• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Will we ever see an Abrahamic God of War?

TLZ

Banned
i've always found it fascinating that people believe theres a God in the afterlife when there isn't even one in the current life

what if Fetus all thought that after being born they'd meet God, only to find out they'll be stuck paying taxes for life on earth

I'm pretty much sure the same thing happens again after we die somewhere else

we just pass through one universe to another after we expire

and in each one we have to slave away and pay taxes

there is no heaven, only work and taxes
Do you ever question all the many, numerous systems in life, how they work in perfect harmony? A simple example, the systems in your own body. Think of their placements, their functions, their harmony, their size, etc. Then think of how it's all automated and you have no control of them. They just work without your intervention. Why was your mouth shaped like that? Your lips? Your teeth? Your tongue? Why's there saliva? How's is possible every time you swallow the food or drink goes down the right path instead of your windpipe? Why were they shaped that way? Then there's sound coming out of that area too? How? Why not just air? Where'd that sound box come from? How's it not being damaged and dead from all the foods and drinks that touch it many times a day? And the air? Where's it coming from? Where does it go? Why do you need it in and out every second? Who dictated that? Why aren't you in control of your own breathing? Why can't you simply not keep inhaling or exhaling forever? Why can't you stop breathing and not feel the pressure build up? And the nervous system? And the brain? And your eyes? Your arms, your legs? Fingers and toes? Why give each? Why not four? And why are they shaped that way? And the most important of all, this... Soul? What is it? Where'd it come from? Was it just floating in space until it decided one day to live inside this fetus? Is that soul you? Or is it not? Who are you? If you're that lost floating soul, why can't you remember anything? Because it doesn't have a physical brain? So it cannot think? But then how did your soul decide to choose this body? So it can think? And the endless questions never end. It cannot be a coincidence. You cannot call yourself intellectual, giving valid common sense reasons for everything, and say all of this just works together and happened by coincidence with a straight face. And this is just your body. Now think of everything around you. The animal kingdom and the many types of animals in it and how each function. The plant kingdom and the thousands, if not millions of types and their function. The microscopic stuff and their functions. The solar system. It's endless.

That's all I'll say about this here.

Enjoy my wall of text, whoever decides to read this.
 
Last edited:
Do you ever question all the many, numerous systems in life, how they work in perfect harmony? A simple example, the systems in your own body. Think of their placements, their functions, their harmony, their size, etc. Then think of how it's all automated and you have no control of them. They just work without your intervention. Why was your mouth shaped like that? Your lips? Your teeth? Your tongue? Why's there saliva? How's is possible every time you swallow the food or drink goes down the right path instead of your windpipe? Why were they shaped that way? Then there's sound coming out of that area too? How? Why not just air? Where'd that sound box come from? How's it not being damaged and dead from all the foods and drinks that touch it many times a day? And the air? Where's it coming from? Where does it go? Why do you need it in and out every second? Who dictated that? Why aren't you in control of your own breathing? Why can't you simply not keep inhaling or exhaling forever? Why can't you stop breathing and not feel the pressure build up? And the nervous system? And the brain? And your eyes? Your arms, your legs? Fingers and toes? Why give each? Why not four? And why are they shaped that way? And the most important of all, this... Soul? What is it? Where'd it come from? Was it just floating in space until it decided one day to live inside this fetus? Is that soul you? Or is it not? Who are you? If you're that lost floating soul, why can't you remember anything? Because it doesn't have a physical brain? So it cannot think? But then how did your soul decide to choose this body? So it can think? And the endless questions never end. It cannot be a coincidence. You cannot call yourself intellectual, giving valid common sense reasons for everything, and say all of this just works together and happened by coincidence with a straight face. And this is just your body. Now think of everything around you. The animal kingdom and the many types of animals in it and how each function. The plant kingdom and the thousands, if not millions of types and their function. The microscopic stuff and their functions. The solar system. It's endless.

That's all I'll say about this here.

