Slashdot Mirror
SimChurch
Roland Piquepaille writes "It's Sunday and some of you might go to a church. But starting on May 11, and for a duration of three months, you'll be able to go to a virtual church. Only the building, with its altar and pews, will be virtual. The preacher, congregation and prayers will be real, according to this BBC News article, 'Glimpse inside the virtual church.' This experiment is launched by a Christian website, Ship of Fools, and will be named Church of Fools. Even with such a foolish name, the virtual church project has been approved by the church hierarchy. This overview contains other details and references about the Church of Fools project."
I'm not a religious man myself but I wonder how successful this will be.
I mean, i thought that meeting up in church wasn't just about the worship
but was about the social interaction with others - the feeling of unity with
your peers. How can an "SimChurch" emulate that side of it?
Watching a webcast or something like it just isn't the same. Anyone who's watched the BBC program "songs of praise" will back me up on that one.
Simon.
Sweet. Now us fools have a place to go and worship our God for more foolish goodness!
Going to church every sunday isn't necessarily just to hear a sermon, a little choir, read a few passages from the Bible...no, a big part rests around the face time with other attendees. It is like a family reunion...in a chat room. You might all be there, but you can't express emotion or body language that gives depth to any sort of relationship. Plus, one huge aspect of going to church and hearing millenia old gospel certainly implies that you are not looking to get tips and tricks on the latest gadgets, linux distros, etc.
Is there any other kind of church?
Plenty of you are making light of this, but do you realize how many would love to go to a church on Sundays but can't (e.g., those who are sick, those who live in rural areas)? Fellowship with other Christians is half the Christian faith, and this is a useful tool for those who'll need it.
I wonder if when the 'plate' will be passed around and accept virtual coins or they will want credit card numbers.
Just another scam in hiding, as is most organized religion. ( not the concept of religious belief, just that when you organize it, its ready-made scam material for the gullible. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
too many disruptive trolls.
They're going to need a lot of fast fingured moderators to keep that place "holy."
Ben
Work Safe Porn
How many l33t preteens is it going to take to ruin a virtual service? They're going to have to implement chat restrictions over the course of the main 'worship', and even then, all it would take to ruin the after-chat is one kid.
freeminimacs, just becau
Hoc est enim cookie meum.
Is this gonna be just like virtual sex? Vaguely satisifying but in the end its all just a w_nk. (That's Aussie slang for masturbation for those of you who don't know).
Think of all the benefits. Just think of all the sacraments:
Virtual communion - zero calories, and won't put you over the limit for when you drive
Virtual marriage - When it goes sour you can always claim it wasn't you on the other end of the computer and keep half your stuff.
Virtual baptism - Only your avatar will get wet.
Virtual last rites - Not as depressing when its an avatar not a real person.
Some things will always be better in person no matter how emmersive the virtual reality. This is totally wasted on me completely. I'm not religious. Religion has in some ways been the bane of my existence. I'd just love it if those that are would just leave me alone and I don't look forward to the prospect of increased net evangelism though I know its bound to happen.
I'm not a troll either though.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Well - in regards to atheists being argumentative, that's not all that surprising. But in regards to "frightful outrage" towards people with different views, I disagree. I have no problem if you wish to be Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Jewish/etc, and I personally am not the type to align myself with those that perceive people of religion as being weak minded. So your broad sweeping generalizations are absolutely unfounded.
If you would like, I could bring up numerous factual examples of those who practice Christianity reacting in "frightful outrage" towards those who have different beliefs. To my understanding, many atheists have become atheist due to religious institutions giving moral backing to very dreadful and brutal acts.
I could go on, but that's not fair to those who do not fit into this generalization. I suspect this is why you are moderated "0, Insightful".
Well, isn't that simple minded.
Lets apply your logic. I believe 2+2=4, and I believe you're an idiot, so I must be right on both counts.
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
I don't know what Jesus would do, but most Catholics would show up at a real church since communion is a big part of church.
I used to be a regular churchgoer however nowadays I find it difficult to go to my church - mainly due to my lifestyle and not actually being awake when a church service is on, and also lack of motivation. However, this is something I definitely intend to try - on a personal level, I'd much rather be a true Christian rather than not and going to church, with the social atmosphere, is part of that - I believe this is something that would help people, both like myself, and also those who would never try a church.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Atheists can no more disprove God's existence than believers can prove it. While I have a certain admiration of those with strong convictions, the righteousness of BOTH sides annoys me.
