Slashdot Mirror


Churches Use Halo To Spread the Word, Raise Eyebrows

The New York Times has a lengthy look at an unorthodox way to spread the religious word: Halo 3 multiplayer matches. Churches across the country have adopted 'Halo Nights' as a way to get kids together in religious centers and church basements. "The alliance of popular culture and evangelism is challenging churches much as bingo games did in the 1960s. And the question fits into a rich debate about how far churches should go to reach young people. Far from being defensive, church leaders who support Halo -- despite its "thou shalt kill" credo -- celebrate it as a modern and sometimes singularly effective tool. It is crucial, they say, to reach the elusive audience of boys and young men." Just the same, the use of the game is raising concerns among some onlookers. GamePolitics reports that many faith communities are heavily debating the issue.

474 comments

  1. Fight the false prophet by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Halo3 you are fighting against what could easily be called a 'False Prophet'. Sounds like good justification for a Christian church.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Regarding that logic, why not doom?

      Destroying demons seems a fairly wholesome activity!

    2. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requested URL (games/07/10/09/1429240.shtml) was not found.

      If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to help@slashdot.org.

    3. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like you're fighting the Christian church.

    4. Re:Fight the false prophet by WWWWolf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      In Halo3 you are fighting against what could easily be called a 'False Prophet'. Sounds like good justification for a Christian church.

      Guhhhh. And at the same time, the reaction to Ultima VI: The False Prophet was probably along the lines of "It's got MAGIC in it, so it's an EVIL game". (Never mind that Ultima series was mostly about living virtuous, chivalric life, and straightening up both personal and social problems...)

      In general, I'm a little bit worried that some Christian groups have to take so superficial looks at the games: No one pauses to study the deeper values in the games, they just see "heck of a lot of violence = BURN" or "almost exposed boobies = BURN" or "someone mentioned magic once = BURN OF HARRYPOTTERIFIC PROPORTIONS" or "that kind of looks like a demon = BURN". No one analyses the games deeper than that.

    5. Re:Fight the false prophet by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not the fighting or violence they're worried about; Halo doesn't support geocentricity, and the futuristic setting flies in the face of predictions that the second coming will be any day now.

      By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?

      Something about older men saying "come inside kids, let's play video games", when they're not actually interested in playing video games with the kids, seems wrong.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:Fight the false prophet by computechnica · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not, Both are based on Fiction. One is far in the future and one is far in the past.

    7. Re:Fight the false prophet by PastorPriest · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes! Just the excuse we need to lure children into church basements so that we can rape them. Thank you for your great advice, parents will totally fall for this!

    8. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why is this surprising? After all, you're talking about a group of people that, much like lemmings, believe anything they're told, without any evidence to back it up whatsoever. In fact, you're talking about people who believe things in direct contradiction of overwhelming evidence: these people believe the earth is 6500 years old, when that assertion is clearly ridiculous in the fact of overwhelming geological, archaeological, and paleontological evidence.

      When you have a group of people who so clearly lack any type of critical thinking skills, and are so incredibly gullible that they'll believe anything they're told by a charismatic leader, it should not be surprising to see that they don't study the deeper values in games or in anything else for that matter. After all, this is the same group of people who would happily burn people at the stake for "witchcraft" a few hundred years ago.

    9. Re:Fight the false prophet by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1, Troll

      Please somebody mod this up.

      Just becaouse one maybe doesn't agree with the author does NOT make the author a TROLL, for pete's sake!

    10. Re:Fight the false prophet by kalirion · · Score: 1

      How do you know the Covenant's prophet is "false"?

    11. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A priest and a rabbi are walking down the street when they notice a young boy on the other side. The priest leans over and whispers to the rabbi: "See that boy over there? Let's go fuck him!" And the rabbi says: "Out of what?"

    12. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am absolutely sick of the jesusbots modding down anything critical of religion.

    13. Re:Fight the false prophet by Herby+Sagues · · Score: 3, Funny

      The wrath of God almighty will fall upon you, and you will burn in hell for all the eternity for posting that!!! I know it because I read it in an old book.

    14. Re:Fight the false prophet by Osty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Halo3 you are fighting against what could easily be called a 'False Prophet'. Sounds like good justification for a Christian church.

      On the other hand, a large portion of the story is conflict between religious zealotry (the Prophets' Great Journey) and rational thinking (the "Great Journey" is really genocide). The Arbiter, an important character in the story, converts from "evil religion" to "good rationality" when he realizes what the Great Journey really is and what will happen if the Prophets succeed. If churches actually realized what was going on in the story, there's no way they would endorse the game. Good thing everybody is more focused on the violence than the anti-religion themes, then :). The only thing that could distract the churches better would be a boob.

    15. Re:Fight the false prophet by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what prophet are you fighting for...?

    16. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does somebody remember the passage in the good book about jebus and the money exchangers in the temple? This is blashemy! Christ would not be pleased.

    17. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Your old book is full of lies. You need to read and believe my old book instead.

      My old book says that I, "Grishnakh" (just a handle; I must keep my real name secret until God commands it is the right time for me to reveal it and take my rightful position of power), am the Chosen One. All you other mortals are commanded by this Holy Book to send 20% of your income to me, and to offer me your wives and daughters for my pleasure. Do not disobey, or God will punish you, according to my Holy Book. And most of all, do not disbelieve, because, after all, this Truth is written in my Holy Book, so it cannot be in error, because this Book says that it was written with Divine Inspiration and is without error.

    18. Re:Fight the false prophet by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. Bob Jones University doesn't allow New Age music. Most of which has no lyrics and no driving beat, it's fricking relaxation music. It's a wonder they haven't banned 'meditation' music because they think it's Buddhist or something.

      But it was already fun to watch them condemn Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, not for violence, which I would understand, not for homosexual themes (Although they did that too.), but because of various really stupid misunderstanding.

      Like, for example, Buffy had a lunatic ex-priest as a villain in the last season working for 'The First Evil', which is the closest thing to 'Satan' there is. They caught on that he dressed like a priest and started complaining about some total gibberish, apparently thinking he was a real one or something. Apparently, in their universe, non-Christians commonly portray priests as murdering consorts of Satan. (They might not have noticed 'The First Evil' thing, as it always looks like someone who's died, and spent most of that season looking like Buffy.)

      Meanwhile, over on Angel, the antichrist, a beautiful 'power-that-be' that had let heaven and was gathering followers by stripping their free will and was being worshiped by everyone, those she wasn't eating, but, as she wasn't ever called 'the antichrist', they didn't appear to notice any sort of biblical analogy. One of the episodes was even named 'Sloughing towards Bethlehem', but, nope, it didn't even register on their radar.

      It's like they have no ability to understand fiction or analogy. (Thank goodness that they didn't grasp the idea that Buffy was using magick as a metaphor for sex or we'd all be in trouble.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:Fight the false prophet by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > [Christians, or more precisely the kind that you experienced] ...believe anything they're told, without any evidence to back it up whatsoever.

      Just curious: defining God as something (also) transcendent, what kind of evidence could back up his divinity and be experienced in our immanent world?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    20. Re:Fight the false prophet by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What this bunch would call a 'False Prophet' is other branches of Christianity that have an educated clergy.

    21. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Just curious: defining God as something (also) transcendent, what kind of evidence could back up his divinity and be experienced in our immanent world?

      According to my religions, God is not only transcendent. In Christianity, for instance, God is partially imminent.

      Anyway, if something is transcendent, then how can it have any bearing on the physical world we live in? Any evidence would have to be physical, causing that thing to not be totally transcendent. But if it leaves no evidence, then what's the point in believing in it? Because some other people told you to? That doesn't sound like a very good reason to me. If a bunch of people told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

      I'm sorry, but I just read the whole Wikipedia article on transcendence, and the whole thing just sounds like people making up reasons to believe in something that they have no evidence exists. What exactly is the point of that? To feel like there's something to look forward to after you die? That sounds all well and good, but deluding yourself isn't the answer to the question of the afterlife and other metaphysical things. Put simply, making up answers is not a proper reaction to the lack of knowledge about something. I think for a lot of people, the reason for all this is to avoid doing any real work and justifying an existence leaching off of others.

    22. Re:Fight the false prophet by popmaker · · Score: 1

      And the phrase "church basement" creates some grim connections...

    23. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Converting Children" to a certain worldview happens anyway. Turn on a children's TV show and you'll typically see a good 'moral lesson' at the end (be honest, don't cheat, family is important, etc). We're usually are ok with these things because most of us agree with them.

      However, these 'moral lessons' aren't in a vacuum somewhere, they come from a philosophical belief system that you may or may not agree with (and the 'moral lessons' become less and less cut and dry as the target audience becomes older and older). So "conversion" comes not only from TV, but also from other kids, from teachers, religious institutions, and on, and on. What does all of that mean? It means that as a parent you will have to teach your children to deal with these ideas and not try to block out one source or another. Such a method will not work in reality.

      Heh, but I guess that means that *you* will have to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it so that a little child could understand you. Up to the task? Welcome to parenthood.

    24. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's something more like "come inside kids, we've got candy!"

    25. Re:Fight the false prophet by Fission86 · · Score: 1

      By the way is it just me or is there something really wrong with trying to convert children? Why not wait until they're older and less easily seduced by things like video games before trying to convince them?


      Haven't you heard? the church is taking its cues from the tobacco companies now. "Get 'em while they're young" or so the saying goes...
      --
      Coming to you live from another dimension.
    26. Re:Fight the false prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I interpreted it as an atheist fighting against misguided religious aliens.

    27. Re:Fight the false prophet by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Both are yet to come. While there have been many false prophets, there is to be one False Prophet that entices the human race before the return of the Messiah (the second coming) in full military and divine power. The False Prophet preaches about the Beast whom the Messiah fights and imprisons for a thousand years.

      As a Christian I do not understand why my fellow believers feel they need to utilise national military and legal power to establish 'the Kingdom of God'. If the description is only partially true then the Lord will be more than capable of pulling the coup off by Himself. (I do believe the description to be true, by the way.)

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    28. Re:Fight the false prophet by jhylkema · · Score: 1

      Up to the task?

      No.

      Welcome to parenthood.

      That's all right, I think I'll pass.

    29. Re:Fight the false prophet by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      >>Just curious: defining God as something (also) transcendent, what kind of evidence could back up his divinity and be experienanced in our immanent world?

      >According to my religions, God is not only transcendent. In Christianity, for instance, God is partially imminent.

      Yes, that's why I said "(also)". Anyway the immanent "part" can be potentially experienced, so countless proof could be conceived depending on its definition, even if none has materialized for me.

      > Anyway, if something is transcendent, then how can it have any bearing on the physical world we live in?

      The transcendent creator can have any bearing on the creation, no problems here.
      Let's make a simple example. You load up Conway's game of life. You are not really god in that reality because you are limited by your own mortality and by the hardware, yet you have total control of the configuration of cells, and the time axis (you can stop, turn back, fork restore etc). You can change the rules, too. Any rule is equivalent since they ultimately are all conventional.
      Yet your reality is completely disconnected to the game's one. In fact the game exists only as an abstraction in the mind that experienced it. You could devise three states logic and 54 dimensions in a variation of the game which makes it impossible to map to our dimension, that is understanding WTF is going on. And in the transcendent dimension, which in our case is our reality, the game is "electrons travelling around", there is no cells, no gliders, nothing created or destroyed.

      Back to my request:
      If creature in the virtual world of Life acquired self consciousness, there is no way you can prove to them the existence of your world. You can map a webcam to some part of their world and tell them it represents your world (for them, "the transcendent"). But while they can watch, it's all a representation, indistinguishable in quality from what could be conjured inside their world.

      When we translate this example to our world, anyway, there is a big problem. We can't map immanent concepts outside our dimension because there is no guarantee they have meaning there.

      "God is one", "There is no god"?
      "IS" surely has not meaning outside immanent because "IS" means being part of reality. JHVH saying "I am" might as well be a rationalization made for human's benefit, strictly speaking a completely transcendent "entity" never "IS".
      "One" might be another rationalization.
      "God" has no meaning outside our perspective, denotes the owner of the abstraction that we call reality.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    30. Re:Fight the false prophet by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The existence of sentient aliens on other planets, in fact many many different aliens seems to fly in the face of God creating man in His own image. But luckily for Christianity, you spend most of your time killing those aliens.

      Corporations try to convert kids to believe things about their products for money using constant barrage of marketing, exposing children to it through all hours of the day. Sugary drinks, inappropriate clothes for preteen girls, shoes made in horrible conditions, cigarettes, etc.

      At least the Church is trying to convert kids for their own (possibly warped) idea of salvation. I think generally Christians honestly believe what they preach, you can disagree with them (I do), but I don't think feeding kids a little mythology, fire and brimstone, etc is all that harmful. I'm pretty sure that if you're old enough to play Halo 3, you are old enough to accept or reject religion yourself.

      Some people act like these guys are going around brainwashing our children into mindless drones. But to be honest, there are much worse things for kids to get excited about. Better to have them knocking on doors preaching the Book of Mormon than a million other bad things.

      As an Atheist I view religion are the lesser of two (or more) evils for the people who are easily convinced that fantasy is reality and that morality is whatever someone defines. Obviously it is better if people think for themselves and come to their own conclusions about right and wrong after their own introspective journey, but barring that I'd rather have some Jesus freak fill our impressionable youth with fairy tales than some amoral sociopath. (most Christians are not amoral sociopaths, some are though)

      I suppose I am an optimist, I assume that ignorance is eventually correctable. If you are raised a Jesus freak, you can eventually get over it. And either tone it down a bit, or abandon it entirely once you figure out things for yourself. But if you are a junkie, criminal, etc there is not much that can be done for you once you are laying face down in the gutter.

      Generally Christian churches encourages kids to do some good things. Help out in the community, stay in school, don't have babies until you are ready, turn the other cheek, etc. Some are intolerant of nontraditional lifestyles, gays, atheists, etc. But generally the Christians I are a tolerant lot, and a few bad ones don't seem to do much beyond slinging insults. It's not like gangs of Jesus freaks are going around University campuses and beating up all the atheists and gays. If anyone thinks that is the case, then perhaps not just Christians have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    31. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why I said "(also)". Anyway the immanent "part" can be potentially experienced, so countless proof could be conceived depending on its definition, even if none has materialized for me.

      Right; if there was a god like this, the imminent "part" can be experienced, but so far, there's no proof whatsoever except some ancient books of second-hand stories. That's not proof, that's hearsay. If such a god really wanted people to know of his existence, wouldn't he offer some better proof than that?

      Back to my request:
      If creature in the virtual world of Life acquired self consciousness, there is no way you can prove to them the existence of your world. You can map a webcam to some part of their world and tell them it represents your world (for them, "the transcendent"). But while they can watch, it's all a representation, indistinguishable in quality from what could be conjured inside their world.

      When we translate this example to our world, anyway, there is a big problem. We can't map immanent concepts outside our dimension because there is no guarantee they have meaning there.


      Ok, but the way you describe it, while the transcendent god may not be able to show us his "dimension" of existence because it's beyond our capacity to understand, he also has omnipotent power within our reality. With that power, it would be trivial for him to create "miracles" that would make it pretty obvious he existed. Just like the Vorgons in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy at the beginning of the book where they manage to broadcast a message to everyone on Earth simultaneously, even in the absence of communication equipment, a god could do the same thing. Of course, it'd be hard to prove it's a god doing it instead of an incredibly advanced alien race, but for our purposes, who cares; it's good enough, since we've never met any aliens anyway, and compared to us, the aliens might as well be gods.

      However, so far, no god has done any such thing to let people know he exists. There's small groups of people here and there who claim a god has talked to them (like George W. Bush), but usually we call those people "crazy" and lock them up, unless they're the President. If a god doesn't bother to talk to all of us, then what's the point in believing in him? You're probably just believing in someone else's delusion. Of course, this doesn't mean that there is no god; it's possible there is a transcendent being, and it just doesn't feel like communicating with us. But if this is the case, then why should we worship it?

    32. Re:Fight the false prophet by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I am absolutely sick of the jesusbots modding down anything critical of religion. They'll be punished for it in the afterlife, though.... erm, I meant metamoderation ;-)
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    33. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, they won't. The moderators are regular Slashdotters, not some individuals unrepresentative of the whole group, and the metamoderators are the same bunch. Slashdotters are an extremely religious bunch, and I don't mean Linux vs. Windows, GPL vs. BSD, or emacs vs. vi either. Anything critical of religion is quickly modded down; I've seen it over and over the many years I've been here.

    34. Re:Fight the false prophet by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      The moderators are regular Slashdotters, not some individuals unrepresentative of the whole group, and the metamoderators are the same bunch. Rabid religious types are more likely to spend their mod points specifically on comments that agree with or oppose their view. Others who don't have a position that they'll kneejerk defend (by attacking those who disagree with it) are less likely to focus on the same comments for moderation in the opposite direction.

      By way of contrast, metamoderation gives you a range of arbitrary moderated comments to look at and agree/disagree with; you don't have a choice to the same extent.

      Slashdotters are an extremely religious bunch I'd say that they run the range. I certainly notice a lot of religious types whining about Slashdot's suppose anti-religion tendency.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    35. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Rabid religious types are more likely to spend their mod points specifically on comments that agree with or oppose their view. Others who don't have a position that they'll kneejerk defend (by attacking those who disagree with it) are less likely to focus on the same comments for moderation in the opposite direction.

      You have a good point here, but with the way metamoderation is supposed to work, shouldn't the rabid religious types, over time, lose their moderation ability if this system worked properly? It doesn't seem to be working. That's why I think most Slashdotters are extremely religious.

      I'd say that they run the range. I certainly notice a lot of religious types whining about Slashdot's suppose anti-religion tendency.

      Yep, I've seen that, but I've seen lots of extremely fundamentalist Christian doctrine spouted here. Many, many Slashdotters believe the earth is 6500 years old, for instance, even though this completely contradicts all scientific evidence, and the whole practice of science itself really. On any other forum, it would just be sad. But this is supposed to be a forum for highly scientifically-inclined readers; after all, this is supposed to be "news for nerds". That makes this not sad, but highly disturbing. People who claim to be highly interested in science are suddenly ready to light up the bonfires when someone makes any claims (which have been accepted in the secular world for over a century) which contradict their religion.

      Maybe someone should start up a Slashdot-like site which is only open to people outside of the USA, to avoid this silliness. Unfortunately, this would prevent me from enjoying such a site :-( But at least it'd be good for everyone else in the world. And I can even check it out on my next trip to Canada.

    36. Re:Fight the false prophet by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      You have a good point here, but with the way metamoderation is supposed to work, shouldn't the rabid religious types, over time, lose their moderation ability if this system worked properly? It doesn't seem to be working. That's why I think most Slashdotters are extremely religious. You're basing your assumption that Slashdotters are religious on a very simplified model of what people are doing in moderation, how it works, and so on. It's quite possible there's something you've overlooked, or that their other behaviour counters this loss of karma, and so on.

      I don't see enough actual evidence through comments that "most" Slashdotters are "extremely religious". It's possible that there's a large, but fairly quiet religious contingent, but I'm not convinced that this is likely.

      I'd say that casual experience of the evidence goes against what you're saying; it suggests that your modelling is over-simplistic if not very flawed. You assume that the metamoderation system *does* work "properly", but what if the other stuff they're saying is insightful or something and they're just being cancelled out, or.... whatever. I just think it's silly to make a half-guess model of user behaviour, and draw assumptions (contrary to the evidence) from that.

      Many, many Slashdotters believe the earth is 6500 years old, for instance And many, many, many seem to be the type who would criticise this.

      I'm sorry, but I think your assumption that Slashdotters are- on the whole- very religious is incorrect.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    37. Re:Fight the false prophet by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      >imminent

      Trust me and the wiktionary, it's immanent. Unless you're confident the second coming is soon :)

      About the proof I repeat there can't be one. Whatever a God could do in this world to prove he's root, it would be indistinguishable by an hypothetical completely immanent being, a "creature", who found ways to "hack into" reality. I, for one, wouldn't welcome any god-simulating overlords.

      The point you raise about "God not showing up" is huge, even if rationalizations can be done from the point of view of a believer. I'd bypass them and simply ask: "Do you think mankind would convert as one, if God showed up?"

      As for Mr. Bush, I wonder how the God speaking to him hasn't reminded him of the most obviously applicable Scripture about terrorism:

      "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    38. Re:Fight the false prophet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Trust me and the wiktionary, it's immanent. Unless you're confident the second coming is soon :)

      Whoops, you're right.

      About the proof I repeat there can't be one. Whatever a God could do in this world to prove he's root, it would be indistinguishable by an hypothetical completely immanent being, a "creature", who found ways to "hack into" reality. I, for one, wouldn't welcome any god-simulating overlords.

      Right, so how do you know you're worshiping a true god and not a god-simulating overlord? Or that there is a true god in the first place?

      But even so, there haven't even been any verifiable attempts by any gods or pseudo-gods to demonstrate their godliness; there's only ancient stories written by people who were most likely hallucinating due to heatstroke in a desert, or due to consuming toxic plants. So I don't understand why people are worshiping these supposed gods.

    39. Re:Fight the false prophet by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      I am absolutely sick of the jesusbots modding down anything critical of religion

      Don't worry, I usually mod the critics back up in my own mind as having different opinions, often adding them as "friends" for nearly that reason alone.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    40. Re:Fight the false prophet by Fatalis · · Score: 1

      In Halo3 you are fighting against what could easily be called a 'False Prophet'. Sounds like good justification for a Christian church.

      Pardon my political incorrectness, but I'd think that the Judaists would qualify more for this.

      --
      Deus est fatalis
    41. Re:Fight the false prophet by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I am absolutely sick of the jesusbots modding down anything critical of religion.

      The post your responded to wasn't critical of religion, unless "you're stupid" is now considered valid criticism. It got correctly moderated as flamebait which it was.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. It must be said by UnderDark · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our bible thumping, n00b killing, overlords.

    1. Re:It must be said by rwven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eh, halo nights at churches are far from new. They've been going on almost since the first halo was launched...

    2. Re:It must be said by Hack'n'Slash · · Score: 1

      H-O-L-Y crap I must be tired - I originally read that as "bible humping!"

      (scuttles off to say 1,000 "Hail Mary's")

    3. Re:It must be said by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the approach to talking to anyone about anything you want to share. You meet them at somepoint, some common thing to talk about, and then you share what you wanted to say.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
  3. Finally! by ultraparanoid · · Score: 0

    Finally a church that _I_ can relate to!

    1. Re:Finally! by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Finally a church that _I_ can relate to!

      One that trolls for little boys with video games?
      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
  4. Thou shalt not kill? by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do.

    I think this is a good idea for the church... Get the kids used to being at the church, and interacting with their friends there, possibly even friends that they never get to see otherwise. It establishes it as a friendly place that they want to be, the kids have some supervision while they play, and everyone involved is happy.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do. Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.
      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    2. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, a vast body of Old Testament law related to commanding and regulating animal sacrifice; although you could offer grain, animals were clearly "better", and you'd better not be some cheapskate offering bread if you had plenty of livestock.

      These regulations also appear to be related to the post-Sinai period of Exodus, since they clearly assume a nomadic existence, so they can hardly be considered as contradicting the Ten Commandments (which in Jewish terms is pre-school stuff; God has a lot more to say about human conduct than things like "Thou shall not kill").

      The nature of these commandments is fascinating because there is no independent historical or archaeological corroboration of the Exodus story. Although it is most historically probable that these regulations were reconstructed at a date later than the Babylonian captivity, they have a certain verisimilitude. The difficulties posed by reconciling a fixed lifestyle with commandments assuming a nomadic existence seems to confirm that in their folk memory at least, the Israelites were nomads.

      In any case, anybody who cites Leviticus as proof that homosexuality or Wicca is an abomination will have a difficult time proving that they really consider the commandments of Leviticus binding.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by toleraen · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess I don't see the big deal about this...growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, every Wednesday night we brought in our Nintendos/Segas to church to play video games with other kids. They supplied pizza, soda, a couple TVs, and a good time was had by all.

      Granted stomping on turtles and shooting ducks might have been a little tamer than Halo, but it's still the same concept.

    4. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by sammy+baby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans.


      Well... depends on who you ask. From Wikipedia

      Various translations exist of the sixth commandment; the Hebrew words are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder". Older Protestant translations of the Bible, those based on the Vulgate and Roman Catholic translations usually render it "Thou shalt not kill", whereas Jewish and newer Protestant versions tend to use "You shall not murder". There is controversy as to which translation is more faithful, and both forms are quoted in support of ethical standpoints.


      The generally held view is that murder is probably the more accurate translation. The issue of whether or not it is possible to commit murder on an Elite aside, exceptions are made in many Christian teachings for war.

      And besides which, dude, it's a game. Nobody actually dies unless they're stupid and play continuously for three days.
    5. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do.

      As well as the Christians who are vegans and vegetarians. As much as they'd like to pretend otherwise, the herbivores kill to live too - it's just that they pick on life forms so alien and removed from our own that it's easy not to think about.

      I think this is a good idea for the church... Get the kids used to being at the church, and interacting with their friends there, possibly even friends that they never get to see otherwise. It establishes it as a friendly place that they want to be, the kids have some supervision while they play, and everyone involved is happy.

      Churches are deceptive and destructive organizations designed to warp and brainwash the minds of adherents. Maybe it's a good idea from the church's perspective, but you could say the same about NAMBLA holding Halo conventions.

      Better to expose the obvious and apparent hypocrisy (if you don't see a contradiction between Jesus' message and what goes on in Halo - especially the multiplayer game - you definitely aren't reading closely enough) and help tear down the fleecing game that is organized religion.

      Protestants should be ashamed at the state of affairs today. Martin Luther's rolling in his grave.
    6. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by steveo777 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm pretty well aware of the likelihood that Moses did not pen the Pentateuch, it makes no sense that he could. And it also seems most likely that when it was 'found' it was penned after the captivity during the reconstruction of Babylon. But either way, I believe what it says is true. I think C.S. Lewis put it pretty well when he said, "No man who could write the Bible would, and no man who would write the Bible could." I haven't studied it to extensively but I do try to keep up with it.

      My question is what is your bridge to trying to justify homosexuality when it is called an abomination (Old and New Testament)? Far as wikka itself goes, I don't know enough about that, but I'm willing to bet that it falls under false gods and/or witch craft. Just my two cents.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    7. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by oh2 · · Score: 1

      I guess differentiating between murder and killing is a necessary thing if you want to justify the death penalty and war. I wouldnt call that a "modern" view of christianity though.

      --

      Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

    8. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed. So they're ok with countries that decide that one group or another is bad and should be killed, pass laws to reflect that belief and then get down to some serious slaughter? Hell, I don't even understand how they justify capital punishment in the US. What happened to letting God be the judge?
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    9. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Please note that not all Christians adhere to this though and consider the original commandment something without exceptions.

    10. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by 1019 · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was in gradeschool I went to a sleepover event sponsored by my parent's church, where they set up games and had pizza.

      Among the games there, we played Star Trek: TNG, A Klingon Challenge! It was tons of fun, already being a huge TNG nerd back then (not so much today, but it'll never go away).

      --
      shame on us / for all we have done / and all we ever were / just zeroes and ones
    11. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I am not justifying anything.

      I am observing that people who cite Old Testament law to justify their personal prejudices do so selectively. It is not so much that they don't observe the entirety of the law themselves, since this is impossible without, for example, access to the Temple, or at the very least facilities for animal sacrifice. It's that they don't even attempt to follow the laws they cite in their own lives in spirit as, for example, ultra-orthodox Jews do. I think Mathew 23:4 applies here.

      With respect to Wicca, such people just sloppily confound it with necromancy. Wicca is clearly unlawful, but it is no more lawful to kill a Wiccan under Exodus 22:18 than it is to kill a Hindu, or indeed a Christian who calls curses down upon people whose beliefs he disagrees with.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.

      The question is legal according to whom?

      Abortion is 'legal' in many states/countries etc, so then according to the bible, abortion is OK? What about Hitler? He presumably made the 'laws' in Germany so his killings were not 'murder' thus they were OK? How about dissidents in China? They are being killed according the the local laws, so that's OK too?

      So now of course you'll say that those laws are wrong, and it really is murder in those cases. So then what about capital punishment in the US? There are many countries where capital punishment does not exist and the idea of the US killing prisoners is as abhorrent to them as the situation in China is to you.

    13. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So now of course you'll say that those laws are wrong, and it really is murder in those cases. While I will I'll also call it murder when the US government does it as well ;) I'm not a Christian.
      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    14. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      My bad.

      I see what you mean now. I remember the first (and only) time I read through all the law and thought it was/is a heavy burden. Just made me sigh with more relief for Grace.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    15. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Two points of contention. It is using the word "murder" in a MORAL and not only legal sense. Second, if it's the correct translation then it would also be correct to say that this is what the "original" Christians believed (Jews too obviously.)

    16. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually "thou shall not kill" had lots of conditions. It was not limited to humans, but only certain humans. It was perfectly OK for you to murder your slaves if they stole from you. women were ok to kill as the bible, Judiasim, and Christianity are all from middle east culture and women are lower than your dogs. Many places this is STILL the case and women are murdered and raped for fun when the village men are bored or want to se an example so the other women don't get uppidty.

      The bible allows all kinds of murder as sanctioned by God. I am sure the "thou shall not kill" was set aside when the wall of Jericho came falling down aided by God. you cant go smiting your entire army when you sent them on a murder rampage in your name.

      and yes kids, I am a devout Christian.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by hiryuu · · Score: 1

      In any case, anybody who cites Leviticus as proof that homosexuality or Wicca is an abomination will have a difficult time proving that they really consider the commandments of Leviticus binding.

      To wit: God hates shrimp. :)

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    18. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I believe the Bible supports the concept of man's laws now and God's judgement later.

    19. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.

      What, so all we have to do is like, have the government pass a law declaring open season?

      Sounds like I need to write my senator and then go clean my shotgun!

    20. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Ghubi · · Score: 2, Informative

      What would you call it then? Accurate translation maybe?

