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
I for one welcome our bible thumping, n00b killing, overlords.
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
DooM would be in better line with the church's views.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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?
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
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!
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.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Although I prefer D&D to Halo, myself.
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.
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
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.
Jesus frags you.
Anybody want my mod points?
(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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a good idea for a mosque.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
One word:
Boobs.
What?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Well, DUH! *Rolls eyes*
How are you going to take them to the judgement?
Bot Assisted Blogging
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.
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.
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").
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.
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*
One that trolls for little boys with video games?
The opposite of progress is congress
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?
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
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
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").
Nothing new here. Ever heard of The Crusades?
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
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.
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
A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, verses 16-20.
... 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."
:D
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
-- "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
Any such thing as a holy PLASMA grenade?
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
Sell 'em something else, then swap jebus at the last possible second.
Or just plain ole "Bait and switch" if you like.
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.
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").
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schnapple
"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.
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!
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
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
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!
Churches...Ignore them and if we're lucky they'll go away!
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.
euaggelion kata gwking: You guys got it all wrong. NIV? Pfft. KJV? Whatever. Real men read greek.
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.
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.
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.
Time to start suing Christian churches. Good luck with that, seriously.
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.
/sigh guess I'm late to the party.
New American Standard Version forever!
New Living Translation is good too...
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
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
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
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".
'nuff said.
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.
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.
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?
'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.
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.
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?"
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.
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?'"
I was doing anything other than asking a question.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
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.
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.
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.
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
Where did "or die" come from? The previous quoted law states that the women were not to be killed.
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
Microsoft + Violence + Religion
How much more evil can it possibly get?
-- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
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.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
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").
I would totally go every sunday and get a lapdance - PRIASE WHATEVER MAKE BRINGS ME NAKED WOMEN
Ave Molech Setting
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.
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.
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
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
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
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...
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!
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....
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.
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.
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
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.
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
What kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being?
Falwell, Phelps, Bush...
I could equally fairly ask, what kind of idiot thinks there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?"
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!
That's all ok because the Jews did it. Says so right there in the bible.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM