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
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.
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!
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Although I prefer D&D to Halo, myself.
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
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.
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.
Sounds like a good idea for a mosque.
One word:
Boobs.
What?
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.
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.
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.
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
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....
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.
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!
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
but when i'm playing a game i don't want the "person" dead.. just the on screen representation of their actions in the game world. their "avatar" or whatever.
Except for cheaters.
In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.
Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
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
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".
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.
I could equally fairly ask, what kind of idiot thinks there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being?