    21. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by blingy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When did the church ever practice "Thou shalt not kill?" Finally there is a "Christian simulator" just as the Air Force uses flight simulators.

    22. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible.


      Actually, the idea that the proper understanding of the sense of the commandment is a prohibition on murder (which doesn't necessary give unlimited sanction to any killing a government sanctions, either) and not all killing isn't some innovation that "modern Christians" invented; it was the general interpretation before Christ (its hardly as if ancient Israel viewed either war or capital punishment as forbidden), and also the dominant interpretation from the earliest Christianity.

      If anything, the "innovation" throughout the history of Christianity has been finding progressively broader classes of acts of killing that are considered within the prohibition of the commandment.
    23. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take it to its most literal form, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is something no one on the planet can avoid. Plants and animals are put to death for our nourishment, as it was done in both the New and Old Testaments.

      As far as capital punishment is concerned, Jesus said it best. "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone."

    24. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      My question is what is your bridge to trying to justify homosexuality when it is called an abomination (Old and New Testament)? Just as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 call gay sex "detestable" and "an abomination" respectively, Leviticus 19:19 prohibits wearing cotton/polyester blends, 19:27 says not to trim your beard or shave off your sideburns, and 19:28 forbids tattoos. The argument is that if we're not going to take all the other commandments from Leviticus seriously, then we shouldn't take the ones about gay sex quite so seriously either.

      Romans 1 uses words like "shameful", "unnatural" "indecent" and "perversion". The precise meaning of some of it is open to interpretation, but I think it's undeniable that according to this passage, homosexuality is wrong and has consequences. This is stated in the context of an explanation though, not as a commandment not to do it.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    25. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Trouble for eating meat? Buddy, if you're going to take an absolutely literalist interpretation of the KJV (which says "kill" and not "murder" like many modern translations), eating plants would be breaking a commandment, too. They are, after all, alive prior to being cut down for food.

      No, according to that interpretation, Christians would have to be complete fruitarians.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    26. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      According to the psychotic Baptist minister I work with, God has appointed all rulers of men. This includes people like Hitler and Stalin according to him. He also believes that the Earth is a maximum of 15,000 years old, and that using that number puts him on the liberal side of reality. Carbon-dating doesn't work, because when they carbon-dated rocks from the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980, carbon-dating suggested that the rocks were millions of years old, rather than just 27. This is the tip of the iceberg when dealing with this guy.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    27. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by MirthScout · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Exo&chapter=20#n35 (scroll to 20:13) for a consensus of several linguists and Bible scolars of the best modern english translation from the original language of the Bible including translatior's notes (so you can see context and decide if you agree).

      Basically it says that murder (meaning unauthorised killing) is the closest word in modern english.

      So, in modern english: You shall not murder.

      Of course, we then get to argue forever on what authorize means who get's to do it.

    28. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I think Jude 1:7, 2 Peter 2, Romans 1 24-27 all cover it pretty well. Homosexuality is sin just as fornication is sin. But, hey, we all screw up in one manner or another. And nobody, I repeat that nobody should support a believer's (or unbeliever's) acts of sin. At the same time we should totally support them as believers and lift them up in any way possible. Jesus came to save, not to condemn. He didn't condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery, he forgave her. So, yes. Sin is sin. But God made the way through his Son. Covers ALL sin. Forgives ALL sin. Even the ones we will more than likely be guilt of in the future, it covers!

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    29. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      I think this is a good idea for the church... Get the kids used to being at the church, and interacting with their friends there, possibly even friends that they never get to see otherwise. It establishes it as a friendly place that they want to be, the kids have some supervision while they play, and everyone involved is happy. The ethics of playing an FPS at church aside, you're absolutely right. I grew up in a conservative Christian denomination and while my personal beliefs have swayed considerably from their doctrines, I'm still culturally very much an Adventist. Even though I don't ascribe much religious importance to the activities I still go to church, "keep the Sabbath day holy", tithe, etc... All because I had a youth group that I was heavily involved in during high school.

      Convictions aside I'm sure that most denomiations would prefer members who are active to members who are not, and making the church a social hub is a great way to do that.

      Is having Halo 3 parties necessary to creating that atmosphere? Not necessarily. My church never had any video gaming nights, and I managed to get my nerd on elsewhere and still stay active in the youth group. Halo 3 nights seem more like a cop-out for leaders who don't have the energy or ability to host more creative activities.
      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    30. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      This will come off as mean, but I would like to challenge your devoutness.

      If you look at Old testament law then there are specific instances where it it ok to kill, ie on the battlefield or capital punishment.

      However blanket killing or mistreatment of women does not line up with the bible I read. It says all have sinned. It treats everyone equally, be it men or women. Jesus treated women with respect. So I wouldn't say that the Bible says it is ok to kill women any more than it says it is ok to kill men, in certain circumstances. However the commandment is definitely do not murder.

      And out of curiosity, how often do you read the bible?

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    31. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Right on. Also likely, this is an effort by a church to be 'relevant' to young people.

      There ya go. Be 'relevant' by encouraging in your young people the same dissipative activity that leaves them feeling empty inside, and brought them towards your door in the first place.

      No, no, NO, I'm not proclaiming Halo 3 'dissipative'. For some of us, young or old, playing shootemup games is very fun, and very cool. For some, a few, though, like many activities, it leaves them hollow.

      Churches can do better than emulate our culture. And they should. Plenty of opportunity to play games elsewhere.

      At least pick more appropriate games, though I wouldn't want to have to decide on that.

      This sounds like an 'emergent church' plan. Not good.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    32. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      It might surprise you to realise that both OT and NT see the law as a gift of grace. I'll just give a few examples.
      • Deut 4 (especially vv8,10) - the law is the covenant which binds Israel to Yahweh.
      • Ps 119
      • Jn 1:16,17 - the first blessing from God's grace is the law of Moses, and the second is the grace and truth of Jesus.
      • Rom 7 - even as Paul explains how the law brought death, he's anxious to emphasise that it's good.
    33. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by dasbush · · Score: 1

      Some food for thought: Many laws in Leviticus became somewhat moot after Christ was crucified and resurrected. For instance, animal sacrifices are not necessary because we have the perfect sacrifice to offer in Jesus Christ, namely in the Eucharist (I am Catholic) which is the one and same sacrifice at Calvary, not a repetition of the Crucifixion. However, that being said, my knowledge of Pentateuchal Law is somewhat lacking, so I won't say that similar things are true for all the laws.

    34. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sweet.

      You're still telling me that my happy, healthy, monogamous, positive, adult relationship with my spouse is wrong. Why? Oh, just because. Because it is. No good reason.

      As for Jude, don't take it for granted that "sarkos heteras" is "homosexuality". And don't be so sure that the sin of Sodom was gayness - there's a good case to be made that it was rape and/or inhospitality - and besides, I'm not going to take moral lessons from a story in which a "good man" tries to give his daughters to be raped in place of angels. And for heaven's sake read the REST of Romans - and keep in mind that the words he originally used refer to temple prostitutes and ritual sex, not gay people.

      Not that I care - even if it was as clear as the thumpers pretend it is - even if Jesus said "And men who have sex with men will go to hell for it because I hate fags," it's still wrong.

      Have some faith in your own moral judgement, man. There's nothing wrong or immoral about my marriage. You're being lied to.

      CAPTCHA: oppress. Hee!

    35. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where are all the jews to set us straight! thou shalt not kill meant don't murder your fellow jews (the "fuck everybody else" was implied).

    36. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by onearmfreak · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that wouldn't work either. Fruits bears seeds, and as we all know ... "Every seed is sacred."

    37. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by hey! · · Score: 1

      And for heaven's sake read the REST of Romans


      As in "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."?

      I agree underlying vice being addressed is idolatry, not sexual pleasure. I'm not sure that Paul made a clear distinction between homosexuality and idolatry, but that could be cultural ignorance on his part. Even if you accept him as divinely inspired, it doesn't mean he is factually correct in conflating the two. What would be conclusive is a passage that condemns loving sexual relationships between men.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    38. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by lightsaber777 · · Score: 1

      The commandment is Jewish and I don't think it has ever meant anything but murder. If you look at the context, God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the tribes in Israel less than 50 years after He gave them the commandments. Also, capital punishment was used in the Old Testament as well. However, there is something to war that made one unfit for ceremonial things as far as the ancient Jewish example. For instance, the Levities were priests, not warriors, so that delineation was made. Also, even though God declared David "a man after His own heart", He did not allow David to build the temple, something he left for Solomon because Solomon was a man of peace. Previous to the giving of the Law however, there seems to be no such delineation given the story of Abraham and the story of Melchizidek. From these examples, there is not much Biblical foundation for condemning all war.

    39. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by scribblej · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's a very convincing argument ot be made that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" meant only Jews. You could kill all the gentiles you wanted. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins makes this very claim, if oyu need a reference. Basically the idea is that killing Gentiles isn't murder.

    40. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find "Thou shalt not kill," to be one of the most annoying contributions of poetry to lame internet debates. The King James Bible has a lot of translation problems when you stack it up against its Hebrew and Greek sources. The fact that the translators often tried to ape meter and poetic verse with their word choices seriously hurt it compared to say, the Latin Vulgate.

      The fact is, the bulk of the world's Christians don't read Bibles that say, "Thou shalt not kill." Most of them read Bibles that keep closer to the more accurate translation of "Thou shalt not murder," and typically in languages other than English (Spanish being among the most popular). The Hebrew prohibition was against acts of murder and severe cases of man-slaughter. It never laid down a blanket prohibition against eating animal meat, killing someone in self-defense, executing capital criminals, or killing enemy forces in wartime - not in the time of Moses, the time of David, nor the time of Jesus.

      This kind of reminds me of just how alien "Easter" is when you compare it to all the non-English words for the holiday. The Anglos took Pascha and relabeled it with an old pagan festival title.

    41. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by oh2 · · Score: 1

      A modern view of christianity is that war and murder are both immoral. The old testament is as much a collection of laws as a historical document of the tribes of Israel. The new testament is the 2.0 "upgrade" which fixes some bugs, among them the concept of turning the other cheek and the idea that a two wrongs dont make a right.

      --

      Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

    42. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by megaditto · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that the United States is a Christian nation (a theocracy). It's probably an easy mistake to make since everyone keeps repeating it.

      I believe a theologian will tell you that the idea of America is based largely on Masonism (liberty/democracy, religious tolerance, local self-government), some Judaism (the rule of law/lawgiver paradigm (re Moses) and the chosen People/City on the Hill attitude), and even some Satanism to boot.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    43. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 1

      If you look at the context, God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the tribes in Israel less than 50 years after He gave them the commandments. It certainly wouldn't be the first contradictory thing in the Bible.
      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    44. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe the Bible supports the concept of man's laws now and God's judgement later. So killing people is ok as long as you pass a law first? Remind me not to vote for christians...
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    45. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by rootEToTheIPi · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the intent of the original writing was "thou shalt not kill within thy group." So it depended on the social structure you lived in. It seems to me to be an extension of the greek prohibition against patri/matricide. In the US: thou shalt not kill except to protect the innocent, i.e. self defense, state performed executions.

      --
      When it comes to pastry theft, I take the cake.
    46. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by rootEToTheIPi · · Score: 1

      Here is a previous post I made about this.

      --
      When it comes to pastry theft, I take the cake.
    47. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      While it may be an accurate translation, it makes the whole thing about as toothless as the European Convention on Human Rights. Thou shalt not kill, unless thou can think up a really good justification is a pretty lame commandment. Mind you, it's about what I'd expect from a deity whose first three commandments are all about how great he is.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    48. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Mind you, it's about what I'd expect from a deity whose first three commandments are all about how great he is.

      No, the first commandment is about not worshipping any other gods. That is perfectly reasonable; after all, if you're a god, and the only God at that, and know that others are false, so worshipping them and obeying their rules is stupid at best and downright disastrous at worst, why wouldn't you just forbid it ?

      The irony here is that almost any atheistic argument can be used to justify this particular religious command :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    49. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do. As opposed to all the Christians killing and eating plants? OMG THE PLANTS ARE ALIVE! (hears a distant shot and a vegetarian thud)
    50. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Dawkins, it meant "you shall not kill your neighbour" ie: your fellow jew

    51. Re:Thou shalt not kill? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      So killing people is ok as long as you pass a law first? Remind me not to vote for christians...

      I don't think I said that. I said the Bible supports the concept of Man's Laws and God's Laws. Man is accountable man's laws now and accountable to God's laws in the after life. Similar concepts exist in Islam too.

      The same concept holds true for tythings and taxes, at least in Christianity, where comments were made to the money changers stating, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

  5. Halo? Eh. by morari · · Score: 4, Funny

    DooM would be in better line with the church's views.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  6. Well, we haven't do that exactly... by GweeDo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At my church (church of about 100 in a town of 2000) we happily use video games and things like that to bring teens in. While we have never used M rated games, we do have Wii tournaments from time to time. It is a great way to give the kids something safe to do (in a town of 2000 there isn't much) and gets them comfortable with the Church and the Youth Leaders we have.

    In regards to Halo 3 though, I do know our Senior High Sunday School teacher used it as the basis for his lesson last week. He actually had me come up and give a brief overview of the story from Halo 1 and 2 to start things off ;)

    Churches do need to be careful to be "in the world, but not of it", but at the same time don't be afraid of using main stream culture and entertainment in new ways to both teach and to simply get people interested.

    1. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      We use the Wii too. There's nothing like a 20 foot diagonal measure screen with a 3000 lumen projector and an 18" subwoofer to make playing video games a little more fun.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by Funkcikle · · Score: 1, Funny

      At my church (church of about 100 in a town of 2000) we happily use video games and things like that to bring teens in.
      What happened - did you run out of puppies? Did they stop believing that their parents really HAD been in an accident and you'd been sent to collect them from school?

      What kind of "church" are you part of, exactly!
    3. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      In regards to Halo 3 though, I do know our Senior High Sunday School teacher used it as the basis for his lesson last week. He actually had me come up and give a brief overview of the story from Halo 1 and 2 to start things off ;) Wow, that's sure different from the religious environment I grew up in. I pirated Doom like the rest of the teenagers back when it came out. (That's Doom 1 for all you whippersnappers.) I liked it so much I mail-ordered a copy so I could support id. Well, I wasn't home when the package arrived. My parents gave me a huge lecture about the evils of whatever this devil worship stuff was I downloaded and my stepdad actually took the disks behind the house and smashed them with a sledgehammer. He then used razorblades to slice up the magnetic disk inside, just to make sure he got at all the evil. Fucking Christ. I mean, I could understand this sort of reaction over Daikatana... Needless to say, money was not the only reason why I continued to pirate games -- piracy was the only way to make sure there were no incriminating boxes sitting around.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At my church (church of about 100 in a town of 2000) we happily use video games and things like that to bring teens in.

      And other churches use sex to bring raw meat in for processing. So what? Just because you do it, doesn't make it defensible.

      Halo 3 is a gore and violence-fest. If you have to use tricks and lures to get converts, that isn't something I'd be crowing over in public. Ends and means and all that.
    5. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      Heh, I really got an earful from my mom with Quake when I was going up the path to kill Shub Niggurath. Not to mention for my Slayer and Pantera discs. From Half-Life on, all gaming was done either in the basement, LAN parties, or at the gaming joint.

      But when I was still in church, we had Goldeneye and then Perfect Dark...and in college, someone was offended that I called him a "fucking fag" for teabagging me in Halo (not a wholly inaccurate description given the context)...very Christian behavior, that wholesome teabagging and gloating, but God forbid you chastise someone with "strong" language!

    6. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get people interested?

      I guess that several thousand year old fairy tale isn't cutting it anymore.

      Wouldn't the first step to larger congregations be to pray for it? Or was that tried and it failed? If god(s) wanted more people to worship why don't they just make it happen. They have those omnipotent magical powers don't they?

      Keeping our young away from church is in the best interest of our future.

      Posted anonymously because it can still be dangerous to be atheist in this world.

    7. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by uepuejq · · Score: 0

      how is this any different from a pedophile using candy to lure in children, or some freak spiked fish using a light to lure other freaky spiked fish into its mouth? i guess the perpetrator of such violences against the perceived victims would possess the justification by default, else he'd have to be considered mad to have ever violated a person(or fish)'s rights so horribly. the whole 'hypocrite' side of things is stupid and superficial. this isn't about whether or not people will be people and do things that go against whatever strict doctrine they claim to adhere to. it's impossible to be a human being and follow every rule you want to follow from a 2000 page book. the problem here is that we can't just assume the means are justified by the end simply because we are participators in the end itself. people should want to be christians because they identify with the reasoning for being christian, whether that reasoning be fear, love, togetherness, or what have you. i'm not interested in getting into a debate about what christianity is worth, but seriously, using halo to get people to identify church with fun? do these kids even know the stories of abraham or that the bible would have them stoned to death for telling their mom to wait because they have just one more flag to cap before the game is over? ignorance is only bliss when you ignore the harsh realities of a subject. it's so easy to get people to believe in your cause when you've got halo parties and you can pick and choose the parts of a religious text that you 'feel' apply to your life. there are 5 billion people on this planet who are actually convinced some form of a god would actually side with them on issues others feel the complete opposite about and also feel god would side with them on. what the hell are you thinking? do you really feel entitled to let people 'know' things that you 'feel' are true? i know it seems harmless to use video games to get people to 'join your club,' because neither of those things (the video game or the club) seem threatening to you, but that's only because you have no competing understanding and the people you lure in aren't given the proper information or argumentation/logic skills to properly assess the situation they're being lured into!

    8. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      I was pretty well condemned by my church for having said that at one time I enjoyed watching Pokemon. I think I was 18 at the time, but I really did enjoy the stupid hilarity of the program. It taught some life-lessons and was more or less non-violent in that nobody every died, they just konked out for a while.

      The reason for the pitchforks? TSR had been bought the company that printed the Pokemon card game WotC. TSR makes D&D. D&D is evil. Now Pokemon is evil... I wasn't too thrilled. I went straight to the pastor's wife, the woman who cooked all this up, or read about it somewhere, and explained to her that some things just aren't evil. Even D&D. They may be strange and have side-effects that are not limited to, but do include declining grooming ability in many cases...

      Basically there was a long drawn out conversation between me, the new Christian in town, and the older 'wiser' woman of God. After all that she finally understood that people are smart enough to know the difference between real an make-believe. Mr. Rogers taught me well, but this woman apparently missed the lesson. She got it after a while. Yes, it's just a TV show/game/movie.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    9. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      "you lure in aren't given the proper information or argumentation/logic skills to properly assess the situation they're being lured into!"

      I don't know who you have dealt with in the past, but I present my faith to people in a very non-threating manor and happily answer any and all questions they have. I am a member of the Church of the Nazarene and we have zero "hidden beliefs", so people have everything available to them to "assess the situation" at the time they are there and when they go home themselves.

      Comparing actions like this from any non-profit organization (not just religious institutions) is appalling. If you had a bad experience in the past I am sorry for you, but you shouldn't be casting such blanket judgments and analysis towards anyone that using popular culture to introduce themselves and their organization to individuals.

    10. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by uepuejq · · Score: 0

      well, you said it, so it must be true. where do i sign up?

    11. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      I still don't think that you get it, I am not saying that you should believe me simply because I said it. I am saying that we provide people with all the information up front. If they choose not to believe it, then they were able to make that choice knowing fully what we believe. On the same note, if they do decide to stick around and end up becoming a member of our church, they do it knowing fully what we believe.

    12. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by uepuejq · · Score: 0

      i don't think YOU get it. are you telling me that all i had to do to find out how the universe came to be in its current state is ASK YOU? whether or not somebody knows what you believe and whether they'd like to 'believe that too' has nothing to do with ANYTHING i said. in fact, it only serves to support what i said more fully. the sad fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. you inject all of these negative connotations into your responses to me, as though i had a bad experience with religion and that's what keeps me from respecting the 'fact' that 'your' church (rofl?) gives people all the 'information' up front.

      notice the inclusion of quotes around those keywords? that's because i'm being sarcastic. i think your first mistake in responding to me is that you do so under the assumption that the severity and classification of my feelings in regard to religion somehow sway my opinion of it. they don't, but even if they did you would be wrong because i never had a 'bad' experience when i attended church. i'd say it was rather boring and uninteresting, but whatever.

    13. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      I have no issue with you thinking that I am crazy, delusional and have no idea what I am talking about. The only statement you made that I take issue with is:
      "you lure in aren't given the proper information or argumentation/logic skills to properly assess the situation they're being lured into!"

      We simply do no such thing. We allow people (such as yourself) to make decisions on their own. We use no cult like practices/tools to persuade people. You obviously don't agree with me, that is fine and if anyone else disagrees that is fine too. I am just glad that I provided them with any information they would want/need to make their decision.

      Hope that clears it up.

    14. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by uepuejq · · Score: 0

      i never mentioned anything about cult practices or tools. you said you use halo 3 to get kids to join your church. i'm glad you're glad you 'provide' people with such information to make informed decisions as uh, how to strafe jump or whatever.

    15. Re:Well, we haven't do that exactly... by Ryan+Mallon · · Score: 1

      I never really understood the idea of using rock music, video games, etc to bring people into a Church. Christianity is supposed to be about a belief in God and being kind to your fellow man. Getting together and jamming some songs, or going a few rounds of multi-player Halo is just hanging out with your mates. Now, if the Church is doing this as a way to keep teens out of trouble then that's great, but sell it for what it is. You aren't getting them to join the Christian Church, you are providing them with a free place to play music, games, whatever. How many of those kids would have joined if the games weren't offered, and how many will stay if you take them away.

      To use an analogy, it is sort of like solving the few women in computer science/engineering "problem" by offering chick flick movie night instead of lectures. From the outside it looks great, you would have lots of women enrolled in computer science, it doesn't make them computer scientists though. Just because your Church has lots of teens there playing Halo, does not make them all Christian.

  7. Bingo nights, 21st century style by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    Calling the Church hypocritical over "Halo nights" is glossing over the last 20 centuries. If you want to compare it to anything, count it like the regular Bingo tournaments routinely held in just about every "House of God" these days. Only there's no money being wagered, so there's not even that to criticize.

    1. Re:Bingo nights, 21st century style by ed.mps · · Score: 1

      mod parent insightful, the pseudo-churches use almost everything to catch people's money... nothing bad to see here, please move along

      disclaimer: i'm an atheist.

      --
      !sig
  8. Churches uses? by jnaujok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does Zonk have access to a grammar reference, or an editor's guide? Yeah, I'm sacrificing karma for this.

    --
    Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  9. WWJF? by kjkeefe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who Would Jesus Frag?

    I'd love to go to one of these things, name my guy Jesus, and then berate anyone who frags me. "How dare you slay the son of god!?!?!?!?!"

    --
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
    1. Re:WWJF? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a trick question, since God hates frags.

    2. Re:WWJF? by steveo777 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Been there, done that. :)

      My friends and I often have nights like this and a few have been church-sponsored. Halo, Mario Kart... whatever, as long as the game isn't too racy for the people holding the controllers (and the situation) then it's usually a non-issue. My pastor plays Halo on occasion. If he were against it, I'd still play because I know it's just fine with God. At the same time I'd respect the pastor's wishes and not bring it to the youth-oriented events. The article is just some guy trying to be a sensationalist. Blowing something out of proportion for a buck.

      PS. Some people might take it the wrong way, but when you've got Jesus, the 12 disciples, both Mary's and Lazarus running around a Halo multiplayer map, hilarity always ensues. We got the idea from the Penny Arcade (can't link, behind websence..).

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    3. Re:WWJF? by kyriosdelis · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a trick question, since God hates frags. True...It took his son 3 days to respawn.
      --
      I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
    4. Re:WWJF? by java_dev · · Score: 1

      Happy to see that I'm not the only Christian who reads slashdot... and plays Halo.

    5. Re:WWJF? by grassy_knoll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man that's a hell of a lag...

    6. Re:WWJF? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I know that generally one shouldn't respond to hate speech, but I find myself unable to control my curiosity at your reaction. Why is what he said so objectionable to you?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:WWJF? by trongey · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...when you've got Jesus, the 12 disciples, both Mary's and Lazarus running around a Halo multiplayer map...

      I wouldn't want to play Jesus or Lazarus. They take like 3 days to respawn.
      Does one of the Marys attack with a bottle of oil?
      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    8. Re:WWJF? by Torvaun · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know who Jesus would frag, but Judas was all about the TK. Look, it's even the right game.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    9. Re:WWJF? by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1
      You're certainly not the only Christian playing violent video games and reading Slashdot. But here is my concern with using this as a "tool" to reach today's youth as part of a church's outreach program:

      In rural Minnesota, Mr. Drexler said, the church needs something powerful to compete against the lure of less healthy behaviors. "We have to find something that these kids are interested in doing that doesn't involve drugs or alcohol or premarital sex."

      OK, so the Bible is pretty clear on "unhealthy behavior", i.e. 'sin' - don't do it. But what this 'Mr. Drexler' from rural Minnesota is neglecting is the fact that it's not those three things that constitute the greatest sins. There is no greatest sin according to the Bible, because all sin is simply that: sin. If playing Halo leads a child (or adult) to increased narcissistic behavior in which their life is centered around pleasing themselves outside of the 4 walls of the church building - even if through video games instead of sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll - then it's still sin. And is this really offering the same kind of "community" and "fellowship" that Christ offers to us? I don't think so. Christ's message was one of love and one singular way to experience His love - believe in His gift of eternal salvation through His death on the cross and love Him above all else. Are these kids getting loved, or just marketed to by playing Halo at the church building? Yes, I'm sure some of that is going on, but you don't NEED Halo in order to show a kid, or an adult, true love and caring for them as a person. In fact, they don't even need to be at a church building because the community of Christ should not be centered around showing up to events at some building; it should be about every single day of our lives having others who share in our daily struggles and love Christ and others and are actively seeking to show that love daily - not just at the church building!

      Using a video game that is 1) rated 'M', and 2) is being used as marketing to get kids just to show up at church is in my mind a dubious justification for allowing it in church - ESPECIALLY when the parents (as clueless as they may be) are unaware of the rating of the game. As one of the other points made in the article pointed out: lots of teenage boys would show up to church if alcohol and pr0n were easily available, but that doesn't make it right or even legal in most states!

      In summary, catering to the narcissism of today's youth just to get them through the doors of a church is not helping anyone - especially churches. It's only further exasperating the problem of kids (and adults!) becoming more and more closed off and selfish individuals in our society.

      I speak as a Christian who plays CSS:Source from time to time (in the comfort of my own home), enjoys playing video games in general, reads slashdot semi-regularly, and still thinks it's every individual's and every individual parent's right to decide what types of video games they should and should not be playing, but thinks that fellow Christians should not be helping children dangle their feet in the world of violent video games just to show that they're "cool" too.

    10. Re:WWJF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd still play because I know it's just fine with God
      Actually, it's not just fine with me, but please, go on interpreting everything I do or don't wrongly, you're not the first to do so...
    11. Re:WWJF? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Not the right game, but don't forget this one.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    12. Re:WWJF? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      People like him really should be looked at with fucking puzzlement. And that's what I'm doing. What the hell is wrong with these people?

      Even if you believe religious beliefs to be delusional, that's no real excuse for a lack of civility. I called your words "hate speech" because that's what they are at face value -- speech that reflects hatred.

      And frankly an irrational hatred at that. You claim not to have any major objections to anything he said, but you spew venom and bile in his direction because of certain assumptions you make about the way he thinks. That's not civil or rational discourse and frankly make you the person that needs to be "looked at with fucking puzzlement." It's a strange society we live in when people can justify their vocal contempt for the thoughts and beliefs of others under the rubric of "free speech" -- which is a principle founded on the respect for the thoughts and beliefs of others.

      I think you have some anger issues that you need to have looked at if something as innocuous as playing some games with some friends from church or expressing (in the portion you quoted) the confidence to follow one's own beliefs instead of just sheepishly following whatever his pastor tells him creates such a vitriolic reaction in you. Chill out.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    13. Re:WWJF? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Civility. Do I need an excuse to behave what you would call 'uncivil?' I didn't really think so at the time of my posting, but maybe I'll consider that next time I ever say anything that's in my head.

      Honestly, I don't care about being civil. I care about being logical, and I care about what things are true and which things aren't. I have a problem with the entire designation of "hate speech." It seems a little too close to 'thought crime' to me, and that's the way things in my political system (that being the United States) seem to be heading. There is no reason it should be frowned upon to speak your mind out about anything, regardless of how you say it. That's what our country is founded upon it, and I'll fight for your right and my right to say as much "hate speech" as we feel like. I'll also fight for your right to speak about your religion (well, so long as you don't do it in school [when discussed in factual context] or government.. please), and even to be 'insensitive' to my atheist/ignostic views. That's the beauty of it, and I really wouldn't have it any other way. Also, I don't feel it's necessary to add legislation for 'hate crime laws,' because we already have generic laws covering things that are crimes. The only thing this legislation serves to achieve is demoralization and control of the populace, and it's incredibly hypocritical, at best. But that's another point.

      Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me say that I don't hate anything. I don't hate the person or hate the speech, but I think the speech is stupid. I didn't say that I the person, either. This seems to be a common error of people who like to appeal to emotion and commit similarl logical fallacies. I'm all about good argument, and not appeals to ignorance. You can't just go around conflating what someone says with that person themselves. Yeah, I did call him a retard or an idiot, but that's a rhetorical device to convey my point. Granted, I do really think he is an idiot, or atleast probably so, but the overall idea behind what I was saying is to just gawk in amazement at the amount of illogic present in his writing. I don't generally go around hating or even disliking people when I read their forum posts. In fact, I take each post on its own merits. If you manage to write something stupid, you could even be someone I truly admire or respect, and I will call you out for it -- quite possibly call you an idiot, as well. I like to call people idiots when I think they're being that thing. The fact that you think I should stop doing this just shows to me what an idiot you are, and how much you really dislike having to deal with freedom of speech. Personally, I love the stuff, and I don't think religion or anything else should be shielded from my vitriolic rants or any other form of polemic. That's how I react no matter the subject, if someone says something completely absurd, and I'll continue to do that, unless you can bring up good evidence that being free and expressing myself is a bad thing. Sure, you can argue that being 'uncivil' (laugh), again, isn't favoring myself in the 'community,' but why should I care, again, when I only care for what is true, and I really quite enjoy not having to respect people's idiotic beliefs, and I'd prefer to live in a society of people with some form of common sense?