Enjoy my wall of text, whoever decides to read this.
574922.jpg
 

Amiga

Member
i've always found it fascinating that people believe theres a God in the afterlife when there isn't even one in the current life

what if Fetus all thought that after being born they'd meet God, only to find out they'll be stuck paying taxes for life on earth

I'm pretty much sure the same thing happens again after we die somewhere else

we just pass through one universe to another after we expire

and in each one we have to slave away and pay taxes

there is no heaven, only work and taxes
it's one life, mortality is a phase. there is a heaven and a hell.
 
Last edited:

MarkMe2525

Gold Member
Based off a book that could be made up
Isn't it such a sign of hubris that they dismiss all the centuries of tales and scrolls written beforehand regarding these topics, yet they regard this one book as the savior to all of our "souls". This conversation should definitely be in the off-topic discussion.

A little more on topic, I could see this premise working in the same vane as the Constantine comics. The war of heaven and hell would be a cool topic to explore.
 

Amiga

Member
Isn't it such a sign of hubris that they dismiss all the centuries of tales and scrolls written beforehand regarding these topics, yet they regard this one book as the savior to all of our "souls". This conversation should definitely be in the off-topic discussion.

A little more on topic, I could see this premise working in the same vane as the Constantine comics. The war of heaven and hell would be a cool topic to explore.
you assume the "centuries of tales and scrolls" are dismissed. but they are not. there are common truths between them. confirming one another.
 
Isn't it such a sign of hubris that they dismiss all the centuries of tales and scrolls written beforehand regarding these topics, yet they regard this one book as the savior to all of our "souls". This conversation should definitely be in the off-topic discussion.

A little more on topic, I could see this premise working in the same vane as the Constantine comics. The war of heaven and hell would be a cool topic to explore.
Bingo
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
Kratos making his son rape virgin Mary and throwing a one liner like "guess well call you just Mary now". Then a whole level on the parted seas and Moses waiting on the other side.

Epic stuff, it's time some developer dares to shit on everything. Too many snowflaking going around.
We are talking about videogames and you bring tasteless shit like player characters raping innocent people on the table.
This is God Of War, not God of Rape.
 


based on numerous things. realization comes differently to different people. some peoples souls have simply seen them. the book opens the eye of the soul.
Sir

People like you are why we can't have Abrahamic stuff in God of War.

The moment you guys die out is the moment the game will be made

The Devs are afraid you crazies

(Also, I'm not advocating that religious people immediately die, I'm speaking on the belief system dying out over the course of decades/centuries. Had to unfortunately verify that in case a mod wanted an easy reason to quick scope snipe me)
 
Last edited:

MarkMe2525

Gold Member
you assume the "centuries of tales and scrolls" are dismissed. but they are not. there are common truths between them. confirming one another.
They are 100% dismissed. The abrahamic God unequivocally and without question rejected all "false idols and gods" before and after him. To suggest a common thread between that God and others is just denialism.

That would also be a bad ass premise for a GOW game. "God" versus the idols.
 
They are 100% dismissed. The abrahamic false God unequivocally and without question rejected all "false idols and gods" before and after him. To suggest a common thread between that falseGod and others is just denialism.

That would also be a bad ass premise for a GOW game. " False God" versus the false idols.
Fixed :p
 
Last edited:

VAL0R

Banned
If you made the hero an archangel that fought demons, maybe. You could have all the amazing apocalyptic and Christian imagery. Archangel Michael vs. Satan and his legions of fallen angels.

The Bible does say that at the end of this age Christ will return with hosts of angels and flaming fire to deal out judgement and vengeance.
 

Roberts

Member
Hindu Gods would be cool. Persona games use bunch of them, but for something like God Of War might not work because Hindu religion is still very active and would upset alot of ppl.
Recent game called Raji did that. Some gods help you, some are against you. But it was made by Indian devs so maybe it is a bit different.
 

Amiga

Member
They are 100% dismissed. The abrahamic God unequivocally and without question rejected all "false idols and gods" before and after him. To suggest a common thread between that God and others is just denialism.

That would also be a bad ass premise for a GOW game. "God" versus the idols.
a recurring thing is people talk about religions from 3rd/4th hand experience and little actual comparative study.
the differences are the reason there are different religions. the common truths are the reason there is religion. even Confucius and the sutras have common things with Abrahamic religions.
 