That's sophistry. The burden of proof clearly lies with the theists to prove the existence of god or gods, just as it does for me to prove the existence of my invisible rabbit. And despite thousands of years of trying, the best the theists have managed is logically broken proofs similar to Descartes'. Meanwhile, I'm still working on proving my bunny...
Nice.
God squadders with mod points.
Get a life, you toads.
There is no God, and your worldview is a total fabrication.
That's because slashdot would bitchslap you back to land of magic make believe so fast you wouldn't know what hit ya!
/plurvet
On a more serious note. This is exactly the kind of place christians are afraid to make any kind of serious argument of their faith. You will be forced to defend against a large population of individuals with no fear to question the basis of your arguments. Almost all responses from christians on slashdot are laced with carefully guarded qualifiers that they are expressing their own beliefs, or that is their religion. You know that you are outnumbered and the average slashdotter will flog you with facts, so you don't try.
Get over it. This isn't news for nerds, this is news for nerds to make fun of. That's why it posted/accepted on slashdot. Taking the moral high ground is easy when you have no other argument.
Churches can be downright mean, especially if you manage to violate the mores of a particular congregation in some heinous fashion such as wearing a short-sleeved shirt or singing off key. Where else do you go where, when you come in, you're asked to stand up in front of a couple of hundred people so they can all get a good look at you?
Note - I love the church. In fact, I'm an itinerant preacher and may be a pastor pretty soon (i.e. as soon as God forces me to give up my rather nice salary in tech in order to serve his people full-time.) But let's not try to pretend that churches are non-threatening.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
going again this Monday since they have an evening service for college students.
"But let's not try to pretend that churches are non-threatening."
Churches are as non threatening as Pastors allow them to be. I havn't dressed up for church in a very long time. Years. In fact every monday there's a very rugged looking guy who comes in who knows pretty much everybody.
"Where else do you go where, when you come in, you're asked to stand up in front of a couple of hundred people so they can all get a good look at you?"
At church, the only one you should be paying attention to is God and His Word. If all you're interested in is the fashion show and vocals of the people around you, you might as well just stay home.
Sounds like you're working for and attend a very hyporitical church that's more worried about looks than spirituality.
So yes, Church is the most non-threatening social environment there is. If a church isn't, then it isn't a church you should be going to.
"as soon as God forces me to give up my rather nice salary in tech in order to serve his people full-time"
So, as soon as he forces you to stop being greedy?
God's not in the habit of forcing people not to do things. Sounds like your church has a lot of serious issues that need to be dealt with and you're more interested in a good pay check and denying serious problems exist playing it off like they're normal, than dealing with them.
Your church is not normal. It's broken. I can't believe you're a pastor even part time if you can't see this and see what's wrong with it.
Maybe everyone would be better off if you weren't the pastor so that someone else with better bearings on what a church should be can run the place and fix it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
most of the religious discussion I've witnessed on this site is neither thoughtful nor productive,
those who "comment" upon religion, either pro- or con-, usually begin by assuming that theirs is the only rational possible belief, and
few people who want to comment on religion on this site seem interested in playing by any rules of rational discourse.
The bottom line is that many intelligent people have a well-founded belief in Christianity; many other intelligent people do not. If you are interested in engaging in the best part of the debate, then start with respect instead of contempt, and you'll get the best the other person has to offer.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
what exactly has been the cause of every major war in the past 100,000 years?
maybe not the purpose, but the scapegoat, the reason, the cause?
is there any other kind??
I find it difficult to go to my church - mainly due to my lifestyle and not actually being awake when a church service is on, and also lack of motivation
...I can't believe I am actually going on record as saying this -- but if you dig around a little, you'll be surprised at the number of different church services that are out there to cater to your schedule. For instance, I've recently started going to an independent church that is affiliated with a larger one that has its services on Sunday night at 5:30PM... no matter when I'm working or what I've been doing the night before, it is hard for me to miss 5:30 PM...
...now, as for the lack of motivation...well, that is a much deeper question, isn't it? (i.e. I know people who have spent weeks/hundreds of dollars tracking down rare CDs/DVDs/video game imports. I'm not questioning your committment... I'm just saying that if you really want to do something, you can usually find a way...)
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
It does seem to be a form of Pascal's Wager. I say it's safe to believe in God because if I'm right, good, and if not, well nothing lost. But then you say, "but by worshiping this one God you may offend another."
But there lies the problem. Not all religions are the same. Out of all the religions (that I've researched), Jesus was the only person to claim to be God. All of the other religions are people writing about other people who appeared to be God-like (but never claimed to be God).
As a result of this, you basically have 2 choices. Either Jesus was wrong (because he was lying, crazy, etc) or he was right. Now I don't believe he was lying or crazy because he knew that if he claimed to be God he would surely be killed. Additionally all of his diciples afterwards proclaimed to the world that he was God (dispite severe persecution). While this is not all the evidence for Jesus, it sets a strong case that he indeed was God and died out of love for all people.
The only thing that will stop you from fulfilling your dreams is you. - Tom Bradley
This makes me think of the church masses they used to show (or still do?) on television for those who cannot leave the house. A full mass, but all televised. This really isn't that different. Sure, pop-ups and donations via cell phone really commercializes the experience, but IMHO, it really isn't that different. An interesting idea, and I'm sure a subject that sparks a lot of feeling one way or another among the religious.
The main problem that I see with this idea is church is molding to cultural ideas. Although the concept of reaching out to people via a forum in which it would be easily acceptable is good, at the same time the whole idea of leaving the 'world' (before any trolls jump on this idea, please take the time to look at the Christian concept of the world) to worship is lost. In a virtual enviroment, people are not themselves, they are free to act and to take on personas that are actually opposite to the way they act in real life. The other aspect that is lost in this idea is fellowship and worshipping with others. At least these are my personal objections. I just don't understand how this will serve any usefull religious purpouse. Outreach is fine. Outreach into virtual worlds doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm just too tradional.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 2:42-47
These two passages, while not giving the complete picture, give a window into what a church is supposed to look like. In America, churches act like vendors of religious goods and services -- just a worldly business like any other. The early church lived more like a commune than a McJesus'. But today, a virtual church is only the logical extension of the modern church business model.
The fact that anyone would be willing to call this a church shows how corrupted the definition of church has become. A church is a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for God, for one another, and for the good of the world. A church is a group of people who choose to live their lives in true community, not hiding behind suburbia. A group of people who choose to live with values completely different from those of a greedy, callous, militaristic, mechanized society. The hospital is an invention of the church when it was the church, when people and communities freely opened up their homes to the sick, poor, and homeless. Today we have conferences, retreats, and other pseudo-religous claptrap (not to mention junk and pulp theology like Prayer of Jabez or Purpose Driven Life).
So this web site is not a church. That's not the real surprise. But guess what? That stone building down the street where people go on Sunday to munch bagels and gossip? That's not a church either. It's a fraud. It's a country club disguised as a religious institution. It exists only for itself and is more about excluding people than including them.
The difference between a place like Slashdot and church is that if Slashdot didn't exist, we'd still be interested in technology and related issues. If church didn't exist, many people would stop using it as a social crutch and they'd realize they don't *really* believe in all that bible crap and would stop going.
Honestly, if you *truly* believe in what the bible teaches, would you be working at a full-time job, buying a house and cars, going to movies, etc. knowing that everybody around you who isn't yet a christian is going to burn in hell for all eternity? How could you live with yourself knowing that there are people dying all the time who aren't saved and, because you were too busy watching Friends or waxing your car, they're now going to burn in hell forever?
Not to mention all the contradictions, absurdities, etc. etc.
Man that's rich. Your faith is not strong enough to get you up to go to church so you schedule your worship around your schedule. Why not just pay somebody to pray for you?
Disclaimer: I am an atheist. I really don't get this thing at all.
evil is as evil does
As the previous poster said, there are quite a few churches that cater to odd schedules. My church back home has a 5:00PM service, which was always great because I'm a hardcore night person and hate getting up early. Sometimes even getting up in time for their 11:15 service was torture. :)
But there's a deeper problem. If your church is solely online, you will be missing out on a lot. Jesus never intended for Christians to be isolated apart from each other. Sure, you can get your Bible study and preaching over the Net or TV, and you can worship in your house to a Sonicflood or Third Day or Petra CD, but you don't have people to check up on you when you're sick, invite over for dinner, keep you accountable, pray for you, discuss the Bible with, etc.
You NEED other flesh-and-blood believers near you. Note that that doesn't necessarily need to be a formal church. A group of people simply committing to follow Christ where they are and keep each other accountable is good enough.
The import thing to realize is that a church, like any other social group, has certain mores and conventions -- typically they are inherited from the ambient cultural group.
Example1: Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, but he did mention that remarriage after divorce was a sin, and that the resulting relationship was adulterous. However, most churches today are OK with divorced couples marrying, having sex, and having a family, but they are not ok with gay sex or marriage. The difference is the cultural norms in their surrounding community have accepted one, but not the other. As soon as gay marriage becomes overwhelmingly accepted, it will be treated in the same way as divorce and bans on interest bearing loans.
Example2: The Southern Baptists split with the Northern Baptists over slavery. You can guess which baptist congregation thought it was a sin, and which one thought it wasn't. Both had scriptural arguments.
Example3: The U.S. is a society which focuses on individual success resulting from individual action (e.g. hard work, clean living.) Other cultures are more focused on collective success and collective responsibility (e.g. good schools, effective legal system, social welfare.) Therefore the U.S. churches "spiritualize" this bias by focusing on individual sin/repentance (being personally saved), as opposed to group sin/repentance (social justice), although one must look for relatively rare discussion of the former in the scriptures, since almost all exhortations in the old and new testaments, revolve around the latter. Indeed, most American Christians would consider it discrimination to be punished for something which they didn't individually do, but did* as a group, whereas the Bible is filled with examples or promises of group punishments (punishment of a race, of a generation, of a city.)
Now, getting back to the original point, if you find yourself not sharing the mores of your church (i.e. you think interest bearing loans are cruel exploitation, or you are gay) then your positions will be opposed in the church, as they would in the larger community. However, the *difference* is that opposition in the church is often interpreted as "God disagrees with you" which, to a sincere believer, is much worse than the community disagreeing with him. Indeed each church believes, although there is a long history of previous churches in other cultures gettings things wrong, that *now* the truth is revealed, and *they* have the correct word of God.
And, adding to this ostracism phenomenon, is that we have a very fragmented culture, broken up into many little pockets, each of which have different mores, and so the odds are good that the church you randomly pick will not share your views. Finally, people move a lot, and so can easily find themselves in a place where there is no church that they feel they can go to, and still remain a sincere believer, without a lot of inner tension.
In this way, *every* church is threatening.
And there is no real solution, but it's certainly a step backwards to classify a church as "bad" if someone says it's threatening, since this just perpetuates the assumption that some church subcultures (e.g. adultery ok, homosexuality not ok) are better than others ("committed" homosexuality ok, adultery not ok.) The reason why this can't be the case, is that all of the subcultures are formed out of confused, fallen people, and then each church inherits the mores of it's ambient group. For instance, Jesus, when discussing adultery, made the point "This is wrong, but you were too weak, so Moses let you grant a certificate of divorce. Nevertheless, it's adultery. In fact, even wishing to have sex with a married woman is adultery." So basically each church makes allowances for accepting "sinful" behavior that is predominant in the community, and does not accept "sinful" behavior that is on the margins.
The only recommendation I have is to do some work and find a church that you can live with. In a major urban area, this should b
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I don't think we have sufficiently common ground to even set rules for a debate, much less have one. If you are interested in current arguments, I suggest Googling for J.P. Moreland or Alvin Plantinga.
/.? Your view is that Christians are afraid to speak because they know they'll "get bitchslapped out of the "rational discourse" faster than you can say hail mary." Mine is that they've decided it isn't worth their time. So far, you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.
I think the confusion is yours, not mine. There is a world of difference between agreeing with someone's opinion and respecting their right to be wrong. I'm suggesting that until you demonstrate the latter, you aren't going to get much in the way of useful discussion. You are much more likely to get the mental "Whatever" as people move on to more compelling and worthwhile conversation.
So, how does one interpret the relative silence of Christians on
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.