      I don't claim anything. You do claim, however, that I make assumptions about the way this guy thinks, which I just said I really don't. And why would I? You're making assumptions about the way I'm thinking. I take each comment on its own merits, and I apply logic to it. To his comment, there was none. I don't have to personally object or find it 'offensive' what he said to be critical of it, unlike some people whose only standards for ever doing anything are 'insensitivity.' I think we need more insensitivity, really. It's tiring when people like you (did I just make an assumption about you?!?!?) go around pandering to emotional appeals to propagate whatever so-called progressive agenda you migh

  10. Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's actually a common misconception that the Bible condemns killing. The misquoted verse from the 10 commandments was mis-translated in the KJV as "thou shalt not kill". Instead it should have been translated as "thou shalt not murder". The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime. What it does condemn is murder. So with this in mind Halo doesn't violate the 10 commandments at all.

    Yes, I'm a Christian, and yes I love playing Halo.

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    1. Re:Killing != Murder by Applekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So with this in mind Halo doesn't violate the 10 commandments at all. Heh, and all this time I thought it was because it was just a game and not real. Silly me. :)
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 1

      And let me amend my last comment by saying that Halo is just a game, and I don't agree with those who would say I'm more violent because I enjoy crushing the aliens under my steel shod boot. All I was intending to say in the parent was that even if Halo were real, it still wouldn't violate scripture's command to abstain from murder.

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    3. Re:Killing != Murder by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I still want to know how this God person managed to write a book (giant paper?) and get such a good distribution deal.

    4. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you must be more grounded in reality compared to the majority of Christians around me, as I've been told by several of them that "thou shalt not kill" really means to not be angry at someone because being angry at someone is really wanting them dead and that offends God. These are also the same people that say that to look at a woman with lust in your eyes means you're comitting adultery even if you're not married. So, while your interpretation of The Bible might fit your own world view, do know that there are people out there who consider themselves just as right with an almost opposite world view.

    5. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bible (and God it's author)
      I was under the impression that god DIDN'T write the bible...I mean, after all, if god was the author, why do bible's have copyright dates? Is god afraid of someone spreading the word illegally?

      The bible was written by man...just like the torah, just like the que'ran, just like every religious book. Written by men who thought the world was flat.
    6. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This is OT, but it's simple. A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years. B) An the reason it's distribution is so good is because it's the truth. I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written, with no contradictions in the book. No wonder it's so popular. Not to mention that it has the power to change lives (bring about world peace, etc.).

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    7. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No contradictions? Are you joking? Have you actually read the thing and thought about things? or are you just spouting the mindcontrol bullshit you've been trained to do?

    8. Re:Killing != Murder by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      Blimey. I wonder if you're for real. Regardless, lets go step by step here:

      > A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years
      So are we, like, talking Jesus now, or what? Jesus is God? I'm confused.

      > B) An the reason it's distribution is so good is because it's the truth.
      Go on...

      > I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written,
      Like a nursery rhyme?

      > with no contradictions in the book.
      Like Harry Potter

      > No wonder it's so popular.
      Like Harry Potter

      > Not to mention that it has the power to change lives
      Like Harry Potter

      > (bring about world peace, etc.).
      Yeah, let me know when that happens.

      Anyway, I'm off to walk on some water...

    9. Re:Killing != Murder by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Rearranging the memory registers of a Turing machine simulator =/= killing, so it's a moot point anyway :-P

      It does however raise (beg?) the question of the morality of "killing" sufficiently conscious beings in a realistic virtual world. In my irrelevant opinion, it is morally permissible for a person to kill virtual beings in a simulation created in his world, but the beings within that world are still obligated to treat "users" from the overworld the same as anyone else since they cannot allow people to exploit such a loophole.

      Did I have too much coffee today?

    10. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      a) it was written by many people with little to no knowledge of how we know the world works b) its distribution is so good because the early christians used alot of elements of paganism including their festivals and all christians target children who aren't able to think critically. Its fulfilled many vague prophecies (see astrology for how to do that) and lets not forget jesus coming back in the lifetime of his disciples being an important one. Lots and LOTS of contradictions and interpretations due to it being written by handfuls of people with totally different ideas about the world that were merged together without any editing. look at the 2 beggat lists, they don't even list Joseph's father with the same name, nice one god, you think you'd know that. Not to mention the power to cause more wars, torture, killing and suffering than anything else in the world, definitely changed alot of peoples lives in that respect.

    11. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "No contradictions? Are you joking? Have you actually read the thing and thought about things?"

      Yes I have read it through. Some parts more times than I can count. And I have thought about some parts to the extent that I have them memorized. So, if you are interested in debating this logically , feel free to e-mail me at tbaldridge at gmail dot com. Otherwise, I have to ask if you are just spouting off what you have been told about the Bible without researching and studying it yourself.

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    12. Re:Killing != Murder by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      Please explain the difference. Either all life is sacred, or it's not. If it's not, who decides when it is and not? You? Me? GWB?

    13. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 1

      Blimey. I wonder if you're for real. Regardless, lets go step by step here: > A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years >> So are we, like, talking Jesus now, or what? Jesus is God? I'm confused. The two are one in the same. Jesus is God. > B) An the reason it's distribution is so good is because it's the truth. >> Go on... As people listen and read it, it changes their lives, after these changes they in turn want to share what happened to them with others. Hence the distribution. > I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written, >> Like a nursery rhyme? Hardly, for instance, the destruction of Tyre was foretold years before it happened. And it was prophesied at a time when it was rediculous to even think of the city being destoried. Years later, Nebucadnezzer started the job, and it was finished by Alexander the Great. The Bible even foretold that when it was destroyed the army that razed it would sow salt upon their fields. And guess what, that's what the Babylonians did. Read the book of Daniel. It's full of prophecies of what would happen 100-500 years after the life of the writer. > with no contradictions in the book. >> Like Harry Potter Maybe, but HP was written by one person in less than 50 years. Try claiming that for a book written by 20+ people over 1000 years. The only way that can be explained is if one being (God) inspired all the writers. > No wonder it's so popular. >> Like Harry Potter Hardly, the Bible is the most printed book in the world. HP doesn't even come close. > Not to mention that it has the power to change lives >> Like Harry Potter When was the last time you heard of someone giving up drinking, beating their wife, doing drugs, cheating on their husband because of HP? > (bring about world peace, etc.). >> Yeah, let me know when that happens. It's happening, slowly. >> Anyway, I'm off to walk on some water... Have a nice swim!

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    14. Re:Killing != Murder by vertinox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime.

      Oddly enough the old testament seems to be advocating genocide. Shortly after Moses got the 10 commandments, god told Joshua to kill off everyone (including women and children) in cities who would not submit to the chosen people's rule.

      I'd also like to point out many early non-Catholic Christians actually viewed the old testament as evil and written by the hand of a demi-urge. However the Papacy would have none of that and had most of these people put to death over the course of several thousand years.

      Most notably were the Cathars and various other gnostic sects. If the Papacy had only the new testament to work with then they would have little to justify their wars of religion and garner support from newly converted pagans who wished to continue their warring ways.

      To be really fair, there is no mention of hell in the old testament and is actually only referred to as the physical location in the new testament in name (not the lake of fire in revelations which isn't referred to as directly as hell) which was pulled directly to Roman-pagan mythology hades as a form of underworld punishment rather then the concept of "separation of God".

      And if really want to get to be a historical stickler there is no ancient Greek word for "homosexual" which Leviticus refers too but rather the word means "soft" which could mean weak willed by context.

      At any rate, simply using the 10 commandments literally needs some context to the situation. You also have to remember there are plenty of other dietary and Jewish old testament laws that many people ignore which are just as important. I mean we still don't put people to death for working on the Sabbath (which according to Jewish law is Saturday by the way and not Sunday) nor do we sell our daughters into slavery.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    15. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 1

      >> Blimey. I wonder if you're for real. Regardless, lets go step by step here:

      > A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years
      >> So are we, like, talking Jesus now, or what? Jesus is God? I'm confused.
      The two are one in the same. Jesus is God.

      > B) An the reason it's distribution is so good is because it's the truth.
      >> Go on...
      As people listen and read it, it changes their lives, after these changes they in turn want to share what happened to them with others. Hence the distribution.

      > I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written,
      >> Like a nursery rhyme?
      Hardly, for instance, the destruction of Tyre was foretold years before it happened. And it was prophesied at a time when it was rediculous to even think of the city being destoried. Years later, Nebucadnezzer started the job, and it was finished by Alexander the Great. The Bible even foretold that when it was destroyed the army that razed it would sow salt upon their fields. And guess what, that's what the Babylonians did. Read the book of Daniel. It's full of prophecies of what would happen 100-500 years after the life of the writer.

      > with no contradictions in the book.
      >> Like Harry Potter

      Maybe, but HP was written by one person in less than 50 years. Try claiming that for a book written by 20+ people over 1000 years. The only way that can be explained is if one being (God) inspired all the writers.

      > No wonder it's so popular.
      >> Like Harry Potter
      Hardly, the Bible is the most printed book in the world. HP doesn't even come close.

      > Not to mention that it has the power to change lives
      >> Like Harry Potter
      When was the last time you heard of someone giving up drinking, beating their wife, doing drugs, cheating on their husband because of HP?

      > (bring about world peace, etc.).
      >> Yeah, let me know when that happens.
      It's happening, slowly.

      >> Anyway, I'm off to walk on some water...
      Have a nice swim!

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    16. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      One would think that if you've read the Bible several times, you might have noticed the contradiction right at the start, between Genesis 1 and 2. Gen 1 says that humans were created male and female on the 6th day, before God rested and after the animals of the earth(Gen 1:26-27); Gen 2 documents creation of first male human after God rested (Gen 2:5,7), then the creation of land animals (Gen 2:19), and finally the creation of female humans (Gen 2:21-22).

      At maximum, only one of these sequences is correct, and the fact that both exist makes me wonder exactly where inerrantists start reading from.


      (references: Vulgate and KJV; verse numbers are consistent)

    17. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 1

      >>a) it was written by many people with little to no knowledge of how we know the world works
      And modern science is any better? Really how can you say that ^^ considering that the views of scientists today changing every few years. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

      >>b) its distribution is so good because the early christians used alot of elements of paganism including their festivals and all christians target children who aren't able to think critically.
      Sounds like modern evolution indoctrination to me.

      >>Its fulfilled many vague prophecies (see astrology for how to do that) and lets not forget jesus coming back in the lifetime of his disciples being an important one.
      See my other comments to this post if you want to debate this

      >>Lots and LOTS of contradictions and interpretations due to it being written by handfuls of people with totally different ideas about the world that were merged together without any editing. look at the 2 beggat lists, they don't even list Joseph's father with the same name, nice one god, you think you'd know that.
      That's because one lists his heritage on his Mother's side, and the other from his Father's

      >>Not to mention the power to cause more wars, torture, killing and suffering than anything else in the world, definitely changed alot of peoples lives in that respect.
      What wars? What torture? The Holocaust? That was done by sadistic man. The Crusades? That was done by a evil Pope in charge of an group of people whom most God fearing christians don't even call Christian. The Inquisition, the same.

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    18. Re:Killing != Murder by babyrat · · Score: 1

      What it does condemn is murder

      and yet crows freely gather in my yard all the time - I keep expecting the giant lightning strike, but alas, it never comes...

    19. Re:Killing != Murder by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      You may well be trolling, but assuming you're serious:

      he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years.

      What, this omnipotent god of yours had to work through a bunch of balding monkeys, rather that just saying "Zotz! Biblios appearus!" or something?

      I can walk into the library and find dozens, if not hundreds, of books that claim to be inspired by gods or other supernatural entities, from the Upanishads to the latest New Age bestseller from someone channeling telepathic transmissions from Sirius. The Bible just ain't special.

      including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written

      What, prophecies like Jesus's that the world would end during the lifetime of some of his followers (Luke 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.", and 21:32: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.":)

      Let me write and edit a book in which I get to report both the prophecy and the outcomes, and I could make all sorts of prophecies come true. But Biblical authors and editors couldn't even do that.

      with no contradictions in the book.

      I'm afraid you're again in error.

      Look, if you find churchgoing a rewarding expereince, great. Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.

      But if you believe that the Bible is any guide to history, cosmology, metaphysics, or pretty much any aspect of objective consensus reality, you're sadly mistaken.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    20. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's simple. Ever read a preface? You'll notice that Genesis describes the creation account several times. First it starts with a one verse overview, then a day by day account, and finally a generic overview of what he did when he created the earth. We do this all the time. Imagine I was writing a manual on how to build a computer. I could say:

      Here I will show you how you can build a computer.

      1) find a case. 2) put the motherboard in the case. 3) add a video card.....

      So now you see how to build a computer. The video comes from a card that is inserted into the motherboard. etc...

      There is no contradiction in what I just wrote. It's simply several ways of saying the same thing.

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    21. Re:Killing != Murder by tbcpp · · Score: 1

      >>You may well be trolling, but assuming you're serious:
      >> he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years.
      >>What, this omnipotent god of yours had to work through a bunch of balding monkeys, rather that just saying "Zotz! Biblios appearus!" or something?
      >>I can walk into the library and find dozens, if not hundreds, of books that claim to be inspired by gods or other supernatural entities, from the Upanishads to the latest New Age bestseller >>from someone channeling telepathic transmissions from Sirius. The Bible just ain't special.
      >> including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written
      True, but how many of them can claim to be written over such a period of time, and yet line up with history. The Mormons claim to know about the history of South America, but their view falls flat on its face when we look at history.

      >>What, prophecies like Jesus's that the world would end during the lifetime of some of his followers (Luke 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of >>death, till they see the kingdom of God.", and 21:32: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.":)
      That's not a foretelling of the end of the world, but of the fulfilment of Jesus's prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed (AD 70 only ~40 years after it was prophicied). His disciples asked just before this "what would be the sign of these things [jerusalem's destruction], and of the end of the age". And indeed we did see (and are seeing) the power of God's kingdom. After Jesus accended the Christian movement swept through the world even in spite of Nero's persecution.

      >>Let me write and edit a book in which I get to report both the prophecy and the outcomes, and I could make all sorts of prophecies come true. But Biblical authors and editors couldn't even do >>that.
      Sure, if you do it in hindsight. Try writing a book about the future
      >> with no contradictions in the book.
      >>I'm afraid you're again in error.
      >>Look, if you find churchgoing a rewarding expereince, great. Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.
      >>But if you believe that the Bible is any guide to history, cosmology, metaphysics, or pretty much any aspect of objective consensus reality, you're sadly mistaken.

      And why is that?

      Well folks this little OT discussion has been fun, but I need to get back to work. So e-mail me at tbaldridge at gmail dot com and I will reply after hours.

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    22. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mormons claim to know about the history of South America, but their view falls flat on its face when we look at history. South Park said so! (this is not a troll)
    23. Re:Killing != Murder by kanweg · · Score: 1

      4 authors of the bible are known: John, Luke, Matthew and Mark.

      And the old testament isn't written as first-person book either.

      Bert
      Who'd believe in Yagolah if a religious book contained a verifiable fact that could not be known by men at the time (say, "Saturn has a moon like the earth, of the same size", the "backside of the moon doesn't have seas", "every human comes from a thread of life, built up of 4 buidling blocks, the thread having two helix-shaped intertwined strands".

    24. Re:Killing != Murder by joe+155 · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that your fair account of the bible as it applies here has been modded as flamebait - I agree with pretty much everything you have said here based on my readings of the book... Although it bears remembering that all the girls who had not "known" men were free game for rape rather than just being killed. If the person who modded you had only replied so we could know why he thought what you said was wrong...

      As I am fond of advocating, you really ought to consider reading Tom Paine's "the age of reason" (both parts, the second part is particularly devastating from the point of view of biblical accuracy and the level of trust you should place in the "laws" of the bible. He even suggests why they might have been added. It's free on Gutenburg!

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    25. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, are you referring to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or_ZRWZT6KE

    26. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the various interpretations and "versions" of the bible as well...that just makes the idea that it is god's words even more absurd. "I think what god meant to say was..." Yeah. You'll convince me using that kind of phrase, skippy.

      As far as the last part of your comment goes, I'm not saying that those types of things should have been included...I'm saying that at that point in time it was commonly agreed that the world was flat, which we now know to be quite untrue.

      It saddens me that the only "major" religion that has come along in the past hundreds of years was inspired by a science fiction writer. Hell, there was a time when people thought lightning was caused by a god. The idea of god in a RELIGIOUS sense (and, in some cases, in a spiritual sense) has absolutely no place in a modern soceity.

      If jesus showed up now instead of 2000 years ago, he would have been commited to an asylum (and yes I am aware the world wouldn't be the same, so save your typing)

    27. Re:Killing != Murder by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      actually It is my understanding that the cause of Noahs flood and the call for the execution were the result of Satan's repeated tinkering with the genetic blood line of Humans. a very over looked and misunderstood "People" of the bible were the nephilim which were fallen angels which had children with human women. creating Titans such as Goliath and perhaps most likely even the Greek Titans. so when the bible calls for the execution of entire villages woman and children, It was because these were hybrid humans, not of pure human descent. There is mention of one of the villages chiefs bed frame being 9 cubits long and made of Iron. (1 cubit being the length from elbow to tip of your hand, so around 15-16 inches long.) Which could make this persons be around 12 feet long, and made out of Iron to hold someone that would make Shaq look like a midget. One allusion to why Noah was saved was that he was clean or pure in his generations, indicating that his family was one of the last humans not bred out of the nephilm. Anytime the Jews did not follow Gods command to wipe out entire villages, the survivors offspring were behind the repeated plots to wipe out the Jews.

    28. Re:Killing != Murder by MWoody · · Score: 1

      Lightning is Zeus, or possibly Odin. Jehovah prefers biological warfare.

    29. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if the commandment forbids murder but not killing in general, then how do we know which forms of killing are acceptable? Murder, after all, basically means "killing which is not allowed". So then the commandment becomes a circular statement: "you're not allowed to kill, except in those circumstances where you are." Not very useful as a moral rule, that.

    30. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mormons claim to know about the history of South America, but their view falls flat on its face when we look at history.

      Really? I know a bunch of Mormons, and would love to see a) where the Mormons officially claim that the Book of Mormon is history of South America, and b) specific instances in which the Book of Mormon is contradicted in history.


      I apologize for posting as AC, but I modded this conversation already, and really wanted to know your sources for this. I read everything on the wikipedia page, but it doesn't agree with you.

    31. Re:Killing != Murder by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Looking at the version of the King James Bible on gutenberg.org (the only one I have access to right now), I see that in Genesis 6:15, God tells Noah to build an ark 30 cubits high. Later on, Genesis 7:20 says "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

      That means that had the ark stayed planted on the ground, the flood would only reach halfway up the side.

      In addition, all the definitions I've seen for cubit put the length of a cubit around 0.4 to 0.7 meters. That means the ark was around 20 meters tall, and the flood was 10 meters high. Mighty small mountains to be covered by just 10 meters of water. If 1 story of a building is about 10 feet tall, that means you'd have to be on the 5th floor (with the 1st floor being on the ground) to avoid getting your feet wet. There probably weren't very many buildings that tall at the time specified in the Bible, but there were a lot of mountains that cleared 10 meters (Mt. Ararat, where some believe the ark to have settled, is over 5000 meters tall.)

    32. Re:Killing != Murder by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      actually It is my understanding that the cause of Noahs flood and the call for the execution were the result of Satan's repeated tinkering with the genetic blood line of Humans. a very over looked and misunderstood "People" of the bible were the nephilim which were fallen angels which had children with human women. creating Titans such as Goliath and perhaps most likely even the Greek Titans ... One allusion to why Noah was saved was that he was clean or pure in his generations, indicating that his family was one of the last humans not bred out of the nephilm.

      So. Satan's genetic engineering project takes place. Soon almost the whole human race consists of hybrid mutant thingies of some kind. Except Noah and his family. God saves them, wipes out every other living thing on the planet. All subsequent humans are descended from Noah.

      Q: how does any of this justify the genocide once the Hebrews arrived in their Promised Land? Surely Satan's mutant monster men all drowned? Unless I suppose they were amphibious - a mutation presumably not beyond the capacity of Satan's laboratories - but doesn't that mean that the Flood was a pointless act of mass destruction that did not even succeed in its stated aims?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    33. Re:Killing != Murder by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      The bible has copyright dates? That's news to me! Are you sure you aren't looking at the hymnal? Anyway, who's the lucky publisher that has the copyright on the bible? I guess you need to phone up the Guinness Book of World Records and let them know the bible is the most published non-copyrighted book in human history. The sarcasm ends here: you're an idiot.

      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    34. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://ask.yahoo.com/20050202.html

      Modern translations of the Bible have copyright dates. Nice christian tone you have there, by the way.

    35. Re:Killing != Murder by J_Omega · · Score: 1

      hrmm... I'm not sure why I'm even replying here.

      >> the only "major" religion that has come along in the past hundreds of years was inspired by a science fiction writer.
      You consider Scientology to be a "major" religion? I just thought it gets a lot of attention.

      >> The idea of god in a RELIGIOUS sense (and, in some cases, in a spiritual sense) has absolutely no place in a modern soceity.
      How can you make that assumption? Tell that to the 97 some odd percent of people in the world. I'd say that "god" does have a very large place in the world. (Unless you mean that we should be trying to rid the earth of the notion of god.)

      >> If jesus showed up now instead of 2000 years ago, he would have been commited to an asylum
      Why? First: People like David Koresh, currently that latino dude (forget his name,) and many others have claimed themselves to be the returned Jesus. They weren't institutionalized. Instead, they developed a following. Second: Would a modern-day Jesus appear in modernized lands? People generally make the assumption that his 2nd coming is gonna be in either THEIR neck of the woods or around Jerusalem. Why wouldn't he appear in, say, Darfur or Bahgdad or Siberia or whereever else? Third: Perhaps a modern day Jesus would perform modern-day "miracles."

      BTW, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here.

    36. Re:Killing != Murder by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      "were the result of Satan's repeated tinkering" repeated being the key word. Satan by no means ran out of fallen angels after this, he didn't pack up his bags after the flood and say oh well I tried. when the Jews arrived in the promised land, they didn't want in, they were scared because there were giants in the land. giants=hybrid offspring. And God's salvation is for Humans, his creation, not Satans perversion of it. Christ could have never come had Satan succeeded in wiping out the Human blood line. as Christ died a Human for Humans. Sorry for my lack of skillful HTML formatting.

    37. Re:Killing != Murder by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      To be really fair, there is no mention of hell in the old testament and is actually only referred to as the physical location in the new testament in name (not the lake of fire in revelations which isn't referred to as directly as hell) which was pulled directly to Roman-pagan mythology hades as a form of underworld punishment rather then the concept of "separation of God".


      To be extra, super-duper turbo fair, pretty much the entire body of Christianity was lifted directly from pagan mythology, from the Romans, Egyptians, etc. Not just the concept of hell, but virgin birth, communion, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation, etc.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    38. Re:Killing != Murder by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Modern translations of the Bible have copyright dates.

      Of course they do: the translations are modern works.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    39. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 1

      You consider Scientology to be a "major" religion? I just thought it gets a lot of attention.
      You hear about it more than any other recent religion...Satanism (came about in the 50's if I remember...also having little to nothing to do with actual devil worship) Wicca (ditto...20th century relgion) etc.

      How can you make that assumption? Tell that to the 97 some odd percent of people in the world. I'd say that "god" does have a very large place in the world. (Unless you mean that we should be trying to rid the earth of the notion of god.)


      I do tell them that...at least the ones that I meet. I know I'm making a sweeping, broad generalization here, but to believe in god as the "big three" dictate that you should COMPLETELY defeats the purpose of believing in god in the first place! god is upposed to be about what works for YOU, not what works for the GROUP...hence, why I said "religiously".

      Why? First: People like David Koresh, currently that latino dude (forget his name,) and many others have claimed themselves to be the returned Jesus. They weren't institutionalized. Instead, they developed a following. Second: Would a modern-day Jesus appear in modernized lands? People generally make the assumption that his 2nd coming is gonna be in either THEIR neck of the woods or around Jerusalem. Why wouldn't he appear in, say, Darfur or Bahgdad or Siberia or whereever else? Third: Perhaps a modern day Jesus would perform modern-day "miracles."

      First: That's exactly my point. Any nutjob (or sane person, for that matter) could claim that they are the returned jesus... Second: I think a modern-day jesus would appear wherever he happend to appear...hell, it could be antartica for all we know. Third: you mean like prove the existance of dark matter and have it appear in his "hands"? I realize that we don't know nearly all there is to know about reality around us, but we know a hell of a lot more than we used to.
    40. Re:Killing != Murder by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      "were the result of Satan's repeated tinkering" repeated being the key word. Satan by no means ran out of fallen angels after this, he didn't pack up his bags after the flood and say oh well I tried.

      So, when did he stop, and why? When did Satan's filthy monstrous evil rat-people finally go into extinction, and the true human pure-blooded master race come into its inheritance?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    41. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 1

      And? Why is the King James version, as pointed out by my link, a part of public domain, whereas other versions are not? Again, are people afraid of spreading the direct word of god illegally?

      And that brings up another point which I already touched on...different versions of a religious text. That certainly cemets my belief into place knowing that there are different versions out there written by the same person who wrote the "original bible": Man. Humans. WE WROTE IT. Ever hear of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? In theory, if more than one million people accross the globe verify that they believe in it, that could be an official and recognized religion. People would legally be able to take off work for Talk Like a Pirate Day.

      Do you see the stupidity?

    42. Re:Killing != Murder by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Why is the King James version, as pointed out by my link, a part of public domain, whereas other versions are not?

      It's 400 years old.

      And that brings up another point which I already touched on...different versions of a religious text. That certainly cemets my belief into place knowing that there are different versions out there written by the same person who wrote the "original bible": Man.

      There are even more translations of Plato. I suppose that means that his words are actually the product of a large group of people and not a single original source.

      Honestly, I'm not interested in arguing for or against your position. It's just that your logic is pretty specious, regardless of whether I agreed with you or not.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    43. Re:Killing != Murder by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      A) he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years.


      Which 2000 years? Traditionally, the Pentateuch is held to have been written just after the Exodus; this would be sometime around 1500 BC or so. 2000 years would seem to suggest that the NT was written substantially later than the traditional dates for the works therein.

      Of course, if you are including the process of selecting and refining the canon, then, well, that gets well over 2,000 years for at least some versions of the canon.

      I mean common, 20+ people writing a book over 2000 years, including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written, with no contradictions in the book.


      First, you are misusing the word "common".

      Second, there are rather a lot of contradictions in the Bible (often in the same book, sometimes right up next to each as in the conflicting creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis.)

      Third, there are no unambiguous prophecies in the Bible that are clearly fulfilled after the prophecy was written. There are some direct prophecies that were written after the events occurred (though, if they are accurate records, they were spoken before the events), and some of those direct prophecies were later re-interpreted as also being prophecies of more distant events that occurred later (if the Bible is to be believed), though often those later events lack independent evidence outside of the Bible.

      Not to mention that it has the power to change lives (bring about world peace, etc.).


      A power (that is, the one to "bring about world peace") that, whatever you may believe about it, you must admit is, at best, undemonstrated.
    44. Re:Killing != Murder by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      No idea, and since god hasn't and doesn't plan on updating the bible to fill in the last, 1900 years or so we may not know for sure. But he is still trying today. Watch the news and you will see his handy work, you know things like tricking some guys into thinking crashing planes into buildings might be a good Idea, stuff like that. My guess is they haven't gone extinct, we are just not aware of them. Satans best lie is tricking the world that he doesn't exist. in these days of science and knowledge, I don't think he wants to make it to obvious by planting some 16 foot tall guys around us. Physical might doesn't mean as much today as it did back then. However Since even Satan doesn't know when the end of times will be there is a good chance he has a few Anti-Christs waiting to be called into play as soon as the poop starts to hit the fan. Come on, Don't you ever watch movies like Rosemary's baby or The Omen? (I kid! I kid!)

    45. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Plato isn't regarding by billions of people as being their god, creator of all things, and the source of all life and existence. It's a little different.

    46. Re:Killing != Murder by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      Diagnosis: idiot
      Prescription: type less read more

      Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I have to listen to some kid spout ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. You're wrong, and I'm going to tell you. It just really makes me sad that you probably aren't a Christian because of all these outrageous assumptions you have. But you see my problem don't you? How do I reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into? You even went out and researched it yourself and still went away incorrect. Your own link says many modern translations are copyrighted. This is different from all translations, the majority of translations, and is definitely different from saying "the bible". So please, leave the debates for the heavy hitters like Hawking and Gould, because you're getting hung up on some very simple things.

      I'm not saying all atheists, or whatever you are, are a bunch of morons. Quite the opposite in my experience. Most atheists I know actually went out and *gasp* did some research before making such life changing decisions. But I guarantee you that their decisions weren't based off of something as simple as who wrote the bible. So sorry, you didn't find some loophole that is going to bring down all of Christianity, you've simply built up your own little world that only follows the rules of your ignorance.

      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    47. Re:Killing != Murder by kalirion · · Score: 1

      The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime. What it does condemn is murder.

      That's kind of vague. When is killing "in defense" - when your life is threatened, when your possessions are threatened, when your honor is threatened? For what types of crime is killing a justified punishment instead of murder - rape, murder, petty larceny, taking the Lord's name in vain? For what types of killing in wartime is it not murder - on the battlefield, in POW camps, random homes of civilians?

    48. Re:Killing != Murder by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      4 authors of the bible are known: John, Luke, Matthew and Mark.