What's wrong here? Well, to quote you, "It is exactly the fact that this alternate definition of atheism obfuscates many groups into one that is the problem".
Philosophers split the propositions into the 3 doxastic states. Belief, disbelief, and neutral. Hence the terms theist, atheist, and agnostic.

Consider the first pair of individuals: The belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists (person A) is very different from the belief that the evidence a person has seen so far does not support belief in God (person B). The latter claim merely requires some kind of evaluation of the evidence seen so far; the former requires an argument about the nature of evidence in general, and a claim about the limitations thereof. Such a claim is arguably much stronger and has a correspondingly higher burden of proof. If I call myself an agnostic, and I do not make clear which of the two viewpoints I espouse, the first question that someone who disagrees with me is likely to ask is "what kind of agnostic are you"? And as you say, we should try to avoid such situations of "making it harder to communicate" by not having clear categories.
Person A and person B are very similar. Both are neutral in doxastic belief.

Or, in your own words:

"Philosophy represents a more systematic approach. Certainly more credible than popularizers. As soon as you enter the realm of debate you are in fact entering into philosophy and hopefully sound philosophy."

We need a systematic approach that allows us to communicate clearly, not (merely) one that happens to track popular speech.

Now consider the second pair. We will still have the same issue of obfuscation that we were trying avoid, but this time person C – who is not sure whether it is possible to know with certainty whether God exists – is not "making a claim about reality" at all, merely about what is reasonable to believe. Yet this was exactly why, using the text quoted, you rejected atheism as a description of religious belief! Well, you can't have it both ways. Either:
My only contention was in the definition of the base terms. Namely atheism. But also agnosticism, theism. The three base terms are the most useful in their original meanings because of the symmetrical opposition of the positions. These are base terms. I make no claim that there aren't juxtapositions that can flesh them out further. As I said "I wasn't talking about agnostic atheism." That may very well be a useful juxtaposition mind you but that cannot overturn the base meaning of atheism. Again I was referring to the base term.

It's the lack of something, there are no beliefs being shoved down other people's throats.
This assumes atheism in general has "no belief". Not a juxtaposition either. Claiming not only that there is a new definition but that the OG definition doesn't even exist. Also a muddying of the philosophical positions.

From the same dictionary:

"DISBELIEVE, verb transitive [dis and believe.] Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit. Some men disbelieve the inspiration of the scriptures, and the immortality of the soul."


Since agnostics also don't believe in God, your definition backs up the view that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. To support your view, the definition should have said something like "belief in the impossibility of the existence of God".
Did you read the definition? Notice the colon.

Colons ... introduce clauses or phrases that serve to describe, amplify, or restate what precedes them

So NOT to believe in the sense that "to HOLD NOT TO BE TRUE." Disbelieve is not the same thing a don't believe. So no, that doesn't prove that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

You're severly simplifying by lumping different groups together.



Only you are talking about this supposed "true atheism", no one else here was, and I don't think you won't find many people subscribing to it either. What is the actual point you're trying to make here anyways?

My point is to refute this claim regarding atheism by pointing out the true definition in a couple ways, as I have done.
It's the lack of something, there are no beliefs being shoved down other people's throats.
This assumes atheism in general has "no belief". Period. Which is false. It can be a belief by any definition and by the most authoritative definitions it MUST be a belief.

I guess in theory you could, since we can define what a tyrannosaur is, we know they existed, and we can't observe them in the USA today. That actually makes it a very bad anology with supernatural entities such as gods. The lack of evidence is why it's called faith.
"Living" tyrannosaur is the only thing you need to define. You can just recount the history of the population in America and the physiology of tyrannosaurs and deduce that they haven't even been close to co inhabiting the USA. It's an example against the claim you can't disprove anything. For disproving god(s) look up arguments like 'the problem of evil'.
 
Last edited:

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
This assumes atheism in general has "no belief". Period. Which is false. It can be a belief by any definition and by the most authoritative definitions it MUST be a belief.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby? ;)

"Living" tyrannosaur is the only thing you need to define. You can just recount the history of the population in America and the physiology of tyrannosaurs and deduce that they haven't even been close to co inhabiting the USA. It's an example against the claim you can't disprove anything. For disproving god(s) look up arguments like 'the problem of evil'.

