Thomas). Proof is something that, if researched in human terms, could take a lifetime and even then bear no fruit at all, which to me is a waste.

    "But debate is good, so sometimes I'm glad no true proof exists regardless of my own "beliefs" :)

    P.s. "That evangelist guy was obviously not very sure or strong in his faith" Maybe he was until I presented him with a difficult question that placed the contradiction right in front of his eyes. Surely faith that cannot be shaken regardless of what happens is not strong faith, it is blind faith (and in my mind, has little value)."

    >> God does say "come, let us reason" (paraphrasing), so having doubts is fine. However, there's a difference between blind faith and having a strong conviction in something and that conviction indeed being completely spiritually fulfilling, that no man-made truth or the need for proof (through whatever means) can measure up to it.

    As much as I'd like to continue this debate, I don't believe it is fair on this forum or topic. But I'm sure some of your questions can well be answered at a local church...Or at least debated further. And how about an Alpha course? Just suggestions...

    Coming back to the topic, I don't think they should be charging for this service, although I appreciate that the money can go to charity. But if that is the case, it should be optional to donate or it should be made clear that there's a charge/subscription required. I guess the wording is wrong.

    Peace be with you.

    Over & Out.

  • marktheatheist #80 2 years ago

    This game should be reported as containing inappropriate content, since it contains references to murder, rape, slavery, sexual content, and other intolerant remarks. Other Indie Games would be removed if they had this kind of content! There is Report Abuse link on the Xbox Live Marketplace page.

    Here is one example (see The Reason Project for more):

    Leviticus 20:13
    If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable thing. They must be put to death.