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.
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
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
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.
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
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...
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
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.
"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.
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.
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)
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.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.