      No, not really; while the gospels bearing the names of each (plus, in the case of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles) are traditionally ascribed to those apostles (just as most of the books of the Bible have traditionally-ascribed authors), those four aren't any more "known" than the rest, and the traditional authors aren't all that likely the people that actually wrote those gospels (or most of the other books.) IIRC, the only books of the Bible where historical evidence suggests the date of authorship is likely consistent with the traditional authorship are some of the NT epistles, particularly the Pauline corpus.
    49. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 1

      First I would like to thank you for your warmth. How very christian of you.

      Secondly, I NEVER ONCE said that someone is dumb, or stupid, or misguided, or whatever else for believing in god or following a religion. I simply said that the idea of god in a religious sense (and, in some cases, the spiritual sense) has no place in modern society. People continue spending vast amounts of capital (as they always have) building their big churches while the poor continue to suffer. They continue condemning the nonbelievers (yes, I know, this is a small group of people...I'm not lumping all religious people into that group). They continue to do things that contradict their own "beliefs".

      I'm sorry, but I refuse to take part in the CULT that organized religion is. I have done my studying...hell, I went to private school for the first 10 years of my academic career. I have read both the torah and bible, I have read the que'ran, I have read the Bhagavad Gita...the list goes on. They all say the same thing, just with different names.

      Modern day organized religion is indeed a cult, and I, as a free-thinking individual person, refuse to partake in it.

    50. Re:Killing != Murder by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      My guess is they haven't gone extinct, we are just not aware of them.

      So you propose that there exists, even today, a race of apparent humans who are in fact children of Satan, inherently and genetically evil, and so vile that it is good and righteous to slay all you find, even the children, Old Testament style?

      Interesting. Is there any particular genetic lineage you have in mind for this holy extermination?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    51. Re:Killing != Murder by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Traditionally, the Pentateuch is held to have been written just after the Exodus; this would be sometime around 1500 BC or so.

      That may be the traditionally held belief, but evidence would indicate it was written between about 850 BC to 621 BC or so.

      So the OT is likely to have been written much later than what is traditionally held.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    52. Re:Killing != Murder by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      Um... no. see we live in the times of the new testament. Jesus has come and gone. It is not really a problem anymore. Satans probably got better tricks now, since he's had a few thousand years of experience since then.

    53. Re:Killing != Murder by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      First I would like to thank you for your warmth. How very christian of you.
      What the fuck you talking about? Is that another one of those things you think you read in the bible? I'm telling it like it is, I'm sorry if it has not received the sugar-coating you are used to.

      Even as a Christian, I totally agree that organized religion is a cult. Organized religion is probably one of the worst things to happen to Christianity (or any "religion" really). Religion killed Jesus Christ. And, of course, every Christian is hypocritical. It is incredibly hard to be perfect. It is even harder, especially for me, not to judge anyone. Going to private school is a very good reason to not be a Christian, I have heard terrible things. People have really ruined having a relationship with God, and now it seems mainly about going through the motions.

      Like I read in some sig (the source of all my insights), it's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club. I really wished people realized the difference.
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    54. Re:Killing != Murder by Pojut · · Score: 1

      now it seems mainly about going through the motions.


      I dated a girl back in high school whose father was baptist and whose mother was Jewish. Between going to church and temple with them occasionally, and going to church and temple with my own family (again, mother christian father jewish) I have seen very much of exactly what you are describing.

      When so many of those people kept looking at their watches and/or looking bored out of their mind, it made me wonder why they went in the first place...
    55. Re:Killing != Murder by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      That may be the traditionally held belief, but evidence would indicate it was written between about 850 BC to 621 BC [wikipedia.org] or so.


      I'm well aware of that; the traditional association was the assumption most favorable to the poster to whom I was responding.
    56. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basic misunderstanding about the Koran:

      If you're a Christian, the Bible is the *interpreted* word of God as mediated and conveyed through prophets and apostles, and translated by someone who may or may not have been divinely inspired or guided.

      If you're a Muslim, then the Koran is the *literal* word of God, as recorded word-for-word by the Prophet from dictation by the angel (messenger) Gabriel.

      That's why Muslims are so much more sensitive about the Koran than Christians are about the Bible. It's also why it can't be translated - you can translate the words, but once you do, they're no longer *God's own* words.

    57. Re:Killing != Murder by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Oddly enough the old testament seems to be advocating genocide. Shortly after Moses got the 10 commandments, god told Joshua to kill off everyone (including women and children) in cities who would not submit to the chosen people's rule."

      Not odd at all. Killing and genocide can be useful actions. If you don't want what a group does to continue, and you have to power to snuff them, only real or imagined (like "Hell") consequences contraindicate offing the lot.

      There is no reason genocide would not have been an acceptable tool in the religious=political toolbox of the time. It is only "evil" when someone else is trying to do it to you or someone you value.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    58. Re:Killing != Murder by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      True, but how many of them can claim to be written over such a period of time, and yet line up with history.

      What in the world are you talking about? The Bible doesn't line up well at all with history. There were no Israelite slaves in Egypt; the story of Jesus is largely cribbed from the Mithra cult; there's no historical evidence of the "Massacre of the Innocents" by Herod.

      That's not a foretelling of the end of the world, but of the fulfilment of Jesus's prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed

      No. "See the kingdom of God" does not mean see the destruction of Jerusalem; and among the things that are supposed to occur is "the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." These didn't happen. The prophecy in the story didn't come true.

      Sure, if you do it in hindsight. Try writing a book about the future

      Except that's not what the authors and editors who wrote and complied the Bible did. The New Testament wasn't compiled until centuries after the purported execution of it's number one hero.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    59. Re:Killing != Murder by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Wow. It really takes guts to accuse Christianity of "stealing" crucifixion from the Romans. What next, "Native Americans stole smallpox from the White man"?

    60. Re:Killing != Murder by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      nor do we sell our daughters into slavery

      Speak for yourself. I expect to retire young.

    61. Re:Killing != Murder by joNDoty · · Score: 1

      For the record, most Christians believe that God "wrote" the Bible indirectly through inspired human authors. The New Testament, for example, was written by members of the early Christian Church. Luke wrote like a doctor and John wrote like a poet. These artistic styles weren't a part of God's multiple personality disorder.

      Copyright dates, as you mention, belong to various translations. If the literal wording of the text were considered to be more important than its meaning, Christian churches would offer a lot more Greek and Hebrew classes.

    62. Re:Killing != Murder by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Wow. It really takes guts to accuse Christianity of "stealing" crucifixion from the Romans. What next, "Native Americans stole smallpox from the White man"?

      OK, I'll admit I wasn't very clear.
      What I meant to say was, the idea of a God-man savior being crucified isn't unique to Christianity.
      Obviously they didn't "steal" crucifixion from the Romans.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    63. Re:Killing != Murder by konigstein · · Score: 1

      The word used in that verse in Hebrew is "ratsach" (raw-tsakh'). It is a prime root word, meaning to kill. Properly used, it means to commit murder: to put to death, or manslay. (taken from the KJV Hebrew-Greek keyword study bible by AMG publishers, revised 1991 edition ISBN: 0-89957-656-7)

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    64. Re:Killing != Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see when the bible states that the sky is green, it really means that the sky is blue, because back then, green meant blue. And when it says that the sky is pink, it was mistranslated because, obviously, the sky isn't pink.

      Also, you shouldn't pick out certain parts of the bible to try to prove contradictions. You should take the bible as a whole, except for certain parts of course. Because things like polygamy, slavery and killing stubborn and rebellious kids were accepted in those days and we aren't trying to use the bible as an example of how we should conduct our lives now. If only people would live their lives by the scripture they would all understand and things would be so much better.

      Finally, all the torture, murder, crusades and conversions at sword point were conducted by evil and sadistic men and are certainly very different than the child molesting priests, the wife killing pastors and the male prostitute patronizing preachers instructing us as to how homosexuality is nothing but an evil abomination. So you shouldn't listen to people telling you what god wants, except, of course, to those who tell you what god REALLY wants.

      So you should definitely NOT question the bible, because the bible is perfect (except for certain parts of course). Scientists on the other hand, change their views every time new evidence is found. I mean how can you really trust someone who is willing to admit they were wrong?

    65. Re:Killing != Murder by TheBOfN · · Score: 1

      I mean, after all, if god was the author, why do bible's have copyright dates? ...because the *translations* are copyrighted...
      (Not too many people are interested at reading the origials these days...)
    66. Re:Killing != Murder by tade · · Score: 1

      The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime. What was that thing about the other cheek? Wartime? Man what are you talking about. The bible makes no difference between peace time, martial law or a period in history where the president has ordered the trooper to occupy a foreign nation but has not declared a war.

      Those are just a cop out to say "we are really sorry and would like to follow the rules, but dude, we have this special situation that forced this upon us."

      Killing as a punishment for a crime? I would like to think that Jesus would object to that. Wasn't there something about stoning and sinners in the bible?

      Sheesh.
    67. Re:Killing != Murder by lightinthedarknes · · Score: 1

      Luk 23:34 ..."Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." ...

      Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
      1 Strong's Number: 2315 Greek: theopneustos

      Inspiration of God, Inspired of God:
      "inspired by God" (Theos, "God," pneo, "to breathe"), is used in 2Ti 3:16, of the Scriptures as distinct from non-inspired writings. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and the Great Bible have the rendering "inspired of God."

      Who Wrote the Bible - A Letter from God
      "Who wrote the Bible" is a question that is undoubtedly asked by many who are familiar with the impact this book has made on people around the world. The Bible gives guidance in our journey through life to eternity, as well as leads us to a relationship with the God of the universe. It is a historical book that is backed by archeology, and a prophetic book that has lived up to all of its claims thus far. In light of all these facts, asking, "who wrote the bible," is a vital question that deserves serious investigation and a serious response. The Bible is God's letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. These claims may seem dramatic (or unrealistic to some), but a careful and honest study of the biblical scriptures will show them to be true.

      Who Wrote the Bible - Evidence of Divine Inspiration
      "Who wrote the Bible" is a question that can be definitively answered by examining the biblical texts in light of the external evidences that supports its claims. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that "All scripture is inspired by God...." In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to "know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ... but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.

      God does not leave us with just claims of His divine handiwork in the Bible, but also supports it with compelling evidence. The design of the Bible itself is a miracle. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ.

      The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed). An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Further, archeology confirms (or in some cases supports) accounts in the biblical record. No other holy book comes close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its divine authorship.

      Who Wrote the Bible - A Question of Eternal Significance
      "Who Wrote the Bible" is indeed a question that everyone must ask. If indeed it is the Word of the living God, then no other book gives us more insight into our lives, more hope for our future, and a true path to a relati

  11. Member of the MethoBlog by mass · · Score: 1

    The Game Politics article is basically quoting from the personal blog of Ben Witherington, a member of the MethoBlog, a group of Methodist bloggers.

    This was also discussed here and also here

  12. Playing against Jesus would be boring by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure, it would be awesome at first, gibbing the Son of God. He'll keep turning the other cheek, keep getting fragged, keep resurrecting. Eventually it'll become boring and I'd grow tired of it. He wins by default.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:Playing against Jesus would be boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The three-day respawn interval would be annoying, though.

    2. Re:Playing against Jesus would be boring by sqldr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Forget transubstantiation.. I got telefragged by Jesus!

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    3. Re:Playing against Jesus would be boring by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

      You have to drop down the console and enter God mode, then you can kick Jesus' ass. I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    4. Re:Playing against Jesus would be boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so the Combat evolved into a non-violent struggle for the flag.

  13. Halo != Halo by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    They do realize that "Halo" may not mean the same thing that they're used to, don't they?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Halo != Halo by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      or the Covenant.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    2. Re:Halo != Halo by Empiric · · Score: 1

      One usage will be dead in 20 years, the other won't--along with the notation "Believe" in my one-out-of-a-billion Burger-King soda cups. Seriously, if I were serriptitiously -trying- to create a viral marketing campaign for theism, I doubt I could have done better.

      Mankind works in mysterious ways. (Nightwish)

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Halo != Halo by Random832 · · Score: 1

      No, but the *SPOILER*Ark*/SPOILER* and the Flood are a pretty clear metaphor

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  14. Halo != Killing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Halo is just a game. You can only kill people in the real world.

    Halo is no different than playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians.

    Most of the indignation is from people who would bristle at Jack Thompson calling a video game a murder simulator, but since this is about a church, they are more than willing to join his side intellectually if it lets them scream hypocrisy

  15. Spending priorities? by kjkeefe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor. Every time I drive past a church that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing. Why not give that money to single mothers trying to keep their families above water or drug rehabilitation programs or education programs for ex-convicts?

    If you sit back and think of the dollars tied up in religious infrastructure, it is absolutely astounding. Ask yourself, if you combine the equity of all religious property within a 2 mile radius of your house, how much do you get? I know for me, I would estimate it at around 2 million...

    I guess my first mistake was wondering how churches can _rationalize_ anything...

    --
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
    1. Re:Spending priorities? by lovebyte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Churches are institutions. They try to grow. They try to get more money to grow even more.

      Religion is one way (could be the best way) to instill institution membership to people and from a very young age (indoctrination).

      Morality or helping the poor is only a facade/marketing trick.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    2. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the poor don't donate to Church, they are hell bound anyway.

    3. Re:Spending priorities? by Applekid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor. Easy. Those are internal investments aimed at increasing the size of the congregation, and in turn, increasing the pot of donations.

      A small humble 4 room chapel can be used for religious ceremonies, sure, but how many people could be packed in? How many would be inspired by the visage and get that whole religious experience thing? Not many and I should know: I vote at one and even though voter turnout is really low in the U.S. it completely overwhelms the facilities there.

      Now, look at a church. Imposing and beautiful (regardless of how someone feels about religion in general you have to admit chuches are impressive structures by design). Can see it for at least a few blocks as a monument in the neighborhood. Can put lots of people inside it. Its organ bellows and light colored by stained glass open hearts and minds... and wallets, too. Hell, having a beautiful church means now you can do wedding ceremonies and require large donations for the privilage.

      Attractions for the youth help distance some from distractions away from the church. Investment in the youth = an investment in the adult [money-making] congregation.

      The problem then becomes that the people in charge forget about those single mothers or the poor or the community at large and become centrally focused on their own growth and impact and pull. They wanna pack those seats and now they're not much better than concert promoters. Their greed overwhelms their mission and they lose sight. It takes complete dedication to the cause to not get snookered in.

      Continue the cycle and you get TV Evangelists and that makes baby Jesus cry.
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:Spending priorities? by BKX · · Score: 1

      For me, probably closer to $20 million.

    5. Re:Spending priorities? by mass · · Score: 1

      There's one way to cut spending in a church :

      1. Join a church
      2. Participate
      3. Become a leader
      4. Vote no to spending!

    6. Re:Spending priorities? by toleraen · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered how corporations like that can rationalize spending money on a 20ft water fountain when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as improving R&D. Every time I drive past a corporation that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing. Why not use that money to keep their best engineers onboard or increase employee benefits or have a pizza party?

      If you sit back and think of the dollars tied up in corporate infrastructure, it is absolutely astounding. Ask yourself, if you combine the equity of all property within a 2 mile radius of your house, how much do you get? I know for me, I would estimate it at around 2 million...

      I guess my first mistake was wondering how corporations can _rationalize_ anything... Give that a read, maybe that'll clear some stuff up. I'm not trying to equate religious institutes to corporations, but look at it like a potential customer would for a business.

      Imagine you're standing outside two electronics stores. One store has an extremely nice, well designed exterior. Inside you know they've got free water, good music playing, an easy layout to navigate, etc. The other store has cardboard patches on the windows, has inventory just laying around, has a window fan with no A/C running, etc. Both stores have the same product at the same price. Which store do you enter? Same thing for a church. Give a few niceties to potential members, and they'll stick around to make their weekly donations.
    7. Re:Spending priorities? by mikearthur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Churches give substantial amounts of their money to charity. My previous church gave at least 10% of all the money they got in (revenue, not profit) to charities. When you factor the running costs of the church this is not an unsubstantial amount.

      As for why they spend money on things like projectors rather than dedicating all that money to the poor: rightly or wrongly they place the value of your soul over the value of your life. That may not appear to make a lot of sense but this is why outreach and evangelism is still seen as an equal or (in some churches) superior priority to simply giving the money away.

    8. Re:Spending priorities? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Catholic church is the largest landowner in the world. Its also the most rich. Yes, you're right to wonder why they have millions to give to families after they let their priests molest kids, but lock homeless out in the street when winter arrives.

    9. Re:Spending priorities? by fletcher_the_dog · · Score: 1

      Your's is a legitimate question with a fairly simple answer. I go to a church that spends a lot of money on the poor but also a lot of money on nice buildings and fun activities. Why not just give all the money to the poor and needy? Because building community and building a sanctuary where people can go to to be uplifted is important too. The people that go to my local church have vastly different income levels some who are dirt poor and some who make more than $100,000 a year. There are many who go to our local leader when they can't pay the bills and he helps them out. There are many low income kids who get to do things they never would get to do if it weren't for the church activities. There are single moms who only get a break when they go to church activities and there is someone there to watch their kids for a while. I know of many people who have gotten better jobs because people that they met at church helped them find better opportunities. I know many people who live in old run down homes, who get help from the church to fix up their homes and who enjoy going to a nice clean place to get away from the harried existence of their lives for a few hours.

    10. Re:Spending priorities? by sholden · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you look at the world I guess...

      One justification they could have is that infrastructure gets more people to hear their message and hence more people to convert. I would suspect that the salvation of an eternal soul ranks higher than keeping a single mother fed for an extra day - in the religious scheme of things anyway.

      Another would be that it's investing, that infrastructure attracts more people some of whom join and start bringing in more income to the church through donations, volunteer work, whatever. So sure they could spend that dollar on that single mother now or they could spend it on infrastructure and generate hopefully more than one dollar of additional future income to spend on that single mother. Of course at some point you have to stop investing and start spending on the actual goals, but I'm sure that can wait for the next generation (maybe two...)

    11. Re:Spending priorities? by Empiric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Morality or helping the poor is only a facade/marketing trick.

      As opposed to you seeking Slashdot karma by just simply outright lying.

      Firstly, how about scoping this--does this apply to martyrs as well, or just a particular subset you have in mind? You know, beyond the absurd universal you have to express, even though you yourself know it's false as you say it.

      Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--and relatively speaking, churches compare positively. As for the last, I suppose we'll have wait on that--unless you care to volunteer it.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    12. Re:Spending priorities? by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      I've been involved in small churches and larger "super" churches. It's pretty hard to find a faith-based organization that's in it for the money. They're definitely around, but they're not everyone. Should a pastor drive a Porsche? That's not my concern as long as that pastor is always on-target with his faith and keeping his church 'in-line'. Accountability reciprocates, and always should.

      But every one of these churches uses their resources very responsibly. They send aid all over the world (even the little ones, churches with 100 members of lower class people flying in to Mexico to help build orphanages).

      The Church wasn't to be founded on Peter himself, but on his revelation that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God [Matthew 16:16-17]. Meaning that the Church is everyone who believes that, no the catholics, not the Lutherans, but everyone.

      Church organizations are built for the sole purpose of uniting community. Making a place for believers to fellowship. They get bigger, they need administration, and accountability. They also serve as a place for all those alms to be put to the most responsible uses. And, hopefully, this is all done in harmony. Which isn't ever the case because we're all human alike.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    13. Re:Spending priorities? by babyrat · · Score: 1

      require large donations for the privilege

      I'm not sure I've heard a better oxymoron lately...

    14. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easily rationalized for the same reason McDonald's doesn't just cash in all their property and give the money to its shareholders. The infrastructure is an investment in the believers. The believers are then taught to go out and take care of the poor themselves.

    15. Re:Spending priorities? by gotem · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but around my house is a church from around 1600, so accounting the price of the land and the construction by today standards doesn't really make much sense, are you talking about a recently constructed church in an already big city? or there was first the church with a few building around, and then the city grew driving the terrain value up?

    16. Re:Spending priorities? by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Christianity began as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
      When it went to Athens, it became a philosophy.
      When it went to Rome, it became an organization.
      When it spread throughout Europe, it became a culture.
      When it came to America, it became a business!

    17. Re:Spending priorities? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1
      What I would give for mod points right now. Did you ever stop to think, you self-righteous ass, that not all people of any group are the same? I'm sure that there are some churches which operate as you described, but even if most churches operated that way (and I don't believe that to be true for a second), NOT ALL OF THEM DO. The people at the church my parents attend, for example, are wonderful, caring people who really do want to do good in the world and live a good life. I'm sure there are many other churches like this out there.

      God forbid you look past your hatred and see that there are good Christians out there, even if you disagree with what some of them are doing.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    18. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not trying to equate religious institutes to corporations, but look at it like a potential customer would for a business."

      ...How in the hell can you claim that you aren't trying to equate churches to corporations?! You just took some paragraphs about churches and replaced the words with some that relate to businesses. You can't really be more direct about equating the two. Hypocrite.

    19. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Catholic Church is the world's largest cult. When you look the history of the Catholic Church and compare it against the bible, one thing becomes very clear. If the bible's warnings of false prophets is to be taken seriously, one can only conclude it's talking about the Catholic Church and the Pope. It's hard to look past the amount of pure evil directly associated with the Catholic Church.

      AFAIK, there are only two things comparable with the Catholic Church as it relates to human death and suffering. Those two things are natural disease/pestilence and the Islamic religion. We can't say war because war has historically been as a result of the either the religion or disease/pestilence; though in more recent times this isn't necessarily true.

    20. Re:Spending priorities? by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me restate that then. The purpose of the really nice electronics store is to get customers in so they'll spend more money, fulfilling the corporations purpose of making money. The purpose of the really nice church is to get more people in, therefore fulfilling their purpose by spreading whatever gospel that church is preaching to more and more people. In both cases both entities spent more $ up front to bring more people in. That cost will be made up by increased sales/membership. One of them is there to make a profit in the end, and the other isn't (in theory).

      This could go on and on, so I'll make just one more analogy. It's like a freakin' bake sale. You have all your baked goods sitting out, but if no one knows about it, you won't ever sell a single cookie. So you have to spend money on some banners, advertisements, and a nice sign to go over your cookie stand. Is this stuff needed to actually sell your cookies? No, but it's needed to draw people in. So is holding a bake sale to buy some microscopes for your classroom suddenly eevvviiiilll corporate tactics just because you spent a few bucks getting people to stop by?

    21. Re:Spending priorities? by mcbutterbuns · · Score: 1

      The church that I attend used to have a horrible sound system and a projector system like the ones you find in most schools (back in the early 90's). The sound system would cut out and have horrible feedback. The projector system was seriously extremely ghetto.

      Upgrades were enormously expensive but local companies would give discounts for churches. You also don't want to invest money in something that you will have to replace a year down the road.

      I don't deny that a lot of churches spend way too much money on things that could be deemed unnecessary however some of these purchases are needed or a nice touch. If you believe in God, its natural that you would want the building you worship him in to be decent. Some churches take it to the extreme.

      Granted, there is too much emphasis these days on wowing the audience instead of teaching the truth but not all amenities are bad

    22. Re:Spending priorities? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      It's the same reason tax money goes to building and maintaining roads, schools, police, courts, and fire and only a very small portion goes to feeding the poor. A church is a community. The money goes to fund that community to improve it. Most people I know who go to church regularly see their congregation as a group of friends or an extended family. They see these people two or three times a week year round in many cases. They are all friends, and their children are friends and go to school together. Christian or otherwise, these people like to get together and have fun.

      Church donations are really just payment for services. Everybody knows that. Nobody is so stupid that they think their money becomes a holy thing by giving it to the church. The church provides activities, food, friendship, emotional support and guidance, and in these manners creates a community from the congregation. Donations are merely an investment in that community.

      You get out of a church exactly what you put into it. Some people put a lot into it. And you know what? It's their money, and it's theirs to spend as they see fit. It's not yours. If they want to give it to a church because that's what they want, then leave them alone and let them do it. Other people go into golf leagues, knitting circles, run poker nights, go out for dinner and a movie, or rebuild automobiles. Some people even spend their money on computers and video games when they've already got dozens of each in their own home. These are all wastes of money. The fact that you disagree with some of them gives you no right to judge these people. If all you see is a cold building trying to take your money and use it for nothing you value, well, you're not the church-going type.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    23. Re:Spending priorities? by Dusty00 · · Score: 1

      Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--and relatively speaking, churches compare positively. As for the last, I suppose we'll have wait on that--unless you care to volunteer it.

      Seems a straw man fallacy to me.

      The difference between a church giving to charity and an individual or a corporation giving to charity the church's doctrine mandates it uses is resources to help the community (forgive me if I'm over-generalizing). A corporation exists to generate profit, an individual can devote their life to whatever they like.

      Parent is stating the opinion that a church spending it's resources trying to grow is in contrast of it's professed goal of helping the community.
    24. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, when churches are not buying luxury jets for their preachers, Xbox 360s to lure kids into church basements, cell phones for underage friends of the wife of the pastor so that she can hit on them... they're out helping the poor.

      Excuse me while I laugh in your face.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      catchpa: ranter

    25. Re:Spending priorities? by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Church could be as effective at being charitable if it operated at border destitution. Providing fancy technology and providing a comfortable environment of worship probably has a stronger effect at attracting followers, then say meeting in an empty gym and sitting on the cold floor. I think we should be careful to differentiate between an institution that is for non-profit and one that has no profit. The former tries to use its cash to enhance itself while the latter has no cash and may not be effective as the next competing organization. That a church has money to purchase a nice building and plasma screen is probably a good thing as that probably means the church has excess from serving its community. If the church was not doing all of its churchly duties, then I doubt the community would be as willing to donate money.

    26. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they care about is indoctrination and tax exemption. Then you have the freaks that act like they are being persecuted when they just want everyone and every secular institution (Public Schools)to be KKKristian.

      Xenu FTW

    27. Re:Spending priorities? by ricegf · · Score: 1

      You might start by considering how little you see of a church's community involvement just by looking at the outside of their main facility. Try, for example, Mission Metroplex in Texas. Most of the large churches in the area contribute heavily to its charitable work. Their facilities are spartan and totally focused on serving those most in need within the community. (If you are ever in Dallas, stop by and see for yourself. Bring your work clothes. ;-) Mrs. Burgin and her staff begin their day at 4 a.m. and work late into the night, and they coordinate thousands of unpaid volunteers who directly help hundreds of thousands and influence literally millions of people in the Dallas area.

      Perhaps you are seeing uncaring mega-churches because you are looking for uncaring mega-churches? Or perhaps I see incredible community enrichment by Christian investment because I'm looking for it, who knows.

      (Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with this organization in any way. Their reputation simply precedes them.)

    28. Re:Spending priorities? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      My church has some very nice equipment that cost a lot of money. It was bought, and is used, for a specific purpose: to help facilitate worship services and the various other activities we do at the church. Yes, we have an expensive projector in the sanctuary - we use it to show lyrics on the screen while singing, and the pastor uses PowerPoint as a visual aid during his sermons. Sometimes he uses brief excerpts from movies to illustrate a point. We have a very nice sound system, because if we didn't, technical issues could distract people from worshipping God, and we're willing to spend money to prevent that.

      However, there are plenty of things we'd like to do, that we can't, because we don't have the money. Our projector is dying - it's several years old and the blue polarizer is fried, so there's sort of an ugly yellow blob in the middle of the picture, and we've determined that it will be cheaper to buy a new one than to have this one repaired. We need a couple of UPSes, so a brief power failure in the middle of a Sunday morning sermon doesn't cause a five minute disruption (this happened a few months ago while the speaker was trying to explain a visual illustration, and the tech people had to scramble to get it back on the screen after waiting for the computer to reboot). We've got some issues with lighting. We want to set up a sound system with permanently mounted speakers in another part of the building where we have activities like potlucks, which will allow us to easily do all kinds of things that currently take a lot of work to set up. We can't take care of any of these right now, because our priorities are elsewhere.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    29. Re:Spending priorities? by UglyTool · · Score: 1

      When it came to America, it became a business!

      So, you don't happen to be at all familiar with the Roman Catholic Church?

      How long before the Americas were colonized by Europeans was the Church charging people "indulgences"? How many peasants had to sacrifice their time to the Church, unpaid, in order to pay for baptisms, weddings and burials? And Tithing? That is a mandatory tax on salvation that any government would love to have a piece of. Indeed, some have been doing this for centuries. (C of E, anyone?)

      Religion has been a business from the first time a shaman, medicine man or elder realized that he could get others to do his work for him for the low, low price of some comforting words.

      Religion as a business is nothing new. There just seems to be more money getting thrown around, but instead of it going to one entity, there are many more hands in the collection box, and one will always be around to seperate a fool from his money.

    30. Re:Spending priorities? by dwpro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      lovebyte said institutions, not individual members, so easy on the liar label.

      Also, unless lovebyte is wandering around trying to gather tithes I don't see how his individual giving matters. Once again, he's talking about institutions that are stewards of money given for a greater purpose. Or given out of guilt, but at the very least they are non-profit entities with a responsibility to the public.

      Speaking about absurd, how about you not compare an individual's giving to the church (or corporations, a hilarious comparison if you're looking for some sort of moral high ground,) and I'll not compare the horrors the church has inflicted in the past to lovebyte's abrasive comment.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    31. Re:Spending priorities? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Every time I drive past a church that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing.

      You're over-thinking it. Yes, some churches go overboard, but most of what you see is based on necessity and not avarice.

      First, churches get built where people are. Sometimes that land is more expensive than the empty spaces in the middle of nowhere that people wouldn't bother driving to. Other times a church was built on cheap land that gets enveloped or gentrified later.