That might work for a god with clearly defined properties, and yeah that's a problem for most theists. That's why they need faith, right?

And the problem of evil doesn't work on Christians in my experience, because '"it"s a test" or "we simple humans cannot understand the grand plan" etc.

I honestly don't have a clue what your point is at this junction, so I'm gonna not help derail the thread any further. Just know that I think you don't make much sense and you haven't changed my view on anything with your weird sidestepping and questionable comparisons. Good luck with all that tho.
 
Last edited:

FireFly

Member
Philosophers split the propositions into the 3 doxastic states. Belief, disbelief, and neutral. Hence the terms theist, atheist, and agnostic.

Person A and person B are very similar. Both are neutral in doxastic belief.

Doxastic states about what preposition? The proposition that God exists (i)? Or the proposition that it is reasonable to believe in God (ii) Or the proposition that it is possible to acquire knowledge of God's existence or non-existence (iii)?

Persons B and C are both neutral about (i) in the sense that they believe that God may or may not exist. The difference is that person B believes that the evidence does not make it reasonable to believe in God, and person C believes it does (preposition ii). That is, they differ about whether the evidence justifies a particular psychological state (belief).

If all we provide is their claim about preposition (i), then we can't distinguish between them. Equally, persons A and B also have the same belief about (i), but a completely different belief about (iii). And that makes a big philosophical difference about how their arguments are justified. So my point is not ultimately about the words we use to describe particular positions, but about the propositions needed to represent those positions. In particular, my claim is that that proposition (i) is insufficient to capture the full extent of religious belief. So yes, if you want you can use the term agnosticism to refer to a "neutral" attitude towards the proposition that God exists (i). But then you are going to have to create a new set of terms to describe a person's attitude towards the question of whether it is possible to acquire knowledge of God's existence or non-existence (iii).

My only contention was in the definition of the base terms. Namely atheism. But also agnosticism, theism. The three base terms are the most useful in their original meanings because of the symmetrical opposition of the positions. These are base terms. I make no claim that there aren't juxtapositions that can flesh them out further. As I said "I wasn't talking about agnostic atheism." That may very well be a useful juxtaposition mind you but that cannot overturn the base meaning of atheism. Again I was referring to the base term.
Well, whether or not someone is respecting the base meaning of the words they use has no bearing on the validity of arguments they are trying to make with those words. So even if you're right and the person is forced to make the (bogus) claim that because they are an agnostic, they don't have any burden instead of the (bogus) claim that because they are an atheist they don't have a burden of proof, it doesn't really change anything. But if you accept the importance of knowing someone's attitude towards propositions (ii) and (iii) in classifying their religious belief, then we would be in agreement.

Did you read the definition? Notice the colon.

Not to continue the largely pointless debate about semantics, but it's a semicolon, not a colon. From the text you quoted:

"It's typically a mark of introduction, used to let the reader know that what follows the colon has been pointed to or described by what precedes the colon. (This is quite a different function from that of the semicolon, which is mostly used to separate two independent sentence parts that are related in meaning.)"

 
Doxastic states about what preposition? The proposition that God exists (i)? Or the proposition that it is reasonable to believe in God (ii) Or the proposition that it is possible to acquire knowledge of God's existence or non-existence (iii)?

These philosophers would evaluate doxastic attitudes towards 'the proposition that God exists (i)'. They would avoid any category (atheism) that combines two doxastic states into one ie disbelief with neutral.

"It's typically a mark of introduction, used to let the reader know that what follows the colon has been pointed to or described by what precedes the colon. (This is quite a different function from that of the semicolon, which is mostly used to separate two independent sentence parts that are related in meaning.)"

No matter what, in 1828 the atheist by definition actively believes against the existence of God.
 
Last edited:

luffie

Member
Barring the political discourse it will bring, Abrahamic gods, Yahweh & Jesus will not be a good candidate for fun, as their "godlike" concept differs greatly from western gods from mythology.

