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.

Comments

Fight the false prophet

[IndustrialComplex]

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

Re:Thou shalt not kill?

[speaker of the truth]

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.

Re:Thou shalt not kill?

[hey!]

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.

Re:Killing != Murder

[vertinox]

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.

Re:Wrong translation

[alan_dershowitz]

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.

Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion

[FuzzyDaddy]

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.