      Now, imagine a largish church with 5,000 Sunday-morning worshippers. There is a set minimum size room that can comfortable accommodate that many people. Now, if it costs $X to built, would you rather see a gray cinder block box next to your house or a nice looking place that cost $X*1.1?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    32. Re:Spending priorities? by flux+pinner · · Score: 1

      I think partly this is selection bias. I don't know where you live, but even here in the Bible belt (Tallahassee, FL), for every mammoth brick-and-glass sanctuary, there are three dozen little storefront churches and modest 1,500 sq. foot buildings. It's just that you don't notice those when you drive down the street. I'm not standing up for those that do squander vast sums of money on buildings - I'm just saying there are a lot more humble, thrifty congregations than most people realize.

      --
      Reasoning is never, like poetry, judged from the outside at all.
    33. Re:Spending priorities? by superyooser · · Score: 1

      To most people, business means that consumers have choices. In Rome, it was more like paying taxes or obligatory fees to a coercive monopoly/government than purchasing products from a religious venue or merchant.

      In America, Christianity is a competitive, capitalistic, market-oriented business in an atmosphere of religious freedom. That's what the quote means by "business."

    34. Re:Spending priorities? by xtal · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--and relatively speaking, churches compare positively. As for the last, I suppose we'll have wait on that--unless you care to volunteer it.
      [/quote]

      I suspect the poster pays taxes. One would think that if he didn't have to pay taxes, he might have more resources available for charitable works as well.

      --
      ..don't panic
    35. Re:Spending priorities? by UglyTool · · Score: 1

      To most people, business means that consumers have choices.

      So, MSFT, although being a convicted monopolist, would or would not be a business according to your definition? I hate using analogies, but I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.

      What about Standard Oil? Before the government had to step in, they were a monopoly. Would you argue that that was not a business?

      If you are arguing that churches in America perform like businesses where the Catholic Church did not, I guess I would argue how you define exchanging money for goods and services.

    36. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to me that you point that out. I've been involved in the Christian church for a great majority of my life, and I've given this issue quite a bit of thought. The sad reality is that a huge portion of the Church is drunk. Rather than doing what it should be doing - the Church (specifically in the USA) is self-centered and is driven by wealth, power, and comfort - just like the majority of people outside the Church. What you see in many local congregations is nothing like what the Church was intended to be. My point is that all that "stuff" is not Jesus Christ.

      The Bible is pretty clear that the Church and its workers should be supported. "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." (from 1 Corinthians 9:13-14, NIV) http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+9:14&t=niv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

      However, that is absolutely not the whole story. Jesus called his followers to a life of personal faith, and often, of sacrifice. "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.... So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." (from Gospel of Luke 14:26-33 NASB) http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+14:26&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en

    37. Re:Spending priorities? by apt142 · · Score: 1

      Parent is stating the opinion that a church spending it's resources trying to grow is in contrast of it's professed goal of helping the community.
      I understand the opinion of the now GP, but I don't get how the the desire to grow contrasts with the professed desire to help the community. Contrary to that opinion, I would worry about a group that didn't profess a desire to grow after attempting to help a community.

      Having been involved with non-profits and the like, the problems they face are way, way bigger than any of the organizations that get involved. The next logical step in my mind is for those agencies to get more organized and to get more infrastructure to better combat the issues they are trying to work against. Any organization that doesn't attempt to do that is, in my mind, just toying around with helping the community for feel good reasons as opposed to actually trying to make a difference.
    38. Re:Spending priorities? by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor.

      People who belong to churches more often than not give a significant amount of money to the church, who, in turn, spend a lot of that on "helping the poor" and other worthy pursuits. While I understand your concern (and share it in some cases), it's important to remember that these more visible expenses are intended to grow participation in the church (often by increasing the quality of the worship experience), which also grows the contribution base and increases the charitable potential of the church.

      Do you think people are more or less likely to be charitable when they belong to a church? I'm inclined to think more, much more. Personally I'd like to see more bare-bones churches (I too flinch when I see anything resembling excess), but who am I to say that would be more effective in the long run? Most of the bare-bones churches I've been to have membership in the dozens or lower hundreds, not the thousands. What does that say about their ability to recruit?

      As long as the clergy aren't driving Jaguars I'm not going too much sleep over it, for now.

    39. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor. Every time I drive past a church that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing. Why not give that money to single mothers trying to keep their families above water or drug rehabilitation programs or education programs for ex-convicts?

      The poor will always be with you? Or perhaps the verse about the fragrant oil and Judas repeating your very own objection.

      I mean, isn't that like asking why we don't give all our money to charity? It's not like churches don't do charitable things. And sometimes, things like this to attract more people to worship (and thus, more to help out in those charitable activities) may even result in a net gain in the resources available to help out.

      After all, the mission of the church is to save people (including the poor), charity is only one of the ways to do that. It wouldn't do to neglect every other way for the sake of one way. Mind you, that's not to say that some don't neglect charity for the sake of ostentatiousness, but it's a stretch to say that they all do.

    40. Re:Spending priorities? by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

      Members of a church have to pay taxes as well, unless I have been tricked into paying taxes all of these years when I did not have to. Or are you saying that when a bunch of people get together and form a community of like-minded individuals who contribute part of thier incomes to a collective pool used to help that community (and, in the case of churches, many others outside of it), their incomes should be taxed twice?

    41. Re:Spending priorities? by lovebyte · · Score: 1

      Morality or helping the poor is only a facade/marketing trick.

      As opposed to you seeking Slashdot karma by just simply outright lying. My karma was capped a very long time ago. Don't be silly.

      Firstly, how about scoping this--does this apply to martyrs as well, or just a particular subset you have in mind? You know, beyond the absurd universal you have to express, even though you yourself know it's false as you say it. What kind of martyr? The one that blows himself up to get 70 virgins in paradise, the one the died in Roman arena or the one that is now in a psychiatric hospital. They look all the same to me. Medical cases.

      Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--and relatively speaking, churches compare positively. As for the last, I suppose we'll have wait on that--unless you care to volunteer it. Absurd argument. Give to charities to go to paradise. Is that the kind of selfish charity you are talking about? I know many people who give to non-religious charity organisations without hoping one second it will help them going to some illusory eden. Anyways, I was talking about organisations, not people. People can be deluded into thinking that by giving money to churches they do good.
      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    42. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Critical reading is not taught in churches apparently! The GP was talking about institutions, not the people.

      Oh yeah and love thy neighbor and don't covet your neighbor's self-righteous ass.

    43. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was raised in a roman catholic household, and attended catholic pre/grade/high schools. After a lot of thought (about 20-years), I am now very close to being atheist. But I can answer your question: Money. A nice church will (hopefully) draw new members, who in turn can contribute back to the church. People can associate with the same church for a lifetime. And with so many to choose from, there *is* competition to attract and keep folks who can contribute. It's not a for-profit business- but bills are bills. More resources also allow for more charity.

      Related: One of my grade schools converted their old church to a gymnasium, and built an ultra-contemporary (metal, glass, polished concrete) new church. The objective was to attract new, younger parishioners. The whole ceiling is glass, so there is a lot of light and you can see lots of blue sky when it isn't cloudy. Unfortunately, a lot of the long-time worshipers (customers?) didn't like that, so they left for drearier, darker churches....

    44. Re:Spending priorities? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1
      And critical reading isn't taught where you come from either. I was also talking about institutions. Some branches of the church are good, some are bad. The thing is, these institutions are all made up of people, so any discussion of either part is likely to involve the other (talk about the institutions, and the people probably get dragged into it, and vice versa).

      Finally, I feel the need to point out that I am a member of no church and no religion, however, when I see people who are likely to be good people, and the institutions they form, accused of putting on a charitable facade just to gain power, I get irritated. No group should be lumped together and judged as one.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    45. Re:Spending priorities? by BKX · · Score: 1

      Here in Grand Rapids, MI, there are probably 10 churches per square mile, and I'm not joking. I just happen to live in an affluent area, with several ridiculously lavish baptist, CRC, RCC, and (less lavish) Lutheran churches down the road. This (the number of churches) should come as no surprise when you consider that the CRC and RCC would both founded in GR and that we have Zondervan (the Bible printing company) somewhere on the south end.

    46. Re:Spending priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Should a pastor drive a Porsche?"

      Never. Doesn't anyone read the Bible and take it's message to heart?

  16. Not hypocritical by Hokie06 · · Score: 1

    I would guess that most people have some sort of moral value that killing another human is wrong. (Exceptions for self defense etc.) But I doubt most people really have anything wrong with video game killing, but they are not hypocrites. Just as a church is not hypocritical for letting kids play violent video games.

    Video game violence is not the same as real life violence.

    --
    Kilroy was here.
  17. Gives new meaning... by downix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Praise the lord and pass the ammunition

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  18. Games are an excellent outreach tool for youth by halivar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Although I prefer D&D to Halo, myself.

    1. Re:Games are an excellent outreach tool for youth by pwnies · · Score: 1

      I've tried this actually. It doesn't really work at all. Almost all Christians have it burnt into their mind that D&D is SATAN OMG DEMONS POSSES IT! Which is odd really; because all of my Christian pals that I've tried to get to play it play games like Oblivion, which is essentially just a videogameorized version of D&D. Halo seems to be pretty successful though in getting young peeps to come to a youth group or other church function. My church did this for a while (it certainly got me to come), but stopped it after some tightass parent complained.

    2. Re:Games are an excellent outreach tool for youth by halivar · · Score: 1

      The #1 problem with the Christian church in America is a profound misplacement of priorities. They eschew D&D, a social, interactive, and intellectually stimulating game in favor of mindless video games and television, both of which contribute to the spiritual decay of children (IMHO, IMXP, CSFC, YMMV).

      If I have my druthers (and procreate), my kids won't have a television or X-Box, but they [i]will[/i] have their own Player's Handbook.

    3. Re:Games are an excellent outreach tool for youth by OneoFamillion · · Score: 1
      Young peeps... Got you to come... Tightass parent...

      No. NO!

      You made so easy, it wouldn't even be a challenge anymore :-|

  19. GAME NIGHT! by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    As a youth leader our youth group organized tons of "game nights". Some times we played Halo, sometimes we played CounterStrike. Sometimes it was for outreach and sometimes it was just for fun. I must say though, in all of our game nights we never had any parents complain (despite keeping their kids out until about 6am) and we never had anyone get all antsy about the violence in the games. At the time I was part of the relatively conservative Southern Baptist church.
    Maybe I missed it, but from the article I didn't see any huge religious groups condemning it. It seems to me that there are just a handful of people complaining. Also, journalists need to stop just saying, "it's rated M" and start saying what it's rated M for. In the article all they say is that it's violent! and it's rated M! Oh no! GTA and Halo are both M and they're both M for completely different stuff. I would let my 13 year old nephew play Halo, but not GTA. The same is true for movie ratings... seeing the Passion of the Christ is not the same as seeing Striptease and they're both R. Yet I know for a fact a ton of parents took their kids to see Passion of the Christ, but not Striptease.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    1. Re:GAME NIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's fair to compare Striptease to anti-semitic torture porn. It was bad, but it wasn't THAT bad.

    2. Re:GAME NIGHT! by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah right, because seeing some naked boobies is way worse than seeing a person get tortured and beaten in excruciatingly graphic bloody detail?

      That is nonsensical on so many levels. Christianity makes my brain hurt.

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    3. Re:GAME NIGHT! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Schindler's List is far worse then pr0n. Didn't you know? After all, the truth behind the history of a people* is secondary to a pleasurable experience.

      * Regardless if the Christian version of things is true, there are enough people who see it as true to make it a history altering event.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  20. Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Have you ever read the Bible? It is FULL of violence. Horrible violence. Genocide condoned and ordered by God himself (not to mention slavery and rape (cf the book of Numbers)). The total destruction of the world is in there a few times too. Oh and don't forget the various descriptions of torture and sexual misconduct and so on.

    Personally, I don't see how any morally upright person would ever let thier kids have access to a copy of that book.

    1. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      isn't that only the old jewish bits of the bible. in the Christian parts of the bible god is love leaving some to believe that there are infact two gods in the Christian religion.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by WgT2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are plenty of examples of God showing himself to be love in the Old Testament and at least one example of God being a decisive judge on the wickedness of a man (and his wife)... Not to mention all that goes down in the book of Revelation.

      The more you study the whole Bible, the more you recognize its unity.

    3. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see where it says rape the women, it says keep. Please show me a passage that says that, where it tells the men to actually force the women into sex.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    4. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by Dameian · · Score: 1

      Good. Now read on in chapter 21:

      10 "In case you go out to the battle against your enemies and Jehovah your God has given them into your hand and you have carried them away captive; 11 and you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form, and you have got attached to her and taken her for your wife, 12 you must then bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, 13 and remove the mantle of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole lunar month; and after that you should have relations with her, and you must take possession of her as your bride, and she must become your wife. 14 And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.

      Don't consider the Bible just by one or two small sections. Consider it in its entirety.

    5. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see where it says rape the women, it says keep. Please show me a passage that says that, where it tells the men to actually force the women into sex.


      You would make an excellent Pharisee.

    6. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by darkpixel2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

      What kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being?

      Not saying I condone those actions, just saying you are retarded for thinking you understand the reasoning of God--in much the same way my 1-year-old doesn't understand *why* I don't want him to stick his finger in the light socket--just that I don't want him to do it.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    7. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being?
      The kind of idiots that start and propagate religions.
      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    8. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by dasimms · · Score: 1
      By not condemning murder, rape, and slavery because "what kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being" is condoning it.

      My question would be what kind of idiot thinks they can please/gain-favor-with/enjoy-the-everlasting-company of an omnipotent, omnipresent being they can never understand?

    9. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying anything about religion.

      I'm simply saying that if there was a being that was all powerful, has all knowledge, etc...what makes you think you could possibly understand his or her reasons?

      It's like a child trying to understand adult reasoning. It's not possible.

      So *if* there is a God, you wouldn't understand his reasoning.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    10. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      By not condemning murder, rape, and slavery because "what kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being" is condoning it.

      No, I am not condoning it. I think the premise is wrong. I'll admit that I haven't read the bible from cover to cover yet, but I haven't seen anything in there that says rape, murder, and enslave.

      My question would be what kind of idiot thinks they can please/gain-favor-with/enjoy-the-everlasting-company of an omnipotent, omnipresent being they can never understand?

      I never said 'never understand'. But a more appropriate statement would be 'never understand in this lifetime'. Of course my analogy between the child and parent kinda breaks down at this point.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    11. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 0
      The point was that interpreting the mind of this supposed all-powerful thing is exactly what religions claim to do. Bible studies? Sermons? Ring a bell? You asked what idiots, there's your answer.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    12. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      Jesus is a vast improvement over Yahweh, but thats not exactly saying much.

      "For those enemys of mine who wish not that I reign over them, bring hereth and slay them before me" -Luke 19:27
      "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace, but a sword" -Matthew 10:34

      And of course, multiple mentions of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in Mark, Matthew and Luke, upping people for not stoning disobedient children to death, getting people to abandon their families to follow him and of course the entire Book of Revelation

      I'm just glad its all bullshit

      On a funny note "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a same unto him" -1 Corinthians 11:14

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    13. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      The point was that interpreting the mind of this supposed all-powerful thing is exactly what religions claim to do. Bible studies? Sermons? Ring a bell? You asked what idiots, there's your answer.

      Wrong again. If you believe what the bible says, it is not an interpretation. The bible is allegedly the word of God written out by people...(I can't think of the word...inspired?) by him.

      In other words they wrote what God said to write.

      Bible studies are supposed to be a group of people who get together and read/discuss what is in the bible. You might say they are interpreting it--but I disagree. You could take any complex subject matter and listen to 10 different people tell you what it means to them, and every one will be slightly different--even though they are all talking about the same thing. And because of the small differences in the way people understand it, and the discussion that takes place, you may find new revelations and personal insights.

      Plus it's nice to hang out with a group of people who share your same views--weather it's religion, politics, football, or technology.

      As for sermons, I probably have a different view than most people on the subject.
      If the bible was created as a way to understanding salvation, why would it be so complex that you need someone to read it to you? If you were stranded on a desert island with only enough stuff to survive--and a bible, is it possible to be 'saved'? I would think yes. I do not believe you would burn in hell simply because you couldn't find a Catholic priest to 'absolve' you. (Which I never understood anyways--nothing I have read says you need some retarded church official to 'save' you or absolve you.)

      As for idiots, you will find them in every slice of the populous. There are quite a few 'learned' scientists that believe in God. Likewise I know some backwoods idiots who can barely read or write who believe the same.

      I wouldn't focus on the people that believe, but rather the belief.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    14. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by chaoaretasty · · Score: 1

      What kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being?

      Falwell, Phelps, Bush...

    15. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by Tim+Browse · · Score: 3, Funny

      What kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being?

      I could equally fairly ask, what kind of idiot thinks there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being?

    16. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I could equally fairly ask, what kind of idiot thinks there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being?

      My debate wasn't about an omnipresent being existing or not existing. The debate was about one existing and whether you could understand his reasoning.

      Of course down the 'existence' path, I have never heard anyone prove absolutely that one exists--or does not exist.

      If the bible is correct, we won't have proof until we die, or the world ends.
      If the bible is wrong, we won't have proof until we die, or the world ends.

      Of course that's why faith is such an important thing in religions.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    17. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Falwell, Phelps, Bush...

      Yeah, Falwell is a douche--and I'll admit I'm on the fence about Bush. But Phelps?!? That guy is beyond idiot, and way beyond 'screwed up'.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    18. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that I haven't read the bible from cover to cover yet, but I haven't seen anything in there that says rape, murder, and enslave.

      It is a bit over the top, but here's a starting point: rape, murder, enslave. Ok, it's not telling you to do this, but it is most definitely documenting cases of God telling His people to do these things.

      If you don't like the commentary, go right to the source, and that's not the only copy on Gutenberg. Look it up for yourself.

      Now, go ahead and tell me I don't understand. I still say that being a rational being, I cannot trust, let alone worship, anything that is so obviously evil to me. That its reasons are beyond my comprehension is irrelevant -- most psychopaths have reasons I'll never understand, and you could easily argue Satan would be similarly beyond my comprehension. Assuming both exist, roughly as they are described in the Bible, which should I choose? Because it's not obvious.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    19. Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      That's all ok because the Jews did it. Says so right there in the bible.

  21. one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd consider myself an agnostic at this point: I can't say whether there is a higher power or not, it's not a question that can be answered by science. But I trust science more than I trust the unfounded rantings of Jewish nomads from four thousand years ago.

    I grew up in a religious household and was exposed to all the evangelism arguments. The ones that disgusted me the most were the appeals to personal vanity and greed, the pitch made heaven sound like a multi-level marketing scheme. Religion is supposed to be about choosing to do right for yourself and others, it isn't supposed to be a "me" thing, but it's sold like BMW's and laundry detergent. Christ said "For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them." You don't need a megachurch for that. But you look at the modern evangelical movement, you've got these huge fucking worshiptadiums and it's like a rock concert. I think traditional services are boring as hell but the rock concert approach is attracting people for the bling rather than any message of self-improvement. How many people would remain if all that bling and largess went away?

    If churches want to talk about a lack of relevance, they have to reevaluate the values they teach. In the church I grew up in, we went through three youth ministers: one was caught in a sleeping bag with an underage girl, the next one was caught boffing a married church elder and later killed herself, and the third came down with a case of the gays. Now God presumably made him that way and yet he had to leave the church because he was a flawed human being given over to the weakness of the flesh. Divorce rates are higher for Christians than society on average, in part I think because sex and cohabitation are no-no's. How do you even know if you're a good match for the other person if that stuff is left until after the knot is tied? How many people are rushing to get married just to make it "legal" with God, thinking with the gonads instead of the brain?

    I think the real issue is that church morality is backwards and irrelevant in a modern society and these people who think they have the monopoly on morality seem to be caught doing the worst shit that religious and nonreligious alike can agree on as immoral: drug abuse, child molestation, embezzlement, nepotism, supporting GOP candidates, etc. So what's the difference between a sinning churchman and the average sinner on the street, one is supposed to know better but does it anyway?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by JayDot · · Score: 1

      Your post brings up several issues that face the Church today.

      You say that you trust science over the "rantings of Jewish nomads". The term "science" is used in a couple of different ways in modern language. First we have the "scientific method" of hypothesis, testing, and observation. To my knowledge, this kind of science does not contradict the Bible. The other understanding of science is the great realm of theory that cannot be proved or disproved. For example, the theory of evolution has been circulated for over 100 years; however we have yet to find an example of one species evolving into another unique and separate species. (I am assuming the definition of species as a group of animals whose members can interbreed.) We have yet to uncover an in-between animal form in our various diggings around the world. And, yes, this means that Creation is on equally theoretical footing due to the fact that it also cannot be observed or recorded by modern man. I am not saying that science is a bad guide; indeed, science properly understood is a great boon to our lives. However, science improperly understood or misused can result in a very narrow understanding of the world, no matter which side you choose to follow.

      Your statements on the values of the modern Church is unfortunately accurate for far too many congregations. However, there are churches that have large congregations because of the message that they preach. One example is Mars Hill in Michigan. Yes, there are pastors and churches that focus on Christianity as some kind of "good life" ticket. They need to remember that Jesus himself said that in this world, those who follow Him would have trouble. Christianity is about relationship with God, not about getting the best stuff and having the best life. Too many people forget that, and it turns people off.

      I will not excuse the behavior of the youth pastors that you described. The first two, who betrayed the trust of their congregation, are especially without defense. And without knowing the full context of the situation involving the third one, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of the action taken. However, your point about the Christian prohibition on sex and cohabitation outside of marriage is contradicted by studies in this area. I recommend the following study: http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000629.cfm As far as knowing if a person is right for you, that is what Courtship/Dating and prayer are for.

      Finally, I would like to point out that Christianity doesn't make people perfect overnight. We spend years, in some cases, destroying our lives. Why should we expect to fix years of destruction in a matter of days? Yes, there are hypocrites. Yes, there are people who fall and make mistakes or choose to do wrong. But the difference is that the average church-goer sitting in the pew recognizes that he did wrong and asks God for the strength and guidance to do better. Just like parents are pleased when their young child attempts to walk even though he falls down, so too is God pleased with our faltering attempts to follow His way. However, the parents expect the child to grow up and walk on his own at the appropriate time; God also expects us to grow in our maturity and our ability to follow His commands.

      --
      Meh, a real sig would take too long, and I have an MMORPG to play with....
    2. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      As someone who has lived both a religious and nonreligious life (although moving in the opposite direction you have), I agree with your basic point - my basic concepts of right and wrong have not changed, and I certainly don't feel that a religious life is the only proper way to live. It works for me.

      The important thing, as in so many things, is to be careful about who you lump together. I have a friend who is a rabbi (he doesn't have a pulpit, he's a headmaster at a jewish school.) He says that when he travels, and his seatmate finds out he's a rabbi, he inevitably gets a long story about the persons awful rabbi growing up, or their terrible hebrew school experience, or other disappointments with their jewish experience. The thing is, this guys is the epitome of tolerance, cheerfulness, and thoughtfulness. He takes it all in good humor, but I think is saddened to see people rejecting a religious life because of their bad childhood experiences, without realizing that there are other ways to do it.

      I don't know much about christian communities, and it sounds like you've seen a huge lack of humility, and a huge amount of hypocrisy. Religion isn't a cure all for bad behavior. At it's best, it provides a few guideposts for seeing where the pitfalls of being human are, and some clues as to how to approach them. At it's worst... well, there have been horrors visited on the world by the religious and nonreligious alike.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    3. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by keithpreston · · Score: 1

      I think that you like a lot of people have been exposed to Christianity from the wrong perspective. The problem is the majority of the churches teach that to be a Christian is to be perfect like Christ and don't realize the harm that they are causing. All they do is turn most non-perfect people away from the church and make the rest liars to say that they are perfect. Truly to be a follower of Christ means not to continuously seek after being like Christ and to allow and encourage others to do the same. This is impossible in an environment where you have to be perfect and are condemned if you are not. Some churches need to read their own book to find out "because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13)

      Otherwise I generally agree with your points, however Christianity is so large that it is easy for a few bad churches to sour overall impressions of Christianity. Higher divorce rates, I believe is a common misperception. This is attributed to the fact that many claim to be a Christian. You can find studies that should that married couples that show signs of strong Christian commitment (regular prayer, bible reading and discussion) have much lower divorce rates. However if you count people that show up to church on Sunday, it's probably the higher.

      It's really ironic how church try require perfection. The Bible mentions because of the Original Sin that it is impossible for someone born of Adam to be without sin. This is why the grace of Jesus Christ is required. I can tell you the difference between a sinning churchman and the average sinner on the street. The churchman should be continuously seeking to sin less because he sees how it will benefit his life and others, while the other doesn't care. The problem is most churches try to teach how to sin less by telling them don't sin, rather then dealing with the root of the sin (emotions, problems from past and childhood, etc..)

      I'd encourage you not to give up on church because of a few bad experiences. There are ones that get close to the true message of Christ.

    4. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by techwrench · · Score: 0

      Amen, Brother!

      Religion, and ones relationship and communication with a Higher Power is a personal choice, not a societal one. These organizations that promote the Concerts and other large gatherings, charge outragous "contribution" or "admission" fees are excluding those who the bible states should be helped the most.

      The commercialization of these instutions go against what I believe in. The right to believe what you personally want.

      I really don't think that whatever deity you choose to believe in cares much after that.

      --
      It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
    5. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say that you trust science over the "rantings of Jewish nomads". The term "science" is used in a couple of different ways in modern language. First we have the "scientific method" of hypothesis, testing, and observation. To my knowledge, this kind of science does not contradict the Bible. Ok, here's one: according to the Bible, the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man that he will not destroy the world in a another great big flood. As we are led to understand, light did not refract prismatically before the flood, only after. Here's another one: snakes did not crawl on their bellies before the fall of man, that was a punishment by God. So snakes presumably bounced around on their tails coiled like springs as evinced in the Gospel of Qbert. We are told that Adam and Eve were the parents of all mankind, when Cain killed Abel he went to live in a foreign land, God giving him a special mark so those people would know not to kill him. What other people, there's only three people on the entire planet at this time! The Bible also talks of the pillars of the Earth, the four corners of the world, the biblical value of pi is 3.0, etc etc. These are all logical misunderstandings for a book written by people ignorant of these facts but it does not speak so well as to the book being of divine origin. More examples are available here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

      The other understanding of science is the great realm of theory that cannot be proved or disproved. For example, the theory of evolution has been circulated for over 100 years; however we have yet to find an example of one species evolving into another unique and separate species. (I am assuming the definition of species as a group of animals whose members can interbreed.) We have yet to uncover an in-between animal form in our various diggings around the world. And, yes, this means that Creation is on equally theoretical footing due to the fact that it also cannot be observed or recorded by modern man. I am not saying that science is a bad guide; indeed, science properly understood is a great boon to our lives. However, science improperly understood or misused can result in a very narrow understanding of the world, no matter which side you choose to follow. Proof of transitional fossils that provide much support for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

      Some of the best evidence is coming from DNA analysis, some truly mind-breaking stuff.

      Science cannot speak of the existence or nonexistence of your god or gods but your religion cannot speak to the veracity of evolutionary science. If you want to get into that debate, you're going to have to debate it from a scientific, not religious, point of view.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    6. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Religion, like just about everything else we experience, is heavily influenced by people. People can be good or bad, right or wrong, confident or confused, and so on. Like you said, having a belief in God doesn't make everything automatically clear to you, and anyone who says that they've got it all figured out is likely fooling themselves.

      Religion is a lot like just about every other human organization, be it politics, business, education, sports, or whatever. It's got lots of participants who are confused, angry, competitive, greedy, manipulative, and/or just plain not nice. But it's also got lots of people who are hopeful, humble, working hard, trying to improve themselves, trying to help others, and just plain friendly and caring.

      You would hope that religious organizations would be better at filtering out the bad, but that's a really tough thing to do. And the sad reality of life is that it's much harder to create than it is to destroy, so the deeds of one bad person tends to block out the good that many others have accomplished.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    7. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by keithpreston · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's one: according to the Bible, the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man that he will not destroy the world in a another great big flood. As we are led to understand, light did not refract prismatically before the flood, only after.
      Light would have always refracted prismatically, however a rainbow still requires a certain set of conditions to appear. In addition pre-flood condition on earth are thought to be radically different then they are now. This is hinted at in scripture, there are many books on this topic

      http://www.amazon.com/Waters-Above-Earths-Pre-Flood-Canopy/dp/0802491987

      It is reasonable that this could have been the first rainbow

      Here's another one: snakes did not crawl on their bellies before the fall of man, that was a punishment by God. So snakes presumably bounced around on their tails coiled like springs as evinced in the Gospel of Qbert
      Changing the physical functioning of an animal does seem within the scope of God.

      We are told that Adam and Eve were the parents of all mankind, when Cain killed Abel he went to live in a foreign land, God giving him a special mark so those people would know not to kill him. What other people, there's only three people on the entire planet at this time!
      How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

      Proof of transitional fossils that provide much support for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
      Science without a doubt has proven "micro-evolution" or evolution within a species, anyone who refutes that is an idiot and not a scientist. There is fossil evidence that weakly supports transition between close species, however this has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The idea of evolution from a big bang, soup of chemical, etc can only be stated as a theory at best. Fanatics from both side preach their theories as fact and only misinform.
    8. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Light would have always refracted prismatically, however a rainbow still requires a certain set of conditions to appear. In addition pre-flood condition on earth are thought to be radically different then they are now. This is hinted at in scripture, there are many books on this topic

      http://www.amazon.com/Waters-Above-Earths-Pre-Flood-Canopy/dp/0802491987

      It is reasonable that this could have been the first rainbow

      No no no no no. I'm not sure if I've read that exact book but I did read one on the supposed antediluvian vapor canopy. This is the very definition of unfounded, speculative fringe science. The very same book postulated that the atmospheric pressure was around 30 psi with such a canopy, the fall of the canopy and great flood sundered the continents, and the highly oxygenated atmosphere also allowed for the great ages of biblical men such as Methuselah. None of this is sound science, and very few would even accept it in science fiction.

      Changing the physical functioning of an animal does seem within the scope of God.