In mythos, gods still fight with fists and their presence is still confined and limited, you can whisper on one corner and they wouldn't be able to hear you.

Yahweh on the other hand, is formless and unlimited, in which a word from Him will obliterate you from existence. How do you make this into a fun game concept? You can't.
Yahweh will see hear and know your every thoughts, move and present in the future and past. It's a concept you cannot bring to make a fun game.

What is Jesus going to do? Keep on ressurecting after you kill him lol? He doesn't fight back.
 

FireFly

Member
These philosophers would evaluate doxastic attitudes towards 'the proposition that God exists (i)'. They would avoid any category (atheism) that combines two doxastic states into one ie disbelief with neutral.
That's good because weak and strong atheism are different categories. Also ironic that you yourself seemingly committed the same "error" when you classified persons C and D as theists, despite the fact that they have different doxastic states towards preposition (i). The desire to make this mistake indicates that religious belief is really not just about that preposition.

But since you've decided not to address any of my points, I guess this discussion is over. If you are interested in philosophy, my advice is to actually try to engage with arguments rather than stepping around them with appeals to authority, or attacking their semantics. Since the one thing that differentiates philosophy from other disciplines is that philosophers disagree about practically everything, and perfectly valid arguments can be made with "invalid" semantics. There is quite a nice summary of the importance of being philosophically inclusive, and not trying to shut people down for using the wrong term, in the text you quoted to start this discussion:

"While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”."

"Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different. For example, in some contexts the crucial issue may be which definition of “atheist” (as opposed to “atheism”) is the most useful politically, especially in light of the bigotry that those who identify as atheists face. The fact that there is strength in numbers may recommend a very inclusive definition of “atheist” that brings anyone who is not a theist into the fold. Having said that, one would think that it would further no good cause, political or otherwise, to attack fellow non-theists who do not identify as atheists simply because they choose to use the term “atheist” in some other, equally legitimate sense."

 
Last edited:

Haggard

Banned
You cannot call yourself intellectual, giving valid common sense reasons for everything, and say all of this just works together and happened by coincidence with a straight face.
How can someone who basically acts as if evolution hasn`t been proven beyond any doubt already write something like that with a straight face?
 

Amiga

Member
How can someone who basically acts as if evolution hasn`t been proven beyond any doubt already write something like that with a straight face?
evolution itself is more evidence. it's an argument for creation not against it. and helps clear developed contrasting theology and connects the common elements between different religions.
 

Interfectum

Member
Barring the political discourse it will bring, Abrahamic gods, Yahweh & Jesus will not be a good candidate for fun, as their "godlike" concept differs greatly from western gods from mythology.

In mythos, gods still fight with fists and their presence is still confined and limited, you can whisper on one corner and they wouldn't be able to hear you.

Yahweh on the other hand, is formless and unlimited, in which a word from Him will obliterate you from existence. How do you make this into a fun game concept? You can't.
Yahweh will see hear and know your every thoughts, move and present in the future and past. It's a concept you cannot bring to make a fun game.

What is Jesus going to do? Keep on ressurecting after you kill him lol? He doesn't fight back.
So Jesus would be the dude you test your weapons out on like in Hades. I'm down with that. :messenger_grinning:
 
Last edited:

RJMacready73

Simps for Amouranth
Do you ever question all the many, numerous systems in life, how they work in perfect harmony? A simple example, the systems in your own body. Think of their placements, their functions, their harmony, their size, etc. Then think of how it's all automated and you have no control of them. They just work without your intervention. Why was your mouth shaped like that? Your lips? Your teeth? Your tongue? Why's there saliva? How's is possible every time you swallow the food or drink goes down the right path instead of your windpipe? Why were they shaped that way? Then there's sound coming out of that area too? How? Why not just air? Where'd that sound box come from? How's it not being damaged and dead from all the foods and drinks that touch it many times a day? And the air? Where's it coming from? Where does it go? Why do you need it in and out every second? Who dictated that? Why aren't you in control of your own breathing? Why can't you simply not keep inhaling or exhaling forever? Why can't you stop breathing and not feel the pressure build up? And the nervous system? And the brain? And your eyes? Your arms, your legs? Fingers and toes? Why give each? Why not four? And why are they shaped that way? And the most important of all, this... Soul? What is it? Where'd it come from? Was it just floating in space until it decided one day to live inside this fetus? Is that soul you? Or is it not? Who are you? If you're that lost floating soul, why can't you remember anything? Because it doesn't have a physical brain? So it cannot think? But then how did your soul decide to choose this body? So it can think? And the endless questions never end. It cannot be a coincidence. You cannot call yourself intellectual, giving valid common sense reasons for everything, and say all of this just works together and happened by coincidence with a straight face. And this is just your body. Now think of everything around you. The animal kingdom and the many types of animals in it and how each function. The plant kingdom and the thousands, if not millions of types and their function. The microscopic stuff and their functions. The solar system. It's endless.