      The problem with that premise is that we are faced with a world that demonstrably operates according to natural laws. While our understanding of some laws may be incomplete, these rules are nevertheless present and bounding the natural world. Gravitation existed before we had a word for it, it will continue to exist long after we are gone. We see no evidence for divine intervention with the natural operation of the world. We see no evidence for transubstantiation, the resurrection of the dead, walking snakes, talking donkeys, global floods, or a 6,000 year old Earth. One can suppose that if God intended us to think, he would have given us brains. Drawing upon this conclusion, it would take a perverse God to lay out all the evidence of the world being the way science has discerned it and yet for the truth to be as creationists claim it. That would be a perversion worthy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

      And yet the rules of genetics differed back then, such that incest and inbreeding did not lead to birth defects and the end of the human race?

      Science without a doubt has proven "micro-evolution" or evolution within a species, anyone who refutes that is an idiot and not a scientist. There is fossil evidence that weakly supports transition between close species, however this has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The idea of evolution from a big bang, soup of chemical, etc can only be stated as a theory at best. Fanatics from both side preach their theories as fact and only misinform.

      I would suggest making a good study of evolutionary zoology. You will be absolutely astounded at the proofs for evolution amongst just the mammals, let alone all the other critters crawling and scuttling across the face of the earth. What you will find is an astounding economy of evolutionary design across species. You can see common traits between living animals and fossil ancestors that depict the gradual change and evolution from one form to another, according to the pressures of natural selection. True flight has developed in vertebrates three separate times (I believe the number is three) -- the pterodactyls, birds, and bats. In every case, the forelimbs have been turned into wings, fingers elongating to provide the flight surfaces. In the case of birds, feathers were adapted be the true flight surface. There are an array of gliding animals as well ranging from squirrels to lizards and snakes. Again, there are examples of convergent evolution. Consider the shark, dolphin, and ichty

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion by keithpreston · · Score: 1
      I agree that because..

      We see no evidence for divine intervention with the natural operation of the world.
      That there will never be a scientific proof from Creationism or God. I am not trying to convince you of the scientific worthiness of the theory. Merely I am pointing out that your arguements against it are unreasonaly biased base on your theories. While creationism will never be proved by science, it is surprising how people try to disprove it by science. I am only trying to argue against your disproof, but stating your assumptions are wrong and that it is possible.

      And yet the rules of genetics differed back then, such that incest and inbreeding did not lead to birth defects and the end of the human race?
      Nope the same ruled applied, birth defect rise out of flaws in DNA that when both parents have similar ones (related parents) then bad things happen. Adam and Eve would have had perfect DNA therefore wouldn't have cause birth defects from early inbreeding. Only after external factors started to mutate DNA in later generations would inbreeding been a problem.

      By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them. ... The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. ... The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. ... The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). ... Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates).
      This is fundamentally flawed, because the first claim states that all living creatures must have a living parent. Where did the first living parent come from? Let's say that we found a process to make the first living parent. Could it be possible that this process happen multiple time?. Let's say it happen twice, Once that started the vertebrate line that we see today and another with the invertebrates. Repeat this non-living to living process for other differences. This does not mean that more complex forms must have come from simpler forms. The general principle of evolution can be proved, but trying to say that every organism evolved from a common ancestor is only a theory that can not be proved. Lastly it's funny how all these claims fit perfectly with creationism
  22. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This isn't anything new, really. When I was in high school in the late 90s, a church near my school tried to lure in new youth group members through stuff like this every Friday night. In the church basement there was a big sound system, ping pong, foosball, and some TVs with game consoles (playstation and n64). People could come hang out and play the stuff for free. Free domino's pizza and soda too.

  23. Wrong translation by MikeRT · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It is not "thou shalt not kill," it is "you shall not murder." Read the NIV, which is a superior translation to the KJV.

    1. Re:Wrong translation by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not "thou shalt not kill," it is "you shall not murder." Read the NIV, which is a superior translation to the KJV.

      Hmmm.... I would be cautious about making such value statements.

      Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.

    2. Re:Wrong translation by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      Just as a disclaimer, I agree with you.

      I just don't thing you can really claim that, and even if what you say is true in its most literal sense (the literal sense of truth, not the scripture) then you've got the other person's opinion to deal with. Given that religion in all shapes and sizes conditions believers that their thoughts are right, then you have an uphill battle. Hence why some crazy bastards still cling to the KJV.

      Like I said, I agree with you, but don't count on the crazies to do the same.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    3. Re:Wrong translation by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven. I'd argue there's a case for judging whether something is a "superior" translation strictly on the basis of the quality of source materials available for the translator to work with (more direct translation vs a translation of a translation of a ...) and better understanding of the nuances of ancient language that are made possible by more recent academic research. I'd say this is fairly independent of how the book was received as a religious text. It doesn't necessarily mean that the people who used that translation were inferior Christians but it may mean the texts they were using corresponded less closely to the older versions in ancient languages.

      Whether the quality of the translation in terms of closeness to the original actually matters to the KJV as a holy book will doubtless be debated. I have friends who are convinced that the KJV is the one correct translation and I imagine they believe this on the basis of the content and on the basis of how they've been taught to interpret it - independently of what translators may describe as being technically the best. I'd say that it rather depends whether you believe you should follow the original texts as best understood academically, or whether you believe in a specific interpretation of the texts which you may feel to be superior spiritually somehow.

      Personally I think it's very important to realise that all translations are likely imperfect, but that alternative translations could offer valuable insights into the subject matter and the process of how modern versions were arrived at.
    4. Re:Wrong translation by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.

      It depends on what you are attempting to do when you read. The New Testament of KJV is based on what is called the Textus Receptus, which in scholarly circles is generally understood to be less accurate than modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (e.g., the Nestle-Aland). The Old Testament of the KJV is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text, as opposed to the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). If you are trying to understand the historical beliefs of the church, or to shape your religious belief in the context of the church, it of course makes sense to rely upon a traditional translation, be it the KJV, or the Vulgate, or for the very early church, the Septuagint.

      If, however, you're trying to read what was "actually" written, textual criticism, while not really a science, does privilege certain editions over others. The NIV may be more "true" to at least the New Testament text than the KJV, but on the whole, I wouldn't recommend it. The NRSV, especially the Oxford edition, seems to be the consensus for basic readings in Judeo-Christian scriptures in higher education.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    5. Re:Wrong translation by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation?

      Consider KJV:

      1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.
      2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation.
      3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2.
      4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.)
      5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation.
      6. English has changed since 1611.

      I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."

      Note: I am not an expert on ANY of this.

    6. Re:Wrong translation by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      Well, there really isn't any disagreement that the NIV is a more textually accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek (although there is slight disagreement as to how important this is), as well as using more modern language (lots of disagreement on that one).

      In general though, even the NIV isn't considered to be that accurate of a translation anymore. When it comes to accuracy to the original languages the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) and NASB (New American Standard Bible) seem to be the most respected. Of course, the hardcore scholars just learn Greek and Hebrew.

      Personally I rather like the New King James Version. It sacrifices some textual accuracy for literary flow. It makes for a very readable text which is still more 'accurate' than either the KJV or NIV.

    7. Re:Wrong translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One should be cautious sure. The parent's comment was a value statement on the translation, not of the person(s) using the translation. The King James is an important translation in history no doubt. However, by most modern translation standards (religious or otherwise) NIV and/or NAS come much closer to accurate translations than the King James.

    8. Re:Wrong translation by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years.

      Argh; although nobody appears to have called me on it, I used the word "not" a couple times by accident. This should have read:
      It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were (and are) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years.

      Meanwhile, in response to those who discuss the (debatable) fidelity of the different translations, my contention is that even if a given translation is more technically accurate, it is not "superiour" translation of the Christian Bible unless the people using that version are thereby led to be better Christians.

      The argument put forth by the poster to whom I responded was that replacing "thou shalt not kill" with "you shall not murder" was an example of the superiority of the NIV's transation over the KJV. However, I am not at all convinced that this "superiour translation" has or will result in people more able or inclined to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    9. Re:Wrong translation by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.

      This gets moderated troll every time I post it. It is obvious the people moderating are both scared of the truth and have no idea what troll means. Regardless, I'll post again. Surely some will find probable truth interesting rather than be frightened of it.

      Based on your comment, this becomes relevant. It is widely believed one of the worst translation errors occurs is that of Noha's Ark. The original translation means the world flooded, which we all know is impossible. It is now believed the proper translation means the entire valley or region flooded, not the world. Meaning, the flood should be regarded as a regional flood of epic proportions but not one of global scale. This change in scope also allows for the animals which would otherwise not been able to fit in the ark to suddenly fit as the variety is drastically reduced. In other words, things suddenly make sense and become believable; assuming one's faith is still in order. To boot, archaeological evidence has been gathered which supports this as the proper translation, based on some assumptions and details provided by the Bible.

      People need to keep in mind that back then, "the world" actually meant the region and that there was, in fact, no word which literally meant "the world" as we know it today. The reason being, for most everyone, the entire world was made up of everything in that region and perhaps that of the surrounding regions, if one were well traveled, which was exceedingly rare.

      So for a translation to mean "the world" as we understand today it places meaning on it which simply did not exist back when the word was recorded.

    10. Re:Wrong translation by rrkap · · Score: 1

      I think that which translation is superior comes down on what criteria you use. The NIV (or most other modern translations such as my favorite, the NET Bible) benefited from access to more and better texts as well as a better understanding of the times in which those texts were written and is doubtless a more accurate rendering of the Old and New Testaments into English.

      However, I think it is also fair to say that the KJV had far greater literary and cultural impact because it was the dominant version in use for nearly 400 years. If you're interested in understanding the cultural background in the world of, say, 1700 or 1850 then familiarity with the KJV is very helpful.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    11. Re:Wrong translation by gwking · · Score: 1

      euaggelion kata gwking: You guys got it all wrong. NIV? Pfft. KJV? Whatever. Real men read greek.

    12. Re:Wrong translation by genner · · Score: 1

      /sigh guess I'm late to the party.

      New American Standard Version forever!

      New Living Translation is good too...

    13. Re:Wrong translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was actually a printing of the KJV that said "Thou shalt commit adultery."

      However that was a typo rather than a mistranslation. Most of them were burned.

    14. Re:Wrong translation by Monkey · · Score: 1

      Modern translations of the bible aside, I think it's useful to look at the actual evolution of Christianity and how it shifted from it's pacifist roots (as taught by JC) to accepting the notion that sanctioned killing is different than murder.
      During the fourth century period known as the "Constantinian Shift" the Roman Empire officially tolerated Christianity and later on, embraced it. This led to an increase in the number of Christians in the Roman army.
      This did not go uncontested by the church however, and church leaders complained about the violence of warfare. Eventually the church was pressured to make a concession, they no longer called acts of war and capital punishment murder. Even so, it was required that a Christian solider "with unclean hands abstain from communion for three years". Bowing to political pressure and the tolerance of human weakness, the church accepted the brutal acts in battle to be a lesser evil, as Christian soldiers were now seen as divine agents of justice repaying the suffering which earlier believers had endured.
      By the end of the fourth century, Christianity was made the official religion of of the Roman empire. By 416, the empire had transitioned from no Christians fighting as soldiers, to requiring all soldiers to be Christian.

    15. Re:Wrong translation by lightsaber777 · · Score: 1

      It can't be a superior translation, because it's not a translation. It's a transliteration, that's a big difference. Not only that but it's a transliteration from a small number of questionable texts collected by questionable translators. Older, yes, but older does not necessarily mean better. The first versions of the NIV were translated from the Westcott/Hort Greek Text, both great academics but not very good theologians. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, one must question if such men. From their own letters they rejected the deity of Jesus Christ... the Bible calls those people anti-Christ. There is no point to Christianity and no point to the Bible, Old or New Testament if Jesus Christ is not divine as well as mortal. ad hominem, fine, but not invalid in this circumstance. Secondly, the the 3 main source texts which give all modern versions(not necessarily the NIV) their claim to "oldest and best" are questionable. We date them as being older, but their sources come from Alexandria, Sinai, and the Vatican library. The manuscript from Sinai had originally been thrown away since it was so annotated and some say changed, that they could not verify that it was valid at all. The text from Alexandria was heavily influenced by Origen(Stargate fans shudder), a philosopher and a mystic with no theological background. The text from the Vatican suffers from the same issues as the Sinaitic text and is considered off limits to research and scholarly review. The difficult thing is, none of these three texts completely agree in content or in thought. Contrast that with texts from the Byzantine tradition which are consistent in content, thought, and there are thousands more of them. Remember that these many thousands of texts were all copied by hand and while they contain errors in spelling or punctuation, their content is nearly identical. It wasn't like now, where you put one bad copy in a copy machine and you can print off bad copies until you deforest a mountain in the Pacific Northwest. Hand copying, while leaving one open to mistakes in spelling and punctuation, actually prevents serious mistakes or alterations from propagating. Alterations like leaving out verses or changing the wording to say something else would have been much harder to propagate among that family of texts since there were so many and one person working from a poor text could only do so much damage in terms of accuracy. So you'll have to forgive me if I have to disagree with your statement.

    16. Re:Wrong translation by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Modern translations of the bible aside, I think it's useful to look at the actual evolution of Christianity and how it shifted from it's pacifist roots (as taught by JC) to accepting the notion that sanctioned killing is different than murder.

      Quite so. It's also interesting to observe how eager many people are today to refute the notion that Christianity is generally against violence. Strangly, the translation "thou shalt not kill" commandment seems to be presumed by many to have been chosen because the translators were ignorant of the subtlety of the source language, rather than because the phrasing they chose was more consistent with the teachings of Christ.

      This discussion is an interesting reflection not only on the history of Christianity, but of current political agendas.

    17. Re:Wrong translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.)

      Not to disagree with the rest of your post, but the Textus Receptus that was used for the KJV was *not* a Latin edition, but a Greek one. Point 4a, therefore, isn't valid.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_receptus

    18. Re:Wrong translation by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I made a mistake. You'll notice that I mentioned it was competing with other Greek texts, I was getting it messed up with the Vetus Latina Septuagint, noticed my mistake, and didn't clean up both references to Latin. You are correct, and that would have been worse, being a translation of a translation of a translation.

    19. Re:Wrong translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: The Textus Receptus is *greek*, not latin.
      I'm not a biblical scholar, but I can tell the difference between "sanctum est" and "hagios esti."

  24. In Soviet Russia... by russlar · · Score: 1

    Jesus frags you.

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
  25. Trolling for Covenant... by macduffman · · Score: 1

    (Here come the "Troll/Flamebait" ratings, but if you're going to post a story about organized religion, what do you expect? Oh well, bye-bye karma...)

    Personally I think it's sad that the church looks at Halo and can't realize that many people draw a lot of similarities between modern, organized Christianity and the Covenant...

    refusal to question authority, eradication of heretics, belief in something ridiculous against all other evidence...

    yep, sounds pretty much like what the corrupted leaders of the church do.

    And, one last thing before I get modded down, I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity. I do have experience here. Don't tell me I "don't know what Christianity is like."

    [stepping down from soapbox and shuffling back into the bar...]

    --
    Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
    1. Re:Trolling for Covenant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      refusal to question authority, eradication of heretics, belief in something ridiculous against all other evidence... yep, sounds pretty much like what the corrupted leaders of the church do. And, one last thing before I get modded down, I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity. I do have experience here. Don't tell me I "don't know what Christianity is like."
      Stating that you grew up in Fundamentalist Christianity is frequently pretty much the same as pointing out you don't know what Christianity is like all by yourself.
      I've been attending churches all my life and have yet to eradicate a single heretic (neither has anyone attempted to eradicate me).
      As much as I regret the damage that the more extreme end of christianity is causing please try to remember that your church is not my church and in return I will avoid comparing all atheists to Stalin and Pol Pot.
    2. Re:Trolling for Covenant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dugg!

      Oh wait...

      7. profit!!

  26. Stay Back Vile Catholic Priest! by HazMathew · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fromt he summary:

    "It is crucial, they say, to reach the elusive audience of boys and young men."

    EEEeeeeeewwwwwwwww! Count me out. Don't listen to the Priest. Those one-on-one matches on his private big screen sound a little suspicious.

  27. The Iraq War is nothing compared to Halo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are people complaining about Iraq? There's much more death and destruction in Halo.

  28. Christianity+FPS=good practice for the End Days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing says "Christian" like a good ol' FPS with lots of cool weapons to blow up thoust enemy to tiny bits. I'm sure there are other cells^H^H^H^HGroups out there, who already get plenty of real world target practice, who would benefit from a flight simulator night to get the local kids involved.

  29. touch me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is an important new tool for priest to reachout and touch young men

  30. There is a difference between kill and murder by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    and there are many scholars who think the word was murder and not kill. That would make much more sense considering the propensity for putting one's enemies to the sword.

    As such Halo would in shape or form be against the 10 commandments

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  31. Fighting Against Infidels In Halo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


    Sounds like a good idea for a mosque.

  32. wow. by Dr+Retarded · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Next week, on "To Catch a Predator"..

  33. Nothing new here by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    They have been doing this since at least 2004. That's when I saw a flyer for a Halo tournament being held by the local Christian Student Fellowship.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    1. Re:Nothing new here by uerunner · · Score: 1

      2004? I remember playing Bond as a part of a Christian school organization back in high school.

  34. I hope not! by Orleron · · Score: 1

    Crud, I hope they dont do this. It might actually work to bring people into their establishments and they would succeed in breeding more of their zombies.

  35. My take by evann · · Score: 1

    I would guess these churches realize that kids would rather be home playing video games in comfy clothes on Sunday morning than getting read childrens tales at a church. I know that is all I wanted to do when I was young. Soon as I was old enough for my parents to realize I really was not going to be buying into any religous ideas, we stopped going to church. If it was not a business then they would not strive to interfer with everyday lives so much. Can't they get their messages in on just one day a week? I love life, I love feeling free. These people want to keep tabs on young males so they "don't go to hell"? Control freaks. Also, donated money usually just goes to lavish bullcrap anyway. Now it's going to expensive gaming systems, projection displays and all this entertainment? What happened to the idea of helping others? The battered wives, the homeless, the cancer research? To think a nation's churches squander a lot of the donations on entertainment & large complexes. Some things never change I guess, but I sure wish religions would just go away. They already interfer with political policy and scientific endeavors too much for my liking.

  36. child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

    Churches have a long experience with mental child abuse. They do target the impressible youth quite intentionally, hammering home their message in "summer camps" and what else, so computer games nights are really not a big surprise.

    As a society, we'll be grown up when we don't allow people to abuse children like this anymore. We keep them away from sex until way beyond when they're physically ready for it, but we have no problem with them being indoctrinated in a religious faith long before they understand that some things their parents or other authority figures tell them might not be entirely the truth.

    That's child abuse, plain and simple, and whether it's "summer camp" or "halo night" really doesn't make that much of a difference.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:child abuse by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We keep them away from sex until way beyond when they're physically ready for it, but we have no problem with them being indoctrinated in a religious faith long before they understand that some things their parents or other authority figures tell them might not be entirely the truth.

      In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.

      Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1
      You make a very invalid comparison there. Religion isn't one "fact" (aka belief), it is a self-reinforcing set of beliefs with harmful side-effects and, interestingly, actual resemblances of mental disturbance (I have the sources somewhere, but I'm too lazy to dig them out. Google yourself).

      Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not. Richard Dawkins makes a very good argument against this often-used one in his book "The God Delusion". Fact of the matter is that quite a few recorded cases of people who were both indoctrinated religiously and sexually abused recall the religious stuff as the worse part. One example he cites (with source, look it up in the book if you care) is about a women who was abused by the same priest who told her that her best friend who had just died would go to hell because she was in the wrong church. To a 6 year old, sexual abuse is icky and definitely not something she wants again, but it was the image of her best friend burning in hell that gave her nightmares.

      Now tell me how that isn't child abuse.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raising a child in a faith-based religion does harm them intellectually.

      Similar to raising a daughter with the impression that since she is female, the best she can get out of life is marriage
      harms her prospects for a carreer.

      Such philosophies shape the child. Is it abuse?
      To an insider, of course not.
      Adherents of religion tend to not care much for intellectuals.
      Adherents of these female views tend to not care much for carreer women.

      To an outsider, this just may constitute something approaching abuse.
      Both are outdated modes of thought, and both can detriment the individual in our modern world.

    4. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Richard Dawkins is far from being anything like an intellegent source on issues of religion or child psychology. Would you listen to medical advice from say a systems admin over that of a doctor? No? Then why would you listen to the increadibly biased opinions of an evolutionary biologist on issues of spirituality and psychology, when said biologist has shown himself to have a hatred of all things religious? Objective you think? The man has been criticised by sources outside religion for his arrogant and erroneous take on the issue - he is NOT an authority on these issues, and yet speaks as though he is one. The example you cite is child abuse - by a person. Not by God, or by the beliefs of any religion, or by the majority of people who believe them and teach them to their kids. The use of fear to control and abuse someone is not specific to religion, and just because the fear came from a threat of her friend burning in hell doesn't make it any different to a non-religious person threatening to do nasty things to her mummy if she didn't keep her mouth shut. Child abusers always concoct ways to control the children they abuse using fear so they won't get caught, and yes - this is often more horrible then the abuse itself. A very common one is for them to tell the child that their parents will stop loving them if they tell, the fear of which is far more terrible for the child then the abuse itself. All of this is common teaching in child protection training. It's not something specific to religion, no matter what Richard Dawkins would like to suggest.

    5. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      Richard Dawkins is far from being anything like an intellegent source on issues of religion or child psychology. He merely happens to be a good scientist who has sources and citations for every claim both inside and outside his personal field of expertise. And yes, I would listen to a sysadmin about medical issues if he can back up his claims with sources.

      The example you cite is child abuse - by a person. Not by God, or by the beliefs of any religion, or by the majority of people who believe them and teach them to their kids. Of course it isn't child abuse by god, a fiction can't abuse children. But you can abuse children with fiction, and the image of hell and sinners being tormented there for eternity is straight from mainstream christianity, it's not unusual or extreme. It does have a massive effect on children and other easily impressable people. And it is precisely a horror image because it contains the usual horror elements: There's nothing you can do about it, it is at or beyond the limit of your imagination of bad, it can happen to someone you know and love, even to yourself, and it is something (pain) that you can relate well to.

      I'm not speaking merely from book-knowledge. I have had the dubious pleasure of first-hand experience with children who had the bible hammered into them, all nastiness included. I have seen 14 year olds who were completely fucked up emotionally. I doubt a rape would have left them any worse. These kids were done and over with, if I had been in a position of authority I would've asked that they be given psychological treatment and support.

      And that are not isolated examples. There was a movie in the cinemas some months back, I think the title was "Jesus Camp". Have you seen it? If you have, I am sure you will agree with me that the only proper term for what happens in those camps is "brainwashing". And the problem is religious because those responsible actually believe they are doing a good thing - because they are religious themselves. That's what I mean by "self-reinforcing belief system". Your faith is good because your faith says that it is good.

      And that's exactly what makes religion a mental illness, because those work by the same principle.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It "is" child abuse in a sense, you're weakening your child's future ability to think objectively ("faith").
      It is not comparable to telling your child to be a good conservative/liberal, because in that case, he'll ask why.
      In the case of religion, you're actually telling him that "why" is not a valid question.
      Just count how many kids change their religion/get rid of it once adults, compared to those whose political views differ from their parents. I'd wager the two are not comparable.

    7. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Of course it isn't child abuse by god, a fiction can't abuse children. And thus you give away your own self-reinforcing belief system. Because you believe God to be ficticious, religion has no worth. Thus teachings of religion that you don't like have no worth other to inspire fear. Because you don't like them, and they can inspire fear, they must be wrong. If they're wrong, God must be fiction. GOTO beginning again. You, like Dick, think that because your own personal moral code doesn't line up with what you read in the Bible (if you've even read it - you sound like you're just quoting "The God Delusion" as fact to me), the only conclusion is that the Bible must be wrong. Way to be self-righteously arrogent, really. Your points use your bias as evidence to back up your claims. You can't do that. Yes, people can abuse children with fiction. They can also abuse them with non-fiction, such as suggesting that they could do nasty things to their parents. Your point seems to be that because religious teachings contain elements that might be scary, that it must be wrong. Can you not see the problem there? I certainly don't endorse inspiring fear in children, and yes - that "Jesus Camp" movie sounds like it's pretty wrong, but this is NOT an accurate representation of Christianity or it's beliefs. And sampling a bunch of whacky people who do things in the name of their religion says nothing about the religion itself. Yep, Christianity teaches there's a hell. Atheism teaches there's oblivion. The thought of ceasing to exist scares me far more then the possibility of hell, especially when the same teachings that talk about hell say that its one of two alternative end-points. You're saying religion is wrong, primarily, just like Richard Dawkins, because you don't like the idea it could be right. It doesn't fit with the way you want to view the universe and humanity. Well, tough bickies, really. Show me the citations you speak of that confirm from real, qualified psychologists that giving children a religious belief system to live by is mentally damaging. Not that occasionally people will abuse it - which they will, but rather that it is predominantly a harmful thing. And let's just exclude papers you get from members of skeptics societies or other "lets get rid of religion" organisations. Go somewhere objective, and find some research. I'm interested to see what you can find. Because while I'm sure you can find papers on individual cases where religion is used to abuse, all the people in psychology I've ever spoken to (not Christians themselves, btw) have espoused the increadible good that comes out of someone belonging to a religious community and having a belief system like the one taught in the Bible. So, in the absense of you citing one actual real piece of evidence as yet, I'm going to propose that your beliefs come from a faith in the words of Richard Dawkins, which I suggest is an unsound place to put your faith.
    8. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      And thus you give away your own self-reinforcing belief system. Because you believe God to be ficticious, religion has no worth.

      Actually, no.

      One, it isn't a self-reinforcing belief system. My assumption that god (and let's ignore the tricky question of which god) doesn't exist does not result from the conviction that religion has no worth, but from a look at the world, the claims made by religion, and the simple fact that they don't align.

      My conviction about the worth of religion, again, is not a result of god being a fiction. Even with that major problem, religion could still be worthwhile, if it were a good thing. For example, if it would cause people to be more gentle with each other, more caring, or other positive contributions to society. As it is, those contributions are far outweight by the damages done by religion, from the crusades and witch hunts to modern day fundamentalist terrorism, not to mention the massive burden religious special treatment puts on society (example: The catholic church is one of the largest land owners in my country, and pays virtually no taxes).

      Finally, I do not believe religion has no worth. I do believe religion has negative worth. That's a difference. If I would believe it has no worth, I wouldn't care one way or the other.

      I've read enough of the bible to know it's horribly written and a lot of it would be viewed as, let's say "problematic" by our society today if it weren't protected by irrational respect for religion. I've not read it all, because to be honest it's a piece of shit as far as literature goes, and there are a lot of better books to spend my time on. However, I've read quite a bit of stuff about the bible, including many interesting facts about just how much of it can be considered true, and what kind of definition of "true" you have to use in order for it being so.

      but this is NOT an accurate representation of Christianity or it's beliefs.

      And that's the funny thing. Christians always claim that about every negative aspect of their faith. And really, it's a cop-out. Can you imagine "Jesus Camp" without Jesus? No? Then "Jesus Camp" is a part of your faith. Probably a part you don't like, but it's there, because it can't be a part of something else. Certainly not, say, ancient greek religion, or Buddhism. If you run "select * from features group by faith" then "Jesus Camp" will show up in the "christianity" group.

      Atheism teaches there's oblivion.

      No, atheism teaches that there is no god. A-theism - the "a" being greek for "not" and "theos" being greek for "god". Most, but not all, atheists include all supernatural phenomena in the category of fiction.

      Atheism certainly rejects your average afterlife, which funnily enough, always seems to be a "members only" feature of its specific religion. That alone should tell you it's a scam.

      Personally, I don't like just going away, but so far any and all evidence points to exactly that being the case. Then again, when I think of the atrocities that people commit because they believe in an afterlife, I tend to think oblivion as a perspective would be better. It's not as good as heaven, but it's better than hell, and it sure will reduce the number of suicide bombers quite a lot.
      You know, it just might make people treasure the life they have more.

      You're saying religion is wrong, primarily, [...], because you don't like the idea it could be right.

      For christianity to be right, we would have to be living in an odd world indeed. And even if it is right, there are still so many variants that you can't be sure just which one is really right. But heck, I'm not afraid, if your god has any brains at all, he'll welcome free thinking over sheep mentality, and if he doesn't then I don't want anything to do with him anyways.

      But the most important points are two:
      One: What are the chances? As I see it, the

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      But heck, I'm not afraid, if your god has any brains at all, he'll welcome free thinking over sheep mentality, and if he doesn't then I don't want anything to do with him anyways.
      Can you not see the arrogence when you write this? The very concept of their being a god puts that being significantly above you in terms of morality and intelligence. If your "self-promotion" of yourself as a free thinker makes you think you're of some value to the being who holds your very existance in the palm of his/her/otherwise hand, then you have a severely overinflated view of yourself. And reading the rest of your post, I have to conclude that's correct. If God cares at all about us, it certainly has nothing to do with how smart you think you are.

      Can you imagine "Jesus Camp" without Jesus?
      Note I haven't seen that film, but on the basis of what I understand it to be about - Yes. Substitute any other religious figure. Substitute any other popular figure. Does "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!" ring any bells?? That guy is sure fired up about his beliefs to the point of crazy. What about your average Oprah giveaway show, where Americans are in tears about the material posetions they've just been given? What about Tony Robbins seminars? Furvor to the point of crazy about someone or something is not specific to religion. It certainly makes a large showing in materialism (people dying in crushes at post-christmas sales). People are smart, but crowds of people can be stupid. This is not specific to religion. Jesus Camp is a fringe example of where misguided people use the Christian faith in an inappropriate way. Look (if you're able) at the character of Jesus who that camp is supposedly about. I think you'll find that the way he lived and taught is somewhat different to how they propose those children behave.

      Look, the problem here is that your belief system tells you I'm a blind idiot before I even begin typing, so we're certainly not going to get anywhere here. I know that the Christians around me have had a positive impact on the world. They're generous with their time and their money to others and charity, they're selfless and serving of those around them, and they love people because they believe that's their purpose in life. Those things are all societal positives, and decsriptive of what Christianity is. From my perspective, this is the hallmark of all the Christians I know, and is lacking in most of the athiests I know - they're more interested in telling me how right they are. Jesus Camp? Well, that's YOUR country. People seem generally crazier over there.
    10. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1
      Sorry for the double post, but I had to just comment on this:

      But I've done a few Internet researches. "religion child abuse" for example, yields about 2.5 million Google hits, many on the first few pages are links to scientific papers researching the link between those two. "religion mental illness" yields about 2 mio. pages, again several from the first few pages pointing to scientific journals or papers. If the link is no obvious to you: You certainly would agree that "training" a child in, say, shizophrenia, would be abusive, wouldn't you?

      Your "Google Proof" method of affirming your claims is invalid. The majority of pages on the "religion child abuse" search are quoting Dawkins and discussing his claims. Let's look at the first 10 results, shall we?

      1. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252 - WorldNetDaily
      Discusses Dawkins' series "The Root of All Evil?". Presents comments from a Catholic Church spokesperson in responce. Takes no position on the issue, as good news journalism shold.

      2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html - Time Magazine
      A news article about a paricular sect who refuse medical treatment for their children in favour of prayer. This is not common religious teaching, and the article doens't present it as such, but discusses the rights of the parent and changes to the view of "freedom of religion." More about politics then religion.

      3. http://www.nospank.net/bottoms.pdf - NoSpank PDF
      Bias aleart. NoSpank has a pre-published agenda and have cherrypicked articles to support. That aside, the article doesn't conclude that religion is child abuse, but that when religion is used to abuse it can have worse after affects. I would dispute this article based on the fact that it is published by a non-objective source, but regardless, it doesn't support your initial idea.

      4. http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
      I won't even bother. Yep - surprise. Richard Dawkins thinks religion is child abuse. But wait a second - it reveals where some of Richard's spite towards the church comes from:

      Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion...

      This is something I've been searching to find for a while. Reading Dawkins' work, and listening to him talk, I've always thought to myself "someone in the church has hurt him, and he's blaming God for it". And I was right. He speaks like someone who is motivated by bitterness rather then a series of objective findings that lead him to atheism. So he was abused, and blames religion/church/god for it. Maybe laying blame on the abuser who was using their position of responsobility for wrongdoing would be more sensible then a crusade against religion.

      5. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/11/religion-as-child-abuse-and-about-hell.html - Blog post
      Not anything approaching authorititive, the author links his own critiques of James Dobson that take read meaning into statements where there are none, and then write a diatribe on that one point. Example? He links an article which looks at the following paragraph:

      Some kids can be crushed with nothing more than a stern look; others seem to require strong and even painful disciplinary measures to make a vivid impression. This difference usually results from the degree to which a child needs adult approval and acceptance. The primary parental task is to see things as the child perceives them, thereby

    11. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      Can you not see the arrogence when you write this? Sure I can. Can you see the arrogance in the claim that there is only one god and you know all about him?

      The very concept of their being a god puts that being significantly above you in terms of morality and intelligence. But, according to your holy book, I was made "in his image". So he can't be that different. Maybe he's got a 500 IQ and no moral faults, but he's not entirely alien - or so you claim.

      Also, he's deeply insecure, according to your holy book. I don't need the assurance that people would sacrifice their sons for me, for example.

      So in sum, I figure it'll be interesting to meet the dude, but since the chances are roughly the same of that happening and the High Emperor of the Andromeda galaxy landing in my back yards tomorrow, I'm not breaking a sweat over it.

      [Jesus Camp]
      Nice try to avoid the bullet, but like Neo you just aren't quick enough. Sure there are other crazy things. Nevertheless, there can be no "Jesus Camp" without Jesus. The fact that, say, "Mickey Mouse Camp" exists as well doesn't invalidate that fact.

      And again, the "misguided" and "fringe" argument. Funny how everything that's dislikeable is always "misguided", "extremist", "fringe", etc. - and still, without the basic christian faith, there would be no "misguided fringe christian faith". You, my friend, are part of the necessary soil from which these "fringes" grow. Religious fundamentalism requires first of all, religion.

      Look, the problem here is that your belief system tells you I'm a blind idiot before I even begin typing, Actually, no. I believe you have caught a disease. You are ill, not stupid. Just like other mental patients, many of whom are quite smart, take autists, for example.

      I know that the Christians around me have had a positive impact on the world. But now your own argument from above bites you in the behind. Up there, you claimed that "Jesus Camp" is just the work of some evil people, and if it weren't for Jesus, they'd use something else instead. Now, down here, all the good the good people do is suddenly because of their faith.

      You can't have it both ways, sorry. Either both good and evil of your faith is because of your faith, or neither is. Anything else is a claim that requires solid proof.

      Jesus Camp? Well, that's YOUR country. People seem generally crazier over there. Actually, I'm not from the US. And I'm glad that I'm not, because you are right that people are crazy over there.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      If your Google method of proof holds true, then God certainly exists. Google "God certainly exists". 2.3 Million search results can't be wrong. Can they? That wasn't intended as proof, and I made that clear. It was intended as a starting point, and I didn't say "first page", I said "first few pages". You should look at bit further then #10 and you'll find quite a few articles and journals.

      But, since it's fun, two can play that game. "god fiction" yields 16.5 mio. hits. QED. :-)
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Simplification, ey? "god real" = 17.5 million. QED yourself. :)

    14. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Can you see the arrogance in the claim that there is only one god and you know all about him?

      That would be true if I claimed that. I claim that there's a book that explains all about how there's only one god and that it provides the stuff I and everyone else needs to know about him. I didn't write it, and to be honest, I really would like to spend a whole lot more time reading it. It never claims to be a science textbook, even though there's people who think it should be taken that way. It doesn't claim it will always be literal, although again - there's people who will say that it does. I can't tell you based on that book how exactly the world was created, how old it is, or what they should teach in science at school. But it talks a lot about God, documents things he did and people who believed in Him, and ultimately his plan to give me a hope. You can believe that's not real if you like. Just don't tell me I'm sick - there's nothing sicker then to go around trying to rob people of their hope, just so you can feel smart. Fuck you for that. Religion can be right or wrong, but what you and your ilk are doing is far worse. You're seeking to destroy something that although sometimes misused, ultimately exists to give people purpose and hope. Whether that hope is true or false, it's more then what you have. Dawkins' claim of "shouldn't this be enough" is obviously answered by a resounding "No!" as our society becomes more and more the way you and he would like it, and yet more people are offing themselves every year in dispair. Natural selection at it's finest, I'm sure.
      Ultimately, the issue of hope bears no relevance on whether or not God exists because hopes can be based on falsehoods. However, when speaking of life and death, to dismiss a hope of something beyond this as unnecessary is the greatest illness I can imagine - one that allows the bearer to grow numb while he kills everyone around him. Good luck with that.

      You can't have it both ways, sorry. Either both good and evil of your faith is because of your faith, or neither is. Anything else is a claim that requires solid proof.

      Except if it's my faith, and I know what it involves. As opposed to you, who look on and call anything that serves your purposes part of my faith. For example, Mormons call themselves Christians. But most other Christian groups say Mormans are not. They disagree with what are held by a large Christian population to be basic tennants of the Christian faith. You could exemplify the actions of Mormans and say "those people are part of your beliefs!", but you're WRONG. Because the set of beliefs I hold does not agree with the beliefs that Mormons adhere to. They're free to practice their religion, and even to call themselves Christians - it's their belief system. But it is at odds with mine. Consider this the same as atheists that think religion is OK, and atheists who think (like you) that religion is harmful and a mental illness. I could group all of you together and just put you under the banner of Atheism, but you might not like being attached to the same group of people who are voting to maintain people's freedom of religion - because although they don't believe there's a God, they can see the value in religion and religious communities, and therefore think that you and your cobelievers are WRONG. Read that? Try it again: WRONG. People, who believe there's no God, also think you are wrong! How could they think that?
      Oh, HERE's one reason how. The following is an excerpt from the Medical Journal of Australia:

      Why should religion and health be connected? The argument is a rational one. If religious people have a world view that gives hope and meaning in the face of stress and loss, if they have social support from other members of the religious community, and if they live healthier lifestyles by smoking less, drinking less, and making more conservative, less risky decisions in marriage, the workplace, and recreational

    15. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      "no god" - 241 mio hits. Beat that. :-)

      (sorry for double post, typo in the 1st one. "no go" actually gets you over 2 billion hits...)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    16. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Houston, we have a problem: I'm getting fundamentally different results. I wonder if it has to do with SafeSearch settings?

      Regardless, by simplifying the query to "god", I get all of your hits plus more. The winner, it is me! lol :) Thanks for the fun though.

    17. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      That would be true if I claimed that. I claim that there's a book that explains all about how there's only one god and that it provides the stuff I and everyone else needs to know about him.

      That's a more complicated way to say it, but not less arrogant. The claim is still that you (or your faith) is right, and everyone else (both currently alive and throughout history) is wrong. And that claim is not based on externally falsifiable fact (falsifiability, not verifiability is the important thing), but on the source of the faith itself. In simplified terms: The faith is true because the faith claims it is true.

      That is a self-reinforcing belief system. Quite a well-designed and/or well-evolved one, I can't hide a certain kind of morbid admiration. For example, labeling everything that offers solid proof you are wrong as a "test of faith" is a stroke of genius.

      there's nothing sicker then to go around trying to rob people of their hope, just so you can feel smart.

      I'm very serious here: I don't do this shit to feel smart. There's lots of other things that give me that feeling in a better way (hey, I am smart, after all).

      My opposition to religion is based on two other convictions: One, I believe it is harmful (I've already explained several reasons why) and two I believe people in general would be much better off if they'd stop living in a fantasy world and started properly appreciating the real world.
      For example: Protecting the environment because you should treasure "god's creation" is all nice and fluffy, but it doesn't have the same sense of urgency as protecting the environment because it's the only damn planet we have right now and there is nobody there to protect us if it goes down the drain.

      Whether that hope is true or false, it's more then what you have.

      You confuse atheism with nihilism, and that's totally not the same. I marvel at the universe, at the complexity and beauty of all of it from quantum physics to galactic clusters. I have hope - in human intelligence and if that fails I'm fairly sure evolution will bring about another intelligent species. Also, chances are there are other civilizations somewhere in the universe, probably too far away that we'll ever contact them, but then again, who knows?

      Except if it's my faith, and I know what it involves.

      You certainly cherry-pick what it involves. And as I said before, that's quite typical as far as denial goes.
      Now for your mormons example, yes and no. The point I was making was, simply, that without christianity, there would be no mormons. Now you can claim that they've evolved away from the core christian faith, but you can't point to mormons that evolved independent of christianity, can you? So there is a link. The discussion is merely whether it's causal, historical or inclusive.
      The same is true of everything else I mentioned. Sure christians today denounce the crusades (well, most do). Nevertheless, the crusades are unthinkable without christianity. If you re-write the history books and try to keep the crusades in while removing christianity, you will have to do a lot of creative editing.

      And that's what I am critising: Your faith is the breeding ground of destruction, mayhem, abuses, fundamentalism and an almost unlimited list of other evils. How can you absolve yourself of all of them by simply saying "oops, didn't mean that" ?

      I'm sick, am I? Are your beliefs the cure? How long before you start "treating" people like me?

      Yes, you are sick, mentally. No, my beliefs are not a cure. You think this is about switching from one belief system to another, like converting from catholicism to islam. It isn't. It's about thinking about belief systems, i.e. advancing to the meta level. Call me arrogant, I probably am. Then again, there just happens to be a strong correlation between intelligence and religious belief (and not in the direction you'd pr

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:child abuse by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      I need to stop this conversation, because it's consuming a lot of my time. The last post in particular, contained articles from medical journals espousing the virtues of religion that I spent a great deal of time reading through (and references). However, you've completely ignored them and stuck with your "religion is mental illness" line. So I give up.

      However, the truely marvellous thing about this conversation is that it's alerted me to just how much of the medical and scientific community think the opinions that you (and strangely, also Richard Dawkins) have expressed are arrogent nonsence. Religion is in general, not harmful, it's been shown in studies. Religion is useful, helpful, and positive both for the individual and society. You can hold that it's mental illness - that's your perogative. But it's in the face of the empirical evidence to the contrary.

      So thanks for the discussion - I do appreciate it. I seem to concur with your previously published opinions on Halo 3 elsewhere on here, so hey - maybe we'll have a more same-sided discussion somewhere here in the future.
      Cheers.

    19. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      Damn, got me there. Even though I should point out that the first 3 entries are about a band, a city and a job page and - you'll love this one - the fourth is the amazon page for Dawkins' book... :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    20. Re:child abuse by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does consume too much time. I don't have the time to read your sources or dig out mine, and I'd certainly enjoy doing this the whole nine yards, but I simply can't afford it - time-wise. Sorry for that.

      And on the other hand, I don't think you're a bad person. I do think you caught something, like people catch a cold sometimes. But we both know there are people out there with much more aggressive views on theism.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  37. Want to Reach the 12 - 24 Year Old Male Market? by aquatone282 · · Score: 2, Funny

    One word:

    Boobs.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Want to Reach the 12 - 24 Year Old Male Market? by martin_henry · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd rather reach out to the 19-22 year old female market.

      --
      www.purevolume.com/martyd
  38. A little bit too neat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to mention that the kikes are a damn sight worse (and in fact are behind much of the xtian bashing propaganda you repeat), and the muzzies cut off your hand and stone you.

  39. Whats new? by Stone316 · · Score: 1

    When I was growing up back in the early 80's we used to meet in the church basement once a week for a youth group. The only reason we went was for the games. We were willing to sit through a bit of "church" stuff to play dodge ball, ringette/floor hockey. Its sad to see how much youth activities have changed but its nice to see the church keeping up with the times. I wonder if they'll let a 34yr old drop by....

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
  40. The difference explained. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *SIGH* Do you really not have access to a dictionary? That's hard to believe in this day and age.

    kill (v) - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.

    murder (n) - Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

    Killing is defined as any taking of a life, while murder is specifically defined as the unlawful taking of a life. Therefore it follows that there are some narrow conditions under which taking a life is legal. If you break into someone's house and shoot them to death, you have committed murder. If they break into your house and you shoot them to death, you have killed them but have not committed murder because you killed them in self-defense or in defense of your property. The Bible very clearly enumerates the narrow conditions under which the taking of a life is justified. One of these conditions is when a person forfeits their right to life by murdering or attempting to murder another person. I don't really understand where your confusion lies, other than in your own bleeding-heart Kum Ba Yah delusions of how you think the world is.

    1. Re:The difference explained. by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      murder (n) - Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

      If you take it as God's word, he wasn't that specific; those were some pretty heavy tablets and he had to be concise so I doubt conditions of law played any role in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Murder. And the law is different depending on where you go. Is it okay that some cultures have death penalties for crimes we rarely enforce? A law is a law, right?

      God's law says "No Murdering." I really don't think that needs much more explanation, and waffling behind semantics to justify war or capital punishment just makes the Religious look like asshats. If you read it as it's written, no killing means NO FUCKING KILLING.

    2. Re:The difference explained. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1
      You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. At the risk of "omg, flamebait", I have to say it. First of all, while God wasn't subject to Jewish law, the people interpreting and actually penning the words very much were. You

      "doubt conditions of law played any role in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Murder." but Jewish law is all over the Old Testament, where the context is a very rigorous set of rules. If you are writing a book that (at least for the moment) seems to be documenting something happening right here and right now, you don't feel the need to elaborate on what the society you are in at the time considers vernacular. "Murder" would mean a justified taking of a life based on a narrow but defined set of conditions. Take the wars for example, God wanted them to fight and kill if they had to, when it came to defending their country, culture, etc. To "read it as it's written", sir, you must consider the context and society of the time when it was written, which was very different from today's.
      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    3. Re:The difference explained. by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      you must consider the context and society of the time when it was written, which was very different from today's.

      Therefore, the Ten Commandments are outdated and irrelevant to today's society as writ.

      I'm not disagreeing with you.

    4. Re:The difference explained. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Right, right. Talking about the context of a particular word versus talking about concepts and truths embodied within a statement. Exactly the same thing...

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
  41. Welcome to the 21st century. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where new tools are allowing religous communities to deliver a compelling package of media, community, and ideology. Churches have always been in the business of making, sponsoring, choosing and filtering media: in the business of "culture". In the age of mass media they performed these functions less effectively than they had previously. The internet, new media and technology will help them compete more effectively.

    Expect more of the same.

  42. The Bible doesn't make the Christian by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    The NIV was translated by people who generally knew Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic better than those responsible for the KJV. That said, the KJV is plenty accurate enough. It is harder to read, and less accurate, than the NIV for modern English speakers, but it is a perfectly acceptable means of conveying the gospel message.

    I never said that the Christians who adhere to it are less than those who don't. Those are your words and assumption, not mine.

  43. Tomorrow night... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gay porn night!
    Show those queers we're hip too!

  44. I'm not so sure this is a good idea ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after all, once I start spouting epithets like, "J33bus Fscking Chrust! You G@*#amned clock hoard" after being sniped or killed one too many times I don't think they'd be inviting me back.

    But hell, who am I to interrupt the ongoing religious culture of killing in the name of God.

    [personally edited for some decency]

  45. Amen, brother! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...sorry...I got caught up in the fervor...but I agree with what you say. Oh mightily I do! Haleluja!!!!

  46. What happened to letting God be the judge? by Fizzl · · Score: 1

    Well, DUH! *Rolls eyes*
    How are you going to take them to the judgement?

  47. Hypocrites? I say no. by ZPWeeks · · Score: 1

    While many here would label this as a hypocritical stance, I would have to disagree. Not all Christians are staunchly anti-[INSERT FORM OF POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT HERE] but there are some extremists that give others the idea that all Christians have such a kooky stance.
    I moved a year ago and I don't go to church right now - I've found some that teach things I like, but the people there just turn me off. They pretty much ignore me. But I *do* go hang out with a bunch of guys from a church college group who all play Halo once a week.A bunch of guys come who wouldn't be caught dead in church. Also, I've played with quite a few people who are having serious issues back home (abuse, suicidal thoughts, addictions that they want to toss)
    There's no message, no cramming of doctrine down the throat. I get a better feeling of people being like Jesus here than I have at any church in the last year or so. Jesus wasn't an inaccessible person who was too holy for anyone to be with or talk to, and I'm certain that when he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors, the dinner talk wasn't a lecture on how people needed to straighten up.
    My only issue with churches using Halo as an outreach is the idea of making M-rated games accessible to teens without any kind of parental permission. Yeah, most teens probably play it anyways, but there's something to be said for respect.

  48. Well, that's an interesting question. by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.

    While there's no question that God asked the Israelites to kill in His name repeatedly in the Old Testament and to punish certain crimes with death, it's an open question whether or not Jesus tightened the prohibition against killing with his commandments to "turn the other cheek" when one is wronged and to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when it comes to punishment of crimes.

    It is quite reasonably arguable that even killing in self-defense is no longer allowed given the New Testaments focus on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, though few religious scholars would go that far. Gandhi, who was not a Christian, was one of the very few who did argue this -- even going so far as to say that England should not try to defend itself against the Nazis.

    It's doubtful, though, that Christianity could've survived to be what it has become today if Constantine hadn't co-opted it into a warrior's creed.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Well, that's an interesting question. by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Gandhi wasn't exactly on good terms with the British. It's not inconceivable that he might have had an ulterior motive on that 'let the Nazis win' suggestion.

      Before people start modding this down as flamebait or troll, remember that Gandhi was reasonably skilled politically, and could easily have espoused taking the high road with the knowledge that there wasn't a way the British could defeat the Nazis and defend themselves from his condemnation. He would also have known what the British people would choose, and been able to use their rejection of his plan to further demonize them in India in the lead up to his request for the UK to Quit India.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    2. Re:Well, that's an interesting question. by marnues · · Score: 1

      The general British public loved Gandhi and were pretty much in favor of giving the Indians control of their own government if not completely leaving India. And the British military did a pretty good job making every Indian hate them (except the privileged few). Gandhi didn't need to create any fervor there. I'm pretty certain Gandhi truly believed in peaceful resistance to the point that he was certain wars could be won by it. Delusional? Maybe. But its never really been tried the way Gandhi would have seen happen.

    3. Re:Well, that's an interesting question. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Gandhi had himself defeated Britain in India precisely by adhering to nonviolence even when the British slaughtered some of his followers. The resulting outcry from around the world pressured Britain to grant sovereignty to India. Had an Indian military leader tried to win independence from Britain by force, the casualties would certainly have been much greater, and it probably wouldn't have worked anyways.

  49. Halo 3 by VanHalensing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We've done things like this with churches I've worked with in the past. I have no problem with it. They aren't killing real people, I don't buy that video games make people violent. On the contrary, I think it helps let out anger and other emotions, not to mention the game is just plain fun. That's why it makes me so sad they took dodgeball out of schools, now all kids have are things like video games for outlet.

  50. There are other options by sherriw · · Score: 1

    I'm curious, why choose Halo with it's obvious theme of killing? There is a HUGE selection of party, racing, sports, puzzle and adventure/action games that are much more appropriate. Of course, Halo is the big news these days so maybe it's JUST the popularity of the game they seem concerned with. Interesting that many churches won't compromise on some of the rules that are keeping so many people away, like birth control, gay-rights, molester-priests getting a slap on the wrist, and oh, the Harry Potter books are Pure Evil (but Halo is harmless fun). *sigh*

    1. Re:There are other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Harry Potter books are Pure Evil (but Halo is harmless fun)
      You have a reference to where a specific church states this of course?
      Or would sticking to the truth get in the way of your religion bashing?
  51. Three Questions I thought of when I read this by Tronster · · Score: 1

    Can a geek who believes that Jesus is Christ not enjoy Halo?

    Is playing violent video games a sin?

    If the "church" (meaning here being all churches of any demoninations that affirm the Nicene Creed), has been charged in spreading the teachings of Christ (thinking of Mark 12:28-31) does it further succeed or fail by offering a place for people to gather and play Halo 3?

  52. now here's a radical idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about actually living out the gospel in one's day to day life? I mean,I know it's a radical idea and all, but this would seem to give much more credibility than some gimmicky sales tactic.

  53. A Mistranslation by janson0 · · Score: 1

    I just want to point out that:
    They bring up the 6th commandment in the article. While it is often quoted as "Thou shalt not kill," this contains a mistranslation (this is how it is translated in the King James Version). The Hebrew word translated as "kill" here is "ratsah" (Segal). This should in fact be translated "murder." Rendering this passage "Thou shalt not murder." or "Do not murder". This is corrected in many or most modern translations of the Bible.

    Here is the definition of murder of dictionary.com: "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."

    So it would seem, the "Thou shall not murder" command is not really applicable to this situation, as Master Chief is certainly not murdering in the legal sense or even in the moral sense. I do not understand "the debate" over whether using this tool to spread the gospel is a good thing or not. Bring people in. Share the love of Christ. Play Halo. I think its a great idea.

    My two cents.

    Source: Segal, Eliezer. "Thou shall not murder." From the Sources. 19 October 2000. 9 October 2007. http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

  54. Killing people for Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing people seems to be a virtue in US churches these days as seen by the Christian religion playing a strong role in the US military in Iraq, the games being used to recruit children into the army and Church being prepped to report suspicious people for the FBI.

    1. Re:Killing people for Christ by trongey · · Score: 1

      Nothing new here. Ever heard of The Crusades?

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  55. The shrimp argument is just a sign of ignorance. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    It's a stupid argument if you're trying to convince Fundamentalists that they are hypocrites for hating gay people while eating shellfish. For one thing, fundamentalists (or their equivalents in any creed) are fundamentally (no pun intended) incapable of using self-reflection to identify hypocrisy instead of to rationalize it away.

    More importantly, though, is the fact that the New Testament explicitly overturns kosher dietary prohibitions (at least for Gentile Christians if not for Jewish Christians too). See Acts 10:9-15 and see Matthew 15:1-20 (verse 11 in particular).

    There are plenty of other things that people regularly break in Leviticus that a campaign could've been based on, but the whole "God hates shrimp" campaign just earns the scorn of fundies over their gross ignorance of the Bible.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  56. 25 computers by thundergeek · · Score: 1

    We do this every year at our New Years Eve All Nighter. Last year I set up 25 computers, 12 on 12 with one server, and we played Unreal Tourney.

    Every kid there, whether they came for the game or not, eventually played for a while, and loved it! The server was set up with a projector so people could watch out there and there was no shoulder surfing. One team captain had voice to his team, as well as teamspeak to the other captain as well as the server operator! It rocked!

    It really doesn't matter what you use to "witness" to someone. What matters is the follow up. If no one walked away with a better sense of how God loves them, then it was a waste of time. By using video games to witness, you are telling them that God cares about them, and that the church isn't all about hymns only and singing scripture! It is about personal relationships. I wouldn't expect anyone to respond to me if I tell them that what they do doesn't matter.

    1. Re:25 computers by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      I would think that if an omnipotent god really loved and cared in the manner you speak, she would not have to have to use fallible zealots to impart the fact, it would be intuitively obvious and intermediaries, acting like a car salesman going to "talk to the manager" to clear the deal, would be superfluous. The quality of the tools is very indicative of the quality of the data. We would all be far better off being taught to think instead of believe.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  57. Thou Shalt Not Kill... Things With Souls. by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1

    Expect a serious religious schism to occur in most major religions when we run into another sentient life form; on the one side you'll have people who say, "Aliens have souls." and on the other you'll have people who say, "Aliens don't have souls." It is over such environmental newness that all religious fractioning has occurred.

    --

    [Ego]out

    1. Re:Thou Shalt Not Kill... Things With Souls. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Let's all just hope the aliens think we have souls...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  58. Obligatory... by that+IT+girl · · Score: 2, Funny

    A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, verses 16-20.

    Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

    -- "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

    Any such thing as a holy PLASMA grenade? :D

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  59. If they ain't buying what you're sellin... by netsavior · · Score: 1

    Sell 'em something else, then swap jebus at the last possible second.

    Or just plain ole "Bait and switch" if you like.

  60. Sinful thoughts are still sins, so..... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Heh, and all this time I thought it was because it was just a game and not real. Silly me. :)

    Actually, that brings up an important point which is the center of the debate. Jesus's teachings include the idea that the thought of a sin is as good as the sin itself. Matthew 5:27-30 tells us that if your eye or our hand causes us to go astray that it would be better to remove it than to see our whole body cast into Hell.

    So, yeah, it may all be fun and games, but does it still count as desiring the death of another even if that death isn't real? It's a thorny theological question. While the Bible teaches that God forgives all of those who ask sincerely, do Churches want to be encouraging (and condoning) something which may or may not be a sin?

    That's the crux of the debate, really.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Sinful thoughts are still sins, so..... by Some_Llama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but when i'm playing a game i don't want the "person" dead.. just the on screen representation of their actions in the game world. their "avatar" or whatever.

      Except for cheaters.

  61. What Would Jesus Do? by adatepej · · Score: 1

    Would Jesus resort to using Halo as bait to drag people into his Father's Heavenly Kingdom? I'm pretty sure not. Kinda pathetic to use conversion tactics that say "hey convert ... you'll get to play video games!" rather than "hey, convert ... you'll walk in the light of the Lord during this lifetime and then spend eternity in our Savior's heavenly Paradise!"

    Would he even play, or endorse, or even condone playing a violent video game -- a game which introduces violence into your life for no reason other than entertainment?

    I think not.

  62. Not new by Schnapple · · Score: 1

    My sister, who couldn't spell Xbox if you put it in front of her in 50 foot letters, loves to play Halo at Christian singles parties. This is the same one who literally couldn't figure out how turn on her PC sometimes in college but figured out Napster (the original version).

    Ironically my sister was, at the time, one of those born-again types that seeks to annoy everyone who doesn't agree with her, and even she could see that Halo is fun and to just get over it with the whole "OMG violent video game" thing.

  63. Wait wait wait by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    "It's actually a common misconception that the Bible condemns killing. The misquoted verse from the 10 commandments was mis-translated in the KJV as "thou shalt not kill"."

    I thought the translation was divinely inspired. Well? Was god wrong when he did the translation?

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:Wait wait wait by 75th+Trombone · · Score: 1

      I thought the translation was divinely inspired.

      That belief is held by such an insignificant minority of Christians that it's absolutely ridiculous for you to shove it in someone's face without particular knowledge that they hold that belief, no matter how simple-minded they might be.

      --
      The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
    2. Re:Wait wait wait by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      "That belief is held by such an insignificant minority of Christians"

      Source that please.

      "that it's absolutely ridiculous for you to shove it in someone's face without particular knowledge that they hold that belief, no matter how simple-minded they might be."

      I was ASKING A QUESTION you insufferable twat, and not in the "asking a question but really making a sarcastic statement" way that is so common around here, but AN ACTUAL FUCKING QUESTION.

      What the fuck is wrong with you...

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    3. Re:Wait wait wait by 75th+Trombone · · Score: 1

      Source that please.

      Well, I'm having a hard time coming up with hard numbers, but the Wikipedia page lists some denominations taking any KJV-only position, and the really big ones (Catholic (of course), Southern Baptist, United Methodist) are absent, and the bigger ones there all have disclaimers saying most or not all congregations are KJV-only.

      Not only that, but the article also says that within KJV-onlyers, the KJV-inspireders are a minority. So we have no huge denominations listed, a disclaimer on all the denominations that are listed, and some small fraction of all the churches we haven't eliminated yet. Not a very significant number, and not at all enough to assume that your average Slashdot fundamentalist is going to believe that the KJV is inspired.

      "asking a question but really making a sarcastic statement" way that is so common around here

      What the fuck is wrong with you

      You answered your own question before you asked it. :P

      --
      The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
    4. Re:Wait wait wait by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      "Well, I'm having a hard time coming up with hard numbers..."