That's all I'll say about this here.

Enjoy my wall of text, whoever decides to read this.

Yeah that's what we call evolution and it happened over a very very very long period of time
 

Interfectum

Member
Do you ever question all the many, numerous systems in life, how they work in perfect harmony? A simple example, the systems in your own body. Think of their placements, their functions, their harmony, their size, etc. Then think of how it's all automated and you have no control of them. They just work without your intervention. Why was your mouth shaped like that? Your lips? Your teeth? Your tongue? Why's there saliva? How's is possible every time you swallow the food or drink goes down the right path instead of your windpipe? Why were they shaped that way? Then there's sound coming out of that area too? How? Why not just air? Where'd that sound box come from? How's it not being damaged and dead from all the foods and drinks that touch it many times a day? And the air? Where's it coming from? Where does it go? Why do you need it in and out every second? Who dictated that? Why aren't you in control of your own breathing? Why can't you simply not keep inhaling or exhaling forever? Why can't you stop breathing and not feel the pressure build up? And the nervous system? And the brain? And your eyes? Your arms, your legs? Fingers and toes? Why give each? Why not four? And why are they shaped that way? And the most important of all, this... Soul? What is it? Where'd it come from? Was it just floating in space until it decided one day to live inside this fetus? Is that soul you? Or is it not? Who are you? If you're that lost floating soul, why can't you remember anything? Because it doesn't have a physical brain? So it cannot think? But then how did your soul decide to choose this body? So it can think? And the endless questions never end. It cannot be a coincidence. You cannot call yourself intellectual, giving valid common sense reasons for everything, and say all of this just works together and happened by coincidence with a straight face. And this is just your body. Now think of everything around you. The animal kingdom and the many types of animals in it and how each function. The plant kingdom and the thousands, if not millions of types and their function. The microscopic stuff and their functions. The solar system. It's endless.

That's all I'll say about this here.

Enjoy my wall of text, whoever decides to read this.
Jeff Goldblum Smiling GIF
 

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Fucking hell, you can't be serious?

I guess you could get away with just Christianity, as people rip into and disrespect that religion all the time.

However, no way could you do God of War X Islam. Religious extremist nuts decapitate people in the west for just showing a picture of their prophet. How do you think they would react with a video game version getting destroyed by Kratos?
 

VAL0R

Banned
Barring the political discourse it will bring, Abrahamic gods, Yahweh & Jesus will not be a good candidate for fun, as their "godlike" concept differs greatly from western gods from mythology.

In mythos, gods still fight with fists and their presence is still confined and limited, you can whisper on one corner and they wouldn't be able to hear you.

Yahweh on the other hand, is formless and unlimited, in which a word from Him will obliterate you from existence. How do you make this into a fun game concept? You can't.
Yahweh will see hear and know your every thoughts, move and present in the future and past. It's a concept you cannot bring to make a fun game.

What is Jesus going to do? Keep on ressurecting after you kill him lol? He doesn't fight back.
According to Christian theology, Jesus is the same being as God. God exists as a Trinity of three "persons" we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son has a human nature and a divine nature. Two natures, yet one "person" of the Triune God. Christ's human nature is inseparable from his divine nature, ever since God added a human nature to the divine at the incarnation. So Jesus Christ, according to Christian theology, is equal in power to God. He is literally God. Otherwise to worship him would be the sin of idolatry.