      As I expected.

      "You answered your own question before you asked it."

      OH NO, you came at me with guns blazing, so no sir, you fucking answer the question or apologize.

      You don't get a pass because you're used to seeing sarcastic jerks, I didn't do or say ANYTHING that would lead yo to believe I was doing anything other than answering a question.

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    5. Re:Wait wait wait by 75th+Trombone · · Score: 1

      Okay, fine, if it has to be like this:

      I thought the translation was divinely inspired.

      No, you didn't, so that's by definition already irony, almost sarcasm, and not a question at all. "Do you not believe that the translation is inspired?" is a question. A false statement is not.

      Well?

      This has a question mark, but is more of a taunt than a question. If you choose to rebut, please give instances of "Well?" in a context where it obviously does not indicate impatience of or derision by the speaker.

      Was god wrong when he did the translation?

      Here we have a question, but this question assumes the answer to the question you didn't ask in your first sentence. Assuming the answer to the question you're addressing is blatantly derisive.

      So no, sir, you did plenty for me to assume you were being sarcastic. I apologize for using the term "shove it in someone's face" if you were not intentionally doing so. I will apologize for my entire assumption when you show me with examples how you could feasibly be interpreted any other way, or when you show me medical records establishing that you have Asperger's Syndrome or any other illness that causes oblivious social misbehavior.

      --
      The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
    6. Re:Wait wait wait by 75th+Trombone · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that since he SAID the translation was wrong, he obviously was not one of the subset of Christians who believe that the KJV is inspired. Asking a question to which the answer is obvious can also easily be seen as derision.

      --
      The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
  64. Headshot for Jesus! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Funny

    I cast you <slap!> OUT demons! Along with your brains!

    A deep, rumbling voice echoes from the dark sky: "HuMiLiAtIoN!"

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  65. Some Disambiguation by photomonkey · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of comments here with arguments about if or if not churches should include games like Halo in church activities.

    One of the biggest arguments is that the game goes against commandments not to kill and/or murder.

    This is the problem with videogames (and I love videogames). No one thinks rationally about them. The genocide of bits and bytes that is Halo has nothing to do with the real world, real life, or real people around us; until we let it.

    Intrinsically, Halo is no different than the concepts brought forth in dodgeball, tag, cowboys and indians or GI Joe. It's not even that violent of a game. Most of the aliens don't bleed red, there is no real fragging (a la Unreal Tournament), and the game types are all quite similar to playground games that we encourage small children to play.

    Whether it's Halo, GTA or My Little Pony, we lend too much relevance and worry to videogames. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits. I'd never let a child play GTA.

    To gamers: Videogames are not real, nor are they accurate simulators for acceptable behavior in real life.

    To game haters: Videogames are not real, nor are they accurate simulators for acceptable behavior in real life.

    With so much else going wrong in the world, can't we focus on things that really need fixing first?

    --
    Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  66. Churches...Ignore them and if we're lucky they'll go away!

  67. "Thou shall not kill" by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    How is this commandment infringed by people playing a video game ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  68. Great that will be interesting by setrops · · Score: 1

    So what now instead of all the Chuck Norris jokes you get Jesus jokes.

    Jesus once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, went back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart while she was flying over the Pacific Ocean.

  69. You have it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I wanted to make a bunch of people do something evil, and I knew them to be gullible, I would say, "Do this because God said so." If they say "why in the world would God ask us to do this?" I would respond "You are too stupid to understand God. Just do it."

    More than a few historical tyrants have employed this very tactic, in fact.

    While it is true that an inferior mind cannot understand the motives of a superior mind, you must first demonstrate that the mind in question is, in fact, superior. A human saying "God said to do it" does not prove that God, in fact, said to do it. It is quite likely that the human himself said to do it, and is just using lies about God as a tool to manipulate the listener.

    So, in looking at the Bible objectively, when we see a whole lot of evil done in the name of God, the most reasonable inference is not that we are to stupid to recognize evil when we see it, but rather that the commands/deeds being attributed to God were not really spoken/taken by God, but rather by a bunch of mislead humans.

    The question, "What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?" is obviously rhetorical, and the actual statement being made is: These actions are evil, and therefore God does not approve of them, and therefore your Bible is incorrect in saying that God told anyone to do this."

    1. Re:You have it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, that is one interpretation. Another is that there is no God, at least not one that wants its message to be heard, unless it is "worship me, kill for me, die for me, kill the unbelievers." These are the words of men, attempting to control/influence others. There may be a God, whether it be a quantum fluctuation that led to the creation of the universe or some intelligent being. Whether it is right to worship it in the manner that has been practiced for thousands of years is more of a mystery....

  70. Why has no one made the connection... by Valdez · · Score: 1

    In the Halo universe... you're fighting on the side of Earth/UNSC... a decidedly secular organization... against the Covenant, a group of intergalactic races who follow a religion.

    The leaders of the Covenant are prophets, followers are expected to blindly follow their words and teachings... which are based on a misinterpretation of an ancient civilization (the Forerunners). The Covenant is seeking to begin the "Great Journey"... by activating the Halos/temples/religious artifacts. They've even got martyrs... Mausoleum of the Arbiter anyone?

    Keep in mind, because the Covenant Prophets have misintepreted/refused to understand the foundation of their religion... if they actually succeed... it means the end of the universe (well, all biomass within three radii of the galactic center, technically)

    Also... in 2 and 3 you've gained new allies... followers of the Covenant religion who have realized it's false and renounced their belief in it's teachings.

    In a nutshell... you're trying to protect yourself from a religion and it's zealots, as part of a secular organization. Hopefully none of the kids at game night follow the story enough to make this connection, I suppose.

  71. Doesn't this make churches IRRELEVANT? by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I keep seeing people in this debate arguing that this is a chance for churches to be "relevant". In fact, that seems to be the entire argument for those who say that Halo 3 should be in churches. They argue that it is needed to be "relevant".

    Really, though, doesn't following this course of action make churches irrelevant? It seems to me that it does. I mean, what exactly are they providing here? Kids aren't showing up for the sermons, they are showing up for Halo 3 and the entertainment. Halo 3 parties, entertainment, and socializing are something you can get just about anywhere else. You can easilly find halo tournaments, free pizza, etc in a college dorm, for example. This raises the question: if you can get this sort of entertainment with or without the church, then why is the church needed? What is it bringing to the table? Since we can get the entertainment and social time with or without the church, then having the church is irrelevant . It's existence no longer matters, because things will stay the same with or without it.

    Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to make the claim that all churches are irrelevant. If a church can make the case to a person that they are a sinner, and that the Jesus that they serve can forgive sins, then they have become relevant to that person's life. Once a person believes they are a sinner, finding forgiveness of sins will be very relevant to them. The church can then bring things to the table that you can't find anywhere else. That makes the church relevant , because without them things will be different.

    And this is why I find the argument that churches "need" to bring Halo in to stay "relevant" ridiculous. If your main focus is trying to provide entertainment and a social club just to lure more people in and boost attendance (and that is what many churches these days are about and how they measure success), you will become unecessary, irrelevant, and discarded. Those teens you can lure to a Halo tournament will come today, but just as soon as they can graduate, get jobs and buy their own big screen TV they will be gone. You won't ever make yourself relevant by providing Halo. Only churches that focus on their core message rather than socializing are going to be able to bring something to the table that no one else can. Only that will make them relevant to people. I'm not saying a church can't have social groups or even play video games. Those things can be great. But giving up some of the core beliefs, such as the belief that taking pleasure in violence is bad, is not going to make a church more relevent. It will in fact do the opposite, and make that church disposable.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
  72. Hey Jack Thompson by subl33t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time to start suing Christian churches. Good luck with that, seriously.

  73. Doom was OK with some ministers by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Regarding that logic, why not doom? Destroying demons seems a fairly wholesome activity!

    Actually, I knew a minister that didn't mind doom. It was only when the violence was direct towards humans, as in Grand Theft Auto type games, that there was a problem. One exception, shooting Nazis was OK, of course nearly all churches supported that in real life.

    1. Re:Doom was OK with some ministers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      except the Vatican, they loved the Nazis. Good family values you see, after a long hard day killing Jews, the SS men would go home to their wives and children.

  74. Sci Fi not in conflict with Christianity by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

    the futuristic setting flies in the face of predictions that the second coming will be any day now

    I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that the bible is pretty clear that no one will know when the second coming will occur. Hard science fiction is perfectly compatible with religion. As is hard science, heck, the Vatican operates a major observatory. Research highlights include:
    Dark Matter and Energy in the Cosmos
    The Acceleration of the Universe
    Quasars
    Globular Clusters
    http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/Research.html

    1. Re:Sci Fi not in conflict with Christianity by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that the bible is pretty clear that no one will know when the second coming will occur.

      Yes, according to the Bible Jesus said that even he doesn't know when it happens, only God Himself.

      But, you see, the core of fundamentalism isn't faith in God. The core of fundamentalism is an absolute refusal to admit that you might be wrong. It should be no surprise, then, that a fundamentalist might hold a belief which directly contradicts the Bible while also claiming Bible to be infallible.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  75. Oh the irony! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I always saw the Covenant as sort of a parody of Christianity during the Crusades. It becomes pretty obvious in one of the cinematic scenes in Halo 2.

    I wish I could write that sentence better but it's too early and my vocabulary's not fired up yet :(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  76. Thou shalt not kill? except.... by gnuman99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how about explaining the Crusades? Oh, I guess they were not humans at the time.

    The support for military? The support for the death penalty? The support for these two comes directly from the so called religious crowd. Oh, but as long as they protest the abortion thing, I guess that makes it all better. They are not much different from the jihadists or other religious fanatics.

    "Thou shalt not kill except for enemies of God and you can choose who is my enemy" - that seems to be how things are these days in both "devout christian" and "devout muslim" crowds while both proclaiming "peaceful religion". More people died in religious wars as percentage of population than any other wars in the history of this planet.

    I guess the mod points here will depend who gets to read the message. I hope they don't declare some holy war or send a sniper my way. Sorry about the rant, but churches and religions are as much about "Thou shalt not kill" as much as it suits their goals. If their goals have any conflict with it, they have a very easy way around the so called "god's rules".

    1. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      It's SUPPOSED to be, "Thou shalt not murder."

      After all, self defense is a God-given right. You don't end up with a lot of followers if you let yourselves get killed.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    2. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by ruinous · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as a religious war. Nations fight territorial wars, using religion to inspire fervour in their soldiers and citizens. It's alot easier to inspire a man to kill another man by convincing him that it'll get him to heaven than by telling him they'll have more room to grow corn.

    3. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by deacon · · Score: 1

      Dissing Christians in 2007. How.. Brave. Bravo.. golf clap. Claiming you will be modded down for dissing Christians: ROFLMAO. Hating Christians and Republicans is a sure way to a +5 around here.

      Try dissing some muslims. Try selling the equivalent of the Baby Jesus Butt Plug, but call it Anal Allah. Put a bobble head Allah doll on your dashboard. Have a public screening of the film Submission. You wont, of course, because you KNOW muslims will try to kill you for doing these things. Much safer to taunt Christians from the safety of your mom's basement. ./begin plagarize

      For your education, the Crusades were a series of military campaigns during the time of Medieval England against the Muslims of the Middle East. In 1076, the Muslims had captured Jerusalem - the most holy of holy places for Christians. Jesus had been born in nearby Bethlehem and Jesus had spent most of his life in Jerusalem. He was crucified on Calvary Hill, also in Jerusalem. There was no more important place on Earth than Jerusalem for a true Christian which is why Christians called Jerusalem the "City of God".

      However, Jerusalem was also extremely important for the Muslims as Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim faith, had been there and there was great joy in the Muslim world when Jerusalem was captured. A beautiful dome - called the Dome of the Rock - was built on the rock where Muhammad was said to have sat and prayed and it was so holy that no Muslim was allowed to tread on the rock or touch it when visiting the Dome.

      Therefore the Christian fought to get Jerusalem back while the Muslims fought to keep Jerusalem. These wars were to last nearly 200 years ./end plagarize

      Not a Christian, but tired of the people who bash them based on behaviour from the year 1076

    4. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "More people died in religious wars as percentage of population than any other wars in the history of this planet."

      That's kind of a grand statement, do you have any actual data to back it up?

      The Civil War killed more American than any other in its history. You could maybe claim the bible thumping Northern Abolitionists were responsible for it but its a stretch.

      Spanish American war... no real religious angle there other than American protests were maybe not so fond of Spanish Catholics, it was mostly yellow journalism from the Hearst newspaper empire and the unbridled American Imperialism seeking to add Cuba and the Philippines to the American portfolio at the expense of Spanish imperialism.

      Then of course you have the wars that killed more people than any wars in history. World War I was sparked by Serbian nationalists killing an heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, followed by a cascade of alliances pulling in one combatant after another. There wasn't really any good reason for it, it just happened, millions died, can't blame religion for it other than when religious con men cheered it on from the pulpit and helped sucker young men in to feeding themselves in to the meat grinder. That is one thing you can blame religion for, talking young men in to joining the military.

      Then there is World War II well again not really any religious angle there other than the Nazi's had some pretty...interesting...takes on religion. They certinaly did use religion as a tool for manipulating the masses but again it would be a stretch to call it a religious war. That is something else you can hang on religion, it really is an opiate for the masses, and is one of the more effective ways to manipulating large numbers of people in to thinking and do what you you want.

      Korea and Vietnam, purely economic idealogy and nationalist aspirations. In South Vietnam the puppets America propped up tending to be Catholic which was reviled by the Nationalist because it was the religion the French introduced during their brutal colonial occupation. It was almost entirely a war about nationalism and economics.

      It is probably fair to say that in the last couple centuries religion has been a factor in wars but there really haven't been all that many religious wars that I can think of. Northern Ireleand certainly had a big religious component, but Irish nationalist was just as important if not more so.

      It would probably be a better assertion that religion certainly has been used in a tool to promote and encourage wars, but at heart wars are just about one group or person seeking power and wealth at the expense of another.

      The single scariest thing I can think of linking religion and militarism is the extent to which the American military, especially the United States Air Force and the Air Force Academy, have been taken over by born again Christians. These are the people who run a nuclear arsenal big enough to actually creat an apocalypse. The U.S. military seems to think strong religious background might is desirable for people in this position of responsibility, I personally don't think people who subscribe to an apocryphal religion should be allowed anywhere near nuclear weapons.

      --
      @de_machina
    5. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic Strawman...! (TM)

    6. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      From year 1076 "These wars were to last nearly 200 years", so until 1250 or so? Then you have the Spanish Inquisition that swept most of Europe. Then the wars between protestants and the catholics slaughtering themselves everywhere. Well, that was just religious unrest that never really stopped until modern times.

      Northern Ireland still has that problem and I'm sure they would start to kill each other again if it wasn't for the "man's law". Protestants there were still (maybe still are) parading through the streets proclaiming how they killed the stupid catholics some few centuries back. One of the replies is that it is really "Thou shalt not murder" and hence killing for self-defense is no problem. Well, yes, until the evil group A starts to spread their devil-words and you have to defend your god. Why can't religious folks just have faith? Put some faith in your god that the guilty heathens will be punished after they die and leave the punishment to god.

      As to Muslims, same shit with shia and sunni. You see that in Iraq today with the ethnic violence there (the one against the US/UK/other troops is different). The entire middle east is either suppressing shia (eg. Emirates) or the sunni (eg. Iran). It is a freaking powder cake. Other examples are all the fatwas to murder. Really peaceful.

      The point is that both Christianity and Islam proclaims they are "peaceful" religions. Sorry. History and current events speak for themselves.

      As for other religions? Probably the same. I think only something like Buddhism has any merit to call itself peaceful. But then look how marginalized that religion has become when confronted with the more militant religions.

      As for Republicans, I don't know where that came from, but their record as being "conservative" is rather not. And no, this is not "hating", this is *mocking*. I'm mocking their proclamation that they are "peaceful religions". And yes, I just mocked that Republicans are calling themselves conservatives. /rant2

    7. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by tokul · · Score: 1

      "More people died in religious wars as percentage of population than any other wars in the history of this planet."
      That's kind of a grand statement, do you have any actual data to back it up?

      There were wars, when religion was used to justify aggression.

      • Crusades to MidEast and to Baltics
      • Arabic expansion in Mediterranean in Middle Ages
      • Current Middle East situation
      • Huguenot wars in France
      • Colonization of America

      It is impossible to backup claims that religion killed more than other things, because Western countries stopped using religion as justification of military actions and World Wars have big influence on statistics. We don't have numbers about people lost during conflicts in Middle Ages or colonization and current Middle East conflict hasn't reached phase of total annihilation.

    8. Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... by AVee · · Score: 1

      After so many years you still believe those 'religious wars' where about religion?
      Do you believe the war in Iraq is about the 'war on terror'? Do you believe there ever were serious amounts of WMD's in Iraq, about to be handed out to those same terrorist that set-up 9/11?
      Let me ask you again, do you believe that all those 'religious wars' were about religion?

  77. Religion poisons everything. by Simulant · · Score: 1

    'nuff said.

  78. Commandment referred to murder by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Please note that not all Christians adhere to this though and consider the original commandment something without exceptions.

    The original commandment referred to "murder" not "kill". "Kill" is an imprecise translation of the original Hebrew.

  79. Why stop with Halo? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    If they really want to attract the "young male market segment", they should try handing out free porn.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    1. Re:Why stop with Halo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd gladly donate my Dreamcast and my copy of Grandia II to any Catholic church (provided they have children play the game, of course).

  80. A bible is a tool, tools can be improved by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    'It is not "thou shalt not kill," it is "you shall not murder." Read the NIV, which is a superior translation to the KJV.'

    Hmmm.... I would be cautious about making such value statements. Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.


    The fact that a particular translation was used for centuries is meaningless, especially given that it was at times forced upon people at the point of sword, literally. More importantly, the accuracy of the translation does not reflect upon believers. The bible is a tool. Tools can be improved, as in more precise translations. Tools can be adapted, as in updated to reflect a modern language that has added/lost words and connotations relative to an archaic forebear.

  81. Playing the Charity Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally."

    But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

    "Morality or helping the poor is only a facade/marketing trick."

    But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

    Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

    1. Re:Playing the Charity Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Supply Side Jesus.

  82. So what is your point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the woman have any choice in this matter? If she would prefer not to be married to the man that just butchered her family, can she simply say "no?" It doesn't sound like it:

    and you have got attached to her and taken her for your wife
    She must now shave her head
    and after that you should have relations with her
    and you must take possession of her as your bride
    and she must become your wife

    I know that forced marriage has been practiced in many cultures. Be that as it may, it is still (and always was) a form of slavery (which is evil). Further, if the forced marriage includes forced sex, then it is still rape (which is also evil).

    If she gets the choice between "marry the enemy soldier" or "die," that doesn't excuse it one bit. Offering the "or die" option doesn't make something a choice, since the "or die" is just the mechanism of force.

    You can't escape the evil that "God" is advocating in these passages.

    1. Re:So what is your point? by Dameian · · Score: 1

      Where did "or die" come from? The previous quoted law states that the women were not to be killed.

    2. Re:So what is your point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The previous quoted law states that the women were not to be killed.

      Ah. So, in other words, she has no choice. It is forced marriage. Yes? No?

    3. Re:So what is your point? by Hucko · · Score: 1

      I don't know about slavery being evil. Hereditary slavery is I agree; for hardened convicted criminals, I would have no problems endorsing a temporary slavery sentence. Life sentences would be better served creating products than just sitting around waiting for the end of the sentence.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    4. Re:So what is your point? by Dameian · · Score: 1

      They didn't have to marry. They would marry only if sexual relations took place. According to Mosaic Law, if there was a sexual encounter where both parties were willing, then they had to marry. The Mosaic Law clearly forbade adultery and rape - punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:22-27). So if the woman was raped, then the raper would be stoned to death.

    5. Re:So what is your point? by Musrum · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Unless no-one heard the rape.
      In which case they would both be stoned to death.
      Your God is evil. Suck it up.

      --
      In Soviet Amerika the ballot boxes YOU!
  83. first miracle by HalfOfOne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is an odd thing for me to respond do, given I'm not fond of quoting scripture as a logical retort, but the following occurred to me:

    If I recall correctly, the first miracle that Jesus was said to perform was to make water into wine for a wedding party. A party. Let that sink in for a sec. He realized it was a celebration, and provided unnecessary yet enjoyable refreshment to those who were gathered. He didn't preach, and he didn't make a big show of it by standing on a table and waving his arms, he just made the wine and let the party go on. Some people figured out what happened, others just enjoyed the wine and partied on.

    Not all that different than maybe hooking up a LAN party, really.

  84. The Bible IS a big heavy book by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Well, like most religions, you start out armed only with a big, heavy book you can whack people on the head with it, and before you know it you've got a BFG9000 in your hands.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  85. Catholic priests are excited about this... by Dewser · · Score: 1

    What the evangelist church DOES notice is the increase in Catholic priests requesting to be part of these "Halo Nights" to better understand them and possible use them for their churches (supposedly).

    --
    Dewser - all around techy "In the immortal words of Socrates - 'I drank what?'"
  86. should be... by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    I was doing anything other than asking a question.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  87. it's not just about "thou shalt not kill" by capoccia · · Score: 1
    it's not just about "thou shalt not kill", the major objections also surround the idea of promoting the enjoyment of violence. psalm 11:5

    The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.
  88. Pr0n Night ! by bensode · · Score: 1

    Well I guess the next logical step is pr0n night in the basement. I mean after all what else could be more important to the teenage boys, next to Halo3 of course ...

    --
    "Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
  89. Threads like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...make baby Jesus cry.

  90. Move along... by bytor4232 · · Score: 1

    Move along. Nothing new to see here. 20 years ago when I went to church lock ins there were always video games set up. Yeah, yeah, Halo is pretty violent, but I remember seeing Contra and Ninja Gaiden at our little gatherings. Not much different.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
  91. Axis of Evil? by DJ_Perl · · Score: 1

    Microsoft + Violence + Religion
    How much more evil can it possibly get?

    --
    -- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
  92. Why Halo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our Left Behind - The Video Game Bible-thumping, pagan-murdering, headshot-to-the-unbeliever, g0dpwning 0verloads... er 0ver Lords!

    Praise the Laird and pass the fragmentation grenades, yeehaw!

  93. Re:The shrimp argument is just a sign of ignorance by hiryuu · · Score: 1



    There are plenty of other things that people regularly break in Leviticus that a campaign could've been based on, but the whole "God hates shrimp" campaign just earns the scorn of fundies over their gross ignorance of the Bible.


    Hell, I just tossed it up there because I find it conceptually hilarious, not because I think their position is the omega of the argument. :P

    --
    Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
  94. Re:The shrimp argument is just a sign of ignorance by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Hell, I just tossed it up there because I find it conceptually hilarious, not because I think their position is the omega of the argument. :P

    Conceded. It *is* pretty funny in spite of its inaccuracies.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  95. Ok...and if Church supported Strippers... by greymond · · Score: 1

    I would totally go every sunday and get a lapdance - PRIASE WHATEVER MAKE BRINGS ME NAKED WOMEN

  96. Keep in mind by sjames · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of Christians out there who understand that video games and real life are not the same thing and who believe their kids understand that as well.

    It's easy to forget that with the extremely vocal minority of much more uptight fundies running around panicing over Harry Potter and trying to convert everyone to their brand of Christianity.

  97. Reluctantly I post by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
    In the midst of a cross country drive last month, my brother and I were discussing a business idea. The conversation went like this:

    ME:What about a mobile LAN setup. Could be rented for Birthday parties and Social events.

    HIM: Or Churches. Definately churches.

    ME: What,? Fragging for Jesus, Deathmatch for Christ Sake?

    Him: Excellent Name

    ME:Don;t you think churches would find that morally reprehensible?

    Him: Nope

    ME: You are on crack man.

    Fast forward to 3 days ago,

    ME: IM: bing, You see this? bing, NYTime URL

    Him: LOL, you said I was on crack.

    I would just like to take this opportunity to notify all of you the above name and business plan is Copyright and Trademarked and Patent Pending, all rights reserved.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  98. Anything new? by narthollis · · Score: 1

    How is this anything new, I know of, and attend at least 2 church sponsored LAN Parties http://www.inlan.net.au/ and http://www.ignitelan.net/.
    While InLAN will this weekend be having a Halo 3 competition, its more because its the 'next big thing' than anything else. Both LANs regularly have competition of other 'violent' FPS games, racing games and whatever else the lanners wish to play.
    How this ranks as news, I'll never know....

  99. Boys and Young Men... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

    I think a few Catholic priests read our synopsis and just decided to start their own Halo nights.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  100. It's my understanding that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the translations are copyrighted.

  101. get worried by m2943 · · Score: 1

    GamePolitics reports that many faith communities are heavily debating the issue.

    "Faith communities" have been debating irrelevant, meaningless issues for millennia. Entire populations have been wiped out about obscure questions about the meaning of the "holy trinity" or whether the resurrection is in flesh or spirit.

    So, when "faith communities" start "heavily debating" an issue, get worried; these people are dangerous.

  102. 10 commandments by hosecoat · · Score: 1

    1. I am the Lord thy Master Chief
    2. Thou shalt not use God Mode
    3. Thou shalt not make wrongful use of 133t speak
    4. Remember the Sabbath and play Halo
    5. Honor thy Halo 1 and Halo 2
    6. Thou shalt not frag.
    7. Thou shalt not corpse hump
    8. Thou shalt not weapon whore
    9. Thou shalt not smack talk
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy teammates knife

  103. Delusion and Tact by danaris · · Score: 1

    Richard Dawkins makes a very good argument against this often-used one in his book "The God Delusion".

    Now, see, this is where you start to run into problems, Tom.

    I don't entirely disagree with your premises—personally, I'm more or less an agnostic, though I was raised in a very open-minded Episcopalian tradition, and I think that the way many children are raised in a particular church does amount to child abuse. Particularly many devout Catholics, who basically raise their children to believe that they're going to Hell if they put so much as a toe out of line.

    But—and this is one of the problems I see with the approach of most atheists when dealing with theists—you will never gain any traction with people with any real belief in God when citing someone like Richard Dawkins—or, indeed, anyone who uses phrases like "the God delusion" in all sincerity. Telling people point-blank that one of their most fundamental beliefs is a delusion is really no way to make converts. If you want people who aren't already atheists or serious agnostics to take you seriously, you really ought to take a somewhat more...ah...diplomatic approach.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Delusion and Tact by Tom · · Score: 1

      But--and this is one of the problems I see with the approach of most atheists when dealing with theists--you will never gain any traction with people with any real belief in God when citing someone like Richard Dawkins True, that's a problem. If you see a name and know what you should think, instead of looking at the actual argument in question. ;-)

      Telling people point-blank that one of their most fundamental beliefs is a delusion is really no way to make converts. In all seriousness, I'm not into the converting business. I do honestly believe anyone who is religious needs treatment for a mental condition. Unless you think that a doctor "converts" you to health, you'll have to agree that "conversion" isn't the proper term.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  104. Rise of religious scepticism amongst young 'uns by PSdiE · · Score: 1

    Just posted this comment on Ben Witherington's blog in question, and thought I'd share. Be interesting to see how Ben replies, and others' thoughts on this:

    "Interesting discussion, there is further debate at Game Politics and the venerable Slashdot.

    The commentary (particularly at the sites above) is sometimes quite openly hostile toward Christianity - this is not uncommon amongst the youth community today. I wanted to write a little about why I think this is the case.

    Society has become far more sceptical of "messages of goodwill" and young people - quite rightly - demand more concrete evidence and credibility before committing to a belief.

    This cynicism has developed out of necessity and I believe it is "a good thing". One only has to look at the widespread "good will" messages (with hidden motives) and false promises that we are bombarded with every day from marketers, politicians, et al to see how this cynicism has been nurtured.

    • "Our product/service will make you a better person!"
    • "Vote for X and build a better Britain!"
    • "Catch the monkey and win a FREE iPod!"
    • "There's something for everyone at Mecca Bingo!"
    • "If you download MP3s, you are funding terrorism!"
    • "Come join our Youth Group, it's loads of fun!"

    When a young person rejects Christianity, they are not saying "I do not wish to be a good person" or "I do not believe in God". They are simply applying the same level of cynicism and questioning to something often promoted in a very similar way to - frankly - a miracle cure, a politician's manifesto or a bingo club.

    Personally, I attended Sunday school in the UK until my mid-teens and maintain a strong interest in religion as a humanitarian subject. When asked to Confirm, I chose not to. My reasoning was that I believed in the common-sense principles behind Christianity, but was put off by the inconsistencies and uncertain history of the Bible. Therefore, I decided to live my life by commonsense, hold respect for Christianity as a belief alongside others, but I couldn't commit to unquestioning adherence.

    Were I to make my decision now, as young people today must, I would also be strongly influenced by the examples of extreme negative effects of all-consuming belief in a particular religion that we see today. If my faith in particular teachings were so strong that I was prepared to detonate myself in a public place, killing hundreds, was commonsense not a better way to live my life?

    Take Scientology too as an example of a vile cult that is marketed using the similar methods to Christian preaching. How is a young person to know with conviction the difference between your typical friendly-friendly leaflet-brandishing youth group leader and a smiling face offering free "personality tests"?

    Without a means to prove credibility over the sea of other "me too" ideas that young people are exposed to and must weigh up every day, Christianity will face the same scrutiny, scepticism and sometimes outright hostility as any other message.

    I hope this is a useful insight into the rise of Agnosticism?"

  105. More of the same. by singingjim1 · · Score: 0

    As with any type of club or mind control organization, the churches in question are just doing what's always been done. Back in the middle ages - the days of my youth - basketball, summer camp, and other such group activities (whitewater rafting, repelling and skydiving in my young adult days) were sanctioned by the church to entice young people into thinking religion was just harmless fun. The activities were fun, but most of us here probably stopped at that. Having Halo nights is just an extension of that. In terms of Halo v. GTA the two don't compare. Apples and oranges to be sure.