Also, this nonsense that Christ is somehow weak or a pacifist is not a Christian one. It's been popularized by people who aren't very biblically literate combined with popular culture depictions of Jesus as milquetoast, often in mockery (think South Park). According to the Bible, Christ first came in peace to redeem the world. He then comes with power and fire and war. First as the lamb of God, then as the lion of Judah. First to lay down his life, 'they do not take my life, I give it', then as the one who conquers, 'every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord.'

2 Thessalonains 1
[...]when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.


There are numerous violent passages like this, that Christ will basically wage war on the godless at his return, 'and slay them from the breath of his mouth.' Far from being a pacifist, he has promised a war that he cannot lose and the construction of a kingdom that cannot be overthrown. When this same God punishes the blaspheming damned in the fires of Hell, why should this surprise anyone? This idea that Jesus is somehow merely a teddy bear weakling, on Christian theology, is nonsense. People confuse his mercy with weakness. Even during his peaceful earthly ministry, he wove together a whip of cords and drove out the moneychangers who were corrupting the temple of God at Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:

Kokoloko85

Member
Considering there is only 1 “god” in abrahamic religions, it wouldnt make much sense.
Its not a pantheon of gods like Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Indian, Buddhist type deities.

It would be fun though going through the Abrahamic Prophets and Angels hahaha
 

MikeM

Member
Imagine a game where Kratos walks into Jerusalem, bangs the virgin Mary then kills Jesus and Christ himself. Oof- there would be so many angry people lol

John Cena Reaction GIF by WWE
 

breakfuss

Member
How come op started the thread and doesn't have the nerve to chime in afterwards?
Why you worried about me? The hell else am I supposed to say? I haven't engaged in theological debate in years. Mighty amount of hubris to think any of us understand this shit but I do appreciate a lot of the ontological takes here.

Fucking hell, you can't be serious?

I guess you could get away with just Christianity, as people rip into and disrespect that religion all the time.

However, no way could you do God of War X Islam. Religious extremist nuts decapitate people in the west for just showing a picture of their prophet. How do you think they would react with a video game version getting destroyed by Kratos?
Thread obviously started in jest though the idea was tantalizing. Old testament, revelations etc is crazy af and it was just a fleeting thought about its application in a video game. Thread went all the way left though lmao.
 

soulbait

Member
There's only one God so... that would be kinda boring?

Technically, the Israelites were not monotheistic and believed there were other gods. They just believed that Yahweh was the only one to be worshiped. In the Old Testament there are even references to the "Divine Council" were other god like entities would be on.

You can thank poor biblical literacy and the English language's use of the word of God as not only as the name for Yahweh but also for the word for lesser gods for this not being as well known. Even other spiritual beings mentioned in the Bible like angles and demons would be considered deities in other religions/mythologies. But because in English we use God as the name of the most High and due to the commandment of "having no other gods before me" makes it taboo to label anything else as a god, modern people see only one God.
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
I'd be down for an Egyptian goddess of war. Sekhmet possibly.


f1eec80d58872d5684d1bb865e7c3ae368f10aa1r1-1080-923v2_hq.jpg


or maybe Neith
neith___egyptian_gods_by_yliade_dd6b2si-fullview.png
 
Last edited:

Haggard

Banned
evolution itself is more evidence. it's an argument for creation not against it.
arbitrary mutation driven selection by sheer survival/multiplication of the best adapted species is evidence for "creation" riiiight :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

Amiga

Member
arbitrary mutation driven selection by sheer survival/multiplication of the best adapted species is evidence for "creation" riiiight :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:

you prove it again. adaptation is not accidental. it's a built in mechanism. a tiny mechanism in the balance of the mortal world.
 

MrMephistoX

Member
I think the closest you would get is Doom or Evangelion where they reference angels and allude to random icons like the ark of the covenant but not Kratos vs Moses ain’t happening. They could probably get away with Old Testament symbols and legends but there’s not a whole lot of pettiness in the New Testament. Old Testament god is an asshole who could be taken down a few pegs but Jesus is like a hippie preaching the golden rule regardless of whether or not your religion thinks he’s divine or not.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom